This article explores language assessments and policies that Latino students and others from immigrant backgrounds face as they graduate from high school and attempt to enter community colleges. Focusing on California, the authors examine the assumptions that underlie these assessments and policies. They argue that the policies signal different conceptions (and misconceptions) about the nature of bilingualism and the needs of U.S.-educated language minority students pursuing academic goals.
Este manuscrito explora la evaluación del lenguaje y las normas que latinos y otros estudiantes inmigrantes encaran cuando gradúan de la escuela secundaria y intentan entrar a los colegios comunitarios. Enfocados en California, los autores examinan las suposiciones que apoyan estas normas y evaluaciones. Argumentan que las normas señalan concepciones diferentes (y erróneas) sobre la naturaleza del ser bilingüe y las necesidades de los estudiantes de idiomas minoritarios educados en los Estados Unidos que siguen metas académicas.
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges. (2004). Issues in basic skills assessment and placement in the California community colleges. Sacramento, CA: Author.
2.
Achieve Inc. (2007). Aligned expectations? A closer look at college admissions and placement tests. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
Act. (2007). Frequently asked questions about ACT. Retrieved August 26, 2007, from http://www.act.org/aboutact/faq.html
4.
Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
5.
Bachman, L.F., & Palmer, A.S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford, United Kingdom : Oxford University Press.
6.
Blumenthal, A.J. (2002). English as a second language at the community college: An exploration of contexts and concerns. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2002(117), 45-53.
7.
Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. (2007). Consultation digest: Matriculation assessment/placement . Sacramento: California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office.
8.
Bojorquez, A., & Montemayor, S. (2004). Signature page for locally managed or developed instruments. Retrieved May 20, 2006, from www.cccco.edu/divisions/ss/matriculation/attachments/locallymanagedform1.DOC
9.
Brown, R.S., & Niemi, D.N. (2007). Investigating the alignment of high school and community college assessments in California (National Center Report No. 07-3) . San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy & Higher Education.
10.
Bueschel, A.C. (2004). The missing link: The role of community colleges in the transition between high school and college. In M. A. Kirst & A. Venezia (Eds.), From high school to college: Improving opportunities for success in postsecondary education (pp. 252-284). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11.
Buros Institute for Mental Measurements. ( 2002). Tests in print (TIP). Lincoln, NE : Author.
12.
Buros Institute for Mental Measurements. ( 2003). Mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Author.
13.
California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. (2005). Frequently asked questions—Chancellor's office. Retrieved October 23, 2007, from http://www.cccco.edu/faq_cccco.htm
14.
California Community College Assessment Association. (2005). Assessment Q&A: Questions and answers on assessment for use in the California community colleges. Retrieved October 2, 2007, from http://www.cccco.edu/divisions/ss/matriculation/attachments/assessment_qu.pdf
15.
California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. (2001a). California pathways: The second language student in public high schools, colleges and universities. Sacramento, CA: Author.
16.
California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. (2001b). Standards, policies and procedures for the evaluation of assessment instruments used in the California community colleges. Sacramento, CA: Author.
17.
California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. (2005). Assessment instrument approval status summary . Sacramento, CA: Author.
18.
California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. (2007). Frequently asked questions - Chancellor's Office . Retrieved October 8, 2007, from http://www.cccco.edu/faq_cccco.htm
19.
California Community Colleges System Office. ( 2007a). Fact sheet. Focus on results: Accountability reporting for the community colleges (ARCC). Sacramento: California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office.
20.
California Community Colleges System Office. ( 2007b). Focus on results: Accountability reporting for the California community colleges. Sacramento: California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office.
21.
California Department of Education. (2007). California English Language Development Test (CELDT): Assistance packet for school districts and schools. Retrieved April 5, 2007, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/celdtastpkt.asp
22.
Callahan, R. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunities to learn. American Educational Research Journal , 42, 305-328.
23.
Cal-PASS. (2007). Overview . Retrieved May 31, 2007, from http://www.cal-pass.org/HowDoes/Default.aspx
24.
CCCC Committee on Assessment. (2006). Writing assessment: A position statement. Retrieved June 5, 2007, from http://www.ncte.org/cccc/announcements/123784.htm
25.
CCCC Conference on College Composition & Communication. (2001). Statement on second language writing and writers. Retrieved August 5, 2007, from http://www.ncte.org/about/over/positions/level/coll/107645.htm
26.
