The neoliberal logic of state seals of biliteracy

Abstract

State‐issued seals and certificates of biliteracy are increasingly common nationwide. Nevertheless, limited research to date has examined how this state legislation functions as language in education policy and the ideological foundations of these policies. Addressing this gap, the present paper examines state seals as an instance of neoliberal language education policy and addresses how the policy has been constructed in public discourse and interview narratives and how it has been implemented to date. Focusing on one state, Minnesota, we demonstrate the neoliberal logic that undergirds state seals of biliteracy. Data revealed uneven availability of assessments and access to seals across the state. Access was largely determined by market‐oriented, rational choice ideologies, and dependent upon the language and district in question. Analysis also suggested that while Minnesota seals have been constructed in public discourse as a financial asset, their value is unclear in a potentially inflated marketplace of academic credentials within the state.

A comparative case study: Administrators' and students' perceptions of the Seal of Biliteracy

“…Unlike other districts that implemented the SoBL to appear innovative or as a way to compete with neighboring districts (Burnet, 2020), administrators in our study implemented the SoBL as an equity tool. Like the findings of Schwedhelm and King (2020), administrators viewed the SoBL as financially valuable for college credit and as a way to demonstrate their commitment to diversity. However, beyond implementing the SoBL as a way to “signal institutional virtue” (Schwedhelm & King, 2020, p. 13), interviews with administrators in our study suggested a personal dedication to supporting linguistically diverse students.…”

“…To date, three studies have investigated participation decisions—one at the state level (Subtirelu, Borowczyk, Thorson Hernández, & Venezia, 2019) one at the district level (Burnet, 2020), and one that included both (Schwedhelm & King, 2020). Through analysis of policy and promotional texts, Subtirelu et al (2019) found that following total school enrollment, the second strongest predictor of schools' participation in the SoBL program was the percentage of fluent English‐proficient students in the high school.…”

“…With data at both the state and district level, and of particular relevance to the present study because it also took place in Minnesota, was the investigation by Schwedhelm and King (2020). Through analysis of public statements by key policymakers, policy discourse, and interviews with administrators and coordinators at the state and district level, Schwedhelm and King (2020) argued that the SoBL was an instance of neoliberal education policy. However, in examining the implementation of the SoBL across the state, like Subtirelu et al (2019), Schwedhelm and King (2020) found uneven participation across the state, with only 14% of districts participating.…”

“…The present study adds to the existing literature by examining both administrators' and students' perspectives of the value of the SoBL. Like Schwedhelm and King (2020), the present study took place in Minnesota; however, this investigation focused on one large, urban school district. Unique to the present study was the analysis of convergences and divergences in the perspectives of administrators and students, with a focus on a critical population of potential SoBL earners; that is, speakers of less commonly taught languages (LCTLs).…”

“…In all participating states, the SoBL recognizes high school students who are biliterate and bilingual; however, the requirements for how students must demonstrate biliteracy, as well as the required level of proficiency in English and the other language, shape how the award is implemented and who has access (Davin & Heineke, 2017; Heineke, Davin, & Bedford, 2018; Schwedhelm & King, 2020). Unlike other educational policies that are mandatory, such as ESSA, the SoBL is largely voluntary, creating the situation within most states that districts and schools must elect to participate.…”