ERIC EJ1101130: A Grounded Approach to Citizenship Education: Local Interplays between Government Institutions, Adult Schools, and Community Events in Sacramento, California

2015·0.17 MB·English

by  ERIC

Journal of Social Science Education ©JSSE 2015

Volume 14, Number 3, Fall 2015 DOI 10.2390/jsse-v14-i3-1392
Ariel Loring

A Grounded Approach to Citizenship Education: Local Interplays Between Government Institu-
tions, Adult Schools, and Community Events in Sacramento, California

Following a grounded, bottom-up approach to language policy (Blommaert 2009; Canagarajah 2005; McCarty, 2011;
Ramanathan, 2005), this paper investigates available resources and discourses of citizenship in Sacramento, California
to those situated within the citizenship infrastructure. It analyzes how the discursive framing of local and national
educational policies affects prospective citizens and the ways that resources and discourses differ across educational
sites. These sites include a government field office, citizenship classes at adult schools and community centers, and a
law school-sponsored citizenship fair. This article argues that adult schools and community events introduce their
own de facto and de jure policies, in conjunction with top-down governmental policies that tend to reduce the
complexity of naturalization at the expense of full participation. Both top-down and bottom-up educational policies
consequently affect prospective citizens’ understanding and enactment of citizenship.

Keywords: transpires is typically a one-directional transfer of
citizenship, citizenship education, naturalization, lan- knowledge and advisory guidance from someone in
guage policy, discourse power (field officer, instructor, lawyer, staff) to the natu-
ralization applicant.ii Primarily, the learning that occurs in
1 Introduction this context is a growing understanding of the natu-
This article investigates the depiction and enactment of ralization process, which consists of learning how to
citizenship education in Sacramento, California by those complete the N-400 application for naturalization and
that comprise its infrastructure. To do so, it takes a preparing for the oral naturalization interview. This type
grounded approach to citizenship education, focusing on of learning is often rote, decontextualized, and practical
available resources and discourses of citizenship in vari- and is not a rich co-construction of meaning between
ous sites in Sacramento. Within the larger Sacramento interlocutors (see Banks, 2008; DeJaeghere, 2008;
metropolitan area, 10,620 naturalizations occurred in the Gordon, 2010; Loring, 2013a).
2012 fiscal year. The majority of these new citizens were Understanding the type of learning, available resour-
married, unemployed or working inside of the home, and ces, and particular ways of framing citizenship in these
originated from countries including Laos, Ukraine, domains is consequential because it helps shape the
Mexico, the Philippines, India, and Vietnam (U.S. journey which prospective citizens undergo as they work
Department of Homeland Security, 2012).i These natu- through the naturalization process, and can affect how
ralizations were only a portion of the 158,850 immigrants they in turn come to understand what citizenship means
who became naturalized in the state of California during and how they choose to enact it. Therefore, the research
this time period. In the United States as a whole, almost questions guiding this analysis are: What educational
900,000 petitions were filed for U.S. naturalization during policies affect prospective naturalized citizens at both
the 2012 fiscal year, with 84% of the applicants the national and local levels? How is citizenship edu-
successfully becoming naturalized citizens (U.S. cation discursively framed by those who work within a
Department of Homeland Security, 2013). local citizenship enterprise? How do educational resour-
The citizenship sites relevant to this article include the ces for naturalization applicants differ across these sites?
Sacramento-based USCIS [United States Citizenship and Qualitative research methods, including ethnography,
Immigration Services] government field office (both interviews, and textual analysis, were employed to
within the office and its website), citizenship classes at investigate these questions.
adult schools and community centers, citizenship fairs,
and naturalization application workshops. These sites are 2 Defining citizenship and citizenship education from
educational spaces, which for the purposes of this paper the bottom-up
are defined as any area where meanings of citizenship The word “citizenship” is a multifaceted term that takes
are transmitted and negotiated by those involved in the on varying interpretations in different contexts (Loring,
naturalization process, either directly or indirectly. 2013b). When used by the U.S. federal government, citi-
Within these spaces, the type of education that zenship is described in terms of rights and respon-
sibilities; political theorists additionally reference mem-
Ariel Loring received her M.A. and Ph.D. in linguistics
bership, community, and participation (Castles, 1998;
at the University of California, Davis. Her research
Marshall, 1950; Touraine, 1997); citizenship instructors
interests include language policies, language
mention lifestyles, such as living without the fear of
ideologies, discourse analysis, citizenship, and
deportation, that native-born citizens have always taken
immigration.
for granted (Loring, 2013a); and the U.S. news media
University of California, Davis
often equates citizenship with desirable ethics, values,
Dutton Hall, One Shields Ave and principles (Loring, forthcoming).iii Recently, scholars
Davis, CA, 95616
have shifted to analyzing citizenship in terms of what it
Email: [email protected]
permits, namely access to fuller participation (Heller,

54
Journal of Social Science Education ©JSSE 2015
Volume 14, Number 3, Fall 2015 ISSN 1618–5293
2013; Ramanath a n, 2013 ; Wiley, 2013; Wodak, 2013). USCIS-produced naturalization material (Baptiste, forth-
M ore than exclusively referring to civic or legal parti- coming), where the application and subsequent inter-
c ipation, full participation is the ability to access any or view require knowledge of “principles of American
all societal resources constrained by language, literacy, democracy” and “rights and responsibilities” (Applicant
and culture, such as health care (Ziegahn et al., 2013), performance on the naturalization test, 2008). USCIS’s
professional jobs (Ricento, 2013), equal edu-cational depiction of citizenship contributes to everyday under-
opportunities (Lillie, forthcoming), and language commu- standings of American nationalism, which, as they
nities outside one’s nation-state (McPherron, forth- become more routinely and subliminally reiterated, form
coming). their own brand of banal nationalism (Billig, 1995).
This article is informed by these more expansive views Passing the naturalization interview and reciting the
that consider citizenship alongside issues of engagement, oath of allegiance to the U.S. is the culmination of an
access, and participation, and similarly takes a broad immigrant’s path to naturalization. The naturalization
view of citizenship education as any process through process begins by submitting a twenty-one page English
which citizenship knowledge emerges. This interpret- application (N-400 form) and paying a $680 application
tation diverges from UNESCO’s definition of citizenship fee. Until 2013, the application was ten pages and
education as “educating children, from early childhood, included questions about the applicant’s name, family,
to become clear-thinking and enlightened citizens who residence, employment, and eligibility; it now includes
participate in decisions concerning society” (UNESCO, additional questions about group membership and
2005, p. 1). From this perspective, citizenship education affiliations, illegal benefits attainment, military service,
is treated as a curricular subject, which is then further and renunciation of foreign titles of nobility.iv During the
investigated in terms of effectiveness (Keating, Kerr, approximately five-month waiting period for a scheduled
Benton, Mundy, & Lopes, 2010) and its bearing on global naturalization interview, applicants can enroll in a citizen-
culture (Zajda, Daun, & Saha, 2009). However, this ship preparatory course or access study material from the
component of citizenship education, which is comparably USCIS website, which includes a question bank of one
labeled transformative citizenship education (Banks, hundred history/civics questions and their prescribed
2008) and critical citizenship education (DeJaeghere, answers, as well as a list of 93 English vocabulary words
2008), is just one dimension of citizenship education. In used in the English reading/writing portion of the test
a more generalized sense, citizenship education is given (Study for the test, n.d.).
an emic interpretation in this article, defined as the wide The naturalization interview consists of a one-on-one
variety of ways that citizenship knowledge is transferred appointment with a USCIS field officer. It is conducted in
(be it from public discourses, teachers, community English, thus it is a de facto policy enforcing English usage
members, websites, pamphlets, etc.), which may or may in a country that is not de facto monolingual (McNamara
not lead to participation, tolerance, or deeper under- & Shohamy, 2008). It includes a history/civics portion
standing. In this vein, I follow scholars such as and an English language portion; the history/civics requi-
DeJaeghere (2008) and Sim and Print (2009) who analyze rement is met by answering six of ten questions correctly
the pedagogical practices and perspectives of citizenship from the aforementioned pre-published list. The English
instructors in Australia and Singapore, respectively. requirement includes a reading, writing, and speaking
Grounded representations of citizenship education portion. For the reading and writing portions of the test,
further encapsulate the fact that more comprehensive applicants are given three attempts to produce a correct
definitions of these terms are not necessarily shared by sentence that is given to them in either the written or
those involved in the Sacramento citizenship enterprise. oral modality, such as “California has the most people”
For many of them, citizenship is seemingly the singular and “They want to vote.” To pass the English speaking
legal process whereby U.S. immigrants apply for and requirement, applicants are asked questions from their
study for the naturalization test. Therefore, it is neces- submitted N-400 naturalization application.v Of the
sary to approach citizenship and citizenship education as various components of naturalization, many citizenship
policies that are affected by both the top-down and the instructors believe the English requirement is the most
bottom-up, informed by government policies as well as challenging for applicants (Loring, 2013a); from obser-
by the attitudes of those who implement the policies. vations and recordings of naturalization interviews, Winn
The top-down approach to language policies is the (2000) noted that no applicants (10 of 67) failed solely on
traditional approach, in that it has a macro focus and is the history/civics portion. As assessed by the natu-
concerned with how institutional policies affect those ralization test, citizenship is a top-down process of mee-
without agency (see Canagarajah, 2005). In the case of ting objectives that are identified in government policy:
citizenship, the top-down perspective originates from good moral character, knowledge of American history/
USCIS, which portrays American citizenship in terms of civics, and English proficiency.vi Compared to the natu-
certain dimensions; it is idyllic, collective, tangible, and ralization policies of other countries,vii Koopmans,
testable (Loring, 2013b). These facets are part of a larger Statham, Giugni, and Passy (2005) label the present-day
“cultural script that includes family, solidarity, a strong U.S. as multicultural/pluralist (along with countries such
work ethic, belief in the value of education, contribution as Canada, Australia, Britain, and Sweden), in that
to the nation, and assimilation” (Gordon, 2010, p. 3). citizenship is easier to obtain and ethnic minority groups
Indeed, many of these values are manifested in the are encouraged to retain cultural differences. But
55
Journal of Social Science Education ©JSSE 2015
Volume 14, Number 3, Fall 2015 ISSN 1618–5293
arguably, this is a de jur e assertion representative of The four observed sites were chosen to encompass a
o fficial policies and laws, and is not indicative of de facto wide sampling of resources and discourses accessed by
p ractices (see Wiley, 2013 for examples of current anti- prospective citizens, which will be contrasted with the
immigration public discourse). top-down resources available from the USCIS online
Researchers are revisiting these traditional, top-down portal. The fact that all local sites provide free, subsi-
notions of citizenship, defining citizenship as an on-going, dized, or low-cost services to the community suggests
dynamic process, rather than a static attribute that an that the majority of applicants who seek assistance will
individual gains after passing the aforementioned natu- turn to one of these sites. While all sites assist applicants
ralization interview (see Loring & Ramanathan, fort- with various stages of the naturalization process, the
hcoming; Ramanathan, 2013). These scholars, in re- differences in how citizenship is discursively constructed
searching citizenship in relation to language policy and demonstrate the complex landscape of citizenship edu-
language ideology, align with those in the language policy cation.
field who highlight the necessity of supplementing
traditional top-down policy research with bottom-up Table 1: Comparative demographics for Sacramento,
research (Blommaert 2009; Canagarajah 2005; McCarty, California, and the U.S. in 2010
2011; Ramanathan, 2005). Bottom-up research includes Sacramento California United States
the perspectives and practices of individuals, who, by Popula-tion 466,488 37,253,959 308,745,538
Race/ • White (non- • White (non- • White (non-
being affected by top-down policies, often reformulate
Ethnicity Hispanic): Hispanic): Hispanic): 63%
their own policies through accommodation, resistance, 34.5% 40.1% • Hispanic or
and transformation (McCarty, 2011; Ong, 1999). This • Hispanic or • Hispanic or Latino: 16.9%
results in a rich pool of local knowledge (Canagarajah, Latino: 26.9% Latino: 37.6% • African-
2005) that is vital to understanding policy in a holistic • African- • African- American:
American: American: 13.1%
way. Through analyzing educational policies in their
14.6% 6.2% • Asian: 5.1%
relation to naturalization applicants, I examine local • Asian: 18.3% • Asian: 13.0% • American
knowledge of what it means to be “an American citizen” • American • American Indian: 1.2%
from those involved in the citizenship infrastructure. Indian: 1.1% Indian: 1% • Two or more
• Two or more • Two or more races: 2.4%

races: 7.1% races: 4.9%
3 Methodology Education • High school • High school • High school
The data for this study come from a larger pool of graduate or graduate or graduate or
dissertation data, which consisted of ethnographic obser- higher: higher: 81% higher: 85.7%
vations, interviews, governmental and pedagogical docu- 82.1% • Bachelor’s • Bachelor’s
• Bachelor’s degree or degree or
ments, and linguistic landscape signage. The data sources
degree or higher: higher: 28.5%
spanned adult schools, community centers, community- higher: 30.5%
sponsored events, a USCIS field office, and national 29.4%
articles and blogs written about citizenship. Specific to Median $50,661 $61,400 $53,046
household
this article is information concerning available resources
income
and predominant discourses at the aforementioned sites.
Foreign born 22.1% 27.1% 12.9%
Additionally, a follow-up interview was conducted with persons
the founder of a local citizenship fair. Language 36.8% 43.5% 20.5%
other than

English
3.1 Site descriptions
spoken at
Four types of sites comprise the data for this research: home
the USCIS field office, two public adult schools, a
community center, and a law school-sponsored citizen- Public adult schools
ship fair. Each site is described in more detail in the Two public adults schools’ citizenship classes were ob-
following sub-sections. All sites are located within served from one to five months from September 2010 to
Sacramento, the capital city of California and the thirty- November 2011. Ford School for Adults,ix comprising
fifth most populous city in the U.S. For comparative 1,640 students,x offers an afternoon and evening citizen-
purposes, demographic information from the 2010 U.S. ship/ESL class for twenty dollars a semester. From
census is provided for the city of Sacramento, the state September 2010 to February 2011, I observed sixty-one
of California, and the nation as a whole (U.S. Census students in attendance, who were primarily women,
Bureau, 2010).viii around 40-65 years old, and of Chinese, Hmong, and
As Table 1 illustrates, Sacramento is more racially and Mexican backgrounds. Their English language profi-
ethnically diverse than California, which itself is a highly ciencies encompassed a wide range from beginning to
diverse state in the U.S. There are higher percentages of near-fluent. The instructor, Mr. Morris, is a 77-year-old
foreign-born residents and linguistically diverse home retired high school principal. He follows a traditional
environments in Sacramento than in the U.S., with the teaching approach, in which students practice the test
state of California having higher percentages than both. material by (re-)writing the given answers, which he then
The education levels are largely constant across the three reviews orally. He occasionally introduces a lesson that
regions. provides deeper background information on a tested
concept, but concludes his lesson by emphasizing the
56
Journal of Social Science Education ©JSSE 2015
Volume 14, Number 3, Fall 2015 ISSN 1618–5293
basic response p rovided in the USCIS study material lization applications, one in which I participated as a
( “that’s all you need to know”), which mirrors top-down volunteer in 2012.
p ortrayals of citizenship. Students frequently receive
handouts (an average of 6.3 per class meeting) that Citizenship fair
provide pertinent information guides produced by USCIS, Giovanni Law School in Sacramento, partnered with
ancillary handouts from citizenship curricular websites, other legal clinics in the community, sponsors an annual
or ones designed by Mr. Morris. Students in his class citizenship fair which provides assistance in completing
additionally obtain practical handouts and forms such as and filing the N-400 naturalization application. Initiated
a multilingual voting guide, voter registration, passport in 2009 by Professor Alvarez, herself a naturalized U.S.
application, other USCIS applications, and a breakdown citizen and an immigration and international human
of the naturalization application stages. rights lawyer, the free fair accommodates approximately
The second citizenship class observed is Wilson Adult three hundred people, with resources to assist the first
School, serving a population of approximately fifty pre- 150-200 attendees. According to Professor Alvarez, the
dominantly Caucasian students. The school offers two attendees are largely Latino and Russian, except for one
levels of Adult ESL and a citizenship class, to about fifteen year in which attendees spoke twenty-three different
primarily middle-aged Spanish and Russian-speaking languages. News of the fair reaches attendees through
students of intermediate English proficiency. The class flyers, advertisements, and radio announcements that
teacher, Ms. Lara, is a naturalized American citizen, who Giovanni Law School provides to local organizations. The
uses Russian translations in classroom instructions, fair is staffed by ninety to one hundred law students, ten
lessons, and handouts as a pedagogic tool. Her teaching to twenty staff and faculty from Giovanni Law School,
strategy relies on exact memorization of the test twenty to thirty lawyers working pro bono, and ten
content, achieved through constant oral and written interpreters. Although the fair is advertised as running
repetitions. Ms. Lara provides her students with the N- from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., the volunteers work until
400 application for citizenship, the one hundred history/ 6:00 to 7:00 in the evening double-checking applications
civics test questions in either English or bilingual in (“final attorney review.”)
English-Russian, civics and conversational English sample
writing sentences, and sample questions for the oral USCIS field office
interview. The local USCIS field office serves twenty-three counties
in Northern California; this is where applicants receive
Community center their naturalization interview. Duplicating and replacing
The Asian American Community Center [AACC] is a non- forms are the other key areas of customer service
profit organization that provides assistance to the provided. The most common types of inquiries involve
community’s immigrant, refugee, low-income, and limi- green cards, case status, passport stamps, and citizen-
ted English-speaking population. Founded in 1980, the ship/naturalization (Loring, 2013b). Approximately se-
AACC now employs seven people in its main office, with venty people are seen a day, and while appointments last
about twenty-five paid and volunteer staff members for as long as needed, most are fifteen to twenty
center-wide. Its offices provide assistance with career minutes. A customer service appointment is scheduled
services, tax forms, and citizenship applications. The either online through the government website (using the
center distributes a citizenship workbook, available in Infopass service) or through an automated machine
English, Mandarin, Vietnamese, and Tagalog, produced inside the field office. Entering the field office involves
by a larger community organization, which includes all photo identification, body scans, and security guards.
relevant publications by USCIS in addition to application My access to this site was through scheduling an
instructions and a sample completed application. Infopass appointment online, which allowed me to ask
AACC offers free ESL and citizenship classes, taught by field officers questions during my scheduled appoint-
Ms. Maria (the regular teacher) or Ms. April (the substi- ment time, observe de jure and de facto operational
tute teacher and co-founder of the organization). While policies in the waiting room, and collect linguistic
both teachers frequently deviate from the test material, landscape data of instructional signage in the building.
Ms. Maria does so to practice reading fluency and The data described in this chapter are primarily from an
pronunciation and Ms. April does so to actively interview conducted with a USCIS field officer in one of
discourage memorization. The majority of the Chinese the private naturalization interview rooms.
and Vietnamese ESL student population stay for the
subsequent citizenship class, but the citizenship class is 3.2 Data collection and analysis
smaller (about seventeen people instead of thirty) with As mentioned, the type of data collected consists of
an older age demographic. On average, the AACC ethnographic field notes and observations, interviews,
students have a lower level of English proficiency than and document analysis. The ethnographic observations
the Ford School and Wilson Adult School students. were conducted at the aforementioned sites, the inter-
Another service that the AACC provides is free views were held with citizenship instructors (Mr. Morris,
naturalization workshops, in which volunteers and staff Ms. April, and Ms. Maria), Professor Alvarez from the
assist attendees with completing their N-400 natura- Giovanni law school fair, and Mr. George, a field officer
from USCIS. Analyzed documents consisted of published
57
Journal of Social Science Education ©JSSE 2015
Volume 14, Number 3, Fall 2015 ISSN 1618–5293
documents, flyer s , and bo oklets regarding citizenship at appointments to ask questions about their N-400 appli-
e ach of the educational venues observed. cation.
The nature of the research questions and the topic of To assist citizenship educators, the USCIS portal
citizenship itself necessitate a holistic, qualitative re- provides instructors with materials such as lesson plans
search approach. Qualitative methods allow for particu- and activities, educational products, and online training
lar meanings of citizenship to emerge from detailed seminars (Teachers, n.d.). Closely related, but geared
descriptions of citizenship venues and direct quotations towards establishing new citizenship education pro-
from those within the citizenship enterprise (Patton, grams, is the Organization tab (Program development,
1980). Drawing from the grounded theory approach to n.d.). Organizations can access documents such as
qualitative analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss, “Expanding ESL, civics, and citizenship education in your
1987), I simultaneously collected and analyzed data. This community: a start-up guide” and “Citizenship founda-
allows emergent meanings of citizenship to arise in tion skills and knowledge clusters.”xi The first document
tandem with ethnographic observations, uncovering a provided to community organizations is a start-up guide
thick (Carspecken, 1996), descriptive explanation: “the for new citizenship/ESL programs. It includes sequential
integration of micro- and macrolevels of contextual data” information that begins with identifying a need in the
(Watson-Gegeo, 1992, p. 52). Because there is no community, building a staff, establishing funding, and
singular meaning of citizenship, ethnography is an effect- determining course content and assessment. The impe-
tive methodology to elicit the multiple perspectives of tus for beginning such an endeavor is described as follo-
citizenship that exist. In conducting an ethnographic ws:
study, I endeavor to understand how individuals define
citizenship them-selves. I acknowledge that striving to These programs help immigrants improve their
attain local knowledge from an emic perspective is an English language ability so they can participate more
ideal, for it is never truly possible for a researcher to fully in American life. Helping students learn to navi-
become a complete insider (Abu-Lughod, 1990; Villenas, gate America’s many complex systems and to under-
1996). stand American culture will help them establish a new
life in this country. (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
4 Findings Services, 2009, p. 3)
This section is organized into two strands; the first is a
description of available resources and prominent dis- This theme of cultural participation is one echoed in
courses from USCIS, and the second is an account of other realms of the citizenship enterprise, as will be
resources and discourses in local educational sites. discussed, and is even one of the hundred questions on
the history/civics test.xii
4.1 USCIS: top-down resources and discourses In the second document, citizenship knowledge is
The citizenship portal on the USCIS website is structured segmented into foundation skills, which are defined as
to provide information for three groups of people: “overarching skills that facilitate the learning of other
applicants, instructors, and organizations. Applicants can content areas,” and knowledge clusters, which are “the
download the N-400 naturalization application and study specific content areas that applicants need to increase
material for the naturalization interview (which includes their chances of success during the naturalization
a complete question bank of one hundred history/civics interview and test” (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
questions and approved answers, vocabulary lists for the Services, 2010, p. 1). English proficiency (listening, spea-
English reading and writing portion, and printable king, reading, and writing) is counted as a foundation
flashcards for English vocabulary words and history/civics skill. The discourse used to describe foundation skills
questions). This site has become increasingly multimodal, emphasizes the word “basic,” in phrases such as “basic
with text, audio, video, and interactive exercises; and conversation words,” “basic commands”, and “basic
multilingual, with some resources translated into Spanish conversations in English” (U.S. Citizenship and Immi-
and Chinese. I have argued elsewhere that the citizenship gration Services, 2010, p. 2). Foundation skills also
test requirements (and study material) limit English include the ability to “locate information and resources
literacy to sentential, surface-level meanings, ignoring to determine eligibility for naturalization, find the appro-
more globalized and comprehensive realms of literacy; priate application forms, prepare for the naturalization
accuracy is promoted over fluency, and language is test- interview and test, and travel to the USCIS offices” (U.S.
ed and taught as a discrete skill (Loring, conditional Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2010, p. 3). The
acceptance). words “locating”, “analyzing”, “synthesizing”, and “evalu-
The other key resource available to prospective citizens ating” appear on this page, comprising many of the
is to schedule an Infopass appointment at a local field higher order thinking skills on Bloom’s taxonomy of
office. Scheduling an appointment online inevitably critical thinking (Krathwohl, 2002), which is a hierarchical
requires computer access and literacy, but instructions ranking of cognitive understandings from concrete and
are available in numerous languages: English, Spanish, simple to abstract and complex (Bloom, 1956; Krathwohl,
Haitian Creole, Vietnamese, Chinese, Tagalog, Russian, 2002). The USCIS document clarifies that these skills are
Portuguese, French, Korean, Polish, and Arabic. As not required to pass the naturalization test, but are
mentioned in Section 3.1, applicants can use such provided to help applicants prepare for the exam. In-
58
Journal of Social Science Education ©JSSE 2015
Volume 14, Number 3, Fall 2015 ISSN 1618–5293
deed, as the nex t section w ill demonstrate, some citizen- after class for assistance, where Mr. Morris will clarify its
s hip teachers recognize this and incorporate these types stated instructions and assist students in completing it.
o f lessons into their curriculum (Loring, 2013a). Impor- For issues in which he cannot advise, he directs students
tantly, learning how to navigate government websites to to free services such as USCIS Infopass appointments,
obtain information and access required forms is an ability explaining that lawyers who charge clients for free
that elderly applicants may lack, and their main alter- services “really take advantage of these guys.”
native is to visit the local USCIS field office, which in Another challenge for adult schools is the fact that
some cases is over one hundred miles away (Loring, students generally do not receive one-on-one help.
2013b). Many instructors regularly rely on handouts that require
The knowledge cluster skills include (1) understanding students to mark correct answers or write in answers,
the naturalization process, (2) American history, (3) and only the most vocal students participate during oral
American government, and (4) integrated civics. Under- class reviews. Therefore, many students do not receive
standing the naturalization process is an area that relates practice in oral English until immediately prior to their
closely to many of the abilities described as foundational interview date, when they are included in more indivi-
skills; the last three correspond to the three subsections dualized practice. During many of my classroom obser-
of the history/civics portion of the test. Stated justify- vations of oral worksheet review, some students were
cations for teaching immigrants information in these unable to self-correct their answers because of the
content areas are: “to help new immigrants feel part of teacher’s reliance on the verbal modality. These teaching
this shared experience” and to “help immigrants feel practices have significant consequences for students who
connected to their new communities and adopted cou- likely do not have equal productive and receptive abilities
ntry” (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2010, p. in English.
7). Thus, this language relates to larger dis-courses about At the AACC, citizenship classes face many of the same
the shared values, common ties, and interconnectedness obstacles as the adult schools, however one crucial
that unify American citizens. difference is that their office staff are specifically trained
to assist students with filling out N-400 applications.
4.2 Local educational sites: bottom-up resources and Their staff provides this service within their offices and
discourses during citizenship fairs and application workshops that
In addressing the resources and discourses present in the they themselves host. Unlike the citizenship fair at
four local education sites, I will frame the discussion Giovanni Law School, the AACC fair is not completely
around (1) challenges and obstacles, (2) language assis- staffed by lawyers. According to Ms. April, their staff
tance, and (3) perspectives towards citizenship at each members “were trained to get as much preliminary infor-
site. mation as possible; if they [the applicants] needed to see
a lawyer regarding some problem then we would send
Challenges and obstacles them in a room right away.”
Adult schools offering citizenship instruction provide The citizenship fair at Giovanni Law School is pre-
(semi)weekly practice with regards to the history/civics dominantly staffed by lawyers, and thus is able to
and English portions of the naturalization interview. This provide full legal advice to all attendees, concluding in
involves group work, individual writing practice, and individual final attorney review sessions. They strive to
choral repetitions modeled by the instructor. While the provide a comprehensive experience for applicants
focus is direct assistance with the naturalization inter- during the fair itself, which includes taking and paying for
view, peripheral areas of citizenship learning are some- pictures and copying, then mailing the completed appli-
times addressed, such as logistical information about the cation. Consequently, the wait-time for attendees is
USCIS building, application wait-time, and community higher, and a significant obstacle is the sheer volume of
dimensions of citizenship (Loring, 2013a). At the Ford attendees. As mentioned, approximately seventy to one
School, this community dimension plays out in classroom hundred people who arrive later in the day are turned
visuals (photos of former students who have recently away. The sole purpose of the fair is to assist applicants
become naturalized), supplemental curriculum (bringing with completing the N-400 application; according to
students’ native cultures into the discussions) and Professor Alvarez, earlier attempts to include mock inter-
discourses that treat the class as a unit and showcase views with USCIS personnel and citizenship test work-
individual accomplishments (“I’d like to introduce to you shops with undergraduate students was too “messy”
[the class] a new citizen”). Students are encouraged to because “trying to do too much is not helpful.”
learn about their classmates’ naturalization process while Professor Alvarez believes the main challenge that their
learning about the necessary requirements which results citizenship fair faces is the inability to conduct follow-up
in a shared goal of naturalization. sessions with fair attendees or take on more difficult
Lacking, however, is the extent to which teachers can cases (for example, an applicant with a recent DUI on
assist students with legal issues. Mr. Morris at Ford record). She describes this practice as a decision to be
School for Adults cautions, “you [the teacher] start play- “risk-adverse” at the expense of turning some clients
ing lawyer and you can get into a lot of trouble quick away: “If there’s any question that the interview might
with people, like give them advice that’s incorrect.” His get a little tricky, we do not represent those individuals in
students will occasionally bring their N-400 application a citizenship fair. We tell them that they should really go
59
Journal of Social Science Education ©JSSE 2015
Volume 14, Number 3, Fall 2015 ISSN 1618–5293
get a lawyer to t ake thei r case.” She explains a hypo- sets of instructions in Russian while she teaches. This
t hetical scenario with a citizenship fair attendee, in which practice is designed to aid her largely Russian-speaking
s he would tell the client that she would not continue the class, but ignores the few Spanish speakers present. In a
application process: setting with a large student population, the choice of
which language(s) to use and which language(s) to allow
And they get upset, you know, [they say] ‘I’ve wasted the students to use has significant implications as to
my time, I’ve been waiting for a long time’ and I have to which students are supported and which students are
say to them ‘I appreciate your frustration but we don’t excluded.
do any follow-up, we have limitations, we can’t accom- At the observed AACC application workshop, applicants
pany you to the interview. And with your history, attend for one-on-one help, and thus, it is easier to
you’re going to need an advocate. Even though you feel provide accommodations in applicants’ native languages.
like it’s a waste of time, what I’m telling you is very The languages in which the staff can assist are: English,
helpful to you.’ Russian, Ukrainian, Hindi, Punjabi, Chinese, Vietnamese,
Hmong, Tagalog, and Korean. Most applicants speak an
Despite these obstacles, Professor Alvarez believes Asian language, fitting in with the target group of the
their services are “the minimum that should take place in organization. The AACC volunteers and staff refer to non-
order to do something ethically and professionally.” English language assistance as “being helped in langu-
Receiving assistance at the USCIS field office is an age.” For instance, English monolingual volunteers are
option that eliminates the peripheral members of the told that applicants in the waiting area need assistance
citizenship infrastructure and supplies a direct answer “in language,” as an explanation for why they are not yet
from a government employee to the naturalization appli- helped. This expression is noteworthy because it ignores
cant. This method of support obviates a “lot of hearsay the fact that all attendees are assisted in language, which
out there,” sometimes generated by citizenship instruct- then treats English assistance as the norm.
tors who have not taken the test themselves or have At the Giovanni citizenship fair as well, the majority of
never been to the field office, according to USCIS officer applicants received help in a language other than English.
Mr. George. However, not all applicants take advantage The tables where the law students meet with clients
of the opportunity to ask questions at a USCIS office, have placards which list the language(s) spoken at that
which Mr. George believes is one of the main obstacles table. In 2011, the languages provided were: English,
applicants face during the naturalization process: “A lot Spanish, Cantonese, German, Hindi/Punjabi, Armenian,
of the time people have enough time to prepare but they Romanian, Tagalog, French, Farsi, Vietnamese, Russian,
don’t come into the office.”xiii Faced with the strict Arabic, Hmong, Mandarin, and Korean. In 2013, the flyer
protocol for entering a government building and the for the fair was distributed in English, Portuguese,
online appointment-making system, many immigrants Hmong, Korean, Russian and Ukrainian, Spanish, and
are presumably intimidated by or unable to successfully Urdu. According to Professor Alvarez, this linguistic
receive assistance directly from USCIS. reality “frustrates my English speaking [law] students.
Some of the frustration is ‘why don’t they speak English?’
Language assistance and we try to talk about that. But some of the frustration
Before broaching the topic of how citizenship is talked is just having to lose control and rely on an interpreter to
about, it is necessary to address the issue of in which help you through the process.”
language is citizenship talked about? The extent to The reason why Professor Alvarez chooses to make
which the various educational spaces offer multilingual multilingual assistance widely available is based on the
assistance is dependent on the resources available and legal jargon of the naturalization application. She be-
personal perspectives of local policy makers. In citizen- lieves that the English requirement of the exam is “fairly
ship classes, the language instruction ranges from basic,” but that “the possibility of doing harm with filling
English-only instruction, to some L1 (first language) out the form if people don't understand what you’re
translations, to extensive L1 translations (Loring, 2013b). asking is huge.” She repeatedly mentions “balance” as a
Ms. Maria at the AACC, who believes that the English guiding policy factor; the fact that “speaking to them
requirement is the most difficult aspect of the natura- [applicants] in their native language can build trust, and
lization interview, follows a strict English-only policy in they really appreciate the effort. But it also potentially
class. She admonishes a Chinese couple for speaking to keeps them from pushing themselves to experience what
each other in their L1, telling them “You’re supposed to it might be like to go through the [naturalization] inter-
speak English.” Thus, she is a strict proponent of lan- view.” These decisions to include multilingual assistance
guage immersion and does not consider L1 use to be a are possible both because of the one-on-one interaction
beneficial metalinguistic tool or scaffolding device between client and lawyer and because of the availability
(Grasso, 2012). Mr. Morris, although a monolingual of multilingual staff and interpreters. It is often not
English speaker, will employ some Spanish words to try feasible for citizenship instructors to provide this level of
to facilitate student comprehension, such as “mucho multilingual help, and additionally, all interviewed
dinero [a lot of money]” and “a promise to be leal instructors believe English is the most difficult aspect of
[loyal].” On the other hand, Ms. Lara at Wilson Adult the exam (Loring, 2013a).
School translates individual words, entire sentences, and
60
Journal of Social Science Education ©JSSE 2015
Volume 14, Number 3, Fall 2015 ISSN 1618–5293
Those who ma k e an Info pass appointment in the USCIS pretations of the meaning of U.S. citizenship. The latter
f ield office enter a website which is largely English- two opinions are depicted in the following table for the
d ominant, although there are some signs translated into various citizenship educators interviewed:
Spanish. About half of the posted signs in the Infopass
appointment-waiting room (five of nine) and hallway Table 2: Perspectives of citizenship educators
(four of ten) are bilingual in English and Spanish, with the Instructors (Mr. Lawyers (Prof. USCIS Field
vast majority of Spanish usage acting as a direct Morris, Ms. Alvarez) Officers (Mr.
April, Ms. George)
translation of the English message (Loring, 2015). The
Maria)
purposes of signs in the Infopass appointment-waiting Main English, English, good Negative
room and hallway are to give directions, specify obstacles monetary cost moral character outside
interactional protocol, or provide additional information. applicants of application requirement, influences,
face during lack of legal having wrong
The sings that include Spanish are primarily the first two
process services information
types; only one bilingual sign imparts supplemental
What it Having taken- Political Being
information. In the hallway, pamphlets and signs are means to be for-granted and participation or physically
provided in Spanish, but the only other languages a U.S. citizen guaranteed ability to present in
rights that are receive certain the U.S. and
present (French and Haitian Creole) are on signs
less easily benefits having good
specifically concerning Haitian refugee status in 2010.
stripped moral
The language practices in the USCIS field office exemplify character
erasure (Irvine & Gal, 2000), in which less prevalent
languages are ignored. While there is some variation between the citizenship
This de facto linguistic language practice contradicts instructors at the Ford School for Adults and the AACC,
the stated practice of language assistance, according to they agree that their students have the greatest diffi-
Mr. George. While he acknowledges that most people culties with the English requirement of the naturaliza-
bring an English-speaking translator to their appointment tion test and the cost of the application fee ($680). All
if need be, he says, “If you come here and don’t speak instructors discuss what citizenship means to them using
English, we can usually say ‘wait a minute’ and we can the expression “take for granted,” highlighting certain
find someone in the back who speaks that language. rights and responsibilities that native-born citizens do
Chinese, Russian, Arabic… I wouldn’t say we have all not appreciate (see Loring, 2013a). These encompass
languages covered, but I’d say for the majority of legal rights (right to vote), legal consequences (living
languages we have someone here who speaks it.” In all without the threat of deportation), and the right to full
these sites, when the teaching mission is to provide assis- participation (access to societal resources) (Ramanathan,
tance with a task, there is a propensity for multilingual 2013).
assistance, with a desire to match the language In accordance with the citizenship teachers, Professor
proficiency of the applicants. When the teaching mission Alvarez believes that a lack of English proficiency is the
is to strengthen the applicants’ English proficiency, then main reason why applicants delay their citizenship
there is greater variation of linguistic practices in line application. But she also believes that immigration law
with the instructors’ teaching philosophy. The instruct- has become increasingly strict with respect to its good
tors’ teaching philosophies are understandably affected moral character requirements (in which applicants are
by nationalist discourses that link English with American asked about their group affiliations, criminal history, and
identity and educational discourses that either prior illegal infractions). In her euphemistic words,
emphasize English-only instruction or view L1 use in a “people have blemishes in their lives,” which can amount
language classroom as an educational resource (Grasso, to prior illegal actions. Additionally, the financial cost and
2012). lack of legal services are other deterrents that she sees.
She provides two answers to the second question in
Perspectives towards citizenship Table 2; the first is personal and the second is based on
For all sites described, the predominant tendency is to observations. She herself equates citizenship with poli-
equate citizenship with preparing for and passing the tical participation, saying, “for me it’s the number one
naturalization interview. Instructors, organizers, volun- reason, to be a responsible member of society.” How-
teers, lawyers, and field officers tend to teach the ever, she acknowledges that the clients that she interacts
minimum of what the applicant needs to know to be with do not necessarily share her view:
successful, and “being successful” is interpreted as
“obtaining legal citizenship status.” These are views that I think the reality is that many are not motivated by
limit citizenship to its official, legal, and tangible nature, political participation or social change, although some
ignoring other critical and participatory notions of what of them are. Many view citizenship as a necessary step
citizenship enables (Loring, 2013b). However, the to be able to attain certain benefits, whether immi-
personal perspectives of those involved in the citizenship gration benefits, or social welfare benefits, or just sim-
enterprise affect how they frame citizenship. These ply stability in the country.
opinions concern the fairness of the naturalization test,
personal enactments of citizenship, tensions applicants Predictably, these benefits are listed on the Giovanni
face during the naturalization process, and inter- Law School’s citizenship fair flyer. The naturalization in-
centives provided are: voting, family reunification,
61
Journal of Social Science Education ©JSSE 2015
Volume 14, Number 3, Fall 2015 ISSN 1618–5293
eligibility for go v ernmen t jobs, security from depor- between applicants and the legal status of becoming
t ation, and access to healthcare. The first three benefits American citizens. This entails teaching test content,
a re also emphasized in a USCIS-produced document, processing applications, and answering personal ques-
along with “obtaining citizenship for children born tions. Assisting applicants with this specific agenda
abroad,” “traveling with a U.S. passport,” and “showing expedites their time spent as permanent residents, when
your patriotism” (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration they are living without certain rights and protections.
Services, 2012). It is noteworthy that “showing your Thus, these educators are creating opportunities for
patriotism” is listed alongside these other tangible applicants’ future participation in activities such as vo-
benefits as a “right only for citizens” (U.S. Citizenship and ting, running for office, and serving on a jury, that USCIS
Immigration Services, 2012), indicating that USCIS policy repeatedly emphasize as key rights that distinguish
depicts patriotism as an expression of national co- citizens from non-citizens.
mmitment that permanent or temporary residents do As mentioned, however, full participation is more than
not (or cannot) share. Also notable is the fact that civic and legal opportunities, but is also the option to
security from deportation and access to healthcare are pursue any and all societal resources available to
not mentioned in USCIS documents, but are arguably American residents (Heller, 2013). Along this vein, the
leading motivators for applicants to become naturalized type of citizenship assistance described in this research
(see Loring, 2013a). does not fully provide opportunities for long-term
Mr. George of USCIS takes a different approach, not meaningful citizenship interactions, namely social belon-
seeing any component of the naturalization process as ging and participation. The assumption is that once legal
unfairly detrimental for applicants. Rather, he believes citizenship is attained, many of the inequalities that
that “outside influences,” such as incorrect information applicants experience will disappear, and they will
applicants receive from non-USCIS educators, prevent immediately become legitimate American citizens. This
applicants from applying in a timely manner. While view neglects the other ways that immigrants are exclu-
Professor Alvarez views the good moral character ded from full participation -- through inequalities in
requirements as an obstacle, Mr. George defines U.S. language assistance, public policies, access to employ-
citizens in terms of these requirements. Thus, he states, ment, and discriminatory discourse, -- which do not talk
“I think that you are ‘here’ and ‘willing to know the laws, about or treat naturalized American citizens as equal
and have good moral character, like we talked about.’ I members of society. Policies and discourses which esta-
mean, I don’t think you should be a citizen if you killed blish hierarchies of inclusion create dis-citizens, rather
two people and do drugs and have been arrested so than full citizens (Ramanathan, 2013). Individuals who
many times.” In sum, the citizenship teachers answered feel as though they are not full-fledged citizens can feel a
this question in a philosophical sense, the lawyer res- sense of disjointedness towards their adopted nation
ponded in terms of participation and benefits, and the which can subsequently affect their participation in local
field officer defined citizenship as it is represented in and national American society.
government policy and discourse. This research is significant because it highlights a situ-
ation in which top-down and bottom-up educational
5 Implications policies are layered and sometimes at contrary purposes.
This article has investigated the predominant resources Depending on the site that applicants choose to attend,
and discourses available to prospective citizens in the the availability of resources differs to varying degrees.
Sacramento citizenship enterprise, often determining Each site presents unique challenges and obstacles,
that citizenship dialogues and support differ across which applicants either know or learn about through
educational sites. Those who attend a citizenship class experience. These sites can either invite applicants to
can expect to receive assistance with naturalization test receive assistance, through providing multilingual assis-
preparation. This largely includes a teaching strategy of tance or offering counsel with the trickier components of
teaching towards the test, as other citizenship knowledge naturalization law, or adhere more closely to the
is often overlooked. When citizenship teachers do teach “English-only” de facto policy of U.S. naturalization. How
peripheral information, it aligns with the foundation skills those involved in the citizenship enterprise interpret the
that USCIS emphasizes in its online resources. Pros- journey of the applicants they support consequently
pective citizens who visit a community center can affects the policies they enact at the local level. These
additionally expect to receive one-on-one assistance in bottom-up conceptualizations of citizenship and their
completing the naturalization application, either in the resulting enactment in citizenship education shape the
office or through a special event such as an application degree of immigrant inclusion and empowerment and
workshop or citizenship fair. Legal-sponsored citizenship give citizenship its fullest meaning.
fairs have the benefit of attorney review and assistance

with determining eligibility. Not only do these venues
shape applicants’ own perspectives towards citizenship References
and naturalization, but they also affect their oppor-
Abu-Lughod, L. (1990). ‘Can there be a feminist
tunities for full participation.
ethnography?’ Women and Performance: A Journal of
The educators in these sites can be described as
Feminist Theory, 5(1), 7-27.
actively working to eliminate obstacles that stand

62
Journal of Social Science Education ©JSSE 2015
Volume 14, Number 3, Fall 2015 ISSN 1618–5293
Applicant perform ance on the naturalization test. (2008). Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International
U .S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Retrieved from Peace.
h ttp://www.uscis.gov/
Keating, A., Kerr, D., Benton, T., Mundy, E. & Lopes, J.
Baptiste (Winn), M. (forthcoming). The value(s) of U.S. (2010). Citizenship education in England 2001-2010:
citizenship: An analysis of the English writing test for Young people’s practices and prospects for the future:
naturalization applicants. In A. Loring & V. Ramanathan The eighth and final report from the Citizenship
(Eds.), Language, immigration, and naturalization: Legal Education Longitudinal Study (CELS).Department for
and linguistic issues. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Education. London: DfE.
Matters.
Klaaren, J. (2000). Post-Apartheid citizenship in South
Banks, J. (2008). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship Africa. In T. A. Aleinikoff & D. Klusmeyer (Eds.), From
education in a global age. Educational Researcher, migrants to citizens: Membership in a changing world
37(3),129-139. (pp. 221-252). Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment
Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: for International Peace.
SAGE.
Koopmans, R., Statham, P., Giugni, M., & Passy, F. (2005).
Blommaert, J. (2009). Language, asylum, and the national
Contested citizenship: Immigration and cultural diversity
order. Current Anthropology, 50(4), 415-441.
in Europe. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.), (1956) Taxonomy of educational
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy:
objectives. Book. 1: Cognitive domain. New York:
An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Longman.
Lillie, K. E. (forthcoming). “The ELD classes are… too
Canagarajah, S. (Ed.). (2005). Reclaiming the local in
much and we need to take other classes to graduated”:
language policy and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Arizona’s restrictive language policy and the dis-
Erlbaum Associates.
citizenship of ELs. In A. Loring & V. Ramanathan (Eds.),
Carspecken, P. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational Language, immigration, and naturalization: Legal and
research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York: linguistic issues. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Routledge.
Loring, A. (2013a). Classroom meanings and enactments
Castles, S. (1998). Globalization and the ambiguities of of citizenship: An ethnographic study. In V. Ramanathan
national citizenshp. In R. Bauböck and J. Rundell (Eds.), (Ed.) Language policies, language pedagogies: Rights,
Blurred boundaries: Migration, ethnicity, and citizenship. access, citizenship (pp. 188-208). Tonawanda, NY:
Brookfield,VT: Ashgate. Multilingual Matters.
DeJaeghere, J. (2008). Citizenship as privilege and power: Loring, A. (2013b). Language & U.S. Citizenship:
Australian educators’ lived experiences as citizens. Meanings, ideologies, & policies. (Doctoral dissertation).
Comparative Education Review, 52(3), 357-380. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
(Accession Order No. 3596915).
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded
theory. Chicago: Aldine. Loring, A. (2015). Citizenship policy from the bottom-up:
The linguistic and semiotic landscape of a naturalization
Gordon, D. (2010). Disrupting the master narrative:
field office. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 13 (2)
Global politics, historical memory, and the implications
for naturalization education. Anthropology & Education Loring, A. (conditional acceptance). Literacy in citizenship
Quarterly, 41(1), 1-17. preparatory classes. Journal of Language, Identity, and
Education.
Grasso, S. (2012). ‘L1 or no L1: that is the question.’ How
do we reconcile the ethical implications of this issue in Loring, A. (forthcoming). Ideologies and collocations of
the context of the adult ELICOS classroom? TESOL in “citizenship” in media discourse: A corpus-based critical
Context [special edition], S3, 1-13. discourse analysis. In A. Loring & V. Ramanathan (Eds.),
Language, immigration, and naturalization: Legal and
Heller, M. (2013). Language and dis-citizenship in
linguistic issues. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Canada. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education,
12(3), 189-192. Loring, A. & Ramanathan, V. (Eds). (forthcoming).
Language, immigration, and naturalization: Legal and
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 312.
linguistic issues. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Irvine, J. & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and
Marshall, T. (1950). Citizenship and social class and other
linguistic differentiation. In P. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of
essays. London: Pluto.
language: Ideologies, polities, and identities (pp. 35-84).
Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. McCarty, T. (2011). Introducing ethnography and
language policy. In T. McCarty (Ed.), Ethnography and
Kashiwazaki, C. (2000). Citizenship in Japan: Legal
language policy (pp. 1-28). New York: Routledge.
practices and contemporary development. In T. A.
Aleinikoff & D. Klusmeyer (Eds.), From migrants to
citizens: Membership in a changing world (pp. 434-471).
63