British Educational Research, Journal, Vol. 25, No.

3, 1999 371

Professional Attitudes and Experience in

Relation to Bilingual Children Attending
Language Units

ALISON CRUTCHLEY, University of Manchester

ABSTRACT A large-cohort study looking at children with speech and language

difficulties attending 'language units' across England identified a small subgroup of the
cohort who were bilingual. Interview data were collected to try to shed light on
differences found between this 'bilingual' subgroup and the rest of the cohort. Head-
teachers and language unit teachers were asked about levels of involvement of bilingual
parents in school or unit life, about the level of provision available for bilingual children
in the local education authority (LEA) and about the adequacy of this provision.
Qualitative analysis of 'themes' indicated that differences existed between head and unit
teachers in patterns of answers in all of these areas. However, relating these qualitative
results to quantitative data from a questionnaire survey of English LEAs revealed that
attitudes and knowledge also varied according to the location of the school (in a Greater
London, metropolitan or non-metropolitan LEA). It is thus suggested that these
differences in attitude may be linked to the experience that unit and headteachers have
of bilingual children and their families.

Introduction
This article will discuss a group of bilingual children with particular special educational
needs—speech and language impairments (SLI). These are children whose 'language
acquisition is abnormal or delayed' despite 'sufficient exposure to language input,
normal capacity to perceive language, a brain which is adequate for learning in the
non-verbal domain, and intact articulatory structures' (Bishop, 1992). The children in
this study attended language units [1]—special provision attached to mainstream primary
schools. They were part of the cohort of a large study looking at children in language
units across England (Conti-Ramsden et al., 1997; Botting et al., 1998).
Several systematic differences were found between the bilingual and the mono-lingual
children in the cohort, including that bilingual children with particular types of

Received 6 March 1998; resubmitted 8 September 1998; accepted 17 September 1998.

0141-1926/99/030371-17 ©1999 British Educational Research Association

372 A. Crutchley

language difficulties [2] seemed to be differently represented in the language unit

population (Crutchley et ah, 1997a, 1997b). It was felt that a number of factors might
be at work, including the relative influence of parents on the identification and
assessment process and their level of involvement in their child's education.
Parents have increasing opportunities, and are under increasing pressure, to be actively
involved in school life. Local Management of Schools confers increased power and
responsibility on parents, in the form of school governors, for many and far-reaching
decisions about the running of schools. However, research suggests that black and other
ethnic minority parents make up a tiny proportion of school governors, even in areas
where their presence in the local community is strong (Daniels, 1994; Brehony, 1995;
Taylor & Bagley, 1995). Holden et al. (1996) state that one of the aims of the
Educational Reform Act in 1988 was 'to give parents greater information about their
child's school, its academic performance and their own child's performance'. Their study
found that 'two thirds of our total sample' (comprising white, African-Caribbean and
Asian parents) 'felt they did not know enough about what went on in school ... Those
who did feel they knew enough had often gained this information by helping in
the classroom'. Thus, active involvement may have a direct relationship with how
'informed' parents feel.
This has particular resonance for parents of children with special educational needs
(SEN). The Code of Practice for the Identification and Assessment of SEN (Department
for Education, 1994) describes the parent-school relationship as having 'a crucial
bearing on the child's educational progress and the effectiveness of any school-based
action ... Children's progress will be diminished if their parents are not seen as partners
in the educational process with unique knowledge and information to impart' (section
2:28, 'Partnership with parents'). Bilingual families coming to terms with their child's
difficulties (diagnosed within a Western style 'medical' model which may be unfamiliar
to them—sec Harry, 1992 for a discussion) may be further disadvantaged by having to
deal with a highly literacy-dependent assessment process in a formal register of a
language in which they may be less than confident. As the earlier quotation from Holden
et al. shows, the primary source of information for most parents of normally developing
children is the school itself. Where the child has SEN, the support of the school will be
crucial to parents. However, as Kenway (1994) reminds us, schools 'often underestimate
the time it takes to achieve a partnership' with parents, 'become disillusioned when
parents are not responsive to requests and invitations, and ... mistake this for a lack of
interest.' It is clear that the building of relationships between schools and parents is
complex and relies on a high level of awareness of the process on the part of
professionals. It is therefore important to examine the attitudes and knowledge of such
professionals if one is to gain insight into the relative influence of parents.
The present study involved interviewing language unit teachers, and headteachers of
the mainstream schools to which the units were attached. The teachers were generally
agreed that bilingual parents tended to be less involved in school or unit life than
monolingual parents, and offered a range of opinions on the reasons for this under-
involvement and possible ways of encouraging parents to be more actively involved.
Thus, this issue seems to be current in teachers' minds.
This article will explore two threads running through the data on involvement of
bilingual parents in school life—the attitudes of those who deal with bilingual children,
and the experience they have of bilingual children and their families. It will attempt to
draw these two threads together and argue that, while differences are observable between
headteachers of main schools and teachers in the language units attached to these schools
 Bilingual Children 373

in terms of attitudes and awareness, these differences are also related to the experience
head and unit teachers have with bilingual children.

Method
Informants and Background Information
The data presented in this article were collected in order to contextualise findings from
a large-cohort study of 242 children in language units attached to mainstream primary
schools across England. Approximately 11 % of this cohort were post hoc identified as
bilingual, under a broad definition of 'bilingual' as 'exposed to a language or languages
other than English at home'. (Therefore, this group does not consist solely of children
from ethnic minority backgrounds, and the children within it are not necessarily those
who are seen as English as a second language learners.) This 'bilingual' subgroup
showed particular characteristics, which have been reported elsewhere (Crutchley et al.,
1997a, 1997b). Of particular relevance is the finding that certain types and combinations
of language difficulties were much less prevalent among the bilingual children than
among the monolingual children in language units. Bilingual children in language units
tended to have difficulties with aspects of language such as syntax and morphology,
semantics and pragmatics, and to have both expressive and receptive difficulties. In other
words, the difficulties they displayed were among the more complex and severe found
in the unit populations. As argued elsewhere (Crutchley et al., 1997b), there is little
evidence that bilingualism per se means that children are more likely to have particular
language difficulties (or any other type of SEN). Thus, it is assumed that bilingual
children exist with all the range of types, combinations and severities of language
difficulties that are present in the monolingual language unit population, but that they are
not represented in this population in the same way. It is necessary, therefore, to look
outside the children for explanations for this differential representation. Awareness of the
needs of bilingual children, attitudes to their presence in language units and schools, and
access to provision for bilingual children were all felt to be possible underlying
influences, and subsequent data collection attempted to address some of these issues.
The data took the following forms:

1. telephone interview data from teachers in language units from which the original
cohort of bilingual children came;
2. telephone interview data from headteachers of the mainstream primary schools to
which the language units were attached; and
3. postal questionnaire data from 78 English local education authorities (LEAs).
It was not possible to interview the corresponding unit teacher and head teacher for every
bilingual child in the large-cohort project; however, the majority were interviewed (20
out of a possible 27 headteachers; 20 out of 27 unit teachers.) [3]

Procedure
I. Interviews. It was explained to head and unit teachers that further research was being
conducted focusing on aspects of the unit or school's experience with bilingual children,
to contextualise some of the findings from the large-cohort project. A semi-structured
telephone interview, based on a pro forma, was conducted at a time which was
convenient to the interviewee. The interviewee was asked the open-ended questions on
374 A. Crutchley

the pro forma, but was encouraged to expand on her/his answers, and allowed to diverge
from the question if s/he wanted to. Notes were made on the pro forma during the
interview. The order of questions was not adhered to rigidly as the quasi-informal nature
of the interview meant that some topics were covered by interviewees before explicit
questions were asked. (See appendix for example notes).

2. Postal questionnaires. A postal questionnaire was addressed to the Special Education

Adviser at every LEA in England with a covering letter explaining the purpose and
ongoing nature of the research project and the motivation for collecting data from LEAs.
The initial questionnaire distribution and two follow-up requests (one postal, one by
telephone) resulted in a total return rate of 64% (78 out of 122 LEAs).
The questionnaires asked about the proportion of bilingual children of primary school
age in the LEA, and about general levels and types of provision for bilingual children;
and about proportions of, and provision for, bilingual children in language units. As
many respondents pointed out, this was a diverse range of information. In many cases,
the information was provided by several informants within the LEA. The questionnaires
were returned by a diverse selection of postholders.

Data Preparation and Analysis

1. Telephone interview data. The questions discussed in this article generated a large
amount of qualitative data. In order to search post hoc for themes emerging from the
responses to particular questions, the following technique was employed. The first stage
of analysis was simply to transfer the notes from the pro forma onto collation
sheets—one for headtcachers' responses and one for unit teachers' responses. Everything
each interviewee said in relation to a particular question was transferred onto these
sheets, with additional notes for clarification of ambiguous comments (kept clearly
separate from reported speech). It became clear that interviewees often made similar
points. The data from each interviewee then contributed to the drawing up of a 'tick
sheet'. Each comment an interviewee made (e.g. that bilingual parents were 'less
forthcoming') headed a column on this sheet. Once this had been done for all
interviewees from that group (unit or headteachers) this resulted in a sheet with 12-18
separate columns, corresponding to points made by interviewees.
The rows on this tick sheet then corresponded to individual interviewees. The next
stage of the analysis was to go through the collation sheet and place a tick in the
corresponding box for every comment made by each interviewee. 'Eyeballing' this sheet
then gave a first impression of which topics were more often mentioned by interviewees.
The next stage was to look for 'themes' around which the individual comments could
be grouped. Responses fell fairly naturally into plausible groups (e.g. the comments
made by unit teachers on reasons for underinvolvement of bilingual parents fell into
categories summarised as 'Practical difficulties', 'Parental attitude', 'Custom/culture
differences' and 'School attitude'). It is recognised that this is a subjective method of
categorising data; however, it is felt that these groupings were intuitively plausible and
reflected the dominant concerns of the interviewees.
The final stage of the analysis, then, was to count responses in particular groups and
make comparisons between the patterns of responses. Where appropriate, 95%
confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to try to establish the significance of relation-
ships. (In the body of the text, differences where one mean fell outside the 95% CI are
described as 'significant'; where both means fall outside the 95% CI this is described as
 Bilingual Children 375

a 'highly significant' difference.) While this obscures much of the finer detail—in
particular, the combinations of responses made by individuals—it was felt that the
emerging pictures of common concerns across groups were important and interesting
enough to justify this approach.
2. LEA questionnaires. Answers to these questions were of several types and were thus
entered into a spreadsheet program (SPSS 1993) in different ways. Numerical data (e.g.
numbers of language unit places, proportions) were entered as they stood. Answers to
'yes/no' questions were coded as T or '0' respectively and entered as such. Answers
to questions about services provided in the LEA were coded numerically (post hoc) and
entered as such. Chi-squared analyses were carried out on the data.

Results and Discussion

Attitudes to Parental Involvement
Head and unit teachers were asked how active a part bilingual parents played in the life
of the school or unit. If respondents indicated that bilingual parents played less of a part
than monolingual parents, they were asked why they thought this was the case.
Unit and headteachers alike talked about the bilingual parents' language difficulties.
Other reasons supplied by both unit and headteachers for the relative underinvolvement
of bilingual parents fell into the following subgroups.
1. Practical difficulties. Unit teachers cited social problems (e.g. poverty), travel distance
and difficulties with transport, and the families having 'other priorities' (e.g. work,
family) which prevented their involvement. Headteachers stated that the families
often had 'lots of children', social problems and difficulties with distance/transport.
In addition, they mentioned parents having little time, and the effect of a low social/
educational level.
2. Parental attidue. Unit teachers said that bilingual parents were 'less forthcoming' and
'unassuming'. They were happy to leave the education of their children to the school.
Headteachers added that bilingual parents thought they should not interfere, or were
not interested. Some teachers commented that parents were underinformed, implying
fault in the parents: unit teachers said that parents did not understand what the unit
wanted, or were unfamiliar with the system; headteachers that parents did not 'see the
value of education'.
3. Cultural/custom differences. Headteachers made more responses in this category,
talking generally about 'cultural differences' or more specifically about cultures
discouraging women's involvement in school matters. Only one unit teacher men-
tioned cultural differences.
4. School attitude. Unit teachers said that bilingual parents found school alienating or
felt marginalised, and that they suffered from lack of a peer group for support.
Headteachers remarked that the school only catered for forthcoming parents, that the
school had a problem with an image of 'authority', and also felt that bilingual parents
might feel a lack of peer group support if their numbers were small.
Note that eight unit teachers indicated that levels of involvement were similar for
bilingual parents and monolingual parents. Three of these teachers said they were happy
with levels of involvement. A further unit teacher stated that she was happy with levels
of involvement, but did not indicate that these were similar for bilingual and monolin-
gual parents.
376 A. Crutchley

There were statistically significant differences between the responses of head and unit
teachers. Headteachers were likely to blame parental attitude and custom/cultural
differences, while unit teachers emphasised practical difficulties. Equal proportions of
head and unit teachers blamed school attitude. Heads said more about this than unit
teachers (a highly statistically significant difference).

Ways of Encouraging Parental Involvement

Head and unit teachers were also asked if they felt bilingual parents could play more of
a part in school or unit life, and what might be needed to encourage them to do this. Two
unit teachers and five headteachers said that they already made an effort to involve
bilingual parents more, but that it did not work. Possible ways of improving levels of
parental involvement suggested by both unit and headteachers fell into four broad
categories.
1. Practical solutions. Unit teachers mentioned childcare, help with transport and doing
home visits if parents could not or would not come in to school. Headteachers
mentioned childcare and 'more money' being made available to the school.
2. Setting up support systems within the school. Unit and headteachers talked about
having a 'liaison person' in the school who understood the culture, and how an active
parent could be used to support others. Head teachers also suggested having reception
staff with language skills, and setting up various types of groups and classes for
parents. Unit teachers, meanwhile, talked about having a bilingual classroom assist-
ant. Because of the more long-term nature of the aforementioned kinds of initiative
these suggestions were separated from those in the next category
3. 'One-off solutions. These were making more use of translation and interpreting
services, producing more school documentation in community languages, and asking
parents to bring in relatives to interpret.
4. Making the school more welcoming. Both head and unit teachers mentioned organis-
ing activities which used bilingual parents' knowledge and skills. Headteachers also
suggested overtly praising and encouraging involvement. Unit teachers talked about
setting aside more time to spend with parents, making meetings less formal, using
materials in school that reflected the cultural mix of the school and the area, and
employing more staff from ethnic minorities.
Statistically significant differences were found between head and unit teachers'
responses. Heads were likely to suggest one-off solutions, while unit teachers stressed
the need for practical assistance. Equal (though small) proportions of head and unit
teachers mentioned setting up support systems within the school, and making the school
more welcoming. Unit teachers made as many points as heads.

Attitudes to Parental Involvement—Differences between head and unit teachers

In sum, then, head and unit teachers were largely in agreement that bilingual parents
played less of a role in school or unit life than monolingual parents. However, the
reasons they suggested for this underinvolvement, and possible ways of encouraging
involvement, were different.
Unit teachers seem to see the underinvolvement of bilingual parents primarily as a
result of their social and economic circumstances. While this may reflect the level of
knowledge unit teachers have of the family situations of children in their classes, it also
 Bilingual Children 377

seems to preclude viewing bilingual families as having particular needs that are different
from those of monolingual parents in similar social/economic circumstances. By con-
trast, headteachers' responses were more indicative of the view that bilingual parents did
constitute a group with different attitudes and beliefs. However, they still tended to
suggest short-term solutions to the needs of individual parents, which suggests that they
did not see the school system as implicated in the underinvolvement of bilingual parents,
and therefore in need of change.

Knowledge of Available Provision

Further differences between head and unit teachers were found in their responses to
questions about the level and nature of provision available for bilingual children in their
schools and units. Head and unit teachers were asked whether they could make any
special provision for bilingual children in the school or unit, and where they could go
for such provision if it were needed. Their responses were then related to information
given by LEAs on levels and nature of provision across the country.
Three-quarters of unit teachers said no provision was made in the unit at that time, as
against one-third of headteachers who said that no provision was made in the school.
Over half the heads said they had Section 11 provision in school, although only a quarter
of unit teachers said they had access to Section 11 provision staff from the main school
(these differences are statistically significant). Small, but roughly equal proportions of
head and unit teachers said they had bilingual support staff. Some 89% of heads (but
only one third of unit teachers) said provision was available through the borough, while
a quarter of unit teachers said they would go through the Department of Health to get
provision, and a further fifth said there was no way of making provision. No headteacher
made either of these suggestions, and no headteacher said they did not know (15% of
unit teachers said this).
Headteachers' perceptions of levels of provision seem broadly to tie in with infor-
mation supplied by the LEA (80% of LEAs indicated that Section 11 provision was
available, and 58% of LEAs said they had bilingual assistants in schools.) However, unit
teachers' perceptions were different. According to head and unit teacher data, there was
Section 11 provision in main schools, but not in units; headteachers knew how to get
hold of provision through the LEA but unit teachers appeared not to. These differences
appear to underline the 'separate' operation of schools and units: the implications of this
will be discussed later.

Attitudes to Provision
Unit and headteachers were also asked whether they felt provision in the LEA was
adequate to the needs of bilingual pupils and their families. Their responses fell into the
following categories.
1. Emphasis on the positive aspects of the provision. This subsumed responses which
directly addressed the level of provision, such as 'It's excellent', 'Lots of resources
available', along with comments on attitude or general orientation, such as
'Awareness is good', 'They're very committed', 'There's a real will to do things'.
2. Provision seen as adequate. Responses such as 'It's OK at present', 'The LEA are
doing the best they can under the circumstances' and 'The school is coping' fell into
this category.
378 A. Crutchley

3. Comments on the distribution of resources. Unit and headteachers commented that

'schools with a small proportion of bilingual children get less money' or that
'resources are channelled into areas of greatest need'.
4. Outside sources of difficulty. Several comments seemed to blame inadequate pro-
vision on circumstances outside the LEA's control, e.g. 'Numbers [of bilingual
children] are so high that resources don't stretch', 'Lots of changes are coming from
above so coping with these is priority', 'Language diversity makes it difficult', 'Cuts
are coming'.
5. Specific difficulties with provision. Comments which highlighted particular areas of
difficulty with the current provision included the following: 'Second and third
generation [bilinguals] are being ignored and this will lead to problems later',
'Teacher awareness-raising is needed', 'Quality of support is mixed', 'Not enough
provision of the right kind', 'The service isn't coordinated, there's not much liaison',
'Testing needs to be improved', 'More information and support for parents is needed'
and so on.

Both head and unit teachers made comments which fell into all of these categories, but
significant differences were found between the patterns of responses from head and unit
teachers. Heads were more likely than unit teachers to emphasise the positive aspects of
provision in the area. They were also more likely to talk about problems with the
distribution of resources. Unit teachers concentrated more on specific problems they had
with the provision. Nearly a third of unit teachers (and no headteachers) said they felt
unable to comment on the level of provision. Headteachers were more verbose on this
subject than unit teachers, and this difference was highly statistically significant.
To summarise, then, although unit teachers felt underinformed about the levels of
provision in the LEA as a whole, their comments indicated engagement with issues
surrounding the provision they had access to and its particular shortcomings. Head
teachers, as might be expected, showed more concern with LEA-level issues.
Does this difference in 'level of concern' relate to the differences in attitudes to
involvement noted earlier? Recall that headteachers were more likely to blame parental
attitude and custom/cultural differences, and suggest one-off solutions to underinvolve-
ment. Is this because, with their knowledge of provision and their direct involvement in
getting it, they feel that they are already doing as much as they can to provide for
bilingual children and their families, and therefore underinvolvement is not the school's
responsibility? Conversely, unit teachers appear to know little about the available
provision and how to get hold of it. Does this force them then to deal with bilingual
parents on an individual basis, focusing on the practical difficulties experienced by
parents and failing perhaps to see these as symptoms of broader issues affecting whole
groups?
Children in language units form a small proportion of the primary age population.
According to the large-cohort study mentioned earlier, bilingual children could be
estimated to form around 11% of this population (and this number probably reflects
under-representation of bilingual children in the language unit population—see the
general discussion that follows). Thus, numbers of bilingual children in individual
language units are small. This may also lead to a tendency to treat bilingual parents and
children as individuals, rather than members of a group with particular needs.
Is there, then, a link between the 'experience' a school or unit has with bilingual
children and their families and the knowledge and attitudes of professionals? Data from
LEAs were used to explore this question.
 Bilingual Children 379

Proportions of Bilingual Children in Schools and Units

LEAs were asked what proportion of the primary age population was bilingual. Two
LEAs said they had no primary age bilingual children. Some 29% (21 out of 73) of
LEAs in the survey said that bilingual children made up 10% or less of the primary
population, and 22% of LEAs said that between 11 and 50% of the primary age
population was bilingual. One LEA said that bilingual children made up more than 50%
of the primary population. The data were missing for the rest.
LEAs were also asked about the proportion of primary age children in language units
who were bilingual. 29% of LEAs said there were no bilingual children in primary
language units; 16% said bilingual children made up 10% or less of the language unit
population; 9% of LEAs said bilingual children made up between 11 and 50 per cent of
the primary language unit population, and one LEA said more than 50% of the language
unit population was bilingual. The remaining LEAs returned missing data for this
question.
In order to examine the distribution of bilingual children across the country, responses
of LEAs in the survey were split according to whether they were located in Greater
London, metropolitan or non-metropolitan areas. A significantly greater proportion of
primary age children were found to be bilingual in Greater London LEAs than in both
metropolitan and non-metropolitan LEAs (statistically a highly significant difference).
(See Fig. 1.) In addition, a significantly greater proportion of children in primary
language units were found to be bilingual in Greater London LEAs than in either
metropolitan or non-metropolitan LEAs. (See Figure 2.)
LEAs were also asked about the nature of any special provision available for bilingual
children and their families. No significant differences were found between types of LEA
for types of provision offered, or for the availability of Section 11 funding. No
significant differences were found between types of LEA for whether they had access to

