Teacher understandings of and interactions with the English language proficiency assessment

This qualitative critical case study explores how K-12 educators in a Southern, urban school district understand and engage with English language proficiency assessment (ELPA) policies and practices. Using critical theory and incorporating frameworks of linguistic justice and test usefulness, the study explores how standardized language assessments operate as tools of norm enforcement, potentially marginalizing students whose linguistic repertoires or use of English fall outside standard norms. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with seven educators working with multilingual learners, a focus group, and state and testing policy document analysis. Data were analyzed thematically, iteratively using inductive and deductive coding. The analysis was guided by theoretical lenses including critical inquiry, translanguaging, linguistic justice, and test usefulness. Four central themes emerged: (1) tension between educator and policy definitions of proficiency; (2) reinforcement of unrealistic expectations through proficiency testing and placement; (3) educator critiques of and resistance to standardized assessment; and (4) enactment and justification of programming practices that support multilingual students. While participants challenged the adequacy of assessment tools, they simultaneously valued and justified the EL programs within their schools. Differing definitions of proficiency and significant challenges to the tenets of test usefulness provide evidence that standardized language assessments in schools may be actors of linguistic injustice. This research contributes to the growing body of research critiquing high-stakes language assessments and calls for a more equitable, contextually responsive approach to language proficiency assessment through modifications to testing, proficiency definitions, and the conceptualization of ELD programming.