One of our parents, who is learning English, is willing to come into their child's classroom to teach the students about the holidays that are celebrated in their country.

Many of my students are involved in activities outside of school: Dance, sports, traveling in the US/to other countries, and theater.

It's difficult for data to capture a true picture of a student unless it includes a deep dive, like these interviews, and building relationships with your students and families.

Tools that are helpful for ML learners include graphic organizers, visuals, charts, and plenty of time to practice in a safe, supported environment. I would also recommend ELLevation to teachers. It is a very powerful tool that organizes your learners into groups by their WIDA scores and makes recommendations on activities to meet their needs. I loved using that resource.

One of our primary goals this year is to be more intentional and purposeful in how we use assessment data. Specifically, we aim to strengthen the development of student PLPs by crafting more descriptive, measurable language goals that classroom teachers can clearly understand and apply within their daily instruction. We want these plans to serve as practical instructional tools rather than compliance documents like they may have been developed in our year 1.

After reviewing our building level data as a team in November, several patterns emerged. A significant number of our multilingual learners continue to score within the Entering and Emerging proficiency levels. In grades 3 and 4, students generally demonstrate stronger performance in the Listening domain compared to Reading and Writing. Additionally, Speaking continues to be an area of challenge for many students, particularly given the rigor required to reach a 6.0 composite score on the WIDA assessment.

Over the past three years, we have also refined our administration practices and scheduling procedures to ensure greater consistency and accuracy in testing conditions. With two full years of comparable data, we are beginning to feel more confident in identifying trends and targeting instructional adjustments.

Documenting this information reaffirmed the importance of tapping into students’ prior knowledge and fostering a strong sense of belonging, both of which directly impact engagement and access to content. For example, a student in one of my small groups suggested creating a new planet as part of our unit on organisms and adaptation, and we are now co-creating this performance task together. I believe that structured opportunities where voice and choice are intentionally honored increase motivation while maintaining academic rigor.

Most of my MLs demonstrate strength in listening and reading—based on both ACCESS scores and classroom observations—but need continued support in developing academic and content-specific vocabulary. In our co-taught classroom, I am intentionally incorporating more structured speaking tasks that require students to use target vocabulary and engage in critical thinking, with the goal of strengthening their speaking, writing, and overall academic confidence.

I did reach out to my other ML students families but they did not respond. I know they saw my messages on our communication app and read them but maybe do not wish to share?

The three students in my morning class all scored at a Level 1 and are considered NES. They do receive a little support-push in but very little time.

My student in the afternoon is very fluent in English and quite bright. I was unable to attain any score for testing but was told he didn't qualify by our cultural liaison.

I enjoyed communicating with the mother of my twins and learned a lot. I am embarrassed I didn't do something like this sooner, but I don't really do it with my other students either.

After building rapport, I conduct a CGI (Cognitively Guided Instruction) mathematical observation to assess how students approach problem-solving. During this time, I carefully observe the strategies they use, how they make sense of problems, and how they communicate their thinking. This helps me identify their conceptual understanding, flexibility with numbers, and areas for growth.

Once I gather this qualitative data, I connect it with school-wide data sources—including cooldowns, unit assessments, Access, and METY—to identify patterns and determine targeted, measurable goals. Using both observational and quantitative data ensures that my intervention plans are responsive and aligned to grade-level expectations.

When developing a plan, I intentionally incorporate best practices that support student growth and achievement. These include:

• Pre-teaching key vocabulary with visual supports

• Embedding structured language opportunities

• Providing sentence frames to support mathematical discourse

• Allowing processing time before sharing

• Using visual models and representations

• Creating peer partnerships that encourage back-and-forth discussion about problem-solving strategies

Intervention time is limited, I prioritize strategies that build both conceptual understanding and academic language simultaneously. My goal is not only to strengthen computational skills but also to empower students to confidently explain their mathematical thinking.

In addition to this qualitative data, I use additional measures (i.e. ACCESS, NWEA, curriculum based measures, progress reports, attendance, etc.) to dive deeper into the data on foundational skills, listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Reviewing ACCESS results along with any past Multi-Tiered Supports documentation, I begin to assess the student(s) using a literacy diagnostic tool (such as mClass, Orton Gillingham) to prioritize goal areas specific to literacy. 

In the collection and organization of multiple data sources, I used the “ACCESS for ELLs Proficiency Level Overview” and noted several of my students were stronger in the areas of listening and speaking (Developing) than in reading and writing (Entering/Emerging). 

Specific supports I have in place to address my students’ literacy skills include: sentence frames, conversation opportunities, language experiences, scaffolding by breaking information into smaller chunks, visuals, peer collaboration, and more.

One special note of interest for me was learning more about students L1 and spoken language(s) at home (there were several students who do not speak their L1)and what impact this may have on their development of language/literacy skills. If students struggle to express concepts in L1, the cognitive load is increased because there is a higher demand. Given this, what should teachers be aware of when students may not have concepts/ideas in L1? How can we have a dual language approach? Explicit instruction becomes essential. Modeling and think alouds are crucial as is building vocabulary intentionally. 

It wasn't until I observed their finished responses during the ACCESS Writing test that I realized just how much Google's "help" in predicting text and providing autocorrection is actually hampering our students' development in writing composition and ownership of the writing process.

In the "Notepad" word processsor that the DRC Insight platform provides, my students' writing was frail and unrecognizable, riddled with errors without the generous autocorrection of the Google ecosystem. As we know from being trained as evaluators of WIDA Screener in Writing, my students cannot demonstrate their best work at the word and phrase levels if they cannot produce complete sentences. The discourse level is too far for many at this point in time.

