From the beginning, public tests and examinations were instruments of policy. The Imperial Chinese examination was created to permit the emperor to replace the patronage system by which powerful lords were choosing their own candidates to be mandarins. The Jesuit schools in 17th-century France introduced a weekly testing system to allow central control of classroom teaching. In 19th-century England, Thomas Macaulay argued for employing the Chinese principle in selecting cadets for the Indian Civil Service; a similar system was later used for the British Civil Service. A primary school examination system was set up in England at the end of the 19th century to serve the same purpose of achieving quality control and accountability in public schools as was proposed for the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) that is being bitterly disputed in 21st-century United States. Chauncey's primary goal after World War II in developing the Scholastic Achievement Test for admission to elite U.S. universities was to replace the children of the wealthy establishment with highly qualified students who would see their role as contributing to public service.

Since Messick (1989) included test use in his validity matrix, there has been extensive debate about professional responsibility for test use. To theorize test use, some researchers have relied upon Foucault's social criticism, thereby stressing the negative role of tests in the surveillance of the marginalized. From a wider perspective, Shohamy (2001a) sees negative test impact as stemming from centralizing agencies, which still leaves open the possibility of positive test use. In this article I argue that how tests are used is a reflection of the wider political philosophy of a society. Political philosophy can generally be characterized as placing more emphasis on either the state or the citizen, leading to collectivist or individualist solutions to problems, be they real or perceived. In collectivist societies, tests, like history, are used to achieve conformity, control, and identity. In individualistic societies, they are used to promote individual progress. The role of tests within each broad approach will be described and illustrated. Finally, I briefly describe effect-driven test architecture as a method for testers to proscribe unintended uses of their tests.

Language testing and assessment have moved center stage in recent years, whether for educational, employment, or sociopolitical reasons. More and more people are involved in developing tests and using test score outcomes, though often without a background or training in assessment to equip them adequately for this role. Simultaneously, increasing professionalization of the field has led to the generation of standards, ethical codes, and guidelines for good testing practice. Although these can help make assessment practices more transparent and accessible to a wider constituency, they also risk promoting a view of language testing as highly technical and specialized–best left to experts. These trends have implications for both policy and practice. This article reviews efforts to promote understanding of assessment within the field of applied linguistics and within education and society more broadly. The role of professional associations, academic institutions, and commercial organizations in developing assessment literacy is considered, as well as the contribution of published material and other types of training resources. This article reflects on how the international language testing community can encourage the sharing of the core knowledge, skills, and understanding that underpin good quality assessment as widely and accessibly for the benefit of all.

Politics and legislation have been entangled in language planning and policy in the United States since 1776. Regulations for immigration and citizenship (naturalization) have been in place since the Naturalization Act of 1790. This article examines the history of immigration and citizenship legislation that started with this act up to the more recent act of 1952, which included regulations requiring ability in English language and knowledge of history and government. It concludes with brief examinations of the old and redesigned Naturalization Tests.

This article describes how language policy is formed at a European level, focusing on the Common European Framework of Reference for Language (CEFR). The CEFR's prominent role in assessment has led to criticisms of its adequacy as a model for learning and fears that it is being used as an instrument of centralization and harmonization. First, we argue for studying the CEFR's effect on language policy as a case of impact, as this concept is understood within language assessment. We refer to experience with Asset Languages, developed as part of the United Kingdom's national languages strategy. Second, we agree with many commentators who insist on the framework's “flexible and context-amenable” nature. If use of the CEFR is made prescriptive and closed, it indeed becomes a straitjacket. What is needed is engagement with the complexity of specific contexts. We introduce the European Survey on Language Competences, a European Union (EU) initiative scheduled for 2011, which will further raise the profile of the CEFR as an assessment framework. This project should contribute to achieving comparability of measures and standards across languages. At the same time it underlines the need to develop contextualized, practical ways of realizing the CEFR's potential as a framework for teaching and learning.

Formative assessment, particularly in the current form known as Assessment for Learning (AfL), has caught the attention of policymakers in many education jurisdictions. Diverse educational systems such as Hong Kong and Western Canada have publicly endorsed the principles and practice of AfL. In the United Kingdom, progressive devolution of state power from London has meant that Scotland and Wales now have national autonomy in education matters. In a dramatic reversal of policy, both of these “home” countries have in the past four years dismantled the heavily test-oriented schooling regime. Instead both the Welsh and Scottish administrations have adopted assessment policies that prioritize learning. This article discusses (1) the political and ideological trajectories that have supported the emergence of the for-learning assessment policies and (2) the fit (or lack of) between AfL principles and the prevailing espoused educational values in these two nations. The potential impact of these developments for assessment of English as an additional/second language (EAL) in schooling education will be discussed.

English worldwide may be viewed in terms of spread and of diffusion. Spread refers to the use in different global contexts, such as publishing and examinations, of Standard British or American English. Diffusion describes the emergence of local varieties of English in, for example, India or Singapore, comparable to the earlier emergence of Australian English, Canadian English, and so on. In nonformal settings, interlocutors make use of their own local variety of English, their World Englishes (WEs). In formal settings, notably in English language assessment, it seems that the norm appealed to is still that of Standard British or American English. Since English as a lingua franca (ELF) appears to make use only of the spoken medium, there is less of a demand for an ELF written norm. At present what seems to hold back the use of local WEs norms in formal assessment is less the hegemony of Western postcolonial and economic power and more the uncertainty of local stakeholders.

Over the past decade, many concerted policy efforts have aimed to change the status and functions of language assessment in school systems or higher education, redefining relationships among language tests, curriculum policies, and classroom teaching practices. Conventionally, formal language tests describe individual proficiency levels in reference to normative standards for purposes of certifying abilities; screening applicants for higher education, employment, or immigration decisions; or monitoring the results of educational systems. Recently, many curriculum policies have been reconceptualized in reference to attainment or benchmark standards that specify (usually functional, communicative) goals for language education, learners' achievements, and program accountability. These innovations have adopted principles of criterion-referenced rather than norm-referenced assessment, creating new relations (as well as dilemmas) between language assessment and new curriculum policies, highlighting the nature of language assessment practices in programs, classrooms, or other learning contexts, particularly the foundation bases for defining language proficiency, alignment between assessments and curricula, the formative purposes of assessment in pedagogy, and the situations and interests of particular learner populations.

The most recent federal education policy in the United States, titled No Child Left Behind (NCLB), was passed into law in 2001. High-stakes testing is the core of NCLB, as tests are used to hold each school, district, and state accountable for student performance, therein affording the federal government greater control over the constitutionally decentralized national system of U.S. education. Because the tests being used are administered in English, English language learners (ELLs) typically fail to meet the law's annual progress requirements, resulting in serious consequences for the students and their schools. This article reviews research about the effects of NCLB on language policies in education. Empirical studies show that the law—which is at face value merely an educational policy—is in actuality a de facto language policy. After explaining the law's assessment mandates, this article provides analyses of the wording of NCLB from a language policy perspective. It also reviews studies about the limitations of the required tests as instruments to carry out the law's demands, and about the effects of the law on instruction and the educational experiences of ELLs.

The article addresses the intersection of policy, validity, and impact within the context of educational reform in U.S. schools, looking in particular at the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (2001). The discussion makes a case that it is important to reconsider the established views regarding the responsibility of test developers and users in investigating impact given the conflated roles of developers and users under NCLB. The article also introduces the concept of social impact analysis (SIA) to argue for an expansion of the traditional conceptualization of impact research. SIA promotes a proactive rather than a reactive approach to impact, in order to inform policy formulation upfront.

Despite its geopolitical reputation, Iran has been quite underrepresented in studies of its sociopolitically dominated religious educational framework and its language teaching and assessment policy. In the aftermath of the Islamic Revolution in 1979, major restructuring was planned for foreign language teaching and assessment to accord with Islamic values. However, due to political obstacles, including the long-lasting war between Iran and Iraq, most of the plans could not be implemented until years after the revolution. Since high-stakes language tests including university entrance examinations are developed, administered, and scored by the government agencies, independent researchers do not have access to test data. A critical review of the language assessment policy in Iran requires research-based data, which is, in many cases, lacking or sporadic. This article is an attempt to provide some basic documented information about the educational system, foreign language teaching, and assessment in Iran.

Workplace language assessment poses special issues for language testers, but also, when it becomes very large scale, it poses issues for language policy. This article looks at these issues, focusing on the offshore and outsourcing (O&O) industry as it is transitioning from native-speaking (NS) countries into nonnative-speaking (NNS) destinations such as India and the Philippines. This is obviously most impacted in call centers, where the ability of customer service representatives (CSRs) to communicate with ease with their native-English speaking customers is central to business success and can be key to a nation's economy. Having reviewed the (limited) research in this area, we take the Philippines as our example to explore how government, academe, and the business sector are dealing with the language proficiency and personnel-training issues caused by the exponential growth in this industry. Appropriate language assessments that are practical, while also being valid and reliable, are critical if the Philippines is to retain its position in this emerging market. Currently, call centers in Philippines complain of very poor recruitment rates due to poor language ability, and of poor quality communication outcomes measures: But how do they assess these key areas? We describe and evaluate the current situation in call center language assessment in the Philippines and discuss possible ways forward, for the Philippines and for the O&O industry more broadly.

The language of international aviation communication is English, but numerous aviation incidents and accidents have involved miscommunication between pilots and air traffic controllers, many of whom are not native speakers of the language. In 2004 the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) published a set of Language Proficiency Requirements and a Proficiency Rating Scale, and by 5 March 2008, air traffic controllers and pilots were required by the ICAO to have a certificate attesting to their proficiency in the language used for international aeronautical communication. Although some organizations made efforts to produce tests by the deadline, in the event an implementation period was allowed, with a new deadline of March 2011. This article describes a number of surveys of tests of aviation English, the implementation of the ICAO requirements, and the rating scales. It concludes that many of the assessment procedures appear not to meet international professional standards for language tests, the implementation of the language assessment policy is inadequate, and much more careful and close monitoring is needed of the quality of the tests and assessment procedures required by the policy.

Boldface numerals indicate the ARAL volume in which the contributor's work appears; numbers following the backslash indicate the beginning page number of the contributor's chapter. For example, Clapham, C. 2000. Assessment and testing 20/147 means that C. Clapham's 2000 chapter on Assessment and testing begins on page 147 of volume 20.