This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 09 October 2014, At: 00:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Race Ethnicity and EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cree20

Normalizing English language learnerstudents: a Foucauldian analysis ofopposition to bilingual educationJennifer M. Bondy aa Department of Educational Leadership , Miami University ,Oxford, OH, USAPublished online: 23 Mar 2011.

To cite this article: Jennifer M. Bondy (2011) Normalizing English language learner students: aFoucauldian analysis of opposition to bilingual education, Race Ethnicity and Education, 14:3,387-398, DOI: 10.1080/13613324.2010.543392

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2010.543392

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Race Ethnicity and EducationVol. 14, No. 3, June 2011, 387–398

ISSN 1361-3324 print/ISSN 1470-109X online© 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/13613324.2010.543392http://www.informaworld.com

Normalizing English language learner students: a Foucauldian analysis of opposition to bilingual education

Jennifer M. Bondy*

Department of Educational Leadership, Miami University, Oxford, OH, USATaylor and FrancisCREE_A_543392.sgm10.1080/13613324.2010.543392Race Ethnicity and Education1361-3324 (print)/1470-109X (online)Original Article2011Taylor & Francis0000000002011JenniferBondybondyjm@muohio.edu

This article uses Foucault’s (1977/1995) concept of normalization to analyzecontemporary opposition to bilingual education in the United States. Thesecontemporary movements have ‘normalized’ English language learner (ELL)students by appropriating the technology of language in order to become‘Americanized.’ This has become urgent and emergent in educational research, inpart, because of the growing number of ELL students in United States’ publicschools. English-language proficiency is an essential element for academicsuccess in the US’s current English-only, high-stakes testing environment. Thisanalysis questions the notion of an ideal American as the standard for howeducators implement English-only curriculum and pedagogy for ELL students.The article concludes with a critique of the impact and implications of‘normalizing’ ELL students with an English-only education.

Keywords: ELL students; normalization; anti-bilingual education initiatives

Introduction

The United States has been a lair for opposition to bilingual education since 1923, theyear when ‘thirty-four states had passed legislation installing English as the solelanguage of instruction in all public and private schools’ (Leibowicz 1992, 105–6).Nearly 100 years of resistance to bilingual education demonstrates an ongoing uneas-iness about non-English speaking immigrant populations and their influence on theAmerican nation. As Apple and Franklin (2004) state:

…when the public school system became increasingly solidified, schools were seen asinstitutions that could preserve the cultural hegemony of an embattled ‘native’ popula-tion. Education was the way in which the community life, values, norms, and economicadvantages of the powerful were to be protected. Schools could be the great engines ofmoral crusade to make the children of the immigrants and Blacks like ‘us.’ (63)

Contemporary obsession with elimination of bilingual education, such as anti-bilingual education initiatives Proposition 227, Proposition 203, and Question 2, isfueled by the fantasy of national identity (Crawford 1992; Takaki 1993). Further, itrepresents a convergence of interests, including the marginalization of multiculturaleducation and culturally responsive teaching (Banks 1994; Gay 2000; Ladson-Billings1994, 1998; Bohn and Sleeter 2001), and the maintenance of the social, political, andeconomic status quo through the standardization of English-only curriculum and peda-gogy (Macedo 1991, 1999; Prado 2000). Opposition to bilingual education feasts upon

*Email: bondyjm@muohio.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

0:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

388 J.M. Bondy

nativist and racist fear of immigrants and relies upon schools to conflate the notion ofthe ‘ideal American’ with white, US-born, English-speaking students.

There is an abundance of research literature which documents the educationaleffects of Proposition 227, Proposition 203, and Question 2 on ELL students. Foralmost a decade, researchers and educators have explored the consequences ofEnglish-only educational practices on teacher education programs (Balderamma2001; Mora 2000; Varghese and Stritikus 2005), PK-12 schools (García and Curry-Rodríguez 2000; Dejong, Gort, and Cobb 2005; Rolstad, Mahoney, and Glass 2005),in-service teachers (Arellano-Houchin et al. 2001; Revilla and Asato 2002; Stritikusand García 2000; Tórrez 2001), ELL students (Combs et al. 2005; Dixon et al. 2000;Gándara 2000; Mora 2002), and voter opinion (Johnson 2005). These studies havecome in the wake of the three aforementioned anti-bilingual education policies, ashift in our nation’s demographics which has increased the percentage of ELLstudents (Capps et al. 2004; De Cohen, Deterding, and Clewell 2006; De Cohen andClewell, 2007), and the much lauded achievement of various schools’ English-onlyprograms. Most of the advocates of this phenomenon were conservative politiciansand scholars who debated the effectiveness of bilingual education, claiming it segre-gated ELL students in separate classrooms, failed to assimilate the immigrant popu-lation, and resulted in low academic achievement and high drop-out rates (Crawford1998/99a, 1998/99b). However, these policies were also critiqued by policyresearchers who observed the deleterious consequences that English-only educa-tional practices were having on other school reforms, such as grade retention andreading instruction (Mora 2000, 2002), No Child Left Behind legislation (Wright2005b), and local control over school choice and change (Rolstad, Mahoney, andGlass 2005).

This article seeks to explore the implications of anti-bilingual, English-only educa-tional initiatives on the purposes and value of education for ELL students in US publicschools. I suggest that English-only has come to dominate discourse and practices inpublic schools, thereby limiting the ability to imagine membership in an Americannation as well as alternatives of education for ELL students. While it is not within thescope of this article to delineate between the three most recent US anti-bilingualeducation policies, I first offer a brief general overview of them. I describe their simi-larities and examine the educational effects and impact of English-only practices oncurriculum and classroom instruction for ELL students. I then present Foucault’sconcept of normalization as the framework which guides my exploration and under-standing of contemporary opposition to bilingual education. I use Foucault as a ‘tool’to position English-only educational practices as a specific type of problem – the fore-closure on who can be an ‘American’ and meaningfully participate in a multiculturaland multilingual nation (Crawford 1992; Takaki 1993; Tyack 2003). Finally, I critiquethe impact and implications of ‘normalizing’ ELL students with an English-onlycurriculum. The ultimate goal is to encourage educators to reflect upon English-onlycurriculum and pedagogy, and what we mean by ‘American.’

Bilingual education policies, debates, and effects

Contemporary opposition to bilingual education has led to repeated attempts to erad-icate it, most notably Massachusetts’ passage of Question 2 in 2002, Arizona’spassage of Proposition 203 in 2000, and California’s passage of Proposition 227 in1998. Under the guise of ‘English for the Children,’ each of these initiatives blamed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

0:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Race Ethnicity and Education 389

bilingual education programs for the poor academic achievement, such as dropoutrates and low school attendance, of ELL students, many of whom were Spanish speak-ing Latina/o immigrant children (Crawford 1998/99b; de Jong , Gort, and Cobb 2005;Wright 2005a). As a result, it was proposed that ELL students learn English as quicklyand effectively as possible in order to purposefully participate in their education.Essentially, these laws promoted the use of English-only educational practices inpublicly-funded schools in California, Arizona, and Massachusetts. Moreover, pres-sure escalated when hotlines were added so people could ‘tattle’ on activities whichviolated the laws. Teachers and administrators could be individually sued and heldpersonally responsible for financial damages if the educational practices were not‘overwhelmingly’ in English (Crawford 1997, 1998/99a; de Jong, Gort, and Cobb2005; Revilla and Asato 2002; Tórrez 2001). While some bilingual educationprograms have been maintained through waivers, most have been eliminated andreplaced with structured English immersion (SEI) classes – classes in which an over-whelming majority of the instruction is in English. Although research demonstratesthe acquisition of academic English takes five to seven years (Cummins 2000), ELLstudents are expected to be in SEI classes no longer than one year (Crawford 1997,1998/99a; Combs et al. 2005; de Jong, Gort, and Cobb 2005; Rolstad, Mahoney, andGlass 2005; Wright 2005b).

Numerous points of contention pervade the debate around bilingual education andEnglish-only curriculum and pedagogy, the favored technology of anti-bilingualeducation policies Proposition 227, Proposition 203, and Question 2 (Moses 2002).For example, opponents of bilingual education argue that bilingual education contrib-utes to the academic failure of ELL students because it segregates them and fails toprovide the literacy skills and motivation necessary for success in English-only class-rooms (Hirsch 1987, 1999; Ravitch 1983, 1992). However, research belies theseclaims by describing how instruction in a student’s primary language provides essen-tial literacy skills and academic content knowledge that can be transferred to secondlanguage acquisition (Crawford 1998/99a; Cummins 2000; Krashen 1996). In addi-tion, opponents claim that bilingual education promotes multilingualism, therebyposing a danger to national unity by subverting a common ‘American’ culture, andhindering ELL students’ ability to assimilate into mainstream American society(Hirsch 1987, 1999; Ravitch 1983, 1992). As numerous supporters of bilingual educa-tion point out, this argument indirectly appeals to nativism and racism by spotlightinglanguage as a means to marginalize and exclude certain populations, especiallyLatina/o immigrants (Crawford 1992; Takaki 1993). Furthermore, researchers remindus that ELL students are more likely to be academically successful and literate in theEnglish language if they are effectively taught in their primary language (Crawford1998/99a; Cummins 2000; Krashen 1996).

Collectively, Proposition 227, Proposition 203, and Question 2 are explicit in theirgoals that learning the English language will enable ELL students to fully participatein the American Dream of social and economic advancement (Crawford 1997; deJong, Gort, and Cobb 2005; Wright 2005b). However, the actual effects of the threeanti-bilingual education policies do not reflect the stated intentions. Analyses of Prop-osition 227, Proposition 203, and Question 2 highlight the ways in which rationale forEnglish-only curriculum and pedagogy is grounded in patriotic tropes and white, US-born, English-speaking nationalistic ambitions that exploit the fear, distrust, and angerdirected toward the Spanish-speaking Latina/o immigrant population (Crawford 1997,1998/99a; Johnson 2005). For example, Olsen, an ardent supporter of bilingual

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

0:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

390 J.M. Bondy

education, explains ‘The sense of Spanish ruining this country, the sense of our nationin threat. The sense that upholding English as the language of this nation is a stanceof protecting a way of life – this outweighed every argument we could wage…’(quoted in Crawford 1997, 2).

Johnson (2005) further supports this analysis when he describes the racializedconstruction of Latina/o immigrants as criminal and/or pathological. In the campaignfor Proposition 203 in Arizona, Johnson (2005) finds the use of language in themedia’s rhetoric – invaders, dangerous, pathological – dehumanized Latina/o immi-grants and served as a justification for English-only curriculum and pedagogy. Hewrites on the media campaign strategies of Proposition 203, ‘Their rhetorical strate-gies not only reflected dominant-class ideas and interests, they also contributed to thereproduction and perpetuation of such ideas’ (82). It is by examining the actual effectsof contemporary anti-bilingual education laws and English-only curriculum and peda-gogy in the lives of ELL students that educators can begin to understand the livedrealities of these policies, and create possibilities for oppositional responses.

Recent research suggests that some administrators and teachers have used thecontemporary English-only and/or anti-bilingual education laws to challenge culturaldeficit ways of thinking about and teaching ELL students (Arellano-Houchin et al.2001; Stritikus and García 2000). In addition, Necochea and Cline (2000) argue thata culturally responsive leadership model helps to create the conditions necessary foreffective implementation of English-only curriculum and pedagogy. Also, de Jong andothers (2005) reveal the ways in which opposition to bilingual education created apocket of critical resistance as school administrators utilized the limitations of the lawto create teaching and learning opportunities within their districts. However, themajority of research documents the harmful consequences English-only educationalpractices have had on teachers and ELL students in California, Arizona, andMassachusetts public schools.

These three initiatives have had a detrimental impact on teachers’ educationalvisions, instructional practices, and access to effective curriculum. There were manysituations in which teachers found themselves compromising their own ethical beliefsabout the education of ELL students (Maxwell-Jolly 2000), leading teachers to policetheir use of language and curriculum materials (Stritikus and García 2000), and deny-ing ELL students access to school resources provided in the student’s first language(Combs et al. 2005; Revilla and Asato 2002). Moreover, teaching techniques inEnglish-only were reduced to a limited set of ‘kill and drill’ methodological practicesthat focused on phonics and English language proficiency rather than meaningful liter-acy development (Arellano-Houchin et al. 2001; Combs et al. 2005; Gándara 2000;Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, and Asato 2000). Unfortunately, effective curriculumwas often not provided to assist teachers in developing richer literacy skills in Englishfor ELL students. This forced many teachers to make-up their own materials, basicallycreating different classroom activities with various, and often inferior, purposes ofinstruction for ELL students (Schirling, Contreras, and Ayala 2000). Based on theirstudies of teachers and students post Proposition 227 and Proposition 203, researchershave described the deleterious impact English-only teaching and learning practiceshave had on the personal and social development ELL students (Balderrama 2000;Dixon et al. 2000). Some school districts even implemented more stringent English-proficiency standards and restrictions on use of ELL students’ primary language thatwere not mandated by state law, thereby broadening and deepening the impact ofEnglish-only practices (Combs et al. 2005; Mora 2000). It appears that teachers were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

0:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Race Ethnicity and Education 391

complying with externally imposed constraints on the education of ELL studentsdespite what they believed and knew to be sound professional and pedagogical prac-tices. Education for ELL students that emanates from this perspective serves goals thatare not explicitly articulated and meets interests that are immediately visible withinthe ‘English for the Children’ campaigns.

Much has been written about the three anti-bilingual, English-only education initi-atives and their ineffectiveness in garnering administrative support (Combs et al. 2005;García and Curry-Rodríguez 2000; de Jong , Gort, and Cobb 2005; Rolstad, Mahoney,and Glass 2005) as well as meaningful teacher professional development which fostersacademic and social success for ELL students (Arellano-Houchin et al. 2001; Balder-amma 2001 ; Mora 2000; Varghese and Stritikus 2005; Tórrez 2001). Moreover, theresearch literature calls attention to the numerous possibilities and capabilities of bilin-gual education to address the inequitable educational and social effects of English-onlyinstruction on the present and future well-being of ELL students (Crawford 1992;Cummins 2000; Krashen 1996; Macedo 1991, 1999). Relations of power, however, donot operate in a straightforward and simple manner, especially in institutions such aspublic schools. Although justifications for Proposition 227, Proposition 203, and Ques-tion 2 are replete with promises of American national unity and equality, the scholarlyliterature on the effects of these three initiatives suggests otherwise. Put another way,the contrast between the local effects and the stated intentions of the ‘English for theChildren’ campaigns demonstrates that in an environment of English-only curriculumand pedagogy, the alliance between English-only educational practices and equality forELL students is questionable.

