No Child Left Behind Ell's Argument Analysis

All four of these major flaws in the system combine to create an incredibly unfair atmosphere for English language learners in public schools. Data suggests that English learning students produce scores “20-40 percentage points below other students on statewide assessments,” (Menken). It is clear that the design of standardized tests are biased toward English speakers. Thus, as a result of the No Child Left Behind act, ELL’s are left behind significantly more than English speaking students strictly as a result of English comprehension. From these flaws and biases, Kate Menken argues that standardized tests are in fact a language policy issue. Menken claims that English literacy has become an important gate-keeper in immigration. She refers to Leibowitz’s words to support her argument: “English literacy tests and other statutory sanctions in favor of English were originally formulated as an indirect but effective means of

achieving discrimination on the basis of race, creed, and color.” (Menken). In Menken’s opinion, standardized tests have evolved into a means to bar unwanted immigrants from naturalization. Though modern testing affects all students, it is clear in data that ELL’s are most commonly harmed by testing. The concept of language policy relates back to the literacy tests of the post civil war era, when testing was strictly racist and essentially purposely prevented blacks from gaining citizenship and the right to vote. Essentially, standardized tests are requiring non-english speakers to learn English more quickly or suffer the consequences. It also prevents new immigrant children from immediately succeeding in American schools. Menken uses 2000 US Census data to prove this point. She writes, “Though 42% of language minorities are foreign born, data indicates that more than half of all language minorities speak English ‘very well’, exceeding the number who report speaking English ‘less than very well’,” (Menken). Using this data, it was established that the pace of Anglicization in the US has never been faster. As a result of the accountability system in American schools, immigrants tend to lose their primary language to English by the third generation. Overall, according to Menken, standardized tests’ significant role in American schools provide a means to regulate language in the United States.
However, Menken’s argument does not prove that standardized tests should be banned from schools as a result of its flaws. While standardized tests may disadvantage students and force English upon speakers of other languages, these results are justified. The language of the United States is English, and while foreigners who immigrate to the United States may keep their own languages, they must learn the language of the country. Nonetheless, this does not justify the problem of test in which ESL students are disadvantaged by the language aspect of the test. Despite the inequality of the testing system, though, the tests should be first improved before they are completely taken out of the system. Standardized tests may wrongly quality the abilities of LEP students, but with some improvements of the major flaws of the test, the tests can show positive results, (Phelps). If properly improved to accommodate ELL students, the standardized test system does not reveal any injustice and should remain a part of the public school system.
Addressing and solving the problem is a long overdue task, and must begin with the test itself. Both of the problems with standardized testing can easily be fixed, but have just been overlooked in recent years as a result of the information derived from the tests. Tests are incorrectly judging students because the tests do not fit many of the students taking them. To improve this large problem, the test should be altered and broken up into multiple tests which are given to the different types of students. Creating tests that are more accommodating to students of other languages will allow for actual content analysis to be successful. Instead of clouding the truth with the problems in the design of the test, each test will cater to the different languages spoken by each ELL student and allow for proper identification of academic success outside of language proficiency, (Maura). The main goal of the original implementation of the tests, accurate measures of academic ability, will finally be available for ESL students, and their learning will benefit as a result. Also, the schools that struggle to meet the AYP each year may be more successful if their scores were brought down because of language inconsistencies. Therefore, redesigning the tests to actually accommodate other languages will benefit the students and the school systems.
The other piece of the test can be improved extremely easily as well.

Standardized tests are changed each year so that the questions are different, and so changing the complexity of the language on the test can be an easy change that takes place in just one year. Language simplification tested for students in grade 8 resulted in higher scores for ESL students, (Phelps). Simply changing the words used on the tests can help to fix a problem that has caused serious problems in the education field for years. Also, in order to not inflate the testing scale for those students who would do better with simplification, the language simplification could be a policy strictly implemented into the tests that could be made specifically for each type of ESL student. Considering that language is not a truly tested part of the test, it would seem fit that the ability to comprehend questions is made fair for all students, (LeChapelle). Thus, language simplification is a simple, non-intrusive solution to a large problem for LEP students in standardized

testing.
With those two steps, the testing structure can be improved to better accommodate English language learning students. But, the solution to the educational system related to the tests is a much more difficult step. First, the lack of proper reliable measurements of the tests can be improved by determining a point in which non- proficient students are judged equally. An expert on the subject, Wayne P. Thomas, also finds flaws in the school system rather than just the tests. Thomas noticed that standardized tests begin favoring native English speakers in the early years of school, but eventually become successful in judging ESL students five to six years in the system. He writes, “The tests are inappropriate measures in the first 2-3 years of English language learners’ schooling in L2, because when tested in English, the test underestimates what students actually know,” (Thomas). Thomas believes that it is merely a difficult stage in learning to test. After a few years, though, Thomas is confident that ELL’s can have success in the system. He writes, “After several years of schooling, these school tests in English across the curriculum become more appropriate measures to examine,” (Thomas). Here, Thomas establishes that standardized tests bring ELL students to equal terms with native-English speakers after a few years. In response, schools must recognize that non-English speaking students may need to be tested without high stakes for a few years before the tests begin to count towards the student’s placement and the school system’s AYP. Even if tests are changed and modified for ESL students, the tests will still lack to fully measure academic abilities of LEP students, (Neill). Schools must realize, then, that student achievement in the early stages of learning, should be measured in many different content areas other than just testing.
Lastly, the matter of poor instruction in response to test scores can be solved with relation to the changing of tests. If tests are given in language that the student is familiar with, it will eliminate the problem of learning and testing in different languages. This problem can be solved by combining the solutions to previous problems. However, if LEP students still perform poorly in certain subjects even if the language accommodates them, instruction can be improved with bi-lingual classes which shift between the native language and English. These classes have been proven to work, but are rarely found in public schools, (Galvez). Improved instruction will have lasting benefits for the students, not only for their performance on standardized tests but also for their future success in school.
Ultimately, standardized tests began as a positive concept which was unfortunately unfitting for the diversity of public schools. However, test should remain in the system, and therefore they must be modified to fit the needs of students who are inexperienced in the English language. In addressing the four flaws that exist in the test and in the school system, standardized tests can be extremely improved and can actually make a beneficial impact on the ESL community without harming the success of native-English speaking students. Standardized tests should not be banned, or replaced, but should instead be modified to accommodate the diversity of the public school population. In making these changes both the students and the schools will see the benefits of higher test scores and improved learning in additional schooling programs.