Navigating Tensions Between Language Ideology and Test Accountability in an English-Only Newcomer School

• In Event: Connecting the Dots: Language Ideologies, Educational (In)Equities, and Multilingual Realities in North America

Abstract

Objectives & Research Questions
Drawing on an ethnography of an English-only school for immigrant newcomer students (hereafter called Literacy High), I sought to explore the following questions: What language ideologies—or shared set of beliefs about language that justify (and restrict) particular forms of language use (Silverstein, 1996)—are reflected in the co-constructed activities occurring in Literacy High classrooms between teachers and students? And in what ways do these various ideologies compliment, contradict, and/or complicate one another?

Theoretical Framework
In his groundbreaking article, Michael Silverstein (1979) defined language ideologies as “any sets of beliefs about language articulated by the users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use” (p. 193). Given the varying positionalities of different actors in any particular context, power is a crucial element of the interplay between language ideologies. As language ideologies are rooted in social practices (Kroskrity, 2010) and reflect social positions (Woolard, 1998), the inherently unequal nature of contemporary societies means that language ideologies are often utilized “in the service of the struggle to acquire or maintain power” (Woolard, 1998, p. 7). Further complicating these power dynamics is the fact that “interlinked and often rival” (Collins, 1998, p. 257) language ideologies can be enacted in the same space, and often by the same actors. In the context of this study, these dynamics help explain why state- and national-level ideologies of high-stakes accountability—represented by policymakers in social positions of power—challenged local ideologies at Literacy High, which prioritized real-world language use and acquisition.

Data Sources & Methods
I used ethnographic methods, specifically semi-structured interviews (with students and teachers) and participant observation (of students and teachers within their classroom contexts). In total, I conducted 21 classroom participant observations (35 total hours of observation) and 57 interviews with teachers and students at Literacy High during 28 school visits over a six-month period.

Results & Scholarly Significance
In response to my first research question (see Objectives section above), I argue that Literacy High teachers’ statements supporting a strict English-only policy represented a language ideology which held English as a linguistic standard (Silverstein, 1996), or a universal norm to which all speakers were expected to adhere. However, as attention to the second question illuminates, at the same time, a common political ideology prioritizing standardized test performance complicated the English-only language ideology. The result was a pragmatic allowance of Spanish in classrooms when such allowance improved students’ written work in English. The prioritization of standardized test performance fits within a larger sociopolitical context of high-stakes accountability associated with standardized test results (Au, 2009), and the fact that in the United States written work is more comprehensively assessed through standardized tests than oral English proficiency (Menken, 2008). At Literacy High, the mixture of these two language ideologies—English-only and the pragmatic use of Spanish for test performance—resulted in a setting where students predominantly expressed feeling comfortable using Spanish to complete their schoolwork, though confusion existed at times when the use of Spanish seemed arbitrarily penalized.

Author

• Rolf Straubhaar, Texas State University
  Presenting Author