Category Archives: Bilingual Education

A few (language and literacy) thoughts

 

  • I feel that my background in early childhood education holds me in good stead when it comes to the subtleties of first and second language acquisition. What comes naturally when we support children in their primary languages does not come as naturally when we are working with older learners. There are clear developmental differences but communication almost always is the goal. Instrumental motivation is commonly accompanied by integrative motivation(Baker, 2001, p.123). The useful purpose (instrumental) someone wants to learn a language for often relates to identifying with or joining another language group (integrative) and communicating with people from a distinct linguistic background. ‘Discourse analysis has shown that a second language learner and a native speaker work together to produce purposeful and efficient communication” (Baker, p.118).
  • This ties back to caregiver speech (or ‘motherese’). The caregiver and the infant do not speak the same language at first but they communicate in a mix of verbal and visual cues. They negotiate meaningful input and language development comes about as a ‘process of implicit rule formation, rather than explicit habit formation’ (Baker, p. 119). I remember when I was working in a preschool setting and first heard “I runned to the shop” (or equivalent). I don’t remember if I responded at the time, but if I did I doubt I would have said, “no it’s ran, you ran to the shop” (instinct would hopefully have had me say the second part without the initial negative correction). I now know more about language development and I know that the child was making a hypothesis that actually shows positive cognitive development. What is key is that the child is telling a story and if we interrupt that story to explicitly correct, the train of thought is lost, and the child may shut down.

 

  • A number of years ago I took part in a collaborative study to see whether we should make a foreign language part of the regular day, at the private school I worked at in Brooklyn. I was already the before and after school French and Spanish teacher, and my passion for languages would have swerved me slightly in the pro camp. After a period of months, of meetings, and readings, we decided that there was already a lot on in the day, including specialist science and music, and decided not to bring a foreign language into the regular school day. There was no clear evidence to show that the children at this privileged school would be better prepared to formally tackle a foreign language in fifth or sixth, if they had taken the language a couple of times a week from kindergarten on. The only ‘real’ benefit seemed to be in terms of accent. I found this process to be of great interest as the articles we read challenged the concept that young children pick up languages so easily and it’s harder the older you get. It is of course much more complex than that. While there are many factors in play, Hakuta (in Baker, p.98) states that the evidence for critical period is scanty and that there are no qualitative differences between child and adult learners.
  •  Something I hadn’t explicitly thought about before is the use of English for science and math (Baker, p.210, point 3). I have always believed that math should be in the home language as the skills are transferable (Baker, p.210, point 4). SFUSD has a math curriculum in Spanish but when I was supervising two student teachers both in second grades, one class used the Spanish language version and the other class used the English version. I had never questioned the use of English for science as I felt it was a given as all schools I’ve visited have had science in English, but now I do. This ties straight into a presentation I saw at CIES 2017 regarding the limits of using Western theorists in the African context, especially when there are African theorists to use, such as Nyerere. Birgit Brock-Utne discussed the use of English as people move through academia, including in Norwegian universities. She recalled a discussion she had with a man in Tanzania who moved into English from Kiswahili when a particular topic came up. She asked him whether the language existed in Kiswahili to talk about that topic, and he said it didn’t. Brock-Utne then said to us that language only grows by using it. A couple of hours later, in a different context, a man from Namibia said he was back in his village, he works in the US, and went to speak to the children at the local school. He works in multimedia and information technology and he found the words for that don’t exist in his mother tongue. We have critical mass with Spanish but even so it is hard enough to get a wide range of quality resources in language arts and social studies.
  • On the way to the airport the other day I spoke to a taxi driver from Tajikistan. I don’t think I’ve met anyone from there before and I didn’t know they speak Farsi, as well as Russian (looking it up now I see that Tajik is a version of Farsi). He has two young children and so I asked the driver what language they speak at home, as I often do. They speak Farsi. The phrase that crossed my mind was that “unless you speak fluent English it’s better to speak your home tongue”. This was quickly replaced by the fact that it’s important for children to learn the language of their heart, and that even if the parents do speak fluent English they should still speak the language of their heart at home. It goes beyond being able to speak to the elders; it goes straight to core preservation value. Children quickly learn what language has power, prestige and preference (Baker, p.92), but they also learn the language of the heart and family. Early on children have the ability to use the appropriate language within appropriate contexts (Baker, p.91). The role children play as language brokers has many positive outcomes (Baker, p. 105). Language brokering can often be a lifeline, but there are certain ethical dilemmas when it comes to interpreting sensitive information, such as medical or educational information. Ideally, trained community interpreters can fill the role but in their absence children may need to step in.
  • Language brokering in less sensitive areas, such as when shopping, or banking, highlight student skills in areas a classroom teacher might not be aware of (Jiménez & Orellana, 2006). The suggestion of using journals to access this information is a strong pedagogical tool that opens a window, not only into occasions of language brokering but also emotions surrounding these. Harnessing these skills for academic growth taps into funds of knowledge the student may not know they possess. It may also strengthen positive ideologies surrounding home languages, if these languages are not high status. Children learn early on (Baker, p.106) one language never fully parallels another. Language brokering is not so much about interpreting word for word, but it is also about finding equivalencies. These equivalencies might not always exist, the words comadre or compañera for example come to mind, but the importance is finding the spirit in the sentiment.

 

References:

 Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (3rd ed). Clevedon [England] ; Buffalo [N.Y.]: Multilingual Matters.

Jiménez, R., & Orellana, M. (2006). Flipping the Educational Script: Teachers as Learners. California English.

 

 

Advertisements

Tend the linguistic garden

 

Colin Baker (Baker, 2001, p.53) comments that language diversity requires planning and care. He uses an analogy of a garden to illustrate his point. Smaller flowers may be in need of more protection, and sometimes radical action needs to be taken to preserve particular plants. Baker comments earlier on that language shift is more common than language stability. This intuitively makes sense but it complicates the preservation of languages that are not viewed as high status and/or are spoken by a small group of people. The Universal Declaration on Linguistic Rights (1996) is a beautiful document to read but it is difficult not to view it as a utopia for language communities. It is a critical document to have, imagining other worlds is a powerful liberatory tool, and it is comprehensive, bringing in invasion and colonization and other references to uses and abuses of power. Linguistic diversity is promoted throughout this document as a peace builder, as a key factor for harmonious social relations, and a political framework based upon respect and mutual benefit.

Baker points out that language rights can sometimes be more idealistic than realistic (p.370). He describes the distinction between tolerance-oriented rights and promotion-oriented rights. A tolerance orientation is often legalistic in form, and one of its aims is to protect against discrimination in different settings, schools being one of the most highly charged. A promotion orientation implies the active inclusion of all language communities in question, going beyond the letter of the law. This can be costly to implement and oftentimes impractical. Home language instruction ideally would be offered to all students in the US but it is impossible to provide for all communities. Speakers of Spanish are best served as they make up a large group of non-English speakers in many parts of the country. Speakers of Somali may be served in the Minneapolis area but less so outside of this region.

The territorial principle may also be in play when it comes to tolerance and/or promotion of linguistic rights. In Article One of the UNLR a language community is considered any human society that has developed a common language as a natural means of communication, whether or not there are historical ties to the territory they find themselves in. This accounts for immigrant and refugee communities, among others. Baker reminds us (p.43) that the politics and power situation in which minority languages are situated is important. Beyond hierarchies of language, the power differential between people who believe they belong in this country (and Australia and the UK)-based on being a native speaker of English is vast. Around two thirds of the world’s population is bilingual and multilingual and this number is growing. The UNLR was likely written by people who speak multiple languages, and a challenge to the primacy of English did not have a place in this document (it can be read in the lines however). English is a global and imperial language and monolingual English speakers often feel entitled to the territory that comes with it.

Power and ideology determines whose language is taught, which language practices are valued and which are minoritized (García, 2014, p.89). Hegemonic educational practices in many Anglophone countries draw on the cultural capital of the white, middle-class, English-speaking student. The acquisition of ‘foreign’ languages is seen to be beneficial morally, socially and globally for the white, middle-class student, while the language communities that speak these languages as home tongues are seen as deficient (Baker p.347). Ofelia Garcia (p. 91) states that the most important aspect of language education is having teachers who are educated to respect the multilingual ecology of their classroom and to develop the bilingualism of their students. This happens too seldom in teacher education programs and in ongoing professional development for classroom teachers. Language education pedagogies are products of their time, and often reflect retrograde notions. Until a year or so ago, I carried with me a visual of the purgatory of ‘semilingualism’: people who don’t have academic home language or English. Leaving aside the problematic of the definition of ‘academic’, it was only when reading a recent article (Flores, Kleyn, & Menken, 2015) that I saw how erroneous that visual is. Garcia challenges monoglossic ideologies, in particular the concept that there are fixed first and second languages. She proposes instead the concept of languaging that is complex and interrelated, and does not emerge in a linear fashion. Garcia writes that continuing to talk about L1 and L2 keeps power in the hands of monolinguals that speak the dominant language of the society in which they live at birth and who can acquire a “second” language independently. This “native” speaker is seen as White, monolingual and loyal to their nation, whereas Brown and Black bilingual speakers are marked as ‘foreign’.

Language diversity, language rights, the territorial principle and power and ideology lead us in a circle that is ever expanding. Without intentional and critical reflection on bilingualism and its relation to power and privilege we may subsume language diversity and language rights beneath a neoliberal mantle. We need to crack that mantle and creatively plan for the maintenance and promotion of the rights of all language communities, wherever they reside. It is a complex and messy business, as with so much work in education, but if we don’t ask the questions we remain in purgatory.

 

References:

Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (3rd ed). Clevedon [England] ; Buffalo [N.Y.]: Multilingual Matters.

Flores, N., Kleyn, T., & Menken, K. (2015). Looking Holistically in a Climate of Partiality: Identities of Students Labeled Long-Term English Language Learners. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 14(2), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2015.1019787

García, O. (2014). Chapter Six: Multilingualism and Language Education. In C. Leung & B. V. Street (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to English Studies (pp. 84–99). London ; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

UNESCO. (1996). Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights. UNESCO. Retrieved from http://www.istrianet.org/istria/languages/declaration-rights-unesco.pdf

 

 

Beware the apologetic stance of liberals

 

“Ignorance is never innocent and is always shaped by a particular ideological predisposition”. This quote from Donaldo Macedo (Macedo, 2000) is in response to educators objecting to the term “colonialism” to characterize the present (writing in 2000) attack on bilingual education (an attack that is still underway). He comments that the apologetic stance of some liberals, faced with the ignorance of educators who blindly oppose bilingual education, is not surprising as classical liberalism always prioritizes the right to private property. Market forces and neoliberalism are a logical extension of classical liberalism. Whiteness and English go together to suppress people of color and other people whose lives are pushed to the margins. English is not the only colonial language but it is the most widespread. It could also be argued that it is the most insidious as it continually morphs and spreads its webbing, increasing its influence.

Cheryl Harris introduced the concept of “whiteness as property” (Harris, 1993)and this can be extended to “English as property”. Speaking English is too often equated with ‘intelligence’ despite clear evidence that native English speakers do not have a monopoly on complex thought. In fact to even enter into that debate shows the dominance of English expression at the expense of other languages and mother tongues. In reference to Prop 227, empirical evidence that showed that in San Francisco and in San José bilingual graduates were outperforming their English speaking counterparts (Macedo, 2000) was deliberately ignored as it didn’t fit the deficit narrative pushed by politicians, the media, and English Only proponents. The days of overt punishment for speaking home languages other than English may be over, but students from lower socio-economic settings are still punished when forced to abandon their mother tongue in formal school settings.

“And then I went to school..” Macedo (2000) states that the ideological principles that sustain debates over bilingual education and the primacy of Western heritage are consonant with a colonial ideology designed to devalue the cultural capital and values of the colonized. It is impossible to extract relations of power and privilege from language teaching, and from teaching in general. The supposed ‘objectivity’ of Dominant American English plasters over the legacy of colonialism and exploitation, that is still very much in play. It is heartening, however, to read the work of researchers in the field, and educators in various settings, who challenge deficit thinking when it comes to students who speak non-Dominant American English. The authors of a 2008 review of research (García, Kleifgen, & Falchi, 2008) posit that the central idea to emerge from the report is that there is a growing dissonance between research on the education of emergent bilinguals and policy enacted to educate them. Eight years on we are fortunate to have even more work focused on the education of emergent bilingual students, work that may serve to buttress the hatred and intolerance now legitimized in too many places.

In terms of policy, the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act, renamed No Child Left Behind, pushed nails in the coffin of education of ELs. Instead of linguistic references to bilingual education the goal was English acquisition at all costs. There is little doubt that the assault on bilingual education is directly linked to the number of Spanish speaking emergent bilingual students. At an event to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Lau v. Nichols, one of the attorneys on the case mentioned that it was a strategic decision to have Chinese families file the class action suit, and that if it had been, for example, Sanchez v. Nichols, the result could have been different. It’s hard not to react to that viscerally, but it reflects the attitudes of the time, and prevailing attitudes of today. Around 80% of emergent bilinguals speak Spanish as a home language, providing critical mass in terms of presence and policy. It is impossible, however, to generalize about people who come from vastly different countries and vastly different cultures. The 2008 report provides us with an overview of the data and an overview of programs set up to support emergent bilingual students. The authors contend that the recent shift toward teaching Spanish-speaking English language learners in English alone with no use of Spanish to scaffold their learning appears to be the result of the public’s misunderstanding of the nature of bilingualism and its benefits, as well as cultural politics that have little to do with what is educationally sound for the children.

A report from 2007 authored by the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill found that in a preschool setting when the Spanish speaking children spoke with their teachers in Spanish, conversations were more elaborate, children were rated higher by their teachers in terms of character traits, and there was less bullying and anti-social behavior. The amount of Spanish that children experienced in the classroom was significantly related to teachers’ ratings of children’s frustration, tolerance, assertiveness, task orientation and peer social skills. The use of Spanish in the classroom had no influence on their English language acquisition. When we talk about academic language and academic achievement we must bring in social and emotional hooks, as that is what home languages provide in abundance. These hooks can also come about when children learn native languages relevant to their cultural identity. As these are often languages not used much in the home, the complexity of expression may be mooted, but the importance of the language is not.

Too often decisions on how to teach emergent bilinguals are being made not in the classroom but in legislative chambers and voting booths; not on the basis of educational research data but on the basis of public opinion, often passionate but rarely informed (Murray, 2007). An outspoken advocate of bilingual education, James Crawford (Crawford, 2000), stated, “In a small way when government offers bilingual assistance, it elevates the status of language minorities. It suggests that immigrants and Native peoples need not abandon their heritage to be considered American-or at least to be given access to democratic institutions. In short, it alters structures of power, class, and ethnicity. The demand for language restrictions, by contrast, is a demand to reinforce the existing social order.” Education is always political and bilingual education tends to elicit greater political involvement than other areas of education due in no small part to the colonizing power of English and English-only movements. It is this colonizing power we face and we need creative solutions to support our students’ hearts and souls.

References:

Crawford, J. (2000). Anatomy of the English-only Movement. In At War with Diversity. Clevedon [England] ; Buffalo [N.Y.]: Multilingual Matters.

García, O., Kleifgen, J. A., & Falchi, L. (2008). From English Language Learners to Emergent Bilinguals (Research Review). New York, N.Y.: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Harris, C. (1993). Whiteness as Property. Harvard Law Review, 106(8), 1709–1791.

Macedo, D. (2000). The Colonialism of the English Only Movement. Educational Researcher, 29(3), 15–24.

Murray, M. (Liz). (2007, May 23). Current Political Realities and their Impact on Young English Language Learners. Hunter College, CUNY, New York, N.Y.

 

Raciolinguistics and Early Childhood Education

 

Research into early childhood education teaching and practice benefits from a critical look at component parts. Language and literacy are key elements of any ECE classroom and many ECE scholars actively engage in critical literacy explorations. The new field of raciolinguistics asks and answers critical questions about the relationships and the intersections between language, race and power. Applying raciolinguistics to the early childhood setting is sure to raise lively debates and discussions. Intersectionality (in the case of raciolinguistics this would be-but not limited to-the intersections of race and language) and anti-essentialism are one of the key tenets of critical race theory (Ladson-Billings, 2013). Critical race theory can also be a contentious issue in the early childhood classroom, but if an analysis of CRT doesn’t belong there, there where does it belong?

Intersectionality has proven to be a productive concept that has been deployed in a wide range of disciplines such as history and literature (Cho, Crenshaw, & McCall, 2013). Cho et al. affirm that its insistence on examining the dynamics of difference and sameness has played a major role in facilitating discussion and analysis of gender, race and other axes of power. Raciolinguistics is a new field of research ‘dedicated to bringing to bear the diverse methods of linguistic analysis to ask and answer critical questions about the relations between language, race and power across diverse ethnoracial contexts and societies’ (Alim, Rickford, & Ball, 2016). It foregrounds the intersections of race and language. The relationship between language, race and culture has long been a topic of interest in different fields, but, as Alim points out, the reluctance to take issues of race seriously among mainstream linguistics and anthropology has been and is troubling.

I begin this paper with a discussion on intersectionality and critical race theory. I then move to discuss raciolinguistics and how it is connected to intersectionality, and how both fields inform the other. Along with this discussion I bring in research and practice in early childhood education and I comment on the need for greater scholarship in the field of early childhood education from a raciolinguistic perspective.

Intersectionality

The term ‘intersectionality’ was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, a distinguished law professor, in the late 1980s as a heuristic to focus attention on the ‘vexed dynamics of differences and the solidarities of sameness in the context of antidiscrimination and social movement politics’ (Cho et al., 2013). Crenshaw and fellow critical race theorist Angela Harris developed the notion of intersectionality to explain how anti-discrimination law fails women of color (Delgado & Stefancic, 2013). Gloria Ladson-Billings (2013) attached anti-essentialism to the concept of intersectionality and states that critical race theory scholarship decries essentialism, or the idea that people in a single group act and think the same. She comments that we see things as binaries such as black and white, east and west, rich or poor, right or left, but that when we move into the complexities of real life we recognize we each represent multiple identities.

