The Why Report - Recommendation #1
NSBA RECOMMENDATION #1
Students with Limited English Proficiency – Districts should be able to use alternate assessments or individualized measurements of progress based on making specific gains toward meeting state standards in determining AYP for up to three years.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
NCLB does not effectively hold schools accountable for the performance of students with limited English proficiency (LEP) because: 1) some LEP students’ academic backgrounds from their native countries are so far below grade level that counting their scores for AYP based on grade-level standards when they have been in the United States for less than three years is inappropriate; and 2) states do not yet have valid and reliable standardized tests to measure these students’ academic performance.
The law currently requires LEP students who have been in school in the U.S. after just one year to meet the same proficiency score based on grade-level standards as their English speaking peers. This is particularly problematic for students who entered the country far below grade level. For the first several years, it would be more appropriate to determine their achievement for AYP purposes on the basis of academic progress. After that they should be assessed on the same basis as other students.
In addition to NCLB’s inappropriate testing requirements, many educators are concerned that even the results from native language tests, which are taken by some LEP students for AYP purposes, do not adequately reflect a student’s proficiency. These tests are simply direct translations from their English-language versions and do not take into account the cultural context of their contents. LEP students who have had poor academic backgrounds before they enter school in the U.S. will have difficulty with these tests. Since native language assessments are not appropriate for all LEP students and not available in all languages, schools need to have alternate ways of assessing these students’ performance.
LEGISLATIVE REMEDY
NSBA’s recommendations will authorize districts to provide an alternate assessment – as determined by the local team overseeing the LEP student’s education plan and on an individual case-by-case basis – that is based on making specific gains toward meeting state standards for AYP for up to three years. Existing regulations will be codified to allow 1) first-year students in the United States to have their reading test scores exempted from AYP, and 2) students who exited the LEP subgroup to be counted toward that subgroup’s AYP for up to three years (rather than the current two years).
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Educators need alternate testing tools to accurately measure LEP student performance in order to be held accountable for their achievement. However, the current law does not give them the option to use these measures for AYP. It requires all LEP students to meet the same academic standards at the same pace as their English speaking peers, with an exception for those who have been in school in the U.S. for less than one year.
Research on language acquisition is consistent and clear that LEP students, particularly those with poor academic backgrounds from their native countries, need more than one year to achieve English language proficiency, and as many as seven years to achieve grade-level academic performance in English (National Association for Bilingual Education 2004).
With limited testing options, districts have to use standardized assessments to measure LEP student performance for AYP. Standardized testing tools are ineffective because they cannot distinguish whether students make language errors rather than content errors; therefore, they are unable to yield meaningful data on LEP student performance (NABE 2004). Many of these students need accommodations to help them take standardized tests. But researchers found that common accommodations such as simplified English and extra time are largely ineffective in helping them understand the tests (Center on Instruction 2006).
States and districts have voiced concerns over giving LEP students assessments that neither measure their performance nor inform instruction. Some schools in Virginia have intensified their protest against NCLB’s testing requirements. In early 2007 officials from Fairfax County Public Schools, the largest school system in Virginia, considered a proposal that would allow schools to refuse to give LEP students tests they deemed inappropriate. Fairfax’s action was a result of the U.S. Department of Education’s objection last year over the way Virginia and 17 other states tested LEP students (The Washington Post, January 2007). Virginia gave some LEP students a specialized proficiency test to measure their reading skills and included those scores for AYP. Fairfax’s refusal to use standardized tests for some students could cause more schools to miss AYP. But some local officials indicated that it’s more important to do what is educationally sound for the students.
Congress must act quickly to improve NCLB’s testing requirements for LEP students because the LEP population continues to grow rapidly. While these students had traditionally been concentrated in such states as New York and California, their enrollments have spread elsewhere. South Carolina saw an increase of LEP student enrollment by 521 percent and North Carolina by 470 percent between 1993 and 2003 (Center on Education Policy 2005). The overall LEP school-aged population grew by more than 169 percent from 1979 to 2003; while the general school-aged population experienced a 12 percent growth during the same period (Center on Instruction 2006).
___________________________
This Why Report addresses 1 of 40 provisions contained in NSBA’s bill, H.R. 648, No Child Left Behind Improvements Act of 2007.
To review other Why Reports on key provisions, go here.