Emre Pshigusa, Ph.D.

Editor’s note: Articles appearing in The Cardinal are not peer reviewed and only edited for grammar, spelling, and message.

Executive Summary: 

This policy brief reports on a comparative case study examining Ohio’s Seal of Biliteracy (SoBL) implementation across urban, suburban, and rural districts. Thirty-five participants, comprising Ohio Department of Education officials, world language (WL) teachers, ESL teachers, school counselors, principals, and former SoBL recipients, were recruited in the study, covering two urban, two suburban, and one rural SoBL participant school districts in Ohio.

The findings highlighted neoliberal language ideologies apparent in both policy and promotional materials, emphasizing the SoBL’s commodity value and future career benefits. Implementation challenges were identified across districts, including issues related to student identification, shortages of world language teachers, and assessment planning. Additionally, the SoBL favored English-dominant students in formal classroom settings, posing challenges for English Learners (ELs) and Heritage Language (HL) speakers due to high English proficiency requirements and limited HL course offerings.

Challenges in Ohio’s SoBL Implementation:

Limited Outreach: Many eligible students, especially ELs and HL speakers, remain unaware of the SoBL due to insufficient promotion and outreach efforts.

District Participation Disparities: Although the number of SoBL recipients has increased, district participation rates remain low, with disparities observed among different district typologies.

Dominance of Globalized Human Capital (GHC) Discourses: The promotional SoBL materials predominantly emphasize the GHC discourses, focusing on career and economic advantages, potentially neglecting its broader aspects related to home/heritage language maintenance.

Challenges for English Language Learners (ELs): Despite the increasing population of ELs in Ohio, the proportion of EL SoBL recipients remains low, raising questions about the program’s accessibility for immigrant communities.”

Analysis of the Results:

The study reveals recurring implementation challenges, including issues with student identification, teacher shortages, and English proficiency requirements that favor English-dominant students. While SoBL was perceived as a potential equalizer for linguistically minoritized students in urban districts, the high English proficiency requirement of the SoBL, coupled with a lack of HL course offerings, puts ELs and HL speakers at a disadvantage across the districts. 

Discourses in SoBL Policy and Promotional Texts: The study revealed that the GHC discourses prevail in SoBL policy and promotional materials. Although there are occasional mentions of Equity/Heritage (EH) discourse, the primary focus is on highlighting the career and economic advantages of the SoBL for both students and employers.

Accessibility and Outreach: Factors influencing accessibility encompass application processes, language assessments, English proficiency requirements, and collaborations with local universities. The effectiveness of outreach efforts varies among districts, ultimately impacting students’ engagement with the SoBL. 

Student Perceptions: Many SoBL recipients pursue the seal to gain college and future career advantages, but a gap exists between the advertised and realized benefits. Students in the suburban districts reported that the SoBL was announced as more beneficial than it proved to be, as it lacked recognition even within the language programs in Ohio’s colleges and universities.

Impact on Language Education: The SoBL has influenced language course offerings, retention, enrollments, teaching methods, and assessment practices, with positive outcomes reported in some cases. Its impact on various aspects of language education varied across districts. While it did not significantly affect WL enrollments, it positively influenced student retention and prompted the adoption of proficiency-based teaching and assessment practices.

Impact on Teaching and Assessment Practices: The SoBL encouraged the adoption of proficiency-based instruction and assessment methods, with Integrated Performance Assessments (IPAs) being highlighted as an example of this shift, promoting proficiency through real-world language tasks.

Successes and Challenges in Policy Implementation: Key successes include language screening tests in urban districts with linguistic diversity and partnership with a local university in rural districts. Challenges include teacher shortages, lack of staffing, and the timing of language assessments.

Policy Recommendations and Implications: 

To address the identified challenges and ensure equitable SoBL implementation, the researcher proposes the following policy recommendations:

1. Formal Student Identification Process:

Implement a formal student identification process during high school enrollment to identify ELs and HL speakers eligible for the SoBL. Early identification can raise awareness and encourage pursuit.

2. Early OELPA Score Releases:

Release Ohio English Language Proficiency Assessment (OELPA) scores earlier to provide timely information to students and educators, enabling better planning and addressing language proficiency gaps.

3. Improved Promotion and Outreach:

Develop more effective SoBL promotion and outreach efforts, extending initiatives beyond WL students to reach all eligible students and their parents.  Developing a more effective SoBL program can increase awareness and participation rates among ELs and HL speakers.

4. Interdepartmental Collaboration:

Promote collaboration between ESL, WL, and counseling departments within schools to streamline SoBL implementation and offer comprehensive support to students.

5. Increased Heritage Language Course Offerings:

Expand the availability of HL course offerings with targeted language instruction designed to improve reading and writing skills in heritage languages.

6. Wider SoBL Recognition:

Enhance awareness of the SoBL among employers and universities, ensuring that higher education institutions recognize its value for admission and further language study.

7. Enhanced Communication:

Foster improved communication between high schools, local colleges, and universities to bridge the gap between the SoBL’s advertised benefits and its recognition and utilization by educational institutions.

8. Early Language Instruction:

Start language instruction earlier to make it more feasible for students to achieve the intermediate-high level proficiency required for the SoBL.

9. Support for Language Departments:

Provide additional support and resources for language departments within schools to facilitate effective SoBL implementation, including professional development opportunities for language educators.

10. Funding for Low-Income Districts:

Allocate funding for low-income school districts to encourage broader participation in the SoBL. Financial support can help overcome funding challenges that hinder SoBL implementation.

11. Utilize Federal and State Funds:

Leverage federal and state funds, such as Title IV, to support ELs and low-income students’ participation in the SoBL.

Implications: 

These policy recommendations are crucial for fostering equitable and accessible SoBL implementation in Ohio. By addressing these issues, Ohio can further promote multilingualism, recognizing and celebrating the diverse linguistic backgrounds of its students while providing them with valuable opportunities for their future education and careers.