Research Proposal: Exploring Heteroglossic Approaches through a Comparative Case Study of Spanish-English Bilingual Schools

ESTHER BETTNEY, University of Wisconsin-Madison


While the number of Spanish-English bilingual schools is expanding worldwide, many programs persist in teaching languages as separate entities. Schools often erroneously position students as dual monolinguals with separate linguistic systems (Grosjean, 1989). In this research proposal, I discuss bilingual programs by considering a heteroglossic paradigm that emphasizes development of holistic communicative repertoires that learners draw on selectively according to context (Blackledge & Creese, 2014; Prasad, 2014). Through a comparative case study (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017), I will explore how three elementary Spanish-English bilingual schools in Canada, Colombia, and theUnited States are negotiating the “multilingual turn” (May, 2014), and moving away from a monoglossic bias towards a heteroglossic paradigm. By comparing across models and countries, my study will provide a meta-perspective of how heteroglossic approaches support the entirety of students’ communicative repertoires and identities. It will also demonstrate the need for flexibility in adapting programs, policies, and practices to specific bilingual school contexts. By supporting heteroglossic practices, bilingual schools can empower students to draw on their expansive communicative repertoires to participate in and build culturally and linguistically diverse societies.


 Alors que le nombre d’écoles bilingues espagnol–anglais ne cesse d’augmenter mondialement, plusieurs programmes persistent à enseigner les langues comme séparées. Bien souvent, les écoles considèrent à tort les élèves comme monolingues doubles avec des systèmes linguistiques distincts (Grosjean, 1989). Cette recherche recadre les programmes bilingues en considérant le paradigme hétéroglossique qui met l’accent sur le développement de répertoires holistiques de communication où les apprenants sont amenés à s’appuyer sur le contexte (Blackledge & Creese, 2014; Prasad, 2014). Par le biais d’une étude de cas comparative (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017), nous explorerons comment trois écoles primaires bilingues espagnol-anglais au Canada, en Colombie et aux États-Unis adoptent une vision multilingue (May, 2014) en s’écartant des biais monoglossiques pour évoluer vers un paradigme hétéroglossique. En comparant les modèles et les pays, notre recherche fournira une métaperspective, présentant comment les approches hétéroglossiques soutiennent l’ensemble des répertoires communicatifs et l’identité des apprenants, tout en démontrant la nécessité de flexibilité pour adapter les programmes, les règlementations et les pratiques aux contextes spécifiques des écoles bilingues. En soutenant les pratiques hétéroglossiques, les écoles bilingues peuvent ainsi permettre aux apprenants de s’appuyer sur leurs vastes répertoires communicatifs pour participer à la création de sociétés culturellement et linguistiquement diverses.

Keywords: bilingual education, heteroglossia, language policy, comparative case study.


While the number of Spanish-English bilingual schools is expanding worldwide, many programs persist in teaching languages as separate entities. This leads to language researchers and educators erroneously positioning students as dual monolinguals with separate linguistic systems (Grosjean, 1989).Yet, current research calls for bilingual programs to move toward a heteroglossic paradigm, which emphasizes the development of holistic communicative repertoires that learners draw on selectively according to context (Blackledge & Creese, 2014; Prasad, 2014). A heteroglossic approach allows learners to “utilize the totality of their linguistic repertoires as learning resources” (Beeman & Urow, 2013, p. ix). Developing an expansive communicative repertoire is increasingly important in our globalized world as it allows students to express their multilingual identities and to find common ground in contexts of linguistic and cultural diversity (Rymes, 2014). As well, rapid advancements in technology have dramatically changed how students engage with their peers and the world, as multilingualism and multimodality are the norm (Blackledge & Creese, 2014). By supporting heteroglossic practices, bilingual schools can empower multilingual students to draw on their expansive communicative repertoires to participate in and contribute to culturally and linguistically diverse societies.

Research Topic

Within Spanish-English bilingual programs worldwide, there is diversity in terms of program models, student populations, and sociopolitical contexts. Nevertheless, while there are differences between contexts, previous research has commonly criticized Spanish-English bilingual schools for their monoglossic orientations, which separate instructional languages by creating strict divisions of “one-language only” instructional times and classroom spaces that prohibit students and teachers from drawing on their multilingual repertoires (Cummins, 2007; de Mejía, 2006; García, 2013; Naqvi, Schmidt, & Krickhan, 2014). This language separation approach does not recognize the fluid language practices and identities of multilingual students (García, 2013).

In order to explore how bilingual schools can negotiate the “multilingual turn” (May, 2014) from a monoglossic bias toward a more heteroglossic paradigm, I am proposing a comparative case study across three Spanish-English bilingual schools in Canada, Colombia, and the United States. The schools in my study will be selected based on an expressed interest by administrators and teachers to explore the interplay of instructional languages in their own school context through more heteroglossic approaches. By comparing across models and countries, my study will provide a meta-perspective on how heteroglossic approaches support the entirety of students’ communicative repertoires and language identities. The study will also demonstrate the need for flexibility in adapting programs, policies and practices to local bilingual school contexts.

While there is significant research on Spanish-English bilingual education in the United States, less research has been conducted about heteroglossic approaches to Spanish-English bilingual programs in the context of Canada and Colombia. In Canada, for example, bilingual programs that include minority languages have not been examined to the same extent, as research has focused largely on French immersion (Dressler, 2018), though Spanish-English programs exist in public and Catholic schools exist in some western Canadian provinces. In Colombia, most bilingual education research in Latin America focuses on Indigenous Bilingual Education (IBE) programs (see López & Sichra for a historical overview of IBE programs). Nonetheless, Spanish-English bilingual programs play a significant role in public and private education throughout Latin America (Hamel, 2008). I will draw on Colombia-based research to the extent possible, but will also draw on research conducted more broadly in Latin America when necessary. My proposed study contributes to the identified need for research about Spanish-English bilingual schools in Canada and Colombia, while engaging in comparisons with the more robust field of research about Spanish-English bilingual education in the United States.

Bilingual Education Models

Bilingual education is “the regular use of two or more languages for teaching and learning in instructional settings when bilingualism and biliteracy are two of the explicit learning goals” (Abello-Contesse, Chandler, López-Jiménez, & Chacón-Beltrán, 2013, p. 4). Within this general definition, there are various models of bilingual programs worldwide. In the U.S., a substantial body of research has focused on Spanish-English bilingual programs, especially two way or dual-language immersion (DLI) programs, which are increasingly common in many states. In these programs, instruction takes place in English and an additional language, most commonly Spanish. One unique characteristic of these programs is the typical inclusion of “native” and “non-native” speakers of both English and the additional language. Early models of bilingual education in the U.S. were focused on helping minoritized students learn English. In the late 20th century, DLI programs emerged and changed the focus from transitioning immigrant children into English-only programs to promoting the learning of two languages by both majority (English-speaking) and minoritized (Spanish-speaking) children. According to Alvear (2019), by bringing together students from mixed linguistic backgrounds, DLI programs exemplify additive approaches to bilingualism and biculturalism. However, DLI programs have been heavily criticized, as many believe they have moved away from a focus on supporting minoritized students to prioritizing the learning of an additional language for English speakers (Flores, 2013; Sánchez, García, & Solorza, 2018; Valdés, 1997).

In contrast, Canada has long been a forerunner of one-way immersion models. Research has consistently demonstrated the success of French immersion programs in supporting students’ first and second language acquisition, as well as academic achievement (Genesee, 2004). Typically, these immersion programs have been defined by the following characteristics: the role of L2 (second language) as medium-of-instruction; immersion curriculum parallel to local curriculum; ongoing support for L1 (first language); additive over replacive bilingualism; limited exposure to L2 outside of the classroom; no prior L2 before entering program; bilingual teachers and the classroom culture reflecting the L1 community (Genesee, 2004; Johnson & Swain, 1997). There are other bilingual models in Canada, especially in the western provinces. For example, Alberta has been a leader in promoting alternative bilingual programs (APB) since the 1970s when it legalized the use of instructional languages besides French and English (Cummins, 2014). These programs are now offered in Arabic, German, Hebrew, Mandarin, Polish, Spanish, and Ukrainian (Alberta Education, 2007) with Spanish bilingual programs alone serving over 3,000 students. There is evidence of growth of Spanish-English bilingual programs within other western provinces as well, such Manitoba’s first Spanish-English bilingual program, which opened in 2016 and British Columbia’s Memorandum of Understanding with Spain to support the opening of bilingual programs (British Columbia, 2016). Yet, these ABPs differ significantly from French immersion models as they may only include up to 50% of instruction in the target language, while French immersion models allow up to 100% of instruction in French (Naqvi, Schmidt, & Krickhan, 2014). Naqvi et al. have argued that ABPs often borrow pedagogical approaches from French immersion programs, even though some of these approaches have been heavily criticized for the separation, instead of integration, of instructional languages (Cummins, 2007).

In Colombia, as in other Latin American countries, there are one-way Spanish-English bilingual programs in both public and private spheres. De Mejía (2002) described private bilingual schools as international or national bilingual schools, which are typically founded by non-nationals and have close contact with the founder’s country of origin. These schools normally follow an early one-way full immersion model and serve a monolingual Spanish-speaking population who are interested in pursuing educational opportunities in English-speaking Europe or North America. As such, the curriculum tends to be British, American, or a unified international curriculum (such as the International Baccalaureate), instead of a national curriculum. Hamel (2008) explained that the private bilingual schools have become prestigious and serve the economic and power elites of this region. In contrast, national bilingual schools have been founded by local administrators and the majority of teachers are Spanish-speaking locals of the region. They typically follow either a partial or full one-way immersion model but are less likely to follow an international curriculum, compared to international bilingual schools. In 2004, the Colombian government instituted the National Bilingual Program which has led to the implementation of some Spanish-English bilingual programs in public schools in various regions (Valencia, 2013).

Language Separation

While there are several differences between the types of bilingual models most commonly seen in the U.S., Canada, and Colombia, a commonality is that these models are informed by policies that separate instructional languages. Even though some researchers have recommended that immersion teachers be bilingual (Genesee, 2004; Johnson & Swain, 1997), bilingual programs generally support language separation by both teachers and students in a variety of ways. Often, subjects, teachers and classrooms are assigned one language. In other schools, the same teacher may teach certain classes in one language and some classes in the other instructional language, but at different times. Alternatively, teachers may be assigned only one instructional language regardless of whether or not the teacher is multilingual. In most arrangements, teachers are expected to use one language per lesson or interaction (Ramirez, 1986; Swain & Lapkin, 2013). As well, the approach suggests that teachers should avoid concurrent translation, as the fear is that students will only pay attention to instruction in English (de Jong, 2002), and instead establish sustained periods of monolingual instruction in the second language.

In Latin America, some private bilingual schools keep languages separate to the point of having two separate language programs operating within one school, with separate staff, curriculum and sometimes conflicting pedagogical approaches (Hamel, 2008). In Colombia, private bilingual schools may promote a monolingual ethos by prioritizing English over Spanish as opposed to seeing the two languages as aspects of students’ unified linguistic repertoires (De Mejía, 2013). They emphasize the importance of learning English for material and economic benefits (De Mejía & Montes Rodriguez, 2008). In the Colombian public school context, Gómez Sará (2017) argued that this separation of languages is apparent in the government’s public National Bilingual program where Spanish and English are construed as separate entities, and little emphasis is placed on providing opportunities for students to engage with or compare across languages.

The separation of languages in bilingual programs has been increasingly criticized in Canada, the United States, and Colombia. This separation is built upon the erroneous assumption that multilinguals are actually dual monolinguals (Escobar & Dillard-Paltrineri, 2015; Grosjean, 1989). Within this monolingual approach, language policies call for a strict separation of languages in the classroom and an insistence on students developing dual or separate linguistic systems (García, 2013). García claimed that these attempts to separate students’ languaging practices do not reflect students’ fluid languaging practices and multiple identities. Gort and Pontier (2013) argued that parallel or dual monolingualism does not reflect real-life multilingualism and instead they support an approach that recognizes the fluid interaction of languages. The authors stated that accessing both languages at the same time is an important skill that supports student learning. Naqvi, Schmidt, and Krickhan (2014) argued that programs should encourage the transfer of knowledge and skills to strengthen student engagement as students regularly make cross-linguistic connections as part of their multilingual development.

Conceptual Framework

My study is informed by three key constructs, which move the focus away from viewing students’ languages as separate to viewing students’ languages as part of a unified communicative repertoire. The following three constructs form the study’s conceptual framework: heteroglossia, translanguaging, and critical multilingual language awareness. The construct of heteroglossia, defined below, falls within the broader context of language ideologies. Language ideologies refer to the ways in which societies and individuals represent and interpret language. Woolard (1998) described language ideology as a “representation, whether explicit or implicit, that construes the intersection of language and human beings in a social world” (p. 3). As a field, language ideologies draws into focus some of the underlying reasons for why language separation occurs within bilingual programs by elucidating questions such as how individuals view languages (Blackledge & Creese, 2013; May, 2014), how and why hierarchies of languages are constructed and enacted in certain social spaces and historical contexts (Makoni & Pennycook, 2007) and why certain languaging practices are considered more valuable than others (García, 2009).

More specifically, I am interested in exploring language ideologies that reflect and promote monoglossia or heteroglossia, seen as two ends of a continuum. A monoglossic language ideology encourages a hierarchy of named languages, as individuals’ languages are viewed as separate, as opposed to part of a shared linguistic system. Hornberger (2003) noted that even in multilingual societies, monolingualism is often seen as more powerful. Monoglossic language ideologies condition a hierarchy of named languages by treating languages as separate and by encouraging some to be considered as more valuable than others. In contrast, Busch (2014) argued that, based on Bakhtin and Holquist’s (1981) original definition of heteroglossia, schools should both acknowledge students’ repertoires of different languages and communicative resources and demonstrate a commitment to engage in multilingual and multimodal meaning-making as they discover their own voices. Within the context of the proposed study, heteroglossia as a language ideology serves as part of the conceptual framework for understanding key aspects of the bilingual programs in my study. By drawing on monoglossia and heteroglossia as constructs, I will explore the spectrum of language ideologies that inform program models, language policies and languaging practices within each school context.

The second construct in my conceptual framework is translanguaging, one of the most contested theories in recent years in the field of bilingual education as it pushes against traditional notions of language separation. Originally introduced in Wales (Williams, 1994), the concept was translated into English by Baker in 2001. It originally referred to a pedagogical practice in bilingual schools in Wales where teachers and students moved between Welsh and English for a variety of classroom literacy tasks. While this type of language “mixing” was considered problematic at the time, Williams reframed these practices, arguing that the practice provided students and teachers the opportunity to draw on their linguistic resources by generating meaning together (Li, 2017). Since Williams’ original use of the term, translanguaging has been taken up in various ways, which Hamman (2018) has classified as: 1) theory of practice; 2) theory of the mind; and 3) pedagogical method. Translanguaging as a pedagogical method informs the Collaborative Learning through Multilingual Inquiry (CLMI) (Prasad, 2018) approach I describe in the section on data generation. With respect to my conceptual framework, I will focus on translanguaging as a theory of practice and theory of the mind. The former describes the languaging practices of multilinguals and refers to the “multiple discursive practices in which bilinguals engage in order to make sense of their bilingual worlds” (García, 2009, p. 45). For example, Li (2017) described how multilingual Chinese-English speakers create new words which follow the morphological rules of English, yet connect with the meaning of a Chinese word. While moving fluidly back and forth between languages has often been criticized and seen as deficient in some way, translanguaging reframes these practices as dynamic and legitimate. Translanguaging, from the theory of practice lens, is the “deployment of a speaker’s full linguistic repertoire without regard for watchful adherence to the socially and politically defined boundaries of named (and usually national and state) languages” (Otheguy, García, & Reid, 2015, p. 281).

Translanguaging as a theory of the mind is more controversial. It refers to the mental grammar of a multilingual person and there is debate about how this cognitive collection of features corresponds to individual languages. On the one hand, Otheguy, García, and Reid (2015) have argued that there is only one grammar that multilinguals select from to communicate. Others, like MacSwan (2017), have criticized this view of the multilingual brain and have argued that multilinguals do not have a single grammar but instead have an integrated multilingual grammar. In this view, the multilingual mind includes overlapping aspects of grammar from various languages but there are still discrete grammars associated with the different named languages. MacSwan has argued that while translanguaging is useful as a practice and pedagogy, he rejects it as a theory to explain the multilingual mind. While the question of whether there is a unitary or integrated mental grammar requires ongoing investigation, for the purpose of this study I am drawing primarily on translanguaging as a theory of practice which criticizes the dual competence model of multilingualism in which languages are seen as completely discrete linguistic systems within the multilingual brain. Translanguaging provides a lens by which to understand multilinguals’ languaging practices as dynamic and unified, as opposed to static and separate. This understanding of translanguaging is especially useful for my study which explores the presence of this monoglossic view of languages as discrete and totally separate, as common within bilingual schools. Drawing on translanguaging as a theory to explain multilingual language practices provides theoretical grounding for this study’s exploration of how schools can move toward approaches which support how multilinguals engage with language. As noted by García and Lin (2017), translanguaging in the classroom can be transformative as it resists the hierarchy of languages so common in bilingual programs while also allowing students to engage in dynamic languaging practices which support the development of all their languages.

The final construct I draw on for my conceptual framework is Language Awareness (LA). LA was originally introduced by Bolitho and Tomlinson (1980), though it became more widely known through the work of Eric Hawkins (1984). Hawkins originally proposed Language Awareness as a “bridging subject” to address a lack of coherence between various aspects of language education within the UK school system. For Hawkins, the primary purpose of LA was to encourage students to ask questions about language, something often taken for granted. Outside of seeing the development of LA as a bridge between various aspects of language education, Hawkins also saw LA as an avenue to promote classroom discussions around linguistic diversity and prejudice. In 1991, James and Garrett made a significant contribution to the field through their description of five key domains of LA: cognitive, affective, performance, social and power.

While attention to linguistic diversity and questions of power were present in both Hawkins’ (1984) and James and Garrett’s (1991) conceptions of LA, and further emphasized in the use of the term Critical Language Awareness by Fairclough (1990), recent reviews have criticized LA scholarship for not paying sufficient attention to issues of power (Fairclough, 2014; Svalberg, 2016). García (2017) has drawn explicit attention to questions of power in her call for Critical Multilingual Language Awareness (CMLA). Within this approach, García emphasized that schools must become places that recognize and draw students’ attention to the existence of multilingualism in societies and how language has traditionally been constructed in schools in ways that privilege certain groups. García argued that schools must go farther than drawing attention to these histories of inequality to providing spaces for all students to leverage their linguistic repertoires as they make sense of their multilingual worlds. While recognizing that schools should help students develop standard varieties of named languages, García also called on schools to see students’ bilingualism as dynamic, not simply additive, and to acknowledge “the fluid language practices of bilinguals. . . as an important voice-giving mechanism and as a tool for learning, creativity, and criticality” (p. 7). Within this approach, García argued that teachers must “engage all students in developing a consciousness of language as social practice and a voicing of their own multilingual experiences, thus generating not only a new order of discourse, but also a new praxis, capable of changing the social order of what it means to ‘language’ in school” (p. 7). Through CMLA, educators can foster linguistically expansive learning spaces that support collaborative cross-linguistic comparison across students’ different languages (García & Lin, 2017).

In my proposed study, CMLA will serve as a lens to focus attention on the relationships between language and social dynamics of power and inequality. The original facets of Language Awareness emphasized the importance of drawing students’ attention to the connections between named languages. CMLA continues to emphasize the relationships between languages but places questions of power at the center of these discussions.

Taken together, heteroglossia, translanguaging and CMLA provide the conceptual lens for my analysis of bilingual education programs, policies, and practices. Heteroglossia provides an understanding of language as multivoiced and varied and stands in direct contrast to the prevalent monoglossic approaches which have been noted in bilingual education and are central to my research questions. I draw on the rapidly growing body of recent literature on translanguaging to explore how multilingual students engage in languaging practices, both inside and outside of bilingual classrooms. Finally, CMLA draws explicit attention to questions of power, which are essential as my study explores the negotiation away from monoglossic approaches within specific social and political school contexts.

Research Questions

The purpose of this proposed study will be to explore how and if Spanish-English bilingual schools are negotiating a move toward a more heteroglossic approach to bilingual education. The main research question and the sub-questions are:

What are the barriers and opportunities faced by the three Spanish-English bilingual schools in this study as they move toward a more heteroglossic approach to Spanish-English bilingual education?

    • How do government and school program models and language policies promote and/or constrain a heteroglossic approach?
    • How do classroom practices (instructional, learning and languaging) that students and teachers engage in promote and/or constrain the development of students’ heteroglossic communicative repertoires?


This qualitative study will explore how program models, language policies and languaging practices in three elementary Spanish-English bilingual schools, one each in Canada, Colombia, and the U.S., are negotiating a move toward a heteroglossic paradigm that supports the development of students’ communicative repertoires. The schools will be chosen based on an expressed interest by participants in exploring heteroglossic approaches to bilingual education. I will conduct a Comparative Case Study (CCS) (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017) to compare how schools engage with heteroglossic approaches across different models and contexts. CCS is a process-oriented approach to case study in which “one constantly compares and contrasts phenomena and processes in one locale with what has happened in other places and historical moments” (p. 19). According to Bartlett and Vavrus, explicit comparison has been under-utilized in qualitative research, and has been notably absent in case study research. Bartlett and Vavrus dew on socio-cultural understandings of how processes are culturally situated and produced, as well as critical approaches which emphasize the role of power and inequality in social constructions. They argued that comparisons across sites and scales are important for a variety of reasons: they allow the researcher to see both how processes are influenced by unique contexts, and how different contexts can at times produce similar outcomes.

In order to explore how policies are enacted in various places, CCS employs a multi-sited and multi-scalar approach. Bartlett and Vavrus described three fundamental axes of comparison within the CCS approach: vertical, horizontal, and transversal. The vertical axis focuses on comparison across different scales, such as how policies are enacted at local versus national levels. The horizontal axis compares how similar policies are enacted in different places, emphasizing how places are socially constructed and connected in complex ways. The transversal axis focuses on how processes under consideration are historically situated.

I have selected CCS as it provides a structure to compare schools across diverse contexts while focusing on how bilingual program models, policies and classroom languaging practices are socially constructed and influenced by questions of power and inequality, specifically in regard to language hierarchies. For the purposes of my study, the vertical axis will focus on comparisons across different scales within one context (how language policy is described within government documents versus its enactment within individual classrooms). The horizontal axis will compare homologous units of analysis across three different Spanish-English bilingual schools. The transversal axis will focus on how each school is situated within the historical context of bilingual education in their country, and how the findings are situated within the larger context of the field of bilingual education in a particular historical moment.

To conduct this study, I will examine three public elementary schools, one each in Canada, the United States, and Colombia. All three locations have Spanish-English bilingual programs operating within the country’s public schools. While I have lived, worked and taught in both Canada and the U.S.A, I have not lived in Colombia but it is a key player in the field of bilingual education in Latin America, primarily linked to the research conducted by De Mejía (2002, 2006, 2013) regarding private bilingual schools in Colombia. More recently, public bilingual schools have increased in Colombia with the implementation of the National Bilingual Program in 2004 (Gómez Sará, 2017). Yet, some Colombian researchers such as have been critical of new public bilingual schools. Usma Wilches (2015) argued that there is a clear link between monoglossic language ideologies espoused by bilingual schools and similar ideologies noted by De Mejía (2013) in private bilingual schools in Colombia.

