LING 612 NCLB by J. Abedi (2004)

Assessment and accountability issues in the limited English proficient (LEP) subgroup of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is a major factor to achievement for this group of test takers. This subgroup is not a constant group that stays the same in the many groups that are considered when calculating if a school makes adequate yearly progress (AYP). Abedi gives statistics that argue his points that shows varying percentages that shows that not all schools have the same level of LEP students in each state's school and how that subgroup is measured. In an extreme case with the label, "failing" school the students are looked at as the culprit for the negative label. With that suppose to come extra funding to get the school resources needed to meet the needs of the student population.
Policymakers, lawmakers, and decision makers all need to work together with the federal government to remedy the issues to bring about more effort for fairness into the assessment of and accountability for LEP students.
In my limited experience with the act, I see drop out rates increasing and students being labeled as a number and how it compares to the number that will show the proficiency level, with no funding to help the students with the needs being met. I also heard about students that will be below proficient being "expeled" on the testing window. In my school, we are working really hard and huge efforts by the teachers and parents to help the students do their best on the test. Even when all the students are trying their best and the school focuses on the test, it still can depend on the wellness of the students during the testing period and whether students who were proficient still progress at that level. Attendance, daily lessons, focus on the GLE's, and the amount of material covered in the year can make or break a school. Not only are school labeled as failing, but there is still little or no help to bring LEP students to become fluent English proficient students.

LING 612 Language Testing Ch 2 by T. McNamara (2000)

After scoring the language assessment and finding out what the data tells about second language learners comes looking at the language and how it is used in the test. Test construct usually used in psychology can be used in social content of the testing for language assessment usage. This format tells you how language testing is used in practical application. This process is based on what the test "looks" at to give the results. That look can vary, therefore interpreting the test results and the content of the test varies depending on what the test is looking for.
In the 1960's psychometric-structuralist period which tests isolated skills such as grammatical structure or vocabulary knowledge and some macroskills of listening, reading, writing and speaking.
In the period after the 60's when foreign students started entering the Britain and US universities there was a need for productive capacities for language. This method added the pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary and an understanding of the context as well. This resulted in integrative tests in writing and spoken forms.
In the 1970's an American, John Oller researched two factors in language testing, on-line processing of language in real time and "pragmatic mapping". He came up with the hypothesis which focused on cloze zone testing called "Unitary Competence Hypothesis." This the gap filling reading test. This however did not solve the problem of finding out what the communicative skills that testers have.
Job analysis gives testers opportunity to test in occupation situations where they are going to a foreign country to work focusing on the way to communicate in the job setting and the tools that are available in that setting. At this point in the chapter, I am trying to figure out if I would be interested in taking a test to enter a new university or to get a job in another country where language will be a factor. My question would be, is the test written in the language of the country or is it written in English while focusing on the language content of the new country?
Strategic competence is measuring capacity for strategic behavior in performance such as confidence and preparedness to take risks. This helps to negotiate meaning in context. Understanding the way that the test taker, interlocutors, test designer, and rater interact and come together might get us closer to getting a second language assessement that asesses the whole person in language use and the context used.
My thoughts on this chapter is that I am glad that the cloze method to assess language competence is not the only way to assess students and I am glad that that is realized. This makes me have high hopes that the SBA and HSGQE tests will get on board and realize that one test does not fit all.

LING 612 Moving Toward Authentic Assessment, Ch.1 by O'Malley & Pierce

For years the common way to assess is the ever popular multiple choice. Educators are now looking for alternative assessments that correlates between the lessons in the classroom and the test, all the while giving teachers tools to show them where their students are at and where to go from there. Alternative assessment shows what the student can do, shows growth, and is kind of like a snapshot of what students mastered. Why is the multiple choice no longer a "one size fits all" method to show student achievement? It is because there are other ways to show student growth and assists teachers to help students with unknown skills.
Assessments needed for English as a second language users need to catch up with the research done for authentic testing of the general population of test takers, that population being the varying speakers of English who take the tests in each state. There are six purposes for English Language Learners(ELL): screening and identification, placement, reclassification or exit, monitoring student progress, program evaluation, and accountability. Multiple choice tests given to ELL students does not show what the student's needs are or what their strengths are.
Performance assessment relies mostly on rubrics. This is a good tool for writing and judging exactly what the goals are, but I don't think it gives room for a grade when you have to guess or give someone the benefit of the doubt. I am not a big rubric fan, but I do use it for my writing grade and some math problems.
I do believe in self-assessment as a tool to judge how much effort you put in a subject. When I am average on a rubric, but try my best and work 110% above the project, then I believe that this type of tool should be weighed more than the rubric. However, if students are expected to do folders and packages for their daily lessons with no instruction from the teacher, then that is not a type of self-assessment or self-regulation. To me, this is a cop out for some teachers who teach too many levels and do not make time to have group lessons and small group mini lessons. I know we all are crunched for time and I have to constantly remind myself that concepts that are introduced to my students are new and foreign to my students.
I would like to create a meaningful portfolio but I have yet to find a way to show case my students strengths and have it meaningful for my K-1 class to explain and share with their parents or peers. I would also like to learn more about anecdotal records and reading logs.

LING 612 Language Testing by McNamara

Well hello! Have you ever experienced a language test that you were so excited about that your pulse raced and your appeal for the assessment overtook you to the edge of excitement? No? Me neither. I found the most interesting quote from the chapter to be, "if you are conducting research in language study you may need to have measures of the language proficiency of your subjects." There are two types of language tests that deal with the method and the purpose of the test. The testing purpose ranges from proficiency in the language for real world use and the entry into a field of the language based on a valid test that the test makers work very hard to maintain relevancy.
Tests in language need to know what they are looking for and the theory that it has that relates to the real world. Views on language is unique to the language test and should be considered when creating the tests.
The testing of language undergoes the way that the grammar and pragmatics of language is understood as well as the usage of the language in a social setting is exercised by the language user in order to test for proficiency. Wow, what a concept. I think if I went through the English language test, I would definitely be labeled, "Village English" with coding in Standard English.

LING 612 Assessment (2006) by Pierce

Assessment using the NCLB 2001 law is a struggle not only for second language users, but for our school as well with our student population being mostly English Language Proficient qualified for extra help in the students home language. Having such high stakes set with the act makes students that are low aware of their weaknesses and try to catch the students before they fall through the cracks and drop out. Nothing wrong with that concept, but it is not how the test is interpreted. Schools with failing AYP marks are labeled as so. With labeling, no good can come out of that situation. Labels hurt people.
Lets educate our teachers, provide them with the curriculum and support they need to educate our young. The act obviously did not succeed and therefore we need to learn from the mistakes of the act and make the necessary improvements to get kids back on track. There are so many assessment tools that can be used to capture an image of the knowledge that students have in their funds of knowledge. Relying on one test to make or brake a catagory of student is not doing no one justice to see what each child has the potential to do. Also it is not fair to the English as a second language population when they are brushed aside or made to feel like they are not a part of the school because their scores are not included in the formula. I would not want my student to be in a such an environment.
NCLB act is a strong indication that we need to find better means to assess our students and build up on their strengths while working on their weaknesses. Make children feel proud, lead them in the right direction and have a better tomorrow.

Maori Approaches to Assessment(2007), LING 612 by Lesley Remeka

This article shows that authentic assessment is already going through a journey to "demonstrate" how students are progressing in a unique and cultural way for the Maori people. I found it interesting to read that the assessment is done, not only by the school, but by the community, teachers, and children. The assessment shows how the individual is a part of the whole group of people and that the ways of the people are taught. This is a whole new way to see how people can learn in the school setting. First comes community and then comes the traditional ways of learning the content curriculum.
The point that really made me think that this approach will work is because it is starting in the Maori early childhood centers. Like all learned behavior and the way that young children learn, is started right at the beginning when they are first learning to talk, walk, and become their own little bosses while choosing what to explore. I really am interested to see how the community will buy into the assessment of the program.
My only concern is whether the culture is strong and if the people already practice a strong lifestyle that supports this type of authentic assessment. So many times the desire to practice the culture of old ways is not what is important to a group of people and trying to get it back in that way might put added burden on the young children who depend on adults to teach them the right way to become good citizens of their group.
Authentic assessment is needed and I am glad to see a group from New Zealand taking the necessary steps to head in the right direction and taking charge of what they want the goals of their youth to achieve.

Teacher Suspended for Refusing to Give State Test (2007)

This article by The Associated Press is the first of an actual teacher refusal to administer the Washington State mandated test that the United States requires every year. Carl Chew stood up for the students, but my only fault with that was wondering if he asked the students themselves how they felt about the test and what the results mean to them, before banning the test in his classroom. I am sure while he was suspended the class had to take the test anyway.
This is a strong message asking for improved quality assessment tools that actually measure student success and their potential. I can relate to Carl because I see the whole curriculum in my classroom focusing on assessment and no consideration for the many needs and abilities of my students. Mostly the results show that students are far below proficient, below proficient, and proficient. Even in my K-1 setting students know when they are behind the rest of the class and most of the time it is just a matter of time before they are on level with the rest of their peers.
My other point is that like adults, not all students perform well on assessments. I strongly agree with Carl about coming up with better alternative ways to assessing the state's education system.
What I am doing in my part to help my class succeed with any test they are given is to tell my students that they are smart and sometimes language dialects in Standard English can be the culprit of their lower scores and then concentrate on helping them discover their strengths in their education.
We do have an assessment crisis. So many students are labeled as far below proficient and that does not do well to educate students to let go of name calling and treating each other with respect, no matter where we are in the educational spectrum. To me, the many levels of education is a gift, not a flaw. Lets get a better assessment to build up our younger generation, not to blame them for our lack of creating a better assessment tool.