Amy J. Heineke, Ph.D.Associate Professor of Education

Loyola University Chicago

Amy Bedford, M.Ed.Doctoral Student

Loyola University Chicago

Approximately 10 million students speak a language other than English (20% of school-aged children).

About half of these students are labeled as ELs (4.6 million students; 9.1% of student population).

Students within these sub-groups (LOTE & EL) represent a multitude of linguistic backgrounds, including indigenous and immigrant languages.

The American Community Survey (2015) purports over 300 different languages spoken in the US.

https://qz.com/541479/all-300-plus-languages-spoken-in-American-homes-and-the-number-of-people-who-speak-them/

Home Language Number of ELs Percentage of ELsSpanish 3,770,816 76.5%Arabic 109,170 2.2%Chinese 107,825 2.2%English 91,669 1.9%Vietnamese 89,705 1.8%Hmong 39,860 0.8%Haitian 37,371 0.8%Somali 34,472 0.7%Russian 33,821 0.7%Korean 32,445 0.7%

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2015

Percentage of Public K–12 ELs by Grade Level: School year 2014–15

4.6 million students were labeled as ELs in U.S. public schools in

SY 2014-2015.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts file 141, Data Group 678, extracted August 24, 2016; Common Core of Data (CCD), "State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary and Secondary Education," 2014–15. See Digest of Education Statistics 2016, table 204.27.

Enrollment of ELs decreases from

elementary to secondary school years.

PresenterPresentation NotesSOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, EDFacts file 141, Data Group 678, extracted August 24, 2016; Common Core of Data (CCD), "State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary and Secondary Education," 2014–15. See Digest of Education Statistics 2016, table 204.27. 

State EL GradsTotal Grads

Illinois ण़झ़खण़ज़प़ त़ढ़प़

Texas ण़झ़खड़ज़प़ त़त़खट़ज़प़

Michigan ढ़त़खञ़ज़प़ ण़त़खढ़ज़प़

California ढ़ड़प़ त़झ़प़

Minnesota ढ़ट़खण़ज़प़ त़झ़खञ़ज़प़

Massachusetts ढ़ट़खठ़ज़प़ त़ढ़खझ़ज़प़

Colorado ड़त़खण़ज़प़ ण़ण़खट़ज़प़

Florida ड़ड़खत़ज़प़ ण़ढ़खझ़ज़प़

Washington ड़ट़खत़ज़प़ ण़त़खञ़ज़प़North

Carolina ड़ञ़प़ त़ट़खथ़ज़प़

Virginia ठ़त़खञ़ज़प़ त़ड़खट़ज़प़

Georgia ठ़ठ़प़ ण़ञ़खड़ज़प़

New York ट़ण़खझ़ज़प़ ण़ण़खत़ज़प़

Nevada ञ़थ़प़ ण़ज़प़Arizona झ़त़प़ ण़ड़खण़ज़प़

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Arizona

Nevada

New York

Georgia

Virginia

North Carolina

Washington

Florida

Colorado

Massachusetts

Minnesota

California

Michigan

Texas

Illinois

ELs Versus Total Graduation Rate in States with Highest EL Populations

Total Grads ELL Grads

PresenterPresentation NotesSource: NPR analysis of Department of Education dataCredit: Eunice Esomonu, Brittany Mayes and Lisa Charlotte Rost/NPR

https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/02/23/512451228/5-million-english-language-learners-a-vast-pool-of-talent-at-risk

Situation in Current Research & Practice

The majority of research on ELs focuses on early childhood and elementary settings, leaving various gaps in the literature on the education of ELs in secondary settings.

This is exacerbated when considering the research on developing ELs’ bilingualism and biliteracy, which is primarily conducted in dual language classrooms in elementary schools.

Extant research highlights the trends in practice with secondary ELs, including: Prevalence of “subtractive schooling” Remedial content-area classrooms English-only programming via ESL classes English-only standardized assessments Lacking supports for long-term ELs and students with

interrupted formal education Lack of EL-focused professional development for

content-area teachers(Echevarria, Richards-Tutor, Canges, & Francis,2011; Janzen, 2008; Menken, 2013; Menken & Kleyn, 2010; Reyes III & Her, 2010; Wells, 2010)

Overall, research indicates the need for… De-tracking ELs placed solely on language proficiency Critical, engaging classroom instruction for ELs Collaborative learning with flexible grouping Differentiation to meet the needs of diverse ELs (e.g.,

LTEL, SIFE, immigrants, non-immigrants) EL-focused professional development for secondary

content teachers More opportunities for secondary ELs to jointly

develop their L1 and L2(Echevarria, Richards-Tutor, Canges, & Francis,2011; Janzen, 2008; Menken, 2013; Menken & Kleyn, 2010; Reyes III & Her, 2010; Wells, 2010)

Details on the Language Policy Initiative

The Seal of Biliteracy is “an award made by a state

department of education or local district to

recognize a student who has attained proficiency in English and one or more other world languages by high school graduation.”

(ACTFL, 2015, p. 2).

In participating school districts in states that have

adopted the Seal of Biliteracy, students who

demonstrate proficiency in both English and another

language are eligible to earn a seal that is affixed to their high school diploma

or transcript.

The Seal of Biliteracymovement began in CA in 2008 as a grassroots effort by educators and language advocates

Passed in 2011, Assembly Bill 815 aimed to promote bilingualism despite limitations to bilingual education

Since California in 2011, multiple states and the District of Columbia have followed suit in designing and implementing Seal of Biliteracy policies.

There are three general paths to this policy: Legislation through the State Legislature (results in

formal state law; e.g., Minnesota, Illinois) Policy resolution by the State Board of Education

(results in educational code; e.g., Hawaii, Kansas) Policy approved by state or district administrators

(results in policy handbook; e.g., Wisconsin, DC)

Heineke & Davin, in press

SealofBiliteracy.org

The award reflects “what individuals can do with language in terms of speaking, writing, listening, and reading in real-world situations in a spontaneous and non-rehearsed context” (ACTFL 2012, p. 3)

General requirements: (details vary by state) Demonstrate proficiency in English (e.g., ACT score,

completion of ELA courses with adequate GPA, proficiency test, overall GPA)

Demonstrate proficiency in another language (e.g., proficiency test, completion of world language courses with adequate GPA, portfolio assessment for less commonly taught languages)

Intermediate Low: Illinois (Commendation), North Carolina

Intermediate Mid: Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware (Level 1), Kansas (Level 1), Missouri

(Level 1), New Jersey, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, Utah (Level 1)

Intermediate High: Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota (Level 1), Nevada,

New Mexico, New York, Texas, Wisconsin (Level 1) Advanced Low:

DC, Delaware (Level 2), Kansas (Level 2), Louisiana, Minnesota (Level 2), Missouri (Level 2), Oregon, Utah (Level 2)

Advanced Mid: Wisconsin (Level 2)

N/A: California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, OhioDavin & Heineke, 2017

Policy & Practice for English Learners

The Seal of Biliteracy is an award available to all graduating seniors who have demonstrated biliteracyas determined by the specifications of their state.

Of this larger population of students, students currently or formerly labeled as ELs can achieve the Seal by demonstrating proficiency in English, as well as their home language or another language.

Whereas most states framed their policies broadly for all students, some states explicitly designed and enacted the policy with considerations for ELs.

Heineke & Davin, in press

Approximately 1/3 of states explicitly mention ELs in the policy, specifically noting the purpose as related to ELs, including California, Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

Many of these states are those that recently enacted the policy, such as Connecticut (2017), Delaware (2017), Massachusetts (2017), and Michigan (2018).

Others include those that circumvented state legislature through the policy process, such as DC, Hawai’i, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

Approximately 2/3 of states do not mention ELs when framing the policy’s purpose, including Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.

Some states enacted the Seal of Biliteracy to prioritize elite bilingualism among English-dominant students, so the exclusion of ELs in the policy narrative was aligned to the policy purpose.

Other states left out ELs in the formal description of the policy’s purpose, but implicitly included and recognized that ELs would indeed be prioritized in the implementation in practice.

Heineke & Davin, in press

ELs can benefit from the Seal of Biliteracy policy, as educators look to support students’ home languages as a means to promote bilingualism and biliteracy.

Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that ELs may not be the explicit target of the policy, requiring particular attention and advocacy by educators to ensure equitable access and achievement.

Issues to consider in practice include available language programming, curricular, assessments, and instruction in home languages, rather than focusing on the standard world languages in schools.

Broad research on the Seal of Biliteracy is just beginning to emerge in peer-reviewed, academic publications. More specific research is needed to understand issues of equity and access for ELs seeking to achieve the Seal of Biliteracy.

Studies should probe national, state, and local trends in award attainment to understand who is receiving the Seal (e.g., world language learners, heritage language learners, ELs), as well as what factors support biliteracy development (e.g., language programming, bilingual education).

ACTFL. (2015). Guidelines for implementing the Seal of Biliteracy. ACTFL. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. American Community Survey. (2015). Detailed languages spoken

at home and ability to speak English for the population 5 years and over for United States: 2009 to 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Davin, K. J., & Heineke, A. J. (2017). The Seal of Biliteracy: Variations in policy and outcomes. Foreign Language Annals, 50, 486-499.

Echevarria, J., Richards-Tutor, C., Canges, R., & Francis, D. (2011). Using the SIOP model to promote the acquisition of language and science concepts with English learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(3), 334-351.

Heineke, A. J., & Davin, K. J. [In press]. Prioritizing multilingualism in American schools: States’ policy journeys to enact the Seal of Biliteracy. Educational Policy.

Janzen, J. (2008). Teaching English language learners in the content areas. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1010-1038.

Menken, K. (2013). Emergent bilingual students in secondary school: Along the academic language and literacy continuum. Language Teaching: Surveys and Studies,46(4), 438-476.

Menken, K., & Kleyn, T. (2010). The long-term impact of subtractive schooling in the educational experiences of secondary English language learners. International Journal Of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism, 13(4), 399-417.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). EDFacts file 141, Data Group 678; Common Core of Data, "State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary and Secondary Education." Table 204.27.

Reyes III, R., & Her, L. N. (2010). Creating powerful high schools for immigrant and English language learning populations. Yearbook Of The National Society For The Study Of Education, 109(2), 527-547.

Wells, R. (2010). Children of immigrants and dducational expectations: The role of school composition. Teachers College Record, 112(6), 1679-1704.

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_204.27.asp

The Seal of Biliteracy: Policy in Practice for English LearnersEnglish Learners in US SchoolsEnglish Learners in US SchoolsSlide Number 4Slide Number 5The Seal of BiliteracySecondary English LearnersSecondary English LearnersSecondary English LearnersThe Seal of BiliteracyThe Seal of BiliteracyThe Seal of BiliteracyThe Seal of BiliteracyThe Seal of BiliteracyThe Seal of BiliteracyThe Seal of BiliteracyThe Seal of BiliteracyThe Seal of BiliteracyThe Seal of BiliteracyELs & Seal of Biliteracy PolicyELs as Explicit Policy TargetsELs as Explicit Policy TargetsELs as Explicit Policy TargetsELs as Implicit Policy TargetsELs as Implicit Policy TargetsELs as Implicit Policy TargetsELs as Implicit Policy TargetsImplications for Practice with ELsImplications for Research with ELsWorks CitedWorks Cited