Inside OSSLT and foreign students in Canada Spring Issue 2004 Volume 30, No. 1 Spring 2004 ESL Myths and Delusions Publication number 40038620 (cont’d on p. 3) North York Affiliate Profile Outdated data prevents boards from meeting ESL learner needs Levels of English Proficiency (LOEP): A Computer- adaptive Language Test Jean Nielsen, Professor English Language Institute, Seneca College Abstract Levels of English Proficiency (LOEP) is a computer-adaptive language test developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) for The College Board of New York, to be used for student placement in both two-year and four-year post- secondary institutions. This paper describes the LOEP test and points out a few considerations when using the test, with reference to how one post-secondary L2 program in Ontario has used it in the past. Introduction Finding a reliable and valid test which assesses L2 proficiency to the extent of accurately placing students in appropriate learning levels is a challenge that all institu- tions face. A great benefit of the technology boom in recent years is that many placement tests have been computerized, thus saving educational institutions hours of time which could be spent profitably elsewhere. Levels of English Proficiency (LOEP) is one such computer-adap- tive language test, (CALT), developed by the Educational Testing Service, (ETS), for The College Board of New York. It is one of eight components of The College Boards ACCUPLACER, a computer-software system de- signed for college-student placement. 1 LOEP was added to ACCUPLACER in 1993 as a low-threat English placement test for L2 and remedial L1 students, regardless of their level of academic preparedness, seeking admission to a college with open-door policies (1997, ACCUPLACER Program Overview: Coordinators Guide: 82). This paper arises from my work at two colleges over two years. The first college I was employed at helped to pilot LOEP in the 1992-93 academic year (LOEP was officially introduced to ACCUPLACER a year later). It was part of a continuing computer project initiative in conjunction with ETS, the
Transcript
Inside
OSSLT and foreignstudents in Canada
Spring Issue 2004
Vo lume 30 , No . 1Spr ing 2004
ESL Myths andDelusions
Pub l i ca t i on number 40038620
(cont'd on p. 3)
North York AffiliateProfile
Outdated data preventsboards from meetingESL learner needs
Levels of English Proficiency (LOEP): A Computer-adaptive Language Test
Jean Nielsen, ProfessorEnglish Language Institute, Seneca College
Abstract
Levels of English Proficiency (LOEP) is a computer-adaptive language test developed by the Educational Testing Service(ETS) for The College Board of New York, to be used for student placement in both two-year and four-year post-secondary institutions. This paper describes the LOEP test and points out a few considerations when using the test,with reference to how one post-secondary L2 program in Ontario has used it in the past.
Introduction
Finding a reliable and valid test which assesses L2proficiency to the extent of accurately placing students inappropriate learning levels is a challenge that all institu-tions face. A great benefit of the technology boom inrecent years is that many placement tests have beencomputerized, thus saving educational institutions hoursof time which could be spent profitably elsewhere. Levelsof English Proficiency (LOEP) is one such computer-adap-tive language test, (CALT), developed by the EducationalTesting Service, (ETS), for The College Board of NewYork. It is one of eight components of The College
Board�s ACCUPLACER, a computer-software system de-signed for college-student placement.1 LOEP was added toACCUPLACER in 1993 as a low-threat English placement testfor L2 and remedial L1 students, �regardless of their level ofacademic preparedness�, seeking admission to a college with�open-door policies� (1997, ACCUPLACER Program Overview:Coordinator�s Guide: 82).
This paper arises from my work at two colleges over twoyears. The first college I was employed at helped to pilot LOEPin the 1992-93 academic year (LOEP was officially introducedto ACCUPLACER a year later). It was part of a continuingcomputer project initiative in conjunction with ETS, the
Editorial SupportCommitteeBob CourchêneUniversity of Ottawa
Jacqueline Jeffers
Contact, the officialnewsletter of theTeachers of English as aSecond Language ofOntario, is publishedthree times a year. It isavailable through mem-bership only.
Contact welcomes copyof general interest toassociation members,including announcements,reports, articles, calls forpapers and news items.Contributors shouldinclude their full name,title and affiliation. Copyshould be preferably e-mailed to the editor [email protected],or mailed on CD to theEditor, c/o The TESLAssociation of Ontario,27 Carlton Street, Ste.405, Toronto, Ontario,M5B 1L2, (416) 593-4243, Fax (416) 593-0164. Deadlines areJanuary 30, April 30 andJune 30.
Inquiries regardingmembership or changeof address should beaddressed to theMembership Secretary c/o the above address.
Inquiries regardingadvertising rates andreservation of advertisingspace should beaddressed to theAdministrative Directorc/o the above address.
The statements madeand opinions expressedin articles are those ofthe authors and do notnecessarily reflect thepolicies of TESL Ontario.Acceptance of advertis-ing does not constituteendorsement by TESLOntario nor guaranteeaccuracy ofinformation therein.
From the EditorFrom the EditorHappy Spring. One can only hope that by the
time this issue reaches you, the warmer weather willhave returned. It�s been a tough winter for everyone,especially for our students who are braving the coldfor the first time.
In this, our third on-line issue of Contact, you�ll finda variety of information. University of Western On-tario lecturer, Steve Sider comments on Literacytesting and ESL, and Seneca College�s Jean Neilsenexplains the convenience and practicalities of LOEPcomputerized language testing.
You may have already seen Mary Meyer�s paper,Myths and Delusions, on the TESL Ontario website.We�ve included the Executive Summary in this issue,and we invite you to respond to it.
I talked with a Ministry of Education spokesper-son to try to de-mystify the province�s complex ESLfunding formula, and then I interviewed ESL Consult-ants from Durham Catholic and Peel school boardsfor their comments on the funding.
North York/York Region Affiliate is profiled inthis issue, and Windsor WEST is the featured commu-nity agency. In addition, our Associate Editor, HeatherSaunders went undercover to poll private ESL schoolsaround Toronto and was happily surprised to findthat many require their staff be TESL-certified. Oneschool even recommended she call TESL Ontario toget the most current information on certification.
Please remember that material published in Con-tact does not necessarily represent the views of oureditorial committee or TESL Ontario staff. We al-ways welcome your comments, suggestions and sub-missions as well.
As usual, in May you will receive a hard copyedition of the Research Symposium papers and pres-entation write-ups from our 2003 conference. Then,in June/July a regular Conference Proceedings issuewill be posted on-line. Thank you to the severalpresenters who have already submitted their papersand write-ups from the conference.
Brigid Kelso, Contact Editor
President�s Message
As President of TESL Ontario for 2004-2005, Ithank you for placing your confidence in me. I amdeeply committed to both the organization and myresponsibility as president for the next two years.
For many of you, TESL Ontario represents theannual November conference where you have anopportunity to learn new things and renew acquaint-ances with other ESL professionals. We are also,however, an organization that is frequently con-sulted by governments at the federal and provinciallevel. Ministry representatives regularly attend boardmeetings, and seek our input on ESL issues.
The members who represent the affiliates on theTESL Ontario Board of Directors are busy! Thesevolunteers meet throughout the year to address theconcerns and strategize ways to address the needsof our constituents whether it�s at the elementary,secondary, adult, college or university level. Yourvoice is heard at the Board level through yourAffiliate Director who is elected annually. S/he rep-
resents the affiliate and is empowered to vote at theBoard table. Each affiliate director participates inone or two committees, which focus on a particularissue. Key decisions are discussed at length at theCommittee level and recommendations are made tothe full Board where voting takes place. With meet-ings occurring five times a year, you can imagine thatour agenda is full and the pace is quick! However,with a group of highly dedicated professionals at thetable, we get the job done. I thank each and every oneof these individuals, some of whom travel greatdistances to give of themselves because they arecommitted to our profession.
It is through our terrific volunteer board mem-bers and the enormous support from our great officeteam, that TESL Ontario will continue to balance theneeds of government with the concerns of our mem-bers, as well as the needs of our students at all agesand stages. I look forward to the challenge!
College Board, and the League for Innovation in theCommunity College.2 The college has been usingLOEP ever since to place its incoming students. As aninstructor in the English for Academic Purposes,(EAP), program, I personally was not involved instudent placement, but I certainly lived with theresults of it! Furthermore, at the time I was there, thecollege had just expanded its program from three toeight levels. After this expansion, LOEP played an evenmore crucial role in the placement of L2 students. Itis for this reason that I chose to examine the LOEP testin general and to assess its usefulness for Canadiancollege-student placement in particular.
The LOEP TestTest History and Development
In a 1988 nation-wide survey, American ESLeducators expressed the need for a computer-adap-tive ESL test to aid in the more efficient placement oflarge numbers of students entering two-year colleges.Thus, ETS took on the task of developing a test thatwould be useful for both two-year and four-year post-secondary institutions (Coordinator�s Guide: 11). Thetest development process was comprehensive, con-sisting of five phases including:
1) forming the test specifications (purpose, skills,content, format);
2) writing the questions, using a variety of experts,and having internal and external reviews �toassure� [the questions met] ETS standards forcurrency, sensitivity, and bias-free language� (Co-ordinator�s Guide: 9);
3) extensive pretesting;
4) preparing the final test (using those questionswhich passed the pre-testing phase, and review-ing the test as a whole);
5) analyzing post-administration data (of whichtester and testee feedback was just one part).3
LOEP was completed and added to ACCUPLACERin 1993 as part of its DOS-version computer-adap-tive test (CAT). Then, in 1998, ACCUPLACER wenton-line, becoming a web-adaptive test (WAT) whichwas, according to its brochure claims at the time,�the first and only program of its kind to be deliveredover the Internet�.4 The college I was working atchose to switch to the web-based version in 1999because it was even easier than before to adminis-ter, and was less costly in terms of software installa-tion and upgrading.
