Summary of Recommendations and Policy Implications for Improving the Assessment and Monitoring of Students With Limited English Proficiency

Council of Chief State School Officers, 1992 Acknowledgments This publication was developed by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Limited English Proficient Student Data Project. The project is a joint effort of the CCSSO State Education Assessment Center and the Resource Center on Educational Equity. The goal of the project is to promote improvements in the assessment of LEP students and in state education agency (SEA) collection, reporting, and utilization of data on LEP students' educational status and progress. The Council is deeply indebted to all members of the Advisory Committee whose ideas and recommendations are the substance of this document (see Appendix A). Special thanks go to Richard Duran, Lily Wong Fillmore, Ed De Avila, and Diane August. Their thoughts and expertise concerning the assessment of students with limited English proficiency guided the more theoretical deliberations of the Advisory Committee. Also, the project staff extends its gratitude to Luis Catarineau, Carmen Simich-Dudgeon, Larry Bussey, and Lee Hoffman from the U.S. Department of Education. They were helpful in the development and implementation of a number of activities related to this project. Finally, thanks to Delia Pompa who was a valuable source of information and insight to the project staff. Project activities were administered by Barbara Clements, Co-director, State Education Assessment Center; Julia Lara, Co-Director, Resource Center; and Oona Cheung, Project Associate. This report was authored by the project staff: Barbara Clements, Oona Cheung, Julia Lara, Ramsay Selden, Director of the Assessment Center, and Cindy Brown, Director of the Resource Center, provided general advice and direction to the project. The LEP Student Data Project was made possible by a grant from the Andrew Mellon Foundation of New York. The views expressed in this report, however, do not necessarily reflect those of the Mellon Foundation. Preface For the past five years the priority of the Council of Chief State School Officers has been to improve the educational success of all students. Central to this effort is a special focus on students at risk of school failure, including those with limited English proficiency. For limited English proficient (LEP) students success in school hinges upon gaining access to effective second-language learning opportunities, and to a full educational program. In support of its commitment to expand educational opportunities to limited English proficient students CCSSO has undertaken several program initiatives to help chief state school officers and their state education agency staffs strengthen their leadership roles in this area. In December 1986, CCSSO conducted a project designed to promote intra-departmental collaborative efforts to improve coordination of services to LEP students. A number of activities were conducted under this project including surveys, site visits and training meetings of state education agency staff. Results of that project were documented in a report titled School Success for Limited English Proficient Students: The Challenge and the State Response. More recently, and with support from the Andrew Mellon Foundation, the Council initiated a project to encourage improvements in the assessment of LEP students and in state education agency collection, reporting and utilization of data on LEP students' educational status and progress. The first activity of this project was to gather information about relevant state education agency practices. The outcome of this effort was a report titled, Summary of State Practices Concerning the Assessment of and Data Collection about Limited English Proficiency Students. In addition, the Council convened an Advisory Committee whose mission was to develop broad recommendations concerning assessment of and data collection about LEP students. This activity was crucial to the overall goal of this project. The Advisory Committee consisted of state education agency staff, officials from various offices in the U.S. Department of Education, experts in the education of LEP students, and representatives of advocacy groups. They met on two occasions to discuss issues associated with assessment of LEP students and the collection of information about educational progress of these students. The recommendations contained in this document are the result of the Committee's deliberations. These recommendations were formally adopted by the Council of Chief State School Officers at its November 1991 Annual Meeting. Introduction For students whose native language is other than English, educational success is an increasing challenge across the United States. In large school districts, these students, together with students of ethnic minorities, already comprise 40 percent of the school population (Madrid, 1988). School systems are responding to the enrollment increases by adopting year-round schedules, developing Orientation programs and increasing the member of teachers who have studied second-language teaching methods. Not all school systems, however, are able to respond effectively to the multiple needs of these students. One of the most difficult issues facing state and national education policy analysts is having reliable information about the numbers of students in need of language-support services. Though all states have established procedures for the identification of those students, the operational definition of a student with limited English proficiency varies across and within states. In many states, local education agencies (LEAD) have the option of choosing the assessment methods (tests, observations and interviews) and the cutoff points on an English-language proficiency test, which determine whether a student is placed in a language-assistance program. As a result, a student who is identified as limited English proficient (LED) in one state or district might not meet another state or district's criteria for identification and, hence, might not have access to special language-assistance programs. Reliable estimates are also necessary at the national level: disbursement of federal funds is based on estimates of the distribution of special needs students among state and local education jurisdictions Other important issues include how effective are the instructional strategies used in programs that serve these students? What is the educational condition of the students classified by the school system as "limited English proficient" students? Those issues focus on the quality and availability of information about students with limited English proficiency in many states, data collected about LED students do not provide enough information to adequately assess the academic standing of students while enrolled in language-support programs and after they have been placed in English-only classes. For example, only 30 states collect statistics on the number of students retained in grade while in language-assistance programs, 16 states collect statistics on LED students placed below grade level for their age, and 32 states collect information on numbers of LED' students who dropped out of school while in language-assistance programs. Fewer than 10 states currently have a mechanism for monitoring the academic status of LED students after they are placed in English-only classes. Inadequate, inconsistent information about retention rates, drop-out rates, and special education referrals thwart state and local efforts to strengthen programs and make judgements about the effectiveness of instruction at the local level. The following is a summary of the recommendations of an Advisory Committee convened by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). The recommendations include principles and ideal practices to be used in educational programs for students with limited English proficiency. Specifically, the recommendations provide guidance for improving and making more uniform the procedures for screening and assessing LED students for the purposes of classification, placement and reclassification. In addition, the Advisory Committee proposed recommendations for improving state-level data-collection efforts focused on LED' students. A more complete discussion of the issues that led to the development of these recommendations is contained in the CCSSO report, Recommendations for Improving the Assessment and Monitoring of Students with Limited English Proficiency. Defining English Proficiency The major goal of language-assistance programs is to help students from a language background other than English develop sufficient English proficiency skills that allow them to succeed in English-only classes. Simultaneously, such programs should ensure that these students continue to learn and expand their knowledge of new content whose native language is English. Another important goal of these programs is to promote the development of proficiency in the native non- English language. This goal, however, is less frequently pursued. A crucial step in meeting the needs of students from language backgrounds other than English is the identification of students who need language-assistance services This process presumes an operational definition of English-language proficiency To assist in the development of recommendations on assessment and data collection, the Advisory Committee proposed the following two definitions: A fully English-proficient (FEP) student is able to use English to ask questions to understand teachers and reading materials, to test ideas, and to challenge what is being asked in the classroom. Four language skills contribute to proficiency, as follows: Reading- the ability to comprehend and interpret text at the age- and grade-appropriate level. Listening--the ability to understand the language of the teacher and instruction, comprehend and extract information, and follow the instructional discourse through which teachers provide information. Writing--the ability to produce written text with content and format fulfilling classroom assignments at the age- and grade-appropriate level. Speaking- The ability to use oral language appropriately and effectively in learning activities (such as peer tutoring, collaborative learning activities and question/ answer sessions) within the classroom and in social interactions within the school. A limited English-proficient (LED) student has a language background other than English and his or her proficiency in English is such that the probability of the student's academic success in an English-only classroom is below that of an academically-successful peer with an English- language background. The definitions of these concepts play a crucial role in selecting procedures that ensure comparable classification and assessment of students from site to site. Recommendations For Identification And Placement Of Students The following recommendations reflect a model for the identification and placement of LEP students into appropriate learning experiences and the assessment and monitoring of success of these children while they are receiving language-assistance services and after they are no longer receiving these services. Though we discuss separate steps for identifying placing students and monitoring their progress, these steps often overlap at the local level 1. Screening for a native language background other than English. Schools should conduct a home-language survey for every student in the student's native language within ten school days of registration. The purpose of this survey should be clearly indicated; and a statement should he added to this screening device specifying that (a) Children have a legal right to public education regardless of their immigration status and (b) the results of the survey and subsequent screening/placement procedures will not he reported to immigration officials The survey should be standardized to ensure that all students who may be eligible for language-assistance programs are identified and receive further assessment The contents of the survey should include the following items (a) place of birth (b first language acquired and (e) language other than English spoken in the home Schools should make efforts to ensure the accuracy of information contained in the home language survey. If school personnel complete the survey they should be trained to administer the survey properly and consistently. The surveys should serve as the basis for the development of all initial home- environment profile for use in determining the appropriate placement of the student. 2. General recommendations concerning the selection of assessment instruments for purposes of classification, placement and exiting students from language support programs. Educators should select assessment instrument based on sound psychometric practice and theoretically based research including contemporary theories and research on language proficiency and communicative competence. Educators should select language-proficiency tests and assessments in both English and the native language according to the following criteria: Collectively, tests should cover all communicative competencies, i.e. receptive (listening and reading) and productive (speaking and writing) skills. Tests should represent the age grade and attendant development of the student and reflect increasing complexity of language skills as maturation and language development continue Assessments should measure the functional competence (what the children can do) in relation to the full range of demands of the classroom and the academic language needed to succeed. When more than one test or assessment instrument is used, tests should be equated to ensure comparability and complementarity in addition, norming study may be necessary to ensure comparability. 3. Assessment for classification of English proficiency with attention to evidence of limited English-language skills that restrict a student's successful participation in English-only classes. Because placement decisions currently are made using existing English-language assessment measures that do not address all four modalities (reading listening writing and speaking) or do not meet the high standards of validity stated previously, then sufficiently stringent cutoff criteria should be used. That is, selection criteria should require a high level of English-language performance for classification as fully English proficient. This would ensure that assessment practices are safely inclusive of all students who need language-assistance services. Schools should not base placement decisions about language assistance services on a single test score, but on a profile that summarizes results of multiple assessments (tests, clinical assessments, interviews and teacher observations and attends to the multidimensional aspects of language skills--reading writing, listening and speaking. A student's profile should contain information about his or her linguistic and general cognitive abilities in the native language. The home-environment profile developed initially during the screening process should be updated during the classification, placement and exiting process. The profile should contain affective, linguistic and cognitive needs of the students as well as other pertinent information. 4. Assessment for placement into the appropriate learning experiences and language- assistance programs. Content testing and assessment in the student's native language should be part of the overall assessment strategy. Educators should use achievement test scores and clinical assessments of a student's classroom performance together with other measures (e.g. structured interviews) to give a complete picture of the student's capabilities. Schools should not use achievement test scores as proxy measures for language- proficiency assessment. Rather, educators should examine relationships among achievement test scores and other relevant assessments to discern a student's educational and language development. 5. Assessment for monitoring academic progress and for making changes in the nature of language assistance services received (reclassification). Testing for monitoring purposes should include measures of English and non-English- language proficiency and curricular achievement. These tests should be given at least annually. Schools should compare LEP students' achievement to that of academically successful English -speaking backgrounds, as well as main streamed language minority students. Educators should use the results of the tests to revise a student's academic program or change the types of language assistance services he or she is receiving. Achievement testing for LEP students, as for all students, should reflect ambitious and high-level goals use state-of-the-art testing methods that reflect the goals of schooling, and be accompanied by viable programs for instructional improvement. Achievement testing in a student's native language is needed to accurately and comprehensively look at the student's academic progress if instruction is occurring in the native non-English language. Two types of achievement testing should take place. Standardized tests are needed to assess how LEP students are doing compared with FEP students. In addition, educators should use observations and other forms of performance assessment in the classroom to determine how students are doing on a daily basis. The determination that students no longer need Certain types of language assistance should be based on two types of proficiencies: language proficiency (in all four modalities) and academic proficiency. For LEP students to be considered sufficiently proficient in English to benefit from English-only instruction they should meet an absolute standard of language proficiency, indicating that they have English language skills comparable to native English speakers. Language-minority students must be compared with their non-language-minority peers in knowledge of subject matter. It is important to assess a student's foundation for the acquiring of new information, as well as the ability to participate successfully in English only classes. The exit process should requires (a) multiple criteria (such as testing, portfolios and writing samples), performance of the student at grade level (c) a level of achievement comparable with that of FEP students. Services for LEP students should represent a continuum of appropriate programs, not be dichotomous (i.e. provided or not based on entry or exit requirements). Once a student enters a mainstream English only class, he or she may need language development and the types of support beyond the normal classroom instruction. An important component of language assistance programs should be that students can be reclassified, yet continue receiving (or resume receipt of) language-development services, if needed, in the mainstream classroom. This concept requires the collaboration and coordination of all relevant programs (e.g. Title VII and Chapter I programs). In deciding whether to reclassify a student, educators should consider the extent of services available after the student has entered mainstream English-only classes. Schools should provide appropriate instructional services to enable the reclassified student to succeed academically Assessment procedures for monitoring student success after reclassification should reflect the characteristics used in identification procedures: validity, multimodality and school-related language proficiencies. Decisions to have students participate fully in regular classrooms without special services should not be based on inappropriately low criteria. "Trigger" procedures for service changes and program exits should be based on defensibly sound multiple and empirically based criteria not simply determined by one teacher's recommendations, a single test score or the length of time in the program. After reclassification students should be monitored for continuing success. 6. Collection of data for monitoring students' success and evaluating program effectiveness while students are in language assistance programs and after they leave the programs. Comprehensive and comparable data on all students are needed at the district level to evaluate the success of students in obtaining an effective and appropriate education. Ideally, maintaining these data in a computerized database will facilitate the use of data for monitoring the success of individual students as well as evaluating the success of specific programs. Data on LEP students are especially important, but they should be maintained as a part of a system that includes all students. Thus, comparisons can be made between students in language assistance programs and their peers in regular academic programs. School districts should maintain the following types of information about any students identified as limited English proficient as part of their individual student profiles: --background information (e.g. race/ethnicity, sex, date of birth, place of birth, native language, information about the parents and migrant status); --assessment information (e.g. tests taken, scores and dates); and --academic information (e.g. courses taken, grades, attendance and promotion/retention). For students participating in special programs such as there should be information about: -- types of services received, --dates of placement and withdrawal, and --criteria used for placement State education agencies (SEAs) and school districts should collect and maintain other data from program monitoring. Program evaluation information may be obtained from administrative records (such as certification and personnel files) or through data-collection efforts (such as surveys, observation studies or interviews). Quality of the instructional programs for LEP students can be assessed using data on: --training and certification of bilingual/English- as-a-second language teachers, --amount of time spent in content and English-language instruction, and --materials and other resources available in programs. Educators should obtain summary information concerning levels of student participation and student success from the individual student record data base. Schools and districts should compare LEP students' success with the success of regular education students. Policy Implications At The Federal And State Levels The preceding recommendations have implications for the organization and delivery of instruction to LEP students at the federal, state, and local levels. The Federal Government Should: Work with SEAs to provide leadership and support in developing a set of screening instruments and procedures to be used across states and within districts. The instruments should include the items recommended by the CCSSO Advisory Committee (explained previously in Section l,''Screening''). Support equating and norming studies of all tests that are currently recommended for local use. Collect school-level counts of LEP students on the annual Public Elementary-Secondary School Universe Survey collected by the National Center for Education Statistics. These counts should include all students identified as limited English proficient, not just those served by Title VII programs. Moreover, these counts will provide an estimate of the distribution of LEP students at the elementary and secondary school levels. SEAs Should: Convene interagency teams to review the recommendations put forth by the CCSSO Advisory Committee and to develop implementation strategies. Require all local districts to administer a uniform home-language survey to all students. Require that the home language survey be conducted and within ten school days of registration in the student's native language if possible. Encourage local districts to develop mechanisms to ensure that the information on the home-language survey is completed accurately. These efforts may include training of local personnel who administer the survey at the school site, and conducting follow-up home visits. Urge local education agencies (LEAs) to select tests and assessment methods that are consistent with the principles outlined here. This will help ensure that students are consistently and appropriately identified and placed. Augment their data collection systems to (a) include elements recommended under the "Data- collection" section and (b) devise collection formats that ensure comparability of data. Make appropriate adjustments in the state rules and regulations that provide guidance regarding the provision of services to LEP students. Pool their resources and collaborate with states having similar needs for the development of (a) appropriate measures of English-language proficiency; (h) appropriate measures of proficiency in the native, non-English languages; and (e) assessments of content knowledge in the native, non-English-languages. Limited English Proficient (Lep) Student Data Project Advisory Committee Diane August, Independent Researcher, Stanford, California Lawrence Bussey, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC Peter Byron, Division of Bilingual Education, New York State Education Department, Albany, NY Oscar Cardenas, Texas Education Agency, Austin, Texas Luis Catarineau, Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC Ed De Avila, Independent Researcher, Oakland, California Richard Duran, Graduate School of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California Lily Wong Filmore, School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California Robert Friedman, Management Information System, Florida Department of Education, Tallahasee, Florida Angie Soler Galiano, Bilingual Education, Connecticut State Department of Education, Middletown, Connecticut Mary Jean Habermann, Title VII, Bilingual Education, New Mexico State Department of Education, Santa Fe, New Mexico Lee Hoffman, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC Reynaldo Macias, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California David Moguel, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC Jessie Montano, Bilingual Education Unit, Minnesota Department of Education, St. Paul, Minnesota Rudy Munis, Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC Jean Peelen, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC Delia Pompa, Children's Defense Fund, Washington, DC Claire Quinlan, Program Evaluation and Research Division, California Department of Education, Sacramento, CA Peter Roos, Multicultural Education and Training Advocacy (META) Project, San Francisco, California Maria Medina, Bilingual Education, Illinois State Board of Education, Chicago, Illinois John Stiglmeier, Information Center on Education, New York State Education Department, Albany, NY Malcolm Young, Development Associates, Inc., Arlington, VA The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is a nationwide, nonprofit organization composed of the public officials who head departments of public education in the states, the District of Columbia, the Department of Defense Education Activity, and five extra-state jurisdictions. CCSSO seeks its members' consensus on major educational issues and expresses their view to civic and professional organizations, federal agencies, Congress, and the public. Through its structure of standing and special committees, the Council responds to a broad range of concerns about education and provides leadership on major education issues. Because the Council represents the chief education administrators, it has access to the educational and governmental establishment in each state and to the national influence that accompanies this unique position. CCSSO forms coalitions with many other education organizations and is able to provide leadership for a variety of policy concerns that affect elementary and secondary education. Thus, CCSSO members are able to act cooperatively on matters vital to the education of America's young people. The State Education Assessment Center was established by CCSSO to improve the breadth, quality, and comparability of data on education, including state-by-state achievement data, data on dropouts, indicators of quality in areas such as math and science, and performance assessment of teachers and students. In collaboration with state education agencies (SEAs), the federal government, and national and international organizations, the Center contributes to a set of useful and valid indicators of educational quality. The CCSSO Resource Center on Educational Equity provides services designed to achieve equity and high quality education for minorities; for women and girls; and for disabled, limited-English-proficient, and low-income students. The Center is responsible for managing and staffing a variety of CCSSO leadership initiatives to assure education success for all children and youth, especially those placed at risk of school failure. Council of Chief State School Officers 1992 Werner Rogers (Georgia), President Bill Honig (California), President-Elect Ramsay Selden, Director, State Education Assessment Center Cynthia Brown, Director, Resource Center on Educational Equity

Council of Chief State School Officers
One Massachusetts Avenue, NW · Suite 700
Washington, DC 20001-1431
voice: 202.336.7000 · fax: 202.408.8072

Legal Conditions · Feedback · Sitemap

document last updated 8/21/2009