Educational policy analysis archives

Educational policy analysis archives

Material Information

Educational policy analysis archives
Arizona State University
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tempe, Ariz
Tampa, Fla
Arizona State University
University of South Florida.
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Education -- Research -- Periodicals ( lcsh )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
serial ( sobekcm )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
E11-00124 ( USFLDC DOI )
e11.124 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c19999999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00124
0 245
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 7, no. 12 (April 10, 1999).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c April 10, 1999
Hiring policy in United States Spanish departments: considerations of social class, national origin, and ethnicity / Jerry Hoeg, Eric Cohen, [and] Christine Fullen.
x Research
v Periodicals.
2 710
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
1 773
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
4 856

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 7issue 12series Year mods:caption 19991999Month April4Day 1010mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 1999-04-10


1 of 13 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 7 Number 12April 10, 1999ISSN 1068-2341 A peer-reviewed scholarly electronic journal Editor: Gene V Glass, College of Education Arizona State University Copyright 1999, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES. Permission is hereby granted to copy any article if EPAA is credited and copies are not sold. Articles appearing in EPAA are abstracted in the Current Index to Journals in Education by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation and are permanently archived in Resources in Education Hiring Policy in United States Spanish Departments: Considerations of Social Class, National Origin, an d Ethnicity Jerry Hoeg Eric Cohen Christine Fullen Penn State University Abstract The present study focuses on two inter-rela ted factors specific to United States college and university Spanish Depart ments: the unique demographic profile of the entry-level faculty in t erms of gender, ethnicity, national origin, and social class; the r elation between these factors and hiring practices, especially regarding field of specialization, pay scale, and tenure-track opportunities. We belie ve these issues are important in that they underscore the value of cons idering questions of social class as well as ethnicity and gender when a nalyzing academic job segmentation. The present study focused on the initial jo b searches of recent recipients of the Ph.D. in Spanish from US institutions. It was condu cted by mailing structured questionnaires to 150 of those listed in the 1997 Dissertations 1996" (Eutis, 1997) section of Hispania the journal of the American Association of Teache rs of Spanish and Portuguese. This is an annual listing of completed dissertations in Spanish. In addition to


2 of 13follow-up telephone calls to degree-granting instit utions, the 1997 Modern Language Association Member Directory and the "Job Tracks: Who Got Hired Where, 19971998" listings in Lingua Franca were consulted, and surveys mailed where appropria te.Results A total of 99 people (out of 170, 58%) retu rned completed questionnaires. (Note 1) A comparison of our sample with the total universe of doctorates granted in Spanish (National Opinion Research Center, 1997) in 1996 (n =196; this is the year most of our sample received their degrees) across key descripti ve variables displays relative correspondence, with almost all categories varying by three percent or less (Table 1). The Modern Language Association's PhD survey for th e years 1993-1994 (Huber, 1996), the most recent data available, further supports th e representation of the sample in terms of the proportion who received tenured or non-tenur ed positions (Table 1-A). Based on the close correspondence between the two population s, any concerns regarding selectivity or sampling bias are unfounded.Table 1 Comparison of Survey Population and 1996 Universe Survey 1996 (Note 7) n % n %Total 99100196100 Male42 4282 42Female 58 58114 58US Citizen 59 5911659Perm. Visa 19 1942 21Temp Visa15 1534 17 Hispanic 48 4898 50 Mex/Am6 6105Puerto Rican4 4158Other Hisp.38 3873 37Male 21 213819Female27276031US citizen14 142814Perm visa1919 31 16Temp visa 14 142412 Non-Hispanic 51 519850 Male21214422Female 303054 28US citizen 45 4573 37


3 of 13Perm visa11116Temp visa44105Table 1-A Comparison of Post-Secondary Education Placement Among Survey Population and MLA Placement Survey SurveyMLA (Note 8) n% n %Total 99100222 100 Post-Secondary 78 78 18282 Hispanic3646 8748Non-Hispanic4254 9552 Tenure506412466Male Tenure22285027Female Tenure28367339 Non-Tenure2626 4122Male Non-tenure 8102111Female Non-Tenure2025 41 22 Several factors that do not appear in the T ables, but that might influence a job search, should be mentioned. First, only six of the Hispanics were native-born (eight were naturalized) and, if we correct for Puerto Ric ans, who are native speakers and non-immigrants, only two of the Hispanics are poten tially secondgeneration US citizens, hence non-native speakers. (Note 2) Also, the survey cohort ranged in age from 28-60 years of age. The mean age of the respondents was 36 (37 years for Hispanics, 36 years for non-Hispanics). Additionally, because our sample were on their initial job search, years of academic experience was more or le ss a constant in the present analysis. Almost 90 percent (88%) had one year or less with a doctorate. There appeared to be no pattern among the remaining 12 percent. Lastly, publication of refereed journal art icles is one significant indicator of merit or productivity which could lead to a more successf ul academic outcome. Approximately 65 percent of the sample had no peerreviewed journal publications; 85 percent had one or less. Only 15 percent had 2 or m ore articles published, a number which could have a significant bearing on acquiring a tenure-track position. No pattern emerged between Hispanicity or gender and number of publications. Thus this variable is treated as a constant in the present analysis. A oneway ANOVA was computed for Hispanic ve rsus non-Hispanic differences and gender subgroups (see Table 2). Based on the AN OVA results, entry-level Hispanics are paid more on average than non-Hispanics (t=2.69 df=67, p<.01). Differences between Hispanics and non-Hispanics based on gender were also significant (F=2.89, df=3, p <.05). The Hispanicity/gender effect was st ronger than either the Hispanicity or


4 of 13 gender influence taken separately. Mean differences in pay between Hispanic and nonHispanic males were most pronounced, $36,818 vs $31 ,250 respectively (median differences = $37,000 vs $32,000).Table 2 Tenure Status and Salaries (in $1000s) by Ethnicity and Gender HispanicNon-Hispanic Male Female MaleFemaleTotal n % or Mean n % or Mean n % or Mean n % or Mean n % or Mean Tenure*1184.6%1565.2%1164.7%1352.0%5064.1%Aver. Pay**11$36.823$34.914$31.221$32.569$33.7Lang.***a 0—624.0%8 47.1939.1%2329.5%Lit.***1076.9%1040.0%423.5%626.1% 3038.5%* Sig. <.07** Sig. <.05*** Sig. .01a. The abbreviations "Lang." and "Lit." refer to th e area of teaching specialization. For those who were offered full-time academ ic jobs (n=78), a comparison was made between those offered positions where the prim ary focus was teaching literature versus those whose primary responsibility was teach ing language. Differences between Hispanics and non-Hispanics showed a weak statistic al significance. When the sample was broken down by gender subgroups, differences we re most apparent and statistical significance improved considerably (sig.=.01). The most apparent significant difference was between Hispanic males and nonHispanic males in that 77 percent of Hispanic males were offered literature positions versus 23 p ercent of their non-Hispanic counterparts. The comparisons for females were sign ificant but less striking, 40 percent of the Hispanic females were offered literature pos itions versus 26 percent for non-Hispanic females. As reported in Table 2, there is a weak sta tistical (sig. <.07), yet substantively important relationship between ethnicity, gender, a nd whether or not one receives a tenure-track appointment. This weak effect is due p rimarily to the reduced n ; there were only 37 respondents in this part of the analysis. W hile both non-Hispanic males (65 percent) and Hispanic females (65 percent) recorded figures near the overall group average (64 percent), 85 percent of Hispanic males reported tenure-track positions, while only 52 percent of non-Hispanic females received te nure-track appointments. These findings are in line with what Rosenblum and Rosenb lum (1990) found to be characteristic of segmented labor markets in academ ia, namely that those outside the tenure stream or internal labor market are more lik ely to be women and less likely to be cosmopolitan (p. 158). (Note 3) They also have a gr eater than 80 percent probability of staying in the non-tenure-track or external academi c labor market (Rosenblum and Rosenblum, 1996, p. 441).Discussion


5 of 13 As noted above, a statistically significant proportion of jobs in the field of literature go to Hispanics, while nonHispanics are hired pri marily to teach language. Said division of labor is particularly observable in the case of males. This pattern becomes meaningful when we consider the relative prestige a ssociated with literature and the concomitant lack of status that comes with an appoi ntment in language. In a recent issue of Profession Russell A. Berman (1997, p. 63) explains: While there may be exceptions, language instruction is not as well rewarded with prestige or remuneration as is literary schola rship.... A line of class division, corresponding precisely to the distributi on of rewards by the university, runs through all our departments. Not only are language teaching positions le ss distinguished, but there are fewer of them, as many of these positions are filled by teac hing assistants and part-timers. According to Huber (1996, p. 98), 15 percent of the jobs advertised in the October 1993 "Foreign Language" listings in the Modern Language Association Job List "referred to language teaching expertise only," while "32 percen t of the descriptions mentioned expertise in literature only." One of the rewards of the literature track is the opportunity to teach upper-division literature classes as a graduate student, while sim ultaneously avoiding the "educational service work" (MLA Final Report 1997) of teaching l ower-division introductory language classes. Teaching literature classes, whic h are generally 3-credit classes, instead of lower-division language classes, which a re normally 4-credit classes with high enrollment caps populated with non-majors seeking o nly to fulfil an exit requirement, translates to a lighter work load, higher pay per h our of instruction, more free time to pursue one's own studies, and a competitive advanta ge in teaching experience with respect to the job search. (Note 4) The survey found that non-Hispanics, especi ally males, were disproportionately relegated to lower-division language classes (mean number of lower division classes taught, Hispanic males vs. non-Hispanic males, was 10.3 and 15.9 respectively; p<.05) while serving as teaching assistants. Thus, not sur prisingly, the segmentation seen in faculty hiring practices has antecedents in graduat e school employment protocols. Finally, at the faculty level, language tea ching positions pay less, a concrete manifestation of the distribution of rewards Berman refers to above. The average entry-level language teaching salary reported was $ 32,857, while the average entrylevel literature position paid $36,607. The average salar y, not the entry-level salary, of an assistant professor in a US Department of Foreign L anguages is $35,095 (Wright, 1998, p. 115). As mentioned above, only 6 percent of the s urvey cohort are domestic-born Hispanics and, if we correct for Puerto Ricans, who are native speakers and non-immigrants, only 2 percent of the cohort are po tentially second-generation US Hispanics. As Guadalupe Valds, a senior member of Stanford's Spanish Department, points out, for reasons of language and social clas s, "these [2nd generation] speakers of immigrant languages are often considered undesirabl e in our departments." (1998, p. 154). This situation is relevant in terms of affi rmative action hiring practices, which were designed to remediate prior discrimination. Said re mediation does not appear to be present in US Spanish Department hiring practices, and indeed there seems to be a bias against non-native speakers of Spanish, be they of Hispanic origin or not. Hiring


6 of 13practices appear to reflect a standard language ideology which the sociolinguist Rosina Lippi-Green (1997, p. 64) defines as: a bias toward an abstracted, idealized, homogenous spoken language which is imposed and maintained by dominant bloc institut ions and which names as its model the written language, but which is dra wn primarily from the spoken language of the upper middle class. The "spoken language of the upper middle cl ass" is in this case the spoken Spanish of upper middle class, foreign-born Hispanics. If w e assume a correlation between educational levels and social class, then it can be argued that the Hispanic cohort (and the non-Hispanic as well) come from privileged soci al origins. Forty-six percent of all Hispanics had at least one parent with a 4-year deg ree or better, and 63 percent of the foreign-born Hispanics arrived in the US with at le ast a bachelor's degree. These educational levels become significant when we compare them with the educational levels of the overall US Hispanic popul ation. Only 10 percent of all Hispanics in the US have 4 or more years of college while the aggregate figure for the US is 27.1 percent ( Digest of Education Statistics 1997 1998, p. 17). Moreover, in the US, Hispanics constitute an estimated 10.7 percent of the population but hold only 2.1 percent of Doctor's degrees and 3.1 percent of Mast er's degrees ( Digest of Education Statistics 1997 1998, p. 17). The elevated educational level, and concomi tant social status, of the Hispanic respondents becomes even more evident when we compa re these with educational levels in their countries of origin. For example, only 11 percent of the entire population of Spain has a bachelor's degree (Organization for Eco nomic Cooperation 1994), and in Latin America the distinction is even sharper. In N icaragua, in 1995, "the illiteracy rate represented approximately one-half the population o ver the age of ten" (Arnove, 1997, p. 92). A mere 8 percent of the entire professoriate i n Mexican higher education has a Ph.D. (Altbach, 1996, p. 322). By way of comparison in the US, 62 percent of all faculty hold a Ph.D. degree (Altbach, 1996, p. 345) In short, the foreign-born Hispanics repres ent the educational elite even in the US, but especially in their countries of origin. In mar ked contrast to the demographics of the US faculty at large, entry-level faculty in US Span ish Departments are predominately Hispanic, upper middle class, and foreign-born. (No te 5) The reasons for the segmentation observed i n Spanish Department hiring practices are doubtless many and complex. Affirmative action policies are clearly a factor, and Literature or Culture is traditionally the domain o f the privileged classes. Additionally, as Gerhard Lenski pointed out, once in place, statu s groups tend "to make in-group membership a resource in the competition for power and privilege" (p. 400), and Bourdieu's (1988) research on class replication in higher education in France supports this view. Similarly, Foucault has pointed to "soci eties of discourse" and "doctrinal groups" as those responsible for disciplining the o rder of discourse: "none shall enter the order of discourse if he does not satisfy certain r equirements or if he is not, from the outset, qualified to do so" (p. 120). Lang's (1986) language model of discrimination, in consonance with Lippi-Green (1997) and Valds (1998 ), argues those who do not acquire privileged language patterns may be crowded into job markets with high densities of similarly marginalized workers. This i s a special case of the more general "crowding theory," which argues that marginalized w orkers are crowded into a limited set of opportunities, thus flooding the labor marke t in that specific area and so driving


7 of 13down wages for all who compete in that area (Sorens en 1990). This does seem to be consistent with our results, as language jobs pay l ess across the ethnic and gender continuum, although within the language division Hi spanics continue to be paid more on average than nonHispanics ($34,000 vs $31,000). F urthermore, two factors that the human capital theory of earnings suggest distort th e crowding effect--time spent out of the labor force and time taken to train for jobs--a re not relevant variables in this survey and, according to Paula England (1982), are fallaci ous in any event.Conclusions Whatever the causes, some of the relations reported in the survey are clearly incongruent with egalitarian principles, especially those which underlie such important programs as affirmative action and the movement tow ard equal opportunities for women. From a policy standpoint, we would offer the following suggestions as a way to alleviate the reported inequities. First, is the qu estion of salaries. The fact that both Hispanic and non-Hispanic women fare worse than the ir male counterparts, both in terms of salary and in terms of tenuretrack appoi ntments, needs to be rectified. Some ameliorization of the pay differential between language and literature positions also appears appropriate. Because languag e teaching serves the vast majority of students, and not incidentally generates the bul k of tuition dollars, it is in the long-term best interest of those in literature to a void the inequities which are currently splitting Spanish Departments. As Dorothy James (19 97) points out, In largely confining language teaching to the lowes t levels of the curriculum and in assigning it to a category of teachers diffe rent from those who teach literature or other content, we have undermined the rationale for having a paid, full-time professoriat in foreign languages.. ..Can we really be surprised if it dawns on administrators under sever e budgetary constraints that they can save a lot of money by doing away wit h the small upper-level foreign literature programs altogether and sustain the lower-level language courses without the benefit (and expense) of proper ly paid senior faculty members? (p. 49) Likewise, literature positions should be ma de available to more non-Hispanics, given that the "crowding" or competition between no n-Hispanics for the limited number of language positions drives down pay scale, and he re we can point to the use of graduate students and part-timers as related aggrav ating factors. This would also add diversity of ideas and perspectives to the discipli ne. Another issue is the co-mingling of departm ental diversity data within colleges. Under-representation would be better determined on a departmental basis. Allowing administrators to report only aggregate college fig ures may well bias Spanish Department hiring patterns, and so produce the oftcited "small worlds" or "barrioization" of and in Spanish Departments (Clar k, 1987; Garza, 1988). Said reporting may also influence student recruitment an d retention, and later give rise to pipeline deficiencies (Bernhardt, 1995; James, 1989 ). Appropriate steps need be taken to train, recruit, and retain both Hispanic and non-Hi spanic candidates from under-represented ethclasses. (Note 6) Finally, exchange programs, at both the stu dent and faculty level, should be expanded. Present policy encourages "brain drain" f rom developing nations at a time


8 of 13when they most need their best and brightest (Altba ch, 1996, p. 302), and simultaneously disregards the crisis in the US job market (Curren, 1994; Modern Language Association Committee on Professional Empl oyment, 1997). We conclude by observing that the assumptio n that equates Hispanic hires with increased social diversity and mobility can be illu sory in some situations. It may be advisable to reassess the ultimate fairness of hiri ng policies that, while empowering under-represented ethnic groups, do so within a con text of socioeconomic or class bias. Therefore, in order to fully appraise academic empl oyment practices in the US, we feel it is necessary to consider not only ethnicity and gen der, but also national origin and, importantly, how all these intersect with social cl ass.NotesThe questionnaire is based upon the survey instrume nt used by the National Research Council in assessing earned doctorates in the US in 1995. It was modified to ascertain Spanish Department-specific i nformation. 1. Only two Hispanics indicated they were non-native s peakers. All other Hispanics declared themselves native speakers. 2. In Gouldner's (1957) sense of the term, a cosmopoli tan is one with high professional skills (native speakership), low loyal ty to his or her employing institution, and high allegiance to a reference gro up of similar (socio-ethnically as well as intellectually) academics located outside t he individual's institution. 3. The teaching-load disparity persists into the arena of entry level jobs. 54% of Hispanic males and 45% of Hispanic females report t eaching-loads of 5 classes per year or less, while only 16% of non-Hispanic ma les and 26% of non-Hispanic females teach 5 or fewer classes per year (sig. <.0 7). Overall, 31% of the survey cohort teach 5 or fewer classes per year. 4. Overall, the US faculty in higher education is 2.5% Hispanic, 87% white notHispanic, 13% foreign-born, and 68% male (Finkelste in, Seal, and Schuster, 1998: 28). 5. Milton M. Gordon defines "ethclass" as the "social space created by the intersection of the ethnic group with the social cl ass" (51). 6. All data regarding the 1996 population is from the National Opinion Research Center (1997). 7. Job placement figures are taken from the MLA's surv ey of PhD placement (Huber 1996), the most recent year for which figures are a vailable. Data are only collected every two years, and the 1996 data are no yet avail able. The survey does not break out tenure by ethnicity, nor does it address pay or the language/literature distinction. 8.ReferencesAltbach, Phillip G. (Ed.) (1996). The International Academic Profession: Portraits of Fourteen Countries Princeton: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advanc ement of Teaching.Arnove, Robert E. (1997). Neoliberal Education Poli cies in Latin America. In Carlos Alberto Torres and Adriana Puiggrós (Eds.), Latin American Education: Comparative Perspectives (79-100). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.


9 of 13Berman, Russell A. (1997). Reform and Continuity: G raduate Education Toward a Foreign Cultural Literacy. Profession 1997 61-74. Bernhardt, Elizabeth B. (1995). Teaching Literature or Teaching Students? ADFL Bulletin 26.2, 5-6. Bourdieu, Pierre (1988). Homo Academicus Trans. Peter Collier. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Clark, Burton R. (1987). The Academic Life: Small Worlds, Different Worlds Princeton: Princeton University Press.Curren, Eric D. (1994). No Openings at This Time: J ob Market Collapse and Graduate Education. Profession 94 57-61. England, Paula (1982). The Failure of Human Capital Theory to Explain Occupational Sex Segregation. The Journal of Human Resources 17.3, 359-70. Eutis, Christopher (1997). Dissertations 1996. Hispania 80.2, 388-403. Finkelstein, Martin J., Robert K. Seal, and Jack H. Schuster (1998). The Academic Generation: A Profession in Transformation Baltimore, London: Johns Hopkins. Foucault, Michel (1984). The Order of Discourse. In M. Shapiro (Ed.), Language and Politics (pp. 108-138). New York: NYUP. Fuss, Diana (1989). Essentially Speaking New York, London: Routledge. Garza, Hisauro (1988). The "Barrioization" of Hispa nic Faculty. Educational Record 68.4, 122-124.Gordon, Milton M. (1964). Assimilation in American Life New York: Oxford UP. Gouldner, Alvin W. (1957). Cosmopolitans and Locals : Towards an Analysis of Latent Social Roles-I. Administrative Science Quarterly 2, 281-306. Huber, Bettina J. (1994). Recent Trends in the Mode rn Language Job Market. Profession 94 87-105. Huber, Bettina J. (1996). The MLA's 1993-94 Survey of PhD Placement: The Latest Foreign Language Findings and Trends Through Time. ADFL Bulletin 27.3, 58-77. James, Dorothy (1989). Reshaping the "College-Level Curriculum: Problems and Possibilities. In Helen S. Lepke (Ed.), Shaping the Future: Challenges and Opportunities (pp. 79-100). Lincolnwood, Illinois: Natl. Textboo k. James, Dorothy (1997). Bypassing the Traditional Le adership: Who's Minding the Store? Profession 1997 41-53. Anon. (1998). Job Tracks: Who Got Hired Where, 1997 -1998. Lingua Franca 6.1, 57-86.


