Arizona language policy now requires English learners (ELs) to enroll in English language development (ELD) classrooms for 4 hr of skill-based, English-only instruction. In this article, I describe Arizona teachers’ interpretation and negotiation of language policy and practice during this time of change to more restrictive mandates. I conducted this qualitative case study with a teacher study group comprised of six ELD teachers and one instructional coach from an urban elementary school during the first semester of language policy implementation. Using discourse analysis of individual interviews, study group dialogue, and institutional documentation, I investigated teachers’ talk as they grappled with restrictive policy mandates and effective classroom practice. Findings indicated that teachers negotiated the cultural models inherent in the institutional policy in the study group setting. In the contemporary context of restrictive educational policies, implications for stakeholders center on professional and collaborative support for educators.
ArgyrisC. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
2.
AriasM. B. (2012). Language policy and teacher preparation: The implications of a restrictive language policy on teacher preparation. In AriasM. B.FaltisC. (Eds.), Implementing educational language policy in Arizona: Legal, historical and current practices in structured English immersion (pp. 3-21). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
3.
AriasM. B.FaltisC. (2012). Implementing educational language policy in Arizona: Legal, historical and current practices in structured English immersion. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
AssafL. C. (2008). Professional identity of a reading teacher: Responding to high-stakes testing pressures. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14, 239-252.
7.
AugustD.GoldenbergC.RuedaR. (2010). Restrictive state language policies: Are they scientifically based? In GándaraP.HopkinsM. (Eds.) Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies (pp. 139-158). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
8.
AugustD.ShanahanT. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
BahktinM. M. (1981). The dialogical imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.
10.
BirchakB.ConnorC.CrawfordK. M.KahnL. H.KaserS.TurnerS.ShortK. G. (1998). Teacher study groups: Building community through dialogue and reflection. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
11.
Cochran-SmithM.FriesM. (2005). The AERA panel on research and teacher education: Context and goals. In Cochran-SmithM.ZeichnerK. (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 37-68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
Cochran-SmithM.LytleS. L. (1998). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305.
13.
CombsM. C. (2012). Everything on its head: How Arizona’s structure English immersion policy re-invents theory and practice. In AriasM. B.FaltisC. (Eds.), Implementing educational language policy in Arizona: Legal, historical and current practices in structured English immersion (pp. 59-85). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
14.
CombsM. C.EvansC.FletcherT.ParraE.JiménezA. (2005). Bilingualism for the children: Implementing a dual-language program in an English-only state. Educational Policy, 19, 701-728.
15.
CumminsJ. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children caught in the crossfire. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
16.
D’AndradeR. G.StraussC. (1993). Human motives and cultural models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
DatnowA.HubbardL.MehanH. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
de JongE. J. (2008). Contextualizing policy appropriation: Teachers’ perspectives, local responses, and English-only ballot initiatives. Urban Review, 40, 350-370.
19.
de JongE. J.AriasM. B.SánchezM. T. (2010). Undermining teacher competencies: Another look at the impact of restrictive language policies. In GándaraP.HopkinsM. (Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies (pp. 118-138). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
20.
DelpitL. (2006). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: The New Press.
21.
DornerL. (2011). Contested communities in a debate over dual-language education: The import of “public” values on public policies. Educational Policy, 25, 577-613.
22.
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.
23.
FaircloughN. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London, England: Routledge.
24.
FaltisC.AriasM. B. (2012). Research-based reform in Arizona: Whose evidence counts for applying the Castañeda test to structured English immersion models? In AriasM. B.FaltisC. (Eds.), Implementing educational language policy in Arizona: Legal, historical and current practices in structured English immersion (pp. 21-38). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
25.
FlorezI. R. (2010). Do the AZELLA cut scores meet the standards? A validation review of the Arizona English language learner assessment. Los Angeles: Civil Rights Project, University of California.
26.
FryR. (2007). How far behind in math and reading are English language learners?Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
27.
GándaraP.HopkinsM. (2010). The changing linguistic landscape of the United States. In GándaraP.HopkinsM. (Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies (pp. 7-19). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
28.
GándaraP.Maxwell-JollyJ. (2006). Critical issues in developing the teacher corps for English learners. In TéllezK.WaxmanH. C. (Eds.), Preparing quality educators for English language learners: Research, policies, and practices (pp. 99-120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
GándaraP.OrfieldG. (2012). Segregating Arizona’s English learners: A return to the “Mexican room?”Teachers College Record, 114, 1-27.
30.
GarcíaE. E.LawtonK.de FigueiredoD. (2010). Assessment of young English language learners in Arizona: Questioning the validity of the state measure of English proficiency. Los Angeles: Civil Rights Project, University of California.
31.
GarcíaE. E.LawtonK.de FigueiredoD. (2012). The education of English language learners in Arizona: A history of underachievement. Teachers College Record, 114, 1-18.
32.
GeeJ. P. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99-125.
33.
GeeJ. P. (2005). Introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London, England: Routledge.
34.
GoldenbergC.Rutherford-QuachS. (2012). The Arizona home language survey: The under-identification of students for English language services. Language Policy, 11, 21-30.
GutiérrezK. D.OrellanaM. F. (2006). The “problem” of English learners: Constructing genres of difference. Research in the Teaching of English, 40, 502-507.
37.
HeinekeA. J. (2009). Teachers’ discourse on English language learners: Cultural models of language and learning (Unpublished dissertation). Arizona State University, Tempe.
38.
HeinekeA. J.ColemanE.FerrellE.KersemeierC. (2012). Opening doors for bilingual students: Recommendations for building linguistically responsive schools. Improving Schools, 15, 130-147.
39.
HodkinsonP.HodkinsonH. (2001, December5-7). The strengths and limitations of case study research. Paper presented to the Learning and Skills Development Agency conference, Cambridge, UK.
40.
HollandD.QuinnN. (1987). Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
41.
HopkinsM. (2012). Arizona’s teacher policies and their relationship with English learner instructional practice. Language Policy, 11, 81-99.
42.
IddingsA. C. D.CombsM. C.MollL. (2012). In the arid zone: Drying out educational resources for English language learners through policy and practice. Urban Education, 47, 495-514.
43.
KohutA.KeeterS.DohertyC.SuroR.EscobarG. (2006). America’s immigration quandary. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and Pew Hispanic Center.
44.
KrashenS.MacSwanJ.RolstadK. (2012). Review of “research summary and bibliography for structure English immersion programs” of the Arizona English language learners task force. In AriasM. B.FaltisC. (Eds.), Implementing educational language policy in Arizona: Legal, historical and current practices in structured English immersion (pp. 107-120). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
45.
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.
46.
LillieK. E.MarkosA.AriasM. B.WileyT. (2012). Separate and not equal: The implementation of structured English immersion in Arizona’s classrooms. Teachers College Record, 114, 1-33.
47.
LillieK. E.MarkosA.EstrellaA.NguyenT.TrifiroA.AriasM. B.WileyT. G. (2010). Policy in practice: The implementation of structure English immersion in Arizona. Los Angeles: Civil Rights Project, University of California.
48.
LittleJ. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 917-946.
49.
LittleJ. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College Record, 105, 913-945.
50.
LongM. H.AdamsonH. D. (2012). SLA research and Arizona’s structured English immersion policies. In AriasM. B.FaltisC. (Eds.), Implementing educational language policy in Arizona: Legal, historical and current practices in structured English immersion (pp. 39-57). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
51.
LucasT.GrinbergJ. (2008). Responding to the linguistic reality of mainstream classrooms: Preparing all teachers to teach English language learners. In Cochran-SmithM.Feiman-NemserS.McIntyreD. J.DemersK. E. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 606-636). New York, NY: Routledge.
52.
MahoneyK.MacSwanJ.HaladynaT.GarcíaD. (2010). Castañeda’s third prong: Evaluating the achievement of Arizona’s English learners under restrictive language policy. In GándaraP.HopkinsM. (Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies (pp. 50-64). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
53.
MahoneyK.MacSwanJ.ThompsonM. (2005). The condition of English language learners in Arizona, 2005. In GarcíaD.MolnarA. (Eds.), The condition of PreK-12 education in Arizona, 2005 (pp. 1-24). Tempe: Arizona State University.
54.
Martínez-WenzlM.PérezK.GándaraP. (2012). Is Arizona’s approach to educating its ELs superior to other forms of instruction?Teachers College Record, 114, 1-32.
55.
McLaughlinM.TalbertJ. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
56.
MenkenK.GarcíaO. (2010). Introduction. In MenkenK.GarcíaO. (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers (pp. 1-10). New York, NY: Routledge.
57.
MooreS. C. K. (2012). “They’re just confused”: SEI as policy into practice. In AriasM. B.FaltisC. (Eds.), Implementing educational language policy in Arizona: Legal, historical and current practices in structured English immersion (pp. 121-141). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
58.
MurriN. J.MarkosA.Estrella-SilvaA. (2012). Implementing structured English immersion in teacher preparation in Arizona. In AriasM. B.FaltisC. (Eds.), Implementing educational language policy in Arizona: Legal, historical and current practices in structured English immersion (pp. 142-163). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
PalmerD.RangelV. S. (2011). High stakes accountability and policy implementation: Teacher decision making in bilingual classrooms in Texas. Educational Policy, 25, 614-647.
61.
RicentoT.HornbergerN. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 401-426.
62.
Ríos-AguilarC.González-CancheM.MollL. (2012a). Implementing structured English immersion in Arizona: Benefits, challenges, and opportunities. Teachers College Record, 114, 1-18.
63.
Ríos-AguilarC.González-CancheM.MollL. (2012b). A study of Arizona’s teachers of English language learners. Teachers College Record, 114, 1-33.
64.
Ríos-AguilarC.González-CancheM.SabetghadamS. (2012). Evaluating the impact of restrictive language policies: The Arizona 4-hour English language development block. Language Policy, 11, 47-80.
65.
RogoffB. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1, 209-229.
66.
RogoffB. (1997). Evaluating development in the process of participation: Theory, methods, and practice building on each other. In AmselE.RenningerK. A. (Eds.), Change and development: Issues of theory, application, and method (pp. 265-285). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
67.
RogoffB. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
68.
RolstadK.MahoneyK.GlassG. V. (2005). Weighing the evidence: A meta-analysis of bilingual education in Arizona. Bilingual Research Journal, 29, 31-42.
69.
SamwayK. D. (2006). When English language learners write: Connecting research to practice K-8. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
70.
ShohamyE. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London: Routledge.
71.
StakeR. (1998). Case study methods in educational research: Seeking sweet water. In JaegerR. M. (Ed.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 401-419). Washington, DC: SAGE.
72.
StritikusT. (2002). Immigrant children and the politics of English only. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishing.
73.
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.
74.
TharpR. G. (1997). From at-risk to excellence: Research, theory, and principles for practice. Santa Cruz: University of California at Santa Cruz, Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence. Retrieved from http://crede.berkeley.edu/research/crede/pdf/rr01.pdf
75.
ValdésG. (2000). Bilingual individuals and language-based discrimination: Advancing the state of the law on language rights. In GonzálezR. D.MelisI. (Eds.), Language ideologies: Critical perspectives on the official English movement (Vol. 1, pp. 140-170). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
76.
VargheseM. (2008). Using cultural models to unravel how bilingual teachers enact language policies. Language and Education, 22, 289-306.
77.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
78.
WertschJ. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
79.
WileyT. (2012). Forward: From restrictive SEI to imagining better. In AriasM. B.FaltisC. (Eds.), Implementing educational language policy in Arizona: Legal, historical and current practices in structured English immersion (pp. xiii-xxii.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
80.
WrightW. E. (2005). English language learners left behind in Arizona: The nullification of accommodations in the intersection of federal and state language and assessment policies. Bilingual Research Journal, 29, 1-30.
81.
WrightW. E.ChoiD. (2006). Voices from the classroom: A statewide survey of 3rd grade English language learner teachers on the impact of language and high-stakes testing policies in Arizona. Tempe: Arizona State University.
82.
WrightW. E.PuC. (2006). Academic achievement of English language learners in post-proposition 203 Arizona. Tempe: Arizona State University.
83.
WrigleyT. (2000). The power to learn: Stories of success in the education of Asian and other bilingual pupils. Staffordshire, UK: Trentham Books.
84.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. London, England: SAGE.
