This qualitative study explored Teach for America (TFA) alumni teachers’ discourse on Arizona language policy, conducted with eight teachers in the Phoenix metropolitan area who received their professional teacher preparation from TFA, a national organization that uses alternative paths to certification to place teachers in low-income schools. During the 2009-2010 school year, we investigated how TFA alumni teachers described the state-mandated English-only language policy, which requires all labeled English language learners (ELLs) to enroll in English language development (ELD) classrooms for 4 hr of daily skill-based English instruction. In addition to their open evaluation and critique of the language policy, teachers’ discourse revealed language policy appropriation, as the teachers tweaked and stretched the language policy directives to match their ideology, pedagogy, and classroom context. Findings from our discourse analysis of the interview data demonstrate that the teachers’ discourse reflected their TFA preparation regarding recognizing the flaws in the educational system and taking action to make change within the four walls of their urban classrooms. The research holds implications for language education reform through recognizing the active role of the teacher in language policy formation and implementation.
AlamilloL.ViramontesC. (2000). Reflections from the classroom: Teacher perspectives on the implementation of Proposition 227. Bilingual Research Journal, 24, 1-13.
AugustD.GoldenbergC.RuedaR. (2010). Restrictive state language policies: Are they scientifically based? In GandaraP.HopkinsM. (Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies (pp. 139-158). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
8.
ClarkK. (2009). The case for Structured English Immersion. Educational Leadership, 66, 42-46.
9.
CombsM. C.EvansC.FletcherT.ParraE.JimenezA. (2005). Bilingualism for the children: Implementing a Dual-Language Program in an English-only state. Educational Policy, 19, 701-728.
10.
Darling-HammondL.HoltzmanD. J.GatlinS. J.HeiligJ. V. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13, 1-51.
11.
DatnowA.HubbardL.MehanH. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
DeckerP. T.MayerD. P.GlazermanS. (2006). Alternative routes to teaching: The impacts of Teach for America on student achievement and other outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25, 75-96.
13.
de JongE. J.AriasM. B.SanchezM. T. (2010). Undermining teacher competencies: Another look at the impact of restrictive language policies. In GandaraP.HopkinsM. (Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies (pp.118-136). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
EricksonF. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In WittrockM. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York, NY: MacMillan.
16.
FarrS. (2009). Teaching as leadership: The highly effective teacher’s guide to closing the achievement gap. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
17.
FryR. (2007). How far behind in math and reading are English language learners?Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/76.pdf
18.
GandaraP.HopkinsM. (2010). The changing linguistic landscape of the United States. In GandaraP.HopkinsM. (Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies (pp.1-19). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
19.
GeeJ. P. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99-125.
20.
GeeJ. P. (2005). Introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London, UK: Routledge.
21.
HeiligJ. V.JezS. J. (2010). Teach for America: A review of the evidence. Boulder, CO: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/teach-for-america
22.
HeinekeA. J. (2009). Teachers’ discourse on English language learners: Cultural models of language and learning (Doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University, Tempe.
23.
JammalS.DuongT. (2007). Language rights: An integration agenda for immigrant communities. Washington, DC: MALDEF/Asian American Justice Center/Migration Policy Institute.
24.
KrashenS.RolstadK.MacSwanJ. (2007). Review of “Research Summary and Bibliography for Structured English Immersion Programs” of the Arizona English Language Learners Taskforce. Takoma Park, MD: Institute for Language Education and Policy. Retrieved from http://www.elladvocates.org/documents/AZ/Krashen_Rolstad_MacSwan_review.pdf
25.
Laczko-KerrI.BerlinerD. C. (2002). The effectiveness of Teach for America and other under-certified teachers on student academic achievement: A case of harmful public policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10, 1-53.
26.
LevinsonB. A. U.SuttonM. (2001). Introduction: Policy as/in practice—A sociocultural approach to the study of educational policy. In SuttonM. (Ed.), Policy as practice: Toward a comparative sociocultural analysis of educational policy (pp. 1-22). Westport, CT: Ablex Press.
27.
McAdamD.BrandtC. (2009). Assessing the effects of voluntary youth service: The case of Teach For America. Social Forces, 88, 945-970.
28.
MooreS. C. K. (2008). Language policy implementation: Arizona’s SEI training (Doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University, Tempe.
29.
RaymondM.FletcherS. H.LuqueJ. (2001). Teach for America: An evaluation of teacher differences and student outcomes in Houston, Texas. Palo Alto, CA: CREDO.
30.
RicentoT. K.HornbergerN. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 401-427.
31.
RichardsL. (2002). Using NVivo in qualitative research (Product/registry number: NVP08-LZ000-D702U-IW0N4-J8YY4). Melbourne, Australia: QSR International.
32.
RogoffB. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
33.
StritikusT. (2002). Immigrant children and the politics of English only. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishing.
34.
StritikusT.GarcíaE. (2000). Education of limited English proficient students in California schools: An assessment of the influence of Proposition 227 on selected teachers and classrooms. Bilingual Research Journal, 24, 1-11.
United States Supreme Court. (1974). Lau v. Nichols, 72-6520, Supreme Court of the United States, 414 U.S. 563.
42.
ValdezE. O. (2001). Winning the battle, losing the war: Bilingual teachers and post-Proposition 227. Urban Review, 33, 237-253.
43.
VargheseM. M.StritikusT. (2005). “Nadie me dijo (Nobody told me)” Language policy negotiation and implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 73-87.
44.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45.
WertschJ. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
