Piotr Romanowski

(Warsaw University, Poland)

Some Reflections on the Idiosyncrasy of

Bilingual Education in Secondary
Schools in Poland

Introduction
In many contexts, children grow up bilingual, or even plurilingual, mainly be-
cause two or more languages are spoken in their environment. While consider-
ing various models of bilingual education, it should be borne in mind that this
form of education has proved its effectiveness in numerous situations at different
geographical locations, including Canada, the United States, Germany, Spain,
Belgium, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia – to name only a few places from a
long list of countries. The success concerns the proficiency in both languages as
well as the results in the different topics taught through another language. Ob-
viously, language acquisition is more spontaneous when it is used in authentic
situations of communication. The learners can thus activate their natural faculty
of acquiring languages to a maximum. Hence, learning the language and learning
non-linguistic contents constitute two integrated processes.
The aim of this chapter is to discuss the present situation of bilingual instruc-
tion at the secondary level of education in Poland. Therefore it is the author’s
intention to focus on the role of CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learn-
ing) provision, being the main methodology implemented in Polish schools. The
range and popularity of bilingual programmes in secondary schools will also be
depicted in numbers, with a clear upward trend.

1. What does bilingual education entail?

Any discussion of bilingual education must be preceded by defining the notion of
bilingualism. Hence a comprehensive definition of the term should be provided,
but in fact, it is not an easy task as it may seem since the term evokes various ideas
in the readers’ minds. Bilingualism is a phenomenon, which has always aroused
interest among the researchers of many disciplines, i.e. linguists, psychologists,
174 Piotr Romanowski

speech therapists or pedagogues. Each group of specialists investigates selected

aspects and parameters of bilingualism which are intriguing to them, therefore so
many definitions of bilingualism are available (M. Olpińska-Szkiełko 2004: 48).
Bilingualism, as postulated by C. Baker (2011: 9), entails ‘the use of at least
two languages either by an individual or by a group of speakers.’ Although one
might think that being bilingual involves ‘perfect’ knowledge of both languages,
most linguists nowadays consider less rigorous expectations (L. Ortega 2008).
D. Crystal assumes that there exist people with perfect fluency in two languages,
however they are an exception, not a rule (1987: 362). F. Grosjean perceives bilin-
guals as those who use two or more languages in their everyday lives (2010: 22).
According to J. Cenoz (2008: 220) bilingualism may also lead to multilingualism,
or the acquisition of additional languages in some learners, on condition that bi-
linguals have acquired literacy skills in their both languages. Therefore, due to the
intricacies resulting from the lack of comprehensive definition and the fact that
various scholars may want to focus on a different aspect of bilingualism in their
studies, the phenomenon itself can be analyzed from a multitude of perspectives,
each time shedding light on something distinctly new.
Bilingual education constitutes a complex issue and it should be defined two-
fold. Firstly, it involves educational programmes, which include some degree of
teaching non-language subjects through the medium of the learner’s second and/
or third languages. Secondly, it aims, in accordance with the principles set out by
the Council of Europe, at the development of additive bilingualism among the
school population. If perceived so, bilingual programmes make a significant and
positive contribution, only if they are well-designed, carefully implemented and
relate sensitively to the social and linguistic context.
Ample evidence has been provided in support of the view that poorly designed
or implemented bilingual programmes do not only meet their societal objectives,
but can severely limit the capacity of students to participate in higher education
(P. Ó. Riagáin and G. Lüdi 2003). Contrastively, successfully taught programmes
provide no theoretical or empirical basis for an ideal model of bilingual educa-
tion, suitable for all situations. One of the few points on which researchers in
the field agree is that similar models have produced contrary results in different
settings. While it is obvious that attention must be paid to proven examples of
good practice, it is also clear that success is due more to the complementarity of
the programme components with the goals and resources of a given community.
The programme components should vary depending on the factors that differ not
only across but within communities.
 Some Reflections on the Idiosyncrasy of Bilingual Education 175

2. Programme models and types

What can be observed instantly about bilingual programmes is that the defin-
ing elements differ widely in practice. In order to understand their distinctive
characteristics, some basic models which are classified in terms of their overall
objectives, will be first discussed. Only then will it be possible to identify most,
if not all, of the variants typical of the specific features of each model used at a
particular location.
The initial classification of models has been conducted on the basis of the goals
of bilingual education. C. Baker (2011) made a distinction into weak and strong
models. In weak models of bilingual education we consider bilingualism as an
intermediate stage between monolingualism in L1 and monolingualism in L2.
Hence, they are referred to as transitional models. Some models included under
this heading provide very limited instruction in the students’ first language and
promote their exit into full L2 instruction. On the contrary, strong models aim
at adult bi-/plurilingualism and bi-/pluriliteracy. In other words, they take into
account plurilingual repertoires in their different forms as a valued resource and
represent an instrument to achieve this goal. In this sense, they lend support to
the aspiration of parents living in multilingual settings that their children should
subsequently become competent in a number of languages.
Weak forms of bilingual education normally aim at a controlled transition
from an L1 different from the official school language to the latter (C. Baker 2011,
O. García 2009). They typically appear in cases of immigration and minority
language contexts where submersion programmes (i.e. uncontrolled schooling
in the majority language only) are rejected for pedagogical reasons. There is in-
disputable evidence in many western European countries that first instruction in
L1 gives immigrant children speaking other languages a better preparation when
they enter later into secondary schools where the state language is the medium of
instruction and allows for full democratic citizenship.
On the other hand, strong models of bilingual education depend on the social
context. It seems vital to distinguish between maintenance programmes, restora-
tion programmes and enrichement programmes. Bilingual models aiming at the
maintenance of a lesser used language or of the language of origin of migrants
possess a double aim: to acquire the mainstream language and simultaneously
maintain the community language. They are sometimes referred to as shelter
models or heritage language programmes. Therefore, the goal of maintenance
bilingual programmes is to promote bilingualism, biliteracy or even pluralism.
Languages other than English are seen as resources. Because it promotes the
176 Piotr Romanowski

development of two languages, the outcome is additive bilingualism, which is

associated with positive cognitive benefits (J. Cummins 1986).
In models aiming at the restoration of a minority language that has lost its
prestige, the aim may be, to create the necessary condition for restoring the use
of the minority language as an official and written language. According to J. A.
Fishman (2000) language restoration is often deemed necessary because of the
sheer amount of linguistic diversity being lost. It is estimated that more than
2,000 languages have already become extinct around the world. Besides linguistic
diversity, issues of culture and identity are prominent reasons why language revi-
talization seems so essential. Many people hold the view that languages are unique
‘cultural treasures’. A community’s language is a unique part of their culture, often
connecting them with their ancestors or with the land, making up an essential
part of their history and how they see themselves.
Last but not least, models aiming at the enrichment of monolingual (or already
plurilingual) learners’ language repertoires, i.e. to achieve functional bilingualism
or plurilingualism where it would not develop naturally, aim at the acquisition
of a second language more efficiently by means of bilingual education than by
means of traditional language teaching (e.g. the Canadian immersion model).
Like maintenance bilingual education, the goal of enrichment bilingual education
is pluralistic: the development of biliterate and bilingual individuals. Both (or
several) languages are valued. The outcomes of enrichment bilingual programs
are additive bilingualism, not just for one ethnic group but for majority and mi-
nority speakers. For demographic reasons, these models reach potentially by far
the largest number of students.

3. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)

as an example of effective methodology used in
bilingual education
The European launch of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in
1994 was both educational and political. A major political intention was to raise
levels of plurilingualism within the European Union member states. There was
an additional goal as well, namely an educational one, to constrain success at-
tained on other continents where an additional language is embedded across the
curriculum and to articulate a flexible operational framework for mainstream
education (D. Marsh, M. Zając, H. Gozdawa-Gołębiowska et al. 2008).
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a common term used
for a number of alike approaches intended for the teaching of content subjects
through the medium of a foreign language. D. Wolff (2003: 11) enumerates other
 Some Reflections on the Idiosyncrasy of Bilingual Education 177

terms used interchangeably, such as: Bilingual Content Teaching, Bilingual Sub-
ject Teaching or Content-based Language Teaching. It is worth emphasizing that
the term CLIL is presently the most popular one and it is established on the as-
sumption that foreign languages are best learnt by centering not so much on the
language itself but on the transmitted content taken from school subjects, e.g.
Biology, Physics, Chemistry, etc.
Returning to the origins of CLIL it should be highlighted that the 1995 Resolu-
tion of the Council of Europe referred to the promotion of innovative methods
and, in particular, to the teaching of classes in a foreign language for disciplines
other than languages, providing bilingual teaching. In 2004 the European Com-
mission’s Action Plan for the promotion of Language Learning and Linguistic
Diversity 2004–2006 underlined the major contribution that the teaching of a
subject through the medium of a foreign language (CLIL) greatly contributes to
the EU’s language learning goals. It is not so much what we know but how we use
it, which is so important when we consider effective language learning and com-
munication. As a result, the ways in which the study of subjects such as History,
Geography or Biology and the acquisition of vocational skills through a foreign
language were tested and examined.
The CLIL methodological approach seeking to foster the integrated learning of
languages and other areas of curricular content is a fast developing phenomenon
in Europe. At the European level, the interest is growing in the approach which,
according to P. Mehisto, D. Marsh and M. J. Frigols (2014), brings about many
benefits to students. M. Dakowska (2014: 47) refers to CLIL as a system rather
than a method and she rightly notices its fairly good reputation in the context of
foreign language educations adding that it is regarded as a more effective solu-
tion in an increasing number of educational contexts than mainstream methods.
Various EU initiatives in the field of CLIL have been implemented in recent years.
The underlying principle refers to the belief that young people should be more
effectively prepared for the multilingual and cultural requirements of diversified
culturally, ethnically and linguistically Europe where mobility is expanding.
Aware of this challenge, national policy-makers in the field of education have
been taking a greater interest in CLIL and trying to offer a wide variety of initia-
tives consistent with the circumstances they are in. Complementing the national
profiles reported in the Eurydice survey, numerous teacher-based publications
(A. Maljers, D. Marsh and D. Wolff 2007, D. Marsh and D. Wolff 2007, C. Dalton-
Puffer 2011) provide insights into how CLIL is being realized in more than 20
European countries. One important concluding fact, transversal to all these stud-
ies, is the predominance of the English language. If the pre-eminence of Global
178 Piotr Romanowski

English seems absolutely clear in the EU schools as far as conventional foreign

language teaching is concerned, the same will occur when we propose the CLIL
provision. On the other hand, the current linguistic situation might be viewed
as an opportunity for incorporating a greater number of other EU languages, i.e.
French, Spanish, German and Italian. Although this type of education resembles
the classic immersion type of school, one important difference stands out. Con-
trary to some immersion programmes, CLIL does give an important role to tra-
ditional language teaching. The relationship between these two facts is a possible
interpretation to the provision of multilingual education programmes integrating
Global English and linguistic diversity.
Over the past two decades an increasing body of research has demonstrated
that CLIL can enhance multilingualism and provide opportunities for deepening
learners’ knowledge and skills. CLIL has been found to be additive (one language
supporting the other) and not subtractive (one language working against the other).
It involves a process which is generally curriculum-driven with the language cur-
riculum arising from the content curriculum. As the Eurydice report shows, many
countries in Europe are currently trying to make use of the CLIL approach in their
respective school systems. The process of introducing CLIL is gaining momentum
everywhere in Europe, although its speed varies considerably from country to
country (D. Marsh, M. Zając, H. Gozdawa-Gołębiowska et al. 2008).
It is understandable that CLIL as a methodological approach has been taken up
by so many European countries. Changes in society – the European dimension,
globalization, and new technologies – have created new educational needs which
have influenced curricular developments. Additionally, in order to enhance the
new curricular needs, we have to call into question our present approaches to
teaching and learning in our schools and reflect upon them.
Following the same line of reasoning, it should be openly declared that CLIL
has been seen to be a leading factor in developing the eight competences for
lifelong learning as recommended by the European Parliament in 2006. These
competences, which combine knowledge and skills appropriate for life in the 21st
century, include communication in the mother tongue and foreign languages,
learning to learn, social and civic competences, sense of initiative and entrepre-
neurship, cultural awareness and expression. They are considered interdependent
with emphasis in each on critical thinking, creativity and problem solving.
CLIL has been very explicit about delineating that Learning involves the Inte-
gration of both Content and Language, i.e. learning of any content must involve
the learning of the language associated with it. At the level of schooling, suc-
cessful education in either a first or additional language requires that learners
 Some Reflections on the Idiosyncrasy of Bilingual Education 179

are equipped with the language for thinking about the content. When learning
through CLIL, where an additional language is used, language-supportive re-
sources, methods and activities are actively and coherently used to enable learn-
ers the use of language purposefully. This support acts as a form of scaffolding,
helping learners to effectively process information, negotiate understanding, and
co-construct knowledge (P. Mehisto, D. Marsh and M. J. Frigols 2014).
Considering the fact that English has become, on one hand, the language of
science and academic research and, on the other hand, an obligatory subject in
all schools, the most logical decision would be to combine the two achievements
so that a learner could take advantage of them simultaneously. This is the core of
CLIL, also labeled as a dual-focused educational approach, in which an additional
language is used for the learning and teaching of content and language with the
objective of promoting both content and language mastery to pre‐defined levels
(D. Marsh et al. 2010).
As stated earlier, teaching and learning through a foreign language has a long
tradition in Europe, particularly in border regions. In practical situations, such
school subjects as Geography, Physics, Mathematics or Biology are instructed in
a language which is not the learners’ native language, and at the same time some
particular elements of its content may appear in typical language classes so as to
introduce absolutely essential vocabulary or grammatical structures needed in the
discussion of the phenomena in non-language classes (P. Mehisto, D. Marsh and
M. J. Frigols 2014). The theoretical basis and practical application of CLIL, was
later recognized as applicable to contexts where learners, frequently from migrant
backgrounds, needed to accelerate to study through the majority language of the
school (J. Anderson 2009). It is essential to highlight that the additional language
is not supposed to be the only medium of instruction, and thus it should be used
interchangeably with the mother tongue. Its frequency of use will largely depend
on its level of advancement among teachers and students, as well as the complexity
of discussed issues. That is why integrating language and non-language content
has been referred to as the hallmark of all forms of bilingual education (F. Genesee
1987, F. Genesee and J. Cenoz 1998: 35–67).

4. Implementation of CLIL-based curricular models in

Polish schools
Although the tradition of bilingual education is well-established in Poland, re-
cently there has been observed an even more increased social demand for such
instruction. As a result, in the past ten years bilingual secondary schools have
mushroomed. However they are considered to be reserved only for linguistically
180 Piotr Romanowski

gifted learners, selected carefully through a language aptitude test. It is noteworthy

