# data[].attributes.headline
Summary of LANGUAGE PLANNING = SOCIAL PLANNING Video by Dr. Mike Mena

# data[].attributes.subject
Summary of LANGUAGE PLANNING = SOCIAL PLANNING Video by Dr. Mike Mena

# data[].attributes.body
Dr. Mike Mena broke down Richard Ruíz’s 1984 article to explain that protecting a language also means working to protect those who use that language and that "language planning equals social planning."

He also explained what orientation means (how we approach language and its role in society) and the three different types of language orientations:

1. The Language as Problem Orientation (if language is approached as a problem to be solved):

How you approach language will determine the outcomes you get.

The non-English speaking groups in Ruíz’s time were seen as handicapped and their "language problems" were linked to poverty, low academic achievement, and limited social mobility.

There was this belief that everyone should speak English to eliminate the problems in American society.

The Bilingual Education Act was passed during the "War on Poverty," which was likely intentional.

Ruíz believed this orientation provided no hope for non-English speakers.

2. The Language as Right Orientation (if language is approached as a right to protect):

1975 amendment to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (states were required to provide some language groups with multilingual voting ballots).

"Linguistic discrimination is taken seriously."

"Confrontations will emerge."

Has the potential to establish basic (but possibly temporary) rights for other language groups, but has had mixed results and isn't enough on its own.

3. The Language as Resource Orientation (if language is approached as a resource to be utilized):

Ruíz believed this was the best option to aid other language groups and ease tension between them.

"Resource" as in economical, internal structures (codes, conventions, etc.), and external structures (churches, schools, etc.).

Has this orientation worked? Yes and no.

# data[].attributes.body
Which orientation do you most observe in your current school setting? So far, I have mostly (and possibly only) seen the Language as Right Orientation in action at my current field placement.

Give at least two concrete examples of how this orientation shows up (e.g., curriculum, teacher talk, assessment, student grouping). 1. ELL students are pulled out of the classroom to work with a language specialist. 2. ELL students receive additional instructional help from an aide/language specialist and the teacher in the classroom (this is only from time-to-time).

Reflect: Is this orientation helping or limiting students? Yes and no. I do believe the students are receiving a better education because these services are provided to abide by the law. However, I think they would thrive more if the school adopted the Language as Resource Orientation and encouraged the students to implement their home language into the classroom. Instead of needing to assimilate to English, they could use their first language as a resource for their own learning and even for the benefit of their peers. Normalizing multilingualism emphasizes the idea that languages are important, beautiful, and should be appreciated and protected. I really hope to see this orientation be more mainstream than it is currently, but I do appreciate that at least the Language as Right Orientation is present.

# data[].attributes.body
When language is approached as a right that needs to be protected, students are given access to many different resources and supports that help them learn and grow like the rest of their English-speaking peers. When language is not approached as a right that needs to be protected, discrimination often takes place and different language groups are further disadvantaged. Language rights are indeed civil rights that need to be protected.

# data[].attributes.body
Which orientation do you personally align with most? Why? I personally align mostly with the Language as a Resource Orientation because I believe this option gives ELLs the most support and the most honor. I firmly believe that languages are meant to be shared because they often hold memories, culture, and the key to extended learning. There are many ancient texts that we simply cannot decode because the language died out, so we may never know what interesting and valuable information they hold. Forcing students to assimilate to one language is a missed opportunity for more learning. Language can and should be viewed and used as a resource.

What challenges or opportunities might come from adopting this lens in your future classroom? Even though this was in reference to the Language as Right Orientation, I do believe adopting this lens may lead to confrontation. Unfortunately, not everyone loves the idea of welcoming multilingualism into the classroom, so I may face challenges from students, parents, and staff regarding their concerns or even personal biases. However, I do believe there will be more opportunities than challenges if I am given the space and support to adopt the Language as Resource Orientation. Some of these opportunities may include connecting my students with other languages/cultures, teaching my students other languages, cultivating a classroom that accepts people regardless of their language, etc. I cannot wait to see what happens!