Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Interest convergence and hegemony in dual language: Bilingual education, but for whom and why?

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
Language Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

I analyze two bills from the state legislatures of California (SB 1174) and Arizona (SB 1242) that propose to expand bilingual education where English-only education was previously the default. Using a critical discourse analysis lens to conduct a directed content analysis, I ask who bilingual education is for, why it is offered, and how the proposed programs would affect the education of English learners. The theoretical framework draws heavily from interest convergence theory, which holds that minoritized communities make civil rights gains when their interests converge with interests of the majority/state. Additionally, the framework employs the idea of economic preparation through education as a hegemonic force, driving the expansion of dual language programs. The bills demonstrate the shifting discourse from supporting English learners to an economic interest in bilingualism. The Arizona bill restricts bilingual education to students who already speak English fluently, making the programs unavailable to English learners. The California bill explicitly makes the potential programs available to all students, including English learners. The bills mention multiple reasons for expanding bilingual education, but the primary emphases are economic benefits and national security. While the promotion of bilingualism is a step forward, interest convergence theory and hegemony are useful analytical tools to understand the change and ensure that all students have equitable access to language programs.

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

  • Agirdag, O. (2014). The literal cost of language assimilation for children of immigration: The effects of bilingualism on labor market outcomes. In R. M. Callahan & P. C. Gándara (Eds.), The bilingual advantage: Language, literacy, and the US labor market (pp. 160–181). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alemán, E., Jr., & Alemán, S. M. (2010). Do Latin@ interests always have to ‘converge’ with White interests? (Re)claiming racial realism and interest-convergence in critical race theory praxis. Race Ethnicity and Education, 13(1), 1–21. doi:10.1080/13613320903549644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arizona critical language and economic development pilot program (2014) Pub. L. No. SB 1242.

  • Bell, D. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 93(3), 518–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D. (2003). Diversity’s distractions. Columbia Law Review, 103(6), 1622–1633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, R. M., & Gándara, P. C. (Eds.). (2014). The bilingual advantage: Language, literacy and the US labor market. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlucci, A. (2013). Gramsci and languages: Unification, diversity, hegemony. Leiden: BRILL.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Casellas, J. P. (2009). The institutional and demographic determinants of Latino representation. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 34(3), 399–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cervantes-Soon, C. G. (2014). A critical look at dual language immersion in the new Latin@ diaspora. Bilingual Research Journal, 37(1), 64–82. doi:10.1080/15235882.2014.893267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Washington D.C.

  • de Jong, E. J., Arias, A. B., & Sánchez, M. T. (2010). Undermining teacher competencies: Another look at the impact of restrictive language policies. In P. Gándara & M. Hopkins (Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies (pp. 86–101). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, R. (2006). Rodrigo’s roundelay: Herandez v. Texas and the interest-convergence dilemma. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 41, 23–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorner, L. M. (2015). From global jobs to safe spaces: The diverse discourses that sell multilingual schooling in the USA. Current Issues in Language Planning, 16(1–2), 114–131. doi:10.1080/14664208.2014.947013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, J. (2011). Rethinking the interest-convergence thesis. Northwestern University Law Review, 105(1), 149–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N., & Fairclough, I. (2012). Political discourse analysis. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitts, S. (2006). Reconstructing the status quo: Linguistic interaction in a dual-language school. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 337–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flores, N. (2013). The unexamined relationship between neoliberalism and plurilingualism: A cautionary tale. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 500–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flores, N. (2016). A tale of two visions: Hegemonic whiteness and bilingual education. Educational Policy, 30(1), 13–38. doi:10.1177/0895904815616482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman, S. (2015). Interests and conflicts: Exploring the context for early implementation of a dual language policy in one middle school. Language Policy. doi:10.1007/s10993-015-9377-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gándara, P. C., & Hopkins, M. (Eds.). (2010). Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gándara, P., Losen, D., August, D., & Uriarte, M. (2010). Forbidden language: A brief history of U.S. language policy. In P. Gándara & M. Hopkins (Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gándara, P., & Orfield, G. (2012). Why Arizona matters: The historical, legal, and political contexts of Arizona’s instructional policies and U.S. linguistic hegemony. Language Policy, 11(1), 7–19. doi:10.1007/s10993-011-9227-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García, O. (2014). U.S. Spanish and education: Global and local intersections. Review of Research in Eduation, 38, 58–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, E. E., Lawton, K., & Diniz de Figueiredo, E. H. (2010). The education of English Language Learners in Arizona: A legacy of persisting achievement gaps in a restrictive language policy climate (The Civil Rights Project: Proyecto Derechos Civiles). UCLA. Retrieved from http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu.

  • García, O., & Mason, L. (2008). Where in the world is US Spanish? Creating a space of opportunity for US Latinos. In W. Harbert, S. McConnell-Ginet, & A. Miller (Eds.), Language and poverty (pp. 78–101). Clevedon, GBR: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2011). Discourse analysis: What makes it critical? In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (Vol. 2, pp. 23–43). Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giroux, H. A. (1984). Ideology, culture, and the process of schooling. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez, L., Reyes, E., & Jimenez-Silva, M. (2015). Where are Arizona’s dual language immersion programs? Exploring issues of equity and accessibility. Presented at the National Association for Bilingual Education, Las Vegas, NV.

