Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Assessing Bilingual Children Essay Assignment
Figure 2.1 School as sorters
Source: Paul Davis Chapman from Stefanakis, E. (1999) Whose Judgment Counts? Assessing Bilingual Children, K-3. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
During the 1960s and 1970s, test fairness became a concern for many. Changes to the testing standards (Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing) illustrate the growing concern by the measurement community over testing fairness for non-English- speaking children. The 1966 version of the Standards focused on what is required for test-accompaniment manuals. The 1974 version, however, for the first time included standards for the use of tests. A decade later, the 1985 Standards included a section on standards for ‘particular’ applications, with a section specifically designated for the testing of linguistic minorities. The 1999 version dedicates one-third of the book to fairness in testing, with a focus on testing individuals of diverse linguistic backgrounds, and the most recent version (2014) includes a more articulated chapter on fairness with more examples than before of EBs (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 1966, 1974, 1985, 1999, 2014). Despite these articulate and supportive standards, test misuse runs rampant.
The issue of fairness in EB assessment has gained more nationwide attention as legislation such as NCLB looks toward the inclusion of all children in large-scale assessments as a way to provide equal learning opportunity. August and Hakuta (1998)
35
warned of the great need to develop guidelines for determining when EBs are ready to take the same assessments as their English-proficient peers, and when versions of an assessment other than the standard English version should be administered. They also emphasized the need to develop psychometrically sound and practical assessments and assessment procedures that incorporate EBs into district- and state-assessment systems.
Standards from the measurement community have warned researchers and practitioners about the potential validity threats for EBs taking tests in English. For non-English speakers and those who speak some dialects of English, every test given in English becomes, in part, a language or literacy test (AERA, APA, NCME, 1985: 73). The 1999 version of the same standards warn that test norms based on native speakers of English either should not be used with individuals whose first language is not English, or such individuals’ test results should be interpreted as reflecting, in part, the current level of English proficiency rather than ability, potential, aptitude or personality characteristics or symptomatology (AERA, APA, NCME, 1999: 91). Also in 1999, the National Research Council (NRC, 1999), which formed a Committee on Appropriate Test Use, echoes the same message: The test score for an EB is likely to be affected by construct irrelevant variance (CIV) and, therefore, is likely to underestimate his or her knowledge of the subject being tested.
Many EB educators are aware of the history of test misuse for EBs and have tried to move away from the deficit perspectives of non-English-speaking children in schools, but the practices dominating schools and policies today perpetuate these old ideas. Since the 1960s, several frameworks for interpreting success and failure in schools have been explored to counter the dominant genetic argument so popular in the 1800s and 1900s. Two frameworks from Guadalupe Valdés and John Ogbu are explored below to help EB educators interpret and explain the factors and different perspectives on success/failure of EBs in schools.
Theories that Explain Success and Failure
Throughout history, myriad and complex theories have attempted to explain why some children succeed in school and others do not.
36
The question generally is approached through two broad theoretical frameworks – the deficit argument and the difference argument. The deficit argument holds that the impoverished child is failing in school because he or she is not ready for school. The communities, homes and cultures from which the child comes are lacking, and this leads to a disadvantage at school. The difference argument targets the school as being unready, rather than the child, and claims that the deficit argument is based on ethnocentric research plus Anglo middle-class norms and values.
Guadalupe Valdés (1996) suggests that explanations of school failure can be categorized in terms of the genetic argument, the cultural argument and the class analysis argument. The genetic argument (discussed earlier in this chapter) has been out of favor for a number of years; it views some groups as genetically more able than others, and because of these inherent differences, children of different racial and ethnic groups perform differently in schools.
The cultural argument proposes that children who perform poorly in schools are either culturally deprived (devalues the child’s culture) or culturally different (values the child’s culture) and therefore mismatched with schools and school personnel. In general, this school of thought takes the position that non- mainstream parents do not have the ‘right’ attitude toward the value of education, do not prepare their children well for school or are not sufficiently involved in their children’s education. Valdés (1996) states that there is a fine line between the culturally deprived and culturally different explanations. The cultural difference argument supports the idea that the experiences of all children are rich, even if they are not the values respected by the educational institution.
The class analysis argument ascribes school failure to the role of education in maintaining class differences (that is, maintaining the power of some over others). For this argument, it is no accident that children of the middle classes are primarily sorted into the ‘right’ streams or tracks in school and given access to particular kinds of knowledge. The role of the schools, using testing as a tool, is to legitimize inequality under the pretense of serving all students and encouraging them to reach their full potential. The system succeeds because, although the cards are clearly stacked against some students, these students come to believe that they are in fact
37
given an opportunity to succeed. They leave school firmly convinced they could have done better – perhaps achieved as much as their middle-class peers – if only they had tried harder or worked more. They are then ready to accept low-paying, working- class jobs, and the working class is thus reproduced (Valdés, 1996).
In a classic study that documented the class analysis argument, Jean Anyon (1980) studied a sample of schools from the working class, the middle class and the affluent professional class. In the working-class schools, schoolwork consisted of following the steps of a procedure. The procedure was usually mechanical, involving rote behavior and very little choice or decision-making. In the middle-class schools, work consisted of getting the right answer. If one accumulated enough right answers, one received a good grade. Directions often called for some figuring, some choice and some decision-making. In the affluent professional schools, work was creative activity, carried out independently. The students were continually asked to express and apply ideas and concepts (Anyon, 1980). This differentiated schooling, as highlighted in Anyon’s research, inevitably leads to a replication of social class structure and helps to explain the class analysis argument for school success or failure.
Another theoretical framework through which to view student success and failure, is John Ogbu’s (1998) cultural-ecological theory. Ogbu is well known for his explanation of how minority students are classified based not upon numbers but upon their different histories. Differences in student performances, explained through a two-part theory, are the result of the treatment of minority groups within both school and society at large, as well as minorities’ perceptions of that treatment and their responses in school.
The first part of Ogbu’s theory, which concerns what he terms ‘the system’, explains the way minorities are treated or mistreated in education in terms of educational policies, pedagogy, returns for their investments or school credentials. The second part of the theory concerns ‘community forces’ – the way minorities respond to schooling as a consequence of their treatment. These minority responses are also affected by how and why a group became a minority.
38
Autonomous minorities are people who belong to groups that are small in number. They may be different from the dominant group in race, ethnicity, religion or language. Examples of autonomous minority groups in the US are Amish, Jews and Mormons. Although these groups may suffer discrimination, they are not totally dominated and oppressed; thus, their school achievement is no different from the dominant group (Ogbu, 1978). Voluntary (immigrant) minorities are those who have more or less willingly moved to the US because they expect better opportunities (better jobs, more political or religious freedoms) than they had in their homelands or places of origin. Involuntary (non-immigrant) minorities have been conquered, colonized or enslaved. Unlike immigrant minorities, non-immigrants have been permanently incorporated into US society against their will. Involuntary minorities in the US are original owners or residents of the land who were conquered – American Indians, Alaskan Natives and early Mexican-Americans in the southwest. This also includes Native Hawaiians and Puerto Ricans who were colonized, and Black Americans who were brought to the US as slaves.
Clearly, the ‘achievement gap’ problem is a complex one, connected to history, society and power. The next section discusses the history of policy regarding assessment for EBs.
Accountability With(out) Validity? No Child Left Behind
Educators and families need more accountability and more validity for EBs. The following section will take the reader through arguments of accountability and validity. Do we have to sacrifice one for the other?
What is NCLB? The No Child Left Behind Act started in 2002 and ended in 2015; however, its impact will remain for many years to come. Educational reform efforts in the United States in the early 21st century can be largely defined by two characteristics: (1) schools labeled as excellent are those that have good test scores in math and reading, and (2) the use of standards and test-based accountability is the way to achieve such excellence. The intent of NCLB was to provide every child in the US with a good education so that ‘no child is left behind’. However, the law’s definition of a good education – a high score on standardized tests in English and
39
mathematics – is one most educators would disagree with. To support this definition, NCLB requires that all children in 3rd through 8th grades, even EBs, be given state assessments each year in reading and mathematics.
If a child fails the test, he or she is judged to have not received a good education. If a school or district doesn’t make adequate yearly progress (AYP), it is labeled ‘in need of improvement’ and subject to some kind of major change, such as allowing students to move to another school, moving the principal and half the staff out of the school, closing the school and/or other consequences. Students who perform poorly on math and reading are considered at risk of school failure, regardless of how they perform in other subjects. The logic of NCLB makes sense, unfortunately the test and punish methods don’t.
The passage of NCLB completely changed the accountability landscape for EBs. The era before NCLB (pre-2002) can be classified in general as less accountability/more validity because teachers had more flexibility to choose valid measures of what, exactly, EBs knew. Advocates for EBs supported state-level policies that delayed the requirement that EBs take content-area standardized tests in English until they obtained sufficient levels of language proficiency; like many polices regarding EBs, the definition of ‘sufficient language proficiency’ varied from state to state. These state-level policies were put into place largely in response to years of research showing that as language proficiency increases, so does academic achievement. In other words, we have the best chance to show what content an EB knows if we wait to assess until his or her English proficiency is higher. Schools were seldom asked to be accountable for EBs before those EBs could comprehend the language of the tests. In fact, it was common for EBs to have at least three years (or more) of exemption before they were required to take the standardized tests in English for any purpose (accountability or otherwise). This backfired, though, because delayed accountability for EBs often led to inferior programs and instruction during these formative language-learning years. Advocates for EBs were unhappy with the lack of accountability, arguing that schools and policies continued to ignore the needs of EBs.
The pendulum swung fast and far after NCLB was passed. EB accountability went from nearly non-existent to attaching ultra-high
40
stakes to the performance of EBs on standardized tests in English. Despite the language of the NCLB that called for ‘valid and reliable’ assessments, the law also required that EBs be tested in English before they know English – a highly contradictory stance.
The era after NCLB (post-2002) can therefore be described, in general, as a more accountability/less validity era during which the struggles continue. In August 2006, under the Bush administration, the federal government created a new (ELL/LEP) partnership in Washington, DC, to discuss assessment requirements for EBs. One of the main goals of this meeting was to provide states with the technical assistance they needed to develop valid and reliable assessments for EBs. Three years later, a public forum was commissioned by Barack Obama’s administration and was held by the US Department of Education on December 2, 2009, in Denver, Colorado. Three prominent EB researchers were invited (Jamal Abedi, Charlene Rivera and Robert Linquanti), who called for a number of dramatic changes in the way EBs were tested. In the same year (2009), a working group advisory board for EBs was formed through the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL) to prepare a set of recommendations for the federal reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The board’s recommendations focused on improving education outcomes for EBs. Meetings focusing on Race to the Top competitive grants and a new set of tests for the Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS) followed in January 2010.
The sequence of events described above led to heated debates in the field of education, as EB educators were split about whether to support, through advocacy, much-needed accountability at what many say was at the expense of validity. Most EB educators would rather choose neither (less accountability/more validity nor more accountability/less validity) because they strive for a better balance between accountability and validity. Some say that the former ignored the needs of EBs and the latter delivered more harm than benefits to them. One negative result of NCLB was the creation of a two-tiered educational system, in which those who can’t pass the test revert to a repetitive, test-preparation curriculum, while those who pass the test receive a high-level, higher-order thinking curriculum aligned with college preparation and professional careers. One side of the debate argues that NCLB actually caused
41
the same inequities that most people believe the law was designed to eradicate, with a huge dollar sign attached to it.
Scholars in the field documented the harmful effects of NCLB as (1) dismantling bilingual education programs as a result of low English language arts (ELA) and English language proficiency (ELP) test scores (for example, see Menken & Solorza, 2014); (2) narrowing the curriculum to focus on content areas (English and math) that count for AYP; (3) declining graduation rates (as school ratings rose, graduation rates went down); (4) increasing the number of EBs classified as having special education needs; and (5) creating more situations where bilingualism is a ‘problem’ and schools and teachers are discouraged from working with students who may have difficulty passing the test. Wayne Wright (2002) interviewed teachers to explore the effects of high-stakes testing from their perspective and also reported effects such as narrowing of curriculum, linguistic bias, sociocultural and class bias and feelings of inadequacy in many teachers and students. Feelings of inadequacy can be seen in Figure 2.2 in a student drawing to describe how he feels about being tested in English.
Often, student effects are observed, but rarely are students asked how they feel about standardized testing. The illustration in Figure 2.2 was created by an EB in Arizona when his teacher asked him to draw a picture to show how he feels about taking the state’s high-stakes test.3 His response as seen in the picture was ‘I felt like not knowing nothing’. The drawing also depicts the student slumped at his desk. Clearly, in addition to a low score, taking the test led him to feelings of inadequacy.
Doubts about NCLB The logic of NCLB targeted two ‘gaps’ in achievement. One gap
is the differences in test scores and quality of schooling among subgroups within the US (e.g. white vs. African-American or EBs vs. native English speakers). The other gap is the difference in test scores between the US and other countries. Comparing the US to China, Yong Zhao (2009) authored a book titled Catching Up or Leading the Way in which he questions whether test-driven accountability will empower the US to ‘lead the way’ in quality schooling and innovation or whether it will put the US in a position where it is must try to ‘catch up’ with other nations that have tried test-based accountability for years but have begun to abandon it.
42
As an example, Zhao demonstrates how China is beginning to abandon its use of test-based accountability and test-based curriculum because of negative consequences such as a lack of innovation and the narrowing of skill sets and curriculum. He argues that since NCLB, US schools are not emphasizing the skills students truly need – such as the new globalization and technology goals – and that such neglect undermines traditional US thought and strength. He also notes that countries such as China are changing their education systems to emulate the pre-NCLB US educational system.
Figure 2.2 Drawing by EB elementary student in response to a high-stakes test: ‘I felt like not knowing nothing’
Many researchers, including David Berliner and Stephen Krashen, point to the long history of research on achievement gaps and how gaps in test scores reveal primarily one thing: the most influential factor in achievement – poverty. When compared to other countries with similar degrees of poverty, the US actually fares quite well on a global level. Berliner (2009), a well-respected researcher, argues that six out-of-school factors (OSFs) cannot be ignored in any discussion or policy aimed at closing the achievement gap. The six OSFs include: ‘(1) low birthweight and non-genetic prenatal influences on children; (2) inadequate medical, dental and vision care, often a result of inadequate or no medical insurance; (3) food insecurity; (4) environmental pollutants; (5) family relations and family stress; and (6) neighborhood characteristics’ (Berliner, 2009: 1). Berliner argues that these six OSFs are related to a host of poverty-induced physical,
43
sociological and psychological problems that children often bring to school, ranging from neurological damage and attention disorders to excessive absenteeism and oppositional behavior. Schools in high poverty neighborhoods face significantly greater challenges than those serving wealthier families, and efforts to improve educational outcomes in these schools – such as driving change through test-based accountability – are unlikely to succeed unless they are accompanied by policies that address OSFs. According to Berliner (2009), if the writers of NCLB had taken into account the complexities of poverty and passed co-requisite policies to target them and how they affect schooling, a reduction in achievement gaps might have become a reality. But this did not happen.
The way that Diane Ravitch (2010), an educational historian, sees it, during NCLB years, the Standards Movement was ‘hijacked’ by the Testing Movement. She notes that the law bypassed curriculum and standards altogether; it demanded that schools generate higher test scores in basic skills, but it required no curriculum at all nor did it raise standards. Moreover, NCLB ignored important topics such as history, civics, literature, science, the arts and geography. Ravitch realized that the new reforms had nothing to do with the substance of learning, and that accountability makes little sense if it undermines the larger goals of education. Parents are not happy.
Parents in the US are rallying across the country and a movement called the National Opt-Out Movement is gradually growing each year. Parents are opting out of state-mandated testing by keeping their children at home or requesting a separate location in school so that children can ‘refuse’ to take the test. Pennsylvania experienced a five-fold increase in parents ‘opting out’ between 2012-15. Some school districts in New York experienced over 50% of students opting out of the state- mandated math test. This movement caught the attention of Arne Duncan, former US Secretary of Education, who pledged to urge Congress to set state testing limits. News like this has been broadcast across social media and is popular on public radio stations (see for example, ‘More Parents Say No To Testing’ Here and Now, Boston NPR news station, February 27, 2015).
Support for NCLB
44
NCLB has delivered one large and significant positive effect for EBs: a new focus on accountability. If EBs don’t perform well, it’s everyone’s problem. More and more principals, superintendents and state departments of education are talking about the quality of education for EBs, as well as possible solutions. Learning how to appropriately educate EBs is now seen as the responsibility of the whole school, including English as a new language (ENL) and non- ENL teachers. In New York, for example, as of 2014 all teacher candidates have to pass a test called Educating All Students (EAS) to receive any state certification – any. The EAS test has nine indicators on it that directly target an understanding of how EBs learn best. Before NCLB, these conversations rarely happened in the mainstream education environment, and mainstream teachers could become certified without knowing anything about the needs of EBs. NCLB has also ushered in higher-quality, large-scale assessments for EBs. According to Jamal Abedi (2008), the guidelines set forth by NCLB in 2002 improved the overall quality of large-scale ELP tests compared to those used before NCLB.
A History of Assessment Events Table 2.1 presents a range of historic events that impacted
assessment in the US. This chapter ends with Table 2.2, which shows another perspective on how NCLB, a particularly influential policy, has changed the face of education, in particular, for EBs. In December 2015 the NCLB Act was replaced by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). President Obama signed ESSA into law in December 2015. The new law ends heavy federal involvement in public schools and sends much of that authority back to states and local districts.
Table 2.1 Important historical events affecting assessment and accountability in the United States
Year Event Importance
1954 Brown v. Board of Education
The outcome of this landmark case was, that ‘no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ This ruling opened the door to future litigation limiting discriminatory practices against students based on, for example language, race, ethnicity, disability, culture, etc.
1964 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
Government funds are granted to meet the needs of ‘educationally deprived children’.
45
Year Event Importance
1968 Title VII Bilingual Education Act, an amendment to ESEA
For the first time, federal funding provides support to programs specifically designed for EBs, including bilingual education
1970 Diana v. State Board of Education
Diana, a Spanish-speaking student, was diagnosed with mental retardation (MR) due to her low score on an IQ test given to her in English. When given the test again from a bilingual psychologist, Diana no longer qualified for special education. This resulted in a consent decree that mandated that IQ tests could not be the sole criteria or primary basis for diagnosis.
1972 Guadalupe Organization v. Tempe Elementary School District
The plaintiffs request was to require bilingual/bicultural services to non-English-speaking Mexican American and Yaqui Indian students. Similar to Diana, this consent decree specified that IQ tests could not be the sole criteria or primary basis for diagnosis.
1974 Lau v. Nichols Supreme Court case; establishes that language programs are necessary to provide equal educational opportunities.
1981 Castañeda v. Pickard An appeals court establishes a three-part test to determine whether schools are taking appropriate action under the 1974 Equal Educational Opportunity Act: (1) programs must be based on sound theory, (2) programs must be supported by adequate funding, and (3) programs must show effectiveness after a certain amount of time.
1984 A Nation at Risk Fear-driven report that blames the poor education system for the country’s ills. This report leads the United States down the path toward greater federal control.
1991 First National Standards
In 1991, the mathematics education community spearheaded the first standards of its kind. National Standards were written by the National Council of Teaching Mathematics (NCTM).
1994 George W. Bush becomes governor of Texas
The ‘Texas Miracle’ begins. Bush holds office as governor from 1994 to1999. The Texas Miracle impresses Congress and convinces legislators that such a model of accountability can work. Researchers McNeil and Valenzuela (2000) report that the Texas Miracle harms the education of poor and minority students.
1997 First national ELP Standards
ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students is the first set of national ELP standards.
1997 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Revisions of 1997
This particular version of the law, among other things, mandated that parent consent procedures must be in the native language, and evaluation materials be free from bias of race and culture and must be provided in child’s native language.
1998 Proposition 227 passes in California
This proposition severely limits the use of home languages in California public schools. The US ‘English Only’ movement is official.
1999 National Research Council forms committee on appropriate test use
Committee Statement: The test score for an EB is likely to be affected by Construct Irrelevant Variance (CIV) and therefore is likely to underestimate his or her knowledge of the subject being tested.
2000 George W. Bush becomes President of the United States
The Texas Miracle concept is adopted as a draft of NCLB.
2000 Proposition 203 passes in Arizona
Like California, Arizona voters severely restrict the use of home languages in public schools. The ‘English Only’ movement grows stronger.
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
Assessing Bilingual Children Essay Assignment |
Assessing Bilingual Children Essay Assignment