“False Positives, Reentry Programs, and Long Term English Learners”: Undoing Dichotomous Frames in U.S. Language Education Policy

IF 2.7 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
N. Flores, Mark C. Lewis
{"title":"“False Positives, Reentry Programs, and Long Term English Learners”: Undoing Dichotomous Frames in U.S. Language Education Policy","authors":"N. Flores, Mark C. Lewis","doi":"10.1080/10665684.2022.2047408","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT At the core of contemporary U.S. language education policy is the dichotomous dividing of bilingual students into English learners, who are entitled to extra support, and non-English learners, who are not entitled to this support. In this article, we genealogically trace the normative assumptions that have gone into this framing of the issue. We begin by examining the historical development of this dichotomous grouping of bilingual students within the remedial framing of the Bilingual Education Act that, building on the verbal deprivation theory that was prominent at the time, reproduced raciolinguistic ideologies that framed the language practices of bilingual students from low-income families as deficient and in need of remediation. Next, we examine how this remedial framing provided incentives for proponents of bilingual education to advocate for limited English proficiency to be defined as broadly as possible to ensure that more students were deemed eligible for these programs. We then examine contemporary vignettes that point to the tensions that this ideological underpinning has created for contemporary U.S. language education policymakers. We end with a discussion of ways of reconceptualizing U.S. language education policy that reject the remedial orientation that has informed this dichotomous framing and is responsive to the tensions illustrated in these vignettes.","PeriodicalId":47334,"journal":{"name":"Equity & Excellence in Education","volume":"55 1","pages":"257 - 269"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Equity & Excellence in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2022.2047408","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

ABSTRACT At the core of contemporary U.S. language education policy is the dichotomous dividing of bilingual students into English learners, who are entitled to extra support, and non-English learners, who are not entitled to this support. In this article, we genealogically trace the normative assumptions that have gone into this framing of the issue. We begin by examining the historical development of this dichotomous grouping of bilingual students within the remedial framing of the Bilingual Education Act that, building on the verbal deprivation theory that was prominent at the time, reproduced raciolinguistic ideologies that framed the language practices of bilingual students from low-income families as deficient and in need of remediation. Next, we examine how this remedial framing provided incentives for proponents of bilingual education to advocate for limited English proficiency to be defined as broadly as possible to ensure that more students were deemed eligible for these programs. We then examine contemporary vignettes that point to the tensions that this ideological underpinning has created for contemporary U.S. language education policymakers. We end with a discussion of ways of reconceptualizing U.S. language education policy that reject the remedial orientation that has informed this dichotomous framing and is responsive to the tensions illustrated in these vignettes.
“假阳性、重返社会计划和长期英语学习者”:美国语言教育政策中的二分框架
摘要当代美国语言教育政策的核心是将双语学生分为有权获得额外支持的英语学习者和没有权获得这种支持的非英语学习者。在这篇文章中,我们从谱系上追溯了这个问题框架中的规范性假设。我们首先在《双语教育法》的补救框架内考察了这一二元对立的双语学生群体的历史发展,该法案以当时突出的语言剥夺理论为基础,再现了种族主义意识形态,这些意识形态将低收入家庭的双语学生的语言实践框定为不足和需要补救。接下来,我们研究了这种补救框架是如何激励双语教育的支持者倡导尽可能广泛地定义有限的英语水平,以确保更多的学生被认为有资格参加这些项目的。然后,我们研究了当代的小插曲,这些小插曲指出了这种意识形态基础给当代美国语言教育政策制定者带来的紧张局势。最后,我们讨论了重新定义美国语言教育政策的方法,这些政策拒绝了这种二分法框架中的补救取向,并对这些小插曲中所示的紧张局势做出了回应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Equity & Excellence in Education
Equity & Excellence in Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
23.10%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Equity & Excellence in Education publishes articles based on scholarly research utilizing qualitative or quantitative methods, as well as essays that describe and assess practical efforts to achieve educational equity and are contextualized within an appropriate literature review. We consider manuscripts on a range of topics related to equity, equality and social justice in K-12 or postsecondary schooling, and that focus upon social justice issues in school systems, individual schools, classrooms, and/or the social justice factors that contribute to inequality in learning for students from diverse social group backgrounds. There have been and will continue to be many social justice efforts to transform educational systems as well as interpersonal interactions at all levels of schooling.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信