National Assessment of Educational Progress data were analyzed to assess differences in reading achievement for Hispanic fourth graders across states with varying policies on language acquisition, controlling for student and school characteristics. Results indicated that (a) both Hispanic English language learner (ELL) and non-ELL students in states with stronger bilingual emphasis and more Title III funding have significantly higher reading achievement, (b) more preservice training on ELL issues and more professional development for working with diverse students had a significant effect on reading achievement among non-ELL Hispanics only, and (c) additional time to institutionalize immersion approaches did not narrow the reading achievement gap.
AbediJ.HofstetterC.LordC. (2004). Assessment accommodations for English language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review of Educational Research, 74, 1-28.
2.
Acts of the 67th Texas Legislature (1981).
3.
Arizona Revised Statutes §15-751 (2000).
4.
AltschulI.OysermanD.BybeeD. (2006). Racial-ethnic identity in mid-adolescence: Content and change as predictors of academic achievement. Child Development, 77, 1155-1169.
5.
BakerK. (1998). Structured English immersion. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 199-205.
6.
BakerK. (1999). Basics of structured English immersion for language minority students. Bilingual education: A focus on current research. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED432928)
7.
BakerK. A.de KanterA. A. (1981). Effectiveness of bilingual education: A review of the literature. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation.
8.
BakerK.de KanterA. (Eds.). (1983). Bilingual education: A reappraisal of federal policy. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
9.
BickelR. (2007). Multilevel analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford.
Castañeda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981).
14.
ChavousT.BernatD.Scmeelk-ConeK.CaldwellC.Kohn-WoodL.ZimmermanM. (2003). Racial identity and academic attainment among African American adolescents. Child Development, 74, 1076-1090.
15.
Cochran-SmithM.DavisD.FriesM. K. (2003). Multicultural teacher education: Research, practice and policy. In BanksJ. (Ed.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 931-975). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
16.
CollierV. P.ThomasW. P. (2004). The astounding effectiveness of dual language education for all. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2, 1-20.
CombsM. C.EvansC.FletcherT.ParraE.JiménezA. (2005). Bilingualism for the children: Implementing a dual-language program in an English-only state. Educational Policy, 19, 701-728.
19.
CrawfordJ. (2000). Anatomy of the English-only movement. In CrawfordJ. (Ed.), At war with diversity: U.S. language policy in an age of anxiety (pp. 4-30). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
CrawfordJ. (2007). The decline of bilingual education: How to reverse a troubling trend?International Multilingual Research Journal, 1, 33-37.
22.
CroizetJ. C.ClaireT. (1998). Extending the concept of stereotype threat to social class: The intellectual underperformance of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 588-594.
23.
CumminsJ. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121-129.
24.
CumminsJ. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 18-36.
25.
DeschenesS.CubanL.TyackD. B. (2001). Mismatch: Historical perspectives on schools and students who don’t fit them. Teachers College Record, 102, 525-547.
26.
DesimoneL. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented?Review of Educational Research, 72, 433-479.
27.
DolsonD. P.MayerJ. (1992). Longitudinal study of three program models for language-minority students: A critical examination of reported findings. Bilingual Research Journal, 16, 105-157.
28.
EchevarriaJ. A.GravesA. (2010). Sheltered content instruction: Teaching English language learners with diverse abilities (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
EscamillaK. (1992). Classroom discourse as improvisation: Relationships between academic task structure and social participation structure in lessons. In WilkinsonL. C. (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom (pp. 19-158). New York, NY: MacMillan.
FryR. (2007). How far behind in math and reading are English language learners?(Pew Hispanic Center Report). Retrieved from http://pewhispanic.org/reports/
34.
FurmanJ. (2008). Tensions in multicultural teacher education research: Demographics and the need to demonstrate effectiveness. Education and Urban Society, 41, 55-79.
35.
GándaraP.MerinoB. (1993). Measuring the outcomes of LEP programs: Test scores, exit rates, and other mythological data. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 320-338.
36.
GándaraP.RumbergerR. (2009). Immigration, language, and education: How does language policy structure opportunity?Teachers College Record, 111, 750-782.
