Assessment With P-12 English Language Learners

ASSESSMENT WITH P-12
ENGLISH LANGUAGE
LEARNERS
TESOL 2011 A Quick Guide
Andrea B. Hellman

Assessment with P-12 English Language Learners
http://mssu.academia.edu/AndreaHellman/Papers Andrea B. Hellman 2011 Page 1
Assessment with P-12 English
Language Learners
A Q U I C K G U I D E
TABLE OF CONTENTS
What is assessment? 2
Key terms to get started 3
Types of assessments with English language learners 4
Federally mandated assessments 6
District instituted assessments 7
Instructional assessments 11
Sample timeline of assessment activities with ELLs 13
Guidelines for standards-based classroom assessment 14
Assessing speaking 15
Assessing listening 16
Assessing reading 16
Assessing writing 17
Recommended resources 19
Works cited 20
Appendix A: Intake assessment tool 22
Appendix B: Whole class profile form 23

Assessment with P-12 English
Language Learners
A Q U I C K G U I D E
WHAT IS ASSESSMENT?
Assessment is a sub-specialty of teaching. It helps educators answer crucially important questions.
 What does this student know?
 What do I need to teach this student?
 Where should we place this student?
 What specialized services does this student need?
 How much English does this student understand?
 What are this student’s strengths and weaknesses?
 Has the student mastered the lesson or course objectives?
 Is the student progressing toward English language proficiency?
 Does the student need English language support?
 Are the support services effective?
 Is this teacher effective with English language learners?
 Is the school effective with educating English language learners?
In order to answer these questions, we gather and analyze data. The kind of data we need depends on the
question we are trying to answer.
An example of an assessment process
Let’s suppose we want to answer a basic question about our instruction, such as “Have my students learned the
objective of today’s lesson?”. Instead of guessing the answer, we could conduct assessment and find out the
answer in a step-by-step way.

Step 1: Define the lesson objective.
Step 2: Decide what constitutes valid evidence of having learned the objective.
Step 3: Gather the evidence using a suitable assessment tool (student self-report, quiz, worksheet,
student writing or project).
Step 4: Analyze the evidence.
Step 5: Document the findings (on a checklist or class poster, in a grade book or student portfolio).
Step 6: Use the findings to benefit instruction (give feedback, re-teach, plan new forms of practice,
proceed to next objective).
KEY TERMS TO GET STARTED
Assessment has its own technical vocabulary. Assessment for English language learners (ELLs) in US public
schools is even more specialized in terms of key vocabulary. Here are the very basics to keep in mind.
Assessment Answering questions by collecting and analyzing data.
Assessment tool An instrument used to collect data (test, survey, questionnaire, checklist, portfolio,
rubric, observation record).
Validity The extent to which the assessment is measuring what it is intended for.
Reliability The extent to which the assessment results can be trusted to represent what they are
supposed to represent.
Fairness The extent to which the assessment allows everyone equal opportunity to do well.
Principles of
assessment
Assessments should bring benefits to students. High stakes decisions should not be
based on the results of a single assessment tool, but on multiple forms of assessment.
Assessments must be both age appropriate and linguistically appropriate in content
and method. Assessments must be tailored to the specific purpose for which they are
intended. Attention must be paid to the intended purpose, fairness, validity, and
reliability of the assessment tools for the population of students that they are used
with.
Baseline A measurement prior to starting in a program (also treatment or intervention).
Benchmark A sub-goal toward a main goal; a pre-established measurement which indicates that
the learner is on-target to meet the eventual goal.
AYP Adequate Yearly Progress. AYP is a benchmark that subgroups are expected to
meet to be on target for achieving the eventual goal established for them (which is
100% will be proficient on the grade level by 2014).
AMAO 1 Annual Measurable Achievement Objective One. The subgroup of limited English
proficient students (LEP) must meet benchmarks for progress toward English language
proficiency. AMAO 1 is a benchmark that indicates that a pre-established
percentage of students are showing progress toward English proficiency. Progress is
most commonly defined as moving up one level of English language proficiency per
year (up to 5-6 years), although this definition is problematic because the students do
not progress through levels at a linear rate. (Language development is much faster at

lower proficiency than at higher proficiency (Cook, 2008).)
AMAO 2 Annual Measurable Achievement Objective Two. AMAO 2 is a benchmark that
indicates that a pre-established percentage of students reach grade level English
language proficiency. English language proficiency is defined in terms of a specific
level on the state ELP test (for example, Level 5/Bridging or higher on the ACCESS
for ELLs test).
Standards-based
assessment
Assessment whose purpose in to evaluate whether specific academic or language
proficiency standards have been achieved.
Standardized test A test that is administered is a uniform fashion, according to a strict protocol. The
interpretation of standardized assessment assumes that all test takers took the test
under the same conditions and the scoring was consistent.
Authentic
assessment
As opposed to traditional forms of assessment when students may be evaluated on
artificial tasks that they do not normally perform in real life, authentic assessment
focuses on real life performance, products, or various actual manifestations of skills.
Exit criteria A pre-established set of expectations that define what students should be able to do
to succeed academically with the district’s general curriculum without any specialized
language support. Exited ELLs are no longer eligible to receive specialized support
from the English language development program.
TYPES OF ASSESSMENTS WITH ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
Teachers of ELLs may have responsibility for conducting or interpreting the findings of a number of different
types of assessments depending on the district where they work. Some of these assessments are mandated by
federal or state regulations, others are part of district Lau plans, some are an integral part of best teaching
practices.
Federally mandated assessments
Home language
survey
Purpose: To identify potential LEP students.
Assessment question: Is the student a language minority student?
Sample tool: See in Recommended Resources.
English language
proficiency test
Purpose: To keep schools accountable for LEP subgroup’s progress toward English
language proficiency in listening, speaking, reading, and writing.
Assessment question: What is the student’s English language proficiency level?
Sample tool: ACCESS for ELLs test
State academic
achievement tests
Purpose: To keep schools accountable for LEP subgroup’s meaningful access to the
mainstream curriculum and progress toward state academic standards in
Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies.
Assessment question: Has the student met grade level expectations in the
content area?
Sample tool: MAP test (Missouri)

District instituted assessments
Placement test Purpose: To obtain baseline ELP score; to recommend suitable forms of
instructional support.
Assessment question: What is the student’s English language proficiency level
upon entry to the district?
Sample tool: W-APT
Screening tests Purpose: To detect possible reading problems early.
Assessment question: Is the student on grade level with specific reading skills?
Sample tool: DRA2
Progress monitoring Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of placement, language support, and
interventions.
Assessment question: Is the student making progress with the specific skills
necessary to be successful in the mainstream education program?
Sample method: Records review, team meeting
Standards-based
report cards
Purpose: To inform parents of grade level expectations and their child’s progress
toward the goals of both standard and supplemental instruction.
Assessment questions: Is the student on target to meet the grade level
expectations? Is the student meeting the benchmarks of English language
proficiency? Has the student achieved the goals of supplemental instruction?
Sample tool: See in Recommended Resources.
Assessment portfolio Purpose: To supplement one-shot tests with fair, valid, robust, authentic evidence
of standards-based learning.
Assessment question: Specific question can vary. The portfolio is designed to
document evidence for the specific assessment question.
Sample tools: Item descriptions, scoring guide, rubric
Writing assessment Purpose: To evaluate writing against the grade-level Language Arts and English
Language Proficiency Standards.
Assessment questions: Does the writing sample evidence grade level
expectations for academic writing? Does the writing sample evidence ELP writing
benchmarks?
Sample tools: Normed writing prompt, scoring guide, benchmark papers, rubric
Evaluation of the
instructional
environment
Purpose: To evaluate whether the instructional environment is conductive to
language and literacy development.
Assessment question: Does the classroom environment have the recommended
qualities?
Sample tool: ELLCO
Classroom
observation protocol
Purpose: To observe the features of instruction that have known benefits for ELLs’
content learning and language development.
Assessment question: Are the recommended features of instruction evident?

Sample tool: SIOP
ELL program
evaluation
Purpose: To report on the district’s existing needs, available resources, and the
efficacy of ELL programs as evidenced by student outcomes (AMAO 1, AMAO 2,
AYP).
Assessment question: Is the program effective with serving the needs of ELLs?
Possible formats: Self-study report; external evaluation team report
Instructional assessments
Intake assessment Purpose: To plan instruction and learning support.
Assessment question: What are the student’s needs (personal, linguistics,
academic), strengths, weaknesses?
Sample tools: Academic records, test score reports, interview, L1 writing sample,
autobiography, dialog journal
Benchmark tests Purpose: To ascertain that the student is on target for grade level reading
proficiency.
Assessment question: Is the student’s reading performance within the expected
grade level norms?
Sample tools: Running records, Comprehensive Reading Inventory (CRI; Cooter et
al. 2007)
Formative classroom
assessment
Purpose: To inform instruction.
Assessment question: Has the student achieved the learning objective? What
additional instruction may be necessary?
Sample tools: Checklists, exit slips, self-evaluations, surveys, teacher observation
notes, sample student work
Summative classroom
assessment
Purpose: To evaluate whether the student has achieved the learning objectives of
the instructional unit.
Assessment question: Has the student achieved the learning objectives?
Sample tool: End-of-unit tests, teacher-made quizzes, formal writing tasks, oral
presentations, projects
Teacher work sample Purpose: To assess the efficacy of instruction through self-evaluation of planning,
instructional activities, and students’ learning gains.
Assessment question: Are there significant measurable learning gains as a result
of instruction?
Sample tool: Instructional unit with analysis of pre- and post-test results of LEP
subgroup
Grading Purpose: To keep individual students accountable and provide them feedback on
their progress toward grade level learning expectations.
Assessment question: To what extent has the student met specific learning
criteria?
Sample tool: Differentiated rubrics

Federally mandated assessments
Home language survey
The home language survey serves to identify students who are non-native speakers of English and who may
need support with English language development. This survey is completed by a caregiver upon enrollment in
the district and yearly thereafter at the start of the school year. Survey questions ask about the languages
spoken in the home to indicate whether children may qualify as language minority students. Translations of
home language surveys are publicly available in many languages to help districts query caregivers in the
language in which they are the most proficient. If the survey indicates that a student comes from a language
minority background, follow-up is necessary to evaluate the student’s English language proficiency and
academic record. Not all language minority students need academic support with English language
development; in addition, some students who need English language development may come from homes
where only English is spoken and may occasionally be missed if the home language survey is the sole form of
identification. These students may be international adoptees, homeless or foster children.
English language proficiency test
Under the No Child Left Behind law, students identified as Limited English Proficient (LEP) must participate in
yearly English language proficiency testing. The purpose of this testing is primarily to keep schools and
districts accountable for the English language development of LEP students. The results of the test are used to
determine whether the services provided to LEP students result in measurable progress toward language
proficiency (AMAO 1, annual measurable achievement objective) and whether students eventually become
proficient enough to succeed in the mainstream academic curriculum without English language development
services (AMAO 2). The proficiency test must be aligned with the state English language proficiency
standards and must include the four language skills areas (listening, speaking, reading, and writing).
The most widely used English language proficiency standards are the WIDA PreK-12 ELP Standards
(Gottlieb et al., 2007), which are essentially identical to the TESOL PreK-12 ELP Standards (TESOL, 2006).
The aligned English language proficiency test is the ACCESS for ELLs, which is administered in February. States
with massive population of ELLs have their own ELP standards and aligned proficiency test. The score report
forms of these mandated yearly assessments provide enough detail and analysis that they can be useful for
planning services for groups of ELLs and well as for differentiating instruction for individual students. A
particularly helpful feature of the widely used ACCESS for ELLs test is that the scores of individual students
are accessible to the new district when the student moves, as long as both districts are in a WIDA member
state.
State academic achievement tests
Federal regulations require that LEP students participate in standards-based academic achievement tests.
They can postpone taking the state English language arts test for one year; however, they must take the
mathematics tests from the first year they enroll. States can decide the acceptable forms of testing
accommodations, which can vary from getting extra time to having access to an interpreter. The intent of the
law is to ensure that LEP students gain access to the general curriculum and not be subjected to permanent
tracking and limited to dead-end educational programs. They must be held to the same rigorous standards as
native English speakers.
Both the validity and fairness of this testing have been hotly debated. The academic achievement of students
cannot be validly measured by tests which students do not understand and may be apprehensive toward.

Evaluating schools based on test results of questionable validity is obviously unfair. Presently, the results of
these tests are used to determine whether schools and districts are meeting annual achievement targets (AYP,
adequate yearly progress) with the LEP subgroup. We are expecting changes to this practice. Solutions
include (1) tests specially constructed for LEP students, (2) adaptive, accessible test environments (for example,
ONPAR), or (3) formal performance portfolios.
District instituted assessments
Placement test
When students enter a district, they are typically given a placement test for two reasons. The first reason is to
place them in the appropriate English language support program. The second reason is to obtain a baseline
measure of their English language proficiency, so it is possible to track their progress over time. For this
reason, it is good practice to choose a placement test whose results are comparable to the annually
administered English language proficiency test. Districts in WIDA Consortium states use the W-APT test for the
placement of new students or for students who are transferring from districts in non-WIDA states. Some
districts use placement tests that were purchased years ago, which are not based on their state’s current ELP
standards and whose scores do not match the scores of their annual ELP test. These tests cannot provide a
valid baseline measure and may result in the misplacement of students or pre-mature mainstreaming without
English language support.
Placement assessment does not need to be limited to English language proficiency tests. To make an
appropriate placement, it is just as important to know students’ prior formal schooling, academic record,
native language literacy. This information can be collected on a survey during an interview. A writing sample
in the native language can be a practical indicator of academic preparation. Even when the interviewer is
unfamiliar with the native language, it allows him to observe the level of competence, the length, and the
variety in the written expression (Pierce, 2003). The fluency with which the student can read back the writing is
a useful indicator as well. Of course, having an interpreter at the placement interview is highly recommended.
Screening tests
The Institute of Education Sciences applicable practice guide (Gersten et. al., 2007) strongly recommends that
districts establish formal screening procedures to identify English language learners for reading problems.
They suggest that the same measures can be used as with native English speakers.
Examples of commonly used screening packages are the Developmental Reading Assessment – 2nd edition
(DRA2), the STAR Early Literacy assessment, and the AIMSweb system. Selecting valid and reliable assessments
is a key task; districts should not use ad hoc or homespun screening instruments. In addition to choosing
screening tests with demonstrated validity and reliability, staff that administer and interpret the measures
should be appropriately trained in the use of the specific assessment package.
The recommendation is to use the data from screening tests to provide short-term instructional support in small
groups and to keep with the same benchmarks for ELLs as with native English speakers. Researchers do not see
benefit to delaying reading interventions with ELLs until students develop oral proficiency in English. Early
reading intervention for at least 30 minutes a day in homogeneous groups of 3-6 has a demonstrated
advantage for ELLs. (Gersten et al., 2007)

Progress monitoring
In addition to screening, districts should monitor ELLs at the minimum three times a year or more frequently
depending on the severity of reading problems. The progress of high-risk students should be reviewed weekly
or bi-weekly. (Gersten et al., 2007)
Assessments that have been validated with native English speakers may not adequately signal problems that
are more prominent among English language learners. When monitoring students, educators should specifically
attend to high-frequency vocabulary that is not explicitly taught to native speakers, syntactic development,
reading comprehension, non-literal meaning, cultural content, and higher order thinking skills (August and
Shanahan, 2006). Cummins (2007, 2009) specifically recommends that ELLs’ reading engagement should
receive ongoing attention as poor reading comprehension tends to erode students’ desire and motivation for
reading. Reading attitude surveys and reading logs can be useful supplements in monitoring reading
engagement.
Standards-based report cards
Many districts have introduced report cards which are rubrics that indicate students’ progress on the state
grade level expectations in each content area. These report cards clearly articulate what is expected from
students at each grade level and are very helpful for informing parents. They also provide an opportunity for
teachers to document a detailed view of each student’s accomplishments and to note areas for future
improvement.
ELLs need an additional report that documents the goals of the supplemental instruction programs they
participate in and the progress they are making towards those expectations. Some districts have a separate,
supplemental ELL report card to track progress on the state ELP standards and benchmarks in the areas of
listening, speaking, reading, and writing. A few districts with large ELL populations have designed standards-
based report cards that differentiate grade level expectations in the content areas for different English
language proficiency levels.
Assessment portfolio
Assessment portfolios can serve as a supplement to one-shot statewide academic tests. Because academic
knowledge tests developed for native English speakers are often not valid for ELLs, alternative valid forms of
assessment are necessary to inform educators of individual students’ progress. A well-planned, criterion-
referenced assessment portfolio can effectively serve this purpose.
Assessment portfolios can be designed to measure content area knowledge in the disciplines or the
development of English language skills over time. They can be designed to inform instruction or to evaluate
whether the student has achieved predefined criteria. Assessment portfolios should have the following
features: (1) They are based on the standards of instruction. (2) Items are selected to serve as relevant
evidence for specific standards. (3) The items are predetermined. (4) The scoring criteria for each item is
predetermined. (5) The scoring is reliable. Raters are trained in scoring and have benchmark items to compare
against. Portfolio assessment should be implement on the district level because it requires considerable
investment with design, validating, professional development, and scoring. The instrument works best when it is
an integral part of the instructional program rather than an add-on assessment whose value is unclear to
teachers, students, and parents. (Gómez, 1999)

http://mssu.academia.edu/AndreaHellman/Papers Andrea B. Hellman 2011 Page
10
Writing assessment
Most districts recognize that writing across the curriculum better serves the development of academic writing
than when writing instruction is limited to the Language Arts class. Writing across the curriculum is realized by
teachers who are familiar with academic writing standards and apply those to writing assignments they
create. They are able to assess writing against the grade-level expectations and give students consistent,
constructive feedback on their written work.
Writing across the curriculum for ELLs requires benchmarks that are aligned with the state ELP standards. ELP
standards can be transformed into a formal, proficiency-based writing rubric. (The WIDA PreK-12 ELP
Standards already have a writing rubric.) District teachers can collect ELL writing samples on specific writing
prompts that are representative of their district’s writing assignments. When these samples are evaluated
against the proficiency-based writing rubric, benchmark papers are selected that best exemplify the strengths
and weaknesses of academic writing on each level of English language proficiency. The features of these
benchmark papers are highlighted and described with a clear terminology, so that these papers can be used
by every teacher as a basis for evaluating writing and providing students with consistent, comprehensible
feedback.
Evaluation of the instructional environment
Research shows that for very young children the quality of the instructional environment is a better measure of
a program’s contribution to children’s academic success than learning outcomes are. Learning outcomes vary
substantially due to differences in instructional time, length of participation in the program, individual
differences in development and abilities. The instructional environment that is optimal for young English
language learners has specific characteristics, which are best to evaluate with an observation tool that was
created specifically for this purpose, for this population of young learners.
The two versions of the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO; Smith et al., 2008) are
available to rate the instructional environment in PreK and K-3 classrooms. The ELLCO is a validated
observational instrument that practitioners can use to assess whether ELLs are receiving optimal support for
language and literacy development. The evaluation extends to classroom structure, curriculum, opportunities
for language use, the quality of book reading, support with writing.
Teacher evaluation protocol
Many districts have adopted an empirically validated observation protocol to rate teachers’ instructional
techniques when working with ELLs. The observation instrument that is by far the most widely used is the
Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP). This instrument can be used in different ways: (1) to rate the
instruction of any teacher, (2) to measure that teachers who have been trained in the SIOP Model of
instruction implement the approach with fidelity, (3) to provide formative feedback for teachers who wish to
improve their outcomes with ELLs (Echevarría, Vogt, and Short, 2008).
The SIOP instrument includes descriptive indicators for 30 instructional features that are either necessary
conditions of second language acquisition (motivation, comprehensible input, practice, interaction) or have
demonstrated benefits for ELLs’ language, literacy, content learning (attention to language, strategies,
feedback, adapted texts, native language support, multimodal approach). The 30 features are grouped into
eight components: lesson preparation, building background, comprehensible input, strategies, interaction,

11
practice, delivery, assessment. Raters evaluate each feature on a Likert scale (0-4) and provide formative
comments.
Instructional assessments
Intake assessment
Intake assessment is data gathering conducted by the teachers of ELLs for the purpose of instructional
planning. This process can begin before the school year starts by looking at students’ academic records,
attendance record, ELP test scores, portfolio, and by talking with former teachers. It is helpful to enter
information into a whole class profile, as well as to assemble an informational folder on individual students
that can be shared with the team of educators who have responsibility for the students’ academic progress.
The following information is potentially helpful to know about each student: native language, home language;
country of origin; personal history; English language proficiency in the four domains – listening, speaking,
reading, writing – the length of time to acquire the current level of English proficiency; age at which
interaction in English began; academic history in the native language – in reading, writing, math, science,
social studies – the educational system of the country of origin; academic history in the US; attendance,
homework habits, attention in class, parental support for academics, home literacy environment, reading
engagement.
Beyond the usual sources of information (home language survey, test reports, academic record), additional
assessment tools can be employed: for example, writing samples in the native language and in English, which
can come from an illustrated autobiography project or a dialog journal. Surveys and interviews with the
student and the caregivers are highly recommended both to fill in gaps of information and to build rapport.
See Appendix A for an intake assessment tool with guiding questions. Appendix B shows a sample whole class
profile form.
Formative classroom assessment
Formative assessment is a process – even better, a habit - of using data to decide what adjustments are
needed to reach specific learning goals. Research indicates that formative assessment has a robust effect on
learning (Marzano, 2003). The process involves monitoring students’ progress toward learning goals,
identifying and using a variety of tools to gather evidence of learning, and using the data to modify
instruction accordingly (re-teach, elaborate, supplement, vary approaches, practice, review). Students
themselves can be taught to actively engage in this process and monitor their own learning.
The tools of formative assessment are as varied as learning activities. Formative assessment is never just giving
a quiz. A variety of tools can provide rich data; most any learning activity can be designed to generate data
for assessment. With English language learners, formative assessment involves not only checking content
learning, but also monitoring comprehension constantly and making certain that students have the language to
be able to process the content and participate in the activities that are intended to bring about content
learning. If the activities have a high language demand, different activities may better serve ELLs’ content
learning. Formative assessment can help match the content learning goals with the best learning activities for
individual students. It helps customize instruction for individual learners.
Quick, convenient assessment tools include hand signals – now the electronic clickers, slates – now individual
wipe-erase boards, checklists, rubrics, charts (T-charts, KWL charts), anticipation guides, self-rating surveys,

12
Cornell notes, review chips, exit slips. Beyond the most prevalent approaches – questioning – and the
traditional recitation, that is asking students to generate a verbal summary, other popular techniques are the
thumbs up/thumbs down/thumbs in the middle technique, Kagan’s numbered heads together activity, asking
students to generate nonverbal representations of the content (image, poster, demonstration), asking students
to track their learning goals.
Grading
Grading is a form of student evaluation, only in part assessment. Because grading is used to keep individual
students accountable and motivated, to give them feedback on their academic performance, grades are not
objective reports based strictly on evidence of learning. Participation, effort, timeliness, presentation also
figure into most grades, as well as adhering to the conventions and technicalities of the specific assignments.
(Gottlieb, 2006.)
When grades are assigned based on the comparison of students’ products and performances, English
language learners rarely have a fair chance at earning a high grade. For grades to be a source of
motivation and feedback, ELLs should be graded on pre-established criteria that they can become familiar
with prior to completing their assignments. The pre-established criteria should specify the language
expectations embedded in the assignment. These language expectations need to be modified to reflect the
student’s level of English language proficiency, what the student is able to do with language. The modified
language expectations may require adding to the assignment checkpoints for checking the student’s
understanding, providing language supports (a word bank, glossary, electronic translator) or introducing
multimodal supports (demonstrations, visuals, manipulatives, graphic organizers). (Fairbairn and Jones-Vo,
2010.)
Here is an example of a mathematics assignment modified for a Level 3/Developing English language
learner:
English
language
proficiency
Grade-level Level 3/Developing
Content
standard
GLE: Mathematics. Algebraic relationships. 1B. Analyze patterns using words, tables, and
graphs.
Assignment
with
language
expectation
specified
Read story problem independently.
Record data on a graph. Interpret what
the graph represents using complete
sentences.
Read story problem and check understanding.
Interpret the graph in one complete sentence
using a word bank.
Support Blank graph. Teacher to confirm comprehension.
Blank graph.
Word bank.
For further examples of differentiated assignment grading rubrics, I highly recommend Fairbairn and Jones-
Vo, 2010.) Helpful guidance on grading is also available in Gottlieb (2006; pp. 169-182).

13
SAMPLE TIMELINE OF ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES WITH ELLS
Teachers need a timeline for scheduling assessment activities for their students. Below is a sample schedule,
which shows multiple measures administered during the course of an academic year. The window for state
mandated large-scale tests is typically set well in advance and cannot be changed by teachers. Most district
instituted assessments have some flexibility within general limits. Some classroom assessments may be tied to
instructional units; others can be ongoing or distributed purposively throughout the year.
An important consideration is the use of the assessment data: it is best to schedule assessments in a way that
the findings are useful to inform instruction. Assessments that do not have a clear purpose, do not yield usable
data or whose results are not used should be either eliminated or seriously rethought. It is a waste of resources
and instructional time to administer assessments that do not benefit students. Careful planning, where the
various measures are strategically administered, can improve the use of findings.
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
Standards-based report card
ELP progress report
Writing sample
Content area assessments
Monitoring team meeting
November Running records
Oral language sample
December Content area assessments
January Standards-based report card
ELP progress report
Running records
Content area assessments
Student-led conference
February Large-scale ELP test
March Large-scale academic achievement
test
April District writing assessment
Standards-based report card
ELP progress report
Oral language sample
Running records
May Portfolio assessment Content area assessments
June Standards-based report card
ELP progress report Monitoring team meeting

14
GUIDELINES FOR STANDARDS-BASED CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT
!"#$%&&$'()(&*$
•!)""&B($,34*+,(,&($1&B(3+4*%$,#+40+/(O=(+&+F<*%O#"('*#+$(KJ&0+T+/8(
0""3$,%#T+/8($*"*@T+/[&%/#+00+/(J0@,3%*$(#+4(0@&+$8(4*'&+$,%#T+/8(
'&4*"0+/8(3$0+/('#+0J3"#T<*$8(]&B@1#%,$8(/%#J10@(&%/#+0*%$S6(
•!)""&B($,34*+,(,&(3$*(+#T<*("#+/3#/*(,&(@&'J"*,*(#$$*$$'*+,(,#$W$6(
•!>%&<04*(#(B&%4(O#+W6(
•!)""&B(O0"0+/3#"(40@T&+#%0*$8(*"*@,%&+0@8(0>#48(#+4(B*O(,%#+$"#,&%$6(
•!.+"0$,(J#%#J%&-*$$0&+#"$8(<&"3+,**%$8(J**%$(,&(J%&<04*(+#T<*("#+/3#/*(
$3JJ&%,6(
•!9&4*"(,#$W$^(#""&B('3"TJ"*(&JJ&%,3+0T*$(-&%(%*1*#%$0+/6(
!"#$'()(&$+$,$-./(#0.1$
!"#$'()(&$2$,$3(10..0.1$
!"#$'()(&$4$,$5()(&"60.1$
•!)""&B($,34*+,(,&($1&B(3+4*%$,#+40+/((&%#""=(3$0+/(*<*%=4#=(
@&+<*%$#T&+#"("#+/3#/*(B0,1(<0$3#"($3JJ&%,$(#+4(+#T<*("#+/3#/*6(
•!;$*(#/*F#JJ%&J%0#,*($3JJ"*'*+,#%=('#,*%0#"$(,1#,(J%&<04*(%0@1(<0$3#"(
$3JJ&%,(-&%(,1*(@&+,*+,(#+4[&%(+#T<*("#+/3#/*(*_J"#+#T&+$6(
•!.+@&3%#/*($,34*+,(,&(#44(/%#J10@($3JJ&%,(,&(B%0T+/(K<0$3#"(&%/#+0*%8(
/%#J18(0""3$,%#T&+$8("#O*"$S6()""&B(#+$B*%$(0+("*#%+*4(J1%#$*$(&%(
%*J*TT<*($0'J"*($*+,*+@*$6()""&B($&'*('#@10+*(,%#+$"#,*4(#+$B*%$6(
•!>%&<04*($*+,*+@*($,#%,*%$^('&4*"(*_J*@,*4(&3,J3,6(
•!X&@3$(&+(B1#,(,1*($,34*+,(J%&43@*4(@&%%*@,"=6(
!"#$'()(&$7$,$-869.:0.1$
!"#$'()(&$;$,$3#0:10.1$
!"#$'()(&$<$,$=(9>?0.1$
•!._J*@,($,34*+,(,&(3$*($&'*($J*@0I@("#+/3#/*(&-(,1*(@&+,*+,(#%*#6(
•!>%&'J,($,34*+,(,&(%*$J&+4(&+(,1*($*+,*+@*("*<*"(O&,1(&%#""=(#+4(0+(
B%0T+/6(
•!.+@&3%#/*($,34*+,(,&(-&@3$(&+('*#+0+/(%#,1*%(,1#+(&+(@&%%*@,+*$$(
#+4('*@1#+0@$6(
•!`*,#0+(<0$3#"($3JJ&%,$(#+4($3JJ"*'*+,#%=(,*_,$(0+(,1*(+#T<*("#+/3#/*6(
•!9#=(#4'0+0$,*%(J#%#""*"(,*$,(-&%'$(B0,1($0'J"0I*4("#+/3#/*8(
#++&,#T&+$8(B&%4(O#+W8(#+4(/"&$$#%=6(
•!>%&'J,($,34*+,(,&(3$*($&'*($J*@0I@("#+/3#/*(#+4(,*@1+0@#"(
<&@#O3"#%=(&-(,1*(@&+,*+,(#%*#6(
•!._J*@,($,34*+,(,&(%*$J&+4(0+('3"TJ"*($*+,*+@*$(#+4(B0,1(0+@%*#$0+/"=(
<#%0*4($*+,*+@*($,%3@,3%*6((
•!.+@&3%#/*($,34*+,(,&(*"#O&%#,*(#+4(4*<*"&J(04*#$(O=(J%&<040+/(
*_#'J"*$(#+4(*_J"#+#T&+$6(
•!M0<*(-**4O#@W(&+(J*%$0$,*+,(*%%&%$(,1#,(0+,*%-*%*(B0,1('*#+0+/6(
•!._J*@,($,34*+,(,&(*+/#/*(B0,1(,*_,$(,&(*_,%#@,('*#+0+/6(
•!.+@&3%#/*(,1*(3$*(&-(,*@1+0@#"(<&@#O3"#%=(#+4(/%*#,*%(J%*@0$0&+(B0,1(
"#+/3#/*6(>%&'J,($,34*+,(,&(3$*(#@#4*'0@("#+/3#/*6(
•!)$$0/+(<#"3*(,&(%*<0$0+/8(*40T+/8($*"-F@&%%*@T+/8(#+4(J%&&-%*#40+/6(
•!>%&<04*(#'J"*(&JJ&%,3+0T*$(-&%(*_,*+4*4($J**@1(#+4(B%0T+/8(
0+@"340+/('3"TJ"*(%*1*#%$#"$(-&%(,#$W$6(
•!!%*#,*(%3O%0@$(,1#,($J*@0-=(*_J*@,#T&+$^(1#<*($,34*+,$(*<#"3#,*(
,1*'$*"<*$(B0,1(,1*(%3O%0@6(
•!D+<&"<*($,34*+,(0+(%*43@0+/(J*%$0$,*+,(*%%&%$6(
•!.+$3%*(,1#,(@&+,*+,("*#%+0+/(&O?*@T<*$(#+4(,#%/*,$(#%*(O#$*4(&+(
/%#4*("*<*"(@&+,*+,($,#+4#%4$(#JJ%&J%0#,*(-&%(,1*($,34*+,V$(#/*6(
•!E*$0/+(#$$*$$'*+,$(,1#,(@#+(=0*"4(<#"04(0+-&%'#T&+(#O&3,(,1*(
$,34*+,V$(@&+,*+,(W+&B"*4/*(#,(10$[1*%(@3%%*+,("*<*"(&-("#+/3#/*(
J%&I@0*+@=6((
•!9#,@1(,1*("#+/3#/*(O3%4*+(&-(,1*(#$$*$$'*+,(,&(,1*($,34*+,V$(
"#+/3#/*(#O0"0T*$6(
•!>%&<04*(@"*#%(,#$W(*_J"#+#T&+$6(D-(+*@*$$#%=8(4*'&+$,%#,*(,#$W$(#+4(
1#<*(,1*($,34*+,($1&B(3+4*%$,#+40+/(O=(@&'J"*T+/(J%#@T@*(0,*'$(
O*-&%*(O*/0++0+/(,1*(#@,3#"(#$$*$$'*+,(,#$W6(
•!)""&B($,34*+,$(,&(3$*(,1*($#'*($3JJ&%,$(,1#,(,1*=(B*%*(#O"*(,&(3$*(
43%0+/(,1*(%*<0*B($*/'*+,(&-(0+$,%3@T&+6(((
•!.+$3%*(,1#,(,1*(4*J,1(&-(W+&B"*4/*(%*a30%*4(&+(,1*(#$$*$$'*+,(
'#,@1*$(,1*(4*J,1(&-(W+&B"*4/*(,1#,(B#$(*_J"0@0,"=(,#3/1,6(KX&%(
*_#'J"*8(0-(&+"=((<<2)8(=6"+B#$(,#3/1,8(O3,(+&,($>(24(=6"8(4&(+&,(
0+,%&43@*(*<#"3#T&+(&+(#+(#$$*$$'*+,(,#$W6S(
•!E0b*%*+T#,*(%3O%0@$(,&(B*0/1(@&+,*+,(W+&B"*4/*(#+4("#+/3#/*(0+(#(
B#=(,1#,(0$(-#0%(-&%(,1*(0+40<043#"($,34*+,V$("*<*"(&-("#+/3#/*(
J%&I@0*+@=(O3,(#"$&(,&('&T<#,*(,1*($,34*+,(,&(@&+T+3&3$"=(0'J%&<*(
"#+/3#/*($W0""$(#@@&%40+/(,&(10$[1*%(#O0"0,=6(
•!:1#%*(*_J*@,#T&+$(B0,1(,1*($,34*+,(#1*#4(&-(T'*(O=(*_J"#0+0+/(,1*(
%3O%0@(,1#,(B0""(O*(3$*4(,&(*<#"3#,*(,1*(B&%W6((
•!M%#4*(*#@1($,34*+,(#@@&%40+/(,&(J%*4*I+*4(@%0,*%0#(J%*$*+,*4(
*_J"0@0,"=(0+(#(%3O%0@(#+4($1#%*4(B0,1(*#@1($,34*+,6((
•!)<&04(/%#40+/(,1#,(0$(O#$*4(&+(@&'J#%0+/($,34*+,$(,&(*#@1(&,1*%6(
•!D-(#JJ%&J%0#,*8(#""&B($,34*+,$(,&($*"*@,(-%&'(#('*+3(&-(#$$*$$'*+,(
&JT&+$(,&(O*$,(4*'&+$,%#,*(,1*(@&+,*+,(W+&B"*4/*(,1*=(1#<*(
#@a30%*46((
•!>%*-*%(#3,1*+T@(#$$*$$'*+,(K4*'&+$,%#T&+$8(J%*$*+,#T&+$8(J%&?*@,$8(
'&4*"$8(J&$,*%$8(%*#"F"0-*(J%&O"*'$S(,&(@&+,%0<*4(-&%'$(&-(#$$*$$'*+,((
K'3"TJ"*(@1&0@*(,*$,$8(%*@0,#T&+$8(J*4#/&/0@#"(J%&O"*'$8(B&%W$1**,$S6(
•!;$*($*<*%#"(-&%'$(&-(#$$*$$'*+,(-&%('#W0+/(@&+$*a3*+T#"(4*@0$0&+$(
#O&3,(*#@1($,34*+,6(D-(,1*(4#,#(-%&'(40b*%*+,(-&%'$(&-(#$$*$$'*+,(4&(
+&,(#/%**8(/0<*(@&+$04*%#T&+(,&(,1*(<#"040,=(&-(,1*(4#,#6(
•!9&+0,&%($,34*+,(&3,J3,(#+4(J%&<04*(3$*-3"(-**4O#@W(,&(,1*($,34*+,(&+(
#+(&+F/&0+/(O#$0$6(20$,*+8(%*J*#,8(%*@#$,8(#+4(*"#O&%#,*($,34*+,(
&3,J3,6((
•!>&0+,(,&($,%*+/,1$(#+4(B*#W+*$$*$(0+(,1*($,34*+,V$(B&%W6(X&@3$('&%*(
&+($,%*+/,1$(,1#+(&+(B*#W+*$$*$6(
•!5*(-%3/#"(#+4($,%#,*/0@(B0,1(*%%&%(@&%%*@T&+6(5*(#B#%*(,1#,(,1*(,=J*(&-(
*%%&%$($,34*+,(@#+(#N*+4(,&(0$(O#$*4(&+(,1*0%(@3%%*+,("*<*"(&-(
J%&I@0*+@=(#+4(4*<*"&J'*+,#"(%*#40+*$$6(
•!;$*(,1*('&$,(3$*-3"(-&%'(&-(*%%&%(@&%%*@T&+(-%*a3*+,"=L(*"0@0,#T&+6(
>%&'J,($,34*+,$(B0,1(@3*$(,&(J%&43@*($*"-F@&%%*@T&+6((
•!)""&B(&+"=(J%*F#JJ%&<*4(-&%'$(&-(#@@&''&4#T&+$(&+(,*$,$6(
)@@&''&4#T&+$(,1#,(1#<*(4*'&+$,%#,*4(3$*-3"+*$$(#%*(B&%4(O#+W$8(
/"&$$#%0*$8(#+4(40@T&+#%0*$(,1#,($,34*+,$(#%*(-#'0"0#%(B0,1(#+4(#"%*#4=(
#@@3$,&'*4(,&(3$0+/6(
•!.<#"3#,*(,*$,(@&+,*+,(,&(#$$3%*(,1#,($,34*+,$(1#<*(,1*(@3",3%#"(#+4(
/*+*%#"(O#@W/%&3+4(W+&B"*4/*(,1#,(0$(*'O*44*4(0+(,*$,(0,*'$6(D-(0,(0$(
+&,(J&$$0O"*(,&(*"0'0+#,*(0,*'$(,1#,(%*a30%*(3+-#'0"0#%(O#@W/%&3+4(
W+&B"*4/*8(,*#@1(,10$(W+&B"*4/*(*_J"0@0,"=(,&($,34*+,$6(
@"A#>(*$
.@1*<#%%0#8(c68(d&/,8(968(:1&%,8(E6(c6(KHQQeS6(?(@)"*+86"'$"'+86A<%$,$"&)B2$+C6%+1"*2)&,+
+++++2("*4(*$+2$(%"$%&;+D,$+:.E5++?6#$2F(5&$,&+8(9)L(>*#%$&+6(
.""0$8(`6(KHQQfS6(!&%%*@T<*(-**4O#@W(#+4(,*#@1*%(4*<*"&J'*+,6(3G+H64%"(2I+J+KGS8(GFGe6(
X#0%O#0%+8(:68(P(c&+*$Fd&8(:6(KHQGQS6(/)K$%$"=(="*+)"&'%48=6"+("#+(&&$&&A$"'+C6%+1"*2)&,+
+++++2("*4(*$+2$(%"$%&;+0+*4)#$+C6%+LMJG+'$(8,$%&6(>10"#4*"J10#8(>)L(!#$"&+6(
X%#+@0$8(E6(c68(`0<*%#8(968(2*$#3_8(Z68(A68(A0*b*%8(96(c68(P(`0<*%#8(76(KHQQgS6(5%(8=8(2+
+++++*4)#$2)"$&+C6%+',$+$#48(=6"+6C+1"*2)&,+2("*4(*$+2$(%"$%&F+!*+,*%(&+(D+$,%3@T&+F+
•!.+@&3%#/*(*_,*+4*4("#+/3#/*(3$*(0+(O&,1(&%#"(#+4(B%0N*+(,#$W$6(
•!7#<*(10/1(*_J*@,#T&+$(-&%(J%*@0$0&+(B0,1("#+/3#/*(-&%(#""("*#%+*%$6(
•!d#"3*(,1*(3$*(&-(#@#4*'0@("#+/3#/*(0+(#""(#$$0/+'*+,$6(
•!5*(*_J"0@0,(B0,1(=&3%(*_J*@,#T&+$(-&%(,1*(a3#"0,=(&-("#+/3#/*(3$*(0+(
#$$0/+'*+,$^(3$*(%3O%0@$(,&(@&''3+0@#,*(*_J*@,#T&+$(@"*#%"=6(

