Microsoft Word - IJWC Full Issue Fall 2017.docx

International Journal of the Whole Child
2017, VOL. 2, NO. 2

Teachers’ Perspectives on Language Assessment and Effective Strategies for Young
English Language Learners in Florida

Tunde Szecsiª, Tara Lashleyb, Sydney Nelsonc, Jill Shermand

ªFlorida Gulf Coast University bFlorida Gulf Coast University cFlorida Gulf Coast University dHunter Institute of
Early Childhood, Florida Gulf Coast University

Dr. Tunde Szecsi is a professor and the coordinator for the Elementary Education Programs at Florida
Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, FL. She earned her Master’s degrees in Hungarian, Russian and
English language and literature in Hungary. In 2003, she obtained her Ph.D. in Early Childhood
Education at University at Buffalo. Since then she has taught courses on elementary and early childhood
education, and teaching English as a second language. For ten years, she was the co-editor of the
Teaching Strategies column of the Childhood Education journal, and she served as coeditor for the 2007
and 2012 international theme issues. Over the past decade, she has made numerous presentations
throughout the world, and has contributed over forty articles and five book chapters in child development,
multicultural education, culturally responsive teacher preparation, humane education, and heritage
language maintenance.

Tara Lashley is a senior at Florida Gulf Coast University where she is pursuing a bachelor’s degree in
Elementary Education. She is currently completing her teaching internship at Pinewoods Elementary
School in Fort Myers, FL. Tara is interested in academic language development for English language
learners and loves using cooperative learning strategies in the classroom. She recently completed a Study
Abroad internship program in Hungary.

Sydney Nelson is a senior in the Early Childhood Education program at Florida Gulf Coast University.
Currently, she is completing her teaching internship at Sunshine Elementary, in Lehigh Acres, FF. She is
interested in instruction for English Language Learners, learning through play, and the use of Conscious
Discipline in early childhood. In addition, she completed a Study Abroad internship program in Hungary.

Jill Sherman is the Director of the Hunter Institute of Early Childhood. She holds a Master degree in
Educational Leadership. She has worked at Florida Gulf Coast University as Intern Supervisor and
adjunct for 20 years. As the Director of the Hunter Institute, she has organized numerous early childhood
conferences and has lead Study Abroad trips in Hungary and Austria.

Abstract

This article reports on the findings of an empirical study that examined elementary school teachers’
views about the English language learners’ (ELLs) program placement assessment, and progress

assessment. Specifically, the interviews in the study explored teachers’ perspectives on the
effectiveness of these assessments and the connection between language assessment and curricular
decisions. In addition, classroom observations were conducted to gain insights into language strategies
that these teachers used to promote better teaching and learning for ELLs. In this article, an overview of
the current assessment system for ELLs in Florida is provided, then the findings regarding the value of
assessment are discussed as well as effective teaching strategies. The article concludes with implications
for teachers, teacher educators and school district personnel.

Introduction

The increased focus on language assessment promotes effective teaching and learning. However, these
efforts can be productive only when language teachers are knowledgeable about the assessment, the
process of implementation, interpretation of assessment results, and most importantly, the use of these
results for further improving education. Studies indicate that language teachers are often unprepared to
maximize the benefits of assessment results (Popham, 2004). For their contribution to be effective,
teachers must have language assessment literacy, which is defined as “the acquisition of knowledge,
skills, and principles of test construction, test interpretation and use, test evaluation, and classroom-based
assessments alongside the development of a critical stance about the functions of assessment within a
larger educational context” (Lam, 2015 p. 170).

Language assessment literacy must be an acquired and mastered skill for teachers who educate English
language learners (ELLs) in the United States of America. Out of 5 million ELLs in the public schools in
the USA, many of them have no or limited access to quality educational programs (Anyon, 2005; Orfield
& Lee, 2004). The lack of access to an optimal education, which includes quality English language
teaching, is mirrored by the achievement gap between ELLs and native speakers of English. Specifically,
there was a 36-point gap at the 4th-grade level and a 44-point gap at the 8th-grade level between the
scores of native English speakers and ELLs, and this achievement gap has remained unchanged each
year between 2002 and 2011 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). In addition, ELLs’ high
dropout rate and low college enrollment and graduation numbers suggest the ineffectiveness of
educating ELLs in the public school system (Giambo, 2010; National Center for Educational
Statistics, 2013; Romo, 2013)

In Florida, 28% of school-aged students speak a language other than English at home (US Census Bureau,
2015). In public schools in Florida, the META Consent Decree, which is the framework for compliance
with federal and state laws, regulates the identification, eligibility and programmatic assessment for ELLs
(FDOE Consent Decree, n.d.). Considering the stagnating achievement gap, questions related to the role
of assessment and language instruction across the curriculum in a multilingual classroom are essential
to ask in order to determine the current status, effective practices, and areas for improvement. It is
essential to examine teachers’ perceptions of the nature and effectiveness of language assessment
because teachers’ views and beliefs regarding language teaching have an impact on their practices,
instruction, and communication in and outside the classroom (DeJong & Harper, 2005; Zheng, 2009).
In this current article, authors report on a small scale study in which six early childhood teachers shared
their views about language assessments and effective strategies for young English language learners in
Florida. To situate the study, authors provide an overview of the current assessment system for ELLs in
public schools. Then we describe the themes of these teachers’ views that emerged to make some
conclusions related to the current situation.

Current Identification and Assessment of English Language Learners

The current landscape of language assessment for ELLs in Florida is determined by the META Consent
Decree which addresses the civil rights of ELL students, such as their right to equal access to all
education programs. Through these rights, the META Consent Decree provides a structure that ensures
the delivery of comprehensible instruction to which ELLs are entitled. (FDOE Rules & Legislation, n.d.).
As Table 1 shows it consists of six major sections which cover identification of ELL students,
assessment, access to programming and categorical programs, the requirements for personnel, and
monitoring and outcome measures

Section Description
Section I:
Identification and
Assessment

All students with limited English proficiency must be properly identified and
assessed to ensure the provision of appropriate services. This section details
the procedures for placement of students in the English for Speakers of Other
Languages (ESOL) program, their exit from the program, and the monitoring
of students who have been exited.

Section II:
Equal access to
appropriate
programming

All ELLs are entitled to programming which is appropriate to their level of
English proficiency, their level of academic achievement, and any special
needs they may have. ELLs shall have equal access to appropriate English
language instruction, as well as instruction in basic subject areas, which is
understandable to the students given their level of English proficiency.

Section III:
Equal access to
appropriate categorical
and programs

ELLs are entitled to equal access to all programs appropriate to their academic
needs, such as compensatory, exceptional, adult, vocational or early childhood
education, as well as dropout prevention and other support services, without
regard to their level of English proficiency.

Section IV:
Personnel

This section details the certificate coverage and in-service training that
teachers must have in order to be qualified to instruct ESOL students.
Teachers may obtain the necessary training through university course work or
through school district provided in-service training.

Section V:
Monitoring issues

The Florida Department of Education (FDOE) is charged with the monitoring
of local school districts to ensure compliance with the provisions of the
Consent Decree pursuant to federal and state laws.

Section VI: Outcome
measures

FDOE is required to develop an evaluation system to address equal access and
program effectiveness. This evaluation system is to collect and analyze data
regarding the progress of ELL students and include comparisons between the
ELL and the non-ELL population regarding retention rates, graduation rates,
dropout rates, grade point averages and state assessment scores

Table 1 Description of sections of Meta Consent Decree
Source: FLDOE Rules & Legislation, n.d.

Identification of ELLs
For the purpose of this study, Section I. Identification and Assessment contains essential information
about language assessments. According to the META Consent Decree, a home language survey must be
administered upon registration in a public school. The survey has the following questions:

Is a language other than English used in the home?
Does the student have a first language other than English?
Does the student most frequently speak a language other than English?

When there is at least one ‘yes’ for these questions, the students will be assessed for English proficiency
in reading, writing, speaking and listening in English within 20 days after enrollment. If the student scores
in the 32th percentile or below on any of these subskills, the student is classified as an ELL who is
eligible for English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) services. In addition, ELLs are to be assessed
in academic areas to assist the teacher who develops the instructional program. Consequently, the student
will receive ESOL services according to his/her individualized ESOL plan. Students classified as ELLs
continue to receive appropriate instruction and services until he/she is reclassified as English proficient
(FDS Florida Administrative, 2017). Table 2 provides information about the identification process with
consideration of the different entry points for ELLs. It shows how different school districts collaborate in
terms of accepting assessment results for students who are moving from one school district to the other.

Table 2 Identification process of ELL in Florida
Source: ESOL Services, n.d.

Language Assessment of ELLs
In the selected school district in this study, a variety of language assessments are used for determining
placement and documenting progress of ELLs. Specifically, for determining the correct placement of
ELLs, the Language Assessment Battery (LAB) is used to measure English language proficiency in
listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Additional assessment is used in ELLs native language to
measure their academic preparedness e.g. in reading in the native language. In Florida, 72% of ELLs (N=
199,000) speak Spanish as their native language. The second largest student population (N=27, 500)
which is 10% of ELLs in Florida, speak Haitian Creole as their native language (Soto, Hooker &
Batalova, 2015). When a student comes from a Spanish speaking country, Aprenda, an assessment
targeting reading and math skills in Spanish for students in K-12 grades is used to identify the student’s
academic needs. Furthermore, Aprenda is also used to determine the student’s eligibility for gifted
programs. In addition, Crane, an assessment to determine a Spanish speaking student’s dominant
language is administered for ensuring that the student’s dominant language is used for further screening
and evaluation of special needs. In the case of students from Haiti, EKA is used to measure students’
reading level in their native language. Furthermore, to collect information about the educational
background of students who are non-Spanish native speakers, parents are surveyed with a form due to the
lack of appropriate assessment. (District ELL plan, 2016).

After the identification process, the ELL receives appropriate language instruction and annually takes an
assessment to measure his/her progress. In selected school districts, ACCESS for ELLs 2.0 assessment is
utilized for this purpose. It is a large-scale English language proficiency assessment administered to
kindergarten through 12th grade ELLs. It is aligned with the WIDA English Language Development
Standards (WIDA, n.d.) and assesses listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The purpose of using
ACCESS for ELLs 2.0 is (1) helping students and families understand students’ current level of English
language proficiency (2) serving as one of multiple measures used to determine whether students are
prepared to exit ESOL programs, (3) providing teachers with information for enhancing instruction and
learning, and (4) providing districts with information that will help them evaluate the effectiveness of
their ESOL/bilingual programs. Table 3 demonstrates the path for ELLs who meet/do not meet the exit
criteria from the ESOL program (District ELL plan, 2016).

Table 3 Processes addressing yearly language assessment results

Source: ESOL Services, n.d.

When an ELL meets the exit criteria, the student stops receiving ESOL services. However, he/she is
monitored for two more years to ensure that his/her language proficiency is satisfactory for grade level
academic work. In case the ESOL committee finds that the student’s academic achievement is impeded
by the lack of language proficiency, the student will re-enter the ESOL program. Ultimately, after the
monitoring period is over, the student is no longer identified as ELL (FDS Administrative, 2017.).

Although the process and assessments are regulated by the META Consent Decree, school districts also
have flexibility regarding the type of assessment to be used for program placement and/or progress
monitoring. When aligned with the Meta Consent requirements, school district professionals can
determine the specific ESOL plan for the given district (District ELL plan, 2016). The implementation of
this plan is monitored by the Department of Education, and the assessment data inform state officials
about the outcomes of the educational program for the ELLs (FDOE Rules & Legislation, n.d.).

Methodology

The purpose of this study was to explore teachers’ views about the use and effectiveness of language
assessments and to gain insights into their perspectives on best teaching practices with ELLs. Therefore,
the following questions were posed:

What views do teachers of young ELLs hold about language assessment and its use for curricular
decisions?

What pedagogical practices do teachers find effective for teaching English as a second language to young
children?

Participants

In this study, we used convenience sampling composed of five teachers - two kindergarten teachers, three
third grade teachers,- and one paraprofessional who was hired for assisting ELLs. All participants had at
least one year of teaching experience with ELLs. The five teachers had ESOL endorsement, which was
composed of the completion of five college classes or 300 hours of professional development at the
school district level. Therefore, these teachers met the state requirement which mandates that all public
school teachers who teach ELLs are required to earn ESOL endorsement (FLDOE Rules and regulations,
n.d.). The paraprofessional who was a native speaker of the Spanish language had 18 hours of training in
ESOL. In addition, one teacher out of five was fluent in Spanish: all others were monolingual.

Data Collection and Analysis

Individual structured interviews were conducted. Nine questions were posed to each teacher regarding 1.)
experience with teaching ELLs, 2.) the effectiveness of placement and progress assessments and 3.)
pedagogical approaches used to promote better teaching and learning for ELLS. Interviewees were also
asked to respond with examples of each. The approximately 30 minute interviews were audio recorded
and transcribed. In addition, observations were conducted to gain insights into the strategies that teachers
used to facilitate ELLs’ language and subject area learning. Both the interview data and the observation
data were analyzed with the “data analysis spiral” approach which includes the following steps: (1) data
management (2) initial reading and taking notes and (3) coding, describing and interpreting data
(Creswell, 2003). The findings were organized based on the categories that emerged through the data
analysis and reported by the research questions.

Findings

Teachers’ Views on Language Assessment

This study examined teachers’ views about language assessment for ELLs in public schools. Overall, to
various degrees, teachers were familiar with different types of assessments e.g. LAB and ACCESS for
ELLs 2.0. However, often they referred to assessment in reading, alphabet knowledge and vocabulary as
language assessment for ELLs. This lack of clarity of the purpose of different assessments might indicate
a gap in their knowledge regarding the proper use of specific language assessments for ELLs.
From the interviews, the following themes emerged: (1) confusion in perceived responsibilities and (2)
flaws in the use of assessment data. In terms of holding responsibility for assessment, teachers expressed
frustration. They mentioned that in their schools, it is the ESOL teacher or ESOL paraprofessional who is
responsible for administering the placement and progress assessment rather than the classroom teachers.
Teachers felt that they are often excluded from test result discussions and instead that they are only given
the final decisions and scores. Ultimately, most teachers felt that there was a lack of communication about
testing and test results between classroom teacher and ESOL professionals. For example, one teacher
stated, “I do not feel that they[assessments] are effective at all. We have no initial testing data on the
student.” Another teacher supported the same view, “Since testing results are not shared and explained, I
do not feel that they are effective at all.” Although they recognized the lack of communication and
collaboration between classroom teachers and ESOL professionals, the teachers did not mention any steps
that they tried to take in order to mitigate the problem. This lack of collaboration and effective use of
assessment data can result in a lack of accountability, which probably negatively impact the education of
ELLs. Interestingly, the one teacher who held the highest ESOL qualifications emphasized the importance
of language assessment results for planning instruction while acknowledging her role as well. She noted
that, “Language assessment data is essential when planning for ELLs. Language data lets me know if I
need to focus on phonics, fluency or comprehension. ELLs do not perform well in vocabulary assessment,
so the data helps me decide whether to reteach the materials.” Overall, it seems that teachers see their
involvement in language assessment in various ways. Most teachers do not feel accountable for the
meaningful use of assessment results, though some recognize the important link between assessment
results and planning appropriate instruction and act accordingly.

Teachers pointed out several flaws related to the current language assessments. They felt that students can
exit the ESOL program too early due to the very low cut score (32 percentile). Teachers in this study
believed that these students would need further help in learning English in order to successfully
participate in academic learning. Furthermore, regarding another flaw, one teacher stated, “These
assessments don’t always show what ELLs are truly capable of doing.” She advocated for bilingual
assessment, which would provide a more valid picture of the student’s performance level in a given
subject. Several teachers felt that students should be allowed to “test in the language they are fluent in”.
Clearly they recognized that ELLs are often unable to demonstrate their knowledge in a subject area due
to the lack of English proficiency.

Teachers’ Views on Effective Strategies for ELLs

In this study, we also examined teachers’ views about effective teaching strategies for ELLs in
kindergarten and third grade. Overall, kindergarten teachers in the study focused on social language
development for communication in everyday situations. Teachers of third graders, however, emphasized
the importance of developing academic vocabulary and sentence structure essential in subject areas such
as science and social studies. From the interviews and the observations, a variety of effective strategies
for young ELLs emerged.

For both teaching English for social and academic purposes, using visuals was found as a basic and
important strategy. Specifically, all teachers in the observation used graphic organizers for teaching
vocabulary. These graphic organizers displayed information about the new vocabulary in written and
picture form. In addition, the most frequently used visual strategies were, for example, creating flip-
books, using vocabulary charts, and using pictures to express meaning.

Teachers pointed out that essential vocabulary should be explicitly taught to help ELLs develop social
and academic language in English. Regarding language for social purposes, the explicit vocabulary
instruction was infused in everyday activities, such as calendar time and snack time. In addition, one
teacher shared that she taught practical phrases such as “tie, please” so the ELL students could practice
their English skills in simple social situations. In addition, with these simple practical expressions, ELLs
were able to express their needs without becoming frustrated due to the lack of language proficiency. In
terms of academic vocabulary, a teacher discussed how she pre- taught academic vocabulary, prior to
whole group reading: sharing the meaning of the word, often with pictures and giving examples for how
to use the word in sentences. Afterwards, when these words were encountered during the reading, the
teacher checked for understanding by asking comprehension questions using the new vocabulary.

Kagan Activities (Kagan, 2009.) was a broadly used strategy to increase interaction between students in
the kindergarten classroom. In particular, these Kagan activities often target both academic and social
purposes simultaneously using collaboration, cooperation and interaction among students. For example,
in an activity during the observation, students moved around the room to find a partner with whom they
talked about a specific topic, such as dinner last night. Moreover, to increase interaction most teachers
seemed to use the strategy of peer tutoring: sometimes paring students with native speakers of English
and at other times pairing them with students who speak the same language e.g. Spanish.

Planning instruction that incorporates ELLs’ background knowledge and experience is important.
Although only one teacher acknowledged the importance of students’ background knowledge, she
strongly emphasized the need for building the bridge between experiences at school and home. She stated,
“I use a culturally responsive approach when working with ELLs. I try to teach through their cultural
strength, while helping them connect to their home lives and prior experiences to make learning
meaningful.” Conversely, another teacher commented on the lack of ELLs’ background knowledge.
Clearly, she did not realize and recognize the value of the knowledge that ELLs bring from their own
culture. She seemed to evaluate issues from the majority ‘s perspective, disregarding the “funds of
knowledge” children with different cultural backgrounds possess (Gonzales, Moll, & Amanti, 2005).

Discussion and Conclusions

This study was designed on the assumption that all teachers who teach English language learners must
have language assessment literacy, which includes the ability to administer, score and interpret results of
language assessments. Specifically, the certification exam for ESOL teachers in Florida requires teachers
to have specific competencies related to assessment, e.g. “Evaluate formal and informal assessments to
measure oral language, literacy, and academic achievement” and “Determine appropriate
accommodations during formal and informal assessments of ELLs at varying English language
proficiency levels.” (Competencies and Skills, 2015, p. 85). This mandated skill set is essential in order
for teachers to be knowledgeable users of language assessment. Ultimately this knowledge will drive their
curricular decisions and instruction and maximize the learning opportunity for ELLs.

This study suggests that teachers have knowledge and understanding about assessment to various degrees.
It seems that teachers who have more extensive preparation in ESOL topics are the ones who can fulfill
the expectations in terms of using assessment to design optimal instruction. They are also the ones who
seem to pursue culturally responsive approaches and acknowledge students’ diverse backgrounds and
experiences. On the other hand, some teachers, often with less ESOL preparation, separate their own
duties from those including language assessment. This approach is not conducive to ELLs’ academic
progress. In most schools in Florida, ELLs are integrated into mainstream classrooms with children who
are native speakers of English. Therefore, it is the classroom teacher who is responsible for using
strategies that make instruction accessible and understandable for ELLs. To be able to select and
implement effective strategies, teachers must understand the student’s proficiency level and language
related needs from the assessment results. Therefore, continuous professional development in topics
related to ESOL is essential for teachers so that they are able to utilize assessment data for instruction and
to infuse students’ experiential and cultural background in the curriculum.

Teachers in this study pointed out two major challenges – early exit from ESOL programs and the lack of
opportunity for taking subject area assessment in the native language. Their awareness of the
inappropriate early exit from ESOL services is important because these teachers have become advocates
for extended ESOL services that provide additional language instruction to students who exit the ESOL
program prematurely.

Some of these teachers also seemed to be supportive of emergent bilingualism, which involves the
process of English language learning with the maintenance and development of the native language of the
ELLs (Garcia, Kleifgen, & Falchi, 2008). Teachers in this study acknowledged that ELLs could benefit
from a learning environment in which their native language is recognized and supported to avoid
subtractive bilingualism in which the new language suppresses the first language (Wright, 2010). This
finding is important because bilingualism and bilingual education are often targeted by supporters of the
English only movement (Ricento, 2005). These teachers’ request for bilingual assessment indicates their
understanding of how language proficiency and subject area knowledge should be assessed separately.
Ultimately, the more teachers understand the benefits of bilingualism, the more they can be expected to
advocate and implement appropriate assessment and instruction for ELLs.

