# data[].attributes.headline
Collaboration: Using ELD Standards Framework

# data[].attributes.subject
Collaboration: Using ELD Standards Framework

# data[].attributes.headline
Instruction: Look fors for ELD Instruction

# data[].attributes.subject
Instruction: Look fors for ELD Instruction

# data[].attributes.headline
Instruction: NC ELD Standard Course of StudyCrosswalk of 2012 Adopted Standards & 2020 Adopted Standards

# data[].attributes.subject
Instruction: NC ELD Standard Course of StudyCrosswalk of 2012 Adopted Standards & 2020 Adopted Standards

# data[].attributes.headline
Instruction:  Ensure English Learners Receive English language development

# data[].attributes.subject
Instruction:  Ensure English Learners Receive English language development

# data[].attributes.body
https://ul.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/resource/2021-03/Key%20Principles%20for%20ELL%20Instruction%20with%20references_0.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Despite a growing US literature on educating English learners (ELs) and an upsurge in studies of vocabulary interventions, ¹ surprisingly little research examines the effects of instruction on ELs' English language development (ELD). Since the Supreme Court's 1974 Lau v. Nichols decision affirming that English learners must be guaranteed a "meaningful education," controversy over bilingual versus English-only education has dominated research and policy discussions of ELs. Many of the programs involved in these studies included ELD instruction, but studies sought to measure the effects of the program on academic achievement, primarily reading, rather than estimating the effects of ELD instruction on English language acquisition.

This article synthesizes research that provides guidelines for ELD instruction. Many resources, such as theory, ELD standards, practitioner experience, and published programs, might provide such guidance. We focus on individual studies and research syntheses that point to how educators might provide effective ELD instruction-instruction that focuses specifically on helping English learners develop English language skills and that is delivered in a portion of the school day separate from the academic content that all students need to learn.

Using existing research to identify effective guidelines for ELD instruction is problematic. There is little that focuses specifically on K-12 ELD instruction for ELs in US schools. In the absence of a comprehensive body of research, the field of ELD instruction has been driven mostly by theory. The result is a large body of accepted practices that are not adequately supported by research. Currently, the dominant theoretical perspective of educators is "communicative language teaching." There are two primary tenets of communicative language teaching: (1) The goal of second-language education is to develop learners' communicative competence (more so than formal accuracy), and (2) communication is both a goal and means for developing language. ² From this perspective, second-language learning is a social process in which language develops largely as a result of meaningful and motivated interaction with others, ³ much as a first language does. ⁴ Language in use is emphasized more than knowledge about language.

Teachers might note that some of the practices they have come to accept as standard or even exemplary might not be represented among the guidelines we report here. This, of course, does not necessarily mean that teachers are engaged in "wrong" practices, but rather that the standard wisdom of the field needs to be examined further through the lens of research. For example, second-language acquisition teachers, theorists, and researchers have realized that exposure and interaction might help promote fluency and communicative competence, but they are not sufficient for native-like proficiency. ⁵ Advanced-ideally, to the point of native-like-English proficiency is imperative for English learners in the United States, indeed for any language-minority student whose future and livelihood will be influenced by his or her competence in the dominant social language. We have therefore seen a renewed focus on form (that is, "correct usage" of vocabulary, grammar, norms of interaction in particular circumstances, etc.) as a critical element of second-language instruction.

We begin with an explanation and discussion of ELD instruction, what it is and is not. We then provide a brief description of the research base for ELD instruction and why it is so small. Subsequently, we report research related to 14 guidelines relevant to ELD instruction. The 14 guidelines are grouped into four categories representing concentric circles of influence, from the most global (the broad basis for school and district ELD policies) to the most specific (how ELD should be taught).

English Language Development Instruction

ELD instruction is designed specifically to advance English learners' knowledge and use of English in increasingly sophisticated ways. In the context of the larger effort to help English learners succeed in school, ELD instruction is designed to help them learn and acquire English to a level of proficiency (e.g., advanced) that maximizes their capacity to engage successfully in academic studies taught in English. Although there might be multiple goals for ELD instruction-engaging in social interactions inside and outside of school and in other pursuits requiring English proficiency (e.g., obtaining news, serving as a juror, voting, shopping, banking, and locating and using information)-we would argue that preparation for academic studies taught in English remains the top priority because of its relevance to school and career success. Helping ELs succeed in academic contexts is no doubt the most challenging goal and most likely the greatest need to emerge in recent English learner research.

ELD instruction should not be confused with sheltered instruction (see " Unlocking the Research on English Learners"). The essence of sheltered instruction is this: where use of the primary language is not possible, and thus students are being taught in a language they do not fully comprehend, instruction is "sheltered" (or adjusted) in order to help students learn skills and knowledge in the content areas-English language arts, math, science, social studies, physical education, and the arts. In doing so, sheltered instruction ideally also supports ongoing learning of English, particularly academic language. So, while the primary goal of sheltered instruction is academic success in the content areas, the primary goal of ELD instruction is learning English.

The distinctions we are making might appear contrived and artificial, since so much of academic content learning is highly language-dependent. It is particularly hard to know where the dividing line is between English language arts (content area) and English language development. But although the distinction between ELD and sheltered instruction can get blurred, our assumption is that it is better to keep them distinct and for teachers to be clear in their thinking when they are planning, delivering, and evaluating ELD instruction and when they are planning, delivering, and evaluating sheltered content instruction. As we discuss below, clarity about objectives contributes to effective instruction. In ELD instruction, language is the primary objective and content is secondary. In sheltered instruction, content is primary and language is secondary.

The Research Base for ELD Instruction: Why Is It Small?

This article draws heavily on six research syntheses, including meta-analyses that are especially useful because they pool the results from multiple studies and can offer more confidence in the findings. We also draw on a few studies relevant to ELD instruction that were published subsequent to these six syntheses and meta-analyses, as well as on other broader syntheses that, while not focused specifically on EL populations, are applicable to ELD instruction (e.g., a review of research on grouping ⁶).

The six major syntheses and meta-analyses represent divergent populations and contexts:

The first ⁷ casts a wide net across the entire field of second-language acquisition. It suggests 10 principles of instructed language learning but notes that "research and theory do not afford a uniform account of how instruction can best facilitate language learning" and calls these principles "provisional specifications." ⁸

The second ⁹ synthesizes 50 K-12 studies conducted within the United States and mostly involving Spanish-speaking English learners.

The third ¹⁰ addresses US and international studies involving primarily foreign-language contexts at the university level and a variety of primary and second languages.

The fourth ¹¹ analyzes both classroom and laboratory studies involving foreign-language, second-language, and ESL (English as a second language) contexts and populations.

The fifth ¹² focuses on studies of immersion, primarily French immersion programs implemented in Canada.

The sixth ¹³ draws mainly upon US and international studies of foreign language instruction involving primarily college and adult education contexts.

In sum, although there is considerable research on second-language instruction broadly defined, we have a relatively small body of research to guide the design and delivery of K-12 ELD instruction specifically. Many studies are relevant to ELD instruction (e.g., language use, peer interaction, rates of proficiency attainment), but few explicitly focus on instruction or, more importantly, the effects of instruction. Even research on second-language instruction broadly defined does not provide a basis for universally accepted principles of instruction. ¹⁴ Given the research base, we have chosen to be inclusive. Rather than rule out studies and meta-analyses involving widely different populations and contexts (e.g., college-age and adult learners), we have chosen to review them and interpret them as best we can for their relevance to K-12 ELD instruction.* Furthermore, there are several important questions about ELD instruction for which we have no direct research, not even in different second-language acquisition contexts. For example, should districts prioritize ELD instruction? Should students be grouped by language proficiency levels for ELD instruction? Should teachers use specific language objectives? For these questions, we draw on the larger educational research literature, even though those studies are not based on ELD or second-language instruction or conducted with EL populations.

ELD Guidelines and the Related Research

This section explains 14 ELD guidelines and the research on which they are based. The guidelines are organized into four groups, each group framed around a driving question. The first group-global policy guidelines-answers the questions of whether and to whom schools should provide explicit ELD instruction. The second group-organizational guidelines-takes up the question of how ELD instruction should be organized in schools. The third group-curricular focus guidelines-addresses what should be taught during ELD instruction. Finally, the fourth group-instructional guidelines-focuses on the pedagogical question of how ELD should be taught.
Group 1: Global policy guidelines: What should state, district, and school policy commit to for ELD instruction?
The available evidence suggests the following major commitments: schools should make ELD part of the program of instruction for English learners; they should do so for ELs at all levels of proficiency; and they should make the presence, consistency, and quality of ELD instruction a strong and sustained priority.

1. Providing ELD instruction is better than not providing it.
Existing research does not provide sufficient basis for determining the most effective methods of ELD instruction with total confidence. However, there is ample evidence that providing ELD instruction, in some form, is more beneficial than not providing it. Contemporary audiences may perhaps find it difficult to conceive, but three decades ago "Does second-language instruction make a difference?" ¹⁶ was a viable question. A dominant view (then and for some time after) was the "monitor" hypothesis, ¹⁷ which proposed that formal instruction is of limited utility for second-language acquisition; instead, large amounts of exposure to comprehensible input in authentic communicative contexts is critical. This hypothesis posited that although second-language instruction might help learners learn some rules, language forms, and the like, this type of learning is not very useful for language acquisition-that is, being able to speak and understand a language in natural conversations and authentic contexts. However, a review published 30 years ago of studies comparing second-language instruction with second-language exposure ¹⁸ concluded that instruction indeed aided second-language learning. This finding was true for young as well as older learners and at beginning, intermediate, and advanced levels. There are certainly benefits to exposure-that is, living, working, and going to school with English speakers (or any target language)-as well as to sheltered instruction that seeks to make academic subjects comprehensible. But ELD instruction clearly has added benefits.

A more recent meta-analysis ¹⁹ revisited this question and asked: How effective is second-language instruction overall and in comparison with exposure and communication with speakers of a second language? It found that focused second-language instruction (designed to teach specific aspects of the second language) is more effective than conditions that do not provide focused second-language instruction (including exposure only, minimally focused instruction, and minimal exposure). Students who received focused second-language instruction made more than five times the gains of students who did not. ²⁰

An important study ²¹ found that providing kindergarten and first-grade students with an "English-oracy intervention" resulted in more accelerated ELD growth compared with students in control schools who received typical "ESL instruction." The ELD intervention, which was equally effective with students in either English immersion or bilingual education, comprised (a) daily tutorials with a published ELD program, (b) storytelling and retelling with authentic, culturally relevant literature and leveled questions from easy to difficult, and (c) an academic oral language activity using a "Question of the Day." One important caveat: students who received the experimental treatment also received more ELD instruction than students in the control schools, so it is therefore impossible to rule out the effects of additional time independent of the particular curriculum and instruction used. The study is nonetheless important in demonstrating the value added by ELD instruction even in an English immersion context wherein students receive instruction in English throughout the day.

2. ELD instruction should continue at least until ELs attain advanced English language ability.
This guideline emerges from evidence about the rate at which students achieve advanced levels of proficiency. Students' academic English-both oral language proficiency and literacy-develops over time (five or more years). The evidence regarding literacy development has been reported and debated and theorized about for more than 25 years. ²² The evidence regarding oral English development among English learners has received much less direct attention. However, one synthesis of research on oral language ²³ provides estimates based on a compilation of a small number of K-12 US studies that contained longitudinal or cross-sectional oral language outcomes. Summarizing across the studies (primarily elementary grade levels) and the various measures, it reported the following:

a. English learners typically require four to six years to achieve what would be considered "early advanced" proficiency (level 4, where level 1 is beginner and level 5 is advanced).

b. Average oral English proficiency approached native-like proficiency (level 5, advanced) by grade 5 in fewer than half of the available studies.

c. Progress from beginning to middle levels of proficiency is fairly rapid (from level 1 to 3), but progress from middle to upper levels of proficiency (from level 3 to 5) slows considerably-in other words, there is evidence of a plateau effect, where many English learners reach a middle level of English proficiency and make little progress thereafter.

d. As evident in one study that allowed for comparisons with native English-speaker norms, ²⁴ the gap between ELs and native speakers increased across grade levels.

The hypothesis, then, is this: if English learners continue to receive explicit ELD instruction even after they reach middle levels of English proficiency, and as they move into early advanced and advanced levels, they can more rapidly attain native-like levels of oral proficiency and avoid the plateau many experience before becoming advanced speakers of English. Two assumptions underlie this hypothesis. First, the hypothesis assumes that English learners typically do not receive ELD instruction once they get to middle proficiency levels and, even less so, as they move into early advanced and advanced levels. Second, it assumes that the lack of ELD instruction is one reason for the stagnation. Our observations at school sites and a new study ²⁵ corroborate these assumptions. With few exceptions, schools tend not to provide an ELD block, pull-out, or coursework once English learners pass the middle proficiency levels.

3. The likelihood of establishing and sustaining an effective ELD instructional program increases when schools and districts make it a priority.
Considerable research suggests that a sustained and coherent focus on academic goals in schools and districts is associated with higher levels of student achievement. However, because of the near absence of experimental research and detailed case studies in this area, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about cause and effect. Moreover, some researchers have concluded that distal factors such as school and district policies are too removed from students' daily experience to have much impact on their achievement. ²⁶ There is nonetheless at least some consensus in the published literature that what gets emphasized in schools and districts can influence what teachers do and students learn. Numerous dimensions of school and district functioning-leadership, common goals and curricula, professional development, ongoing support and supervision, regular assessments that inform instruction-are levers that school and district administrators can use to help shape the academic experiences of students. ²⁷

The same holds true for English learners: what school and district leaders emphasize influences what happens in classrooms and what students learn. At least two studies ²⁸ found that relatively high-achieving California schools with high concentrations of ELs shared various characteristics that converged on their making academic achievement a priority. At the school level, according to principals, there was a school-wide focus on ELD and standards-based instruction; shared priorities and expectations regarding the education of English learners; and curriculum, instruction, and resources targeted at them. District administrators cited a shared vision and plan for EL achievement and professional development, resources, and school and classroom organization to support achievement. Smaller intervention studies have reported complementary findings. ²⁹

Although far from definitive, available research suggests that one way to promote higher levels of ELD among English learners is to make sure it is a school- and district-wide priority. As is true in other areas of academic achievement, the direction set by school and district leadership, combined with consistent, focused, and effective implementation and follow-up, is likely to influence what is emphasized in classrooms and what students learn.
Group 2: Organizational guidelines: How should ELD instruction be organized in school?
School personnel should strongly consider establishing within the daily schedule, and without compromising access to the core curriculum (English language arts and all other content areas), a block of time dedicated exclusively to ELD instruction. To the greatest extent possible, ELs should be grouped by language proficiency levels for their ELD instruction.

4. A separate, daily block of time should be devoted to ELD instruction.
Two studies offer guidance on whether ELD instruction should be provided during a separate time of the school day, as typically happens with reading, math, and the like. One ³⁰ found small (but still statistically significant) positive effects on oral language proficiency among Spanish-speaking kindergartners who received ELD instruction during a separate block of time. Compared with kindergartners whose teachers integrated ELD instruction in their larger language arts block, kindergartners from ELD block classrooms made greater gains on end-of-year measures of oral English proficiency and also word identification. The study included more than 1,200 students from 85 classrooms in 35 schools spread across Southern California and Texas. The positive effects of an ELD block were found in both English immersion and bilingual education programs. Even in the English immersion classrooms, where instruction was delivered almost exclusively in English, English learners provided with a separate ELD instructional block outperformed English learners whose teachers tried to integrate ELD in the language arts block.

What explains this effect? The researchers ³¹ found that most of the ELD block time was devoted to oral English language activities like sharing personal experiences, identifying and naming colors, and describing picture cards. They conjecture that, although outcomes were significant, the magnitude of the effects may have been small because of the lack of explicit language teaching. In other words, establishing a separate block of time for ELD instruction is probably beneficial-perhaps in part because it helps teachers focus on English language itself and promotes both listening and speaking in English-but the size of the benefit likely depends on what teachers actually do within the ELD block.

