a critical discourse analysis of the reclassification of Eng

LangPolicy

DOI10.1007/s10993-012-9242-y

ORIGINALPAPER

Theneedforspeed:acriticaldiscourseanalysis

ofthereclassi cationofEnglishlanguagelearners

inArizona

AlisaG.Leckie SuzanneE.Kaplan´vilaElianeRubinstein-A

Received:7June2011/Accepted:5April2012

ÓSpringerScience+BusinessMediaB.V.2012

AbstractSeveralstates,includingArizona,haveenactedEnglish-onlylegislation,withinthepastdecade,impactingtheschoolingofstudentswhoareidenti edasEnglishlanguagelearner(ELLS).Asaresult,ELLSinArizonaareassignedtoaprescriptiveprogram—apartfromtheir uentEnglish-speakingpeers—for4haday,duringatime‘‘notnormallytoexceed1year.’’TheultimategoalistoreclassifyELLsto uentEnglishpro cient(FEP)status,exitthemfromtheprogramandintegratestudentsinto‘‘main-stream’’classrooms,wherenoadditionalsupportservicesareoffered.Sincelanguagepoliciesaredictatingtheinstructionalpolicydecisionsregardingassessmentandreclas-si cationofELLS,theauthorsarguethatitisnecessarytocriticallyexaminehowEnglish-onlypolicies—especiallythediscourseofpolicymaking—contributetotheshiftinthede nitionofreclassi cation,itsprocessandultimately,theconsequencesforstudents.Thus,thepaperunpackstheshiftsinreclassi cationpolicyandprocess;ourcriticaldiscourseanalysisofthelegislators’meetings,basedontheworkofvanLeeuwen(Dis-courseCommun1(1):91–112,2007),showthatalthoughArizona’sELLTaskForcesetouttodevelopaneducationalpolicytoprepareELLSlinguisticallyandacademicallywithinoneschoolyear,thetimeframe(ortimelimit)tookprecedencetotheacademicpreparednessofnewlyreclassi edstudents—apopulationthatisacademicallyvulnerable.KeywordsEnglishlanguagelearnersÁReclassi cationÁEducationalpolicyÁLanguagepolicyÁEnglish-only

Ourlongitudinalratewentto29%thisyear,it’sgonefrom12to22to29–Wellthat’snice,butnowwe’vegotchildrenwhoareEnglishpro cientbutnotgradelevelpro cient

JohnStollar,memberofArizona’sELLTask

Force

´vilaA.G.Leckie(&)ÁS.E.KaplanÁE.Rubinstein-A

UniversityofArizona,POBox210069,Tucson,AZ85721-0069,USA

e-mail:alisal@email.arizona.edu

123

A.G.Leckieetal.

ThisexcerptfromArizona’sstatestatutehighlightsthestate’srecentattemptstoimprovealonghistoryofinadequatelyeducatingitslanguageminoritystudents(Floresvs.Arizona2000).Inthisarticle,wedescribeandanalyzehowstatepolicymakersusedthephrase,‘‘notnormallytoexceed1year’’tojustifyaStructuredEnglishImmersion(SEI)languageprogramforthestate’sEnglishlanguagelearners(ELLs)inpublicK-12schools.ThisSEIstaterequiredprogramisdevoidofcontentareasubjectmatter,otherthanEnglish,andurgesELLstudentstoquicklyexitfromtheprogramintomainstreamclassrooms.ThroughacriticaldiscourseanalysislensweexaminedminutesandvideooftheArizonagovernment’sEnglishLanguageLearnerTaskForcemeetings.TheTaskForceisthepoliticalentityresponsiblefortheimplementationofthestate’smandatory4hEnglishLanguageDevelopment(ELD)blockwhichiscommonlyreferredtoasArizona’sStructuredEnglishImmersionmodel.Throughouranalysisofthedata,weshowhowstatepolicymakersknowinglycontinuealonghistoryofputtingitsELLstudentsacademicallyatrisk.

WebeginwithabriefoverviewofthelanguagepolicythathasimpactedinstructionforArizona’sEnglishlanguagelearners(ELLs).ThisisfollowedbyadescriptionofArizona’spastandcurrentreclassi cationprocessesforELLs.Wethenbrie ydescribethetheoreticalframeworkoflegitimation(vanLeeuwen2007)thatinformedourmethodologyanddataanalysis.Wefollowthiswithadiscussionofour ndingsandeducationalimplicationsofArizona’snewrapidreclassi cationprocessforthestate’sELLs.

ELLsandacademicperformance

Englishlanguagelearnershaveconsistentlyshownsigni cantlylowerperformanceonnearlyeveryacademicmeasure,rangingfromachievementscorestograduationrates,whencomparedtomostothergroupsinUnitedStates’schools(Abedi2002;´ndaraandHopkins2010;Hakuta2000;WrightandPu2005).Assuch,theGa

academicachievementofthenation’sELLpopulationsigni cantlyimpactsthecountry’sgeneraleducationallevelmakingthisparticulargroupofstudents’educationalneedsanurgentconcern—a‘‘tickingtime-bomb’’thenationasawholecannolongerignore.Yet,currentlanguagepolicydebateshavedonelittletoclosetheachievementgapforELLsintheareasofreadingandmathematics(RumbergerandTran2010;WrightandPu2005),andhaveresultedinineffectivesupportofhighacademicachievementforELLs(RumbergerandTran2010;WrightandPu2005).

InadditiontoawideningachievementgapbetweenELLsandtheirpeers,Arizona,alongwithCaliforniaandMassachusettshasenactedEnglish-onlylegislation.AspartofthislegislationinArizona,astudent’s rstlanguageisnolongerviewedasaresource(Ruiz1984)onwhichtodevelopanadditional´vilainpress).Infact,accordingtolanguage—suchasEnglish(Rubinstein-A

Arizona’slegislation,pedagogicalassistanceforELLsshould‘‘notnormallytoexceed1year’’(A.R.S.§15-751-17.755).StudieshavedocumentedthatELLsgenerallybecomecompetentintheirconversationalabilitiesinEnglishafter123

Theneedforspeed

approximately2–3years.However,theyrequireanadditional2–5yearstolearnacademiclanguage—subjectspeci cvocabularyandlanguagefunctions(Collier1987;CollierandThomas1997;Cummins1979,1984).Yet,theStateofArizonahasdeterminedthat1yearissuf cienttimeforELLstobecomeacademicallypro cientinEnglish(Combsetal.2005).

English-onlyinstructionpoliciesarecurrentlymandatingcurriculaandin uenc-ingpolicydecisionswithregardstoassessmentandreclassi cationofELLsto uentEnglishpro cientstatusinthestateofArizona.AsArizona’sEnglish-onlylawisthemostrestrictivelanguagepolicyintheUnitedStates,wecontendthatitisessentialtocriticallyexaminehowthestate’spolicieshavecontributedtotheshiftintheprocess,andpractice,ofreclassifyingELLsto uentEnglishpro cient(FEP)status.Speci callywefocusedourresearchonthefollowingquestions:HowhaveEnglish-OnlypoliciesinthestateofArizonacontributedtotheshiftinoperationalizingreclassi cationforK-12ELLs,andhowhastheprocessandpracticeofreclassi cationbeenalteredasaresult?

Arizona’sProposition203

Priorto2000,approximately30%ofArizona’seducatorsweregiventhediscretiontoeducatetheirELLstudentpopulationusingavarietyofeducationalbilingualprograms.Oftenastudent’snativelanguagewasusedasaninstructionaltooltosupportstudents’academiccontentcomprehensionandEnglishlanguagedevelop-ment.Additionally,studentsintheseprogramsweretaughtbyteacherswithspecializedlanguagetrainingandendorsementsthatenabledthemtobettermeettheuniqueacademicandlanguageneedsofELLs.TakingtheircuefromCalifornia’sProposition227,in2000ArizonavotersapprovedProposition203.Proposition203,alsoknownasEnglishLanguageEducationfortheChildreninthePublicSchools,isthemostprescriptiveinstructionallanguagelawinthethreeEnglishonlystatesandseverelyrestrictstheeducationalprogramsavailabletoELLs(Combsetal.2005).AswithProposition227,thissinglepieceoflegislationtransformedtheeducationalexperiencesofELLsinpublicschoolsbyrequiringthat‘‘allchildrenshallbeplacedinEnglishlanguageclassrooms’’(ArizonaRevisedStatues§15–752)segregatedfromtheirEnglishspeakingpeers.ThisiscriticalasscholarsintheareaofsecondlanguageacquisitionhavecautionedagainstkeepingELLstudentsfromintellectualexperiencesandfullparticipationininstructionalactivitiesuntiltheyhave uentlyacquiredacademiclanguageinEnglish(Cummins1984,1999;Collier1987,1988;CollierandThomas1997;Hakuta2000).Infact,programsforELLsthatcreateopportunitiesformainstreamintegrationwithgrade-levelpeersarehighlyeffectivewhentheyarecarefullyplannedandimplementedbyhighlyskilledteachersandsupportstaff(Echevarriaetal.2004;Hakuta2000).ResearchindicatesthatELLswhoareseparatedfrommainstreamgrade-levelclassesformostoftheschooldayforseveralyearsmaynotunderstandthelevelofcognitiveandacademicworkthatisexpectedfromtheirpeersinmainstreamclassrooms(Collierand

´rez-Orozcoetal.2009).Further,studieshaveshownthatstudentsThomas1997;Sua

whodevelophealthydegreesofbilingualismtendtoexhibithigherdegreesof

123

A.G.Leckieetal.

metalinguisticawarenessastheypossessagreaterabilitytofocusonanduselanguageproductively(GalambosandHakuta1988;Nagyetal.2006).Thisabilityhasbeenlinkedtoimprovedcomprehensionoutcomes(Nagyetal.2006).

TherewereseveralkeypointsoftheProposition203initiativeonwhichbothproponentsandopponentsagreed.Theseincluded:theimportanceofknowingEnglishwhilelivingintheUnitedStates;thenotionthatimmigrantparentswanttheirchildrentolearnEnglish;andthebeliefthatgovernmentandpublicschoolshaveanobligationtoteachEnglish.However,otherkeyissuesresultedina urryofdebates.ProponentsclaimedthatpassageoftheinitiativewouldresultinincreasededucationalchoiceforparentsofEnglishlanguagelearners.However,opponentsoftheinitiativearguedthatpassagewouldresultinbilingualeducationreformsthatwouldseverelylimitopportunitiesfornativelanguageinstruction(Wright2005).AlthoughproponentsoftheinitiativearguedthatbeingimmersedinEnglishforalargeportionoftheschooldaywasthemosteffectivewaytomeetthelanguagedevelopmentneedsofthestate’sELLs,theyfailedtopointoutthatapproximately70%ofthestate’sELLswerealreadyinEnglishonlyprogramsdueinlargeparttotheshortageofquali edbilingualteachers(Mahoneyetal.2004).Assuch,thestate’sfailuretomeettheacademicandlanguageneedsofitsELLstudentpopulationcannotbedirectlyrelatedtothestate’svarietyofbilingualeducationprogramsinitsK-12publicschoolsatthetimeofProposition203’spassage(Wright2005).AlthoughcriticsoftheinitiativeregularlycitedresearchrelatedtothevalueofnativelanguageliteracyinacquiringEnglish(Krashen1981;Krashen1996)aswellasresearchrelatedtothenotionthatlearningasecondlanguageacademicallycanpotentiallytake5–7years(Collier1987;CollierandThomas1997),Proposition203ultimatelymandatedthatELLstudentsacquireacademicEnglishinasingleschoolyearofapproximately180days(A.R.S.,§15-751-17.755).AsCrawford(2000)noted‘‘factualsupporthasgenerallyprovedunnecessaryforEnglish-onlyproponentstoadvancetheircause’’(p.6).

Asaconsequenceoftheinitiative’spassage,bilingualeducationinthestateofArizonaessentiallycametoanend(Lillieetal.2010).Further,astudent’s rstlanguageisnolongerviewedasaresource(Ruiz1984)onwhichtodevelopanadditionallanguage—suchasEnglish.Thus,althoughacademicsecondlanguagedevelopmentresearchhasconsistentlyclaimedthatthiscomplexprocesstakesaslongas5–7years(Collier1987;CollierandThomas1997;Cummins1979),theStateofArizonahasdeterminethat1yearissuf cienttimeforELLstobecomeacademicallypro cientinEnglish(Combsetal.2005).

Reclassi cationofELLSinArizona

AlthoughmanystatesuseseveralmeasuresfordeterminingEnglishlanguagepro ciency,asdidthestateofArizona,recentstatelanguagepolicieshavenarrowedtherangeofrequiredevidencetooneassessment—theArizonaEnglishLanguageLearnerAssessment(AZELLA).ThepracticeofusingtheAZELLAastheonlycriterionforassessingELLsEnglishlanguagepro ciencybeganin2006withHousebill2064thatreinterpretedProposition203.Priorto2006,stateeducatorsused123

Theneedforspeed

severalpointsofreferencesinordertodetermineanELL’sacademicpro ciencyinEnglish,suchasStanford9testresults,resultsfromthestate’sLanguageAssessmentScale(LAS),aswellasalternativeassessments(formativeandsummative)byclassroomteachers.However,withthepassageofProposition203andHouseBill2064,educatorsarenolongerabletouseanyotherassessmentbesidestheAZELLAforreclassifyingELLs.Arizonarequiresallstudentswhoself-identifyasspeakingalanguageotherthanEnglishonapublicschool’sregistrationformtaketheAZELLA.Astudentwhoreceivesalessthanpro cientscoreontheAZELLAisautomaticallyidenti edasanELLandisenrolledinthestate’snewlyrequired4-hEnglishgrammarSEIprogram.However,astudentwhoreceivesacomprehensivescoreofpro cientisplacedinamainstreamclassroomwherenosystematicacademicsecondlanguagesupportisprovided(Florez2010;Mora2010).ThisisimportantasresearchilluminatestheacademicandsocialnegativeconsequencesofSEIprograms(Lillieetal.2010)andthatthereareseveralresearchbasedalternativessuchasbilingualanddual-languageprogramsaswellastwo-waydual-languageprogramsthatdonotputELLstudentsatriskandpromotehigh

´ndara&Or eld2010).levelsofacademicexcellence(Ga

Eachyear,inthespring,ELLsarerequiredtoretaketheAZELLA.Iftheyreceiveapassingcompositescore,theyareexitedfromtheSEIprogramandreclassi edasa uentEnglishpro cient(FEP)student.TheyarethenplacedinEnglishonlyclassroomswithverylittle,ifany,specializedlanguageandacademicsupport(Florez2010;Mora2010).However,recentstudieshavedemonstratedthatanELL’sabilitytopasstheAZELLAisnotnecessarilyastrongindicatorofstudents’academicEnglishlanguagereadinessasthecutscoresusedfordeterminingstudents’Englishlanguagepro ciencyhavebeenfoundtobeofquestionablevalidity(Florez2010;Mora2010).Assuchthecutscorestendtobealenientmeasureofstudents’Englishlanguageskills.

TheformationoftheELLtaskforce

In2006,Arizona’sstatelegislaturepassedHouseBill2064which,amongotherrevisions,addedadditionalstatutestoArticle15,section7—TheEducationofEnglishLanguageLearners.ThesestatuesoutlinedthestructureandresponsibilitiesofthenewlyformedELLTaskForcereinterpretedProposition203.HouseBill2064requiredthatanEnglishlanguagedevelopmentmodelbecreatedforthestate’sELLs.Speci cally,itrequiredthemodeltocontainthefollowingcomponents:

All rstyearELLsmustreceiveaminimumof4hofEnglishlanguagedevelopmentonadailybasis.ELLsandnon-ELLscannotbeinthesameELDclassesStudentsaretobegroupedbyEnglishlanguagepro ciency(measuredbytheAZELLA)Studentsmustbetaughtbya‘‘highlyquali ed’’teacherasde nedbyfederalguidelines

123

A.G.Leckieetal.

TheELLTaskForceiscomprisedofninememberswhoservea4-yearterm.MembersareappointedeitherbytheSuperintendentofPublicInstruction,theGovernor,thePresidentoftheSenateortheSpeakeroftheHouseofRepresen-tatives.Atthetimeweconductedourresearch,thememberswere:

Dr.JohnBaracy—Superintendent,ScottsdaleUSD

JimDiCello—FormerAsst.SuperintendentforBusinessforParadiseValleyUSDDr.EugeneGarcia—VicePresidentforEducationPartnerships,ASU

MargaretGarciaDugan—DeputySuperintendent,ADE,co-authorofProp.203JohannaHaver—Author,RetiredTeacher

KarenMerritt—ELLCoordinator,GlendaleUnionHSD

AnnaRosas—Principal,LincolnElementary,NogalesUSD

EileenKlein—PublicPolicyConsultant

AlanMaguire—ChairmanoftheTaskForceandPresidentofaneconomicforecastingandpublicpolicyconsulting rm

ThetaskforcewaschargedwithdevelopingandadoptingresearchbasedmodelsofStructuredEnglishImmersion(SEI)programsthatallpublicandcharterschoolsacrossthestatewouldberequiredtoimplement(A.R.S.§15–756).AsaresultoftheTaskForce’seffortstocomplywithHouseBill2064,ELLsthroughoutthestatebeganparticipatinginastrictlyprescribed4-h,multi-gradeEnglishlanguagedevelopment(ELD)blockin2008.

AsmandatedbytheTaskForce,ELLsnowreceive1hofEnglishlanguageoraldevelopment,1hofEnglishreadinginstruction,1hofEnglishwritinginstructionand1hofdiscreteEnglishgrammarinstruction(ArizonaDepartmentofEducation2008).ThecontentoftheseclassesistheEnglishlanguage.AprimarygoaloftheSEImodelistoincreasetherateatwhichEnglishlanguagelearnersarereclassi edto uentEnglishpro cient(FEP)students(ArizonaDepartmentofEducation2008).ThisgoalputsELLsacademicallyatriskastheyarerequiredtospendapproximately60%oftheirschooldayimmersedinEnglishlanguagedevelopmentclasseswhichprohibitELLstudentsfromengaginginothersubjectmatterclassessuchasscience,historyandelectivecourses(Lillieetal.2010).Thisisparticularlydangerousforhighschoolstudentswhoneedthesecreditsinordertograduate.

Criticaldiscourseanalysis(CDA):atheoreticalandmethodological

framework

CDAisanessentialtooltoexploretherelationshipsbetweentextsandpowerinsociety.CDAmakesexplicittheconnectionsbetweenlanguageandsocialpracticeasevidencedbybothwrittenandspokentexts(Fairclough1995)andattemptstocriticallyanalyzetherelationshipbetweenlanguage,ideology,andsociety.AsVanDijk(1993)explains,‘‘criticaldiscourseanalystswanttounderstand,expose,andresistsocialinequality’’(p.252).WecontendthattheuseofCDAisnotonlyappropriateinthiscase,butnecessary,becausethehighlyprescriptivemodeldevelopedbyArizona’sELLTaskForceimpactsahistoricallyandfrequentlymarginalizedstudentpopulation.Throughacriticalanalysisofthediscoursethat123

Theneedforspeed

occurredduringthedevelopmentandevaluationofthatmodel,weattempttomakeexplicittheinterplaybetweenlanguageandsocialaction(vanLeeuwen2007)astheyimpacttheeducationalexperiencesoflanguageminoritystudentsinArizona.Asaresearchparadigm,CDAcanbecharacterizedbyitsinterestin‘‘de-mystifyingideologiesofpowerthroughsystematicandretroductableinvestigationofwritten,spokenorvisualdata’’(WodakandMeyer2009,p.3).ThroughananalysisoftheprocessandproductsofArizona’sELLTaskForce,weattempttoexplorethelinguisticmanifestationsofideologiesrelatedtothereclassi cationofELLsinthestate.OurdecisiontofocusontheprocessandpoliciesoftheTaskForcewasprimarilybasedonthenotionthatallpoliciesarecreated,revisedandrecreatedbymultipleauthors(Cassels-Johnson2009).

TheninemembersoftheTaskForce,appointedbyvariouspoliticalof ces,representthemultipleauthorialintentionsinthedevelopmentoflanguagepolicy.‘‘Itisusefultodocumentandanalyzehowthecreatorsthemselves(emphasisinoriginal)interprettheintentionsofapolicybecausetheirbeliefshelpformthediscoursewithinandwithoutthepolicytext’’(Cassels-Johnson2009p.142).DiscoursewithinthetextconsistsofthemodeldevelopedbytheTaskForceandthelegislationsurroundingthedevelopmentofthatmodelwhereasdiscoursefromwithoutthetextconsistsofthediscussions,presentationsanddecisionssurroundingthedevelopmentofsaidpolicytexts.Furthermore,becauseArizona’sELLTaskForcedidnotoperateinisolationtodeveloptheirmodel,wealsoincludeinouranalysisstatementsmadebyconsultants,districtadministratorsandrepresentativesfromtheArizonaDepartmentofEducationduringTaskForcemeetings.

CDAencompassdiversetheoriesandmethodologies(WodakandMeyer2009).Fromcorpuslinguistics(Mautner2009)tosociocognitiveapproaches(vanDijk1993),CDAprocessesandanalyticaltoolsvaryinscopeandperspective.Someapproacheslookfortrendsintopicsacrossmultipletexts,whereasotherscloselyanalyzetextsatthesentenceleveltodeterminethein uenceofverbmodality.Assuch,aprominentaspectofouranalysiswasreadingthevariousapproachesandattemptingto ndconnectionsbetweenwhatwewerereadingandwhatwewereseeinginourdata.Keepinginmindthatourprimarygoalwastoexaminethereclassi cationprocessofELLsinArizonainconjunctionwithEnglish-onlylanguagepolicies,thisinitialanalysislookedathowreclassi cationwasbeingoperationalized.AsaresultofthereiterativeprocessofreadingintheCDA eldandlookingatourdata,wefoundTheovanLeeuwen’s(2007)conceptoflegitimationusefulinanalyzingthede ningofreclassi cationofEnglishlanguagelearnersinArizona.

Legitimationandsentence/clauserelationships

Legitimationisoneaspectoftherecontextualizationofsocialpracticesthatoccurswhenspeakersde neanddescriberealityinawaythatwillmeettheirinterests.Legitimationalsorati esandveri esthesocialactionsofgroupsofpeople(vanLeeuwen2007).Inhisanalysisoftextsrelatingtothe rstdayofschool,vanLeeuwenlooksatwaysvarioustextslegitimizecompulsoryeducation.Acrosstexts

123

A.G.Leckieetal.

intendedfordifferentaudiencesincludingstudents,parentsandteachers,heidenti eshowweexplainandjustifythesocialpracticeofrequiringchildrentoattendschool.Hisframeworkincludesfourkeycategories:

Authorization—legitimationbyreferencetotradition,customorlawMoralEvaluation—legitimationbyreferencetovaluesystemsRationalization—legitimationbyreferencetothegoalsandusesofinstitution-alizedsocialactionMythopoesis—legitimationthroughnarrativeswhoseoutcomesincluderewards

andpunishments

Inourprocessoflookingatdataandthinkingabouthowreclassi cationofELLsinArizonawasbeingoperationalized,wecameacrossmanyexamplesoflegitimation,particularlythecategoriesofauthorizationandrationalization.Severalexampleswillbehighlightedintheanalysissectionthatfollows.Thus,weusetheconceptoflegitimationtocriticallyanalyzetherelationshipbetweenlanguageandsocietyinregardstotheeducationofaoflanguageminoritystudentsinArizona.

Datacollection

Thedataonwhichouranalysesarebasedconsistedofthefollowing:(1)minutesfromtheELLTaskForcemeetingsheldduring2007,2009and2010throughoutthedevelopmentandevaluationofthemodels,approximately200pages;(2)roughly40hofvideoofELLTaskForcemeetings,andverbatimtranscriptsofselectedportionsofthemeetings—theportionsthatweredirectlyrelatedtoreclassi cation;

(3)thedocumentdescribingtheStructuredEnglishImmersionmodelsproducedbytheTaskForce;and(4)Arizonarevisedstatestatues15–751through15–757thatdescribetherolesoftheTaskForceandtheinstructionalenvironmentforlanguageminoritystudents.

Consideringthattherewereover100hofTaskForcemeetingsavailableinvideoarchives,wefollowedasystematicprocedurefortheselectionofexcerptsforanalysis.First,wereadtheminutesoftheTaskForcemeetingscarefullytoidentifyparticularsectionsineachthediscussionfocuseddirectlyonreclassi cation.Wethentranscribedverbatimthosesectionsfromthevideoarchives(totalofapproximately320min).Bytranscribingtheportionsmentionedintheminutesaswellastheimmediatelyprecedingandfollowingdiscussions,weaimedtoavoid‘‘cherrypicking’’(WodakandMeyer2009),i.e.,selectingonlythosesegmentsofdatathatalignwithourownpersonalideologiesregardingtheinstructionoflanguageminoritystudents.

Althoughverbatimtranscriptsofselectedsegmentsconstitutethemajorityofourdata,wealsocollectedadditionalpolicytextsfortriangulationpurposes.ExcerptsfromArizonaRevisedStatutesthatdirectlyaddresslanguagelearners,theTaskForceandthedocumentdevelopedbytheTaskForcethatoutlines,de nesanddescribesthe4-hblockmodel,wereincludedinouranalysis.

123

Theneedforspeed

Dataanalysis

WeinitiallyanalyzedthevideotranscriptionstoobtainasenseofwhatdecisionswerebeingmadebyArizona’sELLTaskForceinregardstothereclassi cationofELLsinthestate.Afterrepeatedreadingsanddiscussionswitheachother,wenotedthatseveraltermsandconceptswererepeatedacrossmeetings.Wethenmadealistoftheserepeatedwords,phrasesandideastoserveascategoriesaswecodedthetranscripts.Theseinitialopencodingprocessyieldedcategories,suchas:TeacherQuality,AcademicPreparedness,RateofReclassi cationandArizonaStateLanguagePolicy.

Aftercodingourownandtheneachother’stranscripts,welookedbothquantitativelyandqualitativelyatourdata.First,wecountedcodes.Nearly75%ofourcodes,whendiscussingthereclassi cationofELLsinArizona,relatedtotheratesofreclassi cationandthepreparationofELLsforacademicsuccessuponreclassi cation.Consequently,thecategoriesofAcademicPreparednessandRatebecamethefocusofournextroundofanalysiswhichledustoexcludetranscribedexcerptsthatdidnotrelatetoeitherofthosecategories.

Adoptingthelegitimationframework

However,answeringourresearchquestionregardinghowEnglish-Onlypolicieshavecontributedtoashiftinthewayinwhichreclassi cationforK-12isoperationalized,requiredanadditionalroundofanalysis.ItwasatthispointintheanalysisthatwebegantoexamineourdatathroughthevariousCDAframeworks.Asaresult,wedecidedthatTheovanLeeuwen’s(2007)legitimationframeworkwasthebest tforourresearchquestionanddataset.Speci cally,vanLeeuwen’sguidingquestions,‘‘Whyshouldwedothis?andWhyshouldwedothisinthisway?’’(vanLeeuwen2007,p.93)helpedguideourthinkingregardingthemeaning,processandpracticeofreclassi cationaspresentedduringELLTaskForcemeetings.

Inordertoillustrateandclarifyourmethodofanalysis,weprovidetwoexamples.The rstexampleillustratestherationalizationandmoralevaluationaspectsofvanLeeuwen’s(2007)frameworkwhereasthesecondillustratestheauthorizationaspect.Theseaspectsoflegitimationwerethepredominantlinguisticmanifestationsinourdata.This rstincludedthephrase‘‘succeedinlearningacademiccontent’’whichwecodedasbelongingtotheAcademicPreparednesscategory.Duringadiscussioninthedevelopmentphaseofthemodel,AlanMaguire,thechairmanoftheELLTaskForcestated,‘‘WhatIseeisasincereefforttohelpthesechildrensucceedinlearningEnglishandthenbeingabletosucceedinlearningacademiccontentpredicatedonthatsuccessinEnglish’’(AlanMaguire,ELLTaskForcemeeting,4/12/07).

AccordingtovanLeeuwen(2007),onetypeofrationalizationisinstrumentalrationalization,whichconsistsofanactivity,apurposelink,andthepurposeitself.Theserationalizationcomponentsfromtheexcerptabovearehighlightedbelow:

123

A.G.Leckieetal.

…childrensucceedinlearningEnglish(theactivity)andthenbeingableto(purposelink)succeedinlearningacademiccontent(thepurpose)…

Inthisexampleweseerationalizationusedtoanswertheguidingquestions,whyshouldwedothis?andwhyshouldwedothisinthisway?AsindicatedbyChairmanMaguire,learningEnglishisthemeanstoachievethedesiredendofsuccessfullylearningacademiccontent.Herationalizesthatinorderforstudentstobeacademicallysuccessful,they rstmustlearnEnglish.Throughthisparticularlegitimationstrategy,hehighlightshisviewthatweshouldhelpstudentslearnEnglish rstsotheycandowellinschoollater.ThisemphasisonsequenceandoutcomeexplainwhytheTaskForcedevelopedtheirmodelandthechainofeventsinthemodel.

Furthermore,fromthesameexcerpt,theclause,‘‘asincereefforttohelpthesechildren’’isanotherexampleofinstrumentalrationalizationbecauseitcontainsanactivity,asincereeffort,apurposelink,to,andapurpose,helpthesechildren.ThisclausealsoutilizedanexplicitlystatedmoralevaluationtolegitimizetheactionsofArizona’sELLTaskForce.Theadditionoftheadjective‘‘sincere’’representswhatvanLeeuwen(2007)calls,‘‘thetipofasubmergedicebergofmoralvalues’’(p.97).TheeffortsoftheTaskForceweresincereandtheirgoalwastohelpthesechildren.Speci cally,theytriggerthemoralconceptthatELLsinArizonaareinneedoftheTaskForce’shelpandunderscorethattheactionstakenbyTaskForcetomeetthisneedwerejustandwell-intended.

ThesecondexcerptforanalysiswascodedasbelongingtotheRatecategorybecauseitreferencedatimeframeinrelationtoreclassi cation.Italsoexempli edthelegitimationstrategyofauthorization.KevinClark,aconsultanttoArizona’sELLTaskForce,addressedtheTaskForceandwasdescribingpossibilitiesforthemodel.Hestated,

That’sastructuredenvironment,statutorilyrequiredfourhoursofELDandtwohoursofcontentthatareconsistentwiththelawthatsaysuntilsuchtimeasyouarereclassi ed,youareinthestructuredEnglishimmersionprogramandwe’reallgonnadothebestthatwepossiblycantogetyououtofthereinatimeperiodnotnormallyintendedtoexceedoneyear

(KevinClark,ELLTaskForceMeeting,3/29/07)

Thisstatementutilizedauthorizationasalegitimationstrategybecauseitincludedthetermsstatutorily,consistentwiththelawandalsodirectlyreferencedlanguagefromArizonastatestatute,inatimeperiodnotnormallyintendedtoexceedoneyear(A.R.S.§15–753).Referencinglegalauthoritydirectlyanswersthe‘‘whydowedothis’’questionthatiscentraltovanLeeuwen’s(2007)framework.Wedothisbecausethelawtellsusto.Thelegitimationfordecision-makingwasplacedonthelaw,ortheindividual’sinterpretationofthelaw.Notallexamplesofauthorizationdirectlyreferencedthelawhowever,othermanifestationsofauthorizationincludetheuseofexpertsandcitingoftraditions.

ParticipantsintheELLTaskForcemeetingsutilizedlanguagetoestablishandcultivatebeliefinthelegitimacyoftheprocessesandproductsrelatedtothereclassi cationofELLsinthestateofArizona.Thislanguageoflegitimation,as123

Theneedforspeed

mentionedearlier,manifestsitselfinanumberofways:authorization,rationali-zation,moralevaluationandmythopoeia,andspaceprohibitsexemplifyingeachtypeasitoccurredinourdata;however,theirconsistentpresencethroughoutthedevelopmentandevaluationofthemodeldevelopedbytheTaskForce,illustratestheinterconnectionsbetweenthesocialpracticesandthediscoursesthatlegitimizethem(vanLeeuwen2007).

Findings

ExcerptsfromTaskForcemeetingsin2007wereanalyzedusingvanLeeuwen’slegitimationframework(2007)forthecategoriesofacademicpreparednessandrate.Theseexcerptsshowedhowreclassi cationeventuallybecameequatedwithacademicpreparednessandthatrapidreclassi cationrateswerethedesiredgoal.Inordertoillustratethisshiftindiscoursearoundreclassi cationandacademicpreparedness,excerptsfromaTaskForcemeetinginAugustof2009arepresentedwithouranalysisbelow.Ourresearchilluminatestwokey ndings.The rstcentersonthenotionthatthediscoursearoundreclassi cationandacademicpreparednessshiftedfromoneofequivalencein2007tooneofinconsistencyin2009.Oursecond ndinghighlightsthatthediscoursearoundreclassi cationandratefrom2007to2009emphasizedspeedandrapidity.

Discoursearoundreclassi cation,academicpreparedness,andrate—2007

Throughoutthe2007ELLTaskForcemeetings,membersoftheTaskForceandexternalconsultantsengagedindiscussionsregardingacademicstandards,academicpreparedness,andreclassi cationastheyworkedtowardsdevelopingtheSEImodel.ThelanguageusedduringTaskForcemeetingslegitimizedanalignmentbetweenELLpro ciencystandards,academiccontentstandardsandtheAZELLA.ThisalliancecametobeknownasthetriumviratewhenKevinClark,aconsultanttotheTaskForcestated,‘‘ComponentF[oftheSEImodel]isessentiallythetriumviratebetweenthepro ciencystandards,theacademicstandardsandtheAZELLA,’’(ELLTaskForcemeeting,5/24/07).Theuseofthetermtriumvirateisanexampleoflegitimationthroughauthorizationbecauseofitsassociationwithgovernanceandauthority.AnadditionalexampleoccursduringthatsamemeetingwhenChairmanMaguirestates,‘‘Ithinkthatitisalmostaxiomaticallytruethatyouneedtohave,IthinkthatisoneofourfoundationalblocksthatyouhavetheAZELLA,theacademicstandardsandtheELLpro ciencystandards’’(ChairmanMaguire,ELLTaskForce,5/24/07).Theuseofthetermaxiomaticallyagainexempli eslegitimationthroughauthorization.Thewordaxiomsigni esauniversallyacceptedprincipleorrule.Inotherwords,thereisauniversalacceptanceofthenotionthatreclassi cationbasedonAZELLAperformanceequatespro ciencywithboththestate’sacademicsubjectmatterstandardsandthestate’sELLpro ciencystandards.

123

A.G.Leckieetal.

MultipleexamplesfromELLTaskForcemeetingsfromMarchof2007throughJuneof2007whenthemodelwasapproved,utilizedlegitimationstrategiestoaligntheELLpro ciencystandards,theAZELLAandtheacademicstandards.TheresultwasthedevelopmentofamodelbasedontheconceptthatifanELLstudentdemonstratesEnglishlanguagepro ciencyasindicatedbytheirperformanceontheAZELLA,thenthissameELLstudentwillalsodemonstratecompetenceinregardstomainstreamcontentareastandards.

OuranalysisindicatesthattheTaskForce’sdiscoursearoundtherateatwhichELLsreclassifyemphasizedspeed.Inadditiontorepeatedreferencestothephrasefromstatestatute,‘‘notnormallytoexceed1year’’(A.R.S.15-751-17.755),statementsbyTaskForcemembersandconsultantssuchas‘‘we’reallgonnadothebestthatwepossiblycantogetyououtofthere’’(KevinClark,Consultant,3/29/07),emphasizedthegoalofrapidreclassi cation.Whenlookedatthroughthelensoflegitimation,theregularreferencestothelawareexamplesoflegitimationthroughauthorizationandstatementssimilarto‘‘we’reallgonnadothebestwepossiblycan’’exemplifylegitimationthroughmoralevaluation.Thesetwoformsoflegitimationworkinconjunctiontocultivateabeliefthatrapidreclassi cationisnotonlythecorrect,legalcourseofaction,itistheonethatisinthebestinterestofELLsinArizona.

Discoursearoundreclassi cation,academicpreparedness,andrate—2009

Inordertoexaminediscoursearoundreclassi cation,academicpreparednessandrateduringtheevaluationphase,excerptsfromaTaskForcemeetingonAugust13,2009follow.Weselectedthisspeci cmeetingtoexemplifyour ndingsfortworeasons:allninemembersoftheTaskForcewerepresent,andreclassi cationwasarecurringthemesoabetterunderstandingofcontextisdeveloped.

Themeetingbeginswithanapprovalofthepriormeeting’sminutesandthenmovesintoanupdateonArizona’sDepartmentofEducation’sactivitiesregardingimplementationofSEImodels.ThiswasaregularcomponentofTaskForcemeetingsinwhichvariousrepresentativesfromADEwouldreportonhowdistrictsareadheringtoguidelinesestablishedbythemodel,issueswithindividualdistricts,aswellasconferencesandothertypesofprofessionaldevelopmentassociatedwiththemodel.ThispresentationfromADEcomprisedthemajorityoftheAugust13thTaskForcemeetingandcenteredonasummerprogramdevelopedbyconsultantKevinClarkandimplementedbyfourdistrictswithsupportfromADE.TheprogramwasnamedtheHighIntensitySummerELDProgram,orHISEP.AlthoughthemajorityofthepresentationconsistedofteachersfromHISEPmodelingmethodologiesusedamongparticipatingsites,theexcerptsbelowfocusontheconversationsthatprecedeandfollowthosedemonstrations.Duetospacelimitations,ellipsesareusedwhenasidesorde nitionalinformationwasomitted.Aspectsoftheexcerptsthatwillbepartoftheanalysisareitalicizedthroughout.ThisencapsulationofaTaskForcemeetingisfollowedbyananalysisandexplanation.

123

Theneedforspeed

ExcerptsfromArizona’sELLtaskforcemeeting—August13,2009

Time

12:52SpeakerMs.AdelaSantaCruz—

ADErepresentativeStatementOnthefollowingpageyouaregoingtoseesomeAZELLAresults[fromtheHISEPstudents]…youaregoingtoseethat

inamatterof20days…weachievedinthose20days,six

houseaday,areclassi cationrateof44%.Andthat’sjust

20daysofintensiveinstruction.

TheotheritemIwantedtomentionhastodowithisthe

reclassi cationofstudentswhoaregoingintomiddleschool

andintohighschool…Whenyouensurethatwhentheygo

intohighschooltheywillbeabletogointoaregularEnglish

classandtakealloftheircontentareaclassesandnothaveto

betoopreoccupiedastohowaretheygoingtogetallofthose

creditsin4years.Whichis,again,aconcernthatwehaveall

had.Ithinkitisworthnotingthatthosestudentswillbeable

tomoveonwiththeirpeers.

Successbreedsotherchallenges…Whatwearestartingtowork

withiswe’reseeingmoreandmorekidsgetreclassi edthis

year…thereclassi cationratewentto29%thisyear.It’s

gonefrom12to22to29.Well,that’snice,butnowwe’vegot

childrenwhoareEnglishpro cientbutnotgradelevel

pro cient…sowe’restartingtoworkwithTitle1(afederally-

fundedprogram)todevelopprograms…tomakesuretheir

academicworkisbroughtuptogradelevelandIthinkit’sa

verygoodchallengetohave

Thatwe’reworkingwithkidstomakesurethatoncethey

becomeEnglishpro cienttheycontinuetomakethesame

progressacademicallyintheacademicclassroom.

1:15:15Dr.EugeneGarcia—Task

ForceMemberTheissuethatyoubroughtupwhichisofdeepconcern,oroughttobetothisTaskForceisDoesourmodeldoanything

topreparethesekidstoreallythriveinEnglish?Thecomment

youmadeconcernsme.Isthatitmaynot.

Wehavethatdataalreadyforstudentswhohavereclassi edfor

1–2years…ourstudentswhohaveexitedtheELLprogram

aredoingaswellorifnotbetterthanourregularedkids.

Stateleveldata?

Yes,infact,RobertFranciosiandI,John[Stollar]andIboth

satwithhimandforthelast3yearswelookedatourFEP

studentsathowwellthosestudentsaredoing1–2yearsafter

theyleavetheprogram

I’dbeinterestedinthatdatabecausesomebodyelsepublished

somedifferent ndings

Wellwehaveour ndings14:20Ms.AdelaSantaCruz1:12:27JohnStollar—ADErepresentative1:18:10MargaretGarcia-Dugan—TaskForceMemberDr.GarciaMs.Garcia-Dugan1:18:401:18:421:18:581:19:08Dr.GarciaMs.Garcia-Dugan

Itisinterestingtonotethatinaveryshortspaceoftime,approximatelyaminute,the20daydurationoftheHISEPprogramwasmentionedatleastthreetimes.TheimplicitmessageinthisrepetitionisthatitispossibletoreclassifyELLstudentstoFEPstatusinaslittleas20days.Assuch,the1yearstatestatuterequirementshouldnotbeaconcern.Furthermore,whenusingvanLeeuwen’slegitimationframework(2007)thestatement,‘‘whenyouensurethatwhentheygointohigh

123

A.G.Leckieetal.

schooltheywillbeabletogointoaregularEnglishclassandtakealloftheircontentareaclassesandnothavetobetoopreoccupiedastohowaretheygoingtogetallofthosecreditsin4years’’exempli esmoralevaluation.Participatinginthe4hmodelwhileinhighschoolprohibitstheearningofsuf cientcreditsneededtograduateinastandardstudentschedule.However,reclassi cationwillguaranteetheycantakecreditearningclassesandalleviatetheirgraduationconcerns.

However,inordertograduate,studentsalsoneedtopassthoseclassesinwhichtheyareenrolled.AsubsequentstatementbyJohnStollar,anotherADErepresentativeindicatedthatthismaybedif cult.Hestated,‘‘Successbreedsotherchallenges…we’vegotchildrenwhoareEnglishpro cientbutnotgradelevelpro cient.’’Inthisinstanceoflegitimationthroughrationalization,successwasde nedasanincreaseinreclassi cationratemeaningthatmorestudentsthaneverareattainingreclassi edstatus.Thechallengeisthattheyaresuccessfullyreclassi ed,butnotgradelevelpro cient.

Dr.Garcialaterstatedinreaction,‘‘DoesourmodeldoanythingtopreparethesekidstoreallythriveinEnglish?Thecommentyoumadeconcernsme.Isthatitmaynot.’’Thisexempli edhisattempttodelegitimizethemodelthroughrationalizationbyde ning‘‘thrivinginEnglish’’asacademicpro ciencyinadditiontolanguagepro ciency.Hiscommentsindicatedthatthemodelcouldnotbeasuccessunlessbothelementswerepresent.ThispromptsMs.Garcia-Dugantoassert,

wehavethatdataalreadyforstudentswhohavereclassi edforonetotwoyears…ourstudentswhohaveexitedtheELLprogramaredoingaswellorifnotbetterthanourregularedkids…John[Stollar]andIbothsatwithhim

[RobertFraciosifromADE]andforthelastthreeyearswelookedatourFEPstudentsathowwellthosestudentsaredoingoneyearortwoyearsaftertheyleavetheprogram.

Herreferenceto‘‘thedata’’islegitimationthroughauthorizationduetotheimplicitunderstandingthatthenumbersinthedatamustindicatethetruth.ShefurtheraddstotheauthoritativenatureofthisstatementbynamingtwootherADErepresen-tativesthatcanverifythevalidityofthatstatement.TheeffectivenessofthisstatementisevidencedinthatnoneoftheotherTaskForcemembersquestionedthefactthatoneofthepeoplewhocouldverifythestatementwasJohnStollar,thepersonwhoafewmomentsbeforemadethestatementthat,studentswere‘‘Englishpro cientbutnotgradelevelpro cient.’’Ifstudentsaredoing‘‘aswellorifnotbetterthanourregulared.kids’’asMs.Garcia-Duganindicated,whyaretheynotgradelevelpro cient?

Thequestionnowbecomes,arenewlyreclassi edstudentsacademicallysuccessful?AretheyachievingacademicallyintandemwiththeirnativeEnglishspeakingpeers?TheTaskForceandotherparticipantsduringTaskForcemeetingsregularlycitespeci cincreasesinreclassi cationratesandthetimeframeinwhichthoseratesoccurred.However,speci cacademicachievementdataisnotprovidedtodocumentthatconnectionbetweenreclassi cationandacademicpreparedness.OursearchoftheADEwebsitecontainingstatewidestudentachievementdatadisaggregatedbysubgroupsdidnotincludeanFEPsubgrouptoenablecomparison.Oursearchofpublishedresearch,asindicatedbyDr.Garcia’scomment,indicated123

Theneedforspeed

´ndaraandthatreclassi edstudentsarenotdoingaswellastheirnon-ELLpeers(Ga

Hopkins2010).Asevidencedinpartbylegitimationstrategies,itisquestionableorevendoubtfulthatreclassi cationinArizonaisequatedwithacademicprepared-ness.However,Arizona’sSEImodelrapidlyremovesstudentsfromELDprogramsthroughreclassi cation.

Discussionandimplicationsforfuturepolicydecisions

ThefundamentalimplicationofthepresentdiscussionrelatestothedesiredeffectsofArizona’sEnglish-onlypoliciesthathavecreatedalenientreclassi cationprocessforELLs.StatelanguagepolicieshaverequiredELLstospend4hadayimmersedinEnglishlanguagegrammarandskillsclassesattheexpenseofothersubjectmatterlearning(Lillieetal.2010).Further,thelenientreclassi cationprocessallowsforrapidreclassi cationofELLswhomaynotbereadyformainstreaminstructionespeciallyinlightofthenotiontheyhavemissedimportantsubjectmattermaterial.Arizonapolicymakers’choicetousetheAZELLAastheonlyindicatorofanELL’sacademicEnglishreadinesshasputthestate’slanguageminoritystudentsacademicallyatrisk(Combsetal.2005;Florez2010;Lillieetal.2010;Mahoneyetal.2004).ResearchregardingeffectiveassessmentsforELLshighlightstheneedformultiplecriteriatodetermineanELL’sEnglishpro ciencyandtomakeprogrammaticdecisionsregardingtheiracademictrajectory(Mahoneyetal.2009).OrganizationssuchastheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation(AERA)andAmericanPsychologicalAssociation(APA)inconjunctionwithNationalCouncilonMeasurementinEducation(NCME)havealsoinsistedthatdependenceonasinglecriterionforhighstakesdecisionsregardinganygroupofstudentsisinappropriate(AERA,APA,andNCME1999).Furthermore,researchregardingsecondlanguageacquisitionsupportstheargumentthattheuseofonecriteriontojudgeastudent’ssecondlanguagepro ciencyisnoteffectiveastherearemanyfactorsthataffectastudent’sabilitytoacquireasecondlanguagesuchastime,motivation,contextualization,age, rstlanguagedevelopmentandpriorschoolingamongothers(Collier1987,1988;Hakuta2000;Krashen1981,1996).AlthoughtheAZELLAhasbeenfoundtobeapermissiveassessmentmeasurement,whichhasthepotentialtoincorrectlyevaluateELLsasacademicallyprepared(Florez2010),thestateofArizonahaschosenitastheonlyindicatorforsuccessregardingtheSEIprogram,perhapsbecauseitallowsforrapidreclassi cation.Otherscholarshaveconductedresearchthatdemonstratespotentialreasonssuchasracismandthestate’sdesiretopaylessmoniestopublicschooldistrictsincethey

´ndaraandOr eld2010;Lillieetal.havefewerELLs(Floresvs.Arizona2000;Ga

2010).However,itisbeyondthescopeofthispapertospeculateabouttheseandotherpotentialreasons.

Asstatedearlier,oneoftheprimarygoalsofCDAisto‘‘understand,exposeandresistsocialinequality’’(VanDijk1993).ThroughacriticalexaminationofthediscourseduringArizona’sELLTaskForcemeetings,wecametounderstandthatusingtheAZELLAasthesinglemeasureofEnglishlanguagepro ciencyisnotinthebestinterestsoflanguageminoritystudents’potentialforacademicsuccessin

123

A.G.Leckieetal.

mainstreamclassrooms.Infact,theconnectionbetweenEnglishlanguagepro ciency,theAZELLAandtheacademiccontentstandardsisminimal.Arizona’sELLTaskForceandtheArizonaDepartmentofEducationcontinuetomandateaprogrammodelforthestate’sELLsthatresultsin‘‘childrenwhoareEnglishpro cient,butnotgradelevelpro cient’’(JohnStollar,ADE,ELLTaskForceMeeting,8/13/10).ArizonaknowinglycontinuestodevelopandmandateprogramsforlinguisticminoritystudentsthatplacethosestudentsatanacademicdisadvantageincomparisontotheirnativeEnglish-speakingpeers.

Bysheddinglightontheshiftinthede nition,processandpracticeofreclassifyingELLsinArizona,weseektoinformeducationalpractice,researchandpolicy.Itisessentialthatpolicymakersexaminetheresultsoftheimplementationofpolicy,andrealizethatalthoughpoliciesandmodelsmaystartoutwithgoodintentions,theresultsmaybelessthansatisfactory,andinthiscase—pernicious(KaplanandLeckie2009).Recentgraduationratesin2009showthatonly68.6%ofArizona’sLatinostudentsgraduatefromhighschoolcomparedto83.2%ofthestate’sWhitestudentpopulation(ArizonaDepartmentofEducation2010a,b).However,thereisevidencetosuggestthatifstatelawmakerstakeadvantageoftheopportunitytoapplyresourceswhileFEPstudentsareenrolledinpublicschools,thesestudentscanbeputona

´ndaraetal.2003).Policymakers,andthoseconcreteupwardacademictrajectory(Ga

whoenacteducationalpoliciesandlanguagepoliciesinschools,oughttocontinuallyevaluatetheenactedpoliciesperstudents’achievement,andadjustbasedondesiredoutcomesinsteadofsimplybasedontheneedforspeed.

References

Abedi,J.(2002).StandardizedachievementtestsandEnglishlanguagelearners:Psychometricsissues.

EducationalAssessment,8(3),231–257.

AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,theAmericanPsychologicalAssociation,andtheNational

CouncilonMeasurementinEducation.(1999).Standardsforeducationalandpsychologicaltesting.Washington,DC:AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,theAmericanPsychologicalAssociation,andtheNationalCouncilonMeasurementinEducation.

ArizonaDepartmentofEducation.(2008).StructuredEnglishimmersionmodelsoftheArizonaEnglish

languagelearnerstaskforce.RetrievedOctober3,2010,fromhttp://www.ade.az.gov/ELLTaskForce/2008/SEIModels05-14-08.pdf.

ArizonaDepartmentofEducation.(2010).Englishlanguagelearnerstaskforcemeetings.Retrieved

September,20,2010,fromhttps://www.azed.gov/Search_Results.asp?cx=004081734370198042837%3Atx 0yfhqyi&cof=FORID%3A10&q=ELL?Task?force?meetings?minutes&sa=Search&i.e=UTF-8.

ArizonaDepartmentofEducation.(2010).2009Fouryeargraduationrateforthestatebyethnicity.

RetrievedJune2,2011,fromhttp://www.ade.az.gov/researchpolicy/grad/.

Batalova,J.(2009).MexicanimmigrantsintheUnitedStates.MigrationInformationSource.Retrieved

onNovember19,2010,fromhttp://www.77cn.com.cn/USFocus/display.cfm?ID=767.Cassels-Johnson,D.(2009)http://www.77cn.com.cnnguagePolicy,8,139–159.

Collier,V.(1987).Ageandrateofacquisitionofsecondlanguageforacademicpurposes.TESOL

Quarterly,21,617–641.

Collier,V.(1988).Theeffectofageonacquisitionofasecondlanguageforschool.NewFocus:

OccasionalPapersinBilingualEducation,No.2.Washington,DC:TheNationalClearinghouseforBilingualEducation.AvailableontheWorldWideWeb:http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/classics/focus/02aage.htm.

123