Obscuring English Learners From State Accountability: The Case of Indiana’s Language Blind Policies

Abstract

The conjoining of Indiana state and federal accountability plans during the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) flexibility waiver (2012-2015) was an attempt at one combined system to furnish information in a simple and transparent manner, while obscuring the performances of English learner’s (EL) English progress and EL reclassification. We identify how school grades are impacted by English learning progress and reclassification relative to district’s demographic profiles. Findings suggest that English learning progress significantly impacts school grades, but most sanctions are placed on achievement and EL reclassification, sending incomplete and incoherent signals to Indiana schools. Implications related to educational decentralization throughout the globe and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) are discussed.

Keywords

Emergent bilingual English language learners policy flexibility No Child Left Behind Act Every Student Succeeds Act waivers

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abedi

(2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4-14. doi:10.3102/0013189X033001004

Abedi

Dietel

(2004). Challenges in the No Child Left Behind Act for English-language learners. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 782-785. doi:10.1177/003172170408501015

Adams

C. M.

Forsyth

P. B.

Ware

(2016). The informational significance of A–F school accountability grades. Teacher College Record, 118(7), 1-31.

Arias

M. B.

(2005). The impact of brown on Latinos: A study of transformation of policy intentions. Teacher College Record, 107, 1974-1998. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00582.x

Assessing improvement, 20-31-8-5.4, Pub. L. No. 286 (2013).

Baecher

Knoll

Patti

(2013). Addressing English language learners in the school leadership curriculum. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 8, 280-303. doi:10.1177/1942775113498377

Betebenner

D. W.

(2009). Norm and criterion-referenced student growth. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(4), 42-51. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00161.x

Betebenner

D. W.

(2011). A technical overview of the student growth percentiles methodology. Dover, NH: The National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment.

Brooks

Kandel-Cisco

(2014). Test-based accountability systems: Concerns for Indiana’s multilingual learners and their teachers. Indiana Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 11, 25-43.

10.

Burke

A. M.

Morita-Mullaney

Singh

(2016). Indiana Emergent Bilingual Student Time to Reclassification: A Survival Analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 53(5), 1310-1342. doi:10.3102/0002831216667481

11.

Cambridge Assessment English. (2017). International language standards. Retrieved from http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/exams-and-tests/cefr/

12.

Castellano

K. E.

A. D.

(2013a). Contrasting OLS and quantile regression approaches to Student “Growth” Percentiles. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 38(2), 190-214. doi:10.3102/1076998611435413

13.

Castellano

K. E.

A. D.

(2013b). A Practitioner’s Guide to Growth Models. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

14.

Clewell

Cosentino de Cohen

Murray

(2007). Promise or peril? NCLB and the education of ELL students. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED499426.pdf

15.

Darling-Hammond

(2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of “No Child Left Behind.” Race, Ethnicity and Education, 10, 245-260. doi:10.1080/13613320701503207

16.

Darling-Hammond

(2010). Flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.

17.

Domaleski

Perie

(2013). Promoting equity in state education accountability systems. Lawrence: The University of Kansas.

18.

Education Commission of the States. (2014). Indiana state profile. Retrieved from http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/mbstcprofexc?Rep=ELP14&st=Indiana

19.

Ehlert

Cory Koedel

Parsons

Podgursky

(2016). Selecting growth measures for use in school evaluation systems: Should proportionality matter? Educational Policy, 30, 465-500. doi:10.1177/0895904814557593

20.

Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. No. Public Law 114-95 (2015 December 10, 2015).

21.

Gándara

Orfield

(2012a). Segregating Arizona’s English learners: A return to the “Mexican room”? Teacher’s College Record, 9(114), 1-27.

22.

Gándara

Orfield

(2012b). Why Arizona matters: The historical, legal and political contexts of Arizona’s instructional policies and linguistic hegemony. Language Policy, 11, 7-19. doi:10.1007/s10993-011-9227-2

23.

Goldenberg

Rutherford-Quach

(2012). The Arizona home language survey: The under-identification of students for English language services. Language Policy, 11, 21-30. doi:10.1007/s10993-011-9224-5

24.

Hakuta

Pompa

(2017). Including English learners in your state Title I accountability plan. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

25.

Heineke

A. J.

(2009). Teachers’ discourse on English language learners: Cultural models of language and learning (Doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University, Tempe.

26.

Heineke

A. J.

(2016). Restrictive language policy in practice: English learners in Arizona. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.

27.

Hout

Elliott

(Eds.) (2011). Incentives and test-based accountability in education. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

28.

Indiana Department of Education. (2010a). Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives. Retrieved from http://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/english-learners/2009-10-state-amao-report.pdf

29.

Indiana Department of Education. (2010b). Indiana developmental standards for school educators. Retrieved from http://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/licensing/all-grade-standards.pdf

30.

Indiana Department of Education. (2011a). ESEA flexibility waiver application. Indianapolis: Author.

31.

Indiana Department of Education. (2011b). How to calculate grades under Public Law 221. Retrieved from https://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/accountability/basic-summary-f_1.pdf

32.

Indiana Department of Education. (2012). ESEA flexibility request. Submitted to the U.S. department of education. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/documents/StateWaivers/Indiana.pdf

33.

Indiana Department of Education. (2013). Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs). Retrieved from http://compass.doe.in.gov/dashboard/amao.aspx?type=state

34.

Indiana Department of Education. (2014a). Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives. Retrieved from http://compass.doe.in.gov/dashboard/amao.aspx?type=state

35.

Indiana Department of Education. (2014b). IDOE-Title III and NESP (English learners). Retrieved from https://learningconnection.doe.in.gov/UserGroup/GroupDetailFileBookmarks.aspx?ugfid=11704&gid=317

36.

Indiana Department of Education. (2017). State template for the consolidated state plan under the Every Student Succeeds Act (U.S. Department of Education, OMB number: 1810-0576). Retrieved from http://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/essa/essa-consolidated-plan.pdf

37.

Indiana Education Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 221, § 20-10.6.2-6 (2011).

38.

Indiana Education Act of 2013, Pub. L. No. 286, § 20-19-2-14.5 (2013).

39.

Lillie

K. E.

Moore

S. C. K.

(2014). SEI in Arizona: Bastion for states’ rights. In Moore

S. C. K.

(Ed.), Language policy process and consequences: Arizona case studies (pp. 1-27). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

40.

Linquanti

Cook

H. G.

(2015). Re-examining reclassification: Insights from a national working session on policies and practices for exiting students from English learner status. Retrieved from https://www.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/1447810235resourcereexaminingreclassificationguidancefromanationalworkingsessiononpoliciesandpracticesforexitingstudentsfromenglishlearnerstatus-3.pdf

41.

McMurrer

Yoshioka

(2013). States’ perspectives on waivers: Relief from NCLB, concern about long-term solutions. Washington, DC: The George Washington University.

42.

Menken

(2008). English learners left behind: standardized testing as language policy. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

43.

Morita-Mullaney

(2016). Borrowing legitimacy as English Learner (EL) Leaders: Indiana’s 14-year history with English language proficiency standards. Language Testing, 34(2), 1-30. doi:10.1177/0265532216653430

44.

Morita-Mullaney

(2017). Indiana educator preparation to meet the needs of English language learners–a White paper. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.

45.

National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. (2017). Indiana public charter schools. Retrieved from http://www.publiccharters.org/our-work/charter-law-database/states/indiana

46.

No Child Left Behind, Pub.L. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2001).

47.

Pompa

(2016). New education law puts more pressure on states to serve English learners. Retrieved September 14, 2017 from https://edsource.org/2016/new-education-law-puts-more-pressure-on-states-to-serve-english-learners/92811

48.

Ruiz Soto

A. G.

Hooker

Batalova

. (2015). ELL information center: Fact sheet series. Retrieved from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/states-and-districts-highest-number-and-share-english-language-learners

49.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

50.

Ryan

R. M.

Weinstein

(2009). Undermining quality teaching and learning: A self-determination theory perspective on high-stakes testing. Theory and Research in Education, 7, 224-233. doi:10.1177/1477878509104327

51.

Short

(2000). The ESL standards: Bridging the academic gap for English language learners. Retrieved from https://www.ericdigests.org/2001-3/esl.htm

52.

Szabo

Docherty

North

Goodier

Moe

Hasselgreen

(2016). Collated representative samples of descriptors of language competencies developed for young learners aged 7-10 years: Resource for educators. Strasbourg, Germany: Council of Europe: Language Policy.

53.

U.S. Department of Education. (2012). ESEA flexibility: Laws and guidance. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html

54.

U.S. House Committee on Education. Hearings before the Committee on Education and the Workforce. House. 112th Cong. (2011).

55.

Ushomirsky

Wiliams

Hall

(2014). Making sure all children matter getting school accountability signals right. Retrieved from http://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/All_Children_Matter.pdf

56.

WIDA. (2018). WIDA Indiana. Retrieved from https://wida.wisc.edu/memberships/consortium/in

57.

Wright

W. E.

(2005). English language learners left behind in Arizona: The nullification of accommodations in the intersection of federal and state policies. Bilingual Education Journal, 29(1), 1-29. doi:10.1080/15235882.2005.10162821