In the context of shifting demographics and standards-based reform, school districts in new immigrant destinations are charged with designing infrastructures that support teaching and learning for English learners (ELs) in core academic subjects. This article uses qualitative data and social network analysis to examine how one district in the midwestern United States organized EL instruction. After describing the district’s infrastructure for elementary EL education, we examine how this infrastructure supported teachers’ work practice—the practices in which teachers engage with one another—as operationalized around instructional advice and information networks. Findings reveal that teachers’ opportunities to learn about EL instruction varied significantly by the school subject and that these differences were directly related to the way in which the district built its EL educational infrastructure.
ArkoudisS. (2006). Negotiating the rough ground between ESL and mainstream teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 415–433.
Baker-DoyleK. J.YoonS. A. (2010). Making expertise transparent: Using technology to strengthen social networks in teacher professional development. In DalyA. J. (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 115–126). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
BakkensI.De BrabanderC.ImantsJ. (1999). Teacher isolation and communication network analysis in primary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 166–202.
5.
BallantyneK. G.SandermanA. R.LevyJ. (2008). Educating English language learners: Building teacher capacity. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition.
6.
BigelowM. H. (2010). Mogadishu on the Mississippi: Language, racialized identity, and education in a new land. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
7.
BrownellM.T.YeagerE.RennellsM.S.RileyT. (1997). Teachers working together: What teacher educators and researchers should know. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20, 340–359.
8.
BunchG. C. (2013). Pedagogical language knowledge: Preparing mainstream teachers for English learners in the new standards era. Review of Research in Education, 37, 298–341.
9.
BunchG. C.KiblerA. K.PimentelS. (2012, January). Realizing opportunities for English learners in the common core English language arts and disciplinary literacy standards. Paper presented at the Understanding Language Conference, Stanford, CA. Retrieved from http://ell.stanford.edu/papers
10.
CahnmannM.RemillardJ. T. (2002). What counts and how: Mathematics teaching in culturally, linguistically, and socioeconomically diverse urban settings. Urban Review, 34, 179–204.
11.
CapperC.FratturaE.KeyesM. (2000). Meeting the needs of students of all abilities: How leaders go beyond inclusion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
12.
CappsR.FixM.MurrayJ.OstJ.PasselJ.HerwantoroS. (2005). The new demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
13.
CoburnC. E.MataW.ChoiL. (2013). The embeddedness of teachers’ social networks: Evidence from mathematics reform. Sociology of Education, 86, 311–342.
14.
CoburnC. E.RussellJ. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 203–235.
15.
CoburnC. E.RussellJ. L.KaufmanJ.SteinM. K. (2012). Supporting sustainability: Teachers’ advice networks and ambitious instructional reform. American Journal of Education, 119, 137–182.
16.
CohenD. K.MoffittS. L. (2009). The ordeal of equality: Did federal regulation fix the schools?Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17.
CohenD. K.PeurachD. J.GlazerJ. L.GatesK.GoldinS. (2013). Improvement by design: The promise of better schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
18.
CohenD. K.RaudenbushS. W.BallD. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 119–142.
19.
CreeseA. (2002). Discursive construction of power in teacher relationships. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 597–616.
20.
CreeseA. (2005). Teacher collaboration and talk in multilingual classrooms. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
21.
CreeseA. (2006). Supporting talk? Partnership teachers in classroom interaction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 434–453.
22.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
CrossR.BorgattiS. P.ParkerA. (2002). Making invisible work visible: Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44(2), 25–46.
24.
CrowhurstM. (1994). Language and learning across the curriculum. Scarborough, ON: Allyn and Bacon.
25.
DalyA. J.MoolenaarN. M.BolivarM.BurkeP. (2010). Relationships in reform: The role of teachers’ social networks. Journal of Educational Administration, 48, 359–391.
26.
Darling-HammondL.WeiR.AndreeA.RichardsonN.OrphanosS. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
27.
DavisK. S. (2003). Change is hard: What science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 87, 3–30.
28.
DavisonC. (2006). Collaboration between ESL and content teachers: How do we know when we are doing it right?International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 454–475.
29.
de JongE. J.HarperC. A. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English-language learners: Is being a good teacher good enough?Teacher Education Quarterly, 32, 101–124.
30.
DentlerR.HafnerA. (1997). Hosting newcomers: Structuring educational opportunities for immigrant children. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
31.
EchevarriaJ. J.VogtM. J.ShortD. J. (2012). Making content comprehensible for English language learners: The SIOP model (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
32.
ElmoreR. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1–26.
33.
ErautM. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26, 247–273.
34.
ErautM.HirshW. (2007). The significance of workplace learning for individuals, groups, and organizations [SKOPE Monograph 9]. Oxford, UK: SKOPE Research Centre.
35.
FangZ.SchleppegrellM. J. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy. Lansing: University of Michigan Press.
36.
FennerD. S. (2013). Implementing the Common Core State Standards for English learners: The changing role of the ESL teacher. Alexandria, VA: TESOL International.
37.
FirestoneW. A. (1985). The study of loose coupling: Problems, progress, and prospects. In KerckhoffA. (Ed.), Research in sociology of education and socialization (pp. 3–30). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
38.
FrancisD. J.RiveraM.LesauxN.KiefferM.RiveraH. (2006). Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for instruction and academic interventions. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
39.
FrankK. A.ZhaoY.BormanK. (2004). Social capital and the diffusion of innovations within organizations: The case of computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education, 77, 148–171.
40.
FrankK. A.ZhaoY.PenuelW. R.EllefsonN.PorterS. (2011). Focus, fiddle, and friends: Experiences that transform knowledge for the implementation of innovations. Sociology of Education, 84, 137–156.
41.
FreemanL. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239.
42.
FullerB. (2008). Liberal learning in centralizing states. In FullerB.HenneM. K.HannumE. (Eds.), Strong states, weak schools: The benefits and dilemmas of centralized accountability (pp. 1–29). St. Louis, MO: Emerald Group.
43.
GibsonM. A. (1988). Accommodation without assimilation: Sikh immigrants in an American high school. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
44.
GoddardY. L.GoddardR. D.Tschannen-MoranM. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109, 877–896.
45.
GrayM. A. (1991). The context for marginal secondary ESL programs: Contributing factors and the need for future research. Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 9, 75–89.
46.
GrossmanP. L.StodolskyS. S. (1995). Content as context: The role of school subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 5–23.
47.
HallidayM. A. K. (1978). Sociolinguistics aspects of mathematical education. In HallidayM. (Ed.), The social interpretation of language and meaning (pp. 194–204). London, UK: University Park Press.
48.
HamannE. T.ReevesJ. (2013). Interrupting the professional schism that allows less successful educational practices with ELLs to persist. Theory Into Practice, 52, 81–88.
49.
HargreavesA. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. London, UK: Cassell.
50.
HarperC. A.de JongE. J.PlattE. J. (2008). Marginalizing English as a second language teacher expertise: The exclusionary consequence of No Child Left Behind. Language Policy, 7, 267–284.
51.
HaytonP.SpillaneJ. P. (2008). Professional community or communities? School subject matter and elementary school teachers’ work environments. In MacBeathJ.ChengY. C. (Eds.), Leadership for learning: International perspectives (pp. 65–79). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
52.
HillH. C. (2004). Professional development standards and practices in elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 104, 215–231.
53.
HopkinsM.SpillaneJ. P.JakopovicP.HeatonR. M. (2013). Infrastructure redesign and instructional reform in mathematics: Formal structure and teacher leadership. Elementary School Journal, 114, 200–224.
54.
HornbergerN. H. (2006). Discursive approaches to understanding teacher collaboration: Policy into practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 495–499.
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. (2014). On our way to English: English language development program, grades K–5. Boston, MA: Author.
57.
KandelW. A.ParradoE. A. (2006) Hispanic population growth and public school response in two new south destinations. In SmithH. A.FurusethO. J. (Eds.), Latinos in the new south: Transformations of place (pp. 111–134). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
58.
KiefferM. J. (2008). Catching up or falling behind? Initial English proficiency, concentrated poverty, and the reading growth of language minority learners in the United States. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 851–868.
59.
KossinetsG. (2006). Effects of missing data in social networks. Social Networks, 28, 247–268.
60.
LittleJ. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College Record, 105, 913–945.
61.
LowenhauptR. (2014). School access and participation: Family engagement practices in the New Latino Diaspora. Education and Urban Society, 46, 522–547.
62.
LowenhauptR. (in press). State policy and school capacity in Wisconsin’s New Latino Diaspora. In HamannE.MurilloE.WorthamS. (Eds.), Revisiting education in the New Latino Diaspora. Westport, CT: Ablex.
63.
LucasT.VillegasA. M. (2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying the foundation in preservice teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 52, 98–109.
64.
LucasT.VillegasA. M.Freedson-GonzálezM. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 361–373.
65.
Mancilla-MartinezJ.LesauxN.K. (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling readers: The case of Spanish-speaking language minority learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 701–711.
66.
MarrowH. B. (2005). New destinations and immigrant incorporation. Perspectives on Politics, 3, 781–799.
67.
MarrowH. B. (2011). New destination dreaming: Immigration, race, and legal status in the rural American South. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
68.
MasseyD. (2008). Assimilation in a new geography. In MasseyD. (Ed.), New faces in new places: The changing geography of American immigration (pp. 343–353). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
69.
MaxwellJ. A. (1998). Designing a qualitative study. In BickmanL.RogD. S. (Eds.), Handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 69–100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
70.
McClureG.Cahnmann-TaylorM. (2010). Pushing back against push-in: ESOL teacher resistance and the complexities of coteaching. TESOL Journal, 1, 101–129.
71.
McGillS. (Ed.). (2000). Language and marginality. Wilmington, NC: Intellect Books.
72.
McLaughlinM. W.TalbertJ. E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning: Strategic opportunities for meeting the nation’s education goals. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching.
73.
MehtaJ. (2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational policy, 1980–2001. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 285–324.
74.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
75.
MoschkovichJ. N. (2007). Examining mathematical discourse practices. For the Learning of Mathematics, 27(1), 24–30.
76.
MoschkovichJ. N. (2012). Mathematics, the Common Core, and language: Recommendations for mathematics instruction for ELs aligned with the Common Core. Stanford, CA: Understanding Language.
77.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010a). The Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author.
78.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010b). The Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.
79.
OlsenL. (1995). Made in America. New York, NY: Free Press.
80.
OvandoC. J.CombsM. C. (2012). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicultural contexts (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
81.
PariseL. M.SpillaneJ. P. (2010). Teacher learning and instructional change: How formal and on-the-job learning opportunities predict changes in elementary school teachers’ instructional practice. Elementary School Journal, 110, 323–346.
82.
PittsV. M.SpillaneJ. P. (2009). Using social network methods to study school leadership. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 32, 185–207.
83.
PompaD.HakutaK. (2013). Critical policy levers for effective implementation of Common Core State Standards for ELLs. Retrieved from http://ell.stanford.edu/papers/policy
84.
PustejovskyJ. E.SpillaneJ. P. (2009). Question-order effects in social network name generators. Social Networks, 31, 221–229.
85.
ReagansR.McEvilyB. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240–267.
86.
ReevesJ. (2004). “Like everybody else”: Equalizing educational opportunity for English language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 38(1), 43–66.
87.
RobertsC. A. (1995). Bilingual education program models: A framework for understanding. Bilingual Research Journal, 19, 369–378.
88.
ScanlanM.FratturaE. M.CapperC. A. (2007). English language learners and ICS. In FratturaE. M.CapperC. A., Leading for social justice: Transforming schools for all learners (pp. 151–174). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
89.
SchleppegrellM. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
SiskinL. S. (1991). Departments as different worlds: Subject subcultures in secondary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27, 134–160.
92.
SiskinL. S. (1994). Realms of knowledge: Academic departments in secondary schools. Washington, DC: Routledge & Falmer.
93.
SmylieM. A. (1995). New perspectives on teacher leadership. Elementary School Journal, 96, 3–7.
94.
SpillaneJ. P. (2005). Primary school leadership practice: How the subject matters. School Leadership and Management, 25, 383–397.
95.
SpillaneJ. P.BurchP. (2006). The institutional environment and instructional practice: Changing patterns of guidance and control in public education. In MeyerH. D.RowanB. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 87–102). Albany: State University of New York Press.
96.
SpillaneJ. P.ColdrenA. F. (2011). Diagnosis and design for school improvement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
97.
SpillaneJ. P.HopkinsM. (2013). Organizing for instruction in education systems and organizations: How the school subject matters. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45, 721–747.
98.
SpillaneJ. P.KimC. M. (2012). An exploratory analysis of formal school leaders’ positioning in instructional advice and information networks in elementary schools. American Journal of Education, 119, 73–102.
99.
SpillaneJ. P.KimC. M.FrankK. A. (2012). Instructional advice and information seeking behavior in elementary schools: Exploring tie formation as a building block in social capital development. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 1112–1145.
100.
SpillaneJ. P.PariseL. M.ShererJ. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 586–619.
101.
StodolskyS. S.GrossmanP. L. (1995). The impact of subject matter on curricular activity: An analysis of five academic subjects. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 227–249.
102.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
103.
StrifflerS. (2005). Chicken: The dangerous transformation of America’s favorite food. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
104.
Suárez-OrozcoC.Suárez-OrozcoM. (2001). Children of immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
105.
SunM.PenuelW. R.FrankK. A.GallagherH. A.YoungsP. (2013). Shaping professional development to promote the diffusion of instructional expertise among teachers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35, 344–369.
106.
SunM.WilhelmA. G.LarsonC. J.FrankK. A. (2014). Exploring colleagues’ professional influence on mathematics teachers’ learning. Teachers College Record, 116(6), 1–30.
107.
SweetT. M.ThomasA. C.JunkerB. W. (2013). Hierarchical network models for education research: Hierarchical latent space models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 38, 295–318.
108.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
109.
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.
110.
ValdésG.CastellónM. (2011). English language learners in American schools: Characteristics and challenges. In LucasT. (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms (pp. 18–34). New York, NY: Routledge.
111.
ValdésG.KiblerA.WalquiA. (2014). Changes in the expertise of ESL professionals: Knowledge and action in an era of new standards. Alexandria, VA: TESOL International.
112.
ValenzuelaA. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany: State University of New York Press.
113.
van LierL.WalquiA. (2012, January). Language and the Common Core State Standards. Paper presented at the Understanding Language Conference, Stanford, CA. Retrieved from http://ell.stanford.edu/papers
114.
VillenasS. (2007). Diaspora and the anthropology of Latino education: Challenges, affinities, and intersections. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 38, 419–425.
115.
Working Group on ELL Policy. (2010). Improving educational outcomes for English language learners: Recommendations for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Palo Alto, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://ellpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/ESEAFinal.pdf
116.
WorthamS.ContrerasM. (2002). Struggling toward culturally relevant pedagogy in the Latino Diaspora. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1, 133–144.
117.
WorthamS.MurilloE. G.HamannE. T. (Eds.). (2002). Education in the New Latino Diaspora: Policy and the politics of identity. Westport, CT: Ablex.
118.
YinR. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
119.
York-BarrJ.GhereG.SommernessJ. (2007). Collaborative teaching to increase ELL student learning: A three-year urban elementary case study. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12, 301–335.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
