English Language Proficiency Assessment in the Nation

[Pages:195]English Language Proficiency Assessment in the Nation:

CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE PRACTICE

Edited by Jamal Abedi

U N I V E R S I T Y O F C A L I F O R N I A , D AV I S ? S C H O O L O F E D U C AT I O N

Copyright ? 2007 The Regents of the University of California

The work reported herein was supported in part by the National Research and Development Centers, PR/Award Number R305A050004, as administered by the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences (IES).

The findings and opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of the Institute of Education Sciences, or the U.S. Department of Education.

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments

T his study required the participation of all fifty states, their assessment directors, particularly those involved with the NCLB Title III assessments. Their cooperation and patience is much appreciated, and their dedication to educating young people is greatly admired. We cannot thank the states enough for their collaboration with this project.

Many people generously contributed to the development of this report. We are especially indebted to the chapter authors for their invaluable contributions and for their patience throughout this process. Sue Rigney from the U.S. Department of Education contributed greatly to the quality of this work by providing excellent comments and suggestions. We are so grateful for her support, advice and contribution to this report. Kathleen Leos of the U.S. Department of Education also provided useful comments. We appreciate her support as well. We are also so grateful to Dean Harold Levine for his support, Veena Nambiar, Susan Porter, Jisel Vega, and Lisa Sullivan for their contributions to this work.

Veena Nambiar (a UC Davis doctoral student) helped in this study by reading the initial version of some of the chapters of this report and by providing useful comments and suggestions. Additionally, she collected information on most of the pre-NCLB English language proficiency (ELP) tests and helped with Chapter 7 (Overview of Existing English Language Proficiency Tests) of this report. She also contacted many states to inquire about their English Language Proficiency (ELP) assessments policies and procedures and check the accuracy of the data collected for this project related to their states.

Susan Porter (a UC Davis doctoral student) provided assistance to this project by reading some of the chapters and providing useful comments. In addition, she contributed greatly by collecting and summarizing information on pre-NCLB assessments (Chapter 7). She also provided literature review and helped with the definition of the term ELP as opposed to other commonly used terms such as ELD and ESL.

Jisel Vega (a UC Davis doctoral student) contributed greatly to this project by reading the revised chapters, helping with data collection for the existing ELP assessment (pre-NCLB) and by intensive efforts in contacting states and incorporating revisions suggested by the states into the document (Chapter 7). In addition, she contributed greatly in writing Chapter 7.

Lisa Sullivan (a UC Davis doctoral student) contributed to this project by reading different chapters and providing useful comments and suggestions and also by helping with the information regarding existing ELP assessments. She also provided invaluable editorial and formatting comments and suggestions for the entire report.

Mary Courtney (an independent writer) read the entire report and provided invaluable editorial comments and suggestions.

Rita Pope (project coordinator) joined the project at a later phase and provided invaluable assistance in coordinating efforts and proofreading the final version of the report in preparation to print.

We are also grateful to Donna Justice (Director of Communications at the UC Davis School of Education) for her assistance with the processing and printing the report. Her contribution is greatly appreciated.

We also acknowledge the contribution of the following:

Brenda Rinard (a UC Davis doctoral student)

Karine Sarkissyan (a UC Davis student)

Our colleagues from the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing at UCLA

English Language Proficiency Assessment in the nation i

Acknowledgments

Authors and Contributors

Jim Bauman, Center for Applied Linguistics Tim Boals, University of Wisconsin ? Madison Michael Bunch, Measurement Incorporated Alyssa Buteux, Educational Testing Service Mathina Calliope, American Institutes for Research Yeonsuk Cho, Ballard Tighe Elizabeth Cranley, University of Wisconsin ? Madison Steve Ferrara, American Institutes for Research Richard Figueroa, University of California, Davis David J. Francis, University of Houston Cathy George, California Department of Education Margo Gottlieb, Illinois Resource Center Maurice Hauck, Educational Testing Service Kevin Joldersma, Measurement Incorporated Dorry Kenyon, Center for Applied Linguistics Rebecca Kopriva, C-SAVE Julia Lara, Consultant Robert Linquanti, WestEd Ginger Mathews, Measured Progress Christine Mills, Educational Testing Service Veena Nambiar, University of California, Davis Susan G. Porter, University of California, Davis Theodor Rebarber, AccountabilityWorks Mabel O. Rivera, Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics Paul Rybinski, Educational Testing Service Robin Scarcella, University of California, Irvine Diana Sewell, Louisiana Department of Education Lisa Sullivan, University of California, Davis Jisel Vega, University of California, Davis Joyce Wang, Educational Testing Service Phoebe Winter, Consultant

ii UNI V E RSITY OF CALIFORNIA , D AV IS , SCHOOL OF E D UCATION

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Click on topic below to jump to that page

Chapter 1

English Language Proficiency Assessment and Accountability under NCLB Title III: An Overview Jamal Abedi.......................................................................................................................3

Chapter 2

Principles Underlying English Language Proficiency Tests and Academic Accountability for ELLs David J. Francis and Mabel O. Rivera ............................................................................. 13

Chapter 3

Developing the Mountain West Assessment Ginger Mathews.............................................................................................................. 33

Chapter 4The English Language Development Assessment (ELDA) Julia Lara, Steve Ferrara, Mathina Calliope, Diana Sewell, Phoebe Winter, Rebecca Kopriva, Michael Bunch, and Kevin Joldersma...................................................... 47

Chapter 5

Designing the Comprehensive English Language Learner Assessment (CELLA) for the Benefit of Users Theodor Rebarber, Paul Rybinski, Maurice Hauck, Robin Scarcella, Alyssa Buteux, Joyce Wang, Christine Mills, and Yeonsuk Cho............................................. 63

Chapter 6Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State to State for English Language Learners (ACCESS for ELLs?) Jim Bauman, Tim Boals, Elizabeth Cranley, Margo Gottlieb, and Dorry Kenyon................... 81

Chapter 7Overview of Existing English Language Proficiency Tests Susan G. Porter and Jisel Vega................................................................................................ 93

Chapter 8

Establishing and Utilizing an NCLB Title III Accountability System: California's Approach and Findings to Date Robert Linquanti and Cathy George..................................................................................... 105

Chapter 9 Summary and Recommendations Jamal Abedi................................................................................................................. 121

Appendix A Overview of Existing English Language Proficiency Tests: Full Version of Chapter 7........................................................................................... 133

English Language Proficiency Assessment in the nation 1

2 UNI V E RSITY OF CALIFORNIA , D AV IS , SCHOOL OF E D UCATION

Chapter 1

Chapter 1

English Language Proficiency Assessment and Accountability under NCLB Title III: An Overview

Jamal Abedi

U nderstanding the issues concerning instruction, assessment and classification of English language learner (ELL) students is of the utmost importance given the fact that ELL students are the fastest growing student population in the United States. Between 1990 and 1997, the number of United States residents born outside the country increased by 30%, from 19.8 million to 25.8 million (Hakuta & Beatty, 2000). According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, approximately 5 million ELL students were enrolled in schools, representing an estimated 10% of all public school students (GAO, 2006).

The definition of an ELL [or limited English proficient (LEP)] student, as outlined in The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, (NCLB, 2002) is: (a) age 3 through 21; (b) enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary or secondary school; (c) not born in the United States or whose native language is not English; (d) a Native America, Alaskan Native, or a native resident of the outlying areas; (e) from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on an individual's level of English language proficiency; (f) migratory and comes from an environment where English is not the dominant language; and (g) has difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language that may deny the individual the ability to meet the state's proficient level of achievement and the ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where English is the language of instruction, or to participate fully in society (NCLB, 2002, Title IX).

The above definition is primarily based on two sources of information: (1) students' language background

information and (2) their level of English proficiency. Information on the language background of students (e.g., country of birth, native language, and type and amount of a language other than English spoken at home) comes mainly from the Home Language Survey (HLS). Information on the students' level of English proficiency in speaking, reading, writing, listening and comprehension comes from existing tests of English language proficiency.

Literature on the assessment of ELL students has raised concerns over the validity of information from these sources (see, for example, Abedi, in press). The goal of this report is to present a national view of the status of English language proficiency assessments since, as it will be elaborated later in this chapter, the results of these assessments

English Language Proficiency Assessment in the nation 3

Chapter 1

play a vital role in ELL students' academic careers in many ways including their classification, assessment of their content knowledge, curriculum planning and graduation. We start first with the definition of the concept of English language proficiency (ELP).

English language proficiency (ELP) standards, English language development (ELD) standards, and English as a second language (ESL) standards are terms that have been used, often interchangeably, to describe state- or expert-adopted standards that guide the instruction of English learners towards the achievement of English language proficiency. Each of these terms, however, came into use during different time periods, and each was originally based upon constructs that reflected contemporary policies and theoretical frameworks for English learner education.

English as a second language (ESL) is an umbrella term used to describe any one of a number of instructional approaches designed to help English learners acquire English fluency. Most commonly in use during much of the 1990s, ESL was used to describe alternative or supplemental models to bilingual education. Oftentimes, ESL was used to describe sheltered or pull-out English instruction for learners with limited English proficiency (Garcia, 2005). An example of a set of ESL standards developed during this time period is the TESOL ESL Standards (TESOL, 1997).

Since the late 1990s, ELD has more widespread use than ESL. The former denotes "instruction designed specifically for English language learners to develop their listening, speaking, reading and writing skills in English" (NCELA, 2007). In any case, ESL and ELD are used interchangeably, and are both based broadly upon theories of second language acquisition (Wiley & Hartung-Cole, 1998). The California English Language Development (ELD) Standards (CDE, 1999) are examples of standards developed and designed to measure English learners' progress in English language literacy.

While English language proficiency has been used for many years to describe benchmarks and levels of English learners' competencies in speaking, writing, listening, and reading, the expression English language proficiency standards appears to have become commonplace only since the passage of NCLB and has been adopted by many states that have developed and/or adopted standards specifically to comply with the NCLB Title III provisions. The newest version of the TESOL Standards (2006) reflects the shift towards using this expression, and TESOL adopted this terminology in its recent update of its national standards.

The NCELA glossary (2007) indicates that ELP is "often used in conjunction with AMAOs [Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives outlined in NCLB and Title III guidelines]". In spite of these differences, they are used interchangeably in much of the literature on standardsbased outcomes and measures for English learners under NCLB. In this collection of reports and discussions on ELP assessment for ELL classification and progress reporting, several of these expressions will be used interchangeably.

Assessing ELLs

The fair and valid assessment of ELL students is among the top priorities on the national educational agenda (Francis, Rivera, Lesaux, Kieffer & Rivera, 2006). To provide a fair assessment for every student in the nation and to assure an equal educational opportunity for all, the NCLB Act mandates reporting of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for all students including four major subgroups, one of which is ELL students. Additionally, NCLB Title III requires states to assess ELL students' level of English language proficiency using reliable and valid measures (NCLB; 2002). Measurement of proficiency is also needed to guide instruction, assessment, classification, placement, progress reporting, and fair decision-making in the accommodation of ELL students.

Assessment impacts ELL students' academic lives in many different ways. In the classroom, assessment of ELL students affects planning of their curriculum and instruction. In particular, ELP assessment plays a major part in the classification and grouping of ELL students. A student's level of English proficiency serves as the most important criteria for the classification that determines their level of proficiency in English and guides the prescription of any needed instruction and instructional materials.

While most states have used commercially-available off-the-shelf ELP tests over the years to address this wide array of measurement needs--and some currently use them to fulfill Title III requirements--these assessments' constructs and consequential validity have long been points of discussion (Abedi, in press; De ?vila, 1990; Linquanti, 2001; NRC, 2000; Vald?s & Figueroa, 1994, Del Vecchio & Guerrero, 1995; Zehler et al., 1994). For example, reviews of some of the most commonly used language proficiency tests reveal differences in the types of tasks the tests cover and the specific item content of the tests.

The reviews also suggest that these tests are based on a variety of different theoretical emphases prevalent at the

4 UNI V E RSITY OF CALIFORNIA , D AV IS , SCHOOL OF E D UCATION

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download