No Child Left Behind Misguided Accountability System for English Language Learners James Crawford McDaniel College March

1. No Child Left Behind Misguided Accountability System for English Language Learners James Crawford McDaniel College March 21, 2006

2. No Child Left Behind Act “There is always an easy solution to every human problem – neat, plausible, and wrong.” – H. L. Mencken

3. No Child Left Behind ActSeizing the Rhetorical High Ground Who is against … ‘accountability’? ‘high standards’? bridging ‘achievement gaps’? ‘adequate yearly progress’? ‘scientifically based’ programs? leaving no child behind?

4. Forgotten Goals for ELLsIASA PrinciplesEliminated by NCLB Whatever happened to … equal educational opportunity? adequate resources for schools? capacity-building to serve ELLs? bilingualism and biliteracy? multicultural understanding?

5. ‘Framing’ the DebateTerminology Counts “Frames are mental structures that shape the way we see the world. … When you hear a word, its frame is activated in your brain. “Reframing is changing the way the public sees the world… Because language activates frames, new language is required for new frames. Thinking differently requires speaking differently.” – George Lakoff

6. ‘Achievement Gap’ Increasing Usage of the Term New York Times archives: • 1981-90 – 4 articles • 1991-98 – 14 articles • 1999-00 – 59 articles • 2001-05 – 173 articles

7. ‘Equal Educational Opportunity’Declining Usage New York Times archives: • 1991-95 – 46 articles • 2001-05 – 10 articles

8. ‘Achievement Gap’ Frame Vs. Equal Educational Opportunity Paradigm shift = political shift • Focus on ‘outputs’ • Short-term ‘measurable results’ • Forget about ‘inputs’ • Adequate resources • Trained personnel • Effective programs • Best practices

9. AccountabilityNCLB Is Just One Possible Approach • Who is “held accountable” • Educators alone or policymakers at all levels • Accountable to whom? • Federal/state bureaucrats or local parents/communities • Accountable for what? • Basics in 2 subjects or all-round education • How is accountability measured? • Single multiple-choice test or multiple criteria • How is accountability administered? • Punitive sanctions or positive incentives • Why maintain an accountability system? • Score political points or improve instruction

10. NCLB Accountability SystemBased on Assumptions Schools are primarily responsible for achievement gaps, by: • failing to work hard enough, long enough • setting low expectations • wasting time on frills • neglecting hard-to-educate students • resisting change • “making excuses” for poor student performance

11. NCLB Accountability SystemFails to Address Known obstacles to ELL achievement: • Resource inequities • Shortages of bilingual and ESL teachers • Limited staff development • Lack of financial accountability • Poorly designed programs • Opposition to research-based practices • Segregation in high-poverty schools

12. No Child Left BehindThe Civil Rights Arguments For • Educational neglect is largely responsible for achievement gaps • Schools must be held accountable for the performance of underserved groups • Disaggregating achievement data will force schools to “pay attention” to neglected students • High-stakes testing, labels & sanctions are essential tools toward that end

13. No Child Left BehindThe Civil Rights Arguments Against • Schools are only one factor in achievement gaps • Yes, NCLB will bring increased attention to “problem” groups, BUT will it be beneficial or detrimental to children? • Misguided accountability systems can do more harm than good • Applied recklessly, labels & sanctions will destroy programs that are working

14. ‘Data-Driven’ Decision-MakingWhat It Means in Practice Basing decisions on • Single result on standardized test • Raw test scores rather than controlled studies Ignoring “scientifically based research” • National Literacy Panel (2005) • Meta-analyses by Rolstad et al. (2005), Slavin & Chung (2005)

15. NCLB Impact on ELLsHigh Stakes for Schools = High Stakes for Kids • ‘Holding accountable’ with faulty data • Dismantling effective programs • Encouraging English-only instruction • Demoralizing educators • Reducing curriculum to test prep • Creating 2-tier education system • Ignoring what is special about ELLs

16. Lau v. NicholsU.S. Supreme Court (1974) “There is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education.”

17. Three Inconvenient RealitiesIgnored by NCLB • Assessment tools for ELLs are largely inadequate today, neither valid nor reliable • ELLs are extremely diverse, making it difficult to set reasonable AYP targets • ELL subgroup is unstable by definition – a treadmill on which students will never approach 100% proficiency

18. Assessing ELL AchievementWhat NCLB Requires “Adequate yearly progress shall be defined by the State in a manner that … is statistically valid and reliable.” NCLB, Sec. 1111(b)(2)(C)

19. Assessing ELL AchievementThe Reality • Standardized tests in English • Neither designed nor normed for ELLs • English tests with accommodations • Questionable validity • Native-language assessments • Rarely aligned to standards • Yet all 3 have been approved for high-stakes purposes

20. NCLB in Effect“Holds Schools Accountable” for • Inability of existing assessment tools to measure what ELLs really know NOT for quality of instruction

21. ELL Diversity & ExpectationsVariables To Consider • Socioeconomic status • Linguistic & cultural background • Initial level of English • Prior education • Program experience & stability • Individual differences in pace of English acquisition • Social language – 3-5 years • Academic language – 4-7 years

22. NCLB in Effect“Holds Schools Accountable” for • Demographic profile of their students • Variability in children’s linguistic & academic development NOT for quality of instruction

23. ELL Subgroup DefinedNCLB, Sec. 9101(25)(D) A limited-English-proficient (LEP) student is one: “whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the individual the ability to meet the State’s proficient level of achievement on State assessments.”

24. ELL Subgroup in PracticeTreadmill Effect Unlike other NCLB subgroups, ELL category is constantly changing • New students arrive speaking little English • Result: Average ELL scores decline • ELLs acquire English, leave subgroup • Result: Average ELL scores decline Progress of individual ELLs is concealed

25. CAT Language Arts ScoresAll California Students & ELL Subgroup, 2004

26. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)California Targetsin Language Arts

27. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)California Targetsin Language Arts

28. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)ELL Scores in CA, Districts, Exemplary School

29. Former ELLs vs. Non-ELLs Elementary School Reading, San Francisco

30. Former ELLs vs. Non-ELLs Middle School Reading, San Francisco

31. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)ELL Performance in San Francisco Unified

32. NCLB in Effect“Holds Schools Accountable” for • Failing to achieve what is mathematically impossible NOT for quality of instruction

33. Authentic AccountabilityPrinciples • Accuracy • Rely on valid, reliable assessments • Equity • Recognize diverse needs • Flexibility • Use growth model, not arbitrary AYP targets • Capacity-building • Stress school improvement, not punishment

34. Authentic AccountabilityRecommendations • Track cohorts of ELLs over long term • Use multiple measures – not single test • Grades; graduation, promotion & dropout rates; alternate assessments • Answer to local parents & communities • Consider “inputs” as well as “outputs” • Program designs; teacher qualifications; adequate resources; academic outcomes

35. Castañeda v. Pickard5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (1981) • Programs for ELLs must be based on educational theory recognized as sound by experts • Resources, personnel, and practices must be reasonably calculated to implement program effectively • Programs must be evaluated and, if necessary, restructured to ensure that language barriers are overcome

36. Political ProspectsHow to Reform the “Reform” • NCLB, passed with bipartisan support, is now attracting bipartisan opposition • Many provisions are on a collision course with reality • Bush “flexibility” policy isn’t working • “Attention” to underserved groups also extends to advocates for these groups • New opportunities are created to educate the public & policymakers