EDTL 4410 Week 9.2

Week 9 EDTL 4410

Announcements and Agenda

Announcements

  • Non-standard “like” analysis: This is due on October 29. Students are required to bring data to class, but there will not be a formal presentation associated with this submission.

Agenda Overview

  1. Review Topics:

    • Translanguaging

    • Cultural capital

    • Educational language policy

  2. Group Work: Students are tasked with designing a language policy.

Group Discussion

Key Discussion Points

  1. Cultural Capital and Linguistic Capital:

    • Participants are asked to define both terms.

    • Examples: Students should uniquely cite examples specific to their interpretations of cultural capital and linguistic capital.

  2. Translanguaging:

    • Students must define translanguaging.

    • Exploration of how both cultural capital and linguistic capital impact education, particularly for multilingual students.

    • Responses should be uploaded to the designated Padlet platform.

Educational Language Policy and Planning

Findings on National Language Policies

  1. Implementational Spaces for Multilingualism: National language policies have opened avenues for multilingual education within schools, encouraging diverse language use and inclusivity in pedagogy.

    • Case Studies:

      • Peru: Puno Bilingual Education Project (PEEB)

      • Bolivia: National Education Reform of 1994

      • New Zealand: Māori Language Act of 1987

      • South Africa: Contributions from Neville Alexander and PRAESA

      • United States: Highlights from the Lau V. Nichols (1990) and the Native American Languages Act.

Historical Context of Dual Language Bilingual Education in the U.S.

  1. Erasure of Bilingual Education:

    • The early 20th century nativist movements led to a systematic decline in bilingual education within U.S. schools.

    • Timeline:

      • 1968-2002: Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (also known as the Bilingual Education Act initiated federal grant funding for bilingual education).

      • 1990s-2000s: Imposition of state-level anti-bilingual education policies; however, “2-way bilingual programs” remained relatively untouched and are frequently referred to as dual language education.

      • Recent trends: Over the past five years, Chinese bilingual education in the U.S. saw a substantial increase of 116%.

Nomenclature within Language Education Programs

Program Names and Goals

  1. Alternative AI Names:

    • ESL (English as a Second Language)

      • Target Group: L2 English users

      • Goal: English proficiency

      • Alternative Names: Sheltered English, Pull-out Programs, Structured English Immersion

    • Transitional Bilingual Education

      • Target Group: L2 English users

      • Goal: English competency through transitional methods.

    • World Language Immersion Programs

      • Target Group: L1 English users

      • Goal: Bilingualism

    • Dual Language Education:

      • One-way developmental:

      • Target Group: L2 English users pursuing bilingualism.

      • Two-way developmental:

      • Target Group: Both L1 and L2 English users supporting bilingualism.

Implications of Policy Changes

  1. NCLB 2002 Changes:

    • The term “bilingual” was removed from policy discussions and documentation, leading to significant changes in the organizational structure of language education administration. The Office of Bilingual Education became the Office of English Language Acquisition, emphasizing a singular focus on English instruction.

    • Impact of Anti-bilingual Initiatives: Generally favored one-way and transitional programs while neglecting two-way dual language programs. Misconceptions surrounding bilingual education:

      • Statement exemplifying this: "Bilingual education actually means monolingual SPANISH-ONLY education” found in pro prop 227 voter guides.

    • Dual Language Education: This term emerged as an overarching label for all bilingual education initiatives, with all Iowa programs classified exclusively under this designation.

Local Language Policies for Multilingual Education

  1. Local Policies: Several locations such as Washington D.C. and Philadelphia have pioneered successful multilingual education policies, supported by research by Freeman (1998, 2000) and Johnson & Freeman (2010).

  2. Importance of Local Context: Localized initiatives hold significant weight in the successful implementation of multilingual education strategies within specific community settings.

Regulatory Challenges in Macro Language Policies

  1. Not Sufficient on Their Own: Research from Mozambique (Chimbutane, 2011) and studies in Washington (Johnson et al., 2018) delineate that overarching national policies are not enough to ensure effective bilingual education without corresponding local policy adaptation.

  2. International Examples: Singapore's work on effective multilingual practices (Silver & Bokhorst-Heng, 2016) reiterates the need for contextually appropriate educational strategies.

Further Considerations

Local Multilingual Language Policies

  • A study by Bekerman (2005) on multilingual education in Israel raises pertinent questions about the effectiveness and execution of localized language policies.

Group Discussion: Designing a School District Language Policy

  1. Activity Instructions:

    • Participants are to conceptualize a comprehensive school district language policy.

    • Steps to include:

      1. Name their proposed policy.

      2. Detail the specific program models that would be implemented.

      3. Describe how the policy embodies a translanguaging philosophy and its role in fostering cultural capital among students.

    • All responses should be submitted through the Padlet for review and collaboration.