magazinelogo

The Educational Review, USA

ISSN Print: 2575-7938 Downloads: 1072999 Total View: 9535904
Frequency: monthly ISSN Online: 2575-7946 CODEN: TERUBB
Email: edu@hillpublisher.com Citations: 842
ArticleOpen Access http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/er.2023.10.004

Challenges Facing a Teacher of English as a Global Language: Analysis of Policy and Practice in California in the US

Huaxiang Tang

School of Education, University of Glasgow (UofG), Glasgow, Scotland, UK.

*Corresponding author:Huaxiang Tang

Published: November 28,2023

Abstract

This essay critically evaluates the language ideology of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and its impact on pedagogy and practice, with a specific focus on the California law of language. The essay highlights that the standardized curriculum and testing requirements of NCLB have resulted in a narrow emphasis on language comprehension and limited opportunities for interactive learning. This has created challenges for bilingual students and English Language Learners (ELLs) who require a more dynamic, interactive, and flexible language learning environment. Furthermore, the essay suggests that the current language policy can impede the development of bilingual students and the effective teaching of world English to ELLs. In this regard, the essay recommends promoting global English or English as a lingua franca as an alternative to the current policy of using only English. By adopting a more inclusive language approach, the education system can guarantee that ELLs and bilingual students receive the essential support and resources to enhance their language skills, boost their academic achievements, and actively engage in an ever more diverse and globalized society.

Keywords

Language policies, NCLB, classroom practice, global English

References

Bureau, U. (2022). American Community Survey (ACS). Retrieved 4 May 2022, from https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/.

Crawford, J. (2004). No Child Left Behind: Misguided approach to school accountability for English language learners. In Forum on ideas to improve the NCLB accountability provisions for students with disabilities and English Language Learners (Vol. 10). Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

Crawford, J. (2007). The decline of bilingual education: How to reverse a troubling trend? International Multilingual Research Journal, 1(1), 33–37.

Evans, B., & Hornberger, N. (2005). No Child Left Behind: Repealing and unpeeling federal language education policy in the United States. Language Policy, 4, 87–106.

Galloway, N., & Numajiri, T. (2020). Global Englishes language teaching: Bottom‐up curriculum implementation. TESOL Quarterly, 54(1), 118-145.

Gándara, P., & Baca, G. (2008). NCLB and California’s English language learners: The perfect storm. Language Policy, 7(3), 201-216.

Hayes, W. (2008). No child left behind: Past, present, and future. R&L Education.

Heubert, J., & Hauser, R. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Kopriva, R. (2000). Ensuring accuracy in testing for English language learners. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State Officers.

Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

McNamara, T. (2012). English as a lingua franca: The challenge for language testing. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1), 199-202.

Menken, K. (2006). Teaching to the test: How No Child Left Behind impacts language policy, curriculum, and instruction for English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 521-546.

Menken, K. (2009). No Child Left Behind and its effects on language policy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 103-117.

National Security Education Program. (2002). National briefing on language and national security. Retrieved June 1, 2007, from http://www.nflc.org/policy_and_strategy/language_and_national_security/nflc_briefing_january_2002/full_transcript.

Rose, H., & Galloway, N. (2019). Global Englishes for language teaching. Cambridge University Press.

Scarino, A. (2014). Situating the challenges in current languages education policy in Australia–unlearning monolingualism. International Journal of Multilingualism, 11(3), 289-306.

Seargeant, P. (2009). The Idea of English in Japan. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, P. 26.

Solórzano, R. (2008, June). High stakes testing: Issues, implications, and remedies for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 78(2), 260–329.

Teng, F. (2015). The effectiveness of extensive reading on EFL learners’ vocabulary learning: Incidental versus intentional learning. BELT-Brazilian English Language Teaching Journal, 6(1), 66-80.

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml.(Accessed: 2nd September 2022). 

Wiley, T.G. (2015). Sociolinguistics and Language Education. In Wright, Boun & García (eds.). The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 164-184. 

Woodson, K. (2010). Discursive relationships between dominant US language policy ideologies and the Congressional Record in relation to Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The University of Texas at San Antonio.

Woolard, K. A., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Reviews 23.

Wright, W. E. (2007). Heritage language programs in the era of English-only and No Child Left Behind. Heritage Language Journal, 5(1), 1-26.

How to cite this paper

Challenges Facing a Teacher of English as a Global Language: Analysis of Policy and Practice in California in the US

How to cite this paper: Huaxiang Tang. (2023). Challenges Facing a Teacher of English as a Global Language: Analysis of Policy and Practice in California in the US.The Educational Review, USA7(10), 1485-1489.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/er.2023.10.004