Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing English Language Proficiency in the United States

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Language Testing and Assessment

Part of the book series: Encyclopedia of Language and Education ((ELE))

Abstract

The 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) ushered in a series of important changes for the education of students classified as English language learners, including greater attention to achievement and equity through mandated evaluation and reporting on the part of districts and states of student subgroups. This feature of the ESEA reauthorization and the role of high-stakes testing in general has fueled extensive discussions of educational reform in the years since NCLB, continuing into the present day when the accountability requirements of NCLB are coupled with the benchmarks and assessments set forth in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). While the CCSS and their accompanying assessments strive to address early criticisms of NCLB such as the narrowing of curriculum, states have also had to develop or adopt new standards for English as a second language (most frequently referred to as English Language Proficiency (ELP) Standards). These state ELP Standards are an essential and defining element of the education of English language learners (ELLs) in the context of the CCSS for the foreseeable future and will dictate exactly how learning English is defined for this population, whether a common definition of English language learners can be established, and the degree to which the United States can provide a first-class education for students who range from emergent to accomplished multicompetent users of two languages.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abedi, J. (2002). Standardized achievement tests and English language learners: Psychometric issues. Educational Assessment, 8(3), 231–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, D. (Ed.). (2011). Alternative approaches to second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2012). Framework for English language proficiency development standards corresponding to the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards. http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2012/ELPD%20Framework%20Booklet-Final%20for%20web.pdf. Last accessed 16 June 2015.

  • Cumming, A. (2008). Assessing oral and literate abilities. In Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). The condition of education 2015: English language learners (NCES 2015–144). https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp. Last accessed 27 June 2015.

  • Durán, R. (2008). Assessing English-language learners’ achievement. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 292–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Every Student Succeeds Act. Pub. L. No. 114–95. 114th Congress. (2015–2016)

    Google Scholar 

  • Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2007). Language testing and assessment. London/New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gándara, P. (2015). Charting the relationship of English learners and the ESEA: One step forward, two steps back. RSF: The Russel Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences. 1(3). 112–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gándara, P., & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed social policies. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gándara, P., & Orfield, G. (2012). Segregating Arizona’s English learners: A return to the “Mexican room”. Teachers College Record, 114(9), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2006). No Child Left Behind Act: Assistance from Education could help states better measure progress with limited English proficiency. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-815. Last accessed 16 June 2015.

  • Gutiérrez, K. D., Asato, J., Santos, M., & Gotanda, N. (2002). Backlash pedagogy: Language and culture and the politics of reform. The Review of Education, Pedagogy & Cultural Studies, 24(4), 335–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasko, V. (2013). Capturing the dynamics of second language development via learner corpus research: A very long engagement. The Modern Language Journal, 97(S1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, M., Thompson, K. D., Linquanti, R., Hakuta, K., & August, D. (2013). Fully accounting for English learner performance a key issue in ESEA reauthorization. Educational Researcher, 42(2), 101–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Impact of No Child Left Behind on English language learners: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, Committee on Education and Labor. US House of Representatives, 110th Congress, 1 (2007). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg34017/pdf/CHRG-110hhrg34017.pdf. Last accessed 16 June 2015.

  • Kopriva, R. (2008). Improving testing for English language learners. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen-Freeman, D. (1978). An ESL index of development. TESOL Quarterly, 12(4), 439–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linquanti, R. (2001). The redesignation dilemma: Challenges and choices in fostering meaningful accountability for English learners. University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linquanti, R., & Cook, H. G. (2013). Toward a “common definition of English learner”: Guidance for states and state assessment consortia in defining and addressing policy and technical issues and options. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2011). Allocating federal funds for state programs for English language learners. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115. Stat, 1425 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, L. (2009). Sequences and processes in language learning. In H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 81–105). Malden: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, L., & Iberri-Shea, G. (2005). Longitudinal research in second language acquisition: Recent trends and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 26–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragan, A., & Lesaux, N. (2006). Federal, state, and district level English language learner program entry and exit requirements: Effects on the education of language minority learners. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(20). doi:10.14507/epaa.v14n20.2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seedhouse, P., Walsh, S., & Jenks, C. (2010). Conceptualising ‘learning’ in applied linguistics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. Harlow: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solano-Flores, G. (2008). Who is given tests in what language by whom, when, and where? The need for probabilistic views of language in the testing of English language learners. Educational Researcher, 37(4), 189–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solórzano, R. W. (2008). High stakes testing: Issues, implications, and remedies for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 78(2), 260–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, G., Shepard, L., Kinner, F., & Rosenthal, J. (2002). A survey of teachers’ perspectives on high-stakes testing in Colorado: What gets taught, what gets lost. CSE Technical Report 588. Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. Los Angeles: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, C. P. (2014). Chaos for dual language learners: An examination of state policies for exiting children from language services in the PreK-3rd grades. New America. http://www.newamerica.org.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/downloads/chaosfordlls-conorwilliams-20140925_v3.pdf. Last accessed 16 June 2015.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Race, Inequality, Language and Education (RILE) Program, Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA

    Guadalupe Valdés

  2. School of Education and Human Development, University of Colorado Denver, 1380 Lawrence St, Ste 739, Campus Box 106, PO Box 173364, Denver, CO, 80217-3364, USA

    Luis E. Poza

Authors
  1. Luis E. Poza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guadalupe Valdés
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guadalupe Valdés .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Tel-Aviv University School of Education, Tel-Aviv, Israel

    Elana Shohamy

  2. Tel-Aviv University School of Education, Tel-Aviv, Israel

    Iair G. Or

  3. Faculty of Education, University of Auckland, School of Critic, Auckland, New Zealand

    Stephen May

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry

Poza, L.E., Valdés, G. (2016). Assessing English Language Proficiency in the United States. In: Shohamy, E., Or, I., May, S. (eds) Language Testing and Assessment. Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02326-7_30-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02326-7_30-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02326-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation