Hellman: Best Practices in K-12 Assessment

Best Practices in K-12 Assessment of

English Language Learners
Andrea B. Hellman, Missouri State University

Abstract

This article provides an outline of the main components of an assessment plan for English

language learners that fits other assessment initiatives districts already have in place (data-based

decision making and progress monitoring, Response to Intervention, and standards-based content testing)

and reflects best practices according to the synthesis of research on the language and literacy

development of language-minority children and youth (August and Shanahan, 2006; Cummins, 2007,

2009; Genesee et al., 2006; Gersten et al., 2007). The components include aligned placement and

summative English language proficiency tests, a thorough intake assessment procedure, screening for

reading difficulties, progress monitoring, the monitoring of reading engagement, differentiated

standards-based grading, and the use of specific guidelines in classroom assessment. The author stresses

the importance of coordinating assessment activities to yield timely, usable data that teachers utilize to

make appropriate instructional decisions for individual learners.

The Conference Proceedings of MIDTESOL: Gateway to Global Citizenship, 2011 22

 Hellman: Best Practices in K-12 Assessment

T
he current school year differs for English Language Learners(ELLS) in Missouri

fundamentally in those schools that have kept pace with educational initiatives for

this population over the past five years. The game-changing initiatives include (1)

school improvement with data-based instructional decision making with the aim to raise the academic

achievement of all sub-groups, (2) the quick spread of the practice known as the Response to Intervention

(RTI) model, which was initially prompted by the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), (3) the broad adoption of a research-based intervention suited for

ELLs called the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP), which has been introduced through

the availability of Title III federal funding for teacher professional development. Even more recently, (4)

many changes have resulted from Missouri’s joining of the WIDA Consortium (World-Class Instructional

Design and Assessment) in the spring of 2010 and adopting WIDA’s approach to standards-based English

language development and assessment (Gottlieb, Cranley, and Cammilleri, 2007). Best practices in the

assessment of K-12 English language learners are meaningfully tied to this broader educational context,

and they reflect what we know from the synthesis of research on the language and literacy development

of culturally and linguistically diverse students (for example, August and Shanahan, 2006; Cummins,

2007, 2009; Genesee et al., 2006; Gersten et al., 2007).

In this article, I discuss the major components of an assessment plan with English language

learners (ELLs) that is congruent with other assessment initiatives already in place in a district. I present

these components in the order in which we can reasonably implement them. I start with the new

mandatory, statewide placement and summative English language proficiency tests. Second, I discuss

what a thorough intake assessment procedure looks like. Third, I show how to use the initial data from the

placement test and the intake assessment to plan instruction for ELLs. I also talk about screening for

reading difficulties and progress monitoring to modify and supplement instruction promptly as particular

weaknesses show. Next, I present a yearlong outline, which I believe plays an essential role in utilizing

The Conference Proceedings of MIDTESOL: Gateway to Global Citizenship, 2011 23

 Hellman: Best Practices in K-12 Assessment

assessment data. Finally, I show how grading fits in differentiated instruction and what guidelines to keep

in mind for standards-based classroom assessment.

Aligned Placement and Summative English Language Proficiency Tests

Since joining the WIDA Consortium, Missouri ELLs take aligned placement and summative

English language proficiency tests. To be able to appreciate the value of this common sense approach, it

helps to remember the previous practice when Missouri switched English language proficiency tests

biannually (MAC II and LAS Links), where language proficiency levels did not correspond and were

unrelated to the various placement tests that districts had available to them. Without aligned placement

and summative tests, progress with language development cannot be reliably monitored. Fortunately, as

of 2010, the WIDA English language proficiency level of every ELL is available within the first weeks of

arriving at a new school by one of two means: either by obtaining the student’s previous ACCESS for

ELLs test scores from WIDA’s database or - if the student is a new arrival to a WIDA state - by

administering the placement test equivalent of the ACCESS for ELLs test, called the W-APT. Being able

to monitor students’ progress toward grade-level academic English language proficiency in the four skill

areas (listening, speaking, reading, writing) is key to knowing how to help them (Gottlieb, Cranley, and

Cammilleri, 2007). The evidence from the test should prevent premature mainstreaming of ELLs without

needed instructional support.

