Language Policy

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 191–199 | Cite as

Editorial 7.3: Introduction to the thematic issue

  • Kate Menken


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. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Cheng, L., Watanabe, Y., & Curtis, A. (Eds.). (2004). Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language planning and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Corson, D. (1999). Language policy in schools: A resource for teachers and administrators. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Crawford, J. (1999). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory and practice. Los Angeles: Bilingual Education Services Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Crawford, J. (2000). At war with diversity: U.S. language policy in an age of anxiety. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  8. Crawford, J. (2002, Summer). Obituary: The bilingual ed act, 1968–2002. Rethinking schools online, 16(4): 1–4. Retrieved July 13, 2008 from,
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Hill, P. (2000). The federal role in education. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy 2000 (pp. 11–40). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hornberger, N. (2006). Frameworks and models in language policy and planning. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 24–41). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Manna, P. (2006). School’s in: Federalism and the national education agenda. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Menken, K. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  16. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2006). How has the English language learner population changed in recent years? Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved June 12, 2008
  17. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2007). The growing number of limited English proficient students 1995/96–2005/06. Poster. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved June 12, 2008 from
  18. New York City Department of Education, Office of English Language Learners. (2008). New York City’s English language learners: Demographics and performance. Draft Report. New York: Author.Google Scholar
  19. Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. London: Longman/Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  20. Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). QT-P16 Language spoken at home: 2000. Census 2000 Summary File 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  23. U.S. Department of Education. (2001). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. P.L. 107–110. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  24. U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Education Secretary. (2006). Secretary spellings announces partnership with states to improve accountability for limited English proficient students. Press Release, July 27, 2006.Google Scholar
  25. Wall, D. (1997). Impact and washback in language testing. In C. Clapham & D. Corson (Eds.), Language testing and assessment, Encyclopedia of language and education, Volume 7. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.City University of New York—Queens College & Graduate CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations