������Ƶ

Now that my colleagues Anne Hyslop and Clare McCann have dug into the changes that Senator Tom Harkin’s (D-IA) Strengthening America’s Schools Act (SASA)  for  and Title II ( and ), it’s my turn to take a look at the bill’s potential effects on English language learners (ELLs).

Title I Changes Relevant to English Language Learners

While most of the relevant changes can be found in Title III—“Language and Academic Content Instruction for English Language Learners and Immigrant Students”—there are some potentially big adjustments in Title I also. Since Title I funds (FY 2012: over $14 billion) are much larger than Title III (FY 2012: $732 million), they give legislators more influence over English language instructional practices. As Education Week’s ,

Title I schools serving English-learners—even those that haven’t been the recipients of Title III dollars (the federal aid for districts that is reserved for programs that serve ELLs)—would be held accountable for how well ELLs are progressing toward reaching English-language proficiency. This could potentially put a whole lot more schools on the hook for how well they are educating ELLs.

For instance, SASA would require Title I schools to establish standards nuanced enough to distinguish at least four different levels of English proficiency for ELLs. States would be required to align these standards to their “reading and language arts” content standards. Should the state adjust content standards, they would have one year to update and realign their English language proficiency standards.

Perhaps most interestingly, SASA would allow researchers to keep better tabs on ELLs after they exit designated English language learning programs. Maxwell:

Under current NCLB accountability rules, districts report on the achievement of ELLs for two years after they are reclassified as proficient. For schools that have done well by these students, they don’t get any credit for their longer-term success, and for those who’ve not done well by them, they escape accountability beyond that period.

Relevant Title III Changes

Some of Harkin’s changes to Title III add momentum to this data push. For instance, while SASA would offer ELLs up to 5 years of language support services—even if the student graduates from secondary school during that period—it would also add additional accountability. Any ELLs who are not proficient in English after 5 years would “not be counted as a graduating student in the State or local educational agency’s calculation of the graduation rate.” In other words, schools and districts would only get credit for ELLs who graduate from high school and develop English proficiency (within five years of “being identified as an English learner”).

Additional services and recordkeeping require funding and flexibility. No surprise, then, that SASA doubles the NCLB percentage (from 5 to 10 percent) of Title III grants that may be used for “State Activities.” These include broad, structural initiatives  establishing policies and frameworks to support ELLs. It also expands the slate of permitted activities that state education agencies may undertake with this funding, should they choose.

Harkin’s bill would also change Title III in other subtle ways. For instance, SASA would ask local authorities seeking subgrants from their state’s Title III funds to utilize one or more “family engagement” strategies from a list including options like “establishing native-language family outreach call centers,” home visits, co-location, and “parent institutes.” By contrast, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) authorizes general initiatives, such as: “community participation programs, family literacy services, and parent outreach and training activities.”

Here’s another example: While NCLB requires districts receiving Title III funding to certify that teachers of ELLs are “fluent in English and any other language used for instruction,” SASA only requires that they be fluent “in the language used for instruction.”

Finally, and interestingly, we should note that SASA would establish two new initiatives relevant to ELLs:

1. “English Language Acquisition Technology Innovation Grants” to support “breakthrough research and development in educational technology…[to] improve English proficiency and academic achievement for English Learners.”
2. A “Commission on Assessment of English Learners” to provide the Department of Education with standards for evaluating states’ proposed accountability systems and research on ELLs. (This would supplement, but not replace, the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition.)

One Missing Change?

It’s early to make too much of these nuances, since the bill’s committee markup is  (and its ultimate chances for passage are exceedingly slim).

Nonetheless, the bill retains one element of NCLB that would give any—as yet hypothetical—“Commission on Assessment of English Learners” pause. Harkin’s bill largely recycles NCLB’s standardized assessment rules for ELLs. This means that districts can exempt ELLs from taking standardized reading and language arts assessments in English for their first 3 years in U.S. schools. After that, districts may exempt ELLs for 2 more years if they have “not yet reached a level of English language proficiency sufficient to yield valid and reliable information on what [they know] and can do on tests (written in English) of reading or language arts.” In other words, SASA—like NCLB—gives ELLs just 3 to 5 years to become proficient in English before they begin taking standardized assessments.

The (again, hypothetical) commission would surely protest this timeline. , given “optimal conditions,” it takes at minimum five years for ELLs to develop their English language skills “necessary to compete with native-born peers in the classroom.” This is just a baseline— that “cognitive/academic language” can take “an average of seven to ten years of systematic high-quality training and consistent exposure to achieve.” This suggests that NCLB and SASA are, in the best case, at least two years off what research would prescribe.

That said, SASA’s 3- to 5-year window isn’t necessarily problematic. The  I covered a few weeks ago suggested that 5 years is approximately the right timeline for students who receive sustained, high-quality, dual-immersion language education starting at 3 years old. For young students, these benchmarks might work. For ELLs who come to the American education system later in life, however, the data are less clear. In light of recent research, why not consider expanding districts’ flexibility surrounding ELLs and assessments? Why not use the 3- to 5-year assessment exemption window for early childhood students—and a longer, 5- to 7-year window for ELLs who are identified later?

Fortunately, those are precisely the sort of questions worth discussing during .

(Note: I’ll analyze Sen. Lamar Alexander’s (R-TN) alternative ESEA reauthorization bill tomorrow, but for a big picture view of the competing ESEA reauthorization bills and the upcoming markup, don’t miss .)