Language diversity in the classroom (henceforth, Language) is an extensive overview of linguistic diversity in numerous (educational) settings, accumulating diverse perspectives from sociolinguistics, psychology, education, and sociology. The stated purpose of this book, as set out in Ch. 1, is to “argue that all good education worthy of the name is multicultural and … that any heightening of teachers' cross-cultural and cross-subcultural sensitivities must be a good thing” (2). Continuing to outline the goals of the book, Ch. 1 declares that any teacher with an open mind can be taught multicultural and linguistic principles, and Edwards contextualizes Language as fulfilling the call by contemporary scholars who have expressed a desire to have a resource for teachers about cultural and linguistic variation in the classroom. The intended audience for this book is “teachers-to-be, those who train them, and researchers in the area” (6). Admittedly, Language is not intended to be a how-to manual or handbook with specific curricular plans, but rather it includes “background information that could reasonably inform pedagogical activities and research” (9). Language purports to be written in “a direct and jargon-free manner, while also providing a great many references for those interested in further and more specialized inquiry,” although perhaps the denseness of the references, though admirable for their thoroughness, may diminish the readability of the text (10). Edwards contextualizes his argument with numerous early sociological and linguistic studies, many of which are no longer cited in contemporary scholarship, but which Edwards includes for their “enduring value and salience” (13). Even though established scholars may be familiar with the early studies—some of which form the theoretical and methodological base of sociolinguistics—sociolinguistics students and preservice teachers will find the thoroughness of the citations illuminate the history of the field.
Ch. 2 is a critical discussion of discourse analysis in which the microlevel focus of the field is highly criticized for being excessively inward, creating “micro-theory” that is not helpful to education (28). Ch. 2 identifies the numerous branches of discourse analysis, including conversation analysis, ethnomethedology, and critical discourse analysis, crediting the major scholars within each field, although doubting their impact: “it is hard to see that [discourse analysis] has created a break-through of any significance for its intended beneficiaries” (36). Although some of the criticisms of discourse analysis may be warranted, such a sweeping dismissal ignores valuable research and methodologies from the field.
Chs. 3–5 examine the history of and contemporary factors associated with social and socioeconomic disadvantage, including the persistence of popular genetic explanations and environmental causes. Edwards begins his discussion of disadvantage with the eugenics movement of the late 1800s before examining intelligence tests, with their inherent but, as of then, unknown cultural bias. Such tests parallel standardized tests, which in American education, have been used more often and with greater consequence in recent decades. Although the scientific community has refuted and abandoned genetic explanations for disadvantage, Edwards describes how these ideas continue to find traction in social and educational policy. Ch. 5 offers two additional scholarly perspectives on disadvantage: those who claim disadvantage stems from environmental causes and those who claim that disadvantage arises when institutions and individuals—typically using white middle-class culture and values as the “norm”—classify cultural differences as deficits (42).
Ch. 6 examines the deficit-difference debate within the context of language study, and Ch. 7 identifies its persistence in, among other places, teacher-education programs despite the fact that deficit theories have been soundly rejected for decades (139). Despite the uniformity of this view among linguists and other social scientists, Edwards describes how nonacademics such as Basil Bernstein have managed to carve out lucrative and, unfortunately, influential careers pandering to popular ideology and prejudice. Bernstein and those like him have helped perpetuate deficit views of language, even among teachers, influencing “compensatory education” and educational intervention programs that presumed disadvantaged children lacked critical reasoning and language skills (104). Parents also contribute to the persistence of policies based on deficit thinking by their insistence that their children learn “proper” English, not wanting to see nonstandard dialects in textbooks or on assignments, despite the potential educational advantages. Edwards notes that the empirical findings of sociolinguistics have not permeated teacher education deeply enough to radically change teachers' beliefs about deficit model explanations; however, the book's straightforward dismissal of deficit explanations as scientifically indefensible—essentially the approach Edwards notes has not succeeded—is also not likely to change teachers' negative attitudes about nonstandard dialects. After this dismissal of deficit models, Edwards highlights key components of the difference model, in which “all dialects are fully fledged, rule-governed systems across which comparison of ‘better’ or ‘worse’ cannot legitimately be made” (110). In one of the rare “how to” moments of the text, Edwards astutely notes that overcoming deficit thinking involves changing teachers' and students' attitudes, not their curricular materials (124). However, Language does not acknowledge the examples of curricular products aimed at improving students' and teachers' language attitudes (see e.g. the various programs described in Denham & Lobeck 2010).
Chs. 8 and 9 examine the complex reactions to language disadvantage, including the attitudes of teachers and linguistic forms that shape group identity. Edwards discusses a number of classic sociolinguistic studies related to the notion of covert prestige associated with nonstandard dialects, a critical notion for educators to understand. Edwards cites, among other examples, Brown v. Board of Education, the Oakland Ebonics controversy, and Bill Cosby as evidence that educators and the public often fail to understand covert prestige and react negatively to nonstandard dialects. This section will likely be extremely interesting to teachers and those who educate them, and it is well argued and thorough.
Chs. 10–13 shift from dialect diversity to bilingualism and multilingualism in classrooms. First discussed are the unfair practices that were once common in North American education that, among other things, encouraged children to abandon foreign languages in an attempt to assimilate to English as quickly as possible, which, as Edwards astutely notes, reduced the cultural resources in a classroom/school. Edwards suggests it is more appropriate to think of English language learners (ELLs) not as academic liabilities but instead as an academic resource for non-ELL students: “the value of learning about one's own groups seems reasonable, but it may also be valuable to require all pupils to learn the same things” (186). This chapter turns to Edwards' own country, Canada, as a model for educating students in nonhomogeneous linguistic contexts.
Ch. 11 expands on the ideas from the previous chapter, describing sundry forms of multiculturalism and multicultural education and the formal and de facto political policies that shape multicultural societies and education. As with the discussion of dialect in Chs. 8 and 9, Edwards decries how the debate on multiculturalism has shifted from the classroom to the political arena, giving rise to two problematic forms of multicultural education: “a sort of ethnic show-and-tell in which cultural manifestations are paraded in a self-conscious and often trivial fashion” and a broader and less superficial stance, which may be “heavy with objectives” and “insensitive or woolly and arbitrary” (220). Ch. 11 rightfully declares that any successful multicultural program should “be an inextricable part of the whole educational enterprise” (222).
Ch. 12 returns to bilingual education, critiquing two major models: immersion and transition programs. Language adopts the stance that the current ideal for bilingual education is a dual-language program that includes instruction in two languages (Edwards notes that there is no simple road map for such a program, as how much of each language should be taught depends on the population of students). Ch. 13 reinforces the idea that bilingual education is tied more to politics than pedagogy, as is clearly seen with the current English-only movement in the US.
Ch. 14 concludes that teachers ought to be celebrating linguistic diversity: “The philosophy of working with what children first bring with them, with the intent of improving educational outcomes and, at the same time, of reducing social and psychological pressures, seems unexceptionable” (287). Such a notion is critical for teachers and those who prepare them; however, teachers may be at a loss as to how to transform this philosophy into pedagogy.
Language is incredibly thorough, bringing together perspectives from sociolinguistics, psychology, education, and sociology. However, the thoroughness of the text, along with its copious citations, may result in it missing its intended audience. Linguists will likely find themselves familiar with the research and discussions, while in-service and preservice teachers will likely find themselves overwhelmed by the deluge of information and lack of direction for applying this information. It is hard to imagine Language serving as the text in a graduate-level teacher-education course, as it (intentionally) does not connect the theoretical and philosophical to modern-day society and what currently happens and should happen in North American classrooms. At the same time, the text organizes several decades worth of sociolinguistic research related to power, prestige, and education into an argument that seems especially relevant to ongoing conversations in education including those related to standardized testing, ELL education, multicultural education, and social disadvantage. It is, therefore, unfortunate that there is a chance that the text's dense writing and protracted discussion of some topics (such as disadvantage), along with the lack of practical solutions, may leave the text without the widespread audience the topic deserves.
