Current calls for educational reform pose a dichotomy between the promotion of higher academic achievement and the need for equitable treatment of all students. The article begins with a definition of the problem, followed by a discussion of equity issues in education in general, then equity issues in assessment, focusing on the needs of new immigrant students with limited English proficiency, and concludes with a suggested framework to address the issues. The proposed framework, N.I.S.-L.E.P., entails asking a series of key questions about assessment of new immigrant students with limited English proficiency.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alberta Education. (1993a). Achieving the vision 1992. Edmonton, AB: Author.
2.
Alberta Education. (1993b). Meeting the challenge: An educational roundtable workbook. Edmonton, AB: Author.
3.
Alberta Education. (1993c). Understanding students' needs: A guide for developing and implementing assessment procedures for students encountering educational challenges. Edmonton, AB: Author .
4.
Chávez, R.C., Belkin, L.D., Hornback, J.G., & Adams, K. (1991). Dropping out of school: Issues affecting culturally, ethnically, and linguistically distinct student groups. Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 8, 1-21.
5.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. San Diego, CA: College-Hill.
6.
Cummins, J. (1989). A theoretical framework for a bilingual special education. Exceptional Children, 56, 111-119.
7.
De Leon, J. (1990). A model for an advocacy-oriented assessment process in the psychoeducational evaluation of culturally and linguistically different students. Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 7, 53-67.
8.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
9.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, R., & Hoffman, M.B. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers. The Learning Potential Assessment Device: Theory, instruments, and the techniques . Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
10.
Gickling, E.E., & Thompson, V.P. (1985). A personal view of curriculum-based assessment. Exceptional Children, 52, 205-218.
11.
Greer, J. (1992). Beyond the realm of rhetoric. Exceptional Children, 58, 296-297.
12.
Hammack, F. (1986). Large school systems' dropout reports: An analysis of definitions, procedures, and findings. Teachers College Record, 87, 324-341.
13.
Hobbs, N. (1975). Issues in the classification of children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
14.
Leone, E.A., & Cisneros, R. (1991). Improving educational equity for language minority students. Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 9, 49-57.
15.
Mercer, J. (1972). IQ: The lethal label. Psychology Today, 6, pp. 44-47.
16.
Neufeld, G.R., & Stevens, A. (1992). Stay in school initiatives-Book 1: A summary of research on school dropouts and implications for special education. Kingston, ON: Canadian Council for Exceptional Children .
17.
Samuda, R.J., Kong, S.L., Cummins, J., Pascual-Leone, J., & Lewis, J. (1991). Assessment and placement of minority students . Toronto, ON: Hogrefe.
18.
Watt, D.L.E., & Roessing, H. (October, 1993). Dropout-Fall out-Push out: Results from a longitudinal study of the educational progress of high school ESL students . Paper presented at the Alberta Teachers' Association ESL Council, Calgary.
19.
Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 70,703-713.
20.
Wilgosh, L. (1993). High achievement in a cross-national context. Education Canada, 33(1), 4-9.
21.
Zessoules, R., & Gardner, H. (1991). Authentic assessment: Beyond the buzzword and into the classroom. In V. Perrone (Ed.), Expanding student assessment (pp. 47-71 ). Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development .
