Advertisement

Language Policy

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 87–106 | Cite as

No child left behind: repealing and Unpeeling federal language education policy in the united states

  • Bruce A. Evans
  • Nancy H. Hornberger
Article

Abstract

For more than three decades US language education policy was realized through the Bilingual Education Act, enacted in 1968 to meet the educational needs of language minority students. The Bilingual Education Act emphasized bilingual education and provided options for the development of students’ native language as well as their English language proficiency and academic achievement. In 2002 the Bilingual Education Act expired and was replaced by the English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act. Drawing on Ricento and Hornberger’s [(1996) TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401--428] ‘onion metaphor’ for the multi-layered nature of language planning and policy, this paper considers the potential impact changes in language education policy may have on programs and practices for language minority students. A summary of interview responses from a small sample of Southern Oregon educators provides an added perspective.

Keywords

bilingual education language minority education language planning orientation No Child Left Behind onion metaphor in language policy and planning scientifically based research teachers’ understandings 

Abbreviations

LEP

Limited English Proficient

OBEMLA

Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs

OELALEAALEPS

Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited-English-Proficient Students

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abedi, Jamal 2004The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issuesEducational Researcher33414Google Scholar
  2. Abedi, Jamal, Hofstetter, Carolyn H., Lord, Carol 2004Assessment accommodations for English language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical researchReview of Educational Research74128Google Scholar
  3. Anonymous (2004). A closer look at scientifically based research–what the words mean. The Journal. Retrieved from vault/A4684A.cfm on February 20, 2004.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, Colin 1996Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism.Multilingual MattersClevedon, UKGoogle Scholar
  5. Berliner, David 2002Educational research: The hardest science of allEducational Researcher31820Google Scholar
  6. Burnham-Massey, Laurie, Pina, Marilyn 1990Effects of reading instruction on English academic achievement of LEP childrenReading Improvement27129132Google Scholar
  7. Collier, Virginia 1992A synthesis of studies examining long-term language minority student data on academic achievementBilingual Research Journal16187212Google Scholar
  8. Collier, Virginia 1995Promoting academic success for ESL studentsNew Jersey Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages-Bilingual EducatorsNew JerseyGoogle Scholar
  9. Crawford, James (2002a). “Accountability” versus science in the bilingual education debate (EPSL-0204-101-LPRU). Education Policy Studies Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/LPRU/features/article3.htm on February 18, 2004.Google Scholar
  10. Crawford, James (2002b). Obituary: The bilingual education act, 1968–2002.Retrieved from JWCRAWFORD/T7obit.htm on September 12, 2003.Google Scholar
  11. Cummins, Jim 1976The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis of research findings and explanatory hypothesesWorking Papers on Bilingualism9143Google Scholar
  12. Cummins, Jim 1979Cognitive-academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, optimal age and some other mattersWorking Papers in Bilingualism19197205Google Scholar
  13. Cummins, Jim 1981Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada: A reassessmentApplied Linguistics11132149Google Scholar
  14. Cummins, Jim 1984Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy.College-HillSan Diego, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  15. Cummins, Jim 1992Language proficiency, bilingualism, and academic achievement.Richard-Amato, Patricia A.Marguerite Ann Snow,  eds. The multicultural classroomLongmanWhite Plains, New York1626Google Scholar
  16. Garza, , Valenzuela, Jesus, Marello , Medina 1985Academic achievement as influenced by bilingual instruction for Spanish-dominant Mexican American childrenHispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences7247259Google Scholar
  17. Erickson, Frederick, Gutiérrez, Kris 2002Culture, rigor, and science in educational researchEducational Researcher312124Google Scholar
  18. Hornberger, Nancy H. 2002Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An ecological approachLanguage Policy12751Google Scholar
  19. Hornberger, Nancy H. eds. 2003Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research and practice in multilingual settings.Multilingual MattersClevedon, UKGoogle Scholar
  20. Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994. Public Law 103-382 (October 20, 1994) United States Congress.Google Scholar
  21. Krashen, Stephen (1999, May 6). Bilingual education: Arguments for and (bogus) arguments against. Paper presented at the Georgetown University Roundtable on␣Language and Linguistics. Georgetown: Washington, D.C. Retrieved http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/Krashen3.htm on February␣20, 2004.Google Scholar
  22. Krashen, Stephen, McQuillan, Jeff 1999Structured immersion falls short of expectations: An analysis of Clark (1999)NABE News231315Google Scholar
  23. Mortensen, Eileen 1984Reading achievement of native Spanish-speaking elementary students in bilingual vs monolingual programs.Bilingual Review113136Google Scholar
  24. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Public Law 107-110 (January 8, 2002). United States Congress.Google Scholar
  25. Ramirez, J. David, Yuen, Sandra. D., & Ramey, Dena R. (1991). Final report: Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit programs for language-minority children. Report submitted to the US Department of Education. San Mateo, California: Aguirre International. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/ramirez/longitudinal.htm on February 25, 2004.Google Scholar
  26. Ricento, Thomas K., Hornberger, Nancy H. 1996Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professionalTESOL Quarterly30401428Google Scholar
  27. Ruiz, Richard 1984Orientations in language planningNABE Journal81534Google Scholar
  28. Schiffman, Harold F. 1996Linguistic culture and language policyRoutledgeNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Thomas, Wayne, Collier, Virginia 1995Language minority achievement and program effectivenessCalifornia Association for Bilingual Education Newsletter171924Google Scholar
  30. Thomas, Wayne, Collier, Virginia 1996Language-minority student achievement and program effectivenessNABE News193335Google Scholar
  31. Thomas, Wayne, Collier, Virginia 1997School effectiveness for language minority students.National Clearinghouse for Bilingual EducationWashington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. Toukomaa, Pertti, & Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove (1977). The intensive teaching of the mother tongue to migrant children at pre-school age (Research Report No. 26). Department of Sociology and Social Psychology, University of Tampere.Google Scholar
  33. US Department of Education (2002). Strategic goal four: Transform education into an evidence-based field. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/strat/plan2002-07/plan.pdf on February 25, 2004.Google Scholar
  34. US Supreme Court (1974). LAU v. NICHOLS, 414 U.S. 563. Retrieved from FindLaw.com ? court=us&vol=414&invol=563 (para 15 & 16) on November 5, 2003.Google Scholar
  35. Wong Fillmore, Lily 1991Second language learning in children: A model of language learning in social contextBialystok, Ellen eds. Language processing in bilingual childrenCambridge University PressCambridge4966Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Southern Oregon UniversityAshlandUSA
  2. 2.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations