ED 296 579

AUTHORTITLE

DOCUMENT RESUME

FL 017 459

DeGeorge, George P.Assessment and Placement of Language MinorityStudents: Procedures for Mainstreaming. New Focus,NCBE Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education, No.3.

INSTITUTION National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education,Wheaton, MD.

SPONS AGENCY Office of Bilingual Education and Minority LanguagesAffairs (ED), Washington, DC.

PUB DATE 88CONTRACT 300860069NOTE 17p.PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Bilingual Education; Elementary Secondary Education;

*English (Second Language); *Evaluation Criteria;*Evaluation Methods; *Limited English Speaking;Measurement Techniques; Second Language Programs;*Student Placement

IDENTIFIERS *Mainstreaming (Non English Speaking)

ABSTRACTThe language minority and limited-English-proficient

students attending American schools in increasing numbers must beprepared as well as possible for their continued education in themainstream. This can be begun by implementing mainstreamingprocedures that fairly and accurately determine student readiness forlearning in the mainstream and making recommendations toward thatend, treating the process as a set of placement procedures. Theseprocedures would include defining what the various placementdecisions are, determining student needs and other information neededto make those decisions, developing and implementing procedures andinstruments for gathering the information, and collecting, analyzing,and interpreting it. The apparent simplicity of the steps maskscomplexity resulting from the interplay of variables such as programsize and structure and the intricacy of individual linguistic,cognitive, and sociocultural backgrounds. Small teams of individualsfrom both bilingual/English-as-a-second-language and mainstreamprograms could have responsibility for making placement decisions.(MSE)

**************

Reproduct*

**************

*********************************************************

ions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

*********************************************************

.13

OLiJ rthe

NEW

FFOCUSthe national clearinghouse for bilingual education

Occasional Papers in Bilingual EducationNumber 3

Winter 1987/1988

Assessment and Placement of Language Minority Students:Procedures for Mainstreaming"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS

MATE IAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

INTRODUCTION

George P. De GeorgeConnecticut State Department of Educationwith the collaboration of the NCBE Staff

Mainstreaming is one of the important goalsof all specialized instruction of limited-English-proficient students (LEP). Letting LEP studentsstudy alongside their non-LEP counterpartsencourages mutual learning and decreases thepossibility that the language minority studentwill remain isolated. This increased contact mayalso contribute to the improvement in self-conceptfor the language minority student (Placer-Barber,1981).

Stories of language minority or LEP studentswho have succeeded in a monolingual Englishclassroom after spending several years in a bilin-gual or English-as-a-second-language (ESL)-typeprogram are plentiful. Such stories make us feelgood about these programs and lead us to concludethat "something has gone right." Equally commonare recountings of students who have done poorlyand failed. These accounts cause us to feeldisappointment for the programs, the students, andtheir parents. We are often led to ask what wentwrong. Was it the program? Were the studentsadequately prepared, or were tie students atfault?

The placement of a LEP student in an all-English mainstream program for all or part of theschool day comes as the result of a complexprocess. To fully understand the workings of thisprocess and the issues and considerations whichcomprise it, a review of the child's experienceprior to being mainstreamed is necessary.

The first step in that process was toidentify students in need of special academicservices. Next, a determination was made as toprecisely what services the student would need,and the level at which he/she should begin. Asthe student progressed through the program ofinstruction, progress vas monitored periodically.As he/she successful;y acquired the skills an,;knowledge necessary to function well ic an all-English classroom, the determination was made ofhis/her readiness to make that transition.

u S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOFIce 01 Educations' Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced ureceived from the perSOn or Of gandatoOnoriginating it

r Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction Quality

Points of view or opinions stated in this docu-mint do not necessarily roorosent officontOERI position or policy

Procedures for identification of LEP studentsand their initial placement in instructionalprograms varies frori jurisdiction to jurisdiction.Initially, a determination of LEP status must bemade. In some states, state law mandates aparticular definition of LEP status. In others,the State Education Agency (SEA) establishesregulations or policy describing the linguisticcharacteristics of a LEP student. Some statespermit the local education agency (LEA) todetermine this definition. The basic definitionof LEP status, no matter what its origin,underlies all assessment procedures.

Equally diverse among the states are theactual methods used to identify students as LEPand to exit them from the specialized academicprograms in which they have been placed. Somestates mandate, by law, the instruments andprocedures to be employed. In other states heSEA sets forth regulations for assessment. II yetother states, the SEA recommends procedures and/orinstruments, but school districts may establishtheir own policies, and in some states all suchdecisions are made at district level. Table 1(see page 10) summarizes the identification andexit methods used in selected states around thecountry. This table illustrates the variety ofmethods and instruments utilized nationwide.

Some states use the same methods fordetermining entry placement as are used to exitstudents from a given program, while other statesemploy different methods or instruments for thispurpose. Diversity exists, too, in the number ofnstruments used to determine readin-ss to exit aprogram of instruction.

The purpose of this paper, then, is tostimulate discussion about viaiat mainstreaming alanguage minority student really means and toencourage those who administer and implement bi-lirguvl ESL programs to examine how well theyare preparing their students to be effectivelearners in the English-speaking educational main-stream. Practitioners need to ask themselveswhether estallished mainstreaming procedures

2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

enhance both teacher and student performance.This paper presents a framework, practical advice,and ideas that administrators and teachers ofbilingual and ESL programs can build upon todesign mainstreaming procedures or to review andpossibly improve the mainstreaming policies theymay already have in place.

MAINSTREAMING: A PLACEMENT DECISION

This paper views the mainstreaming of lan-guage minority students as a placement decision.It is the decision to remove or exit a LEP studentfrom a bilingual or ESL program and place thatstudent in the all-English mainstream educationalprogram for either part or all of the school day.

Depending upon the structure of one'sbilingual or ESL program, a mainstreaming decisioncan take various forms. One common type ofprogram is an ESL resource room/pullout-type ofprogram. In such a program, students who arealready receiving mainstream subject-areainstruction in such areas as mathematics andscience, go to a specific resource room or studycenter to receive ESL instruction from a resourceteacher. For these students, total mainstreamingmay mean terminating their ESL studies and placingthem into mainstream English reading and languagearts classes.

In the case of a bilingual program whichprovides instruction in all subject areas throughthe native language as well as in English andEnglish as a second language, mainstreaming maymean a series of placement decisions wherebystudents are placed into English reading andlanguage arts classes and mainstream mathematics,science, and social studies classes, asappropriate.

