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