New English Language Development and Common Core State Standards Institute

1. New English Language Development and Common Core State Standards Institute Long Term English Learners in the era of the Common Core Standards June 28, 2013

2. English Learners “There is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers and curriculum…for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education…” Lau v. Nichols, Supreme Court

3. Research on EL District Initiatives Families, Community State & Federal Accountability Reforms Civil Rights • Growing Gap • Declining progress towards English • New barriers to access Politics Capacity Prof. development, teacher placement, credentialling,

4. The task: To get them to English proficiencyTo ensure access to curriculum while learning English A more rigorous target under the Common Core Standards  _______________________________________________________________________ No English Proficient for Academic work Current standards 

5. Need for explicit attention to ELLs • English Learners face specific language barriers to participation and access, and have special needs. • Most general school improvement efforts in the past have inadequately addressed the achievement gap for English Learners. • The California Common Core Standards (CCSS) are a major reform of public education that does not explicitly state how English Learners needs should be addressed.

6. The CCCS roll-out is proceeding without adequate attention to the ELD standards or ELL needs • Our ELL outcomes are inadequate even for current less rigorous standards • The foundation of EL programs, capacity and practices to build upon is weak • The promise is enormous; the dangers significant

7. Entering era of converging forces Long Term English Learner Research The Common Core Standards English Learner Research

8. 185,000 English Learners each year Starting Kindergarten

11. Long Term English Learners are created…….. a K-12 issue Long Term EL Struggling Students

12. English Learner Typologies • Newly arrived with adequate schooling (including literacy in L1) • Newly arrived with interrupted formal schooling - “Underschooled” - “SIFE” • English Learners developing normatively (1-5 years) • Long Term English Learner

13. Reparable Harm research:Californians Together Survey (2010) • Data from 40 school districts • Data on 175,734 English Learners in grades 6 - 12 • This is 31% of California’s English Learners in grades 6 – 12 • Districts vary in EL enrollment, size and context

14. Across all districts59% of secondary school ELs are long term(103,635 in sample) Differs significantly from district to district (21% - 96%)

15. Their double challenge – our legal responsibility “English learners cannot be permitted to incur irreparable academic deficits during the time in which they are mastering English. School districts are obligated to address deficits as soon as possible, and to ensure that their schooling does not become a permanent deadend.”

16. Definition (AB 2193): An English Learner who….. Continuously or cumulatively enrolled in US schools for 6+ years Not met reclassification criteria Evidence of inadequate progress Is struggling academically

17. Annual Expectations for English Learners

18. Indicators of Risk • After 5 years – haven’t reached CELDT proficiency • After 5 years – stalled at Intermediate Level III on CELDT for more than two years • After 5 years – scoring at FBB or BB on CST-ELA

19. By fifth grade • Almost half of students who enrolled in Kindergarten as English Learners are redesignated • 52% are still English Learners • Half of those have not yet reached CELDT proficiency • 1/3 have been stalled at Intermediate level for MORE than two years • ½ are scoring at FBB or BB on CST-ELA

20. Action Items  • Adopt a clear definition • Develop expectations for progress based on number of years of enrollment • Use those expectations to identify students at risk of becoming Long Term English Learners • Disaggregate achievement data by number of years in U.S. schools

21. Pair-Share • Are Long Term English Learners an issue in your school? • Do you see students at risk of becoming LTELs in your school/district? • Any sense of the magnitude? • Do you currently have a way to identify English Learners at risk of becoming LTELs? (definitions, benchmarks specific to ELs, typologies, etc.)

22. The voice of one LTEL…….

23. Typical behavioral profile • Learned passivity, non-engagement, • Don’t ask questions or ask for help • Tend not to complete homework or understand the steps needed to complete assignments • Not readers • Typically desire to go to college – high hopes and dreams but unaware of pathway to those dreams • Do not know they are doing poorly academically – think they are English fluent

24. Distinct language issues • High functioning in social situations in both languages – but limited vocabulary in both • Prefer English – are increasingly weak in their home language • Weak academic language – with gaps • Are stuck in progressing towards English proficiency

25. The continuum: learning English as a second language 1 – 3 years 5 - 7 years LTELs STUCK HERE _______________________________________________________________________ No English Oral, social English CST Basic CELDT Proficient Proficient for Academic work I II III IV V

26. Big discrepancy between CELDT Proficiency and Basic on CST/ELA Percent English Learners attaining these benchmarks statewide

27. Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives • AMAO #1 – progress towards English proficiency measured by CELDT levels (target 56%) • AMAO #2 – attainment of English proficiency which is defined as “CELDT proficient” (overall Early Advanced, no domain less than Intermediate) - (target: 45.1% those >5yrs) “MET” or “NOT MET” is not an adequate indicator of how well we are moving English Learners towards English proficiency

28. Which levels on CELDT are meeting growth target AMAO #1 (Santa Clara County)?

29. To get this data for your site…. • www.cde.ca.gov • Dataquest • Level (county) • Subject: English Language Development Test (CELDT) • Select county and submit • Click: CELDT results by prior proficiency • Select the district; and then the site

30. Santa Clara Co. selected K-12/high school districts

31. Action Items  • Examine AMAOs for adequate growth and patterns • Conduct walkthroughs and observations, shadow students to monitor active participation and engagement • Build staff understanding of CELDT and data and normative expectations • Celebrate progress

32. HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN?No services - mainstream – for several years • Three out of four spent at least two years in “no services” or mainstream • This trend has increased in California schools in past decade

33. Trend: Towards the weakest EL Program Models

34. Other contributing factors • Inconsistent program placements • Inconsistent implementation within programs • Social segregation and linguistic isolation • Transnational moves – transnational schooling • Unintended consequence of Corrective Action: narrowed curriculum • Unintended consequence of RTI: placement into interventions that aren’t adequate or appropriate for ELLs

35. CONFUSION ??? English Language Development (ELD) English Language Arts • Universal Access • Preview/Review Reading Support, English Intervention Classes

36. The National Literacy Panel “Instructional strategies effective with native English speakers do not have as positive a learning impact on language minority students….. Instruction in the key components of reading is necessary but not sufficient for teaching language minority students to read and write proficiently in English.”

37. In secondary schools….. (from the Californians Together survey) • 3 of 4 districts have no approach to serving Long Term English Learners • Majority of CA districts place their Long Term English Learners into mainstream • Three CA districts place Long Term English Learners by English proficiency level with other English Learners (in NYC, this is the common placement)

38. Typical program placementsfor English Learners SDAIE Intensive or strategic interventions! Still English Learner, but in Mainstream 1 – 3 years      _______________________________________________________________________ Oral, social English No English CELDT Proficient Proficient for Academic work CST Basic I II III IV V

39. Placements NOT designed for them….. • Placed/kept in classes with newcomer and normatively developing English Learners – by CELDT level • Unprepared teachers • No electives – and limited access to the full curriculum • Over-assigned and inadequately served in intervention and reading support classes

40. Do these exist in your school? • Weaker forms of English Learner programs? • No ELD? • Just ELD and no other special instruction or services? • Mainstream placement? • Reliance on core E.L.A. program for language • Supposed to be “SDAIE” but doesn’t really happen? • Inconsistent program placements or implementation? • Narrowed curriculum? • Use of interventions that aren’t designed for ELs

41. Agenda…from the LTEL research • Clearly defined EL program models (ELD plus access), consistently implemented • Consistency in placement and EL language approach (no ping-pong) • Importance of full academic curriculum • Strategies that promote student engagement as active learners • Importance of scaffolding instruction • Need for interventions designed for ELLs

42. Three converging forces Long-term English Learner Research The Common Core Standards X English Learner Research

43. #1: Early childhood education makes a difference • Early years of development (cognitive, linguistic, social) are crucial • Quality preschool lays the foundation for better outcomes • Preschool reduces disparities and longstanding achievement gaps between groups • Most powerful language policy/approach for preschool is primary focus on home language development

44. So….. • Begin with preschool programs • Active outreach/recruitment to English Learner communities • Attention to supporting the transition from preschool into kindergarten • Articulation, alignment between the two systems (preschool and K-12)

45. #2. Importance of rich oral language development

46. Importance of rich oral language development • Producing language encourages learners to process language more deeply than when just listening or receptive. • Verbal interaction is essential in the construction of knowledge • Oral language is the bridge to academic language associated with school and the development of literacy --

47. National Literacy Panel finding • Oral language development and proficiency is critical to literacy… and is often (increasingly) overlooked in instruction • It is not enough to teach reading skills alone to language minority students; extensive oral English development must be incorporated into successful literacy instruction • Oral proficiency and literacy in the first language facilitates literacy development in English

48. So…… • Multiple and frequent structured opportunities for students to be engaged in producing oral language should be features of classroom instruction • The amount, type and quality of student talk that is generated is a mark of good instruction • Emphasize complex vocabulary development • Model rich, expressive, amplified oral language

49. #3: Academic Language is essential – complex, precise language is essential

50. Social, oral fluency (BICS) takes less time to develop than academic proficiency (CALP) • Academic language and literacy for ELs develop most powerfully where background knowledge is also being built – and in the context of engaging with academic content • Learning a second language for academic success requires explicit language development across the curriculum - ELD alone is not sufficient