Language Policy

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 267–284 | Cite as

Marginalizing English as a second language teacher expertise: The exclusionary consequence of No Child Left Behind

  • Candace A. Harper
  • Ester J. de Jong
  • Elizabeth J. Platt
Original Paper


No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001) fails to recognize English as a second language (ESL) as a specialized academic discipline in which teachers should be “highly qualified.” In this paper we examine the impact of this policy failure on the practice of teachers of K-12 English language learners (ELLs), particularly in the context of reading instruction governed by Reading First under NCLB. We draw on teachers’ perspectives through interviews conducted with 52 ESL teachers addressing the impact of NCLB in Florida schools. Findings include the devaluing of ESL teacher expertise and instructional roles, and the homogenization of curriculum, instruction, and assessment of ELLs whose needs disappear in the mainstream educational setting. We recommend that re-authorization of NCLB, future state legislation and district policies explicitly acknowledge the distinct linguistic, cultural, and academic learning characteristics of ELLs and the specialized professional knowledge and skills required for teachers who are highly qualified to teach them.


English language learners English as a second language Highly qualified teachers No Child Left Behind Reading First Teacher expertise 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allington, R. L. (Ed.). (2002). Big brother and the national reading curriculum: How ideology trumped evidence. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  3. Antunez, B. (2002). Implementing Reading First with English language learners (Directions in Language and Education No. 15). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational Programs. Available at
  4. Arkoudis, S. (2005). Fusing pedagogic horizons: Language and content teaching in the mainstream. Linguistics and Education, 16, 173–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Bacchi, C. (2000). Policy as discourse: What does it mean? Where does it get us? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 21(1), 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butler, T. (2007). Commissioner Blomberg congratulates “A” and “B” schools. Retrieved February 12, 2008 from
  8. Byrnes, H. (2005). Perspectives. Modern Language Journal, 89, 582–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chatterji, M. (2005). Closing Florida’s achievement gap. FIE Policy Brief 4. Florida Institute of Education at the University of North Florida. Jacksonville, FL.Google Scholar
  10. Commins, N. L., & Miramotes, O. B. (2005). Linguistic diversity and teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Corson, D. (1999). Language policy in schools: A resource for teachers and administrators. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Crandall, J. A. (Ed.). (1995). ESL through content-area instruction. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
  13. Crawford, J. (2003). A few things Ron Unz would prefer you didn’t know about English learners in California. Retrieved February 12, 2008 from
  14. Crawford, J. (2004). No Child Left Behind: Misguided approach to school accountability for English language learners. Forum on Ideas to Improve the NCLB Accountability Provisions for Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners. Center on Education Policy. Available at
  15. Creese, A. (2005). Teacher collaboration and talk in multilingual classrooms. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  16. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  17. Cummins, J. (2007). Pedagogies for the poor? Realigning reading instruction for low-income students with scientifically based reading research. Educational Researcher, 36, 564–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davison, C. (2001). ESL in Australian schools: From the margins to the mainstream. In B. Mohan, C. Leung & C. Davison (Eds.), English as a second language in the mainstream: Teaching, learning and identity (pp. 11–29). London: Pearson.Google Scholar
  19. Evans, B., & Hornberger, N. H. (2005). No child left behind: Repealing and unpeeling federal language education policy in the United States. Language Policy, 4, 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Florida Department of Education. (1995). Inclusion as an instructional model for LEP students. Technical Assistance Paper No. 019-ESOL-95. Tallahassee, Florida.Google Scholar
  21. Freeman, D. E., & Freeman, Y. S. (2000). Teaching reading in multilingual classrooms. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  22. Gamse, B. C., Bloom, H. S., Kemple, J. J., & Jacob, R. T. (2008). Reading First impact study: Interim report. Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  23. Goodman, K., Shannon, P., Goodman, Y., & Rapoport, R. (Eds.). (2004). Saving our schools: The case for public education saying no to “No Child Left Behind”. Berkeley, CA: RDR Books.Google Scholar
  24. Harklau, L. (1994). ESL and mainstream classes: Contrasting second language learning contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 241–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. de Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2004). Is ESL just good teaching? In M. Bigelow & C. Walker (Eds.), Creating teacher community: selected papers from the third international conference on language teacher education (pp. 115–131). Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquistion.Google Scholar
  26. de Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English language learners: Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 101–124.Google Scholar
  27. Harper, C. A., & de Jong, E. J. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching English language learners. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(2), 152–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harper, C. A., & de Jong, E. J. (2005). Working with ELLs: What’s the difference? In A. Huerta Macias (Ed.), Working with English language learners: Perspectives and practice (pp. 107–135). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.Google Scholar
  29. Harper, C. A., & de Jong, E. J. (in press). English language teacher expertise: The Elephant in the room. Education.Google Scholar
  30. Harper, C. A., & Platt, E. J. (Fall, 1998). Full inclusion for secondary ESOL students: Some concerns from Florida. TESOL Journal. 30–36.Google Scholar
  31. Harper, C. A., & Platt, E. J. (2007). No Child Left Behind is language policy. Paper presented at the meeting of the American association of applied linguistics, Costa Mesa CA.Google Scholar
  32. Harper, C. A., Platt, E. J., Naranjo, C. J., & Boynton, S. S. (2007). Marching in unison: Florida ESL teachers and No Child Left Behind. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 642–651.Google Scholar
  33. Krashen, S. D. (2002). More smoke and mirrors: A critique of the National Reading Panel Report on fluency. In R. L. Allington (Ed.), Big brother and the national reading curriculum: How ideology trumped evidence (pp. 112–124). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  34. Langman, J. (2003). The effects of ESL-trained content-area teacher: Reducing middle-school students to incidental language learners. Prospect, 18(1), 14–26.Google Scholar
  35. Menken, K. (2006). Teaching to the test: How No Child Left Behind impacts language policy, curriculum, instruction for English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 521–546.Google Scholar
  36. Menken, K. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  37. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Mohan, B., Leung, C., & Davison, C. (2001). English as a second language in the mainstream: Teaching, learning, and identity. Essex, UK: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  39. Molnar, A. (Ed.). (2004). Reform Florida. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University Policy Research Unit. Available at
  40. Moore, H. (2007). Non-language policies and ESL: Some connections. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 573–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Retrieved June 11, 2008 from
  42. Olsen, L. (1997). Made in America. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  43. Orfield, G., Losen, D., Wald, J., & Swanson, C., (2004). Losing our future: How minority youth are being left behind by the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Contributors: Advocates for Children of New York, The Civil Society Institute.Google Scholar
  44. Platt, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (Fall, 1997). Problems and possibilities of inclusion for LEP students. Sunshine State TESOL Journal, 9–19.Google Scholar
  45. Platt, E. J., Harper, C. A., & Mendoza, M. B. (2003). Dueling philosophies: Inclusion or separation for Florida’s English language learners? TESOL Quarterly, 37(1), 105–133.Google Scholar
  46. Platt, E. J., & Troudi, S. (1997). Mary and her teachers: A Grebo-speaking child’s place in the mainstream classroom. Modern Language Journal, 81, 28–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reeves, J. (2004). “Like everybody else”: Equalizing educational opportunity for English language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 43–66.Google Scholar
  48. Ricento, T., & Hornberger, N. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 401–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 207–217.Google Scholar
  50. Stoller, F. L. (2004). Content-based instruction: Perspectives on curriculum planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 261–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. TESOL. (2002). TESOL/NCATE P-12 standards for teacher education programs. Alexandria, VA. Online documents at URL September 3, 2007.
  52. TESOL. (2006). PreK-12 English language proficiency standards. Alexandria, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  53. Warford, J. (2005). Enrollment of Limited English Proficient students in required intenstive reading courses. Memorandum to Florida district school superintendent. Tallahassee, FL.Google Scholar
  54. Wright, W. E. (2006). A catch-22 for language learners. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 22–27.Google Scholar
  55. Zehler, A., Fleischman, H., Hopstock, P., Stephenson, T., Pendizick, M., & Sapru, S. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities (Vol. 1). Research Report. Retrieved February 11, 2008 from

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Candace A. Harper
    • 1
  • Ester J. de Jong
    • 2
  • Elizabeth J. Platt
    • 3
  1. 1.GainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.GainesvilleUSA
  3. 3.TallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations