Brittany Granquist

NCLB: Instruction and Assessment of ELL Students

“The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, federal legislation passed by Congress and

signed into law on January 8, 2002, is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act, the central federal law in pre-collegiate education. The ESEA, first enacted in

1965 and last reauthorized in 1994, provided federal funding for education programs primarily

for disadvantaged students. NCLB continued to define and describe these education programs

and added new accountability mandates that must be met by states in order to receive funding for

the programs. The primary goal of NCLB is to close the “achievement gaps” between various

student demographic groups in reading and math by 2014,” leaving no child left behind in our

current school system (Dean, 2010). Given the scope and detail of this law, it has become a

source of controversy in the education community. A specific issue concerns the mandated

English Language Learner subgroup. This group has received considerable attention because

there is a significant achievement gap between the students in this group and the group of highest

achieving students. There are concerns about this group under NCLB because of perceived

problems with the way these students are assessed and educated, and because these students

continue to have lower achievement levels. This paper will address these concerns and will

provide information about the NCLB mandates related specifically to English Language

Learners, data related to how they have fared under NCLB, and some suggestions for changing

the legislation to better meet the instructional and assessment needs of these students.

The No Child Left Behind Act describes “limited English proficient” individuals as being

“aged three through twenty-one, [and] who are enrolled or preparing to enroll in an

elementary or secondary school and whose difficulties in speaking reading or

understanding English may affect their ability to participate fully in society and to
 succeed in school and on state assessments” (What NCLB says about English

Langauge Learners, 2007).

English language learners are affected by Title I, Title III and Title IX of NCLB legislation. Title

I funds special programs for disadvantaged students and requires that districts test oral language,

reading and writing in English annually. Recently, in September of 2006, Title I announced a

regulation for English language learners that have attended schools in the U.S. for less than a

year. This regulation states “states can exempt ELLs from one administration of the

reading/language arts test, [they] can include ELLs in math testing, [and] are not required to

count these reading/math/science scores in AYP determinations” (What NCLB says about

English Language Learners, 2007). There are three parts funded under Title III of NCLB: Part A

deals with English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and the Academic

Achievement Act, Part B funds educational programs used to improve language instruction, and

Part C highlights general provisions (Dean, 2010). Title III “defines Annual Measurable

Achievement Objectives that include [required] annual testing in English Language proficiency.”

According to Title III, one is English language proficient once comprehension, speaking,

listening, reading and writing skills are mastered. Under the provisions of Title IX, all students

identified as being English language learners must have a Home Language Survey that

“identifies the student as bilingual and a score showing limited proficiency in one or all the four

domains – listening, speaking, reading and writing” (What NCLB says about English Language

Learners, 2007). NCLB tests these areas of proficiency by requiring states to establish English-

language proficiency standards that are linked to the state’s own academic standards and

requiring schools to report on the English language learner subgroup for AYP purposes. States,

districts and schools test English language learners in math “starting with the first round of state
exams after the student enters school [and] reading that year or the following year” (What NCLB

says about English Language Learners, 2007). English language learners are eligible to take both

reading and language art tests in their native languages for the first three years after entering

school, and some students are given waivers to extend this allowance for up to two additional

years. Recently, the LEP Partnership has worked toward making content assessments more

accessible and appropriate for English language learners. A new regulation allows states to

include “former ELL” students in the subgroup report for two years after the achieve proficiency,

which gives schools the chance to show that they are helping students progress toward

proficiency and mastery of the English language.

In the United States in the years 2000-2001, there were 4,552,403 Limited English

Proficient students, 79% of which spoke Spanish as their native language, 2% of which spoke

Vietnamese as their native language, 1.6% of which spoke Hmong as their native language, 1%

of which spoke Cantonese as their native language, and 1% of which spoke Korean as their

native language (What NCLB says about English Language Learners, 2007). The majority of

these ELLs live in the states California, Texas and Florida (Samway & McKeon, 2007). As

mentioned previously, these students tend to score significantly lower on achievement tests than

students who are English proficient. Nationally in 1998, fourth grade ELL students had an

average score in reading of 174, while English proficient students scored an average of 217 on

reading. This gap has narrowed only slightly over the past ten years, which raises questions

about the effectiveness of the instruction and assessment of ELLs. In 2007, ELL students scored

an average of 188 on reading, while English proficient students scored an average of 224

(Reading Report Card, 2007). Although fourth-grade English language learners scored fourteen

points higher in 2007 than they did in 1998, the gap of achievement between these two
demographic groups is far too wide and modifications need to be made in order to aide in closing

this gap.

The assessment requirements for ELL/LEP students are a cause for concern in the

education community. Many people believe that the current assessment requirements are neither

valid nor fair. Susan Martin, the director of the ELL Program for Lewiston, Maine’s school

district, expresses her concern about NCLB regarding ELLs:

“The original idea behind NCLB is that we should treat all kids the same – all

kids are entitled to the same set of standards. Where it’s gone astray is

assuming that all kids, including ELL kids, can meet those standards in the

same amount of time” (Cech, 2009).

