被迫思考双语教育中稀缺、选择性、私有化和不稳定的席位:唯利是图的排他性选择话语

IF 1.7 1区 文学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
M. Garrett Delavan, Juan A. Freire, Trish Morita‐Mullaney
{"title":"被迫思考双语教育中稀缺、选择性、私有化和不稳定的席位:唯利是图的排他性选择话语","authors":"M. Garrett Delavan, Juan A. Freire, Trish Morita‐Mullaney","doi":"10.1080/14664208.2022.2077032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n This multimodal critical discourse analysis is part of a larger equity audit of how the websites of 11 of the largest U.S. school districts discussed access to dual language bilingual education (DLBE). Prior research has frequently documented how administrators utilize DLBE programs to compete with one another for the supposedly necessary resource of privileged students, while deprioritizing language-minoritized students in ways that resemble gentrification. This study assessed how website content of these large (and thus influential) districts reflected or contradicted this pattern. Findings showed DLBE programming was linked frequently and strongly to themes of the school choice movement and exclusive tracking or within-school segregation. The themes were (1) a normalized scarcity of seats, (2) the privatized responsibility for transportation to those seats, (3) a discourse of having to earn one’s seat, and (4) the potential to lose one’s seat. We theorize this framing of DLBE policy as based in what we term mercenary exclusivity, which inequitably benefits privileged populations by inviting stakeholders to see their participation through a competitive, warlike lens. We offer equity recommendations for scholars and policymakers and call for the adoption of countervailing peaceful discourse and praxis for the benefit of language-minoritized and racialized students within DLBE.","PeriodicalId":51704,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Language Planning","volume":"24 1","pages":"245 - 271"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conscripted into thinking of scarce, selective, privatized, and precarious seats in dual language bilingual education: the choice discourse of mercenary exclusivity\",\"authors\":\"M. Garrett Delavan, Juan A. Freire, Trish Morita‐Mullaney\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14664208.2022.2077032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT\\n This multimodal critical discourse analysis is part of a larger equity audit of how the websites of 11 of the largest U.S. school districts discussed access to dual language bilingual education (DLBE). Prior research has frequently documented how administrators utilize DLBE programs to compete with one another for the supposedly necessary resource of privileged students, while deprioritizing language-minoritized students in ways that resemble gentrification. This study assessed how website content of these large (and thus influential) districts reflected or contradicted this pattern. Findings showed DLBE programming was linked frequently and strongly to themes of the school choice movement and exclusive tracking or within-school segregation. The themes were (1) a normalized scarcity of seats, (2) the privatized responsibility for transportation to those seats, (3) a discourse of having to earn one’s seat, and (4) the potential to lose one’s seat. We theorize this framing of DLBE policy as based in what we term mercenary exclusivity, which inequitably benefits privileged populations by inviting stakeholders to see their participation through a competitive, warlike lens. We offer equity recommendations for scholars and policymakers and call for the adoption of countervailing peaceful discourse and praxis for the benefit of language-minoritized and racialized students within DLBE.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51704,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Issues in Language Planning\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"245 - 271\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Issues in Language Planning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2022.2077032\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Issues in Language Planning","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2022.2077032","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

摘要:这项多模式批判性话语分析是对美国11个最大学区的网站如何讨论双语教育(DLBE)的更大公平审计的一部分。先前的研究经常记录了管理人员如何利用DLBE项目相互竞争特权学生的必要资源,同时以类似绅士化的方式剥夺语言少数族裔学生的优先权。这项研究评估了这些大(因此有影响力)地区的网站内容如何反映或反驳这种模式。调查结果显示,DLBE节目经常与择校运动和独家追踪或校内隔离等主题密切相关。主题是(1)座位的正常稀缺,(2)前往这些座位的交通责任私有化,(3)必须赢得座位的讨论,以及(4)失去座位的可能性。我们将DLBE政策的这种框架理论化为基于我们所称的雇佣军排他性,这种排他性通过邀请利益相关者从竞争、战争的角度来看待他们的参与,从而不公平地惠及特权人群。我们为学者和政策制定者提供公平建议,并呼吁采取相反的和平话语和实践,以造福DLBE中语言少数化和种族化的学生。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Conscripted into thinking of scarce, selective, privatized, and precarious seats in dual language bilingual education: the choice discourse of mercenary exclusivity
ABSTRACT This multimodal critical discourse analysis is part of a larger equity audit of how the websites of 11 of the largest U.S. school districts discussed access to dual language bilingual education (DLBE). Prior research has frequently documented how administrators utilize DLBE programs to compete with one another for the supposedly necessary resource of privileged students, while deprioritizing language-minoritized students in ways that resemble gentrification. This study assessed how website content of these large (and thus influential) districts reflected or contradicted this pattern. Findings showed DLBE programming was linked frequently and strongly to themes of the school choice movement and exclusive tracking or within-school segregation. The themes were (1) a normalized scarcity of seats, (2) the privatized responsibility for transportation to those seats, (3) a discourse of having to earn one’s seat, and (4) the potential to lose one’s seat. We theorize this framing of DLBE policy as based in what we term mercenary exclusivity, which inequitably benefits privileged populations by inviting stakeholders to see their participation through a competitive, warlike lens. We offer equity recommendations for scholars and policymakers and call for the adoption of countervailing peaceful discourse and praxis for the benefit of language-minoritized and racialized students within DLBE.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
16.70%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: The journal Current Issues in Language Planning provides major summative and thematic review studies spanning and focusing the disparate language policy and language planning literature related to: 1) polities and language planning and 2) issues in language planning. The journal publishes four issues per year, two on each subject area. The polity issues describe language policy and planning in various countries/regions/areas around the world, while the issues numbers are thematically based. The Current Issues in Language Planning does not normally accept individual studies falling outside this polity and thematic approach. Polity studies and thematic issues" papers in this journal may be self-nominated or invited contributions from acknowledged experts in the field.
×
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