Brief

 Report  
____________________________  
 

PRESSURE  TO  PASS:  NYSITELL  AND  NYSESLAT  TESTS    

Beth  Clark-­‐Gareca*  
Teachers  College,  Columbia  University  
 
New  initiatives  to  increase  educational  accountability  for  English  language  learners  (ELLs)  through  CR  Part  154  
have  brought  the  use  of  language  proficiency  tests  for  ELLs  into  sharp  focus  in  New  York  State.  This  paper  
outlines  the  stated  purposes  of  the  NYSITELL  and  NYSESLAT  tests,  and  documents  their  implementation  and  
administration  as  identification  and  placement  tests  during  the  2014–15  academic  year.  Questions  related  to  
language  proficiency  constructs,  content  and  language  development,  and  standardization  of  testing  
procedures  are  raised  in  an  effort  to  further  understand  the  consequential  role  of  these  tests  in  public  school  
classrooms.  
 
Keywords:  assessment,  English  language  learners,  English  proficiency  tests,  NYSESLAT,  NYSITELL,  validity  
 
Introduction  
In  the  wake  of  educational  initiatives  such  as  No  Child  Left  Behind  (2001)  and  Race  to  the  Top  (2011),  standardized  
tests  have  become  a  central  part  of  elementary  and  secondary  school  instruction  in  the  United  States.  Recent  calls  
for  educational  accountability  have  also  been  the  catalyst  for  the  development  of  new  mandated  tests  aligned  with  
Common  Core  Standards.  As  of  the  2014–15  academic  year,  these  tests  have  been  piloted  and  implemented  in  a  
number  of  states,  and  are  shaping  instructional  and  curricular  decisions  throughout  the  nation  (PARCC  2015;  
SMARTER  Balanced  Assessment  Consortium,  2015).  
  Students  in  New  York  have  been  greatly  affected  by  the  impact  of  these  new  standardized  tests.  High-­‐stakes  
tests  are  increasingly  the  primary  method  by  which  the  performances  of  programs,  schools,  and  teachers  are  
evaluated  and  ranked,  and  test  scores  carry  considerable  weight  in  day-­‐to-­‐day  school  decision  making  related  to  
students,  teachers,  and  administrators.  In  addition  to  content  tests,  the  rising  accountability  across  assessment  
contexts  has  resulted  in  higher  levels  of  attention  to  standardized  English  language  proficiency  assessment.  Title  III  
funding,  through  the  Elementary  and  Secondary  Education  Act  (ESEA),  has  been  tied  to  English  language  
proficiency  measures.  These  initiatives  are  intended  to  ensure  that  the  academic  progress  of  English  language  
learners  (ELLs)  is  being  measured,  monitored,  and  supported  in  similar  ways  to  those  of  their  English-­‐dominant  
classmates  (NYSED,  2009,  2013).    
  Establishing  the  English  proficiency  levels  of  ELLs  through  valid  and  reliable  testing  measures  is  a  critical  
component  to  providing  appropriate  classroom  instruction  and  English  as  a  new  language  (ENL)  services  for  ELLs.  
New  policies  enacted  at  the  national  level  have  resulted  in  the  mandatory  implementation  of  language  proficiency  
testing  protocols  in  all  states.  WIDA  Access  for  ELLs  is  currently  the  most  widely  administered  English  K–12  
proficiency  test  in  the  United  States.  It  is  mandated  for  ELLs  in  public  schools  in  more  than  30  states  and  
surrounding  territories  (WIDA,  2015).  Other  states  administer  more  locally  designed  proficiency  tests,  including  the  
Texas  English  Language  Proficiency  Assessment  Systems  (TEA,  2014),  the  California  English  Language  Development  
Test  (CDE,  2015),  and  the  Washington  English  Language  Proficiency  Assessment  (OSPI,  2015).  In  New  York,  ELL  
language  proficiency  is  evaluated  through  two  standardized  assessments  used  exclusively  in  the  state:  the  New  
York  State  Identification  Test  of  English  Language  Learners  (NYSITELL)  and  the  New  York  State  English  as  a  Second  
Language  Achievement  Test  (NYSESLAT).      
  The  purpose  of  this  paper  is  to  examine  the  NYSESLAT  and  the  NYSITELL  proficiency  tests,  with  particular  focus  
on  the  implementation  in  the  2014–2015  academic  year.  This  paper  first  outlines  the  structure  of  tests  themselves,  
and  then  the  author  discusses  some  aspects  of  the  rollout  of  the  new  2015  NYSESLAT,  casting  doubt  on  the  validity  
and  reliability  of  its  administration  that  year.  Finally,  the  paper  addresses  issues  of  theory  and  practice  in  light  of  
current  school  pressures  for  ELLs  to  acquire  English  language,  and  offers  some  considerations  for  future  research  
related  to  proficiency  tests  in  New  York.  
 

35       NYS  TESOL  JOURNAL  Vol.  3,  No.  1,  January  2016  

 The  Tests:  NYSITELL  and  NYSESLAT  
  The  NYSITELL  is  an  English  language  proficiency  test  used  to  initially  identify  children  who  qualify  for  ENL  
services  in  school,  and  subsequently  to  place  them  in  appropriate  linguistic  and  instructional  settings  in  New  York  
State  (NYSED,  2014a).  Per  New  York  State  protocols,  the  NYSITELL  must  be  administered  to  prospective  ELLs  within  
ten  days  of  enrollment  in  a  New  York  school  in  order  to  evaluate  students’  English  language  proficiency  and  
provide  timely  services  to  those  who  are  identified  (NYSED,  2014c).  After  administration,  NYSITELL  cutoff  scores  
determine  student  proficiency—if  students  are  found  to  be  already  proficient  in  English,  they  join  general  
education  classrooms  for  instruction  without  ENL  support  services.  If  students’  NYSITELL  scores  indicate  that  they  
are  not  completely  proficient  in  English,  they  will  receive  English  or  bilingual  in-­‐school  support  services  to  promote  
their  English  language  development  (EngageNY,  2015).  
  In  New  York  City,  scores  on  the  NYSITELL  are  an  integral  part  of  the  Department  of  Education’s  definition  of  
ELL—“An  English  Language  Learner  (ELL)  is  a  student  that  speaks  a  language  other  than  English  at  home  and  scores  
below  a  state-­‐designated  level  of  proficiency  in  English  [emphasis  added]  upon  entering  the  New  York  City  public  
school  system”  (NYCDOE,  2010,  p.  6).  The  process  for  identifying  ELLs  has  been  newly  affirmed  in  accordance  with  
CR-­‐Part  154  of  the  Regulations  of  the  Commissioner  of  Education  in  New  York,  which  state,  “[P]ublic  and  charter  
schools  must  administer  an  identification  test  to  newly  enrolled  students  who  by  reason  of  foreign  birth  or  
ancestry  speak  a  language  other  than  English,  and  who  understand  and  speak  little  or  no  English,  to  determine  
whether  they  are  ELLs”  (NYSED,  2014c).  As  these  definitions  imply,  students’  scores  on  NYSITELL  are  determining  
factors  in  their  identification  as  ELLs  and  direct  further  decisions  related  to  implementation  of  specialized  ENL  
services  (NYSED,  2014).  In  the  case  of  the  NYSITELL,  the  test  takers  are  students  who  are  identified  as  having  a  
language  other  than  English,  as  indicated  on  a  Home  Language  Survey  (NYCDOE,  2015).  
  The  NYSESLAT  was  “designed  to  annually  assess  the  English  language  proficiency  of  all  English  Language  
Learners  (ELLs)  enrolled  in  Grades  K-­‐12”  (NYSED,  2015,  p.  2).  Identified  ELLs  are  given  the  NYSESLAT  each  year,  and  
their  scores  indicate  progress  toward  English  language  mastery  along  a  continuum  of  new  proficiency  bands—
Entering,  Emerging,  Transitioning,  Expanding,  or  Commanding  (EngageNY,  2015).  These  delineations  were  changed  
in  recent  test  forms  from  the  four  categories  used  formerly,  Beginning,  Intermediate,  Advanced,  and  Proficient,  to  
five.  NYSESLAT  scores  are  also  used  to  chart  student  gains  toward  exiting  ENL  programming  and  participating  fully  
in  English-­‐only  curriculum  without  specific  ENL  support.    
  NYSESLAT  scores,  through  annual  administration,  are  used  to  monitor  ELL  progress  toward  proficiency.  As  
students  move  through  school  in  New  York,  their  NYSESLAT  scores  are  compared  from  one  year  to  the  next  to  
determine  their  gains  (or  losses)  toward  a  commanding  level  of  English  language  proficiency.  NYSESLAT  scores  also  
contribute  to  accountability  structures  directed  toward  ENL  teachers,  content  teachers,  and  schools,  particularly  if  
students  are  not  making  what  are  considered  adequate  gains  (NYSUT,  2015).  Finally,  NYSESLAT  scores  are  an  
important,  if  not  the  sole,  criterion  in  decisions  related  to  whether  ELLs  are  ready  to  exit  ENL  programs.  Arguably,  
academic  and  social  benefits  result  from  students  exiting  ENL  programs,  as  greater  access  to  general  education  
classes  and  activities  within  the  larger  school  curriculum  is  more  easily  attained  (Cloud,  Lakin,  Leininger,  &  
Maxwell,  2010),  though  students  clearly  benefit  from  ENL  services  during  the  years  that  their  proficiency  is  
developing.  Having  reliable  proficiency  tests  in  place  seems  paramount  to  making  fair  placement  and  exiting  
decisions  for  ELLs.  
  NYSESLAT  test-­‐takers  are  well  described  through  extensive  demographic  data  on  ELL  populations  in  the  state  of  
New  York.  In  2014,  “over  240,000  students  were  eligible  to  take  the  NYSESLAT,  amounting  to  8.9%  of  the  2.7  
million  students  in  New  York  State”  (EngageNY,  2015a,  p.  3).  A  majority  of  these  students  were  beginner-­‐level,  new  
English  learners,  with  25%  being  long-­‐term  ELLs,  having  received  ENL  instruction  for  six  years  or  more.  ELLs  in  all  
grades  in  New  York  public  schools  take  versions  of  the  NYSESLAT  that  are  differentiated  by  grade  level  and  offer  
age-­‐appropriate  cognitive  tasks  for  a  variety  of  age  groups  (EngageNY,  2015a;  NYSED,  2015b).    
  NYSITELL  and  NYSESLAT  are  newly  and  fully  aligned  with  grade-­‐level  curriculum  according  to  Common  Core  
Standards  (NYSED,  2015);  a  fact  which  suggests  that  students  need  to  have  developed  a  certain  level  of  English  
proficiency  to  be  able  to  take  part  in  academic  content  tasks  appropriate  to  their  grade  level.  In  terms  of  task  
types,  test  items  are  clearly  delineated  through  materials  available  online  (NYSED,  2015b).  Selected  response  tasks  
in  the  form  of  multiple-­‐choice  items,  particularly  for  the  listening  and  reading  sections,  are  implemented  in  both  
tests.  For  the  speaking  and  writing  sections,  constructed  response  items  are  used  to  evaluate  students’  ability  to  
produce  spoken  and  written  English.  In  total,  there  are  60  questions  for  kindergarten  and  67  questions  for  grades  

36       NYS  TESOL  JOURNAL  Vol.  3,  No.  1,  January  2016  

1–12.  Though  the  test  administrations  are  untimed,  it  is  expected  that  each  test  may  take  between  35–55  minutes  
to  complete  (EngageNY,  2015c;  NYSED,  2015b).  Scores  indicate  the  level  of  proficiency  a  student  has  developed  
from  entering  to  commanding,  and  determine  the  amount  and  intensity  of  ENL  support  that  a  student  is  entitled  to  
receive  in  a  school  environment.  
 
Sources  of  Confusion:  Clarifying  the  Construct  of  Proficiency  
  In  order  to  place  ELLs  in  suitable  instructional  settings  and  to  set  attainable  learning  goals,  consensus  on  what  
constitutes  language  proficiency  must  be  reached.  In  the  case  of  a  language  proficiency  test,  stakeholders,  i.e.  
administrators,  teachers,  students,  and  politicians,  need  to  determine  what  is  meant  by  language  proficiency  
specific  to  a  particular  context.  Different  assessment  components  which  can  demonstrate  a  test-­‐taker’s  English  
mastery  in  different  domains,  e.g.,  pronunciation,  pragmatics,  grammar,  or  mechanics,  may  be  included  or  
excluded  in  tested  material  depending  on  the  intention  of  the  test.  Typically,  test  designers  determine  what  
constitutes  the  construct  of  language  proficiency,  a  process  which  involves  deciding  which  aspects  of  a  test-­‐taker’s  
linguistic  competence  need  to  be  measured,  and  how  assessment  conditions  can  be  extended  to  real  tasks  in  the  
Target  Language  Use  (TLU)  domain,  i.e.,  how  closely  the  test  tasks  approximate  real  tasks  that  test-­‐takers  may  
need  to  complete.  
In  the  case  of  NYSESLAT  and  NYSITELL,  both  tests  were  designed  to  measure  students’  “English  language  
proficiency”  (NYSED,  2014a,  2014b)  but  the  testing  guidelines  do  not  further  explicate  exactly  what  specific  
linguistic  components  contribute  to  this  conceptualized  construct  of  proficiency.  Test  blueprints  refer  to  the  fact  
that  NYSESLAT  is  implemented  to  fulfill  requirements  to  assess  students’  progress  in  acquiring  English,  including  
comprehension,  speaking,  listening,  reading,  and  writing,  as  well  as  meeting  the  rigors  of  content  standards  
(Pearson,  2009),  but  more  specific  information  about  the  construct  in  an  academic  context  is  somewhat  limited.  
  Taking  all  of  the  above  into  consideration,  questions  arise  as  to  how  to  draw  the  line  between  language  
proficiency  and  content  proficiency.  In  fact,  some  construct-­‐related  doubt  persists  in  terms  of  whether  the  
NYSESLAT  was  conceptualized  as  a  language  proficiency  test  or  a  language  arts  test.  In  archived  test  materials  
from  2003,  test  designers  stated  that  the  purpose  of  the  NYSESLAT  was  “to  measure  the  English  language-­‐arts  
proficiency  of  limited-­‐English  proficient  students”  (SED,  2003).  In  the  2015  administration,  materials  state  that  
testing  content  is  not  the  intent  of  the  NYSESLAT:  “the  linguistic  demands  [of  the  test]  reflect  the  language  
required  to  access  grade  level  content,  rather  than  the  content  itself”  (NYSED,  2015b,  p.  9).  Nonetheless,  further  
explication  of  how  language  to  access  content  differs  from  the  language  of  content  itself  is  necessary,  as  it  is  likely  
that  significant  overlap  exists  between  these  two  domains.  New  documents  made  available  very  recently  specify  
what  NYSESLAT  is  intended  to  measure,  stating  that  “The  Spring  2015  NYSESLAT  measures  the  Linguistic  Demands  
necessary  to  meet  the  discipline-­‐specific  standards  at  the  corresponding  grade-­‐band  level”  (p.  7).  Grade-­‐band  level  
here  refers  to  the  delineations  of  proficiency,  ranging  from  entering  to  commanding  according  to  a  child’s  grade  
level,  but  to  what  extent  those  linguistic  demands  differ  between  L1  English  speakers  and  ELLs  is  still  in  question.  
  If  the  NYSESLAT  is  an  English  language  proficiency  test,  then  it  would  stand  to  reason  that  children  who  do  not  
score  in  the  proficient  ranges  on  the  NYSESLAT  could  not  possibly  do  well  on  standardized  English  language  arts  
(ELA)  content  exams.  However,  new  policy  stipulations  implemented  this  academic  year  indicate  otherwise.  As  of  
2015–16,  ELLs  can  demonstrate  English  language  proficiency  and  exit  from  ENL  programs  in  the  following  three  
ways:  
1. Scor[ing]  at  “proficient/commanding”  level  on  the  NYSESLAT.  
2. Scor[ing]  at  “advanced/expanding”  level  on  the  NYSESLAT  and  level  3  or  4  on  the  grades  3  to  8  NYS  ELA  
exams.  
3. Scor[ing]  at  “advanced/expanding”  level  on  the  NYSESLAT  and  65  or  above  on  the  NYS  ELA  Regents  exam.  
(NYCDOE,  2015,  p.  39)  
  The  fact  that  this  new  policy  allows  ELLs  to  exit  from  ENL  programs  based  on  a  combination  of  standardized  
content  scores  and  proficiency  scores  is  cause  for  concern.  As  indicated  in  the  above  guidelines,  if  it  is  possible  for  
a  student  to  pass  the  academically  rigorous  ELA  exam  with  a  score  of  3  or  4,  or  the  Regents  ELA  exam  with  a  score  
of  65  or  higher,  without  scoring  a  proficient  level  of  English  on  the  NYSESLAT,  the  level  of  language  skills  and  tasks  
that  are  expected  on  the  NYSESLAT  need  to  be  reexamined.  Perhaps,  in  some  cases,  these  decisions  can  be  
defended  if  a  student’s  scores  on  the  NYSESLAT  in  listening  or  speaking  sections  are  the  cause  of  the  low  scores,  
because  there  are  no  such  corresponding  sections  on  native  (L1)  ELA  tests.  Nonetheless,  if  the  English  language  

37       NYS  TESOL  JOURNAL  Vol.  3,  No.  1,  January  2016  

demands  of  a  standardized  English  proficiency  test  are  more  rigorous  than  a  language  arts  test  designed  for  L1  
English  speakers,  then  the  expectations  of  the  proficiency  test  may  simply  be  too  high.  
  More  anecdotally,  ENL  teachers  in  the  field  have  claimed  widespread,  irregular  implementation  of  the  new  
form  of  the  NYSESLAT  in  the  spring  of  2015.  Also  in  2015,  NYSESLAT  administration  reflected  five  shifts  in  
implementation,  which  included  Common  Core  alignment,  performance  levels,  integration  of  themes,  complexity,  
and  academic  language  (EngageNY,  2015b).  Some  problems  that  have  been  documented  in  the  2015  
administration  relate  to  lack  of  rater  and  administrator  training,  errors  within  the  test,  confusing  items  and  errors  
in  visuals,  difficulties  with  rater  norming,  and  concerns  about  validity  and  reliability  of  the  measure  in  general  
(NYSUT,  2015).    
  Students’  NYSESLAT  proficiency  scores  from  2015  were  rated  on  a  new  scale,  and  were  not  aligned  with  scores  
from  previous  years  until  after  the  2015  spring  administration  (NYSED,  2015b).  Guidelines  issued  by  the  NYS  
Department  of  Education  (DOE)  stated  that  until  these  alignments  were  completed  (late  in  summer  2015),  
statewide  percentages  of  students  classified  at  different  performance  levels  would  be  retrofitted  to  correspond  
with  similar  levels  earned  in  2014  (NYSED,  2015b),  calling  into  question  the  accuracy  of  documentation  of  ELL  
progress  from  one  year  to  the  next.  Once  the  alignments  were  created,  the  DOE  planned  to  create  focus  groups  of  
educators  to  give  feedback  on  the  new  version  of  the  test,  in  particular,  “measurement  of  the  standards,  as  well  as  
any  gap  between  current  levels  and  potential  future  levels  of  students  identified  for  required  services”  (p.  5).  The  
fact  that  alignment  processes  between  2014  and  2015  scores  were  slated  to  take  place  after  general  test  
administration  suggests  that  the  2015  test  administration  was  used,  at  least  in  part,  as  a  pilot  test  for  future  
administrations.  Because  of  such  irregularity  in  both  the  test  administration  and  the  continuity  of  scale  from  one  
year  to  the  next,  scores  from  the  2015  NYSESLAT  administrations  may  not  accurately  illustrate  ELL  proficiency  
levels  and  should  be  interpreted  with  caution  when  making  educational  decisions  for  ELLs.  
 
 
 
Pressure  and  Proficiency  
  There  is  a  new  sense  of  urgency  toward  English  language  acquisition  in  public  schools  in  New  York,  instantiated  
by  a  series  of  policies  that  ultimately  may  not  be  in  students’  or  teachers’  best  interests.  For  example,  new  
initiatives  have  made  students’  performance  on  the  NYSESLAT  a  consequential  part  of  the  teacher’s  performance  
review;  that  is,  an  ENL  teacher’s  effectiveness  is  determined  at  least  in  part,  by  student  performance  and  gains  on  
proficiency  measures  (NYSUT,  2015).  In  addition,  funding  is  currently  inconsistently  allocated  to  schools  to  support  
students  with  interrupted  formal  education  (SIFE)  or  long-­‐term  ELLs  who  have  not  achieved  English  proficiency  
after  six  years  of  ENL  services  (NYSED,  2014).  After  these  six  years,  districts  are  still  obligated  to  continue  to  
provide  ENL  services  to  students;  however,  funding  sources  shift,  creating  new  school-­‐related  pressure  for  
students  to  acquire  English  ever  more  quickly.  
Pressuring  children  to  make  gains  on  language  proficiency  tests  is  the  unfortunate  result  of  accountability  
measures  gone  awry.  In  the  field,  there  is  prevalent  understanding  that  developing  academic  language  proficiency  
can  take  between  5–7  years  (Collier,  1987;  Cummins,  1981),  and  more  recently,  it  has  been  suggested  that  
progress  toward  proficiency  can  take  even  longer  depending  on  a  range  of  individual  factors  including  family  
involvement  and  support  for  continued  home  language  development  (Cloud  et  al.,  2010).    
Theoretically  speaking,  a  test  that  truly  measures  language  proficiency  cannot  be  studied  for,  nor,  by  extension,  
can  a  language  proficiency  test  be  failed.  A  proficiency  test  is  a  tool  that  captures  and  records  students’  language  
levels  at  a  given  moment  in  time,  and  is  designed  to  describe  the  features  of  linguistic  ability  that  students  have  
developed  as  reflected  through  their  test  performance.  It  is  the  imposition  of  cut  scores  and  labels,  such  as  
“emerging”  or  “transitional,”  that  lead  practitioners  toward  thinking  that  NYSITELL  and  NYSESLAT  are  tests  to  be  
passed,  nothing  more.    Viewing  language  proficiency  progress  through  a  lens  of  passing,  failing,  or  making  
arbitrarily  determined  adequate  gains  can  cause  the  complexities  of  language  acquisition  processes  to  be  
oversimplified,  and  be  detrimental  to  a  system’s  tolerance  of  the  natural  differences  that  exist  in  the  ways  that  
children  learn  English.    
Policies  that  reward  proficiency  development  within  standardized,  determined  time  frames  are  often  the  
reason  that  schools  decide  to  dedicate  more  time  to  test  preparation.  In  the  case  of  ELLs,  test  preparation  may  
indeed  facilitate  quicker  exit  from  ENL  programs.  NYSESLAT  test  materials  themselves  discourage  preparing  

38       NYS  TESOL  JOURNAL  Vol.  3,  No.  1,  January  2016  

students  for  the  test,  suggesting  that  students  who  engage  in  extensive  test  prep  may  artificially  receive  a  higher  
NYSESLAT  performance  level  than  appropriate,  which  will  likely  result  in  the  withdrawal  or  scaling  down  of  services  
(NYSED,  2015c,  p.  6).    
There  is  a  need  for  valid  and  reliable  measures  to  guide  the  services  and  support  given  to  ELLs.  In  fact,  these  
tools  are  critically  important  to  understanding  students’  progress  toward  proficiency.  Large-­‐scale,  empirical  studies  
on  the  implementation  of  the  NYSITELL  and  the  NYSESLAT  tests  are  warranted  to  examine  the  process  by  which  
these  tests  are  being  administered  and  scored.  Decision-­‐making  processes  based  on  test  scores  need  to  also  be  
carefully  scrutinized.  Teachers  and  administrators  should  receive  professional  development  on  the  perils  of  
inflated  scores  through  test  preparation,  which,  in  the  case  of  language  proficiency,  can  result  in  misguided  
decisions  for  ELL  instruction  or  placement.  
  With  regard  to  the  newest  version  of  NYSESLAT,  in  future  administrations,  appropriate  steps  should  be  taken  
toward  (a)  more  clearly  defining  the  construct  of  language  proficiency,  (b)  increasing  the  reliability  of  scores  and  
the  validity  of  subsequent  test-­‐related  inferences,  and  (c)  standardizing  test  administration,  including  specific  rater  
training  and  testing  policies.  By  improving  and  standardizing  the  administration  of  the  NYSITELL  and  NYSESLAT,  
scores  can  become  invaluable  sources  of  information  for  understanding  language  development  and  furthering  the  
academic  progress  of  ELLs  throughout  the  state  of  New  York.  
 
 
References  
California  Department  of  Education  (CDE).  (2015).  California  English  Language     Development  Test  (CELDT).  
Retrieved  from  http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/  
Cloud,  N.,  Lakin,  J.,  Leininger,  E.,  &  Maxwell,  L.  (2010).  Teaching  adolescent  English  language  learners.  Philadelphia,  
PA:  Caslon  Publishing.  
Collier,  V.  P.  (1987).  Age  and  rate  of  acquisition  of  second  language  of  academic  purposes,  TESOL  Quarterly,  21,  
617–641.  
Cummins,  J.  (1981).  Age  on  arrival  and  immigrant  second  language  learning  in  Canada:  A  reassessment.  Applied  
Linguistics,  2,  132–149.  
EngageNY  (2015).  Spring  2015  NYSESLAT  performance  level  descriptors.  Retrieved  from  
https://www.engageny.org/resource/spring-­‐2015-­‐nyseslat-­‐performance-­‐level-­‐descriptions  
EngageNY  (2015a).  NYSESLAT  2015:  New  York  State  ELL  demographics.  Retrieved  from  
https://www.engageny.org/file/127756/download/nyseslat-­‐2015-­‐ell-­‐demographic-­‐slides.ppt  
EngageNY  (2015b).  Structure  of  the  NYSESLAT  for  grades  K-­‐12.  Retrieved  from  
https://www.engageny.org/resource/overview-­‐spring-­‐2015-­‐nyseslat  
New  York  City  Department  of  Education  (NYCDOE)  (2010).  EPIC  facilitators’  guide:  A  manual  for  the  ELL  Parent  
Information  Case  (EPIC).  Retrieved  from  http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/08F60DF2-­‐38EC-­‐432C-­‐8B76-­‐
FB643B3D960A/0/EPICFacilitatorsGuide_FINAL2010.pdf  
New  York  City  Department  of  Education  (NYCDOE)  (2015).  English  Language  Learner  Policy  and  Reference  Guide.  
Retrieved  from  http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/cdm385/  
Page_Resources/ELL_Policy_Reference_Guide_052415.pdf  
New  York  State  Education  Department  (NYSED)  (2009).  New  York  State  testing  program,  The  grades  K-­‐12  New  York  
State  English  as  a  Second  Language  Achievement  Test  (NYSESLAT):  A  parent’s  guide.  Retrieved  from  
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/assessment/nyseslat/brochure/2009/pg-­‐eng-­‐09rev.pdf  
New  York  State  Education  Department  (NYSED)  (2013).  Parent  report.  Retrieved  from  
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/assessment/nyseslat/interpretiveguide/2013/pr-­‐   13eng.pdf  
New  York  State  Education  Department  (NYSED)  (2014).  Procedures  for  requesting,  shipping,  and  storing  the  2014-­‐
15  New  York  State  Identification  Test  for  English  Language  Learners  (NYSITELL).  Retrieved  from  
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/assessment/nysitell/2015/1360-­‐15.pdf    
New  York  State  Education  Department  (NYSED)  (2014a).  New  York  State  testing  program,  New  York  State  
Identification  Test  for  English  Language  Learners,  Guide  to  the  NYSITELL.  Retrieved  from  
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/assessment/nysitell/nysitellguiderevw.pdf  

39       NYS  TESOL  JOURNAL  Vol.  3,  No.  1,  January  2016  

New  York  State  Education  Department  (NYSED)  (2014b).  New  York  State  testing  program,  New  York  State  English  
as  a  Second  Language  Achievement  Test,  Guide  to  the  2014  NYSESLAT.  Retrieved  from  
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/assessment/sam/nyseslat/nyseslat-­‐guide-­‐14.pdf  
New  York  State  Education  Department  (NYSED)  (2014c).  Ensuring  equal  educational  opportunities  for  English  
Language  Learners:  Amended  Commissioner’s  regulations  Part  154,  adopted  9/15/2014.  Retrieved  from  
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/biling/docs/CRPART154Overview-­‐webversion.pdf  
New  York  State  Education  Department  (NYSED)  (2015).  Spring  2015  NYSESLAT:  Questions  and  answers  updated,  
March  23rd,  2015.  Retrieved  from  https://www.engageny.org/file/.../nyseslat-­‐2015-­‐02-­‐overview-­‐shifts.pdf  
New  York  State  Education  Department  (NYSED)  (2015b).  Spring  2015  NYSESLAT:  Questions  and  answers  updated,  
August  20,  2015.  Retrieved  from  https://www.engageny.org/file/.../nyseslat-­‐2015-­‐02-­‐overview-­‐   shifts.pdf  
New  York  State  Education  Department  (NYSED)  (2015c).  New  York  State  LEP/ELL  Identification  Process.      Retrieved  
from  http://www.p12.nysed.gov/biling/bilinged/pub/LEPproc.pdf  
New  York  State  United  Teachers  (NYSUT)  (2015).  Webinar  on  NYSESLAT,  June  9,  2015.  
Office  of  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  (OSPI)  (2015).  Washington  English  Language  Proficiency  Assessment.  
Retrieved  from  http://www.k12.wa.us/Assessment/EL/  
PARCC  (2013).  Career  and  college  readiness  for  the  next  generation.  Retrieved  from  http://parcc.pearson.com  
Pearson  (2009).  New  York  State  Testing  Program:  English  as  a  Second  Language  Achievement  Test.  2008  
Administration  Technical  Manual.  Retrieved  from  http://www.p12.nysed.gov/assessment/reports/  
nyseslat-­‐techrep-­‐08.pdf  
SMARTER  Balanced  Assessment  Consortium  (2013).  Retrieved  from  http://www.smarterbalanced.org  
State  Education  Department  (SED)  (2003).  NYSESLAT—New  York  State  English  as  a  Second  Language  Achievement  
Test,  Manual  for  administrators  and  teachers,  2003  edition.  Retrieved  from    
  http://www.p12.nysed.gov/assessment/nyseslat/archive/2003/nyseslatmanta.pdf  
Texas  Education  Agency  (TEA)  (2014).  TELPAS  resources.  Retrieved  from  
http://tea.texas.gov/student.assessment/ell/telpas/.  
WIDA  (2015).  Consortium  members.  Retrieved  from     https://www.wida.us/membership/states  
 
 

 
 
______________________________  
*Corresponding  author:  [email protected]  

40       NYS  TESOL  JOURNAL  Vol.  3,  No.  1,  January  2016