Abstract
Federal education legislation has had a major impact on US public schooling in recent years. In 2001, US Congress passed No Child Left Behind (NCLB)into law, generating in its wake a large number of both intended and unintended consequences. Although the law is slated for reauthorization within the next few years, it is unclear at present if it would change substantially or not and, regardless, it is likely to have lasting effects on teaching and learning for many years to come. Thus, all educators and stakeholders in public education need to be informed about how NCLB translates into classroom practice, so that they can better understand how it affects students and teachers, and so that they might play a role in informing future education policy decisions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Abedi, J., & Dietal, R. (2004). 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.
Abedi, J., Hofstetter, C., & Lord, C. (2004). Assessment accommodations for English language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 1–28.
Amrein, A. & Berliner, D. (2002). An analysis of some unintended and negative consequences of high-stakes testing. Education Policy Research Unit, Arizona State University. http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/epru_2002_Research_Writing.htm. Accessed Retrieved 15 March 15 2003.
Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th ed.). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Crawford, J. (2004). No child left behind: Misguided approach to school accountability for English language learners. Paper presented at the Forum on Ideas to Improve the NCLB Accountability Provisions for Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners, Washington, DC.
Dee, T. & Jacob, B. (2006). Do high school exit exams influence educational attainment or labor market performance? NBER Working Paper, No. W12199. http://ssrn.com/abstract=900985. Accessed 11 July 2006.
Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. No child left behind. (2004). http://www.edweek.org/rc/issues/no-child-left-behind/levelId=1000&. Accessed 8 July 2008.
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.
Gándara, P. & Baca, G. (2008). NCLB and California’s English language learners: The perfect storm. Language Policy, 7(3), 1–16.
García, O. & Trubek, J. (1999). Where have all the minority educators gone and when will they ever learn? Educators for Urban Minorities, 1, 1–8.
Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does not—say. American Educator. http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/summer08/goldenberg.pdf. Accessed 18 July 2008.
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: Government Accountability Office.
Harper, C.A., de Jong, E.J., & Platt, E.J. (2008). Marginalizing English as a Second Language Teacher Expertise: The exclusionary consequence of No Child Left Behind. Language Policy 7(3), 267–284.
Heubert, J., & Hauser, R. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
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.
Krashen, S. & McField, G. (2005). What works? Reviewing the latest evidence on bilingual education. Language Learner, 1(2), 7–10.
Menken, K. (2000). What are the critical issues in wide-scale assessment of English language learners? NCBE Issue Brief No. 6. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/issuebriefs/ib6.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2002.
Menken, K. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Menken, K. & Antunez, B. (2001). An overview of the preparation and certification of teachers working with limited English proficient (LEP) students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Michelli, N. (2005). The politics of teacher education: Lessons from New York City. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 235–241.
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2006). Which states offer certification or endorsement in bilingual education or ESL? Washington, DC. http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/faq/09certif.html. Accessed 18 September 2008.
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2007). The growing number of limited English proficient students, 1995/96–2005/06.Washington, DC. http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/policy/states/reports/statedata/2005LEP/GrowingLEP_0506.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2008.
National Council of Teachers of English. (2008). English language Learners. < http://www.ncte.org/edpolicy/ell. Accessed 3 August 2008>.
New York City Department of Education (2006). http://schools.nyc.gov/default.aspx
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.
Nieto, S. (2003). Challenging current notions of “highly qualified teachers” through work in a teachers’ inquiry group. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(5), 386–398.
Ohio Education Agency (2007). The Elementary and secondary education act of 1965: From the war on poverty to no child left behind. http://www.ohea.org/GD/Templates/Pages/OEA/OEADetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=170&Content=8038. Accessed 1 August 2008.
Pennock-Roman, M. & Rivera, C. (2006, April). A review of test accommodations for ELLs: Effect sizes in reducing the mean achievement gap. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Rogers, J., Holme, J., & Silver, D. (2006). More questions than answers: CAHSEE results, opportunity to learn, & the class of 2006. UCLA/IDEA Publications. http://www.idea.gseis.ucla.edu/resources/exitexam/pdfs/IDEA-CAHSEEff.pdf. Accessed 10 August 2008.
Selwyn, D. (2007). Highly quantified teachers: NCLB and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(2), 124–137.
Shin, H. (with Bruno, R) (2003). Language use and English speaking ability, 2000: Census 2000 Brief. U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2008
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.
US Department of Education. (2001). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. P.L. 107–110. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students (2003, February). DRAFT Non- regulatory guidance on the Title III state formula grant program. Part II: Standards, assessments, and accountability. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
Valenzuela, A. (Ed.) (2005). Leaving children behind: How Texas-style accountability fails Latino youth. New York: State University of New York Press.
Viteritti, J., & Kosar, K. (2001). The tip of the iceberg: SURR schools and academic failure in New York City (Civic Report No. 16). New York: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science + Business Media B.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Menken, K. (2009). Policy Failures: No Child Left Behind and English Language Learners. In: Groenke, S.L., Hatch, J.A. (eds) Critical Pedagogy and Teacher Education in the Neoliberal Era. Explorations of Educational Purpose, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9588-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9588-7_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-9587-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-9588-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)