Advertisement

A decade after institutionalization: educators’ perspectives of structured English immersion

  • Angela CruzeEmail author
  • Meg Cota
  • Francesca López
Original Paper
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

In 2006, Arizona ELL Task Force implemented Structured English Immersion (SEI) within its public schools to educate emergent bilingual (EB) students. Although prior research has demonstrated limitations of SEI, we investigate whether institutionalization has improved its implementation and outcomes using coordinators’ and teachers’ responses from a statewide summit. Analyses of responses for each of the research questions uncovered that SEI was viewed as providing ease of implementation, but there were several obstacles introduced: (1) limitations to curricular access and correlation to standards; (2) deficit model; (3) limited access to language acquisition; (4) limited access to high school graduation; (5) issues with language assessment; (6) classification concerns; (7) classroom segregation; and (8) lack of teacher preparation for instruction. Respondents asserted that changes were needed in SEI and standards, teacher endorsement and pedagogy, and assessment to support EB learning and language acquisition. We discuss the resulting themes against extant literature, and provide policy recommendations.

Keywords

Structured English immersion Language policy Language immersion Language Acquisition English language learners Emergent bilinguals English-only policy 

References

  1. Arias, M. (2012). Language policy and teacher preparation: The implications of a restrictive language policy on teacher preparation. In M. Arias & C. Faltis (Eds.), Implementing educational language policy in Arizona, legal, historical and current practices in SEI (pp. 3–20). Towanda, NJ: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arias, B., & Faltis, C. (Eds.). (2012). Implementing educational language policy in Arizona: Legal, historical and current practices. Towanda, NJ: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  3. Arizona Department of Education. [AZDE]. (2013). AZELLA Development. Retrieved June 15, 2016 from https://cms.azed.gov/home/GetDocumentFile?id=585073f6aadebe0988f82be7.
  4. Arizona Department of Education. [AZDE]. (2014). Structured English immersion models of the Arizona English language learners task force. Retrieved on July 29, 2016 from https://cms.azed.gov/home/GetDocumentFile?id=55257a8f1130c008a0c55ce3.
  5. Arizona Department of Education. [AZDE]. (2016). English Language learners: Structured English immersion models. Approved Refinements to SEI models. Retrieved July 29, 2016 https://cms.azed.gov/home/GetDocumentFile?id=55257a811130c008a0c55bd4.
  6. Arizona Department of Education. [AZDE]. (2017). Requirements for structured English immersion, pre-K endorsements. Retrieved May 31, 2017 from the Office of English Language Acquisition, https://cms.azed.gov/home/GetDocumentFile?id=57a62deaaadebe02a4f4f3de.
  7. August, D., Goldenberg, C., & Rueda, R. (2010). Restrictive state language policies: Are they scientifically based. In P. Gándara & M. Hopkins (Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies (pp. 139–158). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  8. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language minority children and youth. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Borman, G., & Dowling, M. (2010). Schools and inequality: A multilevel analysis of Coleman’s equality of educational opportunity data. Teachers College Record, 112, 1201–1246.Google Scholar
  10. Brown v Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).Google Scholar
  11. Callahan, R. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 305–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Castañeda vs. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981).Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, D., & Ball, D. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A commentary. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 331–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Collier, V., & Thomas, W. (2002). Reforming education policies for English language learners means better schools for all. The State Education Standard, 3, 30–36. Retrieved May 2, 2017 from www.thomasandcollier.com/assessts/2002–reforming-education-policies-for-english-language-learners-means-better-schools-for-the-state-education-standard_v3-p30-36_b.pdf.com.
  15. Combs, M. (2012). Everything on its head: How Arizona’s structured English immersion policy re-invents theory and practice. In M. B. Arias & C. Faltis (Eds.), Implementing educational language policy in Arizona: Legal, historical and current practices in SEI (pp. 59–85). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  16. Combs, M., Evans, C., Fletcher, T., Parra, E., & Jimenez, A. (2005). Bilingualism for the children: Implementing a dual-language program in an English-only state. Educational Policy, 19(5), 701–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Instructional policy into practice: The power of the bottom over the top. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 339–347.Google Scholar
  19. Davenport, D. K. (2008). Baseline study of Arizona’s English language learner programs and data, fiscal year 2007. State of Arizona Office of the Auditor General. Retrieved May 29, 2016 from http://www.auditorgen.state.az.us/Reports/School_Districts/Statewide/2008_April/EL L_Baseline_Report.pdf.
  20. de Jong, E. (2008). Contextualizing policy appropriation: Teachers’ perspectives, local responses, and English-only ballot initiatives. Urban Review, 40, 350–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Del Valle, S. (2003). Language rights and law in the United States: Finding our voices. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Equal Educational Opportunities Act, (EEOA), 20 U.S. Code § 1703 [f] (1974).Google Scholar
  22. Faltis, C., & Arias, M. B. (2012). Research-based reform in Arizona: Whose evidence counts for applying the Castañeda test to structured English immersion models. In B. Arias & C. Faltis (Eds.), Implementing educational language policy in Arizona: Legal, historical and current practices in SEI (pp. 86–107). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  23. Florez, I. (2010). Do the AZELLA cut scores meet the standards? A validation review of the Arizona English language learner assessment. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto de Derechos Civiles at UCLA.Google Scholar
  24. Gándara, P., & Hopkins, M. (Eds.). (2010). Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policy. New York, NY: Teacher College Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gándara, P., & Orfield, G. (2012). Segregating Arizona’s English learners: A return to the “Mexican room”? Teachers College Record, 114(9), 1–27.Google Scholar
  26. Gándara, P., & Rumberger, R. (2009). Immigration, language, and education: How does language policy structure opportunity. Teachers College Record, 111(3), 750–782.Google Scholar
  27. Gándara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R. (2003). English learners in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(36), 1–54.Google Scholar
  28. García, E. (2005). Teaching and learning in two languages: Bilingualism and schooling in the United States. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  29. García, O., & Kleifgen, J. (2010). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for English language learners. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  30. Garcia, E., Lawton, K., & De Diniz Figueiredo, E. (2012). The education of English language learners in Arizona: A history of underachievement. Teachers College Record, 114(9), 1–18.Google Scholar
  31. Genesee, F., Geva, E., Dressler, C., & Kamil, M. (2006). Synthesis: Cross-linguistic relationships. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 153–183). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the research on English learners: What we know and don’t yet know about effective instruction. American Educator, 37(2), 4.Google Scholar
  33. Goldenberg, C., & Coleman, R. (2010). Promoting academic achievement among English learners: A guide to the research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  34. González, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Gutiérrez, P. (2002). In search of bedrock: Organizing for success with diverse needs children in the classroom. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1(1), 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? (p. 1). UC Berkeley: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute. Policy Report.Google Scholar
  37. H.B. 2064, Forty-seventh Legislature, Second Regular Session, (Ariz. 2006).Google Scholar
  38. Hogan, T. (2014). Flores v. Arizona. In C. K. Moore (Ed.), Language policy processes and consequences: Arizona case studies (pp. 28–44). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. (2012). Co-teaching and other collaborative practices in the EFL/ESL classroom: Rationale, research, reflections, and recommendations. Charlotte: Information Age.Google Scholar
  40. Jimenez-Castellanos, O., Combs, M., Martinez, D., & Gomez, L. (2013). English language learners: What’s at stake for Arizona? Arizona State University Morrison Institute for Public Policy. Latino Public Policy Center. Retrieved June 5, 2016 from https://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/content/english-language-learners-whats-stake-arizona.
  41. Krashen, S., Rolstad, K., & MacSwan, J. (2007). Review of “research summary and bibliography for structured English immersion programs” of the Arizona English language learners task force. Takoma Park: Institute for Language Education and Policy.Google Scholar
  42. Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).Google Scholar
  43. Lillie, K., & Markos, A. (2014). The four-hour block: SEI in the classrooms. In C. K. Moore (Ed.), Language policy processes and consequences: Arizona case studies (pp. 28–44). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  44. Lillie, K., Markos, A., Arias, M., & Wiley, T. (2012). Separate and not equal: The implementation of structured English immersion in Arizona’s classrooms. Teachers College Record, 114(9), 1–33.Google Scholar
  45. Lillie, K. E., Markos, A., Estrella, A., Nguyen, T., Peer, K., Perez, K., & Wiley, T. G. (2010). Policy in practice: The implementation of structured English immersion in Arizona. Retrieved from the University of California, Los Angeles, The Civil Rights Project website https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8742n78n
  46. Lillie, K., & Moore, S. K. (2014). SEI in Arizona: Bastion for state’s rights. In C. K. Moore (Ed.), Language policy processes and consequences: Arizona case studies (pp. 28–44). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  47. Lin, A. M. Y. (2015). Researcher positionality. In F. M. Hult & D. Cassels Johnson (Eds.), Research methods in language policy and planning: A practical guide (pp. 21–32). West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
  48. López, F. A. (2010). Identity and motivation among Hispanic ELLs. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18, 16–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. López, F. A. (2012). Moderators of language acquisition models and reading achievement for English language learners: The role of emotional warmth and instructional support. Teachers College Record, 114, 1–30.Google Scholar
  50. López, F. A. (2017). Altering the trajectory of the self-fulfilling prophecy: Asset-based pedagogy and classroom dynamics. Journal of Education, 68, 193–212.Google Scholar
  51. López, F. A., & Iribarren, J. (2014). Creating and sustaining inclusive instructional settings for English language learners: Why, what, and how. Theory Into Practices, 53, 106–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. López, F. A., Scanlan, M., & Gundrum, B. (2013). Preparing teachers of English language learners: Empirical evidence and policy implications. Education Policy Analysis and Archives.  https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v21n20.2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. López, F. A., Mceneaney, E. H., & Nieswandt, M. (2015). Language instruction educational programs andacademic achievement of English language learners: Considerations for states with changing demographics. American Journal of Education, 121, 417–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lucas, T., Villegas, A., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher Education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 361–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lyons, J. J. (1990). The past and future directions of Federal bilingual education policy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 508, 66–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mahoney, K., & MacSwan, J. (2005). Reexamining identification and reclassification of English language learners: A critical discussion of select state practices. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1), 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Martinez-Wenzl, M., Perez, K., & Gándara, P. (2012). Is Arizona’s approach to educating its ELs superior to other forms of instruction? Teachers College Record, 114, 1–32.Google Scholar
  58. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). Retrieved March 17, 2016 from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-00/02-00mayringe.htm
  59. Moore, S. K., & Wiley, T. (2015). Interpretive policy analysis for language policy. In F. M. Hult & D. Cassels Johnson (Eds.), Research methods in language policy and planning: A practical guide (pp. 152–165). West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
  60. National Clearing House of English Language Acquisition. [NCELA]. (2014). Arizona demographics and state data. Retrieved July 5, 2016 from http://www.ncela.us/t3sis/Arizona.php.
  61. Ovando, C., Combs, M. C., & Collier, V. P. (2005). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicultural contexts. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities Social.Google Scholar
  62. Plyer vs. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).Google Scholar
  63. Ricento, T. K. (1998). The courts, the legislature and society: The shaping of Federal language policy in the United States. In D. Kibbee (Eds.), Language legislation and linguistic rights: Selected proceedings of the language legislation and linguistic rights conference, The University of Urbana-Champaign, March 1996. (pp. 123–141). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  64. Ricento, T. K., & Wright, W. E. (2008). Language policy and education in the United States. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 2–15). Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
  65. Rios-Aguilar, C., Canache, M., & Moll, L. (2012a). A study of Arizona’s teachers of English language learners. Teachers College Record, 114(9), 1–33.Google Scholar
  66. Rios-Aguilar, C., Canache, M., & Moll, L. (2012b). Implementing structured English immersion in Arizona; Benefits, challenges, and opportunities. Teachers College Record, 114(9), 1–18.Google Scholar
  67. Rios-Aguilar, C., & Gándara, P. (2012). Horne v. Flores and the future of language policy. Teachers College Record, 114(9), 1–13.Google Scholar
  68. Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy, 19(4), 572–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rumberger, R. W., & Tran, L. (2010). State language policies, school language practices, and the English learner achievement gap. In P. Gándara & M. Hopkins (Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies (pp. 195–215). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  70. Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2003). Legal discourse and decisions, teacher policymaking and the multilingual classroom: Constraining and supporting Khmer/English biliteracy in the United States. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6(3–4), 168–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Slavin, R., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 75, 247–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stritikus, T. T. (2003). The interrelationship of beliefs, context, and learning: The case of a teacher reacting to language policy. Journal of language, identity and education, 2(1), 29–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Swanson, C. (2004). Sketching a portrait of public high school graduation: Who graduates? Who doesn’t? In Gary Orfield (Ed.), Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  74. Valdés, G. (2001). Learning and not learning English. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  75. Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wiley, T., & Wright, W. E. (2004). Against the undertow: Language-minority education policy and politics in the “age of accountability”. Educational Policy, 18, 142–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wong-Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.Google Scholar
  78. Wright, W. E. (2005). The political spectacle of Arizona’s proposition 203. Educational Policy, 19, 662–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wright, W. E. (2015). Foundations for teaching English language learners: Research, theory, policy, and practice (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Caslon Publishing.Google Scholar
  80. Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretative policy analysis. qualitative research methods series 47. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Policy Studies and PracticeThe University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Educational Policy Studies and PracticeUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations