| /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
|
// |
Impact of NCLB’s
Yearly Assessments On
English
Language Learners
by Maureeen McInnis
I. Introduction and Importance of the Topic
The No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110), often abbreviated in print
as NCLB and sometimes shortened in pronunciation to "nickelbee" ( Wikipedia),
is a hot issue among educators. This law was introduced January
23, 2001 by President Bush , and signed by him on January 08, 2002.
The stated purpose of NCLB is “To close the achievement gap with
accountability, flexibility and choice so that no child is left behind”.
I for one, think this is a laudable undertaking and one which reminds
me that children are our future and that all children are entitled
to an education which prepares them to seek their dreams as well
as prepare them to be productive citizens. Therefore I am amazed
at the resistance to which educators oppose this law. In particular, ESL
educators whose student population is specifically targeted as one
of the subgroups to which local school districts must now focus on in order
to close this gap. How NCLB impacts the education of students whose English
is limited is of paramount consideration. These students are
already at risk. “Research shows that students who cannot read or write
in English have a greater likelihood of dropping out of school, and they
often face a lifetime of diminished opportunity” (National Center for Education
Statistics 2001). I think most educators would agree some type of educational
reform is crucial if we are to reach this population.
Is NCLB, with its mandated yearly assessments a step in the
right direction or is it serving to leave these students further and further
behind? This paper will focus on answering this very important question.
II. Synthesis of Research Findings
Why is yearly assessment necessary? Assessment is necessary to
identify areas which need improvement. No Child Left Behind has set the
goal of having every child “make the grade” on state-defined education
standards by the end of the 2013–14 school year. To reach that goal, every
state is required to develop benchmarks to measure progress and make
sure every child is learning. States are required to separate (or disaggregate)
student achievement data, holding schools accountable for subgroups of
students, such as ELLs, so that no child falls through the cracks.
In theory, yearly assessments would enable schools to closely monitor
students’ progress. Additionally, a school or a school district
that does not meet the state’s definition of “adequate yearly progress”
(AYP) for two consecutive years (school wide or in any subgroup) is considered
to be “in need of improvement.”(NCLB Tool Kit, 2004)
What does NCLB say about assessing ELLs? NCLB requires that each
state measure every child’s progress in reading and math in each of grades
3 through 8 and at least once during grades 10 through 12. In the meantime,
each state must administer assessments in reading and math at three grade
spans (3-5, 6-9 and 10-12). Science assessments are to be administered
at least once during grades 3-5, grades 6-9 and grades 10-12. In addition,
States must ensure that districts administer to all ELLs
yearly English language proficiency tests which measure oral
language, listening, reading comprehension, reading and writing skills.
For English language learners who take the regular assessments, states
must provide reasonable accommodations. In the area of reading and language
arts, students who have been in U.S. schools for three consecutive years
must be assessed in English. However, ELLs on a case- by- case basis, may
continue to be exempt from being assessed in English, when needed, for
up to two additional years. English language learners in their first year
of enrollment in U.S. schools have the option of not taking the reading
and language arts assessment. These students would take the math assessment,
with accommodations as appropriate, and the English language proficiency
(ELP) assessment. (NCLB, 2002)
States have the flexibility to develop these tests and align them with
the curriculum established by the State. States also determine what they
think are appropriate accommodations. These range from reading the questions
orally in either English or in the student’s native language to offering
dictionaries or glossaries in the student’s native language, to allowing
extra time during testing. Accomodations such as changing or modifying
tests is not always an easy matter. For example, native-language testing
may not always be helpful for ELL students, especially if they are not
literate in their primary spoken language. Additionally ELL students are
unlikely to receive a substantial amount of instruction in their native
languages; therefore, their reading and writing skills in those languages
are unlikely to improve while students in U.S. schools.
What are Educators saying about the impact of assessment on ELLs? Two documents
and one phone interview will be discussed in regards to assessment
and its impact on ELLs.
On July 21,2006 TESOL(Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages)
member,Susan Valinski testified before the NCLB Commission on the
impact of NCLB on English language learners. Valinski, an English
for speakers of other languages (ESOL) Elementary Instructional Support
Teacher in Fairfax County Public Schools in Virginia, cited several positive
outcomes for ELLs since the passage of NCLB. These outcomes are direct
results from NCLB’s mandate that all subgroups be assessed and included
in the AYP calculations. The first and foremost outcome in her opinion
was that ELLs are “ no l longer invisible in the classroom.” Valinski adds
that ELL students were often relegated to computers in the back of
the classroom or assigned workbooks while peers were engaged in content
instruction. ELLs, she claims , are now included in classroom discussion.
“It is no longer “my’ responsibility as an ESOL teacher to provide the
majority of instruction for these students. Even the most reluctant classroom
teacher will admit that today there is shared responsibility for ELLs’
learning.” Valinski’s claims that throughout her district, and I would
hope throughout the nation, there has been an increased understanding of
meeting the needs of ELLs . Another beneficial impact of NCLB
cited by Valinski is that curriculum has been better defined by learning
objectives and essential knowledge. Some critics of NCLB claim that annual
assessments and the pressures of accountability cause teachers “
to teach to the test”. Kaminski claims that curriculum
-driven instruction has resulted in increased access to content for ELLs.
