Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Culturally sustaining pedagogy within monolingual language policy: variability in instruction

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Language Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This 5-month ethnographic comparative case study of two culturally and linguistically diverse U.S. elementary classrooms juxtaposes restrictive educational language policies with the theoretical principles of culturally sustaining pedagogy to explore a gap in our understanding of how teachers reflect educational language policies in the range of pedagogical approaches they take. Triangulating data sources from state and local policy documents, classroom observations, and teacher interviews, we identify three salient dimensions of state and local policies that manifested in these two upper-elementary classrooms: teachers’ curricular and pedagogical choices; student–teacher participation structures; and teachers’ views on language. Similarities and differences between the two classrooms highlight how policy exerts influence on these dimensions while also affording degrees of instructional freedom that varied by teacher, with implications for the learning opportunities for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Overall, however, a limited range of culturally sustaining practices was observed, highlighting the need to understand the spaces in language policy where teachers can mitigate some of the effects of restrictive regulatory approaches to learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abedi, J. (2004). The no child left behind act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayres, L., Kavanaugh, K., & Knafl, K. (2003). Within-case and across-case approaches to qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 13(6), 871–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, A. (2009). Toward a theory of generative change in culturally and linguistically complex classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 45–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D., Thames, M., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K. (2010). Teachers as language-policy actors: Contending with the erasure of lesser-used languages in schools. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 41(3), 298–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy, M. (1998). The extended case method. Sociological Theory, 16(1), 4–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canagarajah, A. (2005). Accommodating tensions in language-in-education policies: An afterword. In A. Lin & P. Martin (Eds.), Decolonisation, globalisation: Language-in-education policy and practice (pp. 194–201). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chau, C., & Baldauf, R. (2011). Micro language planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 936–951). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, F., & Clandinin, D. (1995). Narrative and education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1(1), 73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creese, A. (2010). Two-teacher classrooms, personalized learning and the inclusion paradigm in the United Kingdom: What’s in it for learners of EAL? In K. Menken & O. García (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools (pp. 32–51). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, J. (2005). A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing heritage language competence as a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 586–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florez, I. (2012). Examining the validity of the Arizona English language learners assessment cut scores. Language Policy, 11, 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García, O., & Menken, K. (2010). Stirring the onion: Educators and the dynamics of language education policies (looking ahead). In K. Menken & O. García (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers (pp. 249–261). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Laws of MA, C. A. (2002). English language education in public Schools.

  • Goldenberg, C., & Rutherford-Quach, S. (2012). The Arizona home language survey: The under-identification of students for English language services. Language Policy, 11, 21–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, Q., & Koretz, D. (2013). Estimating the impact of the English immersion law on limited English proficient students’ reading achievement. Educational Policy, 27, 121–149. doi:10.1177/0895904812462776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, K., Baquedano-López, P., Alvarez, H., & Chiu, M. (1999a). Building a culture of collaboration through hybrid language practices. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 87–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, K., Baquedano-López, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999b). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hélot, C. (2010). “Tu sais bien parler maîtresse!”: Negotiating languages other than French in the primary classroom. In K. Menken & O. García (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools (pp. 52–71). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, M. (2012). Arizona’s teacher policies and their relationship with English learner instructional practice. Language Policy, 11(81–99).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornberger, N., & Johnson, D. (2007). Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 509–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R., & Baldauf, R. (1997). Language planning from practice to theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural modeling activity system for underachieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 97–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Menken, K. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menken, K., & García, O. (Eds.). (2010). Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers. New York: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moje, E., Ciechanowski, K., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moje, E., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. (2001). “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NOVA (Writer). (1996). The day the Earth shook, The day the Earth shook.

  • Olson, K. (2007). Lost opportunities to learn: The effects of education policy on primary language instruction for English learners. Linguistics and Education, 18(2), 121–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orellana, M., & Reynolds, J. (2008). Cultural modeling: Leveraging bilingual skills for school paraphrasing tasks. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(1), 48–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orellana, M., Reynolds, J., Dorner, L., & Meza, M. (2003). In other words: Translating or “para-phrasing” as a family literacy practice in immigrant households. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1), 12–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pacheco, M. (2010). English-language learners’ reading achievement: Dialectical relationships between policy and practices in meaning-making opportunities. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(3), 292–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, D. (2009). “They’re in my culture, they speak the same way”: African American language in multiethnic high schools. Harvard Educational Review, 79(3), 428–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(2), 196–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricento, T., & Hornberger, N. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rios-Aguilar, C., & Gándara, P. (2012). (Re)conceptualizing and (re)evaluating language policies for English language learners: The case of Arizona. Language Policy, 11, 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rios-Aguilar, C., González Canché, M., & Sabetghadam, S. (2012). Evaluating the impact of restrictive language policies: The Arizona 4-hour English language development block. Language Policy, 11, 47–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, P. (2002). Esperanza rising. New York: Scholastic Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scientific Software Development. (2011). ATLAS.ti 6.2.

  • Shohamy, E. (Ed.). (2010). Cases of language policy resistance in Israel’s centralized educational system. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J., Coggins, C., & Cardoso, J. (2008). Best practices for English langauge learners in Massachusetts: Five years after the question 2 mandate. Equity & Excellence in Education, 41(3), 293–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speare, E. (1983). The sign of the beaver. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Books for Young Readers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stillman, J. (2011). Teacher learning in an era of high-stakes accountability: Productive tension and critical professional practice. Teachers College Record, 113(1), 133–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stritikus, T. (2003). The interrelationship of beliefs, context, and learning: The case of a teacher reacting to language policy. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 2(1), 29–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strizek, G. A., Pittsonberger, J. L., Riordan, K. E., Lyter, D. M., & Orlofsky, G. F. (2006). Characteristics of schools, districts, teachers, principals, and school libraries in the United States: 2003–04 schools and staffing survey (NCES 2006-313). Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suarez-Orozco, M. (2012). Educating the whole child for the whole world: Education and freedom in the global era. Paper presented at the UCI Interdisciplinary Conference on Researching Equity.

  • Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2009). Two cases of ethnography. Ethnography, 10(3), 243–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tollefson, J. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community. New York: Longman Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tollefson, J. (Ed.). (2002). Language policies in education: Critical issues. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Commerce. (2012). U.S. Census Bureau: State and country quick facts. U.S. Department of Commerce.

  • Viesca, K. M. (2013). Linguicism and racism in Massachusetts educational policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(52). Retrieved December 10, 2013, from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/977.

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodruff, E. (1999). The memory coat. New York: Scholastic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, W. (2005). English language learners left behind in Arizona: The nullification of accommodations in the intersection of federal and state policies. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, S. (2011). Actors in language planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 905–923). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Lynch School of Education, Boston College, 140 Commonwealth Ave., Chestnut Hill, MA, 02467, USA

    Catherine J. Michener & C. Patrick Proctor

  2. School of Education, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA

    Tesha Sengupta-Irving

  3. Department of Special Education, College of Education, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742, USA

    Rebecca Silverman

Authors
  1. Catherine J. Michener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tesha Sengupta-Irving
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Patrick Proctor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rebecca Silverman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine J. Michener.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Michener, C.J., Sengupta-Irving, T., Patrick Proctor, C. et al. Culturally sustaining pedagogy within monolingual language policy: variability in instruction. Lang Policy 14, 199–220 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-013-9314-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-013-9314-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation