Gibson Ferguson Language Planning and Education Edinburgh ...

Educational and political dimensions of bilingual education 57
sufficient competence in one or both languages to avoid potential cognitive
disadvantage, but a second higher threshold of competence in both languages has to
be attained before the potential cognitive benefits of bilingualism become accessible.
An immediate policy implication is that these benefits cannot be realised unless
cognitive-academic skills in the L1 are maintained and developed alongside skills in
the L2, a goal that is, of course, best met by a maintenance BE program.
Faced with criticisms that the thresholds hypothesis rests on a weak conceptualisation
of language proficiency, and is vague on the precise levels of language
proficiency in L1 and L2 necessary to reach the first and second thresholds,
Cummins has since downplayed its importance, referring to it as ‘speculative’ and
‘not essential to the policy-making process’ (Cummins 2000: 175). He remains
committed, though, to a central practical implication, which is that continued
development of academic proficiency in two languages is associated with specific
enhancements in cognitive function, and in this he is broadly supported by other
commentators who have surveyed the evidence. August and Hakuta (1997: 19), for
example, in their National Research Council report conclude that:
Bilingualism, far from impeding the child’s overall cognitive or linguistic development,
leads to positive growth in these areas. Programs whose goals are to promote
bilingualism should do so without fear of negative consequences.
There are also educational and social arguments for promoting the minority
child’s L1 at school. For example, it communicates to the child and their family that
their language and culture is valued, and thereby challenges the ‘coercive relations
of power’, the subordination and denigration that Cummins (1996, 2000) convincingly
proposes as a key contributory factor to the educational underperformance
of certain minority groups. Additionally, there is evidence (see Ramirez et al. 1991)
that it facilitates greater parental involvement in schooling, a factor accepted as
associated with school effectiveness (August and Hakuta 1997).
Finally, the promotion of the minority child’s L1 skills makes sense if, adopting
a language-as-resource perspective, one sees the development of these skills as a
contribution to the conservation of a national resource, a valuable economic and
diplomatic asset. As commonly recognised, there is an unfortunate disjunction
between the economic and social value attached to the development of the schooled
bilingualism of majority pupils on the one hand, and the neglect of the home-based
language skills of linguistic minorities on the other.
All considered, then, there seems little merit in the second notion underlying
Proposition 227. The learning and use of two languages in school is not an obstacle
to educational attainment
3.2.3.3 Principle 1: the ‘time on task’ principle
We turn now to the first key notion underlying Proposition 227, the ‘time-on-task’
principle, which, if valid, would considerably strengthen the case for Structured
English Immersion (SEI). In fact, however, there is substantial evidence that time