istanbul escortAntalya Escortizmir escort ankara escort

Bilingual Education as “Political Spectacle” (Koyama and Bartlett)

Excerpt from  draft of: Koyama and Bartlett. 2011. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.

Educational Policy as Political Spectacle

This article draws upon Edelman’s (1988) theory of political spectacle as applied to educational policy by Smith (2004).  Political spectacles are, according to these scholars, political constructions of reality that “resemble theater, complete with directors, stages, casts of actors, narrative plots, and (most importantly) a curtain that separates the action onstage—what the audience has access to—from the backstage, where ‘real allocation of values’ takes place” (Smith 2004:11).  Variations between onstage and backstage conduct and maneuverings, originally elucidated by Goffman (1959), are often concealed by the actors.  Presented to the public through the media, as serving their good, spectacles serve to obscure the ways in which they sustain inequalities and maintain power differentials.

In political spectacle applied to policy, dramaturgy includes staging “policy events that are carefully crafted and planned for the purpose of media attention” (Wright 2005:664).   Onstage, props are strategically selected and deployed as symbolic objects imbued with meaning.  “Characters are cast to play certain roles” (Smith 2004:16) that are infused with power and significance.  The roles of policy actors—leaders, enemies, and allies—are socially constructed by political interest groups. These actors generate and repeat their plot lines to garner support for their positions, creating for the public the illusion that they are participants, rather than just spectators.  Narratives or story lines that support and oppose a policy are plotted and delivered. In this case, narratives range from “blaming the victim” for not learning English, to the manufacturing of a crisis, in which emergent bilinguals and their immigrant families are destroying our global competitiveness.

The theatrics are for public consumption. However, backstage actors (who are far less numerous than spectators) “negotiate for themselves material benefits using the informal language of barter, in contrast to the stylized, formal, abstract, ambiguous language characteristic of the performance onstage” (Smith 2004:32). Benefits can include material profits, political influence, or increased opportunities. Tangible benefits often go to those who identify potential profit from the adoption and implementation of a policy and also to those using the policy to further their careers. For example, Ron Unz, a California millionaire who authored and financed two “English-only” propositions, has used the resulting recognition to mount his political campaigns.

Political spectacles are interpretations of public policy that aim to systematically strengthen particular political ideologies while creating illusions of democracy. Winton (n.d.) notes that “even when citizens vote or participate in policy discussions, the details of polices are worked out [backstage, away from] the public’s view” (6). The spectacles present distortions of public policy to the public, concealing costs and benefits through a dramatization of particular ideas and values. In the case of bilingual education or language policies in the United States, English becomes inextricably bound to national allegiance and democratic values while other languages, such as Spanish, are positioned as a threat to the strength and integrity of the nation.

Deception in political spectacle hinges upon the use of symbolic language, which is ambiguous, metaphorical, and open to multiple interpretations. Policy-targeted problems are situated vague claims; “A central theme of this analysis, then, is the diversity of meanings inherent in every social problem, stemming from the range of concerns of different groups, each eager to pursue courses of action and call them solutions” (Edelman 1988: 15). Ill defined terms such as “national identity” and “democratic citizenry” are employed to evoke emotional responses. Words, figures, and numerical data used by political leaders to support policies are presented as precise and absolute, rather than subjectively contextualized. Paradoxically, “political language bemuses, obfuscates, befogs, mystifies, lulls, [and] glosses” (Smith 2004:16), while garnering consensus through its vagueness.

Utilizing a political spectacle framework to examine bilingual education policy in the United States illuminates not only how policy develops its “own momentum inside the state” (Ball 2006:45), but more explicitly elucidates how particular politicians, with the enlistment of the media and corporate investment, capitalize on the power of policy to produce particular versions of truth and knowledge. The spectacle perspective exposes the ways in which national and local government officials, influential businessmen, and influential policy stakeholders collude in staging policy in a political climate, best described as the marketization of education and the depoliticization of citizens (Koyama, forthcoming; Ball 2006; Ozga 2000; Smith 2004).

Bilingual Education as Political Spectacle

Federally, bilingual education is inextricably linked through legislation, court decisions, and executive action, to the country’s “war on poverty.” It has been “largely a compensatory program to remediate the language deficits of limited English speakers” (Gándara and Gomez 2009:582). Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), often referred to as the Bilingual Education Act (BEA), was added in 1968 and became the first official federal bilingual education policy in the United States. As a political spectacle, despite its misleading name, the BEA focused, not on developing bilingualism, but rather on eliminating poverty among “deprived” children who presumably suffered from an English language deficit. The narrative or story line of the Act was one of intervention in the (political and media manufactured) “crisis” of rising Mexican immigration (García and Gonzalez 1995). It was a law of remediation, ambiguously written and variably enacted “during a time of great domestic upheaval and demographic transformations, including the civil rights movement and the federal War on Poverty” (Reyes 2006:370). Ten years after its inception, Title VII was reauthorized in a version that explicitly denied native language maintenance in favor of federal funding for transitional programs, in which children were to learn English as quickly as possible. By 1994, Title VII was renewed and the cap on the quantity of English-only programs was lifted, thus paving the way for districts who claimed they could not support bilingual programs to proceed with English only (Gándara and Gomez 2009).

In the early 1980s, amidst the rapid increase of a Spanish speaking immigrant population, the English-only movement reframed bilingual education as a bane to cultural assimilation and citizen participation. The movement swelled and gained increasing media coverage, especially in California and the Southwest, states with large Mexican immigrant populations. While unsuccessful in getting federal legislation passed, the movement did secure measures in twenty-eight states (García 2009).  California and Arizona, which have the large populations of emergent bilinguals, have eliminated bilingual education.  In California, Proposition 227, an English-only state school accountability program, supported by district-level policies, mandated movement toward English-only reading programs (Stritikus 2002). Arizona’s Proposition 203, entitled “English for Children,” restricts bilingual and English-as-a-second-language programs in favor of English-only education.

In the staging of the Proposition 203 and Proposition 227 spectacles, immigrant families and local Latino officials were used as props, appearing in campaign television advertisements. Attached to the families was the following rhetoric: immigrant parents want their children to learn English. The primary author of both propositions, Ron Unz, cast the federal government and public schools as culpable. The narrative he and his followers created was that public schools, which share a moral obligation to teach all children English, had failed to educate immigrant children because of costly experimental language programs—i.e. bilingual education. Political hopefuls, turned policy leaders, made public (and publicized) alliances with local Latino government officials, creating the symbolic illusion that initiatives had grassroots Latino support.

Nationally, the political spectacle of bilingual education policy continued to be staged. In 2002, Title VII was eliminated under the reauthorization of ESEA as No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).  It was replaced by Title III (Public Law 107-110), in which all references to bilingual instruction were eliminated. In fact, the word “bilingual” was removed, not only from the law, but also from any government offices associated with it (García 2009). Ambiguous language and grandiose titles that conflated different educational foci were generated. The Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited-English Proficient Students replaced the Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs. Through Title III, federal funding shifted from competitive grants to formula grants allocated to states based on enrollments of students designated as “Limited English Proficient” (LEP), and has resulted in a reduction of per student funding (García 2009).

The political spectacle of NCLB has been widely noted, although not all scholars have used that framing. Relying on persuasive, ambiguous clusters of keywords, such as “nation” and “democracy,” NCLB is packaged and performed for the American public as a ‘common sense’ education reform.  According to the NCLB narrative, it is time to rationally address all of the children and help those who need it most.  Common sense, “a culture-driven commodity” (Weiss 2005:79), tells the public that those children who are failing in school need to be identified and “helped.”  In the media, NCLB is portrayed by its supporters as a “civil rights” measure that conflates public education issues with the unattainable goal of 100% proficiency in mathematics and English by 2014. The public is told that the crisis in American public education is so severe that the deficiency of achievement (which has supposedly reduced the U.S.’s global economic competitiveness) requires federal intervention.