MAINSTREAMING: A SET OF PROCEDURES

Mainstreaming, therefore, refers to a processor set of procedures which consists of all thesteps leading up to making the various placementdecisions which would place the student into themainstream program. Those steps may include:

Definare;

Deterlion ne

ing what the various placement decisions

ining student needs anc other informa-cded to make those decisions;

Devcloinstruand

ping and implementing procedures andments for gathering the information;

Collectiinforma1985).

2

ng, analyzing, and interpreting theion (Ausubel, 1969; Dc George,

3

While these steps seem clear, simple, andlogical, they mask the potential complexity whichcan result from the interplay of differentvariables, such as the size and structure of theprogram and the intricate nature of individualstudent background variables (linguistic,cognitive and sociocultural).

Native English-speaking students in Americanschools, as they study science, mathematics, andsocial studies, are at the same time acquiring thelanguage proficiency associated with these subjectareas. This occurs after they have alreadyacquired the basic structure and vocabulary ofEnglish and have practiced it extensively ininterpersonal communication situations. Theirintroduction to academic subject matter begins inkindergarten, or even preschool, and increasesgraduaty as they proceed up the grade ladder.

Language minority students, on the otherhand, whatever their school experience andcommunicative and academic abilities in theirnative language may be, are called upon tosimultaneously go through the stages of developinginterpersonal communication skills, mastering sub-ject area content and skills, and acquiringacademic language proficiency) for each subjectarea, all in their second language, English.Learning subject matter while they are alsoacquiring English language skills makes itdifficult for language minority students to keepup with their English-speaking peers. Limited-English-proficient students may require some timeto develop their communicative abilities and basicliteracy skills in English before they can startusing English as a tool for learning subjectmatter, or before they can begin transferring whatthey know from their native language to English.This may result in LEP students beinginadvertently placed in instructional situationsthat are more complex for them than for studentswho are already proficient in English (Cummins,1984; Tikunoff, 1985). Being aware of thesedifferences in learning rates allows schools todevelop appropriate instructional sequences whichprovide students with the necessary opportunitiesfor developing academic language proficiency inEnglish without sacrificing the acquisition ofsubject matter.

Precisely what types of information areneeded to make mainstreaming decisions about LEPstudents in bilingual/ESL programs? What types ofappropriate procedures and instruments areavailable or can be developed to gather the

)Academic language proficiency has been defined as the ability ofthe learner to manipulate effectively those aspects of languagenecessary in learning and communicating about academic subjectareas. This involves using a specific language (e.g., English) asa medium of thought rather than as a means of interpersonalcommunication. As students advance in grade level, such languagetends to be more demntonualized and cognitively demanding(Cummins. 1980, 1984).

requisite information efficiently and effectively?What criteria can be used to analyze student dataand other information in order to make it usablefor decision-making purposes?

The remainder of this paper will be devotedto answering these questions and providing aframework and practical ideas that administrators,teachers, and others who are to participate in themainstreaming process can use to conceptualize anddesign mainstreaming procedures or to review andimprove existing ones.

INFORMATION NEEDED FOR MAKING*.:AINSTREAMING DECISIONS

Sound instructional decisions requirereliable and relevant information about studentcapabilities and achievement patterns. Decidingwhether or not a language minority student isready to be mainstreamed has often been madesolely on the basis of students' oral Englishability. Recent studies, however, seem toindicate that it may be beneficial to determinethe status of the student with respect to thedemands that will be made upon him/her inmainstream subject area classes (Chamot andO'Malley, 1986; Cummins, 1986). In other words,has the student mastered the prerequisite contentan skills for all areas to be studied in themaLstream? If we are to answer this question, weneed to determine the demands that will be madeupon the student. The question is. How?

The notion that oral English language skillsalone may be necessary but not sufficient to for astudent to acquire content-area knowledge hascaused considerable - :thinking amongadministrators and classroom teachers aboutassessment procedures as they exist today.Researchers have found that oral languageproficiency measures alone may not providesufficient data for decision-making with regard tothe schooling needs of LEP students. This isbecause oral language proficiency tests may not beable to predict accurately how well LEP studentswill perform on academic achievement tests(Canale, 1983; Cummins, 1981, 1983b; 011er, 1979).In addition, oral language proficiency testsappear to have no relationship to how well a LEPstudent can perform instructional tasks (Klee,1984; Cummins, 1983a,c; Cervantes, 1979).

A LEP student may be mainstreamed anywherealong the K-12 grade-level continuum. The demandswhich the mainstream program will make at specificgrade levels for entering students will, ofcourse, vary. In short, what will be required ofstudents entering the mainstream at the fourth-grade level will be quite different from thatwhich is required of students entering at thetenth-grade level. What is needed, therefore, isa general approach to examining the demands of themainstream upon language minority children that

can be applied at any point along the K-12 grade-level continuum.

Presented below is a two-step approach,inspired by the literature on educationalcurricula and second-language acquisition, thatattempts to address this need (Ausubel, 1969;Bloom et 01,1971; De George, 1983).

The first step in this approach entails thedetermination of the cognitive demands that willbe made of the student in the mainstream, whilethe second step involves ascertaining the languagedemands of the mainstream classroom. Takentogether, these two steps provide the basicinformation and criteria for determining whetheror not a student is ready to be mainstreamed.

Step One: Determining Cognitive Demands

A. Describe Instructional Objectives

The first task in determining cognitivedemands is to examine the curriculum andinstructional objectives of the mainstreamsituation or grade level into which a student willbe placed. Such an examination may involve thefollowing:

Listing the specific subject areas taught atthe target grade level with special attentiongiven to the main areas of reading andlanguage arts, mathematics, science, andsocial studies;

Breaking down subject areas into their maincontent and skill areas; and

Determining the prerequisite content-knowledge and language skills necessary forsuccessful functioning in the mainstreamsubject areas.

One approach to breaking down a subject areais to develop a matrix of content and skilldevelopment objectives. This approach is treatedin depth in the Handbook on Formative andSummative Evaluation of Student Learning (Bloom,Hastings, and Madaus, 1971).

The Guide to Curriculum Development inScience (State of Connecticut, 1981) offers a goodexample of this procedure. It suggests that aneighth-grade science curriculum contain offeringson life, physical, and earth science. For each ofthese, the Guide outlines the following generalconcepts which students need to master:

Life Science:

Living organisms carry on life functions;

4 3

Living organisms and their environment areinterdependent and are constantly interact-ing; and

Living things change.

Physical Science:

The physical world consists of interactionsof matter and energy.

Earth Science:

The earth and the solar system undergochanges involving different cycles.

The above are statements which outline thecontent to be covered in the eighth-grade sciencecurriculum. Specified also are the skill objec-tives for eighth-grade science, which are to:

Use measuring devices and record dataproperly,

Make graphs and charts from the data given;

Interpret data, charts, and graphs and makegeneralizations;

Follow directions to utilize simple tests andinterpret results;

Employ mathematics necessary to convert unitswithin the metric system;

Develop a hypothesis from basic data anddevise a method to test it;

Use, maintain, and care for laboratory equip-ment;

Distinguis between qualitative and quantita-tive observations;

Follow laboratory safety rules at all times;

Use "scientific methods" for setting upexperiments which have dependent andindependent variables;

Communicate information organized in logicalsequences orally and graphically using appro-priate vocabulary;

Recognize that certain teaching devices, suchas a "model," are only teaching aids and arenot reality, and

Apply scientific theories and laws to a givensituation (State of Connecticut, 1981).

4

B. Examining Curriculum Materials and InterviewingTeachers

Let us suppose that the above descriptions ofcontent and skill areas represent the basiceighth-grade science curriculum in a schooldistrict. The next task, then, is to examine thetexts and other curriculum materials and talk withscience teachers to find out which topics andskills are stressed and the types of la,guage andlearning activities employed. This informationwill, in effect, answer the question of whatcognitive demands will be made upon the student.Having answered that question, it will then bepossible to ask what prerequisite content-knowledge and skills, if any, the seventh-gradestudents need in order to succeed as learners insuch a course. Such prerequisite skills mayalready be built into the seventh-gradecurriculum. If not, it might be necessary to con-sider revising the curriculum to ensure that stu-dents will succeed in eighth-grade science.

Step Two: Determining Language Demands ofClassroom Instruction

The second step in determining informationneeds for making mainstreaming decisions is todetermine the academic language proficiencydemands made on the LEP student by classroominstruction. An approach for determiningacademic language proficiency skills is suggestedby the work of Chamot and O'Malley (1986). Inthis work they suggest developing a "bridge"curriculum which facilitates the transition frombilingual and ESL programs to the mainstream.This bridge curriculum combines instruction inEnglish as a second language with a focus on thecontent areas. It also provides training in theuse of learning strategies as aids tocomprehension and retention. Many of the learningstrategies described are actually study andlearning skills.

The bridge curriculum approach requires ananalysis of the kinds of language used in theclassy' .m and the uses to which that language willbe put. After this has been done, students can betaught the actual academic language skills theyneed. Mainstream classroom language demands aredifferent from those made in beginning-level ESLclasses or in everyday social interaction and needto be taught specifically and practiced in thecontext of subject matter learning. To developacademic language proficiency in English for usein mainstream classes, it is suggested that thefollowing be taught:

Specific vocabularyterminology;

5

and technical

Language functions used in academiccommunication, such as explaining, informing,describing, clarifying, and evaluating;

Ability to comprehend and use language struc-tures prevailing in different subject areas,such as passive voice, long noun phrases usedas subjects and objects of sentences, andsentences beginning with 'because" clauses;

Ability to comprehend discourse featuresfound in various subject areas, such asexpository discourse used to present factsand concepts, and language organized in asequence of steps to be followed in the ordergiven; and

Language skills needed in the content class-room, such as listening to explanations,participating in academic discussions, read-ing for information, and writing reports(Ambert, Greenberg, and Pereira, 1980;Chamot and O'Malley, 1986; Hamayan, et al.,1985; Ohio Department of Education, 1983;Rivera and Lombardo, 1982; SouthwestRegional Laboratory, 1980).

These five areas of language content andskills can be used as a framework which those incharge of designing mainstreaming procedures canuse in determining the academic language demandsmade of LEP students in subject area classes.This framework can be used to analyze mainstreamcurriculum guides and materials, to ..tructureconsultations with mainstream teachers aboutlanguage demands in their classes, and to examinethe linguistic demands of teaching/learningactivities in mainstream classrooms.

In applying such a framework to the eighth-grade science curriculum discussed above, one cansee that students need to learn such concepts as"living organism," "environment," "matter andenergy," and "cycles", as well as such terms as"data," "graphs and charts," and "gener-alizations." Interpreting, generalizing, anddistinguishing are among the language functionsthat are required of students. In explaining anddescribing, students may have to use long nounphrases as subjects and objects of sentences andclauses beginning with "because," "since," and"when." Students may also be required to useexpository discourse to present facts and conceptsorally or in writing. Students will have to learnto listen to teacher lectures and demonstrationswith understanding, perform reading assignments,make oral presentations using graphs and charts,and write reports about their work.

In summary, the framework for determining thelanguage demands made by the mainstream classroomcan be described as follows:

Determine subject areas to be taught;

Analyze each subject area by content andskill area;

Determine prerequisite cognitive skillsneeded to allow students to benefit frominstruction in each subject; and

Analyze each mainstream subject area forlinguistic components (vocabulary andtechnical terms, language structures andfunctions, discourse features).

Once a description of content, thinkingskills, and linguistic components has beendeveloped, one can then decide what kinds ofassessment procedures and instruments may be usedto assess all components.

PROCEDURES AND INSTRUMENTS FORGATHERING INFORMATION

In this paper, assessment denotes any processused to ascertain whether and to what degree astudent has a certain skill or proficiency, suchas communicative competence. An assessmentinstrument is an actual deviee used to measure theattribute in question. Observation checklists andtests are examples of assessment instrumentsavailable to educators for gathering information.Assessment processes and instruments have onecommon purpose, the gathering of informat;on ordata which are then used for decision-makingpurposes

Some instruments may be better suited forgathering certain types of information thanothers. (Guerin and Maier, 1983; Stanley andHopkins, 1972). For example, cognitive skills maybe more appropriately assessed by a writteninstrument rather than by an observation scale,whereas ability to complete class tasks may bemore effectively assessed using an observationinstrument rather than an oral languageproficiency test (Tilcunoff, 1985).

Approach to Assessment for Mainstreaming

An examination of mainstream instructionaldemands yields a listing of content-area topics,thinking skills, and linguistic features ofacademic language to be assessed. Variousassessment instruments are available to educatorsfor gathering data related to the items on thoselists. However, it has been suggested that no oneinstrument may be sufficiem for assessing all thecomponents described in this paper. Consequently,many school districts are turning to a multiple-instrument approach for making mainstreamingdecisions. This strategy combines the use ofvarious criterion-referenced tests with teacher6

5

IIIIIIIIIIIMMNIMIIIIVMSZ(A:::::::::.'i:::. 'me" er

judgment for assessing language minority students.This approach reflects current thought in theeducational literature (Ambert, et al., 1980;Hamayan, Kwiat, and Perlman, 1985).