Normalization and Foucault

It is important for educators to analyze and understand the actual effects, intended ornot, of contemporary opposition to bilingual education and English-only curriculumand pedagogy. It is within this analysis that Foucault (1980) becomes very useful. Heurges us that an analysis:

…should not concern itself with power at the level of conscious intention or deci-sion…we should try to discover how it is that subjects are gradually, progressively,really and materially constituted through a multiplicity of organisms, forces, energies,materials, desires, thoughts, etc. We should try to grasp subjection in its material instanceas a constitution of subjects. (97)

Foucault (1977/1995) was not interested in critiquing the intended effects of powerbecause technologies of power, such as anti-bilingual education laws and English-onlycurriculum and pedagogy, often serve both articulated and unarticulated goals. AsJardine (2005) explains, ‘Stated intentions and actual effects often differ, and whenthey do it is the actual effects that matter in people’s lives’ (31, emphasis in original).Moreover, Foucault (1980) argues that an ascending analysis of power, or an analysiswhich begins at the local and individual (‘micro’) level and moves to a more generaland global (‘macro’) level, enables us to understand how technologies of power, overtime, come to represent the interests of the dominant group and are incorporated intosociety (99–102). Therefore, it is toward the actual effects of the implementation ofEnglish-only curriculum and pedagogy that we must direct our attention.

In Discipline and Punish, Foucault (1977/1995) discusses how punishment hasmoved from the body to the mind. More specifically, Foucault (1977/1995) develops

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

0:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

392 J.M. Bondy

a concept on the art of punishing that he calls ‘normalization.’ He writes that normal-ization is ‘the perpetual penality that traverses all points and supervises every instantin the disciplinary institutions compares, differentiates, hierarchizes, homogenizes,excludes. In short, it normalises’ (183). Thus, normalization is a five-step processconsisting of comparison, differentiation, hierarchization, homogenization, and exclu-sion. These processes operate through dividing practices which distribute groupssocially and are supported by a norm, or rule. In other words, within the processes ofnormalization, Foucault is concerned with what is used to distinguish between thoseregarded as ‘normal’ and those regarded as ‘abnormal.’ ‘What is specific to the disci-plinary penality is non-observance, that which does not measure up to the rule, thatdeparts from it. The whole indefinite domain of non-conforming is punishable’(Foucault 1977/1995, 179–80). The norm is accepted as the standard and those whodepart from it are abnormal and therefore punishable.

For Foucault (1977/1995), normalization is a technology of disciplinary powerwhich reveals itself in schools. Furthermore, for Foucault (1977/1995), the history ofschool is one of normalization or the continual implementation of disciplinary powerover children (170–94). Research on the history of education underscores Foucault’sargument by illuminating how US public schools have disciplined the children ofimmigrants and Black/African Americans, attempting to strip them of their cultural,linguistic, and racial identities (Apple and Franklin 2004; Crawford 1992; Takaki1993; Tyack 2003). Therefore, if the norm (read – white, US-born, English-speaker)is the economy of social distribution in schools, and children who depart from thenorm (read – non-white, non-English speakers) are punishable, then we can begin tosee how US public schools have perpetually used English-only curriculum and peda-gogy to produce and reify what it means to be an ‘American.’ That is, by comparingand differentiating ELL students according to their relation to the normal, a student(read – white, US-born, English-speakers) can only be an American if other students(read – ELL students) are not Americans.

Foucault (1977/1995) also describes a sort of paradox inherent in the process ofnormalization. While the seeming intention of normalization may be to homogenize,its actual effects compare, differentiate, hierarchize, and ultimately exclude. Foucault(1977/1995) writes:

In a sense, the power of normalization imposes homogeneity; but it individualizes bymaking it possible to measure gaps, to determine levels, to fix specialities and to renderthe differences useful by fitting them one to another. It is easy to understand how thepower of the norm functions within a system of formal equality, since within a homoge-neity that is the rule, the norm introduces, as a useful imperative, and as a result ofmeasurement, all the shading of individual differences. (184)

Put another way, to normalize ELL students is not to make them the same as white,US-born, English-speaking students. Rather, to normalize ELL students is to accentu-ate their differences and marginalize them. Basically, English-only curriculum andpedagogy normalizes ELL students into a collection of deviations from the norm, orthe white, US-born, English-speaking student. The norm is supported by the work ofEnglish-only educational practices which, in turn, inform the work of the five dividingpractices – comparison, differentiation, hierarchization, homogenization, and exclu-sion. Thus, there is a complementary relationship between normalization’s five divid-ing practices and English-only curriculum and pedagogy because by their own internallogic each legitimates the other (Foucault 1977/1995).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

0:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Race Ethnicity and Education 393

The implications of normalization and Proposition 227, Proposition 203, and Question 2

Proposition 227, Proposition 203, and Question 2 are fraught with the five practicesof normalization. First, the practice of comparison manifested throughout the threecampaigns to end bilingual education and the implementation of English-only prac-tices. Education deemed best for ELL students (read – non-white, non-English speak-ers) was based upon the standard English-only education which was available to therest of the student population (read – white, US born, English speakers). ELL studentswere considered deviant and thus subjected to comparison on two levels. First, ELLstudents were compared to an external English-only norm. In addition, ELL studentswere compared to each other. The creation of SEI classes subjected ELL students tointernal comparison between those ELL students judged proficient in English andthose judged not proficient. The significance of this dividing practice emerges in thesocial, linguistic, and racial divisions that are maintained by inadequate and ineffec-tive SEI programs (Adams and Jones 2006; Guerrero 2004).

Secondly, the ‘English for the Children’ campaigns fostered the notion that therewere differences between groups of ELL students, therefore their education should bedifferentiated in terms of its provision. Some ELL students were placed in SEI classes,some received a waiver and remained in bilingual education classes, and others wereplaced in English-only educational environments. Moreover, findings indicate thatELL students were often placed in lower grade levels and academic tracks primarilybecause of their race and linguistic status rather than their subject related educationalskills (Cammarato and Romero 2006; Villenas and Deyhle 1999). This differentiationgave rise to hierarchization, the third dividing practice.

The creation of structured English immersion classes both created and sustained adistinction between the normal and the deviant, between those students who were andwere not proficient in English. Even when mainstreamed into English-only class-rooms, researchers found that ELL students in English-only environments were notprovided equal resources, teaching, subject matter and treatment in comparison towhite, US-born, English-speaking students in the same grade level (Gebhard 2003;Schirling, Contreras, and Ayala 2000; Verplaetse 1998).

The fourth dividing practice, homogenization, manifested itself in the rationalebehind the three anti-bilingual education campaigns. Concern for ELL students,expressed as opportunities to participate in the American Dream of economic andsocial advancement, was located alongside concerns for all other students. As soon asELL students learn English, they will also be able to meaningfully participate inAmerican society with their white, US-born, English-speaking peers. However, this isnot so. Research highlights that learning English and moving toward native Englishspeaker status doesn’t automatically equivocate into desegregation between ELLstudents and white, US-born, English-speaking students (Olsen 2000; Portes andRumbaut 2000). Meaning, the linguistic integration of ELL students into mainstreamclassrooms and the dominant culture does not guarantee the interruption and transfor-mation of academic, social, political, and economic inequities (Juárez 2008).

Finally, the fifth dividing practice is exclusion. The ELL students who remainedin structured English immersion (SEI) classes for more than one year established ‘theexternal frontier of the abnormal (the “shameful” class)’ (Foucault 1977/1995, 183).The use of SEI classes as a means for ELL students to learn English in one year andthus be positioned to academically excel in English-only classrooms has not been

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

0:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

394 J.M. Bondy

successful (Krashen 1999; Rolstad, Mahoney, and Glass 2005). Instead, what seemsto be happening under the banner of ‘English for the Children’ is the further exclusionof ELL students who become segregated from their English-speaking peers, deniedaccess to effective and appropriate culturally relevant curriculum and pedagogy(Prado 2000), and excluded from ‘full participation in school and society at large’(Macedo 1999, 16). There is also research that denotes how ELL student’s are oftenridiculed and harassed by faculty, staff, and students (Olsen 2000; Peguero 2008;Valdés 1998).

Conclusion

Within Eurocentric models of curriculum and pedagogy (Hirsch 1987, 1999; Ravitch1983, 1992), it is suggested that in order to create a national community dedicatedtoward social equity, ELL students must learn English. The reality of such an assertiondoes not hold up within this analysis. The goal of this article was to address the impli-cations of anti-bilingual, English-only educational initiatives on the purposes andvalues of education for ELL students, and the possibilities of their membership in theAmerican nation. As I argued earlier, the perpetual uneasiness of immigrant studentpopulations and their influence on the United States has resulted in the reliance ofpublic schools to conflate the notion of the ‘ideal American’ with white, US-born,English-speakers. My analysis of the three most recent anti-bilingual education initi-atives was designed to query how English-only curriculum and pedagogy promotesand supports the notion of the white, US-born, English-speaker as the ‘idealAmerican’ and the norm against which all students are judged and classified. Thisanalysis demonstrates that as ELL students are normalized through English-onlyeducational practices, a national community with equitable distribution of power doesnot necessarily follow.

