Language of Instruction

Tags: Comprehension; Content Areas: Math; Language of Instruction;

Target Population: All

Research Questions the Report Poses: Will linguistic modification of tests affect the performance on math varied of the three subgroups of students (EL, NEP, and EP students). If so, will the linguistic modification improve student math performance for the EL and NEP students relative to the EP students?

Findings:

• Linguistic modifications did produce an improvement on math tests among ELs (English learners) and NEPs (non–English learners non–English proficient students), while EP (English-proficient) scores remained the same (as expected).

• Read the Full Report

To order a hard copy of the report, contact:
Upon request, this report is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department's Alternate Format Center at 202-260-9895 or 202-205-8113.

Sato, E., Rabinowitz, S., Gallagher, C. Huang, C.W. (2010). Accommodations for English language learner students: the effect of linguistic modification of math test item sets. (NCEE 2009–4079). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Tags: Curriculum; Instructional Programs; Language of Instruction; Language Proficiency; Motivation; Reading; Struggling Readers; Transfer of Literacy Skills; Writing;

Target Population: Middle, High School, Post-Secondary

Research Questions the Report Poses:

• What is the available research base and practice literature to help teachers prepare ELLs to meet the standards?
• What is the quality and quantity of the research base?
• How does it contribute to efforts to improve pedagogy, curricula, and programming?
• Is there a common set of standards for writing across the nation, and if so, what is it?
• Does the research and practice literature connect to the standards? If so, how?
• Where are the gaps, if any, between the research and the standards?

Findings:

• The field of ESL is based on applied linguistics, which has historically focused on oral language and language structure, rather than writing composition. The assumption that oral language precedes and leads to written language ignores the possibility that written language can be a source for oral language development.
• Second language learning research has focused on young or elementary age learners or on higher education and international students but rarely on adolescents, especially U.S. resident and immigrant ELLs.
• The field of composition has focused on native speakers and assumes native competence of writing students, and even when L2 research began to focus on writing, it was in foreign language contexts (EFL and FL teaching) and at the college level.
• ELLs in U.S. high schools receive insufficient writing instruction in ESL; insufficient oral and structural language support in mainstream English; and insufficient content instruction prior to mainstreaming.
• Assessment of second language writing is complex and problematic; timed writing often results in significant underperformance of ELLs, and raters are overly influenced by surface level of L2 writing.
• Motivations for revision and peer interaction are based on context rather than individual learner characteristics.
• The use of computers can facilitate production and revision of written texts.
• Teacher feedback varies in effectiveness and is most successful for immigrant and U.S. resident adolescent students when it is specific (rather than global), when it identifies examples from the student's writing, when it asks for specific information from personal experience or texts, and when it uses indirect error correction (identifying error but requiring student to correct it).
• A disciplinary division of labor exists between the fields of ESL and mainstream English language arts and composition that significantly affects research, curricula, and teacher preparation.

Policy Recommendations:

• There is a need for studies that can provide a solid knowledge base on both middle and high school ELLs.
• Substantial research should be done on what works for effective writing instruction of school-age adolescent ELLs.
• Studies on successful strategies should include: classroom activities, including instruction, interaction, and reading and writing.
• Writing instruction programs need to be examined against the pattern of school structures, the knowledge base of the ESL teachers and the curriculum of the program, and the knowledge base of mainstream teachers.
• Students need to be assessed in oral and written proficiency.
• Students' and parents attitudes on satisfaction with the writing program at their school need to be surveyed.

• Read the Full Report

Fogelman, C., Harrington, M., Kenney, E., Pacheco, M., Panofsky, C., Santos, J., et al. (2005). Approaches to Writing Instruction for Adolescent English Language Learners: A Discussion of Recent Research and Practice Literature in Relation to Nationwide Standards on Writing. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance at Brown University.

Tags: American Indian ELL Students; Asian ELL Students; Bilingual Instruction; Bilingualism / Biliteracy; Books and Other Reading Materials; Curriculum; Differentiated Instruction; Instructional Programs; Language of Instruction; Latino ELL Students; Motivation; Other ELL Students (Middle Eastern, African, European, etc.); Parent Involvement and Outreach / PTA;

Target Population: Middle and high school students, parents, teachers, administrators, and guidance counselors.

Research Questions the Report Poses: This article questions how important it is for higher education institutions, schools, states, and the federal government to help students prepare for post-secondary education and graduate successfully.

Findings:

• For many students, the decision not to apply for college does not reflect a lack of higher education aspirations; instead, many students are discouraged by the application process and tuition rates.
• There is a growing consensus that high schools should be accountable for what their students' outcomes are after high graduation and that high schools and governments at all levels to increase the academic readiness.
• Proper guidance and easy access to available programs of financial aid and college admission application need to be highly promoted in all states, especially for low-income students.

Policy Recommendations:

The report authors identify three strategies that the federal government and states can potentially pursue in order to help all students enter and suceed in higher education:

• Create data systems that track college readiness and attainment and build accountability.
• Support and build the capacity of high school and college educators.
• Develop strong signals and clear incentives to students about the path to college.

The federal government is encouraged to take note of the recommendations made in this article on the economic, social, and academic factors that can prevent students from attending college. In addition, policymakers at the state and federal level are encouraged to create programs that facilitate the transition from high school to college by promoting students current and future college aspirations.

• Read the Full Report

To order a hard copy of the report, contact:
Center for American Progress 1333 H Street, NW, 10th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005

Nagaoka, Jenny; Roderick, Melissa; Coca, Vanessa. (2009). Barriers to College Attainment: Lessons from Chicago. Washington, D.C. Center for American Progress.

Tags: Bilingual Instruction; Language of Instruction; Language Proficiency; Latino ELL Students; Motivation; Reading;

Target Population: High school, post-secondary (non-collegiate)

Research Questions the Report Poses:

1. What is the policy background for the provision of ESL courses in California? What distinguishes adult schools from other providers?
2. How has the ESL target population changed throughout the state since 1980? What is the level of predicted enrollment and what demographic changes affect enrollment in ESL courses?
3. What are the trends in the provision of ESL courses by adult schools and community colleges statewide and in the different regions of the state? Does the adult school funding formula limit adult school enrollment? To what extent do adult school districts exceed their level of funding?
4. What do adult schools that exceed their funding limit forgo in terms of quality of adult education classes and future growth of adult education programs? How much does the redistribution of unused funding alleviate the challenges facing high-demand regions? How would adult education providers benefit from increased funding?

Findings:

• There is a $15.7 million gap between money spent by adult schools on ESL programs and money awarded to these schools by the state of California.
• Though the adult ELL demographic is growing across the state, it is growing at different rates in different parts of the state.
• Close to 60 percent of adult schools in California exceed their funding limit.
• Among adult schools that do over-enroll students, nearly 80 percent exceed their funding limit by over 2.5 percent.

Policy Recommendations:

The authors recommend:

• Increased overall funding to adult ESL programs
• More mechanisms for distributing funds for ESL programs to areas and schools that have high demand
• Increasd enrollment caps so that schools do not have to pay out of their own pocket to have adult ESL programs

• Link to Full Report

To order a hard copy of the report, contact:
Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94111

Gonzalez, A. California's Commitment to Adult English Learners: Caught Between Funding and Need. (2007). San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.

Tags: Bilingual Instruction; Bilingualism / Biliteracy; Comprehension; Content Areas: Math; Content Areas: Science; Content Areas: Social Studies; Content Areas: The Arts; Curriculum; Differentiated Instruction; Fluency; Instructional Programs; Intervention; Language of Instruction; Language Proficiency; Phonics; Phonological Awareness; Placement; Vocabulary; Writing;

Target Population: Preschool, Elementary, Middle, High School

Research Questions the Report Poses: How do ELL students acquire literacy in a second language?

Findings:

• Instructional approaches that focus on phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension-have clear benefits for ELLs. Like their native English speaking peers, ELLs benefit from these strategies as well as writing instruction.
• For students to become literate in English several instructional qualities need to be met including: content coverage, intensity and thorough instruction,
• ELL specific instruction, monitoring learning, and teacher preparation.
• Oral proficiency and literacy in the first language can be used to facilitate literacy development in English.
• Researchers have documented few sociocultural impacts on literacy achievement or development. However, researchers have found that home language experiences can have a positive impact on literacy achievement.

• Link to Full Report

August, D. and Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Center for Applied Linguistics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ.

Tags: Bilingualism / Biliteracy; Differentiated Instruction; Language of Instruction; Phonological Awareness; Transfer of Literacy Skills;

Target Population: Preschool

Research Questions the Report Poses: What programs are available to the ever-growing number of children from immigrant families?

Findings:

• Articulate a vision for providing high-quality early education to ELLs. This may be committing to reducing participation and skills gaps between ELLs and their English speaking peers, a goal of bilingualism for all prekindergarten children, or a statement of recognition of the importance of native language development.
• Expand access to state-funded preschool programs by including ELLs in targeted groups for eligibility and targeting outreach efforts for language-minority communities. This may include contracting directly with immigrant-serving organizations to provide preschool service.
• Create formal partnerships and collaborate with diverse organizations, including immigrant serving organizations, to conduct outreach for preschool.
• Move beyond generalizations to create policies and implementation guidance that provide practical strategies and approaches teachers can use in classrooms. States should ensure that that the most recent research on second-language learning informs the development of policies and practices.
• Require all prekindergarten staff-including teachers, directors, and principals-have meaningful training in second-language acquisition strategies and cultural competency to effectively work with all children and their families.
• Require preschool providers to create language access plans. Programs should have plans in place to support the native language development of ELL children and to communicate with parents who speak languages other than English. Plans should ensure that parent information is available in accessible formats and include the use of translated materials and face-to-face communication.
• Ensure that preschool curriculum and instruction support both English and home-language development and expand the number of dual-language programs.
• Encourage the hiring of bilingual teachers and provide guidance to programs on appropriate roles for bilingual staff in the prekindergarten classroom. States policymakers can support the growth of a bilingual workforce by contributing to scholarship programs and providing other incentives for teachers.

• Read the Full Report

Matthews, H., & Ewen, D. (2010, August). Early Education Programs and Children of Immigrants: Learning Each Other's Language. Urban Institute. Retrieved January 12, 2011 from: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412205-early-education.pdf

Tags: Content Areas: Social Studies; Instructional Programs; Language of Instruction; Vocabulary;

Target Population: Elementary, Middle School

Research Questions the Report Poses: What are effective social studies instruction to promote knowledge acquisition and vocabulary learning of English?

Findings:
The unique learning needs of adolescent English language learners demand that effective second language instruction be embedded in content area classes. This, in turn, requires building secondary educators’ knowledge base and capacity to deliver instruction that supports literacy and content learning. Research findings from CREATE thus far indicate that it is possible to improve the quality of social studies instruction to better meet the needs of English language learners and to improve their performance without delaying learning for English-speaking monolingual students, who are often in the same content area courses. Considering the number of readers in upper elementary and middle school classrooms who struggle with academic language and grade-level textbooks, these recommended social studies practices can and should be incorporated into content area teaching. Providing instructional supports that target both content and English language learning objectives in English-only settings makes effective strategy instruction accessible to all students. Class-wide interventions may serve to supplement the skills of many, while possibly preventing the difficulties that arise for some older second language learners and others prone to struggling with content area text and academic and content-specific vocabulary.

• Read the Full Report

Reutebuch, C.K. (2010, December). Effective Social Studies Instruction to Promote Knowledge Acquisition and Vocabulary Learning of English. CREATE. Retrieved January 14, 2011 from: http://www.cal.org/create/resources/pubs/effective-social-studies-instruction.html

Tags: Bilingual Instruction; Bilingualism / Biliteracy; Comprehension; Curriculum; Differentiated Instruction; Fluency; Instructional Programs; Intervention; Language of Instruction; Language Proficiency; Parent Involvement and Outreach / PTA; Struggling Readers; Transfer of Literacy Skills; Vocabulary; Writing;

Target Population: Preschool, Elementary, Middle, High School

Research Questions the Report Poses: The paper provides an overview of research and knowledge that educators can use to create schools in which English learners thrive and achieve at high levels.

Policy Recommendations:

• Invest in building a qualified educator workforce;
• Build a meaningful accountability system for English learners;
• Assure that educators have the materials they need to deliver high quality English Language Development; and
• Demonstrate new models of successful schools for English learners

• Link to Full Report

To order a hard copy of the report, contact:
University of California
Linguistic Minority Research Institute
4722 South Hall
Santa Barbara, CA 93106-3220

Olsen, L. (2006). Ensuring Academic Success for English Learners. University of California: Linguistic Minority Research Institute.

Tags: Language of Instruction;

Target Population: Elementary, Middle, High School

Research Questions the Report Poses:

• To what extent do State Education Agencies (SEAs) receive feedback on peer review decision letters and/or Title I monitoring reports that address the inclusion and accommodation of ELLs in state assessments?
• What issues are identified in peer review decision letters and Title I monitoring reports to SEAs related to the inclusion and accommodation of ELLs?

Findings:

• The majority of SEAs have weaknesses in their policies and practices for including and accommodating ELLs in state assessment systems.
• The feedback itself given to and by states is inconsistent both within and across the peer review and Title I monitoring processes.

Policy Recommendations:

• Provide demographic data; document the number of ELLs and the number of ELLs included in each state assessment.
• Provide state policy and procedures for accommodating ELLs; clarify whether Local Education Agencies (LEAs) have local control or are subject to state policy.
• Document SEA written guidance and procedures for LEAs to collect data and report inclusion and accommodation data to the SEA.
• Document any program of research in place carried out by the SEA independently or in partnership with other states on the effectiveness of specific accommodations allowed to ELLs.
• Improve alignment of the peer review and Title I monitoring rubrics making clear what ELL issues are to be addressed by SEAs and reviewers.
• Make clear expectations for each review process with regard to addressing the inclusion and accommodation of ELLs.
• Align peer review and Title I monitoring guidance so that the accommodation of ELLs is addressed as a technical quality issue and not as an issue uniquely pertaining to ELLs.
• Refine the language in both peer review guidance and in the Title I monitoring rubric so it clearly distinguishes the needs of ELLs from SDs.
• Provide Title I monitors with access to peer review feedback, so the two reviews are complementary and build on each other.
• Include experts in the assessment of ELLs on all peer review committees and Title I monitoring teams.
• Require reviewers to record whether an SEA has addressed each issue on a protocol; both acceptable and unacceptable practices should be documented.

• Read the Full Report

Shafer Willner, L., Rivera, C., & Acosta, B. (2010). Examination of Peer Review and Title I Monitoring Feedback Regarding the Inclusion and Accommodation of English Language Learners in State Content Assessments. Arlington, VA: The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education.

Tags: Bilingual Instruction; Bilingualism / Biliteracy; Comprehension; Content Areas: Math; Content Areas: Science; Content Areas: Social Studies; Content Areas: The Arts; Curriculum; Instructional Programs; Intervention; Language of Instruction; Language Proficiency;

Target Population: Elementary, Middle, High School

Research Questions the Report Poses: The report uses the example of Coachella school district's legal battle to examine whether state assessments are appropriate accountability measures for English language learners.

Findings:
N/A

Policy Recommendations:
N/A

• Purchase Report

Dillon, N. (2005). Language Test. American School Board Journal, 192(8). National School Boards Association.

Tags: Bilingualism / Biliteracy; Fluency; Language of Instruction; Language Proficiency; Latino ELL Students;

Target Population: Pre-school, Elementary, Middle, High School, Post-Secondary

Research Questions the Report Poses: How long can immigrant populations be expected, on average, to remain fluent in their languages of origin?

Findings:

• The probability is 97% that a great grandchild of Mexican immigrants will not speak Spanish
• Mexican Spanish can be expected to have a life expectancy of 3.1 generations
• Guatemalan and Salvadoran Spanish can be expected to have a life expectancy of 2.8 generations
• Spanish spoken by other Latin Americans can be expected to have a life expectancy of 2.6 generations

Policy Recommendations:
N/A

• Link to Full Report

To order a hard copy of the report, contact:
N/A

Rumbaut, R.G., Massey D.S., and Bean, F.D. (2006). Linguistic Life Expectancies: Immigrant Language Retention in Southern California. Population and Development Review, 32(3), 447-460.

Tags: American Indian ELL Students; Asian ELL Students; Comprehension; Content Areas: Math; Fluency; Instructional Programs; Intervention; Language of Instruction; Language Proficiency; Latino ELL Students; Other ELL Students (Middle Eastern, African, European, etc.); Phonics; Phonological Awareness; Reading; Struggling Readers; Vocabulary; Writing;

Target Population: Elementary School, Middle School, High School

Research Questions the Report Poses: What students are classified as being English Language Learners? How are they best identified, and what recommendations should be made to more adequately instruct possible ELL students to prevent further learning difficulties?

Findings:

• Statistics for ELLs may be hard to obtain or may be inaccurate since many ELL students go without being properly identified
• ELL students can better from more individualized instruction
• Mastery of academic language is necessary for academic success, which can prove to be difficult even for English speaking proficient ELLs
• In order to provide effective support of reading comprehension to ELLs educators must have an understanding of the child's individual needs
• In addition to reading comprehension it is crucial for students to become proficient in mathematics

Policy Recommendations:
While the article did not have any specific policy recommendations the recommendations listed in the article could be taken as such and thus included in this section.

Recommendations for Reading Instruction and interventions:

• ELLs need early, explicit, and intensive instruction in phonological awareness and phonics in order to build decoding skills.
• K-12 classrooms across the nation must increase opportunities for ELLs to develop sophisticated vocabulary knowledge.
• Reading instruction in K-12 classrooms must equip ELLs with strategies and knowledge to comprehend and analyze challenging narrative and expository texts.
• Instruction and intervention to promote ELLs' reading fluency must focus on vocabulary and increased exposure to print.
• In all K-12 classrooms across the U.S., ELLs need significant opportunities to engage in structured, academic talk.
• Independent reading is only beneficial when it is structured and purposeful, and there is a good reader-text match.

• ELLs need early explicit and intensive instruction and intervention in basic mathematics concepts and skill.
• Academic language is as central to mathematics as it is to other academic areas. It is a significant source of difficulty for many ELLs who struggle with mathematics.
• ELLs need academic language support to understand and solve the word problems that are often used for mathematics assessment and instruction.

• Link to Full Report

To order a hard copy of the report, contact:
N/A

Francis, David J., Mabel Rivera, Nonie Lesaux, and Hector Rivera. (2006). Research-Based Recommendations for Instruction and Academic Interventions. Practical Guidelines for the Education of English Language Learners, Retrieved April 11,2008, from http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/ELL1-Interventions.pdf

Tags: Comprehension; Language of Instruction; Language Proficiency;

Target Population: High School

Research Questions the Report Poses:

• How are high school exit exams affecting districts, teachers, and students?
• How fair is it for states to require ELLs to pass an exit exam in order to graduate?
• What are the most effective strategies to help ELLs succeed on these exams?
• How are states accommodating ELLs on the exit exams?

Findings:

• Innovative programs and policies are beginning to spring up in states with exit exams.
• Over the past year, states have developed more supports for students and committed more funds to help students pass exit exams.
• Initial pass rates and achievement gaps have proved to be stubborn to move, especially in states where exit exams have been in place for several years.
• States are improving their ability to track and report on student–level data, which should help in the future to clear up some nagging questions about the impacts of exit exams on dropouts and achievement.
• Resolving fundamental questions about the fairness of exit exams and appropriateness of supports for English language learners is crucial if this reform is to succeed in helping all students.
• Rather than developing waivers or exemptions from exit exam requirements specifically for English language learners, states are choosing to require ELLs to pass exit exams, albeit with test accommodations.
• Evidence from New York and California indicates that former ELLs–students who become proficient in English and exit ELL status–are more likely to pass exit exams and are more likely to graduate than students as a whole.

Policy Recommendations:

• New strategies, which are mostly in the research stage, could increase the validity of exit exam scores for ELLs.
• New support policies and funding are necessary to improve achievement for these students and can lead to positive outcomes for ELLs.