Format and Content
LOEP is an untimed, fixed-length computer-adap-tive test.5 In its basic form, it consists of three subsec-tions, each with 20 questions (multiple-choice andone word or short phrase fill-in-the-blank). The testtakes approximately 30 minutes to complete.
1) Reading Skills assesses reading comprehensionof short and medium-length passages (50 wordsor less, and 50-90 words) on a variety of subjectssuch as Arts, History, Psychology, and Science.It includes both basic comprehension questions(eg. paraphrasing, vocabulary, pronoun refer-ence) as well as inferencing skills (eg. main idea,fact/opinion, point of view).
2) Language Use assesses a large number of gram-mar skills and usage, such as subject-verb agree-ment, verb tenses and forms, prepositions, frag-ments, and run-on sentences.
3) Sentence Meaning assesses word-meaning com-prehension in one- or two- sentence contexts, ona variety of subjects. It tests such areas as phrasalverbs, idioms, adjectives and adverbs, connec-tives, and commands.6
The College Board web site shows that there aretwo additional, optional subsections to LOEP: Listen-ing and WritePlacer ESL. Because the college I taughtat did not use these last two subsections, I havechosen not to include them in my review.7
Uses
As are all of ACCUPLACER�s computerized-placement tests (CPTs),8 LOEP is designed to be usedfor low- or medium-stakes purposes, for studentswho have already been accepted into a post-second-ary institution. It cannot be compared to the Scholas-tic Aptitude Test (SAT),9 a high-stakes test whichassesses more general abilities and is used for college/university admissions as well as for granting scholar-ships.
ETS claims that LOEP can be suitably used fortesting, re-testing and post-course testing purposesbecause the item numbers and sequences in a sessionare expansive. The memorization of questions wouldbe nearly impossible, and the computer-adaptivenature of the test means that no two tests are alike. Afurther use comes with the Proficiency Statements(written and reviewed by ESL specialists) providedby ACCUPLACER, which give specific informationabout what knowledge or skills students can be
expected to have at certain points on the CPT scale.Using these statements, �the test content can bematched to course curriculum to assist in the devel-opment of placement scores and to foster alignmentbetween test content and curricula. Proficiency state-ments also provide students with descriptions oftheir strengths and weaknesses so that they can workon improving these skills� (1994, ACCUPLACER Pro-ficiency Statements: 2).
Observations
Establishing guidelines to help assess a CPT likeLOEP remains a challenge. J.D. Brown (1997) andPatricia Dunkel (1999) address many of the issuesthat test developers and test users must consider withCBTs and CATs, but as yet no one has pulled all theinformation together. Even less general information isavailable on CPTs, other than some dated researchsupported by The College Board itself (which doesnot render it meaningless, of course!).1 0
I believe that LOEP is a good CAT (and WAT).With the full weight of ETS and The College Boardbehind it, ample funding was provided for research,measurement, analysis, development and pilotingpurposes.1 1 It appropriately defines its purpose andtarget population, and the questions in the item pool� carefully written and pre-tested � appear to be fairand useful for assessment purposes. The test reliabil-ity for each of LOEP�s subsections has a coefficient of.87 or higher (Coordinator�s Guide: 18), exemplary fora low-stakes test. Extensive guidelines for tester andtestee usage, along with copious background infor-mation and performed technical information accom-pany the test. As a �high-tech� web-based test,1 2
most of the work is done by the server, with six-day-a-week on-line support. In order to guarantee deliv-ery, ACCUPLACER even provides a separate dial-upnumber in case the college computer system is down.The only real drawbacks are when the Internet is inheavy use, making download time somewhat slower(a minor inconvenience), or if the Internet itself is notworking (which is rarely a problem). Although rarelya problem, downloading is slower when the serveris down or experiencing a high volume of users. In thiscase, the test cannot be taken �on demand,� and apen-and-paper version is no longer available.
Unfortunately, I cannot properly address the ef-fectiveness of LOEP as a stand-alone CPT because thecollege�s L2 placement at the time I was reviewing thetest included the student�s LOEP score, a writingsample (marked by EAP faculty) and often an accom-panying interview. It would be interesting to do
further research on this, to see how often studentswere placed in a level that was contrary to LOEP�srecommendations, but this was not possible at thetime. It would also be interesting to see if the twooptional subsections to LOEP (Listening andWritePlacer ESL) could have provided the supple-mentary information about a student that the EAPfaculty was looking for in the personal interviews.
Another area bearing further research would bean examination of placement results when institutionsre-set the cut scores, since programs that have morethan the basic three levels outlined by LOEP mustalter the cuts scores as well. This is clearly a key issuein CALT; Brown (1997) points to a multitude ofliterature on the issue of decision-making regardingcut scores (52). Re-setting the cut scores is notunusual or discouraged by ACCUPLACER; The Coor-dinator�s Guide clearly states: �Since placement crite-ria for your institution are unique, it is not possible forthe College Board to provide you with definitive rulesto use in your interpretation of scores and placementof students� (31). The Guide goes on to recommendan ETS publication entitled Passing Scores, whichdescribes several ways of approaching setting cutscores, using the individual institution�s existing place-ment practices as a starting point. It also suggests thatthese scores can be modified as the individual insti-tution �gains experience with the CPTs� (32). Whileit is useful that ETS has provided help in this matter,it shows that institutions choosing to change the cutscores no longer have a basic tool they can simplyadminister to incoming students. Much time would beneeded to look at, experiment with, follow-up andreview the various suggestions ETS offers.
Another issue to address when using LOEP isconstruct-relevant variables such as computer-fa-miliarity or computer-anxiety, and their impact onstudent performance in LOEP.1 3 The college I was atwas well aware of the importance of making studentsfeel as comfortable as possible during placementtesting. Still, in my work as a Computer-AssistedLanguage Learning (CALL) teacher, I have foundthere are still some students (though relatively few)who are computer-illiterate. I cannot help but won-der what effect this might have had on their compu-terized-placement performance. For this reason, afurther written test and oral interview to supplementthe LOEP test certainly makes sense.
Conclusion
A tool is only as good as its user. How do ETS andThe College Board ensure that LOEP is being used the
way it was intended? Is it even one of their functions?LOEP, as far as I am able to determine, is an effectivelow-threat computer-adaptive placement test, thougheducational institutions will still need to adapt it.When I began my research, I had not realized howmuch there is still to explore in the area of computer-ized-placement testing. Two major figures in com-puters and language teaching, Mark Warschauer andDeborah Healey, have stressed the necessity andpotential rewards for further work in the overallCALL field. �Proof is elusive, but as more research isperformed, we come closer to having a sense of therole that technology can and should play� (1998: 63).Technology in education is here to stay � our job aseducators is to be sure we are using it in the mosteffective way possible.
APPENDIX 1: CONTENT PERCENTAGESOF LOEP TESTS
Computerized Placement Approx. %Tests � LOEP of Test
Language UseNouns, Pronouns, Pronoun CaseStructureSubject-verb AgreementComparatives, Adverbs, AdjectivesVerbsSubordination/Coordination
Endnotes
1. LOEP is owned jointly by ETS and The CollegeBoard (see ETS LOEP tracking numberTC020016. See also www.collegeboard.org/accuplacer/html/LOEP.html.). For furtherinformation about ETS, see: www.ets.org ;about The College Board and ACCUPLACER,see www.collegeboard.com.
2. The computer initiative began in 1986. For amore comprehensive discussion of the Leaguefor Innovation in the Community College, andthe role of Ontario colleges in this League, seeSheila Susini and William Totten, eds (1994: v).
3. See pp. 8-15 in the ACCUPLACER ProgramOverview for more information on LOEPdevelopment, specifications, pool sizes, etc.
4. See the brochure (1998), ACCUPLACER goesonline! Published by The College Board. Note thatthere are certainly several on-line CBTs today.
5. Computer-Adaptive Tests: With this form ofcomputer-based testing, (CBT), test questionsare chosen from a large pool of easy to difficultquestions, and adapted to suit the level andskills of the individual examinee, based on theexaminee�s answer to the previous question.Each of LOEP�s three subsections has an itempool of 120 questions, from which 20 ques-tions per subsection are selected and pre-sented to the examinee.
Item Reponse Theory (ITR): ITR is theunderlying basis for adaptive-testing, in itsability to calculate item difficulty, discrimina-tion, and estimates of students� abilities toaccurately guess a question. Every time astudent answers a question correctly, the nextquestion will be of a greater level of difficulty.Incorrect answers mean that an easier level ofdifficulty will be presented the next time. Asthe test proceeds, the questions close in on theappropriate level of difficulty for the examinee.LOEP is a fixed-length CALT and has beenconstructed so that 20 questions can basicallydetermine the examinee�s level. For moreinformation on CBTs, CATs and ITR, seeBrown (1997) and Dunkel (1999).
10-1510-1510-1510-1510-1510-15
15-25
25-35
5-10
10-1520-25
10-1510-15
20-25
Taken from The College Board (1997).ACCUPLACER Coordinator�s Guide. Pp. 18-19.
Web-Adaptive Tests: This is the latest formof CBTs, where the test is delivered via theInternet. WATs are similar to CATs but havethe additional advantage of �anytime, any-where� for the testee, and where the �scoringscripts� can make the test completelyindependent of the tester�. (Roever 2001, p.6). LOEP, as part of ACCUPLACER�s totalpackage, has been on-line since 1998.
6. ACCUPLACER PROGRAM OVERVIEW: Coordina-tor�s Guide provides a list of the ContentPercentages of LOEP, in each subsection (p.18-19). See Appendix 1.
7. See www.collegeboard.org/accuplacer/html/LOEP.html. I have been unable to find moredetailed information about these last twosubsections. They were not included in the1997 ACCUPLACER Test Administration Manualprovided by The College Board, nor are theydescribed in any other materials that I haveabout LOEP.
8. Computerized Placement Tests (CPTs) is atrademark of The College Board. The basicpurpose of CPTs is to assess the entry-levelskills of college applicants at the beginning oftheir college careers, in order to determinewhat course placements are appropriate. Thetests are computer-adaptive, and providebenefits to both students and administratorsthrough quick, accurate and reliable testing.Test scores are provided immediately toexpedite the decision-making process. SeeACCUPLACER PROGRAM OVERVIEW: Coordina-tor�s Guide, p. 0.
9. See the College Board website to learn moreabout this powerful assessment test.
10. The ACCUPLACER Test Administration Manualprovides an extensive section of �BackgroundReadings�, of CPT studies conducted before1991 in various colleges throughout theUnited States. None of these studies addressesLOEP, which would not have been availablethen. The same is true for the collection ofOntario CPT studies published by TheOntario CPT Consortium (in conjunction withThe College Board) in 1994. LOEP wasundoubtedly too new to be included.
11. See Bonny Norton Peirce (1992) for anexcellent discussion of how ETS approachestest development.
12. Roever (2001) is a good source of informationfor the difference between high-tech and low-tech WBTs.
13. Cohen (1994) reports a study showing thatCBT results are indeed influenced by pastexpertise (p. 47). Brown points to similarstudies with computerised TOEFL tests, butalso refers to studies which indicated that�after students participate in a computer-based testing tutorial, there is no meaningfulrelationship between computer familiarity andindividuals� TOEFL scores� (p. 47).
References
Books/Articles:
____. (1994). ACCUPLACER�s Computerized Place-ment Tests: Proficiency Statements. College En-trance Examination Board and Educational Test-ing Service.
____ .(1997). ACCUPLACER Test AdministrationManual (Program Overview): Coordinator�s Guide& Student�s Guide. College Entrance ExaminationBoard and Educational Testing Service.
Brown, J.D. (1997). Computers in Language Testing:Present Research and Some Future Directions.Language Learning & Technology. 1 (1), 44-59.
Cohen, Andrew D (1994). Assessing Language Abilityin the Classroom. 2nd Edition. Boston: Heinle &Heinle.
Dunkel, Patricia A. (1999). Considerations in Devel-oping or Using Second/Foreign Language Profi-ciency Computer-adaptive Tests. Language Learn-ing & Technology. 2 (2), 77-93.
Roever, Carsten (2001). Web-Based Language Test-ing. Language Learning & Technology 5 (2), May.84-94.
Susini, Sheila and Totten, William, eds (1994). Com-puterized Placement Testing: The State of the Artin Computerized Adaptive Placement Testing inOntario. Ontario CPT Consortium and The Col-lege Board.
Warschauer, M and Healey, D (1998). Computersand Language Learning: An Overview. LanguageTeaching. 31, 57-71.
Private Toronto ESL schools require TESL-cer-tified instructors
of the other representatives inquired about experi-ence.
The standard response most schools gave fortheir qualifications were �TESL certification,� andtwo of the ten schools mentioned CELTA as accept-able.
It was pleasing that the last school contactedreferred me to TESL Ontario, suggesting that it couldrecommend reputable insitutions offering the appar-ently much desired TESL certification.
Heather SaundersAssociate Editor, Contact
* from Winfield College in Vancouver
Ten private schools throughout downtown To-ronto were polled to see what their qualifications forESL teachers are.
They were asked if a 100-hour certificate withonly 2.5 hours of practicum* would suffice (I did notreveal that in addition to possessing this 100-hourcertificate, I am on the brink of finishing certificationat Woodsworth College).
Only two schools seemed willing to consider thiscertification. The issue most schools had with thiscertification was the length of practicum; most wanted20 hours of practicum, although the 100 hours oftraining seemed to be fine.
Only one representative suggested working ex-perience as a substitute for a short practicum. None
Profile: North York/York Region AffiliateThe North York/York Region affiliate was last
profiled in winter 1999 when Margaret Dunn waspresident. Since then, under the efficient direction ofTonia Price Holliday, and now the equally capablepresidency of Linda Cooper, the affiliate has grownfrom 124 members to 315: 108 teach in LlNC, 96 inContinuing Education, 30 in colleges and universities,25 in private schools, nine in secondary schools,seven in adult credit and six in elementary schools.We also have a number of students, retired instruc-tors and friends of TESL among our members. Thisgrowth reflects the overall increase in the TESLOntario membership since the certification processwas instituted. It is also a result of the increase ofimmigrants who have made our region their homeand the corresponding increase in ESL service pro-viders.
We celebrated 25 years at our AGM and Mini-Conference in October 2001 with a great turnoutand a very big cake! Jean Handscombe�s executivewould be proud of what so many have accomplishedsince June 25, 1976 when they applied for affiliatestatus.
Our members live or teach in a broad area thatincludes North York, Thornhill, Richmond Hill,Markham, Unionville, Aurora, Sharon, Bradford,Scarborough, Etobicoke, Toronto, Mississauga, Halton,Pickering, Whitby, Barrie, Woodbridge and Uxbridge.
For the past few years our conferences and work-shops have been hosted by Kenton Learning Centre� except for 2000 when we met at the TorontoCatholic District School Board office. Our well-at-tended workshops continue to please thanks to thehard work of Chair, Madeleine Vojnov, Publishers�Contact, Galina Maloed and the executive committeeas a whole. We appreciate the willingness of ourpresenters and speakers who give up their weekdayafternoons or Saturdays and allow us to offer such awide array of choices for professional and personaldevelopment. Helen Kwan is NorthYork/York Re-gion�s unflappable conference registration chair � andhas the honour of being the longest serving memberof the executive committee. The Nominations Com-mittee will call for nominees before the next AGM,but those interested in serving on the ExecutiveCommittee or volunteering at a conference can con-tact our Membership Secretary Carmen Craioveanu([email protected]) as there is a mem-ber-at-large seat vacant. Our very efficient Secretary,
Bassouma Kossouf, joined by volunteering at a con-ference.
Treasurer Susan Richarz is leading the search fora more northerly location as we are well aware ofhow difficult it is for some of our members to reachKenton.
To view what we have lined up for the April 17thSpring Conference and stay informed of our otherevents, visit our website designed by SerbanCraioveanu. Go to www.teslontario.org and link withNorthyork/York Region (or go to www.teslnorthyork.org).Although we have considered replacing the hard copyof our newsletter with an on-line version, attendeespolled at the AGM voted we continue with the hardcopy as long as funds allow. It is always a struggle toelicit material for the newsletter so we have decidedto award $25.00 for articles or reviews (not lessonplans) accepted by the newsletter committee for thenext two issues. E-mail submissions to NewsletterEditor, Angela Schinas at [email protected] note TESL NorthYork/York Region executivecommittee members are not eligible for the incen-tive.
As Affiliate Director, Claudie Graner attends theTESL Ontario Executive Board bi-monthly AffiliateForum and Joint Directors Board meetings. At theForum, questions and concerns posed by the affiliatesare brought up and discussed. The Forum is also usedfor sharing information among the affiliates (for ex-ample: recommended speakers, how to start a web-site, how to deal with requests from the public).Questions or requests are sent to the Core ExecutiveDirector�s meeting before the meeting, or broughtup by the Secretary at the Joint Executive Meeting.The administration is shared among the affiliates on arotating basis with an Affiliate Director acting asSecretary for one meeting and then Chairing thenext. The North York/York Region Affiliate Directorwill be Secretary for the March 29th meeting.
To borrow the words of our new TESL OntarioPresident Barb Krukowski in her on-line message �we are at work �behind the scenes and year round�to provide the advancement to our profession thatwe are mandated. There is much work � but it isenjoyable � and the membership and profession as awhole profits from the commitment and support ofall involved.
Myths and DelusionsHow ESL Integration Failed Our Students andTeachers
By Mary Meyers
Like the proverbial elephant in the middle of theliving room that nobody acknowledges, the state ofESL* is a looming, mishandled entity that is takingover our multiethnic, urban school boards. Althoughthe United States and Canada proudly espouse thebenefits of immigration and diversity, and Ministriesof Education have ensured politically-correct policiesconcerning racism, ethnicity and the disadvantaged(English language learners), in reality, something hasgone terribly wrong.
In 2002, the advocacy group, People for Educa-tion, reported that ESL provision had been deci-mated by 60% in Toronto, Canada, the mostmulticultural city in the world. Cutbacks in ESLleadership followed in 2003. Larry Bourne, professorof Urban Studies at the University of Toronto said�The scale of changing ethnicity and languagedemographics has been absolutely staggering . . . andeverybody, especially the schools, are struggling tokeep up.� 1 �Understanding the Early Years�, a reportfunded by Human Resources Development Canadaand released in November 2003, found that �Stu-dents whose first language isn�t English were signifi-cantly less ready to learn�. 2 Most states and prov-inces, however, do not allocate ESL funding to native-born students entering Kindergarten without Eng-lish.
