ELL TITLE I ASSESSMENT: STATE PRACTICES Stanley Rabinowitz, Ph. D ELL TITLE I ASSESSMENT: STATE PRACTICES Stanley Rabinowitz, Ph.D. Director, Assessment and Standards Development Services WestEd   Center on Education Policy ELL Roundtable March 20, 2007

GUIDING QUESTIONS What methods are states using to assess their ELL students for Title I accountability? What are the advantages and disadvantages of these methods? What principles should drive further development of ELL assessment methods? 1

ASSESSMENT METHODS Accommodations Plain English Assessments Native Language Assessments Portfolios/Alternative Assessments Title I/Title III Crossover 2

ACCOMMODATIONS ADVANTAGES Most states have accommodations policies and histories Valid accommodations known to improve student performance DISADVANTAGES Lack of specific research on appropriate accommodations for ELL students Need to revise definition of “legal” accommodation 3

PLAIN ENGLISH ADVANTAGES Consistent with Universal Design movement already underway Consistent with language development and cognition theory DISADVANTAGES Difficult to simplify language without simplifying construct Some content not amenable to simplification 4

NATIVE LANGUAGE ADVANTAGES Removes accessibility issues related to English proficiency DISADVANTAGES Valid translations difficult to accomplish Many ELL students not sufficiently proficient in native language How many languages? 5

PORTFOLIOS/ALTERNATIVE ADVANTAGES Can be implemented as part of ongoing classroom activities (curriculum embedded) Can limit dependency on language DISADVANTAGES Significant technical challenges (validity, comparability) Significant burden on students and teachers 6

TITLE I/TITLE III CROSSOVER ADVANTAGES More efficient than double testing May be able to use information from each to inform other, rather than formally combine into one assessment DISADVANTAGES Measuring language acquisition not equivalent to measuring content knowledge Significant content and technical challenges 7

DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES No single assessment method appropriate for all ELL students Research findings from other populations not necessarily generalizable to ELL students (e.g., accommodations for SWD) Technical analyses need to be tailored to ELL students (e.g., bias/DIF analyses) Research agenda should focus on access, validity, comparability, and feasibility 8