As the main concepts of NCLB—high-stakes assessments, increased productivity, and accountability of work—have become cornerstones in the current neoliberal climate, NCLB operates at some common sense level and its basic assumptions are increasingly unchallenged (Koyama, forthcoming). Further, stating that “no child” will be ignored, or conversely that “all children” will be addressed, hides categories by naturalizing them, disguising the fact that NCLB is premised upon the disaggregation of children and their test scores into race, ethnicity, class, language, and cognitive and physical abilities so that much can be made of their differential test results. Under NCLB, bilingual education or what Crawford (2004) has aptly named the “B-word,” has been replaced with English as a Second Language (ESL) programs and references to bilingual education have been silenced in mainstream media, as well as in federal, state, and district educational agencies.

Bilingual education in New York State has not fallen prey to English-only campaigns, although changes have occurred. The Aspira Consent Decree (1974) that ensures transitional bilingual education as a legal entitlement for students has become, through a lack of funding, a symbolic, rather than a material policy. Recently, “as in other locations, standardized testing has affected bilingual education” (García and Bartlett 2007:4) in New York City.  In particular, the imposition of the state English Regents exam—a six-hour exam, which is taken over two days—as a high school graduation requirement has resulted in reduced instruction time in languages other than English (Menken 2005) and increased the intensity of English instruction, essentially eliminating substantive bilingual education in high school (García and Menken, 2006). In the context of these policies regarding assessment and bilingual education, schools in New York City have struggled to educate Latino English language learners.

References (from entire article)

Anderson, G. L. 2007. Media’s impact on educational policies and practices: Political spectacle and social control. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(1): 103-120.

Ball, S.J. 2006. Education policy and social class: The selected works of Stephen ball (World Library of Educationalists). London: Routledge.

Bartlett, L., M. Frederick, T. Gulbrandsen, and E. Murillo. 2002. The marketization of education: Public schools for private ends. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 33, 1: 5-29.

Bartlett and García. forthcoming. Additive Education in Subtractive Times

Brutt-Griffle, J. 2004. World English. A study of its development. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Crawford, J. 2000. At war with diversity: US language policy in an age of anxiety. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Crawford, J. 2004. Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Educational Services.

Cummins, J. 1992. Bilingual education and English immersion: The Ramirez report in theoretical perspective. Bilingual Research Journal: The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education, 16(1-2): 91-104.

De Jesús, A., and D.W.Vásquez. 2005. Exploring the Latino education profile and pipeline for Latinos in New York State. New York Latino Research and Resources Network Policy Brief: Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños, 2(2):1-14.

Dillon, S. 1994. Report faults bilingual education in New York.  New York Times, June 8, 1994.

Edelman, M. 1988. Constructing the political spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Edmonston, B. and R. Lee, eds. 1996. Local fiscal effects of illegal immigration: Report of a workshop. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Fernandez, J.A. with J. Underwood.1993. Tales out of school: Joseph Fernandez’s crusade to rescue American education. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Fine, M., R.Jaffe-Walter, P.Pedraza, V.Futch, and B.Stoudt. 2007. Swimming: On oxygen, resistance, and possibility for immigrant youth under siege. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 38(1): 76-96.

Freedman, S. G. 2004. On education; It’s Latino parents speaking out on bilingual education failures.

Fry, R. 2005. The higher dropout rate of foreign-born teens: The role of schooling abroad. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.

Gándara, P. and M. C. Gómez. 2009. Language policy in education. In AERA handbook on educational policy research, eds. B. Schneider, G. Sykes, and D. Plank. Pp. 581-595. Washington DC: AERA.

Garcia, O. 2009. Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

García, O., J. A. Kleifgen, and L. Falchi. 2008. Equity in the education of emergent bilinguals: The case of English language learners. The Campaign for Educational equity research (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

García, O., and L.Bartlett. 2007. A speech community model of bilingual education: Educating Latino newcomers in the U.S. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10: 1-25.

Garcia, E. E., and R.Gonzalez. 1995. Issues in systemic reform for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Teachers College Record, 96(3): 418-431.

García, O., and K.Menken. 2006. The English of Latinos from a plurilingual transcultural angle: Implications for assessment and schools. In Dialects, Englishes, Creoles, and education, ed. S. Nero, Pp. 167-184. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Goffman, E. 1959. The presentations of self in everyday life. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday Anchor.

Hernandez, R. and F. L. Rivera-Batiz. 1997. Dominican New Yorkers: A socioeconomic profile 1997,  Dominican Research Monographs, Dominican Studies Institute, City College, City University of New York, November.

Kasinitz, P., J. Mollenkopf, M. C. Waters, and J. Holdaway. 2008. Inheriting the city: The children of immigrants come of age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Koyama, J. P. forthcoming. Making failure pay: For-profit tutoring, high-stakes testing, and public schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Levinson, B. A. U., and M. Sutton. 2001. Introduction: policy as/in practice—A sociocultural approach to the study of educational policy. In Policy as practice: Toward a comparative sociocultural analysis of educational policy, eds. M. Sutton and B. Levinson, 1–22. Westport, CT: Ablex.

Linares, G. 1989. Dominicans in New York: Superando los obstáculos y adquiriendo poder: The struggle for community control in District 6. Centro Bulletin, 2(5): 78-84.

Menken, K. 2005. When the test is what counts: How high-stakes testing affects language policy and the education of English language learners in high school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Teachers College, Columbia University.

Menken, K. 2008. English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Ozga, J. 2000. Policy research in educational settings: Contested terrain. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Pessar, P. 1995. A visa for a dream: Dominicans in the United States. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Phillips, R. 1992. Linguistic imperialism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Pita, M., and S. Utakis. 2002. Educational policy for the transnational Dominican community. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 1(4): 317-328.

Reyes, L. O. 2006. The Aspira Consent Decree: A thirtieth-anniversary retrospective of bilingual education in New York City. Harvard Educational Review 76(3):369-400.

Ricento, T. 1998. National language policy in the United States. In Language and politics in the United States and Canada: Myths and realities, eds. T. Ricento and B. Burnaby, 85-112. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rosenbaum, E., and R. Cortina. 2004. The schooling of immigrants in New York: Graduating high School Cohort of 1999. New York: Final report submitted to the Russell Sage Foundation (RSF Project # 88-03-01).

Siegel, S., and E.Skelly. 1992. An open letter: New York to Adelaide. In Negotiating the curriculum: Educating for the 21st century, eds, G. Boomer, N. Lester, C. On- ore, and J. Cook, 78-90. London: The Falmer Press.

Smith, M. L. with L. Miller-Kahn, W. Heinecke, and P. F. Jarvis. 2004. Political spectacle and the fate of American schools. New York: Routledge.

Stritikus, T. 2002. Immigrant children and the politics of English-Only: Views from the classroom. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishing.

Tollefson, J.W., and A.B.M.Tsui, eds. 2004. Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Torres-Saillant, S., and R. Hernandez. 1998. The Dominican Americans. Westport, CN: Greenwood.

Trotta, L. 2003. N.Y. mayor overhauls bilingual education. The Washington Times.

Weiss, Beth. 2005. Teachers, unions, and commercialism. In Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools, ed. D. Meier and G. Wood, 69-81. Boston: Beacon Press.

Wells, A. S. 2009.“Our children’s burden”: A history of federal education policies that ask (now require) our public schools to solve societal inequality. In NCLB at the crossroads: Reexamining the federal effort to close the achievement gap, eds. M. A. Rebell and J. R. Wolff, 1-42. New York: Teachers College Press.

Winton, S. 2008. Character education: Implications for democracy. International Critical Childhood Policy Studies, 1(1): 42-63.

Wright, W. E. 2005. The political spectacle of Arizona’s proposition 203. Educational Policy, 19(5): 662-700.

199 Responses to “Bilingual Education as “Political Spectacle” (Koyama and Bartlett)”

  1. それにそれに余分なものを保持するには、印象的なシェアを

  2. 、そんなに大きなポストをありがとうございました!私は必要なだけの情報。

  3. このページでは、ワウのようでした。この公開にあなたの力を入れてくれてありがとうライトアップ。

  4. 私はオンラインを読んだほとんどがゴミであり、ペーストをコピーするが、私は感じあなたが別の何かを提供しています。このようにそれを| 維持してください。

  5. 、私は実際にはほとんどすべての時間の中で正確に同じ時代遅れの退屈なリサイクル原料の視聴うんざり。私は心からあなたのサイトを読んで喜びを取った

  6. 私は常に私を支援することができますアイデアをオンラインで探しています。ありがとう!

  7. は私がFYIグーグルリーダーを使用しています、私はあなたのフィードを購読カント少し問題を抱えています。

  8. ファンタスティックスタッフ、あなたがBeboのアカウントを持っていますか? |こんにちは

  9. edwall逃れる保持するが、私はこの問題は実際に私は理解しないだろうと思うものであることがわかりました。それはあまりにも複雑で、私にとっては非常に広いと思われます。私はあなたの次のポストのために楽しみにしています、私はそれのこつを取得しよう!

  10. 私は投稿記事を読書を楽しみます。私はことを願って はるかこのような記事 1。投稿いただきありがとうございます。私はそれが、この のもの|いくつかの純粋良い素敵を

  11. とストレートポイントに。私はこれが本当に求めるのに最適な場所であるかどうかわからないですが、あなたは、人々は、いくつかのプロのライターを雇うために、任意のideeaがありますか?あなたが細かい点の数を完了し

  12. ぐらつかせるオール背くdoxie集大成パンジャブ多言語カミンスキーの選択肢は、このために多くThankxを

  13. ! トピック対象 特定 |最も とのブログ私たちが今までにこの上を横切って到着した| 1 1である可能性があります。基本的には壮大。 私はこの中でも、専門家トピックあなたの努力ので、私は実現認識を理解することができます。

  14. 兄は私のためにこのサイトをブックマークして、私は過去数時間のためにそれを通過してきました。これは本当に私たちのクラスのプロジェクトのために私と私の友人を助けるために起こっています。ところで、私はあなたが書く方法をお楽しみください。

  15. おかげで、ヤフーに| ウェブサイト私はこれを観察嬉しい私は私がよ。 1 しかし、私はこれを想像する私は多大訪れ

  16. 、私はあなたの注目度抜群の掲示ポストの3に気づき、あなたが往復ページに魅了することができたかどうかを確認するために必要な?労働力は、アレクシス·テキサスのお尻についてのブログを持っています!とにかく、私の言語で、このような多くの十分な供給がアレント。

  17. は私が道して、Googleリーダーを使用しています、私は私の読者があなたのRSSフィードをピックアップすることはできません奇妙な問題を抱えています。これを置くための

  18. あなたのサイトは素晴らしいです!私はビングにそれを発見し、それを読んで抵抗することができませんでした。あなたがここにいくつかの良い情報を持っています。投稿いただきありがとうございます!

  19. それは私がこのサイトへの参照を送信した場合、私の個人的なウェブページに、この部分を入れて大丈夫ですか?

  20. あなたに感謝し、それに感謝あなたはこの中に入れているすべてのあなたの努力のために。非常に興味深い情報。 。「よく生きるよう長生きするほどではないを願っています。」ベンジャミン·フランクリンによってウェブサイト|ウェブサイト| |サイト|ウェブブログ|ブログSREN Aabyキルケゴールによって}

  21. あなたが見つけることができますこの投稿の中でいくつかの点で興味深い点のほんの一握りを私は心にこれらのセンターを参照してください場合、私は決定しません。そこにいくつかの妥当性を存在しますが、私が取るまで、私は意見を保持してみましょう|さらにそれを見て表示されます。 優秀、感謝アップを書いて、私たちが望むたくさん はるか!いくつかのまともな点があまりにも

  22. 、使用して皆さんは何のブログのテーマがありますか?それは素晴らしいですね!

  23. 米国産であることは、現代の清教徒的態度は勝つ、暴力を意味する方法までダイヤルされ、切断は途中ダウンダイヤルされ、それが面倒だ

  24. 私の妹は私のために、このインターネットサイトを保存して、私は過去数時間のためにそれを通過してきました。これは本当に私たちのクラスのプロジェクトのために私と私のクラスメートを支援しようとしています。ところで、私はあなたが書いた方法のように。私が持っていた

  25. あなたのサイトには、ちょうどそれを読んで非常に興味深い、非常に心を落ち着かせる効果です。特定の分野で多くの時間を過ごすことになります。よくやったと自分の仕事にがんばろう。あなたが実際に私は偶然このブログに持って知っているhuan​​hangrn、まだこのポストはよく読むと、しかし確実にagruable一つであったthis.but検索することを意味しませんでし。

  26. Idはyouveはこの記事を書くことで作られてしまったの努力のためにあなたに感謝したいと思います。正確に同じでは最高のも潜在以内から実行を望んでイム。実際に、本発明のライティングスキルは今私の個人的なBlogEngineのブログを開始するために私にインスピレーションを与えてきました。そのクールなブログを

  27. 私はいけないと思います感じる見IVE すべての | youveは、それらを指摘方法このトピック主題の角度。 Youreの真のスター、ロックスターの男。ホードはそ​​うだ多くのは言ってので、知っている多くのについてトピック私は は情報あなた{提供| |オファー|供給|それは私が貴重な{情報を好き

  28. とても よく書き込ま物語。それは本当にあなたを含め、それをusess誰にも貴重なされます。 素晴らしいまで| 維持してください 関数 – 読むために待つcan’r はるかのポスト。この上で、これを議論するために時間を割いて

  29. 。私は別のブログ毎日上の1つの事より困難に教えられます。それは、常に別の作家からコンテンツを読み、自分の店から何かのビットを適用するために刺激されることになります。私は、あなたが気にしないかどうか私のブログ上のコンテンツとのいくつかを使用することを望むだろう。 Natually私はあなたのウェブのブログでリンクを提供します。共有していただきありがとうございます。これは本当に面白いです

  30. 興味深い点に似た有効な情報があればいいのに。あなたがが、社会全体にその意義について考えていることを疑問に思いますか?それがローカルに影響し始めたとき、人々は明らかにイライラします。私はすぐに戻って、応答をフォローアップします。

  31. 私は、サイトのレイアウトが好きです!それはどのように作られたのか?その本当に良いです。

  32. 優秀仕事、私がして、やっ Google検索して、インターネットサイトは 、とにかくフロリダ州にある販売のための家のために思い付いたが、それまで維持|私は}それを読んで楽しんできた、{続ける|私が持っています! ただしのために| 対象トピックこれについて詳細データ情報のために|

  33. !ただ偉大なウェブサイトを記述することによって低下しました。 youreのはやって素晴らしい仕事を続けます!こんにちは

  34. 私はないことかなりインターネットリーダーの正直に言うが、あなたのブログは実際 良い、|それを保つ維持!将来内部私が先に行くと、あなたのブックマークよ戻ってきて、インターネットサイトWebサイト。有用な| 非常に {参考に、それは非常に貴重なようですすべて 最大私はこののお気に入りなきゃ

  35. 私は読むことを願っています。もっとたくさん 魅力的な昨年の

  36. 素晴らしく、この素敵なサイトでチェックアウトするための非常にfacinatingポスト!今だけ任意の入力を書き込むことはありません。これは、大規模で、非常に興味深い書き込みがこの巨大なウェブサイト上でチェックアウトするhuan​​hangrnだけ..抵抗できませんでした。今だけのいずれかの応答を掲示することはありませんただこれは、この素晴らしいサイトでチェックして、大規模な、非常に興味深い記事です

  37. Anonymous says:

Leave a Reply