4. Everything on Its Head: How Arizona’s Structured English Immersion Policy Re-invents Theory and Practice

“The State Pulled a Fast One on Us”: A Critical Policy Analysis of State-Level Policies Affecting English Learners From District-Level Perspectives

“…In 2003, elected State Superintendent Tom Horne began enforcing SEI and later made efforts to align it with the outcomes of the Flores v. Arizona (1992). Rob Unz, an entrepreneur from California, endorsed Horne’s candidacy and heavily financed the campaign for Proposition 203, along with similar antibilingual measures in other states (Combs, 2012).…”

Negotiating Language Policy and Practice

“…Just as teachers were situated as deferent to the instructional coach, Cristy's position placed her under the authority of the school district and state department; in this way, top-down mandates and pressures (ADE, 2000(ADE, , 2008, which often came with little time to prepare teachers for proper implementation, mediated Cristy's discourse. When state ELD mandates went into effect, the ADE had yet to completely flesh out the design of the ELD approach to instruction, yet state and district administrators expected teachers to adjust and comply with hastily drawn ELD plans and requirements (Combs, 2012;Moore, 2012;Wiley, 2012). Through the school year, the state passed along new policy mandates to districts that then pressured schools for immediate compliance.…”

“…Although scholars deem to be flawed and unable to provide valid and reliable data (Florez, 2010;García, Lawton, & de Figueiredo, 2010), Arizona administrators proctor this high-stakes test to label ELs (i.e., identification) and determine ELD classroom exit (i.e., reclassification). Before testing out of the ELD track, the policy segregates ELs from mainstream peers (Combs, 2012;Gándara & Orfield, 2012;Lillie et al, 2010;Mahoney et al, 2010), emphasizes linguistic and instructional prescription (Combs, 2012;Iddings, Combs, & Moll, 2012), and limits content area instruction (Gándara & Orfield, 2012;Martínez-Wenzl, Pérez, & Gándara, 2012;Ríos-Aguilar, González-Canche, & Sabetghadam, 2012a). In addition to the literature that critically evaluates programmatic issues, quantitative comparisons of student achievement data demonstrate that ELs are not performing better than pre-ELD mandates (García et al, 2012;Mahoney et al, 2010); in addition, promotion and graduation rates have declined (Lillie et al, 2010).…”

“…Where previously some teachers opted for full university programs of study in English as a second language (ESL) or bilingual education, the ADE now required that all pre-and in-service teachers receive the SEI endorsement-90 hr, equivalent to two university courses, of state-prescribed teacher training (ADE, 2008). ADE administrators stipulated time increments for coverage of pre-determined SEI-related topics, which lacked alignment to the extant EL research base (Combs, 2012;Combs et al, 2005). To meet the demands of training all Arizona teachers, school districts, universities, and educational agencies rushed to put together curriculums to match state requirements; the wide array of providers led to inconsistent training for teachers (Moore, 2012).…”

Teacher Preparation and Language Policy Appropriation: A Qualitative Investigation of Teach For America Teachers in Arizona

“…Since the original implementation of the prescriptive ELD mandates required by Arizona House Bill 2064 (e.g., four hours of daily skill-based English instruction) in the 2008-2009 school year, existing studies emphasize the programmatic issues related to policy implementation and resulting achievement of ELs (deJong, Arias, & Sánchez, 2010), including the (a) lack of research base (August, Goldenberg, & Rueda, 2010;Krashen, Rolstad, & MacSwan, 2007), (b) overemphasis on prescription (Iddings, Combs, & Moll, 2012), (c) segregation of ELs away from mainstream peers (Gándara & Orfield, 2010), (d) dearth of content-area instruction (Gándara & Orfield, 2010, Martinez-Wenzl, Pérez & Gándara, 2010Ríos-Aguilar, González-Canche & Moll, 2010a), (e) heavy focus on skill-based grammar instruction (Combs, 2012), and (f) reliance on an invalid language test (Florez, 2010;García, Lawton, & deFigueiredo, 2010). In addition, researchers utilize standardized test data to demonstrate the lack of growth in EL achievement since the shift to ELD classroom instruction (García et al, 2010;Mahoney, MacSwan, Haladyna, & García, 2010).…”