M. Beatriz Arias’s research while affiliated with Center For Applied Linguistics and other places

The chapter is a critical appraisal of bilingual education policy scholarship and practice against a backdrop of contestations that characterize determination and execution of bilingual education goals and the spread of the idea of linguistic human rights in education – and discourses attendant and consequent to these processes. A dominant and recurrent motif in bilingual education policy discourses is the assumed analogous relationship between language and the nation-state and the sometimes integrative, sometimes disruptive role of education in this relationship. Resultant bilingual education types have, in practice, manifested themselves in a range of programs. Invariably, these programs fall within a dyad of language policy orientations, these being promotion/tolerance and repressive/restrictive. These orientations influence types of educational programs and their outcomes. Nowhere are these dynamics more pronounced than in postcolonial contexts – which, from the critical perspective adopted in the chapter, include, apart from the “usual” contexts in the global south, western democracies with a colonial past. In these contexts, presumed “mother tongue,” local language, or minority language becomes both important and problematic in the conceptualization and implementation of bilingual education policies. In other instances, even when language-in-education policies are allegedly intended to increase opportunities for educational access and equity, in practice, they (re)produce, perpetuate, and entrench unintended outcomes largely inimical to the progressive goals of bilingual education policies. However, when effectively implemented, bilingual education policies remain potent tools for social, political, and economic inclusion of marginalized groups in postcolonial contexts, irrespective of whether these are in the global north or global south.

This article addresses the right to an education (including the right of access), and the right to an education in one’s native language, within the broader context of educational human rights, and language minority educational policy in the United States. Included in this discussion is an overview of educational and linguistic human rights as recognized in the US, followed by a review of the legal and historical background prior to the passage of the Lau v Nichols decision in 1974. The implications of demographic changes coupled with federal policy for language minority students forty years after Lau are discussed.

Applied linguistics, with its sub-domains of language planning and policy can make significant contributions to language teaching. In order to explore this issue, the authors focus on the contested arena of language minority instruction in the United States. Attention is given specifically to the state of Arizona, where, recently, its educational policies have captured national and even international attention. Of particular concern is Arizona's implementation of a restrictive language policy for the instruction of English Language Learners (ELLs). The authors present a framework for reviewing the relationship between language policies and teacher preparation. Applying this framework to Arizona's teacher preparation for ELLs, we find that the state sanctioned curriculum transmitted a deficit view of students who speak a language other than English and provided prospective teachers with few alternative approaches for their instruction. In response this outcome, the authors recommend that applied linguistics content needs to be embedded within teacher preparation.

Background/Context Over the last ten years, a convergence of laws and decrees has impacted the development and implementation of Arizona's current program for English language learners (ELLs): the four-hour Structured English Immersion (SEI) model. Arizona's new model, while being touted by some as the most effective program for ELLs (Clark, 2009), is raising concerns with researchers and educators involved with the education of ELLs. A recent Auditor General's report (Davenport, 2011) indicates that instructional programs for ELLs have lacked uniformity and that the impact of the SEI model on ELLs’ language development and academic achievement is unknown. Therefore, although it has been over a decade since the Flores Consent Order, we must continue to examine the evidence regarding implementation of the SEI model in order to determine if the instruction offered to ELLs is comparable in amount, scope, and quality to that provided to English-proficient students. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study This paper utilizes the trajectory of these language policies as a lens for examining how ideas stemming from the Flores Consent Order and the English-Only voter initiative (Proposition 203), and continuing through to the legislative response of the court order (House Bill 2064) are evidenced in Arizona's SEI classrooms. Research Design The purpose of this qualitative study is to document and describe the characteristics of the four-hour SEI policy in practice. Over a seven-week period during the spring semester of the 2009/2010 school year, researchers utilized ethnographic observation methods, interviews, and a collection of artifacts to document the implementation of the SEI model and instruction of ELLs. Using a constant comparison analysis, findings were re-examined to show how this restrictive language policy has impacted and shaped the SEI model in practice today. Conclusions/Recommendations Arizona's current four-hour model, as implemented in K-12 SEI classrooms, hinders policy intentions: ELLs do not have access to quality instruction, or a curriculum that is comparable in amount, scope, and quality to that of non-ELLs. Furthermore, deficiencies in funding abound, limiting ELLs’ opportunities for the compensatory education needed to help them catch up academically. The authors contend that a re-examination of the SEI policy is warranted if the state is to fully realize the intentions of the Flores Consent Order and equal educational opportunity for ELLs.

This volume is a unique contribution to the study of language policy and education for English Learners because it focuses on the decade long implementation of “English Only” in Arizona. How this policy influences teacher preparation and classroom practice is the central topic of this volume. Scholars and researchers present their latest findings and concerns regarding the impact that a restrictive language policy has on critical areas for English Learners and diverse students. If a student's language is sanctioned, do they feel welcome in the classroom? If teachers are only taught about subtractive language policy, will they be able to be tolerant of linguistic diversity in their classrooms? The implications of the chapters suggest that Arizona's version of Structured English Immersion may actually limit English Learners' access to English. © 2012 M. Beatriz Arias, Christian Faltis and the authors of individual chapters. All rights reserved.

This study examined the English Learner (EL) teacher knowledge base from three perspectives: (a) competencies the current literature recommends that all teachers need know and use for teaching English learners in their content classes, (b) competencies the current literature recommends secondary teachers of English learners need to know and use for teaching English learners across the grades, and (c) views practicing secondary teachers of English learners hold about competencies they need to be successful with these students in academic subject-area classes. We identified the points of commonality between what is considered critical for all teachers and what secondary teachers need to know and be able to do, as well how they differ, and also what view practicing secondary teachers express about knowledge and practices the literature claims they need to be effective with English learners. This research identified the relevant competencies for secondary teachers of English learners, “to get a better sense of where we are starting from” (Lucas & Grinberg, 2008, p. 628) with respect to the kinds of knowledge and practices that preservice and in-service teachers are being asked to learn, question, implement, and reflect upon.