Separate and Not Equal: The Implementation of Structured English Immersion in Arizona's Classrooms

Abstract

Background/Context

Over the last ten years, a convergence of laws and decrees has impacted the development and implementation of Arizona's current program for English language learners (ELLs): the four-hour Structured English Immersion (SEI) model. Arizona's new model, while being touted by some as the most effective program for ELLs (Clark, 2009), is raising concerns with researchers and educators involved with the education of ELLs. A recent Auditor General's report (Davenport, 2011) indicates that instructional programs for ELLs have lacked uniformity and that the impact of the SEI model on ELLs’ language development and academic achievement is unknown. Therefore, although it has been over a decade since the Flores Consent Order, we must continue to examine the evidence regarding implementation of the SEI model in order to determine if the instruction offered to ELLs is comparable in amount, scope, and quality to that provided to English-proficient students.

Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study

This paper utilizes the trajectory of these language policies as a lens for examining how ideas stemming from the Flores Consent Order and the English-Only voter initiative (Proposition 203), and continuing through to the legislative response of the court order (House Bill 2064) are evidenced in Arizona's SEI classrooms.

Research Design

The purpose of this qualitative study is to document and describe the characteristics of the four-hour SEI policy in practice. Over a seven-week period during the spring semester of the 2009/2010 school year, researchers utilized ethnographic observation methods, interviews, and a collection of artifacts to document the implementation of the SEI model and instruction of ELLs. Using a constant comparison analysis, findings were re-examined to show how this restrictive language policy has impacted and shaped the SEI model in practice today.

Conclusions/Recommendations

Arizona's current four-hour model, as implemented in K-12 SEI classrooms, hinders policy intentions: ELLs do not have access to quality instruction, or a curriculum that is comparable in amount, scope, and quality to that of non-ELLs. Furthermore, deficiencies in funding abound, limiting ELLs’ opportunities for the compensatory education needed to help them catch up academically. The authors contend that a re-examination of the SEI policy is warranted if the state is to fully realize the intentions of the Flores Consent Order and equal educational opportunity for ELLs.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arias

M. B.

, & Faltis

(2007, April). Critical race theory and adolescent Mexican-immigrant students in high school: Stories of success and silence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, Illinois.

Arizona Department of Education. (n.d.). Discrete skills inventory (DSI). Retrieved from http://www.ade.state.az.us/oelas/

Arizona Department of Education. (2006). Accountability: Office of English language acquisition services. Retrieved from http://www.ade.state.az.us/oelas/

Arizona Department of Education. (2007). Curricular framework for SEI endorsement. Retrieved from http://www.ade.state.az.us/oelas

Arizona Department of Education. (2008). Structured English immersion models of the Arizona English language learners task force. Retrieved from http://www.ade.state.az.us/ELLTaskForce/2008/SEIModels05-14-08.pdf

Arizona Department of Education. (2009). English language learner monitoring process for federal and state compliance. Retrieved May 28, 2010, from http://www.ade.state.az.us/oelas

Arizona Department of Education. (2010). Administrator's model implementation training 06-04-2009.[PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.ade.state.az.us/oelas/

Arizona Revised Statutes. (2000). Article 3.1 English Language Education for the Children in Public Schools. Retrieved from http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=15

Ball

S. J.

(2000). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. In Ball

S. J.

(Ed.), Sociology of Education. (pp. 1830–1839). New York: RoutlegeFalmer.

10.

Blanton

C. K.

(2005). The strange career of bilingual education in Texas, 1836–1981. College Station, TX: Texas A&M Press.

11.

Combs

M. C.

, Evans

, Fletcher

, Parra

, & Jiménez

(2005). Bilingualism for the children: Implementing a dual-language program in an English-only state. Educational Policy, 19(4), 701–725.

12.

Crawford

J. W.

(2000). Anatomy of the English-only movement. Retrieved from http://our-world.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/anatomy.htm

13.

de Jong

E. J.

, Arias

M. B.

, & Sánchez

M. T.

(2010). Undermining teacher competencies: Another look at the impact of restrictive language policies. In Gándara

, & Hopkins

(Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies. (pp. 118–136). New York: Teachers College Press.

14.

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 from http://www.auditorgen.state.az.us/Reports/School_Districts/Statewide/2008_April/ELL_Baseline_Report.pdf

15.

Davenport

D. K.

(2011). Arizona English language leaner program, fiscal year.2010(Report No. 11-06). State of Arizona Office of the Auditor General. Retrieved from http://www.azauditor.gov/Reports/School_Districts/Statewide/2011/ELL_Report.pdf

16.

Erickson

(1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In Wittrock

M. C.

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. (3rd ed.) (pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.

17.

Florez

I. R.

(July, 2010). Do the AZELLA cut scores meet the standards? A validation review of the Arizona English language learner assessment. Los Angeles, CA: Civil Rights Project: University of California, Los Angeles.

18.

Flores v. Arizona. No. 07-15603, No. 07-15605, 1014, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 577 F.3d 1014; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 18092.

19.

Gándara

, & Orfield

(2010). A return to the “Mexican room”: The segregation of Arizona's English learners. Los Angeles, CA: Civil Rights Project: University of California, Los Angeles.

20.

Grijalva

G. G.

Implementing language policy: Exploring concerns of school principals. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University

Tempe, Arizona.

21.

Jussim

, & Harber

(2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(2), 131–155.

22.

Kaplan

, & Leckie

(2009). The impact of English-only legislation on teacher professional development: Shifting perspectives in Arizona. Theory into Practice, 48(4), 297–303.

23.

Krashen

S. D.

(1984). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.

24.

Krashen

, Rolstad

, & MacSwan

(2007). Review of ‘research summary and bibliography for structured English immersion programs’ of the Arizona English language learners task force. Arizona State University. Retrieved from http://bale.wiki.educ.msu.edu/file/view/Krashen_Rolstad_MacSwan_review.pdf/37126027/Krashen_Rolstad_MacSwan_review.pdf

25.

Lau v. Nichols. (1974). No. 72-6520, U.S. Supreme Court, 414 U.S. 563; 94 S. Ct. 786; 39 L. Ed. 2d 1; 1974 U.S. LEXIS 151

26.

Lightbown

, & Spada

(2006). How languages are learned. (3rd ed.), Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

27.

Lillie

K. E.

, Markos

, Estrella

, Nguyen

, Peer

, Perez

, Trifiro

, … Wiley

T. G.

(July, 2010). Policy in practice: The implementation of structured English immersion in Arizona. Los Angeles, CA: Civil Rights Project: University of California, Los Angeles.

28.

Mahoney

, MacSwan

, Haladyna

, & García

(2010). Castañeda's third prong: Evaluating the achievement of Arizona's English learners under restrictive language policy. In Gándara

, & Hopkins

(Eds.), Forbidden languages: English learners and restrictive language policies. (pp. 50–64). New York: Teachers College.

29.

Miles

M. B.

, & Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis. (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

30.

Moore

S. C. K.

(2008). Language policy implementation: Arizona's structured, English, immersion (SEI) training. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University

Tempe, Arizona.

31.

Mora

J. K.

(2000). Staying the course in times of change: Preparing teachers for language minority education. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5), 345–357. doi: 10.1177/0022487100051005003

32.

Nieto

(2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. (3rd ed.), Boston: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.

33.

Office of English Language Acquisition Services (OELAS), Arizona Department of Education. (2009-2010). English language learner monitoring process for federal and state compliance. Retrieved from http://www.ade.state.az.us/oelas/downloads/2009-2010EnglishLanguageLearnerMonitoringProcessforCompliance.pdf

34.

Pajares

M. F.

(1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.

35.

Richardson

(1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In Sikula

(Ed.) Handbook of research on teacher education. (2nd ed.) (pp. 102–119). New York: Association of Teacher Educators.

36.

Roberts

, & Griffiths

(2008). Error correction and good language learners. In Griffiths

(Ed.), Lessons from good language learners. (pp. 282–293). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

37.

Weinberg

(1995). A chance to learn: The history of race and education in the United States. (2nd ed.), California State University, Long Beach: The University Press.

38.

Wiley

T. G.

(2007). Accessing language rights in education: A brief history of the U.S. context. In García

, & Baker

(Eds.),Bilingual education: An introductory reader. (pp. 89–107). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

39.

Wiley

T. G.

, & Wright

W. E.

(2004). Against the undertow: Language-minority education policy and politics in the “age of accountability.” Educational Policy, 18(1), 142–168. doi:10.1177/0895904803260030

40.

Wright

W. E.

(2004). Intersection of language and assessment policies for English language learners in Arizona. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University

Tempe, Arizona.

41.

Wright

W.E.

(2005). The political spectacle of Arizona's proposition 203. Educational Policy, 19, 662–700.

42.

Wright

W. E.

, & Choi

(2006). The impact of language and high-stakes testing policies on elementary school English language learners in Arizona. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(13), 1–75. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/viewFile/84/210

43.

Wright

W. E.

, & Pu

(2005). Academic achievement of English language learners in post proposition 203 Arizona. Language Policy Research Unit, Educational Policy Resource Laboratory, Arizona State University. Retrieved from http://epicpolicy.org/files/EPSL-0509-103-LPRU.pdf

44.

Wong-Fillmore

, & Snow

C. E.

(2002). What teachers need to know about language. In Adger

C. T.

, Snow

C. E.

, & Christian

(Eds.), What teachers need to know about language. (pp. 7–53). McHenry, IL: Delta Systems.