Inadequate and ineffectual language support isnot a phenomenon unique to a few states and prov-inces. Large, urban school boards everywhere are insimilar situations. How can we make sense of suchobvious disparity: this steady increase of multi-lin-guistic, school clientele and a concomitant reductionof funds, resources, staffing, and professional devel-opment for effectively educating speakers of otherlanguages? How can administrators tolerate the sharpdecrease of necessary supports to needy ESL chil-dren? It�s incredulous that some school boards can�tacknowledge the presence of the elephant until it hadone foot on their necks. This article explains how ESLintegration, adopted years ago as a cure for thegrowing problems of language instruction and fund-ing pressures was, in fact, a mythical panacea with
wide-reaching, harmful, and long-term consequencesfor both teachers and students.
The Myth; Integration Misinterpreted
Integration is the practice of including studentswith exceptionalities in regular classroom programs.Successful integration occurs when teachers are ca-pable of, and comfortable with, meeting the needs ofthese students, and when students are successfullymeeting the requirements of that grade. Secondlanguage research has indicated that ESL studentsacquired language from natural peer interactions. Inthe 1970�s, certain boards were looking in earnest forways to address the needs of a student body that wasincreasingly diverse: ethnically, linguistically, cultur-ally and religiously. From being one of many strate-gies, integration emerged as an all-encompassingmethod with a capital �I�. Many board officials leapton the bandwagon, espousing integration as an effec-tive and expedient way to address the growing needfor language instruction, increased staffing require-ments and funding. Integration quickly became �the�main means of language support for ESL students,and the ESL buzz word for the next three decades.
The Delusions
As a board-endorsed thrust, �Integration� be-came endowed with amazing powers; all teachersbecame ESL teachers, ESL teachers became leaders,ESL students could develop linguistic and academiccompetencies without specialized supports, and equal-ity in education was assured. Since Integration was, ofitself, considered to be language support, moniesintended for ESL teachers and language programscould be allocated to other areas. Government cut-backs to school boards and the standardization ofgrade content and mandated tests redirected boardpriorities and energies to new areas. Previously,teachers had addressed student diversity in languageand literacy through student-centered, integratedskills programs, but Ministry mandates created class-rooms that were grade- and content-focused, thusmarginalizing ESL students even further.
Immigrant parents, ESL teachers, and classroomteachers continually expressed alarm. A 1994 Sym-posium on Integration Issues (Toronto) concludedthat, �Although the pedagogical foundations of inte-gration are sound, there are many concerns andmisrepresentations regarding ESL integration, nota-
bly, the provision of support for students, the provi-sion of leadership, advocacy, and equity and finally,the provisions for teacher-training�.3 Integration plan-ning was inadequate and insufficient to ensure appro-priate language supports and equity. Integration asinterpreted was a myth. Regrettably, ensuing actionswere delusions.
The Myth of Integration
Myths Delusions Reality Abuses
� Integration provides ef-fective language learn-ing. ESL students willlearn language skillsalong with grade levelcontent.
� Schools should imple-ment Integration ASAP.
� Integration is accom-plished by the in-classsupport of an ESLteacher.
� A teacher in a regularclassroom will knowhow to recognize andaddress ESL studentneeds in language.
� Teachers will adjust eas-ily and quickly, and cur-riculum documents willreflect ESL needs.
� An ESL teacher willknow how to work withESL students in a classand collegiality is as-sumed.
� Language learners requirehigh levels of English skillsin order to succeed ingrade tasks, particularlyfrom the junior grades andon upwards.
� Many teachers feel inad-equate and incapable ofmeeting ESL needs.
� Refugee students withspecial needs do not getadequate supports.
� In schools with over 30%ESL clientele a �wholeschool� approach to thesupport of both studentsand teachers is required.This percentage includeskindergarten studentsfrom non-English speak-ing homes and languagelearners who no longerreceive withdrawal sup-port.
� Integration is oftenoverwhelming, frus-trating and unsuccess-ful for both ESL stu-dents and staff.
� ESL students receiveless support in the ba-sics of language, flu-ency and literacy skills.
� ESL students becomescapegoats by not hav-ing adequate languageskills for further learn-ing and for standard-ized tests.
� Parents assume thattheir child(ren) willhave adequate lan-guage help and thatteachers know what�sbest for their child.
� Teachers� perceptionsof an ESL student abili-ties are often over-rated and unrealistic.
See Klesmer Study.3
Myth: The Expanded Role of the ESLTeacher
The role of the ESL teacher usually includedOrientation and Reception programs, initial assess-ments, entry programs for newcomers, beginningliteracy and Liaison Worker between the school andimmigrant parents. ESL programs were open to�continuous intake�, which meant that whenever new-comers arrived, ESL programs kept growing. Many
ESL teachers had completed only one ESL course andthey were at various stages of incorporating all of theprevious roles. Most principals understood Integra-tion to mean simply �in-class support�, and so insteadof working with six or ten ESL students buildinglanguage and literacy basics, ESL teachers workedwith one or two students at a time in different classesassisting students with a class assignment that usuallylay beyond the students� linguistic abilities.
There is a recurring statement that every teacherknows; like a cult mantra it is heard over and overagain, and unfortunately most educators accept itas a truth. The existence of this myth, �All teach-ers are ESL teachers,� does a disservice to bothstudents and educators. Do we expect all princi-
� It is the ESL teacher�sresponsibility �to do�integration.
� ESL teachers willknow how to provideleadership and train-ing for staff.
� ESL teachers will linkwithdrawal programsto a student�s classprogram instead of tothe specific languagelevels and needs ofthe student.
� Essential programs forstudents at a basic levelmust be protected,
� �At risk� and refugeestudents may requireeven additional serv-ices such as guidance,family counseling forpost trauma stress, aswell as long-term plansfor literacy.
� ESL staff often could notimplement this new roledue to a lack of P.D. andguidelines.
� This new role oftenmeant less time forother essential ESL serv-ices.
� Administrators abdi-cated their own respon-sibility for insuring qual-ity language and new-comer services. Thesewere relegated to theESL and classroomteachers.
pals and all subject instructional leaders to be ESLspecialists? Indeed, all educators in multi-ethnicschools should be ESL teachers, but saying sodoesn�t make it so. In case we shake our heads atthe difficulties inherent in large-scale ESL train-ing, we should know that the state of Californiahas already done it; a teacher cannot be hiredthere without ESL certification.
Myths Delusions Reality Abuses
� All teachers are ESLteachers.
� Classroom and sub-ject teachers will beable to identify and tomeet the needs of ESLstudents who arefunctioning at variouslevels of language andliteracy.
� Teachers will knowhow to make adjust-ments for languagelearners in the presen-tation and methods ofclass instruction.
� Teachers will use or de-velop assessment tech-niques specific to ESLstudents.
� All ESL students will beidentified.
� Assessment and report-ing procedures will re-flect students� languagelevels.
� The majority of schooladministrators and theirteachers have not hadESL training. Teachersdon�t know how to ad-just lessons or assign-ments, homework ortests for ESL students.
Junior- and high-school teachers on a rotary sys-tem, experience the greatest difficulty meeting lan-guage needs because of limited time periods, a de-fined curriculum, and a dearth of professional guid-ance. Language research indicates that it takes 5 to 7years, often more, for ESL students to acquire native-like proficiency in English skills necessary for aca-demic learning in high schools and higher education.
Myth: Students Will Learn Languagethrough Content Instruction
Scenario: Your job is to teach grade 7 history � theearly exploration of our country. Students are re-quired to learn the reasons for colonization, expedi-tions, the defining interactions with native peoplesand the consequences. As an introduction, you para-phrase the ideas as a story, and use a map andtextbook to guide students through the facts. Gradu-ally, it becomes apparent to you that ESL studentsdon�t understand these words: explore, explorer,exploration, conflict, examine, controversy, conse-quences, contributions, chronology, era, etc. Throughquestioning, you observe that other students, whoappeared to speak English well, exhibit varying de-grees of comprehension. Yikes! Then you remember
� there�s a video you can show to visually explain theideas.
The next day most of your ESL students have notcompleted the 40-minute reading and question as-signment for homework. Jin-he said he hadn�t trans-lated the entire passage yet. Alla didn�t understood a�prediction� question. Many couldn�t complete thepro-con sheet, so you stopped your planned lesson toreview that concept. You rushed to complete thefive-week unit. Tests show that although many ESLstudents glean the main idea of the topic, theirwritten work and tests are filled with all sorts oferrors in spelling, grammar and comprehension. Yourealize the guides and texts for your grade are notgeared for ESL students. You feel that you have failedyour students since you couldn�t meet either theirneeds in language or help them master the unitcontent. You become disenchanted.
�A monolingual system of schooling serving amultilingual society unjustly requires all children to
possess the dominant language (for learning andtests) but fails to guarantee that children canacquire that language to an equal degree.�
David Corson*
Delusion: EquityMyths Delusions Reality Abuses
� Equity is reflected in thedecisions and practicesof the board.
� Equal access to a qual-ity education is assuredfor integrated ESL stu-dents.
� Parents believe thatour schools are pro-viding adequate lan-guage and literacy sup-ports for their children.
� Equity is not reflectedin either the provi-sion or practices forlinguistically-disad-vantaged English lan-guage learners.
� Integration is failingESL students.
� Parents do not real-ize the extent of diffi-culties facing theirchildren, or how toseek redress.
� Di spropor t iona tenumbers of ESL stu-dents fail, or quitschool.
� Parents are disem-powered regardingtheir own children�seducation.
� The solving and re-dress of inequities inESL has been derailedby systemic inertia.
Delusion: Responsible Education
Unlike Rapunzel, who was a prisoner in the tower(with no choice in the matter), successive educationaladministrations continue to operate from within theirivory towers � out of touch and out of step with thetimes � their decisions and practices effectively ignor-ing the reality of the critical needs of ESL students andtheir teachers in multi-linguistic schools. Many schoolboards just keep working around ESL issues (like that
elephant in the living room). Public sector educatorsmust not be seen as having a personal or politicalagenda, and we certainly don�t want meaningful changeto be forced through litigation, as with bilingualeducation in the United States. School boards need tobe more aware of how their funding decisions mayresult in the contravention of equal rights legislationin schools with a large percentage of English languagelearners.
Unless we can articulate the mistakes and theabuses that were made, we can never redirect prac-tice, or redress injustices in any real way. Integrationhas not produced the results boards hope for, andadministrators need to rethink and enlarge upontheir interpretation of ESL supports in light of currentstatistics and research. It is imperative that Directorsand Superintendents of school boards obtain expertinput for principals since their sincere efforts to helpare often misguided. It must be made clear thatmeeting the challenges of developing quality educa-tion in multi-ethnic settings is a process. The first stepis to change any notion of public education as agatekeeper for English speaking citizens only. Provin-cial, State and District Boards of Education mustassure the public that language learners and theirclassroom teachers are a priority and integral toschool improvement plans.
Some boards are developing alternative plans toaddress teacher and student supports. Claire Brown,ESL Head for the fastest growing Catholic SchoolBoard in southern Ontario has developed an effectiveliaison system between her department, principalsand area Superintendents. Claire�s ESL committee iscomprised of one principal representing each schooldistrict. Not only are administrators kept abreast ofESL needs, concerns and issues, but ESL has becomeintegral to decision-making at the administrative level.York Region School District, also in Ontario, hasmade a decision to rework curriculum documentswith strategies to impact directly on the teaching andlearning of content for ESL students.
Tom Harper, an ethics journalist once said, �Theabsence of deliberate intent does not detract from, ormitigate the gravity of the guilt.� Common sense,social justice and educational integrity require us tosee that �elephant� in our midst and to recognize it asboth an enormous problem of language equity, and asa challenge for multi-ethnic school boards to matchaction to rhetoric. Boards must begin to collect ESL-related data on all language learners, initiate ESLrecord-keeping commencing at kindergarten, andestablish a tracking system that involves classroomteachers with their English language learners. Thislong-term monitoring is imperative to identify andsupport ESL students, especially those designated asbeing �at risk�.
�A school with over 30% ESL clientele mustspecify language supports as a whole school priority�,and plan accordingly in its yearly or long-term im-
provement plans.5 Language supports must includeschool-wide initiatives, ESL expertise and a variety ofways and means for providing integrated support,appropriate resources and long-term professionaldevelopment for staff. This redirection of resourcesmust be made in an ambiance of advocacy, teamwork,accountability and expert input from ESL research.
Conclusion
In her 2004 New Year�s message, Canadian Gov-ernor-General, Adrienne Clarkson said, �The publicgood is built through efforts to include, to accept, tomake space for others . . . . we can look forwardconfidently towards the future if we know we haveanchored ourselves today in what is good, and whatis right.�6 It is both good and right that Boards ofEducation rethink and redirect language supports soas to anchor their practices in equity. What is rightmust supercede what is common practice.
Footnotes
1 Census Patterns, Toronto Star Newspaper, 12/02.
2 Not Quite Ready for Grade 1 Skills, Toronto StarNewspaper, 11/22/03.
3 TESL Ontario Conference Proceedings, 1994.
4 Klesmer, Harold, ESL Assessment and TeacherPerception of ESL Student Achievement, EnglishQuarterly, Vol. 26, No. 3, Spring 1994.
5 Keynote Speech, Deborah Short, Centre forApplied Linguistics, at Diversity Conference,OISE, Toronto, 2003.
6 Text, New Year Message from Governor-Gen-eral A. Clarkson, Canadian Press �04.
* David Corson in �Language, Minority Educationand Gender: Linking Social Justice and Power.�
Mary Meyers is a retired teacher with awards incurriculum development and literacy. Her first text,�Teaching To Diversity; Teaching and Learning in theMulti-Ethnic Classroom�, won the 1993 OntarioTeachers� Federation Writer�s Award and her recenttext, �In Our Classrooms; An Educator�s Guide toHelping English Language Learners with Curriculum�has been adopted by two school boards in southernOntario. Currently, Mary is a teacher-trainer, consult-ant, and publisher. In 2002, Mary developed �1st ClassEnglish and the Language Buddies Program�, a whole-school approach to supporting language, literacy andprofessional development in [email protected] (416 988-3279)
Ombudsman OntarioWorking to ensure fair and accountable provincial government
service
sessions with ESL students and their teachers and theneed to increase awareness amongst newcomers ofour services. We encourage the use of this toolkit forESL teachers and would like your suggestions forimprovement. We are also happy to come and speakto your class about Ombudsman Ontario, about howto complain effectively, and how to get complaintsabout Ontario government services resolved.
The toolkit includes:
� Ombudsman Ontario Summary
� Where to complain? Levels of Government game
� What is your complaining style? Exercise andRoleplay
� SMART complaining checklist
� Effective complaining: Roleplay and Review sheet
� �How to complain� case studies
� Ombudsman Ontario crossword
� Ombudsman Ontario word search
� Comprehensive reading comprehension exer-cises
� Ombudsman Ontario True and False
To also order Brochures, Newsletters, Postersor ESL kits for your classroom [email protected], call 416-586-3353, orfax 416-586-3305.
ESL Teachers Tool Kit
Do You Have A Complaint About On-tario Government Services?
If you or your students have a complaint and donot know what else to do Ombudsman Ontario maybe able to help you.
But if you or one of your students feel a provincialgovernment organization has treated you in a waythat is unfair, illegal, unreasonable, mistaken, or justplain wrong, you should bring your matter forward tothe Ombudsman�s office. You may succeed in gettingyour own problem solved and you might help makechanges so others are treated more fairly. Someexamples of complaints that may be investigatedinclude:
� Birth Certificates
� Health insurance (OHIP)
� Disability benefits
� Workplace safety and insurance
� Spousal or child support (Family ResponsibilityOffice)
� Student loans (OSAP)
� Community Care Access Centres
Ombudsman Ontario have produced an ESLteachers kit (geared to intermediate to advancedstudents) as a result of a number of workshops and
Out-dated data prevents boards from meetingthe needs of newcomer students
Brigid Kelso
The second part of the formula supports Cana-dian-born students aged five-19 who speak neitherEnglish nor French at home; it�s intended to coverpupils who don�t qualify for funding under the firstpart and is based on Statistics Canada data. Thenumber of each board�s students who meet theabove criteria is divided by the number of the prov-ince�s students who meet the criteria, and is thenmultiplied by $22 million.
Again, says Cutting, �It isn�t enough because(Statistics Canada data) comes out only every fouryears, and so it�s always out of date.�
Cutting says that Durham Catholic spent about$358,000 on ESL for the year 2002/03. That schoolyear, the board counted 432 elementary studentswho were eligible: 148 of whom were within theirfirst three years in Canada and another 284, whodidn�t speak English at home. In the board�s second-ary panel, 97 qualified. That works out to be about$828 per student.
Compare these stats with data from 2001-02.That year, Durham Catholic had a total of 227 ESLstudents: 147 elementary and 80 secondary. Fundingfor that year was $508,179, or an average of $2,238per student.
�The funding doesn�t even come close to beingadequate because there are another 294 (students)who don�t qualify (for funding) but are on ourcaseloads. They get some money as a percentage ofdaily enrolment but it�s very little,� says Cutting.
Beth Gunding, ESL Coordinator for Peel RegionSchool Board echoes Cutting�s concerns. In addition,she is doubtful the government�s promise last De-cember of an additional $112 million (for literacy andESL) will help meet the need. �The infusion will be adrop in the bucket, which will raise the per ESLstudent funding by just a few hundred dollars or so,�she says.
Gunding estimates the number of ESL students inher board has more than tripled over the last seven
Contact Editor, Brigid Kelso recently spoke byphone with ESL consultants of two of theprovince’s school boards and a Ministry ofEducation spokesperson about its funding formulaintroduced in 1998 and the repercussions it hassince had on these boards.
Durham Catholic District School Board ESL/ELDConsultant, Robert Cutting says that the moneygovernment provides for ESL under the new fundingformula never stretches far enough, yet he adds thathis board uses what ESL funding it does get to supportthe students with the highest need.
Cutting blames the Ontario Ministry of Education(M.E.)�s ESL funding formula, introduced in 1998. Asa result of less ESL funding, Cutting says, DurhamCatholic had to re-assign two-thirds of its ESL teach-ers: at the secondary level, these teachers were re-assigned to other subjects, while at the elementarylevel, full-time staff were replaced with itinerant ESLteachers.
�But we still have one ESL teacher in each of (theboard�s) high schools,� he pointed out. �And ourother teachers are all trained in ESL.� He notes thathis board does not distinguish between ESL and ELD.
Funding for ESL comes from a single line item inschool board budgets called the Language Grant,which also provides for French language program-ming. There are two components to ESL funding. Thefirst component funds students it considers to berecent immigrants, based on the date they enteredCanada, and if English is a first or standard languagein their birth country. It does not measure their needfor ESL/ELD.
Students are eligible for three years of ESL fundingfollowing their date of entry into Canada. Govern-ment provides a total of $5,385 per pupil over thethree years, weighted most heavily during the firstyear, when it is thought to be of the greatest need.Cutting says that this limited provision isn�t enoughsince �it takes five to seven, and some say ten years,to become fluent in a new language.�
years, mushrooming from 6,000 in 1996 to more than17,000 today. Her board plans to open six newschools this year and another six the following year toaccommodate the thousands of new students in Peelregion, 80% of whom she says come from homes inwhich English is not spoken.
