Jennifer Phuong

Discourses of languagelessness that suggest that Latinxs are not fully proficient in either English or Spanish have a long history in the United States. These discourses produce raciolinguistic categories that frame the bilingualism of Latinxs as deficient and in need of remedi-ation. In this article, the researchers examine one such raciolinguistic category: students in dual language programs who are classified as both English learners and first language (L1) users of English. The authors offer case studies of three students who fit this linguistic profile. They examine the ways that teachers working with these students struggle to make sense of this raciolinguistic category and often resort to discourses of languagelessness as an explanation. The researchers document the ways that these discourses negatively impact the educational supports provided to the students. The authors end with a call for developing new conceptualizations of the language practices of Latinx students in these programs that resist discourses of languagelessness and, instead, frame the fluid bilingual-ism of these students as a resource for learning.

Through policy discourse analysis, this paper explores ideologies around language and disability in U.S. federal education legislation, specifically the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) and the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA). This exploration draws from the fields of language planning and policy and disability studies in education, which are both problem-oriented fields that rely on the examination of social problems. In considering disproportionality and discourses of ableism and racism, I argue that de facto language education policy implicit in IDEA and ESSA supports the model of a White, normal, abled student who speaks English. Furthermore, a medical model of disability is implicated in this legislation through psycholinguistic conceptualizations of language. This analysis has implications for future research to intersectionally address ableism in both special education policy and practice and to examine the institutional mechani...

In this note from the field, I explore what is considered normal in educational linguistics when considering language in special education contexts through a Disability Studies in Education perspective. In highlighting theoretical perspectives that simultaneously complement and complicate one another, I argue that our field should more carefully consider processes of ableism and racism in issues of language and education.

A major assumption of critical applied linguistics has been that changing the language attitudes of individual teachers will lead to the development of more linguistically responsive classrooms. Yet, despite decades of such efforts, linguistically responsive classrooms remain the exception rather than the norm. As an explanation for this lack of progress, we propose a raciolinguistic chronotope perspective that brings attention to the broader socio-historical processes that shape the institutional listening subject position teachers inhabit in relation to their students. We apply this raciolinguistic chronotope perspective to classroom interactions collected as part of a multi-year ethnographic study of a bilingual charter school. We end with implications of this raciolinguistic chronotope perspective for re-conceptualizing interventions focused on developing linguistically responsive classrooms. A major project of critical applied linguistics has been to work with teachers to challenge dominant language ideologies in the hope that changes in teachers' attitudes toward minoritized language practices would lead to changes in their teaching practices (Charity-. Yet, despite decades of such work with teachers, the types of linguistically responsive classrooms critical applied linguists seek to promote continue to be the exception rather than the norm. In this article we offer an explanation for why critical applied linguists have not had the systematic impact on mainstream schooling that many of us had hoped for. In particular, we challenge a major assumption at the core of this workdthat changing the language attitudes of individual teachers will lead to the fundamental transformation of schooling. Specifically, we point to the ways that raciolinguistic ideologies (Flores and Rosa, 2015) that circulate in the broader society connect racialized communities with particular linguistic models of personhood (Wortham et al., 2009) that describe them as linguistically deficient and in need of remediation because of supposed verbal deprivation (Bereiter and Engelmann, 1966), a word gap (Hart and Risley, 1995), or other linguistic deficiencies (Valencia, 2010). This model of personhood shapes how the language practices of these communities are heard and taken up by their interlocutors. In schools this can come in the form of teachers correcting racialized students for engaging in language practices that are unmarked when used by white students (Alim, 2007), schools treating the bilin-gualism of racialized students as a liability that needs remediation while treating the bilingualism of white students as an asset (Valdés, 1997), or teachers celebrating rhetorical styles that deviate from conventions for published white authors while

In this note from the field, I explore what is considered normal in educational linguistics when considering language in special education contexts through a Disability Studies in Education perspective. In highlighting theoretical perspectives that simultaneously complement and complicate one another, I argue that our field should more carefully consider processes of ableism and racism in issues of language and education.

Through policy discourse analysis, this paper explores ideologies around language and disability in U.S. federal education legislation, specifically the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) and the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA). This exploration draws from the fields of language planning and policy and disability studies in education, which are both problem-oriented fields that rely on the examination of social problems. In considering disproportionality and discourses of ableism and racism, I argue that de facto language education policy implicit in IDEA and ESSA supports the model of a White, normal, abled student who speaks English. Furthermore, a medical model of disability is implicated in this legislation through psycholinguistic conceptualizations of language. This analysis has implications for future research to intersectionally address ableism in both special education policy and practice and to examine the institutional mechanisms through which students are deemed not normal, including a conflation of the needs of English Language Learners and students with disabilities, as well as the intersection of both.