I appreciate the opportunity to be invited to express my views related to the assessment of English Language Learners. Unquestionably, the No Child Left Behind Act has placed a new emphasis on assessment and accountability.

 

New Jersey now faces the important task of addressing the Federal mandate to assess all students including all English Language Learners. When approaching this task, we must look at the mandate in light of what we have learned about second language acquisition and ask some important questions:

 

First, the purpose of assessment:

  • Assessment should provide valuable information, such as:
    • the knowledge and skills the students bring with them (native language);
    • what progress are students making in English language proficiency after each year of instruction;
    • the academic progress of students;  
    • the effectiveness of curriculum and instruction;
    • the effectiveness of different program models.
  • Assessment should help us in the decision-making process related to curriculum and instruction.

 

What do we know about the second language acquisition process?

  • It is a process involving stages of acquisition;
  • It begins with the development of interpersonal skills;
  • It takes as long as 5 to 7 years before most students acquire the academic language required to achieve a level of “proficient” on state mandated tests;
  • Many student characteristics and environmental factors impact on language acquisition.

 

The New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards were developed to define what an educated student should know and be able to do at particular benchmarks. In the case of ELLs, content tests are often a measure of English literacy rather than content.

 

How can English Language Learners demonstrate what they know when they might have just arrived in our schools and have no knowledge of the language used in the assessments?

 

They can only demonstrate the knowledge and skills acquired over time in the language of instruction.

 

What does the assessment process need to include?

 

We need to establish baseline data that includes:

            The knowledge students bring –this requires assessment in the students’ native language whenever possible, and

Their level of English proficiency at the time of entry.

 

What do we need to plan for in the assessment design?

We need to:

  • Continue assessing the students’ annual progress in English language proficiency;
  • Align assessment to the NJCCCS in order to determine achievement of content knowledge and skills;
  • Design assessments aligned to levels of language proficiency.

 

What are the options that would provide multiple opportunities to demonstrate progress?

  • Native language assessment;
  • Alternative assessment including portfolio assessment reflecting the same level of standards as the state tests. These could include samples of student work over time scored with appropriate rubrics scored by several assessors;
  • Language proficiency tests administered annually;
  • Sheltered English tests in the content areas aligned with levels of language acquisition;
  • State mandated tests with modifications (if appropriate for level of proficiency)

 

Use of the data can be extremely useful if we:

  • Examine student variables such as age, level of L1 proficiency,
  • reading level in L1, previous academic experience, time in the US,
  • mobility, and type of program when analyzing assessment data ;
  • Compare the progress of the same students from year to year.
  • Individual student growth is emphasized. 

 

Unless these measures are taken, we risk the following taking place:

  • Levels of language acquisition will be ignored and teaching will take place at a level incomprehensible for the student;
  • Emphasis on teaching to the test;
  • Elimination of native language instruction;
  • Tracking students who are “not successful”;
  • Advising students not to take certain academic or elective courses;
  • Higher drop out rates.

 

There are no easy solutions to this very complex situation. It requires serious and careful consideration, if we are to provide equality of educational opportunity for all our students with their unique characteristics.

 

Submitted by:

Grisel López-Díaz

Assistant Professor

New Jersey City University

January 16, 2004