 |
|
The Education and Evaluation of Non-English Speaking Students in California’s schools
October 17, 2007
Edward M. Olivos
Op-ed Article for San Diego Union-Tribune October 17, 2007
THE EDUCATION AND EVALUATION OF NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING STUDENTS IN CALIFORNIA’S SCHOOLS
Imagine a scenario in which a fifth grade teacher receives a new student from a non-English speaking country midway through the academic year. In an effort to assist this child, and to help them catch up to their peers, the teacher decides to find out what the
child already knows in the content areas of reading/writing, math, and science. Which of the following options makes more sense and provides the teacher with the most accurate
information about the student? (A) assess the student’s knowledge of these subjects using tests written in English, despite the fact that the child doesn’t comprehend or speak English; or (B) assess the student’s knowledge of these subjects using tests in their native language while assessing their English language proficiency separately. Common sense,
and extensive scientifically-based research, supports option “B” as best for providing the teacher (as well as the school, the district, and the parents) with the most accurate and
reliable data about the student’s prior knowledge, existing English linguistic abilities, and academic skills.
The above scenario is being played out every year in California’s pubic schools. It is not occurring with one student in one classroom, however, but with thousands of students in hundreds of classrooms. Each year, California schools enroll thousands of students, many
of whom are non-English-speaking. The academic level of these children ranges from minimal school exposure to mastery of many basic academic skills. Yet, given the fact that standardized tests in California schools are only given in English, student
achievement data is at minimum misleading if not entirely invalid. The California State
Department of Education is providing taxpayers with data that does not paint an accurate picture of what non-English-speaking students are learning in school, or how well schools are doing in educating them. Rather, the information parents and the public is getting is what is already predictable—children who do not speak English well will not do well on English language tests.
To rectify this scenario, the Chula Vista Elementary School District, the San Ysidro
School District, and the Sweetwater Union High School District recently joined other
California districts and statewide organizations in a lawsuit that allow districts to test children in their native language, or in “accessible” English. They did so because they understand that their schools must have access to assessment tools that accurately measure what students know and will provide a clear picture to the public of how well their schools are progressing in their task of educating all children.
Unfortunately, these school districts are now being accused of segregating students; of not wanting to teach English; of watering down their curriculum and lowering standards for language minority students; and other inaccurate accusations. What the critics fail to mention, however, is that these districts, in addition to seeking more accurate and reliable
exams, are actually working toward having the state of California fulfill its legal
obligation under the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This law clearly states
that schools are to test children in “a language and form” that will provide accurate academic data.
Op-ed Article for San Diego Union-Tribune October 17, 2007
By not allowing school districts to test children in their native language (when
appropriate and to the extent possible), California is seriously impeding educators from using assessment tools as instruments for accountability and instruction. Also, by not
providing educators with correct information about how well children are mastering
academic content, policymakers and politicians are forcing these educators to prescribe
inappropriate academic interventions. For example, it would seem ludicrous, and a waste of time, for a teacher to teach a non-English-speaking fifth grade student the concept of
multiplication if the student has already mastered multiplication facts. It would be more valuable for the teacher to teach this student the appropriate English vocabulary associated with multiplication with the goal of teaching a higher level math skill.
In the current era of high stakes testing, imagine the scenario presented earlier but with the student arriving two weeks prior to the annual state testing period and district schools having only option “A” as a choice. Again, common sense would indicate to us that this child will not do well on these exams. And, because this student does not do well on these inappropriate tests, current accountability policies will make this child’s school vulnerable to “program improvement” intervention and other sanctions. This would then
portray this school as failing to policymakers, the public, and to parents. This is
particularly unfair to those schools and districts which have a high enrollment of non-
English-speaking students, such as those in the San Diego South Bay.
Accurate testing results are vital to school districts as they search for ways to improve the education of non-English-speaking students and it is up to the state of California to assist
them. Indeed, it is inconceivable to allow a school and a district to be punished for failing
to meet annual academic improvement gains when the instruments used to measure this progress are faulty, inaccurate, or incomplete.
Edward M. Olivos is an assistant professor of Teacher Education at the University of
Oregon and a former San Diego elementary school teacher, where he taught for 10
years. His research is focused on the increase of English Learners in Oregon Schools and the credentialing of bilingual educators.
|
|
|
|
