2. By the end of the presentation the audience will be able to: Using appropriate vocabulary (ELLs, NCLB, AYP), discuss the effects of No Child Left Behind on English Language Learners. Critique the effect of NCLB in regards to the instruction of English Language Learners. Predict the effects of continued implementation of NCLB. Language Content
3. The Needs of ELLs Defining the needs of English Language Learners can be difficult; it is easy to confuse the needs of the learner with the state and national standards. It is generally agreed upon that ELLs need: 1. Instruction by teachers qualified in language development and content (Abedi, 2004). 2. Accessible test with clear goals and rubrics for attaining goals (Lenski, Ehlers-Zavala, Daniel & Sun-Irminger, 2006).
4. The NCLB Expectations of ELL Achievement ELLs (and native-English speakers) are expected to reach 100% proficiency in language arts and mathematics by 2014. ELLs, as a subgroup, are expected to make Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) toward 100% proficiency. This increase is determined by each state.
5. Factors Outside of the School ELLs are of disproportionately low-income background (Neill, 2005). Parent education is also a strong indicator of student achievement (Abedi & Dietel, 2004). Many parents of ELLs do not speak English, and cannot be easily involved in activities at school (Forrest, 2004). All of these factors contribute to low test scores on standardized tests. However, addressing these factors is not considered by NCLB.
6. Further Limitations of NCLB ELLs may not understand test preparation materials, a significant amount of which are offered solely in English (Lenski, et al. 2006). Furthermore, since parents of ELLs often are not proficient in English, the ELLs are unable to get help from the family. NCLB does not address the cultural values and differences amongst ELLs with different backgrounds (Valenzuela, Prieto & Hamilton, 2008).
7. More Criticisms with NCLB Annual Yearly Progress: Many researchers believe attaining 100% proficiency by 2014 is impossible (Anderson, 2011). Some argue that for a goal to be attainable by a school, another school must have already reached it (Abedi & Dietel, 2004). Testing Accommodations: It is difficult for educators to ensure changes to tests are accommodations and do not influence the rigor of content being assessed (Abedi, Hofstetter & Lord, 2004). Many ELLs are tested without accommodations. Do these tests measure attainment, or innate ability and socioeconomic status? (Abedi, et al. 2004)
8. Further Criticisms... Changes to Curriculum: Drill-and-kill instruction teaches only to the test (Zehr, 2009). Double ESOL instruction removes students from content instruction (Caweli, 2006). Inconsistent Definitions: The ELL subgroup is constantly changing, since ELLs labeled “proficient” are removed from ELL subgroup (Abedi, 2004). “Proficiency” levels are determined by each state, causing manipulation of numbers (Cawelti, 2006).
9. The Silver Lining in NCLB No Child Left Behind draws attention specifically to English Language Learners (Zehr, 2009). Educators are forced to focus on ELLs, and (through test results) learn what works and what does not (Zehr, 2009). Teachers can meet up and discuss standardized test scores to pinpoint areas that need further emphasis in the future (Pacheco, 2010). NCLB specifically addresses “turning-around” consistently low-performing schools (Haycock, 2006).
10. More Silver Lining: Concerns about accountability: Even though teachers felt hindered by the rigidity of mandates in NCLB, some studies showed that students performed better under the new standards (Valenzuela, et al. 2008). The implementation of NCLB has resulted in overall improvement in achievement and a narrowing of the achievement gap (Haycock, 2006).
11. NCLB: Should it stay? If we keep NCLB, most argue that some changes should be made to the standards. Improve standards for linking ELL instruction and assessment. Standards alone do not guide teachers to make adequate lessons. There should be more district, state, and national involvement in creating bench-mark assessments (Haycock, 2006). Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) tests can be used because they stress focusing on specific goals (Lenski, et al. 2006)
12. NCLB: Should it go? Funding: National testing funds would be better used on pilot programs in different districts to understand how to improve student learning (Cawelti, 2006). The financial burden of implementing effective testing accommodations for ELLs is difficult to overcome (Abedi, et al. 2004). Alternatives: A family literacy program will address the learning styles of each student and family to help encourage L1 development at home (Forrest, 2004). Some studies have shown that longitudinal tests give more accurate representations of student proficiency (Lenski, et al. 2006).
13. The Big Picture Discordant Standards Many applaud NCLB for lifting the veil on ELL education. However, the standards NCLB requires are not truly “standard;” they are manipulated by states to feign progress. Equivalent Expectations All subgroups are expected to attain the same level of proficiency, and overlap is double-counted. Thus schools are punished for having low-income, minority, ELLs enrolled.
14. Our Options If we keep NCLB as is: We will be ignoring the concerns of researchers and educators We will know the outcome of the mandates and be able to make better conclusions about the program’s effect If we change or get rid of NCLB: We will have to decide exactly what equal standards can be made which will address the needs of ELLs. We will be able to use the research that has been conducted over the last decade to improve the education of ELLs.
15. References Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left behind Act and English Language Learners: Assessment and Accountability. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 11. Abedi, J., & Dietel, R. (2004). Challenges in the No Child Left Behind Act for English language learners. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. Abedi, J., Hofstetter, C. H., & Lord, C. (2004). Assessment accommodations for English language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical research. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29. Anderson, N. (2011). Obama seeks to make No child left behind more flexible. The Washington Post Retrieved from <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2011/01/26/AR2011012606752.html> Cawelti, G. (2006). The side effects of NCLB. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 6. Forrest, S. N. (2004). Implications of No Child Left Behind on family literacy in a multicultural community. The Clearing House, 78(1), 5.
16. References- continued Haycock, A. (2006). No more invisible kids. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 4. Lenski, S. D., Ehlers-Zavala, F., Daniel, M. C., & Sun-Irminger, X. (2006). Assessing English-language learners in mainstream classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 60(1), 11. Neill, M. (2005). Assessment of ELL students under NCLB: Problems and solutions. FairTest, 10. Retrieved from Pacheco, M. (2010). English-language learners' reading achievement: Dialectical relationships between policy and practices in meaning-making opportunities. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(3), 27. Valenzuela, A., Prieto, L., & Hamilton, M. P. (2008). Introduction to the special issue: No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and minority youth: What the qualitative evidence suggests. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 38(1), 8. Zehr, M. A. (2009). No child left behind: Did Bush get it right? Guardian Weekly. Retrieved from <http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/feb/06/no-child-left-behind-english-learning>
