As a former bilingual teacher in a dual-language school in Chicago, I approached Hadi-Tabassum's work not only with interest but with an insider's perspective on dual-language instruction. As promised, the volume provides rich descriptions of a fifth-grade dual-language classroom and documents key events that occurred throughout the school year. Situated within a discussion of language, space, and power, the author's quest for evidence of metalinguistic awareness in the context of classroom events is an ambitious project, but, at times, the framework overshadows a more practical interpretation of classroom life.
The author conducted her ethnographic research in a dual-language fifth-grade classroom in an urban school. Based on the many hours Hadi-Tabassum spent in the dual-language classroom, she identifies and describes three critical events that she felt allowed the students to approach a “third space” (p. 18), where they might have been able to overcome the linguistic boundaries and barriers set up in the classroom. The three events or occurrences include a school cheer competition, a bilingual play, and an ongoing music class. All three events are described in great detail, not only within the context of the classroom but also with an historical perspective. Whereas all three events demonstrate the potential for students to locate a third space, there are underlying structures in place in the classroom that keep it from happening.
In chapter 1, Hadi-Tabassum describes the research setting and the 50/50 model of dual language that is implemented. She also mentions common teaching practices, such as thematic instruction, whole language instruction, cooperative learning, and writing workshops, that she observed being implemented in the classroom. However, she does not discuss the curriculum of the school. Research on successful dual-language programs demonstrates that such schools consciously implement a multicultural curriculum that includes critical thinking, social consciousness, and empowerment (Crawford, 2004; Cummins, n.d.; Freeman & Freeman, 2006). Hadi-Tabassum's focus on key events provides only a glimpse into the curriculum of the classroom. Based on the description of events surrounding the school cheer and classroom play, “Jack, Su Mama Y El Burro,” I conclude that a transformative or critical pedagogy is not an inherent part of the school or classroom curriculum and, therefore, it is unlikely that student discussions on language would result in empowerment or the changing of structural borders between English and Spanish.
I also question Hadi-Tabassum's characterization of the dual-language model as supporting a binary architecture. Although it is true that the two target languages in a dual-language classroom are strictly separated by time and perhaps space, that practice is not based on the separate underlying proficiency model of language acquisition. Rather, the dual-language model, beginning in the early grades, relies on the common underlying proficiency model that allows for transference of skills from one language to the other. For example, in the primary grades (prekindergarten to grade 2), students might learn early literacy in the native language and are encouraged to participate in either of their languages. The boundaries between languages are less strict. However, in the upper elementary grades, clear demarcation between the two languages is necessary because if the languages are allowed to be fluid and free of boundaries, then, just as in the larger society, English would be the only language spoken in the classroom. The balance between the minority language (Spanish) and the majority language (English) is purposefully false in a well-implemented dual-language program so as to overcome the unequal societal balance of power between the two languages.
In the introduction, the author states,
… this book aims to open up the dual immersion discourse in bilingual education research to a post-structuralist sensibility that works at the local classroom level and grounds post-structuralism in the social dynamics of a specific dual immersion classroom extended over time and across multiple spaces. (p. 10)
I agree wholeheartedly that the dual-immersion discourse is an important conversation for bilingual educators to have. As more and more schools attempt to implement dual-language programs, defining such programs properly and understanding best practices is critical. The fact that the school eliminated the dual-language program gives testimony to the precariousness of dual-language programs that are not supported philosophically and theoretically by teachers, administrators, and families. Rather than criticize the dual-language model, I think it would have been helpful for the author to recognize the weaknesses in the specific program she described and ask why the students in the dual-language classroom had the opportunity for real metalinguistic discussion that did not result in real change.
