Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Eirinn McLaughlin APLING 614 Prof. Gounari Wiki – Article Summary Arizona Prop. 203 12/12/13 Proposition 203, an English-only initiative of Ron Unz, was voted into Arizona law by 63% of the voters on November 7, 2000 (Wright, 2005 p.663). Wayne E. Wright argues that this English For the Children mandate was sold as a way to give ELLs “more choice,” in their learning but is “widely recognized as the antiblingual education initiative” (Wright, 2005 p.663). Wright explains that he believes proposition 203 lies within the “political spectacle model” because its “creation, interpretation, and implementation” was an act of antibilingualism. Wright provides a summary of the political spectacle theory, the background of Arizona at the time of the proposition, the campaign for it, and the “interpretation and implementation of it” (Wright, p.663). Edleman’s (1985, 1988) political spectacle model is different take on the “traditional views of the public policy-making process.” This theory shows how “’American politics have become detached from their democratic foundations [. . .], which groups have more power to influence the state in its allocations of values’” (Wright, 2005 p.663). Meaning, when it looks like something is being done in the name of democracy and for the greater good, may actually be a farce of what traditional democracy is there to do. Edleman says, “’Education policies in the political spectacle serve the special interests of the few (often policies that stratify and segregate) and hide behind a mask of common sense and the common good’ (p. 37).” Simply put, what the politicians do is all an act, with the main actor being Ron Unz fighting for the good of the people. Wright ties the “symbolic language: [. . .] ambiguous, metaphorical language” of Edleman’s theory to the usage of language in the English for the Children campaign; it’s for the children, how could it be bad? The voters in Arizona think of this mandate as a good thing for the children of their state because of the “symbolic language” that the campaign used to sell it as something other than what it actually was, an antibilingual campaign. Reference: Wright, W. E. (November 2005). The political spectacle Arizona’s proposition 203. Educational Policy, vol. 19 no. 5, 662-700. doi: 10.1177/0895904805278066