State Language Policy and Teacher Practice: A Cross-State Comparison of Bilingual Educators’ Language Policy Appropriation

• In Event: Language Policy Appropriation: Teachers’ Perspectives on Policies and Programs for English Learners Across Five States

Abstract

This presentation investigates language policy appropriation among bilingual teachers in two policy contexts: California and Texas. California was the first state to pass an English-only policy, which mandated the placement of all ELs into SEI programs. In contrast, Texas has an explicit bilingual policy, where the majority of ELs in grades K-6 are placed in bilingual programs.

Drawing from a larger study of teachers of ELs in the Southwest, this paper compares the pedagogical practices and perspectives of bilingual teachers in California and Texas. The specific aims of the study are: (1) to understand how the policy environment might be related to the practices bilingual teachers employ, and (2) to explore how these teachers conceive their practices as aligned with state and district policies and programs for ELs.

Institutional theory (Scott, 1995) provides a framework for examining the relationship between macro- and micro-level policies and delineates the various ways that local actors receive policy messages. Following this theory, teachers’ policy appropriation can be influenced by official state and district policies, by pressures from administrators to implement them, as well as by their beliefs about teaching and learning.

The analysis focused on 217 surveys collected from English-Spanish bilingual elementary teachers across five urban districts and on 10 follow-up interviews. The survey asked teachers how often they utilize practices that scholars deem effective for ELs, and the interviews garnered descriptions of teachers’ practices and explored their rationales for using different approaches. The survey data were analyzed using multiple regression analyses, and the interviews were coded using inductive and deductive approaches, which allowed for the identification of specific themes as aligned with the survey and for the emergence of new themes.

Results indicated that the language policy context heavily mediates teachers’ pedagogical approaches. Teachers in California reported using Spanish significantly less often than teachers in Texas, for both instructional and non-instructional purposes. Additionally, bilingual teachers in Texas reported significantly more frequent use of practices that build on students’ prior knowledge and experiences and that promote using language in meaningful contexts than teachers in California.

Several possible reasons emerged for these disparities. During interviews, teachers described the difficulties they faced in implementing district programs for ELs, which were adopted to comply with state policy. Teachers in California wrestled with implementing SEI models alongside scripted reading programs, and teachers in Texas grappled with adopting a prescriptive one-way dual language program. These differences in instructional approaches likely influence the types of practices that teachers employ; however, teachers in both states described their district’s policies as “restrictive,” where strict requirements and pressure from administrators precluded the use of practices they believed supported ELs’ growth.

These findings highlight the dynamic interplay between official language policies and classroom practice. They also reveal how policies can support as well as constrain bilingual teachers’ practice, even in contexts that support primary language instruction. As such, the study demonstrates the limitations of top-down policy mandates and suggests the need to make teachers central to the policymaking process.

Author

• Megan Hopkins, Northwestern University