Full Report - Center for Collaborative Education

The tests of the Massachusetts Comprehensive
Assessment System (MCAS), established as part of
the Massachusetts Educational Reform Act of 1993,
have been the most prevalent measure of academic
achievement in Massachusetts for more than a
decade (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1993).
The MCAS is used to meet the requirements of the
state’s Chapter 386 and the federal No Child Left
Behind Act for the yearly assessment of progress in
academic areas on the part of all students¸ including
LEP students. The state requires that this assessment
of the academic achievement of students of
limited English proficiency be conducted using a
standardized test in English. 1 At the time of this
study’s observations, MCAS tested English Learners
in Reading (Grade 3), English Language Arts
(Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10), Math (Grades 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, and 10), and Science (Grades 5 and 8
in SY2006-SY2008 and 5, 8, and 9/10 in SY2009)
(Massachusetts Department of Education, 2008b).
During the SY2006–SY2009 period, high school LEP
students were required to pass Grade 10 Math and
ELA in order to graduate from high school.
At the center of the debate regarding the academic
achievement of English language learners in the
United States is the measure used to assess it.
There are concerns about the validity of the standardized
tests normed only for English proficient
students, particularly those measuring proficiency in
content areas, since the results may be more a reflection
of students’ English proficiency than of their
knowledge of the content tested (August & Hakuta,
1997; Menken, 2000). Others point to ELLs’ lack of
cultural knowledge, knowledge that is assumed on
tests standardized on an American English speaking
student population (Mercer, 1989). Still others
focus on the inequity of assessment practices used
with ELLs: the “testing frenzy” resulting from the
practice of assessing prematurely and intensely and
the “violation of what we know about the relationship
between academic learning proficiency and
content proficiency, the validity of high-stakes tests
for this population, and the matching of test to the
population” (Garcia & Kleifgen, 2010). Those who
favor the inclusion of ELLs in taking tests developed
for English proficient students express that, in spite
of the limitations, testing is a vehicle for insuring
that the same accountability that keeps standards
high for English proficient students applies to ELLs
(Coltrane, 2002).
The fact is that in spite of the understanding of
the inappropriateness of using standardized tests
with ELLs who are not proficient in English, they
continue to be widely used. In some cases, states
offer accommodations modifying test questions,
allowing extra time to complete the tests, translating
the tests, testing content in L1, etc. (Garcia &
Kleifgen, 2010; Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2006).
Massachusetts allows few accommodations: LEP
students are not required to take the ELA exam (at
the district’s discretion) in the first year in which a
child is enrolled in a U.S. school, but both Math
and Science are required even at this early stage of
English language development. Beyond that, Spanish
speaking ELLs who have been in U.S. schools for
less than three years may take a Math test in Spanish
in Grade 10, and any LEP student is allowed to
use a dictionary on all MCAS tests.
In spite of the serious concerns regarding the appropriateness
of the MCAS as the main (and often
sole) measure of student achievement, at this point
it is the measure that allows comparisons of student
performance across time, groups, and districts. The
ability to conduct these analyses in Massachusetts,
in other states, and nationally is relatively recent
since for many years there was concern about the
dearth of information regarding the outcomes of
LEP students in educational programs (Coltrane,
2002). For example, DeJong, Gort, and Cobb
(2005) in their review of 30 years of bilingual
education in Massachusetts, found there was no
evidence of assessments of the progress on English
language acquisition on the part of ELL students,
and concluded that their academic achievement
was unknown (pp. 597-598). 2
Today, most of the research related to the academic
achievement of ELLs is embedded in the evaluation
of different types of programs. Researchers
have often compared the outcomes of LEP students
in ELL programs with those of English proficient
students (usually monolingual students in general
education programs). In their detailed review of
this research, Lindholm-Leary and Borsato (2006)
concluded that programs designed for ELLs promote
equivalent (and often higher) outcomes than
mainstream programs for proficient students. In
comparing various ELL programs with English proficient
students in regular programs, the early lag
in English and math experienced by LEP students
in programs for ELLs gives way to similar outcomes
by the end of elementary school. At times, LEP
students surpassed English proficient students
by middle school, particularly in math (Burnham-
Massey and Pina, 1990 as referenced in Lindholm-
Improving Educational Outcomes of English Language Learners in Schools and Programs in Boston Public Schools 63