Authoritative Specificity: Toward a New Framework for English Language Learner Accountability

• In Event: Preparing English Language Learners to be College- and Career-Ready: Perspectives and Experiences From the Field

Abstract

A major tension that lies at the core of ELL accountability is differentiation versus standardization. On the one hand, schools are expected to differentiate instruction for ELLs. On the other hand, ELL students are expected to perform at the same level as their peers on grade-level standardized assessments. Because schools who are not successful in meeting this goal are often penalized, many of them have adopted pedagogical approaches focused on teaching to the test rather than by ELL best practices (Menken, 2008).

This presentation uses policy attribute theory (Porter, 1989) as an analytic tool for analyzing the ways that state and district leaders negotiate these tensions. Policy attribute theory identifies five policy attributes that can be used to evaluate policy implementation: (1) the specificity of policies, (2) the consistency between different policies, (3) the authority given to policies by local actors, (4) the power associated with any rewards or sanctions built into politices, and (5) the stability of the policies over time (Porter, 1989). While separated for illustrative purposes scholars who utilize policy attribute theory have acknowledged the complex interrelationship between them (Desimone, 2002).

The study includes data from 5 states with varying ELL policies, programs and populations— California, Kentucky, Massachussetts, Ohio and Texas. At the state level, this includes interviews with 25 state education department administrators across the 5 states, with at least one representative from each state being a specialist in ELL education. At the district level, this includes interviews with 60 administrators in 12 districts across the 5 states along with surveys from 70 district administrators, 280 principals, and 280 teachers per state. Data was initially code using the policy attributes with a second round of analysis conducted to determine the relationship among the give attributes.

Our findings indicate that states vary most in terms of the specificity of their ELL policies. There was a strong relationship between specificity and consistency in that the specific policies of these states created more consistency across districts and ensured more alignment between ELL assessments and programming and general content assessments and programming. District leaders in states with higher specificity also tended to described ELL policies as having more authority. They did not interpret these policies as puntative but rather as essential supports and guidance that assist them in better meeting the needs of their students. Notably, power was not identified as a key factor in determining how districts supported their ELLs. Instead, district leaders relied on research-based best practices and desired more specific guidance from the state in regards to implementing these best practices.

Our findings suggest that focusing on developing more specific ELL policies informed by research-based strategies may be a more effective tool for improving the educational outcomes of ELL students than developing more powerful ELL policies focused on rewards and sanctions that have typically been associated with NCLB. The greater state flexibility provided by ESSA offers a possible point of entry for developing these more specific policies by reframing accountability away from power and toward authority.

Author

• Nelson Flores, University of Pennsylvania