������Ƶ

Two types of assessments are typically associated with ELs: (1) academic achievement assessments that test content areas such as math, English language arts (ELA), and science; and (2) language assessments that measure proficiency in reading, writing, speaking, and listening. In both categories, states must administer assessments aligned with content and language development standards.¹ States can develop these assessments on their own or with other states as part of a consortium.² ESSA created a sense of uniformity in how students are assessed within states by requiring that the same ELA and math tests be administered to all students in grades 3–8 and once in high school for purposes of the academic achievement indicator. Also, while each state can use the English language proficiency (ELP) assessment of its choice, each state is required to assess its ELs using the same test in each grade until they are reclassified as fluent in English.³

Progress has been made in ensuring ELs’ language proficiency is assessed using valid and reliable tools, but the monolingual approach to assessments in the U.S. often prevents us from truly grasping how ELs are doing academically.⁴ For example, content assessments given in English can end up being assessments of EL language proficiency rather than a measure of academic knowledge and skills. To bridge this gap between language and content, federal law allows states to assess ELs using tests in their home language—often referred to as native language assessments—using tools that range from full assessments in a language other than English to more targeted accommodations.⁵ While some states offer native language assessments and accommodations, their use is often limited and not always appropriate.⁶

Standardized tests play an important role in ELs’ education, but they do not necessarily tell us everything we need to know about ELs’ capabilities and needs, both academically and linguistically. Moving forward, efforts to improve how ELs are assessed should focus on making academic assessments more accessible and responsive to their full range of knowledge and ensuring other measurement tools and methods are being used during the normal course of instruction.

Our recommendations focus on how to ensure consistency and standardization, to the extent possible, in how ELs’ language growth is assessed when traditional methods are not available.⁷ Recognizing the inherent link between language proficiency and the ability to access content assessments, our recommendations also focus on ensuring that schools and teachers are well equipped to assess ELs both academically and linguistically through authentic assessments embedded throughout the school year. To these aims, we offer the following assessment policy recommendations:

1) Invest in the development of alternative tools that can provide a summative understanding of ELs’ progress in attaining ELP in cases when the annual ELP assessment cannot be administered.

2) Provide guidance to states on how to proceed without multiple years of ELP and/or academic growth assessment data, pulling from existing knowledge and best practices.⁸

3) Develop best practices and tools that can be scaled up and used to build educator capacity to measure ELs’ academic and language needs throughout the school year. These tools should be available for teachers who work in English-dominant programs and those who work in bilingual programs. Tools, such as formative and interim assessments, should be aligned to the appropriate language development standards, and designed to assess ELs’ academic and language strengths and areas in need of improvement.

• This can be done by leveraging Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs) to develop and widely disseminate assessment practice guides tailored to ELs’ needs through the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) What Works Clearinghouse. The last EL practice guide was published in 2014 and incorporates formative assessments under “Recommendation 4.”⁹ Future work can focus on updating this guide and providing ready-to-use tools for teachers to implement in the classroom.
• Local education agencies should be provided more tools that can be embedded in the normal course of instruction to help teachers assess ELs’ progress, both language and content, throughout the year. Tools and best practices should be designed to support teachers’ ability to assess students for diagnostic and student growth purposes.

4) Support states that want to develop native language assessments and accommodations for ELs, including standardized tests in a language other than English, when appropriate.¹⁰

In early childhood, assessments provide teachers with information to guide instruction and to develop and implement appropriate interventions and supports. Screening tools help identify potential developmental delays and are a first step in linking families with appropriate services. States use a variety of approaches and tools to gauge DLLs’ academic learning and language development. Head Start mandates both screening and assessment to help individualize instruction, including that DLLs be assessed in both their home language and English.¹¹ However, while these regulations are strong, little guidance is offered on how to meet the requirements and ensure effective implementation.

Indeed, this directive highlights a central challenge in assessing young dual language learners: ensuring that the full scope of their skills and knowledge can be captured. Consider: a teacher might ask a child if they can count to 10. The child replies by counting to 10 in their home language. The teacher marks that the child is not able to count to 10 because they did not count to 10 in English. As prominent DLL expert Linda Espinosa writes, “as children acquire a second language, one language may be more dominant because they use that language more often than the other at a particular point in time. If children are assessed only in their least-proficient language, their abilities will be underestimated.”¹² Currently, we often lack sufficient assessment tools in the home languages of DLLs which means educators are left with an incomplete picture of these children’s capabilities and strengths.

In addition, while some early childhood assessments are available in multiple languages, there are many assessments that are not. That leaves little choice but to translate English assessments into other languages, which is rife with challenges. Some early literacy skills such as phonological awareness are not relevant in other languages. For example, Mandarin and Cantonese are character based and not connected to phonemes.¹³ Other issues to consider are cultural relevance and context and regional variations in languages.¹⁴ Without a consideration of these differences, translated assessments may produce inaccurate results.

To help strengthen the assessment of dual language learners, we recommend the following:

1. Provide guidance on assessment of DLLs, including a focus on methods for assessing knowledge and skills in the home language(s) and English, and linguistically competent methods for determining eligibility for special education and related services.
2. Fund the development of valid and age-appropriate bilingual assessment tools in home languages for children ages birth to five.
3. Encourage states to use child care quality dollars to offer teachers professional development and training on how to effectively assess DLLs and use that information to guide instruction. Consider allowing set-asides for the hiring of trained bilingual assessors to increase the capacity of early childhood education programs in assessing DLLs.