Chapa, J., & Schink, W. (2006). California community colleges: Help or hindrance to Latinos in the higher education pipeline?New Directions for Community Colleges, 2006(133), 41-50.
27.
Chapelle, C.A. (1999). Validity in language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 254-272.
28.
Cook, V. (2002). Background to the L2 user. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 1-28). Clevedon, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.
29.
Cooper, C.R., Chavira, G., & Mena, D.D. (2005). From pipeline to partnerships: A synthesis of research on how diverse families, schools, and communities support children's pathways through school. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10, 407-430.
30.
Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners: Language diversity in the classroom. Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Educational Services.
31.
Crusan, D. (2002). The quagmire of assessment for placement: Talking out of both sides of our mouths. TESL Reporter, 35(2), 37-48.
32.
Curry, M.J. (2004). UCLA community college review: Academic literacy for English language learners. Community College Review, 32, 51-68.
33.
de Korsak, K. (2007, April). Language and ideology: Language policy's unintended effects, the (mis)identification of English learners and the California English Language Development Test. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Costa Mesa, California.
34.
Driscoll, A.K. (2007). Beyond access: How the first semester matters for community college students' aspirations and persistence. Berkeley: Policy Analysis for California Education.
35.
Gándara, P. (2006). Strengthening the academic pipeline leading to careers in math, science, and technology for Latino students. Journal of HispanicHigher Education, 5, 222-237.
36.
Gándara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R. (2003). English learners in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives , 11(36). Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n36/
37.
Gebhard, M. (1999). Debates in SLA studies: Redefining classroom SLA as an institutional phenomenon. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 544-557.
38.
Gray, M.J., Rolph, E., & Melamid, E. (1996). Immigration and higher education: Institutional responses to changing demographics. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
39.
Hakuta, K., Goto Butler, Y., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English learners to attain proficiency? (Policy Report 2000-1). Santa Barbara: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute .
40.
Harklau, L. (1994). Tracking and linguistic minority students: Consequences of ability grouping for second language learners. Linguistics and Education, 6, 217-244.
41.
Harklau, L. (2000). From the “good kids” to the “worst”: Representations of English language learners across educational settings. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 35-67.
42.
Harklau, L., Losey, K. M., & Siegal, M. (Eds.). (1999). Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
43.
Harklau, L., Siegal, M., & Losey, K.M. (1999). Linguistically diverse students and college writing: What is equitable and appropriate? In L. Harklau , K. M. Losey, & M. Siegal (Eds.), Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL (pp. 1-14). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44.
Hill, E. (2006). Promoting access to higher education: A review of the state's transfer process. Sacramento, CA: Legislative Analyst's Office.
45.
Holten, C. (2002). Charting new territory: Creating an interdepartmental course for Generation 1.5 writers. CATESOL, 14(1), 173-189.
46.
Horn, C. L., Flores, S. M., & Orfield, G. (Eds.). (2006). Latino educational opportunity [Special issue] . New Directions for Community Colleges, 2006(133).
47.
Hornberger, N. (2003). Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings. Clevedon, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.
48.
Ilyin, D. (1994). User's guide for CELSA (Combined English Language Skills Assessment in a Reading Context). Montecino, CA : Association of Classroom Teacher Testers.
49.
Ilyin, D. (2000). CELSA (Combined English Language Skills Assessment) test administrator's manual and technical guide for ability to benefit. Montecito, CA: Association of Classroom Teacher Testers .
50.
Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates. (2002). Academic literacy: A statement of competencies expected of students entering California's public colleges and universities. Sacramento, CA: ICAS (Academic Senate for California Community Colleges).(Available at http://www.academicsenate.cc.ca.us/Publications/Papers/AcademicLiteracy/main.htm ).
51.
Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates ESL Task Force. (2006). ESL students in California public higher education. Sacramento, CA: Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates.
52.
Kirst, M.A., & Bracco, K.R. (2004). Bridging the great divide: How the K-12 and postsecondary split hurts students, and what can be done about it. In M. A. Kirst & A. Venezia (Eds.), From high school to college: Improving opportunities for success in postsecondary education (pp. 1-30). San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
53.
Kuo, E.W. (1999). English as a second language in the community college curriculum. New Directions for Community Colleges , 1999(118), 69-80.
54.