Another study addressed both questions: whether a separate ELD block and an explicit ELD program are beneficial for English learners' oral language development. The study ³² included nine classrooms representing three conditions: (1) classrooms with a separate ELD block taught by teachers delivering an explicit ELD program being evaluated, (2) classrooms with a separate ELD block taught by teachers delivering ELD derived from various components the individual teachers culled from published sources, and (3) classrooms without a separate ELD block taught by teachers who were integrating ELD during their language arts time (where they used a published reading program). Students in all three conditions made significant gains over the year, but the gains were not equivalent. Students in condition 1 (separate ELD block using an explicit ELD program being evaluated) scored significantly higher than did students in conditions 2 (separate ELD block using materials that teachers themselves pulled together) and 3 (ELD integrated with language arts).

One of the studies of California schools mentioned previously ³³ lends further support to this guideline insofar as high-achieving schools with high concentrations of English learners tended to emphasize ELD instruction and most utilized a separate daily block of time to deliver ELD instruction.

5. English learners should be carefully grouped by language proficiency for ELD instruction, but they should not be segregated by language proficiency throughout the rest of the day.
Should ELs be grouped with other ELs or kept with English speakers? If grouped with other ELs, should they be with others at similar language levels, or should they be in mixed language-level groups? If they are grouped with others at similar language levels, for what purposes and for how much of the school day? We know of no research that answers these questions directly. However, many studies have examined the pros and cons of different types of grouping arrangements in other content areas, primarily reading and mathematics. This research ³⁴ suggests the following:

a. Keeping students of different achievement/ability levels in entirely separate (homogeneous) classes for the entire school day (and throughout the school year) leads to depressed achievement among lower-achieving students with little to no benefit for average and higher-achieving students. A possible exception is extremely high-achieving students (sometimes referred to as "gifted"), whose achievement can be significantly enhanced in homogeneous classes with other extremely high-achieving students. We have found no studies that have looked at grouping practices for extremely high-achieving English learners.

b. Students in mixed (heterogeneous) classrooms can be productively grouped by achievement level for instruction in specific subjects (e.g., math or reading). Groups can be formed with students in the same classroom or students in different classrooms (the latter is sometimes called the "Joplin plan"). In contrast to keeping students in homogeneous classes throughout the day, grouping students by achievement level in certain subjects will result in enhanced achievement at all ability levels if (1) instruction is tailored to students' instructional levels, and (2) students are frequently assessed and regrouped as needed to maintain an optimal match with their instructional needs (that is, students are taught what they need to know to make continual progress).

To the extent that second-language learning is analogous to learning in other curriculum areas, findings from the ability-grouping literature serve as a useful starting place to make decisions about how to group ELs. These findings suggest that English learners should not be segregated into classrooms consisting of only ELs, much less into classrooms consisting of all low-achieving ELs. Instead, English learners should be in mixed-ability classrooms and then grouped by English language proficiency specifically for ELD instruction. Moreover, they should be regularly assessed to monitor their progress and to make certain that instruction and group placement are well suited to their language-learning needs. Presumably, as ELs attain proficiency in English, they can and should receive increasing amounts of instruction with students who are already proficient in English.
Group 3: Curricular focus guidelines: What should be taught during ELD instruction?
The available evidence suggests that ELD instruction should explicitly teach, and engage students in consciously studying, the elements of the English language as applicable to both academic and conversational language, with significant time devoted to speaking and listening, and particular attention to meaning and communication.

6. ELD instruction should explicitly teach forms of English (e.g., vocabulary, syntax, morphology, functions, and conventions).
Language forms refer to standard, formal aspects of a language-words, sentence constructions, and generally what is considered to be "correct" or "grammatical" usage, such as subject-verb agreement, possessives, the order of adjectives and the nouns they modify, and so on. The essential body of evidence on teaching language forms explicitly comes from studies ³⁵ in primarily college and adult-level foreign-language contexts, where explicit instruction consistently produced stronger results than implicit instruction. Here, explicit instruction means either (a) instructors explain a language element (a rule or a form) to students and then provide opportunities for them to study or practice the element with many examples, or (b) instructors engage students in tasks containing many examples of a particular form or rule and then direct students' attention to the language element so that students arrive at the rule by themselves or with the teacher's guidance. Explicit instruction included both approaches to studying features of the second language. Instructional treatments were classified as implicit in cases where instructors did not present or explain the language element and did not direct students' attention to the language form. On average, explicit instructional approaches were more than twice as effective as implicit approaches.

As we have noted, most of the evidence for explicitly teaching language forms comes from studies with college and adult students. In addition, the great majority of the studies were of short duration and narrow in scope-teaching a specific feature of language (for example, verb tense, adverb placement, relative pronouns, or wh- questions) and then measuring the extent to which students learned that feature. However, the hypothesis that emerges from this body of evidence is corroborated by other reviews of research. For example, a recent review ³⁶ found that exposure to a second language in meaning-based school programs designed to promote second-language learning (e.g., content-based second-language instruction) successfully develops comprehension, oral fluency, self-confidence, and communicative abilities, but tends not to develop as fully other features of the second language, such as pronunciation and morphology, syntax, and pragmatics. Explicit instructional attention to forms is likely to facilitate students' second-language learning in a way that relying solely on meaning- and communication-oriented instruction alone will not. ³⁷ Another review of research ³⁸ posits the same hypothesis based on studies from French immersion programs.

The term explicit should be interpreted carefully. Explicit instruction is often associated with direct instruction. Indeed, direct instruction is, by definition, explicit (and, on average, effective). However, it is not the only form of explicit instruction. Most models of direct instruction ³⁹ typically involve an explanation, demonstration, or presentation of the concept or skill in the early part of the lesson, followed by various forms of practice, feedback, and assessment. As such, direct instruction generally takes a deductive approach to teaching and learning. Explicit instruction can be inductive as well. For example, in the review discussed above with college and adult students, some learners received a certain amount of experience with a language form (e.g., possessives or interrogatives), and then were directed to attend to the form or to focus on deriving the underlying rule or nature of the form. ⁴⁰ The key point is that instruction that explicitly focuses students' attention on the targeted language form produces higher levels of second-language learning, at least in the short term that the studies examined, than instruction that does not. Focusing the learners' attention is also a central concept in other researchers' principles of instructed language learning. ⁴¹

One aspect of language development that has received minimal attention from K-12 researchers is "pragmatics." Pragmatics refers to understanding and using the target language in genuine interactive situations where language formalisms can take a back seat to receiving or getting a message across. For example, there are discourse norms that dictate how and whether one disagrees with a peer or a teacher without generating negative feelings or breaking down the communication. Classroom teaching can help second-language learners understand and use these pragmatic rules and norms, ⁴² but instructional studies are again limited to adult second-language learners. There are no instructional studies with which we are familiar that focus on K-12 ELs. ⁴³

7. ELD instruction should emphasize academic language as well as conversational language.
Nearly two decades ago, a pair of researchers provided a succinct definition of academic language: "the language that is used by teachers and students for the purposes of acquiring new knowledge and skills ... imparting new information, describing abstract ideas, and developing students' conceptual understanding." ⁴⁴ Expanding on this definition, we think academic language refers to the specialized vocabulary, grammar, discourse/textual, and functional skills associated with academic instruction and mastery of academic material and tasks. In the simplest terms, academic language is the language that is needed in academic situations such as those students encounter during classroom instruction or reading texts. ⁴⁵ These would obviously refer to academic texts but also include many newspaper and magazine articles or other nonfiction that the Common Core State Standards call for, which are information-dense and presume certain background knowledge as well as familiarity with key vocabulary and sentence structures.

It is widely believed that successful performance in school requires proficiency in academic language and that a major objective of education for both majority- and minority-language students is teaching the academic language skills they need to master the diverse subjects that make up the curriculum. For example, a group of researchers ⁴⁶ found that performance on highly decontextualized tasks, such as providing a formal definition of words, predicted academic performance, whereas performance on highly contextualized tasks, such as face-to-face communication, did not.

Definitions of academic language often contrast it with language used in everyday social situations. The first researcher to propose a distinction between basic communication and academic language, ⁴⁷ for example, characterized academic language as decontextualized and cognitively demanding, whereas social language tends to be more contextualized and less cognitively demanding. As a result, academic language tends to draw on more-specialized technical vocabulary, to use more-complex grammatical constructions, and to be more precise in its intended meaning. Others have highlighted the nature of the vocabulary that characterizes academic versus everyday language use: academic language tends to use less-common, more-technical, and highly specialized vocabulary in contrast to that which is used in everyday conversations. ⁴⁸

The premise that ELD instruction should focus on both social, interpersonal language and academic language is not controversial. ELs require both kinds of proficiency. That there should be greater emphasis on academic language within ELD instruction, however, is a more recent hypothesis. Although there is, as yet, virtually no research that has examined empirically the effects of instruction focused specifically on academic language, the hypothesis emerges from at least two interrelated findings. First, studies consistently find that ELs require from five to seven years to achieve native-like proficiency in oral language and literacy. ⁴⁹ Since academic language probably plays an increasingly important role in defining what actually constitutes language proficiency as students go up the grade levels, it is reasonable to hypothesize that a focus on academic language might help students attain advanced language proficiency more quickly. The second finding is that the rate at which students acquire proficiency tends to slow or even plateau as they move to higher levels of proficiency. ⁵⁰ Since higher levels of proficiency tend to be characterized by more-academic uses of language, it is reasonable to hypothesize that a greater focus on academic language, especially at the middle and upper levels of proficiency, might minimize that plateauing effect.

8. ELD instruction should incorporate reading and writing, but should emphasize listening and speaking.
Along with explicit ELD instruction, programs for ELs should include literacy instruction, ⁵¹ sheltered content area instruction as needed, ⁵² and primary language support or instruction where possible. ⁵³ In such a comprehensive program, it would seem most beneficial to emphasize speaking and listening during ELD instruction. Although speaking and listening are emphasized in other parts of the instructional day, the textual demands of literacy and content area instruction no doubt need to be given priority during those instructional times. It is likely that time allotted for ELD is the one opportunity to make speaking and listening a priority.

The importance of oral English proficiency for ELs is well established in the research literature. With increasing oral English proficiency, English learners are more likely to use English, and more frequent use of English tends to be correlated with subsequent gains in oral English proficiency. ⁵⁴ In addition, with increasing oral proficiency in English, ELs are more likely to interact and establish relationships with native English-speaking peers, leading to more opportunities to use English. ⁵⁵ With increasing oral English proficiency, ELs also tend to use more complex language-learning strategies that allow them to monitor language use and interact more effectively with others. ⁵⁶ Finally, as oral English proficiency develops, ELs demonstrate a wider range of language skills, including skills associated with more-academic uses of language, specifically higher-level question forms ⁵⁷ and the capacity to define words. ⁵⁸

Several studies have documented a positive relationship between oral English proficiency and English reading achievement. ⁵⁹ Moreover, the relationship between oral English proficiency and English reading achievement is stronger for measures that are associated with more-academic aspects of oral language proficiency. For example, the number of different words English learners use during an interview correlates more strongly with reading achievement than the total number of words they use ( r=.63 and r=.40, respectively). ⁶⁰ The relationship between oral English proficiency and English literacy strengthens across the grades, arguably because both are similarly influenced by schooling and both are indicative of academic success. In one study, ⁶¹ correlations between English reading achievement and quality measures of English learners' word definitions increased from r=.16 in grade 2 to r=.50 in grade 5.

Two studies provide evidence suggesting that devoting more instructional time to listening and speaking yields significantly higher levels of oral language proficiency. Among kindergarten ELs, one study ⁶² found that more time spent on oral English language instruction leads to stronger oral language outcomes without compromising literacy outcomes. Teachers who produced the strongest outcomes (oral and literacy) devoted approximately 60 percent of their ELD block time to oral language activities (without text) and 40 percent to literacy-related activities (the average daily time allotment for ELD was 37 to 40 minutes). Among first-grade ELs, another study ⁶³ found that more time on listening and speaking (approximately 90 percent of the ELD block time) targeted toward language elements produced significantly higher oral English language outcomes than less time on listening and speaking (approximately 50 percent of the ELD block time) that did not target specific language elements.

9. ELD instruction should integrate meaning and communication to support explicit teaching of language.
Meaning, of course, plays a central role in language use. We use language to express and comprehend meaningful communication with others and to help build understanding for ourselves. Meaning also plays a central role in language learning insofar as being able to express and comprehend meaningful communication in the language being learned probably motivates and compels language learning. Although there is little controversy about the role of meaning and communication in language use-and by communication we mean both receiving and sending messages-their role in language instruction is more complicated. Should authentic, meaningful communication drive instruction? Or, alternatively, should explicit teaching of language forms drive instruction? Research on second-language learning and acquisition has advanced over the last two decades in coming to understand that instructed language learning must involve meaning and communication, but it also must direct students' attention to forms and functions of the language being learned. No doubt, the interplay between meaning-making and conscious attention to language vary for different aspects of language, levels of second-language proficiency, the age of the learner, the learner's first language, and other factors. ⁶⁴ Unfortunately, we do not have sufficient empirical evidence to fully understand this dynamic interplay.

We constructed the wording of this guideline based on our review of the literature relative to the focus of this article: ELD instruction should integrate meaning and communication to support explicit teaching of language. Communicating meaning and providing explicit teaching are both important. However, we propose that communication and meaning should support explicit teaching of language, not necessarily drive ELD instruction. In other words, communication and meaning should be used to motivate and facilitate second-language learners' acquisition and use of targeted language forms.

A recent review ⁶⁵ of primarily second-language immersion studies provides one source of evidence supporting the importance of incorporating meaning and communication in language-learning contexts. But it also points out the need for better understanding of how to balance meaning and communication with explicit language teaching. Drawing primarily from French immersion studies (K-12, college, and adults), it notes both the successes and limitations of such programs: students instructed through carefully designed programs that immerse students in content study and language study consistently produce levels of second-language proficiency that exceed the levels achieved by students who study a second language simply as one more school subject. The content emphasis of the French immersion studies exemplifies consciously communicating meaning-in this case, the meaning and communication associated with studying academic content. However, the review also highlights another set of findings from French immersion studies: "What emerges from these studies is that immersion students are second language speakers who are relatively fluent and effective communicators, but non-targetlike [that is, not fully proficient] in terms of grammatical structure and non-idiomatic in the lexical choices and pragmatic expression-in comparison to native speakers of the same age." ⁶⁶ It concludes that language immersion programs are likely to improve language learning by more strategically and systematically teaching and helping students explicitly attend to language forms without compromising the effects of content-based, meaning-oriented pedagogy.

The study ⁶⁷ discussed earlier that compared nine classrooms representing three conditions (which concluded that a separate ELD block with an ELD program was more effective than either a separate ELD block with materials teachers pulled together or ELD integrated with language arts) illustrates this guideline. Meaning and communication can support explicit teaching of language during ELD instruction. All three conditions in the study involved meaning and meaning-making, primarily by focusing on content, concepts, and vocabulary that first-grade students were studying in their English language arts units and reading selections. However, the meaning or meaning-making aspects of the lessons from condition 1 (which produced the strongest outcomes) were utilized to support the learning of specific language forms. The teacher's modeling and explanation of how to use the language form (e.g., "Where did X sail? X sailed to Y."), and the practice students engaged in, were supported by at least three dimensions of the lesson that involved meaning and meaning-making: First, the lesson was broadly contextualized by the story students had read (about a character that sailed to different parts of the world). Second, the lesson was contextualized by a map of the world and a figurine students held and maneuvered as they constructed their responses (e.g., "Max sailed to Europe."). Third, students eventually took over the role of asking one another the general question (e.g., "Where did Max sail?"), and the respondent could construct his or her own answer, choosing the location on the map (showing where they had Max sail) and uttering the corresponding response. While we do not know empirically the unique effects of each of the three meaning dimensions (story, map/figurine, and interactions), apart from the focus on form ( where question and response), we hypothesize that these meaning dimensions contributed to language learning and explicit language teaching.
Group 4: Instructional guidelines: How should ELD be taught?
ELD instruction should maximize students' purposeful and ready use of English involving carefully planned interactive activities focused on specific language objectives. ELD instruction should also provide students with corrective feedback that is nonthreatening and comprehensible, and encourage students to use strategies that help them progress as language learners.

10. ELD instruction should be planned and delivered with specific language objectives in mind.
The use of instructional objectives is often considered a centerpiece of effective instruction (although not necessarily by everyone ⁶⁸). Good objectives function as starting points and rudders to help keep lessons and activities focused and heading toward productive ends. ⁶⁹ Instructional objectives enhance learning outcomes "to the degree to which objectives, teaching, and assessment are coordinated with one another." ⁷⁰

What we do not know empirically is the degree to which what seems to be generally true for other academic subjects also holds true for ELD instruction. However, we would like to elaborate on a potential connection between the more general research on instructional objectives and the evidence on explicit versus implicit second-language instruction reported earlier. ⁷¹ A subset of the studies analyzed in that synthesis included direct contrasts between treatments that specifically focused students' attention on the targeted language form and comparison conditions that involved simple exposure to or experience with the same language form. Such comparisons showed that explicit instruction focusing student attention on the targeted language form can substantially increase the success of such lessons. It is quite possible that formulating clear language objectives would support teachers' efforts to plan and deliver instruction that effectively directs students' attention to the targeted language form. Thus, our hypothesis is that instructional objectives will be as useful for ELD instruction as they are for other types of academic instruction. ⁷²

11. Use of English during ELD instruction should be maximized; the primary language should be used strategically.
This guideline does not negate the fact that many studies have shown the advantages of maintenance and development of English learners' home languages, in particular the benefit to English literacy of teaching ELs literacy skills in their primary language (see " Unlocking the Research on English Learners"). We do not know with certainty, however, the impact that use of the primary language during ELD instruction will have on oral English language acquisition. In general, the evidence suggests that students' language choices tend to align with the dominant language of instruction. For example, one study ⁷³ investigated the language choices of Spanish-speaking ELs in bilingual preschool classes. In classes where teachers tended to use more English for instruction, ELs tended to use more English with their peers. In classes where teachers tended to use more Spanish, learners tended to use more Spanish. A follow-up study ⁷⁴ reported language-use data for first-grade Mexican American ELs, half of whom were enrolled in "English" classes, and half of whom were enrolled in Spanish bilingual classes. In the English classes, ELs used English during peer interactions most of the time. English learners in the bilingual classes used Spanish most of the time. Among second-grade English learners in Spanish bilingual programs where at least most instruction was delivered in Spanish, two studies ⁷⁵ found that ELs were more likely to use Spanish during peer interactions. One of these studies ⁷⁶ found students using Spanish over English by a ratio of 6 to 1. Finally, among fourth-grade English learners who had participated in Spanish bilingual classrooms through grade 3 and were then placed in an "English-only" class, a study ⁷⁷ found a substantial increase from the beginning to the end of the year in students' use of English in their classroom interactions (53 percent to 83 percent).

Based on these studies, we conclude the following: If a practical goal of ELD instruction is increased use of English, that goal will be served best by instruction delivered and tasks carried out primarily in English. However, we can imagine using the primary language in a limited but strategic manner during ELD instruction to ensure that students understand task directions, pay attention to cognates, and master language learning and metacognitive strategies.

12. ELD instruction should include interactive activities among students, but they must be carefully planned and carried out.
If interactive activities are to benefit ELs, careful consideration must be given to the following factors:

* The design of the tasks in which students engage;
* The training or preparation of the more-proficient English speakers with whom the ELs interact; and
* The language proficiency of the ELs themselves. ⁷⁸

Without attention to these factors, interactive activities tend not to yield language-learning opportunities at all. ⁷⁹ For example, in a study of cooperative learning groups comprised of grade 6 ELs and native English speakers, researchers found that paper-and-pencil tasks designed to spur interaction actually minimized interaction and language-learning opportunities. ⁸⁰ ELs and non-ELs tended to cut short their interactions in order to complete assigned paper-and-pencil tasks in the allotted time: "Just write that down. Who cares? Let's finish up." Other researchers ⁸¹ drew a similar conclusion based on their review of EL studies that focused on reading outcomes: interactive activities that effectively mix ELs and more-proficient ELs or native English speakers typically involve carefully structured tasks that required or at least strongly encouraged productive interaction.

This guideline regarding interactive activities is supported by research on older second-language learners. A meta-analysis ⁸² found that treatments with carefully constructed interactive tasks produced a significant and substantial effect on language-learning outcomes. It examined two critical features of interactive tasks: essentialness and output. Essentialness has to do with the extent to which the targeted language form is essential to the task the group is trying to complete: Does successful completion of the task require, or is it at least facilitated by, correct oral comprehension or production of the meaning of certain target words (e.g., modes of transportation: cars, trucks, trains, etc.) or language constructions (e.g., if-then, before-after)? Learning outcomes were stronger when the language forms or rules were essential for successful completion of a group task. A second analysis with the same studies focused on interactive tasks that required attempts to actually produce the language form, for example, tasks that required students to produce oral utterances using the target words, such as modes of transportation, or the target construction, such as an if-then construction. Interactive tasks that required learners to attempt to produce the language form more consistently yielded stronger effects on both immediate and delayed posttests than tasks that did not require learners to produce the language form. Another review ⁸³ found similar results based on studies involving students ages 7 to 14: to be effective in supporting language development, interactive tasks need to be designed so that learners must use specified language forms in order to communicate successfully.

13. ELD instruction should provide students with corrective feedback on form.
Providing ELs with feedback on form is not a matter of whether to do it but how best to do it. During ELD instruction wherein the primary objective is studying and learning language, corrective feedback can be beneficial. A meta-analysis ⁸⁴ that examined the effects of corrective feedback specifically on grammar included studies with a mixture of foreign-language, second-language, and English-as-a-second-language contexts, some of which were conducted in classrooms and some conducted under laboratory conditions. Despite several limitations, all of the studies involved a treatment group that received some form of grammar-focused corrective feedback, a comparison group that did not receive corrective feedback, and a measure of language learning. In all of the studies, the treatment group outperformed the comparison group, and in two-thirds of the studies, the effects were large.

Another review ⁸⁵ examined the effects of implicit and explicit forms of corrective feedback: recasts versus prompts. When teachers recast a student's utterance, they rearticulate what the student was trying to say with an utterance that includes corrections of one or more errors the student made. For example, if a student says, "My brown cat more big than my white," the teacher would say, "Oh, you mean your brown cat is bigger than your white one?" In contrast, prompts explicitly draw a student's attention to an error and encourage or require the student to attempt to repair (linguistics-speak for "to correct") the utterance. So in the previous example, the teacher would say something like, "Oh, your brown cat is bigger than your white one. Can you say it that way?" And if the student hesitates, the teacher might help get him or her started (e.g., "My... brown...") and try to have the student formulate as much of the utterance as possible. All of the studies found positive effects for both recasts and prompts but with stronger effects for prompts.

The same review ⁸⁶ also provides an analysis of how feedback given through more- and less-explicit forms might function differentially depending on teachers' relative emphasis on form versus meaning. Based on a review of studies that looked at recasts and prompts in French and Japanese immersion classes, ⁸⁷ it concludes that the general classroom orientation influences the potential benefits of either recasts or prompts. In form-focused classrooms where teachers spend some time engaging students in oral drills and repetition of correct forms, the more subtle or implicit recast can serve as meaningful feedback, yielding student repairs, because the students are used to attending to form and repetition of teacher utterances. Recasts are less effective in meaning-oriented classrooms where students are more accustomed to attending to communication and less likely to attend to corrections embedded in teacher utterances. In meaning-oriented classrooms, prompts may be more effective because they explicitly mark the need for the repair of an utterance and therefore purposefully redirect students' attention, at least momentarily, away from meaning to the language itself.

In sum, feedback should not be taken for granted. Where and when implicit feedback, such as recasts, seem to be relevant, ELD teachers will want to help students recognize them and understand their function, most likely as a broader orientation to the instruction block. ELD teachers should provide similar orientation to interactional activities and lessons that involve explicit feedback, so as to alert students to the fact that interactions will be momentarily interrupted to give students feedback intended to help them refine their language use. Most important, the evidence suggests that ELD teachers should not avoid or hesitate in providing corrective feedback. Rather, the central issue is how to do it effectively so that students respond to it, benefit from it, and understand it as a productive part of language learning rather than a negative evaluation of their language learning.

14. Teachers should attend to communication and language-learning strategies and incorporate them into ELD instruction.
Two researchers ⁸⁸ found that more-proficient ELs demonstrate a wider repertoire of language-learning strategies than less-proficient English learners. These strategies appear to emerge in the same order-from less to more sophisticated-and are correlated with levels of language proficiency. Second-language learners first use and rely most heavily on fairly simple strategies, such as repetition and memorization. As they learn words and phrases, they will repeat them upon hearing them (e.g., the teacher says "only," and the students repeat "only" to themselves), and they will practice and sometimes produce an entire group of related words they are learning to memorize (e.g., Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, etc.). As they progress to the middle levels of language development, English learners begin to use more interactive strategies. For example, they are more apt to talk to themselves ("I'll put this here, and this..."), insert themselves into conversations with verbal attention-getters ("I know..." or "I have one..." or "It was me..."), and elaborate on topics ("My mom and dad took me to..."). Finally, at more advanced levels, ELs use language- and communication-monitoring strategies in order to maintain and, as needed, repair communication with others, including self-correction ("I need some pencil-a pencil."), appeals for assistance ("How do you say...?"), and requests for clarification ("Decorate? What does decorate mean?").

In addition to the relevance of these findings for designing instructional strategies, in more general terms we view them as important information for ELD teachers. As students develop increasing proficiency, their capacity to use English increases, but so does their strategy use, which seems to undergo significant qualitative changes: from heavy reliance on receptive strategies to increased use of interactive strategies and eventually to more sophisticated, metacognitive communication-monitoring strategies.

Reviewing the literature on language-learning strategies, one researcher wrote: ⁸⁹

Taken together, these studies identified the good language learner as one who is a mentally active learner, monitors language comprehension and production, practices communicating in the language, makes use of prior linguistic and general knowledge, uses various memorization techniques, and asks questions for clarification.

One study ⁹⁰ found that explicit instruction on how to use strategies effectively, especially metacognitive strategies, might be beneficial for ELs' oral language development. Several other studies have shown positive effects of teaching or prompting listening comprehension strategies to English learners. ⁹¹ Teachers may need to use students' primary language (when they can) to teach strategies for students at lower levels of second-language proficiency. ⁹²

* * *

Our experience in schools suggests that attention to ELD instruction is growing, and that important efforts are underway to develop effective ELD programs for both elementary and secondary school students. Attention to the matter of academic language proficiency is also increasing. ⁹³ It is imperative to complement such efforts and interest with careful research and evaluation. Clearly, no one guideline will be sufficient to help ELs gain access to high-level, mainstream academic curriculum. Instead, we must not only test individual components and guidelines, we must also construct comprehensive ELD programs and test the proposition that they help students acquire high levels of English language proficiency as rapidly as possible, regardless of whether they are in bilingual or English-only programs. From our experience, strong opinion too often trumps careful weighing of evidence in what remains a volatile and politically charged field.

English Language Development Guidelines
Group 1: Global policy guidelines: What should state, district, and school policy commit to for ELD instruction?
1. Providing ELD instruction is better than not providing it. ( Relatively strong supporting evidence from EL research)

2. ELD instruction should continue at least until ELs attain advanced English language ability. ( Based on hypotheses emerging from recent EL research)

3. The likelihood of establishing and sustaining an effective ELD instructional program increases when schools and districts make it a priority. ( Applicable to ELD but grounded in non-EL or non-ELD research)
Group 2: Organizational guidelines: How should ELD instruction be organized in school?
4. A separate, daily block of time should be devoted to ELD instruction. ( Based on hypotheses emerging from recent EL research)

5. English learners should be carefully grouped by language proficiency for ELD instruction, but they should not be segregated by language proficiency throughout the rest of the day. ( Applicable to ELD but grounded in non-EL or non-ELD research)
Group 3: Curricular focus guidelines: What should be taught during ELD instruction?
6. ELD instruction should explicitly teach forms of English (e.g., vocabulary, syntax, morphology, functions, and conventions). ( Based on hypotheses emerging from recent EL research)

7. ELD instruction should emphasize academic language as well as conversational language. ( Based on hypotheses emerging from recent EL research)

8. ELD instruction should incorporate reading and writing, but should emphasize listening and speaking. ( Based on hypotheses emerging from recent EL research)

9. ELD instruction should integrate meaning and communication to support explicit teaching of language. ( Based on hypotheses emerging from recent EL research)
Group 4: Instructional guidelines: How should ELD be taught?
10. ELD instruction should be planned and delivered with specific language objectives in mind. ( Applicable to ELD but grounded in non-EL or non-ELD research)

11. Use of English during ELD instruction should be maximized; the primary language should be used strategically. ( Based on hypotheses emerging from recent EL research)

12. ELD instruction should include interactive activities among students, but they must be carefully planned and carried out. ( Relatively strong supporting evidence from EL research)

13. ELD instruction should provide students with corrective feedback on form. ( Based on hypotheses emerging from recent EL research)

14. Teachers should attend to communication and language-learning strategies and incorporate them into ELD instruction. ( Based on hypotheses emerging from recent EL research)
For a more complete discussion of the strength of the evidence for each of the 14 guidelines based on population, outcomes, and replication, see William Saunders and Claude Goldenberg's chapter, "Research to Guide English Language Development Instruction," in Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches.
William Saunders and David Marcelletti cofounded and codirect research projects at the Talking Teaching Network, a nonprofit organization. Both former teachers, they have participated in and directed research and development projects for more than 20 years that are focused on school change, English learners, English language arts, and the role of standards and assessments. Saunders is also a research associate at the University of California, Los Angeles. Claude Goldenberg is a professor of education at Stanford University. Previously, at California State University, Long Beach, he was a professor of teacher education, an associate dean of the College of Education, and the executive director of the Center for Language Minority Education and Research. Early in his career, he taught junior high school in Texas and first grade in a bilingual elementary school in California. He is the recipient of the Albert J. Harris Award from the International Reading Association, among other honors. This article is adapted with permission from William Saunders and Claude Goldenberg, "Research to Guide English Language Development Instruction," in Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches, edited by David Dolson and Lauri Burnham-Massey (CDE Press, 2010).
Endnotes
*For a complete discussion of the strength of the evidence for each of the 14 guidelines based on population, outcomes, and replication, see "Research to Guide English Language Development Instruction," by William Saunders and Claude Goldenberg. ¹⁵ See also the listing of the 14 guidelines appearing at the end of this article that includes Saunders and Goldenberg's original classification in terms of strength of evidence for each guideline. ( back to article)

†See guideline 8 for a discussion of teaching literacy during ELD instruction. ( back to article)

1. Michael F. Graves, Diane August, and Jeannette Mancilla-Martinez, Teaching Vocabulary to English Language Learners (New York: Teachers College Press, 2013).

2. Eva Alcón, "Research on Language and Learning: Implications for Language Teaching," International Journal of English Studies 4, no. 1 (2004): 173-196.

3. Michael Long, "Input and Second Language Acquisition Theory," in Input in Second Language Acquisition, ed. Susan Gass and Carolyn Madden (Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1985), 377-393.

4. See Stephen D. Krashen, Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1982).

5. See Roy Lyster, Learning and Teaching Languages through Content: A Counterbalanced Approach (Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2007).

6. Robert E. Slavin, "Ability Grouping and Student Achievement in Elementary Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis," Review of Educational Research 57, no. 3 (1987): 293-336.

7. Rod Ellis, "Principles of Instructed Language Learning," System 33, no. 2 (2005): 209-224.

8. Ellis, "Principles of Instructed Language Learning."

9. Fred Genesee, Kathryn Lindholm-Leary, William Saunders, and Donna Christian, Educating English Language Learners: A Synthesis of Research Evidence (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006).

10. Casey M. Keck, Gina Iberri-Shea, Nicole Tracy-Ventura, and Safary Wa-Mbaleka, "Investigating the Empirical Link between Task-Based Interaction and Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis," in Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching, ed. John M. Norris and Lourdes Ortega (Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2006), 91-131.

