Implementing Educational Language Policy in Arizona: Legal, Historical and Current Practices in Sei: 86 - Brossura

Brossura

ISBN 10: 1847697445 ISBN 13: 9781847697448

Casa editrice: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 2012

Riassunto

This volume is a unique contribution to the study of language policy and education for English Learners because it focuses on the decade long implementation of “English Only” in Arizona. How this policy influences teacher preparation and classroom practice is the central topic of this volume. Scholars and researchers present their latest findings and concerns regarding the impact that a restrictive language policy has on critical areas for English Learners and diverse students. If a student's language is sanctioned, do they feel welcome in the classroom? If teachers are only taught about subtractive language policy, will they be able to be tolerant of linguistic diversity in their classrooms? The implications of the chapters suggest that Arizona's version of Structured English Immersion may actually limit English Learners' access to English.

Su questo libro

Informazioni sugli autori

M. Beatriz Arias is an Associate Professor of English Education in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Arizona State University. She has edited several books and published scholarly articles on Latino students and educational policy, and has focused her research on equity issues for English Learners and Latino students and teachers. She has served as a Court Appointed Monitor for a Federal Court Judge in San Jose California; and in Chicago, Denver and Los Angeles school desegregation cases, she has participated as a Court Appointed expert.

Christian Faltis is the Dolly and David Fiddyment Chair in Teacher Education and Professor of Language, Literacy and Culture in the School of Education at University of California, Davis. He has authored numerous books and scholarly writing on bilingual education and Latino students. His most recent book is Education, immigrant students, refugee students, and English learners (2010, with Guadalupe Valdés). He is Editor of Teacher Education Quarterly, and Editor of Review of Research in Education, Vol. 37.

M. Beatriz Arias is an Associate Professor of English Education in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Arizona State University. She has edited several books and published scholarly articles on Latino students and educational policy, and has focused her research on equity issues for English Learners and Latino students and teachers. She has served as a Court Appointed Monitor for a Federal Court Judge in San Jose California; and in Chicago, Denver and Los Angeles school desegregation cases, she has participated as a Court Appointed expert.Christian Faltis is the Dolly and David Fiddyment Chair in Teacher Education and Professor of Language, Literacy and Culture in the School of Education at University of California, Davis. He has authored numerous books and scholarly writing on bilingual education and Latino students. His most recent book is Education, immigrant students, refugee students, and English learners (2010, with Guadalupe Valdés). He is Editor of Teacher Education Quarterly, and Editor of Review of Research in Education, Vol. 37.

Estratto. © Ristampato con autorizzazione. Tutti i diritti riservati.

Implementing Educational Language Policy in Arizona

Legal, Historical and Current Practices in SEI

By M. Beatriz Arias, Christian Faltis

Multilingual Matters

Copyright © 2012 M. Beatriz Arias, Christian Faltis and the authors of individual chapters
All rights reserved.

ISBN: 978-1-84769-744-8

Contents

Contributors, 
Foreword: From Restrictive SEI to Imagining Better Terrence Wiley, 
Introduction, 
Part 1: Language Policy in Arizona, 
1 Language Policy and Teacher Preparation: The Implications of a Restrictive Language Policy on Teacher Preparation M. Beatriz Arias, 
2 Research-based Reform in Arizona: Whose Evidence Counts for Applying the Castañeda Test to Structured English Immersion Models? Christian Faltis and M. Beatriz Arias, 
3 SLA Research and Arizona's Structured English Immersion Policies Michael H. Long and H.D. Adamson, 
Part 2: Implementing SEI in Arizona, 
4 Everything on Its Head: How Arizona's Structured English Immersion Policy Re-invents Theory and Practice Mary Carol Combs, 
5 Teachers' Sheltered English Immersion Views and Practices Wayne E. Wright and Koyin Sung, 
6 Review of 'Research Summary and Bibliography for Structured English Immersion Programs' of the Arizona English Language Learners Task Force Stephen Krashen, Jeff MacSwan and Kellie Rolstad, 
Part 3: Arizona Teacher Preparation for SEI, 
7 'They're Just Confused': SEI as Policy into Practice Sarah Catherine K. Moore, 
8 Implementing Structured English Immersion in Teacher Preparation in Arizona Nancy J. Murri, Amy Markos and Alexandria Estrella-Silva, 
9 The Politics of Preservice Teachers Kate Olson, 

CHAPTER 1

Language Policy and Teacher Preparation: The Implications of a Restrictive Language Policy on Teacher Preparation

M. Beatriz Arias

The sanctions against mother-tongue instruction in the English-only states of Arizona, California and Massachusetts, have brought renewed interest to the study of language education policy (LEP). Several authors have looked at how these policies influence students, classrooms and language minority communities (Crawford, 1997; Stritikus & Garcia, 2003; Wiley, 2002; Wright, 2005). Other studies have reported on the impact of restrictive language policies on educational programs (Combs et al., 2005; de Jong et al., 2005; Garcia & Curry-Rodriguez, 2000). According to Christ 'hardly any research has been conducted thus far on language policy in teacher education' (Christ, 1997: 234). This chapter addresses this need by providing an opportunity to examine how a restrictive language policy becomes reified in teacher preparation. In this case study, I suggest that the Structured English Immersion (SEI) curriculum mandated for all teachers in Arizona reflects an English-only orientation, promotes a limited understanding of English learners, second language acquisition and LEP. The context of this study is embedded in teacher preparation as mandated by the State of Arizona (ADE, 2007, 2009). There are two SEI policies in effect in Arizona: (1) there is an instructional SEI model that prescribes the content and time allocated to learning English in the K-12 classroom, and (2) there is the SEI curriculum, which is required for all Arizona colleges of education as part of teacher preparation.

This study is situated within a framework that recognizes that LEP is dynamic, and refers to 'affecting decisions people make about languages and their uses in society in the specific context of education, school and universities' (Shohamy, 2006: 77). These decisions are part of a sociocultural and sociopolitical process. As McCarty has noted, LEP is a sociocultural process: 'Language policies both reflect and reproduce the distribution of power within the larger society' (McCarty, 1972: 72) and Tollefson and Tsui ask us to regard debates around language of instruction policy situated in their sociopolitical contexts, 'which are inseparable from their historical contexts' (Tollefson & Tsui, 2004: 3). This dynamic conception of LEP extends at every level of implementation so that while there may be a clearly articulated policy at one end, 'educators are at the epicenter of this dynamic process, acting on their agency to change the various language education policies they must translate into practice' (Menken & Garcia, 2010). As we review the implementation of the restrictive language policy in Arizona, we hope to attend to the space where educator agency, both at the university and classroom level, mediate policy implementation.

The focus of this study is the content of a state-mandated teacher preparation curriculum for the SEI required of all Arizona educational personnel. I contrast the implementation of restrictive language policies with the need to inform teachers of their role as the primary agents of language policy. This chapter examines how a restrictive language policy becomes enacted and embedded in a state-required teacher endorsement and looks for opportunities for implementation and ideological space as conceptualized by Hornberger (2002).

The growth of language minority communities across the country, coupled with the fact that most teachers will encounter English language learners (ELLs) in their classrooms, makes it imperative that teacher educators develop awareness of issues of LEP. Teachers need to understand how their attitudes, dispositions and knowledge of language policy issues can inform, enrich and enhance their practice. As many have noted, teachers are the primary constructors and implementers of language policy (de Jong, 2008; Ricento & Hornberger, 1996), teachers are on the front line of helping students bridge new languages. Yet in many ways, teachers are viewed as 'instruments of the state' (Wiley, 2008: 232) whose role is to implement policy rather than critique it. As Wiley has noted, with specific reference to language minority populations, teachers are asked to 'implement policies that either promote, accommodate or restrict languages' (Wiley, 2008: 230). Shohamy also refers to teachers as the 'main agents through whom the ideology is spread and turns from political statement about LEP to de facto practices of language learning. Wiley has also noted that teacher education programs need to inform teachers about ways in which they may become conflicted by, and complicit in, promoting policies that disadvantage or discriminate against language minority children' (Shohamy, 2006: 233).

LEP is also a state policy (Corson, 1999). We know that the state policy plays a critical role in the socialization of teachers. State policy sets the tone for acceptance and recognition of minority languages. At issue is how a state's restrictive language policy influences teacher preparation through the articulation and requirement of prescriptive instructional practices.

This chapter begins with a framework for understanding the relationship between types of language policies and teacher preparation. This is followed by a summary of the literature on what teachers of ELLs need to know and how language policy is part of this schema. A content analysis of the SEI curriculum required for all Arizona educators is contrasted with the essential components for ELL teacher preparation cited in the literature. The requirements for the SEI endorsement are critiqued for under preparing teachers in the sociopolitical dimensions of language, and failing to provide 'ideological clarity' regarding issues of power and language. The SEI endorsement promotes linguicism, linguistic assimilation, and a biased and flawed perspective on second language acquisition. The concern raised, is that by law, institutions of higher education are required to reproduce this ideology through implementation of a state-approved syllabus in teacher preparation. Thus, rather than preparing teachers for ELLs, the SEI restricts teacher understanding of second language learners, their communities and instructional alternatives.

State Policy and Teacher Socialization

The research on teacher socialization emphasizes that 'state educational policies frame the socialization of new teachers, especially when these policies prescribe instructional practices and assess outcomes' (Achinstein et al., 2004). State policies that mandate instructional practices can have an especially potent impact on teacher practice (Ogawa et al., 2003; Rowan & Miskel, 1999). This is particularly relevant to Arizona, which as an English-only state, has articulated prescribed instructional practices for ELLs and for teacher preparation, commonly referred to as Structured English Immersion (SEI) and the SEI. Other states that have highly prescriptive instructional policies specifying standards, curricula and pedagogy, claim to provide teachers with clearer guidelines as to what and how to teach (Schmoker & Marzano, 1999). Similarly, the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) claims that the SEI endorsement prepares teachers for the ELL student population (ADE, 2009). Upon close inspection, the SEI promotes English-only instruction, presents immersion as the most efficacious approach to teaching ELLs, and limits recognition of the importance of students' native language in their daily lives and identity development. Furthermore, the English-only policy is reproduced with an ADE-scripted curriculum required in pre-service education which focuses primarily on structured immersion pedagogy, the state's ELL standards, and mandated assessments. I propose that this prescriptive curriculum reflects the states' restrictive language policy and promotes a monolingual ideology which is pedagogically detrimental to ELLs and that the endorsement has become an intrusion into the traditional role of teacher-preparation institutions to design teacher-preparation curriculum.

Language Policy and Teacher Preparation

Research in LEP examines choices about which language(s) will be the medium of instruction in schools and how language is taught (Spolsky, 2004). It is important to recognize that these choices are not conducted in a vacuum but are subject to political pressure, power and attitudes toward ELL assimilation and acculturation. Varghese and Stritikus (2005) have emphasized that teachers of ELLs need knowledge of how their decision-making on language use in classrooms is in fact language policy development. State sanctions against native language use become critical in shaping teachers beliefs regarding the importance and usefulness of students' first language. Teachers need to recognize their role and the role of language in the acculturation process that they are helping ELLs navigate. We know that language plays a critical role in identity and identity formation. Teachers can help students develop positive attitudes toward the benefits of proficiency in two languages. Yet in states with restrictive language policies, teachers may become conflicted over choosing the best instructional approach for ELL students. Consequently, teachers need support and direction to develop an appropriate stance toward minority languages, at the state level, at the district level and school level.

According to Wiley (2007), there are several language policy orientations which influence the selection of languages in schools. By viewing language policies in terms of the desired outcome – promotion, tolerance or repression – we can anticipate the type of support there will be for second language programs, student bilingualism and teacher preparation for ELLs. In Table 1.1, I have displayed how these language policy orientations might impact decisions at the state level on teacher preparation. I have included the five language policy orientations identified by Kloss (1977), as modified by Wiley (2007). There are five language policy orientations, spanning a range from promotion-oriented to repressive-oriented policies.

Repressive- and restrictive-oriented language policies both perceive minority languages as a problem and thereby seek their elimination and/or repression. Most recently, repressive language policy orientations were exemplified in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools which sanctioned the use of indigenous languages and fostered linguistic assimilation (Wiley, 2007). Restrictive language policies do not seek the elimination of the language, but they set sanctions on the use of minority language. Tolerant language policies are neutral with regard to minority language use, neither restricting nor supporting it. Expediency- and promotion-oriented language policies view language as a resource, and provide financial and legislative support for language development.

Across the United States there is variation in language policy orientation. Some promotion-oriented policy states would describe themselves as 'English Plus' states, stressing the importance of proficiency in more than one language: New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island (Menken, 2008). Several states including Illinois and Texas, (see Crawford, 2004) promote the expediency model, allowing short-term transitional and developmental bilingual education, and dual language and English as a second language programs for their ELLs. Other states such as Nebraska demonstrate a tolerance model, not mandating or sanctioning bilingual programs. Finally, there are the English-only states, Arizona, California and Massachusetts, which display a restrictive language policy orientation, prohibiting and proscribing the use of L1 in classrooms. These restrictive language-oriented state policies have emerged in the last decade in the United States as the English-Only Movement has made its way through ballot measures to the classroom (Wright & Choi, 2005). While all three states mandate English as the official language of instruction, Arizona is the most restrictive, sanctioning the use of students native language in classrooms and prescribing a teacher preparation endorsement that promotes a restrictive language policy.

Teachers as Agents of LEP

LEP is a sociocultural process which not only derives from public and official acts and documents, but is also framed and enacted by our daily practices (McCarty, 2004). The literature suggests that in their daily activity, teachers may be unconsciously promoting language policies that could be detrimental to their students, or lead to misunderstandings with parents and students. According to Auerbach (1995) teachers implement policies (e.g. using only English in the ESL classroom) that reflect broader social attitudes and not specific school policies, without realizing it. They do so in many ways and on many levels; for example, teachers may internalize normative social attitudes toward speakers of nonofficial languages or nonstandard varieties of official languages, or they may believe that bilingual education programs put language minority students at disadvantage. Further, the ideologies of schools, communities and states helps reinforce unstated beliefs, so that teachers come to believe not only that what they are doing reflects explicit policies, but also that such policies are generally in the best interest of students. Auerbach argues that 'the day-to-day decisions that practitioners make inside the classroom both shape and are shaped by the social order outside the classroom' (Auerbach, 1995: 9).

It is clear that teachers are considered by most policymakers to be the centerpiece of educational change (Datnow et al., 2002). For Hornberger and Evans, teachers are at the core of language policy implementation 'as teachers interpret and modify received policies, they are, in fact, primary language policymakers' (Hornberger & Evans, 2005: 417). They elaborate:

We place the classroom practitioner at the heart of language policy. Teachers have daily opportunities to make small changes in their practices, from the topics they choose for discussion, to how they structure the classroom, to the interest they demonstrate in students' problems. Teachers send implicit messages in other ways, too. As individuals, members of communities, and citizens of a country, ESL/EFL practitioners serve as role models, informants, and advisors on a daily basis. They may reinforce dominant cultural values (to one degree or another), or they may question and even oppose those values, thereby modeling possible alternative views of social reality often unavailable to students struggling to survive in a new culture or acquiring English for instrumental purposes. (Hornberger & Evans, 2005: 417)

Skilton-Sylvester's 2003 study of ESL teachers finds that the decisions that teachers make with regard to the ELLs in their classroom is the most powerful type of language policy, noting 'much of language teaching can also be seen as language policymaking' (Skilton-Sylvester, 2003: 7). Teachers, then, are seen as active constructors of language policies, as they transform practices within their own classrooms.

Teacher preparation for ELLs must bring explicit attention to the opportunities for access to English provided ELLs, the distribution of language use in the community, formal and informal policies for language use. Varghese and Stritikus state that:

Given the ambiguous and contentious guidelines and policies relating to the education of ELLs, teacher educators must begin to seriously consider how teachers respond to and create language policy, explicitly preparing teachers to deal with the social and policy contexts in which their work will occur. (Varghese & Stritikus, 2005: 75)

Literature on preparing mainstream teachers to teach ELLs documents the challenges they face in a field fraught with controversy from reform efforts, ranging between multiculturalists and assimilationists, multilingualists and monolinguists (Harper & de Jong, 2004). The prevalence of discussions on the preparation of teachers for ELLs has ranged from a 'methods fetish' (Bartolome, 1998) to an almost exclusive focus on the language components (Wong-Filmore & Snow, 2002).

Varghese and Stritikus (2005) take note of this contentious policy atmosphere that surrounds the discourse on the education of ELLs, and propose that teachers more than ever need to understand how language policy (overt and covert) will become an essential backdrop to their practice. Teacher preparation for all teachers needs to provide a meta-awareness for the ways in which language shapes the politics of language, that decisions on language choice are never neutral, that learning a second language is a crucial part of identity and community. Despite the importance attributed to language policy issues in foundational teacher preparation, a review of several recent surveys of essential knowledge for all teachers working with ELL finds scant reference to preparation regarding language policy and teacher's role in the implementation of language policy.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from Implementing Educational Language Policy in Arizona by M. Beatriz Arias, Christian Faltis. Copyright © 2012 M. Beatriz Arias, Christian Faltis and the authors of individual chapters. Excerpted by permission of Multilingual Matters.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Dettagli dell'edizione

• Editore: Multilingual Matters Ltd
• Data di pubblicazione: 2012
• Lingua: Inglese
• ISBN 10: 1847697445
• ISBN 13: 9781847697448
• Rilegatura: Copertina flessibile
• Numero di pagine: 181
• Redattore: Arias M. Beatriz, Faltis Christian
• Contatto del produttore: non disponibile
• Persona responsabile: gpsr@libri.de; gpsr@libri.de; ; Europaallee 1; Bad Hersfeld; 36244; Germania