Social Reproduction in Classrooms and Schools

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/228173340
Social Reproduction in Classrooms and Schools
Article in Annual Review of Anthropology · October 2009

DOI: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085242
CITATIONS READS
233 18,738
1 author:
James Collins
University at Albany, The State University of New York
58 PUBLICATIONS 2,843 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by James Collins on 28 March 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1 Migration, Sociolinguistic Scale, and
2 Educational Reproduction aeq_1169 192..214
3 JAMES COLLINS
4 State University of New York–Albany
5
6 Migration-based language pluralism and globalized identity conflicts pose challenges for educa-
7 tional research and linguistic anthropology, in particular, how we think about education and social
8 inequality. This article proposes new conceptual tools, drawn from linguistic anthropology as well
9 as world systems theory, for analyzing the role of schooling in social reproduction and for inves-
10 tigating the dynamics of globalized social polarization. It grounds the argument in an ethnographic
11 study of Latino migrant schoolchildren in upstate New York. [scale, migration, globalization,
12 social reproduction, linguistic anthropology]
13
14 We live in a globalized world, one characterized by extreme economic inequality and mass
15 migration. Together these features pose significant challenges for many parts of society
16 and for our traditions of inquiry. Migrants seek better lives but encounter new forms of
17 social and economic discrimination, and host societies rely on migrant labor but are
18 increasingly troubled by migrant difference. The Anthropology of Education traditionally
19 investigates the role of social, cultural, and linguistic difference in schooling, but now such
20 differences and the institutional responses they engender are influenced by economic
21 inequalities having national and international dimensions. The Linguistic Anthropology of
22 Education, which rightly prides itself on its sophistication about context in language and
23 learning, must now grapple with globalized processes that result in new forms of linguis-
24 tic inequality and social polarization.
25 This article explores these issues through a theoretical argument in section two, which
26 frames the analysis of an ethnographic case in section three. The theoretical argument
27 presents three interconnected positions. First, the tradition of social reproduction analysis
28 remains relevant for an anthropology of education because we live in an era of widening,
29 not lessening, economic inequality; but older frameworks must be rethought because they
30 were formulated in and for a period prior to the profound social, cultural, and economic
31 changes we associate with “globalization.” Second, we need tools for understanding and
32 investigating how new social divisions and polarizations—that combine ethnolinguistic
33 and ethnoracial differences with social-class divisions and conflicts—play themselves out
34 in schools and the wider society. Third, linguistic anthropology, with its understanding of
35 the situated nature of all meaning-making and its sophisticated study of ideology, offers
36 valuable resources for such inquiry; but it requires as well attention to scale, and in
37 particular, concepts of sociolinguistic scale that encompass global system dynamics as well
38 as operations of power.
39 As anthropologists and language analysts we are interested in how people experience
40 global processes like migration and new forms of cultural and linguistic diversity and how
41 that experience is given shape and meaning by the way they use language and the way
42 language is used with them. Accordingly, our primary empirical materials emerge from
43 ethnographic and sociolinguistic investigation. This is presented in section three, which
44 draws from an ethnographic study of Hispanic immigrants in the Capital District Region
45 of upstate New York, focusing on the experiences of Mexican immigrant children in
46 schools in the city and suburbs of the region. Drawing on participant-observation, inter-
47 viewing, and language sampling, the ways in which migration-driven language diversity
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, Vol. 43, Issue 2, pp. 192–213, ISSN 0161-7761, online ISSN 1548-1492.
© 2012 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved.
DOI:10.1111/j.1548-1492.2012.01169.x.
192
Collins Migration and Sociolinguistic Scale 193
1 figures in school-based reproductive processes are examined. The analysis ranges widely,
2 over regionwide tensions about normative monolingualism and de facto language plural-
3 ism; families’ perspectives on their children’s multilingualism; and school staff’s views
4 and treatments of those same children and language issues. The primary sociolinguistic
5 data consists of immigrant students grappling with more than one language in multilin-
6 gual literacy events in classroom as well as home settings.
7 The issues examined in the case study focus on the several general questions. How do
8 community-wide and institutional treatments of migrants and their languages feed edu-
9 cational reproduction? How do migrant students bring their home-based multilingual
10 repertoires into classroom settings, and under what conditions are those resources built on
11 or excluded from school learning activities? How do differently scaled communicative
12 regimes, in particular the acceptance of bilingualism or the defense of monolingualism in
13 different sites and encounters, connect to wider social conflicts and polarizations?
14
15 Theoretical Context: Social Reproduction, Social Polarization, and Sociolinguistic
16 Scale in an Era of Globalization
17 Social Reproduction Then and Now
18 A feature of many anthropological and sociolinguistic studies of education is that they
19 understand schools as social institutions—that is, rather than accepting institutions of
20 education on their own terms, they analyze them in relation to wider societal contexts. In
21 this regard, and to a varying extent, such studies often try to understand how learning and
22 schooling is “reproductive,” that is, how features of economic background, cultural prac-
23 tice, or language use, as played out in school and nonschool sites, enter into educational
24 processes and result in the perpetuation of class, cultural, and linguistic inequalities (e.g.,
25 Collins 1988; Foley 1990; Heath 1983; Heller 1994; LaDousa 2005).
26 Studies of social reproduction in education gained prominence in the 1960s and 1970s
27 in the United States, Britain, and France (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977; Bowles and Gintis
28 1976; Willis 1981). Although studies differed in theory and method, they were responses
29 to debates concerning basic contradictions of these advanced capitalist nations. In the
30 post-WWII era in each country public education had been represented as a meritocratic
31 institution in which talent and effort alone predicted outcomes, but by the 1960s there was
32 mounting evidence otherwise (cf. Jencks 1972 for the United States). The basic reproduc-
33 tionist argument was that schools were not meritocratic institutions promoting equality of
34 opportunity; instead they reinforced the inequalities of social structure and cultural order
35 found in a given country.
36 Early research on educational reproduction identified systematic features of language,
37 culture, and political economy, which were reflected in the conduct and organization of
38 classrooms and curricula and assigned a causal role in perpetuating linguistic, cultural,
39 and economic inequalities (Bernstein 1975; Bourdieu and Passeron 1977; Bowles and
40 Gintis 1976). Despite its influence at the time and robustness as an analytic and empirical
41 venture, social reproduction in education research was largely abandoned by the early
42 1990s. This was not, however, because social inequality had lessened in this period;
43 instead, economic inequality has significantly increased in the United States and interna-
44 tionally since the early 1970s (Henwood 2003; Kuttner 2007; Stiglitz 2002; Wilkinson and
45 Pickett 2009). The demise of the reproduction framework was because of, instead, changes
46 in the world as well as to shifts in academic frameworks.
47 Social changes. Briefly summarizing relevant changes occurring in the capitalist “devel-
48 oped world” in the latter half of the 20th century, we may say that social stability and class
49 futures underpinned by a production regime with high wages and extensive public sector
194 Anthropology & Education Quarterly Volume 43, 2012
1 investment gave way to a new era characterized by instability, fragmentation and diversity,
2 in which the composition and futures of social classes became more uncertain and
3 complex. The postwar to early 1970s prosperity in North America and Western Europe was
4 organized by a “Fordist” accumulation regime that underwrote a social welfare system in
5 the advanced economies of the West (Arrighi 1997; Davis 1985). The period since the 1970s
6 has featured a “post-Fordist” accumulation regime, characterized by deregulation of
7 finance and productive capital and public disinvestment (Harvey 2005; Kuttner 2007). This
8 latter period, that of neoliberal globalization (Steger 2003), has seen the rise of great
9 fortunes, the growth and spread of poverty, the reemergence of mass migration, the
10 shredding of social safety nets, and the polarization of politics across much of the world
11 (Bauman 1997; Bourdieu 2000; Castells 2004; Friedman 1994, 2004).
12 The classic arguments and analyses of social reproduction pertained to the postwar to
13 1970s period, when economic and social stability seemed secure, albeit class stratified.
14 They outlined processes of, in Willis’s (1981) memorable phrase, “How working-class
15 youth get working class jobs,” but did so just at the juncture when working-class jobs were
16 leaving the industrial West and the larger capital accumulation regime was being restruc-
17 tured throughout the world (Davis 1985; Harvey 2005).
18
19 Conceptual changes. In addition to these social and economic changes, there were also
20 substantive changes in academic frameworks for understanding the world. Early repro-
21 duction analyses were formulated with a structuralist intellectual confidence that did not
22 survive the intervening decades of reflexive, postmodern uncertainty (Bauman 1997;
23 Rampton et al. 2008). Economic reproduction models, the first formulated, were also the
24 first criticized, most pointedly for neglecting the role of ethnoracial formations and gender
25 relations in capitalist political economies and class relations (Bettie 2003; Foley 1990; Weis
26 1990). The difficulties of formulating multifaceted accounts of race, class, and gender in
27 relation to schooling have been formidable, however, not least because the scale of analysis
28 for each appears to differ and poses its own challenges. We can see this by briefly
29 examining two ethnographic studies, the first of working-class high school students in the
30 North American rustbelt, the second a follow up study of those same people a decade
31 later.
