The Silent Treatment: ELL and High Stakes Testing

The Silent Treatment:
English Language Learners, and High Stakes Testing-

American Education’s Dirty Little Secret

 

 A Review of the Literature and Expose of Logical Fallacies

Table of Contents

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………..…    3

Significance of the Issue…………………………………………………..………..………..……    4

Statement of Research Problem………………………………….....…………………………….    7

Operational Definition of Terms…………………….……………….………….......………..….    7

Review of the Literature……………….……………………………………….…………..…….    8

The Scope of the Problem: Micro & Macro Misgivings………………....……...………..……     9

Teacher and Student……….........………………………………………………………………..     9

ELL, Assessments and Disability………….........………………………………………………    11

Policymakers……………….........……………………………………………………………….     14

Perspectives on Solutions………………..…..….…………………..………….…..…………...     16

Student and Teacher……………….........……………….………………………..……….….…    16

National ……………..………….........………….………….……………………..………...……    19

International…………….........…………………………………………………….………..........    20

Discussion…………….....……………………………………………….………….….…..…….     21

Concerns………….……….………………………………………..….…………….…….……..     24

Statement of the Hypotheses………….………………………...………………….…….…….     25

References…...……………………………………………………….……………………...…..     26

 

INTRODUCTION

Just before winter break I was eating lunch with a colleague, and accidently became privy to some information that the school system would probably rather keep quiet. The county has seen an influx of refugees seeking political asylum from Nepal, Cambodia, and Burma. While this recent flood of immigrants should not be a problem for the schools within the county, there is however one distinct flaw in their management scheme. It seems that for the thousand or so asylum-seekers there are only three main schools being considered for their placement- Dundalk High School, Overlea High School and Lansdowne High School. As designated instructional centers for English as a Second Language (ESOL) programs it is no surprise that these three high schools would see the bulk of these students, however, these students were set to begin in the middle of the year with no plans to hire more specialized staff. As the number of ELL-students at my school was set to double in January, and triple by June, the foreign language teachers were asked to take on a sixth class mid-year as more ESOL-classes needed to be formed and other teachers reassigned.
            Ironically, this came on the heels of a whirlwind semester of Biology Bridge-Projects, where the science teachers were volun-told to help students complete them. Failure was not an option for these bridge-projects, and as such, they required some intense coaching, creative editing, and hours of rewriting to get the few ELL-students on my caseload finished. Despite demonstrating an intense desire to succeed and a fierce determination to finish, the English-language proficiency was just not there. Their recent successes with the Biology Bridge-Project was undermined by the school rankings released in October 2012, which onerously listed my school at the bottom in the entire state for the percentage of schools whose students passed the HSA’s by virtue of their score alone and not their bridge projects.

In short, we ranked lowest on overall HSA-performance, yet highest on Bridge Project Completion, as a factor of student-body percentage. Unfortunately the matrix lacked a footnote for the percentage of ELL-students as a function of the student-body. Additionally, it seems that the majority of our ELL-students are out-of-area students that are bussed-in to our ESOL-Center from Catonsville High School, Milford Mill High School, Woodlawn High School, Randallstown High School, and even Owings Mills High School, only to be bussed-back if and when they test out of the ESOL-Program. Until that time, they are our students, with their scores factored into our HSA-results, Bridge-Projects and overall school AYP statistics. The dirty little secret kept from the media, and out of the statistics, is that these high schools ship their ELL-students to us because they do not want the ELL-scores counted among theirs for fear of bringing down AYP and HSA-standings. So instead, we keep them. 

Now here we are with our number ELL-students doubling and tripling, most being funneled into our school from out-of-area, despite their home-schools having functioning ESOL-programs themselves. While ESOL-programs at their home-schools focus on Spanish speaking students, our program specializes in all other non-English speakers. Their home-schools have larger operating budgets, more staff in general, and still, our numbers increase while our budget and staffing does not. Despite the stresses of my friends in the foreign language department having to teach six classes- instead of five- this leave us holding the check for the long-term as our instructional effectiveness will appear to diminish since we continue to be measured by HSA test-scores, AYP, and the number of Bridge Projects. We will continue to be labeled as failing unless the dynamic is changed.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ISSUE

The disparity among the treatment of English Language Learners is entrenched in the history of the educational system and the failed policies that only paid lip-service to the Civil Rights protected under Title VI. As the age of high stakes testing swings into full gear and teachers are being held under intense scrutiny, the failings of the past and the sins of our predecessors become ever more apparent. The old ELL-practices and policies are threadbare, and prove deficient in light of HSA-subject testing, where students are required to take and pass a test that is only offered in English if they are to graduate. With the burden fully placed on the teachers and the school, many seek to redistribute these ELL-students instead of addressing the fundamental failings of both ELL-education and high-stakes- one size fits all- testing. As policy-makers and politicians tighten the testing-noose around schools, schools respond by subtly undoing the mandates outlined in Title VI.

Title VI was constructed in response to growing numbers of children in US schools who qualified as “national-origin minority students [with] limited English language skills” whose affect limited their ability to derive an effective education. “The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) within the ED (sic) has the responsibility for enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origins in programs and activities that receive federal... assistance” (US ED Dept.).  Title VI protects English Language Learners from being denied “equal access to education” because of a limited English proficiency, as well as “[protecting] students who are unable to participate in or benefit from regular or special education instructional programs” (US ED Dept.). The concern for the equal treatment of English Language Learners grew out of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s where many in government became aware of “school districts [that] made little or no provisions for students” (US ED Dept.) with a limited proficiency in English. The efforts of the sixties culminated in 1970 with an issue of a memorandum to school districts that stated:

“Where the inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students” (US ED Dept.)   

 

            The Title VI memorandum did not dictate how the school districts should address these issues. It did establish limitations by which Title VI would be violated. Excluding students from participation in school due to lack of English proficiency, labeling English Language Learners as mentally retarded on the basis of limited English proficiency, failure to teach English as a second language, and “parents whose English is limited… not receiving school notices… in a language they can understand” (US ED Dept.) all violate Title VI. In 1974,  Lau v. Nichols challenged the interpretation of the Title VI memorandum on the basis “that the students could not understand the language in which they were being taught; therefore, they were not being provided with an equal education” (NCELA). The Supreme Court concurred, stating, “There is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education” (US ED Dept.). In response to the Supreme Court ruling, “Congress passed the Equal Educational Opportunity Act (EEOA) mandating that no state shall deny equal education opportunity to any individual, ‘by the failure by an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by students in an instructional program.’ This… defined what constituted the denial of education opportunities” (NCELA).   

            School districts nationwide follow these guidelines in order to guarantee equal educational access to English Language Learners:

1.  Identify students as potential ELLS;

2.  Assess student’s need for ELL services;

3.  Develop a program which, in the view of experts in the field, has a reasonable chance for success;

4.  Ensure that necessary staff, curricular materials, and facilities are in place and used properly;

5.  Develop appropriate evaluation standards, including program exit criteria, for measuring the progress of students; and

6.  Assess the success of the program and modify it where needed (NCELA)

            High stakes testing has taken the forefront recently and placed the efficacy of the public school system in sharp relief by laying the responsibility for student achievement solely on educators and schools. If educators are to rise to this challenge to improve the state of the education system, NCLB clearly dictates that this will be done by leaving no child behind- including ELL-students. Historic treatment of ELL-students has been marginal and ineffective, with the ever increasing dearth of ELL-students, the school systems must seek to either reform their educational practices, or disguise their shortcomings. Author, Rosemary Salmone in her article, “Caught in a Time Warp,” asserts that a change in perspective is needed before any meaningful educational change can take place: “Caught in a pedagogical and sociological time warp, these arguments [between English immersion and bilingual education] often unfold as if the immigrant population were monolithic, parental preferences were insignificant, family ties were irrelevant, language development allowed no nuances or instruction alternatives, languages were separable from culture and individual identify, and schools still educated children for a life bounded by national borders” (Salmone, 150)

 

 

STATEMENT OF RESEARCH PROBLEM

What changes can be made to ELL-programs in order to balance both the needs of ELL-students and the performance standards established by the government through high-stakes standardized testing without violating the rights of ELL-students as outlined by the Federal Government in Title VI?  Additionally, how can this best be done in an era of high stakes testing, decreasing budgets, and increasing accountability?

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS

Term	Definition:
ESOL:	English as a Second Language, programs designed to help non-native English speakers learn English and acculturate. Often required components of public schools, or higher education among non-native English speakers.
ELL:	English Language Learner, a term to designate an individual for whom English is a second language and who requires a different set of criteria, as well as individual and programmatic support that are necessarily different from the general, native English speaking population.
Lau v. Nichols	1974, Supreme Court decision that maintained the need to educate ELLs as separate but equal, with an additional set of concerns, requirements, and conditions that separate them and their treatment from the general native English speaking population. As such, schools must guarantee all ELLs with an appropriate and commensurate level of education and school-life experience- famously stating, “for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed form any meaningful education” (US ED Dept)
The Exclusion Clause:	A clause of IDEA-2004 that states that students must be placed in the least-restrictive environment, and should that setting be demonstrated to unsuccessfully meet the needs of the special education student, then and only then, can they progress to next more-restrictive environment. This clause also safe guards against ELL-students being classified as Learning Disabled on the basis of English- language fluency
LD:	A student who has been demonstrated as having a learning disability based on professionally recognized assessments and professionally agreed-upon definitions of the impact and manifestations of disability on an individual’s performance.
TBE-T TBE-E	Transitional Bilingual Education- Typical: describes a traditional Bilingual Education program taught and implemented with fidelity.   Transitional Bilingual Education- Enhanced: describes a traditional Bilingual Education program enhanced by allowing the teacher to infuse best-practices into instruction at the teacher deems appropriate.
SEI- T SEI-E	Structured English Immersion- Typical: describes a traditional English Immersion program taught and implemented with fidelity.   Structured English Immersion- Enhanced: describes a transitional English Immersion program enhanced by allowing the teacher to infuse best-practices into instruction as the teacher deems appropriate.

 

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

            In reviewing the relevant literature regarding the state of ELL-education and testing in this country, two aspects became particularly clear. The first aspect was that the dysfunctional nature of the nation’s ELL-programs is quite well-known within academic circles, and second, most people out of academic circles remain blissfully unaware. The subsequent review of literature will be approached from two basic themes, the scope of the problem, and perspectives and solutions. Following along each theme the state of ELL-education will be examined from a micro- or person-to-person- perspective and a macro- or policy and political- perspective. While there is a wealth of research documenting many facets of this problem, there is a distinct lack of substantive solutions. The ELL-problem has been examined in minute detail, but the potential solutions remain frustratingly nebulous. Often circling around terms like best-practices, or enhanced techniques that offer no specific prescription or even general guideline.

            The research examined within the section on the scope of the problem begins by reinforcing the voice of the teacher as an educational professional, whose day-to-day experiences should be regarded as valuable, qualitative data in the search for an answer, not simply as a part of the problem, but a step towards a solution. Beyond validating the perspective of the teacher as researcher, the scope of the problem zooms out to examine a part of Title VI that is continually violated year-after-year- using test data to label ELL-children as disabled, when in fact the only disability they suffer is a lack of English-fluency. Contrary to federal mandates, many schools continue to assess the ability of ELLs using tests that are written in English, with no means of alternative testing available. The effects of this misidentification are explored as the academic performance of various ELL-students misplaced in Special Education is examined, and shown to have a lasting negative impact on their scholastic aptitude and future aspirations. Finally, the scope is widened as this section of the literature review includes an analysis of ELL-policies and programs enacted by the state Arizona that- in the opinion of the author- have been intentionally designed to fail.

            In reviewing the literature regarding possible solutions, the perspective of any agents of change must first be identified in order for any proposal to become a tenable solution. A magic key or golden teaching-practice does not exist. The solution(s) is even more complicated than the problem. The first prospective solution examined begins with the perspective of the ELL-student, and their ultimate educational goals. Before a policy or programmatic solution can be proposed, the wants, desires, hopes, and dreams of the ELL-student must be taken into consideration. Following the student’s perspective, comes that of the teacher, the reality faced in the classroom each day, and the potential ways a culturally relevant pedagogy can alleviate much of the stress, anxiety and linguistic challenges faced in the culturally diverse setting of the modern classroom. Moving from the classroom to the board-room, the literature review examines potential changes that can be made to standardize testing, and various alternatives that could be more reliably used to gauge ELL-student learning. The last prospective set of solutions begins by examining potential programmatic changes that could be made on a national level, and ends by examining the effects of similar changes enacted internationally.

 

The Scope of the Problem: Micro & Macro Misgivings

Problem: The teacher and student

 

“‘This is a view of children as seekers after social knowledge and makers of social relations, of childhood as the social and temporal context of children’s daily lives which shapes who they are and will be in the same moment that, as children, they help construct what form the institution of childhood will take in any particular culture.’” (Allison James, 1999, p. 100, as referenced by Milstein, 2010, p.13)

 

            Among many paradoxes of modern life is the dissonance between the perspectives of those at the front lines, fingers on the pulse of a problem, and those at the back, spectators, speculators and policymakers motivated by their own ideals, rationales, and desires. The opinions of the modern teacher have been relegated to the back, amongst the clamoring pundits and armchair experts who add insight, valuable interpretations, scientific dimensions, and propose various solutions to the multitude of problems facing education today. Ironically, most of the loudest dismiss the training, knowledge, experience and skill of the classroom teacher. Included in this section of the literary review is a study in which the researcher- an anthropologist- functioned as a teacher for students in an after-school research project. The results of her study and her findings indicate that students are not only viable informants and resources, but also that the daily experience of the ‘teacher’ is often the most reliable resource, and diagnostically useful tool when determine what is going on with children in the classroom. (Milstein)

            The importance of Milstein’s study lies in the validity of the teacher/student relationship and the ability of students to act as their own agents of change. She demonstrates that the artificially imposed separation between the world of the adult and the child creates an atmosphere where the child loses any ability to participate as an agent of change and are described/understood/treated as passive participants in their school lives. We do children a huge disservice when we treat them as passive participants who are subjected to school rather than active participants who share/create the culture within a school. Treating children as a “relatively homogenous group” (Milstein, 12) allows adults to minimize the complexity and value of each child’s particular cultural heritage and narrative. While we may “value their sensitivity, affection, emotionality, naivety and spontaneity… we hardly ever appreciate their rationality and understanding” (12). By lumping children into one category and marginalizing their experiences in the guise of childhood, adults discredit the various “childhoods and individualities” presented by each child.  “In our role as observers of school life, this builds a wall inside us that stops us from listening seriously and understanding children’s opinions and considerations…[causing] us to reduce what children do or say to what is generally termed ‘infantile culture or subculture’” (Milstein, 12- 13).

In the end when researching children/students it is important not to “render them invisible” (Milstein, 13) by discrediting their experiences through either romanticized ideals or naïve/problematic statements. This study reflects the pedagogical paradigms presented by John Dewey in which the child must be considered as a co-creator of learning and co-participant in education. While many researchers concentrate on the teacher as the primary agent of change within the school and classroom, they often marginalize and trivialize the experiences of the children. These researchers are missing a valuable piece of the puzzle by reducing the student to passive participants and not active co-creators. In an era of high-stakes testing the onus is shouldered by the teacher, and the accountability seems to begin and end there. Not that this article wants the burden of responsibility for education to be shouldered by either the students, parents or their culture, however, this article does recognize the imperative need to seriously include children within the paradigm of further research as active participants and agents of change who impact the teacher, school, and surrounding political environment as much as the those in positions of authority.

 

Problem: ELLs, Assessment and Disability

“If students are to have education options, school personnel must not only restructure program offerings, but also reflect on their expectations for this growing population… tracking plays a much larger role than previously believed in predicting English learners academic achievement… English learners were clustered primarily in non-college prep coursework…English learners must be exposed to twice as much instruction as native English speakers in terms of both language and content… Educators will need to revisit allotments of time and course-taking patterns in an effort to integrate higher levels of language alongside academic content.” (Callahan, 323- 324)

 

            As stated earlier, assessing ELL-students in a language other than their language of primary fluency is against the law. Title VI, and IDEA-2004 both specify the need to assess students in their primary language and the irrelevance of any results from tests administered otherwise. Unfortunately, this stipulation, and bastion of common-sense, is often violated in the day-to-day operation of the school. Three studies are included in this section of the review, and each examines a different aspect of assessment, ELL-programs, and special education.