�Back in �96, the ESL student/teacher ratio was32:1. Now it�s about 100:1,� says Gunding, �whichmeans that of all of the boards across the province,our ESL funding bears the least resemblance to ourboard�s actual need (in the elementary panel). Sheadmits that secondary funding more closely matchesactual need because these older students are noteligible for the first three years� funding anyway.
M.E. spokesperson, Dave Ross argues that theactual per student funding hasn�t changed that muchunder the �new� funding formula � something Gundingargues hasn�t been true since the Conservatives cameinto power in the late �90s. She says she�d like to seefunding increased from $5,800 to $8-9,000 to be ofany significance.
Ross says his Ministry acknowledges the outdatedstatistics and argues that it is looking at that as well asthe other recommendations made in the Rozanskireport released last year.
That report recommended that ESL funding beavailable for five years, as opposed to the current$5,800 over three years.
Conference Assistance
TESL Ontario is applying for LINC conference assistance for the2004 TESL Ontario Conference, entitled
Language for Life
to be held November 18 - 20, 2004,at the Holiday Inn on King Street
in Toronto.
If funding is granted, priority will be given to LINC instructorswho conduct presentations, seminars or workshops at the Conference.
The experience of ESL teachers with the OSSLT:Implications for foreign students studying inCanada
Steve R. Sider
The Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT) has had a significant influence on all high schoolstudents in Ontario. However, English as a Second Language (ESL) students have been particularly affectedby the test since all students are required to pass it in order to receive their Ontario Secondary School Diploma.This study examines the perceptions of three high school ESL co-ordinators regarding the influence of the teston ESL students. The co-ordinators provide insight into the ways ESL teachers are responding to the test andhow they are changing their teaching practices. Finally, implications for foreign students studying in Ontarioare provided.
Introduction
In 1999, the government of Ontario introducedthe Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT)to measure students� abilities in reading and writing.The goal of the test is to ensure that all students inOntario have reached an established standard ofliteracy before graduating from secondary school;every high school student in Ontario must pass theLiteracy Test in order to receive their Ontario Sec-ondary School Diploma (OSSD). Students normallyfirst write the Literacy Test in Grade 10 and maywrite it numerous times until they pass it. Recently,however, there have been some changes to providea literacy course that students can take after failingthe test twice. Students who are designed as beingSpecial Needs, such as those with learning disabilities,can receive accommodations for the Literacy Test.Although with accommodations such as �Setting� and�Time� and � after a revision of the rules for the 2003test � the use of multilingual dictionaries on thewritten component only, students in English as aSecond Language (ESL) programs are permitted todefer the test until they have achieved the level oflanguage and communication that a student wouldnormally reach by the end of Grade 9.
As standardized tests, such as the OSSLT, be-come more common, there is a concern in theeducational research community that teachers are�teaching to the test,� meaning that teachers changetheir teaching practices in reaction to, or in anticipa-tion of, standardized tests (Popham, 2001). Thereason for the alteration of teaching practices isusually due to the negative publicity that comes from�below-standard� schools or boards as a result of low
standardized test scores (Froese-Germain, 2001).Conversely, positive publicity can be generated fromhigh results on standardized tests. Teachers maychange their teaching practices to focus time andcurriculum on ensuring that students are adequatelyprepared for standardized tests. A potential result isthat some other important subject content may notbe taught.
Due to the recent introduction of the LiteracyTest in Ontario, no literature exists to indicate howESL teachers are adjusting their curriculum and peda-gogy to help their students pass the test. The lack ofresearch in this area would suggest that there is anurgency to develop an understanding of the effect ofthe Literacy Test on the practices of ESL teachers inOntario. While there is significant literature on howESL teachers modify their programs to accommodatethe needs of their students (O�Byrne, 2001; Lightbown& Spada, 1999; Geekie & Raban, 1994), these modi-fications focus on the needs of the students and noton the requirement to pass a standardized test whichis independent of the specific needs or history of theESL student.
The Study
The purpose of this case study was to describe theways in which three ESL co-ordinators have alteredtheir teaching practices in response to the OntarioSecondary School Literacy Test and to further con-sider how the test affects foreign students studying inOntario. The study was conducted between 1998and 2003, the time immediately before the imple-mentation of the Literacy Test and immediately afterthe second set of Literacy Tests were written.
The teaching practices of the ESL teachers aredefined as the development and delivery of curricu-lum. This is based on the idea developed by Pinar(2000) that teaching practices incorporate more thanthe deployment of information. Instead, they includethe types of lesson and unit plans that teachersdevelop and the methods they utilize to deliver them.As well, they refer to the communication amongstteachers and with students. Thus, by definition, thiscase study describes more than just the informationthat is taught to ESL students to accommodate theLiteracy Test. It also describes how this informationis taught. Examples are provided of the communica-tion that occurs, specifically that which is related tothe modifications necessitated by the Literacy Test.
The key questions that this case study considersare:
1. Do some high school ESL teachers alter theirteaching practices to accommodate the On-tario Secondary School Literacy Test? If so,how?
2. How has the OSSLT affected foreign studentsstudying in Ontario?
Related to these questions are a number of sub-questions. For example, what were the responses ofthe ESL teachers involved in this case to the imple-mentation of the Literacy Test? What do the adapta-tions of their teaching practices �look like�? Who wasinvolved in making the decision to alter their teachingpractices? What motivated teachers to adapt theirteaching? Is it because students must pass the Lit-eracy Test in order to graduate from Ontario highschools?
There were a number of limitations to this smallstudy. It incorporated a case study approach andreported on the experiences of just three ESL co-ordinators. As a result, three situations describedmay not represent the experiences of other ESLteachers. Also, the study focuses on the experiencesand insight of the teachers only, not the students,which may not account for the pressures that thestudents face in passing the test. Unfortunately, thisis beyond the scope of this study.
The three cases examined involved three differ-ent school systems. The three ESL co-ordinatorsrepresented two large public high schools and onesmall, independent international school in southernOntario. The three schools are relevant for a numberof reasons. First, the schools have high numbers ofimmigrant and foreign students, possibly due to the
proximity of the boards and schools to the Canada-United States border. Second, each school has estab-lished programs, and there are multiple ESL teachersand an ESL co-ordinator. Finally, cases from publicand independent schools have been included to de-scribe how teachers from various boards may reactdifferently to the test.
Results
It is evident from the interviews and observationsthat the ESL co-ordinators care very much for thestudents they are responsible for. They have realistic,but high, expectations of the English skills that theirstudents need to develop:
My focus is that often they [ESL students] will besuccessful in the academic regular English. Sowhat I try to do is make the program verychallenging at each level so that there�s no sur-prises when they move from ESL into English.(Iris)0
I firmly believe that unless, when you�re teaching,ESL is fun, that kids don�t learn. I really think therehas to be a lot of different activities even in oneday to keep them motivated, especially at thebeginning. At the beginning level they�ve got toget vocabulary, they�ve got to get sentence struc-ture and they�ve got to get listening skills in placeand by the end of the first level understand whatsomeone is saying to them and if they can respondand if they can write an academic kind of basicparagraph and read in a limited way for compre-hension [they have been successful]. In the upperend, if they can go out into a regular English classand survive and do fairly well, that�s my goal.(Ruth)
The ESL co-ordinators� desire to help their stu-dents learn English and complete high school seem toindicate their commitment to their students andprogram. As a result, they were highly interested andconcerned about the effects of the Literacy Test.
Initial Reaction to the Literacy Test
Two co-ordinators indicated that they did nothave a significant reaction to the test when they firstbecame aware of it, although both suggested thatthey were curious about the test and recognizedthere may have been areas of concern. When the ESLco-ordinators learned that high school graduationdepended on passing the test, they became moreconcerned.
I thought �Oh my God, everything�s moving tooquickly� and I was just hoping, hoping, hopingthat something would change. That they wouldbe reasonable about it when it came to ESLstudents which I firmly believe they haven�t beenat all...well, I believe it�s entirely unfair to the ESLstudent and I think to applied level students aswell. My impression is that the test is gearedtoward academic type of students and it�s not atest that�s fair to the applied kid...I remember inmy first year of teaching Grade 11 English, therewas a boy in the class and I was shocked when Ilooked at his writing. I went to my departmenthead and I said, �What am I suppose to do withthis? How in the world did this boy get to grade11?� Basically the answer was just move himalong. He was a special ed kid, but he was brilliantin math but had zero skills in English. There arepeople like that in the world and to prevent themfrom getting a high school diploma I don�t think isfair. (Iris)
The participants all agreed that they initially didnot see that a literacy test was an inappropriate idea.However, their concerns increased when they weregiven details of the test and realized that it was a �highstakes� test that could significantly affect the futurejob and educational possibilities for their students.
Benefits of a Literacy Test
Each of the ESL co-ordinators recognized thatstudents must achieve a standardized level of Englishliteracy. None of the co-ordinators opposed havingthe test; they opposed its format and content.
It may raise the expectations we have of kids andkids will rise to that expectation. So I thought itwould maybe be a motivator for people to im-prove their communication skills. Now however,that I�ve had experience with it and I�ve seen kidscome out of it, I don�t know. (Iris)
I do see benefits in that there is a standard and Idon�t think that�s bad. I think that�s a good thing,if it is a reasonable kind of test, if they aremeasuring the right things. But in my opinion thecost of this bloody thing does not equate to thevalue of it. To think that we could use that moneyfor our teachers and our programs and resources,would far outweigh the value of the test. (Ruth)
One of the co-ordinators identified many benefitsof the test. She indicated that she was a �supportiveparticipant� of the test, whereas the others identified
themselves as �grudging participants�. The support-ive participant indicated the following benefits:
There are positive elements of the test. Theurgency for ESL has risen dramatically - each classis significant. The laying out of the curriculum hastaken on a huge significance. The students� aware-ness of the test has increased and the necessity oflanguage acquisition. I think that the passing ofthe test is manageable and achievable. As well, iteliminates students from slipping through [highschool] without becoming literate. It has focussedstudents on writing and grammar skills and differ-ent types of writing and reading. The kids who�vepassed say �I�m glad...it was worth it...�, butbefore passing, �Do we have to [write it]?� (Cory)
ESL co-ordinators saw a test of literacy skills as abeneficial opportunity since it would provide a recog-nized standard of literacy. Further, the Literacy Testwould push ESL teachers and students to developliteracy skills more quickly. However, the co-ordinators also expressed numerous concerns withthe current OSSLT.
Concerns about the Literacy Test
The ESL co-ordinators expressed a wide varietyof concerns about the Literacy Test. One of the mostpressing concerns was the socio-cultural and linguis-tic difficulty that the students faced, both in andbeyond the ESL classes they had to take. English as aSecond Language students have a challenging time inhigh school (Gunderson, 2000). Often they get justone ESL class a day, while they are expected to takeall their other classes in English. If the students aresuccessful in ESL, they graduate from the ESL pro-gram in about two years. However, as Cummins(1989) has indicated, it can often take seven years ofEnglish instruction to achieve cognitive-academic lan-guage proficiency in English. Further, ESL studentsface the double challenge of learning a new languageand adjusting to a new culture in which they oftenexperience racism from their Canadian classmates(Gunderson, 2000). Each of these challenges hindersESL students in passing the Literacy Test.
It�s made me more worried about students whoare burnt out. Sometimes they�ve been here for1.5 years and they�ve been doing everything theycan and then they just feel burnt out. And theyknow this Literacy Test is around the corner andthey just start to give up. (Iris)
In the past before the Literacy Test once theyfinished ESL they would go out into college level/general level courses and they would get theirGrade 11 English. They would pass that, maybenot well, and they would get enough on theircourses to get a high school diploma and go outto the workplace, a couple of them are in appren-ticeships, that kind of thing. That�s not going tohappen. These kids aren�t ever going to pass sothey are not going to graduate. Some of thesestudents have an incredible work ethic, wonder-ful personality, and are great kids but they aren�tsmart. And in some cases it�s because they missedtheir literacy. They missed so much education intheir first language and everything that they couldnever catch up to be true academic kids who aregoing on to college, for instance. But we did getthem that piece of paper which maybe helped insome small way for a job. (Iris)
The students are already challenged by a newculture and language.
ESL co-ordinators were also concerned about thecontent and procedures of the Literacy Test. Forexample, students weren�t allowed to use dictionar-ies:
[T]he fact that they�re not allowed to use adictionary I think is absolutely ridiculous. I still useone. Why would an ESL student of all people beexpected to have the same vocabulary as some-one whose native language is English? That isincredibly unfair. (Iris)
Although teachers are not supposed to examinethe test, they did comment on the content of the test.Concerns were expressed that the content is largelyCanadian-based and that the ESL student would notunderstand some of this contextual knowledge. Fur-ther, the co-ordinators suggested that elements ofthe test were �tricky� because they involved answersthat were so closely similar that even the ESL teacherwould have a difficult time determining the correctanswer.
[T]he content is all Canadian content. Many stu-dents have no background in Canadian history,geography, and literature. Therefore it is not fair,the content should be more general. As well, thefeedback from markers is too sketchy and notenough to provide good feedback. The writingtasks like news reports seem too narrow of a task- when are students going to write in that format?Before the Literacy Test, field work was done a
lot and then we used the language experience toprepare and follow-up with the students. Thestudents were eager. Now, ESL classes are skillsand grammar-oriented and so there is no oppor-tunity to leave the classroom. Lots of pressurehas led to a decrease in student motivation butperhaps created higher literacy levels. (Cory)
...the parts I did manage to sneak a look at thereading, oh, gosh it was tricky. They were tryingto trick the kids and there was also just a littlecultural bias as well that our kids didn�t know theidiom. So I don�t know what they are trying toprove. I really don�t know why they put the barup so high. We weren�t expecting it to be thattricky. These kids have come an incredible way ina year and a half of being in Canada and the factthat they passed the writing and failed the readingbecause it was tricky, just seems so unfair, quitefrankly. (Iris)
Concerns about test content questions the pur-pose of the test. If the test is measuring literacy skills,why would elements of the test be particularly �tricky�?
Related to the issue of the purpose of the test isan interesting concern that was raised by the ESLcoordinators as to whether the Literacy Test isaccurately measuring what it purported to measure� literacy.
They are measuring academic ability certainlywhen they are making it that difficult but is that,in fact, what literacy means? I don�t quite agree.I guess it is a question of what is the definition ofliteracy. I don�t see as literacy being equal to ahigh academic kind of standard. (Iris)
I�ve noticed there is a discrepancy of pass/failstudents - some who passed should not have. Isit too subjective? Some who are excellent stu-dents froze on the test - will this impede progressto university? Therefore in this case, not a goodindicator of literacy. (Cory)
The ESL co-ordinators had a number of concernsabout the Literacy Test. They doubted that theirstudents could write the test with their limited expo-sure to English and the added stress for alreadyanxious students. They also questioned proceduresand content of the test and the test�s accuracy indetermining a student�s literacy ability.
Effect on Teaching Practices
It is hard to differentiate whether teachers areteaching to the test or are altering their teaching
practices because of the new curriculum documentswhich have been released as part of the changes ineducation in Ontario. However, the co-ordinatorsdid indicate that some of their teaching practices hadchanged.
Certainly at the D and E level it has altered ourcurriculum in that we are spending more time inacademic writing and reading. We are makingsure of their academic skills and that the kidsunderstand the words and know what is ex-pected. So, it has changed [my teaching practices]and I guess that�s a positive thing. For example,until the literacy test came along, I never focusseda whole lot on how to write a newspaper storyand that kind of thing. Summaries we did beforeall the time but we focus more on that now. Thehard part for our ESL kids, is they can�t look at apicture and do some creative kind of thinking.Just to be given a picture and say, �Make up astory about what�s happening,� you have to teachhow to do that because it�s something completelydifferent than most of them have ever done inEnglish. And also, that�s where the cultural thingcomes in as well. Some of the pictures [in theLiteracy Test] have nothing to do with anythingthey have experienced so for them to write anewspaper story about it, that�s a bit of a chal-lenge. (Iris)
There is 50% more writing and focus on vocabu-lary development. There is way more grammarnow. Marking has increased immensely sincestudents are re-writing essays and paragraphs.The emphasis has been on the writing compo-nent of the Literacy Test, therefore they are notwriting in as wide of range of writing. Homeworkhas increased. My teaching style has changed to astudent centred class now with students practis-ing, and I do much more one-on-one evaluation ofwriting skills. We have begun a tutoring programwith the focus on the reading component of thetest. My curriculum has not been as affected asother areas although one course has become aLiteracy Test prep course. I look for similarcomprehension questions as the Literacy Test forcurriculum exercises. Unfortunately, my themeorientation has gone by the wayside since thereis no time for this anymore, for posters, newspa-per clippings, collages, reports...kids enjoy thesebut there is not enough time. (Cory)
A greater emphasis on skills development, par-ticularly grammar and writing skills, has meant thatthe ESL co-ordinators have abandoned some other
areas of curriculum and teaching methodology. As aresult, they have observed that their students are notas motivated by the more structured, less conversa-tionally-focussed, classes.
Suggestions
To make the Literacy Test more effective, the ESLco-ordinators offered a variety of suggestions, includ-ing: re-examining whether the Literacy Test shouldbe a condition for receiving a high school diploma,defining literacy and developing a test based on thisdefinition, providing greater financial support for ESLprograms, re-formatting the test so it is easier toadminister, and providing dictionaries or vocabularylists to ESL students for use on the test.
It�s probably a good exercise for students to haveto write this Literacy Test to show them in someways that your communication skills are one ofthe most important skills you can have especiallyin this day and age, so write the test but all thatwill appear on your transcript will be a pass or fail.It should not determine whether or not yougraduate. That�s too extreme. (Iris)
I still see the standard part as being important butI think that somebody needs to address the testto make it fairer or to make a definition of literacythat is fairer....I would in fact put the money backinto supportive programs in our schools, eitherteachers or resources to get the kids that needhelp and want help in smaller groups and forgetthe test. (Ruth)
I would allow all students, not just ESL, to use adictionary. I can see arguments against this but Iwould see that ESL students got the use of adictionary. I would not make it over two days.That�s an administrative nightmare. I�d make it ashortened test, I don�t see why it has to be thatlong. I would provide some sort of money fordoing this thing. We�re looking at next year, Idon�t know how we�re going to do it, I don�t evenknow where we�re going to be able to have thetest. We�ve been having it in various classroomsbut now we have all the kids who failed the testwho have to repeat it, we have all the kids whowere deferred from this year who have to writeit, and then we have all the kids from next year.So every year that we go along this thing getsbigger and bigger. Give us some ideas as to wherewe can go write it. We�ve got to take all the desksfrom somewhere and maybe put them in thegym. It�s a logistical nightmare. It becomes one in
the end anyway. So, I don�t think there�s anythingwrong entirely with having students write a lit-eracy test but this one was rushed and ill-con-ceived and unfair. (Iris)
There should be allowances for second languagelearners � accommodations such as a vocabularylist given prior to the test for students to learn.They should have the test over three days insteadof two and allow for grammar mistakes in thewriting. I think there should be some changes tothe content - I don�t understand why they wouldhave a news report. Also, it seems that thereshould be alternatives for not passing the test likea portfolio. (Cory)
ESL co-ordinators very much want their studentsto adapt to Canadian culture and learn English. Yet,in some ways, the current Literacy Test hinders ESLstudents from doing so. The suggestions that the ESLco-ordinators have given may provide a way to ac-complish the goal of having a defined level of literacywhile still accommodating the needs of ESL students.
