Wayne E. Wright

Against the Undertow: Language-Minority Education Policy and Politics in the “Age of Accountability”:

This article reviews historical and contemporary policies, ideologies, and educational prescriptions for language-minority students. It notes language and literacy policies historically have been used as instruments of social control and that racism and linguistic intolerance have often been closely linked with antecedents in the colonial and early nationalist periods as well as in nativist thought of the 19th century. The article concludes that the contemporary Englishonly and antibilingual education movements share features reminiscent of the restrictionism of earlier periods. The article next assesses policies of the federal and state governments in accommodating language-minority students. urrent debates over appropriate assessment of language-minority students are backgrounded against the history of the testing movement. Recent research on high-stakes testing is reviewed with the conclusion that it is not improving the quality of teaching and learning and appears to be having a negative effect for language-minority students.

The political spectacle of Arizona's proposition 203

Arizonas Proposition 203 places restrictions on bilingual and English-as-asecond-language programs and essentiality mandates English-only education for English language learners (ELLs). This article provides an analysis of this initiative and the wide variations in its interpretation and implementation. Data sources include official policy and related documents, media coverage, and observations of key policy events. The findings provide evidence that Proposition 203 and its implementation are political spectacle, rather than democratic rationale policy making with true concern for ELL students. The analysis focuses on the components of the political spectacle framework evident in the initiative, its campaign(s), and its implementation, including the use of symbolic language, the use of plots and story lines, the creation of leaders (heroes) and enemies, the evoking of symbols of rationality, and distinctions between on-stage and off-stage actions. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications for English language learners in Arizona.

English Language Learners Left Behind in Arizona: The Nullification of Accommodations in the Intersection of Federal and State Policies

Abstract Current educational reform efforts in Arizona involve three major federal and state language and assessment policies: (a) AZ LEARNS (2001), Arizonas high-stakes testing and school accountability program; (b) No Child Left Behind (2002); and (c) Proposition 203 (2000), which places restrictions on programs for English language learner (ELL) students. Each policy calls for the full inclusion of ELLs in statewide high-stakes testing. These policies are analyzed from frameworks of educational language policy. The findings reveal that these school reform efforts function as restrictedoriented language policies, particularly as the three policies intersect. Furthermore, it is found that most of the accommodations for ELLs called for within these policies are nullified in the intersection, especially at the level of interpretation and implementation. The remaining accommodation-oriented policies are less helpful to ELLs, and may in fact be more beneficial to state policy actors by masking the harmful effects their restricted-oriented policies are having on ELL students. Suggestions for improving this situation are considered in the Conclusion.

The Rediscovery of Heritage and Community Language Education in the United States

Language and cultural preservation efforts among different communities of language speakers in the United States have received increasing attention as interest in linguistic rights and globalization continues to deepen. In addition to mounting evidence of the cognitive, psychological, and academic benefits of heritage language/ community language (HL/CL) maintenance for linguistic-minority children (see Lee & Suarez, 2009, for a summary of the research), scholars have advocated for the recognition, support, and utilization of the potentially rich pool of HLs/CLs as a resource for filling linguistic and cultural voids in professional and political sectors of our society (Brecht & Ingold, 1998; Peyton, Ranard, & McGinnis, 2001; Wiley, 2005b, 2007). Yet the maintenance of HLs/CLs even among children of first-generation immigrants has been difficult, and it has been nearly unattainable beyond the third generation (Fishman, 2001; Rumbaut, 2009; Veltman, 1983). Counter to popular beliefs that HLs/CLs can be easily maintained in the home if parents speak to their children in the HL/CL, studies have shown that home language use alone is an insufficient condition for producing highly proficient users of the language, particularly those who can function in professional domains. Some form of explicit instruction is needed (Fillmore, 1991, 2000; Lao & Lee, 2009; Lee, 2002; Wright, 2004). Throughout U.S. history, the most significant efforts for HL/CL instruction outside the home have occurred in community-based HL/CL schools (Fishman, 2001;

New Editors’ Introduction

As we step in as new co-editors of the Journal of Language, Identity & Education (JLIE), we would like to introduce ourselves and say a few words about our vision for the journal. JLIE was the brainchild of Thomas Ricento and Terrence Wiley. Just as anyone who adopts someone else’s child would take their responsibility very seriously, we are feeling the weight of the baton Tom and Terry passed on to us after 14 years of outstanding editorship. We will do our utmost in ensuring JLIE’s continuing success and relevance. Terry and Tom envisioned the journal to be an interdisciplinary forum for “both original research and critical studies on the intersections of language, identity, and education in global and local contexts” (Ricento & Wiley, 2002, p. 4), and this focus will remain unchanged under our editorship. At the center of the journal’s scope is our shared interest in issues related to language, and under our editorship, JLIE will continue to serve as a forum for discussion on how issues of language learning and teaching impact individual and community identities and intersect with educational practices and policies. This journal also has had a strong international scope. In the past 14 volumes JLIE has published articles by authors from 37 countries and on topics of education and identity in connection with 69 languages. We intend to maintain this strong international outlook. At the same time, it is often the case that as new editors step in to lead a journal, they begin to put their own imprint on the journal. We expect it to be the case with our editorship as well. First of all, we are both committed to publishing the kinds of studies that make tangible differences in the lives of language learners, teachers, and language minority communities broadly construed, as opposed to theoretical papers for the sake of arguing theory. Yasuko is a former English language learner who learned English in a stark sink-or-swim environment in the U.K. She is committed to creating more dignifying and rewarding language learning environments for language minority students. Wayne, a former ESL and Khmer bilingual teacher, has witnessed firsthand the impact of language and education policies on schools and communities, and is committed to promoting high quality instruction for language minority students. Thus, it personally matters to us that the studies we publish in JLIE ultimately contribute to improving the lives of language learners, teachers, and members of bilingual and multilingual communities. JLIE was also originally intended to be an outlet for “critical studies on the implications of monoculturalist approaches to education and their consequences for minorities and diverse societies” (Ricento & Wiley, 2002, p. 4). However, in the last several years, the journal has been focusing on publishing studies that richly describe interrelationships among language, identity, and education around the world, and consequently, the critical focus has perhaps received less attention. We would like to return to the critical focus and welcome submissions that address questions of how monolinguistic and monoculturalist approaches to education reproduce existing power relations in society and narrow the range of identities that individual language learners and teachers can claim for themselves. Likewise, we encourage submissions highlighting the potential of multilingual and multicultural approaches to counteract and challenge existing societal forces. We also would like to see more diversified theoretical frameworks and methodologies used to explore issues of language, identity, and education. JLIE in recent years has published a number of studies that employ theories involving linguistic/cultural capital, investment, imagined communities, heteroglossia, and situated learning, among others, as theoretical frameworks. Although these theories have been and will continue to be indisputably useful, we also welcome new theories that can