[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPACT OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 23, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-14
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-017 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman California,
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Ranking Minority Member
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Judy Biggert, Illinois
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Wu, Oregon Ric Keller, Florida
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California John Kline, Minnesota
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Bob Inglis, South Carolina
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Kenny Marchant, Texas
Linda T. Sanchez, California Tom Price, Georgia
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
David Loebsack, Iowa Louisiana
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky York
Phil Hare, Illinois Rob Bishop, Utah
Yvette D. Clarke, New York David Davis, Tennessee
Joe Courtney, Connecticut Timothy Walberg, Michigan
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan, Chairman
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Michael N. Castle, Delaware,
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
Susan A. Davis, California Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Judy Biggert, Illinois
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Bob Inglis, South Carolina
Linda T. Sanchez, California Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Rob Bishop, Utah
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Loebsack, Iowa Ric Keller, Florida
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Phil Hare, Illinois Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Louisiana
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
York
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 23, 2007................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Castle, Hon. Michael N., Senior Republican Member,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
Education.................................................. 2
Hinojosa, Hon. Reuben, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas:
Question for the record.................................. 70
Question for the record.................................. 76
Kildee, Hon. Dale E., Chairman, Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education.............. 1
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby,'' a Representative in Congress
from the State of Virginia:
Question for the record.................................. 71
Question for the record.................................. 72
Statement of Witnesses:
Ashby, Cornelia M., Director of Education, Workforce, and
Income Security Issues, U.S. Government Accountability
Office..................................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Response to questions for the record..................... 70
Guzman, Marta, Principal, Oyster Bilingual Elementary School. 42
Prepared statement of.................................... 44
Response to questions for the record..................... 72
Sanchez, Francisca, Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum
and Instruction, San Bernardino County Superintendent of
Schools Office............................................. 45
Prepared statement of.................................... 47
Young, Beverly, Ph.D., Assistant Vice Chancellor, Academic
Affairs, California State University System................ 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Response to questions for the record..................... 73
Zamora, Peter, Co-Chair, Hispanic Education Coalition........ 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Response to questions for the record..................... 76
Response to questions for the record..................... 78
IMPACT OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
----------
Friday, March 23, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary and Secondary Education
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:45 a.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dale Kildee
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kildee, Scott, Kucinich, Payne,
Holt, Sanchez, Sarbanes, Hirono, Hare, Woolsey, Hinojosa,
Castle, Platts, Wilson, Boustany, and Kuhl.
Also Present: Representatives McKeon and Heller.
Staff Present: Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director; Alex Nock,
Deputy Staff Director; Jill Morningstar, Education Policy
Advisor; Lloyd Horwich, Policy Advisor for Subcommittee on
Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education; Joe
Novotny, Chief Clerk; Brian Kennedy, General Counsel; Lamont
Ivey, Staff Assistant, Education; Ricardo Martinez, Policy
Advisor for Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning
and Competitiveness; Denise Forte, Director of Education
Policy; Thomas Kiley, Communications Director; Lisette
Partelow, Staff Assistant, Education; Rachel Racusen, Deputy
Communications Director; Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Adrienne
Dunbar, Legislative Fellow, Education; Sally Stroup, Minority
Staff Director; Robert Borden, Minority General Counsel;
Kathryn Bruns, Minority Legislative Assistant; James Bergeron,
Deputy Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; Steve
Forde, Minority Communications Director; Jessica Gross,
Minority Deputy Press Secretary; Taylor Hansen, Minority
Legislative Assistant; Chad Miller, Minority Professional Staff
Member; Susan Ross, Director of Education and Human Resources
Policy; and Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant to
the General Counsel.
Chairman Kildee. A quorum being present, the hearing of the
subcommittee will come to order.
Pursuant to committee rule 12A, any member may submit an
opening statement in writing which will be made part of the
permanent record. I now recognize myself.
I am pleased to welcome my fellow subcommittee members--
Governor Castle--the public, and our witnesses to this hearing,
The Impact of No Child Left Behind on English Language
Learners.
English language learners face unique challenges. Like all
children, they have to learn history, math, reading, science,
and other subjects. They also have to learn a new language at
the same time. Those challenges are not easy, and we owe it to
those children to ensure that their schools have the resources
and support to provide them with the education they need and
deserve. In that regard, it is particularly important that we
reverse the trend under the administration and recent
Congresses of reducing funding for English language
acquisition.
English language learners are a large and growing segment
of our students. Today, there are about 5 million ELL students
nationwide, representing about 10 percent of all public school
students. About three-quarters of these students are Spanish-
speaking. It might surprise some to know that most ELL
students, 76 percent of elementary school ELLs, were born in
the United States. Unfortunately, these students' academic
performances is well below that of their peers, and ELL
students have excessively high dropout rates due to many
factors, one discouragement.
By 2025, ELL students may represent as much as 25 percent
of all students, so it is no overstatement to say that for No
Child Left Behind to succeed, in fact, for our country to
continue to prosper, we must address this issue.
I believe that our witnesses today will provide us with
valuable information on how NCLB is working for ELL students
and what we need to know to make it work better. We will hear
about critical issues concerning the validity and the
reliability of assessments given to those students. One
foundation of a successful No Child Left Behind is data, and if
the data concerning ELL students' performances is not reliable,
it will not help schools, school districts and States implement
reforms for these students.
We will hear about how the Department of Education has been
slow to provide States with the assistance they need to
implement No Child Left Behind's provisions for ELLs and the
status of recent efforts to correct that. We will hear about
promising practices for training teachers of ELL students and
for improving their academic achievement, and also from an
outstanding bilingual public school here in Washington D.C., I
hope that today's hearing will help us understand which issues
require better implementation of No Child Left Behind and which
might be addressed by changes to the law itself, particularly
with regard to the testing of these students.
I look forward to working together with my ranking member,
Mr. Castle, our full committee chairman and ranking member, Mr.
Miller, and Mr. McKeon, and with all of the members on this
committee on a bipartisan reauthorization of No Child Left
Behind this year, and I believe that today's hearing is an
important step in that process.
It is now my pleasure to yield to the ranking member,
Governor Castle, for his opening statement.
Mr. Castle. Thank you, Chairman Kildee. I am very pleased
to be here today with you and with an outstanding panel, and I
welcome everybody to, I think it is, our second No Child Left
Behind hearing of the week. It has been a long week here, not
because of these hearings, but for other reasons, but I am
pleased that we are using the time that we have to continue our
preparation for the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. I
believe it is imperative that we examine all issues thoroughly,
particularly through the hearing process. We began this process
last Congress, and I am glad that we are taking another look at
our Nation's limited English-proficient, LEP, students.
Let us not lose sight of the fact that No Child Left Behind
was crafted under the guiding principles that all students can
and deserve to learn. LEP students are no exception. Because of
that, under NCLB, schools are held to higher standards and held
accountable for the academic achievement of all of the
children, including LEP students.
Indeed, the evaluation of this student subgroup is an
essential component of our discussions going forward. As
everyone here knows, the law makes it clear that LEP students
should be tested in reading, language arts, and math as well as
English language acquisition. At the same time, the law
provides States and local school districts the flexibility to
test these students in their native language for up to 3 years
with an additional 2 years of native language assessment
provided on a case-by-case basis.
I look forward to hearing today's testimony on what is
happening in the field at the State and local levels. I am
particularly interested in learning what it is that is
happening to help raise the student achievement of LEP
students. I believe, as others have said, that the law has
evolved past the compliance stage, and we now must focus on
what we can do in the classroom to meet the agreed-upon goals
of the law. I would also be interested in learning more about
the implications of actions taken by the U.S. Department of
Education and recommendations that these actions be codified in
the reauthorization.
Thank you for joining us so early this Friday morning. I
look forward to your testimony.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you, Governor.
Without objection, all members will have 7 calendar days to
submit additional materials or questions for the hearing
record.
I would like now to introduce the very distinguished panel
we have with us this morning.
Cornelia Ashby is the Director of Education, Workforce and
Income Security Issues for the Government Accountability
Office. Ms. Ashby joined GAO in 1973. In 1992, she was selected
for the GAO Senior Executive Candidate Development Program, and
in 1994, was appointed an Associate Director For Education and
Employment Issues. She began her current position in 2000.
Peter Zamora is co-chair of the Hispanic Education
Coalition, which unites 25 local and national organizations in
support of improved educational opportunities for Latino
students and families. He is also Regional Counsel for the
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and a
former bilingual credentialed teacher in the California public
schools.
Dr. Beverly Young is the Assistant Vice Chancellor for
Teacher Education and Public School Programs for the California
State University System. She works to facilitate changes in
teacher preparation within the 23-campus system. Prior to her
work at the CSU Chancellor's Office, Dr. Young was a faculty
member and teacher of education at California State University
at Fullerton.
Maria Guzman is the principal at Oyster Bilingual Public
Elementary School in Washington, D.C. Oyster School is
internationally known for its curriculum in which all students
learn in both English and Spanish. In 2006, Oyster was named a
No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon School.
Francisca Sanchez is Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum
and Instruction in the San Bernardino County Superintendent of
Schools Office in California. In 2002, she was named Inland
Empire Educator of the Year. In 2003, she received the Valuing
Diversity Award from the Association of California School
Administrators.
We welcome all of our witnesses, and we will begin with Ms.
Ashby. First, I will explain the light system here. Some of you
are familiar with it. The green light will be illuminated when
you begin to speak, and when you see the yellow light, it means
that you have 1 minute remaining, and when you see the red
light, it means your time has expired, and you need to conclude
your testimony. We will let you finish your paragraph or your
thought, but do try to finish at that time. Please be certain,
as you testify, that you turn the microphone on and pull it
close to you and turn it off when you are finished.
We will now hear from our first witness, Ms. Ashby.
STATEMENT OF CORNELIA M. ASHBY, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. Ashby. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I
am pleased to be here this morning to present information from
our July 2006 report on assessment of students with limited
English proficiency.
Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act requires States to
test all students in certain grades in language arts and
mathematics and use the results as the primary means of
determining the annual performance of States, districts and
schools. These assessments must measure students' knowledge of
the content of the State's academic standards. States are to
show that increasing percentages of students are reaching the
proficient level over time. States and districts are also
required to measure separately the progress of specific groups
of students, including limited English proficient students.
To make adequate yearly progress, each district and school
must generally show that all students in each of the groups met
the State's proficiency goal and that at least 95 percent of
the students in each group participated in the assessments.
Students with limited English proficiency did not meet State
proficiency goals on language arts and mathematics tests in
nearly two-thirds of the 48 States for which we obtained data.
Title I requires that students with limited English
proficiency receive reasonable accommodations and be assessed
to the extent practicable in the language most likely to yield
accurate data on their academic knowledge. However, for
language arts, students with limited English proficiency who
have been in U.S. schools for 3 years or more must generally be
assessed in English.
Title I also created a new requirement for States to
annually assess the English language proficiency of all
students identified as having limited English proficiency, and
to clarify, ``English language proficiency'' is English
proficiency in four areas--speaking, listening, reading, and
writing.
Title III requires States to establish goals to demonstrate
annual increases in students making progress toward attaining
English language proficiency. States must establish English
language proficiency standards that are aligned with the
State's academic standards in order to ensure the States are
requiring the academic language they need. In addition,
Education requires that the State's English language
proficiency assessment be aligned to its English language
proficiency standards.
States have reported taking a number of steps to ensure the
validity and reliability of academic assessments for students
with limited English proficiency, but concerns remain. State
efforts include ensuring that instructions, forms and questions
are clear and not more linguistically complex than necessary,
offering accommodations such as allowing students with limited
English proficiency to use bilingual dictionaries and providing
students extra time to complete tests and offering native
language and alternative assessments.
Despite these efforts, Education's peer reviews and a group
of experts we convened raised concerns regarding State efforts
to ensure valid and reliable assessments. For example, the
experts indicated that States are generally not taking the
appropriate set of comprehensive steps to create valid and
reliable assessments for these students. In addition, according
to these experts, in our review of literature, research is
lacking on what specific accommodations are appropriate for
students with limited English proficiency as well as their
effectiveness in improving the validity of assessment results.
Further, the experts expressed concern about the extent to
which alternative assessments are objective and comparable and
can be aggregated with regular assessments.
With respect to English language proficiency assessments,
in the 2005-2006 school year, 22 States used assessments or
test items developed by 1 of 4 State consortia funded by
Education. Eight States worked with test developers to augment
off-the-shelf assessments to incorporate State standards.
Fourteen States used off-the-shelf assessments, and seven
States created their own. While States' test developers told us
they developed these assessments using accepted practices,
there was not sufficient evidence of their validity and
reliability at the time of our review.
Education has offered States a variety of technical
assistance, including training, peer reviews and monitoring
visits to help States assess students with limited English
proficiency, but it has issued little written guidance on how
States are to assess and track the English proficiency of these
students.
Education has also offered States some flexibility. For
example, education does not require students with limited
English proficiency to participate in a State's language arts
assessment during their first year in U.S. schools. In
addition, while these students must take a State's mathematics
assessment during the first, a State may exclude their scores
in determining whether it met its progress goals. Further,
Education allows States to include for up to 2 years the scores
of students who were formerly classified as ``English limited
proficient'' when determining whether a State met its progress
goals. Partly in response to recommendations in our 2006
report, Education has also initiated a partnership with the
States and other organizations to support the development of
valid assessment options for students with limited English
proficiency.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I will
be glad to answer any questions.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Ashby follows:]
Chairman Kildee. Mr. Zamora.
STATEMENT OF PETER ZAMORA, CO-CHAIR,
HISPANIC EDUCATION COALITION
Mr. Zamora. Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle, thank
you very much for the invitation to testify today regarding
English language learners and the No Child Left Behind Act.
Between 5 and 6 million ELLs are currently enrolled in U.S.
public schools, constituting over 10 percent of our total
student population, and experts predict that one-quarter of our
student population will be made up of ELLs by 2025. The
commonly held stereotype of ELLs as foreign-born immigrants is
inaccurate. The majority are, in fact, U.S. citizens whose
academic and linguistic needs are not being met by our public
schools. Over three-quarters of ELLs are Spanish-speaking, and
over two-thirds come from low-income families. ELL students'
academic performance is well below that of their peers in
nearly every measure of academic performance, and they drop out
of school at higher rates than any other student subgroup.
NCLB is a critically important Federal education
integration and civil rights law for ELLs. It promises a
measure of academic parity and addresses the effects of limited
English proficiency upon academic performance. As written, No
Child Left Behind adopts a sound approach to improving ELL
student performance by addressing both academic ability and
linguistic proficiency. Implementation failures have severely
hindered No Child Left Behind's effectiveness for ELLs,
however.
As described by Ms. Ashby, States have not yet implemented
valid and reliable assessments for ELLs, and the U.S.
Department of Education has not yet provided enough technical
assistance or guidance to the States in appropriate assessment
policies and practices.
Because current NCLB assessments do not generally yield
sound data regarding ELL achievement, schools and school
districts face major challenges both in demonstrating academic
proficiency of ELLs and in designing interventions to raise ELL
achievement to meet State targets. Work is currently underway,
however, to improve the quality of testing systems for ELLs.
MALDEF, NCLR, the Department of Education, and all 50 States
have joined together in an LEP partnership to provide technical
assistance in ELL assessment to the States. The partnership
unites assessment experts, Federal and State officials and
advocates to improve assessment practices for the 2006-2007
testing cycle and to support the best practices for future
years.
Our efforts are beginning to yield results, but Congress
must also support the use of valid and reliable assessments for
ELLs. The Hispanic Education Coalition supports a dedicated
funding stream under Title I to develop and implement
assessments specifically designed to measure ELL content
knowledge. The coalition also supports the increased use of
native language content assessments for ELLs which are
currently required under NCLB when practicable. Sound
assessments for ELLs are required not only by NCLB and by sound
education practice, but also by the Supreme Court's decision in
Lau versus Nichols, which held that Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act requires academic services for ELLs that are
tailored to their language abilities and to their academic
needs.
Inaccurate data currently make it difficult if not
impossible to use test scores to evaluate the effectiveness of
NCLB for ELLs. It is clear, however, that NCLB has increased
the pressure at every level of our education system to improve
results for ELLs, and this is clearly a step in the right
direction. The poor achievement levels of ELLs were a well-kept
secret prior to NCLB, and this, thankfully, is no longer the
case. NCLB has not, unfortunately, led to the universal
implementation of the best instructional practices for English
language learners. Oyster Bilingual Elementary School here in
Washington, D.C. is a prime example of the effectiveness of
dual language immersion programs, for example, in helping both
ELLs and non ELLs reach academic proficiency. We need more
programs like Oyster's, programs that meet the needs of all
students, including ELLs.
To thrive in U.S. public schools, ELL students also require
teachers trained to meet their academic needs as Dr. Young will
testify. NCLB must do more to encourage the certification of
teachers trained to work with ELLs and to support professional
development for all teachers who teach ELL students. For NCLB
to reduce or to eliminate the achievement gaps that belie our
Nation's commitment to universal educational opportunity, the
officials at all levels of government must better serve our
large and growing ELL student population. If English language
learners in our public schools are not appropriately assessed
and do not improve their achievement levels, No Child Left
Behind will not meet its goals, and our Nation, as a whole,
will suffer.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Zamora.
[The statement of Mr. Zamora follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter Zamora, Co-Chair,
Hispanic Education Coalition
Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle, I am Peter Zamora,
Washington D.C. Regional Counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund (MALDEF). I serve as Co-Chair of the Hispanic
Education Coalition, which unites 25 national and local organizations
in support of improved educational outcomes for Latino students and
families. I appreciate the invitation to testify today regarding
English language learners (ELLs) and the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB).
ELL Student Demographics
There are currently between 5 and 6 million English language
learners enrolled in U.S. public schools, constituting over 10% of our
total public school population.\1\ Over the past fifteen years, ELL
student enrollment has nearly doubled, and experts predict that one-
quarter of the total U.S. public school population will be made up of
ELLs by 2025.\2\
ELLs' academic performance levels are significantly below those of
their peers in nearly every measure of academic performance. In the
2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress, for example, only 29%
of ELLs scored at or above the basic level in reading, compared with
75% of non-ELLs.\3\ ELLs drop out of school at very high rates: Latino
ELLs aged 16-19, for example, have a 59% dropout rate.\4\ In order to
optimize the skills of our future workforce, our public schools clearly
must do a better job in meeting the needs of our large and growing ELL
student population.
Despite common assumptions to the contrary, native-born U.S.
citizens predominate in the ELL student population: 76% of elementary
school and 56% of secondary school ELLs are citizens, and over one-half
of the ELLs in public secondary schools are second- or third-generation
citizens.\5\ The stereotype of ELLs as foreign-born immigrants is,
therefore, inaccurate: the majority are, in fact, long-term ELLs whose
academic and linguistic needs are not being met by our public school
system. Two-thirds of ELLs come from low-income families.\6\ Over
three-quarters of ELLs are Spanish-speaking, and nearly half of K-12
Latino students are ELLs.\7\
Inappropriate Assessments Hinder the Effective Operation of No Child
Left Behind for English Language Learners
No Child Left Behind is perhaps the most significant federal
education, integration, and civil rights statute for English language
learners. NCLB promises ELLs a measure of academic parity with their
peers and intends to address the effects of limited English proficiency
upon academic performance.
As written, NCLB adopts a sound approach to improving ELL student
achievement. ELLs face the dual challenge of learning English while
simultaneously gaining academic knowledge in an unfamiliar language.
NCLB addresses each aspect of this challenge: Title I requires
accountability for the content knowledge of the ELL subgroup, while
Title III requires accountability for English language acquisition.
Significant implementation failures by federal and state agencies
have severely hindered the effectiveness of NCLB for ELLs, as described
in the U.S. Government Accountability Office report that is the subject
of Ms. Ashby's testimony today. Specifically, states have not yet
implemented valid and reliable Title I or Title III assessments for
ELLs, and the U.S. Department of Education has not yet provided
sufficient technical assistance or guidance to the states in the
development of appropriate assessment policies and practices.
Because current NCLB assessments do not yield sound data regarding
ELL student achievement, schools and school districts face significant
challenges both in demonstrating ELL academic proficiency and in
designing interventions to raise ELL academic achievement levels to
meet state performance targets. No Child Left Behind implementation has
failed English language learners at the first step of standards-based
accountability: that of effective data collection.
Recent, Ongoing Measures to Improve Assessments for English Language
Learners
In order for NCLB to be fully effective, ELL students require
assessments tailored to their specific academic and linguistic needs.
This is required not only by NCLB and by sound educational practice,
but by the Supreme Court's decision in Lau v. Nichols.\8\ Lau held that
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires schools to deliver
academic services to ELLs that are tailored to their linguistic
abilities and academic needs.
Although the NCLB requirement for valid and reliable assessments
for all students originated in the Improving America's Schools Act of
1994, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has only recently begun to
enforce these provisions as they relate to ELL students. ED has also
recently embarked upon a long-overdue project to provide technical
assistance to states in developing and implementing appropriate
assessment policies and practices for ELL students. MALDEF has strongly
supported ED's recent efforts to enforce NCLB for ELLs and to provide
technical assistance to states.
In August of 2006, MALDEF, the National Council of La Raza, the
U.S. Department of Education, and education officials from all 50
states launched the ``LEP Partnership'' to provide technical assistance
in appropriate ELL assessment practices to the states. The LEP \9\
Partnership unites assessment experts, federal and state officials, and
advocates in an unprecedented collaborative. Our focus is to improve
assessment practices for the 2006-07 testing cycle and to support the
best ELL assessment practices for future years. The next LEP
Partnership meeting will be held in Washington, D.C. in July of 2007.
Our efforts are beginning to yield results, but Congress must
provide additional support to states in the development and
implementation of appropriate academic and linguistic assessments for
ELLs. The Hispanic Education Coalition supports a dedicated funding
stream under Title I to develop valid and reliable content assessments
for ELLs.
The technical expertise needed to develop and implement sound
assessments for ELLs exists, but thus far we have not generally seen
the necessary will or resources at the state and federal levels. Both
the federal government and the states must do much more to implement
native language, simplified English, portfolio, and other assessments
designed specifically to measure ELLs' academic knowledge and English
proficiency.
The Hispanic Education Coalition strongly supports increased
development and use of native language content assessments for ELLs,
which are currently required under NCLB when practicable. Because over
three-quarters of ELLs are Spanish-speaking, it is generally
practicable for states to develop Spanish-language assessments to
appropriately measure the academic achievement levels of the
significant majority of ELLs who are Spanish-speaking.
The Impact of NCLB upon English Language Learners
Inaccurate data generated by state assessments make it difficult if
not impossible to use assessment-based measures of academic performance
to evaluate the general effectiveness of NCLB for ELLs. It is quite
clear, however, that NCLB has focused increased attention upon the
academic and linguistic concerns of ELLs. The poor academic achievement
levels of ELLs were generally a well-kept secret prior to NCLB; this,
thankfully, is no longer the case. NCLB has increased the pressure at
every level of our education system to improve results for ELLs, and
this is clearly a step in the right direction for a student population
that has historically existed in the shadows of the U.S. public
education system. NCLB has, in effect, empowered federal, state, and
local officials charged with improving academic outcomes for ELLs.
NCLB has not, unfortunately, led to the universal implementation of
the best research-based instructional practices for English language
learners. A considerable body of education research on ELL student
achievement demonstrates that 1) native language instruction
significantly improves ELLs' academic achievement in English and 2)
ELLs require specific instructional accommodations designed to minimize
the effects of English proficiency upon academic achievement.\10\
Despite this body of research, ELLs nationwide are currently enrolled
in a patchwork of instructional programs, many of which do not reflect
the best instructional practices for this student population.\11\
Oyster Bilingual Elementary School here in Washington, D.C. is a
prime example of the effectiveness of dual-language immersion programs
in helping both ELLs and non-Ells reach academic proficiency. Oyster
Elementary is the sole school in the District of Columbia to be
designated a No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon School by the U.S.
Department of Education in 2006.\12\ Far too often, misguided cultural
and linguistic protectionism and a divisive political atmosphere
inhibit the implementation of the best instructional practices for
ELLs. Dual-language immersion programs do not encourage cultural or
linguistic separatism in ELLs, who clearly understand the need to learn
English in order to succeed in U.S. schools and society; rather, these
programs reflect best instructional practices and speed ELLs'
development of English language and academic skills and contribute to
the integration of ELLs into mainstream U.S. society.
As Dr. Beverly Young from the California State University system
has testified, ELL students require teachers trained to meet their
particular academic needs in order to thrive in U.S. public schools.
Unfortunately, a significant shortage of teachers trained to deliver
dual-language and other tailored methods of instruction for ELL
students persists. NCLB must do more to encourage the development of a
teaching corps that is well trained to work effectively with our large
and rising ELL student population.
Conclusion
For NCLB to reduce or eliminate academic achievement gaps,
officials at all levels of government--federal, state, and local--must
commit to better serving the ELL student population. If the large and
growing population of English Language Learners in our public schools
does not improve its academic achievement levels, NCLB will not meet
its goals and our nation's economic competitiveness will suffer.
MALDEF and the Hispanic Education Coalition advocate the following
recommendations to address the No Child Left Behind Act implementation
concerns described in my testimony today:
1) The U.S. Department of Education must fully enforce NCLB
assessment provisions for ELLs and provide effective and ongoing
technical assistance in the development of appropriate assessments to
state education agencies;
2) States must focus attention and resources upon developing and
implementing valid and reliable content assessments for ELLs,
preferably in the native language;
3) A reauthorized NCLB should establish a separate funding stream
to assist states in developing and implementing appropriate academic
assessments for ELLs;
4) A reauthorized NCLB should require that states that have
significant ELL populations from a single language group develop valid
and reliable content assessments designed specifically for members of
that language group;
5) States, schools and school districts must implement the best
instructional practices that will provide ELL students with the best
opportunities to develop both English proficiency and content area
knowledge;
6) The federal government and states must allocate significant
resources to support the certification of teachers trained in best
instructional practices for ELLs;
7) The federal government, states, school districts, and schools
must allocate resources for the professional development in the best
instructional practices for ELLs for all teachers who teach ELL
students;
8) The federal government must fund scientifically-based research
and disseminate findings on best effective practices for ELL student
instruction; and
9) Federal, state, and local school officials must ensure that ELLs
are fully and appropriately included in NCLB accountability systems so
that schools focus upon meeting the academic needs of ELLs.
endnotes
\1\ See, e.g., http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/faq/08leps.html.
\2\ See http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/faq/08leps.html; http://
www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/english/lepfactsheet.html.
\3\ National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP): Reading and Mathematics, Washington, DC
(available at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nrc/reading--math--
2005/).
\4\ See Fry, R., Hispanic Youths Dropping Out of Schools: Measuring
the Problem, Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center (2003), p8.
\5\ See, e.g., Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J.,
& Herwantoro, S., The New Demography of America's Schools: Immigration
and the No Child Left Behind Act, Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute
(2005), p18.
\6\ Id. at 25.
\7\ See http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/fastfaq/4.html; see
Lazarin, M., Improving Assessment and Accountability for English
Language Learners in the No Child Left Behind Act, Washington, D.C.:
National Council of La Raza (2006), p1.
\8\ 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
\9\ ``LEP'' is an acronym for ``Limited English Proficient,'' which
is synonymous with ``English language learner.''
\10\ See, e.g., Goldenberg, C., Improving Achievement for English
Language Learners: What the Research Tells Us, Education Week, Vol. 25,
Issue 43, pp34-36 (July 26, 2006). Appropriate educational
accommodations for ELLs include: strategic use of the native language;
predictable, clear, and consistent instructions, expectations, and
routines; identifying and clarifying difficult words and passages;
paraphrasing students' remarks; and other measures designed to minimize
the effect of limited English proficiency upon academic achievement.
\11\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, No Child Left Behind
Act: Education's Data Improvement Efforts Could Strengthen the Basis
for Distributing Title III Funds, GAO-07-140, December 2006, p32
(available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07140.pdf).
\12\ The No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon Schools Program honors
public and private K-12 schools that are either academically superior
in their states or that demonstrate dramatic gains in student
achievement. See http://www.ed.gov/programs/nclbbrs/2006/index.html.
______
Chairman Kildee. Dr. Young.
STATEMENT OF BEVERLY YOUNG, ASSISTANT VICE CHANCELLOR FOR
TEACHER EDUCATION AND PUBLIC SCHOOL PROGRAMS, CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Ms. Young. Good morning, Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member
Castle, subcommittee members. Thank you for inviting me to
discuss NCLB, and specifically the preparation of teachers to
address the needs of English language learners.
I am here on behalf of the California State University, the
largest and most diverse 4-year university system in the
country--23 campuses, approximately 417,000 students. We
currently award about 13,000 teacher credentials every year,
which represents about 60 percent of California's teachers,
which translates to 10 percent of the Nation's teachers who
come from the CSU.
Chancellor Charles Reed has made teacher quality
preparation one of the highest priorities of our system. We
play a particularly significant role in the preparation of
teachers to work with English language learners due to the
large concentration of California students with primary
languages other than English. I will focus my testimony on the
role played by CSU with equipping teachers to meet this
challenge, both through pre service programs and through
professional development.
Already one-quarter of the students in California's K-12
schools, about a million and a half students, are English
language learners. They are distributed across the regions of
California. Our campuses that prepare teachers are all working
with candidates who will teach substantial numbers of ELLs.
Approximately 85 percent of the ELLs in California are Spanish
speakers, but the other 15 percent come from among 55 different
language backgrounds.
The preparation of new teachers to be effective in working
with ELLs is not a new priority for the CSU. As long as 10
years ago, California's ELL population had already exceeded 1.3
million in California. Building on the commitment of our system
and its faculty to address the needs of ELLs, we have developed
a range of best practices for teacher preparation and
professional development. Our programs infuse techniques for
working with English language learners throughout every part of
the curriculum in order to adequately prepare our graduates.
Examples of CSU activities that are effective and
applicable to other programs across the country are evident at
every campus. For example, at Fresno, ELL pedagogy is infused
into every course in the pre service program. It is assumed
that every California teacher will be an English language
learner teacher, and all must be prepared to meet this
challenge.
Another example is the design of CalState TEACH, our
statewide site-based preparation program. CalState TEACH uses a
customized lesson planning, online tool that structures every
candidate's lessons to ensure appropriate attention to the
needs of English language learners.
At CalState San Bernardino, one of the fastest growing
populations in the State, faculty have developed a quick
reference handbook for teaching English language learners, an
interactive Web tool that enables candidates to identify a
range of instructional strategies for a variety of English
development levels represented by students. The handbook is
aligned with our State's academic content standards as well as
to the needs of English language learners, and was developed in
collaboration with local school districts.
At Sonoma State, for example, faculty have designed a
program sequence that leads students through an increasingly
complex set of strategies for assisting ELLs, including field-
based assignments, case studies, teaching assessment and
evaluation.
My last example would be from CSU San Marcos, which is
located in the far southern region of California with a very
large population of English language learners. In addition to
other strategies, CSU San Marcos students are paired with K-12
school staff to provide extra services and tutoring to ELL
students. Candidates visit schools in nearby Mexico to better
understand cultural and schooling issues in context related to
students who then come to California schools.
In addition, our campuses also employ the best practices
for use in preparing new teachers for professional development
for current teachers. Our professional development programs
addressing the needs of English language learners are in a
variety of curriculum areas--writing, reading, literature,
history, social studies, math, science, and the arts. As has
already been stated here, English is critically important, but
it is also important to facilitate student content learning
while they acquire English language skills.
As to specific recommendations for the reauthorization of
No Child Left Behind pertaining to teacher preparation in
English language, we have two recommendations. First, we
believe the national professional development funding should be
increased significantly. In this program, institutions of
higher ed provide pre service and professional development for
teachers in partner high schools. We think this funding should
be expanded. Second, we would recommend the scope of the
national professional development program be expanded to
include activities that allow school teams of teachers and
administrators to help develop systems and structures to
successfully close achievement gaps for English language
learners.
I have more, but my red light is on, so I will stop.
Thank you.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
Of course, all of your testimony will be included in the
record.
[The statement of Ms. Young follows:]
Prepared Statement of Beverly Young, Ph.D., Assistant Vice Chancellor,
Academic Affairs, California State University System
Introduction
Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle, and subcommittee Members,
thank you for inviting me to discuss No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and
the preparation of teachers to address the needs of English Language
Learners (ELLs). The focus of my testimony will be on the role of the
California State University (CSU) in pre-service preparation and
professional development for California teachers that equips them to
meet this challenge. The CSU thanks the Committee for its attention to
this critically important area.
The California State University
The CSU is the largest and most diverse four-year university system
in the country, with 23 campuses, approximately 417,000 students and
46,000 faculty and staff. The CSU's mission is to provide high-quality,
accessible education to meet the ever-changing needs of the people of
California. Since the system's creation in 1961, it has awarded about 2
million degrees. We currently award approximately 84,000 degrees and
13,000 teacher credentials each year. Few, if any, university systems
match the scope of the CSU system in the preparation of teachers.
One key feature of the CSU is its affordability. For 2006-07, the
CSU's systemwide fee for full-time undergraduate students is $2,520.
With individual campus fees added, the CSU's total fees average $3,199,
which is the lowest among any of the comparison public institutions
nationwide. A consequence is that many of our students are first-
generation college-goers. A substantial number of the future teachers
we prepare were themselves ELLs and have brothers, sisters, nieces, and
nephews who also began school in this group of learners.
Close to sixty percent of the teachers credentialed in California
(and ten percent of the nation's teachers) each year are prepared by
the CSU. Chancellor Charles Reed and the CSU Board of Trustees have
made quality teacher preparation one of the highest priorities of the
system. Following a decade of unprecedented growth and reform in public
K-18 education, the CSU Board of Trustees in 1998 embraced systemwide
efforts to improve teacher preparation in a policy entitled CSU's
Commitment to Prepare High Quality Teachers.
The California State University and the Preparation of Teachers of
English Language Learners
The CSU plays a particularly significant role in the pre-service
preparation of teachers to work with ELLs due to the large
concentration in California of students with primary languages other
than English. In addition, CSU and its campuses are involved in many
professional development programs in which teachers of ELLs are
equipped with new skills and techniques based on the most current
research on effective instructional and school improvement strategies.
What Has the Impact of NCLB Been on CSU's Work Related to English
Language Learners, including its Preparation and Professional
Development of Teachers?
It is important to recognize that 24.9% of the students in
California's K-12 public schools--1,570,424 students--are ELLs, and
that they are no longer concentrated in a few locations in the state.
They are distributed across the regions of California, and all of our
22 campuses that prepare teachers are preparing candidates who will
teach substantial numbers of ELLs. Approximately 85% of ELLs in the
state are Spanish speakers. The other approximately 15% come from 55
different language backgrounds.
As a consequence, the preparation of our teacher candidates to be
effective in working with ELLs is a major focus within the CSU system.
It is not a new priority. Ten years ago, the population of ELLs had
already reached 1,323,767. For almost two decades, meeting the
academic, social, and emotional needs of ELLs has been a priority
within the CSU in preparing future teachers and in professional
development that serves current teachers in the state.
CSU faculty are some of the nation's foremost experts in
preparation and professional development of teachers who work with
ELLs. The Center for Language Minority Education and Research at CSU
Long Beach, for example, has conducted pioneering research on improving
achievement of these students. Its Director, Dr. Claude Goldenberg, is
widely recognized for his significant contributions to the analysis of
instructional conversations, the impact of school settings on improving
achievement, and effective approaches for involving families of ELLs in
their children's education.
Similarly, at CSU Fullerton, Dr. David Pagni is nationally
recognized for his leadership in developing techniques and strategies
that prepare mathematics teachers to be successful in working with
ELLs. For more than 15 years, he has been preparing future and current
teachers in these strategies for teaching mathematics that enable
students to achieve mastery of advanced mathematical content regardless
of English language status. Partnering with the parents and the
community, a hallmark of his work, includes families in activities that
enable the students to demonstrate and share their skills with their
parents. This has been shown typically to result in new understandings
of the possibilities available to these students and to increase
educational and career aspirations that are shared by the entire
family.
There are dozens of additional examples of CSU faculty who have
been leaders for many years in research and professional development of
teachers to work successfully with ELLs. The expertise of CSU faculty
extends to ELLs with a broad range of primary languages.
A notable effect of NCLB on our preparation of teachers pertains to
the environment in which our preparation activities occur. Many of our
partner school districts are struggling to meet Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) targets for ELLs. The result is that they want to hire
new teachers with skills to help students achieve state standards and
benchmarks and want assistance in providing professional development
for current teachers. Our commitment to this area finds support among
school district partners, who welcome our efforts and communicate to
future teachers the criticality of their developing knowledge and
expertise in working with ELLs.
Another impact of NCLB on the CSU as well as our K-12 partners has
related to the assessment of ELLs. It is well known that the
accountability provisions of NCLB have increased the attention focused
on valid approaches for measuring achievement and achievement gains of
ELLs. CSU faculty members in education work closely with local school
districts. For many of these districts, this is among the most
challenging NCLB issues they face. The teachers and school leaders we
prepare learn about the care needed in developing approaches for
testing and accountability to ensure they work in the positive ways
that were intended in the legislation. As is widely recognized, much
remains to be done in this area.
What are Examples of CSU Best Practices in Teacher Preparation Related
to English Language Learners?
Due to its size and the commitment of the system and many of its
faculty to addressing the needs of ELLs, CSU has developed a range of
approaches that are examples of Best Practices in teacher preparation
and professional development. Earlier this month, the system held a
Professional Development Workshop for 300 CSU faculty involved in
teacher preparation. A number of issues were identified for focus, and
faculty from throughout the state came together to share Best Practices
in these areas. Preparing candidates to work with ELLs was one of the
targeted priorities. Earlier this year, CSU Deans of Education had
similarly exchanged information about particularly effective approaches
for meeting the needs of these students. From these two sets of
exchanges, I have selected a few examples of excellent model approaches
to highlight.
Infusion of Strategies Throughout the Curriculum: CSU Fresno and
CalStateTEACH
California State University, Fresno faculty believe that effective
strategies must be infused throughout every part of the curriculum in
order to adequately prepare graduates who will teach in a region with
one of the largest percentages of ELLs in the state. In its pre-service
program, the College of Education integrates, in every course and every
aspect of teacher preparation, attention to key issues and approaches
for meeting the needs of ELLs.
Areas that are given attention throughout the entire curriculum
include, for example:
Students' identity and culture
First and second language acquisition theory and research
and implications for classroom instruction
English Language Development (ELD) levels, assessment,
program options, and effective strategies
Content area instruction using Specially Designed Academic
Instruction in English
Socio-cultural contexts of language learning
Development and use of culturally responsive curriculum
Policies and demographic trends affecting programs for
English learners
Advocacy for ELLs and creating changes in attitudes and
expectations
Analysis of students' funds of knowledge and overcoming
deficit models of poverty
Approaches for parent involvement that enhance student
performance
Reflection as an ongoing aspect of teaching and
professional practice.
Approaches for preparing future teachers to work with ELLs that
infuse principles and practices throughout the curriculum are
characteristic of CSU education programs. The statewide site-based
online CalStateTEACH program uses this model and has been particularly
effective in preparing candidates to work productively with ELLs.
CalStateTEACH is a non-traditional program that offers qualified
candidates the opportunity to earn their credential without attending
customary college classes. It is a true field-based model, in which
teacher candidates learn how to teach in public school classrooms where
university faculty and school site mentors observe them teaching.
CalStateTEACH offers a spiraling, integrated curriculum that includes
learning theories, pedagogical approaches, and classroom management
across the curriculum.
In preparing candidates to teach ELLs effectively, CalStateTEACH
infuses the requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities throughout the
program. A customized lesson planning tool has been developed so that
at each step in the lesson planning and delivery process, teacher
candidates see a ``prompt'' that ensures the appropriate activities are
differentiated in order to meet the needs of ELLs. For example, in the
first step of the lesson planning process, teacher candidates are asked
to describe the students they are teaching. In addition to being asked
for the contextual factors, such as students' developmental
characteristics, preferences and perspectives, candidates are also
asked to identify language proficiency levels for ELLs.
Exemplary Resource Materials for New Teachers: CSU San Bernardino
California State University, San Bernardino is in a region of
California in which many districts have K-12 student populations where
more than 30% of K-12 students are ELLs. It is the region of the
largest population increase in the State, and the K-12 population
growth has been disproportionately large among ELLs. It is predicted
that these trends will continue for at least the next two decades. The
faculty members have provided to teacher candidates a Quick Reference
Handbook for Teaching English Learners. It is an interactive tool on
the World Wide Web that enables teacher candidates to identify a range
of instructional strategies appropriate for K-12 students at different
English Language Development levels.
The Handbook is focused on helping new teachers align their
instructional strategies to state academic content standards and to the
needs of ELLs. The goal is to equip teacher candidates with approaches
for making instruction comprehensible and engaging to these students.
The Handbook includes teaching strategies that can be used across grade
levels and across curriculum content areas.
The strategies included in the Handbook were developed through a
partnership with a local school district. Teachers developed a bank of
strategies based on the evidence of success from their classrooms. The
Handbook is built on the recognition that teaching is a complex event
and that teachers make on-the-spot decisions in hundreds of teaching
situations daily. The purpose of the Quick Reference Handbook is to
give teachers an easy-to-use tool that supports their decision-making
in planning and teaching lessons.
The instructional strategies in the Handbook are divided into five
stages that reflect theory and research in the field of second language
acquisition and education of ELLs. Studies over many years support the
concept of a continuum of learning, with predictable and sequential
stages of language development, progressing from little or no knowledge
of English to the proficiency of native speakers. The stages used in
this resource tool match the stages of the California English Language
Development Test (CELDT), which is used to assess the language
development of ELLs as required by NCLB.
Students in California who are identified as ELLs are tested at the
beginning of the school year with the CELDT instrument. The results
place the students in one of five categories: Beginner, Early
Intermediate, Intermediate, Early Advanced, or Advanced, which reflect
movement from being an English Language Learner to Fluent in English
Proficiency. Classroom teachers receive the assessment results for each
English Language Learner in a report, telling them which students have
been determined to be in each of the categories from Beginner to
Advanced.
The Handbook is designed to introduce new teachers to a broad array
of approaches for increasing comprehension and interest and for
advancing thinking and study skills among ELLs. Research-based
strategies include effective uses of hands-on learning and realia,
cooperative grouping and learning, pre-teaching of vocabulary, and
using visual aids and graphic organizers. The Handbook is designed as a
bank of adaptation strategies that aid new teachers and are also useful
for experienced teachers in broadening their repertoire of
instructional techniques for ELLs.
Specially Designed Coursework: Sonoma State University
The Sonoma State University School of Education has developed a
sequence of activities that introduces teacher candidates as they move
through their teacher preparation to an increasingly complex set of
strategies for assisting ELLs. Four different courses in the teacher
preparation program have a primary emphasis on working effectively with
ELLs:
Teaching Second Language Learners (EDMS 411)
Reading and Language Arts for Younger Students (EDMS 463)
Reading and Language Arts for Older and Struggling Readers
(EDMS 464)
Language and Literacy Across the Curriculum (EDSS 446)
Each of these courses requires candidates to prepare, teach,
evaluate and reflect on lessons that incorporate current theories and
best practices for teaching ELLs.
In Teaching Second Language Learners, candidates complete field-
based assignments, including a case study, in which they employ the
California English Language Development Test (CELDT) and must design,
teach and evaluate English Language Development (ELD) lessons, and
Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE)
interdisciplinary thematic units.
Through Reading and Language Arts for Younger Students, candidates
learn about the structure and functions of language, both oral and
written, and design lessons that allow all learners to participate,
regardless of ability or home language. Candidates conduct a classroom
environment analysis, using a number of tools, including one that
focuses their attention on how the environment supports ELLs.
In Reading and Language Arts for Younger Students, candidates
create three lesson plans: one focusing on reading, one on writing, and
one that connects literacy and the arts. Each lesson plan needs to
reflect ways in which all learners, and particularly ELLs, are
included, with high expectations for their achievement.
At the time they take Reading and Language Arts for Older and
Struggling Readers, candidates are typically doing their student
teaching in a linguistically diverse classroom. They complete a class
profile that examines students' interests, reading and writing
abilities, and reading and writing attitudes. The course focuses on
creating learner-centered literacy experiences for all learners,
including a focus on ELLs.
Opportunities to work with ELL students are among the criteria used
in establishing field experiences for this and other courses as well as
student teaching placements. In their portfolios, candidates include
reflections about their experiences working with ELLs.
In Language and Literacy Across the Curriculum, candidates develop
and teach Sheltered Instruction lessons in their subject areas that
include specific strategies and methods for adapting instruction to
meet the needs of ELLs. Candidates carry out a case study focused on an
English Language Learner at the site of their field placement. The case
study includes conversations and formal interviews with the student,
with content area teachers and with the English Language Development
(ELD) teachers who work with the student, and results in an analysis of
ways in which the academic needs of the student are or are not being
met.
These assignments contribute to the performance assessments of
candidates in the credential programs. Candidates must pass these
performance assessments in order to continue to progress in and
successfully complete their credential program. Field placement
performance evaluations and portfolio reviews incorporate items related
to candidates' effectiveness in working with ELLs. Candidates' ability
to work effectively with ELLs is one of the key culminating assessments
in the credential programs.
A Variety of Preparation Approaches: California State University San
Marcos
At California State University, San Marcos, addressing the needs of
ELLs has been a priority and a focus since the founding of the
university. Located in northern San Diego County with a growing number
of ELLs, the university has responded to this need in a number of ways.
Within the College of Education's teacher preparation program,
strategies for helping English Only teachers work effectively with ELLs
has been stressed, as many of the teacher candidates are English Only
speakers who will be addressing multiple languages in their classrooms.
All classes stress Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English
(SDAIE) with a focus on learning content and English simultaneously.
Within this structure, teacher candidates are expected to modify all
lessons and instructional plans in their teaching methods classes to
meet the needs of ELLs. To achieve this, a universal lesson-planning
guide has been developed by the faculty to use in all courses. This
ensures that teacher candidates have an effective model to follow as
they modify and adjust their instructional strategies.
Additionally, a required course focuses solely on the needs of ELLs
and how to develop SDAIE lesson plans that are effective, use the
primary language when appropriate for concept understanding, and
scaffold instructional material and content for ease of understanding
and learning. Furthermore, the candidates are taught how to use the
CELDT results, write lessons at various levels of intervention, and use
multiple measures of assessment to monitor mastery of concepts as well
as English development. In addition, San Marcos has a strong bilingual
cohort with an enrollment of more than 50 candidates who are interested
in obtaining their Bilingual credentials to work in area schools that
are offering dual language programs.
The College of Education has also worked closely and diligently
with area schools that are struggling with meeting achievement
objectives for ELLs, in both dual immersion and English Only settings.
Two cohorts of future elementary teachers are taught on campuses of
high-need schools, and the student teachers work with the staff to help
provide extra services and tutoring, primarily to ELLs. In this model,
the College has the opportunity to guide and instruct future teachers
on effective strategies as it simultaneously provides needed resources
to the school.
Since more than 80% of all English learners are Spanish speakers,
the College of Education has also developed close ties with the Sistema
Educativo Estatal de Baja California. This provides candidates
opportunities to visit schools in Tijuana, understand the school system
in Mexico, experience effective strategies for working with ELLs first-
hand, and gain an appreciation of the complexities of the neighboring
school systems.
What are Examples of CSU Best Practices in Teacher Professional
Development Related to English Language Learners?
CSU campuses employ the many exemplary approaches they use in
preparing new teachers to work effectively with ELLs in providing
professional development for current teachers. CSU campuses provide
professional development programs addressing needs of ELLs in all
curriculum areas: writing, reading and literature, history and social
science, mathematics, science, and the arts. We are assembling
information about the full range of these activities for the Committee.
In addition, through the Early Assessment Program (EAP), the CSU
has led the nation in efforts to better prepare high school students to
meet the expectations they will face in college and the workplace in
English and mathematics. The EAP gives high school students the
opportunity to learn about their readiness for college-level study or
entrance into the workforce through an assessment linked to the 11th
grade statewide testing program. Legislation has been introduced to use
the EAP at the California Community Colleges as well as the CSU. The
techniques it employs can help guarantee that No Child is Left Behind
in pathways to college--that no secondary student lacks the opportunity
to become prepared for post-secondary education.
The EAP includes three major literacy components:
Assessment of English and mathematics readiness of high
school juniors for college and the workplace
A high school Expository Reading and Writing Course
designed to foster students' skills in English
Professional development for teachers in which they learn
to advance academic literacy.
The EAP English professional development emphasizes academic
literacy, critical thinking, and expository reading and writing.
Teachers learn to help their students develop effective reading and
writing skills for use in interpreting and producing written
communications intended to inform, describe, and explain. These are
skills in which many high school students currently receive limited
explicit instruction.
The CSU provides two types of EAP professional development for
English teachers: four-day workshops offered with County Offices of
Education, and intensive Reading Institutes for Academic Preparation
that consist of 80 hours of professional development and involve
participation in Summer Institutes focused on academic literacy.
As they participate in these programs, teachers develop a
repertoire of academic literacy instructional skills that are relevant
to preparing secondary ELLs to become college-bound, particularly those
on their way to becoming Fluent in English Proficiency. These skills
are employed by teachers as they later teach the Expository Reading and
Writing Course in their classrooms. They include, for example,
strategies for improving student writing and for collaborative
reading--helping students decipher the meaning of text. The strategies
emphasize explicit instruction for high school students in the type of
expository reading and writing they will encounter in college and the
workplace. The course gives students extensive practice in such areas
as writing, grammar, and punctuation.
The professional development and instructional resources teachers
use in the Expository Reading and Writing Course includes materials
that are especially relevant for particular groups of students who
began their schooling as ELLs. Materials that deal with verbs, for
example, are especially important to Asian students whose first
languages do not use verb tenses to indicate time. In the professional
development courses, teachers learn strategies for helping their
struggling as well as their more advanced students develop tools for
revising their writing to meet expected standards of English usage.
They learn to assist students to understand that editing is important
and necessary to clarify and refine ideas.
The CSU Reading Institutes for Academic Preparation and Expository
Reading and Writing workshops address the California English/English
Language Arts Content Standards and deal explicitly with key
grammatical concepts and conventions of written English. As such, they
are of significant value to teachers who work with ELLs. The teachers
become prepared to teach students the skills needed to read academic
content with understanding and to communicate ideas effectively in
writing. To date, more than 3,000 teachers have participated in CSU
professional development in expository reading and writing. These
teachers develop an understanding of the relevance of academic literacy
to all students. The majority currently--or will at some point--teach
classes in which ELLs benefit from these techniques.
CSU Annual Accountability Report and Performance Assessments: How
Prepared are CSU Teacher Candidates to Work with English
Language Learners?
Annual Accountability Report
Since 2001, the teacher preparation programs on the 22 CSU campuses
have participated in an annual Systemwide Evaluation of Teacher
Education Programs. A central purpose of the evaluation is to provide
information that Deans of Education and other campus leaders can use in
making improvements in teacher education programs. It is an ongoing
evaluation process that provides updated data about the quality of
teacher preparation programs each year.
The Systemwide Evaluation consists of six interrelated sets of
activities and outcomes of teacher preparation that, taken together,
provide a detailed picture of program quality and effectiveness.
Outcome one focuses on the qualities of each program as reported by
graduates when they finish the program.
Outcome two addresses the effectiveness of a program in terms of
the level of each graduate's preparation as reported by the graduates
during their first few years of K-12 classroom teaching.
Outcome three is concerned with the effectiveness of a program as
reported by the employment supervisors (usually the site Principal) of
CSU graduates during their first years of teaching.
Outcome four addresses the program's impact on teaching competence
as reflected in a measure of teaching performance.
Outcome five examines the retention of CSU graduates in teaching.
Outcome six examines the effects of teacher preparation on the
learning gains of K-12 pupils who are taught by CSU graduates.
Data have been collected on the first three outcomes for the past
five years. These outcomes are based directly on ratings of candidates'
preparation to teach by the candidates or their supervisors. A number
of the items that are rated pertain explicitly to teaching ELLs. These
include graduates' and their employers' assessments of their
preparation to:
Meet the instructional needs of students who are ELLs
Meet the instructional needs of students from diverse
cultural backgrounds
Adjust teaching strategies so all students have chances to
understand and learn
Adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching
of all students
Know about resources in the school and community for at-
risk students and families
Use language so students at different levels can
understand oral and written English
Teach the skills of English writing and provide
appropriate feedback to students
Contribute to students' reading skills, including subject-
matter comprehension.
These and a number of other factors are combined in a composite
measure that is referred to as the annual Assessment by CSU Graduates
and their Employers of their Preparation to Teach English Learners.
Individual campuses look carefully at this measure to determine how
well they are doing in preparing candidates to meet the needs of ELLs,
and the system looks at the overall level of preparation.
During the past few years, we have found that approximately 75% of
our teacher candidates indicate that they feel well prepared or
adequately prepared to teach English Learners. This leaves 25% for whom
ratings indicate a perception that they are only somewhat prepared.
As a system, we would like to see this percentage lowered to be
consistent with the other ratings in our survey. Therefore, we have
instituted a number of initiatives to help campuses share best
practices and learn from each other.
This issue was an area given major attention at our recent CSU
Teacher Education Professional Development Conference, where Schools
and Colleges of Education came together to begin collaboration on
effective practices. This will continue to be an area of focus for the
system as we prepare candidates to work effectively with ELLs.
Performance Assessment of Teacher Candidates
Beginning in 2008, teacher candidates in California will be
required to demonstrate their preparation to teach through a
performance assessment as a criterion for receiving a teaching
credential. CSU campuses have been preparing to implement the Teaching
Performance Assessment for several years. It includes assessment of
Teaching Performance Expectancies that address pedagogical skills and
their application in teaching subject matter. Effectiveness in working
with ELLs is addressed explicitly or is implicit in many of the
Teaching Performance Expectancies. The success of our candidates in
this component of the performance assessment is an area that will
receive significant attention by the CSU as a system.
Recommendations for Reauthorization of No Child Left Behind
The most consistent finding in all of the work of CSU and our
partners pertaining to ELLs is the importance of high-quality
professional development--and professional development that is embedded
in the context of systemic reforms. There is a rapidly evolving body of
knowledge on the approaches that are effective in enabling schools with
large numbers of ELLs to make progress in reaching student achievement
goals.
The research demonstrates the importance of effective instructional
strategies that are implemented in a school setting of high
expectations for ELLs. Of particular relevance is the outstanding work
in this area of Just for the Kids (www.jftk.org).
NCLB includes support for professional development through the
National Professional Development Program (Title III, Part A, Subpart
3--Section 3131). Funding for fiscal year 2007 was $38.1 million. This
is an extremely important program that supports professional
development activities designed to improve classroom instruction for
ELLs and assist teachers working with these children to meet
certification standards.
It is our view that two changes should occur in this important
program:
(1) Funding for the National Professional Development Program
should be increased significantly.
The funding currently allows for approximately 15 projects in
California annually. In view of the importance of this area, funding of
at least twice this scope is warranted. Studies of schools that have
not met their Adequate Yearly Progress objectives demonstrate that they
need assistance in professional development and that states do not have
the capacity to meet this need. In California, CSU campuses are located
throughout the state and can provide substantial assistance. One of the
most significant steps for enhancing teacher preparation and
professional development that can be taken in the reauthorization of
NCLB is the expansion of this national program in which Institutions of
Higher Education (IHEs) provide training and work with their high-need
school districts as partners.
(2) The scope of the National Professional Development Program
should be expanded to include a range of effective teacher development
and school reform activities.
At present, the program is focused on activities that upgrade
qualifications and skills of personnel who are not certified. Data from
California demonstrate that what works to close the achievement gap for
ELL students is systemic change at the school and district levels that
specifically addresses the needs of these students. Successful school
reform involves a systematic process of using data to identify needs,
applying appropriate resources, providing appropriate professional
development and support, and continuously using data to gauge progress.
The work of Just for the Kids has identified different models
currently working in schools that are effective in addressing the needs
of ELLs. The research shows that no two models look exactly the same,
but that all are focused on student success in meeting rigorous
standards and on making continuous use of data as a resource for
informing decision-making.
Funding for IHEs to work with school teams to develop a model of
success for their particular area based on best practices for preparing
students for academic success or for the workforce leads to successful
systemic change. Such change needs to include developing teacher
leaders, involving community stakeholders, providing suitable
resources, and continuously using data to monitor progress.
Currently, the funding in the National Professional Development
Program is targeted to IHEs that need to develop program curricula and
upgrade qualifications for pre-service teachers or those who are not
certified and licensed. In the CSU, all of our teacher preparation
programs have undergone revisions over the past several years so that
each of our programs provides needed preparation and all of our teacher
candidates now graduate with an Authorization to Teach ELLs.
The National Professional Development Project should be expanded to
enable higher education to work with school teams of highly qualified
teachers and administrators. A significant need is to help them develop
the systems and structures necessary to successfully address issues of
student achievement and closing the gap for ELLs.
What is now needed in the legislation is the authorization of
additional activities in order that IHEs can work with local
educational agencies in comprehensive professional development
programs. The purpose must be to prepare teacher and administrative
leaders who are equipped to implement the systemic structures, data-
driven decision-making, and best practices necessary to transform the
schools with the most need.
This speaks to new kinds of collaborative professional development
that focus both on solving immediate problems and on long-term capacity
building so that schools can more effectively address the needs of
ELLs. In the CSU, we draw on expertise across all of our campuses in
implementing such approaches that bring about significant instructional
reforms of this nature.
Next year, the CSU expects to begin seven new Ed.D. programs in
Educational Leadership located in regions across the state. The
authorizing legislation (California Senate Bill 724-Chapter 269,
Statutes of 2005, Scott) called upon CSU to prepare a diverse group of
educational leaders through partnerships with local education efforts
that bring about significant reforms and improve student achievement.
The approaches we have developed for the new CSU Ed.D. programs are
the very ones needed for equipping schools and teachers to succeed in
serving ELLs. We look forward to having them become national models for
preparation of educational leaders, like those we have developed in
teacher preparation.
Conclusion
The CSU and its campuses are deeply committed to preparation and
professional development equipping schools and teachers to address the
needs of English Language Learners. As we identify and evaluate
strategies that are of demonstrable effectiveness, we anticipate
sharing them not only among our campuses but also with colleges,
universities, and state and local educational agencies around the
country.
We thank you for your interest in the efforts of the CSU to meet
this need. I will be pleased to answer any questions you might have,
and we look forward to working with you in this critical area in the
future.
______
Chairman Kildee. Ms. Guzman.
