Cited by 73Multilingual Education and PolicySecond Language Learning and TeachingEducation and experiences of immigrants and refugees

Restrictive Language Education Policies and Emergent Bilingual Youth: A Perfect Storm With Imperfect Outcomes

Menken, Kate·2013·Theory Into Practice

Abstract

This article focuses on 2 recent policy changes that have resulted in increased English-only instruction in US schools, with detrimental effects for emergent bilinguals (also known as English language learners): (a) statewide antibilingual education mandates in California, Arizona, and Massachusetts; and (b) the federal passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The causal link between antibilingual education state policies and English-only instruction is transparent, yet NCLB likewise restricts the use of languages other than English in instruction. To support this argument, I share research recently conducted in New York City that demonstrates how the accountability requirements of NCLB have resulted in the dismantling of numerous bilingual education programs. Although restrictive language education policies have been adopted in US schools in the name of improving academic outcomes for emergent bilinguals, this article shares data highlighting how these policies have failed to deliver on their promises, and concludes with implications for future policies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00405841.2013.804307

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • English-only instruction is a common occurrence in states with significant numbers of ELLs.

    “With English-only instruction as a common occurrence in states with significant numbers of ELLs (Menken, 2013), we approached our instructional framework with that in mind.”
  • States often discourage bilingual instruction preferring English-only.

    “While bilingual instruction is more often supported by research studies (Adetula, 1990; Moschkovich, 2007; see also Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005 for a meta-analysis), states often discourage bilingual instruction preferring English-only (Guo & Koretz, 2013; Menken, 2013; Menken & Solorza, 2014).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Menken, K.
Affiliations
City University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Menken, Kate
Venue
Theory Into Practice
Published
2013-07-03
Volume
52
Issue
3
Pages
160-168
ISSN
  • 0040-5841 (ISSN-L)
  • 1543-0421
OpenAlex
W2033360157
Cited by
73
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
24.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Theory Into Practice (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Multilingual Education and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Second Language Learning and Teaching
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and experiences of immigrants and refugees
Keywords
language education policy, English-only instruction, emergent bilinguals, English language learners, No Child Left Behind Act, school accountability, California, Arizona, Massachusetts, New York City

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review