TESOL and Policy Enactments- Perspectives From Practice(Pp. 447-463) TQ 2008

8/13/2019 TESOL and Policy Enactments- Perspectives From Practice(Pp. 447-463) TQ 2008

1/18

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)

TESOL and Policy Enactments: Perspectives from PracticeAuthor(s): Vaidehi Ramanathan and Brian MorganReviewed work(s):Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 3, Language Policies and TESOL: Perspectives fromPractice (Sep., 2007), pp. 447-463Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40264380.

Accessed: 16/01/2012 18:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tesolhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40264380?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40264380?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tesol


2/18

TESOL andPolicy nactments:PerspectivesromPracticeVAIDEHI RAMANATHANUniversityfCaliforniaDavis, California, nited tatesBRIAN MORGANYorkUniversityToronto, ntario,CanadaPrior esearchn the reaof anguage olicyndplanningLPP)hasbeenfocusedrimarilynmacro ecision-makingnd the mpactfnational,ocal, nd nstitutionaloliciesn educationalettings.nlyrecentlyave cholarsegun xamininghe verydayontextsnwhichpoliciesre nterpretedndnegotiatednwayshat eflectocalcon-straintsndpossibilities.he redirectionf nquiryowardituatedpolicynactmentsn TESOL s the entralheme fthis pecialssueandthe ntroductoryrticle.nthis rticle e addressndexpand nseveral ey hemeshat rise romndunifyhevariousontributionsto the ssue: a) theenhancedtatus ndimplicationsf ocalitynpolicy esearch,b) practitionergencyndtheethical oncernsn-volved,c) theglobalizationfparticularisticgendas i.e.,neo-liberalism)ndtheirmpactn nation-statedentitiesndpolicynact-ments.

on educationalandscapes o language olicies all?What resomewaysnwhich ndividuals nd institutionsecognize olicy-relatednequitiesnd whatustificationso they raw n as theyttempttoexplain, uestion, ext, nd changepolicies? n whatways o migra-tionswithinnd across ocales mpact anguageteaching nd learningcontextsndhowdoesthis lter ur notions fhowpoliciesgetthoughtabout and enacted?The various ieces n this pecial ssue re orientedtoward ddressing ifferentspects f thesequestionsn situatedways.Yet they re also oriented oward hebiggerpicture: he discourses,language deologies, ndglobalflows1cf.Appadurai, 996) that hape1Ourunderstandingf this erm omes rom ppadurai's1996,pp. 33-37) nfluentialbook,ModernitytLarge,nwhich edetails ive ey imensionsfglobal ulturallows:a)ethnoscapes,b) mediascapes,c) technoscapes,d) financescapes,nd (e) ideoscapes.lows ore-groundhemobility,ybridity,nd multidirectionaly f culturaloods nd deas.Thevisualmetaphorf scapeignifiesow hese lowsreunderstoodrom heperspectivesfsociohistoricallyituatedroupsnd ndividuals.

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 41, No. 3, September2007 447


3/18

thetypes f anguagepolicy uestionswemight ose or even magine tthisparticular istoricalmoment.Diverse s thesearticles re in theirfoci, aried s theyre ntheir xplorationfcommunityndpedagogicissues, nd geographicallyistants they refrom ach other, hey reheldtogether ypreoccupations ith owpractitionersnact ndtrans-form olicies n everydayontexts fteaching,earning,nd research-ing.Webelieve hat eading ndwritingboutour own nd other eople'sexperiences nd engagementswith anguage policiesenrichand ad-vanceTESOL professionalismnseveralmportantespects.orone,thelocalizedperspectivesfferedere llustrateheextent o which oliciesare ntimatelyndintegrallyiedto allaspects fourprofessionalpacesand afford s immediateways freckoningwhat s at stakewhen weread/hear boutpolicy nactmentsnd experiences. anguagepoliciesdo have onsequences for chooling, ublicbroadcasting,he ohesionofimagined ommunitiesnd nations Anderson, 983),or the statusandvitalityf ndigenous ndminorityanguages. till, s theLPP fieldhasincreasinglyome torecognize,uchconsequences rpolicy ffectsoften evelop nunintended runplannedwaysEggington,002). In-deed, as foregrounded ywayof performativityheory Pennycook,2006, 2007), the declarative r propositional ontentof a languagepolicy,whenarticulatedocally,may ctuallyet n motiongroupaspi-rations nd/ortensions hatgovernmentsnd administratorsaybeill-equippedo resolve utforwhich eachers, esearchers,nd admin-istrators ust raftworkableolutions s thesetensionsnd aspirationsarise n classroom ontexts.

AGENCY AND LOCALITYClearly,t spoorstrategyoseparate ut a languagepolicy nd treatton its own terms, isembeddedfrom ociohistoricalonditions ndbroaderpolicymakinggendas,whichpersistentlyomplicateanguageconcerns, s Helen Moore's article n this ssue demonstratessee alsoFishman, 006; McGroarty,002; Schmidt, 006; Tollefson, 002). Inthis espect,hepracticefpolicy ncourages s, sresearchersndteach-ers, o readbetweennd behind he ines cf.Cooke,2004),to nterpretthe ambiguitiesnd gaps in criticalways hatopen up moments ndspacesfortransformativeedagogical nterventions.his latterpointgives iseto a secondkeyrationale or his pecial ssue specifically,focus n the notionofagencynd whatmight e learned ndmodeledafter ractitioners'ecision-makingxperiences. sStritikus2003) ob-serves,in addition o [teachers']pedagogical eliefs, olitical nd per-448 TESOL QUARTERLY


4/18


5/18

dresses he tatus nd formationfnational ndsupranationalanguagepolicies Kaplan& Baldauf, 997;Lo Bianco, 005;Phillipson,003;Tsui& Tollefson, 007) that othgiverise oandreflectanguage deologies(Ricento,2000, 2006), linguisticultures Schiffman,996), and lan-guage-relatedationalismsRicento& Burnaby,998). Othershave ad-dressedmore local policies ncluding hose at stateand institutionallevels Corson, 001;McGroarty,997,2002;Tollefson, 002;Tollefson& Tsui,2004),those mpactingilingual iteracyCummins,000;King,2001;Hornberger Skilton-Sylvester,003;Wiley,004;Wiley Wright2004; Wright& Choi, 2006), minorityanguage rights May,2001;Skutnabb-Kangas,000),and language estingontextsKunnan,1998;Shohamy,006) In recent ears, rowingnterestndinternationalia-logue on LPP researchhas burgeonedwith hegrowthf Internet o-rums uchas listservsunbySchiffmannsee e.g.,ConsortiumorLan-guage Policy nd Planning, .d.) and Spolskysee e.g.,AILA ResearchNetworkn Language Policy, 006) aswellas comprehensive ebsiteresourcesuch as thoseoperatedbytheLanguagePolicyResearchUnitat ArizonaStateUniversity2007) and the nstituteorLanguageandEducationPolicy 2007). Newournals uchas Language olicynd Cur-rentssuesnLanguage olicyupplementhisheightenednterest.Ourentryntothis pace attemptsonudgepolicy tudiesna differ-ent direction.Witha fewnotableexceptions e.g., Goldstein, 003;Pinet, 006;Sharkey,004,Stritikus,003),the ocal and agentive avebeen underexaminedn TESOL's engagementwith anguage policiesand planning.Wewish oaddress hisgap bybringingogether bodyoftexts hat nderscorehe dea that olicies roundEnglish ndotherlanguages remore hanustmandates ormulatedehind loseddoors,that hey merge rom umans ttemptingopromote heir ndividualorcollective isions fwhat heywish heirworlds ooked ike, nd thattheydefy ontainmentespiteeffortsn thepartofpolicymakers opackagethemneatlyntomanageable olutions o so-called anguageproblems.tseems ime hatwegobeyond ocumentingnddescribinghowour currentanguagepolicies ften ustain r create nequalitiesweaccept his s a truism ow tospaceswherewe becomecognizant four agentive oles n their nactments.n otherwords,we wishto gobeyond skingwhat o languagepoliciesdo,"toaskingwhat anwedowith anguagepolicies n our immediate rofessionalontexts?" hisshift n emphasis s not as subtle s it firsteems; ts nsistence n theordinaryndeverydayxperiencesfpractitionersCanagarajah, 005b;Fleming,1998; Hornberger& Skilton-Sylvester,003; Morgan,1998,2004;Ramanathan,005) bringsntoview wholerangeofmovements,flows,nd counter-ndcross-flowsround anguage olicies. tshiftsurgaze awayfromviewing oliciesas totalizingntities hathappen to450 TESOL QUARTERLY


6/18

peopleor that reatehierarchieso realmswherewe starthinking oreabout whatwe can do with olicies n thecontingenciesf ourwork.Such an approach,whereby e moveaway rom oliciess entitiesopoliciess engagements,lsopermits s to commence hinkingboutpoli-cies in termsdefinedby Bhattacharyat al. (this ssue) as complex,multifacetedignshathavedistinctiveociohistoricalormations,hoseinterpretationsnd enactments est n our hands, nd are always on-textual, rocessual,ndnegotiated. igns,ikepolicies, ignifyutneverautonomously. heydraw heir ifeforcefromnterpretationshatgetcast on them nd fromhumans hat laim and appropriatehem ntotheir espectiveomains Ramanathan,006) Such an orientationelpsdismantleheauthorityithwhich olicies re nvestedndencouragespractitionersoclaimthem n the most ocal ofspaces.No longer on-ceived s passive ecipientsffixed,mmutableodes,practitionersrerecast s active ign-makerscf.Kress, 003) and hencepotential gents fchangeeven n the mostrestrictiveontexts.This active,meaning-makingerspective n policytextsrecurs nmany fthecontributionsothis pecial ssue, erhapsmost xplicitlynBhattacharyat al.'s multimodal nalysis f the textualyclesee e.g.,Kress, tal.,2005) and thecompetinggendasrealized nthedivergentproductionfsubject nglish cross hree lassroomsnDelhi,London,andJohannesburg.mploying similar ontrastive odel,Hornbergerand Johnsonarticulate he emancipatory otentialof language-in-educationpolicies cf.Corson,1999) in respect o thepowerful iscur-sivespaces they reateforpractitionernterventionsn the two casestudies hey escribe i.e.,Philadelphia,ennsylvania,ndCochabamba,Bolivia) Clarke,ikewise,escribes ransformativeiscursivepacescre-ated through yllabus esign how the selection nd classroom reat-mentof textsheightened tudent-teachers'warenessof the socio-political spectsoflanguageeducation n a context i.e.,UnitedArabEmirates)whereconnections etweenpoliciesand teachers'practicesare notnecessarilyxplicit. sthese tudies how, mbiguities,aps, ndpatchworkecisions re farmoreprevalentndregular hanpreviouslydepicted,nd it seems mperativeowthese pacesbetween he inesbeforegrounded ecause it is in these spaces thatpractitioner gencyemerges.KEY THEMES IN THE ENACTMENT OF POLICIESUnderstanding gencynLanguage Policyand Planning

Belatedrecognitionfpractitionergency oes nothappensimplyfitsownaccordnorshould t be framed n naturalistic,rogressive,rTESOL AND POLICY ENACTMENTS 451


7/18

disinterestederms. ollowing icento2000), t s best ontextualizedsa historicalhase a transitionalealignmentfmacro-political,piste-mological nd strategic actorsn LPP research nd theory. hat is,although gencyhas always een an importantspectofLPP,whathassignificantlyhanged s theparadigmatictatus f this ctivity,articu-larly hroughhe recent dvent fcritical, ostmodern,nd ecologicaldiscoursesBrutt-Griffler,002; Kramsch, 002;Pennycook,004, 2006;vanLier,2004). In common, hesevarious urnsmark weakening fpositivistic odes ofinquirynd the forms fmisplaced oncretenessconveyed hrough arge-scalebstraction,uantification,nd generali-zation crossdiverse nd often ncommensurableurisdictions.n con-trast nd as amplydemonstratedn this ssue (see e.g.,Clarke,Horn-berger, Johnson;Winer) researchmodelsthat re locally rounded,criticallyeflexive,penlydeological,ndethnographicnform annothelpbut illuminate he impactof teachers' oicesand experiencesnpolicy nactments.Still,the foregroundingf practitionergency s, in severalre-spects, double-edged word. or one, it can be a convenientxcusefor the scapegoating f teacherswhenthe failure o achievepolicytargets s publicly crutinized.Viewed throughparticularpoliticalagendas,practitionergencycan also invite pprehensionresultingin increased orms fregulationhroughnflexibleurricula ndfund-ingtied to standardized est cores, oncerns requentlyaisedregard-ingthe No ChildLeftBehind egislationn the United States Wright& Choi; Harper,Platt,Naranjo,& Boynton;Romero-Little, cCarty,Warhol, Zepeda;this ssue).The notion ndfull copeofwhat gencyentails an also be an unwanted esponsibilityormanypractitionerswho feel ll equippedand relativelyowerless o address he socioeco-nomicconditions hatpermeatempoverishedommunitiesnd class-rooms Zappa-Holman,his ssue).The double-edgedword f gencysthus ignificantn an additional ense: tcompels ractitionersoengagewith hepowerbestowed n themvia contemporaryheories nd ac-knowledgehe nescapablepolitics f TESOL (see e.g.,Edge,2005;Ku-maravadivelu,005).Johnston2002) clarifies hat hisrealizationn-tails:

The introductionfthepolitical imensionntoour discussionsboutlanguage eachingas lsomeanthe ntroductionf languagefvaluesto the field:Wherebefore herewasonly eally hequestion fwhat,psycho-linguisticallypeaking, as themost fficientay facquiringlanguage, ow here re mattersf deology,hats,beliefs boutwhatsgoodandbad,rightndwrong,n relationopoliticsndpower ela-tions,p. 51)

452 TESOL QUARTERLY


8/18

In thefollowingection,we takeupJohnston'slanguage f values" ndescribing ow various ontributorso thisspecial issuedirectlyndindirectlyddress he ethics fagencyn their ocal enactments f an-guage policy.Ethicsand PolicyEnactments

While bvious n somesections nd latent nothers,hevarious ssaysin this ssue call attentiono thevaluesand beliefs hat ompel practi-tionersorespond opolicy irectivesndifferentays, hetherywork-ing to actively hange institutionalolicies,or by writingbout howgovernmentsccommodate o globalizing urrentshrough nhancedEnglishnstruction,rinvoicing oncerns bouthowEnglish ositionslearnerswho also speakand operatewith ther anguages. n such ex-amples,practitionersccupytension-riddenpaces,wheretheir nter-pretationsnd enactmentsfpolicies/signsrenot lways onstructivelyreceived ycolleagues nd superiors. onetheless,many till hoose toact,drawingn individualized otions fwhat sright rwrongntheirprofessionalonduct;we substitutehe term thicsere a term hathasdeep philosophical oots nd that ruciallynformsssues roundpolicychange.Ourunderstandingsfwhat thical ction shingeon whatweassume obe factsndvalues, nd as IrisMurdoch 1992) points ut, hetwo recompletelyntertwined.acts re human nventions,etwe relatetothem s independentruths, hichmakethempotentiallyppressivewhenweplacethem eyondhuman crutiny.alues,n theotherhand,we see inrelativisticermsndtendtosegregatehem inorder okeep[them]pureand untainted, ot derived rom rmixedwith mpiricalfacts" p. 25). This separation, ccording o Murdoch, s misleadingbecauseourengagements ith heworld mergefromwhatwe taketobe facts ndalways roceedfrom alues hat ingewhatwe take obe therealities four worlds.Several ontributorso this ssuestruggle ith he so-called actsm-posed on thembyoutside xperts, oliticians,nd policy-makers.heymediatethese facts y drawing n a rangeofvalues, nactments hatemerge n situfrom heightenedenseofdisquiet bout currenton-ditions Benhabib, 988;Lakoff Collier, 004;Maclntyre,985),andthey ake ctions omitigatehemost ppressiveactorsnthe ervice ftheir tudents nd communities.armar, or nstance,n theForumsection,writes bout howhe, as the principal f a premierEnglish-medium ollege nGujarat,ndia,and as aJesuit riest eads the neq-uities round caste n his contexts nd draws n hisposition nd hisreligious alues ochange urrentnstitutionalolicies o tomakeroomforvernacular-mediumalitstudents. thical ctionforhim ncludesTESOL AND POLICY ENACTMENTS 453


9/18

reading gainsthistoricallyeld,allegedly ommonsense ssumptionsaboutdisallowingernacular-mediumtudentsntoEnglish-mediumol-leges, ndaboutDalitandaboriginaltudents otbeing ble to succeedathigher rder iteracykillsnEnglish, iven heir ernacular-educationbackgrounds. shispiece points ut,muchof the success f the admit-ted Dalit students mergedfrom reatingnonformal ontextswheretheir elf-confidenceas enhancedand wheretheir wareness bouttheir ightswasheightened. ikewise, moniyiwrites bout fournon-governmental icro-languagelanning chemes n sub-Saharan frica,includingheOudetProject hat romotesiteracymongrural armersinWestAfrica. acts, n this ase,are the Eurocentric iscourses boutlanguageplanning hathave typicallyeen formulatedn EnglishorFrench nd thathavedrowned ut ocal needs andaspirationsoiced nlocal languages.In theJapanese ontext, obayashi eelscompelledtowrite gainstgenderdiscriminationnd Englishanguagepolicies, speciallynrela-tion owaysnwhichnational-levelEFL policies ndideologieswork oelevate nd sustainmalesuccess,whilekeepingwomen n lowerpayingand lower tatusobs. As she points ut,commonsensessumptionsnthiscase include hegemonicsocietal discoursesthat allocate high-powered, orporateobs to men regardless f theirEnglish anguagebackground, henwomennthat ontextwith reater nglish anguagefluencyndmotivationind hemselveseft ut.Likewise, omero t al. sandHarper tal. s piecesdetailoppressiveonditionshat urrent .S.educational olicies uchasNo ChildLeftBehind with heir nsistenceon test nd assessmentmeasures) reate nNativeAmerican ommuni-ties ndFloridaK-12classrooms, ith thics eing boutgiving oicetowaysnwhich istorically arginalizedommunitiestruggleo maintaintheir anguages nd identities,nd todocumentingeachers' truggleswithmandatedreadingcurricula hatposition heirESL studentsnnonfacilitativeontexts.Interpretationsround ethics,hough, re fraught, ecause enact-ments roundthembegthequestion boutwhoseterms,nterests,ndcollective ommonvalues rebeingnegotiated. n ethicalmaginationis not bornof some intrinsic uman essence and is in factrifewithdebate nd contestation.ebates overwhat ightsnd whoserights ar-rant our interventionnd formalprotectionn the formof policies(linguistic,conomic)raisepertinentuestion s tohow and why ar-ticular aluesgetpromoted hroughheEnglish-globalizationexus seeBruthiaux,007,for critique fthe moralistic vertones f anguagerights ebates).As thenexttwo ections how, urges round anguagepolicies ndglobalization merge rom ompetingdeologies nd legiti-mizing f certain acts nd call intoquestion ssuesabout nationalorgroup dentitiesnd theagendasof neoliberalism.454 TESOL QUARTERLY


10/18

Globalization2 nd PolicyEnactmentsAglobalizingorld, ccording oAppadurai 2000), is "aworld unda-mentallyharacterizedyobjectsnmotion. heseobjectsnclude deasand ideologies, eople and goods, mages nd messages, echnologiesand techniques... It is also,ofcourse, world fstructure,rganisa-tions,ndother table ocialforms"p. 5). ForAppadurai, owever,hisstabilitys only pparent n thatthenation-state,he most"stable" fstructures,s seriouslyonstrainedn itscapacities o address nd man-age transnationalhenomena nd their ocal articulations.he uncer-taintynd unevenness f such a characterization,n the one hand,underpinshestrategicelevance f micro anguageplanningBaldauf,2005;see Omoniyi,his ssue),the devolution fpolicy ecision-making(Corson,1999),and on theconditions f ocalitynd agency hat up-port uchinterventions,s foregroundedn this pecial ssue.On theother,Appadurai's hesis ighlightshecomplex hallenges hatmacropolicymakers ace n their esponses oglobalization.Nationalgovernmentsre deemedirresponsiblefacquisition lan-ningfails oprovide ufficientccess tothe anguageofglobalopportu-nity nowuniversallyerceived s English. et,the anguageofoppor-tunityan have serious tatus nd prestigemplicationsor ocal lan-guages of solidarity nd ancient memory. n particularpolities,ideologies hat dhere oEnglish e.g., neo] colonialism,onsumerism,secularism,galitarianism)nvokemixed or hostilereceptions or theperceived hreats heymaypose to indigenous eliefs nd traditionalsocial hierarchies; r alternatively,hey an createnewpolitical ndcultural xpectationshatthreaten o destabilize xisting egimes ndfederations.t s not urprising,s several ontributorsothisssue how,thatnation-statesevelopself-interestednd selective abits, ppropri-ating heglobalcode inways hat eektosustain, ith aryingegrees fsuccess, he inguisticnd socioculturalntegrityf their ocieties.Intheir eport rom rance, or xample, lapson ndHyatt etail heobstacles i.e.,native-likerench anguage bilities nd an acculturatedunderstanding f the national exams) thatnative-English-speakingteachersNESTs) face n orderto be accredited s English eachersnthepubliceducation ystem.he Frenchmodelthus erves omitigatedominant ESOL discourses othbyunderminingtsmonolingual i-asesthroughhepromotion fnative-Frenchpeakers orEFL teachingand byprivilegingraditional umanities/humanisticpproaches nd2For urpurposes,lobalizationanbeusefullyenned s a "multidimensionalet f ocialprocesseshat reate,multiply,tretchnd ntensifyorldwideocial nterdependenciesandexchanges hile tthe ame ime osteringnpeople growingwarenessfdeep-ening onnectionsetween he ocal nd thedistant"Steger,003,p. 13).

TESOL AND POLICYENACTMENTS 455


11/18

contrastive/grammar-translationethods ver ommunicativeanguageteaching.Historical nd ideologicalundercurrents,herethe UnitedKingdom s perceived s being reluctantlyuropean,or the UnitedStates s being economically egemonic, eemto inform he ambiva-lenceNESTs feelofbeing signs ftheAnglophoneworld. n a similarperspective, iner orrelates heriseofQubec nationalismnd grow-ing upport or overeigntynd ndependence ince hemid-1970so thecreationof language-in-educationoliciesthatpromoteand extendFrench ntheprovince hile estrictinghe tudynd use ofEnglish. hedescribes he indifferentnd sometimes ostile reactions o Englishfrom rancophoneeachers nd students nd detailshowa bachelor feducation rogram elpspreparenewEnglish anguage eachers o ad-dress uch tensions nd the ow motivationheywilloften ace n theirfuture lassrooms.It is misleading o viewthesetypes f languagepolicydecisions smerely egressiverrearguardctions osafeguardncient ongues ndauthenticraditions.heyprovide,t the sametime, trongvidence fthe maginednationbeingselectivelynd performativelyetraditional-ized nreferenceo nternationaludiences nd theglobalmarketplaceof deas.3Clarke's rticle n English anguage eacher ducationn theUnitedArabEmiratess ndicative f this ynamic,utward-lookinger-spective.n the classeshe taught nd observed,ocal cultural racticesand materialsre usedalongsidepopularELT resources, esultingn aprocess im 1991) defines s culturalquivalencingthe"systematicro-motionof the ocal culture n an English anguageteaching rogramwith he aim ofputtingt on thesame levelofsignificances westernculture"p. 61). On a relatednote,Schneer xplores heJapanesedis-cursive otion fkokusaikaa termoosely efined s "internationaliza-tion"but with lear,nationalisticonnotations in the constructionfJapaneseand Westerndentitiesn English anguagetextbooks. helearning f an internationalanguage,n thisperspective,as the addi-tional unctionfconveyingndpromoting notion fJapan'sunique-ness to theworld cf.Kubota, 002). In instancesuch as these, ulturalcontinuitys a dialectical rocessoriented o the futurend relationswithOthers, pointSchneer loquentlytates:

Any ountry'sisplayfnationaldentitysrarelyroundedn thepres-ent. t s a self-gazing,mplicitssessmentfwhat he ountryas rwhat3Bauman's2005) nsightsn identityna globalizingorld re nsightfulor heperfor-mativeoint eingmadehere: Boundariesrenotdrawn ofence ffndprotectlreadyexistingdentities.. . 'Communal'dentitiesrebyproductsffeverishoundaryraw-ing. t sonlyfterheborder-postsave eendug n that hemythsf heirntiquityrespun nd thefreshultural/politicalriginsf dentityrecarefullyovered pby hegenesistories"pp.452-453).

456 TESOLQUARTERLY


12/18

ithopesto become.Whetherhat azebe deemedpatrioticrnational-istic sreally matterfdegree hat equires otonlyookingt how hestate elates o tselfnspaceandtime, uthow t relates oother tatesas well.To reiterate,ation-statesack theurisdictionalmeanstocoordinateormanageglobalflowsnd thethreats/opportunitieshey ose. In En-glish-dominantocieties,or xample, overnmentsresume hegeneralutilityf learning nd speakingEnglish, nd they et out to provideuniform SL policiesand relatedcurricula esignedto facilitate heintegration/assimilationfadult mmigrants.et,suchstrategiesftenignore hedegreeto whichnewcomers especiallynmajor osmopoli-tan centers collectivelyransformnd hybridizehe social practices,attitudes,nd spaces into whichtheyostensiblyntegrate, enderingthemargelynrecognizabley heterms enned npolicy.Nor do suchstrategiesdequately ccountfor thevibrantmultilingualismnd cre-ativeforms f languagecontact hatoftenoccur in theseglobalizedcenters thecodeswitchingnd crossings,nd whatBlock (this ssue)has termednicheingua rancas, phenomenonhe examines hroughsmall-scaletudy f serviceworkersn London. ReminiscentfGold-stein's 1996) workplace thnography,lockexploresthe social andeconomicreasonswhyEnglish sn'ttheonlygame in town nd thenconsiders heirbroadersignificancen the context f TESOL policymaking.Whennation-stateso acknowledgend address heir thnolinguisticpluralism,t is increasinglyn terms f humancapital nd as leverageagainst heuncertaintiesf a highlyompetitivend integratedlobaleconomy e.g.,Corson, 002). In this espect,heglobalmarketplacefideas similar o themarket orgoodsand services is a notablynlevelplaying ield n whichcontrol fmass media and global informationsystems ivesmarked dvantage o powerfulWestern ations n theirabilities o naturalize nduniversalizeheir wnvalues nd nterests. ndit is the global naturalization f a particular conomic ideologyneoliberalism4that,n largepart,nhibits olicy-makersnd practitio-nersfromddressinghe substantive aterial actors hat bstruct heirlocal anguagepolicy oals, s several ontributorsothis ssue ndicate.Zappa-Hollman'srticle n EFL instructionnArgentinathis ssue)

4Neoliberalismsa confusingermf iewedhroughontemporarydeologies,articularlynNorth merica, here iberalismsequatedwith tatenterventionismnthe ervice fgreaterocioeconomicquality. eo-liberalism,ere, races tsroots o the aissez-faire,noninterventionistdeals f18th-centuryritishhilosophersuch s Adam mithndDavidRicardo a legacyeflectedncurrent easureshat eek ocreate ptimalondi-tions or conomic lobalizationhroughhedown-sizingfnational overnments,e-duced axation,ndtheprivatizationndde-regulationf conomicctivitySteger,003,pp.40-41).TESOLAND POLICYENACTMENTS 457