The choice to focus on a comparison of public bilingual schools is because private bilingual schools are often not obligated to follow government program models and language policies to the same extent as public schools, and this policy analysis is an important aspect of my study. By comparing across public schools in Colombia, Canada and the United States, I will be able to analyzegovernment program models and language policies that would not be possible within the private school sector.

The three schools will be selected based upon their interest in addressing questions regarding language separation through a more heteroglossic approach. Together with teachers and students, I will consider how each school has constructed their school ethos, focusing specifically on their bilingual model, language policies and languaging practices and the impact of the schools’ models, policies and practices on students’ communicative repertoires.

Generating Data

In each school setting, I will generate data in three phases over the course of three months for each phase, for a total of nine months. Figure 1 shows an overview of the three phases.

Figure 1

Figure 1: Research Design Phases

I will generate data at each school site in a consecutive approach, beginning with School #1 (the U.S.), followed by School #2 (Canada), and then School #3 (Colombia). This order is intentional, as I will begin with the geographical context in which I am currently located and the bilingual context I have most recently been conducting research in. Then, I will move to the Canadian site, my passport country. Here, I will be able to draw on my knowledge of the Canadian public school system, as well as other cultural norms, to effectively become integrated into a new school context. Finally, I will conduct research in Colombia, the country I am least familiar with. I will thus be able to draw on the knowledge gained in the data generation within the USA and Canadian schools to adapt any steps as needed.

In Phase 1, I will gather documents about the school and the corresponding government guidelines regarding the program model and language policies. At the government level, I will access publicly available documents such as: an overview of school programs, best practices for instruction, and guidelines for classroom language use. At the school level, I will collect publicly available documents such as: teacher and student handbooks, teacher training materials, promotional materials, class schedules, curriculum plans, and school newsletters. A thematic analysis of these documents will be conducted to elucidate the government and schools’ bilingual program model and language policies.

In Phase 2, I will engage in three types of data generation: classroom observations, student and teacher interviews and multilingual classroom activities based upon the principles of CLMI (Prasad, 2018). I will begin with classroom observations in six classrooms at various grade levels and subject areas. Teachers will be informed about the study and will be invited to participate based on their interest in exploring heteroglossic approaches in their classrooms. Observations will be videotaped and guided by a classroom observation protocol focused on teachers’ and students’ languaging practices. I will conduct my observations as an active participant in the classroom, depending on the norms established by each school and individual teachers. As an active participant, I will engage in informal conversations with students about their work during class time if the opportunity presents itself and if approved in advance by teachers.

Student and teacher interviews will be semi-structured, guided by an interview protocol informed by the data generated during classroom observations. I will take notes during the interview to document any non-verbal behaviours (Patton, 2002). All interviews will be conducted bilingually as participants will be encouraged to draw from their own communicative repertoires. All interviews will be audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.

For teachers, I will conduct semi-structured individual interviews from each of the six classrooms where observations were completed. Interviews will focus on understanding how teachers perceive their students’, as well as their own, current languaging practices within the classroom. Interviews will be arranged at the teachers’ convenience and last approximately 60-90 minutes.

I will conduct focus group interviews with students from upper elementary classes where I conduct observations. These grades have been selected as they provide insight into students’ perspectives while keeping in mind the suggested minimum age of eight for focus groups (Clark, 2011). Student focus group interviews will center on understanding which languaging practices students identify as being currently employed within the classroom setting, and their beliefs about the effectiveness of these practices. I will use questions to guide the discussion, rather than using a set of structured questions that must be uniformly addressed to allow the conversation to be guided by what participants consider important, as the richest answers may be missed if the discussion content is strictly controlled (Clark, 2011). The use of open-ended questions, related to the students’ experiences, will promote engagement with the topic (Fargas-Malet, McSherry, Larkin, & Robinson, 2010). Focus group interviews will take place during regular school hours and will be between 45 and 60 minutes, depending on the age of each group.

Based on the information generated during the initial observations and interviews, I will co-plan with teachers a variety of Language Awareness activities (Hawkins, 1984) to draw students’ attention to connections between languages and to view their languages as part of a unified communicative repertoire. These activities will be based on the design principles outlined by Prasad (2018) in her CLMI approach and will be adapted to the school context. Throughout the planning and implementation of these activities, observations and interviews will be ongoing, as I continue to reflect and learn together with teachers and students on engagement in heteroglossic approaches to bilingual education.

Data Analysis

As described above, a large volume of data will be generated over the course of 9 months at the three different school sites. Here, I outline the main approach to data analysis, which will occur concurrently with data generation. According to Miles, Huberman and Saldaña (2014), concurrent data generation and analysis provides a number of key advantages to the researcher, including the collection of higher-quality data as potential blind spots and new data sources can be identified during the data generation stage.

During Phase 1 at each school, I will engage in a document analysis and then describe each case’s stated language policies and bilingual model according to the government and the school. At the end of Phase 2, I will use the CCS approach to conduct an in-depth data on three axes: vertical (within school), horizontal (between schools) and transversal (within the historical context of bilingual education). Next, I will conduct a vertical analysis to explore how these identified practices conform or conflict with the government and the schools’ stated bilingual program model and language policies, through the lens of Policy as Practice (Levinson, Sutton, & Winstead, 2009). Then, I will compare findings horizontally across schools to explore how each school’s program models and language policies are described and enacted and how these differ according to context. Finally, I will engage in a transversal analysis to explore how the findings fit within the field of bilingual education research, with a specific focus on identifying key implications for implementing heteroglossic approaches within various school models and contexts.

My overall approach to analysis will draw on Creswell’s (2013) Data Analysis Spiral. This approach includes four main steps: data managing; reading/ memoing; describing/ classifying/ interpreting; and representing/ visualizing. In the first step, I will organize the various data sources primarily through the use of Dedoose, a Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) program. As noted by Miles et al. (2014), CAQDAS are especially helpful in organizing data when working across multiple sites. During the second step, I will read the data on multiple occasions and write memos in response to my reading.

In both the third and fourth steps, I will draw primarily on the coding and visualizing methods outlined in detail by Saldaña (2016). Saldaña recommended coding in two major stages: first cycle and second cycle coding. In first cycle coding, the researcher focuses primarily on assigning codes to chunks of data. For this section, I will employ line-by-line Initial Coding which is especially useful when dealing with various data sources (Saldaña, 2016). Initial Coding is an inductive approach in which the researcher uses various forms of “open coding”, such as InVivo codes, to begin to categorize and describe the data. In second cycle coding, I will then focus on analyzing the data chunks and their corresponding codes identified in the first cycle. In this cycle, I will primarily draw on Pattern Coding, a method to group data into categories, themes or concepts (Saldaña, 2016). During this stage of the analysis, I will begin to move into the final stage of the Data Analysis Cycle, by beginning to engage in visualizing the data through various matrices and networks (Miles et al., 2014). These types of visual displays will allow data representation in a more condensed way and ensure a clear focus on the key findings.

Ethical Considerations

Throughout the study, I will follow ethical guidelines as determined by both my university’s Institutional Review Board, as well as those established in the context of each specific school or district. As a result of my association with a prestigious U.S. university and perceived benefits of this association, there may be a power imbalance between myself, the school or the teachers, which could lead to them feeling pressured to participate in the study, with the belief that it may benefit them or their school somehow. In order to minimize this risk, I will emphasize that they are under no obligation to participate and may withdraw at any time. I will also explain that the purpose of the study is to learn about heteroglossic approaches to bilingual education in various contexts and that my intention is not to criticize a specific teacher, school administration, or what is currently happening in the school.


A number of factors maximize the trustworthiness of qualitative research (Guba & Lincoln, 1985): credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Credibility, which refers to truth of the data or its truth value (Miles et al., 2014), will be established for this study through prolonged engagement in the field. My data collection will take place over the course of 3 months in each school site, allowing me to develop some knowledge of the workings of the school. Transferability, which refers to the ability for a set of conclusions from one study to be applied elsewhere (Guba & Lincoln, 1985), will be developed through a thick description of each research site. This will include a description of the participants, the school, and key aspects of the educational context in each of the three  countries. By including thick description, another researcher could consider how findings from my study may inform studies in other bilingual schools. For dependability, which refers to whether or not the research process is consistent and stable over time and across researchers and methods (Miles et al., 2014), I will create an audit trail through detailed notes on the entire research process. Finally, I will promote confirmability, which indicates whether the study reflects neutrality and has acknowledged potential research bias (Miles et al., 2014), by practicing reflexivity throughout my study. From the consideration of why I have chosen this research question to careful consideration of the factors that influence the schools where I conduct my study, I will consider my relationship to the research. During the data analysis process, I will continually reflect upon whether I am letting the participants’ actual words speak or imposing my own perceptions.


While there are many benefits to my study for the field of Spanish-English bilingual programs, I am also aware of the potential risks associated with my study. Primarily, I am aware of the risk of linguistic misunderstandings inherent in multilingual research. While I am proficient in Spanish and have conducted research in bilingual schools in both Honduras and the United States, I plan to enlist the help of a bilingual research assistant in moderating the focus groups. I believe misinterpretation based on language is more likely within focus groups, simply because of the dynamic nature of those conversations. I will also engage a bilingual research assistant to help with the transcribing process to avoid any potential misunderstandings on my part. I will also consider cultural differences within each geographical context, continually reflecting on my position as an outsider within each school setting, and how my own positionality impacts the questions I ask and data analysis.


Spanish-English bilingual schools continue to grow numerically in a variety of geographical contexts. Yet, criticisms persist regarding many schools’ outdated approach in viewing students’ languages as separate and distinct. My research will help reframe bilingual programs by viewing them from a heteroglossic paradigm in which students’ proficiency in various languages are seen as part of their expansive and expanding holistic communicative repertoires (Blackledge & Creese, 2014; Prasad, 2014). Supporting the development of students’ repertoires is essential in a rapidly globalizing world in which students encounter linguistic and cultural diversity both in their schools and in their engagement in transnational digital communication. My research explores heteroglossic approaches in three elementary Spanish-English bilingual schools, one each in Canada, Colombia, and the United States. By comparing across models and across countries, my study will provide a meta-perspective to further understand how heteroglossic approaches within bilingual schools can support the entirety of students’ communicative repertoires and will provide key implications on how to develop programs, policies and practices which support multilingual students.


Abello-Contesse, C., Chandler, P.M., López-Jiménez, M.D., & Chacón-Beltrán, R. (2013). Bilingual and multilingual education in the 21st century: Building on experience. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Alberta Education (2007). School administrator’s guide to implementing language programming. Retrieved from

Alvear, S. A. (2019). The Additive Advantage and Bilingual Programs in a Large Urban School District. American Educational Research Journal, 56(2), 477–513.

Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (3rd. ed.). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Bakhtin, M. M., & Holquist, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. K. (2017). Rethinking case study research: A comparative approach. New York, NY: Routledge.

Beeman, K., & Urow, C. (2013). Teaching for biliteracy: Strengthening bridges between languages. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon Publishing.

Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2014). Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy. In A. Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy (pp. 1-20). New York, NY: Springer.

Bolitho, R. & Tomlinson, B. (1980). Discover English. London, UK: Heinemann.

British Columbia. (2016). British Columbia and Spain partner to support bilingual education. Retrieved from

Busch, B. (2014). Building on heteroglossia and heterogeneity: The experience of a multilingual  classroom. In A. Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as practice and pedagogy(pp. 21-40). New York, NY: Springer.

Clark, C. D. (2011). In a younger voice: Doing child-centered qualitative research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique Appliquée, 10(2), 221-240.

Cummins, J. (2014). To what extent are Canadian second language policies evidence-based? Reflections on the intersections of research and policy. Frontiers of Psychology, 5, 358.

De Jong, E. (2002). Effective bilingual education: From theory to academic achievement in a two-way bilingual program. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(1), 65-84.

De Mejía, A.M. (2002). Power, prestige, and bilingualism: International perspectives on elite bilingual education. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

De Mejía, A.M. (2006). Bilingual education in Colombia: Towards a recognition of languages, cultures and identities. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 8, 152-168.

De Mejía, A.M. (2013). Bilingual education in Colombia: The teaching and learning of languages and academic content areas. In C. Abello-Contesse, P. M. Chandler, M. D. López-Jiménez, & R. Chacón-Beltrán (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education in the 21st century: Building on experience (pp. 42–58). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

De Mejía, A.M., & Montes Rodríguez, M. E. (2008). Points of contact or separate paths: A vision of bilingual education in Colombia.  In C. Hélot & A. M. De Mejía (Eds.), Forging multilingual spaces: Integrated perspectives on majority and minority bilingual education (pp. 109-139). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Dressler, R. (2018). Canadian bilingual program teachers’ understanding of immersion pedagogy. Canadian Modern Language Review, 74(1), 176-195.

Escobar, C., & Dillard-Paltrineri, E. (2015). Professors’ and students’ conflicting beliefs about translanguaging in the EFL classroom: Dismantling the monolingual bias. Revista de Lenguas Modernas, 23, 301-328.

Fairclough, N. (2014). Critical language awareness. London, UK: Routledge.

Fargas-Malet, M., McSherry, D., Larkin, E., & Robinson, C. (2010). Research with children: Methodological issues and innovative techniques. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 8(2), 175-192.

Flores, N. (2013). Silencing the subaltern: Nation-state/colonial governmentality and bilingual education in the United States. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 10(4), 263-287.

García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Oxford, UK: Wiley/Blackwell.

García, O. (2011). Prologo. In A. M. Truscott De Mejía, A. A. López Mendoza, & B. Peña Dix (Eds.), Bilingüismo en el contexto colombiano: Iniciativas y perspectivas en el siglo XXI(pp. 1-4). Bogota, Colombia: Ediciones Uniandes (Universidad de los Andes).

García, O. (2013). From disglossia to transglossia: Bilingual and multilingual classrooms in the 21st century. In C. Abello-Contesse, P. M. Chandler, M. D. López-Jiménez, & R. Chacón-Beltrán (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education in the 21st century: Building on experience (pp. 155-178). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

García, O. (2017). Critical multilingual language awareness and teacher education. Language awareness and multilingualism, 263-280.

García, O., & Lin, A. (2017). Translanguaging in bilingual education(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

Genesee, F. (2004). What do we know about bilingual education for majority language students? Handbook of bilingualism and multiculturalism, 547, 576.

Gómez Sará, M. M. (2017). Review and analysis of the Colombian foreign language bilingualism policies and plans. How, 24(1), 139-156.

Gort, M., & Pontier, R. W. (2013). Exploring bilingual pedagogies in dual language preschool classrooms. Language and Education, 27(3), 223-245.

Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and language, 36(1), 3-15.

Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y. S. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hamel, R. E. (2008). Plurilingual Latin America: Indigenous languages, immigrant languages, foreign languages towards an integrated policy of language and education. In C. Hélot & A. M. De Mejía (Eds.), Forging multilingual spaces: Integrated perspectives on majority and minority bilingual education (pp. 58–108). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Hamman, L. (2018). Reframing the Language Separation Debate: Language, Identity, and Ideology in Two-way Immersion.  Unpublished doctoral thesis, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.

Hawkins, E. W. (1984). Awareness of language: An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hornberger, N. (2003). Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

James, C. & Garrett, P. (1991). Language Awareness in the Classroom. London, UK: Longman.

Johnson, R., & Swain, M. (1997). Immersion education: International perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Levinson, B., Sutton, M., & Winstead, T. (2009). Education Policy as a Practice of Power Theoretical Tools, Ethnographic Methods, Democratic Options. Educational Policy, 23(6), 767-795.

Li, W. (2017). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9-30.

López, L. E., & Sichra, I. (2008). Intercultural bilingual education among indigenous peoples in Latin America. Encyclopedia of language and education, 1732-1746.

MacSwan, J. (2017). A multilingual perspective on translanguaging. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 167-201.

Makoni S., & Pennycook, A. (2007). Disinventing and reconstituting languages. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

May, S. (2014). The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Mignolo, W. D. (2012). Local histories/global designs: Coloniality, subaltern knowledges, and border thinking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Naqvi, R., Schmidt, E., & Krickhan, M. (2014). Evolving 50-50% bilingual pedagogy in Alberta: What does the research say? Frontiers in Psychology Psychology, 5, 413.

Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281-307.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Prasad, G. (2014). Portraits of plurilingualism in a French international school in Toronto: Exploring the role of visual methods to access students’ representations of their linguistically diverse identities. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 51–77.

Prasad, G. (2018). Building Students’ language awareness and literacy engagement through the creation of collaborative multilingual identity texts 2.0. In C. Frijns & C. Helot (Eds.), Language awareness in multilingual classrooms in Europe: From theory to practice. Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter Publishers.

Ramirez, J. (1986). Comparing structured English immersion and bilingual education: First-year results of a national study. American Journal of Education, 95(1), 122-148.

Rymes, B. (2014). Communicating beyond language: Everyday encounters with diversity. New York, NY: Routledge.

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sánchez, M., García, O., & Solorza, C. (2018). Reframing language allocation policy in dual language bilingual education. Bilingual Research Journal, 41(1), 37-51.

Svalberg, A. M. (2016). Language awareness research: Where we are now. Language Awareness, 25(1-2), 4-16.

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2013). A Vygotskian sociocultural perspective on immersion education: The L1/L2 debate. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 101-129.

Usma Wilches, J. (2015). From transnational language policy transfer to local appropriation: The case of the national bilingual program in Medellín, Colombia. Blue Mounds, WI: Deep University Press.

Valdés, G. (1997). Dual-language immersion programs: A cautionary note concerning the education of language-minority students. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 391–429.

Valencia, M. (2013). Language policy and the manufacturing of consent for foreign intervention in Colombia. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 15, 27-43.

Williams, C. (1994). Arfarniad o Ddulliau Dysgu ac Addysgu yng Nghyd-destun Addysg Uwchradd Ddwyieithog [An evaluation of teaching and learning methods in the context of bilingual secondary education]. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Wales, Bangor, Wales.

Winnipeg School Division. (2019). Spanish Bilingual Program. Retrieved from

Woolard, K. (1998). Language Ideology as a Field of Inquiry. In B. Schieffelin, K. Woolard, & P. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory (pp. 3-47). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Spanish language ideologies in New Mexico and their impact on Spanish language learners

Volume 2(1): 2018

SARAH O’BRIEN, Trinity College Dublin


This article explores how U.S. students’ receptiveness to Spanish language learning is impacted by the social perceptions of the language that exist within their surrounding community. In particular, the article questions how Spanish language use is impacted by contemporary language ideologies in New Mexico that distinguish Spanish speaking speakers as either stemming from a European colonial linguistic legacy or, conversely, from a more recent Latin–American immigrant linguistic tradition. The research underlying the article was carried out within three school districts in New Mexico, a state with protracted historic ties to the Spanish language yet which nonetheless struggles to develop Spanish language proficiency within its school-going population. Drawing from mixed–method sourced data collected over a seven month period in Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Española, the article reveals the stratified views of high school students, teachers, parents, educators and community members to the Spanish language in New Mexico, explores ideologies that Spanish language evokes in the sampled population and makes suggestions on how these research findings can be used by language-planners to improve outcomes for Spanish language learners in the United States.


Cet article examine à quel point la réceptivité des étudiants américains à l’égard de l’apprentissage de l’espagnol est influencée par les perceptions sociales de la langue dans leur communauté. En particulier, cet article examine comment l’utilisation de l’espagnol est influencée par les idéologies linguistiques contemporaines au Nouveau-Mexique qui distinguent les hispanophones ayant un héritage linguistique colonial européen et ceux émanant d’une plus récente tradition linguistique d’immigrants d’Amérique latine. La recherche qui appuie cet article a été réalisée dans trois districts scolaires au Nouveau-Mexique. Malgré l’importance historique de l’espagnol dans cet état américain, la population étudiante éprouve de la difficulté à développer une bonne compétence linguistique. En utilisant une approche mixte pour la collecte de données, effectuée pendant une période de sept mois à Albuquerque, à Santa Fe et à Española, cet article révèle les opinions divisées des élèves du secondaire, des professeurs, des parents, des éducateurs et des membres de la communauté envers la langue espagnole au Nouveau-Mexique. De plus, cet article examine les idéologies évoquées par l’espagnol dans la population échantillonnée et explique comment les résultats de cette étude pourraient aider les aménageurs linguistiques à faciliter l’apprentissage de l’espagnol aux États-Unis.

Keywords: Spanish–American/ Latino identity, Spanish language, New Mexico, bilingual education, language ideology.


Over the last decade, New Mexico’s Public Education Department has engaged in the provision of bilingual Spanish/ English education programmes designed to expose students to a language that was widely spoken by Hispanics within New Mexican homes and communities until the middle of the twentieth century.i These programmes also aim at maintaining Spanish as a native language for first generation Latino students in New Mexico’s public schools as well as developing Spanish language amongst Anglophone populations with no historic connection to the language. By consequence, Spanish language learning in New Mexico encapsulates a complex community of students from culturally disparate backgrounds.

Despite the expansion and delivery of Spanish/ English language programmes, consecutive New Mexico Public Education Department Bilingual Multicultural Education Annual Reports (BMEAR) published since 2010 have stated that the vast majority of Spanish language students score at non and limited proficient levels (New Mexico Public Education Department, 2014). Moreover, Census data returns (Ryan, 2013; U.S. Census Bureau, 2011) have illustrated the increased linguistic domination of English over Spanish within New Mexico’s Hispanic families, indicating the perpetuated vulnerability of Spanish language within the state (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). These findings are reflected at national level—Beaudrie and Fairclough (2012) have found that Spanish as a first language is unsustainable for third generation Latino immigrants in the United States.

In order to understand these outcomes, I begin with the premise that second language and literacy development must be analyzed within its broader sociocultural context (Goldenberg & Reese, 2006). To explore this, I used questionnaires and structured interviews completed by teachers, parents, community members and high school students—in essence, the population making up a school district—to address the following research questions: How do participants perceive the use of Spanish in the school, home and community; how do attitudes to the use of and learning of Spanish in social and educational contexts vary across different language learning communities in New Mexico; what is the relationship between social attitudes to Spanish language use and Spanish language program performance in New Mexico?

By paying attention to the wider social world in which Spanish language learning is enacted in these three locations, I argued for the existence of various sociolinguistic ecosystems in New Mexico, which are shot through with a pervasive Spanish language ideology. My aim in this article is to establish how such ideologies impact Spanish language students’ responsiveness to learning the language.

My use of the term language ecosystem is based on Haugen’s (1972) definition of language ecology as the study of interactions between any given language and its environment. While Haugen has been criticized for using ecology as a somewhat shaky metaphor for language, his conceptualization of how language interrelates in a given environment nonetheless plays a significant role in capturing the multifaceted and dynamic interactions that occur in and through language. Since Haugen’s coining of the term language ecosystems, there has been increased growth in linguistic and language-learning research that has examined language as a network of interactions as opposed to a thing. Couto (2009) pointed to the psychological and social undercurrents of this network, suggesting that a linguistic ecosystem involves interactions that take place between members of the population and the world, in the neuronal connections of the brain, and between language and society. This study is primarily focused on this latter strand (language and society), and pays particular attention to the political, ethnic, and historic environment in which the Spanish language operates in New Mexico. This study is also based on the premise that language functions socio-politically, in order to valorize or trivialize marginalized identities (Leeman, Rabin, & Román-Mendoza, 2011; Loza, 2017; Valdés, 1998). In essence, it recognizes the persistence of language ideologies (Leeman et al., 2011) and perceives the relationship between language and minority identity as a crucial mediating factor in the acquisition of Spanish language in New Mexico’s public education system (O’Brien, 2017).

