Trapp 1

Emily Trapp

Artifact – PTS #11

The questionable progress of American students since the enactment of No Child Left

Behind (NCLB) has caused much controversy in the forefront of the Education debate. The No

Child Left Behind Act of 2001, federal legislation passed by Congress and signed into law on

Jan. 8, 2002, is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), 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 finding for the

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

student demographic groups; i.e., all states are required to bring all students to state-designated

proficiency levels in reading and math by 2014. Standardized testing in both math and reading

define the accountability of teachers and schools, and the scores of these tests determine whether

a school as met state “adequate yearly progress” (AYP). As AYP is calculated yearly, certain

NCLB sanctions are applicable based on student scoring. One of the mandated subgroups under

NCLB is English Language Learners (ELLs) or limited English proficient (LEP). This subgroup

has received attention because there is an 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 ELLs,

data related to how they have fared under NCLB, and some suggestions for changing the
 Trapp 2

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

One major issue with basing accountability and progress on standardized tests is that not

all students are capable of testing proficiently in English. Therefore, schools that have high

populations of LEP students are more likely not to meet AYP, and are consequently labeled as

failing year after year. The LEP subgroup also fluctuates very frequently as 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” (Wright 15). This causes problems because there is no real way to gauge an

improvement for the overall subgroup as is changes annually. The current system of

accountability, especially for LEP students, in inadequate and does not produce effective

learning.

In theory, NCLB has the potential to close the achievement gap among American

students. However, the testing policies create an unfair disadvantage for students who are not

fluent in English. Both Title I and III “require proficiency tests annually” (The Center for Public

Education), that assesses the students’ ability to speak, write, and read English. In addition to

these proficiency tests, LEPs are requires to take the achievement tests in reading and math like

the rest of students. Title III (Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant

Students), provides funds that require school districts to “provide high-quality language

instruction programs that are based on scientifically based research, and that have demonstrated

that they are effective in increasing English proficiency and student achievement” (U.S.

Department of Education). These programs are designed in order to increase proficiency by

relying on a flexible system that focuses on accountability. However, the number of students that

have limited English proficiency is constantly increasing with immigration rates. According to
 Trapp 3

the U.S. Department of Education, “a congressionally mandated study found that these students

receive lower grades, are judged by their teachers to have lower academic abilities, and score

below their classmates on standardized tests of reading and math.” Thus, it is important for

teachers to put an end to this cycle and create a learning environment that both increases

proficiency and fosters academic ability.

Although the Nation’s Report Card shows that the average reading scores for LEP fourth

graders is significantly higher than in 2000, it also shows that the scores are not improving as

drastically since the enactment of NCLB. The score in 2000 was 167, and the score in 2002 was

183, a large increase. However, since 2002, the scores have reached a plateau and in 2007 were

188, an average score that is merely five points higher over a five year period. This is also not

comparable to non-ELL students, whose scores in 2007 were 224 (The Nation’s Report Card).

According to the Center for Public Education, in 2000 there were 3.2 million ELL

students enrolled in United States public schools, accounting for about six percent of the school-

aged population (The Center for Public Education). Although some accommodations have been

made for students taking the reading test such as taking the test in their native language or not

having to take the test in the first year(s) of learning English (The Center for Public Education),

the math achievement test is taken within or shortly after the first year of enrollment. According

to Wayne Wright, and Assistant Professor at the College of Education and Human Development

in the Division of Bicultural-Bilingual Studies at the University of Texas, “contrary to what

some might think, math tests do not pose less of a challenge to English language learners that

English tests do” (Wright 15). There is a significant amount of language and American culture

referencing which makes math tests equally as challenging to partake in. In addition to the

language barrier, some ELL students are new immigrants. Students who are new to the United
 Trapp 4

States and the Education system are likely to not have received comparable education prior to

their arrival. For example, an addition word problem that may seem trivial to the typically

developing second grader may seem extremely unsolvable to a new student from a different

country whose level of math understanding is limited to counting in his or her native language.

Although states have the option not to report LEP students’ scores for the math test in the first

year (U.S. Department of Education), there is still an underlying limitation that prevents LEP

students from thriving in an environment that is concentrating s heavily on standardized testing.

Under Title III, there is an unrealistic expectation that all students will be proficient in

English by the year 2014. However, based on the way that the subgroup functions, as the

accountability deadline approaches, students who are just entering the school system and have

had little to no exposure to English are not going to be proficient. Another issue with testing

proficiency is that “English language proficiency tests will always over-identify children as LEP

because tests cannot tell the different between a child who does not know English and a child

who does not know the answer” (Rossell 37). Therefore, a student who is considered proficient

or fluent, but may have difficulty in other learning spectrums will be kept in the LEP subgroup

year after year based on the test. There needs to be a more efficient way to measure students’

proficiency that goes beyond formulated, multiple choice questions on a standardized test.

Many states avoid reporting LEP students by setting their subgroup numbers high,

therefore averting the failing label. This is reducing the achievement ability for students in

which English is their second language. Although it may benefit certain schools within a state or

district to set subgroup numbers higher in order to not have to account for those students, it is

ultimately burying a problem that is not going to disappear. Students who are English language

learners are the same as many students in the fact that they are unique, and some students learn
 Trapp 5

more effectively with certain accommodations or circumstances. Students attain information at

different levels and speeds, and that is no different when acquiring a new language. However,

according to the Center for Public Education, research suggests, “[LEP] students with formal

schooling in their first language tend to acquire English proficiency faster than their peers

without it.” Nevertheless, they also cite that “there is no common benchmark for English

language proficiency.” Therefore, it is important to note “the needs and abilities of individual

students must be taken into consideration in making decision on a case-by-case basis. An

accommodation that is appropriate for one student may not be appropriate for another” (The

Center for Public Education).

Most of the research and articles I have found are designed around the challenges NCLB

presents for LEP students. However, one pair of authors discusses that although there are issues

around the testing, parental outreach, and teacher quality with LEP students, NCLB did “pull

ELL students on map.” Prior to the accountability standards of NCLB, there was no need to

measure the proficiency or academic ability of ELL students. They were frequently overlooked

and underestimated. The article mentions that “shining a spotlight on ELL students has resulted

in improvement not only of the services provided to these students but also of the educational

strategies employed to educate them” (Consentino de Cohen & Chu Clewell 7). Although the

program and the implementation is still a work in progress, there are many positive aspects that

have come about for ELL students through NCLB. The article, entitled “Putting English

Language Learners on the Education Map: No Child Left Behind Implemented,” also points out

that NCLB gives general education teachers and opportunity to learn about ESL instruction,

which will benefit their classroom instruction for years to come as LEP populations grow., but

there is also a new intended “focus on aligning ELL instruction and assessment with state
 Trapp 6

content standards” (Consentino de Cohen & Chu Clewell 7). Setting such high standards for all

American children under NCLB has the capability of producing promising results. Especially

because the economy in the United States continues to struggle, other countries are booming. We

need to be able to compete in the worldwide scale of academics, and NCLB is aiming to create

generations of students who were able to do so. However, with this in mind, it is highly unlikely

with the current plan and conditions in place that LEP students will be able to succeed at the rate

of non-ELL students.

Although NCLB might have put a focus on LEP students that was not in place prior to

2001, many academic professionals and researchers are too focused on the problems surrounding

legislation to really give NCLB that credit. In Wayne Wright’s article “A Catch-22 for English

Language Learners,” he claims that the LEP subgroup “defies logic, it’s self-contradictory, and it

sets expectations that are impossible to attain” (Wright 14). His argument is that NCLB does not

properly define what “reasonable accommodations” can be used to better educate and help LEP

students, so schools are left to experiment with a variety of mechanisms that there is little to no

research on how to assist students effectively while “maintaining test validity and reliability”

(Wright 15). In addition to an indeterminate selection of accommodations, Wright has found

through study and interview that many students are either too embarrassed to use

accommodations such as bilingual dictionaries or translators, or do not know how to properly

utilize such adaptations. Although he suggests that testing LEP students’ native language appears

to be the best accommodation, there are still many problems surrounding this option as well.

There are over 400 languages represented throughout the United States school system, and to

create tests in all of these languages is both time consuming and expensive. Furthermore, these

tests are only beneficial if students are able to proficiently read and write in their native language
 Trapp 7

(Wright 16, 17).

There have been many suggestions or recommendations made in orfer to modify NCLB

so that LEP students are able to benefit from the legislation. Many have proposed that “English

language learning should be excluded from the regular state test, at least until they are proficient

enough in English to meaningfully participate” (Wright 18). It does not make sense to have

students who have only been exposed to English for one year to have to take an anxiety-ridden

test to determine academic ability, achievement, and proficiency. An extension to the first

recommendation is that some put a timeline on when proficiency is likely. Therefore, once and

LEP students “have been educated in the United States for five full academic years,” they can

begin to start participating in state testing (Rossell 36). Rossell also suggests, “Each subgroup

should have its own starting point for percentage proficient and realistic ending point. A one

size-fits-all plan is not realistic” (Rossell 37). Certain subgroups, including LEP, start at different

places. Therefore assuming that all groups can reach 100 percent proficiency is improbable. It is

difficult to weigh which modifications will most benefit the LEP students since there is little

research on what works best for these students, but it is imperative to realize that an

individualistic approach is necessary.

The Title III language instruction programs do not seem to be working as effectively as

they claim as evidenced by the reported scores. Many professionals argue that teach quality plays

such a large role in successfully teaching LEP students. Many schools in low-income areas,

where LEP populations are higher, do not have properly certified teachers to create an efficient

learning environment. It is extremely important that teachers be willing to engage in the

government funded programming designed to better educate them on how to teach LEP students.

Taking advantage of these programs, “high-quality professional development to classroom

 Trapp 8

teachers, principals, administrators, and other school or community-based organizational

personnel in order to improve the instruction and assessment of limited English proficient

students,” gives teachers the knowledge necessary to increase their own accountability and the

learning desire and capability of LEP students (U.S. Department of Education).

After researching No Child Left Behind and the expectations of LEP students defined by

the legislation, I think that there needs to be definitive changes made if and when it is

reauthorized. I think that the current system creates an unfair disadvantage to students who are

already struggling academically because of their language barriers. The concentration on

standardized testing creates a learning environment that does not foster meaningful learning.

Instead, it reinforces traditional behaviors that yield rote memorization and ineffective

understanding. If the U.S. is striving to create students who will succeed in future global and

local endeavors, we need to foster bilingualism, inquiry and critical thinking, and cooperative

learning environments. I think that some of the suggestions are valid, such as not having to

include LEP students in state testing for a period of time to gain proficiency so that they can

meaningfully participate. However, at the same time, I think that there needs to be more specifics

on how to gain proficiency effectively while at the same time gaining the content understanding

that the rest of the students are attaining while the LEP student struggles to comprehend and

process English. It is important that in gaining proficiency that the student does not fall behind in

other realms of academic achievement. I think it is also important for future teachers to be aware

of these issues and that NCLB mandates that the “high quality teachers” have at least a basis of

knowledge in teaching ESL students. This basis of knowledge can be built upon if the teacher

elects to do so, and I think that in order to produce the most effective teachers, offering pay

raises for teachers who become ESL certified is important. Although English is such an
 Trapp 9

important aspect to succeeding in the classroom, I think it is also critical to foster a child’s

cultural and linguistic identity throughout the proficiency process. With such a strong focus on

proficiency, I think that some teachers forget that when a student leaves the classroom, they are

likely to use their native language. For that reason, it is essential that teachers and schools alike

encourage bilingualism, and that the reauthorization takes this into consideration. Overall, I hope

that with reauthorization on the horizon, that the current administration realizes the ongoing

problems with NCLB and strives to solve this obvious problems in order to really help the LEP

students of this country, which are arguable the students that need their help the most.

Works Cited
 Trapp 10

Consentino de Cohen, Clemencia, and Beatriz Chu Clewell. “Putting English Language Learners
on the Map: No Child Left Behind Act Implemented.” Education in Focus: Urban
Institute Policy Brief (2007 May). The Urban Institute. Web. 20 Feb. 2010.
<http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/
34/fl/4a.pdf>

“Fact Sheet: NCLB Provisions Ensure Flexibility and Accountability for Limited English
Proficient Students.” U.S. Department of Education. 2 February 2004. Web. 20 Feb 2010.
<http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/schools/factsheet-english.html>

“No Child Left Behind: A Desktop Reference.” U.S. Department of Education. 14 September
2007, Web. 20 Feb 2010.
<http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclbreference/page_pg30.html>

Rossell, Christine H. “The Flawed Requirements for Limited English Proficient Children of the
No Child Left Behind Act.” Journal of Education 186.3 (2005): 29-40. Academic Search
Premier. EBSCO. Web. 22 Feb 2010.

“What research says about English language learners: At a glance.” The Center for Public
Education. 2009. National School Boards Association, Web. 20 Feb 2010.
<http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lvIXliN0JwE
&b=5117371&content_id={DE9F2763-8DA4-4C2A-B3D1-
9AEF8B3AEDA1}&notoc=1 >

Wright, Wayne E. “A Catch-22 for Language Learners.” Educational Leadership (2007): 14-18.
Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 10 Feb 2010