No Child Left Behind: - Appalachian State University



No Child Left Behind:

“The soft bigotry of low expectations.”

- George Bush

Shari Lynn Smiley

Reading Instruction for Advanced Learners

RE 5730

Dr. Gary Moorman

Appalachian State University

Fall 2007

Outline

Overview

Introduction

History: NCLB’s Family Tree

*Visionaries

*Elementary and Secondary School Act of 1965

*Bilingual Education Act of 1968

*Education for All Handicapped Children Act 1975

*Individuals with Disabilities Act

*Basic Principles of NCLB

*Student Performance Standards

*Teacher Quality

Public Support: A Plea to Parents

English Language Learners: Understanding ELLs to Educate ELLs

*Personal Teaching Experiences

*Statistics

*Cultural Values and Attitudes

*Obstacles to Overcome

Three Aspects of NCLB: The Law and ELLs

*Teacher Quality

*Teacher Training

*Financial Incentives

*Shift in Thinking

*Funding and Full Curriculum

*Disbursement of Funds

*Access to Full Curriculum

*Collaboration of All School Personnel

*Assessment

*Adequate Yearly Progress

*Proficiency

*Consequences

*Testing Phenomenon

*Lau v. Nichols

*Multiple Methods

NEA Calls for Change: Terrorist Alert

*Quote by former Secretary of Education, Rod Paige

Conclusion: Big Brother in our Schools

*Government Ignorance

*Needed Change

*Achievement for ALL Children

Overview

The No Child Left Behind Act that was signed into law in 2002 has had an unprecedented impact on our current education system in the United States. Since it is currently up for reauthorization, it is the perfect time to reevaluate what areas are working and what areas need to be improved upon.

The majority of students I teach are Hispanic and are not native English speakers, but rather English language learners. I am particularly interested in the aspects of the law which directly pertain to my students and their academic success. In this position paper, I will briefly discuss the background of NCLB and the laws leading up to its existence. I believe it is necessary to understand the challenges these students face, and therefore; I share my personal teaching experiences and discuss cultural values and attitudes that I have found to influence their learning.

I have chosen to deliberate three aspects of the law: teacher quality, funding and full curriculum, and assessment. The confusion that I have had (and I’m sure others have had, too) led me to discuss these issues in broad terms. I do however, offer some suggestions for reform and note the involvement of professional organizations to bring about change.

The purpose of this writing is to inform you as educators and parents alike and bring forth recognition that it is us who need to have our voice heard for all of our children.

Whether you are in the check-out line at the grocery store, waiting in the vestibule at church, or having dinner with friends, this is a hot topic in America today. No, I am not talking about Britney Spear’s pathetic parenting skills and latest partying escapades; I am speaking of the infamous No Child Left Behind Act that was signed into law in 2002 which is currently up for reauthorization. It is no doubt a controversial law, and one that has raised many questions about the quality and effectiveness of the public education system here in the United States.

I will begin my position statement by providing general background information about the law. Next, I will share some personal opinions and experiences as a professional working with these children and their parents under the current constraints of NCLB. Following, I will then discuss specific sections of the law that are of personal interest to me as a reading teacher of struggling English language learners. I will also voice my concerns regarding the testing components and unrealistic goals thereof, which I believe are having indelible effects not only on our English language learners, but on our educators of these children as well. I will suggest a few options for reform and back them with statements from national educational organizations. It is my hope that the information presented here for both educators and parents alike will serve as a tool to make one better versed on the topic and also to clarify a few misconceptions regarding the No Child Left Behind Act.

NCLB’s Family Tree

Public education for all is what visionaries such as Noah Webster, Benjamin Rush, Horace Mann, and Thaddeus Stevens dedicated themselves to establish in the United States in the 19th century. They did so successfully, and thus a public education was soon ready for the taking all across this great country of ours. With the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the nation in a tumultuous state of the Civil Rights movement, and the growing need for educational aid, President Lyndon B. Johnson responded to political pressure by signing the Elementary and Secondary School Act in 1965. This law, developed by Commissioner of Education, Francis Keppel, was established based on the principle that children from low-income families require more and special educational services than those from affluent homes (Schugurensky, 2002). This was indeed a clever political strategy, because providing aid to poor children crossed both racial lines and religious differences. This federal funding gave birth to many programs that still exist today. Head Start is one such program, which targets at-risk, poverty stricken pre-school age children. ESEA of 1965 also opened the door for other educational legislation such as the Bilingual Education Act (1968) and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975), now referred to as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). ESEA was designed to be reexamined on a five year schedule, and since its 40+ years in existence, it has undergone many modifications as well as changing names. The latest and most radical change as we know it today, the No Child Left Behind Act (2001), was signed into law by President Bush on January 8, 2002.

The basic principles of No Child Left Behind requires states to set specific standards for both student performance and teacher quality, requires an accountability process to address the achievement gap, and places a stronger emphasis on reading, particularly in the primary grades. The law operates on the premise that all children, regardless of ethnicity, socio-economic status, or disability, receive a quality education. At the surface, this truly does sound that our government is genuinely concerned about the state of our educational system and appears to be devoted to bipartisan solutions.

A Plea to Parents

In an effort to gain public support and help involve parents of ELLs in their child’s education, a new initiative was born prior to the US Department of Education’s second annual summit on English language acquisition. In 2003, Secretary of Education, Rod Paige along with Deputy Under Secretary of Education, Maria Hernandez Ferrier, unveiled the “Ten Key Benefits for Parents of English Language Learners”. It states that parents of English language learners can expect:

1. To have their child receive a quality education and be taught by a highly qualified teacher.

2. To have their child learn English and other subjects such as reading – language arts and math at the same academic level as all other students.

3. To know if their child has been identified and recommended for placement in an English language acquisition program, and to accept or refuse such placement.

4. To choose a different language acquisition program for their child.

5. To transfer their child to another school if his or her school is identified as “in need of improvement.”

6. To apply for supplemental services for their child, such as tutoring, if the child’s school is identified as “in need of improvement” for two years.

7. To have their child tested annually to assess his or her progress in English language acquisition.

8. To receive information regarding their child’s performance on academic tests.

9. To have their child taught with programs that are scientifically proven to work.

10. To have the opportunity for their child to reach his or her greatest academic potential. ( Press Release December 2, 2003)

To the unsuspecting Mexican-American parent, this educational “package” only

appears to be missing the big red bow.

Understanding ELLs to Educate ELLs

Before discussing NCLB specifics as it relates to ELLs, I believe it is necessary to share my personal experiences and provide you with background information and research about this rapidly growing population. In my teaching career of fourteen years, I have seen an influx of Mexican-American children enrolled in the various elementary schools where I have taught. I have had the opportunity to teach (and learn from) this enthusiastic and inquisitive group of students both in the regular classroom setting of first grade and in a pull-out reading intervention program as well. Over the years, I have had many conversations with the parents of my ELL students in an attempt to better understand their belief system. I strongly believe that understanding these children and their culture in a respectful way, is crucial to their academic success.

At present, there are nearly three million English-learning Spanish speakers in classrooms throughout the United States (Bear et al., 2008). They represent the fastest growing student population in our schools (Mathes et al., 2007), and by the year 2025, that number is expected to increase to one out of every four students – a staggering 25% (Corona & Armour, 2007). In Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools, where I am employed, 13.6% of students are Hispanic, of which 11,000 qualify and are currently enrolled in ESL and/or special education programs.

On average, Hispanic children begin school at a considerable disadvantage when compared to their monolingual counterparts and continue to lag significantly behind each year. Even with appropriate language support, it can take up to seven years (Malloy et al., 2007) for these students to “bridge the achievement gap” and meet grade level benchmarks. Unfortunately, many of these children come from homes of low socioeconomic backgrounds, and that in itself is a major risk factor for school success. Add to that a low level of parental education, and there is yet another obstacle to overcome. Many parents whose sons and daughters I have taught in the past have only completed sixth grade schooling in their native country of Mexico. Their writing skills in Spanish are rudimentary at best, and English communication skills are minimal. When this economic hardship is combined with low levels of parental education, the oral language development (vocabulary) for these children is extremely limited. Therefore, it is not surprising that exposure to children’s literature within these households is almost non-existent.

I believe it is important to take a closer look at cultural values and how they influence attitude towards education. As educators, we must be aware of beliefs and customs within our learning communities that guide families’ actions and involvement in their children’s school career. Many Hispanic families believe that it is entirely the responsibility of the schools and la maestra (the teacher) to teach their children, because they have both the knowledge and the expertise to do so (Hammer et al., 2007). The parents are somewhat subservient to the educators within the school, because they believe they personally lack the ability and intelligence to help their children succeed and learn. (This becomes escalated when a secondary language barrier is at the forefront.) Therefore, parental support is limited to guiding their sons and daughters to be obedient and respectful. Also, parents typically do not interfere with their child’s schooling or question their child’s teachers.

The combination of low socioeconomic status (SES), low level of parental education, limited oral language development, cultural attitudes and values, the necessity to communicate in two language systems, and the current guidelines of NCLB could be potentially viewed as a recipe for disaster. What it is in reality is an opportunity and desperate need for change. These children enter our doors with a mountain to climb; therefore it is our responsibility as dedicated educators to do our best to help them reach the summit.

The Law and ELLs

Several aspects of the law which speak directly about English language learners

are of personal interest to me. I will briefly discuss three aspects of the law and then offer personal experiences as well as suggest recommendations for change.

I. Teacher Quality

. The first point of interest is Title II which states “Teacher Excellence for all Children.” Under this, the need for teacher training of English language learners is recognized through the availability of professional development grants. However; at present, these opportunities are only offered to mainstream or content-area teachers; therefore excluding reading specialists and ESL/bilingual educators. In addition, financial incentives are offered for teachers to teach in schools with high-need. However; this only applies to core subjects.

In the past two years, I have attended five professional development seminars conducted by nationally renowned presenters such as Stephen Krashen and Timothy Rasinski. Three of these workshops focused solely on English language learners. The registration fees for admittance totaled $900, which does not include travel and hotel expenses for one of them. Neither my school, my school system, nor my state reimbursed me for any of these expenses which directly related to my teaching position as a reading specialist. I chose to make this financial sacrifice so that I could become better equipped to teach my at-risk readers.

As NCLB stresses teacher excellence, professional development opportunities and grants need to be made available for all teachers including reading specialists and ESL/bilingual teachers. In conjunction with that, financial incentives for these teaching positions in high-need schools should be offered. Both the National Education Association (NEA) and the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) recognize and support these issues. (, )

I also believe that a “shift” in thinking needs to occur within our nation regarding teachers. If teaching was truly viewed as a profession and not a system that attracts mediocrity, then public opinion would change. One way to do this would be to reevaluate current salaries – as the old saying goes, “You get what you pay for.” Unfortunately, many master teachers leave the education system each year because they can not obtain the lifestyle they desire. Rather than raise taxes and take more money out of the public’s pockets, I propose a “swap.” This swap would occur between America’s professional educators and America’s professional athletes. I truly believe that we would be a wiser nation if we would make such a radical change – as crazy (and unsupported by any organization that I know of) as it may sound! Wouldn’t it be great to hear more children saying they wanted to be teachers rather than football players?

II. Funding and Full Curriculum

Another attention-getter is the amount of government monies which are made available for Title III. (Title III of NCLB deals with Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students. It replaced the Bilingual Education Act, formerly known as the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994.) A whopping $655 billion dollars annually is allocated for this program. ( Press Release December 2, 2003.) Under NCLB, funds are no longer dispersed from a discretionary grant program. Instead, individual state allotment is based on the population of English language learners to ensure that monies are distributed proportionately according to need.

Ensuring access to the full curriculum also falls under Title III. However, what it does not state is how this will be done, and what “full curriculum” means. At present, this is only under Title III and is the responsibility of the ESL/bilingual educators.

Unfortunately, the identification of English language learners varies from state to state. This results in disproportionate funding and many schools and students who are in need, do not receive the monies due to them by law. Therefore, a common and consistent identification process from state to state is needed. (TESOL supports this idea.)

Collaboration among all school personnel is needed for English language learners to receive the effective education that they so deserve. Sadly, I have witnessed regular education teachers place the responsibility of teaching ELL students on to the reading specialists and the ESL teachers. Access to the entire curriculum needs to be the responsibility of every staff member in the school. According to TESOL, it should also be included under the Title I requirements. ()

III. Assessment

The final issue I will discuss in very broad terms is perhaps the most controversial subject of all: testing. As it now stands, a child’s yearly progress (beginning in third grade) is measured in a three day testing period which usually takes place in mid-May. There is one test administered for reading and science, and two for math. From this “high-stakes testing” comes “high-stakes decisions”, such as grade retention or promotion, and graduation status.

Under NCLB, states are required each year to report student progress in terms of “proficient” and above. In addition, each state must establish a plan and a timeline for all students in grades 3 - 8 to reach the “proficient” level by the year 2014. This minimum level of improvement that schools must achieve each year is known as Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). AYP is also reported according to subgroups such as economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, racial and ethnic backgrounds and students with limited English proficiency (LEP). As it stands, English language learners may fall into more than one of these reporting categories. Title I regulations of NCLB states that English language learners (and LEP’s) can be tested (and scores counted) in reading/language arts after a mere ten months of attending an American school. Math testing can begin after just one day. (Crawford, 2004) How can students be expected to take such tests when language acquisition rates vary from one student to another?

Schools failing to meet AYP goals are labeled as “in need of improvement” and face a harsh aftermath. These consequences are outlined according to failure on a two, three, four, five, and six year timeframe. Examples (in no particular order) include narrowing the curriculum, extending the school day, providing tutoring services, replacing staff, and re-opening as a charter school. (Lewis & Moorman, 2007)

In the United States, we currently have five living and labeled generations: GI (1901-1924), Silent (1925-1942), Baby Boomers (1943-1960), Gen Xers (1961-1980), and the Millennials (1982-2002). (Lewis & Moorman, 2007) It is yet to be determined what the current generation will be called, however; I speculate it would have something to do with the “testing phenomenon” occurring as we speak.

Each spring, I have seen anxiety levels rise in my ELL students. Some have been ill, some have cried, some overcome with fear, but all of them have been acutely aware of the stakes at risk - failure. Regrettably, what once started out as a law to help these students with special needs (including ELLs) is the same law that is having negative results today. NCLB’s mandates of “proficiency for all” are placing extreme pressure on schools, children, and educators alike, with radical sanctions looming in the shadows. Schools are in effect, being held accountable for the demographic profile of their students. Under current practice and policy, students are failing and teachers are demoralized.

It would not surprise me if a lawsuit regarding “fair and appropriate” assessment for ELLs isn’t taking place within the US court system as I write this. Remember the 1974 case of Lau v. Nichols in which the Chinese-American students claimed they were not receiving the special assistance they needed due to their inability to speak English? The Supreme Court ruled in favor of them and had this to say: “There is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education.” (US Supreme Court, 1974) The same can be applied to testing, as “there is no equality of assessment merely by providing students with the same multiple choice tests and holding them to the same high standards of proficiency for students who do not understand English.” Let’s stop the “dumbing down” of America’s schools with this testing insanity!

A “one-size fits all” does not apply to ELLs, and both the American public and policy makers need to be made aware of this. It is not clear whether or not results of the current standardized tests measure content-area knowledge or students’ knowledge of the English language. Therefore, I propose using a multiple assessment method for measuring academic growth. Not only do the tests need to take into account cultural differences, but they need to be available in native languages as well. Different methods of assessment such as portfolios and oral tests need to be included. Growth should be taken into account and measured, instead of relying ultimately on a “one time score.” The NEA is currently pushing for the involvement of teachers in developing and implementing such assessments and standards. TESOL also proposes similar changes to set realistic goals and valid testing procedures. ()

Terrorist Alert

I thought you should know that in America a new terrorist group is hard at work. They are educators from across the country who are members of the National Education Association. You’d better watch out because they are armed and dangerous with pens, pencils, protractors, and dry erase markers! I’m not kidding… In February of 2004, Secretary of Education Rod Paige deemed the NEA a “terrorist organization” due to its efforts to bring about much needed change to NCLB. (The History of NCLB, ) I encourage you to join this terrorist activist group today!

Big Brother in our Schools

By placing blame on our schools, “Big Brother” is ignoring the major impact that poverty has on education. A child living with conditions as substandard housing, poor health, poor nutrition, family instability and illiterate parents has many obstacles to overcome. In addition, ELLs have the challenge of learning a second language. The reauthorization of No Child Left Behind is the perfect opportunity to bring about much needed change in current education policy and practice. We need effective pedagogies, adequate and equitable resources, research-based professional development opportunities, fair and multiple measures of assessment, and most importantly, we need to give all of our children the opportunity to learn and to reach his/her potential. In short, we need to work together to establish more reasonable goals for narrowing the achievement gap, and perhaps in the process we will have raised the achievement of all our children! Albert Einstein put it best when he said, “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.”

Political cartoons can be found at

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

References

A Diminished Vision of Civil Rights: No Child Left Behind and the Growing Divide in

How Educational Equity is Understood. Retrieved November 16, 2007 from

Abedi, J. The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and

accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33, 1, 4-14.

Adequate Yearly Progress. Retrieved November 16, 2007 from



Bear, D.R., Helman, L., Templeton, S., Invernizzi, M., & Johnston, F. (2007). Words their way

with English learners: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Bear, D.R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2008). Words their way: Word

study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson Education, Inc.

Bilingual Education Act. Retrieved November 20, 2007 from



Bush Decries Democrats’ ‘Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations.’ Retrieved November 24, 2007

from

Castaneda v. Pickard. Retrieved November 20, 2007 from



Corona, E., & Armour, L. (2007). Providing support for English language learner services.

Library Media Connection, 25, 6, 34-37.

Cook, G. (2007). Calculating the effect of NAEP. American School Board Journal, November,

6-7.

ESEA: It’s Time for a Change! Retrieved November 16, 2007 from



Fact Sheet: The No Child Left Behind Act: Challenging Students Through High Expectations.

Retrieved November 24, 2007 from

Genesee, F. (2006). Educating second language children. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.

Hammer, C.S., Lawrence, F., & Miccio, A. (2007). Bilingual children’s language abilities and

early reading outcomes in Head Start and kindergarten. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 237-248.

Hammer, C.S., Rodriguez, B.L., Lawrence, F.R., & Miccio, A.W. (2007). Puerto Rican mothers’

beliefs and home literacy practices. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,

38, 216-224.

Lau v. Nichols. Retrieved November 20, 2007 from



Lewis, J. & Moorman, G. (2007). Adolescent literacy instruction: Policies and practices.

Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Lister, G. (2007). Education is not like fast food. American School Board Journal, November,

54.

Margaret, You’re Doing a Heckuva Job. Retrieved November 16, 2007 from



Mathes, P.G., Pollard-Durodola, S.D., Cardenas-Hagan, E., Linan-Thompson, S., & Vaughn, S.

(2007). Teaching struggling readers who are native Spanish speakers: What do we know?

Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 260-271.

Mead, S. (2007). Easy way out: Restructured usually means little has changed. Education Next,

7, 1, 52-56.

Moscinski, D. (2007). Proficiency for all? Amercian School Board Journal, November,

28-29.

No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved November 16, 2007 from



No Child Left Behind: Misguided Approach to School Accountability for English

Language Learners. Retrieved November 24, 2007 from

NCLB vs. Reality. Retrieved November 24, 2007 from

Paige Outlines No Child Left Behind Act’s “Ten Key Benefits for Parents of English

Language Learners.” Retrieved November 24, 2007 from



President Bush Discusses No Child Left Behind Reauthorization. Retrieved

November 24, 2007 from

Position Paper on Assessment and Accountability of English Language Learners Under

the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved November 24, 2007 from

Position Statement on the Diversity of English Language Learners in the United States.

Retrieved November 24, 2007 from

Position Statement on Teacher Credentialing for Teachers of English to Speakers of

Other Languages in Primary and Secondary Schools. Retrieved November 24,

2007 from

Secretary Paige Announces New Policies to Help English Language Learners. Retrieved

November 24, 2007 from

School Improvement. Retrieved November 16, 2007 from



Schungruensky, D. History of Education: Selected Moments of the 20th Century.

Retrieved November 10, 2007 from

Smith, N. (2007). Charters as a solution? So far, states and districts have opted for

anything but. Education Next, 7, 1, 57-59.

Teacher and Paraprofessional Quality. Retrieved November 16, 2007 from



Teachers Protest No Child Left Behind. Retrieved November 12, 2007 from



Testing and Assessments. Retrieved November 16, 2007 from



U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Affairs, A Guide

to Education and No Child Left Behind, Washington, D.C., 2004.

What Does the Public Think about NCLB? Retrieved November 12, 2007 from



................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download