Borrowing legitimacy as English learner (EL) leaders: Indiana’s 14-year history with English language proficiency standards

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 241-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trish Morita-Mullaney
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
English Learners ◽  
English Language ◽  
English Language Proficiency ◽  
English Language Development ◽  
Content Standards ◽  
Critical Leadership ◽  
English Language Proficiency Standards ◽  
K 12

English language proficiency or English language development (ELP/D) standards guide how content-specific instruction and assessment is practiced by teachers and how English learners (ELs) at varying levels of English proficiency can perform grade-level-specific academic standards in K–12 US schools. With the transition from the state-developed Indiana ELP/D standards adopted in 2003 to the World Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) English language development standards adopted in 2013, this paper explores Indiana’s ELP/D standard’s 14-year history and how its district EL/Bilingual district leaders have interpreted and implemented these two sets of standards between the school years 2002–03 and 2015–16. Using critical leadership and feminism within a narrative design, EL/Bilingual leaders illuminate distinct leadership logics as they mediate and implement ELP/D standards in their districts. Academic content standards are regarded with greater privilege, complicating how EL/Bilingual leaders can position ELP/D standards. Restricted by this standards hierarchy, EL/Bilingual leaders found limited educational venues in which to discuss the performance-based nature of ELP/D standards. Implications for assessment, policy, and leadership preparation are discussed.

Aligning English Language Proficiency Standards With Content Standards: Shared Opportunity and Responsibility Across English Learner Education and Content Areas

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (8) ◽  
pp. 534-542 ◽  
Author(s):  
Okhee Lee
Keyword(s):  
Language Proficiency ◽  
English Learners ◽  
English Language ◽  
English Language Proficiency ◽  
Content Standards ◽  
Content Areas ◽  
Disciplinary Practices ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
English Language Proficiency Standards ◽  
K 12

The Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 mandates that English language proficiency (ELP) standards align with content standards. As the fast-growing population of English learners (ELs) is expected to meet college- and career-ready content standards, the purpose of this article is to highlight key issues in aligning ELP standards with content standards. The overarching question is how to align ELP standards with academically rigorous and language-intensive disciplinary practices of content standards while respecting and maintaining the nature of the discipline within each area. I begin by describing contributions and shortcomings of content standards and ELP standards. Next, I propose consideration of three components in aligning ELP standards with content standards: (a) norms of disciplinary practices across content areas, (b) developmental progressions of disciplinary practices across K–12 grade levels or bands and across content areas, and (c) language use across levels of English proficiency. For each component, the challenges in establishing alignment and potential trade-offs in addressing these challenges are discussed. Finally, I highlight how these challenges present opportunities for substantive collaboration between EL education and content areas to move these fields forward and ensure ELs achieve academically rigorous content standards while developing ELP.

Do current English language development/proficiency standards reflect the English needed for success in school?

2011 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 343-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison L. Bailey ◽  
Becky H. Huang
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
English Learners ◽  
English Language ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
School Setting ◽  
English Language Development ◽  
Language Learner ◽  
Academic English ◽  
K 12

English language development or proficiency (ELD/P) standards promise to play an important role in the instruction and assessment of the language development of English language learner (ELL) pre-K-12 students, but to do so effectively they must convey the progression of student language learning in authentic school contexts for authentic academic purposes. The construct of academic English is defined as the vocabulary, sentence structures, and discourse associated with language used to teach academic content as well as the language used to navigate the school setting more generally. The construct definition is informed by a relatively modest number of empirical studies of textbooks, content assessments, and observations of classroom discourse. The standards of a state with a large ELL population and a large multi-state consortium are then reviewed to illustrate the role of the academic English construct in the standards’ coverage of language modalities or domains, levels of attainment or proficiency, grade spans, and the needs of the large number of young English learners. Recommendations and potential strategies for validating, creating, and augmenting standards that reflect authentic uses of academic language in school settings are also made.

scholarly journals Preventing Long-Term English Learners: Results from a Project-Based Differentiated ELD Intervention Program

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magaly Lavadenz ◽  
Elvira Armas ◽  
Rosalinda Barajas
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
English Learners ◽  
English Language ◽  
Intervention Program ◽  
Development Program ◽  
English Language Development ◽  
Project Based Learning ◽  
Long Term English Learners

<p>In this article the authors describe efforts taken by a small southern California school district to develop and implement an innovative, research-based English Language Development program to address a growing concern over long-term English Learners (LTELs) in their district. With support from the Weingart Foundation this afterschool program served 3<sup>rd</sup> and 7<sup>th</sup> grade LTELs between 2008–2011 to accelerate language and literacy acquisition and prevent prolonged EL status. Program evaluation results indicated that the intervention was associated with improved English language proficiency as measured by the California English Language Development Test. Results also showed a heightened awareness of effective practices for LTELs among the district’s teachers and high levels of satisfaction among the participants’ parents. This intervention program has implications for classroom-based intervention including project-based learning for LTELs, for targeted professional development, and for further research for the prevention of LTEL status.</p>