• Read the Full Report

To order a hard copy of the report, contact:
n/a

Sullivan, P., Yeager, M., Chudowsky, N., Kober, N., O'Brien, E., Gayler, K. (2005). State high school exit exams: States try harder, but gaps persist. Center on Education Policy: Washington, DC. Retrieved from: http://alaskateacher.org/downloads/exit_exam_8_12_05.pdf

Tags: Bilingual Instruction; Bilingualism / Biliteracy; Differentiated Instruction; Fluency; Instructional Programs; Intervention; Language of Instruction; Language Proficiency; Placement; Reading; Struggling Readers; Transfer of Literacy Skills; Vocabulary;

Target Population: Middle, High School

Research Questions the Report Poses: How accommodated are Students with Interrupted Formal Education (SIFEs) in NYC public schools? Why SIFEs are struggling academically and what are can be done to improve it?

Findings:

• SIFEs often have poor literary skills in any language, and are likely behind their age level in knowledge-content.
• SIFEs have complex social and psychological needs due to multiple factors including migration, unfamiliarity with surroundings, etc.
• SIFEs need more English language support, and often more individualized instruction to make progress.
• SIFEs lack foundational skills for academic work in English and in most cases their native language.
• Many SIFEs are not steered towards programs that can help them, and the schools they are placed in don't have the resources to teach them properly.
• Many SIFEs as often classified as having disabilities when cases show that this is typically not the case.

• Read the Full Report

Students with Interrupted Education: A Challenge for New York City Public Schools. (2010, May). Advocates for Children of New York. Retrieved July 28, 2010 from http://advocatesforchildren.org/SIFE%20Paper%20final.pdf

Tags: Bilingual Instruction; Differentiated Instruction; Language of Instruction; Placement;

Target Population: Elementary School

Research Questions the Report Poses:

• What are the key elements of successful bilingual schools?
• How do these six high–achieving bilingual schools implement those strategies?

Findings:
Among the features of effective schools and effective programs for English learner found in these six schools were:

• The bilingual programs were a school-wide effort.
• Teachers collaborated and team–taught, particularly for ELD instruction.
• Staff demonstrated extensive language and cultural competence.
• Staff displayed overall support for language and cultural diversity.
• Staff demonstrated a focus on the individual student and differentiated instruction.
• The school culture emphasized consistent monitoring of students' progress and teaching to rigorous academic standards.
• Staff articulated rigorous expectations of staff and students.
• Consistent leadership supported and benefited programs and instruction.
• Staff demonstrated a focus on consistent, coherent program design.

Policy Recommendations:

• Rather than debate the best approach for all English learners, we should improve schools by employing the most effective practices, whether using only English or with some form of bilingual instruction.
• Staff should identify areas of strength already in place at their own school, and then decide which paradigm features schools might improve their school.
• Additional research should be conducted, making use of the tools developed by the five–year Proposition 227 study to identify other successful schools with large proportions of English learners. Additional documentation of successful schools can counterbalance the impact of state and federal accountability systems that more often emphasize the schools that fail to perform to standards.

• Read the Full Report

Gold, N. (2006) Successful Bilingual Schools: Six Effective Programs in California. San Diego, CA: San Diego County Office of Education.

Tags: Bilingualism / Biliteracy; Comprehension; Differentiated Instruction; Language of Instruction; Language Proficiency; Phonological Awareness; Transfer of Literacy Skills; Vocabulary;

Target Population: All

Research Questions the Report Poses:

• What is the state of our knowledge regarding policies and practices of instruction of ELLs-what do we know and what remains unanswered?
• From the current body of research, what conclusions can we make about effective policies and practices?

Findings:

• Most ELLs actually were born in the U.S., though most of their parents were born elsewhere.
• By far, the majority of ELLs-80 percent-are Spanish speakers. This is an important fact to bear in mind, since Spanish speakers in the U.S. tend to come from lower economic and educational backgrounds than either the general population or other immigrants populations. Consequently, most ELLs are at risk for poor school outcomes not only because of language, but also because of socioeconomic factors.
• A majority of ELLs (60%) are in essentially all-English instruction. Of these 12% receive no additional support or services, 50% receive some "LEP services" (Limited English Proficient), and 40% receive some instruction incorporating native language.
• Teaching students to read in their first language promotes higher levels of reading achievement in English, probably due to "knowledge transfer" across languages, though it is not automatic.
• What we know about good instruction and curriculum in general holds true for ELL s., ie benefits of explicit instruction of phonics, writing, and comprehension; contextual explanation of vocabulary; cooperative learning; interactive teaching.
• Effects of "culturally-accommodated instruction" are uncertain.

Policy Recommendations:
Instructional modification for ELLs:

• Make English texts accessible by choosing familiar content.
• Build vocabulary in English.
• Use the primary language for support.
• Support ELLs in English-only settings also.
• Assess knowledge and language proficiency separately.
• Add time for ELLs to learn (extended day, after school, extended year, summer school, extra years to earn a diploma).
• Promote productive interaction between ELLs and English speakers.

• Read the Full Report

Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: what the research does&mdash and does not&mdash say. American Educator, Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/summer2008/goldenberg.pdf

Tags: Bilingualism / Biliteracy; Fluency; Language of Instruction; Language Proficiency; Phonics; Phonological Awareness; Transfer of Literacy Skills; Vocabulary;

Target Population: All

Research Questions the Report Poses:

VOLUME I:

• What are the reigning theories of human development, cognition, culture, and the relationship between them?
• How does identity development intersect with achievement motivation?
• What is intelligence?
• How can our knowledge of human development inform our work as educators working with an increasingly diverse student population?
• What is known about how to work successfully with families from non-dominant cultural groups?

VOLUME II:

• What is language proficiency and how does it interact with culture, human development, learning, and schooling?
• How can teachers best support English language learners (ELLs) and speakers of different English dialects?
• What are the current views of literacy acquisition and best approaches to literacy instruction?
• How can assessments eliminate bias based on language?

Findings:

• Most important to the process of addressing the needs of learners from a wide range of backgrounds is a positive, ongoing process of exploration and constructive conversation among the professionals who serve such students and between professionals and students' families.
• Meaningful approaches to human development and learning have become increasingly multi-disciplinary.
• Language indexes culture; language symbolizes culture; culture is partially created by language.

Policy Recommendations:
Teacher's Guide to Diversity includes a third volume, "The Presenter's Manual," which provides support for preparing for and conducting classes or workshops. The manual contains activities and suggested homework assignments, organized by the volume with which they are associated.

• Read the Full Report

Trumbull, E., Pacheco, M. (2005). The Teacher’s Guide to Diversity: Building a Knowledge Base. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance at Brown University. Retrieved from http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/teach_guide_diversity/.

Tags: Bilingual Instruction; Bilingualism / Biliteracy; Curriculum; Instructional Programs; Language of Instruction;

Target Population: Preschool, Elementary, Middle, High School

Research Questions the Report Poses:

• What types of programs should we provide for ELLs?
• Which programs are effective?
• How long should children be in these programs?
• Has Proposition 227 in California created gains for ELL students in the state?

Findings:

• Reviewing California data indicates that Proposition 227 has not resulted in major gains for ELLs.
• The implementation of one-year English immersion programs raises "significant legal questions" as well as civil rights questions.
• Inappropriate assessment for ELLs can result in students not receiving appropriate services and instruction and may also affect a student's likelihood of graduating from high school.

Policy Recommendations:

The authors recommend:

• Including language support programs as part of a comprehensive ELL strategy.
• Giving parents and schools flexible options for implementing language support programs.
• Clarifying the goals of federal language support programs so that schools can align instruction.
• Supporting appropriate evaluations to determine when children are ready to transition out of ELL/bilingual classes.
• Increasing accountability for schools and districts regarding achievement, assessment, and graduation rates.
• Focusing on improved instruction for ELLs and additional funding to support better instruction / professional development
• Supporting additional research to evaluate language support programs, assessment, and accommodations.
• Disseminate research-based information to policymakers.

• Link to Full Report

To order a hard copy of the report, contact:
The Civil Rights Project 124 Mount Auburn Street, 500 North Cambridge, MA 02138

Ma, J. (2002, September). What works for the children? What we know and don't know about bilingual education. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project Harvard University.