No Child Left Behind Act and Its Impact on English Language Learners

Introduction

The United States is no longer a simple "melting pot," but has rather emerged in the 21st century as a "salad bowl" where many minorities may not readily assimilate into mainstream American society as they once did. The implications of these trends for the public school system have been profound, particularly in view of the mandates established by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (hereinafter "NCLB," or alternatively, "the Act"). According to Arce, Luna, Borjian, and Conrad, "Proponents of the No Child Left Behind Act claim that its mission is to close the achievement gap by holding school districts and states accountable, encouraging the use of flexible educational approaches, and supporting parents' rights to school choice" (p. 56). Less than 13% of teachers in American classrooms currently possess even minimal ESL training, however, and just 8 to 10% of teachers hold bilingual or ESL certification (Rice & Pappamihiel, 2004).

Furthermore, the number of ELL students in American classrooms continues to increase faster than the system can accommodate them. More than four-and-a-half million students were identified as English language learners (ELLs) attending school in the United States, prekindergarten through Grade 12, in 2000–2001, accounting for almost 10% of total public school enrollment (Komatsu & Witt, 2006). During the period from 1989 to 2006, the ELL population approximately doubled — a trend researchers predict will continue for at least the next two decades (Komatsu & Witt, 2006). While special language programs are provided for more than 400 different language groups in American classrooms, approximately 80% of ELLs today are Spanish speakers (Ortiz, Wilkinson, Robertson-Courtney & Kushner, 2006). In this environment, identifying the impact of the NCLB on ELL students represents a timely and important investigation.

Tentative Research Questions

The following tentative research questions are based on a preliminary review of the literature and may be subject to changes, deletions, or additions as the research process progresses:

What are the specific requirements of the NCLB for ELL students across individual subject areas? What are the responsibilities of ELL students, ELL teachers, and school districts and administrators? What changes have taken place in standardized or high-stakes testing scores since the enactment of the NCLB? And what has been shown to be effective in helping ELL students achieve improved performance?

Rationale and Significance of the Study

Because resources are by definition scarce, it is vitally important for educators and administrators at all levels to use available resources to their maximum advantage in achieving the performance mandates established by the NCLB. In this regard, Kesson and Ross (2004) emphasize that "the diverse responsibilities of public schools present a huge challenge to educators, and even when schools are performing well, it is difficult, if not impossible, for them to deliver all the expected results when their mission necessarily entails contradictory purposes" (p. ix). Likewise, as Mayers (2006) emphasizes, "Ideally, each citizen would have the opportunity to be taught by a well-trained educator, and teachers would be equipped with an ability and liberty to apply the fruits of their teaching experience to their process as they tailor the delivery of curricula to the idiosyncratic needs of their students" (p. 449). Far more importantly, young English language learners are not products and schools are not factories, and there is no room for false starts and little room for experimentation when it comes to these children. Therefore, identifying the impact of the NCLB on English language learners represents a timely area of investigation, one that can identify opportunities for improvement where deficiencies exist and provide a best-practices guide for educators seeking superior alternatives.

In an increasingly multicultural society, developing laws that are equitable and fair is becoming harder than ever, and even the most well-intentioned legislation may produce unintended or unexpected consequences — the NCLB is no exception. According to Abedi and Dietel (2004), "One of the most controversial aspects of NCLB is its performance requirements for subgroups within the general student population. The NCLB requires that all children, including English-language learners (ELLs), reach high standards by demonstrating proficiency in English language arts and mathematics by 2014" (p. 782).

In an era of increased demands for accountability on the part of teachers and students alike, this date is not a suggestion or a recommendation, but a fundamental mandate that must be met. As a result, it is the responsibility of school districts across the country to help ELL students achieve ongoing progress toward this objective — as gauged by student performance on a wide range of high-stakes state-level tests — or face serious consequences for their failure (Abedi & Dietel, 2004). Rice, Pappamihiel, and Lake (2004) report that "growing demands for accountability, such as that called for in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, will soon make it impossible for school districts and teachers in the United States to ignore their responsibilities to provide appropriate assistance to all students, including ELLs" (p. 121). The consequences for failure are in fact serious — and expensive. According to Imber and Van Geel (2004):

The federal statute known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) imposes on states and school districts a complex set of requirements intended to ensure that all children achieve academic proficiency. Students in schools that fail for two consecutive years to make "adequate yearly progress" must, under the NCLB, be given the option to transfer to another public school in the same school district, including a charter school if permitted under state law, that has not been identified under NCLB as needing improvement. The school district must provide or pay for transportation for the student to attend the new school. (p. 34)

The introduction of high-stakes testing regimens has made these costs even more severe. Their link with the NCLB is made clear by Rice and her colleagues: "With the advent of the No Child Left Behind legislation, reading and mathematics have assumed a critical importance to standardized tests" (p. 121). According to Cochran-Smith (2005), a growing body of evidence has identified a discernible pattern across the country regarding the NCLB's impact on ELL students: "New regulations requiring that graduation rates be included in NCLB accountability provisions are not being enforced, whereas incentives for removing low-scoring students are rigidly followed. This means that there may now be perverse incentives in many states to push low-performing students out the back door so districts can avoid test-driven sanctions" (p. 99). Based on the foregoing, it is clear that educators, administrators, and students alike are confronted with significant challenges when it comes to meeting the requirements established by the NCLB.