This article investigates the need for both a theoretical and a practical way to understandthe construction of linguistic and social competence as perceived by emergent bilingualand multilingual students of color in an American urban elementary school. In doing so, itemploys Critical Narrative Analysis to look at how linguistic (mis)alignments and institu-tional discourses of school success in the US shape the ways in which these children madesense of their schooling experiences through co-constructed narratives. Findings pinpointchildren’s perceptions of academic success being closely linked to communicative prac-tices in Mainstream American English. Beyond academic success, findings highlight thesocial exclusion of children from play and affinity groups based on Mainstream Ameri-can English linguistic competence and performance. Implications point toward the need tocreate spaces in which language (mis)alignments are acknowledged, (re)positioned at thecenter of the curriculum, and positively reframed.
“I like talking to Rabbit. He talks about sensible things. He doesn’t use long, difficult words, like Owl. He uses short,easy words, like ‘What about lunch?”’ (Milne, 1928, p. 58)
In this quote, Winnie-the-Pooh, a central character in Milne’s English tales, speaks of language alignment and affinity. Hisuote speaks to individuals’ preferences to talk with other individuals who don’t use long, difficult words but rather short,asy words closely aligned to their own familiar practices and based on their own linguistic competence and performance.his preference aligns with an ethnocentric perspective—the “view of things in which one’s own group is the center ofverything, and all others are scaled and rated in reference to it” (Sumner, 1906, p. 12). Winnie-the-Pooh gives an examplehat would be problematic without contextualization cues (Gumperz, 1977), extralinguistic features employed to understandow words function. Without such cues, it is impossible to know for sure the meaning of utterances. Thus, “What about
unch?” could easily be understood as an invitation, a complaint, or a demand. This example illustrates the importancef recognizing that language is affected by the context of its use (Rymes, 2009) and that language alignment is linked toompetent identities and affinity group membership (Souto-Manning, 2010a; Gee, 2003).
In the opening quote, Pooh wanted to go see Rabbit who spoke like him, and not play with Owl who (from Pooh’s perspec-ive) spoke in long sentences and complicated words. While not referring to easy words and shorter sentences specifically,ut rather the familiarity of communicative practices and linguistic alignment, young children in early educational sett-
ngs often prefer to play and associate with those who, in addition to having common interests, being “associated with a
306 M. Souto-Manning / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 305– 315
given semiotic domain” (Gee, 2003, p. 27) with shared social practices and identities, also have common linguistic practices(Souto-Manning, 2010a). After all, as Nieto (2010) noted, “[h]ome cultures and native languages sometimes get in the wayof student learning not because of the nature of the home cultures or native languages themselves but rather because theydo not conform to the way that schools define learning” (p. 96).
As it explores issues of language and identity from the perspective of emergent bi/multilingual children of color1 inan American urban elementary school, this article makes the case that school success is based on a politics of linguisticalignment. Thus, the number of monolingual White teachers in today’s schools may significantly disadvantage the futures ofbi/multilingual2 students of color if such teachers take ethnocentric rather than critical anthropological perspectives whichquestion normative and taken-for-granted practices and behaviors.
2. Background of the problem
The rapidly shifting demographics of school-aged children, as well as continuing projections for the future (Diaz-Rico& Weed, 2006), suggest that the enrollment of children who are culturally and linguistically different from the historicallyoverprivileged and socially-constructed White middle class monolingual “norm3” in the U.S. (Goodwin, Cheruvu, & Genishi,2008) will continue to increase. These students are likely to differ from their teachers in race, ethnicity, primary languagespoken at home, and family income (Au & Raphael, 2000). This is especially the case in early childhood education, where3/4 of all teachers are White, female, middle class, and monolingual speakers of Mainstream American English4 (Instituteof Education Sciences, National Center for Education Research, 2008), being part of the “culture of power” (Delpit, 1988,p. 282). This disconnect can have serious repercussions for the educational futures of culturally and linguistically diversechildren as White teachers’ expectations tend to be measured against their own raced, cultured, and linguistically-specificpractices as if their own experiences were the norm against which all children’s performances were to be measured andevaluated (Derman-Sparks & Ramsey, 2011)—and for 75% of them, their own experiences greatly align with larger normativediscourses.
Cross, Devaney, and Jones (2001) have shown that many pre-service teachers in the US have negative attitudes and aremore critical toward languages and dialects other than Mainstream American English (MAE), considering MAE the correct,desired, and successful language. In their research, pre-service teachers listened to five different dialectic recordings andrated the speaker according to qualities such as intelligence, education, consideration, friendliness, honesty, trustworthiness,ambition, and social status. Results showed that just in listening to someone speak there were clear notions of that speaker’squalities, heavily aligned with the so-called “norm.” While this study revealed that teachers need to be aware of thosemisalignments (and the disadvantaging of children whose linguistic and cultural practices are misaligned with the “norm”),it also revealed negative perceptions pre-service teachers had of students who spoke differently from them.
Dooly (2005) has shown that teacher mindset can negatively affect the performance of linguistically diverse students,influencing the education these students receive and impacting the way they experience schooling. Fogel and Ehri (2006)documented how monolingual teachers’ lack of knowledge regarding different linguistic structures and communicativepractices may lead to constant correction and make linguistically diverse students feel “linguistically inadequate, insecure,and confused” (p. 466). Further, they asserted that negative teacher attitudes toward students using non-normative lan-guages and dialects can lead to those students being misdiagnosed as having language disorders (Fogel & Ehri, 2006). Manyof these deficit-ridden attitudes have been linked to linguistic and communicative practices (Souto-Manning, 2010a).
This article responds to the “great urgency for rethinking our understandings and practices of diversity in the current cli-mate of standardization, test scores, and scientifically based research set against the backdrop of social inequities” (Goodwinet al., 2008, p. 6). In doing so, it investigates the need for a theoretical and a practical way to understand the constructionof competence as perceived by six- to eight-year-old emergent bilingual and multilingual students of color in an Ameri-can urban elementary school, specifically pertaining to linguistic (mis)alignments (Souto-Manning, 2010a). This inquiry is
important because we must understand the construction of competence with regard to students of color who are primaryspeakers of languages other than MAE in order to disrupt the cycle of failure imposed upon culturally and linguisticallydiverse students (Haddix, 2008; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Nasir, McLaughlin, & Jones, 2009).
1 The term “of color” is employed to signify non-White persons. The term has deep historical roots—not to be confused with “colored” (Sen, 2012).“People of color” was first used in the French West Indies to refer to people of African descent who were not enslaved—who were “free people of color.”References to the term date back to the early 1800s. Today, it is a preferred and commonly used term, rather than minority, as people of color are no longerthe minority in many US settings.
2 The term bi/multilingual signifies a hybrid of bilingual and multilingual.3 By deeming knowledge culture-free, a norm is established based on the dominant culture and discourse, on the “culture of power” or “the culture of
those who have power” (Delpit, 1988, p. 282). Thus, the values teachers most commonly associate with success and hard work are those colored througha White supremacy perspective (Derman-Sparks & Ramsey, 2011)—e.g., most White people do not think to describe themselves as “White” when listingdescriptive terms about themselves, whereas people of color usually use racial and/or ethnic identity descriptors. Tatum (1999) suggested this is becausethe elements of one’s identity that are congruent with the dominant culture are so normalized and reflected back that one is apt to take such traits forgranted.
4 Mainstream American English (MAE) is the variety of English spoken in the United States considered by most Americans to be correct. MAE is theEnglish variety that is predominantly taught in US schools. It is considered necessary for participation and success in American society. Some refer to it as“Standard English.” Because I do not believe in the notion of a standard language, I prefer to employ the term MAE.
Wteeibda
cdogcs
hEw
Tm(Biaiar(rp
3
ipvsctat2ba
rl&lliw
M. Souto-Manning / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 305– 315 307
Students from linguistically and culturally non-normative backgrounds are more likely to be disadvantaged due to (mostlyhite) teachers’ ethnocentric tendencies, beliefs, and perspectives. This means that they are more likely to be disadvan-
aged and attributed institution-identities (Gee, 2001) as unsuccessful students. Gee (2001) proposed that we examine anynactment of self from four perspectives: nature-identity (a state; e.g., physical markers), institution-identity (a position;.g., the identities assigned to people or recognized by institutions of power), discourse-identity (an individual trait; e.g.,dentities constructed in relationships) and affinity-identity (experiences; e.g., ways of knowing and doing we engage in touild relationships around particular interests and goals). I posit that for culturally, linguistically, and racially diverse stu-ents these last three identities are negotiated in schools in complex ways. This article illustrates how institution-identitiesre closely linked to discourse-identities and how these institution-identities heavily influence affinity-identities.
From a critical discursive perspective, this article addresses the question: “What counts as academic success?” as itonsiders theoretical and methodological dilemmas associated with language diversities and the institutional discoursesefining academic competence. In doing so, it looks at how linguistic (mis)alignments largely shape institutional discoursesf schooling success. Further, it looks at social aspects of schooling as it considers the role of home languages in affinityroup membership (Gee, 2003). Through the analysis of narratives co-constructed by emergent bilingual and multilingualhildren, it helps us understand the ways in which speakers of Mainstream American English continue to be privileged inchools (Haddix, 2010).
This privilege is a historical issue—yet it is prevalent today as we continue to see extremely low graduation rates and veryigh rates of suspension and disciplinary actions among students of color whose first language is not Mainstream Americannglish (Benner & Graham, 2011; Rust, Jackson, & Ponterotto, 2011). Nearly thirty years ago, in 1984, Shirley Brice Heathrote:
Schooling may bring with it a growing sense of dissonance between the knowledge transmitted by the familiar groupsin which we first achieve our identity and the subsequent transitional educational experiences of lifelong learning.Every student must then search for the degree of correspondence among the prior learning in home and community,the teachings of formal institutions, and the information and skills which the adult world of work and leisure willdemand. (p. 251)
his is still true today. This dissonance continues to disadvantage students whose cultures and language practices do notirror the culture and language of power (Delpit, 1988) sponsored in schools and society. Yet, I posit that this negotiation
which can easily become a process of assimilation and colonization) should not be left to the child. While No Child Leftehind (2001) reinforces the idea “that the ‘problem of schooling’ is somehow unconnected to the larger social structures of
nequalities in which schools exist” (Kantor & Lowe, 2006, p. 485), many researchers have shown otherwise. For example,ccording to Daiute and Fine (2003), “public schools. . .are often distant from or oppressive to the ways of knowing andnteracting of youth from racial and ethnic ‘minority’ backgrounds” (p. 6). Furthermore, a decontextualized and skills-basedpproach to teaching and learning is largely misaligned with students’ cultural practices and future needs in a world that isapidly shifting, diverse, and multimodal (Kinloch, 2010). Thus, if we are to bring the premise of Brown vs. Board of Educationto end racial segregation in public schools, doing away with the premise of “separate but equal” schools and schooling) toeality, we need to rethink teaching and learning. We must refashion curricula that foregrounds the language and culturalractices of children from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds.
. Conceptual framework
This article seeks to uncover discursive constructions of academic success in the US in light of the power discourses thatnfluence (and even shape) everyday actions (Delpit, 1988; Fairclough, 2003). I approach this study from a critical anthro-ological perspective, seeking to question taken-for-granted definitions and behaviors, naming the issues while coming toiew customary behaviors in a new light, and questioning the reasons why we (and any cultural group or individual) act ino-called “ordinary” ways. Such a perspective explores the ways in which six- to eight-year-old bi/multilingual students ofolor construct their own identities through narratives within and across settings—affinity groups and academic realms—inhe context of an after school program. To do so from a linguistic perspective, I employ an analytical approach to researchnd praxis (Freire, 1970) that can accommodate both the power of the discursive social field as well as the moral impulseo take a stand—bringing critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 2003) and conversational narrative analysis (Ochs & Capps,001) together as Critical Narrative Analysis (Souto-Manning, 2012, 2013). Critical Narrative Analysis (CNA) encompassesoth theory and method. This kind of analysis deals with real world issues, demystifying the social construction of realitynd recognizing social interactions as places for norms to be challenged and changed.
Theoretically, CNA carefully considers the central place of the physical person and of material conditions (Archer, 2000). Itecognizes not only how the system in place (e.g., government, city department of education, individual school) colonizes theifeworld, but also how the lifeworld can appropriate the system to the infinitely varied concerns of individuals (Chouliaraki
Fairclough, 1999; Habermas, 1987). Methodologically, the analysis of conversational narratives serves as a means to study
anguage and to understand the relationship between the system and the ways individuals narratively make sense of theirives; after all, narrative is one of the most widely used ways of organizing human experience (Bruner, 1990). “Telling storiess the most universal means human beings have for conveying to others who we are, what we believe, how we feel, what
e value, and how we see the world” (Rymes, 2001, p. 163).
308 M. Souto-Manning / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 305– 315
It is through narrative that experiences are permeated with meaning and ordered. Narrative is “an organizing principleby which people organize their experience in, knowledge about, and transactions with the social world” (Bruner, 1990, p.35). Thus, in order to gain insights into the schooling experiences of young emergent bi/multilingual children in an Americanurban elementary school, my focus is on their narratives. While focusing on their narratives, I am aware that such narrativesare influenced by larger institutional discourses, but also that such discourses do not necessarily dictate what happens inindividuals’ narratives.
Conversational narratives are a complex weave of individuals’ unique concerns and recycled institutional discourses.Through conversational narratives, individuals can commence questioning their realities and problem solving, a criticalprocess. Hence, I seek to understand the effects of institutional discourses (e.g., mass media and expert systems) throughtheir instantiation in the lifeworld, at the personal level, in everyday narratives co-constructed by children. This means payingclose attention to the narratives they co-constructed while recognizing not only how particular systems may colonize theirexperiences but also how their everyday experiences and narratives can appropriate (and even recast) specific systems inmany different ways that are determined by individual and collective concerns.
In looking at the linguistic and cultural practices of emergent bi/multilingual children, I carefully consider not onlyhow the system in place discursively colonizes this lifeworld, the everyday stories the children tell, but also how theireveryday stories can lead us to appropriate the system with regard to specific situations and concerns affecting individuals(Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999; Habermas, 1987). Thus, in conducting research, to access and understand the relationshipbetween a broader system and the individual lifeworld, I engage in the simultaneous analysis of conversational narrativesand institutional discourses, considering the ways in which conversational narratives bring together individuals’ uniqueconcerns while intertextually employing institutional discourses. Theoretically and methodologically, CNA allows me tolook at language in use (at macro and micro levels) from a critical anthropological perspective.
4. Research design
Given the importance of fully inclusive education and the historical failure of culturally and linguistically diverse chil-dren of color in US schools, this article addresses the following question: What counts as educational success? Seeking toaddress the above question in depth, this study pursues the following sub-questions: (1) In what ways do young emergentbi/multilinguals take up issues of educational success and inclusion as they co-construct conversational narratives?; (2) Howdo these students talk about the factors that impede and/or facilitate their educational success?; (3) What factors do theyemploy to index5 competence?
4.1. The Teaching Immigrant Children Project: setting the context
Teaching Immigrant Children was an after school program designed to strengthen the language and literacy skills ofimmigrant children whose first languages were other than Mainstream American English by building on their linguisticstrengths and cultural experiences. The children participating in the program were in first and second grades (ages 6–8).The program took place at a public elementary school (kindergarten—5th grade) in New York City’s borough of Manhattanwith an enrollment of approximately 750 students. The school’s attendance zone was comprised of government-subsidizedhousing and apartments costing from a few hundred thousand to a few million US dollars. The attendance zone of thisschool was nestled between the neighborhoods of the Upper West Side and Harlem—comprising great racial and linguisticdiversity. Walking along the city blocks surrounding the school, one could easily hear Spanish, African American Language,and Mainstream American English. The school was very supportive of Spanish, yet the city and state assessment measures(such as standardized tests—widespread measures of educational success in the US) were all in MAE, thus the official andinstitutional measure of one’s academic success was in MAE.
During the year this study took place, the school’s attendance rate was over 90% and the rate of free/reduced lunch wasnearly 70% (US Department of Education documentation of low/no income families). The school’s demographics were: 15%White, 25% African American, 55% Latino/a, and 5% Asian/Asian American. The percentage of students who reached profi-ciency in reading and math as measured by standardized tests was approximately 50%. Around 20% of the school’s studentswere identified as English language learners and 20% were receiving special education services—an overrepresentation inboth categories given city, state, and national percentages. The school had a Spanish-English dual language program, whichfollowed a rollercoaster model of dual immersion, “an alternative to monocultural, monolingual education” (García & Jensen,2006, p. 1), with language division by schedule—the curriculum was taught one day in English and the following day in Span-ish, so that half of instructional days were English days and half were Spanish days. About half of the students in each dual
language classroom spoke Spanish and the other half spoke English (enrollment records did not distinguish among varietiesof English) as primary languages. Students (close to half of whom were Latino/a) received separate language-specific reportcards for all subject areas. In this school, the same teacher remained with the class on English and Spanish days.
5 The indexical or context-dependent aspects of language are important tools for understanding the cultural expectations to which children are subjected(Rymes, 2004).
aocTpcro
b(dNafsls
wsapA
4
tpMac
4
p(t2
taacca
4
oicaalc(l
M. Souto-Manning / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 305– 315 309
This grant-funded after school program was provided at no cost to students identified by their teachers as needingdditional academic help. Two female co-teachers worked with a group of 11 students two times per week (2:40–5 pm)ver the course of a 15-week semester. The co-teachers held Bachelor degrees and were pursuing graduate degrees in earlyhildhood education in a large college of education in New York City. One of them was a Spanish-English bilingual Latina.he other was White and a monolingual speaker of Mainstream American English. Each of them had more than one year ofrevious experience as lead teachers in preschool and primary grades settings. Together, they planned weekly and sought toonduct culturally relevant lessons. Their plans focused on cross-linguistic and transcultural aspects of learning, focusing one-mediating (Gutiérrez, Morales, & Martínez, 2009) the children’s home cultures and languages and the language and culturef power in the children’s school so as to better equip the children to succeed in traditional academic settings (Delpit, 1988).
