In the Arid Zone

Services

In November 2000, Arizona voters approved Proposition 203, a ballot initiative that replaced bilingual education and English as a second language programs with a relatively untested program called Structured English Immersion (SEI). In an SEI classroom, teachers are expected to teach in English only though they can adjust their instruction using “sheltered” strategies to make it more comprehensible. What this means is that ELLs are required to learn content areas in and through a language they have not yet acquired. The dominant assumption guiding such actions is that “monolingual Anglo members of the general public are perfectly capable of deciding what kind of educational programming is best for non-Anglo language minority children . . . and are better able to make such decisions than are bilingual education teachers or the communities the children come from” (Sleeter, 2001, pp. xv-xvi).

The text of Proposition 203 expressed three folk theories ² of second- language acquisition: first, that young children learn English better than older students; second, that immersion in English only would help students acquire the language more rapidly; and third, that the SEI model would teach them English in 1 year. ³ These assumptions may have sounded commonsensical to voters at the time, but there was little support for them in the applied linguistics and second-language acquisition research literature at the time (Collier, 1987, 1988, 1995; Crawford, 1997, 1999; Cummins, 1991, 1992; Cummins & Swain, 1986; Gándara et al., 2000; Greene, 1998; Krashen, 1996, 1999; Ramírez, Yuen, & Ramey, 1991; Willig, 1985; Wong Fillmore, 1991a, 1991b). Although the concerns of some of this literature was profiled in the state’s largest newspapers (Corella, 2000; Fischer, 2000a, 2000b; Gonzalez, 2000; Portillo, 2000; Stauffer, 2000; Thomas & Collier, 1996, 2002), voters seemed unpersuaded by claims that bilingual education was a more effective means of teaching both English and content areas to second-language learners. The measure passed with 63% of the vote. Shortly thereafter, state education officials began intense efforts to rid school districts of programs that used students’ first languages a means of instruction.

Before passage of Proposition 203, state school districts had implemented a variety of programs for ELLs and indigenous students, including bilingual education and English as a second language models (transitional, maintenance-developmental, dual language, two-way immersion, content ESL, pull-out ESL, sheltered content instruction). Parents had the freedom to select a particular model for their children, and if the neighborhood school did not provide it, they generally had the option to enroll children in one that did. Several of the bilingual programs were exemplary and nationally known (Combs et al., 2005; Holm, 1996; Holm & Holm, 1990; McCarty & Bia, 2002; Roessel & Navaho Curriculum Center, 1977; Smith, 2001; Smith & Arnot-Hopffer, 1998; Smith et al., 2002). In contrast, at the present time, the Arizona Department of Education mandates a rigid “one-size-fits-all” model into which all districts must place students who are learning English as a second language in English-only schools where they receive pull-out SEI services. Eligibility for SEI is determined by how students score on the state’s proficiency test—the Arizona English Language Learner Assessment, or AZELLA.

Funding

Although the ideological proclivities of state policy makers and elected officials clearly influence policies guiding the education of English learners (Horne, 2004a, 2004b; Johnson, 2005), school funding for English language programs has primarily driven language and education policies in Arizona. That is, concerns about who appropriates state funding, which students are eligible (and how they are eligible because eligibility requirements have been inconsistent) and which districts receive funding (and how much they receive) tend to dominate in discussions about ELL policies. Funding controversies derive from one source—Flores v. Arizona (1999)—a class action filed in 1992 by parents of English learners in Nogales, Arizona. In civil rights litigation, a class comprises individuals “similarly situated,” that is, people who are similarly affected by a particular policy, law, or practice (Alexander & Alexander, 1985; Combs, 2012). The class in Flores v. Arizona included all ELLs in each of the state’s 15 counties.

Plaintiffs argued that the state legislature had violated the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (1964) by failing to take “appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede[d] equal participation by its students in its instructional programs” arbitrarily establishing and capping the amount of additional per pupil funding appropriated to school districts serving large numbers of English language learners. The state legislature was ordered to increase its appropriation—a paltry US$150 per English language learner—to an unspecified higher amount. Legislators ignored this ruling, however, landing them back in court. When they eventually raised the amount to US$340, the district court judge once again declared the figure “arbitrary and capricious.”

State legislators argued they would be unable to increase the funding until a cost study determined exactly how much it would cost to educate each English learner. A state survey of school district costs of ELL programs subsequently was undertaken, with reported expenditures ranging from US$670 to US$2,571. While the figures were widely divergent, all participating school districts indicated they spent well more than the US$340 appropriated by the legislature (Arizona Senate Research Staff, 2008; Hogan, n.d.).

State legislators resisted judicial funding mandates for another 5 years and not solely because of financial concerns. Some of them openly expressed doubts about the citizenship status of English learners in Arizona schools. The speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives for example declared that additional school funding for English learners would turn Arizona into “Mexico’s best school district north of the border” (Hogan, n.d.). Other legislators rejected any state responsibility for educating noncitizens and insisted that children born in the United States to undocumented parents were not citizens despite the U.S. Constitution’s explicit language to the contrary. In fact, although the numbers are hard to pin down, in Arizona the percentage of U.S.-born ELLs has been estimated at approximately 80% (Capps et al., 2005; Gándara & Hopkins, 2010). This makes them citizens of the United States. Nonetheless, among members of the state legislature, there is a widespread belief that Arizona’s ELLs are undocumented and, as such, deserve no support.

Time

After 5 years of noncompliance with the original decision in the Flores v Arizona case, the district court, increasingly frustrated by the legislature’s recalcitrance, imposed massive fines against the state. In a strongly worded order for sanctions, the judge expressed his frustration:

The Court can only imagine how many students have started school since Judge Marquez entered the Order in February 2000, declaring these programs were inadequately funded in an arbitrary and capricious manner that violates ELL students’ rights under the EEOA. How many students may have stopped school, by dropping out or failing because of foot-dragging by the State and failure to comply with the original Order and compliance directives such as the Order issued on January 28, 2005? Plaintiffs are no longer inclined to depend on the good faith of the Defendants or to have faith that without some extraordinary pressure, the State will ever comply with the mandates of the respective Orders issued by this Court. (Flores v. Arizona, 2005, p. 3)

The legislature scrambled to pass something. The result was HB 2064, which minimally increased ELL program funding but also reconceptualized SEI as a segregated 4-hr English grammar and reading “model.” The new “English Language Development” block requires a minimum of 4 hr per day of English language development (ELD) and limits a student’s participation in the program to a period “not normally intended to exceed one year.” The ELD block focuses on phonology, morphology, syntax, vocabulary, and semantics. With the typical school day comprising 6 to 6.5 hr per day, 4 hr of English grammar instruction is a significant portion (Combs, 2012). State education officials have even stipulated the number of minutes allocated to each domain (see Table 1). The learners’ English proficiency levels, as measured by the Arizona English Language Learner Assessment (AZELLA) instrument, determine the amount of time they receive oral English development and writing instruction.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Arizona ELLs Task Force Structured English Immersion Models

AZELLA
Preemergent & emergent	Basic level	Intermediate level
For the elementary grades (K-5)
45 min—Oral English	30 min—Oral English	15 min—Oral English
60 min—Grammar	60 min—Grammar	60 min—Grammar
60 min—Reading	60 min—Reading	60 min—Reading
60 min—Vocabulary	60 min—Vocabulary	60 min—Vocabulary
15 min—Prewriting	30 min—Writing	45 min—Writing
Secondary grades (6-12)
60 min—Conversational English and academic vocabulary	60 min—Conversational English and academic vocabulary	2 hr—Language arts
60 min—English reading	60 min—English reading	60 min—Academic English reading
60 min—English writing	60 min—English writing	60 min—Academic writing and grammar
60 min—English grammar	60 min—English grammar

Note: AZELLA = Arizona English Language Learners Assessment.

In view of the table above, it is noteworthy that most of the instruction provided during the times stipulated for ELD is void of content—that is, they entail large chunks of time devoted to highly decontextualized language drills. This kind of time allocation for the school day of ELLs has had profound impact on what children can learn, on who they are able to interact with, and ultimately on the kinds of identities they can craft for themselves as students through the course of their academic histories (see DaSilva Iddings & Katz, 2007).

Information

Today, more than 10 years later, bilingual programs in Arizona are almost nonexistent or simply limping along. With few exceptions, these programs have been replaced with this hybridized version of SEI in which instruction is exclusively in English and content subjects like science, social studies, and language arts are not taught. Indeed, the phrase “bilingual education” is markedly absent in state-level discourse about the education of ELLs in Arizona; that is, current policy discussions about educational models for these students focus solely on the English-only models available as if there were no (or had never been) other alternatives.

Proposition 203 has been codified into law and is now part of the Arizona Revised Statutes (Title 15, Article 3.1 §751-757). Arizona Department of Education officials repeat these declarations and other sections of the law with great authority, as if they were established truths. For example, the State Office of English Language Acquisition Services (OELAS) has a website that provides administrative forms, announcements, links to policy and legal documents, and training materials. School districts can access these materials as they wish. One of the documents available is a 107-slide PowerPoint presentation called “Nuts and Bolts,” which OELAS staff members have used in periodic seminars throughout the state. ⁴ Only two slides reference research in any form: The first states that the mandatory ELD models were developed from “critical research based components,” although these components are not identified (Combs, 2012). The second lists four broad principles justifying the ELD models, again without attribution:

Another slide, titled “One Year to Proficiency,” advances the idea that students can become fluent in English in 1 year through prescriptive means:

OPEN IN VIEWER

One Year to Proficiency.

Source: http://www.ade.az.gov/oelas

Clearly, the dissemination of information to families and other educational professionals embrace ideologies that are directed at fast linguistic and cultural assimilation of English and at some forms of indoctrination. Information about other possible approaches, or about the benefits of bilingual education, is rare and when existing, it is difficult to access.

