Together, the claims and assumptions within each component
of the conceptual framework create an interpretive argument for the validity of
the assessment system.This is the visual representation of the theory of action,
organized within an argument-based logic model. The interpretive argument illustrates
the inter-relatedness of many aspects of the assessment system: the validity of
no one assessment component is sufficient, alone, to ensure the validity of the
entire system.
Common Interpretive Argument
Through its work with five states, the EVEA project developed a sample Common Interpretive
Argument that represents, broadly, the most common claims and assumptions that form
the basis for states' ELPA systems.
See EVEA Common Interpretive Argument.
The most important component of the interpretive argument framework is the goal
of the assessment system. Many ELPA systems have dual goals: 1. That EL students
become proficient in English, acquiring the academic language skills necessary to
participate fully in instructional discourse conducted in English; and 2. That ELP
programs meet accountability requirements (i.e. students meet state-defined ELD/P
standards and exit from services). For these goals to be realized, a number
of other claims and assumptions must hold true, including the primary claim that
"ELPA scores/performance levels reflect meaningful differences in students' English
language proficiency." Even if this primary claim is supported by evidence, scores
must be used appropriately to lead to intended goals and outcomes.
However, for this primary claim to be valid, a number of assumptions about
the educational and programmatic context must hold true: students must have been
appropriately identified to participate in the ELP program and the ELPA, and ELD/P
standards must have been have been developed to support the acquisition of English
language proficiency necessary to achieve academic content and performance expectations.
Given these contextual assumptions, the ELPA must also be designed to yield scores
that reflect students' knowledge and skills in relation to academic English language
expectations defined in the ELD/P standards, and the ELPA must be administered and
scored as intended. Finally, in order for the ELPA system to achieve its stated
goals, teachers must also have the support and resources to provide instruction
and administer assessment to promote students' acquisition of academic English.
Each box in the interpretive argument could be modified to reflect state-specific
assumptions or concerns, and additional boxes could be added within each conceptual
component of the model. For instance, a state that is concerned about whether teachers
have been properly trained to administer the ELPA may choose to modify the claim,
"The ELPA is administered and scored as intended," to "Teachers have been properly
trained to administer and score the ELPA as intended." States that are concerned
about the accessibility of the ELPA for students with disabilities may choose to
add a claim within the "assessment system" component that says, "ELs with disabilities
receive appropriate accommodations for the ELPA" or "The ELPA is universally designed
to mitigate the effects of disabilities on assessment scores." Finally, states that
use the ELPA for a goal not specified on the Common Interpretive Argument, such
as informing classroom instruction or grouping, should think carefully
about the assumptions that must hold true for these uses to be valid.