15
ASSESSING SPEAKING
When we assess speaking, we gather evidence about the student’s ability to communicate through speech in
social, instructional, and academic contexts. Communication through speech involves a number of language
sub-skills: listening comprehension, phonology (producing sounds, stress, intonation), grammar (knowing phrase
patterns), vocabulary (knowing content vocabulary, collocations, choosing the right word for the context),
pragmatics (knowing how to achieve communicative goals in particular situations, choosing the appropriate
register). Depending on our purpose for assessment, we can assess these sub-skills separately with an
analytical rubric or more globally with a holistic rubric.
Perhaps the most widely used holistic rubric for assessing speaking is the Speaking Rubric of the WIDA
Consortium. The WIDA rubric clusters the descriptors of each proficiency level under the headings linguistic
complexity, vocabulary usage, and language control. Examples of somewhat more analytical rubrics are the
Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM) and the Massachusetts English Language Assessment –
Oral (MELA-O). These rubrics rate both comprehension and production, with production broken down into four
sub-areas: fluency, vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar. There are links to these tools in the
Recommended Resources section.
Because the above mentioned rubrics only differentiate five or six levels of proficiency, they are not suitable
to use for formative assessment. Research shows that students advance through these levels in 6-7 years on
average, typically progressing at a rate of one level per year for the first 3-4 years, then slowing down to
passing a level only every other year (Genesee et al., 2006, Cook, 2008). For formative assessments then,
teacher-created rubrics are more effective; these can describe in detail the specific skills embedded in the
performance of the speaking tasks.
Ekbatani (2011) lists four authentic assessment situations: (1) speaking to an assessor, (2) speaking to an
interlocutor in the presence of an assessor, (3) speaking to another learner, (4) speaking to a group. It is
preferable for the assessor and the discussion partner to be different individuals. Tasks can include oral
interviews, paired interviews with a list of topics or questions provided, group discussions, role plays,
simulations, oral presentations, verbal summaries, narration for silent films or cartoon strips, dramatization of
visually presented events, explanations of graphics.
Fairbairn and Jones-V (2010) emphasize the importance of selecting assessment tasks that are a good match
for the student’s proficiency level. For Level 1/Starting students, examples of appropriate speaking tasks
would require repeating, supplying learned phrases on a cue, naming objects and images with single words.
On Level 2/Emerging, tasks would elicit phrases and simple sentences in everyday and general instructional
situations. For example, students can perform role plays about scenarios presented in images; they can
narrate a visually presented sequence of events using simple phrases; they can describe objects or images.
Level 3/Developing students are expected to produce sentence level utterances and use constructed
expressions rather than learned phrases and formulaic expressions. Novel sentences can be elicited in creative
scenarios that take place in familiar contexts, which are needed given that Level 3 students have a limited
vocabulary. For Level 4 students, suitable tasks are those that elicit the use of increasingly specialized and
academic vocabulary, as well as longer conversational turns. Students should begin to retell, explain,
summarize, provide directions, predict – gradually begin to treat abstract concepts verbally. Tasks in which
contextual support is reduced – such as making telephone calls – are especially appropriate. Level 5 students

16
need speaking tasks in which they can demonstrate their growing ability to produce extended discourse, such
as reporting, giving technical explanations, analyzing scenarios, making speeches, presenting to classmates,
and partaking in group discussions.
ASSESSING LISTENING
Listening is a receptive language skill; in the educational context we can only assess it indirectly through
observable behaviors. Evidence of listening comprehension may include repeating what one heard, filling in
blanks or information gaps, responding appropriately to instructions, directives, questions – verbally or
physically. Physical responses can include pointing, gesturing, acting out, drawing, tracing a route, sequencing
images, constructing to verbal specifications. The assessment of advanced listening comprehension could
require making inferences, drawing conclusions, differentiating fact from opinion, producing an outline or
summary.
The sample performance indicators of the PreK-12 ELP Standards (TESOL, 2006) provide guidance on the
types of assessment tasks that are particularly suitable for each proficiency level. For example, Level 1
students can demonstrate listening comprehension by identifying whole objects from pictures and realia or by
responding to simple commands. On level 2, learners can identify objects from oral description or definition.
They can arrange objects, take measurements following multistep oral directions. Level 3 students can identify
parts, elements, features, relatedness – not just whole objects. They can complete graphs and diagrams
according to specifications or arrange a scene from verbal description. On level 4, verbal descriptions can
become increasingly complex and technical. Students can apply oral explanations to novel problems. Students
can gain meaning from extended discourse or follow along audiovisual presentations. Level 5 learners follow
along verbally presented texts without visual support; they can retell a story they heard; they can take notes
while listening to brief lectures. Level 5 students can draw inferences based on conversations they hear and
they can evaluate orally presented problems.
ASSESSING READING
For native English speakers, typical reading assessment involves testing discreet reading skills that have
predictive value for reading development: letter naming, letter phoneme correspondence, blending phonemes
into words, sight reading of high frequency words. Once children succeed with these discreet skills, assessment
focus shifts to fluency and comprehension. Fluency is assessed by counting the number of correctly read words
per minute. There are fluency norms established for each grade level (Hasbrouck and Tindal, 2006). Reading
comprehension is assessed by retelling or answering comprehension questions. Texts used in reading
assessments are leveled according to readability formulas, which are derived from a combination of mean
sentence length/syntactic complexity and mean word length/word frequency.
The What Works Clearinghouse (Gersten et al., 2007) suggests that the same reading assessment can be
used with ELLs as with native English speakers for the purpose of screening for potential reading difficulties.
For the purpose of diagnosis, however, this may be inadequate. The National Literacy Panel (August and
Shanahan, 2006) did note a few important differences between language minority students and monolingual
English speakers, which impact the development of reading. First, many ELLs lack oral language in English,
which forms the basis for reading comprehension. Second, ELLs start school with a significantly smaller
vocabulary. The average native English speaker child already has a vocabulary of 5,000 words prior to

17
starting formal schooling and these high-frequency words which most children already know are not taught
explicitly during the school years. Many ELLs also lack background knowledge that native English speakers
share and which are featured in children’s texts, such as stories from popular children’s literature and
television shows, shared cultural experiences (nursery rhymes, pets, sports, holidays, occupations, hobbies,
places and events in the community). In addition, ELLs often miss out on phonics instruction, which is usually
limited to grades K-2, either because they lack the English skills necessary to fully benefit from it or because
they enter the instructional sequence late. For these reasons, using the same reading assessment for ELLs as
with native English speaker may be problematic – particularly for the diagnosis of reading difficulties.
We can supplement mainstream reading assessments for ELLs to ensure that their special needs are being met.
First, because the lack of comprehension quickly erodes reading engagement, ELLs’ reading engagement
should be monitored on an ongoing basis. One way to accomplish this is to administer a reading attitude
survey periodically. For this purpose, even more useful are dialog journals and reading logs because teachers
can provide immediate encouraging feedback. Reading conferences are another method to support reading
engagement; these can also further reading comprehension through instructional conversations (Cloud et al.,
2009; Celic, 2009). Second, because knowing high-frequency words well is essential for reading
comprehension, ELLs should be assessed on their knowledge of the most frequent words. Frequency wordlists
and vocabulary tests on these are available. One example is the Vocabulary Levels Test (Nation, 2001;
Schmitt et al., 2001), which is suitable for diagnostic purposes for secondary ELLs. In short, reading
engagement monitoring and vocabulary testing should be added to standard reading assessment.
Running records are strongly recommended for ELLs on Levels 2 and 3 (Cloud et al., 2009). With running
records, the teacher follows along with the student’s oral reading, marks and codes all the errors, and
analyzes them to diagnose specific reading problems. The number of correctly read words per minute can be
used to measure the student’s progress and to compare the student’s reading performance to the grade level
norm.
Observation can be another supplement for the reading assessment of ELLs. With observation, the teacher can
focus on one or two specific reading skills at a time and record students’ performance on these skills using a
checklist or rubric. Examples of specific reading components teachers might focus on during observation are:
establishing purpose for reading, matching reading strategy to purpose, identifying text elements, decoding
strategies, sight reading of high frequency words, phrasing, meaningful text segmentation, comprehension
strategies, variety of texts, level of independence. Stages of progression on these skills are nicely presented
in a rubric created by O’Malley and Pierce (1996). (See in Recommended Resources.)
ASSESSING WRITING
Three forms of writing assessment are of special interest to ESOL teachers: large-scale writing tests, classroom
writing assessment, and writing performance portfolios.
ELLs take several different large-scale writing tests: (1) on the district placement test, (2) on the annual English
language proficiency test, (3) on the state language arts assessment, (4) the annual district writing assessment.
Large-scale writing tests involve timed impromptu writing tasks. These mainly reflect students’ ability to record
ideas and produce a first draft to a prompt that they had not prepared for. Students have very limited time
to apply pre-writing techniques, and they do not have access to resources that they may be accustomed to

18
using, such as a reference grammar, electronic translator, dictionary, or model texts. These large-scale writing
tasks are evaluated with a holistic rubric by raters who do not know the test taker. While the scoring is
reliable, it is global with only a few levels of performance discriminated. Feedback to students is limited to a
few standard comments. Large-scale writing tests are appropriate for placement and for annual progress
measure of the effectiveness of the writing program. (Weigle, 2002) An example of a large-scale writing
assessment rubric is WIDA’s writing rubric, which is calibrated with benchmark papers (Gottlieb et. al., 2007).
Weigle (2002) recommends that, when conducting classroom writing assessment, teachers focus more on
construct validity, authenticity, and feedback (not as much on reliability, which is a priority of large-scale
tests). One way is to evaluate both in-class and out-of-class writing in order to gauge performance when
writing is not completed in a testing situation, when there is no time limit, and when additional resources are
available to the writer. Another good practice is to evaluate multiple writing samples, when the writer treats
different topics for different audiences. Thirdly, teachers can interact with students throughout the writing
process and observe how students do when they receive feedback during the various stages of writing (pre-
writing, outlining, drafting, sharing, revising, editing). Interacting with students throughout the writing process
allows teachers insights into how to best help their students make progress as writers. Fourth, in-class writing
assessments need scoring instruments that are specific to the assignment and allow teachers to provide
feedback that is clear, constructive, appropriate for the student’s current level of development. The elements
to be assessed can include (1) content, (2) control over linguistic features (grammar, vocabulary), (3) the
development and organization of ideas, (4) writing conventions (genre, tone, style, format, mechanics).
Gottlieb (2006, p. 56) suggests that classroom writing assessment include a range of writing genres. For
emergent writers, these can be as simple as a list, a labeled diagram, a learning log, a journal entry, or a
brief dialog. Developing writers can use sentence frames to construct descriptions, lab reports, brochures,
biographies, narrations, interview questions, email messages. Suitable genres for expanding writers are
editorials, letters, expository paragraphs, interviews, summaries. Competent writers should be developing
extended discourse on cognitively demanding subjects as with reports, reviews, critiques, essays, or formal
letters.
Writing conferences with individual students provide an excellent context for formative classroom assessment
of writing. Celic (2009) shares both detailed examples of how writing conferences work and how teachers
can track their observations. During conferences teachers can gain insights into students’ ways of processing
tasks by asking students to give think-alouds. Feedback can be more usable when the teacher relates it to the
student’s thinking and when the feedback is given at the right stage of the writing process. In the context of
the writing conference, the teacher can elicit self-corrections and revisions from students, both of which are
highly beneficial for the development of second language writing.
Writing performance portfolios are collections of student writings that are selected by students to demonstrate
specific criteria for learning. Students reflect on their progress and complete self-evaluations. In the final step,
the portfolio is evaluated by teachers or independent raters using the rubric that was available to students
during the selection process. Portfolios allow a longitudinal view of students’ writing development; they can
also promote revising and seeking feedback, and thus can become an integral part of the instruction (Weigle,
2002). To better understand the implementation of portfolio assessment in L2 writing, I recommend Weigle
(2002) and Gómez (1999).

19
RECOMMENDED RESOURCES
Webcast with Lorraine
Valdez Pierce
Reading Rockets - http://www.readingrockets.org/webcasts/1003
Home language surveys Illinois State Board of Ed. - http://www.isbe.net/bilingual/htmls/tbe_tpi.htm
W-APT placement test WIDA Consortium - http://www.wida.us/assessment/w-apt/index.aspx
Sample ACCESS for ELLs
score reports
WIDA Consortium - http://wida.wceruw.org/assessment/ACCESS/
ScoreReports/ACCESS_Interpretive_Guide10.pdf
WIDA CAN DO
descriptors
WIDA Consortium - http://www.wida.us/standards/CAN_DOs/index.aspx
Standards-based report
cards
Stoughton Public Schools - http://www.stoughtonschools.org/Administration/Docs
Sample assessment
portfolio item list
Gómez, E. L. (1999). Assessment portfolios and English language learners:
Frequently asked questions and a case study of the Brooklyn International High
School. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance, LAB at Brown University.
http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/ass_port_ell/ass_port_ell.pdf
SIOP protocol Echevarría, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2008). Making content comprehensible for
English learners: The SIOP model. Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn and Bacon: 222-
227.
Differentiated grading
rubrics
Fairbairn, S., & Jones-Vo, S. (2010). Differentiating instruction and assessment for
English language learners: A guide for K-12 teachers. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.
Whole class profile
forms
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:
29, 192-194.
Sample observation
checklists
Gottlieb, M. (2006). Assessing English language learners. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin: 46, 95.
SOLOM oral assessment
rubric
Center for Applied Linguistics -
http://www.cal.org/twi/evaltoolkit/appendix/solom.pdf
MELA-O oral assessment
rubric
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education -
http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/mepa/testadmin/mela-o_overview.pdf
WIDA speaking rubric WIDA Consortium -
http://www.wida.us/standards/RG_Speaking%20Writing%20Rubrics.pdf
WIDA writing rubric WIDA Consortium -
http://www.wida.us/standards/RG_Speaking%20Writing%20Rubrics.pdf
Gottlieb listening
comprehension rubric
Gottlieb, M. (2006). Assessing English language learners. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin: 120.
Pierce-O’Malley reading
rubric
Colorín Colorado -
http://www.colorincolorado.org/pdfs/webcasts/Webcast%201003%20-
%20Analytic%20Scoring%20Rubric.pdf
Reading and writing
conferences
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:
172-175, 183-186, 198-199.

20
FURTHER READINGS
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. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee
Gottlieb, M. (2006). Assessing English language learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Fairbairn, S., & Jones-Vo, S. (2010). Differentiating instruction and assessment for English language learners: A
guide for K-12 teachers. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.
National Council of La Raza (NCLR) (2005). Educating English language learners: Understanding and using
assessment. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance, LAB at Brown University. Retrieved from
http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/nclr/edells_assessment.pdf
WORKS CITED
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.
Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2009). Literacy instruction for English language learners: A teacher’s
guide to research-based practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cook, H. G., Boals, T., Wilmes, C., & Santos, M. (2008). Issues in the development of annual measurable
achievement objectives for WIDA consortium states (WCER Working Paper No. 2008-2). Madison:
University of Wisconsin–Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Retrieved from
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/papers.php
Cooter, R. B., Flynt, E. S., & Cooter, K. S. (2007). Comprehensive reading inventory: Measuring reading
development in regular and special education classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill,
Prentice Hall.
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.
Ekbatani, G. (2011). Measurement and evaluation in post-secondary ESL. New York: Routledge.
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 University Press.
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

21
2007-4011). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee
Gómez, E. L. (1999). Assessment portfolios and English language learners: Frequently asked questions and a case
study of the Brooklyn International High School. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance, LAB at Brown
University. Retrieved from http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/ass_port_ell/ass_port_ell.pdf
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.
Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading
teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59 (7), 636-644.
Hellman, A. B., & Goswick, J. A. (2010). Getting to know your learners during intake assessment [Workshop].
Webb City, MO: Southwest Center for Educational Excellence. Retrieved from
http://mssu.academia.edu/AndreaHellman/Talks
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. New York: Cambridge UP.
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, Public Law No. 107-110.
O’Malley, J. M., & Pierce, L. V. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learners: Practical approaches
for teachers. New York: Pearson Longman.
Pierce, L. V. (2003). Assessing English language learners. National Education Association.
Smith, M. W., Brady, J. P., & Anastasopoulos, L. (2008). Early language and literacy classroom observation.
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of
the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18 (1), 55-88.
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) (2006). PreK-12 English language
proficiency standards: Augmentation of the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA)
Consortium English language proficiency standards. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. New York: Cambridge UP.

Assessment
with
P-12
English
Language
Learners
http://mssu.academia.edu/AndreaHellman/Papers
Andrea
B.
Hellman
2011
Page
22
APPENDIX
A:
INTAKE
ASSESSMENT
TOOL
APPENDIX
A:
INTAKE
ASSESSMENT
TOOL
!"#$%&'())&))*&"#'+,,-'
.$*&' +&$/0'*&'1,23'"$*&4'
(5&'60&"')75"78/$"#''7"#&3$/9,"'
7"':"5-7)0';&5$"'''
<0&"'=7='1,2'/,*&'#,'#07)'/,2"#31>'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<0&"'=7='1,2')#$3#')?&$%7"5':"5-7)0'&@&31'=$1>'
A&"5#0',B'9*&',B')75"78/$"#'
7"#&3$/9,"'7"':"5-7)0'
C,6'-,"5'0$@&'1,2';&&"')?&$%7"5':"5-7)0>'''''''''''''''''''''''''<0&"'=7='1,2')#$3#')?&$%7"5':"5-7)0'&@&31'=$1>'''
D,9@$9,"'B,3'-&$3"7"5':"5-7)0'
+&--'*&'$;,2#'-7@7"5'0&3&4'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''E7='1,2'6$"#'#,'/,*&'0&3&>'C,6'=7='1,2'B&&->'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
E,'1,2'6$"#'#,'-7@&'7"'#07)'/,2"#31>'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<0&"'1,2'53,6'2?F'60&3&'67--'1,2'-7@&>''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
C,6'=,'1,2'B&&-'$;,2#'-&$3"7"5':"5-7)0>''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''E,'1,2';&-7&@&'7#'7)'"&/&))$31'#,'-&$3"':"5-7)0>'
.$9@&'A$"52$5&'
<0$#'-$"52$5&'=7='1,2'-&$3"'$)'$';$;1>'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.$*&',B'1,23'0,*&'-$"52$5&>''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
<0$#'-$"52$5&'=,'1,2'-7%&'#,')?&$%>'''''''''''''''''''''''
.$9@&'A$"52$5&'?3,8/7&"/1'$"='
-7#&3$/1''''G()%':HA'+&$/0&3I
J$3&"#IK7-7"52$-'?$3$?3,B&))7,"$-L'
C,6'6&--'=,&)'#0&'/07-=')?&$%'#0&'"$9@&'-$"52$5&>''''''''''!)'#0&'/07-='-7#&3$#&'7"'#0&'"$9@&'-$"52$5&>'''
J37,3'H/0,,-7"5'G()%':HA'+&$/0&3I
/0&/%'3&/,3=)L'
C,6'*$"1'1&$3)'/07-='$M&"=&=')/0,,->''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''C750&)#'53$=&'/,*?-&#&=>'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
<&3&'#0&3&'5$?)'7"'$M&"=$"/&',B')/0,,->'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<0$#')2;N&/#)'6&3&'#$250#>''
<0$#')2;N&/#'6$)'1,23'B$@,37#&>'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
<0$#'6$)'#0&'0$3=&)#')2;N&/#>''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<0$#'53$=&)'=7='1,2'5&#>'''''''''''''
A$"52$5&'A&$3"7"5' E7='1,2')#2=1',#0&3'-$"52$5&)>'''
C,*&'-7#&3$/1'
<0$#'=,&)'1,23'B$*7-1'-7%&'#,'=,>'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<0,'#&--)')#,37&)'7"'1,23'0,2)&>'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
+&--'*&'$;,2#'#0&';,,%)'7"'1,23'0,2)&4''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<0,'3&$=)'#0&*>'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
<0$#'=,'1,2'-7%&'#,'3&$='$#'0,*&>''
H,/7$-'O$?7#$-'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
G!"#&3@7&6'?$3&"#)I#&$/0&3)L'
<0$#'=,'1,2'67)0'B,3'1,23'/07-=>''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<0,'7)'3&)?,")7;-&'B,3'#0&'/07-=P)'&=2/$9,">'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
<0$#'$3&'),*&',B'#0&'#07"5)'1,2'=,'#,')2??,3#'1,23'/07-=P)'&=2/$9,">'''
C7)#,31',B':HA')2??,3#'G()%':HA'
+&$/0&3I/0&/%'3&/,3=)L'
C,6'=7='#07)'/07-='-&$3"':"5-7)0>''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<0$#'%7"=',B':"5-7)0')2??,3#'=7=')I0&'5&#'7"')/0,,->'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
<$)'#0&':"5-7)0'-$"52$5&')2??,3#'/,")7)#&"#>'''
Q??,3#2"79&)'#,'7"#&3$/#'7"'
:"5-7)0'
<0&"'=,'1,2'2)&':"5-7)0>''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<0,'=,'1,2'-7%&'#,')?&$%'67#0'7"':"5-7)0>''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
E,'1,2'0$@&'B37&"=)'60,'-7%&'#,')?&$%':"5-7)0>''''''''''''''
:"5-7)0'?3,8/7&"/1'-&@&-'G()%':HA'
+&$/0&3I/0&/%'#&)#'=$#$L'
<&3&';,#0'),/7$-'$"='$/$=&*7/'-$"52$5&')%7--)'$))&))&=>'''
E7='#0&'/07-='0$@&':"5-7)0'-$"52$5&'?3,8/7&"/1'7"')?&$%7"5F'-7)#&"7"5F'3&$=7"5F'$"='6379"5>''
C$)'#0&3&';&&"'7*?3,@&*&"#'7"'&@&31'=,*$7"',@&3'9*&>'
C,6'7)'#0&'/07-=R)'$/$=&*7/'-$"52$5&'?3,8/7&"/1'7"'#0&'/,"#&"#'$3&$)>'
!"#$%&'()&**+,-.(/0(10.(,-2(3"456%7.(80(/0(9:;<;=0(3&>-?(@"(7-"5(A"#$(*&,$-&$4(2#$6-?(6-@,7&(,44&44+&-@0(/B,6*,C*&(,@(DEF'GG
+44#0,%,2&+6,0&2#G/-2$&,)&**+,-GH,*74((

Assessment
with
P-12
English
Language
Learners
http://mssu.academia.edu/AndreaHellman/Papers
Andrea
B.
Hellman
2011
Page
23
APPENDIX
B:
WHOLE
CLASS
PROFILE
FORM
!"#$% !"&'($%
)"*+,"+$%
-.,*&/0%
.1%./'+'*%
2$"/3%'*%45%
67%8/.1'9'$*90%
67%)'&$/"90%
:9";$#'9%
<"9=+/.,*;%%
2$"/3%&.%)$"/*%>*+)'3?%
>6@%58$"='*+%
>6@%6'3&$*'*+%
>6@%A$";'*+%
>6@%B/'&'*+%
5&/$*+&?3% !$$;3% A$3.,/9$3%
7C%
%
% % % % % %
%
%
% % % % % % % %
DC%
%
% % % % % %
%
%
% % % % % % % %
EC%
%
% % % % % %
%
%
% % % % % % % %
FC%
%
% % % % % %
%
%
% % % % % % % %
GC%
%
% % % % % %
%
%
% % % % % % % %
HC%%
%
% % % % % %
%
%
% % % % % % % %
IC%
%
% % % % % %
%
%
% % % % % % % %
JC%
%
% % % % % %
%
%
% % % % % % % %
%

Assessment With P-12 English Language Learners

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Assessment With P-12 English Language Learners

Similar to Assessment With P-12 English Language Learners (20)

More from Liz Adams

More from Liz Adams (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Assessment With P-12 English Language Learners