Search

The Australian field of English as a Second Language (ESL) teaching is globally respected for its research and practice achievements over a period of some 30 years. However, this essential field of pedagogy is being diluted in the current Australian reform agenda which is firmly founded on a traditional vision of English as first language, and national standardised testing which maps progress in a one-size-fits-all "English as first language" development only. This paper will argue that the de-prioritising of ESL is directly related to the statistical processes which form the architecture of the National Assessment Program: Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) test. The paper first explores the economic rationalism which drives the need for standardised assessment, which in turn enables measurement of school performance according to broad statistical categories. Language Background Other than English (LBOTE) are examined, as the only statistical category used in NAPLAN for the apparent disaggregation of language effect on test performance. The limitations of the LBOTE category definition are contrasted with the complex understandings about second language acquisition, which have informed ESL pedagogy and assessment for some time in Australia. The paper draws on the author's recent PhD research, from which quantitative data will be discussed to show that the LBOTE category hides a heterogeneous group of ESL students and that understanding and responding appropriately to these needs is within the domain of ESL specialist knowledge. The paper argues that the LBOTE category is highly problematic to the Australian education reforms, to the professional knowledge that characterises the work of ESL educators and to the goal of equity for all Australian students.

The National Assessment Program: Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLaN) is an annual literacy and numeracy test for all Australian students, and results from the test are disaggregated into a number of categories including language background other than English (LBOTE). For this and other categories, results on each section of the test are aggregated into state, territory and national means and standard deviations enabling comparison of performance. The NAPLaN data indicate that since the test began, in 2008, at a national level there is little difference between the results of LBOTE and non-LBOTE students on all domains of the test. This is a national result, and there is greater variation at state and territory level. However, these results defy a logic which might suggest that the LBOTE category will reflect the influence of English as a second language on test performance, rather suggesting that a second language background is not associated with test performance. In this paper, I will interrogate the variation in the LBOTE category, using data provided by the Queensland state education department, focusing on year 9 students who participated in the 2010 test. Using multiple regression and focusing on variables which are specifically related to language background, I will show that within the LBOTE category there is a wide variation of performance, and the LBOTE data are in fact hiding some of our most disadvantaged students. I will suggest alternative ways in which language learners could be identified to better empower policy and pedagogical responses to student needs.

The National Assessment Program: Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLaN) is an annual literacy and numeracy test for all Australian students, and results from the test are disaggregated into a number of categories including language background other than English (LBOTE). For this and other categories, results on each section of the test are aggregated into state, territory and national means and standard deviations enabling comparison of performance. The NAPLaN data indicate that since the test began, in 2008, at a national level there is little difference between the results of LBOTE and non-LBOTE students on all domains of the test. This is a national result, and there is greater variation at state and territory level. However, these results defy a logic which might suggest that the LBOTE category will reflect the influence of English as a second language on test performance, rather suggesting that a second language background is not associated with test performance. In this paper, I will interrogate the variation in the LBOTE category, using data provided by the Queensland state education department, focusing on year 9 students who participated in the 2010 test. Using multiple regression and focusing on variables which are specifically related to language background, I will show that within the LBOTE category there is a wide variation of performance, and the LBOTE data are in fact hiding some of our most disadvantaged students. I will suggest alternative ways in which language learners could be identified to better empower policy and pedagogical responses to student needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]