By Luminita Palanceanu Touro University
About NCLB Act of 2001 <ul><li>No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (P.L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425) is a major revision of the 1965 ...
What NCLB says about ELL students <ul><li>“ Limited English proficient” or English language learners, or ELLs  = individua...
The gap between the achievement of ELLs and non-ELLs <ul><li>Facts: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>80 percent of ELL students are U...
The gap between the achievement of ELLs and non-ELLs (cont.) <ul><ul><li>Data retrieved on June, 2010 from  http://nces.ed...
The gap between the achievement of ELLs and non-ELLs (cont.) The range of performance is greater  within  the ELL group th...
Advocating for English Language Learners in NCLB <ul><li>“ The law is that it does not give states much guidance as to how...
Findings about  how NCLB has affected the education of of ELL students  <ul><ul><ul><li>Accountability  and assessmen t  <...
Alternative Approaches or Recommendations  about  the assessment of ELL students under NCLB <ul><li>Improve NCLB as it app...
Findings about  assessment of ELL students under NCLB   Problems with testing ELL Students  <ul><ul><li>Unequal resources ...
Alternative Approaches or Recommendations  about  the assessment of ELL students under NCLB  <ul><li>Establish common stan...
Retrieved June, 2010 from  http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html <ul><li>The Obama administration relea...
<ul><li>Establish new criteria to ensure consistent statewide identification of students as English Learners; </li></ul><u...
References <ul><li>A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved Ju...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Nclb ell palanceanu_luminita_ctea648_final

1,462 views
1,391 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,462
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
15
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Nice presentation. Your references supported the topic assigned, and you presented the effects of NCLB on ELL students across the nation. I have highlighted some areas in red that stood out to me for everyone else. If I would have done that to your project it would all be red! Have you presented this before? This is be best project for this assignment I have ever seen. To say it is wonderful is selling it short. 100/100
  • Nclb ell palanceanu_luminita_ctea648_final

    1. 1. By Luminita Palanceanu Touro University
    2. 2. About NCLB Act of 2001 <ul><li>No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (P.L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425) is a major revision of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). </li></ul><ul><li>Key components: </li></ul><ul><li>1. Stronger accountability for results via assessments (Adequate Yearly Progress, Growth models, National Technical Advisory Council, Annual Report Cards). </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2. Increased flexibility and local control (budgeting, School Choice and Charter Schools) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>3. Expanded options, choices and alternatives for parents. </li></ul><ul><li>4. Emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to work (Reading Programs - Reading First, Early Reading First; Teacher Quality - Highly Qualified status, Paraprofessional requirements; Closing of the achievement gap between students of different socioeconomic background) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Retrieved June, 2010 from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html and http://www.state.sd.us/legislativeaudit/NCLB/Chapter%201background%20info.pdf </li></ul></ul></ul>
    3. 3. What NCLB says about ELL students <ul><li>“ Limited English proficient” or English language learners, or ELLs = individuals, aged three through twenty-one, who are enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary or secondary school and whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding English may affect their ability to participate fully in society and to succeed in school and on state assessments. </li></ul><ul><li>An ELL student must have administered : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Home Language Survey that identifies the student as bilingual; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proficiency testing; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Achievement testing (regular formal state tests with accommodations). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Recent Developments </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The LEP Partnership - ED help states make content assessments more accessible and appropriate for ELLs (July 2006). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ELLs who have attended U.S. schools for twelve months or less, can be exempted from one of the reading/language arts test (September, 2006). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>States must include ELLs in math testing (and in science, beginning in 2007–2008). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>States are not required to count these reading/math/science scores in AYP determinations. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>States can include “former ELL” students in subgroup for two years in AYP reporting. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ED gave $1.8 million to the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment Consortium to develop an alternative [plain-English] test for ELLs, to be implemented in 2010 (October, 2008). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Retrieved June, 2010 from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.lvIXIiN0JwE/b.5057525/k.51AF/What_NCLB_says_about_ELL_students.htm </li></ul>
    4. 4. The gap between the achievement of ELLs and non-ELLs <ul><li>Facts: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>80 percent of ELL students are U.S. citizens; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the number of ELLs rose 46 % between 1990 and 2000; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>at the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test (reading) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>31% of non-ELLs scored at/above a &quot;proficient&quot; level </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>4% of ELL's scored at/above a &quot;proficient&quot; level; </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>49 % of freshman students classified as ELLs in 2000 went on to graduate from high school in 2004; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Retrieved on June, 2010 from http://www.civilrights.org/education/education-reform/ell-nclb.html </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Retrieved on June, 2010 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ </li></ul></ul>
    5. 5. The gap between the achievement of ELLs and non-ELLs (cont.) <ul><ul><li>Data retrieved on June, 2010 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ </li></ul></ul>Average reading scale scores of 4 th - and 8 th - graders in public schools and percentage scoring at or above selected reading achievement levels, by English language learner (ELL) status and state jurisdiction : 2007 in United States
    6. 6. The gap between the achievement of ELLs and non-ELLs (cont.) The range of performance is greater within the ELL group than it is between ELL and non-ELL students High- & low-performing ELL is based on ELL scorers at the10 th & 90 th percentiles. ELL & non-ELL gap is based on average scale score for each group. SOURCE: main NAEP – reading 2005, www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard <ul><ul><li>Diagram and information retrieved June, 2010 from Hull., J.(2010) Meeting the Needs of Special Education and English Language Learners . Center for Public Education, NSBA Annual Conference. Retrieved June, 2010 from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. Advocating for English Language Learners in NCLB <ul><li>“ The law is that it does not give states much guidance as to how to develop assessments for ELL students.” </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;Assessments do not adequately address what students are learning” (Zamora, regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense Education Fund – MALDEF, 2008).  </li></ul><ul><li>ELL students other than Spanish are “overlooked” and become &quot;linguistically isolated&quot; (Uy from Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, 2008 ) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Retrieved on June, 2010 from http://www.civilrights.org/education/education-reform/ell-nclb.html </li></ul></ul>
    8. 8. Findings about how NCLB has affected the education of of ELL students <ul><ul><ul><li>Accountability and assessmen t </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Districts differ in their ability to meet the NCLB requirements for a high quality bilingual/ESL teacher. All districts reported having a large proportion of paraprofessionals who did not meet the NCLB requirements. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>NCLB has had a generally positive effect on the alignment of curriculum, instruction and </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li> assessment in high-ELL schools. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Choice and Charter Schools - None of the districts were able to provide school choice to all of those eligible, but all districts and schools reported offering SES to eligible ELL students. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Flexibility - NCLB seems to have motivated districts to play a key role to improve the education of ELL students. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Teacher Quality - Professional development is a major mechanism for improving high-ELL schools under NCLB. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Closing of the achievement gap between students of different socioeconomic backgrounds - NCLB has had both positive and negative effects on ELL students in K–6 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Parent Involvement - Parents of ELL students professed to have very little knowledge of the requirements of NCLB. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Clewell, B., de Cohen, C., Murray, J., (2007 ) Promise or Peril?: NCLB and the Education of ELL Students. Program for Evaluation and Equity Research, The Urban Institute; Washington, DC. Retrieved June, 2010 from http://www.urban.org/publications/411469.html </li></ul>
    9. 9. Alternative Approaches or Recommendations about the assessment of ELL students under NCLB <ul><li>Improve NCLB as it applies to the education of ELL students. </li></ul><ul><li>The U.S. Department of Education should make the development of an appropriate English Language Proficiency test a national priority and require its use by all states and districts. </li></ul><ul><li>States should ensure that (1) policies are in place to conduct subject matter testing of ELL students using appropriate tests and accommodations and (2) reasonable exemptions are granted. </li></ul><ul><li>Districts should assume responsibility for the training and professional development of teachers, including bilingual/ESL teachers, who meet the NCLB requirements for a high-quality teacher. </li></ul><ul><li>The NCLB provisions for school choice and supplemental education services hold be re-examined. </li></ul><ul><li>More effective strategies in conducting parental outreach and information efforts with parents of ELL students are needed. </li></ul><ul><li>The inclusion of pre-K education in NCLB should be considered in the reauthorization of the law </li></ul><ul><li>Clewell, B., de Cohen, C., Murray, J., (2007 ) Promise or Peril?: NCLB and the Education of ELL Students. Program for Evaluation and Equity Research, The Urban Institute; Washington, DC. Retrieved June, 2010 from http://www.urban.org/publications/411469.html </li></ul>
    10. 10. Findings about assessment of ELL students under NCLB Problems with testing ELL Students <ul><ul><li>Unequal resources available to ELL students - students with disproportionately low incomes are more likely to attend lower-resourced schools. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Different starting points for schools with larger numbers or percentages of ELL student - schools with larger percentages of ELL students, more ethnically diverse and more low-income, typically start behind in the AYP. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Continuous changing composition of the ELL group. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Inconsistent LEP classification - older language proficiency tests have low reliability and results vary across different tests. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Flaws in achievement tests used with ELL students: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Norm-referenced tests (NRT) are typically not normed with ELL students in the norming group. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Lower reliability of items for LEP students. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Language complexity: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mismatches in native language, language of instruction, and language of assessment. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Irrational sanctions under NCLB - the sanctions for not meeting the AYP requirements are unlikely to enable ELL students to gain English proficiency at double the normal speed. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Retrieved on June, 2010 from http://www.fairtest.org/files/NCLB_assessing_bilingual_students_0.pdf </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Alternative Approaches or Recommendations about the assessment of ELL students under NCLB <ul><li>Establish common standards for definition of LEP and proficient that are rooted in up-to-date research in relevant areas. </li></ul><ul><li>Develop/acquire new, well-grounded tests of English language proficiency. </li></ul><ul><li>Revise and re-norm standardized achievement tests, and/or create simplified language tests. </li></ul><ul><li>Ensure the use of multiple measures of language proficiency and content achievement . </li></ul><ul><li>Use those multiple measures in all decision making. </li></ul><ul><li>Change the AYP formula to address unequal starting points,. </li></ul><ul><li>Ensure appropriate response to inevitably changing composition of ELL group in a school or district,. </li></ul><ul><li>Replace the expectation of 100 percent proficient with realistic goals in a realistic time frame. </li></ul><ul><li>Ensure adequate and equitable resources, including bilingual teachers and paraprofessionals, and additional supports for students who need them. </li></ul><ul><li>States should take their own steps. </li></ul><ul><li>Retrieved on June, 2010 from http://www.fairtest.org/files/NCLB_assessing_bilingual_students_0.pdf </li></ul>
    12. 12. Retrieved June, 2010 from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html <ul><li>The Obama administration released (March, 2010) the A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. </li></ul><ul><li>Challenges the nation to embrace education standards that would put America on a path to global leadership. </li></ul><ul><li>Provides incentives for states to adopt academic standards that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace. </li></ul><ul><li>Create accountability systems that measure student growth toward meeting the goal that all children graduate and succeed in college. </li></ul><ul><li>Rigorous and fair accountability for all. </li></ul><ul><li>Continue to provide significant formula grants to help states and school districts implement high-quality language instruction programs to improve the education of English Learners. </li></ul><ul><li>Grantees may provide dual-language programs, transitional bilingual education, sheltered English immersion, newcomer programs for late-entrant English Learners, or other language instruction programs. </li></ul><ul><li>Grantees may also provide effective professional development for all teachers of English Learners, including teachers of academic content areas, that is responsive to demonstrated needs identified by evaluations. </li></ul>Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
    13. 13. <ul><li>Establish new criteria to ensure consistent statewide identification of students as English Learners; </li></ul><ul><li>Determine eligibility, placement, and duration of programs and services based on the state’s valid and reliable English language proficiency assessment ; </li></ul><ul><li>Implement a system to evaluate the effectiveness of language instruction programs; </li></ul><ul><li>Provide information on the achievement of subgroups of English Learners </li></ul><ul><li>Drive better decisions by school districts for program improvement and to support districts in selecting effective programs. </li></ul><ul><li>Retrieved June, 2010 from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html </li></ul>A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Education for English Learners
    14. 14. References <ul><li>A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved June, 2010 from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Advocating for English Language Learners in NCLB. Retrieved on June, 2010 from http://www.civilrights.org/education/education-reform/ell-nclb.html </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Assessment of ELL Students under NCLB: Problems and Solutions. Retrieved on June, 2010 from http://www.fairtest.org/files/NCLB_assessing_bilingual_students_0.pdf </li></ul><ul><li>Bilingual education/Limited English Proficient Students. Retrieved on June, 2010 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard </li></ul><ul><li>Clewell, B., de Cohen, C., Murray, J., (2007 ) Promise or Peril?: NCLB and the Education of ELL Students. Program for Evaluation and Equity Research, The Urban Institute; Washington, DC. Retrieved Jne, 2010 from http://www.urban.org/publications/411469.html </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hull., J.(2010) Meeting the Needs of Special Education and English Language Learners . Center for Public Education, NSBA Annual Conference. Retrieved June, 2010 from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NCLB Requirements. Retrieved June, 2010 from http://www.state.sd.us/legislativeaudit/NCLB/Chapter%201background%20info.pdf </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What NCLB says about ELL students . Retrieved June, 2010 from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.lvIXIiN0JwE/b.5057525/k.51AF/What_NCLB_says_about_ELL_students.htm </li></ul>

    ×