This perturbing finding on the normalization of ELL students is further exacer-bated within the context of the heated and controversial debate on immigration in theUnited States. While much of this debate focuses on ‘illegal’ immigrants, thereremains an estimated 10,000,000 US-born children who are adversely impacted thissocial, political, and economic issue. By the year 2050, the proportion of Latina/o andAsian-American children in the United States is expected to rise from 20% to 33%(Suárez-Orozco and Suárez-Orozco 2001; U.S. Census Bureau 2003). Moreover, stud-ies suggest that assimilation does not always facilitate academic, social, and economicsuccess in the US (Juárez 2008; Olsen 2000; Portes and Rumbaut 2000). Meaning, asimmigrant children move toward native English-speaking status, their linguistic inte-gration into the American nation often results in the reification, rather than interrup-tion, of already existing social, political, and economic inequities. My analysis thenunveils the role that is played in supporting the white, US-born, English-speakingstudent as the ‘ideal American’ when ELL students are subjected to English-onlyeducational practices.

In addition, similar social, linguistic, and pedagogical situations in variousEuropean educational contexts may very well expand upon my argument. It is impor-tant to remember the reality of immigration in European states, such as Spain, Ireland,Great Britain, France, and Germany. For example, Zufiaurre (2006) highlights thedifferent European models of assimilation, especially within French, British, German,and Spanish contexts. Although their approaches to multiculturalism and the integra-tion of immigrants into school and society are not the same, Zufiaurre (2006) notes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

0:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Race Ethnicity and Education 395

how French, British, and German frameworks draw upon discourses of assimilation inrelation to national identity. He further argues that changing political contexts in Spainopen up spaces for integrating immigrants in ways that are based on interculturalmodels rather than assimilative multicultural strategies. Thus, it appears it is time toacknowledge the reality of immigration, and to insist upon educational practices andpolicies that do not construct minority immigrant groups as ‘other’ in relation tonational identity and cultural belonging.

Future research can address the limitations of my analysis as well as build upon itsfindings. It is important to explore the role that anti-bilingual education initiativesplay in foreclosure of multicultural education and culturally responsive teaching(Banks et al. 2001; Ladson-Billings 1994; Mora 2000). This article suggests that thethree most recent anti-bilingual, English-only initiatives conflict with multiculturaleducation and culturally responsive teaching in at least three ways: the structuralinclusion for diverse groups in pubic life with equitable redistribution of power(Banks et al. 2001); the connection between school knowledge, students’ lived expe-riences, and pedagogies of the home (Bohn and Sleeter 2001; Prado 2000); and thenecessity of redefining the purpose of schools, and whose knowledge, language andculture are legitimate (Sleeter and Stillman 2005). Furthermore, the paucity of litera-ture on the educational experiences of ELL students arguably makes difficult acomplex and nuanced understanding of possibilities for resistance to normalizationthat may be mobilized. But as Foucault argues (1980), resistance is not outside ofpower – it is imbricated in it. This article did not explore how Foucault can also beused to sketch out possibilities for teachers and ELL students to resist the normalizingpractices of anti-bilingual, English-only curriculum and pedagogy. Perhaps an ambi-tious endeavor, but one I would posit significantly complements this study by helpingto intervene in the social and political interests that have historically defined ELLstudents as opposite to the ‘ideal American.’

By analyzing the local, individual effects of anti-bilingual education laws andEnglish-only curriculum and pedagogy on ELL students, I begin to reveal hownormalization, as a technology of power, circulates in a way that favors the interestsof certain a social group – the white, US-born, English-speakers. The history of racistand nativist opposition to bilingual education is concealed by the ‘good will’ rhetoricand rationale of the campaigns, and obscured by the conservative politicians andscholars who advocate for English-only educational practices. Through the normaliz-ing practices of English-only curriculum and pedagogy, ELL students are re-madeinto a set of aberrations that depart from the prescribed white, US-born, English-speaking student. The racist and nativist historical genesis of anti-bilingual educationis hidden by patriot tropes and promises of the American Dream. It therefore becomesthe task of the schools to use the English language to re-make ELL students into the‘American.’ Analyzed in this way, anti-bilingual education laws are mechanisms ofpower made possible by the technology of English-only educational practices.

ReferencesAdams, M., and K.M. Jones. 2006. Unmasking the myths of structured English immersion.

Radical Teacher 75, 16–21.Apple, M., and B. Franklin. 2004. Curricular history and social control. In Ideology and

curriculum, 59–76. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Arellano-Houchin, A., C. Flamenco, M.M. Merlos, and L. Segura. 2001. Has California’s Prop-

osition 227 made a difference in the way we teach? The Urban Review 33, no. 3: 221–35.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

0:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

396 J.M. Bondy

Balderrama, M.V. 2001. The (mis)preparation of teachers in the Proposition 227 era:Humanizing teacher roles and their practices. The Urban Review 33, no. 3: 255–67.

