ell program road maps · 2020-04-14 · ell program road maps: pull-out eld 1 research foundation...

ELL Program Road MapsELEMENTARY PULL-OUT ELD

Contents1 Research foundation

3 Guiding principles

17 Reflective tool

31 Bibliography

The following educators were collaborative partners throughout this process. Without their expertise, creation of the Beaverton Road Maps would not have been possible.

Joyce DeBusk, ELD Teacher, Fir Grove Elementary SchoolErika Heslin, Assistant Principal, Kinnamen Elementary SchoolKate Kelley, Intervention Teacher/Parent Educator, Greenway Elementary SchoolLori Krumm, Assistant Director of SPED, Office of Special Education

1ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD

Research FoundationWith the introduction of new standards for core content and English language proficiency, teaching and learning for English language learners (ELLs) has shifted dramatically over the last few years. ELLs lag behind their mainstream peers by most achievement measures, and educators throughout Beaverton School District are faced with the daunting challenge of shifting their practice to keep pace with evolving standards, student needs, and 21st century literacies. This document is an ELL Program Road Map, developed collaboratively by educators from Beaverton School District and technical assistance experts from Education Northwest. It is designed to serve as a best practice guide for effectively implementing a pull-out English language development (ELD) program in an elementary setting.

Like most districts around the country, Beaverton serves its heaviest concentrations of ELLs in the primary grades. Pull-out ELD is one of the most common programs for serving these students, especially in schools with low concentrations of ELLs. Although much has shifted in the ELL field, there are four important principles based on the research about effective instruction for ELLs. These principles are adapted from “English Language Development: Guidelines for Instruction” (Saunders, Goldenberg, & Marcelletti, 2013) and English Language Tool Kit for State and Local Education Agencies (SEAs and LEAs) (U.S. Department of Education, 2015).

1. Standards-aligned instruction and best instructional practices for ELLs are rigorous, grade-level appropriate, and provide deliberate and appropriate scaffolds. Such programs should include:– Clear goals and objectives– Appropriate and challenging

material– Well-designed instruction and

instructional routines– Clear instruction and supportive

guidance as learners engage with new skills

– Effective modeling of skills, strategies, and procedures

– Active student engagement and participation

– Informative feedback to learners– Application of new learning and

transfer of that learning to new situations

– Practice and periodic review– Structured, focused interactions

with other students– Opportunities for students to

describe their reasoning, share explanations, make conjectures, justify conclusions, argue for evidence, and negotiate meaning from complex texts

– Frequent assessments, with reteaching as needed

– Well-established classroom routines and behavior norms

2 ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD

2. ELLs require additional instructional supports, including:– Focused ELD instruction,

sheltered instruction (for example, SIOP and GLAD strategies)

– Building on student experiences and familiar content (then adding on material that will broaden and deepen students’ knowledge)

– Providing students with necessary background knowledge

– Using graphic organizers (tables, web diagrams, Venn diagrams) to organize information and clarify concepts

– Making instruction and learning tasks extremely clear

– Using pictures, demonstrations, and real-life objects

– Providing repeated practice with scaffolds (gestures, visual cues)

– Giving additional practice and time for discussion of key concepts

– Designating language and content objective for each lesson

– Using sentence frames and models to help students talk about academic content

– Providing instruction differentiated by students’ English language proficiency

3. The home language can be used to promote academic development, such as:– Use cognates (words with shared

meanings that have common etymological roots)

– Provide instruction that leverages ELLs’ home language(s), cultural assets, and prior knowledge

– Elicit vocabulary from the student in his/her home language

– Encourage families to support native language literacy at home

4. ELLs need early and ample opportunities to develop proficiency in English, including:– Ensuring ELD is a school and

districtwide priority– Providing daily focused ELD

instruction

– Offering ELD instruction that explicitly teaches forms of English and emphasizes academic language, as well as conversational language

ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD 3

Guiding PrinciplesThis document is organized into the following seven programmatic strands, based on Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education from the Center for Applied Linguistics (Howard, Sugarman, Christian, Lindholm-Leary, & Rogers, 2007):1. Program Structure2. Curriculum3. Instruction4. Assessment & Accountability5. Educator Effectiveness & Professional Learning6. Family & Community7. Support & Resources

In the pages to follow, each guiding principle will be detailed to provide specific suggestions for best practice. In the accompanying reflective tool, each guiding principle is further supported with reflective questions and an organizer for planning.


Program Structure

It is important to consider the student de-mographics of your school before choosing an ELD pull-out model. This model is most successful for students who are unable to access core content even with scaffolding and supports in the classroom due to their low level of English language proficiency.

PurposeThe main goal of an ELD pull-out program is the development of English language proficiency. It is designed to help ELLs learn and acquire English to an advanced level of proficiency that maximizes their capacity to engage successfully in academic studies taught in English. It is a separate, daily block of time that is devoted to targeted, intensive language lessons (Saunders et al., 2013). In pull-out programs, students leave their mainstream classroom for pull-out services at a time when core-content instruction is not taking place. In this model, ELLs are carefully grouped by language proficiency and individual learning needs for ELD instruction. However, the students should not be segregated by language proficiency throughout the rest of the day. It is important that ELLs have continued

support throughout the school day in the form of sheltered instruction or additional push-in support from ELD teachers.

This model is more common in elementary schools, and it bears mentioning that the instructional space and resources should be comparable to mainstream settings throughout the building (Zacarian & Haynes, 2012). For a pull-out model to be effective, it should be based on student needs, with more supports and resources allocated to students with lower profiles. Students new to the country will need a separate ELD time that may be longer than other pull-out groups. Groups should be frequently monitored for growth, and as students’ language skills improve the ability to access classroom content, supports should then shift to being provided in the classroom via a coteaching model (Zacarian & Haynes, 2012). One scheduling consideration for the pull-out model is that students will eventually progress to higher levels of English language proficiency. For these students, a coteaching model would be more appropriate for their learning needs, as the coteaching model keeps students integrated in their mainstream class.

Pull-Out ELD Programs at a Glance

Strengths Challenges Implementation considerations

Successful for students unable to access core content due to low level of English language proficiency.

A significant amount of collaboration time needed between ELD teacher and classroom teacher.

A consistent time per week of collabora-tion/planning time to facilitate common assessments, promote cultural relevance, and connect background knowledge.

5

Strengths Challenges Implementation considerations

Aligned to state content language standards.

Creation of a master schedule that allows for flexibility.

Flexible master schedule to minimize impact of lost class time.

Small group with focused attention on students’ language needs according to the student’s individual profile.

Difficult for administrator to monitor and enforce core instruction not occurring during ELD instruction.

Flexibility to accommodate fluctuating numbers of students.

Students connect culturally with other students with similar needs and backgrounds.

Long-term consequences of ELL students missing classes such as science/social studies. Academic language could be missing.

Must have ability to clearly articulate model to families.

Increased time for oral practice through academic discussion.

Possible social implications of leaving mainstream class.

Grade-level curriculum map available.

Environment promotes low affective filter (increasing students’ willingness to take risks).

Potential for adding additional expectations to an already heavy content load. Difficulty transferring skills from pull out to classroom.

Language strand of Common Core State Standards overlaps with ELP Standards and should be taught so that all students are receiving language instruction at the same time.

Flexibility to adapt curriculum that reflects students’ backgrounds and cultures.

Potential for increased staffing allocation and a need for space in the building that is free from distractions.

Pull-out instruction must be needs based with sufficient supports and resources allocated to students with lower profiles.

Students receive targeted instruction that meets their individual needs.

Providing interventions to dually identified students while limiting removal from mainstream class.

Individual plan for students with dual identification to minimize time out of the classroom.

Grade-level considerations

Elementary SchoolWhen planning the master schedule, it is critical that pull-out services do not coincide with content area instruction and that classroom teachers have a clear understanding of what will be taught when ELLs are in pull-out ELD. ELD teachers will need a consistent allocation of collaboration time with classroom teachers to integrate the ELP Standards and the Common Core State Standards.

Questions to guide collaboration:1. What common academic language will be used by the classroom teacher and the ELD teacher

(for example, “juicy words” vs. adjectives)?2. What language structures or sentence frames will be used as scaffolds?3. What skills do we expect the students to transfer from ELD into the classroom and how will

those skills be demonstrated and assessed?4. Which ELP standard complements the Common Core Language Standard?5. How can core content be connected to students’ cultural backgrounds?

Please refer to the Support and Resources section for further information on collaboration.

ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD


Curriculum

The curriculum of an ELD pull-out program provides the teacher’s plan for instruction in order for student learning to occur. Often, curriculum is confused with instructional materials. The intent of this section is not to focus on the instructional materials, but rather on the teacher’s specific curricular plan for leading student learning.

The ELD pull-out program must be aligned to state content and language standards. It is critical for ELD teachers to have a deep understanding of the ELP Standards and how they overlap with the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards.

Organization of the ELP Standards in Relation to Participation in Content-Area Practices (CCSSO, 2014)

1. Construct meaning from oral presentations and literary and informational text through grade-appropriate listening, reading, and viewing

Standards 1–7 involve the language necessary for ELLs to engage in the central content-specific practices associated with ELA and literacy, mathematics, and science. They begin with a focus on extraction of meaning and then progress to engagement in these practices.

2. Participate in grade-appropriate oral and written exchanges of information, ideas, and analyses, responding to peer, audience, or reader comments and questions

3. Speak and write about grade-appropriate complex literary and informational texts and topics

4. Construct grade-appropriate oral and written claims and support them with reasoning and evidence

5. Conduct research and evaluate and communicate findings to answer questions or solve problems

6. Analyze and critique the arguments of others orally and in writing

7. Adapt language choices to purpose, task, and audience when speaking and writing

8. Determine the meaning of words and phrases in oral presentations and literary and informational text

Standards 8–10 home in on some of the more micro-level linguistic features that are undoubtedly important to focus on, but only in the service of the other seven standards.

9. Create clear and coherent grade-appropriate speech and text

10. Make accurate use of standard English to communicate in grade-appropriate speech and writing

7

For the teacher to be effective in connecting the Common Core and language standards, there needs to be sufficient and consistent planning and collaboration time with classroom teachers and ELL specialists. The ELP Standards illuminate the social and academic uses of language inherent in—and needed to fully access—the new, language-rich college and career-readiness content standards.

There is a movement in the reformulation of pedagogy for ELL students, which involves a series of shifts in the design of learning materials and pedagogical approaches. Understanding and implementing these pedagogical shifts is pivotal to success in

the education of future generations of ELLs (Heritage, Walqui, & Linquanti, 2015). ELD teachers need to understand how to apply the ELP Standards to their planning and instruction by focusing on the critical language, knowledge about language, and skills using language that are found in college- and career-readiness standards and are necessary for the ELLs to be successful in school. The ELP Standards focus on the language needed to access college and career-readiness standards in English language arts (ELA) and literacy, mathematics, and science rather than supporting ELLs’ development of English proficiency in a manner that is decontextualized from the mainstream curriculum.


Elementary SchoolWhen distributing staff and resources among grade levels, it will be important to keep in mind that the primary grades will likely have higher numbers of students and those students’ profiles will likely be lower. As a result, there needs to be flexibility to accommodate fluctuating numbers of students. Depending on the school demographics, schools with high concentrations of ELLs in the lower grades might create a set of supports by coupling pull-out programming with collaborative push-in supports between ELD teachers and classroom teachers. This collaboration is a critical component to an effective pull-out program. Strategically allocating personnel and providing ongoing opportunities for collaborative learning and development greatly increases ELL student achievement, (York-Barr, Ghere, & Sommerness, 2007) and a greater sense of shared responsibility and accountability for all students (Honigsfeld & Dove, 2014).

Often, it is difficult to decide what to teach while ELLs are out of the classroom to ensure that they do not miss core-content instruction. In addition, the instruction that happens in the classroom while non-ELLs remain needs to be carefully planned to ensure it is a valuable use of learning time. Classroom teachers may need support from their administrators regarding what to teach and how to maximize instruction while ELL students are out of the classroom so that learning outcomes are equitable.



Curriculum (cont’d)

With a shift to new standards comes a reformulation of practice as it relates to planning. How do teachers support ELLs as they simultaneously negotiate the academic language and analytical demands of content

aligned to 21st century standards? The shifts outlined below are an introduction to some of the changes we must consider in curriculum.

Shifts in ELD Curriculum

From … To …

Seeing language acquisition as an individual process Understanding it as a social process of apprenticeship

Seeing language acquisition as a linear and progressive process aimed at accuracy, fluency, and complexity

Understanding that acquisition occurs in nonlinear and complex ways

Using simple or simplified texts Using complex, amplified texts

Source: Adapted from Heritage et al., 2015, p. 24, table 2.1.

The ELP Standards are interrelated and can be used separately or in combination. Standards 8–10 specifically relate to the language forms and functions required in academic tasks related to standards 1–7. ELD teachers bring their expertise of microlinguistic features found in standards 8–10 as they support standards 1–7. They know the language demands of the academic practices and as a result can scaffold and differentiate instruction for all levels of ELLs. This is why collaboration is so important—there must be a genuine collaborative effort between the ELD teacher and the grade-level team at each school to develop effective, grade-appropriate curriculum for ELD instruction.

Cultural relevance is an underlying component of student engagement. Cooperative planning teams should take careful note of their students’ cultural backgrounds when designing curriculum.

9

Instruction

There is a large body of research to support the direct link between high-quality instruction and positive student outcomes. It doesn’t matter how good the planning is if the implementation through instruction is weak. One of the pillars of high-quality instruction is the reciprocal interaction model—genuine interaction between teacher and student that fosters critical thinking, promotes student agency, and emphasizes student learning over factual recall (Howard et al., 2007). Reciprocal instruction looks and feels more like facilitation than actual instruction. Teachers create the space for students to engage one another, learn cooperatively, and respond dynamically to problems and projects developed by the teacher.

Another pillar of high-quality instruction is the way teachers facilitate student discourse—and learning—through collaboration. The interstudent discourse required to collaborate creates the optimal space for negotiating new content and language for meaning. Lev Vygotsky wrote of the value of engaging students in their zone of proximal development, defined as “the area beyond what the learner can do independently, but where actions can be accomplished with the assistance of more able others” (Vygotsky, 1978). When thinking about learning as a social construct, it shifts the teacher’s role to one of facilitator—the guide in the room who creates “invitations” for students to apprentice themselves in the content, analytical practices, and language of the discipline (Heritage et al., 2015). The

invitations described by Heritage, Walqui, and Linquanti are essential to language development, as they offer the time and space for students to experiment with language while negotiating class content.

Best practices show that the ELD instruction should emphasize academic language as well as conversational language, and explicitly teach forms of English and multimodal grammar. Furthermore, ELD instruction should incorporate complex, amplified texts to support the teaching of reading, writing, listening, and speaking (Heritage et al., 2015). This recommendation is a dramatic shift from previous practice. Here, grade-level text with scaffolded text enhancement (e.g., headings and subheadings, highlighted vocabulary terms, images) and reading scaffolds raise the expectations for ELLs by prioritizing grade-appropriate skills and the language required to meet those high expectations.

Finally, teachers must account for the specific needs of all learners during instruction. In both planning and implementation, a feedback loop of formative assessment information will help teachers adjust their planning and instruction to student need. Formative assessment doesn’t have to be formal—simply listening to how students are using language to express their understanding of class content will reveal much about how and where to adjust instruction.



Shifts in ELD Instruction

From … To …

Conceptualizing language in terms of structures or functions

Understanding language as action

Emphasizing discrete structural features of language Showing how language is purposeful and patterned

Lessons focused on individual ideas or texts Cluster of lessons centered on texts that are interconnected by purpose or theme

Activities that preteach content Activities that scaffold students’ development and autonomy as learners

Establishing separate objectives for language and content learning

Establishing objectives that integrate language and content learning

Teaching traditional grammar Teaching multimodal grammar (being able to examine the various forms of communication and their intentions to respond appropriately)


Transfer of skills from the pull-out setting into the classroom has proven to be a great challenge for this program model. “Deeper learning is achieved when students are supported to link ideas into constellations of understandings that are interrelated” (Hakuta & Hakuta, 2015). During instruction, ELLs need to be explicitly taught how to apply and generalize the skills and concepts learned in ELD pull-out in the mainstream classroom setting. If this connection is not made, students will view learning as isolated banks of knowledge. It makes it very difficult for ELLs to interrelate their understandings from each setting. Sternberg and Frensch (1993) have found that if students are not taught the skill of applying new information, then it is much

less likely they will be able transfer their learning from one context to another. In addition, there is vast educational research that has found student learning is improved when students are given opportunities to connect new content to prior knowledge. This transfer of learning is facilitated when the ELL specialists and classroom teachers collaborate to plan instruction, use common language, and incorporate graphic organizers during instruction.

Instruction (cont’d)

11


Elementary SchoolWe need to be cautious about adding content and work to the school day of a beginning- to early-intermediate–level ELL student during the pull-out period and cognizant of the amount of time the student is away from his/her mainstream classroom. The traditional approach has been to teach ELLs language in ELD and to teach content in the mainstream classroom. However, research has shown that there is little conceptual learning that does not involve language learning and little language learning that does not include conceptual and analytical skills (Hakuta & Hakuta, 2015). In order to avoid a lack of learning transfer, consistent and meaningful collaboration time between the classroom teacher and the ELL specialist is critical. To facilitate this collaboration time, additional staffing may be necessary.



Assessment & Accountability

What do student data, both formative and summative, reveal about students’ depth of mastery of content standards, literacy, and language features of each language of instruction? Assessment is a foundational component of the feedback loop between teacher and student, as it illustrates what a student knows and is able to do with language, literacy, and content. However, this is only true if the assessments are aligned to content and language standards.

The 10 ELP Standards highlight a strategic set of language functions (what students do with language to accomplish content-specific tasks) and language forms (vocabulary, grammar, and discourse specific

to a particular content area or discipline) that are needed by ELLs as they develop competence in the practices associated with English language arts, mathematics, and science (Bunch, Kibler, & Pimentel, 2013, CCSSO, 2012; Lee, Quinn, & Valdés, 2013; Moschkovich, 2012; van Lier & Walqui, 2012).

A student’s ability to demonstrate proficiency at a particular ELP level will depend on context, content-area focus, and developmental factors. Thus, a student’s designated ELP level represents a typical current performance level, not a fixed status. An ELP level does not identify a student (e.g., “level 1 student”), but rather

13


Elementary SchoolPrograms will need to plan for regularly scheduled meeting times in which ELD teachers, classroom teachers, and administrators analyze multiple sources of ELL student achievement data to determine instructional needs and program effectiveness.

identifies what a student knows and can do at a particular stage of English language development. To better understand how students are progressing in the specific modalities of language (receptive, productive, and interactive), teachers might consult the Alternate Organization of the ELP Standards on page 5 of the English Language Proficiency Standards (CCSSO, 2014).

Assessment should be carried out in consistent and systematic ways. Teachers must account for the time they need to design common assessments, both summative and formative. In addition, teachers will need the time to analyze

and interpret the results of their common assessments. This system requires professional learning and collaboration between the ELD teacher and the classroom teacher. Within this partnership, there should be discrete protocols to ensure that teachers are responding to student needs expressed on formative and summative assessments. Whether this protocol is conducted through regular professional learning communities or through periodic inservice activities, student assessment data can inform careful planning of future units to ensure that all students are reaching grade-level targets in each language of instruction.

Shifts in ELD Instruction

From … To …

Using tests designed by others Using formative assessment




Educator Effectiveness & Professional Learning

Students benefit most from great teachers and high-quality instruction. Darling-Hammond (2000) found that “the proportion of well-qualified teachers was by far the most important determinant of student achievement at all grade levels” irrespective of the particular need of specific student groups. One important marker of teacher quality is the ability to be openly and honestly reflective about practice. Reflection and commitment to professional growth are two chief factors that ensure teachers are not only high quality, but will also continue to improve over time.

Research has shown that ongoing and consistent collaboration among teachers has a significant positive impact on student achievement. In order to sustain a collaborative model, it is imperative to develop trusting relationships and an environment in which taking risks is encouraged and unsuccessful attempts at something new are not punished but viewed as opportunities to learn (York-Barr et al., 2007).

The integration of language and content is a central theme to the pedagogical shifts introduced earlier in this document. At the heart of contemporary shifts in ELL practices lies the need for both ELD and mainstream educators to connect and discuss the interplay between language and content. Hakuta and Hakuta (2015) describe the integration of language and content with a cyclops metaphor. Instead of treating language and content instruction

in separate silos, the new ELP Standards compel mainstream and ELD teachers to develop an integrated understanding of language and content standards.

Mr. Language

Mr. Language and Content

Mr. Content

15

Family & Community

It is the school’s responsibility to empower families. Families that speak a language other than English at home may need extra support as they may lack knowledge of the U.S. school system and the language to communicate with teachers. In order for the partnership to evolve, schools need to get all families involved and engaged. There is an abundance of research that has found students with involved parents—regardless of family income or background—are more likely to earn higher grades and test scores, attend school regularly, show improved behavior, graduate, and go on to postsecondary education (Henderson & Mapp, 2002).

Beaverton School District’s Volunteerism and Engagement Plan (2011–2015) is supported by the work of Dr. Joyce Epstein’s framework of family engagement. Her model of six types of parent involvement has helped schools nationwide develop effective school and family partnership programs. The six types are:

1. Parenting: Help all families establish home environments to support children as students.

2. Communicating: Design effective forms of school-to-home and home-to-school communications about school programs and children’s progress.

3. Volunteering: Recruit and organize parent help and support.

4. Learning at home: Provide information and ideas to families about how to help students at home with homework and other curriculum-related activities, decisions, and planning.

5. Decision making: Include parents in school decisions, developing parent leaders and representatives.

6. Collaborating with communities: Identify and integrate resources and services from the community to strengthen school programs, family practices, and student learning and development.



Elementary SchoolProgram planners must find ample opportunities to communicate to families the purpose and vision of the school’s language program. Families are critical stakeholders in this process and their buy-in to the program mitigates future challenges, such as student attrition, that are especially common as coursework becomes more difficult beyond elementary school.

Another factor to communicate is the process of language development. Students will need time to develop academic language proficiency, and as such, state assessments may not reveal all that students know and are able to do.


Support & Resources

All stakeholders must understand the complexities of developing ELL programs. Beaverton School District must commit over the long term and ensure that “appropriate and equitable resources are allocated to the program to meet the content standards, vision, and goals of the program” (Howard et al., 2007, pg. 38). The process of developing ELL programs must be thoughtful, informed, and iterative. It involves reaching out to a variety of stakeholder groups, conducting research on program design options, visiting existing programs, seeking funding sources not only for staffing the program but also for transporting students and obtaining specialized resources, and pulling together all the information into a program design that fits the goals of the district and the needs of the students.

As students develop their language skills in English, their educational needs will evolve. As such, the availability of support and resources will need to be dynamic. Students with lower levels of English language proficiency require greater levels of support.

The Welcome Center will work collaboratively with individual school teams to allocate resources to buildings based on a combination of data points to include demographics of the school, ELL population, and the design of the program model chosen for the building. Additional support needed to effectively carry out the program model should be discussed with the Welcome Center staff.


Elementary SchoolAccess to ELL language programs is critically important, especially when reaching students from language minority and low-income backgrounds. Program access is a critical theme—families must understand what the program is and how it will benefit their child. Program planners must take these additional costs into consideration.


Reflective ToolThis tool is designed to support both the implementation of new ELL programs and existing programs. This document is intended to be used collaboratively with a school-based implementation team comprised of teachers and school leadership, as well as other members of the school community. For grade-specific considerations, please consult the Guiding Principles descriptors on the preceding pages.

As a team, use the guiding questions in the following organizer to facilitate discussion and guide reflection on your school’s program of choice to serve ELL students. Through careful analysis and rich discussion, take stock of each program consideration to determine whether it is (1) already in place, (2) not evident, or (3) a potential area to develop. Based on these determinations, the team can use the features under “Next Steps” to plan for short, and midterm solutions, as well as prioritize immediate action items. When planning, teams might consider the SMART Goal framework, delegating tasks as necessary for program success.

Program sustainability. To ensure that the program is healthy in years to come, this guide can serve as a reflective tool to guide an evaluation of your school’s ELL program. As your school’s implementation team completes its analysis, please consider the following questions:

1. How will the implementation team know when it has reached its program vision?2. How will the team respond when it has met its program goals?3. How and when will the implementation team return to this document to execute the plan?

Connections. How do your team’s plans connect to other school programs, other district programs, and the school district’s vision for the future?


Pro

gra

m S

tru

ctu

re R

eflec

tive

Tool

Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Prog

ram

Vis

ion

The

prog

ram

has

a c

ohes

ive,

sha

red

visi

on a

nd a

set

of g

oals

that

est

ablis

h:

• H

igh

expe

ctat

ions

for a

ll st

uden

ts•

Com

mitm

ent t

o an

inst

ruct

iona

l fo

cus

on E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge

deve

lopm

ent a

nd m

ultic

ultu

ralis

m

• D

oes

the

prog

ram

est

ablis

h a

clea

r vi

sion

that

con

side

rs th

e pe

rspe

ctiv

es

of a

ll st

akeh

olde

rs (e

.g.,

stud

ents

, fa

mili

es, c

omm

unity

par

tner

s, te

ache

rs,

adm

inis

trat

ors)

?

• D

oes

the

prog

ram

follo

w b

est p

ract

ices

fo

r Eng

lish

lang

uage

dev

elop

men

t?

Scho

ol E

nviro

nmen

t

The

dist

rict,

scho

ol, a

nd c

omm

unity

em

brac

e th

e pr

ogra

m a

nd p

rovi

de:

• A

saf

e, o

rder

ly e

nviro

nmen

t•

A w

arm

, car

ing

com

mun

ity•

Awar

enes

s of

the

dive

rse

need

s of

st

uden

ts o

f diff

eren

t lin

guis

tic a

nd

cultu

ral b

ackg

roun

ds

• D

o st

aff a

nd s

yste

ms

wel

com

e,

supp

ort,

and

prov

ide

who

le-c

hild

se

rvic

es to

ELL

stu

dent

s an

d fa

mili

es?

• D

oes

the

scho

ol e

nviro

nmen

t pr

ojec

t the

val

ues

esta

blis

hed

by th

e pr

ogra

m’s

visi

on?

Scho

ol L

eade

rshi

p

The

impl

emen

tatio

n te

am a

nd s

choo

l pr

inci

pal l

ead

the

prog

ram

tow

ards

its

visi

on a

nd g

oals

.

• Ad

voca

te fo

r the

pro

gram

• Co

ordi

nate

the

prog

ram

bas

ed o

n pl

anni

ng•

Des

ign

and

faci

litat

e pr

ofes

sion

al

lear

ning

and

pro

mot

e st

aff c

ohes

ion

• En

sure

equ

itabl

e al

loca

tion

of fu

nds

• D

oes

plan

ning

sup

port

the

prog

ram

vi

sion

?

• D

oes

prog

ram

lead

ersh

ip re

spon

d w

hen

impl

emen

tatio

n ve

ers

away

from

th

e pr

ogra

m’s

visi

on?

• A

re th

e pr

ogra

m’s

goal

s cl

early

ar

ticul

ated

to a

ll st

akeh

olde

rs?


Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Ong

oing

Pla

nnin

g

With

an

eye

for s

usta

inab

ility

, the

pr

ogra

m g

uide

s im

plem

enta

tion

thro

ugh

care

ful p

lann

ing.

• G

oals

alig

n w

ith th

e pr

ogra

m’s

visi

on•

The

prog

ram

art

icul

ates

ver

tical

ly

thro

ugh

grad

es a

nd it

erat

es

horiz

onta

lly a

cros

s gr

ades

• In

stru

ctio

n is

gui

ded

by a

n ev

olvi

ng

scop

e an

d se

quen

ce th

at is

de

velo

pmen

tally

, lin

guis

tical

ly, a

nd

cultu

rally

app

ropr

iate

• D

oes

the

prog

ram

vis

ion

refle

ct th

e va

lues

of t

he s

choo

l, an

d co

mm

unity

an

d pu

rpos

e of

the

prog

ram

?

• D

oes

the

prog

ram

hav

e a

set o

f sho

rt-

term

and

mid

term

goa

ls to

real

ize

its

visi

on?

• D

oes

the

prog

ram

acc

ount

for

alig

nmen

t to

stat

e st

anda

rds

and

the

ELP

Stan

dard

s?

Lang

uage

Dev

elop

men

t

The

prog

ram

is fo

unde

d on

prin

cipl

es

that

are

sup

port

ed b

y re

sear

ch a

nd

best

pra

ctic

e.

• Pr

inci

ples

of s

econ

d la

ngua

ge

deve

lopm

ent

• Eff

ectiv

e in

stru

ctio

nal

met

hodo

logi

es a

nd c

lass

room

pr

actic

es•

Belie

f in

and

com

mitm

ent t

o se

cond

la

ngua

ge a

cqui

sitio

n th

eory

• D

oes

best

-pra

ctic

e re

sear

ch g

uide

te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng?

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um p

rom

ote

the

fam

ilies

’ lang

uage

and

cul

ture

in th

e sc

hool

and

com

mun

ity?

• D

o te

ache

rs a

nd a

ll pr

ogra

m s

taff

unde

rsta

nd a

nd a

pply

the

prin

cipl

es o

f se

cond

lang

uage

dev

elop

men

t?

Mas

ter S

ched

ule

Stud

ents

par

ticip

atin

g in

pul

l-out

ELD

ca

nnot

mis

s co

re in

stru

ctio

n. A

s a

resu

lt, m

aste

r sch

edul

es m

ust p

rote

ct

spec

ific

bloc

ks o

f tim

e fo

r ELD

, whi

le

sim

ulta

neou

sly

ensu

ring

that

ELL

s do

no

t mis

s co

re-c

onte

nt in

stru

ctio

n. A

d-di

tiona

lly, t

he m

aste

r sch

edul

e m

ust

prov

ide

time

for t

each

er c

olla

bora

tion.

• D

oes

the

mas

ter s

ched

ule

faci

litat

e co

nsis

tent

teac

her c

olla

bora

tion?

• D

oes

the

mas

ter s

ched

ule

allo

w fo

r fle

xibl

e gr

oupi

ng b

ased

on

stud

ents

’ ne

eds

as th

ey p

rogr

ess

in la

ngua

ge

skill

s?

• Is

the

mas

ter s

ched

ule

crea

ted

to

ensu

re p

ull-o

ut E

LD in

stru

ctio

n do

es n

ot o

ccur

dur

ing

core

con

tent

in

stru

ctio

n?


Cu

rric

ulu

m R

eflec

tive

Tool

Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Cultu

ral R

elev

ance

Curr

icul

um le

vers

rele

vant

them

es a

nd

topi

cs a

s ve

hicl

es to

eng

age

stud

ents

in

sta

ndar

ds-a

ligne

d le

arni

ng.

• Cu

rric

ulum

wea

ves

cultu

rally

re

leva

nt c

onte

nt w

ith g

rade

-ap

prop

riate

ski

lls a

nd la

ngua

ge

stan

dard

s•

Uni

t the

mes

pro

mot

e co

nnec

tions

an

d cr

oss-

cultu

ral e

xcha

nge

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um re

flect

the

valu

es

of th

e st

uden

t’s h

ome

com

mun

ity?

