ASCD November 2006 Volume 64 Number 3 NCLB Taking Stock Looking Forward Page 1 of 6 Pages 22 27 A Catch 22 for Language Learners Wayne E Wright It defies logic it s self contradictory and it sets expectations that are impossible to attain Welcome to NCLB s Limited English Proficient subgroup November 2006 Early in 2005 I attended a conference for newspaper education reporters in Texas on the effects of No Child Left Behind NCLB One of the stars of the event was Sandy Kress a former education advisor to President George W Bush and one of the bill s chief architects Pyle 2005 Kress gave a powerful and passionate defense of NCLB describing how for the first time in history the federal government was serious about educating all students how it was finally doing something about closing the achievement gap and improving education for poor and minority students With the air of the attorney he is he rejected the criticisms of NCLB made by the speakers who preceded him However when asked about English language learners he chuckled and then admitted that no one really knew what to do with them All he knew he said was that they needed to be included somehow in testing and accountability programs Included Somehow This lack of clarity regarding English language learners ELLs is most obvious in the way that NCLB handles the Limited English Proficient LEP subgroup As with other subgroups such as African Americans or Latinos the LEP subgroup is expected to make adequate yearly progress AYP toward proficiency By 2014 all English language learners regardless of how long they have been in the United States must pass their state s accountability tests Moreover if the requisite number of English language learners in a school s LEP subgroup does not pass the tests in a given year the school is deemed as failing and may be subjected to sanctions When it comes to English language learners NCLB defies logic Common sense dictates that if you administer a test to students in a language they don t understand they probably won t do well on it NCLB contradicts itself on this very point The law describes a limited English proficient student as 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 Sec 9101 37 Nevertheless NCLB mandates that English language learners do just that and schools are punished if they don t The biggest flaw however is the way AYP is calculated for the LEP subgroup The LEP subgroup is treated the same as other subgroups such as those based on ethnicity race But unlike students in the ethnicity race subgroups who obviously remain in the same category students continually move in and out of the LEP subgroup Even more problematic those students who speak the most English and thus who are more likely to pass the test leave the LEP subgroup only to be replaced by newly arrived English language learners who speak the least English This http www ascd org portal site ascd template MAXIMIZE menuitem 459dee008f99653f 11 27 2006 ASCD Page 2 of 6 makes it impossible for the LEP subgroup to show consistent growth In partial acknowledgement of these flaws then U S Secretary of Education Rod Paige announced in February 2004 two modifications that states could take advantage of They could exclude LEP students from the reading language arts test during their first year in the United States and they could include English language learners who had attained English proficiency in the LEP subgroup for up to two years These changes are insufficient however First few English language learners can learn enough English in one year to pass their state s reading test Second the students must still take their state s math test their first year in the United States even if they arrive on the day of the test And contrary to what some might think math tests do not pose less of a challenge to English language learners than English tests do These tests include a great deal of language which might explain why English language learners in Arizona scored lower in their state s math assessment than they did in reading and writing Wright Pu 2005 As for keeping former English language learners in the LEP subgroup for two additional years this strategy only delays the problem rather than solves it Reasonable Accommodations NCLB requires schools to test English language learners in a valid and reliable manner Schools are to provide reasonable accommodations including to the extent practicable administering tests in students native languages until the students attain proficiency in English Although these requirements sound reasonable they actually introduce several problems First the law neither defines accommodations nor defines what constitutes reasonable Second no monitoring mechanisms are in place to ensure that schools actually provide accommodations Third there is no consensus on what constitutes an acceptable accommodation thus state accommodation policies vary substantially Rivera Collum 2006 Finally little research has been conducted on the most effective accommodations for English language learners and the research that does exist on how schools can provide accommodations while maintaining test validity and reliability is inconclusive Abedi Lord Hofstetter Baker 2000 In short NCLB requires something that we don t yet know how to do Accommodation in Arizona A survey that I conducted of teachers in 40 Arizona elementary schools with substantial English language learner populations revealed that fewer than half of these schools provided accommodations on the state test Wright Choi 2006 Because teachers received conflicting information about accommodations practices varied widely Some teachers were allowed to read the directions or questions aloud in English others were allowed to translate them Some teachers permitted students to use English or bilingual dictionaries Most teachers reported that these accommodations were of little benefit however One teacher noted that her school had only five Spanish English dictionaries to share across 27 classrooms Even when students had a dictionary few actually used them Many didn t know how others were embarrassed to use them in front of their peers Even in those instances in which translation was permitted few students requested it Teachers from the Arizona survey described the behaviors of their English language