Long-Term English Language Learners and Strategies for Engaging Them with the Common Core

1. Long-Term English Language Learners and Strategies for Engaging Them with the Common Core Kenji HakutaStanford University CCSSO ICCS SCASS / Atlanta

2. Purposes of this Session • Set some key points for understanding long-term EL issue • Explore some data analyses on definitions and characteristics • Discuss how state and district systems and practices can be more responsive to current LTELs: prevention, acceleration, caution

3. Educators Have a Dual Obligation to English Learners • Provide meaningful access to grade-level academic content via appropriate instruction • Develop students’ academic English language proficiency Interconnected, not separate! Simultaneous, not sequential! (Lau v. Nichols; Castañeda v. Pickard; NCLB) CCSSO ICCS SCASS / Atlanta

4. Common Core Standards: Major Shifts CCSSO ICCS SCASS / Atlanta

5. The New Paradigm: Language Uses within Content Practices CCSSO ICCS SCASS / Atlanta

6. Definitions and Characteristics CCSSO ICCS SCASS / Atlanta

7. CA ELs and former ELs (RFEP) by grade Source: CDE DataQuest, 2010-11 CELDT & CST CCSSO ICCS SCASS / Atlanta Courtesy: Robert Linquanti (WestEd)

8. District A ELs, Long-Term ELs and Former ELs (RFEP) by grade Long-term EL: 6 or more years in LEA CCSSO ICCS SCASS / Atlanta Courtesy: Robert Linquanti (WestEd)

9. Longitudinal Attainment of Language and Content Criteria (Thompson, 2012) CCSSO ICCS SCASS / Atlanta

10. Initial L1 and English Proficiency as Strong Predictors of Reclassification (Thompson, 2012) CCSSO ICCS SCASS / Atlanta

11. Legislated Definition of “EL at Risk of Becoming LTEL” (AB 2193) • “English learner at risk of becoming a long-term English learner” means an English learner who is enrolled in any of grades 5 to 11, inclusive, in schools in the United States for four years, scores at the intermediate level or below on the English language development test identified or developed pursuant to Section 60810, or any successor test, and scores in the fourth year at the below basic or far below basic level on the English language arts standards-based achievement test administered pursuant to Section 60640, or any successor test. (Cal. Ed. Code § 313.1, 2012) CCSSO ICCS SCASS / Atlanta

12. Students meeting various criteria for California’s Long-Term English Learner Definition (SY 2010-11) Source: CEPA at Stanford University (Thompson et al., 2013) CCSSO ICCS SCASS / Atlanta

13. Strategizing: Prevention • Know your students • Initial ELP and L1 level • Entry grade/time in the district • Focus on time: Set clear expectations for linguistic and academic progress • Monitor every student’s progress relative to expectations CCSSO ICCS SCASS / Atlanta

14. (Olsen 2010) CCSSO ICCS SCASS / Atlanta

15. Some characteristics (Olsen 2010) • High functioning in social situations in both their home language and in English • Weak in academic uses of language, with gaps in literacy skills • Progress stopped on key reclass criteria • Developed habits of non-engagement, learned passivity and invisibility CCSSO ICCS SCASS / Atlanta

16. Some characteristics • Unaware that academic skills, record and courses place them in academic jeopardy • Significant gaps in academic background knowledge (Olsen 2010) • More likely to be US-born • Much more likely to be classified Special Ed • Speech or language impairment (SLI) • Specific learning disability (SLD) CCSSO ICCS SCASS / Atlanta

17. Long-Term Special Ed ELs: Peel Back the Layers…. • When identified for Special Ed? • Were early reading difficulties misinterpreted as second-language features? • Does later special ed referral reflect earlier lack of RTI and/or rigorous content instruction, ELD? • Other hypotheses to investigate? ? CCSSO ICCS SCASS / Atlanta

18. Typical placement/services …. • 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 (Olsen 2010) CCSSO ICCS SCASS / Atlanta

19. Guiding principles • Urgency, acceleration and focus • Address distinct needs • Oral language and literacy development • Academic gaps • Invitation and support • Integration into school community and access to rigorous core curriculum (Olsen 2010) CCSSO ICCS SCASS / Atlanta

20. Some program elements • Specialized English Language Development course (ALD) • Clustered placement in heterogeneous, rigorous grade-level content classes mixed with English-proficient students, with differentiated instructional strategies • Explicit language and literacy development across the curriculum (CCSS) • Dynamic placement for accelerated progress and maximum rigor • Formal systems for monitoring progress (Olsen 2010) CCSSO ICCS SCASS / Atlanta

21. Courtesy: Robert Linquanti (WestEd) CCSSO ICCS SCASS / Atlanta LAUSD 2012 EL Master Plan

22. Don’t ignore needs of Reclassified Students: CA’s Former ELs (RFEPs) needing academic support after exiting RFEPs in CA: CST-ELA, 2010-11 37% of former ELs score below grade level on CST-ELA exam 79% of all former ELs tested are in grades 6-11 Source: CDE 2011 CCSSO ICCS SCASS / Atlanta Courtesy: Robert Linquanti (WestEd)

23. CAUTION: Consciously avoid cultivating a “double stigma” in our language and thinking “You’re at risk of becoming LTEL.” “You’re a long-term English learner.” • “The only thing worse than being an EL is being a long-term EL.” They’re lifers. Courtesy: Robert Linquanti (WestEd)

24. Take-Away’s • Leverage language shifts related to Common Core to engage all teachers and leaders with LTELs. • Work on integrating policies and practices with early childhood and special education sectors. • Cultivate a research base on program effectiveness. • Be aware of unintended consequences of LTEL label. CCSSO ICCS SCASS / Atlanta