social practices and power relations (Edelsky et al., 1983; Wiley, 1996). CALP or academic language proficiency represents little more than test-wiseness - it is an artifact of the inappropriate way in which it has been measured (Edelsky et al., 1983). The notion of CALP promotes a deficit theory insofar as it attributes the academic failure of bilingual/minority students to low cognitive/academic proficiency rather than to inappropriate schooling (Edelsky, 1990; Edelsky et al., 1983; Martin-Jones & Romaine, 1986).In response to these critiques, Cummins (Cummins & Swain, 1983; Cummins, in press) pointed to the elaborated sociopolitical framework within which the BICS/CALP distinction was placed (Cummins, 1986, 1996) where underachievement among subordinated students was attributed to coercive relations of power operating in the society at large and reflected in schooling practices. He also invoked the work of Biber (1986) and Corson (1995) as evidence of the linguistic reality of the distinction. Corson highlighted the enormous lexical differences between typical conversational interactions in English as compared to academic or literacy-related uses of English. Similarly, Bibers analysis of more than one million words of English speech and written text revealed underlying dimensions very consistent with the distinction between conversational and academic aspects of language proficiency. Cummins also pointed out that the construct of academic language proficiency does not in any way depend on test scores as support for either its construct validity or relevance to education, as illustrated by the analyses of Corson and Biber.ConclusionThe distinction between BICS and CALP has exerted a significant impact on a variety of educational policies and practices in both North America and the United Kingdom (e.g. Cline & Frederickson, 1996). Specific ways in which educators' misunderstanding of the nature of language proficiency have contributed to the creation of academic difficulties among bilingual students have been highlighted by the distinction. At a theoretical level, however, the distinction is likely to remain controversial, reflecting the fact that there is no cross-disciplinary consensus regarding the nature of language proficiency and its relationship to academic achievement. References Biber, D. (1986) Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory findings. Language, 62, 384-414. Bruner, J.S. (1975) Language as an instrument of thought. In A. Davies (ed.), Problems of language and learning. London: Heinemann. Cline, T. & Frederickson, N. (eds.) (1996) Curriculum related assessment, Cummins and bilingual children, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Collier, V. P. (1987) Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 617-641. Corson, D. (1995) Using English words. New York: Kluwer. Cummins, J. (1979) Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, No. 19, 121-129. Cummins, J. (1981a) Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada. A reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 2, l32-l49. Cummins, J. (1981b) The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University, Los Angeles. Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy.