Abstract In this article, the autho...

Abstract

In this article, the authors report picked results of a national observe of state requirements and recommendations regarding identification and reclassification of English Language Learners (ELLs) mannersed in academic year 2001-2002, called the observe of State Policies far Identification and Reclassification of Limited English Proficient bookish mans The purpose of the State overlook was twofold: (1) to obtain data regarding now passing state practices with respect to identification and reclassification of ELLs; and (2) to raise questions regarding the appropriateness of three dominant practices, namely, (a) the use of academic achievement trials for the purpose of identification, (b) routine assessment of children's oral native-language ability, and (c) the use of cutoff scores in determining identification or reclassification of ELL status. It is argued that in the same state [i]or[/i] condition practices may lead to errors in identification and reclassification of ELL which in cast may have negative consequences for students

Introduction

This article reports onward select state procedures for reclassification and identification of English language learners (ELLs) and raises questions about the appropriateness of three dominant practices that we believe should be reconsidered, as they may lead to the incorrect identification or reclassification of ELL in the same state [i]or[/i] condition errors of identification or reclassification may have negative issues for students because they are associated with treatments evolveed for children with different lacks To discover current practices, we waysed a national survey of state requirements and recommendations regarding identification and reclassification of ELL leadershiped in academic year 2001-2002, called the contemplate of State Policies for Identification and Reclassification of Limited English Proficient scholars (henceforth, State Survey).

In the ready paper, we critically evaluate (a) the use of academic achievement ordeals for the purpose of identification, (b) the routine assessment of children's oral native-language ability, and (c) the use of cutoff scores for identification or reclassification objects For those interested, the undivided survey results, including the take a view of instrument and list of participants, are published separately as a monograph (Mahoney & MacSwan, 2005)

While we support bilingual education programs (August & Hakuta, 1998) we worry that about children may be poorly serv as a arise of misidentification and inappropriately late or early reclassification from language assistance. We believe that an understanding of in every one's mouth state practices and an informed critique of them may lead to improvement in our ability to proper the needs of language-minority children more effectively.

Literature Review

Although measure and estimates of state practices have been administrationed in the past, in addition to collecting typical information regarding the identification and reclassification proces for ELL the State take a view of reports current information on specific testing instruments used for the pair English and native-language assessment as well as information about the governing proces of these assessments. The Council of Chief State gymnasium Officers (CCSSO) (1991) conducted a overlook to encourage the standardization of actions used to identify ELLs and to improve states' collection, reporting, and utilization of data about ELL students' educational status and progres CCSSO's measure and estimate is similar to the State review discussed here in that it garner ups summary information about identification and reclassification modes and includes specifics such as testing instruments and cutoff scores used by the agency of each state. In addition, Donley, Henderson, and Strand (1995) mode of actioned a survey of a wide variety of issues regarding ELL including enrollment academic progres definitions and orderly dispositions of identification, and enrollment in special language programs. Kindler (2002) careered a survey that included demographics, program information, identification and reclassification classifications and testing instruments. Besides providing an update in succession current state policies regarding the identification and reclassification of ELL the State take a view of reported here complements previous work of this adumbration while providing more specific and detailed information upon some specific questions-including, in particular, official state practices regarding the assessment of children's native-language ability, and the names of the specific instruments used to assess students' first-language and second-language proficiency.

Method

In 2000-2001 we designed and implemented the State view organized into three parts. The first part addressed the nature of the identification proces for ELLs; the next to the first part addressed the nature of the reclassification process; and the third part addressed specific testing instruments used for the two identification and reclassification. Survey data were then aggregated and reported in a total of 21 tables and figures, available in Mahoney and MacSwan (2005)