English Language Learners and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015

Transcription

1 English Language Learners and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 Dr. Wayne E. Wright Purdue University

2 Background Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 is the latest reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of The ESEA, in the form of NCLB, was long overdue for reauthorization Wide bipartisan acknowledgement the NCLB was deeply flawed and had fallen far short of it goals to close achievement gaps and reach100% passing rates on state tests Congress made little efforts to reauthorize and fix it for many years

3 Background The Obama Administration essentially worked around Congress to instigate education reforms Economic stimulus funding Race to the Top Grants & ESEA Flexibility (NCLB Waivers) College and Career Readiness Standards and Assessments Corresponding English Language Proficiency standards and assessments Teacher evaluations tied to test scores Encouragement/Incentives for states to adopt Common Core State Standards and assessments

4 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Quickly passed at end of 2015 with bipartisan support Passed (359 to 64) in the House of Representatives on Dec. 2, 2015 Passed (85 to 12) in the US Senate on Dec. 9, 2015 Signed by President Obama on December 10, 2015 Transition from NCLB to ESAA over the school year Full implementation beginning in Negotiated rule-making process still underway Many of the details are yet to be worked out

5 Standards and Assessment Standards remain essentially the same State must adopt challenging State academic standards Must be aligned with entrance requirements for credit-bearing coursework in the system of public higher education in the State and relevant career and technical education standards Essentially college and career readiness standards Testing regimen remains the same Annual testing of English Language Arts (ELA)/Reading & Math in grades 3-8 and once in high school Testing of science once in elementary, middle, and high school

6 Subgroups Subgroup requirements essentially the same Major racial/ethnic groups Economically disadvantaged Children with disabilities Gender English Language Learners May include former ELLs for up to 4 years after redesignation in the ELL Subgroup Increase of 2 years from before Migrant status States still free to set minimum subgroup size, but must justify Eliminated the super subgroups many states were using under ESEA Flexibility

7 Accountability Flexibility Adequate yearly progress (AYP) system of accountability eliminated States given far greater flexibility to establish their own accountability system, goal setting, and intervening in lowperforming schools Plans must be peer-reviewed and approved by the Department of Ed

8 State Accountability Plans State Accountability programs must consider at least four factors factors: 1. Proficiency on state tests 2. English language proficiency (of ELLs) 3. Some other academic factor (e.g., growth, graduation rates) 4. Other indicator (e.g., Student & teacher engagement, School climate/safety, access to advanced placement courses) Also, at least 95% participation on state assessments

9 State Accountability Plans Intervening in low performing schools States must intervene in the bottom 5% of schools and high schools with less than 67% graduation rates Schools must create plans for struggling subgroups Districts must create plans for lowest performing schools State steps in after 4 years if no progress Take over school, fire principal, convert to charter school, etc. No requirement to tie test scores to teacher evaluations U.S. Secretary of Ed can t force or encourage CCSS or any other standards, assessments, or partnerships

10 Flexibility in Assessment May include measure of student academic growth May be partially delivered in the form of portfolios, projects, or extended performance tasks May use computer adaptive assessments State Assessments may be administered through a single summative assessment, OR Multiple state-wide interim assessments during the course of the academic year that result in a single summative score Must provide valid, reliable and transparent information on student achievement or growth

11 Inclusion of ELLs in Academic Assessments As before, ELLs must be included in state academic assessments Must be assessed in a valid and reliable manner provided with appropriate accommodations including, to the extent practicable Assessments in the language and form most likely to yield accurate data on what such students know and can do in academic content areas until such students have achieved English language proficiency ELL students attending US schools for less than 3 consecutive years may be assessed in a language other than English (or in another form) Can be extended to 2 additional consecutive years if student has not attained sufficient English proficiency to yield valid and reliable information on an English reading/language arts test.

12 Inclusion of ELLs in Academic Assessments Option A Include English-language learners' test scores after they have been in the country one year Option B 1 st Year (in U.S.) ELLs required to take both Reading/ELA and Math tests Test scores must be reported to the public Test scores won t count towards a school s rating 2 nd Year States must incorporate ELLs' scores for both reading and math, using some measure of growth. 3 rd Year ELLs scores treated just like any other students.

13 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) English Language Proficiency (ELP) standards and assessments for ELLs moved from Title III to Title I Requirements essentially the same as before ELP Standards must be aligned with challenging State academic standards ELP standards must cover listening, speaking, reading, and writing and address different proficiency levels ELP assessments and accountability systems must measure Students progress in learning English Students progress in attaining English proficiency

14 Other ELL Requirements Districts and states must report additional data on ELLs with disabilities Long-term ELLs Those that don t reclassify with a set period of time States must established consistent standards to determine When student required ELL services When students can be exited from services Title III remains but mainly focuses on funding and support for language instruction education programs, and monitoring and reporting requirements on the progress of ELLs in meeting state standards

15 Implications for ELLs Positives Change from limited English Proficient (LEP) to English Learners (ELs) Removal of unrealistic expectations like 100% of ELLs passing all state tests by a given year Requirement for an ELL Subgroup means needs of ELLs can t be ignored Move of English Language Proficiency Standards and Assessments from Title III to Title I raises its importance in school accountability plans More flexibility in goal setting, interventions Specific interventions may be required for schools with poor ELL performance Some relief from ELL test scores in school accountability formulas in first 2 years Some consideration of ELL students ELP levels in accountability Some consideration of growth over time

16 Implications for ELLs Concerns Focus is still on accountability through high-stakes tests Validity and reliability issues, and ineffectiveness of accommodations for ELLs on large-scale tests have not been resolved 3 years likely not enough time for ELLs to develop sufficient English proficiency before their test scores used in school accountability formulas Inclusion of former ELLs in the ELL subgroup for 4 years may actually mask needs of actual ELLs No recognition of or encouragement for the development of bilingualism and biliteracy Exclusive focus on English