See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323539389

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING POLICY English Language Learning Policies in

the US Schools

Preprint · May 2017

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29623.42404

CITATIONS READS
0 2,260

1 author:

Samira Al Hosni
Indiana University Bloomington
12 PUBLICATIONS 314 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Curriculum Development View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Samira Al Hosni on 03 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING POLICY

English Language Learning Policies in the US Schools

Samira Al Hosni

Indiana University

School of Education

2017
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 2

Introduction

There is a substantial increase in the US school districts in the enrollment of ELL students

who cannot speak, read, or write English well enough to participate meaningfully in

educational programs without appropriate ELL support services. ELL students are at risk of

losing the educational opportunities provided to students in general. It is very necessary to take

steps to address the language-related limitations experienced by such students. The Department

of Education memorandum of May 25, 1970, directs school districts to take action to help ELL

students overcome language barriers and to ensure that they can participate meaningfully in

the districts' educational programs. OCR is also responsible for enforcing Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin.

This paper is directed to the U.S Department of Education and the Department of English

language acquisition because both of them are major policy actors who influence the

implementation of ELL policies in school districts. They both work to support school districts

in understanding and implementing the ELL policies in compliant with the requirements of

different relevant laws.

The aim of this paper is to advance understanding of English language learning policy in

US schools and to highlight the challenges that English language learning students may face

regarding receiving the appropriate education services and equal learning opportunities. The

paper starts with a statement of the problem to provide a clear sense of the problem. Then a

brief historical background is presented to help understand the context that encouraged some

federal laws and ELL relevant acts to exist. Because it is very crucial to identify and explore

the federal laws, law acts and court cases that intend to regulate and direct the implementation
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 3

of ELL programs, this paper provides an overview of the relevant federal laws, acts, and court

cases. Then the paper presents a detailed description of how the ELL policies are implemented

and who are the leading actor in the implementation. Under implementation, the role of the

Department of Education and the role of the department of English language acquisition are

discussed. The steps of English language program implementation are emphasized too. Since

the primary goal of all the ELL policies is to assist ELL students to participate meaningfully

in the education programs and support their learning and academic achievement, it was

essential to provide some facts about ELL student achievement that are supported with

statistics from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). For the sake of

understanding the effectiveness of ELL policies in the light of implementation, the paper

provides an analysis of these policies and how they shape the process of implementation.

Finally, the paper provides some recommendations that might help overcome some challenges.

1. Statement of the problem

English language learners (ELLs) are students whose first language is not English. They

are one of the fastest growing populations in schools today in the United States. According to the

National Center for Education (2013) Statistics, the percentage of public school students who are

English language learners (ELLs) was, at last count, 13 %. In primary schools, 1, 7 %, in middle

schools, and 5 % in high schools (Calderón, Slavin, & Sánchez, 2011). The U.S department of

justice & the Department of Education (ND), also declared that English learner (EL) students

constitute nine percent of all public school students and are enrolled in nearly three out of every

four public schools. As announced by the National Center for Education Statistics (2017), in the

2014-2015 school year, more than 4.8 million English learners were enrolled in U.S schools in

grades K-12. English learners comprise nearly 10 % of the student population nationwide, a
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 4

figure that has more than doubled in the past few decades, and in many schools, districts and

states, English learners are even higher percentage of the student population. Estimates suggest

that this number may be even higher for students under the age of six. For example, nearly a

third of children in Head Start programs are classified as English language learners.

The population of ELL will likely double in the coming years. Some demographers

predict that by 2030 the ratio of ELL students to non-ELL students could be one in four. They

expect that English language learners (ELLs) will count for approximately 40% of the entire

school-aged population. In some areas such as California, that projection is already exceeded.

For instance, 60%-70% of schoolchildren speak a language other than English as their primary

language (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, n.d.). While this astonishing

indicator is projected for the entire United States’ school system, it is evidence that cannot be

ignored; the population of English language learners is increasing (Calderón, Slavin, & Sánchez,

2011).

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (U.S. Dept. of Educ., 2015b), the Equal

Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) which was ratified in 1974, and the Supreme Court case

Lau v. Nichols have all provided the regulations that protect English language learners’ legal

rights of education (U.S. Dept. of Educ., 2015b). However, in too many places across the

country, English learners get less access to quality teachers, less access to advanced coursework,

and less access to the resources they need to succeed (U.S. Dept. of Edu, 2016). ELL are still

facing many challenges regarding receiving the appropriate type of education and the appropriate

learning opportunities that meet their needs and facilitate their meaningful participation in

education programs. Subsequently, a low academic achievement among English language

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 5

learners has occurred (U.S. Dept. of Edu,2015b). In my opinion, the language barrier can be

responsible to a large extent about the low academic achievement.

Because of the rising numbers of ELL students and the persistent achievement gaps

between ELL students and their peers whose first language is English, there is an urgent need to

study and analyze the English language learning policies in the US. It is also vital to investigate

the influence of the implementation of these policies and other education practices on English

language learners’ performance and academic achievement. This report is directed to the U.S

Department of Education and the Office of English Language Acquisition(OELA). It provides a

description of the current English language learning policies and a critical analysis of these

policies. It also suggests some recommendations that can help ELL receive the education that

meets their needs and challenges and better facilitate their meaningful participation in the

education programs.

2. Historical background

The Supreme Court of the United States urged public schools over forty years ago to

comply with the legal obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI). Title

VI of Civil Rights Acts prohibits discrimination by race, color, or national origin. It also prohibits

denial of equal access to education because of a language minority student's limited proficiency in

English. Therefore, schools are required to take affirmative steps to ensure that ELL students with

limited English proficiency (LEP) can meaningfully participate in their educational programs and

services.

The Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) was enacted at 1964 too. According to

the EEOA confirmed, public schools and State educational agencies (SEAs) must work towards

supporting ELL students to overcome language barriers that inhibit them from equal participation
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 6

in the instructional programs. Both Title VI and the EEOA were responsible for ensuring that SEAs

and school districts are equipped with the tools and resources to meet their responsibilities of

facilitating ELL students learning and equal access to learning programs (Department of Justice&

Department of Education, 2015).

Office of Civil Rights (OCR) staff became aware during late 1960 that many school

districts made little or no provision for students English language barrier, even though there were

significant numbers of these students enrolled in their districts. So, to resolve this problem, the

OCR issued a memorandum in 1970 to school districts titled the Identification of Discrimination

and Denial of Services by National Origin. This memorandum aimed at clarifying Title VI

requirements concerning school districts' responsibility to provide equal education opportunities

to ELL (U.S. Department of Education, 2000).

In the 1974 Lau v. Nichols case, the U.S. Supreme Court advocated the 1970

memorandum as a valid interpretation of the requirements and regulations of Title VI. The

Supreme Court stated that "There is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with

the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand

English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education." In 1985, OCR issued "The

Office for Civil Rights' Title VI Language Minority Compliance Procedures," which outlines

OCR policy concerning the education of language-minority students and Title VI compliance

standards. In 1991, OCR issued a Policy Update on Schools' Obligations Toward National Origin

Minority Students with Limited-English Proficiency (LEP students). The 1970 memorandum and

the 1985 and 1991 documents explain the relevant legal standards for OCR policy concerning

discrimination by national origin in the provision of education services to LEP students at the

elementary and secondary level (U.S. Department of Education, 2000).

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 7

Generally speaking, supporting students with limited English Proficiency(LEP), who are

now more commonly referred to as English Language Learning (ELL) students or English

Language Learner(ELL) students, is as important today as it was then. However, the number of

ELL students enrolled in public and nonpublic schools in the United States continues to increase

each year. ELL students are now enrolled in nearly three out of every four public schools in the

nation, they constitute nine percent of all public school students, and their numbers are steadily

increasing. It is essential that these students have equal access to a high-quality education,

resources and the different opportunities that meet their needs and help them to achieve their

academic goals and full academic potential.

Both the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the

Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) share authority for implementing

Title VI in education. Department of Justice is also responsible for enforcing the EEOA.

Furthermore, the US. Department of Education directs and manages the English Language

Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act which was also known as

Title III. Under Title III, the State Educational Agencies(SEA), receive award grants from the

Department of Education and then these SEAs, in turn, award Federal funds through subgrants to

school districts. Such award grants are devoted to improve the education of ELL students to help

them learn English and meet challenging State academic achievement standards. (Department of

Justice& Department of Education, 2015).

3. An overview of federal laws acts, and relevant court cases

English language learning policies are based on some federal laws and acts that aim at

protecting ELL students’ rights. It is important to review these laws, Acts, and regulations of

English language teaching in the US for a better understanding of the implemented policies.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 8

There are the Federal laws, also called the civil right laws which include Title VI of the civil

right Act of 1964 and the Equal Educational Act 1964(EEOA). There is also Title VII of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act and some important, relevant court cases such as Lau

v. Nichols 1974 (Supreme Court) and Castañeda v. Pickard 1981 (5th Circuit Court).

3.1. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

According to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), public schools must

ensure that ELL students' needs are met, and they can participate meaningfully and equally in

educational programs. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Prohibits discrimination based on

race, sex, color, religion, or national origin. It also emphasizes that ELL students’ language

barriers should be addressed so that English language learners can participate meaningfully in a

schools’ educational programs (Lhamon & Gupta, 2015). Based on Title VI regulatory

requirements, the denial of equal access to education because of a student's limited proficiency in

English is prohibited. Title VI protects students who are so limited in their English language

skills that they are unable to participate in or benefit from regular or special education

instructional programs. According to Title VI and as stated by the U.S. Department of Education,

(2000), school districts receiving federal financial assistance may not, by race, color, or national

origin:

• provide services, financial aid or other benefits that are different or provide them

in a different manner.

• Deny an individual the right to participate in federally assisted programs.

• Defeat or substantially impair the objectives of federally assisted programs.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 9

3.2 Equal Educational Opportunity Act 1964(EEOA)

Similarly, to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, EEOA Prohibits states from denying equal

educational opportunities to a student based on his or her race, color, sex, or national origin. In

addition to that, it urges schools to address language barriers for ELL students and to adopt an

English language acquisition program (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Though EEOA

does not dictate the type of language program a school uses to support English learners, it

indicated some criteria and elements that a program must have (U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2015).

According to EEOA, the English language acquisition program should meet three criteria

• Establish using sound educational theories and principles

• Effectively supported with appropriate resources and staff

• Evaluated and revised regularly, if necessary, to demonstrate English language

acquisition (U.S. Department of Education, 2000).

3.3 Lau v. Nichols 1974 (Supreme Court)

Parents of non-English-proficient Chinese students brought a class action suit against the

San Francisco Unified School District. In 1974, the Supreme Court declared that identical

education does not constitute equal education under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court ruled

that the district must take affirmative steps to overcome educational barriers faced by the non-

English speaking Chinese students in the district. Lau v. Nichols case, the U.S. Supreme Court

advocated the 1970 memorandum as a valid interpretation of the requirements of Title VI. The

Supreme Court stated that providing English learners with the same teachers, curriculum, and

school facilities does not constitute equal education

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 10

"There is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities,

textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively

foreclosed from any meaningful education." (U.S Department of Education, 1999. P.4)

3.4 Castañeda v. Pickard 1981 (5th Circuit Court)

In 1981, the Fifth Circuit Court issued a decision concerning the education of English

language students. It highlighted the importance of establishing English language programs in

schools. The case established a three-part test to evaluate the efficacy of schools’ English

language acquisition programs. The test included the following elements

• Is the program based on an educational theory recognized as sound by some

experts in the field or is considered by experts as a legitimate experimental

strategy?

• Are the programs and practices, including resources and personnel, reasonably

calculated to implement this theory effectively?

• Does the school district evaluate its programs and make adjustments where

needed to ensure language barriers are being overcome?

3.5 Every Students Succeed Act (ESSA 2015)

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is a new version of the law of the previous version

of the law, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act which was enacted in 2002. NCLB focused on

the areas of progress and areas of weakness of all students regardless of race, income, zip code,

disability, home language, or background. However, it was recognized that NCLB's rigid

requirements became increasingly impractical for schools and educators. Therefore, in 2010

educators and families called Obama administration to create a better law that is focused on

thoroughly preparing all students for success in college and careers. As a response to that call,
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 11

ESSA came out and was signed by President Obama on December 10, 2015.

ESSA emphasizes the areas of progress made possible by the efforts of educators,

communities, parents, and students across the country. For example, today, high school

graduation rates are higher, and there are fewer dropout rates. Furthermore, more students are

going to college than ever before. These achievements considered as a solid foundation for

further work to expand educational opportunity and improve student outcomes under ESSA.

Besides, ESEA offered new grants to districts serving low-income students, federal subsidies for

textbooks and library books, funding for special education centers, and scholarships for low-

income college students. Additionally, the law provided federal grants to state educational

agencies(SEAs) to improve the quality of elementary and secondary education. (U.S Department

of Education, ND).

3.5.1 Consideration of ELL students in Every Student Succeed Act.

The ESSA acknowledge the unique needs of ELL students taking in consideration that

ELL group consists of different heterogeneous subgroups such as the recently arrived ELLs or

long-term ELLs, etc. ESSA emphasizes accountability for performance on the English language

proficiency assessment. ESSA moved this provision and others relevant to ELLs from Title III,

part 'A' of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to Title I, part' A' of ESEA.

According to ESSA, all services provided to ELL students using Title III funds must supplement

and support the services that must be provided to ELLs under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 (Title VI), the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA), and other

requirements, including those under State or local laws (Department of Education, 2016).
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 12

4. Implementation of English language learning Policies

4.1 Policy Guidance by the Department of Education

To assist State Educational Agencies (SEAs), school districts, and public schools in

meeting their legal obligations concerning the meaningful and equal participation of ELL in

educational programs, the Department of Education has issued the ‘programs for English language

learning’ guidance. This guidance provides an outline of the legal obligations of SEAs and school

districts to ELL students under the civil rights laws. Furthermore, the guidance highlights the

compliance issues that frequently arise in Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and the Department of

Justice (DOJ) investigations under Title VI and the EEOA and offers approaches that SEAs and

school districts may use to meet their Federal obligations to ELL students. The guidance also

includes discussion of how SEAs and school districts can implement their Title III grants and

subgrants in a manner consistent with the civil rights obligations. This guidance also discusses the

Federal obligation to ensure that ELL students’ parents and guardians have meaningful access to

the district- and school-related information. (Department of Justice& Department of Education,

2015).

The guide of the policies of ELL has reflected in three Office of Civil Rights (OCR) policy

documents:

• The May 1970 memorandum to school districts

This memorandum is entitled "Identification of Discrimination and Denial of Services by National

Origin." It clarifies OCR policy under Title VI that urges school districts to provide equal

educational opportunity to ELLs.

• The December 3, 1985, guidance document

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 13

It is entitled "The Office for Civil Rights' Title VI Language Minority Compliance Procedures"

This document outlines the procedures OCR follows in applying the May 1970 memorandum and

the Lau v. Nichols 1974 legal standard on a case-by-case basis.

• The September 27, 1991, memorandum

It is entitled "Policy Update on Schools' Obligations Toward National Origin Minority Students

with Limited-English Proficiency (LEP)." It provides additional guidance for applying the May

1970 and December 1985 memoranda in the context of employment, transition, and exit criteria,

and program evaluation, as well as to special education programs, gifted and talented, and other

special programs. All in all, it is a policy update to be read in conjunction with the May 1970 and

December 1985 memoranda.

4.2 The identification of all potential ELL students

School districts use some procedures that attempt to identify the possible ELL students

accurately. For example, to identify students whose primary or home language is other than

English, most school districts use a home language survey at the time of ELL students’

enrollment. The survey aims to gather information about a student’s language background and

the primary language that is used at home. Also, school districts administer a language test to

assess the English language proficiency of students. The test assesses students’ proficiency in

speaking, listening, reading and writing and based on the results of the test determine if potential

ELL students are in fact ELL (U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Education, ND)

4.3 The identification of the appropriate language assistance to ELL students

After identifying students as ELL, the proper language support service that allows for

equal participation in the instructional programs is also identified. For example, school districts

may choose their programs from the programs designed for ELL students instruction. The
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 14

program must be educationally sound in theory and effective in practice to be in compliance with

Title VI (U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Education, ND). ELL students must be

provided with meaningful access to all curricular and extracurricular programs. They must have

an equal opportunity to participate in all programs, including pre-kindergarten, magnet, gifted

and talented, career and technical education, arts, and athletics programs; Advanced Placement

(AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) courses; clubs; and honor societies. They must have

access to their grade-level curricula so that they can meet promotion and graduation

requirements.

4.5 The Development of an ELL Plan

The guidance of ‘Programs for English language learning’ which is issued by the U.S

department of education is designed to assist school districts and staff in the development and

implementation of a program for ELL students. To develop and implement an ELL program,

school districts, start with adopting a particular instructional approach. Then the goals of the

selected approach are well identified. A comprehensive language assistance plans (ELL plan) is

developed based on the chosen approach and the goals of that approach.

4.5.1 Goals Development

First of all, Goals should reflect each district's individual circumstances and should be

based on the educational approach that has been selected for ELL students. For goals to be effective

for ELL students, they should address both English language development and subject matter

instruction. To meet the different needs of ELL, goals can cover areas such as staff development,

curriculum development, and parental participation. Goals also should indicate what level of

performance is expected, when the performance level should be attained, and how success will be

measured. In general, goals should be directed towards meeting the fundamental Title VI
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 15

requirement for ELL students which emphasize that ELL should have a meaningful and equal

access to the district's educational program.

4.5.2 ELL Plan Development

As indicated by the U.S Department of Education, the ELL plan should be comprehensive to

be effective. It should have enough details that can help every involved person to understand how

the plan is to be implemented. It also should provide a guidance of what procedures to be followed

and how. So it should contain sufficient details to inform policy actors of each action step in the

ELL plan. It should address each aspect of the district’s selected program for ELL students at all

grade levels, and at all schools in the district.

It is useful when attempting to develop or revise an ELL program, to establish a committee or

work group that includes administrators, teachers (both ELL program teachers and regular

classroom teachers), educational assistants, school counselors, and other staff who work with the

district's ELL student population. Parents, students, or community representatives who work with

the same ELL students in other settings can be involved too. By working with a group that includes

these stakeholders, the district can receive more extensive input from all who can inform policy

decisions and plan development. The participation of all those who can contribute to the plan

development is essential to the success of the district's ELL program in general. A well-developed

comprehensive ELL plan should include the following elements:

• Clear goals and well sound educational theory.

• Well identified assessment tools.

• Specific components of the ELL program including the different academic services.

• Specific resources to be used and provided.

• A Clear and distinct method of transition of ELL students from ELL programs.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 16

• Clear and accurate methods of evaluation the effectiveness of the ELL program.

4.4 Policy resources for designing and revising ELL programs

The office of civil rights’ mission is “to ensure equal access to education and to promote

educational excellence throughout the nation through the enforcement of civil rights laws” (OCR

Guide, 1999.P1). To achieve its mission, the OCR has developed a reference tool and materials

to assist school districts through the process of formulating a comprehensive English language

proficiency or English language learners (ELL) program. The materials provided by the OCR

discuss the steps of designing and revising an instruction program for ELL. However, the

materials are intended as a resource for school districts, not a statement of specific legal

requirements.

Accordingly, there is not a particular program of instruction for ELL students that is

advocated by OCR and nothing in federal law requires one form of instruction over another.

However, there are some criteria under the federal legislation that an ELL program must have.

Programs to educate ELL students must be: (1) based on a sound educational theory; (2) adequately

supported so that the program has a higher chance of success; and (3) periodically evaluated and

revised, if necessary (OCR Guide, 1999).

4.6 Steps of implementing the ELL programs

4.6.1 The Selection of the Educational ELL Approach

Each district selects a particular educational approach that meets the needs of its ELL

students. The selected educational approach by the district should be one of those approaches that

are recognized as sound by some professionals and experts in the field of education The approach

can also be one of the approaches which are recognized as a legitimate educational strategy.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 17

Regardless of the educational approach selected by the district, it must be compliant with Title VI.

Twofold inquiry applies when assessing the compliance with Title VI: (1) whether the approach

provides for English language development; and (2) whether the approach provides for meaningful

participation of ELL students in the district's educational program. OCR encourages districts to

develop their specific program goals and requires the program to meet the twofold requirements

of Title VI.

4.6.2 The Implementation of the Educational ELL Program

After the selection of the teaching approach, the district needs to provide the required

resources to implement the program. The implemented ELL programs by districts may vary and

be as diverse as the populations of ELL students in those districts. Districts can have a written plan

that describes and document the ELL educational approach. This can help that staff,

administrators, and parents understand how the program works. Districts can use the resources

and material provided by the OCR entitled ‘Developing ELL Programs to write a plan for an ELL

program,.' These resources provide information to assist districts in developing a written

description of their program of services for ELL students.

4.6.3 The Evaluation of the ELL Program

Under federal law, the implementation of a sound education ELL program is not enough if

the program as implemented proves ineffective. Based on Title VI requirements, it is important to

periodically evaluate the program to check if it is working or not and to check if the ELL students

gaining the proficiency in English that will assist them to participate meaningfully in the district's

education programs. Districts can design their approach to ELL program self- evaluation. The

materials provided by OCR which identify illustrative methods and various considerations can
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 18

assist districts in creating their plan of evaluation. If a program is not working effectively, a school

district is responsible for making appropriate program modifications or changes.

Making modifications is a requirement that is based on the commitment arising from Title

VI for a school district to provide ELL students with meaningful opportunities to participate in its

educational program. In addition to satisfying legal obligations of Title VI, ELL program self-

evaluations can produce benefits to the district and its stakeholders. For example, the participation

and support of stakeholder can increase, the utilization of available knowledge and expertise can

be developed. Moreover, the accountability for meeting program goals and outcomes can be

increased. The use of best practices in the classroom and the contributions to the current and future

success of ELL students in the greater community can be increased too. A very vital benefit can

also be the establishment of solid information and examples of successful program strategies and

areas where the program is achieving goals and objectives.

4.7 The role of the Office of English Language Acquisition in policy implementation

The Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA) under the Department of English

education provides national leadership to help ensure that ELL students achieve English

proficiency and accomplish academic success. It is committed to providing guidance, assistance,

and support to all of the school districts. It works towards providing national leadership by

informing policy decisions. Also, it is responsible for administering discretionary grant programs

to prepare professionals for teaching and supporting English Learners. OELA is also responsible

for evaluating studies that have practical applications for developing English Learners skills to

meet college and career learning standards. Furthermore, it works on disseminating information

about educational research, practices, and policies for ELL through the National Clearinghouse

for English Language Acquisition (NCELA).

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 19

4.7.1 Professional development programs

OELA advocates that ELL students benefit by having competent and well-prepared

teachers in the classroom. Therefore, school districts must have qualified ELL teachers, staff,

and administrators to implement their ELL program effectively, and must provide the necessary

training for them. (U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Education, ND). Preparing

Professionals for teaching and supporting ELL through the discretionary grant programs is one

of the most important roles that OELA plays in reaching the goals of ELL policies. The national

professional development Program (NPD) is one of these programs. This program provides

grants for eligible entities to implement professional development activities that aim to improve

instruction for ELL and assists educators working with ELL students to meet high professional

standards. This program also aims at helping prepare new teachers to develop their content skills

to serve the needs of ELL students better. Professional development activities may include both

preservice and in-service activities (U.S. Dept., 2017).

5. The academic achievement of ELL students

Academic achievement measurement such as tests revealed that ELL students' academic

performance levels are significantly below those of their peers in almost every measure of

progress. According to National Assessment of Educational Progress in 2005, only 29% of ELL

students scored at or above the basic level in reading, compared with 75 percent of non-ELLs

(National Center for Education Statistics, 2005). In the school year 2014–15, approximately 24.6

percent of ELL students who were enrolled in elementary or secondary schools and who

participated in the annual state English language proficiency assessment attained proficiency

(Murphy, 4014). Moreover, the achievement gap between ELL students and non-ELL students is

about 40 percentage points in both fourth-grade readings, and eighth-grade math has been
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 20

virtually unchanged from 2000 to 2013. However, in two states (Louisiana and South Carolina),

ELL students are statistically indistinguishable from non-ELL students on the fourth-grade

reading measure which indicate that progress can be made in closing the achievement gap

between ELL students and none- ELL students.

5.1 The academic achievement of ELLs at ‘The National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP)

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) provides the only

representative estimates of students’ academic achievement that are comparable over time and

across states. NAEP data include estimates of proficiency in reading and math, at fourth and

eighth grades. The results of NAEP are provided for some student groups, including English

language learners. The U.S. Department of Education, which administers NAEP, encourages

states to achieve a goal of at least 85 % participation among those who are identified as ELL

students in their test sample (Roekel, 2008).

When looking carefully at the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

results of ELL students for the 2013 fourth-grade reading assessment, we will find that eight

states (CT, DE, GA, IN, KY, MD, RI, and UT) did not meet the national goal of including at

least 85 % of ELL students selected for the sample. Nationwide, 47 % of ELL students received

accommodations for this test. For the eighth-grade math assessment in the same year, three states

(MD, MA, and MI) and the District of Columbia did not meet the goal of including at least 85 %

of ELL students. Nationwide, 53 % of ELL students received accommodations for this test. Only

31% at the national level scored at the basic level or above in reading at fourth grade, compared

with 72 % of non-ELL students. In all states, except for LA and SC, the achievement gap

between ELL students and non-ELL students was statistically significant. A majority of ELL
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 21

students reached the core level in reading in three states only (SC, MD, and OH). However, in

ten states (AK, AZ, HI, ID, IL, MT, NM, RI, TN, UT), less than 20 % percent of ELL students

met this criterion (Murphy, 4014 & the National Center for Education Statistics, 2015).

5.2 Testing accommodation to ELL

Since 2000, the Department of Education has allowed states to provide some

"accommodations" to ELL students, which include extended testing time, small-group or one-on-

one testing, and test directions (and, for math, test items) read aloud in Spanish. Some experts

argue that ELL students should be assessed using measures that are valid concerning their

sensitivity to culture, and to the amount of exposure to English these students have had. One

recommended approach is "conceptual scoring," in which comparable test items are developed in

both English, and the child's home language and the child are allowed to respond in either

language.

States vary in the extent to which they provide assessed ELL students with appropriate

test-taking accommodations. The variability in state-level performance overall, and in the size of

the gap between ELL and non-ELL students, indicates that there may be modifiable factors

related to the academic achievement of ELL students. These factors could include the degree of

stress associated with acculturation, as well as family income. It is worth studying the state-level

data of NAEP. Finding more about state- level data might prompt further inquiry into the

policies, classroom curricula, school and community supports, and other characteristics of states

that have been relatively more successful in promoting the achievement of their English

language learners (Roekel, 2008).

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 22

6. Critical analysis of the implementation of English language learning policy

Dunn (1994) pointed out two types of policy analysis, the first type is the prospective

policy analysis which refers to the analysis of what will happen and should be done and the

second type is the retrospective policy analysis which refers to the analysis of what happened.

This section of this paper is devoted to providing a prospective critical analysis of the current

existing implementation of ELL policy in the US schools. The analysis will be based on the

existing data and documents discussed earlier in this paper and some examples from the field.

Adding my voice to Diem. Et al (2004), such analysis can reflect reality and provide useful and

valid information that inform decision making and practice as well. The analysis highlights some

basic issues in the ELL policy, particularly the actual implementation of this policy. It mainly

focuses on the actual practice at schools including issues such as ELL program selection, well

sound approach, Teacher preparation and it reflects on the consistency of implementation with

the policy goals.

6.1 ELL program selection

Federal laws and case law emphasize that ELL students should be provided an

appropriate and equal learning opportunities that facilitate their participation in the education

programs. General guidelines for program selection are provided to schools by the Department of

Education; however, these guidelines still do not specify which program is appropriate for which

student. It is very complicated to select a program that can be appropriate for all ELL students as

this group in itself includes subgroups that are diverse in language, culture and even the number

of years being learning English. These subgroups have different perspectives and different

challenges of learning English.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 23

Though schools try to select programs that are in compliance with the requirements of the law, a

large space of policy appropriation does exist in schools. Policy implementation as Honig (2006)

states is considered as a social process of learning within and between communities of practice.

The practice is gradually transformed through the interaction and the negotiation of meaning

among teachers. Teachers as non-authorized policy actors appropriate the authorized policy by

making new policy in their communities of practice. This social interaction is an essential factor

that not only influences the implementation of policy in different ways but also helps researchers

and policy makers to understand how policies are practiced towards achieving the intended

goals. Subsequently, policy appropriation also differs from one district to another and from one

school to another. As a result of the process of appropriation that exists in the communities of

practice, many ELL programs do exist in schools. The following are just examples:

CAT: Content area tutoring programs that provide one-on-one or small group tutoring/assistance

to ELs during school hours in the content areas, including English language arts, mathematics,

science and social studies. Tutoring is provided by teachers other than bilingual or EL teachers

and may be provided by an aide under the direction of a teacher.

CBE: Content-based EL programs in which English is taught through the content areas of

mathematics, English language arts, science and social studies

POE: Pull-Out EL/Resource Programs remove ELs from general education classes to pre-teach,

teach or re-teach English language skills and academic content covered by the general education

classroom teacher

SEI: Sheltered English Instruction programs often serve ELs from more than one language

background. Instruction is in English and adapted to the student’s English proficiency levels and

provides modified curriculum-based content

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 24

SEN: Structured English Immersion Programs in which EL teachers or bilingual instructional

aides provide linguistic and academic support to ELs in the general education classrooms

The OCR encourages districts to develop their specific program goals. Whether or not

such goals are formally developed, OCR requires the program to meet the requirements of Title

VI. Naturally, this leads to many choices that might not be based on a solid rational or actual

study of ELL students' needs. Other factors that contribute to the selection of a particular

program rather than other such as funding, time and well-prepared teachers. Lack of fund can

result in a program not to be selected. If there is not enough fund to provide the necessary

resources for a program to be implemented, there is no point in selection the program. Time also

can be a challenge for some school to implement ELL programs. Based on my field experience, I

come to a school where there are ELL students who are not involved in any ELL programs. The

ELL teacher due that to the lack of time in the student schedule. There are other subjects which

occupy the student timetable, and there is no time for an ELL class or ELL program. For such

cases, this can be considered as a clear violation of Title VI as there is no program for the student

which facilitates English language development provides a meaningful participation of ELL

students in the district's educational program.

Also, Programs to educate ELL students must be: (1) based on a sound educational theory;

(2) adequately supported so that the program has a higher chance of success; and (3) periodically

evaluated and revised, if necessary (OCR Guide, 1999). Though a program that is based on a

sound educational theory may be selected, the fact that every ELL student is unique regarding the

language challenges he or she faces may result in what works for one student might not work for

the other. The lack of students needs analysis can strongly contribute to the appropriate selection

of a certain program. The lack of evaluation of the effectiveness of the program can also contribute
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 25

to the appropriate selection of a program. Though the OCR state that programs should be regularly

evaluated but that evaluation does not exist and so the evaluation of the goal achievement does not

exist too.

6.2 Ill- prepared ELL teachers

Many teachers who have ELLs in their classrooms find themselves to be ill-prepared to meet

the educational needs of ELL (Walker, Shafer& Iiams, 2004). Many of ELLs teachers who teach

other subjects rather than English are untrained on how to identify many of the problems that

ELLs particularly may be exposed to. From a moral aspect, it is unfair for ELLs not to receive

the required type of education because their teachers are unprepared to handle their ELL

challenges. Samway & Mckeon (2007) indicated that it is crucial that ELL teachers utilize

principles of second language acquisition for ELLs to succeed in school.

Teachers' awareness of ELLs diverse backgrounds that every individual come from is a

fundamental issue that may affect ELL academic progress. Johnston (2003) stated that all values

and moral dilemmas are played out in encounters between a particular teacher and an individual

student at a given time. So, such awareness can influence teachers' ability to bridging the gap of

ELL misunderstanding of not being part of the classroom conversation. Teachers knowledge of

the different ELLs backgrounds will allow for the accommodation of the prior cultural

background of each of ELLs in the learning situation. Subsequently, bridging that gap can help

increasing English language learners' participation in the classroom activity. For example,

understanding that the student is coming from a culture that does not encourage students to be

the initiators of participation can lead to having teachers encouraging such students to speak.

Besides, that understanding and awareness of those different backgrounds can lead to more fair

judgments of students' performance from the teacher side if a judgment is required at all. ELL

students come from very different backgrounds and often face multiple challenges in the classroom.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 26

Furthermore, teachers lack practical, research-based information, resources, and strategies needed to

teach, evaluate, and nurture ELL students. A survey of California teachers found poor communication

among students, teachers, parents, and the community to be a huge issue (Roekel, 2011).

ELL teachers receive little professional development that may prepare them to deal with ELL

challenges. The national professional development Program (NPD) provides grants for eligible

entities to implement professional development activities that aim to improve instruction for ELL

and assists educators working with ELL students. However, regardless eligibility, these grants

are provided in case of application only which means if a school does not apply, there is no

chance to receive the grant. A matter of fact, teachers, expressed frustration over the wide range of

ELL students and academic levels and the fact that they received little professional development. Meeting

the learning needs of ELLs is a big job, one that requires the coordination and collaboration throughout

the educational system. That means everyone must support the learning of ELLs, starting with schools of

education that must better prepare all teachers to work with ELLs.

6.3 Testing and ELLs academic achievement

NAEP as a national standardized test reflects a consistent academic achievement gap

between ELL students and none- ELL students. A primary concern is that large-scale

standardized tests, which are developed for native English speakers, may constitute an additional

challenge for ELLs that further compromises their academic performance (Abedi & Gandara,

2006).

Since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002, states have been

Obligated to include ELLs in their assessment systems. They have been required to ensure that

ELL students make adequate yearly progress (AYP) along with non-ELL students. This

requirement aims to ensure that ELLs benefit from standards-based reform and reach high

educational standards. However, researchers and educators are concerned about the fairness and
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 27

validity of large-scale tests for ELLs. As Heubert and Hauser (1999) argues, if a student is not

proficient in the language of the test, his performance is expected to be affected by irrelevant

variances so, his test score is more likely to underestimate his knowledge.

There is a fundamental ELL testing inconsistency which includes a major disconnect between

state English language proficiency (ELP) standards and tests. In general, states provide very little public

evidence to show that assessments are accurately measuring their state standards, and this was the case

regarding ELP. The problem is critical regarding selecting an ELP test that does not accurately measure

the standards. Evaluation experts recommend that assessments should always be developed after the

standards have been adopted and that the tests measure just a single group of standards. A report from the

National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) indicates that as

states continue their efforts to meet the testing requirements of NCLB, their policies and procedures for

assessing the English language proficiency levels of ELL students continue to vary considerably. Testing

and accommodations guidance for districts and schools are unclear and inconsistent, and many

different tests measuring English language proficiency (ELP) emerged, creating a more complex

testing issues. States with large ELL populations (such as California, New Mexico, Texas and

New York) developed their ELP tests. However, many states did not have the expertise, time, or

resources to develop valid and reliable assessments that meet the needs for accuracy and fairness.

The CRESST study also found mismatches in achievement levels between a state’s ELP

standards and its tests. For example, one of the state's ELP standards had three performance levels:

beginning, intermediate, and advanced. But their ELP tests had different levels that even used mostly

different terms: basic beginner, beginner, and low intermediate, high intermediate, and advanced. The

CRESST researchers found many differences in the number of achievement levels between states. For

example, some states use as few as three levels and others as many as six (Dept of Education, 2016).

Additionally, Zgutowiccz (2009) found out that ELL students face a significant degree of language

anxiety whenever they try to use the English language. This will apply to using the language in tests and
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 28

other subjects too especially that ELL students are being given reading and math tests in English before

they are proficient in the language.

6.4 Issues with testing accommodation

The Department of Education has allowed states to provide some “accommodations” to

ELL students, which include using a modified English version, extended testing time, small-

group or one-on-one testing, and test directions and read aloud in Spanish. Using a modified

English version is often referred to as linguistic or language simplification. The

language of the test items is modified to make it simple for the ELL students and reduce its

complexity. Language simplification has been regarded as a promising accommodation for ELLs

in the literature. However, other methods could be used to make a text or the language of a test

item simpler. Therefore, there are differences in the quality of the simplification practices in

different states and even at the same school (Sireci, Li, & Scarpati, 2003). There is a problem

with that various types of accommodation to be developed and used, and it is when to use which

accommodation. Which type of accommodation is more appropriate for which student. Do

teachers select the type of accommodation based on research?

A report by Li & Suen (2012) revealed that only two out of eight states indicated that

they based their practices on research recommendations. This report also found that

accommodation policies differ substantially between states. Most states (43 states), for example,

allow students to use bilingual dictionaries, while far fewer (18 states) provide only simplified

directions. Besides, this report also found out that most states do not have procedures to monitor

accommodations at either the school district or school level. Moreover, most states provide little

guidance on the use of test accommodations, such as when ELL students may use a bilingual

dictionary or when they may have test directions read aloud to them. A substantial number of

states provide so much accommodation flexibility to school districts. Accordingly, schools in the
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 29

same state could easily have different accommodations policies, resulting in major validity and

reliability issues.

7.4 Issues with evaluation mechanism and accountability

Based on Title VI requirements, it is important to periodically evaluate the ELL program

to check if it is working or not and to check if the ELL students are gaining the proficiency in

English that will assist them to participate meaningfully in the district's education programs. The

evaluation of ELL programs can inform the progress of ELL students and subsequently inform

decision making regarding the continuity of using the program or maybe the development of any

remedy plans. NAEP results which revealed that ELL students are academically lagging behind

should urge the need to evaluate the ELL programs implemented in schools. However, schools

lack the tools of evaluating such programs. In addition, the implementation of ELL programs at

schools is not monitored for effectiveness. Though the test results of ELL are continuously

showing a low level of performance among ELL students, schools are continuing using the same

programs they used to implement. I believe accountability concerning the effectiveness of the

implemented programs is crucial. It is not enough for the English department to state that programs

should be regularly evaluated but more than that to take steps towards the evaluation. There is no

point in continuing using the same programs, while there is no progress is being shown in the

students' performance. For program implementation consistency with goals, it is vital to monitor

advances in goal achievement through the implemented programs.

7. Critical analysis of relevant literature to English-language learning policies

Federal laws relevant to ELL are emphasized by the Department of Education,

Department of Justice, office of civil rights and the office of EL acquisition. Relevant Literature

to ELL is also stressing that the implementation of ELL policies should be in compliance with
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 30

the federal laws and court cases. However, some issues need to be explored and discussed such

as the alternative professional development plans in the case if a school didn't apply for the PD

grant fund while there are teachers who are in need to PD. Since application to receive the PD

grant fund is optional, what will happen if a school that need that grant fund didn't apply? Are

they any alternatives?

Another issue is concerning the evaluation tools of ELL programs. Are they any

strategies for monitoring the performance progress caused by a certain program and the

compliance of that progress with the primary policy goals? Is there any plan, or guidance for

emphasizing research-based selected programs and research-based selected type of

accommodation? The major question that I didn't find an answer for so far, what is next? Scores

reflected the weak performance of ELL students compared to none- ELL students, what is next?

What is the next step after we know this very important information regarding ELL education?

8. Recommendations based on the policy analysis

It is very important to close the gap in ELL student achievement to reduce the dropout rate

and to increase the number of high school graduates who graduate from college. If steps towards change

are not taken, ELL students will be set to more failure. Based on the study of the ELL laws and the ELL

policy implementation, this section is devoted to providing some recommendations that might help to

achieve the primary goal of the ELL policies which is providing ELL students with equal and meaningful

opportunities to participate in the Education program.

• ELL students should be given some time, 1-3 years to master English before they are considered

for national tests.

• ELL students can be tested in their native language to attain more valid information about

their actual knowledge.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 31

• Develop a monitoring strategy that ensures all ELL students receive the required range of

services that meet their particular needs.

• More emphasis should be given to improving teacher training opportunities so teachers can better

meet the needs of ELL students.

• The federal government needs to do more to improve the quality of assessment and the

assessment tools for ELL.

• All States must provide accommodation for ELL and research based accommodation is

highly recommended.

• Serious steps need to be taken towards the implementation of bilingual language teaching

since a growing body of research have shown that those students who are bilingual have

advantages, not only in their literacy development but in the development of problem-

solving skills and other areas of cognition (U.S. Dept. of Edu, 2016).

• ‘Sheltered English Instruction’ is highly recommended as a program for ELL. This

instructional approach proved to make academic instruction in English understandable to

ELL students. Based on this approach, teachers can use physical activities, visual aids,

and the environment to teach vocabulary for concept development in mathematics,

science, social studies, and other subjects. This approach connects language development

to subject achievement.

• When they discussed the implementation theory, Mortis &Scott, (2003. P.7) asserted that

"there is a gap between the intentions of policy makers and the implementation of policy

in schools." They argue that many policies cannot be implementation because of an

absence of financial resources or qualified personnel or because they are insufficiently

precise or because they are ambiguous. Therefore, it is highly recommended that

policymakers negotiate the implementation in the community of practice to facilitate the

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 32

understanding of any obscure issues and assist the measurement of the achievement of

the policy goals.

Conclusion

Knowledge mobilization is more than just telling people about research findings. It is the actual

connection between research and practice. Research is expected to contribute to making practice

better (Levin, 2013). More research-based approaches can inform policy decision making and

help find solutions for facing the current challenges. The increasing numbers of English

Language Learners and the consistent achievement gap between ELL students and native English

speakers suggest an important shift in pedagogical approaches to increase the meaningful

participation of ELLs in the education programs. Furthermore, adopting new approaches to

professional development can help teachers facilitate ELL students' learning and prepare them to

run more efficient ELL approaches. Investment in appropriate education for all students is more

than just good public investment policy with high monetary returns. Fairness in access to good

education is a matter of justice rather than mere economic rationality as measured by investment

returns. Financial returns can be considered as an additional incentive, however, a society that

provides fairer access to opportunities, that is more productive, and that has higher employment,

better health, less crime, and lower dependency is a better society in itself (Levin, 2009. P.17).

Therefore, and as a matter of justice, ELL students like other none- ELL students must be

provided with the appropriate learning opportunities that facilitate their participation in the

education programs and improve their academic performance.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 33

References

Abedi, J., & Gandara, P. (2006). Performance of English language learners as a subgroup

in large-scale assessment: Interaction of research and policy. Educational Measurement,

Issues, and Practices, 25 (4), 36- 47.

Calderón, M., Slavin, R., & Sánchez, M. (2011). Effective Instruction for English Learners. The

Future of Children, 21(1), 103-127. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41229013

Department of Education. (2016). English learners and title III of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act ESEA, as amended by Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved

from: https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essatitleiiiguidenglishlearners92016.pdf

Diem, S. Young, M. Welton, A. Mansfield, K. Lee, P (2014). The intellectual landscape of

critical policy analysis. International journal of qualitative studies education. 27(9).

1068- 1090.

Dunn, W. (2012). Public policy analysis (5th edition). Pearson Education. US

Freeman, D. (2002). Closing the Achievement Gap for English Language Learners: How to

Reach Limited Formal Schooling and Long-Term English Learners. Heinemann

Heubert, J., & Hauser, R. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and

graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press

Honig (2006). New Directions in Education policy implementation. State University of New

York Press.

Jensen, E. (2017). The English Language Learner Achievement Gap. The education partners.

Levin, B (2013). To know is not enough: Research knowledge and its use. Review of education.

1 (1), 2-31

Levin, H (2009). The economic payoff to investing in education justice. Educational researcher.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 34

38(1), 5-20

Li, H., & Suen, H.K. (2012). The effects of test accommodations for English language learners:

A meta-analysis. Applied Measurement in Education, 25(4), 327-346.

Lingenfelter, P. (2011). Evidence and Impact: How scholarships can improve policy and

practice. Change: The Magazine of higher learning. 43(3), 44- 49.

Mortis, P & Scott, I. (2003). Educational reform and policy implementation in Hong Kong.

Education policy. 18(1), 71-84

Murphey, D. (2014). The Academic Achievement of English Language Learners: Data for the

U.S and each of the states.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP): Reading and Mathematics (Washington, D.C.).

http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_ math

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). The Nation’s Report Card: 2015 Mathematics

and Reading Assessments. Retrieved from:

https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2015136

National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). English Language Learners in Public Schools.

Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp

Roekel, D. (2008). English Language Learners Face Unique Challenges. NEA Education Policy

and Practice Department& NEA Human and Civil Rights Department.

Roekel, D. (2011). Professional Development for General Education Teachers of English

Language Learners. NEA Quality School Programs and Resources Department.

Samway, K., & McKeon, D. (2007). Myths and Realities: Best practices for English language

learners (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann

Sireci, S., Li, S., & Scarpati, S. (2003). The effects of test accommodation on test
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 35

performance: A review of the literature (Report # 485). Amherst: University of

Massachusetts Amherst, Center for Educational Assessment Research

U.S Department of Education. Office for Civil rights (1999). Programs for English Language

Learner.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2000). The Provision of an Equal

Education Opportunity to Limited-English Proficient Students. Retrieved from:

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/eeolep/index.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2015a). Developing ELL Programs: Lau v. Nichols [Letters

(Correspondence); Policy Guidance]. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/l

ist/ocr/ell/lau.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2015b). FAQS on Limited-English Proficient Students--Office

For Civil Rights [FAQs; Offices]. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/

ocr/qa-ell.html

U.S Department of Education. (ND). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved from:

https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn

U.S Department of Justice& U.S Department of Education (2015). English learner students and

limited English proficient parent. Retrieved from:

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ellresources.html

U.S. Department of Justice. (2015). Types of Educational Opportunities Discrimination.

Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/crt/types-educational-

opportunities-discrimination

U.S. Department of Justice & U.S. Department of Education(ND). Ensuring English Learner

Students Can Participate Meaningfully and Equally in Educational Programs.

 ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING 36

Walker, A., Shafer, J., & Iiams, M. (2004). “Not in My Classroom”; Teacher Attitudes Towards

English Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. NABE Journal of Research

and Practice, 2(1), 130-160.

Zgutowicz, R. (2009). What effects does language anxiety have on ESL students’ decisions to

speak English in a middle school classroom? MA thesis.

View publication stats