1. Reparable Harm:
Fulfilling the unkept promise of educational opportunity for Long Term English Learners
Good morning
Been preparing for years for this day without recognizing this is where I was heading…. For forty years in education a deepening understanding of how it happens that some groups, some communities are excluded from educational opportunity… for the past twenty years, focusing on English Learners and immigrants specifically – documenting school responses to new waves of immigrants, designing and piloting demontration projects to try to show that things can be different, that schools can be designed in ways that provide access… and in all my work with secondary schools throughout California the deepening realization that we are witnessing not just students who came with gaps that aren’t be closed, but that we we are witnessing children to whom harm has been done. And now, working in the past months of this new report on Long Term English Learners has been taking place side by side with my efforts in a preK-3 pilot for Spanish speaking immigrant children, and I have to say that there has been something in that combination that has broken my heart.
Everyday now in our projects’ preschools and kindergarten classrooms I see children……

2. Starting Kindergarten
The whole time I’ve been working on this LTEL project and publication, it’s been overlaid by work doing now with Spanish speaking children of immigrants in PreK-3…
Little boys showing up wondering about this new world of school
coming to kindergarten interested, curious – coming to school as five year olds do, ready to learn and eager…. Young brains curious about their world… brains wired for language development and concept development…
Starting Kindergarten

3. Of little children who are open to trying new things and proud of what they can do
and I look at them and feel the shadow….
For they come to us
Little knowing that this is the start of what could be a journey of years of struggling to master content they are expected to learn but not helped to learn…. They don’t paste their pictures and trace their letters expecting this is the start of year after year of academic difficulty and falling further and further behind…….
Their mama’s, walking children to school, waiting at the gates to pick them up, do not suspect that they are handing their precious children to an institution that could be leading them to academic failure and inadequate English…..
Proud of her work…..

4. We estimate that more than 330,000 English Learners in grades 6 – 12 in California are “Long Term English Learners”, struggling academically, with little or no progress towards English proficiency……

5. Lau v. Nichols, Supreme Court
English Learners
“There is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers and curriculum…for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education…”
Lau v. Nichols, Supreme Court 5

7. The concept of the “Long Term English Learner”
An English Learner is not an English Learner is not an English Learner…..
The concept of the “Long Term English Learner”
A third of a century ago, a lawsuit instigated by Chinese parents against the SF school district reached the Supreme Court of the United States, who ruled in what has become known as the Lau Decision that schools have an obligation to rectify the language barrier that prevents children who don’t speak English from having access to equal educational opportunity… and thus was born a category of students we call English Learners -- and a class of students we must see to it get the programs, instruction and supports they need to learn English and to have meaningful access to the full curriculum.
The typical English Learner is thought of as a student who starts school in kindergarten without English, and by the end of elementary school should be sufficiently English proficiency to participate and succeed in our schools……so those students shouldn’t really be an issue for secondary schools…. But there is also general awareness that immigration results in students enrolling in secondary schools as newcomers, with various needs related to assessment, English language development and support.
Yet those of us working in secondary schools have been aware for a long time that these notions of English Learners aren’t sufficient to describe many of the students in our schools. And while there is nothing codified in policy, nothing formally defined as a program model, in the FIELD, people KNOW something else is going on….. And there are numerous ways it gets referred to……..

8. The 1.5 Generation The 5 Plusers Long Term English Learner ESL Lifers
III’s Forever
Long Term English Learner
The 1.5 Generation
Protracted English Learners
The 5 Plusers
But they are also, often, INVISIBLE…..
Many schools don’t know they HAVE LTELs…. There are the ELD kids (the ones in ELD classes), and then why do their official EL numbers seem so off? They are mixed in with other students who are struggling -- they fill intervention classes with EO students… they just become students who aren’t making it.
Yet we know from demographic data, that the majority of ELs in secondary schools in California were born in the U.S. and in schools since K
We believe - from anecdotal reports - that the number and % is growing…
This forum is about identifying who these students are and what they need, raising awareness about the kinds of programs and supports that can result in academic success for them….. And our task, collectively over the four days, is to produce a resource and set of recommendations fo rpractice and policy.
ESL Lifers
Struggling Readers

9. Long Term English Learners are created……..
Long Term EL
We know that LTELs are created -- across years of schooling.
Though we’ve defined this, or backed into this as a high school issue, the need to understand how LTELs are created begins back in elementary…… by middle school there is a sense of something definite going on -- is it language? Are these kids it’s just somehow taking longer to progress? Is it a motivation or identity issue? By high school, we know it’s real….

10. “There is no clear, easy reason revealed by data why students are remaining in the LEP category for 10+ years.”
Colorado Department of Education 2009
“While districts were unanimous invoicing their concern for such students (Long Term English Learners”, finding effective interventions to move these long term students along the proficiency continuum remains a challenge.”
Council of Great City Schools, 2009

11. The Californians Together Survey

12. Data from 40 school districts
The sample:
Data from 40 school districts
Data on 175,734 English Learners in grades
This is 31% of California’s English Learners in grades

13. The Districts
Vary in size from 1,300 students to more than 680,000
Vary in English Learner enrollment from 9% to 81% of total enrollment
13 are urban, 13 are suburban, 14 are rural

14. Data collected on English Learners 6 - 12
# of years since date of entry
Secondary ELs who enrolled in K/1
6+ by CELDT level
6+ by academic failure (Ds, Fs)
Definition
Placement

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

16. Concentration of LTELs in districts vary

17. Definitions vary Nine of 40 have a formal definition
Length of time (years) is part of every definition
The number of years used in the definitions vary from 5 years to 7+
Six districts include “lack of progress” or evidence of academic failure along with the number of years

18. When “lack of progress” towards English proficiency, or indications that a student is struggling academically are added as criteria along with number of years in United States schools, the % of Long Term English Learners is less – but not significantly so.

19. How long should it take?
NCLB AMAO #1 (1 CELDT level per year – 4 year model)
The Five year Model: (1 CELDT level per year plus allowance for 2 years at level III)
CDE is using 6+ as their cut point for the ELSSA
Linguistic research (individual differences, but generally years)
Education program effectiveness (5-7 years in a well-implemented program; 7-10 in weak program if at all)

20. A continuum of academic success……
Losing ground on CELDT and Academic Failure
No progress on CELDT, academically struggling
Very slow progress towards English Proficiency, doing okay (C’s)
Doing well academically, but still not reclassified
Reclassified but struggling

21. Reflection: minutes
Are Long Term English Learners an issue in your district?
Any sense of the magnitude?
When do you see the indications emerging?
What do you consider “too long” to reach English proficiency?
Does your district have a formal definition of Long Term English Learners?
What should a definition be?

22. Proposed working definition:
An English Learner in secondary schools who…..
Has been enrolled in US schools for 6+ years
Is making inadequate progress in English language development (CELDT III or below, has remained at CELDT level for 2+ years, or has lost ground on CELDT)
Is struggling academically (e.g., GPA below a 2.0 or grades of D or F in two or more core classes)

23. Their double challenge – our legal responsibility
“English learners cannot be permitted to incur irreparable academic deficits during the time in which they are mastering English”
“School districts are obligated to address deficits as soon as possible, and to ensure that their schooling does not become a permanent deadend.”

24. How does an English Learner become a “Long Term” English Learner?

25. Based upon…… A small research literature
District and secondary school inquiries – including student interviews retrieving schooling histories, studies of cumulative records, interviews and focus groups with teachers

26. No services - mainstream
(48 cum record studies) Three out of four spent at least two years in “no services” or mainstream
What may appear on paper to be “EL services” may not be actually designed for English Learners

27. Trends in California in past decade……
2004-5
2008-9
No services
Mainstream 5%
34% 2%
41% 1% ?
Primary language
Alternative Course
11%
12% 7% 8%
ELD alone
10%
ELD plus SDAIE
Structured English Immersion
48%
35%
47%
50%
49%
55%

28. Other contributing factors
Weak language development models
Histories of inconsistent program placements
Likelihood of inconsistency in implementation within programs
Narrowed curriculum - partial access
Social segregation – linguistic isolation – low expectations
Transnational moves – transnational schooling

29. Reflection minutes
Are any of these contributing factors occurring in your district? Your school?
To what degree do you think these explain the Long Term English Learner phenomenon in your district?

30. What are the characteristics of “Long Term English Learners”?

31. Long Term English Learners
Standard English speakers
Long Term English Learners
Struggling English proficient or native speakers
Immigrant and Normative English Learners
Struggling RFEP

32. They have distinct language issues
High functioning in social situations in both languages
Weak academic language – with gaps in reading and writing skills
Are “stuck” in progressing towards English proficiency

33. The profile of where LTELs are “stuck” differs
Most remain at CELDT III or below (more than 1/3 of LTELs in all districts; more than half of LTELs in 8 of 14 districts that reported this data)
Many, however, appear to reach CELDT proficiency but score low enough on CST or receive failing grades that prevent redesignation

34. Big discrepancy between CELDT Proficiency and Basic on CST/ELA
Percent English Learners attaining these benchmarks statewide

35. Many LTELs plateau and lose ground

36. Mismatch in perception of how doing, their actual academic skills, and their goals
Significant – but spotty- gaps in academic background knowledge
Some are discouraged, tuned out, dropping out

37. How are they currently served?

38. From the Californians Together survey
One out of four districts have some specific approach to serving Long Term English Learners
The majority of districts place their Long Term English Learners into mainstream (CLAD, SDAIE?)
Three districts place Long Term English Learners by CELDT level with other English Learners

39. Placements NOT designed for them…..
Placed/kept in classes with newcomer and normatively developing English Learners – by CELDT level
Unprepared teachers
No electives – and limited access to the full curriculum
Over-assigned and inadequately served in intervention and reading support classes

40. The National Literacy Panel
“Instructional strategies effective with native English speakers do not have as positive a learning impact on language minority students….. Instruction in the key components of reading is necessary but not sufficient for teaching language minority students to read and write proficiently in English.”

41. What should they be getting in school?

42. Basic Principles! Urgency, acceleration and focus! Distinct needs
Language development is more than literacy development – LTELs need both
Language development + Academic gaps
Crucial role of home language
Rigor and relevance
Engagement
Relationships
Integration

43. A recommendation Specialized ELD Clustered in heterogeneous classes
Explicit language/literacy development across the curriculum
Native speakers classes (through AP)

44. Comparison between EL groups over time

45. Native language development
Linguistic concept of “threshold” level of language proficiency
Recent meta-reviews of research (including NLP) underscore that teaching students to read in their first language promotes higher levels of reading achievement and academic achievement in English
Students who receive instruction through L1 score higher than students who receive instruction only through English - L1 + L2 literacy programs strengthen outcomes
Threshold theory first proposed in 1977 by Toukaomaa and Skutnabb-Kangas, and subsequently elaborated by Cummins in then supported through longitudinal data from the Collier/Thomas study and Genessee/Lindholm-Leary later.
There may be thresholds of language proficiency that students must reach in order to experience cognitive benefits of bilingualism, especially related to academic success. Continued development of both languages enables a level of transfer and drawing upon the foundation in L1 that benefit cognitive and academic ability. A students cognitive and linguistic capacities stem from the CUMULATIVE presence or absence of both languages in their schooling experience.
So ELs who were denied the opportunity to develop their native language in US schools because of English only programs or weak bilingual programs, end up experiencing limited literacy in both languages and academic failure in general. Native langauge skills cannot be transferred to the majority language if the minority language has not been developed sufficiently. By contrast, students who reach a high threshold of billingualism not only do better in areas of literacy and metaliinguistic awareness, but other in other core content aeas. ELs with opportunity to develop and maintain L1 in school are likely to outperform their counterparts in English-only programs and be successful academically
Academic skills acquired in L1 transfer to English
If certain academic and literacy threshold is not reached in L1 (at least years of L1 schooling), students may experience cognitive and academic difficulties in L2
Students who participated in programs with longer exposure to L1 instruction outperformed students with less exposure to L1 - this is true for standardized tests in reading and math, GPA, school completion, attitudes towards school, and college preparation
K Lindholm-Leary and F. Genessee

46. What does this have to do with LTELs in secondary school?
Long Term English Learners have not achieved a threshold of proficiency in L1 or L2
Does L1 literacy introduced in secondary school make a difference????????
From a linguistics perspective, and an engagement perspective - it seems likely - no educational research, but there is district experience

47. Seems to be power in SNS that is both Spanish literacy AND enhances English skills
Explicitly links transferability of cognitive skills, cognitive and vocabulary development, academic language, writing structures, rigorous writing assessment
Is aligned to state English language arts standards
Solid preparation for AP language and AP literature
Focused on high level of oral, reading and writing skills - while enhancing English skills
Includes cultural focus and empowering pedagogy
Often students with low levels of both target language and English have become discouraged, frustrated learners
Foreign language teachers seldom have skills to teach to native speakers
Place speakers of a language into foreign language classes - different needs from non-native speakers
No set curriculum (not articulated)
Sequence doesn’t extend to advanced levels
Lack of professional training for teachers

48. Flexibility to progress at accelerated rates – paired with formal systems of monitoring
Focus on study skills, critical thinking
Data chats, preparation, accommodations
Inclusive and affirming school climate

49. and……. Instruction matters!
Need to pay attention to preventing the development of gaps with strong elementary school program
Districts need proactive policies, guidelines, supports, accountability and articulation

50. And you…?
Dig deeper to understand your own Long Term English Learners!
Learn together