To date, research on Spanish language ideology in the U.S. has tended to focus on the linguistic marginalization of U.S. Spanish and the prioritization of so-called pure Spanish in the Castilian form (Ciller & Flores, 2016). According to Valdés, Menken, & Castro (2015), U.S. Spanish occupies a lower status than ‘pure’ Spanish due to its association with a bilingual, bicultural community of speakers. Monolingual Spanish speakers, Loza (2017) argued, are championed as a linguistic ideal while Spanish heritage speakers (SHS) are castigated for deviating from the standard through language interference, informal grammatical constructions and code-switching. However, while the current study recognizes the existence of such language ideologies, I suggest that Valdéz et al.’s (2015) hierarchical delineation of Spanish language along a monolingual European or U.S. bilingual divide is over-simplified and fails to take into account the internal social tensions within U.S. Spanish speaking communities that create and perpetuate their own set of linguistic hierarchies and language ideologies.

More theoretically helpful in capturing this phenomenon is Leeman’s (2012) broader conceptualization of language ideologies as relating to the political interests and agendas of particular dominant groups, which operate at regional as well as international levels and which might include, as in the case of this study, a majority Hispanic or (to use the term employed by the sample participants in this study) Spanish–American population of heritage Spanish speakers who share a territory with a minority Latino immigrant population who speak Spanish as a mother tongue. As shown by Leeman (2012), it is those with social power who make decisions on the language varieties that are considered standard. Galindo’s (1991) examination of how Chicanos (Mexican-Americans born in the USA) disparage the Spanish spoken by Mexican immigrants illustrated the manifestation of such social power between a similar, yet distinct U.S. based Spanish–speaking community. In the subsequent sections of this article, I reinforce Galindo’s findings, illustrating how Spanish language in the surveyed districts in New Mexico has been ideologically sub-categorized so as to prioritize Spanish–American speakers—the term appropriated by New Mexico Hispanics with an extended history of living in the state—and to marginalize recently arrived Latino immigrant speakers, thus rationalizing the subordination of the latter group over the former (Loza, 2017).


To date, a number of scholars have examined the relationships between the social context of language learning in language policy, such as Reece and Goldenberg’s (2006) analysis of community print literacy in the development of Hispanic biliteracy in Los Angeles, Eder’s (2007) analysis of critical language learning strategies within Native American communities, and Valdés’ (2015) California-based study of the effectiveness of bilingual education for Latino youth. Each of these studies lead to a cautionary note on the issues that impede bilingual/ multicultural program effectiveness, which include perpetuations of colonial discourses and dynamics within the language-learning classroom, superficial literacy and linguistic opportunities in the second language classroom and community, and a misalignment of the inherent linguistic dynamics of languages with classroom practices. Research on second language acquisition that has increasingly linked language learning with the development of new identities and notions of self (Leeman et al., 2011) also proposes new possibilities to more fully understand how social processes impact on students’ acquisition of given target languages. That notions of self and group identity develop and crystallize in opposition to or in alignment with philosophies such as nationalism and colonialism (Anderson, 1991) is deeply relevant for all bilingual communities and particularly those situated within New Mexico, an area that has experienced the destabilizing effects of colonialism since the early twentieth century along with nationalist rhetoric that has developed in response to the growth of the Latino community in the United States in recent decades (Hanna & Ortega, 2016).

Paris (2010) highlighted that the Spanish-speaking population in U.S. public education is made up of a linguistically and culturally complex and diverse community of learners and speakers, while Guglani (2016) discussed the extent to which Spanish language is used to validate Latino identity in the U.S. Both authors highlighted the intergenerational shift that has occurred in recent years around Latino identity politics amongst school-going youth. In the present article, I add a new dimension to these findings by examining a wide range of social attitudes to Spanish language from the perspective of a geographically and culturally distinct community that has heretofore received little academic attention.

A relevant aspect of this study is that learning Spanish in New Mexico schools is not simply a process of second language acquisition but also constitutes a heritage–focused effort to maintain a language traditionally spoken by a large proportion of the state’s population. This, therefore, requires engagement with language revitalization theory. Here, Fishman’s (1991) research on reversing language shift proves helpful. The findings illustrate that the family and local community play an indispensable role in heritage language maintenance. Indeed, Fishman (1991) concluded that heritage language support policies at state level can only be effective if they co-exist with linguistically goal-oriented families and communities who are committed to transmitting the heritage language from one generation to the next. Despite the weight of this finding, there is little evidence of state engagement with the family and community linguistic dimension in New Mexico and to date, no attempt has been made to relate the language ideologies to which students are exposed through their social ecosystems with their language learning outcomes.

Post-structuralist understandings of the relationship between language and identity, of the self and of the collective, also provide a theoretical foundation for this study. As pointed out by Kallan (2016), language presents a tangible sense of place. However, this inter–relationship can become mutilated by processes of colonization and globalization (Kallan, 2016; O’Brien, 2017), and there is often a re–modification and degradation of the places and spaces in which these exiled and disenfranchised communities speak and perceive their languages (Anderson 1991; Coole 1996; Fought 2006). Foucault’s (1980) theories on discourse suggest the social and cultural conditions that lead to the production and consolidation of power. His treatise on the extent to which socially-embedded power structures determine who can speak and what can be spoken as having important implications for language users and language learners is particularly useful for the present study. Investigating disparate Spanish language ideologies in New Mexico aims at revealing the cultural legacies and social hierarchies that produce systems of power. Following from this, I examine how such systems of power are articulated through the learning and use of the Spanish language within the sample populations.


I used the 2014-2015 Bilingual/ Multicultural Education Annual Report (New Mexico Public Education Department, 2014) as starting point. This revealed Spanish language proficiency rates in each of New Mexico’s school districts and allowed me to select school districts with varying degrees of Spanish language proficiency in order to generate comparisons across school districts (See Table 1).

School District Proficiency Level (%)
Beginning Intermediate Proficient
Albuquerque 35.68 39.00 25.32
Santa Fe 43.98 44.81 11.20
Española 48.94 41.26 9.81

Table 1: Spanish Language Proficiency in the Sampled Areas (Source: Appendix B, New Mexico Public Education Department Bilingual Bulticultural Education Annual Report 2014-2015)

Thereafter, current U.S. Census data was used to select three school districts within New Mexico featuring socio-economically distinct populations so as to test and compare the relationship between language ecosystems and the learning of Spanish. The populations of Albuquerque, Española, and Santa Fe proved suitable in this regard, with each providing a unique sociolinguistic landscape (See Table 2 below).

Importantly, the borders of each of these city’s school districts closely overlapped with the city borders defined by the U.S. Census, meaning that the socioeconomic data generated by the latter could reliably be used to ascertain the social characteristics of each school district community. Finally, each of the selected school districts had an established, state-sponsored Bilingual/ Multicultural Education Programme, guaranteeing that all participants had some exposure to the learning and teaching of Spanish within the school district.

Española Albuquerque Santa Fe
Population 10, 224 545,852 67,947
Hispanic or Latino 87.1 46.7 48.7
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 8.8 42.1 46.2
Foreign-born persons (2010-2014) 13.8 10.7 12.9
Language other than English spoken at home by persons age 5 years + 64.6 29.9 33.4
Persons in Poverty 27.7 18.5 18.1
Spanish speaking population

(% of total population)

54 26 32

Table 2: Social Characteristics of the Sampled Areas (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011)

I used two data collection tools: surveys and structured interviews. Bourhis, Giles, & Rosenthal’s (1981) Subjective Vitality Questionnaire, was appropriate in illuminating participants’ perceptions of the ethnolinguistic vitality of and reception to the Spanish language within their school district community. As Ehala and Niglas (2006) noted, the main limitation of the questionnaire is its focus on participants’ objective view of language vitality, as opposed to representing the participant’s emotional relationship with the language. Consequently, I adapted the survey, drawing from Baker’s (1992) socially-framed questionnaire design in order to gather information on participants’ personal perceptions of the specific cultural dynamics of the Spanish language in New Mexico. In total, the student survey had 27 statements, categorized in terms of positive orientation or negative orientation toward the Spanish language. I included additional statements to ascertain nuanced differences between each school district’s perceptions of both Spanish language and Hispanic culture that fell outside of the positive/ negative dichotomy. School principals distributed the surveys. I provided students over the age of 16 years of age in each school district with information on the research one week prior to the dissemination of surveys, so students understood their choice to participate or not. Bilingual surveys were available to all students, though only two of the respondents opted to complete the survey in Spanish. In total, 469 students completed the survey across all three districts, with Española returning the highest proportion of completed surveys. A total of eighty-one percent of participant respondents identified as Hispanic. Due to a formatting error on the survey form, the gender breakdown of the survey sample population was not captured in two of the three sampled population. Nonetheless, surveys were disseminated in high schools with a relatively even distribution of male and female students.

As noted by Pavlenko (2009), quantitative methods are often too rigid a collection tool to represent the dynamic, fluid and shifting cultural forces that shape language attitudes. In order to overcome this limitation and to further explore the data generated by the surveys, I included a qualitative interview component in the research design. Structured interviews were carried out with 32 participants, fulfilling the normal distribution criterion recommended for qualitative research (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011) (see Appendix B for interview questions). Teaching and learning are understood as socially situated practices; therefore, participant samples from each of the three school districts were made up of at least two of each of the following: secondary school teachers, school administrators, parents, educational stakeholders and community members. Seventeen interview participants were female and 15 were of Hispanic descent, providing a more balanced gender and ethnic distribution than the survey sample. A bilingual research assistant conducted the interviews. Three of the 32 participants completed the interview in Spanish. I informed participants of the study by dissemination a participant information leaflet in each school district, which allowed candidates to self-select as research participants. I also used non-probability snowball sampling methods in order to ensure a balanced proportion of participants from each language community.

The mixed methods study followed a convergent design (Creswell & Creswell, 2017) with concurrent quantitative and qualitative data collection, separate quantitative and qualitative analyses and the eventual merging of the data sets to answer the research questions. Survey data generated by the sample population were analysed using SPSS software, specifically via a cross-tabular descriptive analysis of the three school districts surveyed. Concepts interrogated in both the questionnaire and the structured interview included: personal attitude to the use of Spanish in New Mexico; uniformity as preferable to diversity; awareness of anti-Hispanic sentiments within New Mexico; Spanish language as declining in the community; cultural prioritization of English; and Hispanics as “Other.” Interviews were structured, with questions asked in a pre-designated sequence and with little deviation from the pre-formulated list of questions. I carried out an initial thematic analysis of participants’ responses in order to orientate myself to the data collected and to ensure the suitability of my analytic framework. Thereafter, I categorized responses according to positive or negative orientations to Spanish language and Hispanic culture and then compared these data with the survey results, using the school district from which responses were generated as the prime variable.

Linguistic Ecosystems of the Sampled Population

Española is 88 miles from Albuquerque and 25 miles from Santa Fe. As shown in Table 2 above, Albuquerque has by far the largest population of the three surveyed areas, with half a million residents. By contrast, Española’s population is just over 10,000 while Santa Fe’s is almost 70,000. Due to space limitation, I have not examined the implications of these varying degrees of urbanism on Spanish language learning in the present study. Instead, I focused on the ethnic, socioeconomic status (measured by the persons in poverty row), and linguistic features of each site, as these are considered indispensable to an understanding of the social dynamics of the targeted ecosystems (Williams, 1991).

As shown in Table 2 above, Española has the highest proportion of Hispanic residents, foreign-born residents, people living in poverty and people identifying as Spanish speakers. The latter is surprising, given that BMEAR shows that Española school district students had the lowest proportion of proficient Spanish speakers of the sampled populations (Table 1 above), with Albuquerque had the highest proportion. This inconsistency may be explained by Española’s Spanish-speakers being an older non–school going population or may reflect its citizens’ tendency to claim that Spanish language is used within the home as a marker of identity politics, even if the younger generations are only beginner or intermediate speakers of the language. These data provide subtle evidence for the existence of a language ideology in Española that prioritizes a heritage of Spanish language use.

