Free CTEL 2: Assessment and Instruction Study Guide

(1) How ELD Standards Support ELA Standards

(A) The Relationship Between ELD and ELA Standards in California

California's ELD standards are a set of language-development benchmarks that describe what English learners should know and be able to do in English at each proficiency level, from Emerging through Expanding to Bridging. They do not replace the ELA standards. They support them. Think of ELA standards as the destination and ELD standards as the road map that gets ELs to that destination safely, given where they are starting from in their English development.

The California Reading and Language Arts (RLA) Framework's "Universal Access to the Language Arts Curriculum" section makes this relationship explicit. It establishes that ELs need two simultaneous sets of learning targets: ELA targets (the same rigorous content every student pursues) and ELD targets (the language scaffolding targets that make those ELA targets achievable). You teach content through language development, and you develop language through content. The two are inseparable in well-designed instruction.

Concretely, if a fourth-grade ELA standard asks students to describe the overall structure of a text (such as chronological order, cause-and-effect, or comparison), the ELD standard supporting it might specify that an Emerging-level student should be able to identify the structure using sentence frames and visual organizers, while a Bridging-level student should be able to explain the structure using complex, multi-clause academic sentences. Same content target, differentiated language scaffolding.

(B) Distinguishing Achievement of ELD Standards from Achievement of ELA Standards

This is a distinction the exam tests directly. A student who has met the ELD standard for a given grade level has demonstrated the language proficiency described at that level for listening, speaking, reading, or writing in English. A student who has met the ELA standard has demonstrated mastery of the content or literary skill described in the ELA framework, such as analyzing theme, understanding plot structure, or writing a persuasive argument.

These two forms of achievement are related but not identical. An EL might demonstrate full command of the ELD Bridging-level writing standards (meaning they produce grammatically accurate, appropriately complex academic prose) while still working toward ELA standards for a given grade. Conversely, an EL might have strong content knowledge and meet ELA comprehension standards when reading in their primary language, even while their English proficiency is still at the Emerging level. Separating these two dimensions prevents misdiagnosis: a student who performs poorly on an ELA assessment may be limited by language, not by content knowledge.

(2) Strategies for Differentiated, Standards-Based Assessment

(A) Accounting for the Range of English Proficiency Levels

Your classroom likely contains students at Emerging, Expanding, and Bridging proficiency levels simultaneously. Differentiated assessment means designing tasks that allow every student to demonstrate what they know about the standard being assessed without being blocked by language demands that exceed their current proficiency. This does not mean lowering standards. It means varying the mode, format, and language scaffolding of the assessment task while keeping the content target constant.

For example, if your fifth-grade science class is assessing understanding of the water cycle (a content standard), an Emerging-level student might label a diagram using a word bank, an Expanding-level student might write a short explanation using sentence frames, and a Bridging-level student might write a paragraph from memory. All three are demonstrating the same content knowledge; only the language output demand differs.

(B) Providing Multiple Opportunities to Develop Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities

ELs need repeated, varied exposure to the same standards before mastery can be assessed fairly. A single high-stakes test at the end of a unit does not give you enough information about whether a student has internalized the content or was simply blocked by English on the day of the test. Multiple opportunities means building in frequent low-stakes checks throughout instruction so you can adjust your teaching before the summative moment arrives.

This principle applies to both ELD and content standards. If your ELD standard asks students to use complex sentences to describe a process, you should give them opportunities to practice that language structure in conversation, in writing with feedback, in peer collaboration, and in guided notes before you assess it formally. Each opportunity also tells you whether your instruction is reaching the student.

(C) Matching Purpose and Level to Assessment Task

Every assessment has a purpose (what decision will the result inform?) and a level (what standard and proficiency expectation is being targeted?). When purpose and level are mismatched, the assessment produces misleading data. If your purpose is to find out whether a newly arrived Emerging-level student understands number operations, giving that student a written word-problem test in English tells you about English proficiency, not mathematics. A better match might be a manipulative-based or oral assessment delivered in a sheltered format.

(D) Creating an Appropriate Testing Environment

The testing environment is part of the assessment. Anxiety, confusion about task directions, cultural unfamiliarity with testing formats, and physical discomfort all suppress EL performance in ways that have nothing to do with what a student knows. An appropriate testing environment for ELs includes clear, simplified directions in accessible English (or L1 where permitted), adequate lighting and seating, elimination of distracting noise, and a climate in which students feel safe to attempt challenging tasks without fear of embarrassment.

You should also consider timing. ELs at Emerging and Expanding levels process English more slowly. When a high-stakes standardized test has a fixed time limit, an EL who needs extended time as an accommodation should have it documented in their EL plan or IEP. For classroom assessments you control, build in sufficient time and consider whether time pressure is measuring the construct you intend to measure.

(E) Using Multiple Measures to Assess EL Performance

Multiple measures means that no single data point determines what a student knows, what program they enter, or whether they are reclassified. In a well-designed system, you triangulate: you look at standardized assessment results, classroom performance, teacher observation, oral language samples, writing portfolios, and primary-language assessment results together. The fuller the picture, the more accurate your instructional decisions will be.

Multiple measures also protect ELs from the well-documented bias embedded in single standardized tests. A student who had a bad testing day, who was recently traumatized, or who performs better orally than in writing deserves a more complete profile before high-stakes decisions are made. When one measure conflicts with others, it is a signal to gather more data, not to default to the outlier.

(3) Formative and Summative Assessment in Standards-Based Instruction

(A) Formative Assessment: Driving Instruction in Real Time

Formative assessment is assessment that happens during the learning process, with the explicit goal of adjusting instruction while there is still time to make a difference. It is low-stakes, frequent, and diagnostic. Think of exit tickets, observation checklists, cold-calling with accountable talk, quick-writes, partner discussions monitored by the teacher, and running records. The key characteristic is that the data feeds back into teaching immediately, not at the end of a unit when it is too late to respond.

For ELs, formative assessment is especially powerful because it allows you to catch language barriers masquerading as content confusion. If seventh-grader Rosa consistently gets questions about fractions wrong on written quizzes but answers correctly when you ask her orally in small group, your formative data is telling you that her fraction knowledge is solid and her written English is the issue. That distinction changes your instructional response completely.

(B) Summative Assessment: Measuring Mastery Against Standards

Summative assessment is assessment that measures what a student has learned at the end of a defined instructional period, such as a unit, semester, or school year. It is higher-stakes, less frequent, and evaluative. Examples include end-of-unit tests, final projects, performance tasks, and state standardized tests. Summative data tells you whether your instruction worked. It informs grades, program evaluation, and in some cases, graduation and reclassification decisions.

For ELs, summative assessments must be scrutinized for construct validity. Is the test measuring what it claims to measure, or is it measuring English proficiency when it is supposed to measure science knowledge? Providing appropriate accommodations (extended time, glossaries, bilingual dictionaries where permitted) is not cheating. It is ensuring the summative assessment yields accurate information about the construct being measured rather than a confounded mix of content knowledge and language proficiency.

(C) Backward Design: The Wiggins and McTighe Framework

Backward design is the instructional planning model developed by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe in their landmark framework, described as designing "backwards" from desired results. Instead of starting with activities or textbook chapters, you start with the end: what standard are you trying to meet, and what would acceptable evidence of mastery look like? Then you design the learning sequence that will get students there.

Backward design is powerful for EL instruction because it forces you to ask: "Will my ELs be able to demonstrate mastery on this summative task?" before you plan the unit. If the summative task has language demands that exceed what your Emerging-level students can produce, you either need to differentiate the task or build the necessary language skills into Stage 3. You cannot add language scaffolding at the last minute and expect it to work.

(D) Curriculum Calibration and Curriculum Mapping

Curriculum calibration is the process of examining whether the assessments teachers use are actually measuring what the standards require, and whether the rigor of those assessments is consistent across classrooms, grade levels, and programs. For ELs, calibration also asks: are we applying the same level of expectation for content mastery while appropriately varying the language demands? Calibration is often done in collaborative teacher teams who look at student work together and discuss whether their scoring is consistent and whether the tasks are genuinely aligned to the standard.

Curriculum mapping is the process of documenting what is taught, when, and in what sequence across a course, grade level, or school year, aligned to standards. A well-constructed curriculum map shows teachers which ELD and content standards are addressed in each unit, which assessments measure them, and how one unit builds on the previous one. For EL programs, curriculum mapping is especially valuable because it reveals gaps: which ELD standards are never explicitly taught, which content areas assume language proficiency students have not yet developed, and where there are redundancies or contradictions between the ELD and content curriculum.

(4) Using Standards to Design Differentiated Instruction

(A) ELD Standards as the Blueprint for Language Instruction

When you use ELD standards to design instruction, you are creating learning experiences that target specific language skills at specific proficiency levels. This is different from just using simpler language in your lessons. Standards-based ELD instruction means selecting a specific ELD standard, identifying where each of your students falls on the proficiency continuum relative to that standard, and designing activities that push each student one level higher.

Consider a third-grade ELD standard related to discussing texts using text evidence. An Emerging-level student might practice the frame "The text says ___" with a single-sentence response. An Expanding-level student might practice "According to the text, ___, which means ___" with a two-part sentence. A Bridging-level student might be pushed to provide evidence and analysis: "The author states ___, which supports the idea that ___." Same standard, three differentiated entry points.

(B) Content Standards as the Anchor for Academic Learning

Content standards (science, mathematics, social studies, ELA) describe what all students need to know and be able to do. For ELs, these standards are non-negotiable in terms of content rigor, but the pathway to demonstrating mastery must account for where students are in English development. You do not simplify the content standard. You provide the language support that allows the EL to access, engage with, and demonstrate mastery of that content standard in a way that is fair and valid.

This means that when you write lesson objectives for your ELs, you write two: a content objective drawn from the content standard, and a language objective drawn from the ELD standard. "Students will identify the causes of the American Revolution" is a content objective. "Students will list three causes using the sentence frame 'One cause was ___'" is a language objective. Writing both keeps you and your students focused on both dimensions of learning.

(C) Assessing ELs Based on Their Assessed English Proficiency Level

Your ELPAC data and ongoing classroom observation give you each student's current English proficiency level. That proficiency level should directly shape both how you instruct and how you assess. An Emerging-level student in your class should never be assessed using a task that requires Bridging-level language production, because the result will tell you about the gap between their current and Bridging-level language, not about their content knowledge.

This is sometimes called proficiency-matched assessment, and it is a core equity principle. You are assessing what students know about the content standard, not their English proficiency level (which is already measured by ELPAC). When assessment and proficiency level are well-matched, your data is clean and actionable. When they are mismatched, your data is confounded and can lead to incorrect conclusions about student learning.