Critical race theory provides a historical context to systemic oppression and highlights the enduring nature of race and racism in our society. It began in the field of critical legal studies. Derrick Bell, who first coined the term, examined the enduring role of race in the supposedly objective field of law. CRT was then brought into another supposedly objective field: education.

Critical race theory in education offers concrete tools for framing pedagogies of race, such as counter storytelling and testimonio (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). This centralizes the experiences and narratives of people of color, thus legitimizing them as evidence to challenge and reframe dominant narratives about race, culture, language and citizenship.

Intersectionality was a lived reality before it became a term (Crenshaw, 2015). In the first part of the 1800s, Maria Stewart, a black female intellectual, stated that race, class and gender oppression were the fundamental causes of Black women’s poverty (Hill Collins, 2000). Hill Collins refers to group dynamics, the importance of the collective, of group identity and solidarity. Intersectionality by its very nature assumes belonging to identity-based groups. It isn’t simply a matter of where or how you ‘belong’ to these particular groups, but it is a matter of how belonging to these groups restricts movement (literal and figurative) and impedes reaching your full potential. It presents a frame through which to analyze layers of oppression, and challenge the hegemonic system: to challenge what is viewed as objectively ‘normal’.

The African American Policy Forum, co-founded by Crenshaw, highlights the importance of intersectionality as a tool (of analysis and resistance) rather than as academic tactic or fashion (Gillborn, 2015). Mc Call (2005) identified three modes of theorizing the complexity of intersectionality: anticategorical complexity, intracategorical complexity, and intercategorical complexity. An anticategorical approach is post-structuralist, and calls social life too complex to make fixed categories anything but simplifying social fictions. That is to say, race and other identity markers are merely social constructs, negating the central tenet of critical race theory that race is enduring. The intracategorical approach acknowledges intersectionality but does not go far enough in analysing why such disparities exist between groups of people. It offers a more layered approach where categories are almost piled up one on top of the other. The final approach is the one McCall uses to describe her own research methodology. Intercategorical complexity requires ‘that scholars provisionally adopt existing analytical categories to document relationships of inequality among social groups and changing configurations of inequality along multiple and conflicting dimensions’ (p. 1773). In other words, the how and the why particular groups of people suffer oppression is foregrounded, and the dynamic nature of intersectionality is affirmed. We must build on the work that came before and continue to interrogate systems of oppression, and how we can resist and transform lived reality. This approach is a call to action, a central tenet of critical race theory.

Raciolinguistics

When it comes to broad scholarship on race and ethnicity, language is often overlooked as one of the most important cultural means that we have for distinguishing ourselves from others (Alim, 2016).

Raciolinguistics is a term that explicitly ties race to language: ‘racing language and languaging race’ (Alim, 2016). Rosa (2016) comments that public display of linguistic difference is alternately celebrated or stigmatized depending on the speaker’s social position. “Language use and race come to be constructed and interpreted in relation to one another” (p. 67). Even when superior language skills are acquired, people are still seen (heard) through a racialized lens that views them as inferior (Flores & Rosa, 2015). A clear example of this was shared on social media recently when a Latina scholar was questioned on her use of the word ‘hence’; her professor assumed she had plagiarized (Martínez, 2016). Children are racialized through language almost from the moment they begin to talk. Language, power and race affect their movements and self-identity in a myriad of ways. We have a responsibility to analyze practice and theory related to early childhood using intersectionality and raciolinguistics in order to best help our children grow up healthy in body and soul.

Intersectionality and critical race theory scholars most often take adults and youth as the starting point of their work. Growing numbers of early childhood practitioners and researchers are using frames such as CRT and intersectionality in their work with young children (Vasquez, 2014)(Souto-Manning, 2013)(Kuby, 2013). It is no accident that the same teacher scholars use critical literacy as a frame through which to hone their work. Language and literacy practices are central to most school settings, and we need to be able to identify what teaching practices help or hinder our students, from as early an age as we can. We need to be aware of how language and race intersect in powerful and potentially destructive ways. The language a child brings to school is inherently tied to family and home, and as teachers we must respect and revere this knowledge, or risk irrevocably breaking their spirit.

CRT in education promotes the use of counter storytelling and testimonio (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002) to center voices often unheard and to challenge hegemonic practice. In the early childhood classroom children are filled with ontological questions, their own version of counternarratives and testimonio. They busily make hypotheses about who they are, how they are, why they are etc. These explorations manifest in literacy events such as drawing, writing, reading, painting, telling a story, sharing ideas aloud, collaborating in the block area as they build a city, and the list goes on. Children learn first through the body, and then in some form of what we recognize as words. Very young children are able to respond to verbal commands before they can say them aloud. They process the information and act on it physically, without saying a word in response. A conceptual understanding of the world precedes speech, writing and reading.

Cruz (2001) writes from a distinct perspective, but her words regarding an epistemology of the brown body are valid in an analysis of early childhood education and children of color. “Situating knowledge in the brown body begins the validation of the narratives of survival, transformation, and emancipation of our respective communities, reclaiming histories and identities. And in these ways, we embody our theory”(p. 668). Those of us working in early childhood, and in elementary education, must acknowledge the work that has come before, within families, within communities and within the child themself. We must recognize that knowledge is not only passed down through books and words, but it is also transmitted through bodies, communal relations, and other forms of non-verbal communication.

The moment children enter formal schooling, the pressure is on for them to read and write, and often before they reach first grade. Any knowledge gained through the body and through non-verbal communication is thrown to the side, as are literacy and language skills the children have acquired in their early years. This pressure does not produce diamonds, it produces ulcers and skin rashes. This practice is developmentally inappropriate for all children, but children of color suffer worse.

Raciolinguistic ideologies[1] (Flores & Rosa, 2015) position non-native (and non-standard) speakers of English as deficit thinkers even if they possess superior English language skills. Flores and Rosa assert that it is not a question of lack of proficiency in standard English that holds language-minoritized users back; rather racial positioning is at fault. An example given to illustrate this point is a teacher who hears her young African American students making ‘errors’ in standard English when they say ‘he was/she was’, as the teacher was confusing this usage with the Ebonics’ usage ‘they was’. Power differentials that are already vast when adults teach young children become even greater when the child’s language is not respected and revered.

