Search

This paper investigates the strategies of governance in the language policy "Chanting the Chinese Classics" (CCC) as deployed by State authorities, schools, and local communities. It highlights the strategy of 'viewing' as a nexus between language policy processes and traditional Chinese governing philosophy. To examine the connections between macro-level language policy and local educational and communicative processes, an ethnography of language policy was conducted at a weekend community school. We argue that language policy governance in Chinese language policy implementation mirrors Confucian philosophy. To further this strategy, State authorities organize nationally televised events at which school children compete in chanting competitions, which serve as exemplars for educators, parents, and students, who are encouraged to memorize vast quantities of classic Chinese literature. Results reveal that the appropriation of the CCC policy by teachers and parents encourages self-government and aligns with language policy ideology. While the CCC policy effectively encourages thousands of children to memorize Chinese Classics, it simultaneously promotes cultural confidence and nationalism.

Immigrants and refugees from the Democratic Republic (DR) of Congo represent one of the largest migrant groups coming to the U.S. Yet little has been written about this unique group of migrants, particularly regarding their experiences of identity development and cultural integration. Therefore, this paper critically investigates how migrants from DR Congo conceptualize their lives in the U.S. We use notions of "identity" and "language investment" as defined by Norton as well as Bourdieu's concepts of cultural, social, and linguistic "capital" to analyze interview data from 15 migrants currently living in a small community in the Midwest. Using the tools of qualitative data analysis we argue that while DR Congo migrants believe acquiring various forms of capital will help them achieve their imagined identities, their new experiences are burdened with unforeseen obstacles, both obvious and hidden, which impede the process of integration into U.S. society.

Portuguese is the mother tongue for many Angolans yet a majority continue to use African languages in everyday interactions and schools struggle to provide equal educational opportunities for students whose first language is not Portuguese. Recognizing this challenge, the Angolan government has created a language policy that will introduce six African languages into the school system. For a country that has maintained a monolingual education system for over 32 years, the new policy is perhaps a milestone achievement. This study examines the historical and ideological processes that gave rise to new medium of instruction policies in Angola. Then, interview data collected from policymakers, educators, and students are examined to illuminate how these language policies are interpreted and appropriated in schools and communities. We argue that, while recent language policies create ideological spaces for multilingual education, the hegemonic status of Portuguese, and the growing influence of English, are formidable obstacles.

The articles in this issue of "Language and Education" highlight three important areas of research that inspire empirical investigation and theoretical debate in the field of language policy and planning (LPP): (1) the tension between power and agency, (2) the multi-layered nature of policy-making, and (3) researcher positionality. This discussion focuses on how these three issues are related to each other and the contributions proffered by the articles herein.

This article considers the impact of the "Lau v. Nichols" Supreme Court decision on the education of English learners in Washington State, US In particular, we focus on the most popular educational program in the state, Sheltered English Instruction. We first examine how intertextual links to various policy texts and discourses shape Washington language policy and then look at how educators in four school districts interpret and appropriate this policy. Based on fieldwork in four school districts, we argue that English learners are often submerged in English-only classrooms, in which the curriculum is not fundamentally changed to meet their needs, thus denying them equal educational opportunity according to "Lau v. Nichols."

Hart and Risley's (1995) concept of a "word gap" (aka "language gap") is widely used to describe inferior cognitive development and lower academic achievement as by-products of the language patterns of families from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. In recent decades, this line of deficit research has proliferated and caused a surge in public exposure in the media and political realms. In this discussion, we employ critical discourse analysis to illuminate intertextual links across three essential domains of "language gap" discourse: (a) academic research literature, (b) public news media, and (c) institutional narratives. The data are analyzed in terms of interdiscursive connections within and between research articles; news and magazine stories; and institutional documents from academic, political, and philanthropic organizations. Here, we demonstrate how discourses that are generated within a socially insulated "language gap" research paradigm propagate a deficit orientation of linguistic minority communities, problematically validate behavior intervention programs among particular socioeconomic groups, and reify linguistic and cultural misperceptions of traditionally marginalized groups.

In this article we proffer a theoretical model for analyzing power in language policy processes and incorporate ethnographic data to illustrate the usefulness of the model. Grounded in an ethnographic project in the US state of Washington, we examine how nominally identical school district-level programs, which are funded under the same state-level language policy, end up being different in practice. While language policy is often portrayed as multiply layered, or taking place across multiple levels of policy activity, we argue that language policy arbiters wield a disproportionate amount of power relative to other individuals in a particular level or layer. Our analysis focuses on how beliefs about language, language education, and educational research impact the decision-making of individuals we identify as language policy arbiters. We argue that the proposed model usefully highlights how language policy arbiters open and close spaces for additive bilingual education.