11. Jane Russell Valezy and Nina Spada, "The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback for the Acquisition of L2 Grammar: A Meta-Analysis of the Research," in Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching, ed. John M. Norris and Lourdes Ortega (Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2006), 133-164.

12. Lyster, Learning and Teaching Languages through Content.

13. John M. Norris and Lourdes Ortega, "Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and Quantitative Meta-Analysis," Language Learning 50, no. 3 (2000): 417-528.

14. Ellis, "Principles of Instructed Language Learning."

15. William M. Saunders and Claude Goldenberg, "Research to Guide English Language Development Instruction," in Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches, ed. David Dolson and Lauri Burnham-Massey (Sacramento: CDE Press, 2010), 21-82.

16. Michael H. Long, "Does Second Language Instruction Make a Difference? A Review of Research," TESOL Quarterly 17, no. 3 (1983): 359-382.

17. Krashen, Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.

18. Long, "Does Second Language Instruction Make a Difference?"

19. Norris and Ortega, "Effectiveness of L2 Instruction."

20. Norris and Ortega, "Effectiveness of L2 Instruction," 468.

21. Fuhui Tong, Rafael Lara-Alecio, Beverly Irby, Patricia Mathes, and Oi-Man Kwok, "Accelerating Early Academic Oral English Development in Transitional Bilingual and Structured English Immersion Programs," American Educational Research Journal 45, no. 4 (2008): 1011-1044.

22. Virginia P. Collier, "Age and Rate of Acquisition of Second Language for Academic Purposes," TESOL Quarterly 21, no. 4 (1987): 617-641; and Diane August and Timothy Shanahan, eds., Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2006).

23. Genesee et al., Educating English Language Learners.

24. Kenji Hakuta, Yuko Goto Butler, and Daria Witt, How Long Does It Take English Learners to Attain Proficiency? (Santa Barbara: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute, 2000).

25. Peggy Estrada, "English Learner Curricular Streams in Four Middle Schools: Triage in the Trenches" (revised, 2013) (paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada, April 2012).

26. Margaret C. Wang, Geneva D. Haertel, and Herbert J. Walberg, "Toward a Knowledge Base for School Learning," Review of Educational Research 63, no. 3 (1993): 249-294.

27. See, for example, Ronald Edmonds, "Effective Schools for the Urban Poor," Educational Leadership 37, no. 1 (1979): 15-27; Michael Fullan, The New Meaning of Educational Change, 4th ed. (New York: Teachers College Press, 2007); Claude Goldenberg and Rhoda Coleman, Promoting Academic Achievement among English Learners: A Guide to the Research (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2010); Tom Good and Jere Brophy, "School Effects," in Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd ed., ed. Merlin C. Wittrock (New York: Macmillan, 1986), 570-602; and Bruce R. Joyce and Beverly Showers, Power in Staff Development through Research on Training (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1983).

28. Thomas B. Parrish, Amy Merickel, María Pérez, Robert Linquanti, Miguel Socias, Angeline Spain, Cecilia Speroni, Phil Esra, Leslie Brock, and Danielle Delancey, Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on the Education of English Learners, K-12: Findings from a Five-Year Evaluation, final report for AB 56 and AB 1116 (Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research, 2006); and Trish Williams, Mary Perry, Isabel Oregón, Noli Brazil, Kenji Hakuta, Edward Haertel, Michael Kirst, and Jesse Levin, Similar English Learner Students, Different Results: Why Do Some Schools Do Better? A Follow-Up Analysis, Based on a Large-Scale Survey of California Elementary Schools Serving High Proportions of Low-Income and EL Students (Mountain View, CA: EdSource, 2007).

29. Claude Goldenberg, Successful School Change: Creating Settings to Improve Teaching and Learning (New York: Teachers College Press, 2004); and Dennis McDougall, William Saunders, and Claude Goldenberg, "Inside the Black Box of School Reform: Explaining the How and Why of Change at Getting Results Schools," International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 54, no. 1 (2007): 51-89.

30. William M. Saunders, Barbara R. Foorman, and Coleen D. Carlson, "Is a Separate Block of Time for Oral English Language Development in Programs for English Learners Needed?," Elementary School Journal 107 (November 2006): 181-198.

31. Saunders, Foorman, and Carlson, "Is a Separate Block of Time?"

32. Gisela Irene O'Brien, "The Instructional Features across Three Different Approaches to Oral English Language Development Instruction" (PhD diss., University of Southern California, August 2007).

33. Parrish et al., Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227.

34. Slavin, "Ability Grouping and Student Achievement in Elementary Schools"; and Robert E. Slavin, ed., School and Classroom Organization (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1989).

35. Norris and Ortega, "Effectiveness of L2 Instruction."

36. Nina Spada and Patsy M. Lightbown, "Form-Focused Instruction: Isolated or Integrated?," TESOL Quarterly 42, no. 2 (2008): 181-207.

37. Spada and Lightbown, "Form-Focused Instruction."

38. Lyster, Learning and Teaching Languages through Content.

39. See Robert E. Slavin, Educational Psychology (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000).

40. Norris and Ortega, "Effectiveness of L2 Instruction."

41. Ellis, "Principles of Instructed Language Learning." See also Lyster, Learning and Teaching Languages through Content; and Hossein Nassaji and Sandra Fotos, "Current Developments in Research on the Teaching of Grammar," Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24 (2004): 126-145.

42. Gabriele Kasper and Kenneth R. Rose, Pragmatic Development in a Second Language (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002).

43. Although, for a rich and detailed account of the development of "interactional competence" among elementary-age Latino ELs, see Guadalupe Valdés, Sarah Capitelli, and Laura Alvarez, Latino Children Learning English: Steps in the Journey (New York: Teachers College, 2011).

44. Anna Uhl Chamot and J. Michael O'Malley, The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1994), 40.

45. Lily Wong Fillmore and Charles J. Fillmore, "What Does Text Complexity Mean for English Learners and Language Minority Students?" (paper presented at the Understanding Language Conference, Stanford University, January 2012).

46. Catherine E. Snow, Herlinda Cancino, Jeanne De Temple, and Sara Schley, "Giving Formal Definitions: A Linguistic or Metalinguistic Skill?," in Language Processing in Bilingual Children, ed. Ellen Bialystok (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 90-112.

47. James Cummins, "The Construct of Language Proficiency in Bilingual Education," in Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1980, ed. James E. Alatis (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1980), 81-103.

48. See, for example, Robin A. Stevens, Frances A. Butler, and Martha Castellon-Wellington, Academic Language and Content Assessment: Measuring the Progress of English Language Learners (ELLs) (Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, 2000).

49. Genesee et al., Educating English Language Learners; and Virginia P. Collier, "Age and Rate of Acquisition of Second Language for Academic Purposes," TESOL Quarterly 21, no. 4 (1987): 617-641.

50. Genesee et al., Educating English Language Learners.

51. Diane August and Timothy Shanahan, "Effective English Literacy Instruction for English Learners," in Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches, ed. David Dolson and Lauri Burnham-Massey (Sacramento: CDE Press, 2010), 209-250.

52. Jana Echevarria and Deborah Short, "Programs and Practices for Effective Sheltered Content Instruction," in Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches, ed. David Dolson and Lauri Burnham-Massey (Sacramento: CDE Press, 2010), 251-322.

53. Kathryn Lindholm-Leary and Fred Genesee, "Alternative Educational Programs for English Learners," in Improving Education for English Learners: Research-Based Approaches, ed. David Dolson and Lauri Burnham-Massey (Sacramento: CDE Press, 2010), 323-382.

54. Ray Chesterfield, Kathleen Barrows Chesterfield, Katherine Hayes-Latimer, and Regino Chavez, "The Influence of Teachers and Peers on Second Language Acquisition in Bilingual Preschool Programs," TESOL Quarterly 17, no. 3 (1983): 401-419; and Muriel Saville-Troike, "What Really Matters in Second Language Learning for Academic Achievement?," TESOL Quarterly 18, no. 2 (1984): 199-219.

55. Michael Strong, "Social Styles and the Second Language Acquisition of Spanish-Speaking Kindergartners," TESOL Quarterly 17, no. 2 (1983): 241-258; and Michael Strong, "Integrative Motivation: Cause or Result of Successful Second Language Acquisition?," Language Learning 34, no. 3 (1984): 1-13.

56. Ray Chesterfield and Kathleen Barrows Chesterfield, "Natural Order in Children's Use of Second Language Learning Strategies," Applied Linguistics 6, no. 1 (1985): 45-59.

57. Kathryn J. Lindholm, "English Question Use in Spanish-Speaking ESL Children: Changes with English Language Proficiency," Research in the Teaching of English 21, no. 1 (1987): 64-91; and Flora Rodriguez-Brown, "Questioning Patterns and Language Proficiency in Bilingual Students," NABE Journal 13 (1987): 217-233.

58. Joanne F. Carlisle, Margaret Beeman, Lyle Hull Davis, and Galila Spharim, "Relationship of Metalinguistic Capabilities and Reading Achievement for Children Who Are Becoming Bilingual," Applied Psycholinguistics 20, no. 4 (1999): 459-478; and Catherine Snow, et al., Second Language Learners' Formal Definitions: An Oral Language Correlate of School Literacy (Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Language Education and Research, 1987).

59. Carlisle et al., "Relationship of Metalinguistic Capabilities and Reading Achievement"; Enedina Garcia-Vázquez, Luis A. Vázquez, Isabel C. López, and Wendy Ward, "Language Proficiency and Academic Success: Relationships between Proficiency in Two Languages and Achievement among Mexican American Students," Bilingual Research Journal 21, no. 4 (1997): 395-408; Barbara Comoe Goldstein, Kathleen C. Harris, and M. Diane Klein, "Assessment of Oral Storytelling Abilities of Latino Junior High School Students with Learning Handicaps," Journal of Learning Disabilities 26, no. 2 (1993): 138-143; James M. Royer and Maria S. Carlo, "Transfer of Comprehension Skills from Native to Second Language," Journal of Reading 34, no. 6 (1991): 450-455; Saville-Troike, "What Really Matters in Second Language Learning?"; Snow et al., Second Language Learners' Formal Definitions; and Daniel M. Ulibarri, Maria L. Spencer, and Guillermo A. Rivas, "Language Proficiency and Academic Achievement: A Study of Language Proficiency Tests and Their Relationship to School Ratings as Predictors of Academic Achievement," NABE Journal 5 (1981): 47-80.

60. Saville-Troike, "What Really Matters in Second Language Learning?"

61. Snow et al., Second Language Learners' Formal Definitions.

62. Saunders, Foorman, and Carlson, "Is a Separate Block of Time?"

63. O'Brien, "The Instructional Features across Three Different Approaches."

64. Spada and Lightbown, "Form-Focused Instruction."

65. Lyster, Learning and Teaching Languages through Content.

66. Lyster, Learning and Teaching Languages through Content, 16.

67. O'Brien, "The Instructional Features across Three Different Approaches."

68. For arguments for and against, see Nathaniel Lees Gage and David C. Berliner, Educational Psychology (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1975).

69. Slavin, Educational Psychology.

70. Slavin, Educational Psychology, 465.

71. Norris and Ortega, "Effectiveness of L2 Instruction."

72. For corroborating evidence, see also the discussions of O'Brien, "The Instructional Features across Three Different Approaches"; and Saunders, Foorman, and Carlson, "Is a Separate Block of Time?"

73. Chesterfield et al., "The Influence of Teachers and Peers."

74. Ray A. Chesterfield and Kathleen Barrows Chesterfield, "'Hoja's with the H': Spontaneous Peer Teaching in Bilingual Classrooms," Bilingual Review 12, no. 3 (1985): 198-208.

75. Robert D. Milk, "Language Use in Bilingual Classrooms: Two Case Studies," in On TESOL '81, ed. Mary Hines and William Rutherford (Washington, DC: TESOL, 1982), 181-191; and Lilliam Malave, "Contextual Elements in a Bilingual Cooperative Setting: The Experiences of Early Childhood LEP Learners," NABE Journal 13 (1989): 96-122.

76. Malave, "Contextual Elements in a Bilingual Cooperative Setting."

77. Lucinda Pease-Alvarez and Adam Winsler, "Cuando el Maestro No Habla Español: Children's Bilingual Language Practices in the Classroom," TESOL Quarterly 28, no. 3 (1994): 507-535.

78. Diane L. August, "Effects of Peer Tutoring on the Second Language Acquisition of Mexican American Children in Elementary School," TESOL Quarterly 21, no. 4 (1987): 717-736; Donna M. Johnson, "Natural Language Learning by Design: A Classroom Experiment in Social Interaction and Second Language Acquisition," TESOL Quarterly 17, no. 1 (1983): 55-68; and Sabrina Peck, "Signs of Learning: Child Nonnative Speakers in Tutoring Sessions with a Child Native Speaker," Language Learning 37, no. 4 (December 1987): 545-571.

79. Ruth L. Cathcart-Strong, "Input Generation by Young Second Language Learners," TESOL Quarterly 20, no. 3 (1986): 515-530; and Evelyn Jacob, Lori Rottenberg, Sondra Patrick, and Edyth Wheeler, "Cooperative Learning: Context and Opportunities for Acquiring Academic English," TESOL Quarterly 30, no. 2 (1996): 253-280.

80. Jacob et al., "Cooperative Learning," 270.

81. Russell Gersten, Scott K. Baker, Timothy Shanahan, Sylvia Linan-Thompson, Penny Collins, and Robin Scarcella, Effective Literacy and English Language Instruction for English Learners in the Elementary Grades (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Educational Sciences, US Department of Education, 2007).

82. Keck et al., "Investigating the Empirical Link."

83. Roy Lyster, "Research on Form-Focused Instruction in Immersion Classrooms: Implications for Theory and Practice," Journal of French Language Studies 14, no. 3 (2004): 321-341.

84. Valezy and Spada, "The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback."

85. Lyster, Learning and Teaching Languages through Content.

86. Lyster, Learning and Teaching Languages through Content.

87. Roy Lyster and Hirohide Mori, "Interactional Feedback and Instructional Counterbalance," Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, no. 2 (2006): 269-300.

88. Chesterfield and Chesterfield, "Natural Order in Children's Use of Second Language Learning Strategies."

89. Anna Uhl Chamot, "Language Learning Strategy Instruction: Current Issues and Research," Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25 (2005): 115.

90. J. Michael O'Malley, Anna Uhl Chamot, Gloria Stewner-Manazanares, Rocco P. Russo, and Lisa Kupper, "Learning Strategy Applications with Students of English as a Second Language," TESOL Quarterly 19, no. 3 (1985): 557-584.

91. See, for example, Karen A. Carrier, "Improving High School English Language Learners' Second Language Listening through Strategy Instruction," Bilingual Research Journal 27, no. 3 (2003): 383-408; Irene Thompson and Joan Rubin, "Can Strategy Instruction Improve Listening Comprehension?," Foreign Language Annals 29, no. 3 (1996): 331-342, cited in Chamot, "Language Learning Strategy Instruction"; and Larry Vandergrift, "'It Was Nice to See That Our Predictions Were Right': Developing Metacognition in L2 Listening Comprehension," Canadian Modern Language Review 58, no. 4 (2002): 555-575.

92. Ernesto Macaro, Learning Strategies in Foreign and Second Language Classrooms (London: Continuum, 2001), cited in Chamot, "Language Learning Strategy Instruction."

93. Tong et al., "Accelerating Early Academic Oral English Development."

Reprinted from American Educator, Summer 2013

Related Articles

Unlocking the Research on English Learners
What We Know-and Don't Yet Know-about Effective Instruction
By Claude Goldenberg

Recommended Resources
By Claude Goldenberg

English Language Development
Guidelines for Instruction
By William Saunders, Claude Goldenberg, and David Marcelletti

Dual Language Learners
Effective Instruction in Early Childhood
By Claude Goldenberg, Judy Hicks, and Ira Lit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite a growing US literature on educating English learners (ELs) and an upsurge in studies of vocabulary interventions,1 surprisingly little research examines the effects of instruction on ELs' English language development (ELD). Since the Supreme Court's 1974 Lau v.

# data[].attributes.headline
Equity: Honoring Multilingual Learner's Assets and Culture in the Learning Process

# data[].attributes.subject
Equity: Honoring Multilingual Learner's Assets and Culture in the Learning Process

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
'Translanguaging' - the use of different languages together - can be a powerful tool for learning ... but it can also go against the grain for language teachers who are used to supporting learners to master the intricacies of a single language. In this post, we ask what the research tells us about 'translanguaging' and how it can be used to support EAL learners in the classroom.

Picture the scene: two students are sitting together, working intently on a handout. They have different first languages but some shared knowledge of the words and phrases of each other's languages, so they are moving in and out of English to get their message across. Another two students are sitting together nearby. Both of them are Spanish speakers, but are very strong in English and often use it as their main language. At other times, as now, they blend Spanish and English together.

Are either of these examples of translanguaging?

In both cases, yes. The young people are using resources from different languages together, with very little regard for what we might call the 'boundaries' of named languages such as 'Spanish' or 'English'. They are using elements of each language together to communicate more effectively. This is translanguaging: it's about using the all your language resources to communicate.

Translanguaging is the act performed by bilinguals of accessing different linguistic features or various modes of what are described as autonomous languages, in order to maximize communicative potential.

Ofelia García (2009: 140)

Translanguaging is about communication, not about language itself. There are times when we need to be language teachers, focusing on accuracy in English so that our learners can pass exams and be taken as proficient speakers in wider society. Much of the time, though, we are working with students to explore concepts, add to their knowledge, make connections between ideas and to help them make their voices heard by others. This is often about communicating, and this is where using all our language resources can be very valuable.
A (very) brief history of translanguaging ...
Translanguaging is nothing new - it can be a very natural way for multilingual people to communicate - but as a focus of research it emerged in the 1980s in Bangor, north Wales. Cen Williams and colleagues were investigating strategies for learners to use two languages (Welsh and English) in a single lesson. They came up with the term 'trawsieithu' to describe reading or hearing input in one language (e.g. English) and writing or speaking about it in another (e.g. Welsh, or vice versa). The term was translated into English (and popularised) as 'translanguaging' by their colleague Colin Baker (see Lewis, Jones and Baker 2012).

Since then the term has expanded to cover the use of multiple languages in many contexts. It is one of a series of related terms (such as polylanguaging and flexible multilingualism) and the subtle differences between them suggest the wide range of academic work investigating how multiple languages are used - especially for learning. We can use 'translanguaging' as our general term.
The beginnings of a translanguaging pedagogy
Translanguaging pedagogy challenges what Jim Cummins (2008) called the 'two solitudes' approach to bilingualism, in which languages were kept strictly separate. It sees languages as a property of the community: the language resources that are relevant to the classroom are those shared by the students and the teacher. This separates the languages of the classroom community and the language of the test or the curriculum. We can use our classroom repertoire to learn, share and communicate, coming to focus on the language of the curriculum (highly formal and accurate English, for example) as necessary. It means making a distinction between forms of learning that require display (such as essays, often written in 'best English') and forms of learning that do not (such as worksheets). We can move between them within a lesson: perhaps using all our repertoire to discuss and to draft, moving into more formal/correct English to report to the group, back into translanguaging to revise the work-in-progress and into a very formal register for the final written product.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the strongly monolingual slant of recent education policy, much work into translanguaging pedagogy has been done outside mainstream classrooms. Creese and Blackledge (2010), for example, have looked at Gujarati and Chinese complementary schools. Li Wei and Zhu Hua (2013) studied learners at university, but connected translanguaging to migration and identity development in ways that are very relevant to school-based language policies. Hornberger and Link (2012) look at children the US, with an explicit focus on the restrictive language policies of that country, and offer ideas that are very applicable to the UK. A good starting point is García and Li Wei (2014) - a recent and very readable (only 165 pages) discussion that has a strong focus on translanguaging and education, with one author based in the US and one based in the UK.

The first issue of the EAL Journal (published in September and free to all NALDIC members) features Li Wei writing about translanguaging and the EAL classroom. Click here for information on how to join.
Recent developments
García's recent work has focused on translanguaging pedagogy as a political act, a critical response to the monolingual bias of current education policy. Earlier this year the South London EAL Group (part of NALDIC's national network of regional interest groups) discussed García's work on translanguaging stance - a teacher's political commitment to encouraging bilingualism in her classroom. The video below features Constant Leung discussing this approach and explaining how it connects to the UK context:
Constant Leung discussing Ofelia García's work on translanguaging, at NALDIC's South London EAL group. But what about exams?
Very often, we meet the colleagues who are keen to encourage multilingualism in their classroom (even experiment with a translanguaging pedagogy), but who are worried about how it will affect their students' exam performance.

A translanguaging approach is entirely consistent with high expectations in exams - if we recognise the difference between language and communication.

testing the proficiency of children in a language must be kept separate from testing their proficiency in language.

(Otheguy, García and Reid 2015: 299)

Translanguaging pedagogy is about you and your students. It draws on the languages you have available to your group - so even if you don't speak all (or any) of the other languages your students do, you can welcome them and encourage the learners to use them in the classroom. You can then make a distinction between your classroom approach to languages and the language resources the students will need to use in exams. If you have used a translanguaging pedagogy in your classroom (even if that wasn't the term you used for it) we would love to hear from you.
References
Creese, Angela and Adrian Blackledge (2010). Translanguaging in the Bilingual Classroom: A Pedagogy for Learning and Teaching? Modern Language Journal 94 (1), 103-115.

Cummins, Jim (2008). Teaching for Transfer: Challenging the two solitudes assumption in bilingual education. In: Jim Cummins and Nancy H. Hornberger (eds). Encyclopedia of Language and Education Vol. 5: Bilingual Education (2nd edition edition). Boston: Springer Science + Business Media.

García, Ofelia (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In: Ajit Mohanty, Minati Panda, Robert Phillipson and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (eds). Multilingual Education for Social Justice: Globalising the local. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan, pp.128-145.

García, Ofelia, S. Johnson and K. Seltzer (forthcoming). Translanguaging Stance. In: Ofelia García (ed.). The Translanguaging Classroom. Philadelphia, PA: Carson.

Lewis, Gwyn, Bryn Jones and Colin Baker (2012). Translanguaging: origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation 18 (7), 641-654.

Li Wei and Zhu Hua (2013). Translanguaging Identities and Ideologies: Creating Transnational Space Through Flexible Multilingual Practices Amongst Chinese University Students in the UK. Applied Linguistics 34 (5), 516-535.

Otheguy, Ricardo, Ofelia García and Wallis Reid (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review 6 (3), 281-307.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Interested in translanguaging and what it means for EAL? We look at the research and share the essential info.

# data[].attributes.headline
Six Things Principals Can Do To Support Their MLs

# data[].attributes.subject
Six Things Principals Can Do To Support Their MLs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While schools in states such as Texas, Arizona, and California have been teaching English learners for generations, the presence of English language learners (ELLs) is a comparatively new phenomenon in the Northwest. If systems are not already in place for students to develop their English proficiency while learning math, science, social studies and other subjects at the same time, what can principals do to make sure English learners get the support they need?

1. Set a vision for high expectations

Imagine if you had to learn math in Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, or another language in which you are not fluent. It would be an extra challenge, of course. But, it wouldn't mean you were less intelligent or less able to learn the math. Teachers, out of sympathy, sometimes try to "help" by giving English learners easier assignments. Those easier tasks, however, just leave students with less ability to meet the expectations of new state standards. As a remedy, principals can communicate to teachers their belief that ELLs, with appropriate instruction and supports, can succeed in learning challenging content.

Part of being serious about high expectations means creating opportunities for ELLs to participate in Talented & Gifted programs, Advanced Placement (AP) courses, and the full range of extracurricular activities even before they are fully proficient in English. Principals can carefully scrutinize the master schedule to ensure that scheduling conflicts between AP and required ESL courses do not occur.

2. Make the families of English learners feel welcome

We all know about the crucial connection between parent involvement and student success. But, it can be challenging for parents to support their kids when they are unfamiliar with the language and the system. Principals can help in a variety of ways. For example, they can ensure outgoing communication-such as notices sent home to parents-are translated into home languages and provide interpreters at school events. They can also set up systems to ensure that incoming communication, such as notes or phone calls from parents, can be received and understood by someone affiliated with the school. Community volunteers can often help with these tasks.

3. Ensure that English learners receive English language development

One of the supports that ELLs need is time set aside to learn how academic English (as opposed to informal conversational English) really works. It is not sufficient for ELLs to join in reading instruction with English-proficient students-although they need that, too, of course. They also require specifically designated time for English language development (ELD), a time when they learn sentence structure, additional vocabulary, and how English is used in academic settings. ELD is helpful for ELLs at all levels-not only beginners--and it should be connected to what is happening in the general-education classroom the rest of the day. The master schedule should build this in so that ELLs don't have to miss core math or reading instruction in order to receive ELD.

4. Provide English learner-focused professional development to all teachers

Since many ELLs receive most of their instruction from general-education classroom teachers, those teachers need to know how to scaffold instruction appropriately. We know that using visuals to convey ideas and providing graphic organizers, for example, makes a difference. Talking with partners and working in structured small groups gives ELLs the opportunity for language practice. While some teachers may already routinely use these and other techniques, others do not. Schoolwide professional development can build a shared understanding of ELLs' needs and a common commitment to the instructional practices that support them.

5. Monitor English learners' achievement in the content areas and their development of English

How will you know whether the ELD instruction provided is building students' English proficiency? How can you be sure whether the supports general-education teachers provide are sufficient to ensure that ELLs are learning academic content? Answers to these questions can only come with the use of data-both content-area assessments (such as math tests) and English-language proficiency tests. When principals review data, when teachers meet in grade-level teams to examine data, or when teachers look at formative assessments within their own classrooms, they need data showing the progress of ELLs and comparisons to non-ELLs. Are ELLs making progress? What about the recently reclassified students who were ELLs within the past two years. Is their learning progressing on par with that of non-ELLs? If not, what needs to be changed?

6. Protect time for general-education or content teachers to collaborate with ESL specialists

Many schools have a full- or part-time English as a Second Language (ESL) or bilingual specialist. This is often the person who provides ELD instruction and/or supports ELLs in the classroom in a "push-in" model. But, all too often, these specialist teachers complain that they never have the opportunity to interact with classroom teachers. This means both teachers are missing a valuable opportunity to collaborate, share insights about individual students, and make sure that the instruction they provide is aligned in meaningful ways without being repetitive. Principals can avoid the disconnect and reduce the isolation by building collaboration time into the schedule. Specialists can join teachers for grade-level meetings or have overlapping planning periods.
For further reading on related topics, please see blog posts from on the Education Northwest site, including Mary Martinez Wenzl on meeting the education needs of immigrant newcomers and Claudia Rodriguez-Mojica's post titled, "Are Your Scaffolds for Supporting Students Helping or Getting in the Way?" My other blog post, "Treating Language as a Strength," looks at research behind the cognitive, cultural, economic, and academic benefits of bilingualism. Like this post? Subscribe to Northwest Matters, and receive a notification when we publish something new.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Six Things Principals Can Do To Support Their English Language Learners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While schools in states such as Texas, Arizona, and California have been teaching English learners for generations, the presence of English language learners (ELLs) is a comparatively new phenomenon in the Northwest.

# data[].attributes.headline
Formative Assessment: The Purpose of Formative Assessment (Colorado Department of Education)

# data[].attributes.subject
Formative Assessment: The Purpose of Formative Assessment (Colorado Department of Education)

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cde.state.co.us/cde_english/formativeassessmentpage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You are here

The purpose of the Formative Assessments section:

This section contains resources to guide educators in creating and implementing formative language assessments. In addition to annual language proficiency assessments, it is important that educators assess and monitor the language progress of their students over the course of a school year. Resources provided are tools that educators may use to develop their own formative language assessments aligned to their programming, purpose, and context.

Jump to a Resource:

WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors (PLDs) for Expressive Communication:

Expressive PLD Grade K

Expressive PLD Grade 1

Expressive PLD Grades 2-3

Expressive PLD Grades 4-5

Expressive PLD Grades 6-8

Expressive PLD Grades 9-12

WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors (PLDs) for Interpretive Communication:

Interpretive PLD Grade K

Interpretive PLD Grade 1

Interpretive PLD Grades 2-3

Interpretive PLD Grades 4-5

Interpretive PLD Grades 6-8

Interpretive PLD Grades 9-12

Supplemental  Resources:

Unpacking Academic Language Chart

Focusing Formative Assessment on the Needs of ELLs

WIDA Resources:

WIDA Speaking Rubric for Kindergarten

Suggestion for Use: The WIDA Speaking Rubric for Kindergarten helps educators understand what kindergarten students' speaking sounds like at various levels of English language proficiency. Educators may use this rubric for three primary purposes:

Understanding kindergarten ACCESS for ELLs Speaking scores

Analyze student speaking

Plan ways to scaffold language learning

Citation: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. (2021). WIDA Speaking Rubric Kindergarten (PDF) (Publication). Wisconsin Center for Education Research which partnered with The Center for Applied Linguistics.

WIDA Speaking Rubric for Grades 1-12

Suggestion for Use: The WIDA Speaking Rubric for Grades 1-12 helps educators understand what students' speaking sounds like at various levels of English language proficiency. Educators may use this rubric for three primary purposes:

Understand ACCESS for ELLs Speaking scores

Analyze student speaking samples

Plan ways to scaffold language learning

Citation: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. (2020). WIDA Speaking Rubric Grades 1-12 (PDF) 1-12 (Publication). Wisconsin Center for Education Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

WIDA Writing Rubric for Kindergarten

Suggestion for Use: The WIDA Writing Rubric for Kindergarten helps educators understand what students' writing looks like at various levels of English language proficiency. Educators may use this rubric for three primary purposes:

Understand ACCESS for ELLs Writing scores

Analyze student writing samples

Plan ways to scaffold language learning

Citation: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. (2020). WIDA Writing Rubric Kindergarten (PDF) (Publication). Wisconsin Center for Education Research which partnered with The Center for Applied Linguistics.

WIDA Writing Rubric for Grades 1-12

Suggestion for Use: The WIDA Writing Rubric for Grades 1-12 helps educators understand what students' writing looks like at various levels of English language proficiency. Educators may use this rubric for three primary purposes:

Understand ACCESS for ELLs Writing scores

Analyze student writing samples

Plan ways to scaffold language learning

Citation: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. (2020). WIDA Writing Rubric Grades 1-12 (PDF) (Publication). Wisconsin Center for Education Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Grade K WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors for the Expressive Communication Mode (Speaking, Writing, and Representing)

Suggestion for Use: Grade K WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors (PLDs) for the Expressive Communication Mode (Speaking, Writing, and Representing), found on page 59, support educators in identifying how English learners might develop language across levels of language proficiency in moving toward meeting Language Expectations (unit and lesson goals). Although language development is not always linear, the PLDs illustrate how, when appropriate scaffolds are provided, students move through the language proficiency levels. PLDs may be used to:

Support teacher and student discussions around language performance

Set individual student language goals

Get ideas for linguistic supports at the next proficiency level

Help design and differentiate classroom instruction and assessment

Progress monitor language growth over time

Evaluate evidence from student work (portfolio of speaking and writing samples) as part of an eligibility process for special services

Should Not Be Used: The PLDs should not be used as the only example of student abilities, to limit access to grade level materials or participation in rigorous learning, or as the sole evidence in high stakes decision making, such as identification for special education services. For more information, see page 34.

Citation: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. (2020). WIDA English Language Development Standards Framework, 2020 Edition, Kindergarten - Grade 12 (PDF) (Publication). Wisconsin Center for Education Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

Grade K WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors for the Interpretive Communication Mode (Listening, Reading, and Viewing)

Suggestion for Use: Grade K WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors (PLDs) for the Interpretive Mode (Listening, Reading, and Viewing), found on page 58, support educators in identifying how English learners might develop language across levels of language proficiency in moving toward meeting Language Expectations (unit and lesson goals). Although language development is not always linear, the PLDs illustrate how, when appropriate scaffolds are provided, students move through the language proficiency levels. PLDs may be used to:

Support teacher and student discussions around language performance

Set individual student language goals

Get ideas for linguistic supports at the next proficiency level

Help design and differentiate classroom instruction and assessment

Progress monitor language growth over time

Evaluate evidence from student work (portfolio of speaking and writing samples) as part of an eligibility process for special services

Should Not Be Used: The PLDs should not be used as the only example of student abilities, to limit access to grade level materials or participation in rigorous learning, or as the sole evidence in high stakes decision making, such as identification for special education services. For more information, see page 34.

Citation: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. (2020). WIDA English Language Development Standards Framework, 2020 Edition, Kindergarten - Grade 12 (PDF) (Publication). Wisconsin Center for Education Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

Grade 1 WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors for the Expressive Communication Mode (Speaking, Writing, and Representing)

Suggestion for Use: Grade 1 WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors (PLDs) for the Expressive Communication Mode (Speaking, Writing, and Representing), found on page 81, support educators in identifying how English learners might develop language across levels of language proficiency in moving toward meeting Language Expectations (unit and lesson goals). Although language development is not always linear, the PLDs illustrate how, when appropriate scaffolds are provided, students move through the language proficiency levels. PLDs may be used to:

Support teacher and student discussions around language performance

Set individual student language goals

Get ideas for linguistic supports at the next proficiency level

Help design and differentiate classroom instruction and assessment

Progress monitor language growth over time

Evaluate evidence from student work (portfolio of speaking and writing samples) as part of an eligibility process for special services

Evaluate evidence from student work (portfolio of speaking and writing samples) as part of an eligibility process for special services

Should Not Be Used: The PLDs should not be used as the only example of student abilities, to limit access to grade level materials or participation in rigorous learning, or as the sole evidence in high stakes decision making, such as identification for special education services. For more information, see page 34.

Citation: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. (2020). WIDA English Language Development Standards Framework, 2020 Edition, Kindergarten - Grade 12 (PDF) (Publication). Wisconsin Center for Education Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

Grade 1 WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors for the Interpretive Communication Mode (Listening, Reading, and Viewing)

Suggestion for Use: Grade 1 WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors (PLDs) for the Interpretive Communication Mode (Listening, Reading, and Viewing), found on page 80, support educators in identifying how English learners might develop language across levels of language proficiency in moving toward meeting Language Expectations (unit and lesson goals). Although language development is not always linear, the PLDs illustrate how, when appropriate scaffolds are provided, students move through the language proficiency levels. PLDs may be used to:

Support teacher and student discussions around language performance

Set individual student language goals

Get ideas for linguistic supports at the next proficiency level

Help design and differentiate classroom instruction and assessment

Progress monitor language growth over time

Evaluate evidence from student work (portfolio of speaking and writing samples) as part of an eligibility process for special services

Should Not Be Used: The PLDs should not be used as the only example of student abilities, to limit access to grade level materials or participation in rigorous learning, or as the sole evidence in high stakes decision making, such as identification for special education services. For more information, see page 34.

Citation: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. (2020). WIDA English Language Development Standards Framework, 2020 Edition, Kindergarten - Grade 12 (PDF)

Grades 2-3 WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors for the Expressive Communication Mode (Speaking, Writing, and Representing)

Suggestion for Use: Grades 2-3 WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors (PLDs) for the Expressive Communication Mode (Speaking, Writing, and Representing), found on page 103, support educators in identifying how English learners might develop language across levels of language proficiency in moving toward meeting Language Expectations (unit and lesson goals). Although language development is not always linear, the PLDs illustrate how, when appropriate scaffolds are provided, students move through the language proficiency levels. PLDs may be used to:

Support teacher and student discussions around language performance

Set individual student language goals

Get ideas for linguistic supports at the next proficiency level

Help design and differentiate classroom instruction and assessment

Progress monitor language growth over time

Evaluate evidence from student work (portfolio of speaking and writing samples) as part of an eligibility process for special services

Should Not Be Used: The PLDs should not be used as the only example of student abilities, to limit access to grade level materials or participation in rigorous learning, or as the sole evidence in high stakes decision making, such as identification for special education services. For more information, see page 34.

Citation: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. (2020). WIDA English Language Development Standards Framework, 2020 Edition, Kindergarten - Grade 12 (PDF) (Publication). Wisconsin Center for Education Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

Grades 2-3 WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors for the Interpretive Communication Mode (Listening, Reading, and Viewing)

Suggestion for Use: Grades 2-3 WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors (PLDs) for the Interpretive Communication Mode (Listening, Reading, and Viewing), found on page 102, support educators in identifying how English learners might develop language across levels of language proficiency in moving toward meeting Language Expectations (unit and lesson goals). Although language development is not always linear, the PLDs illustrate how, when appropriate scaffolds are provided, students move through the language proficiency levels. PLDs may be used to:

Support teacher and student discussions around language performance

Set individual student language goals

Get ideas for linguistic supports at the next proficiency level

Help design and differentiate classroom instruction and assessment

Progress monitor language growth over time

Evaluate evidence from student work (portfolio of speaking and writing samples) as part of an eligibility process for special services

Should Not Be Used: The PLDs should not be used as the only example of student abilities, to limit access to grade level materials or participation in rigorous learning, or as the sole evidence in high stakes decision making, such as identification for special education services. For more information, see page 34.

Citation: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. (2020). WIDA English Language Development Standards Framework, 2020 Edition, Kindergarten - Grade 12 (PDF) (Publication). Wisconsin Center for Education Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

Grades 4-5 WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors for the Expressive Communication Mode (Speaking, Writing, and Representing)

Suggestion for Use: Grades 4-5 WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors (PLDs) for the Expressive Communication Mode (Speaking, Writing, and Representing), found on pages 137-138, support educators in identifying how English learners might develop language across levels of language proficiency in moving toward meeting Language Expectations (unit and lesson goals). Although language development is not always linear, the PLDs illustrate how, when appropriate scaffolds are provided, students move through the language proficiency levels. PLDs may be used to:

Support teacher and student discussions around language performance

Set individual student language goals

Get ideas for linguistic supports at the next proficiency level

Help design and differentiate classroom instruction and assessment

Progress monitor language growth over time

Evaluate evidence from student work (portfolio of speaking and writing samples) as part of an eligibility process for special services

Should Not Be Used: The PLDs should not be used as the only example of student abilities, to limit access to grade level materials or participation in rigorous learning, or as the sole evidence in high stakes decision making, such as identification for special education services. For more information, see page 34.

Citation: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. (2020). WIDA English Language Development Standards Framework, 2020 Edition, Kindergarten - Grade 12 (PDF) (Publication). Wisconsin Center for Education Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

Grades 4-5 WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors for the Interpretive Communication Mode (Listening, Reading, and Viewing)

Suggestion for Use: Grades 4-5 WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors (PLDs) for the Interpretive Communication Mode (Listening, Reading, and Viewing), found on page 136, support educators in identifying how English learners might develop language across levels of language proficiency in moving toward meeting Language Expectations (unit and lesson goals). Although language development is not always linear, the PLDs illustrate how, when appropriate scaffolds are provided, students move through the language proficiency levels. PLDs may be used to:

Support teacher and student discussions around language performance

Set individual student language goals

Get ideas for linguistic supports at the next proficiency level

Help design and differentiate classroom instruction and assessment

Progress monitor language growth over time

Evaluate evidence from student work (portfolio of speaking and writing samples) as part of an eligibility process for special services

Should Not Be Used: The PLDs should not be used as the only example of student abilities, to limit access to grade level materials or participation in rigorous learning, or as the sole evidence in high stakes decision making, such as identification for special education services. For more information, see page 34.

Citation: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. (2020). WIDA English Language Development Standards Framework, 2020 Edition, Kindergarten - Grade 12 (PDF) (Publication). Wisconsin Center for Education Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

Grades 6-8 WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors for the Expressive Communication Mode (Speaking, Writing, and Representing

Suggestion for Use: Grades 6-8 WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors (PLDs) for the Expressive Communication Mode (Speaking, Writing, and Representing), found on pages 174-175, support educators in identifying how English learners might develop language across levels of language proficiency in moving toward meeting Language Expectations (unit and lesson goals). Although language development is not always linear, the PLDs illustrate how, when appropriate scaffolds are provided, students move through the language proficiency levels. PLDs may be used to:

Support teacher and student discussions around language performance

Set individual student language goals

Get ideas for linguistic supports at the next proficiency level

Help design and differentiate classroom instruction and assessment

Progress monitor language growth over time

Evaluate evidence from student work (portfolio of speaking and writing samples) as part of an eligibility process for special services

Should Not Be Used: The PLDs should not be used as the only example of student abilities, to limit access to grade level materials or participation in rigorous learning, or as the sole evidence in high stakes decision making, such as identification for special education services. For more information, see page 34.

Citation: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. (2020). WIDA English Language Development Standards Framework, 2020 Edition, Kindergarten - Grade 12 (PDF) (Publication). Wisconsin Center for Education Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

Grades 6-8 WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors for the Interpretive Communication Mode (Listening, Reading, and Viewing)

Suggestion for Use: Grades 6-8 WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors (PLDs) for the Interpretive Communication Mode (Listening, Reading, and Viewing), found on pages 172-173, support educators in identifying how English learners might develop language across levels of language proficiency in moving toward meeting Language Expectations (unit and lesson goals). Although language development is not always linear, the PLDs illustrate how, when appropriate scaffolds are provided, students move through the language proficiency levels. PLDs may be used to:

Support teacher and student discussions around language performance

Set individual student language goals

Get ideas for linguistic supports at the next proficiency level

Help design and differentiate classroom instruction and assessment

Progress monitor language growth over time

Evaluate evidence from student work (portfolio of speaking and writing samples) as part of an eligibility process for special services

Should Not Be Used: The PLDs should not be used as the only example of student abilities, to limit access to grade level materials or participation in rigorous learning, or as the sole evidence in high stakes decision making, such as identification for special education services. For more information, see page 34.

Citation: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. (2020). WIDA English Language Development Standards Framework, 2020 Edition, Kindergarten - Grade 12 (PDF) (Publication). Wisconsin Center for Education Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

Grades 9-12 WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors for the Expressive Communication Mode (Speaking, Writing, and Representing)

Suggestion for Use: Grades 9-12 WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors (PLDs) for the Expressive Communication Mode (Speaking, Writing, and Representing), found on pages 212-213, support educators in identifying how English learners might develop language across levels of language proficiency in moving toward meeting Language Expectations (unit and lesson goals). Although language development is not always linear, the PLDs illustrate how, when appropriate scaffolds are provided, students move through the language proficiency levels. PLDs may be used to:

Support teacher and student discussions around language performance

Set individual student language goals

Get ideas for linguistic supports at the next proficiency level

Help design and differentiate classroom instruction and assessment

Progress monitor language growth over time

Evaluate evidence from student work (portfolio of speaking and writing samples) as part of an eligibility process for special services

Should Not Be Used: The PLDs should not be used as the only example of student abilities, to limit access to grade level materials or participation in rigorous learning, or as the sole evidence in high stakes decision making, such as identification for special education services. For more information, see page 34.

Citation: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. (2020). WIDA English Language Development Standards Framework, 2020 Edition, Kindergarten - Grade 12 (PDF) (Publication). Wisconsin Center for Education Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

Grades 9-12 WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors for the Interpretive Communication Mode (Listening, Reading, and Viewing)

Suggestion for Use: Grades 9-12 WIDA Proficiency Level Descriptors (PLDs) for the Interpretive Communication Mode (Listening, Reading, and Viewing), found on pages 210-211, support educators in identifying how English learners might develop language across levels of language proficiency in moving toward meeting Language Expectations (unit and lesson goals). Although language development is not always linear, the PLDs illustrate how, when appropriate scaffolds are provided, students move through the language proficiency levels. PLDs may be used to:

Support teacher and student discussions around language performance

Set individual student language goals

Get ideas for linguistic supports at the next proficiency level

Help design and differentiate classroom instruction and assessment

Progress monitor language growth over time

Evaluate evidence from student work (portfolio of speaking and writing samples) as part of an eligibility process for special services

Should Not Be Used: The PLDs should not be used as the only example of student abilities, to limit access to grade level materials or participation in rigorous learning, or as the sole evidence in high stakes decision making, such as identification for special education services. For more information, see page 34.

Citation: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. (2020). WIDA English Language Development Standards Framework, 2020 Edition, Kindergarten - Grade 12 (PDF) (Publication). Wisconsin Center for Education Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

Supplemental Resources:

Unpacking Academic Language Chart

Suggestion for Use: This graphic organizer, taken from page 106, may be used as a tool to guide educators through determining the language demands of their content instruction. Once the language demands of a particular topic, text, assignment, etc. are defined, educators can use this tool to create instructional goals and to assess whether or not students are meeting the intended language goals.

Citation: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2016) Next Generation ESL Project: Curriculum Resource Guide (PDF) (Publication). Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Focusing Formative Assessment on the Needs of English Language Learners

Suggestion for Use: This article examines how formative assessment can enhance the teaching and learning of English learners. It highlights the opportunities and challenges inherent in integrating formative assessment into instruction for English learners. (Adapted from Alvarez, Ananda, Walqui, Sato, & Rabinowitz, 2014)

Citation: Alvarez, L., Ananda, S., Walqui, A., Sato, E., & Rabinowitz, S. (2014). Focusing formative assessment on the needs of English language learners (PDF) . San Francisco: WestEd.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This section contains resources to guide educators in creating and implementing formative language assessments. In addition to annual language proficiency assessments, it is important that educators assess and monitor the language progress of their students over the course of a school year.

# data[].attributes.headline
Formative Assessment: Using Formative Assessment to Help MLs

# data[].attributes.subject
Formative Assessment: Using Formative Assessment to Help MLs

# data[].attributes.headline
Instruction: Mathematics English learners’ achievement in the content areas and their development of English

# data[].attributes.subject
Instruction: Mathematics English learners’ achievement in the content areas and their development of English

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While at the TESOL convention last week, I learned of a well-attended presentation titled "Taking on Mathematics: How the CCSS can work for ELLs." The interactive, manipulative-based workshop focused on engaging ELLs in mathematics while highlighting key areas of the Common Core standards. The presenters were Anita Bright from Portland State University as well as Angela Vargas and Dulce Nash, two Dual Language Elementary Teachers who work with Dr. Bright.

The presenters explored the language of mathematics and practiced making mathematics content visible and concrete. When thinking about how popular this session was, I decided to turn my attention to focus on teaching the CCSS for Mathematics to ELLs.

In this post, I'll describe the shifts of the CCSS for Mathematics, share Dr. Bright's analysis of what the new standards will mean for ELLs, provide Dr. Judit Moschkovich's recommendations for connecting mathematical content to language, and share some resources on the CCSS for Mathematics. This post will be the first part of two blogs on teaching the CCSS for Mathematics to ELLs. Next week I'll highlight two new books that focus on the academic language of mathematics for ELLs.
Shifts of the CCSS for Mathematics
While I could probably describe the three shifts of the English Language Arts CCSS in my sleep, I am admittedly not as well-versed in the shifts of the Mathematics CCSS. According to Achieve the Core, the three the shifts of the CCSS for Mathematics are:
1. Focus strongly where the Standards focus
Implication: The mathematics standards place more emphasis on depth instead of breadth, focusing deeply on the major work of each grade. In this way, students can gain strong foundations, conceptual understanding, procedural skill and fluency and be able to apply the math they know to solve problems in the math classroom and beyond.

The priorities in support of conceptual understanding and fluency in Grades K-8 are:

K-2: Addition and subtraction concepts, skills, and problem solving

3-5: Multiplication and division of whole numbers and fractions - concepts, skills, and problem solving

6: Ratios and proportional relationships; early expressions and equations

7: Ratios and proportional relationships; arithmetic of rational numbers

8: Linear algebra
2. Coherence: Think across grades, and link to major topics within grades 3. Rigor: In major topics pursue conceptual understanding, procedural skill and fluency, and application with equal intensity. What the CCSS for Mathematics Mean for ELLs
In high school, the content of the standards is organized by domains such as Algebra and Geometry that progress over grades.

Implication: The standards are designed so that teachers connect learning across grades and students will build new understanding onto mathematical foundations they build over the years. Additional or supporting topics actually serve to strengthen the grade level focus.
Recommendations for Connecting Mathematical Content to Language
Implication: The standards call for conceptual understanding of key concepts such as place value and ratios. To that end, teachers must support students' ability to access these concepts from multiple perspectives with the end goal being that students see math as more than a set of discrete procedures. In addition, the standards require speed and accuracy when performing calculations. Finally, students will need to use math flexibly for applications. Teachers will need to provide opportunities for students to apply math in context. In particular, teachers who work with students in content areas outside of math (such as science) must ensure that students use math to access their content.

1. Focus on students' mathematical reasoning, not accuracy in using language.

2. Shift to a focus on mathematical discourse practices, move away from simplified views of language.

3. Recognize and support students to engage with the complexity of language in math classrooms.

4. Treat everyday language and experiences as resources, not as obstacles.

5. Uncover the mathematics in what students say and do.

Resources on Teaching Math to ELLs
Dr. Bright eloquently describes how the new standards will impact ELLs below. She writes:

Common Core FlipBooks: The Kansas Association of Teachers of Mathematics has Common Core "FlipBooks" that contain a compilation of research, "unpacked" standards from many states, instructional strategies and examples for each standard at each grade level. They are designed to show connections to the Standards of Mathematical Practices for the content standards and to share detailed information at each level.

Sentence frames: Mathematics content sentence frames for grades K-5 can be found here.

Student rubric: This rubric by Exemplars is written in student-friendly language for students to self-assess or peer-evaluate. Each of the 5 categories on this rubric generally maps onto the CCSS Standards for Mathematical Practice.

Tips for ELL Math Instruction: These articles from Colorín Colorado highlight math strategies for ELLs, as well as additional tips for incorporating academic language and vocabulary instruction into the classroom.

TODOS: Mathematics for ALL: The mission of TODOS is to advocate for an equitable and high quality mathematics education for all, in particular Hispanic/Latino students. The professional association offers multiple sources of information to its members such as publications, conferences, and networking opportunities.

TESOL International Association: Dr. Anita Bright has written an article on the Mathematics CCSS in TESOL Connections that can be found here. She will offer an academy titled Implications and Applications of the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics for Effectively Teaching K-12 English Learners in Baltimore, MD in June 2013.

In the past, much of our work as mathematics educators of English learners has focused on supporting our students in decoding the information presented in mathematical contexts-like word problems. The need for this is not going away, but rather, is being augmented by the new verbs included in the CCSS. With the advent of the CCSS and the central positioning of the Standards for Mathematical Practice, asking students to learn how to select the right answer is no longer enough. The verbs in the CCSS push us to prepare students to "make sense of"; to reason; to construct; to model. These are no longer icing-on-the-cake or special skills reserved for the gifted or most fleet; rather, these are obligatory actions we need to prepare all of our students to undertake, including those learning English. At root, the primary shift with the CCSS in mathematics is the new and unflinching emphasis on answering the question, "Why?"

So what's new and different about the CCSS in mathematics is that in addition to this same urgency in learning to decode the often convoluted language of mathematics, our students are now increasingly being asked to encode in very specific ways - that is, to explain, justify and defend their thinking using mathematically accurate language. Emphases are being gradually shifted away from multiple-choice assessments to evaluate student learning, and are moving instead to performance-based assessments that require students to use illustrations, numbers and words to articulate their thinking. Equipping our students to confidently engage in this will require us to think creatively about how best to scaffold and support their learning. We'll need to provide multiple opportunities for them to examine strong models, make multiple attempts, and engage in self-evaluation.

Although we may flinch at the added layers of complexity this adds to our work as mathematics educators of English learners, it's important that we realize that the CCSS reflect the shifts in our world at large, and emphasize the growing need to communicate with clarity and specificity. Supporting our students in meeting these standards will, at root, serve them very, very well as they move beyond our K-12 settings and into their lives beyond school. It's not that our English learners "have to" meet these new standards; rather, they GET to meet them.

In keeping with the changes Dr. Bright described, Dr. Judit Moschkovich, Professor of Mathematics Education in the Education Department at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and contributor to Stanford University's Understanding Language project, outlines five recommendations for teachers to connect mathematical content to language:

Several resources have been created to help teachers effectively teach the CCSS for Mathematics, and many focus on special considerations for teaching the standards to ELLs. I will highlight some selected resources below.

What has your experience been like with the CCSS for Mathematics standards (or your own state's mathematics standards) so far? Are you seeing them implemented with ELLs in your district yet? What do you think would help your math colleagues in their work with ELLs? We'd love to hear from you!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Common Core Math for English Language Learners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this post, I'll describe the shifts of the CCSS for Mathematics, share Dr. Anita Bright's analysis of what the new standards will mean for ELLs, provide Dr. Judit Moschkovich's recommendations for connecting mathematical content to language, and share some resources on the CCSS for Mathematics.

# data[].attributes.headline
Co-teaching Content and English Language Development 

# data[].attributes.subject
Co-teaching Content and English Language Development 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Whether you are a school or district administrator, a coach or fellow educator, you must have encountered a colleague who felt lost when assigned to teach English learners, overwhelmed by the challenge of addressing these students' needs within the context of the general education classroom. English learners are an ever-growing subgroup of the US student population. There is growing consensus that students who need to develop English language proficiency should no longer be perceived as the sole responsibility of specially trained and certified faculty, often referred to as English as a second language (ESL), English language development (ELD), English learner (EL), or more recently multilingual learner (ML) specialists. Researchers and advocates agree that English learners belong to the entire school community and that all educators are charged with their academic, linguistic, and social-emotional development (Kibler et al., 2015).

Teacher collaboration is an important dimension of teacher effectiveness, as emphasized by Dion Burns and Linda Darling-Hammond (2014) when they claimed that "more than any other policy area, actions that support collaborative learning among teachers appear to hold promise for improving the quality of teaching" (p. v). We recognize that there are many ways to provide professional learning opportunities to all K-12 teachers who regularly encounter ELs in their classrooms and agree that teacher collaboration must be a top choice.

In this article, we shift our focus to present an emerging trend: the much-desired opportunity for two-way teacher capacity building and collaborative coaching through co-teaching in classes that integrate both content and language learning for the sake of ELs (or for all students). While collaborating teachers often share a range of common skills, through the sustained collaboration necessary in preparation for and during the intentional implementation of co-taught classes, the two professionals combine their expertise; thus, co-teaching becomes a job-embedded, ongoing professional learning opportunity in the form of collaborative coaching (see Table 1 for a summary of the partnering teachers' distinct knowledge and skills). When teachers work together in an ongoing fashion, they are afforded a platform for sharing their understanding of the curriculum and the students they jointly teach, while at the same time supporting each other in growing new pedagogical, cross-cultural, and other competencies.

What Is Co-Teaching for ELs?

We define co-teaching for ELs as a collaborative delivery of instruction that involves two teachers (one elementary grade-level or secondary content teacher and one ELD/ESL specialist) who, through intentional planning, integrate content, language, and literacy development goals; who jointly plan learning experiences that are rigorous but carefully scaffolded for all learners in their class; and who engage in collaborative formative and summative assessments. The ultimate goal is student integration (rather than segregation) and, through a comprehensive system of scaffolds, to provide access to grade-appropriate curriculum and instruction for ELs on all language proficiency levels to ensure their success.

For co-teaching to work, teachers must engage in a complete instructional cycle of collaboration, which consists of four interrelated phases: collaborative planning, instruction, assessment, and reflection (a similar cycle has been very well documented by special education colleagues and researchers alike). Co-planning is a nonnegotiable; if co-teaching teams do not engage in authentic and sustained planning together, at best they will just be sharing the physical space with the students segregated as "your kids" and "my kids." In that case, the class may come to have one real teacher and one helper, resulting in limited impact both on student and teacher professional learning. Co-teachers working together must also regularly co-assess their students' progress and reflect on all their students' content, language, and literacy development as well as the effectiveness of the collaborative partnership.

Coaching with a Language Focus

Coaching with a specific focus on second language acquisition and language or literacy development for ELs has received limited attention thus far. Ari Sherries (2010) offers an overview of coaching teachers within "second language, foreign language, and lingua franca settings" (p. 1), reminding us that many K-12 educators may lack the sufficient background knowledge and skills to address the diverse academic, linguistic, cultural, and social-emotional needs of English learners. As such, he suggests that most K-12 classroom and content-area teachers benefit from coaching and mentoring originating either from peers or designated coaches and mentors. When such professional learning opportunities provide regular possibilities for coaches or mentors to engage in the coaching cycle, teacher learning increases and impact on student learning is also enhanced. If coaching is to target enhanced instruction for ELs or academic language learners (ALLs), participating teachers typically focus on language and literacy learning in addition to content instruction.

Traditional Coaching Cycle
According to one school of thought on coaching, teachers engage with their coaches in a coaching cycle that may consist of the following steps:

The teacher shares her lesson plan with her coach.

The coach offers pre-observation feedback by email or in person.

The coach observes the lesson.

The teacher receives feedback on the lesson.

Due to the frequently cited limitations of coaching staff, each teacher may only participate in this cycle periodically, once a week or even as rarely as once every six weeks. Therefore, within the traditional framework, coaches face many challenges to producing meaningful change. They not only must tap in to their instructional and content expertise, but they also need to foster respect, confidence, and trust, using appropriate communication skills to negotiate what is sometimes a fine line between what teachers and students need, what administrators want, and what policy often mandates, within a limited frame of time. Other professional learning opportunities often augment coaching, such as workshops, courses, professional learning community meetings, collegial circles, book studies, or even intervisitations. But as Ben Jensen and his colleagues (2016) also remind us, teachers learn "not simply from reading and observing others work, but from combining these passive activities with active collaboration and learning-by-doing" (p. 8).

Peer Coaching Combined with Co-Teaching

The traditional coaching cycle has received a major overhaul within the context of co-taught, integrated K-12 classes (both at the elementary level and in core secondary courses), where English language development and literacy learning are systematically intertwined with core content learning. A unique approach that we have been supporting in the past few years acknowledges that co-teaching for ELs is much more than co-delivering instruction, offering targeted intervention, reducing the teacher-student ratio, or even placing a language and literacy expert in the classroom to support a certain group of kids. Instead, when implemented with fidelity, it is a continual reciprocal coaching opportunity that inherently lends itself to teachers engaging in collaborative (peer) coaching via structured, recurring professional interactions (co-planning, co-assessing, and reflection).

In our observations, high-functioning co-teacher teams examine the curriculum through two lenses and design unit plans and daily lesson plans by purposefully addressing the following: what is academically or cognitively demanding in the grade-appropriate content to be presented, and what is linguistically demanding for all students at all language proficiency levels. At the same time, co-teachers also maximize the naturally presented learning opportunity: ELD/ESL specialists learn about the grade-level content standards and the age-appropriate knowledge and skills all students need to master, whereas the classroom teachers learn to better respond to ELs' and ALLs' linguistic and literacy development needs.

Three Paths to Collaborative Coaching

Collaboration and co-teaching for the sake of ELs vary greatly from state to state, district to district, and even classroom to classroom within the same school. We have found three overarching paths that are emerging as practices in support of combining co-teaching as a delivery model for ELD/ESL services and for reducing student segregation with ongoing professional learning that is relevant, interactive, and sustained over time.

The first path is the most commonly emerging practice, according to which co-teaching becomes an avenue for two-way learning in school districts across the nation. For example, in Haymarket, Virginia, Sara Conant and her colleagues are combining co-teaching with coaching as follows:

At Goshen Post Elementary, we have moved to co-teaching models of instruction to maximize the efforts of our EL teachers. We are utilizing peer coaching in our collaborative planning times to grow our practice schoolwide. We are also having quarterly meetings with the co-teaching teams and will set aside time to learn from each other about what is going well and areas where we feel we need support. For peer coaching to be effective, relationships must be established so both parties feel a sense of trust and respect within the partnership. Peer coaching has the power to be an effective form of professional development in that one's peer knows the strengths and struggles within the classroom. These partnerships are non-evaluative so partners may be more open to giving and receiving feedback.

The second path recognizes the complex roles and responsibilities ELD/ESL teachers hold, as they frequently serve as in-house experts on second language acquisition, language and literacy development, culturally responsive and sustaining pedagogy, and so on. With such a comprehensive knowledge base and skill set, some districts have started to redefine the ELD/ESL teachers' primary function as language coaches or language development coaches. As such, these educators support student learning as well as offer peer support to their colleagues on an ongoing basis. Jackie Griffin, language development coach in Country Meadows Elementary, Kildeer School District 96, Illinois, describes herself and her experiences as follows:

A language development coach (LDC) shares responsibility with the classroom teacher for helping students achieve high levels of growth in both language and academics. The LDC and the classroom teacher work together to strategically plan for and teach students based on their needs. When planning with the classroom teacher, the LDC moves in and out of three fluid roles: consultant, collaborator, or coach. With the consultant role, the LDC may hold the knowledge and the classroom teacher is the learner, or vice versa. In the collaborator role, both partners hold the knowledge and learn from each other, and in the coaching role, the LDC asks thought-provoking questions to assist the teacher in making decisions that will impact student learning and long-term capacity building.

After joint planning, LDCs and classroom teachers co-teach and then reflect on how their instruction impacted student learning. The LDC also has the opportunity to demonstrate strategies that are best for all students so they are used even when the LDC is not in the room. The LDC, in turn, learns content and strategies from the classroom teacher and can bring that knowledge to others in the building.
A third path signifies professional partnership building across grade levels, classrooms, and school buildings. For example, three elementary teachers-Allyson Caudill (ESL), Ashley Blackley (G1), and John Cox (G2)-in Wake County Public Schools, Raleigh, North Carolina, engage in a unique three-way partnership in which Allyson is co-teaching with both Ashley and John. They have formed the Ready, Set, Co-Teach team (@readysetcoteach on Twitter, and www.readysetcoteach.com). The team recently discussed their experiences with integrated professional learning through co-teaching and sustained collaboration (Caudill et al., 2018) and gave several examples of how they learn from each other. They also open their classrooms, which serve as lab classes, for other co-teaching teams to come for intervisitations. They summarize:

When teachers face obstacles or need more information or advice on how to more effectively do their job, they first turn to their colleagues. We look at schools as communities of diverse experts. The school counselor is an expert on mediation, classroom teachers are experts in their content areas, ESL teachers are language specialists, and technology teachers are computer experts. Co-teaching provides a unique opportunity for two experts to come together, share their expertise, and learn from and support one another.

By being in the same classroom, observing and teaching together, co-teachers inadvertently serve as each other's coaches. There have been plenty of times that John has coached us through using new technology, Ashley has modeled reading best practices for us, and Allyson has opened our eyes to new ways of scaffolding for language learners. One thing we have found is the learning never stops! We are always challenging each other and pushing each other out of our comfort zones. The best part is we get to do it together and we are all better for it.

How Do We Know It Works?

Joellen Killion (2018) suggests "two logical beginning points are assessing the overall quality of professional learning and evaluating the impact of existing programs of professional learning" (p. 205). Collaborative coaching combined with co-teaching has been growing, and successful experiences have been reported across the nation. Brigitte Pittarelli, ESOL teacher in Binghamton City Schools, New York, captured it best when she described both the process and the outcome of her experiences:

While planning with my co-teacher, I guide her on what words to look at within the context of the material, how to shelter and scaffold the learning, and how to structure the lessons from beginning, middle, and end. During our instructional time in front of all students, I offer tidbits of reasons why each support strategy is essential and explain further how it supports a particular EL in the group. I guide her learning by helping her make connections about the essential language objective. I briefly offer reasoning during the co-teaching while students are engaged in turn-and-talk or cooperative pairing tasks, or even when students are thinking about a question we posed and are given the proper wait time. Co-teaching has transformed both of our teaching. It has given me a lens into the general education classroom, and my co-teacher better understands ELD instruction. Our partnership is a true marriage. Our students all excel within this scenario! I am very excited because the general education teachers are starting to see the value of the sheltering techniques (scaffolds and strategies), lesson designs, and alignment of English language development with English language arts standards and curriculum. They are realizing that the techniques we use for ELD instruction and SIOP structure are good for ALL children. It has been an eye-opening experience not only for the general education teacher but for me as well. I never realized that ALL students in essence are academic language learners.

In our field-based research, we have noted that teacher collaboration may be recognized as a vehicle for ongoing, site-based professional development through mentoring (for novice teachers), peer coaching (for midcareer teachers), and establishing teacher leadership roles (for more experienced teachers). Here, we hope to have made a compelling case that co-teaching may also serve as a pathway to collaborative coaching that recognizes each participating teacher's expertise and allows for day-to-day professional learning.

References
Burns, D., and Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Teaching around the World: What Can TALIS Tell Us? Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/teaching-around-world-what-can-talis-tell-us_3.pdf
Caudill, A., Blackley, A., and Cox, J. (2018). "Co-teaching as Integrated Professional Development." Ready, Set, Co-Teach. www.readysetcoteach.com/co-teaching-as-integrated-professional-development
Honigsfeld, A., and Dove, M. G. (2019). Collaborating for English Learners: A Foundational Guide to Integrated Practices. Corwin Press.
Jensen, B., Sonnemann, J., Hull-Roberts, K., and Hunter, A. (2016). Beyond PD: Teacher Professional Learning in High-Performing Systems. National Center on Education and the Economy.
Kibler, A. K., Walqui, A., and Bunch, G. C. (2015). "Transformational Opportunities: Language and literacy instruction for English language learners in the Common Core era in the United States." TESOL Journal, 6, 9-35.
Killion, J. (2018). Assessing Impact: Evaluating Professional Learning (3rd ed.). Corwin Press.
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Debrey, C., Snyder, T., Wang, X., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Gebrekristos, S., Zhang, J., Rathbun, A., Barmer, A., Bullock Mann, F., and Hinz, S. (2017). The Condition of Education 2017. National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education.
Sherris, A. (2010). "Coaching Language Teachers." CAL Digest. www.cal.org/siop/pdfs/digests/coaching-language-teachers.pdf

Andrea Honigsfeld, EdD, is professor of TESOL at Molloy University, Rockville Centre, New York, and an author-consultant with over 25 books published on topics primarily related to collaboration and co-teaching, language and literacy development, and equity for multilingual learners.
Maria G. Dove, EdD, is a professor in the School of Education and Human Services at Molloy College. Dr. Dove has published several articles and book chapters on collaborative practices, differentiated instruction, instructional leadership, and the education of English language learners.
Their latest book is Co-planning: Five Essential Practices to Integrated Curriculum and Instruction (Corwin, 2022). Follow them on Twitter at @andreahonigsfel and @MariaGDove.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Co-Teaching for Capacity Building - Language Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whether you are a school or district administrator, a coach or fellow educator, you must have encountered a colleague who felt lost when assigned to teach English learners, overwhelmed by the challenge of addressing these students' needs within the context of the general education classroom.

# data[].attributes.headline
Planning: Protect time for general-education or content teachers to collaborate with ESL specialists

# data[].attributes.subject
Planning: Protect time for general-education or content teachers to collaborate with ESL specialists

# data[].attributes.headline
Professional Learning: Provide English learner-focused professional development to ALL teachers

# data[].attributes.subject
Professional Learning: Provide English learner-focused professional development to ALL teachers

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.colorincolorado.org/blog/common-core-and-ells-planning-professional-development-colleagues-part-1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
So you've been asked to provide professional development for your colleagues about Common Core State Standards for English Learners (ELs) at the faculty meeting - tomorrow.

What should you do?

I have been asked this question by a number of teachers that I've worked with recently. Some need to present a 30-minute session while others have been allotted a full day or more. Either way, this can be a daunting task if you are not used to working with adult learners, designing professional development, or speaking in front of large crowds. And even if you have experience presenting professional development about ELs, it can be overwhelming to think about how to tackle the Common Core. This blog post will provide you with key strategies and ideas on how to continue conversations about the implementation of Common Core and implications for educating ELs.

I have included a list of some possible topics for your session, as well as related discussion questions. You may also wish to survey your colleagues to find out what they would find helpful. In addition, I have added some tips for planning effective professional development sessions at the end of the blog.

Note: In Part 2 of this blog, I will provide some additional specific strategies and instructional activities for Common Core instruction and assessment, as well as more information about academic language.

Your Goals

No matter how much time you have, I suggest that you think of your first session as the introduction to an ongoing conversation about the Common Core with your colleagues. Your most important goal is to help your colleagues understand the importance of their rolein helping ELs meet the standards. Here are some topic ideas for starting that conversation:

Your own role in working with ELs

Your school/district EL population

EL program and instruction models used in your school/district

The importance of helping ELs meet the Common Core

You may not have time to include all of these topics, especially if you only have a brief amount of time, so after reading through them, think about which of these topics will benefit your colleagues most. You can also use these topics as the basis for planning multiple sessions, depending on the number of hours you have available.

This may not be what your colleagues are expecting; they are probably anxious for takeaway activities to "teach the Common Core," as well as classroom strategies and resources. These are certainly important, but in order for those tools to be useful, you need to create a foundation for collaboration, which may or may not exist in your current environment. Once that foundation is there, however, activities and strategies can be shared, modeled, and practiced in follow-up sessions, as well as online or in person in the future. Starting here may help to answer commonly asked questions and clarify misconceptions.

Getting started: Your role in your school or district

I recommend that you start by explaining who you are and what you do. Do you work as part of a team or independently? Depending upon your program model of language development and scheduling, you may not come into contact with teachers who work closely with the students you service. Sharing a little bit about your background and what led you to teaching English learners is important too and helps to establish you as a member of school community. This is especially important for itinerate teachers, those who are assigned to teach in more than one school.

In addition, this kind of conversation provides a starting point for beginning to work towards increased collaboration around the Common Core - a key to implementing the new standards successfully with ELLs.

Discussion Questions: Who are the EL or bilingual colleagues that you work with? What do you understand their role to be in the school?

The EL population

After explaining what you do, help your colleagues understand the ELL population with a brief overview of your district's EL data. This doesn't have to take a long time. Here are some points to include:

Number of students within the school, program, or district

Percentage of students per grade level including levels of proficiency

Most common languages spoken

Countries of origin, including the number of students born in the U.S.

Relevant data about EL achievement, graduation rates, etc.

If you have more time, the initial data shown can be more global, e.g., nationwide or statewide, and then more local, such as school-wide numbers and grade levels - whichever is most helpful for your colleagues in order to understand the breadth and depth of the EL program.

Discussion Questions: What surprised you in this data? How has the EL population changed while you have been in this district? What seem to be the strengths or weaknesses of how we are serving our kids?

EL program and instruction models

Why ELs are provided with instructional support the way they are is often a "hot topic" and question that other teachers ask. Talk about how your school or district is currently managing EL instruction and how that fits into broader legislation at the state and/or federal level regarding ELL instruction.

If changes occur within the program model depending upon grade levels, be sure to explain those changes to your colleagues. For example, the co-teaching model at the primary level may or may not be in place at the secondary level. For example, it is important for teachers to know what the transition from elementary to middle and from middle to high school will be like for their students in terms of language support. A preview of what the EL program looks like at the next level is an important piece but often overlooked. Share curriculum changes and mandates too. Are there high-stakes assessments that your ELs will be required to take and pass that your colleagues need to be aware of? For example, the fifth grade and eleventh grade writing test, how can we prepare students for these assessments? Other key areas about program models you should share include:

The intake and screening process involved in identifying English language learners

Your state's exit criteria

The number of students who reach English proficiency based upon that exit criteria

Some questions to consider include:

Discussion Questions: What federal and state laws are we required to comply with? What is Title III?What guidelines are being used to design and monitor our EL program?

What resources are available to help ELs meet the Common Core?

You may wish to provide some background on the CCSS and ELs for your colleagues. Here's what they need to know: A three-page document introducing guidelines for implementing the standards with ELs was published alongside the standards when they were released. (A similar document was written for student with disabilities.) However, the document does not provide any specific instructional guidance and the standards are not aligned to English language proficiency standards. That alignment is left to the states. For example, states that are members of the WIDA consortia will be able to use WIDA's amplified 2012 standards, which provide some examples that are aligned to the Common Core. It is important to find out how implementation with ELs is being included in your state-wide Common Core plan.

In the meantime, new lesson plans, exemplars, and guidelines that take ELs' needs in account are being created and shared by teachers and researchers across the country. You can learn more about the latest news from the field as well as more background information on our blog or from Colorín Colorado's Common Core resource section.

Discussion Questions: How has your state begun to implement Common Core State Standards? What do you know about the relationship of your state's English language proficiency standards and the Common Core?

Why ELs need to meet the Common Core

It is important to emphasize that ELs are expected to meet the same standards as their peers. Now that your colleagues have some additional background, this might be a good place to open the conversation for some discussion on what challenges ELs will face in meeting the standards, as well as the opportunities that the standards will provide ELs. Ask your colleagues to consider who has a role in helping ELs meet those standards. Keep in mind that this may require an adjustment in the thinking of those colleagues who see the ELs as only the responsibility of the EL teacher. This is also an important conversation for setting the stage for specific strategies and classroom ideas that will follow in the next session.

Discussion Questions: What opportunities and challenges do you think the Common Core will present ELs? Do you have any ideas on what role you might place in helping ELs meet the standards?

Closing the Session

Remember, your primary goal for the first session is to help your colleagues understand a shared responsibility for teaching ELs and to begin to think about ELs and the implications of CCSS. That is a lot of information in a short amount of time! You have prepared them for the next steps, though: continued discussion about the EL program, information about academic language, how to appropriately scaffold lessons, formative and summative assessments for ELs, and the use of approved accommodations.

As you wrap up your session, collect feedback from your colleagues by asking them to jot down on post-it notes and respond by sharing:

1. what they found most helpful

2. a question they still have

3. their ideas for future PD

Use that feedback to tailor make follow-up sessions. Assure them that more will follow. This will help to alleviate the sense of unfinished business. For example, in a recent session I facilitated, a number of participants inquired about the process to obtain the ESOL endorsement. These teachers were interested in engaging in learning about second language acquisition, linguistics, language assessments and cultural diversity. How exciting!

All challenges are opportunities for growth. Your colleagues will greatly appreciate your ability to serve as a valuable resource for them and the students you serve.

Notes on Professional Development

In a perfect world, PD would be ongoing and embedded into practice, not a one-stop shopping approach. It would include coaching, lots of follow-up and self-directed independent studies. Unfortunately this is not the case everywhere. With the right approach, however, including these components will eventually become part of the fabric of your school community.

In addition, continue to reach out your colleagues who have experience providing PD to adult learners. They can help you highlight salient points within a given timeframe. Be sure to share your PowerPoint presentations and any other materials you plan to use with them to review. Sometimes an outsider looking in can be your best and safest critique. Lastly, additional suggestions for PowerPoint presentations include:

Spelling out terms used in acronyms

Sharing basic information about English language proficiency standards and assessments (e.g., when / how these assessments are administered)

Including culturally diverse images

Reducing the amount of text on each slide

Providing links to websites and other online resources

Thanking everyone for their time and attention

For additional information about professional development for content teachers, see the following:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Common Core and ELLs: Planning Professional Development for Colleagues (Part 1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
So you've been asked to provide professional development for your colleagues about Common Core State Standards for English Learners (ELs) at the faculty meeting - tomorrow. What should you do? I have been asked this question by a number of teachers that I've worked with recently.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Drs. Carla España and Luz Yadira Herrera's explore the concept of translanguaging and more in their new book, En Comunidad. The book brings bilingual Latinx students' perspectives to the center of our classrooms, and offers classroom-ready lessons that amplify the varied stories and identities of Latinx children. Together, the authors explore the power of educators to create either liberating or dehumanizing spaces and experiences for bilingual Latinx students.

Translanguaging is also the way a teacher teaches?

One aspect of translanguaging ...[is] where our language practices are much more fluid than that of the strict separation of languages that is often demanded in schools. Yet that only addresses translanguaging as the linguistic practices of bilinguals. Translanguaging is also the way a teacher teaches. In other words, as a pedagogical approach, translanguaging describes the method of an interactive read-aloud that is read in one language while the conversations, prompts, notes, and responses are in more than one language.

When translanguaging is embedded throughout schooling, it is a means for social justice. It validates and humanizes bilingual students' learning processes (García and Leiva 2014). For example, making sure that texts are available in Spanish and English is one way we can do this in our reading workshop; another is creating spaces in our writing workshop and writing celebrations for students to create bilingual and multilingual texts. What message does it send to students when they are "allowed" to speak and read in Spanish during short conversations about texts in our classes, but when it comes to published writing or mentor texts that are read, these students are only "allowed" to use English? How do students and adults (families, administration, teachers, and other school staff) interpret literacy practices when only writing and texts in English are posted on bulletin boards and celebrated? Translanguaging disrupts this practice, decentering whiteness and monolingualism that continue to be the norm in school settings.

Translanguaging disrupts the belief that nation-states were constructed around "named" languages and instead focuses on the people who are enacting their various language practices (García 2016). Colonialism has "invented" or created these superficial boundaries around the way we language, calling them "languages," and as such, it is our role as educators of all students to acknowledge these boundaries to undo them. The lessons in this book provide examples on using translanguaging as a method of teaching, as communicative practice, and as a means for social justice so that all educators-bilingual, multilingual, or monolingual-can still disrupt monolingual norms in schools.

Yes, you can use translanguaging in your classroom even if you don't speak Spanish.
Throughout our schooling experiences and many teacher preparation programs, teachers are often considered the sole bearers of knowledge, transmitting content to students who are viewed as empty vessels. Paulo Freire (1970) called this the "banking model of education." Although this model likely is not taught explicitly, vestiges of it persist in classrooms that prioritize a set agenda over individual students' strengths and areas of growth. Although schools might not use the term empty vessel when describing students, we often hear "Those kids don't know," "Their families don't care," "English language learners need to develop academic language," "Those newcomers don't have vocabulary," and similar phrases that permeate faculty meetings, caregiver-teacher meetings, and instruction. Translanguaging disrupts this. Creating translanguaging spaces calls for teachers to consider students' ways of knowing and their use of their entire linguistic repertoire as valid contributions to the classroom learning community. We know from experience that there can be some discomfort in launching this work. Here are some ways to make this transition:

Have bilingual glossaries readily accessible in the classroom.

Use mobile applications and translation software that can dictate text.

Pair students strategically to create bilingual texts.

Use bilingual texts for read-alouds and independent reading and practice.

Welcome family and community members as language partners.

Collaborate with colleagues and friends who can help in your
own language learning journey.

Extend your learning through various online outlets, including
podcasts and classes, to gain a deeper insight on how your students communicate and learn.

The above has been adapted from En Comunidad To learn more, visit Heinemann.com.

Follow us on Instagram @heinemannpub to stay up to date on the latest books, your favorite authors, and upcoming events!

Carla España is an instructor at the Bank Street College Graduate School of Education. Carla's teaching journey began in a bilingual classroom in Harlem, New York, continued at Teachers College Reading and Writing Project partner schools, and at the bilingual teacher preparation program at Hunter College, City University of New York. Finder Carla on Twitter: @ProfesoraEspana

References:
Luz Yadira Herrera is an Assistant Professor at the Kremen School of Education and Human Development at California State University, Fresno. As a former teacher in NYC public schools and researcher at CUNY-NYSIEB, her teaching and research centers culturally and linguistically sustaining approaches to teaching emergent bilinguals, translanguaging pedagogy, and bilingual education policy. Find Luz on Twitter: @Dra_LuzYadira

García , Ofelia, and Camila Leiva. 2014. " Theorizing and Enacting Translanguaging for Social Justice." in Heteroglossia as Practice and Pedagogy, edited by Angela Creese ad Adrian Blackledge, 199-216. New York and London: Springer.

García. 2016. "Language." In The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Nationalism, edited by John Stone, Rutledge M. Dennis, Polly S. Rizova, Anthony D. Smith and Xiaoshuo Hou, 1-4. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781118663202.wberen459

Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Translanguaging is when a multilingual person's full linguistic repertoire is used and honored, instead of trying to keep narrowly focused on a single language.