EDC 385GThe Texas Accountability System Fails Our English Language Learners
	Home Analysis of the Problem Evidence & Testimonials Policy Recommendations Links

Analysis of the Problem

to download the text as a .pdf file, click here

Table of Contents: (click on links to jump to sections)

I. Introduction
II. Theoretical Framework
III. Texas Statistics
IV. Bias Against Minorities
V. Reading Proficiency Test in English (RPTE)
VI. Transadaptation
VI. Bilingual Education Act v. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) - a brief comparison
VII. Conclusions and Recommendations
References

I. Introduction
President Bush states that "closing the achievement gap" is fundamental to his education reform policies. In the Foreword to the No Child Left Behind Act, President Bush states, "The academic achievement gap between rich and poor, Anglo and minority is not only wide, but in some cases is growing wider still" (NCLB, 2001). To close this achievement gap, the Bush Administration and Congress have implemented an accountability system that has become the cornerstone of the school reform movement. For the more than 3 million English language learners in American schools, the new policy requires that they "master English as quickly as possible" to meet high standards and that they be instructed in English only after three consecutive years of being in school (NCLB, 2001). English Language Learners have scored below their English-fluent peers "because federal funding for bilingual education currently has no performance measures attached to it" (NCLB, 2001). In order to succeed in the global marketplace, Bush contends, ELLs must rapidly master English. To ensure the rapid transition to English, the new educational reform policy requires states to set performance objectives that ensure ELLs students will achieve English fluency within 3 years. States achieving these objectives are rewarded, while states that do not meet their performance objectives for ELLs are sanctioned and could lose up to ten percent of the administrative portion of their ESEA funding. In theory, this system of sanctions and rewards will reform low-performing schools and ensure the success of minority, English Language Learners, and economically disadvantaged students.

In an era where accountability has become synonymous with school reform, the Texas accountability system and TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) testing program have become the models for the Bush Administration education policy. While Texas is touted as having performed a "miracle" in education reform, research shows the achievement gap between LEP classified students and native-English speaking students remains (McNeil, 2004). Furthermore, the rapid transition to academic English required by NCLB defies language acquisition research findings (Krashen, 1997; Ovando & Collier, 1998). As the model of the high-stakes testing accountability system, a spotlight must be focused on Texas for further investigation.
back to top

II. Theoretical and Research Base: Critical Race Theory Perspective
To understand the connection between critical race theory and its implications for English language learners an explanation of critical social theory must first be made. Critical social theory identifies and investigates current social, political, philosophical, economical or educational issues. According to Hargreaves, one of the assumptions of critical social theory is that "domination is structural, and people's everyday lives are affected by larger social institutions, such as politics, economics, culture, discourse, gender and race" (Hargreaves, 2003, p.182). Under the overarching umbrella of critical social theory there is a specific and recent examination of societal, cultural, political, legal and educational problems more specifically regarding race, gender and class called critical race theory. Critical race theory had its beginnings with the concern at the slow progress of racial reform in the United States. In the post-Civil Rights era of the 1970s and 1980s, several prominent scholars including Derrick Bell and Alan Freeman began to develop writings dedicated to critical race theory. Their writings focused on criticisms of the American social justice system and its historically unsuccessful colorblind mentality. Other critical race theorists such as Mari Matsuda, Richard Delgado, Kimberlie Crenshaw, Daniel Soloranzo, Gloria Ladson -Billings and William Tate focused on a narrative approach to legal scholarship rather than just a critical legal studies approach. In this narrative approach, individuals, particularly people of color, have opportunities to voice their perspectives as a methodology for presenting the realities of racism in American society. This narrative approach challenges the common belief that the White European experience is the normative standard. This is key when considering the prevailing attitudes toward English Language Learners and the requirement that they pass high-stakes tests in order to be promoted or to graduate.

Critical race theory has developed over time to include several foundational themes. The themes are:

1. Critical race theory recognizes that racism is endemic to American life. Thus, the question is not so much whether or how racial discrimination can be eliminated while maintaining the integrity of other interests implicated in the status quo such as federalism, privacy, traditional values, or established property interests. Instead it asks how these traditional interests and values serve as vessels of racial subordination.

2. Critical race theory expresses skepticism toward dominant legal claims of neutrality, objectivity, color blindness, and meritocracy.

3. Critical race theory challenges ahistoricism and insists on a contextual/historical analysis of the law.

4. Critical race theory insists on recognition of the experiential knowledge of people of color and our communities of origin in analyzing law and society.

