Financial Gentrification in Dual Language Bilingual Education

• In Event: Educational Possibilities Amidst the Gentrification of Dual Language Bilingual Education: Solution-Oriented Research

Abstract

Objectives

Amidst the boom in DLBE lies the unexamined equity issue of its funding, and this conceptual study puts forward the idea that there may be abuse of earmarked funding gentrification that accompanies other forms of gentrification identified by scholars in this area (Delavan et al., 2022). This study examines the potential financial gentrification across multiple DLBE funding sources and offers ways to test for it methodologically. I do this by examining the funding sources for DLBE and the values and ideologies that may arbitrate language planning that may decenter Emergent Bilinguals.

Conceptual Framework

Employing the fourth pillar of critical consciousness within dual language I identify the systems that harbor or reproduce gentrification upon emergent bilinguals (Palmer et al., 2019). Using the tenet of interrogating power, how theories of funding may be constructed are identified.

Methods and Data Sources

Funding sources were identified in discussion with state, and federal leaders of EL, bilingual and dual language. Secondly, local stakeholders were consulted in Indiana, California, and New York to identify other funding sources, including parent organizations, and international initiatives such as the Qatar Foundation, Spanish Ministry, and the HanBan. Using a document analysis approach (Brown, 2009) funding sources were identified as 1) program specific; 2) population specific; or 3) both. Program specific means the funding does not detail the student constituency, whereas population specific suggests that emergent bilinguals are the primary benefactors.

Results

Four sources of dual language funding were identified including 1) international; 2) federal; 3) state; and 4) local dollars. International sources of funding included ministries of education and private foundations. International sources are program specific, meaning the target student constituency is not identified. Federal sources of funding include Title III, Part A monies which are population specific and Title II, Part A dollars for professional development of teachers is program specific. State sources include state EL funding and/or dual language funding. While EL funding is population specific, dual language funding is generally program specific. Lastly, local funding includes a district’s general education funds or parent/teacher organizations, which are program specific. Yet if the sources are both population and program specific, how such funds are appropriated may decenter emergent bilinguals, creating the phenomena of financial gentrification. In short, misuse and abuse of earmarked funds for emergent bilinguals is possible, benefitting privileged groups of students who are not emergent bilinguals.

Scholarly Significance

Instead of beginning with how to fund a DLBE program as permitted with program specific funding, the dialogue should be about asking: Who is this program for? Intentional and institutionalized processes are needed for amplifying the voices of emergent bilingual and minoritized students when discussing program specific funding. Families and educators need to carve out or protect funding sources that are specified and earmarked for them. This work may go above and beyond the requirements of funders, but it localizes the emergent bilingual community, pushing district leaders in charge of program specific funding to articulate emergent bilinguals by name and engage more directly with their families and communities.

Author

• Trish Morita-Mullaney, Purdue University