Equity of Literacy-Based Math

Performance Assessments for

English Language Learners

Clara Lee Brown

The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Abstract
This article reports findings from a study that investigated math
achievement differences between English language learners (ELLs)
and fully English proficient (FEP) students on a literacy-based
performance assessment (LBPA). It has been assumed that LBPAs
are superior to standardized multiple-choice assessments, but it
has not been determined if LBPAs are appropriate for measuring
the math achievement of ELLs. The most salient characteristic of
LBPAs is that students read multi-level questions and explain how
they solve math problems in writing. Thus, LBPAs place great
literacy demands upon students. Because most ELLs have
underdeveloped literacy skills in English, these demands put ELLs
at a great disadvantage. Analysis revealed that socioeconomic
status (SES) had a significant impact on all students, but the impact
was larger on FEP students than on ELLs; high-SES FEP students
outperformed high-SES ELLs, but there was no significant difference
between low-SES ELLs and low-SES FEP students. High SES
generally means more cognitive academic language proficiency,
because of the influence of non-school factors such as the presence
of a print-rich environment. High-SES ELLs did not do as well as
high-SES FEP students because of a lack of academic English. The
nature of the examination masked their true abilities. The finding
of no difference between low-SES ELLs and low-SES FEP students,
however, could be a result of the fact that neither group had the
advantage of high cognitive academic language proficiency; the FEP
students’ only “advantage” was superior conversational English,
of little use for performing academic tasks. This article concludes
that LBPAs, together with the current assessment-driven
accountability system, seriously undermine equal treatment for
ELLs.

Equity of Literacy-Based Math Assessments 337

 Introduction
It has long been recognized that a substantial achievement gap exists
between language-minority students and native speakers of English (August
& Hakuta, 1997; Silver, Smith, & Nelson, 1995). A significant gap in math
scores, in particular, has caused widespread concern among educators (Khisty,
1997; Secada, Fennema, & Adajian, 1995). Moreover, language-minority
students are less likely to be represented in math-related majors in higher
education, which affects their career opportunities and lifetime earnings
(Bernardo, 2002; Cuevas, 1984; Torres & Zeidler, 2001). Apparently, math
achievement plays a significant role in the academic and social stratification
of minorities (Khisty, 1995; Secada, 1992). Thus, English language learner
(ELL) students’ math achievement—or lack thereof—should be explored in
light of new ways ELL students are being assessed.
Under the standards-based reform movement initiated in the late 1980s,
the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) published
Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (1989),
specifying what students should know and be able to do. NCTM declared
that a more problem-solving and higher order thinking–based curriculum should
replace the arithmetic- and isolated facts–based traditional approach. These
1989 NCTM standards also conveyed the importance of mathematical literacy,
especially students’ ability to communicate mathematically, so that they can
read, write, and discuss mathematics.
While this curriculum movement was taking place, various states created
new assessment programs that reflected the tenets of NCTM’s new math
curriculum: understanding concepts rather than algorithms, critical thinking,
problem solving, and communicating mathematically. As a result, states such
as Connecticut, Kentucky, Maryland, Vermont, and Wisconsin created literacy-
based performance assessments (LBPAs) in content areas such as math
(National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1995). The strength of LBPAs
lies in asking students to solve real-life problems by applying higher order
and critical thinking skills based on conceptual understanding and then to
explain, in writing, how they solved the problems. LBPAs go beyond the
traditional multiple-choice standardized testing procedures: In LBPAs, such
as National Assessment of Educational Progress testing, math questions are
open ended. However, the percentage of open-ended questions differs from
state to state. In Maryland, all math questions are open ended and highly
literacy based. They require students to read rather lengthy, multiple-part
questions and provide a written response describing the problem-solving
process, and how they solved the problems (see sample questions in
Appendixes A and B).
Although they are timely and appropriate for preparing all students for
the 21st century’s era of information and high technology, the new assessments
have their drawbacks, especially in evaluating the math achievement of ELL

338 Bilingual Research Journal, 29: 2 Summer 2005

students. One salient characteristic of ELL students is that their academic
English is below grade level—sometimes several grades below. Thus, ELL
students have a double disadvantage: They have to learn math in their less
than fully developed language, and they must take a test that requires
communicating mathematical concepts in writing in a language they have not
yet fully grasped. Under the new LBPAs, the achievement gap between ELL
students and fully English proficient (FEP) students will likely be widened,
not narrowed (Madden, Slavin, & Simons, 1995). Students from language-
minority backgrounds are more likely to score worse than their counterparts
on performance-based assessments than on standardized assessments
(Shavelson, Baxter, & Pine, 1992).
The need for strong math skills has never been greater. The No Child Left
Behind Act (2002) requires all states to assess students’ math achievement
every year from third grade to eighth grade (Olson, 2002). Under the No Child
Left Behind Act, ELL students are lumped together into an accountability
system that not only fails to provide a level playing field, but that puts them at
a severe disadvantage. Thus, the following critical issues emerge:
1. How equitable are LBPAs for ELL students? According to NCTM’s
standards, the new math goes beyond that of algorithms and rote
calculations; students are now taught to reason mathematically and to
communicate their reasoning (Madden et al., 1995). This is indeed an
improvement. If math is taught in a way that emphasizes mathematical
thinking and problem solving, assessment must reflect this by assessing
students’ ability to demonstrate that they can apply what they know to
solve authentic problems. We do not know, however, how this type of
assessment will impact ELL students.
2. Today’s higher curriculum standards, a result of the Education Summit of
1989 (for a history of the standards movement in the United States, see
Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning, n.d.), push for
equitable assessment and aim to guard against unfairness. How do we
reconcile these lofty intentions with the apparent inappropriateness of
such assessment for ELL students?
To date, no empirical studies have reported on the relationship between
ELL students’ English proficiency and their math achievement as measured
on LBPAs. This knowledge gap warrants an inquiry regarding fair and accurate
assessment for these students. This article, based on the test score analysis
of third graders taking one of the statewide LBPAs, argues that math testing
through LBPAs severely undermines the opportunity for ELL students to be
equitably assessed. This article also suggests changing assessment policy
so as to uphold the integrity of the new math curriculum as well as to protect
assessment equity for ELL students.

Equity of Literacy-Based Math Assessments 339

 Review of Related Literature

Second-Language Proficiency and Academic Achievement

Cummins (1980, 1981) has provided a much-needed framework in the field
of bilingual and English as a Second Language (ESL) education. His critical
work reveals why ELL students’ academic achievement cannot be assessed in
the same manner as that of their FEP counterparts. He asserts that oral fluency
cannot be regarded as academic competence in academic settings.
Cummins theorizes that there are two distinctively different proficiencies.
Basic conversational language ability is acquired rapidly. ELL students take
only a year or 2 to become proficient in conversational English (see also
Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 1999). In contrast, attaining grade level of academic
English can take far longer, as long as 5 to 7 years. Academic English is
necessary for tasks that are context reduced, such as reading chapters in a
textbook that describes different math functions.

Second-Language Proficiency and Math Achievement

What makes math such a difficult subject for ELL students? First, ELL
students must filter their math knowledge—a language all its own—through
a second language, English. So, in this case, math becomes the “third” language.
Students face an extra challenge, then, as they attempt to learn cognitively
demanding, highly abstract mathematical concepts while they are still learning
English (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994).
Second, math learning must be accrued. For example, students must know
how to add and subtract before they can learn how to multiply and divide, and
must learn multiplication and division before learning ratios. In addition, as
students progress in math, content and textbooks become more difficult. Thus,
as ELL students proceed to higher grades, they face increasingly greater
challenges in keeping up or catching up with their counterparts. As a result,
the achievement gap widens.
Third, math vocabulary is not commonly used in daily settings, is technical
in nature, and is narrowly defined (Cuevas, 1984). Krussel (1998) views language
as an essential part of the math construct because language is an indispensable
tool in math. It comes as no surprise that ELL students are not successful at
solving word problems loaded with difficult and unfamiliar vocabulary (Abedi
& Lord, 2001; Solano-Flores & Trumbull, 2003). For ELL students who are just
learning English, words such as least common denominator, ratio, or quotient
have little meaning. In most cases, the concept is new, and in addition, words
may be used in ways that are quite different from uses in ordinary language.
Fourth, syntax—language structure—used in math is highly complex
and very specific. Math uses syntactic features that many students find
cumbersome, and that can be especially confusing for ELL students. For

340 Bilingual Research Journal, 29: 2 Summer 2005

example, the use of comparatives (e.g., higher than, greater than, as much as),
passive voice (e.g., X is added to Y), reversed ways of stating the known and
unknown variables (e.g., X is 2 less than Y; the correct equation is X = Y – 2,
not X – 2 = Y) can exacerbate confusion (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994. p. 230).
Cuevas (1984) and Carey, Fennema, Carpenter, and Franks (1995) point out
that, unlike the language of literary narratives, reduced redundancy in
mathematical expressions makes it extremely hard for ELL students to
comprehend what they read in math textbooks, which lack the built-in contextual
cues found in language arts.
The following example illustrates how the structure of word problems can
lead ELL students to misunderstand the question. A bilingual student in ninth-
grade Algebra I wrote “X3 > N” as an answer to “The number of nickels in my
pocket is three times more than the number of dimes” (Mestre, 1988 p. 205).
Mestre attributed the incorrect response to the missing word equal in the
word problem. Thus, the student misinterpreted “more than” as a statement of
inequality. Abedi and Lord (2001) reported that ELL students achieved slightly
higher scores on a modified math test written using simpler language and less
complex language structure. They concluded that ELL students’ math
performance was confounded by their language skills.
Fifth, ELL students’ reading skills affect their math performance. Previous
studies also show high correlations between math and reading scores. McGhan
(1995) reported a correlation of .84 between fourth graders’ reading
comprehension and math test scores for 139 school districts in Michigan. In
addition to difficulties related to math vocabulary and style of expression,
ELL students process information more slowly than do their counterparts
because ELL students are slower readers (Abedi, 2004; Bernhardt, 1991; Oller
& Perkins, 1978).
Sixth, according to Chamot and O’Malley (1994), mathematical procedures
are culturally bound; different cultures use different approaches to solve
problems, or they use symbols differently. Midobuche (2001) shows the way
the same division problem is solved differently in two different countries
(p. 501).
495 495
3)1485 3)1485
-12 28
28 15
-27 0
15
-15
0
(Long division solved in the United States) (Short division solved in Mexico)

Equity of Literacy-Based Math Assessments 341

 Even the ways numbers are read differ across cultures. In Korea, 200,000
(“two hundred thousand”) will be read as “twenty ten thousand.” It is read as
“twenty man”; man (pronounced as m-ah-n) means ten thousands in Korean.
Seventh, not only is the way the math problems are solved culturally
specific, but the way the math questions are interpreted can also be
socioculturally bound (Solano-Flores & Trumbull, 2003; Stanley & Spafford,
2002). Solano-Flores and Trumbull (2003) reported that for the sentence
“[Sam’s] mother has only $1.00 bills” ELL students misunderstood the word
“only,” interpreting the sentence as meaning that Sam’s mother only had a
dollar (p. 4). Solano-Flores and Trumbull argued that this misinterpretation
might be related to socioeconomic status (SES): Students from low-SES
backgrounds may have a more “survival-oriented” perspective and may project
their concerns onto the way they interpret the problem; having limited funds
would not be unusual (p. 5).
Eighth, in addition to the way problem solving is approached differently
based on cultural differences, math word problems cannot be solved if the
students are not familiar with the cultural context of the mainstream society or
the cultural knowledge that is taken for granted. For instance, ELL students
might not understand a word problem that makes a reference to a Mardi Gras
parade. ELL students may thus be handicapped both with respect to language
and context.
Based on the foregoing discussion, one can easily understand why ELL
students find math challenging. To complicate matters, many teachers wrongly
believe math is not about language, but only about symbols and numbers
(Bransford, 2000). Thus, they feel that ELL students can perform competitively
in math (Collier, 1987; Tsang, 1988). This is indeed a myth: Abedi (2004) reports
gaps between ELL students and FEP students on several types of math test;
the gap is, however, smallest in computational math. In fact, many studies
have demonstrated that ELL students lag far behind in word problems, and
the cause of their struggle in the problem-solving aspects of math has been
attributed to their less developed academic English proficiency (Abedi, 2004;
Abedi, Hofstetter, & Lord, 2004; Abedi & Lord, 2001; Brenner, 1998; Khisty,
1997; Kopriva & Saez, 1997; Myers & Milne, 1988; Olivares, 1996; Solano-
Flores & Trumbull, 2003).
Abedi (2004; Abedi, Leon, & Mirocha, 2003) reports that the performance
difference between ELL students and FEP students was greater for tests of
analytical math that contained linguistically complex items than for
computational math. ELL students performed as well as native speakers only
on some tests of math calculation. In a recent study of Filipino bilingual
students whose first language was either Filipino or English, higher scores
were reported when students had the mathematical word problems written in
their native language (Bernardo, 2002). These findings indicated that second-
language proficiency is strongly correlated to mathematical problem-solving

342 Bilingual Research Journal, 29: 2 Summer 2005

skills. Clearly, ELL students’ poor performance at math problem-solving tasks
can be a result of their level of English proficiency, which can mask their
mathematical knowledge. Although ELL students can keep up with low-level
mechanical aspects of math, on many tests they must go beyond mere
arithmetic. On LBPAs, ELL students face increasingly tougher challenges
(Abedi, 2004; Romberg, 1992).

Literacy-Based Performance Assessments

LBPAs require students to use writing to demonstrate what they know
and can do. LBPAs come in various forms across all content areas. For example,
essay assessments in language arts are considered LBPAs, because students
must demonstrate their competence in particular writing genres. Portfolios,
which showcase selective samples from students’ written work during a certain
time frame, are classified as LBPAs, as are open-ended, literacy-based
mathematics assessments that ask students to explain in writing how they
solved problems (Kopriva & Saez, 1997). By definition, then, all math problems
that ask students to justify their answers are considered LBPAs. This includes
some of the word problems in the National Assessment of Educational Progress
mathematics test (see Appendix A for an example).
The degree of difficulty and complexity in word problems differs starkly
between multiple-choice tests and LBPAs. Although word problems in
multiple-choice tests may require one answer, word problems in LBPAs ask a
set of related questions requiring multiple steps to find solutions. For example,
students may first have to perform algebraic calculations to gather data. Second,
they might have to use the data to construct a graph. Third, they may have to
analyze the graph to find a trend. Fourth, they could be required to predict a
real-life situation based on the trend they discovered. Fifth, they might be
asked to discuss the final result in writing. As a result, word problems in
LBPAs require higher level reading skills than multiple-choice tests do, in
addition to writing. Thus, LBPAs demand higher literacy skills.
LBPAs offer some important advantages over multiple-choice tests.
LBPAs (a) can present a better picture of students’ progress over a period of
time; (b) can be used to show comprehensively what students know and can
do; (c) require students to apply what they have learned to solve problems in
authentic situations; and (d) cause students to participate actively in the
assessment process by setting their own goals and being self-reflective
(Lachat, 1999; Moya & O’Malley, 1994).
Although LBPAs may appear superior to multiple-choice tests, their use
in large-scale, statewide assessments raises several critical issues for the
nation’s fastest growing student body: those whose native language is not
English. As previously mentioned, the high language demands of LBPAs put
ELL students at a great disadvantage as they try to express what they know,
using their weaker language (LaCelle-Peterson & Rivera, 1997; McKay, 2000;
Short, 1993).

Equity of Literacy-Based Math Assessments 343

 Fairness becomes an issue when LBPAs fail to measure ELL students’
academic achievement accurately: Do their low scores come from a lack of
content knowledge, or do they result from insufficient English skills? Further,
little research has been conducted on LBPAs to show whether performance
difference exists between ELL students and their FEP peers, or to assess their
assumed superiority over multiple-choice tests for ELL students.

The Study
This study focused on the achievement gap in math between ELL students
and FEP students on the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program
(MSPAP) using test scores from the year 2000.1 The MSPAP was chosen
because the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) created a unique
LBPA. The MSPAP differed from assessments used in other states in the
following ways:
1. One of the MSPAP content areas (the math communication subskill)
specifically measures students’ ability to communicate mathematical
knowledge in writing, thus challenging students to go well beyond mere
mathematical calculation;
2. This open-ended test asks students to construct written responses
throughout the entire testing program;
3. The entire math portion of the MSPAP consists exclusively of higher level
word problems (see sample test items in Appendix B);
4. Multi-procedure questions in math word problems require a high level of
reading comprehension; and
5. Connections between reading and writing across the curriculum reflect
the most salient characteristics of the LBPAs (see http://www.mdk12.org/
mspp/mspap/what-is-mspap for a detailed description of the MSPAP).
The MSPAP is given in Grades 3, 5, and 8. Third graders were chosen for
this study because there are a higher number of ELL students in Grade 3:
Young ELL students tend to exit ESL programs rather quickly. (Note that ELL
students, once exited from ESL programs, are not coded as ELL students.
They are reclassified and become part of the FEP population. Thus, there is a
high probability that reclassified ELL students were part of the FEP pool when
sampled.)
This study posed three research questions in relation to achievement
differences in math between ELL students and FEP students within the same
SES as measured by Free and Reduced Meals (FARMs) status. The SES
variable is held constant within each group to minimize its influence on the
test scores, since the SES is known to be the most influential determinant of
student achievement (Fernández & Nielsen, 1986). The research questions
were:

344 Bilingual Research Journal, 29: 2 Summer 2005

 1. Is there a significant difference between the mean scores of third-grade
ELL students and FEP students within the same FARMs status in math?
2. Is there a significant difference between the mean scores of third-grade
ELL students and FEP students within the same FARMs status on the
math communication subskill?
3. Which predictor variables—reading, writing, language usage, FARMs,
gender, and ethnicity—account for the most variance in third-grade ELL
students’ and FEP students’ math scores?
Research Questions 1 and 2 hypothesized no achievement difference
between ELL students and FEP students in math and the math communication
subskill within the same SES variable. The third research question compared
the roles of language-related predictors with SES for the two groups. Gender
and ethnicity were chosen as additional predictor variables to further explain
ELL students’ math achievement status.

Instrumentation
MSPAP, a criterion-referenced test, assesses students’ achievement levels
in six content areas: reading, writing, language usage, math, science, and
social studies. It is constructed so that the scores from multiple content areas
can be cross-sectionally compared within a grade. The scaled scores, ranging
from 350 to 700, are designed to have a mean score of 500 and a standard
deviation of 50 (see http://www.mdk12.org/mspp/mspap/what-is-mspap for a
detailed description of the MSPAP, including administration and scoring).

Sampling
Test scores of the third graders from all 25 Maryland school districts were
selected, excluding students who received special education services
(language variables and exceptionalities related to special education have
confounding effects on the test scores). Random sampling for the ELL students
and stratified random sampling for the FEP students were planned according
to FARMs status to keep the SES variable constant. However, random sampling
for ELL students was not performed because of the contingency imposed on
the author by the MSDE due to the small percentage (1.1%) of ELL students’
participation in the MSPAP. Consequently, there were four subgroups:
(a) ELL students with FARMs, (b) FEP students with FARMs, (c) ELL students
with non-FARMs, and (d) FEP students with non-FARMs. Information
regarding participants’ prior educational backgrounds or formal schooling
was not available from the MSDE data set.
In 2000, a total of 65,536 third-grade students took the MSPAP; 742 of
them were identified as ELL students and the rest (64,794) as FEP students.
From the 742 ELL students, 90 students coded as special education were
excluded. From the remaining 652 ELL students, 492 (n1) students were

Equity of Literacy-Based Math Assessments 345

identified as having complete test scores in math. Among the 492 ELL students,
there were 260 ELL students coded with FARMs status and 232 ELL students
with non-FARMs status (see Figure 1 for a description of the sampling
process). The ELL student group included 2 American Indians (.4%), 168
Asian Americans (34.1%), 48 African Americans (9.8%), 56 non-Hispanic
Whites (11.4%), and 218 Hispanics (44.3%).
For the FEP group sampling, the same procedures were applied. First,
9,291 students coded as special education were excluded. Second, from the
remaining 55,503 students, 53,025 students were identified as students who
took a math portion of the MSPAP. Third, to match the ELL group, 260 FARMs
students were randomly selected from 17,244 non-ELL students identified
with FARMs status. Fourth, matching 232 non-FARMs students were randomly
selected from 35,781 FEP students identified with non-FARMs status. Table 1
contains demographics of the third graders who were selected for the study.

Data Analysis
Independent samples t-tests were selected to answer the first two research
questions, an investigation of performance differences between ELL students
and FEP students in the overall math examination, as well as the math
communication subskill. For the third research question, multiple linear
regression analysis was employed to determine which predictor variable
accounted for the largest proportion of the variance in the criterion variable,
math achievement.

Merged Final Data Set (984)

FARMs (260) Non-FARMs (232)

FARMs (260) Non-FARMs (232) FARMs (17,244) Non-FARMs (35,781)

Non-complete Scores Complete Scores (492) Non-complete Scores Complete Scores (53,025)

Special Ed (90) Non-Special Ed (652) Special Ed (9,291) Non-Special E (55,503)

ELLs (742) FEPs (64,794)

Entire Data Set (65,536)

Figure 1. Overview of the sampling process.

Note. “Complete” denotes complete test scores, and “non-complete” denotes
incomplete test scores.

346 Bilingual Research Journal, 29: 2 Summer 2005

Table 1
Free and Reduced Meals (FARMs) Status, Gender, and Ethnicity
of English Language Learners (ELLs) and Fully English
Proficient (FEP) Students
ELLs FEPs

n1 % n2 %

Yes 260 52.8 260 52.8

FARMs
No 232 47.2 232 47.2

Male 246 50 224 46

Gender
Female 246 50 268 54

American Indian 2 .4 2 .4

Asian American 168 34.1 16 3.3

Ethnicity African American 48 9.8 206 41.9

Non-Hispanic White 56 11.4 251 51

Hispanic 218 44.3 17 3.5

Grand total 492 100 492 100

The .05 level of significance was chosen for the study; however, when
the same statistical procedures were performed more than once, the alpha
level was adjusted to a more conservative level (α = .01) in order to lower
the chances of committing a Type I error, that is, the error of concluding what
are actually non-significant findings as significant. For Research Questions 1
and 2, in addition to t-tests, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
was conducted.

Results

Achievement Differences in Math

Using a 2x2 factorial design, preliminary analyses of interaction effects
between FARMs and ELL status were performed prior to investigating the
main effect of ELL status across the same FARMs status. The result revealed
a significant interaction between ELL status and FARMs status, indicating
that the FARMs variable had different effects for ELL students and

Equity of Literacy-Based Math Assessments 347

FEP students (F [1, 980] = 52.23, p < .001). FARMs status resulted in lower
scores for FEP students, relative to non-FARMs status, but FARMs status
did not have as large an effect on ELL scores, and the test score gap between
FEP and ELL students was significantly lower for FARMs-status students.
Therefore, these findings warrant further analyses of the main effects. The
main effects of both ELL and FARMs status were significant (ELL status,
F [1, 980] = 102.31, p < .001; FARMs status, F [1, 980] = 331.72, p < .001).
In addition, the effect sizes in analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicate that ELL
status explained 10% (η ² = .10) and FARMs status, 25% ( η² = .25) of the
variance associated with math scores. The mean math scores of both groups
can be found in Table 2.
The first research question asked if there was a significant difference
between the mean scores of ELL students and FEP students within the same
FARMs status in math. An independent samples t-test indicated no significant
group difference between ELL students and FEP students who were identified
with FARMs status, the difference falling just short of statistical significance
(p = .057), with a small effect size (d = .17). There was, however, a significant
difference between ELL and FEP non-FARMs students in math. The effect
size was substantial (t [462] = -13.70, p < .01, d = 1.27 [see Table 2]). Thus,
it can be said that both groups from low-SES backgrounds performed similarly,
but FEP students from high-SES backgrounds outperformed ELL students
from high-SES backgrounds.

Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and t-Test Results on Math
Non-Free and Reduced Meals groups

English language Fully English proficient

learners

n1 M1 SD n2 M2 SD t p d
(462)

232 517.29 44.82 232 562.31 22.27 -13.70 .000* 1.27

Free and Reduced Meals groups

n1 M1 SD n2 M2 SD t p d
(518)

260 488.78 45.81 260 496.27 43.80 1.91 .057 .17

Note. d = effect size.
*p < .001, two-tailed.

348 Bilingual Research Journal, 29: 2 Summer 2005

Math Communication Subskill
Exactly the same steps used for the first research question were taken for
the second research question. Before investigating the main effect of ELL
status on the math communication subskill, preliminary analyses of interaction
effects between FARMs and ELL status revealed a significant interaction,
which required further analyses of main effects (F [1, 685] = 24.54, p < .001).
The main effects of both ELL and FARMs status were significant (ELL status,
F [1, 685] = 23.84, p < .001; FARMs status, F [1, 685] = 107.60, p < .001).
Inspection of the effect sizes derived from the ANOVA indicated that ELL
status explained 3% (η ² = .03) and FARMs status 14% ( η² = .14) of the
variance associated with the math communication subskill.
The achievement-difference patterns identified from Research Question
1 were repeated for Research Question 2. The second research question asked
if there was a significant difference between ELL students and FEP students
on the math communication subskill. An independent samples t-test indicated
no significant group difference between ELL students and FEP students who
were identified with FARMs status. Yet, the main effect of ELL status on the
math communication measure showed a significant group difference among
non-FARMs students (communication subskill, t [319] = -7.66, p < .01,
d = .85 [see Table 3]). The mean difference between the non-FARMs status
ELL students and FEP students on the math communication subskill was
substantial. Once again, ELL students and FEP students from low-SES
backgrounds performed similarly, but FEP students from high-SES families
outperformed ELL students from high-SES families. The SES variable did not
seem to offset ELL status for the math communication subskill test for high-
SES ELL students.

Predictors in Math Achievement

Before multiple linear regression was conducted, the significance of all
predictor variables was determined. A two-tailed t-test indicated that reading,
writing, language usage, and FARMs were significant predictor variables,
while ethnicity and gender were not, for both ELL and FEP student groups
(t = 10.80, 2.56, 5.9, 4.3 for ELL students; t = 9.00, 4.12, 2.54, 10.42 for FEP
students for reading, writing, language usage, and FARMs, respectively, all
significant, p < .05; for gender, t = .03, for ELL students, and t = .53 for FEP
students; for ethnicity, t = .70 for ELL students and t =1.68 for FEP students,
not significant). Gender and ethnicity were thus removed from the full
regression model by the parsimony rule because they were not considered
significant predictor variables that contribute to explaining the total math
score variance for both ELL and FEP students.
For the restricted model for ELL students, the remaining predictor variables
explained 50.3% of the total variance on math achievement (R² = .503,
F [4, 487] = 123.21, p < .05) and for FEP students, the remaining predictor

Equity of Literacy-Based Math Assessments 349

Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations, and t-Test Results on the Math
Communication Subskill
Non-Free and Reduced Meals groups

English language Fully English proficient

learners

t
n1 M1 SD n2 M2 SD p d
(319)

153 507.78 71.60 168 560.15 49.85 -7.66 .000* .85

Free and Reduced Meals groups

t
n1 M1 SD n2 M2 SD p d
(366)

185 478.92 75.95 185 478.55 76.95 -.047 .96 .004

Note. d = effect size. The n of the math communication subskill test is smaller than
that of the math test due to the fact that fewer students were assessed on the subskill
part.
*p < .001, two-tailed.

variables explained 64% of the total variance on math achievement (R² = .64,
F [4, 487] = 217.88, p < .05). The regression equation for ELL students and
FEP students are the following (see Table 4):
Y’1 (ELLs) = .41 reading + .26 language usage - .16 FARMs + .11 writing
Y’2 (FEPs) = -.38 FARMs + .32 reading + .17 writing + .11 language usage
As indicated by the findings, FARMs status was not only a significant
but also a strong predictor of math achievement for FEP students. FARMs
status was the strongest predictor of math achievement, followed by reading
skills. For ELL students, FARMs status was a statistically significant predictor
as well. It was, however, only the third strongest predictor for this group,
ranking behind reading and usage (see Table 4). Notably, reading was a stronger
predictor for ELL students than it was for FEP students. Correlations among
significant variables for ELL and FEP students can be found in Table 5.

MANOVA Results of Math and Math Communication Subskill

As previously mentioned, a MANOVA was performed as an additional
test to reduce the measurement error for Research Questions 1 and 2. From
preliminary analysis of interaction effects between ELL status and FARMs
status, a significant interaction was found on the mean scores of math and

350 Bilingual Research Journal, 29: 2 Summer 2005

Table 4
Summary of Regression for Variables Predicting English Language
Learner (ELL) Students’ and Fully English Proficient (FEP)
Students’ Math Achievement in the Maryland School
Performance Assessment Program
ELL students

Predictors B Beta t p

Reading .44 .41 10.91 .000*

Writing .12 .11 2.54 .011*

Language usage .24 .26 6.0 .000*

Free and reduced

-14.85 -.16 -4.76 .000*
meals

FEP students

Reading .34 .32 9.09 .000*

Writing .18 .17 4.08 .000*

Language usage .09 .11 2.50 .013*

Free and reduced

-36.90 -.38 -11.30 .000*
meals
*p < .05.

math communication subskill (Wilks’s Λ = .95, p < .01 [see Figure 2]). Thus,
main effects were further analyzed. The MANOVA indicated that the overall
group difference among FARMs status students was not statistically
significant (Wilks’s Λ = .99, F [1, 366] = 1.78, p = .17 [see Table 6]). ELL
status explained only 1% of the variance associated with the dependent
variables (η² = .01). Among non-FARMs status students, however,
MANOVA results revealed a significant group difference (Wilks’s Λ = .71,
F [1, 319] = 66.16, p < .01 [see Table 7]). ELL status explained almost 30% of
the variance associated with the dependent variables, math and math
communication skills ( η² = .29). Table 8 reports descriptive statistics.

Equity of Literacy-Based Math Assessments 351

Table 5
Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Reading, Writing, Language
Usage, and Free and Reduced Meals (FARMs) for English
Language Learners (ELLs) and Fully English Proficient
(FEP) Students
Math Reading Writing Usage FARMs

ELLs FEPs ELLs FEPs ELLs FEPs ELLs FEPs ELLs FEPs

Math 1.00 1.00 .61* .66* .52* .63* .56* .60* -.30* -.68*

Reading 1.00 1.00 .50* .56* .46* .56* -.17* -.49*

Writing 1.00 1.00 .66* .74* -.21* -.54*

Usage 1.00 1.00 -.20* -.51*

FARMs 1.00 1.00

Note. * indicates the correlation is significant at the .01 level, two-tailed.

Estimated marginal means of Estimated marginal means of math

math scores communication skill scores

560
560

540
540

520

520

500

500

480

0 1 0 1
FARMs FARMs

Figure 2. Interaction between free and reduced meals (FARMs) and English language
learner (ELL) status on math and the math communication subskill.
Note. “0” indicates non-FARMs group, and “1” indicates FARMs status. The broken
lines refer to the ELL students, the solid lines refer to the FEP students.

352 Bilingual Research Journal, 29: 2 Summer 2005

Table 6
Summary of MANOVA of Free and Reduced Meals Students
on Math and Communication Subskill
Effect Wilks's F Hypothesis Error p Eta2
Λ df df

English language
learner status .99 1.78 2.00 365.00 .17 .01

Table 7
Summary of MANOVA of Non–Free and Reduced Meals
Students on Math and Communication Subskill
Effect Wilks's F Hypothesis Error p Eta2
Λ df df

English language
learner status .71 66.16 2.00 318.00 .00* .29

*p < .01.

Table 8
Group Means on Math and Communication Subskill of
Non–Free and Reduced Meals Students
Groups

English language learners Fully English proficient

n1 M SD n2 M SD

Math 153 517.71 44.68 168 561.76 21.44

Communication 153 507.78 71.60 168 560.15 49.85

Note. The sample size from the MANOVA is different from that of the t-test described
in the text. For the MANOVA, only subjects with both math and communication
subskill scores were utilized.

Equity of Literacy-Based Math Assessments 353

 Discussion
SES emerged as an important factor in this study. SES, of course, has a
strong impact on student achievement (Fernández & Nielsen, 1986; Krashen
& Brown, 2005; Lytton & Pyryt, 1998; Secada, 1992; Tate, 1997). High SES
generally results in greater cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP),
consisting of superior knowledge of subject matter and aspects of academic
language that are similar in the first and second languages (Krashen, 1996).
Children from higher income families are exposed to more print and have a
wider range of school-relevant experiences. As a result, they gain more
knowledge relevant to school in their home life. CALP makes a powerful
contribution to math achievement on LPBAs in particular, a test that demands
mastery of academic language. Both non-FARMs groups in this study, FEP
and ELL students, have these advantages.
A likely explanation for the finding that high-SES ELL students did not do
as well as high-SES FEP students is that their true ability was masked by their
less developed academic-language proficiency in English. We predict that
over time, high-SES ELL students will do quite well, as they have the same
advantages as high-SES FEP students, and only need to acquire academic
English. In other words, high-SES ELL students’ competence in math cannot
be fully demonstrated due to the language barriers built into the assessment
despite the advantage of having high SES. The language of the test is too
hard for them to understand, and the demands placed on their writing
competence are excessive.
FARMs status made less of a difference for ELL students: FARMs and
non-FARMs ELL students performed similarly. Both of these groups share
the same disadvantages that all low-SES students do: Lack of background
knowledge as well as lack of academic language. The only advantage the
FARMs FEP students had over the non-FARMs ELL students was their
superior competence in conversational English, of little use for performing
academic tasks (Cummins, 1996; Saville-Troike, 1984).
Clearly, ELL students need more time to develop grade-level academic
English before they are required to take large-scale high-stakes tests. A math
test that requires high-level reading skills to understand the questions and
requires mathematical communication through writing seems to be highly
inappropriate for assessing ELL students’ achievement in math (Kopriva &
Saez, 1997). Rather, such tests can create even greater obstacles for them; not
only are their scores lower, but such students, no matter how well prepared
they are and how well they understand the material, are often “pegged” as low
performers with the educational stigma that so often accompanies such
labeling.
Under the heightened accountability policy mandated by No Child Left
Behind (2002), funding often depends on assessment scores. Because of
such high-stakes assessments, districts with higher representations of ELL

354 Bilingual Research Journal, 29: 2 Summer 2005

students will regard these students as burdensome (Olson, 2002). Thus, LBPAs,
together with assessment-driven accountability, can seriously threaten
assessment equity for ELL students.
The “adequate yearly progress (AYP)” stipulated by NCLB in establishing
initial baseline data forces all ELL students to take tests regardless of their
English proficiency. This is not a sound policy. Newly revised guidelines
exempting ELL students for only 1 year are not nearly enough (Dobbs, 2004).
Even for those with high levels of CALP, the tests are inaccurate, and for
those with low levels of CALP, they are, in addition, unfair and cruel. Blindly
throwing ELL students into the accountability system without considering
their unique needs constitutes treatment that is neither equal nor equitable.
The results also clearly suggest that ELL students should not be treated
as a homogeneous group. Those with high-SES backgrounds have, most
likely, an excellent chance of success in school after they acquire sufficient
academic language, but it is likely that those who are from low-SES backgrounds
will face serious problems. Treating ELL students as a uniform group will not
accurately portray their true performance and will result in widening gaps in
academic achievement (Stevens, Butler, & Castellon-Wellington, 2000).

Educational Implications
Although this study is not comprehensive, its results illustrate a critical
aspect of how test formats could affect ELL students’ math achievement. The
American Educational Research Association (2000), on its Web site, expressed
its position regarding high-stakes testing by asserting that “appropriate
attention [should be given] to language difference among examinees” because
when the test scores of the ELL students are adversely affected by their
linguistic proficiencies, those scores cannot be considered an accurate
measurement of true ability.
Unfortunately, an assessment program created with good intentions can
jeopardize assessment equity for ELL students. Thus, policymakers must create
mechanisms that allow ELL students to be tested alternatively. One available
alternative, portfolio assessment, can show yearly progress and would free
schools and teachers to convert their energy from “teaching to the test”
toward helping students expand their knowledge.
In addition, implementing an assessment alternative such as portfolio
assessments would be the most meaningful way to include ELL students in
the accountability system. Portfolio assessments would help establish
accountability by allowing all ELL students to take part in the assessment
process, beginning from their first day of school. Then, achieving “adequate
yearly progress” would not be merely a federal mandate but a tangible and
meaningful goal for all stakeholders.

Equity of Literacy-Based Math Assessments 355

 Furthermore, while we are waiting for alternative measures for ELL
students, the results of this study call for exemption provisions for high-
stakes standardized tests to be extended from the current 1 year to at least 3
years, allowing ELL students time to improve their competence in academic
English. (For data on the amount of time necessary to develop sufficient
academic English to do class work in the mainstream and to be able to take
high-stakes tests, see Krashen, 2001.)
This is not a plan, however, to keep ELL students out of the accountability
loop. As noted above, accountability for the first 3 years of the ELL students’
school careers can be measured, hopefully through portfolio assessment,
which can give us a picture of both their subject matter and language
development.
Others (Abedi, 2004; Abedi et al., 2004; Abedi et al., 2003; Abedi & Lord,
2001) propose a different solution: modification of tests to make them more
comprehensible for ELL students, that is, simplifying the language of the
tests. Results of these efforts have produced, however, only modest
improvements in comprehensibility (Abedi et al., 2004).
Apple (1995) succinctly states that educational policy needs to recognize
“the winners and losers” of educational practices (p. 331). The fact that LBPAs
have been in the educational arena for a relatively short period of time in large-
scale statewide assessments necessitates investigating who the winners are
and who the losers are. Nevertheless, meaningful and equitable assessment
of ELL students in systemwide assessment is critical. Without assessment
that allows ELL students to be tested equitably, these students will be perpetual
losers in a system in which they do not receive a fair chance.

References
Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language
learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher,
33(1), 4–14.
Abedi, J., Hofstetter, C., & Lord, C. (2004). Assessment accommodations
for English language learners: Implications for policy-based empirical
research. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 1–28.
Abedi, J., Leon, S., & Mirocha, J. (2003). Impact of student language back-
ground on content-based performance: Analyses of extant data (CSE
Tech. Rep. No. 603). Los Angeles: University of California, National
Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Abedi, J., & Lord, C. (2001). The language factor in mathematics tests.
Applied Measurement in Education, 14(3), 219–234.

356 Bilingual Research Journal, 29: 2 Summer 2005

American Educational Research Association. (2000). AERA position
statements. Retrieved May 31, 2005, from http://www.aera.net/
policyandprograms/?id=378
Apple, M. W. (1995). Taking power seriously: New directions in equity in
mathematics education and beyond. In W. G. Secada, E. Fennema, & L. B.
Adajian (Eds.), New directions in equity in mathematics education
(pp. 329–348). New York: Cambridge University Press.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for
language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Bernardo, A. B. (2002). Language and mathematical problem solving among
bilinguals. The Journal of Psychology, 136(3), 283–297.
Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language:
Theoretical, empirical, & classroom perspectives. Norward, NJ: Ablex.
Bransford, J. D. (Ed.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience,
and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brenner, M. E. (1998). Development of mathematical communication in
problem solving groups by language minority students. Bilingual
Research Journal, 22(2–4), 149–163.
Carey, D. A., Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., & Franks, M. L. (1995). Equity
and mathematics education. In W. G. Secada, E. Fennema, & L. B.
Adajian (Eds.), New directions for equity in mathematics education
(pp. 93–125). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Imple-
menting the cognitive academic language learning approach. New
York: Longman.
Collier, V. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for
academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 617–641.
Cuevas, G. J. (1984). Mathematics learning in English a second language.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15(2), 134–144.
Cummins, J. (1980). Psychological assessment of immigrant children: Logic
or institution? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,
1(2), 97–111.
Cummins, J. (1981). Four misconceptions about language proficiency in
bilingual education. NABE Journal, 5(3), 31–45.
Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in
a diverse society. Ontario: California Association for Bilingual Education.
Dobbs, M. (2004, March 30). More changes made to “No Child” rules.
Washington Post, p. 1.

Equity of Literacy-Based Math Assessments 357

Fernández, R. M., & Nielsen, F. (1986). Bilingualism and Hispanic
scholastic achievement: Some baseline results. Social Science Research,
15(1), 43–70.
Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (1999). How long does it take English
learners to attain proficiency? (Policy Report No. 2000-1). The University
of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
Khisty, L. L. (1995). Making inequality: Issues of language and meanings in
mathematics teaching with Hispanics students. In W. G. Secada, E. Fennema,
& L. B. Adajian (Eds.), New directions for equity in mathematics edu-
cation (pp. 279–297). New York: Cambridge University.
Khisty, L. L. (1997). Making mathematics accessible to Latino students:
Rethinking instructional practice. In J. Trentacosta & M. J. Kenney (Eds.),
1996 yearbook multicultural and gender equity in mathematics
classroom: The gift of diversity (pp. 92–101). Reston, VA: National Council
of Teachers of Mathematics.
Kopriva, R., & Saez, S. (1997). Guide to scoring LEP student responses to
open-ended mathematics items. Washington, DC: The Council of Chief
State School Officers.
Krashen, S. (1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education.
Century City, CA: Language Education Associates.
Krashen, S. (2001). How many children remain in bilingual education “too
long”? Some recent data. NABE News, 24, 15–17.
Krashen, S., & Brown, C. L. (2005). The ameliorating effects of high socio-
economic status: A secondary analysis. Bilingual Research Journal,
29(1), 185–196.
Krussel, L. (1998). Teaching the language of mathematics. The Mathematical
Teacher, 91(5), 436–441.
LaCelle-Peterson, M., & Rivera, C. (1997). Is it real for all kids? A frame-
work for equitable assessment policies for English language learners.
Harvard Educational Review, 64(1), 55–75.
Lachat, M. A. (1999). Standards, equity and cultural diversity (No.
RJ 96006401). Providence, RI: Northeast and Islands Regional Educational
Laboratory at Brown University.
Lytton, H., & Pyryt, M. (1998). Predictors of achievement in basic skills:
A Canadian effective schools study. Canadian Journal of Education,
23(3), 281–301.
Madden, N., Slavin, R., & Simons, K. (1995). Mathwings: Effects on student
mathematics performance (Research No. R-117-D40005). Baltimore:
Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk.

358 Bilingual Research Journal, 29: 2 Summer 2005

McGhan, B. (1995). MEAP: Mathematics and the reading connection.
Retrieved March 23, 2005, from http://comnet.org/cspt/essays/
mathread.htm
McKay, P. (2000). On ESL standards for school-age learners. Language
Testing, 17(2), 185–214.
Mestre, J. P. (1988). The role of language comprehension in mathematics
and problem solving. In R. R. Cocking & J. P. Mestre (Eds.), Linguistic
and cultural influences on learning mathematics (pp. 201–240). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. (n.d.) Purpose of this
work. Retrieved May 31, 2005, from http://www.mcrel.org/standards-
benchmarks/docs/purpose.asp
Midobuche, E. (2001). Building cultural bridges between home and the
mathematics classroom. Teaching Children Mathematics, 7(9), 500–502.
Moya, S. S., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). A portfolio assessment model for
ESL. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students,
13, 13–36.
Myers, D. E., & Milne, A. M. (1988). Effects of home language and primary
language on mathematics achievement. In R. R. Cocking & J. P. Mestre
(Eds.), Linguistic and cultural influences on learning mathematics
(pp. 259–293). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1995). Assessment standards
for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).
Olivares, R. A. (1996). Communication in mathematics for students with
limited English proficiency. In P. C. Elliot & M. J. Kenney (Eds.), 1996
yearbook communication in mathematics K-12 and beyond (pp. 219–
230). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Oller, J. W., & Perkins, K. (1978). Language in education: Testing the tests.
Rowerly, MA: Newbury House.
Olson, L. (2002). States scramble to rewrite language-proficiency exams.
Retrieved December 4, 2002, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/
ew_printstory.cfm?slug=14lep.h22
Romberg, T. A. (1992). Further thoughts on the standards: A reaction to
Apple. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(5), 432–437.
Saville-Troike, M. (1984). What really matters in second language learning
for academic achievement? TESOL Quarterly, 18(2), 199–219.

Equity of Literacy-Based Math Assessments 359

Secada, W. G. (1992). Race, ethnicity, social class, language, and achievement
in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on
mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council
of Teachers of mathematics (pp. 623–660). New York: Macmillan.
Secada, W. G., Fennema, E., & Adajian, L. B. (Eds.). (1995). New directions
for equity in mathematics education. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Shavelson, R., Baxter, G., & Pine, J. (1992). Performance assessments:
Political rhetoric and measurement reality. Educational Researcher,
21(4), 22–27.
Short, D. J. (1993). Assessing integrated Language and content instruction.
TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 627–656.
Silver, E. A., Smith, M. S., & Nelson, B. S. (1995). The QUASAR project:
Equity concerns meet mathematics education reform in the middle school.
In W. G. Secada, E. Fennema, & L. B. Adajian (Eds.), New directions for
equity in mathematics education (pp. 9–56). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Solano-Flores, G., & Trumbull, E. (2003). Examining language in context:
The need for new research and practice paradigms in the testing of
English-language learners. Educational Researcher, 32(2), 3–13.
Stanley, C., & Spafford, C. (2002). Cultural perspectives in mathematics
planning efforts. Multicultural Education, 10(1), 40–42.
Stevens, R. A., Butler, F. A., & Castellon-Wellington, M. (2000). Academic
language and content assessment: Measuring the progress of English
language learners. Los Angeles: CRESST/University of California.
Tate, W. F. (1997). Race-ethnicity, SES, gender, and language proficiency
trends in mathematics achievement: An update. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 28(6), 652–679.
Torres, H. N., & Zeidler, D. L. (2001). The effects of English language
proficiency and scientific reasoning skills on the acquisition of science
content knowledge by Hispanic English language learners and native
English language speaking students. Retrieved April 8, 2003, from http:/
/unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/ejsev6n2.html#top
Tsang, S.-L. (1988). The mathematics achievement characteristics of Asian-
American students. In R. R. Cocking & J. P. Mestre (Eds.), Linguistic
and cultural influences on learning mathematics (pp. 123–136). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

360 Bilingual Research Journal, 29: 2 Summer 2005

 Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the three anonymous Bilingual Research Journal
reviewers, Stephen Krashen, Pamela Guandique, and Amos Hatch for their
valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Endnote
1
MSDE no longer uses the MSPAP to test students. The MSPAP did not
comply with the NCLB Act (2002) because it did not provide individual student
report cards. The MSDE developed a Maryland School Assessment that
consists of multiple-choice and constructed response items. The new test in
math, however, retains questions that require students to respond in writing,
in addition to multiple-choice items.

Equity of Literacy-Based Math Assessments 361

 Appendix A

2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress Grade 4

Math Item: Apply a Linear Relationship and Justify Answer

20. The table below shows how the chirping of a cricket is related to the
temperature outside. For example, a cricket chirps 144 times each minute
when the temperature is 76°.

Number of Chirps Per Minute Temperature

144 76o

152 78o

160 80o

168 82o

176 84o

What would be the number of chirps per minute when the temperature
outside is 90° if this pattern stays the same?

Answer: ________________________
Explain how you figured out your answer.
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________

Did you use the calculator on this question?

yes no

Note. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ITMRLS/qtab.asp

362 Bilingual Research Journal, 29: 2 Summer 2005

 Appendix B

Maryland School Performance Assessment Program Sample

Math Proportion Item Released to the Public

Step A
The zoo planner wants to have a small information center. They want to
cover the floors with tiles. Design a repeating pattern that could be used on
the floor in the information center. Show your work on the grid below.

Step B
Write a sentence or two explaining the pattern you chose.

Information Center
GO ON

________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________

Note. This item is reconstructed based on the information available on the Maryland
State Department of Education Web site: http://www.mdk12.org/share/publicrelease/
plan_task.pdf

Equity of Literacy-Based Math Assessments 363