Post on 21-Jan-2023
Contextualizing Policy Appropriation: Teachers’Perspectives, Local Responses, and English-onlyBallot Initiatives
Ester J. de Jong
Published online: 11 March 2008
� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008
Abstract Few studies have focused on practitioners’ perspectives on and inter-
pretations of official language policies in schools and how such policies shape their
practices. Teachers are an integral part of the process of policy appropriations that
occur within and across policy levels (state, district, school, and teacher). Through
interviews with eighteen elementary teachers, this qualitative study focused on the
experiences of teachers in one district as they negotiated the impact of Question 2,
an English-only law passed by Massachusetts voters in 2002. Specifically, the study
examined the teachers’ perspectives on the passage of a top-down English-only state
law, its implementation in their district, and its impact on their classroom practices.
The study illustrates the multiplicity of policy appropriation: interpretations of the
meaning of the policy for practice varied according to policy level (intent of the law,
district administrator’s interpretation, school-based interpretations), often leading to
contradictory discourses. As a result, the teachers in the study had to (be able to)
negotiate often contradictory policy discourses in their daily practices. The findings
also underscore the importance of contextualizing policy processes: teachers’ views
of Question 2 were shaped by their own beliefs but also by the way the district
conceptualized and interpreted the law.
Keywords Language policy � Policy implementation � English-only �Educational reform � English language learners
Introduction
Rather than mere implementers, teachers are active constructors of educational
policies as they negotiate reform efforts and policy directives within their own
E. J. de Jong (&)
School of Teaching and Learning, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
e-mail: edejong@coe.ufl.edu
123
Urban Rev (2008) 40:350–370
DOI 10.1007/s11256-008-0085-y
context, personal experiences, and knowledge and skill base (Cohen and Ball 1990;
Darling-Hammond 1990). Sutton and Levinson (2000) therefore argue in favor of
the term ‘policy appropriation’ over policy implementation to highlight the social
nature of policy processes. Like mainstream educational reform research, studies of
language policy in school settings for minority language speakers have a long
tradition of focusing on top-down policies set by government agencies (Cooper
1989). Increasingly, the importance of understanding local and historical contexts of
decisions about language and language use is recognized and integrated into
bottom-up approaches to educational language policy and practices (Hornberger
2003; Pennycook 2001; Ricento 2000).
To date, few studies have focused, however, on practitioners’ perspectives on and
interpretations of official language policies in schools and how such policies shape
their practices. The purpose of this study is to examine teachers’ perspectives on the
passage of a top-down English-only state law and its implementation in one district.
After a brief overview of the English-only movement in the United States and
specific provisions of the English-only laws passed in California, Arizona, and
Massachusetts, the article reviews studies that have considered teachers’ responses
to the implementation of the three ballot initiatives. Next, the findings are presented
from a study that explored teachers’ reactions to the implementation of Question 2,
the Massachusetts’ English-only law, in their district. The article concludes by
underscoring the importance of addressing the interrelatedness of multiple policy
layers and contextualizing policy processes within their local context.
The Mandate for English-Only
By ballot initiative, California (Proposition 227), Arizona (Proposition 203), and
Massachusetts (Question 2) currently mandate that English language learners
(ELLs) be placed in temporary, English-only, structured English immersion (SEI)
programs. The three initiatives are representative of the modern English-only
movement, which has its formal beginning the first constitutional amendment to
make English the official language of the United States proposed by Senator
Hayakawa in 1983. Currently, 23 states have declared English the official state
language. A comprehensive review of the historical, political, and ideological roots
of this movement is well beyond the scope of this article (the reader is referred to
analyses by Baron 1990; Crawford 1992, 2000; Gonzalez 2001, 2002; Schmidt
2000). This section will highlight major trends and rationales that have driven the
English-only movement.
A tension between assimilationist (English-only) and pluralistic (multilingual)
approaches to linguistic and cultural diversity has clearly shaped American language
policy in schools (Schmidt 2000). While native American languages were
annihilated during the early colonial days (Adams 1995), ethnic communities
continued to use their languages in their communities, including schools (Conklin
and Lourie 1983; Crawford 1999; Kloss 1998). Assimilationist perspectives
dominated the Americanization movement in the early 1900s as the link between
speaking English and being an American were forged (Higham 1998; Schmidt 2000)
Urban Rev (2008) 40:350–370 351
123
to give way to more pluralist approaches in the 1960 and 1970s under the influence of
the Civil Rights Movement and the passage of the Title VII of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (the Bilingual Education Act; Wiese and Garcia 1998). An
influx of larger numbers of immigrants and a more conservative leadership led to a
shift towards English-only approaches to the schooling of ELLs in the 1980s and
1990s, culminating in Proposition 227 in 1997 in California. At the same time,
however, maintenance bilingual education programs in the form of two-way
immersion programs also showed an increase during this period (Howard et al.
2003). The 21st century has begun with an emphasis on English-only policies as
witnessed by the No Child Left Behind Act which assesses achievement in English
(Evans and Hornberger 2005) and the passage of two more anti-bilingual education
initiatives in Arizona (in 2000) and Massachusetts (in 2001). While bilingual
practices continue to exist, they have been reduced significantly across the nation in
public schools (Gandara et al. 2005).
The goal of the English-only movement is to pass legislation to eliminate public
services in languages other than English, including bilingual ballots (which are
required under the Voters Right Act for a small percentage of illiterate immigrant
voters) and bilingual education for students with limited English proficiency
(Crawford 2000; Dicker 2000; Woolard 1989). In defense of their proposals,
English-only supporters build on the popular image of the United States as a nation
of immigrants, who have succeeded economically by learning English and leaving
their ethnic roots behind (Schmid 2000). They stress the need for one shared
language for efficient government and communication and warn of the threatened
status of English because of a perceived lack of motivation of the ‘new’ immigrants
to learn English (Wiley and Luke 1996). Bilingual services will keep immigrants
and their children in ethnic ghettos which will prevent them from accessing and
participating in mainstream society and institutions (Crawford 2000; Woolard
1989). Supporters of the anti-bilingual education initiatives (California’s Proposi-
tion 227, Arizona’s Proposition 203, and Massachusetts’ Question 2) align
themselves closely with these arguments (de Jong and Bryan 2006; Crawford
1998; Galindo 1997, 2004) as is aptly illustrated by the following quote in the
Boston Globe by a proponent of Massachusetts’ Question 2.
Because of transitional bilingual education, too many Spanish-speaking
students are segregated from their English-speaking schoolmates, and this has
contributed significantly to the abysmal educational results for Hispanic
students in Massachusetts: the lowest MCAS scores and the highest drop-out
rates among all major racial/ethnic groups (Boston Globe, 10/28/02).
Providing schooling in a language other than English is thus seen as the barrier
that keeps ELLs from succeeding. This barrier can best be removed by immersing
ELLs in English fully and immediately and by moving them into standard
curriculum classroom with native English speakers as quickly as possible (Porter
1998).
