With the rise of nationalism and the current contentious debate on immigration in the US, school leaders and educators are faced with difficult questions about how to negotiate sensitive political topics, including debates on immigration. In this article, Reva Jaffe-Walter, Chandler Patton Miranda, and Stacey J. Lee explore how educators grapple with the political policies and discourses surrounding immigration with marginalized students who are the subject of those politics. Drawing on research from two US schools exclusively serving recently arrived immigrant students, the authors explore how educators negotiate the teaching of immigration politics during two different time periods, in 2013 during the Obama era “Dreamer” movement and in early 2017 after the inauguration of Donald Trump. They consider how the unique conditions of each political context inform educators' strategies for “teaching into” political events and supporting their immigrant and undocumented students. Their analysis reveals the unique challenges of engaging marginalized students who are the subject of contentious politics in political discussion and action and supports their call for a deeper consideration of students' identities and experiences of politics within scholarly discussions of critical civic engagement.
The 2016 presidential election was dominated by anti-immigrant rhetoric where truths counted for less than bombast, obscuring the fact that the majority of refugees and immigrants are women and children. This article describes how teachers and students in a school for newly arrived immigrants are adapting to the reality of the new administration. [Immigrant education; schooling for social justice; sanctuary schools; English Language Learners]
With the increasing numbers of immigrant and refugee students across the US K–12 system, the xenophobia of the current political climate, and the effects of COVID-19 on the immigrant community, it is critical to examine schools that serve immigrant students and their families. Drawing on case studies of two public high schools that exclusively serve immigrant students, authors Adriana Villavicencio, Chandler Patton Miranda, Jia-Lin Liu, and Hua-Yu Sebastian Cherng examine how educators frame the current political context and how this frame informs their collective approach to engaging with and supporting families. The study finds that these schools shifted norms of parental engagement by proactively forging relationships with families, cultivating alliances with community partners, and mediating within families around challenges related to work and higher education to benefit the communities they serve. In so doing, these school actors have shifted the norms of parental engagement to center the perspectives, voices, and experiences of immigrant families.
Conventional definitions of “on-time graduation” and “college readiness” often place the needs of traditionally marginalized students (first-generation, low-income, immigrant and/or students of color) in a deficit light. This multi-case study explores how school leaders at two public high schools are redefining and reframing these policies for their specific student populations. The findings suggest that extending graduation beyond 4 years and using intersectional understandings of college readiness increase traditionally marginalized students’ opportunities to finish high school and pursuing postsecondary education.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.