Placement

Tags: Differentiated Instruction; Instructional Programs; Intervention; Placement;

Target Population: Elementary and Middle School

Research Questions the Report Poses: Are English language learning students remaining in English learning classes too long? What is the benefit of transferring ELLs into mainstream English classes?

Findings:

• Improved academic outcomes in high school are associated with reclassification into mainstream English classes.
• Reclassification as late as 8th grade is still proven to be effective in improved academic outcomes.
• A large number of students who were not reclassified by 8th grade have been in the same school district since at least 1st grade.
• Students who are reclassified ELLs outperform English only students on important indicators.
• Reclassified ELLs performed better on standardized exams, were less likely to drop out of high school, and more likely to take an AP exam.

Policy Recommendations:

• Increase the amount of resources to help early English language learning.
• Persist with English language learning in middle school.
• Emphasize reclassification into mainstream English classrooms.

• Read the Full Report

To order a hard copy of the report, contact:
For the full report, please visit www.trpi.org

Flores, E., Painter, G., Harlow-Nash, Z., & Pachon, H. (1999, October). Que pasa? Are English language learning students remaining in English learning classes too long? The Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, Retrieved from http://www.trpi.org/PDFs/LAUSD%20Policy%20Brief.pdf

Tags: Differentiated Instruction; Latino ELL Students; Other ELL Students (Middle Eastern, African, European, etc.); Placement;

Target Population: Middle, High School

Research Questions the Report Poses:

• What can we learn from the the gap in ELL enrollment between charter schools and traditional public schools? What are the trends in this gap in New York City?
• Are students who attend charter schools are qualitatively different from those enrolled in district public schools?
• How does the racial/ethnic makeup of charter schools compares to traditional public schools?

Findings:

• In New York City, as in many other areas serving high numbers of ELLs (with a few exceptions), research focused on ELL student access to charter schools has been limited.
• At the school level, New York City charter schools appear to have a disproportionately low enrollment of ELL/LEP students.
• While findings from previous studies of New York City's charter schools suggest that location is a factor for limited ELL enrollment, many of New York's charter schools are located in neighborhoods with traditionally signficiant Hispanic and ELL populations such as the South Bronx and Harlem.
• Those charter schools that buck this trend actively strive to meet the needs of ELLs through ongoing professional development for teachers across the disciplines and active family engagement efforts led by the principal.

The authors of the report suggest the following possible reasons for limited ELL enrollment in charter schools:

• Parents of ELLs may not have adequate knowledge about charter schools; their reliance on (and deferral to) teachers and administrators to make academic decisions about their children's future contributes to this information gap.
• Charter schools face pressure to maintain high academic standards and may be reluctant to serve students who require additional resources. In fact, some funding mechanisms may create a disincentive to enroll higher number of ELL applicants at particular charter schools.

Policy Recommendations:

• More disaggretation of charter school data is needed that provides detailed information about ELL student enrollment, proficiency level, and performance.
• Researchers and policymakers need to reexamine, and in some cases revise, charter school funding mechanisms to ensure that they are not preventing charter school leaders from actively recruiting "at-risk" populations of students.
• Future research about ELLs in charter schools should include investigation of families' knowledge about charter schools and charter school lotteries, as well as of charter school practices regarding student recruitment and staff training and hiring.

• Read the Full Report

Buckley, J.& Sattin-Bajaj, C. (2010, April, 27). Are ELL Students Underrepresented in Charter Schools? Demographic Trends in New York City, 2006-2008. New York University. Retrieved July 27, 2010 from http://www.ncspe.org/publications_files/OP188.pdf

Tags: Curriculum; Differentiated Instruction; Instructional Programs; Intervention; Placement;

Target Population: High School

Research Questions the Report Poses: Which practices best support effective instruction of adolescent ELLs?

Findings:
A number of principles and practices support improved achievement for adolescent ELLs as well as for their native-English-speaking peers:

• A schoolwide, team-based support network: all school educators must assume shared responsibility for the achievement of ELLs
• A dual curriculum that promotes the language development of ELLs as well as their general academic needs
• Global community classrooms that find a middle ground between integrating ELLs who are recent immigrants with the general school population and segregating them in self-contained classrooms or schools
• Extended time to learn: all available time in ELLs' school day should be used for effective instruction-including the idea of implementing flexible student pathwasy
• Individual progress records: maintenance of records of individual ELLs' linguistic and academic history and ongoing progress, with easy availability teachers and other key personnel

• Read the Full Report

Rance-Roney, J. (2009, April). “Best Practices for Adolescent ELLs.” Educational Leadership. 66(7). 32-37.

Tags: Books and Other Reading Materials; Instructional Programs; Intervention; Placement; Rights, Students;

Target Population: All

Research Questions the Report Poses:

• What are the demographics of LEP and LEP students with disabilities?
• What kind of instructional services do LEP and LEP with disabilities receive, and how do they align with statewide standards?
• What are the outcomes of LEP and LEP with disabilities?

Findings:

• In 2001–02, LEP comprised 8.4 % of the student population, with the majority in lower elementary grades.
• Spanish is the most common native language of LEP by far.
• Although the largest portion of the LEP student population is enrolled within only a few districts, there are many districts across the U.S. serving small numbers of LEP students.
• Instructional services for LEP vary greatly, especially in the areas of extent of services provided, and extent of use of native language, and for Sp–Ed LEP–services provided outside vs. inside the classroom.
• There has been a shift in the past 10 years in LEP instructional services toward services provided in English.
• There has been a dramatic increase (350%) in the number of teachers who work with at least one LEP student from '92–'02.
• 6/10 teachers who worked with three or more LEP students reported a median of four hours of relevant in–service training.
• District coordinators reported that the instruction LEP and Sp–Ed LEP students received was less aligned with State standards than that of non–LEP students.
• Many school districts and schools had considerable difficulty in providing a count of SpEd–MEP students.
• Fewer LEP students were in special education than the entire student population as a whole. (9.2& vs. 13.5%)
• Compared to LEP students, SpEd–MEP students are less likely to receive LEP instructional services, and more likely to receive instruction in English.
• Instructional services for Spanish–language SpEd–MEP students differed from services received by SpEd–MEP students from other language backgrounds.

Policy Recommendations:

• As mainstream classes become more diverse, in ethnicity, English proficiency, and instruction, teachers and aides face new challenges, which should be answered with additional training.
• Districts should keep better records on LEP and former LEPs, and consider both when analyzing student outcomes.
• Schools need to determine as early as possible if students' difficulties stem from second language learning or from a disability, and provide support accordingly.
• Further efforts are needed to define effective instruction for SpEd–MEP students, and to promote increased collaboration across the LEP and special education programs in providing SpEd–MEP services.

• Read the Full Report

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.

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: Intervention; Placement;

Target Population: Middle, High School

Research Questions the Report Poses: There are large differences across countries in instructional time in schooling institutions. Can these differences explain some of the differences across countries in pupils’ achievements in different subjects?

Findings:

• The evidence from a sample of 15 year olds from over fifty countries and from a sample of 10 and 13 year olds in Israel consistently show that instructional time has a positive and significant effect on test scores.
• The effect of instructional time can be considered moderate or even large relative to other school level interventions for which we have reliable evidence.
• The estimated effect of instructional time is much lower in the sample of developing countries that participated in PISA 2006. The estimated effect of instructional time in this sample is only half of the effect size in the developed countries. The developing countries included in the PISA sample, for example Chile, Argentina or Thailand, are much more developed than the "typical" developing country. Given the recent evidence from India, Kenya and other very poor developing countries about the high rate of absenteeism of teachers from work, we can expect that the productivity of instructional time in the poorest developing counties in Africa and in South East Asia is even lower than in our sample of developing countries.

• Read the Full Report

Lavy, V. (2010, July). Do Differences in School's Instruction Time Explain International Achievement Gaps in Math, Science, and Reading? Evidence from Developed and Developing Countries. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved January 6, 2011 from: http://www.nber.org/papers/w16227.pdf?new_window=1

Tags: Differentiated Instruction; Intervention; Placement;

Target Population: All

Research Questions the Report Poses: Regardless of language of instruction, what are the most effective practices for teaching English language learners that will produce the most successful long–term outcomes?

Findings:

• Within the long–term English learners classification exist other categories of English learners with very different needs: special education students, those incorrectly labeled English proficient, migrants (within the U.S.), transitional students (return to and attend school in native country at least part of the year), recent immigrants (who have experience with core subjects but still need to learn academic English vocabulary and usage), and refugee children (who have never attended school.)
• Based on recent findings, what matters most in educating English learners is the quality of instruction, not the language. Certain salient features stand out as quality instruction practices: school structures and leadership; language and literacy instruction; integration of language, literacy, and content instruction in secondary schools; cooperative learning; professional development; parent and family support teams; tutoring; and monitoring implementation and outcomes.

Policy Recommendations:

• Reform and intervention should begin at early grades when children's needs are much more manageable and teachers are imparting new skills rather than remediating gaps.

• Read the Full Report

Calderon, M., Slavin, R., Sanchez, M. (2011). "Effective Instruction for English Learners." Immigrant Children 21 (1). The Future of Children. Retrieved from: http://www.futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=74&articleid=542

Tags: Placement;

Target Population: Elementary, Middle, High School

Findings:

• Including ELLs in high-stakes testing results in advantages and disadvantages for students. Since ELLs were previously not included in high-stakes testing, their inclusion results in more visibility and attention to academic progress. Yet since the majority of high-stakes are written and administered in English (and designed for native speakers), ELLs are often at a disadvantage and test results are not entirely reliable as a contributing factor to issues such as school funding, grade-level promotion, and graduation.
• Even though many ELLs are enrolled in bilingual or dual-language classes and receive some of their content-area instruction in their native language, they are rarely tested in their native language on high-stakes tests.
• Many test items assume a common shared cultural knowledge that ELLs may not have as compared with their U.S.-born peers.
• The most common types of accommodations including timing and scheduling, setting, presentation, and response format.
• When making decisions regarding ELLs and high-stakes tests, educators must ensure that: the test reflects the curriculum; appropriate accommodations and modifications are selected; the discourse of tests and test-taking skills are taught; and that test data are used carefully by teachers, administrators, and school district officials.

Policy Recommendations:
N/A

• Read the Full Report

Coltrane, B. (2002). English Language Learners and High-Stakes Tests: An Overview of the Issues. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Tags: Curriculum; Differentiated Instruction; Instructional Programs; Intervention; Placement;

Target Population: Elementary, Middle, High School

Findings:

• English language learners who need special education services are disadvantaged by the shortage of special educators who are trained to address their language- and disability-related needs simultaneously
• Improving the academic performance of students from non-English backgrounds requires a focus on the prevention of failure and on early intervention for struggling learners

• Read the Full Report

Ortiz, A. (2001). English Language Learners with Special Needs: Effective Instructional Strategies. Austin, TX: University of Texas.

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: In spite of 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?

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)*

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

Tags: Instructional Programs; Intervention; Language Proficiency; Latino ELL Students; Parent Involvement and Outreach / PTA; Placement; Rights, Students;

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.

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 late-entrant 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

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.

Tags: Comprehension; Instructional Programs; Intervention; Language Proficiency; Latino ELL Students; Placement; 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?

Findings:

• ELLs need high quality instruction focused on advanced literacy skills and not just on 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

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 .

Tags: Content Areas: Math; Content Areas: Science; Content Areas: Social Studies; Differentiated Instruction; Intervention; 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?

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:
Any intervention aimed at ELLs should also benefit under–served learners generally.

• 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

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 .

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.

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:

• Teachers should use current secondary school ELL literature to create a blueprint of classroom contexts in which ELLs will be motivated and engaged to read and write across the content areas, and where reading and writing will contribute to their broader academic achievement.
• Schools should train all secondary–school teachers to promote content–area literacy for ELLs.
• To promote ELLs' or other students' continued development and application of literacy skills for academic learning, educators should plan opportunities that
  1. provide the environmental resources to support the work (i.e., various text materials);
  2. are grounded by high expectations that students can achieve or surpass the state standards and
  3. engage students-that they involve choice, are authentic, promote self–efficacy, and support autonomy.

• 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

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.

Tags: Intervention; Language Proficiency; Motivation; Placement; Struggling Readers;

Target Population: Middle, High School

Research Questions the Report Poses:

• What is the best middle to high school transitions for ELLs?
• What happens to the ELL moving from eighth to ninth grade in a SLC?
• How are his or her unique educational needs considered?
• Is the instructional program designed to seamlessly integrate English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) instruction with the SLC or ninth?grade transitional programs?
• Is the student required to choose between accessing linguistically appropriate instruction and accessing the benefits of a career or technical academy?
• Does the student's de facto status as an ELL preclude him or her from taking part in programs and courses within the SLC schools?

Findings:

• In order to ensure that ELL students catch up with their peers, the school must place emphasis on intense ELD instruction.
• Teachers should use specialized instructional methodologies to build their abilities to teach content to ELL students.
• Beneficial to ELL transitions are the flexible delivery and scheduling of academic and non-academic supports.
• It does not appear that any one school is implementing a coherent service delivery plan. Instead, there are examples of isolated implementation of best practices in a given area, but not across the school or for all ELL students

• Read the Full Report

Lara, J., & Harford, S. (n.d.). Middle-to-High School Transition for English Language Learners: Promising School-Based Practices. Smaller Learning Communities Program. Retrieved January 13, 2011 from: http://www.edweek.org/media/final-middletohighschool.pdf

Tags: Intervention; Language Proficiency; Latino ELL Students; Placement;

Target Population: Elementary, Middle, High School

Research Questions the Report Poses: Do "excellence gaps" exist? (differences in achievement between subgroups of students performing at the highest levels)

Findings:

• There are in fact notable and statistically significant excellence gaps between student subgroups, the largest being between native English speakers and English language learners; the smallest being between male and female.
• Proficiency scores indicate the gap is worse in math, while percentile comparisons suggest reading. National data is more reliable and standardized, though state data also suggests the presence of excellence gaps.
• While test scores are increasing overall, high-performance students fall, in disproportionate numbers, into the "overrepresented" categories (i.e., white, affluent, English-proficient.)
• The results suggest that focus on minimum competency gaps (i.e., No Child Left Behind Act) put high-performing students at a disadvantage, and further increases the excellence gap.

Policy Recommendations:

• Make closing the excellence gap and promoting advanced academic programs a priority at the national and state levels (not just local, where they are pushed aside.)
• Consider performance of advanced students in common standards, rather than focusing on minimum competency.
• Conduct more research on talent development; specifically U.S. Department of Education and National Science Foundation could allot preexisting money for it.

• Read the Full Report

Plucker, Burroughs, Song (2010). Mind the (Other) Gap! The Growing Excellence Gap in K-12 Education. Center for Evaluation & Education Policy: Bloomington, Indiana.

Tags: Placement; Struggling Readers;

Target Population: All

Research Questions the Report Poses:

• According to district and school personnel in three midsize New York State districts, what processes are used to identify students who are English language learners and also have learning disabilities?
• What challenges do those district administrators and school personnel describe about the process of identifying learning disabilities among students who are ELLs?

Findings:
Eight challenges in identifying learning disabilities among ELL students:

• Difficulties with policy guidelines.
• Different stakeholder views about timing for referral of students who are English language learners.
• Insufficient knowledge among personnel involved in identification.
• Difficulties providing consistent, adequate services to students who are English language learners.
• Lack of collaborative structures in prereferral.
• Lack of access to assessments that differentiate between second language development and learning disabilities.
• Lack of consistent monitoring for struggling students who are English language learners.
• Difficulty obtaining students' previous school records.

Policy Recommendations:
Analysis of the differences in the prereferral and referral processes and of the challenges identified in the three districts suggests five interrelated elements that appear to be important for avoiding misidentification of learning disabilities among students who are English language learners:

• Adequate professional knowledge. Having access to professional expertise about cultural differences, language development, learning disabilities, and their intersection among classroom teachers, specialists, and administrators.
• Effective instructional practices. Providing effective instruction to students who are English language learners before and during prereferral.
• Effective and valid assessment and interventions. Providing valid assessments and effective intervention strategies.
• Interdepartmental collaborative structures. Establishing structures for collaboration between the English language learner and special education departments, as well as opportunities for teachers to collaborate and problem solve in schools.
• Clear policy guidelines. Providing streamlined and clear policy guidelines on procedures to follow and criteria to use in identifying learning disabilities among students who are English language learners.

• Read the Full Report

Sanchez, M.T. (2010, February). Processes and Challenges in Identifying Learning Disabilities Among English Language Learner Students in three New York State Districts. U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved January 12, 2011 from: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?projectID=116

Tags: Differentiated Instruction; Language Proficiency; Placement;

Target Population: middle and high school

Research Questions the Report Poses: What policy steps should occur in California to improve the education of secondary English Language Learners?

Findings:
A number of themes emerged from the panel discussants including:

• the need for identifying ELL students better; inadequate existing programs for ELL secondary students;
• the need for more teachers and administrators who are knowledgeable about the needs of secondary ELL students; and
• the importance of advocacy and staying on-message to improve ELL education.

Policy Recommendations:
The report adopts five policy steps that should occur including:

• Convene a panel of experts;
• Promote pilot programs;
• Develop an effective ELL assessment system;
• Establish a committee in the CA legislature to recruit and retain highly skilled ELL teachers and administrators; and
• Organize a summit to bring attention and focus to the need for improved ELL secondary education.

• Read the Full Report

To order a hard copy of the report, contact:
NA

Maxwell-Jolly, J., Gandara, P. & Benavidez L. M. (2005). Promoting academic literacy among secondary English language learners: A synthesis of research and practice. Davis, CA: UC Davis School of Education.

Tags: American Indian ELL Students; Asian ELL Students; Bilingual Instruction; Bilingualism / Biliteracy; Curriculum; Latino ELL Students; Other ELL Students (Middle Eastern, African, European, etc.); Parent Involvement and Outreach / PTA; Placement; Rights, Parents; Rights, Students;

Target Population:

• All students in preschool, elementary, middle or high school in the Latino community.
• Parents of students attending preschool, elementary, middle or high school in the Latino community.

Research Questions the Report Poses: This article raises the question of the importance of the No Child Left Behind Act to improve the education for limited English proficient students in the Latino community.

Findings:

• Limited English Proficiency students are the fastest growing population in elementary schools in the US.
• Limited English proficient students are concentrated in a few states but are spreading rapidly throughout the nation.
• While five states—California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois—are home to almost 70 percent of all LEP students in elementary school, growth in this student population has been more rapid in other destinations.
• The majority of LEP elementary school students are concentrated in a small number of schools: nearly 70 percent of the nation’s LEP students enroll in only 10 percent of elementary schools.
• The incidence of poverty and health problems is significantly higher in high-LEP than in other schools.
• Instructional contexts vary significantly across schools: high-LEP schools are more likely to offer support and remedial programs (pre-K, enrichment, after-school, summer school).
• Native language instruction is more prevalent in high- than low-LEP schools. The difference in use of other LEP-targeted instructional techniques, though significant, is less marked.
• High-LEP schools face more difficulties filling teaching vacancies and are more likely to rely on unqualified and substitute teachers than schools with few or no LEP children.
• High-LEP schools are more likely to be involved in parental outreach and support activities than schools with lower concentrations of LEP students.
• Teachers in high-LEP schools are more likely to hold ESL/bilingual certification in addition to their main certification.
• Teachers in high-LEP schools are more likely to have provisional, emergency, or temporary certification than are those in other schools.
• High-LEP schools have more new teachers than schools with fewer or no LEP students, and these teachers are substantially more likely to be uncertified than those at other schools.
• Teachers in high-LEP schools tend to report receiving more professional development than do teachers in other types of schools.
• There was a great deal of variation in the way districts with high-LEP schools implemented NCLB testing requirements in both subject areas and ELP (English Language Proficiency).
• Parents of ELL students in high-LEP enrollment schools professed to have very little knowledge of the requirements of NCLB.

Policy Recommendations:

• The U.S. Department of Education should make the development of an appropriate English language proficiency test a national priority and require its use by all states and districts.
• States should ensure that (a) policies are in place to conduct subject matter testing of ELL students using appropriate tests and accommodations and (b) reasonable exemptions are granted.
• The inclusion of pre-K education should be considered in the reauthorization of NCLB. While it is evident from our study that NCLB is changing pre-K education in high-LEP schools, including this component of the educational system in the law would enforce and standardize these changes across all districts and states.
• The NCLB provisions for school choice and Supplemental Educational Services (SES) should be reexamined. These provisions do not seem to be having the intended effect and their feasibility and effectiveness should be studied.
• Teacher Quality
• Districts should assume responsibility for the training and professional development of teachers—including bilingual/ESL teachers—to assist them in meeting the NCLB requirements for high-quality teachers. This assistance might include working with local colleges to increase the production of high-quality bilingual/ESL teachers and to offer courses in areas where current teachers need to acquire credits for certification. Local colleges and alternative certification programs should be encouraged to incorporate courses on ELL instruction as part of the required general teacher education curriculum. These courses should be required for certification or employment of all teachers, at least in high-ELL-enrollment districts but preferably in all districts.
• More effective strategies are needed for conducting parental outreach and information efforts with parents of ELL students. Districts and schools must acquire a greater understanding of effective strategies to reach this group of parents, who face many barriers to understanding the requirements of NCLB and their role in supporting its goals.

• Read the Full Report

To order a hard copy of the report, contact:
The Urban Institute 2100 M Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037

Consentino de Cohen, Clemencia and Beatriz Chu Clewell. (2007). Putting English Language Learners on the Education Map: The No Child Left Behind Act Implemented. Washington, D.C. The Urban Institute.

Tags: Fluency; Intervention; Language Proficiency; Placement; Struggling Readers; Transfer of Literacy Skills;

Target Population: Secondary, High School

Research Questions the Report Poses: Which of the English learners are left behind? What steps can be taken to prevent this?

Findings:

• The majority (59%) of secondary school English Learners are "Long Term English Learners" (in United States schools for more than six years without reaching sufficient English proficiency to be reclassified). In one out of three districts, more than 75% of their English Learners are Long Term.
• California school districts do not have a shared definition of "Long Term English Learners." Most districts lack any definition or means of identifying or monitoring the progress and achievement of this population. Only one in four districts has a formal definition or designation for identifying, counting, serving or monitoring services for these students - and their definitions vary in the number of years considered "normative" for how soon English Learners should have reached proficiency (range from five to ten years).
• English Learners become "Long Term" English Learners in the course of their schooling experience. Several factors seem to contribute to becoming a Long Term English Learner: receiving no language development program at all; being given elementary school curricula and materials that weren't designed to meet English Learner needs; enrollment in weak language development program models and poorly implemented English Learner programs; histories of inconsistent programs; provision of narrowed curricula and only partial access to the full curriculum; social segregation and linguistic isolation; and, cycles of transnational moves.
• By the time Long Term English Learners arrive in secondary schools, there is a set of characteristics that describe their overall profile. These students struggle academically. They have distinct language issues, including: high functioning social language, very weak academic language, and significant deficits in reading and writing skills. The majority of Long Term English Learners are "stuck" at Intermediate levels of English proficiency or below, although others reach higher levels of English proficiency without attaining the academic language to be reclassified. Long Term English Learners have significant gaps in academic background knowledge. In addition, many have developed habits of non-engagement, learned passivity and invisibility in school. The majority of Long Term English Learners wants to go to college, and are unaware that their academic skills, record and courses are not preparing them to reach that goal. Neither students, their parents nor their community realizes that they are in academic jeopardy.

• Read the Full Report

Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable Harm: Fulfilling the Unkept Promise of Educational Opportunity for California's Long Term English Learners. Californians Together. Retrieved January 6, 2011 from: http://www.californianstogether.org/

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: 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?

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-LEP schools are more likely to be racially diverse, female, earn more money, and hold a PhD than their Low-LEP school counterparts.
• Teachers in High-LEP schools, on average, earn more, are more racially diverse, are less experience, and, overall, have less academic preparation than their counterparts in other schools.
• Educators in High-LEP schools are more likely to hold ESL/bilingual certification as well as their main certification. However, ESL/bilingual educators in both High- and Low-LEP schools are equally likely to have that specific field qualification.
• Educators in High-LEP schools are more likely to have provisional, emergency, or temporary certification than those in other schools.
• Potential effects of NCLB on LEP students may include: fewer resources for LEP students in Low-LEP schools; multiple NCLB reporting categories such as language, poverty, race, or ethnicity; more attention on LEP family outreach.

Policy Recommendations:

The authors recommend:

• Recruiting, preparing, and credentialing more ESL/bilingual teachers in High-LEP schools
• Improving teacher education programs for ESL/bilingual teachers
• Providing all educators professional development for working with LEP students, particularly in Low-LEP schools
• Improving LEP services in Low-LEP schools, such as extra support, enrichment, differentiated instruction
• 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

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.