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,andhowhastheprocessandpracticeofrecla …… 此处隐藏：40974字，全部文档内容请下载后查看。喜欢就下载吧 ……