Language Policy in Practice: The Case of Wisconsin’s New Latino Diaspora

• In Event: Language Policy Appropriation: Teachers’ Perspectives on Policies and Programs for English Learners Across Five States

Abstract

Current demographic trends have led to growth in the public school enrollment of Latino students across the country, with significant growth in states with little tradition of immigration. These youth and their families constitute what some have called a New Latino Diaspora (Wortham, Murillo, & Hamann, 2002). Typically, educators are called on to respond to this rapid change in policy climates where there is little consensus about how to serve immigrant students and where debates about language policy in education are influenced by powerful ideologies and contested ideas about what it means to be American. This paper focuses on the case of Wisconsin, a state that has experienced more than 200% growth in its Latino population over the last 20 years. In tracing aspects of the state’s bilingual education policy to practice, this paper considers the ways in which educators navigate conflicting messages and implement language policy to serve the New Latino Diaspora.

This paper applies a policy implementation framework, which acknowledges the importance of state policy in school reform efforts, but emphasizes that local interpretations of policy play a mediating role in school-based responses (Levinson & Sutton, 2001). Using this framework, key aspects of Wisconsin’s bilingual education policy are identified and connected to practice. Data include state policy documents as well as electronic surveys of 154 educators from across Wisconsin. Survey analysis includes descriptive and inferential statistics and textual analysis of open-ended textboxes.

Wisconsin’s language policy requires the establishment of a “bilingual-bicultural program” in schools that meet threshold enrollments of ELs. Nonetheless, despite its bilingual orientation, findings from this study indicate that there is inherent tension in the policy. First, the bilingual orientation of the policy conflicts with an explicit monolingual goal. Teachers are not required to use bilingual instruction within bilingual-bicultural programs, but are instead encouraged to use home languages as one of several useful pedagogical tools. Second, the policy both incentivizes and warns against the design of separate learning environments for immigrant youth.

These conflicting messages in the state policy appeared to lead to wide variation in the interpretation of that policy in practice. The survey data indicated use of a wide range of programs in schools across the state, with only 24% of participating schools identifying the use of bilingual programs. The use of Spanish for instruction varied both across and within programs, with little consistency across language proficiency levels, although those with the least English were most likely to experience Spanish instruction. Similarly, the degree to which students were taught in separate learning environments varied across and within schools.

These findings point to insufficient support for schools and districts under Wisconsin’s language policy. Educators who are new to working with immigrant youth are generally unprepared to navigate complex, highly-politicized decisions about how best to serve newcomers. In the context of new immigrant destinations, language policies should be coupled with appropriate guidance and resources for educators.

Author

• Rebecca Jane Lowenhaupt, Boston College