U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

34–017 PDF 2007

IMPACT OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, 

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND LABOR

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 23, 2007

Serial No. 110–14

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

(

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Linda T. Sa ́nchez, California 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Bob Inglis, South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

David Davis, Tennessee 

Timothy Walberg, Michigan

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director 

Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan, Chairman

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Linda T. Sa ́nchez, California 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Bob Inglis, South Carolina 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on March 23, 2007 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of Members: 

Castle, Hon. Michael N., Senior Republican Member, Subcommittee on 

Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education .......................... 2

Hinojosa, Hon. Reube ́n, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas: 

Question for the record ............................................................................. 70

Question for the record ............................................................................. 76

Kildee, Hon. Dale E., Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education .............................................................. 1

Scott, Hon. Robert C. ‘‘Bobby,’’ a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Virginia: 

Question for the record ............................................................................. 71

Question for the record ............................................................................. 72

Statement of Witnesses: 

Ashby, Cornelia M., Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office ................................... 4

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7

Response to questions for the record ....................................................... 70

Guzman, Marta, Principal, Oyster Bilingual Elementary School ................ 42

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 44

Response to questions for the record ....................................................... 72

Sa ́nchez, Francisca, Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools Office ............... 45

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 47

Young, Beverly, Ph.D., Assistant Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs, California State University System ................................................................... 33

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 35

Response to questions for the record ....................................................... 73

Zamora, Peter, Co-Chair, Hispanic Education Coalition ............................... 28

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 30

Response to questions for the record ....................................................... 76

Response to questions for the record ....................................................... 78

(1)

IMPACT OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ON 

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 

Friday, March 23, 2007

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:45 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dale Kildee [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Kildee, Scott, Kucinich, Payne, Holt, 

Sa ́nchez, Sarbanes, Hirono, Hare, Woolsey, Hinojosa, Castle, 

Platts, Wilson, Boustany, and Kuhl. 

Also Present: Representatives McKeon and Heller. 

Staff Present: Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director; Alex Nock, Deputy Staff Director; Jill Morningstar, Education Policy Advisor; 

Lloyd Horwich, Policy Advisor for Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education; Joe Novotny, Chief 

Clerk; Brian Kennedy, General Counsel; Lamont Ivey, Staff Assistant, Education; Ricardo Martinez, Policy Advisor for Subcommittee 

on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness; 

Denise Forte, Director of Education Policy; Thomas Kiley, Communications Director; Lisette Partelow, Staff Assistant, Education; Rachel Racusen, Deputy Communications Director; Tylease Alli, 

Hearing Clerk; Adrienne Dunbar, Legislative Fellow, Education; 

Sally Stroup, Minority Staff Director; Robert Borden, Minority 

General Counsel; Kathryn Bruns, Minority Legislative Assistant; 

James Bergeron, Deputy Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; Steve Forde, Minority Communications Director; 

Jessica Gross, Minority Deputy Press Secretary; Taylor Hansen, 

Minority Legislative Assistant; Chad Miller, Minority Professional 

Staff Member; Susan Ross, Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; and Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant 

to the General Counsel. 

Chairman KILDEE. A quorum being present, the hearing of the 

subcommittee will come to order. 

Pursuant to committee rule 12A, any member may submit an 

opening statement in writing which will be made part of the permanent record. I now recognize myself. 

2

I am pleased to welcome my fellow subcommittee members—Governor Castle—the public, and our witnesses to this hearing, The 

Impact of No Child Left Behind on English Language Learners. 

English language learners face unique challenges. Like all children, they have to learn history, math, reading, science, and other 

subjects. They also have to learn a new language at the same time. 

Those challenges are not easy, and we owe it to those children to 

ensure that their schools have the resources and support to provide 

them with the education they need and deserve. In that regard, it 

is particularly important that we reverse the trend under the administration and recent Congresses of reducing funding for English 

language acquisition. 

English language learners are a large and growing segment of 

our students. Today, there are about 5 million ELL students nationwide, representing about 10 percent of all public school students. About three-quarters of these students are Spanish-speaking. It might surprise some to know that most ELL students, 76 

percent of elementary school ELLs, were born in the United States. 

Unfortunately, these students’ academic performances is well below 

that of their peers, and ELL students have excessively high dropout rates due to many factors, one discouragement. 

By 2025, ELL students may represent as much as 25 percent of 

all students, so it is no overstatement to say that for No Child Left 

Behind to succeed, in fact, for our country to continue to prosper, 

we must address this issue. 

I believe that our witnesses today will provide us with valuable 

information on how NCLB is working for ELL students and what 

we need to know to make it work better. We will hear about critical 

issues concerning the validity and the reliability of assessments 

given to those students. One foundation of a successful No Child 

Left Behind is data, and if the data concerning ELL students’ performances is not reliable, it will not help schools, school districts 

and States implement reforms for these students. 

We will hear about how the Department of Education has been 

slow to provide States with the assistance they need to implement 

No Child Left Behind’s provisions for ELLs and the status of recent 

efforts to correct that. We will hear about promising practices for 

training teachers of ELL students and for improving their academic achievement, and also from an outstanding bilingual public 

school here in Washington D.C., I hope that today’s hearing will 

help us understand which issues require better implementation of 

No Child Left Behind and which might be addressed by changes to 

the law itself, particularly with regard to the testing of these students. 

I look forward to working together with my ranking member, Mr. 

Castle, our full committee chairman and ranking member, Mr. Miller, and Mr. McKeon, and with all of the members on this committee on a bipartisan reauthorization of No Child Left Behind this 

year, and I believe that today’s hearing is an important step in that 

process. 

It is now my pleasure to yield to the ranking member, Governor 

Castle, for his opening statement. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Chairman Kildee. I am very pleased to 

be here today with you and with an outstanding panel, and I welVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:50 Sep 17, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-14\HED082.140 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
3

come everybody to, I think it is, our second No Child Left Behind 

hearing of the week. It has been a long week here, not because of 

these hearings, but for other reasons, but I am pleased that we are 

using the time that we have to continue our preparation for the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. I believe it is imperative 

that we examine all issues thoroughly, particularly through the 

hearing process. We began this process last Congress, and I am 

glad that we are taking another look at our Nation’s limited 

English-proficient, LEP, students. 

Let us not lose sight of the fact that No Child Left Behind was 

crafted under the guiding principles that all students can and deserve to learn. LEP students are no exception. Because of that, 

under NCLB, schools are held to higher standards and held accountable for the academic achievement of all of the children, including LEP students. 

Indeed, the evaluation of this student subgroup is an essential 

component of our discussions going forward. As everyone here 

knows, the law makes it clear that LEP students should be tested 

in reading, language arts, and math as well as English language 

acquisition. At the same time, the law provides States and local 

school districts the flexibility to test these students in their native 

language for up to 3 years with an additional 2 years of native language assessment provided on a case-by-case basis. 

I look forward to hearing today’s testimony on what is happening 

in the field at the State and local levels. I am particularly interested in learning what it is that is happening to help raise the student achievement of LEP students. I believe, as others have said, 

that the law has evolved past the compliance stage, and we now 

must focus on what we can do in the classroom to meet the agreedupon goals of the law. I would also be interested in learning more 

about the implications of actions taken by the U.S. Department of 

Education and recommendations that these actions be codified in 

the reauthorization. 

Thank you for joining us so early this Friday morning. I look forward to your testimony. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you, Governor. 

Without objection, all members will have 7 calendar days to submit additional materials or questions for the hearing record. 

I would like now to introduce the very distinguished panel we 

have with us this morning. 

Cornelia Ashby is the Director of Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues for the Government Accountability Office. Ms. 

Ashby joined GAO in 1973. In 1992, she was selected for the GAO 

Senior Executive Candidate Development Program, and in 1994, 

was appointed an Associate Director For Education and Employment Issues. She began her current position in 2000. 

Peter Zamora is co-chair of the Hispanic Education Coalition, 

which unites 25 local and national organizations in support of improved educational opportunities for Latino students and families. 

He is also Regional Counsel for the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and a former bilingual credentialed 

teacher in the California public schools. 

4

Dr. Beverly Young is the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Teacher 

Education and Public School Programs for the California State 

University System. She works to facilitate changes in teacher preparation within the 23-campus system. Prior to her work at the CSU 

Chancellor’s Office, Dr. Young was a faculty member and teacher 

of education at California State University at Fullerton. 

Maria Guzman is the principal at Oyster Bilingual Public Elementary School in Washington, D.C. Oyster School is internationally known for its curriculum in which all students learn in both 

English and Spanish. In 2006, Oyster was named a No Child Left 

Behind Blue Ribbon School. 

Francisca Sa ́nchez is Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum 

and Instruction in the San Bernardino County Superintendent of 

Schools Office in California. In 2002, she was named Inland Empire Educator of the Year. In 2003, she received the Valuing Diversity Award from the Association of California School Administrators. 

We welcome all of our witnesses, and we will begin with Ms. 

Ashby. First, I will explain the light system here. Some of you are 

familiar with it. The green light will be illuminated when you begin 

to speak, and when you see the yellow light, it means that you 

have 1 minute remaining, and when you see the red light, it means 

your time has expired, and you need to conclude your testimony. 

We will let you finish your paragraph or your thought, but do try 

to finish at that time. Please be certain, as you testify, that you 

turn the microphone on and pull it close to you and turn it off 

when you are finished. 

We will now hear from our first witness, Ms. Ashby. 

STATEMENT OF CORNELIA M. ASHBY, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. ASHBY. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I 

am pleased to be here this morning to present information from our 

July 2006 report on assessment of students with limited English 

proficiency. 

Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act requires States to test 

all students in certain grades in language arts and mathematics 

and use the results as the primary means of determining the annual performance of States, districts and schools. These assessments must measure students’ knowledge of the content of the 

State’s academic standards. States are to show that increasing percentages of students are reaching the proficient level over time. 

States and districts are also required to measure separately the 

progress of specific groups of students, including limited English 

proficient students. 

To make adequate yearly progress, each district and school must 

generally show that all students in each of the groups met the 

State’s proficiency goal and that at least 95 percent of the students 

in each group participated in the assessments. Students with limited English proficiency did not meet State proficiency goals on language arts and mathematics tests in nearly two-thirds of the 48 

States for which we obtained data. 

5

Title I requires that students with limited English proficiency receive reasonable accommodations and be assessed to the extent 

practicable in the language most likely to yield accurate data on 

their academic knowledge. However, for language arts, students 

with limited English proficiency who have been in U.S. schools for 

3 years or more must generally be assessed in English. 

Title I also created a new requirement for States to annually assess the English language proficiency of all students identified as 

having limited English proficiency, and to clarify, ‘‘English language proficiency’’ is English proficiency in four areas—speaking, 

listening, reading, and writing. 

Title III requires States to establish goals to demonstrate annual 

increases in students making progress toward attaining English 

language proficiency. States must establish English language proficiency standards that are aligned with the State’s academic 

standards in order to ensure the States are requiring the academic 

language they need. In addition, Education requires that the 

State’s English language proficiency assessment be aligned to its 

English language proficiency standards. 

States have reported taking a number of steps to ensure the validity and reliability of academic assessments for students with limited English proficiency, but concerns remain. State efforts include 

ensuring that instructions, forms and questions are clear and not 

more linguistically complex than necessary, offering accommodations such as allowing students with limited English proficiency to 

use bilingual dictionaries and providing students extra time to 

complete tests and offering native language and alternative assessments. 

Despite these efforts, Education’s peer reviews and a group of experts we convened raised concerns regarding State efforts to ensure 

valid and reliable assessments. For example, the experts indicated 

that States are generally not taking the appropriate set of comprehensive steps to create valid and reliable assessments for these 

students. In addition, according to these experts, in our review of 

literature, research is lacking on what specific accommodations are 

appropriate for students with limited English proficiency as well as 

their effectiveness in improving the validity of assessment results. 

Further, the experts expressed concern about the extent to which 

alternative assessments are objective and comparable and can be 

aggregated with regular assessments. 

With respect to English language proficiency assessments, in the 

2005-2006 school year, 22 States used assessments or test items 

developed by 1 of 4 State consortia funded by Education. Eight 

States worked with test developers to augment off-the-shelf assessments to incorporate State standards. Fourteen States used off-theshelf assessments, and seven States created their own. While 

States’ test developers told us they developed these assessments 

using accepted practices, there was not sufficient evidence of their 

validity and reliability at the time of our review. 

Education has offered States a variety of technical assistance, including training, peer reviews and monitoring visits to help States 

assess students with limited English proficiency, but it has issued 

little written guidance on how States are to assess and track the 

English proficiency of these students. 

6

Education has also offered States some flexibility. For example, 

education does not require students with limited English proficiency to participate in a State’s language arts assessment during 

their first year in U.S. schools. In addition, while these students 

must take a State’s mathematics assessment during the first, a 

State may exclude their scores in determining whether it met its 

progress goals. Further, Education allows States to include for up 

to 2 years the scores of students who were formerly classified as 

‘‘English limited proficient’’ when determining whether a State met 

its progress goals. Partly in response to recommendations in our 

2006 report, Education has also initiated a partnership with the 

States and other organizations to support the development of valid 

assessment options for students with limited English proficiency. 

Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I will be 

glad to answer any questions. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Ms. Ashby follows:]

7


ash-1.eps
8


ash-2.eps
9


ash-3.eps
10


ash-4.eps
11


ash-5.eps
12


ash-6.eps
13


ash-7.eps
14


ash-8.eps
15


ash-9.eps
16


ash-10.eps
17


ash-11.eps
18


ash-12.eps
19


ash-13.eps
20


ash-14.eps
21


ash-15.eps
22


ash-16.eps
23


ash-17.eps
24


ash-18.eps
25


ash-19.eps
26


ash-20.eps
27


ash-21.eps
28

Chairman KILDEE. Mr. Zamora. 

STATEMENT OF PETER ZAMORA, CO–CHAIR,

HISPANIC EDUCATION COALITION 

Mr. ZAMORA. Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle, thank 

you very much for the invitation to testify today regarding English 

language learners and the No Child Left Behind Act. Between 5 

and 6 million ELLs are currently enrolled in U.S. public schools, 

constituting over 10 percent of our total student population, and 

experts predict that one-quarter of our student population will be 

made up of ELLs by 2025. The commonly held stereotype of ELLs 

as foreign-born immigrants is inaccurate. The majority are, in fact, 


ash-22.eps
29

U.S. citizens whose academic and linguistic needs are not being 

met by our public schools. Over three-quarters of ELLs are Spanish-speaking, and over two-thirds come from low-income families. 

ELL students’ academic performance is well below that of their 

peers in nearly every measure of academic performance, and they 

drop out of school at higher rates than any other student subgroup. 

NCLB is a critically important Federal education integration and 

civil rights law for ELLs. It promises a measure of academic parity 

and addresses the effects of limited English proficiency upon academic performance. As written, No Child Left Behind adopts a 

sound approach to improving ELL student performance by addressing both academic ability and linguistic proficiency. Implementation failures have severely hindered No Child Left Behind’s effectiveness for ELLs, however. 

As described by Ms. Ashby, States have not yet implemented 

valid and reliable assessments for ELLs, and the U.S. Department 

of Education has not yet provided enough technical assistance or 

guidance to the States in appropriate assessment policies and practices. 

Because current NCLB assessments do not generally yield sound 

data regarding ELL achievement, schools and school districts face 

major challenges both in demonstrating academic proficiency of 

ELLs and in designing interventions to raise ELL achievement to 

meet State targets. Work is currently underway, however, to improve the quality of testing systems for ELLs. MALDEF, NCLR, 

the Department of Education, and all 50 States have joined together in an LEP partnership to provide technical assistance in 

ELL assessment to the States. The partnership unites assessment 

experts, Federal and State officials and advocates to improve assessment practices for the 2006-2007 testing cycle and to support 

the best practices for future years. 

Our efforts are beginning to yield results, but Congress must also 

support the use of valid and reliable assessments for ELLs. The 

Hispanic Education Coalition supports a dedicated funding stream 

under Title I to develop and implement assessments specifically designed to measure ELL content knowledge. The coalition also supports the increased use of native language content assessments for 

ELLs which are currently required under NCLB when practicable. 

Sound assessments for ELLs are required not only by NCLB and 

by sound education practice, but also by the Supreme Court’s decision in Lau versus Nichols, which held that Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act requires academic services for ELLs that are tailored to 

their language abilities and to their academic needs. 

Inaccurate data currently make it difficult if not impossible to 

use test scores to evaluate the effectiveness of NCLB for ELLs. It 

is clear, however, that NCLB has increased the pressure at every 

level of our education system to improve results for ELLs, and this 

is clearly a step in the right direction. The poor achievement levels 

of ELLs were a well-kept secret prior to NCLB, and this, thankfully, is no longer the case. NCLB has not, unfortunately, led to the 

universal implementation of the best instructional practices for 

English language learners. Oyster Bilingual Elementary School 

here in Washington, D.C. is a prime example of the effectiveness 

of dual language immersion programs, for example, in helping both 

30

ELLs and non ELLs reach academic proficiency. We need more programs like Oyster’s, programs that meet the needs of all students, 

including ELLs. 

To thrive in U.S. public schools, ELL students also require teachers trained to meet their academic needs as Dr. Young will testify. 

NCLB must do more to encourage the certification of teachers 

trained to work with ELLs and to support professional development for all teachers who teach ELL students. For NCLB to reduce 

or to eliminate the achievement gaps that belie our Nation’s commitment to universal educational opportunity, the officials at all 

levels of government must better serve our large and growing ELL 

student population. If English language learners in our public 

schools are not appropriately assessed and do not improve their 

achievement levels, No Child Left Behind will not meet its goals, 

and our Nation, as a whole, will suffer. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Zamora. 

[The statement of Mr. Zamora follows:]

Prepared Statement of Peter Zamora, Co-Chair,

Hispanic Education Coalition 

Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle, I am Peter Zamora, Washington D.C. 

Regional Counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 

(MALDEF). I serve as Co-Chair of the Hispanic Education Coalition, which unites 

25 national and local organizations in support of improved educational outcomes for 

Latino students and families. I appreciate the invitation to testify today regarding 

English language learners (ELLs) and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). 

ELL Student Demographics 

There are currently between 5 and 6 million English language learners enrolled 

in U.S. public schools, constituting over 10% of our total public school population.1

Over the past fifteen years, ELL student enrollment has nearly doubled, and experts predict that one-quarter of the total U.S. public school population will be made 

up of ELLs by 2025.2

ELLs’ academic performance levels are significantly below those of their peers in 

nearly every measure of academic performance. In the 2005 National Assessment 

of Educational Progress, for example, only 29% of ELLs scored at or above the basic 

level in reading, compared with 75% of non-ELLs.3 ELLs drop out of school at very 

high rates: Latino ELLs aged 16-19, for example, have a 59% dropout rate.4 In order 

to optimize the skills of our future workforce, our public schools clearly must do a 

better job in meeting the needs of our large and growing ELL student population. 

Despite common assumptions to the contrary, native-born U.S. citizens predominate in the ELL student population: 76% of elementary school and 56% of secondary 

school ELLs are citizens, and over one-half of the ELLs in public secondary schools 

are second- or third-generation citizens.5 The stereotype of ELLs as foreign-born immigrants is, therefore, inaccurate: the majority are, in fact, long-term ELLs whose 

academic and linguistic needs are not being met by our public school system. Twothirds of ELLs come from low-income families.6 Over three-quarters of ELLs are 

Spanish-speaking, and nearly half of K-12 Latino students are ELLs.7

Inappropriate Assessments Hinder the Effective Operation of No Child Left Behind 

for English Language Learners 

No Child Left Behind is perhaps the most significant federal education, integration, and civil rights statute for English language learners. NCLB promises ELLs 

a measure of academic parity with their peers and intends to address the effects 

of limited English proficiency upon academic performance. 

As written, NCLB adopts a sound approach to improving ELL student achievement. ELLs face the dual challenge of learning English while simultaneously gaining academic knowledge in an unfamiliar language. NCLB addresses each aspect of 

this challenge: Title I requires accountability for the content knowledge of the ELL 

subgroup, while Title III requires accountability for English language acquisition. 

Significant implementation failures by federal and state agencies have severely 

hindered the effectiveness of NCLB for ELLs, as described in the U.S. Government 

31

Accountability Office report that is the subject of Ms. Ashby’s testimony today. Specifically, states have not yet implemented valid and reliable Title I or Title III assessments for ELLs, and the U.S. Department of Education has not yet provided 

sufficient technical assistance or guidance to the states in the development of appropriate assessment policies and practices. 

Because current NCLB assessments do not yield sound data regarding ELL student achievement, schools and school districts face significant challenges both in 

demonstrating ELL academic proficiency and in designing interventions to raise 

ELL academic achievement levels to meet state performance targets. No Child Left 

Behind implementation has failed English language learners at the first step of 

standards-based accountability: that of effective data collection. 

Recent, Ongoing Measures to Improve Assessments for English Language Learners 

In order for NCLB to be fully effective, ELL students require assessments tailored 

to their specific academic and linguistic needs. This is required not only by NCLB 

and by sound educational practice, but by the Supreme Court’s decision in Lau v. 

Nichols.8 Lau held that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires schools to 

deliver academic services to ELLs that are tailored to their linguistic abilities and 

academic needs. 

Although the NCLB requirement for valid and reliable assessments for all students originated in the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has only recently begun to enforce these provisions as they 

relate to ELL students. ED has also recently embarked upon a long-overdue project 

to provide technical assistance to states in developing and implementing appropriate 

assessment policies and practices for ELL students. MALDEF has strongly supported ED’s recent efforts to enforce NCLB for ELLs and to provide technical assistance to states. 

In August of 2006, MALDEF, the National Council of La Raza, the U.S. Department of Education, and education officials from all 50 states launched the ‘‘LEP 

Partnership’’ to provide technical assistance in appropriate ELL assessment practices to the states. The LEP9 Partnership unites assessment experts, federal and 

state officials, and advocates in an unprecedented collaborative. Our focus is to improve assessment practices for the 2006-07 testing cycle and to support the best 

ELL assessment practices for future years. The next LEP Partnership meeting will 

be held in Washington, D.C. in July of 2007. 

Our efforts are beginning to yield results, but Congress must provide additional 

support to states in the development and implementation of appropriate academic 

and linguistic assessments for ELLs. The Hispanic Education Coalition supports a 

dedicated funding stream under Title I to develop valid and reliable content assessments for ELLs. 

The technical expertise needed to develop and implement sound assessments for 

ELLs exists, but thus far we have not generally seen the necessary will or resources 

at the state and federal levels. Both the federal government and the states must 

do much more to implement native language, simplified English, portfolio, and other 

assessments designed specifically to measure ELLs’ academic knowledge and 

English proficiency. 

The Hispanic Education Coalition strongly supports increased development and 

use of native language content assessments for ELLs, which are currently required 

under NCLB when practicable. Because over three-quarters of ELLs are Spanishspeaking, it is generally practicable for states to develop Spanish-language assessments to appropriately measure the academic achievement levels of the significant 

majority of ELLs who are Spanish-speaking. 

The Impact of NCLB upon English Language Learners 

Inaccurate data generated by state assessments make it difficult if not impossible 

to use assessment-based measures of academic performance to evaluate the general 

effectiveness of NCLB for ELLs. It is quite clear, however, that NCLB has focused 

increased attention upon the academic and linguistic concerns of ELLs. The poor 

academic achievement levels of ELLs were generally a well-kept secret prior to 

NCLB; this, thankfully, is no longer the case. NCLB has increased the pressure at 

every level of our education system to improve results for ELLs, and this is clearly 

a step in the right direction for a student population that has historically existed 

in the shadows of the U.S. public education system. NCLB has, in effect, empowered 

federal, state, and local officials charged with improving academic outcomes for 

ELLs. 

NCLB has not, unfortunately, led to the universal implementation of the best research-based instructional practices for English language learners. A considerable 

body of education research on ELL student achievement demonstrates that 1) native 

32

language instruction significantly improves ELLs’ academic achievement in English 

and 2) ELLs require specific instructional accommodations designed to minimize the 

effects of English proficiency upon academic achievement.10 Despite this body of research, ELLs nationwide are currently enrolled in a patchwork of instructional programs, many of which do not reflect the best instructional practices for this student 

population.11

Oyster Bilingual Elementary School here in Washington, D.C. is a prime example 

of the effectiveness of dual-language immersion programs in helping both ELLs and 

non-Ells reach academic proficiency. Oyster Elementary is the sole school in the District of Columbia to be designated a No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon School by 

the U.S. Department of Education in 2006.12 Far too often, misguided cultural and 

linguistic protectionism and a divisive political atmosphere inhibit the implementation of the best instructional practices for ELLs. Dual-language immersion programs 

do not encourage cultural or linguistic separatism in ELLs, who clearly understand 

the need to learn English in order to succeed in U.S. schools and society; rather, 

these programs reflect best instructional practices and speed ELLs’ development of 

English language and academic skills and contribute to the integration of ELLs into 

mainstream U.S. society. 

As Dr. Beverly Young from the California State University system has testified, 

ELL students require teachers trained to meet their particular academic needs in 

order to thrive in U.S. public schools. Unfortunately, a significant shortage of teachers trained to deliver dual-language and other tailored methods of instruction for 

ELL students persists. NCLB must do more to encourage the development of a 

teaching corps that is well trained to work effectively with our large and rising ELL 

student population. 

Conclusion 

For NCLB to reduce or eliminate academic achievement gaps, officials at all levels 

of government—federal, state, and local—must commit to better serving the ELL 

student population. If the large and growing population of English Language Learners in our public schools does not improve its academic achievement levels, NCLB 

will not meet its goals and our nation’s economic competitiveness will suffer. 

MALDEF and the Hispanic Education Coalition advocate the following recommendations to address the No Child Left Behind Act implementation concerns 

described in my testimony today: 

1) The U.S. Department of Education must fully enforce NCLB assessment provisions for ELLs and provide effective and ongoing technical assistance in the development of appropriate assessments to state education agencies; 

2) States must focus attention and resources upon developing and implementing 

valid and reliable content assessments for ELLs, preferably in the native language; 

3) A reauthorized NCLB should establish a separate funding stream to assist 

states in developing and implementing appropriate academic assessments for ELLs; 

4) A reauthorized NCLB should require that states that have significant ELL populations from a single language group develop valid and reliable content assessments designed specifically for members of that language group; 

5) States, schools and school districts must implement the best instructional practices that will provide ELL students with the best opportunities to develop both 

English proficiency and content area knowledge; 

6) The federal government and states must allocate significant resources to support the certification of teachers trained in best instructional practices for ELLs; 

7) The federal government, states, school districts, and schools must allocate resources for the professional development in the best instructional practices for ELLs 

for all teachers who teach ELL students; 

8) The federal government must fund scientifically-based research and disseminate findings on best effective practices for ELL student instruction; and 

9) Federal, state, and local school officials must ensure that ELLs are fully and 

appropriately included in NCLB accountability systems so that schools focus upon 

meeting the academic needs of ELLs. 

ENDNOTES

1See, e.g., http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/faq/08leps.html. 2See http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/faq/08leps.html; http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/

english/lepfactsheet.html. 3 National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP): Reading and Mathematics, Washington, DC (available at http://nces.ed.gov/

nationsreportcard/nrc/reading—math—2005/). 4See Fry, R., Hispanic Youths Dropping Out of Schools: Measuring the Problem, Washington, 

DC: Pew Hispanic Center (2003), p8. 

33

5See, e.g., Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J., & Herwantoro, S., The New Demography of America’s Schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act, Washington, 

D.C.: The Urban Institute (2005), p18. 6 Id. at 25. 

7See http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/fastfaq/4.html; see Lazarı ́n, M., Improving Assessment and Accountability for English Language Learners in the No Child Left Behind Act, Washington, D.C.: National Council of La Raza (2006), p1. 8 414 U.S. 563 (1974). 

9 ‘‘LEP’’ is an acronym for ‘‘Limited English Proficient,’’ which is synonymous with ‘‘English 

language learner.’’ 10See, e.g., Goldenberg, C., Improving Achievement for English Language Learners: What the 

Research Tells Us, Education Week, Vol. 25, Issue 43, pp34-36 (July 26, 2006). Appropriate educational accommodations for ELLs include: strategic use of the native language; predictable, 

clear, and consistent instructions, expectations, and routines; identifying and clarifying difficult 

words and passages; paraphrasing students’ remarks; and other measures designed to minimize 

the effect of limited English proficiency upon academic achievement. 11 U.S. Government Accountability Office, No Child Left Behind Act: Education’s Data Improvement Efforts Could Strengthen the Basis for Distributing Title III Funds, GAO-07-140, December 2006, p32 (available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07140.pdf). 12The No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon Schools Program honors public and private K-12 

schools that are either academically superior in their states or that demonstrate dramatic gains 

in student achievement. See http://www.ed.gov/programs/nclbbrs/2006/index.html. 

Chairman KILDEE. Dr. Young. 

STATEMENT OF BEVERLY YOUNG, ASSISTANT VICE CHANCELLOR FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND PUBLIC SCHOOL 

PROGRAMS, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM 

Ms. YOUNG. Good morning, Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member 

Castle, subcommittee members. Thank you for inviting me to discuss NCLB, and specifically the preparation of teachers to address 

the needs of English language learners. 

I am here on behalf of the California State University, the largest and most diverse 4-year university system in the country—23 

campuses, approximately 417,000 students. We currently award 

about 13,000 teacher credentials every year, which represents 

about 60 percent of California’s teachers, which translates to 10 

percent of the Nation’s teachers who come from the CSU. 

Chancellor Charles Reed has made teacher quality preparation 

one of the highest priorities of our system. We play a particularly 

significant role in the preparation of teachers to work with English 

language learners due to the large concentration of California students with primary languages other than English. I will focus my 

testimony on the role played by CSU with equipping teachers to 

meet this challenge, both through pre service programs and 

through professional development. 

Already one-quarter of the students in California’s K-12 schools, 

about a million and a half students, are English language learners. 

They are distributed across the regions of California. Our campuses 

that prepare teachers are all working with candidates who will 

teach substantial numbers of ELLs. Approximately 85 percent of 

the ELLs in California are Spanish speakers, but the other 15 percent come from among 55 different language backgrounds. 

The preparation of new teachers to be effective in working with 

ELLs is not a new priority for the CSU. As long as 10 years ago, 

California’s ELL population had already exceeded 1.3 million in 

California. Building on the commitment of our system and its faculty to address the needs of ELLs, we have developed a range of 

best practices for teacher preparation and professional development. Our programs infuse techniques for working with English 

34

language learners throughout every part of the curriculum in order 

to adequately prepare our graduates. 

Examples of CSU activities that are effective and applicable to 

other programs across the country are evident at every campus. 

For example, at Fresno, ELL pedagogy is infused into every course 

in the pre service program. It is assumed that every California 

teacher will be an English language learner teacher, and all must 

be prepared to meet this challenge. 

Another example is the design of CalState TEACH, our statewide 

site-based preparation program. CalState TEACH uses a customized lesson planning, online tool that structures every candidate’s lessons to ensure appropriate attention to the needs of 

English language learners. 

At CalState San Bernardino, one of the fastest growing populations in the State, faculty have developed a quick reference handbook for teaching English language learners, an interactive Web 

tool that enables candidates to identify a range of instructional 

strategies for a variety of English development levels represented 

by students. The handbook is aligned with our State’s academic 

content standards as well as to the needs of English language 

learners, and was developed in collaboration with local school districts. 

At Sonoma State, for example, faculty have designed a program 

sequence that leads students through an increasingly complex set 

of strategies for assisting ELLs, including field-based assignments, 

case studies, teaching assessment and evaluation. 

My last example would be from CSU San Marcos, which is located in the far southern region of California with a very large population of English language learners. In addition to other strategies, CSU San Marcos students are paired with K-12 school staff 

to provide extra services and tutoring to ELL students. Candidates 

visit schools in nearby Mexico to better understand cultural and 

schooling issues in context related to students who then come to 

California schools. 

In addition, our campuses also employ the best practices for use 

in preparing new teachers for professional development for current 

teachers. Our professional development programs addressing the 

needs of English language learners are in a variety of curriculum 

areas—writing, reading, literature, history, social studies, math, 

science, and the arts. As has already been stated here, English is 

critically important, but it is also important to facilitate student 

content learning while they acquire English language skills. 

As to specific recommendations for the reauthorization of No 

Child Left Behind pertaining to teacher preparation in English language, we have two recommendations. First, we believe the national professional development funding should be increased significantly. In this program, institutions of higher ed provide pre 

service and professional development for teachers in partner high 

schools. We think this funding should be expanded. Second, we 

would recommend the scope of the national professional development program be expanded to include activities that allow school 

teams of teachers and administrators to help develop systems and 

structures to successfully close achievement gaps for English language learners. 

35

I have more, but my red light is on, so I will stop. 

Thank you. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

Of course, all of your testimony will be included in the record. 

[The statement of Ms. Young follows:]

Prepared Statement of Beverly Young, Ph.D., Assistant Vice Chancellor, 

Academic Affairs, California State University System 

Introduction 

Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle, and subcommittee Members, thank 

you for inviting me to discuss No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the preparation 

of teachers to address the needs of English Language Learners (ELLs). The focus 

of my testimony will be on the role of the California State University (CSU) in preservice preparation and professional development for California teachers that equips 

them to meet this challenge. The CSU thanks the Committee for its attention to 

this critically important area. 

The California State University 

The CSU is the largest and most diverse four-year university system in the country, with 23 campuses, approximately 417,000 students and 46,000 faculty and staff. 

The CSU’s mission is to provide high-quality, accessible education to meet the everchanging needs of the people of California. Since the system’s creation in 1961, it 

has awarded about 2 million degrees. We currently award approximately 84,000 degrees and 13,000 teacher credentials each year. Few, if any, university systems 

match the scope of the CSU system in the preparation of teachers. 

One key feature of the CSU is its affordability. For 2006-07, the CSU’s systemwide fee for full-time undergraduate students is $2,520. With individual campus 

fees added, the CSU’s total fees average $3,199, which is the lowest among any of 

the comparison public institutions nationwide. A consequence is that many of our 

students are first-generation college-goers. A substantial number of the future 

teachers we prepare were themselves ELLs and have brothers, sisters, nieces, and 

nephews who also began school in this group of learners. 

Close to sixty percent of the teachers credentialed in California (and ten percent 

of the nation’s teachers) each year are prepared by the CSU. Chancellor Charles 

Reed and the CSU Board of Trustees have made quality teacher preparation one 

of the highest priorities of the system. Following a decade of unprecedented growth 

and reform in public K-18 education, the CSU Board of Trustees in 1998 embraced 

systemwide efforts to improve teacher preparation in a policy entitled CSU’s Commitment to Prepare High Quality Teachers. 

The California State University and the Preparation of Teachers of English Language Learners 

The CSU plays a particularly significant role in the pre-service preparation of 

teachers to work with ELLs due to the large concentration in California of students 

with primary languages other than English. In addition, CSU and its campuses are 

involved in many professional development programs in which teachers of ELLs are 

equipped with new skills and techniques based on the most current research on effective instructional and school improvement strategies. 

What Has the Impact of NCLB Been on CSU’s Work Related to English Language 

Learners, including its Preparation and Professional Development of Teachers? 

It is important to recognize that 24.9% of the students in California’s K-12 public 

schools—1,570,424 students—are ELLs, and that they are no longer concentrated in 

a few locations in the state. They are distributed across the regions of California, 

and all of our 22 campuses that prepare teachers are preparing candidates who will 

teach substantial numbers of ELLs. Approximately 85% of ELLs in the state are 

Spanish speakers. The other approximately 15% come from 55 different language 

backgrounds. 

As a consequence, the preparation of our teacher candidates to be effective in 

working with ELLs is a major focus within the CSU system. It is not a new priority. 

Ten years ago, the population of ELLs had already reached 1,323,767. For almost 

two decades, meeting the academic, social, and emotional needs of ELLs has been 

a priority within the CSU in preparing future teachers and in professional development that serves current teachers in the state. 

CSU faculty are some of the nation’s foremost experts in preparation and professional development of teachers who work with ELLs. The Center for Language MiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:50 Sep 17, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-14\HED082.140 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
36

nority Education and Research at CSU Long Beach, for example, has conducted pioneering research on improving achievement of these students. Its Director, Dr. 

Claude Goldenberg, is widely recognized for his significant contributions to the analysis of instructional conversations, the impact of school settings on improving 

achievement, and effective approaches for involving families of ELLs in their children’s education. 

Similarly, at CSU Fullerton, Dr. David Pagni is nationally recognized for his leadership in developing techniques and strategies that prepare mathematics teachers 

to be successful in working with ELLs. For more than 15 years, he has been preparing future and current teachers in these strategies for teaching mathematics 

that enable students to achieve mastery of advanced mathematical content regardless of English language status. Partnering with the parents and the community, 

a hallmark of his work, includes families in activities that enable the students to 

demonstrate and share their skills with their parents. This has been shown typically to result in new understandings of the possibilities available to these students 

and to increase educational and career aspirations that are shared by the entire 

family. 

There are dozens of additional examples of CSU faculty who have been leaders 

for many years in research and professional development of teachers to work successfully with ELLs. The expertise of CSU faculty extends to ELLs with a broad 

range of primary languages. 

A notable effect of NCLB on our preparation of teachers pertains to the environment in which our preparation activities occur. Many of our partner school districts 

are struggling to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets for ELLs. The result 

is that they want to hire new teachers with skills to help students achieve state 

standards and benchmarks and want assistance in providing professional development for current teachers. Our commitment to this area finds support among school 

district partners, who welcome our efforts and communicate to future teachers the 

criticality of their developing knowledge and expertise in working with ELLs. 

Another impact of NCLB on the CSU as well as our K-12 partners has related 

to the assessment of ELLs. It is well known that the accountability provisions of 

NCLB have increased the attention focused on valid approaches for measuring 

achievement and achievement gains of ELLs. CSU faculty members in education 

work closely with local school districts. For many of these districts, this is among 

the most challenging NCLB issues they face. The teachers and school leaders we 

prepare learn about the care needed in developing approaches for testing and accountability to ensure they work in the positive ways that were intended in the legislation. As is widely recognized, much remains to be done in this area. 

What are Examples of CSU Best Practices in Teacher Preparation Related to English 

Language Learners? 

Due to its size and the commitment of the system and many of its faculty to addressing the needs of ELLs, CSU has developed a range of approaches that are examples of Best Practices in teacher preparation and professional development. Earlier this month, the system held a Professional Development Workshop for 300 CSU 

faculty involved in teacher preparation. A number of issues were identified for focus, 

and faculty from throughout the state came together to share Best Practices in 

these areas. Preparing candidates to work with ELLs was one of the targeted priorities. Earlier this year, CSU Deans of Education had similarly exchanged information about particularly effective approaches for meeting the needs of these students. 

From these two sets of exchanges, I have selected a few examples of excellent model 

approaches to highlight. 

Infusion of Strategies Throughout the Curriculum: CSU Fresno and CalStateTEACH 

California State University, Fresno faculty believe that effective strategies must 

be infused throughout every part of the curriculum in order to adequately prepare 

graduates who will teach in a region with one of the largest percentages of ELLs 

in the state. In its pre-service program, the College of Education integrates, in every 

course and every aspect of teacher preparation, attention to key issues and approaches for meeting the needs of ELLs. 

Areas that are given attention throughout the entire curriculum include, for example: 

• Students’ identity and culture 

• First and second language acquisition theory and research and implications for 

classroom instruction 

• English Language Development (ELD) levels, assessment, program options, and 

effective strategies 

37

• Content area instruction using Specially Designed Academic Instruction in 

English • Socio-cultural contexts of language learning • Development and use of culturally responsive curriculum • Policies and demographic trends affecting programs for English learners • Advocacy for ELLs and creating changes in attitudes and expectations • Analysis of students’ funds of knowledge and overcoming deficit models of poverty • Approaches for parent involvement that enhance student performance • Reflection as an ongoing aspect of teaching and professional practice. 

Approaches for preparing future teachers to work with ELLs that infuse principles and practices throughout the curriculum are characteristic of CSU education 

programs. The statewide site-based online CalStateTEACH program uses this model 

and has been particularly effective in preparing candidates to work productively 

with ELLs. CalStateTEACH is a non-traditional program that offers qualified candidates the opportunity to earn their credential without attending customary college 

classes. It is a true field-based model, in which teacher candidates learn how to 

teach in public school classrooms where university faculty and school site mentors 

observe them teaching. CalStateTEACH offers a spiraling, integrated curriculum 

that includes learning theories, pedagogical approaches, and classroom management 

across the curriculum. 

In preparing candidates to teach ELLs effectively, CalStateTEACH infuses the 

requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities throughout the program. A customized lesson planning tool has been developed so that at each step in the lesson planning 

and delivery process, teacher candidates see a ‘‘prompt’’ that ensures the appropriate activities are differentiated in order to meet the needs of ELLs. For example, 

in the first step of the lesson planning process, teacher candidates are asked to describe the students they are teaching. In addition to being asked for the contextual 

factors, such as students’ developmental characteristics, preferences and perspectives, candidates are also asked to identify language proficiency levels for ELLs. 

Exemplary Resource Materials for New Teachers: CSU San Bernardino 

California State University, San Bernardino is in a region of California in which 

many districts have K-12 student populations where more than 30% of K-12 students are ELLs. It is the region of the largest population increase in the State, and 

the K-12 population growth has been disproportionately large among ELLs. It is 

predicted that these trends will continue for at least the next two decades. The faculty members have provided to teacher candidates a Quick Reference Handbook for 

Teaching English Learners. It is an interactive tool on the World Wide Web that 

enables teacher candidates to identify a range of instructional strategies appropriate 

for K-12 students at different English Language Development levels. 

The Handbook is focused on helping new teachers align their instructional strategies to state academic content standards and to the needs of ELLs. The goal is to 

equip teacher candidates with approaches for making instruction comprehensible 

and engaging to these students. The Handbook includes teaching strategies that can 

be used across grade levels and across curriculum content areas. 

The strategies included in the Handbook were developed through a partnership 

with a local school district. Teachers developed a bank of strategies based on the 

evidence of success from their classrooms. The Handbook is built on the recognition 

that teaching is a complex event and that teachers make on-the-spot decisions in 

hundreds of teaching situations daily. The purpose of the Quick Reference Handbook is to give teachers an easy-to-use tool that supports their decision-making in 

planning and teaching lessons. 

The instructional strategies in the Handbook are divided into five stages that reflect theory and research in the field of second language acquisition and education 

of ELLs. Studies over many years support the concept of a continuum of learning, 

with predictable and sequential stages of language development, progressing from 

little or no knowledge of English to the proficiency of native speakers. The stages 

used in this resource tool match the stages of the California English Language Development Test (CELDT), which is used to assess the language development of ELLs 

as required by NCLB. 

Students in California who are identified as ELLs are tested at the beginning of 

the school year with the CELDT instrument. The results place the students in one 

of five categories: Beginner, Early Intermediate, Intermediate, Early Advanced, or 

Advanced, which reflect movement from being an English Language Learner to Fluent in English Proficiency. Classroom teachers receive the assessment results for 

each English Language Learner in a report, telling them which students have been 

determined to be in each of the categories from Beginner to Advanced. 

38

The Handbook is designed to introduce new teachers to a broad array of approaches for increasing comprehension and interest and for advancing thinking and 

study skills among ELLs. Research-based strategies include effective uses of handson learning and realia, cooperative grouping and learning, pre-teaching of vocabulary, and using visual aids and graphic organizers. The Handbook is designed as 

a bank of adaptation strategies that aid new teachers and are also useful for experienced teachers in broadening their repertoire of instructional techniques for ELLs. 

Specially Designed Coursework: Sonoma State University 

The Sonoma State University School of Education has developed a sequence of activities that introduces teacher candidates as they move through their teacher preparation to an increasingly complex set of strategies for assisting ELLs. Four different courses in the teacher preparation program have a primary emphasis on 

working effectively with ELLs: 

• Teaching Second Language Learners (EDMS 411) 

• Reading and Language Arts for Younger Students (EDMS 463) 

• Reading and Language Arts for Older and Struggling Readers (EDMS 464) 

• Language and Literacy Across the Curriculum (EDSS 446) 

Each of these courses requires candidates to prepare, teach, evaluate and reflect 

on lessons that incorporate current theories and best practices for teaching ELLs. 

In Teaching Second Language Learners, candidates complete field-based assignments, including a case study, in which they employ the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) and must design, teach and evaluate English 

Language Development (ELD) lessons, and Specially Designed Academic Instruction 

in English (SDAIE) interdisciplinary thematic units. 

Through Reading and Language Arts for Younger Students, candidates learn 

about the structure and functions of language, both oral and written, and design lessons that allow all learners to participate, regardless of ability or home language. 

Candidates conduct a classroom environment analysis, using a number of tools, including one that focuses their attention on how the environment supports ELLs. 

In Reading and Language Arts for Younger Students, candidates create three lesson plans: one focusing on reading, one on writing, and one that connects literacy 

and the arts. Each lesson plan needs to reflect ways in which all learners, and particularly ELLs, are included, with high expectations for their achievement. 

At the time they take Reading and Language Arts for Older and Struggling Readers, candidates are typically doing their student teaching in a linguistically diverse 

classroom. They complete a class profile that examines students’ interests, reading 

and writing abilities, and reading and writing attitudes. The course focuses on creating learner-centered literacy experiences for all learners, including a focus on 

ELLs. 

Opportunities to work with ELL students are among the criteria used in establishing field experiences for this and other courses as well as student teaching placements. In their portfolios, candidates include reflections about their experiences 

working with ELLs. 

In Language and Literacy Across the Curriculum, candidates develop and teach 

Sheltered Instruction lessons in their subject areas that include specific strategies 

and methods for adapting instruction to meet the needs of ELLs. Candidates carry 

out a case study focused on an English Language Learner at the site of their field 

placement. The case study includes conversations and formal interviews with the 

student, with content area teachers and with the English Language Development 

(ELD) teachers who work with the student, and results in an analysis of ways in 

which the academic needs of the student are or are not being met. 

These assignments contribute to the performance assessments of candidates in 

the credential programs. Candidates must pass these performance assessments in 

order to continue to progress in and successfully complete their credential program. 

Field placement performance evaluations and portfolio reviews incorporate items related to candidates’ effectiveness in working with ELLs. Candidates’ ability to work 

effectively with ELLs is one of the key culminating assessments in the credential 

programs. 

A Variety of Preparation Approaches: California State University San Marcos 

At California State University, San Marcos, addressing the needs of ELLs has 

been a priority and a focus since the founding of the university. Located in northern 

San Diego County with a growing number of ELLs, the university has responded 

to this need in a number of ways. 

Within the College of Education’s teacher preparation program, strategies for 

helping English Only teachers work effectively with ELLs has been stressed, as 

many of the teacher candidates are English Only speakers who will be addressing 

39

multiple languages in their classrooms. All classes stress Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) with a focus on learning content and English 

simultaneously. Within this structure, teacher candidates are expected to modify all 

lessons and instructional plans in their teaching methods classes to meet the needs 

of ELLs. To achieve this, a universal lesson-planning guide has been developed by 

the faculty to use in all courses. This ensures that teacher candidates have an effective model to follow as they modify and adjust their instructional strategies. 

Additionally, a required course focuses solely on the needs of ELLs and how to 

develop SDAIE lesson plans that are effective, use the primary language when appropriate for concept understanding, and scaffold instructional material and content 

for ease of understanding and learning. Furthermore, the candidates are taught how 

to use the CELDT results, write lessons at various levels of intervention, and use 

multiple measures of assessment to monitor mastery of concepts as well as English 

development. In addition, San Marcos has a strong bilingual cohort with an enrollment of more than 50 candidates who are interested in obtaining their Bilingual 

credentials to work in area schools that are offering dual language programs. 

The College of Education has also worked closely and diligently with area schools 

that are struggling with meeting achievement objectives for ELLs, in both dual immersion and English Only settings. Two cohorts of future elementary teachers are 

taught on campuses of high-need schools, and the student teachers work with the 

staff to help provide extra services and tutoring, primarily to ELLs. In this model, 

the College has the opportunity to guide and instruct future teachers on effective 

strategies as it simultaneously provides needed resources to the school. 

Since more than 80% of all English learners are Spanish speakers, the College 

of Education has also developed close ties with the Sistema Educativo Estatal de 

Baja California. This provides candidates opportunities to visit schools in Tijuana, 

understand the school system in Mexico, experience effective strategies for working 

with ELLs first-hand, and gain an appreciation of the complexities of the neighboring school systems. 

What are Examples of CSU Best Practices in Teacher Professional Development Related to English Language Learners? 

CSU campuses employ the many exemplary approaches they use in preparing new 

teachers to work effectively with ELLs in providing professional development for 

current teachers. CSU campuses provide professional development programs addressing needs of ELLs in all curriculum areas: writing, reading and literature, history and social science, mathematics, science, and the arts. We are assembling information about the full range of these activities for the Committee. 

In addition, through the Early Assessment Program (EAP), the CSU has led the 

nation in efforts to better prepare high school students to meet the expectations 

they will face in college and the workplace in English and mathematics. The EAP 

gives high school students the opportunity to learn about their readiness for collegelevel study or entrance into the workforce through an assessment linked to the 11th 

grade statewide testing program. Legislation has been introduced to use the EAP 

at the California Community Colleges as well as the CSU. The techniques it employs can help guarantee that No Child is Left Behind in pathways to college—that 

no secondary student lacks the opportunity to become prepared for post-secondary 

education. 

The EAP includes three major literacy components: 

• Assessment of English and mathematics readiness of high school juniors for college and the workplace 

• A high school Expository Reading and Writing Course designed to foster students’ skills in English 

• Professional development for teachers in which they learn to advance academic 

literacy. 

The EAP English professional development emphasizes academic literacy, critical 

thinking, and expository reading and writing. Teachers learn to help their students 

develop effective reading and writing skills for use in interpreting and producing 

written communications intended to inform, describe, and explain. These are skills 

in which many high school students currently receive limited explicit instruction. 

The CSU provides two types of EAP professional development for English teachers: four-day workshops offered with County Offices of Education, and intensive 

Reading Institutes for Academic Preparation that consist of 80 hours of professional 

development and involve participation in Summer Institutes focused on academic 

literacy. 

As they participate in these programs, teachers develop a repertoire of academic 

literacy instructional skills that are relevant to preparing secondary ELLs to become 

college-bound, particularly those on their way to becoming Fluent in English ProVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:50 Sep 17, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-14\HED082.140 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
40

ficiency. These skills are employed by teachers as they later teach the Expository 

Reading and Writing Course in their classrooms. They include, for example, strategies for improving student writing and for collaborative reading—helping students 

decipher the meaning of text. The strategies emphasize explicit instruction for high 

school students in the type of expository reading and writing they will encounter 

in college and the workplace. The course gives students extensive practice in such 

areas as writing, grammar, and punctuation. 

The professional development and instructional resources teachers use in the Expository Reading and Writing Course includes materials that are especially relevant 

for particular groups of students who began their schooling as ELLs. Materials that 

deal with verbs, for example, are especially important to Asian students whose first 

languages do not use verb tenses to indicate time. In the professional development 

courses, teachers learn strategies for helping their struggling as well as their more 

advanced students develop tools for revising their writing to meet expected standards of English usage. They learn to assist students to understand that editing is 

important and necessary to clarify and refine ideas. 

The CSU Reading Institutes for Academic Preparation and Expository Reading 

and Writing workshops address the California English/English Language Arts Content Standards and deal explicitly with key grammatical concepts and conventions 

of written English. As such, they are of significant value to teachers who work with 

ELLs. The teachers become prepared to teach students the skills needed to read 

academic content with understanding and to communicate ideas effectively in writing. To date, more than 3,000 teachers have participated in CSU professional development in expository reading and writing. These teachers develop an understanding 

of the relevance of academic literacy to all students. The majority currently—or will 

at some point—teach classes in which ELLs benefit from these techniques. 

CSU Annual Accountability Report and Performance Assessments: How Prepared are 

CSU Teacher Candidates to Work with English Language Learners? 

Annual Accountability Report 

Since 2001, the teacher preparation programs on the 22 CSU campuses have participated in an annual Systemwide Evaluation of Teacher Education Programs. A 

central purpose of the evaluation is to provide information that Deans of Education 

and other campus leaders can use in making improvements in teacher education 

programs. It is an ongoing evaluation process that provides updated data about the 

quality of teacher preparation programs each year. 

The Systemwide Evaluation consists of six interrelated sets of activities and outcomes of teacher preparation that, taken together, provide a detailed picture of program quality and effectiveness. 

Outcome one focuses on the qualities of each program as reported by graduates 

when they finish the program. 

Outcome two addresses the effectiveness of a program in terms of the level of each 

graduate’s preparation as reported by the graduates during their first few years of 

K-12 classroom teaching. 

Outcome three is concerned with the effectiveness of a program as reported by the 

employment supervisors (usually the site Principal) of CSU graduates during their 

first years of teaching. 

Outcome four addresses the program’s impact on teaching competence as reflected 

in a measure of teaching performance. 

Outcome five examines the retention of CSU graduates in teaching. 

Outcome six examines the effects of teacher preparation on the learning gains of 

K-12 pupils who are taught by CSU graduates. 

Data have been collected on the first three outcomes for the past five years. These 

outcomes are based directly on ratings of candidates’ preparation to teach by the 

candidates or their supervisors. A number of the items that are rated pertain explicitly to teaching ELLs. These include graduates’ and their employers’ assessments 

of their preparation to: 

• Meet the instructional needs of students who are ELLs 

• Meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds 

• Adjust teaching strategies so all students have chances to understand and learn 

• Adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students 

• Know about resources in the school and community for at-risk students and 

families 

• Use language so students at different levels can understand oral and written 

English 

• Teach the skills of English writing and provide appropriate feedback to students 

• Contribute to students’ reading skills, including subject-matter comprehension. 

41

These and a number of other factors are combined in a composite measure that 

is referred to as the annual Assessment by CSU Graduates and their Employers of 

their Preparation to Teach English Learners. Individual campuses look carefully at 

this measure to determine how well they are doing in preparing candidates to meet 

the needs of ELLs, and the system looks at the overall level of preparation. 

During the past few years, we have found that approximately 75% of our teacher 

candidates indicate that they feel well prepared or adequately prepared to teach 

English Learners. This leaves 25% for whom ratings indicate a perception that they 

are only somewhat prepared. 

As a system, we would like to see this percentage lowered to be consistent with 

the other ratings in our survey. Therefore, we have instituted a number of initiatives to help campuses share best practices and learn from each other. 

This issue was an area given major attention at our recent CSU Teacher Education Professional Development Conference, where Schools and Colleges of Education came together to begin collaboration on effective practices. This will continue 

to be an area of focus for the system as we prepare candidates to work effectively 

with ELLs. 

Performance Assessment of Teacher Candidates 

Beginning in 2008, teacher candidates in California will be required to demonstrate their preparation to teach through a performance assessment as a criterion 

for receiving a teaching credential. CSU campuses have been preparing to implement the Teaching Performance Assessment for several years. It includes assessment of Teaching Performance Expectancies that address pedagogical skills and 

their application in teaching subject matter. Effectiveness in working with ELLs is 

addressed explicitly or is implicit in many of the Teaching Performance 

Expectancies. The success of our candidates in this component of the performance 

assessment is an area that will receive significant attention by the CSU as a system. 

Recommendations for Reauthorization of No Child Left Behind 

The most consistent finding in all of the work of CSU and our partners pertaining 

to ELLs is the importance of high-quality professional development—and professional development that is embedded in the context of systemic reforms. There is 

a rapidly evolving body of knowledge on the approaches that are effective in enabling schools with large numbers of ELLs to make progress in reaching student 

achievement goals. 

The research demonstrates the importance of effective instructional strategies 

that are implemented in a school setting of high expectations for ELLs. Of particular relevance is the outstanding work in this area of Just for the Kids 

(www.jftk.org). 

NCLB includes support for professional development through the National Professional Development Program (Title III, Part A, Subpart 3—Section 3131). Funding 

for fiscal year 2007 was $38.1 million. This is an extremely important program that 

supports professional development activities designed to improve classroom instruction for ELLs and assist teachers working with these children to meet certification 

standards. 

It is our view that two changes should occur in this important program: 

(1) Funding for the National Professional Development Program should be increased significantly. 

The funding currently allows for approximately 15 projects in California annually. 

In view of the importance of this area, funding of at least twice this scope is warranted. Studies of schools that have not met their Adequate Yearly Progress objectives demonstrate that they need assistance in professional development and that 

states do not have the capacity to meet this need. In California, CSU campuses are 

located throughout the state and can provide substantial assistance. One of the most 

significant steps for enhancing teacher preparation and professional development 

that can be taken in the reauthorization of NCLB is the expansion of this national 

program in which Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) provide training and 

work with their high-need school districts as partners. 

(2) The scope of the National Professional Development Program should be expanded to include a range of effective teacher development and school reform activities. 

At present, the program is focused on activities that upgrade qualifications and 

skills of personnel who are not certified. Data from California demonstrate that 

what works to close the achievement gap for ELL students is systemic change at 

the school and district levels that specifically addresses the needs of these students. 

Successful school reform involves a systematic process of using data to identify 

42

needs, applying appropriate resources, providing appropriate professional development and support, and continuously using data to gauge progress. 

The work of Just for the Kids has identified different models currently working 

in schools that are effective in addressing the needs of ELLs. The research shows 

that no two models look exactly the same, but that all are focused on student success in meeting rigorous standards and on making continuous use of data as a resource for informing decision-making. 

Funding for IHEs to work with school teams to develop a model of success for 

their particular area based on best practices for preparing students for academic 

success or for the workforce leads to successful systemic change. Such change needs 

to include developing teacher leaders, involving community stakeholders, providing 

suitable resources, and continuously using data to monitor progress. 

Currently, the funding in the National Professional Development Program is targeted to IHEs that need to develop program curricula and upgrade qualifications for 

pre-service teachers or those who are not certified and licensed. In the CSU, all of 

our teacher preparation programs have undergone revisions over the past several 

years so that each of our programs provides needed preparation and all of our teacher candidates now graduate with an Authorization to Teach ELLs. 

The National Professional Development Project should be expanded to enable 

higher education to work with school teams of highly qualified teachers and administrators. A significant need is to help them develop the systems and structures necessary to successfully address issues of student achievement and closing the gap for 

ELLs. 

What is now needed in the legislation is the authorization of additional activities 

in order that IHEs can work with local educational agencies in comprehensive professional development programs. The purpose must be to prepare teacher and administrative leaders who are equipped to implement the systemic structures, datadriven decision-making, and best practices necessary to transform the schools with 

the most need. 

This speaks to new kinds of collaborative professional development that focus both 

on solving immediate problems and on long-term capacity building so that schools 

can more effectively address the needs of ELLs. In the CSU, we draw on expertise 

across all of our campuses in implementing such approaches that bring about significant instructional reforms of this nature. 

Next year, the CSU expects to begin seven new Ed.D. programs in Educational 

Leadership located in regions across the state. The authorizing legislation (California Senate Bill 724-Chapter 269, Statutes of 2005, Scott) called upon CSU to prepare a diverse group of educational leaders through partnerships with local education efforts that bring about significant reforms and improve student achievement. 

The approaches we have developed for the new CSU Ed.D. programs are the very 

ones needed for equipping schools and teachers to succeed in serving ELLs. We look 

forward to having them become national models for preparation of educational leaders, like those we have developed in teacher preparation. 

Conclusion 

The CSU and its campuses are deeply committed to preparation and professional 

development equipping schools and teachers to address the needs of English Language Learners. As we identify and evaluate strategies that are of demonstrable effectiveness, we anticipate sharing them not only among our campuses but also with 

colleges, universities, and state and local educational agencies around the country. 

We thank you for your interest in the efforts of the CSU to meet this need. I will 

be pleased to answer any questions you might have, and we look forward to working 

with you in this critical area in the future. 

Chairman KILDEE. Ms. Guzman. 

STATEMENT OF MARTA GUZMAN, PRINCIPAL,

OYSTER BILINGUAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 

Ms. GUZMAN. Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle and 

subcommittee members of the Subcommittee on Early Child, Elementary and Secondary Education, I am pleased to appear before 

you today to testify on the impact of No Child Left Behind on 

English language learners. 

As the Principal of Oyster Bilingual Elementary School, a public 

school in the District of Columbia, I welcome the opportunity to 

43

share with you the many successes and the best practices that 

make Oyster’s program unique. 

Oyster has distinguished itself in the city for having long lines 

of parents who have camped out on the street for 3 weeks at a time 

in order to be guaranteed a space at Oyster, and this year alone, 

I have 250 applications for 24 slots. Next year, we will be expanding our model from a pre K-6 to a pre K-8 middle school, and so 

the question is why. Why does this happen? I hope that I can expand on that just a little bit. 

Oyster Bilingual Elementary School is the only public school in 

D.C. that seeks to teach from pre K through 6 in two languages—

Spanish and English. Launched as a dual language immersion 

model in 1970 by Latino and community activists, this school 

achieves an academic excellence with an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse student body. Oyster’s model of bilingual education mandates a challenging curriculum that logically integrates 

the international focus throughout its program content. The Oyster 

model requires that each classroom have two teachers—a native 

English speaker as well as a native Spanish-speaking teacher—and 

that every subject be taught equally in both languages. 

Students do not switch languages midday or change according to 

classroom topic. Rather, there is a seamless integration of the two 

languages across all subject matter. Further, Oyster’s faculty hail 

from all over the world and bring unique culture and values to the 

content that they teach. The result is a global ethos that enables 

Oyster to nurture children who not only become fluent in two languages, but who gain a deep-felt understanding of and respect for 

the diverse cultures that make up our world. 

The seamlessly integrated focus on language learning is supported by the school’s admission policy, which requires a 50/50 balance between students who are native Spanish speakers and those 

who are native English speakers. When English language learners 

and Spanish language learners are educated on an equal playing 

field like this, an advanced level of cross-cultural acceptance and 

understanding is possible, and this forms the basis of language 

learning at Oyster. 

Given Oyster’s program and student family population, the 

school is well situated to help offer D.C. Latinos needed services 

and support. Oyster recently received a grant from the D.C. Mayor’s Office on Latino affairs to take on this work in partnership 

with the Carlos Rosario International School. The funding is enabling Oyster to provide ESL classes for Latino parents of elementary-aged children. The Oyster school has an informal relationship 

with Mary’s Center for Maternal and Childcare, a family health 

and social services center dedicated to increasing access to comprehensive bilingual care to low-income, uninsured residents of 

Washington, D.C. 

Eligible families are identified by Oyster and are referred to the 

Center while the Center staff refers patients with educational 

needs to Oyster. Working with community and supporting families 

is also at the basis of supporting English language learners. 

In addition to this recent national recognition of the school’s success, of the No Child Left Behind—Blue Ribbon Award, Oyster regularly measures and documents students’ achievement in both 

44

English and Spanish. As a D.C. public school, Oyster administers 

a standard achievement test and also the D.C. comprehensive assessment system as well as Aprenda: La Prueba de Logros en 

Espanol—2nd Edition. All Oyster students, including special education students, participate in this testing. Every year on every 

test, the Oyster students’ scores in reading and math greatly exceed those for the District of Columbia as a whole. 

In 2006, 79 percent of Oyster’s students tested at proficient or 

above proficient in reading. 21 tested as advanced. In math, 72 percent of our students tested proficient and above proficient, and 30 

percent tested as advanced. 

I also have more, but I will stop at this point because my light 

is on. Thank you so much. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Ms. Guzman follows:]

Prepared Statement of Marta Guzman, Principal,

Oyster Bilingual Elementary School 

Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle, and distinguished members of the 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, I am 

pleased to appear before you today to testify on the ‘‘Impact of NCLB on English 

Language Learners’’. As the principal of Oyster Bilingual Elementary School, a public school of the District of Columbia I welcome the opportunity to share with you 

the many successes and best practices that make Oyster’s program unique. 

I. School background 

Oyster Bilingual Elementary School is the only public school in Washington, DC 

that educates all students from Pre-Kindergarten to 6th grade in two languages: 

Spanish and English. Two core features define Oyster’s dual language immersion 

model: 

1. An admission policy that creates a 50-50 balance between students who are native Spanish speakers and those who are native English speakers. 

2. An instructional model that teams a native English-speaking teacher and a native Spanish-speaking teacher in each classroom, with every subject taught equally 

in both languages. 

In the Oyster model students do not switch languages at mid-day, or change according to classroom or topic. Rather, there is a seamless integration of the two languages across all subject matter—students don’t just learn Spanish, they learn in 

Spanish. So while the Oyster curriculum meets all of the DCPS academic standards, 

bilingualism is not an educational tool toward this end, but rather an essential goal 

in itself. All Oyster students are expected to (and do) become fluent and literate in 

both Spanish and English, most by the time they finish 3rd grade. 

In addition to 2006 recognition as a U.S. Department of Education ‘‘No Child Left 

Behind-Blue Ribbon School,’’ Oyster students’ academic achievement in both English 

and Spanish is consistently above par. Scores in reading and math always exceed 

those for the District of Columbia as a whole, and 2006 testing in Spanish puts Oyster students in the 75th percentile in reading and the 84th percentile in math for 

the nation (Oyster is the only school in DC to test all of its students in reading and 

math in both English and Spanish, so no system-wide comparisons are available). 

However, compared to scores on the Aprenda test nationwide, Oyster students consistently show strong results. 

II. Best practices 

Oyster Bilingual Elementary School Offers a Challenging Curriculum That Integrates International Content 

Oyster Bilingual Elementary School is the only public school in Washington, DC 

that educates all students from Pre-Kindergarten to 6th grade in two languages: 

Spanish and English. Launched as a dual language immersion program in the 1970s 

by Latino, community and education activists, the school achieves academic excellence with an ethnically and socio-economically diverse student body. Oyster’s model 

of bilingual education mandates a highly challenging curriculum that logically integrates an international focus throughout its study content. 

45

The Oyster model requires that each classroom have two teachers, a native 

English-speaker as well as a native Spanish-speaking teacher, and that every subject is taught equally in both languages. Students do not switch languages at midday, or change according to classroom or topic. Rather, there is a seamless integration of the two languages across all subject matter. Further, Oyster’s faculty hail 

from all over the world, and bring unique culture and values to the content they 

teach. The result is a global ethos that enables Oyster to nurture children who not 

only become fluent in two languages, but who gain a deeply-felt understanding of, 

and respect for, the diverse cultures that make-up our world. 

The seamlessly integrated focus on language learning is supported by the school’s 

admission policy which requires a 50-50 balance between students who are native 

Spanish speakers and those who are native English speakers. When English-language learners and Spanish-language learners are educated on an equal playing 

field like this, an advanced level of cross-cultural acceptance and understanding is 

possible, and this forms the basis of language learning at Oyster. 

Given Oyster’s program and student/family population, the school is well-situated 

to help offer DC Latinos needed services and support. Oyster recently received a 

grant from the DC Mayor’s Office on Latino Affairs to take on this work, in partnership with the Carlos Rosario International School. The funding is enabling Oyster 

to provide ESL classes for Latino parents of elementary-age children. The Oyster 

School has an informal relationship with Mary’s Center for Maternal and Child 

Care, a family health and social services center dedicated to increasing access to 

comprehensive bilingual care to low-income, uninsured residents of Washington, DC. 

Eligible families are identified by Oyster and referred to the Center, while Center 

staff refers patients with educational needs to Oyster. Working with the community 

and supporting families is at the core of supporting English language learners. 

III. Oyster Bilingual Elementary School can provide measures of student success, including proficiency in learning world languages 

In 2006, Oyster was named a U.S. Department of Education ‘‘No Child Left Behind-Blue Ribbon School.’’ This honor goes to schools that are either academically 

superior in their states or demonstrate dramatic gains in student achievement. Oyster was the only school named in Washington, DC in 2006, and was the only bilingual school named nationwide, public or private. 

In addition to this recent national recognition of the school’s success, Oyster regularly measures and documents student achievement in both English and Spanish. 

As a DC public school, Oyster administers the Stanford Achievement Test 9th Edition (SAT-9), and beginning this school year, the DC Comprehensive Assessment 

System (DC CAS). In addition, Oyster administers the Aprenda: La Prueba de 

Logros en Espan ̃ ol—2nd Edition. All Oyster students, including special education 

students, participate in testing. 

Every year and on every test, Oyster students’ scores in reading and math greatly 

exceed those for the District of Columbia as a whole. In 2006, 79% of Oyster students tested ‘‘at proficient’’ or ‘‘above proficient’’ in reading; 21% tested as ‘‘advanced.’’ In math, 72% of Oyster students tested ‘‘at proficient’’ or ‘‘above proficient;’’ 

30% tested as ‘‘advanced.’’

Thus, the dual language immersion model at Oyster is additive—not only celebrating a student’s heritage and making it stronger, but simultaneously developing 

high levels of competence in English. This philosophy undergirds instruction at Oyster. Minority and majority students at Oyster come together in an environment that 

celebrates an equal balance between cultures and languages, thus eliminating the 

divide and providing for a high degree of self-esteem in all students. Thus, the high 

academic performance level at the lower grades provide for higher achievement in 

the middle and high school years. All of these factors contribute to academic success 

of our students and diminish the possibilities of having students drop out of school. 

Chairman KILDEE. Ms. Sa ́nchez. 

STATEMENT OF FRANCISCA SA ́ NCHEZ, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION, SAN 

BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OFFICE 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Good morning, Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member 

Castle and members of the subcommittee. 

46

Today, I am pleased to be here representing San Bernardino 

County Superintendent of Schools Office as well as our partner 

county Offices of Education in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San 

Diego, and Ventura Counties. Together, we compromise the PROMISE Initiative, a collaboration for English learner reform and success. 

The needs of English learners, as you well know, in my county 

and throughout our five partner counties are staggering. In San 

Bernardino County alone, almost 90,000 students—that is, one in 

five of our students—are English learners. In California, over a 

fourth of all students are English learners, and 64 percent of all 

California’s English learners attend school in one of our six counties. We are talking about over 1 million students. Yet, of these, 

only 7 percent receive full access to both the English language development and the core academic curriculum they need to meet the 

requirements of NCLB and to succeed in school, and this is a recipe 

for educational and societal disaster. 

NCLB requires that all students reach proficient levels of 

achievement by 2014—that is just 7 years from now—but currently, at second grade, fewer than a third of our English learners 

meet the proficient standard in language arts, and at the eleventh 

grade, only 4 to 6 percent test at or above proficient. What does 

this mean for our schools? 

For one thing, in San Bernardino, we see an alarming trend with 

a majority of the 90-plus schools in program improvement there 

based on the academic gaps experienced by our English learners, 

and we see a similar pattern when we look at who teaches these 

English learners. Although NCLB requires that every student be 

taught by a highly qualified teacher, English learners are twice as 

likely as students in general to be taught by a teacher who is not 

fully credentialed. Considering this, the PROMISE Initiative proposes a bold shift in how we design and deliver successful English 

learner programs. 

As part of the PROMISE Initiative, our six counties in Southern 

California have risen together to boldly and innovatively address 

the needs of English learners and to build a vision and model that 

can be replicated across the Nation. The ultimate goal of the 

PROMISE Initiative, of course, is to ensure that English learners 

achieve and sustain high levels of academic, linguistic and multicultural competency and that they are successfully prepared for 

21st Century citizenship. 

Most unique about PROMISE is that it is grounded in eight research-based core principles to promote the academic success of 

English learners in grades K through 12th. These are described in 

detail in your materials, but they include enriched and affirming 

learning environments, empowering pedagogy, challenging and relevant curriculum, high-quality instructional resources, valid and 

comprehensive assessment, high-quality professional preparation 

and support, powerful family and community engagement, and advocacy-oriented administrative and leadership systems. 

In our six counties, we have worked with districts and schools to 

develop and pilot customized programs to meet the specific needs 

of the English learners at their sites. Each district and school is 

using local funds to support its work in PROMISE and has exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:50 Sep 17, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-14\HED082.140 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
47

pressed its commitment to PROMISE from all levels, including a 

commitment to a rigorous goal standard, research and evaluation 

component. PROMISE is a research-supported, principles-based reform model, and so PROMISE facilitates the design of local systems that promote simultaneous delivery of language and literacy 

development and rigorous academic content instruction systemically throughout a school district. As a result, PROMISE provides 

schools and districts with what they need to improve instruction, 

close achievement and access gaps and increase college-going rates 

for English learners, and in addition, we expect to see better prepared teachers and high levels of parent satisfaction and support. 

The bottom line is that the PROMISE Initiative is putting into 

practice what really works to meet the needs of English learners, 

and I invite you to view our accompanying materials which describe the initiative in detail, an initiative that, we believe, holds 

the key to fulfilling the promise of No Child Left Behind, and that 

is why I so appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. We 

understand and support the positive intent of No Child Left Behind, and so we have come to the careful conclusion that several 

areas of NCLB need revision in order to truly have the intended 

impact on English learners in our schools, and I will briefly address two of these areas. 

The first one of the greatest areas of impact of NCLB has been 

the implementation of the accountability provisions. States must be 

held accountable for implementing an assessment and accountability system that uses valid and reliable instruments. Secondly, 

we understand the role interventions and eventually sanctions 

play, and we need to have our schools using the existing research 

to prepare those interventions. 

Thank you so much. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much, Ms. Sa ́nchez. 

[The statement of Ms. Sa ́nchez follows:]

Prepared Statement of Francisca Sa ́nchez, Assistant Superintendent of 

Curriculum and Instruction, San Bernardino County Superintendent of 

Schools Office 

Good morning Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle, and members of the 

Subcommittee. I am Francisca Sa ́nchez, Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum 

and Instruction of the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools Office in 

Southern California. Today, I am pleased to be here to represent San Bernardino 

County as well as five additional Southern California county offices of education 

that comprise the PROMISE Initiative—a six county collaboration for English 

Learner reform and success. Our partnership includes the county offices of education of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura. 

The needs of English Learners in my county and throughout our six county partners are huge. In San Bernardino County alone, almost 90,000 students are English 

Learners. This represents one in five of our students. Based on data from the California Department of Education, we know that within the state of California, over 

one fourth of all students are English Learners, and that 64% of all English Learners in the state attend school in one of our six counties. We’re talking about over 

1 million students (1,008,140). Yet, only 7% of our English Learners receive FULL 

access to both the English Language Development) and the core academic curriculum they need to meet the requirements of NCLB and to succeed in school. This 

is a recipe for educational and societal disaster. 

NCLB requires that all students reach proficient or higher levels of academic 

achievement within 12 years. Currently, at second grade, only 21 to 32% of English 

Learners in the six PROMISE counties meet the proficient standard in Language 

Arts. At the 11th grade, only 4 to 6% test at or above proficient. At the high school 

level, only 29% of English Learners tested in the six PROMISE counties have 

48

passed the California High School Exit Exam in English Language Arts compared 

to 72% of English only students. On the Mathematics exam, 49% of English Learners passed, compared to 78% of English only students. 

What does this mean for schools and districts relative to NCLB? San Bernardino 

County provides an example of the consequences. Here, we see an alarming trend 

where the majority of the ninety plus schools in Program Improvement are there 

based on the academic gaps experienced by our English Learner students. 

We see a similar pattern when we consider who teaches English Learners. Although NCLB requires that EVERY student be taught by a highly qualified teacher, 

English Learners are twice as likely as students in general to be taught by a teacher who is not fully credentialed. 

Taking these demographic and performance data into consideration, the PROMISE Initiative proposes a bold shift in how we deliver successful programs to these 

students, not only in the local geographic area, but nationwide. It provides an alternative to highly negative consequences of continuing to school our English Learners 

for failure. 

The PROMISE Initiative As mentioned above, the PROMISE Initiative is a collaboration of six county offices of education in Southern California who have risen 

together to boldly and innovatively address the needs of English Learners and to 

build a vision and model that can be replicated throughout our state and the nation. 

The ultimate goal of the PROMISE Initiative is to ensure that English Learners 

achieve and sustain high levels of academic, linguistic, and multicultural competency, and are successfully prepared for 21st century citizenship. 

The PROMISE Initiative is in the beginning phase of a three-year pilot study 

(2006-2009) to advance a powerful vision of English Learner success. Within the six 

counties, six school districts and 15 schools (PreK-12th grade) are participating in 

a customized pilot program to meet the specific needs of the English Learners at 

their sites. Each district and school is using local funds to support their work in 

PROMISE, and they have expressed their commitment to PROMISE from all levels—district and site leadership, teachers, students, parents, and targeted support 

from county offices of education. 

The PROMISE approach promotes simultaneous delivery of language/literacy development and rigorous academic content instruction systemically throughout a 

school district. As a result, schools and districts will close the achievement and access gaps and increase college-going rates for English Learners, and achieve high 

levels of parent satisfaction and support. PROMISE is not a curriculum or specific 

program, but rather it is a research-supported, principles-based reform model that 

addresses the needs of English Learners throughout the entire school system (i.e. 

district, school, community, county,). The research-based core principles to realize 

this vision are: 

• Enriched & Affirming Learning Environments 

• Empowering Pedagogy 

• Challenging & Relevant Curriculum 

• High Quality Instructional Resources 

• Valid & Comprehensive Assessment 

• High Quality Professional Preparation & Support 

• Powerful Family & Community Engagement 

• Advocacy-Oriented Administrative & Leadership Systems 

The PROMISE Initiative embraces a vision that English Learners will achieve 

and sustain high levels of proficiency, including literacy, in English and the home 

language; high levels of academic achievement, including proficiency on state standards across the curriculum and maintenance of that achievement in English after 

participation in specialized English Learner programs and through grade 12; sophisticated sociocultural and multicultural competency; preparation for successful transition to higher education; successful preparation as a 21st century global citizen; 

and high levels of motivation, confidence, and self-assurance. 

The PROMISE Initiative uses a gold standard of research employing the NAEP, 

NCLB, state, and local standards, as well as performance based assessments and 

student surveys, to measure English Learner achievement in acquiring English and 

learning academic content. At the conclusion of the three-year pilot study, the research and evaluation findings will be published and PROMISE will move into a 

five-year field study to replicate and expand the vision of PROMISE to schools and 

districts in California and the nation. The six Southern California PROMISE counties are in a critical position and have the combined knowledge/experience base to 

powerfully and positively affect education for English Learners nationwide through 

the PROMISE Initiative. 

49

Impact of NCLB on English Learners 

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about the impact of No 

Child Left Behind on English Learners and to add to the national dialogue on this 

very important issue. 

Let me begin by highlighting a few key points about our position on and approach 

to the impact of NCLB on English Learners. • English learners are most often the subgroup that has not met AYP targets in 

schools that are classified as Program Improvement. To add to the educational challenges in California, the achievement gap between English only students and 

English Learners has grown every year since the 2002-03 school year. • English Learners must meet the same rigorous standards set for all students. 

It is essential that NCLB allow various paths to reach that goal without labeling 

students and schools as failures. Currently, NCLB requires English Learners to 

meet standards at the same pace as others while a significant portion of these students is doing double work -learning a second language and striving to reach high 

academic standards. 

While acknowledging and understanding that the intent of NCLB and other policies regarding English Learners has been to provide key guidelines and support for 

their success, we have come to the careful conclusion that several areas of NCLB 

need revision in order to truly have an impact on English Learners in our schools. 

The areas that we have identified include: 

• Assessment and Accountability System for English Learners 

• Sanctions and Interventions 

• Reading First 

• Highly Qualified Teachers/Professional Development 

• Paraprofessionals 

• Supplemental Educational Services (SES) 

• Parent and Family Engagement 

Assessment and Accountability System for English Learners 

One of the greatest areas of impact of NCLB in our state and in the nation has 

been in the implementation of assessment and accountability systems—not just for 

English Learners, but also for all learners. To best reflect the abilities of our 

English Learner students and in order to assure accurate and reliable results, states 

must be held accountable for implementing an assessment and accountability system that uses valid and reliable instruments to yield accurate data as to what an 

English Learner knows and can do. 

A revised NCLB should ensure that the English Learner testing provision requires testing ‘‘in a language or form that most accurately reflects what students 

know and are able to do’’. Tests in the home language, modified English tests, and 

other appropriate measures need to be a part of each state’s system until students’ 

English proficiency allows them to compete on tests developed for native English 

speakers. Guidelines on appropriate testing accommodations for English Learners 

need to be provided and states need to be monitored on their statewide implementation of these accommodations. Additionally, in order to make the aforementioned a 

reality, it is key to significantly increase research and investment in the development of appropriate assessments and accommodations. 

Because NCLB has rightly focused on measuring the success of students from several subgroups to allow for clear and careful analyses of the data, it is important 

that English Learners are maintained as a subgroup and that the data are 

disaggregated for two distinct purposes: 1) Under Title III, English Learners in U.S. 

schools three years or less must be included in AMAOs I and II (and AYP only if 

documented accommodations yield valid and reliable results for this subgroup); and, 

2) English Learners in the U.S. more than three years should be included in both 

the Title I AYP and Title III AMAO calculations with appropriate accommodations 

geared to different English Learner proficiency levels. 

And finally, any growth model should include longitudinal student data that 

disaggregate English Learner data by proficiency in home language and English, 

time in program, and type of services/programs. Currently, we have found an inconsistency in the way data are collected and accounted for, often just giving a oneyear view of student growth and progress that inadequately or inaccurately predicts 

sustainable, long-term success. 

Interventions 

With accountability at the center of our discussion around student success, we understand the role interventions and eventually sanctions play to ensure that the 

needs of all students are addressed; however, interventions need to be based upon 

data that accurately reflect what English Learners know and can do. We have seen 

50

case after case where English Learners are lumped into one large category, not accounting for their distinct language levels and background educational experiences. 

It is imperative that the data that are used to define the most effective intervention 

needs account for the students’ level of English and home language proficiency, time 

in U. S. schools, previous level of education, and the types of program services provided. 

There is extensive research and documentation in the field regarding the best and 

most effective practices and strategies for English Learners—our PROMISE Initiative espouses many of them in our approach to English Learner success. Regrettably, in the quest to reach compliance with NCLB, many of our schools, for a variety of reasons, move forward on decisions regarding reform for English Learner programs without taking that research into consideration. In order to have the kind 

of powerful growth called for by NCLB, interventions must rely on research-based 

practices that promise long-term, sustainable, high level success for English Learners in first and second language development AND academic achievement. If and 

when schools enter into Program Improvement status, it is imperative that they 

contract with personnel/entities that have experience and expertise with English 

Learners. Similarly, sanctions for schools in Years 4/5 Program Improvement must 

reflect a wide array of new program options for alternative governance, such as 

biliteracy, dual language, structured English immersion, Spanish for native speakers, and others documented as successful with English Learners. 

Reading First 

NCLB has provided our schools and districts nationwide with targeted approaches 

for literacy development through Reading First. It is imperative, once more, to 

stress that any program or approach that intends to impact English Learners directly address the differentiated needs of students based on language acquisition 

and educational experience. In the case of Reading First, states must be held accountable to develop research-based approaches and materials that specifically accelerate language development and literacy for 

English Learners and that maintain this accelerated progress over several years 

in order to close the achievement gaps. The professional development designed for 

the Reading First program must prepare teachers to differentiate instruction to address the language proficiency and literacy needs of English Learners. To accurately 

reflect the teaching and learning that has occurred, the evaluation design and assessments in state Reading First programs must be valid and reliable to demonstrate what English Learners know and can do, and how this growth is able to 

be sustained over time. 

Highly Qualified Teachers/Professional Development 

As I noted in my introduction, while NCLB requires that EVERY student be 

taught by a highly qualified teacher, English Learners are twice as likely as students in general to be taught by a teacher who is not fully credentialed. According 

to ‘‘Teaching and California’s Future’’ (2006) published by the Center for the Future 

of Teaching and Learning, CSU Office of the Chancellor, UC Office of the President, 

Policy Analysis of California Education, and WestEd, one of the greatest teacher 

preparation shortages in the state is in the area of teachers for English Learners. 

In fact, in 2005-06 only 56% of fully credentialed, experienced (more than five years 

of teaching experience) teachers had English Learner authorizations. While this is 

a dramatic increase from over five years ago (34%), given the nature of instruction 

and the fact that English Learners are incorporated throughout virtually all classrooms in schools where they are present, the percentage must be much higher to 

ensure effective academic instruction for English Learners. 

Given this context, in response to the teacher professional development components of NCLB, we strongly recommend that the definition of highly qualified teachers be expanded and clarified to require that teachers who provide instruction to 

English Learners have the appropriate EL authorization. Teachers in all core subject areas who are assigned to provide instruction to English Learners should be explicitly required to receive professional development in English Language Development (ELD), Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE), and/or 

primary language instruction. To support this type of focused teacher professional 

development, a key factor would be to re-institute federal grants for graduate students in ELD and bilingual education. 

Paraprofessionals 

In addition to focusing on high quality professional development for teachers, 

NCLB has recognized the key role that paraprofessionals play in the education of 

all students. To specifically address the growing needs of English Learners, it is distinctly important to require that paraprofessionals working with English learners 

51

be provided with training and professional development to address their working 

knowledge and implementation of first and second language acquisition and other 

appropriate strategies. Career ladder opportunities are needed that lead to appropriate English Learner certification, along with teaching credentials. 

Supplemental Educational Services (SES) 

NCLB has targeted additional support for English Learner students via the Supplemental Educational Services. Concentrated, focused approaches in SES programs 

have been proven to support student academic growth and engagement if they are 

closely aligned to the goals and practices of the school’s educational program. Such 

services can and should play a role in supporting English Learner students by specifically ensuring that parents are given sufficient information to make informed decisions regarding SES providers and that the information is provided in the language spoken by the parents. 

The role of the SES provider, obviously, is instrumental in how successful the program will be. SES providers who work with English Learners should be required 

to have the knowledge and skills necessary to teach English Language Development 

and rigorous, grade-level appropriate, standards-based content instruction appropriate to the various language proficiency levels of the students. Providers should 

be required to deliver instruction consistent with the language of instruction during 

the school day for the designated subjects 

Community Building Parent and Family Involvement 

As we have addressed the impact of NCLB for English Learners in areas such 

as accountability, professional development, and educational programs, we recognize 

that the underlying foundation for the success of our students draws from the primary role of parents and family. NCLB has strongly influenced the importance of 

the role of parent and family engagement as a key factor to student success and 

indeed has recognized parents as students’ first and ongoing teachers. We have 

greatly appreciated the emphasis that has been placed on the role of parents and 

community in effective programs for English Learner students. To maximize the impact of parent and family engagement, we recommend that parent advisory committees be required to include representation of English Learner parents and specific 

roles for their involvement, that there is an increase in the percent of funding that 

is allocated to parent involvement, and that an independent audit of states’ implementation of the required parent involvement/community building mandates be implemented. 

Conclusion 

It has been my pleasure and an honor to share the work we are doing on behalf 

of English Learners and to highlight the impact of No Child Left Behind in the 

Southern California region. Through this opportunity to testify on this panel, I am 

hopeful that the true needs and concerns of English Learners will be addressed. 

Chairman KILDEE. I thank all of you for your testimony. 

The rules of the subcommittee adopted on January 24th of this 

year give the Chair the discretion on how to recognize members for 

questioning. It is my intention as chair of this subcommittee to recognize those members present at the beginning of the hearing in 

order of their seniority on this subcommittee. Members arriving 

after the hearing began will be recognized in order of appearance. 

I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Zamora, you said that No Child Left Behind was very helpful 

as written for these students, but the implementation is where the 

problem lies. Could you expand upon that? 

Mr. ZAMORA. Certainly. 

I think one of the primary problems, as certainly many have testified today, is with the quality of the tests for English language 

learners. It has not been a very high priority for States or for the 

Federal Department of Education until recently, and so we are 

working now to improve the quality of tests, but really need to 

move forward with that process and to receive congressional support for testing these students properly. 

52

I would also note that English language learners can be included 

in several subgroups. Many English language learners are also lowincome, and likely also the interracial, ethnic minority, and so, not 

only do tensions regarding test quality for English language learners affect the performance of the ELL subgroup, but also these 

other subgroups as well, so it is really going to be very important 

that we measure what students know, design interventions that 

are effective and really lift the performance levels of ELLs. 

Chairman KILDEE. Do you think the language in No Child Left 

Behind is adequate or is there a question that we do not appropriate enough to carry out the language? 

Mr. ZAMORA. Certainly, funding is a concern, and my coalition 

has been advocating for increased funding for No Child Left Behind 

for years, and so we are looking forward to increased funding levels. 

There is a challenge in terms of the implementation of native 

language assessments, which is that the current language states 

that States must do so to the extent practicable. Many States have 

chosen to interpret that as being a requirement without teeth and 

have basically declared that practicability rarely exists, and so we 

have not seen enough States implement the kind of native language assessments, including California, I might add, with 1.25 

million English language learner students who are being tested 

using an English language test. If I were to move to China, I would 

want my student to be tested in English, not in Chinese, because 

that would most likely generate meaningful results for that population. 

Chairman KILDEE. I can recall, when I was teaching school, at 

a PTA meeting, I taught Latin, and the teacher next to me, as we 

had the PTA meeting, was teaching French, and in frustration, she 

said to the parent ‘‘Your child will never learn French,’’ and the 

mother said, ‘‘Well, I am glad he was not born in Paris then.’’ so 

you can teach people language then, right? 

Dr. Young, I was the author of the Bilingual Education Act in 

Michigan many, many years ago. Since then, we have limited 

English proficiency, English language learners, English as a second 

language. Does the California State system provide programs for 

all of these or are they mingled somewhat in preparing for these 

four programs? 

Ms. YOUNG. I think there continues to be an expansion of the 

types of programs and the acronyms that we use to describe them 

all, and I think there is a full range of those programs represented 

across our campuses. 

I think there is a core that all of our campus faculty agree on. 

Just 2 weeks ago, March 9th, we had a teacher ed professional development faculty conference, and one of the strands of that conference was pedagogy and strategies for best practice in preparing 

ELL teachers, and we have a whole core list of what are the strategies that all of our campuses address that our faculty agreed on are 

primarily important. 

Then each campus works with their local districts to ensure they 

are meeting the local needs as well. We would be happy to give you 

a list of those core things that all of our campuses work on. 

53

Chairman KILDEE. That would be very helpful because this has 

changed much through the years, and we perceive the needs better, 

I think, than we did, whether generic or bilingual, 40 years ago, 

but much more sophisticated and different needs exist now. We are 

aware of those needs more. So, if you could provide us with that, 

we would very much appreciate it. 

To what degree is teaching the teachers needed more in order to 

address this problem? 

Ms. YOUNG. In the CSU, I think we have addressed this very, 

very seriously, as I said, preparing all teachers who come from the 

CSU as teachers of ELLs because that is the reality in California 

classrooms. I think one thing that NCLB could do—when people 

talk about accountability, there is a lot of accountability for schools 

and districts, and Ms. Sa ́nchez addressed the accountability that 

schools have for showing that they have student achievement results. 

I think institutions of higher ed and other programs that prepare 

teachers should be held accountable for showing that they prepare 

new teachers to work in these challenging environments, that institutions should show that new teachers who are often the ones who 

are sent to the most challenging, at-risk populations should be the 

best equipped, the best equipped that we can provide for them to 

deal with issues of poverty, of language learning, of other things 

that contribute to students’ being at risk for failure. So I think it 

is realistic to ask programs ‘‘How do you prepare future teachers 

to do that?’’

In addition to the professional development for existing teachers 

and updating their skills—as you say, things change so quickly, but 

I think new teachers is the key. She also mentioned that the distribution of teachers is a huge issue. The teacher shortage in different areas, it is not so much a shortage as it is a maldistribution. 

In California, 85 percent of our intern teachers, who are teachers 

who have subject matter knowledge but not necessarily any professional preparation—85 percent of these intern teachers are at our 

lowest-performing schools. 

These are the schools where they need our best teachers, and I 

think both districts and schools and institutions should be held accountable for trying to address that problem, figuring out ways to 

get the best qualified teachers to the kids who need them the most. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

Governor Castle. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me thank each of you. You bring a lot of different perspectives and very interesting perspectives to the table, and I appreciate that. I am going to ask—this is always dangerous—a very 

general question and try to elicit answers from as many of you as 

want to try to answer it as possible. The reason for this hearing 

and the reason we have been having hearings is we are getting 

ready to reauthorize or rewrite, if you will, No Child Left Behind, 

and I am interested in your views on what specifically we might 

or should be looking at in No Child Left Behind, and if you really 

know well, if you want to cite page 5 and put in a semicolon instead of a comma, that is fine, but more likely, you will want to 

54

talk about a general area or something of that nature, and some 

of you did. 

Dr. Young, you indicated in your testimony you had a few other 

thoughts that you did not get to that you might want to include 

in the changes in No Child Left Behind. On the funding issue, you 

are more than welcome to speak to it. We have had a lot of hearings. We have never had anyone come in here and say we want less 

funding. So we understand you probably want more funding if I 

had to guess. 

I am looking for volunteers on this, but you may talk generally 

about an area that you think needs to have attention paid to it or 

specifically about something that is either in or not in the legislation that you feel we should be looking at as members of Congress 

in the future. 

Ms. Ashby. 

Ms. ASHBY. Well, if I can start——

Mr. CASTLE. Sure. Do not take too long, by the way. We only 

have 5 minutes total here. 

Ms. ASHBY. No, I will not. 

To elaborate a little bit on what I said in my opening statement 

and what we said in our full statement and what we said in the 

report upon which that statement was based, we have recommended that the Department look at the possibility of increasing flexibilities and with the knowledge that accountability is very 

important and particularly for limited English proficient students 

and other subgroups of the student population, but there is probably a balance that can be reached that may be different than the 

current legislation that would allow for more flexibility given the 

diversity of the limited English proficient population of students, 

and hopefully, the Department and perhaps, through legislative 

change, there could be more of an effort toward that. I think that 

would help a lot. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Ms. Ashby. 

Any other volunteers? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I would like to jump in on this one. 

For us in California, a huge issue is around the interventions 

and sanctions because we have so many schools moving into program improvement, and although we know a lot about what works 

with English learners, what can accelerate their achievement, both 

in language development and in academic content, many, many of 

our schools are feeling very pressured to adopt reforms and interventions that, in fact, totally disregard this broad base of research. 

So, in the reauthorization of NCLB, if there could be something 

that required the interventions to actually be based on the research 

that is pertinent to the particular group of students that is intended to be served, that would be a huge advance. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

Others? 

Ms. YOUNG. I just would add—I think I gave three already, but 

the other thing I would add in the reauthorization is looking again 

at the definition of the ‘‘highly qualified teacher.’’ currently, ‘‘highly 

qualified’’ is all an input measure about what teachers bring to 

their position, and there might be a better definition of effective 

55

teaching that could be applied. Again, for example, in California, 

under NCLB, you are a highly qualified teacher before you are a 

fully qualified teacher because of the way the regulations are written, and so I do not use the term ‘‘highly qualified teacher’’ in California. We talk about NCLB-compliant, because I think there is a 

much higher standard for teachers to truly be highly qualified especially in preparation for high-risk populations. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

Ms. Guzman. 

Ms. GUZMAN. I would like to add that minority and majority students need to be considered as coming together in an environment 

that celebrates a balance between cultures and language, and I believe that that is what makes a difference in terms of success for 

students. The performance, the high academic performance of the 

students in the lower grades—in elementary school—can really provide a basis for middle and high school years and serve to reduce 

the dropout rate. I believe that if students are treated as if they 

are bringing something to the table and there is an equal playing 

field that, if NCLB seeks to recognize this, then we will have higher success rates at the upper grades. 

Mr. CASTLE. Congratulations on your school, by the way, and all 

you have done. 

Mr. ZAMORA. I will be very brief. I could go on and on, obviously, 

but I would like to note at the outset that there are very few 

schools that are being driven into improvement status by the performance of the ELL subgroup alone. To the extent that ELL subgroups are failing to make AYP, other subgroups within that school 

are also driving the school into improvement status, but nonetheless, our recommendations around ELL are improving NCLB for 

ELLs and, I think, would involve many of the issues discussed 

here—teacher quality, certainly the quality of the assessments, sort 

of the incentivizing the development of better assessments for 

ELLs, and also, in my written testimony, I discuss the need for increased research on both assessment practices and instructional 

practices for ELL students, and also, clearly at the school level, we 

need the implementation of the best instructional methods for 

English language learner students, and to the extent that NCLB 

can incentivize that, then that is a change that we want to support. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

Thank you all for doing it within the time limit pretty much. We 

appreciate that. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you, Governor. 

The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and I thank the panel. I just have a couple of questions. One 

was on professional development. 

At what point does the number of English language learners in 

a system suggest that the professional development activities for 

that entire system and for every teacher in that system ought to 

include competencies and attention to English language learners, 

and can you describe how that would be done? I mean, how early 

in the process of professional development, going all the way back 

to teacher education programs, for example? Should that element 

56

be embedded in order to respond to a system or to a jurisdiction 

that has a high number of English language learners? Anybody can 

take a crack at that. 

Ms. YOUNG. Well, since it is teacher quality, I will go first. 

As I said, in California, we infuse the pedagogies and strategies 

for working with English language learners into all teacher preparation. All pre service teachers have that infused into all of their 

coursework, field work and student teaching. 

In terms of professional development, you are not going to find 

a classroom in California that does not have English language 

learners in it, and in terms of at what point what sort of level at 

which a teacher needs preparation to work with these kids, if it is 

truly No Child Left Behind, then all teachers need this preparation. It constitutes part of the at-risk population. There are lots of 

different definitions of what kind of criteria could put a child in the 

category of at risk for failure, and certainly, having the challenge 

of learning English at the same time you are expected to learn content at the same rate as native English speakers is certainly a 

challenge. Those students need the best-equipped teachers for that. 

I would want all teachers to have that preparation. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. One of the promises of our PROMISE Initiative is 

that, if we can help all of the teachers at a school site to become 

skilled in working with English learners, it will, in fact, impact the 

education of every other student in that system, and so I think this 

notion of trying to work with teachers as a system rather than isolating them for particular types of professional development is 

something to look at. 

Ms. GUZMAN. Just to make sure that I address a little bit about 

what Ms. Sa ́nchez said, at the District of Columbia public schools, 

we have taken an important step to duplicating the Oyster model 

in other schools, and I think that that is certainly important. There 

are currently twelve schools that have started to develop the bilingual programs, and we have one that is starting in Chinese, and 

to the extent to which staff members of successful schools can play 

a role in making sure that you extend the other programs in other 

schools, I think that that is an important contribution. We have 

been serving as a demonstration site for other schools, and I am 

sure specific schools that have strength in other areas for English 

language learners can also do the same. 

Mr. ZAMORA. And I would like to jump in just very quickly to 

note that there was a point in our history in which English language learners tended to be clustered in particular States and particular districts, but due to demographic shifts, that is really no 

longer the case, so areas that traditionally have not had high ELL 

populations are experiencing that now, and so I think, really, nationwide there is a need for professional development certification 

for teachers teaching ELLs. 

Mr. SARBANES. Let me ask you, Mr. Zamora, really quickly. Have 

there been any studies done or attempts to project what the difference in outcome in terms of measured proficiency would have 

been in certain schools and with populations of English language 

learners if the right kinds of accommodations and the acknowledgment of sort of mitigating circumstances had been in place? I 

mean, I know maybe it is just conjecture, but there is the implicaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:50 Sep 17, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-14\HED082.140 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
57

tion there, if we were getting to the content knowledge and other 

things more effectively with the testing system, that we would see 

different results. 

Has there been any kind of study of that? 

Mr. ZAMORA. Certainly. In terms of instructional practices, I 

mean, we can definitely use the available data, and I think we 

have discussed the flaws in the data to compare the outcomes of 

a school such as Oyster with schools that are implementing much 

less effective models. In terms of State-based assessments, there 

are certain States that have done more than others in developing 

native language and other specific content assessments for ELLs. 

So I think those States such as—Ohio, I think, has generally 

done a good job. Texas has some native language assessments, not 

at all grade levels but in some, so those have given us better data 

and, under the theory of NCLB, have been driving better instruction. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. The gentleman from California, the ranking 

member of the full committee, Mr. McKeon. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again for 

holding this hearing. 

I would like to follow up on some of the things that Mr. Castle 

asked, because this is really important. We are trying to get as 

much information as we can as we go through the reauthorization. 

I would like to get a little bit more specific. 

Ms. Ashby, you talked about more flexibility. Do you have any 

specific things that we can do? 

Ms. ASHBY. I can’t give you a prescription for the flexibility. One 

of our recommendations, as I said to the department, was that 

more study be done to determine just what types of flexibility are 

most appropriate. 

Mr. MCKEON. If you could even give us something back for the 

record in more specifics, because that is something I know we are 

going to have to come up with, is more flexibility. 

Ms. ASHBY. All right. I will say that one of the issues is which 

students should be included among the limited English proficiency 

group and whether, for example, an immigrant entering the country who knows no English should be included. The first year that 

person would not be, but whether the person should be in the second year or third year, how long limited-English-proficient students 

should remain in the group once they become fully proficient, that 

is an issue. 

With other subgroups, racial groups, for example, students remain in the groups as long as there are students. But when limited-English-proficient students progress to the point of being proficient, after a couple of years they are removed from the group. So 

that affects the group assessment and averages and so forth. So 

those are a couple of things. 

Mr. MCKEON. If you think of any others, if you could get them 

to us, because those are good points. 

I am a Mormon, so on my mission I served with Spanish-speaking people in Texas and New Mexico, and I noticed it was very difficult for me to learn Spanish because I wanted to make sure evVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:50 Sep 17, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-14\HED082.140 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
58

erything I said was perfect before I said it. So I had to think it 

through in my mind. That is not the way to learn a language. 

On the other hand, I have a son who just talks, so he learned 

Portuguese, but he has also picked up Spanish because he doesn’t 

worry about saying it perfectly and is very verbal. So we learned 

at different levels. 

I am wondering if—we have supplemental services that should 

be provided in schools that need improvement, and I am thinking 

that that is an area that could really be used because you could do 

one-on-one tutoring language, and that is very important because 

you learn at all different levels. 

Ms. Young, qualified, fully qualified, effective, that is something 

that we really grapple with because you can—if you have a Ph.D., 

you have very good qualifications, if you are a chemistry teacher 

with a Ph.D., probably very, very qualified. But if you have a problem communicating to students, you are not very effective. 

Qualifications based on degrees is something that can be done 

very objectively. Gauging effectiveness is something that is much 

more subjective. Principals are going to have to really play a role 

as they hire and mentor and move teachers along. If you could also 

get us more input on effective qualified teachers, that is something 

that I know we are going to have to address strongly in this process. 

Ms. Sa ́nchez, tell Herb ‘‘hi’’ for me. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I certainly will. 

Mr. MCKEON. Intervention, you talked about moving—how we 

could be more effective in the intervention process? Do you have 

some specifics on that? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I will just say if there were at least a provision in 

NCLB that required the mandated interventions to represent the 

research that exists, that that in itself would be a huge advance; 

and that applies as well I think to the supplemental educational 

services. Because, to date, those services really don’t reflect the research around English language learners; and if that could be a 

provision and if those providers could be required to provide those 

services in a way that matches the language of instruction in the 

schools and that supports it, that would also be helpful as well. 

Mr. MCKEON. Very good. 

Mr. ZAMORA. Congressman, I was wondering if I could address 

your issue about flexibility just very briefly. 

Mr. MCKEON. You could. 

Mr. Chairman, my time is up, but I have one more little question. 

Chairman KILDEE. I will let Mr. Zamora finish his response. 

Mr. MCKEON. Subgroups, we find that English language learners 

might also be a minority, obviously, probably. Might also be a special needs student, and they are judged in all these different subgroups, and they can tend to pull a school down three times or lift 

a school up three times. So I think that is something that we are 

going to need to address, is how many times you judge the same 

student and how that weighs on how a school is counted. 

Mr. ZAMORA. Thank you. 

I think the key base fact about English language learners is that 

the vast majority are not newly arrived English language learners. 

59

As I testified, the majority are, in fact, U.S. citizens. So I think 

that the real issue around accountability in ELL is really the test 

quality issues. So for newly arrived or for native born ELLs we are 

not adequately measuring what they know and what they can 

learn. 

The current flexibility is in the second year of arrival. Newly arrived students have to be included in accountability systems. I 

think with the proper assessments there are many students who 

come in with good academic preparation. There is also a view that 

most newly arrived students don’t have adequate academic preparation from their home country, and that is not always accurate. 

Also, under current regulation, schools get credit for former ELL 

populations for 2 years after they have exited ELL status; and so 

flexibility has also been granted in that regard. 

Generally, I think if we improve the quality of the assessments, 

we will be able adequately to measure the performance of all ELLs 

and be able to show what they know, be able to better bring 

schools, instead, as you suggest, causing improvement status to 

change. 

Chairman KILDEE. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Sa ́nchez. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to welcome all of the witnesses today but in particular 

Ms. Guzman. I have actually had the opportunity to visit Oyster 

School, and it is a fabulous model I think for dual-language learning. 

My question is basically for all the members of the panel. Many 

of the schools in my district are Title I schools, and many have 

made progress towards California’s AYP goals. My district includes 

many low-income and immigrant families, and in more than half 

of those homes in my district English isn’t even the primary language that is spoken. 

But, as I understand it, the way that No Child Left Behind is 

set up, students who reach English proficiency move out of the relevant subgroup, and yet the AYP goals continue to increase every 

year. So it seems that the requirements are such that each year 

brand new English learners have to perform better than the previous year’s brand new English learners for the subgroup to show 

improvement. 

I have heard from a number of my local school districts that this 

system isn’t going to be sustainable in the long run, and I am interested in learning the panel’s views of whether the increasing 

yearly goals are a reasonable way to increase English proficiency 

and subject matter proficiency, even though new non-English 

speaking children become part of the testing subgroup each year. 

I think that is something you touched on, Ms. Ashby, in your last 

response. 

Ms. ASHBY. Yes, it was. You have would have to look at each 

State, the composition of that subgroup, to know whether everything you said would play out. It is certainly possible that it could. 

But, as I understand it, there is no end year for becoming proficient in the English language. It is not like the 2014 goal for academic progression. So that being the case, it is probably not as severe a problem as it might be otherwise. But you are right. 

60

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ OF CALIFORNIA. It is a problem I hear a lot from 

the teachers who teach in my district, these students who come 

from where English language is not their first language at home. 

Ms. ASHBY. After 2 years, the students that have become proficient are taken out of the group. Of course, it depends on the rate 

of entry and the rate of exit and all kinds of technicalities like that. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ OF CALIFORNIA. But is it fair to say, in order to 

show improvement, those new English language learners would 

have to be doing better than the 2 years previous subgroup of new 

English language learners? 

Ms. ASHBY. If the entry and exit rights are approximately the 

same, yes. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ OF CALIFORNIA. Mr. Zamora, any comment? 

Mr. ZAMORA. California has a high Spanish-speaking English 

language learner population but has chosen not to implement a 

Spanish language assessment. I think it would relieve a lot of that 

burden if we could measure what Spanish-speaking students know 

in Spanish. 

I think, again, it is primarily a test quality issue. Under current 

regulations, schools actually give credit for 2 years after the ELL 

has exited from ELL status, and the school can still count them in 

the AYP population. There is already a recognized benefit and, actually, recently exited ELL students outperform their nativeEnglish-speaking peers generally upon the assessments. 

So I think if California were to develop native language assessments—and, actually, they are piloting one but not using it for 

NCLB this year. If they were to use that test to measure what the 

Spanish-speaking students know, that would go a long way toward 

remedying some of these concerns. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ OF CALIFORNIA. I think that question actually hits 

on a very particular dilemma with regard to English learners in 

that the English learner category is unlike the other categories. It 

is unlike being African American or being Latino. The English 

learner category is a transitional category, and so it causes all sorts 

of issues when you are trying to determine, for accountability purposes, achievement. 

One thing that might help is to actually consider 

redefining that category to something like language minority students. Because then you would keep a population of students in 

that category in the same way that you would keep a population 

of Latino student in the Latino category, and that would allow 

schools to show progress over time for the same group of students. 

Ms. GUZMAN. I also believe that at the school level if you have 

a testing cohort and if you classified children by cohorts, then you 

could keep track of that particular group of students across time 

and not be matching children that have been here for 2 years or 

children that have been here for 4 years. You are actually measuring the group you are testing. 

Chairman KILDEE. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Heller. 

Mr. HELLER. No questions. Thank you. 

Chairman KILDEE. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Platts. 

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

61

I don’t have a question other than just to say I appreciate the 

testimony, the written statements you have each provided us and 

the expertise that you all bring to this issue and the benefit we will 

have as we go forward with the reauthorization process. Thank 

you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hare. 

Mr. HARE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As the population of English language learners increases, I am 

becoming more and more concerned about how our educational system responds to the students. As Ms. Ashby testified, when an 

English language learner misses a question on an assessment, it is 

not clear whether it is because the student didn’t know the answer 

or because the student didn’t understand the question. This is, I 

believe, a very serious issue, and this committee and all of us must 

address it. 

I would like to ask Mr. Zamora and perhaps the panel—I tell you 

what I am hearing in my district. It is a very large district, significant Hispanic population. Most of the educators that I have talked 

to said the problem is when the ELL child goes home and the parents don’t speak English and it is very difficult for them to be able 

to help them with their homework, and the concern that they have 

is that at some point that child drops off progress a little bit and, 

all of a sudden, boom, there is no backup. Because the parents 

don’t understand and aren’t able, through no fault of their own, to 

be able to help them. 

So my question would be to you or to perhaps everybody on the 

panel, how can school districts and how can we in the Congress address this problem? Because I think, if we don’t, I think we are 

going to have a serious problem here in being able to try to help 

the ELL students. 

I wonder if you have any thoughts on that. 

Mr. ZAMORA. Thank you very much, Congressman. I think that 

is actually an excellent question, and we haven’t touched as much 

in today’s hearing around the parental involvement components of 

No Child Left Behind, but many of which are not functioning as 

effectively as they should for English language learner parents and 

especially for immigrant English language learner parents. 

One of my Coalition’s recommendations is around increasing culturally and linguistically sensitive outreach from schools to parents. As you know, there are certain challenges within the home 

for ELL students. ELL and immigrant parent are less likely to 

read to their children, for example. There is a very important program that is authorized under No Child Left Behind right now, the 

Even Start Family Literacy Program, that has been particularly effective. It brings the parents into the center, teaches them how to 

teach their students and has been very effective in serving Latino 

students in particular. 

However, it has been zero funded by the administration for the 

last several years. We have been battling and we have managed to 

save the program, but the funding has been cut year after year. We 

need more of those programs, not fewer. 

Mr. HARE. I would agree with——

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Could I address that as well? 

62

One of the very important pieces in our Promise Initiative is 

powerful family and community engagement. What we have done 

with our schools is to help them bring parents into the actual planning and designing of the programs for English learners, and in 

that way teachers and other educators are able to tap into the resources that those parents and communities bring, and they bring 

a lot of resources that aren’t always recognized by the school. 

But certainly being able as a parent to know what the school is 

doing, what is happening in the classroom, having a teacher that 

can communicate with the parent in the language that the parent 

understands and provide techniques for the parents to use at home 

with their children, all of this is very powerful. I have to second 

that the Even Start Family Literacy Program, I know that we had 

some funding and lost it, again, because of the lack of Federal 

funding, that was extremely powerful. We saw parents who had 

never come to school to visit their children’s classroom who are now 

training other parents in how to be more active in their children’s 

academic lives. 

Ms. GUZMAN. I would like to agree and to underscore the importance of parent training and involvement. 

At Oyster, we have an incredible amount of parent involvement 

from both ELL parents and majority parents. Bringing the two 

communities together in one building and having them support 

each other is certainly important, pairing up parent with parent so 

that you have that support for the ELL parent that is very consistent with what is going on in the school and also training parents on the current issues that have to do with—one issue being 

a big one, homework and how to do it and how to address it, also 

how to address the lack of technology somewhat in the ELL families. Many times that happens. So you really need to partner parents and to provide a very strong support system for ELL parents. 

We have a second language parent training program, and that 

involves training parents on the practical nature of being a citizen 

in the United States and working with their children. 

So a lot of this has to do with even providing some resources for 

community programs. We have—Title I schools require that you 

have a family-parent compact, but non-Title I schools are not required to have that. I believe that the compacts are somewhat of 

a contract between the families and the school, and those schools 

that also have English language learners but aren’t Title I should 

also be required to participate in that type of program. 

Mr. HARE. Thank you. My time is up. 

Let me just conclude by saying we will do everything we can to 

help you on the Even Start. It a great program. We need to fund 

it. Thanks very much. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hinojosa. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and the 

ranking member, Mike Castle, for bringing this congressional hearing on the impact of NCLB on English language learners, an issue 

that is very important to my district and to my State of Texas. 

My first question is to Ms. Ashby. In a separate report the GAO 

issued last year, you found that the Department of Education had 

not taken measures to ensure that the data on which it bases State 

63

allocations of Title III funding is accurate. What would you recommend the Department of Education do to correct that? And you 

have 2 minutes. 

Ms. ASHBY. All right. It may not take that long. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Good. 

Ms. ASHBY. There are two allowable sources of data for determining the distribution of funds for Title III. One is census data, 

the American community survey, and the other is actual numbers 

of students assessed as limited English proficient by the States. 

The Department has to compare the two sources and choose the 

most accurate. 

The Department has not looked at State data because it is of the 

opinion that the data is incomplete. The data has been incomplete, 

although it is getting better. So the Department has only used ACS 

data. Both sets of data have some limitations; both are improving. 

Our recommendation was that the Department actually give instructions to the States that will help improve the data coming 

from the States, and once that data is improved—well, before the 

data is improved—come up with a mechanism for determining 

which one is the more accurate; and then, of course, apply the one 

that is most accurate. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. I think it is shameful that after 5 years they don’t 

have the data correct and accurate. I believe that the Secretary 

needs to change the mindset of the people working for her so that 

she can understand that, just like the State of Texas has a large 

Hispanic population, there are other States, like California and 

Florida and others, who believe that this needs to be given a high 

priority. 

My next question, because time is short, is to the Principal, Martha Guzman, from the Oyster Bilingual Elementary School. I want 

to commend you, because I have had a personal experience in 

bringing two of my youngest daughters, Kaity and Karen, to your 

school. 

My youngest one, who is now 11, we were seated in the gymnasium floor along with all the children the first day that I took 

them to school—by the way, we sat in line for 3 years trying to get 

into your school. The youngest one crossed her arms and said, Dad, 

what in the world are we doing here? I don’t understand a thing 

they are saying. And of course she didn’t know any Spanish. The 

other one said, Dad, I miss my friends over at the other school; and 

I wish you would just take us back. 

However, 2 years later, those two young girls went from being 

B students to being straight A students. They are oftentimes in situations with other children, and they will say we are the Hinojosa 

sisters from Texas, and we are proud to be bilingual. 

I want you to know that your program is just outstanding, and 

I want you to tell us how important parental involvement is in students graduating from high school, through your experience. 

Ms. GUZMAN. As I said before—thank you so much. I miss Kaity 

and Karen, and I hope they are doing well. 

Parental involvement is extremely important, and when we bring 

children, ELL children, to school at Oyster and other D.C. public 

schools I am hopeful that we put as much attention into parental 

involvement as possible. 

64

We have an advisory committee where we bring parents in to 

make decisions. But prior to them being able to make decisions we 

really have to give them information, and the information has to 

be based on the district requirements and the reality of their new 

lives in many cases. That is why we bring our parents in, we make 

them comfortable, and we offer many, many different types of opportunities. I believe that having potlucks is just as important as 

offering a training session, so we do that regularly. 

Parents come in at all levels. The social level of ELL parents and 

their comfort level will then translate into making them feel comfortable to ask for things that they need in the school—from the 

school system and to be able then to learn who to tap in order to 

get the resources they need. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. As time has ended, Mr. Chairman, I want to let 

the record show that the United States is doing very poorly when 

we compare with other countries internationally. Just last week, 

the Washington Post had a report on how Singapore had scored 

number one in global competition of all eighth graders; and when 

Buck McKeon led a group of members of Congress to China, we 

found that China, India, Singapore, those countries have told us repeatedly that the number one reason for them being able to do 

what they do so successfully is parental involvement. 

So I wish that you panelists, who have done an excellent job 

today, and I thank you, would help us Members of Congress to 

bring parental involvement and get it funded. As many of you have 

said—I think Mr. Zamora said it best when he said that Even Start 

involvement with parental programs is zero funded by this administration; and that, my friends, is shameful. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. The gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms. Hirono. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The whole point of NCLB, as I see it, is to ensure that our students are learning. Yet the tests are becoming the ends in themselves, and there is so much focus on it when we should be focusing 

on everything that contributes to that student’s learning environment, such as, of course, parental involvement, early childhood experiences, community involvement, teacher and administrative 

training, even the physical environment that the children exist in 

and try to learn in. 

Over the course of the number of hearings that we have been 

having on NCLB, it is clear to me that we really need to look at 

the assessment aspects of NCLB both in terms of how we determine adequate yearly progress, and then when we come to the 

sanctions portions. And what I am getting from this panel—and 

please let me know if I have this wrong—is that we need to provide 

much more flexibility in terms of assessment, particularly with regard to ELL students who are facing special challenges. So we need 

to have some language that will acknowledge the kind of appropriate flexibility that we need to provide throughout NCLB in 

terms of testing. 

Then, when we come to the sanctions, I like the idea of putting 

in perhaps not just in the sanctions portions, but putting in where 

appropriate in the NCLB language that says that the approaches 

that should be taken should be research-based. I don’t think there 

65

is that kind of language in NCLB, and would you agree that we 

should as much as possible truly base our responses, our research 

so that we are focused on actually helping the students to learn? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I think that there is language in NCLB that talks 

about research-based interventions and approaches. The problem is 

that people are interpreting that as sort of generic research-based 

approaches rather than basing their approaches on the research 

specific to the populations that are being targeted. And that, I 

think, is what is missing and would be very helpful. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you. I just wanted to note that English is not 

my first language, and fortunately when I was going to school, we 

didn’t have these kind of tests, otherwise I would have been labeled 

as a failure very early on. So I have a very particular concern 

about the kind of one-size-fits-all approach that I see too much of 

in NCLB, and I would like to commend all of you for coming today 

to bring a much more holistic approach to the changes that we 

need to make to this law. Thank you very much. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. If I could just mention that that issue of identifying students as failures at a very early age is an extremely real 

issue. And one of the other areas where we could use some assistance is in the Reading First portion of No Child Left Behind, because, again, schools are being asked to implement practices that, 

in fact, damage children because they don’t take into account the 

strengths they bring to school and then build on those. 

Ms. HIRONO. Do the rest of the panelists agree that too early labeling a child—well, of course, you are educators. 

Mr. ZAMORA. Certainly. I would like also to address the notion, 

which I think is a very frequent thing that one hears, that testing 

is driving teaching—the teachers teaching to the test. I think if 

there is high-quality instruction that is being delivered, that is research-based instruction that is well funded, supported by the parents, that the tests should not drive teaching at that point; that the 

proficiency levels required under State levels are fairly low such 

that if you are giving—or not fairly low, but are such that if you 

are developing a strong curriculum, that passing the test will follow, and you wouldn’t have to teach to that. 

Ms. HIRONO. I agree. 

Ms. ASHBY. Since you have a couple of seconds; I am the one that 

originally raised the flexibility issue, and I do think that is important. I don’t want to lose another issue that we have been talking 

about and several of us have mentioned. In order for assessments 

to be meaningful at all, they have to be valid and reliable, and the 

data that is generated from assessments are certainly used in 

terms of determining whether a school or eventually whether 

schools are in need of improvement or not. 

But it also can be used by the faculty and staff at a school to 

determine what type of teaching interventions are needed, and, in 

terms of individual students, what their needs are. 

So data is very important, and it has to be valid and reliable, or 

it is just not meaningful, and it can lead you along the wrong path. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. 

66

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to follow up 

on that last question because I understand that each State has to 

figure out its own test; is that right? 

Ms. ASHBY. That is correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do they also get to determine who is categorized as 

ELL? 

Ms. ASHBY. There are some proscriptions in No Child Left Behind. For example, after 3 years of being in the United States, the 

student has to be tested in the language arts assessment—has to 

be included in that assessment. 

Mr. SCOTT. Can a State configure its definition to help its scores? 

Can you configure your definition to help your scores? 

Ms. ASHBY. You possibly could. 

Mr. SCOTT. These tests, how many ELL tests have been rejected 

by the Department of Education? 

Ms. ASHBY. I don’t know the answer to that. 

Mr. SCOTT. You mentioned accurate and valid. Is the Department 

of Education providing appropriate technical assistance and guidance on what these tests ought to be in terms of validity? 

Ms. ASHBY. The Department has provided a lot of technical assistance, but what we were told when we were doing the work for 

our 2006 report was that many States and districts need—feel they 

need more guidance, particularly with respect to the English-proficient component, not the academic, but in terms of how to measure and assess students’ progress in learning English. 

Mr. SCOTT. Validity is a technical term because a test has to be 

valid for the purpose for which it is being used. 

Ms. ASHBY. That is correct. It has to measure what it purports 

to measure. 

Mr. SCOTT. Right. Is it hard to find the appropriate tests? 

Ms. ASHBY. It is very difficult particularly with English language 

learners because it is such a diverse group. This is not easy by any 

means, and that is why a lot of research is needed, and flexibility 

is needed, because populations in different States are different. 

There are over 400 languages spoken in our public schools, and the 

groups are different. 

It matters, for example, whether most of your students were literate in their native language or not. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Zamora, one of the problems we have is we do 

all this testing; do we know after we have got all the test results 

what to do to improve results? 

Mr. ZAMORA. Certainly. There is effective educational research 

surrounding ELL student achievement and how to improve it. I 

think we certainly need more of that. But certainly generally welltrained teachers and strong curricula and accommodations and primary language support, some form of native language instruction. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is this information generally known, or do States 

have to figure it out on their own? 

Mr. ZAMORA. It does exist, but one of my recommendations is to 

support broader dissemination of research from the Federal Department of Education. If I can just very quick address the assessment issue as well, these are requirements from 1994’s Improving 

America’s Schools Act, so they do impose burdens on the States, 

and I think the Federal Government can definitely do much more 

67

both in terms of appropriations from Congress and technical assistance from the Department of Education because it hasn’t been as 

much as a focus as it should be. I think now it is, and we are supporting that and looking to work with you to improve it. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is school dropout a problem with ELL students that 

needs to be specifically addressed? 

Mr. ZAMORA. Absolutely. School dropout does require effective instruction, well-funded schools. It is sort of the canary in the coal 

mine in many instances as to effectiveness of school operations. 

But, yes, ELL students drop out at a higher rate than any other 

subgroup measured under NCLB, and it is really a dropout crisis 

for ELLs. 

Mr. SCOTT. If we allow them to drop out and don’t have dropout 

prevention programs, do the average scores actually increase, creating a perverse incentive or disincentive to having dropout prevention programs? 

Mr. ZAMORA. We are looking at accountability measures currently around how to hold schools and States accountable for dropout rates. 

Mr. SCOTT. We tried to do that in the original No Child Left Behind. My sense is we didn’t do a good job; is that right? 

Mr. ZAMORA. I think that is right. I think we are going to need 

to strengthen those provisions and ensure that we disaggregate 

them under the same categories as NCLB. 

Ms. GUZMAN. If I can just add, my belief is that if you have a 

strong basis in literacy for all ELL students, that you will increase 

their level of proficiency at the elementary level, and you will not 

have the dropout rate at the high school level. 

Chairman KILDEE. The gentlelady from California Ms. Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I so apologize for not 

having been here. 

I do have a question, but first I would like to propose a scenario. 

So here we go. What if we tested every Member of Congress every 

year on subjects we should know, geography, history, the names of 

our colleagues, and, wait a minute, the test is in a language other 

than English, and those Members who fail the test 3 years in a row 

have to offer to their constituents that they can be represented by 

any other Member of Congress that has passed the test. I will tell 

you what would happen; there would be no tests. 

Now, I am not against testing totally. I want No Child Left Behind to be based on more tests. But I would like you to tell me how 

you think we can and must—you don’t have to say must, I am saying must—help English learners to get where they need to be over 

the right period of time—can’t be in the same period of time that 

a kid that is not an English learner is being tested. 

So what kind of—if you said all this, I so apologize, and you 

probably have this morning, but just for my own help, tell me what 

kind of extra help we need. I don’t want to have an annual growth 

of these children get better every year, because they will if we do 

the right thing. I want them to get better than better so they get 

where every other kid is by the time they are ready to get out in 

the outside world. 

Do you know what I am asking, and can you help me know what 

we need to be investing in them? 

68

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. May I address your question? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Absolutely. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. The truth is we have schools across this country 

that routinely school English learners for very high levels of success, and we have programs and we know the types of programs 

that can accelerate both learning of English and learning of content 

in ways that last throughout the students’ educational careers. We 

know the difference between those and the programs that don’t. 

The failure we have isn’t actually implementing what we know 

works. We don’t do that many times for noneducational reasons, 

and I am sure you know what those are. I think that being very 

clear about what has powerful impact and what doesn’t is something that we need to talk about because we know a lot of what 

we need to do, and we haven’t done it. And that is why I think programs such as the Promise Initiative are so important, because we 

are saying we are committed to a big powerful vision of success for 

English learners, and we are going to do whatever it takes to get 

there, and we have embarked on a program to actually do that in 

our schools and then to put in place the sort of very rigorous research that needs to happen to prove that it can be done. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Okay. Do you start with the research so you know 

we are not just trying a lot of programs? Are we investing enough 

on the Federal level through No Child Left Behind to make this 

possible? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. We have not invested enough in actually being 

able to disseminate in ways that are practical to our schools what 

works and why it works. And that is why I think we have to be 

able to focus in partnership with our local schools and districts to 

design based on what we know works, based on the research—to 

design programs that are responsive to the local needs and context, 

and those differ from school to school, from community to community. And that is why a one-size-fits-all program actually doesn’t 

work. We have to work with the context of our schools. 

Mr. ZAMORA. Congressman, I would like to jump in. I was 

credentialed as a bilingual teacher at the University of San Francisco right before Proposition 227 was put in place which outlawed 

native-language instruction in the State of California. That was not 

a decision that was taken based upon the best interests or the best 

research of kids. 

So I think that you certainly cannot ignore the political dynamics 

surrounding English language learners, so we need the political 

will to cut through all of that in order to get to the best research, 

best funding, and the best practices. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. I represent Marin and Sonoma Counties, two of 

the three counties that voted that down. I am really proud. I represent wonderful people. 

Mr. ZAMORA. Absolutely. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey. 

The gentleman from New Jersey Mr. Holt. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have arrived late and 

missed most of the testimony and questioning, so forgive me if I go 

over plowed ground here. 

69

I would like to know what you think is the—how good are the 

data? Are we leaving too many of the English language learners 

uncounted, unevaluated, not there on the days of testing? Is it different for this subgroup than for other students? 

Ms. ASHBY. I will give it a try. For the English language proficiency assessments, this is a relatively new requirement beginning in the 2005-2006 school year, and a lot of States and districts 

didn’t test for this particular—didn’t assess this particular element 

prior to that. So a lot of the assessments are relatively new, and 

their validity, I don’t want to say it hasn’t necessarily been determined, but it hasn’t been documented. There isn’t evidence, research, reports or studies that assess the validity and the reliability of a lot of these tests, so it is not known how valid or how 

reliable they are. 

In terms of the other—the academic assessments, there are also 

validity and reliability questions, but there is no issue of the students showing up. I mean, 95 percent of the students in each subgroup have to take the test, and I haven’t seen anything that indicates that is a problem, but it is more of not knowing whether they 

are valid or not or reliable or not rather than thinking or knowing 

that they are invalid. 

Mr. HOLT. I understand that we need 95 percent of the subgroup 

of English language learners to show up, but do we know the population well enough in every school to know whether 95 percent are 

showing up, for example? Are there undiagnosed, so to speak, 

English language learners? 

Ms. ASHBY. Probably so. And, no, we don’t. 

Mr. ZAMORA. I would also highlight a slightly related but a 

slightly different issue, which is that high N-sizes in many States 

has also led to many ELLs not reaching the target for inclusion 

under the No Child Left Behind. So certainly there are major data 

quality both in terms of counting ELLs and in terms of measuring 

their academic and linguistic performance, but also end size is a 

particular concern in terms of capturing ELL achievement. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes again the gentleman from Virginia for an 

inquiry. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I think we are at the end of the hearing. Are you going to allow us to send questions to the panelists? 

I would just like to warn them that I am going to send a question 

responding to Dr. Young’s testimony pointing out a difference between effective teachers and highly qualified teachers. Obviously 

we want the most effective teachers, and we want a definition that 

gets that as close to effective. So we will be sending that question. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

I want to first of all thank the panel. You have been very, very 

helpful. You bring a wide range of knowledge on this very, very important field. You have indicated this is a growing population, it is 

not something that is going to go away, and it enriches our country, but it is something we have to address. We deeply appreciate 

your testimony. 

As previously ordered, Members will have 7 calendar days to 

submit additional materials for the hearing record. 

70

1GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Education Assistance Could Help States Better Measure 

Progress of Students with Limited English Proficiency, GAO-07-646T (Washington, D.C.: March 

23, 2007). 2GAO, No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from Education Could Help States Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited English Proficiency, GAO-06-815 (Washington, D.C.: July 

26, 2006). 

Any Member who wishes to submit follow-up questions in writing 

to the witnesses should coordinate with Majority staff within the 

requisite time. And without objection, this hearing, with thanks to 

all of you, is adjourned. 

[Question submitted by Mr. Hinojosa follows:]

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washington, DC, March 26, 2007. 

DEAR MS. ASHBY: Thank you for testifying at the March 23, 2007 hearing of the 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education. 

Representative Rube ́n Hinojosa (D-TX), a Member of the Subcommittee, has asked 

that you respond in writing to the following question: 

I would like to thank you and your staff for the excellent work on the two reports 

on English Language Learners and No Child Left Behind. This is critical information for reauthorization. In your testimony you mentioned that states were unsure 

about how to align English language proficiency standards with content standards 

for language arts, mathematics, and science. This is very disconcerting as we enter 

the 6th year of NCLB implementation. What steps do you recommend that the Department or the Congress take to provide technical assistance in this area? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the question to the 

Committee staff by COB on Friday, March 30—the date on which the hearing record 

will close. If you have any questions, please contact the Committee. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman. 

DALE E. KILDEE, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary 

Education. 

[Ms. Ashby’s response follows:]

March 30, 2007. 

Hon. GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

Hon. DALE KILDEE, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

This letter responds to your March 26, 2007 request that we provide responses 

to questions related to our recent testimony before the Subcommittee on Early 

Childhood Education, Elementary and Secondary Education on the impact of the No 

Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) on students with limited English proficiency.1 Our 

testimony discussed (1) the extent to which these students are meeting annual academic progress goals, (2) what states have done to ensure the validity of their academic assessments, (3) how states are assessing English proficiency and what they 

are doing to ensure the validity of their assessments, and (4) how the U.S. Department of Education (Education) is supporting states’ efforts to meet NCLBA’s assessment requirements for these students. This testimony was based on our recent report on these topics.2 Your questions, along with our responses, follow. 

1. Under current law, states must create individualized tests both to assess students’ English proficiency and to assess academic achievement. Therefore, there are 

a wide variety of assessments among states that differ in terms of rigorousness and 

validity. With regard to academic achievement assessments, states’ individual assessments can be compared to a national achievement test administered by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Is there currently a comparable 

nationally recognized test for ELLs to which state assessments can be compared? 

If not, should such a test be developed? 

71

To our knowledge, no such nationally recognized test to assess the English proficiency of students with limited English proficiency exists. Under NCLBA, states 

must implement several new requirements, including developing English language 

proficiency assessments that are aligned to state academic standards; annually assessing the English language proficiency of these students; and tracking student 

progress in attaining English proficiency. Officials in some states explained that 

their old tests were not designed to measure student progress over time. Further, 

Education officials told us that the English language proficiency tests used by many 

states prior to NCLBA did not meet the requirements of the law. 

As part of our study, we did not assess whether the development of a national 

English language proficiency assessment, similar to the NAEP, would be cost-effective or appropriate and therefore do not have a position on this policy issue. To our 

knowledge, no nationally accepted standards for English language proficiency currently exist from which to develop such an assessment. In its report, the bipartisan 

Commission on No Child Left Behind recommended that Education develop a common scale to create a performance standard for what constitutes English proficiency 

across the states. 

2. In your testimony you mentioned that states were unsure about how to align 

English language proficiency standards with content standards for language arts, 

mathematics, and science. This is very disconcerting as we enter the 6th year of 

NCLB implementation. What steps do you recommend that the Department or the 

Congress take to provide technical assistance in this area? 

We believe that Education needs to work with states to identify the specific problems states are experiencing in aligning the two sets of standards and provide technical assistance that is responsive to the needs of individual states. In our July 2006 

report, we recommended that the Secretary of Education publish additional guidance with more specific information on the requirements for assessing English language proficiency. In response to this recommendation, Education officials report 

that the agency is planning to develop a framework on English language proficiency 

standards and assessments as part of its LEP Partnership. Moreover, Education’s 

Title III monitoring visits, during which the department reviews the state’s progress 

in developing English language proficiency standards and assessments that meet 

NCLBA requirements, present an opportunity for Education to provide individualized feedback to states on their standards and assessments. We would encourage 

Education to assess the effectiveness of its efforts to provide technical assistance 

that is responsive to states’ needs and to make adjustments where necessary. 

If you have any questions about the content of this letter, please contact me. 

Sincerely yours, 

CORNELIA M. ASHBY, Director, 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security, GAO. 

[Question submitted by Mr. Scott follows:]

CORNELIA ASHBY, Director, 

EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, GAO, 

Washington, DC;

PETER ZAMORA, 

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, 

Long Beach, CA;

MARTA GUZMA ́ N, Principal, 

OYSTER BILINGUAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, 

Washington, DC;

FRANCISCA SA ́ NCHEZ, Assistant Supt. for Curriculum and Co-Chair, 

HISPANIC EDUCATION COALITION, 

Washington, DC;

DR. BEVERLY L. YOUNG, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Instruction, 

OFFICE OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, 

San Bernardino, CA, March 26, 2007. 

DEAR MS. ASHBY, MR. ZAMORA, DR. YOUNG, MS. GUZMAN AND MS. SA ́ NCHEZ: 

Thank you for testifying at the March 23, 2007 hearing of the Subcommittee on 

Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education. 

Representative Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (D-VA), a Member of the Subcommittee, 

has asked that you respond in writing to the following question: 

Under current law, states must create individualized tests both to assess students’ 

English proficiency and to assess academic achievement. Therefore, there are a wide 

72

variety of assessments among states that differ in terms of rigorousness and validity. With regard to academic achievement assessments, states’ individual assessments can be compared to a national achievement test administered by the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Is there currently a comparable nationally recognized test for ELLs to which state assessments can be compared? If 

not, should such a test be developed? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the question to the 

Committee staff by COB on Friday, March 30—the date on which the hearing record 

will close. If you have any questions, please contact the Committee. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman. 

DALE E. KILDEE, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary 

Education. 

[Ms. Guzman’s response follows:]

Hon. GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

Hon. DALE KILDEE, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

Currently, there is not a national assessment for ELL students. Each state has 

to present their own. However, it would be very helpful to have an assessment that 

all ELL students should complete. In the DCPS system we are currently using the 

ACCESS. If all ELL students could use the same test it would give Districts comparison data and it would help us all ELL students to the same standard. 

MARTA GUZMAN, 

Oyster Bilingual Elementary. 

[Mr. Scott’s question to Dr. Young follows:]

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washington, DC, March 26, 2007. 

DEAR DR. YOUNG: Thank you for testifying at the March 23, 2007 hearing of the 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education. 

Representative Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (D-VA), a Member of the Subcommittee, 

has asked that you respond in writing to the following question: 

Dr. Young, you testified that the No Child Left Behind Act’s definition of highly 

qualified teacher, which describes various credentials that a teacher must hold, does 

not necessarily ensure that such teachers are highly effective in the classroom, and 

recommended that the Committee consider changing the definition to include concepts of effectiveness. Can you describe ways the Committee might do that consistent with your experience assessing teacher quality? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the question to the 

Committee staff by COB on Friday, March 30—the date on which the hearing record 

will close. If you have any questions, please contact the Committee. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman. 

DALE E. KILDEE, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary 

Education. 

[Dr. Young’s response follows:]

73

March 29, 2007. 

Hon. GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

Hon. DALE KILDEE, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMEN MILLER AND KILDEE: I appreciate the opportunity to respond to 

members’ questions, as I did the opportunity to testify at the March 23, 2007 hearing of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education. 

I have responded first to the question addressed to me by Representative Scott, second to the question addressed by Representative Scott to me and other individuals 

who testified, and third to additional questions addressed to me related to preparing 

teachers to be effective in working with English Language Learners (ELLs). 

1. Dr. Young, you testified that the No Child Left Behind Act’s definition of highly 

qualified teacher, which describes various credentials that a teacher must hold, does 

not necessarily ensure that such teachers are highly effective in the classroom, and 

recommended that the Committee consider changing the definition to include concepts of effectiveness. Can you describe ways the Committee might do that consistent with your experience assessing teacher quality? 

There are three areas that need to be addressed to develop a better definition of 

highly qualified teachers. This is not to say that NCLB requirements that teachers 

meet state certification or licensure requirements and have demonstrated subject 

knowledge and teaching skills by passing a rigorous state test should be abandoned. 

The need is to augment the current definition with additional measures that add 

greater meaning to the definition of quality. 

The first issue needing attention concerns the difference between tests of knowledge and skills and rigorous demonstrations of knowledge and skills. The second 

issue concerns measures of quality that address outcomes in addition to inputs. The 

third issue concerns designating different levels of quality in order for the definition 

to be more meaningful. 

Performance Assessment of Teaching Knowledge and Skills 

The question of how to assess teacher quality has been examined thoroughly by 

the nation’s foremost experts in teacher education during the past decade. There is 

now a consensus regarding the importance of using performance-based assessment 

that evaluates teaching knowledge and skills of teachers as demonstrated in a classroom environment. 

The demonstration of high quality teaching needs to address both what teachers 

know about their subjects and how to teach them and also what they can do in the 

classroom in applying their knowledge and skills. For example, it is important that 

they be able to demonstrate that they can plan and implement lessons to teach to 

standards, assess students’ needs and design instruction to meet these needs, use 

a variety of effective teaching strategies, and maintain a productive, purposeful 

classroom environment. 

Assessments that use teachers’ and students’ work samples and demonstrations 

of actual classroom teaching to evaluate what teachers do in the classroom are particularly promising methods for assessing teacher quality. Large-scale application of 

such techniques demands new expertise on the part of those planning and administering the assessments. An example of this is California’s Teacher Performance 

Assessment. Beginning in 2008-09, all new teachers will be required to demonstrate 

their knowledge and skills to be recommended for a credential. 

Measures of Quality That Address Student Learning Outcomes 

The second issue concerns measures of quality that address student learning outcomes. Value-added assessment focuses on the extent to which a teacher contributes 

to student learning gains in schools. This approach addresses the critical issue of 

effectiveness in the classroom. During the past decade, stemming from the pioneering work of William Sanders, value-added assessment methods have been increasingly used as a methodology for assessing quality of teaching among new and 

experienced teachers. 

The CSU is at the forefront in large-scale utilization of value-added methodology, 

as it has been of evaluation of teacher preparation through its Annual CSU Systemwide Evaluation of Teacher Preparation, which has been in effect since 2001. This 

is the largest evaluation of teacher preparation in the nation, and has involved surveys of more than12,000 graduates of CSU programs and more than10,000 school 

site supervisors, typically principals, who work with and evaluate these graduates. 

74

In collaboration with several large school districts, the CSU’s Center for Teacher 

Quality has begun value-added assessments of CSU teacher preparation. It will examine the effectiveness of new teachers in relation to (a) different levels of teacher 

preparation, (b) varying methods of preparation, and (c) demographic attributes and 

socio-economic conditions of schools. 

Congress should provide funds for a number of demonstrations of effective, largescale utilization of performance-based assessments and value-added approaches for 

assessing teacher quality. It is particularly important that support be available for 

demonstrations of these more advanced types of assessments that include institutions of higher education that prepare and provide professional development for 

teachers. The goal should be for these approaches to become part of the fundamental preparation and assessment of entering teachers and routinely associated 

with professional development and assessment of experienced teachers. 

Differentiation of Qualifications 

The third issue pertains to recognizing differing levels of qualifications. Some 

teachers may enter the teaching force having met minimum state certification or licensure requirements, while others have met these requirements more fully. In 

most states, for examples, novice teachers (Interns) who have fulfilled minimum 

state requirements may begin teaching and complete additional requirements for 

certification as they serve as teacher of record. At the other end of the continuum, 

teachers certified through the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards 

have demonstrated that they are truly high quality teachers. 

In order to define highly effective teaching in a productive manner, it would be 

of considerable value to move beyond the current singular conception of a Highly 

Qualified Teacher. A more meaningful set of terms would refer to teachers who are: 

• Minimally Qualified: Meet Minimum State Certification Requirements 

• Fully Qualified: Meet Full State Certification Requirements 

• Highly Qualified: Exceed Full State Certification Teachers 

These distinctions are important for realizing increases in student achievement 

and can be made operational in the re-authorization of No Child Left Behind. We 

would be pleased to work with the Committee in identifying potential roles of institutions of higher education in implementing a system that includes measures of 

teacher effectiveness and recognizes levels of teacher quality. 

2. Under current law, states must create individualized tests both to assess students’ English proficiency and to assess academic achievement. Therefore, there are 

a wide variety of assessments among states that differ in terms of rigorousness and 

validity. With regard to academic achievement assessment, states’ individual assessments can be compared to a national achievement test administered by the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Is there currently a comparable nationally recognized test for ELLs to which state assessments can be compared? If 

not, should such a test be developed? 

There currently is not a test comparable to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to which state assessments of academic achievement of 

ELLs can be compared. There are many complex issues associated with developing 

such a test. It is not clear that a single test can be developed that adequately measures achievement of ELLs who vary widely in English language proficiency. 

It would be extremely difficult, for example, to obtain valid assessments of academic achievement with a single multiple-choice test that was administered in 

English to ELLs. If such a test were administered in English, it would have to be 

reserved for students who have reached a level 4 or above in English Language Development in order to provide a reliable and valid measure of academic achievement. Although a test in the primary language might be considered, if no instruction is provided in this language, students may not have the comprehension and 

communication skills in the primary language to demonstrate their content understanding. 

Due to the complexity of measurement and validity issues, this area warrants a 

feasibility study of a variety of options. It would be most appropriate to have a number of potential approaches identified and reviewed by experts in the ELL assessment field as well as state representatives experienced in assessment of ELLs. Such 

a study should address procedures for assessment of academic achievement either 

in English or the student’s primary language as appropriate. It should examine procedures for states to administer the test on a large-scale basis and should include 

cost estimates for doing so. Further, the analysis should examine the validity of 

comparing scores of various sub-groups of ELLs on the measures of academic 

achievement with NAEP scores. Finally, the study should address methods for integrating assessment of students’ English proficiency and their academic achievement. 

With a comprehensive feasibility study that examines these issues, informed deciVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:50 Sep 17, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-14\HED082.140 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
75

sions can be made regarding national assessment instruments for gauging the academic achievement and English language proficiency of ELLs. 

Needless to say, this is not a simple task, and it is most important that flexibility 

be available in the immediate future for states to use a range of procedures that 

are demonstrated to be rigorous and valid. Of most urgency is careful re-consideration of how the assessment of achievement of ELLs is used in determining Adequate Yearly Progress, particularly when there are small numbers of such students 

at school sites. 

3. Should all teachers receive preparation to work with English Language Learners? If not, how should the determination be made of which teachers should receive 

the preparation? What should be the content of preparation to work with ELLs? Is 

there a core of preparation that should be included in all new teacher preparation? 

In California, virtually all teachers will at some time teach English Language 

Learners, and thus all teachers need this preparation. The strategies of effective instruction for ELLs have basic principles in common with best instructional practices 

for all students, and thus it is appropriate for all teachers to have this preparation. 

Most importantly, if the nation is truly committed to the proposition of No Child 

Left Behind, all teachers must be prepared to teach all children with whom they 

are likely to work. 

The core preparation for teachers of ELLs consists of two interrelated areas. The 

first is English Language Development (ELD) and the second is content knowledge. 

In English language development, preparation focuses on fostering children’s learning of English within the context of the core curriculum, with special attention to 

learning the language and acquiring the skills to speak, read, and write English fluently. 

The second area is content development, where preparation focuses on use of Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE). This consists of instructional strategies that work particularly well for ELLs and are good for all students. 

In SDAIE, the emphasis is on learning content and understanding concepts. Teachers differentiate lessons based on the level of English acquired by a child and the 

amount of support needed for instruction to be effective. 

Within SDAIE, teachers are taught strategies for scaffolding the curriculum, differentiating the content and the assessments, and working with comprehensible 

input. Scaffolding consists of taking the core curriculum and dividing it into parts 

that are manageable for learning. For example, dividing a story into parts, building 

distinct vocabulary knowledge, and learning the content of a topic in chunks are 

ways of scaffolding the core curriculum. 

Differentiation means varied use of enhanced instructional strategies, like graphic 

organizers, pre-writing and pre-reading activities, and primary language support to 

help all students master the content they are learning more efficiently. The element 

of comprehensible input means building on what the student knows and using the 

skills and talents of the student in making content meaningful. This includes tapping into prior knowledge, drawing upon learning strengths, and integrating across 

the curriculum for ease of mastering concepts being taught. 

Within both ELD and SDAIE, there is an emphasis on multiple measures for assessment in order to ensure students are learning both content and English. It is 

recognized as essential that content knowledge is demonstrated in a variety of ways 

to make certain that the core curriculum is being mastered. It is equally important 

that the acquisition of English be measured accurately in order for instruction to 

be modified to meet the instructional and language needs of students. 

In California, the language assessment used is the CELDT (California English 

Language Development Test), which indicates to teachers the level of English language development of students for use in planning instruction. Teachers are taught 

how to scaffold and differentiate lessons for the various levels of English acquired. 

For example, a Level 1 student would be expected to complete very different assignments than a Level 4 student. Assessment, therefore, is a key to effective instruction and provides the foundation upon which a teacher can build lessons that are 

meaningful, comprehensible, and tailored to meet student needs. 

To the extent that these two components can be integrated into instruction, students learn the content and master English much more quickly, since both the language and the concepts are learned simultaneously. Modifications are made to the 

basic instructional program to help all students learn and acquire both content and 

English, thus enabling teachers to work with all students in the regular classroom 

in a manner that is effective and efficient. 

I have attempted to provide thorough responses to the three highly significant 

questions posed by Subcommittee members. Please do not hesitate to let me know 

76

if there are any additional ways we can be of assistance in formulating specific solutions to these complex issues. 

Sincerely, 

BEVERLY YOUNG, PH.D., 

Assistant Vice Chancellor. 

[Mr. Hinojosa’s question to Mr. Zamora follows:]

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washington, DC, March 26, 2007. 

DEAR MR. ZAMORA: Thank you for testifying at the March 23, 2007 hearing of the 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education. 

Representative Rube ́n Hinojosa (D-TX), a Member of the Subcommittee, has asked 

that you respond in writing to the following question: 

In your testimony you referenced the Lau case in which the Supreme Court found 

that providing identical education was not the same as providing equal education 

if students’ language needs were not addressed. In a subsequent case called 

Castan ̃ eda, the court defined criteria for appropriate action for English language 

learners which included a pedagogically sound plan for English language learners, 

qualified staff, effective implementation, and program evaluation. Has NCLB been 

implemented in a manner consistent with the requirements of Castan ̃ eda? How can 

we strengthen NCLB in this regard? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the question to the 

Committee staff by COB on Friday, March 30—the date on which the hearing record 

will close. If you have any questions, please contact the Committee. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman. 

DALE E. KILDEE, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary 

Education. 

[Mr. Zamora’s responses follow:]

Hon. GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

Hon. DALE KILDEE, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

Under current law, states must create individualized tests both to assess students’ 

English proficiency and to assess academic achievement. Therefore, there are a variety of assessments among states that differ in terms of rigorousness and validity. 

With regard to academic achievement assessments, states’ individualized assessments can be compared to a national achievement test administered by the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Is there currently a comparable nationally recognized test for ELLs to which state assessments can be compared? If 

not, should such a test be developed? 

There currently exists no nationally-recognized test that measures the academic 

achievement or English language proficiency of English language learners (ELLs) 

against state academic standards and fully meets technical requirements for validity 

and reliability for ELL students. While the National Assessment Governing Board 

(NAGB), which administers the National Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP), has taken limited steps to improve the validity and reliability of NAEP content assessments for ELLs, the NAEP is not an adequate comparator for Title I assessments and lacks sufficient evidence regarding validity and reliability for ELLs. 

Rather than developing a single nationwide test of ELL academic achievement or 

English language proficiency, MALDEF recommends that Congress support the development of a substantial item bank of native-language test questions so that 

states may easily devise native-language academic content assessments that are 

aligned to each state’s academic standards and to classroom instruction. 

The NAEP is not an adequate comparator for NCLB content assessments because 

the NAEP is not, by design, aligned to each state’s academic content standards or 

to classroom instruction. The NAEP provides a snapshot of student performance as 

77

measured against NAGB standards for academic content achievement. It does not, 

however, serve as an accurate measure of student knowledge or academic progress 

as measured against state standards, as required under NCLB. 

Further, while NAGB has taken certain limited steps to improve the validity and 

reliability of the NAEP for ELLs, significant improvements to the NAEP are required before it will be a valid and reliable measure of ELL academic content knowledge. Prior to 1996, NAEP had no policy of allowing testing accommodations for 

ELL students.1 The NAEP began offering accommodations to all students who need 

them to demonstrate their knowledge and ability only in 2002.2 A National Center 

for Education Statistics study of NAEP testing accommodations for a sample of 

ELLs found that additional evidence is required to ensure that NAEP testing accommodations generate valid and reliable results for ELLs.3

Moreover, the NAEP is generally not administered in the native language of 

ELLs, an accommodation that greatly improves the validity and reliability of content assessments for ELLs (especially those new to U.S. schools and those receiving 

instruction in their native language). While NAGB did administer the NAEP mathematics tests in Spanish to Puerto Rican students in 2003 and 2005, NAGB has yet 

to develop and implement reading/language arts assessments in Spanish or other 

native languages of ELLs.4

There exists no nationwide assessment for the English language proficiency (ELP) 

of ELLs. In the 2005-06 school year, 22 states used assessments or test items developed by one of four state consortia, making this the most common approach taken 

by states to develop new ELP assessments.5 Because NCLB requires that ELP assessments be aligned to state academic standards, however, alignment concerns continue to influence the validity and reliability of these ELP assessments.6 Also, because ELP assessments are in English, not the native language of ELLs, the use 

of ELP assessments to measure academic content is generally less appropriate than 

the use of native language or bilingual content assessments under Title I. 

Rather than developing a single nationwide assessment for ELLs, Congress 

should support the development of a substantial item bank of native-language test 

questions that can be used by states in developing native-language or bilingual content tests aligned to each state’s academic standards. As noted above, no single nationwide test can adequately measure ELL student academic progress because a nationwide assessment cannot be aligned to state-specific content standards, English 

language development standards, or classroom instruction. Through the LEP Partnership, which unites MALDEF, the National Council of La Raza, the U.S. Department of Education, and all 50 states, discussions are underway regarding the creation of native-language test item banks that would greatly assist states in developing valid and reliable assessments for ELLs. MALDEF strongly recommends that 

Congress support these efforts in order to assist states in measuring ELL achievement and ensure that ELLs students are appropriately included in NCLB accountability systems. 

PETER ZAMORA, 

MALDEF Washington, DC Regional Counsel, Hispanic Education Coalition CoChair. 

ENDNOTES

1See http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/inclusion.asp 2See id. 

3 Abedi, J., Lord, C., Kim, C., Miyoshi, J., ‘‘The Effects of Accommodations on the Assessment 

of LEP Students in NAEP,’’ National Center for Education Statistics, Washington DC: 2001 

(available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/200113.pdf). 4See Olson, L., ‘‘Puerto Rico’s Students Perform Poorly on NAEP Mathematics Tests,’’ Education Week, March 29, 2007 (available at http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/03/29/

31naep—web.h26.html). 5 U.S. Government Accountability Office, ‘‘No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from Education Could Help States Better Measure Progress of Students with Limited English Proficiency,’’ GAO-06-815, July 2006, p35 (available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06815.pdf). 6See id. 

78

Hon. GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

Hon. DALE KILDEE, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

Question: In your testimony you referenced the Lau case in which the Supreme 

Court found that providing identical education was not the same as providing equal 

education if students’ language needs were not addressed. In a subsequent case called 

Castan ̃ eda, the court defined criteria for appropriate action for English language 

learners which included a pedagogically sound plan for English language learners, 

qualified staff, effective implementation, and program evaluation. Has NCLB been 

implemented in a manner consistent with the requirements of Castan ̃ eda? How can 

we strengthen NCLB in this regard?

Answer: In Castan ̃ eda v. Pickard,1 the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Fifth Circuit issued criteria for determining the appropriateness of educational programs for English language learners (ELLs) under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974: 

1) The program must be based in sound educational theory; 

2) The program must be implemented effectively with adequate resources and personnel; and 

3) The program must be evaluated as effective in overcoming language handicaps.2

The implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has not fully met 

the second and third prongs of the Castan ̃ eda test for appropriate educational programs for ELLs. 

NCLB codifies the first prong of the Castan ̃ eda standard. Title I expressly intends 

to ensure that all children have access to ‘‘effective, scientifically based instructional 

strategies and challenging academic content.’’ 3 It requires that Title I schoolwide 

programs use ‘‘only effective methods and instructional strategies that are based on 

scientifically based research that * * * include strategies for meeting the educational needs of historically underserved populations.’’ 4 School reforms plans implemented under Title I also must use scientifically based research in addressing 

needs of all students.5 Under Title I, ELLs must be assessed for academic content 

‘‘to the extent practicable, [using] assessments in the language and form most likely 

to yield accurate data on what such students know and can do in academic content 

areas.’’ 6 Further, funds provided through subgrants under Title III of NCLB must 

be used, under the express language of the statute, to implement ‘‘approaches and 

methodologies based on scientifically based research on teaching limited English 

proficient children.’’ 7

The second prong of Castan ̃ eda, however, which requires the effective implementation of programs carried out under NCLB, has not yet been satisfied by the federal government and many of the states, school districts, and schools charged with 

carrying out the law. Significant underfunding of Title I, Title III, and other programs authorized under NCLB, as well as a nationwide shortage of teachers welltrained to meet ELLs’ particular academic needs, raise significant concerns under 

the Castan ̃ eda requirement for effective implementation. Further, as I noted in my 

testimony, NCLB has not, despite its statutory language, led to the universal implementation of sound research-based instructional programs for all English language 

learners. A considerable body of education research on ELL student achievement 

demonstrates that 1) native language instruction significantly improves ELLs’ academic achievement in English and 2) ELLs require specific instructional accommodations designed to minimize the effects of English proficiency upon academic 

achievement.8 Despite this body of research, ELLs nationwide are currently enrolled 

in a patchwork of instructional programs, many of which do not reflect the best 

practices for this student population.9

The implementation of the assessment provisions of Title I and Title III of NCLB 

also fall short of the second prong of the Castan ̃ eda test. As the Government Accountability Office has reported and I noted in my testimony before the Subcommittee, states have not yet allocated sufficient resources to developing assessments specifically designed to evaluate the academic knowledge and English proficiency of ELLs. The GAO also found that many states lack evidence that their 

English language proficiency assessments are fully aligned to state content standards in reading/language arts. 

Poor implementation of the assessment provisions of Title I and Title III also 

raise concerns regarding the effective evaluation of NCLB programs, as required 

under the third prong of the Castan ̃ eda test. The Castan ̃ eda court decried the fact 

79

the plaintiffs in Castan ̃ eda were, like the majority of ELLs today, evaluated for academic content knowledge using English-language tests that were not true measures 

of their academic performance.10 The Castan ̃ eda court in effect anticipated flaws in 

assessment-based accountability systems, such as those authorized under NCLB, 

when English-language tests are used to evaluate the effectiveness of instructional 

programs for ELLs. As noted in the recommendations accompanying my written testimony, the Hispanic Education Coalition advocates the increased development and 

use of native language content assessments, which are required under Title I ‘‘when 

practicable’’ and are more likely to yield valid and reliable results for ELLs. 

Title III of NCLB codifies the evaluation requirement of the third prong of 

Castan ̃ eda, but evaluations under Title III have not been effectively implemented 

by states or enforced by the U.S. Department of Education. Under Section 3121, 

‘‘Evaluations,’’ each eligible entity receiving a Title III subgrant must conduct biennial evaluations of the effectiveness of education programs and activities for English 

language learners. In practice, however, these evaluations have not yet led to fully 

effective education programs for many ELLs in U.S. public schools. 

While the design of NCLB largely meets Castan ̃ eda’s requirement for the use of 

effective instructional techniques and periodic evaluations of education programs for 

ELLs, the implementation of NCLB requires significant improvements in order to 

satisfy the second prong of the Castan ̃ eda standard. NCLB implementation and design should be strengthened as follows in order to support education programs for 

ELLs that fully meet the legal requirements set forth in Castan ̃ eda: 

1) Congress must appropriate funds sufficient to implement well-designed, wellimplemented, and effective NCLB programs and evaluations for ELLs; 

2) The U.S. Department of Education must fully enforce NCLB assessment and 

evaluation provisions for ELLs and provide effective and ongoing technical assistance in the development of appropriate assessments to state education agencies; 

3) States must focus attention and resources upon developing and implementing 

valid and reliable content assessments for ELLs, preferably in the native language; 

4) A reauthorized NCLB should establish a separate funding stream to assist 

states in developing and implementing appropriate academic assessments for ELLs; 

5) A reauthorized NCLB should require that states that have significant ELL populations from a single language group develop valid and reliable content assessments designed specifically for members of that language group; 

6) States, schools and school districts must implement scientifically-based instructional practices that will provide ELL students with opportunities to develop both 

English proficiency and content area knowledge; 

7) The federal government and states must allocate significant resources to support the certification of teachers trained in appropriate instructional practices for 

ELLs; 

8) The federal government, states, school districts, and schools must allocate resources for the professional development in the best instructional practices for ELLs 

for all teachers who teach ELL students; 

9) The federal government must fund scientifically-based research and disseminate findings on best effective practices for ELL student instruction; and 

10) Federal, state, and local school officials must ensure that ELLs are fully and 

appropriately included in NCLB accountability systems so that schools focus upon 

meeting the academic needs of ELLs. 

PETER ZAMORA, 

MALDEF Washington, DC Regional Counsel, Hispanic Education Coalition CoChair. 

ENDNOTES

1 648 F.2d 989 (5th Cir. 1981). 

2 Id. at 1009-10. 

3Section 1001(9) 

4Section 1114(b)(1)(B)(ii). 

5Section 1116(b)(3)(A)(i). 

6Sec. 1111(b)(3)(C)(ix)(III). 

7 3115(a) 

8See, e.g., Goldenberg, C., Improving Achievement for English Language Learners: What the 

Research Tells Us, Education Week, Vol. 25, Issue 43, pp34-36 (July 26, 2006). Appropriate educational accommodations for ELLs include: strategic use of the native language; predictable, 

clear, and consistent instructions, expectations, and routines; identifying and clarifying difficult 

words and passages; paraphrasing students’ remarks; and other measures designed to minimize 

the effect of limited English proficiency upon academic achievement. 9 U.S. Government Accountability Office, No Child Left Behind Act: Education’s Data Improvement Efforts Could Strengthen the Basis for Distributing Title III Funds, GAO-07-140, December 2006, p32 (available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07140.pdf). 

80

10 848 F.2d at 1014 (noting that ‘‘[p]laintiffs contend that testing the achievement levels of 

children, who are admittedly not yet literate in English and are receiving instruction in [Spanish], through the use of an English language achievement test, does not meaningfully assess 

their achievement, any more than it does their ability, a contention with which we can scarcely 

disagree.’’) 

[Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