See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326310936

Restrictive language policy in practice: English learners in Arizona

Article  in  International Multilingual Research Journal · July 2018

DOI: 10.1080/19313152.2018.1493904

CITATIONS READS

0 77

1 author:

Caitlin G Fine
University of Colorado Boulder
4 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Caitlin G Fine on 31 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Multilingual Research Journal

ISSN: 1931-3152 (Print) 1931-3160 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmrj20

Restrictive language policy in practice: English

learners in Arizona

Caitlin Gailey Fine

To cite this article: Caitlin Gailey Fine (2018): Restrictive language policy in practice:
English learners in Arizona, International Multilingual Research Journal, DOI:
10.1080/19313152.2018.1493904

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2018.1493904

Published online: 10 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hmrj20
INTERNATIONAL MULTILINGUAL RESEARCH JOURNAL

BOOK REVIEW

Restrictive language policy in practice: English learners in Arizona, by A. J. Heineke,

New York, New York, Multilingual Matters, 2016, 240 pages, $139.95 (hardback), $39.95
(paperback), ISBN-13: 978-1783099214

Heineke’s well-organized text adds a textured, thoughtful, qualitative vertical case study approach to
the growing body of work exploring the multilayered impact of Arizona’s restrictive language
policies (Bratt & Cain, 2013; Grijalva & Jimenez-Silva, 2014; Mackinney & Rios-Aguilar, 2012; Rios-
Aguilar, Gonzalez-Canche, & Sabetghadam, 2012). Heineke employs sociocultural and sociohisto-
rical lenses to understand the ideologies, policy paradigms, and practices that have influenced
stakeholders and players working at micro-, meso-, and macro levels of Arizona’s restrictive
language policy since 2006. Her arguments are well supported by in-depth interviews with various
policy players as well as observational field notes, analytic memos, and documentation data. This
book is most appropriate for policy makers and those who wish to influence policy makers as well as
district- and school-level administrators. It would be a highly useful resource to incorporate into
graduate-level courses focused on language and/or education policy.
The text is divided into three sections: context, findings, and discussion. Chapter 2 provides an
introduction to the education system and the history of bilingual education in Arizona. This chapter
also provides information about Proposition 203 and the resultant Structured English Immersion
(SEI) model of instruction as well as details of Arizona House Bill 2064, the politically appointed
English Learner (EL) Task Force, and the adoption of the 4-hour English Language Development
(ELD) block across Arizona schools.
In chapter 3, Heineke outlines the contemporary context of teaching and learning for ELs in
Arizona. This chapter highlights the home language survey as a gatekeeper and the Arizona English
Language Learner Assessment (AZELLA) as a problematic EL placement mechanism. Chapter 3 also
outlines the ELD model that segregates EL students from their mainstream peers and stipulates four
hours a day of English-language skill-based learning. In this section, Heineke highlights abundant
conceptual and empirical research that objectively refutes the four-hour ELD block but mentions
that despite this, state leaders have made few alterations to the model. Chapter 3 also describes the
fundamental mismatch between teacher preparation coursework in Arizona and the highly complex
ELD classroom contexts they enter. Heineke demonstrates that this mismatch ultimately sets up ELD
teachers, many of whom are novice teachers, for frustration and high attrition rates.
The presentation of findings is divided into three chapters, based on Ricento and Hornberger’s
(1996) concept of the language policy onion. Each section represents a different group of players
working and grappling with the restrictive language policy. In chapter 4, Heineke starts at the center
of the policy onion, providing thick descriptions of the daily policy work of three teachers in one
diverse district. Themes that emerge from the three case studies are: (a) lack of preparation in
pedagogy and in the ELD policy context, (b) lack of institutional support from school-based mentors
and district personnel, and (c) the district-wide culture of compliance. Nevertheless, Heineke
convincingly demonstrates that, with small amounts of administrator support, all three teachers
found ways to exert agency and work around state/district compliance mandates. Teachers did this
by, for example, writing two sets of lesson plans (one to comply with rigid mandates, one for use in
the classroom).
Chapter 5 moves the discussion to the meso level of the policy onion, focusing on how local
policy players, school leaders, and district administrators make meaning of and implement the
restrictive ELD four-hour block. Heineke deftly demonstrates how these leaders recognize the lack of
prepared teachers, the problems of teacher attrition, the overly prescriptive nature of ELD
2 BOOK REVIEW

instruction, and the social and emotional harm caused by segregating EL students from their
English-proficient peers. Ultimately, Heineke demonstrates that when district and school leaders
enforced compliance, they positioned ELD teachers as passive policy targets, but when district and
school leaders resisted state policies, they positioned ELD teachers as active political agents.
Chapter 6 continues the discussion at the meso level of the policy onion by focusing on various
influential players at the Arizona state level. Heineke includes data obtained from interviews with
several members of the EL Task Force, the Associate Superintendent of the Arizona Department of
Education, professors, and a charter school leader. The power of this chapter is the way in which
Heineke demonstrates that the historical perspective and personal experiences these state players had
with bilingual education and the SEI model influenced how they made meaning of restrictive policy
mandates. Furthermore, Heineke highlights the ways in which state players lauded the strict
separation of EL learners from their English-proficient peers and homogenous grouping as factors
that simplify teaching, making classrooms less complex and easier to manage. While some state
policy players believed that all ELD classrooms employed expert language teachers, the EL Task
Force members Heineke spoke with were aware of ELD model challenges but, due to political
pressure and infighting, refused to change policy. Ultimately, Heineke strongly demonstrates how
state players’ power and positionality (all White, native-English speakers) created the environment
wherein this small network of educators influenced the education of ELs across Arizona.
The macro level of the policy onion is explored in chapter 7 with a focus on state legislators,
lobbyists, and advocates. All state government players interviewed explicitly linked student perfor-
mance to economic development for the state. Furthermore, Heineke uncovers that restrictive
language policy was not at the forefront of state government players’ education priorities—instead
they were focused on topics such as funding and charter schools. State legislators were in agreement
across party lines that a “one-size-fits-all” four-hour ELD block was not ideal; they also worried
unilaterally about the impact of segregation on student achievement. Similar to the Arizona state
education players, state legislatures drew upon personal experiences with language policy to inform
their viewpoints. Despite seemingly powerful roles within the political arena, Heineke argues that
state legislatures held little weight in influencing official language policy due to the power that the
conservative, monolingual, and assimilative EL Task Force wielded. An important aspect of this
chapter is the light Heineke shines on the work of community leaders who advocate for EL learners
and their families—listening to issues shared by schools and families, educating parents to become
advocates for their children, starting and leading charter schools, and bringing suits against the state.
The third section of this work focuses on understanding the complexities of language policy in
practice through Mehta’s (2013) framework of organizational rationalization—top-down policies
aimed at “fixing” education in the most efficient, fool-proof manner. Heineke contends that
Arizona’s restrictive language policy must be understood from four interconnected lenses: historical,
ideological, pedagogical, and political. She argues that, in part, Arizona’s ELD policy came about due
to historical cycles of rationalizing, whereby new reforms were adopted to improve previous reforms
that are perceived as ineffective. Heineke believes the prevalence of an ideology that privileged
monlingualism and “language-as-problem” ideas were, in part, responsible for the English as a
prerequisite for learning paradigm and the segregated four-hour ELD model. Heineke posits that
the restrictive ELD policy was a result of the failure to prepare and professionalize classroom
teachers. Finally, Heineke attributes Arizona’s restrictive language policy to the fact that the policy
privileges and values macrolevel players’ perspectives over those of classroom teachers and school/
district leaders.
In the final chapter, Heineke outlines a two-pronged recommendation for EL education in
Arizona. First, she calls for a shift in policy paradigm whereby language policy starts with the
interests of students, considers the role of native language, prioritizes local policy lenses, integrates
language and content, and goes beyond tweaking existing policies. Second, Heineke calls for
strengthening the teaching profession. This professionalization encompasses raising teaching quali-
fication requirements; defining a set of knowledge and skills that teachers must demonstrate to get a
 INTERNATIONAL MULTILINGUAL RESEARCH JOURNAL 3

license; preparing culturally responsive teachers; fostering support and collaboration among tea-
chers, schools, and districts; and prioritizing teacher retention. This important book ends with a set
of questions that are useful as a guide for collaborative policy conversations bringing together players
from micro, meso, and macro levels in any state in an effort to overhaul restrictive language policies.

References
Bratt, K. R., & Cain, A. A. (2013). A delicate balance: The clandestine work of bilingual teachers of bilingual children
in English-only borderlands classrooms. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 10(2), 150–184. doi:10.1080/
15427587.2013.788380
Grijalva, G., & Jimenez-Silva, M. (2014). Exploring principals’ concerns regarding the implementation of Arizona’s
mandated SEI model. In S. C. K. Moore (Ed.), Language policy processes and consequences: Arizona case studies (pp.
108–132). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Mackinney, E., & Rios-Aguilar, C. (2012). Negotiating between restrictive language policies and complex teaching
conditions: A case study of Arizona’s teachers of English learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 35(3), 350–367.
doi:10.1080/15235882.2012.734545
Mehta, J. (2013). The allure of order: High hopes, dashed expectations, and the troubled quest to remake American
schooling. New York, NY: Oxford.
Ricento, T. K., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT
professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401–427. doi:10.2307/3587691
Rios-Aguilar, C., Gonzalez-Canche, M. S., & Sabetghadam, S. (2012). Evaluating the impact of restrictive language
policies: The Arizona 4-hour English language development block. Education Language Policy, 11, 47–80.
doi:10.1007/s10993-011-9226-3

Caitlin Gailey Fine

School of Education University of Colorado Boulder
caitlin.fine@colorado.edu http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8605-7264
© 2018 Taylor & Francis
https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2018.1493904

View publication stats