1. Meeting the needs of Long Term English Learners: Research and District Responses Laurie Olsen, Ph.D. Title III Accountability Institute December 2011

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

3. State & Federal Accountability Reforms Research on EL Civil Rights Capacity Prof. development, teacher placement, credentialling, Politics Academic standards, curriculum Families, Community

5. Long Term English Learner ESL Lifers The 1.5 Generation The 5 Plusers Struggling Readers Protracted English Learners III’s Forever

6. 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

7. Long Term English Learners are created…….. Long Term EL

8. GAP has increased 2002-2010 Calif. Standards Test ELA % Proficient and above English Only: English Learners 33.4% gap -------------------------- 37.2% gap

9. Percent of LEAS meeting AMAOs Met AMAO 1 Met AMAO 2 20067374 20078277 20088281 20097863 20105145

10. “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

11. 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

12. 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

13. Across all districts 59% of secondary school ELs are long term (103,635 in sample)

14. Concentration of LTELs in districts vary

15. 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

16. 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.

17. 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)

18. 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

19. 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

20. Step #1: Know the extent and magnitude of the LTEL issue in your schools

21. El Monte school districts Commitment #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.

22. Annual Expectations for English Learners Years in US 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years 6 years CELDTBEGEIINT EAADV CST ELA FBB + BB+ Basic+Prof+ CST Math FBB+ BB+Basic+Prof+ Stand. Test in Spanish Prof+

23. 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 

24. Step #2: Investigate how English Learners became Long Term

25. 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

26. 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

27. Comparison between EL groups over time

28. 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)

29. Trends in California schools 2000-2010 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%)

30. 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

31. 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

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

33. 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

34. 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

35. Orally Proficient but not Academically Proficient Percent English Learners attaining these benchmarks statewide

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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

40. Step # 4: Check how LTELs are currently being served in secondary school

41. Typical program placements for 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 Mainstream SDAIE

42. 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)

43. 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…..

44. 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

45. 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?

46. Step #5: Know the research and undo misconceptions that lead to harmful practices

47. State & Federal Accountability Reforms Research on EL Civil Rights Capacity Prof. development, teacher placement, credentialling, Politics Academic standards, curriculum Families, Community Youth Development

48. 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

49. 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)

50. 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

51. “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 21 st century.

52. Step 6: Design programs to meet LTEL needs

53. 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

54. Maximum integration without sacrificing access Rigor, relevance, active engagement and empowering pedagogy Relationships matter An affirming, inclusive environment Urgency!

55. Instruction matters….. Differentiation Checks for understanding Accountability Active student engagement Standards-based Maximum language development structures and practices

56. 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)

57. Comparison between EL groups over time

58. 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

59. Case Examples Ventura Unified School District Modesto City Schools Anaheim Union High School District El Monte School Districts

60. 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

61. 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

62. Ventura Unified School District Results 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%)

63. Increase in LTEL scoring “Proficient” 2007 - 2008 2008 - 2009 Language ArtsMathLanguage ArtsMath Pilot School A 8.7%17.4%25%32.7% Pilot School B 11.3%33.3%17.5%33.3%

64. K-8 and 9-12 Districts Title 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

65. Who are our English Learners? # Years in US School 2008 - 2009 Grades 7-12 Language Institute Tier I Tier II 1212 (92) 3% Tier III Tier IV 3434 (178) 7% 5+ Program 5 Or more (2,344) 90% 65

66. 5+ Program 9 th Grade PeriodCourse 1ELA READ 180 2ALD READ 180 3Spanish for Spanish Speakers 4Math 5Earth Science 6PE 7Elective (A-G) : Visual Performing Arts, Support, or AVID 66 NOTE: World Religions/Health classes in summer school or senior year. Computers in any four years, summer school, or test out OR

67. Differentiated placement in 9 th 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

68. Anaheim Union High School District

69. Literacy and language across curriculum Biliteracy as a 21 st century skill: Spanish for Native Speakers, Seal of Biliteracy, expansion of Dual Language program Commitment to a broad, full 21 st 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)

70. LTEL/EL Support ELD 4 Language Support high school; English language mainstream language support middle school; courses designed for LTELs

71. In two years…. “ Takes a 3-5 year commitment” API has gone up 31 points Reclassification has increased Higher English Learner 10 th grade CAHSEE passage rates

72. 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

73. 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 

74. 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

75. 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

76. 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”

77. 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

78. 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

79. Step #8: Leadership and Advocacy

80. 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.”

81. Laurie Olsen lolaurieo@gmail.com