Post on 11-Aug-2020
ELL Program Road MapsELEMENTARY PULL-OUT ELD
Contents1 Research foundation
3 Guiding principles
17 Reflective tool
31 Bibliography
The following educators were collaborative partners throughout this process. Without their expertise, creation of the Beaverton Road Maps would not have been possible.
Joyce DeBusk, ELD Teacher, Fir Grove Elementary SchoolErika Heslin, Assistant Principal, Kinnamen Elementary SchoolKate Kelley, Intervention Teacher/Parent Educator, Greenway Elementary SchoolLori Krumm, Assistant Director of SPED, Office of Special Education
1ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD
Research FoundationWith the introduction of new standards for core content and English language proficiency, teaching and learning for English language learners (ELLs) has shifted dramatically over the last few years. ELLs lag behind their mainstream peers by most achievement measures, and educators throughout Beaverton School District are faced with the daunting challenge of shifting their practice to keep pace with evolving standards, student needs, and 21st century literacies. This document is an ELL Program Road Map, developed collaboratively by educators from Beaverton School District and technical assistance experts from Education Northwest. It is designed to serve as a best practice guide for effectively implementing a pull-out English language development (ELD) program in an elementary setting.
Like most districts around the country, Beaverton serves its heaviest concentrations of ELLs in the primary grades. Pull-out ELD is one of the most common programs for serving these students, especially in schools with low concentrations of ELLs. Although much has shifted in the ELL field, there are four important principles based on the research about effective instruction for ELLs. These principles are adapted from “English Language Development: Guidelines for Instruction” (Saunders, Goldenberg, & Marcelletti, 2013) and English Language Tool Kit for State and Local Education Agencies (SEAs and LEAs) (U.S. Department of Education, 2015).
1. Standards-aligned instruction and best instructional practices for ELLs are rigorous, grade-level appropriate, and provide deliberate and appropriate scaffolds. Such programs should include:– Clear goals and objectives– Appropriate and challenging
material– Well-designed instruction and
instructional routines– Clear instruction and supportive
guidance as learners engage with new skills
– Effective modeling of skills, strategies, and procedures
– Active student engagement and participation
– Informative feedback to learners– Application of new learning and
transfer of that learning to new situations
– Practice and periodic review– Structured, focused interactions
with other students– Opportunities for students to
describe their reasoning, share explanations, make conjectures, justify conclusions, argue for evidence, and negotiate meaning from complex texts
– Frequent assessments, with reteaching as needed
– Well-established classroom routines and behavior norms
2 ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD
2. ELLs require additional instructional supports, including:– Focused ELD instruction,
sheltered instruction (for example, SIOP and GLAD strategies)
– Building on student experiences and familiar content (then adding on material that will broaden and deepen students’ knowledge)
– Providing students with necessary background knowledge
– Using graphic organizers (tables, web diagrams, Venn diagrams) to organize information and clarify concepts
– Making instruction and learning tasks extremely clear
– Using pictures, demonstrations, and real-life objects
– Providing repeated practice with scaffolds (gestures, visual cues)
– Giving additional practice and time for discussion of key concepts
– Designating language and content objective for each lesson
– Using sentence frames and models to help students talk about academic content
– Providing instruction differentiated by students’ English language proficiency
3. The home language can be used to promote academic development, such as:– Use cognates (words with shared
meanings that have common etymological roots)
– Provide instruction that leverages ELLs’ home language(s), cultural assets, and prior knowledge
– Elicit vocabulary from the student in his/her home language
– Encourage families to support native language literacy at home
4. ELLs need early and ample opportunities to develop proficiency in English, including:– Ensuring ELD is a school and
districtwide priority– Providing daily focused ELD
instruction
– Offering ELD instruction that explicitly teaches forms of English and emphasizes academic language, as well as conversational language
ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD 3
Guiding PrinciplesThis document is organized into the following seven programmatic strands, based on Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education from the Center for Applied Linguistics (Howard, Sugarman, Christian, Lindholm-Leary, & Rogers, 2007):1. Program Structure2. Curriculum3. Instruction4. Assessment & Accountability5. Educator Effectiveness & Professional Learning6. Family & Community7. Support & Resources
In the pages to follow, each guiding principle will be detailed to provide specific suggestions for best practice. In the accompanying reflective tool, each guiding principle is further supported with reflective questions and an organizer for planning.
4 ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD
Program Structure
It is important to consider the student de-mographics of your school before choosing an ELD pull-out model. This model is most successful for students who are unable to access core content even with scaffolding and supports in the classroom due to their low level of English language proficiency.
PurposeThe main goal of an ELD pull-out program is the development of English language proficiency. It is designed to help ELLs learn and acquire English to an advanced level of proficiency that maximizes their capacity to engage successfully in academic studies taught in English. It is a separate, daily block of time that is devoted to targeted, intensive language lessons (Saunders et al., 2013). In pull-out programs, students leave their mainstream classroom for pull-out services at a time when core-content instruction is not taking place. In this model, ELLs are carefully grouped by language proficiency and individual learning needs for ELD instruction. However, the students should not be segregated by language proficiency throughout the rest of the day. It is important that ELLs have continued
support throughout the school day in the form of sheltered instruction or additional push-in support from ELD teachers.
This model is more common in elementary schools, and it bears mentioning that the instructional space and resources should be comparable to mainstream settings throughout the building (Zacarian & Haynes, 2012). For a pull-out model to be effective, it should be based on student needs, with more supports and resources allocated to students with lower profiles. Students new to the country will need a separate ELD time that may be longer than other pull-out groups. Groups should be frequently monitored for growth, and as students’ language skills improve the ability to access classroom content, supports should then shift to being provided in the classroom via a coteaching model (Zacarian & Haynes, 2012). One scheduling consideration for the pull-out model is that students will eventually progress to higher levels of English language proficiency. For these students, a coteaching model would be more appropriate for their learning needs, as the coteaching model keeps students integrated in their mainstream class.
Pull-Out ELD Programs at a Glance
Strengths Challenges Implementation considerations
Successful for students unable to access core content due to low level of English language proficiency.
A significant amount of collaboration time needed between ELD teacher and classroom teacher.
A consistent time per week of collabora-tion/planning time to facilitate common assessments, promote cultural relevance, and connect background knowledge.
5
Strengths Challenges Implementation considerations
Aligned to state content language standards.
Creation of a master schedule that allows for flexibility.
Flexible master schedule to minimize impact of lost class time.
Small group with focused attention on students’ language needs according to the student’s individual profile.
Difficult for administrator to monitor and enforce core instruction not occurring during ELD instruction.
Flexibility to accommodate fluctuating numbers of students.
Students connect culturally with other students with similar needs and backgrounds.
Long-term consequences of ELL students missing classes such as science/social studies. Academic language could be missing.
Must have ability to clearly articulate model to families.
Increased time for oral practice through academic discussion.
Possible social implications of leaving mainstream class.
Grade-level curriculum map available.
Environment promotes low affective filter (increasing students’ willingness to take risks).
Potential for adding additional expectations to an already heavy content load. Difficulty transferring skills from pull out to classroom.
Language strand of Common Core State Standards overlaps with ELP Standards and should be taught so that all students are receiving language instruction at the same time.
Flexibility to adapt curriculum that reflects students’ backgrounds and cultures.
Potential for increased staffing allocation and a need for space in the building that is free from distractions.
Pull-out instruction must be needs based with sufficient supports and resources allocated to students with lower profiles.
Students receive targeted instruction that meets their individual needs.
Providing interventions to dually identified students while limiting removal from mainstream class.
Individual plan for students with dual identification to minimize time out of the classroom.
Grade-level considerations
Elementary SchoolWhen planning the master schedule, it is critical that pull-out services do not coincide with content area instruction and that classroom teachers have a clear understanding of what will be taught when ELLs are in pull-out ELD. ELD teachers will need a consistent allocation of collaboration time with classroom teachers to integrate the ELP Standards and the Common Core State Standards.
Questions to guide collaboration:1. What common academic language will be used by the classroom teacher and the ELD teacher
(for example, “juicy words” vs. adjectives)?2. What language structures or sentence frames will be used as scaffolds?3. What skills do we expect the students to transfer from ELD into the classroom and how will
those skills be demonstrated and assessed?4. Which ELP standard complements the Common Core Language Standard?5. How can core content be connected to students’ cultural backgrounds?
Please refer to the Support and Resources section for further information on collaboration.
ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD
6 ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD
Curriculum
The curriculum of an ELD pull-out program provides the teacher’s plan for instruction in order for student learning to occur. Often, curriculum is confused with instructional materials. The intent of this section is not to focus on the instructional materials, but rather on the teacher’s specific curricular plan for leading student learning.
The ELD pull-out program must be aligned to state content and language standards. It is critical for ELD teachers to have a deep understanding of the ELP Standards and how they overlap with the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards.
Organization of the ELP Standards in Relation to Participation in Content-Area Practices (CCSSO, 2014)
1. Construct meaning from oral presentations and literary and informational text through grade-appropriate listening, reading, and viewing
Standards 1–7 involve the language necessary for ELLs to engage in the central content-specific practices associated with ELA and literacy, mathematics, and science. They begin with a focus on extraction of meaning and then progress to engagement in these practices.
2. Participate in grade-appropriate oral and written exchanges of information, ideas, and analyses, responding to peer, audience, or reader comments and questions
3. Speak and write about grade-appropriate complex literary and informational texts and topics
4. Construct grade-appropriate oral and written claims and support them with reasoning and evidence
5. Conduct research and evaluate and communicate findings to answer questions or solve problems
6. Analyze and critique the arguments of others orally and in writing
7. Adapt language choices to purpose, task, and audience when speaking and writing
8. Determine the meaning of words and phrases in oral presentations and literary and informational text
Standards 8–10 home in on some of the more micro-level linguistic features that are undoubtedly important to focus on, but only in the service of the other seven standards.
9. Create clear and coherent grade-appropriate speech and text
10. Make accurate use of standard English to communicate in grade-appropriate speech and writing
7
For the teacher to be effective in connecting the Common Core and language standards, there needs to be sufficient and consistent planning and collaboration time with classroom teachers and ELL specialists. The ELP Standards illuminate the social and academic uses of language inherent in—and needed to fully access—the new, language-rich college and career-readiness content standards.
There is a movement in the reformulation of pedagogy for ELL students, which involves a series of shifts in the design of learning materials and pedagogical approaches. Understanding and implementing these pedagogical shifts is pivotal to success in
the education of future generations of ELLs (Heritage, Walqui, & Linquanti, 2015). ELD teachers need to understand how to apply the ELP Standards to their planning and instruction by focusing on the critical language, knowledge about language, and skills using language that are found in college- and career-readiness standards and are necessary for the ELLs to be successful in school. The ELP Standards focus on the language needed to access college and career-readiness standards in English language arts (ELA) and literacy, mathematics, and science rather than supporting ELLs’ development of English proficiency in a manner that is decontextualized from the mainstream curriculum.
Grade-level considerations
Elementary SchoolWhen distributing staff and resources among grade levels, it will be important to keep in mind that the primary grades will likely have higher numbers of students and those students’ profiles will likely be lower. As a result, there needs to be flexibility to accommodate fluctuating numbers of students. Depending on the school demographics, schools with high concentrations of ELLs in the lower grades might create a set of supports by coupling pull-out programming with collaborative push-in supports between ELD teachers and classroom teachers. This collaboration is a critical component to an effective pull-out program. Strategically allocating personnel and providing ongoing opportunities for collaborative learning and development greatly increases ELL student achievement, (York-Barr, Ghere, & Sommerness, 2007) and a greater sense of shared responsibility and accountability for all students (Honigsfeld & Dove, 2014).
Often, it is difficult to decide what to teach while ELLs are out of the classroom to ensure that they do not miss core-content instruction. In addition, the instruction that happens in the classroom while non-ELLs remain needs to be carefully planned to ensure it is a valuable use of learning time. Classroom teachers may need support from their administrators regarding what to teach and how to maximize instruction while ELL students are out of the classroom so that learning outcomes are equitable.
ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD
8 ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD
Curriculum (cont’d)
With a shift to new standards comes a reformulation of practice as it relates to planning. How do teachers support ELLs as they simultaneously negotiate the academic language and analytical demands of content
aligned to 21st century standards? The shifts outlined below are an introduction to some of the changes we must consider in curriculum.
Shifts in ELD Curriculum
From … To …
Seeing language acquisition as an individual process Understanding it as a social process of apprenticeship
Seeing language acquisition as a linear and progressive process aimed at accuracy, fluency, and complexity
Understanding that acquisition occurs in nonlinear and complex ways
Using simple or simplified texts Using complex, amplified texts
Source: Adapted from Heritage et al., 2015, p. 24, table 2.1.
The ELP Standards are interrelated and can be used separately or in combination. Standards 8–10 specifically relate to the language forms and functions required in academic tasks related to standards 1–7. ELD teachers bring their expertise of microlinguistic features found in standards 8–10 as they support standards 1–7. They know the language demands of the academic practices and as a result can scaffold and differentiate instruction for all levels of ELLs. This is why collaboration is so important—there must be a genuine collaborative effort between the ELD teacher and the grade-level team at each school to develop effective, grade-appropriate curriculum for ELD instruction.
Cultural relevance is an underlying component of student engagement. Cooperative planning teams should take careful note of their students’ cultural backgrounds when designing curriculum.
9
Instruction
There is a large body of research to support the direct link between high-quality instruction and positive student outcomes. It doesn’t matter how good the planning is if the implementation through instruction is weak. One of the pillars of high-quality instruction is the reciprocal interaction model—genuine interaction between teacher and student that fosters critical thinking, promotes student agency, and emphasizes student learning over factual recall (Howard et al., 2007). Reciprocal instruction looks and feels more like facilitation than actual instruction. Teachers create the space for students to engage one another, learn cooperatively, and respond dynamically to problems and projects developed by the teacher.
Another pillar of high-quality instruction is the way teachers facilitate student discourse—and learning—through collaboration. The interstudent discourse required to collaborate creates the optimal space for negotiating new content and language for meaning. Lev Vygotsky wrote of the value of engaging students in their zone of proximal development, defined as “the area beyond what the learner can do independently, but where actions can be accomplished with the assistance of more able others” (Vygotsky, 1978). When thinking about learning as a social construct, it shifts the teacher’s role to one of facilitator—the guide in the room who creates “invitations” for students to apprentice themselves in the content, analytical practices, and language of the discipline (Heritage et al., 2015). The
invitations described by Heritage, Walqui, and Linquanti are essential to language development, as they offer the time and space for students to experiment with language while negotiating class content.
Best practices show that the ELD instruction should emphasize academic language as well as conversational language, and explicitly teach forms of English and multimodal grammar. Furthermore, ELD instruction should incorporate complex, amplified texts to support the teaching of reading, writing, listening, and speaking (Heritage et al., 2015). This recommendation is a dramatic shift from previous practice. Here, grade-level text with scaffolded text enhancement (e.g., headings and subheadings, highlighted vocabulary terms, images) and reading scaffolds raise the expectations for ELLs by prioritizing grade-appropriate skills and the language required to meet those high expectations.
Finally, teachers must account for the specific needs of all learners during instruction. In both planning and implementation, a feedback loop of formative assessment information will help teachers adjust their planning and instruction to student need. Formative assessment doesn’t have to be formal—simply listening to how students are using language to express their understanding of class content will reveal much about how and where to adjust instruction.
ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD
10 ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD
Shifts in ELD Instruction
From … To …
Conceptualizing language in terms of structures or functions
Understanding language as action
Emphasizing discrete structural features of language Showing how language is purposeful and patterned
Lessons focused on individual ideas or texts Cluster of lessons centered on texts that are interconnected by purpose or theme
Activities that preteach content Activities that scaffold students’ development and autonomy as learners
Establishing separate objectives for language and content learning
Establishing objectives that integrate language and content learning
Teaching traditional grammar Teaching multimodal grammar (being able to examine the various forms of communication and their intentions to respond appropriately)
Source: Adapted from Heritage et al., 2015, p. 24, table 2.1.
Transfer of skills from the pull-out setting into the classroom has proven to be a great challenge for this program model. “Deeper learning is achieved when students are supported to link ideas into constellations of understandings that are interrelated” (Hakuta & Hakuta, 2015). During instruction, ELLs need to be explicitly taught how to apply and generalize the skills and concepts learned in ELD pull-out in the mainstream classroom setting. If this connection is not made, students will view learning as isolated banks of knowledge. It makes it very difficult for ELLs to interrelate their understandings from each setting. Sternberg and Frensch (1993) have found that if students are not taught the skill of applying new information, then it is much
less likely they will be able transfer their learning from one context to another. In addition, there is vast educational research that has found student learning is improved when students are given opportunities to connect new content to prior knowledge. This transfer of learning is facilitated when the ELL specialists and classroom teachers collaborate to plan instruction, use common language, and incorporate graphic organizers during instruction.
Instruction (cont’d)
11
Grade-level considerations
Elementary SchoolWe need to be cautious about adding content and work to the school day of a beginning- to early-intermediate–level ELL student during the pull-out period and cognizant of the amount of time the student is away from his/her mainstream classroom. The traditional approach has been to teach ELLs language in ELD and to teach content in the mainstream classroom. However, research has shown that there is little conceptual learning that does not involve language learning and little language learning that does not include conceptual and analytical skills (Hakuta & Hakuta, 2015). In order to avoid a lack of learning transfer, consistent and meaningful collaboration time between the classroom teacher and the ELL specialist is critical. To facilitate this collaboration time, additional staffing may be necessary.
ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD
12 ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD
Assessment & Accountability
What do student data, both formative and summative, reveal about students’ depth of mastery of content standards, literacy, and language features of each language of instruction? Assessment is a foundational component of the feedback loop between teacher and student, as it illustrates what a student knows and is able to do with language, literacy, and content. However, this is only true if the assessments are aligned to content and language standards.
The 10 ELP Standards highlight a strategic set of language functions (what students do with language to accomplish content-specific tasks) and language forms (vocabulary, grammar, and discourse specific
to a particular content area or discipline) that are needed by ELLs as they develop competence in the practices associated with English language arts, mathematics, and science (Bunch, Kibler, & Pimentel, 2013, CCSSO, 2012; Lee, Quinn, & Valdés, 2013; Moschkovich, 2012; van Lier & Walqui, 2012).
A student’s ability to demonstrate proficiency at a particular ELP level will depend on context, content-area focus, and developmental factors. Thus, a student’s designated ELP level represents a typical current performance level, not a fixed status. An ELP level does not identify a student (e.g., “level 1 student”), but rather
13
Grade-level considerations
Elementary SchoolPrograms will need to plan for regularly scheduled meeting times in which ELD teachers, classroom teachers, and administrators analyze multiple sources of ELL student achievement data to determine instructional needs and program effectiveness.
identifies what a student knows and can do at a particular stage of English language development. To better understand how students are progressing in the specific modalities of language (receptive, productive, and interactive), teachers might consult the Alternate Organization of the ELP Standards on page 5 of the English Language Proficiency Standards (CCSSO, 2014).
Assessment should be carried out in consistent and systematic ways. Teachers must account for the time they need to design common assessments, both summative and formative. In addition, teachers will need the time to analyze
and interpret the results of their common assessments. This system requires professional learning and collaboration between the ELD teacher and the classroom teacher. Within this partnership, there should be discrete protocols to ensure that teachers are responding to student needs expressed on formative and summative assessments. Whether this protocol is conducted through regular professional learning communities or through periodic inservice activities, student assessment data can inform careful planning of future units to ensure that all students are reaching grade-level targets in each language of instruction.
Shifts in ELD Instruction
From … To …
Using tests designed by others Using formative assessment
Source: Adapted from Heritage et al., 2015, p. 24, table 2.1.
ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD
14 ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD
Educator Effectiveness & Professional Learning
Students benefit most from great teachers and high-quality instruction. Darling-Hammond (2000) found that “the proportion of well-qualified teachers was by far the most important determinant of student achievement at all grade levels” irrespective of the particular need of specific student groups. One important marker of teacher quality is the ability to be openly and honestly reflective about practice. Reflection and commitment to professional growth are two chief factors that ensure teachers are not only high quality, but will also continue to improve over time.
Research has shown that ongoing and consistent collaboration among teachers has a significant positive impact on student achievement. In order to sustain a collaborative model, it is imperative to develop trusting relationships and an environment in which taking risks is encouraged and unsuccessful attempts at something new are not punished but viewed as opportunities to learn (York-Barr et al., 2007).
The integration of language and content is a central theme to the pedagogical shifts introduced earlier in this document. At the heart of contemporary shifts in ELL practices lies the need for both ELD and mainstream educators to connect and discuss the interplay between language and content. Hakuta and Hakuta (2015) describe the integration of language and content with a cyclops metaphor. Instead of treating language and content instruction
in separate silos, the new ELP Standards compel mainstream and ELD teachers to develop an integrated understanding of language and content standards.
Mr. Language
Mr. Language and Content
Mr. Content
15
Family & Community
It is the school’s responsibility to empower families. Families that speak a language other than English at home may need extra support as they may lack knowledge of the U.S. school system and the language to communicate with teachers. In order for the partnership to evolve, schools need to get all families involved and engaged. There is an abundance of research that has found students with involved parents—regardless of family income or background—are more likely to earn higher grades and test scores, attend school regularly, show improved behavior, graduate, and go on to postsecondary education (Henderson & Mapp, 2002).
Beaverton School District’s Volunteerism and Engagement Plan (2011–2015) is supported by the work of Dr. Joyce Epstein’s framework of family engagement. Her model of six types of parent involvement has helped schools nationwide develop effective school and family partnership programs. The six types are:
1. Parenting: Help all families establish home environments to support children as students.
2. Communicating: Design effective forms of school-to-home and home-to-school communications about school programs and children’s progress.
3. Volunteering: Recruit and organize parent help and support.
4. Learning at home: Provide information and ideas to families about how to help students at home with homework and other curriculum-related activities, decisions, and planning.
5. Decision making: Include parents in school decisions, developing parent leaders and representatives.
6. Collaborating with communities: Identify and integrate resources and services from the community to strengthen school programs, family practices, and student learning and development.
ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD
Grade-level considerations
Elementary SchoolProgram planners must find ample opportunities to communicate to families the purpose and vision of the school’s language program. Families are critical stakeholders in this process and their buy-in to the program mitigates future challenges, such as student attrition, that are especially common as coursework becomes more difficult beyond elementary school.
Another factor to communicate is the process of language development. Students will need time to develop academic language proficiency, and as such, state assessments may not reveal all that students know and are able to do.
16 ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD
Support & Resources
All stakeholders must understand the complexities of developing ELL programs. Beaverton School District must commit over the long term and ensure that “appropriate and equitable resources are allocated to the program to meet the content standards, vision, and goals of the program” (Howard et al., 2007, pg. 38). The process of developing ELL programs must be thoughtful, informed, and iterative. It involves reaching out to a variety of stakeholder groups, conducting research on program design options, visiting existing programs, seeking funding sources not only for staffing the program but also for transporting students and obtaining specialized resources, and pulling together all the information into a program design that fits the goals of the district and the needs of the students.
As students develop their language skills in English, their educational needs will evolve. As such, the availability of support and resources will need to be dynamic. Students with lower levels of English language proficiency require greater levels of support.
The Welcome Center will work collaboratively with individual school teams to allocate resources to buildings based on a combination of data points to include demographics of the school, ELL population, and the design of the program model chosen for the building. Additional support needed to effectively carry out the program model should be discussed with the Welcome Center staff.
Grade-level considerations
Elementary SchoolAccess to ELL language programs is critically important, especially when reaching students from language minority and low-income backgrounds. Program access is a critical theme—families must understand what the program is and how it will benefit their child. Program planners must take these additional costs into consideration.
ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD 17
Reflective ToolThis tool is designed to support both the implementation of new ELL programs and existing programs. This document is intended to be used collaboratively with a school-based implementation team comprised of teachers and school leadership, as well as other members of the school community. For grade-specific considerations, please consult the Guiding Principles descriptors on the preceding pages.
As a team, use the guiding questions in the following organizer to facilitate discussion and guide reflection on your school’s program of choice to serve ELL students. Through careful analysis and rich discussion, take stock of each program consideration to determine whether it is (1) already in place, (2) not evident, or (3) a potential area to develop. Based on these determinations, the team can use the features under “Next Steps” to plan for short, and midterm solutions, as well as prioritize immediate action items. When planning, teams might consider the SMART Goal framework, delegating tasks as necessary for program success.
Program sustainability. To ensure that the program is healthy in years to come, this guide can serve as a reflective tool to guide an evaluation of your school’s ELL program. As your school’s implementation team completes its analysis, please consider the following questions:
1. How will the implementation team know when it has reached its program vision?2. How will the team respond when it has met its program goals?3. How and when will the implementation team return to this document to execute the plan?
Connections. How do your team’s plans connect to other school programs, other district programs, and the school district’s vision for the future?
18 ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD
Pro
gra
m S
tru
ctu
re R
eflec
tive
Tool
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Prog
ram
Vis
ion
The
prog
ram
has
a c
ohes
ive,
sha
red
visi
on a
nd a
set
of g
oals
that
est
ablis
h:
• H
igh
expe
ctat
ions
for a
ll st
uden
ts•
Com
mitm
ent t
o an
inst
ruct
iona
l fo
cus
on E
nglis
h la
ngua
ge
deve
lopm
ent a
nd m
ultic
ultu
ralis
m
• D
oes
the
prog
ram
est
ablis
h a
clea
r vi
sion
that
con
side
rs th
e pe
rspe
ctiv
es
of a
ll st
akeh
olde
rs (e
.g.,
stud
ents
, fa
mili
es, c
omm
unity
par
tner
s, te
ache
rs,
adm
inis
trat
ors)
?
• D
oes
the
prog
ram
follo
w b
est p
ract
ices
fo
r Eng
lish
lang
uage
dev
elop
men
t?
Scho
ol E
nviro
nmen
t
The
dist
rict,
scho
ol, a
nd c
omm
unity
em
brac
e th
e pr
ogra
m a
nd p
rovi
de:
• A
saf
e, o
rder
ly e
nviro
nmen
t•
A w
arm
, car
ing
com
mun
ity•
Awar
enes
s of
the
dive
rse
need
s of
st
uden
ts o
f diff
eren
t lin
guis
tic a
nd
cultu
ral b
ackg
roun
ds
• D
o st
aff a
nd s
yste
ms
wel
com
e,
supp
ort,
and
prov
ide
who
le-c
hild
se
rvic
es to
ELL
stu
dent
s an
d fa
mili
es?
• D
oes
the
scho
ol e
nviro
nmen
t pr
ojec
t the
val
ues
esta
blis
hed
by th
e pr
ogra
m’s
visi
on?
Scho
ol L
eade
rshi
p
The
impl
emen
tatio
n te
am a
nd s
choo
l pr
inci
pal l
ead
the
prog
ram
tow
ards
its
visi
on a
nd g
oals
.
• Ad
voca
te fo
r the
pro
gram
• Co
ordi
nate
the
prog
ram
bas
ed o
n pl
anni
ng•
Des
ign
and
faci
litat
e pr
ofes
sion
al
lear
ning
and
pro
mot
e st
aff c
ohes
ion
• En
sure
equ
itabl
e al
loca
tion
of fu
nds
• D
oes
plan
ning
sup
port
the
prog
ram
vi
sion
?
• D
oes
prog
ram
lead
ersh
ip re
spon
d w
hen
impl
emen
tatio
n ve
ers
away
from
th
e pr
ogra
m’s
visi
on?
• A
re th
e pr
ogra
m’s
goal
s cl
early
ar
ticul
ated
to a
ll st
akeh
olde
rs?
ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD 19
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Ong
oing
Pla
nnin
g
With
an
eye
for s
usta
inab
ility
, the
pr
ogra
m g
uide
s im
plem
enta
tion
thro
ugh
care
ful p
lann
ing.
• G
oals
alig
n w
ith th
e pr
ogra
m’s
visi
on•
The
prog
ram
art
icul
ates
ver
tical
ly
thro
ugh
grad
es a
nd it
erat
es
horiz
onta
lly a
cros
s gr
ades
• In
stru
ctio
n is
gui
ded
by a
n ev
olvi
ng
scop
e an
d se
quen
ce th
at is
de
velo
pmen
tally
, lin
guis
tical
ly, a
nd
cultu
rally
app
ropr
iate
• D
oes
the
prog
ram
vis
ion
refle
ct th
e va
lues
of t
he s
choo
l, an
d co
mm
unity
an
d pu
rpos
e of
the
prog
ram
?
• D
oes
the
prog
ram
hav
e a
set o
f sho
rt-
term
and
mid
term
goa
ls to
real
ize
its
visi
on?
• D
oes
the
prog
ram
acc
ount
for
alig
nmen
t to
stat
e st
anda
rds
and
the
ELP
Stan
dard
s?
Lang
uage
Dev
elop
men
t
The
prog
ram
is fo
unde
d on
prin
cipl
es
that
are
sup
port
ed b
y re
sear
ch a
nd
best
pra
ctic
e.
• Pr
inci
ples
of s
econ
d la
ngua
ge
deve
lopm
ent
• Eff
ectiv
e in
stru
ctio
nal
met
hodo
logi
es a
nd c
lass
room
pr
actic
es•
Belie
f in
and
com
mitm
ent t
o se
cond
la
ngua
ge a
cqui
sitio
n th
eory
• D
oes
best
-pra
ctic
e re
sear
ch g
uide
te
achi
ng a
nd le
arni
ng?
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um p
rom
ote
the
fam
ilies
’ lang
uage
and
cul
ture
in th
e sc
hool
and
com
mun
ity?
• D
o te
ache
rs a
nd a
ll pr
ogra
m s
taff
unde
rsta
nd a
nd a
pply
the
prin
cipl
es o
f se
cond
lang
uage
dev
elop
men
t?
Mas
ter S
ched
ule
Stud
ents
par
ticip
atin
g in
pul
l-out
ELD
ca
nnot
mis
s co
re in
stru
ctio
n. A
s a
resu
lt, m
aste
r sch
edul
es m
ust p
rote
ct
spec
ific
bloc
ks o
f tim
e fo
r ELD
, whi
le
sim
ulta
neou
sly
ensu
ring
that
ELL
s do
no
t mis
s co
re-c
onte
nt in
stru
ctio
n. A
d-di
tiona
lly, t
he m
aste
r sch
edul
e m
ust
prov
ide
time
for t
each
er c
olla
bora
tion.
• D
oes
the
mas
ter s
ched
ule
faci
litat
e co
nsis
tent
teac
her c
olla
bora
tion?
• D
oes
the
mas
ter s
ched
ule
allo
w fo
r fle
xibl
e gr
oupi
ng b
ased
on
stud
ents
’ ne
eds
as th
ey p
rogr
ess
in la
ngua
ge
skill
s?
• Is
the
mas
ter s
ched
ule
crea
ted
to
ensu
re p
ull-o
ut E
LD in
stru
ctio
n do
es n
ot o
ccur
dur
ing
core
con
tent
in
stru
ctio
n?
20 ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD
Cu
rric
ulu
m R
eflec
tive
Tool
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Cultu
ral R
elev
ance
Curr
icul
um le
vers
rele
vant
them
es a
nd
topi
cs a
s ve
hicl
es to
eng
age
stud
ents
in
sta
ndar
ds-a
ligne
d le
arni
ng.
• Cu
rric
ulum
wea
ves
cultu
rally
re
leva
nt c
onte
nt w
ith g
rade
-ap
prop
riate
ski
lls a
nd la
ngua
ge
stan
dard
s•
Uni
t the
mes
pro
mot
e co
nnec
tions
an
d cr
oss-
cultu
ral e
xcha
nge
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um re
flect
the
valu
es
of th
e st
uden
t’s h
ome
com
mun
ity?
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um o
ffer a
n au
then
tic,
unas
sum
ing
pers
pect
ive
of s
tude
nt
cultu
re?
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um in
corp
orat
e re
gula
r opp
ortu
nitie
s to
pra
ctic
e la
ngua
ge th
roug
h ac
adem
ic d
isco
urse
?
Alig
nmen
t
Curr
icul
um p
rovi
des
a pl
an fo
r stu
dent
le
arni
ng a
ligne
d ho
rizon
tally
acr
oss
one
grad
e le
vel a
nd v
ertic
ally
acr
oss
prev
ious
and
sub
sequ
ent g
rade
s.
• Cu
rric
ulum
at e
ach
grad
e le
vel
deta
ils w
hat s
tude
nts
mus
t kno
w
and
be a
ble
to d
o by
the
end
of
each
gra
de•
Each
gra
de’s
expe
ctat
ions
art
icul
ate
to th
e ne
xt g
rade
leve
l
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um a
lign
to g
rade
-ap
prop
riate
con
tent
sta
ndar
ds?
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um o
ffer
oppo
rtun
ities
for l
angu
age
deve
lopm
ent a
cros
s co
nten
t are
as?
• D
o te
ache
rs o
n th
e sa
me
grad
e te
am
colla
bora
tivel
y de
sign
and
impl
emen
t cu
rric
ulum
?
• D
o te
ache
rs c
olla
bora
tivel
y co
mpa
re
and
cont
rast
out
com
es?
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um o
ffer
oppo
rtun
ities
to d
evel
op la
ngua
ge,
liter
acy,
and
con
tent
kno
wle
dge
sim
ulta
neou
sly?
ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD 21
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Dep
th
Dee
p cu
rric
ulum
pro
vide
s op
port
uniti
es fo
r stu
dent
s to
eng
age
conc
epts
, ski
lls, a
nd la
ngua
ge
asso
ciat
ed w
ith ri
goro
us, c
ompe
lling
w
ork
in m
ultip
le c
onte
xts.
Dee
p cu
rric
ulum
enc
oura
ges
conn
ectio
ns
acro
ss c
onte
xts,
and
embe
ds s
kills
and
la
ngua
ge d
evel
opm
ent.
• Pr
ovid
es c
oope
rativ
e le
arni
ng
oppo
rtun
ities
to e
xten
d cr
itica
l th
inki
ng in
to c
olla
bora
tive
spac
e•
Incl
udes
app
ropr
iate
sca
ffold
s an
d di
ffere
ntia
ted
supp
orts
so
all s
tude
nts
can
acce
ss ri
goro
us,
enga
ging
lear
ning
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um e
ncou
rage
hig
her
orde
r thi
nkin
g?
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um a
ccou
nt fo
r di
vers
e le
arne
rs?
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um e
nric
h th
e st
uden
t le
arni
ng e
xper
ienc
e?
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um e
mbe
d au
then
tic
skill
s an
d ac
adem
ic la
ngua
ge
deve
lopm
ent?
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um in
corp
orat
e ap
prop
riate
sca
ffold
s fo
r stu
dent
s to
ac
cess
dee
p co
ncep
ts?
Them
atic
Inte
grat
ion
The
them
es in
tegr
ate
lang
uage
, co
nten
t, an
d an
alyt
ical
pra
ctic
es in
cu
ltura
lly re
leva
nt u
nits
of s
tudy
.
• Co
here
nce
thro
ugho
ut th
e ye
ar—
unit
them
es c
ompl
emen
t one
an
othe
r•
Cros
s-cu
rric
ular
coh
eren
ce—
unit
them
es c
onne
ct a
cros
s co
nten
t and
la
ngua
ge
• D
o th
e un
it th
emes
con
nect
to:
– Pr
evio
us le
arni
ng–
Futu
re le
arni
ng–
Oth
er s
ubje
cts
Enri
chm
ent v
s. R
emed
iatio
n
Pull-
out p
rogr
ams
are
built
to e
nric
h,
not r
emed
iate
. Cur
ricul
ar p
lann
ing
mus
t:
• Ch
alle
nge
stud
ents
with
dee
p cr
itica
l thi
nkin
g•
Prom
ote
liter
acy
deve
lopm
ent
• Pr
omot
e ac
adem
ic la
ngua
ge
deve
lopm
ent
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um e
nric
h th
e st
uden
t le
arni
ng e
xper
ienc
e?
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um p
ush
stud
ents
to
exte
nd a
nd a
pply
thei
r lea
rnin
g ac
ross
co
ntex
ts?
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um e
xten
d op
port
uniti
es to
bui
ld la
ngua
ge a
nd
liter
acy
skill
s w
ithin
com
plex
con
tent
?
22 ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD
Inst
ruct
ion
Refl
ectiv
e To
ol
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Inte
grat
ing
Lang
uage
, Con
tent
, &
Ana
lytic
al P
ract
ices
Pull-
out E
LD p
rogr
ams
mus
t att
end
to la
ngua
ge d
evel
opm
ent e
xpre
ssed
in
the
Engl
ish
Lang
uage
Pro
ficie
ncy
(ELP
) Sta
ndar
ds w
hile
sim
ulta
neou
sly
deve
lopi
ng th
e ac
adem
ic la
ngua
ge
that
stu
dent
s w
ill n
eed
in c
onte
nt-
area
cla
sses
. Pul
l-out
ELD
pro
gram
s:
• W
eave
lang
uage
and
lite
racy
into
co
mpe
lling
con
tent
that
stu
dent
s ne
ed fo
r sch
ool s
ucce
ss•
Crea
te m
any
oppo
rtun
ities
for
stud
ents
to u
se E
nglis
h to
neg
otia
te
clas
s co
nten
t
• D
o te
ache
rs fo
ster
crit
ical
thin
king
an
d m
eani
ngfu
l stu
dent
dis
cour
se in
En
glis
h?
• D
oes
the
teac
her c
reat
e in
tegr
ated
op
port
uniti
es fo
r ind
epen
dent
pra
ctic
e of
lang
uage
, lite
racy
, and
aca
dem
ic
skill
s?
Mul
timod
al E
xpos
ure
to A
cade
mic
La
ngua
ge T
hrou
gh C
onte
nt
As
a co
re p
rinci
ple
of la
ngua
ge
deve
lopm
ent,
stud
ents
mus
t exe
rcis
e al
l fou
r mod
aliti
es (l
iste
ning
, spe
akin
g,
read
ing,
and
writ
ing)
as
they
dev
elop
En
glis
h an
d th
e pa
rtne
r lan
guag
e.
• Te
ache
rs w
eave
lang
uage
de
velo
pmen
t tas
ks in
to c
lass
co
nten
t•
Teac
hers
reco
gniz
e la
ngua
ge
stru
ctur
es in
Eng
lish
and
prov
ide
expl
icit
lang
uage
dev
elop
men
t in
stru
ctio
n
• D
o te
ache
rs c
reat
e th
e op
port
unity
fo
r stu
dent
s to
eng
age
clas
s co
nten
t th
roug
h ea
ch o
f the
mod
aliti
es in
En
glis
h?
• D
o lis
teni
ng a
nd s
peak
ing
com
plem
ent r
eadi
ng a
nd w
ritin
g ta
sks?
• D
o te
ache
rs e
mbe
d la
ngua
ge
deve
lopm
ent w
ithin
cla
ss c
onte
nt?
ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD 23
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Form
ativ
e A
sses
smen
t
Ong
oing
form
ativ
e as
sess
men
t cr
eate
s a
feed
back
loop
bet
wee
n te
ache
r and
stu
dent
. Mul
tiple
sou
rces
of
inpu
t fro
m s
tude
nts
will
indi
cate
ho
w to
bes
t sup
port
stu
dent
s in
la
ngua
ge, l
itera
cy, a
nd c
onte
nt.
Form
ativ
e as
sess
men
t doe
sn’t
have
to
be
form
al—
care
ful a
tten
tion
to
stud
ent o
utpu
t rev
eals
muc
h ab
out
the
dept
h of
mas
tery
of l
angu
age,
lit
erac
y, a
nd c
onte
nt s
tand
ards
.
• D
o te
ache
rs h
ave
a sy
stem
for
colle
ctin
g fo
rmat
ive
asse
ssm
ent d
ata?
• D
o te
ache
rs c
reat
e m
ultip
le
oppo
rtun
ities
for s
tude
nts
to s
how
w
hat t
hey
know
and
are
abl
e to
do
in
Engl
ish?
• D
o te
ache
rs u
se fo
rmat
ive
asse
ssm
ent
data
to re
flect
on
thei
r pra
ctic
e?
• D
o te
ache
rs s
hare
thes
e da
ta w
ith
colle
ague
s in
lear
ning
team
s?
Flex
ible
Gro
upin
g &
Coo
pera
tive
Lear
ning
Coop
erat
ive
lear
ning
cre
ates
the
spac
e fo
r stu
dent
s to
eng
age
and
disc
uss
clas
s co
nten
t, w
hile
exe
rcis
ing
acad
emic
lang
uage
in E
nglis
h. F
lexi
ble
grou
ping
str
ateg
ies
enab
le te
ache
rs
to s
truc
ture
gro
ups
hete
roge
neou
sly
or h
omog
eneo
usly
to s
uppo
rt a
pa
rtic
ular
inst
ruct
iona
l foc
us.
• H
eter
ogen
eous
gro
ups
leve
rage
st
uden
t str
engt
hs a
s m
odel
s in
En
glis
h•
Teac
hers
mig
ht e
mpl
oy
hom
ogen
eous
gro
ups
to
diffe
rent
iate
lang
uage
and
con
tent
sk
ills
for p
artic
ular
stu
dent
gro
ups
• D
o st
uden
ts e
ngag
e co
oper
ativ
ely
to s
olve
com
plex
pro
blem
s w
hile
ex
erci
sing
aca
dem
ic la
ngua
ge
stru
ctur
es?
• D
o te
ache
rs h
ave
a sy
stem
to
flexi
bly
arra
nge
stud
ents
bas
ed o
n in
stru
ctio
nal p
riorit
ies
and
stud
ent
need
s?
Cultu
rally
Res
pons
ive
Inst
ruct
ion
Teac
hers
eng
age
stud
ents
by
desi
gnin
g in
stru
ctio
n th
at in
tegr
ates
st
uden
ts’ c
ultu
ral,
lingu
istic
, and
ac
adem
ic fu
nds
of k
now
ledg
e.
• D
o te
ache
rs tr
eat s
tude
nts’
cultu
ral,
lingu
istic
, and
aca
dem
ic e
xper
ienc
es a
s as
sets
for l
earn
ing?
24 ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD
Ass
essm
ent
& A
cco
un
tab
ilit
y Re
flect
ive
Tool
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Mon
itors
Pro
gram
Effe
ctiv
enes
s
Ass
essm
ents
, im
plem
ente
d in
“c
onsi
sten
t and
sys
tem
atic
way
s,”
reve
al m
uch
abou
t how
stu
dent
s ne
gotia
te c
onte
nt in
Eng
lish.
A
sses
smen
ts fo
r pul
l-out
ELD
pr
ogra
ms
mus
t be
alig
ned
to
lang
uage
sta
ndar
ds a
nd m
easu
re
grow
th in
lang
uage
pro
ficie
ncy.
• In
term
s of
stu
dent
pro
gres
s, do
te
ache
rs a
nd p
rogr
am s
taff
mon
itor
stud
ent g
row
th to
det
erm
ine
if th
e pr
ogra
m is
reac
hing
its
goal
s (e
.g.,
AM
AO ta
rget
s)?
Incl
udes
Mul
tiple
Mea
sure
s
Mul
tiple
poi
nts
of in
put c
reat
e a
deep
er, c
lear
er p
ictu
re o
f how
st
uden
ts a
re p
rogr
essi
ng in
lang
uage
, lit
erac
y, a
nd c
onte
nt in
Eng
lish.
M
ultip
le a
sses
smen
ts o
f lea
rnin
g st
anda
rds
pain
t a m
ore
accu
rate
pi
ctur
e of
wha
t stu
dent
s kn
ow a
nd
are
able
to d
o w
ith la
ngua
ge.
• D
oes
the
pull-
out E
LD p
rogr
am
embe
d m
ultip
le m
easu
res
of s
tude
nt
prog
ress
?
• D
o as
sess
men
ts m
easu
re p
rogr
ess
in c
onte
nt s
tand
ards
, lite
racy
, and
la
ngua
ge d
evel
opm
ent?
Ass
esse
s Co
nten
t & L
angu
age
How
are
stu
dent
s pr
ogre
ssin
g in
eac
h of
the
10 E
LP S
tand
ards
? Sc
hool
s an
d EL
L pr
ogra
m s
taff
shou
ld u
se m
ultip
le
indi
cato
rs o
f gro
wth
to d
eter
min
e ho
w s
tude
nts
are
prog
ress
ing
in th
eir
lang
uage
dev
elop
men
t.
• D
oes
the
pull-
out E
LD p
rogr
am a
sses
s in
divi
dual
stu
dent
pro
gres
s in
the
four
lang
uage
dom
ains
of l
iste
ning
, sp
eaki
ng, r
eadi
ng, a
nd w
ritin
g?
• D
oes
the
prog
ram
com
mun
icat
e th
is
info
rmat
ion
to o
ther
sta
keho
lder
s lik
e m
ains
trea
m te
ache
rs a
nd fa
mili
es?
ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD 25
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Dat
a A
naly
sis
The
scho
ol d
isag
greg
ates
stu
dent
da
ta to
und
erst
and
how
to s
uppo
rt
each
stu
dent
in th
e pu
ll-ou
t ELD
pr
ogra
m. T
eam
s of
teac
hers
and
ad
min
istr
ator
s an
alyz
e fo
rmat
ive
and
sum
mat
ive
asse
ssm
ent d
ata
to u
nder
stan
d ho
w s
tude
nts
are
perf
orm
ing
rela
tive
to s
tand
ards
.
• D
o st
uden
t for
mat
ive
and
sum
mat
ive
asse
ssm
ent d
ata
reve
al s
tude
nt d
epth
of
mas
tery
of t
he E
LP S
tand
ards
?
• D
o te
ache
rs a
nd s
choo
l dat
a te
ams
disa
ggre
gate
stu
dent
dat
a to
lear
n m
ore
abou
t how
ELL
s fa
re in
con
tent
, la
ngua
ge, a
nd li
tera
cy?
Dat
a In
form
Pro
gram
mat
ic &
In
stru
ctio
nal D
ecis
ions
Teac
hers
follo
w a
form
ativ
e as
sess
men
t cyc
le to
info
rm
inst
ruct
iona
l dec
isio
ns. S
tude
nt
perf
orm
ance
rela
tive
to s
tand
ards
su
ppor
ts te
ache
rs in
pla
nnin
g in
stru
ctio
n be
st s
uite
d to
thei
r st
uden
ts’ n
eeds
.
• Is
ther
e a
prot
ocol
for a
naly
zing
, in
terp
retin
g, a
nd a
ctin
g on
con
clus
ions
dr
awn
from
stu
dent
dat
a?
• A
re th
e re
sults
use
d to
info
rm p
lann
ing
and
inst
ruct
ion?
Ass
essm
ent L
itera
cy
The
scho
ol c
omm
its to
bui
ldin
g ca
paci
ty in
ass
essm
ent l
itera
cy.
Teac
hers
kno
w h
ow to
des
ign
perf
orm
ance
task
s lin
ked
to s
peci
fic
lang
uage
and
con
tent
sta
ndar
ds. T
he
scho
ol p
rovi
des
furt
her p
rofe
ssio
nal
lear
ning
to a
naly
ze a
nd in
terp
ret
resu
lts a
nd d
eter
min
e ho
w th
e re
sults
can
info
rm fu
ture
inst
ruct
iona
l de
cisi
ons.
• D
oes
the
scho
ol p
rovi
de o
ppor
tuni
ties
to b
uild
teac
her c
apac
ity in
ass
essm
ent
liter
acy?
• A
re th
ere
data
pro
toco
ls in
pla
ce to
gu
ide
anal
ysis
and
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
st
uden
t dat
a?
26 ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD
Edu
cato
r Eff
ecti
ven
ess
& P
rofe
ssio
nal
Lea
rnin
g R
eflec
tive
Tool
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Teac
her C
ertifi
catio
n &
Pre
para
tion
Effec
tive,
fully
cre
dent
iale
d te
ache
rs
are
trai
ned
on E
nglis
h la
ngua
ge
deve
lopm
ent p
edag
ogy
and
high
-le
vera
ge p
ract
ices
for s
ervi
ng E
LLs.
• A
re te
ache
rs p
repa
red
with
a d
eep
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
Eng
lish
lang
uage
de
velo
pmen
t?
• A
re te
ache
rs p
repa
red
with
effe
ctiv
e pe
dago
gy a
nd s
trat
egie
s fo
r ser
ving
EL
Ls?
Prof
essi
onal
Lea
rnin
g
The
pull-
out E
LD p
rogr
am e
stab
lishe
s pr
iorit
ies
for p
rofe
ssio
nal l
earn
ing.
Pr
ofes
sion
al le
arni
ng p
riorit
ies
are
deve
lope
d co
llabo
rativ
ely
and
tran
spar
ently
with
sta
ff, a
nd a
re p
art
of th
e pr
ogra
m’s
com
mitm
ent t
o co
ntin
ual i
mpr
ovem
ent.
• A
re th
ere
clea
r prio
ritie
s fo
r pr
ofes
sion
al le
arni
ng?
• A
re te
ache
rs i
nvol
ved
in e
stab
lishi
ng
prio
ritie
s fo
r pro
fess
iona
l lea
rnin
g?
• D
oes
the
prof
essi
onal
lear
ning
co
ntrib
ute
to c
ontin
ual i
mpr
ovem
ent?
• D
oes
the
prog
ram
pro
vide
sus
tain
ed
follo
w-u
p to
con
cept
s pr
esen
ted
in
prof
essi
onal
dev
elop
men
t tim
e?
• D
oes
the
prog
ram
inco
rpor
ate
conc
epts
from
pro
fess
iona
l de
velo
pmen
t int
o pr
ofes
sion
al
expe
ctat
ions
?
Lear
ning
Wal
ks &
Pro
fess
iona
l Re
flect
ion
Focu
sed
lear
ning
wal
ks a
re a
cor
e pr
ofes
sion
al le
arni
ng to
ol. R
ound
s of
obs
erva
tions
are
focu
sed
thro
ugh
defin
ed in
stru
ctio
nal l
ense
s w
ith
the
purp
ose
of e
xcha
ngin
g be
st
prac
tice.
Lea
rnin
g w
alks
are
acc
epte
d as
a p
rofe
ssio
nal n
orm
and
as
an o
ppor
tuni
ty fo
r per
sona
l and
pr
ofes
sion
al g
row
th.
• A
re s
yste
ms
in p
lace
to e
nabl
e le
arni
ng
wal
ks to
occ
ur w
ith m
inim
al im
pact
to
teac
hing
and
lear
ning
?
• A
re th
e pr
ofes
sion
al e
xpec
tatio
ns
and
purp
ose
of le
arni
ng w
alks
co
mm
unic
ated
to s
taff?
• Is
ther
e a
syst
em in
pla
ce fo
r tea
cher
s an
d ad
min
istr
ator
s to
follo
w u
p af
ter
cond
uctin
g le
arni
ng w
alks
?
• A
re n
orm
s in
pla
ce fo
r gui
ding
roun
ds
of le
arni
ng w
alks
?
ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD 27
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Prof
essi
onal
Col
labo
ratio
n
The
prog
ram
ena
bles
, enc
oura
ges,
and
expe
cts p
rofe
ssio
nal c
olla
bora
tion
thro
ugh
horiz
onta
l (w
ithin
gra
de
leve
ls) o
r ver
tical
(acr
oss
grad
e le
vels
) le
arni
ng te
ams.
• D
oes
the
mas
ter s
ched
ule
crea
te th
e sp
ace
for p
rofe
ssio
nal c
olla
bora
tion?
• A
re c
olla
bora
tion
mee
tings
gui
ded
by c
omm
on p
rofe
ssio
nal n
orm
s an
d st
uden
t-fo
cuse
d pr
otoc
ols?
• D
oes
scho
ol le
ader
ship
est
ablis
h co
llabo
rativ
e ex
pect
atio
ns fo
r co
llabo
ratio
n m
eetin
gs?
• D
oes
scho
ol le
ader
ship
est
ablis
h ex
pect
atio
ns fo
r and
coa
ch
colla
bora
tion
norm
s an
d pr
otoc
ols?
28 ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD
Fam
ily
& C
om
mu
nit
y Re
flect
ive
Tool
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Hom
e/Sc
hool
Col
labo
ratio
n
The
scho
ol a
ctiv
ely
com
mun
icat
es
the
valu
e of
Eng
lish
lang
uage
de
velo
pmen
t thr
ough
str
ong
conn
ectio
ns to
fam
ily a
nd c
omm
unity
pa
rtne
rs. T
he s
choo
l em
bodi
es
the
valu
es o
f mul
ticul
tura
lism
an
d pr
ojec
ts th
e im
port
ance
of
mul
tilite
racy
, ser
ving
as
a co
mm
unity
ce
nter
to e
xcha
nge
cultu
re, l
angu
age,
an
d th
e va
lue
of e
duca
tion.
• D
oes
the
scho
ol e
ncou
rage
co
llabo
ratio
n w
ith fa
mily
and
co
mm
unity
par
tner
s?
• D
oes
the
scho
ol p
roje
ct a
nd
com
mun
icat
e its
val
ues
to fa
mily
and
co
mm
unity
par
tner
s?
• A
re fa
mili
es o
f div
erse
bac
kgro
unds
re
pres
ente
d on
a s
choo
l or p
rogr
am
advi
sory
boa
rd (P
TA, P
TO, P
AC)?
Hom
e &
Com
mun
ity
Cont
ribu
tion
Fam
ilies
, com
mun
ity m
embe
rs, a
nd
com
mun
ity-b
ased
org
aniz
atio
ns
are
empo
wer
ed to
con
trib
ute
thei
r st
reng
ths
to th
e sc
hool
com
mun
ity.
The
scho
ol c
omm
unity
val
ues
the
cont
ribut
ions
of d
iver
se v
oice
s th
at
are
repr
esen
tativ
e of
the
scho
ol
com
mun
ity.
• D
oes
the
scho
ol c
reat
e a
varie
ty
of a
cces
sibl
e op
port
uniti
es fo
r fa
mili
es a
nd c
omm
unity
mem
bers
to
cont
ribut
e?
• D
oes
the
scho
ol v
alue
the
stre
ngth
s fa
mili
es a
nd c
omm
unity
mem
bers
ca
n off
er th
e sc
hool
and
lang
uage
pr
ogra
m?
Scho
ol E
nviro
nmen
t
The
scho
ol e
stab
lishe
s a
wel
com
ing
atm
osph
ere
for a
ll m
embe
rs o
f the
sc
hool
com
mun
ity. E
ach
staff
per
son
unde
rsta
nds
thei
r res
pons
ibili
ty
for p
roje
ctin
g th
e w
arm
, acc
eptin
g at
mos
pher
e th
at m
akes
fam
ilies
and
st
uden
ts fe
el w
elco
me
and
supp
orte
d.
• D
oes
the
scho
ol p
roje
ct a
wel
com
ing
atm
osph
ere
to s
tude
nts,
fam
ilies
, and
co
mm
unity
mem
bers
?
• D
o fa
mili
es k
now
whi
ch s
taff
are
bilin
gual
?
• W
hat a
re th
e ex
pect
atio
ns o
f all
staff
m
embe
rs to
com
mun
icat
e th
ese
valu
es a
nd p
erpe
tuat
e th
e w
elco
min
g at
mos
pher
e?
ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD 29
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Scho
ol-B
ased
Par
ent/
Com
mun
ity
Liai
sons
The
scho
ol c
omm
its a
fam
ily li
aiso
n to
com
mun
icat
e th
e pr
ogra
m’s
visi
on
and
fost
er a
dvoc
acy
for t
he p
rogr
am.
Addi
tiona
lly, t
he fa
mily
liai
son
serv
es
as a
crit
ical
con
duit
of in
form
atio
n an
d cu
ltura
l exc
hang
e be
twee
n ho
me
and
scho
ol.
• D
oes
the
scho
ol c
reat
e a
pers
onal
br
idge
bet
wee
n fa
mili
es, t
he
com
mun
ity, a
nd th
e sc
hool
?
• D
oes
the
scho
ol s
uppo
rt fa
mili
es w
ith
educ
atio
n an
d cu
ltura
lly re
leva
nt
stra
tegi
es fo
r sup
port
ing
liter
acy
and
lang
uage
dev
elop
men
t at h
ome?
• D
oes
the
scho
ol-fa
mily
liai
son
refle
ct
and
com
mun
icat
e th
e va
lues
of t
he
scho
ol?
Com
mun
icat
ion
The
scho
ol a
nd E
LD p
rogr
am p
roje
cts
a cl
ear v
isio
n in
to th
e co
mm
unity
to
prom
ote
the
impo
rtan
ce o
f lan
guag
e de
velo
pmen
t and
the
valu
e of
m
ultil
itera
cy.
• D
oes
the
prog
ram
use
mul
tiple
mod
es
of c
omm
unic
atio
n to
mes
sage
its
valu
es to
the
com
mun
ity a
roun
d th
e sc
hool
?
30 ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD
Sup
po
rt &
Res
ou
rces
Refl
ectiv
e To
ol
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Equi
tabl
e A
lloca
tion
of R
esou
rces
Giv
en th
at e
qual
ity is
n’t e
quity
—th
e lo
cal s
choo
l boa
rd, d
istr
ict,
and
scho
ol
staff
und
erst
and
how
to d
istr
ibut
e re
sour
ces
to e
quita
bly
fund
the
ELD
pr
ogra
m.
• D
oes
the
scho
ol d
istr
ict,
the
loca
l sc
hool
boa
rd, s
choo
l, an
d di
stric
t le
ader
ship
pla
n fo
r allo
catin
g re
sour
ces
to s
uppo
rt E
LL s
tude
nts?
• D
oes
prog
ram
lead
ersh
ip c
omm
it ad
equa
te fu
nds
to a
chie
ve th
e pr
ogra
m’s
inte
nded
out
com
es?
Hum
an R
esou
rces
The
loca
l sch
ool b
oard
, and
sch
ool
and
dist
rict l
eade
rshi
p ha
ve a
robu
st
plan
for r
ecru
iting
and
reta
inin
g hi
ghly
effe
ctiv
e st
aff th
at e
mbr
ace
and
refle
ct th
e va
lues
of t
he E
LD p
rogr
am.
• D
oes
the
dist
rict h
ave
a de
pend
able
pi
pelin
e of
hig
hly
qual
ified
ELD
te
ache
rs?
• D
oes
the
dist
rict h
ave
a st
rate
gy fo
r re
tain
ing
high
ly q
ualifi
ed te
ache
rs?
• D
oes
the
dist
rict e
quita
bly
dist
ribut
e hi
ghly
qua
lified
teac
hers
whe
re
need
ed?
ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD 31
Bibliography
ReferencesBunch, G. C., Kibler, A., & Pimentel, S. (with Walqui, A.). (2013, May). Realizing opportunities for English learners in the Common Core English language arts and disciplinary literacy standards. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://ell.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/events/Bunch-Kibler-Pimentel_AERA_2013-04-08.pdf
Cheuk, T. (2013). Relationships and convergences among mathematics, science, and ELA practices. Retrieved from Stanford University, Graduate School of Education, Understanding Language website: http://ell.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/VennDiagram_practices_v11%208-30-13%20color.pdf
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2014). English Language Proficiency (ELP) Standards with correspondences to K–12 practices and Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from Oregon Department of Education website: http://www.ode.state.or.us/opportunities/grants/nclb/title_iii/final-4_30-elpa21-standards.pdf
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Framework for English Language Proficiency Development Standards corresponding to the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2012/ELPD%20Framework%20Booklet-Final%20for%20web.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/392
Epstein, J. (2009). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hakuta, K., & Hakuta, L. (2015). Freedom to talk [Video]. Retrieved from Stanford University, Graduate School of Education, Understanding Language website: http://ell.stanford.edu/content/freedom-talk
Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement: Annual synthesis. Retrieved from SEDL, National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools website: https://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/evidence.pdf
32 ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD
Heritage, M., Walqui, A., & Linquanti, R. (2015). English language learners and the new standards: Developing language, content knowledge, and analytical practices in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Honigsfeld, A., & Dove, M. G. (2014). Co-teaching: A look-back, a look-ahead, and the look-fors. MinneTESOL Journal. Retrieved from http://minnetesoljournal.org/fall-2014/co-teaching-a-look-back-a-look-ahead-and-the-look-fors
Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., Christian, D., Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Rogers, D. (2007). Guiding principles for dual language education (2nd ed.). Retrieved from Center for Applied Linguistics website: http://www.cal.org/twi/Guiding_Principles.pdf
Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223–233. Retrieved from http://edr.sagepub.com/content/42/4/223.full.pdf+html?ijkey=bGPaXsOy1pveo&keytype=ref&siteid=spedr
Moschkovich, J. (2012). Mathematics, the Common Core, and language: Recommendations for mathematics instruction for ELs aligned with the Common Core. Retrieved from Stanford University, Understanding Language website: http://ell.stanford.edu/publication/mathematics-common-core-and-language
Saunders, W., Goldenberg, C., & Marcelletti, D. (2013). English language development: Guidelines for instruction. American Educator, 37(2), 13–25, 38–39. Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Saunders_Goldenberg_Marcelletti.pdf
Sternberg, R. J., & Frensch, P. A. (1993). Mechanisms of transfer. In D. K. Detterman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 25–38). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition, National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2015). Chapter 2: Tools and resources for providing English learners with a language assistance program. In English Language Tool Kit for state and local education agencies (SEAs and LEAs). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/english-learner-toolkit/chap2.pdf
van Lier, L., & Walqui, A. (2012). Language and the Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from Stanford University, Understanding Language website: http://ell.stanford.edu/publication/language-and-common-core-state-standards
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ELL Program Road Maps: Pull-Out ELD 33
York-Barr, J., Ghere, G., & Sommerness, J. (2007). Collaborative teaching to increase ELL student learning: A three-year urban elementary case study. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(3), 301–335.
Zacarian, D., & Haynes, J. (2012). The essential guide for educating beginning English learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
ResourcesBardack, S. (2010). Common ELL terms and definitions. Retrieved from American Institutes for Research website: http://www.air.org/resource/common-ell-terms-and-definitions
Burke, A., & Rodriguez-Mojica, C. (2015). Informed decisions: Recommendations from Beaverton School District’s review of program models and instructional strategies for English language learners. Retrieved from Education Northwest Google Drive file: https://drive.google.com/a/educationnorthwest.org/file/d/0B-M-2w0V8AjRN3lRT0QwZkgwTFk/view?pref=2&pli=1
U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition, National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2015). English Learner Tool Kit for state and local education agencies (SEAs and LEAs). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/english-learner-toolkit/index.html
Wheeler, M. (2011). Beaverton School District Volunteerism & Engagement Plan 2011–2015. Retrieved from Beaverton School District website: https://www.beaverton.k12.or.us/about-us/CIP/Vol_Engagement%202011_2015%20Plan_Final%20Web.pdf
101 SW Main St, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97204 | 800.547.6339
Prepared by