Examining the validity of the Arizona English Language Learners Assessment cut scores

Language Policy

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 33-45

  Florez, Ida Rose ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

AZELLA; Educational language policy; English learners; Immigration; Language assessment; United States language policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84858289867     PISSN: 15684555     EISSN: 15731863     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10993-011-9225-4     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Abedi, J. (2007). English language proficiency assessment in the nation: Current status and future practice. Davis, C. A.: University of California, Davis.
2. American Educational Research Association, The American Psychological Association, & The National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, D. C.: American Educational Research Association, The American Psychological Association, and The National Council on Measurement in Education.
3. Arizona Department of Education & Harcourt Assessments, Inc. (2007). Arizona English language learner assessment. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of Education [ADE] and Harcourt Assessments, Inc. [Harcourt].
4. Bourque, M. L. (2009). A history of NAEP achievement levels: Issues, implementation, and impact 1989-2009. Washington, D. C.: National Assessment Governing Board.
5. Brown, W. (2000). Reporting NAEP by achievement levels: An analysis of policy and external reviews. In M. L. Bourque & S. Byrd (Eds.). Student performance standards on the National Assessment of Educational Progress: Affirmations and improvements. Washington, D. C.: National Assessment Governing Board.
6. Hambleton, R. K., & Pitoniak, M. J. (2007). Setting performance standards. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (Fourth ed., pp. 433-470). Westport, C. T.: Praeger.
7. Lesaux, N. K., Rupp, A. A., & Siegel, L. S. (2007). Growth in reading skills of children from diverse linguistic backgrounds: Findings from a 5-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 821-834.
8. Mahoney, K., Haladyna, T., & Macswan, J. (2010). The need for multiple measures in reclassification decisions: A validity study of the Standford English language proficiency test. In P. Gandara, M. Hopkins, P. Gandara, & M. Hopkins (Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies (pp. 240-262). New York, N. Y.: Teachers College Press.
9. Meisels, S. J. (1986). Testing four- and five-year-olds: Response to Salzer and to Shepard and Smith. Educational Leadership, 44, 90-92.
10. Nagle, R. J. (2007). Issues in preschool assessment. In B. A. Bracken & R. J. Nagle (Eds.), Psychoeducational assessment of preschool children (Fourth ed.). Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) & National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE). (2003). Early childhood curriculum, assessment and program evaluation: Building an effective, accountable system in programs for children birth through age 8 (position statement with expended resources). Washington D. C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Retrieved from www. naeyc. org/about/positions/pdf/pscape. pdf.
12. Reckase, M. D. (2000). A survey and evaluation of recently developed procedures for setting standards on educational tests. In M. L. Bourque & S. Byrd (Eds.), Student performance standards on the National Assessment of Educational Progress: Affirmation and improvements. Washington, D. C.: National Assessment Governing Board.