Revisiting Whether Separate Is Always Unequal: Reconsidering Equity and Access for Multilingual Students

• In Event: Truths and Consequences: Guadalupe Valdés's Contributions to Pursuing Equity for Multilingual Students, Families, and Communities

Abstract

Throughout her decades of scholarship, Guadalupe Valdés has consistently raised vital, probing questions about equity and access for multilingual students (e.g., Valdés, 1997, 2001, 2018, 2021). Prior scholarship questioning “Is separate always unequal?” has examined conceptions of equality in legal cases for racially and linguistically minoritized students (Thompson, 2013). Here, I reconsider this work, bringing it into conversation with ongoing themes from Valdés’s writing, including her cautionary notes about dual language education (1997, 2002, 2018), her concerns about the labeling and categorization of multilingual students (e.g., Kibler & Valdés, 2016; Valdés, 2018), and her constant, careful attention to issues of power.

Thompson (2013) proposed a framework for analyzing conceptions of equality in the education of minoritized students. The first, primary principle—remove barriers that treat some individuals as inferior—aligns with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The second principle—provide specialized services to individuals for educationally relevant reasons—aligns with the Court’s ruling in Lau v. Nichols (1974). The final principle—provide specialized services in ways that are asset-based and expand rather than limit individuals’ future opportunities—aligns with ideas in Castañeda v. Pickard (1981), as well as ideas from the least restrictive environment standard in disability law.

Here, I reconsider these principles by bringing them into dialogue with Valdés’s writings and other critical scholarship. First, I problematize conventional readings of the Brown (1954) ruling as an unequivocal step forward in educational equity, drawing parallels between Valdés’s cautionary notes about dual language education (1997, 2002, 2018) and concerns raised by scholars about the harms that integration within a racist, White supremacist system can pose for minoritized children (e.g., Bell, 1980; Love, 2004). Second, in light of Valdés’s early cautions, as well as more recent scholarship about the gentrification of dual language education (e.g., Cervantes-Soon et al., 2017; Dorner & Cervantes-Soon, 2020; Chavéz-Moreno, 2021; Valdés, 1997, 2002, 2018), I revisit discussion about the promise of dual language as an example of a way to operationalize the least restrictive environment standard. Finally, I grapple with an overarching paradox about educational policy for multilingual students that Valdés addresses throughout her work: How is it possible to provide excellent education for multilingual students, in a way that values and affirms their human, civil, and linguistic rights—within the context of a rigid, compliance-oriented bureaucracy based in White supremacy?

Valdés’s work helps us question our practices for determining who is “proficient” in English and who is not, as well as the curricularization of language (e.g., Valdés, 2018) that services for those labeled “English learners” has entailed. Building on these tensions, I raise questions about the underpinnings of civil rights law for multilingual students, which rests on the idea that “English learner” students can reliably be identified and distinguished from other students. In conclusion, I attempt to imagine what a more fluid, humanizing, responsive framework for educational policy for multilingual students might look like.

Author

• Karen D. Thompson, Oregon State University
  Presenting Author