Promoting the Educational Success of Children and Youth Learning English: Promising Futures (2017)

National Academies Press: OpenBook

Chapter: 7 Programs for English Learners in Grades Pre-K to 12

Visit NAP.edu/10766 to get more information about this book, to buy it in print, or to download it as a free PDF.

Suggested Citation:"7 Programs for English Learners in Grades Pre-K to 12." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Promoting the Educational Success of Children and Youth Learning English: Promising Futures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24677.

This chapter begins with a discussion about connecting effective programs for dual language learners (DLLs) with effective programs and practices for English learners (ELs). 1 It then provides an overview of the English-only and bilingual programs that serve ELs in grades pre-K to 12 and the evaluation research that compares outcomes for ELs instructed in English-only programs with ELs instructed in bilingual programs. This is followed by a review of the research on instructional practices for developing ELs’ oral language proficiency in grades K-12. Next, the chapter reviews district-wide practices related to the educational progress of ELs and examines the role of family engagement in ELs’ educational success. The chapter ends with conclusions.

Attention to how ELs are faring in grades pre-K to 12 comes at a pivotal time in American education. Schools throughout the nation are teaching to higher curricular standards in core subject areas—English language arts, social studies, mathematics, and science (Bunch, 2013; Cantrell et al., 2009; Echevarria et al., 2011; Lara-Alecio et al., 2012). All students, including ELs, are expected to engage with academic content that is considerably more demanding than in previous years, and they must now demonstrate deeper levels of understanding and analysis of that content.

1 When referring to young children ages birth to 5 in their homes, communities, or early care and education programs, this report uses the term “dual language learners” or “DLLs.” When referring to children ages 5 and older in the pre-K to 12 education system, the term “English learners” or “ELs” is used. When referring to the broader group of children and adolescents ages birth to 21, the term “DLLs/ELs” is used. (See Box 1-1 in Chapter 1 for details.)

ELs face the dual tasks of achieving English proficiency while mastering grade-level academic subjects.

CONNECTING EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS FOR DUAL LANGUAGE LEARNERS BIRTH TO AGE 5 WITH ENGLISH LEARNERS IN PRE-K TO 12

Research on children’s learning, programs, and policies follows a divide between early learning programs (birth to 5) and pre-K to 12 education (ages 3 to 21) in the United States (Takanishi, 2016). To address this gap, the U.S. Department of Education has issued nonregulatory guidance on how states can better connect their early education programs with pre-K to 12 education, as proposed under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (see Chapter 2 for more detail).

The evidence is now clear that becoming proficient in English and able to perform at grade level in core academic subjects in English takes time and occurs over several grades (see Chapter 6) (Thompson, 2015; Umansky and Reardon, 2014; Valentino and Reardon, 2015). Given findings that the levels of proficiency in an EL’s home language and in English at school entry are related to the time to English proficiency in the K-12 grades (Thompson, 2015), more attention is needed to how the early grades, especially K-5, build the academic language that young children need to be successful in school. The Sobrato Early Academic Literacy (SEAL) Program is an example of a pre-K to grade 3 approach that educates ELs in predominantly English settings as well as in those that are bilingual (see Box 7-1).

ENGLISH-ONLY AND BILINGUAL APPROACHES TO INSTRUCTION

This section first describes the program models used to teach ELs and then turns to findings from the evaluation research that compares outcomes for ELs taught primarily in English-only programs with ELs taught in bilingual programs. The committee notes that implementation of the programs described varies depending on attention to the professional development of educators (see Chapter 12) and to issues of fidelity of implementation (e.g., O’Donnell, 2008). Program labels may not accurately reflect what teachers do and what students experience in classrooms.

Program Models

The two broad approaches used to teach ELs English in grades pre-K to 12 are (1) English as a second language (ESL) approaches, in which English is the predominant language used for instruction, and (2) bilingual

approaches, in which English and students’ home languages are used for instruction. Each approach has various models (Faulkner-Bond et al., 2012) (see Table 7-1). The three models that provide instruction predominantly in English are the ESL model, the content-based ESL model, and the sheltered instruction model. “In ESL instructional programs, ESL-certified teachers provide explicit language instruction that focuses on the development of proficiency in English. In content-based ESL instructional programs, ESL-certified teachers provide language instruction that uses subject matter content as a medium for building language skills. In sheltered instructional programs, teachers provide instruction that simultaneously introduces both language and content using specialized techniques to accommodate DLL’s linguistic needs” (Faulkner-Bond et al., 2012, pp. x-xiii).

The two models that provide bilingual instruction are the transitional bilingual education (TBE) model and the dual language (DL) model (Boyle et al., 2015). In TBE programs, students typically begin learning in their home language in kindergarten or grade 1 and transition to English incrementally over time. In TBE programs, while the L1 is used to leverage English, the goal is to achieve English proficiency as quickly as possible. In early-exit TBE programs, ELs generally exit prior to grade 3.

DL instructional programs vary in structure, implementation, and enrolled student populations. Unlike TBE programs, where the goal is English proficiency, DL programs aim to help students develop high levels of language proficiency and literacy in both program languages. Additionally, they aim to help students attain high levels of academic achievement and develop an appreciation for and understanding of multiple cultures (Boyle et al., 2015). There are two types of DL instructional programs. The first is a one-way dual language program that serves predominantly one group of students. The students served may be ELs who are acquiring English and developing their L1. Two other groups also can be served by this type of program: (1) predominantly English-speaking students who are developing their English and acquiring a world language, and (2) predominantly heritage language learners. The second type of DL program is a two-way DL program in which ELs and English-speaking peers receive instruction in both English and the ELs’ L1 in the same classes (also called the partner language in these programs).

Findings from Evaluation Research

Syntheses of studies that compare outcomes for ELs instructed in English-only programs with outcomes for ELs instructed bilingually have found either that there are no differences in outcomes measured in English or that ELs in bilingual programs outperform those instructed only in English when outcomes are measured in English (and in the partner lan-

BOX 7-1
Sobrato Early Academic Literacy (SEAL) Program

SEAL is a promising approach that aims to connect ELs’ pre-K experiences with the early primary grades, K-3, in both predominantly English and bilingual settings. As of the 2016-2017 school year, the SEAL model had expanded to 87 California schools in 16 districts, reaching more than 39,000 students (Sobrato Family Foundation, 2016). Based on Common Core State Standards and the California state preschool learning foundations, SEAL emphasizes language-rich instruction delivered through integrated thematic units that embed language development within the academic content of social studies and science, with a strong focus on oral language and vocabulary development and extensive parental engagement practices.

To promote an affirming environment and to support students’ first language (L1), the SEAL model explicitly emphasizes the value of bilingualism and supports students’ use of their L1 to discuss their culture, family, and identity. Building strong relationships between families and teachers is also an important component of the SEAL model. Parents are encouraged to be involved in the schools and to develop their own literacy to foster their child’s development. Some of the strategies used to engage parents and families and build relationships between parents and teachers include providing classes in English as a second language for parents at the school, recruiting and training parents as classroom volunteers, communicating with parents regularly using multiple forms of communication, providing guidance for teachers on how to incorporate the culture and experiences of students from diverse backgrounds, offering book loan programs that provide students with books to read at home with their families, and conducting workshops for parents on how to support language and literacy development at home and on the importance of the L1 and the family’s culture.

In 2015, an evaluation of the SEAL program examined the outcomes of Spanish-speaking students who participated in the SEAL preschool program and continued participating in the program in grades K-3. Outcome data focused on language, literacy, mathematics/cognitive, and social outcomes—components that are the focus of SEAL. After 5 full years of program implementation, the evaluation yielded the following findings (Lindholm-Leary, 2015):

There was a high level of implementation of SEAL, with more than two-thirds of teachers being rated as high implementers. Further, there was no difference in level of implementation across school sites. While teachers were more likely to be rated as high implementers in classes with bilingual as compared with English instruction, the difference was not statistically significant.
TSEAL students who received the full intervention from pre-K to grade 3 were compared with partial SEAL students who received the same in

tervention in elementary school but did not participate in pre-K and may have had less elementary school experience with SEAL as well (only 1-2 years instead of 3-4). In assessments during grades 2 and 3, the English language proficiency, English reading/language arts, and math scores, as well as Spanish reading/language arts and math scores, of SEAL students who had participated in the program since kindergarten were significantly higher than the SEAL scores of students who had not.

These findings indicate that SEAL is a promising approach for developing English proficiency and subject matter learning based on the Common Core State Standards for low-income Hispanic/Latino students, including those living in immigrant families. A large-scale evaluation of SEAL using Common Core assessments is now under way with a representative sample of 7,000-10,000 SEAL students (Sobrato Family Foundation, 2016).

Program Names	Program Description	Teacher Description	Goals	Format
English as a Second Language Approaches
English as a Second Language (ESL)

Alternative Names: English Language Development (ELD), English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)

Alternative Name: Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE)

Bilingual Approaches
Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE)

Alternative Name: Early-Exit Bilingual Education

Alternative Names: Late-Exit Bilingual; Maintenance Bilingual; Developmental Bilingual Education (DBE)

Alternative Names: Dual Immersion (DI), Two-Way Immersion (TWI)

a As used here, an ESL-certified teacher is a teacher with a license, credential, and/or certification to provide English language instruction to second language learners. Different states and districts may use different naming conventions to refer to this kind of instructor.

b A heritage language learner is a person studying a language who has some proficiency in or a cultural connection to that language through family, community, or country of origin. Heritage language learners have widely diverse levels of proficiency in the language (in terms of oral proficiency and literacy) and of connections to the language and culture. They are different in many ways from students studying the language as a foreign language.

guage if the control group includes speakers of partner languages and outcomes are measured in those languages). For meta-analyses of the research, see Faulkner-Bond et al. (2012), Francis et al. (2006), Greene (1997), Rolstad et al. (2005), Slavin and Cheung (2005), and Willig (1985). For reviews of the research, see Rossell and Baker (1996), Lindholm-Leary and Borsato (2006), Genesee and Lindholm-Leary (2012), and.

The committee calls attention to two studies that followed students in programs with different models for language of instruction for sufficient time to gauge the longer-term effects of language of instruction on EL outcomes. Umansky and Reardon (2014) examined the effects of several programs, including TBE, developmental bilingual education (DBE), English immersion (EI), and dual immersion (DI), on reclassification rates using administrative data on Latino EL kindergarten entrants to California public schools in the 2000s. Students were followed through grade 11. The study aimed to control for selection biases by holding relevant student and school characteristics constant. The study found that “two-language programs, especially those that focus on home language acquisition in the early grades, may result in longer durations of EL status prior to reclassification” (p. 906). However, the study also found that ELs in bilingual/DL programs have a higher long-term likelihood of becoming proficient in English, meeting an English language arts threshold, and being reclassified relative to ELs in English-only programs.

Using the same data and research design with additional controls for parental preferences, Valentino and Reardon (2015) examined the effect of these same programs on ELs’ English language arts and math achievement in middle school. The study compared students with the same parental preferences and found substantial differences in the short- versus long-term effects of the different instructional models. According to the authors, “By second grade, ELs in DI classrooms have ELA [English language arts] test scores that are well below those of their peers in EI [English instruction] classrooms. At the same time, ELs in TB programs have test scores well above those of ELs in EI on both ELA and math, and those in DB have math test scores that are significantly higher than their peers in DI. However, by seventh grade, students in DI and TB programs have much higher ELA scores than those in EI classrooms” (p. 30). Explanations for short- versus long-term effects may be that ELs in DI programs spend more of their time in the early grades learning in their home languages and that assessments to measure math and English language arts may be administered in English. A second notable result is that the test scores of ELs in DI programs far outpace those of ELs in other programs. The authors hypothesize that this may be due to the opportunity in DI programs for ELs to interact with English-speaking peers and the fact that instruction in content in their home language helps ensure that ELs do not fall behind in grade-level subjects.

BOX 7-2
Improving the Design of Studies of Language of Instruction

There is an abundance of research on the effects of language of instruction on EL outcomes; however, the design of the studies could be improved by

providing more information about students’ characteristics, such as ages, levels of language proficiency, degrees of bilingualism, family resources, and ethnicity;
providing more details about students’ school and community contexts, including the status of their languages;
providing more details about the program models, including how much, for how long, and how each language is used;
providing information about the experience and training of teachers involved in implementing programs and how well they are implementing key components of the programs;
randomly assigning students to programs or conducting quasi-experiments with matched control groups; and
following students over longer periods of time because ELs instructed bilingually tend to take additional time to acquire full proficiency in two languages, and learning languages takes time.

Moreover, continued development in the home language provides opportunities for transfer from that language to English.

Research also has begun to explore the relationship between classroom language use configurations and student outcomes. A qualitative study (Soltero-González et al., 2016) found that paired literacy instruction led to stronger literacy outcomes in both languages relative to sequential literacy instruction in which children learn mostly in their partner language first and then transition to English. However, debates about the most appropriate approaches to language instruction are ongoing. For example, drawing on the second language acquisition literature, some guidance calls for the separation of languages. This means that teachers and students are expected to use mostly one language or another in any given lesson (Howard et al., 2007). Others argue for an approach to bilingualism that allows for the mixing of languages within a classroom. Proponents of this approach, called translanguaging (García, 2009), claim that individuals with two or more languages benefit from drawing on all of their linguistic resources in classrooms (García, 2009). Studies are needed to compare the effects of the two approaches on ELs’ language, literacy, and content area outcomes.

Some research related to language of instruction for ELs has been limited by selection bias because the preferences of administrators, teach-

ers, parents, and sometimes children play a role in determining which type of instruction a student receives (Francis et al., 2006; Slavin and Cheung, 2005), as well as by the failure to take into account factors other than type of programming that might influence outcomes. Box 7-2 lists factors that need to be considered in interpreting findings from studies that compare one type of program model with another, while Box 7-3 summarizes a case study of one K-12 DL school.

BOX 7-3
Profile of a K-12 Dual Language School

The Chula Vista Learning Community Charter School (CVLCC) in Chula Vista, California, is a Spanish-English dual language school located just 7 miles north of the Mexican border near San Diego. CVLCC serves more than 1,000 students in grades K-12, 94 percent of whom are Latinos, 60.5 percent of whom are categorized as “socioeconomically disadvantaged,” and 37.4 percent of whom are classified as ELs. a The instructional program is aligned with California’s Common Core State Standards and aims to develop high-level thinking, literacy, and communication skills across the curriculum. b Children begin kindergarten with 50 percent instruction in English and 50 percent in Spanish (Alfaro et al., 2014).

CVLCC serves a student population that is generally at high risk for academic failure, yet a case study of the school found substantial academic gains for its students from 2005 to 2012, with the school’s Academic Performance Index (API) score rising from 680 in 2005 to 880 in 2012. This accomplishment earned the school a Title I Closing the Achievement Gap Award for the 2010-2011 school year and a California Distinguished School award in 2012 (Alfaro et al., 2014). In 2012, the API score for CVLCC’s ELs was 854, considerably above the score of 758 for California’s ELs in grades 2-6. In 2013, the last year for which the state of California reported API scores for schools, CVLCC’s scores declined somewhat, possibly reflecting the adoption and implementation of new curricular frameworks aligned with the Common Core State Standards. Averaged over 3 years, the school and all student subgroups met their growth targets for the year, with a 3-year average API of 869 for the school and 840 for ELs. c

At CVLCC, students learn through Spanish and English but also in Mandarin. Finding teachers who can teach science, math, literature, and history aligned with current standards in more than one language is a challenge. The success of dual language schools like CVLCC depends in large part on having teachers who not only have the professional and linguistic qualifications to teach but also are equipped with the sociocultural understanding of the life experiences of students and their families that is a prerequisite for effective teaching and learning (see Chapter 12).

Dual language instruction is considerably more complex than other forms of pedagogy. To develop its faculty, the school partnered with the San Diego State University Dual Language and English Learner Education (SDSU-DLE) Program to provide preservice and in-service professional development. This includes a

1-week Paulo Freire Institute for the CVLCC teachers and administrators. The partnership began with the assumption that university and school faculty alike have much to learn from one another, and that it is important to prepare teachers to work on developing a pedagogical approach that will support students in working at grade level, irrespective of the quality of their prior schooling, their language background, or their socioeconomic status. To this end, teachers have to learn to recognize the cultural, linguistic, and social resources that students bring to the school from their homes and communities. This in turn requires that educators work with families and community members as partners in learning about their cultural and linguistic assets and in creating “inclusive learning communities, where teacher, school leadership, student, and parent each play an integral role in supporting student success” (Alfaro et al., 2014, p. 21).

CVLCC’s pedagogical approach encourages teachers to engage their students in deep inquiry and dialogue about the subject matter, whether in studying history or developing writing skills across the curriculum. CVLCC teachers have designed their curriculum and instructional program to support their students’ development of high-level thinking skills and to demonstrate their knowledge and skills both orally and in writing. Teachers across the languages engage in close collaboration and joint planning, and students are held to the same standards in both Spanish and English (Alfaro et al., 2014).

Instruction at CVLCC is student-centered, with students learning cooperatively and teachers facilitating learning by asking probing questions, but otherwise observing students as they grapple with ideas and probe one another’s thinking. By grade 4, the students are expected to handle such academic tasks as peer editing that require high levels of proficiency in both English and Spanish. They are able to critique and offer feedback to one another on their written work. This emphasis on dialogic learning helps students develop critical thinking and oral language skills. Alfaro and colleagues (2014) report that the benefits to students are substantial, and students learn how to express themselves fluently in language that is academically appropriate.

The authors of the CVLCC case study are cautious about claiming that the experience at this one dual language school can be generalized to other schools facing the challenges of ELs’ linguistically and culturally complex learning. CVLCC nevertheless shows what is possible when school leadership, teacher collaboration, and classroom instruction, all connected with a local teacher preparation institution, are aligned to support the deep learning of ELs.

a Every school in California is required by state law to publish a School Accountability Report Card (SARC). These data are from Chula Vista’s 2013-2014 SARC, which was published during the 2014-2015 school year. Available: http://schools.cvesd.org/schools/cvlcc/Documents/_2014_School_Accountability_Report_Card_Chula_Vista_Learning_Community_Charter_Elementary_School.pdf [January 20, 2017].

b The school relies on the Freirean philosophy (1970) in its professional development program.

c California Department of Education: Academic Performance Index (API) Report 3 Year Average API School Report. Available: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/apireports.asp [September 28, 2016].