Meeting the needs of Long Term English Learners:

Research and District Responses

Laurie Olsen, Ph.D.Title III Accountability Institute

December 2011

English Learners

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

Lau v. Nichols, Supreme Court

State & FederalAccountability

Reforms

Research on EL

Civil Rights

CapacityProf. development, teacher placement,

credentialling, PoliticsAcademic standards, curriculum

Families, Community

Long Term English Learner

ESL Lifers

The 1.5 Generation

The 5 Plusers

Struggling Readers

Protracted English Learners

III’s Forever

Secondary EL Typologies

• Newly arrived with adequate schooling (including literacy in L1)

• Newly arrived with interrupted formal schooling - “Underschooled” - “SIFE”

• English Learners developing normatively (1-5 years)

• Long Term English Learners

Long Term English Learners are created……..

Long Term EL

GAP has increased 2002-2010 Calif. Standards Test ELA % Proficient and above

English Only: English Learners

33.4% gap -------------------------- 37.2% gap

Percent of LEAS meeting AMAOs

Met AMAO 1

Met AMAO 2

2006 73 74

2007 82 77

2008 82 81

2009 78 63

2010 51 45

“There is no clear, easy reason revealed by data why students are remaining in the LEP category for 10+ years.”

Colorado Department of Education 2009

“While districts were unanimous in voicing their concern for such students (“Long Term English Learners”), finding effective interventions to move these long term students along the proficiency continuum remains a challenge.”

Council of Great City Schools, 2009

Californians Together Survey

• Data from 40 school districts• Data on 175,734 English Learners in

grades 6 - 12• This is 31% of California’s English

Learners in grades 6 – 12• Wide variation in district context

Data collected on English Learners 6 - 12

• # of years since date of entry• Secondary ELs who enrolled in K/1• 6+ by CELDT level• 6+ by academic failure (Ds, Fs)• Definition • Placement

Across all districts59% of secondary school ELs are long term

(103,635 in sample)

Concentration of LTELs in districts vary

Definitions vary

• Nine of 40 have a formal definition• Length of time (years) is part of every

definition• The number of years used in the definitions

vary from 5 years to 7+• Six districts include “lack of progress” or

evidence of academic failure along with the number of years

Legal framework

• English Learners cannot be permitted to incur irreparable academic deficits during the time they are mastering English

• School districts are obligated to address deficits as soon as possible, and to ensure that their schooling does not become a permanent deadend.

How long should it take?• California’s NCLB AMAO #1 (5 years to

reach “CELDT proficiency”• Linguistic research (individual

differences, but generally 5 - 7 years)• Program effectiveness (5-7 years in a

well-implemented program; 7-10 in weak program if at all)

A continuum of academic success……Losing ground on measures of English proficiency and Academic Failure

No progress on measures of English proficiency, academically struggling

Very slow progress towards English Proficiency, doing okay (C’s)

Doing well academically, but still not reclassified

Reclassified but struggling

Definition:An English Learner in secondary schools who…..

Has been enrolled in U.S. schools for more than 6 years (continuous enrollment)

Is making inadequate progress in English language development

Is struggling academically

Step #1:Know the

extent and magnitude of the LTEL issue

in your schools

El Monte school districtsCommitment #2: Full Proficiency

English Learners will develop within six years of continuous enrollment full receptive and productive proficiencies in English in the domains of listening, speaking, reading and writing – consistent with expectations for all students.

Annual Expectations for English Learners

Years in US

1 year

2 years

3 years

4 years

5 years

6 years

CELDT BEG EI INT INT EA ADV

CST ELA

FBB +

FBB+ BB+ BB+ Basic+ Prof+

CSTMath

FBB+ FBB+ BB+ Basic+ Prof+ Prof+

Stand. Test in

Spanish

Prof+ Prof+ Prof+ Prof+ Prof+ Prof+

• A formal definition • Designated annual benchmark indicators/

expectations • A data system that disaggregates achievement

data by # of years in U.S. schools and by English proficiency levels

• Regular reviews of LTEL data to inform and trigger planning AND to trigger supports for students

Action Steps

Step #2: Investigate how English Learners became Long Term

District and site inquiries(2004-2011)

• Student interviews retrieving schooling histories

• Studies of cumulative records• Interviews and focus groups with teachers• Student voice on the experience of being LTEL• Surveys• Small research literature

Schooling History: weak or no language support

• Three out of four spent two or more years with “no services” or mainstream

• Weaker “EL Program” models

Comparison between EL groups over time

NYC Study (Menken/Kleyn 2010)

“Subtractive schooling”

• Vast majority receive English-only instruction resulting in limited or no literacy skills in L1 OR

• Weak forms of bilingual education (early exit, transitional) resulting in limited oral and/or written proficiency in L1

• L1 skills are weakened over time and eventually replaced with English

• Students report programs emphasized English reading and writing (even the bilingual programs)

Trends in California schools2000-2010

• Large increase of students in mainstream placement (no services)

• Large reduction in primary language instruction (from 12% to 5%)

• Approximately one in ten with ELD only• The majority in Structured English Immersion/

ELD plus SDAIE – large increase (from 35% to 55%)

Other contributing factors

• Inconsistent program placement (“ping-pong”)

• Inconsistent implementation of programs• Narrowed curriculum with partial access• Social segregation and linguistic isolation• Transnational moves – transnational

schooling

Transnational inconsistent schooling

• !2 of 29 students attended school outside the U.S. in a language other than English for a few months and up to 8 years altogether

• International moves often occur repeatedly creating a cycle of adjustment and readjustment (and new decisions about placement and program)

• The schooling outside U.S. tended to be for short durations and inconsistent and did not result in L1 literacy

Step #3: Understand the needs and characteristics of “Long Term English Learners”

They have distinct language issues

• High functioning in social situations in both languages – but limited vocabulary in both

• Can sound like non-LTELs• Prefer English – are increasingly weak in their

home language• Weak academic language – with gaps in reading

and writing skills• Are stuck in progressing towards English

proficiency

Down the rabbit hole…….• “Good working knowledge of English”• Reasonable fluency in English• CELDT Proficient• Advanced level on CELDT• Basic on CST - ELA• Proficient on CST in ELA• Reclassification as Fluent English

Proficient

Orally Proficient but not Academically Proficient

Percent English Learners attaining these benchmarks statewide

Language use and preferences

• Majority use both languages equally in conversation - context is the factor in choice

• Students overwhelmingly favor and report being more comfortable reading and writing in English

Academic Performance

• Several grade levels below actual grade level in both English and L1

• Cumulative high school GPA is very low (D+ average)

• More than one in five have F averages• Grade retention frequent• Gaps in academic background

Behavioral profiles

• Learned passivity and non-engagement• Tend not to complete homework• Not readers• Typically desire to go to college• Do not know they are doing poorly

academically – think they are English fluent

Action Steps…..

• Be sure there is understanding about what constitutes sufficient English proficiency for academic access – clarify the terms

• Analyze grades, English proficiency levels and growth/stagnation/loss – where are they stuck?

• Shadow – check for engagement and participation

Step # 4: Check how LTELs are currently

being served in secondary

school

Typical program placementsfor English Learners

_______________________________________________________________________

No English Oral, social English

CELDT Proficient

CST Basic

Proficient for Academic work

1 – 3 years

I II III IV V

Intensive or strategic interventions!

Still English Learner, but in MainstreamSDAIE

From the Californians Together survey

• 3 of 4 districts have no approach to serving Long Term English Learners

• Majority of CA districts place their Long Term English Learners into mainstream

• Three CA districts place Long Term English Learners by English proficiency level with other English Learners (in NYC, this is the common placement)

• Placed/kept in classes with newcomer and normatively developing English Learners – by English proficiency level

• Unprepared teachers• No electives – and limited access to the full

curriculum• Over-assigned and inadequately served in

intervention and reading support classes

Placements NOT designed for them…..

On the issue of interventions• CAL (“Double the Work”) - reading interventions

designed for native speakers aren’t appropriate for ELLs

• National Literacy Panel - good literacy and reading interventions work for both ELL and proficient students - but they work BETTER for English proficient students (gap grows) and do not address some key needs of LTELs

• From the 1.5 generation research on college students, and linguistics research - appears that WRITING may be a more powerful emphasis than READING strategies for LTELs

Things to ask…….

• Where are they placed for English? ELD?• Where are they placed for academic content?• What interventions and support classes do they

receive?• Are they getting access to electives?• Are they in college preparatory courses?• Are any of those placements designed for

LTELs? Do they have appropriate support for EL success?

Step #5:Know the

research and undo

misconceptions that lead to

harmful practices

State & FederalAccountability

Reforms

Research on EL

Civil Rights

CapacityProf. development, teacher placement,

credentialling, PoliticsAcademic standards, curriculum

Families, Community

Youth Development

Common belief system

• Sooner and more fully immersed in English, the better

• Good teaching and standards-based curriculum work for all students and are sufficient for ELLs

• English is the most important subject for ELLs – the more hours, the better

• Home language holds students back

New generation of research

• National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth

• California Department of Education: Research-based Practices for English Language Learners (commissioned papers)

Basic foundations to KNOW

• Continue to need ELD and support until reach proficiency (normatively 5 -7 years)

• A strong foundation in L1 is foundation for L2. Skills transfer.

• Continued development of L1 in school along with English strengthens English proficiency and promotes long term academic success

• Language development is more than literacy development – a focus on literacy alone is not sufficient for English Learners

• “Academic language” is different from social language and takes longer to develop

• Oral language is the foundation for literacy and is a crucial part of a strong language program for English Learners

• Academic language develops in the context of learning academic subjects. A strong EL program infuses intentional language development throughout the entire curriculum.

• There are social, economic and cognitive benefits to mastery of two or more languages – particularly in this 21st century.

Step 6: Design programs to meet LTEL needs

Basic Principles!• Focus upon distinct needs• Language development is more than

literacy development – LTELs need both• Language development + Academic gaps• Crucial role of home language• Invite, support, insist that LTELs become

active participants in their own education

• Maximum integration without sacrificing access

• Rigor, relevance, active engagement and empowering pedagogy

• Relationships matter• An affirming, inclusive environment• Urgency!

Instruction matters…..

• Differentiation• Checks for understanding• Accountability• Active student engagement• Standards-based• Maximum language development structures

and practices

Secondary school components• Specialized ELD – separate from other ELs• Clustered in heterogeneous classes for content• Explicit language/literacy development across the

curriculum –& SDAIE strategies for access• Focus on study skills, critical thinking• If interventions/supports – designed for LTELs• Data chats, preparation, accommodations• Programs, activities, student leadership to create

an affirming school climate• Native speakers classes (through AP)

Comparison between EL groups over time

Seems to be power in SNS that is both Spanish literacy AND enhances English skills

• Explicitly links transferability of cognitive skills, cognitive and vocabulary development, academic language, writing structures, rigorous writing assessment

• Is aligned to state English language arts standards• Solid preparation for AP language and AP literature• Focused on high level of oral, reading and writing

skills - while enhancing English skills• Includes cultural focus and empowering pedagogy

Case ExamplesVentura Unified School District

Modesto City SchoolsAnaheim Union High School District

El Monte School Districts

Ventura’s District Action Plan

• Title III Improvement Plan “Operation Prevent LTELs”

• ELL courses revised• ELD course sequence rewritten• ELD4 and SDAIE are UC/CSU accepted• Clear placement criteria for all courses• Two periods of instruction for ELD• Appropriate curriculum and technology• Pacing guides and assessment routines• Common sequence of language functions for ELD K-5

Investment in

• Intensive professional development • PLCs across academic content areas• LTEL student fishbowls• Bilingual Opportunities Pathway Program• Multilingual Recognition Awards• Student Pep Talks• Administrative and leadership structures to keep

issue on table and to maintain accountability

Ventura Unified School DistrictResults so far….

• Substantial increase in reclassification rates at pilot high schools (from 14% to 20.9% - compared to district average 9.1% - 9.5%)

• Improved growth on CELDT (from 44.9% moving 1 level to 60.9%; from 22.2% achieving proficiency to 26.8%)

Increase in LTEL scoring “Proficient” 2007 -

2008 2008 -

2009

Language Arts Math Language Arts Math

Pilot School A

8.7% 17.4% 25% 32.7%

Pilot School B

11.3% 33.3% 17.5% 33.3%

• K-8 and 9-12 DistrictsTitle I and Title III Program Improvement Status Year 5

• Established a Working Group (representative)• One year to “study” and develop

recommendations• Investment in implementing plan

64

Modesto City Schools

Who are our English Learners?

# Years in US School

2008 - 2009 Grades 7-12

Language InstituteTier ITier II

12

(92) 3%

Tier IIITier IV

34

(178) 7%

5+ Program 5Or more

(2,344) 90%

65

5+ Program9th Grade

Period Course

1 ELA READ 180

2 ALD READ 180

3 Spanish for Spanish Speakers

4 Math

5 Earth Science

6 PE

7 Elective (A-G) : Visual Performing Arts, Support, or AVID

66

NOTE:World Religions/Health classes in summer school or senior year.

Computers in any fouryears, summer school, or test out

OR

Differentiated placement in 9th gr.

• 2 period block of Read 180, using L book by Kate Kinsella (accepted as ELD) with a bilingual paraprofessional (for students who are really intensive and struggling at all levels academically) – for Freshman year only

• High end of Below Basic/low Basic ELA + ALD

• Advanced or Proficient on ELA-CST opt out of ALD and are monitored

Anaheim Union High School District

• Literacy and language across curriculum • Biliteracy as a 21st century skill: Spanish for Native

Speakers, Seal of Biliteracy, expansion of Dual Language program

• Commitment to a broad, full 21st century curriculum (decrease placements in support classes, CAHSEE prep classes, etc.; no more double blocking; institute 2 science/social studies at junior h.s.; build career technical education – industry pathways)

LTEL/EL Support

• ELD 4 Language Support high school; English language mainstream language support middle school; courses designed for LTELs

In two years….“Takes a 3-5 year commitment”

• API has gone up 31 points• Reclassification has increased• Higher English Learner 10th grade CAHSEE

passage rates

El Monte districts

• 2 elementary districts + 1 high school district• “Expectations” and commitment in common• Summer programs – thematic instruction, science

and social studies based, intensive language development

• Mentoring• Investment in professional development for

content area teachers• New ELD/ALD courses and materials

• Fact finding• District EL Master Plan describes research-based

program models for different typologies of EL students (or site)

• Specific LTEL program and placements• Support development of new courses• Provide materials and professional development –

as high priority for use of resources• System of monitoring placements• Mechanisms to change status of L1 and promote

biliteracy

Action Steps

Prevent LTELs - Quick review• Need for program consistency in placement• Need for well-articulated programs• Need for English Learner services (incl. ELD)• Importance of developing L1 along with English• Need to assure access to academic content

while learning English so no gaps develop• Need a full curriculum• Need to monitor and identify students lagging

behind – triggering support

Prevent LTELs

• Early foundation of rich language development (PreK-3) in English and the home language (where possible)

• Alignment, articulation and transition between PreK and elementary grades

• Full curriculum – with language development across all content areas

• Focus on engagement and high level oral language development

• Shared assessments• Parent/Family Engagement

Respond to “systems” issues:

• Data systems that can’t identify and monitor progress

• Unprepared teachers• Lack of appropriate curriculum and materials• Misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of

the research• Lack of clarity about what constitutes “English

Proficiency”• Contradictory or misaligned messages across

the “system”

Proactive District Policies and Support

• A definition and system for monitoring• Designated annual benchmark expectations by

number of years and English proficiency• Inquiry• Research based programs –including specific

responses for LTELs• Disaggregate data• Target professional development for teachers• Create needed courses• Student and parent information

California State level recommendations

• A standard state definition• State collection of data to identify, monitor

and plan• Real ELD materials!• Research-based, consistent messages as

the foundation for accountability• Professional development priority• Ensure full access

Step #8:

Leadership and Advocacy

English Learners cannot, in the words of the court, “be permitted to incur irreparable academic deficits” during the time they are mastering English…. We must ensure that their schooling does not become “a permanent deadend.”

Laurie Olsenlolaurieo@gmail.com