Search

Pushback against the perceived federal overreach into educational reform has led to renewed calls for a return to local control of schools. In contrast to this general trend, there has continued to be a strong national role for English learner (EL) accountability policies related to EL identification, monitoring and reclassification processes. In this article, we seek to bring attention to the historical development and contemporary instantiation of these EL accountability policies. The general accountability system has typically focused on coercive strategies connected to rewards and sanctions. In contrast, the EL accountability system has typically focused on harnessing the expertise of research to provide increasingly specific guidelines for how to meet federal mandates related to supporting students officially classified as ELs. This approach may help explain how national actors have been able to maintain an active role in shaping these policies without being perceived as a threat to local control. We conclude with implications for national educational actors interested in using authority to shape other areas of educational policy as well as possible limitations of this approach.

Conceptualizations of competence that permeate applied linguistics systematically fail to account for the role of racialization in language learning and assessments thereof. To interrogate the racialization of linguistic competence, we first examine its discursive emergence in conjunction with the ideological construction of linguistic homogeneity as central to the naturalization of race within the context of European colonialism. We then track how ideas about linguistic competence took shape jointly with a genre of the human that is overrepresented as white, as well as how this particular genre of the human informed foundational conceptualizations of communicative competence. After analyzing relevant examples of how communicative competence has been taken up in ways that reify this racializing ideology, we end with an alternative conceptualization of the goals of language learning that focuses on the worldviews and lifeways of racialized communities to move beyond universalizing conceptions of competence as the desired outcome.

The term translanguaging has received a great deal of attention in recent years in applied linguistics. Originally coined to describe a bilingual pedagogical approach Ofelia García extended the definition to encompass the multiple discursive practices of bilingual communities. This broader definition has been taken up in many different ways by scholars seeking to challenge dominant conceptualizations of bi/multilingualism. In this article, I describe the ways that translanguaging offered me a point of entry for better understanding my own experiences as a US Latino. In addition, I discuss how it has equipped me with theoretical tools for speaking back to the deficit perspectives that I inflicted on my students as an English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher. I then trace the ways that these theoretical tools eventually led me to develop a research agenda, which point to the raciolinguistic ideologies that lie at the core of these deficit perspectives.

At the core of contemporary U.S. language education policy is the dichotomous dividing of bilingual students into English learners, who are entitled to extra support, and non-English learners, who are not entitled to this support. In this article, we genealogically trace the normative assumptions that have gone into this framing of the issue. We begin by examining the historical development of this dichotomous grouping of bilingual students within the remedial framing of the Bilingual Education Act that, building on the verbal deprivation theory that was prominent at the time, reproduced raciolinguistic ideologies that framed the language practices of bilingual students from low-income families as deficient and in need of remediation. Next, we examine how this remedial framing provided incentives for proponents of bilingual education to advocate for limited English proficiency to be defined as broadly as possible to ensure that more students were deemed eligible for these programs. We then examine contemporary vignettes that point to the tensions that this ideological underpinning has created for contemporary U.S. language education policymakers. We end with a discussion of ways of reconceptualizing U.S. language education policy that reject the remedial orientation that has informed this dichotomous framing and is responsive to the tensions illustrated in these vignettes.

In recent years, there has been a massive expansion of dual language education (DLE) programs across the United States. Many of these programs are located in relatively affluent areas with large numbers of white professional families. Yet, most Latinx students attend high-poverty schools. In this article, we use the School District of Philadelphia as a case study of efforts to expand DLE in such high-poverty schools with large concentrations of Latinx students. We first offer a historical overview of bilingual education in Philadelphia, emphasizing the ways that broader political and economic challenges impeded efforts to develop and sustain quality programs. We then examine a recent effort to expand DLE in the district. Using case studies of three different schools, we illustrate the ways that broader racialized histories that have created and exacerbated the segregation and poverty of Latinx communities within the city have made it difficult for these programs to be successfully implemented.

While applied linguistics research can serve as an important site for understanding and contributing to efforts toward challenging historical and contemporary power structures, it is also crucial to interrogate how numerous normative concepts and logics within the field of applied linguistics both reflect and reenact dominant power structures. Centering colonialism and racism in our analysis, this commentary considers how applied linguistics often focuses on modest reforms supporting affirmation and inclusion of marginalized populations and practices, rather than on fundamental institutional changes required to eradicate the forces that produce marginalization. As applied linguists grapple with questions surrounding the extent to which their work contributes in substantive ways to social justice struggles, we are inspired by collaborations that challenge us to reconsider normative assumptions about both language and justice. These collaborations demand a comprehensive reckoning that frames social justice not as a normative reality that can be achieved through modest reforms to liberal governance, but rather as an existential horizon that necessitates a fundamental reimagination of communication's role in narrating and creating decolonial worlds that sustain collective well-being.

Following Boaventura de Sousa Santos, the authors of this article reject the type of "abyssal thinking" that erases the existence of counter-hegemonic knowledges and lifeways, adopting instead the "from the inside out" perspective that is required for thinking constructively about the language and education of racialized bilinguals. On the basis of deep personal experience and extensive field-work research, we challenge prevailing assumptions about language, bilingualism, and education that are based on raciolinguistic ideologies with roots in colonialism. Adopting a translanguaging perspective that rejects rigid colonial boundaries of named languages, we argue that racialized bilingual learners, like all students, draw from linguistic-semiotic, cultural, and historical repertoires. The decolonial approach that guides our work reveals these students making a world by means of cultural and linguistic practices derived from their own knowledge systems. We propose that in order to attain justice and success, a decolonial education must center non-hegemonic modes of "otherwise thinking" by attending to racialized bilinguals' knowledges and abilities that have always existed yet have continually been distorted and erased through abyssal thinking.

Discourses of languagelessness that suggest that Latinxs are not fully proficient in either English or Spanish have a long history in the United States. These discourses produce raciolinguistic categories that frame the bilingualism of Latinxs as deficient and in need of remediation. In this article, the researchers examine one such raciolinguistic category: students in dual language programs who are classified as both English learners "and" first language (L1) users of English. The authors offer case studies of three students who fit this linguistic profile. They examine the ways that teachers working with these students struggle to make sense of this raciolinguistic category and often resort to discourses of languagelessness as an explanation. The researchers document the ways that these discourses negatively impact the educational supports provided to the students. The authors end with a call for developing new conceptualizations of the language practices of Latinx students in these programs that resist discourses of languagelessness and, instead, frame the fluid bilingualism of these students as a resource for learning.

In this article, I argue that academic language is a raciolinguistic ideology that frames racialized students as linguistically deficient and in need of remediation. I propose language architecture as an alternative framing of language that can serve as a point of entry for resisting these raciolinguistic ideologies in both research and practice. I use this framework as a lens for analyzing the literacy demands of the Common Core State Standard (CCSS). Using data collected as part of a larger ethnographic study, I illustrate how Latinx children from bilingual communities have unique opportunities for engaging in the language architecture called for in the standards. I then describe a unit plan that I developed from this perspective. I end with a call for situating language architecture within broader political struggles seeking to dismantle the political and economic inequities that are the root causes of deficit perspectives of Latinxs and other racialized students.

The article discusses the rebranding of Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) as Critical American Language Praxis (CaLP). The author argues that CALP is rooted in colonialism and the culture of poverty, and is often taught in teacher education programs in the United States. The rebranded CaLP aims to shift the focus to locally situated decolonial struggles and address social inequities in language learning. The author explores the terminological shifts from cognitive to critical, academic to American, proficiency to praxis, and discusses the importance of language as a site of conflict and struggle. The article concludes by emphasizing the need to continue fighting for a world where linguistic borders are not barriers to inclusivity and solidarity. [Extracted from the article]

In this commentary, Flores states that language policing traps language-minoritized students in the position of having to reject their home language practices as inferior to the language practices of schooling. Language-minoritized students who are unable or unwilling to conform to these expectations, says Flores, are placed in the solitary confinement of remediation programs, thereby continuing the cycle of the miseducation of communities of color. In contrast, language exploration supports language-minoritized students in becoming language architects who are able to apply the knowledge that they gained through their critical inquiry to design language in their own terms and for their own purposes. Supporting language-minoritized students in becoming language architects would be an important first step in combatting marginalizing spaces that continue to persist in US classrooms. [Additional Resources are provided. ]

In "A New World: Redefining the Legacy of Min-Zhan Lu"(JBW 27.2, Fall 2008), Brian Ray revisits the controversy that emerged in the early 1990s in response to critiques of the iconic Mina Shaughnessy made by Min-Zhan Lu. He offers a reading of the debate that focuses on common ground between the two sides through a metaphor of linguistic charity based on the work of Donald Davidson. While common ground can no doubt be found between these two opposing sides, by focusing exclusively on the similarities between Lu and her critics, Ray runs the risk of diluting Lu's argument and inadvertently reproducing the relations of power that Lu's project is attempting to undermine. This article, therefore, offers a different route to reading the debate between Lu and her critics--a reading that focuses on the real and irreconcilable differences between the two sides. Building on the work of Elizabeth Ellsworth, this article offers a metaphor of partial narratives, in an attempt to expose the power relations embedded in all knowledge production. This metaphor of partial narratives provides not only a way of understanding the substantive difference between Lu and her critics but also raises questions that can help inform an approach to negotiating the different discourses present in composition classrooms, especially those focused on students positioned as basic writers.

