One of the more directly useful assignments I was asked to do was to design the kind of summative assessment we would use in our classes at the end of each marking period. In Professor Demaris Veras’ class, ESC 761, Teaching English as a Second Language to Adolescents and Adults, we discussed the different ways we could show progress and assessment for ENL students. As related to standard 4b, we discussed and addressed how to “measure students’ discrete and integrated language skills” and how they could lead to “effective instruction” that would ultimately end in “exit from [ENL] programs.” I decided to focus on the actual report card, or end assessment in the class I was teaching, I was very frustrated by measuring my ENL students by state standards and them consistently receiving “1”s. I found the state progressions for ENL students to be more precise and better at showing the movement they made towards proficiency. I was also surprised that my school did not ask me to do anything more than “contribute” to the grades that other teachers gave the students. My mentor teacher suggested that I create a separate form of evaluation for my students.
Initially, I focused on a very specific progress report, which is artifact one, which I took from Colorin Colorado. I did not modify it because I rejected it. While there is a place for specific focus on goals, I believed that students do need to be help accountable to make progress in all areas and this assignment made me reflect on that. If ELLs are going to be identified, reclassified and exit from programs based on very specific requirements, the assessments that they and their parents see should reflect that.
For this reason, I decided to move to a broader one that students could compare to their report card. I found an excel report card from a Syracuse district and modified it to what you see as artifact two. The most important part for me was that students could look at how they are doing in regard to their proficiency level. I believed it was important to teach effective test-taking strategies and for students to understand their proficiency and assessments in relation to their peers and their expectations, but I did not feel it was fair for students to not see themselves making any progress except on annual instruments like the NYSESLAT. This more personalized instrument met that need and making it made me think about how it is my job to bridge the gap between a students proficiency and the social and academic language they are required to use to be at grade-level.
Ultimately, I believe a combination of the two is important. When I look to grow further in this area, I would like to think about how I can combine the two progress report formats. I think the broader report card, on top of a standard report card, can be overwhelming, especially if, as is often the case, the parent’s of the learner do not have a detailed awareness of the academic English proficiency required in assessment of all students, including ELLs. In an ideal world, I would have time to do both reports and explain the student’s strengths and weaknesses. I did have the opportunity to do this on parent teacher night but not all parents were there. In this way the impact on the student is limited by the parents’ knowledge of the report, which is an area I would seek to change.
The key to fair assessment is using a variety of standards-based language proficiency instruments and that includes informal assessment strategies that show the student is not just becoming more capable at taking standardized tests, but showing continuous, intellectual, social and physical development in ways that those kinds of tests like the NYSESLAT and English Language Arts Regents are not able to show. If we are to focus as teachers on reverse planning, working backwards from the goal, then we need to think about not just the goal of the unit but how progress will be shown to parents and students and how that fits into the students classification as an ELL.
