The theory of culturally responsive assessment suggests that ethnic minorities may suffer discrimination through certain modes of assessment. The effects can be particularly significant when the assessment tests knowledge, competence and ability at a point of transition which determines future life path or a rite of passage into further education. In fact, research has long highlighted the negative impact of high-stake testing, and standardised assessments on minority students (e.g. Hood, 1998). It has also highlighted that there needs to be a greater recognition and understanding of test design as it applies to all cultures (Arbuthnot 2017).

An alternative if not complementary approach to assessment is to recognise the unintended consequences of a “one-fits-all” mentality of assessment and to use methods of assessment that also allow for differentiation and the contextualisation of learning in a culturally appropriate manner. Many culturally appropriate assessment strategies have been proposed. These include Assessment for Learning (Brown, 2007) and Peer- and Self-Assessment among others. In the United States, for example, culturally responsive schooling and assessment have been proposed, both for indigenous youth (Demmert, 2001; Nelson-Barber & Trumball, 2007) and other ethnic minority students (Aceves & Orosco, 2014; Kim & Stapac, 2015; Qualls, 1998).  However, within Europe, culturally responsive assessment practices are less prevalent and consequently less discussed, with some exceptions (e.g. Mitakidou, Tressou & Karagianni, 2015).

Culturally responsive assessment can be described as classroom-based assessment that utilises assessment strategies to acknowledge and respect learners’ cultural background and approaches to learning as they strive for academic success. Strategies which have previously been proposed for creating culturally responsive assessment include using locally validated formative assessments (Tichá & Abery, 2016), the addition of creativity assessments (see Kim & Zabelina, 2015) or utilising multiple methods of assessment to provide additional opportunities for students to demonstrate their learning (Castagno & Brayboy, 2008; Qualls, 1998).  However, very few studies domestically or internationally, look at the various strategies teachers use to integrate cultural responsivity into their student assessments and compare the relative merit of these strategies. As such, as part of a three-year Erasmus+ fundedproject titled Aiding Culturally Responsive Assessment in Schools (ACRAS); the aim of this paper is provide an analysis of school principals perceptions of issues and practices relating to the asessment of migrant background students in four European countries (Austria, Ireland, Norway and Turkey).

The research method used in this study was a quantitative comparative analysis of assessment strategies and challenges to assess students with a migration background in the countries under investigation. A purposeful sampling strategy was used in this study. The questionnaire was also translated into the official language of each country. The validity of the translations was also checked by subject field experts in each country. Descriptive analysis was used to examine the mean and standard deviation of the responses given in each country. Non-parametric analysis of variance was used to see if there was any significant difference between countries. Kruskal Wallis analysis was used since the number of groups was not equal and there were under 30 participants in the groups. For all Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA tests, α was set at 0.05. When the variance between the groups was significant, Mann Whitney U test was performed for paired comparisons.

From a review of policy documents and curriculum specifications in each country, there is evidence to suggest that the foundations for culturally responsive assessment practices are beginning to take shape albeit to varying degrees of difference in each country. The survey results also indicate the need for training and professional development and implies that not enough emphasis is being placed on culturally responsive assessment despite the rhetoric that espouses interculturalism. There are undoubtedly many reasons for this that requires further investigation such as the belief that because various assessment for learning techniques are becoming a common feature of classroom practice, assessment needs of culturally diverse students are being met. The research also points to the need for upskilling in culturally responsive leadership, and as a starting point, the development of an overarching culturally responsive assessment framework and toolkit that can be used by policy makers and schools in order to allay the various interpretations of what it means to satisfy the assessment needs of teachers and students with migration backgrounds.

Arbuthnot, K. (2017). Global Perspectives on Educational Testing: Examining Fairness, High-Stakes and Policy Reform. Emerald Publishing Limited. Brown, M. (2007). Educating all students: Creating culturally responsive teachers, classrooms, and schools. Intervention in school and clinic, 43(1), 57-62. Demmert, Jr, W.G. (2001). Improving Academic Performance among Native American Students: A Review of the Research Literature. Retrieved 01 January 2018, from http://www.eric.ed.gov./ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/0d/de/70.pdf. Nelson-Barber, S. and Trumbull, E. (2007). Making assessment practices valid for Indigenous American students. Journal of American Indian Education, pp.132-147. Hood, S. (1998). Culturally responsive performance-based assessment: Conceptual and psychometric considerations. The Journal of Negro Education, 67(3), 187 – 196. Kim, K. H. & Zabelina, D. (2015). Cultural bias in assessment: Can creativity assessment help? International Journal of Critical Pedagogy. 6 (2).129-147. University of North Carolina. Aceves, T. C., & Orosco, M. J. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching (Document No. IC-2). Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website: http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/ on 10 May 2017 Qualls, A. L. (1998). Culturally responsive assessment: Development strategies and validity issues. The Journal of Negro Education, 67(3), 296-301. doi:10.2307/2668197 Mitakidou, S., Karagianni, P., & Tressou, E. (2015) The challenges and agony of researchers in a diverse marginalised context. Researching Marginalized Groups,16-36. Castagno, A.E. & Brayboy, B.M.J., (2008). Culturally responsive schooling for Indigenous youth: A review of the literature. Review of educational research, 78(4), 941-993. Tichá, R., & Abery, B. (2016). Beyond the Large-scale Testing of Basic Skills: using formative assessment to facilitate student learning. in W.C. Smith (Ed.) The Global Testing Culture: shaping education policy, perceptions, and practice., Oxford: Symposium Books, Kim, K. H. & Zabelina, D. (2015). Cultural bias in assessment: Can creativity assessment help? International Journal of Critical Pedagogy. 6 (2).129-147. University of North Carolina.