ERIC Identifier: ED357131
Publication Date: 1993-04-00
Author: Burnett, Gary
Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban
Education New York NY.
The Assessment and Placement of Language Minority Students.
ERIC/CUE Digest, Number 89.
In the fall of 1992, a nine-year-old boy from Bejing, China, came to New York
City. His neighborhood school, without asking his parents about his language
abilities or testing him--either one of which would have shown that he spoke no
English--placed him in a monolingual English fourth grade classroom. There, his
teacher, who did not believe in the value of bilingual education or English as a
Second Language (ESL) classes, gave him a Chinese-English dictionary and
expected him to learn the language on his own. Needless to say, he did not do
well in class.
Unfortunately, the boy from China is not unique;
as of 1990, a full 14 percent of the school-aged population in the United States
came from language minority backgrounds, an increase of 38 percent over 1980
("Census Reports," 1992). In cities like Los Angeles, the growth in the
enrollment of language minority students has outstripped the growth in total
district enrollment--a trend likely to continue (Wasney & Wilde, 1987).
Significant numbers of these students are not being properly identified by
educators. A recent study of Asian and Hispanic eighth graders, three-quarters
of whom came from bilingual homes, found that teachers identified only 27
percent of the Asian students and 39 percent of the Hispanic students as
language minority (Bradby, Owings, & Quinn, 1992).
Although the 1974 Supreme Court decision in LAU v. NICHOLS required schools
to provide LEP students with educational opportunities reflecting their language
needs, it did not specify how to do this. Accordingly, districts across the
country have met the law's requirements with a wide variety of services,
including transitional bilingual programs, pullout ESL classes, individualized
courses of study, and even sink-or-swim English "immersion" classes.
Most districts place new language minority students into age-appropriate
grade levels, but they must also determine whether the students need bilingual
or ESL services. And, unfortunately, the accurate identification of students for
language services--as distinct from other compensatory services--remains among
the most serious problems facing schools today (Rossell & Baker, 1988).
THE RANGE OF POLICIES
Because the story of bilingual
education in the United States has been as much about political controversy as
about actual practices, assessment procedures in a school often reflect local
politics as well as student needs. And, since the number of students in special
programs often determines financial support, funding polices can have a direct
impact upon student placement (Clements, Lara, & Cheung, 1992).
Thus, no single universally accepted model has been developed for any aspect
of the language assessment process; the screening and evaluation of students
vary widely from state to state and even from school to school. Still, all
districts must address two fundamental issues with regard to their students: (1)
determine which students to test; and (2) develop the testing mechanism.
Some districts attempt to evaluate all incoming students to identify those in
need of language services, while others simply place students into classes and
wait until problems emerge; some districts fall somewhere in between. In New
York City, for example, all students with Hispanic surnames are automatically
evaluated, while others are evaluated only if there is some reason to do so.
This policy, instituted in 1975 as a "temporary" measure in the wake of a
lawsuit brought against the city's schools by the city's Puerto Rican community
(Santiago, 1986), remains in place today.
Some districts have few, if any, formalized assessment procedures, while others
perform extensive multi-dimensional testing (De George, 1988). Still, most
districts employ some combination of measures, including one or more of the
following (Department of Education, 1991):
information from teachers, or teacher referrals;
information from parents, often in the form of a formalized Home Language
evaluation of records from previous schools;
appraisal of the student's academic level; and
appraisal of the student's language skills.
Most common among these alternatives is some variety of formalized testing,
with 49 states using either language proficiency exams, criterion-referenced
achievement tests, or both. Thirty states use information from teachers and 27
use a Home Language Survey to screen students (Department of Education, 1991).
Unfortunately, none of these methods is ideal, in large part because there is no
national consensus on a workable definition of a limited English proficient
(LEP) student (Department of Education, 1991).
TEACHER INFORMATION AND THE HOME LANGUAGE SURVEY
cases, information from teachers and the Home Language Survey act as screening
mechanisms for schools to determine if further evaluation is necessary. Of the
two, the Home Language Survey is the most standardized, since teacher
information can be subjective. The California Home Language Survey, which is
supposed to be given to all incoming students, and is typical, asks four
questions (California State Department of Education, 1989):
What language did your son or daughter learn when he or she first began to talk?
What language does your son or daughter most frequently use at home?
What language do you use most frequently to speak to your son or daughter?
What language is most often spoken by the adults at home?
If the answer to any question is something other than English, the student
must take a language proficiency exam.
While the Survey can provide important student information, some parents,
whether out of fear (particularly if they are undocumented residents),
misunderstanding, or a desire to ensure that their children are placed in
mainstream classrooms, may indicate that English is spoken in the home even if
it is not (Clements et al., 1992; De Avila, 1990). Still, if used carefully--and
if the parents actually visit the school rather than simply fill out a form--the
Home Language Survey can be both a useful assessment tool and an important
method for establishing a home-school relationship (Nelson, 1986).
A wide variety of achievement and
language proficiency tests has been developed to determine student eligibility
for language services or special education programs. To be as accurate and
effective as possible, the tests should be coordinated to measure all aspects of
student language use, including both oral and written proficiency, and
comprehension in both English and the student's native language (Clements et
Unfortunately, many states evaluate only oral skills when testing students
for placement, including those states which use the Language Assessment Scales
(LAS), the most widespread of language proficiency tests (De George, 1988;
Williams & Gross, 1990). This practice measures a minimum level of language
proficiency, but bypasses the more complex language skills that students must
master in order to succeed in school.
The use of a single test to determine eligibility for language services is
made even more problematic because the criteria for such eligibility--often only
an arbitrary cut-off in test scores--vary greatly among states and even within
HOW TO IMPROVE ASSESSMENTS
Great care is needed to develop
truly equitable and useful mechanisms for identifying language minority students
and providing them with appropriate services, since no uniform or single fully
adequate measure exists. Further, while it is important to maintain some degree
of school autonomy in determining assessments to meet local needs (Rood, 1989),
state and district support must supplement school initiatives.
CENTERS. Some districts, as in Philadelphia, have founded "Welcome Centers"
designed to ensure the equitable treatment of incoming language minority
students in multicultural schools (Brenner, 1989). Although they still rely on
referrals from local schools, these centers have some control over the
assessment of language minority students, and can provide a sympathetic setting.
In addition, because the centers specifically address the needs of the language
minority population, they can serve not only as testing sites, but also as
clearinghouses for student health services and parent support facilities.
ASSESSMENT METHODS. Since research demonstrates that no single practice can work
in isolation, schools should set in motion multiple testing mechanisms. Because
teachers often have the most direct knowledge of their students' abilities, they
must continue to be involved in their evaluation, preferably through formalized
channels (Nelson, 1986; Rossell & Baker, 1988). In addition, parents should
actively consult on Home Language Surveys, not simply fill out a form. Finally,
standardized tests should measure all aspects of students' language use, not
just achievement or oral skills; they should be only one measure among several,
and never the sole means of determining eligibility for language services
Clearly, the experiences of the boy from China are not unique. He, though, is
lucky; at the insistence of his parents, he is now in a different school, where
he has received help with his English language skills as a supplement to his
normal curriculum. His English--and his performance in the classroom--has
Bradby, D., Owings, J., & Quinn, P. (1992).
Language characteristics and academic achievement: A look at Asian and Hispanic
eighth graders in NELS: 88. Statistical Analysis Report. Berkeley: MPR
Associates. (ED 343 971)
Brenner, P. I. (1989). Assessing limited English proficient students: A study
of the development of the Welcome Center. Philadelphia: Philadelphia School
District Office of Assessment. (ED 321 576)
California State Department of Education. (1989). A handbook on California
education for language minority parents: Japanese/English edition. Sacramento:
Author. (ED 337 020)
Census reports significant increase in language-minority population. (1992,
November). NABE News, p. 1.
Clements, B., Lara, J., & Cheung, O. (1992). Limited English proficiency:
Recommendations for improving the assessment and monitoring of students.
Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. (ED 347 265)
De Avila, E. (1990, September). Assessment of language minority students:
Political, technical, practical and moral imperatives. Paper presented at the
Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Students' Issues. Washington,
DC: Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs. (ED 341 266)
De George, G. (1988). Assessment and placement of language minority students:
Procedures for mainstreaming. Equity and Excellence, 23(4), 44-56.
Department of Education, Office of the Secretary. (1991). The condition of
bilingual education in the nation: A report to the Congress and the President.
Washington, DC: Author. (ED 335 945)
Nelson, F. H. (1986). The assessment of English language proficiency:
Standards for determining participation in transitional language programs.
Journal of Law and Education, 15(1), 83-103.
Rood, M. M. (1989). Assessing language proficiency: More than one way to skin
a cat. Insights on Educational Policy and Practice 12. Austin: Southwest Region
Educational Development Laboratory. (ED 330 053)
Rossell, C., & Baker, K. (1988). Selecting and exiting students in
bilingual educational programs. Journal of Law and Education, 17(4), 589-623.
Santiago, I. S. (1986). Aspira v. Board of Education revisited. American
Journal of Education, 95(1), 149-199.
Wasney, T., & Wilde, J. (1987). Bilingual program report 1986-87. Los
Angeles: Los Angeles Unified School District Research and Evaluation Branch. (ED