professional concerns

Honorable Assembly Members and Colleagues,

My name is Joanne K. Beard, and I am here today to represent the perspective of the New York State Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (NYS TESOL). As First Vice President of the organization, I am honored to represent NYS TESOL’s concerns about the inequity with which our limited English proficient/English language learners (LEP/ELLs) are being treated, both by the United States Department of Education (USDOE) and the New York State Education Department (NYSED).

As a result of a federal “peer review” in January 2006, in a letter dated June 27, 2006, the USDOE notified NYSED that it was out of compliance with requirements related to NCLB’s Title I accountability requirements. In so stating, the USDOE mandated that LEP/ELLs with more than one year of education in U.S. schools be required to take the NYS English Language Arts assessment in addition to the English as a Second Language Achievement test. The USDOE threatened to withhold $1.2 million in administrative Title I funding from NYSED if it did not immediately comply with this requirement.

In July 2006, NYSED convened and met with a “Committee of Practitioners” to discuss its response to the USDOE. Two options for responding were offered. Both options required that LEP/ELLs in grades 3 to 8 be assessed twice annually: once via the English Language Arts assessment for Title I accountability purposes, and the second time via the New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test (NYSESLAT) for Title III accountability requirements. The only difference between the two options offered was the time frame for double testing: the first option would have made the double-testing provision permanent; the second option included verbiage stating that the double testing would be for a “limited time.” Neither of these options was acceptable to the majority of those on the Committee of Practitioners; there was no serious consideration of other possible options that had been offered by Committee members. The final result was that NYSED capitulated to the USDOE mandate. In a letter dated August 4, 2006, NYSED’s Acting Assistant Commissioner informed the field that all LEP/ELLs in grades 3 to 8 would be required to take both the ELA and NYSESLAT assessments. No time limit on this requirement was noted in her letter.

There are grave consequences to NYSED’s decision. First and foremost, this situation will result in thousands of LEP/ELL students being assessed on a test that was not designed for students who by definition are LIMITED in their English proficiency. In its development of the ELA assessment, McGraw/Hill did not include separate statistical analyses of results for LEP/ELLs. Therefore, the test is neither valid nor reliable as an instrument for measuring their ability to perform in their second language. In addition, forcing students who have arrived in our schools with first languages other than English to take an invalid and unreliable test of English after only one year virtually guarantees that the number of schools and districts identified as “failing” will increase geometrically.

Our organization believes that politics should not have a role in the interpretation and implementation of Title I accountability requirements. What we are concerned with is ensuring that students who represent this vibrant linguistic minority in our schools be treated justly and equitably.

It is our understanding that in 2003, an agreement between USDOE and NYSED had been reached and that the NYSESLAT would be accepted as a substitute for the ELA assessment under Section 1111 (3) (x) of the Title I regulations. In that agreement, LEP/ELLs in New York would be exempted from taking the ELA assessment for a period of three years, and such exemption could, on an individual basis, be extended to five years. This agreement was a rational response to the scientifically-based research of the past 25 years: that it generally takes between 3 and 5 years for a student to acquire enough academic English to compete with their monolingual English-speaking peers. In fact, that was the rule for ELA testing up until the USDOE changed its mind as evidenced in its letter last June.

Because of the size of our State’s immigrant population, and due to long-standing and farsighted institutional support of the academic achievement of LEP/ELLs, New York has always been in the forefront of efforts to assist these students. New York was the first state in the nation to implement a statewide, standardized test of English proficiency through the NYSESLAT; New York was the first state to publish Learning Standards for English as a Second Language; and New York took the initiative to ensure that there would be equity in the testing of LEP/ELLs.

Sadly, the current response by NYSED to the USDOE on this issue contradicts what professionals in the field of English language acquisition have scientifically demonstrated through abundant research over several decades. The testing exemptions that existed prior to June 2006 took those findings into account; the current situation does not.

We urge you to compel NYSED to reconsider its response. We know that this will take courage, that it will take creative ways of thinking, and that, indeed, some federal funding may have to be sacrificed for the sake of our limited English proficient students. Perhaps the State Assembly and Senate might be able to pass legislation that could replace the funds NYSED would lose by defying the USDOE mandate.

As a representative of an organization that works for the improvement of educational achievement and opportunities for limited English proficient students, I know first-hand that we in New York have struggled for many years to ensure equity and fairness for them. It is NYS TESOL’s hope that the legislature’s concern about this issue will enable this positive, historical practice to continue. We must put an end to double testing and penalizing students who speak other languages, and prevent the mislabeling of schools and districts as “failures” because of unjust requirements to administer invalid and unreliable tests. By working together, we can overcome this dire and inequitable situation.

Thank you very much.