Standardized Testing in a Non-Standardized World: The ...
Transcript of Standardized Testing in a Non-Standardized World: The ...
1
StandardizedTestinginaNon-StandardizedWorld:TheUnfairnessofHigh-StakesStandardizedTestinganditsImplicationsforEnglish
LanguageLearnersinTexas
RebeccaOrsakWashingtonandLeeUniversityClassof2018
POV423
ProfessorBrotzmanWinter2017
Abstract:Thispaperaimstodeterminewhetherfederallymandatedstandardizedtestsprovidefairequalityofopportunityforallstudents.Toassesstheeffectsofhigh-stakestesting,IresearchedtheperformanceofEnglishlanguagelearnersinTexaspublicschoolsonstandardizedtests.Further,Ianalyzedtheconsequencesofpoorperformanceonstandardizedtestingonbothschoolsandstudents,applyingtheseimpactsspecificallytoEnglishlanguagelearners.ThispaperutilizesaRawlsianethicalframeworktodeterminethefairnessoftestingasitiscurrentlyimplemented.Throughthisresearch,Iholdthattheimplementationandtheimpactsofhigh-stakesstandardizedtestingcompoundexistingdisadvantagesforcertainstudents,includingEnglishLanguageLearners.Further,standardizedtestingdoesnotaccomplishitsintendedgoalsundertheNoChildLeftBehindActofpromotingandmeasuringacademicachievement.
2
INTRODUCTIONTherearemanyfactorsthateithercontributetooralleviatethecycleofpoverty:income,
systemicracism,disabilities,etc.However,policymakersandscholarsacrossthespectrum
haveplacedanemphasisoneducationasanequalizer-anopportunitytoriseoutof
poverty,andanimperativeindicatorofwellbeing.In2001,thepassageoftheNoChildLeft
BehindAct(NCLB)attemptedtoensureequalqualityofeducationacrossthenation.
However,insteadoffocusingonmaximizingtheinputsthatincreasequalityofeducation,
theactcreatedastringentsystemofmeasurementwithhopesthatimplementationof
educationwouldconsequentlyimprove.Specifically,theactmandatedtheintroductionfor
high-stakesstandardizedtesting.Standardizedtestsareexaminationsadministered,
assessed,andanalyzedonalargescale;whilestandardizedtestsarenotinherentlyhigh
stakes,theyareoftenusedforhighstakespurposes.1Testsusedasdeterminatesof
outcomessuchasgraduationoradvancementintosubsequentgradelevelsareconsidered
high-stakes.Althoughmeasurementofprogressprovidespolicymakerswithindicatorsas
tomethodsthatwork,schoolsthatneedattention,andpotentialproblemstobeaddressed,
thesystemcurrentlyemployedduetotheNCLBactalsohasnegativeconsequences.
“Standardized”testsassumethatthepopulationitselfthatisbeingassessedisalso
standardized.Thismarginalizesstudentswithacademicgiftsandskillsotherthanthose
capturedonstandardizedtests.Rather,thesystemfavorsstudentswhoexcelinthespecific
skillsmeasuredbythetests,disadvantagingchildrenwithabilitiesorknowledgeoutsideof
thisscope. 1“HowStandardizedTestsShape-andLimit-StudentLearning.”NationalCouncilofTeachersofEnglish.2014.2“LanguageProficiencyAssessmentCommittee:FrameworkManual.”TexasEducationAgency.2016.
3
Theriseofstandardizedtestingandthecorrespondingsignificanceplaceduponits
resultscanbeexplainedthroughoutthehistoryofeducationpolicy(specificallyinitiatives
regardingmeasurementandattemptstocreateequalopportunityofeducation).Although
someinequalitycanbeexpectedinatestingsituationsuchastheonecreatedbyNCLB,I
willarguethatthroughJohnRawls’theoryofjusticeasfairnessthattheinequalitycreated
bystandardizedtestingisinherentlyunfairasnoteveryonehasthefairequalityof
opportunitytosucceedintestingandtheeffectsoflow-performancearedisproportionally
detrimentaltotheleastadvantagedgroups.
Toillustratethisunfairness,IwilldescribetheexperienceofEnglish-language
learners(ELLs).Becausestates’standardizedtestsdifferwidely,Iwill,forthesakeof
clarity,focusonTexas,thestatewiththesecondhighestpopulationofELLs.Accordingto
theTexasEducationAgency(TEA),anEnglish-languagelearneris,“Apersonwhoisinthe
processofacquiringEnglishandhasanotherlanguageasthefirstnativelanguage.”2Iwill
highlighthowELLsareoutsideofthenormforwhichthetestisdesignedandare
disproportionatelydisadvantagedbystandardizedtests.Thisunfairnessisevidentinthe
structure,implementation,andunnecessarilysevereimplicationsofstatewide
standardizedtesting.Thisdisparitybecomesapparentthroughthe“achievementgap”,a
termrecognizedbyeducatorsreferringtotestresultdisparitiesthatariseamongst
differentdemographicgroupsofstudents.3Thispaperwilloutlinetheaccommodations
ELLsreceiveinTexas,theramificationsofpoortestingperformanceonbothschoolsand
2“LanguageProficiencyAssessmentCommittee:FrameworkManual.”TexasEducationAgency.2016.3Morales,ChristinaM.,andSaenz,Rogelio.“CorrelatesofMexicanAmericanStudents’StandardizedTestScores:AnIntegratedModelApproach.”HispanicJournalofBehavioralSciences.Vol29No.3.August2007.
4
individualstudents,andthechangeshigh-stakestestingcreatesforELLswithinthe
classroom.
Ultimately,theimplementationandtheimpactsofhigh-stakesstandardizedtesting
compoundsexistingdisadvantagesforcertainstudents,includingEnglishLanguage
Learners.Further,standardizedtestingdoesnotaccomplishitsintendedgoalsof
promotingandmeasuringacademicachievement.Giventheproblematiceffectsofhigh-
stakestesting,Irecommendthatpolicymakersimplementanalternativemethodof
accountabilityforschoolsthatincludesbothqualitativeandquantitativemeasuresand
providemoreextensiveaccommodationsforELLs.
HISTORYOFSTANDARDIZEDTESTING
ProvidingequalqualityeducationtoAmericanstudentsischallenging;withawide
geographicspan,arrayofculturalbackgrounds,andvaryingopinionsastotheappropriate
extentofgovernmentinvolvementinstateaffairs,boththeimplementationand
measurementofanadequateeducationisnotaneasyfeat.
Withconstitutionalauthorityofeducation,stategovernmentsdifferedin
approachestoschoolaccountabilitypriortofederallymandatedtesting.Beginninginthe
1980s,Texasintroduced“minimumcompetencyexams”asagraduationrequirementofit
itsstudents.4Texaslegislaturesexpandedthisinitiativein1993throughastate-wide
accountabilitysysteminvolvedinrankingandscoringofvariousschooldistrictsbasedon
studenttestresults.In1994,the“ImprovingAmerica’sSchoolsAct”wasintroduced
4Heilig,JulianVasquez;Darling-Hammond,Linda.“AccountabilityTexas-Style:TheProgressandLearningofUrbanMinorityStudentsinaHigh-StakesTestingContext.”AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation.SagePublications.June11,2008.Web.
5
nation-wide;althoughitdidnotconstrictstatestoanyspecificstandard,itfederally
mandatedtheincorporationofuniformacademicmaterialstatewideandsubsequently
measurementofstudentachievement.5Thislegislationledtotheformalizationofhigh
stakesstandardizedtesting,executedbythestates,toensurestudentachievementof
material.
However,thepassingofNCLBin2001undertheBushAdministrationusedthis
policyasaspringboardtofurthertheefforttomaximizeaccountabilityofschoolswitha
hopethatthiswouldpromoteincreasedqualityofeducationacrossthenation.6Thisact
raisedthemandatoryparticipationrateofstudentsinstandardizedtestingto95%forall
students.Thisforcedadministratorstoincludesubgroups,suchasEnglish-language
learners,thathadoftenbeenexcludedfromtestingduetovariousbarrierstoeducational
successtofullypartakeinmandatedtesting.7
NCLBhasleftalastingimpactonhowschoolsfunctiontothisday.Thestructureof
theactenactedpunitivemeasurestoincreaseaccountability,takingfundingawayfrom
localeducationagencies(LEAs)thatwereunabletomeetspecificstandardsfortwo
consecutiveyears(includespecificmeasuresforsubgroupssuchasimpoverishedstudents
andEnglish-languagelearners).8
NoChildLeftBehindandTitleI
5Menken,Kate.“TeachingtotheTest:HowNoChildLeftBehindImpactsLanguagePolicy,Curriculum,andInstructionforEnglishLanguageLearners.BilingualResearchJournal.Summer2006.pp.521-546.6Ibid.7U.S.DepartmentofEducation,OfficeoftheSecretary,OfficeofPublicAffairs,AGuidetoEducationandNoChildLeftBehind,Washington,D.C.,2004.8Ibid.
6
WhiletheguidelinesillustratedinNCLBcanbeutilizedbyanyinstitution,theacthas
statutoryauthorityoverTitleIschools.TitleIencompasseslocaleducationagenciesthat
disproportionatelyservechildrenfromlow-incomefamilies;theseschoolsreceivevarious
grantsandfundingtoensureeducationforthesedisadvantagedpopulations.9Inthe
academicyearendinginSpringof2010,approximately56,000wereaffectedbyTitleI,
receivingsomeformoffinancialsupportfromthisprogram.10Further,theTitleIprogram
imposesthatschoolsusethesefundsspecificallyonstudentsidentifiedtobefromlow-
incomebackgrounds;theycanonlydelegatefundsforschoolwideprogramsiftheyreacha
minimumof40%oflow-incomestudents.11BecauseNCLBisonlycompulsoryforschools
qualifyingforTitleIfunding,anydetrimentaleffectsofthepolicywillexclusivelyaffect
low-incomechildren.
AllschoolsthatfallundertheumbrellaofNCLBarerequiredtoimplementvarious
accountabilitymeasures,specificallystatewidestandardizedtesting.Thistesting,ata
minimum,isobligatoryforstudentsgradesthreethrougheightandconsistsofevaluation
inreadingandmathematics.12Administratorscompiletheresultstodetermineifschools
meetadequateyearlyprogress(AYP)asdefinedbythestate.13TheAYPrequirementnot
onlyappliestothestudentswithinaschoolasacollectivegroupbutalsoappliesto
subgroupscategorizedbasedonrace,socioeconomicstatus,disabilities,andEnglish
9“Programs:ImprovingBasicProgramsOperatedbyLocalEducationalAgencies(TitleI,PartA).”U.S.DepartmentofEducation.October10,2015.10Ibid.11Ibid.12“NCLB:ExecutiveSummary.”U.S.DepartmentofEducation.February10,2004.13“QuestionsandAnswersonNoChildLeftBehind.”U.S.DepartmentofEducation.September9,2003.
7
proficiency.14Statesmonitorschoolsbasedonholisticresultsofstudentsbutalsoon
disaggregateddataregardingsubgroupstoensurethatadequateperformanceisnot
explainedbytraditionallyadvantagedstudentsalone;thisanalysisaimstoensureschools
accommodateforallgroupsofstudents.NCLBprovidesthefollowingstepstobetakenif
schoolsfailtomeettheAYP.
Figure1:NCLBPlanforSchoolsFailingtoMeetAYPU.S.DepartmentofEducation
NumberofYearsFailingtoMeetAYP
MandatedActions NumberofSchoolsinTexasinthisCategory(2016)15
OneYear Schoolwillbeidentifiedas“NeedingImprovement.”
241
TwoConsecutiveYears Schoolwillbeidentifiedas“NeedingImprovement.”Itwillberequiredtodevelopatwo-yearplantomeettheAYPgoal.Familiesaregiventheoptiontotransfertheirstudenttoadifferentschoolwithinthedistrict(includingcharterschools)thatarenot“NeedingImprovement.”
82
ThreeConsecutiveYears Previousstipulationsstillapply.Low-incomestudents(asidentifiedbyTitleI)becomeeligibleforstate-sponsoredacademicsupportprograms.
49
FourConsecutiveYears Previousstipulationsstillapply,Thedistrictisrequiredtoimplement“correctiveaction”,includingbutnotlimitedto:creatinganewacademiccurriculumfortheschoolandreplacingstaffmembers.
52
FiveConsecutiveYears Theschoolwillundergo“restructuring.”This 19
14Ladd,HelenF.“NoChildLeftBehind:ADeeplyFlawedFederalPolicy.”Point/Counterpoint.JournalofPolicyAnalysisandManagement.15“Final2016AccountabilityRatings.”DepartmentofAssessmentandAccountability.DivisionofPerformanceReporting.TexasEducationAgency.November15,2016.
8
couldmean:becomingacharterschool,givingupcontrolofoperationstothestateorevenaprivatecompany.
Total number of public campuses in Texas: 4,435.
16Schoolsarerequiredtoemploysanctionsuntiltheyhaveachievedthestate-setAYPgoal
fortwoyearsinarow.17Failuretocomplywiththistestingmodeloritsmandated
remedialactionswillresultinlossofsubsequentfundingthroughTitleI.18Forthe2015-
2016schoolyear,88.6%oftheschoolsinTexasearnedaratingofMetStandardanddid
notneedtoimplementanychangesunderNCLB.19
CreatorsofNCLBcitetheabilityofstudentstowithdrawalfromschoolsfailingto
meetadequatestandardsfortestingasamainbenefittotheAct.However,schoolsare
limitedintheirintakeofstudents;schools,regardlessoftheamountofspacelefttotakeon
newstudents,arenotallowedtodenytransfersinthiscapacity.20
OneofthemainactionsNCLBrequiresschoolstotakeonisrestructuring.However,
studieshaveshownschoolrestructuringdoesnotsignificantlyimpactstudentscores,
promotionrates,ordrop-outrates.21Rather,schooladministratorsciteindiscriminate
changesmadebyexternalsourcescreatingadditionalchallengesintheprocessof
promotingstudentachievement.
16“QuestionsandAnswersonNoChildLeftBehind.”U.S.DepartmentofEducation.September9,2003.17RegulationsoftheOfficesoftheDepartmentofEducation,34C.F.R.§200.44(d).2002.18Menken,Kate.“TeachingtotheTest:HowNoChildLeftBehindImpactsLanguagePolicy,Curriculum,andInstructionforEnglishLanguageLearners.”BilingualResearchJournal.Summer2006.PP.521-546.19“Highlightsofthe2016StateAccountabilityResults.”TexasEducationAgency.November17,2016.Web.20RegulationsoftheOfficesoftheDepartmentofEducation,34C.F.R.§200.44(d).2002.21Hamilton,MadleneP;Heilig,JulianVasquez;Pazey,BarbaraL.“ANostrumofSchoolReform?TurningAroundReconstitutedUrbanTexasHighSchools.”UrbanEducation.SagePublications.(2104).Vol.49No.2.PP182-215.
9
ASSESSMENTOFSTANDARDIZEDTESTING
Standardizedtestingassumesahomogenousgroupoftesttakers;however,a
heterogeneousstudentpopulationleadstostudentshavingdifferentexperienceswithtest-
taking.Forthepurposeofthispaper,IwillrefertotheexperiencesthatEnglish-language
learners,specificallySpanishspeakers,havehadwithstandardizedtesting.Byincluding
thisexample,Iwillillustratethatstandardizedtestingisplaguedbyunfairness.Also,given
thevariationoftestingbasedonstate(althoughNCLBstipulatedcertainsubjectsandgrade
levelstobetested,itdeferredmanydecisionsastohowtestsareimplementedtothestate
level),IwillusetheStateofTexasAssessmentofAcademicReadiness(STAAR)asa
reference.
POPULATIONOFENGLISHLANGUAGELEARNERS
WithintheUnitedStates,English-languagelearnershavebeenidentifiedasthefastest
growingpopulationinthepublicschoolsystem.22AccordingtheNationalCenterfor
EducationStatistics,therewereapproximately4.5millionstudentswhowereidentifiedas
Englishlanguagelearners,comprisingatotalof9.3%ofallpublicschoolstudentsforthe
2013-2014academicyear.Ofthese4.5millionstudents,76.5%ofthestudentsidentified
theirprimarylanguageaseitherSpanishorCastilian.
AspartofNCLB,policymakersdecidedthatitwasimportanttomeasurethe
progressofacclimationtotheEnglishlanguage.23Consequently,theyprovidecertain
accommodationstoallowforfairtestingofallstudents.Thispolicybringsuptwosalient
22 “AddressingAchievementGaps.”PolicyEvaluationandResearchCenter.EducationalTestingService.Vol16.No.3.Fall2008.23“GuidelinesfortheAssessmentofEnglishLanguageLearners.”EducationalTestingService.2009.Web.
10
dilemmas:isitethicaltoholdEnglish-languagelearnerstothecurrentlevelofEnglish
attainmentwhentheirpeersfacenosimilarbarrier,anddotheseaccommodations
effectivelymeasureskillsbesidesEnglishcomprehension?
NOCHILDLEFTBEHINDPOLICIESTOWARDSENGLISHLANGUAGELEARNERS
NCLBrequiresthatELLsachievelevelsofproficiencysimilartotheirpeers.Specifically,the
actrequiresstatestotestELLsinbothacademiccontentandprogressinEnglishlanguage
proficiency.24ThesestudentsareheldtothesamestandardofAYPasnativespeakers,even
thoughtheymustovercometheadditionaltaskofforeignlanguageacquisition.
CurrentAccommodationsforELLs
Giventheheavyemphasisontheattainmentoflanguageproficiencyandchallengesof
participatinginatestinaforeignlanguage,NCLBhasoutlinedtheneedtolinguistic
accommodationsinstatewidestandardizedtesting.25However,eachstatemustadaptthe
guidancetofititsspecificneeds.LookingatTexasasacaseexample,andassessingthe
variousrulesinpracticeversusinprinciple,itbecomesapparentthatthecurrent
accommodationsgiventoEnglish-languagelearnersisnotsufficienttomitigatethelackof
validityinstandardizedtesting.
TheTexasSTAAR(StateofTexasAssessmentofAcademicReadiness)hasguidelines
ashowtoidentifystudentsneedingaccommodation,whichlevelofaccommodationthey
qualifyfor,andwhatspecificassistancewillbeprovided.LocalandqualifiedLanguage
24NoChildLeftBehindActof2001,P.L.107-110,20U.S.C.§6319(2002).25Ibid.
11
ProficiencyAssessmentCommittees(LPAC),inconjunctionwithcampus-levelstaff,assess
theEnglishabilitiesofstudentspetitioningforlinguisticaccommodationsontheirexams.
Specifically,thestatemandatesthatinstructorsadheretotheprocessoutlinedinFigure2
toproperlyidentifythenecessaryaccommodationsforELLs.
TheLPACassignsstudentstoeitherbilingualeducationprogramsorEnglishasa
secondlanguageprograms.ELLsinbilingualprogramsreceivefulltimeinstructionina
combinationofEnglishandthestudent’snativelanguage(inthiscase,Spanish).26
Curriculumintheseclassroomsfocusesbothonacademicattainmentincoresubjects,
specificallythosetestedbySTAAR,andmasteryofEnglishskills.Thisoptionismost
accommodatingforELLsastheylearnmaterialinSpanish.However,academiccontentis
alsotaughtinEnglishinanattempttofacilitatethetransitionfromSpanishtoEnglish.
Studentswhodonotqualifyforthebilingualprogrambutwhowouldstillstruggle
tosucceedinEnglish-onlyinstructionreceiveEnglishasaSecondLanguage(ESL)
placement.TheTEAdescribestheseprogramsas,“…intensiveEnglishlanguageinstruction
byteacherstrainedineffectivelanguageacquisitionstrategies.”27Thecurriculumfocuses
bothonsuccessinacademicsubjectstaughtingeneralclassroomsinadditiontoreading,
writing,andspeakinginEnglish.Inthisprogram,studentswithlimitedEnglishabilityare
taughtalmostcompletelyinEnglishwithteacherswhocanprovidetranslationsasneeded.
Theseprograms,intandemwithrequirementsunderNCLB,areproblematic:ELLs
inbilingualandESLprogramsareexpectedtoachievethesamelevelsofproficiencyin
readingandmathasNativespeakers,yettheyareexpectedtolearnthecontentinaforeign
26Stanley,Dan.“BilingualEducationProgram:BenefitsforYourChild.”TexasEducationAgencyDivisionofCurriculum.TexasEducationAgency.2016.27“EnglishasaSecondLanguageProgram:BenefitsforYourChild.”TexasEducationAgencyDivisionofCurriculum.TexasEducationAgency.2016.
12
language.Further,withintheparametersoftheseven-hourschoolday,ELLsparticipating
inthisprogrammustnotonlyfindtimetostayontrackwiththesamecurriculumasnative
speakersbutalsodedicatedtimetolearningEnglish.Ascurrentlyimplemented,Texas
programsforELLsplaceanextraburdenofeducationonthestudentswithhigh
expectationforsuccessintestingwithoutprovidingextraresources(suchastimebeyond
theseven-hourschoolday)forthemtodoso.Theseaccommodationsarenotextensive
enoughtopromoteacademicsuccessandEnglishlanguageacquisition.
13
Figure2:EnglishLanugageLearnerTrainingFlowchartTexasEducationAgency
AllStudents
HomeLanguageSurvey
Languagespokenathomeandbystudent
isEnglish
Non-ELL
LanguagespokenathomeadbystudentisEnglishandanyotherlanguage
TEST:PreKthrough1stgrade=OralLanguagePromicientTest(OLPT).2ndthrough12thgrade=PLPTandNormReferencedStandardizedAchievementTest
(NRT)
LPACMeeting
ELL
ParentalNotimication
Placement:BilingualProgram
ExitFromProgram
Placement:ESLProgram
ExitFromProgram
Non-ELL
Languagespokenathomeandbystudentis
notEnglish
14
28
Oncestudents’English-languageabilityistested,theyareidentifiedasqualifyingtooneof
fourtestingoptions.Themostextensiveaccommodation,STAARSpanish,isanexam
administeredcompletelyinSpanish.However,onlystudentsingrades3through5
potentiallyqualifyforthisexam.Figure3outlinestheSTAARtestsavailabletoqualified
ELLs.Itisimportanttonotethatanyextratimethatisallocateddoesnotextendbeyond
thetraditionalseven-hourschoolday.
28“LimitedEnglishProficientTrainingFlowchart.”TexasEducationAgency.TexasEnglishLanguageLearnersPortal.2012.
15
• "Limiteddegreeoflinguisitcaccommodation."• Accommodations:instructorsmayprovidedbilingualdictionaries(allstudents.includingnon-ELLs,willbeprovidedwithEnglishdictionaries)andclarifythemeaningofwordsincludedintheexampromptorinshortanswerreadingquestions.
STAAR(English)
• "Moderatetosubstantialdegreeoflinguisticaccommodation."• STAARLisonlyavailableforthefollowingsubjects:mathematics,science,andsocialstudies• Accommodations:instructorsmayprovidebilingualdictionaries,clarifythemeaningofanEnglishword,allocateextratestingtime,andreadtextoutloud
STAARL
• "DegreevariesinaccordancewithsecondlanguageacquisitionneedsofELLswhoqualifyforthistest."
• STAARAisavailableforallsubjectsexceptforAlgerbraIIandEnglishII• Accommodations:instructorsmayprovidebilingualdictionaries(allstudents,indludingnon-ELLs,willbeprovidedwithEnglishdictionaries),clarifythemeaningofanEnglishword,andallocateextratestingtime.
STAARA
• "Nospecimiedlinguisticaccommoations;assessmentdesignallowsotherlanguagesandcommunicationmethodstobeusedasappropropriate."
• TexasoffersthisversionofSTAARtostudentsparticipatinginspecialeducationalprogramsduetocognitivediasbilities.
• Applicablegrades3-12
STAARAlternate2
• "Assessmentisprovidedinstudent'snativelanguage;otherlinguisitcaccommodationsnotapplicable."
• Nospecialaccommmodationsareprovided;thisdifferesfromnon-ELLtestingonlyinthattheexaminationcontentisinSpanish
• Applicablegrades3-5
STAARSpanish
Figure3:STAARTestOptionsforELLs(BasedonPreviouslyPlacement)TexasEducationAgency
29In2016,approximately11%of5thgradestudentsidentifyingasanELLtooktheSTAAR
Spanishexaminationand20%tooktheexaminationinEnglishwithsomeformof
29Porter,Justin;Brannan,Kim;Neumeyer,Lois.(2016).AccommodationsForStateAssessments:2016TexasAssessmentConferencelecture[PowerPointslides].
16
accommodation.TheremainingstudentswhoidentifiedasELLswereassignedtoorself-
selectedtotaketheEnglishversionofSTAARwithnoaccommodations.30
Althoughtheseaccommodationsattempttoequalizetheopportunitytoprove
academicachievementforallstudents,regardlessofbackground,thecurrent
implementationdoesnotcompletelyclosethegap,indicatedbythedisparitybetween
whitestudentsandELLsmentionedpreviously.
Figure4:STAARMathResultsfor5thGradersSpring2016
Spanish Speakers Were Tested in Spanish, while Native Speakers Were Tested in English
31
Togetabetterunderstandingofwhytheseaccommodationsarenotminimizingthe
achievementgap,itisimportanttounderstandhowthesemethodsareimplemented:how
muchextratimeisgiven?Whatarethequalificationsforateachertobeabletoassistan
ELLwithwordclarification?Theaccommodations,asexplainedbytheTexasEducation
Agency(thegoverningbodyforeducationwithintheStateofTexas)arevagueandopento
interpretation.Increasedtransparencywouldallowmetofurtherinvestigatewhythese
30“StateofTexasAssessmentsofAcademicReadiness:CombinedSummaryReport.”TexasEducationAgency.May2016. 31“StateofTexasAssessmentsofAcademicReadiness:CombinedSummaryReport.”TexasEducationAgency.May2016.
17
accommodationsareunabletobridgethegap,butatthispointintimeIamunableto
determineanyconcretereasons.
Additionally,thepaceatwhichfederallegislationexpectsEnglishlanguagelearnersto
masterthelanguageisunrealistic.UnderNCLB,studentswhohavebeenUnitedStates
residentsformorethanthreeyearsarerequiredtoparticipateinstateadministered
readingexaminationsinEnglish.32However,variousstudiessuggestthatstudentstypically
needfivetosevenyearsbeforetheygainamasteryofthelanguagetothepointwherethey
wouldbeabletoparticipateinanEnglish-onlyclassroom.33
High-stakesstandardizedtesting,althoughintendedsimplyasameasureof
accountabilityandqualityassuranceforpublicschoolsintheUnitedStates,hascreating
lastingimplicationsforhowEnglishlanguagelearnersaretreatedintheschoolsystemand
theirachievementsafterthetestisadministered.
Further,thelackoftransparencyaboutboththeselectionprocessandthe
implementationofaccommodationssuggestsbothunfairnessinnatureandthepotential
forincorrect(andpotentiallydetrimental)facilitation.Forexample,thenatureand
effectivenessoftheLPACsshouldbechallenged.TheTexasEducationAgencyprovidesthe
followingexplanationoftheselectionprocessforLPACmembership:
Schooldistrictsshallbylocalboardpolicyestablishandoperatea
languageproficiencyassessmentcommittee.Theschooldistrict
32NoChildLeftBehindActof2001,P.L.107-110,20U.S.C.§6319(2002).33Abedi,JamalandGandara,Patricia.“PerformanceofEnglishLanguageLearnersasaSubgroupinLarge-ScaleAssessment:InteractionofResearchandPolicy.”UniversityofCalifornia,Davis.Winter2006.
18
shallhaveonfilepolicyandproceduresfortheselection,
appointment,andtrainingofmembersofthelanguage
proficiencyassessmentcommittee(s).34
WhiletheTexasEducationAgencydoesfurnishaframeworkmanualthatprovides
guidanceastotheintentoftheLPACandthegeneralboundariesthatmembersshould
maintain,appointmentandfacilitationoftrainingislefttolocalboards.Accordingly,there
islikelyheterogeneityamongstthelocalLPACthroughoutthestateofTexas.UnderRawls’
theoryofjustice,thisprocesswouldnotbefairinthatstudentswouldnothaveequal
accesstotheinequalitythatwouldnaturallyoccurduetothisvariation.Bydeferring
decisionsto“localboards”andnotprovidingfurtherdiscussionastohowtheboards
themselvesareselected,howtheapplicationprocessworksformembership,andhow
oversight(beyondprovidinggeneralguidelines)isconducted,theTexasEducationAgency
createsanopaquepictureastowhatELLstudentsandtheirparentsshouldexpect.
Withoutafullunderstandingofthesefactors,itbecomesincreasinglydifficulttodefend
one’sownrights.
INEFFECTIVENESSOFSTANDARDIZEDTESTING
StandardizedtestingunderNCLBnotonlydisproportionatelydiscriminatesagainst
subgroupssuchasEnglishLanguageLearners,butalsoitdoesnotaccomplishits
initiatives:specifically,thetestsdonotadequatelymeasurenorpromotestudent
achievement.
34“LanguageProficiencyAssessmentCommittee:FrameworkManual.”TexasEducationAgency.2016.
19
IstheTestMeasuringWhatItSetouttoMeasure?
Standardizedtesting,asimplemented,isineffectivebecausethetestslackvalidity.
Validityreferstotheextenttowhichstandardizedtestsaccomplishtheiraimsof
measuringaparticularconstructs-skillsorlevelsofproficiency-ofinterestwithminimal
“construct-irrelevantvariance”.35Whenatestaimingtoassessproficiencyinaskillsuchas
mathematicsorsocialstudies(topicsmandatedforassessmentbymoststates),
administeringtheexaminalanguagethatthestudentisnotproficientcreatesanadded
elementtotheassessment.Studentsmustnotonlydemonstrateunderstandinginthe
academiccontent,butalsomustinterprettheinstructions,graspculturalreferences,and
havebasicliteracytoascertaintheobjectivesofspecificquestions.Astudyconductedwith
1,700ELLsandformerELLsillustratedtheinfluenceoflanguageproficiencyin
performanceonexaminations.WhengivenaSpanish-languageandEnglish-languagemath
test,controllingforhome-languageliteracy,studentstestedsignificantlybetteronthe
home-languageversion.36ThisrevealedthatEnglish-versionsofexaminations,evenintests
thatwerenotmeasuringEnglishlanguageproficiency,didnotactasavalidmetricfor
knowledgeofsubjectmaterial.GiventhatthemajorityofELLstestinEnglishwithlimited
accommodations,ELLsarenotpositionedtosucceedintestingandreflecttheiracademic
abilities.
WhoisTrulyBeingHeldAccountable?
35“GuidelinesfortheAssessmentofEnglishLanguageLearners.”EducationalTestingService.2009.36Abella,Rodolfo;Urrutia,Joanne;Shneyderman,Aleksandr.“AnExaminationoftheValidityofEnglish-LanguageAchievementTestScoresinanEnglishLanguageLearnerPopulation.”BilingualResearchJournal.(2005).Vol.29No.1.PP127-144.
20
TheexpressedintentoftheNCLBwastosolidifythestandardsthatTitleIschoolswere
upholdingfortheirstudents,increasingaccountabilitytoensureequaleducation.Rhetoric
surroundingtheactpromotedequalityofopportunity;subgroupssuchasELLswerenot
onlyincludedinthedialogue-theywerespokenaboutasiftheywerethedrivingforce
behindthestatute,asillustratedinthefollowingexcerpt:
“ChildrenlearningEnglishfacesomeofthegreatesteducational
challengesduetolanguageandculturalbarriers.Thatiswhy
PresidentBushandCongresspushedthroughthehistoric
educationreformsofNoChildLeftBehind.Thelawensuresthatall
children—fromeveryethnicandculturalbackground—receivea
qualityeducationandthechancetoachievetheiracademic
potential.”37
However,whileschoolsmayseemtofacetheconsequencesoftheactonthesurfaceofthe
issue(restructuringofteachingmethods,adheringtoaccommodationsforstudents,
potentiallysufferingeconomicdamages,etc.),students,specificallyEnglishlanguage
learners,takeontheaccountabilitybeingmeasuredbythestate.
RetroactiveApproach
37U.S.DepartmentofEducation,OfficeoftheSecretary,OfficeofPublicAffairs,AGuidetoEducationandNoChildLeftBehind,Washington,D.C.,2004.
21
Ultimately,theNCLBwasimplementedwiththeaimofincreasingstudentachievement.38
However,standardizedtestingevaluatesstudent’seducationalattainmentattheendofthe
academicyear.Whilegettingfeedbackfromthepastyearcangivesomeindication
performanceforthecomingyearandchangesthatcanbeimplemented,thisretroactive
approachonitsownisnotideal.Specifically,retroactiveassessmentdoesnotprovidea
clearviewofthefuture;previousscoresmayhelpwithshorttermchange,butscoresalone
cannotaccommodatelong-termplans.Further,thismethoddoesnotallowfornecessary
interventioninclassroomsthatarenotreceivingadequateinstruction.Aftertesting,the
onlysolutionunderNCLBtoamendpoorperformanceisretention.Atthispoint,the
studentwouldbepunishedforthelackofintervention,aprocessoutsideoftheircontrol.
StudentAchievement
ProponentsofNCLBandaccountabilitythroughstandardizedtestingarguethatsome
methodofliabilityataschoollevelisnecessarytoensurethatstudents,especiallythose
fromdisadvantagedbackgrounds,receiveastandardeducation.Standardizedtesting
attemptedtobothmonitorandimproveeducationalattainment.However,itfailsto
achievethesegoals.ResearchersJaekyungLeeandToddReevesconductedastudyusing
NAEPdatatoassesstheeffectivenessofstandardizedtestingasimplementedunderNCLB
onstudentachievement.Thetwoanalyzeddifferencesbetweenstatecharacteristicsin
educationandpriortotheenactmentofNCLBandtrendsbeforeandafterNCLB.Leeand
ReevesfoundthatNCLBpoliciesregardinghigh-stakestestingwerenotresponsibleforany
38U.S.DepartmentofEducation,OfficeoftheSecretary,OfficeofPublicAffairs,AGuidetoEducationandNoChildLeftBehind,Washington,D.C.,2004.
22
Figure5:NAEPTestScoreTrendsinMathandReading1990-2015
improvementsineducationalattainment.39Rather,theirmodelsattributededucational
improvements(asindicatedbytheNAEP)to,“…long-termstatewideinstructionalcapacity
andteacherresourcesratherthanshort-termNCLBimplementationfidelity,rigorof
standards,andstateagency’scapacityfordatatrackingandintervention.”40Figure541
showsnationalresultsfromtheNAEPfrom1990to2015,comparingachievementthe
trendsinbothmathandreadingthatLeeandReevesobservedintheirwork.
Further,standardizedtestingdoesnotaccuratelycapturetheacademicabilityof
studentsasintended.Studieshaveshownthatfailureofstandardizedtestingresultsin
higherdropout
ratesamong
studentswith
strongerGPAs
thanthosewith
lowGPAs.42This
indicatesthat
psychologicaland
social
ramificationsfromthestigmaoffailingastandardizedtest,independentofacademicskill,
resultinnegativeoutcomesforstudents.Italsoshowsthattestingdoesnotaccurately
39Lee,Jaekyung;Reeves,Todd.“RevisitingtheImpactofNCLBHigh-StakesSchoolAccountability,Capacity,andResources.StateNAEP1990-2009ReadingandMathAchievementGapsandTrends.”EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis.Vol.34,No.2,pp.209-231.June2012.40Ibid.41Ladd,HelenF.“NoChildLeftBehind:ADeeplyFlawedFederalPolicy.”Point/Counterpoint.JournalofPolicyAnalysisandManagement.42Lee,Jaekyung;Reeves,Todd.“RevisitingtheImpactofNCLBHigh-StakesSchoolAccountability,Capacity,andResources.StateNAEP1990-2009ReadingandMathAchievementGapsandTrends.”EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis.Vol.34,No.2,pp.209-231.June2012.(p.209)
23
capturestudents’academicabilities.Asimplemented,testingprovidesaneasywayto
assesscontentunderstanding.However,regardlessofhowsimplethedatecollectionis,
becausestandardizedtestingdoesnotadequatelymeasureachievement,itshouldnotbe
used.
IMPACTOFHIGH-STAKESSTANDARDIZEDTESTS
With57.3%ofstudentswhowereidentifiedas“notEnglishproficient”bythespringof
theirkindergartenyearfallingbelowthefederalpovertyline43,onemustconsiderthe
confoundingramificationsofpovertyandlanguagebarriers.Further,ifindeedthese
standardizedtestsareinherentlydiscriminatorytowardsSpanishspeakers,thismeans
thatatleast7.7%ofstudentsarefacingasubstantialbarriertoacademicsuccess.
High-StakesNatureofSTAAR
Standardizedtestingisproblematicbecauseofthehigh-stakesimplicationsoftestresults.
AllstudentsinTexasparticipateininitialtestinginMarch.Studentswhosescaledscores
arecategorizedasunsatisfactoryresults,asdefinedbythestate,receivenotificationof
theirfailure;thisnotificationstatesthatstudentswillberequiredtocompletedaccelerated
instruction,retaketheassessment,andpotentiallyfacegraderetention.44Theaccelerated
instructioniscompulsoryandisdeterminedforELLsinconsultationwiththestudent’s
LPAC.Thisinstructionoccurseitherduringorafterthestandardschoolday,andtheschool
itselfisresponsibleforfacilitationoftheprogramandtransportationofthestudents.
43Mulligan,Gail;Halle,Tamara;Kinukawa,Akemi.“Reading,Mathematics,andScienceAchievementofLanguage-MinorityStudentsinGrade8:IssueBrief.”NationalCenterforEducationStatistics.U.S.DepartmentofEducation.April2012.44StateofTexasAssessmentsofAcademicReadiness.“StudentSuccessInitiativeManual.:Grade-AdvancementRequirements.”TexasEducationAgency.2017.
24
However,thisplacesaburdenontheschoolstopreparethestudentsforasecondroundof
testing,furtherstretchingthelimitedresources.
InMayofthatyear,thesestudentsretakethetestforthesubjecttheyfailed.A
subsequentfailureresultsinanotificationtothefamilythatthestudentwillparticipatein
aGradePlacementCommittee(GPC)meeting.TheTexasEducationAgencymandatesthat
theprincipal(ortheprincipal’sdesignee),aparentorguardianofthestudent,andthe
teacherfortheacademicsubjectinquestion.The“StudentSuccessInitiativeManual”
assertsthatparentswhocannotattendmeetingswillbeaskedtomakeconferencecalls
intothemeetings.Thisposesanundueburdenonparentswhosefree-timeislimited:
childrennotinchildcare,strenuousjobs,orotherresponsibilitiesmayneedtotakepriority
totheGPCmeeting.Thismeetingwillprescribetheagreeduponacceleratedinstructionfor
thestudentandwillresultinthedenotationof“promotionpending”ontheirreportcard.If
deemednecessary,itcanresultinplacementinremedialcourses.
ThestudentwillreceiveathirdopportunitytotaketheexaminationinJuneofthat
academicyear.Failureofthisexamresultsinthestudentrepeatingthegradefromthe
previousacademicyear.However,high-stakesstandardizedtestingresultsingrade
retentionfortworeasons:STAARpoliciesmandategraderetentionasaformof
remediation,andnegativeramificationsforschoolswhofailtomeetAYPhaveleadto
increasedpreemptiveretention.
ImpactsofGradeRetentionandRemedialCourses
25
Toavoidhavingsubstandardperformancemetrics,teachershave,atanincreasingrate
nationally,heldbacklow-testingstudentsearlieroninelementaryschool.45ELLsnotonly
facetheriskofrepeatingafullyearofacademicworkduetoasubstandardand
discriminatoryexam,buttheyalsoaresubjecttobecomingacasualtyofpublicschools
desperatetoretainfunding,preemptivelybeingheldbackbeforeevenfailing.
Whileretentionissometimesjustified(somestudentsstandtobenefitfroma
reviewofmaterialtheyhavenotfullymastered),onemustconsiderthepsychologicaland
socialimpactsthatstudentsexperiencewhenretakingcourses.MeganAndrew,a
sociologistfromNotreDameUniversity,hasdescribedgraderetentionasa“triggering
event”-aneventthataltersone’scourseoffutureachievementbymovingastudentfrom
onehierarchicalspheretoanother.46Futureperformancepostretentiondiffersfrompeers
whoarepromotedbasedon,“…curricularexposure,stigma,motivation,effort,and
more…”47Further,Andrewstatesthatgraderetentioncompoundsdisadvantagesfacedby
atriskstudents.Studentsfacingdisadvantages,suchasELLs,typicallyachievelowerscores
onstandardizedtestingbecause(aspreviouslydemonstrated)currentaccommodations
andthestructureofthetestdonotpositionthemtosucceed.However,insteadoffacingthe
singleset-backofunsatisfactorymarks,theobstaclesELLsfacebecomecumulativegiven
thenegativeself-efficacyofstudentsfacingretention.
Beyondpsychologicaleffectsandtheimpactonone’ssocialstanding,grade
retentionandremedialclassescanoftenleadtoasubstandardeducation.Whenstudents
areidentifiedasneedingtobeplacedinaremedialcourseortorepeatagrade,basedon
45Andrew,Megan."TheScarringEffectsofPrimary-GradeRetention?AStudyofCumulativeAdvantageintheEducationalCareer."SocialForces93.2(2014):653-85.Web.46Ibid.47Ibid.
26
testscores,theintentionistoprovideextraattentiontoreducetheeducationgapbetween
therespectivestudentandtheirpeerswhoachievedsatisfactorymarks.However,remedial
classeswilllikelynotresultsinanysignificantclosureofthisgap,asthecourse
curriculumsaresimplistic(lackingthesubstancesotherstudentsinregularclasseswould
bereceiving)andinstructionfollowsaslowerpace,coveringlessmaterialthancomparable
classes.48Whilethisisconcerningonitsownaccord,itpresentsproblematicimplications
whenthevalidityoftheseassessmentscomeintoplay.Whatifastudenthastheacademic
abilityandpotentialtoscoretantamounttotheirEnglishspeakingpeersbutispenalized
becausetheexamdoesnotadequatelymeasurethedesiredconstruct?Theywillonlyfall
behindtheirpeersandwillfacetheadditionalbarrieroffightingtheachievementgap
createdbyremedialcourses.
Graderetentionalsoleadstolong-termnegativeeducationaloutcomes.Usingdata
fromtheNationalLongitudinalSurveyofYouthstartingin1979andtheNational
EducationLongitudinalStudystartingin1988,Andrewassessedthecorrelationbetween
primary-graderetentionandeducationaloutcomes.Shefoundthatthechancesofhigh
schoolcompletionforthosewhorepeatedagradeduringtheirelementaryeducationwas
reducedby60-75%.49Forthosewhoovercameretentionandgraduatehighschool,
chancesofenteringpostsecondaryeducationwasreducedby45%andthecompletionofa
bachelor’sdegreeby64%.Althoughthedataforthisstudyoccurredbeforetheenactment
ofNCLB,itilluminatesthepotentiallong-termramificationsofretentioneventoday.Texas’
48Rumberger,RussellW.;Gandara,Patricia.“SeekingEquityintheEducationofCalifornia’sEnglishLearners.“TeachersCollegeRecord.Vol.106,No.10,October2004,pp.2032-2056.49Andrew,M."TheScarringEffectsofPrimary-GradeRetention?AStudyofCumulativeAdvantageintheEducationalCareer."SocialForces93.2(2014):653-85.Web.
27
policyofremediationthroughretention,especiallyforELLswhoarelesslikelytosucceed
onSTAAR,furthercompoundsexistingunfairnessforstudents.
EducationalEnvironment
Thehigh-stakestestingmodeldetrimentallyaffectsthelearningenvironmentandquality
ofeducationreceivedbystudents.AstudyconductedbySchillerandMullerexplored
teacherandadministratorreactionstopunishments,suchasclassificationasfailing
schoolsorcompulsoryrestructuring,resultingfromstandardizedtesting.Theirstudy
foundthatconsequencesbasedontestingleadtoincreasedschooldrop-outrates.50This
correlationresultedfromteacheridentificationofat-riskstudentsanddisparatetreatment,
oftenpushingfortestexemptionsforstudentsandplacementinremedialcourses,
includingspecialeducationprograms.Thisprocessleadstothemisplacementofat-risk
studentsinalternativecourses;studentssuchasELLswhotraditionallymeet
unsatisfactorymarksonstandardizedtestingneednotbedelegatedtospecialeducation
programsorremedialcoursesbutratherneedaccommodationsthatpromotetheir
academicattainmentastheylearnEnglish.Thestudyexploredtherelationshipbetween
teachersandlow-performingstudents,showingthatlowteacherexpectationsstrongly
correlatedwiththestudent’slikelihoodofgraduatingfromhighschool.
Further,curriculumshiftsfocustowardstesttakingasopposedtoeducational
attainment.Teachersfacepressuretohavestudentsachievesatisfactorytestscorestoboth
promotestudentstosubsequentgradesandhelptheschoolachieveAYP.These
expectationsleadteacherstoteachtothetest-adoptingteachingmethodstocaterto 50Schiller,K.,&Muller,C.“ExternalExaminationsandAccountability,EducationalExpectations,andHighSchoolGraduation.”AmericanJournalofEducation,Vol.108,No.2(2000).Pages73–102.
28
standardizedtesting.AnethnographicstudyconductedbyKateMenkenrevealedthat
teachersbegan,“…preparingstudentsforhigh-stakestestsbyfocusinginstructionontest
content,andskillsor,moreexplicitly,bydevotingclasstimetoteachingtestitemsandtest-
takingstrategies.”51ForELLs,thistranslatedtobilingualandESLclassroominstructionin
EnglishasmuchaspossiblewithprogramsresemblingEnglishlanguageartscoursesfor
nativespeakers;52thisshiftemployslanguagelearningasatest-preparatorymeasurewith
focuslessoncommunicationandspeakingandmoreonreadingcomprehensioninthe
contextofamultiplechoiceexamination.Notonlyisthisnotconducivetocomprehensive
languageacquisition,butalsoitreducestimeallocatedtoothersubjectmaterialoutsideof
whatappearsonthetest.State-mandatedtestinginonlyafewsubjects(readingandmath
beingtheonlytwofederallymandatedsubjects)createsadefactoscriptforwhatshould
betaughtinschools;thesignificanceofmanyimportantskillsandsubjectsisdiminished.
THEORYOFJUSTICE:ANETHICALFRAMEWORK
Toassessthefairnessofstandardizedtesting,ascurrentlyimplemented,IwillutilizeJohn
Rawls’PrincipleofJustice.Rawlsacknowledgestheinevitabilityofinequality,especiallyin
societiesthatholdlibertyasafundamentalpillar.53However,heperceivesjusticeas
fairness,andconsequentlyupholdsinequalitiestocertainstandardstoassesstheir
fairness.IfocusonRawls’secondPrincipleofJusticewhichcanfurtherbebrokendown
intothefairequalityofopportunityprincipleandthedifferenceprinciple.Withinthe
51Menken,Kate.“TeachingtotheTest:HowNoChildLeftBehindImpactsLanguagePolicy,Curriculum,andInstructionforEnglishLanguageLearners.”BilingualResearchJournal.Summer2006.PP.521-546.52Ibid. 53 Rawls,John.“AnEgalitarianTheoryofJustice.”EthicalTheoryandBusiness.Eighthed.2009.
29
contextofdemonstratedinequalityinhigh-stakesstandardizedtesting,thefollowing
questionsmustbeasked:
FairEqualityofOpportunity
Dosimilarlyendowedstudentshaveequaltestingoutcomes?
TheDifferencePrinciple.
Dounequaltestingoutcomesbenefittheleastadvantagedstudents?
InequalitiesthatfulfillallofthecriteriaabovewouldpassRawls’testoffairnessandwould
thereforebepermissible.
Toimplementthistest,andtogiverisetothediscussiontocomethroughoutthispaper,we
mustfirstestablishthatinequalitydoesindeedexist.TheNationalAssessmentof
EducationalProgress(NAEP)isanationalassessmentusedtouniformlyassessthe
academicprogressofstudentsforeverystate;itdoesnotrevealindividualorschool-wide
results,butratherreportsmetricsbystateforvariousgroupsandsubgroupsofstudents.54
Thisassessmentallowsresearcherstocompareeducationalachievementacrossthenation,
adifficulttaskifthedifferentstate-designedtestswereused.DatafromtheNAEPfor
54“NationalAssessmentofEducationalProgress(NAEP).”NationalCenterforEducationStatistics.U.S.DepartmentofEducation.
30
nation-widetestresultsoffourthandeighthgradersinreadingprovidessuchevidence.55
Figure7:“AverageReadingScoresof8th-GradeStudents,byEnglishLanguageLearner(ELL)Status:SelectedYears,2002-11”
Figure6:“AverageReadingScoresof4th-GradeStudents,byEnglishLanguageLearner(ELL)Status:SelectedYears,2002-11”
31
56Thesedifferencesaresignificantandholdtrueacrossthespanoffourgrades.Itbecomes
apparentthatthisdifferenceinachievement,asmeasuredbythestandardizedtests,
disproportionatelyaffectsELLs.Further,eventhroughtheenactmentofNCLB,this
achievementgaphasbeenpersistent,showinglittleprogress.Throughtheanalysisofthis
patternedinequality,wecanconcludethatRawls’equalityofopportunitycriterionisnot
met.
Also,standardizedtestingalsofailstomeetRawls’differenceprinciple.Basedonthe
detrimentaleffectsofreceivingunsatisfactorymarkssuchasgraderetention,admittance
toremedialcourse,andnegativepsychologicalandsocialimpacts,itbecomesapparent
thatpoorperformanceontestingdoesnotadvantagestudents,butratherhinderstheir
personalandeducationaldevelopment.Ultimately,thisinequalityofperformanceonly
compoundsexistinginequality.
TheachievementgapsdemonstratedbetweenELLsandnon-ELLsreflectmorally
arbitrarycharacteristics;becauseofthis,theseexaminationsshouldnotdictatelife
outcomes.Aspreviouslyoutlined,lowperformanceinhigh-stakesstandardizedtesting
correlateswithunfavorableoutcomes,andthereforetheexamsareunjust.Rawlsexplains
thathumansaresubjecttoa“naturallottery”ofcharacteristics;wearebornintocertain
socio-economicstatuses,givenable-bodiesordisabilities,andimbuedwithcertainskills.57
However,havingthesecharacteristicsisamatterofpureluck;wehavenotdoneanything
todeserveourinitialpositionsinlife.Inrecognizingthis,Rawlsstatesthatthewaytobring 55Fry,Richard.“HowFarBehindinMathandReadingareEnglishLanguageLearners?”PewResearchCenter.June6,2007. 56 Bothimagesobtainedfromthefollowingsource:“EnglishLanguageLearners.”Elementary/SecondaryEnrollment.NationalCenterforEducationalStatistics.2013.57Rawls,John.“AnEgalitarianTheoryofJustice.”EthicalTheoryandBusiness.Eighthed.2009.
32
aboutjusticeinsocietyisbyremovingtheeffectsofthesemorallyarbitraryattributes.
StudentsbornintofamiliesthatdonotspeakEnglishareapartofthisbirthlottery;justice
willbeachievedwhentheeducationsystemandstatutesareabletogivethenecessary
resourcesandaccommodationssothesestudentscanadequatelycompetewiththeirpeers.
Finally,standardizedtestingisunfairbecauseitrequiresthatschoolsalonereverse
theeffectsofinequalitiescreatedbyotherinstitutions.Rawlsarguesthatschoolsneedthe
supportofjustsocial,political,andeconomicinstitutionstomitigateinequalitiesthatexist
amongststudents,mostoftheinequalitiesexistingpriortoprimaryschoolenrollment.58
However,byrequiringstudentssuchasELLswhofaceuniquebarrierstosuccessto
performatthesamelevelofproficiencyinacademiccontentastheirpeers,policieslike
NCLBdemandthatschoolsbecometheequalizerofsociety.Rather,schoolsshouldworkin
tandemwithotherinstitutionstoreduceinequalitiesthatareoftenresultsofunfair
structuresinsociety.
POLICYSUGGESTIONS
Standardizedtesting,ascurrentlyimplemented,doesnotadequatelymeasure“academic
achievement”,doesnotcaptureskills(suchasart,writing,socialsciences,communication,
etc.)outsideofmandatedcontent(readingandmath),andcanevensetindividualsbackin
theiracademiccareers.However,theintentofpolicymakerstocreateastandardof
accountabilityisnotillfounded.Thispaperdealswithequalityofmeasurementinregards
totesting,butequalityofeducationalopportunityposesanation-wideconcernandcreates
theneedforaccountability.Becauseofthis,Iassertthatthereneedstobesomestandard 58Stein,Zachary.SocialJusticeandEducationalMeasurement:ARawlsianPerspective.Routledge.March31,2016.
33
foroversightofvariousschools,butitshouldbemodifiedtopromotethesuccessesof
schoolsratherthanpunishfailure.
Inthelong-term,policymakersshouldphaseouttheuseofstandardizedtestingasa
waytoassessacademicachievement.Standardizedtestinghasbeenbelievedtoprovidean
efficient,seeminglyunbiasedwaytoaccountforstudentprogress.However,easeof
measurementdoesnotequatetoqualityofdatacollected.Asillustratedinthisproject,
boththeactualtestandtheconsequencesoftheresultsdonotprovidefairequalityof
educationalopportunity,nordotheypromoteoverallacademicachievement.Giventhe
unfairnessofstandardizedtesting,moreresearchshouldbedoneastohowtoeffectively
promotebothequalityofeducationandstudentachievementinallregards,notjustin
readingandmath.Thiscanbedonethroughfairfundingofschools,theemploymentof
highqualityteachers,andexposuretodiverseopportunitiesforstudents.However,I
recognizethatstandardizedtestinghasbeenthenormformanyyears;substantialresearch
willberequiredtoascertainthebestmethodsforstudentpromotionandaccountability.
Ashigh-stakesstandardizedtestingphasesout,statescanemploythebalanced
scorecardmethodtoprovideproactive,holisticassessmentsthatbestpromoteeducational
equality.For-profitfirmswidelyusethebalancescorecardtechnique.Traditionally,firms
haveusedfinancialend-of-yearreportstoassessthefirm'sperformanceandamendfuture
budgets,expansions,andgoals.However,executivesfoundthatlookingatfinancial
performancewasnotonlyretroactive,butalsodidnotcaptureimportantbusiness
processesthatultimatelyledtooverallsuccessandfocusedtoomuchonshort-term
solutions.Thebalancedscorecardusedfourdimensionstogaugethefirm'soperations:
financial;customer;internalbusinessprocesses;andlearningandgrowth.Withineach
34
perspective,firmsassignvariousgoalsandcorrespondingmeasurementstoachievesaid
goals.Thistypeofassessmentwouldtranslatewelltoschoolassessment.Havingvarious
perspectives,includingstudentexperience,internalschoolprocesses,andgrowth,will
reducetheimpactthatstandardizedtestinghasonassessment.Variousmeasures,
specificallythosewithintheframeofstudentexperience,wouldcapturestudent
achievementinskillsoutsideofeasy-to-measuresubjectsthataretraditionallytested
(readingandmath).Metricswithinternalschoolprocessescouldincludestudent/teacher
ratiosandabilityofclassroomstostayoncurriculumtimelines.Thelearningandgrowth
framewouldenableschoolstotakeaproactiveapproachtoeducation;thiswouldrequire
monitoringofnewclassroomtechniques,updatingcurriculumtoincludethemostup-to-
datematerial,andevaluatingtheever-changingsocialandculturechangesinsocietyand
theireffectsonstudents,allowingthemtoadaptforallsubgroupsofstudents.
Regardlessofhowpolicymakersamendmeasurementstandards,theyshouldrepeal
anysanctionsplaceduponunderperformingschools.Justasstudentpopulationsare
diverse,schoolsacrossstatesasvariedasTexasfacedifferentchallengesbasedontheir
funding,studentbody,andlocation.Insteadofremovingfundsfromschoolswhochoose
nottocomplywithNCLBtestingrequirements,stateagenciesshouldallowforappealby
schoolstodisregardhigh-stakestesting.Throughathoroughapprovalprocess,schools
withhighpopulationsofELLsthatneedtoamendcurriculumtobestsuittheirstudentscan
dosowithoutfacingconsequencesfornotconformingtotraditionalcriteria.
Additionally,policymakersshouldeliminatethehigh-stakesnatureofstandardized
testingforstudents.Theramificationsofunsatisfactorymarks(retention,social
implications,etc.)aremoredetrimentalthanhelpful.Teachers,thosewhointeractwithand
35
continuallyassessstudents,shouldplayalargerroleinidentifyingwhetherornotstudents
wouldbenefitfromremediationorintervention.Uniquestudentsrequireuniquesolutions,
andahomogenoussystemofmediationdoesnotaccommodateforvariouschallenges
studentsface.
Finally,statesshouldprovidemoreextensiveresourcestoELLs,includinga
differentversionofthestandardizedtest.ELLsshouldtakeanEnglishproficiency
examinationtoassesstheirprogressionintheirlanguageacquisition,butgiventhelackof
validityofstandardizedtesting,itisnotfairtoassessEnglishcomprehensionasecondtime
throughEnglish-versionexaminations.Rather,testingshouldbedevelopedthatmore
accuratelyreflectsthecurriculumbeingtaughtinbilingualandESLclassrooms.Further,
moreextensivesupportforELLsshouldbeprovided.Rawlsarguesthatasasocietyitisour
dutytoprovideresourcestomitigatetheimpactofmorallyarbitraryfactorsinlife
outcomes.Therefore,whenpatternedinequality(suchastheachievementgap)becomes
apparent,weshouldattempttocorrectthisbysupportingthestrugglinggroup.Thiswill
allowthemtobettercompetewiththeirpeers.WithinthecontextofELLs,weshould
provideEnglishinstructionoutsideofthetypicallyseven-hourschoolday.Whencore
contentisinstructedinaforeignlanguage,wecompromisestudent’sabilitytograsp
material.ESLandbilingualclassesshouldbeproceededbySpanish-onlyclassroomsthat
aresupplementedbyEnglish-languagecourses.
CONCLUSIONItisethicallyproblematicandpracticallyineffectivetorequirestatestoadministerhigh-
stakesstandardizedtesting.Standardizedtestshavewidelybeenusedasameansof
36
assessingschools’abilitytoinstructstudents.ActssuchasNCLBhaveincreasedtheimport
ofthesemetricsthroughmandatedtestingandhigh-stakesconsequencesforpoor
performance.Specifically,schoolsfacetheconsequenceofrestrictingandincreased
studentwithdraw,andstudentsfacegraderetentionandalternativeeducation.However,
thispolicyunfairlyaffectsdisadvantagedstudents,specificallyELLs.
Further,evenifstandardizedtestingpromotedfairequalityofeducational
opportunity,itdoesnotachievethegoalsofNCLB.Theactspecificallystatedthatitwould
attempttopromoteacademicachievement,reducetheachievementgapsbetweenhighand
lowperformingstudents,andincreaseequalityfortraditionallydisadvantagedstudent
populations.However,studieshaveshownthatanyincreaseinnationwidestudent
achievementisduetocontinuedtrendsstartinginthe1990s.Also,theachievementgapin
thestateofTexashasbeenconsistentsinceNCLBwasenacted.Finally,ELLs
disproportionatelyreceiveunsatisfactoryscoresontheSTAARexamination,evenwhen
testingintheirnativelanguage.
Policymakersshouldremovehigh-stakesstandardizedtestingasamethodof
accountability.Rather,aproactive,holisticapproachofassessmentshouldbeused.
Specifically,educatorscanadaptthebalancedscorecardapproachusedbyfor-profit
companies.Thismethodallowsfortheinclusionofawidervarietyofmetricsandfora
proactiveapproachtoassessment.Also,ELLsshouldreceivemoreextensive
accommodations.AlthoughtheyaretaskedwiththeadditionalburdenoflearningEnglish,
thesestudentsutilizedifferentaccommodationsratherthanmoreaccommodations.ELLs
shouldreceiveadifferentversionofthestandardizedtest,ifonemustbeimplemented,
thatbestreflectstheircurriculum.Also,contentinstructionshouldbetaughtinone’s
37
nativelanguagetomaximizecomprehension,andadditionalinstructioninEnglishshould
beprovidedoutsidethescopeoftheschoolday.
Otherfactorsthatcaninfluenceperformanceonstandardizedtestinginclude
educationalbackgroundpriortoattendingtheaffectedTitleIschools,socio-economic
backgroundandfamilyenvironment,literacyinastudent’sprimarylanguage,andstatusof
citizenship.Theseissuesthemselves,althoughsignificant,arecomplex;however,they
exceededthescopeofthispaperandthereforewerenotaddressed.AlthoughIhaveused
ELLsasanexampleofaspecificgroupfacingadversitywithinthescopeofunfair
assessmentanditsdetrimentalconsequences,thatisnottheonlygroupofindividualsthat
theunfairnessofstandardizedtestingaffects.Othersubgroups,suchasindividualswith
disabilities,childrenfromlowersocioeconomicstatusbackgrounds,immigrants,etc.,also
havetheirownspecificchallenges,someofwhichmayormaynotoverlapwiththose
outlinedinthispaper.
38
BibliographyAbella,Rodolfo;Urrutia,Joanne;Shneyderman,Aleksandr.“AnExaminationoftheValidity
ofEnglish-LanguageAchievementTestScoresinanEnglishLanguageLearnerPopulation.”BilingualResearchJournal.(2005).Vol.29No.1.PP127-144.https://ncela.ed.gov/rcd/bibliography/BE023135
Abedi,JamalandGandara,Patricia.“PerformanceofEnglishLanguageLearnersasa
SubgroupinLarge-ScaleAssessment:InteractionofResearchandPolicy.”UniversityofCalifornia,Davis.Winter2006.
“AddressingAchievementGaps.”PolicyEvaluationandResearchCenter.Educational
TestingService.Vol16.No.3.Fall2008.https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICPN163.pdf
Andrew,Megan."TheScarringEffectsofPrimary-GradeRetention?AStudyofCumulative
AdvantageintheEducationalCareer."SocialForces93.2(2014):653-85.Web.https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/sf/sou074
“EnglishasaSecondLanguageProgram:BenefitsforYourChild.”TexasEducationAgency
DivisionofCurriculum.TexasEducationAgency.2016.http://www.elltx.org/docs/brochure/ESLBrochure_english.pdf
“Final2016AccountabilityRatings.”DepartmentofAssessmentandAccountability.Division
ofPerformanceReporting.TexasEducationAgency.November15,2016.https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/perfreport/account/2016/Camp_Dist_Multi_Yr_IR_SEP14.pdf
Fry,Richard.“HowFarBehindinMathandReadingareEnglishLanguageLearners?”Pew
ResearchCenter.June6,2007.“GuidelinesfortheAssessmentofEnglishLanguageLearners.”EducationalTestingService.
2009.Web.https://www.ets.org/Media/About_ETS/pdf/ELL_Guidelines.pdfHamilton,MadleneP;Heilig,JulianVasquez;Pazey,BarbaraL.“ANostrumofSchool
Reform?TurningAroundReconstitutedUrbanTexasHighSchools.”UrbanEducation.SagePublications.(2104).Vol.49No.2.PP182-215.http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0042085913475636
Heilig,JulianVasquez;Darling-Hammond,Linda.“AccountabilityTexas-Style:TheProgress
andLearningofUrbanMinorityStudentsinaHigh-StakesTestingContext.”AmericanEducationalResearchAssociation.SagePublications.June11,2008.Web.https://research.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Heilig_Darling-Hammond-Paper.pdf
“Highlightsofthe2016StateAccountabilityResults.”TexasEducationAgency.November
17,2016.Web.https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/perfreport/account/2016/highlights.pdf
39
“HowStandardizedTestsShape-andLimit-StudentLearning.”NationalCouncilof
TeachersofEnglish.2014.http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/CC/0242-nov2014/CC0242PolicyStandardized.pdf
Ladd,HelenF.“NoChildLeftBehind:ADeeplyFlawedFederalPolicy.”Point/Counterpoint.
JournalofPolicyAnalysisandManagement.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/pam.21978/asset/pam21978.pdf;jsessionid=AB256610185EE35FC0B2EB69782914E4.f03t01?v=1&t=j15aubbe&s=ea4cad79a4fc356e11fb962cb1f2bcd2c33834e9
“LanguageProficiencyAssessmentCommittee:FrameworkManual.”TexasEducation
Agency.2016.http://programs.esc20.net/users/files/LPAC/2016Lee,Jaekyung;Reeves,Todd.“RevisitingtheImpactofNCLBHigh-StakesSchool
Accountability,Capacity,andResources.StateNAEP1990-2009ReadingandMathAchievementGapsandTrends.”EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis.Vol.34,No.2,pp.209-231.June2012.http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0162373711431604
“LimitedEnglishProficientTrainingFlowchart.”TexasEducationAgency.TexasEnglish
LanguageLearnersPortal.2012.http://elltx.org/lpac.htmlMenken,Kate.“TeachingtotheTest:HowNoChildLeftBehindImpactsLanguagePolicy,
Curriculum,andInstructionforEnglishLanguageLearners.BilingualResearchJournal.Summer2006.pp.521-546.
Morales,ChristinaM.,andSaenz,Rogelio.“CorrelatesofMexicanAmericanStudents’
StandardizedTestScores:AnIntegratedModelApproach.”HispanicJournalofBehavioralSciences.Vol29No.3.August2007.
Mulligan,Gail;Halle,Tamara;Kinukawa,Akemi.“Reading,Mathematics,andScience
AchievementofLanguage-MinorityStudentsinGrade8:IssueBrief.”NationalCenterforEducationStatistics.U.S.DepartmentofEducation.April2012.
“NationalAssessmentofEducationalProgress(NAEP).”NationalCenterforEducation
Statistics.U.S.DepartmentofEducation.https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/
NoChildLeftBehindActof2001,P.L.107-110,20U.S.C.§6319(2002).Porter,Justin;Brannan,Kim;Neumeyer,Lois.(2016).AccommodationsforState
Assessments:2016TexasAssessmentConferencelecture[PowerPointslides].Retrievedfrom:http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PGs_CA9RHXQJ:tea.t
40
exas.gov/WorkArea/linkit.aspx%3FLinkIdentifier%3Did%26ItemID%3D25769825315%26libID%3D25769825411+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
“Programs:ImprovingBasicProgramsOperatedbyLocalEducationalAgencies(TitleI,
PartA).”U.S.DepartmentofEducation.October10,2015.https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html?exp=0
“QuestionsandAnswersonNoChildLeftBehind.”U.S.DepartmentofEducation.
September9,2003.https://www2.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/schools/accountability.html#5
Rawls,John.“AnEgalitarianTheoryofJustice.”EthicalTheoryandBusiness.Eighthed.
2009.RegulationsoftheOfficesoftheDepartmentofEducation,34C.F.R.§200.44(d).2002.
https://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2002-4/120202a.pdfRumberger,RussellW.;Gandara,Patricia.“SeekingEquityintheEducationofCalifornia’s
EnglishLearners.“TeachersCollegeRecord.Vol.106,No.10,October2004,pp.2032-2056.
Schiller,K.,&Muller,C.“ExternalExaminationsandAccountability,Educational
Expectations,andHighSchoolGraduation.”AmericanJournalofEducation,Vol.108,No.2(2000).Pages73–102.
Stanley,Dan.“BilingualEducationProgram:BenefitsforYourChild.”TexasEducation
AgencyDivisionofCurriculum.TexasEducationAgency.2016.http://www.nacisd.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_3110461/Image/New%20Website%208.2016/Department%20and%20Services/Bilingual%20and%20ESL%20Education/Parents/BilingualBrochure_english__8-10-16.pdf
“StateofTexasAssessmentsofAcademicReadiness:CombinedSummaryReport.”Texas
EducationAgency.May2016.http://tea.texas.gov/Student_Testing_and_Accountability/Testing/State_of_Texas_Assessments_of_Academic_Readiness_(STAAR)/STAAR_Statewide_Summary_Reports_2015-2016/
StateofTexasAssessmentsofAcademicReadiness.“StudentSuccessInitiativeManual.:
Grade-AdvancementRequirements.”TexasEducationAgency.2017.http://tea.texas.gov/student.assessment/ssi/
Stein,Zachary.SocialJusticeandEducationalMeasurement:ARawlsianPerspective.
Routledge.March31,2016.Strauss,Valarie.“TheImportantThingsStandardizedTestsDon’tMeasure.”The
WashingtonPost.Marc1,2015.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-
41
sheet/wp/2015/03/01/the-important-things-standardized-tests-dont-measure/?utm_term=.7344947372dc
U.S.DepartmentofEducation.OfficeoftheSecretary.OfficeofPublicAffairs.“AGuideto
EducationandNoChildLeftBehind.”Washington,D.C.,2004.