High Stakes Testing: Issues, Implications, and Remedies for English Language Learners

2008 ◽  
Vol 78 (2) ◽  
pp. 260-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald W. Solórzano
Keyword(s):  
English Language Learners ◽  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
English Language ◽  
High Stakes Testing ◽  
Proficiency Tests ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
High Stakes Tests

This article discusses the issues and implications of high stakes tests on English language learners (ELLs). As ELLs are being included in all high stakes assessments tied to accountability efforts (e.g., No Child Left Behind), it is crucial that issues related to the tests be critically evaluated relative to their use. In this case, academic achievement tests are analyzed relative to their norming samples and validity to determine their usefulness to ELLs. Also, commonly used language proficiency tests are examined relative to definitions of proficiency, technical quality, alignment with criteria for language classification and reclassification, and their academic predictive validity. Based on the synthesis of the literature, the author concludes that high stakes tests as currently constructed are inappropriate for ELLs, and most disturbing is their continued use for high stakes decisions that have adverse consequences. The author provides recommendations for addressing the issues related to high stakes tests and ELLs.

Hidden Benefits and Unintended Consequences of No Child Left Behind Policies for Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing

2007 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 460-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie W. Cawthon
Keyword(s):  
English Language Learners ◽  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
English Language ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
The Impact

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) creates a high-stakes environment by holding schools accountable for how all students perform on state assessments, including students with disabilities and students who are English Language Learners. The focus of this article is on the impact of NCLB on students who are deaf or hard of hearing (SDHH). The SDHH have diverse linguistic characteristics and are served in a range of educational settings. The purpose of this article is to explore the hidden benefits and consequences of NCLB policy on SDHH in two areas: assessment and accountability. Drawing on findings from the author’s program of research, the article illustrates areas where policy may differentially affect students depending on their state of residence and educational setting. The discussion ends with a summary of benefits and hidden consequences of NCLB for SDHH.

Testing English language learners under No Child Left Behind

2011 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 323-341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael B. Bunch
Keyword(s):  
English Language Learners ◽  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
English Language ◽  
Content Standards ◽  
Test Items ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
Grant Program ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Title Iii

Title III of Public Law 107-110 (No Child Left Behind; NCLB) provided for creation of assessments of English language learners (ELLs) and established, through the Enhanced Assessment Grant program, a platform from which four consortia of states developed ELL tests aligned to rigorous statewide content standards. Those four tests (ACCESS for ELLs, CELLA, ELDA, and MWA) are now in use in one or more states, along with a host of other commercially available or locally developed tests. The tests (those developed by consortia as well as the others) are quite similar in many ways, principally in their contents: Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing. Most measure these domains with a combination of multiple-choice (MC) and open-ended (OE) test items. This article provides an overview to the four consortium-developed tests as well as an in-depth analysis of one representative example. It also provides a summary of the characteristics of four commercially available tests. Not surprisingly, the four commercially available tests are rather similar to one another and to the consortium-developed tests in terms of content, psychometric characteristics, and development. The primary difference between the two sets is that the commercially available tests tend to report percentile ranks as well as proficiency levels. Now that the Race to the Top program is in place, we face many of the same challenges we faced a decade ago when NCLB was passed. While the Enhanced Assessment Grant competition emphasized summative assessment, the latest competition emphasizes formative assessment, which gives rise to the hope that educators can not only discover students’ strengths and weaknesses with these new tests, but do so in a timely manner and have opportunities to use the information constructively. Current work by at least one organization is encouraging in this regard.

scholarly journals The impact of language and high-stakes testing policies on elementary school English language learners in Arizona.

2006 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wayne E. Wright ◽  
Daniel Choi
Keyword(s):  
Elementary School ◽  
English Language Learners ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
English Language ◽  
High Stakes Testing ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
Ell Students ◽  
Sheltered English Immersion ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Sheltered English

This article reports the results of a survey of third-grade teachers of English Language Learners (ELLs) in Arizona regarding school language and accountability policies—Proposition 203, which restricts bilingual education and mandates sheltered English Immersion; the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB); and Arizona LEARNS, the state’s high-stakes testing and accountability program. The instrument, consisting of 126 survey questions plus open-ended interview question, was designed to obtain teacher’s views, to ascertain the impact of these polices, and to explore their effectiveness in improving the education of ELL students. The survey was administered via telephone to 40 teacher participants from different urban, rural and reservation schools across the state. Each participant represents the elementary school in their respective school district which has the largest population of ELL students. Analyses of both quantitative and qualitative data reveal that these policies have mostly resulted in confusion in schools throughout the state over what is and is not allowed, and what constitutes quality instruction for ELLs, that there is little evidence that such policies have led to improvements in the education of ELL students, and that these policies may be causing more harm than good. Specifically, teachers report they have been given little to no guidance over what constitutes sheltered English immersion, and provide evidence that most ELL students in their schools are receiving mainstream sink-or-swim instruction. In terms of accountability, while the overwhelming majority of teachers support the general principle, they believe that high-stakes tests are inappropriate for ELLs and participants provided evidence that the focus on testing is leading to instruction practices for ELLs which fail to meet their unique linguistic and academic needs. The article concludes with suggestions for needed changes to improve the quality of education for ELLs in Arizona.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document