ABSTRACT
This paper examines national, state, and local factors impacting the creation of a new dual language immersion program (DLI) program in a Midwestern school district, a relatively understudied regional context. Using a critical bifocal lens and an ethnographic case study methodology, we examined two main questions: first, why was the DLI program created in the focal school district? And second, what were the most salient factors that impacted the creation and implementation of the DLI program? The findings show the significance of analyzing the role of dissimilar social factors in the context of historical and contemporary local and national circumstances when implementing educational options like DLI programs. The evidence provided by this study helps to problematize unidimensional explanations regarding equity and the role of various social actors in the decision making process in school communities. This study highlights the importance of considering local issues from more comprehensive perspectives in bi/multilingual, multiracial, and multiethnic learning contexts.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. The term Latin@ is used here to move beyond gender binaries.
2. All names of places and people used in this study are pseudonyms to protect the confidentiality of the participants.
3. All data presented have been taken from various demographic websites. Every time we have included the reported statistics, we use their chosen terms.
5. Demographic websites and the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) in the state use the term Hispanic to denote individuals of Latin American ancestry who have a connection to the Spanish language or speak Spanish at home. We have chosen to use the term Latin@ in this study to focus on the Latin American heritage of the participants rather than named languages (Pennycook, Citation2010). However, every time we have included statistics from demographic websites or the DPI, we use their chosen terms.
6. Data collected from the State System for Education and the District website.
7. In 2016, the United States experienced one of the most controversial and conflicting presidential elections of modern times. The aggressive political campaign of the then presidential candidate Donald Trump culminated with his election as President in November 2016; the DLI program opened in 2017. This political event, along with some legislative occurrences that were taking place in the state of Wisconsin in 2016, created a sense of fear and mistrust within the local community (for more on this see the findings section).
9. State websites identify individuals who cannot speak, read, write, or understand the English language at a level that permits them to interact effectively, as persons with limited English proficiency. Even though we do not use this term in our research, every time we have included statistics from these websites, we use their chosen terms.
10. For more on participant observations, see Creswell (Citation2012).
11. Bill AB 450 “would lead police and public employees to investigate immigration status and detain undocumented people for deportation. SB 533 [sought] to block a program created […] to provide local identification cards to […] residents who [could not] obtain […] state ID because of immigration status or lack of documents or money” (https://act.onewisconsinnow.org/sign/2015ab450/).
12. A 4 K program, in this state context, is a program with a generally open regulatory framework. “Nonetheless, these programs are still subject to substantial local control at the district level. There are specific requirements for school districts that provide 4 K: 1. They must operate programs for 437 hours per year. 2.The half day program must be made available free of charge to all age-eligible four-year-olds in the district, which makes the program universal rather than targeted. 3. The program must employ kindergarten-licensed teachers. 4. The program must provide transportation to students. Despite these requirements however, decisions regarding curriculum, class sizes, and additional staff, are made at the district level” (Martinez Negrette & Karabon, Citation2019, p. 4).