1. English Learner Policy: From No Child Left Behind to the Every Student Succeeds Act
By Alex Gabriel

2. Research Focus Key Terms Questions No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
English Learners (ELs)
Questions
What did ESSA change for federal English learner policies?
What did ESSA change for state English learner policies?
How did the shift of power affect policies for English learners?
What stayed the same?

3. Federal Education Law Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015)
Multivariate accountability
State decision making
Disaggregate by subgroup
No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001)
High stakes, test-based accountability
Federal decision making
Disaggregate by subgroup

4. Title I: Assessment and Accountability
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015)
Multivariate Accountability
Test-based reading and math
Graduation/ Attendance
Test-based ELP
School quality indicator
Growth and Proficiency
Count former ELs for up to 4 years
No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001)
Test-based Accountability
Reading and Math test – 100%
Graduation/ Attendance – 100%
AYP/AMO for ELs
Count former ELs in accountability for up to 2 years
&

5. Title II: Principal and Teacher Development
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015)
PD grants to serve most in need students
Subgrants for PD for subgroups
Subgrants for certifications
Universal Design for Learning
No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001)
PD grants to serve most in need students
Subgrants for PD for subgroups

6. Title III: English Learner and Immigrant Education
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015)
SEAs standardize entry/exit policies
Parental Engagement
Engagement of LEAs and stakeholders
No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001)
Schools determine entry/exit policies
Parental Engagement
SEA/ LEA accountability for ELP

9. Implemented standardized statewide assessment for ELs (modified SELP)
AZ: Proficient: This student comprehends and follows multiple-step oral instructions (four or more steps) for familiar processes or procedures. This student can comprehend many content-area words, including grade-level math and science vocabulary. This student is able to understand many words that indicate mathematics operations. Sometimes this student comprehends grade-level math word problems. This student comprehends and follows a set of written multistep instructions on routine procedures
IL: Proficient: Reaching: English language learners will process, understand, produce, or use specialized or technical language reflective of the content area at grade level; a variety of sentence lengths of varying linguistic complexity in extended oral or written discourse as required by the specified grade level; oral or written communication in English comparable to proficient English peers.

10. Federal vs. State Decision-Making
Assessment
Standards
Targets for performance
% of students achieving proficiency
Weighting of accountability inputs
Interventions
Fed
NCLB
State
NCLB/ ESSA
ESSA

11. Proficiency Reading Baseline Proficiency Reading Endline
States: NCLB: Title I
Proficiency Reading Baseline
Proficiency Reading Endline
Proficiency
Math
Baseline
Proficiency Math
Endline
Graduation Rate
Arizona
15%
(2008)
100%
(2014)
22%
46%
Illinois
40.7%
52.8%
69.1
Maryland
33.6%
27%
87.9
AZ:
IL:
MD:

12. States: ESSA Title I Baseline Achievement Reading
Baseline Achievement Reading
Endline Achievement Reading
Baseline Achievement Math
Endline Achievement Math
Baseline 4 year Graduation
Endline 4 year Graduation
ELP Baseline
ELP Endline
Weight of ELP
Arizona 2%
(2015)
TBD
25%
90%
(2030)
10%
Maryland
(2018)
65.43% (2015)
76%
(2020)
Illinois
(2032)
71.9%
(2016)
63% (2016)
90% (2032) 5%
Chicago admins encourage at-risk students to transfer into GED programs.
Illinois Policy Institute: Unfortunately, these requirements are not rigorous. In fact, students can fail one of four core classes (English, mathematics, science and social sciences) each year and still advance to the next grade level. They also only have to garner just a D in each class they take to earn the 24 credit hours they need to graduate.
EdWeek: Education officials in Arizona, California, and Texas confirmed that their ELL graduation rates exclude those who become proficient in English over the course of their high school years.

13. Professional Development
States: NCLB: Title II
Professional Development
Type
Arizona No
N/A
Illinois
Yes
Recruitment for bilingual teachers
Training for teachers for students with disabilities (also applies to ELs with disabilities)
Maryland
Recruitment of bilingual teachers and training

14. Professional Development
States: ESSA Title II
Professional Development
Type
Arizona
Yes
Structured English Immersion course training A-F Accountability System
Illinois
Illinois Empower: Identify schools/ teachers with high EL population Direct grants to teachers with large EL population
Maryland
TESOL certification for core subject teachers Development of principals for diverse populations

15. States: NCLB: Title III
Standards/
Assessment
Accountability System
Services
Arizona
SELP
Reporting System
English Immersion
Illinois
ILELP
ESL/bilingual, biliteracy
Maryland
MSA
SEA ensures LEAs track EL ELP
Dual Immersion/ Transitional

16. States: ESSA Title III EL Standards/ Assessment Language Services
Technical Assistance
Arizona
AZELLA
English tutoring services
English Immersion programs
Make resources language accessible by request
Illinois
ACCESS/ WIDA
Bilingual Education
EL integration
Convene stakeholders for better tracking
Maryland
2 EL specialists per 12 LEAs

17. So What? Stayed the Same Power Shift Federal Policy Change
State Policy Change
Power Shift
ELP accountability in Title I
Teacher certification funding stream
Universal Design of Learning
Standardized entry/ exit policies
Teacher capacity development & integrating ELs
Uncertain ELP goals
States weight importance of ELP in accountability
State initiatives
Targeted assistance
State standards and assessments:
Race to the bottom
Goal displacement
No consistent measures
Discretion in service provision

18. Questions?