37.
GándaraP.RumbergerR.Maxwell-JollyJ.CallahanR. (2003). English learners in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n36/
38.
GerstenR.WoodwardJ. (1995). A longitudinal study of transitional and immersion bilingual education programs in one district. Elementary School Journal, 95, 223-240.
39.
GollnickD. M. (2004). National and state initiatives for multicultural education. In BanksJ. A.BanksC. A. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research of multicultural education (pp. 44-64), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
40.
GonzálezR. D.MelisI. (Eds.). (2000). Language ideologies: Education and the social implications of official language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
GreeneJ. (1998). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness the Rossell & Baker review of bilingual education research. Bilingual Research Journal, 21, 102-122.
43.
HayesA. F.KrippendorfK. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77-89.
44.
HollinsE. R.GuzmanM. R. (2005). Research on preparing teachers for diverse populations. In Cochran-SmithM.ZichnerK. M. (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel of research and teacher education (pp. 477-548). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
HomboC. M. (2003). NAEP and No Child Left Behind: Technical challenges and practical solutions. Theory into Practice, 42, 59-65.
46.
IrbyB.TongF.Lara-AlecioR.MeyerD.RodríguezL. (2007). The critical nature of language of instruction compared to observed practices and high stakes tests in transitional bilingual classroom. Research in the Schools, 14, 27-36.
47.
JohnsonE. G. (1989). Considerations and techniques for the analysis of NAEP data. Journal of Educational Statistics, 14, 303-334.
48.
JonesL. V.OlkinI. (2004). Introduction. In JonesL. V.OlkinI. (Eds.) The nation’s report card: Evolution and perspectives (pp. 1-9). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa in cooperation with American Educational Research Association.
49.
KrashenS. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
50.
KrashenS. (1985). Insights and inquiries. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.
51.
KrashenS. D. (1991). Bilingual education: A focus on current research. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED337034)
52.
KrashenS. D. (1997a). Why bilingual education?Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED403101)
LareauA. (2000). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention in elementary education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
55.
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
56.
LazarínM. (2006). Improving assessment and accountability for English language learners in the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: National Council of La Raza.
57.
LeibowitzA. H. (1971). Educational policy and political acceptance: The imposition of English as the language of instruction in American schools. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 047321)
58.
Lindholm-LearyK. J. (2001). Dual language education. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters
59.
LordF. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
60.
LubienskiC.LubienskiS. T. (2006). Charter, private, public schools and academic achievement: New evidence from NAEP mathematics data. New York, NY: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education.
61.
LukeD. A. (2004). Multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
62.
LyonsJ. (1995). The past and future directions of federal bilingual education policy. In BakerC. (Ed.), Policy and practice in bilingual education: Extending the foundations (pp. 1-15). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
MadridA. (1990). Official English: A false policy issue. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 508, 62-65.
66.
MayS. (2003). Misconceiving minority language rights: Implications for liberal political theory. In KymlickaW.PattenA. (Eds.), Language rights and political theory (pp. 123-151). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
67.
MayS. (2005). Language rights: Moving the debate forward. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9, 319-347.
68.
McKownC.WeinsteinR. S. (2003). The development and consequences of stereotype consciousness in middle childhood. Child Development, 74, 498-515.
69.
MeeceJ. L.Kurtz-CostesB. (2001). Introduction: The schooling of ethnic minority children and youth. Educational Psychologist, 36, 1-7.
70.
MenkenK.AntunezB. (2001). An overview of the preparation and certification of teachers working with limited English proficient (LEP) students(Publication No. ED-99-CO-0007). Retrieved from http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/CMMR/FullText/teacherprep.pdf
71.
National Assessment Governing Board. (2009). Reading framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress(U.S. Department of Education ED-02-R-0007). Retrieved from http://www.nagb.org/publications/frameworks/reading09.pdf
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2009). NCELA State Title III information system. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/t3sis/
75.
NeuendorfK. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
NRS 388.405. (2005). Nevada code. System of public instruction: Program to teach language to certain pupils. Establishment; regulations; submission of certain evaluations required by federal law.
78.
Office of English Language Acquisition, language enhancement, and academic achievement for limited English proficient students—homepage. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/index.html
79.
OvandoC. J. (2003). Bilingual education in the United States: Historical development and current issues. Tempe: Arizona State University.
80.
OysermanD.HarrisonK.BybeeD. (2001). Can racial identity be promotive of academic efficacy?International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 379-385.
81.
PadillaA. M.GonzalezR. (2001). Academic performance of immigrant and U.S.-born Mexican heritage students: Effects of schooling in Mexico and bilingual/English language instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 727-742.
82.
ParrishT. B.MerickelA.PerezM.LinguantiR.SociasM.SpainA.DelanceyD. (2006). Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the education of English learners, K-12: Findings from a five-year evaluation(Final Report for AB 56 and AB 116). Retrieved from http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rs/804
PorfeliE.WangC.AudetteR.McCollA.AlgozzineB. (2009). Influence of social and community capital on student achievement in a large urban school district. Education and Urban Society, 42, 72-95.
85.
RamirezA.CarpenterD. (2005, April). Challenging assumptions about the achievement gap. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 599-603.
86.
RamirezJ. D.YuenS. D.RameyD. R.PastaD. J. (1991). Final report: Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit, and late-exit transitional bilingual education programs for language minority children. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED330216)
87.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2001). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
88.
ReardonS. F.GalindoC. (2009). The Hispanic-White achievement gap in math and reading in the elementary grades. American Educational Association Journal, 46, 853-891.
89.
RicentoT. (1996). The courts, the legislator and society: The shaping of federal language policy in the United States. In KibeeD. (Ed.), Language legislation and linguistic rights (pp. 123-141). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
90.
RolstadK.MahoneyK.GlassG. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy, 19, 572-594.
91.
RossellC. (2002). Dismantling bilingual education implementing English immersion: The California initiative. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
92.
RossellC.BakerK. (1996). The educational effectiveness of bilingual education. Research in the Teaching of English, 30, 7-69.
93.
RuizR. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8, 15-34.
94.
SalazarJ. J. (1998). A longitudinal model for interpreting thirty years of bilingual education research. Bilingual Research Journal, 22, 1-12.
95.
SkinnerC. J.HoltD.SmithT. M. F. (1989). Analysis of complex surveys. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
96.
SlavinR. E.CheungA. (2003). A synthesis of research on language of reading: Instruction for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 15, 247-284.
97.
SnijdersT. A. B.BoskerR. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London, UK: SAGE.
98.
SteeleC. M.AronsonJ. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.
99.
StritikusT. T.GarciaE. (2003). The role of theory and policy in the educational treatment of language minority students: Competitive structures in California. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n26/
100.
StrongM. (1986). Teacher language to limited English speakers in bilingual and submersion classrooms. In DayR. R. (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 53-63). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
101.
ThomasW. P.CollierV. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
102.
TruebaH. T.GuthrieG. P.AuK. H. (1981). Culture and the bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
103.
TyackD.CubanL. (1995). Tinkering toward Utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
104.
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). The condition of education 2007(Publication No. NCES 2007-064). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007064.pdf
105.
ValenzuelaA. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S. Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany: SUNY Press.
106.
WileyT. G.WrightW. E. (2004). Against the undertow: Language-minority education policy and politics in the “age of accountability.”Educational Policy, 18, 142-168.
107.
WilligA. C. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research, 55, 269-317.
108.
WilsonW. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
109.
Wisconsin Revised Statutes, Ch. PI 13 (2002).
110.
WongC. A.EcclesJ. S.SameroffA. (2003). The influence of ethnic discrimination and ethnic identification on African American adolescents’ school and socioemotional adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71, 1197-1232.
111.
WrightW. (2005). The political spectacle of Arizona’s Proposition 203. Educational Policy, 19, 662-700.
112.
ZwickR. (1992). Chapter 7: Statistical and psychometric issues in the measurement of educational achievement trends: Examples from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 17, 205-218.