Kuo, E.W. (2000). English as a second language: Program approaches at community colleges(ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges No. EDO-JC-00-06) [Electronic version]. Retrieved October 1, 2007, from www.gseis.ucla.edu/ccs/digests/dig0006.html
55.
Laden, B.V. (2004). Hispanic-serving institutions: What are they? Where are they?Community College Journal of Research & Practice,28, 181-198.
56.
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
57.
Lew, J.W., Chang, J.C., & Wang, W. (2005). The overlooked minority: Asian Pacific American students at the community colleges. Community College Review , 33, 64-84.
58.
Mahoney, K.S., & MacSwan, J. (2005). Re-examining identification and reclassification of English language learners: A critical discussion of select state practices . Bilingual Research Journal, 29, 31-42.
59.
Matsuda, P.K., Canagarajah, A.S., Harklau, L., Hyland, K., & Warschauer, M. (2003). Changing currents in second language writing research: A colloquium. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 151-179.
60.
McNamara, T. (2001). Language assessment as social practice: Challenges for research. Language Testing, 18, 333-349.
61.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York: Macmillan .
62.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
63.
Oakes, J., Mendoza, J., & Silver, D. (2005). California opportunity indicators: Informing and monitoring California's progress toward equitable college access. Los Angeles, CA: UC/ ACCORD.
64.
Orfield, G., Horn, C.L., & Flores, S.M. (2006). Editors' notes. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2006(133), 1-5.
65.
Parrish, T.B., Merickel, A., Pérez, M., Linquanti, R., Socias, M., Spain, A., et al. (2006). Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the education of English learners, K-12: Findings from a five-year evaluation (Final Report for AB 56 and AB 1116). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research and WestEd.
66.
Roberge, M.M. (2002). California's generation 1.5 immigrants: What experiences, characteristics, and needs do they bring to our English classes?CATESOL Journal, 14, 107-129.
67.
Rogers, J., Terriquez, V., Valladares, S., & Oakes, J. (2006). California educational opportunity report 2006: Roadblocks to college. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA/IDEA and UC/ACCORD .
68.
Saenz, V. (2002). Hispanic students and community colleges: A critical point for intervention (ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges No. EDO-JC-02-08) [Electronic version]. Retrieved August 16, 2007, from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/ccs/digests/dig0208.htm
69.
Sengupta, R., & Jepsen, C. (2006). California's community college students. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California .
70.
Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. Harlow, United Kingdom: Longman .
71.
Shulock, N., & Moore, C. (2007). Rules of the game: How state policy creates barriers to degree completion and impedes student success in the California community colleges. Sacramento, CA: Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy.
72.
Solórzano, D.G., Rivas, M.A., & Velez, V.N. (2005). Community college as a pathway to Chicana/ o doctorate production. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Chicano Studies Research Center.
73.
Stoynoff, S., & Chapelle, C.A. (2005). ESOL tests and testing . Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
74.
Strong-Krause, D. (2005). Combined English Language Skills Assessment in a reading context (CELSA). In S. Stoynoff & C. A. Chapelle (Eds.), ESOL tests and testing (pp. 57-58). Alexandria, VA : Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages .
75.
University of California Office of the President. (2007). Major features of the California master plan for higher education. Retrieved August 8, 2007, from http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/mpsummary.htm
76.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2007 ). Information sharing could help institutions identify and address challenges some Asian Americans and Pacific Islander students face (No. GAO-07-925). Washington, DC: Author.
77.
Valdés, G. (1992). Bilingual minorities and language issues in writing: Toward a professionwide response to a new challenge. Written Communication, 9, 85-136.
78.
Valdés, G. (1998). The world outside and inside schools: Language and immigrant children. Educational Researcher, 27(6), 4-18.
79.
Valdés, G. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
80.
Valdés, G. (2004). Between support and marginalisation: The development of academic language in linguistic minority children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7, 102-132.
81.
Valdés, G., & Figueroa, R.A. (1994). Bilingualism and testing: A special case of bias. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
82.
Vernez, G., & Abrahamse, A. (1996). How immigrants fare in U.S. education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
83.
Woodlief, B., Thomas, C., & Orozco, G. (2003). California's gold: Claiming the promise of diversity in our community colleges. Oakland: California Tomorrow.
84.
Wright, W.E. (2005). Evolution of federal policy and implications of No Child Left Behind for language minority students: Policy brief. Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Studies Laboratory, Language Policy Research Unit, Arizona State University .