In this paper, we compare the bilingual/language education policies of Arizona and Washington to show that state-level language policy plays a critical role in shaping the appropriation of federal language policy [No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), Title III] and how different state-level language policies impact the district level of policy appropriation. Drawing on Bourdieu's concepts of "habitus" and "doxa," we argue that different types of appropriation, in turn, impact how educators and students orient toward bilingualism. Based on ethnographic research in demographically similar school districts in Arizona and Washington, we juxtapose the voices of students and school faculty from both states to demonstrate how language polices are appropriated and instantiated in distinct ways that may not be predictable based on federal language policy.

Many in the field of language policy have called for studies that connect policy texts at the macro level with their interpretations in districts, schools, and classrooms at the micro level. The purpose of this study is to trace Washington's educational language policy through the layers of interpretation to educational practice to see how the policy impacts educational opportunity for English language learners (ELLs). It examines a small school district where the sheltered instruction model is used in mainstream classrooms as the main form of programming for language minority students. We utilize a critical framework to make connections between macro- and micro-level policies as well as highlight the tension between policy structure and educator agency. Ethnographic methods are adopted to uncover the impacts of sheltered instruction as implemented in this context for students and we examine key issues in policy implementation for teachers and administrators in the district. Findings reveal the disconnect between state policy and educational practice and illuminate the reasons teachers struggle to make use of the sheltered instruction program model for their ELLs.

Currently, restrictive-language policies seem to threaten bilingual education throughout the USA. Anti-bilingual education initiatives have passed easily in California, Arizona, and Massachusetts, while one was closely defeated in Colorado, and federal education policy has re-invigorated the focus on English education for English language learners, while concomitantly obfuscating the possibility of native language maintenance and developmental bilingual education. This is the educational landscape within which bilingual education researchers, educators, and students must face the formidable challenge of preserving educational choice and bilingual education. Thus, substantive research is needed on how bilingual educators navigate this challenging ideological and policy landscape. Based on an ethnographic study of bilingual education language policy, this article takes up this challenge by focusing on how beliefs about "Applied Linguistics" research influence the interpretation and appropriation of federal language policy in one US school district. The results have implications for the relationship between the "Applied Linguistic" research community and language policy processes.

This paper presents results from an ethnography of language policy which examined language policy appropriation for bilingual learners in a large urban US school district. The purpose of this article is to explore the space left by current US language policy for developmental bilingual education and, specifically, the focus is on how a group of educators appropriate top-down language policies while engaging in their own local language policy creation. The process of creating the policy illustrates how spaces for bilingual education are pried open by a community of educators who fostered an ideological space which supported multilingualism as a resource for all students. A strong characteristic of this ideological space is the empowerment of bilingual teachers to take ownership of language policy processes and appropriate language policy in a way that benefits bilingual learners. (Contains 9 notes.)

While theoretical conceptualizations of language policy have grown increasingly rich, empirical data that test these models are less common. Further, there is little methodological guidance for those who wish to do research on language policy interpretation and appropriation. The ethnography of language policy is proposed as a method which makes macro-micro connections by comparing critical discourse analyses of language policy with ethnographic data collection in some local context. A methodological heuristic is offered to guide data collection and sample data are presented from the School District of Philadelphia. It is argued that critical conceptualizations of educational language policy should be combined with empirical data collection of policy appropriation in educational settings.

In this article, we take up the call for more multilayered and ethnographic approaches to language policy and planning (LPP) research by sharing two examples of how ethnography can illuminate local interpretation and implementation. We offer ethnographic data collected in two very different institutions--the School District of Philadelphia and the Andean regional graduate program in bilingual intercultural education in Cochabamba, Bolivia--both of which act as intermediary agencies between national language policies and local educational initiatives. Drawing from long-term ethnographic work in each context, we present excerpts from spoken and written discourse that shed light on the opening up or closing down of ideological and implementational spaces for multilingual language education policy and practice. We illustrate through our examples that ethnographic research can, metaphorically speaking, slice through the layers of the LPP onion (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996) to reveal agentive spaces in which local actors implement, interpret, and perhaps resist policy initiatives in varying and unique ways. (Contains 7 footnotes.)