32 Weis’s (1990) Working Class without Work: High School Students in a De-Industrialized
33 Economy analyzed the period when high-wage factory jobs were being lost and the stable,
34 patriarchal communities they had supported were faltering. In this study, Weis argued for
35 a shift from analyzing class reproduction to analyzing identity formation. She proposed
36 that feminism would lead working-class girls toward education and social mobility, while
37 a Reaganite “new authoritarianism” would attract working-class boys as they rejected
38 school and envisioned a restored patriarchal future. In Class Reunion: the Remaking of the
39 American White Working Class (Weis 2004), a follow up study with the many of the
40 now-adult participants in her earlier research, Weis finds support for her prior argument
41 that schools do not simply reproduce class relations. The women she studied attained
42 more education than their parents’ generation, often finding employment in service sector
43 white-collar jobs. The men, for their part, attained less education than the women and had
44 more precarious work histories. However, she also finds an unexpected détente in gender
45 relations. Rather than the conflicts predicted in the earlier work, between feminist women
46 and chauvinist men, Class Reunion shows both economic dislocation and the formation of
47 cross-gender solidarities, as men become more likely to help in the domestic realm.1
48 This new cross-gender solidarity, however, is itself based on heightened racial antago-
49 nism. In Class Reunion the white working-class women and men see themselves as pitted
50 in defense of “their” neighborhood against the African Americans and Yemeni immigrants
51 who increasingly inhabit their environs. A strength of Weis’s analysis of class and gender
1 articulations is that it sharpens spatial scales and temporal scopes—for example, the
2 defense of neighborhood against “others” and the reproduction of households across
3 generations. It also describes a dynamic of social polarization, in which economic decline
4 and social instability are twinned with heightened sociocultural (here, racial) conflict.
5 These findings have analogues in many nations, especially when, as with Class Reunion, the
6 racial “others” are immigrants (Pinxsten and Preckler 2003; Sassen 1999). Weis (2004) thus
7 highlights the need to link class dislocations with new forms of cultural and linguistic
8 animus.
9
10 Social Polarization in an Era of Globalization
11 Many analysts of global processes have noted tendencies toward social fragmentation
12 and conflict, along with the other transformations wrought by global finance markets,
13 production circuits, and information technologies (Appadurai 2008; Bourdieu 2000; Steger
14 2003). In a series of articles Friedman (2003, 2004) argues that globalization is not a
15 unifying, homogenizing process. He characterizes contemporary globalization as a phase
16 in a long-term cycle of world system decentralization in which there are declining
17 cultural-political hegemonies in old centers of economic and political power (viz. the
18 United States and Europe) as new centers slowly emerge (viz. East Asia–China; Arrighi
19 1997, 2009). Political-economic decentralization and declining national cultural hegemo-
20 nies produce neither cultural homogenization nor multicultural tolerance. In Friedman’s
21 account, the postmodern globalized world is riven by horizontal and vertical cultural-
22 linguistic polarizations.
23 The dual polarization thesis. Horizontal polarization concerns non-elite identity move-
24 ments. Two of the horizontal polarizations Friedman discusses are directly relevant to our
25 concerns: diasporization and nationalization. Diasporization is rooted in migrant identity
26 dynamics, new patterns of segregation as well as new communicative media (Jacquemet
27 2005). Salient examples are transnational minorities with extensive ties to countries of
28 origin, for example, Turks in Germany, Algerians in France, or the so-called “new Latinos”
29 in the United States (Villenas 2002). Diasporization often feeds the fear that immigrants in
30 Europe or the United States are not going to assimilate to national languages in the
31 expected manner (Combs et al. 2011; Huntington 2004). Such fears help fuel nationaliza-
32 tion, which is an effort to claim the state for specific groups, to equate certain ethnicities
33 with the nation, often in reaction to immigrants as well as other ethnic groups. Salient
34 examples are provided by New Right parties and movements in the United States and
35 Western Europe (Castells 2004; Pinxsten and Preckler 2003).
36 The vertical polarizations that Friedman identifies result from a conflict between elite
37 cosmopolitanism and vernacular indigenization. The former features a selective tolerance of
38 cultural and linguistic diversity; the latter tends to intergroup conflicts in which linguistic
39 and cultural differences inform struggles over identity, place, and resources. Elite cosmo-
40 politanism is the multiculturalism and multilingualism of the affluent, who taste and
41 pronounce at will, but rarely live among the migrants and minorities whose diversity they
42 may find enriching, as long as from a selective distance. Counterposed to such cosmo-
43 politanism is vernacular indigenization, a widely documented tendency to reroot identity
44 and polarize cultural conflicts among fractions of native and immigrant working classes
45 and poor. Such indigenization is often xenophobic and “intolerant” (DeParle 2011). Put
46 otherwise, for the culturally displaced and the economically downsized, identity move-
47 ments are more likely to be part of defensive projects.
48 The continuing relevance of the state. Vertical and horizontal social polarizations suggest
49 new ways in which ethnolinguistic identity interacts with the dynamics of class conflict.
1 Although Friedman does not emphasize it, his discussion also points to the importance of
2 a particularly sociopolitical scale or level, that of the state.2 Both diasporizing and nation-
3 alizing identity movements are efforts to reestablish the claim of ethnic groups vis-à-vis
4 the state—in the former to establish a right to nonassimilatory difference and dual alle-
5 giance, in the latter to “capture the state” for a particular group, usually understood in
6 ethnoracial terms. In both cases, efforts to remodel state institutions such as schools to
7 express these identity arrays are often important goals.3 Although elite cosmopolitanism
8 prides itself on its cultural tolerance and connoisseurship, ideally signified by fluent
9 multilingualism, it is also jealous of its privileges, for example, its possession of the
10 symbolic capital of (multiple) standard language proficiencies. Elite cosmopolitans are
11 thus supportive of conventional, hierarchizing educational arrangements secured by
12 nation-state education policy (LaDousa 2005; Loh 2010; Wagner 2003).4
13 Nationwide conflicts over Bilingual Education as state policy express a polarization
14 between vernacular indigenization and elite cosmopolitanism in the United States (Craw-
15 ford 2001; Collins 2011a). Understanding such society-wide conflicts in relation to lan-
16 guage practices occurring in schools requires an analysis capable of linking phenomena
17 occurring at multiple social scales. This, in turn, requires a critical appropriation of older
18 insights about social reproduction combined with newer conceptual tools for analyzing
19 language and society.
20
21 Sociolinguistic Scale: A Semiotics of Globalized Inequalities
22 The Bernstein hypothesis regarding class, codes, and education reproduction had an
23 analytical and empirical robustness reflected in subsequent research in both the United
24 Kingdom and the United States (Bernstein 1975; Hart and Risley 1995; Heath 1983; Lareau
25 2003). For a variety of reasons, too complex to summarize here (Collins 1988; Ohmann
26 1987), the Bernsteinian question—what is the role of language in educational
27 reproduction—was dropped as part of the general turning away from structuralist
28 accounts (Rampton et al. 2008). Instead, newer approaches to language and education have
29 given priority to individual performances and small-group processes—signaled through
30 concepts such as “identity,” “performance,” “voice” and “hybridity”—over the structural
31 constraints of political economy or linguistic code (Kamberelis 2001; O’Connor and
32 Michaels 1996; Wortham 2003). All analysts, however, whether earlier or more recent,
33 were working toward frameworks for multitiered analysis, capable of connecting lan-
34 guage use with its relevant contexts, whatever their scope or generality.5
35
36 Indexicality. In the field of Linguistic Anthropology, indexical analysis (Silverstein 1976) is
37 used to study how language provides cues about relevant context, and how, conversely,
38 readings of context inform the meanings we attribute to utterances. An indexical perspec-
39 tive emphasizes that language, in its manifold forms and uses, always carries social infor-
40 mation as well as whatever literal or “strictly linguistic” meaning may be at issue
41 (Gumperz 1972). There are now many studies of indexicality, exploring different aspects
42 of the intertwining of language and social life; for example, the imposition of authoritative
43 language at various social scales (Collins 1989; Rymes 2003), the construction of identities
44 (Urciuoli 1996; Wortham 2005) and the deployment of racial and gender hierarchies in
45 everyday talk (Blommaert 2005; Ochs 1992).
46 Two general findings are most relevant for our argument. First, indexes are part of the
47 reflexivity of language; they both reflect and create context (Gumperz 1996; Wortham 2003). It
48 is a familiar idea that we change our language according to the situation, for example,
49 using one way of speaking with friends, another with nonintimates or authority figures. In
50 such cases, our use of language can be said to reflect the circumstances we are in. But we
1 also often use language to signal a change in situation, to create a change in context, as
2 when we shift from using last to first names to signal greater intimacy (Gumperz 1982).
3 A second generality about indexes is that they are organized into stratified complexes or
4 assemblies, conceptualized variously as “orders of indexicality” (Blommaert 2005), “indexi-
5 cal orders” (Silverstein 2003b), and “regimes of language” (Kroskrity 2000).6 These strati-
6 fied complexes are most salient when expressed as society-wide or institutional
7 ideologies, although in actuality they encompass various social-semiotic levels with con-
8 tingent relevance for given phenomena. For example, as we will see in section three, when
9 a multilingual child uses Spanish, one of her three languages, to interact in school with an
10 adult who she knows shares that language, she is applying a local-scale domestic practice
11 of code-switching according to the activity or the identity of addressee, transposed to a
12 school setting. If a teacher subsequently condemns this use of Spanish in school, that
13 teacher is invoking a nonlocal scale, an institution-wide language regime. In all such cases,
14 a significant analytic and interpretive issue is determining the strategies and acts of power
15 whereby differently scaled orders or regimes are negotiated, imposed, or resisted.
16 Interaction. Indexical analysis typically foregrounds the interactive, emergent nature of
17 meaning, but it is important to see that emergence and constraint are intertwined and not
18 properties of distinct analytic levels. The tradition of interaction analysis pioneered by
19 Erving Goffman helps appreciate the duality of emergence and constraint. Goffman (1981)
20 analyzed participation formats, the multiple, complex roles held by actual and potential
21 sources and recipients of messages, and he wrote extensively about frames (1974), the
22 cognitive models for ongoing activity brought to social interchanges. Goffman (1981)
23 emphasized the complexity and moment-by-moment negotiability of communicative
24 conduct. He also showed that communicative contexts and social activities are layered,
25 with participants capable of multiple, shifting alignments to differing ongoing activities,
26 each with different constraints and creative potentials (Glick 2007; Irvine 1996; O’Connor
27 and Michaels 1996).
28 In the example just discussed, the girl’s domestic pattern of code-switching may seem
29 maximally open and flexible, but there were also strong norms operating (as we were
30 reminded when observing which of three languages an immigrant father used to rebuke
31 one of his children). Conversely, although institutional language policy might seem pre-
32 eminently the level of constraint, it is also something that, as we will see in sections three,
33 (1) classroom teachers may strictly or laxly apply, and (2) collective actors struggle to
34 impose, extend or overthrow.
35 Scale. To investigate such multifaceted, multilevel dynamics of creativity and constraint,
36 we need a further concept, that of scale, always latent in interaction, no matter how
37 apparently “local,” and always a social and cultural construction, no matter how appar-
38 ently “global.” As developed in this article, scale is a concept for understanding the world
39 as composed of stratified, layered units of differing size. It derives from cultural geogra-
40 phy (Swyngedouw 1996) and world-systems theory (Wallerstein 1998), and it emphasizes
41 that “social events and processes move and develop on a continuum of layered scales,
42 with the strictly local (micro) and global (macro) as extremes, and with several interme-
43 diary scales” (Blommaert 2007:1). Scale relations have diverse sources, some pertaining
44 more to political and economic structures and processes, others having more of a cultural-
45 discursive nature, involving sociocultural classifications and linguistic forms (Collins and
46 Slembrouck 2009).
47 The emphasis on global systems and their spatial and temporal coordinates fits well
48 with the social polarization analyses previously discussed. As Blommaert (2005, 2007) has
49 argued, the concept of sociolinguistic scale is a way of capturing the vertical as well as
50 horizontal dimensions of linguistic variation. His proposals have been engaged, critiqued
1 and developed in case studies that link scalar analysis with interaction analyses in settings
2 of migration-based language contact (Baynham 2009; Dong and Blommaert 2009; Pujolar
3 2009; Vigouroux 2009). These latter studies show a continual interplay between multilevel
4 social hierarchies and language use strategies. They provide empirical support for an
5 important theoretical point: Scalar analysis does not require static conceptions of hierar-
6 chical order, that is, of “top-down” causation in which larger or higher scale relations
7 always prevail over smaller or lower scale relations. Efforts to establish or shift scale, called
8 scaling or “scale-jumping” (Blommaert 2007; Swyngedouw 1996), especially when embed-
9 ded in real-time interaction, are richly attested in the sociolinguistic literature. They are of
10 a piece with what Goffman calls “laminat[ing] role categories” onto interaction (1981:156);
11 Silverstein (2003b) calls the “dialectics of sociolinguistic life”; and Wortham (this issue)
12 calls “emergence.”
13 Attention to scale and scaling, as part of a semiotic view of cultural and discursive
14 phenomena, teaches us three lessons. First, the interaction order, the natural habitat for
15 language, is never simply local (Goffman 1982; Lempert this issue; Silverstein 2003b).
16 Second, and related, the interactional plane is not exclusively the realm of individual
17 choice or agency, nor social structure solely the realm of constraint. Instead, there are
18 constraints as well as emergence at “micro,” “macro,” and intermediate scales (Collins
19 2009; Wortham this issue). Lastly, centers and hierarchies are salient aspects of a “sociol-
20 inguistics of globalization” (Blommaert 2010; Silverstein 2003a). Although global systems
21 and their center–periphery hierarchies are historical and ultimately processual, they are
22 also “distant causes,” slow to change, and very much the realm of collective action
23 (Arrighi 2009).
24 Our example of a migrant schoolchild’s code-switching can help illustrate all three
25 points. First, in the domestic realm of code-switching, we found ethnographic evidence of
26 national and transnational hierarchies operating. In particular, among Trique migrants, of
27 whom this child is one, Trique is the language of home and in-group, but Spanish is the
28 lingua franca of life in Mexico, used with those who are not coethnics. In migrant homes
29 in the United States, a similar hierarchy is found, but with the addition of English. In short,
30 national- and transnational-scale indexical assumptions about people and language
31 inform face to face exchanges, in a hierarchy of groups and languages: use Trique with
32 one’s “own group”; Spanish with other Mexicans (or known Spanish speakers); and
33 English with all others. Pertinent to our second point, the girl’s situated code choices at
34 home face uncertain futures when transferred to classroom contexts. Schoolwide “English
35 only”–language policies may be rigidly maintained or flexibly negotiated by classroom
36 personnel adapting to perceived student needs. Last, the linguistic and cultural classifi-
37 cations that position indigenous groups like the Trique in Mexico, and the relative value
38 assigned to Spanish and English in the United States, are each rooted in colonial and
39 neocolonial histories of centers and peripheries (Combs et al. 2011; De Genova 2005;
40 Mignolo 2000). The language regimes associated with such broad time-space scales
41 (Wallerstein 1998) do not rigidly determine how a child’s linguistic resources will be used
42 or evaluated, but neither are they irrelevant. In the case at hand, ethnographic evidence
43 suggests that it is because of scaled perception and evaluation, not coincidence, that
44 well-meaning teachers in upstate New York thought Spanish was an obstacle to school
45 learning and that Trique was a “dialect” of Spanish.
46
47 Migration, Sociolinguistic Scale, and Educational Reproduction: An Ethnographic
48 Study of Latino Migrants in Upstate New York
49 Research investigating the effect of migrant status on school performance has been
50 clear that the effect is profound and tends to reproduce social hierarchy (e.g., Bourdieu
1 2000; Suarez-Orozco 2001; Vermeulen and Perlmann 2000). Several issues are germane
2 to our current argument that the use and assessment of migrant languages, in differently
3 scaled settings and endeavors, are among the dynamics of educational reproduction in
4 a globalized world. First, migration into “developing countries” has a history of several
5 centuries, and it involves stratifying dynamics of class and race. Migrants are predomi-
6 nantly drawn into lower-status working-class occupations, and they are typically viewed
7 by members of the host society as racial others, whether Poles in 19th-century Germany
8 or Mexicans in the 21st-century United States (De Genova 2005; Sassen 1999). Second,
9 language is an important part of the sociocultural encounter between migrants and
10 host society schools, although there is considerable debate as to which factors lead to
11 language shift and linguistic assimilation, which to plurilingualism and linguistic dif-
12 1 ferentiation, and which to success in schooling (Hornberger 2003; Lutz 2002; Pujolar
13 2006). Last, and relevant to both preceding points, migrants with elite economic status
14 seem able to maintain successful educational strategies and valued, rather than
15 stigmatized multilingualism (Cook 2005; Loh 2010; Shankar 2008; Silverstein 2003a)
16 confirming the importance of analyses that investigate how class, race and language
17 articulate.
18
19 Ethnographic Context
20 What follows is drawn from a yearlong (2005–06) study of Hispanic immigrant children
21 in the Capital District Region of upstate New York. The research was conducted by the
22 author and a research assistant, Ana Lourdes.7 The study employed a wide-focus survey of
23 the cities and suburbs in the region, getting a general sense of where and how Latinos
24 lived; what sorts of advocacy, religious or other organizations served them; and what
25 public schools they attended. As part of this surveying, we conducted interviews with
26 community leaders, trade unionists, members and leaders of church organizations, and a
27 range of educators. We also attended a range of private and public events, including
28 parties, music festivals, and heritage celebrations in which Latinos interacted with each
29 other as well as non-Latinos from different walks of life. From the interviews with com-
30 munity members and leaders we gained an initial sense of how Latinos in our study
31 region perceived the zones, space, and hierarchies of Spanish and English; from attending
32 and observing diverse events, we learned about how people interactively and over longer
33 timescales both acquiesced in and challenged the prevailing ethos of “English only” in
34 public spaces and official undertakings.
35 Subsequently, we narrowed the study to a city and suburban school, each of which
36 served a Latino student population. We then interviewed parents from a dozen families of
37 Mexican, Dominican, and Puerto Rican backgrounds whose children were attending our
38 focal schools, asking parents how they used their multiple languages, how their children
39 did, and what their experiences and hopes were for their children’s education. We
40 observed English as a Second Language (ESL) and regular classrooms in the two schools,
41 and eventually profiled three families, with whom we also had multiple home visits. From
42 interviews we learned, among other things, that parents held class-specific models of
43 language in multilingual settings and that their educational strategies differed along class
44 lines, while from home observations we got a practical sense of children’s capabilities in
45 the different languages that made up their repertoires. From school interviews we learned
46 about educators’ perceptions of migrant students, their families, and school language
47 policy, while from classroom observations we learned how teachers balanced their views
48 of school language policy and their sense of the needs of multilingual students and how
49 those students coped with having most of their multiple language repertoires proscribed
50 at school.
1 A Reproduction of Language Hierarchies

2 No public place for Spanish. From our initial ethnographic survey we had learned that
3 Latino populations were largely a “hidden minority” in a region of presumptive English
4 monolingualism. In the towns and cities of the region, there were few public signs in
5 Spanish; spoken Spanish seemed to occur exclusively in private settings, homes, and social
6 gatherings, with the exception of some scheduled bilingual events such as Spanish and
7 English services at local Catholic churches. The region’s school systems carefully seques-
8 tered Spanish: It might be heard in the hallways and among children, but extremely rarely
9 from a teacher; there was only one Spanish–English Dual Language elementary school in
10 the entire area.
11 The Anglophone dominance of the region constituted a strong, ubiquitous pressure
12 against acknowledging or using languages other than English, especially in educational
13 settings. This hierarchizing of language extended from service encounters to formal insti-
14 tutional policy and state legislation. New York State has “English in the Workplace”
15 legislation that mandates the exclusive use of English in worksites in common with
16 numerous other states in the United States (Haviland 2003). The schools operate with an
17 ESL transition program for all “English Language Learner” students whose primary
18 languages are other than English (Woodward 2009). What this means is that school and
19 classrooms are to be conducted exclusively in English, whatever de facto multilingual
20 language practices may occur among students or between students and teachers.
21 In the conceptual idiom developed in the preceding section, we can say that from the
22 scale of the state, there is a prescribed hierarchy of languages, but that alternative scalings
23 are possible, and, further that imposing a definition of scale and appropriate language use
24 is a matter of power and politics. English is officially the language for public places and
25 affairs, especially education; other languages are relegated to private places and concerns
26 or sequestered in special educational programs (Reynolds and Orellana 2009; Urciuoli
27 1996). This normative dichotomy sits incongruously, however, alongside an official mul-
28 ticulturalism. September, for example, is New York’s Hispanic Heritage Month, during
29 which time bracketing of the official monolingualism can occur, in which alternative
30 ethnolinguistic identities are granted spaces for public display (Collins 2011b). During our
31 field study in 2006 a large-scale national mobilization of undocumented migrant workers
32 occurred (New York Times 2006). In New York and our study region, it triggered move-
33 ments of support and considerable backlash. The latter included stepped up arrests at a
34 worksites using migrant labor (Carleo-Evangelist 2007), deportations, and a furious popu-
35 list response to a proposal to grant New York State driver’s licenses to migrant workers
36 (Times Union 2007). A memorable argument by a legislator speaking for the opposition
37 was that migrants should “learn English” if they wished to establish legal residence in
38 New York.
39 Families’ views of language and school. Both working- and middle-class families in our study
40 reported wanting their children to maintain the ability to use Spanish while also acquiring
41 English. However, there were social class differences in how parents viewed the value of
42 multiple languages as well as their strategies for their children’s education. Working-class
43 parents emphasized that they wanted their children to retain Spanish, along with learning
44 English, and expressed the view that a primary function of multiple languages is for
45 maintaining social relations. In contrast, middle-class parents stressed that knowing two
46 languages presented a cognitive and economic advantage for their children; one said that
47 it meant that her son “thinks in two languages,” another stressed what she saw as the
48 economic advantages of bilingualism in a globalized world.
49 This class difference in cultural models of language (Gee 2005:ch. 6) was paralleled by
50 class differences in how families dealt with preschool and regular school years. Whereas
1 the blue-collar Fernandez family kept their children at home, being looked after by an
2 older sibling or the mother when not working, and trusting that the children would learn
3 English from the school, the middle-class Martinez family placed their son in an English-
4 speaking preschool for part days, relying on the home environment and summer trips to
5 Mexico to reinforce his abilities with Spanish. Family strategies for dealing with the
6 regular school years also differed. Among working-class parents, there was hope that
7 children would do well in school, but little detailed knowledge of how schools worked,
8 whereas middle-class parents were more aware of options, including classroom placement
9 and school transfers. For example, none of the working-class families spontaneously
10 mentioned the Dual Language school in their interviews, while all of the middle-class
11 parents did so.8
12 Knowing how to prepare children for the language proficiencies expected in school is
13 an educational advantage (Heath 1983; Lareau 2003). The Martinez child learned the
14 English required at school and kept his languages segregated, Spanish was used at home,
15 not at school; conversely, the Fernandez children often attracted school attention for their
16 “language problems,” thought to derive from their primary competence in Spanish,
17 although these seemed to deductions from what school personnel knew or thought about
18 their family linguistic situation, rather than observations about the children’s actual lan-
19 guage repertoires. Shankar (2008) provides an informative account of class differences in
20 handling multilingual proficiencies at school, in which elite migrant students segregate
21 their language repertoire, just as did the Martinez child, so that “other languages” do not
22 attract comment from school personnel.
23
24 School staff ’s perceptions of families and language. At Sanderson Elementary, one of the
25 schools in which we conducted our focal studies, both administrators and teachers
26 expressed a strong desire to help immigrant families and students. They spoke admiringly
27 of the high value Mexican parents placed on education and of how hard the parents
28 worked, but they also viewed the parents as unable to support their children’s school
29 learning at home. They spoke of individual differences among migrant children, that some
30 were outgoing and engaged and doing relatively well in school, others were shy and
31 prone to withdraw. Both teachers and administrators also referred to “language prob-
32 lems,” that is, that the children speaking Spanish might hinder their school learning. As
33 previously discussed, parents differed along class lines in their awareness of such judg-
34 ments and the significance of such classifications for their children’s educational futures.
35 The remarks by school personnel indicate perceptions scaled at the state and national
36 level, in that they presuppose a language hierarchy, common to state and federal education
37 policy, in which only English is appropriate for public education or other institutional
38 activity (Combs et al. 2011; Reynolds and Orellana 2009; Woodward 2009). Two comments
39 are pertinent. First, this institutional language policy represents an articulation of “public”
40 versus “private” space that serves also as the connecting hinge between language policy
41 and conflicts over such policy. As discussed fully later in this section, the hardening of
42 attitudes against plurilingualism is part of a broader political conflict in the United States.
43 Second, this conflict and its articulation of public and private space affect middle- and
44 working-class migrant students differently in school. To put the matter succinctly, with
45 middle-class students bilingualism remains invisible, while with working-class students it
46 is seen as a problem.
47
48 Multilingual Encounters in School: Scale, Evaluation, and Reproductive Process
49 With these general ethnographic facts in mind, let us now examine more closely some
50 examples of multilingual language practices, scales, and scale-specific evaluation.
1 The Valdezes were a Trique-speaking family from the Mexican state of Oaxaca, who had
2 moved to the Albany, New York, area and settled in a northern suburb of the city eight
3 months before we met them in the winter of 2006. They had joined a loose network of
4 other Trique in the area, and had several children in local schools. Our initial work with
5 the Valdez family consisted primarily of providing home tutorials in Spanish and English
6 for several of the children and their father, combined with classroom observations with
7 two of the children at a local elementary school. Mariana and Sandra Valdez were at
8 Sanderson Elementary during the course of our study, Mariana in the fourth grade and
9 Sandra in the third grade. Although both girls were fluent in Spanish as well as Trique,
10 they did not have much proficiency in English. When engaged with literacy tasks in
11 Spanish and English, as we were during our home visits, both girls were quick and eager
12 to participate, although Sandra sometimes deferred to her older sister. During these home
13 visits, they, their siblings, and their father moved frequently between Trique, Spanish, and,
14 to a much lesser extent, English.
15 At Sanderson Elementary, both girls were in regular classrooms for their grade level,
16 and both were struggling with a rapid-paced, demanding curriculum conducted entirely
17 in English. At school, the girls were perceived quite differently by the staff. Mariana was
18 identified by several teachers as a “good student”; while of Sandra the same people would
19 say that she was “not as quick” and “more quiet.” Near the end of the school year, five
20 months after we first met them, Mariana had in fact learned an impressive amount of
21 English, while Sandra knew less. At the end of the year, Mariana’s class celebrated her
22 language learning, with a cake announcing that she knew both Spanish and English
23 and—at her insistence—Trique as well. Sandra, however, was at the end of the year
24 referred to by her teacher as “like a two-year old,” “who might need Special Ed.” These
25 differences in school success were doubtlessly because of many causes; one factor,
26 however, was that the girls encountered different treatment in their respective classrooms
27 at Sanderson.
28
29 Inclusion and exclusion in classroom language dynamics. Mariana’s fourth-grade teacher
30 informed us that she herself spoke Spanish and had started the year speaking Spanish as
31 well as English to Mariana. Early in the year, the teacher had gotten Mariana to do some
32 of her writing in her two languages, Trique and Spanish, and during this same time period,
33 Mariana was also writing in her classroom journal using a blend of Spanish and English.
34 Otherwise, during our classroom visits, she attempted to function entirely in English.
35 Although the teacher tolerated this linguistic diversity, she was conflicted about it. Reflect-
36 ing school policy, she feared that using Spanish would delay Mariana’s mastering English.
37 She stated that Mariana was “embarrassed” when the teacher addressed her in Spanish, so
38 that she, the teacher, had stopped speaking Spanish with Mariana.9 Nonetheless, the
39 teacher commented on several occasions about Mariana’s desire to learn and be involved,
40 and she often had Mariana work with small groups of peers, who would become, in effect,
41 her peer tutors, whatever the subject. She also reported that on the playground, Mariana
42 was frequently “a leader,” directing groups of her peers with injunctions and exhortations
43 in Spanish and English.
44 Third-grade Sandra encountered a different classroom dynamic. Sandra’s teacher also
45 said that she spoke Spanish, but added that she did not use Spanish with Sandra unless
46 absolutely necessary. She also commented on the fact that Sandra spoke a third language,
47 meaning Trique, and thought that this might cause her further difficulties in school. This
48 teacher coped with the challenge of including a child who was trying to learn a language
49 while also dealing with schoolwork by often removing Sandra from the regular course
50 activities. Sandra would be in the regular classroom, but set aside on a rug the children
51 used for group activities, given an audio book to listen to, until the teacher, an aide, or a
1 peer could work with her one-on-one. In the classroom, Sandra seemed to be mostly a
2 silent observer, following others’ behavior, but not otherwise interacting.
3 An exception to this pattern occurred on those occasions when Sandra was interacted
4 with in Spanish as well as English. For example, early in our classroom observations, a
5 teacher’s aide came into the room and began to work on the rug with Sandra, alternating
6 Spanish with English. Sandra was much more engaged during this time. We see this in
7 Example 1.
8
9 Example 1
10 (1) Sandra (S) working on a math lesson with teaching aide (A)
11 A: ten take away two?
12 SV: ocho.
13 A: eight.
14 SV: eight.
15 A: seven take away two?
16 SV: cinco.
17 A: five.
18 SV: five. . . . .
19 A: muy bien, that’s very good.
20
21 In this exchange, the aide (A) asks subtraction problems in English “ten take away
22 two?” and Sandra answers, correctly, in Spanish “ocho.” The aide then repeats the
23 answer in English, and Sandra, understanding the aide’s pragmatic intent, repeats the
24 English “eight.” They proceed to another sequence “seven take away two.” The aide
25 finishes this activity with a brief encouragement in both languages “muy bien, that’s
26 very good.”
27 Later in the session, Sandra and the tutor engaged in a picture-naming vocabulary
28 activity, which is shown in Example 2. As a picture of an animal and a portion of a written
29 word were shown, Sandra was able to name many of the animals, but when she hesitated
30 at a picture and word fragment, the tutor encouraged her to use knowledge of Spanish for
31 the task “Sabes en español?” [Do you know it in Spanish?]. Sandra responds, identifying
32 the pictured animal as “Oso.” The tutor confirms this, “Si, es ‘Oso’ ” [Yes, it’s “bear”] and
33 then says “bear” with emphasis while revealing the written English word:
34
35 Example 2
36 (2) Sandra (S) working on a vocabulary exercise lesson with teaching aide (A)
37 SV: (pause)
38 A: Sabes en español?
39 (‘Do you know it in Spanish?’)
40 SV: Oso.
41 A: Si, es ‘Oso’, bear
42 (‘Yes, it’s bear’) (English said with emphasis, while showing word)
43
44 There are several lessons to be drawn from these examples. First, we are dealing with
45 contextualized senses of person, language, and activity. Sandra senses that she can use
46 Spanish with the tutor. The aide, for her part, although she conducted her activities
47 predominantly in English, acknowledges Sandra’s Spanish and reciprocally uses Spanish
48 in limited, strategic ways with her. Second, these exchanges appear to be organized into
49 register-specific discourse ensembles; in brief, they are pedagogic routines. In the subtrac-
50 tion routines shown in Example 1, Sandra hears English but answers in Spanish10; the tutor
51 confirms each answer in English, which Sandra then repeats in English. Third, Sandra
52 gives clear evidence of understanding more English than she produces, although “elicit-
53 ing” this knowledge requires the scaffolding offered by the use of both languages. The
54 matter does not end, however, with these points about the indexical contextualization of
1 person and language choice and the interactional interdigitation of activity, knowledge,
2 and language.
3 A final consideration is that these activities were subject to contending, scale-specific
4 evaluations; or, put otherwise, when scale shifted, so also did the indexicalities of evalu-
5 ation. In particular, when the classroom teacher was asked about the tutoring exchange, in
6 part because the normally quiet and watchful Sandra had been actively engaged with the
7 activity and the tutor, the teacher replied that she did not want the teacher’s aide using
8 Spanish with Sandra. The pertinent issue is not whether the teacher was right about
9 language and learning in this particular case but, rather, a more general point. Although
10 participants can and do negotiate different scalings, distinct scales have differing spa-
11 tiotemporal scope, and scale and scaling thus represent two faces of power, both the
12 power to classify and the power immanent in a classification of the world (Bourdieu 2000).
13 In the case at hand, the tutor’s real-time response to Sandra interactionally licenses a
14 bilingual local scale; it legitimates Sandra’s Spanish as appropriate for this particular
15 learning exchange. The teacher’s retrospective judgment represents a wider-scale prohi-
16 bition, with greater institutional authority. It casts the use of Spanish differently, as a
17 violation of appropriate school practice.
18 Building on strength? Multilingual proficiencies at home and school. Our ethnographic evi-
19 dence suggested that the Valdez children transferred their domestic experience of changes
20 in contextually understood activity, triggered by language use and involving fluid changes
21 in relevant participants, to school settings. As Zentella and others (González et al. 2005;
22 Zentella 2005) have argued, drawing on children’s primary language repertoires can be a
23 resource for school learning, although many things can work against such an outcome.
24 An example from our data is shown in Example 3, which is taken from an ESL
25 classroom late in the school year. The regular business of the ESL class was conducted in
26 English, and Sandra and Mariana usually attended together. The teacher was herself an
27 immigrant and sympathetic to the effort Sandra and Mariana had to make to learn a new
28 language while also doing regular schoolwork, but she was not a Spanish speaker. When
29 I observed an earlier lesson in January, I had greeted the girls and exchanged goodbyes in
30 Spanish, but during the lesson, as Sandra, Mariana, and a third non-Hispanic worked with
31 the teacher, all communication was in English. The girls talked little, and their responses
32 were elicited by the teacher.
33 A different communication dynamic occurred later in the year when Ana Lourdes, an
34 accomplished bilingual who was familiar to the girls, attended a lesson at which Sandra,
35 Mariana, and a third Mexican immigrant girl, Laura, were present. Example 3 provides an
36 excerpt, organized into three segments (3a, b, and c):
37
38 Example 3
39 (3) An ESL lesson, with code-switching between English & Spanish
40 3a: (MV approaches teacher, T, who beckons)
41 T: Sure can, bring it over here (to MV & Laura)
42 MV: This is elephant?
43 T: (to MV) Uh, no, finish and then come and see me
44 MV: Ok.
45 3b: (AL is working with SV, Laura, and MV)
46 SV Lo? ([what is] it?, to Ana)
47 Ana Watermelon . . . can you find the word watermelon?
48 Ok. (in response to SV pointing) What is this?
49 SV apple
50 Ana This
51 SV [ap-
52 Ana [Banana . . . Banana
53 SV banana (said very softly)
1 Ana This, uh,

2 SV Orange?
3 Ana [Uh huh. And you look for the word orange . . . Perfect (in response to SV finding word)
4 . . . Good, You’re doing it
5 SV Ok.
6 3c: (MV introduces Laura to Ana)
7 MV: Ella es mi prima
8 (She is my cousin)
9 Ana: Si? Como se llama?
10 (Yeh? What’s her name?)
11 MV: Ella?
12 (Her?)
13 Ana: Uh huh
14 MV: LAURA [lawra] . . . Pero dice “Laura” [lora] en ingles.
15 (Laura [lawra] . . . but you say ‘Laura’ [lora] in English)
16
17 As we can see from the excerpt, there are in fact several activities and participation
18 configurations. Example 3a is conducted entirely in English and directed by the teacher
19 Ms. S. in response to queries from Mariana. Example 3b involves Sandra working with
20 Ana on identifying and checking words on a worksheet: Sandra initiates in Spanish (Lo,
21 “it” understandable in this context as “And this one, what is it?”); after Ana acknowledges
22 the practical intent of Sandra’s query, albeit replying in English, Sandra then shifts to
23 answering in English, including her final “Ok.” Although this activity is underway, in
24 Example 3c Mariana approaches Ana and announces her relationship to the new girl,
25 Laura.
26 There are two aspects to these excerpts that we should note. First, as with the prior
27 Examples 1 and 2, they involve rapid, subtle signaling of activity and participation cued to
28 language choice. Most obviously, Mariana addresses and is addressed by the teacher in
29 English, a pattern uniform in the teacher–student exchanges, except for those rare occa-
30 sions when the ESL teacher would ask for the name of something in Spanish. In Example
31 3b Sandra initiates using Spanish with Ana, and Ana understands the pragmatic intent of
32 Sandra’s “Lo”? when they are beginning the activity, although they shift to English, within
33 a Q–A pedagogic register, for conducting the picture–word identification exercise. In
34 Example 3c Mariana introduces Laura to Ana in Spanish as her “cousin,” but when asked
35 to provide the name, does so along with a comment on how the name is pronounced in
36 both languages (“[lawra] pero dice [lora] en ingles”). In both Examples 3b and 3c the girls
37 shows pragmatic and metalinguistic knowledge of Spanish and English and bring this
38 knowledge to the conduct of school activities. Second, such multilingual practice shows
39 more active engagement with peers, teachers, and lesson material than in the earlier
40 lessons, whether in the ESL or other classrooms. Indeed, it is in such exchanges that we get
41 the best overview, outside of home settings, of the girls’ language proficiencies and
42 dispositions to engage with others.
43 All such exchanges are, however, transgressions of the normative expectations of the
44 school. They thus occur in the interstices of regular classroom conduct, relying on the
45 contingent presence of other Spanish speakers—the aide in Examples 1 and 2, Ana and
46 Laura in Example 3. All are subject to sanction, either at the time, or retrospectively, by
47 classroom teachers charged with maintaining official language policy. In brief,
48 institution-scale evaluations can result in the disqualification or exclusion of the chil-
49 dren’s language resources, and in our ethnographic findings, they often did. Despite the
50 subtlety of sociolinguistic knowledge being displayed, and the evidence of children’s
51 heightened engagement in learning activities, institution-wide language policy pre-
52 scribed a hierarchy of languages in which only English was acceptable for learning in
53 school.
1 Classroom language dynamics and the negotiation of language regimes. Official policies not-
2 withstanding, it is important to realize the language hierarchies and the scale relations
3 they represent—in this case that English is the prescribed language of instruction, Spanish
4 a home language, and Trique a poorly understood linguistic entity (in the United
5 States)11—are negotiable to varying degrees. Most directly and also most limitedly, we
6 found different classroom language environments for Mariana and Sandra. When Mari-
7 ana’s teacher decided to enable her student’s learning by drawing on her full linguistic
8 repertoire—encouraging Mariana to write to her grandmother in Spanish and Trique and
9 allowing her to write in her classroom journal in Spanish and English—she was using the
10 pedagogic relationship and its presumed intimacies to hold off the weight of institutional
11 language policy. Later, when the teacher rejected this plurilingual approach, she is aligning
12 her instruction, and the language dynamic in her classroom, more closely with official
13 policy. If Mariana’s teacher was somewhat tolerant of language diversity, Sandra’s viewed
14 it as an educational obstacle. Accordingly, she sought to isolate the “problem” of too many
15 languages—by her isolation of Sandra during regular lessons and her effort to forbid any
16 use of Spanish during classroom activities—and to strictly align her classroom with the
17 language regime of normative monolingualism.
18 A pertinent comparative example of such varying adherence to official language and
19 literacy policy is reported in Blommaert and colleagues (2006). In a study of immigrant
20 education in Belgium, they report an analogous monolingual ideology of education as well
21 as specific parallels with our Albany case. Although the majority of teachers in their study
22 viewed any language variety other than official school language (Standard, written Dutch)
23 as an obstacle to learning, and ran their classrooms according, as in our study, a minority
24 of teachers viewed children’s existing multilingual language proficiencies as resources
25 to be drawn on, and they modified classroom assignments and informal assessments
26 accordingly.
27
28 Discussion
29 Let us briefly consider some implications of our ethnographic findings. Investigating
30 official language policy, classroom behavior, and domestic language use has revealed a
31 general issue: that theorization and analysis must move beyond micro–macro dichotomies.
32 Our data suggest that both the intricacies of situated, real-time interaction and society-
33 wide social categories and hierarchies are relevant analytic concerns, but so also are
34 numerous intermediate scales or orders of activity. These include, from our data, the shift
35 from domestic–familial to institutional, as when the Valdez sisters bring their multilingual
36 repertoires to classroom settings. In addition, relevant scale often emerges in interaction.
37 In Example 1, involving Sandra and the classroom tutor, it is only when the tutor accepts
38 Sandra’s responses in Spanish that participants have thereupon ratified, and we can
39 analytically reconstruct, an interaction order that differs from the institution-wide English
40 Only language regime.
41 Second, our data suggest that reproductive processes combine both familiar and novel
42 features. What we found regarding the existence of class differences in families’ views of
43 language, knowledge of schooling, and strategies for dealing with schools are widely
44 documented aspects of the “mismatch” between homes and schools found in class-
45 divided societies (Bernstein 1975; Collins 2009; Heath 1983; Lareau 2003). That mismatch,
46 however, now extends to the judgment of plurilingualism. It is ironic that for working-
47 class migrant parents, having their children learn English and Spanish were both about
48 inclusion, English for learning to read and write, “para leer y escriber,” and interacting
49 with new American school friends, Spanish for remaining connected to kin and incoming
50 migrants. For school personnel, however, the existence of Spanish was “a problem,” that
1 could result in various forms of exclusion, including sequestration in the classroom,

2 assignment to pull out ESL classrooms, and possible referrals to “special ed.”
3 Third, it has often been pointed out that viewing plurilingual children as linguistically
4 flawed is likely to impede their educational performance (e.g., Crawford 2001; Hornberger
5 2003; Zentella 2005). What our data additionally suggest is that a school’s classification of
6 linguistic diversity as problematic is likely to affect working-class and middle-class stu-
7 dents unequally, because the former seem less disposed to segregate their linguistic rep-
8 ertoires. Lastly, we see that the disempowerment of linguistic minorities in the school
9 setting is influenced by general social polarization, in particular the waxing and waning of
10 anti-immigrant sentiment as this is reflected in debates about bilingual education (e.g.,
11 Combs et al. 2011; Crawford 2001; DeParle 2011; O’Connor 2009; Zentella 1997).
12 The Anglophone dominance of our region of study is seen by many local residents as
13 a long-standing characteristic of the area, but the inflow of migrants is a continuing fact of
14 life, and there have been ongoing challenges to language policy as well as counterreac-
15 tions. New York States’ English in the workplace legislation has been challenged in court
16 by unions disputing its scope. In addition, Hispanic advocacy groups have monitored the
17 compliance of school districts with state law regarding ESL–bilingual services, arguing
18 that schools often fail to provide necessary, legally mandated language services (Wood-
19 ward 2009). When we began our initial ethnographic survey in 2005, many interviewees
20 commented that Hispanics in the region were unaware of each other; by 2007, however,
21 there were a press reports about the “emerging” Hispanic presence in the area (Karlin
22 2007). In the fall of 2007, then-Governor Spitzer proposed that undocumented workers be
23 eligible for state driving licenses, but a fierce controversy greeted this proposal (Stadenhas
24 2007; Times Union 2007), and the proposed legislation was not passed. Recent years have
25 seen a series of municipal laws declaring “English as the official language” in small,
26 monolingual towns, and letters to the editor of the region’s flagship newspaper frequently
27 call on migrants to learn English (Grondahl 2007).
28
29 Conclusion: Understanding Social Reproduction in Classrooms and Schools in an
30 Era of Social Polarization and Conflict over Language
31 Toward a Processual Understanding of Language Hierarchy
32 Our ethnographic findings suggest the need for a processual understanding of lan-
33 guage hierarchy. In addition to school-internal negotiation, as discussed in the preceding
34 section, such hierarchies are also object of society-wide debate and political mobilization
35 (Crawford 2001; O’Connor 2009; Zentella 1997). In numerous European countries there
36 has been a debate about multicultural and multilingual education versus integrationist
37 education for migrant students (e.g., DeHaan and Elbers 2005; Moyer and Rojo 2007). This
38 language and education policy debate has coincided with the economic shifts and cultural
39 conflicts analyzed by Friedman (2003, 2004). As discussed in section two, his theorization
40 of vertical and horizontal polarization provides conceptual tools for analyzing the “glo-
41 balized” entangling of economic inequality and cultural diversity.
42 In a discussion of urban schooling and the hardening of attitudes toward migrants and
43 language diversity in the United Kingdom, Rampton draws together economic conditions,
44 linguistic diversity, and educational policy:
45
46 In this context [of neoliberal economic and education policy], pupils from homes where English
47 speaking was limited were increasingly seen as a threat to a school’s public performance profile.
48 . . . Whereas [earlier education policy] had called for inclusiveness, with the new market principles
49 it was no longer in a school’s interest to welcome refugee children and other newcomers to
50 England. [2006:9]
1 What these remarks suggest is that national education policy can include or exclude
2 “newcomers,” and the alternate choices are connected to economic conditions with roots
3 in globalized exchange as well as ideologies of globalization. More generally, the debates
4 and conflicts over education and language offer evidence of Friedman’s vertical and
5 horizontal polarizations, and they suggest some of the ways in which ethnolinguistic
6 identity interacts with the class conflicts. In particular, as Crawford (2001) shows, the
7 ongoing debate about bilingual education hinges on a complex class politics that pits
8 mobilizing “nationalists” against both cosmopolitan educational “elites” and demobilized,
9 diasporic immigrants.
10
11 Toward a Situated Understanding of Learning and Inequality

