14
By Luminita Palanceanu Touro University

Nclb ell palanceanu_luminita_ctea648_final

  • Upload
    ccsd

  • View
    1.559

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

 

Citation preview

Page 1: Nclb ell palanceanu_luminita_ctea648_final

By Luminita Palanceanu

Touro University

Page 2: Nclb ell palanceanu_luminita_ctea648_final

About NCLB Act of 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (P.L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425) is a major revision of the 1965

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

Key components:

1. Stronger accountability for results via assessments (Adequate Yearly Progress, Growth models, National Technical Advisory Council, Annual Report Cards).

2. Increased flexibility and local control (budgeting, School Choice and Charter Schools)

3. Expanded options, choices and alternatives for parents.

4. Emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to work (Reading Programs - Reading First, Early Reading First; Teacher Quality - Highly Qualified status, Paraprofessional requirements; Closing of the achievement gap between students of different socioeconomic background)

Retrieved June, 2010 from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html and http://www.state.sd.us/legislativeaudit/NCLB/Chapter%201background%20info.pdf

Page 3: Nclb ell palanceanu_luminita_ctea648_final

What NCLB says about ELL students “Limited English proficient” or English language learners, or ELLs = individuals, aged three through

twenty-one, who are enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary or secondary school and whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding English may affect their ability to participate fully in society and to succeed in school and on state assessments.

An ELL student must have administered : Home Language Survey that identifies the student as bilingual; Proficiency testing; Achievement testing (regular formal state tests with accommodations).

Recent Developments The LEP Partnership - ED help states make content assessments more accessible and appropriate

for ELLs (July 2006). ELLs who have attended U.S. schools for twelve months or less, can be exempted from one of the

reading/language arts test (September, 2006). States must include ELLs in math testing (and in science, beginning in 2007–2008). States are not required to count these reading/math/science scores in AYP determinations. States can include “former ELL” students in subgroup for two years in AYP reporting. ED gave $1.8 million to the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment Consortium to

develop an alternative [plain-English] test for ELLs, to be implemented in 2010 (October, 2008).

Retrieved June, 2010 from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.lvIXIiN0JwE/b.5057525/k.51AF/What_NCLB_says_about_ELL_students.htm

Page 4: Nclb ell palanceanu_luminita_ctea648_final

The gap between the achievement of ELLs and non-ELLs

Facts:80 percent of ELL students are U.S. citizens; the number of ELLs rose 46 % between 1990 and 2000;at the National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP) test (reading) 31% of non-ELLs scored at/above a "proficient" level 4% of ELL's scored at/above a "proficient" level;

49 % of freshman students classified as ELLs in 2000 went on to graduate from high school in 2004;

Retrieved on June, 2010 from http://www.civilrights.org/education/education-reform/ell-nclb.htmlRetrieved on June, 2010 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

Page 5: Nclb ell palanceanu_luminita_ctea648_final

The gap between the achievement of ELLs and non-ELLs (cont.)

Data retrieved on June, 2010 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

Average reading scale scores of 4th- and 8th- graders in public schools and percentage scoring at or above selected reading achievement levels, by English language learner (ELL) status

and state jurisdiction : 2007 in United States

Page 6: Nclb ell palanceanu_luminita_ctea648_final

The gap between the achievement of ELLs and non-ELLs (cont.)

The range of performance is greater within the ELL group than it is between ELL and non-ELL students

High- & low-performing ELL is based on ELL scorers at the10th & 90th percentiles.ELL & non-ELL gap is based on average scale score for each group.SOURCE: main NAEP – reading 2005, www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard

Diagram and information retrieved June, 2010 from Hull., J.(2010) Meeting the Needs of Special Education and English Language Learners. Center for Public Education, NSBA Annual Conference. Retrieved June, 2010 from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org

Page 7: Nclb ell palanceanu_luminita_ctea648_final

Advocating for English Language Learners in NCLB

“The law is that it does not give states much guidance as to how to develop assessments for ELL students.”

"Assessments do not adequately address what students are learning” (Zamora, regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense Education Fund – MALDEF, 2008). 

ELL students other than Spanish are “overlooked” and become "linguistically isolated" (Uy from Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, 2008)

Retrieved on June, 2010 from http://www.civilrights.org/education/education-reform/ell-nclb.html

Page 8: Nclb ell palanceanu_luminita_ctea648_final

Findings about how NCLB has affected the education of of ELL students

Accountability and assessment Districts differ in their ability to meet the NCLB requirements for a high quality bilingual/ESL

teacher. All districts reported having a large proportion of paraprofessionals who did not meet the NCLB requirements.

NCLB has had a generally positive effect on the alignment of curriculum, instruction and assessment in high-ELL schools.

Choice and Charter Schools - None of the districts were able to provide school choice to all of those eligible, but all districts and schools reported offering SES to eligible ELL students.

Flexibility - NCLB seems to have motivated districts to play a key role to improve the education of ELL students.

Teacher Quality - Professional development is a major mechanism for improving high-ELL schools under NCLB.

Closing of the achievement gap between students of different socioeconomic backgrounds - NCLB has had both positive and negative effects on ELL students in K–6

Parent Involvement - Parents of ELL students professed to have very little knowledge of the requirements of NCLB.

Clewell, B., de Cohen, C., Murray, J., (2007) Promise or Peril?: NCLB and the Education of ELL Students. Program for Evaluation and Equity Research, The Urban Institute; Washington, DC. Retrieved June, 2010 from http://www.urban.org/publications/411469.html

Page 9: Nclb ell palanceanu_luminita_ctea648_final

Alternative Approaches or Recommendations about the assessment of ELL students under NCLB

Improve NCLB as it applies to the education of ELL students.

The U.S. Department of Education should make the development of an appropriate English Language Proficiency test a national priority and require its use by all states and districts.

States should ensure that (1) policies are in place to conduct subject matter testing of ELL students using appropriate tests and accommodations and (2) reasonable exemptions are granted.

Districts should assume responsibility for the training and professional development of teachers, including bilingual/ESL teachers, who meet the NCLB requirements for a high-quality teacher.

The NCLB provisions for school choice and supplemental education services hold be re-examined.

More effective strategies in conducting parental outreach and information efforts with parents of ELL students are needed.

The inclusion of pre-K education in NCLB should be considered in the reauthorization of the law

Clewell, B., de Cohen, C., Murray, J., (2007) Promise or Peril?: NCLB and the Education of ELL Students. Program for Evaluation and Equity Research, The Urban Institute; Washington, DC. Retrieved June, 2010 from http://www.urban.org/publications/411469.html

Page 10: Nclb ell palanceanu_luminita_ctea648_final

Findings about assessment of ELL students under NCLB Problems with testing ELL Students

Unequal resources available to ELL students - students with disproportionately low incomes are more likely to attend lower-resourced schools.

Different starting points for schools with larger numbers or percentages of ELL student - schools with larger percentages of ELL students, more ethnically diverse and more low-income, typically start behind in the AYP.

Continuous changing composition of the ELL group.

Inconsistent LEP classification - older language proficiency tests have low reliability and results vary across different tests.

Flaws in achievement tests used with ELL students: Norm-referenced tests (NRT) are typically not normed with ELL students in the norming

group. Lower reliability of items for LEP students. Language complexity: Mismatches in native language, language of instruction, and language of assessment.

Irrational sanctions under NCLB - the sanctions for not meeting the AYP requirements are unlikely to enable ELL students to gain English proficiency at double the normal speed.

Retrieved on June, 2010 from http://www.fairtest.org/files/NCLB_assessing_bilingual_students_0.pdf

Page 11: Nclb ell palanceanu_luminita_ctea648_final

Alternative Approaches or Recommendations about the assessment of ELL students under NCLB

Establish common standards for definition of LEP and proficient that are rooted in up-to-date research in relevant areas.

Develop/acquire new, well-grounded tests of English language proficiency.

Revise and re-norm standardized achievement tests, and/or create simplified language tests.

Ensure the use of multiple measures of language proficiency and content achievement .

Use those multiple measures in all decision making.

Change the AYP formula to address unequal starting points,.

Ensure appropriate response to inevitably changing composition of ELL group in a school or district,.

Replace the expectation of 100 percent proficient with realistic goals in a realistic time frame.

Ensure adequate and equitable resources, including bilingual teachers and paraprofessionals, and additional supports for students who need them.

States should take their own steps.

Retrieved on June, 2010 from http://www.fairtest.org/files/NCLB_assessing_bilingual_students_0.pdf

Page 12: Nclb ell palanceanu_luminita_ctea648_final

Retrieved June, 2010 from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html

The Obama administration released (March, 2010) the A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Challenges the nation to embrace education standards that would put America on a path to global leadership.

Provides incentives for states to adopt academic standards that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace.

Create accountability systems that measure student growth toward meeting the goal that all children graduate and succeed in college.

Rigorous and fair accountability for all.

Continue to provide significant formula grants to help states and school districts implement high-quality language instruction programs to improve the education of English Learners.

Grantees may provide dual-language programs, transitional bilingual education, sheltered English immersion, newcomer programs for late-entrant English Learners, or other language instruction programs.

Grantees may also provide effective professional development for all teachers of English Learners, including teachers of academic content areas, that is responsive to demonstrated needs identified by evaluations.

Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

Page 13: Nclb ell palanceanu_luminita_ctea648_final

Establish new criteria to ensure consistent statewide identification of students as English Learners;

Determine eligibility, placement, and duration of programs and services based on the state’s valid and reliable English language proficiency assessment;

Implement a system to evaluate the effectiveness of language instruction programs;

Provide information on the achievement of subgroups of English Learners

Drive better decisions by school districts for program improvement and to support districts in selecting effective programs.

Retrieved June, 2010 from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html

A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

Education for English Learners

Page 14: Nclb ell palanceanu_luminita_ctea648_final

ReferencesA Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved June, 2010

from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html

Advocating for English Language Learners in NCLB. Retrieved on June, 2010 from http://www.civilrights.org/education/education-reform/ell-nclb.html

Assessment of ELL Students under NCLB: Problems and Solutions. Retrieved on June, 2010 from http://www.fairtest.org/files/NCLB_assessing_bilingual_students_0.pdf

Bilingual education/Limited English Proficient Students. Retrieved on June, 2010 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard

Clewell, B., de Cohen, C., Murray, J., (2007) Promise or Peril?: NCLB and the Education of ELL Students. Program for Evaluation and Equity Research, The Urban Institute; Washington, DC. Retrieved Jne, 2010 from http://www.urban.org/publications/411469.html

Hull., J.(2010) Meeting the Needs of Special Education and English Language Learners. Center for Public Education, NSBA Annual Conference. Retrieved June, 2010 from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org

NCLB Requirements. Retrieved June, 2010 from http://www.state.sd.us/legislativeaudit/NCLB/Chapter%201background%20info.pdf

What NCLB says about ELL students . Retrieved June, 2010 from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.lvIXIiN0JwE/b.5057525/k.51AF/What_NCLB_says_about_ELL_students.htm