This year's experience and the encroaching power of automated writing correction (and lack of adaptation to this new reality in the DRC Insight testing platform) made me wonder what tools I might use to best support my students. I want them to have a fair shot at showing that they can communicate their ideas in writing at length.

I try to pre-teach or reinforce academic vocabulary in math as often as possible, but feel there must be more creative ways to bridge the gap between written and spoken language and classroom understanding.

--K. Curtis

-Lynn Newell

Pull together what you already have, too. Look at the Home Language Survey. Look at their ACCESS scores. But also ask teachers after the first few weeks: What have you noticed? What is this kid good at? What do they light up talking about? Keep all of this in a simple, secure spreadsheet—nothing fancy, just something you can actually use.

Now, the real work is making this useful for teachers. Teachers are overwhelmed. If you hand them a two-page form and say "fill this out," it will sit in a pile. Instead, create a one-page snapshot. Just the good stuff: home language, proficiency level, strengths, interests, what helps them learn. Pair it with practical ideas—like, this student loves soccer, so use soccer in your word problems.

Bring these snapshots into grade-level meetings. Pull up one student, spend ten minutes talking about them. Ask teachers what's working, what's not. When someone tries something that clicks, share it. Celebrate it.

The goal isn't perfect data. It's helping teachers see each kid as a whole person. That's where the real support starts.

How could you encourage teachers to think about scaffolds during planning or reflection?

• Encouraged to identify both the content objective and the language objective when planning a lesson. This helps clarify what students need to know and how they will communicate their understanding.

• Prompted to think about scaffolds as temporary supports that help students access grade-level content while building independence.

• Encouraged to consider which scaffolds supported student participation and comprehension and where additional supports might help students engage more deeply in academic conversations with each other.

  
  

  What questions could you ask to surface thinking about language demands and scaffolding choices?

  • Where in the lesson will students need to speak, listen, read, or write?

  • How will students practice using the new vocabulary during this lesson and when they return back to their classroom?

  • What visuals or models could help students access the content more independently?

    How might you support reflection on the effectiveness of scaffolds?

    • Asked the teacher to reflect on student participation.

    • Encouraged the teacher to consider student independence during work time.

    • Reviewed student work or responses together.

      
      

I also took note of where students struggled the most, observing that most of their questions generated during the test related to academic metalanguage - words we use to talk about language (grammar terms, etc.). It brought an awareness that I am not doing enough to teach this kind of language using direct instruction and encourages me to make sure students understand terms such as parts of speech, summary, proper/common nouns, or syllables.

In our preschool classrooms at Promise (where ~47% of children enrolled are considered DLL), we intentionally consider peer grouping as one strategy to support language development, social-emotional growth, and learning across content areas. During teacher-led small groups, which usually last 10–15 minutes, teachers may intentionally pair or group children based on instructional goals related to literacy, math, social-emotional learning, language proficiency, or developmental needs.

But, the greatest opportunities for intentional peer interaction occur during centers time, which lasts approximately one hour each day. During this child-directed learning period, children are free to move among interest areas while teachers actively engage with them. Teachers are expected to be fully present and responsive during centers, facilitating learning through modeling, recasting, expanding children's language, asking open-ended questions, and supporting meaningful interactions among peers. Language development is viewed as an ongoing process that is embedded throughout the day rather than isolated to a specific lesson or activity.

Prior to centers, teachers conduct an "Introduction to Centers," during which they introduce materials, concepts, vocabulary, and possibilities for play that will be available that day. As teachers demonstrate materials and activities, they intentionally map language onto actions, describe processes, introduce new vocabulary, and model how language can be used within different contexts. Real materials from each learning area—such as blocks, dramatic play, art, easel, sensory tables, writing materials, library resources, and manipulatives—are used to make language meaningful and concrete.

Following the Introduction to Centers, teachers dismiss children by interest in play areas rather than calling on each individual child. This provides an opportunity for intentional grouping. For example, if the teacher asks ‘Who wants to go to block area?’ and six children express interest in the block area but the center is designed for four children, teachers may choose children whose language skills, social competencies, interests, or learning goals would benefit from interacting together. These decisions are made to create opportunities for children to learn from one another, practice communication skills, engage in collaborative problem-solving, and participate in increasingly complex conversations.

Teachers then continue to support both language input and language output within those peer groups. Children hear rich vocabulary and language models from adults and peers while also being encouraged to use new words, phrases, and concepts in meaningful contexts. Through intentional grouping, responsive interactions, and embedded language supports, children have repeated opportunities to develop communication skills throughout the day.

Our approach also applies to screening and referral practices for DLLs. We understand that a developmental screening is intended to assess what a child knows and can do, not just how much English a child understands or speaks. Whenever we can, interpreters are used during screening and assessment processes to ensure a better understanding of a child's developmental skills.

When concerns arise regarding speech, language, or development, we make every effort to gather information in both the child's home language and English before considering a referral for special education evaluation. Whenever available, a language facilitator who speaks the child's home language may spend time in the classroom conducting observations focused on both receptive and expressive language. Information gathered through these observations, along with family input regarding communication skills demonstrated at home, helps us determine whether observed challenges are related to second-language acquisition or may indicate a potential speech or language delay.

Teachers are also trained to think critically about what is actually being assessed when evaluating children's learning. For example, if an assessment indicator states that a child can "retell a story," the underlying skill being looked at is comprehension and the ability to sequence and communicate events. A DLL may show this understanding by using story props, manipulatives, dramatic reenactment, or retelling in their home language. It is so important for preschool teachers to understand that assessment practices should provide children multiple ways to demonstrate their knowledge and skills rather than relying solely on English verbal responses.