To meet this goal, the three laws require schools to place ELLs in a structured
English immersion (SEI) program, a specialized program that only uses English as a
medium of instruction and that is not intended to last more than 1 year. Exemptions
352 Urban Rev (2008) 40:350–370
123
from this mandate are allowed for students already fluent in English, students older
than 10 years of age, or students with special needs. The waiver from SEI placement
can only occur after the child has been placed in an English-only classroom for
30 days. The process requires parents to make a personal visit to the school and
renew the waiver annually (for children under 10 years of age). In the case of
Arizona and Massachusetts, a 250-word rationale explaining the placement in a
bilingual program for non-language proficiency-related reasons is also required.
Proponents of bilingual approaches to the schooling of ELLs have critiqued the
monolingual ideology of the English-only ballot initiatives because they identify
language as the sole cause of language minority students’ failure, thus ignoring the
role of structural inequities. They criticize the perpetuation of a mythical link
between national identity, unity, economic prosperity and having one, standardized,
language (Crawford 2003; Macedo et al. 2003; Ricento 2005). They point out that
immigrant languages form no threat to English as children prefer English within
years of being in the United States and adults are lining up for English as a Second
Language classes (Tucker 2006). Finally, they emphasize the benefits of bilingual-
ism for the individual and for society (Baker 2006; Tse, 2000) and the positive role
that a student’s native language plays in second language acquisition, academic
achievement, and identity development (Cummins 2000).
Teachers and Language Policy
Language policy analysis has traditionally taken a top-down approach, focusing on
specific linguistic activities (such as creating alphabets, introducing languages in
schools) undertaken by the state (Cooper 1989). Typically, analyses focus on the
formal and stated actions and policy documents by government agencies at the
national and/or state level. More recently, however, the emphasis has shifted to
include a localized understanding of language policy that includes bottom-up
language planning efforts and the importance of considering the historical,
sociopolitical, cultural contexts in which language policy is taking place (Hornber-
ger 2003; Ricento 2000). Policy implementation is understood as a matter of
constructed meaning rather than a rational and linear process (Cohen and Ball 1990;
McLaughlin 1987; Sutton and Levinson 2000). In this view, administrators and
teachers are not the mere executers of policy but are positioned as active
constructors of practices as a result of their interpretations of policies within their
own context and experiences (Cohen and Ball 1990; Darling-Hammond 1990;
McLaughlin 1987; Olsen and Kirtman 2002). Teachers’ sensemaking processes play
a dynamic role in explaining ‘‘the ways educational reforms are enacted, mediated,
and shaped in the classroom’’ (Stritikus 2002, p. 17).
The bias toward formal, top-down policies also holds true for the debate on the
three English-only ballot initiatives. Besides ideological critiques, studies have
mostly noted programmatic changes at the district and/or state level (de Jong et al.
2005; Gandara et al. 2005; Garcia and Curry-Rodriguez 2000; Maxwell-Jolly
2000) or have analyzed the impact of the laws on student English language
development and academic achievement by examining exit rates or standardized
Urban Rev (2008) 40:350–370 353
123
achievement test scores (e.g., Clark 1999; Grissom 2004; Hill 2004; Mahoney
et al. 2005; Pappano 2006; Parrish et al. 2006; Sacchetti and Jan 2006; Wright
2005; Wright and Choi 2006). While the focus on these ‘outer’ policy layers can
provide important insights, they leave out the central role that context and the
beliefs of individuals within particular contexts play in policy processes (Ricento
and Hornberger 1996; Stritikus and Wiese 2006).
Few studies have documented how teachers have interpreted and reacted to the
changes in language policy in education for ELLs as a result of the passage of the
ballot initiatives. With some exceptions (e.g., Combs et al. 2005; Sanchez 2006;
Wright and Choi 2006), they have almost exclusively focused on Proposition 227 in
California (Gandara et al. 2000, 2005; Parrish et al. 2006; and special issues of the
Bilingual Research Journal [2000] and The Urban Review [2001]). These articles
collectively highlight the chaotic nature of the initial implementation process in the
absence of clear guidelines and the lack of sufficient professional development,
collaboration, and resources (including access to native language resources)
(Arellano-Houchin et al. 2001; Gandara et al. 2005; Gandara et al. 2003). They
also point out that the English-only laws are closely intertwined with other
educational reform efforts, such as reading reforms and accountability mandates
under the federal No Child Left Behind Act (Mora 2002; Stritikus 2002). They note
that, combined with English-only laws, these reform efforts have led to a reduction
in native language instruction in many bilingual programs (Black 2005; Garcia and
Curry-Rodriguez 2000) and an approach to literacy that focuses on isolated skills
rather than meaningful communication (Gutierrez 2001; Gutierrez et al. 2002;
Valdez 2001).
Studies that have considered teachers’ classroom practices within specific policy
contexts note the interaction between teacher beliefs, state law, and district policy
interpretation and implementation. In analyzing the impact of Proposition 227 and
reading reform in California, Stritikus (2002, 2003) found that teacher agency (i.e.,
the ability to act and respond to educational issues in their classrooms) depended on
the teacher’s own philosophies and beliefs about effective instruction for ELLs but
also on the organizational and pedagogical structures that accompanied the
implementation of the two reform efforts. A similar interaction between district
policy, teacher beliefs, and classroom practices is illustrated in a case study by
Paredes (2000). In this study, a bilingual teacher’s use of Spanish for instructional
purposes and the incorporation of Latino culture in her SEI classroom were
influenced by her bilingual qualifications and belief in the importance of respecting
the students’ languages and cultures. At the same time, strict implementation
policies regarding the use of Spanish (which were reinforced by district
administrator visits) limited the extent to which the teacher felt comfortable
extending its usage beyond Spanish language arts (which was seen as using up the
allocated 20%). Comparing teachers in California and Pennsylvania, Varghese and
Stritikus (2005) extend the role of context to include the state level as well. They
argue that local policies and practices are also shaped, for instance, by the extent to
which there is a history of formal bilingual teacher preparation (see also Stritikus
and Wiese 2006).
354 Urban Rev (2008) 40:350–370
123
The purpose of this study is to continue this line of research that considers
classroom practitioners’ perspectives as embedded within district policies and the
state law. Specifically, the study explored how elementary teachers’ viewed how
Question 2 (Massachusetts) affected the schooling of ELLs in their district. The
study is part of a larger research project that considers the impact of English-only
policies on three school districts in Massachusetts (see de Jong et al. 2005). The
analysis draws from district documents and interviews with eighteen elementary
bilingual and SEI teachers who were distributed over three schools: School 1
(n = 5), School 2 (n = 3), and School 3 (n = 10). Ten teachers taught at the K-2
level, seven at the upper elementary level (grades 3–5). Three teachers were ESL
teachers who worked on a pull-out and inclusion basis, the others were classroom
teachers. Prior to Question 2, all classroom teachers had been bilingual teachers
either in a Spanish or Portuguese late-exit bilingual program or in a Spanish-English
two-way immersion program. After Question 2, six were still bilingual education
teachers and eight became SEI teachers. Most bilingual teachers interviewed
worked at the lower grade levels; SEI teachers were evenly distributed across grade
levels (Table 1). All teachers were certified in their field. At the time of the
interviews, all teachers had 4 years or more experience teaching at the elementary
level.
