Open Letter to Legislators and Government Leaders in Education

To Whom It May Concern:

Naturally, the state of education rests somewhat precariously upon the state of the economy; despite this, I view our current dilemma as a massive opportunity to finally fix what is broken in our instructional and assessment practice. Decisions regarding staff and program cuts test the true ethical priorities of our schools, districts, and our state and national leaders, too. No Child Left Behind certainly established a clear priority of rigorous education accessible to all students across all race, gender, cultural, social, and economic lines. This essential equity lies at the heart of the law’s mission; however, the proficiency targets laid out for all the various student subgroups run contrary to this cornerstone of fairness. In fact, California’s system for measuring adequate yearly progress actually discriminates against English language learners and the schools that serve them – setting both up to perpetually fail.

The California English Language Development Test assigns each student to one of five different levels of English fluency, and the highest such level approximates a 9^th-grade proficiency. However, our state relies heavily on a school’s proficiency rate on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) to measure the school’s annual progress. This test is administered to all 10^th graders for the first time in March, after about 1 ½ years of high school instruction. This practice creates an egregious paradox that violates the rights of English learner students to equitable educational opportunities. Many of these students cannot start their high school career in 9^th grade English, as their lower results on the CELDT rightfully place them in ELD classes. Even at the quick rate of a level a semester, a freshman who begins his/her high school career at the lowest level of ELD will need until the midpoint of his/her junior year before s/he has the skills necessary to pass the English portion of the CAHSEE. Any school that enrolls these language learners in appropriate ELD programs according to the state’s own ELD test will never meet the state and federal goals for English learners and will never show adequate yearly progress. This amounts to institutional discrimination against students who are not born speaking English.

I advocate that California pursue a growth model for measuring the progress of this student subgroup. Growth models have been piloted by the U.S. Department of Education since 2005 for kindergarten through eighth grades. Tennessee’s pilot – the first to be approved –would have enabled forty-seven additional schools to be recognized as progressing adequately in 2005 using either three-year averages or extrapolations of future test scores. I propose a growth model that measures the work of California’s schools that serve English learners by the percentage of English learners who can pass the CAHSEE – showing a basic, not a proficient level of fluency – by the end of their senior year. To offset the lowering of the academic standards from proficiency to basic competence, the target can be raised above 100%. A school should be able to develop English skills so that all non-native speakers demonstrate at least basic fluency before they earn a diploma.

This progress could be calculated by comparing the number of English Learners who do not pass the CAHSEE in 10^th grade to the total number of such students who pass the CAHSEE over the following two years during non-traditional test administrations. The latter number should be equal to or greater than the former. Data from my own school illustrates the calculations. It is important that the percentage exceed one hundred percent because, in the middle of this two-year testing cycle, a new batch of students who need remediation is added. One would hope that, in November 2010 for instance, those who pass the CAHSEE include students who failed the exam the previous March. I would support a target as high as 125 or 150 percent to ensure that schools never focus entirely on one graduating class while neglecting the other. Furthermore, the benchmark, by default, must be basic English competence rather than proficiency because the CAHSEE isn’t administered to students after they initially pass it. Students who pass the exam as juniors may well reach proficiency before they graduate, but we cannot afford additional test administrations. Again, the over-100-percent target would be the trade-off for lowering the performance standard and lengthening the time frame.

When a government mandated test places a 9^th grader in a class that is two or more levels below 10^th grade English, it is categorically unjust for the same government to punish schools when its teachers and students cannot make up that deficit. It becomes a mandate that students learn at radically different paces, and those with the greatest linguistic challenges must accelerate their learning the most. The growth model will allow California to provide a far more equitable opportunity for these students. Instead of charging ELLs with a Sisyphian task, we can empower them to be equal contributors towards a school’s progress and success.

I hope you will encourage your colleagues to institute this assessment model in the very near future, especially as the re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is under consideration in Washington. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have questions, concerns, or a need for support. I’m happy to assist with this effort in any way I can.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.