Language Policy (2019) 18:431–453

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-018-9495-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

A decade after institutionalization: educators’ perspectives

of structured English immersion

Angela Cruze1   · Meg Cota2 · Francesca López2

Received: 31 August 2017 / Accepted: 16 November 2018 / Published online: 3 January 2019
© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Abstract
In 2006, Arizona ELL Task Force implemented Structured English Immersion (SEI)
within its public schools to educate emergent bilingual (EB) students. Although
prior research has demonstrated limitations of SEI, we investigate whether institu-
tionalization has improved its implementation and outcomes using coordinators’ and
teachers’ responses from a statewide summit. Analyses of responses for each of the
research questions uncovered that SEI was viewed as providing ease of implementa-
tion, but there were several obstacles introduced: (1) limitations to curricular access
and correlation to standards; (2) deficit model; (3) limited access to language acqui-
sition; (4) limited access to high school graduation; (5) issues with language assess-
ment; (6) classification concerns; (7) classroom segregation; and (8) lack of teacher
preparation for instruction. Respondents asserted that changes were needed in SEI
and standards, teacher endorsement and pedagogy, and assessment to support EB
learning and language acquisition. We discuss the resulting themes against extant
literature, and provide policy recommendations.

Keywords  Structured English immersion · Language policy · Language immersion ·

Language · Acquisition · English language learners · Emergent bilinguals ·
English-only policy

* Angela Cruze
ancruze@email.arizona.edu
1
Department of Educational Policy Studies and Practice, The University of Arizona, PO
Box 210069, Tucson, AZ 85721‑0078, USA
2
Department of Educational Policy Studies and Practice, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 432 A. Cruze et al.

Introduction

Structured English Immersion (SEI) is the language program model1 used by Ari-
zona public schools to educate the state’s emergent bilingual (EB) students, who
make up 18% of students in public and charter schools. EBs are students whose first
learned language is not English and who are in the process of mastering English
(García and Kleifgen 2010). The SEI language model replaced bilingual education
in Arizona when its voters passed proposition 203 in 2000. Many scholars have
detailed issues with the questionable evidence supporting SEI (e.g., Combs et  al.
2005; Martinez-Wenzl et  al. 2012). Indeed, research has detailed how SEI fails to
meet EB’s linguistic and academic needs (e.g., Arias and Faltis 2012; Gándara and
Hopkins 2010; Rolstad et  al. 2005), which is accentuated by the decline in EB’s
graduation rates by over 60%. That is, in 2013–2014, only 18% of EBs completed
high school (NCELA 2014).
Although research has provided us with an understanding of the inadequate evi-
dence supporting the benefits of SEI, few studies have provided perspectives of those
charged with the interpretation and implementation of SEI (Lillie et al. 2012; Rios-
Aguilar et  al. 2012a, b). Understanding teachers’ perspectives is paramount given
they are the ones who interpret the SEI requirements, deliver instruction to students,
and are witnesses to the ways SEI might promote or hinder students’ opportunities.
As such, teachers are among the most valuable informants about the changes needed
to improve educational outcomes for EBs in Arizona. The perspectives, interpre-
tation, and decision making required of EB teachers may support language policy
change when teachers are viewed as agents or active constructors of language policy
(Arias 2012; de Jong 2008; Skilton-Sylvester 2003).
Of the few studies to have considered teachers’ perspectives on SEI, one exam-
ined: (1) Arizona teachers’ beliefs and knowledge of the SEI curriculum and EB
pedagogies, (2) how prepared the teachers are to teach the SEI language model, and
(3) Arizona teachers’ about EBs academic success and linguistic achievement uti-
lizing the SEI language model (Rios-Aguilar et al. 2012a). In a separate study the
same researchers investigated English language coordinators’ (ELC) opinions of
the advances made with SEI and found that ELCs believed that although there was
heightened attention on EB English language development (ELD), the program had
an impractical language acquisition timeframe, limited curricular content exposure,
perpetuated EB isolation, and impeded timely high school graduation for EBs (Rios-
Aguilar et al. 2012b). Another group of scholars investigated the implementation of
SEI and the delivery of instruction to EBs. Specifically, through ethnographic obser-
vation, interviews, and artifact collection, the researchers determined EBs do not
have access to equitable curricular content as their non-EB peers have and EBs lack
quality instruction (Lillie et al. 2012).

1
  Although structured English immersion may be understood as an instructional approach (Lillie et al.
2010), in this study we use SEI model, which aligns with the language used by the Arizona Department
of Education. Furthermore, SEI model also aligns with the language most familiar to EB teachers and
English language development (ELD) coordinators, which was also the terminology used for this study.

13
A decade after institutionalization: educators’ perspectives… 433

It has now been over a decade since the Arizona English language learner (ELL)
Task Force implemented SEI. To build on the limited research examining teach-
ers’ and ELD coordinators’ perceptions about how SEI promotes or hinders their
ability to assist EBs in acquiring academic English and the caliber of education EB
students are receiving (Rios-Aguilar et  al. 2012a, b), we examined teachers’ and
ELD coordinators’ perceptions of SEI to determine whether institutionalization has
improved the issues with SEI (Rios-Aguilar et al. 2012a, b). Guided by interpretive
policy analysis for language policy (Moore and Wiley 2015; Yanow 2000) and situ-
ated in a critical interpretive paradigm (Lin 2015, p.26), we use qualitative content
analysis to critically analyze and interpret previously compiled data from the Ari-
zona Latino Advisory Committee’s 2016 ELL Summit.2 Using critical analysis, we
aim to interpret teacher responses to explore the following questions: (1) What are
teachers’ and ELD coordinators’ views of opportunities afforded by the SEI pro-
gram model? (2) What challenges do teachers and ELD coordinators face due to the
SEI program model requirements? (3) What do teachers and ELD coordinators view
as necessary changes to the SEI program model? We then compare our findings to
prior research to determine ways institutionalization of the current SEI program
model has improved EB students’ access to equitable educational opportunities and
identify changes that would enhance equitable education for EBs.

Literature review

Policy of educating EBs

Historically, ensuring equitable educational access among minoritized populations

in the United States has required legal oversight (Gándara and Orfield 2012). Brown
v. Board (1954) is the case that spotlighted minority education and equitable educa-
tional opportunities. Later, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (1964) made it illegal for
any federally assisted program to discriminate based on race, color, or national ori-
gin, which was further interpreted to include individuals who spoke a language other
than English (see Gándara and Orfield 2012). The United States prohibited discrimi-
nation and lack of access to instruction on the basis of language within schools in
Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1968) (ESEA), also
known as the Bilingual Education Act of 1968. Moreover, ESEA encouraged spe-
cialized teacher training programs that focused on English as a second language
(ESL) instruction and ELD programs.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Lau v. Nichols (1974) found that the lack of
language accommodations to allow EBs access to curriculum constituted a vio-
lation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The San Francisco School District, however,
claimed not to be in violation of any civil rights laws because it did not segregate
students into separate classrooms. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court determined that

2
  The Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction created the Latino Education Advisory Committee
to provide expertise in issues relevant to Latino students in the state.

13
 434 A. Cruze et al.

Chinese-speaking students’ lack of ability to understand the district’s English-only

curriculum to violate the 1946 Civil Rights Act, applicable to any school receiving
federal funding (Ricento and Wright 2008).
The remedies resulting from the Lau v. Nichols (1974) decision prohibited any
form of segregation of students based on race, national origin, or language and
required all school districts, whether receiving federal funds or not, to eliminate all
linguistic barriers to the curriculum. Later, the passage of the Equal Educational
Opportunity Act (1974) (EEOA) further codified Lau, establishing factors to assess
the sufficiency of each state’s chosen language program (Wright 2015; Gándara and
Orfield 2012; Ricento and Wright 2008; Wiley and Wright 2004). The passage of
the EEOA, which was viewed as a mandate for students to receive bilingual educa-
tion, resulted in a 1974 amendment to the Bilingual Education Act (1974), prompt-
ing many state officials to implement bilingual education (Gándara and Orfield
2012; Lyons 1990). Following political contention and a lack of consistency with
Lau, the Bilingual Education Act (1984) was once again amended to include an
additional option of alternative language programs, namely English-only education,
which reduced funding of bilingual education programs (Lyons 1990).
Although the EEOA stipulated that schools take “appropriate action” (20 U.S.
Code § 1703 [f]) to meet the needs of EBs, substantiation of appropriate action
(via a particular language acquisition approach) was not defined until the Fifth Cir-
cuit Court of Appeals decision in Castañeda v. Pickard (1981). In the class action
suit, the plaintiffs claimed discriminatory policies and practices of Texas schools
like ability grouping and impeding access to bilingual education programs limited
Mexican–American students’ equitable education (Ricento 1998). The Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals sided with the plaintiffs, reversing the District Court decision,
which had interpreted the Bilingual Education Act and the EEOA not as a defined
mandated for bilingual education but instead as an amorphous directive to take
“appropriate action” (Ricento 1998). The Circuit Court instead determined EB edu-
cation programs meet three criteria to comply with the appropriate action mandate:
(1) The program is based on relevant educational theories; (2) the program must
be implemented with proper resources; and (3) there must be evidence the program
is effective in removing language barriers over a period of time. These criteria left
EB education programming up to districts, provided the criteria were used as a pro-
gramming guide (Ricento 1998). The following year, the Supreme Court decision in
Plyler v. Doe (1982) granted all children in the US the right to an education, regard-
less of immigration status. Thus, by way of the Lau remedies and Plyer decision,
policy stipulates all children—both immigrant and nonimmigrant—have access to a
free education without intentional segregation and receive the same curricular con-
tent as their English-speaking peers with support from resources that eliminate lan-
guage barriers (Gándara and Orfield 2012).
In spite of Plyer v. Doe (1982) and other earlier cases, the Castañeda test is still
used as a loose standard in developing and measuring EB education programs, which
gives schools flexibility in determining EB education programs, including restric-
tive English-only education, or education grouping based on language (Gándara
and Orfield 2012; Ricento 1998). The literature has highlighted shortcomings of the
Castañeda test—the first two prongs are easily justified by utilizing virtually any

13
A decade after institutionalization: educators’ perspectives… 435

educational theory, which can uphold limited funding and support requirements
(Del Valle 2003; Faltis and Arias 2012). Furthermore, prong three does not indicate
a specified time limit before determining the success and adequacy of the program,
therefore allowing questionable language education programs to remain indefinitely
(Del Valle 2003; Faltis and Arias 2012). Despite concerns over using the Castañeda
three-prong test, it has been a key factor in support of English-only education for
EBs and has influenced funding (Faltis and Arias 2012).

Context of Arizona language education policy

In 1992, a class action suit was brought against the state of Arizona (Flores v. Ari-
zona) based on pervasive funding disparities between EBs and non-EBs (Combs
2012; Jimenez-Castellanos et al. 2013). During this time, school districts chose the
education program for EBs with little oversight, varying by school, grade level, and
allowed for pull-out or push-in instruction (Hogan 2014). Based on the school fund-
ing system (see Hogan 2014), the Flores plaintiffs claimed the provided amount for
EB educational programs within the state was insufficient to adequately support EB
education programs and Arizona was not taking the necessary required actions the
EEOA (1974) specified (Hogan 2014). The 2000 Flores v. Arizona decision found
the program funding levels to be inadequate. The state was ordered via a consent
order to increase funding for ELD programs, and the Arizona Superintendent of
Public Instruction was ordered to develop better assessments for EBs to be able
to provide evidence that EBs were receiving equitable access to the curriculum
(Combs et al. 2005).
In 2000, appealing to normalized misconceptions about language acquisition
and the misconstrued analysis of bilingual education program success (see Lillie
and Moore 2014), opponents proposed Proposition 203 (also known as “English for
the Children”) as a formidable program for EBs (Combs et al. 2005; Combs 2012;
Martinez-Wenzl et  al. 2012; Gándara and Orfield 2012; Wiley and Wright 2004;
Wright 2005). Proposition 203 mandated that most districts and public schools use a
uniform program of English-only instruction for EB students (Martinez-Wenzl et al.
2012). Arizona voters passed Proposition 203, replacing bilingual education efforts
with English-only instruction and eliminating district and local education agency
control in choosing the best education program for EB students.
Although district leaders and school administrators understood the legal require-
ments of Proposition 203, teacher training and transitional implementation require-
ments determined by the Arizona Department of Education (AZDE) were vague
and resulted in inconsistent implementation (Combs 2012; Davenport 2008). The
inconsistencies addressed in the 2007 Auditor General Report, which looked at
implementation of English-only programs across the state found problems in key
reporting areas—identification errors, entry and exit date errors, inaccuracies in
assessment and placement, and inconsistent monitoring of students identified as pro-
ficient (Davenport 2008), all of which directly affect per-pupil funding.
Along with schools’ inconsistency in reporting, schools also struggled to fill
teacher positions with teachers possessing the requisite ELD qualifications. The

13
 436 A. Cruze et al.

inconsistencies listed within the Auditor General’s Report (Davenport 2008) were in
direct conflict with the mandates from the 2000 Flores consent order, which directed
the state, districts, and public schools to address the inadequate ELD program fund-
ing, implement a uniform and appropriate identification of EBs, and provide EBs
with highly-qualified teachers (also a requirement of the No Child Left Behind Act
(2002) (NCLB)) (Hogan 2014). The intersection of this inconsistent implementa-
tion of English-only instruction, the statewide refusal to meet the Flores mandates,
and the NCLB requirements led to H.B. 2064 in 2006 (Lillie et al. 2012; Lillie and
Moore 2014). H.B. 2064 (2006) created an ELL Task Force charged with develop-
ing a program model that must include “a minimum of 4 hours per day of English
language development” and had to be “cost-efficient” in spite of the funding con-
cerns of the Flores consent order (Arizona Revised Statutes §§15-756.01).

Arizona language model

Curricular access to content and instruction

The SEI language model developed by the ELL Task Force require 4-h of English
language development and a curriculum concentration of English language skills
with primary focus on grammar, vocabulary development, and reading skills to the
exclusion of the general education curriculum (Martinez-Wenzl et al. 2012; Gándara
and Orfield 2012). Scholars have argued that, while isolated time spent on subject
matter can benefit academic outcomes for most students, it is not necessarily ben-
eficial for English language development for EBs (e.g., Krashen et al. 2007). With
the majority of the school day spent on English language development, EBs lose
access to grade level content. Moreover, SEI does not address ways to assist EBs in
making up lost content (Gándara and Orfield 2012). In their analyses of teacher and
ELD coordinator responses, Rios-Aguilar, et al. (2012a, b) note teachers and ELD
coordinators were concerned about isolation and segregation from curricular content
because it was “harmful to [EBs’] learning” (2012a, p. 23). Teachers also did not
believe that the SEI curriculum prepared EBs to meet grade-level academic goals,
did not assist EBs in catching up on missed content, and consequently contributed to
an increase in achievement disparities (2012a).
Restrictive language models like the SEI program lack empirical evidence to
demonstrate they support rapid language acquisition or narrowing the achievement
disparities for EBs (López 2012; López et  al. 2015; Rumberger and Tran 2010).
States with restrictive language policies like Arizona tend to have larger achieve-
ment disparities between EBs and non-EBs, and these policies reduce the overall
EB academic achievement and opportunities (López 2012; López et al. 2015; Rum-
berger and Tran 2010). Researchers have also found that removing EBs from the
classroom interrupts learning (Honigsfeld and Dove 2012) and removes opportuni-
ties to enhance English language acquisition (e.g., preventing access to heterogene-
ous classrooms and curriculum), leaving EBs academically underprepared (Combs

13
A decade after institutionalization: educators’ perspectives… 437

et  al. 2005; Gándara and Orfield 2012; Lillie et  al. 2010; Martinez-Wenzl et  al.
2012).
Lack of access to state-required curricular standards is particularly salient for
EBs in high school, given their need to access general education courses to accu-
mulate credits needed for graduation (Gándara and Orfield 2012; Martinez-Wenzl
et al. 2012; Valdés 2001). In Arizona, however, time spent on ELD reduces time
spent on core content outside of the SEI classroom (Lillie et  al. 2012). While
some high school EBs are able to access content that contributes to gradua-
tion requirements during the 2 hours not spent on explicit ELD, the coursework
required is not equivalent to the coursework required by non-EBs, and as such,
does not enhance academic skills (Lillie et  al. 2012). EBs lack not only access
to the general curriculum, but also to college preparatory courses. Instead, EBs
are often placed in remedial education coursework, which increases their like-
lihood of dropping out of school, further limiting future opportunities (Borman
and Dowling 2010; Gándara and Orfield 2012; Martinez-Wenzl et al. 2012; Swan-
son 2004; Valdés 2001). Removal from the mainstream classroom creates a social
stigmatization for EBs that impedes chances of an EB student’s academic success
and motivation (Callahan 2005; Collier and Thomas 2002; Gándara and Orfield
2012). In addition to the academic disparities SEI promotes, there is evidence
that the academic and linguistic segregation of EBs is emotionally and socially
damaging (Rios-Aguilar et al. 2012b).

Assessment and placement of EBs

In a purported attempt to meet the Flores consent mandates, the Task Force
developed the Arizona English Language Learner Assessment (AZELLA), which
was instituted by the Arizona State Board of Education to assess EBs’ English
proficiency (AZDE 2014; Martinez-Wenzl et al. 2012). The AZELLA is admin-
istered annually, and EBs’ reclassification cut scores determine whether they
must remain with their English proficiency group, be reclassified into a group
with peers who have a higher level of English proficiency, or be reclassified as
English proficient and placed into the mainstream education classroom (Mar-
tinez-Wenzl et al. 2012). The annual assessment, however, removes opportunities
for EBs to gain social interactions with proficient English speakers and to prac-
tice using learned language skills, thus further hindering linguistic advancement
(Gándara and Orfield 2012; García 2005; Lillie and Markos 2014; Rios-Aguilar
and Gándara 2012). As such, AZELLA is a gatekeeper to accessing rigorous aca-
demic (Mahoney and MacSwan 2005). Notably, prior studies have questioned
the validity of the AZELLA cut scores given the inability of the AZELLA to
accurately and consistently provide proper classification and reclassification (Flo-
rez 2010). Despite these findings, the proficiency cut scores for the AZELLA
remain inconsistent (Martinez-Wenzl et  al. 2012), suggesting EBs are being
denied access to services and to the academic curriculum (Mahoney and Mac-
Swan 2005). There is no empirical evidence to support the use of AZELLA in

13
 438 A. Cruze et al.

reclassifying EBs (Martinez-Wenzl et  al. 2012). Instead, researchers have found
Arizona EBs trail far behind EBs in other states (López 2012; López et al. 2015;
López 2017).

Teacher SEI endorsement

To comply with both NCLB and the Flores consent order, the ELL Task Force
requires EBs to receive daily ELD instruction from highly qualified teachers.
To meet this requirement, Arizona teachers are required to have an SEI endorse-
ment—an endorsement much less comprehensive compared to the required bilin-
gual and ESL endorsements prior to Proposition 203 (Martinez-Wenzl et al. 2012).
Prior to Proposition 203, the Arizona State Board of Education (ASBE) required
EB teachers to obtain one of two endorsements: (a) an ELD endorsement requiring
six 3-credit-hour courses, or (b) a bilingual education (BLE) endorsement requir-
ing seven 3-credit hour courses. Despite opposition to the languid SEI endorsement
from Arizona university professors, education professionals, and specialists (Combs
2012), the ELL Task Force structured the SEI endorsement to require only one class
to meet criteria, and the endorsement is renewable with the teacher’s certification
and does not require continuing education (AZDE 2017). Although researchers have
found these weaker requirements to be detrimental to the academic achievement
of EBs (López et al. 2013), Arizona has since further reduced the comprehensive-
ness of the SEI endorsement. Whereas all Arizona teachers previously had to have
the SEI endorsement prior to being able to teach, that requirement lapsed in 2017;
teachers of EBs are not required to have additional training for up to 3 years (AZDE
2017).

Best practices for EBs

Future opportunities for EBs rest on their ability to be effective in their speaking,
reading, and writing of English (Goldenberg and Coleman 2010). Namely, EBs must
have effective mastery of these skills to ensure they are able to interact with con-
tent and attain skills that enable them “to be academically competitive with English
proficient peers” (Hakuta et  al. 2000). EB students proficient in English language
skills are better able to interact with complex, academic English, which in turn
allows them to have access to higher level curriculum, presenting future opportuni-
ties (Goldenberg and Coleman 2010; Valdés 2001).
Research in the field of language acquisition does not support language acqui-
sition models that rely upon pull out methods that group EBs by linguistic abili-
ties, prolong the separation of EBs from English proficient peers, and prevent access
to the academic curriculum (August et al. 2010). For EBs to become proficient in
academic English, it typically takes 3–7  years (Cummins 2000) and requires EBs
to have consistent interaction with the language, access to academic concepts, and
practice with proficient peers (Garcia et al. 2012; Krashen et al. 2007; Ovando et al.
2005). Therefore, for EBs to garner mastery of English, they must have access and
occasions to interact with proficient English-speaking peers, which offer EBs the
opportunity not only to practice learned English skills, but also access language

13
A decade after institutionalization: educators’ perspectives… 439

beyond their current level of expertise (Lillie et  al. 2010; Garcia et  al. 2012). In
addition to linguistic access, EBs must have access to academic content that allows
them to “hear and participate in language and cognitive activities” (Garcia et  al.
2012, p. 5).
EBs need adequate instructional time that focuses on English skills via content,
as well as instruction that focuses explicitly on academic English (Gándara and
Rumberger 2009). The optimal way to support ELD and content instruction is with
sheltered-instruction and content-based English as a second language (ESL) strate-
gies that also permit the use of EBs’ native language in the classroom (López and
Iribarren 2014; Gándara et al. 2003). This includes scaffolding content instruction
with language acquisition while building on the students’ prior knowledge (Gándara
et  al. 2003; Slavin and Cheung 2005; Walqui 2006). Walqui (2006) suggests that
“rather than simplifying the tasks or the language, teaching subject matter content to
English learners requires amplifying and enriching the linguistic and extra linguistic
context” (p. 169). In sum, it is essential EBs have ample exposure to English through
multiple classroom activities, giving them the opportunity to grasp the concepts and
build upon previous understanding (Walqui 2006).
Federal education policy suggests that EB students must receive the same high
quality academic content non-EBs receive. To do this, adaptations must be made
to the curriculum to eliminate language as a barrier (López et al. 2013). Supportive
English as a second language (ESL) instruction methods, when used with content
material, can ensure that EBs garner equitable access to the content (López et  al.
2013). Effective content instruction is made possible by teachers who understand
second language acquisition and who possess the ability to clarify the context in
which subject matter is being used (Gándara and Rumberger 2009). Content specific
teachers, especially in secondary education, must receive training in pedagogies that
support language acquisition while also teaching curricular content (Gándara and
Rumberger 2009).

Teacher knowledge

Research has demonstrated EBs often receive inadequate language instruction to

prepare them for successful in the mainstream English classrooms (López et  al.
2013; Valdés 2001). One contributing factor is a lack of appropriate teacher prepara-
tion, which should provide the development of skills needed to instruct EBs in con-
necting ELD, academic and conversational language, and content (Lucas et al. 2008;
Wong-Fillmore and Snow 2000). Instead, “teachers are at best required to have only
cursory and superficial knowledge about the specific needs of EBs” (López 2017, p.
15).
There is ample evidence EB teachers need to genuinely value and reaffirm cul-
tural and linguistic diversity, while also possessing thorough pedagogical knowl-
edge of English language development and content instruction, (López 2017; Combs
2012). Teachers also need to understand pedagogies that build new content lan-
guage upon what a student already knows about a subject with scaffolding methods,
while also supporting the use of the student’s native language (Gutiérrez 2002). EB

13
 440 A. Cruze et al.

teachers also need to possess skill sets that enable them to teach EBs in constructive
ways by providing meaningful connection to student experiences and knowledge
while also teaching English-language skills and academic content (Combs 2012;
Goldenberg and Coleman 2010; Goldenberg 2013; González et al. 2005; Lucas et al.
2008; Valdés 2001).
Researchers have found identifiable differences between instruction delivered by
a teacher with an ESL or bilingual education certification and a teacher with an SEI
endorsement (Lillie et al. 2012). Teachers with an SEI endorsement have themselves
expressed that they lack knowledge and confidence in instructing EBs, and those at
the secondary level have indicated “[confusion] about how the SEI program is sup-
posed to work” (Lillie et al. 2012, p.13). In contrast, teachers prepared with ESL or
bilingual education certification feel confident in using knowledge from past training
and experience to instruct EBs in ways that not only follow the program require-
ments but implement pedagogies that supported EBs (Lillie et al. 2012). Therefore,
to effectively meet EBs’ needs, Arizona EB teachers require advanced knowledge in
language and content instruction (Combs 2012).
Recent Refinements made to AZ SEI Policy. In 2013, the ELL Task Force was
disbanded and all statutory responsibility for SEI was appropriated to the AZDE
(AZDE 2016). The following year, the AZDE approved a set of refinements to the
SEI program that were to be implemented in the 2015–2016 school year.3The refine-
ments are optional supplements to the SEI program, and may be used at the school’s
discretion (AZDE 2016).
Refinements at the elementary and middle school level have introduced flexibility
to the stringent 4-h ELD requirement. For newly arrived EBs and EBs who score
below intermediate proficiency level, regardless of the time they have been enrolled
in Arizona schools, teachers may use English Language Proficiency (ELP) stand-
ards and instruct EBs in two language blocks totaling 4  h instead of one uninter-
rupted 4-h block of time (AZDE 2014). Included in this refinement is the opportu-
nity for EBs to obtain literacy intervention services with non-EB students, and time
in this literacy intervention may count towards the daily 4-h time requirement. EBs
at the elementary school level who score at the intermediate language proficiency
level on the AZELLA and are in their second year of SEI instruction can have the
SEI program adjusted to two language blocks that total 3 h and are also allowed to
have instructional content curriculum (e.g., mathematics) integrated into the lesson
(AZDE 2014).
For EBs at the high school level, the refinements may be adjusted only for EBs
who score at the intermediate language proficiency level on the AZELLA and are
at least in their second year of the SEI program (AZDE 2013). For EBs who meet
these criteria, time spent in the ELD classroom can be reduced to a minimum of 2 h,
and EBs can access content courses to provide credits toward graduation. The EB
teachers must recommend and approve the student to appropriate content courses as
determined by the teacher and based on EB student data. The data used for course

3
  The refinements, as referred to by Arizona Department of Education, are the states approach to incor-
porate more flexibility to SEI requirements.

13
A decade after institutionalization: educators’ perspectives… 441

recommendation must include the AZELLA scores and scores from the state stand-
ardized assessment in reading, standards-based formative assessments, or course
grades (AZDE 2013).

The present study

Although SEI in Arizona was promulgated by policy makers and affirmed by vot-
ers, administrators and teachers are the ones tasked with interpreting and imple-
menting the policy. Their interpretation and implementation of language policy
can directly be influenced by their own experiences, their sociocultural under-
standing of the contexts surrounding the policy, and their educational train-
ing (Cohen and Ball 1990; Darling-Hammond 1990; Skilton-Sylvester 2003).
Accordingly, teachers’ interpretations of SEI are vital because they are “active
constructors” of policy within the classroom (Arias 2012; Cohen and Ball 1990;
Darling-Hammond 1990; de Jong 2008; Stritikus 2003; Moore and Wiley 2015).
Given that language education policy within Arizona is interpreted and imple-
mented largely by teachers’ own agency, understanding teachers’ perspectives
can inform and shape the necessary directives for Arizona language policy (Arias
2012; Moore and Wiley 2015).
Thus, we sought to first use interpretive policy analysis for language policy
(Moore and Wiley 2015; Yanow 2000). This includes examining collected data
and analyzing it in contextual relation with language policy to understand the val-
ues and interpretations of those impacted by and charged with implementation of
language policy (Moore and Wiley 2015; Yanow 2000). We then sought to exam-
ine teachers’ views of the ELL Task Force’s SEI program after 10 years of imple-
mentation in terms of opportunities, challenges, and needed changes to ensure
equitable education for EBs.

Methods

Sample and data collection

The Arizona State Superintendent of Public Instruction invited education lead-

ers across the state of Arizona to represent the Latino Education Advisory Com-
mittee (hereinafter “Committee”). The State Superintendent of Public Instruction
established the Committee in spring 2015 to assist in developing state school
curriculum that would include important Arizona and U.S. Latino contributors.
The Committee identified a subcommittee of experts (hereinafter EB Subcommit-
tee) to gather information on ways to improve the SEI program model. The EB
Subcommittee invited 12 Arizona superintendents representing various Arizona
regions, who in turn identified master EB and dual language teachers, as well as
ELD coordinators, to participate in the EB Summit discussion.

13
 442 A. Cruze et al.

The first EB Summit discussion meeting was held in April of 2016, and
included not only Committee and EB Subcommittee members, but also experts in
EB education from two Arizona universities and key stakeholders from the Ari-
zona Department of Education. Approximately 80 pre-kindergarten through 12th
grade teachers and ELD coordinators participated in the question and response
sessions. One of the authors was invited to facilitate a breakout session, and the
first author was invited as an observer.
Breakout sessions were grouped by the following grade levels: pre-kindergarten
through 2nd grade; 3rd grade through 5th grade; 6th grade through 8th grade; and
9th grade through 12th grade. Each session was standardized, wherein the Commit-
tee developed three open-ended questions and presented them to the participants:
(a) What is working with the current EB instructional program?, (b) What is not
working with the current EB instructional program?, and (c) What recommenda-
tions would you make to enhance SEI? Facilitators led group discussions, recorded
responses, and re-convened with all attendees to share responses. The EB Subcom-
mittee collected the raw response data from all groups and provided the information
to AZDE.
The data for this study was obtained for all grade level sessions from the EB Sub-
committee upon request. Given the intent for the Committee to gather EB educator
and EB coordinator responses to the current SEI program, our analysis questions
were promulgated by the Committee questions to gather EB educators and coordina-
tors perspectives of SEI.

Data analysis

This study is guided by interpretive policy analysis for language policy, a method
of analyzing qualitative artifacts through a language policy lens (Moore and Wiley
2015; Yanow 2000) and is further situated in a critical analysis paradigm (Lin 2015).
Based upon the understanding of relevant research and policy surrounding SEI, the
use of interpretive policy analysis for language policy is used to guide interpretation
of responses by those most closely involved with implementation of SEI (Moore
and Wiley 2015). Moreover, the approach to analyze responses is further situated
in a critical and emancipatory paradigm with intention to shed light on EB teachers
and coordinators experiences with implementing SEI and to further analyze these
responses to highlight suggested changes to SEI (Lin 2015; Moore and Wiley 2015).
As suggested by interpretive policy analysis for language policy, we further uti-
lize summarizing qualitative content analysis (Mayring 2000). Following the rules
of analysis, the authors examined all responses individually to identify a category
coding system that correlates with opportunities, challenges, and changes needed to
SEI (Mayring 2000). The overarching categories were compared across coders for
consistency and used to analyze data to identify prevailing themes within each of the
categories (Mayring 2000; Moore and Wiley 2015). The resulting themes were then
compared to extant research and policy (Moore and Wiley 2015).

13
A decade after institutionalization: educators’ perspectives… 443

Results

Analysis of response data yielded thirteen themes. One theme was found for oppor-
tunities afforded by SEI, as well as nine themes for challenges afforded by SEI, and
three themes indicating changes needed for SEI as expressed by EB teachers and
coordinators. The indicated opportunities include the ease of implementation and
the concerns in challenges afforded by SEI include EB limitations to curricular
access and correlation to Arizona College and Career Ready Standards (AZCCRS),
deficit model lacks cultural and linguistic benefits, language acquisition, high school
graduation rates, language assessment, classroom segregation, student considera-
tions, and concerns for student well-being. Suggested changes from EB teachers and
coordinators include revision to SEI model, teacher endorsement and pedagogy, and
assessment to support EB learning and language acquisition.
In the sections that follows, we describe the findings in terms of the three research
questions to identify teachers’ and ELD coordinators’ perceptions of the opportuni-
ties, challenges, and necessary changes to SEI.

Opportunities afforded by SEI

Ease of implementation

The prevailing theme in EB teacher and ELD coordinator responses regarding

opportunities afforded by the SEI program model was that the SEI model and ELP
standards allow for ease of implementation. The most common responses indicated
the SEI model requirements and ELP standards offered explicit instruction teachers
needed to teach EB students. Teachers expressed ease in utilizing the clear stand-
ards, pacing maps, and requirements in content and curriculum. Example responses
include, “The guide for the model is very clear,” and “ELP explicit standards are
very helpful.” Responses also indicated favor with the new SEI refinements and the
documentation process to establish accountability. For example, across all grade
levels, teacher responses indicated documentation and accountability as important
features in the Individual Language Learner Plan (ILLP) (an EBs education instruc-
tional plan), with AZDE providing explicit guidance standards to ensure a proper
instruction plan for EBs.

Challenges afforded by SEI

In contrast to the limited opportunities afforded by SEI, we identified nine themes

in the challenges introduced by the SEI program model. They are: (1) limitations to
curricular access and correlation to Arizona College and Career Ready Standards
(AZCCRS); (2) deficit model concerns; (3) limited access to language acquisition;
(4) limited access to high school graduation; (5) issues with language assessment;
(6) classification concerns; (7) classroom segregation concerns; (8) lack of teacher
preparation for instruction; and (9) concerns for student well-being.

13
 444 A. Cruze et al.

Limitations to curricular access and correlation to AZCCRS

The most prominent theme in the reported challenges by EB teacher and ELD coor-
dinators was the lack of EB students’ access to curricular content such as mathemat-
ics and science due to the large amount of time spent focused on grammar, vocabu-
lary, and reading as required by the 4-hSEI model. For example, “Lack of exposure
to content,” and “Does not prepare students for content” were responses noting limi-
tations to curricular access as challenges introduced by the 4-h SEI program model.
Responses also addressed the issue of EB students’ lack of access to pertinent cur-
riculum corresponding to the AZCCRS, which is content necessary for academic
success in future grades. For example, one response noted “Need equal access to
content as [non-EB] students.” Furthermore, in this response strand, EB teachers
and ELD coordinators expressed concerns with the requirement for EB students to
take state-mandated tests when the EB students lack exposure to the content that
will appear on the test.

Deficit model lacks cultural and linguistic benefits

EB teacher and ELD coordinator responses also addressed issues with the deficit
approach to education inherent in the SEI program model. The responses expressed
concerns that the benefits and resources of the EB students’ culture, experience,
and first language (L1) are not considered in SEI. Example responses include, “Not
using native language as a resource,” “Overall program is based on a deficit model,”
and “Does not honor culture.” The teachers’ and coordinators’ responses indicate
that the SEI model lacks cultural and linguistic support for EB students and posits
that cultural and linguistic support is important to EB students’ success.

Language acquisition

In conjunction with EB teachers’ and ELD coordinators’ responses indicating the

SEI program model is based around a deficit model, respondents also raised issues
with the SEI program model’s expectation EB students will become proficient in
academic English within 1 year. Respondents stated research does not support the
notion English language proficiency is attainable within 1 year, which is the premise
of the SEI model. Response examples include, “1 year is insufficient,” and “Whole
model is based on a false assumption of 1 year.”

High school graduation

EB teachers and ELD coordinators also expressed concern with EB students gain-
ing access to coursework needed for timely graduation. Specifically, high school EB
teachers and ELD coordinators expressed discontent with the SEI program’s time
requirements, as they keep EB students from attending courses required for gradua-
tion. In Arizona, students must accumulate 3 years of mathematics, 4 years of social

13
A decade after institutionalization: educators’ perspectives… 445

studies, and 3  years of science—requirements egregiously impeded by the SEI

requirements. Some example responses from the teachers and coordinators include,
“Difficulty in graduation because of the model,” “Graduation needs not being met,”
“The students age-out—they turn 21, have not accumulated the necessary credits,
and are embarrassed and just drop out of school.”

Language assessment

The use of the AZELLA also received attention from EB teachers and ELD coordi-
nators. The issues raised by respondents included the inability to compare AZELLA
data with other districts, since reports are not provided, and the inability to compare
data with other states, given that the AZELLA is Arizona-specific. The teachers and
coordinators also expressed concerns with the inability to assess students throughout
the year to better address their language needs and to assess the ability for the stu-
dent to reclassify. “An AZELLA formative assessment is needed,” and “AZELLA is
not suitable for instruction for the year; how can we monitor and instruct throughout
the year?” are example responses received from EB teachers and ELD coordinators.

Reclassification concerns

Concerns with the AZELLA led to responses indicating apprehension over reclas-
sification of EB students. The teachers and the coordinators reported concerns over
students remaining in the SEI program long-term. For example, “long-term ELLs”
and EB students who become “lifers” were responses given by EB teachers and ELD
coordinators. Discussion about reclassification also included concerns about moni-
toring EBs’ success in mainstream classes. Some of the issues addressed include
responses such as, “Ongoing monitoring of reclassified students is inconsistent.”

Classroom segregation

Many EB teachers and ELD coordinators were concerned about the required segre-
gation of EB students. Specifically, respondents were concerned about the 4-h EBs
were required to spend focusing each school day on English language skills rather
than integrating with native English speakers and accessing curriculum. Representa-
tive responses included, “EBs have no native English-speaking models,” and “Stu-
dents do not have peer models and remain in homogenous groups,” which exemplify
concerns with the effects of a segregation policy.

Teacher preparation for instruction

A recurring theme found across all grade-level responses was the lack of teacher
preparation for instructing EB students. EB teachers and ELD coordinators explic-
itly discussed the discrepancy in the education teachers receive with for SEI
endorsement when compared to requirements for the BLE or ESL endorsement.

13
 446 A. Cruze et al.

Respondents raised issues with the lack of instructional and pedagogical skills
needed to teach language acquisition along with content instruction inherent to
the lesser SEI endorsement. For instance, high school EB teachers and ELD coor-
dinators expressed concerns with content teachers’ inability to implement ILLPs
and their lack of pedagogical skills to simultaneously impart language instruction
and content instruction. This theme was also prevalent in the other grade-level
responses, including responses such as, “Inexperienced teachers in ELD,” “Lack of
teacher understanding how to differentiate,” and “Teachers do not recognize they are
content and language teachers.”

Student considerations

Another theme identified across all grade levels reflected concerns over the well-
being of EBs. Responses related EBs feeling undervalued and isolated and express-
ing feelings of frustration. EB teachers and ELD coordinators also expressed alarm
with the lack of attention given to EB students’ socio-emotional needs and with the
lack of connection that would otherwise deter the students from dropping out of
school. Responses included, “Many ELLs frustrated, see themselves as underval-
ued,” “Dropout rates are high and students feel defeated…it takes a 7th year senior
to finish all requirements,” and “Negative effects in confidence outside of the ELD
program.”

Necessary changes to SEI

After discussing the challenges introduced by SEI, EB teachers and ELD coordi-
nators expressed their ideas for alternative approaches to the current SEI program
model based on their experiences and the research of which they were aware. The
themes identified across all grade levels included: (1) revisions to SEI model and
ELP standards; (2) teacher endorsement and pedagogy; and (3) assessment to sup-
port EB learning and language acquisition.

Revision to model and ELP standards

Most responses reflected EB teachers’ and ELD coordinators’ beliefs that the SEI
program should be eliminated altogether and replaced with a new model based on
research. Given that respondents were aware that Arizona Department of Education
was unlikely to eliminate SEI, responses also suggested that the current refinements
should be further expanded to create more flexibility in instruction and specifically
allowing EB students to access content. Comments reflecting this theme include,
“Further refinements needed,” and “We need the refinements for all students, not
only those considered intermediate, so they can have access to all the content includ-
ing science and social studies,” as well as, “Students need to have access to explicit
teaching of content and language.”

13
A decade after institutionalization: educators’ perspectives… 447

Appropriate certification and teacher preparation

Respondents also raised suggestions for alternative approaches to teacher prepara-

tion and certification. Discussions reflecting this theme included the need for an
advanced certificate rather than the SEI endorsement, which was consistently con-
sidered insufficient. EB teachers and ELD coordinators also suggested that Arizona
districts include supplemental training or professional development training for all
teachers to ensure teachers possess skills to teach language acquisition. Some exam-
ple responses include, “Arizona needs to require more than the SEI endorsement—it
is not enough,” “Policy change necessary to provide teachers with funding for train-
ing,” and “Use Title III monies for supplemental training.”

Assessment to support EB needs

Many responses reflected a belief that a change to the current AZELLA assessment
would benefit EB students. Several EB teachers and ELD coordinators suggested the
annual AZELLA assessment occur at least bi-annually, but most responses asserted
that the AZELLA should be administered to EB students as needed based on EB
teachers’ recommendations. “More flexibility as to when the AZELLA is offered,”
and “Process to assess more than once a year,” were consistent responses suggesting
AZELLA administration is far too restrictive. EB teachers and ELD coordinators
also consistently raised the need for a formative language assessment that can be
implemented regularly to enable EB teachers to meet EB students’ specific language
needs on an ongoing basis.

Discussion

The EB Summit provided educators across the state of Arizona an opportunity to

share their insights about the SEI model, which contributed to our understanding of
the extent to which the institutionalization of SEI has been successful. Analyses of
the participant responses suggest teachers appreciate the clarity of the implemen-
tation guidelines introduced by the ELL Task Force SEI model enacted in 2006;
however, it is important to contextualize these responses given there were no guide-
lines prior to the ELL Task Force requirements resulting from school districts’ non-
compliance English-only instruction since 2001 (H.B. 2064 2006). Thus, respond-
ents’ expressed approval of the ease and guidance to comply with SEI should not
be inferred as approval of SEI itself. Indeed, respondents’ many concerns with SEI
reflected here have not changed since SEI’s implementation (see Rios-Aguilar et al.
2012a, b). Teachers are still concerned with EBs’ lack of access to content, particu-
larly at the high school level, where EBs lack access to courses needed for gradua-
tion. Teachers are also still concerned with their inability to assess students forma-
tively, the lack of EBs’ access to language models by peers, and the lack of teacher
preparation to meet the particular needs of EBs.
The teacher responses expressed a prevailing concern with EBs’ limited access
to content, which is consistent with previous research (Gándara and Orfield

13
 448 A. Cruze et al.

2012). Specifically, EB teachers expressed concern over the state requirement

that EBs be assessed for their understanding of state-standard content but do not
have the opportunity to receive necessary content instruction to meet those stand-
ards. Respondents also raised issues with the low expectations reflected in ELP
standards, which are not consistent with the state standards necessary for mas-
tering content. Responses were also consistent with extant research finding the
removal of EBs from content instruction explicitly interrupts learning (Honigs-
feld and Dove 2012) and interferes with opportunities for EBs to interact with
English-speaking peers (Martinez-Wenzl et al. 2012).
To remedy these issues, EB teachers suggested alterations to the current model
also consistent with research. That is, many responses asked for AZDE to con-
sider bilingual education as a more appropriate means to meet language and con-
tent needs of EBs, which also would allow EBs interaction with non-EB peers
(e.g., August and Shanahan 2006; Genesee et  al. 2006; Martinez-Wenzl et  al.
2012). For high school EBs, timely graduation is a prevailing concern among
teachers. This is consistent with scholarship asserting the SEI model fails to
address solutions for EBs to catch-up missing credits to ensure timely gradua-
tion (Gándara and Orfield 2012). EB teachers’ concerns echoed this research and
asked for changes to be made to current policy to enable EBs access to tutoring
and/or summer school to reduce the possibility of falling behind and to enable
students to obtain needed credits to graduate.
Teacher responses indicated a pervasive dissatisfaction with AZELLA, which is
also consistent with prior research discussing the limitations of the state assessment
(e.g., Florez 2010). Teachers were clear in the need to have more opportunities to
assess language proficiency so EBs can be reclassified earlier, thus enabling earlier
access to curriculum (Martinez-Wenzl et al. 2012). This finding is in part an artifact
of the limited exposure EBs have to content. EB teachers and ELD coordinators,
aware of the limited exposure EBs have to language and content in the SEI model,
view the AZELLA as a mechanism further limiting access. By assessing English
proficiency only once a year, EBs are likely to score lower (given their lack of lan-
guage exposure over the summer), which prevents EBs from accessing appropriate
language and content instruction for an entire school year. Teachers’ also expressed
dissatisfaction with the inability to differentiate instruction based on formative
assessment results. The AZELLA is summative in nature and does not give teach-
ers guidance in terms of English acquisition. Suggestions for the current program
included establishing standards for formative assessments, which allow teachers to
differentiate instruction as needed; these responses are consistent with prior research
on best practices (López et al. 2013).
Teachers were overwhelmingly in favor of more rigorous teacher requirements,
which is prodigiously supported by evidence (see López et  al. 2013; Lillie et  al.
2012). Consistent with the literature reviewed here, EB teachers expressed a need
to possess instructional knowledge to engage EBs, impart content knowledge, and
instruct in second language acquisition—all of which are absent from the SEI
endorsement (Combs 2012). Responses from the participants specifically called
for content teachers to have sufficient background knowledge in language acquisi-
tion to be considered highly qualified to meet the unique needs of EBs. Moreover,

13
A decade after institutionalization: educators’ perspectives… 449

teachers’ responses indicated training is needed, not only to address the language
and content needs of EBs, but to learn in culturally responsive approaches. Knowl-
edge about culturally responsive practices provides teachers with instructional meth-
ods to bridge education and culture in an inclusive manner, which is associated with
positive outcomes for EBs (López 2017). More rigorous training that includes these
considerations can address the concerns respondents had with EBs’ socio-cultural
and emotional needs.

Conclusion

Findings from the current study align with prior research finding SEI to be out
of compliance with federal requirements to meet the needs of EBs (López 2012;
López and Iribarren 2014; López et  al. 2013, 2015; Combs et  al. 2005; Combs
2012; Martinez-Wenzl et  al. 2012). The current SEI program model remains
structurally restrictive, which “appears to lack sensitivity to age and grade level
differences,” as well as to the linguistic and cultural needs of EBs (Martinez-
Wenzl et  al. 2012, p. 8). Arizona must not only raise the endorsement require-
ments of EB teachers but also alter the current program model that prevents EBs
from developing English proficiency, accessing academic content, establishing
sociocultural connections with their peers, and graduating in a timely manner. A
number of researchers have contributed to the accumulation of evidence that finds
SEI not only inadequate, but at fault in perpetuating inequity and violating federal
law. This study corroborates the consistent malfeasance of the state of Arizona
has evidenced by low EB achievement (López 2012; López et  al. 2015; López
2017), violations of Civil Rights and EEOA requirements (Gándara and Orfield
2012), and the detrimental effects on student identity (López 2010). Researchers
and practitioners alike have called for revisions to the deleterious policies of the
state. Allowing time for institutionalization has failed to remedy the issues, leav-
ing Arizona with one less excuse to maintain the reprehensible policies in place.

References
Arias, M. (2012). Language policy and teacher preparation: The implications of a restrictive language
policy on teacher preparation. In M. Arias & C. Faltis (Eds.), Implementing educational language
policy in Arizona, legal, historical and current practices in SEI (pp. 3–20). Towanda, NJ: Multilin-
gual Matters.
Arias, B., & Faltis, C. (Eds.). (2012). Implementing educational language policy in Arizona: Legal, his-
torical and current practices. Towanda, NJ: Multilingual Matters.
Arizona Department of Education. [AZDE]. (2013). AZELLA Development. Retrieved June 15, 2016
from https​://cms.azed.gov/home/GetDo​cumen​tFile​?id=58507​3f6aa​debe0​988f8​2be7.
Arizona Department of Education. [AZDE]. (2014). Structured English immersion models of the Ari-
zona English language learners task force. Retrieved on July 29, 2016 from https​://cms.azed.gov/
home/GetDo​cumen​tFile​?id=55257​a8f11​30c00​8a0c5​5ce3.

13
 450 A. Cruze et al.

Arizona Department of Education. [AZDE]. (2016). English Language learners: Structured English
immersion models. Approved Refinements to SEI models. Retrieved July 29, 2016 https​://cms.azed.
gov/home/GetDo​cumen​tFile​?id=55257​a8111​30c00​8a0c5​5bd4.
Arizona Department of Education. [AZDE]. (2017). Requirements for structured English immersion,
pre-K endorsements. Retrieved May 31, 2017 from the Office of English Language Acquisition,
https​://cms.azed.gov/home/GetDo​cumen​tFile​?id=57a62​deaaa​debe0​2a4f4​f3de.
August, D., Goldenberg, C., & Rueda, R. (2010). Restrictive state language policies: Are they scientifi-
cally based. In P. Gándara & M. Hopkins (Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners and restric-
tive language policies (pp. 139–158). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of
the national literacy panel on language minority children and youth. New York: Routledge.
Borman, G., & Dowling, M. (2010). Schools and inequality: A multilevel analysis of Coleman’s equality
of educational opportunity data. Teachers College Record, 112, 1201–1246.
Brown v Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Callahan, R. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to learn. American
Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 305–328.
Castañeda vs. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981).
Cohen, D., & Ball, D. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A commentary. Educational Evalu-
ation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 331–338.
Collier, V., & Thomas, W. (2002). Reforming education policies for English language learners means
better schools for all. The State Education Standard, 3, 30–36. Retrieved May 2, 2017 from www.
thoma​sandc​ollie​r.com/asses​sts/2002–refor​ming-educa​tion-polic​ies-for-engli​sh-langu​age-learn​ers-
means​-bette​r-schoo​ls-for-the-state​-educa​tion-stand​ard_v3-p30-36_b.pdf.com.
Combs, M. (2012). Everything on its head: How Arizona’s structured English immersion policy re-
invents theory and practice. In M. B. Arias & C. Faltis (Eds.), Implementing educational language
policy in Arizona: Legal, historical and current practices in SEI (pp. 59–85). Tonawanda, NY: Mul-
tilingual Matters.
Combs, M., Evans, C., Fletcher, T., Parra, E., & Jimenez, A. (2005). Bilingualism for the children: Imple-
menting a dual-language program in an English-only state. Educational Policy, 19(5), 701–728.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Mul-
tilingual 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.
Davenport, D. K. (2008). Baseline study of Arizona’s English language learner programs and data, fiscal
year 2007. State of Arizona Office of the Auditor General. Retrieved May 29, 2016 from http://www.
audit​orgen​.state​.az.us/Repor​ts/Schoo​l_Distr​icts/State​wide/2008_April​/EL L_Baseline_Report.pdf.
de Jong, E. (2008). Contextualizing policy appropriation: Teachers’ perspectives, local responses, and
English-only ballot initiatives. Urban Review, 40, 350–370.
Del Valle, S. (2003). Language rights and law in the United States: Finding our voices. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters. Equal Educational Opportunities Act, (EEOA), 20 U.S. Code § 1703 [f]
(1974).
Faltis, C., & Arias, M. B. (2012). Research-based reform in Arizona: Whose evidence counts for apply-
ing the Castañeda test to structured English immersion models. In B. Arias & C. Faltis (Eds.),
Implementing educational language policy in Arizona: Legal, historical and current practices in
SEI (pp. 86–107). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Florez, I. (2010). Do the AZELLA cut scores meet the standards? A validation review of the Arizona Eng-
lish language learner assessment. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto de Derechos
Civiles at UCLA.
Gándara, P., & Hopkins, M. (Eds.). (2010). Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive lan-
guage policy. New York, NY: Teacher College Press.
Gándara, P., & Orfield, G. (2012). Segregating Arizona’s English learners: A return to the “Mexican
room”? Teachers College Record, 114(9), 1–27.
Gándara, P., & Rumberger, R. (2009). Immigration, language, and education: How does language policy
structure opportunity. Teachers College Record, 111(3), 750–782.
Gándara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R. (2003). English learners in California
schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(36), 1–54.
García, E. (2005). Teaching and learning in two languages: Bilingualism and schooling in the United
States. New York: Teachers College Press.

13
A decade after institutionalization: educators’ perspectives… 451

García, O., & Kleifgen, J. (2010). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for
English language learners. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Garcia, E., Lawton, K., & De Diniz Figueiredo, E. (2012). The education of English language learners in
Arizona: A history of underachievement. Teachers College Record, 114(9), 1–18.
Genesee, F., Geva, E., Dressler, C., & Kamil, M. (2006). Synthesis: Cross-linguistic relationships. In
D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the
national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 153–183). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the research on English learners: What we know and don’t yet know
about effective instruction. American Educator, 37(2), 4.
Goldenberg, C., & Coleman, R. (2010). Promoting academic achievement among English learners: A
guide to the research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
González, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households,
communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gutiérrez, P. (2002). In search of bedrock: Organizing for success with diverse needs children in the
classroom. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1(1), 49–64.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain profi-
ciency? (p. 1). UC Berkeley: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute. Policy
Report.
H.B. 2064, Forty-seventh Legislature, Second Regular Session, (Ariz. 2006).
Hogan, T. (2014). Flores v. Arizona. In C. K. Moore (Ed.), Language policy processes and consequences:
Arizona case studies (pp. 28–44). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. (2012). Co-teaching and other collaborative practices in the EFL/ESL class-
room: Rationale, research, reflections, and recommendations. Charlotte: Information Age.
Jimenez-Castellanos, O., Combs, M., Martinez, D., & Gomez, L. (2013). English language learners:
What’s at stake for Arizona? Arizona State University Morrison Institute for Public Policy. Latino
Public Policy Center. Retrieved June 5, 2016 from https​://morri​sonin​stitu​te.asu.edu/conte​nt/engli​sh-
langu​age-learn​ers-whats​-stake​-arizo​na.
Krashen, S., Rolstad, K., & MacSwan, J. (2007). Review of “research summary and bibliography for
structured English immersion programs” of the Arizona English language learners task force.
Takoma Park: Institute for Language Education and Policy.
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
Lillie, K., & Markos, A. (2014). The four-hour block: SEI in the classrooms. In C. K. Moore (Ed.), Lan-
guage policy processes and consequences: Arizona case studies (pp. 28–44). Bristol, UK: Multilin-
gual Matters.
Lillie, K., Markos, A., Arias, M., & Wiley, T. (2012). Separate and not equal: The implementation of
structured English immersion in Arizona’s classrooms. Teachers College Record, 114(9), 1–33.
Lillie, K. E., Markos, A., Estrella, A., Nguyen, T., Peer, K., Perez, K., & Wiley, T. G. (2010). Policy
in practice: The implementation of structured English immersion in Arizona. Retrieved from the
University of California, Los Angeles, The Civil Rights Project website https​://escho​larsh​ip.org/uc/
item/8742n​78n
Lillie, K., & Moore, S. K. (2014). SEI in Arizona: Bastion for state’s rights. In C. K. Moore (Ed.), Lan-
guage policy processes and consequences: Arizona case studies (pp. 28–44). Bristol, UK: Multilin-
gual Matters.
Lin, A. M. Y. (2015). Researcher positionality. In F. M. Hult & D. Cassels Johnson (Eds.), Research
methods in language policy and planning: A practical guide (pp. 21–32). West Sussex: Wiley.
López, F. A. (2010). Identity and motivation among Hispanic ELLs. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
18, 16–49.
López, F. A. (2012). Moderators of language acquisition models and reading achievement for English
language learners: The role of emotional warmth and instructional support. Teachers College
Record, 114, 1–30.
López, F. A. (2017). Altering the trajectory of the self-fulfilling prophecy: Asset-based pedagogy and
classroom dynamics. Journal of Education, 68, 193–212.
López, F. A., & Iribarren, J. (2014). Creating and sustaining inclusive instructional settings for English
language learners: Why, what, and how. Theory Into Practices, 53, 106–114.
López, F. A., Scanlan, M., & Gundrum, B. (2013). Preparing teachers of English language learners:
Empirical evidence and policy implications. Education Policy Analysis and Archives. https​://doi.
org/10.14507​/epaa.v21n2​0.2013.

13
 452 A. Cruze et al.

López, F. A., Mceneaney, E. H., & Nieswandt, M. (2015). Language instruction educational programs
andacademic achievement of English language learners: Considerations for states with changing
demographics. American Journal of Education, 121, 417–450.
Lucas, T., Villegas, A., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher Education:
Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education,
59(4), 361–373.
Lyons, J. J. (1990). The past and future directions of Federal bilingual education policy. The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 508, 66–80.
Mahoney, K., & MacSwan, J. (2005). Reexamining identification and reclassification of English language
learners: A critical discussion of select state practices. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1), 31–42.
Martinez-Wenzl, M., Perez, K., & Gándara, P. (2012). Is Arizona’s approach to educating its ELs superior
to other forms of instruction? Teachers College Record, 114, 1–32.
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). Retrieved
March 17, 2016 from http://www.quali​tativ​e-resea​rch.net/fqs-texte​/2-00/02-00may​ringe​.htm
Moore, S. K., & Wiley, T. (2015). Interpretive policy analysis for language policy. In F. M. Hult & D.
Cassels Johnson (Eds.), Research methods in language policy and planning: A practical guide (pp.
152–165). West Sussex: Wiley.
National Clearing House of English Language Acquisition. [NCELA]. (2014). Arizona demographics
and state data. Retrieved July 5, 2016 from http://www.ncela​.us/t3sis​/Arizo​na.php.
Ovando, C., Combs, M. C., & Collier, V. P. (2005). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching in multicul-
tural contexts. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities Social.
Plyer vs. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
Ricento, T. K. (1998). The courts, the legislature and society: The shaping of Federal language policy
in the United States. In D. Kibbee (Eds.), Language legislation and linguistic rights: Selected pro-
ceedings of the language legislation and linguistic rights conference, The University of Urbana-
Champaign, March 1996. (pp. 123–141). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
Ricento, T. K., & Wright, W. E. (2008). Language policy and education in the United States. In N. H.
Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 2–15). Boston, MA: Springer.
Rios-Aguilar, C., Canache, M., & Moll, L. (2012a). A study of Arizona’s teachers of English language
learners. Teachers College Record, 114(9), 1–33.
Rios-Aguilar, C., Canache, M., & Moll, L. (2012b). Implementing structured English immersion in Ari-
zona; Benefits, challenges, and opportunities. Teachers College Record, 114(9), 1–18.
Rios-Aguilar, C., & Gándara, P. (2012). Horne v. Flores and the future of language policy. Teachers Col-
lege Record, 114(9), 1–13.
Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness
research on English language learners. Educational Policy, 19(4), 572–594.
Rumberger, R. W., & Tran, L. (2010). State language policies, school language practices, and the English
learner achievement gap. In P. Gándara & M. Hopkins (Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners
and restrictive language policies (pp. 195–215). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2003). Legal discourse and decisions, teacher policymaking and the multilingual
classroom: Constraining and supporting Khmer/English biliteracy in the United States. Interna-
tional Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6(3–4), 168–184.
Slavin, R., & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for English
language learners. Review of Educational Research, 75, 247–281.
Stritikus, T. T. (2003). The interrelationship of beliefs, context, and learning: The case of a teacher react-
ing to language policy. Journal of language, identity and education, 2(1), 29–52.
Swanson, C. (2004). Sketching a portrait of public high school graduation: Who graduates? Who doesn’t?
In Gary Orfield (Ed.), Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Education Press.
Valdés, G. (2001). Learning and not learning English. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. Inter-
national Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159–180.
Wiley, T., & Wright, W. E. (2004). Against the undertow: Language-minority education policy and poli-
tics in the “age of accountability”. Educational Policy, 18, 142–168.
Wong-Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. Washington, DC:
Center for Applied Linguistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Wright, W. E. (2005). The political spectacle of Arizona’s proposition 203. Educational Policy, 19,
662–700.

13
A decade after institutionalization: educators’ perspectives… 453

Wright, W. E. (2015). Foundations for teaching English language learners: Research, theory, policy, and
practice (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Caslon Publishing.
Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretative policy analysis. qualitative research methods series 47.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Angela Cruze  is a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Policy Studies and Practice. Her
research examines the effects of education policy on Latino students academic achievement.

Meg Cota  is a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Policy Studies and Practice. Her
research examines programming, school choice, and teacher preparation.

Francesca López  is a professor in the Department of Educational Policy Studies and Practice. Her research
includes policy and environmental effects on Latino student outcomes and academic achievement.

13