that there are no bilingual programmes available in languages other than the domi-
nant European languages (English, French, German, Spanish, Italian and Russian).
The first bilingual programmes were introduced at the beginning of 1990s in
leading secondary schools in Warsaw, Cracow, Gdańsk and Poznań, although
bilingual education as such was not a new phenomenon in Poland even in those
times. Its tradition had already been established as early as the 1970s (K. Papaja
2014: 25). Obviously the kind of instruction offered at the beginning was limited
and followed a totally different pattern as some subjects were taught through the
medium of English for the whole time of a lesson. However, most of the schools
involved in bilingual teaching in 1990s had a very long tradition of high quality
foreign language instruction, which became feasible inter alia thanks to their prior
contacts with various schools from abroad and other institutions offering support,
i.e. foreign diplomatic missions and consular posts in Poland as well as respec-
tive Ministries of Education of France, Germany or Spain (M. Multańska 2002).
What has been observed in Poland though is the dominance and ubiquity of
English as the language of instruction in bilingual teaching. There is no deny-
ing the importance of English as a common means of communication across
the world, or its strength as the first foreign language of choice for most non-
Anglophone countries in Europe and outside, nonetheless most of the students
involved in bilingual programmes in Polish secondary schools are exposed to
English, because they undisputedly perceive its superiority over other foreign
languages (P. Romanowski 2016: 67). On that account some further aspects with
regards to bilingual education, which are delineated in the present chapter, will
be limited to English only in numerous instances.
In Polish secondary schools different approaches have been implemented in
bilingual education. All of them, as mentioned previously, originated from CLIL
methodology. Following D. Marsh, M. Zając, H. Gozdawa-Gołębiowska et al.
(2008) there are four main types of instruction or curricular models to be dis-
tinguished in Polish schools. The distinctive feature lies in the amount of target
language used versus the application of mother tongue and the rationale behind
each model has been shown below.
In Model A, referred to as Extensive English Language Medium Instruction,
lessons are mainly conducted in English, as far as both the lesson and syllabus
realization are concerned. The mother tongue is restricted to situations where
translation of terminology is required or short recapitulation of the main points
is needed. This model is used to achieve the syllabus aims as well as to develop
learners’ language competence at a very high level. The rationale behind this
 Some Reflections on the Idiosyncrasy of Bilingual Education 181

model is to achieve the expected content learning outcomes, while developing

and using a very high degree of competence in English. A high degree of fluency
in Polish is an assumed competence.
In Model B, often labeled as Partial English Language Medium Instruction,
lessons are conducted in both English and Polish and the two languages are used
interchangeably (code-switching) and whenever it is necessary. About 50% of les-
son time is devoted to each language. The predominant aim is to achieve course
objectives, less attention is paid to linguistic competence. The rationale behind
this model is to achieve expected content learning outcomes, while developing
and using a very high degree of competence in English. A high degree of fluency
in Polish is an assumed competence.
Model C, called Limited English Language Medium Instruction, offers lessons
with limited use of English – using both Polish and English interchangeably is
common as well as frequent code-switching. Between 10% and 50% of lesson
time is devoted to a foreign language. Teaching the aspects of course content is the
primary objective whereas the linguistic knowledge is expanded chiefly through
the study of new lexis and the already existing knowledge is used to a great extent.
The rationale behind this model is to achieve expected content learning outcomes
alongside limited use of English. This generally involves activation of existing
knowledge, supplementing this with new words, terms and concepts, and provid-
ing opportunities for cross-linguistic development. A high degree of fluency in
Polish is an assumed competence.
Finally, when English is used only on particular occasions we talk about Model
D, often defined as Specific English Language Medium Instruction. Very little time
is devoted to English, which is mainly used to achieve particular aims (i.e. a lesson
is conducted in Polish, but it is based on texts in English or project work where
the results are presented in English, however most of the content studied earlier
is available in Polish). This model is complementary as it focuses on the course
objectives and the secondary aim involves the use and development of foreign
language competence. The rationale behind this model is to complement courses
taught in Polish and fulfill the expected content learning outcomes by providing
opportunities for specific forms of English language usage and development.
Each of the operational models involves different objectives in relation to the
English language. These objectives may not always be explicit and each model
may involve multiple goals and a different emphasis at given points in the cur-
riculum. The objectives constitute the added value which is ultimately gained by
students when learning in English through the different models. They have been
classified in five groups:
182 Piotr Romanowski

1/ The Language Dimension (improvement of overall English language compe-

tence and development of English oral communication and presentation skills);
2/ The Content Dimension (provision of opportunities to study content through
different perspectives, accessing subject-specific English language terminology,
preparation for future studies and/or working life);
3/ The Cultural Dimension (development of intercultural communication skills
and building intercultural knowledge);
4/ The Environmental Dimension (development of European and international
orientation, accessing international certification, enhancing school profiles –
and thus providing students with an enriched learning environment);
5/ The Learning Dimension (diversification of methods and forms of classroom
practice and increasing learner motivation).
The decisions made about the introduction of English to these variants (models)
often involve enhancing motivation to use English, the consolidation of knowl-
edge and learning in English as a form of added value and providing alternative
platforms for learning. For this reason, the outcomes resulting from the extra
dimensions discussed above imply that bilingual programmes do not only provide
thorough linguistic education, but also enable the students to acquire social and
civic competences indispensable to every EU citizen.