Banks, J.A. 1994. Transforming the mainstream curriculum. Educational Leadership 51,no. 8: 4–8.

Banks, J.A., P. Cookson, G. Gay, W.D. Hawley, J.J. Irvine, S. Nieto, J.W. Schofield, andW.G. Stephan. 2001. Diversity within unity: Essential principles for teaching and learningin a multicultural society. Phi Delta Kappan 83, no. 3: 196–203.

Bohn, A.P., and C.E. Sleeter. 2001. Will multicultural education survive the standards move-ment? The Education Digest 66, no. 5: 17–24.

Cammarato, J., and A. Romero. 2006. A critically compassionate intellectualism for Latina/ostudents. Multicultural Education 14, no. 2: 16–23.

Capps, R., M.E. Fix, J. Ost, J. Reardon-Anderson, and J.S. Passel. 2004. The health and well-being of young children of immigrants. Urban Institute. Available at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311139_ChildrenImmigrants.pdf.

Combs, M.C., C. Evans, T. Fletcher, E. Parra, and A. Jiménez. 2005. Bilingualism for thechildren: Implementing a dual-language program in an English-only state. EducationalPolicy 19, no. 5: 701–28.

Crawford, J. 1992. Hold your tongue: Bilingualism and the politics of ‘English only.’ Reading:Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Crawford, J. 1997. The campaign against Proposition 227: A post-mortem. BilingualResearch Journal 21, no. 1: 1–30.

Crawford, J. 1998/99a. Does bilingual ed work? Rethinking Schools 13, no. 2. Available athttp://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/13_02/biside.shtml.

Crawford, J. 1998/99b. What now for bilingual education? Rethinking Schools 13, no. 2.Available at http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/ 13_02/bimain.shtml.

Cummins, J. 2000. Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children caught in the cross-fire. New York: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

De Cohen, C.C., N. Deterding, and B.C. Clewell. 2006. Who’s left behind? Immigrant childrenin high LEP and low LEP Schools. Urban Institute. Available at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/ 411231_whos_left_behind.pdf.

De Cohen, C.C., and B.C. Clewell. 2007. Putting English language learners on the educationalmap: The No Child Left Behind Act implemented. Urban Institute, Available at http://www.urban.org/ UploadedPDF/311468_ell.pdf.

de Jong, E., M. Gort, and C. Cobb. 2005. Bilingual education within the context of English-only policies: Three districts’ responses to Question 2 in Massachusetts. EducationalPolicy 19, no. 4: 595–620.

Dixon, C., J. Green, B. Yeager, and D. Baker. 2000. “I used to know that”: What happenswhen reform gets through the classroom door. Bilingual Research Journal 24, nos. 1–2:113–26.

Foucault, M. 1977/1995. Discipline and punish. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books.Foucault, M. 1980. Power/knowledge. Trans. and ed. Colin Gordon. New York: Pantheon

Books, Inc.Gándara, P. 2000. In the aftermath of the storm: English learners in the Post-227 Era. Bilingual

Research Journal 24, nos. 1–2: 1–13.García, E., and J.E. Curry-Rodríguez. 2000. The education of limited English proficient

students in California schools: An assessment of the influences of Proposition 227 inselected districts and schools. Bilingual Research Journal 24, nos. 1–2: 15–36.

Gay, G. 2000. Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York:Teachers College Press.

Gebhard, M. 2003. Getting past ‘see Spot run.’ Educational Leadership 60, no. 4: 35–9.Guerrero, M.D. 2004. Acquiring academic English in one year: An unlikely proposition for

English language learners. Urban Education 39, no. 2: 172–99.Gutiérrez, K.D., P. Baquedano-López, and J. Asato. 2000. “English for the children”: The

new literacy of the old world order, language policy and educational reform. BilingualResearch Journal 24, nos. 1–2: 87–112.

Hirsch, E.D., Jr. 1987. Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. Boston:Houghton Mifflin Company.

Hirsch, E.D., Jr. 1999. Americanization and the schools. Clearinghouse 72, no. 3: 136–9.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

0:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Race Ethnicity and Education 397

Jardine, G.M. 2005. Foucault and education. New York: Peter Lang.Johnson, E. 2005. Proposition 203: A critical metaphor analysis. Bilingual Research Journal

29, no. 1: 69–84.Juárez, B.G. 2008. The politics of race in two languages: An empirical qualitative study. Race

Ethnicity and Education 11, no. 3: 231–49.Krashen, S. 1996. Under attack: The case against bilingual education. Culver City: Language

Education Associates.Krashen, S. 1999. What research really says about structured English immersion. Phi Delta

Kappan 80, no. 9: 705–6.Ladson-Billings, G. 1994. What can we learn from multicultural education research? Educa-

tional Leadership 51, no. 8: 22–6.Ladson-Billings, G. 1998. Teaching in dangerous times: Culturally relevant approaches to

teacher assessment. Journal of Negro Education 67, no. 3: 255–67.Leibowicz, J. 1992. Official English: Another Americanization campaign? In Language loyal-

ities: A source book on official English controversy, ed. J. Crawford, 101–11. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.

Macedo, D. 1991. English-only: The tongue-tying of America. Journal of Education 173,no. 2: 9–20.

Macedo, D. 1999. The colonialism of the English-only movement. Educational Researcher29, no. 3: 15–24.

Maxwell-Jolly, J. 2000. Factors influencing implementation of mandated policy change:Proposition 227 in seven northern California school districts. Bilingual Research Journal24, nos. 1–2: 37–56.

Mora, J.K. 2000. Staying the course in times of change: Preparing teachers for languageminority education. Journal of Teacher Education 51, no. 5: 345–57.

Mora, J.K. 2002. Caught in the policy web: The impact of educational reform on Latinochildren. Journal of Latinos and Education 1, no. 1: 29–44.

Moses, M. 2002. Why we need race-conscious education policy. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Necochea, J., and Z. Cline. 2000. Effective educational practices for English language learnersin mainstream settings. Race Ethnicity and Education 3, no. 3: 317–32.

Olsen, L. 2000. Learning English and learning America: Immigrants in the center of a storm.Theory into Practice 39, no. 4: 196–202.

Peguero, A. 2008. The victimization and vulnerabilities of immigrant children: The impor-tance of English proficiency. In Agenda for social justice: Solutions 2008, ed. R. Perrucci,K. Ferraro, J. Miller and G. Muschert, 1–7. Knoxville: Society for Study of SocialProblems.

Portes, A., and R.G. Rumbaut. 2000. Immigrant America. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Prado, J. 2000. English for the children: The sentencing of Spanish speaking students. LatinoStudies Journal 11, no. 3: 100–30.

Ravitch, D. 1983. The troubled crusade: American education 1945–1980. New York: BasicBooks, Inc.

Ravitch, D. 1992. Multiculturalism: E pluribus plures. American Scholar 90, no. 59: 337–54.Revilla, A.T., and J. Asato. 2002. The implementation of Proposition 227 in California

schools: A critical analysis of the effect on teacher beliefs and classroom practices. Equityand Excellence in Education 35, no. 2: 108–18.

Rolstad, K., K. Mahoney, and G. Glass. 2005. Weighing the evidence: A meta-analysis ofbilingual education in Arizona. Bilingual Research Journal 29, no. 1: 43–67.

Schirling, E., F. Contreras, and C. Ayala. 2000. Proposition 227: Tales from the schoolhouse.Bilingual Research Journal 24, nos. 1–2, 127–40.

Sleeter, C., and J. Stillman. 2005. Standardizing knowledge in a multicultural society. CurriculumInquiry 35, no. 1: 27–46.

Stritikus, T., and E.E. García. 2000. Education of limited English proficient students inCalifornia schools: An assessment of the influence of Proposition 227 on selected teachersand classrooms. Bilingual Research Journal 24, nos. 1–2: 1–11.

Suárez-Orozco, C., and M. Suárez-Orozco. 2001. Children of immigration. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

0:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4

398 J.M. Bondy

Takaki, R. 1993. A different mirror: A history of multicultural America. Boston: Little, Brownand Company.

Tórrez, N.M. 2001. Incoherent English immersion and California Proposition 227. The UrbanReview 33, no. 3: 207–20.

Tyack, D. 2003. Seeking common ground: Public schools in a diverse society. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. Current population survey. Washington: U.S. Census Bureau,Population Division, Ethnic and Hispanic Statistics Branch.

Valdés, G. 1998. The world outside and inside schools: Language and immigrant children.Educational Researcher 27, no. 6: 4–18.

Varghese, M.M., and T. Stritikus. 2005. “Nadie me dijo (nobody told me)”: Language policeand implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 56, no. 1: 73–87.

Verplaetse, L.S. 1998. How content teachers interact with English language learners. TESOLJournal 7, no. 5, 24–8.

Villenas, S., and D. Deyhle. 1999. Critical race theories and ethnographies challenging thestereotypes: Latino families, schooling, resilience and resistance. Curriculum Inquiry 29,no. 4: 413–45.

Wright, W.E. 2005a. The political spectacle of Arizona’s Proposition 203. Educational Policy19, no. 5: 662–700.

Wright, W.E. 2005b. English language learners left behind in Arizona. Bilingual ResearchJournal 29, no. 1: 1–30.

Zufiaurre, B. 2006. Social inclusion and multicultural perspectives in Spain: Three casestudies in Northern Spain. Race Ethnicity and Education 9, no. 4: 409–24.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

0:38

09

Oct

ober

201

4