Interviews ranged from 25 min to approximately 2 h. All interviews were
transcribed and then analyzed first for broad themes related to provisions of the law
(Spradley 1980). Within each theme, categories for secondary level analysis were
identified and each interview was further coded for these subcategories. The
analysis below first briefly describes the implementation context at the district level,
drawing from district documents and administrator interviews (for more details, see
de Jong et al. 2005). It then focuses on the teachers’ perspectives on Question 2 in
their district.
A District’s Policy Response to Question 2
Winterport (pseudonym) is located 20 miles west of a major urban center and
represents socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic diversity. It has a long tradition of
providing bilingual education programs for ELLs since the late 1960s. More than
25% of its students speak a language other than English at home and more than one-
third of the elementary school population receives free or reduced-priced lunch.
Nearly one-fifth of the 8,700 preK-12 student population is enrolled in a bilingual or
English as a Second language (ESL) program. The two largest language groups are
Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese.
Table 1 Bilingual, SEI, and
ESL teachers interviewedK-2 3–5
Bilingual 5 1
SEI 4 5
ESL 1 2
Urban Rev (2008) 40:350–370 355
123
Pat (pseudonym), the district’s bilingual director, played a key role in structuring
Winterport’s response to Question 2. She has been the K-12 Bilingual Director for
the Winterport Public Schools since 1995. Prior to coming to Winterport, she was a
principal in a suburban school, the Bilingual Director for a large urban district, and a
Spanish bilingual elementary teacher. She holds a Master’s Degree in Educational
Leadership and a Doctorate in Administration, Policy, and Planning. During her
tenure in the system, Pat has acquired decision-making power by being recognized
as an expert on the schooling ELLs (Johnson and Short 1998), which has allowed
her to directly affect programs for ELLs. Her support of bilingual education is
reflected in the programs she advocated for prior to Question 2. She extended the
district’s two-way immersion program (a program that aims for bilingualism and
biliteracy for native English speakers and native Spanish speakers) into the high
school. She changed an early exit transitional bilingual education program to a late-
exit bilingual education program, which maintained a Spanish/Portuguese language
arts component. She also implemented a comprehensive bilingual program at the
secondary level.
This pro-bilingual education stance did not change after the passage of Question
2. As she was trying to design a new program that would meet the mandate of the
new law, Pat firmly believed that bilingual education should remain as an option in
the district.
It was no question. Because we know what the research says, we have very
successful programs, we know what to do for English language learners. ….
We knew that we would offer a bilingual program, we knew we would push
the waiver provisions to the legal limit.
After many meetings and discussions, the district eventually implemented the
following model in September 2003 for teaching ELLs in the district (de Jong
et al. 2005). The two programs exempted by the law, the two-way immersion
program and the self-contained ESL program, were maintained without changes to
program goals or design. A waiver process was developed for the secondary
bilingual programs. Since these students are all older than 10 years, they are
exempted from the cumbersome waiver requirements imposed on the younger
students. For Spanish and Portuguese-speaking students under the age of ten, Pat
decided to develop a waiver option in order to be able offer a bilingual program
and an SEI program. The need for the bilingual component was obvious to her: ‘‘I
could not fathom running an English-only program for beginners. I just think that
that is educational malpractice.’’ The implementation of the latter program is the
focus for this study.
The new program divides students by English proficiency level: bilingual
education for beginning ELLs and SEI for intermediate and advanced ELLs. As Pat
explained, ‘‘[W]e need a sheltered English environment for the intermediate to
advanced learners and we clearly need a bilingual environment for the beginners.’’
The target language group of the SEI and bilingual program is the same within a
school and each school houses both strands, i.e., the Spanish bilingual program and
the SEI program for Spanish-speaking students are located in the same school. After
bilingual program students develop intermediate English fluency, they are
356 Urban Rev (2008) 40:350–370
123
transitioned into a SEI classroom in the same school. The SEI classroom also enrolls
Hispanic or Brazilian students who have minimal native language proficiency but
whose English proficiency is not yet sufficient to benefit from a mainstream
classroom setting. All but one SEI teacher is bilingual in English and the native
language of their students. Once students have developed sufficient English
proficiency to be placed in a standard curriculum classroom, they exit from the SEI
program.
One of the greatest differences with the pre-Question 2 bilingual program (a late
exit bilingual model) is that the new model cannot provide continued access to the
native language, much to Pat’s regret.
The piece of it that we’re not happy with is the amount of actual native
language instruction that can be implemented in the sheltered English
classroom. … [T]here isn’t a maintenance component to this, to this model. So
once they get into sheltered English – before they might have stayed in the
bilingual program to give them some continued access to their Spanish. That
isn’t happening anymore.
She explicitly encourages SEI teachers, however, to continue to use the students’
native language in the classroom as allowed under the law and work with parents to
maintain the native language. ‘‘The message absolutely is that the native language
can be used, that the native language should be used in any way that would support
the students.’’
Pat’s rationales for the district’s programmatic response to Question 2 reflect a
desire to continue bilingual practices despite the English-only discourse of the law.
Two-way immersion programs were maintained and the waiver option was used to
establish a bilingual program for ELLs with limited proficiency in English.
Moreover, English-only SEI classrooms were approached in a bilingual way by
grouping students by native language background, by having fluent bilingual
teachers teach SEI, and by encouraging the use of the native language for
instruction. Her discourse and the new program design reflect the importance of the
native language for access to academic content and literacy development and
counter the monolingual ideology of Question 2.
Teachers’ Views on Question 2 in their District
The domain analysis of the teacher interviews highlighted three themes. First,
similar to other studies, these teachers saw the immediate negative impact on the
quality of schooling provided for ELLs. In particular, they lamented the negative
consequences of the 30-day mandate. The second theme focused on the
assimilationist pressures that have accompanied the law. It appeared that the
district’s new program countered and reinforced this situation. Finally, and this
theme differed from other English-only contexts, Question 2 was seen as an
opportunity for dealing with critical issues that needed to be addressed. These three
themes will be discussed in more detail in the following sections.
Urban Rev (2008) 40:350–370 357
123
Impoverished Schooling for ELLs
Question 2 mandates that, prior to granting a waiver for placement in a bilingual
program, ELLs must first be placed in an English-only environment for minimally
30 days. To meet the 30-day mandate, the district implements the following
procedure. When a child eligible for bilingual services arrives at the beginning of
the school year, the 30 days are spent in the bilingual classroom where the bilingual
teacher teaches the first 30 school days in English (and then switches to Spanish/
Portuguese instruction with an English as a Second Language component). If the
child arrives during the school year, s/he is placed in the SEI classroom for 30 days
and then moves to the bilingual classroom in the same school. If, after 30 days, all
parties agree that the bilingual program placement is still the most appropriate
placement for the child, the parent is asked to come to the school to sign the waiver,
which is subsequently signed by the principal, the program director, and the
superintendent. This requirement was by far the most negative consequence of
Question 2 cited by the teachers. ‘‘It’s absolutely the worst thing you can do to a
child. And to a class and teachers. It’s awful’’ (SEI Teacher, T8).
The picture that emerged from the teachers’ stories about the impact of the
30 days on the newcomers was that of a painful and frustrating experience for
students and teachers. The placement in an English-only environment, even with
bilingual teachers, is a scary experience for the children. Parents reported that their
children’s discomfort expressed itself physically as well as behaviorally. ‘‘I talk to
parents about how there’s a lot of crying and fighting just to get to school in the
morning and stuff like that’’ (Bilingual Teacher, T10).
And most of them would just cry every day and my heart was always broken. I
had one sitting beside me for 30 days crying every single day. I was doing
read aloud with a hand on her shoulder because she wouldn’t leave me. And
when I remember I feel like crying again. It’s so hard, so hard, so hard.
(Bilingual Teacher, T12)
Although the bilingual teachers were only temporarily affected by the 30-day
requirement, they equally experienced this period as a waste of instructional time
that held bilingual students back from accessing grade-level curriculum. Teachers
could merely provide low-level, basic English skills instruction as opposed to a rich
and challenging curriculum. ‘‘But like in the 30 days I teach the colors, the numbers
and they [are] good in that’’ (Bilingual Teacher, T2). The SEI classroom
experienced constant disruptions as a result of the 30-day requirement as they
took in newcomers throughout the school year. Some SEI classrooms turned into a
revolving door, depending on the number of new arrivals in any given time period.
And [the SEI students] were just, ‘‘Another one?’’ Because I think last year the
transitions in my class were huge. I think I started the year with 29 kids and then
the end of the year was down to 27. But in between there we probably had 15 kids
who either came or went. It was a strange year, but so it was just one student after
the other, you know? And the students in my class were like, ‘‘Oh, another one!
Man, why are you doing this to them?’’ It was definitely hard. (SEI Teacher, T1)
358 Urban Rev (2008) 40:350–370
123
Academically, the 30 days was no more than a placeholder and wasted time for the
bilingual program students. As one teacher explained, the SEI classrooms are
‘‘parking lots for these kids’’ (SEI Teacher, T11). The 30-day period was valuable
instructional time that could have been spent providing access to the grade-level
content but was now reduced to a waiting period.
If a person doesn’t speak a word of English to put them in a classroom that
speaks another language that’s not yours. …. especially when you got next
door that could provide, you know, an opportunity for a child to be learning
instead of wasting 30 days. …. it’s criminal thinking. It’s really not human.
(SEI Teacher, T18)
These feelings were based on their daily experiences where they noted the
negative emotional, psychological, and academic impact of the waiver requirement
on their students. Similar stories of confusion, trauma, and wasted instructional time
were observed and continue to be encountered in classrooms for ELLs under
Proposition 227 and Proposition 203 (Combs et al. 2005; Gandara et al. 2000;
Gutierrez 2001; Parrish et al. 2006; Valdez 2001).
One way that the teachers were able to mediate these negative experiences was
through the continuation of bilingual practices. The SEI teachers emphasized the
importance that the new program design allowed them to use their bilingual skills and
impart the value of bilingualism. Due to the clustering of students by language
background, it was possible to use Spanish or Portuguese to support access to the
curriculum and to make student feel comfortable. This was particularly important for
the 30-day temporary placements. ‘‘[A]t least I can communicate with them in their
language. I don’t know what you would do if you didn’t speak their language’’ (SEI
Teacher, T4). The SEI teachers used the native language to support concept and
vocabulary development and encouraged the use of the native language to respond to
teacher questions or for peer interaction. Home-school communications were also
bilingual and teachers used the native language to communicate with parents as needed.
I try to show them that it’s so important to know both languages. If they
explain or use Portuguese there’s nothing wrong with that. Because they will
get the English they need but in the meantime I always say if you want to take
books home because they go to the library and you want to read in Portuguese
fine with me. (Bilingual Teacher, T12)
Bilingual communication is facilitated as a result of the bilingual grouping within
SEI; there is no competition among languages nor do teachers face the dilemma of
being able to use the native language with one section of the class but not with
others as is often the case in multilingual settings.
Assimilationist Pressures After Question 2
Several teachers commented on the overt and covert discourses of assimilation that
have guided practices in their schools since Question 2. They particularly addressed
issues of school climate and the diminished role of the native language. Bilingual
Urban Rev (2008) 40:350–370 359
123
and SEI teachers in each of the three schools commented that the law had influenced
the climate in which they were now teaching in favor of English-only practices.
Question 2 has allowed a lot of people to come out of the woodwork who
might not have spoken out. But there’s this will from the majority, the ignorant
majority, who will just say, ok put them in English and they’ll learn English.
That simplistic view and people don’t want to hear beyond that. But having
[Question 2] pass certainly allowed those things to be expressed (SEI Teacher,
T11)
Teachers mentioned multiple instances of children being told that they could not
use Spanish or Portuguese or bilingual program teachers being questioned about
whether they indeed were teaching enough English.
You go to the open circle with those kids… If we have any problems, if he’s
not getting anything, why can’t I just explain in Portuguese and keep going?
There is a colleague always in there because we’re doing large groups and
sometimes they come in and, oh, ‘‘you are speaking Portuguese but you
shouldn’t do that.’’ (Bilingual Teacher, T12)
Similar reactions have been documented in California (Gutierrez 2001). Valdez
(2001) notes, ‘‘language-minority teachers and their students [are subjected] to
negative comments, scrutiny, hostility, and scapegoating.’’ (p. 250)
Question 2 also led to a narrowing of access to the native language for ELLs
and their parents. Continued native language development was only available for
beginning ELLs. Once students reach intermediate English proficiency, they
transition into the SEI classroom. The visibility of languages other than English is
further reduced because teachers in the SEI classrooms are limited by law in their
usage of L1 for instructional purposes. Specifically, the law states, ‘‘teachers may
use a minimal amount of the child’s native language when necessary’’ but all
instructional materials to teach content or literacy must be in English (Chapter
71A: Section 2. Definitions). Under these conditions, English dominates through-
out the school and in the ELLs’ schooling experiences. ‘‘No Spanish books.
Nothing in Spanish. Just it happens over and over again. And it’s just, it’s not
there. That’s how it feels. ….. nobody’s reaching out to the bilingual kids in the
school at all’’ (SEI Teacher, T4). While SEI teachers could and did use the native
language to support learning, this ‘secondary’ use cannot compensate for the need
for sustained instructional time for native language maintenance and development.
Like Pat, several bilingual and SEI teachers observed that students were showing
signs of native language loss and they worried about its long-term impact on the
child’s ability to interact and connect meaningfully with family and community
members.
The disadvantage is for the family as far as I’m concerned, which is crucial,
because the child doesn’t have the first language developed, cannot
communicate with the parents. As a family you know that communication
is the key. You know that as children become older you know there is
struggle to communicate with the children. So if they don’t even have the
360 Urban Rev (2008) 40:350–370
123
language, that is crucial. That is for a family unit it becomes a big issue.
(SEI Teacher, T18)
Finally, the bilingual-SEI model itself also reinforced an assimilationist
philosophy, regardless of its intent to balance a belief in a bilingual approach
with the law’s eligibility requirements. In the new model, bilingual program
students transition first to SEI and then into the mainstream classroom. Despite
efforts to avoid ranking the three programs, it proves challenging not to perceive the
transition from one program to another as a ‘promotion.’
Before it was just the Standard and the Bilingual strands and that was it. And
now there’s kind of one more demarcation to distinguish them and I think in
their mind even one student this year who had been originally in the Bilingual
program and having moved over here was in my … Sheltered English last
year, started the year in the Sheltered English, and halfway through the year
transitioned into the Standard. And the way it was kind of approached from
administration at the school was, Congratulations! Like he’d almost won a
prize, moving, and that made me really uncomfortable. That’s not the way that
I think of it…(SEI Teacher, T1)
The hierarchy is reinforced by the law’s pervasive discourse about restricting
program participation to 1 year. Although the district emphasizes a readiness criterion
(based on how proficient the students are) over a time criterion (based on a particular
time period in the program) (de Jong et al. 2005), the attitude that rapid placement in
mainstream classroom is the key to academic success prevails in the schools.
Yeah, I think because of it that feeling of English faster, quicker, better has
penetrated even the minds of some of the people who work here. And that’s
having a great impact right now. (SEI Teacher, T7)
The mainstream classroom is thus framed as the better classroom and the ‘real’
place of learning; the bilingual and the SEI classrooms become mere temporary
waiting rooms (Montero-Sieburth and Perez 1987).
According to the teachers, the passage of Question 2 has normalized the English-
only position and it is this monolingual stance that tends to characterize the ‘‘linguistic
culture’’ of the school (Schiffman 1996). Languages other than English have little
visibility inside and outside most classrooms and are marginalized. Teachers observe
students being unable to use their native language proficiently and are concerned about
the negative impact of language loss on parent-child interaction and cultural
transmission (see also Fillmore 1991; MacGregor-Mendoza 2000; Rodriguez 1982;
Wright 2004). They also noted the renewed push for efficiency (rapid English
acquisition) and a programmatic hierarchy that devalued bilingualism.
Question 2 As Opportunity
The teachers also framed the passage of Question 2 as an opportunity. Given the
almost unanimously negative teacher responses noted in the same state (Sanchez
Urban Rev (2008) 40:350–370 361
123
2006) and in the other two states (Combs et al. 2005; Valdez 2001), this was a
somewhat surprising finding. Teachers noted that the programs under Question 2
addressed the challenge of having to juggle multiple proficiency levels in the
previous bilingual program. Furthermore, primary grade teachers also emphasized
that the SEI classroom provided a more appropriate placement option for those
ELLs with limited native language skills.
Dividing ELLs by beginners and intermediate level students for program
placement purposes (bilingual and SEI, respectively) addressed a dilemma many
bilingual teachers1 had experienced in the previous late-exit program. Like most
bilingual programs, the previous late-exit bilingual program had received new
students throughout the school year. As a result, the bilingual classrooms
(particularly the upper grades) were comprised of recent arrivals and students
who had been in the program for several years. While supportive of on-going
bilingualism and biliteracy development, this classroom composition also makes it
extraordinarily challenging to simultaneously balance second language proficiency
levels, the two languages, and grade-level content teaching for all students.
It is a good thing to have had the students separated by their English and their
Spanish by their language ability. I often think of friends of mine who taught
4th and 5th grade in the TBE [Transitional Bilingual Education] model and
how they were running a program that would sometimes have students who had
been in it since kindergarten or 1st grade. So their level of English had become
very advanced and then they would receive newcomers who spoke no English,
and I have no idea how they ran their classrooms. …So knowing that in the
back of my head, and working in the Sheltered English program, I feel like at
least right now, the students who don’t have the English …. it’s better that
they’re all together receiving the kinds of support that they need in their native
language. Being instructed in their native language and receiving ESL. That
seems like the right thing, and to have the students whose English is higher to
be separated out from that and to be in a different classroom so that they can get
what they need. So that’s one thing I think is good. (SEI Teacher, T8)
Grouping students by proficiency level simplified the SEI teachers’ job as
compared to their previous role as late-exit bilingual teachers. As SEI teachers, they
no longer had to juggle the two languages and translate materials in order to ensure
access for all their students.
I felt like as horrible as the law seemed, after it was passed I was pleasantly
surprised at how I was able to run and manage my classroom and just being
able to teach in the one language and having …the students … truly able to
learn and appreciate and build their vocabulary. (SEI Teacher, T1)
In other words, the bilingual-SEI sequence design became a solution to an
existing problem that had been identified by administrators and teachers prior to
1 Given that the SEI teachers’ roles changed the most (from bilingual to SEI teacher), most comments in
this section are drawn from the interviews with these teachers. Bilingual teachers’ teaching was affected
less by the change in program model; however, they did note some of the negative pressures to include
more English in their instruction and the lower status of the bilingual classroom in the new model.
362 Urban Rev (2008) 40:350–370
123
Question 2. Question 2 quickened a process already in motion to address an issue
that had increasingly become problematic under the old bilingual model. In this
context, the new law was not seen as a contradiction to desired practices but a useful
catalyst for change in a direction that the teachers supported, i.e., maintaining a
bilingual component in addition to implementing the SEI component.
The new sequence was also seen by teachers (mostly the primary teachers) as
providing a more optimal placement for one specific subgroup: English-dominant
ELLs with little native language proficiency in Spanish or Portuguese. The language
profile of these students provides a challenge for rigid program models. Generally
speaking, their oral native language skills are too limited to provide a strong
foundation for literacy development in the native language. At the same time, their
English proficiency still shows clear signs of second language development.
It doesn’t make any sense to teach this child to read in a language that they
don’t really speak. …..they don’t really speak Spanish; they don’t have the
vocabulary. It doesn’t make sense to teach them to read in Spanish and then
transition them into English. Those kids should not be in bilingual ed[ucation].
But they shouldn’t be in Standard either. They don’t have those skills, either.
(Bilingual Teacher, T5)
In the past, these students had been placed in bilingual program classrooms,
though in more recent years they had also been enrolled in multilingual ESL
classrooms. In the latter setting, they were without access, however, to their native
language since few ESL teachers were fluent in English and Spanish or Portuguese.
Under the new policy, these students are placed in the SEI classroom instead of the
multilingual ESL or bilingual classroom. For this specific target population, the
teachers considered the SEI program a more optimal program.
in the standard TBE I always had these children who didn’t have strong
Spanish skills, didn’t have strong English skills, but they were still exposed to
English, but their English was progressing faster than their Spanish. Yet I was
teaching to them in Spanish and it always felt frustrating. We always had those
questions, what language should this kid be taught in, and… It never seemed
right. Those kids always – I can think of them right now. They’re always kind
of a question in my mind like, am I doing the right thing with these children?
… most of them did kindergarten in English, too, and they were in daycare in
English, and I don’t have any of that conflict at all. I feel this is the language
that they need to be taught in, and it’s great for them. It really works for them.
(SEI Teacher, T4)
Since the SEI teachers are bilingual and students in the SEI classroom are
clustered by ethnicity and language background, the SEI classroom provides
opportunities to use Spanish or Portuguese as resources for students as needed.
… And so they get placed in Sheltered and we work on developing their
English, but for some of the students in my classroom I knew that I would be
able to use Spanish as a resource, and some I knew I wouldn’t be able to. (SEI
Teacher, T9)
Urban Rev (2008) 40:350–370 363
123
In short, the SEI classroom has emerged as a more optimal placement for those
ELLs whose Spanish or Portuguese skills are not strongly developed and for whom
English would also still pose a disproportionate challenge when placed in a
mainstream classroom, particularly for emergent literacy development.
Discussion: Contextualizing Language Policy
This qualitative study was concerned with the implementation of a top-down
English-only law in one district as perceived by elementary bilingual teachers in the
district. Sixteen out of the eighteen teachers had been bilingual program teachers
prior to Question 2; twelve became SEI teachers after its passage. The limitations of
the study include its exclusive reliance on interviews and documents for analysis.
While these data help understand the discourses that have emerged in the context of
Question 2, ethnographic work documenting actual classroom practices would be
needed to illuminate the translation of policy into actual practices (Stritikus and
Wiese 2006). The representative but small sample of bilingual and SEI teachers in
one particular district provides an intriguing snapshot of the diversity of discourses
that occur within and across policy levels (state, district, school, teacher). The
findings point to the importance of contextualizing policies in order to understand
their impact and the choices that educators make in the face of top-down,
prescriptive laws.
The teachers in this study were not passive receptors of the policy decisions that
resulted from the passage of Question 2. They had to negotiate multiple discourses
that surrounded the implementation of the new law and that were influenced by their
own personal beliefs, their colleagues’ interpretations, as well as the district’s
policies and the language of Question 2. In that process, they aligned themselves
with the district’s bilingual discourse and generally agreed with the policy response
to Question 2 as promoted by the director. As a recognized expert in the district, the
latter played a key role in formulating the district’s policy under Question 2. The
assignment of an appropriate target population for the SEI classroom (that is,
intermediate and advanced ELLs), the clustering of students by native language
background, and the overt encouragement of the use of the native language enabled
the teachers to be part of a program that was still largely consistent with what they
believed were effective practices for ELLs. This particular SEI implementation
context created a way to resist the monolingual intent of the law and the SEI
teachers stepped into this ‘ideological wedge’ by continuing to use their bilingual
skills and support the value of bilingualism and the cultural identities of their
students in their classrooms. Collectively, this bilingual discourse countered the
monolingual intent of the law.
Although the teachers’ own views were reinforced by the district discourse, they
had to negotiate additional, and more contradictory, discourses and practices. In
particular, they faced assimilationist pressures as a result from standard curriculum
colleagues’ attitudes and from the new program design. Although this study did not
include interviews with standard curriculum teachers, the bilingual and SEI teachers
described the regular occurrence of what Gutierrez (2001) refers to as
364 Urban Rev (2008) 40:350–370
123
‘hyperinterpretation’ by these teachers, i.e., the generalization of policy implications
across contexts without exceptions, in this case the rejection of the use of the native
language inside as well as outside the classroom. The passage of Question 2
appeared to have created a space for these rigid interpretations and legitimized the
insistence on monolingualism in the school. Teachers also identified assimilationist
pressures in the emphasis on learning English quickly and the positioning of the
placement in standard curriculum as superior to being enrolled in either the SEI or
the bilingual classroom. The new program model also no longer supported the
continued use of the native language for literacy development and academic content
learning. The teachers described their students’ rapid native language loss and
expressed their concern for the students’ identity and the quality of future family
communication.
The place where district and teachers’ bilingual discourse and the state law’s
monolingual discourse collided most directly and uncompromisingly, was in the
implementation of the law’s mandate that that ELLs be placed in an English-only
environment before being assigned to a bilingual classroom. While official district
policy described SEI as a program for intermediate students, the realities were
different as a result of the law’s mandate and resulted in blatant inequities for
bilingual students. Even though they could understand the English-only nature of
the law given societal attitudes towards immigrants, the teachers failed to see the
rationale for this provision and unanimously denounced it. They wrestled with the
resulting emphasis on low-level skills, the social isolation, the negative psycho-
logical impact, and the severely underdeveloped, low-quality learning environment
for all ELLs in the bilingual as well as the SEI classroom. This discourse collision
often led to a feeling of being compromised in their professionalism.
It’s forcing you to be in a position to go against everything that you’ve
studied, learned and know about what is good for kids and what is good
education, what is good teaching. You’re forced into the position of making a
child not making a child fail, but watching a child fail. (SEI Teacher, T8)
In short, the teachers simultaneously negotiated multiple discourses: the
district’s, their own, as well as those of their colleagues. They felt supported in
their bilingual stance by the district and its policies and this allowed them to take a
stance for bilingualism and engage in bilingual practices in their classroom. At the
same time, the monolingual context in which they worked undermined these efforts
at establishing a native-language-friendly and positive bilingual learning environ-
ments for ELLs.
The findings of this study also point to the importance of considering the impact
of a policy in its local context and not to draw conclusions simply based on the
presumed intent or language of a policy. While the teachers in this study certainly
did not subscribe to the monolingual ideology of Question 2 and had been worried
about its potential impact on their students, their views of the law were relatively
(and somewhat surprisingly) nuanced and in many cases positive. As one teacher
stated, ‘‘I have to say, I love the Sheltered English program’’ (SEI Teacher). These
statements can only be understood within the district’s historical and local context.
The long history of bilingual education in the district had resulted in the hiring of
Urban Rev (2008) 40:350–370 365
123
qualified bilingual teachers. This not only made it easier to maintain the bilingual
education program (de Jong et al. 2005), but it also ensured that the SEI teachers
approached Question 2 from a bilingual knowledge and skill base (Varghese and
Stritikus 2005). The teachers’ positive attitude was also influenced by the
positioning of SEI as (1) a intermediary step for ELLs with intermediate English
proficiency between the bilingual and standard curriculum classroom and not as the
sole option for ELLs and (2) as a bilingual environment through clustering.
Moreover, the new bilingual-SEI sequence addressed two programmatic needs that
had plagued the late-exit bilingual program prior to Question 2. It more effectively
dealt with the challenge of multiple proficiency levels in the same classroom (and
with expectation of providing grade level instruction through two languages) and
provided a more appropriate placement for ELLs with limited skills in their native
language but who were still developing their proficiency in English.
The Winterport example illustrates that policies must be considered in context in
order to understand its impact. SEI is not a singular, well-defined, entity but can and
will be positioned differently, depending on a particular district’s local context and
ideology (de Jong et al. 2005; Gort et al. 2006). Winterport bilingual and SEI
teachers’ efforts to resist the English-only implications of Question 2 were
supported at the district level. Combined with their own beliefs, this contributed to
their sense of efficacy for ELLs and professionalism. Yet, their ability to engage in
effective practices was also challenged by assimilationist pressures. The ideological,
interpretative ‘‘spaces’’ that are inherent in policy processes create opportunities that
can be explored by administrators and teachers in order to continue to engage in
equitable practices. At the same time, these spaces intersect with other discourses
and ideologies. As the core of policy implementation, actual classroom practices
will be mediated by how teachers negotiate these multiple views and practices.
Conclusion
The case of Winterport provides a window into a district that has purposefully
attempted to maintain a discourse and practices that value bilingualism and the use
of the native language for ELLs in the face of a top-down mandate of a strict
English-only law. Rather than complacent acceptance, the district’s ‘bilingual’
discourse continued to shape interactions with ELLs and their parents after the
passage of Question 2. While staying within the confines of the law, district
personnel and the bilingual and SEI teachers actively resisted the English-only,
monolingual implications of the law. They exerted their agency through program-
matic decisions (maintaining bilingual education), instructional choices regarding
the use of the students’ native language, and by maintaining a discourse that stressed
to students and parents the importance of bilingualism.
Cases like this as well as other case studies of individual classroom teachers can
help avoid the often prevailing attitude that ‘nothing can be done’ when laws pass
and the perception that there is only one possible (English-only) interpretation of a
law. Winterport’s example illustrates that different practices will accompany a law,
due to layers of interpretation at different policy implementation levels (Ricento and
366 Urban Rev (2008) 40:350–370
123
Hornberger 1996). Understanding the constructed nature of policy making and
policy implementation can empower teachers and administrators to recognize their
own agency in interpreting educational reform efforts and how these choices are and
can be mediated collectively and individually.
References
Adams, D. W. (1995). Education for distinction. American Indians and the boarding school experience1975–1928. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
Arellano-Houchin, A., Flamenco, C., Merlos, M.M., & Segura, L. (2001). Has California’s passage of
Proposition 227 made a difference in the way we teach? The Urban Review, 33(3), 221–235.
Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Baron, D. (1990). The English-only question. An official language for Americans? New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Black, W. R. (2005). Constructing accountability performance for English language learner students. An
unfinished journey toward language minority rights. Language Policy, 20(1), 197–224.
Clark, K. (1999, June). From primary language instruction to English immersion: How five California
districts made the switch. Retrieved August 2, 2004 from http://www.ceousa.org/READ/clark1.doc.
Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A commentary. EducationalEvaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 331–338.
Conklin, N. F., & Lourie, M. A. (1983). A host of tongues. Language communities in the United States.
New York: The Free Press.
Combs, M. C., Evans, C., Fletcher, T., Parra, E., & Jimenez, A. (2005). Bilingualism for the children:
Implementing a dual-language program in an English-only state. Educational Policy, 19(5), 701–728.
Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crawford, J. (1992). Hold your tongue. Bilingualism and the politics of ‘English only’. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Crawford, J. (1998). The bilingual education story: why can’t the news media get it right? Presentation to
the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. Retrieved on August 25, 2005 from
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jwcrawford/NAHJ.htm.
Crawford, J. (1999). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory and practice (4th ed.). Los Angeles,
CA: Bilingual Education Services.
Crawford, J. (2000). At war with diversity. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Crawford, J. (2003). Hard sell: Why is bilingual education so unpopular with the American public?Retrieved August 25, 2005 from http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/LPRU/features/brief8.htm.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy. Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Instructional policy into practice: ‘‘The power of the bottom over the top’’.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 339–347.
de Jong, E. J., & Bryan, K. (2006). Shaping public opinion on English-only legislation. Paper presented at
National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE), Phoenix, AZ.
de Jong, E. J., Gort, M., & Cobb, C. D. (2005). Bilingual education within the context of English-only
policies: Three districts’ responses to Question 2 in Massachusetts. Educational Policy, 19(4),
595–620.
Dicker, S. J. (2000). Languages in America. A pluralist view (2nd ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Evans, B., & Hornberger, N. H. (2005). No child left behind: Repealing and unpeeling federal language
education policy in the United States. Language Policy, 4, 87–106.
Fillmore, L. W. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 6, 323–334.
Galindo, R. (1997). Language wars: The ideological dimensions of the debates on bilingual education.
Bilingual Research Journal, 21(2&3), 103–141.
Galindo, R. (2004). Newspaper editorial response to California’s post-Proposition 227 test scores. Journalof Latinos and Education, 3(4), 227–250.
Urban Rev (2008) 40:350–370 367
123
Gandara, P. (2000). In the aftermath of the storm: English learners in the post-227 era. Bilingual ResearchJournal, 24(1&2), 1–14.
Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005, April). Listening to teachers of English language
learners: A survey of California teachers’ challenges, experiences, and professional development
needs. The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. Retrieved on September 24, 2005, from
http://www.cftl.org/publications_latest.php.
Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., Garcia, G., Asato, J., Gutierrez, K., Skriticus, T., & Curry, J. (2000). Theinitial impact of Proposition 227 on the instruction of English learners. Santa Barbara, CA: UC
Linguistic Minority research Institute, Education Policy Center. Available online
http://www.lmri.ucsb.edu/publications/00_prop227effects.pdf.
Gandara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R. (2003). English learners in California
schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Educational Policy Analysis Archives,11(36).
Retrieved 9/26/2006 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n36/.
Garcia, E. E., & Curry-Rodriguez, J. E. (2000). The education of limited English proficient students in
California schools: An assessment of the influence of proposition 227 in selected districts and
schools. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(1&2), 15–36.
Gonzalez R. D. (Ed.) (2001). Language ideologies: Critical perspectives on the official Englishmovement. Vol. I. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gonzalez, R. D. (Ed.) (2002). Language ideologies: Critical perspectives on the official Englishmovement. Vol. II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gort, M., de Jong, E.J., & Cobb, C. (2006). From policy to practice: The structural and ideologicalcontext of sheltered English immersion in Massachusetts. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association (AERA), San Francisco, CA. April 8–11.
Grissom, J. B. (2004). Reclassification of English learners. Educational Policy Analysis Archives,12(36),
1–38. Available online at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n36/v12n36.pdf.
