| |
|
|
Position Paper on Assessment and Accountability of
English Language Learners Under the
No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (Public Law 107-110)
Since its passage,
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) has essentially changed the
educational environment in the United States and consequently, New Jersey.
Its purpose is admirable: “to close the achievement gap with
accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind”
(1425). NJTESOL-NJBE firmly supports the intent of NCLB. We support
holding districts accountable for monitoring the progress of English
acquisition of English language learners and ensuring that the level of
acquisition in academic areas is ultimately commensurate with native
English speakers. However, its current implementation has presented
significant challenges to schools as they serve the increasing numbers of
English Language Learners (ELLs) - one of the groups intended to benefit
from NCLB. These challenges mainly arise from the requirements regarding
the assessment of ELLs. These requirements in New Jersey are not only
contrary to the actual law but also contrary to accepted practices in
educational testing as outlined by the Joint Committee of the American
Educational Research Association, the American Psychological Association
and the National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). As currently
implemented, NCLB requires that ELLs be assessed in the content areas of
Language Arts Literacy, Math and Science using the same instruments as
fully proficient English speakers and must meet the same benchmarks as
fully English proficient students. This system is inequitable and
inadequate. A one size fits all assessment system excludes ELLs from being
part of an accountability system that effectively measures their progress.
NCLB requires all
subgroups of students to demonstrate proficiency at established state
levels. Therefore, NJTESOL-NJBE urges the state of New Jersey to adopt
assessment policies which will accurately measure the Language Arts,
Mathematics and Science achievement of ELLs in different types of
programs. This action will enable large segments of this population to be
considered successful in district data collection. This needs to be done
in an equitable manner, regardless of knowledge of
English
The Joint
Committee’s Standard 9 (Testing Individuals of Diverse Linguistic
Backgrounds) states: “any test that employs language is, in part, a
measure of language skills. This is of particular concern for test takers
whose first language is not the language of the test” (p. 91). The Joint
Committee’s statement of acceptable practice promotes consideration of the
use of “alternative information-gathering tools to ensure that the
information obtained is adequate to the intended purpose” (p.94)
particularly when test results are used to make significant decisions, as
is the case in NCLB. In addition, under Section 1111, b) (3) (C) ix in
NCLB (2001), it is clearly stated that the assessment requirements must
provide for:
(III) “the inclusion of limited English proficient
students, who shall be assessed in a valid and reliable manner and
provided reasonable accommodations on assessments administered to such
students under this paragraph, including, to the extent practicable,
assessments in the language and form most likely to yield accurate data
on what such students know and can do in academic content areas, until
such students have achieved English language proficiency as determined
under paragraph (7);” (emphasis added).
The premise of the
“No Child Left Behind” legislation in New Jersey is to provide inclusive
instruction based on the NJCCCS in order for all children to be able to
achieve proficiency. Schools around the state of New Jersey provide a
variety of bilingual and ESL programs to meet different local student,
demographic and district needs. In order to accurately measure student
learning and achievement in the New Jersey Core Curriculum Content
Standards, assessment must be aligned with the type of instruction
offered. Where assessment does not align with instruction, then assessment
data cannot give an accurate picture of student learning.
Moreover, under the
current system, the principles of NCLB are not being followed. Abedi
(2002) found that the language of the assessment should match the
student's language of instruction. In the 2004-2005 school year, 41,667 of
the 61,287 Limited English Proficient students in New Jersey spoke
Spanish. Bilingual programs exist in 77 districts which encompass most of
the Abbott districts and affect the large majority of the LEP population.
Therefore, first and foremost, NJTESOL-NJBE respectfully recommends the
creation and implementation of assessments in Spanish for those students
receiving native language instruction. Such native language assessments
should be linguistically and culturally appropriate and not simply
translations of English.
For those students not receiving Spanish native language instruction an
alternative assessment which takes into consideration the child’s English
language proficiency should be developed. The accommodations currently
offered have not proven to be a valid and reliable measurement for ELLs,
especially those at the beginning levels, as evidenced by the fact that
111 districts in New Jersey with significant ELL populations did not make
AYP. Studies suggest that students' background variables (such as language
proficiency and previous schooling) need to be considered when determining
which accommodations would be most appropriate (Abedi, et. al, 2000).
Since reducing language complexity has been shown to narrow the
performance gap between native English and ELL students, modifying or
“sheltering” test questions to reduce unnecessary language complexity
should be a priority in the improvement of these large-scale assessment
programs for the LEP students who are instructed in English only (Abedi,
et. al, 1998; Rivera & Stansfield, 1998). NJTESOL-NJBE strongly urges
that sheltered English assessments in Language Arts, Mathematics and
Science be developed for students from the many language groups and/ or
who are learning predominantly with an ESL approach. These new and
innovative assessments should be developed and monitored in order to
validate approaches that are effective for ELLs.
Unfortunately, under
the current system, students who are in the process of learning English
are required to complete more standardized tests than the fully proficient
English speaker. Students who are in the district for one or more full
academic years must take the state assessment in Language Arts Literacy,
Math and Science, in addition to the English Language Proficiency test.
Due to the complexity of the academic language on the new ACCESS for ELLs,
NJTESOL-NJBE advocates that while students are designated limited English
proficient, they be exempt from the state Language Arts Literacy
assessment.
Finally,
benchmarks for proficiency standards have been established based solely on
the achievement of English proficient students. This has created a
challenge to meet the same target for students whose English proficiency
varies from level one to level five. Moreover, with a subgroup of 20, the
variability of proficiency levels each year greatly impacts the
achievement of these proficiency benchmarks. Therefore, NJTESOL-NJBE calls
for the development and implementation of a growth model to better
ascertain Adequate Yearly Progress. In this way, districts will be
measured by the progress that ELLs make on the standardized tests as
compared to their language proficiency level.
With states
increasingly moving to reward or sanction schools based on test results,
evaluating the assessment and accountability models for English language
learners takes on added importance. In conclusion, NJTESOL-NJBE strongly
advocates that the state of New Jersey abide by the principles stated in
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 by developing assessments which match
the language of instruction in the form most likely to yield accurate data
on what such students know and can do in academic content areas, until
such students have achieved English language proficiency (NCLB,
2001).
References
Abedi, J. (2002). Assessment
and accommodations of English language learners: Issues, concerns, and
recommendations. Journal of School Improvement 3(1)
Abedi, J.,
Lord, C., & Hofstetter, C. (1998). Impact of selected background
variables on students' NAEP math performance. Los Angeles: UCLA Center
for the Study of Evaluation/ National Center for Research on Evaluation,
Standards, and Student Testing.
Abedi, J.; Lord, C.; Kim, C., &
Miyoshi, J (2000). The effects of accommodations on the assessment of
LEP students in NAEP. Los Angeles: University of California, Los
Angeles, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and
Student Testing.
Calamusa, N. & Kusielewicz, J. (2004).
Testimony to NJDOE on Assessment of English Language Learners on January
16, 2004.
Rivera, C., & Stansfield, C. W. (1998). Leveling
the playing field for English language learners: Increasing participation
in state and local assessments through accommodations. Retrieved from:
http://ceee.gwu.edu/standards_assessments/researchLEP_accommodcase.htm
TESOL (2005). Assessment and accountability of English language
learners.
|
|
|
|