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um o

ffer a

n au

then

tic,

unas

sum

ing

pers

pect

ive

of s

tude

nt

cultu

re?

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um in

corp

orat

e re

gula

r opp

ortu

nitie

s to

pra

ctic

e la

ngua

ge th

roug

h ac

adem

ic d

isco

urse

?

Alig

nmen

t

Curr

icul

um p

rovi

des

a pl

an fo

r stu

dent

le

arni

ng a

ligne

d ho

rizon

tally

acr

oss

one

grad

e le

vel a

nd v

ertic

ally

acr

oss

prev

ious

and

sub

sequ

ent g

rade

s.

• Cu

rric

ulum

at e

ach

grad

e le

vel

deta

ils w

hat s

tude

nts

mus

t kno

w

and

be a

ble

to d

o by

the

end

of

each

gra

de•

Each

gra

de’s

expe

ctat

ions

art

icul

ate

to th

e ne

xt g

rade

leve

l

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um a

lign

to g

rade

-ap

prop

riate

con

tent

sta

ndar

ds?

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um o

ffer

oppo

rtun

ities

for l

angu

age

deve

lopm

ent a

cros

s co

nten

t are

as?

• D

o te

ache

rs o

n th

e sa

me

grad

e te

am

colla

bora

tivel

y de

sign

and

impl

emen

t cu

rric

ulum

?

• D

o te

ache

rs c

olla

bora

tivel

y co

mpa

re

and

cont

rast

out

com

es?

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um o

ffer

oppo

rtun

ities

to d

evel

op la

ngua

ge,

liter

acy,

and

con

tent

kno

wle

dge

sim

ulta

neou

sly?


Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Dep

th

Dee

p cu

rric

ulum

pro

vide

s op

port

uniti

es fo

r stu

dent

s to

eng

age

conc

epts

, ski

lls, a

nd la

ngua

ge

asso

ciat

ed w

ith ri

goro

us, c

ompe

lling

w

ork

in m

ultip

le c

onte

xts.

Dee

p cu

rric

ulum

enc

oura

ges

conn

ectio

ns

acro

ss c

onte

xts,

and

embe

ds s

kills

and

la

ngua

ge d

evel

opm

ent.

• Pr

ovid

es c

oope

rativ

e le

arni

ng

oppo

rtun

ities

to e

xten

d cr

itica

l th

inki

ng in

to c

olla

bora

tive

spac

e•

Incl

udes

app

ropr

iate

sca

ffold

s an

d di

ffere

ntia

ted

supp

orts

so

all s

tude

nts

can

acce

ss ri

goro

us,

enga

ging

lear

ning

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um e

ncou

rage

hig

her

orde

r thi

nkin

g?

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um a

ccou

nt fo

r di

vers

e le

arne

rs?

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um e

nric

h th

e st

uden

t le

arni

ng e

xper

ienc

e?

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um e

mbe

d au

then

tic

skill

s an

d ac

adem

ic la

ngua

ge

deve

lopm

ent?

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um in

corp

orat

e ap

prop

riate

sca

ffold

s fo

r stu

dent

s to

ac

cess

dee

p co

ncep

ts?

Them

atic

Inte

grat

ion

The

them

es in

tegr

ate

lang

uage

, co

nten

t, an

d an

alyt

ical

pra

ctic

es in

cu

ltura

lly re

leva

nt u

nits

of s

tudy

.

• Co

here

nce

thro

ugho

ut th

e ye

ar—

unit

them

es c

ompl

emen

t one

an

othe

r•

Cros

s-cu

rric

ular

coh

eren

ce—

unit

them

es c

onne

ct a

cros

s co

nten

t and

la

ngua

ge

• D

o th

e un

it th

emes

con

nect

to:

– Pr

evio

us le

arni

ng–

Futu

re le

arni

ng–

Oth

er s

ubje

cts

Enri

chm

ent v

s. R

emed

iatio

n

Pull-

out p

rogr

ams

are

built

to e

nric

h,

not r

emed

iate

. Cur

ricul

ar p

lann

ing

mus

t:

• Ch

alle

nge

stud

ents

with

dee

p cr

itica

l thi

nkin

g•

Prom

ote

liter

acy

deve

lopm

ent

• Pr

omot

e ac

adem

ic la

ngua

ge

deve

lopm

ent

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um e

nric

h th

e st

uden

t le

arni

ng e

xper

ienc

e?

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um p

ush

stud

ents

to

exte

nd a

nd a

pply

thei

r lea

rnin

g ac

ross

co

ntex

ts?

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um e

xten

d op

port

uniti

es to

bui

ld la

ngua

ge a

nd

liter

acy

skill

s w

ithin

com

plex

con

tent

?


Inst

ruct

ion

Refl

ectiv

e To

ol

Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Inte

grat

ing

Lang

uage

, Con

tent

, &

Ana

lytic

al P

ract

ices

Pull-

out E

LD p

rogr

ams

mus

t att

end

to la

ngua

ge d

evel

opm

ent e

xpre

ssed

in

the

Engl

ish

Lang

uage

Pro

ficie

ncy

(ELP

) Sta

ndar

ds w

hile

sim

ulta

neou

sly

deve

lopi

ng th

e ac

adem

ic la

ngua

ge

that

stu

dent

s w

ill n

eed

in c

onte

nt-

area

cla

sses

. Pul

l-out

ELD

pro

gram

s:

• W

eave

lang

uage

and

lite

racy

into

co

mpe

lling

con

tent

that

stu

dent

s ne

ed fo

r sch

ool s

ucce

ss•

Crea

te m

any

oppo

rtun

ities

for

stud

ents

to u

se E

nglis

h to

neg

otia

te

clas

s co

nten

t

• D

o te

ache

rs fo

ster

crit

ical

thin

king

an

d m

eani

ngfu

l stu

dent

dis

cour

se in

En

glis

h?

• D

oes

the

teac

her c

reat

e in

tegr

ated

op

port

uniti

es fo

r ind

epen

dent

pra

ctic

e of

lang

uage

, lite

racy

, and

aca

dem

ic

skill

s?

Mul

timod

al E

xpos

ure

to A

cade

mic

La

ngua

ge T

hrou

gh C

onte

nt

As

a co

re p

rinci

ple

of la

ngua

ge

deve

lopm

ent,

stud

ents

mus

t exe

rcis

e al

l fou

r mod

aliti

es (l

iste

ning

, spe

akin

g,

read

ing,

and

writ

ing)

as

they

dev

elop

En

glis

h an

d th

e pa

rtne

r lan

guag

e.

• Te

ache

rs w

eave

lang

uage

de

velo

pmen

t tas

ks in

to c

lass

co

nten

t•

Teac

hers

reco

gniz

e la

ngua

ge

stru

ctur

es in

Eng

lish

and

prov

ide

expl

icit

lang

uage

dev

elop

men

t in

stru

ctio

n

• D

o te

ache

rs c

reat

e th

e op

port

unity

fo

r stu

dent

s to

eng

age

clas

s co

nten

t th

roug

h ea

ch o

f the

mod

aliti

es in

En

glis

h?

• D

o lis

teni

ng a

nd s

peak

ing

com

plem

ent r

eadi

ng a

nd w

ritin

g ta

sks?

• D

o te

ache

rs e

mbe

d la

ngua

ge

deve

lopm

ent w

ithin

cla

ss c

onte

nt?


Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Form

ativ

e A

sses

smen

t

Ong

oing

form

ativ

e as

sess

men

t cr

eate

s a

feed

back

loop

bet

wee

n te

ache

r and

stu

dent

. Mul

tiple

sou

rces

of

inpu

t fro

m s

tude

nts

will

indi

cate

ho

w to

bes

t sup

port

stu

dent

s in

la

ngua

ge, l

itera

cy, a

nd c

onte

nt.

Form

ativ

e as

sess

men

t doe

sn’t

have

to

be

form

al—

care

ful a

tten

tion

to

stud

ent o

utpu

t rev

eals

muc

h ab

out

the

dept

h of

mas

tery

of l

angu

age,

lit

erac

y, a

nd c

onte

nt s

tand

ards

.

• D

o te

ache

rs h

ave

a sy

stem

for

colle

ctin

g fo

rmat

ive

asse

ssm

ent d

ata?

• D

o te

ache

rs c

reat

e m

ultip

le

oppo

rtun

ities

for s

tude

nts

to s

how

w

hat t

hey

know

and

are

abl

e to

do

in

Engl

ish?

• D

o te

ache

rs u

se fo

rmat

ive

asse

ssm

ent

data

to re

flect

on

thei

r pra

ctic

e?

• D

o te

ache

rs s

hare

thes

e da

ta w

ith

colle

ague

s in

lear

ning

team

s?

Flex

ible

Gro

upin

g &

Coo

pera

tive

Lear

ning

Coop

erat

ive

lear

ning

cre

ates

the

spac

e fo

r stu

dent

s to

eng

age

and

disc

uss

clas

s co

nten

t, w

hile

exe

rcis

ing

acad

emic

lang

uage

in E

nglis

h. F

lexi

ble

grou

ping

str

ateg

ies

enab

le te

ache

rs

to s

truc

ture

gro

ups

hete

roge

neou

sly

or h

omog

eneo

usly

to s

uppo

rt a

pa

rtic

ular

inst

ruct

iona

l foc

us.

• H

eter

ogen

eous

gro

ups

leve

rage

st

uden

t str

engt

hs a

s m

odel

s in

En

glis

h•

Teac

hers

mig

ht e

mpl

oy

hom

ogen

eous

gro

ups

to

diffe

rent

iate

lang

uage

and

con

tent

sk

ills

for p

artic

ular

stu

dent

gro

ups

• D

o st

uden

ts e

ngag

e co

oper

ativ

ely

to s

olve

com

plex

pro

blem

s w

hile

ex

erci

sing

aca

dem

ic la

ngua

ge

stru

ctur

es?

• D

o te

ache

rs h

ave

a sy

stem

to

flexi

bly

arra

nge

stud

ents

bas

ed o

n in

stru

ctio

nal p

riorit

ies

and

stud

ent

need

s?

Cultu

rally

Res

pons

ive

Inst

ruct

ion

Teac

hers

eng

age

stud

ents

by

desi

gnin

g in

stru

ctio

n th

at in

tegr

ates

st

uden

ts’ c

ultu

ral,

lingu

istic

, and

ac

adem

ic fu

nds

of k

now

ledg

e.

• D

o te

ache

rs tr

eat s

tude

nts’

cultu

ral,

lingu

istic

, and

aca

dem

ic e

xper

ienc

es a

s as

sets

for l

earn

ing?


Ass

essm

ent

& A

cco

un

tab

ilit

y Re

flect

ive

Tool

Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Mon

itors

Pro

gram

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Ass

essm

ents

, im

plem

ente

d in

“c

onsi

sten

t and

sys

tem

atic

way

s,”

reve

al m

uch

abou

t how

stu

dent

s ne

gotia

te c

onte

nt in

Eng

lish.

A

sses

smen

ts fo

r pul

l-out

ELD

pr

ogra

ms

mus

t be

alig

ned

to

lang

uage

sta

ndar

ds a

nd m

easu

re

grow

th in

lang

uage

pro

ficie

ncy.

• In

term

s of

stu

dent

pro

gres

s, do

te

ache

rs a

nd p

rogr

am s

taff

mon

itor

stud

ent g

row

th to

det

erm

ine

if th

e pr

ogra

m is

reac

hing

its

goal

s (e

.g.,

AM

AO ta

rget

s)?

Incl

udes

Mul

tiple

Mea

sure

s

Mul

tiple

poi

nts

of in

put c

reat

e a

deep

er, c

lear

er p

ictu

re o

f how

st

uden

ts a

re p

rogr

essi

ng in

lang

uage

, lit

erac

y, a

nd c

onte

nt in

Eng

lish.

M

ultip

le a

sses

smen

ts o

f lea

rnin

g st

anda

rds

pain

t a m

ore

accu

rate

pi

ctur

e of

wha

t stu

dent

s kn

ow a

nd

are

able

to d

o w

ith la

ngua

ge.

• D

oes

the

pull-

out E

LD p

rogr

am

embe

d m

ultip

le m

easu

res

of s

tude

nt

prog

ress

?

• D

o as

sess

men

ts m

easu

re p

rogr

ess

in c

onte

nt s

tand

ards

, lite

racy

, and

la

ngua

ge d

evel

opm

ent?

Ass

esse

s Co

nten

t & L

angu

age

How

are

stu

dent

s pr

ogre

ssin

g in

eac

h of

the

10 E

LP S

tand

ards

? Sc

hool

s an

d EL

L pr

ogra

m s

taff

shou

ld u

se m

ultip

le

indi

cato

rs o

f gro

wth

to d

eter

min

e ho

w s

tude

nts

are

prog

ress

ing

in th

eir

lang

uage

dev

elop

men

t.

• D

oes

the

pull-

out E

LD p

rogr

am a

sses

s in

divi

dual

stu

dent

pro

gres

s in

the

four

lang

uage

dom

ains

of l

iste

ning

, sp

eaki

ng, r

eadi

ng, a

nd w

ritin

g?

• D

oes

the

prog

ram

com

mun

icat

e th

is

info

rmat

ion

to o

ther

sta

keho

lder

s lik

e m

ains

trea

m te

ache

rs a

nd fa

mili

es?


Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Dat

a A

naly

sis

The

scho

ol d

isag

greg

ates

stu

dent

da

ta to

und

erst

and

how

to s

uppo

rt

each

stu

dent

in th

e pu

ll-ou

t ELD

pr

ogra

m. T

eam

s of

teac

hers

and

ad

min

istr

ator

s an

alyz

e fo

rmat

ive

and

sum

mat

ive

asse

ssm

ent d

ata

to u

nder

stan

d ho

w s

tude

nts

are

perf

orm

ing

rela

tive

to s

tand

ards

.

• D

o st

uden

t for

mat

ive

and

sum

mat

ive

asse

ssm

ent d

ata

reve

al s

tude

nt d

epth

of

mas

tery

of t

he E

LP S

tand

ards

?

• D

o te

ache

rs a

nd s

choo

l dat

a te

ams

disa

ggre

gate

stu

dent

dat

a to

lear

n m

ore

abou

t how

ELL

s fa

re in

con

tent

, la

ngua

ge, a

nd li

tera

cy?

Dat

a In

form

Pro

gram

mat

ic &

In

stru

ctio

nal D

ecis

ions

Teac

hers

follo

w a

form

ativ

e as

sess

men

t cyc

le to

info

rm

inst

ruct

iona

l dec

isio

ns. S

tude

nt

perf

orm

ance

rela

tive

to s

tand

ards

su

ppor

ts te

ache

rs in

pla

nnin

g in

stru

ctio

n be

st s

uite

d to

thei

r st

uden

ts’ n

eeds

.

• Is

ther

e a

prot

ocol

for a

naly

zing

, in

terp

retin

g, a

nd a

ctin

g on

con

clus

ions

dr

awn

from

stu

dent

dat

a?

• A

re th

e re

sults

use

d to

info

rm p

lann

ing

and

inst

ruct

ion?

Ass

essm

ent L

itera

cy

The

scho

ol c

omm

its to

bui

ldin

g ca

paci

ty in

ass

essm

ent l

itera

cy.

Teac

hers

kno

w h

ow to

des

ign

perf

orm

ance

task

s lin

ked

to s

peci

fic

lang

uage

and

con

tent

sta

ndar

ds. T

he

scho

ol p

rovi

des

furt

her p

rofe

ssio

nal

lear

ning

to a

naly

ze a

nd in

terp

ret

resu

lts a

nd d

eter

min

e ho

w th

e re

sults

can

info

rm fu

ture

inst

ruct

iona

l de

cisi

ons.

