Examining Arizona’s Policy Response Post-Flores v. Arizona in Educating K-12 English Language Learners

• In Event: Flores v. Arizona: Legal, Political, and Pedagogical Implications for English Language Learners

Abstract

In Arizona, a lawsuit filed in 1992 (Flores v. Arizona, 2000) claimed that state schools failed to fund an instructional program designed to make English language learners (ELLs) proficient in English, thus enabling them to master the standard academic curriculum. In response to claims of inadequate funding, under-qualified teachers, and flawed processes for identifying and monitoring ELLs (Flores v. Arizona, 160 F. Supp. 2d 1043-Dist. Court, D. Arizona 2000), Arizona adopted several controversial education policies between 2000-2012 that have fundamentally shaped the educational experiences of ELLs. These policy trends are examined in this paper.

Critical Latina/o Theory (LatCrit) is utilized to disclose the ways Latinas/os experience race, class, gender, and sexuality, while also acknowledging issues of nationality, language, immigration status, ethnicity and culture (Bernal, 2002; Pérez Huber, 2010; Solórzano & Delgado Bernal, 2001). LatCrit seeks to increase the examination of civil rights analysis beyond race (Aoki & Johnson, 2008) and incorporate other analysis such as language and culture within the Latina/o experience.

The method employed was a narrative review that follows the tradition of critically appraising and summarizing the literature (Hemingway & Brereton, 2009). Specifically, the authors reviewed data sources to understand what types of policies have been enacted in Arizona’s attempt to comply with Flores v. Arizona. Because Shank and Villella (2004) assert that the review should also be focused on a specific time period, 2000-2012 was selected, as it corresponds with the major policy developments post Flores v. Arizona. Prominent and relevant refereed peer reviewed journals, Arizona Department of Education archival data, legislative records and legal briefings were identified using “English language learners” and other relevant search terms as criteria Collected items were then examined. Based upon the professional expertise, as well as in consultation with school district and state-level personnel who work with ELLs, reasonable judgments were made as to which artifacts should be considered data sources (Jones, 2004; Vetter, 2003).

Ultimately, the narrative review of the appropriate documents and scholarly literature revealed five salient policy responses utilized to address the Flores v. Arizona (2000) court ruling: (1) severely limit bilingual education, (2) develop controversial funding solutions, (3) implement a segregated 4-hour English Language Development (ELD) Block, (4) mandate a Structured English Immersion (SEI) focused teacher preparation and (5) develop disputed identification and classification instruments. Each of these responses in examined more closely in the completed paper.

This study has significant implications of transcendent national importance, as many states are looking to Arizona as a possible model to address the needs of their ELL students. It illustrates the importance of using the most sound and updated research-based policies and practices to improve the quality of education and academic achievement for ELLs. It is recommended that states, especially states with growing number of ELLs such as Arizona, develop quality data monitoring systems. This will allow researchers to systematically examine the effects of policies, programs and interventions.

Authors

• Margarita Jimenez-Silva, Arizona State University

• Laura M Gomez, ASU