1. 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

2. 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

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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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