Effect on Visa Students
Each year, thousands of students receive �stu-dent visas� to study in Canada. Many of these stu-dents enter the Canadian educational system tocomplete high school and then get in to a Canadianuniversity. The government of Canada, along withschools and boards across the country, encouragesthese students who provide significant revenues toschools because they often are successful.
With the introduction of the Literacy Test inOntario, there are significant considerations for theseforeign visa students in high school ESL programs.One of the most pressing concerns expressed by theESL co-ordinators for these students is the high-stakes nature of the Literacy Test. If the students aresuccessful in completing all their course work toachieve the OSSD but do not pass the Literacy Test,they will not get accepted into a college or university.
So the visa students generally have a strongeducational program and they�re very deter-mined to get a high school diploma in Canada andthen go to university in Canada. So they have avery clear path in mind. So for them they under-stand, probably grudgingly, accept the fact thatthey have to do this and so they will work towardit and probably eventually at some point becomesuccessful in the Literacy Test....[there are] hugeimplications because [if they don�t pass the Lit-
eracy Test] their goals have to totally change andthey may have to go back to their country. (Iris)
In some countries, students who leave the na-tional educational system are not able to gain admis-sion to a college or university there. As a result, thefamily has invested a significant amount of money inthe hope that their child would be able to enter aCanadian university, and yet they find that they are ina less desirable position than when their child first leftthe country. Further, families may choose to havetheir child go to a different province or a countrywhere there may not be a similar literacy condition asthat found in Ontario. This should be of concern tothe Ontario government which has encouraged in-ternational students to study in the province. Finally,since the Literacy Test is written only once per year,there is an added implication. If the foreign studentarrives in September with the intention of beingadmitted to university for the following September,but does not pass it the Literacy Test in October(even if they have an acceptable TOEFL score) theywill not be granted admission to university. Again,this illustrates the �high-stakes� nature of the currentLiteracy Test in Ontario.
A further concern expressed by the ESL co-ordinators is their desire to see ESL students sociallyprepared as well as linguistically prepared for life.They suggested that the Literacy Test can causeanxiety and depression in students and can lead tonegative competition among students.
They get discouraged and there is a lack ofconfidence and self-esteem. I have seen this hap-pen this year and at a young age to lose theconfidence is horrible. There is competition be-tween students and a loss or gain of status. Themanagement of this is challenging for ESL coordi-nators - if done positively, then the studentscheer and congratulate each other if they pass,but I need to support those who don�t pass sothat the harmony of the class is not destroyed.(Cory)
For the ESL co-ordinator, who in many waysserves as a counsellor and encourager of ESL stu-dents, maintaining harmony in the classroom andpositive self-esteem for each student, can be anenormous challenge.
Foreign students face many challenges when theycome to Canada to study (Gunderson, 2000). Theyhave family pressure to be successful in getting into aCanadian university or college. Furthermore, being
far from family at a young age can create emotionalchallenges for students. For foreign students enteringhigh school in Ontario, they encounter the furtherobstacle of the Literacy Test. The fact that they mustpass the test to graduate from high school can causegreat anxiety. Finally, this means that ESL teachershave much more to do than simply teach ESL. Theymust encourage, counsel and mediate their studentsto maintain positive classroom interactions and tohelp each student, whether successful in passing theLiteracy Test or not.
Conclusions
There are positive and negative aspects of theOntario Secondary School Literacy Test. Teachersidentified that the Literacy Test provides a standardof literacy and a goal for students and teachers tostrive for. However, the ESL co-ordinators indicatedthat they were concerned that the OSSLT does nottake into consideration the backgrounds of students,especially ESL students. Many ESL students have toovercome challenges in adapting to Canadian schoolsand culture. The pressure of the Literacy Test exac-erbates an already difficult and onerous situation forESL students. It is a high-stakes test, one in which thestudent must pass to graduate from school. Thisadded pressure can lead to depression and anxiety.Furthermore, ESL students often find the culturalcontext of some of the content on the Literacy Testdifficult.
For foreign (visa) students, there are furtherimplications. Positively, the Literacy Test can moti-vate the reading and writing levels of students whoare in an Ontario high school for only a year or two.However, there are significant negative ramifica-tions. As with other students, if foreign students donot pass the OSSLT, they will not be able to attenduniversity or college unless they satisfactorily com-plete a literacy course. This adds immense pressurebecause they may not be able to return to their homecountry and enter university there. As well, sincefamilies make financial investments in educating theirchild, they may consider other provinces, states, orcountries where the stakes are not so high. Thus,there are many implications of the Literacy Test forforeign students studying in Ontario.
It would seem that some consideration should begiven to ESL students taking the Literacy Test. Par-ticularly, consideration needs to be given to thedefinition of literacy in Ontario and to how this isassessed. The ESL co-ordinators involved in this
study care for their students and want to see themsucceed in their English. Their input, and the input ofothers in similar roles, would be useful to furtherrefine what literacy means in Ontario.
Notes
1. All names are pseudonyms.
References
Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students.Ontario, CA: California Association for BilingualEducation.
Geekie, P., & Raban, B. (1994). Language learning athome and school. In C. Gallaway and B. Richards(Eds.), Input and interaction in language acquisi-tion (pp. 153-180). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Gunderson, L. (2000).Voices of the teenage diasporas.Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43, 692-706.
Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (1999). How languagesare learned (Revised Ed.). Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.
Lyman, H.B. (1998). Test scores and what they mean(6th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
O�Byrne, B. (2001). Needed: A compass to navigatethe multilingual English classroom. Journal of Ado-lescent and Adult Literacy, 44, 440-449.
Pinar, W.F., Reynolds, W.M., Stattery, P., & Taubman,P.M. (2000). Understanding curriculum: An intro-duction to the study of historical and contemporarycurriculum discourses. New York: Peter Lang.
Popham, J. (2001). Teaching to the test. EducationalLeadership, 58, (available on-line www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/0103/popham.html).
Steve Sider is a lecturer at the University of WesternOntario.
Women’s Enterprise Skills Training of Windsor Inc. (WEST) exists to provide training for severely disadvantagedvisible minority women in order to improve their employability in the workforce and/or to further their education.
Located in the heart of downtown Windsor,Ontario, WEST programs have worked to improvethe employability of visible minority and newcomerwomen in our community since 1987. WEST hasaccomplished this by offering a variety of full- and part-time programs related to the integration, settlement,and pre-employment training needs of our participants.
In addition to the Language Instruction for New-comers to Canada program offered at WEST, we striveto meet other needs of our participants. We offer:
� Full-time English language training classes (Lan-guage Instruction for Newcomers to Canada)
� A job-finding program
� Internet access for job search and related purposes
� Pre-employment sessions
� Job development services
� Programs teaching computers
� Lifeskills training
� Community information and referral, and com-munity integration information
� A clothing exchange program
� Paid and non-paid placement opportunities
� On-site childcare program
� Settlement services
� Special events, programs and services
The WEST on-site childminding program isequipped and staffed to serve toddlers and pre-schoolers. In addition to the support received byCitizenship and Immigration Canada for these serv-ices we have been able to enhance our delivery andobtain additional toys and equipment through specialcorporate grants and donations. The staff, mothersand children of the childminding program work to-gether to ensure the program is as successful aspossible. The provision of this service at a women�scommunity-based training organization was a logicalstep. WEST childminding staff participate as work-shop presenters both at the LINC childminders'conference and at locally sponsored professionaldevelopment workshops.
WEST participants represent women from morethan 50 nations and cultures. Our work is importantbecause we recognize and build on the strengths ofour participants as they strive to meet their individualemployment goals. At the same time, we educatelocal employers regarding the benefits of a trainedmulticultural workforce. WEST has assisted thou-sands of women over the years and currently servesmore than 800 women and their children each year.
Women�s Enterprise Skills Training of WindsorInc. is pleased when participants refer their friendsand acquaintances to our programs. A special bond isalso created when participants leave our organiza-tion, find employment and return to share theirindividual success stories, which often inspires theother participants to continue their pursuit to secureskills, and, subsequently, employment. These storiesremind us that our services are making a difference inthe lives of the hundreds of women who seek assist-ance here annually.
As a result of our expertise and experience serv-ing the community and our ability to work with a widerange of partners, from newcomer service-providingorganizations to major Canadian corporations, WESThas been recognized both nationally and locally forexcellence in service delivery and community serviceon several occasions including:
� 2002 � Windsor-Essex Non-Profit ExcellenceAward, acknowledgement of a proven record ofexcellence in governance and administration andfor setting and maintaining high standards ofaccountability and professionalism.
� 2002 � Volunteer Service Medals, Government ofCanada, awarded to four members of the WESTBoard of Directors (more than 200 applicationsreceived with just 32 medals awarded commu-nity-wide).
� 1998 � New Spirit of Community PartnershipAward, the Imagine Program of the CanadianCentre for Philanthropy national award that rec-ognizes partnerships with the Canadian ImperialBank of Commerce to meet local needs.
