CCSS and WIDA in the Classroom for ELL Students

RUNNING HEAD: CCSS and WIDA

Abstract

In this Analysis, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment consortium (WIDA) are addressed with the inclusion of English Language Learners (ELLs) in mind. Both expectations as well as limitations of the CCSS and WIDA are discussed, as well as classroom integration of these Standards while considering ELLs. I conclude by explaining my own thoughts on the lack of fairness of the Standards mentioned, and explain why the American Government and Education system need to reassess the importance of creating separate standards and teaching methods for ELLs, considering English Language Learners are soon expected to make up a fourth of the American student population. My conclusion also mentions the steps I will take to ensure my students have access to their education before these Standards and laws are reinvented.

Analysis: CCSS and WIDA in the Classroom

English Language Learners (ELLs) are a growing population in the classroom. Tesol’s “Overview of the Common Core State Standards Initiatives for ELLs” puts these substantially growing numbers into perspective: “In the decade between the 1997-1998 and 2008-2009 school years, the number of ELLs in public schools increased by 51%, while the general population of students grew by just 7%...ELLs are the fastest growing population in U.S. public schools. Close to 6 million ELLs are enrolled in public schools—an increase of more than 100% since 1991, when there were 2.4 million ELLs enrolled. Today, 1 in 10 students is an ELL; by 2025 it is predicted that ELLs will make up 25% of the student population” (Tesol, 4). ELLs are becoming a large part of our society, and classrooms must integrate their needs. National and State standards are now requiring students to meet academic goals, and they are including ELLs in this hopeful accomplishment. However, in order for states to meet these goals, they must help ELLs achieve at grade level, and therefore must provide teachers and their students the tools for success. Without acknowledging that adaptations and accommodations must be made, ELLs will continue to fall behind grade level and Children will be Left Behind.

CCSS and WIDA Defined Through Expectations and Limitations:

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are relatively new, and were put into practice with the hopes that students would all perform at the same level, considering they were all being held to achieve and learn the same learning standards. Tesol explains that, “Holding all students to the same expectations is one of the main drivers behind the CCSS, the most recent chapter in standards-based education reform. Unlike previous reform efforts, the CCSS represent state education policy leaders working collectively to improve the educational attainment of all students” (Tesol, 3). The overview recalls that the standards were created from the research and data collected on an international scale, and that holding students accountable to achieving these standards would allow them to compete in the “global economy” (Tesol, 2) because the highest performing countries’ students were able to successfully perform and achieve these learning standards. So where do ELLs fit in? Tesol mentions: “When the Common Core State Standards were published in 2010, the developers acknowledged in a brief addendum that the needs of ELLs should be taken into account in the CCSS implementation. However, beyond providing some general information and suggestions for ELLs, the developers initially left the question of how to implement the standards for this student population up to the states” (Tesol, 4). ELLs were not properly taken into consideration in this development of the standards, and states were simply left with money and the expectations to somehow include ELLs to ensure that they, too, were learning and achieving at the same rate as native students. “One of the most significant issues facing both consortia is the alignment of state policies concerns ELLs to the CCSS assessments. As set forth by the regulations for the federal grants each group has received, the states participating in the consortia must have a common definition for identifying ELLs and agreement on the testing accommodation policies for them. The definitions of ELLs and the types of accommodations used by states vary widely, so establishing this consensus in and of itself is a major undertaking” (Tesol, 7). All students, including ELLs, will be held accountable and will be tested on these standards using the PARCC and the SBAC assessments, and thankfully, the tests themselves have been developed with the help of language experts, and have had accommodations created for ELLs “such as popup glossaries and captions for audio” while they’re taking the test (Tesol, 7). So then what is happening in the everyday classroom? “The need for resources and guidance in helping states link their ELPD standards to the CCSS soon became clear” (Tesol, 7) and now, “As of February 2013, 31 states and territories belong to the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment consortium (WIDA), which has released a new edition of amplified English language development standards that illustrate the academic language that teachers need to use while implementing the CCSS” (Tesol, 7). WIDA specifically looks at ELLs, and researches how to improve their educational experiences in order for them to reach proficiency while simultaneously meeting these academic standards and learning academic language. WIDA expects teachers to teach students academic language across the curriculum, such as the Language of Mathematics, as well as the content, or the CCSS. In their scholarly article “The Challenge of Assessing Language Proficiency Aligned to the Common Core State Standards and Some Possible Solutions”, researchers Alison L. Bailey and Mikyung Kim Wolf provide an example of a CCSS in the “Reading Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies, Grades 11-12” (Bailey & Wolf, 2), which asks students to be able to “Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including analyzing how an author uses and refines the meaning of a key term over the course of a text (e.g., how Madison defines faction in Federalist No. 10)” (Bailey & Wolf, 2). They go on to explain that: “These examples from the CCSS demonstrate the complexities of assessing [English Language Proficiency] in a way that is aligned to CCSS. Even if [the Standard] above overtly delineates language skill expectations (and many standards do not…) it presupposes a whole host of other language skills and knowledge that are not overtly acknowledged. For instance, to demonstrate the skills covered in this standard, students must be able to talk or write about word choice and semantic refinement as objects of study, and they must understand and use the language of sequencing in order to keep track of word usage across the text” (Bailey & Wolf, 2). Obviously, without the knowledge or the tools of all of these skills, ELLs would not meet this Standard. Bailey and Wolf go on to offer suggestions, which include the “Creation of new standards for all levels of ELP” and the “Creation of standards up to a threshold level of ELP only”. These suggestions would benefit students, for their teachers would be provided with a step-by-step list of Standards that would be defined for them to teach the ELLs in their classroom based upon their needs, rather than be left up for interpretation by the schools or the states. Sadly, these are merely ideas provided by Bailey and Wolf, and have not been implemented or put into practice. So until something is done, we teachers are left to interpret and decide how to teach our ELLs and hope that they reach the standards our native students are accountable for achieving.

Accounting For and Teaching ELLs in the Classroom:

While I am not fluent in any other language than English, I understand that I will still have to communicate with and teach ELLs in my classroom. Ester J. deJong describes the features of a “high-quality program”, which includes: “Sufficient material resources in both languages to implement the program (e.g., textbooks); A highly qualified bilingual staff proficient in the language or languages of instruction and knowledgeable about bilingualism, second language acquisitions, and their implications for teaching; Clear program articulation, that is, curricular grade level expectations and language use expectations for both languages are made explicit and provide a continuous experience for students for language and cognitive development; [and] Teacher collaboration (within and across languages)” (deJong, p.162, 2011). While this sounds like the definition of a “perfect world” for teachers and ELLs, the reality of this happening, or of schools being able to afford these accommodations for ELLs, is slim-to-none. While these accommodations do seem unrealistic, especially in the already-suffering district of CPS, deJong does give some great advice for in the classroom, including that teachers, “Use current approaches to teaching that build[s] on students’ native and second language resources; Implement a curriculum that reflects and builds on students’ cultural experiences; [and] Use culturally and linguistically responsive instructional practices” (deJong, p.162, 2011). In my own teaching, I will use my ELLs’ native and cultural experiences to the fullest extent, and in the most respectful manner. I can see how terrifying it may be for a student in their teens to come to a foreign land with little-to-no access to the language spoken here. I feel that acknowledging that feeling of being lost and allowing these students to reflect and learn by using what they do know and are used to, students will be more connected to their own learning. Patsy M. Lightbown & Nina Spada, in their textbook “How Languages are Learned”, add that, “Students come to classrooms from different backgrounds and life experiences, all of which have contributed to their motivation to learn and their attitudes toward the target language and the community with which it is associated. The principle way that teachers can influence learners’ motivation is by making the classroom a supportive environment in which students are stimulated, engaged in activities that are appropriate to their age, interests, and cultural backgrounds, and, most importantly, where students can experience success. This in turn can contribute to positive motivation, learning to still greater success” (Lightbown & Spada, p. 204, 2013). However liberal and open I want to be to encourage my ELLs to become engaged with the material, I do, however, understand that I will be restricted and confined under the CCSS, and will be expected to have these students meet these standards each year. Even if my school does not have the means to provide these students with the tools to succeed, I will do my absolute best to provide them with homemade instructional materials that will allow them to listen to my lectures at a pace that suits their needs, as well as provide them with worksheets that will allow them to access the material in a less-confusing way, that allows them to use academic language, but also encourages them to connect their lives with the content, and express themselves in a more informal way. In an online module WIDA created, “WIDA’s English Language Development Standards: 2012 Amplification Overview”, under the “Features of Academic Language in WIDA’s Standards” tab, the module explains: “It is important for educators to intentionally engage students in both formal and informal communication, and give them opportunities to interact with the wide range of instructional materials in the classroom” (WIDA, 2012). One thing I had not thought about was that giving ELL students easier assessments could be considered cheating them out of their education. It was a misconception, but I had always thought that holding these students accountable to the same standards as the students who had access to the language was unfair. I now understand that, provided the right program and means of instruction, these students are capable of meeting the same Standards. We, as teachers, administrators, and staff need to come together and ensure that if we are to hold these students up to the same standards as native speakers, then we absolutely must provide them with the tools and access to do so.

Conclusion and Reflection:

Taking BBE-301 has opened my eyes to an entirely new perspective. When I thought about becoming a teacher many years ago, I almost never considered ELLs being something I would encounter and have to take into consideration when planning my lesson plans. After having completed 25 observation hours in a school with ELLs and no resources or bilingual teachers to help them learn, ensuring that this scenario does not occur in my classroom has become a personal, moral mission for me. Seeing a teacher continue on with his daily lesson plans, without trying to communicate with or accommodate these students made my stomach churn. How are we supposed to allow these students to sit in our classrooms, but not have access to the language of our lesson plans? I know that we all feel very strongly about student success, but CCSS and other state and national standards and laws get in our way, and really hurt us and our students sometimes more than help us teach, and more than they help them succeed. How, as content area teachers, are we supposed to possibly fit in an entire lesson plan to teach to all of our students, but then also accommodate ELLs and make sure that they are learning not only the content, but the academic language as well, all in a matter of 40 minutes? While I have learned a substantial amount of material, and have been introduced to the idea of ELLs in my classroom and how to accommodate them and provide them with the means to succeed academically, this class has also further made me question the humanity of our government and education system. ELLs need to be provided with the “perfect program model” that deJong referenced on page 162, where all students are provided with multi-language texts, and where a “highly qualified staff” (2011) are there to support student learning by teaching them in the language to be acquired, but also in their native tongue. Teachers also need to be provided with the outlined Standards such as the ones that Bailey and Wolf invented, where the Standards are either completely re-written for each level of progress for ELLs so that they can be taught and assessed fairly, or an entirely new set of Standards must be invented for ELLs separately, so that they are not just considered an afterthought, but the whole thought. I hope that in the years to come, our government and education system realizes that the growing number of ELLs (an expected 25% of all students by 2025, as earlier mentioned and predicted by Tesol,) will be enough to change the way we teach ELLs, assess ELLs, and the way that ELLs learn. With ELLs soon comprising 25% of our student population, it is time to make major changes in order to allow these students to be part of our society. I hope that by doing as much as I can as one teacher in one school, the students that I encounter will have access to their education to the most of their ability until something larger happens. Until then, we must include ELLs and accommodate them appropriately as if they have already been accounted for in our governments’ idea of applicable workers in a “global economy”.

References

Bailey, Alison L., and Mikyung Kim Wolf. "The Challenge of Assessing Language Proficiency

Aligned to the Common Core State Standards and Some Possible Solutions." Understanding Language. Stanford University School of Education, n.d. Web. 15 Nov. 2015.

J., De Jong Ester. Foundations for Multilingualism in Education: From Principles to Practice. Philadelphia: Caslon Pub., 2011. Print.

Spada, Nina, and Patsy M. Lightbown. How Languages Are Learned. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2013. Print.

Tesol. "Overview of the Common Core State Standards Initiatives for ELLs." Tesol: International Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.

WIDA. WIDA's English Language Development Standards: 2012 Amplification Overview. By WIDA. N.p.: Board of Regents of the U of Wisconsin System, 2012. WIDA. Web. 15 Nov. 2015.