Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 337–363 | Cite as

Competing purposes of education: The case of underschooled immigrant students

  • Kristy Drake
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Recent global events have led to a striking rise of displaced people and refugees worldwide. Every year, the United States resettles nearly 70,000 refugees, with a large minority resettling in one California school district. Approximately 3000 students from refugee families are enrolled in local schools, many of whom lack prior formal education in their home countries. Further compounding the challenge is the recent onset of rigorous local and state policies. While several studies exist on teachers’ sensemaking of educational policies more generally, no studies deal with the role of teachers in mediating the intersection of policy and underschooled immigrant students. Using a sensemaking perspective, this qualitative study explores how teachers conceptualize their role as mediators between policy and student needs. Analysis of district policy-related documents, classroom observations, and interviews with school and district staff revealed that teachers balanced multiple layers of factors in their sensemaking of broad-based district policy in the case of underschooled immigrant students. Though the district presented a unified policy message related to graduation requirements, participants articulated different purposes of school for underschooled immigrant students. These differing perceptions affected how teachers conceptualized their role. This study’s contributions to research and theory, as well as implications for policy, practice, and future research are also discussed.

Keywords

Educational policy Immigrant education Purpose of school Refugee Refugee education Teacher sensemaking Underschooled immigrant student 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Albright, J., & Luke, A. (2007). Pierre Bourdieu and literacy education (pp. 5–765). New York: Routledge. doi: 10.3102/00028312021004755.Google Scholar
  2. American Civil Liberties Union. (2015). Federal Judge Orders Lancaster School District to Immediately Transfer Refugee Students from Alternative School. Retrieved December 27, 2016, from https://www.aclu.org/news/federal-judge-orders-lancaster-school-district-immediately-transfer-refugee-students
  3. Auerbach, E. R. (1992). Making meaning, making change: Participatory curriculum development or adult ESL literacy. Washington, DC: Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.Google Scholar
  4. Boyson, B. A., & Short, D. J. (1997). Secondary newcomer programs in the United States: 1996–1997 directory. In Report: ED411703. 233 pp. 1997. CREDE, Center for Applied Linguistics, 1118 22nd Street N.W., Washington, DC 20037-1214. Retrieved December 10, 2012 from http://search.proquest.com/eric/docview/62498410/13895CF258163F1C2AD/2?accountid=14524
  5. Browder, C. T. (2015). The educational outcomes of US high school English-learner students with limited or interrupted formal education. In A. Whiteside & M. G. Santos (Eds.), Low educated second language and literacy acquisition: Proceedings of the 9th symposium (pp. 150–172). San Francisco, CA: Lulu Publishing Services.Google Scholar
  6. Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Collier, V. P. (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 23(3), 509–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Center, I. P. (2014). Refugees: A fact sheet. Washington DC: American Immigration Counsel. Retrieved April 1, 2015.Google Scholar
  10. Cummins, J. (1978). Educational implications of mother tongue maintenance in minority language groups. Canadian Modern Language Review, 34(3), 395–416.Google Scholar
  11. Cummins, J. (1981a). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada: A reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 132–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cummins, J. (1981b). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework, pp. 3–49.Google Scholar
  13. Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2009). Conceptualizing policy implementation: Large-scale reform in an era of complexity. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 348–361). New York: Routledge Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. DeCapua, A., & Marshall, H. W. (2010). Serving ELLs with limited or interrupted education: Intervention that works. TESOL Journal, 1, 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeCapua, A., & Marshall, H. W. (2015). Reframing the conversation about students with limited or interrupted formal education: From achievement gap to cultural dissonance. NASSP Bulletin, 99(4), 356–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeCapua, A., Smathers, W., & Tang, L. F. (2009). Meeting the needs of students with limited or interrupted schooling: A guide for educators. Ann Arbor, IL: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dooley, K. (2009). Re-thinking pedagogy for middle school students with little, no or severely interrupted schooling. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 25(5), 385–397.Google Scholar
  18. Feinberg, R. C. (2000). Newcomer schools: Salvation or segregated oblivion for immigrant students? Theory into Practice, 39(4), 220–227. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip3904_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. E. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: How to reach limited-formal-schooling and long-term english learners. Westport, CT: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  20. Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  21. Hernandez, D., Denton, N., & Macartney, S. (2009). School-age children in immigrant families: Challenges and opportunities for America’s schools. The Teachers College Record, 111(3), 616–658.Google Scholar
  22. Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jennings, J. L. (2010). School choice or schools’ choice? Managing in an era of accountability. Sociology of Education, 83(3), 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krashen, S. D., Long, M. A., & Scarcella, R. C. (1979). Age, rate and eventual attainment in second language acquisition. Tesol Quarterly, 9, 573–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McBrien, L. J. (2005). Educational needs and barriers for refugee students in the United States: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 329–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. New York Department of Education. (2015). Educator resources. Retrieved December 27, 2016, from http://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/ELL/EducatorResources/SIFE.htm
  27. Orellana, M. J., Dorner, L., & Pulido, L. (2003). Accessing assets: Immigrant youth’s work as family translators or ‘para-phrasers’. Social Problems, 50(4), 505–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ruiz-de-Velasco, J. and Fix, M. (2000). Overlooked and underserved: Immigrant students in US secondary schools. Text. Retrieved October 30, 2012 from http://www.urban.org/publications/310022.html
  29. Sleegers, P., Wassink, H., van Veen, K., & Imants, J. (2009). School leaders’ problem framing: A sense-making approach to problem-solving processes of beginning school leaders. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(2), 152–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Spillane, J. P. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers’ efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers’ zones of enactment. Journal of curriculum Studies, 31(2), 143–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Spillane, J. P., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2009). How principals and peers influence teaching and learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California at Santa Cruz, Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence.Google Scholar
  35. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2014). UNHCR Global Resettlement Statistical Report 2014. Retrieved June 24, 2016, from http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/protection/resettlement/52693bd09/unhcr-global-resettlement-statistical-report-2014.html
  36. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2015). Global Trends 2015. Retrieved June 24, 2016, from http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/global-trends-2015.html
  37. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Winthrop, R., & Kirk, J. (2008). Learning for a bright future: Schooling, armed conflict, and children’s well-being. Comparative Education Review, 52(4), 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California, San DiegoEl CajonUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options