Chapter 3: Inclusion or Intrusion?: Reculturing Schools for Collaborative ESL Instruction

Before the era of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), English language learners’ (ELLs) academic achievement was barely mentioned in the national discourse. Despite federal Title III funding for English as a second language (ESL) programs and mandates arising from Lau v. Nichols (1974), schools were not held accountable for ELLs’ academic performance. NCLB changed the national education landscape by emphasizing accountability for ELLs’ academic progress as a subgroup for the first time, and ELLs’ achievement became part of the national discourse (Wiley & Wright, 2004).

With steep sanctions attached to accountability, however, NCLB backfired because it placed immense pressure on mainstream teachers (MTs) to produce learning outcomes without the infrastructure necessary for meeting such demands (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007). For instance, if collaboration between MTs and English as a second language teachers (ETs) is going to occur, all teachers need to be supported with time to coplan and professional development as to how to work together. Schools’ lack of capacity forced MTs to feel solely responsible for ELLs. In addition, some MTs view ELLs through a deficit lens, thinking ELLs cannot gain content knowledge while their English is limited (Dove & Honigsfeld, 2010).