Language and Education Policy in the State of Indiana: Implications for Language Minority Students

Abstract

In the U. S., education issues are considered the purview of the states, with the federal government maintaining an important leadership role. However, without a coherent federal language-in-education policy and with an increasing number of language minorities in schools, the states have enacted language policies and guidelines that they believe meet the educational needs of these students. Although language policies in states with large numbers of language minority students have received much-deserved attention, there has been no systematic study of language planning and policy in states with small, unevenly distributed, yet growing numbers of language minority students. This article reports on a study of Indiana's language and education policies for language minority students from 1976, when the state bilingual education law was passed, to 1995. The goal of the study was to determine how and why language policy decisions were made and what the effect of those decisions was on the delivery of educational services for language minority students attending public schools. Drawing on legal documents and interviews with legislators and advocates, we document the process and outcome of the state's language policy decisions.

Obscuring Equity in Dual Language Bilingual Education: A Longitudinal Study of Emergent Bilingual Achievement, Course Placements, and Grades

“…Lastly, DLBE students’ use of minoritized languages elevates the status of minoritized languages and their speakers, rather than stigmatizing them (Pimentel, Diaz Soto, Pimentel, & Urrieta, 2008). These three school‐based arguments create an intersecting “panacea,” in part driving the exponential growth of DLBE programs throughout the country, even in states like Indiana with little history of bilingual education provisions for emergent bilinguals (Cervantes‐Soon et al, 2017; Simich‐Dudgeon & Boals, 1996; Valdez, Delavan, & Freire, 2014). Despite all the related benefits, the structural conditions in schools arbitrate how emergent bilinguals are regarded and tracked as students, potentially “trapping” the equity DLBE programs supposedly promote.…”

Interrupting the Professional Schism That Allows Less Successful Educational Practices With ELLs to Persist

“…Higher education, in sync with state policies, steadily moved to create certifications and/or endorsements in bilingual education, ESL education, and the like in the 1970s and '80s, particularly in border states such as Florida, Texas, and California. In turn, the 1990s saw a wave of new state-level ESL certification programs in the interior parts of the United States (Sayers, 1996;Simich-Dudgeon & Boals, 1996). Simultaneously, federal rulings-i.e., the 1988 Civil Rights Restoration Act and the Office of Civil Rights' Civil Rights Enforcement Policy of 1991-gave impetus to existing ELL-serving programs to provide high quality services (Berube, 2000).…”

Language policy and planning for Latinos in Indiana: A case study

“…English is not specifically designated here as the exclusive language of government, business, or educational instruction, nor is it indicated whether or how this law should be enforced. In their study of language and education policy in Indiana, Simich-Dudgeon & Boals (1996) suggest, "the most important function of the [English-only] law seems to be to serve as a symbol of state unification and of the collective history and traditions of the people of Indiana" (p. 551). Since this law lacks specificity and does not seem to be enforced, its power as a symbol of a unified, English-speaking state may not be so strong.…”