Court Says Yes to English-Only Tests
Public schools in California can give achievement tests and high school exit exams in English to all students, even the nearly 1.6 million with limited English-speaking proficiency, a state appeals court ruled last week.
The case dates to 2005, when nine California districts that enroll large proportions of English language learners, or ELLs, filed a lawsuit in conjunction with three bilingual-education groups against the state Board of Education (SBE) because of the testing methods the board set for the state. The conflict was sparked by the federal No Child Left Behind law of 2002, which contains a provision stating that limited English-speaking students "shall be assessed in a valid and reliable manner" for purposes of federal accountability. Because the California tests, which were established by the SBE, were given in English to all students, the plaintiffs argued that the exams violated NCLB's requirements.
The First District Court of Appeals in San Francisco, however, rejected that argument in a 3-to-0 ruling, saying the federal law neither requires nor forbids testing in a student's native language and leaves such decisions largely up to the states. Its ruling upheld a San Francisco judge's 2007 decision.
In last week's decision, Justice Timothy Reardon said that the law does not authorize the court to act as "the official second-guesser" of the reliability of a state's testing methods and that developing native-language tests would be difficult because at least 40 different languages are spoken by students in California's schools. Moreover, in 1998, the state's voters approved a ballot measure that essentially prohibited bilingual instruction except under limited circumstances, and Reardon said testing students in their primary language "could send confusing messages throughout California's education system."
Of course, the districts that sued disagree with the ruling. "The court dodges the essential issue in the lawsuit, which is: What is testing supposed to measure?" said Marc Coleman, a lawyer for the school districts and advocacy groups, in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle. "If you don't have to evaluate the testing, California gets a free pass on testing kids who don't speak English, using tests that they literally have no evidence of their validity."
NCLB requires that certain accommodations be made during testing for students who speak limited English, such as extra time, the use of dictionaries, or giving instruction in the student's native language. The California SBE adopted such regulations in 2003. Donna Neville, chief counsel for the SBE, says the state does not foresee any changes in test policies. The nine districts will convene with their lawyers to determine their next steps, which might include an appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Searching for a college? Get our complete rankings of America's Best Colleges.
Tags: public schools | education | No Child Left Behind | education reform | K-12 education
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (16) | Print
Reader Comments
makeing test
im makeing test
English only
The 14th Amendment says that States must provide equal protection of the laws to everyone. The courts have diluted the original words so that the state can allow unequal treatment when there is a good reason for it. The Supreme Court wobbles between strict scrutiny, especially on race, and mere convenience on aqlmowst every thing else. This Amendment was largely ignored from 1883 ("The Civil Rights Cases") to 1954 (Brown v. Board of Education). Whenever there is a large enough class being discriminated against, the Court tends to pay attention. One or two students speaking an obscure language can be ignored because it is impractical to require tests to be translated (essentially rewritten). "Hispanic" is essentially a racial classification, and in California it is very big. In general, the Court does not allow a state to discriminate on race unless there is no practical alternative. Hawaii was forbidden to discriminate against non-Hawaiian in the election of trustees for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The state may not intend to discriminate, but it is discriminating. The Supreme Court is so strict on racial discrimination that it has overturned affirmative action plans that favor African-Amricans that lack certain reasons. Thus in the University of Michigan cases it rejected the hard quota plan for undergraduates and upheld a law-school plan that argued many reasons why Michigan lawyers should have a few African-American classmates. This is a federal (14th Amendment) case and will reach the Supreme Court. It could be 6-3 against Californiq. I would imagine that a wise Latina judge will have enormous influence in conference on the case. I would expect her to vote against California, but who can say what she will think on this question. We must wait and see. There are precedents either way.
Common Frame of Reference
If .. I am in the operating room, and on the table with a sufficient amount of anesthesia to keep me under while the doctor does his thing...
You can darned well bet that the Doc, as well as everyone hovering over my body had better speak the SAME LANGUAGE. At last, theory meets reality.
The same goes for any worthwhile endeavour or strategy. To say that there isn't, or should be, one common frame of reference is utter folly. Multi-cultural is a fantasy,, a hoax. Its logical end has become a disaster. What we should be focusing on is a "Multi-ethnic / Mono-Cultural" society.
I'm not interested in Diversity in the LEAST.. I care not one WHIT about foolishly focusing on things that DIVIDE us. I'm much more interested in focusing on things that Unite us.
Our Imperial Federal Government knows that if they can keep us all apart.. if they can divide us on issues like these.. then they can go about dismantling every other good thing and liberty we hold dear... while we never discuss... because we can't.
Wake up folks..
advertisement
