Fueled by immigration and globalization, the United States has evolved into a nation of linguistically diverse residents; however, English remains the dominant language in schools. A recent language policy initiative emergent in states across the nation, the Seal of Biliteracy challenges English monolingualism by promoting the development of students’ bilingualism and biliteracy by high school graduation. Using narrative inquiry, this study explores the policy journeys that states have taken to enact the Seal of Biliteracy, as educators and stakeholders come together to engage in grassroots policy work. Findings include the collective stories of these efforts to disrupt English-dominant ideologies in schools, as well as individual states’ journeys to develop students’ bilingualism. Implications serve educators, researchers, and other stakeholders interested in influencing practice through bottom-up policy movements, particularly at this crucial moment as states embrace more flexibility for educational decision making.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, National Association for Bilingual Education, National Council of State Supervisors for Languages, &Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages International Association. (2015). Guidelines for implementing the Seal of Biliteracy (Joint report). Retrieved from http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/SealofBiliteracyGuidelines_0.pdf
2.
BhatiaT. K.RitchieW. C. (2013). Bilingualism and multilingualism South Asia. In BhatiaT. K.RitchieW. C. (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism (2nd ed. pp. 843-870). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell.
3.
BialysokE. (2007). Cognitive effects of bilingualism: How linguistic experience leads to cognitive change. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 210-223.
4.
BialystokE.CraikF. I. M.FreedmanM. (2007). Bilingualism as a protection against the onset of symptoms of dementia. Neuropsychologia, 45, 459-464.
5.
BurnetM. M. (2017). Signed, sealed, delivered: District-level adoption of the Washington State Seal of Biliteracy. Seattle: University of Washington.
CallahanR.GándaraP. (2014). The bilingual advantage: Language, literacy, and the US labor market. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
8.
Castro-SantanaA. C. (2014). Herencia y llegado: Validating the linguistic strengths of English language learners via the LAUSD Seal of Biliteracy (Unpublished dissertation). California State University, Long Beach.
ConnellyF. M.ClandininD. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19, 2-14.
13.
CrawfordJ. (2000). At war with diversity: US language policy in an age of anxiety. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
14.
CumminsJ. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
15.
DavinK. J.HeinekeA. J. (2017). The Seal of Biliteracy: Variations in policy and outcomes. Foreign Language Annals, 50, 486-499.
16.
DavinK. J.HeinekeA. J.EgnatzL. (2018). The Seal of Biliteracy: Successes and challenges to implementation. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 1-15.
17.
DavisK. A. (1994). Language planning multilingual contexts: Policies, communities, and schools in Luxembourg. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
18.
DeLeonT. M. (2014). The new ecology of biliteracy in California: An exploratory study of the early implementation of the State Seal of Biliteracy (Unpublished dissertation). Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA.
EricksonF. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In WittrockM. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York, NY: MacMillan.
HeinekeA. J. (2016). Restrictive language policy in practice: English learners in Arizona. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
23.
HonigM. I. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and opportunities for the field. In HonigM. I. (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 1-24). Albany: State University of New York Press.
24.
HornbergerN. H. (1988). Bilingual education and language maintenance: A southern Peruvian Quechua case. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
25.
HornbergerN. H. (2003). Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
26.
HornbergerN. H.JohnsonD. C. (2007). Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 509-532.
LeeJ. S.WrightW. E. (2017). The rediscovery of heritage and community language education in the United States. Review of Research in Education, 38, 137-165.
29.
LevinsonB. A. U.SuttonM. (2001). Introduction: Policy as/in practice—A sociocultural approach to the study of educational policy. In SuttonM. (Ed.), Policy as practice: Toward a comparative sociocultural analysis of educational policy (pp. 1-22). Westport, CT: Ablex.
30.
McCartyT. (2011). Ethnography and language policy. New York, NY: Routledge.
31.
McLeayH. (2003). The relationship between bilingualism and the performance of spatial tasks. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6, 423-438.
32.
MehtaJ. (2013). The allure of order: High hopes, dashed expectations, and the troubled quest to remake American schooling. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
33.
MenkenK.GarcíaO. (2010). Introduction. In MenkenK.GarcíaO. (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers (pp. 1-10). New York, NY: Routledge.
34.
NgE. (2015). Bilingualism, biliteracy and cognitive effects: A review paper. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 10, 93-128.
35.
OppendakerR. (2006). Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Research, 7, 4-11.
36.
RicentoT. K.HornbergerN. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 401-427.
37.
RogoffB. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
SeidmanI. (2005). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
40.
SmithT. W.MarsdenP. V.HoutM. (2011). General Social Survey, 1972-2010 [cumulative file] (ICPSR31521-v1). Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center.
41.
SpolskyB. (2004). Language policy. New York: Cambridge.
WileyT. G.GarcíaO. (2016). Language policy and planning in language education: Legacies, consequences, and possibilities. Modern Language Journal, 100, 48-63.
45.
WileyT. G.LukesM. (1996). English-only and standard English ideologies in the U.S. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 511-535.
46.
WrightW. E.BounS. (2016). The development and expansion of multilingual education in Cambodia: An application of Ruiz’s orientations in language planning. The Bilingual Review, 33, 1-17.
47.
ZelaskoN.AntunezB. (2000). If your child learns in two languages. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
48.
ZsigaE.BoyerO.KramerR. (Eds.). (2014). Languages in Africa: Multilingualism, language policy, and education. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
