As a school psychologist, I used California Standardized Test (CST) scores in English Language Arts (ELA) to diagnose learning disabilities (LD). One method of diagnosing a learning disability uses the “discrepancy model”. What this means is that I would compare a student’s standardized IQ score with her/his CST ELA (English) scores to determine if there was a statistically significant difference (of at least 15 points). If there was a significant difference, and if I found a processing score (i.e., memory, auditory, visual/spatial) with a 15-point difference as well, I would diagnose students as being learning disabled.

The discrepancy model (which states still legally use), perpetuates the social, academic, and economic inequality ((Wiley & Lukes, 1996) between the dominant group (white students) and the oppressed group (ethnic minority students, or economically disadvantaged students, whose primary language is not English). Creating an undereducated, working poor social class vis-à-vis diagnostic protocols for seemingly learning-disabled students is perpetuated by the very tools used to diagnose learning disabilities. For example, the CST ELA (Engish) exams are not normed in a way that reflects the California student population. The state tests do not have 50% of the participants being from Mexican descent and limiting the white participants to 20%. If the norming sample of these tests do not reflect these numbers, the norms cannot be applied to Mexican and/or white students. The results of these exams cannot determine with statistical significance whether a student is performing at grade/age level. Because the norms favor white, middle-class students, all the other ethnic groups will perform below the white students because the mean score is based on white student rates. Why is this important? The discrepancy model would not diagnose the number of learning-disabled minority students with the same rates seen today. Therefore, school districts would have to find better ways of educating non-white, poor students. But it is easier to label non-white students as learning disabled, place them in a “baby sitting” classroom and just wait until they drop out or graduate with an English reading level akin to a K-6 student.

Wiley and Lukes (1996) state, “The real issue has never been language, literacy, or education but power and a fear of heterogeneity, be it through language, behavior, or values” (p. 530). The way the United States keeps its power, because of fear of heterogeneity, is by keeping ethnic minorities undereducated, misinformed, and teaching them to blame themselves for their failures. One way the education system perpetuates social, economic, and educational inequalities ((Wiley & Lukes, 1996) by using CST ELA (English) test scores that were not normed to represent the students they educate. This is how they legally get away with not providing students with a quality education and how they keep the dominant class in power.

Reply to Nayoung: When Wiley and Lukes (1996) talk about the means of “ascribing a deficit status” (p. 517). I never imagined that international schools would include the location of an earned diploma in their application. How does this look like? I’m assuming that a degree from the USA or the UK would be favored over a degree in any other country? Which countries do they favor? When Woolenberg (1975) said “the ultimate aim of the schools was to make good American citizens out of the children of Japanese parentage”, I remembered how my classmates and I had to pledge allegiance to the flag every morning in my elementary school (p. 79). The students at my elementary school were 99% children of Mexican immigrants who spoke Spanish as their first language. If I were to see that in person today, I would be appalled when I then noticed how the teachers would then punish the students for speaking Spanish when they hadn’t dominated the English language. This happened to me in the 1980’s. Miguel and Valencia (1998) explained that "Mexican American children frequently attended segregated schools, and such isolation, it was noted, was based on “instructional” reasons ( usually to learn English)" (p. 372). This happened in 1933 and it happened to me 50-years later in the 1980’s. Nothing changed in all of those years. Perhaps the classrooms were nicer, the students weren’t being beaten, but believe me the disdain towards all things Mexican was palpable and just as damaging. In Anderson, William Henry recalled “We did not learn to read nor write, as it was against the law for any person to teach any slave to read” (p. 16). The same could be said for my classmates, it was against the law to help them to read, so they stayed ignorant, undereducated and poor. The only reason I read at grade-level is because I had a person one-on-one tutor outside of the school, my mother. I succeeded because my parents filled the gaps that my school couldn’t/wouldn’t address in my learning.

