SACRAMENTO — State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell and State Board of Education President Theodore Mitchell have submitted comments to the U.S. Department of Education on proposed changes [http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2008-2/050208d.html] (Outside Source) to the interpretation of federal education law pertaining to English learners.

"This interpretation would severely restrict the role of teachers and parents in making educationally important decisions regarding program placement and instructional services," O'Connell said. "As a result, the parents and teachers of California English learner students - representing 30 percent of the nation's K-12 English learner population - will be disenfranchised from participating in these important educational decisions," O'Connell said.

The sweeping proposed changes to the Limited English Proficient (LEP) Education program of No Child Left Behind Act were published by U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings on May 2, 2008. Comments in response were due by June 2, 2008.

"We are troubled by the dramatic changes contained in these interpretations and by the very short time period provided for public comment," O'Connell and Mitchell wrote in their joint letter to the U.S. Department of Education.

"California … is in the fifth year of implementing an established Title III accountability system. The major changes proposed by the Secretary suggest a completely new way of defining English language proficiency for Title III annual measurable achievement objectives and would require California to redefine our Title III criteria and targets. The time and cost burdens that would be entailed by such changes have not been clearly justified."

O'Connell added, "Improving students' English language acquisition and proficiency is a critical component of California's efforts to close the achievement gap. Title III has played a significant part in setting goals and generating a focus on the progress districts make with their English learners. The attempt to make sweeping changes to the law through new and different interpretations will confuse districts and hinder, not help, in this work."

The letter by O'Connell and Mitchell can be read at Joint Letter to Richard L. Smith (PDF; 211KB; 5pp.).