Guerrero, M. D. (2004). Acquiring academic English in 1 year. An unlikely proposition for English
language learners Urban Education, 39(2), 172–199.
Gutierrez, K. D. (2001). Smoke and mirrors: Language policy and educational reform. In J. Larson (Ed.),
Literacy as snake oil. Beyond the quick fix (pp. 111–112). New York: Peter Lang.
Gutierrez, K. D., Asato, J., Santos, M., & Gotanda, N. (2002). Backlash pedagogy: Language and culture
and the politics of reform. The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 24, 335–351.
Higham, J. (1998). Strangers in the land. Patterns of American nativism, 1860–1925 (4th ed.). New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Hill, E. G. (2004). A look at the progress of English language learners. Sacramento, CA: Legislative
Analysts’ Office (LAO).
Hornberger, N. H. (2003). Literacy and language planning. In Paulston, C. N. & Tucker, G. R. (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics. The essential readings (pp. 449–459). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., & Christian, D. (2003). Trends in two-way immersion education: A reviewof the research. Report 63. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed
At Risk (CRESPAR).
Johnson, P. E., & Short, P. M. (1998). Principal’s leader power, teacher empowerment, teacher
compliance and conflict. Educational Management & Administration, 26(2), 147–159.
Kloss, H. (1998). The American bilingual tradition. McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics and
Delta Systems.
Macedo, D., Dendrinos, B., & Gounari, P. (2003). The hegemony of English. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
MacGregor-Mendoza, P. (2000). Aqui no se hable espanol: Stories of linguistic repression in Southwest
schools. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(4), 333–345.
Mahoney, K., Thompson, M., & MacSwan, J. (2005). The condition of English language learners inArizona: 2004. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University, Education Policy Studies Laboratory.
Maxwell-Jolly, J. (2000). Factors influencing implementation of mandated policy change: Proposition
227 in seven northern California school districts. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(1&2), 37–56.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. EducationalEvaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171–178.
Montero-Sieburth, M., & Perez, M (1987). Echar Pa’lante, moving onward: The dilemmas and strategies
of a bilingual teacher. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18(3), 180–189.
Mora, J. K. (2002). Caught in a policy web. The impact of educaton reform on Latino education. Journalof Latinos and Education, 1(1), 29–44.
368 Urban Rev (2008) 40:350–370
123
Olsen, B., & Kirtman, L. (2002). Teacher as mediator of school reform: An examination of teacher
practice in 36 California restructuring schools. Teachers College Record, 104(2), 301–324.
Pappano, L. (2006). Sink or Swim. Commonwealth, Winter, 46–61.
Paredes, S. M. (2000). How Proposition 227 influences the language dynamics of a first-and second-grade
mathematics lesson. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(1&2), 179–198.
Parrish, T. B., Perez, M., Merickel, A., & Linquanti, R. (2006). Effects of the implementation ofProposition 227 on the education of English language learners, K-12. Findings from a 5-yearEvaluation: Final Report. San Francisco, CA: American Institutes of Research/WestEd.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Lessons from colonial language policies. In R. D. Gonzalez (Ed.), Languageideologies: Critical perspectives on the offical English movement (Vol. 2, pp. 195–219). Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Porter, R. P. (1998). The case against bilingual education. Atlantic Monthly(May), 28,30,38-39.
Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal ofSociolinguistics, 4(2), 196–213.
Ricento, T. (2005). Problems with the ‘language-as-resource’ discourse in the promotion of heritage
languages in the USA. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(3), 348–368.
Ricento, T., & Hornberger, N. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT
professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 401–428.
Rodriguez, R. (1982). Hunger of memory. The education of Richard Rodriguez. New York: Bantam
Books.
Sacchetti, M., & Jan, T. (2006). Bilingual law fails first test. Most students not learning English quickly.
Boston Globe, May 21. Retrieved on 5/26/2006 at http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/
articles/2006/05/21/bilingual.
Sanchez, M. T. (2006). Teacher’s experiences implementing English-only educational legislation.
Unpublished disseration. Lynch School of Education: Boston College.
Schiffman, H. F. (1996). Linguistic culture and language policy. New York, NY: Routledge.
Schmid, C. (2000). The politics of English only in the United States: Historical, social, and legal aspects.
In R. D. Gonzalez (Ed.), Language ideologies: Critical perspectives on the Official Englishmovement (Vol. 1, pp. 62–86). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Schmidt, R. (2000). Language policy and identity politics in the United States. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Skritikus, T. (2002). Immigrant children and the politics of English-only. New York: LFB Scholarly
Publishing LLC.
Stritikus, T. (2003). The interrelationship of beliefs, context, and learning: the case of a teacher reacting
to language policy. Journal of Language, Identify, and Education, 2(1), 29–52.
Stritikus, T. T., & Wiese, A.-M. (2006). Reassessing the role of ethnographic methods in education policy
research: Implementing bilingual education policy at local levels. Teachers College Record, 108(6),
1106–1131.
Sutton, M., & Levinson, B. A. U. (2000). Introduction: Policy as/in practice – a sociocultural approach to
the study of educational policy. In M. Sutton & B. A. U. Levinson (Eds.), Policy as practice.Toward a comparative sociocultural analysis of educational policy (pp. 1–22). Westport, CT:
Ablex.
Tse, L. (2000). Why don’t they learn English: Separating fact from fallacy in the U.S. language debate.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Tucker, J. T. (2006). The ESL logjam: Waiting times for adult ESL classes and the impact on Englishlearners. Los Angeles, CA: National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials
(NALEO).
Valdez, E. O. (2001). Winning the battle, losing the war: Bilingual teachers and post-Proposition 227. TheUrban Review, 33(3), 237–253.
Varghese, M. M., & Stritikus, T. T. (2005). ‘‘Nadie me dijo: (Nobody told me):’’ Language policy
negotiation and implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 73–87.
Wiese, A.-M., & Garcia, E. E. (1998). The Bilingual Education Act: Language minority students and
equal educational opportunity. Bilingual Research Journal, 22(1), 1–18.
Wiley, T. G., & Luke, M. (1996). English-only and standard English ideologies in the U.S. TESOLQuarterly, 30(3), 511–536.
Woolard, K. A. (1989). Sentences in the language prison: The rhetorical structuring of an American
policy debate. American Ethnologist, 16(2), 268–278.
Urban Rev (2008) 40:350–370 369
123
Wright, W. E., & Choi, D. (2006). The impact of language and high-stakes testing policies on elementary
school English language learners in Arizona [Electronic Version]. Education Policy AnalysisArchives, 14. Retrieved November 12, 2007.
Wright, W. (2004). What English-only really means: A study of the implementation of California
language policy with Cambodian-American students. International Journal of Bilingual Educationand Bilingualism, 7(1), 1–23.
Wright, W. (2005). The political spectacle of Arizona’s Proposition 203. Educational Policy, 19(5),
662–700.
370 Urban Rev (2008) 40:350–370
123