English language learners left behind in arizona: The nullification of accommodations in the intersection of federal and state policies

Bilingual Research Journal

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 1-29

  Wright, Wayne E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 27744513104     PISSN: 15235882     EISSN: 15235890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15235882.2005.10162821     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Abedi, J. (2003). Standardized achievement tests and English language learners: Psychometric issues. Educational Assessment, 8(3), 231-258.
2. Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 53(1), 4-14.
3. Arizona Department of Education. (2003a). Arizona LEARNS: A step by step guide to calculating an achievement profile. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Education Research & Policy.
4. Arizona Department of Education. (2003b). School improvement in Arizona. Retrieved March 4, 2004, from http://www.ade.az.gov/services/pio/Press-Releases/2001/pr01-26-01.htm
5. Arizona Department of Education. (2003c). State of Arizona consolidated state application accountability workbook. Phoenix: Author.
6. Arizona Department of Education. (2004). Arizona’s school accountability system technical manual: Vol. 1. Arizona Learns achievement profiles. Phoenix: Author.
7. Arizona State Board of Education. (2003, November 17). State Board of Education minutes. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Education.
8. Arizona State Board of Education. (2004, January 26). State Board of Education minutes. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Education.
9. Associated Press. (1998, October 27). High school AIMS test to be in English, board says. Arizona Republic, p. B3.
10. Associated Press. (2003, September 1). Bilingual classes ending in Tucson. Arizona Republic.
11. August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
12. AZ LEARNS. School Accountability, A.R.S. §15-241 (2001).
13. Barrett, J., & Pearce, K. (1999, November 17). Some items not covered in class. Arizona Republic, p. A1.
14. Bilingual legal muddle has schools under fire: Federal intimidation, lack of local leadership. (2001, January 23). Arizona Republic.
15. Churchill, S. (1986). The education of linguistic and cultural minorities in OECD countries. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
16. Corella, H. R. (2002, September 2). Horne raises AIMS, bilingual ed issues in commercial. Arizona Daily Star.
17. Corson, D. (2001). Language diversity and education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Crawford, J. (2000). At war with diversity: US language policy in an age of anxiety. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
19. Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Bilingual Education Services.
20. Davenport, P. (2002, July 11). English education backer endorses Horne, criticizes Molera. Associated Press State & Local Wire.
21. Deschenes, S., Cuban, L., & Tyack, D. B. (2001). Mismatch: Historical perspectives on schools and students who don’t fit them. Teachers College Record, 103(4), 525-547.
22. Donovan, B. (2004, February 19). AG: Public schools not exempt from Prop. 203. Navajo Times.
23. García, D., & Aportela, A. (2000). Arizona measure of academic progress: A first look at growth in Arizona schools [Tech. Rep.]. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Education.
24. García, E. E. (Ed.). (2000). Implementation of California’s Proposition 227: 1998-2000 (Specialissue). Bilingual Research Journal, 24(1&2).
25. Goddard, T. (2003a). Attorney general opinion No. I03-002 (R03-010), Re: Application of Proposition 203 to charter schools. Phoenix, AZ: Office of the Attorney General. Retrieved January 31, 2005, fromhttp://www.ag.state.az.us/opinions/2003/I03-002.pdf
26. Goddard, T. (2003b). Attorney general opinion No. I03-001(R03-014), Re: Guidelines governing waivers from English immersion programs. Phoenix, AZ: Office of the Attorney General. Retrieved January 31, 2005, from http://www.ag.state.az.us/opinions/2003/I03-001.pdf
27. Gottlieb, M. (2003). Large-scale assessment of English language learners: Addressing educational accountability in K-12 settings. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
28. Horne, T. (2001, November 18). Molera shortcuts would only lead us all to failure. Arizona Republic.
29. Horne, T. (2003a, July 22). Superintendent Tom Horne vindicated on bilingual guidelines: 45 monitors to police bilingual [Press release]. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Education.
30. Horne, T. (2003b, October 13). Arizona education not dumbing down. Arizona Republic, p. B9.
31. Horne, T. (2003c). Media advisory: Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne begins year with new leadership team [Press release]. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Education.
32. Horne, T. (2004). First annual state of education speech. Retrieved January 6, 2004, from http://www.ade.az.gov/administration/superintendent/articles/2004statesofeducation.doc
33. Horne, T., & Dugan, M. G. (2003). Implementation of Arizona English language immersion laws. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Education.
34. Judson, E., & Dugan, M. G. (2004). The effects of bilingual education programs and structured English immersion programs on student achievement:A large-scale comparison. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Education.
35. Keegan, L. G. (1999). English acquisition services: A summary of bilingual and English as a second language program for school year 1997-1998 (Report of the superintendent of public instruction to the Arizona Legislature). Phoenix: Arizona Department of Education.
36. Keegan, L. G. (2000). English acquisition services: A summary of bilingual and English as a second language program for school year 1998-1999 (Report of the superintendent of public instruction to the Arizona Legislature). Phoenix: Arizona Department of Education.
37. Kloss, H. (1998). The American bilingual tradition. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems. (Originally published 1977)
38. Kossan, P. (2000a, November 21). Keegan puts AIMS test on hold indefinitely, cites high failure rate. Arizona Republic.
39. Kossan, P. (2000b, November 27). By trying too much too quick, AIMS missed mark. Arizona Republic.
40. Kossan, P. (2001a, August 22). Alternate to AIMS is possible. Arizona Republic.
41. Kossan, P. (2001b, August 24). Tamer AIMS on the way; Molera wants 4-year delay, eased graduation rates. Arizona Republic.
42. Kossan, P. (2003a, July 26). Charters bypass English-only law. Arizona Republic.
43. Kossan, P. (2003b, October 12). Doubts cloud school rankings. Arizona Republic.
44. Kossan, P. (2004a, January 25). 8th-graders’ AIMS math to get easier; state admits error in scoring. Arizona Republic, p. B1.
45. Kossan, P. (2004b, April 4). Ariz easing fed’s rules for school standards. Arizona Republic, p. B1.
46. Kossan, P. (2004c, April 11). Standardized tests changing. Arizona Republic, p. B1.
47. Kossan, P. (2004d, September 14). $4.5 mil may shift for AIMS; Horne seeks funds for boosting scores. Arizona Republic.
48. Krashen, S. D. (1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education. Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates.
49. Krashen, S. D., & Biber, D. (1988). On course: Bilingual education success in California. Sacramento: California Association for Bilingual Education.
50. LaCelle-Peterson, M., & Rivera, C. (1994). Is it real for all kids? A framework for equitable assessment policies for English language learners. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1).
51. Linn, R. L. (2002). Validation of the uses and interpretations of results of state assessment and accountability systems. In G. Tindal & T. H. Haladyna (Eds.), Large-scale assessment programs for all students: Validity, technical adequacy, and implementation (pp. 27-48). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52. Macias, R. F., & Wiley, T. G. (1998). Introduction to the 2nd edition: The American bilingual tradition. In H. Kloss (Ed.), The American bilingual tradition.Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems. (Original work published 1977)
53. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Toward a shared craft. Educational Researcher, 13, 20-30.
54. Molera, J. A. (2001). Guidance regarding the implementation of A.R.S. Section 15-751-755 and Flores Consent Order (CIV 92-596 TUC ACM). Phoenix: Arizona Department of Education.
55. Napolitano, J. (2001). Attorney general opinion No. I01-006 (R00-062), Re: Application of Proposition 203 to schools serving the Navajo Nation. Phoenix, AZ: Office ofthe Attorney General. Retrieved January 31,2005, from http://www.ag.state.az.us/opinions/2001/I01-006.html
56. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2002). The growing number oflimited English proficient students, 1991/92 -2001/02 [Poster]. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved January 31, 2005, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/policy/states/stateposter.pdf
57. No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).
58. Pearce, K. (2000a, January 25). Tricky math in AIMS test, teachers say. Arizona Republic, p. A1.
59. Pearce, K. (2000b, March 18). Mistake made in AIMS scoring. Arizona Republic, p. A1.
60. Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (2000). Reading, writing and learning in ESL: A resource book for K-12 teachers. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
61. Proposition 203, English for the Children, Arizona voter initiative (2000).
62. Proposition 227, English for the Children, California voter initiative (1998).
63. QSR International Pty. Ltd. (2002). QSR NVivo (Version 2.0163).
64. Question 2, English Language Education in Public Schools, Massachusetts voter initiative (2002).
65. Rivera, C. (2002). Preliminary findings: State assessment policies for English language learners 2000-2001. Paper presented at the National Association for Bilingual Education, Philadelphia.
66. Rivera, C., Vincent, C., Hafner, A., & LaCelle-Peterson, M. (1997). Statewide assessment programs: Policies and practices for the inclusion of limited English proficient students [Electronic version]. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 5(13). Retrieved March 29, 2005, from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=5&n=13
67. Ruelas, R. (2003, December 29). Checking up on English lesson plan. Arizona Republic.
68. Ryman, A. (2004, January 16). Teacher faces firing for hitting children. Arizona Republic, p. A1.
69. Ryman, A., & Madrid, O. (2004, January 17). Hispanics upset by teacher’s discipline. Arizona Republic.
70. Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2003). Effective reading programs for English language learners: A best-evidence synthesis (Report No. 66). Baltimore: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, John Hopkins University.
71. U.S. Department of Education. (2003a). Non-regulatoryguidance on the Title III State Formula Grant Program. Part 1: Preliminary guidance on the Title III State Formula Grant Program.Washington, DC: Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students.
72. U.S. Department of Education. (2003b). Standards and assessment: Nonregulatory guidance (Draft). Washington, DC: Author.
73. Wiley, T. G. (2000). Continuity and change in the function of language ideologies in the United States. In T. Ricento (Ed.), Ideology, politics, and language policies: Focus on English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
74. Wiley, T. G. (2002). Accessing language rights in education: A brief history ofthe U.S. Context. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education (pp. 39-64). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
75. Wiley, T. G., & Wright, W. E. (2004). Against the undertow: The politics of language instruction in the United States. Educational Policy, 18(1), 142-168.
76. Wright, W. E. (2002). The effects of high stakes testing on an inner-city elementary school: The curriculum, the teachers, and the English language learners [Electronic version]. CurrentIssues in Education, 5(5). Retrieved January 31,2005, from http://cie.asu.edu/volume5/number5
77. Wright, W. E. (2003). The success and demise of a Khmer (Cambodian) bilingual education program: A case study. In C. C. Park, A. L. Goodwin, & S. J. Lee (Eds.), Asian American identities, families, andschooling (pp. 225-252). Greenwich, CT: InformationAge Publishing.
78. Wright, W. E. (2004). Intersection of language and assessment policies for English language learners in Arizona. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.
79. Wright, W. E. (in press). The political spectacle of Proposition 203. Education Policy.
80. Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
81. Zehr, M. A. (2001, January 24). Arizona grapples with bilingual ed. changes. Education Week, 20(19) pp. 14-16.