A Well-Designed Intake Assessment Procedure

Having a reliable baseline score of English language proficiency for the purposes of initial

placement and progress monitoring is essential, yet the intake assessment of new-arrival ELLs should not

be limited to administering a placement test and obtaining a baseline score. There are many other pieces

of information just as important to know if we wish to understand the background of our students and to

make sensible decisions about their educational experiences. A well-designed intake assessment

procedure is necessary for getting it right from the start (for example, Celic, 2009). The questions at

intake are what type of information to collect, when and how to collect it, and then how to best

The Conference Proceedings of MIDTESOL: Gateway to Global Citizenship, 2011 24

 Hellman: Best Practices in K-12 Assessment

disseminate the information to the teachers. The type of information gathered during this process is not

quite as important as how the information is used afterwards

Because ELLs tend to be a highly diverse group, it is especially important to gauge those factors

that are consequential for their potential academic achievement and language development. Some of these

factors are more obvious, such as native language, prior schooling, length of time to achieve current

English language proficiency, or history of ESL support, while others are less commonly considered: age

of onset of daily interaction in English, opportunities to interact in English outside school, motivation for

learning English, native language literacy, home literacy, social capital (parental investment in the child),

personal strengths and interests. Information can be gathered by an ESL teacher through a variety of

means: a survey completed during interviews with the student and the caregivers, a dialog journal, an

illustrated autobiography, or a timeline of life experiences. An impromptu writing sample in the native

language can indicate native language literacy and academic preparation on the grade level even for an

educator who is unfamiliar with the particular native language. The interviewer can observe the ease with

which the student can express herself in writing and the fluency with which she is able to read back the

writing.

An intake assessment is not complete until the relevant information about the new student is

shared with the classroom teachers, para-professionals, and specialists in a form that is easy to understand

and access. In addition to the information itself, it is helpful when the intake coordinator interprets the

information, notes both strengths and needs, and attaches specific recommendations for working with the

student.

Data-Based Decisions in Instructional Planning and Grouping

Once teachers receive the results of ELLs’ baseline English language proficiency in the four skill

areas along with the results and recommendations from the intake assessment, they are ready to begin

planning for their students. A whole class profile is a practical way to collect pertinent information on all

ELLs (Celic, 2009), an example of which can be found in the Appendix. When the information on all

learners in one class is displayed together, patterns begin to emerge, which can be very helpful for

The Conference Proceedings of MIDTESOL: Gateway to Global Citizenship, 2011 25

 Hellman: Best Practices in K-12 Assessment

grouping learners to work together on specific goals and skills. For example, the whole class profile can

show which learners may need more extensive background building and pre-teaching, which learners

share strengths and needs, or which learners have weaknesses in just specific skill areas. A whole class

profile can also help identify the resources necessary to support learners, as with a push-in ESL teacher or

an instructional aide who can provide native language support.

Perhaps the most relevant pattern to look for on the whole class profile is how learners cluster

with their WIDA English language proficiency (ELP) levels in the four language skill areas. For

instructional planning, it is more important to know what learners can do in the four language skills than

knowing their mean English proficiency level. For instance, a learner who scores Level 4 in reading and

writing and Level 2 in listening and speaking would have Level 3 overall proficiency, the same as a

learner who scores Level 4 in listening and speaking and Level 2 in reading and writing. Although both

learners would be Level 3, suitable learning tasks for each would be distinctly different. Grouping these

two learners together to work on the same language objectives would not be an ideal planning decision. It

would be better to group the first student with Level 4-5 students on reading and writing tasks and Level

2-3 students on listening and speaking tasks, while the second student would be able to work more

successfully with Level 2-3 students on reading and writing tasks.

What learners can be expected to do on each level of proficiency in the four language skill areas

is outlined in WIDA’s CAN DO descriptor booklets (for example, WIDA Consortium, 2009). The CAN

DO descriptors and model performance indicators of the WIDA ELP Standards are excellent take-off

points for locating suitable language objectives that promote students’ language development.

Instructional planning for language development should definitely start with these documents.

Two strongly recommended practices that fall under data-based decision making are screening

tests and progress monitoring. Formal screening tests to identify reading problems are in place in most

schools, and these should also be used with English language learners according to the Institute of

Education Sciences practice guide (Gersten et al., 2007), provided that the tests are carefully reviewed for

validity and reliability with the English learner population. ELLs should keep with the same benchmarks

The Conference Proceedings of MIDTESOL: Gateway to Global Citizenship, 2011 26

 Hellman: Best Practices in K-12 Assessment

as native English speakers, and teachers should not delay reading interventions on account of limited oral

language proficiency. In fact, thirty minutes of reading intervention per day in small homogeneous groups

is part of best practice with ELLs - with an added emphasis on oral language and vocabulary, which are

foundational for reading comprehension (August and Shanahan, 2006; Genesee et al., 2006). Progress

monitoring entails reviewing the reading performance of ELLs at least three times a year or more

frequently if they are having reading difficulties. Weekly or bi-weekly follow-up is necessary with high-

risk students (Gersten et al., 2007).

Some aspects of reading progress monitoring are specific to ELLs as was highlighted by the

synthesis of research of the National Literacy Panel (August and Shanahan, 2006; Genesee et al., 2006);

the sources of reading difficulties most ELLs experience can be atypical for native speakers, such as

unfamiliarity with high-frequency vocabulary, collocations, and basic English phrase structures most

children master before starting to read. Non-literal meaning and cultural content pose additional problems

for ELLs. As far as progress monitoring, the most critical is the potential erosion of reading engagement

as a result of sustained difficulties with reading comprehension (Cummins 2007, 2009). Students’ desire

and motivation to read rapidly dissipate when they are overwhelmed by the task and gain little or no

enjoyment from reading. This is why it is important to add reading progress monitoring measures that

indicate change in reading engagement, such as reading logs and reading attitude surveys.

Careful Planning of Assessment Activities

No matter how many assessments teachers conduct, best practice requires that the data be used to

inform instruction and benefit both students and programs. Administering assessments can be harmful if it

wastes resources, reduces instructional time, or disrupts learning. The benefits of carrying out any

assessment should outweigh the costs in resources and instructional time. Teachers need a thoughtfully

constructed timeline of assessment events as a blueprint. It is best to schedule assessments to maximize

the usefulness of the information collected. Assessments that do not yield usable, timely results should

either be rethought or entirely eliminated. Careful planning is the only way to optimize the use of

findings.

The Conference Proceedings of MIDTESOL: Gateway to Global Citizenship, 2011 27

 Hellman: Best Practices in K-12 Assessment

Table 1 is a sample timeline of an assessment schedule for ELLs over an academic year. Note that

the state mandated assessment activities are set in advance (home language survey, language proficiency

placement test, annual language proficiency test, large-scale academic achievement tests), and the timing

of district instituted assessments may be only slightly more flexible (intake assessment, district writing

assessment, reading benchmark tests, quarterly progress report). All classroom assessments have to be

strategically distributed to work around the district schedule, which is a considerable challenge.

Table 1. Sample Timeline of Assessments with ELLs in an Academic Year

Month Formal assessments Informal assessments

August Home language survey Intake assessment (academic
records, interview, autobiography,
dialog journal, writing sample)
September English language proficiency (ELP)
placement test

October Reading inventory Writing sample

Standards-based report card Content area assessments
ELP progress report Monitoring team meeting

November Running records

Oral language sample
December Content area assessments
January Standards-based report card Running records
ELP progress report Content area assessments
Monitoring team meeting
Student-led conference
February Large-scale ELP test
March Large-scale academic achievement
test
April District writing assessment Oral language sample
Standards-based report card Running records
ELP progress report Monitoring team meeting
May Portfolio assessment Content area assessments
June Standards-based report card
ELP progress report Monitoring team meeting

The Conference Proceedings of MIDTESOL: Gateway to Global Citizenship, 2011 28

 Hellman: Best Practices in K-12 Assessment

Grading with Standards-Based Differentiated Rubrics

Even though grading is a form of student evaluation and only partially formal assessment, it

should be considered under teachers’ best assessment practices. Grades are not based strictly on evidence

of learning. Teachers figure into grades participation, effort, timeliness, presentation, and whether or not

students follow directions to the word (Gottlieb, 2006). When grades are distributed on the comparison of

students’ products and performances, ELLs rarely compare favorably and have a fair chance of earning a

high grade. It is important to consider how grades can be a part of setting high expectations for students

while also providing them with the necessary guidance and high support to have a reasonable chance at

achieving those standards. A way to accomplish this is to grade ELLs on pre-established criteria with

which they can become familiar prior to completing the assignment. The pre-established criteria should

include the content standard, the language expectations embedded in the assignment, and specifics about

the support available to them to complete the assignment. The language expectations need to be modified

to reflect what students can do with language on their current level of English proficiency. The modified

language expectations may require adding to the assignment checkpoints for confirming the student’s

understanding, language supports such as a template or word bank, or multimodal supports such as a

hands-on demonstration. (Fairbairn and Jones-Vo, 2010.)

The examples in Tables 2 and 3 show how a standards-based assignment may be differentiated

for a Level 3/Developing English learner for the purpose of fair grading.

