Reading Wars: An Overview of the U.S. Educational Policy (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Politics of Teaching English
Columbia University, 2017
As English educators, we stand at a crossroads where we must simultaneously defend the legitimacy and the impact of English as a discipline as we also wrestle with the inequitable distribution of achievement in reading and writing across lines of race, class, gender, and geography. At present too many students fail to demonstrate a mastery of academic literacies and the lines of failure are all too predictable and all too familiar. And while technically every content area is responsible for teaching reading and writing the discipline most closely associated with this task is English. English educators also wrestle with the external pushes from economic, technological, critical, and cultural forces to fundamentally reconsider the nature and practices of our discipline. A discipline that once prided itself on the teaching of humanities and the greatest works of literature in the English language is now forced to encompass workplace literacy, participatory media technologies, writing, and oral language development. Indeed the common core standards are built around the ideas of career readiness and college readiness and, though these are important goals, they don’t often lend themselves to conversations that may be of more concern to the humanities like the appreciation of art and literature, or an understanding of one’s self and the human condition. A new generation of English educators, then, is challenged to answer fundamental questions concerning what we do, how we do it, and why it is all still necessary in a world where we are told the book is a dying relic and that the word is giving way to the image (Kress, 2003). Why, for instance, do we continue, for the duration of their K-12 education, to teach children a language that they know and are able to speak and write at an early age? Why do we insist on teaching the novels, poems, and plays of people who are long since perished; works of fiction and drama written by people who may have held problematic and politically incorrect worldviews? And, even if we are able to defend our intents, of what achievements can we boast? After thirteen years of compulsory English language arts, why aren’t our students reading and writing better than they do? Why do such large and seemingly intractable gaps in reading achievement persist along lines of race and socioeconomic class (US Department of Education, 2005)? Why do reading levels so accurately predict prison populations and why are prison populations so differently constituted than the population of the university where I teach? Why does the English classroom look so similarly to what it did a generation ago when the world of literacy is so rapidly changing? If there is going to be English teaching (and lets hope that there is) in the future of American education, what can it do to be more powerful, more relevant and yet retain its character and its traditions? In response to the question “why English,” clearly there is more to this discipline of English than teaching students the rudimentary rules of language. However, questions persist as to the substance of English and whether or not it should change to reflect the changes in society. Should English teaching change as the population of students change? If we hold on to the teaching of literature as a primary focus, what literature should be taught and what approaches to literature should students be encouraged to undertake? Should our priorities in English education change as the communications technologies transform to make life utterly unrecognizable to the worlds that many of our canonized authors inhabit? And what in English is sacred and untouchable? What makes our discipline a discipline at the elementary and secondary levels? How does it relate, if at all to English as defined and taught in undergraduate and graduate level seminars at our colleges and universities. In response to these questions and more, this course will look at how multicultural, sociocultural, postmodern and critical theories have shaped and are shaping research and practice in the teaching of English within the current political-education climate. We will also examine the latest research and the most innovative practices in the teaching of writing, reading and literary theory, and the uses of popular culture and other media in English classrooms. Students will have the opportunity to develop their presentation skills and students will also have the power to shape their final projects in consultation with the course instructor.
How Does Policy Influence Language in Education?
Language in Education: Social Implications
When hearing the word ‘policy’ many people think first of lawmakers who draft and pass legislation and politicians who espouse platforms on various social issues, not teachers. Even with respect to educational policy, one might immediately call to mind national secretaries or ministers of education rather than educators. Teachers, however, are at the front line of language policy since the classroom is a key site where policies become action. Moreover, teachers make decisions every day that amount to developing language policies for their classrooms; for example, teachers decide which language(s) to use during instruction, which language(s) to encourage when students speak to each other, what words are taboo, etc. Policy, then, is not just an area that lawmakers and politicians should care about. In fact, a range of individuals are involved in making, interpreting, and implementing educational language policy other than legislators and education ministers: teachers, administrators, parents, textbook publishers, curriculum developers, and the list goes on. This chapter offers a glimpse into language policy with a particular focus on its relevance for educators. First, major considerations for language planning related to the domain of education are introduced. Then, I explore the different scales of society, ranging from governments to schools and classrooms, where educational policy and planning is shaped. Finally, the impact and relevance of language policy on educational settings is discussed with special attention to what teachers need to know.
The Politics of English Language Teaching
Language Policy and Political Issues in Education, Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2016
This chapter summarizes more than three decades of scholarship on the politics of English language teaching (ELT) by outlining and describing early developments, major contributions, selected works in progress, some current problems and difficulties, and potential future directions for research. The chapter endeavors to introduce those who are new to the topic to key scholars and their work while also providing an overview to those more familiar with the research. The work discussed here has facilitated English language teachers' critical understanding of the social, political, ideological, historical, and economic dimensions of the various processes, policies, and practices associated with ELT. It has also inspired a good amount of research, productive debate, and theory building among both scholars and practitioners. The chapter concludes by urging English language
Book review: The politics of language education: Individuals and institutions
2010
Reviewed by ROGER BARNARD, University of Waikato This is an important new book presenting nine case studies on the micropolitical agendas of individuals and institutions involved in ELT projects in various parts of the world. It opens windows on some nefarious activities usually hidden from public eyes, but which may be well understood by those who work in the academic and professional worlds of English language education. After a seven-page overview of the topic of micro-politics and a summary of the nine case studies, Alderson's first chapter sets the scene with a 37-page review of key concepts which provide a rationale for the book. He begins this with a dozen vignettes of misconduct by individuals or organisations involved in different sorts of ELT projects in various parts of the world, claiming that such "tales from the field" are simply not reported in publications about such projects a matter which he discusses from his personal experience at more length in the final chapter in the book. He argues that there is a need for honest and open descriptions of the real process and outcomes of language education in specific cases, so that an appropriate and adequate theory of the politics of language education can eventually be developed. In this respect, he is following up the point made by Fishman 1994, p. 91 that language planning needs to be informed by ethnographic studies, and later by Kaplan and Baldauf 1997 and Baldauf 2006, although, interestingly, he does not refer to any of the standard works in the area of language policy and planning by these and other authorities. His review of background sources, however, is otherwise broadly based, taking into consideration key works in psychology, general education, organisational culture, etc.
The Role and Use of Educational Theory in Formulating Language Policy
Tesl Canada Journal, 1988
Although most politicians and policy-makers realize the necessity to pay lip-service to research in formulating educational policy and programs insofar as all initiatives must be justified as being "in the best interests of children", it is not difficult to see that research and theory are coherently applied to policy only in situations where there is a relatively high degree of consensus in regard to both the societal and educational goals of the policy debates relating to language and education. Two of these debates are bilingual education programs in the United States and French immersion programs in Canada. I shall argue that in both these cases, the sociological context of the debate, i.e. the power relations between dominant and subordinate groups in the society, plays a major role in determining the choice of issues to investigate, the conduct of the research, the interpretation of findings. and the relevance they assume for policy. In short, the relation between research, theory and policy can be understood only in the context of what Paulston (1980) terms a "conflict" paradigm where group conflicts over values, resources, and power are explictly taken into account.
Learning and teaching are always affected by institutional contexts and their policies, ranging from the classroom policies that teachers establish or enact-tacitly or explicitly, to the larger rings of policy set by schools, organizations, districts, states, and/or country. How is policy enacted on a local level? How does such policy affect the needs and realities of students and teachers? How does listening to teacher concerns contribute to valid critiques of policy? This article addresses those questions as they pertain to the US education policy known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB). It is told through the perspectives and experiences of six English language teachers in three public schools in one urban school district in the Northeastern United States. Although teachers' concerns are often dismissed as anecdotal, they can offer valuable insights into the weaknesses of policies and/or programs. In the often, dichotomous worlds of policy and practice, this story highlights the critical need to attend to both.
From English-Only to Multilingualism: English in the Language Policy of the United States
Focusing on English, this paper presents a critical review of the long-standing controversial education language policies and language movements in the United States. This paper seeks to provide an in-depth perception of the history of English in courtse of national development of the United States which helps interpret today's English-only monolingualism in ESL classrooms. Through the analysis of the major disputes of whether to have English as the official language of the country, this study has offered detailed accounts of the process of language policy planning during the years of "English Officialization", "Bilingual Education" and "English Plus". The study hopes to shed some light on understanding how to create, sustain, or reduce a language policy in education while also presenting the struggles in the areas for political and economic participation, democracy, and human rights. This study also attmpts to analyse complexities of the debates of eduation language policies and the theoretical breakthroughs in foreign language teaching that could create a justifiable space for multilingual learners to learn through their mother tongues. The paper argues that the monolingual approach for Enlgish language learning should be rejected because it denies students the right to draw on their language resources according to the sociocultural theory in language learning. Further recommendations to language policy planning are provided for further promoting the multiculturalist perspective, and pedagogical suggestions were also provided for ESL teachers to rethink about classroom language use.
Whole language and the fight for public education in the us
English in Education, 2015
US public education faces concerted attack by those bent on corporate control, privatization, regimented reading instruction, and high-stakes testing. One democratic, humanistic, and research-based alternative can be found in the theory and practice of whole language, which empowered teachers and students alike through the 1980s and 1990suntil a political backlash re-instituted corporate control of language arts. This article proposes that a renewed whole language movement, together with other allied educational campaigns, can provide hope and promise to the fight for quality public education.