Language Policy

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 333–354 | Cite as

Citizenship status and language education policy in an emerging Latino community in the United States

Original Paper


This article draws on a 23 month ethnographic study of an emerging—newly established and rapidly growing—Latino community in the New Latino Diaspora of the U.S. in order to examine how educators and parents interpret language education policy (LEP). It analyzes how an English as a Second Language director and one undocumented Mexican mother respond to the federal education legislation of 2002, known as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, which seeks to improve educational achievement by assessing student progress through standardized testing, mandating curricular reforms, and improving teacher quality. The analysis focuses on the portion of NCLB known as Title III, which is the section of the legislation that attempts to enlist parental participation in public schooling by mandating that schools communicate with parents in a language that they can understand. Drawing on participant observations, interviews, and informal conversations, this research demonstrates the ways that participants’ understandings of citizenship influence their interpretation of language education policy reforms resulting from Title III of NCLB. The findings indicate that various conceptualizations of citizenship circulate between home and school settings, and that those conceptualizations shape approaches to enlisting and offering parental participation. The article contributes to our understanding of three aspects of LEP: the way that LEP is interpreted in formal and informal educational settings, the role of parents and educators in shaping policy implementation locally, and the way individual understandings of LEP are linked to beliefs about citizenship and immigration.


Title III Citizenship Language education policy Immigration Parent involvement 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abedi, J. (2004). The no child left behind act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrego, L. J. (2006). “I can’t go to college because I don’t have papers”: Incorporation patterns of Latino undocumented youth. Latino Studies, 4, 212–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arzubiaga, A., Noguerón, S., & Sullivan, A. (2008). The education of children in im/migrant families. Review of Research in Education, 33(1), 246–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baquedano-López, P. (2004). Traversing the center: The politics of language use in a Catholic religious education program for immigrant Mexican children. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35(2), 212–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biggers, J. (2011). Arizona’s next scandal? Tea party state official says Ethnic Studies violated ban. The Huffington Post June 16. Accessed April 7, 2012.
  6. Bloemraad, I., Korteweg, A. & Yurdakal, G. (2008). Citizenship and immigration: Multiculturalism, assimilation, and challenges to the nation-state. Annual Review of Sociology, 34(8), 1–27.Google Scholar
  7. Canagarajah, S. (2006). Ethnographic methods in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy theory and method (pp. 153–169). Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Chadband, E. (2012). After 30 years, Plyler v. Doe Legacy under attack. NEA Today June 19. Accessed July 6, 2012.
  9. Combs, M. C., González, N., & Moll, L. C. (2011). US Latinos and the learning of English: The metonymy of language policy. In T. McCarty (Ed.), Ethnography and language policy (pp. 185–204). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Donahue, T. S. (2002). Language planning and the perils of ideological solipsism. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education critical issues (pp. 137–163). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Education Law Center. (2006, November). English language learners in Pennsylvania schools: Legal issues and advocacy opportunities. Pennsylvania: Reiser, L.Google Scholar
  12. Evns, B. A. & Hornberger, N. H. (2005). No child left behind: Repealing and unpeeling federal language policy in the United States. Language Policy, 4(1), 87–106.Google Scholar
  13. Fix, M., & Zimmerman, W. (2001). All under one roof: Mixed-status families in an era of reform. International Migration Review, 35(2), 397–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flores, W. V., & Benmayor, R. (1997). Latino cultural citizenship: Claiming identity, space, and rights. Massachusetts: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gándara, P., & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed social policies. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Goetze, J., & Lecompte, M. (1981). Ethnographic research and the problem of data reduction. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 12(1), 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. González, N. (2001). I am my language discourses of women and children in the borderlands. Arizona: The University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  18. González, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2004). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Gutiérrez, K., & Arzubiaga, A. (in press). An ecological and activity theoretic approach to understanding diasporic and non-dominant communities. In W. Tate & C. Camp Yeakey (Eds.), Research on schools, neighborhoods, and communities: Toward civic responsibility. Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  20. Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kieffer, M., Lesaux, N., & Snow, C. (2006). Promises and pitfalls: Implications of no child left behind for defining, assessing, and serving English language learners. Presented at: Key Reforms Under the No Child Left Behind Act: The Civil Rights Perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley. Accessed October 15, 2012.
