Language Ideologies in a U.S. State-Funded International School: The Invisible Linguistic Repertoires of Bilingual Refugee Students

Abstract

In this study, I investigated language ideologies in a state-funded International Baccalaureate Primary Years Programme school in the United States. I conducted ethnographic observations, focus groups, and interviews in a fourth grade classroom in one of the largest refugee resettlement areas in the country. Findings indicate that although the school positioned bilingualism as linguistic capital, the linguistic repertoires of multilingual refugee students were made invisible by three interrelated processes: linguistic tokenism, linguistic subordination, and linguistic compartmentalization. These results highlight the urgency for schools offering the IB PYP to implement language policy, curriculum, and instruction that explicitly support immigrant and refugee children's multiple linguistic backgrounds.

International Baccalaureate Primary Years Programme: a systematic review

“…There is great heterogeneity in the purpose of the different papers included in this review. The works by Lebreton (2014), Bueno-Villaverde et al (2018), Solano-Campos (2017), Ashley-Welbeck & Vlachopoulos (2020), Lochmiller et al (2016) and Carder (2006) examine the integration of foreign language teaching within the PYP programme in enquiry processes in which fluid and deep communication takes place among students and with the teacher, which promotes the effective acquisition of communicative skills as pointed out by authors including Gibbons (2014) or Téllez & Waxman (2006). Roiha & Sommier (2021) focus their work on teachers’ perceptions of interculturality in the PYP programme, in line with the work of Walsh & Casinader (2019), although in this case it focuses on the moral aspects of interculturality.…”

“…In this category, publications are analysed by country based on the geographical location of the schools used in the sample, not the nationality of the authors or the country in which the journal that published the article is located. The country with the highest concentration of research is the USA, with four papers included in the review (Karnes & Nugent, 2003; Kauffman, 2005; Quaynor, 2015, Solano-Campos, 2017). They are followed by Turkey (O’Boyle, 2009; Güler & Yaltırık, 2011; Tugluk, 2020) and Australia (Law et al, 2012; Lebreton, 2014; Walsh & Casinader, 2019) with three publications each.…”

“…Most of the articles included in the review (fourteen out of a total of twenty-one) use a qualitative methodology for the collection and subsequent analysis of data. One of the most commonly used data collection instruments is the semi-structured interview (Ashley-Welbeck & Vlachopoulos, 2020; Bueno-Villaverde et al, 2018; Sperandio & Kong, 2018; Palmer, 2016; Savage & Drake, 2016; Solano-Campos, 2017; Lochmiller et al, 2016; Quaynor, 2015; Law et al, 2012; O’Boyle, 2009; Güler & Yaltırık, 2011), and subsequently conducting a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) from which independent categories of analysis emerge (Sparkes & Smith, 2014). Focus groups are also used in two articles (O’Boyle, 2009; Sperandio & Kong, 2018), as well as direct observation by researchers of the development of classes in the different educational centres in which the research is conducted (Quaynor, 2015; Solano-Campos, 2017; Lochmiller et al, 2016; Kauffman, 2005; Palmer, 2016).…”

“…One of the most commonly used data collection instruments is the semi-structured interview (Ashley-Welbeck & Vlachopoulos, 2020; Bueno-Villaverde et al, 2018; Sperandio & Kong, 2018; Palmer, 2016; Savage & Drake, 2016; Solano-Campos, 2017; Lochmiller et al, 2016; Quaynor, 2015; Law et al, 2012; O’Boyle, 2009; Güler & Yaltırık, 2011), and subsequently conducting a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) from which independent categories of analysis emerge (Sparkes & Smith, 2014). Focus groups are also used in two articles (O’Boyle, 2009; Sperandio & Kong, 2018), as well as direct observation by researchers of the development of classes in the different educational centres in which the research is conducted (Quaynor, 2015; Solano-Campos, 2017; Lochmiller et al, 2016; Kauffman, 2005; Palmer, 2016). Those investigations that include among their objectives knowing aspects related to curriculum design and school organisation have also used the analysis of the different documents that the school has made available (Bueno-Villaverde et al, 2018; O’Boyle, 2009; Karnes & Nugent, 2003).…”

“…The diversity of topics covered in the articles reviewed, as discussed above, leads as a logical consequence to a wide variety of results associated with IB research and specifically with the PYP stage. Research related to the methodological management of foreign languages yields some very interesting results, such as the great potential of the use of augmented reality for language teaching because of the possibility of generating situations closer to the contexts of real language use, although the authors warn of the need for teacher training in these techniques for their correct use (Ashley-Welbeck & Vlachopoulos, 2020), the need to take into account the context of immigrant students for the use of bilingualism as one of the central axes of the research (Solano-Campos, 2017), the existing tensions between members of the educational community (students, families, teachers, management teams) when it comes to identifying the role and importance of the use of the foreign language in the educational process, and the need to perceive the usefulness that language learning can have not only in the educational context but also outside the school. It is also important to promote the enjoyment of language learning (Lebreton, 2014) and the desirability of integrating the foreign language at all stages of IB and to reward this effort through foreign language certifications (Carder, 2006).…”