Test-based Accountability Systems: Concerns for Indiana’s Multilingual Learners and Their Teachers
Abstract
The past several years have been marked by rapid change in Indiana education policy. Stakeholders at all levels including children, parents, teachers, and administrators have been affected by changes in standards, testing, evaluation, and public school funding. This article outlines recent changes in Indiana’s education accountability systems and highlights how those changes intersect with what is known about appropriate measurement of multilingual learners and how those changes influence multilingual learners in Indiana. The validity issues present in the application of Indiana's accountability system to the population of multilingual learners and their teachers are noted as well as the consequences of the system for multilingual learners, their teachers, and their schools.References
Abedi, J. (2002). Standardized achievement tests and English language learners: Psychometric issues. Educational Assessment, 8(3), 231-257.
American Educational Research Association & American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
American Statistical Association (2014). Executive Summary of the ASA Statement on Using Value-Added Models for Educational Assessment. Retrieved from https://www.amstat.org/policy/pdfs/ASA_VAM_Statement.pdf
Amrein-Beardsley, A. & Collins, C. (In press). The SAS education value-added assessment system (EVAAS): Its intended and unintended effects in a major urban school system. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.
Betebenner, D. (2009). Norm- and criterion-referenced student growth. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(4), 42-51.
Burke, A. M., DePalma, G., Ginther, A., Morita-Mullaney, T., & Young, J. W. (2014). Accountability lessons for Indiana schools serving English learners. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Clewell, B., Cosentino de Cohen, C., & Murray, J. (2007). Promise or Peril?: NCLB and the Education of ELL Students. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Coleman, J. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
DeCapua, A., & Marshall, H. W. (2010). Students with limited or interrupted formal education in US classrooms. The Urban Review, 42(2), 159-173.
Diaz-Bilello & Briggs, (2014). Using student growth percentiles for Educator Evaluations at the Teacher Level. Center for Assessment & CADRE. Retrieved from http://www.nciea.org/publication_PDFs/GrowthPercentileReport%20EDB073114.pdf
Elliott, S. (2012, February 24). Grading system likely to hurt high-poverty schools most. The Indianapolis Star. Retrieved from http://icpe2011.com/uploads/Grading_system_likely_to_hurt_high-poverty_schools_most___The_Indianapolis_Star___indystar.pdf
Fry, R. (2008). The role of schools in the English language learner achievement gap. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED502050.pdf
García, E. E., & Frede, E. C. (2010). Young English Language Learners: Current Research and Emerging Directions for Practice and Policy. Early Childhood Education Series. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gong, B., Perie, M., & Dunn, J. (2006). Using student longitudinal growth measures for school accountability under No Child Left Behind: An update to inform design decisions. Center for Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.nciea.org/publications/GrowthModelUpdate_BGMAPJD07.pdf
Franco, M. S., & Seidel, K. (2012). Evidence for the need to more closely examine school effects in value-added modeling and related accountability policies. Education and Urban Society, 44(1), 1-29.
Heubert, J.P., & Hauser, R.M. (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Hout, M. & Elliott, S., (Eds.). (2011). Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Education. National Research Council of the National Academies of Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2011.
Indiana Department of Education. (2014a). Equity for English Learners: Imagining the Possibilities and #MakingItHappen.
Indiana Department of Education (2014b). Corporation Enrollment by Special Education and English Language Learners (ELL). Retrieved from http://www.doe.in.gov/accountability/find-school-and-corporation-data-reports
Jones, B. D., & Egley, R. (2004). Voices from the frontlines: Teachers’ perceptions of high-stakes testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(39), 1-29. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n39/
Jones, M. G., Jones, B. D., Hardin, B.,Chapman, L., Yarbrough, T., & Davis, M. (1999). The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(3), 199-203.
OECD (2010),PISA 2009 Results: Learning Trends: Changes in Student Performance Since 2000 (Volume V), PISA, OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/9789264091580-en
Pink, D. (2009). The puzzle of motivation. TED Talk. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation
Rivkin. S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.
Schochet, P. Z., & Chiang, H. S. (2010). Error rates in measuring teacher and school performance based on student test score gains (NCEE 2010-4004). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, United States Department of Education.
U.S. Department of Education. (2013). National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), Local Education Agency Universe Survey, 2002-03 through 2011-12.
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). ESEA Flexibility. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html
Young, J. W. (2008). Content tests for English Language Learners. R & D Connections, 8, 1-7.