First-Language Development

Research in the area of second-language acquisition has shown the importance of understanding language not only as a means of communication but also as a tool for thinking (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). English-only policies deprive students from the advantages of educational approaches that provide them with the opportunity to maintain and to continue developing their first language. These advantages have been well documented by research and include, for example, the use of multiple linguistic competences specific to bilinguals (e.g., their greater metalinguistic awareness) and opportunities for students to employ strategic actions (e.g., language brokering) to create meaning and to elaborate on the content of instruction (DaSilva Iddings, Risko, & Rampulla, 2009; DaSilva Iddings & Rose, 2012; Martínez-Roldán, Yeager, & Tuyay, 2005).

Second-Language Speakers, Readers, and Writers as Models

Arizona policy of grouping ELL students for instruction for 4 hr a day effectively segregates these students from English-language models. As Wong Fillmore and Snow (2000) have written, ELLs must “interact directly and frequently with people who know the language well enough to reveal how it works and how it can be used” (p. 24) so they can receive feedback and negotiate meaning in the L2. A vital resource for English-language learning, then, is to establish relations with native English speakers. Isolating students from such peer networks and language models serves to constrain rather than enhance their language development, thus also hindering their academic progress.

Family Funds of Knowledge

When the schooling of ELLs is devoted to English-only instruction, with its assimilative intent, there is also the real possibility of rupturing or fracturing students’ connection to their families and to their lived experiences and funds of knowledge, potentially important resources for learning (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005). Rumbaut and Portes (2001), in their longitudinal analysis of second-generation students, found that a critical element among the most successful students, in combination with the guidance of alert parents and significant others, such as a caring teacher who would direct the student in her or his academic pursuits, was the ability to build on what we would call household funds of knowledge in overcoming barriers to advancement or mobility. Therefore, educational policies directed at a forced transition to English monolingualism, instead of, whenever possible, the cultivation of fluent bilingualism, are seriously misguided. They deprive students of valuable resources to maintain critical intergenerational alliances, rupturing family relations as they adapt to a new society, and access to the knowledge and practices to succeed socially and academically early in their schooling. As Portes and Hao (2002) suggested, it is the possibility of learning English

while preserving the cultural anchor in the family’s own past that lead to the most desirable results. Cut the moorings and children are cast adrift in a uniform monolingual world. They, their families, and eventually the communities where they settle will pay the price. (p. 22)

Academic Emphasis

The academic achievement of ELLs in the U.S. schools (and in Arizona) reflects the repercussions of a long-lived history of educational inequity for students. Some of this history continues to be perpetuated through low teacher expectations of, and/or unfavorable bias toward, lower-income students and racial/ethnic minorities (DaSilva Iddings & Katz, 2007). Also, studies have shown that access to rigorous curriculum and overall high-quality education has been almost exclusively reserved for White, middle-class students (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). DeCuir and Dixson (2004) contended that current tracking systems, honors classes, and gifted education—widely populated by Whites—contribute to the resegregation of schools. In addition, many recent studies have suggested that the preservation of English as the hegemonic language of school has implications for students’ for the academic achievement of ELLs and ultimately relegates these students to subordinate positions in the classroom (DaSilva Iddings & Jang, 2008).

Adequate Forms of Assessment

ELLs enrolled in U.S. schools continue to be disadvantaged by standards-based educational reforms. The Board on Testing and Assessment Report (Hakuta & Beatty, 2000) revealed that using standardized tests to assess students whose language skills are likely to significantly affect their test performance yields inaccurate results. In addition, the standardized approach to testing is considered inadequate for ELLs as it is largely driven by policies rather than theories related to second-language acquisition (Solano-Flores & Trumbull, 2003; DaSilva Iddings & Rose, 2012). That is, these tests have traditionally been normed for monolingual speakers and do not capture the advantages of multilingualism.

It follows that the standardized tests currently in use in our public schools may lack validity for ELLs; thus, the academic abilities of these students continue to be underestimated. Indeed researchers have shown that these students are grossly overrepresented in low academic tracks and that the school dropout rates for these students (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005; DaSilva Iddings & Jang, 2008). In view of these challenges, there clearly is an urgent need to create assessment instruments that are sensitive to social, cultural, and linguistic differences. In addition, there is a need to create a process-oriented diagnostic tool (i.e., dynamic assessment) that provides information about ELLs’ distinctive psychological processes that may not be derivable from other sources (Poehner, 2008).

Meaningful Pedagogies

Pedagogic practices have frequently been subject to social, cultural, and political influence and, as such, have often adopted social patterns and political lines in accordance with the dominant social class that has guided its interests. As linguistically diverse students and their respective families are not often represented in this dominant social class in U.S. schools, their interests and needs are not always considered. In addition, the current exaggerated focus on standardized test scores in American public schools can sometimes place unreasonable demands on teachers and can actually preclude the very kinds of classroom interactions and/or contextual conditions that are most desirable for promoting learning and development. Educators in general have pointed to the importance of providing students with opportunities for meaningful learning to take place; however, in relation to ELLs who are often subjected to spending the majority of their school days performing language drills, such opportunities are not always available.