5. Subjects taught bilingually in the Polish system of education

The choice and number of taught subjects varies from country to country. In most
EU countries it does not exceed 2 or 3 subjects. In Poland, however 4 or 5 subjects
are offered concurrently. In addition, exact sciences, such as: Physics, Chemistry,
Biology and Mathematics are the most frequent choices in schools (Z. Dzięgielewska
2002, J. Iluk 2000). They are regarded as difficult subjects in comparison to human-
istic subjects, such as: Philosophy, History of Art or History, where instruction is
also provided in a foreign language. The cycle, during which the subjects are taught,
lasts three years (lower-secondary schools and secondary schools). This implies that
learners cannot achieve a satisfactory level of cognitive academic language profi-
ciency (J. Cummins 1986) for which at least five years of instruction are necessary
if a native-like competence is to be developed. However, the length of bilingual in-
struction might be extended on condition that students of lower-secondary schools
decide to continue their education onto the next cycle (secondary schools) obtaining
six years of consecutive preparation in the target language.
It is important to note that thanks to bilingual education limited to even one
subject with a minimum number of hours, students will be able to increase their
 Some Reflections on the Idiosyncrasy of Bilingual Education 183

competence to a much higher level when compared to a traditional way of teach-

ing a foreign language. When considering the number of subjects, it is worthwhile
to think of the students’ cognitive capabilities. The exceeded number of subjects or
their incorrect combination might lead to overloading and as a consequence it will
result in negative emotions decreasing motivation and engagement in overcom-
ing difficulties. J. Iluk (2002: 30–31) postulates that disregarding the complexity
resulting from the above mentioned factors causes a fast reduction in the effec-
tiveness of teaching. Thus decisions pertaining to the scope of taught subjects
within one school year as well as their load should take into account the level of
difficulty for a particular subject measured with the amount of required terminol-
ogy, complexity of texts, teaching conditions and language as well as cognitive
potentials of the learners.
Yet another issue to remember about regards the proportion of hours of in-
struction in the mother tongue vs. the target language. A very intensive pro-
gramme in a foreign language may negatively affect the development of the target
language due to the fact that students will not have a chance to learn and use prop-
erly the academic discourse typical of their mother tongue if all the instruction
is realized through the target language. It seems vital in this case to recommend
establishing a limit of hours assigned to the instruction in a target language to
25% of the total teaching time. As proved by J. Cummins (1986), the best results
of bilingual education are to be attained if the learners’ L1 competence is high
enough. Hence, it is proposed for students to strengthen their L1 competence in
the registers used in the school environment at first as the level of competence
in L1 determines the level of competence in L2. The following line of argument
compels us to think that the development of academic discourse in L1 should
precede its growth in L2 whereas the advocates of bilingual education advise the
development of both types of discourse simultaneously. The potential danger will
undoubtedly be translated into weaker performance of students in their mother
tongue, so it is rightly emphasized that at least one hour of instruction in the
mother tongue per each subject taught in a foreign language should be offered.

