Summary

https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681241252502

Teachers College Record 2024, Vol. 126(3) 54 –85

© Teachers College 2024 Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/01614681241252502

journals.sagepub.com/home/tcz

Article

Teaching Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Learners: A Content Analysis of Teacher Professional Organizations’ Position Statements

Christine Montecillo Leider, PhD1, Johanna Tigert, PhD2, and Nasiba Norova1

Abstract Background or Context: Teachers are often positioned as the main providers of educational equity and access for culturally and linguistically diverse learners (CLDLs). Teachers’ beliefs regarding this population can play a major role in their instructional and curricular decisions. Purpose, Objective, Research Question, or Focus of Study: In this study, we use a lens of professionalization to examine how teacher beliefs might be influenced during the in-service years of a teacher’s career through the role of teacher professional organizations. Research Design: We utilized document analysis to examine how CLDLs are discussed in the position statements from four long-standing teacher professional organizations (i.e., National Council for Teachers of English, National Science Teacher Association, National Council for Teachers of Mathematics, and National Council for Social Studies). One hundred and four position statements produced between 2000 and 2022 were analyzed. Conclusions or Recommendations: Findings revealed that most position statements employ generic language, rarely referring explicitly to CLDLs, their access to education, the need to consider their languages/cultures in instructional methods and materials, or ways to effectively prepare teachers to meet their needs. Findings

1University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA 2University of Turku, Turku, Finland

Corresponding Author: Christine Montecillo Leider, PhD, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA. Email: [email protected]

1252502 TCZXXX10.1177/01614681241252502Teachers College RecordLeider et al. research-article2024

Leider et al. 55

suggest that teacher professional organizations should rethink their approach to crafting position statements to be both inclusive and specific in language. Implications for teacher professional development and future research are discussed.

Keywords multilingual learners, content analysis, teacher education, teacher professionalization, habitus

Introduction

Ensuring equitable educational opportunities for the growing culturally and linguisti- cally diverse learner (CLDL) population1 of U.S. schools is a complex challenge. How teachers come to develop the skills, knowledge, and beliefs they need to teach these diverse populations has become an important focus in teacher education research. This development can be described as teacher professionalization, which includes com- mand of core content and pedagogical skills (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005); estab- lishment of “work-based norms, values, beliefs, knowledge, skills, expected roles and the profession’s culture” (Khalili et al., 2013, p. 449); acquisition of pedagogical con- tent knowledge (Shulman, 1987); understanding of child/adolescent development and learning (Bronfenbrenner, 1983); and understanding professional standards and legal obligations (Leider et al, 2021). This is especially important given the sociopolitical climate related to language policy, heightened anti-Muslim and anti-immigration dis- course (e.g., Gounari, 2020), record numbers of deportations of undocumented immi- grants (e.g., Asad, 2020; Kanstroom, 2012), #BlackLivesMatter protests and rallies (Wozolek, 2022), and, more recently, restrictive curriculum policies (e.g., Stop W.O.K.E. Act, 2022).

In this paper, we focus on an underexamined factor in teacher professionalization during the in-service years: teacher professional organizations (TPOs). TPOs bring together teachers within a shared content area to engage in professional activities such as conferences and publishing, the creation and adoption of standards and assessments of learning, and influencing state and federal educational policy. We take the stance that TPOs have the power to influence the pedagogical beliefs, teaching practices, and disciplinary norms among their members (for example, see Allen, 2002; García & Davis-Wiley, 2015). Therefore, TPOs impact teacher professionalization as part of a system that we argue currently leads to the reproduction of inequities in the education of CLDLs. In this study, we specifically focus on TPOs’ position statements. Although conferences, workshops, and webinars are well-established practices that can influ- ence professional practice (Yurkewecz-Stellato, 2022), these opportunities are not always readily accessible to all teachers due to financial constraints or timing; in con- trast, position statements are published and publicly available to all teachers (and beyond), regardless of membership. As public documents, we argue TPOs’ position statements can serve as a mechanism of influence on teachers specifically and the

56 Teachers College Record 126(3)

profession broadly. Thus, we consider these public-facing documents as a representa- tion of the TPOs’ institutional habitus (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Byrd, 2019) or the beliefs and positionings the TPOs hold concerning CLDLs, which, arguably, impact educators’ beliefs about, and ultimately their practice with, CLDLs. Our inquiry is guided by the following research questions:

RQ1: What do the position statements of TPOs reveal about the organizations’ views regarding teaching CLDLs? a. Do the position statements reify the current deficit narratives around CLDLs? b. Do the position statements disrupt the current deficit narratives around CLDLs? RQ2: Is there variation in the positioning of CLDLs by organizations?

Theoretical Framework: Teacher Professionalization and Habitus

Teacher professionalization can be described as “points along a continuum represent- ing the extent to which members of an occupation share a common body of knowledge and use shared standards of practice in exercising that knowledge” (Darling-Hammond, 1990, p. 32). This process is part of teacher socialization, which includes experiences prior to teacher education, predispositions, preservice teacher education, and culture and workplace socialization, impacted by “pupils, the ecology of the classroom, col- leagues, and institutional characteristics of schools” (Zeichner & Gore, 1989, p. 25). Teachers are influenced by different factors: personal identities and experiences begin- ning long before formal teacher education (Borg, 2004; Lortie, 1975), mentorship pro- vided (or lack thereof) in their early years of teaching (Avalos, 2011; Flores, 2010), coursework in preservice teacher education programs (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 2010; Dobbs et al., 2022; López & Santibañez, 2018), disciplnary norms (Ippolito et al., 2017; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012) and interactional factors between them and their practicum placement (Allen & Wright, 2014; Cohen et al., 2013). During the in-ser- vice years, teachers begin to engage in professional communities and organizations (Zeichner & Gore, 1990).

As pre/in-service teachers start interacting with and holding memberships in TPOs in their field, the institutional habitus of these organizations becomes a part of their professionalization process. Previous research has conceptualized institutional habitus as the way an organization shapes the behavior and beliefs of individuals within that organization (Byrd, 2019; McDonough, 1997). We draw on Bourdieu and Passeron’s (1990) thinking that habitus is made up of internalized norms that privilege certain groups, a set of dispositions that support these norms, and behaviors that reproduce them. Here, we consider the norms, dispositions, and behaviors TPOs perpetuate in teachers regarding teaching CLDLs. TPOs’ institutional habitus around CLDLs is par- ticularly important against the backdrop of U.S. schools where the teaching force remains predominantly White and monolingual (Irwin et al., 2021) and thus unfamiliar with the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of their students (Choi, 2013; Dobbs &

Leider et al. 57

Leider, 2021). Further, research has documented that teachers view White students more favorably (Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007) and hold deficit-oriented views of CLDLs in particular (Carley Rizzuto, 2017; Costa et al., 2005; Meskill, 2005; Reeves, 2006). We argue that teacher professionalization can be a site for perpetuating or disrupting these beliefs, and that TPOs’ institutional habitus plays a role in that process. We are interested in how the TPOs’ habitus is represented in their position statements in ways that reify or combat the current deficit positioning of and narratives around CLDLs.

In this paper, we focus specifically on how TPOs’ institutional habituses are mani- fested in their position statements, which we see as one mechanism of communicating the organization’s values to its membership and thereby a source of influence in the ongoing process of teacher professionalization (see Figure 1). Byrd (2019) suggests that previous research examining institutional habitus has focused too much on indi- viduals and urges researchers to “expand on habitus to attend to ways in which power and culture influence institutional action” (p. 172). In the current era of accountability, high-stakes testing (e.g., state standardized testing, SATs) and many of the widely used standards (e.g., Common Core state standards, next generation science standards) tend to focus on the “core” disciplinary areas of English language arts, science, math, and social studies. Additionally, beginning with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legisla- tion, every teacher of these core academic subjects has been tasked to

assist all limited English proficient children, including immigrant children and youth, to achieve at high levels in the core academic subjects [emphasis added] so that those children can meet the same challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards as all children are expected to meet. (NCLB, 2007, p. 266)

Thus, we focused on the following national TPOs: National Council for Teachers of English (NCTE), National Science Teacher Association (NSTA), National Council for

Figure 1. Teacher Professionalization Process.

58 Teachers College Record 126(3)

Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), and National Council for Social Studies (NCSS). Collectively, these organizations serve over 145,000 members, with 25,000, 70,000, 40,000, and 10,000 members in NCTE, NCTM, NSTA, and NCSS, respectively. It must be noted that the organizations vary greatly in their size and may also have dif- ferent proportions of in-service teachers, scholars, students, and other stakeholders among their members. We recognize that this places limits on the conclusions we draw in this article.

Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Learners in the Core Disciplines

Teachers play a pivotal role in providing access to meaningful, culturally responsive curricula and supporting language development in their disciplines (de Jong et al., 2013; Nieto, 2017); however, little attention has been given to understanding the out- side influences on teachers as they learn to work with CLDLs in their content areas. Here, we focus specifically on the influence of TPOs within the following four “core” academic disciplines: English language arts, math, science, and social studies.

Research in these core disciplines suggests that teachers often hold deficit views of CLDLs and simultaneously offer inadequate support for their learning. For exam- ple, Hansen-Thomas and Cavagnetto (2010) found that math teachers view math as “universal” and, therefore, “easier” for CLDLs, especially for classified English learners (ELs). This translates into pressure on CLDLs to be fluent in English while simultaneously receiving inadequate amounts of support (Moschkovich, 2012). In science education, teachers tend to view CLDLs from a deficit perspective (Settlage, 2011), especially in terms of their literacy skills (Hart & Lee, 2003), cultural capital (Llosa et al., 2016), and linguistic abilities (Quinn et al., 2012; Suárez & Otero, 2014). In ELA classrooms, CLDLs’ cultural, linguistic, and literacy resources are seen as unsophisticated and of little use for academics (Baker-Bell, 2020). In social studies education, CLDLs’ cultures are rarely represented in Eurocentric curricula (Dong, 2017; Rodríguez, 2018, 2019, 2020). Research also suggests that teachers believe that Standardized English is the only means to academic success (Metz & Knight, 2021).

Fortunately, education research has illustrated how teachers’ deficit beliefs regard- ing CLDLs can change. For example, STEM education research has documented the positive impact of traditional teacher education (Huerta et al., 2019; Ross, 2014), reform-based professional development (Lee & Buxton, 2013; Lee et al., 2008), and instructional support (Llosa et al., 2016; Moschkovich, 2012; O’Brien, 2011; Salinas et al., 2017). Additionally, in the humanities, a shift towards Freirean critical pedagogy (Choi, 2013), decolonial pedagogy (de los Ríos et al., 2019), and antiracist Black lan- guage pedagogies (Baker-Bell, 2020) can be transformative for teachers of CLDLs. Most of this research, however, takes place in formalized, direct teacher education, such as preservice coursework or in-service professional development. To our knowl- edge, research has not examined the more indirect role of TPOs in the

Leider et al. 59

professionalization process, particularly when it comes to reifying or disrupting the prevailing narratives about CLDLs that are contributing to the inequities in their education.

Teacher Professional Organizations

TPOs can be defined as “voluntary organizations that connect and sustain profession- als who in turn sustain the association and profession as contributing members by promoting research and work to broader audiences, leveraging research outcomes, and influencing stakeholders” (McGregor & Halls, 2020, p. 61). TPOs offer ongoing learning opportunities through annual conferences and workshops and publish resources, including research journals and reports. They also provide members with sample lesson plans, peer-reviewed practitioner journals and books, quick reference guides, position statements, reports, and white papers.

The role of professional organizations in socializing people into professions has been studied in various fields. For example, studies in nursing have found that mem- bership in professional organizations correlates with higher levels of education and experience (Wynd, 2003). McGregor and Halls (2020) uncovered the potential of pro- fessional organizations to entice home economics professionals to embrace the body of knowledge and professional culture of their field. Further, research demonstrated that social work students considered their main professional organizations as impor- tant sources of core knowledge and professional ethics (Bair, 2014). In education, Yurkewecz-Stellato (2022) described the profound impact her membership in a liter- acy organization had on her development as a novice teacher through the resources, connections, and spaces for reflection offered by the organization’s conference and other activities. In line with this research, we see TPOs as sites of professionalization where their collective values and beliefs shape education as a field.

We focus here on four content area TPOs because research in these core disciplines has revealed the ways CLDLs’ needs and assets have been ignored and stigmatized among teachers (Janzen, 2008). We believe all teachers are responsible not only for teaching their respective discipline but also for supporting CLDLs within it (Bunch, 2013; Faltis & Valdés, 2016; Galguera, 2011; Turkan et al., 2014). Thus, the influence that these TPOs have on teacher professionalization should also include an asset-based positioning of CLDLs. We recognize that this involves deliberate reexamination of the organization’s messaging, mission, and vision among the TPOs’ leadership, and that true progress cannot take place until the leadership is also representative of the CLDL student population the TPOs indirectly serve.

The Present Study

We examined TPOs’ position statements as mechanisms of professionalization that represent these organizations’ institutional habitus and their broad influence on

60 Teachers College Record 126(3)

education and their content areas. As part of this influence, we argue that the TPOs play a part in creating mindsets and expectations around teaching CLDLs as part of an ongoing professionalization process. In other words, we posit that TPOs present a compelling “pedagogic authority” that perpetuates the “cultural arbitrary” (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990, p. 19) but whose role in teacher professionalization nevertheless remains largely unexamined.

Researcher Positionality

We provide a brief positionality statement to acknowledge how our identities and experiences invariably influence our reasons for engaging in this work as well as our analyses and interpretations (Jacobson & Mustafa, 2019; Lin, 2015; Milner, 2007). Our research team was made up of three women with a range of experiences in educa- tion. Two of us have worked in teacher education for over a decade, and one of us is an emerging scholar; all of us identify as multilingual and have experience as language learners and language teachers. Collectively, we position ourselves as activist scholars for multilingual learners, and our personal and professional experiences shaped our decision to focus on CLDLs. Our interest in teacher professional organizations and our subsequent analyses of position statements are also influenced by our previous and current engagement with TPOs: we are all active members of both national and state affiliates of TPOs in our field, and at the time of writing this paper all of us hold posi- tions of leadership in state-level TPOs. One of us serves on the board of directors for a state-level TPO that approves public-facing statements. Therefore, our views on TPOs’ potential influence on teachers and their views of CLDLs stem partially from our personal membership experiences.

Methodology

This study utilized content analysis (Krippendorff, 2018) to examine the position statements of the four focal organizations. Content analysis is a process for analyzing texts and interpreting societal artifacts through a particular theoretical lens to identify themes and patterns (Hseih & Shannon, 2005; White & Marsh, 2006), and it provides an empirical method for examining text to understand social phenomena (Zhang & Wildemuth, 2009). Given our particular focus on understanding how TPOs might reify systemic educational inequities for CLDLs, we adopted a critical stance to our content analysis that is oriented toward understanding how inequality can be embedded within society (Johnson et al., 2017; Willis et al., 2008). Our critical lens allowed us to ana- lyze the statements to explore underlying messages related to issues of equity (Short, 2017). Critical analysis calls attention to the “normalized ways of doing, being, and saying things in educational contexts, from the classroom to the legislature” (Dorner et al., 2023, p. 356). As such, our analysis took a questioning stance (Freire & Macedo, 1987) where we aimed to read both the word (i.e., position statements) and the world (i.e., how position statements might play a role in teacher professionalization).

Leider et al. 61

Data Sources. Although TPOs influence professionalization through many different mechanisms, we elected to focus specifically on position statements: public documents meant to convey the organization’s position on timely matters. Documentary research suggests that documents are “socially constructed” (McCulloch, 2004, p. 40) and reflect the priorities of a particular social group. Accordingly, we argue that position state- ments: (1) represent an organization’s institutional habitus, (2) contribute to teacher professionalization, and (3) influence personal and professional beliefs and practices.

Drawing from the literature on mission statements (Creamer & Ghoston, 2013; Grbic et al., 2013; Saichaie & Morphew, 2014; Wilson et al., 2012), we operationalize position statements as articulating purpose and goals (Davis et al., 2007) and preparing the work- force for the field (Özdem, 2011). For TPOs, this can refer to the direction of the educa- tional field in terms of content, perspectives, and pedagogy. As such, we argue that position statements are an important source of information on these organizations’ insti- tutional habitus pertaining to CLDLs and a reflection of the types of beliefs about CLDLs into which the organizations socialize teachers. Delaven et al. (2023) argue that publicly available documents, including website contents, mission statements, and other attached documents, create de facto policies/policy texts that potentially dictate the language used in the school context. In other words, position statements serve as a proxy for institu- tional habitus and exhibit how TPOs position these students.

We analyzed 104 position statements of four national TPOs that were published between 2000 and 2022 because of the changing politics regarding CLDLs in U.S. schools during this period. (See Appendix A for a list of position statements.) For example, the English for the Children movement, which sought to ban bilingual edu- cation, began just a few years prior, in 1997, when Prop. 27 was passed in California. Subsequently, both Arizona (2000) and Massachusetts (2002) became English-only states (Gándara & Hopkins, 2010). This time period also saw a surge in standard test- ing requirements after the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2002/2012). These linked the performance of certain subgroups of students, such as classified ELs and racially minoritized students, to accountability measures, which continued with the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015). In 2016 and 2017, California and Massachusetts overturned their English-only policy.

Data Collection. To obtain position statements, we navigated the organizational web- sites for our focal TPOs. In total, we reviewed 104 public position statements, of which 33 are from NSTA, 22 from NCTM, 29 from NCTE, and 20 from NCSS. We used Dedoose data analysis software to create a codebook and proceed with content analysis.

Data Analysis. Patton (1990) defines content analysis as “the process of identifying, coding, and categorizing the primary patterns in the data” (p. 381). Our data analysis was a two-step process. First, we conducted an initial round of deductive coding (Saldaña, 2016) based on codes drawn from previous research on mission statements (e.g., Creamer & Ghoston, 2013; Grbic et al., 2013; Morley et al., 2015; Saichaie &

62 Teachers College Record 126(3)

Morphew, 2014; Yob et al., 2016). Deductive codes included (1) new purpose/goals (for the field), (2) content/pedagogy, (3) teacher preparation, and (4) diversity/equity/ inclusion. These codes were not mutually exclusive, because position statements often reflected two or more of them. For example, NCTE’s statement Educators’ Right and Responsibilities to Engage in Antiracist Teaching (2022) was coded with all four codes. Given our explicit focus on access for CLDLs, we also assigned the deductive code “CLDL” to any position statement that referred specifically to cultural and lin- guistic diversity, languages or language varieties, or second language acquisition. We also coded instances of racial, ethnic, or religious identity when they were intertwined with language. Examples of this included a position statement about Muslim students (e.g., NCSS’s Position Statement on the Executive Order Regarding Immigration from Select Countries [2017] and NSTA’s The Teaching of Evolution [2013]).

Next, to add nuance to our coding, we inductively added in vivo codes (Saldaña, 2016) that captured the content of each excerpt from the deductive coding process in a more detailed manner, based on keywords found in the position statements. For exam- ple, the position statements coded with “CLDL” were further coded with in vivo codes such as “English learner,” “race,” “multilingual,” or “culture.” Each position state- ment was coded separately by two members of the team, and all discrepancies were resolved jointly until we arrived at a final coding scheme. See Table 1 for deductive and inductive codes descriptions and data samples. After applying all deductive and inductive codes, we then determined as a team (i.e., all three authors) whether the posi- tion statements reflected a habitus reifying the current deficit narratives around and positioning of CLDLs or whether they disrupt these, therefore reflecting a more asset- based habitus. It is within these groupings (i.e., reifying deficit narratives and disrupt- ing deficit narratives) that we organize our findings.

Findings

We first present the code frequencies of the position statements based on our initial deductive codes. (See Table 2.) Ninety-nine out of 104 position statements focused on introducing new goals or visions for the field, which was not surprising given that these are often an occasion for an organization articulating a new position. In addition, across all position statements, 42 were coded “CLDL.”

Below, we discuss our findings in relation to our two research questions:

RQ1: What do the position statements of TPOs reveal about the organizations’ views regarding teaching CLDLs? a. Do the position statements reify the current deficit narratives around CLDLs? b. Do the position statements disrupt the current deficit narratives around CLDLs? RQ2: Is there variation in the positioning of CLDLs by organizations?

We organize our findings according to the two subquestions under RQ1 while simul- taneously noting similarities and differences between the TPOs to answer RQ2.

Leider et al. 63

Table 1. Deductive and Inductive Codes.

Codes Definition Sample Data

Deductive Codes Articulating new goals for

the field When a position

statement explicitly states a new initiative or goal related to pedagogy, curriculum, disciplinary content, teacher training, or other teaching-related issues

“. . .ensure teachers receive sustained science-specific professional development that includes how children learn and how to teach science.” (Early Childhood Science Education, NSTA, 2014)

Describing content and instruction

When a position statement explicitly names priorities for curricular content or classroom instruction/ assessment

“In the area of science teaching and learning, it is important for science leaders to encourage differentiated instruction that supports all learners.” (Position Statement: Leadership in Science Education, NSTA, 2016)

Teacher preparation priorities

When a position statement explicitly names a priority or initiatives related to teacher preparation

“Educators also need to learn more about sociolinguistics both in teacher preparation programs and in ongoing professional development. Developing this kind of knowledge may help to avoid linguistic racism or language marginalization.” (Supporting Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Learners in English Education, NCTE, 2005)

Diversity, equity, and inclusion

When a position statement explicitly addresses issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion

“Guidelines for policymakers: Implement mechanisms for evaluating school structures and practices to ensure that instructional environments are considerate of the range of cultural, linguistic, and personal experiences students bring with them to school.” (The Act of Reading: Instructional Foundations and Policy Guidelines, NCTE, 2019)

Culturally and linguistically diverse learners

Any explicit reference to cultural and linguistic diversity, languages or language varieties, or second language acquisition

“Guidelines for policymakers: Implement mechanisms for evaluating school structures and practices to ensure that instructional environments are considerate of the range of cultural, linguistic, and personal experiences students bring with them to school.” (The Act of Reading: Instructional Foundations and Policy Guidelines, NCTE, 2019)

(continued)

64 Teachers College Record 126(3)

Codes Definition Sample Data

In Vivo Codes “Every student,” “all

students,” “each student,” “each and every student,” “diverse students/learners”

Any generic reference to students

“In this position statement we seek to broaden the range of students identified as “students with exceptional mathematical promise” while acknowledging that each and every student has mathematical promise.” (Providing Opportunities for Students with Exceptional Mathematical Promise, NCTM, 2016)

“Multilingual students/ learners,” “bilingual students/individuals,” “English (language) learners,” “racially and ethnically diverse students,” “students of color,” “immigrant students,” “limited academic language proficiency students,” and “limited English proficiency students”

Any specific reference to students that addresses language, culture, ethnicity, religious identity, immigration, language, or academic status

“Both the United States of America and the world are rapidly changing, creating a far more multiethnic, multiracial, multilingual, multi-religious and multicultural context for elementary education. Thus, elementary educators have to be prepared to value and to serve a far more diverse group of young learners and families than at any time in the past.” (Powerful, Purposeful Pedagogy in Elementary School Social Studies, NCSS, 2017)

Table 1. (continued)

Do Position Statements Reify the Current Deficit Narratives Around CLDLs?

We found that many position statements exhibited habituses that reified the deficit narratives around CLDLs in two indirect ways. First, they erased these students’ lin- guistic and racialized identities by avoiding explicitly naming them, even in position statements where distinct labels would have been expected and warranted. Second, they neglected to discuss CLDLs’ needs in ways that would help teachers attend to and address them in their instruction. In the following sections, we share more details about these two findings where we include representative quotes from the TPOs’ posi- tion statements as well as highlight the trends across and between TPOs.

Erasing CLDLs’ Linguistic and Racialized Identities. All four TPOs have published position statements that refer to human rights and equity, but they are nearly devoid of language referring explicitly to CLDLs with labels like “bilingual student” or “ethnically and racially diverse student.” Instead, our analysis revealed that many position statements engaged in a blanket, “access for all” discourse that presumably included CLDLs under umbrella terms such as “diverse students” or “all students.” Thirty-six position state- ments (NCTE = 7, NCTM = 10, NCSS = 5, NSTA = 14) used the language of “every student” or “diverse/all” students. For example, in the position statement Providing

65

T ab

le 2

. C

od e

Fr eq

ue nc

ie s

in P

os iti

on S

ta te

m en

ts .

T he

m at

ic C

od es

N C

T E

N C

T M

N C

SS N

ST A

T ot

al P

os iti

on

St at

em en

ts (

n =

1 04

)

(n =

2 9)

(n =

2 2)

(n =

2 0)

(n =

2 3)

(n =

3 3)

A rt

ic ul

at in

g ne

w g

oa ls

fo r

th e

fie ld

93 .1

% (

n =

2 7)

95 .5

% (

n =

2 1)

95 %

( n

= 1

9) 96

.9 %

( n

= 3

2) 99

D es

cr ib

in g

co nt

en t

an d

in st

ru ct

io n

34 .5

% (

n =

1 0)

50 %

( n

= 1

1) 70

% (

n =

1 4)

66 .6

% (

n =

2 2)

57 T

ea ch

er p

re pa

ra tio

n pr

io ri

tie s

68 .9

% (

n =

2 0)

50 %

( n

= 1

1) 55

% (

n =

1 1)

75 .8

% (

n =

2 5)

67 D

iv er

si ty

, e qu

ity , a

nd in

cl us

io n

72 .4

% (

n =

2 1)

40 .1

% (

n =

9 )

80 %

( n

= 1

6) 57

.6 %

( n

= 1

9) 65

C ul

tu ra

lly a

nd li

ng ui

st ic

al ly

d iv

er se

le

ar ne

rs 51

.7 %

( n

= 1

5) 18

.2 %

(n =

4 )

55 %

( n

= 1

1) 36

.4 %

( n

= 1

2) 42

A ss

et -b

as ed

s tu

de nt

d es

cr ip

to rs

* 37

.9 %

( n

= 1

1) (F

ir st

u se

: 2 00

2) 4.

5% (

n =

1 )

(F ir

st u

se : 2

02 2)

N on

e 3.

0% (

n =

1 )

(F ir

st u

se : 2

00 0)

13

* W

e co

ns id

er a

ss et

-b as

ed s

tu de

nt d

es cr

ip to

rs t

o in

cl ud

e bi

lin gu

al /m

ul til

in gu

al le

ar ne

r as

o pp

os ed

t o

“E ng

lis h

le ar

ne r.

”

66 Teachers College Record 126(3)

Opportunities for Students with Exceptional Mathematical Promise (NCTM, 2016), the organization references the need to “acknowledg[e] that each and every student has mathematical promise” and to “ensure that opportunities are available to each and every prepared student” (emphasis added). Similarly, another position statement, Revised Code of Ethics for the Social Studies Profession stated, “It is the ethical respon- sibility of social studies professionals to provide to every student the knowledge, skills, experiences, and attitudes necessary to function as an effective participant in a demo- cratic system” [emphasis added] (NCSS, 2013). This erasure is particularly noteworthy with regard to NCTM and NSTA, because nearly half of their position statements are defaulting to the use of umbrella terms, suggesting a general habitus in STEM that is linguistically, culturally, and racially blind.

We believe the act of not naming something is equally as telling as naming it explic- itly, and that neglecting to use more specific labels for CLDLs reflects the TPOs’ institutional habitus. When position statements refer to “every student” or “all stu- dents,” they feign commitment to diversity while avoiding acknowledging the linguis- tic and racialized identities of CLDLs and the ways these have historically led to inequities in their education (Flores & Rosa, 2015; Rosa & Flores, 2017). Such posi- tion statements reflect conventional perspectives that only serve to perpetuate inequi- table educational structures for CLDLs. It is this type of a habitus that normalizes middle classness, Whiteness, and monolingualism in Standardized English. As such, it fails to disrupt the current deficit discourses around and the positioning of CLDLs in education and instead reifies and reproduces them.

Neglecting the Specific Instructional Needs of CLDLs. An important dimension of working with CLDLs is scaffolding and differentiating curriculum and instruction for students’ cultural and linguistic needs (Leider & Tigert, 2022; Lucas & Villegas, 2010a, 2010b; Paris & Alim, 2017). However, although 57 position statements address content and instruction, most position statements did not explicitly name the instructional needs of CLDLs (NCTM = 10, NCSS = 14, NSTA = 20), with NCTE standing out as the exception with only two position statements that did not do so. For instance, across multiple position statements, NCTM advocates for access to rigorous math content yet does not detail ways the language needs of English learners must be considered for equitable access. Arguably, the lack of attention to the specific instructional needs of both English learners and other CLDLs may reflect a habitus that positions math as a universally understood content area whose learning is not dependent on language (Han- sen-Thomas & Cavagnetto, 2010) or opportunities. Similarly, within its position state- ments, the NCSS consistently highlighted the importance of a diverse curriculum with no consideration of how to make this content accessible to CLDLs; we see this as related to the dearth of CLDL representation in general within the existing, Eurocentric social studies curriculum (Dong, 2017). Further, in Learning Conditions for High School Science (2020), NSTA mentions the need to “allow for student differentiation, modification, and remediation” but goes on to specify only the following categories of diversity: “gender identity, culture, and exceptionalities,” conspicuously omitting

Leider et al. 67

racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity from the list of dimensions that necessitate special attention. This is particularly noteworthy because although many statements provide teachers with strategies and tools for instruction, very few specify considerations for CLDLs, reflecting a habitus that overlooks the specific instructional and curricular needs of this population.

Related to curriculum content and instruction is teachers’ preparedness to deliver these in a way that is meaningful for and effective with CLDLs. It is important for TPOs to describe how their vision for students translates into teacher preparation, and this is reflected in the large number of position statements that are focused on this: a total of 67 statements were coded “teacher preparation.” However, these position statements mostly discussed instructional skills or innovations that did not match what research has deemed essential for improving CLDLs’ (and especially classified English learners’) access to the four content areas, such as familiarity with culturally and lin- guistically responsive pedagogy (Lucas & Villegas, 2010a, 2010b) or critical pedago- gies (Au, 2009; Giroux, 2011). For example, two documents that focus specifically on teacher preparation, Preparing Pre-K–12 Teachers of Statistics (NCTM, 2013) and Science Teacher Preparation (NSTA, 2004) lack any mention of CLDLs. This lack of clarity and detail in TPOs’ articulation of teacher preparedness specifically for CLDLs reflects a habitus where the teaching of CLDLs is, perhaps, seen as “just good teach- ing” (de Jong & Harper, 2005) with no need to attend specifically to these students’ cultures as well as their language, literacy, and content learning processes.

Do Position Statements Disrupt the Current Deficit Narratives Around CLDLs?

Our analysis revealed that some position statements exhibited habituses that implicitly or explicitly disrupted deficit narratives. First, the use of asset-based language across various statements implicitly counters the deficit assumptions associated with labels such as “English learner” or “limited English proficient” (see Colombo et al., 2019; García, 2009; Martínez, 2018). TPOs were also explicit in some of their position state- ments about how to specifically disrupt deficit or superficial approaches to support CLDLs. Most notably, NCTE was the most explicit in disrupting the status quo.

Asset-Based Language. In our analysis, 42 of the 104 position statements (see Table 2) were coded “CLDL,” denoting documents where students were explicitly acknowl- edged by the TPOs using a range of labels such as (but not limited to) “multilingual students/learners,” “bilingual students/individuals,” “English (language) learners,” “racially and ethnically diverse students,” “nonnative English speakers,” “minority students,” “African American students, “students of color,” “immigrant students,” “limited academic language proficiency students,” and “limited English proficiency students.” What is of particular interest in this theme is not the number of times CLDLs were referenced, but rather the specific language used to describe CLDLs, because some of the labels are more asset-based whereas others are deficit-oriented. For

68 Teachers College Record 126(3)

instance, the use of “nonnative speakers of English” in Closing the Opportunity Gap in Mathematics Education (NCTM, 2012) reflects a deficit orientation where being “native” to a place is equated with speaking its majority language. In contrast, “bilin- gual student” or “CLDL,” the latter of which we have elected to use here, are more asset-oriented, recognizing students’ languages and cultures (see Colombo et al., 2019). NCTE did this most frequently, with 11 position statements explicitly contain- ing asset-based language, suggesting an institutional habitus that includes a strengths- based mindset dating back to the early 2000s. In contrast, only one statement each in NCTM (Transforming Practices and Policies so Multilingual Learners Thrive in Mathematics, 2022) and NSTA (Multicultural Science Education, 2000) utilized asset- based language beyond the catch-all “diverse students” label. (See the previous sec- tion on erasure.) It’s particularly noteworthy that it was not until 2022 that this change occurred for NCTM. In the statements we analyzed, NCSS did not use any asset-based language to describe students (see Table 2). TPOs that explicitly name CLDLs and use the more asset-oriented labels demonstrate institutional habituses that acknowledge the intertwined, both historical and contemporary impact of language, culture, and race on CLDLs’ schooling experience, reflecting a so-called raciolinguistic perspec- tive (Flores & Rosa, 2015; Rosa, 2016; Rosa & Flores, 2017). It remains to be seen whether the labels TPOs use in their position statements will continue—or in some cases, begin—to move toward more asset-oriented, raciolinguistic perspectives, which would reflect institutional habituses that disrupt the prevailing deficit discourses around CLDLs.

Detailing CLDLs’ Instructional Needs. Our analysis revealed a limited range of ways the educational experiences and needs of CLDLs were addressed across the position state- ments. Only 11 position statements that were coded “content and instruction” were also cross-coded “CLDL” (NCTE = 8, NCTM = 1, NCSS = 0, NSTA = 2). Thus, overall specificity to the instructional needs of CLDLs was minimal across all TPOs. When comparing TPOs, NCTE was the most detailed of the four organizations in dis- cussing the needs of CLDLs in its content area, reflecting a racially, culturally, and linguistically aware institutional habitus. For example, Position Paper on the Role of English Teachers in Educating English Language Learners (ELLs) (NCTE, 2020) dis- cusses translanguaging, or the deliberate and flexible switching between languages and language varieties (García & Wei, 2014; Wei, 2018) to help students understand and express ideas. It also discusses differentiation for ELLs, noting, especially, that students’ prior knowledge and literacies may vary based on their linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Interestingly, although NSTA had only two position statements that addressed content and instruction for CLDLs, it did have a statement that gave a nod to students’ home languages. Science for English Language Learners (NSTA, 2009) outlines ways to differentiate not only instruction but also assessment, suggesting that science assessments and their directions be given in the student’s home language. This explicit focus on language in NSTA might be related to the push in science education for argumentation discourse (McNeil et al., 2016; Swanson et al., 2014). Regardless,

Leider et al. 69

this position statement, albeit in a limited manner, shows a move toward a habitus disrupting the prevailing narratives around the education of CLDLs.

Beyond Diversification. Except for NCTM, there is no question that TPOs call for the need to diversify the curriculum. For instance, Multicultural Science Curriculum (NSTA, 2000) highlights the need for a diverse, critical curriculum; Early Childhood in the Social Studies Context (NCSS, 2019) notes the need for teachers to expose young children to “visual representations, play materials, and literature genre reflective of the various family structures, languages, and racial/ethnic cultures as well as other charac- teristics of the larger community”; and Supporting Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Learners in English Education (NCTE, 2005) asks teachers to select texts that “reflect the cultural and ethnic diversity of the nation.” However, to fully address the instructional needs of CLDLs, diversification and representation in curriculum are not enough. Educators must also have a critical understanding of systemic oppression and engage in the types of pedagogies that can be adopted to combat it (Au, 2009; Baker- Bell, 2020; Delgado & Stefancic, 2017; Dobbs & Leider, 2021; Dobbs et al., 2022). According to our analysis, NCTE is the only TPO among the four whose institutional habitus explicitly aims to deliberately disrupt the existing inequities in the education of CLDLs. For instance, Position Statement on Indigenous Peoples and People of Color (IPOC) in English and Language Arts Materials (NCTE, 2020) explicitly calls for criti- cal multicultural materials. Supporting Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Learners in English Education (NCTE, 2005) goes even further by stating that “Developing this kind of knowledge [sociolinguistics] may help to avoid linguistic racism or language marginalization.” Further, Educators’ Rights and Responsibilities to Engage in Antira- cist Teaching (NCTE, 2022) and Statement on Antiracism to Support Teaching and Learning (NCTE, 2018) specifically address antiracist pedagogy. Across multiple NCTE position statements, this TPO exhibits a clear institutional habitus aimed at addressing issues of inequity beyond representation in the curriculum.

Discussion

Our analyses revealed a range of perspectives, priorities, and explicitness about the education of CLDLs. This range is not too surprising given that previous work has documented that perspectives and knowledge regarding CLDLs do vary across disci- plines (Janzen, 2008). We discuss our findings in this section within the larger context of research and discourse around the education of CLDLs.

