The current interest in evaluating teachers and teacher education programs provides an opportunity to consider the education of diverse learners in K-12 schools in the United States. We address teaching English language learners (ELLs), a rapidly growing population. Challenges lie in holding content teachers of ELLs accountable as they are not adequately prepared to teach ELLs. In this article, we outline complexities surrounding the definition of the quality of teaching content to ELLs, provide an overview of existing teacher evaluation instruments, and discuss the difficulties in using ELL test scores to estimate the teacher contributions to academic growth of ELLs.
AbediJ. (2002). Standardized achievement tests and English language learners: Psychometrics issues. Educational Assessment, 8, 231-257.
2.
AbediJ. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4-14.
3.
AbediJ. (2006). Performance of English language learners as a subgroup in large-scale assessment: Interaction of research and policy. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25, 36-46.
4.
AbediJ. (2008). Classification system for English language learners: Issues and recommendations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(3), 17-31.
5.
AbediJ. (2011). Language issues in the design of accessible items. In ElliottS. N.KettlerR. J.BeddowP. A.KurzA. (Eds.), Handbook of accessible achievement tests for all students: Bridging the gaps between research, practice, and policy (pp. 217-230). New York, NY: Springer.
6.
American Federation of Teachers. (2004, March). Closing the achievement gap: Focus on Latino students (Policy Brief 17). Washington, DC: Author.
7.
ArdisanaV. L. (2007). Standards-based mathematics strategies for the improvement of academic language: A quasi-experimental study (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3257720)
8.
BealC. R.AdamsM. N.CohenR. C. (2010). Reading proficiency and mathematics problem solving by high school English language learners. Urban Education, 45, 58-74.
9.
BetebennerD. (2009). Norm- and criterion-referenced student growth. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28, 42-51.
10.
BraunH. (2005). Using student progress to evaluate teachers: A primer on value-added models. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
11.
BrophyJ. E. (1973). Stability of teacher effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal, 10, 245-252.
12.
ChristieF.MartinJ. R. (1997). Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school. London, England: Cassell.
13.
CivilM. (2002). Culture and mathematics: A community approach. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 23(2), 133-148.
14.
Cochran-SmithM.ZeichnerK. M. (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
CoelhoE. (2004). Creating a supportive language learning environment. In RiversD. (Ed.), Adding English: A guide to teaching in multilingual classrooms (pp. 183-199). Don Mills, Ontario, Canada: Pippin.
16.
CronbachL. J. (1988). Five perspectives on validation argument. In WainerH.BraunH. (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 34-35). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
Darling-HammondL.BransfordJ. (2006). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
18.
Darling-HammondL.DieckmannJ.HaertelE.LotanR.NewtonX.PhiliposeS.. . .WilliamsonP. (2010). Studying teacher effectiveness: The challenges of developing valid measures. In WalfordG.TuckerE.ViswanathanM. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of measurement (pp. 87-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
de JongE.HarperC. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English language learners: Is being a good teacher good enough?Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 101-124.
20.
DennisR. L. (2004). The effects of the sheltered instruction observation protocol model on the vocabulary development of English language learners in the content area (Doctoral dissertation, California State University). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 1424799)
21.
de OliveiraL. C.AthanasesS. Z. (2007). Graduates’ reports of advocating for English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 202-215.
22.
DohertyR. W.HilbergS. R.EpalooseG.TharpR. G. (2002). Standards performance continuum: Development and validation of a measure of effective pedagogy. Journal of Educational Research, 96, 78-89.
23.
DoyleW. (1977). Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. Review of Research in Education, 5, 163-198.
24.
EchevarriaJ. (2005). Using SIOP in science: Response to Settlage, Madsen, and Rustad. Issues in Teacher Education, 14(1), 59-62.
25.
EchevarríaJ. A.VogtM. J.ShortD. J. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
26.
FaircloughN. (1989). Language and power. London, England: Longman.
27.
FangZ. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 491-520.
28.
FranquizM. E.de la Luz ReyesM. (1998). Creating inclusive learning communities through English language arts: From Chanclas to Canicas. Language Arts, 75, 211-220.
29.
FurnerJ. M.YahyaN.DuffyM. L. (2005). Teaching mathematics: Strategies to reach all students. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, 21-63.
30.
GageN. L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4-10.
31.
GándaraP.Maxwell-JollyJ.DriscollA. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language learners: A Survey of California teachers’ challenges, experiences, and professional development needs. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
32.
GarrisonL.MoraJ. K. (1999). Adapting mathematics instruction for English language learners: The language–concept connections. In Ortiz-FrancoL.HernandezN.de la CruzY. (Eds.), Changing the faces of mathematics: Perspectives on Latinos (pp. 35-48). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
33.
GebhardM.WillettJ.PabloJ.CaicedoJ.PiedraA. (2011). Systemic functional linguistics, teachers’ professional development, and ELLs’ academic literacy practices. In LucasT. (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 55-73). New York, NY: Routledge.
34.
GerstenR. (1999). Lost opportunities: Challenges confronting four teachers of English-language learners. Elementary School Journal, 100, 37-56.
GonzalezN.AndradeR.CivilM.MollL. (2001). Bridging funds of distributed knowledge: Creating zones of practices in mathematics. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 6, 115-132.
37.
GonzalezN.MollL. C.AmantiC. (Eds.). (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
GortM. (2003). Transdisciplinary approaches in the education of ELLs. In KaufmanD.MossD.OsbornT. A. (Eds.), Beyond the boundaries: A transdisciplinary approach to learning and teaching (pp. 117-130). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
39.
GuerreroM. D. (2004). Acquiring academic English in one year: An unlikely proposition for English Language Learners. Urban Education, 39, 172-199.
40.
GutiérrezR. (2002). Beyond essentialism: The complexity of language in teaching mathematics to Latina/o students. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 1047-1088.
41.
HallidayM. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London, England: Edward Arnold.
42.
HancockD. R. (2002). The effects of native language books on the pre-literacy skill development of language minority kindergartners. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 17, 62-68.
43.
HarperC.de JongE. D. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching English language learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48, 152-162.
44.
HarrisD. N. (2011). Value-added measures in education: What every educator needs to know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45.
HelmanL. A.BurnsM. K. (2008). What does oral language have to do with it? Helping young English-language learners acquire a sight word vocabulary. Reading Teacher, 62, 14-19.
46.
HendricksonA. (2007). An NCME instructional module on multistage testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26, 44-52.
47.
JanzenJ. (2008). Teaching English language learners in the content areas. Review of Educational Research, 78, 1010-1038.
48.
JohnstoneC.AltmanJ.ThurlowM. (2006). A state guide to the development of universally designed assessments. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
49.
JonesN. D.BrownellM. T. (2014). Examining the use of classroom observations in the evaluation of special education teachers. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 39(2), 112-124.
50.
JonesN.BuzickH.TurkanS. (2013). Including students with disabilities and English language learners in measures of educator effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 234-241.
51.
KaneM. T. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 319-342.
52.
KaneM. (2006). Validation. In BrennanR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 18-64). Westport, CT: Praeger.
53.
KhistyL. (2001). Effective teachers of second language learners in mathematics. In den Heuvel-PanhuizenvanM. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 225-232). Utrecht, The Netherlands: Freudenthal Institute.
LipkaJ.HoganM. P.WebsterJ. P.YanezE.AdamsB.ClarkS.LacyD. (2005). Math in a cultural context: Two case studies of a successful culturally based math project. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 36, 367-385.
LucasT.VillegasA. M.Freedson-GonzalezM. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 361-373.
58.
MartinielloM. (2008). Language and the performance of English language learners in math word problems. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 333-368.
59.
McCaffreyD. F.LockwoodJ. R. (2011). Missing data in value-added modeling of teacher effects. Annals of Applied Statistics, 5, 773-797.
60.
McCaffreyD. F.LockwoodJ. R.KoretzD.LouisT. A.HamiltonL. (2004). Models for value-added modeling of teacher effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 67-101.
61.
McDonaldM. A. (2005). The integration of social justice in teacher education: Dimensions of prospective teachers’ opportunities to learn. Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 418-435.
62.
McIntyreE.KyleD.ChenC.MuñozM.BeldonS. (2010). Teacher learning and ELL reading achievement in sheltered instruction classrooms: Linking professional development to student development. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49, 334-351.
63.
MenkenK.AntunezB. (2001). An overview of the preparation and certification of teachers working with limited English proficient (LEP) students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
64.
MessickS. (1989). Validity. In LinnR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 13-103). New York, NY: Macmillan.
65.
MinerK. A. (2006). Fostering teacher efficacy for teaching elementary English language learning students using the sheltered instruction observation protocol and systems-level supports a case study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon). Retrieved from ProQuest digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 3231250)
66.
MollL. (1990). Vygotsky and education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
NewtonX.Darling-HammondL.HaertelE.ThomasE. (2010). Value-added modeling of teacher effectiveness: An exploration of stability across models and contexts. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 18(23). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/810
69.
OlsenL. (2010). Reparable harm: Fulfilling the unkept promise of educational opportunity for California’s long term English learners. Long Beach: Californians Together. Retrieved from http://www.californianstogether.org/
70.
PadronY. N. (1994). Comparing reading instruction in Hispanic/Limited English-Proficient schools and other inner-city schools. Bilingual Research Journal, 18, 49-66.
71.
PadronY. N.WaxmanH. C. (1999). Classroom observations of the Five Standards of Effective Teaching in Urban Classrooms with ELLs. Teaching and Change, 7(1), 79-100.
72.
PadronY. N.WaxmanH. C.HuangS. L. (1999). Classroom and instructional learning environment differences between resilient and non-resilient elementary school students. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk of Failure, 4(1), 63-81.
73.
Pennock-RomanM.RiveraC. (2011). Mean effects of test accommodations for ELLs and non-ELLs: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30, 10-28.
74.
ReeseL.GarnierH.GallimoreR.GoldenbergC. (2000). Longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of emergent Spanish literacy and middle-school English reading achievement of Spanish-speaking students. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 633-662.
75.
ReevesJ. R. (2006). Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English-language learners in mainstream classrooms. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 131-142.
76.
RiveraC.CollumE. (Eds.). (2006). State assessment policy and practice for English language learners: A national perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
77.
RosenshineB. (1970). The stability of teacher effects upon student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 40, 647-662.
78.
RossS. M.SmithL. J. (1996). Classroom observation measure observer’s manual. Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis.
79.
SamwayK.McKeonD. (2007). Myths and realities: Best practices for English language learners (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
80.
SchleppegrellM. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
81.
SchleppegrellM. J.AchugarM.OteízaT. (2004). The grammar of history: Enhancing content-based instruction through a functional focus on language. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 67-93.
82.
SettlageJ.MadsenA.Rustad (2005). Inquiry science, sheltered instruction, and English language learners: Conflicting pedagogies in highly diverse classrooms. Issues in Teacher Education, 14(1), 39-57.
83.
ShortD.EchevarriaJ. (1999). The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol: A Tool for Teacher Researcher Collaboration and Professional Development. Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence.
84.
Solano-FloresG. (2009). The testing of English language learners as a stochastic process: Population misspecification, measurement error, and overgeneralization. In ErcikanK.RothW. M. (Eds.), Generalizing from educational research (pp. 33-45). New York, NY: Routledge.
TurkanS.Oliveirade L.LeeO.PhelpsG. (2014). Proposing the knowledge base for teaching academic content to English language learners: Disciplinary linguistic knowledge. Teachers College Record, 116(3), 1-30.
ValdésG.CastellónM. (2010). English language learners in American schools: Characteristics and challenges. In LucasT. (Ed.), Teacher preparation for linguistically diverse classrooms: A resource for teacher educators (pp. 18-34). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
VogtM.EchevarriaJ. (2008). 99 ideas and activities for teaching English learners with the SIOP model. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
94.
VygotskyL. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
95.
WaxmanH. C.HilbergS.TharpR. G. (2004). Future directions for classroom observation research. In WaxmanH. C.TharpR. G.Soleste HilbergR. (Eds.), Observational research in U.S. classrooms: New approaches for understanding cultural and linguistic diversity (pp. 266-277). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
96.
WaxmanH. C.HuangS. L. (1997). Classroom instruction and learning environment differences between effective and ineffective urban elementary schools for African American students. Urban Education, 32, 7-44.
97.
WaxmanH. C.PadronY. N. (2004). Classroom observation schedule. In WaxmanH. C.TharpR. G.Soleste HilbergR. (Eds.), Observational research in U.S. classrooms: New approaches for understanding cultural and linguistic diversity (pp. 72-97). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
98.
WaxmanH. C.PadronY. N.Franco-FuenmayorS. E.HuangS. L. (2009). Observing classroom instruction for ELLs from student, teacher, and classroom perspective. TABE Journal, 11(1), 63-95.
99.
WaxmanH. C.PadronY. N.ShinJ.-Y.RiveraH. H. (2008). Closing the achievement gap within reading and mathematics classrooms by fostering Hispanic students’ educational resilience. International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 3(1), 24-34.
100.
WaxmanH. C.WangM. C.LindvallM.AndersonK. A. (1988). Classroom observation schedule technical manual. Pittsburgh, PA: Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.
101.
WolfM. K.KaoJ. C.RiveraN. M.ChangS. M. (2012). Accommodation practices for English language learners in states’ mathematics assessments. Teachers College Record. Available from http://www.tcrecord.org/
102.
WolfM. K.Leon (2009). An investigation of the language demands in content assessments for English language learners. Educational Assessment, 14, 139-159.
103.
YoungJ. W. (2009). A framework for test validity research on content assessments taken by English language learners. Educational Assessment, 14, 122-138.
104.
YoungJ. W.ChoY.LingG.ClineF.SteinbergJ.StoneE. (2008). Validity and fairness of state standards-based assessments for English language learners. Educational Assessment, 13, 170-192.
105.
YoungJ. W.KingT. (2008). Testing accommodations for English language learners: A review of state and district policies (College Board Research Report No. 6). New York, NY: The College Board.
106.
ZeichnerK. M. (2003). The adequacies and inadequacies of three current strategies to recruit, prepare, and retain the best teachers for all students. Teachers College Record, 105, 490-519.
