On February 17, 2012, Orange County Assemblyman Chris Norby introduced the Assembly Bill 1767, a bill which would dramatically change English Language Learner (ELL) programs.
Rather than having students take the California English Language Development Test (CELDT), which has been deemed too difficult to pass for even a few native English speakers, students become “English proficient” if they receive “Proficient” or higher on the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) test and maintain a 3.0 GPA.
The bill was drafted as a result of concerns that students were falsely classified as English Language Learners and therefore incorrectly placed in classes. Any students that write down a language other than English as their first language are forced to take the California English Language Development Test.
The concern is that these students may be bilingual and do not actually need English Language Learner classes. These students may have non-English speaking parents who may not know how to pull their children out of ELL classes.
Norby claims that his bill will “foster quicker reclassification of ELL students.”
Currently, there is no state standard as to what constitutes a passing grade for the CELDT.
The program may be inconvenient for students falsely classified as English learners, as annual testing takes up valuable funds and time from families. The students themselves lose important class time for the program.
Schools receive more funding based on the number of ELL students they have per school, so these schools may have a reason to keep these students in the program.
False classification of ELL students takes up funds that could be used for something more useful as well as create a false notion that the California schools are filled with immigrants. However, 83% of the students in the ELL program are native-born U.S. citizens. Thus, foreign-born students don’t necessarily equate to being ELL students, which is a common misconception.
“These students apparently understand the material to a certain degree and are succeeding at some level,” says Kevin Nguyen (’13). “Therefore the language barrier isn’t as prominent with these students. If they can handle it, sure, why not?”
On February 17, 2012, Orange County Assemblyman Chris Norby introduced the Assembly Bill 1767, a bill which would dramatically change English Language Learner (ELL) programs.
Rather than having students take the California English Language Development Test (CELDT), which has been deemed too difficult to pass for even a few native English speakers, students become “English proficient” if they receive “Proficient” or higher on the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) test and maintain a 3.0 GPA.
The creation of the bill was a product of concerns over the false classification of English Language Learners and incorrect placement in classes. Any students that write down a language other than English as their first language are forced to take the CELDT.
The concern is that these students may be bilingual and do not actually need English Language Learner classes. These students may have non-English speaking parents who may not know how to pull their children out of ELL classes.
Norby claims that his bill will “foster quicker reclassification of ELL students.”
Currently, there is no state standard as to what constitutes a passing grade for the CELDT.
The program may be inconvenient for students falsely classified as English learners, as annual testing takes up valuable funds and time from families. The students themselves lose important class time for the program.
Schools receive more funding based on the number of ELL students they have per school, so these schools may have a reason to keep these students in the program.
False classification of ELL students takes up funds that could be used for something more useful as well as create a false notion that the California schools are filled with immigrants. However, 83% of the students in the ELL program are native-born U.S. citizens. Thus, foreign-born students don’t necessarily equate to being ELL students, which is a common misconception.
“These students apparently understand the material to a certain degree and are succeeding at some level,” says Kevin Nguyen (’13). “Therefore the language barrier isn’t as prominent with these students. If they can handle it, sure, why not?”
