Tollefson, James W. (Ed.). (2002). Language Policies in Education: Critical Issues. Reviewed by Jennifer Guzmán, University of California, Los Angeles

Tollefson, James W. (Ed.). (2002). Language Policies in Education: Critical Issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. xii+350 pp. $34.50 (Paper cover)     ISBN: 0-8058-3601-2 Reviewed by Jennifer Guzmán University of California, Los Angeles April 18, 2006 Tollefson’s edited book, Language policies in education, brings together a collection of articles that wed the descriptive trajectory of language policy research with the growing field of critical discourse analysis. The intersection of these two frameworks results in a set of provocative accounts of language education policy that neither hedges nor apologizes for analyses driven by pluralistic and minority language advocacy. Building from four shared principles, 16 authors present data on language policy for education from nearly as many nations. Four assumptions on which the authors concur are listed by Tollefson in his introduction. First, multilingualism is and will continue to be a common feature of contemporary nation-states as globalization and transnational migration continue. As a result, policies designed to impose monolingualism are “highly unrealistic.” Second, language policies in education are employed by states as a mechanism of social and political control. Third, language policy conflicts are most often indicative of larger social struggles for political power or economic resources wherein language is symbolic of ethnolinguistic groups. Finally, policies and ideologies are mutually influential, with forces of contestation and naturalization playing against each other. Building from these four principles, Tollefson’s book aims to explore six critical issues around which the book’s sections coalesce. Following is a brief overview of the articles that address each of these six target issues. Issue 1: “What are the major forces affecting language policies in education and how do these forces constrain policies and the public discussion of policy alternatives?” (p. 13). Following Tollefson’s introduction of the critical issues addressed in the book, McGroarty’s overview highlights several keystones of language policy and frames the dynamic issues to which language policy researchers must attend. One of the most pressing of the “evolving influences” that she describes is the need to develop more nuanced models of transnational and intranational relations between languages and language policies. McGroarty points out that a priori assumptions should not be made about the purposes of education, the relationship of language policies to citizenship, or the nature of liberty and rights for all communities, but that careful attention to a particular community’s educational priorities, relevant history, and social organization are necessary for an adequate assessment of their language policies for education. McGroarty’s overview takes up the particular case of the ongoing struggles for bilingual education in the United States, and she ends with a call to bilingual educators, researchers, and advocates to “accurately and persuasively” (p. 31) present bilingual education to fellow educators and public constituencies, reminding her readers that “crucial pedagogical decisions such as language choice [for education] are under-theorized and contested in many liberal democracies” (p. 33). McGroarty’s call is answered in the book with studies that describe and theorize contested language policies in several liberal democratic states. Issue 2: “How do state authorities use educational language policies to manage access to language rights and language education, and what are the consequences of specific programs and policies for language minority communities” (p. 14). Wiley and Burnaby’s articles in the second section of the book demonstrate two contexts in which educational language policies serve as instruments for the state management of social and political conflicts between ethnic/linguistic groups. Wiley’s historical summary of educational language policy in the United States begins with British colonial policies and chronologically traces major trends and turning points in practice and legislation up through the end of the twentieth century. Wiley’s labeling of policies follows Kloss’s typology but adds "null" and "repressive" categories. Null policies, exemplified by exclusive English instruction for Hawaiian Creole English speakers prior to WWII are, according to Wiley, those policies/practices which erase linguistic variation by ostensibly treating all students "equally." The result of such "null" policies is systematic discrimination against second language and non-standard dialect speaking students in English classrooms. He adds "repression-oriented" policies to Kloss’s typology in order to characterize the treatment of American Indians and African slaves, whose languages were systematically eliminated as part of the strategic suppression of their communities. Burnaby rounds out this section with accounts of three language policies from Canada. She outlines the federal programs that have managed Anglophone-Francophone relations in the state, provincial-level policies that manage new immigrant entrance into Ontario’s English language training programs, and local-level policy innovations where Cree has been implemented as the language of instruction for early grades. Her article stands out for its tri-level treatment of policy, which finds differential outcomes for higher and lower levels of policy formation/implementation. While federal level policies resulted in “little impact on language behavior” (p. 83), Burnaby found very positive results in the case of the Cree school district where local authorities had jurisdiction over the curriculum and language of instruction for their community’s children. Issue 3: “How do state authorities use language policy for the purposes of political and cultural governance?” (p. 87). The third section of Tollefson’s book includes three articles building on Foucault’s concept of governmentality, understood as “the complex array of forces (administrative, legal, financial, professional) and techniques that regulate individuals and groups with respect to state authority” (p. 87). This section emphasizes the use and promotion of particular languages as mechanisms of social control, “means of social regulation” (ibid), and is concerned with “how debates around language, culture, and education produce particular discursive regimes” (Pennycook, p. 92). Pennycook begins the section with an article on the British colonial implementation in Hong Kong of conservative schools emphasizing Confucianist ethics of loyalty and respect for authority. The data of the study, letters written by British colonial bureaucrats, make plain the intentions behind the schools: the construction of a docile Chinese laborforce. Following Pennycook, Moore looks at the discursive construction of ESL educators and researchers as a "faction" in the context of Australian educational policy debates. She demonstrates how second language learners and learning were erased in the planning process for a maximally broadly applicable literacy program. Moore concludes that in this case, “the liberal democratic myth [was] used by some to exclude others from the inevitably political processes in which their "good" [was] crucially determined” and that a fear of factions was “mobilized to disguise these politics” (p. 132). Specifically, the forwarding of certain interests as dominant in the debate positioned educators who were concerned about ESL learners as a threat to consensus. Donahue’s article on the legislative history of Arizona’s Official Language Proposition concludes the section. Donahue employs the philosophical lens of solipsism to illustrate the ideological fragmentation that characterizes public discourse over many policy issues. The author concludes that “the manipulation of ideological confusions can preserve an extraordinary advantage for those in power” (p. 159), arguing that that this was the case in Arizona, where pundits took advantage of extant and oppositional ideologies of libertarianism and communitarianism to influence voters’ choice while, at the same time, irresponsibly failing to elaborate on the respective values or consequences resulting from policy formations stemming from one or the other perspective. Issue 4: “How do language policies in education help to create, sustain, or reduce political conflict among different ethnolinguistic groups?” (p. 163). Sonntag contributes to the discussion of section four with a contrastive analysis of the recognition-seeking processes that Nepali speakers in Darjeeling and Urdu speakers in Uttar Pradesh have experienced in North India. Looking to Eastern Europe, Tollefson describes how the new Slovenian government, after their separation from Milošević’s repressive Yugoslavia, built on earlier Yugoslav traditions of pluralism to forge an ideology of internationalism that was paired with precedent-setting, pluralistic language rights and policies that thoughtfully and respectfully incorporated Italian and Hungarian minority populations in the Slovenian educational system. Issue 5: “How are local policies and programs in language education affected by global processes such as colonialism, decolonization, the spread of English, and the growth of the integrated capitalist economy?” (p. 201). Four contributions comprise the fifth section of the book, all of which address ways in which polities have developed language policies for education that confront supra-national processes and influences that impinge upon their range of options. Coulmas looks at the ideological pairing of Japanese language with national identity that began nearly 150 years ago and at how recent adaptations to immigration and globalization are creating an aperture to greater linguistic pluralism within the Japanese state. Two articles in this section address formation and implementation issues surrounding foreign language instruction in schools. Wright emphasizes the fluctuation in foreign language learning in Vietnam as a consequence of the (psychological and financial) wartime legacy of the country. In contrast, Jung and Norton found Korean teachers’ language ideological concerns, professional training, and course workload to be relevant factors influencing teachers’ willingness and ability to implement English curricula in their classrooms. Rounding out the fifth section is Mazrui’s article calling for the decolonization of Africa’s educational system. Mazrui outlines a strategic configuration of policies for Africa that would not only counteract the incursion of English and other European languages but would also expand the scope of autochthonous languages of the continent, increasing, as a consequence, access opportunities to higher education for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Issue 6: “How can indigenous peoples and other language minorities develop educational policies and programs that serve their social and linguistic needs, in the face of significant pressures exerted by more powerful social and ethnolinguistic groups” (p. 283). The final chapter of Tollefson’s edited volume links closely with Mazrui’s article in its emphasis on promising examples of indigenous communities’ proactive work to “recenter” (p. 283) their linguistic heritage in their communities. McCarty’s account of successful indigenous self-determination for educational practices in Arizona and in Hawai’i emphasizes how the agency of individual language advocates can affect language policy in significant ways. Gegeo and Watson-Gegeo’s study also looks at the method and result of integrating “indigenous epistemology, praxis, pedagogy, and knowledge” (p. 332) into classrooms on the Solomon Island of Malaita. Their article highlights a schooling experience from which students graduate equally prepared to continue in either traditional or Western professions and ways of life. In light of these findings, the authors call for a paradigm shift in thinking about education that would respect the link of languages to the culture of their speakers. Tollefson summarizes the urgency of the contributing authors’ work in his concluding chapter. The collection of studies collaborates to illustrate three major challenges to contemporary democracies for creating and sustaining intentionally pluralistic societies. They must “[abolish] discrimination based upon ascribed social categories…reducing the social and political distance between ethnolinguistic groups created by excessive inequalities in the distribution of economic resources” (p. 335), must adapt national and local systems of governance in response to shifting supranational structures, and must work to include ethnolinguistic minorities in policy decisions that will affect them. Finally, the importance of pluralism must be presented to dominant groups, who often perceive minority ethnolinguistic groups as threats. The articles collected in Language Policies in Education offer an example of how critical linguists can contribute to healthy pluralism by applying analyses to language policies that uncover their historical and political contexts as well as their ideological foundations, assessing their potential for playing a part in the peaceful alternative of pluralism. In short, this timely collection of studies demonstrates the clear significance of language policies for education, which can alternatively foster conflicts or help to resolve them in today’s multilingual and multiethnic states. In evaluating this collection of studies for its readability, its comprehensiveness, and its contribution to theory, I found this book to be both an appealing read and a provocative challenge to the theorization and assessment of language policy and language education. Several aspects of Tollefson’s book make it an accessible text for readers from a variety of backgrounds. Aimed at “scholars and other specialists in language policy, education, applied linguistics, critical linguistics, and language teaching” (back cover), the book has been edited such that students from any of these fields will find the book resourceful. Tollefson’s overall introduction, brief introductions to each of the sections of the book, and discussion-like conclusion all provide a sense of running commentary on the subject matter and theoretical framework such that their connecting themes are tightened and their individual points are made salient at several junctures in the book. In addition, each chapter provides sufficient historical background to the reader about the study’s respective region such that readers who do not have prior familiarity with the particular social or linguistic milieu of an area can access the policy analysis. Finally, the studies are written with a minimum of linguistic jargon, widening the book’s comprehensibility for a readership outside of theoretical linguistics. Underscored by the sheer number of studies included in the book, Tollefson’s volume offers a complexified and nuanced overview of language policy for education the world over. The inclusion of studies drawing on very different research traditions and methods may give the initial impression of methodological inconsistency, but the ultimate result is a felicitously cross-disciplinary mélange that is thematically well-coordinated. However, while the overall scope of issues addressed is very strong, there was one area that I missed seeing in the collection. While the book was remarkable for its inclusion of studies from a broad range of geographical and linguistic settings, the notable absence was attention to the ethnolinguistic struggles and policy challenges in Latin American democracies. The particular character of post-millennial Latin America, with its plethora of nations that are either restoring or constructing democracy after recent military dictatorships (e.g. Argentina, Uruguay, Chile), adapting to the ever-widening net of free trade (e.g. México, Central America), or seeking to peaceably redress problems of historically reinforced indigenous stigmatization (e.g. Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay), is relevant to a comprehensive discussion of language policies for education in democratic nations and could have contributed to this volume very appropriately. With respect to theory, Tollefson’s book sets a precedent for the intersection of critical discourse analysis and policy studies. The intentional intersection of these two strands of research enabled principled reflections on the relationship between policy and ideology, a crucial consideration for any scholar concerned with critical analysis. Each of the studies of the collection lifted to the level of analysis the all-too-commonly-glossed-over (ideological) assumptions that underpin any language policy formation, implementation, or assessment process. This raising of language ideologies to the level of analytical discourse is a necessary step toward recognizing and challenging the naturalized assumptions that reinforce dominant power relationships at the expense of minority groups. In particular, Donahue addressed the explicit manipulation of ideologies and the resultant outcome of widespread anomie (in the U.S.), which has resulted from insufficient public discourse about values. Other authors who explicitly dealt with the power play of ideologies and language policies in education included Marzui, in his forwarding of decolonization strategies for Africa, and Gegeo and Watson-Gegeo, in their accounts of counter-hegemonic and de-hegemonic classroom practices in the Solomon Islands. Despite these instances in which particular, historically situated ideologies were discussed at length in the book, only limited attention was given in the volume to a theoretical unpacking of the term "ideology" in such a way as to problematize it as a research construct. Given the diversity of interpretations that the term can inspire, this may have been the most serious oversight of the book. For example, the editor and contributing authors did not explicate whether their interpretation of the term "ideology" was consonant with either its neutral or its pejorative connotation, a meaning distinction about which linguistic anthropologists have had much to say. Whether these authors intended to construe ideologies as normally occurring, inevitable sets of beliefs that people have about the world in which they live or whether they intended for the term to index ethically and politically motivated but essentially flawed sets of beliefs about the world was unclear. Missing from the book, in short, was an etymological history of the term that would ground its reference to theoretically principled and (somewhat) consistent usage. I would recommend Tollefson’s Language policies in education to readers interested in such topics as pluralism, multiculturalism, bilingual education, language advocacy, language ideology, or language contact and shift. The diversity of nations and languages covered in the book’s studies makes for an excellent introduction to the breadth and variety—as well as the universality—of ethnolinguistic contact and to the sorts of educational policies that are designed to manage it around the world. In this sense, it is the sort of book that can disabuse us of insidious and unconsidered assumptions about what is "normal" or preferable with respect to languages existing side by side. It is worth noting that the volume is oriented toward readers engaged in research, rather than to a casual audience, and is not necessarily a quick read. While jargon is kept to a minimum, the articles make reference to a wide variety of academic literatures with which novices (myself included) may not be familiar. On a final note, although the book was not designed for leisure reading, its vision for ethnolinguistic pluralism and more innovative incorporation of multiple languages in education so inspired me that I found myself reading it aloud to my family. I cannot think of a much better recommendation for a book. About the Reviewer Jennifer Guzmán Department of Applied Linguistics/TESL 3300 Rolfe Hall University of California, Los Angeles Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.