Google the results of efficacy. It's disproportionately priveleging kids who are already speaking the dominant language. Many immigrant kids do not participate.

Look up the definition between "Positive Right" and "Negative Right." Maybe they should decree a "moral commitment" instead.

Ummmm and what about resources for Urdu, Pashto, and Tagalog? Can these lazy teachers be given infinite resources so we can heal the world at last?? Literally get it together, teachers.

And what is the policy if there are 12 mother tongues in the classroom?

Also, a simple google search will find a trove of evidence that this program is struggling.

Are they taking this seriously though? Will they halt an entire classroom for one somali refugee? What percent of support do they get - prorated or One Hundred percent? This article speaks in Nobility but fails to address the logical conclusion of opening Pandora's Box.

I sure hope it's important, the EU is spending One BILLION / $1,000,000,000 / $1,000,000 x1,000 per year on translations alone.

I looked this up, it means "relating to signs and symbols."

Although I am against this action on practical levels, there is something we can all agree on: Teachers MUST work more. They don't do enough, and it's time to start treating them like the accountability slaves they dreamed of becoming. MUST.

This just popped into my head: If a classroom is discussing the concept of "souls," dont some (unnamed) cultures strictly believe women don't have souls? How do we justify changing what is the linguistic standard without also logically opening up the interpretation for everyone? And do we REALLY want to validate a movement that preaches women should have no autonomy or mention of a soul?

I mean, I would LOVE it. But some might not.

This is a reach of an argument, but whatever.

I may not be a scholar, but I do not see how this is anything but a political act.

Creaticvty is great! I have several creative outlets. Maybe CREATE a system that renders the one you don't like obsolete! That's the only way this would work. Agrarian society rendered Hunter-Gathering obsolete, Industrial Revolution did the same to the Agrarian lifestyle, and Democracy did the same to Monarchy.

Is it without clear boundaries though? Their might be gray area, and aspects of overlap (every language has phonetics) but we can easily say what a language is not. Italian is not Dutch, or Cambodian. It is, in fact, mostly Grunts, "OH!'s, and hand gestures.

Yes. Decentralized, individually chosen, as it should be. Not scaled.

This is a great argument for translanguaging. I am all for tailoring around input to produce optimal output.

However, all four advantages assume the classroom has only two majority languages (Welsh/English). They fall apart when you have five or ten home languages.

The authors themselves say the field is split. Red flag! If even the experts can't agree on what translanguaging actually is, how, precisely, is a school district supposed to turn it into policy?

This sentence made something click in my brain: We cannot solve this debate until we differentiate between Rights vs Responsibilities. RIGHTS are also called "negative rights" which means you have autonomy to make your own decisions without infringing on the autonomy of others. Technically, if your 'right' requires someone else to do something, it is not called a right, because if they do not consent, you can only extract their labor through force. Freedom of Speech, assembly, religion do not require input from other people. They require others to leave you alone to make your own decisions.

This debate should be framed as a "Moral Responsibility." It is the moral thing to do to lift up those who are disenfranchised, but it seems like some are pushing for insitutional codification, which is putting a "moral responsibility" into the category of "rights" and it is just too complex to properly administer.

Calm down, Shakespeare.

This means one language, and the ideology is that linguistic entities should be preserved by treating them as different entities without overlap.

I like this 'input/output' framing. It captures what I believe should be the main debate, which is how to produce the best output with any input (wherever the student may be in their journey.) But now we are questioning whether the output is a colonialist construct that should be morally disassembled.

It MIGHT be, but it is, like all things, many many things in one. And it is not just defined by potentially the worst framing of it.

Exactly, as I said before, done on the fly when navigating two conflicting essential components of an important dilemma.

I'm trying to avoid a 'country club bourgeoisie' tone and this verbiage is not helping.

I believe that most aspects of society function best when there is bending of rules for in-the-moment functionality. Such as a parent telling their child "don't tell your father, we can keep this between us." to show support. Bending the parental agreement? Yes. But the devil is in the details in minor situations. But breaking the social contract at scale between parents leads to chaos. This feels like an appropriate metaphor.

Interesting, I thought it was supposed to protect the minority language? On we read!

Why stop at bilingual? Why not Pentalingual?

Boy, the 'globalist trans agenda' has infected everything! Just kidding.