  • Gramsci, A. (1999). Selections from the prison notebooks. New York: International Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, M. (2012). Arizona’s teacher policies and their relationship with English learner instructional practice. Language Policy, 11(1), 81–99. doi:10.1007/s10993-011-9223-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, H. F. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenner, B., & Titscher, S. (Eds.). (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. C. (2009). Ethnography of language policy. Language Policy, 8(2), 139–159. doi:10.1007/s10993-009-9136-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lara, R. (2014). California education for a global economy Initiative, Pub. L. No. SB 1174.

  • Lau v. Nichols (U.S. Supreme Court 1974).

  • Leckie, A. G., Kaplan, S. E., & Rubinstein-Ávila, E. (2013). The need for speed: A critical discourse analysis of the reclassification of English language learners in Arizona. Language Policy, 12(2), 159–176. doi:10.1007/s10993-012-9242-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. S., & Wright, W. E. (2014). The rediscovery of heritage and community language education in the United States. Review of Research in Education, 38, 137–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López, M. P. (2005). Reflections on educating Latino and Latina undocumented children: Beyond Plyler v. Doe. Seton Hall Law Review, 35, 1373–1406.

    Google Scholar 

  • López, F., Scanlan, M., & Gundrum, B. B. (2013). Preparing teachers of English language learners: Empirical evidence and policy implications. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(20), 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michener, C. J., Sengupta-Irving, T., Proctor, C. P., & Silverman, R. (2013). Culturally sustaining pedagogy within monolingual language policy: Variability in instruction. Language Policy,. doi:10.1007/s10993-013-9314-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Conference of State Legislators. (2016). Latino legislators overview. Retrieved July 8, 2016, from http://www.ncsl.org/

  • Palmer, D. (2010). Race, power, and equity in a multiethnic urban elementary school with a dual-language “strand” program. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 41(1), 94–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkes, J. (2008). Who chooses dual language education for their children and why. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(6), 635–660. doi:10.1080/13670050802149267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perea, J. F. (1992). Demography and distrust: An essay on American languages, cultural pluralism, and official English. Minnesota Law Review, 77, 269–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrovic, J. E. (2005). The conservative restoration and neoliberal defenses of bilingual education. Language Policy, 4(4), 395–416. doi:10.1007/s10993-005-2888-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, C. (2011). The color of language: The racialized educational trajectory of an emerging bilingual student. Journal of Latinos and Education, 10(4), 335–353. doi:10.1080/15348431.2011.605686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potowski, K. (2004). Student Spanish use and investment in a dual immersion classroom: Implications for second language acquisition and heritage language maintenance. The Modern Language Journal, 88(1), 75–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powers, J. M. (2014). From segregation to school finance: The legal context for language rights in the United States. Review of Research in Education, 38(1), 81–105. doi:10.3102/0091732X13506550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricento, T. (2005). Problems with the “language-as-resource” discourse in the promotion of heritage languages in the U.S.A. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(3), 348–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rios-Aguilar, C., González Canché, M. S., & Sabetghadam, S. (2012). Evaluating the impact of restrictive language policies: The Arizona 4-hour English language development block. Language Policy, 11(1), 47–80. doi:10.1007/s10993-011-9226-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C. A. (1995). Bilingual education program models: A framework for understanding. The Bilingual Research Journal, 19(3/4), 369–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. (2011). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (2nd ed.). Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruíz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tollefson, J. W. (2015). Language policy-making in multilingual education: Mass media and the framing of medium of instruction. Current Issues in Language Planning, 16(1–2), 132–148. doi:10.1080/14664208.2014.947018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valdés, G. (1997). Dual-language immersion programs: A cautionary note concerning the education of language-minority students. Harvard Educational Review, 67(3), 391–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valdez, V. E., Delavan, G., & Freire, J. A. (2014). The marketing of dual language education policy in Utah print media. Educational Policy,. doi:10.1177/0895904814556750.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varghese, M. M., & Park, C. (2010). Going global: Can dual-language programs save bilingual education? Journal of Latinos and Education, 9(1), 72–80. doi:10.1080/15348430903253092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenworth, L., Pellegrin, N., Thompson, K., & Hakuta, K. (2010). Proposition 227 in California: A long-term appraisal of its impact on English learner student achievement. In P. Gándara & M. Hopkins (Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C. (2015). Better policies for dual language learners: Bridging research, policy, implementation, and classroom practice. New America Dual Language Learners National Work Group.

  • Wright, W. E. (2014). Proposition 203 and Arizona’s early school reform efforts: The nullification of acommodations. In S. C. K. Moore (Ed.), Language policy processes and consequences: Arizona case studies (pp. 45–72). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arizona State University, 3255 S. Dorsey Ln., #2052, Tempe, AZ, 85282, USA

    Laura Beth Kelly

Authors
  1. Laura Beth Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Beth Kelly.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kelly, L.B. Interest convergence and hegemony in dual language: Bilingual education, but for whom and why?. Lang Policy 17, 1–21 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-016-9418-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-016-9418-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation