NCLB dilemma: Identity vs.

Accountability

NCLB Dilemma:
Identity vs. Accountability for Emergent Bilingual Students

One of the objectives of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law is accountability. Most
supporters of the NCLB applaud its Reading First programs and stringent accountability
measures because they believe this is how bilingual students will get attention at schools with
failing programs, and this is the best way to close the achievement gap that language minority
students face. Is it truly beneficial for the students to be succumbed to a program that strips them
of their cultural identity? What does this mean for them as learners? What are the real outcomes?
While it is true that the achievement gap needs to be eliminated, NCLB has not achieved
this with linguistic minority students. In Texas, state policy requires that bilingual students be
placed in a general education classroom as soon as possible or receive English focused curricula
by the end of third grade. Texas is houses 723,000 bilingual students, 92% of them are Spanish
speakers.
According to Huerta (2010), these Texas state policies and placement decisions can be
subjective, relying on functional rather than academic use of English, and do not guarantee
ELLs the language support to advance in second language acquisition (p.227). Numerous studies
by Huerta (2010), using IRI ( Informal Reading Inventory) as diagnostic tools, and TAKS data
have shown that NCLB policies in action have negative effects in second language acquisition.

NCLB dilemma: Identity vs. Accountability

In other words, placing a student in an all English classroom sooner than later does not guarantee
that the student will achieve any subject matter while learning the second language (L2).
How are identity and self-esteem, important to L2 acquisition and closing achievement gaps?
Huerta found that native language is what makes L2 reading distinct, because bilinguals
possess structural knowledge of two language systems, and hence work cognitively different than
mono-linguals. Studies by Bialystok (2007), support Huertas findings because she found that
the phonological systems are directly linked to reading and alphabetic languages. She reported
that literacy was influenced by the level of oral language proficiency in each language and not by
their proficiency in bilingualism. The two systems that bilingual students use is phonological
system and a cognitive system for comprehension of texts, where native speakers can devote
their cognitive resource to the sole comprehension of a text. Most bilingual students do not know
this unless it is told to them.
Lopez describes how in studies by Bandura (1997) and McCaslin (2009), it was also
found that students will attribute their language incompetence to their ability to learn and not
their phonological preparation in a given language. Their sense of belonging, supportive
relationships with teachers, social and cultural environments that validate their actions and
outcomes, are all part of learning that is guided by metacognition ( p.4).
When it comes to text comprehension, Jimenez (2000) found ELLs process text
through a bi-lingual, bi-cultural, and bi-literate identity, and variations in cognitive processes are
influenced by a bilinguals ability to manipulate two language structures. One example is how a
student uses schemas while reading. (Huerta p.226). Those thoughts and verbal exchange that the
student experienced, is now transformed into a complete thought that is required to be expressed

NCLB dilemma: Identity vs. Accountability

in L2. Hence, students dislike learning because it is given in a language that the cannot connect
with.
In various studies on cultural identity, schools as cultural hubs, and in personal
classroom observations, the background knowledge that students use, is mainly from experiences
at home or with friends, which happens to be in the native language. Taking away a students biliterate identity and bicultural experience leaves them with no prior knowledge. Without the use
their experiences and cultural identity, how can they be expected to express connections from
text-to-self, and reach an understanding of vocabulary in order to formulate a unique sentence?
What about accountability? The Intercultural Development Research Association (2007)
cites 43% attrition rate for Hispanics in 2007 in one county (Huerta p. 224). Many schools in
Texas with title 1 and serving bilingual students have a 28% passing rate on state exams 2010.
How are these students affected as a whole student body? What does this mean for their school?
According to NABE (National Association for Bilingual Education), NCLB was formerly
the Bilingual Education Act that was repealed in 2002. The main differences between the two is
1) The funding aspect: What was once a competitive grant program that provided funding
directly to school districts is now a formula grant program, with federal subsidies based on
the number of limited-English-proficient and immigrant students according to NABEs
website. 2.) The competitive grant system under Title VII included a measure of quality
control. Only the best projects, as judged by a panel of experts, received federal funding.
Now Title III funding is distributed on a simple per capita basis. This also has the effect of
spreading resources far more thinly.
NABE also states that NCLB neither prohibits nor encourages bilingual instruction. It
does, however, strike all references to bilingual education, bilingualism, and biliteracy from

NCLB dilemma: Identity vs. Accountability

federal education law. Developing students' native-language proficiency, an important priority of

Title VII, is not among the goals of Title III.
Based on these findings and sources, it is evident that NCLB will not help our ELLs
close the achievement gap and it will not help our schools provide them with necessary language
resources, unless the numbers show it. Instead, it will only deteriorate student bi-literacy, selfesteem, and cultural identity as wells as mitigate their opportunities through lack of weak
funding.