English-Only and Standard English Ideologies in the U.S.

planning and policy from a historical-structural perspective by analyzing and synthesizing a broad base of literature. It compares and contrasts two popularly accepted ideologies. The first is the ideology of English monolingualism, which frames policy issues in an immigrant paradigm in order to portray language diversity as an alien and divisive force; the second involves a standard language ideology that is used to position speakers of different varieties of the same language within a social hierarchy. The article discusses the connection between assumptions underlying linguistic ideologies and other social ideologies related to individualism and social mobility through education. It discusses limitations in the immigrant paradigm and considers the instrumental role that schools play in positioning students by using language assessment and classification schemes. Dilemmas and opportunities for contesting these ideologies are addressed. Dominant attitudes toward language in the U.S. are replete with contradictions. Bilingualism, for example, has tended to be seen as either a curse or a blessing. This contradiction is evident in the contrast between two drastically different policies toward bilingualism. The first is a policy toward language minority students that is intended to prescribe rapid transition out of LI instruction into English-only instructionoften resulting in the eventual loss of the L1. The second is a policy toward monolingual English-speaking students that is intended to promote learning a foreign language. In terms of resource allocation, bilingual programs are mandated to develop languages other than English-only to a minimum level-whereas foreign language programs spend millions attempting to develop them further (see Crawford, 1992a; Simon, 1988). However, on closer inspection, the root of this contradiction becomes clear: These policies are designed for two different populations. Transitional bilingual education, developed under