The goal of the project was to engage young immigrant children identified as coming from so-called “disadvantagedackgrounds” in language and literacy-rich activities which honored their backgrounds and cultural legacies, re-mediatingGutiérrez et al., 2009) their home practices and school expectations. While remediation (which frames children in terms ofeficits) remains a central strategy in addressing the academic needs of students who differ from the dominant norm undero Child Left Behind (2001), the basic rule of re-mediation involves an expansive, hybrid, and additive approach to differencesnd diversities. Social rules of participation and learning as well as the roles of teacher and learner are re-mediated by neworms of collective activity and new ways of using reading and writing. The notion of re-mediation—with its focus on theocio-historical influences of students’ learning and on the context of their development—involves a stronger notion ofearning and disrupts the ideology of pathology linked to most approaches to remediation. Instead of emphasizing basickills—problems of the individual—re-mediation reorganizes learning.
Within this context, children learned by doing as teachers made purposeful connections and re-mediated misalignmentsithin and across home and school communicative practices. The program extended the school day for these children and
ought to deepen their understandings of language and literacy—linking talking, reading and writing with their interestsnd experiences while providing them access to the language and culture of power (Delpit, 1988). Thus, primarily, theroject sought to make education more inclusive for immigrant children whose first languages were other than Mainstreammerican English.
.1.1. Role of researcherMy role, as a Latina immigrant and multilingual teacher educator, was to design the program, secure funding, and oversee
he planning and assessment aspects of the program. I met with teachers weekly to reflect on happenings and engage inedagogical planning. While not teaching, I was part of the after school program many days, documenting its ongoings.y identity as a primary speaker of a language other than Mainstream American English connected me with students
nd families—commonly, we engaged in code-switching and shared immigrant stories. This is an important theoreticalonsideration as it positioned me and student participants as having shared cultural and linguistic experiences.
.2. Data collection and coding process
This article focuses on the everyday narratives that 11 children of color co-constructed in the Teaching Immigrant Childrenroject in a New York City public elementary school. Nine of these are represented in the selected co-constructed narrativesbelow). The co-constructed narratives analyzed here were digitally recorded during independent time (without directeacher intervention or interaction) during the first and the last two weeks of this generative, interest-based (Souto-Manning,010b) semester-long after school program for “emergent bilinguals” (García & Kleifgen, 2010) and multilinguals.
All of the co-constructed narratives occurred during times that were not teacher-led and were selected from narrativesranscribed from eight sessions. The conversational narratives presented here were selected in terms of representativenessnd were solely co-constructed by the young participants of this program. In addition to recordings, I and/or a researchssistant (Asian female and primary speaker of a language other than MAE) took field notes, which sought to elucidate theontext of the recorded interactions. Nevertheless, we sought to limit our presence as a way of minimally affecting thehildren’s interactions, which meant that at times we had to seek clarification from the children—asking them to providedditional contextual information. These member checks were conducted within a week.
.3. The narratives selected
As previously stated, I brought critical lenses to the analysis. Procedurally, after the data collection was complete for eachf the phases, I transcribed the interactions and added interpretive notes as I brought together field notes and transcriptionsn data packets. I took all the observational and interpretive entries, field notes, and supporting materials and analyzed eacho-constructed narrative separately. I conducted preliminary retrospective analysis, reading and rereading the primary datand engaged in open coding (Miles & Huberman, 1994). I began a list of categories that were relevant to the research questionnd subquestions. I combined preliminary codes and focused on those that were prevalent across data packets. Finally, I
ooked at both data sets together, combining interpretations (especially where they differed). Throughout the process, focalhildren were asked to engage in member checks in order to clarify and complete the analysis. The primary categories were:1) institutional and narrative constructions of academic success; (2) linguistic competence and affinity groups; and (3)inguistic identity and academic performance.
310 M. Souto-Manning / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 305– 315
Analytically organizing the data this way helped me select representative narratives, situated representations of thelarger data set both in terms of content as well as format. From this data set, I present two co-constructed narratives here(one collected within the first two weeks and the other collected within the last two weeks of the after school program). Thetwo narratives are analyzed across the three primary categories. To varying degrees, the two situated representations belowdisplay the presence of the three categories identified across the data, which were collected over this four-week period.To take a closer look at the narratives, I employed Critical Narrative Analysis as I sought to identify larger institutionaldiscourses (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999) and agentive positionings in everyday narratives (Souto-Manning, 2010b, 2012)within each identified category. Below, I present the two co-constructed narratives before engaging in analysis.
4.3.1. Narrative #16
This narrative occurred on the fourth day this group of children met in the context of the after school program. Afterexploring who they were as unique human beings, their names, and their families, they were recounting their journeythrough a day—real or imaginary. Following an oral storytelling activity in which students were able to tell their stories outloud after drafting them via pictures and/or collages on storyboards, the students had sat at self-selected tables engagingin independent writing. Teachers were conducting writing conferences at other tables. During this writing session, thefollowing conversational narrative was co-constructed:
Susi: Como se escribe “Little Pet Shop” en inglés? [How do you spell “Little Pet Shop” in English?]María: Así! [Like this!] ((María writes down litol Pet shoP)) Si no sabes nada de inglés, you will not do well in school. [If you
don’t know any English, you will not do well in school.]Julia: No, no sabes que estás hablando. [No, you don’t know what you are talking about.]Esperanza: Sí, verdad? [Yes, right?]Susi: Well, entonces I never gonna do well cuz mi mamá no sabe nada de inglés. [Well, so I never gonna do well cuz my
mother doesn’t know any English.]María: I’m so:::o not saying that.Susi: Pero es lo que todos dicen. [But it’s what everyone says.]María: Where?Susi: En la tele, en la calle, y aquí también. [On TV, on the street, and here too.]María: Aquí en la escuela? No creo. [Here at school? I don’t think so.]Julia: No creo que las maestras= [I don’t think that the teachers=]Susi: =Sólo me va bien cuando es de día espanol [I only do well when it’s Spanish day] ((referring to the Spanish-English
dual language program roller coaster model employed by the school)). Cuando es dia de espanol, tengo muchasamigas que quieren saber como se dice o como se escribe una palabra y otra. [When it’s Spanish day I have a lot of(girl)friends who want to know how to say a word or how to write another word.]
Esperanza: Yo también. Y cuando es dia de inglés, me quedo quieta. [Me too. And when it’s English day I just stay still.]Susi: Y yo sola porque no tengo tantas amigas. Las que hablan inglés no más quieren jugar conmigo. [And I am alone
because I don’t have many friends. Those who speak English just don’t want to play with me.]((Julia shows agreement by nodding.))
4.3.2. Narrative #2The co-constructed narrative below took place at a table when five boys were doing their homework (immediately before
the official start of the after school program). Malik and Juan were asking Luis to explain how to complete one of the tasksassigned by the first grade teachers. While their homework was different, they all had to engage in reading for a period oftime. This interaction took place in the next to last week of the after school program.
Malik: You smart, you know!Juan: ¡Muy listo! [Very smart!]Luis: Sometimes—when I wanna be. Sometimes people think I’m not smart. But I know Spanish and English.Malik: ¡Y yo también! [And me too!]Juan: And me too!Luis: And I gotta do my homework all by myself.Juan: ¡La tarea! [Homework!]Elvis: Sometimes I don’t cuz I don’ like them books. No porque no pueda, pero no quiero hacer. [Not because I can’t, but
because I don’t want to do (it).]Xavier: Yea.Elvis: The books in Spanish are not as good. But I am better in Spanish. So, if I wanna read what I want, I gotta read English
and if I wanna read in Spanish I gotta read something I don’t like. And then some boys in Ms. [Teacher] class think I’mstupid. I’m not.
Xavier: And they don’t want to play with you. It don’t matter if you like Bakugan or even if you got them.You know, you only gotta play with people who talk like you.
Juan: ¿Por que? [Why?] Why you sayin’ that?
6 A few notes regarding transcript notations employed: (1) colons show degrees of elongation of the prior sound; the more colons, the more elongatedthe sound; (2) equal sign indicates latching of contiguous utterances with no interval or overlap; (3) double parentheses indicate scenic or contextualinformation; and (4) brackets were employed to substitute proper nouns within speech in order to preserve confidentiality.
XLXL
MLMLXMLJ
4
lttataTal
4
wsabwncof
papsscdi
li1“Echat
4
ti
M. Souto-Manning / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 305– 315 311
avier: Cuz, man, you know, they don’t want to play with me.uis: Do you wait for them to ask?avier: Yea.uis: I don’t. I just say, “Hey, my Zoompha can beat your Hurrix!” And then, “Let’s bra::awl!” That means let’s battle in
Bakugan. You gotta know that=alik: =Yea=
uis: =You gotta show them what you know. In English. If I wanna play with them, I talk like them.alik: A::and you gotta know the rules.
uis: And put your cards down like this ((shows with his hands how the cards need to be put together)).avier: I get it.alik: You gotta show them what you kno::ow.
uis: And really re:::eally know it.uan: En inglés. [In English.]
.4. Data analysis and findings
In looking at the co-constructed narratives above, I seek to delve beyond face value identity constructions. On a societalevel, I explore children’s recycling of institutional discourses (which in this case frame linguistic diversities as deficits) ashey co-constructed their stories, making sense of their realities. On a more situated level, I examine how they portrayedhemselves regarding agency. I look at two displays of agency: grammatical and framing agency. Grammatical agency isgency portrayed linguistically by the use of subject plus active verb. When a person portrays her/himself as an actor inhe sentence (subject) as opposed to a passive recipient (object) of the action, grammatical agency is displayed. Framinggency is the narrator’s character alignment with normative and situated morals—in this case, academic and social success.hus in studying everyday narratives that portray the ways in which students position themselves in academic settings andffinity groups, I take a critical look at language, paying particular attention to the relationship between the system and theifeworld.
.4.1. Institutional discourses and/in narrative constructions of academic successIn the first conversational narrative co-constructed by four girls—pseudonyms María, Susi, Julia, and Esperanza—there
as a clear articulation of the institutional discourse shaping María’s perspective that English is imperative for doing well inchool and Susi’s claim that this was what everyone said. Susi clearly articulated the power discourse that she heard overtlynd covertly on TV, on the streets of NYC (even though NYC is a multilingual city), and even in school. Susi then said thatecause her mother did not know any English, she would not do well in school, thus positioning herself as someone whoas pre-determined to fail. Here Susi internalized deficit language ideologies as she initially positioned herself in her ownarrative in non-agentive ways. Nevertheless, later in the co-constructed narrative, Susi repositioned herself agentively andompetently when referring to Spanish days in her classroom. However, she continued to position herself non-agentivelyn English days when she felt all alone and did not have any friends. Julia showed agreement by nodding. When probedurther, Julia said that this had been her experience as well.
The institutional narrative of linguistically diverse homes as deficient and academic failure as attributed to inadequatearenting was clear in the girls’ conversational narrative. They themselves had started internalizing the discourse of successs being communicatively and performatively competent in Mainstream American English only—regardless of their com-etence in languages such as Spanish and African American Language. While it is important to learn the codes of power toucceed in school and in society (Delpit, 1988), this should not come at the expense of home languages and literacies. Thisubtractive discourse had been clearly articulated (Valenzuela, 1999) and in this case served as a tool for colonization. Yet, wean see that Esperanza had figured out how to display competence in the classroom by choosing to remain quiet on Englishays, thus positioning herself agentively—silence here became an act of resistance (Haddix, 2012). This was illustrated across
nteractions and further supported by a debriefing interview.In the second narrative, which took place in the second to last week of the after school program, five boys articulated a
arger discourse of competence—doing one’s homework. This is coherent with Valenzuela’s concept of “subtractive school-ng,” whereby “policies and practices develop as part of an ongoing project by Anglo America to consolidate its claim” (Sleeter,999, p. xviii). Yet, even in subtractive times, they managed to challenge this construction of competence and refuted thestupid” label attributed to those who did not do their homework. Luis associated being smart with knowing Spanish andnglish. While they articulated their ability to complete their homework, they also articulated the reasons why at times theyhose not to—e.g., the availability of books in Spanish and English, specifically with regard to their interests. Luis positionedimself agentively with regard to his homework. Elvis also problematized the institutional discourse of being successfulcademically based on doing one’s homework when he evaluated the quality of books available—and asserted that he hado select language or interest, but could not do both.
