Language Policy

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 201–216 | Cite as

NCLB and California’s English language learners: The perfect storm

Original Paper


We argue here that the combination of U.S. federal education policy as embodied in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 with the passage of a California state initiative that required that “nearly all classroom instruction [be] in English … for a period not normally intended to exceed one year” in 1998 created a “perfect storm” for English Learners. English Learners are thus provided inadequate and incomprehensible academic instruction. Federal law, meanwhile, requires that all students, even if they do not speak English, be tested annually in English for academic progress, and their schools be sanctioned if progress is not sufficient. Whether such demands can legitimately be made on schools is an unsettled issue across the United States. California’s case should serve as an example to others that forcing students to be assessed in a language they do not fully comprehend violates principles of social justice wherever it is practiced.


Assessment Bilingual education NCLB English Learners English language learners Proposition 227 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abedi, J., Courtney, M., & Leon, S. (2003). Effectiveness and validity of accommodations for English language learners in large-scale assessments (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 608). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.Google Scholar
  2. Abedi, J., Courtney, M., Mirocha, J., Leon, S., & Goldberg, J. (2005). Language accommodations for English language learners in large-scale assessments: Bilingual dictionaries and linguistic modification (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 666). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.Google Scholar
  3. Abedi, J., & Gándara, P. (2006). Performance of English language learners as a subgroup in large-scale assessment: Interaction of research and policy. Educational Measurement Issues and Practice, 25, 36–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adger, C., Snow, C., & Christian, D. (2002). What teachers need to know about language. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
  5. Banchero, S. (2007). Limited English kids face a tougher test. Chicago Tribune, November 9, 2007. Downloaded November 10, 2007:,1,1769471.story.
  6. Berliner, D., & Nichols, S. (2007). High stakes testing is putting the nation at risk. Education Week, 26(27), 36, 48.Google Scholar
  7. California Department of Education. (2007). Fact book 2007: Handbook of education information, 2007. Available at:
  8. Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. (2005). The status of the teaching Profession in California. Santa Cruz: CFTL. Available at:
  9. Coachella Valley USD et al. v. State of California et al., SF Superior Court Case No. 505334.Google Scholar
  10. Educational Testing Service. (2004). California Standardized Testing Program, Technical Manual. Google Scholar
  11. Edward, H. (2007). Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of Writ of Mandate, in Coachella Valley Unified School District et al v. State of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger et al, April 23, 2007.Google Scholar
  12. Gándara, P. (2000). In the aftermath of the storm: English Learners in the Post-227 Era. Bilingual Research Journal, 24, Accessed Dec. 13, 2006 at:
  13. Gándara, P., & Maxwell-Jolly, J. (2005). Critical issues in the development of the teacher corps for English Learners. In H. Waxman & K. Tellez (Eds.), Preparing quality teachers for English language learners. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2006). Listening to teachers of English Learners. Santa Cruz: Center for the Future of Teaching Learning. Available at:
  15. Gándara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R. (2003). English Learners in California Schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(36). Retrieved June 14, 2006 from:
  16. Gándara, P., & Rumberger, R. (forthcoming). Defining an adequate education for English Learners. Education Finance and Policy, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  17. Garcia, E., & Curry-Rodriguez, J. (2000). The education of limited English proficient students in California Schools: An assessment of the influence of Proposition 227 on selected districts and schools. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(1–2), 15–35. Available at: Scholar
  18. Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2006). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Glod, M., & Chandler, M. A. (2007). North Virginia Schools Set Back on “No Child” Test Goals. Washington Post, August 24, 2007. Downloaded November 12, 2007:
  20. Goldenberg, C. (2006). Improving achievement for English Learners. What the research tells us. Education Week, 25(43), 34–36.Google Scholar
  21. Gutierrez, K., Baquedano-Lopez, P., & Asato, J. (2000). English for the children: The new literacy of the old world order, language policy and educational reform. Bilingual Research Journal, 24. Accessed Dec. 13, 2006 at:
  22. Huffman, P. C., & Samulon, M. (1981). Case studies of delivery and cost of bilingual education: A rand note. Santa Monica, California: The Rand Corporation, 1981.Google Scholar
  23. Human Resources Research Organization. (2007). Annual independent evaluation of CAHSEE. Alexandria, VA: HUMRRO.Google Scholar
  24. Interview with Foch “Tut” Pensis, Superintendent of Coachella Valley Unified School District, November 7th, 2007.Google Scholar
  25. Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964).Google Scholar
  26. Maxwell-Jolly, L. (2000). Factors influencing implementation of mandated policy change: Proposition 227 in Seven Northern California School Districts. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(1−2), Winter & Spring. Available at:
  27. McMurrer, J. (2007). Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB era. Washington DC: Center for Education Policy.Google Scholar
  28. Memorandum to State Board Members, September 25th, page CDE 1701.Google Scholar
  29. Parrish, T., Merickel, A., Perz, M., Linquanti, R., Socias, M., Spain, A., Speroni, C., Esra, P., Brock, L., & Delancey, D. (2006). Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the education of English Learners, K-12; findings from a five-year evaluation. Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research. Proposition 227 of 1998, Full Text of the Proposed Law available at:
  30. Proposition 227 of 1998, Full Text of the Proposed Law available at:
  31. Public Education Network. (2003). An action guide for community and parent leaders: Using NCLB to improve student achievement.Google Scholar
  32. Ramirez, J. D. (1992). Executive summary. Bilingual Research Journal, 16(1−2), 62.Google Scholar
  33. Ravitch, D. (2007). New York Times Op. Ed. Column, October 3, 2007. Downloaded October 3, 2007 at:
  34. Rogers, J., Holme, J., & Silver, D. (2006). More questions than answers: CAHSEE results, opportunity to learn, & the class of 2006. Los Angeles: UCLA/IDEA Publications. Available at:
  35. State of California, Department of Education, Last Minute Memorandum to State Board Members, Subject: Testing Policies for English Learners Students, October 8, 2002.Google Scholar
  36. Supplemental Memorandum of the State Board of Education, September 25, 2002, Testing Policies for English Learners. CDE 1694.Google Scholar
  37. Wright, W., & Choi, D. (2006). The impact of language and high-stakes testing policies on elementary school English language learners in Arizona. Education Policy Analysis, 14, 13. Retrieved November 5, 2007.
  38. Zehr, M. A. (2007). NCLB seen as a damper on bilingual programs: Some states and districts say testing requirements may discourage efforts. Education Week, online May 8, 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations