State Leadership for Emergent Bilinguals: The Case of Indiana

• In Event: Sheraton Roundtable Session 19
  In Roundtable Session: Critical Leadership for Emergent Bilinguals: National Perspectives From the State, District, Principal, and Teacher Levels

Abstract

Purpose
State leaders are afforded great flexibility under federal education policy in addressing the needs of emergent bilinguals (EBs) classified as English learners (ELs). This includes flexibility in the use of federal and state funds, identification and exit criteria, standards and assessments, and teacher licensure (Author, 2015). Leadership at the state level plays a critical role in providing policies and mechanisms of enforcement and support to ensure the EB success at the local level (Mehisto & Genesee, 2015). However, the quality and consistency of state leadership varies, and can be challenging for states like Indiana that have been historically less diverse but now experiencing rapid EB growth.

Background
Indiana’s EB population grew from 3,376 students in 1987 to 50,677 in 2017. Simich-Dudgeon and Boals (1996) describe Indiana’s early approach to EB education as one that moved from neglect to efforts to ensure minimal compliance with federal policies, while affording local control to districts over matters of teacher licensure, program models, and instruction. This period saw the local development of a few transitional bilingual education programs that faded after losing federal funding and failing to secure state support. Author (2014) describes Indiana’s approach from 1997 to 2014 as focused on technical assistance to districts rather than forcing compliance. This period saw the development of 6 dual language programs with strong local and minimal state support. However, the vast majority of EBs—then and now—were placed in mainstream classrooms with little to no support.

Theoretical Framework
An explicit and implicit language policy framework is used (Wiley, 2000, 2002), to demonstrate how state leadership is exercised. Explicit language policies are direct and detail what districts and schools should be employing for EBs. Implicit language policies are often covert, potentially minimizing opportunities for EBs.

Methods
This study is an interpretive policy analysis. Data for this study are drawn from federal and state policy documents; Indiana Department of Education memos, newsletters and communications with local EL leaders; media reports; student language and academic achievement data; and interviews with state and district EL leaders. Each document is analyzed for degrees of explicitness and implicitness. State and district leadership interviews are analyzed to identify their discourse on a continuum of explicit to implicit.

Results
Findings suggest Indiana’s current state leadership focuses more on compliance with state and federal policies (explicit) with hopes of improving EB education for through numerous initiatives. These include the adoption of WIDA’s English language proficiency standards and assessments, adoption of the Seal of Biliteracy, launch of a pilot supporting 8 new dual language programs, and an Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) proposal with ambitious language and academic achievement goals. However, these initiatives lack attention to program quality, instruction, or qualifications of district EB leaders and teachers, sending an implicit message of indifference.

Scholarly Significance
Current Indiana policy for EBs is decentralized, making state leadership implicit, limiting their role to basic legal compliance, restricting high-quality bilingual education possibilities. This Indiana study holds implications for less populous states aims toward quality bilingual education.

Author

• Wayne E. Wright, Purdue University