Monolingual Language Ideologies and the Idealized Speaker: The “New Bilingualism” Meets the “Old” Educational Inequities

Abstract

Background/Context After decades of restrictive U.S. language policies geared toward English-only education, recent years have seen a proliferation of dual-language programs, Seal of Biliteracy awards, and bilingual education programming more broadly. The demand for such programming ostensibly suggests growing consensus around the benefits of linguistic diversity—dubbed “The New Bilingualism” by The Atlantic in 2016. However, recent research suggests that the pivot to this New Bilingualism is largely taking place in contexts of privilege, disproportionately benefiting English-dominant, middle- and upper-class communities as compared with multilingual communities where demand for bilingual programming is not “new” at all. Focus of Study This piece explores how recent, well-intentioned expansions in bilingual education programming may actually reinforce historical inequities. Putting forth a framework of idealized language ideologies, the article documents how bilingualism has historically been encouraged for some and denied to others in U.S. education and policy contexts. Research Design Through historical analysis, this article documents how language ideologies overlap with racism and nationalism in educational and policy contexts across key periods of U.S. history and into the present day. Conclusions/Recommendations A framework of idealized language ideologies foregrounds (1) idealized language practices, (2) idealized speakers, and (3) institutional interests, highlighting how these dynamics function to maintain educational and broader social inequities. Applying such a lens makes it possible to simultaneously acknowledge positive expansions of bilingual programming, while also questioning the framing of such programming as “new” or as a panacea for educational inequality. In a time of rapid expansion for bilingual educational programming, this piece demonstrates that even bilingualism can be normatively framed as an idealized language ideology to reinforce problematic language hierarchies. Thus, it is imperative that teachers, teacher educators, and policy makers reckon with these historical dynamics to ensure that educational models designed to ameliorate linguistic inequities do not end up reproducing them instead.

Classroom as Neo‐National Microcosm: Teachers Learning to Disrupt Linguistic Microaggressions

“…Additional support could include specific curricula around student advocacy (see Linville & Whiting, 2019), as well as programs and policies within schools to counter deficit language (e.g., Willoughby, 2012). Schools must also structure curriculum to highlight the continued importance and presence of language diversity, reflecting the multilingual and multicultural realities of real‐world contexts (see Chang‐Bacon, 2021; McClain & Schrodt, 2021; Wiley, 2014). Through these approaches, teachers, students, and the broader school community can be better prepared to rethink monolingual policies and pedagogies toward a disruption of neo‐national language ideologies and the broader forms of linguistic discrimination students face (De Costa, 2020).…”

“…Neo‐nationalist discourses manifest in everyday classroom interactions through monolingual language ideologies (Chang‐Bacon, 2021; McClain & Schrodt, 2021; Wiley, 2014). As such, classrooms represent microcosms in which students are enculturated—both implicitly and explicitly—to reflect nationalist ideologies of language and social belonging.…”

Biliteracy as Property: Promises and Perils of the Seal of Biliteracy

“…As the seal was first established in California while the state was under an English-only education mandate (1998–2016), schools under such a policy were simply not permitted to affirm students’ bilingual resources in a bottom-up fashion. Even in the absence of explicit English-only laws, U.S. schools have historically been designed around English-only instruction (Chang-Bacon, 2021; Wiley, 2017), and thus have often been complicit in this marginalization of bilingualism. In the absence of school-based support for bilingualism, the SoBL provided an avenue toward compelling the state itself to institutionally recognize competencies that schools and education departments had not historically legitimized.…”

“…As of 2020, 39 states and the District of Columbia had adopted the SoBL (Seal of Biliteracy, n.d.), representing an impressively expedient adoption across the majority of U.S. states in less than a decade. The growing popularity of SoBL programming has been positioned as a hopeful development, particularly in U.S. contexts where monolingual, English-only schooling has historically influenced education policies (Chang-Bacon, 2021). However, researchers have begun to more closely examine who has access to and who benefits from the seal.…”