The National Gentrification and Policy Expropriation of Dual Language Education: Deconstructing Neoliberal Impacts

• In Event: Sheraton Roundtable Session 19
  In Roundtable Session: Dual Language Education Explosion: A Critical Analysis of Policy Making Across the States

Abstract

Objectives
Utah was the first state to establish a “dual language” education policy supported and funded by state legislation (Utah Senate Bill 80, 2007; Utah Senate Bill 41, 2008). Utah created a policy enforcing the implementation of two-way immersion programs for mixed groups of English speakers and language-minoritized students and one-way programs for English speakers. The Utah model prescribes a “50:50” approach, i.e., teaching in each language (e.g., Spanish and English) for 50% each day, using two teachers, and employing language separation. Neoliberal discourses around Utah’s DL policy development suggested the need for such programs so that Utah residents could compete in global markets (Others & Author, 2016).

With the rapid growth of DL programs in Utah, the state has received national attention. This presentation analyzes the DL policy development in three states influenced by Utah, asking: How have Georgia, Delaware, and Wyoming designed their DL education policies? What ideologies shape their policy design and choices?

Theoretical Framework
Global human capital (GHC) and equity/heritage (EH) frameworks are employed (Others & Author, 2016). The GHC framework refers to a neoliberal discourse on the value of language skills in individuals and nations. The EH framework looks at language learning centered on English learners and non-English heritage languages.

Methods and Data
The data include the following policy texts: three state documents from Georgia, three from Delaware, and one from Wyoming. A critical discourse analysis was employed, which “starts with the assumption that language use is always inevitably constructing and constructed by social, cultural, political, and economic contexts,” going beyond what is present and considering what is left out (Rogers, 2004, p. 10).

Findings
Although in different degrees, analyses of the state documents revealed that these three states have followed the Utah model and defined DL education in similar ways, with Delaware’s documents even making explicit mentions to Utah. For example, these states prescribe a 50:50 model. In the case of Wyoming and Delaware, the definition of one-way immersion programs is only for native English speakers, while Georgia leaves one-way programs open for any language group. Such prescriptions and definitions of DL education leave out the possibility of one-way programs for English learners (developmental bilingual education), which may employ 90:10 approaches. Also, following Utah, Georgia and Delaware employ a two-teacher model, and Wyoming strongly recommends it. Lastly, Georgia and Delaware have established a clear language separation policy.

Although Wyoming addresses neoliberalism superficially with a focus on the global community,
Delaware and Georgia have clear a neoliberal approach that privileges businesses and the state and global economies. On the other hand, there is a profound absence of how DL programs will address the needs and interests of an increasing number of English learners and how these programs will promote equity.

Significance
As the number of DL programs rises in the nation, this paper makes a call to move away from the influence of the Utah model, specifically the narrow definition of what counts as DL education, the neoliberal focus, and the omission of equity/heritage concerns.

Author

• Juan A. Freire, Brigham Young University