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

Abstract

The Seal of Biliteracy is as an initiative to incentivize and credentialize bi‐/multilingualism in K–12 education in the United States. While it has been widely celebrated as a positive development in U.S. educational language policy, it is important to consider to what extent marginalized students benefit from this initiative. This critical policy analysis explores possible inequities in the way that the Seal has been promoted, enacted in policy, and implemented in schools, focused primarily on California. Three findings are reported. First, advocates and policy makers have constructed the purpose of the Seal as primarily aimed at promoting foreign or world language education, raising questions about the degree to which the recognition of language‐minoritized students’ linguistic repertoires is a focus. Second, the policy requirements for demonstrating biliteracy advantage students, especially native English‐speaking students, who are studying a foreign or world language as part of their school's curriculum. Third, schools with high percentages of students of color and students from low‐income families are less likely to participate in the program, suggesting that students privileged along lines of race and class have greater access to the program. This article concludes by suggesting improvements in policy and directions for future research that might contribute to addressing these inequities.

The neoliberal logic of state seals of biliteracy

“…First, researchers have suggested that there is differential access to seals within states, with availability tilted toward wealthier school districts and limited in less well‐resourced ones. For instance, Subtirelu et al (2019) reported in their analysis of California seal data that some schools, especially whiter, wealthier schools with fewer English learners, were more likely to offer seal recognition than others. Second, at least in some states, there is evidence of inequitable and uneven standards, with the proficiency levels in English placed higher than those needed to demonstrate proficiency in foreign/world languages.…”

“…For instance, English‐speaking students in California can demonstrate their proficiency in a language other than English by completing four years of foreign language classes with at least a “B” average and an oral proficiency exam or passing an AP or International Baccalaureate exam. Subtirelu et al (2019) suggest that the path to be verified as biliterate might be more challenging for English learners, who must take formal exams to assess their multilingual ability. And third, in many states, the availability and nature of the assessments are potentially biased toward English speakers who are studying a widely taught world language such as Spanish or French (Heineke et al, 2018).…”

“…Nevertheless, while seal legislation is often presented as a means to promote foreign language learning (for English speakers) and simultaneously, to recognize the heritage language skills (of English learners), recent research suggests that uptake and implementation is often uneven (e.g., Heineke, Davin, & Bedford, 2018; Subtirelu, Borowczyk, Hernández, & Venezia, 2019). This is particularly the case with respect to the development of assessments that are appropriate, valid, and reliable across varied populations, as well as for different languages and dialects (Mitchell, 2019).…”

Credentialing heritage: The role of community heritage language schools in implementing the Seal of Biliteracy

“…It was intended to serve as a recognition of both English learners' (ELs) abilities in their HLs and English native speakers' abilities in world languages (DeLeon, 2014). If responsibly implemented, the SoBL has the potential to level some of the inequities between ELs and world language learners in U.S. schools, provided that the goal of countering the historic marginalization of language‐minoritized students in public education becomes an explicit priority (Subtirelu, Borowczyk, Thorson Hernández, & Venezia, 2019).…”

“…Furthermore, it is important for SoBL administrators to ensure access for speakers of languages not frequently offered through mainstream high schools, since a policy that advocates for the celebration and recognition of the United States' bilingual resources must strive to acknowledge the country's linguistic diversity in full. Multiple studies (Heineke, Davin, & Bedford, 2018; Heineke, Davin, & Dávila, 2019; Subtirelu et al, 2019) have concluded that local policies and practices around the SoBL tend to inadvertently advantage English‐dominant students, particularly in the following ways: (a) certain states ask ELs to provide more sources of evidence to demonstrate their English proficiency than other SoBL candidates, (b) the level of English proficiency demanded is generally higher than that of the other language, and (c) the standardized tests required to demonstrate proficiency for the SoBL are overwhelmingly designed for students studying in foreign or world language classes, potentially disadvantaging heritage speakers. The purpose of this paper is to highlight how partnerships with community‐based institutions can serve as important avenues for expanding access to the SoBL, particularly for heritage speakers.…”