Teaching to the Test: How No Child Left Behind Impacts Language Policy, Curriculum, and Instruction for English Language Learners

Bilingual Research Journal

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 521-546

  Menken, Kate ^a  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 51649121532     PISSN: 15235882     EISSN: 15235890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15235882.2006.10162888     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Abedi, J., & Dietal, R. (2004, Winter). Challenges in the No Child Left Behind Act for English language learners. (CRESST Policy Brief No. 7). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
2. 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.
3. Amrein, A., & Berliner, D. (2002). An analysis of some unintended and negative consequencesofhigh-stakestesting. Retrieved March 15, 2003, from Arizona State University, Education Policy Studies Laboratory and Education Policy Research Unit Web site: http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0211-125-EPRU.pdf
4. Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (3rd. ed.). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
5. Blank, R., Manise, J., & Brathwaite, B. (1999). State education indicators with a focus on Title I. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
6. Brisk, M. (2005). Bilingual Education: From Compensatory to Quality Schooling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language planning and social change. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
8. Corson, D. (1999). Language policy in schools: A resource for teachers and administrators. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Crawford, J. (2000). At war with diversity: U.S. language policy in an age of anxiety. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
10. Cummins, J. (1992). Language proficiency, bilingualism, and academic achievement. In P. Richard-Amato & M. Snow (Eds.), The multicultural classroom: Readings for content-area teachers (pp. 16-26). White Plains, NY: Longman.
11. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
12. Del Valle, S. (2002). A briefing paper of the Puerto Rican legal defense fund on the new English regents exam and its impact on English language learners. New York: Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
13. Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Pub. L. No. 89-10, 79 Stat. 27 (1965).
14. Escamilla, K., Mahon, E., Riley-Bernal, H., & Rutledge, D. (2003). High-stakes testing, Latinos, and English language learners: Lessons from Colorado. Bilingual Research Journal, 27, 25-49.
15. Fettes, M. (1997). Language planning and education. In R. Wodak & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia oflanguage and education: Vol.1. Language policy and political issues in education (pp. 13-22). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
16. Fishman, J. (1979). Bilingual education, language planning and English. English World-Wide, 1(1), 11-24.
17. Fishman, J. (1991). Reversing language shift. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
18. García, O., & Fishman, J. (Eds.). (2002). The multilingual apple: Languages in New York City (2nd ed.). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
19. García, O., & Menken, K. (2006). The English of Latinos from a plurilingual transcultural angle: Implications for assessment and schools. In S. Nero (Ed.), Dialects, Englishes, creoles, and education(pp. 167-185). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Goertz, M., & Duffy, M. (2001). Assessment and accountability systems in the 50 states. Retrieved Retrieved January 15, 2003, from University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education Web site: http://www.cpre.org/Publications/rr46.pdf
21. Heubert, J., & Hauser, R. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
22. Homberger, N. (Ed.). (1996). Indigenous literacies in the Americas: Language planning from the bottom up. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
23. Hornberger, N. (2004, September/October). Nichols to NCLB: Local and global perspectives on U.S. language education policy. Paper presented at Imagining Multilingual Schools: An International Symposium on Language in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
24. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269-293). Harmonds-worth, England: Penguin Education.
25. ImprovingAmerica’s School Act. Pub. L. No. 103-382, 108 Stat. 3518 (1994).
26. Kaplan, R., & Baldauf, R. (1997). Language planning: From practice to theory. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
27. LeCompte, M., & Preissle, J. (1993) Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
28. McNeil, L., & Valenzuela, A. (2000, April). The harmful impact of the TAAS system of testing in Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. In G. Orfield & M. Kornhaber (Eds.), Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high stakes testing in public education (pp. 127-150) Boston: Harvard Civil Rights Project.
29. Menken, K. (2000, September). 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.
30. Menken, K. (2005). When the test is what counts: How high-stakes testing affects language policy and the education of English language learners in high school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York.
31. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publications.
32. New York City Department of Education. (2006). Statistical summaries. Retrieved July 25, 2006, from http://www.nycenet.edu/offices/stats/default.htm
33. New York City Department of Education, Division of Assessment and Accountability. (2004). The class of2003four-year longitudinal report and 2002-2003 event dropout rates. New York: Author.
34. New York City Department of Education, Division of Assessment and Accountability. (2005). 2004-2005 annual school reports. Retrieved June 26, 2006, from http://www.nycenet.edu/daa/reports/Class%20of% 202005_Four-Year_Longitudinal_Report.pdf
35. New York City Department of Education, Division of English Language Learners & Parent Outreach. (2002). Facts and figures 2001-2002. Retrieved April 1, 2003, from http://www.nycenet.edu/offices/oell/Facts %20%20Figures%202001%20-%202002.pdf
36. New York State Department of Education, Bilingual/ESL Network. (2003). Announcements. Retrieved April 3, 2003, from http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/biling/announce.html
37. New York State Department of Education, Commissioner of Education (1999). Part 154: Apportionment and services for pupils with limited English proficiency. New York: Author.
38. No Child Left BehindAct. Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).
39. Rappaport, S. (2002). Beyond bilingual education: Meeting the needs ofEnglish language learners in the New York City public schools. New York: Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
40. Ricento, T., & Hornberger, N. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30 (3), 401-427.
41. Richard-Amato, P., & Snow, M. (Eds.). (1992) The multicultural classroom: Readings for content-area teachers. White Plains, NY: Longman.
42. Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
43. Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABEJournal, 8(2), 15-34.
44. Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. London: Longman/Pearson Education.
45. Solano-Flores, G, & Trumball, E. (2003). Examining language in context: The need for new research paradigms in the testing of English language learners. Educational Researcher, 32(2), 3-13.
46. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
47. 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.
48. Uebelacker, K. (2005). Fair Testing. Retrieved March 27, 2006, from San Francisco Education Fund Leadership Institute Web site: http://www.teachersnetwork.org/tnli/research/prep/uebelacker.htm
49. Valenzuela, A. (2002). High-stakes testing and U.S.-Mexican youth in Texas: The case for multiple compensatory criteria in assessment. Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy, 14, 16-97.
50. Valenzuela, A. (Ed.). (2005). Leaving children behind: How Texas-style accountability fails Latino youth. New York: State University of New York Press.
51. Wright, W. (2002). The effects of high stakes testing in inner-city elementary school: The curriculum, the teachers, and the English language learners. Current Issues in Education, 5(5). Retrieved December 1, 2002, from http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume5/number5/