Overall, many of the position statements reflected institutional habituses that erased CLDLs by neglecting to acknowledge and address their specific instructional needs and by using catchall labels such as “diverse students.” According to our analysis, among the four TPOs, NCTE is ahead of the other three organizations in using its position statements to communicate an institutional habitus that is designed to disrupt the pres- ent inequities in the education of CLDLs. NCTE had published the most position state- ments that explicitly named the instructional and curricular needs of CLDLs and ways

70 Teachers College Record 126(3)

to address these; used specific labels for students revealing an understanding of CLDLs’ complex, racialized identities; and included ways to implement pedagogies to combat inequities, such as antiracist teaching. In contrast, the other TPOs, most notably NCTM and, to a lesser extent, NSTA, presented a conspicuous dearth of references for CLDLs and a tendency to use the catchall labels “all students/diverse students” instead of more asset-based, specific labels. These two organizations also lacked position statements addressing ways CLDLs’ needs should be considered in the curriculum and instruction of their respective content areas. As for NCSS, the organization lacks the use of spe- cific, asset-based language for CLDLs, but has published some position statements addressing the need for greater representation of diversity across the curriculum.

The finding that TPOs do not focus as explicitly on CLDLs as they could is not entirely surprising when we consider the current state of education research: Although research does document teachers’ beliefs about CLDLs as negative, research itself also falls into a deficit-framing trap. In scholarly literature, various student groups belong- ing to this population have been referred to as students at risk (Ladson-Billings, 2006), underrepresented students (Haas et al., 2021), language minority groups (Besterman et al., 2018; Lachance, 2018), nondominant students (Kolonich et al., 2018), culturally deprived or disadvantaged students (Baldridge, 2014), and non-native English speak- ers (Castañeda & Bautista, 2011). Given the deficit labels and narrow positioning of CLDLs still prevalent in both the academic literature and mainstream/social media discourses (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2012; Guo & Harlow, 2014), it’s not surprising to see TPOs wash away the specific pedagogical needs of CLDLs. Further, given the push for antideficit discourses around students (Carey, 2014; Martínez, 2018), it could be that the overly general labels such as “all students” we discovered in position state- ments are a way for TPOs to safeguard themselves from using deficit-oriented lan- guage and to communicate at least a performative type of habitus against systemic oppression. We argue that TPOs have the power to push a field to shift discourse (and, by extension, practice), and therefore, we encourage TPOs to take a stance by actively using asset-based language.

Among education researchers, critical scholars, many of whom have racialized and minoritized identities, have long pushed educators to understand better the ways Whiteness and systemic oppression are built into the current education system and how to utilize transformative pedagogies to fight against longstanding inequities (Freire, 1970; Love, 2019: Muhammad, 2020). There have been several concerted efforts to diversify and decolonize curriculum (e.g., Garcia-Olp et al., 2022; Haddix, 2017; Higgins & Kim, 2019; Rodriguez & Swalwell, 2021); this movement is espe- cially important given contemporary curriculum censoring by state governments (e.g., Florida’s Parental Rights in Education bill, also dubbed the Don’t Say Gay bill, 2022; Stop W.O.K.E. Act, 2022). However, we noted that NCTM does not describe critical pedagogies or stances in its statements; therefore, its habitus, at least based on the position statements alone, falls far short of the other TPOs in disrupting the deficit discourses around CLDLs. Although several position statements across the TPOs explicitly address curricular concerns, we also found that many of them rarely or

Leider et al. 71

vaguely addressed the specific instructional needs of CLDLs. NCSS emphasizes the importance of a diverse curriculum but is nearly devoid of language on instructional strategies that would make it accessible for CLDLs, while only three of NCTM’s state- ments mention the needs of CLDLs. Students are entitled to equitable access to rigor- ous, quality, and contemporary curriculum, and we’re left wondering if and how TPOs contribute to ensuring such access for CLDLs. Indeed, research has documented that CLDLs often experience less rigorous coursework (Callahan & Shifrer, 2016; Thompson, 2017), and teachers are not adequately prepared to best support CLDLs (Kim & Morita-Mullaney, 2020; Leider et al., 2021; Rutt et al., 2021).

Implications

This project highlights several implications regarding explicit and implicit impact that TPOs can have within their respective fields, particularly when it comes to CLDLs. First, although TPOs emphasize social justice and equity for students in terms of cur- ricular content, there is a lack of explicitness around the specific needs of CLDLs. Although it is clear that TPOs want their teachers to be cognizant of ensuring access for “all students,” this linguistically and racially blind approach does not help teachers see concrete instructional changes that must be made in order to truly address issues of equitable access for CLDLs. We encourage TPOs to examine institutional habitus and consider ways they can be more explicit about naming the priorities and needs for CLDLs within their field and perhaps co-construct position statements (and other activities) with fellow TPOs that specifically support CLDLs (e.g., National Association for Bilingual Education [NABE], TESOL, WIDA). Indeed, there is a deep body of research on how to support CLDLs generally (e.g., Tigert & Leider, 2022a, 2022b; Walqui & Bunch, 2019) and in specific content areas (e.g., Baker et al., 2014; Markos & Himmel, 2016). However, this research is often published in venues that focus on literacy (e.g., Vaughn et al., 2022), multicultural education (e.g., Nieto, 2017), or TESOL (e.g., Brooks, 2018; Grapin & Lee, 2022), instead of by organizations for particular content areas. When taking this into account alongside our findings, there is clearly a need for TPOs to talk across fields, particularly with organizations that spe- cialize in supporting CLDLs. Indeed, some organizations are doing just that: NSTA recently entered into a partnership with WIDA, the leading professional organization on instruction and assessment for PK–12 multilingual learners. This collaboration, Making Science Multilingual (David et al., 2020; WIDA, 2022), is entirely devoted to supporting CLDLs in the science classroom. Relatedly, we encourage TPOs like WIDA to hold professional learning opportunities tailored to content area teachers and also encourage content teachers to engage with TPOs outside their primary discipline. We also encourage organizations to look to NCTE, a TPO that seems “ahead of the curve” with regard to demonstrating a habitus dedicated to making strides forward for CLDLs in implicit and explicit ways. Additionally, given that TPOs can communicate priorities to their membership through position statements, which we argue is a form of ongoing professionalization, we encourage TPOs to be more cognizant of the

72 Teachers College Record 126(3)

impact these have on shaping the profession and to consider how to center and explic- itly address the needs of CLDLs.

With regard to research, in our critical approach to this analysis, we drew parallels to critical discourse analysis, which aims to reveal “discourses [that] can normalize specific ways of knowing, meaning-making, and being, excluding others, thereby cre- ating inequities” (Dorner et al., 2023, p. 370); we agree that this critical approach “is crucial to figuring out what we are facing [in education] so we know how to agitate toward change” (p. 370) and hope our approach to examining public-facing docu- ments such as position statements highlights the potential—and perhaps unexam- ined—influence that TPOs can play in shaping a profession. Finally, this project points to the potential of document analysis in examining institutional habitus. Our work suggests that position statements can offer a rich source of data on an organization’s habitus, which can reveal the ways an organization positions CLDLs and thereby either disrupts or perpetuates the discourses surrounding these students that ultimately impact the ways teachers work with them.

Limitations and Future Research

Our project examined the position statements of four TPOs. Despite being the flagship organizations in their respective fields, these TPOs are not the only organizations of their kind in the respective content areas, and therefore our analysis is limited in its scope. Further work could examine a specific content area by analyzing the position statements of a larger number of the TPOs within it, thereby covering the content area’s institutional habitus more widely. Another limitation is that we chose to analyze only documents that the TPOs had identified and published under the label “position state- ment.” Each TPO may view position statements as serving a different purpose and may use channels other than position statements (e.g., white papers and keynote addresses) to advance their positions. Future analyses could focus on a wider variety of documents from each TPO. Further, although most of the accountability measures and focus on academic achievements are directed at CLDL learning in the four core academic disci- plines analyzed here, research should also examine other content areas that, although not as intensely scrutinized, still play an essential part in the learning and development of CLDLs (see Dobbs et al., 2022). Conducting similar analyses on the position state- ments of, for example, music or arts education would offer new insights into the work. Research has documented how linguistic and racial experiences impact the decisions of CLDL leaders (Morita-Mullaney, 2018), and given that institutional habitus is shaped by actors within the field (Wacquant & Bourdieu, 1992), it might also be worth examin- ing the leadership within respective TPOs. Finally, in this work, we propose that TPOs’ position statements play a role in teacher professionalization, but they are not the only mechanism of influence. Future work could examine the work of TPO members and leaders, conference themes, and professional development offerings to better under- stand how organizations might be living their habitus and intentionally or unintention- ally shaping the field of education and the education of CLDLs within it.

Leider et al. 73

Appendix A

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

Position Statements Initial Publication (revised)

Closing the Opportunity Gap in Mathematics Education

2012-June

Linking Mathematics Education Research and Practice 2012-July Supporting the Common Core State Standards for

Mathematics 2013-August

Teacher Mentorship 2013-October Mathematics in Early Childhood Learning 2013-October Algebra as a Strand of School Mathematics for All

Students 2014-April

Procedural Fluency in Mathematics 2014-July Access and Equity in Mathematics Education 2018-April Building STEM Education on a Sound Mathematical

Foundation 2018

Strategic Use of Technology in Teaching and Learning Mathematics

2015-July

The Metric System 2015-July Calculator Use in Elementary Grades 2015-July Computer Science and Mathematics Education 2016-February Evaluation of Teachers of Mathematics 2016-July High Expectations in Mathematics Education 2016-July Large-Scale Mathematics Assessments and High-

Stakes Decisions 2016-July

Curricular Coherence and Open Educational Resources

2016-October

Providing Opportunities for Students with Exceptional Mathematical Promise

2016-October

The Role of Elementary Mathematics Specialists in the Learning and Teaching of Mathematics

2022-June

Transforming Practices and Policies So Multilingual Learners Thrive in Mathematics

2022-June

A Joint Position Statement of the Mathematical Association of America and the NCTM

2022-June

Joint NCTM-ASA Position Statement on Preparing PK–12 Teachers of Statistics and Data Science

2022-September

National Science Teacher Association Learning Conditions for High School Science 1986-July (2020-March) Use of the Metric System 1999-January (2016-February) Multicultural Science Education 2000-July Environmental Education 2003-February

(continued)

74 Teachers College Record 126(3)

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

Position Statements Initial Publication (revised)

Leadership in Science Education 2003-February (2016-July) Science Education for Middle Level Students 2003-February (2016-July) Gender Equity in Science Education 2003-July The Teaching of Evolution 2003-July (2013-July) Students with Exceptionalities 2004-February (2017-February) Science Teacher Preparation 2004-July (2017-February) Responsible Use of Live Animals and Dissection in

the Science Classroom 2005-June (2008-March)

Professional Development in Science Education 2006-May The Integral Role of Laboratory Investigations in

Science Instruction 2007-February

Principles of Professionalism for Science Educators 2007-June (2010-November) Liability of Science Teachers for Laboratory Science 2007-September (2017-December) Aerospace Education 2008-March The Role of E-Learning in Science Education 200-September (2016-July) Parent Involvement in Science Learning 2009-April International Science Education and the National

Science Teachers Association 2009-May (2017-July)

Science for English Language Learners 2009-December The Role of Research on Science Teaching and

Learning 2010-September (2017-October)

Teaching Science in the Context of Societal and Personal Issues

2010-November (2016-December)

Quality Science Education and 21st-Century Skills 2011-June Learning Science in Informal Environments 2012-August The Next Generation Science Standards 2013-November (2016-December) Early Childhood Science Education 2014-January Safety and School Science Instruction 2015-October Elementary Science Education 2018-October The Teaching of Climate Science 2018 Transitioning from Scientific Inquiry to Three-

Dimensional Teaching and Learning 2018-February

Induction Programs for the Support and Development of Newly Hired Teachers of Science

2019-July

The Nature of Science 2020-January STEM Education Teaching and Learning 2020-February National Council for the Social Studies Revised Code of Ethics for the Social Studies

Profession 1990 (2003, 2013)

(continued)

Appendix A. (continued)

Leider et al. 75

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

Position Statements Initial Publication (revised)

Revitalizing Civic Learning in Our Schools 2013 Technology, Digital Learning, and Social Studies 2013 (2022) Human Rights Education: A Necessity for Effective

Social and Civic Learning 2014

Developing State and Local Social Studies Standards 2014 Study About Religions in the Social Studies

Curriculum 2014

A Vision of Powerful Teaching and Learning in the Social Studies

2016-May/June

Global and International Education in Social Studies 2016 Media Literacy 2016 Academic Freedom and the Social Studies Educator 2016 Powerful, Purposeful Pedagogy in Elementary School

Social Studies 2017

Position Statement on Executive Order Regarding Immigration from Select Countries, Jan 27, 2017

2017-January

Affirming Support for Alternatives to the USCIS Naturalization Test as a Measure of the Civic Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions of Students

2018-March

Toward Responsibility: Social Studies Ed that Respects and Affirms Indigenous Peoples and Nations

2018-March

Youth, Social Media and Digital Civic Engagement 2018-December Early Childhood in the Social Studies Context 2019-March NCSS Response to the Updated NAEP Schedule July 2019 Contextualizing LGBT+ History Within the Social

Studies Curriculum 2019-September

Promoting Teacher Civic Engagement 2021 Supporting Curricular Promotion and Intersectional

Valuing of Women in History and Current Events n/a

National Council for Teachers of English Read Together: Parents and Educators Working

Together for Literacy 2000

Statement on Gender and Language 2002-July (2018-October) Beliefs About Methods Courses and Field

Experiences in English Education 2005-July (2020-April)

Beliefs for Integrating Technology into the English Language Arts Classroom

2005-July (2018-October)

Resolution on El día de los niños/El día de los libros 2005-November

Appendix A. (continued)

(continued)

76 Teachers College Record 126(3)

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

Position Statements Initial Publication (revised)

Shifting from Professional Development to Professional Learning: Centering Teacher Empowerment

2006

Resolution on English-Only Instructional Policies 2008-December Resolution on the Student’s Right to Incorporate

Heritage and Home Languages in Writing 2011-November

Resolution on the Dignity and Education of Immigrant, Undocumented, and Unaccompanied Youth

2015-February

NCTE Position Statement in Support of Ethnic Studies Initiatives in K–12 Curricula

2015-October

Statement on Anti-racism to Support Teaching and Learning

2018-July

Expanding Opportunities: Academic Success for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students

2018-November

Resolution on English Education for Critical Literacy in Politics and Media

2018-November

Statement on the Opportunity to Learn 2019-July Statement on Academic Freedom (Revised) 2019-November Definition of Literacy in a Digital Age 2019-November The Act of Reading: Instructional Foundations and

Policy Guidelines 2019-December

Position Statement on Indigenous Peoples and People of Color (IPOC) in ELA Materials

2020-January

NCTE Position Paper on the Role of English Teachers in Educating English Language Learners

2020-March

Drama-Based Literacies 2020-August Elevating Student Voice: The Role and Importance of

Literacy Coaches for K–12 Teachers 2020-November

Expanding Formative Assessment for Equity and Agency

2020-November

Guidelines for Affirming Gender Diversity Through ELA Curriculum and Pedagogy

2021-March

Recognizing Teacher Experts and Their Paths to Expertise

2021-December

Media Education in English Language Arts 2022-April Educators’ Right and Responsibilities to Engage in

Antiracist Teaching 2022-March

Position Statement on Writing Instruction in School 2020-August Educators as Readers: Forming Book Groups as

Professionals Position Statement 2022-November

Teaching Storytelling Position Statement 2022-December

Appendix A. (continued)

Leider et al. 77

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Dr. Christina Dobbs, Dr. Trish Morita-Mullaney, and Dr. Erin Nerlino for their helpful insights and discussion around using document analysis in education research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

1. We use “culturally and linguistically diverse learners” to be inclusive of classified English learners, students whose primary language is English but who speak another language at home, students who have been reclassified as no longer needing English language devel- opment, students who use varieties and dialects of English (and other named languages), (im)migrant students, students of color, multiethnic/multiracial students, transnational stu- dents, and students who live at the intersections of these background characteristics.

References

Allen, J., & Wright, S. (2014). Integrating theory and practice in the pre-service teacher educa- tion practicum. Teachers and Teaching, 20(2), 136–151.

Allen, L. (2002). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and the standards for foreign language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 35(5), 518–529.

Asad, A. L. (2020). Latinos’ deportation fears by citizenship and legal status, 2007 to 2018. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(16), 8836–8844.

Au, W. (2009). Fighting with the text: Contextualizing and recontextualizing Freire’s critical pedagogy. In M. Apple, W. Au, & L. Gandin (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of critical education (pp. 221–231). Routledge.

Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10–20.

Bair, M. (2014). Teacher professionalism: What educators can learn from social workers. Mid- Western Educational Researcher, 26(2), 28–57.

Baker, S., Lesaux, N., Jayanthi, M., Dimino, J., Proctor, C. P., Morris, J., Gersten, R., Haymond, K., Kieffer, M. J., Linan-Thompson, S., & Newman-Gonchar, R. (2014). Teaching aca- demic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014-4012). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/ WWC/PracticeGuide/19

Baker-Bell, A. (2020). Dismantling anti-black linguistic racism in English language arts class- rooms: Toward an anti-racist black language pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 59(1), 8–21.

78 Teachers College Record 126(3)

Baldridge, B. J. (2014). Relocating the deficit: Reimagining Black youth in neoliberal times. American Educational Research Journal, 51(3), 440–472.

Besterman, K., Ernst, J., & Williams, T. (2018). Developments in STEM educators’ prepared- ness for English language learners in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 11(4), 165–176.

Borg, M. (2004). The apprenticeship of observation. ELT Journal, 58(3), 274–276. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1983). The context of development and the development of context. In R.

Lerner (Ed.), Developmental psychology: Historical and philosophical perspectives (pp. 147–184). Erlbaum.

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (Vol. 4). Sage.

Brooks, M. D. (2018). Pushing past myths: Designing instruction for long-term English learn- ers. TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 221–233.

Bunch, G. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 298–341.

Byrd, D. (2019). Uncovering hegemony in higher education: A critical appraisal of the use of “institutional habitus” in empirical scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 89(2), 171–210.

Callahan, R. M., & Shifrer, D. (2016). Equitable access for secondary English learner stu- dents: Course taking as evidence of EL program effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(3), 463–496.

Carey, R. L. (2014). A cultural analysis of the achievement gap discourse: Challenging the language and labels used in the work of school reform. Urban Education, 49(4), 440–468.

Carley Rizzuto, K. (2017). Teachers’ perceptions of ELL students: Do their attitudes shape their instruction? The Teacher Educator, 52(3), 182–202.

Castañeda, M., & Bautista, N. (2011). Teaching science to ELLs, part II. The Science Teacher, 78(3), 40.

Cohen, E., Hoz, R., & Kaplan, H. (2013). The practicum in preservice teacher education: A review of empirical studies. Teaching Education, 24(4), 345–380.

Colombo, M., Tigert, J. M., & Leider, C. M. (2019). Positioning teachers, positioning learners: Why we should stop using the term English learners. TESOL Journal, 10(2). https://doi. org/10.1002/tesj.432

Choi, Y. (2013). Teaching social studies for newcomer English language learners: Toward cul- turally relevant pedagogy. Multicultural Perspectives, 15(1), 12–18.

Costa, J., McPhail, G., Smith, J., & Brisk, M. (2005). Faculty first: The challenge of infusing teacher education curriculum with scholarship on English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 104–118.

Creamer, E. G., & Ghoston, M. (2013). Using a mixed methods content analysis to analyze mis- sion statements from colleges of engineering. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 110–120.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Teachers and teaching: Signs of a changing profession. In R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 267–289). Macmillan.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 35–47.

Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D., Gatlin, S., & Heilig, J. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives/Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, 13, 1–48.

Leider et al. 79

David, T., Crowther, L., & MacDonald, R. (2020, December 17). Designing equitable engage- ment in sensemaking. NSTA blog. https://www.nsta.org/blog/designing-equitable-engage- ment-sensemaking#

Davis, J., Ruhe, J., Lee, M., & Rajadhyaksha, U. (2007). Mission possible: Do school mission statements work? Journal of Business Ethics, 70(1), 99–110.

de Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English-language learners: Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 101– 124.

de Jong, E., Harper, C., & Coady, M. (2013). Enhanced knowledge and skills for elementary mainstream teachers of English language learners. Theory into Practice, 52(2), 89–97.

Delavan, M., Freire, J. A., & Morita-Mullaney, T. (2023). Conscripted into thinking of scarce, selective, privatized, and precarious seats in dual language bilingual education: The choice discourse of mercenary exclusivity. Current Issues in Language Planning, 24(3), 245–271.

Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical race theory. NYU Press. de los Ríos, C. V., Martinez, C., Musser, A. D., Canady, A., Camangian, P., & Quijada, P. D.

(2019). Upending colonial practices: Toward repairing harm in English education. Theory into Practice, 58(4), 359–367.

Dobbs, C. L., & Leider, C. M. (2021). A LangCrit analysis of teachers’ beliefs about language learning and language diversity. Journal of Multilingual Theory and Practice, 2(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1558/jmtp.19104

Dobbs, C. L., Leider, C. M., & Tigert, J. (2022). A space for English learners and multilin- gualism?: Using S-STEP to examine world language teacher education. International Multilingual Research Journal, 16(3), 237–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2022.2 082781

Dong, Y. (2017). Tapping into English language learners’ (ELLs’) prior knowledge in social studies instruction. The Social Studies, 108(4), 143–151.

Dorner, L. M., Kim, S., Bonney, E. N., & Montes, I. C. (2023). Using critical discourse analysis to challenge and change educational practice and policy. In M. D. Young & S. Diem (Eds.), Handbook of critical education research (pp. 356–376). Routledge.

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). (2015). Public Law 114-95. https://www.congress. gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf

Faltis, C., & Valdés, G. (2016). Preparing teachers for teaching in and advocating for linguisti- cally diverse classrooms: A vade mecum for teacher educators. In D. H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 549–592). AERA.

Flores, M. (2010). School cultures and organizations and teacher induction. In J. Wang, S. Odell, & R. Clift (Eds.), Past, present and future research on teacher induction: An anthol- ogy for researchers, policy makers and practitioners (pp. 45–56). Rowman & Littlefield.

Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and lan- guage diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. Bergin & Garvey. Galguera, T. (2011). Participant structures as professional learning tasks and the develop-

ment of pedagogical language knowledge among preservice teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(1), 85–106.

Gándara, P., & Hopkins, M. (2010). Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive lan- guage policies (pp. 102–117). Teachers College Press.

80 Teachers College Record 126(3)

García, O. (2009). Emergent bilinguals and TESOL: What’s in a name? TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 322–326.

García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Macmillan.

García, P., & Davis-Wiley, P. (2015). Tomorrow’s world language teachers: Practices, pro- cesses, caveats and challenges along the yellow brick road. Journal of Education and Social Policy, 2(5), 30–39.

Garcia-Olp, M., Nelson, C., & Saiz, L. (2022). Decolonizing mathematics curriculum and peda- gogy: Indigenous knowledge has always been mathematics education. Educational Studies, 58(1), 1–16.

Gil de Zúñiga, H., Correa, T., & Valenzuela, S. (2012). Selective exposure to cable news and immigration in the US: The relationship between FOX News, CNN, and attitudes toward Mexican immigrants. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(4), 597–615.

Giroux, H. (2011). On critical pedagogy. Continuum. Gounari, P. (2020). Introduction to the special issue on critical pedagogies. L2 Journal, 12(2). Grapin, S. E., & Lee, O. (2022). WIDA English language development standards framework,

2020 edition: Key shifts and emerging tensions. TESOL Quarterly, 56(2), 827–839. Grbic, D., Hafferty, F. W., & Hafferty, P. K. (2013). Medical school mission statements as

reflections of institutional identity and educational purpose: A network text analysis. Academic Medicine, 88(6), 852–860.

Guo, L., & Harlow, S. (2014). User-generated racism: An analysis of stereotypes of African Americans, Latinos, and Asians in YouTube videos. Howard Journal of Communications, 25(3), 281–302.

Haas, A., Januszyk, R., Grapin, S. E., Goggins, M., Llosa, L., & Lee, O. (2021). Developing instructional materials aligned to the next generation science standards for all students, including English learners. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(7), 735–756.

Haddix, M. (2017). Diversifying teaching and teacher education: Beyond rhetoric and toward real change. Journal of Literacy Research, 49(1), 141–149.

Hansen-Thomas, H., & Cavagnetto, A. (2010). What do mainstream middle school teachers think about their English language learners? A tri-state case study. Bilingual Research Journal, 33(2), 249–266.

Hart, J., & Lee, O. (2003). Teacher professional development to improve the science and literacy achievement of English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3), 475–501.

Higgins, M., & Kim, E. (2019). De/colonizing methodologies in science education: Rebraiding research theory–practice–ethics with Indigenous theories and theorists. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14, 111–127

Hseih, H., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.

Huerta, M., Garza, T., Jackson, J., & Murukutla, M. (2019). Science teacher attitudes towards English learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 1–9.

Ippolito, J., Dobbs, C. L., & Charner-Laird, M. (2017). What literacy means in math class. The Learning Professional, 38(2), 66–70.

Irwin, V., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., York, C., Barmer, A., Bullock Mann, F., Dilig, R., & Parker, S. (2021). Report on the condition of education 2021 (NCES 2021-144). U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. https:// nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2021144

Leider et al. 81

Jacobson, D., & Mustafa, N. (2019). Social identity map: A reflexivity tool for practicing explicit positionality in critical qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691987007

Janzen, J. (2008). Teaching English language learners in the content areas. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1010–1038.

Johnson, H., Mathis, J., & Short, K. G. (2017). Critical content analysis of children’s and young adult literature. Routledge.

Kanstroom, D. (2012). Aftermath: Deportation law and the new American diaspora. OUP USA. Khalili, H., Orchard, C., Laschinger, H., & Farah, R. (2013). An interprofessional socialization

framework for developing an interprofessional identity among health professions students. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 27(6), 448–453.

Kim, S. A., & Morita-Mullaney, T. (2020). When preparation matters: A mixed method study of in-service teacher preparation to serve English learners. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 32(3), 231–254.

Kolonich, A., Richmond, G., & Krajcik, J. (2018). Reframing inclusive science instruction to support teachers in promoting equitable three-dimensional science classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(8), 693–711.

Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage. Lachance, J. (2018). A case study of dual language teaching in science class: Implications for

middle level teachers. RMLE Online, 41(5), 1–14. Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding

achievement in US schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12. Lee, O., & Buxton, C. A. (2013). Teacher professional development to improve science and

literacy achievement of English language learners. Theory into Practice, 52(2), 110–117. Lee, O., Maerten Rivera, J., Penfield, D., LeRoy, K., & Secada, G. (2008). Science achievement

of English language learners in urban elementary schools: Results of a first-year profes- sional development intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 31–52.

Leider, C. M., Colombo, M. W., & Nerlino, E. (2021). Decentralization, teacher quality, and the education of English learners: Do state education agencies effectively prepare teachers of ELs? Educational Policy Archives Analysis, 29. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.29.5279

Leider, C. M., & Tigert, J. (2022). English language development specialists’ views on emer- gency remote teaching. TESOL Journal, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.652

Lin, A. (2015). Researcher positionality. In F. M Holt & D. C. Johnson (Eds.), Research meth- ods in language policy and planning: A practical guide (pp. 21–32). Wiley Blackwell.

Llosa, L., Lee, O., Jiang, F., Haas, A., O’Connor, C., Van Booven, C. D., & Kieffer, M. J. (2016). Impact of a large-scale science intervention focused on English language learners. American Educational Research Journal, 53(2), 395–424.

López, F., & Santibañez, L. (2018). Teacher preparation for emergent bilingual students: Implications of evidence for policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(36), 1–42.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. University of Chicago Press. Love, B. L. (2019). We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of

educational freedom. Beacon Press. Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. (2010a). A framework for preparing linguistically responsive teachers.

In T. T. Lucas (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms (pp. 75–92). Routledge.

Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. (2010b). The missing piece in teacher education: The preparation of linguistically responsive teachers. Teachers College Record, 112(14), 297–318.

82 Teachers College Record 126(3)

Markos, A., & Himmel, J. (2016). Using sheltered instruction to support English learners. Center for Applied Linguistics. https://www.cal.org/siop/pdfs/briefs/using-sheltered- instruction-to-support-english-learners.pdf

Martínez, R. A. (2018). Beyond the English learner label: Recognizing the richness of bi/multi- lingual students’ linguistic repertoires. The Reading Teacher, 71(5), 515–522.

McCulloch, G. (2004). Documentary research: In education, history and the social sciences. Routledge.

McDonough, P. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. SUNY Press.

McGregor, S., & Halls, D. (2020). Enticing young professionals to sustain the profession: The role of professional associations. International Journal of Home Economics, 13(1), 61–71.

McNeill, K. L., Katsh-Singer, R., González-Howard, M., & Loper, S. (2016). Factors impacting teachers’ argumentation instruction in their science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 2026–2046.

Meskill, C. (2005). Infusing English language learner issues throughout professional educator curricula: The Training All Teachers project. Teachers College Record, 107(4), 739–756.

Metz, M., & Knight, H. (2021). The dominant school language narrative: Unpacking English teachers’ language ideologies. Language, 97(3), e238–e256.

Milner IV, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400.

Morita-Mullaney, T. (2018). The intersection of language and race among English learner (EL) leaders in desegregated urban Midwest schools: A LangCrit narrative study. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 17(6), 371–387.

Morley, C. P., Mader, E., Smilnak, T., Bazemore, A., Petterson, S., Rodriguez, J., & Campbell, K. (2015). The social mission in medical school mission statements: Associations with graduate outcomes. Family Medicine, 47(6), 427–434.

Moschkovich, J. (2012). Mathematics, the Common Core, and language: Recommendations for mathematics instruction for ELs aligned with the Common Core. Commissioned papers on language and literacy issues in the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards, 94, 17.

Muhammad, G. E. (2020). Cultivating genius: An equity framework for culturally and histori- cally responsive literacy. Scholastic.

Nieto, S. (2017). Re-imagining multicultural education: New visions, new possibilities. Multicultural Education Review, 9(1), 1–10.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. (2002/2012). Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 101, Stat. 1425 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ110/pdf/PLAW-107publ110. pdf

O’Brien, J. (2011). The system is broken and it’s failing these kids: High school social studies teachers’ attitudes toward training for ELLs. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 35(1), 22–28.

Özdem, G. (2011). An analysis of the mission and vision statements on the strategic plans of higher education institutions. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11(4), 1887– 1894.

Parental Rights in Education Bill. (2022). H.B.1557(FL.2022). https://www.flsenate.gov/ Session/Bill/2022/374/BillText/Filed/HTML

Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (Eds.). (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learn- ing for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press.

Leider et al. 83

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage. Quinn, H., Lee, O., & Valdés, G. (2012). Language demands and opportunities in relation to

Next Generation Science Standards for English language learners: What teachers need to know. Commissioned papers on language and literacy issues in the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards, 94(2012), 32–133.

Reeves, J. (2006). Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English-language learners in mainstream classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(3), 131–143.

Rodríguez, N. (2018). From margins to center: Developing cultural citizenship education through the teaching of Asian American history. Theory & Research in Social Education, 46(4), 528–573.

Rodríguez, N. (2019). Caught between two worlds: Asian American elementary teachers’ enact- ment of Asian American history. Educational Studies, 55(2), 214–240.

Rodríguez, N. (2020). “This is why nobody knows who you are”: (Counter)stories of Southeast Asian Americans in the Midwest. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 42(2), 157–174.

Rodriguez, N., & Swalwell, K. (2021). Social studies for a better world: An anti-oppressive approach for elementary educators. WW Norton.

Rosa, J. D. (2016). Standardization, racialization, languagelessness: Raciolinguistic ideologies across communicative contexts. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 26(2), 162–183.

Rosa, J., & Flores, N. (2017). Unsettling race and language: Toward a raciolinguistic perspec- tive. Language in Society, 46(5), 621–647.

Ross, K. (2014). Professional development for practicing mathematics teachers: A critical con- nection to English language learner students in mainstream USA classrooms. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17(1), 85–100.

Rutt, A., Mumba, F., & Kibler, A. (2021). Preparing preservice teachers to teach science to English learners: A review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(5), 625–660.

Saichaie, K., & Morphew, C. C. (2014). What college and university websites reveal about the purposes of higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(4), 499–530.

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage. Salinas, C. S., Rodríguez, N. N., & Blevins, B. (2017). Emergent bilinguals in social studies. In

M. M. Manfra & C. M. Bolick (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of social studies research (pp. 440–460). Wiley.

Settlage, J. (2011). Counterstories from White mainstream preservice teachers: Resisting the master narrative of deficit by default. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(4), 803–836.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter?. Topics in language disorders, 32(1), 7–18.

Short, D. (2017). How to integrate content and language learning effectively for English lan- guage learners. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(7b), 4237–4260.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23.

Stop Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees (W.O.K.E) Act. (2022). H.B. 7 (FL. 2022). https:// www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/148/BillText/Filed/HTML.

Suárez, E., & Otero, V. (2014). Leveraging the cultural practices of science for making class- room discourse accessible to emerging bilingual students. International Society of the Learning Sciences.

84 Teachers College Record 126(3)

Swanson, L. H., Bianchini, J. A., & Lee, J. S. (2014). Engaging in argument and communicating information: A case study of English language learners and their science teacher in an urban high school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 31–64.

Tenenbaum, H., & Ruck, M. (2007). Are teachers’ expectations different for racial minority than for European American students? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 253.

Thompson, K. D. (2017). What blocks the gate? Exploring current and former English learners’ math course-taking in secondary school. American Educational Research Journal, 54(4), 757–798.

Tigert, J., & Leider, C. M. (2022a). Beyond the “Core”: Preparing art educators to meet the needs of multilingual learners. TESOL Quarterly, 56(1), 425–434. https://doi.org/10.1002/ tesq.3040

Tigert, J. M., & Leider, C. M. (2022b). Beyond the “Core” curriculum: expanding access to multilingual learners. International Multilingual Research Journal, 16(3), 181–183. https:// doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2022.2079835

Turkan, S., De Oliveira, L. C., Lee, O., & Phelps, G. (2014). Proposing a knowledge base for teaching academic content to English language learners: Disciplinary linguistic knowledge. Teachers College Record, 116(3), 1–30.

Vaughn, S., Swanson, E., Fall, A. M., Roberts, G., Capin, P., Stevens, E. A., & Stewart, A. A. (2022). The efficacy of comprehension and vocabulary focused professional development on English learners’ literacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(2), 257–272.

Wacquant, L. J., & Bourdieu, P. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology (Vol. 106, p. 97). Polity.

Walqui, A., & Bunch, G. C. (Eds.). (2019). Amplifying the curriculum: Designing quality learn- ing opportunities for English learners. Teachers College Press.

Wei, L. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–30.

White, M. D., & Marsh, E. E. (2006). Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library trends, 55(1), 22-45.

WIDA. (2022). Making science multilingual: Supporting equity through design principles. University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Willis, A., Montavon, M., Hall, H., Hunter, C., Burke, L., & Herrera, A. (2008). Critically con- scious research. Teachers College Press.

Wilson, J. L., Meyer, K. A., & McNeal, L. (2012). Mission and diversity statements: What they do and do not say. Innovative Higher Education, 37, 125–139.

Wozolek, B. (Ed.). (2022). Black lives matter in US schools: Race, education, and resistance. State University of New York Press.

Wynd, C. (2003). Current factors contributing to professionalism in nursing. Journal of Professional Nursing, 19(5), 251–261.

Yob, I. M., Danver, S. L., Kristensen, S., Schulz, W., Simmons, K., Brashen, H. M., Sidler Krysiak, R., Kiltz, L., Gatlin, L., Wesson, S., & Penland, D. R. (2016). Curriculum align- ment with a mission of social change in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 41, 203–219.

Yurkewecz-Stellato, T. (2022). The importance of professional learning organizations: Influence on novice educators. In A. D. Broemmel & N. Vines (Eds.), Teacher reflections on transi- tioning from K–12 to higher education classrooms (pp. 279–287). IGI Global.

Leider et al. 85

Zeichner, K., & Gore, J. (1989). Teacher socialization. National Center for Research on Teacher Education, 89(7), 1–48.

Zeichner, K., & Gore, J. (1990). Teacher socialization. In W. R. Houston, R. Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 329–348). Macmillan.

Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. (2009). Unstructured interviews. In B. Wildemuth (Ed.), Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science (pp. 222–231). Libraries Unlimited.

Author Biographies

Christine Montecillo Leider, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Massachusetts Boston. As a critical mixed methodologist, she views research as advocacy, and her work is informed by a range of theoretical frameworks and research methods, as well as her own lived experiences as a woman of color. Her work focuses on teacher beliefs about language, antiracist pedagogical practices, and policy and civil rights issues regarding teacher training and multilingual learners’ access to education.

Johanna Tigert, Ph.D., is senior lecturer for the Department of Teacher Education at the University of Turku, Finland. Her research spans a wide variety of issues related to language education, including the development of the skills, knowledge, and dispositions of teachers in increasingly multilingual classrooms. Seeking to humanize the education of multilingual learn- ers, her research focuses on ways language and culture can be brought to the forefront of content instruction, drawing on rich qualitative data gathered from classrooms and participants.

Nasiba Norova is a Ph.D. candidate in Applied Linguistics at the University of Massachusetts Boston. Her research interests include second-language writing, global/world Englishes, cultur- ally responsive and sustaining pedagogies for multilingual learners, racial literacies, and experi- ences of international students and multilingual writers in higher education classrooms. International Asian students’ experiences with race and racial literacy are the subject of her doctoral dissertation.