Language Policy and Planning in Language Education: Legacies, Consequences, and Possibilities

Abstract

This article considers the relevance of language policy and planning (LPP) for language education in the United States in relation to the country's longstanding and continuing multilingualism. In reflecting on the U.S. context, one striking feature is the absence of a guiding overarching explicit national educational language policy. Language policies and practices may either promote or restrict the teaching of languages. Thus, whether having such a policy would be desirable for promoting the learning of languages depends on a number of factors such as the features of the policy and the extent to which it was adequately resourced, understood, valued, and implemented effectively, just to mention a few. Explicit language planning and policy making in the United States−when it does occur−tends to be done at the state, local, or institutional levels, or within rather limited domains of federal priorities, such as those related to defense or national security. Beyond formal policies, implicit language practices sometimes have more influence on language behavior. Even when policies are intended to promote languages, they may not always be well conceived, received, resourced, or implemented. Given some of these issues, it is useful to consider the role of agency in language planning and policy (LPP). Even when guided by national or state top‐down policy agendas, policies can be interpreted and reinterpreted, by policy intermediaries, agents, administrators, or arbiters (Johnson, ). Moreover, within the context of school language policies, at the level of implementation, teachers, parents, and the students themselves help to determine the effectiveness of policies in practice (Menken & García, ). Beyond the schools, parents and stakeholders in the community can play significant roles in creating practices that have the force of policy from the bottom up. Given these considerations, this article weighs the role of policy and the legacy of past policies and their consequences; assesses some of the strengths and weaknesses of current policies and practices, both in schools and families and communities; and considers prospects for a more promising future that involves embracing the fundamental multilingualism of U.S. society, communities, and families. In so doing, the article reflects on alternatives to U.S. language education policy that would transcend national conceptions of languages so as to leverage speakers’ actual linguistic competence.

To Translanguage or Not to Translanguage? the Multilingual Practice in an Indonesian Efl Classroom

“…Moreover, translanguaging concept itself might, to some extent, also ideological in nature (Canagarajah, 2011;Lewis, Jones & Baker, 2012). Thus, while adjusting the power relationship and identity between teacher and students is important (Creese & Blackledge, 2015), this ideological struggle should also be backed up by the reform of language policy at the governmental setting (Wiley & García, 2016). The future research should not only answer the question of 'to translanguage or not to translanguage?…”

The Seal of Biliteracy: Variations in Policy and Outcomes

“…However, few learners have access to such extended sequences in U.S. schools. Because no federal policy exists for K-12 world language education in this country, program decisions are nearly always made at the state level (Brecht, 2007;Wiley & Garc ıa, 2016) or by local districts or even schools. For example, 42 of the 50 states have no world language graduation requirement at all (O'Rourke, Zhou, & Rottman, 2016).…”

Recognizing Whose Bilingualism? A Critical Policy Analysis of the Seal of Biliteracy

“…We have raised several concerns about possible inequities in the way that the Seal of Biliteracy has been promoted, enacted in state‐level policy, and implemented in schools. We wish to reiterate here that it is our intention to raise these concerns precisely because, like Wiley and García (), we believe the Seal is a “promising effort” (pp. 56–57).…”

“…This success is even more impressive when considered alongside the United States’ lackluster support for world language education (O'Rourke, Zhou, & Rottman, ; Pufahl & Rhodes, ) and its history of public resistance to bilingual education (Baker & Wright, ). Widespread support for the Seal appears to suggest growing interest in language learning and bi‐/multilingualism, a prospect that has excited many language educators and researchers (e.g., Egnatz, ; Moeller & Abbott, ; Wiley & García, ).…”