Bilingual Student Perspectives About Language Expertise in a Gentrifying Two-Way Immersion Program Suzanne Garcia-Mateus, California State University, Monterey Bay

California State University, Monterey Bay

From the SelectedWorks of Suzanne Garcia-Mateus

Summer July 29, 2020

Bilingual student perspectives about language expertise in a gentrifying two-way immersion program Suzanne Garcia-Mateus, California State University, Monterey Bay

Available at: https://works.bepress.com/suzanne-garcia-mateus/10/ International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20

Bilingual student perspectives about language expertise in a gentrifying two-way immersion program

Suzanne García-Mateus

To cite this article: Suzanne García-Mateus (2020): Bilingual student perspectives about language expertise in a gentrifying two-way immersion program, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2020.1797627 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1797627

Published online: 29 Jul 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rbeb20 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1797627

Bilingual student perspectives about language expertise in a gentrifying two-way immersion program Suzanne García-Mateus Monterey Institute for English Learners, Education and Leadership Department, California State University – Monterey Bay, Seaside, CA, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY The two-way immersion dual language education program design Received 27 June 2019 includes the use of language labels to identify students as either the Accepted 11 June 2020 English speaker or the speaker of a language other than English. This KEYWORDS paper examines four focal student and two teacher interviews to ‘ ’ Bilingual education; bilingual consider the ways in which the idea of a language expert transpired students; classroom during individual student retrospective interviews. Data include video discourse; dual language and audio recordings of student and teacher interviews, classroom immersion; heritage observations of student interactions during their kindergarten, ﬁrst and languages; identity second grade years. This study draws from a raciolinguistic perspective construction to explore how power operates in sites where the categorization of language and race are negotiated. A distinctive goal of this paper includes understanding the ways in which students were perceived by their peers and classroom teachers as language learners in order to understand how power relations operated as the school demographics were changing. Findings indicate that race was entwined with social class and language in the ways students perceived one another. Implications for teacher education programs include raising an awareness of how teachers can both mitigate and shift power relations in culturally, ethnically and linguistically diverse contexts.

Introduction They’re not exactly pros because me and Sabine are the best, like the smartest in Spanish. They’re mostly like Spanish speakers. Nico In this excerpt, Nico, a Latino and middle-class student in a two-way immersion classroom, was referring to his Latinx classmates who were from Mexico and/or from a lower socio-economic background. Nico’s description of them as ‘mostly Spanish speakers’ but ‘not exactly pros’ represents how the use of Spanish is highly stigmatized in the US context for speakers from marginalized communities. The way the use of Spanish is perceived can have positive or negative academic implications for students (Bartlett and García 2011; Palmer 2009). Two-way immersion bilingual education (TWBE) models bring ‘Spanish speakers and English speakers’ 1 together to become bilingual, biliterate and bicultural (Lindholm-Leary 2005). When bringing together a culturally and linguistically diverse group of students to learn, it is urgent that we consider how students are perceiving one another in their bilingual school community. TWBE models have been on the rise in metropolitan areas across the USA due to interest convergence (Shannon 2011) where parents from mostly white2 and middle-class backgrounds are beginning to acknowledge the beneﬁts of bilingual education. This is a shift from seeing bilingualism as a

problem, especially the bilingualism of language minoritized speakers, to seeing bilingualism as a resource (Ruiz 1984). Many of these metropolitan locations are also experiencing gentriﬁcation (Tang and Falola 2016). A key feature of TWBE programs is the strict separation of languages by time-of-day, subject area, and in the case of the TWBE model implemented at Nico’s school, according to the day of the week (e.g. with some parts of the day taught in English, others in Spanish). In fact, literature that describes TWBE design emphasizes oral language use and instruction rather than the use of language labels (Howard, Sugarman, Christian, Lindholm-Leary, and Rogers 2007). In earlier grades, language labels, both written and spoken identiﬁers, were placed upon students. Language labels were also placed throughout the classroom, color coded according to the named language they belonged within. The labels served to promote the use and status of the minoritized language by designating a secured space in the classroom where it was visible and used during content area instruction. Data for this paper is from a larger ethnographic and longitudinal study about identity construction in a TWBE elementary school in Central Texas. This paper examines how the notion of a ‘language expert’ emerged from teacher and student interviews as connected to students racial and social class backgrounds. The following research questions guided this analysis: (1) How do students understand the role that language labels play in a TWBE classroom? (2) How do language labels position students in one TWBE classroom?

Literature review Valdés (1997) prescient cautionary note warned scholars and practitioners in the field of bilingual education about social inequities that could affect children of color in TWBE programs. TWBE classrooms can negatively impact students of color from marginalized backgrounds if they do not identify and connect with the curriculum (Caldas 2018; García-Mateus 2020). Valdés’ warning included critical implications for TWBE models that serve both language majority and minoritized language speakers and are designed to label students as either a ‘Spanish speaker’ or an ‘English speaker,’ as these con- structs can perpetuate racialized perceptions of bilingualism (Nuñez and Palmer 2017; Rosa and Flores 2017; Rosa 2019). In other words, if not used mindfully and critically, these language label con- structs can dichotomize notions of language users based on the racial and social class backgrounds of students. Other studies have examined the impact of labeling students through a binary lens (Chaparro 2019; de Jong 2016; Hamman-Ortiz 2019; Lee, Hill-Bonnet, and Gillispie 2008; Palmer 2019). The classroom in one study (Palmer 2019), as in many TWBE contexts, used red labels for all words in English and blue labels for all words in Spanish. Palmer problematized the use of labels and referred to children who are already bilingual in a kindergarten classroom as ‘the purple kids’. She described how there is no ‘purple label’ for students who enter TWBE classrooms on various points of the biliteracy continuum and whose linguistic realities and proficiencies are not fully represented by the designated language labels. As a result, students are limited in how they are encouraged to use their linguistic repertoire and practitioners can miss learning opportunities to develop students’ metalinguistic awareness. Chaparro (2019) also problematized the TWBE model’s lack of a label for children who are already bilingual. She urges us to consider how ‘…the regimentation of children and families into discrete language categories – as ‘English speakers’ and ‘Spanish speakers’–fails to capture the complexity of both the lived experiences of students as well as their linguistic practices (2)’. Chaparro’s study showed how students do not fit into these binary categories and, furthermore, there are extralinguis- tic factors, such as class and race, that shape students’ experiences in the TWBE classroom. As a result of not considering class and race, practitioners can also miss opportunities to develop students critical cultural awareness (García-Mateus 2020) and to deconstruct notions of what it looks and sounds like to speak one or more languages in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 3

A plethora of studies have explored how the co-construction of positive academic and bilingual identities is related to the ways in which immigrant students learning English are perceived by their teachers and peers (Fitts 2006; Bartlett and García 2011; Martínez, Hikida, and Durán 2015; Scanlan and Palmer, 2009). Language labels ultimately serve as markers of an individual’s identity and can be representative of how society perceives and stigmatizes students especially those from Latinx, Spanish-speaking backgrounds. As these other studies have shown, children’s linguistic identities do not conform to such rigid binary language labels; on the contrary, students in TWBE classrooms draw upon their full linguistic repertoire to communicate ideas with one another in and outside of the classroom (Chaparro 2019; Palmer 2019; Zentella 1997). Students need to deconstruct the meaning of language labels, otherwise teachers risk perpetuating stereotypes of what it means to be Latinx and speak Spanish in the U.S. context where it is highly stigmatized for people of color.

Theoretical framework This study draws from a raciolinguistic perspective to understand how historical and contemporary colonial co-naturalizations of race and language manifest in society and how they can be replicated in classrooms (Rosa and Flores 2017). This paper explores how power operates in sites where the categorization of language and race are negotiated. A raciolinguistic perspective takes into account how ‘raciolinguistic ideologies produce racialized speaking subjects who are constructed as linguistically deviant even when engaging in linguistic practices positioned as normative or innovative when pro- duced by privileged white subjects (Rosa and Flores 2017, 10)’. A raciolinguistic perspective describes perceptions of racial and linguistic diﬀerence, power dynamics and how they can function in institutional settings like public schools. A raciolinguistic perspective helps us see the role social class played in how a diverse group of students understood language labels and their role in positioning students in their classroom.

Institutional embodiment and (de)racializing practices In order to deracialize practices in institutional contexts individuals must be aware of how they embody deficit views of marginalized communities. In other words, it is important to recognize how individual perceptions and actions, as they work within the constraints of institutions such as public schools, are and can be symptoms of larger systemic issues (Bucholtz and Hall 2005). Malsbary (2014) described a race-language process that exists in bilingual-education programs in which ‘…language is reemployed to legitimate the continued subordination of brown and black bodies’ (373). Her research illuminates how, despite English-only policies at the school, students of color found dynamic and agentive ways to counter the nativist language policies imposed on them. One way students achieved this was by cri- tiquing how their English as a Second Language programs kept them segregated from other groups and by creating their own multilingual policies for their classrooms. Malsbary’s study offers us a possible solution for the racialization of bilingual students from a Latinx and working-class background in TWBE contexts, one in which students take on agentive roles and publicly critique the bilingual programs offered to them as language learners. When teachers engage students about social inequities their classmates may be experiencing, such as gentrification or being undocumented, children can and will take on agentive roles to make their school a more just place for everyone (Caldas 2018; Heiman and Yanes 2018; Kubota, Austin, and Saito-Abbott 2003). This paper contributes to a scarce area of research where scholars in the field of bilingual education explore the racialization processes of students by examining students understanding of the use of language labels and how they reinforced the notion of language experts in a TWBE classroom.

Context Huerta Elementary (a pseudonym) was located in Central Texas in a neighborhood that was experiencing demographic changes. Families from working-class backgrounds were moving away due to 4 S. GARCÍA-MATEUS various factors including increased rent. These demographic shifts meant that the students who made up the TWBE model at Huerta were also changing. Recent literature problematizes how TWBE models are being gentrified due to the social class changes many metropolitan cities in the U.S. are experiencing (Cervantes-Soon 2014; Heiman and Yanes 2018; Valdez, Freire, and Delavan 2016). In the larger study, I followed the first kindergarten cohort in Huerta’s newly established TWBE program for four years through third grade. This paper reports on findings from student interviews during the third year of data collection, when participating students were in second grade. A theme that emerged as I individually interviewed students was how they were describing one another based on the use of language labels as part of the TWBE program design. In this article, I am focusing on four focal students who came from diverse backgrounds. The first two interviews examined were Nico and Elizabeth’s because they were both heritage speakers of Spanish. Heritage speakers3 are students who speak Spanish, whose family members speak or have historically spoken Spanish and are from a Latinx background. Elizabeth also carried the ‘English Language Learner’ (ELL) label. The second set of interviews I examined were Tessa’s and Cristóbal’s because they were both identified by the program as being language experts of the language that was not their dominant one. Cristóbal was given the ‘English expert’ label and Tessa was given the ‘Spanish expert’ label despite Cristóbal being seen (programmatically) as Spanish-dominant and Tessa as English-dominant. Since students were assessed in their proficiency of Spanish and English using a pre-LAS4 assessment, teachers would describe students as dominant in one language over another. The teachers also referred to students as ‘bilingual partners’ in class or as ‘ELLs’ while in conversation with other teachers, if they carried the label. As a result of being referred to as the ‘English or Spanish expert’, students would refer to their partner as an expert of either language.

TWBE program model The Gomez and Gomez dual language model (Gomez, Freeman, and Freeman 2005) included separ- ating the languages of instruction by content area (e.g. Math in English; Science in Spanish), utilizing a language-of-the-day in which M-W-F were designated Spanish days, and T-Th were designated English days, and assigning students to work together in ‘bilingual pairs’. This last feature of this TWBE model was unique compared to others, as this structure necessitated that one student was considered the ‘English speaker’ and another was considered the ‘Spanish speaker’. Language arts was taught ‘in the student’s primary language’ for the first 3 years in the program, thus requiring students be identified with a single primary language. Classrooms were also labeled using blue for English words and red for Spanish words. The language label designees were based on a number of factors. The home language survey identified students who would receive a language assessment to determine if they should carry the ELL label. Only students whose parents said they spoke a language other than English would be selected for the assessment. However, educators considered other factors in their decisions, including language assessments (e.g. Pre-LAS) and parent requests. In fact, there were some middle-class parents who identified their homes as English-speaking or bilingual who requested that their child be placed in the Spanish language arts portion of the day because they understood the importance in allotting more time in the minoritized language. Once a student was given a label as the ‘English or Spanish partner’ within their bilingual pair, they were referred to as such by their partner and teacher, and these labels did not change for the remain- der of the school year; in most cases, these labels stayed the same throughout the child’s time at Huerta. During my interview with Mrs. Epett, she described how the language labels were part of the TWBE design, explaining, ‘The only time [students] call out experts is when they don’t understand a word and then they’re like ‘well my bilingual you know expert doesn’t – isn’t helping me’ you know’ (Interview, Spring 2013). Mrs. Epett explained that the students understood the language labels as INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 5

pointing to their partners who translated the meaning of words; she said students became frustrated if their partner did not know the meaning or, as she put it, ‘[wasn’t] helping them’.

Participants As mentioned earlier, I am deﬁning heritage speakers of Spanish as individuals that come from a Latinx5 background in which members of their family speak Spanish or past generations spoke Spanish. The Spanish heritage speakers in this analysis are Nico, Elizabeth and Cristóbal. I have chosen to refer to them as heritage speakers of Spanish to honor their cultural and linguistic backgrounds. The students are listed below in the order that they appear in the excerpts. The two teachers, following the students below, identiﬁed as Latina and grew up speaking Spanish in their home and community.

Nico Nico was from a Latinx, bilingual and upper middle-class background. He started the TWBE program bilingual in Spanish and English. In observations and according to teachers, he did not hesitate or struggle to use both languages. His pre-LAS scores classified him as a fluent English speaker (score 5/5) and a limited Spanish speaker (score 3/5) in kindergarten. His mother, originally from Uruguay, spoke Spanish at home and his father identified as white and spoke primarily in English. Nico attended the same local Spanish immersion daycare center as his cousin Sabine (see Table 1) and Tessa prior to kindergarten. Throughout his time in the TWBE program, he was designated as a ‘Spanish-speaker’.

Elizabeth Elizabeth was from a Latinx, Spanish-speaking and working-class home and community. She was also considered an ELL by the school. Her parents immigrated to the USA before she was born. She would become the family’s language broker (Orellana 2009) and as a translator she would help her mother in public settings, like grocery stores, by translating from English to Spanish (Interview with mother, 4/8/13). Elizabeth began the TWBE program primarily speaking in Spanish. According to her kindergarten pre-LAS scores, Elizabeth was a ﬂuent Spanish speaker (score 4/5) and a non-ﬂuent English speaker (score 1/5); however, according to her LAS scores in second grade, she scored a 3 (out of

Table 1. Student participant background information.a Socioeconomic Years in TWBE Participants Ethnic/racial background background Gender Home language Program Nico Uruguayan & white (Sabine’s Upper Middle-Class Male Bilingual K-2nd cousin) Heritage speaker of Spanish Elizabeth Mexican-American Working-Class Female Bilingual K-2nd Heritage speaker of Spanish Tessa white Upper Middle-Class Female English K-2nd Cristóbal Mexican-American Working-Class Male Bilingual 2nd Heritage speaker of Spanish Sabineb Uruguayan & white (Nico’s Upper middle-class Female Bilingual K-2nd cousin) Heritage speaker of Spanish Mimic Colombian & Korean- Upper middle-class Female Bilingual K-2nd American aBoth parents and teachers provided background information about the students. bSabine appears in the excerpts several times as mentioned by focal participants. cMimi appears in the excerpts several times as mentioned by focal participants. 6 S. GARCÍA-MATEUS

5) in English and a 4 (out of 5) in Spanish. Throughout her time in the TWBE program, she was designated ‘Spanish-speaker’.

Tessa Tessa was the only non-Latinx student of the four participants and her parents identiﬁed their home as English-speaking and racially as white. She was also from an upper middle-class background. She began the TWBE program as a bilingual speaker of Spanish and English. She had learned Spanish because she attended a local Spanish immersion daycare as a toddler and continued through pre- kindergarten. According to her kindergarten pre-LAS scores, she tested as a ﬂuent English speaker (score 5/5) and a limited Spanish speaker (score 3/5). Tessa would participate in class in either Spanish or English, although she struggled to express herself more in Spanish than in English. Throughout her time in the TWBE program, Tessa carried the ‘Spanish-speaker’ label.

Cristóbal Cristóbal was from a Latinx, bilingual and working-class background and where English was primarily spoken at home. He started the TWBE program in second grade and was bilingual in Spanish and English. Since he started the program later than the other students, his pre-LAS scores were not available, unlike most students in the class whose scores were available.

Mrs. Epett Mrs. Epett is a bilingual and identified as Latina. She was from a large city in Texas. At the time of the study, she was teaching second grade. Mrs. Epett was the designated language arts teacher where she taught a cohort of students in English and another in Spanish; however, despite the program’s expectation that she teach one group in Spanish, I only observed her using English with both language arts cohorts. The reasons were varied and beyond the scope of this article. She was a certified bilingual teacher who had graduated from a nearby university-based teacher-preparation program. The year I collected data in her classroom, Mrs. Epett was completing her fifth year at Huerta, where she started her teaching career.

Ms. Contreras Ms. Contreras is bilingual and identiﬁed as Latina. She was born and raised in Jalisco, México and immigrated to the USA when she was in sixth grade. At the time of the study, she was teaching second grade and was also a designated Spanish teacher. She was observed solely teaching in Spanish with her students. In 2010, she graduated from an alternative certiﬁcation program from a local education agency. The year I collected data in her classroom was her second year as a teacher working in Huerta elementary.

Methods Researcher positionality I identify as a second-generation Mexican immigrant from a bilingual community in Southern Califor- nia. I am also a former bilingual educator and taught in a TWBE program. Today, I am raising proud multilingual Latina daughters who have beneﬁtted from a bilingual education. During the data collection period, I was pregnant with my second daughter; by this time, the students and teachers were familiar with me, as I’d been a participant observer collecting data in the school periodically for several years. They knew me as a researcher interested in bilingual development, who would occasionally help individuals or small groups in the classroom. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 7

Data This paper is an analysis of a subset of data from the larger study; using a smaller set of data allowed me to examine a specific phenomenon (i.e. the use of language labels and how power operates) in a bounded context (Merriam 2001). While the six interviews were the main data source, I also drew from my field notes, memos and reflection journal to triangulate the data. The student interviews are considered retrospective (Rampton 1995) because the initial goal was to gain a better understanding of the students’ views about their own bilingualism as participants of a TWBE program. I did this by individually showing students video recordings of themselves in kindergarten, first grade, and second grade. The questions I asked were related to their development as bilinguals over time. Some of the questions included who their bilingual partners were, who was considered the Spanish versus the English ‘expert’ in the pair, and whether they used both languages simultaneously in the classroom. What became apparent during the interviews was the varying perspective(s) they had of themselves and of one another as language partners. The two teacher interviews served to confirm and better understand students’ perceptions.

Data analysis The segments from the student and teacher interviews that were selected for close discourse analysis included those in which participants referred to the use of language labels. The student and teacher interviews are considered speech events, which include an examination of the varied perspectives, or speech acts (Cameron 2001), that participants expressed about their own and their classmates’ bilingualism and the use of labels during the interview. A speech act is the ‘answering or asking of a question’ and for this paper I examined the responses participants made to my interview question(s). Part of the constant comparative method of data analysis involves ‘comparing one segment of data (e.g. field notes, video recordings, memos) with another to determine similarities and differ- ences’ (Corbin and Strauss 2007, 18). In my ongoing analysis, I would write analytic memos to help keep track of how the concepts or theories that emerged from the data related to one another. These memos also helped confirm whether or not certain patterns were emerging, such as the different ways in which students described one another. This process was ongoing, and it was repeated several times to verify that what was being observed made sense. Each participant was interviewed one time during their second-grade year or during the third year of data collection. Prior to beginning each interview, I showed students videos of themselves from previous years (e.g. kindergarten and first grade) and, if available, from their current second-grade classroom. Afterwards, I asked participants which language they would like to use during the interview. We discussed both their progress and that of their peers in learning the target languages of English and Spanish. After I viewed each interview and took additional notes, I selected speech acts in the videos in which the participants referred to the use of labels (i.e. language, ethnicity or race) in reference to themselves or peers in the class. The selected transcripts were coded according to when and how the participants used language, ethnic or racial labels to describe one another as language learners. After I had finished interviewing students, I interviewed the teachers, also one time during the third year of data collection, in order to clarify what students had shared and to gain a better understanding about how they were perceiving the use of language labels. Apart from the teachers not viewing student videos, the teacher data was examined using the same procedures (see above) as the student data.

Findings The student perspectives in this paper provide us with an understanding of the raciolinguistic terrain in a second-grade classroom that was part of a gentrifying TWBE program. Each student interview is an example of how power dynamics can shape the distinct ways in which individuals experience being and becoming bilingual. 8 S. GARCÍA-MATEUS

The raciolinguistic hierarchy The interview below occurred after Nico and I watched a video from when he was in kindergarten, which led us to discuss who his bilingual partners were in second grade. I decided to use the labels he used when describing language labels, so as to avoid confusion. The labels ‘pro’’ and ‘expert’ were used interchangeably.

Excerpt 1 (1) Researcher: Is there an English expert in your group? (2) Nico: Stan (Latino). Well, me and Stan because Jake (Latino) doesn’t know that much English, so we help him. I’m bilingual. Jake knows mostly Spanish. Stan knows mostly English. There’s four pros in the class. It’s me, Tessa, Sabine,6 and Mimi (3) Researcher: Four pros? What do you mean? (4) Nico: They’re like the most bilingual speakers. They’re like really experts. (5) Researcher: Oh okay, so who would be the Spanish pros? (6) Nico: Me and Sabine, [inaudible] but we all know bilingual. Me and Sabine know completely bilingual, but then Tessa and Mimi know a little bit bilingual. They know a lot of English; are a little bit bilingual. They both know a lot of Spanish

Nico described Stan as knowing ‘mostly English’ and Jake as knowing ‘mostly Spanish’ and as members of a TWBE program, they were all considered emergent bilinguals.7 When I asked Nico if there was an ‘English expert’ in his group of partners, he said that he and Stan were the English experts, but then qualiﬁed his comments by stating that he (Nico) was actually bilingual. After I inquired what Nico meant by four pros, he explained that he and his mentioned peers were ‘the most bilingual’ and ‘like really experts’. This prompted me to ask, ‘Who would be the Spanish pros?’ Nico went on to explain that he and his cousin Sabine were ‘completely bilingual’ and that Tessa and Mimi ‘know a little bit bilingual’, which demonstrated how some students were seen as ‘more bilingual’ than others. By backing up his comment that he, unlike Stan, was bilingual, he was also making a claim that he was more of an ‘expert’. He concluded his comments by naming the four bilingual pros in the class which were students who also come from similar higher socioeconomic backgrounds like himself. Wanting to stay on the topic of language labels, I went ahead and asked Nico the following question:

Excerpt 2 (7) Researcher: So, the Spanish pros in your class, who are they? (8) Nico: Mimi. No, me and Sabine. Well, there are other people but they’re not exactly pros because me and Sabine are the smartest in the class which are the Spanish pros. There are people that were born in Mexico so they know a lot of Spanish like Jake, Andrew, and Bob- (9) Researcher: Are they Spanish pros? (10) Nico: They’re not exactly pros because me and Sabine are the best, like the smartest in Spanish. They’re mostly like Spanish speakers (11) Researcher: So there’s pro Spanish speakers and then Spanish speakers. Are there pro English speakers? (12) Nico: Yea, like Tessa, Mimi, Max, or me maybe (13) Researcher: Max is a pro English speaker? (14) Nico: Well, he speaks English, like a lot of English a lot a lot a lot. And Stan and me I speak a lot of English

Nico listed students who came from upper middle-class backgrounds as being more bilingual than those who came from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. He explained that students ‘that were born in Mexico’ and know ‘a lot of Spanish’ were not exactly ‘pros’ because they were essentially not ‘the smartest in the class’. He also described heritage speakers from working class and Latinx backgrounds (Jake, Andrew, and Bob) as ‘Spanish speakers,’ but not pros. Nico described students like Sabine and himself, as the ‘Spanish experts’ and as the ‘smartest in class’. As documented in other literature, students who come from upper middle-class backgrounds frequently command more attention and take the floor to speak more often in class, in part because they are familiar with the literacy practices of school (Erickson 2004; Purcell-Gates 1997). One possibility is that Nico perceived students like himself as being the ‘Spanish or bilingual pros’ and the smartest’ due to INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 9 the frequency in which he and his peers participated in class and used either Spanish and/or English which was, in part, due to the way language labels were designated per student. I will discuss patterns of participation from this classroom later in the sections to follow. Scholars have examined ‘smartness’ as a social category that intersects with language, race, and class, which contributes to the positioning of children in hierarchal ways (McDermott and Varenne 1995). Nico’s categorizations of students’ backgrounds with who is considered a ‘bilingual expert’ is representative of the way society frames the language practices of marginalized communities as not ‘fully bilingual’. Students from lower-socioeconomic backgrounds and heritage speakers of Spanish, like Jake, Andrew and Bob, were what Nico had described as ‘Spanish-speakers that were born in Mexico, but not exactly ‘pro’ Spanish speakers.’ The intersection of race, language, and social class seemed to have afforded students who come from linguistically and ethnically diverse and middle-class backgrounds cultural and linguistic capital (Bourdieu 1977) in both English and Spanish. Previous studies have documented how the bilingualism of students who are considered heritage speakers of Spanish and from working-class backgrounds can be highly scrutinized (Valen- zuela 1999; Zentella 1997), and the expectations of reaching a certain level of proficiency is surveilled through yearly assessments and numerous ‘ELL’ labels (Hernandez 2017). Nico’s interview reflects the larger societal discourses about immigrant and emergent-bilingual children (Nuñez and Palmer 2017) which, often times, does not recognize the richness of multilingual students’ linguistic repertoires (Martínez 2018). In fact, the ELL label may be unnecessary and potentially counterproductive in the TWBE context.

Resisting dominant perspectives about Latinx students’ bilingualism After viewing video recordings of herself in kindergarten, ﬁrst, and second grade, Elizabeth and I had a discussion about bilingual pairs in her current second-grade classroom.

Excerpt 3 (15) Researcher: ¿Hay muchos niños en tu salón que son expertos en ser bilingües? / Are there a lot of kids in your class who are experts in being bilingual? (16) Elizabeth: Sí, algunos / Yes, some (17) Researchers: ¿Quiénes son? / Who are they? (18) Elizabeth: Tessa, Mimi, Sabine, yo (me), Cristóbal, Jaime, Nico that’s everyone (19) Researcher: Y, Ms. Contreras? (20) Elizabeth: Y, (And) Ms. Diana (Latina, student teacher) (21) Researcher: No te ves muy segura … ¿Hay personas que son expertas con sólo el español? / You don’t seem very sure … Are there people who are experts with only Spanish? (22) Elizabeth: Cristóbal habla mucho en español. / Cristóbal speaks a lot of Spanish (23) Researcher: ¿Él es experto en español? / Is he a Spanish expert? (24) Elizabeth: Y en inglés. ¡Los dos! Pero Aaron, Eleanor, Leo no saben español. Y George. And in English. Both of them! But, Aaron, Eleanor, Leo don’t know Spanish. And George (25) Researcher: ¿Quiénes son los expertos en inglés? / Who are the English experts? (26) Elizabeth: ¿Quién habla más en inglés? Yo, Sabine, Mimi, Tessa, Cristóbal, Mara, Cyan and Johan, / Who speaks more in English? Me, Sabine, Mimi, Tessa, Mara, Cyan, and Johan (27) Researcher: ¿Has notado si algunas personas en tu salón mezclan los dos idiomas, o sea si usan inglés y español a la vez? / Have you noticed if people in your class mix the two languages, I mean English and Spanish at the same time? (28) Elizabeth: Algunas personas/Some people (29) Researcher: ¿Quiénes son?/Who are they? (30) Elizabeth: Sabine, Mimi, Nico, and me

Elizabeth had embodied a similar perspective as Nico in that she quickly named students, from a higher socioeconomic background, such as Tessa, Sabine, Mimi and Nico, as being ‘bilingual experts’. Although there were other students, either white and English-dominant or Latinx with varying levels of proﬁciency in both Spanish and English, Elizabeth chose to only include herself and Cristóbal in the list of bilingual experts. It was Cristóbal’s ﬁrst year at Huerta Elementary, so it could be that Elizabeth did not know him well enough, but she knew that he was bilingual like herself. 10 S. GARCÍA-MATEUS

Research has shown that students often attain ‘perceived expertise’ if they are active participants in the classroom (Martin-Beltrán 2010). During my observations, I began to notice a pattern with regard to participation and how those who spoke more frequently in class were also positioned in positive ways by their peers and the classroom teacher (Field notes, 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2014). Although it seemed like participation patterns provides a feasible explanation as to why Elizabeth perceived students from middle-class backgrounds as ‘bilingual’ compared to students who came from marginalized backgrounds, but, in truth, she consistently kept herself and Cristóbal on the list. Manifestations of power dynamics can be and are replicated in contexts where ‘the categorization of language and race are negotiated’ as they are in TWBE classroom. Elizabeth’s linguistic capabilities were framed as deﬁcient by her teachers, which led to her being retained during the second-grade year (García-Mateus 2016). When I inquired about Elizabeth’s use of Spanish in class. Mrs. Epett said, ‘ … Elizabeth is a Spanish-speaker, but I mean if you talk to Elizabeth she’s kind of not all there sometimes’ (Interview, 5/9/2013). Mrs. Epett further described how Elizabeth seemed to lack comprehension and that she did not seem to remember what was being discussed. When I asked Ms. Contreras to tell me about Elizabeth she said, ‘She’s really quiet. Her English is a little broken, even her Spanish sometimes. Umm, she’s a student that deﬁnitely needs help like one-on-one’ (Interview 5/13/13). Elizabeth seemed to be demonstrating resistance to the way her and Cristóbal’s use of Spanish was being perceived. Despite being described as someone that did not know either Spanish and English well by her teachers and her bilingual partner (Observation, 3/20/2013), Elizabeth described herself as a ‘bilingual expert’. She seemed to be resisting the way students like her were being framed by students like Nico as just ‘Spanish speakers [from] Mexico’ by consistently including herself and Cristóbal in the list of ‘bilingual experts’.

The unmarked label: A white student’s perspective Based on the programmatic labeling in this classroom, Tessa was considered a Spanish expert while her partner, Cristóbal, an English expert. In the following transcript, after viewing videos together, Tessa and I engaged in a conversation about her speaking in both English and Spanish with classmates during her ﬁrst- and second-grade years:

Excerpt 4 (31) Researcher: Are you the Spanish expert in your bilingual pair? (32) Tessa: Well, technically, since I don’t know as much Spanish. I still know a lot of Spanish, but my partner, he knows like the most Spanish. But, we basically know like- He knows like a tiny bit more than me. So, when I need help with it, I’ll ask him. I don’t really know who the Spanish expert is, really. I just know that we both know Spanish (33) Researcher: Who’s your partner? (34) Tessa: Cristóbal (35) Researcher: When you have bilingual pairs, both persons can be bilingual, right? So, Cristóbal is your bilingual pair, how do you help each other with Spanish and English? (36) Tessa: Sometimes when I’m using a sentence and sometimes if there’s words I don’t know and I would ask him, like ‘How do you say that?’ He’d say it to me and if he doesn’t know, I’ll ask the teacher. But usually, he knows and I just say it out loud

When I asked Tessa if she was the ‘Spanish expert’ in her group, she responded with an explanation about the amount of Spanish she and her partner knew. She described Cristóbal as knowing ‘a tiny bit more’ Spanish than her and explained how they help each other with translations. Tessa knew that Cristóbal spoke Spanish. Tessa went from describing Cristóbal as knowing ‘the most Spanish’ to saying that she just knows they ‘both know Spanish’ and is not sure who actually is the Spanish expert (line 32). Her comment reﬂects how complicated the TWBE classroom can be when bringing diverse children together to become bilingual and the potential the TWBE classroom has for the development of rich metalinguistic awareness. Tessa seemed aware both of the programmatic labels in the classroom, which made her ‘technically’ the Spanish expert, and of a more accurate sense INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 11

of her own and her partner’s bilingual language skills, in which they ‘both [knew] Spanish’ but Cris- tóbal knew ‘a tiny bit more’ than she did and would help her sometimes. White students in school settings tend to carry an unmarked label, which can further marginalize students of color if the existing social inequities are not challenged (Cervantes-Soon et al. 2017; Flores, 2016; Lee, 2005; Pimental 2011). Unmarked labels may include whiteness, and an ‘academic’ or ‘standard’ variety of a language. This variety of English is normalized and often students of color are held to that standard (Alim 2004; Mendoza-Denton 2008). In contrast to the way Mrs. Epett and Ms. Contreras described Elizabeth’s use of Spanish, Tessa’s identity and use of Spanish was not characterized from a deficit perspective. For example, when I inquired about Tessa and the progress she had made in Spanish since kindergarten, Ms. Contreras said, ‘[Tessa] can carry a conversation in Spanish. She’s a very bright student. She wants to learn. She’s eager. She asks questions and she’s always attentive when the lessons are taught’ (Interview, 5/7/13). Students from white an upper middle- class backgrounds, either white or Latinx, seem to have been afforded privileges that elevated their use of Spanish. Tessa’s linguistic repertoire included literacy practices such as consistently and without hesitation asking questions during content area instruction, which the school as an institution sanctioned (Martínez 2010; Souto-Manning and Martell 2016). This appeared to influence the way teachers and classmates perceived her command of Spanish and English.

