• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

site logo
The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language
search
  • Home
  • About TESL-EJ
  • Vols. 1-15 (1994-2012)
    • Volume 1
      • Volume 1, Number 1
      • Volume 1, Number 2
      • Volume 1, Number 3
      • Volume 1, Number 4
    • Volume 2
      • Volume 2, Number 1 — March 1996
      • Volume 2, Number 2 — September 1996
      • Volume 2, Number 3 — January 1997
      • Volume 2, Number 4 — June 1997
    • Volume 3
      • Volume 3, Number 1 — November 1997
      • Volume 3, Number 2 — March 1998
      • Volume 3, Number 3 — September 1998
      • Volume 3, Number 4 — January 1999
    • Volume 4
      • Volume 4, Number 1 — July 1999
      • Volume 4, Number 2 — November 1999
      • Volume 4, Number 3 — May 2000
      • Volume 4, Number 4 — December 2000
    • Volume 5
      • Volume 5, Number 1 — April 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 2 — September 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 3 — December 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 4 — March 2002
    • Volume 6
      • Volume 6, Number 1 — June 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 2 — September 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 3 — December 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 4 — March 2003
    • Volume 7
      • Volume 7, Number 1 — June 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 2 — September 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 3 — December 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 4 — March 2004
    • Volume 8
      • Volume 8, Number 1 — June 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 2 — September 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 3 — December 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 4 — March 2005
    • Volume 9
      • Volume 9, Number 1 — June 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 2 — September 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 3 — December 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 4 — March 2006
    • Volume 10
      • Volume 10, Number 1 — June 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 2 — September 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 3 — December 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 4 — March 2007
    • Volume 11
      • Volume 11, Number 1 — June 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 2 — September 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 3 — December 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 4 — March 2008
    • Volume 12
      • Volume 12, Number 1 — June 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 2 — September 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 3 — December 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 4 — March 2009
    • Volume 13
      • Volume 13, Number 1 — June 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 2 — September 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 3 — December 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 4 — March 2010
    • Volume 14
      • Volume 14, Number 1 — June 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 2 – September 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 3 – December 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 4 – March 2011
    • Volume 15
      • Volume 15, Number 1 — June 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 2 — September 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 3 — December 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 4 — March 2012
  • Vols. 16-Current
    • Volume 16
      • Volume 16, Number 1 — June 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 2 — September 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 3 — December 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 4 – March 2013
    • Volume 17
      • Volume 17, Number 1 – May 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 2 – August 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 3 – November 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 4 – February 2014
    • Volume 18
      • Volume 18, Number 1 – May 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 2 – August 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 3 – November 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 4 – February 2015
    • Volume 19
      • Volume 19, Number 1 – May 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 2 – August 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 3 – November 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 4 – February 2016
    • Volume 20
      • Volume 20, Number 1 – May 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 2 – August 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 3 – November 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 4 – February 2017
    • Volume 21
      • Volume 21, Number 1 – May 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 2 – August 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 3 – November 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 4 – February 2018
    • Volume 22
      • Volume 22, Number 1 – May 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 2 – August 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 3 – November 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 4 – February 2019
    • Volume 23
      • Volume 23, Number 1 – May 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 2 – August 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 3 – November 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 4 – February 2020
    • Volume 24
      • Volume 24, Number 1 – May 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 2 – August 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 3 – November 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 4 – February 2021
    • Volume 25
      • Volume 25, Number 1 – May 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 2 – August 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 3 – November 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 4 – February 2022
    • Volume 26
      • Volume 26, Number 1 – May 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 2 – August 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 3 – November 2022
  • Books
  • How to Submit
    • Submission Procedures
    • Ethical Standards for Authors and Reviewers
    • TESL-EJ Style Sheet for Authors
    • TESL-EJ Tips for Authors
    • Book Review Policy
    • Media Review Policy
    • APA Style Guide
  • TESL-EJ Editorial Board

Affirming Students’ Right to Their Own Language: Bridging Language Policies and Pedagogical Practices

December 2009 — Volume 13, Number 3

Affirming Students’ Right to Their Own Language: Bridging Language Policies and Pedagogical Practices

Author: Jerrie Cobb Scott, Dolores Y. Straker, Laurie Katz (2008)  
Publisher: New York, NY: Routledge
Pages ISBN Price
Pp. xxiii + 418 978-0-8058-6349-9 $41.95 U.S.

Confronting educational inequality, the National Council of Teachers of English proposed the “Students’ Right to Their Own Language” (SRTOL) Act in 1974. This resolution begins: “We affirm the students’ right to their own patterns and varieties of language – the dialects of their nurture or whatever dialects in which they find their own identity and style…” (p. 9). This resolution was reaffirmed in 2003 due to its contemporary relevance. As an anniversary publication, this book is devoted to examining the results of the resolution, to strengthening the connection between pedagogy and policy, and to drawing attention to language ideologies.

The book consists of 24 chapters divided into four sections. The first section, consisting of two chapters, provides historical context through interviews with educators and linguists. The second section (seven articles) documents the educational policies and attitudes which prevent realization of SRTOL. The third section (eight articles) provides pedagogical examples of SRTOL implementation. The fourth section (seven articles) examines linguistic diversity in other nations. This review will focus on the main themes of the volume: monolingual ideology, possibilities for teacher agency, and opportunity for strengthening SRTOL.

Monolingual ideology, which is currently endemic in U.S. society, makes realization of the SRTOL resolution a distant goal. The influence of monolingual ideology, the volume argues, is manifested in the U.S. covertly through No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy, the use of high-stakes testing, and overtly in opinion surveys of pre-service teachers. Dorothea Anagnostopoulos (17) provides an analysis of how language learning is affected by high-stakes testing. Examining the issue through a Bakhtinian perspective which emphasizes language “as socially saturated” (p. 263), Anagnostopoulos scrutinizes a high school literature discussion to conclude that standardization of the language arts has resulted in the neglect of developing students’ ability to discuss and understand literature. A broader portrayal of NCLB policy is provided by Dorothy Aguilera and Margaret D. LeCompte (5) who compare the situation of two indigenous languages: Hawaiian and Yup’ik. Despite suppression of the Hawaiian language for a generation, it has become the medium of instruction in “33 schools” (p. 70). In contrast, one Yup’ik school lost its bilingual program funding due to the NCLB Act and is now in jeopardy. The authors go on to sketch a brief history of the systematic oppression of Native American languages, the effects of language legislation, and the methods by which Native American languages could be promoted rather than suppressed.

A third barrier to implementation of SRTOL is a lack of awareness of language diversity. This issue is explored by Laurie Katz, Jerrie Cobb Scott, and Xania Hadjioannou (7). Using the Language Knowledge and Awareness Study (LKAS) the authors surveyed students in two U.S. universities and one in Cyprus to determine their level of language awareness. The results of the survey indicate that survey participants’ viewed language diversity negatively.

Providing a connection between SRTOL and pedagogy, and thereby promoting teacher agency, is another important theme of this volume. Rick Meyer (4) describes the requirement of policy makers to have one official “portrait” (p. 58) to represent students. Most recently, due to the NCLB Act, the portrait emerges from a test which indicates that a student is below, at, or above grade level. However, arguing that such methodology is simplistic and inadequate, Meyer suggests that more holistic “counterportraits” (p. 60) made by teachers should also be considered. Meyer concludes by suggesting that any real educational policy must take local realities into consideration.

Valerie Kinloch (6) asserts that the value of SRTOL is in its political connotations and illustrates this importance through a description of a nineteen year-old student’s understanding of, and appreciation for SRTOL. According to Kinloch, “Quentin’s understanding of the phrase ‘students’ right to their own language’ is foundational in his learning to think critically about language, identity, rights, and choice” (p. 94). Kinloch concludes that teachers can use SRTOL to increase students’ critical awareness of language in their own lives.

A further significant theme of this volume is the opportunity to strengthen SRTOL. The two opportunities articulated for strengthening SRTOL are found in the linguistic practices of other nations, and in the training of future teachers. To foster multilingual ideology it is necessary to be aware of the range of possibilities. Thus, articles which describe the linguistic practices in education in Cyprus, Brazil, Mexico, Italy, South Africa, and India are included in this volume and provide a counterpoint to the monolingualism currently popular in the U.S. Several articles address the issue of training future teachers who will be aware of dialectical diversity. Nancy Rankie Shelton (8) offers the “positionality project” (p. 121) as a pedagogical method of teaching pre-service teachers about language diversity. This project requires that students collect conversational data using themselves as subjects and analyze it. Shelton offers student writing revealing a greater appreciation for dialectical variation to show the efficacy of this project.

This is an excellent volume in that it provides a concise and insightful introduction to U.S. educational policies from a linguistic point of view. However, one major shortcoming is that the SRTOL resolution itself is not critiqued at any point. In an article describing the process of linguistic prejudice Rosina Lippi-Green (drawing on Foucault) states that, “the educational system may not be the beginning, but it is the heart of the standardization process. Asking children who speak non-mainstream languages to come to schools in order to find validation for themselves, in order to be able to speak their own stories in their own voices, is an unlikely scenario” (p. 294). Yet this is exactly what the contributors to this book intend. This somewhat paradoxical situation is acknowledged by Kinloch (6) who states, “Smitherman’s belief that because the struggle for language rights has always been highly political, and because schools have never truly affirmed and accepted the mother tongue of non-mainstream English speech communities, a redefinition of the significance of SRTOL in relation to language rights, language policies, education, and power is necessary” (p. 87). The authors seem to implicitly acknowledge that the realization of SRTOL is extremely complex and that the schools and teachers may be challenged in achieving the key tenets of the resolution.  That said, this book will be especially useful for pre- or in-service teacher education or educational leadership, as it provides a detailed history of language policies in the U.S.A. It will also be useful more generally for graduate students across language and literacy education who, with the authors, are committed to protecting students’ right to their own languages in an era of standardization.

References

Lippi-Green, R. (2004). Language ideology and language prejudice. In E. Finegan and J.R. Rickford (Eds.), Language in the USA: Themes for the twenty-first century (pp. 289-304). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Iris Levitis
USUS – Schule für Fremdsprachen
Rostock, Germany

© Copyright rests with authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately.

Editor’s Note: The HTML version contains no page numbers. Please use the PDF version of this article for citations.

© 1994–2023 TESL-EJ, ISSN 1072-4303
Copyright of articles rests with the authors.