ACSA has submitted comments to the U.S. Department of Education regarding proposed changes and new mandates under Title 3 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act/No Child Left Behind, which concern English learners.
The proposal went out for a 30-day comment period, and given that there are no changes to statute or regulations, the revisions could go into effect in California almost immediately, although some new mandates such as changing reclassification criteria would require legislative changes.
ACSA has serious concerns with a number of the reforms and believes the changes are best addressed under reauthorization of ESEA and by allowing states to make their own decisions in the best interest of English learners.
In the letter, ACSA stated that California educates more than 1.6 million English learners and more than 30 percent of the nation’s K-12 English learner population. California has one of the most comprehensive systems of language proficiency assessment in the country with the use of the California English Language Development Test as well as multiple indicators used at the local level to ensure language and academic fluency.
Since the inception of Title 3 accountability measures, many states have emulated the CELDT. In addition, California is progressing to improve language and academic fluency through alignment of the English Language Development Standards and English Language Arts Standards and new training opportunities for teachers of English learners, (e.g. SB 472, Alquist).
ACSA has significant concern that Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings’ hastily announced “proposed interpretations” to Title 3 are actually significant new changes with new unfunded mandates. ACSA does not believe this is a reasonable or an effective way to make change under Title 3. Reform discussions should be a part of the next reauthorization of ESEA.
ACSA believes if the U.S. DOE intends to make the changes as proposed, states will be forced to implement new mandates at the state and local level that are not funded under the current federal allocations for Title 3.
If states are required to redefine Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives 1 and 2 criteria, create new targets and significantly change their current reclassification process, this will take at a minimum 18-24 months to secure federal funding, conduct data analysis, rebench Title 3 targets and amend state statutes. Again, these significant reforms to Title 3 are more appropriately part of ESEA reauthorization.
ACSA believes the significance of the proposed Title 3 changes deserve, at the very least, a formal U.S. DOE submission of proposed regulatory changes with a minimum of a 90-day public comment period and public hearings conducted around the country. A 30-day comment period on “interpretations” is questionable and highly irregular.
ACSA comments to proposed interpretations
• ELP assessment scores for AMAOs 1 and 2. A limited English proficient student must score proficient or above in each and every language domain required under Title 3 in order to be considered to have “attained English proficiency” on a state’s ELP assessment for the purposes of AMAO 2.
Composite scores are reliable and approximate the student’s English language proficiency. California’s model considers a student “proficient” if he or she scores at the Early Advanced or Advanced levels overall, with no subskill below the Intermediate level.
So long as California continues to consider all psychometric and empirical analysis requirements for this method the secretary of education should not mandate a particular methodology or approach.
• Exclusion of LEP students without two data points from AMAO 1. LEP students would have to be included in AMAO 1 regardless of whether they have participated in two consecutive and consistent administrations of the annual CELDT. States would have to create an “alternate method of calculating AMAO 1.”
ACSA opposes this mandated change to determining base-year data for English learners. Given the fact that the purpose of AMAO 1 is to determine progress between data points and California’s CELDT is vertically scaled, ACSA sees no merit to creating a false or alternate methodology that would not serve students.
If the secretary is suggesting that states use local assessments in lieu of CELDT to create two data points, then California will not have accurate and uniform statewide assessment data to gauge language proficiency over time. This would also create confusion locally as students transfer into and out of schools that used “alternate methods/assessments.”
If the intention is to test more often, ACSA does not see value in this type of overtesting of students, as California tests on a fall-to-fall schedule to inform instruction.
A new mandate for testing would come without funding and create significant burdens on local school districts, schools and teachers.
• Attainment of English language proficiency and exiting the LEP subgroup. This interpretation assumes students would not be considered proficient for purposes of AMAO 2 until they are also “reclassified or redesignated.” States could not use criteria beyond the LEP assessment (CELDT) unless it was consistent and standardized for all schools and school districts. This would eliminate the current parent and teacher decision-making roles under California education statute.
ACSA opposes the federal government determining reclassification criteria through the Title 3 grant. California honors the rights of parents and teachers to be an integral part of the decision to reclassify or redesignate.
California Education Code Section 313 (d) requires that local educators use multiple criteria, including the CELDT, the student’s score on the California Standards Test in English-language arts, teacher evaluation that gauges overall curriculum mastery and, most importantly, parent input and consultation for every individual student.
Because of California’s comprehensive and student-driven approach to redesignation, California has found that those students who are redesignated are testing higher on the academic CSTs than many English-only speaking students.
It appears the secretary of education wants to redefine AMAO 2 to eliminate all non-standardized criteria creating a “one size fits all” decision-making process. While the CELDT is a critical component for redesignation, it should not be the only criteria, as it does not take into account the progress on academic assessments, conversational fluency, academic fluency, classroom performance and the expertise of teachers.
Local educators and parents best determine these decisions. Disenfranchising parents and teachers from participating in a child’s education will not result in higher levels of language proficiency and could prematurely cut off needed services for English learners.
• AMAOs and the use of cohorts. States may establish cohorts for AMAO targets, calculations and determinations and set separate targets for separate groups or cohorts of LEP students based on the amount of time they have access to language instruction programs, but not on time in the United States or any other criteria other than time in a language program. For a school or school district to meet an AMAO target overall, all cohorts for whom the state has set separate targets would have to meet all the AMAO targets set.
ACSA believes if enacted, this change would create a bias against certain districts and schools that have higher numbers of English learners at the beginning level of language proficiency and who migrate into certain areas of the state (border areas, central valley, etc.) and a bias against those schools and districts that receive large numbers of migrant students who cycle in and out of the school system based on the agricultural seasons.
ACSA believes prohibiting the recognition of the time a student is in the country, or levels of proficiency, in order to punish schools and districts that serve these students, is not fair. It is unclear why using just one criterion is sufficient or research based.
What does “time in an instructional program” mean? Is this how long they have been exposed to a textbook or a class? Is it a particular kind of program? Again, this does not address the unique needs of each English learner. ACSA opposes this rigid approach.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell and State Board of Education President Theodore Mitchell also submitted comments to the DOE.
O’Connell said this interpretation would severely restrict the role of teachers and parents in making educationally important decisions regarding program placement and instructional services. As a result, the parents and teachers of California English learner students – representing 30 percent of the nation’s K-12 English learner population – will be disenfranchised from participating in these important educational decisions.
“We are troubled by the dramatic changes contained in these interpretations and by the very short time period provided for public comment,” O’Connell and Mitchell wrote in their joint letter.