  22. King, K. A., & Fogle, L. (2008). Bilingual parenting as good parenting: Parents’ perspectives on family language policy for additive bilingualism. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(6), 695–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kossan, P. (2010). Schools: Immigrant families leaving Arizona because of new immigration law. The Arizona Republic May 28. Accessed April 7, 2012.
  24. Love, J. (2012). Undocumented ‘Dreamers’ in college welcome policy change on immigration. The chronicle of higher education July 2. Accessed July 6, 2012.
  25. Mangual Figueroa, A. (2011). Citizenship and education in the homework completion routine. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 42(3), 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mangual Figueroa, A. (2012). “I have papers so I can go anywhere” everyday talk about citizenship in a mixed-status family. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 11(5), 291–311.Google Scholar
  27. McCarty, T. (2011). Ethnography and language policy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. McGroarty, M. (2002). Evolving influences on educational language policies. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education critical issues (pp. 17–36). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  29. McNamara, T., & Shohamy, E. (2008). Language tests and human rights. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Menken, K. (2007). High-stakes tests as de facto language policies in education. In E. Shohamy & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 401–414). Volume 7: Language testing and assessment. Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  31. Menken, K. (2008a). Introduction to the thematic issue. Language Policy, 7, 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Menken, K. (2008b). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Clevendon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  33. Muskal, M. (2012). Feds to Alabama: Immigration law could have harsh, lasting effect. Los Angeles Times May 4. Accessed July 6, 2012.
  34. Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 407–438). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Orellana, M. F. (2009). Translating childhoods: Immigrant youth, language, and culture. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Pew Hispanic Center. (2009, April). A portrait of unauthorized immigrants in the United States. Washington, DC: Passel, J. S. & Cohn, D.Google Scholar
  37. Portes, P. R. (2005). Dismantling educational inequality a cultural-historical approach to closing the achievement gap. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  38. Preston, J. (2010). Citizenship from Birth is challenged on the right. The New York Times August 6. Accessed April 7, 2012.
  39. Ricento, T. K., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Elam, G. (2003). Designing and selecting samples. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 77–108). California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Robertson, C. (2011). After ruling, Hispanics Flee an Alabama Town. New York Times October 3. Accessed July 6, 2012.
  42. Rodríguez-Brown, F. (2010). A research perspective on the involvement of linguistic-minority families on their children’s learning. In E. E. García & E. C. Frede (Eds.), Young English language learners: Current research and emerging directions for practice and policy (pp. 100–118). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  43. Rosaldo, R. (1994). Cultural citizenship and educational democracy. Cultural Anthropologist, 9(3), 402–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shohamy, E. (2003). Implications of language education policies for language study in schools and universities. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 278–286.Google Scholar
  45. Shohamy, E. (2010, September). Testing and language minority students: Personal biography and current research. Research Institute for the Study of Language in Urban Society Lecture Series. New York: City University of New York.Google Scholar
  46. Shohamy, E., & McNamara, T. (2009). Language tests for citizenship, immigration, and asylum. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Valdés, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and schools an ethnographic portrait. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  48. Vásquez, O. A., Pease-Alvarez, L., & Shannon, S. M. (1994). Pushing boundaries: Language and culture in a Mexicano community. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weinstein, M. (2006). TAMS analyzer: Anthropology as cultural critique in a digital age. Social Science Computer Review, 24(1), 68–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wiley, T. (2002). Accessing language rights in education: A brief history of the U.S. context. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp. 39–64). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  51. Zentella, A. C. (Ed.). (2005). Building on strength: Language and literacy in Latino families and communities. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  2. 2.BrooklynUSA

Personalised recommendations