States’ increasing involvement in educational policy making can play a significant role in how school districts provide equitable educational opportunities. Guided by critical policy analysis, the purpose of this article is to examine state-level policy pertaining to English learners (ELs) from district-level perspectives. Based on interview and archival data from a multiple case study of three metropolitan school districts in different states, district-level perspectives illustrate how these state-level policies were symbolic, restrictive, or exclusionary toward ELs. The results also demonstrate ways that districts advocated, engaged, resisted, and navigated state-level policies and politics. Based on these findings, I argue that state-level policies and related politics can compromise school districts’ ability to provide ELs with adequate educational opportunities.
AtwoodE.LópezG. R. (2014). Let’s be critically honest: Towards a messier counterstory in critical race theory. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27, 1134-1154.
3.
BakerB.GreenP. (2009). Kansas. In FusarelliB.CooperB. (Eds.), The rising state: How state power is transforming our nation’s schools (pp. 133-149). Albany: SUNY Press.
4.
BerryC. (2005). School district consolidation and student outcomes: Does size matter? In HowellW. (Ed.), Besieged: School boards and the future of education politics (pp. 208-323). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
5.
BogdanR.BiklenS. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
6.
BradyK. (2009). State power and equity. In FusarelliB.CooperB. (Eds.), The rising state: How state power is transforming our nation’s schools (pp. 177-191). Albany: SUNY Press.
7.
BriffaultR. (2005). The local school district in American law. In HowellW. (Ed.), Besieged: School boards and the future of education politics (pp. 24-55). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
8.
BrownC. P. (2008). Keep it cheap, keep it local, and keep it coming: Standards-based accountability reform in Wisconsin. Educational Policy, 22, 250-294.
9.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954).347. U.S. 483.
10.
CallahanR.GándaraP. (Eds.). (2014). The bilingual advantage: Language, literacy and the US labor market (Vol. 99). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
CollierV. P.ThomasW. P. (2017). Validating the power of bilingual schooling: Thirty-two years of large-scale, longitudinal research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 203-217.
13.
CombsM. (2012). Everything on its head: How Arizona’s structured 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 SEI (pp. 59-85). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
14.
DiemS.SampsonC.BrowningL. (2018). Reorganizing a countywide school district: A critical analysis of politics and policy development toward decentralization. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(1), 1-31.
15.
DiemS.YoungM. D.WeltonA. D.MansfieldK.LeeP. (2014). The intellectual landscape of critical policy analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27, 1068-1090.
ESSA of 2015. P.L. 114-95 § 114 stat. 1177 (2015-2016).
18.
FloresN. (2016). A tale of two visions: Hegemonic whiteness and bilingual education. Educational Policy, 30(1), 13-38.
19.
Flores v. Arizona (1992). 92-0596.
20.
FreyW. H.TeixeiraR. A. (2012). America’s new swing region: The political demography and geography of the mountain west. In TeixeiraR. A. (Ed.), America’s new swing region: Changing politics and demographics in the mountain west (pp. 11-68). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
21.
FusarelliB.CooperB. (2009). The rising state: How state power is transforming our nation’s schools. Albany: SUNY Press.
22.
FusarelliL. D. (2009). Improvement or interference? Re-envisioning the “state” in education reform. In FusarelliB.CooperB. (Eds.), The rising state: How state power is transforming our nation’s schools (pp. 243-270). Albany: SUNY Press.
23.
GándaraP. (2013). Meeting the needs of language minorities. In CarterP. L.WelnerK. G. (Eds.), Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child an even chance (pp. 156-168). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
24.
GándaraP.RumbergerR. W. (2009). Immigration, language, and education: How does language policy structure opportunity?Teachers College Record, 111, 750-782.
25.
GarciaE. E. (2011). ¡Ya basta!: Challenging restrictions on English language learners. Dissent (00123846), 58(4), 47-50.
26.
GarcíaO.KleifgenJ. (2010). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs and practices for English language learners. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
27.
GoldE.HenigJ. R.SimonE. (2011). Calling the shots in public education: Parents, politicians, and educators clash. Dissent, 58(4), 34-39.
28.
HenigJ. (2009). Mayoral control: What we can and cannot learn from other cities? In ViterittiJ. P. (Ed.), When mayors take charge school governance in the city (pp. 19-45). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
29.
HorsfordS. D. (2014). A nation (of students) at risk: The political rhetoric of equity and achievement in US education reform. In WilsonC. M.HorsfordS. D. (Eds.), Advancing equity and achievement in America’s diverse schools (pp. 9-24). New York, NY: Routledge.
30.
HorsfordS. D.SampsonC. (2013). Expanding equity and opportunity for English language learners: A look at funding in high growth ELL states. Voices in Urban Education, 37, 47-54.
31.
HuicocheaA. (2012). TUSD board shuts down Mex. American studies. Arizona Daily Star. Retrieved from http://tucson.com/news
32.
KatznelsonN.BernsteinK. A. (2017). Rebranding bilingualism: The shifting discourses of language education policy in California’s 2016 election. Linguistics and Education, 40, 11-26.
33.
Lau v. Nichols (1974). 414 U.S. 563.
34.
LewisW. D.FusarelliL. D. (2010). Leading schools in an era of change: Toward a “new” cultural accountability? In HorsfordS. D. (Ed.), New perspectives in educational leadership (pp. 111-125). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
35.
LiB. (2007). From bilingual education to OELALEAALEPS: How the no child left behind act has undermined English language learners’ access to a meaningful education. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, 14, 539-572.
36.
LópezF.McEneaneyE. (2012). State implementation of language acquisition policies and reading achievement among Hispanic students. Educational Policy, 26, 418-464.
37.
MalenB. (2003). Tightening the grip? The impact of state activism on local school systems. Educational Policy, 17, 195-216.
38.
MarrowH. B. (2009). Immigrant bureaucratic incorporation: The dual roles of professional missions and government policies. American Sociological Review, 74, 756-776.
39.
MarschallM. J.RigbyE.JenkinsJ. (2011). Do state policies constrain local actors? The impact of English only laws on language instruction in public schools. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 41, 586-609.
40.
MilesM. B.HubermanM. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Common core of data. Available from http://nces.ed.gov
PorzuckiN. (2015). Utah bets big on foreign language learning, but not everyone is on board. Public Radio International. Available from http://www.pri.org
50.
SaldañaJ. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51.
SampsonC.HorsfordS. D. (2015). Beyond legal remedies: Toward funding equity and improved educational opportunities for English language learners. In BonS.BradyK.MikschK.SunJ. C. (Eds.), Law & educational inequality: Removing barriers to educational opportunities. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
52.
SampsonC.HorsfordS. D. (2017). Putting the public back in public education: Community and education leadership under the Every Student Succeeds Act. Journal of School Leadership, 27, 725-754.
53.
SeashoreK.GordonM.MeathJ.ThomasE. (2009). The roots of difference in state educational policy. In FusarelliB.CooperB. (Eds.), The rising state: How state power is transforming our nation’s schools (pp. 153-176). Albany: SUNY Press.
54.
SongM. (2009). The reading from the top: State impact on reading curriculum and instruction. In FusarelliB.CooperB. (Eds.), The rising state: How state power is transforming our nation’s schools (pp. 213-240). Albany: SUNY Press.
55.
SungK. (2017). “Accentuate the positive; eliminate the negative”: Hegemonic interest convergence, racialization of Latino poverty, and the 1968 Bilingual Education Act. Peabody Journal of Education, 92(3), 302-321.
TeixeiraR. A. (Ed). (2012). America’s new swing region: Changing politics and demographics in the mountain west. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
58.
TobarH. (1999, March7). English-only push revisits Arizona’s cultural divided. Los Angeles Times. Available from http://articles.latimes.com
59.
TrujilloT. (2013). The politics of district instructional policy formation: Compromising equity and rigor. Education Policy, 27, 531-559.
60.
UmanskyI. M.ReardonS. F. (2014). Reclassification patterns among Latino English learner students in bilingual, dual immersion, and English immersion classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 879-912.
61.
United States Department of Education. (2012). Resolution agreement: Among the ADE, USDOE, OCR, and USDOJ. OCR case number 08-06-4006. DOJ case number 169-8-81. Available from https://www2.ed.gov
VergariS. (2009). New York. In FusarelliB.CooperB. (Eds.), The rising state: How state power is transforming our nation’s schools (pp. 65-87). Albany: SUNY Press.
74.
YinR. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
75.
YoungM. D.ReynoldsA. L. (2017). Critically examining policy workers and policy work within state boards of education. In YoungM. D.DiemS. (Eds.), Critical approaches to education policy analysis: Moving beyond tradition (pp. 19-42). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
