Who is Responsible for English-Language Learners? A Case Study From a Third-Grade Classroom
Clara Brown, Ed.D.
Assistant Professor
World Languages and ESL Education Theory and Practice in Teacher Education
The University of Tennessee
E-mail: cbrown26@utk.edu
Introduction
While the number of English-language learners (ELLs) has grown drastically nationwide, so has a gap in academic achievement between ELLs and their fully English-speaking peers. Meanwhile, heightened accountability under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, has made it critical to find ways to meaningfully including ELLs in the accountability system. These situations beg two fundamental questions for ELLs in particular: First, how fairly are we assessing ELLs? Second, how appropriately are we teaching these students? Without knowing how well they have been taught in their classrooms, it is meaningless to assess how much they have learned. Assessment and instruction, often looked upon as separate entities, must be examined together so that we can understand the dynamics and interplay of the two. As a result, ELLs will be better served.
This case study investigated the kinds of instruction that ELLs receive in general education, where they spend most of their school time, along with the way they participate in school-wide or system-wide assessment. Thus, the purpose of this study was first to illustrate the urgent need for alternative assessment measures for students who are from culturally- and linguistically-diverse backgrounds. Second, it aims to show ways in which general education teachers deal with ELLs in instruction and assessment practice. While the study has a limited scope, it offers an opportunity to consider how current accountability assessments undermine equity for ELLs. In addition, data analyses suggest that ELLs' low results in academic assessment are closely linked to the fact that general education teachers often do not foster the academic language skills these students critically need to achieve school success.
Historically, students whose native language was other than English usually had to "sink or swim" in class. From the 1920s to the 1960s, America had few bilingual or English as a Second Language (ESL) programs (Baca, 1998). That is, they were not provided with ESL instruction and, most importantly, teachers simply did little for them--they received virtually no accommodation. Teachers believed that ELLs would learn subject matter eventually when their English was good enough to understand what was being said in class. However, acquiring a language, especially academic language, takes time, and ELLs, while present in class, were not learning.
General education teachers apparently did not recognize that their responsibilities included accommodating ELLs' linguistic needs so that these students, too, could fully take part in academic activities. Certainly, ELLs received the same textbooks and materials as did native speakers of English, and the language majority regarded this as equal treatment. As Hakuta (1990) succinctly puts it, in the early days, no one was held responsible for the academic progress of the ELLs. However, the Lau v. Nichols suit (1974), brought by dissatisfied Chinese parents in San Francisco to the Supreme Court, became the landmark case for ELLs. The ruling unambiguously stated that merely providing identical education to language-minority students does not constitute equal education under the Civil Rights Act. This implies that all teachers of ELLs must help them become academically successful by making lesson content comprehensible and accessible.
Nearly 30 years later, it is disheartening to see that ELLs still lack accommodation and their needs go unfulfilled in the classroom. One might say that "equal opportunity to learn" is often illusive, as this case study will show. General education teachers seem to recognize that ELLs cannot learn the same way as their fully English-speaking peers do because of they lack English proficiency. However, they seem to believe that the responsibility of making ELLs English-proficient lies solely with ESL teachers. Most do not seem to realize that ELLs belong to all teachers, not just to ESL teachers. Equally discouraging, ELLs are not given a level playing field when they are tested, particularly in high-stakes testing. Although critical for ELLs' academic achievement, accountability in the absence of equity seriously undermines language-minority students' right to be fairly assessed. It is hoped that this study sheds some light on the pressing issues regarding equitable instruction and assessment for ELLs.
The study reports how a caring third-grade teacher who was ill prepared in ESL pedagogy misses the boat when dealing with an ELL who wants to learn. It illustrates how ELLs' academic achievement hinges upon the quality of instruction they receive. An analysis of written expressions of the case study subject and one of her peers on a district-wide assessment clearly show the inappropriateness of subjecting ELLs to tests that are developed for fully English-speaking students who understand teachers' lectures. Therefore, a sweeping application of accountability assessments to ELLs, regardless of their language readiness, presents serious equity problems for them.
Related Literature
Since the "Goals 2000: Educate America" Act (1994) advocated new ways of assessing students' performance (Holm, Dodd, Stow, & Part, 1999), attention given to creating performance-based measures and portfolio assessment has grown substantially, further bolstered by a loud voice of dissatisfaction with traditional multiple choice tests (Baron, 1992; Marzano & Kendall, 1996; Rueda & Garcia, 1996). A growing trend among many states has been to adopt new forms of assessment: alternative assessment and performance-based assessment. The shift from a culturally insensitive, norm-referenced, multiple-choice test to an alternative type of testing promised a dramatic change for ELLs. However, it is not without problems. Despite apparent improvement in format, the test still poses equity issues for ELLs because it seriously undermines their right to be fairly assessed.
Academic English learning is rather a long-term process. According to Cummins (1984), it takes ELLs five to seven years to reach grade level. It would be only fair to provide ELLs with a level playing field so that they can reasonably demonstrate what they know and can do. LaCelle-Perterson and Rivera (1997) critically argue against assuming that revised curriculum and assessment innovations aimed at native speakers can work equally well for ESL students. They caution that embracing a one-size-fits-all assessment policy and accompanying attitudes does not adequately accomplish the assessment's purpose for students with limited English. Therefore, even when a school district uses a performance-based assessment that consists of writing samples or has students solve real-life problems, the test does not necessarily serve as a valid and equitable examination for ELLs (Marzano & Kendall, 1996; Reardon, 1994). Test results that fail to be meaningful to teachers, parents, or students themselves defeat the purpose of assessment.
Despite the assumption that performance-based tests measure student performance better than, for example, multiple-choice tests--because students must demonstrate what they know and can do rather than show discrete knowledge--they may not be appropriate for students whose native language is different from English (Cummins, 1980; Oakeley & Urrabazzo, 2001). Added writing components in content areas puts ELLs in an even greater disadvantage because they have less-developed writing skills in English. LaCelle-Pertson and Rivera (1997) insist that the assessment framework for ESL students should be differentiated, based on ELLs' primal characteristics. That is, ELLs have a greater learning burden than do native speakers because they must learn language and content simultaneously. ELLs perform more poorly than their fully English-speaking peers--not because they are from different cultures or countries, but because they lack adequate English proficiency for taking tests
Regarding teachers' personal beliefs, research has suggested that general-education teachers' beliefs and perceptions of students, especially regarding ELLs, will determine each teacher's instructional decisions and behavior (Cummins, 1980; Gersten & Woodward, 1994). That is, if what general education teachers believe about second-language learning is based on misconceptions and myths, they will not see the need for providing ELLs with different instruction modalities or modified instructions and thus will not do so (McLaughlin, 1992 #403; Rueda & Garcia, 1996). Furthermore, if general-education teachers believe children can learn the second language quickly and easily simply by immersion in the target language, they will not provide ELLs with appropriate instruction. If teachers believe that ELLs will learn language and contents eventually, an ELL who might have a learning problem will be left behind without getting the needed help. As McClaughlin (1992) points out, it is critical for general education teachers to unlearn those myths and misconceptions about second-language acquisition to be able to serve ELLs adequately and appropriately. ELLs are as teachable as any fully English-speaking students if they are given meaningful opportunities through instruction that removes language barriers to content learning even as it helps improve English language proficiency. Given an even opportunity, ELLs can be as successful as their peers. As teachers offer more meaningful instruction to ELLs and hold them to high academic standards, teachers' misconceptions about ELLs can be unlearned.
According to Rueda & Garcia (1996), teachers' perceptions of literacy assessment and language instruction differ considerably, depending on their formal training. Teachers reflect these differences in their choices of teaching and assessment types. The research found that bilingual education teachers who operated under constructivism, which regards students as active in social environment, emphasized multiple literacies and incorporated students' culture and experience into reading instruction. They also used more performance-based assessment. On the other hand, special education teachers often utilize more reductionistic approaches, which reduce learning to smaller, but discrete skills, and emphasize decoding and phonemic awareness for language-minority students. These teachers also relied more heavily on standardized tests for assessment. As the study indicates, teachers' beliefs and their training both play a significant role in how appropriately ELLs are taught and assessed.
In sum, general education teachers--together with their misconceptions and particular teaching styles--have serious consequences for ELLs. It is easy to see why ELLs become a persistently low-achieving group of students. They are deprived of valuable educational opportunities that they could have and should have had. Further, they receive instruction that provides only a low level of skills and that does not challenge them to perform at a higher level.
Methodology
All names and places given in this case study are fictitious to protect the privacy of the participants. After sending letters requesting permission for observation to principals of five elementary schools, Bonnie Mills Elementary School, Bonnie Mills, Delaware, accepted my proposal and allowed me to conduct observations there. The coordinating teacher from the school suggested that I observe Mrs. Smith's class because it has one ESL student from Northern Europe. I observed Mrs. Smith's class for five full days, where I spent considerable time writing verbatim transcripts of teacher and student activities and interactions during class time. However, the hectic Halloween week activities did not always allow me to sit in the back of the room transcribing. From the second day, the children started to come and ask me questions, and I became increasingly involved in the classroom. During the language arts class, I worked mostly with Kristina, an eight-year-old girl from northern Europe who needed so much help, yet received none from the teacher.
Kristina, the oldest of four siblings, has been in the United States for about a year. Her father works for her country's government, and her family will remain here for three more years. Kristina's English is at the beginner level, and she has better receptive-language skills (listening and reading) than productive ones (writing and talking). She is always on task, even though she cannot produce much, and observes her peers carefully to figure out what is going on. She does not talk or interact, but when we had eye contact, she would crack a little smile.
Along with taking field notes, I interviewed Mrs. Smith with a tape recorder and also conducted casual interviews when opportunities permitted. Collected data also included two students' language arts and social studies tests with their responses, and two students' written responses to my questions. One of the two students was Kristina. The data was coded and analyzed for emerging themes. Triangulation, as a measure of validation process, was done to substantiate interpretations of the data through comparing the field notes, interviews, and comparisons of responses on the tests between the ESL student and a native speaker. The interview protocol was examined by my colleagues, and from the cross-examination, the sequence was rearranged so that the questions ranged from general to specific, and questions were added.
The Case Study Site
The case study site is a traditional, integrated elementary school located inside an upper-middle-class residential neighborhood in suburban Delaware. In the morning, two teachers direct the traffic flow and wave at students and parents as they drive in, and another two or three teachers open car doors and help children retrieve their book bags so that parents can stay behind the wheel. Each morning as children enter the building through the main door, teachers standing right outside the French doors in two rows greet the children with big smiles.
Mrs. Smith's room is in the third grade "pods." Each grade is located in a pod where three different classrooms are adjacent to one another and share an instructional assistant in the middle of the pod. As the third graders walk in, many of them get in line to order lunch ahead of time. The instructional assistant takes the children's lunch orders. Then the children proceed to their own room to hang their coats in the closet. Mrs. Smith's students have their own designated seats. Some of them un-stack the chairs to get their seats, while others go to the front chalkboard to answer the teacher's daily question. There is only one question, and each child must choose yes or no, or right or wrong. The children choose a side and stick their apple stickers to the chalkboard. The majority of the students seem to choose the right answer. It is part of a routine, and Mrs. Smith neither explains the answer nor goes over the question. It does not contribute to the students' grades. Mrs. Smith gives her homeroom students work to do: writing a journal, reading books, writing letters, and so on.
Every morning at nine o'clock, the announcement comes on the PA system. It's Halloween week, and the students are dressed for Clash Day. The lunch menu is announced, and the assistant principal tells the students to be alert for strangers who do not have a visitor's sticker. Mrs. Smith directs the children's attention to a yellow sticker on my sweater. Thus, I am formally introduced to the children in the room.
Analyses and Interpretations
Written Responses in the Test
The following example from Mrs. Smith's class shows how Kristina and a native speaker of English (Michelle) responded to a Social Studies and Language Arts assessment during the observations. At the end of the first marking period, all district students took a criterion-referenced test that includes writing components. (Criterion-referenced tests assess students' mastery level of specified objectives.) After the students watched the video about camping, they were asked to answer the questions.
Kristina's answer
Michelle's answer
Exemplary scoring guide
Activity 1, Q 1: List wants and needs of the campers on the video.
Wants:
Sheks (snacks),
PaperNeeds:
Sleeping begWants:
bed, cumforters, fishingrods, sports acitment, boat, balls
Needs:
Food, pillows, blankets, water, shelter
Wants:
Sportsfield
Swimming lake
Movies at the theater, campfires
Needs:
Sleeping bag
Food
Warm blankets
Something to drink clothes, a place to sleep
Activity 1, Q2: Choose one item from each column and explain why you chose.
I thenk a sleeping beg is a needs bekase veh needs a sleeping beg to sleep in. and I thenk sneks is wants bekase veh don't needs sneks to et.
I chose food for needs. Foods are needs because you need it to survive. You won't have any energy if their where no food. Bed comforters for wants because you don't need soft cushins to sleep. You can survive on no comforters 1 week long. But it would be nice to have it.
A swimming lake is a want because you do not need the lake to live. It would just be for fun. Food is a need because if you don't have it you can die. It is something you must have to survive.
Activity1, Q 3: describe the goods/services that help campers meet the need for food
The cempers need to food Becase food
Some goods would be silverware, plates, trays, straws, drink. Some servicess would be chief, trash takers, servers, counselors.
The services for food would be cooking the food, baking the bread, and cleaning up after each meal.
The goods for food would be the food you eat and the plates, cups, and utensils. All of these things help campers meet the need of getting food.
Activity 2, Q1: Record one important rule for campers to follow.
Don't go elon eit nait
( don't go alone at night)
Not to wonder into the woods, or take of in front of the other campers.
I think there should be a rule that you always go around the campground with a buddy. No one would be allowed to be alone. That would help make it safe.
(Transcription is from students' actual written response on the test booklet.)
As the chart shows, Kristina's responses to the test are quite different from those of Michelle's. Kristina used fewer words in her responses: three items for question 1, while Michelle listed twelve items, four times as many. For question 2, Kristina answered with two sentences, whereas Michelle answered with five sentences. Regarding qualitative differences, Kristina's spelling is phonetic, she lacks vocabulary, and her ideas are not fully expanded.
To a person unfamiliar with the aspects of second language acquisition, Kristina's written answers are incomplete responses that do not show conceptual understanding. According to the exemplary scoring guide, the teachers have to assign the lowest score, zero (attempted) for the questions 1 and 3, or score one (approaching) for the question 2. Further, Kristina completed only a quarter portion of the Social Studies and Language Arts assessment, which is failing in a high stakes-testing situation.
According to my interview with Mrs. Smith, teachers in the district are told to be very strict about scoring. Therefore, Kristina's response to question 1 in Activity 2 will likely be scored with zero, since her spelling differs drastically from the norm. However, when her answer is compared to that of her counterpart, hers is much more conceptual and to the point. Sadly, in system-wide or statewide testing situations, raters might not even attempt to decode the content of the responses. To get some credit for what she knows, Kristina is completely at the mercy of her teacher's discretion.
As the data analyses points out, a serious equity issue exists here That is, different scoring criteria should be used to count ESL students' ability to demonstrate their understanding and knowledge in the shortened nature of their written responses. Despite her imperfect English, Kristina's responses clearly illustrate what she knows, which is the ultimate goal of performance assessment. Without the flexibility that accounts for the complexity of second-language acquisition, there is no meaningful and equitable assessment for ESL students. This case leads to the next discussion of another reason for alternative assessment for students with special needs.
Analysis of Writing Samples
While observing Kristina's struggle with her English, I asked how she felt about taking tests in English. I told her she could write in her native language and this is what Kristina wrote. A native speaker of her language translated her written response.
I have some problems with the tests. That is because I don't understand everything that is written on the test. However, Mrs. Smith tells me I am sweet. But the school is very different from schools in my country, because in my country, we do not have cafeterias. Tests are so difficult because we don't have tests in my country. We start tests approximately [from] 4th grade. So if this had been my country, I would have been in 4th grade [because of the tests]. I do not have the same alphabet as you have. We do not have Halloween in my country. We have Easter instead. I like Easter because there Easter is coming. Mrs. Smith helps me a little, I mean, a little, but not so much. I have many friends. This school is very difficult. I have been so much better in American English.
The next written response is from Michelle on the same question. Kristina and Michelle sit diagonally opposite at the same table.
I think tests are easy because they [are] usually things you know. Some tests say [ask you] things someone tought [taught] you. Maybe if your teacher gives me to [too] hard words or things in the test, I would guess. If the teacher said I could leave something blank I would. That's why I think tests are easy.
As the transcription indicates, Kristina wrote much more than Michelle did and the length of the response is as twice long as Michelle's. The writing shows that she is capable of writing a longer response when she writes in her native language, but the measurement of her true capability is completely undermined in a test that is written for native speakers of English. Her written expression holds many crucial and somewhat poignant points. Her awareness about her own learning seems more mature than that of Michelle. She is keenly aware of why learning has been difficult for her and where the difficulties exist. She demonstrates a remarkable self-assessment!
