Understanding Programs for ELLs: Leadership for Increased Student Success and Achievement JoAnne Negrin, Ed.D. Supervisor of ESL, Bilingual Education, World Languages, & Performing Arts NCLB/Title I Coordinator Vineland Public Schools July 23, 2014

Content Objectives To understand how case law and state and federal code shape our programs for ELLs To develop strategies for dealing with common situations with ELLs that you will encounter as a principal To build awareness of resources at your disposal

Language Objectives To master key vocabulary related to ELL issues SIOP ELL Scaffolded Model Curriculum ELL/ESL/LEP AMAO

Things to Know Children who have high literacy levels in their home language learn English faster and better than children who do not develop native language literacy Bilinguals are better at focusing their attention, excluding distractors, problem-solving, and creative thinking Developed bilingualism is a huge advantage that can help mitigate any disadvantages a student may have

The LEP Designation Limited English Proficient OR Language-Enhanced Pupil?

Great Moments in ELL History: Civil Rights Act (1964): Language is a proxy for national/ethnic origin. Implications for promotion/retention as well as for HIB (DOJ and OCR can investigate based on national origin, race, or color under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act) ELLs have a right to access to gifted and talented programs, extracurriculars, etc.

Lau v. Nichols (1974) Lau v. Nichols (1974): “…Under these state- imposed standards 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…We know that those who do not understand English are certain to find their classroom experiences wholly incomprehensible and in no way meaningful.”

Equal Educational Opportunities Act (1974) Codifies the Lau v. Nichols decision If you receive federal funds, you must provide equal opportunity for access to all programs and activities

Castañeda v. Pickard (1981) Programs must be based on sound educational theory Programs must be implemented effectively with sufficient resources and personnel – I.D. and placement, C&I, staff qualifications, materials, access to programs, exit criteria, parent communication Programs must be evaluated for effectiveness

Castañeda – Second Prong “If no remedial action is taken to overcome the academic deficits that limited English speaking students may incur during a period of intensive language training, then the language barrier, although itself remedied, might, nevertheless, pose a lingering and indirect impediment to these students’ equal participation in the regular instruction program”. (Castañeda, 648 F.2d at 1011)

All About AMAOs There are 3 Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) every ESL/Bilingual program in the state must meet – AMAO 1: Percentage of students who exhibit the required amount of growth on the ACCESS for ELLs test (changes by year) – AMAO 2: Percentage of students reaching proficiency as determined by the ACCESS for ELLs test by time in program (4 years or less, 5 years or more) – AMAO 3: Percentage of LEP students proficient on standardized tests in Language Arts and Math (NJ ASK, HSPA) AMAO data is available on the NJDOE Homeroom website

Special Education Concerns: Over- Identification Diana v. California Board of Education (1970): Students classified due to language difference; inappropriate assessment

Concerns: Under-Identification Schools are very sensitive to the possibility of misclassification As a result, ELLs with special needs are sometimes left behind

N.J.A.C. 6A:14 – 3.5(b) Determination of Eligibility In making a determination for special education and related services, a student shall not be determined eligible if the determinant factor is Due to a lack of instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction, or math OR Due to limited English proficiency (emphasis added)

Differing Explanations for Observable Difficulties Observable DifficultyPossible ELL Explanation (Observed in English) Possible Disability Explanation (Observed in multiple contexts across both languages) Omits words or adds words to a sentence Direct transfer from L1 Early stages of L2 development Word retrieval difficulties Expressive language difficulties Has difficulty retelling events of a story read aloud Early stages of L2 development; may understand but does not have enough expressive language to retell Short-term memory difficulties Difficulties with sequencing Becomes distracted easilyDoes not understand or speak L2 Too much decontextualized oral language Attention difficulties Comprehension difficulties (Sanchez-Lopez, 2007)

Normal Processes in L2 Acquisition Silent or nonverbal period Interference Code-switching Fossilization Language Loss

Indicators of Disability Difficulty learning language at a normal rate compared to “true peers,” even with special assistance in both languages Short mean length of utterances in both languages Auditory processing problems (e.g., poor memory, poor comprehension) in both languages

Indicators of Disability Poor sequencing skills: Communication in both languages is incoherent, disorganized, and leaves listener confused Communication difficulties when interacting with peers from a similar background Lack of organization, structure, and sequence in written and spoken language; difficulty conveying thoughts

“Why is he in ESL? He speaks English just fine!” Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS): Usually require 1-2 years to develop – Example words: table, “what’s up?” Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP): Usually requires 4-7 years to develop – New meanings (table) – General academic words (act upon, attach, inquiry) – Content area words (molecule, diameter)

There has never been a better time! SGPs/SGOs – It’s a collaboration, not a competition! NJDOE Model Curriculum ELL Scaffolds Initiative ELLs are everywhere!

Every Teacher is a Language Teacher “Educators have begun to realize that the mastery of academic subjects is the mastery of their specialized patterns of language use, and that language is the dominant medium through which these subjects are taught and students’ mastery of them tested. ” (Lempke, 1988, p.1)

Sheltered Instruction (SIOP) SIOP is a research-based method of teaching language and content that is widely used. Most sheltered instruction practices correspond to what effective teachers do Makes explicit the language objective in every lesson Provides supports so that ELLs and all struggling learners can meet content objectives

What you can do: School Level Ensure that teachers have the resources to help students develop their L1 while they are acquiring English (Title III $$$$ can help) Ensure that your evaluation process includes differentiation for ELLs Provide and/or encourage professional development

What you can do: District Level: Ensure that your district has an assessment policy for ELLs Promote professional development at the district level Collaborate with other buildings on issues related to ELL achievement

Information Technology Solutions Ensure that data on ELL performance (such as broken down ACCESS scores) is available to all teachers who have an ELL

Technology for Family Engagement

Technology for Collaboration

Show Me The Money: Uses for Title III Title III can be used for professional development of mainstream teachers in issues pertinent to the achievement of ELLs Sheltered Instruction training, supplemental classroom materials in L1 for mainstream teachers “WIDA-fying” mainstream curricula to provide scaffolds for ELLs that all teachers can use

Resources: Colorín Colorado: NJDOE Title III Office: N.J.A.C. 6A:15: nt/title6a/chap15.pdf nt/title6a/chap15.pdf

Resources: Borderless Learning: g?ref_type=bookmark g?ref_type=bookmark Borderless Learning NJTESOL/NJBE: