Running Head: PROMOTING and DEVELOPING LITERACY and LANGUAGE 1

Running Head: PROMOTING AND DEVELOPING LITERACY AND LANGUAGE… 1

The changing landscape of public education continues to change during this rapid white water period with the rise and fall of standards based education, new assessments and accountability. Most recently the implementations of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS), the Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium (SBAC), and the English Language Proficiency Assessment 21 (ELPA 21) Consortium have come to the forefront of many educational conversations. The question becomes how do educators find focus and balance on all the demands of standards-based education. The recent focus on the English Language Arts (ELA) standards in particular has brought attention to the education of all students, including Culturally and Linguistically Diverse students (CLD) also known as English Language Learners (ELL). While the standards shed light on the importance on the inclusion of these students in planning and implementation, there is no real guidance on how this should be done within the CCSS.(NGA 2012, CCSSO, 2012). While the CCSS documents do include a brief acknowledgement of the need to address ELL students, there is no clear directive on how to go about doing so. This has brought into question the validity of these standards for this population. There have been statements from groups who have traditionally advocated for CLD students as to the value these standards have for the population. NABE, La Raza, and LULAC, have publicly questioned their implementation and how they are a politically driven vehicle for propagating and maintaining the academic achievement gap for children who historically been marginalized as part of the public education policy practices’ that continue to isolate them and keep them on the fringes (Bale, 2015). Other groups have begun to address the need to differentiate instruction specifically based on the students English Proficiency Levels. The Understanding Language group from Stanford University, under the direction of Kenji Hakuta, in conjunction with the ELPA 21 Consortium have begun to develop modules to assist teachers in the process of differentiating instruction using the ELP standards(Hakuta, Santos, & Fang, 2013,Santos, Darling-Hammond, & Cheuk, 2012). Training webinars to help teachers who work with CLD students andwho are beginning to implement newly adopted English Language Proficiency (ELP) standards are being made available via state agencies web sites. Those webinars have been announced and the community of practitioners is anxious to have access as they work with the general education teachers on how to implement the ELPs that are aligned to the CCCS. The creation of the modules and webinars has been crucial. Thus, demonstrating a need to identify, create, and implement programs that address the literacy needs of ELLs across the nation and in particular here in the State of Washington. (OSPI, 2015).

The struggle to implement effective literacy programs for this population has also run into conflict with the long lasting debates that have occurred on the delivery of instruction for CLD students since the implementation of the Bilingual Education Act in 1974(Cubillos, 1988).Promotion of Bilingual Education Programs that advocated for the use of native language instruction has always encountered resistance. “Changes in bilingual education legislation reflect an evolution in public opinion as the United States accommodates new waves of immigrants. Though the education of students with limited English proficiencyhas been controversial at times, it has evolved in an effort to better meet LEP students' needs (Stewner-Manzanares, 1988, p. 9). Hence alternative programs have been developed that promote the use of Sheltered English Instruction approaches. These programs have also come at a high cost, thus school districts are questioning the expense of such trainings and the correlation of linguistic development and academic achievement. Many dollars have been spent on some of these existing models and little or no change in closing the academic achievement gap has occurred. In some cases the achievement gap is not only slowly decreasing, but in fact actually growing and becoming even greater. Thedecision on how to address this population occurs at a district level. The model of instruction is fraught with tension and pressures to keep the district out of School Improvement Status. Thus, the role of school district leaders is critical and strategic. Just as there is a demonstrated shortage of trained bilingual teachers or those trained in English as Second Language (ESL), there is also a demonstrated shortage of district leaders who are specifically trained in the area of Bilingual Instruction or ESL. Often the direction and responsibility of these programs are assigned to district staff that may not have had any formal training in this field of education. They usually are assigned responsibility for overseeing this program in conjunction with other state and federal programs. In large districts this may have the luxury of educational administrators, who can maintain focus on one particular program, but more often they are assigned multiple programs and the focus for serving these students can be even more challenging. In smaller districts, there is a magnified effect because the identification of staff with expertise in the area of language development and acquisition is difficult to acquire at both the administrative and instructional levels. Therefore it becomes increasingly important that they have access to staff or programs that can help them meet the existing demand to improve the education of CLD students.

Historically, language development programs have focused on the use of native language and or the use of Sheltered English approaches (Calderón, Slavin, & Sánchez, 2011;Collier and Thomas, 1997, 2002;Cummins, 1981, 1979;Krashen & Terrell 1982). The Dual Language Models, at the top of the list of effective program models to increase academic achievement,used to serve CLD students has been recently promoted by the Race to Top competitive grants and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (Duncan, 2010). These programs have shown promise and have been touted as innovative while meeting the needs of ELL students. They also promote academic rigor and challenge for native English speakers much like a gifted and talented program. This is possible in districts that have a large number of working professionals, who see the value of having their students participate in such a model. In these dual language models the instruction of English and the second language have been compartmentalized, and teachers are trained specifically to teach in the language which theyare assigned. For example in a 50/50 Dual Language Model one teacher is responsible for the instruction in English and another is responsible for the instruction of Spanish. In other models where teaming is not involved there have been attempts to isolate the language by content and time. Again in this model teachers are trained not to mix the languages or to not code switch as this may confuse the language learner. However, in districts with low-socioeconomic status, this value may not be equally esteemed. In districts in this segment the predominant sentiment maybe to fix the problem and the value of speaking another language is not considered a bonus but rather a problem. Traditionally in districts where there is a shortage of bilingual staff a pullout model has been used to ameliorate the problems of ELL students and it has been the mode of operation for many years which is deemed by research the least effective model for the instruction of CLD students (Rolstad, Mahoney& Glass 2005; Collier & Thomas, 1997, 2002).

As a response to this prevalent practice the development of Sheltered English Instructional models such as SADIE, CALLA, SIOP and GLAD have come into practice. These programs have the ideal of comprehensible input and have espoused the use of teaching the content while also teaching English. This approach appears to alleviate the need for bilingual teachers as such because teachers have been trained now to promote English learning while delivering the content of instruction in the mainstream classroom(Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005). The only problem is that all CLD students may not have the benefit of having an instructor or teacher who may assist them with the negotiation of meaning because they do not speak the native language of their students and rely on students who may speak the languages of their non-English speaking peers but are in no way content experts in English and less so in the native language. More recently districts who do not have bilingual teaching staff have relied on a coaching model where selected staff have been trained in these sheltered approaches and provide support and modeling for mainstream teachers, but this becomes again labor intensive and a large burden and responsibility for the identified instructional coaches hired to promote English Language Development for a building or even an entire district. Collier and Thomas have discussed the value of the different instructional models for ELLs (Collier &Thomas, 1997, 2002). Traditionally districts have had to make difficult decisions on how to provide services to this group of students.

Trans-language instruction has recently become a topic for discussion in the instruction of ELLs. This is an idea that is gaining momentum in the English Language Learning circles. Traditionally where teachers were told not to mix the two languages for instruction, this idea is taking a new direction in which the thought promoted here is that we should value the ability to use two or more languages simultaneously, is not only beneficial but indeed a higher cognitive demand that promotes greater brain development for our students. It is also touted and promoted as a mirror to what happens in homes where their multiple languages are spoken and happen naturally. (García, Fanselow, Liao, Cheng, Peterman, Ngo, & Artigliere, 2014;García, & Wei, 2013).

The instruction of CLD students thus, continues to be a critical issue as it has severe and critical consequences for districts who fail to demonstrate progress in helping these students meet both the rigorous academic and language developmentstandards. The majority of schools in the State of Washington continue to be identified for school improvement for two predominant cell groups, Limited English, and Special Education. (OSPI, 2014). Therefore new and innovative methods and programs are needed to help address the issue.

One such approach that values the use of the native language to help clarify understanding has been the TRANSLATE model developed by Dr. Roberto Jimenez. In this approach Dr. Jimenez discusses the process as a means to help our ELLs value and use the native language to bridge and promote comprehension while working in English. In this literacy approach students are given and experience English text, however, they are then given an opportunity to meet in small groups with their peers and an instructor who speaks their native language. They are led in discussion where they with their instructor identify key vocabulary and translate them and discuss what they mean. They are also asked to identify key portions of text from their reading, and to systematically go about the task of translating them into the native language. Students are asked to express their thinking, and to come up with language and terminology to bridge the content of the English instruction. Below is example of this process as documented by Dr. Jimenez.

“The following is one example from our own research that shows students engaging in metacognitive and metalinguistic activity through translation…

Karla: How do you say turned in Spanish?

Ronnie: ¿Me voltié (I turned around)? Like turned? Like turned turned? [makes a turning gesture with her hands]

Karla:Turned, like “my heart had turned gray.”

Ronnie:¡O! Y mi corazón se volteó (Oh, and my heart turned around).

Instructor:Se volteó (It turned around).

Karla: No, that doesn't make sense.

Ronnie: that doesn't make sense.

Karla:Cambió (It changed).

Karla:Volvió a gris (It turned gray).

Instructor:¿Cambió (It changed)?

Ronnie:Y se volvió (And it changed).

Instructor:¿Se volvió (It changed)?

Karla:Como si estuviera cambiado gris (As if it had turned gray).[Karla erases what she had written.]

Karla:OK. What'd you say? Mi corazón cambió color gris (My heart changed to gray).

Instructor:¿Poniendo gris? (It was becoming gray?)

Ronnie:Which one?

Instructor:¿Griciendo (Graying)? [Everyone laughs.]

Karla:Mi corazón (My heart).

Instructor:So when you picture his heart turning gray, what's really happening? Is his heart really turning gray?

Karla:Que su corazón se está volviendo (That his heart was changing). What's the right word?

Instructor:What's the author trying to say? His heart's turning gray, he's becoming…

Selina:Sad.

Instructor:Sad.

Instructor:So instead of saying gray, maybe gloomy.

Karla: Like the gray…

Juana: Gray sky.

Instructor:His heart becomes gloomy, his heart's becoming sad. You can choose different words if that makes more sense.

Karla:Como si mi corazón se estuviera volviendo gris (As if my heart were becoming gray).

Instructor:If that makes more sense. You guys are the experts here.

Juana:We are?

Instructor:Oh, yeah.[Instructor has students read their translations aloud.]

Instructor:So what are these two translations telling us about the story and telling us about what's going on with Marty?

Ronnie:He was cold. He didn't care about anybody. He just wanted to kill the person that killed his brother. He wanted to feel the pain. He wanted, the person who killed his brother, the pain he's going through cause he killed him.

Here the students move back and forth across two languages as they try out a translation.”

(Jimenez, 2015).

The TRANSLATE approach as demonstrated above is a means of using English and Spanish as one dynamic source from which the students can construct and make meaning from the text. It also is a means of using student voice and identity as a source of empowerment for the students.

As mentioned earlier innovative approaches are needed in working with our CLD population of students and teachers that work with them. As discussed the use of Trans-Language strategies are seen as a possible innovative solution. Therefore I promote that it is worthy of study and have gone about securing a time and place where this approach can been explored in an exploratory quasi experimentalproject.

Questions for the Study

As previously stated a mixed method approach was taken with this pilot project. For the purposes of this study the following quantitative and qualitative questions were addressed.

1. Is there any statistical significance in the increase of individual and aggregate scores as demonstrated on the districts identified reading assessment for students who participate in the TRANSLATE literacy approach?

1. What is the perception of participating students in the project using the native language as a means to create meaning for text?

Strategy and Design

This was anexploratory pilot mixed methodscase study focusing on using an experimental design to measure the effectiveness of using the TRANSLATE model as described by Dr. Jimenez (Jimenez, 2015). Also a qualitative approach usingqualitative techniquesof interview and observation were used to develop an understanding of the phenomena occurring in the system being studied over a period of approximately a month. This case study could prove to be informative and possibly be used informing further research. Accordingto Merriam (2009), “case study is a design particularly suited to situations in which it isimpossibleto separate the phenomenon’s variables from their context” (p. 43). Miles and Huberman (1994) offer an important reminder that “a ‘case’ always occurs in a specified social and physical setting; we cannot study individual cases devoid of their context” (p. 27). As with all qualitative inquiry, organizational context is integral to the research questions in this study, which will employ purposeful sampling of an information-rich case (Patton, 2002).With the rapid growth of the Latino population not only in the nation, but also within our state, this research may be particularly useful to school districts serving a significant number of Spanish-speaking Latino CLD students. Methods

Setting and Participants

The social context(s) in which the phenomenon occurred in a summer school program serving a small number of Latino Spanish-speaking students. Visitation was made to a district that serves such students. This setting was best suited to inform the questions of this investigation as sampling school districts that do not serve Latino Spanish-speaking student would not have informed this study. A district in the Yakima Valley of Washington State which serves a significant number of Spanish-speaking Latino students was identified. For the purpose of this study a significant number of Spanish-speaking students were identified as greater than15% of the total enrollment. The district selected has a State Transitional Bilingual Instruction Program (STBIP) that currently identifies or had identified as an Alternative Instructional Model as described by Washington State as their program model. The individual(s) within this setting wereLatino summer school students. These choices were justified as pre and post measures could be identified to measure the effect of the experimental technique on CLD students. For the purpose of this study ten (n=10) Latino Spanish speaking students were selected to participate.