Greater London Non-metropolitan

LEA'type'

FIG. 1. Proportions of bilingual primary age children in Greater London, metropolitan and non-metropolitan
LEAs.
380 A. Crutchley

Greater London Non-metropolitan

LEA 'type'
FIG. 2. Proportions of bilingual children in primary age language units in Greater London, metropolitan and
non-metropolitan LEAs.

a bilingual support service, and no differences were found for types of service offered
by bilingual support services. Thus, it seems clear that, as far as experience of bilingual
children (and by extension their families) is concerned, Greater London LEAs have more
experience both of children in mainstream primary schools and in primary language
units. However, this difference in proportion does not seem to be reflected in availability
of services—at least, on paper.

The Link with Experience

If differences between head and unit teachers' attitudes to underinvolvement partially
reflected their experience with bilingual children and their families, as was suggested
earlier, one might assume that differences would also be apparent between groups of
teachers in different types of LEA (given the findings that units and schools in Greater
London, metropolitan and non-metropolitan LEAs have different proportions of bilingual
children on roll). When the teacher interview data—on the reasons for underinvolvement
of bilingual families, on ways of encouraging their involvement and on attitudes to
provision—are related to type of LEA, some statistically significant relationships
emerge. Differences between unit and headteachers remain but are less stark, and there
seem to be effects of LEA type that reinforce the idea that experience has a part to play.
Unit teachers in Greater London were more likely to say they were not happy with
levels of involvement of bilingual parents. They were likely to see the school attitude as
a reason for underinvolvement, and making the school more welcoming as a solution.
They were more likely than units in other areas to emphasise the positive aspects of
provision, and were more likely to cite problems with provision which were outside the
LEA's control. Heads in Greater London were likely to say that setting up support
systems in school and finding 'one-off solutions were possible ways of encouraging
involvement.
 Bilingual Children 381

Unit teachers in metropolitan areas were likely to say that underinvolvement was due
to parental attitude. They were more likely than unit teachers in other areas to say that
they did not feel able to comment about provision. Headteachers in metropolitan areas
were likely to blame culture and custom differences for underinvolvement, and were
likely to talk about specific problems with level/type of provision.
Both head and unit teachers in non-metropolitan areas were likely to say levels of
involvement were the same for bilingual and monolingual parents, and that they were
happy with levels of involvement.
The attitude and orientation of units and heads in the different types of LEA from
these relationships might be interpreted as follows. Non-metropolitan heads and units
seemed happy with the situation as it stood. They saw no reason to worry about levels
of involvement or provision. Metropolitan heads and units saw the difficulties mainly in
terms of deficiencies in others, and were unlikely to feel that the school or unit's attitude
should change. Units in particular felt underinformed. Greater London heads and units
were the most verbose on all subjects. They saw problems with the level and type of
provision as it stood, but were also aware of the shortcomings in schools' attitudes and
approaches to bilingual families. Their experience may have enabled them to suggest
different possible solutions to the underinvolvement of bilingual parents.
So it may be reasonable to say that experience did have an effect. Those head and unit
teachers with more experience of bilingual children were most likely to be dissatisfied
with the present provision, to be aware of shortcomings in the 'system', and to be able
to suggest ways that these could be improved on. It seems possible that this effect of
experience also underlies some of the differences mentioned earlier between head and
unit teachers' attitudes and knowledge.

General Discussion
This study is small-scale and exploratory in nature and caution is required when
generalising from its findings. Nevertheless, the findings raise some thought-provoking
questions.
While head and unit teachers agreed in their perception that bilingual parents were
underinvolved in the life of the school or unit, they differed in the reasons they gave for
this underinvolvement and in their suggestions of ways to encourage parents to play
more of a role. Teachers from schools and units in LEAs with greater or lesser
proportions of bilingual children in schools and units had different views, and it was
suggested that differences in experience of bilingual children and their families might
also be an underlying factor in the differences observed generally between headteachers
and unit teachers.
Could these differences have a relationship to what happens in units and schools?
Recall that professional attitudes to, and knowledge about provision also seemed to be
related to experience of bilingual children and families. As mentioned in the Introduc-
tion, Crutchley et al. (1997b) suggested that primary age bilingual children with
particular types of language difficulties may be under-represented in language units in
England.
How many bilingual children should we expect to find in language units? The
difficulties encountered when trying to establish whether representation is proportional
for different groups in different types of provision are recognised by many researchers
(e.g. Winter, 1997, 1999). Differences in methods of counting from one geographical
area to another, the difficulty of comparing numbers from different geographical areas
382 A. Crutchley

(language unit 'catchments' do not necessarily correspond with geographical areas used
for census or other counting purposes), problems with self-identification or the use of
pre-defined categories, difficulties with definitions of terms such as 'bilingual' (in the
present study, although 'bilingual' was defined as 'exposed to a language or languages
other than English at home', numbers given by some respondents were restricted to 'ESL
learners' or 'ethnic minorities') were all contributory factors which are well-recognised
in educational research. Despite these considerations, the representation of bilingual
children (of all language/cultural backgrounds) with different types of language
difficulties was sufficiently different from that of the monolingual language unit
population for there to be cause for concern that certain bilingual children were not being
identified or placed in language units.
It is possible that this under-representation is a factor in the apparent lack of provision
available in units: if teachers in language units feel they cannot make appropriate
provision for bilingual children with SLI, they may feel less confident to admit such
children to the unit. This may perpetuate unit teachers' apparent lack of information
regarding the provision that (according to headteachers and LEAs) is available in almost
all the areas studied: if the provision is not sought (because bilingual children are not
finding their way into language units, or because the bilingual children who are admitted
to units are treated in the same way as monolingual children), knowledge about available
provision will remain inadequate. Edwards (1998) remarks that where bilingual pupils
form a small proportion of the school commmunity, linguistic diversity can remain 'a
largely hidden resource'; by implication, it is also easier to ignore the needs of these
bilingual children and their families.
Despite their presence across the country, bilingual children attending language units
form a small group. Thus, even in units with experience and knowledge of the issues,
they may be seen as a low funding priority in the current climate of stretched resources.
Moreover, bilingual parents will continue to play a minor role in their children's
education if provision is unavailable to help them access the information they need to
do this.
Under-reprcsentation is therefore an issue of great concern for several reasons. The
well-documented tendencies towards disproportional representation of bilingual children
in SEN provision (see, for example, Cummins, 1984, 1996; Tomlinson, 1984; Harry,
1992; Cline, 1996) have also been observed in the population of children receiving
therapy for speech and language impairments (SLI). Identification and assessment of SLI
in bilingual populations has been the subject of a certain amount of research (see, for
example, Miller, 1984; Duncan, 1985; Taylor, 1986a, 1986b). Issues related to the use
of standardised tests with diverse populations are more salient than ever given that the
children's language is the subject, and not only the medium of investigation (see Valdes
& Figueroa, 1994, for a comprehensive discussion). While professionals acknowledge
that bilingualism in itself does not constitute a disability in normally developing children,
the relationship between bilingualism (in particular, language behaviour typical of
learners of English as a second language) and pathological language difficulties remains
unclear to many. Penniceard suggested in 1987 that 'tests like the Reynell under-
estimated the language skills of Afro-Caribbean children and that the speech and
language problems of children from the Asian community were either not being
recognised or being treated as second language learning problems'. Similar effects are
reported as recently as 1995 by Wright.
As we have seen, the data collected from LEAs in the present study pointed to
concentrations of bilingual children in language units in Greater London and metro-
 Bilingual Children 383

politan LEAs [4]. Winter (1997; 1999) surveyed speech and language therapists
working with children across England and discovered that in areas where more than 7%
of the local community was of ethnic minority backgrounds, over 70% of speech and
language therapists working with children had at least one bilingual child on their
caseload. Even taking into account that bilingual children—as defined in the present
study—are not only those from ethnic minority backgrounds, it is tempting to assume
that the numbers of bilingual children with SLI must be very small, and probably
concentrated in certain areas. However, Winter also found that over half the total number
of therapists surveyed had at least one bilingual child on their caseload. As Bourne
(1989) reminds us, bilingual children 'form a substantial proportion of the school
population, and ... go to school in most LEAs'. These issues, then, are of concern to all
schools and units.
The relationship between language units and the mainstream schools to which they are
attached is also highlighted by the findings of the present study. Although most language
units in the large-cohort study had the children on roll as a self-contained class, language
units usually took advantage of their situation on the site of a mainstream primary school
to arrange integration for the children attending the unit. This ranged from social
integration at playtime and lunch, to participation in certain classes, to a structured
programme of gradual reintegration preceding the return of the child from the language
unit to his/her source school. In addition, several units mentioned 'reverse integration',
where children from the mainstream school came into the language unit for some parts
of the day. Despite all these carefully negotiated collaborative efforts, the marked
differences between head and unit teachers discussed earlier suggest that units may not
be benefiting from the experience and knowledge of mainstream schools regarding
provision for bilingual children, and that headteachers regard the language units as
separate and autonomous in this regard. Not only does this affect the teachers' ability to
meet the needs of bilingual children with SLI, it may also have an effect on the level
and nature of support available to bilingual parents. As Kenway (1994) points out,
teachers also require support of various kinds if they are to help parents become more
involved in school life.
It is important to recognise that the present study makes no attempt to present the
perspectives of parents. This will be crucial in order to explore and validate hypotheses
made about the effects of professional attitudes and experience on bilingual children and
their families. Crutchley (in press) categorised parents as more or less 'informed' about
the process of obtaining special educational provision for their children, according to a
number of criteria. It was found that bilingual parents were less likely than monolingual
parents to be 'well informed', and that this 'informedness' was linked to the parents'
relationship with the language unit. Parents who had a positive view of their relationship
with the unit were more likely to be those who fell into the 'informed' group. As
Edwards (1998) makes clear, 'consultation with parents or guardians is essential' and a
good home-school relationship benefits both parents and teachers in many ways. The
small numbers involved in the aforementioned study of 'informedness' prevent any
meaningful comparisons across LEA 'types' for these parents; however, this could form
a starting point for further research.
The issues surrounding provision for bilingual children in language units, and the
encouragement of their parents to become involved in unit life, are thus many and
complex. Certain areas appear to be in particular need of further research. Units appear
to underexploit their relationship with main schools at present: identification of models
of 'good practice' in this area would be of benefit to teachers. Data presented in this
384 A. Crutchley

article include a wide variety of suggestions as to how bilingual parents could be

encouraged to become more involved in school or unit life: many of these suggestions
chime with current research conducted in mainstream schools (e.g. Kenway, 1994;
Edwards, 1998). Future research could also identify ways of applying these approaches
to the particular situation of language units, for the benefit of professionals and parents
alike. Finally, the issue of undcr-rcpresentation of bilingual children in language units
has serious ramifications in many areas. There is a pressing need for further development
of methods of identification and assessment of bilingual children with SLI.

Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the Nuffield Foundation for grant no.
AT251 [OD], 'Educational Transitions of Language-Impaired Children', to Gina Conti-
Ramsden. I would like to thank Professor Conti-Ramsden for detailed and helpful
comments on earlier drafts of this paper, and Dr Nicola Botting for her part in the
original large-cohort study. Finally, I would like to thank the parents, children and
teachers who gave their time and support to this research.

Correspondence: Alison Crutchley, Centre for Human Communication and Deafness,

Faculty of Education, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester Ml3 9PL,
UK.

NOTES
[1] 'Language units' typically consist of small classes of children, generally with statements of special
educational need (SEN), who receive intensive speech and language therapy. The National Curricu-
lum is adhered to (to the extent required for children with SEN) and the emphasis is on developing
the children's language to the point where they can return to mainstream classes. Thus, the children
who are admitted to language unit provision arc those whose language difficulties arc seen as
'remediable'. Language units arc attached to mainstream primary schools and typically take
advantage of this situation by integrating pupils into the mainstream school for parts of the school
week.
[2] Children in language units show a range of language difficulties. Individual children may have
difficulties with articulation (physically making speech sounds), phonology (the sound system, or
grammar of sounds, of a language), morphology (word grammar), syntax (sentence grammar),
semantics (word meanings—relating the abstract language system to the concrete world) and
pragmatics (the social use of language)—or almost any combination of these. In addition, their
difficulties may be mainly expressive, mainly receptive, or with both expressive and receptive
language.
[3] Relationships between the data sources. The children were selected for the original study as follows.
All language units attached to English primary schools were contacted, and numbers of children in
Year 2 who were spending at least 50% of the school week in the unit were collected. The initial
total was close to 500 children. Time and resources did not allow for this number of children to be
tested, so each language unit was visited and a sample of approximately half the children who fitted
the criteria was taken, using random number tables. These children then formed the study cohort.
Thirty-five per cent of English LEAs are metropolitan, 38% non-metropolitan and 27% Greater
London. Units visited in the study came from 64 different LEAs. These were 37% metropolitan, 44%
non-metropolitan, 19% Greater London. These figures are comparable with the general proportions
given earlier (Greater London difference verging on significance according to 95% CI). However,
sizes of units vary, as did the number of children who fitted our criteria in each unit. Thus,
proportions of children tested in each type of LEA were different, although the spread remained
similar: 35% metropolitan, 52% non-metropolitan, 13% Greater London. According to LEA
questionnaire data, non-metropolitan LEAs had, on average, more language unit places than
metropolitan or Greater London LEAs, though there was a wide variation from LEA to LEA
 Bilingual Children 385

(non-metropolitan LEAs [n = 35] had a mean of 44 primary age language unit places [median 40,
IQR: 58.5]. Metropolitan LEAs [n = 30] had a mean of 27 places [median 24, IQR 15] and Greater
London LEAs [n = 16] had a mean of 24 [median 24.5, IQR 13.75]).
Bilingual children were not spread evenly across LEA 'types', as will be discussed later in the
article. Of the original study cohort (« = 27), 30% attended units in metropolitan LEAs, 22% units
in non-metropolitan and 48% in Greater London LEAs. Of the bilingual children whose teachers
were interviewed for the present study (n = 20), 30% attended metropolitan, 30% non-metropolitan
and 40% Greater London units.
[4] A possible cause for concern here is the amount of missing data in response to these questions. When
asked about the proportion of pupils of primary age who were bilingual, at least 33% of respondents
in each of the three 'types' of LEA returned questionnaires with missing data. Non-metropolitan
LEAs were significantly more likely than metropolitan LEAs to return these data missing; the
difference between non-metropolitan and Greater London LEAs falls just short of significance. There
were even more missing data in responses to the question about proportions of primary language unit
pupils who were bilingual: at least 40% of LEAs of each 'type' returned questionnaires with these
data missing. It is unclear whether these missing data reflect a genuine ignorance of the proportions,
difficulties with 'counting', the problems of passing questionnaires around several people to fill in
different sections, or perhaps the willingness of busy respondents to 'root around' for the infor-
mation. It is possible, however, that the relative case with which respondents answered these
questions reflects the importance accorded to such information by the LEA.

REFERENCES
BISHOP, D.V.M. (1992) The biological basis of specific language impairment, in: P. FLETCHER & D. HALL
(Eds) Specific Speech and Language Disorders in Children: correlates, characteristics and outcomes
(London, Whurr).
BOTTING, N., CONTI-RAMSDEN, G. & CRUTCHLEY, A. (1997) Concordance between teacher/therapist
opinion and formal language assessment scores in children with language impairment, European
Journal of Disorders of Communication, 32, pp. 317-327.
BOTTING, N., CRUTCHLEY, A. & CONTI-RAMSDEN, G. (1998) Educational transitions of seven-year-old
children with specific language impairment in language units: a longitudinal study, International
Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 33, pp. 177—197.
BOURNE, J. (1989) Moving into the Mainstream: LEA provision for bilingual pupils (Slough, NFER-
Nelson).
BREHONY, K. (1995) School governors, 'race' and racism, in: S. TOMLINSON & M. CRAFT (Eds) Ethnic
Relations and Schooling: policy and practice in the 1990s (London; Athlone Press).
CLINE, T. (1996) When will she learn to tell the time? Assessment of special educational needs for
bilingual children. Professorial inaugural lecture, University of Luton.
CONTI-RAMSDEN, G., CRUTCHLEY, A. & BOTTING, N. (1997) The extent to which psychometric tests
differentiate subgroups of children with specific language impairment, Journal of Speech, Language
and Hearing Research, 40, pp. 765-777.
CRUTCHLEY, A. (in press) Bilingual children in language units: does having 'informed' parents make a
difference? International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders.
CRUTCHLEY, A., BOTTING, N. & CONTI-RAMSDEN, G. (1997a) Bilingualism and specific language impair-
ment in children attending language units, European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 32, pp.
226-236.
CRUTCHLEY, A., CONTI-RAMSDEN, G. & BOTTING, N. (1997b) Bilingual children with specific language
impairment and standardised assessments: preliminary findings from a study of children in language
units, International Journal of Bilingualism, 1, pp. 117-134.
CUMMINS, J. (1984) Bilingualism and Special Education: issues in assessment and pedagogy (Clevedon,
Multilingual Matters).
CUMMINS, J. (1996) Negotiating Identities: education for empowerment in a diverse society (Ontario,
California Association for Bilingual Education).
DANIELS, P. (1994) The role of black parents in schools, in: P. KEEL (Ed.) Assessment in the Multi-ethnic
Classroom (Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham Books).
386 A. Crutchley

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (1994) Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special
Educational Needs (London, HMSO).
DUNCAN, D. (Ed.) (1985) Working with Bilingual Language Disability (London, Chapman & Hall).
EDWARDS, V. (1998) The Power of Babel: teaching and learning in multilingual classrooms (Stoke-on-
Trent, Trentham Books).
HARRY, B. (1992) Cultural Diversity, Families and the Special Education System (New York, College
Press).
HOLDEN, C , HUGHES, M. & DESFORGES, C. (1996) Equally informed? Ethnic minority parents, schools
and assessment, Multicultural Teaching, 14, pp. 16-20.
KENWAY, P. (1994) Working with Parents (Reading, Reading and Language Information Centre,
University of Reading).
MILLER, N. (Ed.) (1984) Bilingualism and Language Disability: assessment and remediation (London,
Croom Helm).
PENNICEARD, R. (1987) Provision and management of children with speech and language problems in a
multi-ethnic inner city area, in: J. MARTIN, P. FLETCHER, P. GRUNWELL & D. HALL (Eds) Proceedings
of the First International Symposium on Specific Speech and Language Disorders in Children
(London, AFASIC).
SPSS (1993) SPSS For Windows Version 6.0 Base System (Chicago, I, SPSS Inc.).
TAYLOR, M. & BAGLEY, C. (1995) The LEA and TEC context, in: S. TOMLINSON & M. CRAFT (Eds)
Ethnic Relations and Schooling (London, Athlone Press).
TAYLOR, O.L. (Ed.) (1986a) Nature of Communication Disorders in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse
Populations (Austin, TX, Pro-Ed).
TAYLOR, O.L. (Ed.) (1986b) Treatment of Communication Disorders in Culturally and Linguistically
Diverse Populations (Austin, TX, Pro-Ed).
TOMLINSON, S. (1984) Minority groups in English conurbations, in: P. WILLIAMS (Ed.) (1984) Special
Education in Minority Communities (Oxford, Oxford University Press).
VALDÉS, G. & FIGUEROA, R. (1994) Bilingualism and Testing: a special case of bias (Norwood, NJ,
Ablex).
WINTER, K.M. (1997) Speech and language therapy for bilingual children, Presentation at International
Symposium on Bilingualism, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.
WINTER, K.M. (1999) Speech and language therapy for bilingual children: aspects of the current service,
International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 34, pp. 85-94.
WRIGHT, C. (1995) Ethnic relations in the primary classroom, in: S. TOMLINSON & M. CRAFT (Eds) Ethnic
Relations and Schooling (London, Athlone Press).

Appendix
Example Question and Responses from Pro Forma—Language Unit Teachers
Example question:
'Do you feel bilingual parents could play a more active role in unit life? What would be needed to
encourage them to do this?'
Example responses as taken down during the telephone interview:
If there was a person 'who understands the cultural side of things' who could spend time with
the parents—LU [language unit] concerned with children, has limited time to spend with
parents. Info sheets for school in other languages; can get other stuff translated if necessary.
[In a unit with only one bilingual child] Dad works shifts, transport difficulties—so if these
could be sorted out they'd come more. Come to parents evenings and AR [annual review].
Transport problems; language skills—come if there's someone there to translate; other children
at home. Coffee afternoon lx per term and the SI 1 [Section 11] teacher does lifts to try to get
them—but still certain parents won't and it's the same for monolinguals.
'It's all time really'—maybe more informal meetings. Work commitments, transport etc. Home
visits no longer really possible—tho' this may have helped in the past.
Lots of things have been tried in the past—it's as much to do with individuals—they'd rather
leave it up to the school. Tend to come in for specific reasons, especially as live far off.
 Bilingual Children 387

Home-school book, phone up quite often. Parent support group—attendance 'fluctuates'.

People work also.
A classroom assistant might encourage them to come in. Interpreters available and willing but
hard to get hold of or v. busy. Reports translated into 'simplified Chinese' for Ts [family of
a child in the unit]—but don't ask any questions in the AR.