English Language Proficiency Standards Aligned With Content Standards

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 317-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Okhee Lee
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
English Learners ◽  
English Language ◽  
English Language Proficiency ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Content Standards ◽  
Federal Legislation ◽  
Content Areas ◽  
Disciplinary Practices

As federal legislation requires that English language proficiency (ELP) standards are aligned with content standards, this article addresses issues and concerns in aligning ELP standards with content standards in English language arts, mathematics, and science. It starts with a brief description of federal legislation for alignment between ELP standards and content standards along with challenges of ensuring alignment. Then, it highlights how current efforts to ensure alignment center on the language used to engage in disciplinary practices of content standards. Next, taking a perspective on ELP standards from the vantage point of content areas, the article presents a critique of ELP standards developed by the two major consortia of states, WIDA and English Language Proficiency Assessment for the 21st Century (ELPA21). Specifically, the critique focuses on how each consortium addresses two aspects of alignment: (a) disciplinary practices across content areas and (b) cognitive expectations across proficiency levels. Both consortia fall short in accurately reflecting disciplinary practices and maintaining consistent cognitive expectations. Lessons learned from this critique offer recommendations for the field to move forward in ensuring English learners capitalize on the opportunities and meet the demands for both content and language learning presented by content standards. As the challenges in ELP standards development lie squarely at the intersection of content and language learning, the article ends with a call to action for closer collaboration between language and content educators.

Cultivating Rich Language Development, Deep Learning, and Joyful Classrooms for English Learners

2019 ◽  
pp. 269-293
Author(s):  
Martha I. Martinez ◽  
Anya Hurwitz ◽  
Jennifer Analla ◽  
Laurie Olsen ◽  
Joanna Meadvin
Keyword(s):  
Deep Learning ◽  
Language Development ◽  
English Learners ◽  
English Language ◽  
Academic Language ◽  
English Language Development ◽  
Teaching English ◽  
Meaningful Engagement ◽  
Comprehensive Reform ◽  
Grade 3

Although there is general consensus among educators of English learners (ELs) regarding the need for contextualized language development, it is not widely implemented. This chapter explains the theory behind this shift in teaching English language development and for teaching ELs in general. The chapter also discusses the kind of professional development teachers need to make this shift, and the importance of meaningful engagement of families in their children's learning. The chapter situates this discussion within the Sobrato Early Academic Language (SEAL) model's work with schools across California. SEAL is a PK–Grade 3 comprehensive reform focused on the needs of English learners, and is designed to create a language-rich, joyful, and rigorous education. California is an important context given the state's large EL population and recent favorable shifts in educational policy, which provide a unique opportunity for laying a foundation for improved practices and outcomes for numerous English learners.

Exploring the Factor Structure of a K–12 English Language Proficiency Assessment

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Molly Faulkner-Bond ◽  
Mikyung Kim Wolf ◽  
Craig S. Wells ◽  
Stephen G. Sireci
Keyword(s):  
Factor Structure ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
English Language ◽  
English Language Proficiency ◽  
Proficiency Assessment ◽  
K 12

A comparison of reliability and precision of subscore reporting methods for a state English language proficiency assessment

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanya Longabach ◽  
Vicki Peyton
Keyword(s):  
Item Response Theory ◽  
Item Response ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
English Language ◽  
English Language Proficiency ◽  
Test Theory ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Proficiency Tests ◽  
Response Theory ◽  
K 12

K–12 English language proficiency tests that assess multiple content domains (e.g., listening, speaking, reading, writing) often have subsections based on these content domains; scores assigned to these subsections are commonly known as subscores. Testing programs face increasing customer demands for the reporting of subscores in addition to the total test scores in today’s accountability-oriented educational environment. Although reporting subscores can provide much-needed information for teachers, administrators, and students about proficiency in the test domains, one of the major drawbacks of subscore reporting includes their lower reliability as compared to the test as a whole. In addition, viewing language domains as if they were not interrelated, and reporting subscores without considering this relationship between domains, may be contradictory to the theory of language acquisition. This study explored several methods of assigning subscores to the four domains of a state English language proficiency test, including classical test theory (CTT)-based number correct, unidimensional item response theory (UIRT), augmented item response theory (A-IRT), and multidimensional item response theory (MIRT), and compared the reliability and precision of these different methods across language domains and grade bands. The first two methods assessed proficiency in the domains separately, without considering the relationship between domains; the last two methods took into consideration relationships between domains. The reliability and precision of the CTT and UIRT methods were similar and lower than those of A-IRT and MIRT for most domains and grade bands; MIRT was found to be the most reliable method. Policy implications and limitations of this study, as well as directions for further research, are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document