While empirical studies have generally demonstrated the value of mediation in divorce, little research has been conducted on the specific models of mediation that are most efficacious in such disputes. This article reports the results of an intensive analysis of 32 cases of custody mediation conducted at the Essex County (NJ) Family Court. One‐half of the cases represented predivorce parental disputes; one‐half were postdivorce disputes. Nearly half of the cases were characterized by extremely high levels of parental conflict. Mediator behavior was assessed in one 1 1/2–2‐hour closing case conferences, supplemented by the examination of audio or video recordings of mediation in 62% of the cases. The effectiveness of mediation was assessed by a postmediation telephone interview and by an analysis of court records, both conducted approximately 18 months after the termination of mediation. Two contrasting styles of enacting the mediator role were identified: The settlement‐oriented style (SOS) and the problem‐solving style (PSS). Mediators tended to use one or the other style. The SOS mediators were primarily concerned with getting a “settlement” and staying “neutral”; PSS mediators were more focused on understanding the causes of the conflict through persistent question asking and were willing to depart from strict “neutrality” in cases where the conflict was being fueled by particularly destructive behaviors in one of the parents. SOS was the mediator style in 59% of the cases, PSS in 41%. Compared to SOS, PSS produced a more structured and vigorous approach to conflict resolution during mediation, more frequent and durable settlements, and a generally more favorable attitude toward the mediation experience. SOS was not necessarily bad, but PSS was better.

No abstract

Data from a large public school district (referred to as Site 1 from this point on) for Grades 2 through 8 for the 1999 student population were analyzed for all students including English language learners (ELLs). The data included student responses to the reading and mathematics subtests of the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills 2 (ITBS) and student background data such as race, gender, birth date, and number of years of participation in a bilingual education program (number of years of bilingual service). Descriptive statistics and the percent of over-achievement of non-ELL students over ELL students were computed and compared across the different subtest content areas. In multiple regression analyses, student English learning status was related to student test scores and background variables. A state department of education (referred to as Site 2 from this point on) provided us with student background data and item-level data on the Stanford Achievement Test Series, Ninth Edition (Stanford 9) 3 for all students in Grades 2 through 11 who were enrolled in the public schools statewide for the 1997-1998 academic year. Descriptive statistics compared ELL and non-ELL student performance by subgroup and across the different content areas. In a canonical correlation model the relationship between student language proficiency level, parent education, and family socioeconomic status (SES) (the Set 2 variables) and Stanford 9 performance (the Set 1 variables) was examined.

This study examined the relation of TOEFL® performance to a widely used variant of the cloze procedure–the multiple‐choice (MC) cloze method. A main objective was to determine if categories of MC cloze items could be identified that related differentially to the various parts of the TOEFL. MC cloze items were prepared and classified according to whether the involvement of reading comprehension, as defined by sensitivity to long‐range textual constraints, was primary or secondary. For two categories, reading comprehension was primary and knowledge of grammar or vocabulary was secondary, and for two other categories knowledge of grammar or vocabulary was primary and reading comprehension secondary. Examinees taking an operational TOEFL at domestic test centers were given the three basic sections of the test along with a fourth section containing the MC cloze items. Performance was examined for each of nine major language groups. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses for the basic TOEFL were performed first, to provide a basis for relating the MC cloze items to the TOEFL structure. These factor analyses suggested that, from a practical standpoint, TOEFL performance can be adequately described by just two factors, which relate to (a) Listening Comprehension, and (b) all other parts of the test–Structure, Written Expression, Vocabulary, and Reading Comprehension. Examination of the MC cloze test showed that the total MC cloze score was relatively reliable and that it was possible to estimate item response theory parameters for the MC cloze items with reasonable accuracy. Thus, the development of the MC cloze items was successful in these respects. However, the correlations among scores for the four MC cloze item categories were approximately as high as their reliabilities, thus providing no strong empirical evidence that the item types within the MC cloze test reflected distinct skills. Correlational analyses related the four MC cloze categories to the five parts of the TOEFL. These analyses revealed a slight tendency for MC cloze items that involved a combination of grammar and reading to relate more highly to the Structure and Written Expression parts of the TOEFL than the other parts, and for MC cloze items that involved a combination of vocabulary and reading to relate more highly to the Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension parts of the TOEFL than the other parts. Although this pattern was relatively consistent across language groups, however, the differences among correlations were not substantial enough to be of practical importance. Multiple regression analyses were performed, using total MC cloze score as the dependent variable and the five TOEFL parts as independent variables. The resulting multiple Rs were mostly in the lower to upper .90s, suggesting that total MC cloze performance can be predicted from TOEFL performance with a relatively high degree of accuracy. In general, the study provided no evidence that distinct skills are measured by the nonlistening parts of the TOEFL or by the four...

Within the context of accountability for US schools, standardized achievement tests are being used for increasingly 'high stakes' decisions for all students including those for whom English is a second language, even when their English language skills are not adequate for the task. This article discusses approaches to the standardized assessment of content knowledge for English language learners (ELLs), 1 including testing in the student's first language, the use of test accommodations, and measuring growth in English as an alternative for accountability until student control of English is sufficient to assure validity of test scores. Limitations of current research on the use of standardized content assessments with ELLs are presented and alternative approaches suggested.