'Keeping up the good fight': The said and unsaid in Flores v. Arizona

Melinda Hollis Thomas, Dinny Risri Aletheiani, David Carlson, Ann Dutton Ewbank

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations


The authors' purpose in this article is to interrogate the mediated and political discourses that emerged alongside the Flores v. Arizona case. The authors endeavor to offer another voice, framework and approach that may help sustain a continuous, paramount conversation concerning the educational rights of English language learners and the ways in which the public rationalizes appropriate state provisions for such students. Therein, the manuscript operationalizes the rationalities that appear across pro-Flores data (which consists of public opinion rhetoric positioned in support of the plaintiffand therefore in favor of appropriate state support for English language learners). The analysis of this data lays bare the echoes of the discursive regime surrounding the Flores case, a regime which unmasks neo-liberal rationalities for supporting English language learners. For example, the findings indicate that neo-liberal rationalities such as commodification, competition, risk, security, insurance and entrepreneurialism dominate the discursive landscape and eclipse alternative ways of arguing in support of students' rights to equitable and appropriate education, including social justice, pluralism and democracy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)242-261
Number of pages20
JournalPolicy Futures in Education
Issue number2
StatePublished - 2014

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education


Dive into the research topics of ''Keeping up the good fight': The said and unsaid in Flores v. Arizona'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this