This article describes one researcher’s journey as an experimental psycholinguist through changes in practice and policy in the education of English language learners in the United States from the 1970s to the present day. The development of key debates on issues such as bilingualism, language of instruction, and the inclusion of English language learners in reform movements are described from the perspective of a researcher, and future prospects for work are outlined.
AbediJ.HofstetterC.LordC. (2004) Assessment accommodations for English language learners: Implications for policy-based research. Review of Educational Research, 74, 1–28.
2.
AugustD.HakutaK. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
3.
AyresL. (1909). Laggards in our schools. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
4.
BakerK.de KanterA. (Eds.). (1983). Bilingual education: A reappraisal of federal policy. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
5.
BialystokE. (2005). Consequences of bilingualism for cognitive development. In KrollJ. R.de GrootA. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 417–432). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
BialystokE.CraikF. I. M. (2010). Cognitive and linguistic processing in the bilingual mind. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 19–23.
8.
BialystokE.CraikF. I. M.FreedmanM. (2007). Bilingualism as a protection against the onset of symptoms of dementia. Neuropsychologia, 45, 459–464.
9.
BoyleA.TaylorJ.HurlbutS.SogaK. (2010, March). Title III accountability: Behind the numbers (ESEA Evaluation Brief: The English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
10.
BrykA.SebringP.AllensworthE.LuppescuS.EastonJ. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
Castañedav. Pickard648 F. 2d 989 (1981).
12.
ChildressS.ElmoreR.GrossmanA.JohnsonS. M. (Eds.). (2007). Managing school districts for high performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
13.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964).
14.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Read the Common Core State Standards. Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors’ Association. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards
15.
CookH. G. (2007). Some thoughts on English language proficiency standards and academic content standards alignment. Draft paper, WIDA Consortium, Madison, WI.
16.
CookH. GBoalsT.WilmesC.SantosM. (2007). Issues in the development of annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs) for WIDA Consortium states. Madison, WI: WIDA Consortium.
17.
CrawfordJ. (Ed.). (1992). Language loyalties: A source book on the Official English controversies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
CrawfordJ. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Bilingual Education Services.
19.
CumminsJ. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority children. In California Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority children: A theoretical framework (pp. 3–50). Los Angeles: California State University, Los Angeles, Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center.
20.
DanoffM.ColesG.McLaughlinD.ReynoldsD. (1978). Evaluation of the impact of ESEA Title VII Spanish/English bilingual education programs (3 vols.). Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.
21.
DavidJ.TalbertJ. (2010). Turning around a high-poverty school district: Learning from Sanger Unified’s success. San Francisco: S. H. Cowell Foundation.
22.
Development Associates. (1986). Year 1 report of the longitudinal phase[Technical report]. Arlington, VA: Author.
23.
DulayH.BurtM. (1973). Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 23, 245–258.
24.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-10, 79 Stat. 27 (1965).
25.
EpsteinN. (1977). Language, ethnicity, and the schools: Policy alternatives for bilingual-bicultural education. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
26.
FienbergS.MeyerM. (Eds.). (1992). Assessing evaluation studies: The case of bilingual education strategies. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
27.
FishmanJ. (1977). The social science perspective. In Bilingual education: Current perspectives (Vol. 1, pp. 1–49). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
28.
FrancisD.LesauxN.KiefferM.RiveraH. (2006). Research-based recommendations for the use of accommodations in large-scale assessments. Houston, TX: Center on Instruction.
29.
GalambosS.HakutaK. (1988). Subject-specific and task-specific characteristics of metalinguistic awareness in bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 141–162.
30.
GarciaE. (1994). Attributes of effective schools for language-minority students. In HollinsE.KingJ.HaymanW. (Eds.), Teaching diverse populations: Formulating a knowledge base (pp. 93–103). Albany: State University of New York Press.
31.
GoldenbergC. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does not—say. American Educator, 32(2), 8–44.
32.
GoldenbergC.ColemanR. (2010). Promoting academic achievement among English language learners: A guide to the research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
33.
HakutaK. (1974). Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 287–297.
34.
HakutaK. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books.
35.
HakutaK. (1987). Degree of bilingualism and cognitive ability in mainland Puerto Rican children. Child Development, 58, 1372–1388.
36.
HakutaK. (1991). What bilingual education has taught the experimental psychologist: A capsule account in honor of Joshua A. Fishman. In GarcíaO. (Ed.), Bilingual education: Focusschrift in honor of Joshua A. Fishman on the occasion of his 65th birthday (Vol. 1, pp. 203–212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
37.
HakutaK.ButlerY. GWittD. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? (Policy Report No. 2000-1). Santa Barbara: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
38.
HakutaK.DíazR. (1985). The relationship between degree of bilingualism and cognitive ability: A critical discussion and some new longitudinal data. In NelsonK. E. (Ed.), Children’s language (Vol. 5, pp. 319–344). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
HorwitzA.UroG.Price-BaughR.SimonC.UzzellR.LewisS.CasserlyM. (2009). Succeeding with English language learners: Lessons learned from the Great City schools. Washington, DC: Council of Great City Schools.
40.
LambertW. ETuckerG. R. (1972). Bilingual education of children: The St. Lambert experiment. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
41.
Lauv. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
42.
LinquantiR.GeorgeC. (2007). Establishing and utilizing an NCLB Title III accountability system: California’s approach and findings to date. In AbediJ. (Ed.), English language proficiency assessment in the nation: Current status and future practice (pp. 105–118). Davis: University of California, Davis, School of Education.
43.
MackeyW.BeebeV. (1977). Bilingual schools for a bicultural community: Miami’s adaptation to the Cuban refugees. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
44.
McLaughlinM. WShepardL. AO’DayJ. A. (1995). Improving education through standards-based reform. Report by the National Academy of Education Panel on Standards-Based Education Reform, National Academy of Education, Washington, DC.
45.
MoranC.HakutaK. (1995). Bilingual education: Broadening research perspectives. In BanksJ. (Ed.), Handbook of multicultural education (pp. 445–462). New York: Macmillan.
46.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
47.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
48.
Office for Civil Rights. (1991). Policy update on schools’ obligations toward national origin minority students with limited-English proficiency (LEP students). U.S. Department of Education Memorandum to OCR Senior Staff, from Michael Williams, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/september27.html
49.
OlsenL. (2010). Reparable harm: Fulfilling the unkept promise of educational opportunity for California’s long-term English learners. Long Beach, CA: Californians Together.
50.
ParrishT.MerickelA.PérezM.LinquantiR.SociasM.SpainA.. (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 1116). Palo Alto and San Francisco: American Institutes for Research and WestEd.
51.
PealE.LambertW. E. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monograph, 76(546), 1–23.
52.
PinkerS. (1994). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York: Morrow.
53.
RamirezD.YuenS.RameyD.PastaD. (1991). Final report: Longitudinal study of structured-English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual education programs for language-minority children. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International.
54.
RamseyA.O’DayJ. (2010, March). Title III policy: State of the states (ESEA evaluation brief: The English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act). Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.
55.
ShortD.FitzsimmonsS. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
56.
SnowC. E. (1987). Beyond conversation: Second language learners’ acquisition of description and explanation. In LantolfJ.LabarcaA. (Eds.), Research in second language learning: Focus on the classroom (pp. 3–16). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
57.
Stanford Working Group. (1993). Federal education programs for limited-English-proficient students: A blueprint for the second generation. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED363095)
ThompsonK. DHakutaK. (2011, April). Longitudinal analysis of English acquisition and academic achievement trajectories for students initially classified as English learners. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.
61.
Valeriav. Davis12 F. Supp. 2d 1014-15 (2002).
62.
WilliamsT.HakutaK.HaertelE. (2007). Similar English learner students, different results: Why do some schools do better? A follow-up analysis, based on a large-scale survey of California elementary schools serving low-income and EL students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
63.
WilliamsT.KirstM.HaertelE. (2005). Similar students, different results: Why do some schools do better? A large-scale survey of California elementary schools serving low-income students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
64.
Working Group on ELL Policy. (2010). Improving educational outcomes for English language learners: Recommendations for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved from http://ellpolicy.org/
