Policies restricting bilingual education have yielded to policy frameworks touting its benefits. This shift corresponds with evolving lines of debate, focusing now on how bilingual education can best support racialized bilingual learners. One element of this new debate is the perspective on language underlying curriculum in bilingual programs, with a focus on translanguaging– normalization of the language practices of bilingual communities and positing that bilinguals draw from a singular linguistic repertoire. This article examines initiatives undertaken in California between 2010 and 2019 using Critical Policy Analysis. The work highlights that while opportunities for translanguaging have arisen, tensions between heteroglossic perspectives and the impulses toward standardization and commodification of language undermine such possibilities, and that notable gaps remain between teacher preparation frameworks and intended pedagogical practice.
AlamilloL.PalmerD. K.ViramontesC.GarciaE. (2005). California’s English-only policies: An analysis of initial effects. In ValenzuelaA. (Ed.), Leaving children behind: How Texas-style accountability fails Latino youth (pp. 201–224). SUNY Press.
2.
AppleM. W. (1982). Education and Power. Routledge.
3.
AppleM. W. (2019). On doing critical policy analysis. Educational Policy, 33(1), 276–287.
4.
BallS. J. (1991). Politics and policy making in education. Routledge.
5.
BernsteinK. A.HellmichE. A.KatznelsonN.ShinJ.VinallK. (2015). Introduction to Special Issue: Critical Perspectives on Neoliberalism in second / Foreign Language Education. L2 Journal, 7(3), 3–14.
6.
Bilingual Education Act. (1968). Publ. No. (90–247), 81 Stat 816.
7.
Bilingual Standards Refresh Work Group. (2020). Bilingual authorization program standards content analysis white paper. Loyola Marymount University Center for Equity for English Learners & The Sobrato Foundation. Los Angeles, CA. https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/whitepapersandstatements/2/
8.
BonfiglioT. P. (2013). Inventing the native speaker. Critical Multilingualism Studies, 1(2), 29–58.
9.
BriceñoA.BergeyR. (2022). Policy implementation: Navigating the English Learner Roadmap for Equity. Journal of Leadership, Equity, and Research, 8(1), 24–33.
California Department of Education. (2020). Educator workforce investment grant program. California Department of Education, Sacramento, CA. https://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ps/ewig.asp
CallahanR. M.GándaraP. C. (Eds.). (2014). The bilingual advantage: Language, literacy and the US labor market. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
19.
Cervantes-SoonC. G.DornerL.PalmerD.HeimanD.SchwerdtfegerR.ChoiJ. (2017). Combating inequalities in two-way language immersion programs: Toward critical consciousness in bilingual education spaces. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 403–427.
20.
CitrinJ.LevyM.WongC. J. (2017). Politics and the English language in California: Bilingual education at the polls. California Journal of Politics and Policy, 9(2), 1–14.
Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2009b). California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP). Commission on Teacher Credentialing, Sacramento, CA. https://www.nctq.org/dmsView/CSTP-2009
24.
CrawfordJ. (2000). At war with diversity: US language policy in an age of anxiety. Multilingual Matters.
25.
CrawfordJ. (2007). The decline of bilingual education: How to reverse a troubling trend?International Multilingual Research Journal, 1(1), 33–37.
26.
Darling-HammondL. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of ‘no Child Left behind’. Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 245–260.
27.
DelavanG. M.FreireJ. A.MenkenK. (2021). Editorial introduction: A historical overview of the expanding critique(s) of the gentrification of dual language bilingual education. Language Policy, 20(3), 299–321.
28.
Del ValleS. (2003). Language rights and the law in the United States: Finding our voices. Multilingual Matters.
29.
DiemS.YoungM. D.SampsonC. (2019). Where critical policy meets the politics of education: An introduction. Educational Policy, 33(1), 3–15.
30.
DuchêneA.HellerM. (Eds.). (2012). Language in late capitalism: Pride and profit. Routledge.
31.
EdelskyC.HudelsonS.FloresB.BarkinF.AltwergerB.JilbertK. (1983). Semilingualism and language deficit. Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 1–22.
FaltisC. (1997). Bilingual education in the United States. In CumminsJ.CorsonD. (Eds.), Bilingual education. Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 189–197). Springer.
35.
FloresN. (2013). Silencing the subaltern: Nation-state/colonial governmentality and bilingual education in the United States. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 10(4), 263–287.
36.
FloresN. (2016). A tale of two visions: Hegemonic whiteness and bilingual education. Educational Policy, 30(1), 13–38.
37.
FloresN. (2019). Producing national and neoliberal subjects: Bilingual education and governmentality in the United States. In Martín RojoL.Del PercioA. (Eds.), Language and neoliberal governmentality (pp. 49–68). Routledge.
