The large number of limited English proficient (LEP) children in U.S. schools and the uncertainty about the impact of bilingual education versus English immersion on their achievement warrant rigorous investigation of the effects of “English immersion laws.” We estimated the impact of Question 2, the Massachusetts English immersion law, and explored whether programs provided to LEP students before and after Question 2 imparted different language and reading skills. The results suggested that Question 2 had no substantial effect on third-grade LEP students’ reading achievement; there was suggestive evidence that pre- and post-Question 2 programs might attach emphasis to different subskills.
AnthonyJ. A.SolariE. J.WilliamsJ. M.SchogerK. D.ZhangZ.Branum-MartinL.FrancisD. J. (2009). Development of bilingual phonological awareness in Spanish-speaking English language learners: The roles of vocabulary, letter knowledge, and prior phonological awareness. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13, 535-564.
3.
Arizona Department of Education. (2004). The effects of bilingual education programs and structured English immersion programs on student achievement: A large-scale comparison. Retrieved from http://epsl.asu.edu/epru/articles/EPRU-0408-66-OWI.pdf
4.
AugustD. A.CalderónM.CarloM. (2001). The transfer of skills from Spanish to English. NABE News, 42, 11-12.
5.
AugustD.HakutaK. (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. National Research Council Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
6.
BakerK.de KanterA. A. (1981). Effectiveness of bilingual education: A review of the literature (Final draft report). Washington, DC: Department of Education, Office of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation.
7.
Branum-MartinL.MehtaP. D.FrancisD. J. (2011, March4). Immersion versus primary language effects for growth in Spanish and English letter-word identification among children, classrooms, and schools. Paper presented at the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness Spring 2011 Conference, Washington, DC.
8.
BriskM. E. (2005). Bilingual education. In HinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 7-24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9.
BriskM. E. (2006). Bilingual education: From compensatory to quality schooling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10.
ButlerY. G.OrrJ. E.Bousquet GutiérrezM.HakutaK. (2000). Inadequate conclusions from an inadequate assessment: What can SAT-9 scores tell us about the impact of Proposition 227 in California?Bilingual Research Journal, 24, 141-154.
11.
CamilliG.ShepardL. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE.
CumminsJ. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California Department of Education (Ed.), School and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3-50). Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center.
14.
CumminsJ. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In BialystokE. (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 70-89). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
DiazR. M. (1983). Thought and two languages: The impact of bilingualism on cognitive development. Review of Research in Education, 10, 23-54.
16.
Domínguez de RamírezR.ShapiroE. S. (2007). Cross-language relationship between Spanish and English oral reading fluency among Spanish-speaking English language learners in bilingual education classrooms. Psychology in the School, 44, 795-806.
17.
DoransN. J.HollandP. W. (1993). DIF detection and description: Mantel-Haenszel and standardization. In HollandP. W.WainerH. (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 35-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18.
DouglasJ. A.RoussosL. A.StoutW. (1996). Item-bundle DIF hypothesis testing: Identifying suspect bundles and assessing their differential functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 465-484.
19.
FrancisD. J.LesauxN. K.AugustD. L. (2006). Language of instruction for language minority learners. In AugustD. L.ShanahanT. (Eds.), Developing literacy in a second language: Report of the National Literacy Panel (pp. 365-414). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20.
GongB. (1999). Relationships between student performance on the MCAS (Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System) and other tests—collaborating district A, grades 4 and 10. Prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Education. Dover, NH: The National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment, Inc.
21.
GreeneJ. P. (1998). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual education. Claremont, CA: Thomas Rivera Policy Institute.
de JongE. J.GortM.CobbC. D. (2005). Bilingual education within the context of English-only policies: Three districts’ responses to Question 2 in Massachusetts. Educational Policy, 19, 595-620.
ManisF. R.LindseyK. A.BaileyC. E. (2004). Development of reading in grades K-2 in Spanish-speaking English-language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 214-224.
26.
MartinielloM. (2006). Linguistic complexity and differential item functioning for English learners in math tests. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.
Massachusetts Department of Education. (2002). Massachusetts consolidated state application for federal grants under Title IX, Part C, Section 9302 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Public Law 107-110). Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/nclb/stateapp/0703app.pdf
29.
