Hey folks! I'm the discussion facilitator tomorrow and I was asked to provide a brief synopsis of the article. Here it is for all to see! I will be directing you back to this entry for one class activity tomorrow!
Synopsis of Article:
Within this article Abedi identifies and discusses six major LEP assessment issues as they relate to AYP reporting. The six major issues are as follows:
1. Inconsistency in LEP classification across and within states
2. Sparse LEP population
3. Lack of LEP subgroup stability
4. Measurement quality of AYP instruments of LEP students
5. LEP baseline scores
6. LEP cutoff points
(We’ll look at these more in depth in the activity!)
Abedi also identified other factors that can affect AYP. One major factor that can affect an LEP students’ ability to become proficient in the content is their ability to understand the instruction that is given. This lack of understanding may result in LEP students to participate less in class and even when LEP students did raise their hand the teacher was apt to call on them less.
Abedi goes on to discuss that LEP student don’t necessarily lag behind non-LEP students in terms of content knowledge but the biggest limiting factor on tests are the linguistic structures of the test. Also, because LEP students at such a lower baseline than native English speakers and lag farther behind native English speakers it will be near impossible for them to move at the same rate towards proficiency as native English speakers.
Abedi also discusses that the classification LEP students as well as the number of LEP students in each state also leads to inconsistent AYP reporting. Many districts and states have smaller numbers of LEP students and these small numbers make it difficult to reach reliable AYP reporting.
NCLB does not completely ignore LEP populations. Title III of NCLB does address students with Limited English Proficiency, however, Abedi believes that this wording is not enough to support and provide adequate testing for all LEP students in the entire nation. He goes on to state that the test developers should take into account recommendations to ensure that the mistakes that were made in the first tests do not happen again. Abedi discusses that many of the tests are questionable in terms of reliability and validity.
Abedi ends his article by giving ideas for improving the AYP outcome for LEP students. He says that there are four critical needs to help LEP students reach proficiency. They are 1) improve current LEP classification an assessment, 2) improve monitoring of progress, 3) improve teacher capacity and 4) consider redesignated LEP students as part of LEP subgroup that established the baseline score.
More importantly, Abedi concludes his article by discussing his purpose, to raise awareness of this issues and that it is his hope that policymakers, lawmakers, and decision makers to consider the struggles of the LEP student population when making decisions.
Back to Work
13 years ago
11 comments:
2. Not enough LEP students: In some schools across the state there are fewer number of L2 students and that is not a big enough factor to address in determining AYP. The population simply does not have enough students to make a percentage difference in the outcome of determining AYP.
LEP baseline scores - When I got to this part of the reading assignment I was kind of confused. I guess I couldn't understand why schools with high number of LEPs had lower baseline scores. What would be the factor for the lower scores? Is it because the test itself is too broad or general or because everyone's "errors" are falling all over the test?
Lack of LEP subgroup stability.
When students become labeled as FEP, they are moved out of the subgroup in some states. Some states continue to keep LEP as always LEP. Others count former LEP students in the subgroup. Schools that have a larger number of LEP students will continue to be labeled as failing schools.
some notes on the inequality of the measurement of AYP on LEP students...
-Studies have shown that academic achievement tests (such as the ones that are used to calculate AYP) are constructed and normed for native English speakers, and have lower reliability and validity for LEP populations.
-Schools/Districts with high LEP population are more likely to fall in the category for "needs improvement"
-Studies show that tests that are linguistically modified for LEP students produce better test scores for the students taking them
Sparse LEP population:
One of the many issues regarding the population of LEP students was the way in which the numbers effected the labeling of needing improvement as a result of the numbers. The larger the population the lower the number, the lower population, the higher the number in which the scoring is used. So even though the smaller population of LEP students are doing well, or even better than the higher populated, their district or school will be labeled as needing improvement.
LEP CUTOFF POINTS
1. Compensatory model - a higher score in one area will compesate for a lower score in another area
2. Conjunctive model - scored on ALL measures need to be at or above criterion point or cut scores.
3. Both model result in different outcomes. Using the compensatory model may help the students "pass" even if they are not proficient in all areas. A conjunctive model may lead a student to "fail" if one or more scores are not proficient.
4. Conjunctive model more conservative in recognizing students' progress
5. NCLB uses a conjunctive model and is more strict in terms of cutoff points which results in many more LEP students staying in the "fail" category
4. tests are generally field tested on English native speakers so those tests aren't relevant for LEP students. I need more clarification between a norm-referenced test and criterion test.
My comments for this is in reference to #1. Inconsistencies in LEP classification across and within states. I feel that especially in High Stakes tests, EVERYTHING should be clear. Classifications, assessment conducts, directions, and days to test. Materials should be available, directions should be clear, and teacher and test admisitrators should know any or all options/services that can be provided. When it comes to High Stakes tests such as the NCLB act tests, the classifications for the LEP students should not even be an issue, their needs should have been addressed. The article suggests that there is a need to improve LEP classification and assessment. This will reduce the "unnecessary linguistic complexities of assessments".
#6. lack of LEP subgroup stability involves students moving in and out of this category and it affecting the AYP requirements for this subgroup. The classifications for this subgroup are also inconsistent across school districts, with some not even counting this subgroup due to the low enrollment numbers. Students who remain in this category are left behind literally, and those who move out of this category will still be scoring lower than their native English speaking peers....
oops- my #6 response was supposed to be for #3.
Post a Comment