No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

¶ … No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act passed in 2001 was intended to create better accountability in the schools and produce better outcomes for public education. Although the federal government has vehemently defended the legislation, critics contend that NCLB does very little to improve outcomes for students. Additionally, scholars have maintained that for children with special needs -- i.e. learning disabilities, ELL/ESL learners, etc. -- NCLB has created signification gaps that remain difficult for public schools to close.

With the realization that NCLB has had a number of negative and unintended consequences, there is a direct impetus to consider the problems that have developed as a result of this legislation. Using this as a basis for research, this investigation considers the No Child Left Behind Act in the context of English Language Learners or ELL. Specifically, this research considers NCLB in the context of English Language Learners enrolled in California's elementary schools. Through a careful review of what has been noted about both NCLB and its impact on ELLs, it will be possible to garner a more integral understanding of the particular gaps that have resulted as a consequence of the implementation of NCLB.

Literature Review

NCLB: An Overview

In order to begin this investigation, it is first helpful to consider a general overview of NCLB and its impact on education. Examining the basic provisions of the Act, the United States Department of Education provides a general overview of the legislation by highlighting the specific areas in which changes have been made to public education. In general terms the Department reports that NCLB was designed to ensure that all children receive a high quality public education ("Facts and..."). In order to ensure that this occurs, the Department notes that the following issues are integral to the Act's implementation:

Funding: Schools are required to meet federal competency levels for reading and writing. If these levels are not met, federal funding for the school is terminated.

Accountability: Schools are held accountable for ensuring that all children are learning.

Measuring Knowledge: All public schools are required to test reading and math proficiency using standardized tests.

School District Report Cards: NCLB requires that schools provide report cards for outcomes. If schools fail to meet federal mandates for reading and math competency, parents can choose another school for their child to attend.

Teacher Quality: NCLB supports the development of teachers to ensure that standards for reading and math are met ("Facts and...").

While the specific provisions of the NCLB provide a general understanding of the legislation serves to improve public education, the U.S. Department of Education provides a general overview of the theoretical basis for educational improvement under NCLB. Figure 1 below was published by the Department in an effort to demonstrate the impact the NCLB should have on the school.

Figure 1: Continuous Educational Improvement Through NCLB

Data courtesy of:

http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2007report/report.pdf

What this figure clearly suggests is that the process of educational improvement for public schools includes the synthesis of a number of different resources including: improved teacher quality, increased student and parent participation and improvements in the basic foundations of education ("Performance and...").

Additionally, statistics reported by the federal government suggest that NCLB is working to improve outcomes for students. Utilizing data from the National Report Card results, the U.S. Department of Education noted the following progress made under No Child Left Behind.

For America's nine-year-olds in reading, more progress was made in five years than in the previous 28 combined.

America's nine-year-olds posted the best scores in reading (since 1971) and math (since 1973) in the history of the report. America's 13-year-olds earned the highest math scores the test ever recorded.

Reading and math scores for African-American and Hispanic nine-year-olds reached an all-time high.

Math scores for African-American and Hispanic 13-year-olds reached an all-time high.

Achievement gaps in reading and math between white and African-American nine-year-olds and between white and Hispanic nine-year-olds are at an all-time low ("No Child Left...").

Based on this data, the federal government professes that the NCLB legislation is working for improving educational outcomes for all students.

Based on the data provided above, it is evident that NCLB has been developed as a fail safe method to ensure that all public schools are able to provide adequate education for all students. While the data reported by the federal government does indeed suggest that significant progress has been made toward improving educational outcomes for all students, there is ample data which suggests problems have developed as a result of the Act's implementation. Of particular importance in this area is the issue of funding. Researchers examining the impacts of NCLB argue that while schools have been required to ensure that students meet mandatory test scores, the federal government has not provided the extra financial support needed to improve schools that continue to lag (Agazie, 39). As a direct result of this situation, schools that are poor performers face considerable challenges when it comes to meeting even basic guidelines of reading and math competency.

In addition to challenges that remain for poor performing schools, researchers have also argued that the implementation of NCLB has drastically changed the landscape of public schools (Henley, McBride and Milligan, 56). Specifically, scholars report that, "Across the nation, traditional school days, instructional programs, and programs such as recess, music, and art, along with programs for the gifted and educationally disabled, have been eliminated or altered beyond recognition" (65). Because of this change, critics of NCLB argue that elementary school students in particular are being robbed of their childhood. As more time is spent on preparing students for standardized tests, less time and money is being spent on educational programs that will provide the student with a balanced education. In the end, there is considerable concern that this change will have significant ramifications for the development of students (57).

Standardized Tests: A Special Issue of Concern

Arguably, the changes that have resulted as a consequence of the implementation of NCLB are quite extensive. However, one are of interest that is essential to understanding criticism of NCLB is standardized testing. NCLB relies on standardized tests as a central means to evaluate the performance of both the student and the school. Although the federal government clearly supports the use of this type of testing as a salient means to effectively assess student performance, the reality is that the efficacy, reliability and validity of standardized tests has been widely debated by scholars. While some contend that the tests do not provide an adequate measure of performance overall, others argue that standardized tests marginalize diverse populations that are not considered to be part of "mainstream" culture (Phillips, 52). Specifically, researchers have made the following observations with respect to standardized testing:

High stakes tests may give us a slight measure of a child's intellect, but they also measure the child's culture and language. Standardized test are biased. Bias takes place when the test scores are influenced by irrelevant characteristics of the test taker, such as race, sex, family, wealth, religion, and so forth. For the most part, standardized multiple choice tests are culturally biased in favor of the culture toward which the test is directed -- the mainstream White culture (52).

When placed in the context of NCLB, the reality that standardized tests can create notable caveats for minority students is one that is quite significant overall. This is especially true given that the number of minority children in the U.S. continues to increase substantially each year (Phillips, 52). Not surprisingly however, minority students are not the only group that faces challenges when it comes to meeting the mandates set through standardized testing. According to Phillips, English language learners (ESL/ELL) face notable challenges when it comes to meeting standardized test requirements: "As it stands now, many non-English speakers are failing the tests and being held back a grade. This is not due to their intellect or IQ. Many students are doing poorly on our high stakes tests due to a lack of understanding of the complex English language" (52). What this effectively suggests is that despite having the intellectual capacity to perform well in the classroom, ELL face considerable challenges in meeting basic federal requirements under NCLB

NCLB and ELLs

With the realization that English language learners face such notable challenges when it comes to standardized testing, it is not surprising to find that this specific population is having considerable difficulty meeting the demands set forth under the NCLB legislation. Using this as a basis for further research, it is now possible to consider what has been noted about the challenges facing ELL students under NCLB. While it is assumed that some of the research undertaken in this area will focus on the impact of standardized tests, a cursory overview of the current literature on this subject demonstrates that ELLs face considerable challenges in meeting federal standards for basic education.

In order to begin this portion of the investigation, it is first helpful to consider the overall scope and context of the issue -- i.e. ELL students in public schools. Data provided in the literature demonstrates that by 2030, more than half of all students in American public schools will speak a language other than English (Devoe, 35). In some schools the total number of students whose first language is not English is much higher. Specifically, Devoe reports that in Lawrence, Massachusetts more than 90% of all children enrolled in public schools are ELLs. Devoe argues that in these districts, a catch-22 has developed which makes it difficult for schools to provide educational services to ELLs. Specifically, ELL students that do not pass reading and math competence tests are labeled as "in need of improvement." Although efforts have been made to improve outcomes for these students, basic English competency remains a significant challenge limiting the progress of the students and the school on standardized tests. As ELL students fail to meet standards, schools that have high numbers of ELL students face losing their federal funding (35).

When placed in this context, the true challenge for schools with high numbers of ELL students becomes clear. Although efforts are being made to improve test scores and outcomes for these students, without federal funding, schools will not be able to meet the needs of this population. Thus, schools that are in jeopardy of losing federal funding are the ones that are most in need. Unfortunately, however, few provisions have been placed in the NCLB to effective address this unique population (Devoe, 35). As such schools with high populations of ELLs will continue to face challenges as they attempt to meet the mandates of the legislation and provide adequate, quality education for all students.

Given the notable challenges that face ELLs when it comes to NCLB, it is important to consider what specific provisions and issues have been addressed in the context of this population under the legislation. Devoe, in her review of the provisions of NCLB with respect to ELLs reports that "Under Title III of NCLB, states must give all ELLs a yearly English proficiency test and must meet annual achievement objectives to improve the scores of ELLs in five areas: speaking, reading, writing, listening and comprehension" (Devoe, 36). Devoe goes on to report that the goal of these tests is to produce the same academic proficiency levels in ELLs that are achieved by non-ELL students. Additionally, ELL students that have been in the country for more than one year are required to take yearly proficiency tests in math (36). This can further exacerbate the challenges facing students and the school as efforts to improve scores must focus on both reading and math.

Although the central focus of standardized tests is to ensure that all students are receiving the same quality education, the reality is that statistical data on outcomes for ELL students demonstrate that, on average, ELL students perform 20 to 30% lower on NCLB tests than non-ELL students (Devoe, 36). What this effectively suggests is that there are notable achievement gaps between ELL and non-ELL students. These gaps in education are seen across all school districts in all states. Given that the differences are uniform across all regions of the U.S., it seems reasonable to argue that the inability of ELLs to reach minimum performance standards does not reflect on the performance of the educator; rather ELL students have specific educational needs that are simply not being met in the context of public education. Therefore, penalizing schools because of the poor performance of ELL students on standardized tests appears to lie outside of the intentions of the NCLB Act (Devoe, 37-8).

Other scholars examining the current state of ELL students in the context of NCLB have argued that the legislation creates considerable challenges for schools with large populations of ELL students. For instance, Wright also notes the dichotomy created for schools with ELL students:

By 2014, all English language learners, regardless of how long they have been in the United States, must pass their state's accountability tests. Moreover, if the requisite number of English language learners in a school's LEP [limited English proficiency] subgroup does not pass the tests in a given year, the school is deemed as failing and may be subjected to sanctions (Wright, 22).

Wright goes on to argue that this situation clearly defies logic: "Common sense dictates that if you administer a test to students in a language they don't understand, they probably won't do well on it" (23). Further, Wright contends that while NCLB clearly defines ELL as a student "whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the individual the ability to meet the State's proficient level of achievement on State assessments" it mandates that these students pass proficiency tests used to evaluate overall school performance (23).

Other problems with NCLB requirements stem from the fact that the LEP group is not clearly defined under the legislation. Specifically, Wright reports that while special populations are clearly defined under the NCLB -- such as ethnic minority groups -- LEP students move in an out of the group, making it difficult for schools to define this population. "...Those students who speak the most English -- and thus who are more likely to pass the test -- leave the LEP subgroup only to be replaced by newly arrived English language learners who speak the least English. This makes it impossible for the LEP subgroup to show consistent growth (Wright, 24). Thus, while progress can be seen in ethnic minority populations, the ELL group, because of its changing composition, does not demonstrate any real progress over the course of time.

ELL Students in California

Based on the data provided above, it seems reasonable to argue that ELL students face a number of notable challenges when it comes to meeting the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act. Although these challenges are faced by ELL students enrolled in public schools all over the United States, a critical review of what has been noted about ELL students in California's school suggests that this state may face even greater challenges when it comes to meeting the demands of NCLB. Examining current statistics on ELL students in California, research demonstrates that this region of the country has one of the largest ELL populations in the country. "California has about 12% of K-12 public school students, but its 1.3 LEP students are almost half of the U.S. total. About 44% of California K-3 LEP pupils are in K-3, 37% are in grades 4-8, and 18% are in grades 9-12" ("Immigration and...").

In addition to the fact that California has one of the largest ELL populations in the country, statistical data also demonstrates that growth in the population continues to proliferate at a significant rate. "The share of public K-12 pupils considered LEP in California rose from 18 to 25% between 1990 and 1996. The number of LEP pupils rose in 695 of 802 California school districts between 1990 and 1996, sometimes by 100% or more" ("Immigration and..."). The challenges facing this population are quite extensive as research also demonstrates that 80% of all ELLs living in California are classified as low-income. With such a concentrated population of ELL students, California's schools clearly face significant challenges when it comes to developing strategies that can be used to meet the mandates of NCLB and improve the quality of public education for all students.

In an effort to provide a general understanding of the challenges facing ELL students in California's public schools, it is important to consider how this group is performing with respect to the standards set forth under the No Child Left Behind Act. Data from California public schools is presented on the following page in Tables 1 and 2. In Table 1, the data provides an overview of the number of students enrolled in California's schools. The data is broken down by both totals and special populations. Based on the data, it becomes evident that ELL students represent on the largest special populations currently enrolled in California's schools. Specifically, the total ELL population is larger than White, non-Hispanic students attending California's public schools. Elementary school students (between Grades 2 and 6) represent the largest portion of this population.

Table 2 provides a review of API or Academic Performance Index. The API represents a summative score acquired from 2007 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program and 2007 California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) tests. These tests are used to assess student performance under NCLB. The API is based on a scale from 200 to 1000 and has a target performance goal of 800 for all students ("2006-07 APR..."). Of all the populations noted, ELLs had the third lowest overall API score. African-Americans and students with disabilities were the top two low performing groups. Based on data from Tables 1 and 2, it is evident that the ELL population faces notable challenges when it comes to meeting the basic requirements for subject proficiency. This situation is clearly challenges for elementary schools which have the largest portion of ELL students enrolled.

Table 1: Number of Students Included in API Testing, 2007

All Grades

Grades 2-6

Grades 7-8

Grades 9-11

Overall

Subgroups

African-American (not of Hispanic origin)

American Indian or Alaska Native

Asian

Filipino

Hispanic or Latino

Pacific Islander

White (not of Hispanic origin)

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged

English Learners

Students with Disabilities

Data courtesy of:

http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/AcntRpt2007/2007GrthStAPI.aspx

Table 2: API Scores by Subgroup and Grade Level, 2007

All Grades

Grades 2-6

Grades 7-8

Grades 9-11

Overall

Subgroups

African-American (not of Hispanic origin)

American Indian or Alaska Native

Asian

Filipino

Hispanic or Latino

Pacific Islander

White (not of Hispanic origin)

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged

English Learners

Students with Disabilities

Data courtesy of:

http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/AcntRpt2007/2007GrthStAPI.aspx

While the statistical data provided here clearly demonstrates that ELLs in California's public schools face notable challenges when it comes to achieving basic standards for state and federal proficiency in math and reading, research on this situation reveals that scholars have attempted to bring this issue to the attention of both state and federal agencies. Specifically, the Western Regional Advisory Committee submitted a report to the U.S. Department of Education in 2005. In this report the organization noted the challenges facing California in the context of meeting NCLB standards. In particular, the organization made the following observations:

There is a breakdown of effective, integrated systems of development and support at the school and district levels to meet the needs of underperforming students. A major paradigm shift from teaching to learning as a result of NCLB and standards-based learning has created a systemic challenge in our profession. Student achievement data in the Western region indicates that many students in AYP subgroups, especially ELL and special education students, are not meeting AYP requirements ("RAC West...," 3).

Additionally, this report goes on to note that California schools in particular face unique challenges because of their overwhelming size. California schools have the highest enrollment in the U.S. with a total of 6,356,348 students. "California represents a growing crisis in the pre-K through 12 educational systems: major urban areas, remote rural areas, explosive growth, and extraordinary diversity (linguistic, economic, and cultural)" ("RAC West...," 11). Further, California is a state of contrasts in its public schools. Although the state is home to the nation's second largest school district -- Los Angeles -- the state is also home to rural school districts such as those that are located in the San Joaquin Valley (11-2). In terms of meeting the requirements of the NCLB legislation, the state of California is faced with the challenge of developing comprehensive programs which can meet the needs of diverse populations as well as diverse school settings.

The Western Regional Advisory Committee goes on to report that the challenges facing California schools when it comes to meeting the requirements of NCLB will only intensify in coming years. According to this organization, 52% of all Kindergarten children entering Los Angeles public schools are ELLs. In total 25% of all students entering public schools in California are ELLs. This figure represents one the highest ELL populations in the United States ("RAC West...," 13). Because these students are entering the schools in early elementary grades -- i.e. K-3, the challenge to prepare students for NCLB requirements will take its greatest tool on elementary school teachers. This challenge is supported by the data provided in Table 1, which effectively demonstrates that of the total ELL population, 54% are currently enrolled in grade 2 through 6.