Massachusetts Department of Education. (2003a). English language proficiency benchmarks and outcomes for English language learners. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/benchmark.pdf
Massachusetts Department of Education. (2004). Supplement to the Massachusetts English language arts curriculum framework: Grades 3, 5, and 7 grade level standards for vocabulary, reading, and literature. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/ela/0504sup.pdf
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2006). English language learners—Professional development. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/ell/profdev/
35.
MurnaneR. J.WillettJ. B. (2010). Methods matter: Improving causal inference in educational and social-science research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition & Language Instruction Educational Programs. (n.d.). The growing numbers of limited English proficient students 1995/96 – 2005/06. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/4/GrowingLEP_0506.pdf
ParrishT. B.MerickelA.PérezM.LinquantiR.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. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/227Reportb.pdf
RolstadK.MahoneyK.GlassG. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy, 19, 572-594.
44.
RossellC. (2000). The federal bilingual education program: Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In RavitchD. (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy (pp. 215-244). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
45.
RossellC. (2003). The near end of bilingual education. Education Next, 3(4), 44-52.
46.
RossellC. H.BakerK. (1996). The educational effectiveness of bilingual education. Research in the Teaching of English, 30(1), 7-74.
47.
RoussosL.StoutW. E. (1996). A multidimensionality-based DIF analysis paradigm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 355-371.
ShealyR. T.StoutW. E. (1993). A model-based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group ability differences and detects test bias/DIF as well as item bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58, 159-194.
50.
SlavinR. E.CheungA. (2003). Effective reading programs for English language learners: A best-evidence synthesis (Report No. 66). Washington, DC: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk. Retrieved from http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report66.pdf
51.
SlavinR. E.MaddenN.CalderónM.ChamberlainA.HennessyM. (2011). Reading and language outcomes of a multiyear randomized evaluation of transitional bilingual education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(1), 47-58. doi: 10.3102/0162373711398127
52.
SmithJ. M.CogginsC.Cardoso1J. M. (2008). Best practices for English language learners in Massachusetts: Five years after the Question 2 mandate. Equity & Excellence in Education, 41, 293-310.
53.
SnowC. E. (2000). Comment. In RavitchD. (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy (pp. 244-255). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
54.
StoutW.RoussosL. (1999). Dimensionality-based DIF/DBF Package [computer program]. William Stout Institute for Measurement, IL: University of Illinois.
55.
ThackerA. A.HoffmanR. G. (1999). Relationships between MCAS and SAT-9 for one district in Massachusetts. Prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Education. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.
56.
ThomasW. P.CollierV. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
57.
ThompsonM.DiCerboK.MahoneyK.MacSwanJ. (2002). Exito in California? A validity critique of language program evaluations and analysis of English learner test scores. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(7), 1-46.
58.
TongF.Lara-AlecioR.IrbyB.MathesP.KwokO. (2008). Accelerating early academic oral English development in transitional bilingual and structured English immersion programs. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 1011-1044. doi: 10.3102/0002831208320790
59.
TungR.UriarteM.DiezV.LavanN.AgustiN.KarpF.MeschedeT. (2009). English learners in Boston public schools: Enrollment, engagement and academic outcomes, AY2003-AY2006 final report. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Boston; Boston, MA: Center for Collaborative Education. Retrieved from http://www.gaston.umb.edu/articles/2009%20Final%20ELL%20Report_online.pdf
60.
UriarteM.LavanN.AgustiN.KalaM.KarpF.KiangP.. . . VillariC. (2009). English learners in Boston public schools: Enrollment, engagement and academic outcomes of native speakers of Cape Verdean Creole, Chinese Dialects, Haitian Creole, Spanish, and Vietnamese. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Boston; Boston, MA: Center for Collaborative Education. Retrieved from http://www.gaston.umb.edu/articles/2009%20Language%20Groups%20Report_online.pdf
WeisbergH. F. (2005). The total survey error approach: A guide to the new science of survey research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
63.
WilligA. C. (1985). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of bilingual education. Review of Educational Research, 55, 269-318.
64.
ZiekyM. (1993). Practical questions in the use of DIF statistics in test development. In HollandP. W.WainerH. (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 337-347). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
