








































Article 
 

Shuang Fu, Graduate Student, Department of Language and Literacy Education, University of Georgia, 
Athens, GA; email shuangfu@uga.edu. 
 

Breaking the Silence: A Critical 
Review of Language Policy and 
Planning for Long-Term English 
Learners 

GATESOL Journal 
2021, Vol. 31(1), pp. 17–35 

doi:10.52242/gatesol.125 
ISSN: 2331-6845 

 

 
Shuang Fu 
University of Georgia 
 

Abstract 
Despite scholarship on emergent bilingual students that continues to evolve, the subgroup of 
emergent bilinguals who are labeled as long-term English learners (LTELs) have been 
overlooked and underserved for too long. LTELs refer to English learners who have been 
educated in a U.S. school for six years or more. This literature review is aimed at bringing 
awareness to this subgroup population and identifying the characteristics and classification 
process of LTELs described in the present scholarship. The review critically examines the de 
facto policy about LTELs from perspectives of the current climate of standardized tests 
(language management), the label itself (language ideology), and programs and schooling 
experience of these students (language practice). The literature review not only speaks to the 
stereotypes, struggles, and challenges that LTELs face, but also calls for future research 
studies to be conducted in addressing these problems pedagogically, institutionally, and 
systematically. 
 
Keywords 
long-term English learners, English proficiency, language policy, standardized test, labeling 

 
Introduction 
Recent estimates from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2019) indicate that 
emergent bilingual learners are one of the fastest growing populations in U.S. schools. Over the 
past decade, there have been several seminal works generated in the field. These studies cover 
students’ school experience, linguistic repertories, cultural diversities, and digital literacies (e.g., 
García & Kleifgen, 2010; García-Mateus & Palmer, 2017; Johnson, 2019; Reyes et al., 2016). 
However, as the scholarship on emergent bilinguals continues to evolve, the subgroup of emergent 
bilingual students who are labelled as long-term English learners (LTELs) has been overlooked 
and underserved for long. In broad terms, the label LTELs tends to include the following entities: 
students who speak a language other than English, who have been educated in the U.S. for six 
years or more, and whose social listening and speaking skills are similar to native English speakers 
but are still designated as English learners (ELs). They typically perform far below grade level in 
academic tasks that require discipline-specific English oral language and literacy (Olsen, 2012). 
Despite there being a small but growing body of literature on understanding the educational 
backgrounds and unique needs of these students, knowledge about LTELs comes from studies 
conducted in only a handful of states (e.g., New York, California), and the development of 
pedagogical approaches and instructional programs serving LTELs still remains very low 
(Ascenzi-Moreno, 2017; King & Bigelow, 2018).  

mailto:shuangfu@uga.edu


18 GATESOL Journal 31(1)  
 

There is no national standard nor estimate identifying the number of bilingual learners 
having long-term status, but data at the state and city level indicate LTELs are a sizable percentage 
of the student population. For example, the New York City Department of Education reported that 
11.7% of the student population was classified as LTELs during the 2015–2016 school year 
(Kieffer & Parker, 2016); earlier research conducted in 40 districts in California found that LTELs 
constitute 59% of the multilingual student population (Olsen, 2010). In Chicago, LTELs comprise 
approximately one-third of secondary emergent bilinguals (de la Torre et al., 2019). These striking 
statistics indicate an urgent need for great attention to LTELs, as LTELs are disproportionately 
represented in national dropout and grade retention (Callahan, 2013). 

Because these students come to school with a wide range of home languages, literacy 
proficiencies, and education experiences, their academic needs may be different from those of 
typical bilingual learners who have arrived in the U.S. in recent years. Due to issues such as 
disrupted schooling and transnational experiences, LTELs generally do not have opportunities to 
develop literacy in their home languages. Therefore, these students have been described as having 
less than full proficiency in either L1 or L2 (e.g., Freeman et al., 2002; Olsen, 2010) and have been 
socially constructed in connection to the concept of “semilingualism” (Cummins, 1979, p. 40). 
The label LTELs was created to make educators aware of this group of students and was aimed at 
improving the educational outcomes of these students. However, as a bilingual educator in the 
U.S. with a transnational background, I find the label problematic, particularly because I realize 
the label LTELs often frames students as deficient and views students solely based on English 
language proficiency testing results, while ignoring other complex factors, such as racial/ethnic 
backgrounds, transnational/disrupted educational experiences, and everyday language practices. I 
argue LTELs engage in flows of values, beliefs, cultures, and languages through “technological, 
financial, and other global infrastructures” (Skerrett, 2019, p. 502) of students’ home culture and 
U.S. culture. Immigrant students’ schooling experience is more than a simplistic “acquisition of 
knowledge and skills in English language and U.S. culture” (Valenzuela & Rubio, 2017, p. 4360). 
But more importantly, under the globalized context, ELs are constantly learning and unlearning 
the cultures, values, and beliefs of U.S. society and socializing into the communities that they 
become a part of. 

Therefore, the first goal of this literature review is to bring awareness to this subgroup 
population and identify the characteristics and classification process of LTELs described in the 
present scholarship. The second goal orients from the perspective that a systematic understanding 
of research studies should be critical and humanizing. Labelling students as LTELs, for example, 
omits the bilingualism of these students and perpetuates inequities in the education of this 
population. My third goal is to inform future research concerning LTELs. Through reviewing and 
examining the existing literature, we can better set up goals for policy reforms and pedagogical 
practices in classrooms for LTELs. The research questions I’m seeking to address in this literature 
review are: 
 

1. What differentiates students who are classified LTELs from dual language speakers who 
are placed in the mainstream classrooms? 

2. How does the classification and reclassification system relegate LTELs to a perpetual 
status of academic and linguistic deficiency?  

3. How does the label affect the ways students are perceived in schools, and to what extent 
does the perception impact students’ opportunities to learn? 

 



Fu 19 
 

Methods of Literature Search and Selection 
To address the research questions, I sought empirical studies pertaining to LTELs within the past 
decade. I set the parameters of publication years because the population of school-aged ELs has 
significantly increased over the past decade, transforming language policies and school 
instructions around them. The literature search process involved several steps. First, I included 
only peer-reviewed journal articles. ERIC, JSTOR, and Web of Science were used as the primary 
search engines. In the database searches, I searched a variety of terms referring to the same 
population, including long-term English Learners, long-term English language learners, LTELs, 
and LTELLs. Then I visited scholars’ websites that I identified as renowned in the field to see their 
related publications. These scholars are Kate Menken, Tatyana Kleyn, Nelson Flores, Laurie 
Olsen, and Maneka Deanna Brooks. These publications also represent scholars’ different 
approaches to conducting research and how they shift the framing of LTELs over the years. It is 
worth noting the paucity of literature discussing the education of LTELs. The majority of studies 
were conducted in California (29%), Texas (18%), and New York (4%), and few were found in 
other states. Presumably, this is because the three states have more than half of the nation’s EL 
population (Ruiz-Soto et al., 2015), and my identified scholars also reside in these areas. I did not 
apply other reduction criteria at this step if the studies were focused on LTELs. Finally, I searched 
Google Scholar for articles that were not found with the first two search steps. After these steps, I 
initially reviewed 26 articles at the abstract level and started eliminating those that didn’t meet my 
review criteria. For example, I didn’t include studies that focus on LTELs outside of the U.S. 
Finally, I included 19 articles in this review.  

The literature search procedures have several limitations. First, considering only peer-
reviewed journal articles may have caused me to miss many important studies that are presented 
in other ways, such as doctoral dissertations, academic presentations, and edited collections and 
books. Second, I selected key words in the title as the search setting, which could possibly exclude 
related empirical studies as well. Despite these limitations, the systematic searching process was 
thorough enough to address the research questions. 
 
Theoretical Framework  
Language planning and policy (LPP) has been broadly defined as an approach to solve social 
problems created by language differences in nation development since its emergence from the 
beginning (Fishman, 1968a). With its aim to solve language problems after the independence of 
new nations, LPP in the post-colonial years of the 1950s and 1960s concentrated on the language 
planning at the state or national level. As Rubin and Jernudd (1971) explain, “Language planning 
is deliberate language change; that is, changes in the system of language code or speaking or both 
that are planned by organizations that are established for such purposes or given a mandate to 
fulfill such purposes” (p. 29). These earlier frameworks in the field of LPP focused on top-down 
authoritative language planning and the resolutions of language problems at the national or state 
level (Fishman, 1968b; Haugen, 1966). In other words, during the earlier period of LPP 
development, how a policy was implemented and what the implementation process looks like was 
ignored and overlooked.  

While LPP studies primarily focus on the policies of government officials promoting 
systematic linguistic change in a community or a society, there are various forces at the macro- 
and micro-levels at work. Across stages of language planning, different individuals and social 
agencies are distinctively linked to the rules, regulations, and practices and hold important roles in 
achieving the intended language policy. Therefore, each individual language user and different 



20 GATESOL Journal 31(1)  
 

social agencies cannot be isolated from the sociopolitical contexts in which they dwell or are 
educated (Canagarajah, 2005; Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997). In this way, LPP moves beyond the top-
down or bottom-up construct to a conceptualization of being a more dynamic, interactive, and 
nonlinear process (García, 2009).  

To highlight the complexity within the LPP creation and implementation, Ricento and 
Hornberger (1996) introduced the metaphor of an onion framework to evoke a multi-layered 
understanding of how language policies work. The layers of the onion from outer to the center 
illuminated the political processes from the state and national agencies to institutions and 
individuals to enact language policies. Within the framework, agents at the national, institutional, 
and interpersonal levels are all engaged in the process wherein interacting with one another. Thus, 
through the application of the onion metaphor, we can see the connection across different layers 
and how power moves at different levels.  

Furthermore, Spolsky (2004) suggested that language policy encompasses three 
interrelated but independently describable components: “language practices, beliefs and 
management of a community or polity” (p. 9). Specifically, language practices refer to the actual 
linguistic choices and behaviors; language beliefs are the values and statuses assigned to named 
languages and language varieties; language management refers to the explicit and observable effort 
by someone or some group that claims authority over the participants in the domain to modify 
related practices and beliefs (Spolsky, 2004). According to Spolsky (2004), language policies can 
be both overt and covert, and can include all decisions people make about language in the society. 
Spolsky’s inclusive definition of language policy redefines who can be policymakers. That is, 
people with all different positions in the social, political, and economic world are capable of 
enacting macro-/meso-/micro- levels of language policies. This three-component LPP framework 
provides us an important approach to examine a wide range of language issues, such as the 
establishment of official language(s) in a country, the discussion of official language(s) in schools, 
as well as language ideologies embedded in education and so forth.  

Education is seen as central to LPP and schools serve as an important space for education 
policy implementation (Menken, 2008; Menken & Garcia, 2010). Informed by Spolsky’s (2004) 
LPP framework, Shohamy (2006) spoke of “language education policy” as the “mechanism used 
to create de facto language practices in educational institutions” (p. 76). Shohamy (2006) 
investigated how the three components contribute to the construction of de facto language policy 
and in what ways de facto language policies are connected with language beliefs and practices. 
Shohamy argued that language education policy has often been determined by political 
considerations or sociopolitical ideologies instead of pedagogical factors in the field of bilingual 
education. Shohamy’s perspective aligns with Johnson and Johnson’s (2015) ethnographic studies 
with EL students where he found LPP is political in nature. Because for students who speak 
English as their second or foreign language, their performance on standardized testing can decide 
what content is being taught in schools, how and by whom it was taught, and in which language. 
The significant impacts of the testing policy on EL students’ schooling experience, in other words, 
becomes the de facto language policy. 

I adopt this perspective of seeing standardized testing as the de facto language policy in 
my literature review. I argue the issues with language policy, specifically within the educational 
contexts, are deeply intertwined with the status of languages in the society and illuminate the 
sociolinguistic ideologies. By examining the previous literature around LTELs labelling and 
exploring their educational trajectories, I argue the binary thinking that categorizing students into 
English learners and English speakers and even with a subcategory of LTELs tells a set of 



Fu 21 
 

ideologies about languages. And the tactic binary sociolinguistic logic can powerfully transfer over 
to the ways how bilingual learners are treated and educated in the U.S. school context. 
Furthermore, the EL and LTEL labels establish a deficient perspective of bilingual learners and 
ignore the linguistic skills and assets of knowledge bilingual learners bring into their schools and 
classrooms. Consequently, the labelling and the current EL classification system fails to challenge 
the logic of sociolinguistic ideologies and continue to frame students who embrace language 
practices other than English as inherently deficient. Thus, we must seek an alternative approach to 
racial assemblages and understand students who are labelled as ELs and LTELs inhibit various 
historical, political, and economic positionalities as they migrate to the country and enroll into the 
public school system, so that we can ensure their academic rigors and continue honoring minority 
communities’ racial, cultural, and linguistic practices. 
 
Findings 
To understand how the status of LTELs impacts their learning opportunities and learning 
outcomes, I align my arguments with Spolsky’s (2004) three components of de facto language 
policy framework. First, the use of standardized testing to decide students’ further educational 
experiences indicates the perception of ELs’ linguistic proficiency as inadequate. Thus, regulating 
students’ language use through the current classification and reclassification system to fix EL 
students’ language problems is an example of language management. Second, I find the label 
LTEL used in policies, reports, and academic journal articles is indicative of a language ideology 
that privileges English monolingualism. The monoglossic language ideology works to exacerbate 
educational inequities and fosters a systematic negation of minoritized students’ cultures and 
languages. Third, I reviewed literature on LTELs’ schooling experience for illustration of 
individuals’ language practices. Recognizing the inadequacy in educational programs and 
pedagogies development for LTELs can help us better counter the subtractive educational practices 
and undergird LTELs’ schooling experiences. 
 
Long-Term English Learners in the Context of High-Stakes Standardized Tests 
According to Nekvapil (2006), language management can range from micro levels such as a family 
to macro levels such as a nation-state. In the domain of English language education, a state English 
language proficiency (ELP) exam can be considered as a type of language management, 
determining whether an EL exits English language learner status. ELP exams, in the U.S. K–12 
context, were developed after the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, which required ELs to be 
tested annually for English proficiency (NCLB, 2002). NCLB mandated the assessment of 
language proficiency, thus determining programming, instruction and curriculum. With the 
reauthorization of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), the Every 
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015) replaced the previous law of NCLB and required schools to 
build English proficiency rates into their accountability framework. Although federal policy 
dictates all states use ELP exams to assess ELs, proficiency is essentially a cut score decided by 
convening a committee within each state. For example, in California, an overall proficiency level 
4 on the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC) must be identified to 
be considered for reclassification. In Texas, students must score 40th percentile or above in the 
State Standardized Reading Assessment before their reclassification case can be sent for review. 
In New York, students must score at the commanding level on the New York State English as a 
Second Language Achievement Test (NYSESLAT) to be classified. In the end, where the cut 
scores are set is a matter of a state committee’s judgment about how students ought to perform on 



22 GATESOL Journal 31(1)  
 

the test (Rosenberg, 2004). Moreover, there is no homogeneous definition of proficiency to exit 
EL status across and sometimes within states, either. According to Title III of ESSA, an EL is 
defined as: 
 

an individual . . . whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the 
English language . . . may deny the individual the ability to . . . (a) meet the state’s 
proficiency level of achievement on state assessments; (b) successfully achieve in 
classrooms where the language of instruction is English; or (c) the opportunity to 
participate fully in society. (Title III, ESSA, 2015) 

 
As demonstrated from the text above, current policy in practice places great emphasis on assessing 
language proficiency through the lens of state assessments. Under ESSA, states are authorized 
with much control of accountability. As a result, the proportion of bilingual students who are 
identified as ELs varies across states, suggesting that one student who is considered an EL might 
be reclassified as a non-EL in a different state, thus leading to different programs and learning 
opportunities. In New York City, approximately half of ELs are able to be reclassified within three 
years of school (Conger, 2009; Slama, 2014). However, Umansky and Reardon (2014) found that 
in California, the time for students to be reclassified is much longer. The median time necessary 
for reclassification to occur for the Latino ELs in California was 8 years (Umansky & Reardon, 
2014). In fact, an EL student in New York City is only required to demonstrate proficiency on the 
state ELP exam to become reclassified. The same student in the state of Iowa is required to 
demonstrate proficiency on the state ELP exam and academic content test to be reclassified. 
Moreover, that same student attending school in California would be required to demonstrate 
proficiency on the state ELP exam and on the academic content test in English Language Arts, 
plus teacher evaluation of the pupil’s curriculum mastery using a locally developed protocol and 
parent consultation are both needed for the student to be reclassified (Cook & Linquanti, 2015). 
This is significant because as the measures used to determine student acquisition of the English 
language vary, so does the number of students reclassified from state to state and district to district 
(Cook & Linquanti, 2015). The implementation of ESSA requires states to answer the question, 
“How long does it take for ELs to become proficient?” Because each state has its own criteria for 
reclassification, it is difficult to compare results across states (Linquanti & Cook, 2013). 

There have been several concerns and questions raised about ELP exams (Clark-Gareca, 
2016), among which are whether the tests solely assess students’ language proficiency or whether 
they evaluate students’ knowledge of the content areas represented in the Common Core State 
Standards (CCSS). After reviewing a variety of ELP assessments in use across the United States, 
Solórzano (2008) found the tests had different definitions of proficiency and thus assessed 
proficiency quite differently. Based on the synthesis of the literature, Solórzano concluded the 
continued use of high-stakes test results for decision making has adverse consequences for ELs 
and LTELs. In fact, because of the complex components to define proficiency in the test, some 
teachers have questioned whether non-ELs from mainstream classrooms would score highest if 
they took the ELP exams. With the adaptation of CCSS and to support EL students in meeting the 
rigorous content standards for college and career readiness, each state was required to adopt ELP 
standards that correspond to the college and career-ready standards (U.S. Department of 
Education, 2016a). In particular, the latest reauthorization of ESEA clarifies that each state must 
adopt ELP standards that “(i) are derived from the 4 recognized domains of speaking, listening, 
reading, and writing; (ii) address the different proficiency levels of English learners; and (iii) are 



Fu 23 
 

aligned with the challenging State academic standards” (U.S. Department of Education, 2016b,  p. 
24). I find it troubling when tests attempt to measure the integration of literacy and content 
standards, because it might not portray accurately what students know and are able to do. The 
washback effects of high-stakes tests have drawn attention from test developers and educational 
researchers due to the impacts of such tests on education and society (e.g., Fox & Cheng, 2007; 
Green, 2013; Menken, 2006). For example, Menken (2006) examined the washback effects of 
policy-driven high-stakes tests on ELs and found that the curriculum and instructions for ELs were 
driven by the tests rather than aligned with students’ learning needs. Thus, it’s doubtful whether 
the instructions students received have a positive impact on their learning. In other words, students’ 
learning needs can be easily overshadowed by the massive washback effects of high-stake tests.  

As a comprehensive system made up of 40 U.S. states, territories, and federal agencies, 
WIDA (formerly World-Class Instructional Design & Assessment) is a consortium that aims at 
developing, designing, and implementing a high-quality culturally and linguistically responsive 
system to support English language learners in K–12 contexts. In 2019, WIDA published a 
research report and estimated the potential LTEL population across 15 states, representing all four 
quadrants of the U.S. In the study, the minimum threshold was defined as a composite proficiency 
level (CPL) of 4.5 for the prior school year on the ACCESS for ELLs test. This minimum CPL 
was also the standard for ELs to be reclassified as English proficient across all 40 WIDA states 
and territories. Among the cohort of 167,000 students in grades K, 1, or 2 during the 2009–2010 
school year, approximately 13% of ELs were identified as potential LTELs, 65% were classified 
as potentially proficient, while 22% dropped out from the analysis prior to 2014 (Sahakyan & 
Ryan, 2018). The study also found that the proportions of potential LTELs varied significantly 
across states from 2% to 24%, and this was true even after adjusting for states’ varied 
reclassification requirements (Sahakyan & Ryan, 2018). The findings here raise questions to what 
extent state language policies affect the observed variability and make implications for 
stakeholders to further work on understanding factors that are associated with LTEL rates. 

Another approach for better understanding the process of ELs becoming LTELs is to 
investigate ELs’ time to be reclassified. ELs’ reclassification not only provides details of students’ 
progress in the pre-LTEL period, but also sheds light on why some bilingual learners enter long-
term status. Studies by Cummins (1981) and Collier (1987) were representative among early 
research in the 1980s. Based on analysis of a dataset from over 1200 immigrant students in Canada, 
Cummins (1981) suggested that it takes between five and seven years for an EL to acquire 
nativelike English language proficiency (ELP) for academic purposes. Later research conducted 
by Collier (1987) confirmed and extended Cummins’ finding. Collier additionally suggested 
students’ age and basic literacy in L1 upon arrival are essential variables to determine time to attain 
ELP for academic purposes. However, these findings have also been discussed much in later 
literature. As Conger (2009) noted, the studies relied on small samples of participants during the 
1970s and 1980s, and participants were concentrated in only one or two schools. As a result, the 
length of time needed to achieve proficiency estimated in these studies should be viewed critically.  

Generally, students move through six steps that include EL screening, initial proficiency 
testing, assignment of service, annual proficiency testing, analysis of scores, and exiting EL status. 
However, a significant number of ELs have difficulty exiting because they are not gaining 
proficiency at the expected rate. For example, Parrish et al. (2006) estimated that the probability 
of an EL remaining classified as an EL after 5 years in the U.S. is 75%, and fewer than 40% of 
ELs are reclassified out of the status 10 years after designation. Parrish’s result is based on 
examining data from California over a period of five years, where the population of ELs and 



24 GATESOL Journal 31(1)  
 

LTELs is the largest across the nation (NCES, 2017). The protracted progress of ELs limits their 
understanding of the grade-level content courses that are taught in English and also precludes them 
from advanced coursework that is prerequisite for higher education opportunities. Therefore, 
instead of blaming LTELs for lack of language proficiency and academic literacy, it is of greater 
importance to view the current designation system critically and examine whether it is serving ELs 
and LTELs and providing them with enough learning opportunities. To have a better understanding 
of ELs’ language developmental trajectories, Larsen-Freeman (2016) proposed Complex Dynamic 
Systems Theory (CDST) in tracing ELs’ language proficiency growth over time. According to 
CDST, language can be depicted as a dynamic system (i.e., a set of variables that interact over 
time), and language development can be viewed as a complex dynamic process. Larsen-Freeman 
(2016) argued that spontaneous occurrence of new changes arises from the interaction of the 
components of a complex system. By applying CDST in studies of second language acquisition, 
the findings will help policymakers and educators develop programs that facilitate students gaining 
English proficiency and reduce the risk of bilinguals entering long-term status. 

As shown by the studies we’ve discussed in the section, standardized test results play an 
important role in assessing students’ English proficiency. Though the test is not necessarily 
considered to be bad, the washback effects of the test reflect the negative effect of a type of 
language management. While the problematic process of classification and reclassification of ELs 
is not the sole cause for students to become LTELs, it is influential in deciding subsequent 
programming and school experience which should not be overlooked. Thus, sometimes ELs 
become LTELs, not due to their actual English abilities, but due to errors in bureaucratic processes 
(Brooks, 2018; Thompson, 2015). Given that EL students are heterogeneous in many ways (e.g., 
race, age, learning progress), more evidence other than ELP test score needs to be gathered to 
fulfill students’ needs more adequately. Rather than relying on one single assessment for making 
high-stake decisions, other assessments or measurements should be incorporated to counteract the 
adverse impact of any one poorly devised test (Stokes-Guinan & Goldenberg, 2010/2011). In terms 
of the assessment use and purposes, formative assessments gathered from classroom activities can 
provide deliberate collection of information on student performances at the micro level, and EL 
learners’ needs can be responded to by teachers more incrementally. In this way, we are using 
assessment for and in learning rather than of learning (Wiliam & Thompson, 2017). 
 
Connotations of the Label of Long-Term English Learners 
Guided by Spolsky (2004), the second component of the LPP framework is language beliefs, 
sometimes called language ideologies. The established ideologies are significant to language 
policy and planning as they associate with the values assigned to languages and language 
variations. In examining the label of LTELs, I suggest that the label can be understood as a 
symbolic term naturalizing monolingual and English-only ideology. As Link and Phelan (2013) 
said, any label is a “package deal” (p. 528), encompassing both costs and benefits. García (2009) 
demonstrates how the language used to identify bilingual learners impacts their educational 
experience in multiple ways. For example, she notes that referring to students as emergent 
bilinguals instead of limited English proficiency (LEP) or English Learners (ELs) highlights their 
potential rather than shortcomings or limitations of English skills. Therefore, labelling to some 
extent may lead individuals to experience injustice and discrimination. In specifically looking at 
the literature associated with the LTEL label, this part of the review attempts to uncover the 
powerful ideologies inherent in the term and provide a more complex understanding of students 



Fu 25 
 

who are labelled LTELs. Through analyzing the label, we will be able to recognize that the 
description of these long-term bilinguals is not as neutral as it may appear. 

California was the first state to adopt the term LTEL as an accountable category in state 
official policy. Assembly Bill 2193 defines LTEL in its Section 313.1 and further requires the 
department to “annually ascertain and provide to school districts and schools the number of pupils 
in each school district and school, as specified, who are, or are at risk of becoming, long-term 
English learners” (Chapter 427). The passage of Assembly Bill 2193 was influential in helping 
raise the visibility of the subgroup of bilingual students and attempting to address their special 
educational needs. Weeks after the passage of the Bill, a guidance book was released by a state-
wide advocacy organization named California Together. In this document, Olsen (2012) provided 
suggestions and instructions to educators and administrators for best practices. Despite the justice-
rooted orientation, Olsen’s (2012) recommendations discursively positioned LTELs as deficient 
and assumed a monolingual-English standard. For example, in the guidance, Olsen defined LTELs 
as students “struggling academically and stuck in progressing towards English proficiency despite 
six or more years in US schools” (p. 4) and noted the urgent need for schools and districts to 
address the “academic gaps of these students”. While emphasizing students’ failure in language 
and academics, there is no mention of bilingualism nor translanguaging (García 2009; García & 
Wei, 2014) that can be regarded as dynamic linguistic and semiotic resources of this student 
population. Therefore, the label of LTELs demonstrates a monolingual language ideology and 
views these students from a deficient perspective.  

This monolingual and English-only approach is also a reflection of the state’s anti-bilingual 
education policy. In fact, California was the first state in the nation that initiated a ballot asking 
voters to eliminate bilingual education in favor of an English-only approach. In June 1998, the 
proposition (Proposition 227) passed with 61% for and 39% against. Since then, California had 
started requiring bilingual learners in all public schools to be taught only in English and enter 
mainstream classrooms within a maximum of one year of instruction in their home language 
(Gándara et al., 2000). In this case, instead of viewing students’ social and home language practices 
as language resources, the English-only movement treats bilingualism as a problem that prevents 
students from fitting a monolingual ideology. A large-scale study investigated the long-term 
effects of the English-only approach, finding that English-only instruction did not contribute much 
to improving bilingual students’ academic performance (Parrish et al., 2006). Though recently 
more people began realizing the importance of bilingualism and Proposition 227 was overturned 
in 2016, the twenty-year implementation of English-only instruction results in sharp declines in 
the number of bilingually certified teachers in the state (Garcia, 2020). 

Recently, there has been criticism about the notion of LTELs and some scholars have 
specifically reformed the ways they talk about the students who are LTELs (Flores et al., 2015; 
Menken, 2013). Flores et al. (2015) critique that the notion of LTELs oversimplifies the broad 
categorization of students and ignores their highly varied educational and linguistic backgrounds. 
To understand this subcategory population, they studied LTELs’ lived experiences through the 
lens of students as emergent bilinguals, students, family/community members and transnational 
individuals. Data in the study includes interviews with 28 students from 2 secondary schools in 
New York City and class observations that serve for data contextualization. Countering the 
discourse of deficiency that is often attached to the LTEL population, the study by Flores et al. 
(2015) employs the discourses of partiality framework, through which to better understand how 
these students perceive themselves in a more complex and innovative way. The discourses of 
partiality are constructed by two interconnected manifestations. One is the discourse of linguistic 



26 GATESOL Journal 31(1)  
 

partiality, which constructs students who immigrated to the U.S. at a young age as lifelong learners 
of English because of their partial development of both their home language and English. The 
other is the discourse of academic partiality, which positions ELs as unprepared learners for 
academic work because of their limited English language skills (Flores et al., 2015). Flores and 
colleagues concluded the study by emphasizing that such complexities of these students’ 
experiences in schools must be recognized and addressed through more responsive schooling. 
Besides, Flores et al. (2015) point out from the study that the label serves more than as a 
categorization but a racial project, “perpetuating white supremacy through the marginalization of 
the community of color’s language practices” (Flores et al., 2015, p. 6). In the U.S, a monolingual 
English speaker would not be considered as an EL no matter whether he masters academic 
discourse in English or not. However, someone who is bilingual must be academically proficient 
to be considered as fully proficient in the language. What is behind this is a language ideology 
that’s driven by white supremacy, prioritizing English monolingualism and monoculturalism 
(Flores et al., 2018). 

Similarly, Menken (2013) raised the argument that the label causes students to be seen as 
linguistically deficient even in their home language despite their proficiency likely not being 
questioned in their home country. Menken (2013) stressed to use the term emergent bilingual 
instead of long-term English learner, emphasizing students’ bilingual language and literacy skills 
at secondary schools. The following excerpt is an example in which Menken (2013) applied a 
translanguaging lens to critique her own earlier research about the deficient positioning of 
emergent bilinguals: 

One example is the article entitled “The Long-Term Impact of Subtractive Schooling in the 
Educational Experiences of Secondary English Language Learners” (Menken & Kleyn, 2010), in 
which the authors described these challenges in detail while failing to acknowledge the creative 
and dynamic ways the students actually use language. Taking this further, these students have been 
termed “non-nons,” “clinically disfluent,” “languageless,” and “semilingual” by educators and 
linguists (Rosa 2019; Valadez et al., 2000) and are seen as deficient in linguistic knowledge largely 
due to their failure to become English monolinguals (Menken, 2013, p. 462). 

In this example, students are deprived from native speaker status due to their demonstration 
of low academic literacy skills. LTELs are forcefully positioned in the “dual nonnative speaker” 
status because of their failure to be monolingual and monocultural. These bilingual speakers, under 
the category of LTELs, are conceptualized as speakers of nonstandard English or even 
“languagelessness” (Rosa, 2016, p. 162). So, the label of LTEL is a product constructed by the 
normalization of monolingualism and idealization of academic English. 

Conversation surrounding the label goes beyond words. Labelling students as LTELs also 
impacts the ways educators read and understand their needs and abilities. In exploring how 
prolonged classification as LTELs impacts students’ opportunity to learn, Brooks (2015) analyzed 
the “in-school experience with and ideas about academic reading” (p. 386), drawing data from five 
case studies of LTELs in the ninth grade. Based on classroom observations, Brooks found learning 
opportunities for LTELs are limited in terms of access to rich literacy practices and structured by 
the teacher. The teacher determined LTELs’ in-school reading experiences with three revolving 
rules: reading involved more than one person; reading entailed meaning-making aloud; and the 
teacher provided official interpretation. However, such reading practice does not provide LTELs 
with the necessary literacy skills needed to increase proficiency as measured by state testing. 
Brooks’ work highlights the fact that current labelling practice with the term LTEL prevents 
students from getting access to necessary literacy skills and learning opportunities. The label not 



Fu 27 
 

only blinds us to students’ bilingual abilities, but also blocks students’ way to further learning 
opportunities and success. 

Through reviewing literature surrounding the label of LTELs and examining the impacts 
on students to whom the label is applied, the de facto language policy of labelling reflects an 
ideology that prioritizes English monolingualism and further disadvantages students who fall 
within the categorization. Connecting it to the colonial history of the United States, the ideology 
illustrates a rather contradictory belief expected in democracy as it holds that everyone ought to 
learn English despite immigration waves (Spolsky, 2004). In fact, discussion around language 
ideology cannot be disentangled from language practice. Thus, in the next section, I’ll review 
studies that investigate LTELs’ language practice and schooling experience. 
 
Services and School Experiences of Long-Term English Learners 
Within the theory of language policy, language practices are “the most observable behaviors and 
choices—what people actually do” (Spolsky, 2009, p. 4). Language practices are also the 
component that provide the linguistic context for anyone who learns a language (Spolsky, 2004). 
Overall, researchers in the field have generally reached a consensus that the greatest need of LTELs 
is to build up academic language and literacy skills to meet the current testing climate (Freeman 
et al., 2002). However, directed by the popular sink or swim approach in U.S. public schools, 
adequate language development services are not provided to LTELs throughout their schooling 
(Menken & Kleyn, 2010). In California, survey data shows that more than one-third of ELs were 
placed in mainstream classes without language support (Olsen, 2010). Similarly, in New York 
City, Menken and Kleyn (2010) found that a vast majority of LTELs have not received systematic, 
consistent language services during their schooling, and more than half of LTELs experienced a 
complete language gap. In the study, Menken and Kleyn interviewed 29 LTELs, five school 
administrators, and four teachers of LTELs over three years to learn about the past and present 
educational experience of LTELs and to what extent the services they received were matched to 
their specific educational needs. They argue the educational programming that LTELs received in 
the U.S. has been characterized as subtractive, thereby limiting students’ academic literacy skills 
and negatively impacting their overall academic performance. To counter these subtractive 
approaches, Menken and Kleyn (2010) suggest focusing on home language literacy and bilingual 
education in future program development, so that students’ educational opportunities can be 
improved and the resources they bring can be viewed from more of an additive perspective. 

In fact, although there is an increasing awareness of the special linguistic and academic 
needs of LTELs, there are few designated intervention programs and curricular designed to support 
the student population (e.g., Ascenzi-Moreno et al., 2013; Brooks, 2019). According to the Council 
of Great City Schools (2019), LTELs in secondary schools are typically served in one of the 
following three placements: (a) an English language support program (e.g., ESL, ESOL) designed 
for newcomers; (b) reading remedial programs developed for low performing students or students 
with specific learning disabilities; or (c) mainstream classrooms with limited or no support for 
English. However, these programs hardly meet LTELs’ needs because none are designed for them. 
To exacerbate the problem, the current education system tends to provide LTELs a second-class 
education because of certain assumptions and low expectations for them. Because they only 
receive simplified content and basic language skills, it’s difficult for LTELs to develop the 
necessary knowledge to succeed in school. 

Callahan and Shifrer (2016) reviewed the policy and placement of ELs in the public high 
school system that created inequity and segregation. The study found most students identified as 



28 GATESOL Journal 31(1)  
 

LTELs in high school were placed in courses without discussing with the students what their goals 
were for the future: whether it was going to college, career technical school, or the workforce. As 
Callahan and Shifrer (2016) indicated, “poorly implemented programs and policy result in the 
byproduct of students identified as LTELs” (p. 486), and shifts must occur for students to access 
courses that prepare them for future academic study or careers. Specifically, Callahan and Shifrer 
called for local schools to identify and develop programs to meet the needs of their EL population 
and to improve academic access and equity to content. 

Furthermore, LTELs are commonly overrepresented in special education. In New York 
City, 23% of LTELs were identified as having learning disabilities, compared to the average 
number of 6.2% for students districtwide (Kieffer & Parker, 2016). Similarly, in California, it’s 
reported that 30% of LTELs are qualified for special education (Thompson, 2017; Umansky et al., 
2015). The overrepresentation of LTELs in special education requires careful examination and 
consideration of the diagnostic criteria. Of course, the linguistic and academic challenges that 
LTELs are confronting may come from specific learning disability, that “may manifest itself in the 
imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations” 
(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], 2004, § 300.8.10). But there is a greater 
possibility these difficulties are linked with their cultural backgrounds, interrupted education, 
transnational experiences, or previous subtractive schooling. The misidentification of LTELs in 
special education is a critical problem because placing students who are not disabled in special 
education is depriving them from full curricular and learning opportunities. 

Recently, there have been experimental studies shining lights on LTELs and attempting to 
find ways for meeting students’ particular needs better. In Krashen’s (2018) “Do Libraries and 
Teacher Librarians Have the Solution to the Long-Term English Learner Problem?” he reviews 
theory and research to propose the concept of “self-selected pleasure in reading in English” (p. 
16). Krashen argues that a focus on direct instruction on academic language is not sufficient to 
increase LTELs’ acquisition of the English language. In his research, Krashen further hypothesizes 
there are three essential stages to acquire language through the encouragement of reading for 
pleasure: storytelling and read-aloud; sustained silent reading; and self-directed reading should 
encourage the “area of special interest” (Krashen, 2018, p. 18). Krashen recommends the 
development of English proficiency should start from promoting students’ habits for reading and 
giving them access to vast reading materials. In this way, English learners are given freedom to 
explore the language through the lens of their topic of interest. Krashen states that habits inclusive 
of self-directed reading allow English learners to acquire the English language fluency in the forms 
of language required to succeed in school.  

Krashen’s (2018) study accords with Cummins’ (2009) earlier recommended 
Transformative Multiliteracies Pedagogy framework, where he suggested better service for 
struggling ELs should be culturally, linguistically, and socioeconomically responsive. This 
framework positions students as intelligent active learners in classroom interaction and enables 
them to construct knowledge through active language practice. It is important to keep the 
Transformative Multiliteracies Pedagogy framework in mind while designing language programs 
and services for LTELs as it emphasizes the language practice of learners and meaningful 
interactions with teachers.  

The literature illustrates the collective impacts of monoglossic language ideologies and the 
prioritization of standardized testing on students’ actual language practices and schooling 
experiences. As demonstrated above, the de facto language policy of labelling and high-stakes 
testing creates consequential material conditions that fundamentally marginalize EL learners and 



Fu 29 
 

relegate them to a perpetual status of academic and linguistic deficiency. The troubling schooling 
experiences of LTELs signal the systematic inequalities and injustice as well as linguistic and 
racial oppression EL learners are constantly faced with. On another note, the complexities within 
the education language policy regime also put teachers of LTELs in a complicated position. As 
they try to balance between meeting the needs of bilingual learners and accommodating teaching 
to the monolingual testing, educators thus become agents of enacting language policy. Considering 
the teachers’ pedagogical struggles, I argue policy making must go beyond the top-down approach 
and include voices from the ground so as to resist the hegemonic construct in the educational 
domain and by extension the broader society. 
 
Discussion and Conclusion 
In the last part of the paper, I wish to stand back a little and identify some of the broader issues 
arising from the literature review. This review provides an overview and a critical evaluation of 
studies around LTELs. By using Spolsky’s (2004) multi-dimensional LPP framework, I examine 
the de facto policy about LTELs from perspectives of the current climate of standardized tests 
(language management), the label itself (language ideology), and programs and schooling 
experience of these students (language practice). To answer RQ1, I have shown that the categorical 
distinction between students who are classified LTELs and other ELs is not fully based on 
students’ language proficiency. Rather, the label orients from a constrained view of “ability” 
(linguistically and intellectually) that is solely decided by the high-stake standardized test in the 
contemporary language education realm. 

In terms of RQ2, though the test is represented to the public as an objective measurement, 
my analysis has shown that the washback effects of the ELP test can negatively impact the 
instructions ELs received, thus causing ELs’ learning needs being overshadowed. Through the 
examination of the current classification and reclassification system, I find ELP tests are 
problematic because the tests don’t differentiate language proficiency from students’ knowledge 
in the content areas, and the standards adopted by each state vary from each other, making the 
designation procedure messy and vague. Additionally, the state-to-state variability is shaped by 
state policy context. For example, the English-only instruction law in California was not 
overturned until 2016, which partially explains the monolingual-driven standards and deficient 
language adopted in earlier instructional frameworks (e.g., Olsen, 2012). Given these complexities, 
I suggest that any credible education policy and practices for equity and justice must address issues 
at the macro and micro level. Specifically, policy reforms should be informed by an awareness of 
contextual complexities. As Gillborn and Youdell (2000) said, “equality policy statements and 
target setting at the national level are worthless without mechanisms to translate them into changed 
activities at the school level” (p. 220). Thus, it is vital for stakeholders to work with researchers in 
the future to better understand which factors are more importantly associated with rate variations 
of LTELs. 

As I move forward in the analysis, I find the term is not as neutral as it appears to be but 
demonstrates a monolingual language ideology in the current system. I do not question that the 
label has drawn the attention of educators and scholars to the special needs of this subgroup 
population of emergent bilinguals and the well intention to improve students’ academic outcomes 
with the creation of the label. However, the label has socially constructed these students in a 
deficient way, which on the one hand, ignores students’ multilingual and multicultural 
characteristics and, on the other hand, positions white supremacy as the linguistic and academic 
capital intentionally. In place of semilingualism or languagelessness, an initial and necessary step 



30 GATESOL Journal 31(1)  
 

for us to take would be to recognize all ELs have the potential to become fully bilingual and gain 
comparable academic English skills to their monolingual English-speaking peers. Next, we should 
be precise and conscious of what the category and label could mean and how the designation can 
possibly affect minoritized bilingual students’ learning and being. In this way, it helps us capture 
the profound meanings in ways that authorities and institutions may not ever give voice to. Finally, 
we must acknowledge that acquiring a language, especially acquiring high levels of academic 
proficiency in a language is indeed a long-term process. Labelling students as LTELs is implicitly 
calling those who didn’t meet people’s impatient expectations as slow learners (Cushing-Leubner 
& King, 2015). 

To address RQ3, I pointed out in the last section that the current programs and services for 
LTELs are inappropriate and underdeveloped. Further consideration of the overrepresentation of 
LTELs in special education leads me to ask the question—whether special education has become 
a default intervention approach for LTELs. The fixed, normalized, and yet problematic placement 
of LTELs reflects the false perception of bilingual learners’ intellectuality and reinforces the 
deeply racialized stereotypes. The lack of appropriate language support and programs is also 
related to the broader socio-political context, which can never be separated from the colonial 
history of the nation. Setting English as the correct or standard language practice in program and 
curriculum design is a result of linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992). Researchers, educators, 
and policy makers must resist the dichotomous framing of language. By enabling students to use 
their entire linguistic repertoires to demonstrate their meaning making, we are also challenging the 
monolingual ideologies while embracing the assets of cultural and linguistic knowledge students 
bring in. With it being said, we need to develop a framework that can help us trace the colonial 
history of language educational practices. In sum, this review speaks to the stereotypes, struggles, 
and challenges LTELs are facing and calls for more research studies to be conducted in addressing 
these problems pedagogically, institutionally, and systematically. 
 
