Linguistic Identity and Ideology: A Testimonio on a Dual-Language Education

• In Event: Intersectionality of Language, Race, and Class Within Urban Classrooms: Resisting Hegemonic Whiteness in Language Education

Abstract

There are myriad studies that examine dual language immersion (DLI) programs (Kirk Senesac, 2002), including their policies (Sanchez, Garcia & Solorza, 2018), and linguistic practices within them (Flores & McAuliffe, 2020; García-Mateus, & Palmer, 2017). This presentation shares the testimonio of a former student’s perspective on her dual language education. At the time of this writing, it has been 30 years since graduating from Inter-American Magnet School (IAMS), a dual language elementary school (K-8) in Chicago. This presentation is a testimonio on an education that was formative, but also acknowledges the weaknesses of the program.

This presentation is the beginning of a larger study that will seek to understand the impact a dual language education had on its students 30 years after its completion. IAMS is the oldest DLI program in the midwest, and second oldest in the US. The school was created by parent-activists (Kirk Sensesac, 2002; Potowski, 2007) in order to create a curriculum that was inclusive of students with a Latin American background.

Recent research on DLI programs and policies have pushed me to reflect on my own education. I had always looked back on my experience at IAMS with nostalgia, in large part because my education since has been lacking inclusion. IAMS curriculum largely mirrored my Guatemalan household. I did not know the difference between home and school languages because they were ever present. At the time, the neighborhood in which the school was situated, and in which I lived, was predominantly Spanish-speaking and working-class, albeit, gentrifying rapidly.

As a scholar who researches multilingualism and translanguaging, I have become aware of the promises and the dangers of a DLI program. On the one hand, they support language acquisition while bringing together speakers of multiple languages. The other hand is not just one, but multiple issues. DLI programs support purist views on language and continue to privilege monolingual language ideologies (Farr & Song, 2011; Morales & Rumenapp, 2017).

Additionally, and particularly at this moment, the importance of the inclusion of Black students in DLI is a conversation that sorely needs to be had. In June of 2019, Dr. Nelson Flores tweeted, “Lau vs. Nichols was based on Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed in large part because of pressure by Black Civil Rights activists. The payback has been... systemic exclusion of Black students from dual language programs and erasure of Black ELs in policy debates”. As Flores’s tweet suggests, common DLI policies further marginalize specific groups from access to second language acquisition.

My experience at IAMS was overall positive, in that it provided me access to a curriculum that taught about the Mayans, allowed me to read literature from Guatemala, and included a rich cultural and linguistic curriculum. IAMS felt inclusive of my Guatemalan American identity. But as a scholar, I look back and ask, who was left out of the curriculum? How did practices continue to perpetuate a middle-class value system? In what ways were the linguistic practices limiting? These are questions this testimonio seeks to address.

Author

• Lydia A Saravia, DePaul University