Systems Approach to ELL Achievement: Hillsboro, Oregon

Path to Success: Improving equitable access and academic rigor for long-term English learners Paul R. Hanson, Science Teacher and Department Coordinator, Liberty High School, Hillsboro, Oregon PDF “A school with high academic optimism is a collectivity in which the faculty believes it can make a difference, that students can learn, and that high academic performance can be achieved.” – Hoy, Tarter, & Hoy, 2006 Long-term English learners at Liberty High School have experienced tremendous academic growth over the past four years. It hasn’t been easy, but thanks to a few pivotal changes, our school has turned a corner in the achievement – and confidence level – of English learners. In 2010-11, Liberty’s long-term English learners (LTELs) were doing the bare minimum amount of coursework they needed to graduate. Very few risked taking advanced social studies or language arts, and most took the minimum number of science and math classes. There was a glaring difference between the demographics of our advanced classes and of our school as a whole. The vast majority of Liberty’s LTELs are Hispanic. Four years ago, these students were falling into a huge opportunity gap: Hispanic enrollment was less than 20% of total course enrollment in advanced courses across the curriculum. Liberty’s staff wanted to close that gap and change the trajectory for LTELs. Our target was to increase Hispanic enrollment in advanced courses to 40%, to be reflective of our school demographics. Since 2011, we’ve made significant changes that are leading to impressive growth in access and achievement for LTELs. The graphs above tell the story: we’re seeing a trend of steady growth in Hispanic enrollment in all advanced courses, from science to language arts. For instance, in 2014-15, these students’ enrollment in AP European History is forecasted to be 47.22% – a big step up from 10.52% four years ago. Enrollment in our Portland State University Senior Inquiry program, a series of interdisciplinary college-level courses, is projected to be almost 50% Hispanic next year. The improvements for LTELs correspond with increasing numbers of students choosing to do the advanced/honors work in foundational courses. In 2010-11, only 17 students enrolled in AP Biology; that number jumped to 60 in 2011-12 and then to 120 in 2013-14. We’ve also had a substantial decrease in failure rates: the freshman failure rate dropped from 15% in 2009-10 to 6.2% the next year, and to less than 5% two years later. We’ve also seen a significant increase in students electing to take science courses beyond those required for graduation. Rather than avoid science as they did before, many students are now taking two science classes in one year. Three key factors have made these improvements possible: 1. Liberty High School staff believes that we have the ability to improve student achievement. We’ve created a culture of academic optimism – a shift in how teachers view students and how students view themselves as able to be successful with appropriate scaffolding. The school’s leadership is instilled with a value of success for all students, and the entire staff shares the belief that we want to engage and challenge all of our learners. 2. Our staff wants equity for all students. We don’t want AP classrooms and at-level classrooms to look like two entirely different schools. Previously, we had a traditional tracking system, particularly in the sciences, which resulted in at-level courses turning into remedial courses. We eliminated many of the prerequisites and the tracking, and opened up access to the advanced curriculum. We embedded honors activities within mixed-ability classes so students could opt in to the advanced options. This has created a climate where LTELs feel supported and safe to take the risk to do honors level work. 3. Liberty prioritizes targeted professional development for our staff. We had the vision and the will, but we needed time and training to develop the skills necessary to implement our vision. Our school adopted new approaches to teaching, including E.L. Achieve’s Constructing Meaning, to help us close our achievement gaps. In 2011, Liberty’s core freshman teachers were trained in Constructing Meaning (CM) to build their ability to make content comprehensible for all learners, especially English language learners. CM has been very much a part of creating success for our LTELs. We now have the resources to accelerate our instruction. While we were already providing students with differentiation and opportunities for higher levels of thinking, we needed additional support to know how to include the language instruction that was necessary for them to express the complexity of their thinking. Supporting the development of expressive language has opened many doors for students to engage and achieve. Our staff’s ongoing professional development includes weekly academic seminars to collaborate in developing our academic skills and making content more accessible to more students, as well as peer observations to share feedback and problem-solving strategies. We focus on engagement strategies to capitalize and build upon students’ background knowledge in order to support rigorous and culturally relevant teaching. Thanks to academic optimism, a belief in equity, and targeted professional development, Liberty’s failure rates have dropped while AP numbers have soared and now reflect the cultural and linguistic demographics of our school. But beyond changing the data, we’ve also experienced a paradigm shift in the academic climate, and students have responded phenomenally. Our LTELs have more opportunities for success because they feel safe to take on a challenge. It is exciting to see LTELs who used to say, “I don’t know if I can do it,” now flocking to advanced classes. They are no longer quiet, passive kids sitting on the side, not turning in assignments. They see themselves as being successful and capable. And, there is a greater sense of buy-in and inclusion throughout our whole school community.

ELL Achievement: Not just what you do, but also what you believe. Academic Optimism.

English Learner Achievement: It's not just what you do, but also what you believe By Elizabeth Macías, Director of Secondary Services, and Raquel Núñez, Director of Elementary Services There is little disagreement about some of the challenges English learners face in meeting the content and language demands of grade-level standards. To achieve academic success, students must be able to extract meaning and information from texts, evaluate evidence and relate it to other ideas and facts, and make informed, skillful language choices to express themselves. We know this works, but is there more? • Explicit attention to the grammatical features and vocabulary of English for authentic functional purposes coupled with well-structured, focused, and engaging opportunities for practice (Saunders and O’Brien, 2006; Ellis, 2005; Norris and Ortega, 2006; Keck et al., 2006) • Effective lesson design that includes a gradual release of responsibility (Fisher et al., 2007) • Ample opportunities to develop fluency by “trying out” newly acquired language through structured, engaging, and authentic oral and written practice (Lightbown and Spada, 2006; Norris and Ortega, 2006; Keck et al., 2006): The focus of E.L. Achieve’s work is on building teachers’ skills for delivering explicit language instruction using strong instructional pedagogy. However, the research is clear that achievement for English learners will not improve if teachers and administrators do not also have “academic optimism.” This has led us to highlight three elements that are instrumental for English learners’ success: • Strong instructional pedagogy • Explicit language instruction • “Academic optimism” for English learners These components do not live in isolation. Instead, they work in conjunction to promote academic success. Academic optimism has been conceptualized as a “triadic set of interactions” (Hoy et al., 2007) where collective efficacy supports trust in students and families, which in turn nurtures academic achievement (Kirby, 2009). Academic optimism is a construct that arose out of quantitative studies identifying three related school characteristics that had strong associations with academic achievement. Collective teacher efficacy, academic emphasis, and trust have each been linked to academic achievement, and in each instance the association was so strong that it overcame the effects of socioeconomic status (McGuigan, 2005). In addition to the importance of creating a culture of academic optimism, research has shown that English learners and students of color are more likely to succeed academically when they have strong relationships with teachers and counselors who value their knowledge and experiences – their funds of knowledge. These adults help students navigate the system and make connections between education and students’ individual lives. While one might believe that these relationships are a given, the dropout rates for English learners and students of color in many high schools continue to show that students feel disconnected and struggle to see a place for education in their lives. Students must not only have positive interpersonal connections with adults on campus, but they must also be challenged to reach the highest levels of academic achievement. Often we make assumptions about which students will or will not succeed in school, limiting our expectations of what they can achieve. Unfortunately, students’ smartness is often judged by their behaviors and not by what they actually know (Hatt, 2012). Research indicates that teachers use different instructional approaches based on their perceptions of students’ English proficiency, but their expectations are not always aligned with students’ actual capabilities (Hatt, 2012). Therefore when we examine the construct of academic optimism for English learners, we need to include the ideas of collective and individual teacher efficacy, academic emphasis, and trust. Additionally, it is imperative for English learners that their rich background and knowledge be recognized and incorporated into academic experiences. We must hold the belief that all children can learn and that it’s our responsibility to help them realize success. We also must be committed to gaining knowledge and skills to continuously improve our instructional pedagogy and delivery of explicit language instruction. References Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System 33 (2) (pp. 209-224). Fisher, D., Rothenberg, C., & Frey, N. (2007). Language learners in the English classroom. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English. Hatt, B. (2011, 2012). Smartness as a cultural practice in schools. American Educational Research Journal 49(3) (pp. 438-460). American Educational Research Association and Sage Publications. Retrieved from: http://aer.sagepub.com/content/49/3/438 Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Hoy, A. (2007). Academic optimism of schools: A force for student achievement. In W. K. Hoy & M. F. DiPaola (Eds.). Essential ideas for the reform of American schools. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Keck, C. M., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kirby, M. M. (2009). Academic optimism and community engagement in urban elementary schools. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. McGuigan, L. B. A. (2005). The role of enabling bureaucracy and academic optimism in academic achievement growth. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (Eds.) (2006). Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Saunders, W., & O’Brien, G. (2006). Oral language. Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research. New York: Cambridge University Press. Comments (0)

Explicit Language Instruction-Needed for ELLs to Construct and Communicate Meaning

Improving Learning for ELLs through Leadership

 

 

Get All Your Employees to Ask Questions: 5 Steps

 BY WILL YAKOWICZ  @WILLYAKOWICZ

INSEAD innovation professor Hal Gregersen describes how you can systemize question asking to encourage creativity and solve problems.

Is your company starting to stagnate? You may not be asking enough questions.

According to Hal Gregersen, a leadership and innovation professor at INSEAD and co-author of the book "The Innovator's DNA," asking questions is a practical tool to help you come up with new ideas, solve problems, and gain different perspectives.

To that end, Gregersen developed a questioning method, which he calls "Catalytic Questioning." In a recent article in the Harvard Business Review, he describes how you can use Catalytic Questioning to nurture creative brainstorming, unearth new directions for your team or business, engage your employees, and determine innovative solutions. 

Here's how to implement this strategy:

1. Be Question-Centric

The method starts with gathering your team around a white board or flip chart, and encouraging everyone to ask questions about a particular problem in a rapid-fire style. Leave all assumptions at the door. The point is to bring "fresh eyes through fresh questions."

Click Here to Learn More

2. Engage Head and Heart

Pick a problem that your team cares about and wants to solve. Make sure the "opportunity," or problem (if you're not an optimist) truly does not already have a solution. 

3. Question Everything

Use this time to only ask questions. Gregerson calls this "pure question talk." Have one team member write down verbatim each question that's asked. No one should retort with answers. Just keep the questions coming. Your goal should be to collect 50 to 75 questions, and to make each one better than the last. Don't give up. Push through when your mind goes blank and ask even more provocative questions. You'll need patience and persistence to exhaust your group's questioning "capacity." The exercise should take 10 minutes to 20 minutes.

4. Find the Catalyst

Step back and pinpoint the most "catalytic" questions. These are the questions that the group cannot answer--the ones that will "disrupt the status quo" if you do answer them. You should then cut your list down to just three or four.

5. Come Up With Answers

Now that you have a focused question for a particular problem, it's time to solve it. This step will be different for each company, depending on how you like to gather information. If you like to observe, go out in the field and "systematically observe" to get answers. Or you can get fresh ideas by networking; talk with diverse groups who don't think and act like you to get new perspectives. Then, start working on a few prototypes for "fast, cheap, virtual experiments," and get feedback on which one might be best. 

After these steps, regroup with the answers you've come up with and brainstorm. Gregersen says you should pull together "all your new input" to create a better solution. If needed, repeat.

 

 

WCKE for ELLs

All ELL students participate in the WKCE math (translation in Hmong/Spanish available), and some may qualify for a one year exemption on the language arts assessment, see below.

"Regulations describing a one-time English/Language Arts exemption for ELLs new in the US less than one calendar year can be found at (See 34 CFR § 200.6 (b) (4)). Specifically, any students who have arrived within the last 12 calendar months may be permitted to abstain one time from the English/Language Arts portions Smarter Balanced Assessment or the reading portion only of the ACT suites including the ACT plus writing and Aspire"

Please read this list of accommodations for English Learners if you are responsible for proctoring a WKCE assessment for a student.

LIst of ELL accommodations:

http://oea.dpi.wi.gov/files/oea/Accomell.pdf

ESL License Opportunity-ACT FAST!

CTELL Program Description

In the past ten years, the percentage of English Language Learners (ELLs) has doubled in the state of Wisconsin. Districts of every size and geography throughout the state have witnessed first-hand the unique challenges of this increasing and unique population. While urban and larger school districts in WI may have larger populations of ELLs in their individual schools, nearly half (46%) of all ELL students in the state are spread across 302 small and rural districts. As the population of ELLs continues to grow in our state, professional development opportunities and academic coursework about the unique challenges of this population take on an importance for almost every educator, no matter the size or placement of their school.

Until now, most professional development opportunities or academic courses on this critical subject have been targeted exclusively toward teachers in elementary grades or have grouped all grade levels together, K-12. That’s why Edgewood College’s CTELL Program is so unique.

