Increasingly, U.S. classrooms are filled with language-minority youth, a heterogeneous group that includes bilingual students identified as English language learners, as well as heritage language learners and speakers of nonstandard varieties of English. As two former ESL and dual-language elementary teachers and one former bilingual parent advocate, we strongly sympathize with those teaching our youth in U.S. public schools. As researchers working in bilingual and multilingual education, we have also had the privilege of observing and reflecting on how the language teachers use about students matters.
Professional development for teachers of language-minority students often focuses on strategies and tools to lower language-related barriers to learning, placing the focus on students and their language practices. Our purpose here is to encourage educators to reflect on the ways in which their own language ideologies influence classroom practices and potentially create barriers to student learning.
Why Language Ideologies Matter
What exactly are language ideologies? Scholars in linguistics, linguistic anthropology, and sociolinguistics don't have a single definition. But we can think of language ideologies as the way our ideas about language and accent both reflect and are informed by our ideas about people and society. For example, in the United States, speaking slowly with drawn-out vowels might be associated with the South and, depending on the listener's perspective, this association may be unfairly linked with negative assumptions about intelligence, socioeconomic status, and culture. On the other hand, speaking with a British accent is often associated with sounding intelligent, refined, and polite, regardless of what a speaker is actually saying (Lippi-Green, 2012). In U.S. classrooms, speaking Standard American English is typically valued over speaking nonstandard varieties, such as African American Vernacular English. Ironically, even if they do speak Standard American English, students of color have sometimes been perceived as not fully fluent due to raciolinguistic associations (Flores & Rosa, 2015).
As educators, we need to acknowledge that, whether we like it or not, language ideologies exist and influence us in subtle, often subconscious ways. We should become familiar with some of the most pernicious language ideologies and take time to reflect on how—not if—they impact us and the people around us. For instance, how might harmful language ideologies influence our interactions with students and families, especially those who come from language-minority backgrounds? In this article, we'll talk about two especially harmful language ideologies: language standardization and alingualism.
Language Standardization
Language standardization refers to the idea that there is a right and a wrong way to use language (Lippi-Green, 2012). While research has identified that speakers of nonstandard language varieties are often negatively judged by others (Hill, 2008; Lippi-Green, 2012), linguists agree that all the ways humans use language to make meaning and communicate in the world are equally valid (Baker & Wright, 2017). What really matters is that the way you use language allows you to communicate effectively in your community. Students might come to your classroom as great users of their language varieties—communicating with the people in their homes and neighborhoods in brilliant ways—yet still not speak Standard American English (Baker & Wright, 2017).
Of course, schools have the important responsibility of teaching standard language varieties in order to support students' access to diverse and powerful social situations. But it's important for educators not to make assumptions about a speaker's intelligence or character based on whether or not they speak the standard variety. The fact is that speakers of all languages and language varieties are equally capable of expressing complex thoughts and doing rigorous academic work (MacSwan, 2000). What is not equal is how those languages are viewed and valued in society (Hill, 2008).
Alingualism
Unfortunately, sometimes language standardization is so extreme that it morphs into a different language ideology called alingualism or semilingualism. This language ideology posits that speakers of nonstandard varieties do not actually speak any language at all (MacSwan, 2000). The idea that some humans "don't have a language" has historically been used as a pretext to rank some people lower in the social hierarchy than others. Specifically, European colonialists used the idea of alingualism to justify their mistreatment and genocide of Native Americans, claiming these groups didn't have legitimate languages and thus were incapable of complex thoughts and undeserving of human rights (Flores & Rosa, 2015).
Sadly, these ideas still exist in our public schools, albeit in less overt and less violent ways. For example, alingualism is often used to describe the language abilities of some bilingual students. In fact, we have heard teachers say, "My students just don't know either language." This is ironic given that bilingual students actually have access to a wider range of language practices than monolingual students do (Baker & Wright, 2017). The notion that bilinguals do not speak any language implies that the jokes they tell their siblings, the ways they talk about their thoughts and feelings, and all the times their mothers say "I love you" do not qualify as legitimate human language. This is incredibly damaging since such ideologies have been used to justify withholding high-quality instruction from language-minority students (Poza, 2016).
What the Literature Says
Researchers have written comprehensive accounts of the negative impacts of schools' deficit-based language ideologies on the learning opportunities of linguistically diverse students (Valdés, 2001; Valenzuela, 1999). Other scholars have documented positive impacts associated with asset-based language ideologies on the general achievement and language proficiency of these students. Yoon (2008), for example, found that middle school teachers who saw themselves as teachers for all students demonstrated language ideologies that valued multiculturalism and culturally and linguistically relevant teaching, while teachers who saw themselves as teachers for "regular education students" or as teachers of a content-specific course (such as reading) valued English monolingualism and teacher control. These teachers also showed indifference to the heterogeneous linguistic, cultural, and social strengths students brought to the classroom.
Fortunately, research also suggests that teachers' language ideologies and related pedagogical decisions can shift over time. One researcher found that middle school science teachers who understood that their language-minority students could respond to cognitively challenging tasks began designing increasingly sophisticated classroom assessments (Siegel, 2007). In a separate yearlong action-research project, elementary teachers worked through cycles of transcript analysis of language-minority students' classroom discourse. As a result, the teachers shifted from discussing students based on (often stereotypical) assumptions about students' personalities and roles within the classroom (for example, "those [Chinese] girls are always quiet"), to understanding how their own teaching practices either created or limited space for students to interact meaningfully within the classroom (Rumenapp, 2016).
Changing Perceptions
In our own work, we have identified similar patterns. Caitlin noticed teachers' use of deficit-based language to talk about students' ideas and abilities in a professional learning community for high school biology teachers. In this context, teachers' language ideologies threatened to limit language minority students' opportunities to demonstrate their understanding about natural selection on low-stakes formative assessments.
One of the teachers in this study, who taught sheltered biology to students identified as ELLs, made comments such as "My ESL students don't know anything about science," "My kids are just clueless," and "My kids aren't capable of having comprehension at this point because they are so limited in their English." The teacher was resistant to formatively assessing language-minority students, believing that they lacked knowledge about natural selection, despite the fact that the purpose of the assessment was to get a snapshot of student thinking to inform instruction. By conflating students' ability to know and do science with their English language proficiency, the teacher signaled an ideology of language standardization.
Facilitators who worked with these biology teachers in their PLCs noticed these deficit ideologies and consciously adjusted their own language to express asset-based views about ELL students. For example, one facilitator stated: "I'm sure that they could think through this. I saw some of them do it in your classroom." In response, the teacher of the sheltered biology class decided to administer a Spanish-translated version of the formative assessment and accept student responses in either English, Spanish, or a combination of both. This example provides evidence that directly responding to deficit-oriented language ideologies in the moment can support shifts in teacher practice.
Deb and Kim have studied the ways that teachers' language ideologies and professional identities changed over their first semester in a master's degree program for teachers of culturally and linguistically diverse students. We found that at the beginning of the semester, white teachers often thought of themselves as not having a racial, cultural, or linguistic identity. They would make statements such as "I don't have a culture." These teachers also used ideologies of meritocracy to explain their accomplishments: "I worked hard to be able to speak Spanish." The reverse was true, however, when they spoke about their ELL students, who they tended to see in terms of their racial and linguistic identities while attributing their struggles in school to personal, character, cultural, and intellectual failure, making statements such as: "They are not interested in learning English" or "[These are] students with basically no literacy skills in any language" (emphasis in original).
Around mid-semester, however, after engaging with a variety of texts and experiences to support their development of asset-based ideologies, these same teachers began to reflect on the complex social, historical, political, and economic factors that provide more opportunities to some people and less to others. By the end of the semester, this new understanding helped the teachers challenge their previous deficit-language ideologies. They began to make statements such as: "[It is important to get everyone in my school] on the same page about valuing the assets and resources students bring with them, respecting the skills, knowledge, and identities of students" and "I will continue to encourage other teachers to use other languages as a resource." Ultimately, these teachers became critical advocates, fighting for better educational opportunities for their language-minority students.
Examining Language Ideologies
In response to these observations, we have devised a number of strategies to support educators as they facilitate conversations with colleagues about language ideologies within school contexts. Some of these strategies were developed within master's level courses for practicing teachers at our institution, while others were shaped in workshops conducted at regional conferences. But they could also be used by individual teachers or small educator teams, or in schoolwide PD activities. In our experience, these ideas have supported educators' reflection on, interrogation of, and even ultimately movement away from language standardization and alingualism.
1. Decentering Assumptions About "Good" and "Bad" Language Practices
Deb consistently puts conversations about language ideologies at the center of her courses. In a master's course titled "Foundations of Bilingual/Multicultural Education," she asks her practicing teachers to read a chapter of Chicana literary theorist Gloria Anzaldúa's well-known book Borderlands/La Frontera. In it, Anzaldúa explores "all the languages" she speaks and names the societal bias against her own "mother tongues," the hybrid mixes of Spanish and English that thrive along the U.S./Mexico border: "If you want to really hurt me talk badly about my language," she asserts. "Ethnic identity is twin skin to linguistic identity; I am my language" (Anzaldúa, 2012, p.40). Anzaldúa's message hits home with teachers whose students engage in these hybrid language practices.
Deb often pairs Anzaldúa's chapter with a short essay titled "Mother Tongue" by Chinese-American novelist Amy Tan. Readily available online, this two-page piece can help teachers see the arbitrary nature of so-called "academic language." These texts, along with others on the resource list included with this article (see p. 62), can help teachers move away from negatively judging students or families who engage in "nonstandard" language practices, and toward embracing students' full linguistic repertoires and their funds of knowledge for use in the classroom.
2. Addressing Harmful Comments
Deb also asks teachers in her courses to engage in a role-play to think through in-the-moment responses to comments characterized by language standardization or alingualism. To begin this activity, educators call out deficit-based statements they have overheard in informal conversations around their schools related to students' or families' language practices. These can be very painful comments, such as "I don't think that student's parents ever talk to him," or "they have nothing at home," or "she has deficits in both her languages." A facilitator records these comments (within quotation marks) on a poster or screen. Next, educators find a partner, select one of the deficit-based comments, and role-play how they might respond to it. They then switch roles and pick a different comment. Finally, participants debrief with the whole group: What was challenging about addressing these deficit-oriented comments? Did some tactics seem to work better than others? Through this activity, educators learn to confront deficit-oriented language courageously.
3. Reframing Teacher Perspectives
In conference workshops, we have asked educators to brainstorm possible reasons behind deficit-oriented perspectives, and then frame alternative asset-based arguments to counter them. For example, why might a teacher make an expression of alingualism like, "The students with basically no language skills in any language concern me the most"? The teacher might be trying to save face by framing individual students as responsible for their academic success rather than reflecting on her own pedagogical approaches. In addition, the teacher might be ignoring larger systemic factors like assessment bias or institutional racism. The following, in turn, would be an asset-based reframing of the statement: "I'm worried about my students who take a long time to write ideas. Many are bilingual; maybe I could encourage them to translanguage?" Here, the teacher focuses on the strengths of bilingual students and identifies a possible strategy—translanguaging—that might support their learning. (Download a planning worksheet for this activity at www.ascd.org/el1219fine.)
Turning the Gaze Inward
As schools around the United States welcome increasing numbers of language-minority students, educators must be equipped with perspectives and tools that allow them to see and leverage their students' strengths. We believe there is an urgent need for educators to turn their gaze inward toward their own language ideologies, to examine how those ideologies affect students' opportunities to learn, and to make plans that support ongoing efforts to reframe ideologies from deficit- to asset-based. This reflective work is important across all K–12 learning contexts for educators who strive to better serve their language-minority students.
Selected Resources on Linguistic Inclusion
The following resources can support educators' work understanding and countering deficit language ideologies in their schools.
"Funds of Knowledge for Teaching: Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and Classroom," by Luis C. Moll, Cathy Amanti, Deborah Neff, & Norma Gonzalez (Theory into Practice, 1992)
Linguistic Anthropology Teaching Resources (on language ideologies)
NJDOE Bilingual/ESL Podcast Episode 15: Language Education with Nelson Flores
Rethinking Bilingual Education: Welcoming Home Languages in Our Classrooms, edited by Elizabeth Barbian, Grace Gonzales, & Pilar Mejia (Rethinking Schools, 2017)
Rethinking Schools (articles in Spanish)
Tongue-Tied: The Lives of Multilingual Children in Public Education, edited by Otto Santa Ana (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004)
Reflect & Discuss
➛ What experiences have you had in your school with language ideologies characterized as language standardization or alingualism? How did they unfold? Why do you think they happened? What were the consequences for students?
➛ Do educators in your school tend to see themselves more as teachers for only "regular education students" or as teachers of all students?
➛ What type of PD formats would work best in your context to support individual and systemic-level reflection of language ideologies and the consequences of deficit-oriented ideologies? What stakeholders, powerbrokers, and allies could you include in this effort?