This study had a limited number of participants. Therefore, the in-depth exploration of their views on
language assessment and ESOL strategies was meaningful rather than aiming for more generalizable
findings. Although a higher number of participants might add additional views on the topic of
investigation, it would not challenge the existence of the views of these participants (Ernest 2001). It is
important to keep in mind that these participants were from one school district, therefore, their views
might be impacted by their experience in this shared context. It is also important to note that these
teachers volunteered to participate in the study, therefore we assume they had a special interest in ELLs.
Because of these limitations, teachers’ views explored in this preliminary qualitative study cannot be
generalized beyond the context. For future research, it would be meaningful to examine teachers’ views
about ESOL assessment and effective teaching and learning strategies in a study that would recruit
participants from wider geographical locations.

References

Anyon, J. (2005). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and new social movement. New

York, NY: Routledge.
Competencies and skills required for teacher certification in Florida. (2015). 22nd ed. Florida Department

of Education. Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7479/urlt/FTCE_22nd-
Edition-2015_DOE091515.pdf

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

DeJong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English-Language Learners: Is
being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 101–124.

District ELL plan. Lee Country School District. (2016). Retrieved from
http://esol.leeschools.net/document_bank/esol_district/ELL%20PLAN%20-%202016-2019%20-
%20LEE%20COUNTYw.pdf

Ernest, J. (2001). An alternate approach to studying beliefs about developmentally appropriate practices.
Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 2(3), 337-353.

ESOL services guidelines. Lee Country School District. Retrieved from
http://esol.leeschools.net/eManual/Part_1/ESOL%20Guidelines%20Flowchart-
Revised%202016.pdf

FDOE Consent Decree. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/academics/eng-language-
learners/consent-decree.stml

FDOE Rules & Legislation, (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/academics/eng-language-
learners/rules-legislation.stml

FDS Florida Administrative Code & Florida Administrative Register. (2017). Requirement for
identification, eligibility, programmatic assessment of English language learners. Retrieved from
https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ruleno.asp?id=6A-6.0902&Section=0

Garcia, O., Kleifgen, J. & Falchi, I. (2008). From English language learners to emergent bilinguals. New
York: Campaign for Educational Equity. Teachers College, Columbia University.

Giambo, D. A. (2010). High stakes testing, high school graduation, and limited English proficient
students: A case study. American Secondary Education Journal, 38(2), 44-56.

González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households,
communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kagan, S. (2009). Kagan structures: A miracle of active engagement. Kagan Online Magazine,
Retrieved from https://www.kaganonline.com/free_articles/dr_spencer_kagan/281/Kagan-
Structures-A-Miracle-of-Active-Engagement

Lam, R. (2015). Language assessment training in Hong Kong: Implications for language assessment
literacy. Language Testing, 32(2), 169-197.

National Center for Education Statistics (2013). The condition of Education: English Language Learners.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_221.10.asp

Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (Eds). (2004). Brown at 50: King’s dream or Plessy’s nightmare? Cambridge, MA:
Harvard, Civil Rights Project.

Popham, W.J. (2004). Why assessment illiteracy is professional suicide. Educational Leadership, 62(1),
82–83.

Ricento, T. (2005). An Introduction to language policy: Theory and method. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
Romo, V. (2013). English language learners: Public schools’ forgotten kids. Retrieved from

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/06/25/english-language-learners-struggle-public-schools.
Soto, A.R., Hooker, S., Batalova, J. (2015). Top languages spoken by English language learners

nationally and by state. Fact Sheets. Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/top-languages-spoken-english-language-learners-
nationally-and-state

U.S. Census Bureau (2015). State and county QuickFacts. Retrieved from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/12015.html

WIDA’s 2012 Amplification of the English language development standards. Kindergarten-grade 12.
(2014). Retrieved from https://www.wida.us/standards/eld.aspx

Wrigth, W. (2010). Foundation for teaching English language learners. Research, theory, policy, and
practice. Philadelphia: Caslon Publishing.

Zheng, H. (2009). A review of research on EFL preservice teachers’ beliefs and practices. Journal of
Cambridge Studies, 4(1), 73-81.