CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 72Multilingual Education and PolicyCritical Race Theory in EducationLinguistic and Sociocultural Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The master's tools will never dismantle the master's school: Interrogating settler colonial logics in language education

Cioè-Peña, María·2022·Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
DOI 10.1017/s0267190521000209
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Racialized students are overrepresented in special- and English-learner education programs in the United States. Researchers have pointed to implicit bias in evaluation tools and evaluators as a cause resulting in calls for more culturally competent/relevant practices/assessments. However, this paper argues that racial overrepresentation is reflective of larger settler colonial frameworks embedded in linguistic standards that continue to drive education and language ideologies/practices globally but especially in U.S. schools. First, through an analysis of an orthoepic test used during the Parsley Massacre of 1937 on the island of Hispaniola, I present how the evaluation of accented language has been used to racialize and pathologize people. Secondly, through a comparative analysis of bilingualism in the U.S. and Canada, I show how linguistic variation is only devalued when it emerges from marginalized communities, affirming the white normative gaze as a mechanism for maintaining inequitable power structures. Finally, the paper presents how these logics are present in current manifestations of bilingual education. By indicating how racially, physically, and/or neurodivergent people are othered, this paper calls on the decolonization of applied linguistics in order to effectively address the over- and disproportionate representation of Black, Indigenous, and/or Latinx students within special- and English-learner programs., Spanish AbstractEn los Estados Unidos, estudiantes afrodescendientes, indígenas, y latines están sobrerrepresentados en programas de educación especial y aprendizaje de inglés. Investigadores académicos han señalado problemas en las herramientas de evaluación y los evaluadores como una causa que ha dado lugar a solicitudes de prácticas / evaluaciones más competentes / relevantes en términos de cultural. Sin embargo, este artículo sostiene que la sobrerrepresentación racial es un reflejo de marcos coloniales incrustados en los estándares lingüísticos que continúan instigando ideologías / prácticas sobre educación y lenguaje a nivel mundial, pero especialmente en las escuelas de EE.UU. Primero, a través de un análisis de una prueba ortopédica utilizada durante la Masacre de Perejil, presento cómo se ha utilizado la evaluación del lenguaje acentuado para racializar y patologizar a las personas. En segundo lugar, a través de un análisis comparativo del bilingüismo en los EE.UU. y Canadá, muestro cómo la variación lingüística solo se devalúa cuando surge de comunidades marginadas, afirmando la mirada Blanca y normativa como un mecanismo para mantener estructuras de poder desiguales. Finalmente, el artículo presenta cómo estas lógicas están presentes en la educación bilingüe corriente. Al indicar cómo se diferencian las personas a bases de raza, físico, y capacidad intelectual, este papel pide la descolonización de la materia de lingüística aplicada para atender de manera efectiva la representación excesiva y desproporcionada de estudiantes afrodescendientes, indígenas, y / o latine dentro de programas para educación especial y aprendizaje de inglés.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0267190521000209

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Show all 26 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Harry, 2014, Why are so many minority students in special education?
  2. Brantmeier, 2007, “Speak our language…abide by our philosophy”: Language and cultural assimilation at a U.S. midwestern high school, Forum on Public Policy Online, 2007, 2
  3. Cioè-Peña, 2017, Disability, bilingualism and what it means to be normal, Journal of Bilingual Education Research and Instruction, 19, 138
  4. Irvine, 2009, Language ideology and linguistic differentiation, Linguistic anthropology: A reader, 402
  5. 1989, Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking black
  6. Cioè-Peña, 2021, Transformative translanguaging espacios: Latinx bilingual children rompiendo fronteras
  7. Howard, L. K . (2010). Racism and Religious Bias in Castilian Spanish Language Dictionaries [Unpublished master's thesis]. Howard University.
  8. Lorde, 1984/2003, Feminist postcolonial theory: A reader

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Cioè-Peña, M.
Venue
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2022-03
Volume
42
Pages
25-33
ISSN
  • 0267-1905 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-6356
DOI
10.1017/s0267190521000209
OpenAlex
W4220917508
Cited by
70
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2
FWCI
36.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 16 d)
Locations
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Multilingual Education and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Race Theory in Education
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Linguistic and Sociocultural Studies
Keywords
settler colonialism, language teaching, racial overrepresentation, English language learners, special education, language norms, language variation, bilingual education, language ideology, culturally responsive assessment, neurodivergence, white normativity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review