Figure 1:  Surveyed New Mexico School Districts
Source: Author

U.S. Census data allows deeper insight into the distinct levels of bilingual confidence in each research location. For example, Santa Fe’s Spanish speakers reported much lower rates of English language proficiency than those in Española, suggesting that the former constitute a first or second generation Latino immigrant population, while Española’s population may be formed from a heritage Spanish–speaking community, thus reinforcing its use amongst an older population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). That over 96 percent of Española’s 5- to 17-year-old Spanish-speaking population was reported as speaking English “very well” also indicates that young people in Española strongly identify with two languages, whereas their counterparts in Santa Fe do not. In Albuquerque, Census results suggest that the majority of Spanish speakers are first generation immigrants in the 18- to 64-year-old category, one-third of whom reported limited English language proficiency. The children of these immigrants are identified as strong bilinguals in Spanish and English, though in slightly lower proportions than in Española.

At a state level, the reality of Spanish language loss is obvious (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011), with only 28 percent of New Mexico respondents reporting an ability to speak Spanish, in spite of over 70 percent of its population identifying as Hispanic. Significantly, the majority of Census respondents who reported Spanish language proficiency were in the 18- to 64-year-old age bracket. According to Fishman’s (1991) Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (GIDS), this suggests the potential for the maintenance of Spanish language in New Mexico, since languages are most vital when spoken by a younger and childbearing population. However, this finding is hinged on a presumption of social inclusion; if younger minority language users feel themselves to be socially isolated, their native language will continue to regress. Also significant is that the second largest majority of Spanish speakers were recorded within the 5- to 17-year-old bracket, which reinforces the potential for Spanish to gain momentum in New Mexico, if the language is being engaged with in authentic ways within this population. Outcomes of language policies to reinvigorate the speaking of the Irish language in the Republic of Ireland may present a relevant caveat here: studies show that where the population of Irish speakers soars in the 5- to 17-year-old age bracket, it sharply declines in the 18- to 64-year-old age bracket, since the Irish language is principally being engaged with through formal primary and secondary school language classes, often without any application or resonance in the broader community, thus creating an unsustainable and ineffective pathway for language revitalization (O Ríagáin, 2009). That those over 64 years of age constitute the smallest proportion of Spanish speakers suggests that the majority of New Mexico’s Spanish speakers are younger, generational immigrants from Spanish speaking countries, a finding that aligns with the systematic growth of Spanish in the United States between 2005 and 2011 (Ryan, 2013).


Quantitative Analysis of High School Students’ Attitudes to the Use of Spanish

Quantitative analysis found overwhelmingly consistent levels of positive receptiveness to the use of Spanish among the surveyed students. Indeed, even ostensibly dramatic statements in support of Spanish language were received liberally by the surveyed cohort, as exemplified in the responses below to Statements 2 and 6 (see Appendix A for complete survey results).

Statement 2: All students in New Mexico should learn a second language, especially Spanish.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 18.3% 50.0% 28.3% 3.3% 100%
Española 25.5% 59.4% 12.1% 2.9% 100%
Santa Fe 24.0% 56.5% 16.2% 3.2% 100%
Total 24.1% 57.2% 15.7% 3.1% 100%

Table 3: Responses to Statement 2

Statement 6: Learning Spanish is important for my country’s future.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 16.1% 48.4% 30.6% 4.8% 100%
Española 20.6% 51.7% 22.7% 5.0% 100%
Santa Fe 20.4% 47.1% 27.4% 5.1% 100%
Total 19.9% 49.7% 25.4% 5.0% 100%

Table 4: Responses to Statement 6

Mean results generated by survey data illustrated moderate levels of variance between school districts on responsiveness to Spanish language and Hispanic culture. Española’s school district returned highest levels of receptiveness to the use of Spanish, Albuquerque returned the least proportional support for the same concept, and Santa Fe’s student responses were only slightly less positive toward the role of Spanish in the school and community than their peers in Española, with each school district rating Spanish language highly. However, both Santa Fe and Española’s students also articulated a strong sense of identification with Anglophone-oriented questions (Statements 5, 22, 23).

The questionnaire succeeded in drawing out interesting socio-economic profiles of the surveyed communities. Albuquerque students were most likely to assert that their families struggled financially and to indicate the Hispanophone nature of their community (Statements 11, 24). However, this immersion in a Spanish language community did not correspond with high levels of Spanish language advocacy amid Albuquerque’s students and instead, some consistently negative tendencies toward the use of Spanish in the community were observed within Albuquerque’s body (Statements 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14).

Statement 9, “Spanish speakers are not discriminated against in our community,” produced some polarised opinions among the Albuquerque cohort, with 18% strongly agreeing with the statement and 16% strongly disagreeing. When compared to Santa Fe and Española, however, they emerged as the least likely group to claim discrimination against Spanish speakers in their local community.

Santa Fe students were more likely to agree that their families struggled financially than their peers in Española, a finding that might be surprising given the lower socioeconomic profile of families living in the latter district (see Table 2 above). Overall, Santa Fe students exhibited the lowest level of tolerance for statements that suggested the Otherness and inferiority of Spanish language and culture (Statements 4, 8, 9, 10, 14, 18, 20, 26) and they emerged as the only surveyed cohort to express as a majority their belief that Spanish speakers were discriminated against within their community (Statement 9). However, they were less convinced about the prioritization of Spanish than their peers in Española (Statements 1, 2, 12,16, 17) and emerged as a community that tended to be more supportive of the cultural role of Spanish language users as opposed to its use as a formal, academic languagein New Mexico (Statements 1, 7, 17, 22).

Española’s students returned consistently positive responses to the relevance of Spanish language in the curriculum and community and their high levels of confidence in their Hispanic language and culture is demonstrated in their responses to Statements 6, 8, 10, 14, 16, 18, 29, 26 and 27. Survey feedback also confirms their biculturalism and aspirations to bilingualism; though they tend to support the use of Spanish they also favour statements that advocate for Spanish-English bilingualism (Statements 5, 7, 12, 13), a finding consistent with the returns of the U.S. 2000 and 2010 Censuses, in which young people in Española strongly identifying with both English and Spanish. Finally, the Española cohort exhibited the most concern about the regression of Spanish language use in their community (Statements 11, 24).

School District Proficiency Level (%) Language Attitude (Mean)*
Beginning Intermediate Proficient
Albuquerque 35.68 39.00 25.32 2.8142
Santa Fe 43.98 44.81 11.20 2.8601
Española 48.94 41.26 9.81 2.8739

Table 5: Relationship between language proficiency and language attitudes (Source: Appendix B, New Mexico Public Education Department Bilingual Bulticultural Education Annual Report 2014-2015)

*Mean average for language attitudes was achieved by a software generated means comparison of statements 1,2,4, 6, 8, 12,16,17,19, 22, 25, 26. A Scale from 1 to 4 was used to establish the mean, with 1= Strongly Negative Attitude and 4= Strongly Positive.

Table 5 illustrates a statistically opaque relationship between language ideologies and language performances. While the language mean results show marginal differences, they suggest that though Española returned the lowest rates of Spanish language proficiency, these students reported the most positive language attitudes of the three surveyed districts. In contrast, though the Albuquerque school district has the highest percentage of proficient language users, these students reported the lowest levels of support for the language of the three communities. Qualitative data were, however, much more effective in illuminating the existence of the relationship between language proficiency and language attitude. Specifically, the interviews affirm that the most proficient users of Spanish in New Mexico are not necessarily surrounded by communities that positively perceive their language use. Conversely, and as developed in the interview data that I present shortly, while school districts such as Española purport to support the use and learning of Spanish, their learners continue to struggle with proficiency, suggesting a disconnection between learners’ cultural and linguistic responsiveness to Spanish language and their ability to communicate in Spanish.

Interview Data and Analysis

Data from the structured interviews confirm the influence of Spanish language ideologies on the Spanish language learning classroom. Interviewees often unambiguously articulated how receptiveness to Spanish amongst communities and students hinges on whether the Hispanic speaker is related to a ‘Spanish–American’ or to a Latino immigrant community.

As shown in Table 6 below, the overwhelmingly positive attitude to Spanish language that Española students indicated was replicated in interview data from the same district. On the contrary, 45% and 50% of the interview data from Albuquerque and Santa Fe, respectively, included more negatively oriented discourse on the same questions while consistent levels of neutrality were maintained across all three surveyed communities. In essence, the data revealed the influence of wider social attitudes to the Spanish language on students’ responsiveness to their Spanish language learning.

Interview Responses by School District Positively Oriented Discourse* Negatively Oriented Discourse* Neutral Discourse*
Albuquerque 4 5 2
Española 8 0 3
Santa Fe 2 4 2

Table 6: Qualitative Cross Tabulation of Interview Responses

*Orientation of positive vs. negative discourse was evaluated by responses to interview questions 4, 5, 9 and 11.

Apart from this, the interview responses provided deep-level insight into the language ideologies that exist within New Mexico. First, interview data revealed the extent to which Spanish language in New Mexico was seen to represent either a Spanish-American or Latino immigrant population. Specifically, Spanish language was positively viewed both by students and their surrounding social community where Hispanic identity was associated with a European Spanish cultural legacy. Conversely, it was negatively viewed in the districts where the Spanish language was psychosocially equated with Latino immigrants. This is illustrated by the fact that the Albuquerque cohort, where Spanish speakers are mostly first- or second-generation immigrants, reported the highest level of resistance to Spanish, as reflected in the following statements:

Something I notice is that some students tend to be embarrassed about speaking Spanish. . . .I think that the media has actually done us a disservice and really has portrayed Hispanic bilinguals and Spanish-speaking immigrants as a negative. (AB3A)ii

People that don’t speak a lot of English that are recent immigrants often times I only see them on the news interviewed if a crime happened in their community or something. They are not profiled as being a great language and culture resource for us. (AB2A)

I think that Spanish-speaking immigrants are still viewed upon somewhat negatively and I think that we need to encourage people to learn the language and not be ashamed to use it. (AB3A)

I’ve run across a lot of people who say it’s [the immigrants’] job to learn to speak English: ‘I don’t have to learn to speak with them’. So, I think there’s some bias there, whether it’s racial bias or just, you know, ‘you’re in my country, you need to be like me.’ (AB4B)

[in the media] If it’s a crime. . .ethnicity is always pointed out [. . .] if it’s something like a heroic thing they almost go overboard like ‘look how great they are even though they’re just a Spanish speaking.’ (AB5B)

In Santa Fe, Spanish language ideologies were more clearly articulated. For example, one participant stated that:

Most people here in Santa Fe have a very positive attitude towards Spanish, the people I’ve met, especially those that know this place’s origins, or that their family come from Spain from past generations. My perception is that it goes hand-in-hand with the socio-cultural status. The higher the socio-cultural status, the more respect and admiration there is toward learning Spanish. (SF2A)

Where SF2A related Spanish language in Santa Fe to a Spanish colonial legacy, an oppositional opinion is expressed by another Santa Fe participant, who sees her students psychosocially relating Spanish language to a Latino immigrant minority, leading to rejection by the students:

Even my own students have to. . .maybe in order to belong, in order to not be losers, to not feel like losers, to be part of the ‘cool’ people, and to be part of a perhaps victorious or prevailing culture, they prefer to not speak Spanish even if they know it. So, the Spanish language is being lost considerably because the Spanish language is associated with uneducated and backwards people. (SF3A)

There’s definitively in the United States a scale of clout, I guess [. . .] it kind of goes down the list and the last on the list is usually Mexicans [. . .] when you look at the media at Mexican Americans, or different Mexican ethnicities, they’re usually portrayed as maids or things like that in the media, in the movies. As for Antonio Banderas and Penelope Cruz is [sic.] star power of Spanish, from Spanish descent. (SF5B)

Interview data from Española reasserted the existence of language ideologies that positively associated the speaking of Spanish with a prevalent Hispanic or Spanish–American culture. This linkage of language and a certain community of people was seen by interview participants as promoting Spanish language learning within the school district:

I just think that people like to speak Spanish, you know, especially local Hispanics; they like to chat with their neighbours that way and. . . . I think that it is [a] real important part of the sort of present culture. (ES4B)

Crucially, however, responses from Española show that Spanish language use is carefully constructed as representing a European colonial legacy as opposed to a Latin American immigrant community, thus creating an imagined, often mythicized, community of language users with which Spanish language learners and users struggle to relate:

I think Española holds on to an identity with a cultural heritage dating back to Spain, whether they still actually have real connections to that or not [. . .] I think Northern New Mexico people here will even say like ‘our Spanish is different than other places,’ and I think it might be to a certain extent, but I don’t know how much that serves kids if the goal is to become bilingual in a sense of being able to use it in the larger world. (ES2B)

In Española the people connect themselves with Spain and Spanish heritage, not anything else. It’s a sense that that language is pure. It’s their Spanish and it’s from Spain, and all the other ones are almost less than Spanish in a way; and the immigrants coming in and people from other areas coming in are lower in status, so, therefore, [they] don’t want to learn your language. (SF5B)

This statement echoes Leeman’s (2012) argument on the desirability of European Spanish over all other varieties in the U.S. However, it is important to also recognize that communities such as Española, which lay claim to owning the so-called pure Spanish variation, also represent those that struggle most with maintaining Spanish language proficiency in their school districts. This suggests that, far from promoting the use and learning of Spanish, Española’s—and to a lesser extent, Santa Fe’s—language ideologies and its real or imagined tradition of descending from a mythicized European colonial linguistic and cultural legacy has rendered Spanish language acquisition an increasingly exclusive and largely inaccessible goal for Spanish language learners. Furthermore, the persistence of these language ideologies has demotivated Española’s sizeable native Spanish-speaking Latino immigrant population from maintaining their first language, because it is seen to represent an inferior linguistic and cultural tradition. In practical terms, this creates a Spanish language hemorrhage in which the most proficient speakers of Spanish in each of the sampled communities are those that are most likely to be discouraged from speaking it, due to the cultural biases that exist within their linguistic ecosystems.

Interview data also revealed a tangible sense of psychosocial distinctiveness in each of the communities. A strong sense of regional and linguistic exceptionalism stratifies New Mexico’s language ecosystems and is identified by the research participants as a Northern New Mexico (Española and Santa Fe) and Southern New Mexico (Albuquerque and south) sociolinguistic divide:

In Northern New Mexico Spanish is highly regarded, whereas in Southern New Mexico they are very clear that they do not want you to speak Spanish. And when I was in school you were segregated. So, if you came from Santa Fe they would sit you on one side, even in Los Alamos they would sit you on one side and they would say inaccurate or inappropriate things to you. (SF1A)

As a consequence of these diverse perceptions and experiences of Spanish language learning, Spanish in the surveyed populations is not conceived of as a world language of communication but rather as a reflection of the state’s heterogeneous and hierarchically-organized micro–cultures. Crucially, Spanish language ideologies in the surveyed populations are impacted by racial legacies that originate with Spanish colonialism and that are perpetuated by contemporary stereotypes around Latino immigration to the U.S. Whereas this bolsters the social status of Spanish language in Española, which maintains an ideal image of itself as a European colonial–Spanish community, it negates it in immigrant–occupied pockets of Albuquerque, where Spanish language use is associated with a recently arrived Latin–American, and especially a Mexican, population.

It is worth noting that the interview data focused particularly on the role of immigration in shaping language attitudes. As one respondent stated, recent immigration from south of the U.S. border has increased feelings of ambiguity toward Spanish language education, especially among state residents who self-identify as “Spanish–Americans.” This was clearly articulated by one participant in the following way:

The issue, though, is including Mexican or immigrant families in the language program. That’s a whole, another discussion that sometimes is difficult to have because these very proud traditional New Mexicans, who identify more with Spain than they do [with] Mexico, see a need for these programs for their children but to include the Mexicano, it’s still a politically charged issue here for many communities.

These insights reinforce the necessity of looking at Spanish language ideologies within the U.S. in all of their complexity and of recognizing that tangible social distance exists between Hispanics who trace their origin to a European-Spanish colonial legacy and Latino immigrants who have more recently made their home in the American southwest. That these intra–ethnic differences have heretofore gone under–acknowledged is problematic, particularly given that language ideology has been used to validate the social distance between these two groups. The use of Spanish as a tool of socio-cultural subversion within the Hispanic community itself may contribute to increasingly negative attitudes to the language among marginalized Hispanophones, thereby eroding the linguistic motivation of its most proficient speakers.


As shown above, narrative responses reveal the existence of a pervasive Spanish language ideology in New Mexico and the contemporary external and internal political, social and cultural influences that continue to shape its development. Conversely, questionnaire data illuminated a burgeoning student population shaped by 21st century additive bilingual programmes and multicultural worldviews, yet still vulnerable to and influenced by the ideologies of their surrounding community. Indeed, cross tabulation of survey data with interview data revealed a direct correlation between students’ language outlooks and those of their parents, teachers, and community members. Arguably, this has an important implication for Spanish language school language programmers, who should not only consider the cultural dynamics of the language learning classroom when planning for minority language development, but should also find ways to amplify and draw from positive language models in the community and to mitigate or learn from the surrounding community’s more negative language ideologies.

Furthermore, in spite of very progressive attitudes towards the use and development of bilingualism within the surveyed communities, there remains an anxiety among Latin–American immigrants in New Mexico to prove their American-ness by losing Spanish as a native language. This was most visible in Albuquerque and was seen by interview participants as a reaction particularly influenced by contemporary media perceptions, political ideologies, and language ideologies around the “Otherness” of Hispanophone communities. Moreover, the persistence of language ideologies in New Mexico that prioritize Spanish–Americans speakers over Latin–American immigrants is clearly evidenced in the data. This finding is significant not just because it highlights the ineffectiveness of measuring Spanish language ideology purely along a U.S.-European linguistic divide, but also because it calls into question current research on language ideology that associates language prestige with monolingual Spanish or English speakers. In the case of this research, bilingualism was not the important variable in categorizing a language as standard or ideal; rather, the identification of the speaker as either Spanish–American or immigrant emerged as the most important factor in influencing whether his or her Spanish language use was viewed positively or negatively in the surrounding community.

Overall, the data show an overwhelming preference of New Mexico’s high school students to become proficient Spanish speakers. However, to realize this goal, there is a crucial role to be played by their families, teachers, and surrounding community in modelling positive and inclusive attitudes to the Spanish language, regardless of its origins or etymologies.


Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections in the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.

Baker, C. (1992). Attitudes and language. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Beaudrie, S., & Fairclough, M. (2012). Spanish as a heritage language in the united states: The state of the field. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.

New Mexico Public Education Department (2014). Bilingual and multilingual education annual review (BMEAR). Retrieved from,

Bourhis, R. Y., Giles, H., & Rosenthal, D. (2010). Notes on the construction of a ‘subjective vitality questionnaire’ for ethnolinguistic groups. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2(2), 145-155.

Ciller, J. F. C., & Florez, C. F. (2016). On attitudes toward spanish varieties: A bilingual perspective. Todas as Letras-Revista de Língua e Literatura, 18(2), 98-116 .

Coady, M., & Laoire, M. Ó. (2002). Mismatches in language policy and practice in education: The case of gaelscoileanna in the republic of ireland. Language Policy, 1(2), 22-49.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. Oxon: Routledge.

Coole, D. (1996). Is class a difference that makes a difference? Radical Philosophy (May/June), 17-25.

Couto, H. (2009). Linguística, Ecología y Ecolinguística: Contato de Línguas. Sao Paulo: Contexto.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage publications.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Eder, D. J. (2007). Bringing Navajo storytelling practices into schools: The importance of maintaining cultural integrity. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 38(3), 278-296.

Ehala, M., & Niglas, K. (2006). Language attitudes of Estonian secondary school students. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 5(3), 209-227.

Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages (Vol. 76). Philadelphia: Multilingual matters.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge (C. Gordon Ed.). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Press.

Fought, C. (2006). Language and ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Galindo, D. L. (1991). A sociolincuistic study of spanish language maintenance and linguistic shift towards enclish amonc chicanos. Lenguas Modernas, 18, 107-116.

Goldenberg, C., Reese, L., & Gallimore, R. (1992). Effects of literacy materials from school on latino children’s home experiences and early reading achievement. American Journal of Education, 100(4), 497-536.

Guglani, L. (2016). American, hispanic, spanish-speaking? Hispanic immigrants and the question of identity. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 15(6), 344-360.

Hamilton, C. (2008). On being a’good’interviewer: Empathy, ethics and the politics of oral history. Oral History, 36 (2), 35-43.

Hanna, A.-M. V., & Ortega, D. M. (2016). Salir adelante (perseverance): Lessons from the mexican immigrant experience. Journal of Social Work, 16(1), 47-65.

Hornberger, N. H. (2005). Opening and filling up implementational and ideological spaces in heritage language education. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 605-609.

Haugen, E. (1972). The ecology of language. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Kallan, J. (2016, April). Language, space and place: The persistence of memory. Paper presented at the Trinity Week Public Symposium, Dublin, Ireland.

Leeman, J., Rabin, L., & Román-Mendoza, E. (2011). Identity and activism in heritage language education. The Modern Language Journal, 95(4), 481-495.

Leeman, J. (2012). Investigating language ideologies in Spanish for Heritage Speakers. In S. Beaudrie and M. Fairclough (Eds.), Spanish as a Heritage Language in the US: State of the Science. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, 43-59.

Loza, S. (2017). Transgressing Standard Language Ideologies in the Spanish Heritage Language Classroom. Chiricú: The Politics of Language, 2, 56-77.

Mac Giolla Phadraig, B. (2003). A study of parents’ perceptions of their involvement in gaelscoileanna. The Irish Journal of Education / Iris Eireannach an Oideachais, 34, 70-79.

O’Brien, S. (2017). Linguistic diasporas, narrative and performance: The Irish in Argentina. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

Paris, D. (2010). “The second language of the united states”: Youth perspectives on Spanish in a changing multiethnic community. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 9(2), 139-155.

Passel, J. S. (2006). The size and characteristics of the unauthorized migrant population in the US. Washington DC: Pew Hispanic Center Research Report.

Pavlenko, A. (Ed.) (2009). Narrative analysis in the study of bi- and multilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell.

Portelli, A. (2012). They say in harlan county: An oral history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rampton, B. (2014). Crossings: Language and ethnicity among adolescents.  London: Routledge.

Reardon, S. F., Greenberg, E., Kalogrides, D., Shores, K. A., & Valentino, R. A. (2012). Trends in academic achievement gaps in the era of no child left behind. Evanstown: Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.

Reese, L., & Goldenberg, C. (2006). Community contexts for literacy development of latina/o children. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 37(1), 42-61.

Riagáin, P. Ó. (Ed.) (2009). International norms and domestic language policies: The republic of Ireland and the EU. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Romero-Little, M. E., McCarty, T. L., Warhol, L., & Zepeda, O. (2007). Language policies in practice: Preliminary findings from a large‐scale national study of native american language shift. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 607-618.

Ryan, C. (2013). Language use in the United States: 2011. American Community Survey Reports, 22, 1-16.

Safty, A. (1992). Effectiveness and French immersion: A socio-political analysis. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 17(1) 23-32.

Schiffrin, D. (2003). Linguistics and history: Oral history as discourse. In D. Tannen &  J. E. Alatis (Eds.), Linguistics, language, and the real world: Discourse and beyond (84-113). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2001). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz: Centre for Research for Education, Diversity & Excellence.

U.S. Census Bureau (2011). Population of New Mexico: Census 2010 and 2000 interactive map, demographics, statistics, and quick facts. Retrieved from

Valdés, G., Menken, K., & Castro, M. (Eds.). (2015). Common core: Bilingual and English language learners: A resource for educators. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Caslon Publishing.

Valdés, G. (1998). The world outside and inside schools: Language and immigrant children. Educational Researcher, 27(6), 4-18.

Williams, C.H. (1991). Language planning and social change: Ecological speculations. In D. Marshall (Ed.), Focus on language planning: Essays in honour of Joshua A. Fishman. Vol. 3 (53-74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Wright, S. (2007). Language policy and language planning: From nationalism to globalization. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Appendix 1: Questionnaire Statements and Responses Cross-Tabulated by School Districts

Note: A Statement 15 was not included in the survey due to a clerical error. As a result, Statement 16 follows directly from Statement 14.

Statement 1:Spanish should be an official language of the U.S.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 22.2% 38.1% 33.3% 6.3% 100%
Española 17.3% 45.1% 29.1% 8.4% 100%
Santa Fe 21.4% 37.7% 32.5% 8.4% 100%
Total 19.4% 41.6% 30.8% 8.1% 100%
Statement 2: All students in New Mexico should learn a second language, especially Spanish.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 18.3% 50.0% 28.3% 3.3% 100%
Española 25.5% 59.4% 12.1% 2.9% 100%
Santa Fe 24.0% 56.5% 16.2% 3.2% 100%
Total 24.1% 57.2% 15.7% 3.1% 100%
Statement 3: Being Hispanic is not the same as being American.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 16.7% 28.3% 33.3% 21.7% 100%
Española 11.9% 29.8% 37.4% 20.4% 100%
Santa Fe 14.2% 21.3% 32.9% 31.0% 100%
Total 13.3% 26.7% 35.3% 24.2% 100%
Statement 4: Our community would be stronger if we all spoke English instead of speaking different languages.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 7.9% 27.0% 42.9% 22.2% 100%
Española 12.6% 22.3% 39.1% 26.1% 100%
Santa Fe 11.5% 22.9% 40.1% 25.5% 100%
Total 11.6% 23.1% 40.0% 25.3% 100%
Statement 5: Teachers should have native English proficiency.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 23.3% 43.3% 30.0% 3.3% 100%
Española 14.1% 57.7% 23.5% 4.3% 100%
Santa Fe 12.3% 59.1% 24.0% 4.5% 100%
Total 14.7% 56.3% 24.6% 4.2% 100%
Statement 6: Learning Spanish is important for my country’s future.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 16.1% 48.4% 30.6% 4.8% 100%
Española 20.6% 51.7% 22.7% 5.0% 100%
Santa Fe 20.4% 47.1% 27.4% 5.1% 100%
Total 19.9% 49.7% 25.4% 5.0% 100%
Statement 7: People who want to be Americans should learn English.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 30.2% 41.3% 17.5% 11.1% 100%
Española 25.7% 43.9% 21.1% 8.0% 100%
Santa Fe 27.1% 46.8% 18.2% 7.1% 100%
Total 27.1% 44.5% 19.6% 8.1% 100%
Statement 8: I am not interested in learning to speak Spanish fluently.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 9.8% 26.2% 23.0% 41.0% 100%
Española 9.7% 17.4% 35.6% 37.3% 100%
Santa Fe 8.3% 14.7% 44.2% 32.7% 100%
Total 9.3% 17.7% 36.9% 36.2% 100%
Statement 9: Spanish speakers are not discriminated against in our
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 17.7% 45.2% 21.0% 16.1% 100%
Española 15.0% 43.3% 31.3% 9.9% 100%
Santa Fe 14.8% 30.3% 40.0% 14.8% 100%
Total 15.3% 39.1% 32.9% 12.4% 100%
Statement 10: Spanish speakers speak too much Spanish at school.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 13.1% 32.8% 29.5% 24.6% 100%
Española 8.5% 16.9% 53.4% 21.2% 100%
Santa Fe 7.7% 14.1% 47.4% 30.1% 100%
Total 8.8% 18.1% 48.1% 24.7% 100%
Statement 11: There is more Spanish spoken around here now than there was several years ago.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 22.6% 48.4% 21.0% 8.1% 100%
Española 12.3% 39.6% 38.7% 8.9% 100%
Santa Fe 17.9% 43.6% 28.2% 9.6% 100%
Total 15.7% 42.2% 32.7% 9.1% 100%
Statement 12: All teachers in New Mexico should be bilingual.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 13.1% 29.5% 44.3% 13.1% 100%
Española 17.3% 42.2% 35.4% 4.6% 100%
Santa Fe 18.3% 35.9% 35.3% 10.5% 100%
Total 17.1% 38.4% 36.6% 7.8% 100%
Statement 13: People who speak both Spanish and English fluently are more successful.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 31.1% 41.0% 26.2% 1.6% 100%
Española 29.7% 47.3% 16.3% 6.7% 100%
Santa Fe 29.5% 34.6% 26.9% 8.3% 100%
Total 29.8% 42.1% 21.3% 6.6% 100%
Statement 14: You have to learn English if you want to be successful.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 28.6% 33.3% 27.0% 9.5% 100%
Española 13.1% 33.1% 41.5% 12.3% 100%
Santa Fe 9.7% 31.0% 38.1% 21.3% 100%
Total 14.1% 32.4% 38.3% 15.0% 100%
Statement 15: Spanish should be taught alongside English in all schools in New Mexico.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 30.6% 43.5% 24.2% 1.6% 100%
Española 30.4% 56.1% 11.8% 1.7% 100%
Santa Fe 18.3% 51.0% 23.5% 6.5% 100%
Total 26.3% 52.7% 17.5% 3.3% 100%
Statement 16: There should be classes taught entirely in Spanish at my school that are mandatory for graduation.
Agree Disagree Strongly
Albuquerque 4.9% 23.0% 52.5% 19.7% 100%
Española 14.2% 24.3% 45.6% 15.9% 100%
Santa Fe 7.3% 16.0% 48.7% 28.0% 100%
Total 10.7% 21.3% 47.6% 20.4% 100%
Statement 17: I dislike Spanish music and culture.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 4.8% 11.1% 38.1% 46.0% 100%
Española 5.6% 9.9% 39.9% 44.6% 100%
3.3% 5.3% 37.7% 53.6% 100%
Total 4.7% 8.5% 38.9% 47.9% 100%
Statement 18: Schools should teach more of our Spanish colonial history.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 13.3% 53.3% 28.3% 5.0% 100%
Española 19.7% 49.4% 28.8% 2.1% 100%
Santa Fe 11.7% 47.4% 26.6% 14.3% 100%
Total 16.1% 49.2% 28.0% 6.7% 100%
Statement 19: Mexicans in New Mexico don’t like to learn English.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly
Albuquerque 5.2% 20.7% 50.0% 24.1% 100%
Española 10.3% 20.1% 46.6% 23.1% 100%
Santa Fe 10.0% 18.0% 42.7% 29.3% 100%
Total 9.5% 19.5% 45.7% 25.3% 100%
Statement 20: Since I am in the U.S.A, people should assume I only speak English and should not address me in any other language.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 12.9% 19.4% 33.9% 33.9% 100%
Española 8.4% 19.7% 49.0% 23.0% 100%
Santa Fe 9.3% 18.5% 40.4% 31.8% 100%
Total 9.3% 19.2% 44.0% 27.4% 100%
Statement 21: If I were born again, I would choose to be born into an English-speaking family.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 8.3% 21.7% 45.0% 25.0% 100%
Española 12.7% 26.7% 34.7% 25.8% 100%
Santa Fe 12.4% 31.4% 26.1% 30.1% 100%
Total 12.0% 27.6% 33.2% 27.2% 100%
Statement 22: In public, bilingual students prefer to speak English rather than Spanish.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 15.0% 35.0% 36.7% 13.3% 100%
Española 9.0% 47.4% 34.2% 9.0% 100%
Santa Fe 5.4% 40.5% 41.2% 12.8% 100%
Total 8.6% 43.4% 36.9% 10.9% 100%
Statement 23: I often see Spanish newspapers and advertisements in my local area.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 13.1% 32.8% 29.5% 24.6% 100%
Española 11.1% 34.9% 41.3% 12.8% 100%
Santa Fe 13.8% 38.2% 35.5% 11.8% 100%
Total 12.3% 35.7% 37.7% 14.1% 100%
Statement 24: I feel proud of the Spanish traditions and the Spanish language here in New Mexico.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 26.2% 54.1% 14.8% 4.9% 100%
Española 39.9% 48.3% 10.5% 1.3% 100%
Santa Fe 37.9% 41.8% 11.1% 7.8% 100%
Total 37.4% 46.9% 11.3% 4.0% 100%
Statement 25: There are times and places when Spanish should not be spoken.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 9.7% 29.0% 38.7% 22.6% 100%
Española 11.0% 28.0% 39.0% 22.0% 100%
Santa Fe 7.2% 22.9% 41.8% 28.1% 100%
Total 9.5% 26.4% 39.9% 24.2% 100%
Statement 26: My family struggles financially.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 6.9% 32.8% 36.2% 22.4% 100%
Española 4.8% 23.8% 36.8% 34.6% 100%
Santa Fe 4.0% 30.0% 34.3% 30.7% 100%
Total 4.8% 27.1% 36.2% 31.7% 100%
Statement 27: There is more strength in uniformity than in difference.
School District Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Total
Albuquerque 23.3% 43.3% 21.7% 10.0% 100%
Española 14.4% 39.3% 34.1% 10.0% 100%
Santa Fe 14.3% 28.6% 39.5% 17.7% 100%
Total 15.6% 36.6% 34.2% 12.6% 100%

Appendix 2: Structured Interview Questions

  1. Please begin by stating your date of birth, place of upbringing, occupation and ethnicity
  2. Describe your language background
  1. Did you have choices around what language(s) you spoke or used?
  2. What motivated you to speak/ learn a certain language?
  1. Describe the people that you interact with through this school district, mentioning their roles (e.g. students/ parents/ teachers), their dominant languages, socio-economic status, traditions, political & social views)
  2. How would you describe the general attitude toward learning minority or native languages such as Spanish within this school district today (positive/ negative/ tense/ active/ passive/ contentious/ accepted/ innate/ developing/ regressing)?
  3. What are your feelings about the introduction of the Seal of Biliteracy to New Mexico Schools?
  4. Do you think that the Spanish taught in the classroom equips students to converse with native Spanish speakers in Northern New Mexico/Albuquerque?
  5. Tell us about times you got involved in your child’s second language learning
  6. Do you think there is a role for community members in the Spanish language classroom?  If so, what is it?
  7. How does the local media (e.g. radio station, newspapers) portray (a) Hispanic Bilinguals (b) Spanish speaking immigrants?
  8. In ten years’ time, what status do you think Spanish will have in Northern New Mexico?
  9. Do you think that language attitudes in Northern New Mexico might be different to language attitudes in other parts of the State or outside of the state?
  10. Who is primarily responsible for keeping Spanish and other minority languages alive?


i Hispanic is a generic term used by the U.S. Census to identify a Latino or Spanish ethnic community. In this paper, the term ‘Hispanic’ is frequently replaced with either ‘Spanish–American’ or ‘Latino.’ This reflects the terminology used by the study’s participants when self-identifying their language and ethnic background. Notably, I do not use the term ‘Chicano’ to describe the sample participants because they themselves do not identify with that categorization.

ii Interview responses were coded with numbers and letters. ‘AB’ represents ‘Albuquerque’. ‘SF’ represents ‘Santa Fe’; ‘ES’ represents ‘Española.’ In turn, ‘AB1’ refers to ‘Albuquerque Participant Number 1; ‘SF5’ refers to ‘Santa Fe Participant Number 5; ‘ES4 would represent ‘Española Participant Number 4’ etc.