•Candidates apply knowledge of sociocultural and political 
variables to inform instruction and improve communication with 
ESOL students and their families.
•Candidates understand and monitor patterns in ESOL student 
language errors and design instructional activities to meet 
learners’ needs at appropriate times.
•Candidates provide individual, focused feedback appropriate to 
learners’ needs.
•Candidates design and deliver instruction that includes anti-
bias materials and develop a classroom climate in which 
antiracism, anti-bias, and anti-stereotyping are purposefully 
addressed.
•Candidates plan assessment of LFS (Limited Formal Schooling) 
students’ competence with text.
•Candidates plan communication that LFS students will 
understand.
•Candidates provide a variety of activities and settings to 
assist students in making use of what they know in order to 
listen effectively.
•Candidates are aware that there are various purposes of 
assessment (e.g., diagnostic, achievement, L1 and L2 
proficiency).
•Candidates prepare their students appropriately for the type 
of assessment being used, including technology-based assessment.
•Candidates use L1 assessment to provide benchmarks for student 
learning.
•Candidates share their knowledge and experience about the 
purposes of assessment with colleagues.
•Candidates accommodate for linguistic bias (e.g., test 
translations, specific test formats).
•Candidates use L1 assessment results to determine language 
dominance.
•Candidates evaluate formal and informal technology-based and 
non-technology-based assessment measures for psychological, 
cultural, and linguistic limitations.
•Candidates are aware of technical aspects of assessment (e.g., 
validity and reliability).
•Candidates are aware of the differences between performance- 
based or authentic measures and traditional assessment.
•Candidates can explain why tests are valid and/or reliable, 
and use this knowledge in making assessment-related decisions.
•Candidates use performance-based or traditional measures, as 
appropriate.
•Candidates can create performance-based and traditional 
measures that are standards based, valid, and reliable, as 
appropriate.
•Candidates are aware of some of the limitations of assessment 
instruments for ESOL students.
•Candidates accommodate for psychological situations (e.g., 
anxiety over timed tests with high-stakes consequences, limited 
experience with tests).
•Candidates accommodate for cultural bias (e.g., unfamiliar 
images and references).
•Candidates are able to assess and instruct ESOL students who 
are gifted and talented and/or have special learning needs.
•Candidates recognize how cultural bias may misinform results 
of such assessments.
•Candidates understand national and state requirements (e.g., 
home language surveys, benchmarks, and other criteria) for 
identifying, reclassifying, and exiting ESOL students from 
language support programs.
•Candidates make informed decisions regarding placement and 
reclassification of students in ESOL programs based on national 
and state mandates.
•Candidates involve families in program decisions for ESOL 
students.
•Candidates are familiar with norm-referenced assessments but 
have not used them to make decisions about ESOL students.
•Candidates understand the nature of norm referenced 
assessments and use this information to make decisions about 
ESOL students (e.g., identification, placement, achievement, 
reclassification, and possible giftedness and/or learning 
disabilities).
•Candidates evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of norm 
referenced assessments for use with ESOL students.
•Candidates share this knowledge with their colleagues.
•Candidates are familiar with criterion-referenced assessments 
but have not used them to make decisions about ESOL learners.
•Candidates use authentic and traditional criterion-referenced 
measures to assess ESOL students’ language and content area 
learning.
•Candidates use these assessments to help determine possible 
special needs (e.g., giftedness and/or learning disabilities).
•Candidates construct and evaluate a range of criterion-
referenced measures and item types to assess ESOL students’ 
learning.
•Candidates understand a variety of purposes for assessment of 
ESOL learners (e.g., proficiency, diagnosis, placement, and 
classroom instruction and achievement).
•Candidates are aware of the importance of using multiple 
measures to accurately assess ESOL learners.
•Candidates use multiple and appropriate assessment measures 
for a variety of purposes, including classroom and student self-
assessment and technology-based assessment (e.g., audio, video, 
computer).
•Candidates design and adapt classroom tests and alternative 
assessment measures to make them appropriate for ESOL learners 
for a variety of purposes.
•Candidates use multiple measures and sources of information to 
assess ESOL learners and to determine if they have special 
needs (e.g., gifted and talented or learning disabilities not 
based on language).
•Candidates create multiple performance-based measures to 
assess students’ language skills and communicative competence 
across the curriculum.
•Candidates use a limited set of performance-based tasks to 
assess ESOL learners’ language and content area learning.
•Candidates use a variety of performance-based assessment tools 
(e.g., portfolios, classroom observation checklists, reading 
logs, video, spreadsheet software) that measure ESOL students’ 
progress toward state and national standards.
•Candidates design performance-based tasks and tools to measure 
ESOL learners’ progress.
•Candidates are aware of instruments and techniques to assess 
the content-area knowledge of ESOL learners, who are at varying 
levels of English language and literacy abilities.
•Candidates use a variety of instruments and techniques, 
including technology-based assessment, to assess ESOL learners’ 
knowledge in the content areas at varying levels of English 
language and literacy ability.
•Candidates use test adaptation techniques, (e.g., simplifying 
the language of assessment measures and directions).
•Candidates make corresponding adaptations in the scoring and 
interpretation of the results of such assessments.
•Candidates develop and adapt a variety of techniques and 
instruments when appropriate to assess ESOL students’ content 
learning at all levels of language proficiency and literacy.
•Candidates encourage ESOL learners to monitor their own 
performance and provide feedback to other learners. 
•Candidates model self- and peer-assessment techniques and 
provide opportunities for students to practice these in the 
classroom.
•Candidates embed self- and peer-assessment techniques in their 
instruction and model them across the curriculum.
•Candidates share knowledge of ESOL assessment and related 
issues with colleagues.

•sociocultural and political variables of learning English.
•the effects of racism, stereotyping, and discrimination to ESL 
teaching and learning.
•assessment-informed instructional practices with ESOL students 
•needs of students with LFS (limited formal schooling)  in 
their L1.
•purposes and varieties of assessment as they relate to ESOL 
learners.
•quality indicators and limitations of assessment instruments
•assessment accommodations for ESOL students.
•classification of ESOL students (e.g., gifted and talented, 
and special needs).
•national and state requirements for identification, 
reclassification, and exit of ESOL students from language 
support programs.
•norm-referenced assessments and ESOL learners.
•criterion-referenced assessments and ESOL learners.
•performance-based assessment tools and ESOL learners.
•content-area (e.g., math, science, social studies) assessment 
and ESOL learners.