Prepared by Kristin Liu, Richard Spicuzza, and Ronald Erickson
August 1996
This document has been archived by NCEO because some of the information it contains is out of date.
Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:
Liu, K., Spicuzza, R., & Erickson, R. (1996). Focus group input on students with limited English proficiency and Minnesota's Basic Standards Tests (Minnesota Report No. 4). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [today's date], from the World Wide Web: http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/MnReport4.html
Minnesota has joined numerous other states in the call for higher standards in elementary and secondary education. Following this national trend, it is developing assessment and accountability systems that will help ensure that Minnesota's students are reaching those standards.
In the spring of 1996, Minnesota students participated in the first administration of the Basic Standards Tests, one component of Minnesota's new educational assessment system. Although this administration of reading and mathematics exams (two of the three components of the Basic Standards Tests) was conducted on a voluntary basis, most school districts in Minnesota participated in the assessment.
Besides encouraging districts to participate in the 1996 testing cycle, the state of Minnesota also encouraged districts to include all students who would be eligible to participate. Surveys of some of the participating districts (see Minnesota Report 2) suggested that districts did, in fact, attempt to include students with limited English proficiency (LEP) in the assessments. Most districts indicated that more than 50% of their students with limited English proficiency participated in the assessment. Districts also indicated that they provided some assessment accommodations to students, even though in many cases, they did not yet have guidelines about the use of accommodations. Furthermore, districts indicated the need for several kinds of assistance from the state.
When the survey was developed, it was considered important to follow-up on the information obtained through it by inviting a group of individuals to participate in half-day focus groups to discuss experiences and concerns in greater depth. This report is a summary of the discussions held during the focus groups.
Two half-day focus group meetings were held to follow-up on the Spring 1996 testing, with particular focus on students with limited English proficiency. Attending the first half-day meeting were the testing coordinator, a general classroom teacher, and an English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher from each of three metropolitan area school districts. For the second half-day meeting, individuals holding similar positions in four greater Minnesota school districts attended. Participating in the focus group meetings were:
July 23rd Focus Group for Metropolitan Districts:
Anoka-Hennepin: Julie Bryant, Ruth Castle, and Gayle Walkowiak
Bloomington: Doris Frace and Bob Peterson
Minneapolis: Bev Lillquist, David Rathburn, Judy Strohl, and Soua Yang
St. Paul: James Evans, Zhining Qin, and Julieta Fajardo Wahlberg
July 24th Focus Group for Greater Minnesota Districts:
Minnesota River Valley Cooperative: Barb Bahson, Cindy Curtis, and Amber Volkman
Mountain Lake: Jim Brandt, Cynthia Celander, and Brenda Feil
St. Cloud: Judy Germundson, Tom Prescott, and Karmin Schraw
Willmar: Donna Cairns and Marv Lucas
These individuals participated in the focus group meetings with interest and concern about how students with limited English proficiency could best participate in Minnesota's educational reform efforts. The Project is indebted to them for their enthusiastic participation.
For both of the meetings, the discussion followed an agenda that outlined the questions to be covered. To summarize these discussions, this report has been organized into four general sections: (1) experiences during the Spring 1996 testing, (2) suggestions for future test administrations, (3) future district needs, and (4) future concerns.
A. Levels of Participation by Students with Limited English Proficiency
Most participants said that their schools or districts tested the majority of LEP students in the spring testing cycle because they wanted to receive some basic data on how LEP students were doing. One metropolitan district tested all LEP students unless they had been in the U.S. less than three years. Another Metropolitan district tested all eighth graders, including LEP students. In a third metropolitan district, any LEP student who was willing to take the test was included. The majority of the districts representing greater Minnesota tested all of their students (except for one district that allowed LEP students to be exempt if they had been in the U.S. for under 3 years). In some of the greater Minnesota districts there were no eighth graders identified as LEP. In other districts, there were students who spoke English as a second language but were not categorized as LEP, because they were not being served in ESL classes at the time of the spring testing.
B. How Participation Decisions Were Made
In the greater Minnesota school districts represented at the meetings, decisions about testing were made by small groups of testing technicians and others working together. Because students often transfer back and forth between small school districts, some participants said that they felt the need to have some consistency between districts. Other school districts in greater Minnesota said that teachers serving as case managers for individual students had made decisions. One Metropolitan district allowed parents of LEP students to request an exemption for their child by putting the request in writing; they received very few requests. In another Metropolitan district, if the student had been in the district a short amount of time, the student's ESL teacher made the decision about whether the student should participate.