STATEMENT OF MARTA GUZMAN, PRINCIPAL,
OYSTER BILINGUAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Ms. Guzman. Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle and
subcommittee members of the Subcommittee on Early Child,
Elementary and Secondary Education, I am pleased to appear
before you today to testify on the impact of No Child Left
Behind on English language learners.
As the Principal of Oyster Bilingual Elementary School, a
public school in the District of Columbia, I welcome the
opportunity to share with you the many successes and the best
practices that make Oyster's program unique.
Oyster has distinguished itself in the city for having long
lines of parents who have camped out on the street for 3 weeks
at a time in order to be guaranteed a space at Oyster, and this
year alone, I have 250 applications for 24 slots. Next year, we
will be expanding our model from a pre K-6 to a pre K-8 middle
school, and so the question is why. Why does this happen? I
hope that I can expand on that just a little bit.
Oyster Bilingual Elementary School is the only public
school in D.C. that seeks to teach from pre K through 6 in two
languages--Spanish and English. Launched as a dual language
immersion model in 1970 by Latino and community activists, this
school achieves an academic excellence with an ethnically and
socioeconomically diverse student body. Oyster's model of
bilingual education mandates a challenging curriculum that
logically integrates the international focus throughout its
program content. The Oyster model requires that each classroom
have two teachers--a native English speaker as well as a native
Spanish-speaking teacher--and that every subject be taught
equally in both languages.
Students do not switch languages midday or change according
to classroom topic. Rather, there is a seamless integration of
the two languages across all subject matter. Further, Oyster's
faculty hail from all over the world and bring unique culture
and values to the content that they teach. The result is a
global ethos that enables Oyster to nurture children who not
only become fluent in two languages, but who gain a deep-felt
understanding of and respect for the diverse cultures that make
up our world.
The seamlessly integrated focus on language learning is
supported by the school's admission policy, which requires a
50/50 balance between students who are native Spanish speakers
and those who are native English speakers. When English
language learners and Spanish language learners are educated on
an equal playing field like this, an advanced level of cross-
cultural acceptance and understanding is possible, and this
forms the basis of language learning at Oyster.
Given Oyster's program and student family population, the
school is well situated to help offer D.C. Latinos needed
services and support. Oyster recently received a grant from the
D.C. Mayor's Office on Latino affairs to take on this work in
partnership with the Carlos Rosario International School. The
funding is enabling Oyster to provide ESL classes for Latino
parents of elementary-aged children. The Oyster school has an
informal relationship with Mary's Center for Maternal and
Childcare, a family health and social services center dedicated
to increasing access to comprehensive bilingual care to low-
income, uninsured residents of Washington, D.C.
Eligible families are identified by Oyster and are referred
to the Center while the Center staff refers patients with
educational needs to Oyster. Working with community and
supporting families is also at the basis of supporting English
language learners.
In addition to this recent national recognition of the
school's success, of the No Child Left Behind--Blue Ribbon
Award, Oyster regularly measures and documents students'
achievement in both English and Spanish. As a D.C. public
school, Oyster administers a standard achievement test and also
the D.C. comprehensive assessment system as well as Aprenda: La
Prueba de Logros en Espanol--2nd Edition. All Oyster students,
including special education students, participate in this
testing. Every year on every test, the Oyster students' scores
in reading and math greatly exceed those for the District of
Columbia as a whole.
In 2006, 79 percent of Oyster's students tested at
proficient or above proficient in reading. 21 tested as
advanced. In math, 72 percent of our students tested proficient
and above proficient, and 30 percent tested as advanced.
I also have more, but I will stop at this point because my
light is on. Thank you so much.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Guzman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marta Guzman, Principal,
Oyster Bilingual Elementary School
Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle, and distinguished members
of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
Education, I am pleased to appear before you today to testify on the
``Impact of NCLB on English Language Learners''. As the principal of
Oyster Bilingual Elementary School, a public school of the District of
Columbia I welcome the opportunity to share with you the many successes
and best practices that make Oyster's program unique.
I. School background
Oyster Bilingual Elementary School is the only public school in
Washington, DC that educates all students from Pre-Kindergarten to 6th
grade in two languages: Spanish and English. Two core features define
Oyster's dual language immersion model:
1. An admission policy that creates a 50-50 balance between
students who are native Spanish speakers and those who are native
English speakers.
2. An instructional model that teams a native English-speaking
teacher and a native Spanish-speaking teacher in each classroom, with
every subject taught equally in both languages.
In the Oyster model students do not switch languages at mid-day, or
change according to classroom or topic. Rather, there is a seamless
integration of the two languages across all subject matter--students
don't just learn Spanish, they learn in Spanish. So while the Oyster
curriculum meets all of the DCPS academic standards, bilingualism is
not an educational tool toward this end, but rather an essential goal
in itself. All Oyster students are expected to (and do) become fluent
and literate in both Spanish and English, most by the time they finish
3rd grade.
In addition to 2006 recognition as a U.S. Department of Education
``No Child Left Behind-Blue Ribbon School,'' Oyster students' academic
achievement in both English and Spanish is consistently above par.
Scores in reading and math always exceed those for the District of
Columbia as a whole, and 2006 testing in Spanish puts Oyster students
in the 75th percentile in reading and the 84th percentile in math for
the nation (Oyster is the only school in DC to test all of its students
in reading and math in both English and Spanish, so no system-wide
comparisons are available). However, compared to scores on the Aprenda
test nationwide, Oyster students consistently show strong results.
II. Best practices
Oyster Bilingual Elementary School Offers a Challenging
Curriculum That Integrates International Content
Oyster Bilingual Elementary School is the only public school in
Washington, DC that educates all students from Pre-Kindergarten to 6th
grade in two languages: Spanish and English. Launched as a dual
language immersion program in the 1970s by Latino, community and
education activists, the school achieves academic excellence with an
ethnically and socio-economically diverse student body. Oyster's model
of bilingual education mandates a highly challenging curriculum that
logically integrates an international focus throughout its study
content.
The Oyster model requires that each classroom have two teachers, a
native English-speaker as well as a native Spanish-speaking teacher,
and that every subject is taught equally in both languages. Students do
not switch languages at mid-day, or change according to classroom or
topic. Rather, there is a seamless integration of the two languages
across all subject matter. Further, Oyster's faculty hail from all over
the world, and bring unique culture and values to the content they
teach. The result is a global ethos that enables Oyster to nurture
children who not only become fluent in two languages, but who gain a
deeply-felt understanding of, and respect for, the diverse cultures
that make-up our world.
The seamlessly integrated focus on language learning is supported
by the school's admission policy which requires a 50-50 balance between
students who are native Spanish speakers and those who are native
English speakers. When English-language learners and Spanish-language
learners are educated on an equal playing field like this, an advanced
level of cross-cultural acceptance and understanding is possible, and
this forms the basis of language learning at Oyster.
Given Oyster's program and student/family population, the school is
well-situated to help offer DC Latinos needed services and support.
Oyster recently received a grant from the DC Mayor's Office on Latino
Affairs to take on this work, in partnership with the Carlos Rosario
International School. The funding is enabling Oyster to provide ESL
classes for Latino parents of elementary-age children. The Oyster
School has an informal relationship with Mary's Center for Maternal and
Child Care, a family health and social services center dedicated to
increasing access to comprehensive bilingual care to low-income,
uninsured residents of Washington, DC. Eligible families are identified
by Oyster and referred to the Center, while Center staff refers
patients with educational needs to Oyster. Working with the community
and supporting families is at the core of supporting English language
learners.
III. Oyster Bilingual Elementary School can provide measures of student
success, including proficiency in learning world languages
In 2006, Oyster was named a U.S. Department of Education ``No Child
Left Behind-Blue Ribbon School.'' This honor goes to schools that are
either academically superior in their states or demonstrate dramatic
gains in student achievement. Oyster was the only school named in
Washington, DC in 2006, and was the only bilingual school named
nationwide, public or private.
In addition to this recent national recognition of the school's
success, Oyster regularly measures and documents student achievement in
both English and Spanish. As a DC public school, Oyster administers the
Stanford Achievement Test 9th Edition (SAT-9), and beginning this
school year, the DC Comprehensive Assessment System (DC CAS). In
addition, Oyster administers the Aprenda: La Prueba de Logros en
Espanol--2nd Edition. All Oyster students, including special education
students, participate in testing.
Every year and on every test, Oyster students' scores in reading
and math greatly exceed those for the District of Columbia as a whole.
In 2006, 79% of Oyster students tested ``at proficient'' or ``above
proficient'' in reading; 21% tested as ``advanced.'' In math, 72% of
Oyster students tested ``at proficient'' or ``above proficient;'' 30%
tested as ``advanced.''
Thus, the dual language immersion model at Oyster is additive--not
only celebrating a student's heritage and making it stronger, but
simultaneously developing high levels of competence in English. This
philosophy undergirds instruction at Oyster. Minority and majority
students at Oyster come together in an environment that celebrates an
equal balance between cultures and languages, thus eliminating the
divide and providing for a high degree of self-esteem in all students.
Thus, the high academic performance level at the lower grades provide
for higher achievement in the middle and high school years. All of
these factors contribute to academic success of our students and
diminish the possibilities of having students drop out of school.
______
Chairman Kildee. Ms. Sanchez.
STATEMENT OF FRANCISCA SANCHEZ, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF
CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OFFICE
Ms. Sanchez. Good morning, Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member
Castle and members of the subcommittee.
Today, I am pleased to be here representing San Bernardino
County Superintendent of Schools Office as well as our partner
county Offices of Education in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside,
San Diego, and Ventura Counties. Together, we compromise the
PROMISE Initiative, a collaboration for English learner reform
and success.
The needs of English learners, as you well know, in my
county and throughout our five partner counties are staggering.
In San Bernardino County alone, almost 90,000 students--that
is, one in five of our students--are English learners. In
California, over a fourth of all students are English learners,
and 64 percent of all California's English learners attend
school in one of our six counties. We are talking about over 1
million students. Yet, of these, only 7 percent receive full
access to both the English language development and the core
academic curriculum they need to meet the requirements of NCLB
and to succeed in school, and this is a recipe for educational
and societal disaster.
NCLB requires that all students reach proficient levels of
achievement by 2014--that is just 7 years from now--but
currently, at second grade, fewer than a third of our English
learners meet the proficient standard in language arts, and at
the eleventh grade, only 4 to 6 percent test at or above
proficient. What does this mean for our schools?
For one thing, in San Bernardino, we see an alarming trend
with a majority of the 90-plus schools in program improvement
there based on the academic gaps experienced by our English
learners, and we see a similar pattern when we look at who
teaches these English learners. Although NCLB requires that
every student be taught by a highly qualified teacher, English
learners are twice as likely as students in general to be
taught by a teacher who is not fully credentialed. Considering
this, the PROMISE Initiative proposes a bold shift in how we
design and deliver successful English learner programs.
As part of the PROMISE Initiative, our six counties in
Southern California have risen together to boldly and
innovatively address the needs of English learners and to build
a vision and model that can be replicated across the Nation.
The ultimate goal of the PROMISE Initiative, of course, is to
ensure that English learners achieve and sustain high levels of
academic, linguistic and multi-cultural competency and that
they are successfully prepared for 21st Century citizenship.
Most unique about PROMISE is that it is grounded in eight
research-based core principles to promote the academic success
of English learners in grades K through 12th. These are
described in detail in your materials, but they include
enriched and affirming learning environments, empowering
pedagogy, challenging and relevant curriculum, high-quality
instructional resources, valid and comprehensive assessment,
high-quality professional preparation and support, powerful
family and community engagement, and advocacy-oriented
administrative and leadership systems.
In our six counties, we have worked with districts and
schools to develop and pilot customized programs to meet the
specific needs of the English learners at their sites. Each
district and school is using local funds to support its work in
PROMISE and has expressed its commitment to PROMISE from all
levels, including a commitment to a rigorous goal standard,
research and evaluation component. PROMISE is a research-
supported, principles-based reform model, and so PROMISE
facilitates the design of local systems that promote
simultaneous delivery of language and literacy development and
rigorous academic content instruction systemically throughout a
school district. As a result, PROMISE provides schools and
districts with what they need to improve instruction, close
achievement and access gaps and increase college-going rates
for English learners, and in addition, we expect to see better
prepared teachers and high levels of parent satisfaction and
support.
The bottom line is that the PROMISE Initiative is putting
into practice what really works to meet the needs of English
learners, and I invite you to view our accompanying materials
which describe the initiative in detail, an initiative that, we
believe, holds the key to fulfilling the promise of No Child
Left Behind, and that is why I so appreciate the opportunity to
speak with you today. We understand and support the positive
intent of No Child Left Behind, and so we have come to the
careful conclusion that several areas of NCLB need revision in
order to truly have the intended impact on English learners in
our schools, and I will briefly address two of these areas.
The first one of the greatest areas of impact of NCLB has
been the implementation of the accountability provisions.
States must be held accountable for implementing an assessment
and accountability system that uses valid and reliable
instruments. Secondly, we understand the role interventions and
eventually sanctions play, and we need to have our schools
using the existing research to prepare those interventions.
Thank you so much.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much, Ms. Sanchez.
[The statement of Ms. Sanchez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Francisca Sanchez, Assistant Superintendent of
Curriculum and Instruction, San Bernardino County Superintendent of
Schools Office
Good morning Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle, and members of
the Subcommittee. I am Francisca Sanchez, Assistant Superintendent of
Curriculum and Instruction of the San Bernardino County Superintendent
of Schools Office in Southern California. Today, I am pleased to be
here to represent San Bernardino County as well as five additional
Southern California county offices of education that comprise the
PROMISE Initiative--a six county collaboration for English Learner
reform and success. Our partnership includes the county offices of
education of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego,
and Ventura.
The needs of English Learners in my county and throughout our six
county partners are huge. In San Bernardino County alone, almost 90,000
students are English Learners. This represents one in five of our
students. Based on data from the California Department of Education, we
know that within the state of California, over one fourth of all
students are English Learners, and that 64% of all English Learners in
the state attend school in one of our six counties. We're talking about
over 1 million students (1,008,140). Yet, only 7% of our English
Learners receive FULL access to both the English Language Development)
and the core academic curriculum they need to meet the requirements of
NCLB and to succeed in school. This is a recipe for educational and
societal disaster.
NCLB requires that all students reach proficient or higher levels
of academic achievement within 12 years. Currently, at second grade,
only 21 to 32% of English Learners in the six PROMISE counties meet the
proficient standard in Language Arts. At the 11th grade, only 4 to 6%
test at or above proficient. At the high school level, only 29% of
English Learners tested in the six PROMISE counties have passed the
California High School Exit Exam in English Language Arts compared to
72% of English only students. On the Mathematics exam, 49% of English
Learners passed, compared to 78% of English only students.
What does this mean for schools and districts relative to NCLB? San
Bernardino County provides an example of the consequences. Here, we see
an alarming trend where the majority of the ninety plus schools in
Program Improvement are there based on the academic gaps experienced by
our English Learner students.
We see a similar pattern when we consider who teaches English
Learners. Although NCLB requires that EVERY student be taught by a
highly qualified teacher, English Learners are twice as likely as
students in general to be taught by a teacher who is not fully
credentialed.
Taking these demographic and performance data into consideration,
the PROMISE Initiative proposes a bold shift in how we deliver
successful programs to these students, not only in the local geographic
area, but nationwide. It provides an alternative to highly negative
consequences of continuing to school our English Learners for failure.
The PROMISE Initiative As mentioned above, the PROMISE Initiative
is a collaboration of six county offices of education in Southern
California who have risen together to boldly and innovatively address
the needs of English Learners and to build a vision and model that can
be replicated throughout our state and the nation. The ultimate goal of
the PROMISE Initiative is to ensure that English Learners achieve and
sustain high levels of academic, linguistic, and multicultural
competency, and are successfully prepared for 21st century citizenship.
The PROMISE Initiative is in the beginning phase of a three-year
pilot study (2006-2009) to advance a powerful vision of English Learner
success. Within the six counties, six school districts and 15 schools
(PreK-12th grade) are participating in a customized pilot program to
meet the specific needs of the English Learners at their sites. Each
district and school is using local funds to support their work in
PROMISE, and they have expressed their commitment to PROMISE from all
levels--district and site leadership, teachers, students, parents, and
targeted support from county offices of education.
The PROMISE approach promotes simultaneous delivery of language/
literacy development and rigorous academic content instruction
systemically throughout a school district. As a result, schools and
districts will close the achievement and access gaps and increase
college-going rates for English Learners, and achieve high levels of
parent satisfaction and support. PROMISE is not a curriculum or
specific program, but rather it is a research-supported, principles-
based reform model that addresses the needs of English Learners
throughout the entire school system (i.e. district, school, community,
county,). The research-based core principles to realize this vision
are:
Enriched & Affirming Learning Environments
Empowering Pedagogy
Challenging & Relevant Curriculum
High Quality Instructional Resources
Valid & Comprehensive Assessment
High Quality Professional Preparation & Support
Powerful Family & Community Engagement
Advocacy-Oriented Administrative & Leadership Systems
The PROMISE Initiative embraces a vision that English Learners will
achieve and sustain high levels of proficiency, including literacy, in
English and the home language; high levels of academic achievement,
including proficiency on state standards across the curriculum and
maintenance of that achievement in English after participation in
specialized English Learner programs and through grade 12;
sophisticated sociocultural and multicultural competency; preparation
for successful transition to higher education; successful preparation
as a 21st century global citizen; and high levels of motivation,
confidence, and self-assurance.
The PROMISE Initiative uses a gold standard of research employing
the NAEP, NCLB, state, and local standards, as well as performance
based assessments and student surveys, to measure English Learner
achievement in acquiring English and learning academic content. At the
conclusion of the three-year pilot study, the research and evaluation
findings will be published and PROMISE will move into a five-year field
study to replicate and expand the vision of PROMISE to schools and
districts in California and the nation. The six Southern California
PROMISE counties are in a critical position and have the combined
knowledge/experience base to powerfully and positively affect education
for English Learners nationwide through the PROMISE Initiative.
Impact of NCLB on English Learners
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about
the impact of No Child Left Behind on English Learners and to add to
the national dialogue on this very important issue.
Let me begin by highlighting a few key points about our position on
and approach to the impact of NCLB on English Learners.
English learners are most often the subgroup that has not
met AYP targets in schools that are classified as Program Improvement.
To add to the educational challenges in California, the achievement gap
between English only students and English Learners has grown every year
since the 2002-03 school year.
English Learners must meet the same rigorous standards set
for all students. It is essential that NCLB allow various paths to
reach that goal without labeling students and schools as failures.
Currently, NCLB requires English Learners to meet standards at the same
pace as others while a significant portion of these students is doing
double work -learning a second language and striving to reach high
academic standards.
While acknowledging and understanding that the intent of NCLB and
other policies regarding English Learners has been to provide key
guidelines and support for their success, we have come to the careful
conclusion that several areas of NCLB need revision in order to truly
have an impact on English Learners in our schools. The areas that we
have identified include:
Assessment and Accountability System for English Learners
Sanctions and Interventions
Reading First
Highly Qualified Teachers/Professional Development
Paraprofessionals
Supplemental Educational Services (SES)
Parent and Family Engagement
Assessment and Accountability System for English Learners
One of the greatest areas of impact of NCLB in our state and in the
nation has been in the implementation of assessment and accountability
systems--not just for English Learners, but also for all learners. To
best reflect the abilities of our English Learner students and in order
to assure accurate and reliable results, states must be held
accountable for implementing an assessment and accountability system
that uses valid and reliable instruments to yield accurate data as to
what an English Learner knows and can do.
A revised NCLB should ensure that the English Learner testing
provision requires testing ``in a language or form that most accurately
reflects what students know and are able to do''. Tests in the home
language, modified English tests, and other appropriate measures need
to be a part of each state's system until students' English proficiency
allows them to compete on tests developed for native English speakers.
Guidelines on appropriate testing accommodations for English Learners
need to be provided and states need to be monitored on their statewide
implementation of these accommodations. Additionally, in order to make
the aforementioned a reality, it is key to significantly increase
research and investment in the development of appropriate assessments
and accommodations.
Because NCLB has rightly focused on measuring the success of
students from several subgroups to allow for clear and careful analyses
of the data, it is important that English Learners are maintained as a
subgroup and that the data are disaggregated for two distinct purposes:
1) Under Title III, English Learners in U.S. schools three years or
less must be included in AMAOs I and II (and AYP only if documented
accommodations yield valid and reliable results for this subgroup);
and, 2) English Learners in the U.S. more than three years should be
included in both the Title I AYP and Title III AMAO calculations with
appropriate accommodations geared to different English Learner
proficiency levels.
And finally, any growth model should include longitudinal student
data that disaggregate English Learner data by proficiency in home
language and English, time in program, and type of services/programs.
Currently, we have found an inconsistency in the way data are collected
and accounted for, often just giving a one-year view of student growth
and progress that inadequately or inaccurately predicts sustainable,
long-term success.
Interventions
With accountability at the center of our discussion around student
success, we understand the role interventions and eventually sanctions
play to ensure that the needs of all students are addressed; however,
interventions need to be based upon data that accurately reflect what
English Learners know and can do. We have seen case after case where
English Learners are lumped into one large category, not accounting for
their distinct language levels and background educational experiences.
It is imperative that the data that are used to define the most
effective intervention needs account for the students' level of English
and home language proficiency, time in U. S. schools, previous level of
education, and the types of program services provided.
There is extensive research and documentation in the field
regarding the best and most effective practices and strategies for
English Learners--our PROMISE Initiative espouses many of them in our
approach to English Learner success. Regrettably, in the quest to reach
compliance with NCLB, many of our schools, for a variety of reasons,
move forward on decisions regarding reform for English Learner programs
without taking that research into consideration. In order to have the
kind of powerful growth called for by NCLB, interventions must rely on
research-based practices that promise long-term, sustainable, high
level success for English Learners in first and second language
development AND academic achievement. If and when schools enter into
Program Improvement status, it is imperative that they contract with
personnel/entities that have experience and expertise with English
Learners. Similarly, sanctions for schools in Years 4/5 Program
Improvement must reflect a wide array of new program options for
alternative governance, such as biliteracy, dual language, structured
English immersion, Spanish for native speakers, and others documented
as successful with English Learners.
Reading First
NCLB has provided our schools and districts nationwide with
targeted approaches for literacy development through Reading First. It
is imperative, once more, to stress that any program or approach that
intends to impact English Learners directly address the differentiated
needs of students based on language acquisition and educational
experience. In the case of Reading First, states must be held
accountable to develop research-based approaches and materials that
specifically accelerate language development and literacy for
English Learners and that maintain this accelerated progress over
several years in order to close the achievement gaps. The professional
development designed for the Reading First program must prepare
teachers to differentiate instruction to address the language
proficiency and literacy needs of English Learners. To accurately
reflect the teaching and learning that has occurred, the evaluation
design and assessments in state Reading First programs must be valid
and reliable to demonstrate what English Learners know and can do, and
how this growth is able to be sustained over time.
Highly Qualified Teachers/Professional Development
As I noted in my introduction, while NCLB requires that EVERY
student be taught by a highly qualified teacher, English Learners are
twice as likely as students in general to be taught by a teacher who is
not fully credentialed. According to ``Teaching and California's
Future'' (2006) published by the Center for the Future of Teaching and
Learning, CSU Office of the Chancellor, UC Office of the President,
Policy Analysis of California Education, and WestEd, one of the
greatest teacher preparation shortages in the state is in the area of
teachers for English Learners. In fact, in 2005-06 only 56% of fully
credentialed, experienced (more than five years of teaching experience)
teachers had English Learner authorizations. While this is a dramatic
increase from over five years ago (34%), given the nature of
instruction and the fact that English Learners are incorporated
throughout virtually all classrooms in schools where they are present,
the percentage must be much higher to ensure effective academic
instruction for English Learners.
Given this context, in response to the teacher professional
development components of NCLB, we strongly recommend that the
definition of highly qualified teachers be expanded and clarified to
require that teachers who provide instruction to English Learners have
the appropriate EL authorization. Teachers in all core subject areas
who are assigned to provide instruction to English Learners should be
explicitly required to receive professional development in English
Language Development (ELD), Specially Designed Academic Instruction in
English (SDAIE), and/or primary language instruction. To support this
type of focused teacher professional development, a key factor would be
to re-institute federal grants for graduate students in ELD and
bilingual education.
Paraprofessionals
In addition to focusing on high quality professional development
for teachers, NCLB has recognized the key role that paraprofessionals
play in the education of all students. To specifically address the
growing needs of English Learners, it is distinctly important to
require that paraprofessionals working with English learners be
provided with training and professional development to address their
working knowledge and implementation of first and second language
acquisition and other appropriate strategies. Career ladder
opportunities are needed that lead to appropriate English Learner
certification, along with teaching credentials.
Supplemental Educational Services (SES)
NCLB has targeted additional support for English Learner students
via the Supplemental Educational Services. Concentrated, focused
approaches in SES programs have been proven to support student academic
growth and engagement if they are closely aligned to the goals and
practices of the school's educational program. Such services can and
should play a role in supporting English Learner students by
specifically ensuring that parents are given sufficient information to
make informed decisions regarding SES providers and that the
information is provided in the language spoken by the parents.
The role of the SES provider, obviously, is instrumental in how
successful the program will be. SES providers who work with English
Learners should be required to have the knowledge and skills necessary
to teach English Language Development and rigorous, grade-level
appropriate, standards-based content instruction appropriate to the
various language proficiency levels of the students. Providers should
be required to deliver instruction consistent with the language of
instruction during the school day for the designated subjects
Community Building Parent and Family Involvement
As we have addressed the impact of NCLB for English Learners in
areas such as accountability, professional development, and educational
programs, we recognize that the underlying foundation for the success
of our students draws from the primary role of parents and family. NCLB
has strongly influenced the importance of the role of parent and family
engagement as a key factor to student success and indeed has recognized
parents as students' first and ongoing teachers. We have greatly
appreciated the emphasis that has been placed on the role of parents
and community in effective programs for English Learner students. To
maximize the impact of parent and family engagement, we recommend that
parent advisory committees be required to include representation of
English Learner parents and specific roles for their involvement, that
there is an increase in the percent of funding that is allocated to
parent involvement, and that an independent audit of states'
implementation of the required parent involvement/community building
mandates be implemented.
Conclusion
It has been my pleasure and an honor to share the work we are doing
on behalf of English Learners and to highlight the impact of No Child
Left Behind in the Southern California region. Through this opportunity
to testify on this panel, I am hopeful that the true needs and concerns
of English Learners will be addressed.
______
Chairman Kildee. I thank all of you for your testimony.
The rules of the subcommittee adopted on January 24th of
this year give the Chair the discretion on how to recognize
members for questioning. It is my intention as chair of this
subcommittee to recognize those members present at the
beginning of the hearing in order of their seniority on this
subcommittee. Members arriving after the hearing began will be
recognized in order of appearance.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Zamora, you said that No Child Left Behind was very
helpful as written for these students, but the implementation
is where the problem lies. Could you expand upon that?
Mr. Zamora. Certainly.
I think one of the primary problems, as certainly many have
testified today, is with the quality of the tests for English
language learners. It has not been a very high priority for
States or for the Federal Department of Education until
recently, and so we are working now to improve the quality of
tests, but really need to move forward with that process and to
receive congressional support for testing these students
properly.
I would also note that English language learners can be
included in several subgroups. Many English language learners
are also low-income, and likely also the interracial, ethnic
minority, and so, not only do tensions regarding test quality
for English language learners affect the performance of the ELL
subgroup, but also these other subgroups as well, so it is
really going to be very important that we measure what students
know, design interventions that are effective and really lift
the performance levels of ELLs.
Chairman Kildee. Do you think the language in No Child Left
Behind is adequate or is there a question that we do not
appropriate enough to carry out the language?
Mr. Zamora. Certainly, funding is a concern, and my
coalition has been advocating for increased funding for No
Child Left Behind for years, and so we are looking forward to
increased funding levels.
There is a challenge in terms of the implementation of
native language assessments, which is that the current language
states that States must do so to the extent practicable. Many
States have chosen to interpret that as being a requirement
without teeth and have basically declared that practicability
rarely exists, and so we have not seen enough States implement
the kind of native language assessments, including California,
I might add, with 1.25 million English language learner
students who are being tested using an English language test.
If I were to move to China, I would want my student to be
tested in English, not in Chinese, because that would most
likely generate meaningful results for that population.
Chairman Kildee. I can recall, when I was teaching school,
at a PTA meeting, I taught Latin, and the teacher next to me,
as we had the PTA meeting, was teaching French, and in
frustration, she said to the parent ``Your child will never
learn French,'' and the mother said, ``Well, I am glad he was
not born in Paris then.'' so you can teach people language
then, right?
Dr. Young, I was the author of the Bilingual Education Act
in Michigan many, many years ago. Since then, we have limited
English proficiency, English language learners, English as a
second language. Does the California State system provide
programs for all of these or are they mingled somewhat in
preparing for these four programs?
Ms. Young. I think there continues to be an expansion of
the types of programs and the acronyms that we use to describe
them all, and I think there is a full range of those programs
represented across our campuses.
I think there is a core that all of our campus faculty
agree on. Just 2 weeks ago, March 9th, we had a teacher ed
professional development faculty conference, and one of the
strands of that conference was pedagogy and strategies for best
practice in preparing ELL teachers, and we have a whole core
list of what are the strategies that all of our campuses
address that our faculty agreed on are primarily important.
Then each campus works with their local districts to ensure
they are meeting the local needs as well. We would be happy to
give you a list of those core things that all of our campuses
work on.
Chairman Kildee. That would be very helpful because this
has changed much through the years, and we perceive the needs
better, I think, than we did, whether generic or bilingual, 40
years ago, but much more sophisticated and different needs
exist now. We are aware of those needs more. So, if you could
provide us with that, we would very much appreciate it.
To what degree is teaching the teachers needed more in
order to address this problem?
Ms. Young. In the CSU, I think we have addressed this very,
very seriously, as I said, preparing all teachers who come from
the CSU as teachers of ELLs because that is the reality in
California classrooms. I think one thing that NCLB could do--
when people talk about accountability, there is a lot of
accountability for schools and districts, and Ms. Sanchez
addressed the accountability that schools have for showing that
they have student achievement results.
I think institutions of higher ed and other programs that
prepare teachers should be held accountable for showing that
they prepare new teachers to work in these challenging
environments, that institutions should show that new teachers
who are often the ones who are sent to the most challenging,
at-risk populations should be the best equipped, the best
equipped that we can provide for them to deal with issues of
poverty, of language learning, of other things that contribute
to students' being at risk for failure. So I think it is
realistic to ask programs ``How do you prepare future teachers
to do that?''
In addition to the professional development for existing
teachers and updating their skills--as you say, things change
so quickly, but I think new teachers is the key. She also
mentioned that the distribution of teachers is a huge issue.
The teacher shortage in different areas, it is not so much a
shortage as it is a maldistribution. In California, 85 percent
of our intern teachers, who are teachers who have subject
matter knowledge but not necessarily any professional
preparation--85 percent of these intern teachers are at our
lowest-performing schools.
These are the schools where they need our best teachers,
and I think both districts and schools and institutions should
be held accountable for trying to address that problem,
figuring out ways to get the best qualified teachers to the
kids who need them the most.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
Governor Castle.
Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me thank each of you. You bring a lot of different
perspectives and very interesting perspectives to the table,
and I appreciate that. I am going to ask--this is always
dangerous--a very general question and try to elicit answers
from as many of you as want to try to answer it as possible.
The reason for this hearing and the reason we have been having
hearings is we are getting ready to reauthorize or rewrite, if
you will, No Child Left Behind, and I am interested in your
views on what specifically we might or should be looking at in
No Child Left Behind, and if you really know well, if you want
to cite page 5 and put in a semicolon instead of a comma, that
is fine, but more likely, you will want to talk about a general
area or something of that nature, and some of you did.
Dr. Young, you indicated in your testimony you had a few
other thoughts that you did not get to that you might want to
include in the changes in No Child Left Behind. On the funding
issue, you are more than welcome to speak to it. We have had a
lot of hearings. We have never had anyone come in here and say
we want less funding. So we understand you probably want more
funding if I had to guess.
I am looking for volunteers on this, but you may talk
generally about an area that you think needs to have attention
paid to it or specifically about something that is either in or
not in the legislation that you feel we should be looking at as
members of Congress in the future.
Ms. Ashby.
Ms. Ashby. Well, if I can start----
Mr. Castle. Sure. Do not take too long, by the way. We only
have 5 minutes total here.
Ms. Ashby. No, I will not.
To elaborate a little bit on what I said in my opening
statement and what we said in our full statement and what we
said in the report upon which that statement was based, we have
recommended that the Department look at the possibility of
increasing flexibilities and with the knowledge that
accountability is very important and particularly for limited
English proficient students and other subgroups of the student
population, but there is probably a balance that can be reached
that may be different than the current legislation that would
allow for more flexibility given the diversity of the limited
English proficient population of students, and hopefully, the
Department and perhaps, through legislative change, there could
be more of an effort toward that. I think that would help a
lot.
Mr. Castle. Thank you, Ms. Ashby.
Any other volunteers?
Ms. Sanchez. I would like to jump in on this one.
For us in California, a huge issue is around the
interventions and sanctions because we have so many schools
moving into program improvement, and although we know a lot
about what works with English learners, what can accelerate
their achievement, both in language development and in academic
content, many, many of our schools are feeling very pressured
to adopt reforms and interventions that, in fact, totally
disregard this broad base of research.
So, in the reauthorization of NCLB, if there could be
something that required the interventions to actually be based
on the research that is pertinent to the particular group of
students that is intended to be served, that would be a huge
advance.
Thank you.
Mr. Castle. Thank you.
Others?
Ms. Young. I just would add--I think I gave three already,
but the other thing I would add in the reauthorization is
looking again at the definition of the ``highly qualified
teacher.'' currently, ``highly qualified'' is all an input
measure about what teachers bring to their position, and there
might be a better definition of effective teaching that could
be applied. Again, for example, in California, under NCLB, you
are a highly qualified teacher before you are a fully qualified
teacher because of the way the regulations are written, and so
I do not use the term ``highly qualified teacher'' in
California. We talk about NCLB-compliant, because I think there
is a much higher standard for teachers to truly be highly
qualified especially in preparation for high-risk populations.
Mr. Castle. Thank you.
Ms. Guzman.
Ms. Guzman. I would like to add that minority and majority
students need to be considered as coming together in an
environment that celebrates a balance between cultures and
language, and I believe that that is what makes a difference in
terms of success for students. The performance, the high
academic performance of the students in the lower grades--in
elementary school--can really provide a basis for middle and
high school years and serve to reduce the dropout rate. I
believe that if students are treated as if they are bringing
something to the table and there is an equal playing field
that, if NCLB seeks to recognize this, then we will have higher
success rates at the upper grades.
Mr. Castle. Congratulations on your school, by the way, and
all you have done.
Mr. Zamora. I will be very brief. I could go on and on,
obviously, but I would like to note at the outset that there
are very few schools that are being driven into improvement
status by the performance of the ELL subgroup alone. To the
extent that ELL subgroups are failing to make AYP, other
subgroups within that school are also driving the school into
improvement status, but nonetheless, our recommendations around
ELL are improving NCLB for ELLs and, I think, would involve
many of the issues discussed here--teacher quality, certainly
the quality of the assessments, sort of the incentivizing the
development of better assessments for ELLs, and also, in my
written testimony, I discuss the need for increased research on
both assessment practices and instructional practices for ELL
students, and also, clearly at the school level, we need the
implementation of the best instructional methods for English
language learner students, and to the extent that NCLB can
incentivize that, then that is a change that we want to
support.
Mr. Castle. Thank you.
Thank you all for doing it within the time limit pretty
much. We appreciate that.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you, Governor.
The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing, and I thank the panel. I just have a couple of
questions. One was on professional development.
At what point does the number of English language learners
in a system suggest that the professional development
activities for that entire system and for every teacher in that
system ought to include competencies and attention to English
language learners, and can you describe how that would be done?
I mean, how early in the process of professional development,
going all the way back to teacher education programs, for
example? Should that element be embedded in order to respond to
a system or to a jurisdiction that has a high number of English
language learners? Anybody can take a crack at that.
Ms. Young. Well, since it is teacher quality, I will go
first.
As I said, in California, we infuse the pedagogies and
strategies for working with English language learners into all
teacher preparation. All pre service teachers have that infused
into all of their coursework, field work and student teaching.
In terms of professional development, you are not going to
find a classroom in California that does not have English
language learners in it, and in terms of at what point what
sort of level at which a teacher needs preparation to work with
these kids, if it is truly No Child Left Behind, then all
teachers need this preparation. It constitutes part of the at-
risk population. There are lots of different definitions of
what kind of criteria could put a child in the category of at
risk for failure, and certainly, having the challenge of
learning English at the same time you are expected to learn
content at the same rate as native English speakers is
certainly a challenge. Those students need the best-equipped
teachers for that. I would want all teachers to have that
preparation.
Ms. Sanchez. One of the promises of our PROMISE Initiative
is that, if we can help all of the teachers at a school site to
become skilled in working with English learners, it will, in
fact, impact the education of every other student in that
system, and so I think this notion of trying to work with
teachers as a system rather than isolating them for particular
types of professional development is something to look at.
Ms. Guzman. Just to make sure that I address a little bit
about what Ms. Sanchez said, at the District of Columbia public
schools, we have taken an important step to duplicating the
Oyster model in other schools, and I think that that is
certainly important. There are currently twelve schools that
have started to develop the bilingual programs, and we have one
that is starting in Chinese, and to the extent to which staff
members of successful schools can play a role in making sure
that you extend the other programs in other schools, I think
that that is an important contribution. We have been serving as
a demonstration site for other schools, and I am sure specific
schools that have strength in other areas for English language
learners can also do the same.
Mr. Zamora. And I would like to jump in just very quickly
to note that there was a point in our history in which English
language learners tended to be clustered in particular States
and particular districts, but due to demographic shifts, that
is really no longer the case, so areas that traditionally have
not had high ELL populations are experiencing that now, and so
I think, really, nationwide there is a need for professional
development certification for teachers teaching ELLs.
Mr. Sarbanes. Let me ask you, Mr. Zamora, really quickly.
Have there been any studies done or attempts to project what
the difference in outcome in terms of measured proficiency
would have been in certain schools and with populations of
English language learners if the right kinds of accommodations
and the acknowledgment of sort of mitigating circumstances had
been in place? I mean, I know maybe it is just conjecture, but
there is the implication there, if we were getting to the
content knowledge and other things more effectively with the
testing system, that we would see different results.
Has there been any kind of study of that?
Mr. Zamora. Certainly. In terms of instructional practices,
I mean, we can definitely use the available data, and I think
we have discussed the flaws in the data to compare the outcomes
of a school such as Oyster with schools that are implementing
much less effective models. In terms of State-based
assessments, there are certain States that have done more than
others in developing native language and other specific content
assessments for ELLs.
So I think those States such as--Ohio, I think, has
generally done a good job. Texas has some native language
assessments, not at all grade levels but in some, so those have
given us better data and, under the theory of NCLB, have been
driving better instruction.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. The gentleman from California, the ranking
member of the full committee, Mr. McKeon.
Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again for
holding this hearing.
I would like to follow up on some of the things that Mr.
Castle asked, because this is really important. We are trying
to get as much information as we can as we go through the
reauthorization. I would like to get a little bit more
specific.
Ms. Ashby, you talked about more flexibility. Do you have
any specific things that we can do?
Ms. Ashby. I can't give you a prescription for the
flexibility. One of our recommendations, as I said to the
department, was that more study be done to determine just what
types of flexibility are most appropriate.
Mr. McKeon. If you could even give us something back for
the record in more specifics, because that is something I know
we are going to have to come up with, is more flexibility.
Ms. Ashby. All right. I will say that one of the issues is
which students should be included among the limited English
proficiency group and whether, for example, an immigrant
entering the country who knows no English should be included.
The first year that person would not be, but whether the person
should be in the second year or third year, how long limited-
English-proficient students should remain in the group once
they become fully proficient, that is an issue.
With other subgroups, racial groups, for example, students
remain in the groups as long as there are students. But when
limited-English-proficient students progress to the point of
being proficient, after a couple of years they are removed from
the group. So that affects the group assessment and averages
and so forth. So those are a couple of things.
Mr. McKeon. If you think of any others, if you could get
them to us, because those are good points.
I am a Mormon, so on my mission I served with Spanish-
speaking people in Texas and New Mexico, and I noticed it was
very difficult for me to learn Spanish because I wanted to make
sure everything I said was perfect before I said it. So I had
to think it through in my mind. That is not the way to learn a
language.
On the other hand, I have a son who just talks, so he
learned Portuguese, but he has also picked up Spanish because
he doesn't worry about saying it perfectly and is very verbal.
So we learned at different levels.
I am wondering if--we have supplemental services that
should be provided in schools that need improvement, and I am
thinking that that is an area that could really be used because
you could do one-on-one tutoring language, and that is very
important because you learn at all different levels.
Ms. Young, qualified, fully qualified, effective, that is
something that we really grapple with because you can--if you
have a Ph.D., you have very good qualifications, if you are a
chemistry teacher with a Ph.D., probably very, very qualified.
But if you have a problem communicating to students, you are
not very effective.
Qualifications based on degrees is something that can be
done very objectively. Gauging effectiveness is something that
is much more subjective. Principals are going to have to really
play a role as they hire and mentor and move teachers along. If
you could also get us more input on effective qualified
teachers, that is something that I know we are going to have to
address strongly in this process.
Ms. Sanchez, tell Herb ``hi'' for me.
Ms. Sanchez. I certainly will.
Mr. McKeon. Intervention, you talked about moving--how we
could be more effective in the intervention process? Do you
have some specifics on that?
Ms. Sanchez. I will just say if there were at least a
provision in NCLB that required the mandated interventions to
represent the research that exists, that that in itself would
be a huge advance; and that applies as well I think to the
supplemental educational services. Because, to date, those
services really don't reflect the research around English
language learners; and if that could be a provision and if
those providers could be required to provide those services in
a way that matches the language of instruction in the schools
and that supports it, that would also be helpful as well.
Mr. McKeon. Very good.
Mr. Zamora. Congressman, I was wondering if I could address
your issue about flexibility just very briefly.
Mr. McKeon. You could.
Mr. Chairman, my time is up, but I have one more little
question.
Chairman Kildee. I will let Mr. Zamora finish his response.
Mr. McKeon. Subgroups, we find that English language
learners might also be a minority, obviously, probably. Might
also be a special needs student, and they are judged in all
these different subgroups, and they can tend to pull a school
down three times or lift a school up three times. So I think
that is something that we are going to need to address, is how
many times you judge the same student and how that weighs on
how a school is counted.
Mr. Zamora. Thank you.
I think the key base fact about English language learners
is that the vast majority are not newly arrived English
language learners. As I testified, the majority are, in fact,
U.S. citizens. So I think that the real issue around
accountability in ELL is really the test quality issues. So for
newly arrived or for native born ELLs we are not adequately
measuring what they know and what they can learn.
The current flexibility is in the second year of arrival.
Newly arrived students have to be included in accountability
systems. I think with the proper assessments there are many
students who come in with good academic preparation. There is
also a view that most newly arrived students don't have
adequate academic preparation from their home country, and that
is not always accurate.
Also, under current regulation, schools get credit for
former ELL populations for 2 years after they have exited ELL
status; and so flexibility has also been granted in that
regard.
Generally, I think if we improve the quality of the
assessments, we will be able adequately to measure the
performance of all ELLs and be able to show what they know, be
able to better bring schools, instead, as you suggest, causing
improvement status to change.
Chairman Kildee. The gentlelady from California, Ms.
Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to welcome all of the witnesses today but in
particular Ms. Guzman. I have actually had the opportunity to
visit Oyster School, and it is a fabulous model I think for
dual-language learning.
My question is basically for all the members of the panel.
Many of the schools in my district are Title I schools, and
many have made progress towards California's AYP goals. My
district includes many low-income and immigrant families, and
in more than half of those homes in my district English isn't
even the primary language that is spoken.
But, as I understand it, the way that No Child Left Behind
is set up, students who reach English proficiency move out of
the relevant subgroup, and yet the AYP goals continue to
increase every year. So it seems that the requirements are such
that each year brand new English learners have to perform
better than the previous year's brand new English learners for
the subgroup to show improvement.
I have heard from a number of my local school districts
that this system isn't going to be sustainable in the long run,
and I am interested in learning the panel's views of whether
the increasing yearly goals are a reasonable way to increase
English proficiency and subject matter proficiency, even though
new non-English speaking children become part of the testing
subgroup each year.
I think that is something you touched on, Ms. Ashby, in
your last response.
Ms. Ashby. Yes, it was. You have would have to look at each
State, the composition of that subgroup, to know whether
everything you said would play out. It is certainly possible
that it could. But, as I understand it, there is no end year
for becoming proficient in the English language. It is not like
the 2014 goal for academic progression. So that being the case,
it is probably not as severe a problem as it might be
otherwise. But you are right.
Ms. Sanchez of California. It is a problem I hear a lot
from the teachers who teach in my district, these students who
come from where English language is not their first language at
home.
Ms. Ashby. After 2 years, the students that have become
proficient are taken out of the group. Of course, it depends on
the rate of entry and the rate of exit and all kinds of
technicalities like that.
Ms. Sanchez of California. But is it fair to say, in order
to show improvement, those new English language learners would
have to be doing better than the 2 years previous subgroup of
new English language learners?
Ms. Ashby. If the entry and exit rights are approximately
the same, yes.
Ms. Sanchez of California. Mr. Zamora, any comment?
Mr. Zamora. California has a high Spanish-speaking English
language learner population but has chosen not to implement a
Spanish language assessment. I think it would relieve a lot of
that burden if we could measure what Spanish-speaking students
know in Spanish.
I think, again, it is primarily a test quality issue. Under
current regulations, schools actually give credit for 2 years
after the ELL has exited from ELL status, and the school can
still count them in the AYP population. There is already a
recognized benefit and, actually, recently exited ELL students
outperform their native-English-speaking peers generally upon
the assessments.
So I think if California were to develop native language
assessments--and, actually, they are piloting one but not using
it for NCLB this year. If they were to use that test to measure
what the Spanish-speaking students know, that would go a long
way toward remedying some of these concerns.
Ms. Sanchez of California. I think that question actually
hits on a very particular dilemma with regard to English
learners in that the English learner category is unlike the
other categories. It is unlike being African American or being
Latino. The English learner category is a transitional
category, and so it causes all sorts of issues when you are
trying to determine, for accountability purposes, achievement.
One thing that might help is to actually consider
redefining that category to something like language
minority students. Because then you would keep a population of
students in that category in the same way that you would keep a
population of Latino student in the Latino category, and that
would allow schools to show progress over time for the same
group of students.
Ms. Guzman. I also believe that at the school level if you
have a testing cohort and if you classified children by
cohorts, then you could keep track of that particular group of
students across time and not be matching children that have
been here for 2 years or children that have been here for 4
years. You are actually measuring the group you are testing.
Chairman Kildee. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Heller.
Mr. Heller. No questions. Thank you.
Chairman Kildee. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Platts.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't have a question other than just to say I appreciate
the testimony, the written statements you have each provided us
and the expertise that you all bring to this issue and the
benefit we will have as we go forward with the reauthorization
process. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hare.
Mr. Hare. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As the population of English language learners increases, I
am becoming more and more concerned about how our educational
system responds to the students. As Ms. Ashby testified, when
an English language learner misses a question on an assessment,
it is not clear whether it is because the student didn't know
the answer or because the student didn't understand the
question. This is, I believe, a very serious issue, and this
committee and all of us must address it.
I would like to ask Mr. Zamora and perhaps the panel--I
tell you what I am hearing in my district. It is a very large
district, significant Hispanic population. Most of the
educators that I have talked to said the problem is when the
ELL child goes home and the parents don't speak English and it
is very difficult for them to be able to help them with their
homework, and the concern that they have is that at some point
that child drops off progress a little bit and, all of a
sudden, boom, there is no backup. Because the parents don't
understand and aren't able, through no fault of their own, to
be able to help them.
So my question would be to you or to perhaps everybody on
the panel, how can school districts and how can we in the
Congress address this problem? Because I think, if we don't, I
think we are going to have a serious problem here in being able
to try to help the ELL students.
I wonder if you have any thoughts on that.
Mr. Zamora. Thank you very much, Congressman. I think that
is actually an excellent question, and we haven't touched as
much in today's hearing around the parental involvement
components of No Child Left Behind, but many of which are not
functioning as effectively as they should for English language
learner parents and especially for immigrant English language
learner parents.
One of my Coalition's recommendations is around increasing
culturally and linguistically sensitive outreach from schools
to parents. As you know, there are certain challenges within
the home for ELL students. ELL and immigrant parent are less
likely to read to their children, for example. There is a very
important program that is authorized under No Child Left Behind
right now, the Even Start Family Literacy Program, that has
been particularly effective. It brings the parents into the
center, teaches them how to teach their students and has been
very effective in serving Latino students in particular.
However, it has been zero funded by the administration for
the last several years. We have been battling and we have
managed to save the program, but the funding has been cut year
after year. We need more of those programs, not fewer.
Mr. Hare. I would agree with----
Ms. Sanchez. Could I address that as well?
One of the very important pieces in our Promise Initiative
is powerful family and community engagement. What we have done
with our schools is to help them bring parents into the actual
planning and designing of the programs for English learners,
and in that way teachers and other educators are able to tap
into the resources that those parents and communities bring,
and they bring a lot of resources that aren't always recognized
by the school.
But certainly being able as a parent to know what the
school is doing, what is happening in the classroom, having a
teacher that can communicate with the parent in the language
that the parent understands and provide techniques for the
parents to use at home with their children, all of this is very
powerful. I have to second that the Even Start Family Literacy
Program, I know that we had some funding and lost it, again,
because of the lack of Federal funding, that was extremely
powerful. We saw parents who had never come to school to visit
their children's classroom who are now training other parents
in how to be more active in their children's academic lives.
Ms. Guzman. I would like to agree and to underscore the
importance of parent training and involvement.
At Oyster, we have an incredible amount of parent
involvement from both ELL parents and majority parents.
Bringing the two communities together in one building and
having them support each other is certainly important, pairing
up parent with parent so that you have that support for the ELL
parent that is very consistent with what is going on in the
school and also training parents on the current issues that
have to do with--one issue being a big one, homework and how to
do it and how to address it, also how to address the lack of
technology somewhat in the ELL families. Many times that
happens. So you really need to partner parents and to provide a
very strong support system for ELL parents.
We have a second language parent training program, and that
involves training parents on the practical nature of being a
citizen in the United States and working with their children.
So a lot of this has to do with even providing some
resources for community programs. We have--Title I schools
require that you have a family-parent compact, but non-Title I
schools are not required to have that. I believe that the
compacts are somewhat of a contract between the families and
the school, and those schools that also have English language
learners but aren't Title I should also be required to
participate in that type of program.
Mr. Hare. Thank you. My time is up.
Let me just conclude by saying we will do everything we can
to help you on the Even Start. It a great program. We need to
fund it. Thanks very much.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hinojosa.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and the
ranking member, Mike Castle, for bringing this congressional
hearing on the impact of NCLB on English language learners, an
issue that is very important to my district and to my State of
Texas.
My first question is to Ms. Ashby. In a separate report the
GAO issued last year, you found that the Department of
Education had not taken measures to ensure that the data on
which it bases State allocations of Title III funding is
accurate. What would you recommend the Department of Education
do to correct that? And you have 2 minutes.
Ms. Ashby. All right. It may not take that long.
Mr. Hinojosa. Good.
Ms. Ashby. There are two allowable sources of data for
determining the distribution of funds for Title III. One is
census data, the American community survey, and the other is
actual numbers of students assessed as limited English
proficient by the States. The Department has to compare the two
sources and choose the most accurate.
The Department has not looked at State data because it is
of the opinion that the data is incomplete. The data has been
incomplete, although it is getting better. So the Department
has only used ACS data. Both sets of data have some
limitations; both are improving.
Our recommendation was that the Department actually give
instructions to the States that will help improve the data
coming from the States, and once that data is improved--well,
before the data is improved--come up with a mechanism for
determining which one is the more accurate; and then, of
course, apply the one that is most accurate.
Mr. Hinojosa. I think it is shameful that after 5 years
they don't have the data correct and accurate. I believe that
the Secretary needs to change the mindset of the people working
for her so that she can understand that, just like the State of
Texas has a large Hispanic population, there are other States,
like California and Florida and others, who believe that this
needs to be given a high priority.
My next question, because time is short, is to the
Principal, Martha Guzman, from the Oyster Bilingual Elementary
School. I want to commend you, because I have had a personal
experience in bringing two of my youngest daughters, Kaity and
Karen, to your school.
My youngest one, who is now 11, we were seated in the
gymnasium floor along with all the children the first day that
I took them to school--by the way, we sat in line for 3 years
trying to get into your school. The youngest one crossed her
arms and said, Dad, what in the world are we doing here? I
don't understand a thing they are saying. And of course she
didn't know any Spanish. The other one said, Dad, I miss my
friends over at the other school; and I wish you would just
take us back.
However, 2 years later, those two young girls went from
being B students to being straight A students. They are
oftentimes in situations with other children, and they will say
we are the Hinojosa sisters from Texas, and we are proud to be
bilingual.
I want you to know that your program is just outstanding,
and I want you to tell us how important parental involvement is
in students graduating from high school, through your
experience.
Ms. Guzman. As I said before--thank you so much. I miss
Kaity and Karen, and I hope they are doing well.
Parental involvement is extremely important, and when we
bring children, ELL children, to school at Oyster and other
D.C. public schools I am hopeful that we put as much attention
into parental involvement as possible.
We have an advisory committee where we bring parents in to
make decisions. But prior to them being able to make decisions
we really have to give them information, and the information
has to be based on the district requirements and the reality of
their new lives in many cases. That is why we bring our parents
in, we make them comfortable, and we offer many, many different
types of opportunities. I believe that having potlucks is just
as important as offering a training session, so we do that
regularly.
Parents come in at all levels. The social level of ELL
parents and their comfort level will then translate into making
them feel comfortable to ask for things that they need in the
school--from the school system and to be able then to learn who
to tap in order to get the resources they need.
Mr. Hinojosa. As time has ended, Mr. Chairman, I want to
let the record show that the United States is doing very poorly
when we compare with other countries internationally. Just last
week, the Washington Post had a report on how Singapore had
scored number one in global competition of all eighth graders;
and when Buck McKeon led a group of members of Congress to
China, we found that China, India, Singapore, those countries
have told us repeatedly that the number one reason for them
being able to do what they do so successfully is parental
involvement.
So I wish that you panelists, who have done an excellent
job today, and I thank you, would help us Members of Congress
to bring parental involvement and get it funded. As many of you
have said--I think Mr. Zamora said it best when he said that
Even Start involvement with parental programs is zero funded by
this administration; and that, my friends, is shameful.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. The gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms. Hirono.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The whole point of NCLB, as I see it, is to ensure that our
students are learning. Yet the tests are becoming the ends in
themselves, and there is so much focus on it when we should be
focusing on everything that contributes to that student's
learning environment, such as, of course, parental involvement,
early childhood experiences, community involvement, teacher and
administrative training, even the physical environment that the
children exist in and try to learn in.
Over the course of the number of hearings that we have been
having on NCLB, it is clear to me that we really need to look
at the assessment aspects of NCLB both in terms of how we
determine adequate yearly progress, and then when we come to
the sanctions portions. And what I am getting from this panel--
and please let me know if I have this wrong--is that we need to
provide much more flexibility in terms of assessment,
particularly with regard to ELL students who are facing special
challenges. So we need to have some language that will
acknowledge the kind of appropriate flexibility that we need to
provide throughout NCLB in terms of testing.
Then, when we come to the sanctions, I like the idea of
putting in perhaps not just in the sanctions portions, but
putting in where appropriate in the NCLB language that says
that the approaches that should be taken should be research-
based. I don't think there is that kind of language in NCLB,
and would you agree that we should as much as possible truly
base our responses, our research so that we are focused on
actually helping the students to learn?
Ms. Sanchez. I think that there is language in NCLB that
talks about research-based interventions and approaches. The
problem is that people are interpreting that as sort of generic
research-based approaches rather than basing their approaches
on the research specific to the populations that are being
targeted. And that, I think, is what is missing and would be
very helpful.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you. I just wanted to note that English
is not my first language, and fortunately when I was going to
school, we didn't have these kind of tests, otherwise I would
have been labeled as a failure very early on. So I have a very
particular concern about the kind of one-size-fits-all approach
that I see too much of in NCLB, and I would like to commend all
of you for coming today to bring a much more holistic approach
to the changes that we need to make to this law. Thank you very
much.
Ms. Sanchez. If I could just mention that that issue of
identifying students as failures at a very early age is an
extremely real issue. And one of the other areas where we could
use some assistance is in the Reading First portion of No Child
Left Behind, because, again, schools are being asked to
implement practices that, in fact, damage children because they
don't take into account the strengths they bring to school and
then build on those.
Ms. Hirono. Do the rest of the panelists agree that too
early labeling a child--well, of course, you are educators.
Mr. Zamora. Certainly. I would like also to address the
notion, which I think is a very frequent thing that one hears,
that testing is driving teaching--the teachers teaching to the
test. I think if there is high-quality instruction that is
being delivered, that is research-based instruction that is
well funded, supported by the parents, that the tests should
not drive teaching at that point; that the proficiency levels
required under State levels are fairly low such that if you are
giving--or not fairly low, but are such that if you are
developing a strong curriculum, that passing the test will
follow, and you wouldn't have to teach to that.
Ms. Hirono. I agree.
Ms. Ashby. Since you have a couple of seconds; I am the one
that originally raised the flexibility issue, and I do think
that is important. I don't want to lose another issue that we
have been talking about and several of us have mentioned. In
order for assessments to be meaningful at all, they have to be
valid and reliable, and the data that is generated from
assessments are certainly used in terms of determining whether
a school or eventually whether schools are in need of
improvement or not.
But it also can be used by the faculty and staff at a
school to determine what type of teaching interventions are
needed, and, in terms of individual students, what their needs
are.
So data is very important, and it has to be valid and
reliable, or it is just not meaningful, and it can lead you
along the wrong path.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to follow
up on that last question because I understand that each State
has to figure out its own test; is that right?
Ms. Ashby. That is correct.
Mr. Scott. Do they also get to determine who is categorized
as ELL?
Ms. Ashby. There are some proscriptions in No Child Left
Behind. For example, after 3 years of being in the United
States, the student has to be tested in the language arts
assessment--has to be included in that assessment.
Mr. Scott. Can a State configure its definition to help its
scores? Can you configure your definition to help your scores?
Ms. Ashby. You possibly could.
Mr. Scott. These tests, how many ELL tests have been
rejected by the Department of Education?
Ms. Ashby. I don't know the answer to that.
Mr. Scott. You mentioned accurate and valid. Is the
Department of Education providing appropriate technical
assistance and guidance on what these tests ought to be in
terms of validity?
Ms. Ashby. The Department has provided a lot of technical
assistance, but what we were told when we were doing the work
for our 2006 report was that many States and districts need--
feel they need more guidance, particularly with respect to the
English-proficient component, not the academic, but in terms of
how to measure and assess students' progress in learning
English.
Mr. Scott. Validity is a technical term because a test has
to be valid for the purpose for which it is being used.
Ms. Ashby. That is correct. It has to measure what it
purports to measure.
Mr. Scott. Right. Is it hard to find the appropriate tests?
Ms. Ashby. It is very difficult particularly with English
language learners because it is such a diverse group. This is
not easy by any means, and that is why a lot of research is
needed, and flexibility is needed, because populations in
different States are different. There are over 400 languages
spoken in our public schools, and the groups are different.
It matters, for example, whether most of your students were
literate in their native language or not.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Zamora, one of the problems we have is we do
all this testing; do we know after we have got all the test
results what to do to improve results?
Mr. Zamora. Certainly. There is effective educational
research surrounding ELL student achievement and how to improve
it. I think we certainly need more of that. But certainly
generally well-trained teachers and strong curricula and
accommodations and primary language support, some form of
native language instruction.
Mr. Scott. Is this information generally known, or do
States have to figure it out on their own?
Mr. Zamora. It does exist, but one of my recommendations is
to support broader dissemination of research from the Federal
Department of Education. If I can just very quick address the
assessment issue as well, these are requirements from 1994's
Improving America's Schools Act, so they do impose burdens on
the States, and I think the Federal Government can definitely
do much more both in terms of appropriations from Congress and
technical assistance from the Department of Education because
it hasn't been as much as a focus as it should be. I think now
it is, and we are supporting that and looking to work with you
to improve it.
Mr. Scott. Is school dropout a problem with ELL students
that needs to be specifically addressed?
Mr. Zamora. Absolutely. School dropout does require
effective instruction, well-funded schools. It is sort of the
canary in the coal mine in many instances as to effectiveness
of school operations. But, yes, ELL students drop out at a
higher rate than any other subgroup measured under NCLB, and it
is really a dropout crisis for ELLs.
Mr. Scott. If we allow them to drop out and don't have
dropout prevention programs, do the average scores actually
increase, creating a perverse incentive or disincentive to
having dropout prevention programs?
Mr. Zamora. We are looking at accountability measures
currently around how to hold schools and States accountable for
dropout rates.
Mr. Scott. We tried to do that in the original No Child
Left Behind. My sense is we didn't do a good job; is that
right?
Mr. Zamora. I think that is right. I think we are going to
need to strengthen those provisions and ensure that we
disaggregate them under the same categories as NCLB.
Ms. Guzman. If I can just add, my belief is that if you
have a strong basis in literacy for all ELL students, that you
will increase their level of proficiency at the elementary
level, and you will not have the dropout rate at the high
school level.
Chairman Kildee. The gentlelady from California Ms.
Woolsey.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I so apologize for
not having been here.
I do have a question, but first I would like to propose a
scenario. So here we go. What if we tested every Member of
Congress every year on subjects we should know, geography,
history, the names of our colleagues, and, wait a minute, the
test is in a language other than English, and those Members who
fail the test 3 years in a row have to offer to their
constituents that they can be represented by any other Member
of Congress that has passed the test. I will tell you what
would happen; there would be no tests.
Now, I am not against testing totally. I want No Child Left
Behind to be based on more tests. But I would like you to tell
me how you think we can and must--you don't have to say must, I
am saying must--help English learners to get where they need to
be over the right period of time--can't be in the same period
of time that a kid that is not an English learner is being
tested.
So what kind of--if you said all this, I so apologize, and
you probably have this morning, but just for my own help, tell
me what kind of extra help we need. I don't want to have an
annual growth of these children get better every year, because
they will if we do the right thing. I want them to get better
than better so they get where every other kid is by the time
they are ready to get out in the outside world.
Do you know what I am asking, and can you help me know what
we need to be investing in them?
Ms. Sanchez. May I address your question?
Ms. Woolsey. Absolutely.
Ms. Sanchez. The truth is we have schools across this
country that routinely school English learners for very high
levels of success, and we have programs and we know the types
of programs that can accelerate both learning of English and
learning of content in ways that last throughout the students'
educational careers. We know the difference between those and
the programs that don't.
The failure we have isn't actually implementing what we
know works. We don't do that many times for noneducational
reasons, and I am sure you know what those are. I think that
being very clear about what has powerful impact and what
doesn't is something that we need to talk about because we know
a lot of what we need to do, and we haven't done it. And that
is why I think programs such as the Promise Initiative are so
important, because we are saying we are committed to a big
powerful vision of success for English learners, and we are
going to do whatever it takes to get there, and we have
embarked on a program to actually do that in our schools and
then to put in place the sort of very rigorous research that
needs to happen to prove that it can be done.
Ms. Woolsey. Okay. Do you start with the research so you
know we are not just trying a lot of programs? Are we investing
enough on the Federal level through No Child Left Behind to
make this possible?
Ms. Sanchez. We have not invested enough in actually being
able to disseminate in ways that are practical to our schools
what works and why it works. And that is why I think we have to
be able to focus in partnership with our local schools and
districts to design based on what we know works, based on the
research--to design programs that are responsive to the local
needs and context, and those differ from school to school, from
community to community. And that is why a one-size-fits-all
program actually doesn't work. We have to work with the context
of our schools.
Mr. Zamora. Congressman, I would like to jump in. I was
credentialed as a bilingual teacher at the University of San
Francisco right before Proposition 227 was put in place which
outlawed native-language instruction in the State of
California. That was not a decision that was taken based upon
the best interests or the best research of kids.
So I think that you certainly cannot ignore the political
dynamics surrounding English language learners, so we need the
political will to cut through all of that in order to get to
the best research, best funding, and the best practices.
Ms. Woolsey. I represent Marin and Sonoma Counties, two of
the three counties that voted that down. I am really proud. I
represent wonderful people.
Mr. Zamora. Absolutely.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey.
The gentleman from New Jersey Mr. Holt.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have arrived late and
missed most of the testimony and questioning, so forgive me if
I go over plowed ground here.
I would like to know what you think is the--how good are
the data? Are we leaving too many of the English language
learners uncounted, unevaluated, not there on the days of
testing? Is it different for this subgroup than for other
students?
Ms. Ashby. I will give it a try. For the English language
proficiency assessments, this is a relatively new requirement
beginning in the 2005-2006 school year, and a lot of States and
districts didn't test for this particular--didn't assess this
particular element prior to that. So a lot of the assessments
are relatively new, and their validity, I don't want to say it
hasn't necessarily been determined, but it hasn't been
documented. There isn't evidence, research, reports or studies
that assess the validity and the reliability of a lot of these
tests, so it is not known how valid or how reliable they are.
In terms of the other--the academic assessments, there are
also validity and reliability questions, but there is no issue
of the students showing up. I mean, 95 percent of the students
in each subgroup have to take the test, and I haven't seen
anything that indicates that is a problem, but it is more of
not knowing whether they are valid or not or reliable or not
rather than thinking or knowing that they are invalid.
Mr. Holt. I understand that we need 95 percent of the
subgroup of English language learners to show up, but do we
know the population well enough in every school to know whether
95 percent are showing up, for example? Are there undiagnosed,
so to speak, English language learners?
Ms. Ashby. Probably so. And, no, we don't.
Mr. Zamora. I would also highlight a slightly related but a
slightly different issue, which is that high N-sizes in many
States has also led to many ELLs not reaching the target for
inclusion under the No Child Left Behind. So certainly there
are major data quality both in terms of counting ELLs and in
terms of measuring their academic and linguistic performance,
but also end size is a particular concern in terms of capturing
ELL achievement.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes again the gentleman from Virginia for
an inquiry.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I think we are at the end of the
hearing. Are you going to allow us to send questions to the
panelists? I would just like to warn them that I am going to
send a question responding to Dr. Young's testimony pointing
out a difference between effective teachers and highly
qualified teachers. Obviously we want the most effective
teachers, and we want a definition that gets that as close to
effective. So we will be sending that question.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
I want to first of all thank the panel. You have been very,
very helpful. You bring a wide range of knowledge on this very,
very important field. You have indicated this is a growing
population, it is not something that is going to go away, and
it enriches our country, but it is something we have to
address. We deeply appreciate your testimony.
As previously ordered, Members will have 7 calendar days to
submit additional materials for the hearing record.
Any Member who wishes to submit follow-up questions in
writing to the witnesses should coordinate with Majority staff
within the requisite time. And without objection, this hearing,
with thanks to all of you, is adjourned.
[Question submitted by Mr. Hinojosa follows:]
Committee on Education and Labor,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 26, 2007.
Dear Ms. Ashby: Thank you for testifying at the March 23, 2007
hearing of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and
Secondary Education.
Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), a Member of the Subcommittee,
has asked that you respond in writing to the following question:
I would like to thank you and your staff for the excellent work on
the two reports on English Language Learners and No Child Left Behind.
This is critical information for reauthorization. In your testimony you
mentioned that states were unsure about how to align English language
proficiency standards with content standards for language arts,
mathematics, and science. This is very disconcerting as we enter the
6th year of NCLB implementation. What steps do you recommend that the
Department or the Congress take to provide technical assistance in this
area?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
question to the Committee staff by COB on Friday, March 30--the date on
which the hearing record will close. If you have any questions, please
contact the Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
Dale E. Kildee,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
Education.
______
[Ms. Ashby's response follows:]
March 30, 2007.
Hon. George Miller,
Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Dale Kildee,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
Education, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
This letter responds to your March 26, 2007 request that we provide
responses to questions related to our recent testimony before the
Subcommittee on Early Childhood Education, Elementary and Secondary
Education on the impact of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) on
students with limited English proficiency.\1\ Our testimony discussed
(1) the extent to which these students are meeting annual academic
progress goals, (2) what states have done to ensure the validity of
their academic assessments, (3) how states are assessing English
proficiency and what they are doing to ensure the validity of their
assessments, and (4) how the U.S. Department of Education (Education)
is supporting states' efforts to meet NCLBA's assessment requirements
for these students. This testimony was based on our recent report on
these topics.\2\ Your questions, along with our responses, follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Education Assistance Could Help
States Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited English
Proficiency, GAO-07-646T (Washington, D.C.: March 23, 2007).
\2\ GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from Education Could
Help States Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited English
Proficiency, GAO-06-815 (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Under current law, states must create individualized tests both
to assess students' English proficiency and to assess academic
achievement. Therefore, there are a wide variety of assessments among
states that differ in terms of rigorousness and validity. With regard
to academic achievement assessments, states' individual assessments can
be compared to a national achievement test administered by the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Is there currently a
comparable nationally recognized test for ELLs to which state
assessments can be compared? If not, should such a test be developed?
To our knowledge, no such nationally recognized test to assess the
English proficiency of students with limited English proficiency
exists. Under NCLBA, states must implement several new requirements,
including developing English language proficiency assessments that are
aligned to state academic standards; annually assessing the English
language proficiency of these students; and tracking student progress
in attaining English proficiency. Officials in some states explained
that their old tests were not designed to measure student progress over
time. Further, Education officials told us that the English language
proficiency tests used by many states prior to NCLBA did not meet the
requirements of the law.
As part of our study, we did not assess whether the development of
a national English language proficiency assessment, similar to the
NAEP, would be cost-effective or appropriate and therefore do not have
a position on this policy issue. To our knowledge, no nationally
accepted standards for English language proficiency currently exist
from which to develop such an assessment. In its report, the bipartisan
Commission on No Child Left Behind recommended that Education develop a
common scale to create a performance standard for what constitutes
English proficiency across the states.
2. In your testimony you mentioned that states were unsure about
how to align English language proficiency standards with content
standards for language arts, mathematics, and science. This is very
disconcerting as we enter the 6th year of NCLB implementation. What
steps do you recommend that the Department or the Congress take to
provide technical assistance in this area?
We believe that Education needs to work with states to identify the
specific problems states are experiencing in aligning the two sets of
standards and provide technical assistance that is responsive to the
needs of individual states. In our July 2006 report, we recommended
that the Secretary of Education publish additional guidance with more
specific information on the requirements for assessing English language
proficiency. In response to this recommendation, Education officials
report that the agency is planning to develop a framework on English
language proficiency standards and assessments as part of its LEP
Partnership. Moreover, Education's Title III monitoring visits, during
which the department reviews the state's progress in developing English
language proficiency standards and assessments that meet NCLBA
requirements, present an opportunity for Education to provide
individualized feedback to states on their standards and assessments.
We would encourage Education to assess the effectiveness of its efforts
to provide technical assistance that is responsive to states' needs and
to make adjustments where necessary.
If you have any questions about the content of this letter, please
contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Cornelia M. Ashby, Director,
Education, Workforce, and Income Security, GAO.
______
[Question submitted by Mr. Scott follows:]
Cornelia Ashby, Director,
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues, GAO,
Washington, DC;
Peter Zamora,
California State University System,
Long Beach, CA;
Marta Guzman, Principal,
Oyster Bilingual Elementary School,
Washington, DC;
Francisca Sanchez, Assistant Supt. for Curriculum
and Co-Chair,
Hispanic Education Coalition,
Washington, DC;
Dr. Beverly L. Young, Assistant Vice Chancellor,
Instruction,
Office of San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools,
San Bernardino, CA, March 26, 2007.
Dear Ms. Ashby, Mr. Zamora, Dr. Young, Ms. Guzman and Ms. Sanchez:
Thank you for testifying at the March 23, 2007 hearing of the
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education.
Representative Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott (D-VA), a Member of the
Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following
question:
Under current law, states must create individualized tests both to
assess students' English proficiency and to assess academic
achievement. Therefore, there are a wide variety of assessments among
states that differ in terms of rigorousness and validity. With regard
to academic achievement assessments, states' individual assessments can
be compared to a national achievement test administered by the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Is there currently a
comparable nationally recognized test for ELLs to which state
assessments can be compared? If not, should such a test be developed?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
question to the Committee staff by COB on Friday, March 30--the date on
which the hearing record will close. If you have any questions, please
contact the Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
Dale E. Kildee,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
Education.
______
[Ms. Guzman's response follows:]
Hon. George Miller,
Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Dale Kildee,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
Education, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Currently, there is not a national assessment for ELL students.
Each state has to present their own. However, it would be very helpful
to have an assessment that all ELL students should complete. In the
DCPS system we are currently using the ACCESS. If all ELL students
could use the same test it would give Districts comparison data and it
would help us all ELL students to the same standard.
Marta Guzman,
Oyster Bilingual Elementary.
______
[Mr. Scott's question to Dr. Young follows:]
Committee on Education and Labor,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 26, 2007.
Dear Dr. Young: Thank you for testifying at the March 23, 2007
hearing of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and
Secondary Education.
Representative Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott (D-VA), a Member of the
Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in writing to the following
question:
Dr. Young, you testified that the No Child Left Behind Act's
definition of highly qualified teacher, which describes various
credentials that a teacher must hold, does not necessarily ensure that
such teachers are highly effective in the classroom, and recommended
that the Committee consider changing the definition to include concepts
of effectiveness. Can you describe ways the Committee might do that
consistent with your experience assessing teacher quality?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
question to the Committee staff by COB on Friday, March 30--the date on
which the hearing record will close. If you have any questions, please
contact the Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
Dale E. Kildee,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
Education.
______
[Dr. Young's response follows:]
March 29, 2007.
Hon. George Miller,
Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Dale Kildee,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
Education, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairmen Miller and Kildee: I appreciate the opportunity to
respond to members' questions, as I did the opportunity to testify at
the March 23, 2007 hearing of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary and Secondary Education. I have responded first to the
question addressed to me by Representative Scott, second to the
question addressed by Representative Scott to me and other individuals
who testified, and third to additional questions addressed to me
related to preparing teachers to be effective in working with English
Language Learners (ELLs).
1. Dr. Young, you testified that the No Child Left Behind Act's
definition of highly qualified teacher, which describes various
credentials that a teacher must hold, does not necessarily ensure that
such teachers are highly effective in the classroom, and recommended
that the Committee consider changing the definition to include concepts
of effectiveness. Can you describe ways the Committee might do that
consistent with your experience assessing teacher quality?
There are three areas that need to be addressed to develop a better
definition of highly qualified teachers. This is not to say that NCLB
requirements that teachers meet state certification or licensure
requirements and have demonstrated subject knowledge and teaching
skills by passing a rigorous state test should be abandoned. The need
is to augment the current definition with additional measures that add
greater meaning to the definition of quality.
The first issue needing attention concerns the difference between
tests of knowledge and skills and rigorous demonstrations of knowledge
and skills. The second issue concerns measures of quality that address
outcomes in addition to inputs. The third issue concerns designating
different levels of quality in order for the definition to be more
meaningful.
Performance Assessment of Teaching Knowledge and Skills
The question of how to assess teacher quality has been examined
thoroughly by the nation's foremost experts in teacher education during
the past decade. There is now a consensus regarding the importance of
using performance-based assessment that evaluates teaching knowledge
and skills of teachers as demonstrated in a classroom environment.
The demonstration of high quality teaching needs to address both
what teachers know about their subjects and how to teach them and also
what they can do in the classroom in applying their knowledge and
skills. For example, it is important that they be able to demonstrate
that they can plan and implement lessons to teach to standards, assess
students' needs and design instruction to meet these needs, use a
variety of effective teaching strategies, and maintain a productive,
purposeful classroom environment.
Assessments that use teachers' and students' work samples and
demonstrations of actual classroom teaching to evaluate what teachers
do in the classroom are particularly promising methods for assessing
teacher quality. Large-scale application of such techniques demands new
expertise on the part of those planning and administering the
assessments. An example of this is California's Teacher Performance
Assessment. Beginning in 2008-09, all new teachers will be required to
demonstrate their knowledge and skills to be recommended for a
credential.
Measures of Quality That Address Student Learning Outcomes
The second issue concerns measures of quality that address student
learning outcomes. Value-added assessment focuses on the extent to
which a teacher contributes to student learning gains in schools. This
approach addresses the critical issue of effectiveness in the
classroom. During the past decade, stemming from the pioneering work of
William Sanders, value-added assessment methods have been increasingly
used as a methodology for assessing quality of teaching among new and
experienced teachers.
The CSU is at the forefront in large-scale utilization of value-
added methodology, as it has been of evaluation of teacher preparation
through its Annual CSU Systemwide Evaluation of Teacher Preparation,
which has been in effect since 2001. This is the largest evaluation of
teacher preparation in the nation, and has involved surveys of more
than12,000 graduates of CSU programs and more than10,000 school site
supervisors, typically principals, who work with and evaluate these
graduates.
In collaboration with several large school districts, the CSU's
Center for Teacher Quality has begun value-added assessments of CSU
teacher preparation. It will examine the effectiveness of new teachers
in relation to (a) different levels of teacher preparation, (b) varying
methods of preparation, and (c) demographic attributes and socio-
economic conditions of schools.
Congress should provide funds for a number of demonstrations of
effective, large-scale utilization of performance-based assessments and
value-added approaches for assessing teacher quality. It is
particularly important that support be available for demonstrations of
these more advanced types of assessments that include institutions of
higher education that prepare and provide professional development for
teachers. The goal should be for these approaches to become part of the
fundamental preparation and assessment of entering teachers and
routinely associated with professional development and assessment of
experienced teachers.
Differentiation of Qualifications
The third issue pertains to recognizing differing levels of
qualifications. Some teachers may enter the teaching force having met
minimum state certification or licensure requirements, while others
have met these requirements more fully. In most states, for examples,
novice teachers (Interns) who have fulfilled minimum state requirements
may begin teaching and complete additional requirements for
certification as they serve as teacher of record. At the other end of
the continuum, teachers certified through the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards have demonstrated that they are truly
high quality teachers.
In order to define highly effective teaching in a productive
manner, it would be of considerable value to move beyond the current
singular conception of a Highly Qualified Teacher. A more meaningful
set of terms would refer to teachers who are:
Minimally Qualified: Meet Minimum State Certification
Requirements
Fully Qualified: Meet Full State Certification
Requirements
Highly Qualified: Exceed Full State Certification Teachers
These distinctions are important for realizing increases in student
achievement and can be made operational in the re-authorization of No
Child Left Behind. We would be pleased to work with the Committee in
identifying potential roles of institutions of higher education in
implementing a system that includes measures of teacher effectiveness
and recognizes levels of teacher quality.
2. Under current law, states must create individualized tests both
to assess students' English proficiency and to assess academic
achievement. Therefore, there are a wide variety of assessments among
states that differ in terms of rigorousness and validity. With regard
to academic achievement assessment, states' individual assessments can
be compared to a national achievement test administered by the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Is there currently a
comparable nationally recognized test for ELLs to which state
assessments can be compared? If not, should such a test be developed?
There currently is not a test comparable to the National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP) to which state assessments of academic
achievement of ELLs can be compared. There are many complex issues
associated with developing such a test. It is not clear that a single
test can be developed that adequately measures achievement of ELLs who
vary widely in English language proficiency.
It would be extremely difficult, for example, to obtain valid
assessments of academic achievement with a single multiple-choice test
that was administered in English to ELLs. If such a test were
administered in English, it would have to be reserved for students who
have reached a level 4 or above in English Language Development in
order to provide a reliable and valid measure of academic achievement.
Although a test in the primary language might be considered, if no
instruction is provided in this language, students may not have the
comprehension and communication skills in the primary language to
demonstrate their content understanding.
Due to the complexity of measurement and validity issues, this area
warrants a feasibility study of a variety of options. It would be most
appropriate to have a number of potential approaches identified and
reviewed by experts in the ELL assessment field as well as state
representatives experienced in assessment of ELLs. Such a study should
address procedures for assessment of academic achievement either in
English or the student's primary language as appropriate. It should
examine procedures for states to administer the test on a large-scale
basis and should include cost estimates for doing so. Further, the
analysis should examine the validity of comparing scores of various
sub-groups of ELLs on the measures of academic achievement with NAEP
scores. Finally, the study should address methods for integrating
assessment of students' English proficiency and their academic
achievement. With a comprehensive feasibility study that examines these
issues, informed decisions can be made regarding national assessment
instruments for gauging the academic achievement and English language
proficiency of ELLs.
Needless to say, this is not a simple task, and it is most
important that flexibility be available in the immediate future for
states to use a range of procedures that are demonstrated to be
rigorous and valid. Of most urgency is careful re-consideration of how
the assessment of achievement of ELLs is used in determining Adequate
Yearly Progress, particularly when there are small numbers of such
students at school sites.
3. Should all teachers receive preparation to work with English
Language Learners? If not, how should the determination be made of
which teachers should receive the preparation? What should be the
content of preparation to work with ELLs? Is there a core of
preparation that should be included in all new teacher preparation?
In California, virtually all teachers will at some time teach
English Language Learners, and thus all teachers need this preparation.
The strategies of effective instruction for ELLs have basic principles
in common with best instructional practices for all students, and thus
it is appropriate for all teachers to have this preparation. Most
importantly, if the nation is truly committed to the proposition of No
Child Left Behind, all teachers must be prepared to teach all children
with whom they are likely to work.
The core preparation for teachers of ELLs consists of two
interrelated areas. The first is English Language Development (ELD) and
the second is content knowledge. In English language development,
preparation focuses on fostering children's learning of English within
the context of the core curriculum, with special attention to learning
the language and acquiring the skills to speak, read, and write English
fluently.
The second area is content development, where preparation focuses
on use of Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE).
This consists of instructional strategies that work particularly well
for ELLs and are good for all students. In SDAIE, the emphasis is on
learning content and understanding concepts. Teachers differentiate
lessons based on the level of English acquired by a child and the
amount of support needed for instruction to be effective.
Within SDAIE, teachers are taught strategies for scaffolding the
curriculum, differentiating the content and the assessments, and
working with comprehensible input. Scaffolding consists of taking the
core curriculum and dividing it into parts that are manageable for
learning. For example, dividing a story into parts, building distinct
vocabulary knowledge, and learning the content of a topic in chunks are
ways of scaffolding the core curriculum.
Differentiation means varied use of enhanced instructional
strategies, like graphic organizers, pre-writing and pre-reading
activities, and primary language support to help all students master
the content they are learning more efficiently. The element of
comprehensible input means building on what the student knows and using
the skills and talents of the student in making content meaningful.
This includes tapping into prior knowledge, drawing upon learning
strengths, and integrating across the curriculum for ease of mastering
concepts being taught.
Within both ELD and SDAIE, there is an emphasis on multiple
measures for assessment in order to ensure students are learning both
content and English. It is recognized as essential that content
knowledge is demonstrated in a variety of ways to make certain that the
core curriculum is being mastered. It is equally important that the
acquisition of English be measured accurately in order for instruction
to be modified to meet the instructional and language needs of
students.
In California, the language assessment used is the CELDT
(California English Language Development Test), which indicates to
teachers the level of English language development of students for use
in planning instruction. Teachers are taught how to scaffold and
differentiate lessons for the various levels of English acquired. For
example, a Level 1 student would be expected to complete very different
assignments than a Level 4 student. Assessment, therefore, is a key to
effective instruction and provides the foundation upon which a teacher
can build lessons that are meaningful, comprehensible, and tailored to
meet student needs.
To the extent that these two components can be integrated into
instruction, students learn the content and master English much more
quickly, since both the language and the concepts are learned
simultaneously. Modifications are made to the basic instructional
program to help all students learn and acquire both content and
English, thus enabling teachers to work with all students in the
regular classroom in a manner that is effective and efficient.
I have attempted to provide thorough responses to the three highly
significant questions posed by Subcommittee members. Please do not
hesitate to let me know if there are any additional ways we can be of
assistance in formulating specific solutions to these complex issues.
Sincerely,
Beverly Young, Ph.D.,
Assistant Vice Chancellor.
______
[Mr. Hinojosa's question to Mr. Zamora follows:]
Committee on Education and Labor,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 26, 2007.
Dear Mr. Zamora: Thank you for testifying at the March 23, 2007
hearing of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and
Secondary Education.
Representative Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), a Member of the Subcommittee,
has asked that you respond in writing to the following question:
In your testimony you referenced the Lau case in which the Supreme
Court found that providing identical education was not the same as
providing equal education if students' language needs were not
addressed. In a subsequent case called Castaneda, the court defined
criteria for appropriate action for English language learners which
included a pedagogically sound plan for English language learners,
qualified staff, effective implementation, and program evaluation. Has
NCLB been implemented in a manner consistent with the requirements of
Castaneda? How can we strengthen NCLB in this regard?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
question to the Committee staff by COB on Friday, March 30--the date on
which the hearing record will close. If you have any questions, please
contact the Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller,
Chairman.
Dale E. Kildee,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
Education.
______
[Mr. Zamora's responses follow:]
Hon. George Miller,
Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Dale Kildee,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
Education, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Under current law, states must create individualized tests both to
assess students' English proficiency and to assess academic
achievement. Therefore, there are a variety of assessments among states
that differ in terms of rigorousness and validity. With regard to
academic achievement assessments, states' individualized assessments
can be compared to a national achievement test administered by the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Is there currently
a comparable nationally recognized test for ELLs to which state
assessments can be compared? If not, should such a test be developed?
There currently exists no nationally-recognized test that measures
the academic achievement or English language proficiency of English
language learners (ELLs) against state academic standards and fully
meets technical requirements for validity and reliability for ELL
students. While the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), which
administers the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), has
taken limited steps to improve the validity and reliability of NAEP
content assessments for ELLs, the NAEP is not an adequate comparator
for Title I assessments and lacks sufficient evidence regarding
validity and reliability for ELLs. Rather than developing a single
nationwide test of ELL academic achievement or English language
proficiency, MALDEF recommends that Congress support the development of
a substantial item bank of native-language test questions so that
states may easily devise native-language academic content assessments
that are aligned to each state's academic standards and to classroom
instruction.
The NAEP is not an adequate comparator for NCLB content assessments
because the NAEP is not, by design, aligned to each state's academic
content standards or to classroom instruction. The NAEP provides a
snapshot of student performance as measured against NAGB standards for
academic content achievement. It does not, however, serve as an
accurate measure of student knowledge or academic progress as measured
against state standards, as required under NCLB.
Further, while NAGB has taken certain limited steps to improve the
validity and reliability of the NAEP for ELLs, significant improvements
to the NAEP are required before it will be a valid and reliable measure
of ELL academic content knowledge. Prior to 1996, NAEP had no policy of
allowing testing accommodations for ELL students.1 The NAEP began
offering accommodations to all students who need them to demonstrate
their knowledge and ability only in 2002.2 A National Center for
Education Statistics study of NAEP testing accommodations for a sample
of ELLs found that additional evidence is required to ensure that NAEP
testing accommodations generate valid and reliable results for ELLs.3
Moreover, the NAEP is generally not administered in the native
language of ELLs, an accommodation that greatly improves the validity
and reliability of content assessments for ELLs (especially those new
to U.S. schools and those receiving instruction in their native
language). While NAGB did administer the NAEP mathematics tests in
Spanish to Puerto Rican students in 2003 and 2005, NAGB has yet to
develop and implement reading/language arts assessments in Spanish or
other native languages of ELLs.4
There exists no nationwide assessment for the English language
proficiency (ELP) of ELLs. In the 2005-06 school year, 22 states used
assessments or test items developed by one of four state consortia,
making this the most common approach taken by states to develop new ELP
assessments.5 Because NCLB requires that ELP assessments be aligned to
state academic standards, however, alignment concerns continue to
influence the validity and reliability of these ELP assessments.6 Also,
because ELP assessments are in English, not the native language of
ELLs, the use of ELP assessments to measure academic content is
generally less appropriate than the use of native language or bilingual
content assessments under Title I.
Rather than developing a single nationwide assessment for ELLs,
Congress should support the development of a substantial item bank of
native-language test questions that can be used by states in developing
native-language or bilingual content tests aligned to each state's
academic standards. As noted above, no single nationwide test can
adequately measure ELL student academic progress because a nationwide
assessment cannot be aligned to state-specific content standards,
English language development standards, or classroom instruction.
Through the LEP Partnership, which unites MALDEF, the National Council
of La Raza, the U.S. Department of Education, and all 50 states,
discussions are underway regarding the creation of native-language test
item banks that would greatly assist states in developing valid and
reliable assessments for ELLs. MALDEF strongly recommends that Congress
support these efforts in order to assist states in measuring ELL
achievement and ensure that ELLs students are appropriately included in
NCLB accountability systems.
Peter Zamora,
MALDEF Washington, DC Regional Counsel, Hispanic Education
Coalition Co-Chair.
endnotes
\1\ See http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/inclusion.asp
\2\ See id.
\3\ Abedi, J., Lord, C., Kim, C., Miyoshi, J., ``The Effects of
Accommodations on the Assessment of LEP Students in NAEP,'' National
Center for Education Statistics, Washington DC: 2001 (available at
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/200113.pdf).
\4\ See Olson, L., ``Puerto Rico's Students Perform Poorly on NAEP
Mathematics Tests,'' Education Week, March 29, 2007 (available at
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/03/29/31naep--web.h26.html).
\5\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, ``No Child Left Behind
Act: Assistance from Education Could Help States Better Measure
Progress of Students with Limited English Proficiency,'' GAO-06-815,
July 2006, p35 (available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06815.pdf).
\6\ See id.
______
Hon. George Miller,
Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Dale Kildee,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
Education, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Question: In your testimony you referenced the Lau case in which
the Supreme Court found that providing identical education was not the
same as providing equal education if students' language needs were not
addressed. In a subsequent case called Castaneda, the court defined
criteria for appropriate action for English language learners which
included a pedagogically sound plan for English language learners,
qualified staff, effective implementation, and program evaluation. Has
NCLB been implemented in a manner consistent with the requirements of
Castaneda? How can we strengthen NCLB in this regard?
Answer: In Castaneda v. Pickard,\1\ the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued criteria for determining the
appropriateness of educational programs for English language learners
(ELLs) under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974:
1) The program must be based in sound educational theory;
2) The program must be implemented effectively with adequate
resources and personnel; and
3) The program must be evaluated as effective in overcoming
language handicaps.\2\
The implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has not
fully met the second and third prongs of the Castaneda test for
appropriate educational programs for ELLs.
NCLB codifies the first prong of the Castaneda standard. Title I
expressly intends to ensure that all children have access to
``effective, scientifically based instructional strategies and
challenging academic content.'' \3\ It requires that Title I schoolwide
programs use ``only effective methods and instructional strategies that
are based on scientifically based research that * * * include
strategies for meeting the educational needs of historically
underserved populations.'' \4\ School reforms plans implemented under
Title I also must use scientifically based research in addressing needs
of all students.\5\ Under Title I, ELLs must be assessed for academic
content ``to the extent practicable, [using] assessments in the
language and form most likely to yield accurate data on what such
students know and can do in academic content areas.'' \6\ Further,
funds provided through subgrants under Title III of NCLB must be used,
under the express language of the statute, to implement ``approaches
and methodologies based on scientifically based research on teaching
limited English proficient children.'' \7\
The second prong of Castaneda, however, which requires the
effective implementation of programs carried out under NCLB, has not
yet been satisfied by the federal government and many of the states,
school districts, and schools charged with carrying out the law.
Significant underfunding of Title I, Title III, and other programs
authorized under NCLB, as well as a nationwide shortage of teachers
well-trained to meet ELLs' particular academic needs, raise significant
concerns under the Castaneda requirement for effective implementation.
Further, as I noted in my testimony, NCLB has not, despite its
statutory language, led to the universal implementation of sound
research-based instructional programs for all English language
learners. A considerable body of education research on ELL student
achievement demonstrates that 1) native language instruction
significantly improves ELLs' academic achievement in English and 2)
ELLs require specific instructional accommodations designed to minimize
the effects of English proficiency upon academic achievement.\8\
Despite this body of research, ELLs nationwide are currently enrolled
in a patchwork of instructional programs, many of which do not reflect
the best practices for this student population.\9\
The implementation of the assessment provisions of Title I and
Title III of NCLB also fall short of the second prong of the Castaneda
test. As the Government Accountability Office has reported and I noted
in my testimony before the Subcommittee, states have not yet allocated
sufficient resources to developing assessments specifically designed to
evaluate the academic knowledge and English proficiency of ELLs. The
GAO also found that many states lack evidence that their English
language proficiency assessments are fully aligned to state content
standards in reading/language arts.
Poor implementation of the assessment provisions of Title I and
Title III also raise concerns regarding the effective evaluation of
NCLB programs, as required under the third prong of the Castaneda test.
The Castaneda court decried the fact the plaintiffs in Castaneda were,
like the majority of ELLs today, evaluated for academic content
knowledge using English-language tests that were not true measures of
their academic performance.\10\ The Castaneda court in effect
anticipated flaws in assessment-based accountability systems, such as
those authorized under NCLB, when English-language tests are used to
evaluate the effectiveness of instructional programs for ELLs. As noted
in the recommendations accompanying my written testimony, the Hispanic
Education Coalition advocates the increased development and use of
native language content assessments, which are required under Title I
``when practicable'' and are more likely to yield valid and reliable
results for ELLs.
Title III of NCLB codifies the evaluation requirement of the third
prong of Castaneda, but evaluations under Title III have not been
effectively implemented by states or enforced by the U.S. Department of
Education. Under Section 3121, ``Evaluations,'' each eligible entity
receiving a Title III subgrant must conduct biennial evaluations of the
effectiveness of education programs and activities for English language
learners. In practice, however, these evaluations have not yet led to
fully effective education programs for many ELLs in U.S. public
schools.
While the design of NCLB largely meets Castaneda's requirement for
the use of effective instructional techniques and periodic evaluations
of education programs for ELLs, the implementation of NCLB requires
significant improvements in order to satisfy the second prong of the
Castaneda standard. NCLB implementation and design should be
strengthened as follows in order to support education programs for ELLs
that fully meet the legal requirements set forth in Castaneda:
1) Congress must appropriate funds sufficient to implement well-
designed, well-implemented, and effective NCLB programs and evaluations
for ELLs;
2) The U.S. Department of Education must fully enforce NCLB
assessment and evaluation provisions for ELLs and provide effective and
ongoing technical assistance in the development of appropriate
assessments to state education agencies;
3) States must focus attention and resources upon developing and
implementing valid and reliable content assessments for ELLs,
preferably in the native language;
4) A reauthorized NCLB should establish a separate funding stream
to assist states in developing and implementing appropriate academic
assessments for ELLs;
5) A reauthorized NCLB should require that states that have
significant ELL populations from a single language group develop valid
and reliable content assessments designed specifically for members of
that language group;
6) States, schools and school districts must implement
scientifically-based instructional practices that will provide ELL
students with opportunities to develop both English proficiency and
content area knowledge;
7) The federal government and states must allocate significant
resources to support the certification of teachers trained in
appropriate instructional practices for ELLs;
8) The federal government, states, school districts, and schools
must allocate resources for the professional development in the best
instructional practices for ELLs for all teachers who teach ELL
students;
9) The federal government must fund scientifically-based research
and disseminate findings on best effective practices for ELL student
instruction; and
10) Federal, state, and local school officials must ensure that
ELLs are fully and appropriately included in NCLB accountability
systems so that schools focus upon meeting the academic needs of ELLs.
Peter Zamora,
MALDEF Washington, DC Regional Counsel, Hispanic Education
Coalition Co-Chair.
endnotes
\1\ 648 F.2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981).
\2\ Id. at 1009-10.
\3\ Section 1001(9)
\4\ Section 1114(b)(1)(B)(ii).
\5\ Section 1116(b)(3)(A)(i).
\6\ Sec. 1111(b)(3)(C)(ix)(III).
\7\ 3115(a)
\8\ See, e.g., Goldenberg, C., Improving Achievement for English
Language Learners: What the Research Tells Us, Education Week, Vol. 25,
Issue 43, pp34-36 (July 26, 2006). Appropriate educational
accommodations for ELLs include: strategic use of the native language;
predictable, clear, and consistent instructions, expectations, and
routines; identifying and clarifying difficult words and passages;
paraphrasing students' remarks; and other measures designed to minimize
the effect of limited English proficiency upon academic achievement.
\9\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, No Child Left Behind
Act: Education's Data Improvement Efforts Could Strengthen the Basis
for Distributing Title III Funds, GAO-07-140, December 2006, p32
(available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07140.pdf).
\10\ 848 F.2d at 1014 (noting that ``[p]laintiffs contend that
testing the achievement levels of children, who are admittedly not yet
literate in English and are receiving instruction in [Spanish], through
the use of an English language achievement test, does not meaningfully
assess their achievement, any more than it does their ability, a
contention with which we can scarcely disagree.'')
______
[Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]