The Flawed Requirements for Limited English Proficient Children of the No Child Left behind Act

Abstract

A lthough much has been written generally about the achievment and choice requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), little has been written about the provisions of the bill that pertain to Limited English Proficient children. The purpose of this paper is to do that. 1 Both Title I and Title III of NCLB speak to the education of limited English proficient (LEP) children, also known as English language learners (ELLs). 2 The most important, and perhaps the most controversial, part of NCLB is the requirement in Title I that all students, including the economically disadvantaged, those from major racial and ethnic groups, those with disabilities, and those with limited English proficiency, must achieve the state's proficient level on "challenging" academic standards by 2013/14. 3 However, the test score goals for LEP children are not merely unrealistic-the most common criticism of NCLB-they are illogical. Unlike the black-white achievement gap and the poor-affluent achievement gap, which can at least theoretically be eliminated, the achievement gap between the category of children designated limited English proficient and the category of children designated fluent English proficient (FEP) can never be eliminated. That is because an LEP child is not just a child from an immigrant or non-English-speaking family. An LEP child is a child from an immigrant or non-Englishspeaking family who scores low in English. If you define a group by their low test scores, that group must have low test scores or someone has made a mistake.Thus, the original NCLB legislation, and virtually all of the analyses of NCLB, incorrectly treat limited English proficiency as if it

The Effects of Two Curriculum Interventions on the Academic Achievement of English Language Learners

“…The study findings suggest that less variability and greater gains were made by students enrolled in the ESL program when compared to students enrolled in the DL program and support research on the effectiveness of structured English-only instruction that integrates language and content skills as a way to help students be successful in mainstream classes (Conger, 2010;Rossell, 2003;Rossell 2005;Short et al 2011). Intense practice in English may have contributed to the greater gain ESL students demonstrated in the study.…”

“…To teach students academic content, traditional ESL programs may employ sheltered English instruction where the content is modified to make it more comprehensible (Rossell, 2005;Smith et al, 2008). Teachers using sheltered English instruction to teach content will have both content and language objectives.…”

“…There are strong proponents of the dual language method (Alanís & Rodriguez, 2008;Genesee et al, 2005) as well as the English only method (Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2006;Rossell, 2005). As a result, school districts may employ more than one instructional program.…”

“…Learning conversational English is not enough for ELLs to be successful in mainstream classrooms (Collier, 1995;Echevarria et al, 2006;Genesee et al, 2005;Rossell, 2005). August and Shanahan (2006) found that ELLs and their native English speaking peers had equal literacy development in the areas of decoding and spelling, but when measuring text level skills, such as reading and writing, ELLs fall behind.…”

“…Programs that focus on developing literacy using only English include programs in which students work only on English grammar, vocabulary, and communication skills and programs that blend both content and English instruction in an English only environment (Office of English Language Acquisition, 2008). To teach students academic content, traditional ESL programs may employ sheltered English instruction where the content is modified to make it more comprehensible (Rossell, 2005;Short et al, 2011;Smith et al, 2008). Teachers using sheltered English instruction to teach content will have both content and language objectives.…”