Can flawed thinking in the past prevent a more productive future?

The topic of this week’s readings was language planning and policy.  The Farr & Song online article was very similar to chapter 4 in the McKay book.  Both selections focused on the connections between societal ideologies, politics and policy, and language.  The McKay reading distinguishes early on the important difference between language policy and language planning.  Deumert describes language policy as more general and states that linguistic, political, and social goals underlie the language planning process (89).  Haugen defines language planning as “all conscious efforts that aim at changing the linguistic behavior of a speech community” (89).  So it can be said that language planning carries out language policy.     Unfortunately, as described in the Farr & Song article, language policy is based on cultural beliefs and politics, not pedagogical strategies or scientific research.  The motives behind the United States’ language education policies are political; quite frankly, old, racist political ideologies are holding back United States advancement in language learning. 

            One of the tenets of some United States lawmakers misguided view on language learning is that language standardization and monolingualism are desired societal outcomes.  The language ideology of conservative lawmakers can be best be summarized by the following quote from the McKay text, “A common language unifies, multiple languages divide” (99).  Although this quote is from the 1980s, educators promoting English-only use in schools refer back to similar quotations from President Reagan and other politicians from that time.  In the modern era, this narrow view on language makes even less sense.  English-only legislation would place harmful restrictions on a society growing more plurilinguistic each day. 

            English language ideologies in other countries center on the idea that learning Standard English will lead students to academic and eventually economic growth.  Although learning some form of English is definitely beneficial, research has demonstrated that English-language learners rarely speak Standard English.  Internationally, citizens of respective countries typically form their own dialect of English (Singapore English, Australian English, etc.).  Standard English throughout the globe may be the ideal, but many different variations of English across the world is the current reality.  These different dialects are often filled with code-switching—the use of two distinct languages within a sentence or conversation.  According to the Farr & Song article, code-switching is not random, but it is a strategic communicative move by bilingual speakers (656).  Bilingual speakers typically use the language that will best communicate their point; if that requires using multiple languages within a paragraph, then they will do so.  Another interesting thing I learned from the Farr & Song article is that ideologies are more persistent than policies (654).  This may seem obvious, but it worries me that people in society are more willing to change laws than incorporate new ideas into their beliefs.  Although laws and language policies change constantly, it seems that many racist values continue to persist.  As a future educator, hopefully I can ensure that these ideas are not still in practice when the next generation reaches adulthood. 

            On page 660 of the Farr & Song article, it describes teachers’ roles in regards to language ideology and policy.  Although teachers do not design the policies or create the laws, they are in charge of implementing the chosen policies on the front line—directly with students.  The article brings up the idea of teachers being empowered in this sense.  However, I disagree.  Individual teachers do not really have the power to dictate language use in classrooms; these policies are created by administrative, state, and even federal leaders.  The use of multiple languages in education is an important national issue and does not fall under the umbrella of a teacher’s classroom management.  Individual teachers could face serious consequences for undermining a district’s or state’s view on language learning and use in schools.  This is one of the reasons that I will eventually pursue higher education in the field of educational leadership; I want a role in which I can ensure that students can freely learn in a multicultural and multilingual environment.