Connecting English Language Proficiency, Statewide Assessments, and
Classroom Proficiency
LEP Projects Report 5
Published by the National Center on
Educational Outcomes
Prepared by
Debra Albus, Jean A. Klein, Kristin Liu, and Martha Thurlow
August 2004
Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and
distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:
Albus, D., Klein, J. A., Liu, K., &
Thurlow, M. (2004). Connecting English language proficiency, statewide assessments, and
classroom proficiency (LEP Projects Report 5). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,
National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [today's date], from the World Wide
Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/LEP5.html
Executive Summary
In the past, English language
learners (ELLs) were expected to learn English before they learned critical
content needed to succeed in school. This is no longer the case, especially in
light of federal education laws that require that ELLs be held to the same
academic standards as other students. At the same time, there are requirements
to assess and document progress on tests of English language development. The
extent to which these are aligned to tests of academic content and to language
proficiency measures is a matter of debate, with little relevant research
available.
This study sought to provide information on the links between academic language,
language proficiency tests, and performance on standardized assessments by
examining relationships among: (1) two language proficiency measures (e.g.,
Language Assessment Scale (LAS) and Minnesota’s Test of Emerging Academic
English (TEAE), (2) teacher ratings of classroom reading and writing samples,
and (3) two state achievement tests: Minnesota’s Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs)
and Minnesota’s Basic Skills Test (BSTs). The students in this sample were 99
English language learners (ELLs) in grades 3, 5, and 11.
Language Assessment Scale (LAS) and Test of Emerging Academic English (TEAE)
In examining the relationship between the LAS and TEAE for our sample of
students, we found that the underlying reading skills being measured by the two
tests were closely related. Of course, this does not mean that the tests are
measuring the exact same skills. Instead, it indicates that the students who
performed one way on one test tended to perform a certain way on the other test.
The writing tests for the LAS and TEAE were not related, indicating that the
tests are either measuring different skills, or are measuring underlying skills
differently.
Teacher Ratings of Reading and Writing
Teachers who were licensed to teach English as a Second Language (ESL)
tended to rate students’ skills as either the same or higher than the students’
content teachers. But both ESL and content teachers tended to rate listening and
speaking skills higher than students’ skills in reading or writing. Teacher
opinions about specific students’ chances to succeed in future classes without
further language support were related to whether students had achieved passing
scores on the Basic Skills Tests and had at least been rated as “achieved” on
the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments.
Proficiency Tests, Teacher Ratings, and State Tests
Although certain Language Assessment Scales scores (reading and overall)
were significantly correlated with the MCA writing test and BST reading test,
there appeared to be stronger correlations between the TEAE reading score and
the MCA and BST reading scores. A modest correlation was found between the TEAE
reading and MCA writing test. The TEAE writing score had a strong correlation
with BST reading, though the number of students on which this correlation was
based was small (17). ESL reading and writing samples were also correlated with
the BST reading test, however these numbers of students on which these were
based were also small (10 and 11).
Comparisons of ESL and content teacher ratings of student ability with scores on
state achievement tests showed inconsistencies based on whether the teacher was
an ESL or content teacher. ESL teacher ratings generally increased with
increasing ability in relation to student performance on standardized tests,
whereas content teacher ratings did not show this relationship consistently.
These inconsistencies may have existed for several reasons, including potential
differences in how ESL and content teachers interpreted students’ skills using a
rubric designed to measure language development, and differences in how
classroom activities were able to capture language and content development.
Limitations of Study
The findings of this study are limited to some extent because of the difficulty
encountered in recruiting adequate numbers of subjects and teachers willing to
participate. Reluctance to participate was encountered despite generous subject
and school incentives. Other study limitations included the lack of a complete
state database which made it difficult to acquire test scores for students.
Difficulty in getting ESL and content area work sample ratings from teachers
further complicated completion of the study and suggests that accountability
measures that rely on work samples may have similar problems. A small number of
students also were quite familiar with the oral component of the LAS, an
unexpected situation that could confound results.
Classwork samples, as intended in the study design, were not standardized. Even
though staff and teachers rated samples with the same rubric, questions must be
raised about the reliability of ratings. It is helpful to examine the classwork
sample ratings in the context of how they related to other more objective
measures of language proficiency and achievement.
Conclusion
The comparisons of proficiency test data and state test data showed that
certain language proficiency scores (reading and overall) were significantly
correlated to the MCA writing test and BST reading test. However, there appeared
to be stronger correlations between the TEAE reading score and the MCA and BST
reading scores. In comparing student performance on state tests with teacher
ratings on a question about students’ ability to succeed without further
language support, most of the students rated as likely to succeed had achieved
passing scores on the BST and had at least been rated as “achieved” on the MCA
tests. Still, sometimes a student with lower teacher ratings had also achieving
passing scores on state measures such as the BST Reading test. Other findings of
interest included differences in how ESL and content teachers rated student
skills and abilities.
The assessments in this study focused on only two proficiency measures and two
state achievement tests in reading and writing. More is to be learned from
studying other language proficiency measures that have different underlying
concepts of academic language and how it is measured. Further study by states
comparing these proficiency measures with student progress on newly established
state English language development standards and existing state academic content
standards will no doubt be valuable in furthering the field’s understanding of
how English language learners’ growth in language proficiency relates to growth
and achievement in academic language and content.
Overview
Historically, much of the instruction of English language learners
has been oriented toward moving students to a certain level of English
proficiency before academic content is introduced. It has been understood from
the research literature (Collier, 1992; Cummins, 1989; Ramírez, Yuen, Ramey, &
Billings, 1991) that English Language Learners (ELLs) cannot wait for language
skills to fully develop before these students are taught the crucial academic
content required of all students to succeed in our school systems. Instead,
these students must master a full range of social and academic uses of English
at the same time they are leaning reading, mathematics, and other content area
knowledge. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) has given this
understanding legal footing by mandating that English language learners be held
to the same academic standards used for structuring what is taught and assessed
for all students in addition to learning English language skills (i.e.,
listening, speaking, reading, writing, and comprehension) based on English
language proficiency (ELP) standards set by each state.
It follows that these ELP standards and the associated annual
English proficiency measure should reflect development in the academic language
skills needed to successfully develop in academic content areas. Yet Title III
legislation does not explicitly require the measurement of “academic language”
in the annual language proficiency measure. The language in Title III
non-regulatory guidance (2003) instead requires that a state’s ELP assessments
be aligned with ELP standards that are linked to the regular content standards.
This is evident in several statements in the guidance:
Although English language proficiency and reading/language arts
academic standards are different, they should be linked to one another. English
language proficiency standards should define proficiency levels that will help
LEP students to acquire the English language skills necessary to meet academic
content and achievement standards. (p. 8)
States are encouraged, but not required, to align English language
proficiency standards with academic content and achievement standards. (p. 9)
English language proficiency assessments must be aligned with
English language proficiency standards and provide a means of demonstrating
progress towards meeting the English language proficiency annual measurable
achievement objectives. (pp. 9-10)
The Title III guidance highlights the difference between alignment
and linking of academic content to ELP standards. The extent to which the ELP
standards and assessments are linked to regular content standards and
assessments is assumed to affect the progress of English language learners
toward academic target skills and abilities through the educational system.
Yet the process of linking and aligning standards of language
proficiency to classroom and achievement assessments is not uncomplicated.
Instead, the task of defining academic language is quite complex. A few
researchers have contributed to the field by fleshing out the definition that
academic language is language used in an academic setting in order to acquire
knowledge. Stevens, Butler, and Castellon-Wellington (2000) approached the task
of defining academic language by incorporating three main perspectives: (1)
theories based on language functions and structure (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994),
(2) distinctions between socially-based communications referred to as basic
interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) and more abstract cognitive academic
language proficiency (CALP) (Cummins, 1984), and (3) a sociolinguistic view
(Solomon & Rhodes, 1995) that defines academic language contextually according
to register (degrees of informal and formalness) for specific tasks.
Scarcella (2003) used a similar “define by combining” approach,
noting the BICS/CALP distinction made by Cummins, but also a perspective not
directly mentioned by Stevens et al. (2000), which emphasizes the concept of
multiple literacies. This second perspective is distinguished by its allowance
of academic language to be dynamic, evolving, and accepting of the students’ own
expression of academic ideas rather than focusing on the exact form in which
they are expressed. Scarcella advocates, like Stevens, that academic language
involves linguistic and dynamic competencies.
Therefore, even with the most well-crafted English language
proficiency standards, the practical task of applying an operational definition
of academic language proficiency to the classroom or attempting to measure its
incremental development is a challenging one for states. States have temporarily
resorted to the use of commercially available assessments originally designed
for placement and diagnostic decisions to meet the need of federal legislation
requirements, while testing companies work with states to create new
standards-based assessments focusing on academic language proficiency (Olson,
2002). Among the most widely used commercial assessment is the Language
Assessment Scales (LAS) test developed by DeAvila and Duncan (1990). Although
this test was originally intended for placement decisions, its publisher has
signaled the probability that future changes may be made to better reflect the
needs of states dealing with requirements to link the proficiency measure to
state standards (Jackson & Jackson, 2003). Some states have developed
their own versions of language proficiency assessments in an attempt to capture
academic language development aligned with state ELP standards. Minnesota is a
state that has done this with its language proficiency assessment called the
Test of Emerging Academic English (TEAE).
In theory, annual assessments of academic English proficiency
development should result in more accurate information about the progress of
students in language and content knowledge. Yet limited research has been
conducted to demonstrate that this is the case as indicated by Stevens et al.
(2000) who argued that “little research exists on the relationship between
academic language, language proficiency tests, and performance on standardized
assessments” (p. 4). We do know from research studies that language proficiency
may account for between 16% to 50% (average 25%) of the variation in content
assessment scores (Stevens et al., 2000) depending on the language load of a
content test (for example, mathematics versus social studies). We also know that
the language of standardized tests may contribute to their difficulty for
English language learners (Bailey, cited in Stevens et al., 2000). Further,
Cunningham and Moore (1993) and Abedi, Leon and Mirocha (2001) found
improved performance for ELLs when the language load of test items was reduced.
Still, there remain questions about differences that are assumed to exist
between the language used and measured on language proficiency tests and the
language used on large-scale content assessments.
The purpose of this study was to examine how two language
proficiency tests relate to: (1) classroom performance in content areas, and (2)
standards-based content assessments. One language proficiency test was the LAS,
originally designed for instructional placement of ELLs. The other was the TEAE,
which claims to capture academic language aligned with the English proficiency
standards in Minnesota. Our goal was to describe the role that academic language
might play in determining differences among language proficiency tests.
Research Questions
·
How does student performance on the LAS correlate to their
performance on the TEAE?
· How does LAS and TEAE performance compare to educator ratings of
classroom work?
How did ESL and content teachers rate student skills across
modalities?
How did ESL and content teachers rate student skills related to
academic work?
How did teachers rate work samples using the TEAE linked rubric?
How did language proficiency assessment performance correlate to
teachers’ ratings of student work samples?
·
How does LAS and TEAE performance compare to statewide achievement
test data in reading and writing?
How did teachers rating of student work samples compare to the
proficiency assessments and state achievement tests?
How did students rated likely to succeed do on language proficiency
and state achievement tests?
How did students’ language proficiency assessment performance and
work sample ratings correlate to state achievement tests?
·
How did students with very low oral scores on the LAS test do on
proficiency assessments, work samples, and state achievement tests?
Method
English language learners and their teachers were recruited from
three school districts in Minnesota. The students, all of whom were participants
in the state TEAE, were tested by the project using the full Language Assessment
Scales (LAS). Teachers also provided information about classroom performance by
collecting and rating classroom samples.
Data were analyzed in the following order: (1) student performance
on the LAS compared to the TEAE, (2) TEAE and LAS performance compared to ESL
and content area teacher ratings of collected classroom samples, and (3) TEAE
and LAS performance compared to other statewide achievement test data in reading
and writing. In this section we describe in more detail the research
participants, measures, and procedures.
Participants
The student participants in this study were 99 English language
learners in 3rd, 5th, and 11th grade from one urban and two suburban
school districts in Minnesota. By grade, there were 35 fifth graders, 31 eighth
graders, and 33 eleventh graders who participated.
Over 20 districts were contacted for possible participation between
the spring of 2003 and spring of 2004 for potential participation. Aside from
the three districts in our study, all other districts (with large enough ELL
populations) that were contacted declined to participate. Among these, eight did
not respond to phone calls. The study design called for representation outside
the metropolitan area. However, of 11 districts outside the metropolitan area
that had ELL populations large enough to contact, one agreed but then withdrew
due to lack of teacher interest.
Table 1 describes the participants by grade, gender, and language.
Table 2 summarizes the overall gender of participants.
Table 1.
Participating Students by Grade and Language Across Sites
Languages |
Urban |
Suburban 1 |
Suburban 2 |
Gr. 5
N= 3 |
Gr. 8
N=5 |
Gr. 11
N=14 |
Gr. 5
N=16 |
Gr. 8
N=17 |
Gr. 11
N=12 |
Gr. 5
N=16 |
Gr. 8
N=9 |
Gr. 11
N=7 |
Hmong |
33 % |
20 % |
14 % |
69 % |
47 % |
|
|
|
|
Somali |
66 % |
60 % |
57 % |
|
|
8 % |
|
|
|
Spanish |
|
|
21 % |
25 % |
18 % |
50 % |
75 % |
44 % |
57 % |
Russian |
|
|
|
|
6 % |
8 % |
13 % |
33 % |
29 % |
Other* |
|
20 % |
8 % |
6 % |
24 % |
33 % |
19 % |
22 % |
14 % |
* Students
include: Amharic, Bamanan, Cambodian, Creolized English, Laotian, Oromo, other
African, and Vietnamese.
Table 2.
Participating Students by Grade and Gender Across Sites
Gender |
Urban |
Suburban 1 |
Suburban 2 |
Gr. 5
N=3 |
Gr. 8
N=5 |
Gr. 11
N=14 |
Gr. 5
N=16 |
Gr. 8
N=17 |
Gr. 11
N=12 |
Gr. 5
N=16 |
Gr. 8
N=9 |
Gr. 11
N=7 |
Female |
3 |
3 |
6 |
10 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
7 |
4 |
Male |
0 |
2 |
8 |
6 |
10 |
5 |
11 |
2 |
3 |
We provide descriptive information about the districts and schools
participating in this study in Tables 3 and 4. Table 3 gives information on
total student population size, percent receiving free and reduced lunch, percent
ELL, and percent increase in ELL student population since 2000. Table 4 provides
similar information for each participating school. At the school level, the
percentage of students receiving free and reduced lunch ranged from 17% in
Suburban 1 to 78% in the Urban district. The percentage of ELLs in each school
ranged from 6% in Suburban 2 to 36% in the Urban district.
Table 3.
Demographic Information for Participating Districts and the State of Minnesota
For 2003-2004
|
Urban |
Suburban 1 |
Suburban 2 |
State |
Total Student
Population |
45000 |
14000 |
4500 |
830000 |
Percent Free and
Reduced Lunch |
68 % |
30 % |
21 % |
28 % |
Percent ELL |
23 % |
8 % |
12 % |
7 % |
Percent Increase in
ELLs since 2000 |
21 % |
139 % |
116 % |
52 % |
Table 4.
Demographic Information for Participating Schools
For 2003-2004
|
Urban |
Suburban 1 |
Suburban 2 |
Grade |
K-8 |
9-12 |
K-5 |
6-8 |
9-12 |
5-6 |
7-9 |
10-12 |
Percent Free and
Reduced Lunch |
23% |
78% |
64% |
39% |
17% |
29% |
24% |
20% |
Percent ELL |
10% |
36% |
31% |
13% |
8% |
12% |
8% |
6% |
Size of School |
600 |
1300 |
500 |
1400 |
2300 |
700 |
1100 |
1000 |
Teachers in the study were either ESL teachers (N=14) or content
area (i.e., science or social studies) teachers (N=17). They participated
in this study by collecting and rating student classroom samples for
three students per school site. Some teachers rated more than one student.
Complete information on the teachers’ backgrounds is presented in Tables A1 and
A2 in Appendix A. Table 5 shows summary information for these teachers by type
of licensure (e.g., ESL or content), licensure for current grade he or she is
teaching, and years teaching. Based on teacher self-report, all teachers were
qualified to teach their respective areas and grades. Further, half of the
teachers, both ESL and content, had taught at least four or more years. Although
not shown in Table 5, most teachers had spent these years teaching in
their current district (see Appendix A).
Table 5.
ESL and Content Teacher Licensure Information and Years Teaching
|
Urban |
Suburban 1 |
Suburban 2 |
ESL
N = 4 |
Content
N = 4 |
ESL
N = 6 |
Content
N = 5 |
ESL
N = 4 |
Content
N = 8 |
Percent Licensed
in ESL |
100% |
|
100% |
|
100% |
|
Percent Licensed
in Content |
|
100% |
|
100% |
|
100% |
Percent Licensed
in Appropriate Grade |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
Years Teaching: |
More than 7 |
25% |
100% |
17% |
80% |
25% |
25% |
4-7 |
75% |
|
33% |
|
50% |
25% |
1-3 |
|
|
33% |
20% |
25% |
25% |
Less than 1 |
|
|
17% |
|
|
25% |
Language Proficiency Measures
LAS
We administered the reading and writing Language Assessment Scales
(LAS-R/W Forms B) and the oral Language Assessment Scales-Oral (LAS-O Form D).
The LAS-R/W, a battery of reading and writing competency tests, and the LAS-O
represent a “convergent approach” to assessing language (Duncan & DeAvila, cited
in Del Vecchio & Guerro, 1995), which places the most importance on the combined
total score for use in identification and instructional decision making. The
current LAS test combines discrete point items with holistic measures in both
the LAS-R/W and LAS-O. We used the long form of the LAS-O, which included a
minimal-pairs section with measures of vocabulary, listening comprehension, and
story retelling.
Del Vecchio and Guerro (1995) have noted that more recent
descriptions of the LAS include the ability to forecast the likelihood of
student success in a mainstream classroom (Del Vecchio et al., 1995). LAS
authors have further made known their intentions to make the LAS test more
finely tuned to the purpose of assessing language proficiency aligned with state
English language development standards (Jackson & Jackson, 2003). These changes
are occurring, no doubt, in response to recent federal requirements for the
assessment of ELLs, and the relationship this assessment must have directly to
ELD standards and indirectly to states’ content standards.
TEAE
We also administered the Test of Emerging Academic English (TEAE),
which is a Minnesota adaptation of the Illinois Measure of Academic Growth in
English. It was developed to measure the growth of the English language
learner’s academic proficiency in English and had been linked to Minnesota’s
content standards. It is currently administered to fulfill Title I
accountability requirements as an annual measure of growth in English language
proficiency, and as a state tool in determining service funding for students
(enrolled under five years). See Table 6 for the preliminary cut scores set for
winter 2003 for the TEAE. Students who perform at proficient levels on the
reading test (level 4) and writing test (level 5) will not count toward state
funding for ESL services (Minnesota Department of Education, 2004a). The TEAE is
used by the state to determine reclassification of students as fluent English
proficient. However, a student’s score on the TEAE does not determine whether he
or she will receive or continue to receive services (Minnesota Department of
Education, 2004b). Individual districts may choose, at their discretion, to
offer supportive services for these students based on multiple indicators
including their TEAE scores.
The TEAE is given entirely in English and is administered in
sections over a series of days. There are three forms of the test: grades 3-4,
grades 5-6, and grades 7-8. The 7-8 test is designed to be used for students in
grades 7 and above; therefore it is also suitable for those students who enter
the system at the secondary level.
Table 6. Preliminary TEAE
Cut Scores Set for Winter 2003
Subject |
Level |
Grade Level Clusters |
Grades 3-4 |
Grades 5-6 |
Grades 7-8 |
Grades 9-12 |
Scores |
% at Level |
Scores |
% at Level |
Scores |
% at Level |
Scores |
% at Level |
Reading |
4
|
240 |
10% |
266 |
12% |
278+ |
8% |
278+ |
12% |
3 |
187.5- < 240 |
37% |
207-<266 |
47% |
220-<278 |
50% |
230-<286 |
44% |
2 |
137.5-187.5 |
42% |
175-<207 |
26% |
180-<220 |
33% |
180-<230 |
33% |
1 |
1-<137.5 |
11% |
1-<175 |
15% |
1-<180 |
9% |
1-<180 |
11% |
Writing |
5
|
25+ |
2% |
26+ |
3% |
27+ |
2% |
28+ |
2% |
4 |
19.5-<25 |
31% |
22.5-<26 |
27% |
23-<27 |
26% |
23.5-<28 |
28% |
3 |
13.5-<19.5 |
49% |
17.5-<22.5 |
52% |
18.5-<23 |
48% |
18.5-<23.5 |
45% |
2 |
7.5-<13.5 |
13% |
12-<17.5 |
12% |
16-<18.5 |
12% |
16-<18.5 |
10% |
1
|
0-<7.5 |
7% |
0-<12 |
6% |
0-<16 |
12% |
0-<16 |
16% |
Classroom Measures
Classroom measures were collected for three students at each
participating school site. These measures included teacher ratings of individual
students’ skills using a five point Likert scale from 1 (unsatisfactory) to 5
(excellent) in the following areas: reading, writing, listening, and speaking.
We asked teachers to use a similar Likert scale to rate a student’s (1) ability
to master work in class, (2) performance compared to peers, and (3) chance of
future success without ESL/bilingual services. ESL/Bilingual teachers and
content area teachers also collected 2-3 examples of students’ best class work
to give support for their rubric-based ratings of students’ overall skill levels
in reading and writing. These state-created reading and writing rubric
descriptors were based on TEAE score levels, and were designed to bridge the
TEAE score to identified classroom characteristics of student performance in
these areas. See Appendix B for examples of key instruments used with teachers,
including background survey, student ability rating scales, and state-developed
rubrics. Other materials were provided to teachers, including examples of
samples that had been rated during the pilot. These are not included in Appendix
B.
State Achievement Tests
MCA
The state assessments of academic achievement were the Minnesota
Comprehensive Assessments (MCA) and the Minnesota Basic Skills Test (BST). The
MCAs are used for state and federal Title I accountability and are designed to
measure student progress toward high content standards in reading, mathematics,
and writing (with science to be added in 2006). Until other grades are phased
in, the reading test is given in grades 3, 5, 7, and 10. The writing test is
given in grade 5 only. Our study used data for tests that corresponded best to
the grade level of participants (grade 5 reading and writing, and grade 10
reading scores from spring 2004 for those currently in 11th grade).
BST
Minnesota’s BST measures student
mastery of minimum competency skills in reading (grade 8), mathematics (grade
8), and writing (grade 10). Students must pass these tests in order to graduate
with a standard diploma and the designation of “passed-state level.” For this
study, we used reading and writing data for students in grade 8, and for
students who took the test in later grades (e.g., grade 11).
Procedure
Teachers were instructed to read the list of rubric descriptors for
reading and writing, and then to choose two overall levels that reflected the
student’s skills in reading and writing. Teachers also were asked to collect
samples of work and to identify evidence for the level they chose by
highlighting evidence for at least one criterion under each main heading of
skills (e.g., vocabulary, comprehension, etc.). If a student had traits that
spanned across more than one level, the teacher was still encouraged to choose
an overall performance level.
After teachers collected the samples and rated them, they were
submitted to project staff. All samples were then rated by two staff members.
Each staff member was given the samples in a different order and in separate
locations to reduce potential bias. These second ratings were conducted to see
whether samples would be rated similarly across multiple reviewers. Where
differences occurred, researchers discussed the teacher ratings and evidence. In
cases where the teacher and staff differed in ratings, a third staff member was
also asked to rate the sample for analysis purposes.
Researchers obtained TEAE, MCA, and BST scores from test databases
provided by the state. Researchers used student numbers from the Minnesota
Automated Reporting Student System (MARSS) and locally assigned school
identification numbers, when needed, to retrieve these achievement scores. The
accuracy of one third of the scores recorded in the study database were later
checked and found to be accurate at 97%. The one error in this check was then
corrected.
Results
This study generated an extensive amount of data, which were
analyzed in a variety of ways. These analyses include three parts. First we
examined the relationships between the language proficiency measures (e.g., LAS
and TEAE) for all participants, and also by smaller groups (e.g., grade) where
numbers were sufficient. Second, we compared these results to teacher ratings of
classroom samples and addressed issues related to the rating data. Third, we
analyzed relationships among language proficiency tests, teacher rating data,
and student performance on the state MCA and BST reading and writing test
scores. And finally, a special analysis was done for a small subset of students
who had scored low on the LAS oral component. This final analysis highlights
issues particular to that group in comparing their performance across the other
study measures (e.g., ratings, state achievement scores). Initial frequencies by
score level were run for each proficiency test. These are provided in Tables
C1-C5 in Appendix C.
Connections between Tests of English Proficiency
First it was important to compare the students’ results on the two
English language proficiency tests used in the study. Correlations were run
between the LAS and TEAE (2003-2004). In general, significant correlations were
found between the TEAE reading scaled score and the LAS reading score, and
between the TEAE writing scaled score and the LAS reading score. Results are
presented in Table 7. These data suggest that the underlying reading skills
being measured by the LAS and TEAE are closely related. However, this does not
mean that the tests are measuring the exact same skills. It means that the
students who performed one way on one test tended to perform a certain way on
the other test. The writing tests for the LAS and TEAE were not related at all,
indicating that the tests are either measuring different skills, or are
measuring underlying skills differently. Because NCLB’s requirement of an annual
measure of English proficiency alludes to the need for a test that gauges
academic English growth, it will be important to compare students’ performance
on these measures to the other academic measures that are the focus of this
study.
Table 7. Correlations
between the LAS and TEAE
|
LAS-
Oral |
LAS-
Reading |
LAS-
Writing |
TEAE
Reading
SS1 |
TEAE
Writing |
LAS-Oral |
1.0 |
.458* |
.304* |
.309** |
.191 |
LAS-Reading |
|
|
.321** |
.571** |
.536** |
LAS-Writing |
|
|
|
.191 |
.192 |
TEAE Reading SS |
|
|
|
|
.415* |
TEAE Writing SS |
|
|
|
|
|
Total N |
|
|
|
96 |
36 |
*
Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2 tailed).
** Correlation is significant at
the .01 level.
1
SS= Scaled Score
Comparison of Language Proficiency Tests and Work Sample Ratings
In order to help address the question of whether higher performance
on these proficiency measures is more related to higher academic achievement in
general, we need to focus on comparing the proficiency score results to
teachers’ ratings of their work and state achievement test results. Before
presenting these correlations, it is important to present details about the
classroom measures so that correlations can be interpreted with greater
accuracy.
Classroom measures included ESL/bilingual and content (science or
social studies) teacher ratings of: (1) student abilities in reading, writing,
speaking, and listening, (2) students’ overall abilities in relation to course
content and peers, and (3) student work samples, chosen by teachers to represent
the student’s best work in reading and writing in his or her class. Although we
limited out correlations with proficiency score results to teacher ratings of
work samples (i.e., reading and writing), the other teacher ratings about
students’ skills across modalities and in comparison to their peers are still
important for a broader picture of how teachers viewed these students’ skills
overall.
A total of 25 students had work samples collected and rated. The
languages of these students were: African 4% (N=1), Amharic 4% (N=1), Creolized
English 8% (N=2), English 4% (N=1), Hmong 16% (N=4), Russian 8% (N=2), Somali
20% (N=5), Spanish 32% (N=8), Tibetan 4% (N=1).
Teacher Ratings of Student Skills Across Modalities
The results of teachers’ ratings of student skills in reading,
writing, speaking, and listening are presented in Table 8 (See Tables D1-D4 in
Appendix D for the tables used to make Table 8 by grade levels). Many of the
samples had only one rating – the rating of either the ESL or content teacher.
Those data were removed here to provide a clearer comparison of the same
students across type of teacher. In general, ESL teachers rated students the
same or higher than content area teachers (see Table D5 in Appendix D for
ratings by individual students).
Table 8. ESL and Content
Area Teacher Ratings of Skills Across Grades
|
Speaking All Grades |
Listening All Grades |
Reading All Grades |
Writing All Grades |
ESL |
Content |
ESL |
Content |
ESL |
Content |
ESL |
Content |
5
(Excellent) |
6 |
7 |
8 |
6 |
4 |
- |
3 |
3 |
4 |
8 |
7 |
9 |
4 |
8 |
3 |
6 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
6 |
2 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
2 |
- |
4 |
- |
4 |
- |
7 |
2 |
5 |
1
(Unsatisfactory) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
1 |
Dash indicates no rating for
that number on the scale.
Although it is not customary to average the means of Likert scale
ratings, we provide Table 9 as a condensed view of the tendency of teachers to
rate high or low for specific modalities. Both ESL and content teachers tended
to rate Listening highest, followed by Speaking. After these, ESL teachers’ next
highest rating tended to be Reading (3.66) followed by Writing (3.35). Content
teachers tended to have slightly higher ratings for Writing (3.04) than Reading.
Overall, ESL teachers had a higher average mean across all ability levels, with
their lowest means for reading and writing, roughly equal to the highest average
means (Listening and Speaking) for content teachers.
Table 9. Overall Rating
Means Across Grades by Teacher and Modality
Skill Area |
ESL |
Content |
Listening |
4.14 |
3.61 |
Speaking |
3.95 |
3.35 |
Reading |
3.66 |
2.77 |
Writing |
3.35 |
3.04 |
Teacher Rating of Student
Skills Related to Academic Work
Students were also rated using a similar five point Likert scale
for three additional questions, including student ability to master content,
performance in relation to fluent English peers, and student chances of success
in future content classes without further ESL support. ESL and content teacher
ratings for these questions are presented in Tables 10 and 11. Ratings based on
fluent English peers are provided in Appendix Table D6. Most ESL teachers did
not have fluent English peers in their classes. Content teachers, for this
question, had slight increases in ratings from 5th grade (2s and 3s)
to 8th grade (4s and 5s). See Appendix Table D7 for individual
student ratings on all three of these additional questions.
In general, in keeping with the pattern established by the modality
ratings, ESL teachers appeared to rate students the same or higher on their
ability to master content than did content area teachers (see Table 10). In
considering students’ chance of success without language assistance, there
appeared to be a wide range of opinions reflecting the strengths and weaknesses
of these students (see Table 11). The responses suggest that these content and
ESL teachers varied in their opinions concerning individual student success,
with perhaps the most divergence showing among grade 11 teachers. Comparing the
two tables, fifth grade ESL teachers tended to rate students’ ability to master
content and likelihood of success without support as slightly higher than
content teachers. Eighth grade ESL teachers tended to rate ability to master
content slightly higher than content teachers, but success without support was
rated about the same. The 11th grade teachers tended to rate ability
to master content about the same, but had very different opinions about the
ability of students to succeed without support, some content teachers being more
optimistic about certain students than their ESL colleagues, and some being less
optimistic.
When we look at the correlations between teacher ratings and
proficiency test performance (see page 15), tendencies discussed in this section
should be kept in mind: that ESL teachers tended to rate students higher in
mastery potential and higher across individual modalities, and that content
teachers had more diverging opinions concerning the 11th grade
students as to future success without ESL support.
Table 10. ESL and Content
Teacher Ratings of Student Ability to Master Content
|
5th
N=5 |
8th
N=6 |
11th
N=8 |
ESL |
Content |
ESL |
Content |
ESL |
Content |
(Very Capable) 5 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
1 |
- |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
(Unable) 1
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Dash
indicates no rating for that number on the scale.
Note: Shading highlights differences.
Table 11. ESL and Content
Teacher Ratings of Student Chance of Success without ESL Support
|
5th
N=5 |
8th
N=6 |
11th
N=8 |
ESL |
Content |
ESL |
Content |
ESL |
Content |
(Excellent) 5 |
- |
1 |
2 |
1 |
- |
3 |
4 |
1 |
- |
3 |
3 |
3 |
- |
3 |
3 |
- |
- |
- |
3 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
(Unlikely) 1 |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
1 |
1 |
Dash
indicates no rating for that number on the scale.
Note: Shading highlights differences.
Teacher Ratings of Work Samples
Teachers also rated student work samples using state-developed
descriptors for reading and writing. These descriptions are based on the TEAE.
Teacher ratings using the rubric descriptors reflected a broader range of
students’ skills in the fact that teachers made full use of the 1 to 5 rubric,
especially in writing (see Appendix Tables D8 and D9). In Tables 12 and 13, we
show the rubric ratings for only those students with ratings by both the ESL and
content teacher because we can make comparisons of the ratings for these
students. These tables indicate that content teachers for the grade 8 and 11
students tended to rate skills as similar to or lower than the ESL teachers.
This is in contrast to the students in grade 5, where the content teachers rated
their skills slightly higher than their ESL teachers in both reading and
writing.
Table 12. Teachers Ratings
of Reading Samples Using Rubrics
Reading
Rubric Descriptor
Level |
5th
N=4 |
8th
N=3 |
11th
N=5 |
ESL |
Content |
ESL |
Content |
ESL |
Content |
5 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
4 |
- |
2 |
1 |
- |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Dash
indicates no rating for that number on the scale.
Table 13. Teachers Ratings of
Writing Samples Using Rubrics
Writing
Rubric Descriptor
Level |
5th
N=4 |
8th
N=5 |
11th
N=8 |
ESL |
Content |
ESL |
Content |
ESL |
Content |
5 |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
1 |
1 |
4 |
- |
- |
4 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
- |
2 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
- |
1 |
1 |
- |
- |
1 |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Dash
indicates no rating for that number on the scale.
Project staff ratings of student work samples were compared to
those of the ESL and content area teachers. The percent agreement between the
two project staff raters and ESL teachers was 78% for each rater. Agreement
among the two staff raters ranged from 71-100%. Agreement between content
teachers and staff ratings ranged from 54%-63% for those same samples. Among
staff raters this agreement was 56%-69%. Although some of these agreement rates
were small, they are often due to incomplete samples submitted by teachers
(e.g., teachers provided answers to questions but the reading passage and the
questions were not provided, or teaches provided student answers that looked
like reproductions of a text). These issues led to somewhat different approaches
to rating the samples. Details of the ratings are provided in Appendix Table
D10. In general, higher agreement ratings were found between project raters than
between the teachers and the project raters. Higher rates of agreement were also
found when using work samples provided by the ESL teacher rather than the
content area teacher. These results may be partly due to the fact that one of
the project staff raters, and a staff rater (rater 3) that provided additional
input on difficult samples (though not counted in final ratings), had ESL
backgrounds. This and other differences in ESL and content teacher ratings are
addressed in the Discussion.
