No abstract

No abstract

Although numerous English language proficiency (ELP) measures currently exist, many were developed prior to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). These pre-NCLB measures typically focused on social language proficiency, whereas post-NCLB measures are linked to ELP standards and focus on academic language proficiency (ALP). ELP measures are typically used for accountability purposes and to determine eligibility for services; less attention has been given to their utility in enhancing classroom instruction and intervention provision. Inconsistency in scores between pre- and post-NCLB measures frequently leaves educators wondering whether English language learners (ELLs) have the necessary ALP to benefit from classroom instruction. This study investigates the intervention validity of ELP assessment by examining the concurrent validity of various pre-NCLB measures to a recently developed post-NCLB measure. As hypothesized, results indicate moderate correlations between pre- and post-NCLB measures, suggesting that ALP-focused post-NCLB measures are likely to provide more utility for ELL classroom instruction and intervention provision.

In the U. S., education issues are considered the purview of the states, with the federal government maintaining an important leadership role. However, without a coherent federal language-in-education policy and with an increasing number of language minorities in schools, the states have enacted language policies and guidelines that they believe meet the educational needs of these students. Although language policies in states with large numbers of language minority students have received much-deserved attention, there has been no systematic study of language planning and policy in states with small, unevenly distributed, yet growing numbers of language minority students. This article reports on a study of Indiana's language and education policies for language minority students from 1976, when the state bilingual education law was passed, to 1995. The goal of the study was to determine how and why language policy decisions were made and what the effect of those decisions was on the delivery of educational services for language minority students attending public schools. Drawing on legal documents and interviews with legislators and advocates, we document the process and outcome of the state's language policy decisions.

No abstract