اینترنت

برچسب: Proficiency

  • Should 4-year-olds have to take an English proficiency test?

    Should 4-year-olds have to take an English proficiency test?


    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    Four-year-olds are crying, putting their heads on their desks or simply refusing to answer the questions during an English proficiency test they’re required to take in transitional kindergarten.

    The initial English Language Proficiency Assessment for California (ELPAC) is used to determine whether new students will be designated English learners. Under current law, the test must be given to all students whose parents speak another language at home within the first 30 days of enrollment in kindergarten through 12th grade. The test measures proficiency in four domains — listening, speaking, reading and writing in English.

    The test is different for each grade. But since transitional kindergarten, often referred to as TK, is classified as the first year of a two-year kindergarten program, and not as a separate grade, schools have had to administer the test to students as young as 4 years old. 

    School district staff and advocates for English learners and young children say the test was not designed for 4-year-olds, may not be accurate for assessing language acquisition and may misidentify children as English learners when they are simply too young to answer questions correctly. 

    “We’re assessing children on reading and writing when we know that children that are young 4-year-olds are not reading and writing,” said Carolyne Crolotte, director of dual language learner programs of Early Edge California, a nonprofit organization that advocates for early education.

    A new bill, Assembly Bill 2268, introduced by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, would exempt transitional kindergartners from taking the test until they enter kindergarten.

    Brett Loring, student services coordinator for Vallecito Union School District, a tiny district in the Sierra Nevada foothills of Calaveras County, said giving the ELPAC to a transitional kindergartner was “probably the most frustrating test administration I’ve ever given.”

    Loring said the 4-year-old spoke Spanish at home, but he had seen that she understood some English in the classroom. Still, she was intimidated by having to leave her classroom to take the test. 

    After a few questions, the child said “No want to. No more,” crossed her arms and put her head down on the table.

    “Why are we making kids do this?” Loring asked. “Let them develop in the TK year, get them used to the classroom, get them used to socializing. That’s the purpose of TK. It’s really a developmental year. Don’t throw this heavy test on them and expect that you’re going to get good results.”

    Concerns have grown as transitional kindergarten is being expanded to all 4-year-olds, meaning younger children are taking the test each year. This school year, children as young as 4 years and 4 months were eligible to enter transitional kindergarten. By 2025, all children who turn 4 years old by Sept. 1 will be eligible.

    “Why are we making kids do this? Let them develop in the TK year, get them used to the classroom, get them used to socializing. That’s the purpose of TK.”

    Brett Loring, student services coordinator, Vallecito Union School District

    The English proficiency test for kindergartners, which is also administered to transitional kindergartners, requires students to read and write simple words like “cat”, “pan” and “dip”, and identify the first letters in words, based on their sounds.

    “My experience is ELPAC is very challenging for all kinder and TK students,” said Bernadette Zermeño, multilingual specialist at Oakland Unified School District. “Even if kids were monolingual and only speaking English, it would still be a very hard exam.”

    Proponents of the bill said districts should instead use the home language survey, observations by teachers and conversations with families to assess what language help transitional kindergartners need. This would be similar to how school districts and other state-subsidized providers assess students enrolled in preschool programs.

    Muratsuchi said he does not believe that students who are English learners could fall through the cracks if not tested in transitional kindergarten.

    “All of these children are going to be assessed in kindergarten, so I’m confident that those who really do need the support will be properly identified in kindergarten, but in the meantime, we want to make sure we’re not over-identifying students,” Muratsuchi said.

    The state funding formula gives districts more funding based on how many students are English learners, low-income, homeless or in foster care, so this bill could potentially cost districts some funding, but Muratsuchi and proponents of the bill said the loss of funding would be minimal.

    “I think more important than funding is making sure that we’re serving our students well with developmentally appropriate assessments,” Muratsuchi said. “We don’t want kids to be having meltdowns over tests that are not appropriate for their age.”

    Crolotte said if students are misidentified as English learners when they actually speak English, resources could be allocated for children that don’t need English language development services. 

    In addition, Crolotte said she’s worried students could be identified as English learners “and then get in the hamster wheel and not be able to get out of EL status.” Once identified as English learners, students must take the ELPAC every year until their test results, both on the ELPAC and on academic English language arts tests, show they are proficient in English. Some advocates believe many districts have set the bar too high for students to show they are fluent in English.

    Crolotte said that Early Edge California has been researching other ways to test young children, including how other states assess young students. She pointed out that Illinois and Virginia only assess English skills in listening and speaking during the first semester of kindergarten, since many children have not yet learned to read or write. Both states wait to begin testing reading and writing skills until the second semester of kindergarten.





    Source link

  • John Thompson: “Proficiency” Is NOT Grade Level, Not Even in Oklahoma

    John Thompson: “Proficiency” Is NOT Grade Level, Not Even in Oklahoma


    Oklahoma’s State Superintendent, Ryan Walters, changed last years’ testing cut scores, redefining the term “proficient” in the state’s accountability data. Fortunately, there has been a bipartisan backlash against Walters’ lack of transparency when making the change, which looked like an effort to trick Oklahomans into believing that he had improved student outcomes.

    But, this month, the Oklahoma Commission for Educational Quality and Accountability brought back a misleading, inappropriate, and destructive definition of the term proficiency for accountability purposes.

    In doing so, the Commission revitalized the use of one of the most effective weapons for privatizing public education. They perpetuated the lie that “proficiency” is “grade level,” thus making it sound like public schools are irrevocably broken. 

    We need to remember the history of this propaganda which took off during the Reagan Administration, which misused data in its “A Nation at Risk” to push high-stakes testing.

    The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores are the best estimate of students’ outcomes, but they should be used for diagnostic, not accountability purposes.   But, as the Tulsa World reported, in 2011, Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education (FEE) high-jacked NAEP’s terminology when writing and editing then State Superintendent Janice Barresi’s new accountability-driven A-F school report card. The World presented evidence that the FEE was engaged in a “pay-to-play” scheme to reap profits while influencing policy.

    As The Washington Post reported in 2013, FEE was at the nexus of rightwing political influence in K-12 education and corporate interests seeking to profit from the nation’s schools. It claimed that raising “expectations” for students would advance their learning. In fact, NAEP scores provide evidence that starting in 2012 , when corporate reforms were in place, the opposite happened, as NAEP scores declined, reversing decades of incremental growth.

    It did, however, advance the privatization of public education.

    At the 2024 Oklahoma conference, Bush’s new think tank, ExcelinEd used misleading and misconstrued data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), to conflate NAEP “proficiency” with “grade level.”

    In fact, as Oklahoma Watch’s Jennifer Palmer explained, Oklahoma’s 8th grade reading proficiency grade requires that “students demonstrate mastery over even the most challenging grade-level content and are ready for the next grade, course or level of education.” That definition of mastery of grade level skills included critical thinking, interpretation, evaluation, analysis, and synthesis when reading across multiple texts, and writing.

    But, Palmer noted, “8th graders who didn’t score proficient, but are in the ‘basic’ category, can still do all this.”

    Moreover, as Jan Resseger further explained, the nation’s NAEP proficiency grade “represents A level work, at worst an A-.” She asks, “Would you be upset to learn that “only” 40% of 8th graders are at an A level in math and “only” 1/3rd scored an A in reading?”

    Resseger also cited the huge body of research explaining why School Report Cards aren’t a reliable tool for measuring school effectiveness.

    We need a better understanding how and why the word “proficiency” has been weaponized against schools. To do so, we must master the huge body of research which explains why standardized tests aren’t fair, reliable, or valid measures of how well schools are performing.

    In 2013, after surveying national experts about “misnaepery,” Education Week explained that NAEP “is widely viewed as the most accurate and reliable yardstick of U.S. students’ academic knowledge … But when it comes to many of the ways the exam’s data are used, researchers have gotten used to gritting their teeth.”

    Also in 2013, James Heckman, a Nobel Prize laureate who lived in Oklahoma City as a child, warned of the dangers of misusing test data. In 2025, Heckman and his co-author, Alison Baulos, published “Instead of Panicking over Test Scores, Let’s Rethink How We Measure Learning and Student Success.” They urge us to “pause some tests and redirect resources toward more meaningful ways to promote and assess student learning.”

    They don’t oppose the use of tests as one measure when used for diagnostic purposes; those metrics “may be valuable for tracking large-scale trends — such as monitoring recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.” However, “the current overreliance on tests is costly in many ways and is not an effective strategy for improving education as a whole.” And, “standardized tests often conceal more than they reveal.” 

    Getting back to recent headlines, I appreciate the press’ reporting on Ryan Walters’ lack of transparency. I’m even more impressed with their reporting on the lack of evidence to support his claims that his administration has improved outcomes. But they now need to report on the reasons why the Commission made a terrible mistake, apparently based on the alt facts generated by corporate reformers’ false public relations spin.



    Source link