13/18

reveals he not so invisible and of theWorldBank and Inter-AmericanDevelopment ank npromoting eoliberal eformshathavereducedpublic nvestmentn education nd haveexacerbated lass nequities.Shethendescribes ow hese tructuralhanges reexperienced yEFLteachers tthe ocal evel,where he harsh ocioeconomic onditionsfmanyArgentineanommunitiesontributeo ow motivationndprob-lemswith isciplinendviolence. nmultilingualjibouti Dudzik, hisissue),whereArabic nd French re officialanguages,Westernnflu-ences and market-basedoncerns re also evidentntheperceptionndadoptionofEnglish s the anguageof modernization.till,Dudzik soptimistichatrecentcompetency-basedeforms o English urriculacanbe indigenizedomore loselyerve jiboutian oals nd values.Onan optimisticote aswell,Martin's uba report etails hecollaborativedevelopmentf a successful rogramn ESP fortourismnd thepre-eminent oleofEnglishnthenation's creativedaptabilityochangingcircumstancesn a volatile nternational nvironment"this ssue,p.556).It is not only o-calleddeveloping ountries hat re compelledtoreducepublic expendituresnd to reform ducation n theservice fcorporategendas. nCanada,a countryfenviable ffluencend whosenational dentitys symbolicallyound toimmigrationnd multicultur-alism, hecurrentrovisionf dultESL instructioneflects consistentpatternfprovincialnd federal overnmentutbacks nd accountabil-itymeasureswhichhave"deprofessionalizedeachers f non-creditSLandallowed heirob conditions o deteriorate"Burnaby,002,p. 76).Haque and Cray's tudy f teachersn the federalgovernment'san-guage nstructionorNew Canadians LINC) programubstantiateshedeteriorationhatBurnaby escribes. aque andCray'snformantsivevoice to teaching onditions haracterizedysubstandardlassrooms,poor teaching esources,owpayand lack of ob security.heyalsodescribe conditions f continuous ntakeand multilevel lassrooms,whichmake adherence oclosely pecifiedevels fLINC curricula n-workablenmost ccounts.To varying egrees, ll policy nactments eflect owerfuliscoursesthat ompetenshaping he magined orizons fnation-statesndtheircitizens. The work f the magination"sAppadurai 1996) concurs, isa space of contestationnwhich ndividuals nd groups eek to annextheglobal ntotheir wnpractices f themodern" p. 4) The practicesofneoliberalismndicate uch an example, speciallys reflectednthe"glib-speak"Hasan,2003,p. 446) of nstitutionsuch s theWorldBank,the nternational onetaryund, nd theWorldTradeOrganizationnpromotinghetypes f reforms ecried n this ection.As Hasanshows,neoliberal aluesdo notspread olely n their ntrinsicmerit"ut alsothroughanguagepracticeshat eek to construct ealities avorableor458 TESOL QUARTERLY


14/18

their pread.Her notionof a reflectioniteracy5uggests he kindsoflanguagepriorities epractitionersan draw n to constructlternativerealitiesn our local enactmentsfpolicy.CONCLUSION

Our aim with his pecial ssue is to raiseawareness mongTESOLQuarterlyeaders boutlocalized enactmentsround anguagepoliciesand thewaysnwhich ssuesofagency, ational dentities,nd global-izing urrentsind istinctrticulationsn theground.Our focus n thelocal is deliberate, ecause singlecases afford limpsesntocomplexinterplays etweenpolicies, pedagogic practices, nstitutionalon-straints,ndmigrations.s the various iecesshow, urindividualndcollective xistences o not occurin pristinepaceswithinwhichweplace ndividuals,nstitutions,ndpolicies, ut nside fluid etof ocialrelations ith mergent ossibilitiesor hange. n otherwords,ocalityis not ust the end pointoftop-down irectivesut also thegenesis fbottom-upnitiatives,hich umulativelynd over ime ransformradi-tional lowsndframeworksfdecision-making.ur focus n languageis also deliberate, articularlyn respect o the creative,nterpretivepossibilitieseassign opolicies s texts/signs.iewing olicies hisway,as textshat rewrought y heir ulturalodes and conventionsnd thatare imbuedwithparticulardeologies nd perspectives,ermits s toconsiderhowmeanings roundthememergefrom ur engagementswith hem. t is on thesethemes roundEnglish anguagepolicies hatwe wish o castdisciplinaryloodlights,ence this ssue.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWegratefullycknowledgehefeedbackhat ames ollefson, aryMcGroarty,ndAlastairennycook aveus on this rticle. ll theremaining roblems ith hemanuscriptie at ourdoor.THE AUTHORSVaidehi amanathans a professorn theDepartmentfLinguisticst theUniversityofCalifornia,avis,United tates. er researchnterestspanall areasof iteracy

5Acritical,umanisticounter-discourse,asan's 2003)reflectioniteracyaims ocreate nthepupil nunderstandingfreadingndwritings bearers fdeepsocial ignificance,not implys a vehicle or nformationut s a potentnstrumentf socialformation"(Hasan, 003, . 446).TESOLAND POLICYENACTMENTS 459


15/18

development.Her mostrecentbook, TheEnglish-Vernacularivide:Postcolonialan-guage oliticsndPractice,ffers situated ccount of ocalizedlanguagepoliciesandenactmentsroundEnglish nd vernacular-mediumducation npostcolonialndia.BrianMorgan san associateprofessorn theDepartment fLanguages,Literatures,and Linguistics t YorkUniversityn Toronto, Ontario,Canada. His research nter-ests include research and theory n language and identity,ritical iteracies ndpedagogies, nd second languageteachereducation.He is a co-author nd consul-tantfor everal dult ESL curriculabased on the Canadian Language Benchmarksand is interestedn the enhancementof teacheragency n the interpretationndimplementationflanguage policies.REFERENCESAILAResearch Network n Language Policy. 2006). [Web site.]San Antonio:TheUniversityfTexas,Author.Retrieved une18, 2007,fromhttp://www.lpren.orgAlsup,J. (2006). Teacher-identityiscourses:egotiatingersonalndprofessionalpaces.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.Anderson,B. (1983). Imaginedommunities:eflectionsn the riginnd spread fna-tionalism.ondon: Verso.Appadurai,A. (1996). Modernityt large:Cultural imensionsfglobalization. inne-apolis: Universityf MinnesotaPress.Appadurai,A. (2000). Grassroots lobalization nd the research magination. ublicCulture,2(1), 1-19.ArizonaStateUniversity.2007). Language olicy esearchnitWeb site].Tempe,AZ:Author.Retrieved une18, 2007,fromhttp://www.language-policy.org/blog/Baldauf,R. B. (2005). Micro anguageplanning. n P. Bruthiaux, . Atkinson,W.G.Eggington,W.Grabe,& V. Ramanathan Eds.), Directionsnappliedinguisticspp.227-239). Clevedon,England: MultilingualMatters.Bauman,Z. (2005). Identityn theglobalizingworld. n H. S. Shapiro& D. E. Purpel(Eds.), Criticalocial ssues n Americanducation3rdd.; pp. 443-454). Mahwah,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.Benhabib,S. (1988). Critique,orm,nd Utopia:A study fthe oundationsfcriticaltheory.ewYork: Colombia Universityress.Bruthiaux, . (2007) Languagerightsn historicalnd contemporaryerspective.anu-script ubmitted orpublication.Brutt-Grifer,. (2002). Class,ethnicity,nd language rights: n analysis f Britishcolonial policy n Lesotho and Sri Lanka and some implications or anguagepolicy.Journal fLanguage,dentity,ndEducation, ,207-234.Burnaby, . (2002). Reflectionsn languagepolicies n Canada: Three examples. nJ.W. Tollefson (Ed.), Languagepoliciesn educationpp. 65-86). Mahwah,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.Canagarajah,A. S. (2005a). Introduction.n A. S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Reclaiminghelocal npolicyndpracticepp. xiii-xxx) Mahwah,NT: LawrenceErlbaum.Canagarajah,A. S. (d.). (2005b). Reclaiminghe ocal npolicyndpractice. ahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.ConsortiumforLanguage Policyand Planning, n.d.). [Web site.] Philadelphia:University f Pennsylvania,Author. RetrievedJune 18, 2007, fromhttp://

