High-Stakes Assessments and English Language Learners

Abstract

In this position paper, the authors argue that high-stakes, assessments place an enormous challenge both on learners for whom English is a Second Language and their teachers. Yet, based on a thorough review of the literature and their own recent research on test preparation practices for English Language Learners, they also claim that employing culturally and linguistically responsive instructional strategies may lessen the associated with test-driven instruction and improve student learning outcomes as well. Both the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (2002) and the impending implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) across the United States place high expectations on all learners. The CCSS were developed by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers to provide clear expectations for all students to equip them with the necessary knowledge and skills for college and career readiness (Common Core State Standards Initiative), Currently, the standards have been formally adopted by 44 states. The challenge of meeting the new standards is especially severe for English language learners (ELLs) for a number of compelling reasons: (a) special emphasis is placed on informational texts across all content areas, (b) college and workplace readiness are emphasized, and (c) no special accommodations are made for ELLs. Abedi and Dietel (2004) claimed that at least four critical issues need to be considered when ELLs' participation in assessments is compared to that of their nativeEnglish-speaking counterparts: 1. Low ELL performance on state assessments and lower rates of improvement across several years have been documented. 2. Instead of content attainment only, when it comes to ELLs' performance on state assessments, both content-based achievement and language ability are measured, 3. The ELL population as a subgroup is highly transient; many high-performing ELLs leave the group. 4. Numerous nonschool-related factors also impact on the group's performance. Further, as a result of her extensive research on current assessment practices, Menken (2006) suggested that testing impacts not only work with ELLs but also educational practice in general, noting that standardized tests become defacto language policy when attached to consequences, shaping what content schools teach, how it is taught, by whom it is taught, and in what language(s) it is taught (p. 537). In addition, Valli and Buese (2007) suggested that high-stakes policy directives promote an environment in which teachers are asked to relate to their students differently, enact pedagogies that are often at odds with their vision of best practice, and experience high levels of stress (p. 520). Because assessments and standards-based instruction are expected to continue to define the educational landscape (Wiliam, 2010), we researched effective approaches to test preparation for ELLs (Giouroukakis & Honigsfeld, 2010). Specifically, we conducted a multicase study to investigate the impact of testing on the literacy practices of teachers of high school ELLs in three Long Island, New York, school districts in one of the most racially and socioeconomically segregated regions of the United States. The goal of the study was to explore what kinds of literacy tasks and materials were implemented in order to develop ELLs' literacy skills and prepare them to be successful on the New York State Regents English examinations required for graduation. Our findings indicated that the participating teachers engaged in both (a) instructional activities and materials that directly prepared their students for the state's exam (teaching to the test) and (b) culturally and linguistically responsive practices. Based on these findings, we suggest that educators working with ELLs in all content areas and at all grade levels utilize culturally and linguistically responsive techniques in all their instruction, including when they engage their ELLs in test-preparation activities. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.