English Language Learners and High-Stakes Tests:
An Overview of the Issues. ERIC Digest.
by Coltrane, Bronwyn
Recent legislation and education initiatives in the United States have
emphasized the role of high-stakes testing in reform movements designed
to increase accountability for schools and improve student achievement.
Because English language learners (ELLs) represent an increasing percentage
of students enrolled in U.S. public schools (Kindler, 2002), this group
of learners must be considered when such initiatives are implemented. Educators
must make critical decisions concerning how to include ELLs in high-stakes
tests in ways that are fair and that address their needs. Factors to consider
include the selection of appropriate testing accommodations and the accurate
interpretation of test results.
THE ROLE OF HIGH-STAKES TESTS
Loschert (2000) describes high-stakes tests as assessments in which
"students, teachers, administrators, and entire school systems must account
for student performance" (p. 1). Tests that are used to make high-stakes
decisions are frequently standardized assessments, such as the Stanford
9 or the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, although some states have designed
their own tests. Students' scores on these tests may be used to determine
promotion to the next grade level, which curricular track students will
follow in school, or whether or not they will graduate.
With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001), high-stakes
tests are being used more widely than ever before. This legislation requires
that all students in Grades 3-8 be tested every year in reading and math.
If schools and districts are unable to demonstrate adequate yearly progress,
which is typically measured as a percentage of students who pass standardized
tests, corrective actions may be imposed. These may include school-wide
restructuring or requiring schools to provide students the option of transferring
to another school.
Both positive and negative effects for ELLs may result from this heightened
emphasis on high-stakes testing. Because high-stakes tests are meant to
raise standards for student learning, ELLs--along with all other students
who are tested--may be challenged to meet higher levels of academic achievement
than before. On the other hand, the vast majority of high-stakes tests
are written and administered only in English, often leaving ELLs at a disadvantage
and raising questions as to how the test results should be interpreted.
With issues such as school funding, grade-level promotion, and graduation
at stake, using standardized test scores as a basis for major decisions
could potentially be detrimental to ELLs and to the schools that serve
WHY INCLUDE ELLS IN HIGH-STAKES TESTS?
Historically, ELLs have not been included in high-stakes standardized
tests (Lara & August, 1996). This practice has resulted in a lack of
accountability for the academic progress of ELLs, with ELLs not being held
to the same high academic standards as their peers. Consequently, ELLs
have not benefited from the educational reforms that followed the implementation
of high-stakes assessments (August & Hakuta, 1997). While No Child
Left Behind now mandates the inclusion of ELLs in high-stakes tests, in
the past most states have typically exempted students who have been in
the United States or in an ESL/bilingual program for less than 3 years
or who have not attained a certain level of English proficiency (Holmes,
Hedlund, & Nickerson, 2000). Where ELLs have not been included in high-stakes
tests, their needs have often been overlooked in program design and instruction.
Thus, they have not reaped the benefits of educational initiatives and
reforms intended to raise academic standards and promote student learning.
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS OF INCLUDING ELLS IN HIGH-STAKES TESTS
As beneficial as it may be to include ELLs in high-stakes tests, some
complications arise concerning the validity and reliability of such tests
for this group of learners. Educators must consider what is actually being
assessed by any given test: Is the test measuring ELLs' academic knowledge
and skills, or is it primarily a test of their language skills? When ELLs
take standardized tests, the results tend to reflect their English language
proficiency and may not accurately assess their content knowledge or skills
(Menken, 2000), therefore weakening the test's validity for them. If ELLs
are not able to demonstrate their knowledge due to the linguistic difficulty
of a test, the test results will not be a valid reflection of what the
students know and can do.
In some cases, testing ELLs in their native language may be more appropriate
than using tests that are solely in English. Many ELLs are enrolled in
bilingual education classes and receive some of their content-area instruction
in their native language. These learners may be able to demonstrate their
subject-area knowledge more effectively in their native language. However,
tests in languages other than English are rarely provided. In fact, testing
accommodations that involve translation of a test into a student's native
language are frequently prohibited by states (Rivera, Stansfield, Scialdone,
& Sharkey, 2000).
Other potential problems stemming from the inclusion of ELLs in high-stakes
tests concern the cultural familiarity and knowledge assumed in some test
items. Test items may contain references to ideas or events that are unfamiliar
to ELLs because they have not been exposed to similar concepts in their
native culture and have not lived in the United States for a long period
of time. For example, a writing prompt that asks students to produce a
persuasive essay about whether or not the U.S. government should support
new space expeditions by NASA may be quite difficult for ELLs, whose knowledge
of the concepts and expectations assumed by this test item, such as familiarity
with the U.S. space program and the costs involved, could be extremely
limited. An ELL who might otherwise have been able to write a proficient
persuasive essay would be at a distinct disadvantage due to the cultural
bias inherent in the writing prompt.
ACCOMMODATIONS FOR ELLS
In order to address some of the complications that arise with the inclusion
of ELLs in high-stakes tests, various types of accommodations may be allowed
when the test is administered. These are the most common types of accommodations:
* Timing/scheduling: ELLs are given additional time to take the test
or are given additional time for breaks during the test.
* Setting: The test is administered to ELLs in a small group or in an
alternate location, such as an ESL teacher's classroom, to ensure that
ELLs are in a familiar, comfortable environment when they take the test.
* Presentation: The test administrator is allowed to repeat or explain
test items and directions for ELLs, or the test may be translated into
the students' native language and administered by an ESL/bilingual educator.
* Response: ELLs may respond to test items in their native language,
or they may dictate their responses to a test administrator.
According to Rivera et al. (2000), the accommodations most frequently
used for ELLs are timing/scheduling and setting. While allowing an ELL
more time to complete a test or administering the test in a smaller group
in familiar surroundings may be helpful in some contexts, such accommodations
do not ensure that learners' linguistic needs are being accounted for.
On the other hand, additional explanations of test items, translation,
and alternate ways by which students are allowed to respond to items all
directly address ELLs' language needs and may increase the chances that
learners will be able to demonstrate their knowledge. Accommodations should
be selected carefully in order to ensure that ELLs are given appropriate
support, including linguistic support, on standardized tests--especially
when those tests are used as a basis for high-stakes decisions.
WHAT EDUCATORS CAN DO
When decisions are made regarding ELLs and high-stakes tests, several
factors must be considered.
Ensure that the test reflects the curriculum
Educators who are responsible for selecting the tests that will be used
for high-stakes assessment must examine how closely a test reflects the
curriculum and standards being used in their state or district. As Menken
(2000) points out, "in order for assessments to be effective and useful
for educators in instructional practice, they must be deeply entwined with
the classroom teaching and learning driven by the standards" (p. 4). If
tests are aligned with standards and curricula, students will have an increased
chance of demonstrating what they know and are able to do. Teachers of
ELLs need to be involved in the decision-making process regarding which
tests will be used. For example, testing committees at the school, district,
and state levels that are responsible for selecting appropriate tests should
include teachers who work with ELLs to ensure that the tests selected for
use are appropriate for these learners.
Select appropriate accommodations and modifications
Educators must consider which testing accommodations may be most appropriate
for an individual student or group of students. For example, translation
of a test into a student's native language may be helpful for ELLs with
a high level of cognitive-academic proficiency in their native language,
but not for students whose native language skills are weak. Depending on
a learner's language proficiency level, it may be beneficial to allow accommodations
that affect how the test is presented and how students may respond to it
(e.g., repetition and explanation of test items, or allowing students to
dictate responses to a test administrator), in addition to testing modifications
related to timing/scheduling and setting. With appropriate accommodations,
ELLs are more likely to be able to demonstrate their knowledge on the test.
Teach the discourse of tests and test-taking skills
It is also beneficial to raise ELLs' awareness of the typical discourse
and formats of standardized tests. ELLs may not be familiar with the kind
of language that is used in tests, including many predictable patterns
and phrases. It may also be beneficial to teach test-taking skills (e.g.,
how to approach a multiple-choice question, how to locate the main idea
in a reading passage) to help prepare ELLs for specific types of test items
they may encounter. Armed with a variety of test-taking skills and strategies,
ELLs may be empowered to demonstrate their knowledge on a test, rather
than being intimidated by unfamiliar terms and formats.
Use test data carefully
Perhaps most importantly, educators must be cautious when interpreting
the test results of ELLs. As with all learners, it is crucial to remember
that one test cannot accurately reflect everything that a person knows
and is able to do. This point is particularly important if the validity
and reliability of the test are questionable for ELLs, or if the students
were not given appropriate testing accommodations. In any case, important
decisions about ELLs should not be based on a single test score. Low scores
on a standardized test may mean nothing more than that a learner has not
yet mastered enough English to demonstrate his or her content knowledge
and skills on a test. Multiple assessments, including some performance-based
or alternative assessments that mirror what students are learning in class,
will paint a much more accurate picture of students' knowledge, skills,
and progress than any single test score can indicate. Similarly, high-stakes
decisions should not be made regarding a program, school, or district with
high numbers of ELLs based solely on test data. Such data may merely indicate
that a school or district has a high percentage of ELLs, and not be reflective
of instructional quality or program effectiveness.
As states move toward widespread use of standardized tests to ensure
high standards and accountability in education, many additional issues
may arise with regard to how ELLs fit into this movement. It is important
to include ELLs in high-stakes tests so that we may set high standards
for every student and ensure that all learners' needs are considered in
educational reform efforts. However, educators must also seek a balanced
approach to interpreting and using test data so that careful, informed
decisions are made, particularly when these decisions carry high stakes
for ELLs and the schools that serve them.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.) (1997). "Improving schooling for
language minority students." Washington, DC: National Academy of Science.
Holmes, D., Hedlund, P., & Nickerson, B. (2000). "Accommodating
ELLs in state and local assessments." Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse
for Bilingual Education.
Kindler, A. (2002). "Survey of the states' limited English proficient
students and available educational programs and services." Washington,
DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language
Instruction Educational Programs. Retrieved November 4, 2002, from http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/seareports/99-00/sea9900.pdf
Lara, J., & August, D. (1996). "Systemic reform and limited English
proficient students." Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Loschert, K. (2000). "Raising the ante for students, teachers, and schools."
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Retrieved November 4, 2002, from http://www.ascd.org/frameinfobrief.html
Menken, K. (2000). What are the critical issues in wide-scale assessment
of English language learners?" (Issue Brief No. 6). Washington, DC: National
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Retrieved November 4, 2002, from
Act of 2001. 107th Congress of the United States of America. Retrieved
November 4, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/107-110.pdf
Rivera, C., Stansfield, C., Scialdone, L., & Sharkey, M. (2000).
"An analysis of state policies for the inclusion and accommodation of ELLs
in state assessment programs during 1998-1999" (Executive Summary). Washington,
DC: The George Washington University, Center for Equity and Excellence