References 
Ascenzi-Moreno, L. (2017). From deficit to diversity: How teachers of recently arrived emergent 

bilinguals negotiate ideological and pedagogical change. Schools, 14(2), 276–302. 
https://doi.org/10.1086/693792 

Ascenzi-Moreno, L., Kleyn, T., & Menken, K. (2013). A CUNY-NYSIEB framework for the 
education of long-term English learners: 6–12 grades. City University of New York. 

Assembly Bill No. 2193. (2012). Chapter 427. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNav
Client.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB2193 

Brooks, M. D. (2015). “It’s like a script”: Long-term English learners’ experiences with and ideas 
about academic reading. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(4), 383–406. 

Brooks, M. D. (2018). Pushing past myths: Designing instruction for long‐term English learners. 
TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.435 

Brooks, M. D. (2019). Transforming literacy education for long-term English learners: 
Recognizing brilliance in the undervalued. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315
151236 

Callahan, R. M. (2013). The English learner dropout dilemma: Multiple risks and multiple 
resources. California Dropout Research Project. 

Callahan, R. M., & Shifrer, D. (2016). Equitable access for secondary English learner students: 
Course taking as evidence of EL program effectiveness. Educational Administration 
Quarterly, 52(3), 463–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x16648190 

https://doi.org/10.1086/693792
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB2193
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB2193
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.435
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315151236
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315151236
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x16648190


Fu 31 
 

Canagarajah, A. S. (2005). Accommodating tensions in language-in-education policies: An 
afterword. In A. Lin & P. W. Matin (Eds.), Decolonisation, globalisation: Language-in-
education policy and practice (pp. 194–201). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/
10.21832/9781853598265-013 

Clark-Gareca, B. (2016). Classroom assessment and English language learners: Teachers’ 
accommodations implementation on routine math and science tests. Teaching and Teacher 
Education, 54, 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.11.003 

Collier, V. P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes. 
TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 617–641. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586986 

Conger, D. (2009). Testing, time limits, and English learners: Does age of school entry affect how 
quickly students can learn English? Social Science Research, 38(2), 383–396. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.08.002 

Cook, H. G., & Linquanti, R. (2015). Strengthening policies and practices for the initial 
classification of English learners: Insights from a national working session. Council of 
Chief State School Officers. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED565758.pdf 

Council of Great City Schools. (2019). English language learners in America’s greatest city 
schools: Demographics, achievement, and staffing.  

Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual 
children. In C. Baker & N. Hornberger (Eds.), An introductory reader to the writings of 
Jim Cummins (pp. 63–95). Multilingual Matters.  

Cummins, J. (1981). Bilingualism and minority language children: Language and literacy series. 
The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. 

Cummins, J. (2009). Transformative multiliteracies pedagogy: School-based strategies for closing 
the achievement gap. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 11(2), 
38–56. 

Cushing-Leubner, J., & King, K.A. (2015). Long-term English learners and language education 
policy. In A. Yiakoumetti (Ed.), Multilingualism and language in education: Current 
sociolinguistic and pedagogical perspectives from Commonwealth countries (pp. 199–
220). Cambridge University Press.  

de la Torre, M., Blanchard, A., Allensworth, E. M., & Freire, S. (2019). English learners in 
Chicago public schools: A new perspective. University of Chicago Consortium on School 
Research. 

Every Student Succeeds Act. (ESSA). (2015). Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177. 
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177 

Fishman, J. A. (1968a). Sociolinguistics and the language problems of the developing countries. 
In J. A. Fishman, C. A. Ferguson, & J. D. Gupta (Eds), Language problems of developing 
nations (pp. 491–498). John Wiley & Sons. 

Fishman, J. A. (1968b). The sociology of language. In J.A. Fishman (Ed.), Readings in the 
sociology of language (pp. 5-13). De Gruyter Mouton. 
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110805376 

Flores, N., Kleyn, T., & Menken, K. (2015). Looking holistically in a climate of partiality: 
Identities of students labeled long-term English language learners. Journal of Language, 
Identity & Education, 14(2), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2015.1019787 

Flores, N., Lewis, M. C., & Phuong, J. (2018). Raciolinguistic chronotopes and the education of 
Latinx students: Resistance and anxiety in a bilingual school. Language & Communication, 
62(A), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.06.002 

https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853598265-013
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853598265-013
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.11.003
https://doi.org/10.2307/3586986
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.08.002
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED565758.pdf
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110805376
https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2015.1019787
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.06.002


32 GATESOL Journal 31(1)  
 

Fox, J., & Cheng, L. (2007). Did we take the same test? Differing accounts of the Ontario 
Secondary School Literacy Test by first and second language test‐takers. Assessment in 
Education, 14(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940701272773 

Freeman, Y. S., Freeman, D. E., & Mercuri, S. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: How to reach 
limited-formal-schooling and long-term English learners. Heinemann. 

Gándara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., García, E., Asato, J., Gutiérrez, K., Stritkus, T., & Curry, J. (2000). 
The initial impact of proposition 227 on the instruction of English learners. University of 
California Linguistic Minority Research Center. 

Garcia, A. (2020). A new era for bilingual education in California. Phi Delta Kappan, 101(5), 30–
35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721720903825 

García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Wiley Blackwell. 
García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (2010). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and 

practices for English language learners. Teachers College Press. 
García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave 

Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137385765 
García-Mateus, S., & Palmer, D. (2017). Translanguaging pedagogies for positive identities in 

two-way dual language bilingual education. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 
16(4), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2017.1329016 

Gillborn, D., & Youdell, D. (2000). Rationing education: Policy, practice, reform, and equity. 
McGraw-Hill Education. 

Green, A. (2013). Exploring language assessment and testing: Language in action. Routledge. 
Haugen, E. (1966). Dialect, language, nation. American Anthropologist, 68(4), 922–935. 

https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1966.68.4.02a00040 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (IDEA). (2004). https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statute-

chapter-33/subchapter-i/1401/30 
Johnson, D. C., & Johnson, E. J. (2015). Power and agency in language policy appropriation. 

Language Policy, 14(3), 221–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-014-9333-z 
Johnson, E. M. (2019). Exemplary reading teachers’ use of instructional scaffolds with emergent 

bilinguals: How knowledge and context shape their choices. TESOL Quarterly, 53(1), 108–
132. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.471 

Kaplan, R. B. & Baldauf, R. B. (1997). Language planning: From practice to theory. Multilingual 
Matters. 

Kieffer, M. J., & Parker, C. E. (2016). Patterns of English Learner Student Reclassification in New 
York City Public Schools. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 
Assistance. 

King, K. A., & Bigelow, M. (2018). Multilingual education policy, superdiversity, and educational 
equity. In A. Creese & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Routledge handbook of language and 
superdiversity (pp. 359–472). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315696010-32 

Krashen, S. (2018). Do libraries and teacher librarians have the solution to the long-term English 
Language Learner problem? California School Library Association Journal, 41(2), 16–19. 

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2016). Classroom-oriented research from a complex systems perspective. 
Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(3), 377–393. https://doi.org/
10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.3.2 

Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2013). Labeling and stigma. In Handbook of the sociology of mental 
health (pp. 525–541). Dordrecht. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940701272773
https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721720903825
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137385765
https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2017.1329016
https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1966.68.4.02a00040
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statute-chapter-33/subchapter-i/1401/30
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statute-chapter-33/subchapter-i/1401/30
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-014-9333-z
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.471
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315696010-32
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.3.2
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.3.2


Fu 33 
 

Linquanti, R., & Cook, H. G. (2013). Toward a “common definition of English learner”: Guidance 
for states and state assessment consortia in defining and addressing policy and technical 
issues and options. Council of Chief State School Officers.  

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. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. 
Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599996 

Menken, K. (2013). Emergent bilingual students in secondary school: Along the academic 
language and literacy continuum. Language Teaching, 46(4), 438–476. https://doi.org/
10.1017/s0261444813000281 

Menken, K., & García, O. (Eds.). (2010). Negotiating language education policies: Educators as 
policymakers. Routledge. 

Menken, K., & Kleyn, T. (2010). The long-term impact of subtractive schooling in the educational 
experiences of secondary English language learners. International Journal of Bilingual 
Education and Bilingualism, 13(4), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/1367005090337
0143 

National Center for Education Statistics. (NCES). (2017). English language learners in public 
schools. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf 

National Center for Education Statistics. (NCES). (2019). Digest of Education Statistics. 
https://www.air.org/resource/digest-education-statistics 

Nekvapil, J. (2006). From language planning to language management. Sociolinguistica, 20(2007), 
92–104. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783484604841.92 

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002). Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat., 1425, 20 U.S.C. § § 
6301 et seq. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED556108.pdf 

Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable harm: Fulfilling the unkept promise of educational opportunity for 
California’s long-term English learners. Californians Together. 

Olsen, L. (2012). Secondary school courses designed to address the language needs and academic 
gaps of long-term English learners. Californians Together. 

Parrish, T. B., Merickel, A., Perez, M., Linquanti, R., Socias, M., & Spain, A. (2006). Effects of 
the implementation of proposition 227 on the education of English learners, K–12: 
Findings from a five-year evaluation. American Institutes for Research and West Ed. 

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press. 
Reyes, I., Da Silva Iddings, A. C., & Feller, N. (2016). Building relationships with diverse students 

and families: A funds of knowledge perspective. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 
16(1), 8–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798415584692 

Ricento, T. K., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy 
and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401–427. https://doi.org/10.2307/
3587691 

Rosa, J. (2019). Looking like a language, sounding like a race. Oxford University Press. 
Rosa, J. (2016). Standardization, racialization, languagelessness: Raciolinguistic ideologies across 

communicative contexts. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 26(2), 162–183. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/jola.12116 

Rosenberg, B. (2004). What’s proficient? The No Child Left Behind Act and the many meanings 
of proficiency. American Federation of Teachers. 

https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599996
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1017/s0261444813000281
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.1017/s0261444813000281
https://doi.org/10.1080/1367005090337%E2%80%8C0143
https://doi.org/10.1080/1367005090337%E2%80%8C0143
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf
https://www.air.org/resource/digest-education-statistics
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783484604841.92
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED556108.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798415584692
https://doi.org/10.2307/3587691
https://doi.org/10.2307/3587691
https://doi.org/10.1111/jola.12116


34 GATESOL Journal 31(1)  
 

Rubin, J., & Jernudd, B. H. (1971). Can language be planned? Sociolinguistic theory and practice 
for developing nations. University of Hawaii. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv9zckn9 

Ruiz-Soto, A. G., Hooker, S., & Batalova, J. (2015). States and districts with the highest number 
and share of English language learners. Migration Policy Institute.  

Sahakyan, N. & Ryan, S. (2018). Long-term English learners across 15 WIDA states: A research 
brief (Research Brief No. RB-2018-1). WIDA at the Wisconsin Center for Education 
Research. 

Shohamy, E. G. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. Psychology 
Press. 

Skerrett, A. (2019). Advancing theoretical perspectives on transnationalism in literacy research. 
In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, M. Sailors, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models 
and processes of literacy (pp. 497–513). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315
110592-31 

Slama, R. B. (2014). Investigating whether and when English learners are reclassified into 
mainstream classrooms in the United States: A discrete-time survival analysis. American 
Educational Research Journal, 51(2), 220–252. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312145
28277 

Solórzano, R. W. (2008). High stakes testing: Issues, implications, and remedies for English 
language learners. Review of Educational Research, 78(2), 260-329. https://doi.org/
10.3102/0034654308317845 

Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge University Press. 
Spolsky, B. (2009). Language management. Cambridge University Press. 
Stokes-Guinan, K., & Goldenberg, C. (2010/2011). Use with caution: What CELDT results can 

and cannot tell us. CATESOL Journal, 22(1), 189-202. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
EJ1111981.pdf 

Thompson, K. D. (2015). Questioning the long-term English learner label: How categorization can 
blind us to students’ abilities. Teachers College Record, 117(12), 1–50. 

Thompson, K. D. (2017). English learners’ time to reclassification: An analysis. Educational 
Policy, 31(3), 330–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815598394 

Umansky, I. M., & Reardon, S. F. (2014). Reclassification patterns among Latino English learner 
students in bilingual, dual immersion, and English immersion classrooms. American 
Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 879–912. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312
14545110 

Umansky, I. M., Reardon, S. F., Hakuta, K., Thompson, K. D., Estrada, P., Hayes, K., & 
Goldenberg, C. (2015). Improving the opportunities and outcomes of California’s students 
learning English: Findings from school district-university collaborative partnerships. 
Policy Brief 15-1. Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE).  

U.S. Department of Education. (2016a). English language proficiency standards for adult 
education. https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/elp-standards-adult-ed.pdf 

U.S. Department of Education. (2016b). Non-regulatory guidance: English learners and Title III 
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). https://www2.ed.gov/policy/
elsec/leg/essa/essatitleiiiguidenglishlearners92016.pdf 

Valadez, C. M., MacSwan, J., & Martinez, C. (2000). Toward a new view of low-achieving 
bilinguals: A study of linguistic competence in designated “semilinguals”. The Bilingual 
Review/La Revista Bilingue, 25(3), 238–248. 

https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv9zckn9
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315110592-31
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315110592-31
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214528277
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214528277
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.3102/0034654308317845
https://doi.org/%E2%80%8C10.3102/0034654308317845
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1111981.pdf
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1111981.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815598394
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214545110
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214545110
https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/elp-standards-adult-ed.pdf
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/%E2%80%8Celsec/leg/essa/essatitleiiiguidenglishlearners92016.pdf
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/%E2%80%8Celsec/leg/essa/essatitleiiiguidenglishlearners92016.pdf


Fu 35 
 

Valenzuela, A., & Rubio, B. (2017). Subtractive schooling. In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English 
Language Teaching (pp. 4356–4362). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/
9781118784235.eelt0139 

Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2017). Integrating assessment with learning: What will it take to 
make it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment (pp. 53–82). Routledge. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315086545-3 

 
____________________________________________________________________________ 
 

Received: May 3, 2021 | Accepted: June 28, 2021 | Published: July 30, 2021 

https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0139
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0139
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315086545-3

	GATESOL Journal2021, Vol. 31(1), pp. 17–35
	Breaking the Silence: A Critical Review of Language Policy and Planning for Long-Term English Learners
	doi:10.52242/gatesol.125
	ISSN: 2331-6845