• D

oes

the

scho

ol p

rovi

de o

ppor

tuni

ties

to b

uild

teac

her c

apac

ity in

ass

essm

ent

liter

acy?

• A

re th

ere

data

pro

toco

ls in

pla

ce to

gu

ide

anal

ysis

and

inte

rpre

tatio

n of

st

uden

t dat

a?


Edu

cato

r Eff

ecti

ven

ess

& P

rofe

ssio

nal

Lea

rnin

g R

eflec

tive

Tool

Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Teac

her C

ertifi

catio

n &

Pre

para

tion

Effec

tive,

fully

cre

dent

iale

d te

ache

rs

are

trai

ned

on E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge

deve

lopm

ent p

edag

ogy

and

high

-le

vera

ge p

ract

ices

for s

ervi

ng E

LLs.

• A

re te

ache

rs p

repa

red

with

a d

eep

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

Eng

lish

lang

uage

de

velo

pmen

t?

• A

re te

ache

rs p

repa

red

with

effe

ctiv

e pe

dago

gy a

nd s

trat

egie

s fo

r ser

ving

EL

Ls?

Prof

essi

onal

Lea

rnin

g

The

pull-

out E

LD p

rogr

am e

stab

lishe

s pr

iorit

ies

for p

rofe

ssio

nal l

earn

ing.

Pr

ofes

sion

al le

arni

ng p

riorit

ies

are

deve

lope

d co

llabo

rativ

ely

and

tran

spar

ently

with

sta

ff, a

nd a

re p

art

of th

e pr

ogra

m’s

com

mitm

ent t

o co

ntin

ual i

mpr

ovem

ent.

• A

re th

ere

clea

r prio

ritie

s fo

r pr

ofes

sion

al le

arni

ng?

• A

re te

ache

rs i

nvol

ved

in e

stab

lishi

ng

prio

ritie

s fo

r pro

fess

iona

l lea

rnin

g?

• D

oes

the

prof

essi

onal

lear

ning

co

ntrib

ute

to c

ontin

ual i

mpr

ovem

ent?

• D

oes

the

prog

ram

pro

vide

sus

tain

ed

follo

w-u

p to

con

cept

s pr

esen

ted

in

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t tim

e?

• D

oes

the

prog

ram

inco

rpor

ate

conc

epts

from

pro

fess

iona

l de

velo

pmen

t int

o pr

ofes

sion

al

expe

ctat

ions

?

Lear

ning

Wal

ks &

Pro

fess

iona

l Re

flect

ion

Focu

sed

lear

ning

wal

ks a

re a

cor

e pr

ofes

sion

al le

arni

ng to

ol. R

ound

s of

obs

erva

tions

are

focu

sed

thro

ugh

defin

ed in

stru

ctio

nal l

ense

s w

ith

the

purp

ose

of e

xcha

ngin

g be

st

prac

tice.

Lea

rnin

g w

alks

are

acc

epte

d as

a p

rofe

ssio

nal n

orm

and

as

an o

ppor

tuni

ty fo

r per

sona

l and

pr

ofes

sion

al g

row

th.

• A

re s

yste

ms

in p

lace

to e

nabl

e le

arni

ng

wal

ks to

occ

ur w

ith m

inim

al im

pact

to

teac

hing

and

lear

ning

?

• A

re th

e pr

ofes

sion

al e

xpec

tatio

ns

and

purp

ose

of le

arni

ng w

alks

co

mm

unic

ated

to s

taff?

• Is

ther

e a

syst

em in

pla

ce fo

r tea

cher

s an

d ad

min

istr

ator

s to

follo

w u

p af

ter

cond

uctin

g le

arni

ng w

alks

?

• A

re n

orm

s in

pla

ce fo

r gui

ding

roun

ds

of le

arni

ng w

alks

?


Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Prof

essi

onal

Col

labo

ratio

n

The

prog

ram

ena

bles

, enc

oura

ges,

and

expe

cts p

rofe

ssio

nal c

olla

bora

tion

thro

ugh

horiz

onta

l (w

ithin

gra

de

leve

ls) o

r ver

tical

(acr

oss

grad

e le

vels

) le

arni

ng te

ams.

• D

oes

the

mas

ter s

ched

ule

crea

te th

e sp

ace

for p

rofe

ssio

nal c

olla

bora

tion?

• A

re c

olla

bora

tion

mee

tings

gui

ded

by c

omm

on p

rofe

ssio

nal n

orm

s an

d st

uden

t-fo

cuse

d pr

otoc

ols?

• D

oes

scho

ol le

ader

ship

est

ablis

h co

llabo

rativ

e ex

pect

atio

ns fo

r co

llabo

ratio

n m

eetin

gs?

• D

oes

scho

ol le

ader

ship

est

ablis

h ex

pect

atio

ns fo

r and

coa

ch

colla

bora

tion

norm

s an

d pr

otoc

ols?


Fam

ily

& C

om

mu

nit

y Re

flect

ive

Tool

Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Hom

e/Sc

hool

Col

labo

ratio

n

The

scho

ol a

ctiv

ely

com

mun

icat

es

the

valu

e of

Eng

lish

lang

uage

de

velo

pmen

t thr

ough

str

ong

conn

ectio

ns to

fam

ily a

nd c

omm

unity

pa

rtne

rs. T

he s

choo

l em

bodi

es

the

valu

es o

f mul

ticul

tura

lism

an

d pr

ojec

ts th

e im

port

ance

of

mul

tilite

racy

, ser

ving

as

a co

mm

unity

ce

nter

to e

xcha

nge

cultu

re, l

angu

age,

an

d th

e va

lue

of e

duca

tion.

• D

oes

the

scho

ol e

ncou

rage

co

llabo

ratio

n w

ith fa

mily

and

co

mm

unity

par

tner

s?

• D

oes

the

scho

ol p

roje

ct a

nd

com

mun

icat

e its

val

ues

to fa

mily

and

co

mm

unity

par

tner

s?

• A

re fa

mili

es o

f div

erse

bac

kgro

unds

re

pres

ente

d on

a s

choo

l or p

rogr

am

advi

sory

boa

rd (P

TA, P

TO, P

AC)?

Hom

e &

Com

mun

ity

Cont

ribu

tion

Fam

ilies

, com

mun

ity m

embe

rs, a

nd

com

mun

ity-b

ased

org

aniz

atio

ns

are

empo

wer

ed to

con

trib

ute

thei

r st

reng

ths

to th

e sc

hool

com

mun

ity.

The

scho

ol c

omm

unity

val

ues

the

cont

ribut

ions

of d

iver

se v

oice

s th

at

are

repr

esen

tativ

e of

the

scho

ol

com

mun

ity.

• D

oes

the

scho

ol c

reat

e a

varie

ty

of a

cces

sibl

e op

port

uniti

es fo

r fa

mili

es a

nd c

omm

unity

mem

bers

to

cont

ribut

e?

• D

oes

the

scho

ol v

alue

the

stre

ngth

s fa

mili

es a

nd c

omm

unity

mem

bers

ca

n off

er th

e sc

hool

and

lang

uage

pr

ogra

m?

Scho

ol E

nviro

nmen

t

The

scho

ol e

stab

lishe

s a

wel

com

ing

atm

osph

ere

for a

ll m

embe

rs o

f the

sc

hool

com

mun

ity. E

ach

staff

per

son

unde

rsta

nds

thei

r res

pons

ibili

ty

for p

roje

ctin

g th

e w

arm

, acc

eptin

g at

mos

pher

e th

at m

akes

fam

ilies

and

st

uden

ts fe

el w

elco

me

and

supp

orte

d.

• D

oes

the

scho

ol p

roje

ct a

wel

com

ing

atm

osph

ere

to s

tude

nts,

fam

ilies

, and

co

mm

unity

mem

bers

?

• D

o fa

mili

es k

now

whi

ch s

taff

are

bilin

gual

?

• W

hat a

re th

e ex

pect

atio

ns o

f all

staff

m

embe

rs to

com

mun

icat

e th

ese

valu

es a

nd p

erpe

tuat

e th

e w

elco

min

g at

mos

pher

e?


Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Scho

ol-B

ased

Par

ent/

Com

mun

ity

Liai

sons

The

scho

ol c

omm

its a

fam

ily li

aiso

n to

com

mun

icat

e th

e pr

ogra

m’s

visi

on

and

fost

er a

dvoc

acy

for t

he p

rogr

am.

Addi

tiona

lly, t

he fa

mily

liai

son

serv

es

as a

crit

ical

con

duit

of in

form

atio

n an

d cu

ltura

l exc

hang

e be

twee

n ho

me

and

scho

ol.

• D

oes

the

scho

ol c

reat

e a

pers

onal

br

idge

bet

wee

n fa

mili

es, t

he

com

mun

ity, a

nd th

e sc

hool

?

• D

oes

the

scho

ol s

uppo

rt fa

mili

es w

ith

educ

atio

n an

d cu

ltura

lly re

leva

nt

stra

tegi

es fo

r sup

port

ing

liter

acy

and

lang

uage

dev

elop

men

t at h

ome?

• D

oes

the

scho

ol-fa

mily

liai

son

refle

ct

and

com

mun

icat

e th

e va

lues

of t

he

scho

ol?

Com

mun

icat

ion

The

scho

ol a

nd E

LD p

rogr

am p

roje

cts

a cl

ear v

isio

n in

to th

e co

mm

unity

to

prom

ote

the

impo

rtan

ce o

f lan

guag

e de

velo

pmen

t and

the

valu

e of

m

ultil

itera

cy.

• D

oes

the

prog

ram

use

mul

tiple

mod

es

of c

omm

unic

atio

n to

mes

sage

its

valu

es to

the

com

mun

ity a

roun

d th

e sc

hool

?


Sup

po

rt &

Res

ou

rces

Refl

ectiv

e To

ol

Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Equi

tabl

e A

lloca

tion

of R

esou

rces

Giv

en th

at e

qual

ity is

n’t e

quity

—th

e lo

cal s

choo

l boa

rd, d

istr

ict,

and

scho

ol

staff

und

erst

and

how

to d

istr

ibut

e re

sour

ces

to e

quita

bly

fund

the

ELD

pr

ogra

m.

• D

oes

the

scho

ol d

istr

ict,

the

loca

l sc

hool

boa

rd, s

choo

l, an

d di

stric

t le

ader

ship

pla

n fo

r allo

catin

g re

sour

ces

to s

uppo

rt E

LL s

tude

nts?

• D

oes

prog

ram

lead

ersh

ip c

omm

it ad

equa

te fu

nds

to a

chie

ve th

e pr

ogra

m’s

inte

nded

out

com

es?

Hum

an R

esou

rces

The

loca

l sch

ool b

oard

, and

sch

ool

and

dist

rict l

eade

rshi

p ha

ve a

robu

st

plan

for r

ecru

iting

and

reta

inin

g hi

ghly

effe

ctiv

e st

aff th

at e

mbr

ace

and

refle

ct th

e va

lues

of t

he E

LD p

rogr

am.

• D

oes

the

dist

rict h

ave

a de

pend

able

pi

pelin

e of

hig

hly

qual

ified

ELD

te

ache

rs?

• D

oes

the

dist

rict h

ave

a st

rate

gy fo

r re

tain

ing

high

ly q

ualifi

ed te

ache

rs?

• D

oes

the

dist

rict e

quita

bly

dist

ribut

e hi

ghly

qua

lified

teac

hers

whe

re

need

ed?


Bibliography

ReferencesBunch, G. C., Kibler, A., & Pimentel, S. (with Walqui, A.). (2013, May). Realizing opportunities for English learners in the Common Core English language arts and disciplinary literacy standards. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://ell.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/events/Bunch-Kibler-Pimentel_AERA_2013-04-08.pdf

Cheuk, T. (2013). Relationships and convergences among mathematics, science, and ELA practices. Retrieved from Stanford University, Graduate School of Education, Understanding Language website: http://ell.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/VennDiagram_practices_v11%208-30-13%20color.pdf

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2014). English Language Proficiency (ELP) Standards with correspondences to K–12 practices and Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from Oregon Department of Education website: http://www.ode.state.or.us/opportunities/grants/nclb/title_iii/final-4_30-elpa21-standards.pdf

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Framework for English Language Proficiency Development Standards corresponding to the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2012/ELPD%20Framework%20Booklet-Final%20for%20web.pdf

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/392

Epstein, J. (2009). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Hakuta, K., & Hakuta, L. (2015). Freedom to talk [Video]. Retrieved from Stanford University, Graduate School of Education, Understanding Language website: http://ell.stanford.edu/content/freedom-talk

Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement: Annual synthesis. Retrieved from SEDL, National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools website: https://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/evidence.pdf


Heritage, M., Walqui, A., & Linquanti, R. (2015). English language learners and the new standards: Developing language, content knowledge, and analytical practices in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. G. (2014). Co-teaching: A look-back, a look-ahead, and the look-fors. MinneTESOL Journal. Retrieved from http://minnetesoljournal.org/fall-2014/co-teaching-a-look-back-a-look-ahead-and-the-look-fors

Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., Christian, D., Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Rogers, D. (2007). Guiding principles for dual language education (2nd ed.). Retrieved from Center for Applied Linguistics website: http://www.cal.org/twi/Guiding_Principles.pdf

Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223–233. Retrieved from http://edr.sagepub.com/content/42/4/223.full.pdf+html?ijkey=bGPaXsOy1pveo&keytype=ref&siteid=spedr

Moschkovich, J. (2012). Mathematics, the Common Core, and language: Recommendations for mathematics instruction for ELs aligned with the Common Core. Retrieved from Stanford University, Understanding Language website: http://ell.stanford.edu/publication/mathematics-common-core-and-language

Saunders, W., Goldenberg, C., & Marcelletti, D. (2013). English language development: Guidelines for instruction. American Educator, 37(2), 13–25, 38–39. Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Saunders_Goldenberg_Marcelletti.pdf

Sternberg, R. J., & Frensch, P. A. (1993). Mechanisms of transfer. In D. K. Detterman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 25–38). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition, National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2015). Chapter 2: Tools and resources for providing English learners with a language assistance program. In English Language Tool Kit for state and local education agencies (SEAs and LEAs). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/english-learner-toolkit/chap2.pdf

van Lier, L., & Walqui, A. (2012). Language and the Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from Stanford University, Understanding Language website: http://ell.stanford.edu/publication/language-and-common-core-state-standards

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


York-Barr, J., Ghere, G., & Sommerness, J. (2007). Collaborative teaching to increase ELL student learning: A three-year urban elementary case study. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(3), 301–335.

Zacarian, D., & Haynes, J. (2012). The essential guide for educating beginning English learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

ResourcesBardack, S. (2010). Common ELL terms and definitions. Retrieved from American Institutes for Research website: http://www.air.org/resource/common-ell-terms-and-definitions

Burke, A., & Rodriguez-Mojica, C. (2015). Informed decisions: Recommendations from Beaverton School District’s review of program models and instructional strategies for English language learners. Retrieved from Education Northwest Google Drive file: https://drive.google.com/a/educationnorthwest.org/file/d/0B-M-2w0V8AjRN3lRT0QwZkgwTFk/view?pref=2&pli=1

U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition, National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2015). English Learner Tool Kit for state and local education agencies (SEAs and LEAs). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/english-learner-toolkit/index.html

Wheeler, M. (2011). Beaverton School District Volunteerism & Engagement Plan 2011–2015. Retrieved from Beaverton School District website: https://www.beaverton.k12.or.us/about-us/CIP/Vol_Engagement%202011_2015%20Plan_Final%20Web.pdf

101 SW Main St, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97204 | 800.547.6339

Prepared by