This article presents a set of recommendations that promote a more nuanced, meaningful accountability policy for English learners in the next authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The authors argue that the ESEA reauthorization must strengthen the law’s capacity-building purpose so that federal, state, and local leaders support continued attention, direction, and innovation in effectively educating ELs. The recommendations put forth in this article focus on monitoring both current and former ELs, establishing time frames for the attainment of English language proficiency, and setting expectations for academic achievement that are reflective of English language proficiency level and time in the state’s school system.
AbediJ. (2002). Standardized achievement tests and English language learners: Psychometric issues. Educational Assessment, 8, 231–257.
2.
AbediJ. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33, 1–14.
3.
AbediJ.GándaraP. (2006). Performance of English language learners as a subgroup in large-scale assessment: Interaction of research and policy. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 26(5), 36–46.
4.
AbediJ.LinquantiR. (2012). Issues and opportunities in improving the quality of large scale assessment systems for English language learners. Stanford: Stanford University.
5.
CookH. G.BoalsT.WilmesC.SantosM. (2008). Issues in the development of annual measurable achievement objectives for WIDA consortium states (WCER Working Paper No. 2008-2). Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Retrieved from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/papers.php
6.
CookG.LinquantiR.ChinenM.JungH. (2012). National evaluation of Title III implementation supplemental report: Exploring approaches to setting English language proficiency performance criteria and monitoring English learner progress. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
7.
FrancisD. J.RiveraM. O. (2007). Principles underlying English language proficiency tests and academic accountability for ELLs. In AbediJ. (Ed.), English language proficiency assessment in the nation: Current status and future practice (pp. 13–31). Davis: University of California, Davis School of Education.
8.
GeneseeF.Lindholm-LearyK.SaundersW. M.ChristianD. (2006). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9.
GoldenbergC. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What research does—and does not—say. American Educator, 32 (2), 8–23, 42–44.
10.
HakutaK.ButlerY.WittD. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute Policy Report 2000-1. Santa Barbara: University of California, Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
11.
HoA. D. (2008). The problem with “proficiency”: Limitations of statistics and policy under No Child Left Behind. Educational Researcher, 37(6), 351–360.
12.
KoretzD. (2008). The pending reauthorization of NCLB: An opportunity to rethink the basic strategy. In SundermanG. L. (Ed.), Holding NCLB accountable: Achieving accountability, equity, & school reform (pp. 9–26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
13.
LinnR. L. (2005). Conflicting demands of No Child Left Behind and state systems: Mixed messages about school performance. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 13(33), Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/138/264
14.
LinnR. L. (2008). Toward a more effective definition of adequate yearly progress. In SundermanG. L. (Ed.), Holding NCLB accountable: Achieving accountability, equity, & school reform (pp. 27–42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
15.
LinnR. L.BakerE. L.BetebennerD. W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31(6), 3–16.
16.
LinquantiR. (2001). The redesignation dilemma: Challenges and choices in fostering meaningful accountability for English learners (Policy Report 2001-1). Santa Barbara: University of California, Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
17.
LinquantiR.GeorgeC. (2007). Establishing and utilizing an NCLB Title III accountability system: California’s approach and findings to date. In AbediJ. (Ed.), English language proficiency assessment in the nation: Current status and future practice (pp. 105–118). Davis: University of California Press.
18.
LinquantiR.HakutaK. (2012). How next generation standards and assessments can foster success for California’s English learners (PACE Policy Brief No. 12-1). Palo Alto: Policy Analysis for California Education.
19.
MartinielloM. (2008). Language and the performance of English-language learners in math word problems. Harvard Educational Review, 78(2), 1–29.
20.
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2010). The growing number of English learner students 1998/99 – 2008/09. Washington, DC: Author.
21.
National Research Council. (2011). Allocating federal funds for state programs for English-language learners. Panel to Review Alternative Data Sources for the Limited-English Proficiency Allocation Formula under Title III, Part A, Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Committee on National Statistics and Board on Testing and Assessment. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
22.
New York City Department of Education. (2008). New York City’s English language learners: Demographics. New York: Author.
23.
OlsenL. (2010). Reparable harm: Fulfilling the unkept promise of educational opportunity for California’s long term English learners. Long Beach, CA: Californians Together.
24.
ParrishT.LinquantiR.MerickelA.QuickH. E.LairdJ.EsraP. (2002) Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the education of English learners, K-12: Year 2 report. Palo Alto and San Francisco, CA: American Institutes for Research and WestEd.
25.
ParrishT.PerezM.MerickelA.LinquantiR. (2006). Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the education of English learners, K-12: Findings from a five-year evaluation. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.
26.
SamsonJ. F.CollinsB. A. (2012). Preparing all teachers to meet the needs of English language learners: Applying research to policy and practice for teacher effectiveness. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/04/teachers_ell.html
27.
SaundersW. M.MarcellettiD. J. (2012, April). The gap that can’t go away: The catch-22 of reclassification in monitoring the progress of English learners. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, BC.
28.
Solano-FloresG. (2008). Who is given tests in what language by whom, when, and where? The need for probabilistic views of language in the testing of English language learners. Educational Researcher, 37, 189–199.
29.
SolórzanoR. (2008). High stakes testing: Issues, implications, and remedies for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 78, 260–329.
30.
Stokes-GuinanK.GoldenbergC. (2010). Use with caution: What CELDT results can and cannot tell us. CATESOL Journal, 22: 189–202.
31.
TanenbaumC.BoyleA.SogaK.Le FlochK. C.GoldenL.PetrocciaM. . . . O’DayJ. (2012). National evaluation of Title III implementation: Report on state and local implementation. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
32.
TaylorJ.StecherR.O’DayJ.NaftelS.LeFlochK. C. (2010). State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume IX—Accountability under NCLB: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
33.
TéllezK.WaxmanH. C. (2006). Preparing quality educators for English language learners: Research, policies, and practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
ThompsonK. D. (2012). Are we there yet? Exploring English learners’ journey to reclassification and beyond (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University, Stanford, CA. http://purl.stanford.edu/qd054zq1735
35.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2010). The condition of education 2010 (NCES 2010–028).
36.
WilliamsT.HakutaK.HaertelE.. (2007). Similar English learner students, different results: Why do some schools do better? A follow-up analysis based on a large-scale survey of California elementary schools serving low-income and EL students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource. Retrieved from http://www.ewa.org/docs/edsource_findings_ell.pdf
37.
WolfM. K.HermanJ. L.BachmanL. F.BaileyA. L.GriffinN. (2008). Recommendations for assessing English language learners: English language proficiency measures and accommodation uses. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
38.
Working Group on ELL Policy. (2010). Improving educational outcomes for English language learners: Recommendations for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Palo Alto: Author. Retrieved from http://ellpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/ESEAFinal.pdf
39.
Working Group on ELL Policy. (2011). Improving educational outcomes for English language learners: Recommendations for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Questions and answers. Palo Alto: Author. Retrieved from http://ellpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/QA.pdf
