Literature+Review

====Standardized tests have long been a source of much debate in the education world. High stakes tests have been found to have both positive and negative outcomes. Some benefits of standardized tests include the abilities to use the data to make instructional decisions, identify students who need additional support, and allowing schools and districts to compare progress (Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1992). Some cited negative effects of standardized testing are disproportionate importance being placed on a single test score, inaccurate analysis of results, unfair comparisons between dissimilar groups of students or schools, teacher and student stress, and culturally biased tests (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1993). Many researchers have sought to better understand the advantages and disadvantages of standardized tests, particularly in regards to English language learners.====

====Under the current state testing system under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), students who are new to the United States are exempt from taking the English Language Arts exam for one year, but are not exempt from mathematics or science testing (U.S. Department of Education, 2006). This is problematic in light of Cummins’ research that reports it takes students much longer than one year to become proficient in a language (2000). This exemption also suggests that a strong understanding of the English language is not necessary to succeed on the mathematics and science exams, which is completely untrue. These tests require strong literacy skills in addition to the specific content area material. The expectation that newcomers are to participate in the same high stakes tests taken by their English speaking peers within one year of arrival has shown to have negative effects on their academic prospects. According to Darling-Hammond, these requirements actually limit the academic opportunities of ELLs, instead of expanding them (2007).====

====In addition to the policies regarding the logistics and timelines of testing ELLs, it is also important to consider the validity and fairness of the tests themselves. The current system “may be camouflaging educational gains in instructional programs for ELLs because they limit the ways in which ELLs can demonstrate mastery of content and ideas” (Pappamihiel and Walser, 2009). One aspect of the tests that works against ELL students is the norming group used. ELLs are a very diverse group of learners. One must consider the level of English proficiency they hold, literacy proficiency in their L2, as well as their content knowledge in their native language. All of these factors play into the pace of progress they make in American schools and their readiness to be assessed by the same tests as their native English speaking peers. However, these factors are not taken into consideration when creating the norming groups for standardized tests. Antunez reports, “The norming groups used in the development of standardized achievement tests often do not include ELLs, calling into question the validity of test results for these students “(2003). For high-stakes tests to more accurately reflect progress and achievement, “this variability must be taken into consideration in norming practices” (Pappamihiel and Walser, 2009). Another variable that must be considered when evaluating the validity of ELL scores is language of the test. When content area tests are given in English, ELLs subject knowledge may not be captured. However, due to the subject and test taking strategies being taught in English, students may not be familiar with all of the content specific vocabulary in their native language. For this reason, Abedi asserts “even when native language versions are available, they are not necessarily the best choice for assessing ELLs who are receiving most of their instruction in English” (2002).====

====Testing policies and validity both make an impact on the learning and achievement of our ELL students, but to what extent? Pappamiehiel and Walser warn educators, “Students should not be subjected to tests that were not developed and have not been validated for the purposes and populations for which they are being used” (2009). When students are forced to take tests they are not ready for, it inevitably leads to frustration. In the worst cases, ELLs experience “failure and frustration as a result of negative societal perceptions about their academic abilities, achievement, and successes” (Cardenas and Cardenas, 1977). Cardenas and Cardenas wrote this more than three decades ago, but the issues surrounding high-stakes tests persist today. Thirty years later, Nichols and Berliner describe the crisis, citing “hundreds of students are dropping out or opting to take the GED route, mainly because passing the test has become an insurmountable obstacle to them. This is especially true for special education students and English language learners (ELLs)” (2008).====

====In recognizing the enormous potential impact high stakes state exams may have on English language learners, we are interested in the attitudes of ELLs towards the MCAS, the Massachusetts standardized state test.====