{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022102936532996525, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001894537417113988, 'mean_word_length': 5.034285714285715, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Overtested: how high-stakes accountability fails English language learners

on the ‘politics of intra-group difference’. Drawing upon critical feminism, she asserts that the social significance of differences is constructed, and that the distinction between what is considered to be the norm and deviation from that norm is the result of power relationships that restrict personal autonomy. Thus, ‘paying attention to the relations of power in which differences have been constructed is valuable when trying to determine which differences and whose differences should be affirmed and which should be challenged’ (172). In order to do this, courts are invited to listen to the voices of ‘concrete others’, such as the women whom Sawridge sought to exclude, and to assess their claims in light of universal norms. Accordingly, ‘the focus of the analysis must shift from the effort to specify the content of a group’s common identity or the authentic practices that are integral to a group’s culture to the control of identity and cultural reproduction’ (195). This methodology is easier explained than applied, however, and the Sawridge case is perhaps not the most revealing test. Most observers would agree that the excluded women were in a vulnerable position and that the band’s actions were objectionable. The judges, who did in fact pronounce on the merits of certain aspects of the case, had no difficulty in ruling in favour of the excluded women. Thus, it was easy to discern the relations of power at play here. Other cases would likely be less clear-cut, and one could argue that courts are less well equipped to ascertain relations of power especially those with a historical component than they are to assess and balance competing identity and cultural claims. It is not obvious that courts trying to follow Dick’s methodology would do anything other than the kind of contextual analysis they are already performing, albeit taking into account a wider range of factors. Moreover, Dick’s proposal leaves little scope for collective action aimed at strengthening the culture and identity of a minority group. Such measures will inevitably be opposed by some group members, who could then be seen as victims of some form of oppression. But Dick’s framework is inherently distrustful of the minority’s collective voice, which remains caught between the ‘generalized other’ and the ‘concrete other’. Yet, closer attention to other case studies such as, I would argue, the measures for the protection of the French language in Quebec could have revealed instances where there appears to be an adequate balance between the collective interests of a minority and those of its members. All in all, however, Dick’s book is a welcome addition to the literature on the tension between minority and individual rights. Although her proposal does not resolve the tension, it provides useful tools to shift the attention away from essentialist conceptions of identity and culture, and it invites courts and other decision-makers to consider a broader range of factors that include the power relations inherent in the way that human difference is given social significance.