passes in Class XII, there was only one Anglo-Indian girl
and one Anglo-Indian boy. The head girl and head boy in
Anglo-Indian schools were not Anglo-Indians, and one
Principal noted that in the last thirty years only one
Anglo-Indian was selected as the head boy.
An examination of the prize day awards in four Anglo-Indian
boarding schools and six day schools supported these
statements. In an examination of three schools' Prize Day
Programmes, there were only two Anglo-Indian boys who were
awarded prizes in Standard 10 (16+) for Computer Studies,
eight students who won prizes for Sports in Standards III
to VII, and there was a general decline for prizes in craft
after Standard VI. There were no Anglo-Indian girls who
won prizes in these three schools. (47)
It was in the context of the idea of a negotiated
curriculum that Anglo-Indian students were offered
compensatory vocational courses. But, the negotiation was
linked with the Anglo-Indians failing to pass the
compulsory Indian language examination at 16+.
There were definite advantages with the apparent short-term
goals and greater curriculum breadth, but these modular
courses were offered instead of enabling Anglo-Indians to
pass an Indian language examination. The modular courses
were being linked with failure. The modular courses in
schools tended to focus on the theoretical; there was no
apparatus to set up a dialogue between theory and its
practical application.
The next section outlines a comparison of bilingual
research conducted in Australia with aboriginal children,
the United States of America with Mexican, French and Asian
children, Europe with Dutch children and Canada with
French children. These research studies in bilingual
programmes in schools suggest that the bilingual child
279