Characterizing Competing Tensions in Black Immigrant Literacies: Beyond Partial Representations of Success

Abstract

In this study, we problematize the notion that Black immigrant youth be designated as high achieving or new model minority when comparing their literate success with that of their Black American peers. We draw from ideological and autonomous views regarding literacies while recognizing notions such as languaging informed by personhood, monoglossic norms, heteroglossic perspectives, and raciolinguistic ideologies, which come to bear on the literacies of Black immigrant youth. Using these lenses, we examined Black immigrant literacy from both qualitative and quantitative paradigms. Quantitative findings revealed that native English‐speaking Black immigrant youth had significantly higher scores on reading literacy than native English‐speaking Black American youth on the Programme for International Student Assessment. Among all Black students in 2009, native English speakers outperformed non‐native English speakers. However, superior reading literacy performance among native English speakers was not as obvious in 2015 as was observed in 2009. In 2015, non‐native English speakers outperformed native English speakers among Black immigrants, whereas native English speakers had higher scores than non‐native English speakers on reading literacy among Black Americans. Qualitative findings showed that (a) literate success in one Black immigrant youth’s (D’Arcy) literacy practices was influenced by multilingualism as both an asset and a deficit; (b) dialectal difference was perceived as language interference and as binary (i.e., legitimate vs. nonlegitimate); (c) there was persistent unacceptability of D’Arcy’s language, accent, and certain literacies across home and school; (d) expectations about D’Arcy’s racial literate identity remained steeped in assumptions regarding racialized language and raciolinguistic ideology; and (e) teacher interventions revealed tensions across (racio)linguistic ideologies. Implications for theory, research, policy, and practice are provided.

A Transraciolinguistic Approach for Literacy Classrooms

“…Raciolinguistic ideologies adversely affect students of color in classrooms where literacy is used as a proxy for student success in schools (Smith et al, 2022, advance online publication). They adversely affect opportunities to be gained by white students for developing the metacultural, metalinguistic, and metaracial understandings often adeptly cultivated daily by their racialized peers (Smith, 2016; Smith & Warrican, 2022).…”

Cultural alloys and heterogeneous mixes: Contextualized and comparative language differences in literacy assessment of U.S. and Canadian youth

“…Cummins et al (2015) reported on experiences where such students felt a sense of acceptance and belonging when their identities were valued and affirmed, resulting in heightened classroom engagement (especially in language and literacy) and raised academic achievement. Notwithstanding, it is critical to acknowledge recent findings which show that Black immigrant NNSs outperformed Black immigrant NSs on PISA reading literacy in the U.S., suggesting that it is possible for linguistic differences and immigrant to interact in ways that provide an advantage (Smith et al, 2022).…”

“…From these findings, we extrapolated that classrooms in both countries may need to pay greater attention to cultural diversity to ensure, for example, the embracing of linguistic differences among their students, and in particular, those who are immigrants. Even so, we point out in a more recent study that variations in what it means to be designated as the “native speaker” of a language on the PISA reading literacy assessment must be further examined (Smith et al, 2022).…”

“…This acceptance should be further reflected in assessment policies, especially for national and international assessments (Dowd and Pisani, 2013; Smith et al, 2018b). Speakers who are not as familiar with the language of instruction and assessment should be reconceptualized in their designations as “non-native” speakers (Smith et al, 2022) and should perhaps be given the option of writing the assessment in a language with which they are comfortable. Another option would be to ensure that such speakers have additional support as they prepare to write the assessment in a language with which they may be unfamiliar.…”

“…As mentioned earlier, OECD definitions of reading literacy increasingly align with conceptions of literacy as socially situated, functional, and to a certain degree, culturally informed (for discussion, see OECD, 2006; Smith et al, 2020; Street, 1995). Yet, questions continue to be raised regarding the degree to which this definition provides opportunities for youth to draw from their wide range of literacies, regarding students’ designation as “native speakers,” and the degree to which such a designation may differ for students who speak multiple Englishes (Smith et al, 2019, 2022). Our decision to use PISA reading literacy in the current study thus represents a direct response to such concerns, which, as Zhao (2020) has recently observed, continue to be largely overlooked.…”