HOME
SEARCH
FAQs
TESTIMONIALS
 
Home Language Survey Practices in the Initial Identification of English Learners in the United States

Issue/Topic: English Language Learner/Bilingual
Author(s): Kelly, Kimberly; Bailey, Alison
Organization(s): UCLA
Publication: Educational Policy
Published On: 5/18/2012

Background:
Federal law requires that states have a method for identifying students who need language-support services, but no method is mandated. Most states mandate some form of state- or district-created home language survey (HLS) as the first step for identifying students who need further assessment. There is no standard home language survey in the United States; survey practices vary widely across states and may or may not provide valid and reliable information, raising issues of equity.

Purpose:
To inform the fields of practice (state and federal governments, educators) and research (measurement and language scholars) about existing HLS practices and place wider attention on the validity concerns that arise from current HLS practices

Findings/Results:
  • The use of home language surveys as an effective method for identifying English learner students warrants further scrutiny for two reasons:

    1. Home language surveys typically do not focus on the more relevant identification factors

    2. Some parents are reluctant to complete a home language survey accurately or at all.

  • Accuracy of parent reporting of English-language practices is critical for the validity of the home language survey as a method for identifying English learner students.

  • Two facets are relevant to identifying students as potential English learner students:

    1. Current dominant home language

    2. Degree of English exposure in other settings (such as preschool).

  • Poorly constructed home language surveys can lead to underidentification or overidentification of potential English learner students, which can be costly and detrimental to students. Two elements of poor construction are:

    1. Ambiguous wording

    2. Inclusion of too few items to be meaningful for decision making, particularly if the questions do not focus on current language dominance and degree of English exposure.

Policy Implications/Recommendations:

Federal-Level Recommendations
  1. Provide state guidance. The U.S. Department of Education could document and provide information about reported best practices for survey implementation and interpretation. The department could also disseminate validation studies and encourage empirical validataion of all states' practices.

  2. Ensure transparency in the efforts of the Office for Civil Rights. The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has given confusing guidance related to state interpretation of educational laws. The authors recommend that OCR make efforts to document the guidance they have given to individual states and to consider greater coordination across regional sites and states to help ensure the equitable interpretation of federal law.
State-Level Recommendations
  1. Ensure transparency in initial identification practices. States need a transparent system for initial identification practices in the areas of home language survey content, administration, interpretation/ramifications for students' further screening or assessment, and possible alternatives to the use of the home language survey, including:

    • Clarity on whether a state-created instrument is mandatory or a sample for districts to use as they create their own

    • Statements about the kinds of information the instrument is expected to yield and why the survey is meaningful

    • Clear guidelines for administrators and teachers on implementing the home language survey

    • Clear rules for educators and families about how to act on the information gathered from the instrument.

  2. Validate survey instruments or require validation.

    • Collect basic data about the efficacy of the home language survey for accurately identifying English learner students to determine if it is underidentifying or overidentifying potential students (i.e. number of "false positives" and "false negatives").

    • Compare efficacy of different instruments across districts, particularly in states without a statewide home language survey (where districts are allowed to construct their own instrument).

    • Enhance the survey by asking questions about the students' degree of English-language exposure.

    • If applicable, could suggest additional alternatives or measures rather than reliance on the home language survey alone.

Research Design:
Review of all states' home language survey practices to identify the types of state-level regulations. Case study of states to provide more detailed examples of home language survey practices and interpretation; conducted thematic coding of home language survey question phrasing and content. Review of research conducted on home language surveys as reporting instruments for language background.

Population/Participants/Subjects:
Review of home language survey practices in all 50 states plus District of Columbia and in-depth case studies of practices in six states (CA, TX, CO, OR, WA, VT)

Year data is from:
Not specified

Setting:
Multi-State

Data Collection and Analysis:
Home language survey procedures and documents were gathered from each state's education agency (or local education agency) directly and from their websites.

Disclaimer:

Reference in this Web site to any specific commercial products, processes or services, or the use of any trade, firm or corporation name is for the information and convenience of the public, and does not constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Education Commission of the States. Please contact Kathy Christie at 303-299-3613 or kchristie@ecs.org for further information regarding the information posting standards and user policies of the Education Commission of the States.