Electronic resource: Study on Language Accountability Policies in Arizona

[Scott G. McGINNIS]

****NEWS RELEASE****
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


THIRD-GRADE TEACHERS QUESTION EFFECTIVENESS OF ARIZONA'S 
LANGUAGE,
ACCOUNTABILITY POLICIES, STUDY SAYS

CONTACT:  Wayne E. Wright (210) 458-2024, 
Wayne.Wright at utsa.edu or
Alex Molnar (480) 965-1886 (email) epsl at asu.edu

TEMPE, Ariz. (Wednesday, December 14, 2005) - Arizona's 
English Language Learners are being left behind academically 
and a survey of the state's third-grade teachers reveals 
that the state's Sheltered English Immersion(SEI) program 
and high-stakes testing policy could be the reasons why.

The survey, "Voices from the Classroom: A Statewide Survey 
of Experienced Third-Grade English Language Learner Teachers 
on the Impact of Language and High-Stakes Testing Policies 
in Arizona" was released by the Education Policy Studies 
Laboratory at Arizona State University.  The survey
questioned a representative sample of 40 third-grade English 
Language Learner (ELL) teachers in urban, rural, and 
reservation schools in different school districts across the 
state about the education programs implemented since the 
passing of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 
(NCLB), Arizona LEARNS (the state school accountability 
program), and Proposition 203 (a voter-initiated policy that 
restricts bilingual education and requires Sheltered English 
Immersion).

The key findings from the survey are:

* Overwhelmingly, teachers agree that English is essential, 
that bilingual education can be an effective means of 
helping students learn English and achieve academic success, 
and that Proposition 203 is too restrictive and has resulted 
in less effective programs for ELL students.

* Teachers have received little to no direction from their 
school/district administrators or from the state in terms of 
what SEI is and have provided evidence that in practice SEI 
differs little from mainstream sink-or-swim education, which 
is not a legal placement for ELLs under state and federal
law.

* Overwhelmingly, ELL students are receiving little to no
English-as-a-second-language (ESL) instruction in either 
pull-out programs or within their own classrooms.

* Teachers reported confusion in their schools about what 
Proposition 203 allows with regard to primary language 
support (i.e. providing assistance to a student in his or 
her native language to help them understand content taught 
in English).  Practices vary widely from school to school.  
According to the teachers surveyed, many administrators 
issued school policies that are more restrictive than 
Proposition 203 itself, and state education leaders have 
also contributed to the false notion that state law forbids 
all use of students' native language(s).

* In schools where primary language support is allowed, 
teachers reported that they are instructed to keep it to a 
minimum, only a few teachers make use of it, and many 
teachers feel pressure not to use it by administrators
and their peers.  Some described a real climate of fear in 
their schools when it comes to providing this assistance to 
students who need it.

* Overwhelmingly, teachers are not opposed to accountability 
for ELL student achievement, but they see the need for 
different policies that (a) give ELL students time to learn 
English before taking the state test in English, (b) provide 
ELLs with appropriate accommodations, and/or (c) provide an
alternative assessment that ELLs can take until they attain 
a level of English proficiency sufficient for taking the 
regular state test in English.

* The overwhelming majority of teachers reported increases 
of instructional time in tested subject areas (reading, 
writing, and math), and decreases of instructional time in 
all other content areas (science, social studies, ESL,
art, music, and P.E.).

* Nearly half of the teachers report that test preparation 
instruction begins before Christmas, often at the beginning 
of the school year.  In the month before the tests, 60 
percent are taking one or more hours out of their 
instructional day to prepare ELLs for the high-stakes tests 
(despite the fact that most ELL test scores will be excluded 
from school accountability formulas).

* More than half of the teachers reported that ELLs were not 
provided with the testing accommodations they are entitled 
to under NCLB.  In the few schools that did provide them, 
practice varied widely due to the lack of a clearly 
articulated state accommodation policy.

* During the administration of high-stakes tests, the 
overwhelming majority of teachers reported frequently or 
occasionally observing their ELL students exhibit the 
following behaviors: complaining that they could not read the
questions or answers, complaining that they could not 
understand the questions or answers, leaving entire sections 
of the test blank, randomly filling in bubbles without 
attempting to read the questions, becoming visibly 
frustrated or upset, crying, getting sick and/or asking to 
go to the nurse, and vomiting.

Authors Wayne E. Wright, from University of Texas, San 
Antonio, and Daniel Choi, from Arizona State University, 
concluded that Proposition 203 and the state's high-stakes 
testing policy have not improved education for English
Language Learners.  They offer several recommendations, 
including:

* School districts should be given greater flexibility in 
offering waivers to those parents who want their ELL 
children to learn English and receive content-area 
instruction through bilingual programs.

* The state should provide a clear definition of SEI, making 
explicit how it differs from Mainstream sink-or-swim 
instruction, and ensure these classes are taught by 
qualified teachers who have completed the full ESL 
endorsement.

* The state must ensure that ELLs are not placed in 
Mainstream classrooms until they are fluent in English.

* The state should make allowances for and provide clear 
guidelines of the testing accommodations called for in the 
federal law.  This includes the development and use of tests 
in the students' primary languages.

* The state should heed the federal law's allowances for 
alternative content-area assessments for ELLs until they 
attain enough proficiency in English to participate in the 
regular state test (with or without accommodations).

* The state should make it explicit to administrators and 
teachers which ELL students' test scores will be excluded 
from school accountability formulas.

* The state should establish an alternative system for ELL 
impacted schools which tracks the progress of ELLs in 
various program types.

Find this document on the web at:
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPSL-0512-104-
LPRU.pdf

CONTACT:
Wayne E. Wright, Assistant Professor
University of Texas, San Antonio
(210) 458-2024
Wayne.Wright at utsa.edu

Alex Molnar, Professor and Director
Education Policy Studies Laboratory
(480) 965-1886
epsl at asu.edu
http://edpolicylab.org