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.