Superindent Leadership: A One-Time English-Language Learner Puts Premium on Bilingual, Bicultural Education

A One-Time English-Language Learner Puts Premium on Bilingual, Bicultural Education By Madeline Will February 24, 2015 Richard A. Carranza first stepped into a Tucson, Ariz., kindergarten classroom not speaking any English. By 2nd grade, the now-superintendent of the San Francisco Unified School District was fully bilingual. Mr. Carranza’s experience—growing up in a Spanish-speaking home with parents who were also bilingual—has shaped his passion for language. It’s also the driving force behind his commitment to ensuring that English-language learners in San Francisco’s public schools not only become fluent in their new language, but also have the opportunity to become fully fluent and literate in their native one. That passion has stuck with him throughout his career in K-12 education: first as a bilingual social studies teacher and principal and then in various administrative roles, including a stint as a regional superintendent in Clark County, Nev., before becoming superintendent of the 53,000-student San Francisco district in June 2012. Language, he believes and says repeatedly, is an asset, not a liability. “I think it’s so important that language becomes depoliticized and becomes what it is—a vehicle for communication,” Mr. Carranza, 48, said. “We take the approach that everybody deserves an excellent education,” he said. “It’s not the student who’s at fault [regarding] whether they’re learning or not. It’s really the system being able to meet the needs of the students.” LESSONS FROM THE LEADER Value Language, Culture: By valuing the language and culture of English-learners, you can build on their assets. Students should be given the opportunity to graduate bilingual and bicultural. Power of Data: When schools have access to disaggregated data by classroom, leaders and teachers are able to use the data to inform and adjust their instruction and identify any gaps in curricular resources for English-learners. Family Support: Providing English-learner families with translated information, community resources, and culturally competent support services is essential to supporting students. San Francisco Unified’s English-language-learner services are governed by the Lau Action Plan, which outlines steps the district must take to ensure students with limited English proficiency receive sufficient language instruction in English and full access to the mainstream curriculum. That plan stems from the 1974 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the landmark civil rights case, Lau v. Nichols, that ordered San Francisco’s schools to provide Chinese children who didn’t speak or understand English with a bridge to the curriculum. That case greatly expanded the rights of all children with limited English skills to receive special language instruction to learn English. Bilingual Education In part because of the Lau ruling, the district has built up a robust offering of language-learning pathways, even as many districts around California either diminished or did away with their bilingual offerings in the wake of a 1998 state ballot measure that put severe restrictions on bilingual education. English-learners can choose between an English-immersion program or various multilingual pathways that promote biliteracy. “I don’t see how any student is going to be successful in the next 10 years without being multilingual, without at least being bilingual,” Mr. Carranza said. “For us, we see this as something that just has to happen.” Richard Carranza, Superintendent, San Francisco Unified School DistrictPhoto: Luanne Dietz/Education Week Richard Carranza, Superintendent, San Francisco Unified School District Photo: Luanne Dietz/Education Week A study conducted by the school district and researchers at Stanford University, and published last year, found that students in the district’s English-only programs performed better than their peers in bilingual education programs in the early grades. But by the 5th grade, students who received instruction in two languages performed as well as or, in some cases, better than their English-immersion peers on English-proficiency tests and academic-content exams. The state law restricting bilingual education requires districts to obtain parent waivers in order for English-learner students to be enrolled in programs with instruction delivered in languages other than English. San Francisco has about 15,000 English-language learners, and 35 percent of them are in a language pathway requiring a waiver. In November 2016, California voters will have a chance to repeal the law, which could lead to more schools in the state following San Francisco’s lead to expand bilingual and dual-language programs. “It’s important the state of California recognizes that monolingualism is on the way of black-and-white TV—just not current,” Mr. Carranza said. “Why would you not want to produce bilingual students in the public education system? It baffles the mind.” Jan Gustafson-Corea, the chief executive officer of the California Association for Bilingual Education, said San Francisco has been a leader in systematizing bilingual education. “In order for that to happen, you have to have a strong leader who believes in [bilingual education],” she said of Mr. Carranza. Making Learning Relevant Under Mr. Carranza, the district has made it a priority to work closely with local universities to establish a reliable pipeline for bilingual teachers. Christina Wong, the special assistant to the superintendent who oversees implementation of the Lau Action Plan, said the universities receive information about hiring needs and new district initiatives to inform their instruction and training of new teachers. Still, finding teachers who are both bilingual and bicultural is a challenge, Mr. Carranza said. Finding teachers with basic skills in another language isn’t difficult, but finding teachers who are able to have “content-rich conversation with understanding of the cultural implications, … that’s a little more challenging,” he said. It’s important for the district, though, because teaching students a culturally relevant curriculum breeds success, especially in a school system as diverse as San Francisco’s, Mr. Carranza said. Thirty-eight percent of students in the district are Asian, 26 percent are Latino, 13 percent are white, and 8 percent are African-American. Twenty-nine percent are English-language-learners. “The more relevant you can make the learning in the classroom to the students, the more you can engage them so they … want to learn more,” Mr. Carranza said. The San Francisco school board recently voted to have all its high schools offer ethnic-studies courses in the 2015-16 school year, with the goal of making the classes a graduation requirement within the next five years. I don’t see how any student is going to be successful in the next 10 years without being multilingual, without at least being bilingual. For us, we see this as something that just has to happen. The district has been piloting the courses for the past few years, and Mr. Carranza said the data collected show that enrollment in ethnic-studies classes leads to better attendance and better grades. In what has always been an immigrant-rich city, the San Francisco district has become increasingly attuned to the needs of its recently arrived students, developing a “newcomer” pathway to help those who are new to the United States adjust both to English and American culture. This school year saw a marked increase of students in that pathway as a result of last year’s surge of undocumented minors crossing the border from Central America. As of last month, the district had enrolled nearly 350 new Central American immigrants since the beginning of the school year. Mr. Carranza said the district “scaled up” its existing services for recent immigrants. Any student who lives in San Francisco, he said, will get a high-quality education. An Equity Agenda Ms. Wong, the special assistant overseeing ELL access, said Mr. Carranza has a strong vision and takes risks to reach it. “We’re all in the moment, and sometimes it’s a challenge for us to take a step back and look to the future, but he encourages us to do that,” she said. The district, under Mr. Carranza’s leadership, recently unveiled such a plan—Vision 2025, which outlines 10 big shifts over the next decade that range from making sure all students have a personalized learning pathway to equipping all schools with technology that supports blended learning. Another goal is to graduate students who are globally aware, culturally competent, and multilingual. The district has already made important progress toward that goal, with 850 graduates (out of 3,400) last year earning a “seal of biliteracy” on their diplomas for demonstrating their mastering of two languages, Ms. Wong said. And in 2025, all English-learners should have access to technology, Common Core State Standards-aligned material in multiple languages, and the opportunity for English-language development throughout the school day. The plan condemns the district’s current large achievement gaps between student subgroups. School systems aren’t always set up to be equitable, Mr. Carranza said, adding that he is working to address that in San Francisco. For example, the district has cut central-office expenditures before cutting funds from school sites. And even before California recently revamped its statewide K-12 funding formula to concentrate more funds in schools with high numbers of ELLs and other vulnerable students, the district was targeting extra money to schools with the greatest number of poor students and English-language learners, he said. In the 2015-16 school year, the district will open a new middle school in the Bayview community, one of the most historically underserved areas of the city. It will have a STEM-focused curriculum, wireless Internet capability to support student devices, and various wraparound services to serve the community. Eric Guthertz, the principal of the city’s Mission High School, said Mr. Carranza constantly works toward his vision of equity in education. “He’s brave, he’s honest; he’s more than just an advocate, he’s a fighter for social justice,” Mr. Guthertz said. “He’s been an inspiration in my career.”

Identifying Academic Language Demands in Support of the Common Core Standards

Best Practices for Teaching ELLs May 24, 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 17 Table of Contents More Sharing ServicesShare|Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Identifying Academic Language Demands in Support of the Common Core Standards Susan O'Hara, Robert Pritchard, and Jeff Zwiers As issues of equity arise with the achievement gap and differing dropout rates between English language learners (ELLs) and their English-speaking counterparts (Kindler, 2002; Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000), meeting the needs of ELLs is an increasingly urgent focus for education practitioners and researchers. Underscoring this urgency are the performance results of ELLs on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the nation's only ongoing assessment of what students know and can do in various subject areas. The national assessment's results (Rampey, Dion, & Donahue, 2009) show a large gap between ELLs and their English-only counterparts on achievement scores in science and mathematics at grades 8 (ELLs score 31 points behind non-ELLs in math) and grade 12 (ELLs score 28 points behind non-ELLs in math). The literacy results for ELLs are more worrisome: Only 4 percent of 4th grade ELLs scored at the proficient or advanced levels in reading, while only 3 percent of 8th grade ELLs and 20 percent of students classified as "formerly ELL" scored at the proficient or advanced levels. In response to these data, many educators and policymakers are calling for improved academic language development within content-area classrooms to address the learning needs of ELLs (Anstrom et al., 2010), and the Common Core State Standards call for specific attention to academic language development across core content areas. Focus on Academic Language Academic language is believed to be one of the most important factors in the academic success of ELLs, and it has been increasingly cited as a major contributor to achievement gaps between ELLs and English-proficient students (Francis, Rivera, Lesaux, Kieffer, & Rivera, 2006). The Common Core State Standards will place academic language demands on English learners, and a group of national experts in academic language development mapped out what they will include: Reasoning abstractly and quantitatively; Constructing viable arguments and critiquing reasoning of others; Constructing explanations and designing solutions; Engaging in argument from evidence; and Asking questions and defining problems (Hakuta, 2011). These new standards require effective, simultaneous teaching of academic language skills and the rigorous content that all students must master. However, academic language—which includes the vocabulary, syntax, and discourse styles of particular content areas—is complex and requires both teachers and students to understand the specific academic language demands of the content. For example, Schleppegrell (2007) outlines a number of language demands in math that can challenge ELLs, including The use of symbolic notation. Visual displays, such as graphs. Technical vocabulary. Grammatical features, including complex noun phrases. In addition, the language of academic texts, both the ones students read and the ones they produce, has distinctive features and meanings that may contrast with the language they use in informal spoken interactions (August & Shanahan, 2006; Schleppegrell, 2007). Identifying Academic Language Demands Others (Clancy & Hruska, 2005; Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2004; Fisher & Frey, 2010) have noted the importance of identifying language demands in subject-matter materials, but their focus has been on unpacking standards and articulating content and language objectives or purposes. We believe that identifying specific academic language demands requires an additional step: an analysis of the text, tasks, and tests to be used in a lesson. What follows is a look at the process we have developed and implemented with teachers to help them conduct this analysis. As part of a professional development initiative designed to help teachers implement best practices for ELLs, one day's focus was on introducing a framework for integrating language and content instruction. This framework (see figure 1) begins with the development of content objectives (step 1), proceeds through an analysis of the text, tasks, and tests to be used in a lesson as the basis for identifying language demands (step 2), and concludes with the development of language objectives that are based on the language demands (step 3). Here, we'll focus specifically on how step 2 was introduced to and modeled for teachers. Figure 1. Graphic Organizer of a Framework for Integrating Language and Content Instruction Click on the image to open a full-size version of the organizer. The professional development began with a discussion of academic language features (lexical, syntactic, and discourse), and teachers were provided content-specific examples and then applied this knowledge to the process of identifying language demands. To increases teachers' capacity for explaining and modeling to their students, the approach was based on teachers experiencing the process of identifying language demands as learners and then reflecting on their learning and the effectiveness of the process from the students' perspectives. Teachers were given a set of instructional materials developed for a history lesson: a content objective, texts used, and instructional tasks for students. The group worked in pairs to find the key language demands in each of three academic language features by Analyzing the content objective. Considering data on students' language strengths and needs. Analyzing texts and student tasks. Once teachers completed these steps and discussed them as a group, they were given a second set of instructional materials and worked independently through the same process. These experiences were designed to build teachers' understanding of academic language and their ability to identify the academic language demands inherent in content-specific instructional materials. A subsequent session focused on how teachers could use this information to develop language objectives that support content objectives, texts, and tasks of a lesson. Because academic language development is particularly problematic for ELLs, who have the dual task of mastering content and developing language proficiency, they need skillful teachers who have the knowledge and expertise necessary to facilitate their development of literacy in English as they simultaneously learn, comprehend, and apply content-area concepts through that second language (Garcia & Godina, 2004; Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2006). As teachers implement the Common Core State Standards, identifying academic language demands in content-area materials is a crucial aspect of teacher expertise. References Anstrom, K., DiCerbo, P., Butler, F., Katz, A., Millet, J., & Rivera, C. (2010). A review of the literature on academic language: Implications for K–12 English language learners. Arlington, VA: George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Clancy, M. E., & Hruska, B. L. (2005). Developing language objectives for English language learners in physical education lessons. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 76(4), 30–35. Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E. & Short, D. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English language learners: The SIOP model (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2010). Unpacking the purpose: Vocabulary, structure, and function. TESOL Journal, 1(3), 315–337. Francis, D., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for instruction and academic interventions. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Garcia, G. E., & Godina, H. (2004). Addressing the literacy needs of adolescent English language learners. In T. Jetton & J. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy: Research and practice (pp. 304–320). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2006). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Hakuta, K. (2011). Educating language minority students and affirming their rights: Research and practical perspectives. Educational Researchers, 40(4), 163–174. Kindler, A. L. (2002). Survey of the states' limited English proficient students and available educational programs and services: 2000–2001 summary report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. Rampey, B. D., Dion, G. S., & Donahue, P. L. (2009). NAEP 2008 trends in academic progress (NCES 2009-479). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. Ruiz-de-Velasco, J., & Fix, M. (2000). Overlooked and underserved: Immigrant students in U.S. secondary schools. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Schleppegrell, M. J. (2007).The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning: A research review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(2), 139–159.

Science and Global Competency

Science and Global Competency Rationale, Objectives, Rubrics, and More (starry_eyed_girl/istockphoto) (starry_eyed_girl/istockphoto) Climate change, population growth, pandemic diseases, nuclear arms proliferation, pollution. Green technologies, new mobility systems, and advances in bio technology. The globally focused science classroom is a powerful place for students to explore the implications of these worldwide problems and opportunities. Globally focused teachers create a place where students learn science from interdisciplinary and global perspectives. Using a science curriculum with a global case studies engages students in problem-based learning tasks and scientific investigations founded on research in scientific literature. Empowered by a global science curriculum students investigate the complex biological, chemical, physical, earth, environmental, and human systems, recognize and consider the power of divergent perspectives, communicate about science effectively with diverse audiences around the world, and translate their scientific ideas and findings into actions that make a difference in their local community and the world. In globally focused schools, students explore the language, symbols, tools, technologies, and processes of science inquiry and literacy as the foundation for understanding and advancing science knowledge. Science inquiry shows students how to initiate the inquiry, design and conduct experiments, present and analyze data, interpret results and draw conclusions. Science literacy teaches them how to discuss a science-related issue, put the issue into context, conduct research, develop and support a thesis, discuss the implications and communicate about the work. Science offers the potential for medical cures, and doing things better, faster and with fewer materials. But science also can be at the center of complex interrelationships between scientific results, unforeseen consequences, and ethical, legal and social implications. To understand the impact of global issues—and their current solutions—students need experiences with questioning current scientific understandings and technological practices, engaging with scientists around the globe and collaborating on potential solutions to existing problems. In a globally minded science classroom, students learn to think like scientists. Students observe natural phenomena that cause them to wonder, ask their own questions and test their ideas. When they interpret their data, new questions arise leading them into focused, purposeful research of the literature and further inquiry. The result is students who can understand, analyze, apply, and evaluate existing scientific knowledge in the context of global cultural perspectives, politics, economics and history. Students learn to ask essential questions: How are the results of each action changing the global system dynamics? What are the complex interrelationships between local causes and worldwide effects? Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Are we reflecting on the known impacts and inquiring into the unknown effects? Students probe for deeper understanding and reflect on the results and unforeseen consequences of scientific progress. They take a position, argue it, and take innovative actions that make a difference in the world. See Full article at: http://asiasociety.org/education/resources-schools/professional-learning/science-and-global-competency

To grow good writers, feed them great literature

To Grow Good Writers, Feed Them Great Literature (CEFutcher/iStockPhoto) (CEFutcher/iStockPhoto) By Heather Clydesdale How can learning Chinese help American students become adept writers? The question is simple, but startling. Discussions in the field of teaching Chinese as a foreign language tend to focus on challenges presented by the language itself: thousands of characters, syntax that has no counterpart in English, and tones. These are fundamental, and new research and applications for addressing them are both needed and appreciated, but it is invigorating to hear from professionals who mark an ambitious target beyond language acquisition. At the 2013 National Chinese Language Conference in Boston, three experts from Cambridge Public Schools in Massachusetts essentially reached for the stratosphere, presenting strategies to help students use Chinese to practice and develop the craft of writing. “Children are such natural storytellers,” explains Vivian Tam, previously the FLAP Chinese immersion project coordinator at Cambridge Public Schools, and now principal of Jing Mei Elementary School in Bellevue, Washington. “They want to tell you in their drawing and their writing.” Tam and her colleagues, Szu-Ming Li and Kai Tan, who both teach in the Chinese Immersion Program at the Martin Luther King, Jr. School, have successfully applied mentor texts and the study of authors to guide kindergarten and first-grade students in becoming writers. Tam was prompted to apply the study of mentor texts in Chinese immersion classes after she and Tan attended a literacy collaborative conference in Rhode Island, where they heard a presentation by the teacher mentor and researcher, Katie Wood Ray. “It was very inspiring, and we tried to use that in the Chinese classroom as well,” recalls Tam. “We saw that children really love to write. Even if they don’t have the vocabulary, they seek (it out). We give them sheets to find the words.” Mentor texts, says Tam, are ones that are authentic, featuring a consistent theme and exemplary sense of technique. They must be original works in the native language, not translations. Effective mentor texts should be readable, meaning they are age-appropriate, engaging, and suitable to the background knowledge of students. Finally, they must be teachable, with relevant content that supports learning objectives across the curriculum. To apply mentor texts in the classroom, Tam recommends helping students explore the authors’ lives and make connections with his or her writing. Students can compare texts, ask questions about the author’s intentions, and also compare the subject matter to other content areas. Even young students can take note of how the author uses style, connections, and patterns, and then help plan and participate in a culminating activity, such as a performance, sending letters to the author, or creating a class book modeling features of the writings they have studied. “The goal is that they feel passionate enough about Chinese authors that they will know their names,” Tam explains. Students can also posit why a particular author selects and develops certain genres to heighten the effect of the content. Students compare illustration styles, describe the relationship between pictures and the text, and then incorporate these into their own writing and illustration. Tam admires authors such as Cao Junyan, whose simple prose is accompanied by beautiful illustrations and rich cultural content. Other favorite authors include Lin Liang, Li Zirong, Bao Dongni, and Chen Zhiyuan, but Tam admits that, short of visiting bookstores in China, obtaining appropriate Chinese literary works is not easy. She has compiled a list of websites where teachers can go to find appropriate sources, and some from Hong Kong and Taiwan (which use complex characters, though sometimes versions using simplified characters are available) are listed below. Tam would like to find additional rich online resources from Mainland China, but so far has not been successful. Writing is a craft, and strong writers are forged, not born. Devoting time to teaching writing, asserts Tam, is worthwhile because it is an essential 21st-century skill, and because it is an effective means to acquiring other skills. Writing enhances students’ ability to read and analyze a text. Practicing writing also teaches children to organize their thoughts and to think more deeply. In these ways, exploring writing through mentor authors can help students develop across several areas, and in English as well as Chinese.