Many participants said that while administrators understood ways to include LEP students in the spring testing cycle, the limited time that districts had to conduct testing made it difficult for other staff or faculty to be as well prepared. In general, several participants agreed that the time was too short to make adequate preparations. Participants from greater Minnesota said that teachers did not understand the process well enough and there was a lot of confusion.
C. Providing Accommodations
Most schools and districts represented at the meetings did not provide LEP students with accommodations during the Reading and Mathematics Standards Tests. A few did allow extra time for LEP students, and a separate room for testing.
A. Interim Testing
Several participants suggested developing interim tests to be given at earlier grades. These tests could have easier items but be aimed at the same content standards. The tests could be administered to LEP students who are excused from Basic Standards testing through a temporary exemption. Interim testing is less frustrating for students because they know how far there is to go; it makes it clear what the student needs to do. Participants thought that such testing would also be useful for accountability purposes, since it can show progress over time. An interim test would show that instruction is doing something.
Participants suggested that funds be made available through the Project to provide translated practice tests and other practice materials to help ESL teachers prepare LEP students for the Basic Standards Tests. The following issues were raised about practice materials:
B. Possible Accommodations Needed by Students with Limited English Proficiency
When asked about possible accommodations that should be available for LEP students in future testing cycles, the following points were raised:
C. District Decision Making Processes
Participants from greater Minnesota districts suggested that an "LEP team" make testing decisions for each LEP student in the same way that IEP teams make decisions for students with disabilities. Other group members stressed the need for LEP students and parents to know what their options are so that they can make informed choices. These individuals suggested that decisions about exemption should involve the student, his or her parents, administrators, and teachers. While this group would make the decision, it could not be an excessively formal, complex, or costly process. It was suggested that a third-party, impartial advocate for the child might also be a member of this decision making team. Some participants mentioned that students might not want to be exempted even if they qualify &endash that they should be given the choice to participate. In the metropolitan districts, participants believed that it might not be possible to get the parents of each LEP student involved in decision making, so the schools or districts may have to set up a parent board to review exemptions.
One participant thought that the types of accommodations allowed should be left up to the individual teachers and their LEP students. These people know what would be most likely to work best in each case.
D. Temporary Exemptions for Students with Limited English Proficiency
The focus groups discussed the current temporary testing exemption for any LEP student who has had three or fewer years of instruction in a school where the primary instructional language is English. A common concern held by many of the participants was the impact that such an exemption might have on the provision of needed services to LEP students. Participants from greater Minnesota stated that in some small school districts with limited resources, services for LEP students will not be provided unless the state educational agency mandates such services. Group members considered restrictions on this exemption policy. For example, if an exemption was not allowed until the end of a student's senior year, the school district would be more motivated to provide services up to that point.
On a similar note, a proposed exemption of five years for the Basic Standards Test in Written Composition was not considered useful because it would make it even easier for districts to avoid serving LEP students. Participants thought that a three-year exemption on the writing test was the maximum that should be allowed. The general consensus was that, as early as possible, students should be required to take the tests in order to know how they match up to the standards. The participants thought it would be most beneficial to have a common exemption policy across all three Basic Standards Tests. They expressed that the most important thing is to help the students, and a five-year exemption will not do that in the long run.
A proposal was made that LEP students be required to have their parents sign a formal exemption request form. This would add credibility to decisions and cause all parties to consider their decisions more carefully.
E. "Pass-LEP" and "Pass-Translate" Performance Levels
Overall, participants seemed to be undecided about a "Pass-LEP" scoring option for the Basic Standards writing test. They liked the idea in principle, but thought that "Pass-LEP" would be problematic and could have legal implications. The following points of view were expressed:
A. Better Student Information
Participants expressed a desire to code certain types of student information directly on test answer forms to use when later examining the participation of LEP students in the Basic Standards Tests. Currently, some districts are forced to review test records manually to find this information, a costly and time consuming process. When asked what information they would like to see on an answer sheet, participants suggested the following:
B. Better Information About the Tests
Participants from greater Minnesota expressed the need for their ESL teachers to know more about the testing program in order to effectively communicate information to the parents of their LEP students. They suggested that the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning (CFL) produce a reference paper or brochure with questions that regular classroom teachers commonly ask about the testing, along with the answers to those questions. In one greater Minnesota district, special education teachers made such a brochure for regular classroom teachers, and it was successful. A brochure relating to LEP issues in testing would be helpful so all teachers have the same information. Participants thought it would be especially important to clarify the terms "accommodation" and "modification" in this brochure, and to articulate clear policies on temporary testing exemptions, so that the same situations are interpreted in the same way by all staff.
A similar suggestion was made for the CFL to develop a brochure for parents and to translate this document into the languages that are most dominant in the state. While it was recognized that a videotape would be ideal (since not all parents of LEP students can read in their native language) a brochure would certainly be helpful.
Several group members thought the Department needed to publish a list of acceptable accommodations for LEP students so that teachers know what is allowable under the current guidelines. Others expressed a desire for the CFL to print a list of what types of skills will be assessed, and what content students are required to know. It was thought that students and parents have a right to know this and the information should be given clearly and concisely. These individuals believed that the expectations for the Basic Standards Test in mathematics were fairly clear, but not so clear in the reading assessment.
C. Other Expressed Needs
A. Setting Levels of Performance
Some participants expressed concern over the process of "putting children into small boxes" with all the different levels of passing. They found the different levels confusing and thought that it could be harmful to students to have varying standards. For example, participants cautioned that the effect of "Exempt" on a student's transcript could be detrimental when that student later applies for employment. If high school diplomas are to mean something, it was believed that exemption should be very limited.
One participant believed strongly that LEP students should be given the responsibility of learning the skills that are needed to pass the test. This group member thought that students should have opportunities to practice, but they should not be given special treatment because they will not receive special treatment from employers. Another participant added that singling out LEP students for special treatment in testing situations may violate some cultural ideas about the value of fitting in. If LEP students are singled out, some of the students may "lose face" with family or peers.
Many participants worried about whether their LEP students would be able to pass the tests and graduate if the tests are only provided in English. They thought that assessment could be helpful if it is framed well, but a system that only has pass or fail options turns assessment into punishment.
B. Basic Standards Tests of Reading and Mathematics
Many participants said that the Basic Standards Test in Reading assesses different types of reading skills than they have been teaching. Teachers of elementary and junior high often teach reading for pleasure. The reading test assesses reading for information, an activity many students do not necessarily enjoy, or do extensively in school. One participant expressed her wish that the reading selections be geared toward a secondary student interest level.
If the state passes on the responsibilities of making written translations of tests (for the "Pass-Translation" option on the mathematics test) to the individual districts, districts may have difficulty making those translated versions available to all language groups within a district. There is a lack of money available for having translations made and a lack of available translators. There is a great deal of concern about the legal problems that could arise from a situation in which a translated test is not available for a student from a particular language group. Participants requested help from the CFL and the University of Minnesota in dealing with this translation issue.
Participants questioned the delay of the written composition exam until tenth grade. Some members believed that giving the writing test earlier would allow more time for remedial efforts aimed at those students who did not pass during their initial attempt.
C. Remediation and Test Preparation
Participants from smaller districts raised concern over remediation, fearing that regular classroom teachers will be required to simultaneously provide instruction in the regular curriculum and remediation for students who did not pass the test. Questions were raised as to how teachers will deal with students who fail the reading test when they are not necessarily trained in direct reading instructional techniques. Participants from greater Minnesota stated that they do not have the staffing and resources to provide remediation for LEP students who fail the exams.
Many participants expressed concern that too much instructional time may be given to preparing for the test, with too much emphasis on using old test forms and practice questions. Instead, they believed that students should have to come in before or after school to attend test preparation sessions.
D. Use of Data
Metropolitan area participants questioned how the performance data on LEP students would be used once it was available. They stated their desire to encourage all of their students to take the Basic Standards Tests and to work for a diploma at the state level, but they were concerned that the participation of these students may make a district's overall scores lower. These participants worried that test results could be used in harmful ways by the media and others, and that such misuse could have a negative impact on their ability to serve LEP students. Members believed strongly that the department and state need to clarify the reasons why they want the data; in short, is it for accountability or for school reform? A suggestion was made that the Project seriously consider ways to address the issues of public reporting, so that information can be shared with the public in an equitable manner, and that people are given an accurate picture of how well students are doing.
E. Other Expressed Concerns
Participants from greater Minnesota with significant minority student populations expressed concern about the LEP students who belong to the migrant worker population. These students may be present in school during the fall and spring, but absent during the winter. If the test is given in the winter, what effect will this have on the LEP students who do not take the test because they have temporarily moved away? Testing dates will have an impact on school district policies for graduation of these students. In addition, children of migrant workers do not always come to school with current transcripts to show how long they have been in school in various places. For this reason, it could be very difficult to decide whether they should be exempt from testing.