Understanding “Students with Interrupted Formal Education”: A Critical Document Analysis of New York State Education Policy

• In Event: Inclusive education policies and higher education

Proposal

Purpose of Study:
Hundreds of thousands of youth attending U.S. public schools have entered school at non-traditional ages or have had inconsistent access to school systems. These youth are most commonly referred to as ‘Students with Interrupted Education’ (SIFE). In the 2015–2016 school year, the most recent year for which this data is available, 21,037 students in New York State—the geographic focus of this study—were identified as SIFE (nysed.gov, 2024). New York State Education Department (NYSED) state that SIFE are “English Language Learners (ELLs)” who have attended school in the U.S. for less than 12 months and who perform “two or more years below grade level in literacy in their home language and/or math” (nysed.gov, 2024).
Given NYSED’s role as New York’s governing body in education, their policy and publications powerfully shape dominant discourse and school practices, as well as reflect the larger societal discourses in which they are embedded. NYSED is often where school administrators and teachers look, first and foremost, to construct their own understandings of students with this label. Administrators' and teachers’ understandings manifest as school policies, procedures, and pedagogical practices. This study thus seeks to critically interrogate how NYSED discursively produces this population of learners and examine the material impact this may have on their educational experiences and trajectories. It explores the following research questions:

-How does the New York State Education Department (NYSED) discursively produce “Students with Interrupted Formal Education”? In particular, what notions of “difference” are (re)produce?
-How are NYSED’s policy and key publications on SIFE entangled with broader socio-political-historical forces?
-How do these factors shape educational experiences for students labeled SIFE?

Theoretical Frameworks:
Critical methods of document analysis state that documents are not neutral, but rather reflect the socio-political-historical contexts in which they exist and should be treated as ‘social artifacts’ (Atkinson & Coffey, 1997). Documents play an integral role in systems of institutionalized oppression; they can be used as tools to either (re)produce or interrupt injustice (Sankofa, 2022). This study thus positions NYSED’s policy and key publications on SIFE as reflective of the broader contexts in which they exist and as powerful agents which warrant critical examination.
This study also draws upon Black Feminist theory to critically examine notions of “difference” embedded within NYSED’s SIFE policy and publications. Black feminist scholars have critiqued the ways in which positivist systems of measurement and classification have been used in the social sciences to (re)produce particular notions of human difference, such as race, gender, sexuality, and nationality. Though often perceived as “natural” and fixed, Black feminist scholars argue that they are artificially constructed for the purpose of enacting violence against those who fall outside white, European norms (Lorde, 1983; Ferriera da Silva, 2016).

Research Design:
This study employs critical methods of document analysis (Sankofa, 2022) to examine the discursive production of “SIFE” within NYSED’s policy and key publications through a Black feminist lens on human difference. In taking up the stance that human categories are not natural or fixed but rather socially produced, the researcher critically examined how NYSED documents function to produce particular understandings of “SIFE”. In particular, document analysis focused on how SIFE are positioned in relation to other (constructed) student categories—in other words, how SIFE are positioned as “different” within systems of education. This study also Drawing upon the idea that documents (especially policy) are intimately linked to the broader institutions in which they exist and play an agentic role in institutionalized oppression (Sankofa, 2022), this study also considers the larger social, political, and historical contexts within which NYSED’s construction of SIFE is embedded and critically analyzes these entanglements.


Findings:
Critical document analysis through a Black feminist stance on “difference” illuminated several key findings:
NYSED constructs SIFE is through the appropriation of other socially constructed categories; these include “non US-citizen”, “English Language Learner,” and the idea of the “below grade level” student. By invoking and reinforcing socially constructed categories which are often weaponized against those who fall outside the bounds of white, neoliberal norms, NYSED’s SIFE documents can be seen as entangled with broader forms of institutionalized oppression.
NYSED’s documents use ample and disproportionate deficit-based language to construct SIFE: the documents contained 52 instances of deficit-based language and only three instances of asset-based language.
NYSED positions SIFE as a problem in schools, stating that “meeting the needs of SIFE” is a “considerable challenge” for educators (NYSED.gov, 2024) on multiple occasions. While educators certainly face systemic barriers to equitably serving this population, positioning students labeled SIFE as a “challenge” without taking a critical stance toward exclusionary school practices locates the problem in the individual rather than the institution of education.

Significance:
As the governing body in education, NYSED’s deficit-construction of “SIFE” matters immensely—the documents analyzed in this study are what school administrators and teachers often look to, first and foremost, to construct their own understandings of students with this label. Administrators' and teachers’ understandings manifest as school policies, procedures, and pedagogical practices. The consequences of their understandings are not merely abstract, but material. Research demonstrates the value of curriculum that builds upon students’ strengths (Moll, 1992; Ghiso, 2014); yet, when teachers are unable to recognize these strengths, they are unlikely to be able to provide this. Furthermore, by premising “SIFE’ upon particular notions of difference without critically interrogating how they came into being, NYSED further entrenches a paradigm in which artificially constructed categories are perceived as natural and fixed. This system of human classification is used to enact forms of violence upon those who fall outside white, European norms. Critically analyzing and contending with the hidden politics of NYSED’s SIFE policy and publications can allow educators and education policymakers to imagine alternative ways of coming to know students with histories of interrupted education. This study argues more critical, expansive, and inclusive understandings of “SIFE” are needed in order to create more just educational futures for students who have experienced interrupted education.

Author

• Victoria Kate Henry, Columbia University Teachers College