Educational policy analysis archives

Educational policy analysis archives

Material Information

Educational policy analysis archives
Arizona State University
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tempe, Ariz
Tampa, Fla
Arizona State University
University of South Florida.
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Education -- Research -- Periodicals ( lcsh )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
serial ( sobekcm )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
E11-00531 ( USFLDC DOI )
e11.531 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c20089999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00531
0 245
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 16, no. 1 (January 17, 2008).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c January 17, 2008
Achievement testing for English language learners, ready or not?/ Sau-Lim Tsang, Anne Katz [and] Jim Stack.
x Research
v Periodicals.
2 710
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
1 773
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
4 856

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 16issue 1series Year mods:caption 20082008Month January1Day 1717mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2008-01-17


Readers are free to copy display, and distribute this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, it is distributed for noncommercial purposes only, and no alte ration or transformation is made in the work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at http:/ / ses/by-nc-nd/2.5/. All other uses must be approved by the author(s) or EPAA EPAA is published jointly by the Colleges of Education at Arizona State University and the Universi ty of South Florida. Articles are indexed by H.W. Wilson & Co. Send commentary to Casey Cobb (c and errata notes to Sherman Dorn (epaa-editor@s EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES A peer-reviewed scholarly journal Editor: Sherman Dorn College of Education University of South Florida Volume 16 Number 1 Januar y 16, 2008 ISSN 1068–2341 Achievement Testing for English Language Learners, Ready or Not? 1 Sau-Lim Tsang ARC Associates Anne Katz School for International Training Jim Stack San Francisco Unified School District Citation: Tsang, S.-L., Katz, A., & Stack, J. (2008). Achieving testin g for English Language Learners, ready or not?. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 16 (1). Retrieved [date] from Abstract School reform efforts across the US have focused on creating systems in which all students are expected to achieve to high standards. To ensure that students reach those standards and to docu ment what students know and can do, schools collect assessment information on students’ academ ic achievement. More information is needed, however, to find out when such assessments are appr opriate for English learners and can provide meaningful info rmation about what such learners know and can do. We describe and discuss a study that addresse s the question of when it is appropriate to administer content area tests in English to English learners. 1 This study was partially funded through a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition and Academic Achievemen t for Limited English Proficient Students (OELA), #T292B010001. However, any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommend ations expressed in this article are those of the authors.


Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 16 No. 1 2 Drawing on the stud ent database of San Francisc o Unified School District, we examined the effect of language demand s on the SAT/9 mathematics scores of Chinese-speaking and Spanish-speaking stud ents. Our results show ed that while the English language demands of the problem so lving subscale affect all students, they have a larger effect on English learners Â’ performance, thus rendering the tests inaccurate in measuring En glish learnersÂ’ subject matter achievement. Our results also showed that this effect gradually decr eases as students become more proficient in English, taking five to si x years for students to reach parity with national norms. These results have important implications for the design of school accountability systems and policies with high-stakes cons equences for English learners such as high-school graduation requirement s based on standardized tests. Keywords: bilingual students ; high risk students; high stakes tests; language proficiency; limited English sp eaking; standardized tests. Pruebas de Rendimiento Acadmico pa ra los Estudiantes en Proceso de Aprendizaje del Idioma Ingls, Listos o No Resumen Los esfuerzos de reforma es colar en los Estados Unidos se han enfocado en la creacin de sistemas en lo s cuales se espera que todo s los estudian tes alcancen estndares elevados. Para asegurarse que lo s estudiantes logran dichos estndares y para documentar lo que los estudiantes sa ben y pueden hacer, las escuelas recogen informacin sobre la evaluacin del lo gro acadmico de los estudiantes. Sin embargo, se necesita ms informacin para saber cun do dichas evaluaciones son apropiadas para los estudiantes en proces o de adquisicin del idioma ingls, y que al mismo tiempo puedan prop orcionar informacin signif icativa sobre lo que estos estudiantes saben y pueden hacer. En este trabajo, describimos y discutimos un estudio que trata sobre el asunto de cun do es apropiado administrar pruebas de contenido de rea en el idioma ingls a estudiantes en proceso de aprendizaje de dicho idioma. Usando el ba nco de datos de estudian tes del Distrito Escolar Unificado de San Francisco, examinamos el efecto de las exigencias lingsticas en los resultados de matemticas de la pr ueba SAT/9 administrada a alumnos con idioma materno chino y espaol. Nuestros resultados mostraron que mientras las demandas lingsticas del ingls en la su bescala Resolucin de Problemas afectan a todos los estudiantes, su ef ecto es ms pronunciado en el rendimiento de aquellos estudiantes que estn en el proceso de ap rendizaje del ingls, de tal forma, que estas pruebas se muestran inadecuadas pa ra medir el rendimiento acadmico por materia de los estudiantes en proceso de ap rendizaje del ingls. Nuestros resultados tambin mostraron que este efecto se reduce gradualmen te conforme los estudiantes se vuelven diestros en el idio ma ingls, tomando entre cinco y seis aos para que los estudiantes alcancen parida d acadmica de acuerdo con las normas nacionales. Estos resultados tienen impl icaciones importantes en el diseo de sistemas escolares de res ponsabilidad y en las polticas con consecuencias muy importantes para los estudiantes en proces o de aprendizaje del ingls, tales como los requisitos de graduacin para la secund aria basados en prue bas estandarizadas. Palabras clave: estu diantes bilinges; estudiantes en alto riesgo; pruebas de alto impacto; destreza lingstic a; dominio limitado del ingls; pruebas estandarizadas.


Achievement Testing for English La nguage Learners, Ready or Not? 3 Large-scale assessment has been used increasingly to guide state and local educational policy. Under the mandates of the federal government’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, the revision of the Elementary and Secondary Educati on Act and, arguably, the most broad reaching educational intervention effort of the federal govern ment up to this time, states have expanded the scope and frequency of student testing, revamped their accountability systems, and begun striving to demonstrate annual progress in raising the percentage of students proficient in reading and math. To encourage compliance, NCLB imposes a series of sanctions on schools and school districts that do not meet targeted benchmarks. This legislation is intended to set high standards for the nation’s schools and to compel schools to focus and improve their curriculum and instruction—in other words, to push schools to target teaching on what we expect students to lear n (Heubert & Hauser, 1999). However, the use of tests to determine performance levels has spurre d much debate. Supporters laud the use of objective measures as a means to raise academic standards, hold schools accountable for their curriculum and instruction, and provide parents with evidence of their children’s academic performance. Others argue that basing high-stakes decisions about sc hool performance solely on a limited set of test results often places schools serving immigrant and minority students at a disadvantage (Kim & Sunderman, 2005). Such tests may also not serve the very populations they are designed to support. One ongoing controversy has been the use of standardiz ed achievement tests written in English to assess the academic performance of English Language Le arners (ELLs) (Abedi, Leon, & Mirocha, 2000; La Celle-Peterson & Rivera, 1994). Critics have argu ed that such tests do not provide an accurate estimate of these students’ academic achievemen t because their limited proficiency in English interferes with their performance on the tests. With limited English proficiency, students may not understand test items or even how to answer the ques tions. If testing is to serve as an essential tool to inform the improvement of instructional practices and student learning, how can we have confidence in using test results that may not provide accurate information about how well a student is doing at school or in a subject matter? The issue becomes critical when testing results are used for high-stakes decisions impacting individual students. Thus, for example, California students, beginning in the 2005–06 school year, cannot receive their high school graduation diploma if they do not pass the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE). Many ELLs who do not have adequate time to acquire the English language proficiency for passing the CAHSEE will not graduate from high schools. Statistics provided by the California State Department of Educ ation showed that as of June 2006, for the class of 2006, 26% of the 18,565 ELLs had not pa ssed the CAHSEE (California Department of Education, 2006). Similarly, ELLs are also pena lized by their performance on standardized tests when applying for colleges and, in many cases, applying for jobs. In light of the high-stakes and consequentia l nature of testing, some educators have suggested banning testing altogether for ELLs. Ho wever, this practice is short sighted since ELLs need to be included in school accountability schemes, and test results do provide us with information on students’ performance, albeit through the filter of their limited English proficiency. Such test results can be used as part of a total portfolio of data to guide the improvement of curriculum and instruction. In addition, most educ ators agree that ELLs can be tested in English after they have been in US schools and acquired e nough English proficiency to take the test. The critical issue is determining when students have ac quired enough English proficiency to be tested in English.


Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 16 No. 1 4 To address this issue, a study was conducted from September 2001 until June 2004 to explore the development of ELL student perfor mance on achievement tests in conjunction with developing English language proficiency. Supported in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, the study utilized the extensive student assessment database of the San Francisco Unified School District. Specifically, the study asked: When is it appropriate to administer standardized content area tests in English to ELLs? The question is more complex and difficult to answer than one may initially assume. The first difficulty is with the when Does it refer to time, i.e., the number of years an ELL has been learning English or to an ELLÂ’s English proficie ncy acquisition status? In the latter case, educators have argued that different types of language proficiency have differential relevance to academic achievements. Related to this difficulty are the acad emic language demands of various content areas. Disciplines such as math, history, and science use specialized vocabulary, sentence structures, and genres in content-specific ways. In a testing situation within a specific area, ELLs may or may not have developed the relevant English proficiency fo r that content area. In the following section, we review a range of literature to gain more unders tanding of the issues underlying this research question. Literature In this section, we review recent literature and rese arch relevant to the assessment of English language learners. This review seeks to clarify the research question of this study by exploring the complexity of defining English language proficien cy, recognizing that this complexity has a direct impact on the creation of valid, equitable content area assessments for English language learners. We begin by exploring models and theories of language proficiency and then examine two strands of research. The first strand of research stud ies focuses upon the development of academic achievement of ELLs, and the second, upon rese arch on the assessment of English language learners, with an emphasis on assessment in the content areas. Models of language proficiency, language use and language ability Over the past decades, notions of language pr oficiency have evolved from descriptions of listening, speaking, reading, and writing, rooted in the knowledge of sy stems such as phonology, syntax, and lexicon, to a focus on how language is used to create meaning, particularly within the context of specific settings (Lado, 1961; Canale & Swain, 1980; Chomsky, 1965; Hymes, 1972; Larsen-Freeman, 2003; North, 2000). We focus on three models that have influenced current thinking about school-based language proficiency. CumminsÂ’ (1981b) model of second language acquisition and use provides an early framework for examining the multidimensionality of language used within an educational setting. According to CumminsÂ’ model, any communicative task can be described along two continua, according to its cognitive demand and to its con textual support. For example, some communication can be portrayed as cognitively undemanding and context-embedded, that is, accompanied by gestures and intonation. This is the language used for face-to-face encounters and basic informal communication such as casual greetings and leave-takings. Other communication tasks can be cognitively demanding yet with minimal contextual support, accompanied only by linguistic cues. These descriptors characterize the language of schooling and literacy tasks. In CumminsÂ’ model, command of both basic communication skills and cognit ive academic skills is necessary for language


Achievement Testing for English La nguage Learners, Ready or Not? 5 proficiency and thus for language learners to be successful in school. Critics of Cummins’ model argue that while his distinction between social and ac ademic language is a useful one, his definitions ignore the way in which situations of language use can determine the level of cognitive complexity (Bailey, 2006). His distinctions also do not acknowle dge the complexities of academic language or its development (Scarcella, 2003), and according to some they promote a deficit theory of language use (Wiley, 1996). Nevertheless, his model has helped educators realize that th e language proficiency needed for success in school is multidimensional and must encompass more than oral fluency and social uses of language. Collier’s (1995) model adds a new element to the discussion of language proficiency— sociocultural processes—and configures linguistic, academic and cognitive development as separate though inter-related factors in a multifaceted and complex model of the language acquisition process. She argues that students’ acquisition of a second language in school is mitigated constantly by social and cultural processes occurring in their past and present everyday lives such as immigration status, limited economic resources, and societal attitudes towards immigrant groups, for example, cultural stereotyping and the subordinate status of a minority group. Like Cummins’ model, Collier’s argument helps policy makers and practitioners develop a clearer understanding of the complexities of language learning in schools and, thus, become more aware of the challenges inherent in language development as well as th e time that it takes to become proficient. In line with these complex and dynamic views of language, Bachman (1990, 2002) and Bachman and Palmer (1996) describe language ab ility within an interactional framework. Shifting away from the term “language proficiency,” Bachma n (1990, 2002) creates models of “language use“ and “language ability” and applies them to lang uage testing. Acknowledging the influence of a sociocultural context on the performance of the lang uage learner, he notes that testing methods and the background characteristics of language learne rs influence scores as much as the students’ language skills. This model also distinguishes between linguistic and academic development. In describing language use, Bachman and Palmer (1 996) envision language as “the creation or interpretation of intended meanings in discourse by an individual, or as the dynamic and interactive negotiation of intended meanings between two or more individuals in a particular situation” (p. 61). They emphasize two forms of interaction: internal an d external. Individual language users’ language knowledge, topical knowledge, affective schema ta, personal characteristics, and metacognitive strategies interact internally to create meanings, and these same individual attributes of the language user interact externally with either the characteristics of the target language use domain or the language assessment domain. These three models are useful heuristics for de veloping a deeper understanding of language proficiency and the complexities inherent in deve loping proficiency. They also illustrate the divide between theoretical models of language use, profic iency and ability and the assessments designed for English language learners in school settings (Hak uta, Butler & Witt, 2000; North, 2000). While these models provide us with a multi-dimensional notion of language proficiency, they hardly address the intersection of language and content. In the next two sections, we examine some of the research that has contributed to the development of these complex models of language proficiency and to our understanding of language acquisition in school settings. Research on Developing Academic Achievement of ELLs Some researchers have looked at the devel opment of language proficiency within an academic context by exploring how long it takes students schooled only in the second language (English) to reach the average academic achiev ement level of native speakers. Cummins (1981a)


Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 16 No. 1 6 examined the time needed for immigrants to Canada to acquire English academic language proficiency when taught in that second language after arrival. He reanalyzed the data from a study by Ramsey and Wright (1974), which involved 1,200 immigrants in the Toronto school system in grades 5, 7, and 9. Based on the age on arrival (AOA) of the immigrants, Cummins worked out an average length of residence (LOR) according to the grade level of the student. He found that LOR rather than AOA has a substantial effect upon the rate at which immigrant students approach grade norms and that it takes at least five years on the av erage. Although in this study the older learners acquired English academic language proficiency more rapidly than younger learners, the age on arrival did not significantly affect the eventual performance at grade norms. Cummins speculated that this finding might not be generalizable outside of the Canadian social context. In the same vein, Collier (1987) studied the average length of time required for 1,548 immigrants to the United States to reach nati ve-speaker norms on standardized tests (50 NCE) when taught only in English after arrival. Th e subjects were "advantaged" second language learners—that is, they were at an age appropriate grade level in their primary language when they immigrated, and they were middle class or upper mi ddle class. These students were assessed as nonEnglish proficient (NEP) when they entered school implying that they had very little or no previous exposure to English. Collier found that to approach the 50 NCE in reading, language, science, and social studies, the students needed 4 to 8 years. In this study, age on arrival had an effect in that students arriving between the ages of 8 and 11 were the fastest achievers. The cross sectional data on advantaged ELL students reported by Collier (198 7) was further examined by Collier and Thomas (1988). One more year of data was added, and se x differences were reported. The sex differences were not practically significant, but the findings on arrival age further confirmed the earlier analysis. Cummins and Nakajima (1987) conducted a study of the language proficiency and academic achievement of Japanese students in Toronto as part of the five-year Development of Bilingual Proficiency project at the Modern Language Centre of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (Harley, Allen, Cummings, & Swain, 1990). Similar to Cummins earlier findings (1981a), it appeared that students required about 4 years of instruction af ter arrival to Canada to attain grade level norms in English reading. However, there was a tendency fo r students who arrived at the age 6–7 to make more rapid progress toward grade level norms than those who arrived at older ages. They also found that when length of residence is controlled, there was a significant relationship in reading achievement between home language and English. While writing performance was found to be less closely related across languages than was reading, Cummins and Nakajima speculated that it may have been a function of the different types of measures (standardized reading tests and nonstandardized writing tests). Generally, the data wer e consistent with other studies in supporting the interdependence of cognitive academic skills acro ss languages and the time needed for attaining grade norms in English academic tasks. While these studies focused on the number of years it took for students to approximate the achievement levels of English-only students, they did not answer the question of whether or when academic assessment data of ELLs are a ccurate measures of content achievement. Research on the impact of academic langua ge on the assessment of English Language Learners The studies in this area have emphasized the importance of understanding the effect of the language demands inherent in academic tasks and specifically standardized test items on the performance of ELLs. Bailey (2000, 2006) descri bes language demands in terms of potential language difficulties faced by ELLs at the lexica l, syntactic, and discourse levels during schooling


Achievement Testing for English La nguage Learners, Ready or Not? 7 tasks, both in the classroom and when taking standardized tests. In analyzing a test item, for example, she identifies sources of difficulty for ELLs in the use of uncommon meanings of words and complex sentence constructions and also the need to make meaningful connections between new and old information within a stretch of discourse. In their analysis of test data comparing ELL and native speakers of English, Abedi, Leon, an d Mirochi (2000) found that the achievement gap between ELLs and non-ELLs increased as the language demands of the assessment tools increased. Other studies have identified a mismatch bet ween the model of English language proficiency underlying standardized English language profic iency tests commonly used in school districts and the academic language required for successful perfor mance on content tests. In a study designed to describe and compare the language and performa nce of 7th grade ELLs on tests of language proficiency and achievement (Steven s, Butler, & Castellon-Wellington, 2000), text analyses revealed limited correspondence between the two tests, suggesting that “competent performance” on a commonly-used language proficiency test such as the Language Assessment Scales (LAS) may not provide sufficient evidence for determining whether or not ELLs can handle the academic language demands of content assessments. Given this lack of congruence, Bailey and Butler (2003) assert that academic language proficiency (ALP) needs to be clearly defined using not a single proficiency or standardized test but including national and state c ontent standards, English as a second language standards, and information about teacher expecta tions and school language. By creating such a framework, Bailey and Butler reason that we will be able to identify a “threshold level of proficiency,” which up until now has been elusive b ecause individual school districts and states have used such varying requirements for iden tifying English proficiency (p. 33). This mismatch becomes acutely relevant in high-stakes arenas such as high school graduation requirements. Fillmore and Snow (2000) ex amined prototype test items for a high school graduation examination for one of the 23 states that has adopted this requirement. Their analysis reveals that the language used in the high school graduation tests is similar to that used in school textbooks and academic discussions about science, math ematics, literature, or social studies. Thus, students must have competence in academic English to do well on the test. Additional studies have begun to identify and describe academic language in the content areas (Bailey, Butler, LaFramenta & Ong, 2001; Schleppegrell, Achugar, & Oteiza, 2004), which may lead to a greater understanding of what the threshold of language ability for ELLs is that allows them to adequately demonstrate their content knowledge on assessments. While these studie s have highlighted the issues around academic language in content areas particularly in light of generalized notions of English language proficiency, this study undertook the task of determining what effects this mismatch may have within actual student performances on tests over time. Study Context San Francisco Unified School District We began our study in the spring of 2002, seeking to answer the following question: When is it appropriate to administer standardized content area tests in English to ELLs? As the literature review in the previous section shows, the research question is a complex one. To answer this question, we had the entire student database of the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) at our disposal. SFUSD is a microcosm of increasing student diversity across the U.S. The district is located in northern California in the city and county of San Francisco, an urban, coastal city with a long history of attracting immigrants primarily from Asia, Central America, and South America as


Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 16 No. 1 8 well as elsewhere. One of the most densely populated cities in the United States, its approximately 770,700 residents in 2000 lived within its 46 .4 square-mile area (U.S. Census, 2000). The student population of SFUSD reflects the city’s diverse population. According to the February 2002 report of the district’s Bilingual Ed ucation Task Force, approximately one-third of the total district enrollment consisted of ELLs. Th ese ELLs spoke 64 different languages with the five largest groups being Chinese (various dial ects) 43%, Spanish 37%, Filipino 4.9%, Vietnamese 3.1% and Russian 2.7%. Half of the students in th e district were language minorities, many of them identified (or re-designated) as Fluent English Pr oficiency (FEP) students with ongoing language and academic content area needs. Many ELLs live below the poverty line in a city with a high cost of living aggravated by an influx of wealthy Silicon Valley/e-commerce prof essionals. In 1999, ELLs comprised 39% of students in the district's Title I program. Within this group, both Latino and Chinese students were overrepresented in relation to their proportion of the total school population. Parents with limited education and maximum economic stress struggle to prepare their children adequately and to support them once they enter school. Faced with the double tasks of language and content acquisition, this group of students is possibly the mo st socially and academically vulnerable at every turn. To understand the context for English langua ge learners in San Francisco, one must understand the history of civil rights for language learners in San Francisco’s public schools. In 1974, SFUSD was the setting for the Supreme Court Decision, Lau v. Nichols which stated that SFUSD had “denie[d] [the Chinese-speaking minority students] a meaningful opportunity to participate in the educational program” ( Lau v. Nichols 1974, p. 567). In conjunction with the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, the decision created a mandate to implement educational remedies for language minority students, including bilingual education programs. In spite of the passage of Proposition 227, the “English only” initiative in 1998, which eliminated the requirements for bilingual programs in California public schools, SFUSD continues to offer a plethora of educational alternatives for English language learners and its general population of students, including two way bilingual immersion programs in Spanish, Chinese (Cantonese), Korean and Filipino. Bilingual instruction also occurs in Japanese. SFUSD maintains an explicit commitment both to the instruction of ELLs and bilingual education. The “Guiding Principles” of the Bilingual Education Task Force state that SFUSD seeks to Provide and promote the opportunity for all students to develop competence in two or more languages, academic comp etence, and a positive self-image and attitudes towards other cultures… (SFUSD, 2002, p. 1) ELLs in SFUSD When first enrolled in the school district, every student is processed by the central intake center where the student’s demographic information is collected and his/her English language proficiency is assessed. According to the assessment, students are classified into three categories: English Only (EO), when a student is from an En glish speaking background; Initial Fluent English Proficient (IFEP), when a student is from a non-En glish background but is proficient in English; and Limited English Proficient (LEP), when the st udent is from a non-English speaking background and is not proficient in English. As an LEP student progresses and acquires Eng lish proficiency in school and satisfies a set of criteria established by SFUSD, he or she ma y be re-classified into a fourth category as Redesignated Fluent English Proficie nt (RFEP). Thus, all students in SFUSD fall within four language


Achievement Testing for English La nguage Learners, Ready or Not? 9 proficiency categories. For the purpose of this study, we defined ELLs to include both LEP and RFEP students to ensure that the full range of deve loping language proficiency was captured within our data sets. In the 2000–01 school year, there were 18,624 ELLs enrolled in SFUSD. Table 1 shows the distribution of the ELLs according to the major la nguage groups and grade levels (K–11). The data also show that Chinese-speaking students accounted for 44% and Spanish-speaking students accounted for 38% of the total ELLs in the district. 2 Given this distribution, we chose to focus on the largest language groups to maximize the meaning of within-subgroup analysis. Table 1 Distribution of ELLs by language gr oups and grades (K–11), Spring 2001 Grade level Language K 1 2 3 45678910 11 Total Cambodian 11 9 18 13 17171315192212 9 1755 Chinese 844 1120 1014 1019 803 650 446 413 363 437 435 502 8046 Filipino 50 58 69 78 79716192777174 68 848 J apanese 24 27 16 16 11 4 4 6 2 8 5 123 Korean 12 17 21 19 1616868108 8 149 Spanish 725 750 799 801 729 642 471 432 389 455 366 351 6910 Vietnamese 59 65 60 51 49374034322732 45 531 Other 103 115 146 120 134 120 92 97 97 110 98 105 1337 Data Achievement tests This article focuses on data from the Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition (SAT/9). 3 At the time of the study, SAT/9 was the Californi a state-mandated achievement test administered to all students for grades 2 to 11. The test was required beginning in 1999. However, SFUSD filed a lawsuit against the State claiming the testing mandate was unfair to LEP students. In 1999 and 2000, the district did not administer SAT/9 to a large number of LEP students whom teachers did not consider to be ready to take this English-only test. A settlement was reached in 2000 to allow the school district to provide accommodations to LEP students enrolled in the district for the first year. Testing for all students started in 2001. Thus, be ginning in the 2000–01 school year SAT/9 results 2 Chinese-speaking students repres ent a range of Chinese dialects. The largest dialect group in SFUSD is Cantonese, which constitutes 83% of the K–12 and 87% of the K–5 Chinese-speaking students who are the subjects of the analysis in our study. Anot her 8% of students are from different areas of Canton province with dialects that are mutually intelligible wi th Cantonese. In addition, staff of SFUSD suggested that because of San Francisco's overwhelming Cantones e environment, almost all non-Cantonese background students speak Cantonese as a second dialect. As disc ussed later in the paper, our analysis will only include students who entered SFUSD at the kindergarten level. None of these students had formal education in any Chinese languages/dialects. Thus, we included all Ch inese-speaking students as one group in our study sample. 3 In addition to SAT/9, SFUSD collected data from select students on the following tests: California English Language Development Test (CELDT), Califor nia Standards Test (CST), High School Exit Exam, Language and Literacy Assessment Rubric, Inte grated Writing Assessment, and SABE 2.


Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 16 No. 1 10 were the only set of data that was collected on studen ts of all language proficiency categories. We used the results from the tests administered in the last two weeks of April in 2001. The SAT/9 scale scores that were available are shown in Table 2. Table 2 Available SAT/9 data Grade level cluster 2nd to 8th 9th to 11th Reading Vocabulary Comprehension Language Mathematics Procedures Problem Solving Science Social Sciences In addition, background information for all students is collected at their first enrollment in the school district and maintained and updated yearly in a centralized database, including birth date, birth place, year of entry into the U.S., pare ntsÂ’ education background, home language, family income indicators, English language proficiency, GPA, and additional information. Limits of data and exclusions The data were constrained in five ways. Firs t, item statistics were not available from California Department of Education or the testi ng contractor; we were unable to calculate the reliability of the test and subtest for our sample and sub-samples. In addition, SAT/9 was administered to students in grades 2 through 11. Therefore, our analyses wer e limited to those grade levels. Third, we did not use the science and social science data for high school students since scores in these content areas were not available for el ementary and middle school students. Fourth, our preliminary analysis of SAT/9 reading and math data showed that a significant number of students scored at the first percentile (Table 3) on at least one of the tests. An examination of the distributions of all Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE ) scores showed that these students contributed to abnormal peaks in those distributions. SFUSD pe rsonnel indicated that most of these students had probably not made an effort in the testing, undermining the validity of the scores. Thus, we excluded these students from our analyses.4 4 Table 3 shows the number of stud ents who scored at the1st percentile on either the reading or the math test. While the total number of students (735) in this table may seem large, smaller numbers of students scored at the 1st percentile on a particular subtest. For exampl e, a total of 298 LEP students scored at the 1st percentile on reading.


Achievement Testing for English La nguage Learners, Ready or Not? 11 Table 3 Number of LEP students scoring at t he first percentile by grade, 2001 Grade level Language 2 3 4 567891011 Total Chinese 12 15 14 11155420205981 301 Spanish 64 42 53 28195935246150 435 Total 76 57 67 39341135544120131 736 Finally, state policy at the time of the stud y allowed test accommodations for first-year limited English proficient students; studentsÂ’ teachers made the determination as to whether accommodations were appropriate. Accommodations included extra or extended administration time, the reading of test items or questions, translation of test directions, the use of bilingual dictionaries. Table 4 shows 51% of 1st year ELL students were provided accommodations during this testing. Table 4 Number of first-year ELL students provided accommodations by language group, 2001 N Chinese Spanish Other ELLs All 1st-year ELLs All tested 415 318 253 986 With accommodations 229 191 82 502 % with accommodations 55% 60% 32% 51% Since accommodated test scores were not acceptable for the purpose of our study and the majority of the first-year LEP students were provided accommodations, the remaining LEP students would have composed a biased sample. Therefore, we excluded all first year LEP students in our study. After the exclusions, our study sample cons isted of 9925 Chineseand 4890 Spanish-speaking students in grades 2 through 11. Table 5 shows th e distribution of the English-language learning students in the sample. Table 5 Distribution of sample by language gr oup, language status, and grade level Grade level Language status 2 3 4 567891011 Total Chinese LEP 951 849 631 447295304270293276293 4609 RFEP 1 155 331 574769818678680708602 5316 Total 956 1004 962 102110641122948973984895 9925 Spanish LEP 592 624 543 431369322265245202147 3740 RFEP 0 17 58 180130145174160159127 1150 Total 592 641 601 611499467439405361274 4890


Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 16 No. 1 12 Analysis At the descriptive level, as Tables 6 and 7 s how in mean NCE SAT/9 scores in reading and math, Chinese-speaking students scored higher than the Spanish-speaking students, especially in mathematics, where the Chinese-speaking studen ts achieved well above the national norm. The differences in achievement profiles of the two grou ps are consistent with other findings. The data also show consistently larger standard deviations for the Chinese studentsÂ’ math scores at all grade levels indicating a flatter distribution of scores. Th is finding is consistent with other national data sets that show that while Chinese students represent a high proportion of high math achievers, they also have a high proportion of low achievers (Tsa ng, 1993). The difference in achievement of the two language groups provides sample vari ation with some generalizing consequences. Table 6 SAT/9 reading NCE scores (standar d deviations in parentheses), 2001 Grade level Language Status 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Chinese LEP+RFEP 55.5 (15.6) 49.8 (14.7) 53.0 (16.6) 50.0 (16.5) 52.5 (16.1) 52.7 (18.0) 49.4 (17.6) 43.5 (17.6) 43.0 (19.7) 43.3 (20.1) LEP 55.5 (15.6) 48.1 (14.3) 47.3 (15.4) 40.1 (14.0) 38.4 (13.3) 34.5 (13.5) 32.5 (12.6) 27.3 (12.7) 24.6 (12.7) 25.3 (14.5) RFEP 51.1 (NA) 59.1 (13.2) 63.9 (13.0) 57.7 (13.9) 57.9 (13.7) 59.5 (14.4) 56.1 (14.6) 50.5 (14.6) 50.1 (17.2) 52 (16.3) Spanish LEP+RFEP 37.0 (15.3) 36.5 (13.6) 37.0 (15.3) 38.3 (16.1) 36.3 (13.9) 33.6 (15.9) 36.7 (15.5) 30.0 (14.4) 30.0 (14.8) 33.2 (16.9) LEP 37.0 (15.3) 36.0 (13.4) 35.4 (14.7) 33.8 (13.4) 32.1 (12.0) 27.7 (12.5) 29.8 (12.6) 23.9 (11.5) 23.4 (10.7) 25.6 (13.2) RFEP NA (NA) 54.0 (7.5) 52.4 (12.2) 49.2 (16.8) 48.2 (11.8) 46.6 (15.1) 47.1 (13.6) 39.4 (13.3) 38.4 (15.1) 42.1 (16.4)


Achievement Testing for English La nguage Learners, Ready or Not? 13 Table 7 SAT/9 math NCE scores and standard deviations (in parentheses), 2001 Grade level Language Status 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Chinese LEP+RFEP 68.1 (18.2) 68.2 (17.4) 65.4 (18.7) 67.6 (18.2) 68.9 (18.2) 68.4 (19.3) 66.7 (19.2) 70.0 (19.4) 65.0 (19.7) 66.2 (20.3) LEP 68.2 (18.2) 66.4 17.3) 60.0 (18.5) 58.5 (17.3) 57.6 (18.3) 55.3 (18.3) 56.3 (19.2) 59.6 (19.8) 57.2 (19.0) 60.0 (20.9) RFEP 43.0 (NA) 78.3 (14.8) 75.7 (14.0) 74.8 (15.4) 73.4 (16.1) 73.5 (17.1) 70.9 (17.5) 74.6 (17.4) 68.4 (19.1) 69.7 (19.1) Spanish LEP+RFEP 43.3 (18.1) 43.3 (17.3) 41.0 (17.3) 43.1 (17.9) 41.5 (16.2) 38.0 (15.9) 38.6 (14.6) 43.4 (16.2) 39.5 (15.2) 39.0 (17.7) LEP 43.3 (18.1) 42.7 (16.9) 39.5 (16.8) 38.7 (16.0) 37.4 (14.1) 33.0 (12.7) 33.0 (11.8) 38.8 (13.9) 34.6 (12.6) 34.0 (15.0) RFEP NA (NA) 66.3 (13.7) 55.2 (15.0) 53.9 (17.9) 53.3 (15.9) 49.6 (16.7) 47.7 (14.2) 50.6 (17.1) 46.6 (16.0) 45.6 (18.9) Table 8 shows correlations between SAT/9 reading and math scores. In line with previous research (Bailey, 2000) that suggests that read ing items represent higher degrees of language difficulty than math items, we hypothesized that th e correlations for the ELLs would be lower than the national norming sample because math conten t and test items have fewer English language demands. If that were true, ELLsÂ’ performance on the test would be less dependent on their English reading ability and test scores. Table 8 confirms that the correlations between reading and math for both the Chinese and Spanish students are lower than those of the national sample. For the Chinese students, the correlations decrease from grade 2 to grade 11 while the correlations for the Spanish students did not show a consistent trend by grade. Table 8 Reading x math correlations, 2001 Grade level Language and status 2 3456789 1011 Chinese LEP + RFEP .70 . .59.56 Spanish LEP + RFEP .64 .66 .66 .74 .68 .69 .72 .66 .60 .67 National sample .73 . .65.70 With some evidence for this hypothesis, we examined the relationship of the reading scores with the two sub-scales of the math test: procedures and problem solving. The procedures subscales consist of items requiring fewer reading comprehension abilities/skills while the problem solving sub-scale includes word problems requiring more reading comprehension abilities/skills. We hypothesized that the correlation between reading and math/procedure would be lower than the correlation between reading and math/problem solvin g, as the test items in the procedure subscale have less (or no) reading in them compared to the test items in the probl em solving subscale.


Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 16 No. 1 14 Table 9 Reading x math sub-scale correlations, 20015 Grade level Language and scales 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Chinese LEP + RFEP R x math/procedure .50 .51 .61 .61 .57 .59 .53 R x math/problem solving .70 .71 .72 .70 .64 .67 .68 Spanish LEP + RFEP R x math/procedure .51 .52 .53 .66 .57 .56 .61 R x math/problem solving .63 .68 .68 .72 .69 .70 .70 National norming sample R x math/procedure .63 .66 .67 .68 .73 .67 .68 R x math/problem solving .71 .78 .77 .75 .79 .75 .74 The results of Table 9 confirmed our hypothe sis. The correlations between reading and math/problem solving are consistently higher than those between reading and math/procedure. An examination of the correlations for the national norm ing sample shows that the same holds true for these students, indicating that the need for high er reading abilities/skills when doing word problems is consistent across student populations. However, the differences in the correlations of the two math sub-scales with reading are much larger for the Chinese and Spanish-speaking students in our San Francisco sample than for students in the national sample. That is, the demands of reading abilities/skills have a greater effect on the Chine se and Spanish studentsÂ’ performance on the problem solving items. To answer the when in our research question, we looked at the length of time an ELL was enrolled in the school district. Assuming that ELLs are learning English in school, the number of years in school can also be viewed as a proxy for the length of time an ELL has been learning English. We identified the cohort of ELLs who entered the district in Kindergarten and had been continuously enrolled in SFUSD schools. Table 10 shows the Chinese and Spanish LEP students by the number of years in school by grade levels. As discussed earlier we excluded first year students from our sample; thus, these data represent students with SAT/9 scores used in our analyses. An examination of Table 10 shows that the majority (1 ,568) of the ELLs at 2nd grade had been in the school district for three years. These are the studen ts who entered SFUSD in kindergarten. Similarly, the majority (1,627 and 1,474) of LEP students in 3rd and 4th grades had been in the district for four and five years respectively. Across Table 10, cells with the largest numbers of students from grades 2 to 5 were selected for our analyses since they were large enough to track year to year retroactively. 5 SAT/9 does not provide procedures and problem solving subscales for 9th, 10th, and 11th grades.


Achievement Testing for English La nguage Learners, Ready or Not? 15 Table 10 Number of ELLs by grade levels by ye ars by language gr oup in SFUSD, 2001 Grade level Years ELL and language group 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 Years Chinese 27 16 26 19 31 31 44 86 72 55 Spanish 56 31 37 38 26 35 34 48 54 37 3 Years Chinese 927 31 25 27 43 53 60 88 90 105 Spanish 641 45 25 28 22 17 22 34 34 29 4 Years Chinese 26 992 34 27 37 37 49 44 65 100 Spanish 41 635 27 22 18 20 11 18 15 22 5 Years Chinese 4 14 901 30 25 23 22 39 37 35 Spanish 4 50 573 28 23 20 13 19 9 18 6 Years Chinese 2 1 22 945 35 28 29 29 31 42 Spanish 3 4 54 575 32 30 26 28 17 7 7 Years Chinese 1 2 3 21 905 35 37 40 37 43 Spanish 0 1 3 26 390 22 21 25 23 30 > 8 Years Chinese 1 0 2 4 33 957 736 738 793 712 Spanish 4 3 8 4 52 398 392 368 376 315


Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 16 No. 1 16 Once these sub-cohorts had been identified, we an alyzed their SAT/9 data by the number of years the students had been enrolled in the district, which represented the number of years the students had been acquiring English language prof iciency in school. We calculated the correlations of reading and math subscale scores from grades 2 through 5.6 Further, we examined the difference of the correlations between reading x math/procedu re and reading x math/problem solving. This difference allows us to operationalize hypot hesized language demands of the tests. Table 11 shows that the differences decrease as the students’ years in SFUSD increase (as they move up in their grade levels). The decreases were consistent for both the Chinese and Spanish ELLs. To identify the pattern across student populati ons, we plotted the differences in correlations, comparing those of the Chinese and Spanish-speaki ng students with the national norming sample. Figure 1 shows that the intercorrelational differen ces for all three groups converge as they spend more time in school. The Chinese ELLs in San Fr ancisco converge with the national sample at fourth grade (modally their fifth year in SFUSD) while the Spanish ELLs converge at fifth grade (modally their sixth year). Table 11 2001 ELLs’ reading x math/procedure correlation and math/problem solving correlation by years in SFUSD vs. national norming sample Length in ELL Language group and test combination 3 years4 years5 years6 years Chinese ELLs (1) Read. x math/proce dure .50 .53 .61 .60 (2) Read. x math/problem solving .70 .71 .72 .69 (2) – (1) .20 .18 .10 .08 Spanish ELLs (1) Read. x math/procedure .51 .51 .66 .66 (2) Read. x math/problem solving .64 .67 .52 .72 (2) – (1) .13 .16 .14 .07 National norming sample (1) Read. x math/proce dure .63 .66 .67 .68 (2) Read. x math/problem solving .71 .78 .77 .75 (2) – (1) .08 .12 .10 .07 6 We have also calculated and plotted differences in correlations for 6th graders. The results are similar to those of the 5th graders. However, there are significant dropouts (or transfers) among the ELLs from the district starting at the middle grade levels. We did not include the calculations from those grade levels because we do not know if the middle school population is comparable to the elementary school population.


Achievement Testing for English La nguage Learners, Ready or Not? 17 .050 .100 .150 .200 3rd yr4th yr5th yr6th yr Years in SFUSD (Grade Level = Yr. – 1) Chinese ELs Spanish ELs National Figure 1. Comparison of 2001 SFUSD ELLs with the national norming sample (reading x math/problem solving) (reading x math/p rocedure). See Table 11 for calculations. These results suggest that when Chinese ELLs are in their fifth year of acquiring English proficiency, the language demand of reading comp rehension abilities/skills for word problems is the same for them as for students in the national sample. Similarly, when Spanish ELLs are in their sixth year of acquiring English proficiency, the language demand of reading comprehension abilities/skills for word problems is the same for them as for students in the national sample. To confirm our findings, we replicated the analysis using the data from the spring 2002 test data when they became available. Table 12 2002 ELLs” reading x math/procedure correlation and math/problem solving correlation by years in SFUSD vs. national sample Length in ELL Language group and test combination 3 years4 years5 years6 years Chinese ELLs (1) Read. x math/p rocedure .53 .53 .59 .58 (2) Read. x math/problem solving .66 .67 .69 .69 (2) – (1) .13 .15 .10 .10 Spanish ELLs (1) Read. x math/procedure .50 .56 .60 .57 (2) Read. x math/problem solving .63 .72 .72 .65 (2) – (1) .13 .16 .12 .08 National norming sample (1) Read. x math/p rocedure .63 .66 .67 .68 (2) Read. x math/problem solving .71 .78 .77 .75 (2) – (1) .08 .12 .10 .07


Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 16 No. 1 18 .050 .100 .150 .200 3rd yr4th yr5th yr6th yr Years in SFUSD (Grade Level = Yr. – 1) Chinese ELs Spanish ELs National Figure 2. Comparison of 2002 SFUSD ELLs with the national norming sample (reading x math/problem solving) — (reading x math/p rocedure). See Table 11 for calculations. We again selected the ELLs from 2nd to 5th grades who had entered SFUSD in kindergarten. This cohort of students was completely different from the cohort of the 2001 data. Table 12 and Figure 2 show the results. The table an d figure showed results similar to the 2001 data. The Chinese ELLs’ differences in correlations conv erge with the national sample at fourth grade (fifth year in school) while the Spanish ELLs converge at fifth grade (sixth year in school). However, the graph of 2002 data does show one discrepan cy with that of the 2001 data. The Chinese ELLs’ difference diverges from the national sample after converging at 4th grade. Further analysis is necessary to understand this difference. Discussion This article suggests a way of capturing the language demands on testing and the difficulties faced by English language learners. One could vi ew the difference in correlations between reading and math/procedures scores, on the one hand, and reading and math/problem solving scores, on the other as a measure of the language demands of a test. We tentatively label this difference as a Language Demand Index (LDI). One should keep in mind that language demands on testing affect all students, not just ELLs. Our results showed that the Language Demand Index lies between .07 and .12 for the national sample of 2nd to 5th grade students. This positive range suggests that the English language demands of the word problems in the SAT/9 problem solving subscale affect fluent English speakers, too. However, the Eng lish language demands of word problems have a larger effect on ELLs’ performance on the SAT/9 pr oblem solving subscale at earlier grades. This result confirms what many educators have ar gued, that the English language demands of standardized tests render the tests inaccurate in measuring ELLs’ achievement of subject matter. Our results also showed that the effects of the English language demands of the problem solving subscale on ELLs gradually decrease as E LLs accumulate more years of schooling and move up the grades. If we assume that ELLs are acquiring English language proficiency in school and their years of schooling can serve as a proxy for their English proficiency, our results imply that the


Achievement Testing for English La nguage Learners, Ready or Not? 19 effects of the English language demands of the word problems decrease as students became more English proficient. The effects of the English language demands on ELLs reduce gradually and eventually become the same as for the students in the national norm sample. This trend is true for both the Chinese-speaking and Spanish-speaking ELLs even though they have very different achievement profiles on the SAT/9 (Tables 5 and 6) with both groups perf orming significantly different from each other and from the national sample. Nevertheless, the Chinese-speaking students took less time to reach parity with the national norm sample in reducing the e ffect of English language demands of the SAT/9 math/problem solving subscale. They reached parity with the nationa l norm sample at 4th grade or after five years of schooling in SFUSD. As a population, the Spanis h-speaking students required one more year in reducing the effect of English language demands of the SAT/9 math/Problem solving subscale and reached parity with the national norm at 5th gr ade or after six years of schooling in SFUSD The different patterns of correlations on the two SAT/9 math subscales suggest that while both tapped studentsÂ’ math abilities, an analysis of test items from math problem solving and math procedures would probably show that math problem solving requires students to engage in more extensive linguistic processing than when completing math procedures. The data from our study suggest that it took 5 to 6 years of instruction for ELLs to overcome the language demands of mathematics word problems in standardized achievement test. This result is true for both the Chinese and Spanish-speaking groups which have very different achievement profiles with the former achieving significantly above the national norm and the latter significantly lower than the national norm in mathematics. It is important to note that our results showed that the Chinese-speaking ELLs were affected by the language interference of the word problem s even when they were achieving significantly above the national norm in mathematics. However, our results also show that the Chinese-speaking ELLs took one less year than the Spanish-speaking students to reach parity with students in the national norm. We do not know if this is related to the different achievement profiles of the two groups. Does the higher achievement of the Chinese-speaking ELLs in mathematics allow them to overcome the language demands of the word problems in a shorter time? Or is the difference a function of the different education programs for Chineseand Spanish-speaking ELLs enrolled in SFUSD? In interpreting these findings, the research setting, SFUSD, should be recognized as unique in state and national contexts for being a longti me proponent of English as a Second Language programs and bilingual education. Yet another po ssibility may be that Chinese-speaking ELLs attend more closely to the formalistic nature of stan dardized tests than Spanish-speaking ELLs, thus illustrating BachmanÂ’s (1990, 2002) contention of an interaction between testing method and language learner background. Our findings also have two important limitations First, since the findings are based only on mathematics achievement tests, we do not know th e effect of language demands of achievement tests in other content areas. The academic language of many content areas is different than that of mathematics. Some might argue that the academic la nguage of other content areas is more difficult, and ELLs might need additional time to overcome the language demands of these subject areas. Second, our study is based on data of students who entered kindergarten in SFUSD and started acquiring English proficiency at an early age. We do not know if the findings are the same for ELLs who enter US schools at later ages. Additional analyses of students entering at other grade levels are also needed. This studyÂ’s findings support the body of rese arch which has shown that English learners need five to seven years before they can attain the academic literacy necessary to negotiate in mainstream classrooms, but there remains a need to look more closely at specific sub-populations of English learners. Achievement scores of quickly recla ssified English learners need to be traced with


Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 16 No. 1 20 different content area tests. In addition, the achiev ement levels of the population of English learners that does not reclassify quickly needs to be traced by grade level. The findings of our study also suggest looking more closely at how English learners are functioning in classrooms, particularly with regard to their oral language interaction and participation with peers and teachers. Hawkins (2004) articula tes the need for such research, emphasizing the importance of examining interaction strategies of En glish learners as well as the impact of their socio-cultural backgrounds on their ability to learn and engage in the various discourse communities of the classroom and school, whether it is at the el ementary, middle or high school level, since these participant structures can provide an avenue to acad emic engagement in content areas. In addition, Bailey and Butler’s (2003) work towards creating a common framework for assessing academic language proficiency (ALP) incorporating understand ing of school language demands, standards and testing requirements gets at the need for a broade r and more equitable definition of evaluating ELL students’ English language and ac ademic language proficiency. Schools need to be held accountable to ensur e ELLs are receiving appropriate services. The results of this study support recommendations for creating more flexible approaches in accountability systems to determine the achievement of ELLs (e.g., Butler & Stevens, 2001; Gottlieb, 2003; Kim & Sunderman, 2005; McKay, 2005). To comply with reporting requirements of NCLB, policies need to be adapted to permit accountab ility systems to use multiple indicators and both state-wide and local assessments keyed to the same set of academic standards. For example, Gottlieb (2003) advocates the use of multiple indicators, suggesting that schools use teacher-based assessment as part of a system of large-scale testing, particul arly for ELLs beginning to learn English. Such a school-based approach would require setting up st andard testing conditions to ensure equity and rigor such as making standard prompts available to teachers and collecting content-related language samples on a regular basis. McKay (2005) echoes Gottlieb’s focus on teacher-based assessment in her recommendations for assessing elementary-level English learners. In articulating the advantages for this approach, she notes that a teacher assessor is familiar with the range of abilities students have demonstrated over time, and both teacher and students are provided with immediate feedback, thus providing opportunities for looping the assessment information back into instruction and program design in a more timely way. As with Gottlieb’s proposal, suc h an approach would need to adopt assessment procedures ensuring the production of “trustworthy data” (p. 349) for use at various schooling levels. This study also supports calls for policy changes in the formulation of annual yearly progress targets for schools under NCLB (Forum on Educational Accountability, 2007). Today, states establish targets indicating the per cent of students that should reach academic proficiency each year. These “percent-proficient targets” increase yearly, and schools and district are judged as successful if the percent of students performing at or above the targets is equal to or greater than the target that year. Schools and districts with large populations of ELLs are being labeled as unsuccessful because many students in the process of acquiring Englis h are not able to meet the percentproficient targets. NCLB creates a structure that judges sc hools not to be meeting Ad equate Yearly Progress even when the schools are offering viable, comprehensive programs in which students are making substantial gains from year to year toward the target. Our finding is that it takes time for ELLs to acquire the English necessary to perform meaningfu l on the standardized achievement tests, and this finding supports accountability models that include growth measures so the schools get credit for the progress ELLs and others make over time. In addition to changing the approach to asse ssment for accountability, the results suggest that policies with high-stakes consequences for ELLs such as high-school graduation requirements based on standardized tests alone should be re-exa mined. Alternative and multiple measures that


Achievement Testing for English La nguage Learners, Ready or Not? 21 take into account studentsÂ’ level of English la nguage proficiency may be more appropriate for determining whether or not ELLs are meeting expected high levels of achievement in content areas. Finally, our difficulty in answering our original research question illustrates the complexity of understanding the academic achievements of ELLs. In light of this complexity, we need to consider better ways to convey important but abstruse educational findings to policy and curriculum makers, the media and even the general public. Understanding how to communicate with major stakeholders about the body of knowledge that exists in the educational research community with regard to how ELLs acquire academic literacy and how best to us e standardized tests to assess the achievement of ELLs is a critical step in ensuring that ELLs have an opportunity to participate equitably in our educational systems.


Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 16 No. 1 22 References Abedi, J., Leon, S., & Mirocha J. (2000). Examining ELL and non-ELL student performance differences and their relationship to backgrou nd factors: Continued analyses of extant data. In E.L. Baker (Ed.), The validity of administering la rge-scale content assessments to English language learne rs: an investigation from three perspectives (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evalua tion, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing New York: Oxford University Press. Bachman, L. F. (2002). Alternative interpretati ons of alternative assess ments: some validity issues in educational performance assessments. Educational Measurement 21 (3), 5–18. Bachman, L. F., & Pa lmer, A. S. (1996). Fundamental considerations in language testing Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bailey, A. L. (2000). Language analysis of stan dardized achievement test s: Considerations in the assessment of English language le arners. In E. L. Baker (Ed.), The validity of administering large-scale content assessments to English language learners: an investigation from three perspectives (pp. 85–106). Los Angeles: Univ ersity of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Bailey, A. L. (Ed.). (2006). The language demands of school. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Bailey, A. L., & Butler, F. A. (2003). An evidentiary framework for operationalizing academic language for broad application to K–12 education: A design document CSE Report 611. Los Angeles: University of California, Nati onal Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Studen t Testing (CRESST). Bailey, A. L., Butler F. A., La Framenta, C., & Ong, C. (2001). Towards the characterization of academic language in upper el ementary science classrooms Los Angeles: University of California, National Center fo r Research on Evaluation, St andards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Butler, F. & Stevens, R. (2001). Standardized assessment of the content knowledge of English language learners K–12: Curre nt trends and new dilemmas. Language Testing, 19 (4), 409–427. California Department of Education (2006). Schools chief Jack O’conne ll announces more student success on California high school exit exam [news release]. Sacramento: Author. Retrieved August 5, 2006, from ht tp:// e/yr06/yr06rel61.asp. Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical ba ses of communicative a pproaching to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.


Achievement Testing for English La nguage Learners, Ready or Not? 23 Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the t heory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Collier, V. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second la nguage for academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21 (4), 617–641. Collier V. (1995). Acquiring a second language for school. Directions in Language and Education 1:4. Washington, D.C.: Nation al Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Retrieved January 17, 2003 from http://www.ncbe ncbepubs/directions/04.htm. Collier, V., & Thomas, W. P. (1988). Acquisition of cognitive academi c language proficiency: A sixyear study Paper presented at the An nual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Cummins, J. (1981a). Age on arrival and immi grant second language learning in Canada: A reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 2 (2), 132–149. Cummins, J. (1981b). The role of primary la nguage development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education, Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles: California State University, Los Angeles, Ev aluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center. Cummins, J., & Nakajima, K. (1987). Age of arriva l, length of residence, and interdependence of literacy skills among Japanese im migrant students. In Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummings, J., and Swain, M. (Eds.), The development of bilingual profic iency: Final repo rt volume III: Social context and age (pp. 183–202). Toronto, Cana da: Modern Language Centre, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED291248.) Douglas, D. (2000). Assessing language for specific purposes: Theory and practice Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. E. (2000). What teachers need to know about language Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Li nguistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED447722.) Forum on Educational Accountability, Ex pert Panel on Assessment. (2007). Assessment and accountability for improving schools and learni ng: Principles and recommendations for federal law and state and local assessments Cambridge, MA: Author. Retrieved June 29, 2007, from Gottlieb, M. (2003). Large-scale assessment of English Lang uage Learners. Addressing educational accountability in K–12 settings. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. K., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? (Policy Report 2000–1). Santa Barbar a, CA: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute (Policy Report 2000–1). (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED443275.)


Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 16 No. 1 24 Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummings, J., & Swain, M. (1990). The development of second language proficiency New York: Cambridge University Press. Hawkins, M.R. (2004). Researching English la nguage and literacy development in schools. Educational Researcher, 33 (3), 14–25. Heubert, J. P., & Hauser R. M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion and retention Washington, D.C.: National Academies Pr ess. Retrieved January 17, 2003, from 0309062802/html/index.html Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative compe tence. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 35–71). New York: Hol t, Reinhart & Winston. Kim, J. S., & Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Measurin g academic proficiency under the No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational Researcher 34 (8), 3–13. La Celle-Peterson, M. W., & Rive ra, C. (1994). Is it real for al l kids? A framework for equitable assessment policies for En glish Language Learners. Harvard Educational Review, 64 (1), 55–75. Lado, R. (1961). Language testing. New York: McGraw-Hill. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle. Lau v. Nichols 414 U.S. 563 (1974). McKay, P. (2006). Assessing young language learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. North, B. (2000). The development of a common framework scale of language proficiency New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Ramsey, C., & Wright, E. (1974). Ag e and second language learning. Journal of Social Psychology, 94 115–121. San Francisco Unified School District. (2002). The report of the San Fr ancisco Unified School District Bilingual Education Task Force San Francisco: Author. Retrieved January 14, 2008, from language_academy/draftH.pdf Scarcella, R. (2003). Academic English: A conceptual framework Technical Report 2003–1. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California Li nguistic Minority Research Institute. Schleppegrell, M. J., Achugar, M., & Oteiza, T. (2004). The grammar of history: Enhancing content-based instruction through a functional focus on language. TESOL Quarterly 38 (1), 67–93. Stevens, R. A., Butler, F. A., & Castellon-Wellington, M. (2000). Academic language and content assessment: Measuring the progress of English language learners (ELLs) CSE Technical


Achievement Testing for English La nguage Learners, Ready or Not? 25 Report 552. Los Angeles: University of Ca lifornia, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing (CRESST). Tsang, S. L. (1993). Asian American educat ion and the national education goals. In The National education goal 3: The issu es of language and culture Proceedings of the Symposium convened by Center for Ap plied Linguistics. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Wiley, T. G. (1996). Literacy and language diversity in the United States. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems.


Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 16 No. 1 26 About the Author Sau-Lim Tsang ARC Associates Anne Katz School for International Training Jim Stack San Francisco Unified School District Email: Sau-Lim Tsang is the executive director of ARC Associates, a non-profit organization that focuses on improving the ed ucation of diverse student grou ps. He is also the executive director of Oakland Unity High School, a charter schoo l in Oakland, California. Anne Katz has worked for over t wenty years as a research er and evaluator with educational projects invo lving linguistically and culturally diverse studen ts. As a lecturer at the School for International Training in Brattleboro, Vermont, she teaches courses in curriculum, assessment, and evaluation. Jim Stack is the former Director of Achievem ent Assessments for the San Francisco Unified School District. Dr. Stack was the 2003 Pr esident of the Cali fornia Educational Research Association and is currently serving a three-year term (20 06–2009) on the TESOL Board of Directors.


Achievement Testing for English La nguage Learners, Ready or Not? 27 EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES Editor: Sherman Dorn, University of South Florida Production Assistant: Chris Murre ll, Arizona State University General questions about ap propriateness of topics or particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Sherman Dorn, Editorial Board Noga Admon Jessica Allen Cheryl Aman Mi chael W. Apple David C. Berliner Damian Betebenner Robert Bickel Robert Bifulco Anne Black Henry Braun Nick Burbules Marisa Cannata Casey Cobb Arnold Danzig Linda Darling-Hammond Chad d'Entremont John Diamond Amy Garrett Dikkers Tara Donohue Gunapa la Edirisooriya Camille Farrington Gustavo Fischman Chris Frey Richard Garlikov Misty Ginicola Gene V Glass Harvey Goldstein Jake Gross Hee Kyung Hong Aimee Howley Craig B. Howley William Hunter Jaekyung Lee Benjamin Levin Jennifer Lloyd Sarah Lubienski Les McLean Roslyn Arlin Mickelson Heinrich Mintrop Shereeza Mohammed Michele Moses Sharon L. Nichols Sean Reardon A.G. Rud Ben Superfine Cally Waite John Weathers Kevin Welner Ed Wiley Terrence G. Wiley Kyo Yamashiro Stuart Yeh


Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 16 No. 1 28 EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES New Scholar Board English Language Articles 2007–2009 Wendy Chi Corinna Crane Jenny DeMonte Craig Esposito Timothy Ford Samara Foster Melissa L. Freeman Kimberly Howard Nils Kauffman Felicia Sanders Kenzo Sung Tina Trujillo Larisa Warhol


Achievement Testing for English La nguage Learners, Ready or Not? 29 A rchivos A nalticos de P olticas E ducativas Editores Gustavo E. Fischman Arizona State University Pablo Gentili Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro Asistentes editoriales: Rafael O. Serrano (ASU) & Lucia Terra (UBC) Hugo Aboites UAM-Xochimilco, Mxico Armando Alcnt ara Santuario CESU, Mxico Claudio Almonacid Avila UMCE, Chile Dalila Andrad e de Oliveira UFMG, Brasil Alejandra Birgin FLACSO-UBA, Argentina Sigfredo Chiroque IPP, Per Mariano Fernndez Enguita Universidad de Salamanca. Espaa Gaudncio Frigotto UERJ, Brasil Roberto Leher UFRJ, Brasil Nilma Lino Gomes UFMG, Brasil Pia Lindquist Wong CSUS, USA Mara Loreto Egaa PIIE, Chile Alma Maldonado University of Arizona, USA Jos Felipe Martnez Fernndez UCLA, USA Imanol Ordorika IIE-UNAM, Mxico Vanilda Paiva UERJ, Brasil Miguel A. Pereyra Universidad de Granada, Espaa Mnica Pini UNSAM, Argentina Romualdo Portella de Oliveira Universidade de So Paulo, Brasil Paula Razquin UNESCO, Francia Jos Ignacio Rivas Flores Universidad de Mlaga, Espaa Diana Rhoten SSRC, USA Jos Gimeno Sacristn Universidad de Valencia, Espaa Daniel Schugurensky UT-OISE Canad Susan Street CIESAS Occidente,Mxico Nelly P. Stromquist USC, USA Daniel Surez LPP-UBA, Argentina Antonio Teodoro Universidade Lusfona, Lisboa Jurjo Torres Santom Universidad de la Corua, Espaa Llian do Valle UERJ, Brasil


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.