Language Policy

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 199–220 | Cite as

Culturally sustaining pedagogy within monolingual language policy: variability in instruction

  • Catherine J. Michener
  • Tesha Sengupta-Irving
  • C. Patrick Proctor
  • Rebecca Silverman
Original Paper


This 5-month ethnographic comparative case study of two culturally and linguistically diverse U.S. elementary classrooms juxtaposes restrictive educational language policies with the theoretical principles of culturally sustaining pedagogy to explore a gap in our understanding of how teachers reflect educational language policies in the range of pedagogical approaches they take. Triangulating data sources from state and local policy documents, classroom observations, and teacher interviews, we identify three salient dimensions of state and local policies that manifested in these two upper-elementary classrooms: teachers’ curricular and pedagogical choices; student–teacher participation structures; and teachers’ views on language. Similarities and differences between the two classrooms highlight how policy exerts influence on these dimensions while also affording degrees of instructional freedom that varied by teacher, with implications for the learning opportunities for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Overall, however, a limited range of culturally sustaining practices was observed, highlighting the need to understand the spaces in language policy where teachers can mitigate some of the effects of restrictive regulatory approaches to learning.


Culturally sustaining pedagogy Language-in-education policy English-only policy 


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. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Ayres, L., Kavanaugh, K., & Knafl, K. (2003). Within-case and across-case approaches to qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 13(6), 871–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball, A. (2009). Toward a theory of generative change in culturally and linguistically complex classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 45–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ball, D., Thames, M., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, K. (2010). Teachers as language-policy actors: Contending with the erasure of lesser-used languages in schools. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 41(3), 298–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burawoy, M. (1998). The extended case method. Sociological Theory, 16(1), 4–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Canagarajah, A. (2005). Accommodating tensions in language-in-education policies: An afterword. In A. Lin & P. Martin (Eds.), Decolonisation, globalisation: Language-in-education policy and practice (pp. 194–201). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
  9. Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Chau, C., & Baldauf, R. (2011). Micro language planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 936–951). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Connelly, F., & Clandinin, D. (1995). Narrative and education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1(1), 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Creese, A. (2010). Two-teacher classrooms, personalized learning and the inclusion paradigm in the United Kingdom: What’s in it for learners of EAL? In K. Menken & O. García (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools (pp. 32–51). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Cummins, J. (2005). A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing heritage language competence as a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 586–592.Google Scholar
  14. Florez, I. (2012). Examining the validity of the Arizona English language learners assessment cut scores. Language Policy, 11, 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. García, O., & Menken, K. (2010). Stirring the onion: Educators and the dynamics of language education policies (looking ahead). In K. Menken & O. García (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers (pp. 249–261). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. General Laws of MA, C. A. (2002). English language education in public Schools.Google Scholar
  17. Goldenberg, C., & Rutherford-Quach, S. (2012). The Arizona home language survey: The under-identification of students for English language services. Language Policy, 11, 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guo, Q., & Koretz, D. (2013). Estimating the impact of the English immersion law on limited English proficient students’ reading achievement. Educational Policy, 27, 121–149. doi: 10.1177/0895904812462776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gutiérrez, K., Baquedano-López, P., Alvarez, H., & Chiu, M. (1999a). Building a culture of collaboration through hybrid language practices. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gutiérrez, K., Baquedano-López, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999b). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gutiérrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hélot, C. (2010). “Tu sais bien parler maîtresse!”: Negotiating languages other than French in the primary classroom. In K. Menken & O. García (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools (pp. 52–71). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Hopkins, M. (2012). Arizona’s teacher policies and their relationship with English learner instructional practice. Language Policy, 11(81–99).Google Scholar
  25. Hornberger, N., & Johnson, D. (2007). Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 509–532.Google Scholar
  26. Kaplan, R., & Baldauf, R. (1997). Language planning from practice to theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
  27. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, C. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural modeling activity system for underachieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 97–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Menken, K. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
  31. Menken, K., & García, O. (Eds.). (2010). Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers. New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  32. Moje, E., Ciechanowski, K., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moje, E., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. (2001). “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. NOVA (Writer). (1996). The day the Earth shook, The day the Earth shook.Google Scholar
  36. Olson, K. (2007). Lost opportunities to learn: The effects of education policy on primary language instruction for English learners. Linguistics and Education, 18(2), 121–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Orellana, M., & Reynolds, J. (2008). Cultural modeling: Leveraging bilingual skills for school paraphrasing tasks. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(1), 48–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Orellana, M., Reynolds, J., Dorner, L., & Meza, M. (2003). In other words: Translating or “para-phrasing” as a family literacy practice in immigrant households. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1), 12–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pacheco, M. (2010). English-language learners’ reading achievement: Dialectical relationships between policy and practices in meaning-making opportunities. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(3), 292–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Paris, D. (2009). “They’re in my culture, they speak the same way”: African American language in multiethnic high schools. Harvard Educational Review, 79(3), 428–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(2), 196–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ricento, T., & Hornberger, N. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rios-Aguilar, C., & Gándara, P. (2012). (Re)conceptualizing and (re)evaluating language policies for English language learners: The case of Arizona. Language Policy, 11, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rios-Aguilar, C., González Canché, M., & Sabetghadam, S. (2012). Evaluating the impact of restrictive language policies: The Arizona 4-hour English language development block. Language Policy, 11, 47–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ryan, P. (2002). Esperanza rising. New York: Scholastic Inc.Google Scholar
  48. Scientific Software Development. (2011). ATLAS.ti 6.2.Google Scholar
  49. Shohamy, E. (Ed.). (2010). Cases of language policy resistance in Israel’s centralized educational system. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith, J., Coggins, C., & Cardoso, J. (2008). Best practices for English langauge learners in Massachusetts: Five years after the question 2 mandate. Equity & Excellence in Education, 41(3), 293–310.Google Scholar
  53. Speare, E. (1983). The sign of the beaver. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Books for Young Readers.Google Scholar
  54. Stake, R. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  55. Stillman, J. (2011). Teacher learning in an era of high-stakes accountability: Productive tension and critical professional practice. Teachers College Record, 113(1), 133–180.Google Scholar
  56. Stritikus, T. (2003). The interrelationship of beliefs, context, and learning: The case of a teacher reacting to language policy. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 2(1), 29–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Strizek, G. A., Pittsonberger, J. L., Riordan, K. E., Lyter, D. M., & Orlofsky, G. F. (2006). Characteristics of schools, districts, teachers, principals, and school libraries in the United States: 2003–04 schools and staffing survey (NCES 2006-313). Washington, DC: US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  58. Suarez-Orozco, M. (2012). Educating the whole child for the whole world: Education and freedom in the global era. Paper presented at the UCI Interdisciplinary Conference on Researching Equity.Google Scholar
  59. Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2009). Two cases of ethnography. Ethnography, 10(3), 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tollefson, J. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community. New York: Longman Inc.Google Scholar
  61. Tollefson, J. (Ed.). (2002). Language policies in education: Critical issues. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  62. U.S. Department of Commerce. (2012). U.S. Census Bureau: State and country quick facts. U.S. Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
  63. Viesca, K. M. (2013). Linguicism and racism in Massachusetts educational policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(52). Retrieved December 10, 2013, from
  64. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Woodruff, E. (1999). The memory coat. New York: Scholastic Press.Google Scholar
  67. Wright, W. (2005). English language learners left behind in Arizona: The nullification of accommodations in the intersection of federal and state policies. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  69. Zhao, S. (2011). Actors in language planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 905–923). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catherine J. Michener
    • 1
  • Tesha Sengupta-Irving
    • 2
  • C. Patrick Proctor
    • 1
  • Rebecca Silverman
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Lynch School of EducationBoston CollegeChestnut HillUSA
  2. 2.School of EducationUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA
  3. 3.Department of Special Education, College of EducationUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations