Re-NCLB on English Language Learners

More flexibility and some new requirements sums up the ELL provisions. My two cents on a few points: First, native language tests for 5-plus years instead of 3 years is a good thing- this keeps ELLs in the system and provides the support they need. But the requirements also say that states have to create valid and reliable native language assessments for every language that 10 percent or more ELL students share. Whoa. There is good intent in this but coming out of CA, the development of native language assessments for those languages is no small task (we're talking about 10 percent of the ELL population not 10 percent of the student population, which translates to a lot of languages in a place like California). And then there's the problem with "valid and reliable" assessments for ELLs, which states continue to struggle to develop or find. Requiring valid and reliable assessments is good if states actually can get this done but we haven't seen a lot of this. Also, under this new draft states can use portfolios and alternative assessments for ELLs- now this drives me crazy and I don't know what to make of it because while I support the use of alternative assessments, I also know that states don't have a lot of good models for this. I fear a bunch of half-baked "this is good enough for the ELLs" assessments and that's no better than what we had before we woke up and noticed ELLs in the first place.

EdWeek's Mary Ann Zehr posts about this, with lively comments from former NABE director and NCLB critic James Crawford.