Drawing on institutional theory, this study describes how cognitive, normative, and regulative mechanisms shape bilingual teachers’ language policy implementation in both English-only and bilingual contexts. Aligned with prior educational language policy research, findings indicate the important role that teachers’ beliefs play in the policy implementation process. However, findings also reveal several other dimensions of the policymaking process that contribute to the coupling of language policy and classroom practice, including district-level policy, administrative oversight, and teacher training policies. This study thus offers an institutional view of language policy implementation that accounts for teachers’ beliefs in a more nuanced and realistic way. Results from the study suggest the need to respond to both individual- and systems-level policy mechanisms—and the interplay between them—when designing school systems that address the educational needs of English language learners, whose presence is increasing in districts and schools across the United States.
AlamilloL.ViramontesC. (2000). Reflections from the classroom: Teacher perspectives on the implementation of Proposition 227. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(1-2), 1-13.
2.
Arellano-HouchinA.FlamencoC.MerlosM. M.SeguraL. (2001). Has California’s passage of proposition 227 made a difference in the way we teach?The Urban Review, 33, 221-235.
3.
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.
4.
AugustD.ShanahanT. (Eds.). (2008). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
BallS. (1994). Education reform. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
6.
BermanP.McLaughlinM. W. (1978). The Rand change agent study (Vols. 1-8). Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.
7.
BialystokE. (2011). Reshaping the mind: The benefits of bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 229-235.
8.
Cadiero-KaplanK.RodríguezJ. L. (2008). The preparation of highly qualified teachers for English language learners: Educational responsiveness for unmet needs. Equity & Excellence in Education, 41, 372-387.
CappsR.FixM.MurrayJ.OstJ.PasselJ.HerwantoroS. (2005). The new demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
11.
CoburnC. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145-170.
12.
CoburnC. E.SteinM. K. (2006). Communities of practice theory and the role of teacher professional community in policy implementation. In HonigM. I. (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 25-46). Albany: State University of New York Press.
13.
CohenD. K. (1995). What is the system in systemic reform?Educational Researcher, 24(9), 11-17, 31.
DatnowA. (2006). Connections in the policy chain: The “co-construction” of implementation in comprehensive school reform. In HonigM. (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 105-124). Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press.
18.
DatnowA.HubbardL.MehanH. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. London, England: Routledge/Falmer.
19.
de JongE. J. (2008). Contextualizing policy appropriation: Teachers, perspectives, local responses, and English-only ballot initiatives. Urban Review, 40, 350-370.
20.
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.
21.
DentlerR.HafnerA. (1997). Hosting newcomers: Structuring educational opportunities for immigrant children. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
22.
EchevarriaJ.VogtM.ShortD. J. (2012). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
23.
EnglishB.VargheseM. M. (2010). Enacting language policy through the facilitator model in a monolingual policy context in the United States. In MenkenK.GarcíaO. (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers (pp. 107-122). New York, NY: Routledge.
24.
EpsteinL.MartinA. D. (2005). Coding variables. In Kempf-LeonardK. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social measurement (pp. 321-327). New York, NY: Elsevier Academic Press.
25.
FloresB. B.SheetsR. H.ClarkE. R. (Eds.). (2011). Teacher preparation for bilingual student populations: Educar para transformar. New York, NY: Routledge.
26.
FrancisD. J.LesauxN. K.AugustD. (2006). Language of instruction. In AugustD.ShanahanT. (Eds.), Developing literacy in a second language: Report of the National Literacy Panel (pp. 365-410). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
FullanM. (2007). The meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
28.
GándaraP. (2000). In the aftermath of the storm: English learners in the post-227 era. Bilingual Research Journal, 21(1-2), 1-13.
29.
GándaraP.LosenD.AugustD.UriarteM.GómezM. C.HopkinsM. (2010). Forbidden language: A brief history of U.S. language policy. In GándaraP.HopkinsM. (Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies (pp. 20-36). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
30.
GándaraP.Maxwell-JollyJ. (2000). Preparing teachers for diversity: A dilemma of quality and quantity. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
31.
GándaraP.OrfieldG. (2010). Moving from failure to a new vision of language policy. In GándaraP.HopkinsM. (Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies (pp. 216-226). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
32.
García-NevarezA. G.StaffordM. E.AriasB. (2005). Arizona elementary teachers’ attitudes toward English language learners and the use of Spanish in classroom instruction. Bilingual Research Journal, 29, 295-317.
33.
GibbonsP. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
34.
GoldenbergC. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does not—say. American Educator, 32(2), 8-23.
35.
GreeneJ. P. (1997). A meta-analysis of the Rossell and Baker review of bilingual education research. Bilingual Research Journal, 21(2-3), 1-22.
36.
GutiérrezK. D. (2001). Smoke and mirrors: Language policy and educational reform. In LarsonJ. (Ed.), Literacy as snake oil: Beyond the quick fix (pp. 111-112). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
37.
HallP. M.McGintyP. J. W. (1997). Policy as the transformation of intentions: Producing program from statute. The Sociological Quarterly, 38, 439-467.
38.
HallettT.VentrescaM. J. (2006). How institutions form. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 908-924.
39.
HélotC. (2010). “Tu sais bien parler maîtresse!” Negotiating languages other than French in the primary classroom in France. In MenkenK.GarcíaO. (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers (pp. 52-71). New York, NY: Routledge.
40.
HonigM. (2006). New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity. Albany: StateUniversity of New York Press.
41.
HopkinsM. (2011). Building on our teaching assets: Bilingual educators’ pedagogy and policy implementation (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/35/01/3501909.html. (Publication No. 3501909).
42.
HopkinsM. (2012). Arizona’s teacher policies and their relationship with English learner instructional practice. Language Policy, 11(1), 81-99.
43.
HopkinsM. (2013). Building on our teaching assets: The unique pedagogical contributions of bilingual teachers. Bilingual Research Journal, 36(3), 350-370.
44.
JohnsonD. C.FreemanR. (2010). Appropriating language policy on the local level: Working the spaces for bilingual education. In MenkenK.GarcíaO. (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers (pp. 13-31). New York, NY: Routledge.
45.
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
46.
LintonA.FranklinR. C. (2010). Bilingualism for the children: Dual-language programs under restrictive language policies. In GándaraP.HopkinsM. (Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies (pp. 175-196). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
47.
LoebS.MillerL. C. (2006). State teacher policies: What are they, what are their effects, and what are their implications for school finance?Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice. Retrieved from http://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/11-Loeb-Miller(3-07).pdf
48.
LópezF.ScanlanM.GundrumB. (2013). Preparing teachers of English language learners: Empirical evidence and policy implications. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 21(20). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/epaa/article/view/1132
49.
MaroulisS.GuimeraR.PetryH.StringerM. J.GomezL. M.AmaralL. A. N.WilenskyU. (2010). Complex systems view of educational policy research. Science, 330, 38-39.
50.
McLaughlinM. W.TalbertJ. E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning: Strategic opportunities for meeting the nation’s education goals. Palo Alto, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary Schools.
51.
MehtaJ. (2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational policy 1980-2001. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 285-324.
52.
MenkenK.GarciaO. (Eds.). (2010). Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers. New York, NY: Routledge.
53.
MenkenK.SolorzaC. (2014). No child left bilingual: Accountability and the elimination of bilingual education programs in New York City schools. Educational Policy, 28, 96-125.
54.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
55.
MontañoT.UlanoffS. H.Quintanar-SarellanaR.AokiL. (2005). The DEbilingualization of California’s prospective bilingual teachers. Social Justice, 32, 103-121.
56.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Common core of data. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/
57.
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2011). The growing number of English learner students 1994/95–2009/10. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.us/files/uploads/9/growing_EL_0910.pdf
58.
OrtonJ. D.WeickK. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. The Academy of Management Journal, 15, 203-223.
59.
OvandoC. J.CombsM. C. (2012). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicultural contexts (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
60.
PalmerD.LynchA. W. (2008). A bilingual education for a monolingual test? The pressure to prepare for TAKS and its influence on choices for language of instruction in Texas elementary bilingual classrooms. Language Policy, 7, 217-235.
61.
PalmerD.RangelV. S. (2011). High stakes accountability and policy implementation: Teacher decision making in bilingual classrooms in Texas. Educational Policy, 25, 614-647.
62.
PenuelW. R.SpillaneJ. P. (2014). Learning sciences and policy design and implementation: Key concepts and tools for collaborative engagement. In SawyerR. K. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.., pp. 649-667). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
63.
RicentoT.HornbergerN. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 401-427.
RolstadK.MahoneyK.GlassG. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy, 19, 572-594.
66.
SandersW. L.RiversJ. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
67.
ScottW. R. (2007). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
68.
ShinF. H.KrashenS. (1996). Teacher attitudes toward the principles of bilingual education and toward students’ participation in bilingual programs: Same or different?Bilingual Research Journal, 20, 45-53.
69.
SlavinR.CheungA. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for English-language learners. Review of Educational Research, 75, 247-281.
70.
SpillaneJ. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 141-179.
71.
SpillaneJ. P.JenningsN. E. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98, 449-481.
72.
SpillaneJ. P.PariseL. M.ShererJ. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 586-620.
73.
SpillaneJ. P.ReiserB. J.ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387-431.
74.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
75.
StritikusT.GarcíaE. (2003). The role of theory and policy in the educational treatment of language minority students: Competitive structures in California. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(26). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/epaa/article/view/254/380/
TrujilloT. M. (2013). The politics of district instructional policy formation: Compromising equity and rigor. Educational Policy, 27, 531-559.
79.
ValdésG.BunchG.SnowC. E.LeeC. (2005). Enhancing the development of students’ language(s). In Darling-HammondL.BransfordJ. (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 126-168). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
80.
ValdezE. O. (2001). Winning the battle, losing the war: Bilingual teachers and post-Proposition 227. The Urban Review, 33, 237-253.
81.
ValdiviezoL. A. (2010). Angles make things difficult: Teachers’ interpretations of language policy and Quechua revitalization in Peru. In MenkenK.GarcíaO. (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers (pp. 72-87). New York, NY: Routledge.
82.
ValliL.BueseD. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 519-558.
83.
WilligA. C. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research, 55, 269-317.
