Thanks for sharing your post, which was both thoughtful and incisive, really. I was very much in agreement with your analysis, particularly the way you framed language policy as a mirror and at the same time a tool for domination and exclusion. The fact that language planning is never neutral but always already social planning is a crucial one, you often hear it being missed in the mainstream debates around education policy.
Moreover, I appreciated your use of Mena (2021) to expose the structural consequences of English-only assessments that people don’t talk about much nowadays. I agree that such policies are not only evaluating students but also determining who is regarded as competent and who is made incompetent. The deficit model of bilingualism, as a thing to be fixed rather than developed, is still an example of the "language-as-problem" paradigm that Ruiz (1984) identified. What is questionable, however, is that the whole framing gets so easily and naturally blended into the institutional practices, usually with the claim of being fair or objective.
The use of Barrett et al. (2023) in your argument is a significant addition. The link between prescriptive grammar and racialized power dynamics is something that should gain a lot more attention in education discussions. The analogy that "standard" English functions like whiteness, as a left unmarked norm, makes for a very strong lens. I was particularly impressed by your reference to symbolic revalorization. It makes us aware of how the very symbols of identity such as language, clothing, and accent are loaded with meanings that influence the way persons are seen and treated which could be very difficult to contest since such processes are deemed as "cultural" or "professional" rather than explicitly racial.
It is important that we move from merely symbolic inclusion to real structural transformation as you put it. You are absolutely correct when you say that the recognition of bilingualism in a specified month does not amount to the establishment of a system that truly values linguistic diversity. The idea of creating a grading rubric that accommodates the different varieties of English is indeed compelling, and it is also urgently needed. It opens up a critical inquiry about what we mean by "academic merit" and who is allowed to be the authority in this matter.
Lastly, the matter of accountability you raised is one that I have also struggled with. Without having the metrics that show language policy outcomes among different racial and linguistic groups, even the most well-meant reforms will turn into mere rituals. The creation of evaluating instruments like keeping an account of the honors placement or disciplinary actions per minority group could help in uncovering the hidden patterns of exclusion that are usually concealed by language policies.
Once more, thank you for such a stimulating and reflective post. You have provided us with plenty of food for thought, not just about the theory but also about what real change might look like.
Moreover, I appreciated your use of Mena (2021) to expose the structural consequences of English-only assessments that people don’t talk about much nowadays. I agree that such policies are not only evaluating students but also determining who is regarded as competent and who is made incompetent. The deficit model of bilingualism, as a thing to be fixed rather than developed, is still an example of the "language-as-problem" paradigm that Ruiz (1984) identified. What is questionable, however, is that the whole framing gets so easily and naturally blended into the institutional practices, usually with the claim of being fair or objective.
The use of Barrett et al. (2023) in your argument is a significant addition. The link between prescriptive grammar and racialized power dynamics is something that should gain a lot more attention in education discussions. The analogy that "standard" English functions like whiteness, as a left unmarked norm, makes for a very strong lens. I was particularly impressed by your reference to symbolic revalorization. It makes us aware of how the very symbols of identity such as language, clothing, and accent are loaded with meanings that influence the way persons are seen and treated which could be very difficult to contest since such processes are deemed as "cultural" or "professional" rather than explicitly racial.
It is important that we move from merely symbolic inclusion to real structural transformation as you put it. You are absolutely correct when you say that the recognition of bilingualism in a specified month does not amount to the establishment of a system that truly values linguistic diversity. The idea of creating a grading rubric that accommodates the different varieties of English is indeed compelling, and it is also urgently needed. It opens up a critical inquiry about what we mean by "academic merit" and who is allowed to be the authority in this matter.
Lastly, the matter of accountability you raised is one that I have also struggled with. Without having the metrics that show language policy outcomes among different racial and linguistic groups, even the most well-meant reforms will turn into mere rituals. The creation of evaluating instruments like keeping an account of the honors placement or disciplinary actions per minority group could help in uncovering the hidden patterns of exclusion that are usually concealed by language policies.
Once more, thank you for such a stimulating and reflective post. You have provided us with plenty of food for thought, not just about the theory but also about what real change might look like.