.4.2. Linguistic competence and affinity groupsThe larger discourse here, portrayed in both narratives, is that linguistic alignment, and more specifically, alignment with
he power language (in this case, Mainstream American English) is significant in affinity group membership. This clearlyllustrates that “there are codes or rules for participating in power; that is, there is a “culture of power”” (Delpit, 1988, p.
312 M. Souto-Manning / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 305– 315
282) even among peers in classrooms and schools. In a way, it is an “if you can’t say, you can’t play” approach, which reallyreworks the meaning of Paley’s (1993) well known title You Can’t Say You Can’t Play.
In the first group, Susi stated (translated): “When it’s Spanish day I have a lot of (girl)friends who want to know how to say aword or how to write another word.” So, her Spanish linguistic competence afforded her membership in affinity groups, suchas those who loved Little Pet Shop (as indicated by Susi in a member check following the co-constructed narrative). Yet, onEnglish days, even though she continued to like Little Pet Shop play, she was not invited to become part of the affinity group.Her membership was thus determined by linguistic alignment with the dominant language, with the language of power(Delpit, 1988). When asked if those who spoke English played together on Spanish days, Susi responded: “¡Por supuesto!”[“Of course!”]. Affinity group membership here was based on linguistic alignment—unless one’s primary language was thepower language, in which case alignment did not seem to matter.
In the second conversational narrative, Xavier stated: “And they don’t want to play with you. It don’t matter if youlike Bakugan or even if you got them. You know, you gotta play with people who talk like you.” In his statement Xavierclearly articulated affinity-identity, which was based on interest and knowledge, to be distinct from affinity group mem-bership, which was based on language. While it is not clear whether Xavier was referring to the Bakugan language orto the Mainstream American English language, later on, Luis asserted that both were important: “I just say, “Hey, myZoompha can beat your Hurrix!” And then, “Let’s bra::awl!” That means let’s battle in Bakugan. . .In English. If I wannaplay with them, I talk like them.” Thus, it was not enough to know Bakugan language in order to play and be part of anaffinity group. Linguistic alignment clearly mattered. To play with speakers of MAE, the boys had to speak “En inglés,” asJuan stated. While engaging in a colonizing discourse of English as the power language, the boys moved from an objectto a subject agentive positioning—from Xavier stating that he waited for an invitation to play (which never worked)to Luis and Malik corroborating a path to agentively becoming part of the Bakugan play. Luis positioned himself gram-matically in an active role: “I just say. . .” Xavier then came to redefine his positioning agentively, “I get it” instead ofthe earlier “they don’t want to play with you” which grammatically positioned the decision and power in the hands ofothers.
Both groups clearly articulated the importance of language to affinity group membership. While researchers such as Gee(2003) have asserted that affinity-identity is based on knowledge and interest, in both instances we clearly see the role oflinguistic alignment in affinity group membership within this setting. In this situated representation of a larger phenomenon(Dyson & Genishi, 2005), the importance of speaking Mainstream American English or the dominant language of the day(i.e. Narrative #1) is clear and socially constructed as a pre-requisite to being a full member of the affinity group—with playbenefits.
4.4.3. Linguistic identity and academic performanceAcross conversational narratives, the children asserted that their linguistic identities were linked to their attributed
academic performances. For example, in Narrative #1, María stated “Si no sabe nada de inglés, you will not do well inschool,” regardless of the fact that the school had a dual language program (Spanish-English) and employed a rollercoastermodel. When probed further, María said: “Mami said that the real tests, the ones that count are in English.” Thus, theinstitutional discourse of tests imposed by the No Child Left Behind legislation (2001) further reified the superiority of theMainstream American English linguistic identity, closely linking it to academic performance. These students were likely tobe deemed unable (or not meeting “grade level standards,” another social construction) due to their developing knowledgeof and competence in MAE.
Even when they spoke English (cf. Narrative #2), their talk featured aspects of African American language (Baugh, 1999;Labov, 1972; Smitherman, 1998)—e.g., “cuz I don’ like them books”—alongside Mainstream American English and Span-ish. This rich linguistic repertoire was nevertheless couched in negative and deficit terms by some of their peers. Theirsophisticated remix of MAE, Spanish, and African American language became indexed as incompetence, regardless of theirphonological, grammatical, lexical, and discursive choices as exemplified by Luis’s “Sometimes people think I’m not smart.But I know Spanish and English.” When asked what he meant by this, Luis said: “Sometimes people think I don’t know theword cuz I go from English to Spanish. They just don’ get it!” Thus his identity was constructed by his peers—who werecolonized by larger institutional discourses that framed linguistic diversities as deficits—as someone who was not knowl-edgeable of Mainstream American English, as someone who was not “smart.” In reality Luis was using a complex systemsimultaneously encompassing the rules and conventions of three languages, coordinating their structure in meaningfulways, thus displaying concurrent competence within and across three sets of communicative practices (Martínez, 2010).
From the perspective of identity as a “quintessentially social phenomenon” (Bulcholtz & Hall, 2004, p. 377), we gainvaluable insights into the construction of these students’ identities as academically unsuccessful by peers who themselveslacked an understanding of this complex linguistic remix. In this case, “the kind of person one appears to be (one’s identity)is constructed through discourse (language in use)” (Rymes, 2009, p. 19). Nevertheless, those identities constructed in the
power language (Mainstream American English) seem to hold more weight. So, here the kind of person someone is—“muylisto,” “stupid,” “smart,” etc.—is largely dependent on the kinds of social interactions a person has in Mainstream AmericanEnglish. Since these social interactions were influenced by deficit-ridden institutional discourses (as illustrated by the narra-tives above), they likely conferred deficit identities to emergent bi/multilingual students and/or anyone who deviated from
td
4
toms
gbtoildf1
sAdos
p(AtaoaAyoo
5
tlaAct
swC“ca
M. Souto-Manning / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 305– 315 313
he so-called linguistic norm, school Discourse (Gee, 1996), or “culture of power” (Delpit, 1988). Some of these institutionaliscourses were intertextually woven into the conversational narratives co-constructed by this article’s focal children.
.5. Insights from findings
Despite the progress made in sociolinguistics over the last 40 years, some varieties of language are still considered tobe merely incorrect or degenerate forms of the “standard” language that is used in the mass media, in formal educationand in formal written genres, more generally. These views are often held by speakers of these varieties themselves,as well as by society in general. Thus, these varieties are marginalized, and considered inappropriate for use in publicspheres. (Siegel, 2006, p. 157)
Scholars interested in language diversity issues have long argued that “deficit” and “cultural deprivation” conceptualiza-ions of emergent bi/multilinguals have contributed to the inequities experienced by students who are speakers of languagesther than Mainstream American English (Valencia, 1991). In order to make a paradigmatic shift and change discourses thatarginalize linguistically diverse students, it is important to understand how language ideologies (Razfar, 2005) influence
tudents’ perceptions through institutional discourses and affect their very lives and schooling.As emergent bi/multilinguals, students who are native speakers of languages other than MAE need to learn the
raphophonemic, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic aspects of more than one language, becoming bi/multilingual andi/multiliterate. But beyond learning about language, they need to “learn to use language appropriately in social interac-ions to reflect their knowledge of the people about them; in so doing, they ha[ve]. . .to share background knowledge withther speakers” (Heath, 1984, pp. 254–255) and, I would argue, communicative competence and performance. Here it ismportant to note the cultural aspect of communication. After all, the word “appropriate” is one of the most culturallyoaded in the English dictionary (New & Mallory, 1994). Thus to “use language appropriately” (Heath, 1984, p. 254) is toisplay communicative competence in the most powerful and officially sanctioned language used, acquiring the “linguisticorms, communicative strategies, and presentation of self” coherent with participation in the “culture of power” (Delpit,988, p. 282).
As these young emergent bi/multilinguals took up issues of educational success and inclusion in co-constructing conver-ational narratives, they unequivocally communicated the message that educational success counted most in Mainstreammerican English. They talked about MAE as being the main factor in—and other languages as obstacles to—succeeding aca-emically, thus making clear the linguistic privileging in our schools (and the subtractive process in which so many studentsf color have been socialized), which contributes to the systemic failure of so many students of color—from the earliestchooling years.
Socially and academically, they talked about their home language (Spanish) impeding academic success and leading theireers to construct their identities as academically unsuccessful, even when their teachers did not sponsor such a perspectiveas evident in the narratives presented earlier). Competence was thus linguistically indexed by proficiency in Mainstreammerican English. Further, not only did proficiency in Mainstream American English index academic success according to
he narratives co-constructed by the children, but it influenced the social relationships they developed (or didn’t) and theffinity groups of which they could become members (regardless of their interest and knowledge). Thus, linguistic alignment,r speaking the language of power (in this case, Mainstream American English, MAE), significantly influenced the academicnd social experiences of these children. Linguistic misalignment indexed academic failure and resulted in social exclusion.s Winnie-the-Pooh expressed in the opening quote, it is easier and more fun to spend time with a friend who speaks likeou. But, as Du Bois (1897) pinpointed, it is important to remember that you do not have to be White to be American; thusne should not have to be a native or sole speaker of MAE to succeed in school. Children who are native speakers of languagesther than MAE have the right to know this.
. Implications
This study points toward the need and benefits of making all students aware of language differences and similarities,hus breaking the silence around language (mis)alignment and challenging institutional power discourses which hierarchizeanguages and linguistic practices. If students are aware of how language (mis)alignment affects their own social interactionsnd thus shapes identities, they are better able to negotiate change. This does not mean ignoring the fact that Mainstreammerican English remains the language of power, but points toward the necessity of inviting educators to regard children’sommunicative practices as worthy and not as broken. Educators still have the responsibility to socialize all children intohe discourse of power, but do not need to take a subtractive stance to do so.
Implications thus reify the idea that “teachers must teach all students the explicit and implicit rules of power as a firsttep toward a more just society” (Delpit, 1988, p. 280). If we don’t, then we are further relegating and segregating childrenhose linguistic and cultural practices differ from the so-called norm. Issues of power were enacted in the Teaching Immigrant
hildren after school program, regardless of its progressive vision. While it is important to learn the rules to participate in theculture of power” or “the culture of those who have power” (p. 282), it is also important to give children whose languages andultures do not reflect this “culture of power” the clear message that they belong—that their home languages and literaciesre valued in school alongside the code of power. As articulated by these young children, school success continues to be built
314 M. Souto-Manning / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 305– 315
upon the politics of linguistic alignment. Thus, if we are to provide successful schooling experiences for all children, we mustexpand the number of teachers who are primary speakers of languages other than Mainstream American English while atthe same time educating all teachers about the importance of highlighting linguistic (mis)alignments in their teaching—froma critical anthropological perspective and not ethnocentrically.
In terms of praxis, this article offers immediate implications for transforming classroom practices. One way of envision-ing this sort of praxis is the creation of spaces in which language (mis)alignments are acknowledged and syncretically(re)positioned at the center of the curriculum alongside Mainstream American English. Such repositioning would allow lan-guage (mis)alignments to be reframed as language diversities. By reframing linguistic (mis)alignment from a more positiveperspective, teachers and students can begin fostering a relationship of appropriation (as opposed to colonization) with lan-guage (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999), as displayed by Luis in Conversational Narrative #2. In doing so, they can challengethe discourse of competence as linguistic alignment with the power language and culture (Delpit, 1988), thus revising andre-envisioning the ways in which linguistic diversities are framed in classrooms and schools. Reconceptualizing linguistic(mis)alignments in transparent, hopeful, and expansive ways can contribute to more culturally and linguistically diverseaffinity groups and challenge the unfairness and inequalities sponsored by the current politics of educational success.
References
Archer, M. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Au, K., & Raphael, T. (2000). Equity and literacy in the next millennium. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 170–188.Baugh, J. (1999). Out of the mouths of slaves: African American language and educational malpractice. Austin: University of Texas Press.Benner, A. D., & Graham, S. (2011). Latino adolescents’ experiences of discrimination across the first 2 years of high school: Correlates and influences on
educational outcomes. Child Development, 82(2), 508–519.Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Bulcholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2004). Language and identity. In S. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 369–395). Maldon, MA: Blackwell.Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Cross, J. B., Devaney, T., & Jones, G. (2001). Pre-service teacher attitudes toward differing dialects. Linguistics and Education, 12(4), 211–227.Daiute, C., & Fine, M. (2003). Youth perspectives on violence and injustice. Journal of Social Issues, 5(1), 1–14.Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280–298.Derman-Sparks, L., & Ramsey, P. (2011). What if all the kids are white? Anti-bias multicultural education with young children and families (2nd ed.). New York:
Teachers College Press.Diaz-Rico, L. T., & Weed, K. Z. (2006). The crosscultural, language, and academic development handbook: A complete K-12 reference guide. Boston: Pearson.Dooly, M. (2005). How aware are they? Research into teachers’ attitudes about linguistic diversity. Language Awareness, 14(2 and 3), 97–111.Du Bois, W. E. B. (1897). Strivings of the Negro people. The Atlantic Monthly, 80(August), 194–198.Dyson, A. H., & Genishi, C. (2005). On the case. New York: Teachers College Press.Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.Fogel, H., & Ehri, L. (2006). Teaching African American English forms to standard American English-speaking teachers: Effects on acquisition, attitudes, and
responses to student use. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(5), 464–480.Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.García, E., & Jensen, B. (2006). Dual language programs in US schools. Retrieved from www.ecehispanic.org/work/eegbjduallanguage1-17-06.pdfGarcía, O., & Kleifgen, J. (2010). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs and practices for English language learners. New York: Teachers College Press.Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Taylor & Francis.Gee, J. P. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99–125.Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about literacy and learning. New York: Palgrave.Goodwin, A. L., Cheruvu, R., & Genishi, C. (2008). Responding to multiple diversities in early childhood education: How far have we come? In C. Genishi, &
A. L. Goodwin (Eds.), Diversities in early childhood: Rethinking and doing (pp. 3–10). New York: Routledge.Gumperz, J. (1977). Sociocultural knowledge in conversational inference. In M. Saville-Troike (Ed.), Linguistics and anthropology, Georgetown University
round table on languages and linguistics, 1977. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Gutiérrez, K., Morales, P., & Martínez, D. (2009). Re-mediating literacy: Culture, difference, and learning for students from non-dominant communities.
Review of Research in Educational Research, 33, 212–245.Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action, Vol. 2, lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason. London: Heinemann.Haddix, M. (2008). Beyond sociolinguistics: Toward a critical approach to cultural and linguistic diversity in teacher education. Language and Education,
22(5), 254–270.Haddix, M. (2010). No longer on the margins: Researching the hybrid literate identities of Black and Latina preservice teachers. Research in Teaching of
English, 45(2), 97–123.Haddix, M. (2012). Talkin’ in the company of my sistas: The counterlanguages and deliberate silences of Black female students in teacher education.
Linguistics and Education, 23(2), 169–181.Heath, S. B. (1984). Linguistics and education. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13, 251–274.Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Research. (2008). Effects of preschool curriculum programs on school readiness: Report from the
preschool curriculum evaluation research initiative. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncer/pubs/20082009/sample.aspKantor, K., & Lowe, R. (2006). From new deal to no deal: No Child Left Behind and the devolution of responsibility for equal opportunity. Harvard Educational
Review, 76(4), 474–502.Kinloch, V. (2010). Harlem on our minds: Place, race, and the literacies of urban youth. New York: Teachers College Press.Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in Black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Martínez, R. (2010). Spanglish as literacy tool: Toward and understanding of the potential role of Spanish-English code-switching in the development of
academic literacy. Research in the Teaching of English, 45(2), 124–145.Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Milne, A. A. (1928). The house at Pooh corner. New York: Dutton children’s books.Nasir, N. S., McLaughlin, M. W., & Jones, A. (2009). What does it mean to be African American? Constructions of race and academic identity in an urban
public high school. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 73–114.New, R. S., & Mallory, B. L. (1994). Introduction: The ethic of inclusion. In B. Mallory, & R. New (Eds.), Diversity and developmentally appropriate practices:
Challenges for early childhood curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.Nieto, S. (2010). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities: 10th anniversary edition. New York: Teachers College Press.No Child Left Behind Act. (2001). Pub. L. No. 107-110.
M. Souto-Manning / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 305– 315 315
chs, E., & Capps, L. (2001). Living narrative: Creating lives in everyday storytelling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.aley, V. G. (1993). You can’t say you can’t play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.azfar, A. (2005). Language ideologies in practice: Repair and classroom discourse. Linguistics and Education, 16, 404–424.ust, J., Jackson, M., & Ponterotto, J. (2011). Biculturalism and academic achievement of African American high school students. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development, 39(3), 130–140.ymes, B. (2001). Conversational borderlands: Language and identity in an alternative urban high school. New York: Teachers College Press.ymes, B. (2004). Contrasting zones of cultural competence: Popular culture in a phonics lesson. Linguistics and Education, 14, 321–335.ymes, B. (2009). Classroom discourse analysis: A tool for critical reflection. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.en, R. (2012). Minorities? Try ‘people of color’. Retrieved from http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/18/opinion-minorities-try-people-of-color/iegel, J. (2006). Language ideologies and the education of speakers of marginalized language varieties: Adopting a critical awareness approach. Linguistics
and Education, 17, 157–174.leeter, C. (1999). Foreword. In A. Valenzuela (Ed.), Subtractive schooling. Albany: SUNY Press.mitherman, G. (1998). Black English/Ebonics: What it be like? In T. Perry, & L. Delpit (Eds.), The real Ebonics debate: Power, language, and the education of
African-American children (pp. 29–37). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.outo-Manning, M. (2010a). Teaching English learners: Building on cultural and linguistic strengths. English Education, 42(3), 249–263.outo-Manning, M. (2010b). Freire, teaching, and learning: Culture circles across contexts. New York: Peter Lang.outo-Manning, M. (2012). Critical narrative analysis: the interplay of critical discourse and narrative analyses. International Journal of Qualitative Studies
in Education, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2012.737046outo-Manning, M. (2013). Critical for whom?: Theoretical and methodological dilemmas in critical approaches to language research. In D. Paris, & M. Winn
(Eds.), Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.umner, W. G. (1906). Folkways: A study of the sociological importance of usages, manners, customs, mores and morals. New York: Ginn.atum, B. D. (1999). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race. New York: Basic Books.alencia, R. (1991). Chicano school failure and success: Research and policy agendas for the 1990s. New York: Falmer Press.alenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany: SUNY Press.