Connecting Teachers to English Language Learners (CTELL) is designed to group educators in cohorts that teach similar grades and content areas, demonstrating how you can better serve this student population within the context of a particular subject area and grade level.

Funded through a 1.5 million dollar grant from the Federal Office of English Language Acquisition, public school teachers accepted into the CTELL program are eligible for six graduate credits supported by full-tuition scholarships. From around our state, more than 270 educators from 54 districts have benefited from this unique program. CTELL is open to any educator in the state of Wisconsin through regional partnerships with CESAs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11.

Applications for the 2015 cohort will be accepted beginning May 1 and until November 1, 2014. All selected scholars will be notified by December 1, 2014.

Questions about any portion of the CTELL program, please contact John Kibler, OELA Grant Project Coordinator, at jkibler@edgewood.edu or 608-663-2287.

Too old to learn a language?

Why “younger” is not always “better” in foreign language learning

Posted on 8 October, 2014 by Bryony

This post was contributed by Professor Jean-Marc Dewaele of Birkbeck’s Department of Applied Linguistics and Communications.

Politicians can be forgiven for not having much time to read the fine print when asking advisers to translate research findings into workable policies. Or does it work the other way round? Do politicians decide on policies first and subsequently ask advisers for appropriate research findings to back up the policy?  This seems the case when considering the wide consensus across the world about the benefits of early introduction of foreign languages (FLs) in pupils’ school curriculum. The expression “younger is better” in education sounds perfectly plausible, is simple and convincing, and must be a vote winner.

In the UK, FLs used to be introduced in secondary education. Estelle Morris, then Secretary of State for Education, changed this policy in 2002, scrapping compulsory modern FLs for 14- to 16-year-olds, and introducing them in primary schools. She claimed in 2006 that: “Starting at a much younger age is the best way of making sure we get more pupils taking exams and, more importantly, more of them enjoying and feeling confident about speaking a language other than their own”.

In other countries, FL teaching has even been introduced in nursery schools.  There seems to be a universal consensus among politicians that an early start in FLs will lead to a smoother, quasi-effortless learning process leading to high levels of proficiency in the FLs. Is this a myth?!

Counter-intuitively, research suggests that adolescents and adults progress more quickly than children when learning FLs in a school context (so-called “instructed FL learning”). Many researchers have serious doubts about age of onset being the most important variable in successful FL learning. Indeed, research shows quite clearly that starting age is only one of many independent variables in very complex question.

A crucial distinction exists between so-called naturalisticand instructed FL learning.  Research on naturalistic learners, typically immigrants, shows that younger children are indeed more likely to become undistinguishable from native speakers of the FL compared to their parents and older siblings. However, the picture is not so clear in research on instructed FL learning, a crucial distinction that is commonly overlooked.

A large-scale study in Barcelona has shown that no differences existed among 30 year-olds who had started learning English at school early (age 8) and those who started later (age 11). However, the amount of input in the FL played an important role: those who had studied English for longer, had used the language more frequently in and out of school outperformed those who had had less input.

Another study found no advantages of an early start among Swiss learners of English even after a five years of instruction. The writing skills of late starters caught up with those of the early starters within six months.  One possible explanation is that older learners have greater metalinguistic, metacognitive and strategic skills.

This does not mean that there are no age effects at all in learning and later use of the FLs.  Indeed, younger children seem to be more motivated in learning FLs. In my own research on language choice and self-perceived proficiency among more than 1500 adult bi- and multilinguals, I found that early starters in a FL felt more proficient in speaking,comprehending, reading and writing their FLs. They were also more likely to choose the FL for the expression of anger and feelings, for inner speech and mental calculation.  Interestingly, the effect of mode of instruction was even stronger than age of onset: participants who had acquired the FL naturalistically or in mixed mode (formal instruction combined with authentic use) outperformed participants who had learned the FL through classroom instruction only.

In their excellent overview of the literature on age and the teaching of FLs, Lambelet and Berthele (2014) point out that more research is needed on improving age-appropriate teaching techniques in order to boost motivation levels and metalinguistic awareness of FL learners of all ages. Moreover, extra thought needs to be given to the primary school teachers who are suddenly expected to teach a FL and who may lack in confidence and competence. In other words, those arguing for an early introduction of FLs at school need to take the nuanced research findings into account and avoid promising miracles.

At what age did you start learning a foreign language? How do you think this affected your fluency and confidence in the language? Please leave your comments below.