6. Bilingual education in Polish secondary schools in numbers

Following M. Pawlak’s report (2015) it should be stressed that there are 94 schools
in Poland offering bilingual instruction in 348 sections and educating over 9,000
students. In comparison, it is noteworthy that the number of lower-secondary
schools with bilingual instruction in Poland is twice as higher.
184 Piotr Romanowski

Table 1: Secondary schools with bilingual education programmes

Voivodeship Number of schools Number of students

Mazovian 25 2660
Silesian 13 1621
Pomeranian 10 1077
Greater Poland 8 894
Opole 7 235
Lower Silesian 6 503
Łódzkie 6 478
West Pomeranian 5 448
Kuyavian-Pomeranian 4 435
Lesser Poland 3 499
Lublin 2 252
Podlaskie 2 119
Subcarpathian 1 13
Lubusz 1 43
Warmian-Masurian 1 126
Świętokrzyskie 0 0
Total 94 9403

Bilingual instruction at secondary level takes place in almost all the Polish
voivodeships, although the highest number of schools and sections has been noted
in bigger cities, such as: Warsaw, Katowice, Gdańsk and Poznań. The most popular
language taught is English present in half of the reported schools. German seems
to be the second most popular language if we consider the number of schools,
however if our criterion changes to the number of students, it appears that Spanish
is the second leading foreign language offered in Polish secondary schools. French
is less popular and taught in only 10% of the schools with bilingual instruction.
Italian and Russian are taught in only two schools each, with the former being
slightly more popular.
The geographical distribution of bilingual sections according to languages is
also of interest. English is present in most of the voivodeships whereas German
is particularly popular in the western part of Poland. On the contrary, the in-
struction in Spanish and French is offered only in the biggest cities. With the
least popular languages, the following conclusion can be drawn: the less popular
a language is, the more likely it is that it will be taught only in the voivodeships
with the highest population.
 Some Reflections on the Idiosyncrasy of Bilingual Education 185

Table 2: Popularity of languages taught

Language of instruction Number of schools Number of sections Number of students

English 56 190 5144
German 22 51 1307
Spanish 15 54 1511
French 12 44 1278
Italian 2 6 115
Russian 2 2 48
Total 109 347 9403

It might seem inconsistent with reason to deliberate in which direction a further

trend will develop although, on the other hand, such inclinations have always
existed. The statistical analysis indicates that the most desirable language offered
in bilingual programmes is English. It has also been observed that the majority
of schools are concentrated in bigger cities, however recently a tendency has been
noted to advance bilingual teaching in smaller communities, usually to diversify
the educational offer, maintain viability of classes or simply suggest new solutions
to the ever-changing demands of people and markets. On this final point, it should
be stressed that it is Spanish, whose European speakers could outnumber those
of French and German in the future, is gaining in popularity not only in Europe,
but it is also spoken and taught on other continents.
In addition to all the foregoing, perhaps it would be essential to articulate the
fact that in the context of promoting plurilingualism, there is sufficient evidence
of interest in the learning of non-European languages. Yet in a time of economic
globalization, it appears essential to pay more attention to the numbers of learners
of Chinese, Japanese or Arabic attending respective courses apart from the school
hours. In this case, bilingual education or CLIL may also be a practical means of
introducing non-European languages. Students who have acquired a satisfactory
competence in English will be able to extend their plurilingualism to study an
Asian or African language through the tongue previously learnt.

Conclusion
In Poland, bilingual classes and sections are coming up in a very intensive way. It
is possible to benefit from the experiences of other countries. At the first step, it
seems important to define what should be the aim(s) of this kind of education. It
is necessary to be clear about the outcomes for the Polish pupils and students. As a
second step, it could be possible to point out which non-linguistic disciplines seem
186 Piotr Romanowski

to be particularly appropriate for this kind of teaching and learning. Every non-
linguistic discipline may give their own contribution to the bilingual aim, even if
not every topic seems to be adequate for it. The challenge is to define the chances
and the limits of all non-linguistic disciplines in a model of bilingual education.
Last but not least, there is also the issue of English to be considered. In bilingual
teaching this target language must (and will) have different aims and methods
than every other language. The greater Europe needs competences in more than
one foreign language, so bilingual education may be one solution for the multi-
lingual Europe of the future. Hence we need to pursue a further development of
plurilingual competence in our bilingual programmes as envisaged in the Council
of Europe documents.