12 Studying the indexical dynamics of context and the complexities of participation and
13 alignment can help provide conceptually flexible and empirically robust accounts of
14 peoples’ capabilities, as individuals and members of groups engaged in situated activities,
15 as we have argued above for the Valdez children. However, we need also always to remain
16 aware that capacities and resources conducive to, say, literacy learning, may be ignored or
17 otherwise disqualified when assessed from the perspective of an indexical order like
18 Standard Language monolingualism, whether in the United States, Europe, or elsewhere.
19 In the theoretical framework and ethnographic analysis offered above, we have shown
20 that in studying classrooms, schools, and face-to-face interaction, it is necessary also to
21 account for the existence and operation of structural inequalities, to study how, for
22 example, language hierarchies forged at the level of nation or region come to play them-
23 selves out in classrooms, schools, and local communities. Such hierarchies inform the way
24 in which students are classified as likely to have “language problems,” whatever their
25 primary languages might be.
26 Educators need to remember that the assessment of resources is tied to scale, whether
27 in the classroom or wider society. Scale-sensitive judgments enter into children’s decisions
28 about which languages to use with their interlocutors; school personnel’s assumptions
29 about which languages are resources and which are problems for learning; and in the
30 positions taken in the ongoing bilingual education debate, a society-wide conflict over
31 language and national belonging.
32 In our globalized era, such conflicts combine desires for belonging and economic
33 conditions in new, polarized ways. It is imperative that we connect such polarization and
34 its effects to our understanding of sociolinguistic scale as a feature of globalized linguis-
35 tic and cultural diversity and as a tool for investigating the changing dynamics of social
36 reproduction. As Urciuoli (1996) painstakingly demonstrated a number of years ago, and
37 as recent ethnographies (Shankar 2008) confirm, race, class and language are complexly
38 intertwined in classifications of language and person, whether such classifications
39 emerge from face-to-face interactions, schools’ bureaucratic categorizations of students,
40 or society-scale judgments about which immigrant groups are likely to succeed and
41 3 which to fail.
42
43 Notes
44 Acknowledgments. This article is a substantially revised version of arguments and analyses pre-
45 sented as public lectures and colloquia before audiences at the departments of Anthropology, Lin-
46 guistics, and Education at Northern Arizona University in October 13, 2006, and the University of
47 South Carolina, March 30, 2007, and at the American Anthropological Association Annual Meeting,
48 December 5, 2009. The field research reported herein was supported by a Spencer Foundation Small
49 Grant # 200500098. I wish to thank the families and individuals involved in the upstate New York
1 field study and also Amarilys La Santa, who served as an invaluable research collaborator during the
2 field research and initial analysis. I am indebted to the audiences at NAU, USC, and the AAA for
3 discussion and questioning during the lectures and presentations; to Richard Blot, Doug Foley, and
4 Stanton Wortham for feedback on earlier written drafts; and to two anonymous AEQ reviewers for
5 extensive critical response.
6 1. This is largely because of the greater economic power of the female spouses, domestic partners,
7 or siblings with whom the men share a household.
8 2. Although global systems theory presumes that nation states are not analytic primes, arguing
9 that they must be understood as part of wider systems, it nonetheless recognizes that states can have
10 considerable significance (Wallerstein 1983).
11 3. Note the ongoing struggles for “multicultural” versus “Christian American” curricula in the
12 United States.
13 4. As a brief example of this elite stance, consider U.S. President Barack Obama. In his 2008
14 campaign he called for (and was pilloried for) U.S. citizens not to fear Spanish but learn it to be
15 “global citizens” of the 21st century (O’Connor 2009). As President he has put his full support behind
16 a market-driven overhaul of public education in the United States. likely to diminish the scale of
17 public education, deepening institutional inequalities among non-elite majorities who depend on
18 public systems (Ravitch 2010).
19 5. The tension is between structuralist assumptions that certain contexts of home or school are
20 prima facie more important than others and performative tendencies to reject such assumptions in
21 favor of demonstrating which contexts are demonstrably significant on a case-by-case basis. I am here
22 emphasizing an area of conceptual overlap and mapping a shared analytic terrain.
23 6. There are significant differences between these concepts, but what is shared, and relevant for
24 our argument, is the insight that “society,” ranging from face-to-face small groups through bureau-
25 cratic institutions and international linguistic markets, communicatively comprises layered hierar-
26 chies of indexical signs and metasigns
27 7. All school, family, and personal names are pseudonyms.
28 8. One middle-class mother, discussing her eldest child’s unhappiness in a local school, told of
29 having him transferred to the Dual Language program, where he was both happier and doing better
30 with his schoolwork.
31 9. When asked who in her school used Spanish, Mariana remarked “Mi maestra habla un poquito
32 español.” “My teacher speaks a little Spanish.”
33 10. The expanded routine can be glossed as something like “[What is the result of] ten take away
34 two?” to which Sandra replies “[Es] ‘ocho.’ ”
35 11. As noted earlier (in text) some of the staff at Sanderson thought that Trique was a dialect of
36 Spanish. Such scaled perception, including the erasure of language diversity in “peripheries” when
37 seen from the perspective of “centers” is common (Irvine and Gal 2000; Silverstein 2003a).
38
39 References Cited
40 Appadurai, A.
41 2008 Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy. In The Anthropology of Glo-
42 balization. J. Inda and R. Rosaldo, eds. Pp. 47–65. Oxford: Blackwell.
43 Arrighi, G.
44 1997 Globalization, State Sovereignty, and the “Endless” Accumulation of Capital. http://
45 fbc.binghamton.edu/1997papers.htm, accessed June 30, 2010.
46 2009 The Winding Paths of Capital. New Left Review 56:61–94.
47 Bauman, Z.
48 1997 Postmodernity and Its Discontents. New York: Routledge.
49 Baynham, M.
50 2009 “Just One Day Like Today”: Scale and the Analysis of Space/Time Orientation in Narratives
51 of Displacement. In Globalization and Language in Contact. J. Collins, S. Slembrouck, and
52 M. Baynham, eds. Pp. 130–147. London: Continuum.
53 Bernstein, B.
54 1975 Class, Codes, and Control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
55 2 1996 Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. London: Taylor and Francis.
56 Bettie, J.
57 2003 Women without Class. Berkeley: University of California Press.
58 Blommaert, J.
59 2005 Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1 2007 Sociolinguistic Scales. Intercultural Pragmatics 4:1–19.