The example I am choosing for prompt #1 is an experience from the second grade. While I have experienced language as a tool to gatekeeping throughout my life (highschool, college, workplace), I think this example is especially profound being that at the time I was only 7 years old. While I don’t have that many memories from that time, I remember this incident vividly and held on to it long enough for me to understand the interaction, the harm it caused, and the ideology behind it.
It started as an introduction of a girl who had just moved to the United States from Ethiopia, we’ll call her Haile (not her real name for privacy); Coincidentally, she moved just 4 houses down from me. While my elementary school was primarily composed of Hispanic and Asian students, the teacher at the time was my first white teacher, as most of the teachers at the elementary school were Hispanic and Asian. Haile spoke English as she attended an English school in Ethiopia and was proficient in all the subjects that a second grader needed to know. During the math lesson, the teacher announces to the class that the number “seven” should not be written with a dash and exclusively reprimands Haile for doing so. Haile responds, “In Ethiopia, that’s how I learned to write the number 7” with the teacher responding, “Well, you’re not in Ethiopia anymore, you’re in America and you should be writing your numbers like an American.”
While at the time I wasn’t necessarily conscious of racism or the concept of micro-aggressions, I still understood her actions to be wrong. Haile and I would end up becoming good friends and unfortunately, that wasn’t the only time she had experienced racism throughout elementary school and even through high school.
What I find most amusing regarding this story is that the “language” in question was math, a language that is mostly universal in all countries. It didn’t matter how smart Haile was, or how educated she was, the problem the teacher had was not the language in itself but instead the fact that it came from someone “foreign”. 15 years later, as an educator myself, I understand the teacher’s actions to be rooted in white supremacy, this notion that English and the “American way” is the only way to assimilate into white America. What baffles me is the young age in which Haile had to encounter racism, not even one year into moving to the United States. As I read deeper into the history of the American education system and the ways in which it has controlled the narratives of BIPOC people through racial projects and the control of language, the more I understand Haile’s experiences.

When I was going to travel abroad to Spain for a semester, I was required to take a Spanish course before going. I had told the travel abroad program that my first language was Spanish and that I was still very fluent in it. Although I did not speak Castilian Spanish, I felt confident that I could get by just fine with my Mexican Spanish. Despite how much Spanish I knew, I was told that everyone had to take the Spanish course. I asked if I could challenge the course and I was told I could not.

I took the course which was taught by an instructor from like Chile, so her Spanish was different than mine and it sure wasn’t Castilian Spanish either. Needless to say, I was bored in the course, I could not fully participate in class because there was not much learning I could do and I could not just keep saying the answers, so I had to stay quiet most of the semester to be respectful of my classmate’s learning. Also, I’m sure the instructor was tired of me questioning some of her odd word usage (el plato esta roto) because I knew a plate could not rip, they break. I was both a “… language minority underclass that had been denied an equal chance to learn” and according to UCLA, a recipient of foreign language instruction and part of the “educational elite who are expected to pursue higher education” (p. 512).

Language as a gatekeeping instrument: As a low-income student on financial aid, taking this 4 unit UCLA course was not only very expensive (today it would be $3,620), but I obviously did not need it. Had I not had the money or the financial aid to cover it, I would have not been able to attend this trip. Further, it could have put me over the units I could take at UCLA and then financial aid would not have covered it. Furthermore, as a student with disabilities throwing this on my plate last minute with the other courses I had to take before traveling abroad could have jeopardized the time I needed to dedicate to my major courses and could have endangered my GPA.

Wiley & Lukes (1996) had me hooked as soon as I read “Dominant attitudes toward language in the US are replete with contradictions. Bilingualism, for example, has tended to be seen as either a curse or a blessing” (p.g 511). English was not my first language, or even my second or third. I didn’t learn english until I was 5, and thrown into preschool without a lick of English. I had to actually do preschool twice because my enitre first year, I refused to speak at all out of fear, confusion, a stutter, and anxiety in being in a new country speaking a new language (I was born in California and taken back to Kurdistan until I was 5).Until I was 9, I was signaled out by teachers for my lack of confidence in English, pulled out of class to be in special ed classes, and told to “speak English or don’t speak at all”. I grew up being taught to hate my languages, hate my immigrant parents’ accents that taught me to say things “wrong”, and value English. At home, my parents didn’t let us speak English out of fear of us losing our native languages and culture. Home and school taught me very different things about language.

Flash forward to 18, my first year in college. I took an Arabic course to strengthen my Arabic skills and was so surprised to see so many white folks in that class. I had grown up being called a terrorist, being shamed for my multilingualism, and now all of a sudden I was popular in class, being asked to tutor/converse, and being told how “lucky” I was to speak so many languages because of the “job opportunities I could have with the government”. It blew my mind that these people thought I would ever want to work for a government that had destabilized my region, displaced my people and my parents, bomb our countries, and yet, I was “so lucky”. This idea of being a contradiction – speaking many languages but not the “right” languages unless it benefitted this country/government, really sticks out to me when I think of gatekeeping. Even when White Americans find themselves in a classroom to learn a new language- it isn’t out of curiosity, it is out of patriotism and Americanization, the need to learn Arabic to go to the Middle East and engage in the oil industry, or work for the government and learn the language only to exploit the people, both floored and didn’t floor me. Language is often used as a weapon, a tool to gatekeep, and also to invade simultaneously. When immigrants speak their language, they’re “uneducated” and when white folks learn our languages, they’re “talented”. Our very own languages are weaponized against us all throughout K-12 as they gatekeep us from wealth, opportunity, academics, social circles, etc., but when our languages are picked up as a :hobby" or “resume booster” by white people, they are seen as useful job qualifications. This makes me wonder- is it the language that is the issue, or the body/mouth the language comes out of?

As a student, I have experienced language as a tool students have used to prevent professors from completing their job and obtaining tenure. During my Bachelor’s program, we had a newly hired professor who had recently moved to the United States from Kenya. The professor was fluent in English; however, her accent was thick, and her dialect differed from what the students in my PWI were used to. Over the semester, I listened to the derogatory and racist comments they made based on her language abilities. The students were outright disrespectful to her during class, often correcting her and requiring her to repeat things multiple times. Outside of class, they petitioned for her to be removed and provided her with negative ratings hoping to force the school to fire her. As I read Kloss’ ideological argument, where speakers of other languages should “ be required to shift to the dominant language,” I thought about how that just didn’t mean in words but in an accent as well. However, even when a person speaks the language, if it isn’t spoken in a manner that is perceived as correct, the language minority is still persecuted for not conforming to the dominant language.

As an educator, I have witnessed language as a tool for gatekeeping students from being included in the general education classroom. I have worked in a couple of predominantly White school districts throughout my career. Our English New Language Learners are often held at the mercy of their assigned teachers. I have observed teachers limiting students’ access to the curriculum based on how the teacher perceived the students’ readiness. In 5th grade, I had a student who came to our school in 2nd grade with limited language acquisition in her native tongue and English. Throughout her schooling, the student was frequently pulled out of the classroom and denied the opportunity to learn from her teacher and peers. By the time she came to 5th grade, she had made some progress but was still frequently removed from class. I found that with more explicit support within the class, the student didn’t need to be removed, and we could help her advance. Unfortunately, many teachers had othered the student based on her language.

I recently had this experience in my workplace. The state of Washington has the first ever state Office of Equity. This office created a monthly “Real Talk” space lead by 4-5 leaders of different state agencies or commissions. They are all leaders who identify as BIPOC. During Black History Month, we had the privilege to hear from one state agency whose director has committed to becoming a pro-equity, anti-racist organization. During this journey, many leaders have left opening the door for new leadership to be put in place. While the agency is led by a white women, her two deputies are a black man and a black woman (both with PhDs), and the equity program is run by a black woman (with her JD). All four showed up to Real Talk to tell us about the successes and hardships that are happening with this work. The last person to speak was the black, female deputy. We were actually given a warning prior to her speaking that she would be engaged in this conversation in the only way she knew how – unapologetically herself which would include the use of profanity. She opened her dialogue with us with a statement of “I am m-f- realness”. I knew at that point this meeting was amazing. We try to hide white supremacy under the guise of “professionalism” and for her to be in this space emphasizing that she can be a “professional”, she can do this work, she can bring community and agency together and she doesn’t have to give up herself in order to do so was intense. I walked away from that meeting and told colleagues and friends that I had just attended the best meeting in my 10 years of public service. Little did I know, the backlash from that meeting would ultimately result in the deputy leaving the agency. The use of profanity in the workplace was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The Office of Equity was targeted, the deputy was targeted. The subsects of groups within her agency used this meeting to complain to the director, the ethics board, and the unions. To add to the growing list of complaints against her, folks latched on to the word “dope” that she loves to use. The disability group filed a complaint that she was using discriminatory language against people with disabilities. Four weeks after the Black History Month meeting, the deputy sent an email to the entire agency (about 2500 staff) that she was going to no longer use profanity or the word dope in the workplace. That despite telling everyone when she was hired that she would not code-switch, she would not change who she was at the core of her being, her language resulted in the unrelenting attacks from others (mainly those who identify as cis and white) that broke her down on both an emotional and physical level. A beautiful black woman who knowingly accepted a position that involved dismantling racism and connecting community to the agency lasted a little over 3 months before she could no longer stay in that space for her own well-being.
And now I watch as those who attacked her continue their attacks on others. I watch as her peers and those who supported her cry tears of pain for what they witnessed, attempted to stop, and continue to deal with today. If we will continue to be judged by standards of “professionalism” that dictate what we can wear, the artwork on our bodies, the color/style of our hair, or the words that we use, we will remain institutions of white supremacy through our gatekeeping of others.

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/what_is_black_fatigue_and_how_can_we_protect_employees_from_it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wALwzjVwM7g

Response to prompt #1

I had an experience with language being used as an instrument for gatekeeping when I was placed in ESL classes upon my enrollment in high school a short while after my arrival in the United States. My sister was my legal guardian back then, and neither of my parents could come to the U.S. with us. My sister and I didn’t understand the role of ESL classes; we both just saw them as a way for me to learn English. This article by Wiley & Lukes (1996) questions why students from linguistically diverse backgrounds are put in English courses that are considered remedial and why their linguistic backgrounds are completely ignored. Reading this article made me realize the gatekeeping role of ESL classes, and how little to no information is offered regarding how those classes do not count toward 4-year universities. I was never told those classes didn’t count toward a 4-year university; my academic counselor and school staff probably assumed that was not a possibility for me given that I arrived here when I was 16 years old and about to be 17. How could I gain the preparation necessary for a 4-university due to my recent immigration and arrival? School staff completely ignored my background, the grades I had earned while studying in Mexico, and all the skills I carried with me. I, of course, knew nothing about how community colleges and universities worked. I do not regret having started my education at a community college; in fact, I am forever grateful for everything I learned during my time at San Diego City College. However, it is upsetting to realize all the information that is withheld from parents and guardians of English learners due to assumptions and unilateral decisions made by school administrators. The belief that English learners attending high school could not possibly have the desire to attend a 4-year university right after high school and the withholding of information serves as an instrument for gatekeeping that disproportionately impacts students of color.

Dual language/bilingual education (DLBE) is a model of education originally designed to serve immigrant populations. The first DLBE policy was specified for European immigrants (Rethinking Schools, 1998) Later, it was adopted to serve immigrants who spoke Spanish. Despite the Treaty of Hidalgo’s promise for bilingual education for Mexican-Americans (Miguel & Valencia, 1998) this was not consistently provided to students in a manner that taught both languages equally. Evidence of the linguistic ideologies outlined by Wiley & Lukes, the educational approaches really sought to promote assimilation through the Tacit Compact or Take-and-Give arguments (1996). Even with the passage of the Bilingual Education Act in 1965, there has been debate and disagreement on how to deliver this model (Punches, 1985). In this post, I’ll specifically address this lack of attention to the implementation of these policies.
For the eight years I worked in DLBE schools, the majority of our professional conversations were conducted in English since all of our teaching staff was not bilingual . However, it demonstrated the hegemony of the English language despite our explicit commitment to the Spanish language. I recall a time in 2015 when our principal, a white woman who spoke Spanish called this phenomenon out and we conducted a few professional meetings in Spanish. This didn’t last long as many teachers, including myself, felt the additional labor it required to conduct our meetings in Spanish. This short exercise was never repeated in other academic years and was the one of the few moments in my professional career in which meetings for DLBE were conducted in Spanish. It increased my awareness of the different dialects of my colleagues, from a number of Spanish speaking countries. However, this doesn’t fully demonstrate Wiley & Lukes’ first recommendation for dialect awareness (1996) but it does approach it because it was a one-off experience albeit memorable.
Despite progressive attempts to prioritize DLBE, it was up to the individual schools to develop their assessments. When I was working at a DLBE elementary school, we analyzed L1 & L2 reading assessments to strategize on how to best serve students. Related to the problematic ideological assumptions that WIley & Lukes pose, the driving force of this analysis was to increase students’ reading scores in English, because when a district or county looks at comparative data they will only pull that data point. Completely disregarding the learning context of the students and schools. It doesn’t consider if a student is solely limited in the language or has had limited or interrupted formal education, often referred to as SLIFE. I saw students in the same English language courses that had dramatically different academic abilities. This is was a form of gatekeeping, tracking students into remedial English classes rather than prepare and develop teachers to differentiate their classroom instruction and tasks to accommodate their students’ diverse needs.
Miguel, G. S., & Valencia, R. R. (1998). From the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to Hopwood: The educational plight and struggle of Mexican Americans in the Southwest. Harvard Educational Review, 68(3), 353-412. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/treaty-guadalupe-hidalgo-hopwood-educational/docview/212294063/se-2
Punches, M. W. (1985). The Shaping of a Social Policy: The Bilingual Education Act, 1968-1984. Journal of Thought, 20(4), 62–70. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42589123
Rethinking Schools. (1998, Spring). History of Bilingual Education. https://rethinkingschools.org/articles/history-of-bilingual-education/

Thank you, Euc! Your prompt is appreciated! As I was reflecting on this article and your prompt of language gatekeeping – I was pulled into the narrative of the idealogical relationship between nationality and language. As a Korea-American, I was reflecting on how even before language assessment there are so many acts of gatekeeping of English-centric, English-dominant ideologies that first start with a student’s name. I, along with many of my friends, have had to take steps to remove, change, or “American-ize” our names. This is enacted as a form of gatekeeping by teachers being unwilling to pronounce or at the very least as cited by Wiley and Lukes (1996) may merely lack awareness. This is also echoed with comments such as, “do you have a nickname” or just a lack of care when learning new names. I have attached a video that does a lovely job illustrating the “small” forms of gatekeeping of language that is tied directly to identity. I think for students this mental and emotional shift and barrier of language and name gatekeeping is often forgotten but exists as deeply as what can be measured on assessments. I think the push is also very much tied to the ‘national unity argument’ due to political tensions on a global scale between the United States and globalization. An example, the general public can learn Game of Thrones names of their favorite characters “daenerys targaryen” but like in the short video clip struggle with “Jun Ho”. I also think that while many people are not as aware of this push and often fall back to the “tacit compact argument” when the conversation is brought up 1:1 when it comes to the correct and meaningful pronunciation names that are not English-centric.

Thank you, Euc! There are many critiques of the above arguments you have eloquently outlined, and I’ll critique #2:The Take-and-Give Argument.

The Take-and-Give Argument presented by Wiley & Lukes (1996) has several shortcomings, as it assumes that immigrant prosperity in their new country is due solely to adopting the dominant language. This perspective neglects the vital role that cultural diversity and multiple languages can play in society.

• Embracing Cultural Diversity: This argument doesn’t consider the importance of cultural diversity in stimulating innovation, creativity, and social harmony. By pushing immigrants to leave their native languages behind, society misses the chance to benefit from the distinctive viewpoints, customs, and knowledge that diverse languages bring. Cultural interchange enriches our collective comprehension and can lead to new ideas and solutions.

• Coexistence of Languages: The Take-and-Give Argument implies that maintaining minority languages hinders the adoption of the dominant language. In reality, bilingualism and multilingualism can coexist, and studies have demonstrated that individuals fluent in multiple languages often exhibit cognitive advantages, such as enhanced problem-solving, better multitasking, and improved communication.

• Economic Benefits: This argument overlooks the economic potential of linguistic minorities. Language abilities are valuable assets in the global economy, and immigrants who preserve their native languages can contribute to international trade, tourism, and diplomacy growth.

• Social Integration: Pressuring immigrants to relinquish their native languages can result in social exclusion and marginalization. Allowing linguistic minorities to maintain their languages helps preserve cultural identity and fosters a sense of belonging. An inclusive society is more likely to experience less social conflict and a stronger sense of unity.

• Human Rights: Lastly, the Take-and-Give Argument contradicts fundamental human rights to cultural identity and linguistic freedom. Requiring immigrants to abandon their native languages as a prerequisite for success in their new country is unjust and conflicts with the principles of individual liberty and human dignity.

In summary, the Take-and-Give Argument is flawed and oversimplifies the intricate relationship between language, culture, and society. Encouraging linguistic diversity and supporting minority languages benefits both immigrants and the host society in numerous ways, including driving innovation, promoting social cohesion, and upholding human rights.