References
Anderson, J. 2009. Relevance of CLIL in developing pedagogies for minority lan-
guage teaching. In: Marsh, D. et al. (Eds.), CLIL Practice: Perspectives from the
field. CCN University of Jyväskylä. 124–132.
Baker, C. 2011. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (5th edn.).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cenoz, J. 2008. The acquisition of additional languages. In: Estudios de linguistic
inglesa aplicada (ELIA) 8. 219–224.
Cenoz, J. and Genesee, F. (Eds.). 1998. Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and
Multilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Crystal, D. 1987. The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Language. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Cummins, J. 1986. Linguistic interdependence: A central principle of bilingual
education. In: Cummins J. and M. Swain (Eds.) Bilingualism in education. Lon-
don: Longman. 139–161.
Dakowska, M. 2014. Why does CLIL work? A psycholinguistic perspective. In:
Olpińska-Szkiełko, M. and L. Bertelle (Eds.). Zweisprachigkeit und bilingualer
Unterricht. Warszawa and Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang. 47–64.
Dalton-Puffer, C. 2011. Content and language integrated learning: From practice
to principle? In: Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31(1). 182–204.
Dzięgielewska, Z. 2002. Problematyka nauczania języka i przedmiotów
niejęzykowych w klasach dwujęzycznych – licea z językiem francuskim. In:
Języki Obce w Szkole 6. 79–82.
European Commission. 2004. Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity:
An action plan 2004–06, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the
 Some Reflections on the Idiosyncrasy of Bilingual Education 187

European Communities. Available at: <http://www.saaic.sk/eu-label/doc/2004-

06_en.pdf>.
Fishman, J. A. 2000 Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
García, O. 2009 Bilingual Education in the 21st Century. A Global Perspective.
Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Genesee, F. 1987. Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilin-
gual education. Rowley: Newbury House.
Grosjean, F. 2010 Bilingual: Life and Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Iluk, J. 2000. Nauczanie bilingwalne: modele, koncepcje, założenia metodyczne.
Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
Iluk, J. 2002. Problemy kształcenia dwujęzycznego w Polsce. In: Języki Obce w
Szkole 6. 27–36.
Maljers, A., Marsh, D. and Wolff, D. (Eds.). 2007. Windows on CLIL. Content and
Language Integrated Learning in the European Spotlight. European Platform
for Dutch Education.
Marsh, D. and Wolff, D. (Eds.). 2007. Diverse Contexts – Converging Goals. CLIL
in Europe. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang.
Marsh, D., Zając, M., Gozdawa-Gołębiowska, H. et al. 2008. Profile Report Bilin-
gual Education (English) in Poland. Overview of Practice in Selected Schools.
CODN, British Council Poland, University of Jyväskylä.
Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D. and Frigols-Martin, M. 2010. The European
Framework for CLIL Teacher Education, Graz: European Centre for Modern
Languages (ECML).
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D. and Frigols, M. J. 2014. Uncovering CLIL. Content and
Language Integrated Learning in Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Oxford:
Macmillan Education.
Multańska, M. 2002. Nauczanie dwujęzyczne w Polsce – stan prawny. In: Języki
Obce w Szkole 6. 89–90.
Olpińska-Szkiełko, M. 2004. Wychowanie dwujęzyczne. Warszawa: KJS Uniwer-
sytet Warszawski.
Ortega, L. 2008. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge.
Riagáin, P. Ó., Lüdi, G. 2003. Bilingual Education: Some Policy Issues. Strasbourg:
Council of Europe.
Papaja, K. 2014. Focus on CLIL. A qualitative evaluation of Content and Language
Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Secondary Education. Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars.
188 Piotr Romanowski

Pawlak, M. 2015. Edukacja dwujęzyczna w polskich szkołach. Raport ewaluacyjny.

Warszawa: Ośrodek Rozwoju Edukacji.
Romanowski, P. 2016. A Statistical Analysis of the State of Foreign Language
Learning in the EU. In: Lingwistyka Stosowana – Applied Linguistics – Ange-
wandte Linguistik 17. 67–79.
Wolff, D. 2003. Integrating language and content in the language classroom: Are
transfer of knowledge and of language ensured? In: Anglais de Spécialité 41/42.
35–46.