ccat.sas.upenn.edu/plc/clpp/Cooke, D. (2004). Whatcan a textmean?NewZealandJournal fAdult earning,2,52-64.460 TESOLQUARTERLY


16/18

Corson,D. (1999). Language olicynschools.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.Corson,D. (2001). Language iversitynd education. ahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.Corson,D. (2002). Teachingand learning ormarket-place tility.nternationalour-nal ofLeadershipnEducation, , 1-13.Cummins, . (2000). Language, ower,ndpedagogy.levedon,England:MultilingualMatters.Edge,J. (Ed.). (2005). RelocatingESOL in the ge ofempire.ondon: MacmillanPalgrave.Eggington,W. (2002). Unplanned language planning. n R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), TheOxfordandbookf pplied inguisticspp. 404-415). New York:OxfordUniversityPress.Fishman, .A. (2006). Do not eave ouranguage lone:Thehidden tatus gendaswithincorpuslanningn language olicy.Mahwah,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.Fleming, . (1998) Autonomyndagencyn curriculum ecision-making: study finstructorsn a Canadian adult settlement SL program.TESL CanadaJournal,16(1), 19-35.Goldstein, . (1996). Two anguagest work: ilingual ife n the roductionloor.NewYork: Mouton de Gruyter.Goldstein,T. (2003). Teachingnd learningn a multilingualchool: hoices, isks, i-lemmas. ahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.Harklau,L. (2003). Representational ractices nd multi-modalommunication nUS highschools: Implications oradolescentimmigrants.n R. Bayley c S. R.Schecter (Eds.), Language ocializationn bilingual nd multilingualocietiespp.83-97). Clevedon,England: MultilingualMatters.Hasan, R. (2003). Globalization,iteracynd ideology.Worldnglishes,2,433-488.Honig, B. (2001). Democracynd the oreigner.rinceton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.Hornberger,N. H., & Ricento,T. K. (Eds.). (1996). Language planning nd policy[Special issue]. TESOL Quarterly,0(3).Hornberger,N., 8cSkilton-Sylvester,. (Eds.). (2003). Continua fbiliteracy:n eco-logical rameworkoreducationalolicy, esearch,ndpracticen multilingualettings.Clevedon,England: MultilingualMatters.Institute orLanguage and EducationPolicy. 2007). InstituteorLanguage nd Edu-cation olicy: esearch-baseddvocacyor chools nd communitiesWebsite].TakomaPark,MD: Author.Retrieved une 18, 2007, fromhttp://www.elladvocates.org/index.htmlJohnston,B. (2002). Values n English anguageteaching.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.

Kaplan,R.B.,& Baldauf,R. (1997). Language lanning rom racticeo heory.levedon,England: MultilingualMatters.King,K. (2001). Languagerevitalizationrocessesnd prospects.levedon,England:MultilingualMatters.Kramsch,C. (Ed.). (2002). Language cquisitionnd language ocialization:cologicalperspectives.ondon: Continuum.Kress,G. (2003). Literacyn thenewmedia ge.London: Routledge.Kress,G.Jewitt, , Bourne,J.,Franks, ., Hardcastle, .Jones,K.,8cReid,E. (2005).Englishn urban lassrooms:multimodalerspectiventeachingnd earning.ondon:RoutledgeFalmer.Kubota,R. (2002). Impactofglobalizationnlanguage teachingnJapan. nD. Block8c D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalizationnd language eachingpp. 13-28). London:Routledge.Kumaravadivelu, . (2005). TESOL, globalization, nd the empire:A dangerous

TESOLANDPOLICYENACTMENTS 461


17/18

liaison. nJ. Edge (Ed.), RelocatingESOL inthe geof mpirepp. 1-32). London:MacmillanPalsrrave.Kunnan,A. (Ed.). (1998). Validationn language ssessment ahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.Lakoff,A., & Collier,S. (2004). Ethics and the anthropology f modern reason.Anthropologicalheory,, 419-434.Lim, C. (1991, April). "Englishor technologyyes English orcultureno "A writer'sviewsna continuingoutheastsian dilemma.aper presented t the nternationalConference n LanguageEducation: nteraction ndDevelopment,Ho Chi MinhCity,Vietnam.Lo Bianco, J. (2005). Including discourse in language planning theory. n P.Bruthiux,D. Atkinson,W. G. Eggington,W. Grabe,& V. Ramanathan (Eds.),Directionsn applied inguisticspp. 255-263). Clevedon, England: MultilingualMatters.Maclntyre, . (1985). Afterirtue.ondon: Duckworth.May,S. (2001). Language nd minorityights: thnicity,ationalism,nd the oliticsflanguage.New York:Longman.McGroarty, . (1997). Language policy n the USA: Nationalvalues, ocal loyalties,pragmatic ressures.nW.Eggington H. Wren Eds.), Language olicy:ominantEnglish, luralist hallengespp. 67-90). Amsterdam: ohnBenjamins.McGroarty, . (2002). Evolvingnfluences n educational anguage polices. nJ.W.Tollefson Ed.), Language oliciesn education: riticalssuespp. 17-36). Mahwah,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.Moore, H. (2002). "Who willguard the guardiansthemselves?" ational interestversus actional orruptionn policymakingorESL inAustralia.nJ.W.Tollef-son (Ed.), Language oliciesn education: riticalssuespp. 111-136). Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.Morgan,B. (1998). TheESL classroom:eaching,riticalracticendcommunityevelop-ment. oronto,Ontario,Canaida:UniversityfTorontoPress.Morgan,B. (2004). Teacher identitys pedagogy:Towards a field-internaloncep-tualization n bilingualand second language education. Internationalournal fBilingual ducation ndBilingualism,,172-187.Murdoch, . (1992). Metaphysicss a guide omorals. ew York:Allen Lane.Pennycook,A. (2002). Language policy nd docile bodies:Hong Kongand govern-mentality.nJ.W. Tollefson Ed.), Language oliciesneducation:riticalssuespp.91-110). Mahwah,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.Pennycook,A. (2004) Language policy nd theecologicalturn.Language olicy,,213-239.Pennycook,A. (2006). Postmodernismn language policy. n T. Ricento(Ed.), In-troductiono anguageolicy: heorynd methodpp. 60-76). Maiden,MA: Blackwell.Pennycook,A. (2007). Global nglishesnd transculturallows. ondon: Routledge.Phillipson,R. (2003). English-onlyurope? hallenginganguage olicy. ondon: Rout-ledge.Pinet,R. (2006). The contestation f citizenship ducation at threestagesof theLINC 4 & 5 curriculum uidelines:Production, eception, nd implementation.TESL CanadaJournal,4(1), 1-21.Ramanathan,V. (2005). TheEnglish-vernacularivide: ostcolonialanguage oliticsndpractice.levedon,England: MultilingualMatters.Ramanathan,V. (2006). The vernacularizationfEnglish:Crossingglobal currentsto re-dresswest-based ESOL. Criticalnquiryn LanguageStudies, (2&3), 131-146.462 TESOLQUARTERLY


18/18

Ricento,T. (2000). Introduction.n T. Ricento (Ed.), Ideology,oliticsnd languagepoliciespp. 1-24). Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins.Ricento, . (Ed.). (2006). An ntroductiono anguage olicy:heoryndmethod.aiden,MA: Blackwell.Ricento,T., & Burnaby, . (Eds.). (1998). Language ndpoliticsn theUnited tates ndCanada:Mythsnd realities. ahwah,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.Schmidt,R. (2006). Politicaltheory nd language policy. n T. Ricento (Ed.), Anintroductiono anguage olicy: heorynd methodpp. 95-110). Maiden,MA: Black-well.Schiffman, . (1996). Linguisticulturend language olicy. ondon: Routledge.Sharkey, . (2004). ESOL teacher'sknowledgeof context as criticalmediator ncurriculum evelopment.TESOL Quarterly,8, 279-299.Shohamy, . (2006). Language olicy: idden gendas, ew pproaches.ewYork:Rout-ledge.Skutnabb-Kangas,. (2000). Linguisticenocideneducation,rworldwideiversityndhuman ights? ahwah,NT:Lawrence Erlbaum.Steger,M. B. (2003). Globalization:veryhortntroduction.xford:OxfordUniversityPress.Stritikus,. (2003). The interrelationshipfbeliefs, ontext, nd learning:The caseofa teacherreacting o language policy.Journal fLanguage,dentity,nd Educa-tion, , 29-52.Tollefson, .W. (Ed.). (2002). Language oliciesn education: riticalssues.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.Tollefson, .W.,& Tsui,A. B. M. (2004). Medium f nstructionolicies:Whichgenda?Whosegenda?Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.Tsui,A. B. M., 8cTollefson, .W. (Eds.). (2007). Language olicy,ulture,nd identityin Asiancontexts.ahwah,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.vanLier,L. (2004). The cologyndsemioticsf anguage earning: socioculturalerspec-tive. ordrecht, he Netherlands:KluwerAcademic.Varghese,M.,Morgan,B.,Johnston, ., &Johnson,K. (2005). Theorizing anguageteacher dentity:hreeperspectivesnd beyond.Journalf anguage,dentity,ndEducation, , 21-44.Wiley, . (2004). Language planning, anguagepolicy, nd theEnglish-Only ove-ment. In E. Finegan & J. RickfordEds.), Language n theUSA: Themesorthetwenty-firstenturypp. 319-338). Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityress.Wiley, ., 8cWright,W. (2004). Against he undertow: anguageminorityducationpolicy nd politics n theage ofaccountability.ducational olicy, 8, 142-168.Wright,W., 8c Choi, D. (2006). The impactof language and high-stakesestingpolicieson elementarychool English anguage learners nArizona.EducationalPolicy nalysis rchives,4(13), 1-75.

TESOLAND POLICYENACTMENTS 463

TESOL and Policy Enactments- Perspectives From Practice(Pp. 447-463) TQ 2008

Documents

Transcript of TESOL and Policy Enactments- Perspectives From Practice(Pp. 447-463) TQ 2008