equity and assessment the opportunity to learn challenge william t. trent university of illinois at...

Equity and AssessmentThe Opportunity to Learn Challenge

William T. TrentUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Math/Science Partnerships WorkshopAssessment Of Student Learning

February 1 - 3, 2004

Introduction

The focus of this workshop on assessment is timely and occurs at a critical point as the results from the NCLB required assessments become more clear. Combined with the results from graduation tests and state standards-based assessments, the resulting discussions have necessitated a renewed focus on the role of race, socioeconomic status, ethnicity and school factors in shaping academic preparation, access and performance. The persisting inequalities require a renewed level of attention focused on issues of equity.

Equity and Assessment

The main point addressed in this presentation is straight forward.

The constraints on “Opportunities to learn” for students of color and poor students are substantial.

As a consequence, our assessment tools and practices are called into question, especially when they are the basis for high stakes decisions about students’ placements in the school setting .


A point of focus:

A key assumption in the conceptualization and design of most assessments is that all students, by and large, have received a substantial dose of the treatment—instruction and learning experiences. This is a necessary assumption and one with we can all agree.

Addressing the equity question however tells us immediately that this assumption is untenable for a substantial proportion of our students and for a number of reasons.

SAT/ACT

Preschool Years

3rd & 4th Grade

Middle School5th & 6th Grades

Race Class & Gender differentiation

State and National Assessments

Tracking and ability grouping

Algebra Gateway Courses

8th Grade

High School9th –12th Grades

Freshman Postsecondary

Dropouts SuspensionExpulsion

Major field choice

Graduation rates

Enrollment by institutional selectivity and sector

Graduation rates

3rd Year Postsecondary

Low retention

Graduate and Professional School

AccessEntrySupport

Differential access and participation by race ethnicity and SES

Race Class & Gender differentiation

College Graduation

Segregation by Race, Ethnicity and SES

GRE

Critical Points Along the Educational Pipeline


Several factors influence the opportunity to learn and thereby impact assessment:

Segregated schooling

Disparate school quality

Teacher expectations

Parent resources

Community resources

In 1978, a divided court ruled to preserve the use of race in college admissions. In that decision, Justice Harry Blackmun

wrote a more frequently quoted phrase but one which is challenging to operationalize:

"In Order to Get Beyond Race, We Must First Take Account of Race. There Is No Other Way."Justice Harry Blackmun in BAKKE

Fifty (50) years ago Brown was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court

Access and equity issues remain unresolved


• Segregated schooling is on the increase• Hyper segregated-- high minority & high poverty -- schools

are especially harmful to student learning and attainment• African American and Latino/a students are often in

schools where the quality of courses available –AP courses for example -- are limited

• African American and Latino/a students are often in schools where they are overrepresented in Special Education, Suspensions and Expulsions but underrepresented in Gifted Education

• Race and ethnicity, gender and poverty status at the student level, along with school level factors like school size, racial composition and teacher credentials and expectations are consequential for educational outcomes.


• There are important correlates of school racial composition that implicate equity.

For example:High SES and race concentrations

Differential College-going rates

Differential Teacher expectations

Differential access to quality teachers

Differential access to a high quality curriculum

Race, Ethnic and Poverty Concentrations

Table 1. Average High School Race, Ethnic and Poverty Concentrations by Race and Ethnicity for 1999-2000.

All H.S. Students

African American H.S. Students

Latino H.S. Students

Asian H.S. Students

White H.S. Students

Mean School Pct. African American

15.28 50.49 11.36 11.98 8.46

Mean School Pct. Latino

14.68 10.83 52.78 18.13 6.91

Mean School Pct. Asian

4.50 3.39 5.37 23.85 3.13

Mean School Pct. White

64.35 34.78 29.70 45.24 80.57

Mean School Pct. Free/Reduced Price Lunch Eligible

26.60 39.37 43.39 26.51 19.51

n 13,428,456 1,977,809 1,896,098 569,702 8,195,277

From High School and Beyond Base Year School Data File

High School %

Black

Average % 1979 Grads Attending “Regular”

College in 1980

Unweighted N

Weighted N

High School % Minority

Average % 1979 Grads Attending “Regular” College in

1980

Unweighted N

Weighted N

0-9% 46.2736 597 14,595 0-9% 46.5026 425 12,067 10-24% 43.0249 130 1,716 10-24% 41.5993 151 2,867 25-49% 44.0342 110 1,433 25-49% 47.9709 151 2,199 50-74% 34.2926 41 521 50-74% 39.1008 84 657

75-100% 35.1982 52 755 75-100% 36.9658 130 1,370

From National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 First Follow-up School Questionnaire

10th Grade % Black

Average % 1989 Grads

Attending a 4-Year College

in 1990

Unweighted N

Weighted N

10th Grade %

Minority

Average % 1989 Grads

Attending a 4-Year College

in 1990

Unweighted N

Weighted N

0-9% 0-9% 49.6187 396 10-24% 10-24% 57.6398 211 25-49% 25-49% 46.1620 179 50-74% 50-74% 39.8208 106

75-100% 75-100% 38.7857 140

Table 2. College Going Rates by High School Racial Composition

Mis

sour

i V. J

enki

nsT

each

er E

ffic

acy

- ta

bles

Mean 1994 Standardized Math Test Scores by Teacher Efficacy and Student Race

Elementary Schools (54 Schools) Teacher Efficacy Lowest 14 Schools (Mean Efficacy Rating 71%) Mean Std Dev Students Race Black 37.8627 23.1480 2833 White 46.9022 29.8194 1074 Other 47.8480 30.3513 408 Teacher Efficacy Highest 14 Schools (Mean Efficacy Rating 82%) Mean Std Dev Students Race Black 41.7899 21.9429 2437 White 44.3948 21.6472 998 Other 64.7794 42.6367 136Middle Schools (11 Schools) Teacher Efficacy Lowest 3 Schools (Mean Efficacy Rating 70%) Mean Std Dev Students Race Black 65.4040 12.7002 1141 White 73.3903 13.7969 433 Other 71.5779 13.0258 154 Teacher Efficacy Highest 3 Schools (Mean Efficacy Rating 74%) Mean Std Dev Students Race Black 84.5889 33.0415 861 White 84.2338 24.5067 278 Other 90.4314 30.8028 51

High Schools (11 Schools) Teacher Efficacy Lowest 3 Schools (Mean Efficacy Rating 67%) Mean Std Dev Students Race Black 163.3993 22.2487 1142 White 174.9231 23.8428 247 Other 161.2083 26.0400 48 Teacher Efficacy Highest 3 Schools (Mean Efficacy Rating 75%) Mean Std Dev Students Race Black 146.6864 43.5199 931 White 155.3628 49.6842 543 Other 164.6875 33.6789 224

Mean 1994 Standardized Reading Test Scores by Teacher Efficacy and Student Race

Elementary Schools (54 Schools) Teacher Efficacy Lowest 14 Schools (Mean Efficacy Rating 71%) Mean Std Dev Students Race Black 34.4574 22.9125 2820 White 44.6047 31.9161 1032 Other 42.4632 28.9741 408 Teacher Efficacy Highest 14 Schools (Mean Efficacy Rating 82%) Mean Std Dev Students Race Black 39.1554 23.4264 2445 White 43.2843 23.7663 1006 Other 56.7226 39.0695 137

Middle Schools (11 Schools) Teacher Efficacy Lowest 3 Schools (Mean Efficacy Rating 70%) Mean Std Dev Students Race Black 63.8105 16.3103 1140 White 72.1674 19.5360 436 Other 68.3987 17.2272 158 Teacher Efficacy Highest 3 Schools (Mean Efficacy Rating 74%) Mean Std Dev Students Race Black 82.5293 35.3227 871 White 85.3821 28.1704 280 Other 86.0192 33.1470 52

High Schools (11 Schools) Teacher Efficacy Lowest 3 Schools (Mean Efficacy Rating 67%) Mean Std Dev Students Race Black 162.8351 25.8703 1134 White 177.8105 29.4525 248 Other 163.0612 31.0345 49 Teacher Efficacy Highest 3 Schools (Mean Efficacy Rating 75%) Mean Std Dev Students Race Black 151.9507 45.7036 933 White 160.9502 52.2394 542 Other 159.9643 36.7406 224

Mis

sour

i V. J

enki

nsT

each

er E

ffic

acy

- ta

bles

TABLEMean Years of Teacher Experience by School Enrollment Percent Black and School Level

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools

All Teachers Black Teachers Non-Black Teachers

N Overall

RaciallyIdentifiable

-White

InCompliance


-Black

N Overall


-White

InCompliance


-Black

N Overall


-White

InCompliance


-Black

School Year 1995-96

All Schools 5,167 12.3 13.2 12.1 12.0 1,112 14.7 15.2 14.9 13.8 4,055 11.6 12.9 11.4 11.1

Elementary 2,800 12.1 14.0 11.8 10.9 573 15.1 16.1 15.1 14.5 2,227 11.3 13.6 11.0 9.5Middle 1,102 10.9 10.2 11.1 10.5 273 13.5 14.0 14.1 11.1 829 10.0 9.6 10.1 10.0

High 1,086 14.3 15.2 14.2 14.0 214 14.8 13.9 15.6 13.3 872 14.2 15.5 13.8 14.2Special Programs 179 12.6 10.5 12.6 14.1 52 16.4 17.3 15.1 16.6 127 11.1 9.4 12.0 11.8

School Year 1996-97

All Schools 5,466 12.0 12.8 11.8 11.6 1,168 14.2 14.7 14.4 13.6 4,298 11.4 12.4 11.2 10.6



School Year 1997-98

All Schools 5,749 11.5 12.6 11.5 10.4 1,166 14.1 14.2 14.6 12.7 4,583 10.8 12.4 10.7 9.4


High 1,433 13.0 14.0 13.2 11.6 266 13.2 15.7 13.7 11.7 1,167 13.0 13.7 13.1 11.6Special Programs 182 12.7 11.7 12.7 13.5 56 13.4 12.0 12.8 14.0 126 12.3 11.6 12.6 13.0

TABLEPercent of Teachers with an Advanced Degree by School Enrollment Percent Black and School Level


All Teachers Black Teachers Non-Black Teachers

N Overall

RaciallyIdentifiable-

White

InCompliance


Black

N Overall


White

InCompliance


Black

N Overall


White

InCompliance


Black

School Year 1995-96

All Schools 5,167 34.4 37.2 34.3 31.6 1,112 35.6 44.1 34.1 35.0 4,055 34.1 36.0 34.4 30.1



School Year 1996-97

All Schools 5,466 33.6 36.4 33.7 30.1 1,168 34.8 40.7 32.5 37.6 4,298 33.3 35.7 34.0 26.3



School Year 1997-98

All Schools 5,749 33.2 36.2 33.5 29.6 1,166 33.6 37.3 32.8 34.3 4,583 33.1 36.0 33.7 27.6


High 1,433 39.2 45.5 39.4 35.0 266 33.8 64.3 31.8 32.9 1,167 40.5 43.2 40.9 36.1Special Programs 182 43.4 38.6 50.0 41.8 56 48.2 57.1 46.7 47.1 126 41.3 36.0 51.2 36.4

Access to AP courses by Race and Ethnicity. Detroit Metro Area 1995-1998

Table 4. AP Courses Offered By Public High Schools in the Detroit Metro Area

Racial Percentage Distribution of Students in Schools by AP Courses Offered SY95-98

Senior Application Rate to U of M, SY 95-98 Number

of AP Courses Offered

Maximum1 CFactor Points

Possible Under

SCUGA Guidelines

Number of High Schools Black Asian

American Indians Hispanic White Black Hispanic White

None -1 24 38 8 11 29 4 2.16 3.89 2.28 1 0 14 20 3 9 13 6 2.86 6.19 2.83

2-3 1 25 13 10 25 11 14 3.67 7.05 2.16 4-5 2 29 18 14 27 16 22 7.53 7.89 3.32 6-7 3 13 2 4 9 8 12 1.89 3.90 2.15

8-19 4 42 9 61 19 22 41 7.75 22.26 9.37

Total N 147 186,915 14,646 5,040 11,499 495,006 Information on AP Courses from Detroit Free Press

1. The documentation for the C Factor indicates that a “-1” can be awarded for some course-taking patterns. In actuality, there is some ambiguity as to the extent to which such a score is used .

1

Honors and AP Courses by High School

Table 5. Distribution of Honors and AP Courses by High School, School Years 1996-2000, SFUSD High School

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Honors Courses

AP Courses

School % Black or Latino

Honors Courses

AP Courses


Honors Courses

AP Courses


Honors Courses

AP Courses


Honors Courses

AP Courses


Balboa 5 1 50.56 0 0 48.37 7 2 46.15 4 2 46.51 6 3 48.55

Burton 13 7 44.94 15 7 48.28 12 5 49.28 13 6 46.96 13 5 46.63

Downtown 0 0 79.05 0 0 77.83 0 0 77.00 0 0 72.77 0 0 72.77

Galileo 14 4 23.51 13 6 25.15 12 5 24.36 16 9 23.75 14 8 22.79

Gateway . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 30.10 0 0 39.46

Independence 0 0 45.97 0 0 49.59 0 0 49.86 0 0 47.00 0 0 49.40

International Studies Academy 4 3 47.40 3 2 46.28 4 4 45.60 8 4 49.48 6 3 53.85

Leadership . 0 0 . 0 0 34.15 0 0 45.60 0 0 49.43

Life Learning Academy . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 77.78 0 0 72.73

Lincoln 14 5 16.90 12 5 15.48 13 6 13.96 13 6 11.04 13 9 11.41

Lowell 16 21 14.05 18 21 15.04 16 22 14.62 17 24 14.93 16 24 13.18

Marshall 0 0 40.07 0 0 44.95 5 9 40.87 6 6 43.84 5 9 44.95

McAteer 8 3 53.47 8 6 54.14 10 6 51.39 9 6 53.16 9 5 52.86

Mission 4 3 52.27 3 2 54.99 2 1 57.03 8 2 58.37 7 6 61.16

Newcomer 0 0 35.15 0 0 27.03 0 0 9.20 0 0 31.22 0 0 36.61

O'Connell 0 0 56.90 1 0 54.84 0 0 56.83 0 0 56.56 1 0 58.62

School of the Arts 3 4 26.09 3 5 25.55 3 6 25.69 3 4 26.75 2 5 28.11

Twain 0 0 44.30 0 0 40.54 0 0 36.65 0 0 30.22 0 0 29.15

Wallenberg 6 10 28.32 6 10 31.76 4 8 33.87 4 8 32.84 4 6 30.70

Washington 16 10 15.31 16 12 14.29 18 13 14.81 17 11 12.31 14 12 12.01

Wells 0 0 61.42 0 0 57.55 0 0 63.16 0 0 68.20 0 0 67.32


These correlates of school racial composition and differential access to high quality teachers and curriculum are associated with low and or poor performance on a variety of assessments.

TABLEEnd of Grade Math Test Percent Low Mastery by School Enrollment Percent Black and School Level


All Students Black Students Non-Black StudentsRacially

Identifiable-White

InCompliance


Black


White

InCompliance


Black


White

InCompliance


Black

School Year 1995-96

All Schools 21.8 33.1 54.9 55.0 55.4 61.9 15.4 17.6 38.7

Elementary 22.8 33.1 48.1 59.7 55.6 53.8 16.7 17.9 34.3Middle 19.4 33.0 60.5 51.5 55.0 69.6 13.2 17.0 42.7

Special Programs 24.9 - 90.9 44.0 - 94.0 12.6 - 73.3

School Year 1996-97

All Schools 20.2 34.3 54.9 55.0 56.1 61.5 14.2 18.3 37.2



School Year 1997-98

All Schools 16.6 31.1 46.3 47.7 50.5 53.4 11.6 16.1 29.9



Grades 3 through 8 Insufficient or inconsistent mastery None of the 3rd through 8th grade children in the balanced special program schools took end of grade tests.

TABLEEnd of Grade Reading Test Percent Low Mastery by School Enrollment Percent Black and School Level


All Students Black Students Non-Black StudentsRacially

Identifiable-White

InCompliance


Black


White

InCompliance


Black


White

InCompliance


Black

School Year 1995-96

All Schools 25.6 36.9 59.1 59.1 59.0 65.9 19.2 21.7 43.2



School Year 1996-97

All Schools 21.8 36.7 59.8 54.8 57.7 65.7 16.2 21.4 43.8



School Year 1997-98

All Schools 16.9 31.4 46.4 47.2 49.9 52.6 12.0 17.3 32.4



Grades 3 through 8 Insufficient or inconsistent mastery None of the 3rd through 8th grade children in the balanced special program schools took end of grade tests.

Table 5. Odds Ratio of Black or Hispanic U.S. Public High School Students Experiencing Placement in Gifted Programs, Special Education or being Suspended or Expelled, SY 2000 - 2001

High School Percent Black & Hispanic

Being Labeled Gifted & Talented

Being in Special

Education

BeingSuspended

Being Expelled

< 1% .63 1.13 1.35 1.43

1 - 5% .51 1.13 1.52 1.96

6 - 25% .41 1.35 1.67 1.71

26 – 50% .46 1.28 1.39 1.44

51 – 75% .56 1.12 1.18 1.18

76 – 100% .87 1.01 1.03 1.01

Includes only high schools in the 50 states plus D.C. Information on school level and student racial composition comes from the Common Core of Data 2000 (except where missing OCR data was substituted). gifted, special education, suspension, and expulsion data comes from the 2000 OCR survey.

Table 6. Odds Ratio of Black or Hispanic U.S. Public High School Students Experiencing Placement in Gifted Programs, Special Education or being Suspended or Expelled in High or Low Poverty Schools, SY 2000-2001

High School Percent Black & Hispanic

Being Labeled Gifted & Talented

Being in Special

Education

Being Suspende

d

Being Expelled

High Poverty

Low Poverty

High Poverty

Low Poverty

High Poverty

Low Poverty

High Poverty

Low Poverty

< 1% .82 .58 .98 1.18 1.56 1.25 2.27 1.22

1 - 5% .55 .50 1.10 1.15 1.41 1.58 1.74 2.03

6 - 25% .39 .43 1.27 1.37 1.53 1.71 1.66 1.71

26 – 50% .46 .47 1.27 1.30 1.37 1.42 1.43 1.46

51 – 75% .56 .59 1.12 1.11 1.18 1.18 1.17 1.21

76 – 100% .88 .83 1.01 .97 1.03 1.00 1.02 .95

Includes only high schools in the 50 states plus D.C. Information on school level and student racial composition comes from the Common Core of Data 2000 (except where missing OCR data was substituted). gifted, special education, suspension, and expulsion data comes from the 2000 OCR survey.

Percent Special Education and Gifted: Blacks

Percentage of Special Ed and Gifted

Children Who Are Black, SFUSD

School Year

Per

cent40

30

20

10

0

Enrollment Pct

Special Ed Pct

Gifted Pct

Percent Special Education and Gifted: Latino


Children Who Are Latino SFUSD

School Year

Perc

en

t40

30

20

10

0

Enrollment Pct

Special Ed Pct

Gifted Pct

Percent Special Education and Gifted: Whites


Children Who Are White, SFUSD

School Year

Per

cent

40

30

20

10

0

Enrollment Pct

Special Ed Pct

Gifted Pct


These conditions are just some of those that challenge useful and effective assessment of student learning.

Following are recommendations from NRC reports that can help guide good assessment practices in the face of these challenges.

High Stakes: Findings and Recommendations

What teachers teach and what students learn vary widely by track, with those in lower tracks receiving far less than a world-class curriculum. If world-class standards were suddenly adopted, student failure would be unacceptably high (Linn, 1998a).

Recommendation: Accountability for educational outcomesshould be a shared responsibility of states, school districts,public officials, educators, parents, and students. High standardscannot be established and maintained merely by imposingthem on students.

Recommendation: If parents, educators, public officials, andothers who share responsibility for educational outcomes areto discharge their responsibility effectively, they should haveaccess to information about the nature and interpretation oftests and test scores. Such information should be made avail-ableto the public and should be incorporated into teachereducation and into educational programs for principals, administrators,public officials, and others.

CROSS-CUTTING THEMES


Recommendation: A test may appropriately be used to lead

curricular reform, but it should not also be used to make high-stakes

decisions about individual students until test users can

show that the test measures what they have been taught.

Recommendation: Test users should avoid simple either-or

options when high-stakes tests and other indicators show that

students are doing poorly in school, in favor of strategies combining

early intervention and effective remediation of learning problems.

Recommendation: High-stakes decisions such as tracking, pro-motion,

and graduation should not automatically be made onthe basis of a single test score but should be buttressed by

otherrelevant information about the student’s knowledge and skills,such as grades, teacher recommendations, and extenuating

circumstances.



Recommendation: In general, large-scale assessments shouldnot be used to make high-stakes decisions about students

whoare less than 8 years old or enrolled below grade 3.

Recommendation: All students are entitled to sufficient testpreparation so their performance will not be adversely affectedby unfamiliarity with item format or by ignorance of appropriatetest-taking strategies. Test users should balance efforts toprepare students for a particular test format against the possibilitythat excessively narrow preparation will invalidate testoutcomes.

Recommendation: High-stakes testing programs should routinelyinclude a well-designed evaluation component. Policy-makersshould monitor both the intended and unintended con-sequencesof high-stakes assessments on all students and onsignificant subgroups of students, including minorities, English-language learners, and students with disabilities.



Recommendation: As tracking is currently practiced, low-track

classes are typically characterized by an exclusive focus

on basic skills, low expectations, and the least-qualified teachers.

Students assigned to low-track classes are worse off than

they would be in other placements. This form of tracking

should be eliminated. Neither test scores nor other information

Recommendation: Since tracking decisions are basically placement

decisions, tests and other information used for this purpose

should meet professional test standards regarding placement.

APPROPRIATE USES OF TESTS IN TRACKING,PROMOTION, AND GRADUATION

TRACKING


Recommendation: Tests and other information used in promotion

decisions may be interpreted either as evidence of mastery

of material already taught or as evidence of student readiness

for material at the next grade level. In the former case,

test content should be representative of the curriculum at the

current grade level. In the latter case, test scores should predict

the likely educational effects of future placements—

whether promotion, retention in grade, or some other intervention

options.

Recommendation: If a cut score is to be employed on a test

used in making a promotion decision, the quality of the standard-

setting process should be documented and evaluated—

including the qualification of the judges employed, the method

or methods employed, and the degree of consensus reached.


PROMOTION AND RETENTION


Recommendation: Students who fail should have the opportunityto retake any test used in making promotion decisions;this implies that tests used in making promotion decisionsshould have alternate forms.

Recommendation: Test users should avoid the simple either-oroption to promote or retain in grade when high-stakes testsand other indicators show that students are doing poorly inschool, in favor of strategies combining early identification andeffective remediation of learning problems.


PROMOTION AND RETENTION












TRACKING


Recommendation: More research is needed to enable studentswith disabilities to participate in large-scale assessments in waysthat provide valid information. This goal significantly challengescurrent knowledge and technology about measurementand test design and the infrastructure needed to achieve broad-basedparticipation.

Recommendation: The needs of students with disabilitiesshould be considered throughout the test development process.

Recommendation: Decisions about how students with disabilitieswill participate in large-scale assessments should beguided by criteria that are as systematic and objective as possible.They should also be applied on a case-by-case basis aspart of the child’s individual education program and consistentwith the instructional accommodations that the child receives.

FORMS OF TESTING:PARTICIPATION AND ACCOMMODATIONS

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES


Recommendation: If a student with disabilities is subject toan assessment used for promotion or graduation decisions, theIEP team should ensure that the curriculum and instructionreceived by the student through the individual education pro-gramis aligned with test content and that the student has hadadequate opportunity to learn the material covered by the test.

Recommendation: Students who cannot participate in a large-scaleassessment should have alternate ways of demonstratingproficiency.

Recommendation: Because a test score may not be a validrepresentation of the skills and achievement of students withdisabilities, high-stakes decisions about these students shouldconsider other sources of evidence such as grades, teacher recommendations,and other examples of student work.


STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES












TRACKING


Recommendation: Systematic research that investigates the

impact of specific accommodations on the test performance of

both English-language learners and other students is needed.

Accommodations should be investigated to see whether they

reduce construct-irrelevant sources of variance for English-language

learners without disadvantaging other students who

do not receive accommodations. The relationship of test accommodations

to instructional accommodations should also be

studied.

Recommendation: Development and implementation of alternative

measures, such as primary-language assessments,

should be accompanied by information regarding the validity,

reliability, and comparability of scores on primary-language

and English assessments.


ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS


Recommendation: The learning and language needs of English-

language learners should be considered during test development.

Recommendation: Policy decisions about how individual English-

language learners will participate in large-scale assessments—

such as the language and accommodations to be used—

should balance the demands of political accountability with

professional standards of good testing practice. These standards

require evidence that such accommodations or alternate

forms of assessment lead to valid inferences regarding performance.

Recommendation: States, school districts, and schools should

report and interpret disaggregated assessment scores of English-

language learners when psychometrically sound for the

purpose of analyzing their educational outcomes.




Recommendation: Placement decisions based on tests should

incorporate information about educational accomplishments,

particularly literacy skills, in the primary language. Certification

tests (e.g., for high school graduation) should be designed

to reflect state or local deliberations and decisions about the

role of English-language proficiency in the construct to be

assessed. This allows for subject-matter assessment in English

only, in the primary language, or using a test that accommodates

English-language learners by providing English-language

assistance, primary language support, or both.

Recommendation: As for all learners, interpretation of the

test scores of English-language learners for promotion or graduation

should be accompanied by information about opportunities

to master the material tested. For English-language learners,

this includes information about educational history,

exposure to instruction in the primary language and in English,

language resources in the home, and exposure to the main-stream

curriculum.









should be eliminated.

Neither test scores nor other information should ever be used to assign children to inefficacious treatments.





TRACKING


Recommendation: Systematic research that investigates the

impact of specific accommodations on the test performance of

both English-language learners and other students is needed.

Accommodations should be investigated to see whether they

reduce construct-irrelevant sources of variance for English-language

learners without disadvantaging other students who

do not receive accommodations. The relationship of test accommodations

to instructional accommodations should also be studied.

Recommendation: Development and implementation of alternative

measures, such as primary-language assessments,

should be accompanied by information regarding the validity,

reliability, and comparability of scores on primary-language

and English assessments.




Recommendation: The learning and language needs of English-

language learners should be considered during test development.

Recommendation: Policy decisions about how individual English-

language learners will participate in large-scale assessments—

such as the language and accommodations to be used—

should balance the demands of political accountability with

professional standards of good testing practice. These standards

require evidence that such accommodations or alternate

forms of assessment lead to valid inferences regarding performance.

Recommendation: States, school districts, and schools should

report and interpret disaggregated assessment scores of English-

language learners when psychometrically sound for the

purpose of analyzing their educational outcomes.




Recommendation: Placement decisions based on tests should

incorporate information about educational accomplishments,

particularly literacy skills, in the primary language. Certification

tests (e.g., for high school graduation) should be designed

to reflect state or local deliberations and decisions about the

role of English-language proficiency in the construct to be

assessed. This allows for subject-matter assessment in English

only, in the primary language, or using a test that accommodates

English-language learners by providing English-language

assistance, primary language support, or both.

Recommendation: As for all learners, interpretation of the

test scores of English-language learners for promotion or graduation

should be accompanied by information about opportunities

to master the material tested. For English-language learners,

this includes information about educational history,

exposure to instruction in the primary language and in English,

language resources in the home, and exposure to the main-stream

curriculum.



Equity and AssessmentResource materials from the National Academies

• High Stakes: Testing for Tracking, Promotion, and Graduation (1998)

• Testing English-Language Learners in U.S. Schools: Report and Workshop Summary (2000)

• Understanding Dropouts: Statistics Strategies and High Stakes Testing (2001)

equity and assessment the opportunity to learn challenge william t. trent university of illinois at...

Documents

race ethnicity

assessment tools

issues of equity

equity issues

equity question

th grade high school

use of race

role of race