Within the United States, equity for English learners, while essential, has remained elusive. As such, language policy in education is a central issue. When An Act Relative to Language Opportunity for Our Kids (LOOK Act) was passed in 2017 in Massachusetts, it was celebrated as a victory for bilingual education after a 15-year period of mandated English-only education. This study thus aims to analyze the language and intertextual discourses of the LOOK Act to inform its interpretation and appropriation by agents at various levels and investigate how language, language use, and language users are positioned in the Act.
BourdieuP. (1981). Language and symbolic power. Polity Press.
7.
ButlerJ. (1997). On linguistic vulnerability. In ButlerJ. (Ed.), Excitable speech: A politics of the performative (pp. 1–41). Routledge.
8.
CrawfordJ. (2000). At war with diversity: US language policy in an age of anxiety. Multilingual Matters.
9.
de JongE. J. (2008). Contextualizing policy appropriation: Teachers’ perspectives, local responses, and English-only ballot initiatives. Urban Review, 40, 350–370.
10.
de JongE. J.GortM.CobbD. C. (2005). Bilingual education within the context of English-only policies: Three districts’ responses to question 2 in Massachusetts. Education Policy, 19(4), 595–620.
DornerL. M. (2010). Contested communities in a debate over dual-language education: The import of “public” values on public policies. Educational Policy, 25(4), 577–613.
FaircloughN. (2001). Language and power. Routledge.
15.
FaircloughN. (2014). Text relationships. In JaworskiA.CouplandN. (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp. 83–103). Routledge.
16.
FitzgeraldJ. (2011). Public opinion on bilingual education in Colorado and Massachusetts. The Social Science Journal, 48(2), 371–396.
17.
Fitzsimmons-DoolanS.PalmerD.HendersonK. (2017). Educator language ideologies and a top-down dual language program. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(6), 704–721.
18.
GalS. (2016). Sociolinguistic differentiation. In CouplandN. (Ed.), Sociolinguistics: Theoretical debates (pp. 113–135). Cambridge University Press.
19.
GarcíaO. (2009). Emergent bilinguals and TESOL: What’s in a Name?TESOL Quarterly, 43(2) 322–326.
GoffmanE. (1981). Forms of talk. Harvard University Press.
23.
GortM.de JongE. J.CobbC. D. (2008). SEeIng through a bilingual lens: Structural and ideological contexts of structured English immersion in three Massachusetts districts. Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 8(2), 41–67.
24.
HanksW. (1996). Language and communicative practices. Westview.
25.
HolborowM. (2007). Language, ideology and neoliberalism. Journal of Language and Politics, 6(1), 51–73.
26.
JaworskiA.CouplandN. (2014). Introduction: Perspectives on discourse analysis. In JaworskiA.CouplandN. (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp. 1–36). Routledge.
27.
JohnsonD. C. (2013). Language Policy. Palgrave MacMillan.
28.
KatznelsonN.BernsteinK. A. (2017). Rebranding bilingualism: The shifting discourses of language education policy in California’s 2016 election. Linguistics and Education, 40, 11–26.
29.
KressG. (1993). Genre as social process. In CopeB.KalantzisM. (Eds.), The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing (pp. 22–37). University of Pittsburgh Press.
30.
LightbownP. M.SpadaN. (2019). Teaching and learning L2 in the classroom: It’s about time. Language Teaching, 53(4), 422–432.
31.
LiuD.LeiL. (2018). The appeal to political sentiment: An analysis of Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s speech themes and discourse strategies in the 2016 US presidential election. Discourse, Context & Media, 25, 143–152.
32.
LOOK Act, 190th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Mass. Acts 138. (2017).
33.
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 69, Powers and duties of the department of education, § 1-1K. (2002).
34.
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 69, Powers and duties of the department of education, § 1-1Q. (2017).
35.
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 71A, English language education in public schools, § 1-8. (2002).
36.
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 71A, English language education in public schools, § 9-12. (2017).
37.
MenkenK. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Multilingual Matters.
Ochs.E. (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In GumperzJ. J.LevinsonS. C. (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 407–437). Cambridge University Press.
40.
PaulstonC. B.HeidemannK. (2006). Language policies and the education of linguistic-minorities. In RicentoT. (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 292–310). Blackwell.
RicentoT. (2001). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. In RicentoT. (Ed.), Ideology, politics and language policies (pp. 9–24). John Benjamins.
44.
RicentoT. (2003). The discursive construction of Americanism. Discourse & Society, 14(5), 611–637.
45.
RileyJ. C. (2018). Guidelines for implementing the state seal of biliteracy. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
46.
RileyJ. C. (2018). Guidelines for the use of benchmarks toward attaining English proficiency. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
47.
RossL. B. (2007). Learning the language: An examination of the use of voter initiatives to make language education policy. New York University Law Review, 82, 1510–1546.
48.
RuizR. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15–34.
49.
RyanW. (2002). The Unz initiatives and the abolition of bilingual education. Boston College Law Review, 43, 487–519.
ViescaK. M. (2013). Linguicism and racism in Massachusetts education policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(52), 1–37.
57.
Woodside-JironH. (2004). Language, power, and participation: Using critical discourse analysis to make sense of public policy. In RogersR. (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 173–206). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
58.
WrightW. E. (2005). The political spectacle of Arizona’s Proposition 203. Educational Policy, 19(5), 662–700.