Language activism has been at the core of language education policy since its emergence as a scholarly field in the 1960s under the leadership of Joshua Fishman. In this article, we seek to build on this tradition to envision a new approach to language activism for the twenty-first century. In particular, we advocate a materialist anti-racist approach to language activism that broadens what counts as language education policy to include a focus on the broader racial and economic policies that impact the lives of language-minoritized communities. In order to illustrate the need for a materialist anti-racist framing of language education policy we provide portraits of four schools in the School District of Philadelphia that offer dual language bilingual education programs. We demonstrate the ways that larger societal inequities hinder these programs from serving the socially transformative function that advocates for these programs aspire toward. We end by calling for a new paradigm of language education policy that connects language activism with other movements that seek to address societal inequities caused by a myriad of factors including poverty, racism, and xenophobia.

The aim of this paper is to propose a materialist anti-racist approach to language activism. This approach combines Joshua Fishman's pioneering work on language activism with critical race theory and the recent materialist turn in applied linguistics. A materialist anti-racist approach to language activism, positions language policy within broader efforts to dismantle racial and economic inequities. Using the case study of bilingual education programs in the United States, this paper points to the importance of accounting for the various non-linguistic factors that play a role both in terms of access to education as well as the experiences of students. It is noted that a failure to account for these non-linguistics factors, may lead bilingual education programs to inadvertently contribute to the marginalization of minoritized communities.

At the core of contemporary U.S. language education policy is the dichotomous dividing of bilingual students into English Learners (ELs) who are entitled to extra support and non-ELs who are not entitled to this support. In this article, we genealogically trace the normative assumptions that go into this framing of the issue. We begin by examining the historical development of this dichotomous grouping of bilingual students within the remedial framing of the Bilingual Education Act that, building on the verbal deprivation theory that was prominent at the time, reproduced raciolinguistic ideologies that framed the language practices of racialized bilingual students as deficient and in need of remediation. We then examine how this remedial framing provided incentives for proponents of bilingual education to advocate for limited English proficiency as broadly as possible to ensure that more students were deemed eligible for these programs. We then examine contemporary vignettes that point to the tensions that this ideological underpinning has created for contemporary U.S. language education policymakers. We end with a discussion of ways of reconceptualizing U.S. language education policy that reject the remedial orientation that has informed this dichotomous framing and is responsive to the tensions reported by these educators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, I examine two visions of bilingual education that emerged during the Civil Rights Movement: race radicalism and liberal multiculturalism. I argue that although proponents of both visions believed that bilingual education was necessary for empowering language-minoritized populations, race radicalism conceptualized this empowerment as liberation from hegemonic Whiteness while liberal multiculturalism conceptualized this empowerment as assimilation into hegemonic Whiteness. I then examine the ways that the institutionalization of bilingual education erased race radicalism through reframing the debate around whether these programs should be subtractive or additive. I conclude by arguing that this dominant framing of bilingual education debates continues to reproduce hegemonic Whiteness in ways that marginalize language-minoritized students.

In recent years there has been growing awareness about a sub-group of students labeled "Long-Term English Language Learners" (LTELLs). Our study seeks to show how students who fall within the LTELL category see themselves through the lens of their lived experiences as (emergent) bilinguals, students, family/community members and transnational individuals. Countering discourses which frame these students as deficient, we apply the discourse of partiality framework as a lens through which to better understand how these students perceive themselves via their languages, ethnic-connectivity and academic trajectories. We argue that the discourse around the label can be understood as a racial project that serves to perpetuate white supremacy through the marginalization of the language practices of communities of color. We conclude by exploring how schools can take a broader view of this population to create positive learning opportunities that build on who they are and how they see themselves.

In this article, Nelson Flores and Jonathan Rosa critique appropriateness-based approaches to language diversity in education. Those who subscribe to these approaches conceptualize standardized linguistic practices as an objective set of linguistic forms that are appropriate for an academic setting. In contrast, Flores and Rosa highlight the raciolinguistic ideologies through which racialized bodies come to be constructed as engaging in appropriately academic linguistic practices. Drawing on theories of language ideologies and racialization, they offer a perspective from which students classified as long-term English learners, heritage language learners, and Standard English learners can be understood to inhabit a shared racial positioning that frames their linguistic practices as deficient regardless of how closely they follow supposed rules of appropriateness. The authors illustrate how appropriateness-based approaches to language education are implicated in the reproduction of racial normativity by expecting language-minoritized students to model their linguistic practices after the white speaking subject despite the fact that the white listening subject continues to perceive their language use in racialized ways. They conclude with a call for reframing language diversity in education away from a discourse of appropriateness toward one that seeks to denaturalize standardized linguistic categories.

The article highlights the implications of institutionalized translation practices for marginalized communities, focusing on how rigid language boundaries affect immigrant families navigating the US educational system. It also discusses the historical racial logics and colonial legacies embedded in translation and interpretation, uncovering how professionalization often perpetuates marginalization rather than alleviating it.