The issue is that students are not given enough time to learn the English language before they are

assessed in it. Under NCLB, schools need to assess how well English language learners are

learning the language, while holding them to the same standards in reading and math required of

native English-speakers. In doing this, states are essentially not testing ELL students’ mastery of

the material, but instead their ability to express it in English (Cech, 2009). Although NCLB

offers a grace period (up to two years) for students to take the tests in their native language (only

13 states take advantage of this allowance), this is terribly inadequate as research indicates that it

takes anywhere from five to seven years to acquire a language. After two years, students are

undoubtedly “not at the level of proficiency to understand assessment questions, [so] how would

you expect [the assessments] to give valid outcomes for [these] kids?” (Cech, 2007). Students

who were previous refugees and have little or no experience in formal schooling, defined under

NCLB as “students with interrupted formal education,” face even more challenges. In addition to

learning the language and the content, they are learning test-taking culture and school culture,
putting them even further behind than other English language learners. Not only are students not

given enough time to learn the language before they are assessed in it, accommodations and

modifications in assessment are not adequate to provide valid assessment. According to Abedi,

“special conditions or allowances in an effort to level the assessment playing field for ELL

students don’t really help because they were developed for students with disabilities, not for

English-learners” (Cech, 2009). Other accommodations, such as the bilingual dictionaries and

additional time to takes tests, fail to compensate for the language difficulty of the tests.

Another issue regarding ELLs under NCLB has to do with the instructional practices

offered to ELLs. Currently, many schools practice a monolingual approach, they do not put to

use bilingual programs that have been proven effective, and they drop ELL students in remedial

reading classrooms for lack of a better option. “Regardless of their level of English proficiency

or academic preparation, ELLs worldwide are increasingly placed in mainstream classrooms for

the entire school day,” resulting in a “one-size-fits-all approach to instruction” according to

Harper and de Jong (Harper & de Jong, 2009). It is absurd to think that certain educators believe

that a one-size-fits-all approach could possibly be effective in attempting to educate students

from the most diverse of backgrounds. Many states have replaced bilingual education programs

with “structured English immersion” programs. The issue with these programs is that they

assume that “ELLs, like native speakers of English, will acquire English naturally through social

interaction” in a year or two (Harper & de Jong, 2009). These environments are extremely

unfavorable for English language learners’ progression toward proficiency:

“Studies have clearly shown that placement in mainstream classrooms without

appropriate preparation of teachers and instructional accommodations can

lead to the social isolation of ELLs, as well as to a lack of class participation,

meaningful peer interactions and teacher feedback, and opportunities for

language development and academic achievement” (Harper & de

Jong, 2009).

An option that schools have been using, unfortunately, is to place ELLs in remedial reading

classrooms in order to increase emphasis on reading skills and strategies so to meet the demands

of high-stakes tests. The reading material in these classes is often too difficult for ELLs and the

content does not focus on vocabulary development and reading comprehension, areas that ELLs

need the most help in (Harper & de Jong, 2009). These instructional practices both hurry along

ELLs' language development at a pace impossible to keep up with and wash out the individual

ELL student in far too inclusive of settings.

The training and availability of highly qualified teachers is another cause for concern in

that ESL as an expertise has been diffusing with the enactment of NCLB, most ELL students

continue to be taught by unqualified teachers, and because each state has different guidelines for

who is qualified and who is not, making ELLs’ from different states educational experiences

extremely diverse. According to Harper and de Jong, NCLB “tout[s] the importance of ‘highly

qualified’ teachers, but fail[s] to recognize ESL/bilingual education as a core content area for

teacher preparation.” Recently, with the use of the aforementioned monolingual approaches to

instruction, ESL specialist teachers are considered “redundant” and often are replaced by

minimally qualified mainstream teachers (Harper & de Jong, 2009). According to Education

Week, 33 states have set standards for teachers in ELL instruction and only 3 states require all

perspective teachers to demonstrate competence in ELL instruction (Teaching ELL Students,

2009). These numbers portray how little emphasis most states put on teacher qualification. The

availability, or lack there of, of qualified teachers also hinders ELLs’ progression toward
proficiency. Although the national average of number of ELL students per certified Title III

teacher is 19, a significant amount of states are on the extreme end of the scale: In Michigan,

there are 119 ELLs per one teacher, in Oregon, 466 students, in Mississippi, 372 students, in

Nevada, 128 students and in Montana, 147 students (Teaching ELL Students, 2009). No one

teacher can possibly have effective command over this many students’ progression toward

academic and linguistic proficiency.

Since the provisions under NCLB regarding English Language Learners have been

receiving considerable negative attention, the Center on Education Policy convened and

discussed possible solutions for the issues on the forefront. With regard to the issues with

assessment, Dr. Francis proposed an assessment system that would incorporate both the English

language proficiency assessment and the content area assessment, but the degree to which each

assessment would be weighed would change as students progress. When students first enter a

state’s schools, more weight would be given to the language proficiency assessment, and as the

student spends more time in the state’s schools and acquires more proficiency in English, more

weight would be given to the content area score. Another suggestion made, proposed by Dr.

Stanley Rabinowitz, involves the progression through a “multi-phase accountability model for

English Language learners.” Phase I evaluates the validity of both state education agency’s

assessment systems for ELLs and the “evidence detailing the conditions under which scores are

expected to be valid.” Phase II determines the consistency between research and demonstration

of effective instructional practices and phase III indicates that AYP decisions will be based upon

the school’s ability to show that ELLs are receiving appropriate instruction and are assessed

validly (Zabala, 2007). A proposed plan in dealing with the issues surrounding effective

instruction is called the “Developing Individualized Academic Plans.” This proposition suggests
that each English language learner should be given an individualized academic plan so educators

are “better able to identify [his/her] learning needs and determine the appropriate assessments”

(Zabala, 2007). Solutions for improving teacher effectiveness exist on a broader scale, as ESL

teachers are not the only under qualified arena of educators. Some recommendations state that

NCLB should:

“encourage states to develop methods to measure teacher effectiveness, refine the

current federal definition of a highly qualified teacher to address the

special circumstances of certain kinds of teachers, adopt a comprehensive

approach to recruiting and retaining teachers in high-need schools, and provide

federal assistance to states to develop and implement

comprehensive data systems that could help states and schools better

understand the conditions that contribute to teacher and student success”

(McKurrer, 2007).

Last semester I tutored every Monday and Wednesday for three hours at Champaign

Central High school in an ESL classroom. The experiences I had within this classroom with

individual students and teachers and the knowledge I gained through writing this paper have

shaped my opinion about the instruction and assessment of ELL students under NCLB. I believe

that the assessment procedures as of now are unfair and inadequate. Newly arriving students

need to be given enough time to adjust to American school culture, the test-taking culture, the

new language and the unfamiliar content before they are harshly assessed and judged based on

their abilities. I understand that because of NCLB, English Language learner’s progression

towards proficiency is being given more attention, I respect that ELLs are being held to a higher

standard than before, and I realize the importance of assessment in determining English
Language learners’ progression in achieving proficiency academically and linguistically.

However, I believe that the standards ELLs are being held to need to be reasonable. I prefer Dr.

Francis’ solution to assessment issues over Dr. Rabinowitz’s because I feel as though the three-

phase process is a bit vague in that it is governed by determining the ‘validity’ of ELL programs,

however the term ‘valid,’ like ‘proficient,’ can be perceived and defined in a variety of ways by

different institutions. For this reason, I like Dr. Francis’ solution because it is concrete and

cannot be interpreted a variety of ways. With regard to instructional practices, I believe in the

importance of surrounding ELLs with native-English speakers, however I totally disagree with

mainstreaming ELLs for full school days and placing ELL students in remedial classrooms for

lack of a better option. I worked with one Chinese boy, who knew little to no English, during a

history lesson and I could tell that he was struggling and that he really had no idea what was

going on. Later on, I was informed that this boy had been dropped into a special education

classroom, because the school was unsure of a better placement. I think that this time can be

much better spent and that placing students in unfamiliar classrooms with unfamiliar teachers

and students can lead to anxiety and self-doubt. I really like the prospect of individualized

academic plans. ELLs, just like students with disabilities, are extremely diverse: in native-

languages, backgrounds, socioeconomic status, academic ability, formal schooling experience

and social skills. Because of this range of abilities within the subgroup, instruction and

assessment must differ on an individual basis, as each learner is unique. I learned from working

with ELLs on an individual basis that each student responds differently to certain instructional

practices. One boy found it helpful to use a pocket dictionary to translate between Chinese and

English, while others found it more helpful to use picture books. One girl found it helpful to go

through readings in English and translate them into Spanish in order to see the differences in
sentence structure, while this concept completely frustrated and angered another girl. ELL

students need to be able to bring their culture and identity with them into American schools. As

educators we need to understand the diversity of the backgrounds of these students while helping

them make the transition into American schools in a comfortable yet effective fashion.
 Works Cited

Cech, S. J. (2009). Testing Tension: Weigh Proficiency, Assess Content. Education Week ,

28 (17), 35-37.

Dean, S. (2010). NCLB: What is it and where did it come from?

Harper, C. A., & de Jong, E. J. (2009). English language teacher expertise: the elephant in the

room. Language and Education , 23 (2), 137-151.

McKurrer, J. (2007). Implementing the No Child Left Behind Teacher

Requirements. Center on Education Policy.

Reading Report Card. (2007). Retrieved February 22, 2010, from The Nation's Report Card:

http://nationsreportcard.gov

Samway, K. D., & McKeon, D. (2007). Myths and Realities: Best Practices for

English Language Learners. Portsmouth, NH, USA: Heinemann.

Teaching ELL Students. (2009, January 8). Retrieved February 23, 2010, from Education

Week: http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/2009/17teachingell.h28.pdf

What NCLB says about English Language Learners. (2007). Retrieved February 22,

2010, from Center for Public Education: www.centerforpubliceducation.com

Zabala, D. (2007). English Language Learners' Provisions of the No Child Left

Behind Act. Center for Education Policy.