CLIFTON, NEW JERSEY

Janina J. Kusielewicz, Supervisor 745 Clifton Avenue, Clifton, N.J. 07013

(973) 470-2267 (973) 470-8507 fax

January 15, 2004

Brian Robinson, Director

Assessment Office

Department of Education

Post Office Box 500

Trenton, New Jersey 08652-0500

Dear Mr. Robinson,

This letter is being written in response to an invitation to participate in the panel to study the possibility of having alternative assessments for English Language Learners in lieu of the NJASK 3 and 4, GEPA and HSPA. I wish to thank the Department of Education for embarking on this much needed, proactive task to better meet the needs of New Jersey’s English Langue Learners.

The current method of assessing these students utilizing monolingual assessments designed for native English speakers is inadequate and unfair. The requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act are not being accurately met when the assessment does not consider langue acquisition, nor does it match the varied types of instruction found in bilingual and ESL programs in the state of New Jersey. Districts are allowed flexibility to design bilingual and ESL programs, based on the NJCCS, to meet local demographic and linguistic student needs. Yet the assessment system provided does not measure actual student attainment of content in the New Jersey standards. Rather, in the name of accountability, it subjects English Language Learners to a process which provides faulty data upon which future instructional decisions are made, and statements such as “partially proficient” marginalize the student and label schools as failing.

I wish to share with you the case in Clifton. We are a district of over ten thousand students. Just over six thousand of our students come from families that speak a language other than English. These students represent sixty-five different languages. Of this group seven hundred and forty are enrolled in our bilingual and ESL programs, with new students enrolling weekly. Over the last seven years we have offered bilingual programs in Albanian and Gujarati and continue to offer bilingual programs in Arabic, Polish and Spanish. Thirty percent of our English Language Learners represent thirty other languages. Given this diversity we require the programmatic flexibility afforded in bilingual code to provide changing combinations of full-time and part-time bilingual instruction, ESL and high intensity ESL programs.

Clifton’s instructional program design evolves yearly to meet our changing student needs. Just five years ago we required five Polish bilingual teachers, now we only need one. In the same span of time we have doubled our number of Spanish bilingual teachers. Such demographic diversity, requiring constant instructional adaptation to provide NJCCCS based programs for our students, also requires an adaptive assessment system to adequately and accurately measure student progress. Currently most of our students, save the most recent arrivals, would be best served with a sheltered English assessment. Our most recently arrived students, who have not yet attained a sufficient level of English language proficiency, would require a valid, reliable performance assessment. As our Spanish speaking population grows, we will soon require a native language assessment in Spanish, if we are to assess those students in an equitable manner, aligned with their instruction to demonstrate their academic competency.

As a district we continue to be responsive to the needs of our diverse and changing community. Our student’s cannot be accurately or fairly assessed using one size fits all assessments. We take instruction and accountability very seriously. Of the fifty four English Language Learners who took the NJASK 4 in 2003, thirteen scored proficient or advanced proficient. These were students in their third year in our bilingual and ESL program. Many of our second year students were able to come close to proficiency with a mean score of one hundred and ninety eight. However, that still put them in the category of partially proficient, a devastating blow to their self esteem and a frustration to their dedicated teachers. Had linguistically appropriate options such as a sheltered English assessment, a valid performance assessment and a Spanish native language assessment been available, our students would have been able to accurately demonstrate their content area knowledge. In addition, such assessments would allow our instructional program to have been adequately assessed for its strengths and deficiencies, rather than arbitrarily categorized on an “early warning” list.

Not all states offer the variety of assessment formats that are being requested here, however the precedent set by other states should not be a determining factor in a decision to best meet the needs of New Jersey’s diverse and thriving community of English Language Learners. New Jersey would best serve the needs of the state’s students by being a national leader in the development of an adaptive, responsive and pedagogically sound assessment system, empowering students rather than marginalizing them.

Sincerely,

Janina J. Kusielewicz

Supervisor, Clifton Public Schools