Running head: CELDT RESULTS !

CELDT Results: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Caleb Ricks

ITL 604

National University 

CELDT RESULTS !2

CELDT Results: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

In 2001, the United States Congress passed into law the No Child Left Behind Act

(NCLB) that would change the course of education in the United States. This Act, passed under

George W. Bush in 2002, “represented the federal government’s first serious attempt to hold

states, districts, and schools accountable for remedying the unequal achievement among different

student populations, especially low-income students, minority students, English language

learners, and students with disabilities” (Kaplan & Owings, 2015, p. 164). Before NCLB was

passed, many students, such as English learners, slipped through the cracks of the public

education system and passed from grade to grade without being properly assessed or supported.

However, once this law was passed, an accountability system was put in place and certain

students, especially English language learners, could not hover under the radar while performing

below grade level in language arts, mathematics, and science (Kaplan & Owings, 2015, p. 164).

To prevent students from progressing through the school system with below average scores and

knowledge, standardized tests were written in each state to ensure that schools were meeting the

achievement objectives for both privileged and marginalized students.

Each state adopted its own system of accountability, its own set of standardized tests that

would “prevent schools from glossing over underserved students’ low achievement by averaging

their scores with the higher scores earned by more economically advantaged and better-achieving

students” (Kaplan & Owings, 2015, p. 164). According to the California Department of

Education (2018), the No Child Left Behind Act “require[s] a statewide English language

proficiency test that local educational agencies (LEAs) must administer to students in

kindergarten through grade twelve whose primary language is not English.” California meets this
CELDT RESULTS !3

requirement by administering the California English Language Development Test (CELDT),

which provides data to calculate Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (California

Department of Education, 2018). These objectives outline the expectations that each student

should be meeting at a given grade level (California Department of Education, 2018). The

CELDT is used to “identify students with limited English proficiency, determine the level of

English language proficiency of those students, and assess the progress of limited English-

proficient students in acquiring the skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing in

English” (California Department of Education, 2018). Once English learners have been

identified by this test, the results from subsequent annual CELDTs can be used by teachers and

schools to monitor the progress of these students in terms of their English language development.

The results of the CELDT are crucial for California teachers given the state’s high

population of English learners. According to Stokes-Guinan and Golderberg (2011), 1.5 million

of California’s 6.3 million students, or 25%, are classified as English learners. This data

illustrates that one-quarter of California’s student population are not native English speakers or

do not understand English well enough to benefit from mainstream English education. When one

takes these statistics into account, one realizes that “the CELDT is a highly consequential

assessment” (Stokes-Guinan and Golderberg, 2011). Teachers’ and administrators’ decisions

based upon the results of this test can affect 25% of California students, and as the principal

method by which California students are identified as English learners, its role in the California

education system cannot be taken lightly as it affects every student, English learner or not. When

a student is first enrolled in school, his or her parents are required to complete a survey detailing

the language spoken at home. According to Stokes-Guinan and Golderberg (2011), “If a
CELDT RESULTS !4

student’s parents indicate on the Home Language Survey that a language other than English is

spoken in the home, California law requires schools to administer the CELDT within 30 days of

the student’s enrollment.” If the student scores advanced, early-advanced, or intermediate on the

CELDT, then he or she is classified by the state as an English speaker. If the student scores

below this, he or she is classified as an English leaner and his or her instruction is adapted

accordingly.

The results of the CELDT are extremely useful for teachers and administrators in their

process of developing instruction for English learners. According to Almeida et al. (2011), “The

role of the educator when developing assessments for the ELL is to be aware of the student’s

language acquisition level.” Of course, the teacher would not be aware of the English learner’s

level if the CELDT had not already measured it. Because the CELDT already provides teachers

with the essential data regarding their students’ English proficiency, teachers can begin to

develop lesson plans and instruction without having to administer the tests themselves. Almeida

et al. (2011) also provide descriptive suggestions for what teachers can do with their ELL

students based on their English proficiency. For example, teachers with low-proficiency ELL

students should provide listening and speaking opportunities, create an environment for shared

reading, use predictable books, ask yes/no questions, and have students label pictures (Almeida

et al., 2011). Teachers whose students have high language proficiency, for example, should

continue English grammar instruction, encourage group discussions, provide realistic writing

opportunities, and continue informal assessments to monitor progress (Almeida et al., 2011). By

providing instructors with data and proficiency levels, the CELDT provides teachers with the

knowledge of which skills their ELL students need to build upon. This is extremely important
CELDT RESULTS !5

because, as Almeida et al. (2011) state, “Unless educators target specific language acquisition

skills, the learner is left to try to comprehend in an environment where words are merely sounds

rather than a bridge to academic areas supported by literacy and grade-level content knowledge

and standards.” By assessing students in reading, writing, listening, and speaking, the CELDT

provides teachers with the students’ specific skills so that they can bridge the achievement gap

for their students.

Though the CELDT is the predominant method for identifying English learners, it is not

met without criticism. According to García and Rodriguez (2011), California schools districts are

misusing the CELDT and are misidentifying large numbers of entering kindergarten students as

English learners. García and Rodriguez (2011) claim that the CELDT is inherently biased and

flawed because “being identified to take the CELDT almost guarantees a student’s classification

as EL.” If the CELDT is misidentifying students as English learners, then these students are not

receiving the appropriate grade-level instruction they deserve. Furthermore, García and

Rodriguez (2011) argue that the CELDT’s duration also contributes to the over-classification of

English learners. Students who are entering kindergarten at such young ages should not be

expected to sit through a two hour long test administered by a complete stranger. This, García

and Rodriguez (2011) argue, skews the results of the test, suggesting that a low score could be a

result of fatigue and/or test anxiety rather than language proficiency. Other critics question the

validity and reliability of the test as a whole. Stokes-Guinan and Golderberg (2011) conducted a

study in which students’ CELDT results were compared to the results of a proficiency test

independently administered by language experts. The results of each test showed a 60%

discrepancy, meaning that language experts disagreed with the CELDT 60% of the time (Stokes-
CELDT RESULTS !6

Guinan and Golderberg, 2011). This is significant, as a test that “incorrectly estimates students’

proficiency level 60% of the time is problematic.” However, this shortcoming has to do with the

level of proficiency, not whether or not a student is an English learner. In this regard, the CELDT

identified 70% of English learners that experts identified. Though it may have its faults, the

CELDT is still a useful tool for identifying English learners.

As a result of the No Child Left Behind Act, the California English Language

Development Test has been used to identify English learners so that school districts may not

graze over this subgroup of students. By administering the CELDT, California is holding school

districts accountable for properly educating their students. The CELDT also provides valuable

information for teacher regarding students’ proficiency level so that teachers may reach their

students at their current level rather than projected level. Though the test may have its

shortcomings, it still stands strong as a reliable tool fir identifying English learners. 

CELDT RESULTS !7

References

Almeida, L., Benson, L., Christinson, J., Doubek, B., Howard, L., Mascorro, L., Piercy, T.,

Rshaid, G., Ventura, S., & Wiggs, M. (2011). Standards and assessment: The core of

quality instruction. Besser, L. (Ed.). Englewood, CO: Lead +Learn Press.

California Department of Education (2018). California English language development test.

Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/cefceldt.asp.

García B. & Rodriguez, R. (2011). Classifying California’s English learners: Is the CELDT too

blunt an Iistrument? UC Berkeley: Center for Latino Policy Research. Retrieved from

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2m74v93d.

Kaplan, L. & Owings, W. (2015) Educational foundations (2nd ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage

Learning.

Stokes-Guinan, K., & Goldenberg, C. (2011). Use with Caution: What CELDT results can and

cannot tell us. CATESOL Journal, 22(1), 189–202. Retrieved from http://

www.catesoljournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CJ22_stokes-guinan.pdf.