![Sample our Language & Literature journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5941/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Language-Literature.jpg"})
Abstract
This article argues for the value of heritage language programs and the micro-level language policies that support them, focusing on a case study of a program in the USA to make this argument. We also argue for the importance of recognizing students’ heritage languages, cultures, and individual goals and identities in mainstream school programs. Following an overview of the current status of heritage language programs, a program case study conducted at a public primary school in rural Oregon is presented. The strengths of the program are outlined, as well as its challenges, and the brief history of the program is traced from its establishment and success to its subsequent decline. Multiple factors are discussed, as are the positive effects on students’ identities and scores on state-level assessments during the existence of the program and the negative effects after the dismantling of the program. The article concludes with considerations for the establishment of successful heritage language programs, as well as the importance of establishing policies that invest in supporting heritage language speakers in their schools.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Corinne A. Seals is a lecturer of Applied Linguistics at Victoria University of Wellington and the Academic Advisor for the Community Languages Association of New Zealand. She holds a Ph.D. in Linguistics from Georgetown University and previously worked with the Alliance for the Advancement of Heritage Languages in Washington, DC. Currently, she is researching heritage language education for Pasifika communities in New Zealand.
Joy Kreeft Peyton is a senior fellow at the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington, DC. Her commitment to heritage language education is long running. She was a co-founder of the Alliance for the Advancement of Heritage Languages and continues to actively promote heritage language education. She recently published a second edited volume on this topic and is working with others to establish the National Coalition of Community-Based Language Schools.
Notes
1. Because the first author was studying the language backgrounds and learning opportunities of the Russian, Ukrainian, and Latvian students, much of the information presented here focuses on the work with those languages. The Spanish program was also well developed and rich. However, there is much less information in the literature on heritage Russian, Ukrainian, and Latvian programs than there is on heritage Spanish programs, which is why the former became the focus.
2. Students’ proficiency in their heritage languages is not assessed, as this is a state-wide assessment. During the time of the project, there was no formal assessment of students’ heritage language proficiency or development.
3. Unfortunately, there were no available resources for Latvian heritage language education during the lifetime of this program, which in itself leads to lack of support for Latvian as a heritage language. While this is not the focus of this article, it is nonetheless important to recognize that unequal support can exist for languages that are present but not recognized in a program, as well as for those that are.