Intersectionality is inextricably linked to an analysis of power and it helps ‘reveal how power works in diffuse and differentiated ways through the creation and deployment of overlapping identity categories’ (Cho et al., 2013). In reference to U.S. Latinas/os, Rosa (2016) writes that stigmatization occurs through the policing of their English-language use. “Signs of accents and Spanish-language use are regarded as reflections of abject foreignness, regardless of the long history of Spanish-language use across the Americas” (p. 67). Language use is intimately connected to national origin and is often a surrogate for anti-immigrant sentiment, even from people who would otherwise see themselves as liberal. Too many teachers attest to discomfort in the classroom if students are speaking a language they personally don’t understand. We need to question the primacy of English itself, as it is understood in the academic arena. This is a fertile area for future study.

Intersectionality has a core activist component, in that an intersectional approach aims to generate coalitions between different groups with the aim of resisting and changing the status quo (Gillborn, 2015). Intersectionality can be used to identify areas of struggle and to analyze where oppression is coming from, and how it manifests. The burgeoning field of raciolinguistics is also a call to action as affiliated writers and readers take their cue from real world practice and use this as a base from which to theorize. Both intersectionality and raciolinguistics pull from inherently dynamic systems that constantly shift. For this reason it is particularly exciting to see where research and practice will take us. The field of early childhood education is also highly mutable and open to innovative analyses. In the ECE setting CRT activism falls more on the shoulder of teachers and educators than the children themselves, however a challenge to the status quo may come from the work the children do. We must all be ready to take this call to action on.

References:

Alim, H. S., Rickford, J. R., & Ball, A. F. (Eds.). (2016). Raciolinguistics: how language shapes our ideas about race. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.

Cho, S., Crenshaw, K. W., & McCall, L. (2013). Toward a Field of Intersectionality Studies: Theory, Applications, and Praxis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 785–810.

Crenshaw, K. (2015, September 24). Why intersectionality can’t wait. Washington Post. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/09/24/why-intersectionality-cant-wait/?utm_term=.bc30e02123b4

Cruz, C. (2001). Toward an epistemology of a brown body. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(5), 657–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390110059874

Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2013). Discerning Critical Moments. In M. Lynn & A. D. Dixson (Eds.), Handbook of Critical Race Theory in Education. New York, N.Y.: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing Appropriateness: Raciolinguistic Ideologies and Language Diversity in Education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2).

Gillborn, D. (2015). Intersectionality, Critical Race Theory, and the Primacy of Racism: Race, Class, Gender, and Disability in Education. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(3), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414557827

Hill Collins, P. (2000). Black feminist thought: knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/id/10054558

Kuby, C. R. (2013). Critical literacy in the early childhood classroom: unpacking histories, unlearning privilege. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2013). Ch. 3 “Critical Race Theory-What It Is Not!” In M. Lynn & A. D. Dixson (Eds.), Handbook of Critical Race Theory in Education. New York, N.Y.: Routledge.

Martínez, T. (2016, October 27). Academia, Love Me Back [WordPress].

McCall, L. (2005). The Complexity of Intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(3), 1771–1800.

Rosa, J. (2016). From Mock Spanish to Inverted Spanglish. In H. S. Alim, J. R. Rickford, & A. F. Ball (Eds.), Raciolinguistics. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical Race Methodology: Counter-Storytelling as an Analytical Framework for Education Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44.

Souto-Manning, M. (2013). Multicultural teaching in the early childhood classroom: approaches, strategies, and tools, preschool-2nd grade. New York: Teachers College Press.

Vasquez, V. M. (2014). Negotiating critical literacies with young children: 10th anniversary edition (Second edition). New York: Routledge.

[1] The term “raciolinguistic ideologies” was first used, to the best of our knowledge, by Nelson Flores and Jonathan Rosa (Alim, 2016).

 

“Undoing Appropriateness: Raciolinguistic Ideologies and Language Diversity in Education”

This summer an article came out entitled Undoing Appropriateness: Raciolinguistic Ideologies and Language Diversity in Education, by Nelson Flores and Jonathan Rosa (2015). This article challenges my thinking regarding language acquisition and follows on from an article I wrote about a couple of posts ago (also co-authored by Nelson Flores). The previous article challenged my thinking regarding English learners/emergent bilingual students and the notion of ‘semilingualism’. This article focuses on the need to critically examine the role of the listener involved in interactions with emergent bilingual students. The authors also critique the supposed objectiveness of ‘standard English’. The authors draw on Lisa Delpit’s work (2006)and comment on her argument that users of nonstandard varieties of English must be provided explicit instruction in mainstream linguistic practices in order to gain access to upward mobility. The authors posit “(U)sing the terminology we have developed in this article, Delpit’s approach could be framed as perpetuating a raciolinguistic ideology that uses an appropriateness-based model to advocate explicitly teaching language-minoritized users of English the idealized linguistic practices of the white speaking subject.” The authors contend that we must shift the focus of research away from analyzing linguistic forms and towards analyzing positions of enunciation and reception.

Flores and Rosa assert that it is not a question of lack of proficiency in standard English that holds language-minoritized users back; rather racial positioning is at fault. One example given to illustrate this point is a teacher who hears her African American students making ‘errors’ in standard English when they say ‘he was/she was’, as the teacher was confusing this usage with the Ebonic usage ‘they was’. Another example raised is that of a “Chicana doctoral student in a Spanish literature department at a prestigious university”. The authors note that despite Estela’s bilingual experiences and academic credentials, some of Estela’s professors described her Spanish as “limited” and questioned the legitimacy of her admission to the doctoral program. When pressed, however, these professors were unable to give concrete examples to back up their claims. In both instances, the white listener/s were unable to hear past the racialization of the students’ language use, and therefore heard their language use as inferior.

In a previous post I quoted from Jill Kerper-Mora and James Crawford to illustrate the pernicious nature of language restrictionism. It is much easier to openly discriminate against people whose mother tongue is not standard English, than to discriminate for other reasons. When it comes to difficulties in terms of academic achievement it is much easier to place the blame on students for not speaking standard English, than to interrogate the intersectionalities that exist between language, race, and class. Instead of looking for ways by which students can best convey understanding and communicate ideas, the onus is placed solely on the shoulders of the students to learn and access language deemed appropriate for academic settings.

The authors bring Ofelia García into the conversation and raise the issue of additive approaches that perpetuate monoglossic language ideologies, approaches that marginalize the fluid linguistic practices of communities who engage in dynamic linguistic practices that do not conform to monolingual norms. There are no clear answers as to how best to address this issue. The growing number of Californian school districts mandating Ethnic Studies as a graduation requirement raises important questions as to how these changes will be implemented. It is clear that consultation with students should be front and center of this work. With guidance students can set up projects that are meaningful to them, that impact their learning in positive ways, and that offer creative ways to communicate ideas front and center in their hearts. We celebrate artists who shift our perception of the world, and writers who play with language. The intense focus on proficiency in academic English posits a false gatekeeper, and when tied to highly subjective standardized testing few students are able to truly show their skills and abilities in order to pass through. Articles such as this one challenge us to question our positioning as educators and researchers and make sure we stay on our toes.

Delpit, L. D. (2006). Other people’s children: cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New Press : Distributed by W.W. Norton.

Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing Appropriateness: Raciolinguistic Ideologies and Language Diversity in Education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2).

Toku reo toku ohōho*

*Māori for “My Language, my awakening”

It is increasingly apparent that in the US formal school settings do not adequately support the learning of students whose home languages are other than standard English. Discrimination on linguistic grounds is still permissible, and even promoted, while other forms of discrimination are legally curtailed. Policy matters relating to the education of children who do not speak English as a mother tongue enter the realm of public discourse, with educators often drowned out by bigoted monolingual English speakers, and others who do not value multilingualism. James Crawford (2000), an outspoken advocate of bilingual education, states,

“In a small way when government offers bilingual assistance, it elevates the status of language minorities. It suggests that immigrants and Native peoples need not abandon their heritage to be considered American-or at least to be given    access to democratic institutions. In short, it alters structures of power, class, and ethnicity. The demand for language restrictions, by contrast, is a demand to reinforce the existing social order.”

Echoing these thoughts, Jill Kerper Mora (2000), questions what society hopes to accomplish through language restriction as an official language policy. “At the heart of the matter”, Mora states, “are the core principles of democracy in a culturally and linguistically diverse society”. Mora goes on to ask, “Is the use of other languages really a threat to our national unity, or are not intolerance and coercion a far greater threat to our unity?” The Ethnic Studies Now! campaign has seen over six school districts in California pass legislation to make Ethnic Studies a graduation requirement. Diversity of experience can only make our lives richer, and questioning hegemony and dominant power structures is essential to combat intolerance and coercion. Language plays a key role in rehumanizing education.

With formal education failing too many language minority students, the more we know about nonformal bilingual education the better we can play to student strengths. There is no doubt that mastery of academic English is of benefit to students, however years of research now unequivocally points to fluency in the home language as key to acquisition and learning of social and academic language in subsequent tongues. Language use can never be taken out of context. The languages and discourses a child grows up with are an integral part of what makes them whole and their use surpasses mere communicative goals. We build bonds with those around us with language, and language colors family life, and ties us to our communities.

Bartlett and Bajaj (2015) outline the importance of understanding and supporting ‘nonformal bilingual education’. The distinction between ‘learning’ a language and ‘acquiring’ a language is not as clear-cut as some would have us believe. Acquisition can be seen as the lesser of the two actions, when it is viewed as a ‘subconscious’ activity, rather than an intentional act. Bartlett and Bajaj affirm that (language) acquisition can be planned (not unconscious) or unplanned. They state, “bilingual speakers pragmatically access and assess their multiple linguistic and cultural resources as they participate in plural social networks”. Drawing on qualitative interviews with US students classified as LTELLs (long term English language learner), Flores, Kleyn and Menken (2015) recognize that students classified as English Language Learners “utilize a vast and flexible linguistic repertoire that allows them to negotiate many different cultural spaces and create fluid identities”. But “because of the epistemic racism of idealized monolingualism, the fluid bilingual use of language reported by students in this study does not translate into academic success”.

I was having a hard time pulling this post together but today when I flew into South Africa I thought about the term bilingual, and how it should not necessarily imply proficiency in the second (third, and so on) tongue. On the plane I watched a documentary that discussed art in Ghana. A singer who was interviewed commented that she sang in a language that wasn’t as popular as another language (I can’t remember the specifics). I’m pretty sure she mixed about three languages into her songs, in any case. There are formal uses of the term bilingual, such as in a work situation, but I would not hesitate to call many of the children at Joe Slovo (the children I work with here in South Africa) bilingual. As I write this Ofelia Garcia’s introduction of the term ‘emergent bilingual’ makes more and more sense. The further away we can get from terms that reinforce a deficit view of children (such as English learner) the greater the chance of potentially changing mindsets in the classroom and altering policy that pushes students into a corner, with limited means to escape. It’s exciting to the see the work that is being done in this field, but change never happens overnight, especially when addressing such a politically charged issue that threatens English dominance and hegemonic posturing.

References:

Crawford, J. (2000). At war with diversity: US language policy in an age of anxiety. Clevedon [England] ; Buffalo [N.Y.]: Multilingual Matters.

Flores, N., Kleyn, T., & Menken, K. (2015). Looking Holistically in a Climate of Partiality: Identities of Students Labeled Long-Term English Language Learners. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 14(2), 113–132. http://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2015.1019787

Lesley Bartlett, & Bajaj, M. (2015). Chapter 25: Nonformal Bilingual Education. In W. E. Wright, S. Boun, & O. García (Eds.), The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education (pp. 428–446). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Mora, J. K. (2000). Proposition 227: Two Years Later. Retrieved from http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/Prop227/227YearTwo.htm

“Looking Holistically in a Climate of Partiality: Identities of Students Labeled Long-Term English Language Learners”

Nelson Flores, Tatyana Kleyn & Kate Menken (2015) Looking Holistically in a Climate of Partiality: Identities of Students Labeled Long-Term English Language Learners, Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 14:2, 113-132, DOI: 10.1080/15348458.2015.1019787

I’ve been interested in language and language learning for almost as long as I remember. One of my earliest career goals was to go around the world cleaning houses. I’m not sure where the cleaning houses part came in, it was maybe related to my gran’s field of work. I wanted to travel the world so I could learn many different languages. My mother tongue is English and I’ve never needed to clean houses to make a living so I’m privileged in more ways than a few. I’m close to bilingual in French, competent in Spanish and I know smatterings of Portuguese and Xhosa. I haven’t taken on languages far removed from English and I can talk about bilingualism and the need for effective bilingual/multilingual education without it being a life or death matter (for me).

I don’t feel I’m exaggerating when I couch the linguistic debate in such extreme terms as ‘life or death’. When I started formally studying bilingual education we discussed BICS and CALP and the problem with students being ‘semi-literate’ in both home language and English. It’s important that educators are aware of the differences between conversational language acquisition and academic language acquisition but there is much more to the story. I read an article recently that addresses this issue, and one of the elements that  made it a compelling read is that over the course of the study the authors found their assumptions challenged and they addressed this in an open and honest manner. The article addressed the need of students classified as LTELLs (Long term English language learners-generally defined as not testing out of their English language learner status after seven years in a US school). Leaving aside the problematic of testing, what resonated with me was that with all the best will in the world, the authors themselves had held onto this notion of being semi-literate and the damage this can bring (I’m not paraphrasing and I hope I haven’t misrepresented their words).

From the article: “In his critique of the term semilingual, MacSwan (2000) argues that it not only sees students through a deficit lens but also privileges certain ways of using language as superior—namely, academic English. This construction does not explore the important question of what defines a proficient speaker of English, nor does it deconstruct the assumption of the mastery of academic discourse as a prerequisite for being considered a proficient user of English for certain populations, nor does it explore who or what defines what academic discourse is and who has mastered it.”

The authors continue: “For example, in the United States a monolingual English speaker who never mastered academic discourse would not be considered an ELL, and yet somebody who is bilingual must master academic discourse to be considered fully proficient in the language.”

This article is based on interviews done with students who have been classified as LTELLs by the system. “Unsurprisingly there was unanimous rejection of this label by the students who not only found it offensive but as simply inaccurate in describing their fluid language use and transnational identities.” There is much of interest in this article and it opened my eyes to my own deficit view of emergent bilinguals. I’m reminded of my privilege and background and the option I have of stepping back, an option too many children in our schools don’t have. Articles like this one, and the spread of Ethnic Studies in California gives me hope that more voices will be raised, and that all students will be treated with dignity and respect. The authors point out the harmful cycle happening in schools: “Furthermore, there is an assumption that hard work will suffice, yet the inability of schools to build on Lorenzo’s linguistic repertoire suggests that far more is needed than simply an increased effort on the student’s part.” So not only does systemic racism and prejudice endure, the students battling this are made to feel as if they are to blame.

And this: “In this article, we hope to push the discourse of partiality even further and argue that it, in fact, can be understood as a racial project that serves to perpetuate White supremacy through the marginalization of the language practices of communities of color through a form of epistemic racism that situates the epistemology of privileged monolingual subjectivities as the unmarked societal norm.” Too many educators shy away from embracing languages they don’t understand. Furthermore, a hegemonic monolingual stance reduces empathy and increases the likelihood of making an ‘other’ of students whose lives matter every bit as much as those who fit the hegemonic mould.

I used to use a quote attributed to Wittgenstein: “the limits of my language are the limits of my life”. I took this to mean that we needed to support students’ learning so these limits will be surpassed. This quote now sticks in my craw, as limit used once is too much. I’m now more drawn to a Czech proverb that states, “learn a new language and get a new soul”. This does not imply fluency in another language, but it implies putting yourself in another linguistic frame that may lead to greater empathy and compassion. As educators we are privileged to work with students from diverse backgrounds, and we have a moral duty to show empathy and compassion. We must always “teach with joy and justice”, as Linda Christensen artfully states. The article I’ve discussed in this post is essential reading for all educators in the country, no matter what the age or stage.

The Arrival

Thoughts from a recent trip to Japan:

A couple of days after arriving in Tokyo I took a taxi from our hotel to Ueno Park, about a half hour drive. I was reminded of the Shaun Tan masterpiece The Arrival. All the signs around were in Japanese and the modern feel of the place put me straight into a world reminiscent of Blade Runner and other futuristic sci-fi settings. Tokyo doesn’t have flying cars or apparent androids but it’s a city like no other I’ve visited before. The first time I read The Arrival I had an inkling of what it might be like to be in a place that uses a language you are completely unfamiliar with. The protagonist arrives in this city to escape a threat in his homeland. He is hoping to bring his wife and his daughter with him once he is set up. There are no words in this story but you can identify what passes for written language. You can identify signs and labels without knowing what they say. This highlights for me that you only learn to read once, and that once you are able to see abstract symbols standing in for concrete and abstract words, you can recognize what is script in foreign languages. The dizzying feeling of my first reading of the book never came back, and as a native English speaker it’s rare I’ve felt that way since. No matter where I go I can expect that someone will have at least a smattering of English. Riding in the taxi I wasn’t completely at sea as street signs often use English as well as Japanese, some ads have English words in them, and inside the taxi there is information in English. Most taxi drivers we met spoke only a small amount of English but we had place names written in Japanese to help with directions and hotel staff also helped translate when needed. Inside all taxis there is a ‘point and (something)’ sheet. Anyone travelling to Japan from elsewhere needs some English to get by. There were a couple of people we met in shops who were native French speakers and one who was a native Brazilian/Portuguese speaker, but they all spoke English too. The day tours we went on were all conducted in English. When I googled English monolingualism I came across this article regarding English as a lingua franca. It’s a quick and interesting read that gathers quotes from elsewhere so I’m not able to synthesize the points raised. There is no doubt English is useful for any travellers, but native English speakers benefit so much from learning even a few words in another language as it truly opens up the heart and soul. It helps you see the world through different eyes. Science fiction and speculative fiction stories also open up hearts and minds to a different reality. This is why I enjoy reading them so much. The next time I visit Tokyo I’ll be on the lookout for more experiences like the one in the taxi. I know it’s tricky to truly get lost, and to be in an unforeseen locale, but if it’s going to happen, there is no better place than Japan.

Fish is Fish

I had a shiatsu massage today and as I was relaxing on the table I was thinking of calming images and one of a frog came to mind. This led to thinking about the book Fish is Fish by Leo Lionni, and from there it was a quick leap (haha) to interpreting it as a metaphor for being multilingual. In infanthood both fish and frog/tadpole do the same things and see each other as more or less the same. As happens with frogs, the tadpole soon grows legs, leaves the pond and travels the world. Frog doesn’t forget his friend though and comes back to the pond to tell Fish about all he’s seen. I’ll admit that this bit sometimes makes me feel a little strange as I feel a bit sorry for Fish who hasn’t been around the world, but let’s leave that to the side for the moment. Frog is now a multilingual entity and poor old Fish is still monolingual. Frog describes all the places he has been but Fish can only see them through his pond/monolingual eyes. Fish tries to jump out of the pond at the end but he can’t breathe air so Frog saves him by pushing him back in the pond. To keep with my metaphor it would be great if Fish could learn to breathe air and share the experiences Frog has, but this isn’t to be. The image I had of Frog as I was on the massage table is that Frog straddles two worlds and can live in both. I don’t want to stretch the metaphor too far, and the fact that frogs are endangered isn’t really symbolic of multilingualism as a whole. There are too many endangered languages, but outside of English speaking westernized countries people are far more likely to be at least bilingual. Charlemagne is credited with saying that to have another language is to possess a second soul. I also like a quote from Wittgenstein, “the limits of my language are the limits of my life”. I’ve used the second quote a few times as an opener to academic papers, generally when the topic relates to bilingual education in an English speaking country. While looking up these quotes I came across one that I’m not as familiar with but it’s heartbreakingly true:

Many Americans have long been of the opinion that bilingualism is ‘a good thing’ if it was acquired via travel (preferably to Paris) or via formal education (preferably at Harvard) but that it is a ‘bad thing’ if it was acquired from one’s immigrant parents or grandparents. -Fishman

I can’t quite tie this quote in to Fish is Fish as there are no family members in the pond as such, and I’m adding quite a personal slant to the book in any case. This is what it comes back to for me though, that we are all so much better off if we shed a monolingual coil and let in other words and languages, to whatever degree we are capable of.

Molweni! Ndiyavuya ukukwazi.

Molweni! Ndiyavuya ukukwazi J[1]

The issue of home languages and their place in the classroom is one very close to my heart. I am naturally curious about language and while I speak three languages that are among the most common (English, French, Spanish) I try to learn little bits of other languages that don’t come as easily to me. Right now I’m learning conversational Xhosa for my upcoming trip to South Africa. This will be my third time in South Africa and so far I’ve learnt some basic words and phrases but I’m trying to use a bit more. I’m at the stage of being able to say certain things but I don’t always understand the replies. In South Africa I’ve been working with children in Joe Slovo township in Port Elizabeth. A good friend of mine runs an excellent program for the children there. Everyone in the community speaks Xhosa as a mother tongue and they learn English at school. On the books, South Africa has eleven official languages: (in order of number of speakers) Zulu, Xhosa, Afrikaans, English, Northern Sotho, Tswana, Sotho, Tsonga, Swati, Venda and Ndebele. The national exam however is only in English and Afrikaans. Considering the Soweto uprising was sparked by the introduction of Afrikaans as the language of instruction in schools, this continued dismissal of Bantu languages shows how much further South Africa needs to go to truly represent all South Africans.

Language is indivisible from culture and as Jim Cummins (Cummins, 1999) says, “if the mother tongue is not supported, leading to the rupture of relationships with family as well as dismissal of the child’s experience up to then, we are contradicting the very essence of education”. Cummins is speaking about the North American experience but his words resonate throughout. South Africa is the only country in Africa I’ve been to and it’s the most multilingual place I’ve ever been to. English is the lingua franca but almost everyone I met spoke a couple of other languages as well, their home language and whatever else they may need. The children at Joe Slovo start learning English at school and it appears to me that English soon becomes the one language of instruction. Many of the teachers teaching in English are mother tongue Xhosa speakers. I’m not sure what the answer is in regards to language learning and Xhosa literacy, and the issue of the instructional language competes, in terms of importance, with issues such as teachers taking food from the students, corporal punishment, among other egregious behavior on the part of the teachers. I would like to see Xhosa take on a more important role in South African society, along with Zulu and other Bantu languages. Some of the soap operas have people speaking a mix of English and maybe Xhosa or Zulu, and sometimes Afrikaans. These soap operas are subtitled so everyone can understand. I would like to see more programming in Bantu languages on television, and newspapers in Bantu languages.

With my third South African visit on the horizon I will look more closely at the linguistic issues that arise in South Africa. I hope to interview people I already know about their thoughts and beliefs in terms of language use and language as repository of culture. They say the third time is the charm, and I hope the charm coming to me this winter is a greater understanding of what it means to live in a multilingual country, and how this affects culture and personal identity. I can say I’m aware of my privilege as a native English speaker but I know I have to check it at times. I am in no way advocating not learning English, as it’s crucial in today’s world to have a good command of English. Xhosa is, however, spoken as a mother tongue by the vast majority of people living in the Eastern Cape so it has critical mass behind it and in my view it is critical to promote alphabetization in Xhosa and English. I’m excited for the trip and the chance to explore this issue in more depth.

 

Reference:

Cummins, J. (1999, 2003). Bilingual Children’s Mother Tongue: Why Is It Important for Education? Retrieved from http://langpolicy.saschina.wikispaces.net/file/view/CumminsENG.pdf

 

 

[1] Hello! I am glad to know you J in isiXhosa