Additionally, Valinski claims that teachers are now analyzing assessment
results to determine why students are not achieving and teaming up with
colleagues to discuss and figure out ways to meet the needs of ELLs.
Mary Ann Zehr, author of ‘No Child’ Effect on English–Learners Mulled
wrote about what an ESL teacher in Clifton , NJ, had to say about the effects
of assessment on ELL education. Because of NCLB, Eva Rogozinski, an ESL
resource teacher in Clifton, states “there’s more communication between
ESL teachers and mainstreamed teachers and the ELLs aren’t thought of as
a separate entity.” Evidence that once again shared responsibility for
the education of ELLs is on the increase. Rogozinski also “ doubts that
her district would have provided extensive training in ESL strategies to
mainstreamed middle and high school teachers without the law”. Of course
with assessment comes accountability. Rogozinski works at a school where
60 percent of the students come from homes where a language other
than English is spoken. Ms Roogozinksi resents that her school has
been put on a “ needs improvement “ list because ELLs didn’t meet the state’s
goals for adequate yearly progress. She says, “ It’s simply not fair
for schools to be put under pressure to improve the scores of English –learners
on a test that wasn’t designed for them.” Administering such tests
must be very frustrating for the learner and test administer and
do not comply with NCLB. NCLB mandstes that States test ELLs
students in a language and form which reliably tests what they know and
can do. (NCLB 2002)
A phone interview with Ann Smith, a middle school ESL teacher in
Austin,Texas revealed that she also was feeling resentment because
her school, Filmore Middle School, has been labeled a “failing school”.
Smith has been teaching ESL for 25 years and feels overwhelmed and frustrated
since the passage of NCLB. Her ESL population is extremely diverse in ethnicity
and educational background. She has a lot of Mexican and Burmese
students. She says that in Texas, bilingual programs at the elementary
level teach and test in Spanish and when they arrive at middle school,
they still are not proficient in English. Surprisingly, Smith claims
that students just arriving into the U.S. pick –up English a lot faster
than those coming from bilingual programs. She suspects this is due to
partly because new arrivals have received a more solid educational foundation
in their native culture and language than those in the U.S. However,
she suspects mostly it is due to what she describes as students’ lack of
interest in their education and professional future. This apathy,
of Hispanic students in particular, was also the focus of one of the films
we watched in class. The NCLB act apparently recognizes this as a
problem and has set aside grants for the education and involvement of parents
of ELLs.
III. Implications for ESL Teachers and Students
All teachers undoubtedly want their students to succeed in school
and reach their potential so that they will prosper in life. However, ELL
students are struggling to learn complex content area subjects while simultaneously
learning English. Its an overwhelming challenge for many, and many end
up dropping out of school. I suspect that the dilemma of the ELL
has been an overwhelming challenge to teachers and school districts as
well. Unfortunately, I think most of us out of ignorance have been guilty
of turning a blind eye towards the education of these students
and have neglected to set high academic expectations for their success.
It is my opinion that NCLB is a step in the right direction. It is my opinion
that yearly testing is helping these students become successful
learners. Yearly assessments mandated by NCLB provide the diagnostic
tools necessary to monitor students progress and develop strategies which
successfully address areas which need improvement. Holding schools accountable
can only make them search for effective ways to meet the needs of ELLs.
In June 2005, the state of California, which has an English
–only testing policy was sued by 10 Californian school ditricts.
These districts claimed that ELL students, predominately Mexican,
were not receiving appropriate testing accommodations as stated in NCLB.
I see this as a positive result of NCLB. These California school
districts sought these accommodations in an attempt to improve their school’s
test scores. Actions such as this send a message to the ELL student
that their progress matters. NCLB is certainly not going to cause
dramatic changes right away. There is still opposition from school districts
and educators. NCLB needs the support of teachers and school administrators
to make it work. I think once testing and accountability issues are
ironed out and teachers are better prepared to meet the challenges of teaching
ELLs, we will see a significant closing of the educational gap between
middle-class and disadvantaged students.
IV References
1. Smith,Ann. (2008, Dec 4). Telephone Interview.
2. Valinski,Susan. (2006). TESOL Testifies Before NCLB Commission.
http:www.tesol.org/s_tesol/sec_document.asp?CID=239&did=6659. Revisited
Dec. 08,2008.
3. The Whitehouse.( Revised 2004). No Child Left Behind: A Tookit for Teachers.U.S.Department
of Education. www.ed.gov/teachers/nclbguide/index2.htlm. Revisited Dec.08,2008.
4. Zehr, Mary Ann. (2006). ‘No Child’ Effect on English-Learners
Mulled. Education Week. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/02/01/25ell.h25.html?levelld=1000.
Revisited Dec.08,2008
|
/ |