            In Abedi’s study on the ‘Psychometric issues in the ELL assessment and special education eligibility’ demonstrates a substantial performance gap on content-based assessments between ELL-students and native English speakers. This performance gap was proven not to be the result of “lack of content knowledge” but rather the result of “lack of English proficiency” (Abedi , 2299). When language presents a barrier to an accurate, valid and reliable measure of content-knowledge, the assessment cannot be considered valid, and furthermore the consequences resultant from these tests (such as placement, or graduation) cannot be considered fairly applied. “[B]ased on the findings of experimentally controlled studies, [the researcher] illustrated that the reliability of commonly used standardized assessments in content based areas may be negatively affected by the complex linguistic structure of test items, a construct that is not the target of the assessment…[additionally] the influence of linguistic complexity of test items as a source of construct-irrelevant variance [reduces] the validity of the assessment” (Abedi, 2299).

The statistical correlation of deviance beyond normed subsets of standard English speakers shows a relationship exists between performance on these tests as indicators of achievement and language acquisition. Specifically, the evidence cited by this article showed the same statistical variation in the performance among both ELL-students and students with documented language-disabilities, leading to the conclusion that language fluency and language proficiency are major factors influencing- often limiting- performance on content-based assessments. (Abedi)

The presence of these nuisance variables conflates the results, decreases the validity of the assessment, and demonstrates that the standardized tests in their current form are a poor indicator of performance across the board. Therefore, “the linguistic complexity factors in content-based assessment may be considered a source of construct-irrelevant variances because it is not conceptually related to the content being measured” (2292). Since the goal established by the assessment is not to include a measure of language-fluency, test results can be considered an invalid and unreliable indicator of progress for members of the ELL-population because language fluency has been proven to have a negative impact on student performance through measuring the deviation of the internal consistency coefficient as determined through an analysis of error-variance among each test. (Abedi)

            Abedi demonstrates the weaknesses and lack of validity inherent in standardized tests as a measure of academic achievement or ability- especially when administered to non-native English speakers. While this conclusion may appear self-evident, it is crucially important for understanding the scope of the problem facing ELL-education. If the results of ELL-students on standardized tests mimics the results of students with learning-disabilities (specifically reading-related disabilities), it should follow that accommodations made for LD-students increase performance on test, then similar accommodations would have comparable results among ELL-students. In the article titled, “From early childhood special education to special education resource rooms,” Liu, Ortiz, Wilkinson, Robertson and Kushner determine that, even despite accommodations, the language of testing remains extremely important.

The results of Liu, Ortiz, Wilkinson, Robertson and Kushner’s research demonstrate that in light of differences among languages and students who speak a language for which an academic test is not provided, all is not equal. The language of testing is extremely important, and is a major concern, in light of the exclusionary clause as it relates directly the testing of ELLs. When the results between non-verbal and verbal tests are compared, the verbal test scores do not match the non-verbal test scores, and undermine the validity of ability tests administered to ELLs in a non-fluent language. This directly impacts the due-process required in order to determine eligibility/necessity of Special Ed. programs, leading schools to misinterpret data, and mislabel ELL students as disabled. Furthermore, the results of this study demonstrate that administering tests of academic abilities to ELLs is its own beast, with its own set of concerns, criteria, and pitfalls. Such issues should require an entirely different set of testing procedures to be applied to ELL-students across the board from special education determination through to high school graduation. (Liu, et. al, 186)

            ELL students perform similarly to native English speakers with a learning disability, additionally, this discrepancy is picked-up by common academic assessments, since these assessments were normed to a standard-native English speaking population, any assessments that were not designed specifically with ELL-students in mind can be considered invalid as it measures a lack of language fluency. Callahan, in the article “Tracking and high school English learners limited opportunity to learn”, describes the continued disservice done to ELL-students when the results of these invalid academic assessments lead to an erroneous placement in Special Education programs.

Callahan demonstrates the negative correlation between time lost in English-only immersion programs and academic success. Such programmatic tracks set ELL students up for continued failure. The modern school is more diverse than ever, and cannot continue shrugging-off the needs of those who do not speak the lingua franca, treating these children as if it’s their fault they weren’t born in the US. By rights, the education system is bound and responsible for educating every child who cannot be discriminated against. By diminishing the needs of the ELL community, schools limit their acculturation, their sense of belonging, and their academic opportunities. Callahan describes how this silent minority are being brushed off, their educational opportunities limited, and ultimately their civil liberties violated. This study helps to demonstrate the institutionalized discrimination inherent in the American school system as ELL-students are continually denied a free and appropriate education based solely on their inability to speak English fluently, even despite their academic ability, their previous education or even the wishes of their parents.

Taken together the implications of these three studies amount to a staggering disservice perpetrated boldly by the education system from top-to-bottom. The academic ability of ELL-students continues to be measured in a language of limited fluency, they are then pigeon-holed into various programs based on the results of these invalid tests, and denied the benefits of a free-and-appropriate education (slowing their matriculation-rate becomes the least of concerns). As the education system intractably digs-in and relies more heavily on standardized test scores and less on teacher report, ELL-students will continue to have their educational rights, and opportunities unnecessarily limited, further deepening the disparities among the populace. 

 Problem: Policymakers
“Based on the findings of this study, we offer the following recommendations:

1. Arizona should consider offering alternative modes of instruction that can help ELL students access the course content needed to succeed academically.
2. Arizona should find ways to offer ELL students support from their English proficient peers in acquiring and using language in the classroom, particularly with the complex academic language that leads to successful high school graduation and higher education opportunities” (Rios-Aguila, et. al. 6)
   
   

 

This review of the problem and difficulties facing the ELL-population in the American school system ends with a study that illuminates what is perhaps the biggest culprit in the entire dysfunctional scheme. The following study examined teachers implementing the state-mandated curriculum and English Language Learner-programs as outlined by the policymakers and members of the school board. The study was conducted by the Civil Rights Project, centered on the campus of UCLA, and was commissioned in order to examine the exclusionary practices employed by the state of Arizona through their ESOL-programs and document the detrimental effects these practices have on their students.   

The major conclusions generated by this data focus on the fact that teachers in Arizona are working very hard to overcome many obstacles and in many cases work even harder despite the challenges they face. Arizona is doing their teachers a disservice by not listening to the feedback and professional opinions presented by the teachers as they construct and implement policies. Additionally, “teachers thought that the 4-hour ELD block is somewhat effective because their ELL students are acquiring some English skills, but at the same time, teachers felt that their outcomes of the program have not been what they expected because ELL students are not reaching English proficiency within one year” (Rios-Aguila, et. al. 5). The current structure of ELL-programs in Arizona has been shown to be damaging for ELL’s learning and self-esteem. Elementary teachers and Hispanic/Latina(o) are more concerned about segregation. Current school conditions impact how teachers perceive the effectiveness of ELD-block programs. Elementary schools have more restrictions than high schools, while secondary school teachers often have a limited view of the holistic approach offered by the school experience. “The results of this study show that the majority of teachers do believe in the academic potential of ELL students…truly reflect[ing] teachers’ hopes for and connection with their ELL students” (Rios-Aguila, et. al. 5).

The results of this study make a few things a painfully clear; first, everyone acknowledges how hard the teachers are working, and second, that the standardized tests put the ELL-students at an extreme disadvantage-again. This study shows that ELD-Block segregation does not work, and continues to expound on the inadequacies of standardized testing as invalid measures of student ability (particularly ELL-student ability). ELL-students and their teachers are truly getting a ‘raw deal’. Sadly, this article points out that this problem is not only pervasive, but well-documented, and definitely culturally/politically motivated. If studies like this exist that show state educational policies are not effective, while highlighting the important and challenging work of teachers, then why do policymakers continue to make decisions against the recommendations of experts? And furthermore, why do they blame the teachers and not the policymakers for the failure of programs that were never intended to succeed?

 

Perspectives on Solutions: Student, Teacher and Assessment

            Within this section, the literature review revisits the problems outlined above and endeavors to present solutions that can be implemented at each level, with particular emphasis on the unique perspectives of each potential agent of change within the socio-cultural matrix of the educational system. The first step to constructing a valid solution begins by following Milstein’s suggestion and incorporating the perceptions of the ELLs themselves- a crucial step that has hitherto been overlooked. Building on a better understanding of the ELL-student, the second step examines the incorporation of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy as an example of a specific pedagogical technique that the teacher can use to positively impact the classroom and shape ELL-students in response to the unique needs presented by their own socio-cultural narratives. Following the classroom, the next suggestion explores the success of Curriculum Based Measurement within Special Education and proposes CBM as a viable alternative to traditional measures of ability and standardized tests.

            The article “Language learners perceptions of accent” examines the perspective of ELLs regarding their academic goals and language aspirations by using a startlingly original experimental paradigm, the researchers asked them! The researchers presented a large and various group of ELLs at a Portland university and asked them to listen to several speakers, rate the intelligibility of various accents and interviewed the ELLs in order to determine how they perceived their own accent and, ultimately, how they planned to reach their goals (which, in this case, was acquiring a native English accent).  Ironically among nonnative English speakers, many who were striving to achieve native speaker pronunciation were not able to identify what that accent actually sounded like. A mismatch of sorts exists between the pronunciation goals of nonnative English learners and their ability to perceive accents. Despite wanting to develop a native English accent, few were able to correctly identify the accent they wanted to ‘internalize’. Accent perception is a complex task, where English language learners ultimately end up placing more emphasis on ease of understanding, and less on authenticity of the accent being used. (Scales, et. al.)

The authors of the study recommend a shift in the way in which English pronunciation is taught in the classroom. Educators need to make more attempts to understand the perspective of the English learner, particularly in relation to their origin and background experiences with English. Educators should endeavor to use a more integrated and analytical approach to the teaching of pronunciation. “Courses could be expanded from the traditional focus on learner pronunciation alone to include oral communication as a whole. Instead of a single pronunciation model, English language learners could hear, analyze, and compare key features among a variety of accents… [allowing ELL students to] address both intelligibility and listening comprehension, increasing communicative flexibility and respect for accent diversity” (Scales, et. al. 735)

If more studies attempted to understand student perspective, community needs, and family-frustrations, then perhaps teachers could be armed with valuable insights, tools and strategies they could use to help mitigate the negative impacts of each student’s life outside of the school building. As it stands right now, researchers seem to be content with examining teachers, schools and test-scores in order to discover the one person, the one school, or the one teaching approach that’s gotten right. This study sheds light on what should be done in the field of education research, the world beyond the classroom/school needs to be examined in order to create new techniques, revive old-ones, encourage unique approaches tailored to specific circumstances, not a one-size-fits-all pedagogy. Policymakers, board members and administrators should be asking specific questions not of teachers, but of students. Such a simple, direct, and sublimely elegant approach could yield valuable information from the inside-out, not the outside-in.

The teacher should be the first to start asking these questions and addressing these concerns through the use of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. In the article, “Culturally Relevant Pedagogy in a Diverse Urban Classroom” Milner captures the success of one particular teacher (Mr. Hall) as he implements various strategies in response to the distinctive cultural-perspectives presented within his classroom.  Primarily Mr. Hall was able to do this through applying Milstein’s suggestions, merely listening and constructing authentic relationships with his students. In opposition to adopting a culturally neutral stance, Mr. Hall chose to recognize not only his students own and varied cultural identity but his cultural identity as well. In fact he was able to turn a touchy moment when he was accused of racism into a teachable moment where he openly and honestly confronted the multi-faceted problem of racial, ethnical and cultural identity within the classroom. He incorporated the perceptions of his students into his own perspective. (Milner)

Mr. Hall adapted the curricula and his role as a teacher in response to his own needs as well as the needs of his students. Additionally, Mr. Hall created a communal and family atmosphere within his classroom and beyond into the school by checking on new teachers, and students throughout the school- regardless of department or even if the students were currently enrolled in his class. He continued to learn from the students in and out of his classroom as he developed cultural competency and focused on creating an optimal learning environment for all students. Mr. Hall’s ability to build cultural competency ultimately transferred into his classroom as a culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy. Through the use of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy, Mr. Hall was able to remain agile and responsive in his teaching, limit the detrimental effects of a one-size fits all educational approach, while meeting the goals, aims, and limits set by the curriculum. Culturally Relevant Pedagogy is just one approach, among many, that can help teachers overcome much of the effects life beyond the classroom has on students. (Milner)

The final study presented in this section, “Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities” examines the use Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) as an alternative means of measuring student growth. Since the performance of ELL-students on standardized tests repeatedly mimics the performance of English-speakers with a learning disability, it stands to reason that if CBM is an effective measurement of ability for students with learning-disabilities, then it could also be an effective tool for measuring the ability of ELL-students.  CBM is means of assessing students based on the specific circumstances presented in each class. CBM is teacher designed, teacher implemented, targeted, precise, and intentionally designed to test if the teacher accomplished their goal. Whether created by the teacher, a department, or even a county, CBM provides a much better assessment of student attainment because it is designed to be administered in small doses throughout the curriculum, as part of the learning process. This study demonstrates the validity and accuracy of Curriculum Based Measurements. CBM has been around for a long time, and has been shown to be a valid means of assessing student progress for the precise reason why high stakes testing is not- CBM is designed to be localized, targeted, and non-invasive. It should be used by ELL-teachers and incorporated as an alternative to traditional standardized testing for assessing ELL-student ability (Deno et. al.).

 

Perspectives on Solutions: National

“Oral English development, especially academic oriented proficiency of ELL’s, is a neglected yet influential field that requires more rigorous scientific research” (Tong et. al. 1038)

 

            The study presented in this section outlines a basic solution to be adopted on a national level to help increase the performance of ELL-students across a variety of programs. Though the researchers in the article, “Accelerating early academic oral English development…” did not specifically outline how they accelerated the development of ELL, it most certainly incorporated specific pedagogy that was immediately relevant and reflexive of the students needs within the individual classroom (much like Culturally Relevant Pedagogy). The researchers were able to demonstrate that the use of ‘best practices’ in the classroom can significantly accelerate oral English language acquisition and therefore diminish disadvantages created by the lack of English proficiency that ELL’s bring at school entry. In fact the ‘best practice’ used worked despite program orientation. TBE (Bilingual Ed.) and SEI (English-Immersion) programmatic differences can be negated through the use and application of best practices. (Tong et. al.)

Initially it appeared that this article would help provide a clear answer to the programmatic quagmire the educational institution is in as it educates ELL-students. Unfortunately, the answer is not clear. While this article did not validate Transitional Bilingual Education or Standard-English Immersion, it did validate the ability of the teacher to faithfully and effectively work to improve the education of students within the bounds any program- given the flexibility to implement the curriculum as the teacher/professional sees fit. The Enhanced program described in the study incorporated more actual teaching and less direct English Instruction. The students left the rote memorization and drills behind and demonstrated the impact of effective teaching by proving that while ELL-programs are already awash in English, they are not- typically-awash in academics. Both the SEI-E and TBE-E programs offered students continuous support in and out of school, worked to help students understand academic content, English in context, and produce academically relevant work. This study demonstrates that when the correct and appropriate levels of supports are provided to ELL students, the program model does not matter nearly so much. The policymakers need to listen responsively to the teachers and other educational experts, and leave education reform off the public agenda and in hands of the professionals.

 

Perspectives on Solutions: International

            The article included in this section will be used to draw comparisons between the way the American Education system and the Irish Education system have handled the dilemma of English Language Learners by examining the results of implementing a bilingual education scheme across Ireland. In the article, “The relationship between performance on mathematical word problems and language proficiency for students learning through the medium of Irish,” Riordain demonstrates that performance on mathematical word problems is related to language proficiency in the language in which the test is written. Specifically, in this case, the study demonstrated a significant correlation between English language proficiency and performance on math word problems written in English. Additionally, language fluency and proficiency impacted math word problems even if the native language spoken (Gaelic) was not the same as the language of the word problem (English). (Riordain)

This effectively demonstrates that a correlation between general language fluency/proficiency and the ability to decode math problems, even if it is written in another language Furthermore, the data demonstrated a correlation between highly proficient bilingual students (High prof. in English and Gaelic) and better overall performance on math word problems written solely in English. Finally, those students who were not proficient in either language scored poorer in all respects. Overall, this article concludes that there is a significant benefit to math word problem performance when students are educated bilingually. “In both transitions, language proficiency groups were identified and those with a high proficiency in both languages outperformed their monolingual peers, those dominant in one language and those with low proficiency in both languages” (Riordain,57). Bilingual education demonstrates significant benefits to native (English) and non-native speakers (Gaelic) when tested on math word problems. (Riordain)

This study and its findings are the mirror image of Arizona’s current policy toward bilingual education. Policy makers in Arizona cling to a monolithic English-only immersion program that is not working, while in Ireland, they can demonstrate a high degree of correlation between language proficiency and performance on math word problems. Beyond that, this article demonstrates that significant statistical correlation exists between bilingual education and performance on math word problems. In an era when the arts, humanities, and language programs are being gutted in favor of science, technology, and engineering classes, this study suggests language education, as well as cultural/humanistic education, can impact performance in seemingly unrelated areas like math and science. It seems the ability of the student to understand, create and use expressive language not only relates to performance on standardized tests, but math tests as well- especially the dreaded math word problem- which is an unexpected bonus to learning another language and a boon bilingual education on the whole. This article pertaining to math performance through the medium of Irish is one step towards finding a programmatic and general answer to the “problem” of English Language Learners. It seems John Dewey had it right nearly 80 years ago, if you want to educate the child, educate the whole child

 

DISCUSSION

The review of literature demonstrated the complexity of not only the problem facing ELL-education but

also the complexity of all potential solutions. The most significant issue of ELL-education centers on the relationship between the teacher and the student, but then extends beyond to include the conflicts present within the broader perspective relating to high stakes testing, accountability and political-aspirations. In order to address the question of how the educational system can better serve the ELL-population, while at the same time not violating Title-VI, IDEA-2004 or the Exclusion Clause, the problem must examined on multiple levels and the solutions presented tailored to satisfy the conditions established by various perspectives within the educational system.

            First and foremost, the mission and aim of educational reform must be returned back to those for whom it matters most, the student and the teacher. Politicians do not belong in the business of educational reform, and do everyone a disservice when it becomes their platform. That being said, the policymakers need to understand the teacher/student relationship, and the valuable insight provided by such a qualitative experience. Milstein’s research provides substantial support and ample evidence for the validity of the teacher/student perspective, while Scales et. al. show that it is better to structure educational reforms based on the perceptions of those most affected. Additionally, Scales et. al. demonstrate how little the educational community actually understands the ELL-students and proposes that any future reform must align with the needs presented by this dynamic and overlooked segment of the population. Incorporating both viewpoints, the teacher needs to be granted the freedom to modify the curriculum as appropriate and, importantly, adopt a Cultural Relevant Pedagogy to meet the specific needs of students in the classroom, the school, and the community. Simply by affording the teacher the ability to craft an educational experience and weave the curriculum into the fabric of daily life, much of the disadvantage experienced by ELL-students can be mitigated.   

            Second, the way in which we assess the ELL-population must be changed. The literature review has demonstrated the inability of current assessments to accurately measure the ability of ELL-students, as well as outlined the significant repercussions such irresponsible testing measures have on these individuals. Not only are these students being denied graduation based on invalid content-based tests, but they are being systematically denied access to an appropriate education based on their abilities. Policymakers, bureaucrats, and members of the top echelon of the education system need to examine alternatives to standardized tests. Alternatives like Curriculum Based Measurement that are already being successfully employed in the Special Education setting, or perhaps more importantly, develop alternative tests specifically designed to generate valid-data for English Language Learners.

            Third and final suggestion is to abandon the monolithic view of English as the only true language of instruction in America. The analysis of Arizona’s English-Only block schedule exposes the inadequacies of a politically motivated, and artificially imposed curriculum can have on students. The students in this study have been consistently denied access the same free and appropriate education experienced by their native-English speaking peers. Despite being implemented with fidelity among the teachers, this program ultimately leads to poor attendance, lower graduation-rates and decreases performance on standardized tests. After reading this study, it would seem that Structured-English Immersion is not an effective approach to educating ELL-students. However, the research presented by Tong et. al suggest that the type of ELL-program matters less than the use of ‘best-practice’ teaching techniques within the program. As stated previous, if teachers are given the opportunity to modify the curriculum to meet the needs of their students, then all students benefit. Tong et. al. show that, yet again, the ability of the teacher, when given the freedom to implement ‘best practice’ techniques, is the most influential factor.

            Beyond the limitations presented by the way educational reform has become inextricably linked to political reform, the literature review examines how one nation managed to fully integrate bilingual education as a means of saving a dying national language and identity. The bilingual approach to education used in Ireland freely incorporates traditional Gaelic and English into the educational experience by developing programs in response to local-perspectives, and by allowing parents the ability to choose the level of bilingual integration their students can experience. The results of this study demonstrate that neither the importance of English is diminished through bilingual education, nor is the ability of the student negatively affected. In fact, this study demonstrates that when students are exposed to bilingual education, they end up scoring higher on math problems, specifically math word problems.

This provides an interesting insight into the nature of the current trends in educational reform. Everyone wants to raise math and science scores, so naturally the arts and humanities budgets are slashed. According to this study, if educational reformers want to raise math scores, they should seek a more holistic approach to education and restore the importance of the arts and humanities since they are avenues of language expression. This study is included in the literature review as a response to those who feel that starting bilingual education programs in response to the influx of English Language Learners would weaken an already struggling education system.  The research indicates otherwise. Not only would bilingual education programs be beneficial to the ELL-population, but they would also benefit the general education population as well, and reinforce the key goals of reform, like improving math and science scores. Although bilingual education is certainly not the golden ticket to solving all the problems within ELL-education, at least this study can limit those who would argue that it could hurt the American school system and limit the rest of the native English speaking population.

CONCERNS

Ultimately the state of ELL-education is directly linked to the overall health and vitality of the American education system as a whole. Sadly, the American education system has been reduced to talking-points, pipe-dreams, and enjoys only the cursory-treatment of government intervention. Being seen as a means to an end, the policymakers enjoy decrying the state of things at present, while promising future improvements. So it is with educational reform. While reviewing the literature the scope and magnitude of the problems faced by both ELL-students and teachers became clear. Politicians make promises to reform education and are hard pressed to enact, carry-out and prove successful reforms have taken place in the limited time between elections. Many seek ways to advantageously use statistics to show that they have in fact (single-handedly, if you listen to Michael Bloomberg) made strides to reform public education. Paramount among the concerns of anyone seeking to improve the level of service or quality of education provided is the overwhelming amount of utterly worthless, skewed, and biased information that is out there. 

While this review of literature features research largely conducted by independent organization, not all of it can be taken at face value. Many of the studies had research groups that were extremely small; one only had nine students total by the end of the study. Other studies had large research groups, and generated so much data that, though the researchers were able to reach significant conclusions, the level of statistical analysis required reach those conclusions is well beyond what the average person can understand. In all cases, the number of variables impacting the study was enormous, and many remained out of the control of the researchers. Such is the nature of working with humans, in particular children. When interpreting the results of educational studies, the reader must be careful to maintain a certain level objectivity and sense of skepticism. Remembering that, despite the best efforts of the researcher, the results of the study reflect a reality that occurred in a limited time-frame, under a specific set of circumstances, and among a specific group of individuals. As such, the suggestions and implications presented by these studies need to approached cautiously and are not intended to be applied with broad-strokes at the national or state level. More research is always needed, however, one suggestion stands out from them all- allow the teacher the freedom to teach and student performance will increase.   

HYPOTHESES

Teacher accountability and high-stakes testing a fact of life that is not likely to disappear. The real question focuses on how the public education system can be improved to better serve all of the students under its charge. The challenge is clear for the ELL-population, but the solution is vague. The research presents two changes that can be made to the current state of the education system. First, the tests themselves and the analysis of the tests can be changed to account for language barriers. Since the process for changing standardized tests is painfully slow, ELL-students should be allowed to use accommodations in the same manner LD-students use them.

With the prospect of augmented standardized tests not likely to happen in the near future, the second suggestion would be to change the curriculum and the ELL-programs in such a way as to allow teachers to have greater autonomy to freely design and implement instructional strategies that reflect current standards of ‘best-practice’ utilized in the general education setting. Teachers need to be given this freedom to tailor instruction to the needs of their students, but they also need sufficient time for their students to develop linguistic and academic proficiency. Ideally, changes need to be made at both the program/instructional and the assessment level.   

In order to balance the needs of ELL-students and the performance standards established by the government through high-stakes standardized testing without violating the rights of ELL-students as outlined by the Federal Government in Title VI, ELL-programs must be fundamentally changed in such a way that allows teachers the freedom to adapt the curriculum and employ ‘best teaching practices’, additionally assessments must be changed to accurately measure the ability of ELL-students without interference posed by a language barrier. While making both changes would demonstrate substantial improvement, if only one of the two conditions are met improvement could still be measured.

REFERENCES

1.      Abedi (2006): Psychometric issues in the ELL assessment and special education eligibility.
          Teachers College Board, 108: 11, 2282-2303, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00782

2.      Callahan (2005) ‘Tracking and high school English learners limited opportunity to learn.’
          American Education Research Journal, vol. 42, n. 2, 305-328, DOI

3.      Deno; Fuchs; Marston; Shin (2001) ‘Using curriculum-based measurement to establish
          growth standards for students with learning disabilities.’ School Psychology Review, vol
          30, n. 4, 507- 524. DOI:  

4.      Liu; Ortiz; Wilkinson; Robertson; Kushner (2008) ‘From early childhood special education |
          to special education resource rooms: identification, assessment, and eligibility  
          determinations for English language learners with reading-related disabilities.’
          Assessment for Effective Intervention, 2008; 33; 177, DOI: 10.1177/1534508407313247

5.      Milner (2011) “Culturally Relevant Pedagogy in a Diverse Urban Classroom”. The Urban
          Review 43.1  (Mar. 2011): 66-89.

6.      Milstein, Diana (2010): Children as co-researchers in anthropological narratives in education,
           Ethnography and Education, 5: 1, 1- 15, DOI: 10.1080-17457821003768406

7.      NCELA, “What legal obligations do schools have to english language learners
          (ELLs)?” (2012) National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition.
           http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/faqs/view/6

 

8.      Riordain; O’Donoghue (2008): “The relationship between performance on mathematical
          word problems and language proficiency for students learning through the medium of
          Irish.”Educational Studies in Mathematics, 2009, 71: 43-64 DOI: 10.1007/s10649-008- 
          9158-9

9.      Rios-Aguila, Cecilia; Gonzalez-Canche, Manuel; Moll, Luis C. (2010): “A study of Arizona’s
          teachers of English language learners” Los Angeles: The Civil Rights Project,
          University of California Retrieved from http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-
          education/language-minority students/a-study-of-arizonas-teachers-of-english-
           language-learners/rios-aguilar-arizonas-teachers-ell-2010.pdf

 

10.  Salmone, Rosemary, “Caught in a time-warp: the education rights of english language
           learners” (2010). http://centerforlawandreligion.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/
           salomone_macro-1.pdf

11.  Scales; Wennerstron; Richard; Hui Wu (2006) ‘Language learners perceptions of accent.’
          TESOL Quarterly, vol. 40, n. 4 (Dec. 2006) 715- 738. DOI:

12.  Tong; Lana-Alecio; Irby; Mathes; Kwok (2008) ‘Accelerating early academic oral English
           development in transnational bilingual and structured English immersion programs.’     
           American Education Research Journal. Vol. 45, n. 4 (Dec 2008) 1101-1044  DOI:

13.  US Department of Education, OCR, Office for Civil Rights, “English language learner
          resources” (2012) http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ellresources.html, last
           modified, 05/05/2011, accessed, April 2013

14.  US Department of Education, OCR, Office for Civil Rights, “Questions that may be raised by
           proposition 227” (June 10, 1998)
          http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OCR/archives/prop227q.html, last update, 6/25/03,
          accessed, April 2013

 

15.  US Department of Education, OCR, Office for Civil Rights, “The Provision of an equal
          education opportunity to limited english proficient students” (Revised August 2000)
          http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/eeolep/index.html, last update, 03/14/2005,
          accessed, April 2013