However, the starkest difference between Kristina and Michelle exists on their perceptions of the tests. Michelle thinks they are no big deal because she has already learned the content in class. Yet, for Kristina, as undoubtedly for many ESL students, tests are a different matter, and she attempts to explain why. Michelle's matter-of fact attitude toward the test might have come from the fact that she does not struggle with a language barrier.
Meaningful evaluation of Kristina's understanding and academic progress would have required an alternative form of testing. For example, Mrs. Smith could have used an alternative, such as portfolio assessment, to measure her progress--if this had been an option within the school or the state educational system. Clearly, indiscriminate application of measures to assess students' skills and knowledge, even when attempting to evaluate higher-level thinking and problem-solving skills, puts English-language learners at a great disadvantage. These students lack the equivalent language skills of native speakers of English through which to demonstrate their knowledge.
Teacher Perceptions
I interviewed Mrs. Smith with questions regarding her personal views on teaching ELLs, her grading and assessment policy, and what she thinks fair assessment involves. The analyses of the data, shown in the chart below, reveals that she believes learning is up to the students--that is, if they are bright, they will learn quickly; when they are ready they will open up; and learning can be difficult when students do not have sufficient background knowledge. This view implies that an individual student's capability rather than a teacher's effective instruction determines the student's academic growth.
As described earlier, a teacher's personal beliefs and perceptions influence his or her instructional and assessment behaviors. Mrs. Smith's belief system likely led to her lack of effort in helping or facilitating Kristina's understanding by utilizing visual aids, scaffolding strategies, or advanced organizers. Mrs. Smith did not slow down her speech when she explained complex ideas in science. She did not check to see if Kristina understood; rather, she treated Kristina as though she were fluent in English--equal treatment, indeed!
When I asked Mrs. Smith about accommodating students who are different from the general population, her responses indicated that for her, accommodation of assessment meant either exempting these students or their placement in Special Education. Mrs. Smith's only modified assessment behavior for Kristina involved not grading her weekly spelling tests as strictly as those of other students. The teacher's lack of initiative in assisting Kristina is also borne out by what Kristina wrote about Mrs. Smith: "Mrs. Smith helps me a little, I mean, a little, but not so much."
Learning is up to the Students Fair Assessment
Accommodation
She is a bright little girl;
But now she is getting better and she's open[ing] up more;
She is so bright and she's picking up on it very quickly;
because she works so hard;
she starts participating, raising her hand, asking questions, yeah, that's really good for her;
She had no clue what Halloween was. It was very hard for her.
Fair assessment is, all students are given same assessment, given same amount of time to complete it based on all being exposed to the same instruction.
Her spelling grades are not heavily graded as others;
She's been exempted from the state testing program, anyway, she doesn't have to take it;
[Special accommodation for testing] would fall under Special Education category;
again, she is exempted from the MSPAP. She doesn't need to take it;
For those who take longer time to finish the test, but they are Special Education students.
(Quotes from the interview with Mrs. Smith)
The following account shows how Mrs. Smith prompted the district-wide language arts assessment to her students and did not consider accommodating for Kristina: "Now, children, you're going to take the language arts assessment." She sat in the rocking chair and in an animated voice, read aloud the story written for the test to the students who have gathered around her. She read the diary the girl in the story had written. Then she said, "Children, do you remember when different fonts are used in the story to show different things? We learned that the italicized text part tells you about a dream that the girl had." She continued reading with an energetic voice: "Now, if you look at the second page, you know you have to write a letter. Do we need to think about correct grammar?"
Students replied in unison, "Yes."
"Do we need to use correct spelling?"
The students again answered, "Yes."
Mrs. Smith read questions 2, 3, and 4, and then announced, "You should constantly make predictions on what would happen next when you read the story. The test is very easy. You are very smart. Now go back to your seats and take the test." She handed out the test and returned to her desk. She shuffled through papers. She did not come to Kristina's seat to see how she was doing or to see if she understood the test question.
As the vignette suggests, Mrs. Smith made no attempt to accommodate Kristina, who has unique needs because of her limited English. The teacher's behavior clearly shows a lack of providing individualized assistance. As indicated in Kristina's written response, Mrs. Smith told Kristina she was sweet, but she did little else for her and did not hold her to high academic expectations. Kristina fully realizes that she needs more than just positive remarks about her personal traits to be able to succeed in school, and Mrs. Smith fails as a teacher in her eyes.
As the analyses from the interview and vignette reveal, Mrs. Smith does not seem to know what accommodation means for ELLs. She kept bringing up the treatment of Special Education students or exemption from tests when asked about differentiating Kristina in assessment. The bigger issue is teachers' instructional behavior for students like Kristina. Without differentiated instruction incorporated with high standards and high expectations, how do we expect the millions of students like Kristina to make "adequate yearly progress" as the "No Child Left Behind" Act demands? This again illustrates the important issue discussed earlier: No matter how many mandates are in place, when individual teachers do not practice equitable instruction, educational reform measures are quite meaningless.
Conclusion
As the case study of Mrs. Smith and Kristina illustrates, assessing English language learners in particular is a complex matter. The annual testing required by the NCLB Act of 2001 creates new challenges for state educational agencies. As the number of English-language learners grows nationwide, it is important to recognize the need for and implementation of the best assessment practice we can find. Equitable assessment for English-language learners is a must. Systematic awareness should first be in place, and ELLs should be assessed only when their unique needs are being met.
Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, students like Kristina are exempted from statewide testing; however, exempting ELLs only mends the surface structure, not the deep structure of the assessment. Therefore, the critical question still remains: To what extent should ELLs be included in assessment and under what conditions? The meaningful inclusion of the ELLs necessitates utilizations of alternative measures to statewide assessment. Placing different scoring mechanism might be a start for performance-based tests, since ELLs lack the English proficiency of their native English-speaking counterparts. Teachers should include more qualitative assessment data to supplement ELLs' assessment results, such as anecdotal observations that show students' improvement. Portfolio assessment holds the greatest promise for ELLs. By nature, portfolio assessment records what students are able to do, and it illustrates how far students have progressed since beginning their academic journey.
ELLs' academic achievement cannot be fully evaluated unless the educational system factors in where students began, because some come with interrupted educational history or some with non-literacy backgrounds in their native language. While they have to perform double-duty in learning language and content simultaneously, it is only reasonable to allow these students to demonstrate what they know and can do without being penalized for who they are.
The more fundamental issue evidenced by the study is that ELLs do not perform well on such tests because they lack the knowledge they need to be successful. This is caused by inaccessibility to general curriculum, which is directly affected by teachers' lack of awareness and commitment to accommodation and modification for ELLs. Some teachers may conduct their classes under misconceptions about second-language learning and still rely heavily on ELLs' innate ability to learn. If the subject of the study had not been a smart student, the teacher's lack of active involvement in the learning process could have caused her inadequate language learning to fossilize, and she could have been labeled as learning disabled. This phenomenon happens too often to ELLs.
Even though this case study is limited to a particular setting, Mrs. Smith might be just one among many teachers who do not accommodate individual ELLs in class and who do not realize the inadequacy of their instructional assistance. Therefore, professional development of general-education teachers emerges as a critical issue. As this case study suggests, general-education teachers are often poorly prepared to teach culturally and linguistically diverse students.
General-education teachers seem to need more help than they might actually realize. Keeping abreast with current educational issues and the newest teaching strategies should be an integral part of professional development for in-service teachers because teachers' professional growth ultimately affects students' learning (Darling-Hammond, 1998). In elementary settings, the great majority of ELLs receive pull-out ESL instructions, where ELLs leave their general education room to meet with their ESL teachers, unless they are in bilingual programs. In Kristina's case, she sees her ESL teachers three times a week for a half an hour, which means she spends most of her time in Mrs. Smith's class. English-language learners like her miss many opportunities to learn.
True educational reform will not happen unless teachers establish best practices in their daily instructional routines. When individual teachers in every classroom in every district begin to practice equitable assessment and instruction that respect ESL students' cultural and linguistic diversities, then we will have achieved the true sense of educational reform.
References
- Apple, M. W. (1995).
- Taking Power Seriously: New Directions in Equity in Mathematics Education and Beyond. In L. B. Adajian (Ed.), New Directions in Equity in Mathematics Education (pp. 329-348). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997).- Improving Schooling for Language-minority Children: A Research Agenda. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Baca, L. (1998).- Bilingual Special Education: A Judicial Perspective. In H. Cervantes (Ed.), The Bilingual Special Education Interface (3rd ed., pp. 76-97). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Baker, E. L. (1992).- Issues in Policy, Assessment, and Equity. Paper presented at the Second National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Students Issues: Focus on Evaluation and Measurement, Washington D.C.
Baron, J. B. (1992).- SEAUusage of Alternative Assessment: The Connecticut Experience. Paper presented at the Second National Research Symposium on Limited Proficient Students Issues: Focus on Evaluation and Measurement, Washington, D.C.
Chamot, A. U. (1995)- Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: CALLA in Arlington, Virginia. The Bilingual Research Journal, 19(3&4), 379-394.
Cummins, J. (1980).- Psychological Assessment of Immigrant Children: Logic or Institution? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1(2), 97-111.
Cummins, J. (1984).- Wanted: A Theoretical Framework for Relating Language Proficiency to Academic Achievement Among Bilingual Students. In C. Rivera (Ed.), Language Proficiency and Academic Achievement. Clevedon, Avon: Multicultural Matters.
Cummins, J. (1996).- Negotiating Identities: Education for Empowerment in a Diverse Society. Ontario, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998).- Teachers' Learning That Supports Students' Learning. Educational Leadership, 55(5), 6-11.
Faltis, C. J., & Hudelson, S. J. (1998).- Bilingual Education in Elementary and Secondary School Communities: Toward Understanding and Caring. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1994).- The Language-Minority Student and Special Education: Issues, Trends, and Paradoxes. Exceptional Children, 60(4), 310-322.
Gifford, B.R., & O'Corner, M.C. (Eds.).- (1992). Changing Assessments: Alternative Views of Aptitude, Achievement and Instruction. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Gonzalez, V., Brusca-Vega, R., & Yawkey, T.- (1997). Assessment and Instruction of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students With or At-Risk of Learning Problems from Research to Practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hakuta, k. (1990).- Bilingualism and Bilingual Education: A Research Perspective. NCBE FOCUS, 1, 1-11.
Hamayan, E. V. (1991).- Limiting Bias in the Assessment of Bilingual Students. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
Hernandez, R. D. (1994).- Reducing Bias in the Assessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 14, 269-300.
Holm, A., Dodd, B., Stow, C., & Part, S. (1999).- Identification and Differential Diagnosis of Phonological Disorder in Bilingual Children. Language Testing, 16(3), 271-292.
LaCelle-Peterson, M., & Rivera, C. (1997).- Is It Real for All Kids? A Framework for Equitable Assessment Policies for English Language Learners. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1), 55-75.
Lachat, M. A. (1999).- Standards, Equity and Cultural Diversity (No. RJ 96006401). Providence, RI: Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University.
Lavadenz, M. (1996).- Authentic Assessment: Toward Equitable Assessment of Language Minority Students. New Schools, New Communities, 12(2), 31-35.
Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (1996).- A Comprehensive Guide to Designing Standards-Based Districts, Schools, and Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McLaughlin, B. (1992).- Myths and Misconceptions about Second Language Learning: What Every Teacher Needs to Unlearn. Educational Practice Report, 5, 1-9.
Oakeley, C., & Urrabazzo, T. (2001).- New State LEP Testing Policy in Texas: Is it an Appropriate Accountability Measure for Recent ESL Immigrants? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Olson, L. (2002).- States Scramble to Rewrite Language-Proficiency Exams. Retrieved December 4, 2002
Ortiz, A. (1997).- Learning Disabilities Occurring Concomitantly with Linguistic Differences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 321-332.
Reardon, S. F. (1994).- Symposium: Equity in Educational Assessment. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1).
Rivera, C., Vincent, C., Hafner, A., & LaCelle-Peterson, M. (1997).- Statewide Assessment Programs: Policies and Practices for the Inclusion of Limited English Proficient Students (ERIC document). Washington D.C.: The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education.
Rueda, R., & Garcia, E. (1996).- Teachers' Perspectives on Literacy Assessment and Instruction with Language-minority Students: A Comparative Study. The Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 311-332.
Stevens, R. A., Butler, F. A., & Castellon-Wellington, M. (2000).- Academic Language and Content Assessment: Measuring the Progress of English Language Learners. Los Angels: CRESST/University of California.
Academic Exchange Extra invites reader responses to any writings in this issue--especially articles advancing the scholarly debate of issues raised.
Page Viewed:
/ Created: 28
February 2003 / Updated:
--