Correlations of Language Proficiency Tests and Work Sample
Ratings
The relationships between English language proficiency test
performance and the ratings of students’ reading and writing work samples were
examined through correlations. Tendencies discussed in the previous section,
specifically, the generally higher ratings of ESL teachers, should be kept in
mind in interpreting the correlation results. In order to maintain the
differences in ESL and content area teachers’ ratings of student samples,
correlations were run by teacher type.
The relationship between teacher ratings and proficiency scores on
the LAS and TEAE generally were very different (see Table 14). Significant
relationships were found between teachers’ ratings of work samples and TEAE
scores, especially between ESL teacher ratings of writing samples and TEAE
scores in reading and writing. Content teachers also showed a significant
correlation, though to a lesser degree, between writing sample ratings and the
TEAE reading score. The LAS scores did not show as significant a relationship to
either ESL or content teachers’ ratings of reading or writing. ESL writing
sample ratings were modestly correlated to the LAS writing score. Other
correlations within teacher ratings (e.g., ESL reading correlates to ESL writing
scores) are also shown. Caution should be exercised in interpreting some of the
correlations because of the small numbers of students (numbers are included in
parentheses).
Table 14. Correlations
between Language Proficiency Tests and Teacher Ratings
|
Sample
Reading
ESL Teacher
Corr. N |
Sample
Writing
ESL Teacher
Corr. N |
Sample
Reading
Content Teacher
Corr. N |
Sample
Writing
Content Teacher
Corr. N |
LAS Oral |
.006
|
(17) |
.202 |
(20) |
-.021 |
(19) |
-.223 |
(20) |
LAS Reading |
.179
|
(17) |
.426 |
(20) |
-.117 |
(19) |
-.079 |
(20) |
LAS Writing |
- |
(17) |
.548* |
(20) |
- |
(19) |
- |
(20) |
TEAE Read Scaled
Scr |
.541*
|
(17) |
.602** |
(19) |
.231 |
(19) |
.595** |
(20) |
TEAE Write
|
.592
|
(7) |
.955** |
(8) |
.725 |
(7) |
.470 |
(9) |
Sample Read ESL |
1.0 |
(17) |
.699** |
(17) |
.365 |
(13) |
.393 |
(14) |
Sample Write ESL |
.699** |
(17) |
1.0 |
(20) |
.268 |
(15) |
.408 |
(16) |
Sample Read CON |
.365 |
(13) |
.268 |
(15) |
1.0 |
(19) |
.613** |
(18) |
Sample Write CON |
.393 |
(14) |
.408 |
(16) |
.613** |
(18) |
1.0 |
(20) |
Dash
indicates no rating for that number on the scale.
* Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2 tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level.
Shading highlights significant relationships between TEAE and LAS scores to
sample ratings.
Connecting Proficiency Tests, Classroom Ratings, and
Standardized Tests
The potential relationships between classroom performance and
student achievement tests were investigated by comparing the overall mean
reading and writing sample ratings of ESL teachers and content teachers to the
means of student performance on the TEAE, the MCA, and the BST where these
scores were available (see Table 15). For tables used to create Table 15, see
Appendix Tables D11 and D12. The TEAE was used here alone because we wanted to
see specifically whether teacher ratings using student descriptors based on the
TEAE would correspond well in this sample.
Teacher Work Sample Ratings Compared to Proficiency
Assessments and Achievement Tests
In general, average test scores appeared to follow the same pattern
as teacher ratings. As ratings increase, the average scores on the TEAE, MCA,
and BST also increase. All average MCA reading scores were rated at least at
level IIb, which indicates students are meeting grade level expectations. This
means that students who were rated as a 3 or 4 in reading by their ESL teachers
had an average BST reading score that allowed them to pass the test. Content
teacher ratings of students’ reading skills did not relate strongly to their
scores on standardized reading tests. It is notable that two students who had
been rated a “2” by a content teacher achieved passing scores on the BST (see
Appendix Table D12). It should also be noted that some students may have passed
but were in a group where the mean was “Not Passing,” as in the group rated
level 3 by content teachers but which had an overall group mean of 594.5 (see
Appendix Table D12).
The small numbers of students represented in the data requires that
caution be exercised in interpreting findings. Writing is not presented here
because there was not enough state performance data for the students in this
study to be meaningfully represented here.
Table 15. ESL and Content
Teacher Reading Sample Rating Means by TEAE, MCA and BST Mean Performance
|
ESL Teacher Rating |
Content Teacher Rating |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
TEAE R level
(N) |
- |
2
(4) |
3
(10) |
High 3
(3) |
3
(1) |
3
(5) |
3
(8) |
3
(5) |
MCA R level
(N) |
- |
IIB
(2) |
IIB
(3) |
- |
IIA
(1) |
IIA
(1) |
IIB
(2) |
IIB
(3) |
BST R
(N)
|
- |
Mean
Not
Passing
(2) |
Mean
Passing
(5) |
Mean
Passing
(3) |
- |
Mean
Passing
(2) |
Mean
Not Passing
(4) |
Mean
Passing
(2) |
Dash
indicates no rating for that number on the scale.
Students Rated Likely to Succeed Compared to Language
Assessment and State Achievement Test Data
Table 16 presents the data for students who were rated by their
teachers as having a near excellent (4) to excellent (5) chance of succeeding in
future classes without additional help in learning English. Students were
included here if either teacher rated their chances as excellent or near
excellent (4 or 5).
Generally, students who had scored at least a 3 on TEAE Reading and
a 4 or higher on TEAE writing tended to have at least one teacher who gave them
an excellent rating. For example, among fifth graders, student 1 performed at
level 4 (proficient by state determination) and also performed at the second
highest level on the reading and writing MCA tests (IV). Yet, the ESL teacher
rated the student as having an average chance of success in future classes
without language support in contrast to the 5 given by the content teacher.
Student 2, also a fifth grader, although performing at the highest level on the
MCA writing test, did not test at the proficient level on the TEAE writing test.
For eighth graders, four out of five students had passed the BST
reading test. All of the 4 students’ teachers gave their student a 4 or 5,
except one content teacher who gave a 2 rating.
For grade 11 students, two of five students who received at least
one 4 or 5 had passed the BST reading test. But like the grade 8 students, there
was one content teacher who gave a lower rating (2). For students 9 and 10, the
data do not fit a pattern. The two content teachers gave very high ratings, in
contrast to the ESL teachers’ average ratings. Because these two students had
low TEAE reading scores, it is uncertain as to why the content teachers had been
so assured in the students’ abilities to succeed without further language
assistance. It may be that these teachers were answering the question in a more
future oriented mindset or were basing their response on other student
characteristics such as determination. In comparison to state ELL data, the
students in this table show above average scores for the MCA reading test
(1378.74) and BST (585.50) for school year 2002-03 (Kato, Albus, Liu, Guven,
Thurlow, 2004).
Table 16. Scores of Students
Rated Likely to Succeed without Additional Language Assistance
Student
Grade Teacher |
Rating |
TEAE Reading
SS* L*
|
TEAE
Writing
S L |
MCA
Reading
SS L |
MCA Writing
L |
BST
Reading
|
1
5th |
ESL
CON |
3
5 |
288 4 |
- |
1720 IV |
1840 IV |
|
2
5th |
ESL
CON |
-
5 |
232 3 |
26 4
|
1470 IIb |
1970 V |
|
3
5th |
ESL
CON |
4
2 |
222 3 |
23 4 |
1550 III |
1690 IV |
|
4
8th |
ESL
CON |
5
5 |
247 3 |
26 4
|
|
|
600 |
5
8th |
ESL
CON |
5
2 |
260 3 |
- |
|
|
617 |
6
8th |
ESL
CON |
4
5 |
230 3 |
26 4 |
|
|
566 |
7
8th |
ESL
CON |
4
4 |
265 3 |
- |
|
|
611 |
8
8th |
ESL
CON |
4
4 |
303 4 |
- |
|
|
617 |
9
11th |
ESL
CON |
3
5 |
211 2
|
- |
|
|
584 |
10
11th |
ESL
CON |
3
5 |
200 2 |
- |
|
|
- |
11
11th |
ESL
CON |
4
5 |
303 4 |
29 5 |
|
|
654 |
12
11th |
ESL
CON |
4
2 |
233 3 |
- |
|
|
617 |
13
11th |
ESL
CON |
4
3 |
251 3 |
- |
|
|
- |
Dash
Indicates no rating or no score found.
* S=Score, SS= Scaled score, L = Level
Correlations for Language Proficiency Tests, Sample Ratings,
and State Achievement Tests
Several significant relationships were found in the comparison of
language proficiency tests, sample ratings, and state achievement test scores
(see Table 17). Although certain LAS scores (reading and overall) were
significantly correlated to the MCA writing test and BST reading test, there
appear to be stronger correlations between the TEAE reading score and the MCA
and BST reading scores. A modest correlation was found between the TEAE reading
and MCA writing test. The TEAE writing score had a strong correlation with BST
reading, though the N for this correlation is small (17). ESL reading and
writing samples also were correlated with the BST reading test, however these
numbers are also small (10 and 11).
Table 17. Correlations
between Language Proficiency Tests, Sample Ratings, and the MCA and BST
|
MCA Reading
Corr N |
MCA Writing
Corr N |
BST Reading
Corr
N |
LAS Level |
.408* |
27 |
.561** |
28 |
-.126 |
49 |
LASO |
.183 |
27 |
.222 |
28 |
.116 |
49 |
LASR |
.220 |
27 |
.224 |
28 |
.513** |
49 |
LASW |
-.082 |
27 |
.257 |
28 |
.111 |
49 |
TEAE R SS |
.693** |
27 |
.433* |
28 |
.701** |
49 |
TEAE W |
.349 |
16 |
.445 |
16 |
.805** |
17 |
Sample Read ESL |
.289 |
5 |
.474 |
5 |
.738* |
10 |
Sample Write ESL |
.175 |
6 |
.351 |
6 |
.772** |
11 |
Sample Read CON |
.291 |
7 |
.579 |
7 |
.071 |
8 |
Sample Write CON |
.670 |
6 |
.513 |
6 |
.341 |
10 |
*
Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2 tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the .01
Shading highlights significant relationships.
Data for ELLs with Very Low LAS Oral Scores
Students with very low overall oral scores on the LAS generally
would not be given the opportunity to take the reading and writing portions of
the LAS (see LAS scoring process). In this study, however, we allowed these
students to take both the reading and the writing LAS tests.
LAS Scoring Process
The LAS scoring process assigns a final LAS score that indicates
students’ overall proficiency in English. This score uses all parts of the
reading, writing, listening and speaking tests. The code of LEPa is assigned to
students with low reading and writing scores, but mid level listening and
speaking scores. LEPb includes students with low reading and writing scores, but
high listening and speaking skills. LEPc includes students with mid level
reading and writing scores as well as mid level listening and speaking skills.
LEPd is assigned to students who display mid level reading and writing skills
and high listening and speaking skills. LEPe includes students with high reading
and writing skills and mid level listening and speaking skills. Fluent English
Proficiency (FEP) is used to designate students with high level reading and
writing skills and a high level of listening and speaking skills. It should be
noted that if a student has a score ratio of 1/1, 2/1, or 3/1, that student is
not included because the LAS authors “do not recommend administering the LAS R/W
to students whose oral proficiency is lower than the equivalent of LAS-O Level
2.” Students with this type of score are included in the “N/A” column.
The frequencies of overall LAS student scores can be found in Table 18. In
general, the majority of our sample included students in all of the language
proficiency categories with the exception of LEPb. The majority of students
appeared to demonstrate mid level proficiency, particularly in the later grades.
Table 18. Frequencies for
Overall LAS Score
Grade |
LEPa
Low R/W
Mid L/S |
LEPb
Low R/W
High L/S |
LEPc
Mid R/W
Mid L/S |
LEPd
Mid R/W
High L/S |
LEPe
High R/W
Mid L/S |
FEP*
High R/W
High L/S |
N/A1 |
5th |
2 |
0 |
6 |
13 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
8th |
2 |
0 |
19 |
4 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
11th |
3 |
0 |
19 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
Total |
7 |
0 |
44 |
18 |
9 |
5 |
8 |
* FEP= Fluent English proficient
Low Oral Score Group Performance and Ratings
Table 19 provides the reading and writing performance of students
whose oral proficiency is lower than the equivalent of LAS-O level 2 (i.e., the
8 students in the N/A column in Table 18). All students in Table 19 received a
level “1” score for the oral and listening component of the LAS. We note that
the majority of these students (like the others in our study) performed at Level
2 for writing, and we draw attention to the fact that Student 7 had the highest
possible score in reading.
Although teachers had spoken to staff about “attending” to
approximately three students during the course of the LAS administrations (e.g.,
help keep student on track), only one study participant (Student 1 in Table 21)
was formally identified in the state database as receiving special education
services. We emphasize here that this student also was able to participate in
the reading and writing tests even though the resulting score was in fact a “1.”
The possibility that other students may have a disability that directly relates
to oral and listening skills should not prevent them from showing what they know
in another modality which may actually be a student’s strength.
We include TEAE levels for the eight students alongside the LAS
score levels in Table 19 for comparison purposes. Student 8, who had scored the
highest level on LAS reading, performed just at level 2 on the TEAE (on a four
level scale). However, two other students performed at level 3 on the TEAE
writing test (on a five level scale), indicating mid-level skills in writing.
The individual student skills in reading and writing reflected here would not be
known in the recommended administration of the LAS test based on the overall
oral score which includes listening components.
Table 19. Students with
Lowest LAS Oral Score with Reading and Writing Levels from LAS and TEAE
|
Grade |
LAS
Oral |
LAS
Reading |
LAS Writing |
TEAE
Reading |
TEAE
Writing |
Student 1 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
* |
Student 2 |
11 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
* |
Student 3 |
8 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Student 4 |
11 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Student 5 |
11 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
Student 6 |
11 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
Student 7 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
* |
* |
Student 8 |
11 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
* |
*Indicates missing score.
Of these eight students, two had reading and writing samples
collected and rated by teachers (see Table 20). The data show another
perspective of these student skills. The ESL teachers’ ratings indicate low to
medium level skills in reading and writing in comparison to slightly higher
ratings by content teachers.
Table 20. Teacher Ratings
for Students in Work Sample Group with Very Low Oral LAS Scores
|
Grade |
LAS Oral |
LAS Reading |
LAS Writing |
Reading
Sample ESL Teacher |
Reading
Sample Content
Teacher |
Writing
Sample
ESL Teacher |
Writing
Sample
Content
Teacher |
Student 3 |
8 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
* |
2 |
4 |
Student 8 |
11 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
* |
3 |
* |
3 |
*Indicates
missing rating.
Table 21 shows BST performance for five of the students who had the
low overall LAS oral and listening score. A score of 600 is required to pass the
basic skills reading test. In comparison to state data for ELLs, although these
students are below the state mean for reading (585.50), a few are almost on the
boundary of the mean range (SD = 44) for school year 2002-2003 (Kato et al., in
press).
Table 21. Performance on
State Tests for Group with Very Low Oral LAS Scores
|
Grade |
LAS Oral |
LAS Reading |
LAS Writing |
BST Reading Score |
Student 2 |
11 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
558 |
Student 3 |
8 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
518 |
Student 4 |
11 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
545 |
Student 5 |
11 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
532 |
Student 6 |
11 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
554 |
Discussion
As we quoted at the beginning, “little research exists on the
relationship between academic language, language proficiency tests, and
performance on standardized content assessments” (Stevens, 2000, p. 4). This
study sought to provide more information on these links by examining
relationships between the language proficiency measures (e.g., LAS and TEAE),
teacher ratings of classroom samples to the proficiency measures, and then
finally each of these to Minnesota’s MCA and BST reading and writing test
scores.
In examining the relationship between student performance on the
TEAE and LAS, we found that the underlying reading skills being measured by the
LAS and TEAE were closely related. This does not indicate that the tests are,
however, measuring the same skills. Rather it indicates only that the students
who performed one way on a test tended to perform a certain way on the other
test. The writing tests for the LAS and TEAE were not related indicating that
the tests are either measuring different skills, or are measuring underlying
skills differently.
We also collected teacher ratings of student achievement in
speaking, listening, reading, and writing. When we compared the ESL teacher
ratings to those of the same student’s content teacher, we found that ESL
teachers tended to rate the student’s skills as either the same or higher than
the student’s content teacher. In general, both ESL and content teachers tended
to rate listening and speaking skills higher than the students’ skills in
reading or writing. When asked about students’ ability to succeed without
further language support, there was a wide range of opinions. When this was
further explored, most of the students rated as likely to succeed had achieved
passing scores on the BST and had at least been rated as “achieved” on the MCA
tests, though sometimes a student with lower teacher ratings was also achieving
passing scores on state measures such as the BST Reading test.
A comparison of all three measures (i.e., language proficiency
scores, teacher ratings, and standardized statewide achievement assessments)
showed that certain LAS scores (reading and overall) were significantly
correlated to the MCA writing test and BST reading test. However, there appear
to be stronger correlations between the TEAE reading score and the MCA and BST
reading scores. A modest correlation was found between the TEAE reading and MCA
writing test. The TEAE writing score had a strong correlation with BST reading,
though the N for this correlation was small (17). ESL reading and writing
samples were also correlated with the BST reading test, however these numbers
are also small (10 and 11).
Comparisons of ESL teacher ratings of student ability to state
achievement tests showed that as teacher ratings increased, average scores on
standardized tests also increased. However, when comparing content teacher
ratings of students’ skills to standardized tests, there was no clear pattern.
Some students who were rated as having low reading skills had actually passed
the BST. In general, content teachers’ ratings of student writing skills were
more consistent with standardized test scores. Some students rated lower by
their teachers actually achieved higher average scores on the TEAE writing test
than other students who had been rated more highly in that skill area.
In general, content teacher perceptions of student skills, as
indicated by ratings were different from ESL teachers’ perceptions. This may be
due to general background differences between ESL and content teachers who may
have varied in their ability to shift from evaluating student language use
versus content performance in class as interpreted through the rubrics. ESL
teachers are trained to focus on language development. Thus, it is entirely
possible that this perspective may have contributed to their more uniform
results with each other (e.g., work samples using rubric linked to TEAE) in
comparison to state measures (e.g., TEAE) based on similar levels of language
development.
Finally, for the group of students with low LAS oral scores, we
sought to address the need to reevaluate assumptions about the order of
demonstration of skill acquisition in learning other languages, and the
possibility that a student may have a disability leading him or her to favor one
modality of expression over another in the student’s first or second language.
We found that giving these students the opportunity to take the reading and
writing sections of the test allowed them to show a range of skills in these
other areas. Although many of these students did have low reading and writing
scores as shown on the LAS and TEAE, some of them had scores comparable to their
peers on these same tests. Further, for those students who did have low levels
of reading and writing, at least they were given the opportunity to take the
reading and writing assessment. This showed (1) a willingness to accept the fact
that individual students, whether by their own pattern of development or
possible disability, may vary in their language proficiency across modalities,
and (2) that value is placed on giving students the opportunity to show what
they are capable of rather than having this information assumed for them.
Although these same students’ scores on state tests showed below average skills
compared to previously examined state data, these findings still underscore the
need for simultaneously administered measures of language proficiency across
modalities and care in using results of assessments for instructional
decision-making.
This study was conducted to examine relationships among measures of
English proficiency, standardized content assessments, and classroom
performance. By examining these, we begin to understand the complexity and
nuances of how teachers view student performance from language and content
perspectives and how these in turn relate to language acquisition and academic
achievement. By addressing these relationships, several assumptions have been
made in the administration of certain assessments for students learning a second
or other language.
Difficulties Conducting the Study
It was very challenging to recruit districts and schools to
participate in this study. Over 20 districts were contacted for possible
participation. Eight of these did not return repeated phone calls. Of the
districts that verbally declined to participate in the study, all of them cited
over-testing of students and loss of instructional time as reasons for their
refusal. Additional reasons included: lack of translated consent forms for
languages of students who were not the focus of the study (Hmong, Spanish, and
Somali language background students were the focus of the study). Although
English consent forms were provided for all students, translation costs
prohibited the translation of the study forms into languages other than the
three targeted language groups.
Other circumstantial issues that made teacher participation
difficult included: stressed schedules, localized friction, frustrations with
past state departmental decisions, failure to pass local funding referendums, a
major district’s decision to close a number of schools, and tensions over
uncertain layoffs. Clearly, efforts to conduct research that involves additional
testing are likely to be unsuccessful or unwelcome unless these efforts have the
full support of a broad section of teachers and state level promotion for
participation.
During the time frame of this study, information was publicly
released suggesting future changes to the LAS, and potential issues with the
Illinois’ Measure of Academic Growth in English (IMAGE), the test on which the
TEAE was based. The publishers of the LAS test (Jackson et al., 2003) indicated
that a new LAS would be better aligned to standards in response to Title III. In
addition, a Chicago Tribune article (Dell’Angela & Cohen, 2004), suggested that
changes might be underway for the IMAGE test either by replacing it with a new
assessment by 2006 or enhancing the existing test more oriented to reading
achievement. This type of revision has not been suggested by Minnesota.
Limitations
Although finding adequate numbers of subjects and teachers willing
to participate was problematic and limited our ability to represent schools
outside the state metropolitan area, there were additional limitations to the
interpretation of the data. These include the function of student familiarity
with the LAS test in certain districts, the delay in collecting teacher rating
samples, and other related issues.
Concerning the issue of student familiarity, one suburban district
and one urban district had used the oral LAS test one to two times a year.
Although the LAS test that was used for this study, especially the oral
component, was selected because it was thought that districts did not use it,
some students communicated to the researchers that they were familiar with the
oral component. This was particularly true in one suburban district where
students had taken it the previous spring. This suggests that there is a need
for caution concerning the interpretation of a few of the higher oral scores for
fifth grade students from that district.
Another limitation is the small number of students in many of the
correlations. The underlying issue with small numbers was the lack of data for
many of the students, including the dearth of writing scores in the state
database and the difficulty in getting an ESL and content area teacher to
complete work sample ratings. Also, because this study straddled several grades
(originally designed for 150 students, with 50 in each grade), the amount of
comparison data across statewide tests was less than what it could have been if
the study had focused on one grade level.
Caution also should be used in interpreting the teacher samples.
Teachers varied considerably in the time they took to complete this portion of
the study (ranging from 2 weeks to 6 months). Although the majority of teachers
finished the collection and rating of work samples within 2 to 4 weeks of
testing, there were a few teachers who had longer delays for providing a rating
of student work. Also, for sites secured later in the year, the TEAE scores had
already been distributed. It is not known whether or to what extent the release
of TEAE scores to the schools may have influenced teacher ratings of student
work. Teachers do not regularly use the descriptors in instructional settings,
so the linkage between the TEAE test scores and descriptor rubrics may have had
little or no effect on the teacher ratings. In support of this conclusion we
point out that staff ratings which were done without knowledge of student TEAE
performance or teachers’ ratings were more in line with ESL teachers’ ratings,
suggesting that perhaps the similarity is more likely due to approaching the
task from an ESL perspective. One of the project staff raters, and an additional
staff rater that provided input on difficult samples (see Tables D8-D10 in
Appendix D), had ESL backgrounds.
This and other potential issues may be underlying the variability
in teachers’ ratings. It is possible that teachers adjusted ratings based on
their own evaluation of the difficulty of their class. On the other hand, some
students may perform better on class work than they do on paper and pencil
tests. Further, there are potential questions about the alignment of
instructional tasks with the rubric used to measure student skills that have
already been alluded to in the explanations offered for the differences in
content and ESL teacher ratings. For example, some content teachers did not
easily find examples of writing in their classes that would capture the
essay-like characteristics described in the rubric (e.g., writing in
paragraphs). Many of the content teachers’ samples showed one paragraph or short
answer formats in response to readings in a content area. It is uncertain to
what extent this type of mismatch in format may have influenced the ability of
the rubric to capture student language abilities in academic writing, especially
in content area classes.
Finally, student classwork samples, as intended in the study
design, were not standardized. This study focused on English language learners
in Minnesota and their ability to do school work in non-laboratory day to day
classes. Even though staff and teachers rated samples with the same rubric,
questions arise similar to those found in portfolio studies (Koretz, Stetcher,
Klein, & McCaffrey,1994). Did teachers really choose the best sample to
illustrate student skills? Did the rubric reflect the skills students were
learning?
We recognize these issues, and offer the findings in the context of
how they relate to other more objective measures of language proficiency and
achievement. Also, we recognize the complexity of conversing about these results
in front of a larger backdrop of different conceptualizations of what academic
language is, as outlined at the beginning of this report. The assessments in
this study focused on only two proficiency measures and two state achievement
tests in reading and writing. More is to be learned from studying other language
proficiency measures that have different underlying concepts of academic
language and how it is measured. Further study by states comparing these
proficiency measures with student progress on newly established state ELD
standards and existing state academic content standards will no doubt be
valuable in furthering the field’s understanding of how English language
learners’ growth in language proficiency relates to growth and achievement in
academic language and content.
References
Abedi, J., Leon, S., & Mirocha, J. (2001). Examining ELL and
non-ELL student performance differences and their relationship to background
factors: Continued analyses of extant data. Los Angeles, CA: University of
California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student
Testing
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: How
to implement the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Collier, V.P. (1992). A synthesis of studies examining long-term
language minority student data on academic achievement. Bilingual Education
Research Journal, 16(1/2), 187221.
Cummins, J. (1984). Wanted: A theoretical framework for relating
language proficiency to academic achievement among bilingual students. In C.
Rivera (Ed.), Language proficiency and academic achievement. Clevedon:
Multingual Matters.
Cunningham, J.W., & Moore, D.W. (1993). The contribution of
understanding academic vocabulary to answering comprehension questions.
Journal of Reading Behavior, 25(2), 171-180.
De Avila, E. A., & Duncan, S. E. (1990). Language
assessment scales: Oral technical report. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
Dell’Angela, T., & Cohen, J. S. (2004, February 20). U.S. eases
test rules for immigrant kids. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved February 20,
2004, from http://www.chicagotribune.com
DelVecchio, A., & Guerrero, M. (1995, December). Handbook of
English language proficiency tests. Albuquerque, NM: Evaluation Assistance
Center-Western Region, New Mexico Highlands University.
Jackson, S. L., & Jackson, L.G. (2003, January). Past, present,
and future LAS results for program evaluation and student progress. Paper
presented at the meeting of the National Association on Bilingual Education, New
Orleans, LA.
Kato, K., Albus, D., Liu, K., Guven, K., & Thurlow, M. (2004).
Relationships between a statewide language proficiency test and academic
achievement assessments (LEP Projects Report 4). Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Koretz, D., Stecher, B., Klein, S., & McCaffrey, D. (1994). The
Vermont portfolio assessment program: Findings and implications. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13 (3), 5-16.
Minnesota Department of Education (2004a). ELL education program
guidelines: 2004 edition. Funding. Retrieved August 4, 2004 from http://education.state.mn.us/content/056347.pdf
Minnesota Department of Education (2004b). ELL education program
guidelines: 2004 edition. Procedure. Retrieved August 4, 2004 from http://education.state.mn.us/content/056347.pdf
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002).
Olson, L. (2002, December 4). States scramble to rewrite
language-proficiency exams. Education Week. 22 (14),10.
Ramírez, J., Yuen, S., Ramey, D., & Billings, D. (1991). Final
report: Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit
and late-exit bilingual education programs for language-minority children (Vols.
I, II) (No. 300-87-0156). San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International.
Scarcella, R. (2003). Academic English: A conceptual framework.
Irvine, CA: University of California, Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
Solomon, J., & Rhodes, N. (1995). Conceptualizing academic
language (Research Rep. No. 15). Santa Cruz: University of California,
National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
Stevens, R. A., Butler, F. A., & Castellon-Wellington, M. (2000).
Academic language and content assessment: Measuring the progress of English
Language Learners. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National
Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
United States Department of Education (2003). Non-regulatory
guidance on the Title III state formula grant program, Part II: Standards,
assessments, and accountability. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved
February 25, 2003 from http://www.ed.gov/programs/nfdp/NRG1.2.25.03.doc
Appendix A
Information Provided by
Teachers
Table
A1. Information Provided by ESL Teachers
District |
Grades |
Number of ESL Teachers |
Areas of Licensure |
Licensure Grades |
Number of Years Teaching |
Number of Years in District |
Urban |
K-8 |
3 |
ESL, Spanish,
Elementary Ed (2)
Elementary Ed
(1) |
K-5, 6-8 |
4-7 years (2)
More than 7
years (1) |
More than 7
years (3) |
Urban |
9-12 |
1 |
ESL K-12
|
9-12 |
1-3 (ESL 6-8),
4-7 (ESL 9-12) |
4-7 years
|
Suburban 1 |
K-5 |
1 |
ESL K-12,
Elementary Ed 1-6 |
K-5 |
1-3 years
|
1-3 years |
Suburban 1 |
6-8 |
1 |
Elementary
Education, English Language Arts for grades 6-8, K-12 ESL |
6-8 |
4-7 years |
4-7 years |
Suburban 1 |
9-12 |
4 |
ESL, Russian,
German (1)
ESL (1)
ESL K-12,
Spanish K-12 (2) |
9-12 |
Less than 1
year (1)
1-3 years (1)
4-7 years (1)
More than 7
years (1) |
Less than 1
year (2)
1-3 years (2)
|
Suburban 2 |
5-6 |
2 |
K-12 ESL,
Secondary language arts, Spanish, secondary reading endorsement (1)
ESL, Elementary
Education (1) |
K-5, 6-8 |
4-7 years (2) |
4-7 years (2) |
Suburban 2 |
10-12 |
2 |
ESL, German (1)
ESL K-12,
Spanish K-12 (1) |
9-12
|
1-3 years (1)
More than 7
years (1) |
Less than 1
year (1)
4-7 years (1) |
Table
A2. Information Provided by Content Area Teachers
District |
Grades |
Number of Content Teachers |
Areas of Licensure |
Licensure Grades |
Number of Years Teaching |
Number of Years in District |
Urban |
K-8 |
3 |
Elementary
Education (1)
1st
through 6th education, Media Specialist (1); Science (1) |
K-8 |
More than 7
years (3) |
More than 7
years (3)
|
Urban |
9-12 |
1 |
7-12 Social
Studies |
9-12 |
More than 7
years |
More than 7
years |
Suburban 1 |
K-5 |
2 |
elementary Ed,
grades 1-6 (1)
Math, Lang
Arts, Health, Science, Social Studies, EBD, LD, Elementary Ed. (1)
|
K-5 |
More than 7
years (2) |
More than 7
years (2) |
Suburban 1 |
6-8 |
1 |
Elementary
Education K-6, 5-8 middle social studies |
6-8 |
1-3 years |
1-3 years |
Suburban 1 |
9-12 |
2 |
Social Studies
secondary (2) |
9-12 |
More than 7
years (2) |
1-3 years (1)
More than 7
years (1) |
Suburban 2 |
5-6 |
5 |
Elementary
Education/ Middle School Mathematics (1)
Elementary
Education (K-6), Middle School Math (6-8) (1)
Social Studies,
Family and Consumer Science (1)
Grades 1
through 5 (1)
1-6 Elementary
Education, Professional Admin- Elem. Principal (1)
|
K-5, 6-8 |
Less than 1
year (2)
4-7 years (2)
More than 7
years (1) |
Less than 1
year (2)
4-7 years (1)
More than 7
years (2) |
Suburban 2 |
10-12 |
3 |
K-12 Art (1)
Social Studies
(7-12) |
9-12 |
1-3 years (2)
4-7 (US pol),
7+ (US his) |
1-3 years (2)
4-7 years (1) |
Appendix B
Instruments
Teacher background survey:
1. What job title do you currently have? (Check all
that apply)
____ Content Area Teacher
____ ESL/ Bilingual ed. Teacher
____ LEP supervisor/coordinator/director
____ School administrator
____ Other: please describe
_________________________________________________
2. Content Teacher
For what subject(s)? For
which grades? For how long?
_______________ ___K-5 ___ 6-8
___9-12 ___Less than one year ___1-3 years ___4-7 years ___More
than 7 year
_______________ ___K-5 ___
6-8 ___9-12 ___Less than one year ___1-3 years ___4-7 years ___More
than 7 year _______________
___K-5 ___ 6-8 ___9-12 ___Less than one year ___1-3 years ___4-7 years
___More than 7 year (list)
3. ESL / Bilingual Teacher. If a bilingual teacher,
please mark a B next to the subject taught.
For what subject(s)? For which grades?
For how long?
_______________ ___K-5 ___6-8
___9-12 ___Less than one year ___1-3 years ___4-7 years ___More
than 7 years
_______________ ___K-5 ___6-8 ___9-12
___Less than one year ___1-3 years ___4-7 years ___More than 7
years
_______________ ___K-5 ___6-8 ___9-12
___Less than one year ___1-3 years ___4-7 years ___More than 7 years
(list)
4. What areas are you licensed to teach?
_________________________________________________________________________
5. How long have you been teaching in your current
district?
(check one) ___Less than one year ___1-3 years ___4-7 years ___More than 7
years
6. Regarding the LAS: When was the last time the LAS
was given? ______________ What part(s) were administered? (please circle)
Oral Listening Reading Writing
Student_______________________ Grade _______ (student
gender) M___ F___
School ___________ Date__________
Teacher ______________________ (check one) ELA____
Social Studies ____ (teacher gender) M___F___
Student skills:
Please rate the skills of this student in relation to
adequacy for doing well in your class. The section on the right is for any
comments.
Comments?
Speaking skills: |
1 2 3 4 5
unsatisfactory
average excellent |
|
Listening skills: |
1
2 3 4
5
unsatisfactory average excellent |
|
Reading skills: |
1
2 3 4
5
unsatisfactory average excellent
|
|
Writing skills: |
1
2 3 4
5 unsatisfactory
average excellent |
|
Ability of
student to
master content
in your class: |
1
2 3 4 5
unable average very capable |
|
Performance
compared to English speaking peers reflected by grades given: |
1
2 3 4 5 NA*
unsatisfactory
average excellent |
|
Chances of
success in regular classes with no additional help in learning
English: |
1
2 3 4 5
unlikely average excellent |
|
Instructions for Sample Collection
Step 1: Look at the attached list of descriptors for
reading and writing skills. Please assess this student using these
descriptors and
determine what level you think
characterizes this student’s best classroom work. (circle the
level heading on that sheet.)
If you notice that other descriptors
on either side of the level you chose also fit the student, please note this
on the sheet but
you do not need to illustrate these.
Step 2: Next we ask that you provide classroom
samples of student work that demonstrate the specific descriptors in that
level. All work must have been done by the student by his or herself, with
minimal support from the teacher or peers.
Each descriptor category (e.g., vocabulary) has an
assigned highlighting color, and specific descriptors are numbered under
each category. In the work samples that you collect, we ask that you
highlight and code the places that demonstrate a descriptor. There may be
more than one color and/or code used per work sample. You do not need
to color and code a numbered descriptor multiple times. (Descriptors coded
in a certain color & number will be matched to the level heading you chose
in step one.)
NOTE: We realize that some descriptors are easier to
illustrate than others. We encourage you, after you assess the general level
of the student, to provide as many descriptor examples as you can to support
your level choice, including those that may not be as easy to show support
for. A reasonable number may be one descriptor for each subcategory (e.g.,
vocabulary, structures, comprehension, etc.)
Reading: Specific Instructions
To illustrate a reading descriptor you have several
options: student may give a written, oral, and/or multiple choice response
to something he or she has read. Please include a copy of the portion of
reading material needed to illustrate meeting a descriptor, as well as a
copy of the reading instructions/prompts/questions. A tape is provided for
you if you choose to include oral responses. If a tape is used, simply note
on a separate paper what descriptor is being demonstrated and describe
briefly what part of the student’s response matches the specific
descriptor(s).
Writing: Specific Instructions
To illustrate a writing descriptor, please include
actual writing samples with a description of the writing task/prompt. These
samples may be handwritten or word processed. Samples of student writing do
not have to demonstrate descriptors across genres, however, to demonstrate
certain descriptors in higher grades the inclusion of different genres of
writing is required (e.g., grade 9-12 “Follows
prompt genre“).
Example of Reading Descriptors for Grade 11
(These levels 1-4 were
converted to one landscape 8” x 17” sheet for ease of use with teachers)
Level 1 |
Level 2 |
Vocabulary
1. Very limited
sight word knowledge
2. Emerging
understanding of sound
symbol
relationship
3. Limited to
basic, concrete vocabulary
Structures
1. Focus is at
the word and/or simple
sentence
level
Comprehension
1. May decode
without comprehension
2. Needs graphic
or picture support to
establish
meaning
3. Does not
connect ideas within text
4. Does not make
inferences
5. Can match
some words together
Strategies
1. Reads word by
word
2. Lacks
strategies for decoding and
understanding unfamiliar words
3. Scans at the
word level
Texts
1. Requires
graphics to provide context
and support
meaning
Second
Language Markers
1. May not be
able to demonstrate what
he/she knows in a standardized test
setting
2. May lack
phonemic awareness and
concepts of
print
3. Very little
background knowledge and
cultural competence in English, as
demonstrated by their reading skills
4. Requires
extensive scaffolding and
multiple opportunities to interact
with
familiar text |
Vocabulary
1. Recognizes
words
2. Difficulty
with function words
(prepositions, adverbs etc.)
3. Works with
advanced phonics (blends,
root words,
prefixes, suffixes)
Structures
1. Difficulty
with complex structures
2. Comprehends
basic question formats
Comprehension
1. Reads at the
word and sentence levels
2. Uses graphics
support to identify
meaning
3. Can make
simple inferences
4. Beginning to
make connections
between
words
5. Can make
predictions and extend text
6. Can identify
the main idea
Strategies
1. Scans text to
match words and phrases
Texts
1. Reads simple
narrative texts
Second
Language Markers
1. Has some
background knowledge and
cultural
competence in English
|
Level 3 |
Level 4 |
Vocabulary
1. Knows some
basic vocabulary
2. Recognizes
words with similar meanings
3. Comprehends
high frequency idiomatic
expressions
Structures
1. Understands
passive voice
2. Understands
words used as different
parts of
speech
Comprehension
1. Compares and
contrasts ideas
2. Understands
main idea and some
supporting
details
3. Draws
inferences
4. Applies
multiple levels of
comprehension to literal text
5. Understands
basic expository text
Strategies
1. Emerging use
of contextual clues
2. Scans
accurately for literal details
3. Uses multiple
strategies to identify word
meaning
Texts
1. Reads longer
texts for content
information
2. Attempts
expository
3. Does better
with familiar stories and
narratives
4. Relies on
graphics to support meaning
Second
Language Markers
1. Demonstrates
some background
knowledge and cultural competence,
but
not in all areas
|
Vocabulary
1. Use multiple
strategies to identify word
meanings
2. Can
discriminate between closely related
vocabulary
items
Structures
1. Understands
multiple functions of same
words
2. Understands
quantifiers and qualifiers
Comprehension
1. Can disregard
or eliminate unnecessary
detail
2. Comprehends
information from across
the text
3. Makes
inferences base don information
from
different parts of the text
Strategies
1. Applies
multiple levels of
comprehension to draw an inference
2. Understands
explicit and inferred
sequence
Text
1. Sustains
comprehension in expository
and
narrative texts
2. Has ability
to read context-reduced
materials
Second
Language Markers
1. Has
background knowledge and cultural
competence in English to interpret
narrative and simple expository text
|
Example of Writing Descriptors for Grade 11
(These levels 1-5 were
converted to one landscape 8” x 17” sheet for ease of use with teachers)
Grade 11
Level 1 |
Level 2 |
Level 3 |
Focus/Description
1. Main idea is non-
existent or not
clear
2. Minimum or no
supporting details
Structure/Organization
1. Disconnected
words or
phrases
2. Some attempt at
sentences
3. Meaning is
unclear
Vocab/Semantics/Syntax
1. Extremely limited
vocabulary
Mech/Spell/Punctuation
1. Simple words
spelled
correctly
Second Lang.
Markers
1. Requires
extensive
scaffolding in order to
progress through the
stages of writing
2. Demonstrates lack
of
control and under-
standing of written
academic English forms
|
Focus/Description
1. Lacks a clear
focus
2. Fragmented detail
Structure/Organization
1. Incomplete grasp
of
basic structures interferes
with meaning
2. Simple sentences
and/or
sentence
fragments
3. Words may be
omitted
4. Limited
sequencing of
ideas and events
Vocab/Semantics/Syntax
1. Limited
vocabulary
2. Beginning use of
modals
Mech/Spell/Punctuation
1. Use of phonetic
and
creative spelling with
some basic spelling rules
used correctly
2. Use of
punctuation,
however incorrectly at
times.
Second Lang.
Markers
1. Requires
extensive
scaffolding in order to
progress through the
stages of writing
|
Focus/Description
1. Generally clear
main idea
2. Some supporting
details
3. May have weak
ending
4. May be prompt or
structure
dependent
5. Most thoughts are
clear and
complete
Structure/Organization
1. Sentence level
writing
2. Lacks sense of
organization
3. May have
fragments and/or
run-ons
4. Variety of
sentence
structures
attempted
5. Omission of topic
sentences
Vocab/Semantics//Syntax
1. Informal/familiar
register
2. Limited word use
3. Improper
vocabulary
choices
Mech/Spelling/Punctuation
1. Emerging use of
punctuation and
mechanics
2. May use invented
and/or
phonetic
spelling
3. Incomplete
control of basic
syntax
4. Uses run-ons
5. Demonstrates some
under-
standing of mechanics and
spelling rules
Second Language
Markers
1. Second language
markers
sometimes interfere with
comprehension
|
Grade 11
Level 4 |
Level 5 |
Focus/Description
1. Clear focus and
main idea
2. Often uses
specific ideas to support main
idea
Structure/Organization
1. Writes in
paragraphs
2. Uses multiple
verb tenses, but no t
always correctly
3. Some variety of
sentence sand structures
4. Effective use of
transition
5. Clear sense of
organization with a
beginning,
middle and an end
6. Contains few
sentence fragments
7. Sentences are
logically connected
Vocabulary/Semantics/Syntax
1. Uses appropriate
nouns/verbs and
adjectives/adverbs
Mechanics/Spelling/Punctuation
1. Uses correct
grammar most of the time
2. Uses correct
punctuation and spelling
most of the time
Second Language
Markers
3. Second language
errors rarely obscures
overall meaning |
Focus/Description
1. Follows prompt
genre
2. Main point
defined and maintained
3. Important
points/events supported with
detail
Structure/Organization
1. Appropriately
paragraphed
2. Uses a variety of
sentence lengths and
structures
3. Uses a variety of
effective transitions
4. Ties the paper
together with appropriate
ending
Vocabulary/Semantics/Syntax
1. Uses
precise nouns/verbs and
adjectives/adverbs
2. May use idiomatic
expressions
3. Uses
topic-specific vocabulary
Mechanics/Spelling/Punctuation
1. Predominant use
of accurate grammar
and spelling
Second Language
Markers
1. Second language
errors don’t obscure
meaning
|
Appendix C
Frequencies for Language Proficiency Tests
Table C1.
Frequencies for LAS-Oral/Listening Scores by Grade
LAS
Oral Level
(1
low, 5 high) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Total |
N |
% |
N |
% |
N |
% |
N |
% |
N |
% |
Grade 5th
|
2 |
6% |
2 |
6% |
8 |
23% |
13 |
37% |
10 |
28% |
35 |
8th
|
1 |
3% |
6 |
19% |
19 |
61% |
5 |
16% |
0 |
0% |
31 |
11th
|
6 |
18% |
13 |
39% |
12 |
36% |
2 |
6% |
0 |
0% |
33 |
Table C2.
Frequencies for LAS Reading by Grade
LAS
Reading Level |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Total |
N |
% |
N |
% |
N |
% |
Grade 5th
|
5 |
14% |
10 |
28% |
20 |
57% |
35 |
8th
|
5 |
6% |
8 |
26% |
18 |
58% |
31 |
11th |
6 |
18% |
13 |
39% |
14 |
42% |
33
|
Table C3.
Frequencies for LAS Writing by Grade
LAS
Writing Level |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Total |
N |
% |
N |
% |
N |
% |
Grade 5th
|
4 |
11% |
28 |
80% |
3 |
9% |
35 |
8th
|
3 |
10% |
28 |
90% |
0 |
0% |
31 |
11th |
0 |
0% |
33 |
100% |
0 |
0% |
33 |
Frequencies for students’
scores on the 2003-2004 TEAE were computed for reading and writing. Minnesota
uses these performance levels to determine whether a student is English language
proficient. Students scoring at level 4 in reading and level 5 in writing are no
longer considered ELL for purposes of state funding.
Table C4.
Frequencies for TEAE reading Levels by Grade, and by Total Number
TEAE
Reading
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
Total |
N |
% |
N |
% |
N |
% |
N |
% |
Grade 5th
|
3 |
9% |
4 |
11% |
23 |
66% |
5 |
14% |
35 |
8th
|
2 |
6% |
7 |
23% |
20 |
65% |
2 |
6% |
31 |
11th
|
2 |
6% |
16 |
52% |
11 |
36% |
2 |
6% |
31
(2 missing) |
Total
and % of Total (based on 97 with data) |
7 |
7% |
27 |
28% |
54 |
56% |
9 |
9% |
|
There were very few students
(N=21) in the database with a reported writing score, due in part, to
availability of data for urban districts only (Table C5). Percentages overall
need to be interpreted with caution because of very small numbers.
Table C5.
Frequencies for TEAE Writing Levels by Grade, and by Total Number*
TEAE
Writing (urban
only) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Total |
N |
% |
N |
% |
N |
% |
N |
% |
N |
% |
Grade 5th
|
0 |
0% |
0 |
0% |
0 |
0% |
1 |
33% |
2 |
67% |
3 |
8th
|
0 |
0% |
1 |
20% |
1 |
20% |
3 |
60% |
0 |
0% |
5 |
11th
|
0 |
0% |
2 |
16% |
4 |
31% |
6 |
46% |
1 |
7% |
13 |
Total and % of total with data (21)
|
0 |
0% |
3 |
14% |
5 |
24% |
10 |
48% |
3 |
14% |
|
Appendix D
Classroom Rating Data
Table D1. ESL and Content Area
Teacher Ratings of Speaking Skills
Speaking |
5th
N=5 |
8th
N=6 |
11th
N=8 |
ESL |
Content |
ESL |
Content |
ESL |
Content |
5
(Excellent) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
- |
4 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
- |
- |
2 |
- |
- |
- |
2 |
- |
2 |
1
(Unsatisfactory) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Dash indicates no rating for that number on the scale.
Table D2.
ESL and Content Area Teacher Ratings of Listening
Skills
Listening
|
5th
N=5 |
8th
N=6 |
11th
N=8 |
ESL |
Content |
ESL |
Content |
ESL |
Content |
5
(Excellent) |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
6 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1
(Unsatisfactory) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Dash indicates no rating for that number on the scale.
Table D3. ESL and Content Area
Teacher Ratings of Writing Skills
Writing
|
5th
N=4 |
8th
N=6 |
11th
N=8 |
ESL |
Content |
ESL |
Content |
ESL |
Content |
5
(Excellent) |
- |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
- |
- |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
- |
3 |
1
(Unsatisfactory) |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Dash indicates no rating for that number on the scale.
Table D4. ESL and Content Teacher
Ratings of Reading Skills
Reading
|
5th
N=5 |
8th
N=6 |
11th
N=7 |
ESL |
Content |
ESL |
Content |
ESL |
Content |
5
(Excellent) |
- |
- |
2 |
- |
2 |
- |
4 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
- |
3 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
- |
1 |
- |
2 |
- |
4 |
1
(Unsatisfactory) |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Dash indicates no rating for that number on the scale.
Table D5. ESL and Content Teacher
Ratings of Student Abilities
Student |
Grade |
Speaking
ESL CON |
Listening
ESL CON |
Reading
ESL CON |
Writing
ESL CON |
1 |
8 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
8 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
8 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
5 |
5 |
--- |
3 |
--- |
5 |
--- |
4 |
--- |
3 |
6 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
7 |
11 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
8 |
11 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
9 |
11 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
10 |
11 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
11 |
11 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
12 |
11 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
13 |
11 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
--- |
3 |
3 |
14 |
11 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
3-4 |
2 |
15 |
5 |
3 |
--- |
3 |
--- |
2 |
--- |
2 |
--- |
16 |
5 |
--- |
5 |
--- |
3 |
--- |
3 |
--- |
3 |
17 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
18 |
5 |
--- |
3 |
--- |
4 |
--- |
4 |
--- |
3 |
19 |
5 |
3 |
--- |
2 |
--- |
1 |
--- |
1 |
--- |
20 |
5 |
--- |
2 |
--- |
2 |
--- |
2 |
--- |
2 |
21 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
22 |
8 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
23 |
8 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
24 |
8 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
25 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
--- |
2 |
Dash indicates no rating.
Table D6. ESL and Content Teacher
Ratings of Student Performance in Relation to Their Fluent English Peers
|
5th
N=4 |
8th
N=6 |
11th
N=8 |
ESL |
Content |
ESL |
Content |
ESL |
Content |
(Excellent) 5 |
- |
1 |
- |
1 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
- |
- |
- |
2 |
- |
2 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
- |
3 |
- |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
1
(Unsatisfactory) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0 |
NA * |
2 |
|
6 |
|
7 |
2 |
Dash indicates no rating for that number or scale.
* Indicates
no English fluent peers in class.
Table D7. ESL and Content
Teacher Ratings of Student Abilities on Additional Questions
Student |
Grade |
Ability to Master Content
ESL CON |
Performance Relative to Peers
ESL CON |
Chance of Success without ESL assistance
ESL CON |
1 |
8 |
5 |
4 |
NA |
3 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
8 |
5 |
3 |
NA |
3 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
8 |
5 |
5 |
NA |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
5 |
5 |
--- |
3 |
--- |
2 |
--- |
2 |
6 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
7 |
11 |
4 |
4 |
NA |
NA |
2 |
2 |
8 |
11 |
5 |
5 |
NA |
5 |
4 |
5 |
9 |
11 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
10 |
11 |
5 |
5 |
NA |
4 |
4 |
3 |
11 |
11 |
3 |
3 |
NA |
3 |
3 |
2 |
12 |
11 |
5 |
3 |
NA |
2 |
4 |
2 |
13 |
11 |
4 |
5 |
NA |
5 |
3 |
5 |
14 |
11 |
5 |
5 |
NA |
NA |
1-2 |
1 |
15 |
5 |
3 |
--- |
3 |
--- |
2 |
--- |
16 |
5 |
--- |
5 |
--- |
3 |
--- |
3 |
17 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
NA |
3 |
2 |
2 |
18 |
5 |
--- |
4 |
--- |
4 |
--- |
5 |
19 |
5 |
1 |
--- |
1 |
--- |
1 |
--- |
20 |
5 |
--- |
2 |
--- |
2 |
--- |
2 |
21 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
NA |
2 |
3 |
1 |
22 |
8 |
3 |
2 |
NA |
3 |
2 |
2 |
23 |
8 |
5 |
5 |
NA |
5 |
5 |
5 |
24 |
8 |
4 |
4 |
NA |
4 -5 |
4 |
4-5 |
25 |
5 |
5 |
2 |
--- |
2 |
4 |
2 |
Dashes indicate no rating.
Table D8.
Ratings Provided by ESL Teachers Using State-Developed Descriptors
Student Sample |
Teacher
R W |
Rater 1
R W |
Rater 2
R W |
Rater 3
R W |
1 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
|
3 |
2 |
4 |
4-5 |
2-3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
3 |
3-4 |
4 |
2-3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3-4 |
3-4 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
|
|
5 |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
|
|
6 |
3 |
3 |
2-3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
7 |
3* |
3 |
--- |
3 |
--- |
3 |
|
|
8 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
|
4 |
9 |
3 |
4 |
--- |
3 |
--- |
2 |
|
|
10 |
3* |
4 |
--- |
3-4 |
--- |
4 |
|
|
11 |
4 |
4 |
3-4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
12 |
3-4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
13 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
|
3 |
14 |
--- |
3 |
2-3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
15 |
2 |
2 |
2-3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
16 |
--- |
--- |
4 |
4 |
3-4 |
4 |
|
|
17 |
--- |
3 |
--- |
3 |
--- |
2 |
|
|
18 |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
|
|
19 |
--- |
1 |
--- |
1-2 |
--- |
2 |
|
|
20 |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
|
|
21 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3-4 |
2-3 |
2-3 |
|
|
22 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2-3 |
|
|
23 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
2-3 |
3 |
|
|
24 |
2-3 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
25 |
3 |
3 |
2-3 |
2-3 |
4 |
3 |
|
|
Note: *
Denotes no sample provided. --- Denotes no rating provided by the rater.
Table D9.
Ratings Provided by Content Teachers Using State-Developed Descriptors
Student Sample |
Teacher
R W |
Rater 1
R W |
Rater 2
R W |
Rater 3
R W |
1 (copied) |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
2 (copied) |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
--- |
3-4 |
|
4 |
3 |
--- |
2-3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
|
4 |
5 |
2-3 |
1 |
2-3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
3 |
6 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
|
7 |
2 |
3-4 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
8 |
4 |
5 |
3-4 |
3-4 |
3 |
4 |
--- |
4 |
9 |
3 |
3 |
--- |
3 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
10 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
11 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
12 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
13 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
14 |
3 |
2 |
2-3 |
2-3 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
15 |
--- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
--- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
1-2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
18 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3-4 |
3 |
|
19 |
--- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3-4 |
2-3 |
3-4 |
|
|
21 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
2-3 |
3 |
2 |
|
22 |
--- |
4 |
--- |
3 |
--- |
3 |
|
|
23 |
--- |
--- |
--- |
3-4 |
--- |
3 |
|
|
24 |
--- |
3-4 |
--- |
3 |
--- |
3 |
|
|
25 |
3-4 |
3 |
2-3 |
1-2 |
3-4 |
3-4 |
|
|
Note: * Denotes no sample provided. ---
Denotes no rating provided by the rater.
Table D10 was created using
the individual student rating data in Tables D7 and D8.
Table
D10. Percentage of Agreement between Raters on Work Sample Rubric Rating
Work Sample
Provided by |
|
Type of Comparison |
|
Teacher to Rater
1 |
Teacher to
Rater 2 |
Rater 1 to
Rater 2 |
Teacher to
Rater 3 |
Rater 1 to
Rater 3 |
Rater 2 to
Rater 3 |
ESL Teacher |
68% |
68% |
78% |
0% |
100% |
71% |
Content Teachers |
54% |
63% |
69% |
11% |
56% |
56% |
Table
D11. ESL Teacher Reading Ratings, Averages, and Standard Deviations on
Standardized Tests
|
ESL Teacher Rating of Student Reading
Ability |
1
(N=0) |
2
(N= 4) |
3
(N= 10) |
4
(N = 3) |
TEAE Reading
Scaled Score (and SD)
N |
0 |
214.25 (18.30)
N = 4 |
235.80 (32.40)
N = 10 |
276.00(46.77)
N = 3 |
MCA Reading
Score
(and SD)
N |
0 |
1425.00 (49.50)
N = 2 |
1503.33 (243.38)
N = 3 |
N = 0 |
BST Reading
Score
(and SD)
N |
0 |
542.00 (33.94)
N = 2 |
605.80(14.02)
N = 5 |
620.33(32.13)
N = 3 |
Table
D12. Content Teacher Reading Ratings, Averages, and Standard Deviations on
Standardized Tests
|
Content Teacher Ratings of Students’
Reading Ability |
1
(Total1 N=1) |
2
(Total N= 5) |
3
(Total N= 8) |
4
(Total N = 5) |
TEAE Reading
Scaled Score
(SD)
N |
222.00
1 |
225.60
(26.15)
5 |
233.38
(37.15)
8 |
246.60
(47.82)
5 |
MCA Reading
Score
(SD)
N |
1410.00
1 |
1280.00
1 |
1470.00
(113.14)
2 |
1476.67
(240.07)
3 |
BST Reading
Score
(SD)
N
|
0 |
617.00
(0.00)
2 |
594.50
(23.81)
4 |
622.00
(45.25)
2 |
1Total
N is for all students that had rating data.
Table
D13. ESL Teacher Writing Ratings, Averages, and Standard Deviations on
Standardized Tests
|
ESL Teacher Rating of Writing Ability |
1
(N=1) |
2
(Total1 N = 3) |
3
(Total N = 7) |
4
(Total N =8) |
5
(Total N = 1) |
TEAE Writing
Score
(and SD)
N |
0 |
17.0
1 |
20.67
(2.08)
3 |
26.00
(0.00)
3 |
29.00
1 |
MCA Writing*
Score
(and SD)
N |
0 |
1485.00
(176.78)
2 |
1607.50 (192.59)
4 |
0 |
0 |
1Total
N is for all students that had rating data.
*There
were no published writing levels available from the state for interpreting mean
writing scores shown for writing.
Table
D14. Content Teacher Writing Ratings, Averages, and Standard Deviations on
Standardized Tests
|
Content Teacher Ratings of Students’
Writing Ability |
1
(Total1 N=1) |
2
(Total N= 2) |
3
(Total N= 9) |
4
(Total N=6) |
5
(Total N = 2) |
TEAE Writing
Score
(SD)
N |
0 |
19.00
1 |
22.60
(3.58)
5 |
21.50
(6.36)
2 |
29.00
1 |
MCA Writing*
Score
(SD)
N |
0 |
1470.00
1 |
1642.50
(245.68)
4 |
0 |
1840.00
1 |
1Total
N is for all students that had rating data.
*There
were no published writing levels available from the state for interpreting mean
writing scores shown for writing.
Top of page |