Whose Norms? International Proficiency Tests in English

Abstract The paper reports on research into the claim that widely used English language proficiency tests are unfair (unfair in the sense that a test favouring boys could be said to be unfair to girls). The global spread of English opens a major debate on the acceptability of competing norms, whether they should be exonormative or endonormative (Davies, 1999; Gill, 1999). An International English (IE) view insists that the only acceptable norms are those of native English speakers (NES). A strong World Englishes (WES) view maintains that to impose IE on users of WEs may be discriminatory against non‐native English speakers (NNES). The theoretical and practical aspects of the issue come together in institutionalized English language proficiency testing. The paper reports on comparative definitions by expert local judges of the norms used in international (IELTS and TOEFL) and national (Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, India, China) English language proficiency tests and considers in what ways the differing definitions have in practice influenced language test construction. It further reports on the findings so far with regard to three basic questions: 1. How possible is it to distinguish between an error and a token of a new type? 2. If we could establish bias, how much would it really matter? 3. Does an international English test privilege those with a metropolitan anglophone education?