TEA Policies for ESL Aligned with ELL Best Practices
Are the Texas Education Agency (TEA) policies for English as a Second Language (ESL) aligned with ELL best practices, or are they not? That is the question! Since school districts are required to implement English language proficiency standards into each subject of the curriculum and to provide for the social and academic language proficiency of English Language Learners (ELL), the reader is led to believe that alignment with best practices for ESL does exist. The standards delineate that classroom instruction should integrate high quality instruction in the content areas with the acquisition of the second language as the ELL students learn the knowledge and skills related in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) so that these learners reach their full potential academically. Expectations for appropriate instruction involve opportunities for the ELL child to listen, speak, read, and write at their current levels of English proficiency while making gradual progress with the complexity of English as they hear, speak, read, and write. While this sounds good on paper, the next question involves whether or not these practices actually are implemented. To provide for the success of ELLs, academic language proficiency is emphasized to help the learners develop critical thinking, the understanding of new concepts, the ability to process complex academic material, and to learn to interact and communicate in academic settings (19 TAC Chapter 74, Subchapter A).
Identification of the English language learner’s proficiency with English is the first step in providing for the further language acquisition. Then the provision of instruction in a manner linguistically accommodated that is communicated, sequenced, and scaffolded to differentiate the learning for the ELL student is intended to ensure that the knowledge and skills are learned. A foundation of English language vocabulary, grammar, syntax, and English mechanics are mandated as responsibilities of the school districts. It would be assumed that there must be alignment with best practices in bilingual education and English as a second language programs for the state policy to require these programs to be “integral” parts of the comprehensive education. Expectations for the instructional methods to be designed in such a manner as to meet the needs of the ELLs through program content based on the TEKS would necessitate the highly effective strategies aligned with current empirically-based practices (19 TAC Chapter 89, Subchapter BB).
¡Aha! TEA Policies for ESL
While idealistic words are written into the policies for English as a Second Language programs, the question is whether there is specificity of application and implementation with suggested strategies for the attainment of the lofty goals set forth for English language learners. Subsection 74.4 English Language Proficiency Standards, Section (c) provides the specifics of second language acquisition across the curriculum related to the essential knowledge and skills with the extended list of learning strategies and the breakdown of requirements related to listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Surprising were the detailed expectations and guidelines provided. Subsequently, in the next section of the proficiency standards, descriptors of the levels of English language acquisition are provided for the appropriate accommodation of instruction. It was surprising to read the leveled descriptors (beginning, intermediate, advanced, and advanced high) for each specific element of language acquisition (listening, speaking, reading, and writing). Differentiating Kindergarten-Grade 1 from Grades 2-12 is another explicit provision to guide school districts and teachers in meeting the needs of the ELL students. It was not known that a school district could ask for an exception or waiver for bilingual or ESL programs, but that makes sense why the policy in §89.1205 (f) allows “districts [to] join with other districts to provide bilingual education or English as a second language programs.” The summer school program for entering kindergarten and first grade limited English learners was a nice surprise and would certainly provide these students with an effective jump-start prior to beginning kindergarten or first grade (§89.1250).
Are the Texas Education Agency (TEA) policies for English as a Second Language (ESL) aligned with ELL best practices, or are they not? That is the question! Since school districts are required to implement English language proficiency standards into each subject of the curriculum and to provide for the social and academic language proficiency of English Language Learners (ELL), the reader is led to believe that alignment with best practices for ESL does exist. The standards delineate that classroom instruction should integrate high quality instruction in the content areas with the acquisition of the second language as the ELL students learn the knowledge and skills related in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) so that these learners reach their full potential academically. Expectations for appropriate instruction involve opportunities for the ELL child to listen, speak, read, and write at their current levels of English proficiency while making gradual progress with the complexity of English as they hear, speak, read, and write. While this sounds good on paper, the next question involves whether or not these practices actually are implemented. To provide for the success of ELLs, academic language proficiency is emphasized to help the learners develop critical thinking, the understanding of new concepts, the ability to process complex academic material, and to learn to interact and communicate in academic settings (19 TAC Chapter 74, Subchapter A).
Identification of the English language learner’s proficiency with English is the first step in providing for the further language acquisition. Then the provision of instruction in a manner linguistically accommodated that is communicated, sequenced, and scaffolded to differentiate the learning for the ELL student is intended to ensure that the knowledge and skills are learned. A foundation of English language vocabulary, grammar, syntax, and English mechanics are mandated as responsibilities of the school districts. It would be assumed that there must be alignment with best practices in bilingual education and English as a second language programs for the state policy to require these programs to be “integral” parts of the comprehensive education. Expectations for the instructional methods to be designed in such a manner as to meet the needs of the ELLs through program content based on the TEKS would necessitate the highly effective strategies aligned with current empirically-based practices (19 TAC Chapter 89, Subchapter BB).
¡Aha! TEA Policies for ESL
While idealistic words are written into the policies for English as a Second Language programs, the question is whether there is specificity of application and implementation with suggested strategies for the attainment of the lofty goals set forth for English language learners. Subsection 74.4 English Language Proficiency Standards, Section (c) provides the specifics of second language acquisition across the curriculum related to the essential knowledge and skills with the extended list of learning strategies and the breakdown of requirements related to listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Surprising were the detailed expectations and guidelines provided. Subsequently, in the next section of the proficiency standards, descriptors of the levels of English language acquisition are provided for the appropriate accommodation of instruction. It was surprising to read the leveled descriptors (beginning, intermediate, advanced, and advanced high) for each specific element of language acquisition (listening, speaking, reading, and writing). Differentiating Kindergarten-Grade 1 from Grades 2-12 is another explicit provision to guide school districts and teachers in meeting the needs of the ELL students. It was not known that a school district could ask for an exception or waiver for bilingual or ESL programs, but that makes sense why the policy in §89.1205 (f) allows “districts [to] join with other districts to provide bilingual education or English as a second language programs.” The summer school program for entering kindergarten and first grade limited English learners was a nice surprise and would certainly provide these students with an effective jump-start prior to beginning kindergarten or first grade (§89.1250).
Desired Changes
One desired policy change would be to §89.1201. Under section (a), (3), I would like to have it be “require” rather than “‘seek’ certified teaching personnel to ensure that limited English proficient students are afforded full opportunity to master the essential skills and knowledge required by the state.” Without proper training, it seems to be an impossibility to properly serve ELL students. In fact, I would like to see added to the policy that certified ESL teachers maintain annual update training. More than likely, most school districts require such professional development, but knowing that I am ESL certified certainly does not make me highly qualified to teach the ELL children. I studied and passed the EXCET test to get my ESL certification, but I honestly do not feel I could do a very good job of helping new immigrants adequately acquire the English language. When I taught in the small Sweetwater ISD, I was designated as the second grade ESL teacher for the year. All employees were required to get their certification within two years of being hired, because there was not any pull-out ESL program. I pretty much held my breath all that year hoping a second language learner in second grade would not move to Sweetwater. The small school district definitely did not have adequate training or support for teachers within the district. While Region 14 Education Service Center provided much training across the board, it was a 45 minute drive to Abilene for any training. Surely, they would have been available to help, but all this is to say that just because I passed the ESL certification test did not mean I would have been an effective teacher using best practices. The fact that some school districts are allowed to staff teachers in bilingual and ESL programs based on emergency teaching permits or special assignment permits is down right scary, but having worked in a small rural school district it is understandable that there may be no other option. This would be a desired change in policy, though I cannot realistically think of another option in certain circumstances. A final change that would definitely be effective would be for the summer school program option to be extended to learners beyond the first grade. While it might be necessary to cluster grade levels, the prime focus of language learning would be a great asset to these students by extending their learning and language building skills without the gap of time occurring over the summer months.
______________________________________________________________
While the policies of TEA do not explicitly dictate percentages of time or definitively label the type of bilingual or ESL programs, it would be assumed that the policies are based on best practices. Noting the vast diversity of school districts and their populations, the policies were obviously written to encompass the many different scenarios related to limited English language learners. Thus, many specific practices related to empirical evidence are left up to the local education agencies. The guidelines are provided, and hopefully, the school districts will hire highly qualified individuals to incorporate those guidelines in a manner that correlates to best practices.
No comments:
Post a Comment