do not always randomly assign students to a particular program, especially when there are more applicants than places (see e.g., Apsel, 2010; Genesee, 1987; Swain & Lapkin, 1982; Zaunbauer & Möller, 2007). Student-selection factors may include the age-appropriate knowledge of the L1, the ability to concentrate, perseverance, commitment and/or communication abilities (e.g., Kersten, Fischer, Burmeister, Lommel, Schelletter, Steinlen & Thomas, 2010b). For example, employing a large longitudinal study comparing students in mainstream and IM elementary schools in Germany, Zaunbauer & Möller (2007, see also Zaunbauer & Möller, 2006, 2010; Gebauer, Zaunbauer & Möller, 2012, 2013) reported that in grade 1, IM students outperformed their peers in mainstream programs in a nonverbal intelligence test and pointed out that these cognitive differences may also point to prior selection effects (see also chapter 2.6).
Elementary schools may discourage parents of struggling learners (e.g., dyslexic children and children with auditory / perceptual / concentration problems) to attend an IM program, often reasoning that such a program would be too large of a burden for such children (Fischer, 2019). Other schools have opted for an alternative solution: when more students than can be accepted to the bilingual program have applied for admission, these students are randomly assigned to a bilingual or regular school program. For example, many IM schools, particularly in Canada, employ a lottery system, as in the case of the St. Lambert school (e.g., Genesee, 1987). Ideally, then, the IM students would be identical to regular students in all respects, except that they would be enrolled in different programs. Indeed, the results of nonverbal intelligence tests carried out in the St. Lambert school did not show any differences between first graders in the IM and in the regular program (e.g., Lambert & MacNamara, 1969; Lambert & Tucker, 1972; Genesee, 1987).
The three schools where data have been drawn for this study deal very differently with the admission of students in their bilingual programs (see chapter 4.1 for more information). The Muhlius Schule in Kiel and the Platanus Schule in Berlin offer only one FL program, and that is a bilingual one. However, the Muhlius Schule is a public school, catering to a relatively high number of students with learning difficulties or associated problems that hinder learning (e.g., Steinlen & Gerdes, 2015), and there are no restrictions on admission. The Platanus Schule in Berlin is a private school, and the children are preselected for cognitive, linguistic and communicative skills (see Steinlen & Piske, 2018c). The Hügelschule in Tübingen, finally, has offered both a regular program and a partial immersion program since 2008/09 (e.g., Steinlen, 2016, 2017, 2018a, b; Steinlen & Piske, 2013, 2015, 2016a, b, 2018, 2020; Tamm, 2010). So far, a lottery system had to be employed only once. However, as teachers and the heads of the school point out, preselectional effects cannot be ruled out because the parents usually enroll their child in the bilingual program when they are very confident that s/he would indeed be able to master it without any difficulties (see also Apsel, 2012; Zydatiß, 2009: 161 for similar impressions). Despite this, the results of a nonverbal intelligence test conducted in grade 1 in this school, with 256 students attending either a regular or a bilingual program, did not indicate any significant differences between the two groups (Yadollahi, Steinlen & Piske, 2020, see also Steinlen & Piske i. pr.).
2.3.5 Curricula for bilingual teaching in Germany
In 2013, the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (KMK, 2013b) published a report on bilingual instruction in Germany in secondary (but not in elementary) schools. In this context, bilingual instruction is defined similarly to CLIL (Eurydice, 2006), namely that “it refers to the teaching of a current subject other than foreign languages in more than one language” (KMK, 2013b: 3). The report emphasizes that the curriculum of the content subject constitutes the basis for bilingual instruction (KMK, 2013b: 8) and that the learning goal is content knowledge in the content subject in two languages. Furthermore, acquired knowledge and skills in the bilingual content subject should be the same as in the corresponding regular (i.e., monolingual German) content subject (KMK, 2013b: 8).
As the only Federal State to do so, the Ministerium Baden-Württemberg für Kultus, Jugend und Sport (2008) published information on bilingual instruction at the elementary school level (“Niveaukonkretisierungen”, supplementing the curriculum for English 2004-2015). Referring explicitly to the subject MeNuK (Fächerverbund Mensch, Natur und Kultur, which combines science and culture) as an appropriate bilingual content subject, English competences for grade 4 are very briefly described in terms of lexical knowledge, world knowledge and writing skills. Unfortunately, these expectations do not deviate much from the standards set for English-as-a-subject lessons (see Ministerium Baden-Württemberg für Kultus, Jugend und Sport, 2004); that is, the close link between FL and content learning has not been taken into consideration. Administrative regulations, approval requirements, scope and duration or teacher qualifications, assessment and certification measures are also not provided by the Ministries of Education for Baden-Württemberg, Berlin or Schleswig-Holstein.
2.3.6 Teacher supply for bilingual programs in Germany
In Germany, many teachers in bilingual elementary school programs hold a degree in bilingual teaching (Piske, 2015). According to the KMK (2013b), teachers in such programs (independent of the school form) ideally have obtained a teaching qualification for a content subject (e.g., math, science, geography) and for a modern foreign language (e.g., English, French). Regarding the schools in this study, most teachers at the bilingual program in the Hügelschule in Tübingen (Baden-Württemberg) hold a degree in bilingual teaching (“Europalehramt” at the Pädagogische Hochschulen Freiburg or Karlsruhe) or a degree for English-as-a-subject and for another content subject. However, there are problems with teacher supply due to a lack of training courses in many Federal States. Therefore, it is also possible to teach in a bilingual program with a teaching qualification for a subject and a high level of FL competence, which should at least correspond to C1 (according to the CEFR, European Commission, 2001). For example, the teachers in the Muhlius Schule in Kiel (Schleswig-Holstein) have all spent at least three years or more in an English-speaking country, whereas the teachers at the Platanus Schule in Berlin are either native English speakers or have a high competence in English at the C2 level.
In order to meet the demand for teachers in bilingual programs, the obvious solution is to employ teachers who are trained with a dual subject qualification, holding, for example, joint degrees in English and science for elementary schools. However, even in such cases, teachers are usually not provided with the specific English terminology for the respective subject (e.g., science or mathematics), and they usually do not have any experience in teaching science in the bilingual classroom. Usually, teachers working in schools with bilingual programs have pragmatically developed a certain teaching method of their own, frequently unsystematic, highly personal in style, and yet, just as frequently, highly successful. Still, the need to increase systematic bilingual-oriented teacher training, specifically aimed at the needs of the bilingual classroom (such as the “Europalehramt”), is more than obvious (e.g., Burmeister & Pasternak, 2004; Fischer, 2019; Kersten et al., 2010b; Möller, Fleckenstein, Hohenstein, Preusler, Paulick, Isabell & Baumert, 2018; Tel2L, 2000).
2.3.7 Supply of materials for bilingual programs
Although the KMK (2013b) stated that the Federal States of Germany are responsible for teaching and learning resources for bilingual teaching, it is still a challenge to find appropriate materials for many teachers (e.g., Tel2L, 2000). Although it may be fairly easy to collect authentic teaching materials from the country of the target language, these are in most cases unsuitable for immediate use in the classroom as they are often much too demanding for FL learners in their original language version. Hence the teacher has to adapt the language of authentic materials to the learners’ level of achievement in the FL, which requires extra work. Nevertheless, authentic materials provide the intercultural touch which is also one of the core objectives of bilingual teaching. It therefore remains a delicate balance and is up to the individual judgement of the teacher to assess such authentic materials for use in the bilingual classroom (see also e.g.,
