Review of Has Progress Been Made in Raising Achievement for English Language Learners

MacSwan finds that the CEP report has significant weaknesses in its research methods which undermine its findings. Further, he indicates that given the limitations in the data, it is inappropriate to draw conclusions from the data summarized in the report

NEPC Review: Has Progress Been Made in Raising Achievement for English Language Learners?

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

NEPC Review: Immersion, Not Submersion, Vol III: Can a New Strategy for Teaching English Outperform Old Excuses?

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

Code‐mixing and Code‐switching

Code‐mixing or code‐switching is the use of more than one language or variety within a single communication event. Various information is signaled by the choice of language or by switching from one variety to another. This may include the structure of the ongoing interaction, the relevant social context, or elements of the speakers' identities highlighted in the interaction. Research on language mixing or code‐switching developed in the mid‐twentieth century, following occasional work on language mixing in the preceding century. Linguists have explored constraints on code‐switching within a sentence, as well as the phonological and grammatical structure of borrowed or switched forms. Work in linguistic anthropology and related fields reveals various ways that language choice and code‐switching signal or create context in interaction. Language users select from their repertoires to highlight elements of identity or to negotiate relevant social roles. Future directions in research include understanding language use in diverse or globalized settings, and challenging views of normative monolingualism against more complex language behavior.book par

Academic English as standard language ideology: A renewed research agenda for asset-based language education

The author situates language education policy and scholarship on Academic English within the broader historical context of standard language ideology, the view that the language variety of socio-economic elites is intrinsically more complex than other varieties. It is argued that the current predominant focus on the nature of school language gives the impression that school language alone can express complex ideas or use complex grammar, leaving little conceptual space for leveraging children’s home language varieties. The author calls for a return to historical commitments to an asset-based approach to school and home language differences in mainstream language education research. </jats:p

A Multilingual Perspective on Translanguaging

Translanguaging is a new term in bilingual education; it supports a heteroglossic language ideology, which views bilingualism as valuable in its own right. Some translanguaging scholars have questioned the existence of discrete languages, further concluding that multilingualism does not exist. I argue that the political use of language names can and should be distinguished from the social and structural idealizations used to study linguistic diversity, favoring what I call an integrated multilingual model of individual bilingualism, contrasted with the unitary model and dual competence model. I further distinguish grammars from linguistic repertoires, arguing that bilinguals, like monolinguals, have a single linguistic repertoire but a richly diverse mental grammar. I call the viewpoint developed here a multilingual perspective on translanguaging.</jats:p