Exploring the Relationship Between an Alternate English Language Proficiency Assessment and Alternate Academic Content Assessments

• In Event: Validity and Utility of English Language Proficiency Assessments: New Evidence in the Common Core Era

Abstract

Federal law (ESEA) identifies several criteria that States must use to define English learners (Section 8101(20)). Specifically, in part D of this section, we read that an English learner is a student,
“whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the individual—
(i) the ability to meet the challenging State academic standards;
(ii) the ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English; or
(iii) the opportunity to participate fully in society.”

One mechanism to determine if students “meet challenging State academic standards” is by administering academic content assessments, which are also required by federal law (Section 1111(b)(2)(A)). Still another requirement is that English learners be annually assessed in their English language proficiency (Section 1111(b)(2)(G)).

Implicit within these federal requirements is a predictive relationship between English language proficiency (ELP) and academic content assessments. If follows then, that English Learners (ELs) who are proficient on State academic content assessments meet one eligibility requirement of being “reclassified” as no longer an English learner. Understanding what the relationship is between the ELP assessments, especially at the “proficient” level, and academic content assessments is then critical.

Several reports and studies have been published that have examined the relationship between ELP assessments and academic content assessments (e.g., Cook, Linquanti, Chinen, & Jung, 2012; Linquanti, Cook, Bailey, MacDonald, 2016; Robinson-Cimpian, Thompson, 2015; Cimpian, Thompson, Makowski, 2017). The reports or studies mentioned here either share methods to establish English proficient reclassification criteria or explore consequences reclassification criteria with ELP and academic content assessments, and the number of studies exploring this relationship is growing. However, few studies have explored the relationship between alternate ELP and alternate academic content assessments.

The paucity of studies on alternate ELP and alternate academic content assessment relationships is not surprising. All states administer alternate academic content assessments, but there is only one available alternate ELP assessment (Alternate ACCESS, https://wida.wisc.edu/assess/alt-access). This assessment is one of the offerings provided by the WIDA Consortium and is used in over 40 states and/or US Territories, districts, or federal agencies. While many states administer Alternate ACCESS, the number of EL students with the most significant cognitive disabilities within each state is very small. Exploring relationships between these assessments within each state is difficult. One benefit of consortium participation is the pooling of student response data across states.

Using logistic regression and decision consistency analyses methods described by Cook, et al., (2012), the study reported here examines the relationship between Alternate ACCESS and the Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) assessment in seven states. Preliminary findings show that there is indeed a relationship between these two assessments and that this relationship can inform States, districts, and schools in reclassifying ELs with the most significant cognitive disabilities. It also informs interpretations of alternate academic content assessments. The findings presented here expand our understanding of what it means to reclassify ELs with the most significant cognitive disabilities and how these students perform on alternate academic content assessments.

Author

• H. Gary Cook, University of Wisconsin - Madison