The Education of English Language Learners in Arizona: A History of Underachievement

Abstract

Background

The state of Arizona has recently mandated the Structured English Immersion Model (SEI) in the state's public schools, and as a result the local flexibility that existed regarding the choice of program models for ELLs has ended. In the school year 2008-09, these regulations were made even more restrictive after the implementation of what is now called the 4-hour ELD block model.

Focus of Study

This report reviews achievement gaps in both reading and math between ELL and non-ELL students in Arizona over the period 2005-2009 and during the first year of implementation of the 4 hour ELD block, 2008-09. It also compares the progress of Arizona's ELL population towards academic proficiency relative to ELL students in two cities and states that do not place as restrictive legislation on ELL instruction: Utah and Washington, DC, two educational entities with vastly different spending policies.

Research Design

Achievement was measured using the Reading and Math subtests of the Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS), with data from the 2005-2009 administrations. To interpret gaps in performance, differences in AIMS mean scaled scores were analyzed. Two types of comparisons were made: 1) within-grade, across-year, and 2) across-grade, within-year. This allowed a more comprehensive understanding of trends in terms of achievement gaps. The comparison amongst different states was done separately. Data were collected from two sources: Applications for Race to the Top, and incentive program offered as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, were used for Utah and Washington, DC. Data from Arizona were gathered using publicly available state report cards released annually by the Arizona Department of Education.

Findings

The study finds that Arizona has made little to no progress in closing the achievement gap between ELL and non-ELL students during this period. Here, the study argues that, notwithstanding changes in tests and proficiency thresholds in the states over this period of time, the relative position of Arizona vis-à-vis these comparison entities remains very similar, with Arizona continuing to lag behind both in percent of ELL students achieving proficiency in reading and math.

Conclusion

The study presents recent evidence that suggests that Arizona is on the wrong path for closing achievement gaps for its ELL students and that this is due, at least in part, to its highly restrictive language instruction policies.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arias

(2009). Unpublished data based on Arizona Department of Education data.

Arizona Department of Education. (2010). Highlights from NAEP 2009. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from http://www.ade.state.az.us/standards/naep

Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 15, Article 3.1, § 15-756.01 (2000).

Artiles

A. J.

, Klingner

J. K.

, Sullivan

, & Fierros

E. G.

(2010). Shifting landscapes of professional practices: English learner special education placement in English-only states. In Gándara

, & Hopkins

(Eds.), Forbidden languages: English learners and restrictive language policies. New York: Teachers College Press.

August

, Goldenberg

, & Rueda

(2010). Restrictive state language policies: Are they scientifically based? In Gándara

, & Hopkins

(Eds.), Forbidden languages: English learners and restrictive language policies. New York: Teachers College Press.

August

, & Shanahan

(2006). Developing literacy in second language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bernhard

J. K.

, Cummins

, Campoy

F. I.

, Ada

A. F.

, Winsler

, & Bleiker

(2006). Identity texts and literacy development among preschool English language learners: Enhancing learning opportunities for children at risk for learning disabilities. Teachers college record, 108(11), 2380–2405.

Callahan

(2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to learn. American Educational Research Journal, 25(2), 177–192.

Castañeda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989, 5th Cir. (1981).

10.

Cortina

(2009). Immigrant youth in high school: Understanding educational outcomes for students of Mexican origin. In Wiley

T. G.

, Lee

J. S.

, & Rumberger

R. W.

(Eds.), The education of language minority immigrants in the United States. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.

11.

Cummins

(2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

12.

Curran

M. E.

(2003). Linguistic diversity and classroom management. Theory Into Practice, 42(4), 334–340.

13.

de Jong

, Arias

M. B.

, & Sanchez

M.T.

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

, & Hopkins

(Eds.), Forbidden languages: English learners and restrictive language policies. New York: Teachers College Press.

14.

Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974, 20 USC Sec. 1703, (1974)

15.

Francis

D. J.

, Lesaux

N. K.

, & August

(2006). Language of instruction. In August

, & Shanahan

(Eds.), Developing literacy literacy in second language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

16.

Gándara

, & Hopkins

(2010). Forbidden languages: English learners and restrictive language policies. New York: Teachers College Press.

17.

Gándara

, Losen

, August

, Uriarte

, Gomez

M. C.

, & Hopkins

(2010). Forbidden language: A brief history of U.S. language policy. In Gándara

, & Hopkins

(Eds.), Forbidden languages: English learners and restrictive language policies. New York: Teachers College Press.

18.

Gándara

, & Orfield

(2010). Moving from failure to a new vision of language policy. In Gándara

, & Hopkins

(Eds.), Forbidden languages: English learners and restrictive language policies. New York: Teachers College Press.

19.

García

E. E.

(2005). Teaching and learning in two languages: Bilingualism and schooling in the United States. New York: Teachers College Press.

20.

Krashen

, Rolstad

, & MacSwan

(2007). Review of “Research Summary and Bibliography for Structured English Immersion Programs” of the Arizona English Language Learners Task Force. Takoma Park, MD: Institute for language and education policy. Available: http://bale.wiki.educ.msu.edu/file/view/Krashen_Rolstad_MacSwan_review.pdf/37126027/Krashen_Rolstad_MacSwan_review.pdf

21.

Lee

J. S.

, & Suarez

(2009). A synthesis of the roles of heritage language in the lives of children of immigrants: What educators need to know. In Wiley

T. G.

, Lee

J. S.

, & Rumberger

R. W.

(Eds.), The education of language minority immigrants in the United States. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.

22.

Lesaux

N. K.

, & Geva

(2006). Synthesis: Development of literacy in language-minority students. In August

, & Shanahan

(Eds.), Developing literacy literacy in second language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

23.

Lesaux

N. K.

, Koda

, Siegel

L. S.

, & Shanahan

(2006). Development of literacy. In August

, & Shanahan

(Eds.), Developing literacy literacy in second language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

24.

Losen

(2010). Challenging limitations: The growing potential for overturning restrictive language policies and ensuring equal educational opportunity. In Gándara

, & Hopkins

(Eds.), Forbidden languages: English learners and restrictive language policies. New York: Teachers College Press.

25.

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. New York: Teachers College Press.

26.

Morrison

G. M.

, Cosden

M. A.

, O'Farrell

S. L.

, & Campos

(2003). Changes in Latino students’ perceptions of school belonging over time: Impact of language proficiency, self-perceptions and teacher evaluations. The California School Psychologist, 8, 87–98.

27.

Morrison Institute for Public Policy. Education. Arizona Indicators. Retrieved May 20, 2010 from http://arizonaindicators.org/pages/education/index.html

28.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Total and current expenditures per pupil in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary education, by function and state or jurisdiction: 2005–06. [Table]. Digest of education statistics. Retrieved May 20, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_182.asp

29.

Nguyen

D. T.

, & Stritikus

(2009). Assimilation and resistance: How language and culture influence gender identity negotiation in first-generation Vietnamese immigrant youth. In Wiley

T. G.

, Lee

J. S.

, & Rumberger

R. W.

(Eds.), The education of language minority immigrants in the United States. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.

30.

Osterman

K. F.

(2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational Research, 70, 323–367.

31.

Ovando

C. J.

, Combs

M. C.

, & Collier

V. P.

(2006). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicultural contexts. (4th Ed). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

32.

Rong

X. L.

, & Preissle

(2009). Educating immigrant students in the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

33.

Rumberger

R. W.

, & Tran

(2010). State language policies, school language practices, and the English learner achievement gap. In Gándara

, & Hopkins

(Eds.), Forbidden languages: English learners and restrictive language policies. New York: Teachers College Press.

34.

Schecter

S. R.

, & Bayley

(2002). Language as cultural practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

35.

Uriarte

, Tung

, Lavan

, & Diez

(2010). Impact of restrictive language policies on engagement and academic achievement of English learners in Boston public schools. In Gándara

, & Hopkins

(Eds.), Forbidden languages: English learners and restrictive language policies. New York: Teachers College Press.

36.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Table 182. Total and current expenditures per pupil in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary education, by function and state or jurisdiction: 2005–06. In U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (Ed.), Digest of Education Statistics (2006 ed.), Retreived from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_182.asp.

37.

Valdes

(2009). Commentary: Language, immigration and the quality of education: Moving toward a broader conversation. In Wiley

T. G.

, Lee

J. S.

, & Rumberger

R. W.

(Eds.), The education of language minority immigrants in the United States. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.

38.

Wentworth

, Pellegrin

, Thompson

, & Kakuta

(2010). Proposition 227 in California: A long-term appraisal of its impact on English learner student achievement. In Gándara

, & Hopkins

(Eds.), Forbidden languages: English learners and restrictive language policies. New York: Teachers College Press.

39.

Wiley

T. G.

, Lee

J. S.

, & Rumberger

R. W.

(2009). The education of language minority immigrants in the United States. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.