Table 2

Sample Differentiated Assignment Rubric in Mathematics

English Grade-level Level 3/Developing

language
proficiency
Language Read story problem independently. Read story problem and check
expectation Record data on a graph. Interpret what understanding.
the graph represents using complete Interpret the graph in one complete
sentences. sentence using a word bank.

Content GLE: Mathematics. Algebraic relationships. 1B. Analyze patterns using words,

The Conference Proceedings of MIDTESOL: Gateway to Global Citizenship, 2011 29

 Hellman: Best Practices in K-12 Assessment

standard tables, and graphs.

Support Blank graph. Teacher to confirm comprehension.

Blank graph.
Word bank.

Table 3

Sample Differentiated Assignment Rubric in Communication Arts

English Grade-level Level 3/Developing

language
proficiency
Language Read passage independently. Read passage with partner; check for
expectation Respond in paragraph form in writing. comprehension frequently.
Respond on the sentence level both
orally and in writing.

Content GLE: Communication Arts. Reading. 1. I b. Identify and explain relevant

standard connections between text ideas and own experiences.

Support None. Partner.

Comprehension checks with teacher.

Guidelines for Standards-Based Classroom Assessment

In classroom assessment, best practice does not simply mean the use of a particular type of

assessment technique. There are easy to spot, popular classroom activities that we tend to associate with

best practice. The most common ones are the “thumbs up, thumbs down, thumbs in the middle” technique

to check for understanding; another is the use of individual slates or mini whiteboards to allow everyone

to record an answer and hold it up for the teacher to see. The third one is the exit slip, a brief written

assessment task students complete before exiting the lesson (Echevarria, Vogt, Short, 2008). The fact that

a teacher employs quick, convenient assessment tools does indicate that the teacher is interested in

assessment; however, what really matters is what type of information the teacher is gathering and how

s/he uses that information to modify instruction. Rather than any particular technique, best practice in

The Conference Proceedings of MIDTESOL: Gateway to Global Citizenship, 2011 30

 Hellman: Best Practices in K-12 Assessment

classroom assessment means that assessment activities are principled, employed strategically, and used to

guide instruction.

The following guidelines represent a synthesis of expert recommendations (Echevarria, Vogt,

Short, 2008; Ellis, 2009; Fairbairn and Jones-Vo, 2010; Francis et al., 2006), which I group by the three

main stages of the assessment process: design, administration, feedback/evaluation.

During the design phase:

 Ensure that content learning objectives are based on grade level content standards appropriate

for the student’s age.

 Prefer authentic assessment (demonstrations, presentations, projects, models, posters, real-life

problems) to contrived forms of assessment (multiple choice tests, recitations, pedagogical

problems, worksheets).

 Match the language burden of the assessment (the language skills needed to demonstrate

understanding of concepts) to the student’s language abilities.

 Evaluate the assessment for cultural and general background knowledge embedded in the

tasks.

 Check that the depth of knowledge required on the assessment matches the depth of

knowledge that was explicitly taught. (For example, if only application was taught, but not

evaluation, do not require evaluation on the assessment task.)

 Create differentiated rubrics to weigh content knowledge and language in a way that is fair

for the individual student’s level of language proficiency but also motivates the student to

improve language skills.

During the administration phase:

 Allow students to select from a menu of assessment options to best demonstrate the content

knowledge they have acquired (if appropriate).

The Conference Proceedings of MIDTESOL: Gateway to Global Citizenship, 2011 31

 Hellman: Best Practices in K-12 Assessment

 Share expectations with students ahead of time by explaining the rubric that will be used to

evaluate the work.

 Provide clear task explanations. If necessary, demonstrate tasks and have students show

understanding by completing practice items before beginning the actual assessment task.

 Allow students to use the same supports that they were able to use during the review segment

of instruction.

 Allow only pre-approved forms of accommodations on tests. Accommodations that have

demonstrated usefulness are word banks, glossaries, and dictionaries the student is already

familiar with and is accustomed to using.

During the feedback/evaluation phase:

 Monitor student output and provide usable feedback to students on an ongoing basis. Listen,

repeat, recast. Elaborate student output.

 Make use of the most effective form of error correction: elicitation. Prompt students with

cues to produce self-correction.

 Be frugal and strategic with error correction overall. Be mindful of the affect of explicit error

correction and consider the type of errors students can attend to given their developmental

level and their language proficiency.

 Highlight and reinforce strengths in students’ work.

