Striking a Balance

Interesting article this past weekend about New York's new policy to give English exams to English Language Learners (ELLs) who have been here for one-year (a change from the previous three-year exemption policy). Critics are advocating for the state to oppose the federal mandates or develop an entirely new test designed specifically to test ELLs English proficiency.

The issue of testing ELLs is a delicate one because it's really a balancing act between accountability and language learning. On one hand, this sub-group must be tested because educators and policymakers need to know if we are failing these kids (and exempting ELLs would really piss off these guys ). However, one year is often an inadequate time frame to acquire English language proficiency and it really depends on other factors such as the amount of prior schooling, what age the student arrived to the U.S., etc. You also run the risk that this population will continue to become the "whipping boy" for why schools are not making AYP.

To make the balancing act even more challenging, accommodations have been seen as the "great compromise" to testing this group. However, accommodations may hurt a student more than help him. Research has found accommodations such as giving extra time and providing a glossary of terms helps both ELLs and English-proficient students, thereby reducing the validity and purpose of these accommodations. So while test scores may improve for these students, it will not truly show an improvement in language acquisition.

Policymakers and interest groups have to walk a fine line between holding schools accountable for educating ELLs and providing assistance so that English language learning truly happens. It would be a missed opportunity if New York only focused on one or the other.