Abstract:This study explores how principals of dual language (DL) programs draw on two dominant societal discourses around language education—linguistic instrumentalism/neoliberalism and equity/social justice—to make sense of their programs. Through in‐depth interviews with 19 principals of Spanish‐English elementary school DL programs in Arizona and California, the researchers examine (1) the ways in which the two discourses manifested in the principals’ talk, and 2) the consequences for English learners of each discu… Show more
“…As with most school programs, effective leadership in DLBE needs to focus on (1) advocacy and community; (2) program planning, coordination, and oversight; (3) professional development; and (4) allocation of funding (Howard et al, 2018). However, given the political nature of language education, the historical roots of bilingual education in the United States, as well as documented equity concerns in the field, a social justice focus and courageous leadership are required above all (Bernstein et al, forthcoming; Long et al, 2016; Menken, 2017). That is, it takes courage for leaders to unearth and point out perspectives that may be less popular, go against power structures, and challenge historical programming or thinking, as María tried to do when she sought out changes, in part due to Spanish-speaking families’ perspectives, experiences, and (lack of) access.…”
This case examines one district’s attempts to enhance and rework its approach to dual language bilingual education (DLBE). Upon her hire at “Triton Public Schools,” the new coordinator for language services noticed that Spanish-speaking students designated as English Learners (ELs) had inequitable access to the district’s only DLBE school, and that other programs designed for them did not result in as high academic achievement as DLBE. Conversations by district leadership to make significant changes in their approach to DLBE resulted in public outcry and confusion from educators, as well as Spanish- and English-speaking parents. Our discussion centers on how to employ courageous and social justice–minded leadership to enhance equity, access, and high academic achievement for marginalized student populations in bilingual education.
“…As with most school programs, effective leadership in DLBE needs to focus on (1) advocacy and community; (2) program planning, coordination, and oversight; (3) professional development; and (4) allocation of funding (Howard et al, 2018). However, given the political nature of language education, the historical roots of bilingual education in the United States, as well as documented equity concerns in the field, a social justice focus and courageous leadership are required above all (Bernstein et al, forthcoming; Long et al, 2016; Menken, 2017). That is, it takes courage for leaders to unearth and point out perspectives that may be less popular, go against power structures, and challenge historical programming or thinking, as María tried to do when she sought out changes, in part due to Spanish-speaking families’ perspectives, experiences, and (lack of) access.…”
This case examines one district’s attempts to enhance and rework its approach to dual language bilingual education (DLBE). Upon her hire at “Triton Public Schools,” the new coordinator for language services noticed that Spanish-speaking students designated as English Learners (ELs) had inequitable access to the district’s only DLBE school, and that other programs designed for them did not result in as high academic achievement as DLBE. Conversations by district leadership to make significant changes in their approach to DLBE resulted in public outcry and confusion from educators, as well as Spanish- and English-speaking parents. Our discussion centers on how to employ courageous and social justice–minded leadership to enhance equity, access, and high academic achievement for marginalized student populations in bilingual education.
“…These orientations are represented in the discourse of the data being collected, from the assimilationism discourse of language as a problem to the neoliberal discourse of language as a resource to the social justice discourse of language as a right (Bernstein et al, 2020). The discourses are on a spectrum with overlaps and blurred boundaries, often contradicting each other "as dueling discourses" (p. 658).…”
Section: Ruiz's (1984) Language Policy Orientationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The shifts toward a language as a resource orientation in the state policy provides a relatively unexplored context through which to better understand how language education policy can be developed throughout the educational system. The over-emphasis of some language as a resource policies on multilingualism as an economic resource as opposed to a cultural, intellectual, social, citizenship, or human rights resource has been a common critique (Bernstein et al, 2020;de Jong et al, 2016;Ricento, 2005) and has been applied to the latest California language education policies as well (Aldana & Martinez, 2019;Katznelson & Bernstein, 2017). Nevertheless, these policies broadly open the doors to a multilingual turn where other forms of resources or funds of knowledge are embraced in California classrooms providing a marked difference from the language as problem policies of old (de Jong et al, 2019;Hopewell & Escamilla, 2015;López et al, 2020;May, 2013;Santos & Hopkins, 2020).…”
Section: Ruiz's (1984) Language Policy Orientationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The critical discourse analysis of the macrolevel policy documents allows for the development of a model of discourse used to describe the orientations of leaders reflected in the policies along a spectrum of orientations. While the language as a right orientation is more commonly grounded in discourse of social justice and decoloniality, there are overlaps between each orientation and the continuum of coloniality to decoloniality (Bernstein et al, 2020). Coloniality of power asserts the right for dominance of one group over another (Quijano, 2000), providing agency for self-determination to some and withholding it from others (Díaz, 2016;Van Leeuwen, 2008).…”
“…The general continuum moves from language as a problem orientations reflected in discourse promoting coloniality to language as a right orientations reflected in discourse rejecting coloniality. Language as a resource orientations, reflecting a neoliberal, economically motivated approach to language policy (Bernstein et al, 2020;Katznelson & Bernstein, 2017), may either promote or reject coloniality.…”
This dissertation study uses both a qualitative critical discourse analysis and a quantitative survey methodology to investigate how district leaders construct language education policy for multilingual learners in California. The research focuses on the discursive shifts of K-12 language education policy in California's Common Core Era and how those shifts are negotiated by district leaders. The research indicates significant discursive shift from language as a problem rhetoric in the No Child Left Behind Era to a language as a resource and right rhetoric in the Common Core Era. While district leaders generally believe that these policy shifts have supported improvement of multilingual learner programs, many feel a lack of influence on the perceived district beliefs on educating multilingual learners and on developing the integrated ELD programs. A conceptual framework of linguistically responsive leadership is proposed to support leaders in using discourse as evidence of orientations toward multilingual learners, language development instruction, and leadership. This model can be applied to develop leadership capacity in improving the experiences of multilingual learners. v
Chapter 1: Toward Linguistically Responsive LeadershipWe may close the classroom door, But we do not teach in a vacuum, Though some days oxygen may seem scarce.Instead, we teach in an ecosystem of our own design, Yet also of a design not our own, Where scarcity of resource is structural, not innate, And some are left to famine and others to plenty.
Research in science education with multilingual learners (MLs) has expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion can be situated within a larger dialogue about what it means to provide minoritized students with an equitable education. Whereas some conceptions of equity focus on ensuring all students have access to the knowledge, practices, and language normatively valued in K‐12 schools (equity as access), increasingly prominent conceptions focus on transforming those knowledge, practices, and language in ways that center minoritized students and their communities (equity as transformation). In this article, we argue that conceptions of equity provide a useful lens for understanding emerging research in science education with MLs and for charting a research agenda. We begin by tracing how conceptions of equity have evolved in parallel across STEM and multilingual education. Then, we provide an overview of recent developments from demographic, theoretical, and policy perspectives. In the context of these developments, we provide a conceptual synthesis of emerging research by our team of early‐career scholars in three areas: (a) learning, (b) assessment, and (c) teacher education. Within each area, we unpack the research efforts in terms of how they attend to equity as access while pushing toward equity as transformation. Finally, we propose a research agenda for science education with MLs that builds on and extends these efforts. We close by offering recommendations for making this research agenda coherent and impactful: (a) being explicit about our conceptions of equity, (b) paying attention to the interplay of structure and agency, and (c) promoting interdisciplinary collaboration.
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.