700 South Washington Street, Suite 200, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 USA
Tel +1-703-836-0774 ● 888-547-3369 USA ● Fax +1-703-836-7864 ● E-mail [email protected] ● Web http://www.tesol.org
A
Global Education Association Founded in 1966
Position Paper on Assessment and Accountability of English Language Learners
Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110)
Since its passage, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) has fundamentally altered the
educational landscape in the United States. Its purpose is laudable: “to close the achievement gap
with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind” (1425). However, its
implementation has presented significant challenges to schools as they serve the growing number
of English language learners--a group NCLB was specifically intended to help. These challenges
derive in part from requirements regarding the assessment of English language learners that are at
odds both with research-based understandings of language competency and accepted practices in
educational testing as outlined by the Joint Committee of the American Educational Research
Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement
in Education in Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (1999).
As currently implemented, NCLB requires that English language learners be assessed in content-
area subjects such as math and science using the same instruments and under the same conditions
as fully-proficient English speakers. The Joint Committee’s Standard 9 (Testing Individuals of
Diverse Linguistic Backgrounds) states: “any test that employs language is, in part, a measure of
[test takers’] language skills. This is of particular concern for test takers whose first language is
not the language of the test” (p. 91). In short, when English language learners take a mathematics
or science test, it is not clear the degree to which the results reflect their knowledge of English
instead of their content-area knowledge. The Joint Committee’s statement of acceptable practice
advocates that when test results are used to make significant decisions, as is the case with NCLB,
it is important “to consider the possible use of alternative information-gathering tools (e.g.,
additional tests, sources of observational information, modified forms of the chosen test) to
ensure that the information obtained is adequate to the intended purpose” (p. 94). Therefore,
TESOL urges that local authorities, in consultation with ESL-trained educators, be permitted to
provide approved accommodations for English language learners when warranted, and to
determine when these learners have attained sufficient English proficiency that their academic
progress can be assessed without further accommodations and wholly in English as required by
TESOL Position Paper on Assessment and Accountability of English Language Learners
Under No Child Left Behind (continued)
2
the Act (Gottlieb, 2003). Additionally, TESOL calls for the approved accommodations to allow
for changing aspects of the test (e.g., administering only the parts of the test that are appropriate
given the learner’s current language ability) and/or the administration procedures (e.g., giving the
learner more time or administering the test individually rather than in a group).
Second, under NCLB, standards for the annual yearly progress (AYP) of English language
learners are set based on the number of years the learners have attended U.S. schools. This
practice implies that all individuals designated as English language learners progress in their new
language at the same rate, an assumption that contradicts the findings of numerous research
studies in the field of second language acquisition. Textbooks in second language acquisition
theory, for example, generally include as a commonly accepted principle that while language
learners pass through similar developmental stages, the rate at which they do so varies
significantly among individuals because of factors such as learning aptitude and style, individual
motivation, and their respective native languages (Mitchell & Myles, 2004; Gass & Selinker,
2001) as well as learning context and educational background. This conclusion is further
supported by actual studies of learners in U.S. public schools that have shown considerable
discrepancies in the number of years necessary to achieve proficiency in academic language
(Collier, 1987; Thomas & Collier, 2002). In short, the length of residency in an English-speaking
country is not automatically a reliable and trustworthy indicator of English language proficiency.
Therefore, TESOL advocates that English language learners be grouped by language proficiency
within age groups for the purposes of tracking their AYP in academic subjects.
Finally, standards for performance on many of the testing instruments utilized under NCLB have
been established using sample populations that either do not include English language learners or
for which no information is available on the percentage of learners included. Because test users
make decisions about acceptable performance based on the percentage of test takers in the sample
population that performed at different levels the comparison group must be sufficiently large,
balanced, diverse, and scientifically selected to ensure adequate representation of the population
at large (Bachman & Palmer, 1996). Therefore, TESOL urges that any standardized test used to
assess the academic achievement of English language learners should provide evidence that the
comparison group included English language learners and that these learners were selected and
represented in such a way as to permit valid and reliable inferences to be made about their
performance on the test. If a test of academic achievement in a state’s
TESOL Position Paper on Assessment and Accountability of English Language Learners
Under No Child Left Behind (continued)
3
accountability system does not meet this requirement, TESOL recommends that local authorities,
in consultation with ESL-trained educators, be permitted to modify these tests, use alternatives to
them, or utilize multiple instruments as a way of providing confirmatory evidence.
TESOL’s position on the assessment and accountability of English language learners under the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is therefore one that exhorts the government to make reference
to the guidelines set out in the widely adopted Standards for Educational and Psychological
Testing (American Educational Research Association et al., 1999) and, specifically, to address
issues of fairness in testing for English language learners as set out in this statement.
References
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996).
Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Collier, V. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes. TESOL
Quarterly, 21(4), 617–641.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gottlieb, M. (2003). Large-scale assessment of English language learners. Addressing educational
accountability in K-12 settings. Alexandria, Virginia: TESOL.
Joint Committee of the American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association,
& National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological
testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories. (2nd ed.). London: Hodder Arnold.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 6301 (2002).
Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority
students' long-term academic achievement. Retrieved September 4, 2004, from
http://www.crede.ussc.edu/research/llaa/1.1_final.html
Approved by the Board of Directors
October 2005