A criterion-referenced or objectives-basedapproach to assessment yields information relativeto student mastery or non-mastery of specific con-tent areas, cognitive skills, and language profi-ciency. This information takes the form of'discrete* items, i.e., single, isolated skillssuch as vocabulary knowledge, or complex,integrative skills such as participation in anacademic debate. Matching assessment items to thecontent area, cognitive skills, and languageproficiency requirements identified for measure-ment in the form of individual student profilescan provide a sound basis for making mainstreamingdecisions about LEP students. The individualstudent profile is described later in this paper.

Instruments for predicting ability tofunction in the English-only classroom or formeasuring academic language proficiency are notavailable at the present time (Chamot andO'Malley, 1986). Most oral English languageproficiency tests currently in existence do notmeasure academic language proficiency as definedin this paper, and standardized tests in Englishconfound content knowledge with language profi-ciency. On the basis of what exists, then, it maybe beneficial to use multiple instruments in orderto assess all aspects of language proficiency andcontent knowledge.

The use of multiple instruments can result ina much more precise picture of the languageminority student because it looks at him/her fromdifferent perspectives. One instrument can beused which measures oral language proficiency.Another can be administered which assesses writtenlanguage ability. An additional instrument may bedevel3ped to determine content-area mastery at thestudent's present grade level. Yet anotherInstrument can be administered which reflects theteacher's observation and resulting judgment ofthe student's ability to function in themainstream. Using a combination of instrumentscan help ensure that a student's ability tofunction in the English-only classroom isadequately measured. (Cavalheiro, 1981; Hamayan,et al., 1985; Hayes, 1982; Jones, 1981; Lazos,1981).

Non-traditional informal tests, such asteacher -made instruments based on the schooldistrict's curriculum may also be employed.Informal approaches include ratings of languagesamples, doze procedures, and dictation.(Hamayan, et al., 1985; Lindvall and Nitko,1975.

At the time that mainstreaming decisions areto be made, various teachers and other programstaff will have worked with and observed indivi-dual students over several years. Also, writtenrecords about the students' performance will have

ri-

been created in the form of cumulative files,observation notes, anecdotal information, testscores, and grades. This information, accumulatedover time, is valuable and should be brought intothe mainstreaming process and entered accordinglyinto student profiles as evidence of developmenttoward mastery of important content knowledge,thinking skills, and language proficiency.

CREATING AN INFORMATION-GATHERINGSYSTEM FOR MAINSTREAMING

The more common assessment instruments avail-able to educators today are as follows:

Interview protocols and questionnaires;

Observation checklists;

Rating scales and criteria;

Holistic scoring and other methods forevaluating student work samples; and

Formal and informal tests.

As suggested above, determinations need to bemade regarding which of these devices or otherslike them will be used to assess the various con-tent and skill areas and linguistic featuresidentified when examining mainstream demands n;anstudents. It has been suggested that differentinstruments can be used to assess differat skillsand that more than one type of instrument can beused to assess the same skill, if necessary. Manycontent-area and cognitive skills for the varioussubject areas are amenable to assessment by formaltests, yet observation data and information fromexisting records may also be used.

After deciding which assessment proceduresand instruments are to be used for measuring thetarget content-area knowledge, cognitive skills,and linguistic features, three possibilities existfor obtaining them: (1) Existing instruments, ifappropriate, can be used; (2) existing instrumentscan be adapted; and (3) new instruments can bedeveloped. Interview protocols, questionnaires,and observation checklists are the types ofinstruments that will most likely need to bedeveloped. It is not within the purview of thisarticle to discuss specific instruments, but manyresources are currently available to assist bilin-gual and ESL educators in finding what they need.

Among the federal agencies available fortechnical assistance in locating specificassessment instruments and in providing trainingin thcir use are the Evaluation Assistance Center-East located at Georgetown University inWashington, D.C. serving the eastern United States(800-626-5443; 703-875-0900), and the EvaluationAssistance Center-West at the University of New

7

Mexico in Albuquerque, NM, serving the westernUnited States (800-247-4269; 505- 277-7281).

Student Profile

One approach to the assessment process formainstreaming is the development of the individualstudent profile. This form can be used toorganize and summarize student data. it shouldlist the relevant items under content -area know-ledge, thinking skills, and academic languageproficiency to be assessed for each mainstreamsubject area at specific grade levels. For eachof these, spaces should be allocated for therecording of information and data yielded by thevarious assessment instruments employed. Figure 1provides an illustrative example based on theConnecticut science curriculum cited earlier inthis paper.

Depending upon many factors, including thestructure of one's bilingual or ESL program, thenumber of students in it, the number of schools inwhich students are distributed, the staffing pat-tern, the amount of information to be collected,the number and types of instruments used, thetypes of recording, scoring, and reporting ofresults involved, and the amount of support avail-able to the program, an information-gatheringsystem can become cumbersome and complicated.One's goal, however, is to make the data-gatheringsystem practical, efficient, and productive of thetypes of information which will allow the mostvalid basis possible for decision making.Developing individual student profiles may aid inthis process. Other strategies for making themainstream process more manageable include:reducing the inventories of content-area know-lAge, cognitive skills, and academic languageproficiency features to the most important ele-ments; using existing data as much as is appro-priate; reducing the length of assessment instru-ments where possible; using teacher observationand judgments judiciously, and developing a set ofconcise yet useful recording and information sum-mary forms. In this regard, less assessment andfewer forms are better, within reasonable bounds.

COLLECTING, ANALYZING, AND INTERPRETINGASSESSMENT INFORMATION

Data Collection

Collecting assessment information can becomecomplex and onerous unless an effective andefficient system is developed. Equally importantis that the system be managed properly. Inessence, someone must be in charge of the processand have available staff and resources toimplement it. Observations need to be made andrecorded on checklists, tests must be administeredand scored, questionnaires have to be completed,existing data must be retrieved, student worksamples and performances need to be rated, andstudent profiles must be filled in. All thisneeds to be done accurately and in accordance withspecified deadlines. Effective management of theprocess, adequate staff and staff training, andnecessary supports such as secretarial assistance,computers, and copying equipment are crucial toeffective data collection.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

After the most reliable information availablefor each student on achievement relative tocontent knowledge, cognitive skills, and languageproficiency is summarized ou student profiles, itcan be analyzed and interpreted. In a criterion-referenced approach, data are analyzed in terms ofmastery and non-mastery. For all items on thestudent profile, the first question to consider iswhether or not the information provided on theprofile is relevant, sufficient, and accurate. Itis then that an analysis can be made of the degreeto which the evidence indicates mastery or non-mastery of the content, skill, or academiclanguage proficiency in question. As the evidenceaccumulates and is analyzed on each studentprofile, a picture is pieced together of thestudent's overall grasp of each subject area andhis/her proficiency in dealing with the subjectmatter through English with respect to themainstream grade or situation for which the stu-dent is being considered.