38.
FloresN.RosaJ. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171.
39.
FloresN.SchisselJ. L. (2014). Dynamic bilingualism as the norm: Envisioning a heteroglossic approach to standards-based reform. TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), 454–479.
40.
FlubacherM.Del PercioA. (2017). Language, education and neoliberalism: Critical studies in sociolinguistics. Multilingual Matters.
41.
FoucaultM. (1990). The history of sexuality: An introduction. Vintage.
42.
GándaraP.LosenD.AugustD.UriarteM.HopkinsG. O. M. E. Z. M. C M. (2010). Forbidden language: A brief history of US language policy. In GándaraP.HopkinsM. (Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies (pp. 20–33). Teachers College Press.
43.
GándaraP.Maxwell-JollyJ.GarciaE.AsatoJ.GutierrezK.StritikusT.CurryJ. (2000). The initial impact of Proposition 227 on the instruction of English learners. University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute. Education Policy Center, University of California Davis. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED470809.pdf
44.
GarcíaE. E.Curry-RodríguezJ. E. (2000). The education of limited English proficient students in California schools: An assessment of the influence of Proposition 227 in selected districts and schools. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(1–2), 15–35.
45.
GarcíaO. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Wiley-Blackwell.
46.
GarcíaO. (2017). Translanguaging in schools: Subiendo y bajando, bajando y subiendo as afterword. Journal of Language Identity & Education, 16(4), 256–263.
47.
GarcíaO.JohnsonS. I.SeltzerK. (2017). He translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Caslon.
48.
GarcíaO.LeivaC. (2014). Theorizing and enacting translanguaging for Social Justice Educational Linguistics (pp. 199–216). Springer.
49.
GarcíaO.LiW. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan.
50.
GarcíaO.SungK. K. (2018). Critically assessing the 1968 Bilingual Education Act at 50 years: Taming tongues and Latinx communities. Bilingual Research Journal, 41(4), 318–333.
51.
García-MateusS.PalmerD. (2017). Translanguaging pedagogies for positive identities in Two-Way dual language bilingual education. Taylor & Francis, 16(4), 245–255.
52.
HellerM. (2010). The commodification of language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39, 101–114.
53.
HornbergerN. H. (1998). Language policy, language education, language rights: Indigenous, immigrant, and international perspectives. Language in Society, 27(4), 439–458.
54.
HornbergerN. H. (2003). Afterword: Ecology and ideology in multilingual classrooms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6(3–4), 296–302.
55.
HornbergerN. H.JohnsonD. C. (2007). Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 509–532.
56.
HuaZ.WeiL.LyonsA. (2017). Polish shop(ping) as translanguaging space. Social Semiotics, 27(4), 411–433.
57.
JohnsonD. C. (2009). Ethnography of language policy. Language Policy, 8(2), 139–159.
58.
JohnstoneB. (2017). Discourse analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
59.
KatznelsonN.BernsteinK. A. ((2017)). Rebranding bilingualism: The shifting discourses of language education policy in California’s 2016 election. Linguistics and Education, 40, 11–26.
60.
KellyL. B. (2018). Interest convergence and hegemony in dual language: Bilingual education, but for whom and why?Language Policy, 17(1), 1–21.
61.
KibbeeD. A. (2016). Language and the law. Cambridge University Press.
62.
KramschC.WhitesideA. (2008). Language ecology in multilingual settings. Towards a theory of symbolic competence. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 645–671.
63.
KristevaJ. (1986). The kristeva reader. Columbia University Press.
LeungC.ValdésG. (2019). Translanguaging and the transdisciplinary framework for language teaching and learning in a multilingual world. Modern Language Journal, 103(2), 348–370.
67.
LiW. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–30.
68.
MartínezR. A.MejíaA. F. (2020). Looking closely and listening carefully: A sociocultural approach to understanding the complexity of Latina/o/x students’ everyday language. Theory Into Practice, 59(1), 53–63.
69.
Martín RojoL.Del PercioA. (Eds.). (2019). Language and neoliberal governmentality. London: Routledge.
70.
MatasA.RodríguezJ. L. (2014). The education of English learners in California following the passage of proposition 227: A case study of an urban school district. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 11(2), 44–56.
71.
MayS. (Ed.) (2013). The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education. Routledge.
72.
McGroartyM. (2006). Neoliberal collusion or strategic simultaneity? On multiple rationales for language-in-education policies. Language Policy, 5(1), 3–13.
73.
MenkenK. (2009). No Child Left behind and its effects on language policy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 103–117.
74.
MenkenK.GarcíaO. (Eds.). (2010). Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers. Routledge.
75.
MenkenK.SolorzaC. (2014). No child left bilingual: Accountability and the elimination of bilingual education programs in New York City schools. Educational Policy, 28(1), 96–125.
76.
MignoloW. D. (1996). Linguistic maps, literary geographies, and cultural landscapes: Languages, languaging, and (trans) nationalism. Modern Language Quarterly, 57(2), 181–197.
77.
MühlhäuslerP. (2000). Language planning and language ecology. Current Issues in Language Planning, 1(3), 306–367.
78.
Muñoz-MuñozE. R. (2018). Destandardizing the standard (s): Ideological and implementational spaces in preservice teacher education [Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University]. https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/12698948
79.
PalmerD.MartinezR. (2013). Teacher agency in bilingual spaces: A fresh look at preparing teachers to educate Latina/o bilingual children. Review of Research in Education, 13, 269–297.
80.
PennycookA. (2017). Translanguaging and semiotic assemblages. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14(3), 269–282.
81.
PetrovicJ. E. (2005). The conservative restoration and neoliberal defenses of bilingual education. Language Policy, 4(4), 395–416.
82.
PozaL. E. (2016). Barreras: Language ideologies, academic language, and the marginalization of Latin@ English language learners. Whittier Law Review, 37(3), 401–421.
83.
PozaL. E. (2021). Adding flesh to the bones: Dignity frames for English Learner Education. Harvard Educational Review, 91(4), 482–510.
84.
PozaL. E.GarcíaO.Jiménez-Castellanos. (2021). After Castañeda: a glotopolítica perspective and educational dignity paradigm to educate racialized bilinguals. Language Policy, 21(3) 1–24.
85.
PozaL. E.ShannonS. M. (2020). Where language is beside the point: English language testing for Mexicano students in the Southwestern United States. In MirhosseiniS. A.De CostaP. I. (Eds.), The sociopolitics of English language testing (pp. 46–67). Bloomsbury.
86.
PradaJ.NikulaT. (2018). Introduction to the special issue: On the transgressive nature of translanguaging pedagogies. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages Special Issue, 5(2), 1–7.
87.
RataE. (2014). The three stages of critical policy methodology: An example from curriculum analysis. Policy Futures in Education, 12(3), 347–358.
88.
RicentoT. K.HornbergerN. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401–427.
89.
RubioJ. (2020). Educational language policy in Massachusetts: Discourses of the LOOK Act. Educational Policy, 36(6), 1440–1463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904820974406
90.
RuízR. (1984). Orientations in language planning. ABE Journal, 8(2), 15–34.
91.
RymesB.FloresN.PomerantzA. (2016). The Common Core State Standards and English learners: Finding the silver lining. Language, 92(4), e257–e273.
92.
SaldañaJ. (2009). An Introduction to codes and coding: The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publishing.
93.
ShohamyE. G. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. Routledge.
94.
SomervilleJ.FaltisC. (2019). Dual languaging as strategy and translanguaging as tactic in two-way dual language programs. Theory Into Practice, 58(2), 164–175.
95.
SubtireluN. C.BorowczykM.Thorson HernándezR.VeneziaF. (2019). RecognizingWhoseBilingualism? A critical policy analysis of the seal of Biliteracy. Modern Language Journal, 103(2), 371–390.
96.
TannenD.HamiltonH. E.SchiffrinD. (2015). The handbook of discourse analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
97.
TaylorS. (1997). Critical policy analysis: Exploring contexts, texts and consequences. Discourse Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 18(1), 23–35.
98.
TollefsonJ. W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality. Longman.
99.
UlanoffS. H. (2014). California’s implementation of Proposition 227. In McFieldG. P. (Ed.), The miseducation of English learners: A tale of three states and lessons to be learned (pp. 79–107). Information Age Publishing.
100.
ValdésG. (2004). Between support and marginalization: The development of academic language in linguistic minority children. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7((2&3)), 102–132.
101.
ValdésG. (2020). The future of the seal of Biliteracy. In HeinekeA. J.DavinK. J. (Eds.), The Seal of biliteracy: Case studies and considerations for policy implementation (pp. 177–204). Information Age Publishing.
102.
ValdésG.CapitelliS.ÁlvarezL. (2011). Latino children learning English: Steps in the journey. Teachers College Press.
103.
WileyT. G. (2014). Diversity, super-diversity, and monolingual language ideology in the United States: Tolerance or intolerance?Review of Research in Education, 38(1), 1–32.
104.
WileyT. G.GarcíaO. (2016). Language policy and planning in language education: Legacies, consequences, and possibilities. Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 48–63.
105.
WileyT. G.LukesM. (1996). English-only and standard English ideologies in the U.S. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 511–535.
