Language policy and bilingual education in Arizona and Washington state

Johnson, Eric J.; Johnson, David

doi:10.1080/13670050.2014.882288

Cited by 36 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given that it is ultimately the states that have the resources unavailable to other stakeholders to decide which languages will be endorsed, supported or repressed on the national linguistic landscape (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996), official reports as a genre are positioned uniquely as texts of multiple agentive voices that may be drawn on to endorse but also challenge the structural doxa of aggregate, taken-for-granted choices as perpetuated through, for example, state language policies (Johnson & Johnson, 2015). The extent to which the reports variably answer this challenge will be laid out below.…”

Section: Methodological Note On the Selection Of Focal Documents: Genmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Preoccupied with providing a critical understanding of the discursive aspects of various social processes, particularly their intimate connection with questions of power, CDA of language policy can be particularly useful for 'finding connections between language policy texts and the discourses within and surrounding the texts' (Johnson, 2009, p. 151). CLP, CDA and ethnography all converge on their common interest in issues of social justice (Johnson & Johnson, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Constructing the multilingual child: the case of language education policy in Norway

Bubikova-Moan

2016

Critical Discourse Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodological Note On the Selection Of Focal Documents: Genmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructing the multilingual child: the case of language education policy in Norway

Bubikova-Moan

2016

Critical Discourse Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The wide circulation of language ideologies rooted in misperceptions about language learning processes (Combs et al., ) and English‐only sentiment have been associated with the development of the current body of restrictive policy in Arizona (Lillie & Moore, ). Using ethnographic research methods, E. J. Johnson and Johnson () contrasted local educational language policy practices in the U.S. states of Washington and Arizona. They concluded that teachers’ language ideologies influenced their local classroom language policies in a space shaped by macro state language policies and that the teachers’ language ideologies tended to align with the macro policies (e.g., the 4‐hour model in Arizona).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language Ideology Change Over Time: Lessons for Language Policy in the U.S. State of Arizona and Beyond

Fitzsimmons‐Doolan

2017

TESOL Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the U.S. state of Arizona, language minority students who are English learners attend schools governed by a restrictive medium of instruction (MOI) language policy (LP). Educators and educational researchers widely agree that effective reforms of this policy are urgently needed (e.g., Arias & Faltis, 2012;Lawton, 2012;Lillie, 2016). Furthermore, several research studies (e.g., D. C. Johnson, 2009;Stritikus, 2003) have shown that the language ideologies held by policy-influential individuals affect the development and implementation of such policies. Thus, Arizona MOI reforms need to be aligned with language ideologies of key stakeholders. To shed light on MOI reform processes in Arizona and internationally, this study resurveyed politically active voters, administrators, and teachers from Fitzsimmons-Doolan (2014) to identify any shifts in their language ideologies between 2010 and 2016, to ascertain how these stakeholders perceive Arizona's educational LP, and to better understand how they relate their language ideologies to their policy perceptions. Results indicate some limited ideological change, key themes of equity, pro-assimilation, and anti-segregation across policy perceptions, and evidence supporting an LP model that moves toward stasis among LP components. The results suggest that efforts to facilitate ideological change grounded in stakeholder experience might be considered in contexts undergoing LP reform.

show abstract

“…The intention, then, is that with the extended time on task and discrete focus on English language development, ELs would be rapidly reclassified as English proficient within one year (Gándara & Orfield, 2012;Leckie et al, 2013;Martínez-Wenzl et al, 2012). Nevertheless, these claims are problematic: they are not substantiated by SLA or educational research, nor do they account for content area instruction, thus leading to a widening achievement gap between ELs and English proficient students (Adamson & Long, 2012;Gándara & Orfield, 2012;Johnson & Johnson, 2015;Krashen, MacSwan, & Rolstad, 2012;Leckie et al, 2013).…”

Section: Creation and Trajectory Of Arizona's Language Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Wiping Away the “Veneer of Democracy” to Expose the School-Level Effects of Arizona’s Language Policy

Fetman

2017

Leadership and Policy in Schools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wiping away the "veneer of democracy" to expose the school-level effects of Arizona's language policy Students speaking a first language other than English currently comprise more than 10% of all students in U.S. public schools (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2010), and are the fastest growing segment of the K-12 student population (Niehaus & Adelson, 2014) as they are predicted to represent 25% of all public school students by 2025 (Kanno & Kangas, 2014; U.S. Department of Education, 2006). Some states, as a result, enact language policies intended to address the educational achievement of English learners (ELs). One such policy, Arizona's Englishonly policy as mandated by Proposition 203 (2000), is based on beliefs that complete immersion leads to language acquisition. This English immersion policy was punctuated by a mandated four-hour sheltered English pullout program, which, along with the English-only policy itself, remain unsupported by second language acquisition (SLA) and educational research (e.g.

show abstract

Language policy and bilingual education in Arizona and Washington state

Cited by 36 publications

References 24 publications

Constructing the multilingual child: the case of language education policy in Norway

Constructing the multilingual child: the case of language education policy in Norway

Language Ideology Change Over Time: Lessons for Language Policy in the U.S. State of Arizona and Beyond

Wiping Away the “Veneer of Democracy” to Expose the School-Level Effects of Arizona’s Language Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About