No Holds Barred on Restricting Language Rights: English-Only in Arizona

• In Event: The Role of Critical Language Policy Analysis in the “Post”-Civil Rights Era

Abstract

This paper illustrates the extent to which educational language rights have been restricted in the state of Arizona. In part, these restrictions emerged due to the state’s adoption of the most extremist version of English-only educational language policy in the country. In addition, the state legislature and its conservative leadership have further enacted policies and mandates which ultimately significantly impose on educators’ agency, expertise, and professional conduct. These additional requirements also confront what researchers and scholars generally believe about how children learn, learn languages, and do well in educational settings.

Findings presented are framed within a perspective informed by critical race theory (Ladson-Billings, 2000; Solórzona, 1998; Tate, 1997; Yosso, 2006). Results from this sociohistorical analysis of educational language policy in the state of Arizona are presented as either Majoritarian or Counter narratives. In this way, findings give voice to the viewpoints of language minority students, parents, community members, and teachers who are working to maintain their linguistic and civil rights amidst extreme restriction.

Sources of data for research included archival documents available through the Arizona Department of Education website, past videos of English language learner (ELL) Task Force meetings (2006-2007), and interviews with educators involved in the provision of professional development of teachers working in Arizona’s English only settings.

Findings presented in this paper demonstrate the impact of broad-reaching and entrenched policymaking on access to educational equity for language and ethnic minority students. In particular, the case of Arizona shows how states have successfully passed legislation that theoretically violates federal Civil Rights laws. While they may, in due course, be unveiled as violations of U.S. law, in the intervening period are harming language minority children and families and impeding access to educational equity for marginalized populations in the state.

Authors

• Sarah Catherine K. Moore, Center for Applied Linguistics

• Karen E. Lillie, SUNY - College at Fredonia