Title: Classifying Language-Minority Students: A Closer Look at Individual Student Data
Abstract: AbstractThis article presents an exploratory case study of site-level classification practices for language-minority students. The study examines individual classification data of 439 language-minority student cases from one California urban school district and two of its schools. The review process involved a thorough examination of data integrity, sources of inconsistencies, and implications. The aim of this work was to deconstruct and decode the unknowns associated with school and district site-level student classification practices to inform language-minority student policy and practice. Results of this study show that classifying language-minority students is particularly problematic, in part due to individual student data management systems at the school site level. This metrical work highlights the effects of how local sites classify their language-minority students and how critical this is for the students subjected to classification as well as policy and practice. ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe author is sincerely grateful to Professors Gloria M. Rodriguez and Jamal Abedi, for their guidance, input, and mentorship in the course of this study. She would also like to thank her better half, Dr. Sran, for his enduring patience and unconditional support of her work.Notes1 It is important to note that there was a small discrepancy (in the ELL category) between state reports (as shown in Table 2) and the number of student cases reviewed at the time of this study; this discrepancy was attributed to timing (i.e., the district reports were obtained in October while the demographic data were reported at the end of an academic year). However, for the purposes of this investigation, the choice was to include the district reports as presented to the researchers to paint a complete picture of overall consistency.2 Also known as English as a Second Language classes.3 The “lost” category does not exist in the district’s records and was added after it became apparent that there were a number of mistakes in student classifications and it was decided to pull files randomly. As a result, seven additional students were found. These students are not part of the district’s records and are not assigned a classification.4 Only cases showing unmistaken inconsistencies—meaning the evidence was found on previously received ELD services, the CELDT records identifying the child as tested under annual testing guidelines, and EL classification or R-FEP classification—were counted as being inconsistent. If there was not sufficient evidence, meaning no records of previous services, testing, and classification or reclassification were found, those students were identified as being classified correctly. In some “questionable” or “missing” cases, previous districts of attendance were phoned to either identify accurate classification or in the case of missing cases gather information about the cumulative folders.5 This was determined based on the class enrollment records (e.g., whether a child is enrolled in ELD and/or ELD sheltered classes) and additional supplemental services records, i.e., in-class assistant, tutoring, etc.Additional informationNotes on contributorsIrina S. OkhremtchoukIrina S. Okhremtchouk is Assistant Professor in the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University. Her research includes classification/stratification practices for language minority students, school organization/policy, school finance, and assessment practices for pre-service teachers.
Publication Year: 2014
Publication Date: 2014-09-02
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 5
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot