High-stakes math tests: How No Child Left behind leaves newcomer English language learners behind

Language Policy

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 237-266

  Wright, Wayne E ^a   Li, Xiaoshi ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

English language learners; High stakes testing; Language policy; Math; No Child Left Behind; Opportunity to learn

Indexed keywords

EID: 51649099418     PISSN: 15684555     EISSN: 15731863     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10993-008-9099-2     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Abedi, J. (2001). Assessment and accommodations for English language learners: Issue and recommendations. Policy Brief 4 Los Angeles, CA: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
2. Abedi, J. (2003). Standardized achievement tests and English language learners: Psychometric issues. Educational Assessment, 8(3), 231-258. doi: 10.1207/S15326977EA0803_02.
3. Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4-14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X033001004.
4. Abedi, J., & Lord, C. (2001). The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 14(3), 219-234. doi: 10.1207/S15324818AME1403_2.
5. Abedi, J., Lord, C., Hofstetter, C., & Baker, E. L. (2000). Impact of accommodation strategies on English language learner's test performance. Educational Measurement. Issues and Practices, 19(3), 16-26. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2000.tb00034.x.
6. Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002a). An analysis of some unintended and negative consequences of high-stakes testing. Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Research Unit, Education Policy Studies Laboratory, Arizona State University.
7. Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002b). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18). Retrieved May 15, 2003 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/.
8. Barwell, R., Leung, C., Morgan, C., & Street, B. (2002). The language dimension of mathematics teaching. Mathematics Teaching, 180, 12-15.
9. Brown, C. L. (2005). Equity of literacy-based math performance assessments for English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(2), 337-364.
10. Carey, K. (2006). Hot air: How states inflate their educational progress under NCLB. Washington, DC: Education Sector.
11. Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom. Los Angeles: Bilingual Education Services, Inc.
12. Crawford, J. (2007). No Child Left Behind: A failure for English language learners. Tacoma Park, MD: Institute for Language and Education Policy. Retrieved September 5, 2007 from http://www.elladvocates.org/documents/nclb/ NCLB_and_ELLs.pdf.
13. Dale, T. C., & Cuevas G. J. (1992). Integrating mathematics and language learning. In P. A. Richard-Amato & M. A. Snow (Eds.), The multicultural classroom: Readings for content-area teachers (pp. 330-348). New York: Longman.
14. Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). From "separate but equal" to "No Child Left Behind": The collision of new standards and old inequalities. In D. Meir & G. Wood (Eds.), Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools (pp. 3-32). Boston: Beacon Press.
15. de Cohen, C. C., Deterding, N., & Clewell, B. C. (2005). Who's left behind? Immigrant children in high and low LEP schools. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
16. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York: MacMillan.
17. Fuller, B., Gesicki, K., Kang, E., & Wright, J. (2006). Is the No Child Left Behind Act working? The reliability of how states track achievement. Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education, University of California, Berkeley.
18. Hake, S., & Saxon, J. (1995). Math 54: An incremental development. Norman, OK: Saxon Publishers, Inc.
19. Haladyna, T. (2002). Essentials of standardized testing. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
20. Haycock, K. (2006). No more invisible kids. Educational Leadership, 64(1), 38-42.
21. Kim, J. S., & Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational Researcher, 34(8), 3-13. doi: 10.3102/0013189X034008003.
22. Liu, K., Anderson, M. E., Swierzbin, B., & Thurlow, M. (1999). Bilingual accommodations for limited English proficient students on statewide reading tests: Phase 1 (Minnesota Report 20). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved January 1, 2003, http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/MnReport20.html.
23. Mathis, W. J. (2006). The accuracy and effectiveness of Adequate Yearly Progress, NCLB's school evaluation system. Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Research Unit, Education Policy Studies, Arizona State University. Retrieved September 27, 2006 from http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0609-212-EPRU. pdf.
24. Meir, D., & Wood, G. (2004). Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools. Boston: Beacon Press.
25. Menken, K. (2006). Teaching to the test: How standardized testing promoted by No Child Left Behind impacts language policy, curriculum, and instruction for English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 521-546.
26. Menken, K. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
27. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
28. Ministry of Education. (2004). Cambodian education strategic plan 2004-2008. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Royal Government of Cambodia.
29. Ministry of Education Youth and Sports. (2003). Mathematics 4. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Author.
30. Monroe, J. R. (2006). Testing the low class: Standardized assessment in the lives of Hispanic ELL students. PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland. Retrieved September 3, 2007 from http://www.elladvocates.org/documents/ dissertations/Ryan_Monroe_Dissertation.pdf.
31. Nichols, S., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America's schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
32. Nichols, S., Glass, G., & Berliner, D. C. (2005). High stakes testing and student achievement: Problems for the No Child Left Behind Act. Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Research Unit, Education Policy Studies Laboratory, Arizona State University.
33. Ohanian, S. (2002). What happened to recess and why are our children struggling in kindergarten? New York: McGraw Hill.
34. Planning Department. (2006). Education statistics and indicators (School year 01/02). Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports.
35. Rivera, C., & Collum, E. (Eds.). (2006). State assessment policy and practice for English language learners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36. Rossell, C. H. (2005). Making uneven strides: State standards for achieving English language proficiency under the No Child Left Behind Act. Arlington, VA: Lexington Institute.
37. Rothstein, R., Jacobsen, R., & Wilder, T. (2006). "Proficiency for all"-An oxymoron. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
38. Sunderman, G. L., Kim, J. S., & Orfield, G. (2005). NCLB meets school realities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39. Thurlow, M., Liu, K., Erickson, R., Spicuzza, R., & El Sawaf, H. (1996). Accomodations for students with limited English proficiency: Analysis of guidelines for states with graduation exams (Minnesota Report 6). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved January 24, 2003 from http://education/umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/MnReport6.html.
40. Um, K. (1999). Scars of war: Educational issues and challenges for Cambodian-American students. In C. C. Park, M. Mei-Ying Chi (Eds.), Asian-American education: Prospects and challenges (pp. 263-284). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
41. Wiley, T. G. (2005). Literacy and language diversity in the United States. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
42. Wiley, T. G., & Wright, W. E. (2004). Against the undertow: The politics of language instruction in the United States. Educational Policy, 18(1), 142-168. doi: 10.1177/0895904803260030.
43. Wright, W. E. (2005a). English language learners left behind in Arizona: The nullification of accommodations in the intersection of federal and state policies. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1), 1-30.
44. Wright, W. E. (2005b). Evolution of federal policy and implications of No Child Left Behind for language minority students. Tempe, AZ: Language Policy Research Unit, Education Policy Studies Laboratory, Arizona State University. Available from http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0501-101-LPRU. pdf.
45. Wright, W. E. (2006). A Catch-22 for language learners. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 22-27.
46. Wright, W. E., & Choi, D. (2006). The impact of language and high-stakes testing policies on elementary school English language learners in Arizona. Education Policy Analysis Archives [Online], 14(13), Available from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v14n13/.
47. Wright, W. E., & Li, X. (2006). Catching up in math? The case of newly-arrived Cambodian students in a Texas intermediate school. TABE Journal, 9(1), 1-22.