SUBSCRIBE

BRIEF: English Learner Funding Equity and Adequacy in K–12 Education


Introduction

In a rural part of northwest Alabama sits Russellville City, a community that has experienced tremendous demographic changes in recent years. These changes are reflected in the local school district, Russellville City School District (RCSD), which has seen the number of students identified as English learners (ELs) increase from 16 percent of enrollment in 2014–15 to nearly 30 percent in less than a decade.[1] In response to local pressure, the state recently boosted EL funding—between 2018 and 2021 allocation increased from $2.9 million to $16 million—which amounts to $300 per EL for RCSD on top of basic per-pupil funding.[2] District leaders have used these funds in conjunction with other state, local, and federal revenue to hire EL paraeducators and teachers, and to help Spanish-speaking staff members become certified teachers. Still, local education leaders say more money is needed.

School districts across the country, like RCSD, are grappling with the challenge of determining how much funding is needed to provide ELs with rigorous and equitable learning opportunities. New America convened a group of education finance and EL education policy experts in July 2022 in order to discuss equity gaps in how EL education is funded (please scroll down for the full list of attendees). Attendees were divided into two groups, where they discussed four guiding questions:

  • What, if anything, are the current flaws in how EL education is funded?
  • Which, if any, states/districts currently provide adequate funding for EL education? What do we know about the funding structures in places that have good outcomes for ELs?
  • What would it take to determine the true cost of educating ELs across various contexts?
  • What are the benchmarks that can be used to measure the cost of educating ELs uniformly across school/district/state?

This brief will summarize what we learned from this roundtable. It will give a short overview of EL funding context in the U.S., followed by five key takeaways that emerged from the discussion central to making progress towards more equitable funding systems for ELs.

Background

The bulk of K–12 education funding comes from state and local revenue, which means that states and districts are covering the costs of providing core EL services and programming.[3] In addition to the base per-pupil funding, most states provide increased funding for ELs by using student-weighted formulas, categorical funding, reimbursement agreements, and sometimes a combination of these methods.[4] The federal government provides supplemental funding for ELs in K–12 through one designated revenue stream, but ELs qualify to be served by other federal programs as well (see Federal Funding for English Learners).[5]

Federal Funding for English Learners

Funding for ELs is provided through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, most recently reauthorized in 2015 through the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), and by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Refugee Support Services Formula Allocation.[6]

  1. Title I, Part A: Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies
    Provides grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) for improving the academic achievement of economically disadvantaged students.
  2. Title I, Part C: Education of Migratory Children[7]
    Provides grants to state educational agencies to assist in supporting high-quality and comprehensive educational programs and services during the school year and, as applicable, during summer or intersession periods, that address the educational needs of migratory children.
  3. Title II, Part A: Supporting Effective Instruction
    Provides grants to state educational agencies, which then sub-grant funds to LEAs to improve teacher and principal quality through induction programs, professional development and growth, equitable access to quality educators, and recruitment for hard-to-find educator positions.
  4. Title III, Part A: English Language Acquisition, Enhancement, and Academic Achievement
    Provides grants to state and local educational agencies to help implement programs that help ensure ELs, including immigrant children and youth, attain English proficiency and develop high levels of academic achievement in English.[8]This is the only grant program that is specifically geared towards supporting ELs and recent immigrant students in the classroom.
  5. Refugee School Impact Grants
    Provides grants to state and state-alternative programs to support school districts impacted by school-aged refugees and Office of Refugee Resettlement-eligible populations.

Congress appropriates money to each of these discretionary grants every year, and how much each state receives is determined using a specified formula. For Title III, for example, each state receives funding based on how many ELs and recent immigrant students are enrolled.[9] States are responsible for distributing the money to local school districts who use the funds for district-wide resources or release the funds to individual schools. Since ELs tend to be overrepresented in low-income schools[10] and the number of teachers prepared to support these students in bilingual and English as a second language (ESL) classrooms is limited, funds provided under Title I, Part A and Title II, Part A can be used. Although not all refugee and migratory children are ELs, many are, so Title I, Part C and Refugee School Impact Grants can be used to support those students.

Education advocates have been pushing for more federal funding for ELs for years, calling attention to the fact that funds have not kept up with the pace of growth among the EL population.[11] In the past 20 years, the EL population grew by 35 percent, yet funding for EL students through Title III—the federal funding stream designated for ELs—decreased by 24 percent when adjusted for inflation.[12]

Much of the advocacy by EL-focused national organizations has aimed to increase Title III funding, but the decentralized nature of education in the U.S. means that state and local revenues play a much larger role than federal funds. In fact, combined state and local revenue made up 80 percent or more of every state’s total K-12 education funding in 2017-18. Districts received, on average, just 8 percent of funding from the federal government.[13]

Previous research has found that state funding structures do not direct more resources to districts with the highest needs (see What Do We Mean by Equity and Adequacy? for what we mean by equity and adequacy). For example, a December 2022 report from the Education Trust found that districts with the most ELs receive approximately 14 percent less state and local revenue than districts with low EL enrollment. This means that although nearly every state, plus the District of Columbia, allocates additional funds for EL education on top of baseline per-pupil allocations, schools and districts where ELs are concentrated are at a disadvantage. Education finance research commonly recommends incorporating differentiated funding levels for ELs to account for their varying needs.[14] However, information is scarce about how many additional resources are required to adequately and equitably meet their needs.

What Do We Mean by Equity and Adequacy?

This brief will apply the concepts of equity and adequacy as defined in “How States Fund Education,” where Ajay Srikanth, Michael Atzbi, Bruce D. Baker, and Mark Weber base their education finance work on the following terms:

  • Vertical equity calls for distributing resources differently according to the need, which when applied to education finance means that students with greater needs should receive more resources and greater levels of funding.
  • Adequacy is the amount and level of resources sufficient to assist students with different educational needs in obtaining a set of defined educational outcomes across different settings. To determine adequacy, three major components need to be defined:

    1. What are the desired outcomes?
    2. Which groups of students have greater needs? And,
    3. What are the resources required to achieve these outcomes and how do they vary across contexts?

Source: “How States Fund Education,” in The Oxford Handbook of U.S. Education Law, ed. Kristine L. Bowman (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018), online edition, page 2 in PDF, https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780190697402.013.10.

A 2012 review of 70 empirical cost studies conducted by Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos and Amelia M. Topper found that ELs have mostly been excluded from large-scale cost studies, making it difficult to understand the true cost of providing them with an adequate education.[15] However, smaller-scale studies have helped establish some parameters around how to approach questions of EL funding adequacy and equity. First, EL funding varies at all levels of distribution, from federal, state, district, all the way to individual schools.[16] Second, funding adequacy is context-specific.[17] Third, what is considered “enough” is closely tied to the programming and services provided, as well as the goals of instruction.[18] Finally, traditional measures of success/student outcomes used in determining whether adequate funding is provided are not always appropriate measures of gauging EL learning and growth.[19]

Roundtable Takeaways

1. Funding systems lack nuance and are loosely linked to EL-specific outcomes.

Meeting attendees were asked to reflect on EL education funding. They posted their thoughts on an interactive online tool and identified 20 problems which we organized and color-coded (see Figure 2).

The top issue, noted in pink, was that funding systems are not nuanced enough to account for the different needs of EL students. Participants said that ELs’ educational needs can vary depending on English proficiency level, grade, how recently students arrived in the country, and if students have experienced interrupted schooling. Costs to a district can depend on whether there is one predominant language among the EL population, or if many home languages are spoken. The EL population has become increasingly diverse in the U.S. [20] and funding mechanisms have not kept up with these changes.

Another top issue, noted in dark green, was that funding levels are rarely linked to actual EL education needs, goals, and/or outcomes. Funding levels and decisions are often driven by political compromise and a state’s appetite for taxation rather than research and evidence on the services that result in the best outcomes for students.

Attendees also called attention to the fact that both federal and state funding for ELs typically ends after a student is reclassified as English proficient, which is noted in blue. The two beige notes reference insufficient funding as a key issue. The notes in grey do not have a particular theme.

2. Funding adequacy for ELs is not well conceptualized or understood.

Participants were not able to identify a state or district that provides adequate funding for ELs, mainly because there are still many challenges to how adequacy is conceptualized and understood in relation to EL education. For example, many adequacy studies and funding conversations are focused on specific outcomes that different funding mechanisms produce—outcomes that are often narrowly defined by standardized academic assessments.

However, participants said that using standardized test scores as indicators of whether ELs are being provided with adequate services (and funding) is problematic and largely unfair. Standardized English language arts (ELA) and math assessments, participants noted, have long-standing limitations in their ability to accurately and validly represent what linguistically diverse students are capable of academically.[21] These limitations begin with the monolingual approach to assessment in the U.S.[22] For example, assessments may not be normed based on a representative sample of ELs with more non-ELs represented in the sample. This means test norms tend to be skewed toward non-EL performance.[23] Furthermore, every test, whether it be science or social studies, inadvertently tests the English skills of these students.[24]

“To address adequacy, you need to address the funding side, [as well as] the outcomes [side]. On the outcomes side for ELs this includes English Proficiency, test scores in math and ELA, academic content knowledge, native language development, and long-term outcomes such as graduation rates, college attendance/persistence, and earnings.”
—Ajay Srikanth

Participants discussed the implications of relying on this data, particularly if linguistic accommodations are not being provided, and the need to redefine what “good outcomes” are for these students. Attendees also explored alternative measures that could be used to better define what it means for a school to provide “good outcomes” for English learners. These included whether ELs are meeting their annual growth targets; whether ELs are reaching proficiency within their personalized maximum timeline to proficiency; and the number and proportion of students considered long-term English learners (LTELs).[25]

3. More work is needed to account for EL-specific variables that positively and negatively impact their educational outcomes.

As participants discussed what it would take to determine the “true” or “adequate” cost of educating ELs, it quickly became evident how difficult it is to disentangle “EL costs” from broader services and expenditures, since the sum of students’ education extends beyond the language services they are provided.

Participants called attention to the number of variables in EL education that make it difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a number that would represent equitable and adequate funding for all ELs. One of these variables is the instructional model used (i.e., dual language/bilingual, push-in and pull-out ESL, and co-teaching) and the costs associated with different approaches. As previous research has pointed out, as pedagogy changes, so do the resources needed to implement new approaches.[26] Other variables discussed include geographic location, whether there is a large or small EL presence in a school/district, and the level of linguistic diversity among the EL population.

“It’s incredibly complicated, given all of the different contexts, the ways that students are provided services, the quality of the services, the policies in place at the state level. Everything just folds into making it a very hard number to actually pin down.”
—Julie Sugarman

This conversation highlighted the fact that we need to better understand and identify the additional services (inputs) these students need to achieve desirable education outcomes. That is, what do ELs need that non-ELs do not, and how much do these things cost?

Since the rights of ELs are enumerated in federal policy and various court cases,[27] a good starting point is to look at language-related services and programs. According to ESSA, ELs should be meeting their annual growth targets and reaching the state’s English language proficiency (ELP) threshold in a certain amount of time, so what services should schools be providing to help make that happen? Participants remarked that states and districts have the capability to measure and track specific inputs, but they need clarity on which ones, or combinations, lead to better outcomes for ELs, both linguistic and academic.

A non-exhaustive list of ideal language-related services discussed during the meeting includes:

  • Bilingual school counselors, social workers, and school psychologists
  • Bilingual family liaisons
  • Small teacher to student ratios/small class sizes
  • Extra tutoring
  • Bilingual teachers and paraeducators
  • Professional development and supplemental materials for mainstream/content teachers
  • Translations and interpreters
  • Welcome centers to support screening and enrollment

“States, and probably districts, are pretty good at measuring specific inputs. So if we could agree on what kind of combination of those inputs we’re aiming for in getting to an outcome, that might be a good first step.”
—Laura Hill

Participants also emphasized the need to ensure that EL students have access to rigorous core curriculum, AP courses, and gifted and talented programs, and that they graduate from high school at a rate similar to that of their non-EL peers. More broadly, participants discussed what “successful schooling” should look like for these students, which includes an asset-based orientation toward bilingualism and biculturalism.

During this conversation, a tension was identified between the motivation to quickly reclassify ELs and the desire to think about what long-term success looks like for these students. This tension is not just a set of conflicting academic aims but a misalignment of financial incentives. Due to the legal requirements that come with EL classification, it may be less costly for a state to have fewer students classified that way. And in some places, EL supplemental funding to help meet those requirements may only be available for a limited number of years. In Iowa and Colorado, for example, ELs are eligible for supplemental state funding for no more than five years. In North Dakota, students performing at a Level 3, or intermediate English proficiency, receive supplemental funding for up to three years.[28]

Several of the group members coalesced around this idea about the misalignment between the short-term goal of testing out of EL status and long-term goal of academic proficiency, and the even greater goal of developing bilingual and bicultural students. They felt this disconnect should be considered in any conversation seeking to define what it means to produce “good outcomes” for ELs. This long-term view means that both currently identified ELs and former ELs must be kept in mind when it comes to ensuring adequate funding.

Lastly, participants discussed the importance of knowing whether language development programs, such as dual language immersion (DLI), or sheltered instruction, are helping students grow from one ELP level[29] to the next, and determining the cause if/when a student stops progressing. Participants felt that focusing on growth on the ELP assessment over time makes more sense than looking at other outcomes that are not linked to markers of EL-specific success.

4. Methods used in school finance scholarship could be better-tailored to the diversity of EL students and their educational contexts.

The group discussed how quantitative methods, such as cost function analysis (CFA), are commonly used in funding adequacy studies. According to a 2000 report from the Center for Policy Research in Education, “cost function provides an estimate of the minimum amount of money necessary to achieve various educational performance goals, given the characteristics of a school district and its student body, and the prices it must pay for inputs used to provide education.”[30] Participants said that the variables used in CFA studies often do not capture fine-grain distinctions between EL subgroups (i.e., LTELs, recently arrived students, etc.) or geographic differences between school districts (such as those that are rural/remote and/or have sparse EL populations), which are important when determining funding adequacy for these students.

“Cost functions are a rigorous approach to calculating the cost of an adequate education. They do, however, face certain limitations with respect to data quality and availability. The next step to improving cost functions would be to collect and use higher quality data that distinguishes ELs by need (English proficiency, years of schooling, SIFE) and to use higher quality spending data.”
—Ajay Srikanth

Participants cautioned that in CFA, the granularity and quality of data are the most important considerations in ensuring accurate estimates. Although CFA may result in a higher numerical estimate than a purely qualitative approach, qualitative data can provide more specialized information about context that can help show the true cost of educating these students in specific communities. Participants discussed how conducting CFA in conjunction with qualitative approaches like a professional judgment panel[31] can provide more reasonable estimates.

Participants brainstormed other ways that could fill the EL adequacy gap in school finance scholarship. Ideas include looking at places that are getting “good outcomes” for ELs, identifying the practices and services being implemented that are known to be effective for ELs, and modeling out how much those services would cost in different contexts. In other words, a budget analysis could show the expenditures necessary to provide best practices for supporting holistic EL development. Another idea was studying the costs of different language instruction models. Research examining this issue is scarce,[32] which makes it difficult to understand whether implementing a DLI program is more costly than implementing an English Language Development program, and how those costs bear out in terms of student outcomes.

5. ELs should be integrated into every component of state and district funding structures.

Every part of a state’s education funding structure can impact whether funding levels are equitable and adequate. How much funding EL students receive at the district and school level depends on both the method used to allocate funds and the policies and priorities established by the state (see Figure 3). A lot of attention in education funding is placed on the formulas and methodologies used to distribute funds. However, it became clear during our discussion that a state can have the “best” formula that weighs ELs high and still provide inadequate resources due to other conflicting and inequitable policies.

For example, Georgia provides one of the highest weights for ELs, at 2.588 meaning that per-pupil funding is two and half times that of a non-EL student.[33] However, it also provides one of the lowest base funding levels in the country (just $2,897 per pupil in FY 2023[34]) which limits how much additional funding the weight can actually generate.[35] This is because the weight is a multiplier, and 2.588 times this very low base number might produce less money than a low weight that is applied to a much higher base. For example, Connecticut’s 1.25 EL weight is applied to a much more generous $11,525 base, which results in more funding per EL—$14,406 total funding per EL to Georgia’s $7,498.[36]

Participants identified and discussed various policies that undercut EL funding equity and preclude schools from providing adequate services. For example, state and federal EL funding is only provided for students currently identified as an EL. However, participants discussed the need to fund support for students after they are reclassified, at least for a limited time. Federal law requires states to monitor the academic progress of recently exited ELs for a minimum of two years,[37] but school districts do not receive additional funds to support those efforts. If funding was provided, even for a limited number of years, schools may be able to continue to support their linguistic development. This could help reduce the probability that a student will backslide after reclassification while ensuring they have access to the full curriculum which is not necessarily available while students are classified as ELs.

“I’m hesitating to say, ‘Oh, well, this state funding structure will produce good outcomes for ELs’ when there are so many intervening practice decisions between the decision of the state to structure funding a certain way and the decision of the teacher that affects the student experience and how the structure of the funding is going to impact those incentives and things like that.”
—Zahava Stadler

Participants remarked that nothing precludes a state from providing former ELs with funding and services, though federal law does limit Title III supplemental funds to currently identified ELs. New York was raised as an example of a state that has shown that it is possible to support former ELs by providing a step-down funding weight for these students in their first year after reclassification.

A significant amount of time was spent discussing how state funding structures do not account for students’ intersecting needs. ELs are more likely to experience homelessness, attend a Title I school (economically disadvantaged), or be a migratory student, compared to the overall student population.[38] In addition, roughly 15 percent of ELs are dual-identified for special education services.[39] However, many state funding structures treat students as one-dimensional beings and do not allow students to receive funding for all applicable categories.

It is important to note that not being proficient in English is not a disability, a distinction clearly made in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).[40] However, there are commonalities in how we fund the educational needs of these two groups of students, which complicate the distinction between them in law and in practice.

Participants talked about the ability to “stack” weights on top of each other in places where additional funding is provided for students who may need additional support if they come from low-income backgrounds, have a disability, or are still learning English. California, for example, provides additional funding for students who fit into those three categories. However, per state policy, a student who is both low-income and an EL cannot receive funding for both categories.[41] Extra funding for “high-needs” students is determined using “unduplicated” counts of students, whereby a student who is low-income, EL, and in foster care is only counted once, and hence generates additional funding for only one of those categories.[42] California recently attempted to address this issue by allocating more funding to districts where unduplicated students make up 55 percent or more of its population.[43] These districts receive an extra 50 percent of the base grant for each high-need student beyond the 55 percent threshold. Here, it is not about the needs of the individual child, but the collection of high needs that generates more funding.

Participants also discussed how schools and districts in rural areas and/or with low EL density experience “diseconomies of scale,” which means that the cost of educating ELs increases because there are simply not enough ELs to make spending efficient, or services have to be spread out over a large geographic area. This funding variability can also pose a challenge if there are many different languages spoken by EL students, which can affect the nature of the program and staffing. Attendees remarked that regardless of how much teachers are prepared, funding limitations affect their ability to meet the needs of these students. On the other hand, places with higher EL enrollment generate more state and federal funding to provide bilingual specialists, family liaisons, and other supplementary services, in addition to the core language development program.

States such as Vermont, which has many rural districts, have moved to remedy this issue by ensuring that a baseline amount of money will be provided for basic support services. The state created a categorical grant to provide schools/districts with one to five ELs a $25,000 grant, and those with six to 25 ELs a $50,000 grant, enough for one full-time equivalent (FTE) employee.

Changes in enrollment can sometimes lead to significant reductions in funding for schools and districts. Some states have created temporary or longer-term “hold harmless” provisions.[44] Such clauses aim to ensure that no district falls below its historical funding levels, to help shield districts from changes that have budgetary ramifications, like declining enrollment, property value reductions, or even state allocation methods. Temporary hold-harmless policies are meant to give districts time to adjust to new budgetary realities.

Lastly, attendees briefly touched on the fact that ELs may be underfunded at the local level because of the methods used to determine each district and school’s per-pupil funding allocation. States determine local funding allocations using student enrollment on a single day or the attendance average over several dates; the average daily attendance over all or most of the year; or the average daily enrollment over all or most of the year.[45] Meeting attendees echoed previous research in urging states to assess their chosen methodology to ensure that ELs are not being undercounted and therefore underfunded.

For example, the rate of chronic absenteeism among ELs has been increasing in recent years,[46] which means attendance-based student counts would likely shortchange districts serving more ELs relative to enrollment-based student counts. And even when state formulas fully account for the number of students in need of EL services, districts are not necessarily required to pass on all the EL formula funding to the schools where those students are enrolled. As a result, some states have adopted policies requiring a specific amount be passed through. For example, state law in Maryland requires districts to pass through 75 percent of the per-pupil amount they receive for ELs enrolled in their jurisdiction to individual schools.[47]

Conclusion

The need to provide funding that allows schools and districts to adequately meet the educational needs of ELs is not going away. As recent population trends show, this group of students continues to grow in terms of number[48] and diversity.[49] Our discussion provided a starting point for identifying the spectrum of approaches that could be used to refine funding systems to better serve the nation’s five million EL students. Most of the work will require a commitment from states and localities interested in reimagining how we define funding adequacy for ELs, how we measure and calculate the educational elements that promote EL success, and how we better integrate ELs into all aspects of state and district funding structures. Researchers, funding experts, practitioners, advocates, and even families should all be part of this process. ELs need access to educational services and programs that develop them into full participants in society, anything less falls short of fulfilling their civil rights.

Acknowledgments

  • Brenda Calderon, special assistant in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education in the U.S. Department of Education
  • Maria Coady, professor of rural and multilingual education and a Goodnight Distinguished Professor in Educational Equity at North Carolina State University
  • Indira Dammu, senior analyst at Bellwether
  • Chris Duncombe, senior policy analyst at the Education Commission of the States
  • Roxanne Garza, senior education policy advisor at UnidosUS (formerly the National Council of La Raza)
  • Laura Hill, policy director and senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California
  • Oscar Jiménez-Castellanos, director of P–12 research at the Education Trust
  • Ajay Srikanth, former PhD graduate at the Graduate School of Education at Rutgers University, current researcher at American Institutes for Research
  • Zahava Stadler, former special assistant for state funding and policy at Education Trust, current project director for the Education Funding Equity Initiative at New America
  • Julie Sugarman, senior policy analyst for PreK–12 Education at the Migration Policy Institute’s National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy

I appreciate my New America colleagues Amaya Garcia, Elena Silva, and Zahava Stadler for their helpful feedback and edits. I am grateful to Sabrina Detlef for her editorial insight, and Fabio Murgia and Mandy Dean for their layout and communication support. New America’s PreK–12 team is generously supported by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Heising-Simons Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Joyce Foundation, and Walton Family Foundation. The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of these foundations.

  • Leslie Villegas is a senior policy analyst with the Education Policy program at New America, where she focuses on the PreK–12 policy landscape for English learners. Her work focuses on incorporating an equity-and asset-based approach into federal and state education policy through accountability, assessment, funding, and other key policy areas. Inspired by her own experiences as a first-generation Mexican immigrant raised in California, Villegas believes equitable access to quality education is the key to creating a more fair, inclusive, and representative society.

This article was published by New America (https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/briefs/english-learner-funding-equity-and-adequacy-in-k12-education/) and is reprinted here under a Creative Commons license. Visit New America for more insightful coverage of current affairs.

French Week – All Year Long


While the Journée internationale de la Francophonie, observed on March 20th, is well-known to Francophones and Francophiles around the world, the Semaine de la langue française et de la Francophonie, an initiative of the French Ministry of Culture since 1996, and observed in its 28th edition from March 18th to March 26th, 2023, highlights the diversity of the French language and of Francophone culture around the world. Many events are scheduled on March 20th, during the Semaine de la langue française et de la Francophonie, and throughout the entire month. The theme for 2023, «À tous les temps» (“At all times?”), is intriguing on many levels for so many of us who speak and love French, or who have a French or Francophone personal cultural identity.

Beyond the many words and expressions in French that relate to time, such as heure, temps, longtemps, toujours, le temps qui file, etc., present in the spoken and written language, time is especially relevant to those who speak French beyond French borders, where French generally exists in a multilingual environment.

In any discussion of French, it is important to remember that while the population of France is 67M, there are 321M Francophones worldwide, and French is the third most widely spoken language in North America. The French government has launched a worldwide French language initiative and the dual-language immersion fund in the US in 2017, followed by the French for All initiative in December 2022 in New Orleans.

Within the North American context, French is the official language of Québec, and an official language of Canada. In the US, the State of Louisiana is a member of the OIF (Organisation internationale de la Francophonie), which currently has 88 members, and the State of Maine has the highest percentage of French/Francophone ancestry. French is spoken by 33M in North America, by 11M in the US. French is spoken in the home by 2M in the US and is the second most widely studied language in the US. In addition, there are over 250K French nationals living in North America.

However, despite these impressive numbers and the deep historical and cultural connections that exist between the US, Canada, and France, “time flies” (a metaphor relevant to this year’s theme and that exists in both French and English), and French in the US co-exists with multiple languages, most notably English, our de facto official languages, and is not immune from the language loss that has been part of US history. “Time flies,” and it is necessary to act now in order to ensure that the opportunity to learn and use French is available to all.

Franco-responsibility, or francoresponsabilité, the use of French in our daily lives, is at the heart of the resurgence of French in the US. It is essential that stakeholders and supporters of French language and Francophone culture in the US work together to strengthen and support the learning and use of French – in our schools and educational institutions, in communication, and in media and the arts. French language stakeholders include educators, government, business and industry, philanthropic and external partners, and – most importantly – communities and parents.

The good news is that there is a resurgence of French across the country. People are learning and using French, and schools, organizations, and communities are empowering French language learners and French language speakers to fulfill personal and professional goals, to re-connect to family history and heritage, and to step up as global citizens through this shared global language.

The following are just a few of the many examples. In addition to the American Association of Teachers of French, whose mission is “to promote throughout North America the teaching and learning of the French language and French-speaking cultures and civilizations,” and traditional, immersion, and heritage French language programs, there are opportunities to learn and use the French language and to connect with French and Francophone culture through organizations both global and local, including the Alliance Française and the Centre de la Francophonie des Amériques, as well as through organizations like the Nous Foundation, the Franco-American Centre, and the UM Franco-American programs, Acadian Archives, and the French American Heritage Foundation in Minnesota. For those who may not yet speak French, initiatives like the NH PoutineFest and the French-Canadian Legacy podcast offer opportunities to re-connect with Franco-American heritage. 

The future of French in the US is up to us, and teamwork means everything. L’Union fait la force!

Yukon: Indigenous language program showcased at cultural celebrations

Last week a youth group from the Council of Yukon First Nations’ (CYFN) “Language Leaders Tomorrow” program. performed a multilingual version of How the Raven Stole the Sun at the Kwanlin Dün Cultural Centre in Whitehorse, as part of the 50th anniversary celebrations of Together Today for Our Children Tomorrow.

The event hosted speakers from the Yukon University and First Nation councils, discussing and celebrating linguistic and cultural milestones reached by the Together Today for Our Children Tomorrow movement and Champagne and Aishihik First Nations Language Act.

One of the story performers and group participants Abigail Turner has learned to speak her peoples’ language Tlingit. She credits her language learning experience with a deep sense of connection to her elders and pride in her heritage “Learning Tlingit, it’s like entering a completely different thought-world,” she said. 

Discussing the word Gùnèłchīsh – the Tlingit word for thank you, she added “It actually translates more along the lines of, ‘I would not have been able to obtain this without you,’ which I think just carries a lot more depth and meaning.”

An on-stage conversation with CYFN Grand Chief Peter Johnston saw James Allen, Chancellor of Yukon University, emphasize the importance of family and community support in Indigenous language preservation. He personally thanked his mother and sister for his ability to speak Southern Tutchone. 

In Allen’s time as chief of the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, he and his council passed a groundbreaking Language Act, pioneering a protective policy to revitalize the Southern Tutchone language. Called the ‘Dakwanje Language Act’ it was the first of its kind among Canadian self-governing First Nations and was formally passed into law on July 11 2014, during the CAFN general assembly.

The Youth Today: Language Leaders Tomorrow program, was launched in 2021 by the Council of Yukon First Nations and is paying groups of Indigenous young people to learn the languages of their heritage. The goal – a simple one, is to keep Indigenous Languages alive, and focuses on teaching groups of 20 youths at a time, over the course of a year.

Shadelle Chambers, executive director of the council of Yukon First Nations, explained that the program was created to mentor a new generation of language leaders. “I think it is the best practice in language revitalization to focus and target programs at young parents or parents-to-be,” she said.

The course focuses on the languages of  Southern Tutchone, Tlingit, Kaska, Northern Tutchone and Hän, with history and cultural classes in addition to language learning. 

Sending a ripple effect of positivity through the community, the program has been deemed a grand success after the graduation of its first group of students. Erin Pauls, the education director for the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations said ““I think the whole community is really proud. We hear parents talking about how proud they are of their children speaking the language”.

Sign Languages Take Center Stages

At this year’s Superbowl, ASL interpreter Justina Miles stole the show.

At 20 years old, she became the first deaf woman in history to perform at the pregame and halftime shows, winning praise for her spirited ASL performance accompanying Rihanna on the live TV coverage and racking up online views in the weeks since. 

During Rihanna’s 13 minute set, Miles signed lyrics for hard of hearing TV viewers and also signed during actress Sheryl Lee Ralph’s performance of the Black National Anthem, ‘Lift Every Voice and Sing’. 

At a press conference Miles explained the significance of performing the Black National Anthem, “It’s not only for me to share this experience with the whole world, but to really bring that empowerment to millions and millions of Black deaf people all over the country, who’ve never really seen that before,” she said. “And so they should feel inspired, and that’s the same way I feel. I feel like that is truly lifting every voice, even my voice.”

Other than her work in ASL, Miles is a nursing student and a cheerleader at Bowie State University in Maryland. The NFL credits her as a former valedictorian at the Model Secondary School for the Deaf in Washington, DC. 

Along with two other deaf performers—Oscar-winning CODA actor Troy Kotsur, and deaf Navajo scholar Colin Denny—Miles’ performance has set historic standards for Superbowl inclusivity. 

The full YouTube video of Miles’ halftime performance is no longer accessible, however clips of her performing a selection of Rihanna’s hits such as “B— Better Have My Money,” “Pour It Up,” “Rude Boy,” and “Work” in ASL have gone viral on several social media platforms, bringing awareness to the deaf community and inclusivity standards in broadcasting.

After his appearance at the Superbowl, Troy Kotsur traveled to London to present a BAFTA for Best Supporting Actress. Joined on stage by an ASL to British sign Language (BSL) interpreter, Troy – the first deaf actor to win a BAFTA for his role in Coda, presented the award to Kerry Condon for her role in ‘he Banshees of Inisherin.

The BAFTA Awards have been outwardly praised for having a BSL sign language interpreter on stage, particularly from sign language users. 

Emma Samms MBE, founder of the Starlight Children’s Foundation wrote on Twitter “Watching #BAFTA2023 and loving that they have #ASL AND #BSL for all to see,” while another user excitedly tweeted “ASL being translated into BSL. What a joy to see this on live prime time TV.”

Colombia, Tierra Querida

In my experience, Colombia is among the most misunderstood Spanish-speaking countries. Until the wonderful recent Disney film Encanto, most of what we have heard about Colombia in the US has involved drug trafficking or guerilla warfare. It is rare that we learn about the myriad cultural products and practices as they relate to the unique perspectives of the people of this beautiful South American country. It is my goal to expose students to a different view of Colombia—one that I have experienced during my own dozens of visits to the country and in my marriage to a Colombian American for over 30 years.

The Benefits of Thematic Units

Thematic units, or curricula that revolve around a central theme, can be a hugely effective tool for designing engaging and effective lessons for our language programs. A thematic unit is often connected to an authentic text or video, answers a real-world question or problem, and can expose students to cultural products, practices, and perspectives in ways that are often compelling and thought-provoking. Thematic units present grammar, vocabulary, and language structures in a contextualized way.

Students may be practicing the preterit and imperfect tenses, for example, but this is never the focus or goal of a thematic unit. Rather, the can-do statements and performance indicators embedded in standards-based units underscore a proficiency goal—highlighting how students use the language and ways it connects to the five Cs (communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, and communities). And what’s more, thematic units can be fun and exciting for students—and for teachers!

Colombia-Based Thematic Units

Throughout my career, I have designed thematic units on many topics, mostly for middle school students (my favorite age range) and mainly about Colombia (my favorite place). In creating materials and curricula for adolescents about a place that can seem both foreign and yet familiar to students, I strive to portray the country in a nuanced way and in a way that feels as authentic as possible, especially to those who identify as Colombian. To this end, I always share my initial nascent ideas with my husband, his family, his friends, and any others who might have a connection to the culture. As a nonnative speaker of Spanish and a non-Colombian person, I find this triangulation imperative to ensure that the cultures I am portraying are not viewed through my own White, non-Latin lens. After receiving input, feedback, and yes, grammatical and lexical corrections, I feel better equipped to share these units with my students. In this article, I am happy to share them with you as well.

Los héroes de Colombia

This thematic unit about El Biblioburro, the “Donkey Library,” highlights the story of Maestro Luis Soriano, who was declared one of the CNN Heroes for his work in bringing books to children in rural areas of the coast of Colombia. In this unit, students read books and articles, watch videos, and brainstorm ways to support this mobile library. On a visit to Colombia, I was able to contact Maestro Soriano and to ask about ways in which our students might help support his work. Not surprisingly, the answer was “more books!”

Back at home in the US, our students held a fundraiser and purchased books, which they read and then dedicated to the children who would receive them. We sent them, and several months later, we were thrilled to receive photos of the books in the hands of students in Colombia. Materials and other resources for this unit can be accessed here: http://miscositas.com/biblioburro.html.

Los tesoros de Colombia

El Museo del Oro is one of the most spectacular museums in the world. This thematic unit involves students in virtual travels to the city of Bogotá, a side trip to Lake Guatavita and learning about the legend of El Dorado, and of course, a tour of the Gold Museum. Students take a ride on the TransMilenio bus and subway in the city, they visit a café and make choices about the snacks they want to taste prior to heading to the museum, and then they have the chance to explore artifacts in the museum and even one famous object that connects to the legend of El Dorado.

This unit was designed to expose students to new information, themes, and topics relating to the history and Indigenous peoples of Colombia, while also spiraling back to previously learned vocabulary and topics, including the weather, transportation, body parts, and food.
Materials and other resources for this unit can be accessed here: http://miscositas.com/museodeloro.html.

Las regiones de Colombia

In this thematic unit, students take a fantasy trip to different regions of Colombia, in which they sample food, music, and art. For us, it culminated in a real-world trip to Little Colombia in Queens, New York, to do the same. During the real-world trip, students interviewed recent immigrants from South America to learn more about their favorite foods, music, and art, while also learning about their interlocutors’ experiences immigrating to the US. They came to understand why there is a “Latin foods” aisle at the supermarket and considered what products they might want access to if they were to emigrate to another country. Materials and other resources for this unit and fantasy trips in general can be accessed here:
http://miscositas.com/fantasytrips.html.

La flora y fauna de Colombia

With the popularity of the wonderful film Encanto, students have new insights into some of the cultural products and practices of the Zona Cafetera in Colombia. Through the eyes of the beloved characters Isabela and Antonio, whose gifts are connected to the country’s flora and fauna respectively, students learn about ways in which the natural resources of Colombia can be threatened by human contact.
In this unit, students take a road trip in a Jeep Willys (a typical mode of transport in the coffee-growing region) and view highway signs that depict animal crossings. They learn about an app that is meant to help document roadkill incidents as well as live animal sightings as a means of helping to locate and save vulnerable creatures.

La política de Colombia

One of my few intermediate/advanced thematic units revolves around a simulation in which students take on the role of US-based artists who are given the opportunity to exhibit their work in Spain. This unit was inspired by a real-world protest letter written by Colombian artists and authors who were questioning a recent change in European immigration regulations that would require visitors from “former colonies” to file for visas. The regulation changes infuriated Colombians and seemed like a compelling question for students to ponder—would struggling artists be willing to file for a visa if they were invited to exhibit their work in Spain, or would they side with the protesters and boycott the country? In order to make an informed decision, students contacted real-world artists throughout the Spanish-speaking world and asked them to weigh in. After research, students took on the roles of their artists in a classroom debate. A video and other resources depicting this unit can be accessed here: www.learner.org/series/teaching-foreign-languages-k-12-a-library-of-classroom-practices/spanish-politics-of-art.

Conclusion

Each thematic unit offers concrete examples of how to incorporate contemporary and historical issues into our teaching of Spanish, no matter the proficiency or developmental level of the students. With the inclusion of engaging authentic materials, hands-on experiences, and real-world tasks and projects, students acquire not just language skills but also more nuanced perspectives about one of the most beautiful places on earth, Colombia, tierra querida.

Dr. Lori Langer de Ramírez began her career as a teacher of Spanish, French, and ESL. She is currently the director of world and classical languages and global language initiatives at the Dalton School in New York City. She is the author of books on multicultural education, as well as several Spanish-language books and texts. Her website (www.miscositas.com) offers free materials for teaching Chinese, English, French, and Spanish. Lori has presented workshops, staff development trainings, and keynote addresses at local, regional, and national conferences and in schools throughout the US and around the world.

Her areas of research and curriculum development are multicultural and diversity education, culture-rich and content-based language teaching, and early/elementary language teaching and learning.

Netflix to Stream 18 New Tamil Films in 2023

Netflix has announced it is significantly expanding its Tamil film collection, obtaining the rights to a further 18 Tamil-language films for streaming in 2023.

According to a statement by Netflix, the films will be added to the platform throughout the year after they have completed their respective theater runs. This move comes as part of Netflix’s plan to serve not just international communities but speakers of regional languages around the globe. 

With the lucrative Tamil film industry booming, this will be a prominent step toward showcasing Tamil cinema to a global audience. The list sees titles such as AK 62, directed by Vignesh Shivan, and upcoming period action drama Vaathi, written and directed by Venky Atluri and starring Tamil actor Dhanush. 

Previous showings of Tamil films have produced positive ratings for the platform, fueling a decision to give the Tamil film industry greater exposure. Monika Shergill, VP of content at Netflix, explains, “Our audience has a huge appetite for locally authentic and global stories across India, and we want to give them more of what they love. Films such as Beast, Doctor, and Gatta Kusthi have been enjoyed and sparked conversations among our global audience, and we are confident that our new lineup of Tamil films will have the same effect.”

Gatta Kusthi, a 2022 Tamil comedy, has already been released as part of the list and has produced positive ratings. 

Despite their Tamil production and origins, these films will be available to stream in other languages. The majority of the list will be dubbed in Kannada, Telugu, and Malayalam, with a select number of titles also available in Hindi. Subtitles are expected in several Indian languages and English. 

Shergill added, “The slate presents a variety of films across multiple genres highlighting the abundance of creative talent from South India, and with the work we are doing behind the scenes around our dubbing and subtitling, we are delighted to make these films accessible to a wider audience all over India and every corner of the world.”

Content, Language, and Culture Learning Targets


Lesson planning is a political act. Schools in the US, at the core, are designed to promote a monocultural and monolingual perspective of teaching and learning. As educators, the lessons we create and facilitate either support or dismantle educational systems that have historically marginalized specific student communities (Medina and Izquierdo, 2021). Black and Indigenous students of color (BISoC); language learners; children with specific academic, behavioral, and/or physical health needs; and students belonging to the LGBTQ2S+ community, among others, have been deprioritized in a schooling system that is centered on “Whiteness” and heteronormative ideologies and aligned with privilege resulting from English monolingualism. Educators can move away from this ideology through carefully planned content, language, and culture learning targets to ensure students actively engage with grade-level expectations while co-constructing a culturally and linguistically inclusive educational experience.

Since its release in 2018, the C6 Biliteracy Instructional Framework (C6BIF) has been embraced by schools and districts providing dual language, bilingual, world language, ESL/ENL/ELD/EAL, and English monolingual programming throughout the US and abroad. The framework embraces everything educators bring into the classroom in terms of pedagogical expertise and aligns the lesson-planning processes to the latest biliteracy instructional recommendations. In addition, educators and administrators seeking to scale culturally and linguistically sustaining pedagogical practices appreciate the flexibility of the framework, which allows them to put research into action using a critical consciousness lens to break down oppressive educational systems. Ultimately, the goal is to ensure these invaluable practices are replicable in every school environment.While Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education: Third Edition (Howard et al., 2018), often referred to as the GP3, promotes culturally and linguistically sustaining biliteracy instructional practices that allow educators to better serve diverse student communities, it does not explicitly identify how the research recommendations should be incorporated into an educator’s everyday lesson planning. The C6BIF is conceptualized to align with the GP3 and beyond and to engage in the important work of critical consciousness and anti-bias/anti-racism in the pre-K–12 classroom. This article, organized into four sections and concluding with recommendations, explores the impact of daily integration of content, language, and culture learning targets to allow for this critical work to occur through the lesson-planning process:

  • The Need for Critical Consciousness in Lesson Planning
  • The C6BIF as a Vehicle for Action
  • Content, Language, and Culture Learning Targets as a Foundation for Critical Consciousness Work
  • Moving beyond Performative Equity Work

The Need for Critical Consciousness in Lesson Planning

Schooling systems were conceptualized to promote a White, monolingual, heteronormative, patriarchal, and often xenophobic teaching and learning perspective. Currently, state legislators in the US are working to deny educators the ability to facilitate accurate historical lessons. Targeted pre-K–12 topics include but are not limited to the origins of slavery, the Holocaust, the LGBTQ2S+ community, and American Indian/Alaska Native history, which relate to individuals in the populations most marginalized in schools. This, coupled with the increasing number of books banned from school libraries for amplifying actual events in history, makes it imperative that educators leverage the lesson-planning process to ensure anti-bias and anti-racism work is at the center of every lesson designed.

In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire (2005) informs the reader that pedagogy must be forged with, and not for, those who are oppressed. The oppressed, the students as part of a schooling system that has historically “othered” them, must actively engage in constructing their learning and their liberation. This is critical consciousness. When lesson planning uses this lens, educators do not seek to be the voice for students. They instead seek to dismantle the systems that mute student voices. It is essential to acknowledge our inherent participation in student oppression due to an alignment with past antiquated and potentially biased educational practices. However, as educators, we can offer reparation for the trauma that has been inflicted on our most diverse student communities by how we choose to engage in the lesson-planning process and by leveraging content, language, and culture learning targets.

The C6BIF as a Vehicle for Action

In conceptualizing a lesson-planning framework specifically via a biliteracy instructional lens, it was imperative to identify culturally and linguistically sustaining systems that would support critical consciousness recommendations. Additionally, C6BIF alignment with the three dual language programming goals, including bilingualism/biliteracy, grade-level academic achievement in two program languages, and an overt focus on sociocultural competence and critical consciousness, was equally important (Arias and Medina, 2020). The intersection of these concepts resulted in the six components of the C6BIF, each designed to house biliteracy instructional systems that would be replicable in any educational setting and to empower students to be co-creators of the instruction and learning that takes place in the classroom. The C6BIF is not a checklist or a to-do list. Instead, it is a way of thinking about the lessons we plan and identifying how they are or are not creating a pathway for all students to access grade-level standards through a critical consciousness lens. Whatever professional learning educators have engaged in, it has a home within the C6BIF.

Planning for content, language, and culture learning targets is the first step to ensuring that we enable students to collaborate within each lesson’s teaching and learning construct. When we do so, student ownership of what happens in every task becomes a reality, as they are integral to the learning process. Figure 1 depicts the six components of the C6BIF, including the descriptors and identifiers for each element of the framework.

Beginning with create, planning for content, language, and culture learning targets is the first step in empowering students to own their entire identities and deeper learning. Additionally, educators can simultaneously disarm educational systems designed to continue the oppression of BISoCs.

Content, Language, and Culture Learning Targets as a Foundation for Equity Work

As pre-K–12 educators, we must create and design learning experiences that bring together content, language, and culture (Medina, 2020). From a student ownership perspective, planning for content, language, and culture learning targets eliminates antiquated ideologies focused on compliance. Instead, we acknowledge that schooling systems may require us to share our lesson plans with administrative leaders, but that should never supersede our most crucial job—using learning targets to co-construct meaning alongside students in the classroom.
Most educators feel comfortable unpacking grade-level standards. After all, this is the focus of state education agencies and university departments who dictate what content must be taught. When we participate in educator preparation programs or engage in alternative educator certification routes, we are charged with teaching specific standards deemed appropriate for certain age groups. However, less prevalent is the opportunity to fully understand the role that language and culture learning targets have in ensuring that students access the content shared. When we fail to leverage them through strategic planning, we align with systems that continue to oppress marginalized student communities.

Content Learning Targets

Moss and Brookhart (2012) inform readers that “the most effective teaching and the most meaningful student learning happens when educators design the right learning target for today’s lesson and use it with their students to aim for and assess understanding.” In reviewing the literature on learning targets and their importance, much is focused on the benefits of lesson planning for the educator. However, lesson planning via an educator lens excludes the student’s equal co-participation in the learning experience. The two identified researchers move away from this paradigm and instead place students front and center as active participants in the interaction with learning targets.

Planning instructional objectives guides the instruction that we as educators will facilitate. However, planning for learning targets from the students’ point of view drives student learning and ownership.

By unpacking the grade-level standards from a student perspective, educators invite students into a learning space that has often viewed them as visitors to, rather than owners of, the classroom. With what seems a simple shift in focus, educators can begin the monumental process of liberation in the classroom. Student ownership of the learning is a nonnegotiable when lesson planning through a perspective that centers on critical consciousness. By having full access to the pedagogical systems in the classroom, pre-K–12 students become active participants in an educational journey for and about them. Student ownership disrupts the status quo and causes desmadre or “good trouble.”

Most adults cannot imagine driving to a new destination without entering the destination address in the Waze app. Waze guides the driving experience by offering route options, signaling possible obstacles, and predicting expected arrival times as part of the drive.
It helps individuals on their journeys to their destinations. In the same way, students must own their journeys into new learning. Whether using the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), the Standards of Learning (SOL), or the Alaska Standards (AS), the content learning target provides that opportunity.

When the content learning targets posted for students begin with CCSS 1.2478934678xyz9 or TEKS 10.247d3x397, it is a tell-tale sign that they are intended for the adults in the school. Unfortunately, many teachers continue to post content learning targets precisely as the state agencies write the standards. Learning targets should be written in language that is age-appropriate for the students and will signal to them what will be learned, the process that will guide the learning, and what outcomes will be expected of them as part of the lesson engagement. Content learning targets do not water down the standards but rather amplify their effect so that students can access, manipulate, reflect upon, and own them.

It is recommended that content-, language-, and culture learning targets are shared at least three times during a lesson. This is true for all students but especially important for BISoCs and students adding languages to their linguistic repertoires. It is helpful to share them at the beginning of a lesson to ensure active engagement and total commitment on the part of the students as they enter the learning process, as a quick review mid-lesson to serve as a formative check in terms of lesson ownership, and at the end of a lesson as a final connection with the content learning target. In addition, this gives students the ability to reflect on whether they have accessed the grade-level standards or if additional work must occur.

Ultimately, posting and sharing learning targets are a pedagogical system, but without full student ownership, the system becomes meaningless. Students must actively post, review, assess, and modify learning targets alongside the educator during each lesson. Only then can the power of learning targets be fully unleashed. As we lesson plan for what the students will learn, the following are considerations that help guide the work:

  • Plan for content learning targets through the students’ perspective to guide learning and ownership.
  • Create learning targets that disrupt the status quo and reject a monolingual- and monocultural-centric perspective of teaching and learning.
  • Design rigorous student-friendly content learning targets aligned with CCSS, TEKS, SOL, or AS recommendations.
  • Post learning targets in the language of instruction in dual language, bilingual, and world language settings; do so in color aligned with the program language.
  • Use visuals and gestures to clarify learning targets for early childhood classrooms.
  • Plan and have students share/review learning targets at the beginning, middle, and end of each lesson.
  • Leverage resources that align with school and district initiatives to unpack and differentiate the planning of content learning targets. These may include:
    • Bloom/Anderson/Krathwohl’s Taxonomy 
    • Webb’s Depth of Knowledge
    • Understanding by Design’s Six Facets of Understanding
    • The Taxonomy of Significant Learning
    • Marzano and Kendall’s Taxonomy
  • Use language starters that align with the school and district’s pedagogical systems when planning and posting learning targets. For example, with learning targets focused on student ownership, language starters may include but are not limited to:
    • I can…
    • I will be able to…
    • Students will be able to…
    • We are learning to…

Language learning targets

As educators, we tend to feel comfortable in lesson planning for content learning targets because, historically, that has been the primary focus of our work. However, we tend to be less agile in planning for language learning targets that consider the linguistic demands that students will need to maneuver as they interact with content instruction (Medina, 2020). Moreover, the lack of clarity around language learning target systems complicates matters for educators trying to create access to grade-level standards by including the linguistic needs of the students (Medina, 2021). If biliteracy instructional systems exclude language learning targets as foundational, then educational entities fail to scale the biliteracy practices (Medina and Izquierdo, 2021b).
Language learning targets and how students will access the standards via listening, speaking, reading, writing, and metalinguistic awareness are the linguistic equity part of the lesson-planning process. When unpacking language learning targets, it is helpful to envision a set of heavy metal doors; the doors are locked and cannot easily be opened. Behind the closed doors are the grade-level standards.

The language learning target planned by educators and owned by students is the key that opens the doors to content learning targets. When asking students to engage with content without providing a language learning target as a key to open the doors, educators ask them to find the standard in the dark. At that moment, educators become linguistic oppressors. To systematize the planning of language learning targets, there are three specific components for educators to consider using in their classrooms:

  • 4+1 language domains (Figure 2) provide a visual and tactile, linguistically sustaining system to promote student ownership of language learning targets. The icons represent the listening, speaking, reading, writing, and metalinguistic awareness language domains and are used by students throughout each lesson to fully interact with the content learning target.
    • Metalinguistic awareness is the ability of emergent bilingual and multilingual students to make connections naturally between the languages in their one linguistic repertoire.
    • Often, and specifically in US classrooms, metalinguistic awareness has been ignored, and it has rarely been leveraged by an educational system that centers on English monolingualism.
  • Simplified language learning targets (Table 2) provide a three-step system for planning language learning targets.
    • Step 1: Choose an action verb connected to the 4+1 language domains. Although students may utilize all language domains during a lesson, plan for the one or two language domains that students should focus on to access the content standards. When serving early childhood students, visuals are a helpful scaffold.
    • Step 2: Make an explicit connection to the content learning target. This step is not intended to repeat the content learning target but rather an opportunity for the student to quickly connect with the standard.
    • Step 3: Include a student interaction to further create access to the content learning target. The interaction can be with a partner, group, graphic organizer, language frame/starter, whiteboard, technology application, text, image, song, video, or other tool. 
  • Detailed language learning targets (Table 2) create an opportunity to add a fourth step to the simplified language learning target, allowing students to further engage with and extend their content and language learning.

Echevarría, Vogt, and Short (2014) initially identified four ways to provide linguistic support.
By adapting their work to include a specific focus on bilingualism and biliteracy, educators can lesson plan to leverage students’ full linguistic capabilities and promote linguistic liberation through the detailed language learning target.
The four ways are:

  • Academic vocabulary: There is no hierarchy among languages, only context. All language is equally valid and vital to the human experience. However, school settings require academic language, including content-specific vocabulary, as part of teaching and learning. We must navigate this nebulous space and expose students to various registers while continuing to create linguistically inclusive spaces. Moreover, bilingual and dual language settings utilize two program languages, empowering students to engage in rich cross-linguistic work that embraces their multilingual identity.
  • Language skills and functions: As linguistically diverse students engage with the 4+1 language domains, they must do so by fully leveraging their entire linguistic repertoires. When students are expected to language for specific purposes (e.g., compare, contrast, defend, summarize, sequence, analyze, critique, etc.), adding a fourth step to the simplified language learning target supports them in using their linguistic dexterity.
  • Language structures or grammar: Emergent bilingual and multilingual students must engage in a constant negotiation between the languages they mobilize. Different language structures, grammar patterns, and other orthographic differences and similarities between the program languages offer students opportunities for contrastive analysis. A detailed language learning target promotes this essential part of student ownership of content and language learning.
  • Language learning strategies: For students who leverage multiple languages, language learning strategies go beyond self-monitoring; they focus on languaging their deep content understanding in more than one language. Student understanding of bilingualism and biliteracy is imperative, and the detailed language learning target offers extended support for this work.

Table 2 shows simplified and detailed language learning target examples for various student educational stages and subject areas. The first three steps in each example represent the simplified language learning target. The fourth step identified and shaded in green can be added to transform the simplified language learning target into a detailed language learning target.

Culture Learning Targets

Introduced by Howard, Sugarman, and Coburn (2006), culture learning targets initially focused on supporting cross-cultural awareness as a component in dual language programming. Although the intent was to relate content to varied cultural groups within and outside the classroom, the use of culture learning targets in most classrooms was sporadic. It lacked specificity in terms of lesson planning.
The C6BIF amplifies the purpose for culture learning targets by providing context and the why for the content and language learning targets. In addition, culture learning targets were strengthened to dismantle systems of oppression through every lesson planned. With a continued focus on sociocultural competence and critical consciousness as the foundation of dual language programs, the C6BIF and specifically the culture learning target is now leveraged in classrooms globally to engage in and support anti-bias and anti-racism work. Whether in a monolingual, bilingual, dual language, ESL/EAL/ENL/ELD, or world language setting, the culture learning target provides a pedagogical system to contextualize and integrate content, language, and culture learning.

It is intimidating for any educator to tackle issues that can be considered taboo in educational settings. This is especially true as some state legislatures consider bills with an intent to erase historical events and silence specific communities by excluding them from pre-K–12 classroom learning; these include the civil rights movement, the murder of American Indian/Alaska Native communities, gender inequity issues, and topics affecting the LGBTQ2S+ community. Culture learning targets support educators to engage in this work, in a systematic fashion, alongside the student.

Culture learning targets allow educators to chip away at systems that oppress culturally and linguistically diverse student communities with every lesson planned and facilitated. The C6BIF clarifies four specific ways, as shown in Table 3, to prepare for culture learning targets and ensure that students are engaged in sociocultural competence and critical consciousness work.

Moving Beyond Performative Equity Work

When we acknowledge and accept that schooling systems in the US and abroad were conceptualized to promote a White, monolingual, and monocultural perspective of teaching and learning, we must be critically reflective about how we are or are not dismantling oppressive education systems. Our intentions as educators must go beyond the performative.

From the moment we enter educator preparation or alternative certification programs, the pedagogy shared with us is most likely aligned with the perspective that we must teach students rather than learn alongside them. We may be instructed to see students as having gaps, identifying which children are “high” or “low,” and target student language that needs improvement rather than embracing an asset-based perspective of student abilities.

As educators, we understand empathy is needed to support students from marginalized communities. However, being good people and having compassion is not enough if we are not challenging the systems that continue to other students who are not White-adjacent enough. When we believe that some students do not have “what they need” to succeed in schools, we align with outdated ideologies that exclude non-White student communities from what happens in the classroom. Celebrating communities during one observed month a year is not equity work.

Ultimately, these are uncertain times that require bold actions. Lesson planning as a political act requires us to leverage content, language, and culture learning targets as the primary way to engage the students we serve, and ourselves, in anti-bias and anti-racism work daily.

Recommendations

As discussed throughout this article, content, language, and culture learning targets provide the roadmap to ensure our critical consciousness work is strategically embedded into every lesson we facilitate alongside the students we are charged to serve.

The educator and the student can work together to activate the lesson-planning process, leading to comprehensive critical consciousness work that will positively impact a student’s educational experience. The following are recommendations to facilitate meaningful change:
Self-reflection. As educators, we must be willing to look in the mirror and identify our conscious and unconscious biases; we all have them, and they are inevitably a part of our lesson-planning process. However, when we genuinely want to take a role in comprehensive critical consciousness work and support students in learning, educators must confront our past experiences and understand that they helped shape our belief systems, including how we input and disseminate information within educational settings.

Willingness to learn and unlearn. Once our biases are identified, we must be willing to unlearn them to evolve as human beings and educators. Like many other behaviors described throughout this article, unlearning conscious and unconscious biases will take time and dedication while we change the bedrock of our inherent programming. The first step is to acknowledge that we are not immune to bias. Leveraging the lesson-planning process, specifically content, language, and culture learning targets, as a primary tool to emerge from culturally and linguistically destructive pedagogical practices is vital in this journey.

Empowering the student. Brené Brown states in her book Atlas of the Heart that we must “believe what people share with us, as empathy without believing the individual diminishes the person’s experience with us” (Brown, 2022). To truly become a meaningful collaborator, the student needs to understand their role in the lesson-planning process and take full ownership of their content, language, and culture learning. It is also critical that the student believes that we truly value their unique story and fully accept their cultural and linguistic repertoires as integral components of the classroom environment.

Continuous tenacity and engagement. A primary mistake that we can make as educators is to believe that critical consciousness work can be accomplished in one lesson, one conversation, one activity, or interacting with one text or read-aloud. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is ongoing foundational work to learn alongside students and empower them to be active participants in the educational process. Integrating content, language, and culture learning targets is a vehicle to do so. We must stand firm in our decision to dismantle educational systems that continue to cradle a monolingual and monocultural perspective of teaching and learning. Desmadre in the name of equidad and social justice does not come easily, but it is the only way.
 
References available at www.languagemagazine.com/references-medina-aug-2022.

Dr. José Medina is a language researcher and dual language expert supporting school districts serving diverse student communities in the US and abroad. Presently, he is part of the E3: Equity, Efficacy, and Evidence research team engaged in a six-year longitudinal study focused on scaling biliteracy instructional practices. The first serialization rights of Dr. José Medina’s C6 Biliteracy Instructional Framework have been granted to Language Magazine by Velazquez Press, a division of Academic Learning Company, LLC. Copyright Dr. José Medina

Be the Advocate for the Silent


English learners tend to become another silent statistic. Teachers can be advocates for these students, who tend to be obedient and agreeable because of the “respeto” they have for their teachers, as described by Tafoya (2018). In the classroom, ELs’ behavior is described as obedient and agreeable. In addition to many of their cultural characteristics, these students tend to also display common behaviors of students who are learning a foreign language. One stage as described by Stephen Krashen is called the preproduction stage or silent period.

The US Department of Education’s Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA) reported that ELs with disabilities were more likely to be classified with a learning disability or speech or language impairment, based on the IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments for School Year 2014–2015 (see Figure 1). This study highlights the challenges educators face in determining if a student is demonstrating a natural process of acquiring a language that can mirror a disability at times. As displayed in Figure 2, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) recently posted their Fast Facts with the most recent data count for ELs with disabilities for the 2020–2021 school year. No progress has been made.

Figure 1
ELs with Disabilities More Likely to Be Classified with a Learning Disability or Language Impairment

From the US Department of Education’s Office of English Language Acquisition website

Figure 2
Percentage of Students with Disabilities who are ELs

From the US Department of Education’s ED Facts Data Warehouse (EDW)

According to the Global Teacher Status Index, many foreign countries regard the profession of education to be of the highest status (Dolton, 2018). China and Malaysia are examples of countries where teachers are treated with the highest level of respect. Keep this in mind when you see an EL looking intently at the teacher, in silence, even though they may be screaming for help internally. This is a common interpersonal learning strategy ELs use when in the “silent state,” engaging in private speech (Saville-Troike, 1988). More likely than not, they are attempting to repeat keywords the teacher is using during instruction as a strategy to comprehend what is being said.

The great news is that there is an abundance of strategies teachers can use to help students transition out of the silent stage. When ELs are in the preproduction stage, teachers can provide extra support to overcome the foreign language barrier. During the first 30 days of school, teachers can provide students with some of the instructional strategies listed below.

Instructional Strategies during the Preproduction Stage
1. Speak slowly and use shorter words or keywords
2. Have students repeat new key vocabulary
3. Teach vocabulary with gestures that match the meanings of the words
4. Have students use gestures and point to vocabulary
5. Use simple prompts like “point to…” or “show me…”
6. Teacher and students provide visuals, drawings, illustrations
7. Teacher and students use realia (real objects or physical representations)
8. Model and provide multiple practice opportunities
9. Have students practice classroom routines
10. Limit student use of technology (students are using all their senses to learn, such as reading facial expressions and gestures)
11. Know students’ cultures and social norms (gestures, school norms, etc.)
12. Use music to improve comprehension (slow down and repeat music lyrics)
13. Create a list of “survival” phrases (i.e., “can you repeat that?,” “slow down,” “open the book”)
14. When appropriate, use real-life examples (videos)
15. Use a cooperative learning approach during independent work (pair, triad, small group)
16. For every initial lesson, provide at least one to three sentence starters (for students to express academic understanding)
17. Have a signal or picture for students to express “I don’t understand,” “I need help,” “more practice or examples,” and “I get it”
18. Be aware the students are going through a culture shock
19. Remember to smile
20. At the end of the day, provide quiet time for the students (allow for their minds to ease and rest from over-processing information)

Teachers can begin to provide English learners with a means to communicate. Students will learn how to have a voice as they break down the barriers of their new language. English learners tienen un gran respeto—they have great respect for teachers. Do not let your English learners become more statistics. Be the advocate for the silent majority by giving them a voice and a way to learn and communicate.

References
Dolton, P. J., Marcenaro, O. D., Vries, R. D., and She, P. (2018). Global Teacher Status Index. Downloaded May 2022 from https://learningportal.iiep.unesco.org/en/library/global-teacherstatusindex2018#:~:text=The%20Global%20Teacher%20Status%20Index%20is%20based%20on,role%20of%20teacher%20status%20has%20been%20studied%20in-depth
Krashen, S. D., and Terrell, T. (1983). Natural Approach (pp. 20–20). New York: Pergamon. Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University Report New Data on Language Learning (Statistical Regularities Affect the Perception of Second Language Speech: Evidence from Adult Classroom Learners of Mandarin Chinese) (2019). Science Letter, 1598. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A598080831/HRCA?u=txshracd2588&sid=bookmark-HR-CA&xid=505da0f8
Saville-Troike, M. (1988). “Private Speech: Evidence for second language learning strategies during the ‘silent’ period.” Journal of Child Language, 15(3), 567–590. DOI:10.1017/S0305000900012575
Tafoya, M. (2016). “Socialization of Respeto in Immigrant Mexican Families.” Dissertation, Utah State University. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/5004
US Department of Education (n.d.). “Academic Performance and Outcomes for English Learners,” 2017–18. Downloaded March 2021 from www2.ed.gov/datastory/el-characteristics/index.html.
US Department of Education, ED Facts Data Warehouse (EDW) (n.d.). “IDEA Part B Child Count and Educational Environments Collection, 2020–21.” https://data.ed.gov/dataset/71ca7d0c-a161-4abe-9e2b-4e68ffb1061a/resource/c515f168-be9c-4505-a6d7-d52a47b9b2b7/download/bchildcountandedenvironment2020-21.csv.

Itzil Welch is the director of multilingual programs for Splendora ISD in Texas. Her professional affiliations include co-chair of the Advocacy Committee of the National Association of English Learner Program Administrators (NAELPA). Since becoming an alumna of Brigham Young University, she is pursuing her doctorate from the University of Houston.

Canada: Filipino language courses introduced to B.C. schools

In Vancouver B.C., public school students at Sir Charles Tupper Secondary will soon have access to Filipino language courses, after the city’s school board recently unanimously voted to introduce classes for grades 10-12.

The course focusing on Filipino language and culture will be the first of its kind in both the Vancouver School District and in the state of British Columbia, and is scheduled for the start of the next school year. 

The news has been welcomed by the Filipino community of B.C. who have been campaigning for more language resources since the 1990s. 

Leonora Angeles, a University of British Columbia professor and president of the National Filipino Canadian Cultural Centre (NPC3) said “This is highly significant,I really wish it had come sooner.”

Canadian census data from 2021 states that 83,000 British Columbian residents are speakers of the Filipino language and approximately 174,280 Filipino people live in the province.

Currently, similar courses are offered at a select number of schools in Alberta and Manitoba, after similar community-lead initiatives. In 2019, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley announced that the Alberta Filipino school program – at the time only taught in four Catholic high schools, would be expanded and offered to students from kindergarten up to Grade 12 following “community requests to improve Filipino language offerings in schools.”

Introduced fully in 2020 the optional language and culture program aims to strengthen the Filipino community’s roots. Notley added “Creating a K-12 Filipino language and culture curriculum will ensure this vibrant community can continue to grow deep roots and make this province even greater”.

At university level, courses in Filipino and Philippine Studies are offered at select colleges across North America. In the United States, courses focusing on culture, language, politics and indigenous studies of the Philippines are offered at Columbia University, The University of Hawaii, UC Davis and The University of San Francisco. In Canada, Philippine programs – some partially funded by the government of the Philippines, are offered at York University, The University of British Columbia and The University of Manitoba. 

A Breakthrough Moment for Irish-Language Filmmaking

As the announcement of the 2023 Oscar nominations approached, the creators of Irish-language film An Cailín Ciúin (The Quiet Girl) celebrated a “breakthrough” moment as it became the first of its kind to be shortlisted in the Best International Film category.

Written and directed by Colm Bairéad, the film is a feature-length adaptation of Claire Keegan’s 2010 short story “Foster.” Set in 1981, the title follows the story of neglected nine-year-old Cáit, who is sent to live with relatives in County Wexford, finding herself in a loving home for the first time.

An Cailín Ciúin has already appeased multiple critics, scooping up several domestic and international awards, including the Dublin Film Festival’s Audience Award and eight Irish Film and Television Academy awards (IFTAs).

For Irish filmmaking, An Cailín Ciúin’s submission to the Academy comes after surpassing box office records and has been hailed as a promising development in the creative film sector. It was originally produced in conjunction with Cine4, a collaborative film initiative between Irish-language broadcaster TG4, Screen Ireland, and the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, which is open to applications for feature-length projects and offers budgets of up to €1.2 million.

Speaking to the BBC, Máire Ní Chonláin, a commissioning editor with TG4, said, “It’s so important that the Irish language is being developed for films and television… We’re trying to grow the independent sector… We want to normalize the language. You’d have often seen a French film before an Irish-language film.”

Joining An Cailín Ciúin in the category, formerly named Best Foreign Film, are German entry All Quiet on the Western Front—an adaptation of the 1929 novel—and Argentine director Santiago Mitre’s Argentina, 1985, both noted as strong contenders in the runup to the 95th Academy Awards. The division boasts 15 nominees in total.

With its most recent update, Netflix is not currently streaming any obvious frontrunners for Best Picture, but instead claims Mexican entry Bardo, False Chronicle of a Handful of Truths directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu and All Quiet on the Western Front in the international category—a clear and celebrated move as the platform’s international presence continues to flourish.

Awaiting the January 23 announcement of this year’s nominees, the team behind An Cailín Ciúin had already voiced their joy at this overall achievement for Irish filmmaking. In a tweet following the shortlist announcement in December, the film’s producers said they were “thrilled beyond words” and it was “an historic day.”

Athina Kontos

1...373839...332Page 38 of 332

Subscribe for exclusive content

Language Magazine is a monthly print and online publication that provides cutting-edge information for language learners, educators, and professionals around the world.

Subscribe

LanguageMagazine 2023

Language Magazine