5. Critical race theory is interdisciplinary and eclectic. It borrows from several traditions, including liberalism, law and society, feminism, Marxism, poststructuralism, critical legal theory, pragmatism, and nationalism.

6. Critical race theory works toward the end of eliminating racial oppression as part of the broader goal of ending all forms of oppression (Crenshaw, 1993, p. 6).

These themes have caused various disciplines such as philosophy, art, history, religion, and education to explore how their beginnings have been impacted by race and racism. Critical race theorists would suggest that an examination of the "institutionalized racism" that is prevalent in our educational system might be improved through investigation and the promotion of change. This is the lens from which we will examine attitudes and perceptions of bilingual education and English Language Learners in the United States and Texas.

The current state of bilingual education in Texas can be seen through the critical race theory most clearly in the recent school finance trial in Texas. The unconstitutional funding structure of the Texas school finance system outlines a blatant disregard for funds with regard to bilingual and ESL education. According to the Texas Civil Rights Review, during the Texas school finance trial,

"Edgewood interveners argued that gaps also increase if one accounts for the cost of bringing mostly Spanish speaking students into a system of English proficiency. In one of the more thrilling dramas of the courtroom, trial judge John Dietz took the state's own bilingual expert, and in three minutes' time, got her to admit that Texas should triple its funding formula for bilingual education" (http://www.texascivilrightsreview.org/phpnuke/modules.php?name=AvantGo&file=print&sid=130).

Texas has had a long history of traditionally discounting bilingual education programs through a lack of equitable funding and widespread segregation. Essentially, from the critical race theory perspective, ELLs are systematically deprived equal opportunities for school success through the lack of equitable funding, the high-stakes accountability system, inadequate program options, and segregating practices.
return to top

III. Texas Statistics
(Note: In this section, ELL students are often referred to as "Limited English Proficient," or LEP. This term remains the official designation for ELLs by the Texas Education Agency and according to No Child Left Behind. We use the term when citing TEA or NCLB information. In all other instances, we use the term English Language Learner, or ELL).

According to the Texas Education Agency, there were 630,148 Limited-English Proficient (LEP) classified students in Texas public schools during the 2002-2003 academic year, or 14.9% of the total student population of 4,239,911. Over 90% of these students were native-Spanish speakers. 572,019 of the LEP classified students were enrolled in Bilingual or ESL programs in Texas public schools, making up 13.5% of the total student population. In 2002-2003, 257,635 of the LEP classified children were in a grade assessed by the TAKS tests (Texas Education Agency, 2002-2003 State Performane Report). This means that the majority of the LEP classified students in Texas were in the grades of kindergarten, first, or second, showing a dramatic increase in the number of English Language Learners entering the Texas public school system.

In 2002-2003, 51.6% of LEP classified students in Grade 4 met the TAKS standards in English on all tests, compared to 85.8% of White students and 75.8% of all students. In Grade 5, the gap grew even larger, with 31.8% of LEP classified students meeting the TAKS requirements in English on all tests, compared to 80.1% of White students and 65.9% for all students. High school TAKS scores for 2002-2003 show an even more dramatic achievement gap. Only 16.9% of LEP classified students in Grade 9 met the TAKS requirements on all tests, compared to 61.7% of all students in the state. In Grade 10, 11.8% of LEP classified students met the TAKS standards for all tests, compared to 53.3% of all students in the state. In English Language Arts, 22.8% of LEP classified students in Grade 10 met the TAKS requirement, compared to 80.8% of White students. In science, 26.7% of LEP students met the TAKS requirements for science, compared to 83.7% of White students (TEA, 2002-2003 State Performance Report).

In Texas, the TAKS assessments are not initially designed for native Spanish speakers. Tests are translated, or "transadapted" from tests designed in English. The reading levels of the transadapted tests is above the English reading level of the grade being assessed, creating a testing bias against LEP classified students (see Transadaptation of Tests and Evidence & Testimonials). Furthermore, ELL students in Texas do not receive native language instruction in middle school or high school and are not given the opportunity to take the TAKS tests in Spanish after 6th grade. For students who arrive in the United States later in their academic careers, this creates further bias as these students are held to the same standards in English as their native-English speaking peers.
return to top

IV. Bias Against Minorities
A Deficit Perspective - The term "Limited English Proficient" exemplifies the deficit perspective of English Language Learners held by American schools and government policies. Rather than classifying students by what they possess (a native tongue), students are labeled only according to what they lack, proficiency in the English language. Thus, to remedy this perceived deficit, schools are encouraged to subtract students' native language and culture in order to achieve a rapid cultural assimilation and acquisition of English. Valenzuela (1999) conducted a three-year ethnographic study of a Houston high school and discovered this subtractive form of education left many Mexican American students feeling discarded by the educational system. By minimizing the students' native language and culture, students were left without a strong connection to their Mexican heritage and yet remained "locked out" of the American mainstream. This deficit perspective of English Language Learners is also apparent in the language of the No Child Left Behind Act. The current federal policy omits references to "bilingualism," "multilingualism," or "culture" and redirects federal policy towards an English-only model of education.

Segregation, Funding, and Narrowing of the Curriculum - The accountability system in Texas creates further bias against minorities. Currently, many ELL and immigrant students are concentrated in schools with largely minority and ELL populations, segregating them from the mainstream American culture into which they are expected to assimilate. About half of all ELLs attend schools in which 30% or more of the student body are also ELLs (Black & Valenzuela, 2004, p.4; Ruiz de Velasco & Fix, 2001, p.3). The majority of immigrant students in Texas and elsewhere are also concentrated in economically depressed schools with inadequate resources. Unlike other industrialized nations that fund schools centrally and equally, the United States has enormous disparities in educational funding. The wealthiest school districts in the U.S. spend over $30,000 per pupil, more than ten times the amount spent by the poorest districts (Darling-Hammond, 2004, p.6). The disparities in funding are also present in program expenditures. According to TEA, Bilingual and ESL programs received 4.5% of the budgeted instructional operating expenditures for 2002-2003, while Bilingual/ESL students made up 13.5% of the state student enrollment. Special Education received 12.6% of the state budget expenditures for the 11.6% of students enrolled in Special Education programs, and Regular Education received 70.8% of the budget expenditures (TEA, 2002-2003 State Performance Report). Clearly, minority and ELL students are discriminated against in this system of funding, a critical factor affecting the achievement gap and one that is not addressed by NCLB.

The minority and ELL children in under-resourced schools are also at greatest risk in the Texas accountability system. Schools which lack classroom curriculum materials, library materials, science equipment, and technology are compelled to use limited curriculum money toward the purchase of TAKS test-preparation materials. As a result, scarce instructional funds are diverted from classrooms "to out-of-state vendors of tests, test-prep materials, consultants and related materials" (McNeil & Valenzuela, 2001, p.8). For minority and ELL students, TAKS preparation narrows or replaces the curriculum. Students in low-performing schools receive a truncated education that emphasizes test-taking strategies and low levels of knowledge. McNeil (2000) describes the effects of this truncated education for minority and ELL students in the subject of mathematics. The study of math becomes "having students choose among four or five possible answers. They are not asked to explain their answers, so if students have alternative ways of working a problem, their reasoning is not made visible on the test. Nor are their reasons for selecting the 'correct' answers. Being able to conceptualize in mathematics, being able to envision a solution and select among possible approaches, being able to articulate the reasoning behind an answer - none of these is tested" (McNeil, 2000, p.241). Many students in low-performing schools receive a curriculum of largely TAKS test-preparation from September until the spring test dates. Middle and high school students who do not pass the TAKS tests are usually placed in TAKS preparation courses rather than electives, further segregating them from their peers and denying them the curriculum offered to non-minority or English-fluent students.

Teacher Certification and Training - ELL students are also the most likely to have poorly trained and/or under-resourced teachers or teachers with emergency certifications. In Texas, the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) has compensated for the shortage of teachers in Bilingual/ESL programs and other areas of high-need by implementing a teacher certification policy that allows any certified classroom teacher with a Bachelor's degree to gain additional certification in other fields by passing an examination. No additional coursework or training is required upon successful completion of the examination (State Board for Educator Certification, 2004). Under this policy, thousands of Texas public school children enrolled in Bilingual and ESL programs are being educated by teachers with no specialized training or coursework in these specific fields. The current demand for teachers in Texas has also led SBEC to offer emergency certifications and alternative routes to certification that do not require a university-preparation program. These teachers are predominately hired to teach in economically depressed areas with language minority students. A 2001 study conducted by the Texas A&M Institute for School-University Partnerships found that 48% of Texas elementary teachers who had been hired to teach language minority students lacked the appropriate credentials for their position (Flores & Clark, 2004, p.327). These policies create further bias against minority students who are most likely to be negatively impacted by the high-stakes accountability system.
return to top

V. Reading Proficiency Test in English
Valenzuela and Black trace the development of the Reading Proficiency Test in English (RPTE) as a logical outgrowth of a test-based accountability structure, where equity is couched in terms of "equal access to mandated testing" A more substantive exploration of the unique attributes that multilingual students bring to public schooling remains ignored, not to mention the potential contributions of ELLs within an increasingly diverse, globalized society (Valenzuela and Black, 2004, p. 3). A combination of pressures upon English Language Learners (more than 90% of whom are Spanish language speakers) results in high dropout rates, loss or fossilization of native Spanish fluency, and a battered sense of cultural and personal worth. Society clearly values the English language and its attendant values over cultural heritage.

Even though the RPTE does not fit within the official accountability formulae for determining individual and school state ratings, it fits squarely within this hegemonic discourse. The RPTE was intended to serve as a guide to measure the progress English Language Learners make toward their eventual assessments by the English TAKS - as such, it is based upon the structure of the English TAKS Reading exam (Valenzuela and Black, 2004). Presumably, students who take the TAKS fall into one of four categories:

1. Native Spanish speakers exempt for three years from taking the TAKS in English or Spanish because they qualify as "recent, unschooled immigrants" (TEA, 1997).
2. Native Spanish speakers who will take the TAKS in Spanish (grades 3-6 only).
3. Native speakers of languages other than Spanish who are exempt from the English TAKS because of their recent immigrant status (3 years' duration).
4. Native speakers of Spanish or other languages who nevertheless take the TAKS in English. These students are either in their first year of testing or have not yet passed the TAKS test or another standardized test which would exit them from the Limited English Proficient category.

Valenzuela and Black trace the implementation of the RPTE back to an independent consulting agent's (called BETA) report to the Texas Legislature in 2000 (see Links for a full copy of the BETA report). This report sought ways to incorporate more ELLs into the state's assessment system, though, in a telling move, it also rejected the notion of expanding the Spanish TAKS examinations into the 7th and 8th grades. A combination of factors, including cost-effectiveness, the lack of availability of Spanish-language instruction, and the desire for intense ESL instruction, were cited as reasons for not extending the bilingual education program into the middle school years.

Valenzuela and Black critique the RPTE as an artifact of an "assimilationist policy archaeology," citing many instances where its development and uses perpetuate the systematic, subtractive processes of downgrading or stripping ELLs of their native languages and cultures. To support their analysis, they include the following elements:

* The test itself is a focus on a deficit, on a fluency that ELLs do not possess.

* Though it is not included in the official accountability system, its similarity to the TAKS invites the same fever of reporting and comparison, and makes it susceptible to similar kinds of policy-making.

* The test is intended to measure readiness for students to take (not necessarily pass) the TAKS test in English, a far more limited and limiting goal than a more thorough assessment of a student's readiness to participate in the full complement of academic instruction in English.

* By emphasizing English language development, it aligns nicely with the shortage of bilingual teachers, instructional materials in Spanish and other languages, and administrators with a positive view toward bilingualism/biculturalism. In doing so, it stifles conversations on the more additive views of late transition bilingual programs or dual language programs.

* Instructions to school LPAC committees for the use of the RPTE advocate a transition to English instruction (and the TAKS) though the student is still "struggling." Waiting longer, these instructions state, "distorts information about how well schools are meeting their educational needs." (TEA, LPAC decision making, p. 8)

The actual data reported by the Texas Education Agency on the RPTE do not bear out its promise as a tool for measuring the linear advancement of students. In 2001, 51% of the students who were receiving ESL or bilingual instruction for four years or more did not reach an Advanced level. Multi-year statewide data also suggest that students may remain at levels of proficiencies over more than one year. There is evidence that the pressures of the accountability system are pushing secondary school students into taking (and failing) the TAKS far sooner than they are ready. Significant numbers of students designated "Beginning" by the RPTE are taking the TAKS in English; not surprisingly, only 12% of these "Beginning" students end up passing the TAKS (Valenzuela and Black, 2004).

The intent for the RPTE to serve merely as a guide to preparation for the TAKS was modified by the passage of the federal No Child Left Behind legislation in 2002. With this law in place, schools now need to demonstrate "Adequate Yearly Progress" for fixed percentages of all its students, ELLs included, across a matrix of assessments which are negotiated between the states and the U.S. Department of Education. This new wrinkle in the system further puts further pressure on students to demonstrate progress on a rigid, narrow assessment, one which does not match up to natural language development processes. The public should expect an accelerated rate of retentions and dropouts for ELLs as a result. Abedi discusses further ramifications for ELLs and the schools which serve them as NCLB takes hold across the country (2004).
back to top

VI. Transadaptation
Transadaptation is a term originally used for the translation of audiovisual texts as a means of recognizing the multidimensional cultural qualities that have to be taken into account when translating audiovisual materials for a new audience (Gambier, 2003). For example, if an American comedy were to be refilmed in Spanish for a largely Latin American audience, not only would the language of the dialogue have to be translated, but the scenes would have to be recast to fit situations which the Latin American audience would find appropriately funny. The term "transadaptation" was adopted by TEA in 1997 to describe the process they used to render the English TAAS into Spanish when they debuted the Spanish TAAS for grades 3-6. In their policy research report describing the transadaptation procees, TEA states the following:

[T]he team worked to develop Spanish test items that are linguistically appropriate, free from bias, and comparable in content and complexity to the English versions. Translators relied on state-adopted textbooks in Spanish, current bilingual education methodologies, and input from Texas bilingual educators. Once completed, each Spanish TAAS assessment undergoes a rigorous review from committees of Texas bilingual educators, and the assessment is field-tested statewide. (Texas Education Agency, 1997).

By this process, the TEA believes that its English TAKS are successfully rendered in Spanish so as to hold Spanish test-takers accountable for performance results equal to their English-speaking counterparts. However, there remain several unresolved issues in the transadaptation process which make the difficulty of the Spanish test significantly higher than the English. This higher degree of difficulty is born out by the correspondingly lower statewide test results for students taking the tests in Spanish. In 2003, 81.7% of third graders Spanish readers passed the high-stakes TAKS Reading exam compared to the 89.6% passing rate of all English readers, and the 85.1% passing rate of Hispanic students who took the test in English. In fact, in all 2003 TAKS exams but one (4th grade Writing), Spanish test passing rates were considerably lower than the English versions (Texas Education Agency 2002-03 State Performance Report).

Dr. Michael Guerrero, a professor of bilingual education at UT-Austin, voiced his concerns about the transadapted Spanish TAKS in his testimony on Spanish Language Assessment at the Texas Legislature's Latino Legislative Summit in the summer of 2002. In this testimony, Guerrero questioned the assumption of the validity of the Third Grade Reading TAKS in Spanish, which is used to determine promotion of third-grade Spanish-speaking students to the fourth grade. He based his skepticism on several variables: challenges to the psychometric integrity of the English TAAS (the precursor to the TAKS) as a high-stakes assessment; the basis of the Spanish TAKS on the English-based TEKS, including reading skills that are specific to English; and the lack of equation between the Spanish and English versions of the TAKS. Guerrero proposed that a more defensible Spanish TAKS would be designed with Spanish reading skills and curricula in mind rather than as an afterthought to the English test (Guerrero, 2002).

We wish to add to Guerrero's concerns our skepticism along several other lines. First, we challenge the use of the term "transadaptation" for the process that the TEA follows to produce its Spanish TAKS. Though there is significant prescreening of test items in English, there is no apparent reconsideration of test items in English or Spanish based upon the Spanish rendition of the test. Thus it would appear that even if a test item were to be culturally incongruous or otherwise biased for Spanish test-takers, because the English version is in fact the "final" version, the question would remain and Spanish test-takers would be disproportionately affected.

Furthermore, despite the TEA's claims that the Spanish tests are "comparable in content and complexity to the English versions," a preliminary search of the 5th grade Science TAKS in English and Spanish yield striking discrepancies. We chose this particular exam because of statements from TEA representatives that the language of the Spanish version was considerably more difficult than the English. In fact, one representative placed the 5th grade Science test on a 12th grade difficulty level when taken in Spanish (TEA Presentation to Austin ISD Principals, Fall, 2003). In the Evidence section of this website, we present side-by-side comparisons of five questions from the 2004 Science TAKS. The tests were first reviewed by one of our team; questions that appeared to differ in meaning, content, or clarity were then reviewed by at least three other educators, including several native speakers of the Spanish typical to Northern Mexico and along the Texas border. The five which appear in our website had unanimous agreement among the reviewers that they differed markedly from the English. With 40 questions on the 5th grade Science TAKS, these five questions represent 12.5% of the total. It is no wonder that Spanish test-takers had a 32.4% passing rate on the 2003 5th grade Science TAKS, compared to English test-takers who achieved a 74.5% passing rate (Texas Education Agency 2002-03 State Performance Report).

Below each discrepancy we see in the test, we make suggestions for improving the wording of the questions. We take this step with reservations; in making recommendations, we do not wish to endorse the test development process as it currently plays out, for we feel that biases against Spanish test-takers are deeply embedded from the outset. The question then arises as to how the state can create a less biased exam in Spanish. Guerrero's recommendation is a good starting point: begin with the skills and knowledge as they unfold in Spanish. This will mean developing a test that in all likelihood will have different content from the English version. If the state is unwilling to take this measure, it is then indefensible, not to mention unethical, to hold Spanish test-takers to the same high stakes for a test with a greater degree of difficulty.
back to top

VII. The Bilingual Education Act v. NCLB
In 1967, Title VII was added to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). This amendment is commonly referred to as the Bilingual Education Act. Title VII recognized the "special educational needs of the large number of children of limited English-speaking ability in the United States" and directed Congress to provide financial assistance to local educational agencies to develop and implement programs to meet the specific educational needs of this population (BEA, 1968). The Bilingual Education Act was signed into law in 1968 by President Lyndon Baines Johnson, the only United States president to ever work as a teacher of non-English speaking children. The Bilingual Education Act was later reauthorized by Congress in 1974, 1978, 1984, 1988, and 1994.

Title VII of the1994 reauthorization of the Bilingual Education Act, Bilingual Education, Language Enhancement, and Language Acquisition Programs, included policy amendments based on sixteen findings by Congress. These Congressional findings included the following: many children of limited-English proficiency have a cultural heritage that differs from that of their English-proficient peers; many language-minority Americans have limited education and income; and many limited-English proficient children face a number of barriers in education that prevent a full participation in American society. The educational barriers recognized by Congress included segregated educational programs, disproportionate and improper placement in special education programs due to inappropriate evaluations, and a shortage of qualified teachers and staff professionally trained to serve limited-English proficient students.

The 1994 reauthorization recognized that "quality bilingual educational programs enable children and youth to learn English and meet high academic standards including proficiency in more than one language" (BEA, 1994). The amendment also recognized increasing global interdependence and communication, and as such, "multilingual skills constitute an important national resource which deserves protection and development." The federal policy, outlined in the 1994 reauthorization, was to assist state and local educational agencies, higher educational institutions, and community-based organizations to develop and sustain programs to instruct LEP-identified children. Under the reauthorization, school districts were given flexibility to choose between various English-only and bilingual models, including two-way bilingual instruction. The reauthorization terminated the previous practice of "earmarking" Congressional funds based on the language of instruction. The 1994 federal policy stated as its purpose "to educate limited English proficient children and youth to meet the same rigorous standards for academic performance expected of all children and youth, including meeting challenging State content standards and challenging State student performance standards in academic areas" (BEA, 1994). The 1994 federal policy stated that the most effective means of achieving this purpose was through "the development and implementation of exemplary bilingual education programs and special alternative instruction programs; developing bilingual skills and multicultural understanding; and developing the English of such children and youth, and to the extent possible, the native language skills of such children and youth" (BEA, 1994).

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 amended and reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. The Bilingual Education Act was rescinded in Congress after 34 years and education policies for second-language learners were re-established under the No Child Left Behind Act. Under NCLB, all references to "bilingual" education ceased. Title VII was reauthorized as Title III - Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students. Part A of Title III addresses the purposes of the legislation and is entitled the English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act. The purposes stated in Part A include the following:

"to help ensure that children who are limited English proficient, including immigrant children and youth, attain English proficiency, and develop high levels of academic attainment in English;

"to assist State educational agencies and local educational agencies to develop and enhance their capacity to provide high-quality instructional programs designed to prepare limited English proficient children, including immigrant children and youth, to enter all-English instruction settings;

"to streamline language instruction educational programs....to help limited English proficient children develop proficiency in English;

"to hold State educational agencies, local educational agencies, and schools accountable for increases in English proficiency and core academic content knowledge of limited English proficient children by requiring: demonstrated improvements in the English proficiency of limited English proficient children each fiscal year; and adequate yearly progress for limited English proficient children, including immigrant children and youth" (NCLB, 2001)

Under NCLB, current federal policy supports an English-only model of language instruction and turns federal funding for language programs into block grants administered by the states. The Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs (OBELMA) was renamed the Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA), further promoting an English-only ideology. The new federal policy expunges references to global interdependence, proficiency in more than one language, or multilingual skills. The policy reverses previous Congressional findings that recognized multilingual skills as an asset in a global economy and a national resource worthy of protection and development.

The No Child Left Behind Act also incorporates the high-stakes testing and accountability model into language instruction. While NCLB purports to close the "achievement gap" between racial and linguistic groups, the provision of high-stakes testing in English discourages states and local school districts from offering native-language instruction. Under the high-stakes accountability model, schools are evaluated based on how rapidly students are transitioned into English. Schools are deemed "successful" only if students demonstrate rapid progress in acquiring English. Under the new federal policy, no consideration is given to the development of bilingualism. The English-only ideological shifts, as well as the accountability measures attached to this goal, currently present a dramatic and problematic situation for language instruction in public schools.
back to top

VIII. Conclusions and Recommendations
Given our critical race perspective, the evidence we have presented, and the shifting demographics of our state populace, we would like to advocate a complete overhaul of the current accountability system. Such an overhaul would likely require litigation or a dramatic shift in the political makeup of the Texas Legislature and the State Board of Education. The dominant ideology of the State Board of Education was expressed recently by Board Member Dan Montgomery, who stated, "Republicans control all branches of state government, and the Texas Republican Party platform calls for the 'termination of bilingual education programs'" (Montgomery, September 25, 2004). Therefore, we are not expecting radical change in the near future.

Within the confines of the current political landscape, we recommend the following:

1. Multiple, compensatory criteria for high-stakes assessment - Valenzuela (2002) makes the argument that one high-stakes exam is not sufficient for making decisions that have a major impact on the lives of students, or for determining the effectiveness of instruction. Instead, they propose using a matrix of assessments, including the TAKS, in order to reach committee decisions about a child's fitness for promotion. Additional assessments can include teacher observations, reading inventories, student presentations, portfolio collections, and other products of a rich classroom environment.

2. Expand the RPTE to at least five years' duration to match the findings of language acquisition research. The current rationale that a "Proficient" level on the RPTE is suitable for merely reading the TAKS examination in English is incompatible with the eventual goal set by the state that all students will pass the TAKS. Expansion of the RPTE to five years will also lift the burden on students and teachers to transition to English after only three years in the United States.

3. The Spanish TAKS must stand on its own as an authentic, normed test. The "transadaptation" process is clearly biased against Spanish language test-takers. Development of the Spanish TAKS must take into account fluency and literacy development in Spanish, just as the English version does for native English speakers.

4. Bring to light the consistent and longstanding inequities in testing, funding, teacher certification, provision of materials, and segregation of ELLs rampant in Texas public schools. This website is our contribution to this public dialogue. We hope that visitors to these pages will share the information with local school and community leaders and begin to demand equal treatment from the state. It is clear that the demographics in this state are shifting, and that young people are bringing to Texas the notion of a global society. We can ignore this trend, and continue to insist upon the dominance of one language and one culture, or we can embrace our shared future.
back to top

References
Abedi, J. (2004) The No Child Left Behind Act and English Language Learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher 33(1), 4-14.

Bilingual education facts from the Colorado Association for Bilingual Education. Retrieved on October 23, 2004, from http://www.cobilingual.org/myths_facts.htm

Black, B., & Valenzuela, A. (2004). Educational accountability for English language learners in Texas: A retreat from equity. In L. Skrla & J. Scheurich (Eds.), Educational equity and accountability (pp. 215-234). Albany: SUNY Press.

Crawford, J. (2004). Language Policy Web Site & Emporium. Retrieved on October 31, 2004, from http://www.ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JCRAWFORD/home.htm

Crenshaw, K.W., Delgado, R., Lawrence, C.R., III, & Matsuda, M.J., (1993). Words that wound: Critical race theory, assaultive speech and the First Amendment. Boulder: Westview Press.

Crenshaw, K.W., et al (1995). Introduction. In K. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller, & K. Thomas (Eds.) Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement. New York: New Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). From "Separate but equal" to "No child left behind": The collision of new standards and old inequalities. In D. Meier, A. Kohn, L. Darling-Hammond, T.R. Sizer, & G. Wood (Eds.), Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools (pp. 3-32). Boston: Beacon Press.

Flores, B.B., & Clark, E.R. (2004). The centurion: Standards and high-stakes testing as gatekeepers for bilingual teacher candidates in the new century. In A. Valenzuela (Ed.), Leaving children behind: Why Texas-style accountability fails Latino youth (pp. 310-343). Albany: SUNY Press.

Fradd, S.H. (1999). Creating Florida's multilingual global work force: Educational politics and practices for students learning new languages. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/miscpubs/florida/workforce99.htm

Gambier, Y. (2003). Introduction: Screen transadaptation: Perception and reception. The Translator, 9(2), 171-189.

Guerrero, M. (June 18, 2002). Testimony on Spanish Language Assessment. Latino Legislative Summit. Austin: Texas Legislature.

Handbook for the implementation of Bilingual/ESL programs (n.d.) Retrieved July 15, 2004, from http://www.esc19.net/Handbook/

Hargreaves, A., Fernandes, M., & Thompson, M. (2003). Big change question: Does critical theory have any practical value on educational change? Journal of Educational Change, 4, 181-193.

Krashen, S. (January, 1997). Why bilingual education? In ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. Retrieved from, http://www.ericfacility.net/ericdegests/ed403101.html

McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform. New York: Routledge.

McNeil, L. (2004) Faking equity: High-stakes testing and the education of Latino youth. In A. Valenzuela (Ed.), Leaving Children Behind: Why Texas-style accountability fails Latino youth (pp.57-111). Albany: SUNY Press.

McNeil, L., & Valenzuela, A. (2001). The harmful impact of the TAAS system of testing in Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric. In M. Kornhaber & G. Orfield (Eds.), Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high stakes testing in public education (pp. 127-150). New York: The Century Foundation.

No Child Left Behind (2001). Retrieved November 13, 2004, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/no-child-left-behind.html

Montgomery, D. (2004, September 25). Bilingual comment. San Antonio Express-News.

Office of English Language Acquisition. Elementary and secondary education amendments of 1967. Retrieved November 2, 2004, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/legislation/historical/index.htm

Office of English Language Acquisition. Title III - Language instruction for limited English proficient and immigrant students. Retrieved November 2, 2004, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/resabout/nclb/2_legislation.html

Office of English Language Acquisition. Title VII - Bilingual education, language enhancement, and language acquisition programs. Retrieved November 2, 2004, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/legislation/iasa/titlevii/tvii.htm

Ovando, C. J., & Collier, V.P. (1998). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: teaching in multicultural contexts (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill

Parker, L. (2000). Critical race theory: Historical development & contemporary utility for educational policy analysis. Retrieved October 2, 2004, from The University of Illinois, Educational Policy Studies Web Site: http://www.webmedia.depaul.edu/criticalrace/html/theory/theoryOverview.html

Rodriguez, R. (1983). Hunger of Memory: The Education of Richard Rodriguez. New York: Bantam Dell Publishing Group.

Ruiz de Velasco, J., & Fix, M. (2002). Overlooked and underserved: Immigrant students in secondary schools. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.

San Miguel, G. (1987). Let all of them take heed: Mexican Americans and the campaign for educational equality in Texas, 1910-1981. Austin: The University of Texas Press.Texas Civil Rights Project. Class struggle and critical race theory for Texas schools. Retrieved November 20, 2004, from http://www.texascivilrightsreview.org/phpnuke/modules.php?name=AvantGo&file=print&sid=130

State Board for Educator Certification. Certification information. Retrieved on November 30, 2004, from http://www.sbec.state.tx.us/SBECOnline/

Texas Education Agency. Academic excellence indicator system: 2002-2003 state performance report. Retrieved May 8, 2004, from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/2003/state.html

Texas Education Agency (1997). Expanding the scope of the Texas public school accountability system. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

Tucker, R. (August, 1998). A global perspective on bilingualism and bilingual education. In ERIC Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed435168.html

Valenzuela, A. (2002). High-stakes testing and U.S.-Mexican Youth in Texas. Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy 14, 97-116.

Valenzuela, A. (2004). Leaving children behind: Why Texas-style accountability fails Latino youth. Albany, SUNY Press. Webalization. Retrieved October 23, 2004, from http://www.webalization.com

Valenzuela, A. (2000). The significance of the TAAS test for Mexican immigrant and Mexican adolescents: A case study. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22, pp. 524-540.

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling. Albany: SUNY Press.

Vornberg. J. (Ed.) Texas Professors of educational administration. Texas Public School Organization and Administration: 2002. (8th ed.) (2002). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

back to top