# data[].attributes.headline
The policy implications of the No Child Left Behind Act for English language learners

# data[].attributes.subject
The policy implications of the No Child Left Behind Act for English language learners

# data[].attributes.body
Article by Jacqueline Elena Arroyo de Romano, states that due to the NCLB act, schools had to cut back on resources. The effects of cutting back on resources were harmful to emergent bilingual students because these students relied on resources to help better their studies. (Romano, 2004).

# data[].attributes.body
Article by "The National Children's Book and Literacy Alliance" talks about how statistics show that 60% of high school students are reading below grade level. This fact could from the NCLB act that was still in effect years ago for these students. The numbers are alarming and should be a clear sign that the NCLB never worked for any student. (2015).

# data[].attributes.body
Article retrieved from Penn State University, Educational Leadership- The Effects of NCLB, examines the side effects of NCLB act. One side effect they talked about was the pressure on schools and teachers because of this act. The NCLB act were under pressure with the curriculum because they wanted their students to succeed on these standardized tests but without knowing the material on the test ahead of time to teach it. It goes in to detail about elementary school teachers were teaching 75% of the time teaching reading and math because of this harmful act. This leaves students with minimal experience with social studies an science and even writing. (2008).

# data[].attributes.headline
NCLB and English Language Learners: Challenges and Consequences

# data[].attributes.subject
NCLB and English Language Learners: Challenges and Consequences

# data[].attributes.body
Article by Kate Menken published in 2010, states the that NCLB policy requires high stake state exams on ELL students in the English language. ELL students should not be tested on their English every year because they are still learning the language. The NCLB act requires students to make annual progress with the English language. Kate Menken states "Specifically, ELLs must take tests of English language proficiency to measure their acquisition of English, and they must also take—and pass—the same tests of academic content as those taken by native English speakers." (2010). This act is harmful to students that are still learning the English language.  (Menken, 2010).

# data[].attributes.headline
The Bilingual Education Act and No Child Left Behind

# data[].attributes.subject
The Bilingual Education Act and No Child Left Behind

# data[].attributes.body
This text talks about how the how awful the NCLB is and how because of its required testing, The Bilingual Education Act was renamed to "English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act". This text also goes into the face that by 2005 ELL learners had increased to 57% and about 5.1 million students. This means that all of these students had to take these ridiculous standardized tests. The NCLB linked success and failure from the results of standardized testing. This is harmful to emergent bilingual students because they are not prepared enough in school to get ready for these tests, therefore they don't do well. The NCLB act is harmful to ELL's because they get no support with these standardized tests. How can they be successful if there is no support or encouragement for these students? (2015).

# data[].attributes.headline
No Child Left Behind: a study in unintended consequences

# data[].attributes.subject
No Child Left Behind: a study in unintended consequences

# data[].attributes.body
The article "No Child Left Behind: a study in unintended consequences" by Language on the Move, explains the harmful effects of the NCLB act on emergent bilingual students. The article states how the NCLB is harmful to ELL students because these students are expected to learn the whole English language in 2 years, but research shows it takes 4-7 years to learn a whole new language. This is unfair to emergent bilingual students. This policy also effected the bilingual programs by not providing the correct support for bilingual students. Students were cut off from support of their home language and were forced to learn the English language in a 2 year span. This policy is overwhelming to both bilingual students and educators. (2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2001, the United States government responded to the apparent lack of quality education in the country by passing Public Law 107 - 110, also known as "No Child Left Behind". Its purpose was "to improve educational achievement by assessing student progress through standardized testing, mandating curricular reforms, and improving teacher quality" (Mangual Figueroa, 2013, p. 333). Section 3202 of the law states that Limited English Proficient (LEP) students should be able to "meet the same rigorous standards for academic achievement as all children are expected to meet, including meeting challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards" ( No Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2002, p. 283). While the intentions seemed honorable, unfortunately the policy neglected to recognize relevant second language acquisition research into how the needs of emergent bilinguals may differ considerably from the needs of mainstream students.

The "No Child Left Behind" educational policy arose during the George W. Bush administration in the United States as a piece of legislation aimed at improving low achieving schools across the country. After continued reports of poor test scores from students across the country compared to other countries around the world, the United States developed an educational policy that was supposed to encourage and incentivize schools to revise their instructional methods so as to promote higher tests scores. Initially, this might sound beneficial for all students, but the policy failed to acknowledge students' diverse language backgrounds.

How did the policy affect English language learners?

Researchers in the field of TESOL were frustrated with the lack of attention the NCLB policy paid to evidence for the amount of time it takes students to learn a language and the specific needs of students learning such language that will be used for instruction and assessment. NCLB completely neglected the research on how it can take four to seven years for students to acquire an English proficiency sufficient for academic performance that will truly reflect their knowledge ( Crawford, 2004).

NCLB's focus on accountability disrupted ESL classrooms because teachers and school administrators were financially pressured into valuing test preparation over communicative skills building. As schools were expected to show growth and improvement in scores each year, ESL students were not given enough time to cultivate an understanding of the English language sufficient to demonstrate their content knowledge.

How did the policy affect ESL teachers?

A second unintended outcome of the NCLB policy affected teachers of English language learners. Within the NCLB Act, there was a section that discussed the necessary qualifications required for teachers. However, it only focused on the teachers of "core academic subjects" defined as "English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography" (NCLB, 2002, p. 534).

In other words, the policy overlooked the same requirements for ESL teachers, even though the policy is supposed to serve English language learners in particular.

The idea was that improved teacher qualifications would increase the overall quality of education that all students receive, including those with limited English language proficiency. Unfortunately, "this failure to acknowledge ESL as a subject in which teachers must be highly qualified effectively denies its value and status as curriculum 'content' and reinforces the common assumption that teaching English language learners requires little more than a set of pedagogical modifications applied to other content areas" ( Harper, De Jong, & Platt, 2008, p. 271).

How did the policy affect bilingual programs?

Yet another unintended consequence of the NCLB policy was that support that had previously been in place for bilingual language programs diminished after the passage of the act. Whereas previous improvements to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) included explicit support for bilingual education, the 2002 document hardly mentioned it. That means that with the introduction of NCLB, English language learners were cut off from explicit support for developing their native language as well as English.

This flies in the face of the agreement among linguists and educators that "development and maintenance of a child's first language is critically important to his or her psychological, linguistic, and cognitive well-being" ( Cummins and Swain, 1986, p. 97).

The root of the problem here was that NCLB placed such a high level of pressure to succeed on the tests given in English that schools and teachers were discouraged from helping students develop their native language. Again, even though the language within the act suggests flexibility and inclusion, the emphasis on accountability throughout the document severely limited the attention that could be given to individual students and their specific needs.

Deficit views and unintended consequences

NCLB obviously places little or no importance on multiculturalism and multilingualism as resources for the classroom and for the nation more broadly. Regrettably, the NCLB policy approached language education through the perspective that speakers of other languages come to the classroom with deficits rather than valuable experiences and knowledge that can add to the overall learning experience in the classroom. In practice, this kind of policy marginalizes students labeled as 'LEP' - not only because the label itself can be considered demeaning. By ignoring relevant research in language learning, linguistics and education, the NCLB policy - despite its stated aims to raise standards - effectively further disadvantaged already marginalized students and the educators who serve them.

Related content

References

Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory, research and practice. London: Longman.

Harper, Candace A., De Jong, Ester J., & Platt, Elizabeth J. (2008). Marginalizing English as a Second Language Teacher Expertise: The Exclusionary Consequence of "No Child Left Behind". Language Policy, 7(3), 267-284.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No Child Left Behind: a study in unintended consequences - Language on the Move

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2001, the United States government responded to the apparent lack of quality education in the country by passing Public Law 107 - 110, also known as "No Child Left Behind". Its purpose was "to improve educational achievement by assessing student progress through standardized testing, mandating curricular reforms, and improving teacher quality" (Mangual Figueroa, 2013, p.

# data[].attributes.headline
Supporting Emergent Bilingual Children in Early Learning.

# data[].attributes.subject
Supporting Emergent Bilingual Children in Early Learning.

# data[].attributes.body
This text talks about how we as educators can support emergent bilingual students with learning. The NCLB act has caused emergent bilinguals to feel overwhelmed and stressed from the mandatory state testing because of these requirements. Emergent Bilinguals are required to take mandatory state exams to test their English Proficiency. This is unfair because they are still learning and or choose to only use their home language. It should be their choice. Through the policies, the article talks about how we can support emergent bilingual students through this NCLB act and the state testing. We can support  and encourage their home language, validating every student's culture and beliefs and using the specific teaching strategies to help students be successful. (EDC, 2016).

# data[].attributes.headline
The Effects of NCLB Accountability on ELLs

# data[].attributes.subject
The Effects of NCLB Accountability on ELLs

# data[].attributes.body
Article by Isabella Sanchez "The Effects of NCLB Accountability on ELLs" goes into the topic of standardized testing and how states don't provide the correct support to emergent bilingual students. The lack of funds to programs is not creating the learning environment that ELL's need. (2015)
Though the NCLB act came to an end in 2015, millions of students are still effected by this harmful act.

# data[].attributes.headline
No Child Left Behind and English Language Learners

# data[].attributes.subject
No Child Left Behind and English Language Learners

# data[].attributes.body
The article from colorincolorado.com goes into the requirements that ELL's must undergo each school year. The requirements are very concerning to say the least. The article goes into some of the Requirements such as
- All ELL students' English language proficiency must be tested every year.
- Annual achievement objectives for ELL students must relate to gains in English proficiency and meet challenging state academic standards that are aligned with Title I achievement standards.
(Colorín Colorado, 2015)

# data[].attributes.headline
The Bilingual Education Act and No Child Left Behind

# data[].attributes.subject
The Bilingual Education Act and No Child Left Behind

# data[].attributes.body
K12 Academics offers an exceptional explanation about the No Child Left Behind act and how the act does not support emergent bilingual students. The article talks about the problem with standardized testing and the effects it has on emergent bilingual students with the No Child Left Behind Act. When ELL's were tested on the same material as fluently English speaking peers, ELL's were shown to display a larger deficit in reading and math. (Glavin, 2016)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
No Child Left Behind (NCLB), passed in 2002, had a significant impact on bilingual education and the Bilingual Education Act in the United States due to its emphasis on high-stakes testing. As a result of NCLB and its emphasis on testing, the Bilingual Education Act was renamed the English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act.

The name change alone of BEA under NCLB is significant in that it signals a shift in the philosophical approach to bilingual education. Essentially, even though the act still leaves with state and local educators the ability to choose from instructional methods, "the statement of purpose and accountability requirements make clear that the primary objective is English acquisition."

Under NCLB, school success and failure is linked to performance on standardized tests. However, this measure subjects English Language Learners (ELLs) "to critical assessments without adequate preparation." The lack of preparation is due to the fact that NCLB caps funding for bilingual education programs at half of what it had been and does not require that any bilingual education programs undergo periodic evaluation, a measure required by the Castenada v. Pickard court case. And yet, despite this lack of preparation, ELLs performance on standardized tests can jeopardize a school's access to funding. In essence, "This turns the question of whether or not a school receives a failing label into a question of how many ELLs attend." Because the impact of NCLB on ELLs has significant implications on ELLs and their communities' access to education, NCLB is in conflict with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in that it denies "access to a federally funded program based on their skin color or race." The changes in the BEA under NCLB created a grant program that attempted to enhance English language acquisition. The ruling placed ELL students in a similar classroom environment as their peers for whom English is not a second language. The law did not require schools to provide bilingual programs and placed them against the rigorous content standards put in place by State Education Agencies. When ELLs were tested with the same state assessments or the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP), it was shown that compared to their fluently English-speaking peers the ELL students displayed larger deficits in both reading and math. The 2007 NAEP test, showed increased deficits in both math and reading following a surge of the ELL population in the United States. By 2005 the number of English-learners throughout the US had risen to 57% to approximately 5.1 million students.

After NCLB was enacted it was shown that there were sufficient numbers of prospective teachers, yet there were insufficient numbers of these teachers entering certain fields. Among these specializations were science, math, foreign languages, special education and namely bilingual education. Several initiatives formed to specifically recruit teachers to these specialization fields and allowed for alternative certification paths. These teacher shortages continue to exist today and are seen to a greater extent in high-poverty districts.

The act and NCLB say that the accommodations that it provides should be interpreted in concordance with federal civil rights laws. "As interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, and federal civil rights officials, these provisions rely on terms like "affirmative steps" and "appropriate action" that give school districts the discretion to use a range of instructional approaches. As a result, under both Title VI and the EEOA, courts and federal enforcement agencies must decide on a case-by-case basis whether programs are in fact overcoming linguistic barriers to full participation." The policy still remains highly debated at both the state and federal level.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Bilingual Education Act and No Child Left Behind

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No Child Left Behind (NCLB), passed in 2002, had a significant impact on bilingual education and the Bilingual Education Act in the United States due to its emphasis on high-stakes testing. As a result of NCLB and its emphasis on testing, the Bilingual Education Act was renamed the English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act.