 Avoid grading that is based on comparing students to each other.

 Grade each student according to predefined criteria presented explicitly in a rubric and shared

with each student prior to completing the assessment.

 When making any consequential decision about each student, use several forms of

assessment. If the data from different forms of assessment do not agree, give consideration to

the validity of the data.

What’s Next?

The Conference Proceedings of MIDTESOL: Gateway to Global Citizenship, 2011 32

 Hellman: Best Practices in K-12 Assessment

To sum up, the outline of assessment presented here is a work in progress, which is based on what

our current best practice is with K-12 English learners. We want to remember that ELL assessment has to

fit the larger context of instruction and assessment in the district, which changes rapidly in response to

federal mandates, state initiatives, and school improvement efforts. It appears that data-based decision

making and continuous improvement, Response to Intervention, and differentiated instruction are here to

stay, while content area standards, standards-based assessments, and accountability measures are

presently in flux. As we transition to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the Smarter

Balanced subject assessments, districts will be implementing many new initiatives. In addition, WIDA’s

P-12 English language proficiency standards are in revision to match up with the academic language

components of the CCSS. In the coming years, we should see a more integral alignment of the revised

English language development standards and the general education standards in English Language Arts,

Mathematics, and Science. Hopefully, this will lead to closer collaboration between ESOL teachers and

mainstream classroom teachers on planning, instruction, as well as on assessment. The overall outline for

ELL assessment I described will remain workable even as individual components change: start with a

baseline measure of English language proficiency, conduct a thorough intake assessment, screen for

reading difficulties, monitor progress and reading engagement regularly, always have a timeline to

optimize the usability of data, grade with differentiated rubrics, and adhere to the guidelines for classroom

assessment.

For an orientation on assessment terms, more detailed descriptions of the components, and

additional practical tools, please access the accompanying online guide Assessment with P-12 English

Language Learners at http://missouristate.academia.edu/AndreaHellman/Papers.

The Conference Proceedings of MIDTESOL: Gateway to Global Citizenship, 2011 33

 Hellman: Best Practices in K-12 Assessment

References

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.) (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of

the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Celic, C. M. (2009). English language learners day by day K-6: A complete guide to literacy, content-

area, and language instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cummins, J. (2007). Pedagogies for the poor? Realigning reading instruction for low-income students

with scientifically based reading research. Educational Researcher, 36 (9), 564-572.

Cummins, J. (2009). Literacy and English-language learners: A shifting landscape for students, teachers,

researchers, and policy makers. Educational Researcher, 38 (5), 382-384.

Echevarría, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The

SIOP model. Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn and Bacon.

Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1 (1), 1-18.

Fairbairn, S., & Jones-Vo, S. (2010). Differentiating instruction and assessment for English language

learners: A guide for K-12 teachers. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.

Francis, D. J., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical guidelines for the

education of English language learners. Portsmouth, NH: Center on Instruction.

Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W. M., & Christian, D. (Eds.) (2006). Educating English

language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. New York: Cambridge.

Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R. (2007).

Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades:

A practice guide (NCEE 2007-4011). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation

and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Available from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee

The Conference Proceedings of MIDTESOL: Gateway to Global Citizenship, 2011 34

 Hellman: Best Practices in K-12 Assessment

Gottlieb, M., Cranley, M. E., & Cammilleri, A. (2007). The WIDA English language proficiency

standards and resource guide: Pre-kindergarten through grade 12. Madison, WI: The WIDA

Consortium.

Gottlieb, M. (2006). Assessing English language learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

WIDA Consortium. (2009). The English language learner CAN DO booklet. Grades 3-5. Available from

http://wida.us

The Conference Proceedings of MIDTESOL: Gateway to Global Citizenship, 2011 35

 Hellman: Best Practices in K-12 Assessment

Appendix

Sample Whole Class Profile Form

The Conference Proceedings of MIDTESOL: Gateway to Global Citizenship, 2011 36

 Hellman: Best Practices in K-12 Assessment

A
ndrea B. Hellman, Ed.D., is a teacher educator at Missouri State University. She recently

served as Research Associate for Project SPEAK, a Title III National Professional

Development grant at Missouri Southern State University. Her qualifications include thirteen

years of ESOL teaching and assessment experience, a doctoral degree from Boston University, and

the Christopher Brumfit Award for research on second language vocabulary assessment.

AndreaBHellman@missouristate.edu

The Conference Proceedings of MIDTESOL: Gateway to Global Citizenship, 2011 37