SAGE accommodations

SAGE accommodations policy

When he visited our class, Daron Kennett talked about the accommodations in the SAGE testing.  He said that all students received all the accommodations, which should limit the stigmatization involved when students are singled out for special accommodations.  He mentioned that all students could have the questions read aloud to them (except in the reading portion of the SAGE) with the screen reader, that students could change the background and text colors, that students have words defined in context in the questions, and that students have extra time. 
The text color isn't an accommodation that is responsive to ELLs, but having the questions read aloud in English can help students who are good at listening but not reading, the words defined in context is very helpful for students who are mid to high levels, and the extra time is useful to everyone.

I just finished SAGE training at Granger, and the accommodations are indeed, having the question read to you in a weird computer generated voice, definitions of words in context, and extra time.  These are great accommodations for students who are middle or high level WIDA (check my other post on accommodations) but not useful at all for low levels.

Some highlights of the actual accommodations policy:

Students not tested due to parent request shall receive a non-proficient score, which shall be used in school accountability calculations.

There is no accommodation that allows for a paper-based submission of a student’s response.

The actual ESEA act says:

The following are some other ESEA provisions for ELs:
• All EL students’ English language proficiency must be tested at least once a year.
• All ELs have to take state academic achievement tests in language arts and math, except that EL students who have been in the U.S. for less than one year do not have to take the language arts test for that first year.
• EL students should be assessed in a valid and reliable manner and provided reasonable accommodations (Title I, 115 STAT. 1451).
• EL students as a group must meet specific annual targets of Annual Measureable Objectives (AMOs); schools, LEAs, and states will be held accountable for ensuring that they meet these targets.
• Language instruction curricula used to teach EL children are to be tied to scientifically based research and demonstrated to be effective.
• Local entities have the flexibility to choose the method of instruction to teach ELs.
• States must establish standards and objectives for raising the level of English proficiency that are derived from the four recognized domains of speaking, listening, reading and writing, and that are aligned with achievement of the challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards (Title III, 115 Stat. 1694).  

Math Language

WIDA blog, language of math

This blog entry uses the coincidence that March 14 contains three of the same digits as pi does to explore the different ways we might describe the formula for the area of a circle.

It describes the way we talk about math, and makes what might be an unexplored concept overt.

List of differentiations

From Kalani's class, a list of differentiations grouped by content, process, and product.  This is far from an exhaustive list, but it gives a bunch of ideas for how to make the learning process work better for students with different language levels.  It will help me to think of ideas when I'm stuck trying to figure out how to make my complete mess of a lesson comprehensible to my students.

Story Problem, Dropping a car.

This story problem is an experiment in slightly more authentic questions.  There is a physics underpinning, and the students have to figure out how to translate something they understand, driving a car at freeway speeds, to something they can only imagine, dropping off a tall building.  I've given it to two different students who have struggled to understand math, and who also happen to be ELLs, and both have had a more intuitive interaction with the question than they have with most of the math I've presented to them.  The text isn't minimal, but it is simple words.  The sentences have not been barriers, at least to students with middle to upper WIDA levels.

My experience suggests that students don't feel confident about their ability to do story problems, but when they get into them, the enjoy them more and learn more than from context-free math.

Ted Skateboarding

This video talks about learning to skateboard, and learning in schools.  Skateboarding has authentic assessment, in that it has real-time meaningful feedback.  Students don't need a teacher to tell them whether or not they are doing it right.  The concrete makes that message plain.  He has some wonderful points, and these are my favorites:

• Failure is normal.  Failure isn't stigmatized. 

• Nobody knows ahead of time how long it takes anyone to learn anything. 

• Work your ass off until you figure it out. 

• Learning is NOT fun 

Immersion

Youtube Video Immersion

This video makes it so clear why a test that is supposed to measure a student's accomplishments in mathematics is invalidated if an English Language learner isn't allowed appropriate accommodations.  The academic articles I've linked to make a very reasonable argument based on logic and statistics and numbers.  This video, on the other hand, makes the emotional appeal that will probably have a better chance of convincing someone other than me.

Best Practices in ELL accommodation

Best Practices in State Assessment Policies for Accommodating ELLS

This study breaks down all the accommodations that have been used on high stakes assessments, and classifies them by their utility for English Language Learners.  Because most of the accommodations that have been used were originally created for in the context of Special Ed, there are a bunch of accommodations that have been considered that don't really respond to the special needs of ELL students.  There are also a bunch of accommodations that are useful for every student in making the tests more valid measures of the student's understanding.  Those things that are so useful in the end aren't really accommodations so much as they are best practices.  The interesting thing about this study is that the one thing that is most useful to the largest set of students is extended time.  It makes you wonder about the ACT and the SAT, it really does.

Differentiated Graphic Organizer

This graphic organizer was created to help students follow the sequence of a particular mathematics lab, where they explore what happens when you roll round things.

Original, undifferentated GO, as it might be given to students to fill in as they watch the demonstration:

Possible descriptions that the students might fill in:

The graphic organizer differentiated for level 1 or 2 students, so that they don't have to worry about taking notes, and can watch the demonstration, and prepare to perform the experiment themselves:

Assignment for J-M

This assignment was a differentiated assignment for a student from Burundi, who speaks French.  He is probably WIDA level 2 or 3, and his previous math education is probably to about the 5th grade level. 
The instructions were written in both English and in French.  He didn't seem to understand the written French, and looked to the English writing instead.  From that, I figured that he is not literate in his L1.  Besides the accommodation of writing instructions in both languages, I changed the level of the math.  This assignment is about what I would expect a 7th grader to be able to do.
This assignment allowed me to diagnose a lot about what J-M was able to do, in math, in French, and in English.

Daron Kennett's ACCESS powerpoint

This powerpoint came from Daron Kennett.


This powerpoint describes the ACCESS test, and how students are tested in reading, writing, listening, and speaking.  WIDA is going towards WIDA 2.0, a computer-based adaptive assessment, which should be operational in 2016.  This test is in use in a bunch of states, although strangely, not the ones with the biggest ELL populations (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Arizona) and not in Arkansas, which was one of the first 3.

WIDA's can-do descriptors

WIDA's can-do descriptors for grades 9-12

These descriptions of what an English language learner can do at various proficiency levels is fabulous, not least because describing capabilities rather than limitations is so useful.  It is broken down by the five levels of proficiency, and also the four categories of English--reading, writing, speaking, and listening.  It helps a teacher to figure out where a particular student might be, by giving the teacher concrete things to look out for.  It also gives a teacher an idea of how to differentiate an assignment to match what a student might be able to do.

Walkie Charles's Powerpoint

Here's a link to Professor Charles's powerpoint.

It describes how DA allowed Professor Charles to change the way that Arnold was able to learn his heritage language, Yugtun, but it also describes how the process of DA allowed Arnold to change the way that Professor Charles assessed him.  In particular, the process of interventionist DA was not working very well with Arnold, so Professor Charles was steered into using a more interactionist version of DA.  This feedback loop, where the student and the teacher are teaching each other is the power of dynamic assessment, and is the reason why we aren't in any danger of making teachers obsolete.

My Dynamic Assessment activity

The activity guide describes the purpose of this activity.  I just want to mention that one of my main hopes for the dynamic assessment was that students would approach the math test with a much lower affective filter, and that seems to have happened.  The examinees were generally positive about the experience.  The other hope was that the students in the class would get a more realistic understanding of the way that Dynamic Assessment can work, and the feedback I got, especially from Michael, suggests that the activity was helpful to my colleagues in understanding the process of DA.


My Activity guide:

I will be having students practice dynamic assessment. There seem to be two styles of DA, one of which is more scripted, and one of which is more interactive. I will break the class into groups of 3, with one assessor, one assessee, and one observer. That should be 4 groups. Two of the groups will do a scripted assessment, and two will do an interactive assessment. I have prepared a script for the scripted assessors, which I’ll include.

The assessor will give the assessee a problem of adding fractions. The assessee will do their best to add the fractions, and the assessor will decide how to react to the assessee. In the scripted assessment, they will follow the script I’ve prepared. In the interactive assessment, the assessor and the assessee will negotiate how the assessment will progress. I’ve prepared Sarah for being an interactive assessor, by talking through several possible things that could happen, and how she might react to it. I’ll try to talk someone else through the process.

The observer will be looking for several things, including

· Does this process make the student less apprehensive of math tests?

· How much preparation does the tester have, and how much should he/she have?

· Does the process reveal more about what the student knows than a standard math test would?

After the test, we will have a brief discussion about what went well and what didn’t work well, and how we could make it better. The observers will lead off the discussion, but everyone can chime in.

The rationale is to get the teachers some experience with Dynamic Assessment, so that they can get some idea about how it is different from a standard math test. The affective dimension of this test is a huge part of the reason for doing it, and the teachers will have an experience to ground their understanding of the feelings.

The discussion afterwards will explore the advantages and disadvantages of the two styles of DA, and will also give the teachers a chance to process their feelings, and make it all more real.

The interventionist version of the Dynamic Assessment:

Mathematics Dynamic Assessment

Mathematics Dynamic Assessment

This article describes how dynamic assessment was used to support mathematics instruction for students who are at risk of failure.  It is most interesting to me because it deals directly with mathematics, and also because it translates the ideas of DA into terms familiar to people who use Response to Intervention and Curriculum Based Measurement.  Since DA is probably less well known than these other programs, it can help me to explain what I'm trying to do.

Utah Data about Language proficiency and UPASS testing

The relationship between language proficiency and content knowledge

This is a study of data from Utah on the relationship between a student's score on the UALPA (which just this year was replaced by the WIDA assessments) and the student's UPASS scores (which has also recently been scrapped for lack of funds)

There is a much higher correlation between the English language arts part of the UPASS and the student's language skills, but there is also a very obvious correlation in the mathematics part of the test.  This data is particularly useful because it is from Utah students taking Utah tests, and so can be used in discussions with Utah educators when there are questions about the fairness of high stakes tests.  It will be interesting to see how the data is correlated with the new WIDA tests and the new SAGE tests.

Measuring nothing in a study of ELL accommodations

Measuring Math--Not Reading--On a Math Assessment

This paper describes Colorado's attempt to figure out which accommodations to provide to their grade 5 math assessment.  I think it provides a very interesting discussion of the way that high stakes tests are created.

The authors wanted to study what kinds of accommodations would allow ELLs to be tested fairly.  The study was performed with the best of intentions, but was seriously flawed.  In the end, in order to have any measurable effect, the researchers had to throw out most of their data, which didn't show what they hoped it would.  As problematic as that methodology is in a scientific study, the conclusion of the paper was most disturbing.

Based on the results of this study (and on common sense), several decisions were made in constructing the grade 5 mathematics assessment of the Colorado Student Assessment Program.  First, every attempt was made to avoid unnecessary linguistic complexity.  All of the potential test items in the item pool supplied by the state's assessment contractor were reviewed for linguistic features that appear to contribute to text difficulty but were not related to the math content of the item.  Most of the items in the assessment item pool were subsequently modified to meet this criterion.  In addition, definitions of non-mathematical words were provided, where appropriate, underneath the test item.  In no case was the mathematical complexity compromised.

The reason that this is disturbing is that the study showed no effect on test scores of these accommodations.  It suggests some of the reality of creating high stakes testing.  People creating the tests do their very best to design the tests and study how best to create the tests.  But high stakes testing is a very lucrative industry, and the deadlines are non-negotiable, so if the designers are unable to create the test in response to scientific data, they will decide to use common sense rather than delay the test to study the problem some more.

High Stakes assessment and ELLs

High Stakes Assessment and ELLs


This position paper for Delta Kappa Gamma discusses the reasons why ELL students don’t perform as well on standardized tests as their native English speaking peers. The paper suggests that high-stakes testing isn’t good for anyone, even native speakers. “High stakes policy directives promote an environment in which teachers are asked to relate to their students differently, enact pedagogies that are often at odds with their vision of best practice, and experience high levels of stress.”

They suggest that teachers ought to incorporate culturally and linguistically responsive strategies. Teachers should embrace diverse cultures and their students’ lived experiences, and funds of knowledge. Teachers should provide wait time, create opportunities for oral practice using small groups, modify reading assignments by simplifying the linguistic complexity, and introduce key testing vocabulary and sentence structures unique to standardized tests.

This paper is a nice recap of everything I’ve been learning in the ESL classes here at Westminster. The nice thing is that DKG is a pretty broad society of educators, which means that this position paper suggests that the best practices we’ve learned in this program are going to be supported by a pretty broad spectrum of professional teachers.








Choose Languageالإنجليزية/العربيةанглийски език/български英语/简体中文英語/繁體中文angličtina/češtinaEngelsk/danskEngels/NederlandsAnglais/FrançaisEnglisch/DeutschΑγγλικά/ΕλληνικάEnglish/Hausaאנגלית/עבריתअंग्रेज़ी/हिंदीangol/magyarInggris/bahasa IndonesiaInglesi/Italiano英語/日本語영어/한국어Engelsk/Norskانگليسی/فارسیangielski/polskiInglés/PortuguêsEnglish/PashtoEngleză/românăАнглийский/РусскийInglés/EspañolEnglish/SerbianEngelska/svenskaอังกฤษ/ไทยİngilizce/TürkАнглійська/Українськаانگریزی/اردو 

Translation in Progress:

Translations powered by Language Weaver Service

Title:

High-Stakes Assessments and English Language Learners. By: Honigsfeld, Andrea, Giouroukakis, Vicky, Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 00118044, Summer2011, Vol. 77, Issue 4

Database:

Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson)

HTML Full Text

High-Stakes Assessments and English Language Learners 

Contents

1. Key Concepts Defined
2. Our Position
3. Implications for Instruction
4. Culturally Responsive Practices
5. Linguistically Responsive Practices
6. Conclusion
7. References

In this position paper, the authors argue that high-stakes, standardized assessments place an enormous challenge both on learners for whom English is a Second Language and their teachers. Yet, based on a thorough review of the literature and their own recent research on standardized test preparation practices for English Language Learners, they also claim that employing culturally and linguistically responsive instructional strategies may lessen the stress associated with test-driven instruction and improve student learning outcomes as well.

Both the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (2002) and the impending implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) across the United States place high expectations on all learners. The CCSS were developed by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers to provide clear expectations for all students to equip them with the necessary knowledge and skills for college and career readiness (Common Core State Standards Initiative). Currently, the standards have been formally adopted by 44 states. The challenge of meeting the new standards is especially severe for English language learners (ELLs) for a number of compelling reasons: (a) special emphasis is placed on informational texts across all content areas, (b) college and workplace readiness are emphasized, and (c) no special accommodations are made for ELLs.

Abedi and Dietel (2004) claimed that at least four critical issues need to be considered when ELLs' participation in standardized assessments is compared to that of their native-English-speaking counterparts:

1. Low ELL performance on state assessments and lower rates of improvement across several years have been documented.
2. Instead of content attainment only, when it comes to ELLs' performance on state assessments, both content-based achievement and language ability are measured.
3. The ELL population as a subgroup is highly transient; many high-performing ELLs leave the group.
4. Numerous nonschool-related factors also impact on the group's performance.

Further, as a result of her extensive research on current assessment practices, Menken (2006) suggested that high-stakes testing impacts not only work with ELLs but also educational practice in general, noting that "standardized tests become de facto language policy when attached to high-stakes consequences, shaping what content schools teach, how it is taught, by whom it is taught, and in what language(s) it is taught" (p. 537). In addition, Valli and Buese (2007) suggested that "high-stakes policy directives promote an environment in which teachers are asked to relate to their students differently, enact pedagogies that are often at odds with their vision of best practice, and experience high levels of stress" (p. 520).

Because standardized assessments and standards-based instruction are expected to continue to define the educational landscape (Wiliam, 2010), we researched effective approaches to standardized test preparation for ELLs (Giouroukakis & Honigsfeld, 2010). Specifically, we conducted a multicase study to investigate the impact of high-stakes testing on the literacy practices of teachers of high school ELLs in three Long Island, New York, school districts in one of the most racially and socioeconomically segregated regions of the United States. The goal of the study was to explore what kinds of literacy tasks and materials were implemented in order to develop ELLs' literacy skills and prepare them to be successful on the New York State Regents English examinations required for graduation. Our findings indicated that the participating teachers engaged in both (a) instructional activities and materials that directly prepared their students for the state's high-stakes exam (teaching to the test) and (b) culturally and linguistically responsive practices. Based on these findings, we suggest that educators working with ELLs in all content areas and at all grade levels utilize culturally and linguistically responsive techniques in all their instruction, including when they engage their ELLs in test-preparation activities.

Key Concepts Defined

Cultural responsiveness and linguistic responsiveness have been previously defined by numerous researchers, the former receiving decades of support in the professional literature, and the latter becoming more widely researched in recent years. Culturally responsive teaching, according to Gay (2000), uses "the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more relevant and effective for them..... It is culturally validating and affirming" (p. 29) and thus invites students to become more engaged in learning. We concur with Lucas, Villegas, and Freedson-Gonzalez (2008), who defined linguistic responsiveness as involving

three types of pedagogical expertise [teachers should have]: (a) familiarity with the students' linguistic and academic backgrounds, (b) an understanding of the demands inherent in the learning tasks that students are expected to carry out in class, (c) and skills for using appropriate scaffolding, (p. 367)

It is important to note that both Gay's and Lucas et al.'s definitions include the prerequisite of teachers' understanding and affirmation of students' cultural and linguistic identities, which are "shaped by self-perceptions, desires, hopes, and expectations, as well as salient aspects of the social context, such as sociopolitical ideologies, histories, and structures that are often beyond the control of an individual" (Lee & Anderson, 2009, p. 181). Such identities are also impacted by "the various ideologies, power structures, and historical legacies associated with different forms of language use, cultures, and situations" (Lee & Anderson, p. 181).

Our Position

The NCLB Act (2002) requires ELLs to be included in high stakes tests (Irby et al., 2010; Coltrane, 2002). When English learners are included in state assessments, their academic performance is measured by tests that were designed for English-speaking students and, as such, may be culturally and linguistically inappropriate for ELLs. Test items may contain concepts or ideas that may be unfamiliar to ELLs who come from diverse cultures and who have not lived in the United States for a long time (Coltrane, 2002). For example, a prompt that asks students to write a persuasive essay about whether or not the United States should spend money on alternative energy sources will pose a challenge for ELLs who need to be familiar with a number of cultural references, such as the history of energy use in the United States, what alternative sources of energy exist, the views on this topic of the country's major opposing political parties, and the risks and benefits of spending resources on alternative energy versus oil drilling.

Teaching to the test as an all-too-common instructional approach may be especially damaging to ELLs whose cultural and linguistic needs may be overlooked as they may be exposed to "less meaningful instruction and a lack of focus on the sociocultural context in which students are schooled" (Collier & Thomas, 2010, para. 5). "[T]he vast majority of high-stakes tests are written and administered only in English, often leaving ELLs at a disadvantage and raising questions as to how the test results should be interpreted" (Coltrane, 2002, para. 4). Thus, based on our own as well as others' research (Gay, 2000, 2002; Giouroukakis & Honigsfeld, 2010; Menken, 2006; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992; Valli & Buese, 2007), we believe that when teachers implement culturally and linguistically responsive instructional practices, they pay special attention to the students' individual needs as opposed to teaching merely the mandated curriculum or to preparing simply for typical test items that appear on standardized assessments.

Implications for Instruction

In response to the cultural and linguistic challenges that high-stakes tests pose for ELLs, we found in our professional experiences as teacher educators and staff developers and in our research that educators who successfully work with ELLs carefully craft their lessons to incorporate a variety of culturally and linguistically responsive strategies that (a) are closely aligned to the target curriculum; (b) consider the specific academic, linguistic, and social-emotional needs of diverse students; and (c) systematically and meaningfully support learning for ELLs. We provide teachers of ELLs with the following advice regarding culturally and linguistically responsive practices for ELLs based on our most recent research (Giouroukakis & Hongisfeld, 2010; Honigsfeld & Giouroukakis, 2011).

Culturally Responsive Practices

1. Incorporate content topics and instructional materials and resources that are relevant to students' diverse home cultures.

• 2. Relate to and validate ELLs' out-of-school, lived experiences by addressing local issues and current events embedded in the taught curriculum.
• 3. Use a variety of motivational techniques that allow students to engage with the curriculum in authentic and personally meaningful ways.
• 4. Embrace your ELLs' "funds of knowledge" (Moll et al, 1992) and allow them to show their expertise (rather than deficiencies) in the classroom.
• 5. Expand your ongoing, formative assessments to include authentic, performance-based, project-based, or task-based assessment tools. Rather than relying on outcomes from one measure, give students multiple opportunities to demonstrate their content and linguistic knowledge.

Linguistically Responsive Practices

1. Use chunking by breaking down challenging academic tasks to make learning manageable. Offer step-by-step linguistic modeling through think-alouds, read-alouds, and write-alouds.

• 2. Provide adequate wait time for students to process and respond to questions and prompts.
• 3. Create ample opportunities for oral rehearsal of new skills through small-group interactions and other cooperative group structures.
• 4. Modify reading assignments, worksheets, and both in-class and homework assignments by simplifying the linguistic complexity.
• 5. Use students' native language for clarification and to teach dictionary skills.
• 6. Introduce key testing vocabulary and sentence structures unique to standardized tests.

Conclusion

The demographics of U.S. schools continue to change and include increasing numbers of ELLs who have unique cultural and linguistic needs. Nevertheless, educators spend an increasing amount of instructional time on standardized test preparation, and policy makers continue to neglect what research (Abedi & Dietel, 2004; Collier & Thomas, 2010; Gay, 2000,2002; Ladson-Billings, 1995) indicates about best instructional and assessment practices for ELLs. Instead, we believe that teachers and administrators must advocate culturally and linguistically responsive practices that will recognize, value, and affirm ELLs' diverse backgrounds and unique academic needs. By utilizing curriculum and instructional practices that include students' different backgrounds, educators create opportunities for advancing ELLs' achievement on tests and ensuring academic success for all learners.

References

Abedi, J., & Dietel, R. (2004). Challenges in the No Child Left Behind Act for English-language learners. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 782-785.

Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2010). Helping your English learners in spite of No Child Left Behind. Teachers College Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=15937

Coltrane, B. (2002, Nov.). English language learners and high-stakes tests: An overview of the issues. Center for Applied Linguistics, Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/digest_pdfs/0207coltrane.pdf

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). About the standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106-116.

Giouroukakis, V, & Honigsfeld, A. (2010). High-stakes testing and English language learners: Using culturally and linguistically responsive literacy practices in the high school English classroom. TESOL Journal, 1,470-499.

Honigsfeld, A., & Giouroukakis, V. (2011, Spring). The ABCDE's of standardized test preparation. Idiom, 41(1), 3, 23.

Irby, B.J., Fuhui, T., Lara-Alesio, R., Mathes, P. G., Acosta, S., & Guerrero, C. (2010). Quality of instruction, language of instruction, and Spanish-speaking English language learners' performance on a state reading achievement test. Texas American Bilingual Education, 12(1), 1-42. Retrieved from http://tabeorg.ipower.com/main/images/stories/2010journal/ journals/Quality_of_instruction.pdf

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research, 32, 465-491.

Lee, J. S., & Anderson, K. T. (2009). Negotiating linguistics and cultural identities: Theorizing and constructing opportunities and risks in education. Review of Research in Education, 33,181-211.

Lucas, X, Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008, July). Linguistically responsive teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English Language Learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 361-373.

Menken, K. (2006). Teaching to the test: How No Child Left Behind impacts language policy, curriculum, and instruction for English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 30, 521-546.

Moll, L. C, Amanti, C, Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31,132-141.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq. (January 8, 2002).

Valli, L,, & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 519-558.

Wiliam, D. (2010). Standardized testing and school accountability. Educational Psychologist, 45, 107-122.

~~~~~~~~

By Andrea Honigsfeld and Vicky Giouroukakis

Andrea Honigsfeld, Ed.D., is a professor at Molloy College, Rockville Centre, NY. A member of Alpha Pi chapter (NY), she is the author or coauthor of numerous publications on teacher collaboration, coteaching, differentiated instruction, and other effective strategies for English Learners. ahonigsfeld@molloy.edu

Vicky Giouroukakis, Ph.D., is an associate professor of English Education and TESOL at Molloy College, Rockville Centre, NY. Her research and publishing interests include standards and assessment, cultural and linguistic diversity, adolescent literacy, and teacher education. vgiouroukakis@molloy.edu

---

Source: Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, Summer2011, Vol. 77 Issue 4, p6, 5p
Item: 508475770