This chapter proposes a conceptual framework that merges intersectionality and policy analysis as an analytical tool to understand the nuanced, multilayered, compounded educational inequality encountered specifically by low-income, Latino Spanish-speaking students in Arizona K–12 public schools as a function of intersecting educational policies. In addition, it provides a conceptual framework that counters and provides an alternative to the Arizona model that strives toward interrupting inequality. The conceptual framework is grounded in culture, language, and learning that provides a pathway to interrupt inequality by acknowledging the intersectional social constructs of an English language learner (ELL).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AcuñaR. (1998). Occupied America: The Latino/a condition: A critical reader. New York: New York University Press.
2.
AlemánE.Jr.AlemánS. M. (2010). Do Latin@ interests always have to “converge” with White interests? (Re) claiming racial realism and interest-convergence in critical race theory praxis. Race Ethnicity and Education, 13(1), 1–21.
3.
AndradeB. M. (2015). The parental involvement of non-English speaking Latino parents in secondary education (Unpublished master’s thesis). California State University, Monterey Bay.
4.
AriasM. BFaltisC (Eds.). (2012). Implementing educational language policy in Arizona: Legal, historical and current practices in SEI. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
5.
ArtilesA. J. (2011). Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of educational equity and difference the case of the racialization of ability. Educational Researcher, 40, 431–445.
6.
ArtilesA. J. (2013). Untangling the racialization of disabilities. Du Bois Review, 10, 329–347.
7.
ArtilesA. J.RuedaR.SalazarJ. J.HigaredaI. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71, 283–300.
8.
AugustDHakutaK (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
9.
AugustD.ShanahanT.EscamillaK. (2009). English language learners: Developing literacy in second-language learners—Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Journal of Literacy Research, 41, 432–452.
10.
BakerB. D.Keller-WolffC.Wolf-WendelL. (2000). Two steps forward, one step back: Race/ethnicity and student achievement in education policy research. Educational Policy, 14, 511–529.
11.
BialystokE. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism, 12(1), 3–11.
CastroD. C.GarcíaE. E.MarkosA. M. (2013). Dual language learners: Research informing policy. Chapel Hill: Center for Early Care and Education in the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina.
14.
Center for Early Care and Education Research–Dual Language Learners. (2011a). Language and literacy development in dual language learners: A critical review of the research. Chapel Hill: Center for Early Care and Education in the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina.
15.
Center for Early Care and Education Research–Dual Language Learners. (2011b). Policy and practice issues related to serving dual language learners. Chapel Hill: Center for Early Care and Education in the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina.
16.
CohenN. H. (1995). Ada as a second language. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
17.
CollinsP. H. (2000). Black feminist thought. New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
CollinsP. H. (2003). Some group matters: Intersectionality, situated standpoints, and black feminist thought. In LottT. L.PittmanJ. P. (Eds.), A companion to African-American philosophy (pp. 205–229). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
CrenshawK. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 8, 139–167.
21.
CrenshawK. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299.
22.
EchevarriaJ.GravesA. W. (2007). Sheltered content instruction: Teaching English language learners with diverse abilities. Los Angeles, CA: Allyn & Bacon.
23.
EspinosaL. (2012). Assessment of young English-language learners. In The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0057
24.
FlynnK.HillJ. (2005). English language learners: A growing population. Denver, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
25.
FuhrmanSElmoreR. F (Eds.). (2004). Redesigning accountability systems for education. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED498338.pdf
26.
GamoranA. (2008). Persisting social class inequality in US education. In WeissL. (Eds.), The way class works: Readings on school, family, and the economy (pp. 169–179). New York, NY: Routledge.
27.
GándaraP.HopkinsM. (2010). Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
28.
GándaraP.MoranR.GarcíaE. (2004). Legacy of Brown: Lau and language policy in the United States. Review of Research in Education, 28(1), 27–46.
29.
GándaraP.OrfieldG. (2010). A return to the “Mexican room”: The segregation of Arizona’s English learners. Los Angeles, CA: Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED511322.pdf
30.
GándaraP.OrfieldG. (2012a). Segregating Arizona’s English learners: A return to the “Mexican room.”Teachers College Record, 114(9), 1–27.
31.
GándaraP.OrfieldG. (2012b). Why Arizona matters: The historical, legal, and political contexts of Arizona’s instructional policies and US linguistic hegemony. Language Policy, 11(1), 7–19.
32.
GarcíaE. E. (2005). Teaching and learning in two languages: Bilingualism & schooling in the United States. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
33.
GarcíaE. E.CastroD.MarkosA. (2015). Helping dual language learners succeed: A research-based agenda for action. Minneapolis, MN: McKnight Foundation.
34.
GarcíaE. E.GarcíaE. H. (2012). Understanding the language development and early education of Hispanic children. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
35.
GarcíaE. E.LawtonK.Diniz de FigueiredoE. H. (2011). The education of English language learners in Arizona: A legacy of persisting achievement gaps in a restrictive language policy climate. Los Angeles, CA: Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles.
36.
GarcíaE. E.NáñezSr., J. E. (2011). Bilingualism and cognition: Informing research, pedagogy, and policy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
37.
GardnerD. P. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: National Commission on Excellence in Education, U.S. Department of Education.
38.
GeneseeF. (2006). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. Cambridge, English: Cambridge University Press.
39.
GeneseeF.Lindholm-LearyK.SaundersW. M.ChristianD. (2006). Conclusions and future directions. In GeneseeF. (Ed.), Educating English learners: A synthesis of research evidence (pp. 223–234). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
40.
GerstenR.BakerS. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English-language learners. Exceptional Children, 66, 454–470.
41.
GoldsteinJ. L.PetersM. E. (2014). Nativism or economic threat: Attitudes toward immigrants during the great recession. International Interactions, 40, 376–401.
42.
GonzálezN.MollL.AmantiC. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge.
43.
GoodM. E.MasewiczS.VogelL. (2010). Latino English language learners: Bridging achievement and cultural gaps between schools and families. Journal of Latinos and Education, 9, 321–339.
44.
GutierrezK. D.GarcíaE. E. (1989). Academic literacy in linguistic minority children: The connections between language, cognition and culture. Early Child Development and Care, 51, 109–126.
45.
HaasE.HuangM. (2010). Where do English language learner students go to school? Student distribution by language proficiency in Arizona (REL Technical Brief, REL 2010–No. 015). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
46.
HammerC. S.HoffE.UchikoshiY.GillandersC.CastroD. C.SandilosL. E. (2014). The language and literacy development of young dual language learners: A critical review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 715–733.
47.
HankivskyO. (2011). Health inequities in Canada: Intersectional frameworks and practices. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.
48.
HankivskyO.CormierR. (2011). Intersectionality and public policy: Some lessons from existing models. Political Research Quarterly, 64, 217–229.
49.
HeiligJ. V.HolmeJ. J. (2013). Nearly 50 years post-Jim Crow: Persisting and expansive school segregation for African American, Latina/o, and ELL students in Texas. Education and Urban Society, 45, 609–632.
50.
HopkinsM. (2012). Arizona’s teacher policies and their relationship with English learner instructional practice. Language Policy, 11(1), 81–99.
51.
Jiménez-CastellanosO. (2010). Relationship between educational resources and school achievement: A mixed method intra-district analysis. Urban Review, 42, 351–371.
52.
Jiménez-CastellanosO.CisnerosJ.GómezL. (2013). Applying racist nativism theory to K-12 education policy in Arizona, 2000–2010. Aztlan, 38, 175–190.
53.
Jiménez-CastellanosO.CombsM. C.MartinezD.GomezL. (2014). English language learners: What’s at stake for Arizona?Tempe: Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University.
54.
Jiménez-CastellanosO.TopperA. M. (2012). The cost of providing an adequate education to English language learners: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 82, 179–232.
55.
Jiménez-SilvaM.GomezL.CisnerosJ. (2014). Examining Arizona’s policy response post Flores v. Arizona in educating K–12 English language learners. Journal of Latinos and Education, 13, 181–195.
56.
KenaG.HussarW.McFarlandJ.de BreyC.Musu-GilletteL.WangX.. . . Dunlop VelezE. (2016). The condition of education 2016 (NCES 2016-144). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
57.
KimW. G.GarcíaS. B. (2014). Long-term English language learners’ perceptions of their language and academic learning experiences. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 300–312.
58.
LillieK. E.MarkosA.AriasM. B.WileyT. G. (2012). Separate and not equal: The implementation of structured English immersion in Arizona’s classrooms. Teachers College Record, 114(9), 1–33.
59.
MahoneyK.MacSwanJ.ThompsonM. (2005). The condition of English language learners in Arizona: 2004. In GarcíaD.MolnarA. (Eds.), The condition of PreK-12 education in Arizona, 2005 (pp. 1–24). Tempe: Education Policy Research Laboratory, Arizona State University.
60.
MaydaA. M. (2006). Who is against immigration? A cross-country investigation of individual attitudes toward immigrants. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88, 510–530.
61.
McCallL. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30, 1771–1800.
62.
MenkenK.KleynT.ChaeN. (2007). Meeting the needs of long-term English language learners in high school. New York, NY: Research Institute for the Study of Language in an Urban Society.
63.
MollL. (2002). The concept of educational sovereignty. University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education Perspectives on Urban Education, 1(2), 1–11.
64.
National Education Association. (2008). English language learners face unique challenges. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.nea.org/assets/docs/mf_PB05_ELL.pdf
65.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
66.
NortonB.TooheyK. (2001). Changing perspectives on good language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 307–322.
67.
Ontario Human Rights Commission. (2001). An intersectional approach to discrimination: Addressing multiple grounds in human rights claims. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Author.
68.
OrfieldG.LeeC. (2005). Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational inequality. Los Angeles, CA: Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles.
69.
OrtegaL. (2013). SLA for the 21st century: Disciplinary progress, transdisciplinary relevance, and the bi/multilingual turn. Language Learning, 63(1), 1–24. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00735.x/full
70.
OrtegaL. (2014). Ways forward for a bi/multilingual turn in SLA. In MayS.(Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 32–53). New York, NY: Routledge.
71.
PeirceB. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 9–31.
72.
PereaJ. F. (1997). The Black/White binary paradigm of race: The “normal science” of American racial thought. California Law Review, 85, 1213–1258.
73.
PowersJ. M. (2014). From segregation to school finance the legal context for language rights in the United States. Review of Research in Education, 38, 81–105.
74.
PowersJ. M.WilliamsT. R. (2013). State of outrage: Immigrant-related legislation and education in Arizona. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 6(2), 13–21.
75.
RascoC. H. (1994). Schools as neighborhood service centers: Summary of the talking points of Carol H. Rasco, Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy. Washington, DC: Domestic Policy Council.
76.
RileyR. W. (1994). Improving America’s schools act and elementary and secondary education reform. Journal of Law & Education, 24, 513–566.
77.
Rios-AguilarC.GándaraP. (2012). Horne v. Flores and the future of language policy. Teachers College Record, 114(9), 1–13.
78.
Rios-AguilarC.González-CancheM.MollL. C. (2010a). A study of Arizona’s teachers of English language learners. Los Angeles, CA: Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles.
79.
Rios-AguilarC.González-CancheM.MollL. C. (2010b). Implementing structured English immersion in Arizona: Benefits, costs, challenges, and opportunities. Los Angeles, CA: Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles.
80.
RogoffB. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
81.
RolstadK.MahoneyK.GlassG. V. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy, 19, 572–594.
82.
RudoZ. H. (2001). Corrective action in low-performing schools and school districts. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(48). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/153
83.
RuizN. T. (1995). The Social Construction of Ability and Disability II. Optimal and at-risk lessons in a bilingual special education classroom. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 491–502.
84.
Ruiz-SotoA. G.HookerS.BatalovaJ. (2015). Top languages spoken by English language learners nationally and by state. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.
85.
SiimB. (2013). Intersections of gender and diversity: A European perspective. In SiimB. (Eds.), Negotiating gender and diversity in an emergent European public sphere. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
86.
SmithM. S.O’DayJ. (1991). Educational equality: 1966 and now. In VerstegenD. A.WardJ. G. (Eds.), Spheres of justice in education (pp. 53–100). New York, NY: Harper Collins.
87.
SnowC. EVan HemelS. B (Eds.). (2008). Early childhood Assessment: Why, what, and how. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
88.
SotoM. (2011). The effects of teaching the academic language of language arts to secondary long-term English learners (Unpublished dissertation). University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Brownsville, TX.
89.
U.S. National Education Goals Panel. (1995). The national education goals report: Executive summary: Improving education through family-school-community partnerships. Washington, DC: Author.
90.
ValdésG. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools (Multicultural Education Series). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
91.
VarcoeC.PaulyB.LalibertéS. (2011). Intersectionality, justice and influencing policy. Health inequities in Canada: Intersectional frameworks and practices. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.
92.
WeberD. J. (2003). Foreigners in their native land: Historical roots of the Mexican Americans. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
93.
WilliamsC. (2014). Chaos for dual language learners: An examination of state policies for exiting children from language services in the pre-K-3rd grades. Washington, DC: New America Foundation.
94.
WrightW. E. (2015). Foundations for teaching English language learners: Research, theory, and practice. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.
95.
ZongJ.BatalovaJ. (2015). Indian immigrants in the United States. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.
