Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T14:23:04.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND AND ITS EFFECTS ON LANGUAGE POLICY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2009

Kate Menken
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The most recent federal education policy in the United States, titled No Child Left Behind (NCLB), was passed into law in 2001. High-stakes testing is the core of NCLB, as tests are used to hold each school, district, and state accountable for student performance, therein affording the federal government greater control over the constitutionally decentralized national system of U.S. education. Because the tests being used are administered in English, English language learners (ELLs) typically fail to meet the law's annual progress requirements, resulting in serious consequences for the students and their schools. This article reviews research about the effects of NCLB on language policies in education. Empirical studies show that the law—which is at face value merely an educational policy—is in actuality a de facto language policy. After explaining the law's assessment mandates, this article provides analyses of the wording of NCLB from a language policy perspective. It also reviews studies about the limitations of the required tests as instruments to carry out the law's demands, and about the effects of the law on instruction and the educational experiences of ELLs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 29 , March 2009 , pp. 103 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

Evans, B., & Hornberger, N. (2005). No Child Left Behind: Repealing and unpeeling federal language education policy in the United States. Language Policy, 4, 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. (2007). Language policy within and without the school district of Philadelphia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Menken, K. (2008a). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menken, K., & Shohamy, E. (Eds.). (2008, September). No Child Left Behind and U.S. language education policy. Thematic issue. Language Policy, 7 (3).Google Scholar
Solórzano, R. (2008, June). High stakes testing: Issues, implications, and remedies for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 78 (2), 260–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, T., & Wright, W. (2004). Against the undertow: Language-minority education policy and politics in the “age of accountability.” Educational Policy, 18 (1), 142–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

OTHER REFERENCES

Abedi, J., & Dietal, R. (2004, Winter). Challenges in the No Child Left Behind Act for English language learners. (CRESST Policy Brief 7.) Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abedi, J., Hofstetter, C., & Lord, C. (2004, Spring). Assessment accommodations for English language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review of Educational Research, 74 (1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrnes, H. (2005) Perspectives, No Child Left Behind. Modern Language Journal 89 (2), 246–282.Google Scholar
Center on Education Policy. (2005). States try harder, but gaps persist: High school exit exams. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
Crawford, J. (2002, Summer). Obituary: The Bilingual Education Act, 1968–2002. Rethinking schools online, 16 (4), 1–4. Retrieved July 25, 2006, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/16_04/Bi1164.shtmlGoogle Scholar
Crawford, J. (2004). No Child Left Behind: Misguided approach to school accountability for English language learners. Paper for the forum on ideas to improve the NCLB accountability provisions for students with disabilities and English language learners. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy & National Association for Bilingual Education.Google Scholar
Crawford, J. (2007a). A diminished vision of civil rights: No Child Left Behind and the growing divide in how educational equity is understood. Education Week, 26 (39), 31, 40.Google Scholar
Crawford, J. (2007b, March). The decline of bilingual education: How to reverse a troubling trend? International Multilingual Research Journal, 1 (1), 33–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dee, T., & Jacob, B. (2006, April). Do high school exit exams influence educational attainment or labor market performance? (NBER Working Article No. W12199). Retrieved July 11, 2006, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=900985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gándara, P., & Baca, G. (2008, September). NCLB and California's English language learners: The perfect storm. Language Policy, 7 (3), 201–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldenberg, C. (2008, Summer). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does not—say. American Educator, 8–44. Retrieved July 18, 2008, from http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/summer08/goldenberg.pdfGoogle Scholar
González, J. (2002, Summer). Editor's introduction: Bilingual education and the federal role, if any. . . . Bilingual Research Journal, 26 (2), i–v.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Government Accountability Office. (2006). No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from education could help states better measure progress of students with limited English proficiency. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
Heubert, J., & Hauser, R. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Hornberger, N., & Johnson, D. (2007, September). Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41 (3), 509–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopriva, R. (2000). Ensuring accuracy in testing for English language learners. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State Officers.Google Scholar
McNamara, T., & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Menken, K. (in press). Policy failures: No Child Left Behind and English language learners. In Groenke, S. & Hatch, A. (Eds.), Small openings: Critical pedagogy in teacher education in neoliberal times. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Menken, K. (2008b, September). Editorial 7.3: Introduction to the thematic issue. Language Policy, 7 (3), 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2006). History. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved October 1, 2008, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/policy/1_history.htmGoogle Scholar
Nichols, S., & Berliner, D. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America's schools. Boston: Harvard Education.Google Scholar
Olneck, M. (2005). The No Child Left Behind Act's abolition of the Bilingual Education Act: Dismantling progress or furthering opportunity? Paper presented at the conference on Accountability, Equity, and Democracy in the Public Schools: The No Child Left Behind Act and the Federal Role in Education, University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
Palmer, D., & Lynch, A. (2008, September). A bilingual education for a monolingual test? The pressure to prepare for TAKS and its influence on choices for language of instruction in Texas elementary bilingual classrooms. Language Policy, 7 (3), 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennock-Roman, M., & Rivera, C. (2007). Test validity and mean effects of test accommodations for ELLs and non-ELLs: A meta-analysis. Washington, DC: Center for Equity and Excellence in Education, George Washington University.Google Scholar
Rogers, J., Holme, J., & Silver, D. (2006). More questions than answers: CAHSEE results, opportunity to learn, & the class of 2006. Los Angeles: UCLA/IDEA. Retrieved August 10, 2008, from http://www.idea.gseis.ucla.edu/resources/exitexam/pdfs/IDEA-CAHSEEff.pdfGoogle Scholar
Rotberg, I. (2000, March 29). Campaign 2000: Notes to the next president on education policy. Education Week, 19 (28).Google Scholar
Reyes, L. (2008, September). Systemic crisis for English language learners in New York City. Unpublished memorandum to State Commissioner Mills. Retrieved September 28, 2008, from http://www.elladvocates.org/documents/NY/Systemic_Crisis.pdfGoogle Scholar
Rivera, C., & Collum, E. (Eds.). (2006). State assessment policy and practice for English language learners: A national perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning.NABE Journal, 8, 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical view of the uses of language tests. Essex, England: Pearson, Longman.Google Scholar
Shohamy, E. (2008). Language policy and language assessment: The relationship. Overview. Current Issues in Language Planning, 9 (3), 363–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stansfield, C., & Rivera, C. (2002). How will English language learners be accommodated in state assessments? In Lissitz, R. & Scafer, W. (Eds.), Assessment in educational reform: Both means and ends (pp. 125–144). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Sullivan, P., Yeager, M., Chudowsky, N., Kober, N., O'Brien, E., & Gayler, K. (2005). State high school exit exams: States try harder, but gaps persist. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.Google Scholar
Warren, J., Jenkins, K., & Kulick, R. (2005). High school exit examinations and state level completion and GED rates, 1975–2002. Paper prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Boston, April 2004. Retrieved July 11, 2006, from http://www.soc.umn.edu/~warren/WJK.pdffGoogle Scholar
Wright, W., & Li, X. (2008, September). Language Policy, 7 (3), 237–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zehler, A., Fleishman, H., Hopstock, P., Stephenson, T., Pendzik, M., & Sapru, S. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and to LEP students with disabilities; Policy report: Summary of findings related to LEP and SpEd-LEP students. Arlington, VA: Development Associates.Google Scholar