The impact of language and high-stakes testing policies on elementary school English language learners in Arizona.

Abstract

This article reports the results of a survey of third-grade teachers of English Language Learners (ELLs) in Arizona regarding school language and accountability policies—Proposition 203, which restricts bilingual education and mandates sheltered English Immersion; the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB); and Arizona LEARNS, the state’s high-stakes testing and accountability program. The instrument, consisting of 126 survey questions plus open-ended interview question, was designed to obtain teacher’s views, to ascertain the impact of these polices, and to explore their effectiveness in improving the education of ELL students. The survey was administered via telephone to 40 teacher participants from different urban, rural and reservation schools across the state. Each participant represents the elementary school in their respective school district which has the largest population of ELL students. Analyses of both quantitative and qualitative data reveal that these policies have mostly resulted in confusion in schools throughout the state over what is and is not allowed, and what constitutes quality instruction for ELLs, that there is little evidence that such policies have led to improvements in the education of ELL students, and that these policies may be causing more harm than good. Specifically, teachers report they have been given little to no guidance over what constitutes sheltered English immersion, and provide evidence that most ELL students in their schools are receiving mainstream sink-or-swim instruction. In terms of accountability, while the overwhelming majority of teachers support the general principle, they believe that high-stakes tests are inappropriate for ELLs and participants provided evidence that the focus on testing is leading to instruction practices for ELLs which fail to meet their unique linguistic and academic needs. The article concludes with suggestions for needed changes to improve the quality of education for ELLs in Arizona.

Research on Data Use: A Framework and Analysis

“…Finally, for district administrators, changing practice may mean altering the ways they go about the task of making decisions or setting new policies, but it may also mean changing the way that they work in relation to each other and those in schools. 5 Like organizational change, it is important to remember that change in practice may not always be positive, as when teachers and administrators game the system (Booher- Jennings, 2005;Heilig & Darling-Hammond, 2008), take measures to narrow the curriculum (Diamond & Cooper, 2007;Hoffman, Assaf, & Paris, 2001;Marsh, Hamilton, & Gill, 2008;Ogawa, Sandholtz, & Scribner, 2004;Sloan, 2006;Wright & Choi, 2006), or make short-term, superficial changes in practice (Diamond & Cooper, 2007).…”

Prereferral Process with Latino English Language Learners with Specific Learning Disabilities: Perceptions of English-as-a-Second-Language Teachers

“…The low levels of academic achievement (Fry & Lopez, 2012) and high rate of dropout (NCES, 2014) further necessitated the need to focus the study on Latino ELLs. Second, the study sought to 26 address the perceptions of ESL teachers because of the absence of ESL teachers' voices in the existing literature and the evidence that ESL teachers may spend the most instructional time with ELLs and have the deepest understanding of policy impact on ELLs (Wright & Choi, 2006). Third, the study was designed to examine the perceptions of teachers in a school district with a small percentage of ELLs because demographic data indicated that a growing number of ELL families are moving into school districts with traditionally small ELL populations (Capps et al, 2005).…”

Contextualizing Policy Appropriation: Teachers’ Perspectives, Local Responses, and English-only Ballot Initiatives

“…Besides ideological critiques, studies have mostly noted programmatic changes at the district and/or state level (de Jong et al 2005;Gándara et al 2005;Garcia and Curry-Rodriguez 2000;Maxwell-Jolly 2000) or have analyzed the impact of the laws on student English language development and academic achievement by examining exit rates or standardized achievement test scores (e.g., Clark 1999;Grissom 2004;Hill 2004;Mahoney et al 2005;Pappano 2006;Parrish et al 2006;Sacchetti and Jan 2006;Wright 2005;Wright and Choi 2006). While the focus on these 'outer' policy layers can provide important insights, they leave out the central role that context and the beliefs of individuals within particular contexts play in policy processes (Ricento and Hornberger 1996;Stritikus and Wiese 2006).…”

“…With some exceptions (e.g., Combs et al 2005;Sánchez 2006;Wright and Choi 2006), they have almost exclusively focused on Proposition 227 in California (Gándara et al , 2005Parrish et al 2006; and special issues of the Bilingual Research Journal [2000] and The Urban Review [2001]). These articles collectively highlight the chaotic nature of the initial implementation process in the absence of clear guidelines and the lack of sufficient professional development, collaboration, and resources (including access to native language resources) (Arellano-Houchin et al 2001;Gándara et al 2005;Gándara et al 2003).…”