NEPC Resources on Language and Learning
NEPC Review: Language Counts: Supporting Early Math Development for Dual Language Learners (Bellwether Education Partners, October 2020)
A study from Bellwether Education Partners establishes the need to focus on the mathematics education of young Dual Language Learners (DLLs). It presents lessons from research and practice on engaging families of DLLs in early mathematics learning. Unfortunately, the report omits major studies that are key to advancing our understanding of the capacity of young DLLs to engage in rigorous mathematical concepts when given opportunities to do so. Also, in its recommendations for teacher education/professional development, the report misses the opportunity to address what early childhood educators need to know about how young DLLs develop languages. Nonetheless, this report can inform policymakers and other stakeholders as they build asset-based programs that can support families and communities in engaging young DLLs in mathematics learning.
Who “Gets” to Be Bilingual?
NEPC Review: Meeting the Needs of English Learners and Other Diverse Learners (May 2010)
The research summary titled Meeting the Needs of English Learners and Other Diverse Learners outlines the administration’s proposals for reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to address the special educational needs of a broad category of students described as "diverse learners." While it purports to address recommendations for three groups (English learners, other diverse learners, and students with disabilities), the report does not in fact include students with disabilities. The research summary provides general recommendations without a systematic review of the research in support of the recommendations and without specific suggestions for how to put them into effect. The research summary highlights challenges but fails to provide solutions or suggest program improvements. For example, it indicates that all prospective teachers should be trained in English-learner teaching but does not address how this could be accomplished. The report introduces topics such as inadequate funding, program flexibility, and the need for data disaggregation, but provides no insights into how to progress in these areas. It says little about the rich research base in English-language learning and in meeting the needs of diverse learners. The research summary is also notable for the challenges and possible recommendations it fails to address, such as content area assessments and instruction.
Suggested Citation: Klingner, J. (2010). Review of "Meeting the Needs of English Learners and Other Diverse Learners." Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved [date] from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/english-learners
NEPC Review: Has Progress Been Made in Raising Achievement for English Language Learners? (April 2010)
The Center on Education Policy (CEP) report, Has Progress Been Made in Raising Achievement for English Language Learners?, finds that some states have seen increases in the number of English language learners (ELLs) meeting proficiency standards under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), while others have seen decreases. The report notes some limitations in the data it uses. The CEP report, however, has some specific weaknesses in its research methods that undermine its findings. The CEP report seriously underestimates the significance of language of instruction as a source of error in ELL achievement test scores. Further, it errs in implying that its findings justify an inference of a causal relationship between observed changes in percentages of ELLs meeting achievement benchmarks and improvements in academic achievement for ELLs. Given the limitations in the data, it is inappropriate to draw conclusions from the data summarized in the CEP report.
Suggested Citation: MacSwan, J. (2010). Review of "Has Progress Been Made in Raising Achievement for English Language Learners?" Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-progress-ELL
Fellows’ Education Letters to the President
NEPC Review: Immersion, Not Submersion, Vol III: Can a New Strategy for Teaching English Outperform Old Excuses? (November 2006)
A new report from the Lexington Institute, Immersion Not Submersion, Vol. III, concludes that an emphasis on English-only teaching methods mandated by Proposition 227 is responsible for notable improvements among California’s English Language Learners, and that these methods can even overcome the effects of poverty, larger class sizes, and lower per-pupil funding. This review finds these claims to be without merit. The Lexington Institute’s report suffers from poorly sampled data, inaccurate descriptions of district-level policies, failure to account for alternative explanations for observed changes in district testing data, and lack of any serious analysis of the data presented. The report also fails to acknowledge or address recently published research studies whose conclusions are dramatically different from those presented in the report. The report is not useful for guiding educational policy or practice.
Suggested Citation:
MacSwan, J. (2006). Review of “Immersion, Not Submersion, Vol III.” Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-immersion-not-submersion-vol-iii-can-a-new-strategy-teaching-english-outperform-old