Placement

Beating the Odds in Teaching All Children to Read

by Barbara M. Taylor, P. David Pearson, Kathleen F. Clark, Sharon Walpole / Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement

Taylor, B., Pearson, P., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (1999). Beating the odds in teaching all children to read. CIERA Report #2-006. University of Michigan: Ann Arbor.

Topics Covered: Best Teaching Practices / Professional Development; Literacy and Reading / Writing Instruction; Literacy and Reading / Writing Instruction; Early Elementary (K-3);

Tags: Comprehension; Curriculum; Differentiated Instruction; Fluency; Instructional Programs; Intervention; Phonics; Phonological Awareness; Placement; Struggling Readers; Vocabulary;

Target Population: Elementary

Research Questions the Report Poses: Which school-level and teacher-level factors affect reading achievement?

Summary:

The authors used quantitative and descriptive methods to investigate school and classroom factors related to primary-grade reading achievement. Fourteen schools across the U.S. with moderate to high numbers of students on subsidized lunch were identified as most, moderately, or least effective based on several measures of reading achievement in the primary grades.

A combination of school and teacher factors, many of which were intertwined, was found to be important in the most effective schools. Statistically significant school factors included strong links to parents, systematic assessment of pupil progress, strong building communication, and a collaborative model for the delivery of reading instruction, including early reading interventions. Statistically significant teacher factors included time spent in small group instruction, time spent in independent reading, high pupil engagement, and strong home communication. More of the most accomplished teachers were frequently observed teaching word recognition by coaching as children were reading, in addition to providing explicit phonics instruction, than the least accomplished teachers and teachers in the moderately or least effective schools.

Additionally, more of the most accomplished teachers and those in effective schools were frequently observed asking higher level questions after reading than their counterparts. In all of the most effective schools, reading was clearly a priority at both the building and classroom level.

Findings:

• Children in primary grades make the greatest growth when a high proportion of their reading instruction is delivered through small ability groups, with regularly monitored progress, and plenty of time to learn needed skills and strategies
• Teachers that help students thrive in reading are skilled coaches and keep all children academically engaged
• Schools have a long way to go in improving reading instruction in the primary grades

Policy Recommendations:
n/a see findings

• Download full report (692K PDF)*

Descriptive Study of Services to LEP Students and LEP Students with Disabilities

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). To assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities: Twenty-fourth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Zehler, A. M., Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Pendzick, M. L., & Stephenson, T. G. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities (No. 4 Special topic report: findings on special education LEP students). Development Associates, Inc.: Arlington, VA.

Topics Covered: Assessment and Accommodations; Learning Disabilities and Special Education;

Tags: Instructional Programs; Intervention; Placement; Rights, Students;

Summary:

The number of ELL students in U.S. schools continues to rise, but learning a new language may not be their only challenge. How do schools help ELLs with disabilities?

The U.S. Department of Education commissioned a report — A Descriptive Study of Services to LEP [Limited English Proficient] Students and LEP Students with Disabilities — that surveyed schools and districts nationally to identify characteristics of and services provided to ELLs. Part of the study focused on the services offered to ELLs who are also students with disabilities and their participation in standards and assessment systems.

• Go to report

ELLs: Boosting Academic Achievement

by American Educational Research Association

Resnick, L.B., Ed. (2004). English Language Learners: Boosting Academic Achievement. Research Points, 2(1). American Educational Research Association: Washington DC.

Topics Covered: Literacy and Reading / Writing Instruction; Literacy and Reading / Writing Instruction; Early (Pre-K); Literacy and Reading / Writing Instruction; Early Elementary (K-3);

Tags: Bilingual Instruction; Bilingualism / Biliteracy; Comprehension; Fluency; Instructional Programs; Language Proficiency; Phonics; Phonological Awareness; Placement; Spelling; Transfer of Literacy Skills; Vocabulary;

Target Population: Preschool, Elementary

Research Questions the Report Poses: Beyond the debate over bilingual versus English-only education, the fundamental question remains: What are the best ways to teach English literacy to English language learners, and what rate of achievement in English is realistic to expect?

Summary:

With nearly one in twelve public school children receiving special assistance to learn English, researchers are investigating effective ways to teach English literacy and boost academic achievement for ELLs. This American Educational Research Association brief estimates that with explicit phonics instruction and frequent assessment, young ELLs can master the basics of English literacy. To sustain academic achievement, vocabulary and comprehension strategies must continue to develop in a structured, supported, and inclusive learning environment.

Findings:

• ELLs need the same kind of reading instruction that works for native speakers, more of it, and they need to be watched carefully so they get help adjusted to their language development needs as soon as they encounter problems;
• ELL students can learn basic English reading skills in two years, but their chances of falling behind later in school are greater than native English speaking children;
• There is no evidence that the extra teaching that ELLs need can be effectively offered in "pullout" programs that are not closely integrated with the main literacy program;
• ELLs benefit from lengthening the school day and/or year; and
• ELLs need teachers who can deliver reading instruction shown to be most effective, and these teachers need intensive professional development

Policy Recommendations:

• Give English language learners extra time and instruction in literacy, either through longer school days or extended years;
• Assign the best teachers to English learners and provide professional development in effective teaching strategies;
• Use proven techniques for teaching basic word recognition skills, including phonics and phonological awareness;
• Provide lots of practice reading and frequent assessments to pinpoint children's reading strengths and weaknesses;
• Provide structured academic conversation, built around books and other subject matter activities to build vocabulary and comprehension; and
• Provide several years of intensive, high-quality instruction to help students master the vocabulary, comprehension, and oral language skills that will make them fully fluent in speaking, reading, and writing English.

• Download research brief (89KB PDF)*

Improving Assessment and Accountability for ELLs in the No Child Left Behind Act

by National Council of La Raza (NCLR); Melissa LazarÍn

Lazarín, M. (2006). Improving Assessment and Accountability for English Language Learners in the No Child Left Behind Act. National Council of La Raza: Washington, DC.

Topics Covered: Assessment and Accommodations; NCLB and AYP;

Tags: Bilingual Instruction; Bilingualism / Biliteracy; Comprehension; Fluency; Instructional Programs; Intervention; Language of Instruction; Language Proficiency; Latino ELL Students; Placement;

Target Population: Elementary, Middle, High School

Research Questions the Report Poses: This issue brief is designed to help inform future dialogue on assessment and accountability. The brief examines the progress and manner in which states have implemented the federal law's accountability and testing provisions with respect to ELLs.

Summary:

At over 10% of the U.S. student body, English language learners in grades K-12 hold significant influence over the success of national school improvement. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has set out to insure accountability in the academic achievement of all students, but it faces political and administrative challenges.

This report from the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) provides an overview of the assessment and accountability provisions of NCLB affecting ELLs, the challenges of implementation in various states and districts, and policy recommendations for improving the law's effectiveness for ELLs.

Findings:
NCLB implementation with respect to ELLs has failed to live up to the law's promise. State and district accountability systems not only must include ELLs, they must be implemented in a way that effectively closes the existing academic achievement gap for ELLs.

Policy Recommendations:

• The U.S. Department of Education should increase research and investment in the development of a range of appropriate assessments and testing accommodations, including native-language and simplified English tests for ELLs.
• The U.S. Department of Education should provide firm guidance to states regarding the law's directive to assess ELLs "to the extent practicable, in the language and form most likely to yield accurate data."
• With enforcement by the U.S. Department of Education, states and districts must continue to assess ELLs and include them in AYP determinations.
• The Administration and Congress should fine-tune the definition of AYP for ELLs.
• The U.S. Department of Education and Congress should enhance accountability measures for secondary ELLs, particularly lateentrant ELLs. The U.S. Department of Education, states, and districts should improve reporting of assessment data and other AYP indicators to parents of ELLs.
• The U.S. Department of Education and Congress should ensure equitable access to supplemental services for ELLs.
• The President and Congress must increase the federal investment in English language learner programs (Title III).
• The U.S. Department of Education should increase its investment in the development of assessments for ELLs The President and Congress should increase federal support for Parent Assistance Programs.
• States should ensure fiscal equity in their education finance systems, with adequate inclusion of resources for ELLs.

• Go to full report

To order a hard copy of the report, contact:
The National Council of La Raza (NCLR)
Attention: Office of Publications
Raul Yzaguirre Building
1126 16th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel: 202.785.1670
Fax: 202.776.1794

Improving Literacy Outcomes for English Language Learners in High School: Considerations for States and Districts in Developing a Coherent Policy Framework

by National High School Center, Nanette Koelsch

Koelsch, N. (2006). Improving literacy outcomes for English language learners in high school: Considerations for states and districts in developing a coherent policy Framework. National High School Center .

Topics Covered: Literacy and Reading / Writing Instruction; Literacy and Reading / Writing Instruction; Adolescent (7-12);

Tags: Bilingual Instruction; Bilingualism / Biliteracy; Comprehension; Curriculum; Fluency; Language of Instruction; Language Proficiency; Placement; Reading; Vocabulary; Writing;

Target Population: Middle, High School, Post-Secondary

Research Questions the Report Poses: What issues should states consider to improve schooling for English language learners?

Summary: The report suggests that low expectations are the impetus for ELL difficulties in school and that lack of data about course taking patterns for ELLs compounds student difficulties. The report describes recent studies that point to the need for more rigorous course taking to improve the odds of graduation and college entry for ELL students.

Findings:

• ELLs need high quality instruction focused on advanced literacy skills not just language acquisition; and
• Immersion-only programs lead to increased special education placements
• Latino ELLs are overrepresented in special education and lower tracked classrooms;

Policy Recommendations:

• States and districts need to redesign literacy work for ELLs in high schools to change from remediation to academic enrichment; and
• States and districts need to ensure that ELLs participate in rigorous, college preparation courses and receive support so that they can succeed in these courses

• Link to Full Report

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

Learning to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children

by National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC); International Reading Association (IRA)

International Reading Association (IRA) & National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2009). Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for young children. NAEYC: Washington, DC.

Topics Covered: Literacy and Reading / Writing Instruction; Literacy and Reading / Writing Instruction; Early (Pre-K); Literacy and Reading / Writing Instruction; Early Elementary (K-3);

Tags: Books and Other Reading Materials; Comprehension; Curriculum; Differentiated Instruction; Fluency; Instructional Programs; Intervention; Motivation; Phonics; Phonological Awareness; Placement; Reading; Vocabulary; Writing;

Target Population: Preschool, Elementary

Research Questions the Report Poses: How does the research from the 1990s inform best practices for teachers and policymakers when it comes to teaching young students how to read and write?

Summary: Learning to read and write is critical to a child's success in school and later in life. Although reading and writing abilities continue to develop throughout the life span, the early childhood years--from birth through age eight--are the most important period for literacy development. The primary purpose of this position statement is to provide guidance to teachers of young children in schools and early childhood programs (including child care centers, preschools, and family child care homes) serving children from birth through age eight. By and large, the principles and practices suggested here also will be of interest to any adults who are in a position to influence a young child's learning and development--parents, grandparents, older siblings, tutors, and other community members.

Findings:
n/a

Policy Recommendations:

1. A comprehensive, consistent system of early childhood professional preparation and ongoing professional development
2. Sufficient resources to ensure adequate ratios of qualified teachers to children and small groups for individualizing instruction.
3. Sufficient resources to ensure classrooms, schools, and public libraries that include a wide range of high-quality children's books, computer software, and multimedia resources at various levels of difficulty and reflecting various cultural and family backgrounds.
4. Policies that promote children's continuous learning progress.
5. Appropriate assessment strategies that promote children's learning and development.
6. Access to regular, ongoing health care for every child.
7. Increased public investment to ensure access to high-quality preschool and child care programs for all children who need them.

• Full article

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

Meeting the Literacy Development Needs of Adolescent English Language Learners Through Content Area Learning: Part One: Focus on Motivation and Engagement

by Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory (LAB), The Education Alliance at Brown University, Julie Meltzer and Edmund Hamann

Meltzer, J. & Hamann, E. (2004). Meeting the literacy development needs of adolescent English language learners. Part one: Focus on motivation and engagement. Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory.

Topics Covered: Literacy and Reading / Writing Instruction; Literacy and Reading / Writing Instruction; Adolescent (7-12);

Tags: Content Areas: Math; Content Areas: Science; Content Areas: Social Studies; Motivation; Placement; Reading; Struggling Readers; Transfer of Literacy Skills; Vocabulary; Writing;

Target Population: Middle, High School

Research Questions the Report Poses: Review of the literature concerning student motivation and engagement on literacy development of adolescents and research on the schooling of adolescent ELLs.

Summary: This article reviews the major research findings as they relate to engagement and motivation of ELL adolescents. The highlighted research is meant to explore the confluence of two areas of study—literacy development and schooling practices for ELLs and native English speakers—and serve as a guide for professional development for secondary teachers. The literature review explores school and classroom contexts; instructional principles like relevance, choice, and student-centered classrooms; and instructional practices like scaffolding and activating prior knowledge as they relate to adolescent ELLs.

Findings:

• literacy development and effective instruction for ELL and non-ELL adolescents alike share many commonalities;
• isolated ELL students are further negatively impacted as a result of these findings; and
• content-area teachers may benefit from research and practices designed for ELL teachers

Policy Recommendations:
n/a

• Link to Full Report

To order a hard copy of the report, contact:
The Education Alliance at Brown
222 Richmond Street, Suite 300
Providence, RI 02903-4226
Phone: 800.521.9550
Fax: 401.421.7650
E-mail: info@alliance.brown.edu

Meeting the Literacy Development Needs of Adolescent English Language Learners Through Content Area Learning: Part Two: Focus on Classroom Teaching and Learning Strategies

by Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory (LAB), The Education Alliance at Brown University, Julie Meltzer and Edmund Hamann

Meltzer, J. & Hamann, E. (2004). Meeting the literacy development needs of adolescent English language learners. Part two: Focus on classroom teaching and learning strategies. Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory .

Topics Covered: Literacy and Reading / Writing Instruction; Literacy and Reading / Writing Instruction; Adolescent (7-12);

Tags: Content Areas: Math; Content Areas: Science; Content Areas: Social Studies; Motivation; Placement; Reading; Struggling Readers; Transfer of Literacy Skills; Vocabulary; Writing;

Target Population: Middle, High School

Research Questions the Report Poses: What instructional practices dovetail in both the ELL adolescent literacy literature and non-ELL adolescent literacy literature?

Summary: As with part one of this publication, part two amounts to a literature review. Part two looks for congruous instructional practices that are good for secondary ELL and native English speakers alike. The article shifts through a series of discussions about a variety of domains related to teaching and arrives at a conclusion in support of strategies beneficial to ELL students and native English language students.

Findings:
Eight instructional approaches are supported in both literatures (what's good for ELL adolescents and adolescent native English speakers):

1. teacher modeling, strategy instruction, and using multiple forms of assessment;
2. emphasis on reading and writing;
3. emphasis on speaking and listening/viewing;
4. emphasis on thinking;
5. creating a learner-centered classroom;
6. recognizing and analyzing content-area discourse features;
7. understanding text structures within the content areas; and
8. vocabulary development.

Policy Recommendations:
n/a

• Link to Full Report

To order a hard copy of the report, contact:
The Education Alliance at Brown
222 Richmond Street, Suite 300
Providence, RI 02903-4226
Phone: 800.521.9550
Fax: 401.421.7650
E-mail: info@alliance.brown.edu

National Literacy Panel's Executive Summary
Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth.

by National Literacy Panel, Diane August, Timothy Shanahan

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: 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?

Summary: The National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth systematically and rigorously examined the research on acquiring literacy in a second language. The full report was never published but the executive summary is useful for its vision and purposeful intent.

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

So Many Schools, So Few Options: How Mayor Bloomberg's Small High School Reforms Deny Full Access to English Language Learners

by The New York Immigration Coalition and Advocates for Children of New York

The New York Immigration Coalition and Advocates for Children of New York. (2006, November). So Many Schools, So Few Options: How Mayor Bloomberg's Small High School Reforms Deny Full Access to English Language Learners. New York, NY: The New York Immigration Coalition and Advocates for Children of New York.

Topics Covered: Access, Equity, and Adequacy;

Tags: Curriculum; Latino ELL Students; Placement; Rights, Students;

Target Population: High school

Research Questions the Report Poses: To what extent, if any, have ELLs actually been included in New York City's small high schools reform initiative?

Summary: Although ELLs make up about 11.4% of the New York City high school population, in 2005-2006, 93 of 183 schools examined in this report had less than 5% of ELLs in their student body. This means that more than half of the high schools in the city had a very small ELL population. A policy that the NYC Department of Education has in place is to "allow small schools to exclude ELLs in [their] first two years of operation" (p. 7). Failure to follow required accommodation laws is also keeping ELLs out of many NYC high schools. In the borough of Queens, which has the most ELL students, only 7% of new high schools were built. Overall, the new plan toward having smaller schools in New York City is keeping ELLs from getting equal access to quality instruction because resources for ELL instruction are not prevalent.

Findings:

• As a result of the new schools program, ELL students are largely sequestered to a few schools with high percentages of ELLs while many other schools offer very little, if any, instruction or resources for ELLs.
• Because new schools are not being built in areas where ELLs are highly concentrated, ELLs are being kept from new schools.
• Most schools classified as small by this report (about 500 students) fail to provide adequate resources for ELL instruction.
• Because small schools are inadequately prepared to instruct ELLs, these students are forced to go to large, failing schools, which are the type of schools that the new schools plan was supposed to cut down on.

Policy Recommendations:

• Increase ELLs' access to small schools by building more small schools in areas where ELLs most commonly reside.
• Improve the high school admissions process so that ELLs are not excluded or kept out of small schools because of their ELL status.

• Link to Full Report

To order a hard copy of the report, contact:
Advocates for Children of New York
151 West 30th Street — 5th Floor
New York, NY 10001
E-Mail: info@advocatesforchildren.org
Phone: (212)-947-9779
Fax: (212)-947-9790

Who's Left Behind? Immigrant Children in High and Low LEP Schools

by The Urban Institute / Clemencia Cosentino de Cohen, Nicole Deterding, Beatriz Chu Clewell

Cosentino de Cohen, C., Deterding, N., Chu Clewell, B. (2005). Who's Left Behind?: Immigrant Children in High and Low LEP Schools. Program for Evaluation and Equity Research, Urban Institute: Washington, D.C.

Topics Covered: Access, Equity, and Adequacy; Data (Demographics, Facts, and Figures); NCLB and AYP;

Tags: Instructional Programs; Placement;

Target Population: Elementary, Middle, High School

Research Questions the Report Poses: Are immigrant children left behind academically as a result of whether they are in a high or low LEP school?

Summary:

Are elementary schools prepared to educate English language learners in the manner required by the No Child Left Behind Act? A study by The Urban Institute found that limited English proficient (LEP) students are now highly concentrated: "nearly 70 percent of the nation's LEP students are enrolled in 10 percent of its schools." But students in low-concentration areas may be at a disadvantage.

Findings:

• The majority of LEP students are concentrated in a small number of schools: Nearly 70 percent of LEP students nationally enroll in only 10 percent of elementary schools. In these schools, LEP students account for almost one half of the student body (on average), a striking contrast to the 5 percent of LEP students enrolled in the average Low-LEP school.
• High-LEP schools tend to have higher a higher prevalence of poverty, Title I services, native language instruction, LEP-target instructional techniques, and services like Pre-K and summer enrichment, parent outreach, and hard-to-staff school status.
• Principals in High-ELL schools are more likely to be racially diverse, female, earn more money, and hold a PhD than their low-ELL school counterparts.
• Teachers in high-ELL schools, on average, earn more, are more racially diverse, are newer, and, overall, have less academic preparation than their counterparts in other schools
• Educators in high-ELL schools are more likely to hold ESL/bilingual certification as well as their main certification. However, ESL/bilingual educators in both High and Low ELL schools are equally likely to have that specific field qualification
• Educators in high-ELL schools are more likely to have provisional, emergency, or temporary certification than those in other schools

Policy Recommendations:

• Though both high- and low-ELL schools need to be properly staffed and funded, specific emphasis must be made on low-ELL schools because these have been shown to be less prepared to handle the needs of ELL students.
• Policies need to be implemented that will offer educators incentive to get their certifications in teaching ELL students.

• Go to Executive Summary
• Download full report (144KB PDF)*

To order a hard copy of the report, contact:
Urban Institute
2100 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037
(P): 202-833-7200