{"created":"2023-05-15T09:30:04.452032+00:00","id":977,"links":{},"metadata":{"_buckets":{"deposit":"50515b20-76e7-4f92-8150-e7bdf42fde8d"},"_deposit":{"created_by":3,"id":"977","owners":[3],"pid":{"revision_id":0,"type":"depid","value":"977"},"status":"published"},"_oai":{"id":"oai:icu.repo.nii.ac.jp:00000977","sets":["12:2:10:114"]},"author_link":["1593","1592","1595","1596"],"item_1_biblio_info_14":{"attribute_name":"書誌情報","attribute_value_mlt":[{"bibliographicIssueDates":{"bibliographicIssueDate":"1998-03-31","bibliographicIssueDateType":"Issued"},"bibliographicIssueNumber":"40","bibliographicPageEnd":"65","bibliographicPageStart":"35","bibliographic_titles":[{"bibliographic_title":"国際基督教大学学報. I-A, 教育研究"},{"bibliographic_title":"Educational Studies","bibliographic_titleLang":"en"}]}]},"item_1_creator_6":{"attribute_name":"著者名(日)","attribute_type":"creator","attribute_value_mlt":[{"creatorNames":[{"creatorName":"マーハ, ジョン C."}],"nameIdentifiers":[{"nameIdentifier":"1592","nameIdentifierScheme":"WEKO"}]},{"creatorNames":[{"creatorName":"臼井, 直人"}],"nameIdentifiers":[{"nameIdentifier":"1593","nameIdentifierScheme":"WEKO"}]}]},"item_1_creator_8":{"attribute_name":"著者名(英)","attribute_type":"creator","attribute_value_mlt":[{"creatorNames":[{"creatorName":"Maher, John C.","creatorNameLang":"en"}],"nameIdentifiers":[{"nameIdentifier":"1595","nameIdentifierScheme":"WEKO"}]},{"creatorNames":[{"creatorName":"Usui, Naoto","creatorNameLang":"en"}],"nameIdentifiers":[{"nameIdentifier":"1596","nameIdentifierScheme":"WEKO"}]}]},"item_1_description_1":{"attribute_name":"ページ属性","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_description":"P(論文)","subitem_description_type":"Other"}]},"item_1_description_12":{"attribute_name":"抄録(英)","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_description":"This paper recapitulates a fulcrum in the history of British bilingual education, \nthe government's Bullock Report ( 'White paper' ) : \"Children from Families Of \nOverseas Origin\" , published in 1975. As successive commissions have fretted \nover 'immigrant education' and 'the English language problem' in increasingly \nmultilingual British schools, much of the debate may be interpreted as a reaction \nto the progressive ideas which issued as a result of the Bullock 'revolution' . The \nThatcher-Major regimes of Conservative governments made urgent and well- \npublicized attempts to dismantle Bullock's assumptions about multilingual \nsociety. Needless to say, Bullock set a standard of autonomous decision-making \nfor subsequent educational committees; such that the essential point d'appui of \nits goal survived. \n　In Britain, Gaelic speech-communities and the newer mother tongues \nhave survived incorporation by a social and educational system which at times \nvicariously ignored them, at other times made efforts to erase them. In the early \n20th century, British education, guided by the historical entente cordiale between \ngovernment and the ruling class discouraged access to secondary education \namong an increasingly impoverished working-class: typically, communities in \nwhich indigenous or community languages (Gaelge, creoles, gypsy, immigrant \n-migrant, etc.) held sway. Paradoxically, this educational policy contributed both \nto the maintenance and decline Of those languages. Whilst lesser-known \nlanguages and regional dialects were successfully insulated from the mainstream \neducational orthodoxy, the same exigent orthodoxy ensured that they would \nremain once and for all in their designated sinks of 'negative prestige' (Labov \n1972), In the present-day, as power at the periphery (e.g. Scotland, Wales, \nNorth of England) assists the recovery and re-invention of older mother tongues \n(e.g. Manx Gaelic), language shift in the urban English school continues in a \nmore remarkable way. 'Crossing' between different language varieties (changes \nin the creole continuum of hitherto stable varieties) as a result of interactional \nswitching in multiracial urban youth culture has become a semiotic of resistance \nand ritual. Language and language sharing-crossing in the school milieu of late \nindustrial Britain forms part of a social movement whereby solidarity among \nmixed youth straddles the old monolith of race stratification. The problem \nremains of how the British educational system will respond to the new social \nalliances in which language plays an important but not altogether clear role. \nUndoubtedly, this challenge was envisaged in the Bullock Report whose \ndiscourse reflected crossings of its own: the aeronomics of bureaucratese, a \npeculiarly accurate grasp of school-cred and the liberation style of the newly- \nfounded language awareness movement. \n　Over 100 languages are spoken daily in Britain. In 1987, the Inner London \nEducation Authority's Language Census recorded a total Of 172 different \nlanguages. There are no precise national statistics of the total numbers who \nspeak particular languages and of their distribution in Britain. More important \nfor educational planning, there are no statistics indicating the age-range of these \nspeakers. The Bullock report, together With the newly radicalized socialist \nagenda Of the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) are identified in this \npaper as critical factors in language policy change in Britain. Their flagship \nstatements, forgotten but effectively absorbed into the milieu of present-day \neducational thinking, signaled the first attempt by language reformers, (a \nparadigm-shift, we argue) , to address the question of sociolinguistic diversity in \nBritain. The Bullock Report asserted that \"bilingualism is of great importance to \nthe children and to their families, and also to society as a whole. In a \nlinguistically conscious nation in the modern world, we should see the mother \ntongue as an asset, as something to be nurtured, and one of the agencies that \nshould nurture it is the school.\" The Bullock Report and the ILEA strategies \nwere no mere facile rah-rah for ethnic groupism and 'multicultural diversity' but \ninteresting and out-of-their-time thinking on the nature of language in British \neducation, To give one example, it obliged the British government to recognize \n'offcially' that which was universally known about 'Black British English' ; \nprincipally, recognition that it existed. \n　There have been Black people living in Britain since Saxon times, and by \nthe 16th century there were sufficient numbers in Britain to cause 'concern' to \nQueen Elizabeth I. In 1596, she issued an edict seeking to limit the immigration \nof 'blackamoors' into England (Acts of the Privy Council 26, 1596-7). In more \nrecent times, Black communities have grown throughout theBritish Isles and in \nparticular in seaport cities such as Cardiff and Liverpool where they have been \nthere for four or five generations (Martin-Jones 1989). In the 1950s and 1960s, \nthere were large numbers of immigrants from the Caribbean coming to Britain to \nfill the acute shortage of manual labour. This meant taking menial, unattractive \njobs on low pay. (A survey carried out in 1958-59 showed that 55% of black \nmigrants accepted jobs of lower status than those held in the country of origin, \nSutcliffe 1982 ) . The hope of the first generation of settlers was that their \nchildren would do better and move up the socio-economic ladder after receiving \na British education. Given the nation's massively successful and very ordinary \ncapitalist structures of government-corporate-media hegemony and organized \nprivilege, it is hardly likely that people's hopes would be fulfilled. They were not. \nThe effect, at the very least, was to cement a kind of permanence into the \nsemiotic skein of British social life Of 'speaking Jamaican' and 'Jamaican' \nunderprivileged, working class, ghetto, cool. Exeunt the West Indian steel-drum \nband, enter 'reggae' , 'dub', and 'rasta' and 'rap'. En passant, it should be added \nthat while 60% of Black migrants are from Jamaica there are also considerable \nnumbers of people from Trinidad, Guyana, Barbados, the Windward and Leeward \nIslands. These people speak varieties of Creole though largely sharing the \nunderlying grammar with Jamaican Creole. \n　The educational history of bilingual policy in Britain is a tale of \nphilanthropy and racism, neo-socialist experiment and cultural ’givens'. The \nexperiments and givens preoccupied and sheltered official policy in the postwar \nperiod. Successive government policies on language in schools provided \ndemocratic legitimation for the continuous hold of standard English in schools \n(sui generis unproblematic) thus providing a way of publicly reasserting the \nrejection of the legitimacy of other languages whether Irish or Scots Gaelic or \nBengali. \n　Meanwhile, on the ground, a richly documented but banal tale unfolds. \nLow regard and misunderstanding about the languages which minority \nschoolchildren speak, initial high hopes and parental encouragement followed by \nunhappiness, aggression, school refusal, etc. The school reveals itself as a place \nwhere adults speak English but where other languages appear not to exist. The \nstudy of ‘modern languages' refers to French or German. Minority pupils are \ndisadvantaged by their income and class and the racism of others. English is the \nlanguage of an alien culture, of the well-regarded and financially well off. A well- \ndocumented example of this is the Bangladeshi population in London. Speaking a \nlower-status language is as discriminatory a target as having a lower-status skin \ncolour. When language becomes a naked principle of determination, ideology \nbecomes the sphere of the lived and suffered. \n　In the mezzanine between the Bullock and Swann Reports appeared a new \nagent of language policy change. Undoubtedly, the Canadian model of \nbilingualism informed the Bullock Report. The Canadian model recognizes a \nnumber of languages for central and administrative purpose but officially \nsupports, in equal measure, the various ethnolinguistic cultures present in \nsociety, core and periphery. Equally significant, the role of the European \nCommunity (EC) in setting standards for bilingual education became a factor in \nBritish thinking about bilingualism. Certain obligations came to be imposed upon \nthe British government by the EC Directive of 1977 on the education of Migrant \nWorkers' Children. Article 3 referred directly to the need 'to take appropriate \nmeasures to promote in co-ordination with normal education, teaching of the \nmother tongue and culture of the country of origin' (EC 1977). Government \nreports such as Bullock stressed the need to 'maintain' mother tongues. But you \ncannot 'maintain' a language without actively 'teaching' it. Therefore, what \nkind of multilingual curriculum could be constructed? British education seemed \nnow to be on the point of passing from the former idea of just 'maintaining' \nchildren's languages to integrating and combining these languages (somehow) \ninto the general curriculum. Other signs of transition were seen in the \nCalderdale Report. Currently, the minority language speaker is placed in the \nmainstream monolingual class. It is currently argued that collaborative/ \ncooperative teaching between the mainstream subject teacher and ESL support \nteacher in the mainstream classroom will provide the optimal conditions for \nlearning (Reid 1988). The traditional British practice of sending non-native \nEnglish speaking pupils to separate language centres (including ‘reception \nschools' ) fell out of favour as a result of the Calderdale Report written by the \npowerful Commission for Racial Equality (CRE 1986). The report condemned \nsuch type of education as undesirable, sic. \"racially discriminatory practice\" \nCurrent thinking favours a classroom in which all pupils are allowed to share with \neach other their various languages and backgrounds. \n　The democratic representation 'education for all' belongs firmly to the \narena of ideological effect. It is first a question of securing legitimacy and \nwinning consent for the representation itself. Following this, the dominant class \nhas need to positively construct their hegemony ( what Gramsci calls the \neducative and ethical functions) of what is to be taught and learned. By these \nmeans (only) can the dominant class come to win a level of legitimacy-assent- \nacceptance from the dominated class ( in the United States termed \" the \nmanufacture of consent\", see Maher and Groves 1997). The growing presence of \nmultilingualism among British schoolchildren obliged successive governments \nto 'do something about it.' However, it is surely the Case that the motivation \nfor the setting-up of the Bullock committee, riding on the back of the 1960-70s \nschool riots and strikes, was more in the nature of anxiety over power and \nlegitimacy slippage than a desire to enhance bilingual awareness. The outcome \nwas not what the British government had expected.  From Bullock on, there \nhas been an attempt not only to know more but to make sense. In the linguistic \nstirrings of late-industrial Britain, no longer is respect for and cosmesis of 'Good \nEnglish' the historical goal of ‘a Good Education' . Was it ever so? How were we \npersuaded it was so? The post-Bullock committees became the locus of struggle \nand contradiction, preferred and excluded explanations, the permitted and the \ndeviant, incorporated and oppositional practice, the meaningless and the \nmeaningful. If there is the slightest chance for new thinking about \nmultilingualism and equality in schools during the post Thatcher-Major era of \nbilingual education policy, the transilient planner of the new regime would do \nwell to reflect on Bullock and the matter of origins. ","subitem_description_type":"Other"}]},"item_1_identifier_registration":{"attribute_name":"ID登録","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_identifier_reg_text":"10.34577/00000963","subitem_identifier_reg_type":"JaLC"}]},"item_1_source_id_13":{"attribute_name":"雑誌書誌ID","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_source_identifier":"AN0008887X","subitem_source_identifier_type":"NCID"}]},"item_1_text_10":{"attribute_name":"著者所属(英)","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_text_language":"en","subitem_text_value":"International Christian University"},{"subitem_text_language":"en","subitem_text_value":"International Christian University"}]},"item_1_text_2":{"attribute_name":"記事種別(日)","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_text_value":"研究論文"}]},"item_1_text_3":{"attribute_name":"記事種別(英)","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_text_language":"en","subitem_text_value":"Article"}]},"item_1_text_9":{"attribute_name":"著者所属(日)","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_text_value":"国際基督教大学"},{"subitem_text_value":"国際基督教大学"}]},"item_files":{"attribute_name":"ファイル情報","attribute_type":"file","attribute_value_mlt":[{"accessrole":"open_date","date":[{"dateType":"Available","dateValue":"1998-03-01"}],"displaytype":"detail","filename":"KJ00005609160.pdf","filesize":[{"value":"1.9 MB"}],"format":"application/pdf","licensetype":"license_11","mimetype":"application/pdf","url":{"label":"イギリスのバイリンガル教育 ","url":"https://icu.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/977/files/KJ00005609160.pdf"},"version_id":"0d2c902e-dd27-4a22-98ae-f4a96d42958a"}]},"item_language":{"attribute_name":"言語","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_language":"jpn"}]},"item_resource_type":{"attribute_name":"資源タイプ","attribute_value_mlt":[{"resourcetype":"departmental bulletin paper","resourceuri":"http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501"}]},"item_title":"イギリスのバイリンガル教育","item_titles":{"attribute_name":"タイトル","attribute_value_mlt":[{"subitem_title":"イギリスのバイリンガル教育"},{"subitem_title":"Bilingualism and Education in Britain","subitem_title_language":"en"}]},"item_type_id":"1","owner":"3","path":["114"],"pubdate":{"attribute_name":"公開日","attribute_value":"1998-03-01"},"publish_date":"1998-03-01","publish_status":"0","recid":"977","relation_version_is_last":true,"title":["イギリスのバイリンガル教育"],"weko_creator_id":"3","weko_shared_id":3},"updated":"2023-09-25T05:56:40.611431+00:00"}