Summary: Lewis Terman, a psychologist and creator of the Stanford–Binet IQ test, played a major role in promoting standardized testing in schools. He was also a strong supporter of eugenics and used IQ testing to argue that certain racial and ethnic groups, particularly immigrants and non-white populations, were intellectually inferior. These ideas influenced educational policy and led to tracking students into programs based on race and language background.

Why It Matters: This highlights the dangerous origins of standardized testing and reminds us to be critical of tools used to assess MLs today.

Summary: Researchers Chandler and Plakos studied 47 Spanish-speaking students who had been placed in classes for the "educable mentally retarded" (EMR) based on English-only IQ tests. When retested using a Spanish version of the assessment, most of the students were found to have been misclassified. This exposed how language barriers (not cognitive deficits) led to inappropriate special education placements.

Why It Matters: This study is a powerful example of how assessments can do harm when language is not taken into account. It reinforces the need for linguistically appropriate assessments and highlights the importance of evaluating MLs in their strongest language. The findings are especially relevant in today’s inclusive classrooms, where culturally and linguistically responsive practices are crucial for equity.

Summary: This landmark Supreme Court case involved Chinese-American students in San Francisco who were not provided with language support services. The court ruled that "equal" education does not mean "the same" education, and that schools must take steps to support students who do not speak English in order to provide them with meaningful access to learning.

Why It Matters: Lau v. Nichols established that language access is a civil right and that schools have a legal obligation to support MLs. It laid the groundwork for bilingual and English as a New Language (ENL) programs. This decision directly influences how we assess MLs today by underscoring that language accommodations and scaffolds are not optional, they are necessary to ensure equity.

Summary: NCLB was a major federal education reform that required all students, including MLs, to participate in annual standardized testing in English in grades 3–8. There were no exceptions for newly arrived MLs. Schools that did not show Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) faced severe penalties. While it aimed to hold schools accountable for the success of all students, it ignored key research on second language acquisition and valid testing.

Why It Matters: NCLB emphasized accountability but failed to consider the validity of assessments for students who were not yet proficient in English. It contributed to the narrowing of the curriculum, pressure to "teach to the test," and increased ML misclassification. For educators today, it’s a lesson in how policy can unintentionally harm students if it doesn’t align with developmental and linguistic research.

Summary: ESSA gave more control to states and districts in setting goals and determining how to measure student progress. It allowed states to delay the inclusion of test scores for recently arrived MLs and encouraged more flexibility in assessment practices. ESSA also continued the requirement to monitor the progress of MLs as a subgroup but introduced options to design more inclusive accountability systems.

Why It Matters: While ESSA didn't fully resolve issues of test validity for MLs, it was a step toward more nuanced and realistic expectations. It acknowledges that MLs need time to develop academic English and that their progress should be measured in ways that are appropriate. This shift gives educators more space to advocate for valid assessments and support multilingualism rather than treating it as a barrier.