2 2010 A Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3 Blommaert, J., L. Creve, and E. Willaert
4 2006 On Being Declared Illiterate: Language-Ideological Disqualification in Dutch Classes for
5 Immigrants in Belgium. Language and Communication 26:34–54.
6 Bourdieu, P.
7 2000 The Weight of the World. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
8 Bourdieu, P., and J.-C. Passeron
9 1977 Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture. Beverly Hills: Sage.
10 Bowles, S., and H. Gintis
11 1976 Schooling in Capitalist America. New York: Basic.
12 Carleo-Evangelist, J.
13 2007 Five Admit to Hiring Illegal Workers. Times Union, February 28: B1.
14 Castells, M.
15 2004 The Power of Identity. Malden, ME: Blackwell.
16 Collins, J.
17 1988 Language and Class in Minority Education. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 19:
18 299–326.
19 1989 Hegemonic Practice: Literacy and Standard Language in Public Education. Journal of Edu-
20 cation 171(2):9–35.
21 2009 Social Reproduction in Classrooms and Schools. Annual Review of Anthropology 38:
22 33–48.
23 2011a Literacy as Social Reproduction and Social Transformation: The Challenge of Diasporic
24 Communities in the Contemporary Period. International Journal of Educational Development
25 36(6):614–622.
26 2011b Indexicalities of Language Contact in an Era of Globalization: Engaging John Gumperz’
27 Legacy. Text and Talk 31(4):407–428.
28 Collins, J., and S. Slembrouck
29 2009 Goffman and Globalization: Frame, Footing and Scale in Migration-Connected Multilingual-
30 ism. In Globalization and Language in Contact. J. Collins, S. Slembrouck, and M. Baynham,
31 eds. Pp. 19–41. London: Continuum.
32 Combs, M., N. González, and L. Moll
33 2011 US Latinos and the Learning of English: The Metonymy of Language Policy. In Ethnography
34 and Language Policy. T. McCarty, ed. Pp. 185–204. New York: Routledge.
35 Cook, V.
36 2005 Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. 3rd edition. London: Arnold.
37 Crawford, J.
38 2001 The Political Paradox of Bilingual Education. In At War with Diversity. Pp. 84–103. Buffalo:
39 Multilingual Matters.
40 Davis, M.
41 1985 Prisoners of the American Dream. London: Verso.
42 De Genova, N.
43 2005 Working the Boundaries. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
44 DeHaan, M., and Ed Elbers
45 2005 Reshaping Diversity in a Local Classroom: Communication and Identity Issues in Multicul-
46 tural Schools in the Netherlands. Language and Communication 25(3):315–333.
47 DeParle, J.
48 2011 The Anti-Immigration Crusader. New York Times, April 17: A1.
49 Dong, J., and J. Blommaert
50 2009 Space, Scale and Accents: Constructing Migrant Identity in Beijing. In Globalization and
51 Language in Contact. J. Collins, S. Slembrouck, and M. Baynham, eds. Pp. 42–61. London:
52 Continuum.
53 Foley, D.
54 1990 Learning Capitalist Culture. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
55 Friedman, J.
56 1994 Order and Disorder in Global Systems. In Cultural Identity and Global Processes. Pp.
57 233–253. Beverly Hills: Sage.
58 2003 Globalizing Languages: Ideologies and Realities of the Contemporary Global System.
59 American Anthropologist 105(4):744–752.
60 2004 Globalization. In A Companion to the Anthropology of Politics. D. Nugent and J. Vincent,
61 eds. Pp. 179–197. Oxford: Blackwell.
1 Gee, J.
2 2005 An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.
3 Glick, D.
4 2007 Some Performative Techniques of Stand Up Comedy: An Exercise in the Textuality of
5 Temporality. Language and Communication 27(4):291–306.
6 Goffman, E.
7 1974 Frame Analysis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
8 1981 Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
9 1982 The Interaction Order. American Sociological Review 48:1–17.
10 González, N., L. Moll, and D. Di Amati
11 2005 Funds of Knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12 Grondahl, P.
13 2007 Facing a Failure to Communicate. Times Union, December 1: B1.
14 Gumperz, J.
15 1972 Introduction. In Directions in Sociolinguistics. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes, eds. Pp. 1–26. New
16 York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
17 1982 Discourse Strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
18 1996 Introduction to Part IV. In Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. J. Gumperz and S. Levinson, eds.
19 Pp. 359–373. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20 Hart, B., and T. Risley
21 1995 Meaningful Differences. Baltimore: Brookes.
22 Harvey, D.
23 2005 A Brief History of Neo-Liberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
24 Haviland, J.
25 2003 Ideologies of Language: Some Reflections on Language and U.S. Law. American Anthro-
26 pologist 105(4):764–774.
27 Heath, S.
28 1983 Ways with Words. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29 Heller, M.
30 1994 Crosswords. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
31 Henwood, D.
32 2003 After the New Economy. New York: New Press.
33 Hornberger, N., ed.
34 2003 Continua of Biliteracy. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
35 Huntington, S.
36 2004 The Hispanic Challenge. Foreign Policy 141:31–45.
37 Irvine, J.
38 1996 Shadow Conversations: The Indeterminacy of Participant Roles. In Natural Histories of
39 Discourse. M. Silverstein and G. Urban, eds. Pp. 131–159. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40 Irvine, J., and S. Gal
41 2000 Language Ideology and Linguistic Differentiation. In Regimes of Language. P. Kroskrity, ed.
42 Pp. 35–83. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
43 Jacquemet, M.
44 2005 Transidiomatic Practices: Language and Power in the Age of Globalization. Language and
45 Communication 25:257–278.
46 Jencks, C.
47 1972 Inequality. New York: Basic.
48 Kamberelis, G.
49 2001 Producing Heteroglossic Classroom (Micro)cultures through Hybrid Discourse Practices.
50 Linguistics and Education 12:85–125.
51 Karlin, R.
52 2007 Hispanic Issues, Culture at Plaza. Times Union, November 27: A4.
53 Kroskrity, P., ed.
54 2000 Regimes of Language. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
55 Kuttner, R.
56 2007 The Squandering of America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
57 LaDousa, C.
58 2005 Disparate Markets: Language, Nation, and Education in North India. American Ethnologist
59 32(3):460–478.
60 Lareau, A.
61 2003 Unequal Childhoods. Berkeley: University of California Press.
1 Loh, C. E.
2 2010 Flexible Literacies, Cultural Crossing and Global Identities. Ph.D. dissertation, Depart-
3 ment of Educational Theory and Practice, University at Albany–State University of
4 New York.
5 Lutz, A.
6 2002 Bilingualism in the USA. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, University at Albany–
7 State University of New York.
8 Mignolo, W.
9 2000 An Other Tongue. In Local Histories/Global Designs. W. Mignolo, ed. Pp. 217–249. Princ-
10 eton: Princeton University Press.
11 Moyer, M., and L. Rojo
12 2007 Language, Migration and Citizenship. In Bilingualism: A Social Approach. M. Heller, ed.
13 Pp. 137–160. London: Palgrave.
14 New York Times
15 2006 Immigrants Take to the Streets in a Show of Strength. New York Times, May 2: A1.
16 O’Connor, B.
17 2009 Barack Obama Wants Your Child to Speak Spanish: Language Paranoia in the “Post-Racial”
18 United States. Paper presented at the 108th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological
19 Association, Philadelphia, PA, December 4.
20 O’Connor, M. C., and S. Michaels
21 1996 Shifting Participant Frameworks: Orchestrating Thinking Practices in Group Discussion.
22 In Discourse, Learning, and Schooling. D. Hicks, ed. Pp. 63–103. New York: Cambridge
23 University.
24 Ochs, E.
25 1992 Indexing Gender. In Rethinking Context. A. Duranti and C. Goodwin, eds. Pp. 335–358. New
26 York: Cambridge University Press.
27 Ohmann, R.
28 1987 Reflections on Language and Class. In Politics of Letters. Pp. 275–313. Middletown, CT:
29 Wesleyan University Press.
30 Pinxsten, R., and E. Preckler, eds.
31 2003 Racism in Metropolitan Areas. New York: Berghahn.
32 Pujolar, J.
33 2007 African Women in Catalan Language Courses: Struggles over Class, Gender and Ethnicity in
34 Advanced Liberalism. In Words, Worlds and Material Girls: Language, Gender, Globalization.
35 B. McElhinny, ed. Pp. 305–348. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
36 2009 Immigration in Catalonia. In Globalization and Language in Contact. J. Collins, S. Slem-
37 brouck, and M. Baynham, eds. Pp. 85–105. London: Continuum.
38 Rampton, B.
39 2006 Language in Late Modernity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40 Rampton, B., R. Harris, J. Collins, and J. Blommaert
41 2008 Language, Class and Education. In Kluwer Encyclopedia of Language and Education. N.
42 Hornberger and S. May, eds. Pp. 71–81. Berlin: Springer.
43 Ravitch, D.
44 2010 The Death and Life of the Great American School System. New York: Basic.
45 Reynolds, J., and M. Orellana
46 2009 New Immigrant Youth Interpreting in White Public Space. American Anthropologist
47 111(2):211–223.
48 Rymes, B.
49 2003 Relating Word to World: Indexicality During Literacy Events. In Linguistic Anthropology of
50 Education. S. Wortham and B. Rymes, eds. Pp. 122–150. Westport, CT: Praeger.
51 Sassen, S.
52 1999 Guests and Aliens. New York: New Press.
53 Shankar, S.
54 2008 Desi Land. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
55 Silverstein, M.
56 1976 Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description. In Meaning in Anthropology.
57 K. Basso and H. Selby, eds. Pp. 11–55. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
58 2003a The Whens and Wheres—as Well as Hows—of Ethnolinguistic Recognition. Public Culture
59 15:531–557.
60 2003b Indexical Order and the Dialectics of Social Life. Language and Communication 23:193–
61 229.
1 Stadenhas, J.
2 2007 Granting License only Rewards Illegal Activity. Times Union, October 7: E1.
3 Steger, M.
4 2003 Globalization. New York: Oxford University Press.
5 Stiglitz, J.
6 2002 Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: W. W. Norton.
7 Suarez-Orozco, M.
8 2001 Globalization, Immigration, and Education: The Research Agenda. Harvard Educational
9 Review 71:579–589.
10 Swyngedouw, E.
11 1996 Reconstructing Citizenship, the Re-Scaling of the State and the New Authoritarianism:
12 Closing the Belgian Mines. Urban Studies 33:1499–1521.
13 Times Union
14 2007 Spitzer Answers Critics of Driver’s License Plan. Times Union, October 14: A1.
15 Urciuoli, B.
16 1996 Exposing Prejudice. Boulder, CO: Westview.
17 Vermeulen, H., and J. Perlmann, eds.
18 2000 Immigrants, Schooling, and Social Mobility. New York: St. Martins Press.
19 Vigouroux, C.
20 2009 A Relational Understanding of Language Practice: Interacting Timespaces in a Single
21 Ethnographic Site. In Globalization and Language in Contact. J. Collins, S. Slembrouck, and
22 M. Baynham, eds. Pp. 62–84. London: Continuum.
23 Villenas, S.
24 2002 Reinventing Educación in New Latina Communities. In Education in the New Latino
25 Diaspora. S. Wortham, E. Murillo, and E. Hamman, eds. Pp. 17–35. Westport, CT: Ablex.
26 Wagner, A-C.
27 2003 La bourgeois face á mondialisation. Mouvement 26(March–April):33–39.
28 Wallerstein, I.
29 1983 Historical Capitalism. London: Verso.
30 1998 The Time of Space and the Space of Time: The Future of Social Science. Political Geography
31 1:71–82.
32 Weis, L.
33 1990 Working Class without Work. New York: Routledge.
34 2004 Class Reunion. New York: Routledge.
35 Wilkinson, R., and K. Pickett
36 2009 The Spirit Level. London: Penguin.
37 Willis P.
38 1981 Learning to Labor. New York: Teachers College Press.
39 Woodward, J.
40 2009 Bilingual Education Provision in New York State: An Assessment of Local Compliance.
41 NYLARNet Summer.
42 Wortham, S.
43 2003 Linguistic Anthropology of Education: An Introduction. In Linguistic Anthropology of
44 Education. S. Wortham and B. Rymes, eds. Pp. 1–29. Westport, CT: Praeger.
45 2005 Learning Identities. New York: Cambridge University Press.
46 Zentella, A.-C.
47 1997 The Hispanophobia of the Official English Movement in the US. International Journal of the
48 Sociology of Language 127:71–86.
49 Zentella A.-C., ed.
50 2005 Building on Strength. New York: Teachers College Press.
Toppan Best-set Premedia Limited
Journal Code: AEQ Proofreader: Emily
Article No: 1169 Delivery date: 17 April 2012
Page Extent: 22
AUTHOR QUERY FORM

Dear Author,
During the preparation of your manuscript for publication, the questions listed below
have arisen. Please attend to these matters and return this form with your proof.
Many thanks for your assistance.
Query Query Remark

References
q1 AUTHOR: To match the reference list, should Pujolar,
2006 be changed to Pujolar, 2007? Please advise
q2 AUTHOR: Bernstein 1996: This reference is not cited in
text. Should we ﬁnd a place to cite it or delete it here?
q3 WILEY-BLACKWELL: Please provide the author’s
afﬁliation for the article.
View publication stats

Social Reproduction in Classrooms and Schools

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Reproduction in Classrooms and Schools

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Social Reproduction in Classrooms and Schools

Article in Annual Review of Anthropology · October 2009

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1 A Reproduction of Language Hierarchies

1 Ana This, uh,

1 could result in various forms of exclusion, including sequestration in the classroom,

11 Toward a Situated Understanding of Learning and Inequality

1 2007 Sociolinguistic Scales. Intercultural Pragmatics 4:1–19.

AUTHOR QUERY FORM

Query Query Remark

View publication stats

You might also like