Disrupting a raciolinguistic agenda Prior to starting the interview, Cristóbal shared with me that he mostly spoke English at home with his parents and some Spanish with his grandparents (Interview, 5/9/2013). Cristóbal was a heritage speaker of Spanish and both of his parents were bilingual (Spanish, English). I thought it would be interesting to hear Cristóbal’s perspective about his partner Tessa’s ‘expertise’ as a student that came from a white and English-speaking home. After learning that this was his ﬁrst year in the TWBE, I initiated the following interaction with him:

Excerpt 5 (37) Researcher: How does she help you? (38) Cristóbal: In English because sometimes I don’t know which we use the ‘i’ or the ‘e’. (39) Researcher: Does she help you in English and Spanish or just English? (40) Cristóbal: English (41) Researcher: And you help her with-? (42) Cristóbal: Spanish (43) Researcher: Are you a Spanish expert or an English expert? (44) Cristóbal: English expert (45) Researcher: Are there some people that are bilingual experts? (46) Cristóbal: Only Elizabeth, Mimi, and Sabine (47) Researcher: What about Nico? (48) Cristóbal: He is, [too]

When I asked Cristóbal, ‘How does she (Tessa) help you?’ he described a classic example that many emergent bilingual students struggle with in terms of phonemic awareness. He explained how, ‘… sometimes I don’t know which we use the “i” or the “e”’. He was referring to the individual sounds letters make, or phonemes, in either Spanish or English. He also confirmed that he translated for Tessa (line 46), and later in the interview, how he sometimes read in Spanish then English and how he used cognates to help him understand English. Cristóbal subverted a raciolinguistic agenda by explaining how he helps Tessa with Spanish and she helps him with English, yet he identified himself as the ‘English expert’. The programmatic labels seemed both to Cristóbal and to Tessa to be artificially naming students’ expertise in ways that did not necessarily reflect how they inter- acted with their bilingual partners. Although the ‘English expert’ label was one that the institution gave Cristóbal, he was also bilingual in Spanish and English. The language labels were used during daily interaction when students 12 S. GARCÍA-MATEUS had to go to bilingual centers with their bilingual partners to complete an academic task. This daily interaction extended to other content areas during instruction where students sat next to their bilingual partner in order to help one another, if needed, for translation purposes (Field Observations, Spring 2013). Cristóbal’s use of Spanish was essentially erased by the public school institution, unlike Tessa’s. Interestingly, the way Cristóbal described bilingual speakers aligned with the way other focal students perceived those who were the ‘bilingual experts’. He also named Mimi and Sabine, but included another Latinx heritage speaker, Elizabeth, in the expert group. One could argue that perhaps Cristóbal did not really understand that I was specifically asking about institutional labels or how the language labels were being used in his classroom. What seems clear, however, is that these labels were not accurate representations of students’ linguistic identities. Cris- tóbal, like the other participants, described using his bilingualism with various classmates despite his designated language label.

Teachers’ perspectives of students and language labels The times in which I observed Mrs. Epett and Mrs. Contreras using the language labels were during whole-group classroom instruction. The teachers would ask students to talk to their bilingual partner or ask students to go to the bilingual centers with their bilingual partner. Mrs. Epett also described how teaching students in Spanish who were not in the Spanish Language Arts group in previous years was challenging. She said, ‘So it makes it hard for us. The only kids that seem to do well are the kids whose parents asked for them to be in Spanish language arts starting from the beginning’ (Interview, Spring 2013). This Spanish language arts group included students whose parents came from middle-class and English dominant or bilingual homes. These parents strategically requested their children be placed in the Spanish language arts cohort in order to enhance their social capital and secure for them a bilingual identity (Cervantes-Soon 2014). One of the ‘kids that seem to do well’ in the Spanish language arts cohort (i.e. children who were ‘in Spanish language arts starting from the beginning’) was Elizabeth, who she described in the same interview as a ‘Spanish speaker’ who lacked comprehension (see Interview 5/9/2013 analysis above). Another interpretation of Mrs. Epett’s rationale of who was perceived to do well in Spanish by second grade is that she literally meant only the parents who asked for their children to be placed in the Spanish language arts group. In this program, middle-class parents tended to actively make requests, while working-class parents tended not to. In particular, middle-class parents tended to request their children be placed in Spanish language arts, in order to ensure they capitalize on the TWBE program to secure bilingualism for their children. Additionally, learning Spanish in a private daycare center privileged those students with access to a variety of Spanish that can be described as an academic register. Tessa and Nico (who were placed in Spanish language arts in part by parent request, in spite of their evident English dominance) had both attended a local Spanish immersion daycare since they were toddlers, came from higher socioeconomic backgrounds and their parents had graduate degrees. Ms. Contreras’ perspective of the language labels manifested in the way she talked about students’ bilingualism. When I inquired about who were the translators or, as the children described, ‘bilingual pros,’ Ms. Contreras shared the following:

Excerpt 6 (49) Ms. Contreras: Mimi, she is one that is an English speaker that has a lot of Spanish in her vocabulary. Tessa, Sabine, Nico. Jaime, he’s a Spanish speaker, but again translating things into English is a little diﬃcult for him. Brian is a Spanish speaker, but has some trouble translating to Spanish. Alex is pretty good, too. (50) Researcher: I wonder what they struggle with. Do you think it’sa– because they speak English, right? Jason does, right? (51) Ms. Contreras: He does, but academically, I don’t think they’re making the connection as far as- (52) Researcher: You mean the academic content? (53) Ms. Contreras: Right, because they are low academically INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 13

(54) Researcher: So, socially like outside on the playground they may translate- (55) Ms. Contreras: Like street talk, you know they’re able to do that, but when it comes to a setting … .classroom, academic, it’s like they’re clueless

A raciolinguistic perspective aims to understand how and why racial and linguistic categories are normalized in social settings. When Ms. Contreras listed the students she considered bilingual pros, she described Mimi as a strong translator that has ‘a lot of Spanish in her vocabulary’ and later described her as being advanced in Spanish (Interview, 5/7/13). She grouped Mimi together with Tessa, Sabine, and Nico. In comparison, students who came from a Mexican-American and a lower socioeconomic background, such as Elizabeth and Cristóbal, she described as struggling with translations because they were behind academically and not making ‘the connection’. Her perception seemed to be inter- twined with what the TWBE model design expected of students in terms of ‘Spanish-speakers’ versus ‘English-speakers’ and reflected her understanding of what it meant to become bilingual. In fact, she described the Latinx students from working-class backgrounds’ use of Spanish as ‘street talk’,in explaining why they struggled with the ‘academic language’ of school. Rosa and Flores (2017) explained that the ‘joint institutional (re)production of categories of race and language, as well as perceptions and experiences’ are rooted in the way we talk about the classifi- cation of race and language. Ms. Contreras recognized that all the students were bilingual, but that some had a more academic register of both languages. When I mentioned the potential of Jaime and Brian translating in other contexts, like the playground (line 54), Ms. Contreras characterized their language as ‘street talk’, but when it came to classroom discussions, she explained, they lacked the academic register and were essentially ‘clueless’ (line 55). Like Ms Contreras’ description of her working class, Latinx, bilingual students’ language as ‘street talk’, Mrs. Epett referred to Elizabeth as a ‘social bilingual’ (see Interview 5/9/2013 on p. 17). This perception of Latinx Spanish speakers as not being able to speak or understand the academic register, in either language, is a symptom of larger linguistic and social inequities that frame Latinx students’ language practices as limited (Malsbary 2014). The ways in which both teachers seemed to conflate the ability to translate the academic register of Spanish or English in the classroom with students’ language abilities played a part in how they perceived or ranked all children.

Discussion and conclusion The TWBE program at Huerta Elementary grew under the shadows of gentrification. The social and economic changes happening in the surrounding neighborhood changed the student demographics at Huerta Elementary and, arguably, shifted the goals of the TWBE program in the ways students and teachers understood bilingual development. In this study, the idea of language ‘experts’ became racialized in complex ways, allotting more expertise to middle and upper class students like Nico and Tessa, and significantly less to working class students like Elizabeth and Cristobal. Elizabeth’s racial and class background was conflated with her linguistic abilities by both students and the teachers. Meanwhile, language labels positioned students, like Nico and Tessa, who came from upper middle-class backgrounds, in positive ways, and this was partially attributed to them being perceived as speakers of academic registers in Spanish and English. Raciolinguistic theory as a lens can shift practitioners’ perspectives about Latinx students’ use of Spanish or their bilingualism, so that ‘street talk’ and being considered a ‘social bilingual’ can become a strength for language learning. For example, the act of translating, which Elizabeth and Cristóbal were doing at home and in the classroom, is a biliteracy skill teachers can use to develop all students’ bilingualism. When examining the complexities of power in TWBE programs we also need to ask, how does whiteness, along with language proficiency and class capital, operate to privilege some people over others in this space? In doing this, we will simultaneously create powerful spaces where students are able to share their knowledge about what it means to be bilingual in and outside of the school community (Showstack 2012; Villa 2005). 14 S. GARCÍA-MATEUS

This study is an urgent call for scholars and practitioners to (re)imagine the design of the TWBE model and to ask members of the community to (re)consider the ways in which perception plays a part in how teachers position, and in this case label, students and how students position and label each other as language learners. It seems that the challenges teachers were experiencing in this study stemmed from the kind of support and scaffolding students were receiving in a context of strict separation of languages. This disconnect could also be an opportunity for the teachers to help students develop metalinguistic awareness about what it can look and sound like to be bilingual (see García, Johnson, and Seltzer 2017). In order to more fully realize the equity goals of TWBE programs, perhaps we should consider creating classrooms that refer to the use of languages as fluid and dependent on the context, which, in turn, can also shape the way interlocuters are perceived. This pedagogical shift has the potential to change the view of languages as a tool that requires a label or labeling, to languages as an intricate part of students identities which should consider the culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds of all students. This sort of questioning and reflection has implications in the field of teacher education, research and language policy which should include raising educators’ awareness of how they can both mitigate and shift power relations in culturally, ethnically and linguistically diverse student contexts.

Notes 1. These are terms used in TWBE contexts, but not the way I see students. I view TWBE students’ multilingualism as dynamic, varied, and dependent on context. 2. I use a lowercase ‘w’ for the label white to problematize and challenge representations of white supremacy in society and in school settings. 3. I use the term ‘heritage speaker’ because as a US born Latina I understand the struggle to revitalize and maintain the use of Spanish. Spanish is a part of Latinx students heritage despite the varying levels of proficiency they may speak. 4. The Pre-LAS tests is designed to measure expressive and receptive abilities of young children ages four to six in three linguistic components of oral language: phonology, syntax, and semantics (Duncan and DeAvila, 1985). A score of 5 indicates an advanced level of proficiency and a score of 1 indicates a beginner level of proficiency in a language. 5. I use the gender-neutral label, Latinx, to promote the concept that identity construction is not static. This article capitalizes Latinx to give credence to the struggles of a racialized group that shares cultural, political, and historical experiences. 6. Sabine and Nico were maternal cousins and had fathers that were white and spoke English. 7. In this paper, emergent bilingual is used as a general descriptor for bilingual students who are developing mul- tiple languages.

Disclosure statement No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes to contributor Suzanne García-Mateus is an assistant professor in the Department of Education and Leadership and the Director of the Monterey Institute for English Learners (M.I.E.L) at California State University - Monterey Bay. She completed her Ph.D. (2016) at The University of Texas at Austin in the Bilingual/Bicultural Program. After completing her M.A. in Elementary Education at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, she taught as a bilingual educator for six years in various bilingual education models. Her dissertation titled “She was born speaking English and Spanish! Co-constructing Identities and Exploring Children’s Bilingual Practices in a Two-way Immersion Program in Central Texas won second place in the AERA Bilingual Education Research SIG outstanding dissertation awards (2018). Her education interests include examining the intersections between race, language, and class in bilingual education contexts.

ORCID Suzanne García-Mateus http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9220-0637 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 15

References Alim, H. S. 2004. You Know my Steez: An Ethnographic and Sociolinguistic Study of Style- Shifting in a Black American Speech Community. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Bartlett, L., and O. García. 2011. Additive Schooling in Subtractive Times. Dominican Immigrant Youth in the Heights. Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Press. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bucholtz, M., and K. Hall. 2005. “Identity and Interaction: A Sociocultural Linguistic Approach.” Discourse Studies 7 (4-5): 585–614. Caldas, B. 2018. “Juxtaposing William and Graciela: Exploring Gender Nonconformity Through Drama-Based Pedagogy in a Dual-Language Classroom.” TESOL Journal. doi:10.1002/tesj.420. Cameron, D. 2001. Working with Spoken Discourse. London: Sage. Cervantes-Soon, C. G. 2014. “A Critical Look at Dual Language Immersion in the New Latin@Diaspora.” Bilingual Research Journal: The Journal of the National Association for Bilingual Education 37 (1): 64–82. doi:10.1080/15235882.2014. 893267. Cervantes-Soon, C. G., L. Dorner, D. Palmer, D. Heiman, R. Schwerdtfeger, and J. Choi. 2017. “Combating Inequalities in Two-Way Language Immersion Programs: Toward Critical Consciousness in Bilingual Education Spaces.” Review of Research in Education 41 (1): 403–427. doi:10.3102/0091732X17690120. Chaparro, S. 2019. “But mom! I’m not a Spanish Boy: Raciolinguistic Socialization in a Two-Way Immersion Bilingual Program.” Linguistics and Education 50: 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2019.01.003. Corbin, J., and A. Strauss. 2007. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. de Jong, E. J. 2016. “Two-way Immersion for the Next Generation: Models, Policies, and Principles.” International Multilingual Research Journal 10 (1): 1931–3152. doi:10.1080/19313152.2016.1118667. Duncan, S. E., and E. A. DeAvila. 1985. Pre-Language Assessment Scales: PRE-LAS. Monterey, CA: CTB. Erickson, F. 2004. Talk and Social Theory: Ecologies of Speaking and Listening in Everyday Life. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Fitts, S. 2006. “Reconstructing the Status quo: Linguistic Interaction in a Dual-Language School.” Bilingual Research Journal 30 (2): 337–365. Flores, N. 2016. “A Tale of Two Visions: Hegemonic Whiteness and Bilingual Education.” Educational Policy 30 (1): 13–38. García-Mateus, S. 2016. “She was born speaking English and Spanish!” Co-constructing Identities and Exploring Children’s Bilingual Language Practices in a Two-Way Immersion Program in Central Texas. The University of Texas at Austin. (Unpublished Dissertation). García-Mateus, S. 2020. “Yeah, Things are Rough in Mexico. Remember We Talked About Hard Times?” Process Drama and a Teachers Role in Critically Engaging Students to Dialogue About Social Inequities in a Dual Language Classroom.” The Urban Review. doi:10.1007/s11256-020-00555-1. García, O., S. Johnson, and K. Seltzer. 2017. The Translanguaging Classroom. Leveraging Student Bilingualism for Learning. Philadelphia: Caslon. Gomez, L., D. Freeman, and Y. Freeman. 2005. “Dual Language Education: A Promising 50-50 Model.” Bilingual Research Journal 29 (1): 145–163. Hamman-Ortiz, L. 2019. “Troubling the “two” in Two-Way Bilingual Education.” Bilingual Research Journal 42 (4): 387–407. doi:10.1080/15235882.2019.1686441. Heiman, D., and M. Yanes. 2018. “Centering the Fourth Pillar in Times of TWBE Gentriﬁcation: “Spanish, Love, Content, Not in That Order”.” International Multilingual Research Journal 12 (3): 173–187. Hernandez, S. J. 2017. “Are They all Language Learners? Educational Labeling and Raciolinguistic Identifying in a California Middle School Dual Language Program.” The CATESOL Journal 29 (1): 133–154. Howard, E. R., J. Sugarman, D. Christian, K. Lindholm-Leary, and D. Rogers. 2007. Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education. (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Kubota, R., T. Austin, and Y. Saito-Abbott. 2003. “Diversity and Inclusion of Sociopolitical Issues in Foreign Language Classrooms: An Exploratory Survey.” Foreign Language Annals 36: 12–24. Lee, J. S. 2005. “Through the Learners’ Eyes: Reconceptualizing the Heritage and Non-Heritage Learner of the Less Commonly Taught Languages.” Foreign Language Annals 38: 554–567. Lee, S. L., L. Hill-Bonnet, and J. Gillispie. 2008. “Learning in two Languages: Interactional Spaces for Becoming Bilingual Speakers.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 11 (1): 75–94. doi:10.2167/beb412.0. Lindholm-Leary, K. 2005. Review of Research and Best Practices on Eﬀective Features of Dual Language Education Programs. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. doi:10.3102/0091732X12463556. Malsbary, C. 2014. “Will This Hell Ever end? Substantiating and Resisting Race-Language Policies in a Multilingual High School.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly 45 (4): 373–390. ISSN 0161-7761, online ISSN 1548-1492. Martin-Beltrán, M. 2010. “The two-way Language Bridge: Bilingual Language Learning Opportunities.” Modern Language Journal 94 (2): 254–277. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01020.x. Martínez, R. A. 2010. “Spanglish as Literacy Tool: Toward an Understanding of the Potential Role of Spanish–English Code Switching in the Development of Academic Literacy.” Research in the Teaching of English 45: 124–149. 16 S. GARCÍA-MATEUS

Martínez, R. A. 2018. “Beyond the English Learner Label: Recognizing the Richness of bi/Multilingual Students’ Linguistic Repertoires.” The Reading Teacher 71 (5): 515–522. doi:10.1002/trtr.1679. Martínez, R. A., M. Hikida, and L. Durán. 2015. “Unpacking Ideologies of Linguistic Purism: How Dual Language Teachers Make Sense of Everyday Translanguaging.” International Multilingual Research Journal 9 (1): 26–42. McDermott, R., and H. Varenne. 1995. “Culture as Disability.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly 26 (3): 324–348. Mendoza-Denton, N. 2008. Homegirls: Language and Cultural Practice among Latina Youth Gangs. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Merriam, S. 2001. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education (2nd Edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass Publishers. Nuñez, I., and D. Palmer. 2017. “Who Will be Bilingual? A Critical Discourse Analysis of a Spanish-English Bilingual Pair.” Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 14 (4): 294–319. doi:10.1080/15427587.2016.1266266. Orellana, M. F. 2009. Translating Childhoods: Immigrant Youth, Language, and Culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Palmer, D. 2009. “Middle-Class English Speakers in a Two-Way Immersion Bilingual Classroom: “Everybody Should be Listening to Jonathan Right now …”.” TESOL Quarterly 43 (2): 177–202. Palmer, D. 2019. ““You’re Not a Spanish Speaker!/We are all Bilingual” The Purple Kids on Being and Becoming Bilingual in a Dual Language Kindergarten Classroom.” In Code-Switching in the Classroom: A Multilingual Perspective on Language and Language Practices, edited by C. Faltis and J. MacSwan, 247–267. Routledge. Pimental, C. 2011. “The Color of Language: The Racialized Educational Trajectory of an Emerging Bilingual Student.” Journal of Latinos and Education 10 (4): 335–353. Purcell-Gates, V. 1997. Other People’s Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rampton, B. 1995. Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. London: Longman. Rosa, J. 2019. Looking Like a Language, Sounding Like a Race: Raciolinguistic Ideologies and the Leaning of Latinidad. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Rosa, J., and N. Flores. 2017. “Unsettling Race and Language: Toward a Raciolinguistic Perspective.” Language in Society 46 (5): 621–647. Ruiz, R. 1984. “Orientations in Language Planning.” NABE Journal 8 (2): 15–34. Scanlan, M., and D. Palmer. 2009. “Race, Power, and (In)Equity within Two-Way Immersion Settings.” Urban Review 41 (5): 391–415. Shannon, S. 2011. “Parent Involvement and Interest Convergence.” In Bicultural Parent Engagement: Advocacy and Empowerment, edited by E. Olivos and O. Jimenez-Castellanos, 83–102. New York, NY. Showstack, R. 2012. “Symbolic Power in the Heritage Language Classroom: How Spanish Heritage Speakers Sustain and Resist Hegemonic Discourses on Language and Cultural Diversity.” Spanish in Context 9 (1): 1–26. Souto-Manning, M., and J. Martell. 2016. Reading, Writing, and Talk: Inclusive Teaching Strategies for Diverse Learners, K–2. New York: Teachers College Press. Tang, E., and B. Falola. 2016. Those who Left: Austin’s Declining African American Population. Austin, TX: The Institute for Urban Policy Research & Analysis. Valdés, G. 1997. “Dual-Language Immersion Programs: A Cautionary Note Concerning the Education of Language- Minority Students.” Harvard Educational Review 67 (3): 391–429. Valdez, V., J. Freire, and G. Delavan. 2016. “The Gentriﬁcation of Dual Language Education.” The Urban Review 48 (4): 601–627. Valenzuela, A. 1999. Subtractive School: U.S. Mexican Youth and the Politics of Caring. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Villa, D. J. (2005). Back to Patrás: A Process of Grammaticization in a Contact Variety of Spanish. Zentella, A. C. 1997. Growing up Bilingual. Malden, MA: Blackwell.