Month: February 2026

Australia DHA on New TOEFL

Posted on by TOEFL Resources

The Australian DHA’s website on English language requirements for visas has been updated to include the following note:

“To ensure your TOEFL iBT result is valid for Australian visa purposes, you must select ‘Taking TOEFL for Australia’ when registering for your test. Results not registered under this pathway may not be accepted for Australian visa purposes.”

I like the author’s use of “may.” For this sort of bureaucratic requirement, it is important to always be vague and keep people guessing.

This update refers to “TOEFL iBT Australia,” which is the same test as the old TOEFL that was mostly retired last month. Right now I see two test dates per month in some big markets (Seoul and Paris, for example) but no dates in some smaller markets (Cairo and Tel Aviv, for example).

More on NABP Task Force Results

Posted on by TOEFL Resources

I know it is inside baseball, but I want to write a bit more about those National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) task force results. In case you didn’t catch my item a few days ago, the task force has recommended that foreign-trained pharmacists be allowed to submit OET scores in lieu of TOEFL scores as part of their accreditation process.

I bring this up for a second time because for many years this was THE topic for people in the TOEFL prep bubble.

It is tough to describe how important this segment used to be for people providing TOEFL prep online… and it is equally difficult to depict the total spend on prep by would-be pharmacists. But it was huge; back in the golden age of TOEFL prep (circa 2012 to 2022) tutors with a positive reputation among pharmacists wouldn’t even roll out of bed without first securing a $2000 advance payment for ten $200/hour lessons. I’m not exaggerating.

It’s worth mentioning that the problem for test takers was almost always their ability to reach the required speaking score.

There were reasons for this. I suppose they are mostly irrelevant now that the test has changed, but they had to do with demographics, the way the test was scored, and the particular score requirement (26/30) set by the NABP.  While the test was probably “fit for purpose” due to its rigorous integrated questions, it came with challenges. Back then we always used to talk about how hard it was to eliminate “fossilized errors” among this particular older-than-average test taking population. And while they often had the competence and fluency to speak eloquently in real life (something the task force results briefly refer to) and had worked successfully in public-facing jobs in the USA for years, issues related to speaking rate, pause frequency and pronunciation held them back on the TOEFL.

It wasn’t weird to work with folks who had taken the test dozens of times without hitting the required speaking score. They shuffled from tutor to tutor to tutor looking for a solution to their problem. Along the way they would take the test itself a few dozen times.

Whole SEO campaigns were built around the keywords “TOEFL Speaking 26.”

But this is ancient history. The speaking score requirement was lowered to 25 points in October. A few months after that the test itself was completely changed. It remains to be seen how pharmacists will respond to the new test. And, needless to say, the big pharmacy chains aren’t hiring like they used to, so the test taker population itself has shrunk.

I mention all this to illustrate how many of these frustrated test takers would have immediately piled into the OET had the option been available a few years ago.  Some may have flinched at that test’s astronomical price tag, but they would all have been happy to distance themselves from the TOEFL.  That could still happen when/if the OET option is made available, but a lot depends on how everyone feels about the new TOEFL.

This concludes my history lesson.

LSAC Backs Away from At-Home Testing

Posted on by TOEFL Resources

Speaking (again) of cheating, the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) has announced that the LSAT will only be offered at test centers starting in August. At that time, at-home delivery will be mostly eliminated. Special exceptions will be made for those in need of certain accommodations.

Back in August, at-home delivery of the test was suspended in China (only). That was a curious move because cheating doesn’t stop at an imaginary line – if the test lacked sufficient security in China, it lacked sufficient security everywhere.

For the record, the at-home LSAT is delivered and proctored by Prometric.

British Council’s Annual Report is Late

Posted on by TOEFL Resources

The British Council’s annual report is 12 days overdue. That report has routinely been late over the past few years due to the financial struggles the organization is going through. I guess they are still taking things one day at a time over there.

On a related note, the annual audit of the Educational Testing Service (ETS) is not yet available via the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. It isn’t late (as far as I can tell) but the audit has been published in January for as long as I can remember.

Both reports contain valuable data about the business of English testing.

Widespread Cheating on SAT

Posted on by TOEFL Resources

Cheating is widespread on the new SAT, according to the New York Times. Note that the SAT is taken only in person. Not at home.

I’m starting to lose track of the point I have been trying to make, but I want to stress that cheating is widespread on at-home tests and cheating is widespread on on-site tests.   Don’t think that eliminating one format or the other will solve or even reduce your institution’s problems with cheating.

Says the Gray Lady:

“…worries are growing that the College Board’s security isn’t fail safe. Fueling the concerns are what appear to be copies of recently administered digital SAT questions that have been posted on the internet — on social media sites as well as websites primarily housed in China.”

NABP Issues TOEFL Taskforce Results (Finally)

Posted on by TOEFL Resources

The results of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy task force on TOEFL are now available. It appears that, sometime in the near future, the long-standing monopoly enjoyed by ETS on the testing of foreign-educated pharmacists may come to an end. The task force has recommended giving such pharmacists the option of submitting OET scores.

The recommendations of the task force are as follows:

  1. NABP should give candidates the option to pass the OET as an alternative to the TOEFL iBT as a prerequisite for being eligible to take the FPGEE.
  2. NABP should accept the MyBest score on each section of the TOEFL iBT within a rolling twoyear period.
  3. TOEFL iBT and OET standard-setting should be conducted at least every six years to assess and account for changes in the test format, blueprint (content outline), or number of questions.
  4. NABP should encourage states not to cite specific English language proficiency tests in regulations. Instead, they should approve programs that meet board-approved standards for language competency.

–

Point number four isn’t as interesting as it sounds – rather than allowing for a greater variety of tests, it is just meant to allow states to more easily accommodate changes decided upon by the NABP.

Point number three is interesting, though, as the task force report doesn’t really mention anything about the format change that occurred a few months later.

The task force explored the possibility of accepting IELTS and Duolingo English Test scores, but wasn’t comfortable with either due to various factors.

There are some implications for the TOEFL preparation industry – as I’ve mentioned here a few times, pharmacists account for a significant portion of the overall online spend on TOEFL prep. I’ve known many pharmacists who have spent thousands and thousands of dollars on TOEFL prep (and who have taken the test itself dozens of times).

New Official TOEFL Guide Published. Sort of.

Posted on by TOEFL Resources

The new “Official Guide to the TOEFL iBT Test: Pocket ed” is now for sale. It costs $19 bucks and includes one practice test. Described as “time limited,” I suppose it is a stop-gap product that will be offered until the complete official guide is available in May. You can find it on the official TOEFL site, in the test prep section. I’ll buy a copy when I return home later this month.

One thing to keep in mind is that the guide can only be downloaded one time after purchase. This could create problems for individuals with unstable internet. The audio and practice test files for the current (now outdated) Official Guide can only be downloaded four times, but I’ve heard complaints from users who experienced connectivity issues while attempting to download those very large files.

On Unregulated Tests

Posted on by TOEFL Resources

In conversation with Times Higher Education, Cambridge University Press & Assessment Press and Assessment chief Pamela Baxter notes that “[t]he increased use of poorly regulated tests does a disservice to students using them for university admission.”

This may be true. I’ve certainly seen some wacky decisions about which tests are accepted.  It is worth noting (again and again and again) that some of the biggest challenges faced by higher-ed providers in recent months have been linked to the use of heavily regulated tests.

I’m referring, of course, to the IELTS test where nearly 63 thousand test takers received incorrect scores over the course of about two years.  And to Pearson’s PTE test, where widespread cheating went unnoticed long enough for almost ten thousand test takers to receive fraudulent test scores.  In both cases, higher-ed providers were left to deal with the reality of having accepted students who possibly lacked the English skills necessary to thrive in their academic lives.

I love the regulators like brothers, I really do.  I even love the test makers. Having some regulations is much better than having no regulations.  But ultimately score users need to remember that regulatory bodies can only do so much and only have so much value.  Responsibility ultimately lies with the institutions themselves, and they must always take statements from test makers with a heaping grain of salt.

IELTS Loves IELTS!

Posted on by TOEFL Resources

I read a new article from the IELTS team about how a great English test can have a positive impact on the academic lives of learners.  It says that “[i]f that test promotes useful learning habits, students arrive well equipped for lectures, seminars and coursework.”  And “[t]ests with positive washback ensure that applicants arrive with more than a score; they have the academic skills and confidence to thrive.”

Of IELTS in particular, the article notes that preparing for the IELTS means “better student outcomes, less pressure on support services and stronger reputational benefits.”

But it is important to keep things in perspective.  We’re talking here about two-hour English tests.  These things are great tools for assessing English fluency, but that’s the extent of their usefulness.  A middling student doesn’t become a great student because they spent a little while preparing for an English test.  A young person who has spent a few weeks summarizing charts like the ones that will appear on an English test will have gained something… but success at a post-secondary institution is about so, so, so much more than the smattering of questions that appear on even the very best English test.

Whether a student is well-equipped to participate in academic lectures and whether they have academic skills and whether they have confidence (etc) depends a whole lot on their whole lifetime of schooling to date and only a tiny bit on the English test they took.

Institutions must realize the specific usefulness of English tests (this is a form of gaining assessment literacy). Test makers should resist the urge to exaggerate what their tests can do (this is a form of promoting assessment literacy).

More on washback in the days ahead… as soon as I finish listening to the new “Talking ELT” podcast series on the topic!

Second Student Jailed in HK for TOEFL Cheating

Posted on by TOEFL Resources

A second student in Hong Kong has been handed a three-month prison sentence for hiring a body double to take the TOEFL test (at a test center) on their behalf.

According to the South China Morning Post, the test taker scheduled a test at a center in Cambodia, but “[o]n the day of the test, the student claimed to be unwell, then hired a fraudster outside the examination hall to take the exam in her place.”

Reporting in the Standard confirms this detail, noting that “[s]he claimed she fell ill on the test day and was approached by an unknown person who offered to take the test for US$300.”

The deception was detected only when the student’s university later “questioned the veracity of the result.”

Jeepers.  Some readers might still be under the impression that test-center cheating is a sophisticated and tricky thing.   But perhaps it is time for a rethink, as apparently would-be proxy test takers can be found milling about outside test centers looking for clients.  And they work cheap.

Regular readers know that test takers who want to cheat often travel across borders to test centers where they think their schemes will be easier to pull off.  In this way, a fraudulent test result can be combined with a trip to the beach, or with the consumption of mixed drinks served at very low prices.

This sort of “exam tourism” is a phenomenon most often associated with paper-based testing, but as you can see computer-delivered testing is vulnerable as well.

On the GRE

Posted on by TOEFL Resources

I’m still working on Part One* of my “How we Got Here” series on the possible sale of the TOEFL and GRE, but if you want a 30-minute deep dive into what went awry with the GRE, I do encourage you to check out the newest episode of “Testing Ain’t Easy” with Stefan Maisnier and Mark Skoskiewicz.  I’ll post a link in the comments.  Note there are a few faulty comments early on about the TOEFL program, as the main beat of the hosts isn’t language testing.

Some readers have suggested that I’m too hard on ETS** when it comes to their stewardship of the TOEFL program, but my mild criticisms of that program are nothing compared to some of the comments here about what has happened with the GRE.  Says one host, for instance:

“I don’t think I can name a single person that actually advocates for the GRE based on its quality of evaluating a candidate’s readiness for college.”

Tough words. But it is arguable that the wheels have fallen off the bus, as test volumes are down 53% from their pre-pandemic peak. The loss of those fees equates to about 72 million dollars of lost program service revenue… and that doesn’t include the really high-margin extras like score sending fees, the search service, and test prep. Percentages-wise, that’s also a much bigger drop, I think, than the one which has impacted the TOEFL program.

*of many

**not really