10 of 13Kramsch, Claire (1997). The Privilege of the Nonnat ive Speaker. PMLA 112.3, 359-369.Lang, Kevin (1986). A Language Theory of Discrimina tion. Quarterly Journal of Economics 101.2, 363-382. Lederer, Herbert (1980). The "Native Speaker" Issue : Problem or Pretext? ERIC database, no. EJ253826.Lenski, Gerhard E. (1966). Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratificat ion New York: McGraw-Hill.Lippi-Green, Rosina (1997). English With an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States London and New York: Routledge. Modern Language Association Committee on Profession al Employment (1997). A Guide: Evaluating the Mission, Size, and Compositio n of Your Doctoral Programs New York: Modern Language Association.Modern Language Association Committee on Profession al Employment (1997). Final Report New York: Modern Language Association. National Center for Education Statistics (1998). Digest of Education Statistics 1997 Washington, DC: United States Department of Educati on. National Opinion Research Center (1997). Affirmativ e Action Table #1: Preliminary Number of PH.D.S [sic], By Fine Field of Doctorate, Race/Ethnicity, Citizenship, and Gender, 1996. Chicago: NORC.Organization for Economic Cooperation and Developme nt (1994). Education at a Glance Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Paikeday, Thomas M. (1985). The Native Speaker is Dead! New York: PPI. Rosenblum, Gerald, and Barbara Ruben Rosenblum (199 0). Segmented Labor Markets in Institutions of Higher Learning. Sociology of Education 63, 151-164. Rosenblum, Gerald, and Barbara Ruben Rosenblum (199 6). The Flow of Instructors Through the Segmented Labor Markets of Academe. Higher Education 31, 429-445. Sorensen, Elaine (1990). The Crowding Hypothesis an d Comparable Worth. The Journal of Human Resources 25.1, 55-89. Valdés, Guadalupe (1998). The Construct of th e Near-Native Speaker in the Foreign Language Profession: Perspectives on Ideolo gies about Language. Profession 1998 151-160. Wright, John W. (Ed.) (1998). The American Almanac of Jobs and Salaries: 1997-199 8 Edition New York: Avon.About the Authors


11 of 13 Jerry HoegJerry Hoeg is Associate Professor of Spanish at Pen nsylvania State University. His email address is Eric CohenEric Cohen is an Assistant Professor of Sociology a t Penn State. Christine FullenChristine Fullen was formerly in the Department of Health and Human Services at Penn State. She now is employed by Fayette County in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.Copyright 1999 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesThe World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is General questions about appropriateness of topics o r particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-0211. (602-965-96 44). The Book Review Editor is Walter E. Shepherd: The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: .EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin Greg Camilli Rutgers University John Covaleskie Northern Michigan University Andrew Coulson Alan Davis University of Colorado, Denver Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Richard Garlikov Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Alison I. Griffith York University Arlen Gullickson Western Michigan University Ernest R. House University of Colorado Aimee Howley Ohio University Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Calgary Richard M. Jaeger University of North Carolina--Greensboro Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba


12 of 13 Thomas MauhsPugh Green Mountain College Dewayne Matthews Western Interstate Commission for HigherEducation William McInerney Purdue University Mary McKeown-Moak MGT of America (Austin, TX) Les McLean University of Toronto Susan Bobbitt Nolen University of Washington Anne L. Pemberton Hugh G. Petrie SUNY Buffalo Richard C. Richardson Arizona State University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Dennis Sayers Ann Leavenworth Centerfor Accelerated Learning Jay D. Scribner University of Texas at Austin Michael Scriven Robert E. Stake University of Illinois--UC Robert Stonehill U.S. Department of Education Robert T. Stout Arizona State University David D. Williams Brigham Young University EPAA Spanish Language Editorial BoardAssociate Editor for Spanish Language Roberto Rodrguez Gmez Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico Adrin Acosta (Mxico) Universidad de J. Flix Angulo Rasco (Spain) Universidad de Teresa Bracho (Mxico) Centro de Investigacin y DocenciaEconmica-CIDEbracho Alejandro Canales (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma Ursula Casanova (U.S.A.) Arizona State Jos Contreras Domingo Universitat de Barcelona Erwin Epstein (U.S.A.) Loyola University of Josu Gonzlez (U.S.A.) Arizona State Rollin Kent (Mxico)Departamento de InvestigacinEducativaDIE/ Mara Beatriz Luce (Brazil)Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do


13 of 13 Javier Mendoza Rojas (Mxico)Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicojaviermr@servidor.unam.mxMarcela Mollis (Argentina)Universidad de Buenos Humberto Muoz Garca (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicohumberto@servidor.unam.mxAngel Ignacio Prez Gmez (Spain)Universidad de Daniel Schugurensky (Argentina-Canad)OISE/UT, Simon Schwartzman (Brazil)Fundao Instituto Brasileiro e Geografiae Estatstica Jurjo Torres Santom (Spain)Universidad de A Carlos Alberto Torres (U.S.A.)University of California, Los


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.