The underlying criterion and ultimate inter-pretation is whether or not the student has suf-ficient mastery of subject area content, skills,and language proficiency to be a successfullearner in a specific mainstream situation. Inaddition to the inforn..tion recorded on studentprofiles, the experienP and insight of those ana-lyzing and interprc the data have much to dowith whether well - informed and effective main-streaming decisions ? e made with respect to lan-guage minority stude

87

Figure 1

Language Minority Student Profile

Name: Grade level leaving.

Length of time in program: Grade level entering:

Subject: Science (SO Grade)

Assessment Areas

A. Content-Area Topics

Life Science: (1) Living organisms carry on life functions;(2) Living organisms and their environment are interdependent and a:e

constantly interacting(3) Livin3 things change.

Physical Science: The physical world consists of interactions of matter and energy.

Earth Science: The earth and the solar system undergo changes involving different c:::les.

B. Cognitive Skill Objectives b

Use measuring devices and record data properly.Make graphs and charts from the data given.Interpret data, charts, and graphs and make generalizations.Follow directions to utilize simple tests and interpret results.Employ mathematics necessary to convert units within the metric system.Develop a hypothesis from basic data and devise a method to test it.Use, maintain, and care for laboratory equipment.Distinguish between qualitative and quantitative observations.Follow laboratory safety rules at all times.Use "scientific" methods for setting up experiments which have dependent andindependent variables.Communicate information organized in logical sequences orally and graphically usingappropriate vocabulary.Recognize that certain teaching devices, such as a "model," are only teaching aids andare not reality.Apply scientific theories and laws to a given situation.

C. Linguistic Features of Academic Language Proficiency

(1) Vocabulary and technical terminology(2) Language functions (explaining, informing, describing, clarifying, evaluating)(3) Language structures (passive voice, noun clauses and phrases, etc.)(4) Discourse features (expository)(5) Language skills (listening to explanations, reading for information, participating in

academic discussions, writing reports)

D. Relevant Information/Data

E. Mainstreaming Recommendations

i9

:01:P;A:W5grax6 ferIMEN11111111111.111.1.....:-:-:4: ftZ 32- 4`

MAINSTREAMING PROCEDURES IN VARIOUSSTATES

Mainstreaming procedures, commonly known asexit procedures, vary tremendously across theUnited States. In some states, as mentionedearlier, methods for student placement and forexit/mainstreaming are mandated by the states. Inothers, districts develop assessment plans whichmust be approved by the State Education Agency.In yet others, districts are free to develop theirown guidelines for this procedure. An overview ofmethods for entry/placement and exit for selectedstates can be found in Table 1. Although spacedoes not permit detailed discussion of theprocedures for each state, the methods for severalstates are discussed in depth below.

In Ohio, the recommended procedure for exitevaluation calls for at least four, and sometimessix, kinds of assessment. These indude:

Testing of second language oral-aural skills;

Testing of second language literacy skills;

Testing of content-area knowledge in first orsecond language;

Obtaining the teacher's recommendation;

Obtaining the parent's evaluation; and

An academic learning time (ALT) study whichattempts to measure the student's ability tostay on task and indicates what level ofaccuracy he or she is attaining in dailyGlasswork while on task (Ohio Department ofEducation, 1986).

Some school districts in Ohio have found ithelpful to establish a trial period ofmainstreaming for students who have demonstratedthe ability to participate in classroom activitiesthat involve English as the medium of instruction.The purpose of this trial period is to give thestudent an opportunity to ease into an all-Englishclassroom without taking away his or her nativelanguage support.

The decision to trial mainstream a student isbased on a consensus reached by the regular (-las-room teacher, the instructional aide, and the ESLinstructor. This trial period can take placewhile the student remains in the same bilingualclassroom and should generally last at least oneacademic year. During that time, ESL instructionis discontinued, but native language activitiescontinue. The student can be involved in as manyall-English activities as possible in order tofacilitate his or her transition into themainstream.

Trial mainstreaming can also be used in ESLinstructional settings. During the first year ofrrainstreaming, the child's progress is monitored.Additional academic and English language supportis provided as necessary.2

In California3 the State Education Agency(SEA) recommends that all students be assessedusing five different measures. Oral/auralproficiency testing is supplemented by ademonstration of mastery of the English languagecurriculum. On standardized tests, students areusually required to score above the 36thpercentile. In addition to teacher evaluation,parental evaluation is also included as part ofthe mainstreaming process. The finaldetermination of measures to be used is made atthe district level.

Texas4 joins California and Ohio in makinguse of multiple measures to determine a LEPstudent's readiness to enter the mainstream. Inaddition to requiring a score of IV or V on theoral language proficiency test, Texas has set apercentile score of 40 percznt or more onstandardized achievement tests of reading andvocabulary before a student can exit from abilingual/ESL program. Mastery, in English and atgrade level, of the essential elements of thestatewide curriculum is also required.Additionally, parental recommendations areobtained to supplement the testing data.

Arizona 3 conducts an assessment of orallanguage proficiency as well as of reading andwriting skills in English as part of itsmainstreaming procedure. Both teacher evaluationand parental recommendation are obtained, whichfacilitate the placement decision.

As can be seen on Table 1, many of the stateslisted use multiple instruments as well as teacherjudgment in making mainstreaming placementdecisions. Although tests and cut-off scoresvary, a large number of the states listed dosupplement data obtained on oral languageproficiency tests with data from reading andstandardized achievement tests to exit studentsfrom bilingual/ESL programs. This may indicatethat the trend is now toward a more realisticprediction of students' ability to function in themainstream classroom.

2Dan Fleck, Ohio Department of Education, Columbus, Ohio, personalcommunication, February 24, 1988.

3David Dolson, California Department of Education, personalcommunication, February 25,1988.

4Delia Pompa, Texas Education Agency, Austin, Texas, personalcommunication, February 29,1988.

sInfonnation about Arizona was obtained from the Special IssuesAnalysts Center, Office of Bilingual Education and himontyLanguages Affairs, Washington, DC.

109

STATE

TABLE 1

SELECTED STATE ENTRY/EXIT METHODS'

IDENTIFICATIONMETHODS

EXITMETHODS

INSTRUMENTSUSED

ALASKA'

ARIZONA'

CALIF0fsIA111

COLORADO

Parent questionntireLanguage observation

questionnaireLanguage assessment

instrument

Home language surveyLanguage surveyLanguage assessmentTeacher observation/opinionParental statement

Home language surveyEnglish oral/aural

proficiency testLiteracy testing

Parent/teacher checklistOral language test

CONNECTICUT' Spanish/English pre-testLanguage proficiency testsStandardized achievement

tests in reading. math,language

HAWAII

IDAHO

Holistic assessmentsStandardized achievement

teit score

Reassessment at least everyWO years

Teacher evaluationStudent performing at grade

levelParental opinion and

consultationObjective assessment: cf

English oral languageObjective assessments of

reading and writing skills

Mastery of English languagecurriculum

Oral/aural proficiency testingParental evaluationTeacher evaluationAbove 36th percentile on stan-

dardized criterion referencedtest; some discretion allowed

Oral language achievementtest score

Standardized reading and mathpre/post test scores

Selected self-concept scaleTeacher observation and

anecdotal records

Score at or above 50% onachievement tests

Attainment of average academicgrades

Teacher evaluation andassessment

Home information survey English language proficiencyLanguage proficiency test score

assessment Standardized achievement test

Home language surveyLanguage assessment test

Teacher observationCline reading lestStandardized test scores

ITBS Comprehension SubtestTeacher Fluency SurveyBattle Cult urv-Free Self-Concept

Inventory

BSM I & IIIAS I & IIIPT I & II

BINLBSM I & IIIAS I &IPTOSEOther tests with district

approval

IASBSMIPT1113S

Standardized achievement testsOral interview

IASBINL

BINLBngance-CLABLASIPT

a Unless otherwise noted. information on this table was obtained from the Special Issues Analysis Ccntcr (SIAC),Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs, Washington, DC.

bDavid Dolson, California Department of Education. Sacramento, CA, personal communication, February 24, 1988.

These states mandate special education services for limited-English-proficient students.

1110

0 e

STATE

ILLINOIS c

INDIANA

TABLE 1

SELECTED STATE ENTRY/EXIT METHODS

IDENTIFICATIONMETHODS

EXITMETHODS

INSTRUMENTSUSED

KENTUCKY

LOUISIANA

MAINE

Home language surveyStudent languageAssessment of listening,

understanding, speaking,reading and writing

Below average Englishproficiency for native

English speakers at gradelevel in district

Academic historyAdditional factors as deter-

mined by SEA and district

Teacher o'nervation andreferral

Cumulative grades andrecords

Speech testParent informationInformal assessmentSchoch consultation teamAchievement testsCriterion referenced testLanguage proficiency test

Teacher observationParental informs:ionKentucky Essential Skills

TestTutor observationCourse gradesOral language proficiencyCriterion-referenced test

Parental informationLanguage proficiency

assessmentStandardized achievement

tests

Horn.: language surreyOral language proficiency

testsInformal oral observation

MASSACHUSETTS' Home language surveyTeacher referralOral interviewLanguage proficiency test

Above average Englishproficiency ior nativeEnglish speakers at gradelevel in the district

Assessment of listening,understanding, speaking.reading and writing

Evaluation of same variablesused in identificationp xedure

Student gradesTeacher evaluationAchievement test scores

Standardized test scoresClassroom performanceTeacher recommendationsOral proficiency testsWriting test

Standardized achievement testscores

Teacher observation

Standardized achievement testscores

Oral language proficiencyMit scores

State achievement test scoreTeacher observationCourse grades

Language proficiency testscore

Standardized achievement testscores

Language continuum instrumentCourse gradesTeacher recommendationParental input

LASBSMIDEAFLA (Chicago)BINLBOLTOthers with approval of SEA

ITBSLASSATMATPPVTCATGates-McGintic language TestArticulation testGinn Reading Test

Kentucky Essential Skills TestTeacher observationWoodcuck Language Proficiency

BatteryDavis Diagnostic Test for ESL

studentsTTBSSAT

CATSRACTBSSATMATCriterion-referenced

test

LABBSMCELTBINLIPTMAP

BSMCTBSOoze reading testESL testMetropolitan Reading Survey

4: Maria Seidner, Illinois Department of Education, Chicago, Illinois, personal communication, February 24, 1988.

These states mandate special education services for limited-English-proficient students.

12 11

12

STATE

MINNESOTA

MISSISSIPPI

NEW YORKd

NEVADA

OHI0e

TABLE 1

SELECTED STATE ENTRY/EXIT METHODS

IDENTIFICATIONMETHODS

EXITMETHODS

INSTRUMENTSUSED

Teacher referralPatent informationInformal assessmentLanguage proficiency testComprehensive student

recordStandardized achievement

test scoresTutor observationSpeech testCourse gradesCritenon-referenced tests

Teacher referralInformal assessmentParent informationCourse gradesStandardized achievement

testSpeech testTutor observationCriterion-referenced testsLanguage proficiency test

Home language identificationScore below 23rd

percentile on an Englishlanguage assessmentinstrument approved by theCommissioner of Education

Teacher referralInformal assessmentParental informationComprehensive student

recordStandardized achievement

testlanguage proficiency testTutor observationCourse grades

Home language surveyOral/aural proficiency

testingLiteracy testingSubject content knowledge

assessment in Englishand native language

Teacher judgmentStandardized achievement test

scoresLanguage proficiency test

scores

Standardized achievement testscores

Teacher judgmentProgress reportsSocial participation evaluation

Score above 23rd percentile ona standardized test of Englishreading

Standardized achievement testscores

Oral/aural proficiency testingLiteracy testingAchievement testingAc Jemic Learning Time StudyParental evaluationTeacher evaluation

Teacher-made languageproficiency instrument

Standardized achievement testsCntenon-referenced tests

SATOral language proficiency test

LAB (New York City)Elsewhere dist nets select

ir-:.-uments with approval ofCommissioner of Education

Critenon-referenced tests

Brigance-DCTBSCnterion-referenced testsLASBSMCELT11135MRTPIATSATWRAT

State Education Agency-ecommends a vanctyof standardized andinformal measures

dPeter Byron, Ncw York State Department of Education, personal communication, February 24, 1988.

eDan neck, Ohio Dcpani..cnt of Education. Columbus, Ohio, personal communication. February 24, 1988.

13

a .

STATE

OKLAHOMA(

TExAsg

WISCONSIN'

WYOMING

TABLE 1

SELECTED STATE ENTRY/EXIT METHODS

IDENTIFICATIONMETHODS

EXITMETHODS

INSTRUMENTSUSED

Teacher otservation andreferral

Speech testParent informationTutor observationInformal assessmentStudcnt recordsSchool consultation teamAchievement testsCriterion-referenced testsLanguage proficiency tests

Home language surveyOral language proficiency

tests (English and/orSpanish)

Informal assessment (teacher/parent interview, studentinterview, teacher survey)

Standardized achievementtest scores

Classroom grades

Teacher/counselor referralParent informationInformal testingComprehensive student

recordsSpeech testStandardized achievement

testLanguage proficiency testTutor observationCriterion-referenced test

Home language surveyOral English language

assessment scoreStandardized achievement

test scoresTeacher referralOne year or more deficiency

in grade level in language

Teacher observation and referralSpeech testParent informationTutor observationInformal assessmentStudent recordsSchool consultasi teamAchievement TestsCriterion-referenced :estsLanguage proficiency tests

Grade score over IV or V onoral language proficiencytest and in program for morethan one year

Reading comprehension andvocabulary above the 40thpercentile on standardizedmeasures

Mastery in English at grade levelof the essential e:ements of thestatewide curriculum

Parent recommendationCriterion-referenced test

Standardized achievement testscores

Teacher judgment

Oral English languageassessment score

Standardized achievement tests

State Education Agencyapproved list of orallanguage proficiencytests and writtenachievement tests

Criterion-referenced tests

CIESTeacher-made tests

IPTLAS

Raul Font, Oklahoma State Education Agency, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, personal communication, February 23, 1988.

g Delia Pompa, Texas Education Agency, Austin, Texas, personal communication, February 29. 1988.

These states mandate special education services for limited- English- proficient students.

KEY TO TESTS LISTED ON TABLE 1

BINL: Basic Inventory of Natural LanguageBOLT: Bilingual Oral Language TestsBrigance-C: Brigance Comprehensive Inventory of Basic

Skills - English and SpanishBrigance-D: Brigance Diagnostic Assessment of Basic

Skills - SpanishCAT: California Achievement TestCELT: Comprehensive English Language TestCTBS: Comprehensive Test of Basic SkillsFLA: Functional Language AssessmentIPT: Idea Oral Language Proficiency Test1TBS: Iowa Test of Basic Skills

LAB:LAS:MAP:MAT:MRT:PIAT:PPVT:OSE:

Language Assessment BatteryLanguage Assessment SurveyMaculatis Assessment ProgramMetropolitan Achievement TestMetropolitan Readiness TestPeabody Individual Achievement TestPeabody Picture Vocabulary TestQuick Start in English

SAT: Stanford Achievement TestSRA: Science Research Assoicsates, Inc.TAP: Total Academic ProficiencyWRAT: Wide Range Achievement Test

For further information on these tests, readers may contact the National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education at 1-800-647-0123or (301) 933-9448. 14 13

CONCLUSION

Mainstreaming language minority students frombilingual and ESL programs is, and will continueto be, an edut.ational and sociopolitical reality.One of our greatest responsibilities is to preparelanguage minority students, now attending Americanschools in increasing numbers, as best we can fortheir continued education in the mainstream. Wecan begin to do this by implementing mainstreamingprocedures which accurately and fairly determinetheir readiness for learning in the mainstream andby making recommendations for further educationtoward that end. We would be well-advised toemploy small teams of individuals from both bilin-gual/ESL and mainstream programs to assume thetask and the responsibility of making suchdecisions. Other dimensions not discussed in thispaper should also be assessed, namely study skillsand learning strategies. Perhaps students'attitudes toward themselves, their culture, andthe majority culture and appropriate culturalbehavior patterns for the English-speaking class-room should also be assessed.

The approach to mainstreaming presented inthis article is not simple to implement, nor doesit purport to answer all questions or solve allproblems. This paper does, however, reviewexisting mainstreaming procedures, suggest issuesfor consideration in this process, and outlinesteps to follow in establishing and reviewingprocedures for mainstreaming of language minoritystudents. These aspects are crucial to success inthe mainstreaming process.

REFERENCES

Ambert, A., J. Greenberg, and S. Pereira (1980). Manual foridentification of limited-English-proficient students withspecial needs. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Department ofEducation. Bilingual Special Education Department.

Ausubel, D.P. (1969). School learning: An introduction toeducational psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston

Bloom, B.S., Hastings, J.T., & Madaus, G.F. (1971) Handbook onformative and surnmatioe evaluation of student learning. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Byron, P. Nnw York State Department of Education, personalcommunication, February 24, 1988

California Department of Education (1987). Coordinated compliancereview instrument section on the state program for students oflimited-English-proficiency. Sacramento, CA.

Canale, M. (1983). On some dimensions of language proficiency. InIssues in language testing research, J.W. Oiler (Ed ). Rowley,MA: Newbury House,

Cardona, D. (1984). The reclassification sunny: a study of entryand exit procedures. In Bilingual Education Studies ProgressReport 3, 1.23. Los Alamitos, CA: National Center for BilingualResearch.

1415

Cavalheiro, R.D. (1981). The relationship between languageproficiency and academic achievement of Spawn-speaking pupils.Ph.D. Dissertation. Cidremont Graduate School.

Chamot, A.U. (1981). Applications of second language acqinsitionresearch to the bilingual classroom. Focus No. S. Wheaton,Maryland: National Oeannghouse for Bilingual Education.

Chamot, A.U. & O'Malley, J.M. (1986). A cognitive academiclanguage learning approach: An ESL content-bawd curriculumWheaton, Maryland: National Clearinghouse for BilingualEducation.

Cervantes, R.A. (1979). Bilingual program exit cntena. Bilsngual'csources 2(3), 14-16.

Coulopoulous, D. and G.P. DeGeorge. (1982). Current methods andpractices of school psychologssts m the assessment of hngutsticminority children. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Department ofEducation.

Comiecticut, State of (1981). A gut& to curriculum development insewn. Hartford, CT: Connecticut State Board of Education.

Connecticut State Department of Education (November 8, 1984).Connecucut Regulations and Guidelines Concerning BilsngualEducauon Programs. Sect. 10-17.H-3, 4 5, 10. Hartford, CT.

Crespo, 0. D. (1985). Selection procedure: for identifyingstudent; sn need of special language services. Final phasc 1report. Submitted to U.S. Department of Education. Office ofPlanning. Budget and Management, September, 1985. Washington,DC: Pelavin Associates, Inc.

Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educationaldevciopment of bilingual children. Review of EducationalResearch, 49(2), 222-51.

Cummins, J. (1980). The entry and exit fallacy. NABE Journal, 4(3), 25-29.

Cummins, J. (1983a.) Functional language proficier.cr in context.Classroom participation as an interactivf. process. InCompatibility of the SBJF features with r,ther re.:earch oninsmction for LEP students, WJ. Tikunoff (ad.) San Francisco:Far West Laboratory.

Cammins, J. (1983b). Policy Rcpon. Language and literacy learningin bilingual instruction. Austin, TX: Southwest EducationalDevelopment Laboratory.

Cummins, J. (1983c) language proficiency and academic achievement.In Issues in language testing research, J W. Oiler (Ed.), Rowley,MA: Newbury House.

Cummins. J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education. Issuesin assessment and pedagogy. San Diego. CA. College Hill Press,1984.

De Avila, EA., S. Duncan, D. Ulibam. and J.S. Fleming (1979)Predicting the academic success of language minority studentsfront developmental cognitive style, linguistic, and teacherperception measures. Austin, TX: Southwest EducationalDevelopment Laboratory.

De George, G.P. (1983). Selecting tests for bilingual programevaluation. Bilingual Journal 7(2), 22-28.

De George. G.P. (1985). Process for designing entry/exitprocedures and choosing related tests. Cambridge, MAEvaluation. Dissemination, and Assessment Center. Lesley College.

Dolson, D. California Department cr Education, Sacramento, CApersonal communication, February 24, 1988.

Fleck, D. Ohio Department of Education, Columbus, Ohio. personalcommunication, February 24, 1988.

Font, R. Oklahoma State Education Agency, Oklahoma City,Oklahoma, personal communication, February 23, 1988.

Guenn, G.R. and Maier, A.S. (1983). Informal .4ssessmentEducation. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.

Hamayan, E.V., J.A. Kwiat, R. Perlman. (1985). Assessment oflanguage minority students: a handbook for educators. ArlingtonHeights, IL Illinois Resource Center.

Stanley, J.C. and K.D. Hopkins, (1972) Educational andpsychological measurement and evaluation Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Task Force on Cross-cultural Assessment. (1980). The time foraction: positions and recommendations of the task force on cross-cultural assessment. llightstown, NJ: Northeast Regional ResourceCenter.

in Tikunoff, W.J. (1985). Applying significant bilingualinstructional features in the classroom. Wheaton, Maryland:National Cleannghousc for Bilingual Education.

Turnbull, H. R. (1986). Free appropriate public education. Thelaw and children with disabilities. Denver, CO: Love PublishingCo.

Hayes, Z.A. (1982). 'Limited' language proficiency: a problem inthe definition and measurement of bilingualism. Ph.D.Dissertation. Stanford University.

Jones, P.A. (1981). Prediction of success in English readingachievement for primary students enrolled in bilingualclassrooms: The utility of a language assessment measure. Ph.D.Dissertation. University of Colorado at Boulder.

Klee, CA. (1984). A discourse catalysis of the oral languageinteractions of Spanish-English bilingual children in threeenvironments. Ph.D. Dissertation. University ix Texas, Austin.

Lacs, H. (1981). A study of the relationship of languageproficiency in the mother tongue and acquisition of secondlanguage reading skills in bilingual children at age twelve.Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Texas, Austin.

Lindvall, CN. and Nitko, A-I. (1975). Measuring pupil achievementand aptitude. Second Ed. New York: Hartcourt, Brace, &Jovanovich.

Ohio Department of Education. (1983). Strategies for developinglanguage programs for national origin minority students.Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio Department of Education. (19t. 1. Guidelines for theestablishment and implementation of entry and nit criteria forbilingual education programs. Columbus, Ohio.

Oiler, J.W. (1979). Language testing and schools. London: Longman

Placer-Barber, V. (1981). Starting an English-as-n-second-language program. Bilingual Education Resource Series, Olympia,WA: Washington State Department of Education.

Pompa, D. Texas Education Agency, Austin, Texas, personalcommunication, February 29,1988.

Rivera, C. and N. Lombardo. (1982). Considerations for developinglanguage assessment procedures. In Bilingual Education ResearcherHandbook Language Issues in Multicultural Settings. M. Montero,(Ed.). Cambridge, MA Evaluation, Dissemination, and AssessmentCenter.

Seidner, M. Illinois Department of Education, Chicago, Illinois,personal comminication, February 24,1988.

Southwest Regional Laboratory for Educational Research andDevelopment. (1980). Resources for Developing a StudentPlacement System for Bilingual Programs. Los Alamitos, CASouthwest Regional Laboratory.

Special Issues Analysis Center, Office of Bilingual Education andMinority Languages Affairs, Washington, DC.

About the Author

George P. De George is Associate EducationConsultant for Bilingual Education with the Con-necticut State Department of Education. Previous-ly, he was Deputy Director of the EvaluationAssistance Center at RMC Research Corporation inHampton, New Hampshire. He served as Training andEvaluation Manager at the Evaluation, Dissemina-tion, and Assessment Center in Cambridge, Massa-chusetts, from 1975 to 1985. Before that, he wasevaluator of the New Bedford, Massachusetts, TitleVII program.

Mr. De George has conducted extensive training andtechnical assistance programs throughout thecountry in testing, program evaluation, and place-ment/exit procedures. From 1981 to 1984 hedirected three regional management institutes fordirectors of bilingual programs. He is editor ofImproving Bilingual Program Management: A Hand-book for Title VII Directors and Bilingual ProgramManagement A Problem-Solving Approach (NationalDissemination Center, Fall River, Massachusetts).He is currently an Ed.D. candidate at BostonUniversity.

This publication was prepared under Contract No.301660069 for the Office of Bilingual Educationand Minority Languages Affairs (OBEMLA), U.S.Department of Education. The contents of thispublication do not necessanly reflect the viewsor policies of the Department of Education, nordoes mention of trade names, commercial products,or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S.Government.

Enrique M. Cubillos, Director

Shelley P. Gutstein, Publications Coordinator

Lorraine Valdez Pierce, Series Editor

16 15

Are You Familiar with NCBE Services?

The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (NCBE) responds to yourquestions related to the education of limited-English-proficient (LEP)populations through:

Information Services

NCBE provides information to practitioners in the field about curriculummaterials, program models, methodologies and research findings on theeducation of limited-English-proticient persons. We continually collect andreview materials on bilingual education, English as a second language, refugeeeducation, vocational education, educational technology and related areas.

Electronic Information System

NCBE offers electronic access to its information system at no cost. Users areable to search a database of information containing curriculum materials andliterature related to the education of limited-English-proficient students.An electronic bulletin board, which contains news from federal, state andlocal education agencies, conference announcements and other currentinformation, is also available.

Publications

NCBE develops and publishes three types of publications: a bimonthly news-letter, occasional papers, and program information guides. All publicationsfocus on significant issues related to the education of LEP students.

Contact Us

Contact NCBE by telephone, weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (EST).

Outside Maryland call: (800) 647-0123.

In Maryland call: (301) 933-9448.

If you prefer to contact us by mail, our address is:

the notional clearingnouse for bilingual eaucanon11501 Georgia Avenue Wneator Morvlano 20902

800.047-0123 1301) 933.9448

17

,