High Stakes Testing and English Language Learners

Nancy JepbarovaJill Naeseth

Shannon PalermitiJill SamppalaSteve Scribner

High-stakes Testing High-stakes testing has been a hot topic in education in recent years.

However, as it says in Ecclesiastes, “there is nothing new under the sun”. Cycles of educational reform have been ongoing for more than a hundred years, with the pendulum swinging several times since the progressive reforms of the early 20th century to the current standards movement with its emphasis on high-stakes testing.

A high-stakes test is defined as an assessment that has educational consequences on the students. Some believe that high-stakes testing provides “carrots and sticks that will entice or prod educators and students to perform well on tests in order to reap rewards or avoid punishing sanctions” (Oakes & Lipton, 2003, p. 252).

English Language Learners: Some History

English Language Learners (ELLs) is the term for students who do not speak English fluently. Students can also be referred to as having Limited English Proficiency (LEP).

Historically, public education has long been focused on the immigrant population. In the early 1900s, education was viewed as the way to turn new immigrants into good citizens, and teaching them to speak English was considered the best way for enculturation.

In 1902 a New York City principal stated, “Education will solve every problem of our national life, even that of assimilating our foreign element” (Buchanan, 1902, p. 691).

ELL History ContinuedIn the early 20th century, it was believed that America could be a

“melting pot”, a place where “all immigrants can be transformed into Americans, a new alloy forged in a crucible of democracy, freedom and civic responsibility” (Booth, 1998, p. A1).

In recent history, a “tossed salad” metaphor has become more appropriate. This implies that each immigrating group wishes to retain their own flavors and colors while becoming a part of the larger culture of the United States.

Current SituationCurrently we are in the second largest wave of immigration in United

States history. The immigrants are predominantly from Latin America and Asia, “many of whom are refugees from political turmoil or the devastation of poverty. Many have come illegally. Today’s schools include more than four million students with native languages other than English; about three-quarters of them speak Spanish” (Oakes & Lipton, 2003, p.11).

Legislation affecting education for these immigrants includes the 1974 Supreme Court decision Lau v. Nichols, which ruled that

“the right to equal educational opportunity extends to those students not fluent in English” (Oakes & Lipton, 2003, p. 13).

ELLs Related to NCLB

In 2002, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), replaced the Bilingual Education Act with the Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient (LEP) and Immigrant Students (Title III of NCLB). “The stated purpose of Title III is to ensure that children who are limited English proficient, including immigrant children and youth, attain English proficiency…States, districts and schools are required to provide LEP students with a high quality language instruction education program” (Wiley & Wright, 2004, p. 155-156).

High-stakes History in Washington

Reform for Washington began in the year 1993. Standards based education was introduced with the passage of House Bill 1209 which commissioned the establishment of Essential Academic Learning Requirements (EALRs) and grade level expectations (GLEs).

In 1997, the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL)

was introduced and has had continued and broadening impact on Washington public schools.

The WASL

Per the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), “the state-level WASL assessments require students to both select and create answers to demonstrate their knowledge, skills, and understanding in each of the Essential Academic Learning Requirements (EALRs)- from multiple-choice and short-answer questions to more extended responses, essays, and problem solving tasks”. This includes a requirement for all students to participate and take the test including English Language Learners (ELLs). Accommodations are only provided in English.

High-Stakes Tests and ELLsBeliefs

• There is a need for high standards and achievement expectations for all students.

• The consensus is that ELL students need to learn English.

• ELLs need to have access to the core curriculum in order to succeed academically.

• Policies require accommodations for ELLs who take the tests.

Issues

• There is strong disagreement on the best way to bring about high academic achievement for all students, especially ELL students.

• The question of how to help ELL students obtain high levels of proficiency and literacy in English.

• Current federal policy requires the full inclusion of ELL students in high-stakes tests, and students, their teachers, and their schools are held accountable for the test results.

• There is a lack of instructional resources, poorly designed instructional programs, untrained teachers.

Supporters of High-Stakes Tests and ELLs Believe…

Teachers will use high-stakes tests to know what they should teach and learn.

Teachers who are accountable by high-stakes tests will be motivated to be good teachers.

Students who are required to take high-stakes tests will work harder and learn more.

High-scoring students will enjoy success and low scoring students will increase their efforts to learn.

High-stakes tests will measure the curriculum taught in schools.

Supporters’ Beliefs Continued

High-stakes tests will provide an equal opportunity for all students to demonstrate their knowledge and skills.

Teachers will use results of high-stakes tests to improve instruction for individual students.

Administrators will use results of high-stakes tests to develop better teacher training and professional development.

Parents will understand the purposes of high-stake tests and know how to interpret the results.

Supporters’ Beliefs Continued

Students know what is expected and that the test really counts, so they work harder.

Schools identify and can address student weaknesses early. Similarly, schools discover areas of overall weakness, prompting

them to refocus resources where they are most needed. Education across the state is more consistent, eliminating

situations where schools in some districts are superior to others. The public sees gains from year to year and regains confidence in

public schools (Amrein & Berliner, 2002).

Critics of High-Stakes Testing and ELLs Believe…

The language barriers ELLs face inevitably affect the ways in which they perform on tests.

High-stakes testing yields increase in academic achievement. The quality of teaching and learning depreciate. ELLs are not provided with appropriate accommodations. Test results are unable to be interpreted because tests are

administered in English and may result as being invalid. Schools with large ELL populations lack instructional materials,

training, and funding. Schools with large ELL populations can be penalized for low test

scores further demoralizing educators and students.

Critics of High-Stakes Testing and ELLs Believe…Continued

“The test will have unintended consequences, such as narrowing curriculum, increasing dropout rate, and contributing to the higher retention rate” (Amrein & Berliner, 2002).

 

Our Ethical Questions How can we ask ELLs to take a high-stakes test that has severe

educational consequences, without the knowledge of English necessary to do so?

How can students with LEP demonstrate their knowledge, skills, and understanding on a test like the WASL, when the accommodations are only available in English?

The Public Controversy Here are some facts, “The issue of the inclusion of language minority

students who are not yet fluent in English, has been a major concern raised by many scholars, educators, and others in the testing debate. Language minority students frequently live in low socio-economic neighborhoods and attend inner city or rural (migrant worker area) schools - neighborhoods and schools disproportionately affected by high stakes tests. For example, "50% of the schools scoring in the lowest 20% on the [Academic Profile Index in California] were in rural areas ... while the other 50% were in the inner cities. ... All of these areas are impacted by poverty and language barriers" (Grisham, 2001, p. 13; see also Wells, 2001).

Public Controversy: High-stakes Consequences in Texas

O’Neill in his “High Stakes Testing Law and Litigation” opines, “One factor predominates the administration high stakes exams —children fail them, often in massive numbers. Initial failure rates of thirty or forty percent for the general student population are not unusual for exit exams. Since 1994 in Texas alone, nearly 40,000 children have been denied diplomas for failure to pass that state’s high stakes exam”.

Consequences in Texas Continued

He continues to say, “Large numbers of children are believed to be dropping out of school in anticipation of failure. Cheating is also believed to be proliferating in the wake of high stakes tests, not only by anxious students, but also by teachers and school districts who also face severe repercussions for poor student test performance. Add in widespread fears that preparing children to take such exams forces teachers to narrow the curriculum and “teach to the test,” concerns about damage to students’ self esteem, and the effects of unrelenting pressure in the classroom, and it is not surprising that many people, especially parents, are coming to believe that these testing programs should be abandoned” (O’Neill, 2003).

The Public Controversy:Quotes from Teachers

Kindergarten teacher Linda points out: “When I taught kindergarten at Alamitos, I discovered very quickly that many of the students had never held a pencil, or had someone read a book to them. Many Alamitos students have a clear disadvantage in that they are being held to the same standard as middle and upper class children who likely have parents who read, who buy them books, who take them to the library, and who read them bedtime stories”.

Public Controversies In Other States

B.Y.U. Education journal reports the following: “Many students are simply refusing to take high stakes exams over concerns about fairness and the watering down of the curriculum. In 2001 sixty percent of Scarsdale New York eighth-graders stayed home during the state tests. Last year in California, approximately 50,000 students boycotted the state’s high stakes exam. Massachusetts has recently seen similar boycotts, and they are being considered in Virginia and Maryland, among other states”.

Quotes from Teachers Continued

Bianca argued, “Of course it's not fair! Its just like if I were tested in another language, where I would be classified as the bottom of the 20th percentile.”

Lynda commented: I think we need to ask ourselves, “What are we testing for?" Are we testing language? Then let's call it a language test, and let's make it oral. Are we testing reading? Then let's talk about what we're testing for. To try to purport that we are testing for knowledge and acquisition of skill, when we're really testing for language and reading ability is deceiving the public, it's deceiving the tax payers, and making it look like we're not providing a solid education.”

What the Experts Say

“Unless a primary purpose of a test is to evaluate language proficiency, it should not be used with students who cannot understand the instructions or the language of the test itself. If English language learners are tested in English, their performance should be interpreted in the light of their language proficiency” (AERA, 2000, Appropriate Attention to Language Differences Among Examinees section, paragraph 1).

What the Experts Say Continued

Dr. Johnson from Texas University shares her thoughts on high stakes test, “In theory, high-stakes testing is commendable. In practice, many minority and poor high school students fail to pass high-stakes exams and graduate. Previous studies of high-stakes testing often have tended to overlook or have failed to examine the unintended consequences of high-stakes testing” (Johnson, 2004).

Suggestions For Teachers • Strategy #1: Select appropriate accommodations. Depending on the state,

teachers have a variety of accommodations they can choose to implement for an ELL student. Some may be to provide an environment suitable for test taking, extra time, explanations, or use of native language (Coltrane 2002).

• Strategy #2: Test-taking skills. For many students, the high stakes test they take will be their first, so even if they have the necessary knowledge they may not be able to understand the format of the questions. For the general teacher and the ELL teacher it is important to realize the student may indeed know the content, but they need some general test taking strategies and skills to guide them through the test format.

• Strategy #3: Speak up. If the teacher feels that it is unjust that students who have lived in the United States only a short period of time are required to take the same tests as those who have lived here their whole lives, they need to do something about it. Complaining among colleagues about the legislation will not change the fact that many students will merely drop out of school, since they know they won’t pass the test needed for graduation. Only with enough teachers telling their state legislators will something change about the process.

The Consequentialist View

The teacher who holds to consequentialist ethical theories will make decisions based on the one that results in the most good or the greatest benefit for the most people (Strike & Soltis). They would have to consider if testing the ELL population brings about good results for them, and if not, they would find a course of action to bring about good results. This might involve working to get more accommodations allowed, or to exempt students altogether from high stakes test taking.

The Non-Consequentialist View

The teacher who makes decisions as a non-consequentialist considers duty, obligation, and principle over consequences that might happen as a result (Strike & Soltis). Such a teacher would consider their duties as an educator, and how high stakes testing upholds or goes against these truths. If they see their goal as to help all students improve and learn, they might see the test as an inadequate assessment or standard for their students.

The Caring View

The teacher who upholds the role of the caring educator, as Noddings describes, would have a strong opinion about high stakes testing. If such teachers truly believed that “the student is indefinitely more important than the subject matter” (Noddings), they would not see a high stakes test as something that supports their students through academic quests. If the test were created in a way that reflects the student’s capabilities, the teacher would not be opposed; however, if the test were to discourage students from learning, the teacher would likely be against it. If the test were mandatory, the caring teacher would support the students as much as possible and advise them against giving up.

Discussion Questions1. In the first assigned reading, Coltrane states, "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"

Do you believe that ELLs should be required to take high-stakes tests and why or why not? If so, what do you think the test should look like? If not, what sort of alternatives should be offered?

2. TESOL's position paper argues that, "Since high English proficiency is a prerequisite for success on high-stakes tests, such assessments are not appropriate for English language learners and often do more harm than good."

What do you think based on this and other readings? How can we, as educators, avoid doing harm to our ELL students? How should educators who disagree with the idea of high-stakes testing, especially as related to ELLs, get involved to change the system?

Works Cited• American Educational Research Association. (2002). “Position Statement Concerning High-stakes

Testing in PreK-12 Education”. Retrieved 2/10/06 from http://www.aera.net/about/policy/stakes.htm• Amrein, A. & Berliner, D. (2002, March 28). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning

Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18). Retrieved 2/26/06 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/.• Booth, W. (1998, Sunday, February 22, 1998, Page A1) Washington Post Online, retrieved 2/26/06

from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/meltingpot/melt0222.htm• Buchanan, J. (1902) How to Assimilate the Foreign Element in Our Population. Forum 32(691).

Retrieved 2/26/06 from http://texts.cdlib.org:8088/xtf/view?docId=ft9d5nb66k&chunk.id=d0e3581&doc.view=print

• Butler, F. & Stevens, R. (2001). Standardized assessment of the content knowledge of English language learners K-12: current trends and old dilemmas. Language Testing, 18(4), 409-427.

• Coltrane, B. (2002). English Language Learners and High Stakes Tests: An Overview of the Issues. CAL digests. Retrieved 2/22/06 from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/0207coltrane.html 

• Devey,J. (from 2003 ESL conference). Fallout From High-Stakes Tests. Retrieved on February 22, 2006 from http://www.eslminiconf.net/aug2003/assessment.html.

• Johnson, H. (2004). Consequences of high-stakes Testing. Austin: The University of Texas.  • Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. The Regents of

the University of California: University of California Press.

Works Cited• Oakes, J. & Lipton, M. (2003). Teaching to change the world (2nd Edition). SF: McGraw-Hill. • O’Neill, P. (2003). High Stakes Testing Law and Litigation. Retrieved 2/22/06 from

http://www.law2.byu.edu/jel/v2003_2/ONeill.pdf.• Online article. (2004). Educational Equity. Retrieved 2/22/06 from

http://www.educationalequity.net.• Online article. (2002). English Language Learners and High-Stakes Tests: An Overview of the

Issues. Retrieved 2/22/06 from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/0207coltrane.html.• Online article. (2002). High Stakes Tests. Retrieved 2/22/06 from

(http://www.eslminiconf.net/njkeynote).• Online article. (2002). Leaving No Child Behind. Retrieved 2/23/06 from

http://www.nationaldialogue.org/resources/Dialogue_Framework.pdf• Online article (2003). Positions and Opinions on High-Stakes Testing. Retrieved 2/22/06 from

http://www.ecs.org/html/issue.asp?issueid=12&subissueid=33.• Online article (2002). The Effects of High Stakes Testing in an Inner-City Elementary School: The

Curriculum, the Teachers, and the English Language Learners. Retrieved on 2/26/06 from http://cie.asu.edu/volume5/number5/index.htmlStrike, K. & Soltis, J. (2004). The Ethics of Teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

• Wiley, T. & Wright, W. (2004) Against the undertow: Language-minority education policy and politics in the “age of accountability”. Education Policy, 18(1) 142-168.

• Wright, W. (2002, June 5). The effects of high stakes testing in an inner-city elementary school: The curriculum, the teachers, and the English language learners. Current Issues in Education [On-line], 5(5). Retrieved on 2/22/06 from http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume5/number5/