Instructional Materials for English Language Learners in Urban Public Schools, 2012-13

Council of the Great City Schools

Background Findings Conclusions and Recommendations

Instructional Materials for English Language Learners in Urban Public

Schools

Survey created to gauge quality, availability, and value of ELL instructional materials.

Distributed across various networks The Council extracted data specifically for

respondents from member districts which consisted of: 284 respondents (58 percent of total responses) 44 districts

Background

Percentage of respondents by position/title, 2012 (n=284)

46%

10%2%

13%7%

22%

Percentage of CGCS respondents by subjects taught, 2012 (n=284)

I do not work directly with students (e.g., administrator or instruc-tional coach)

ESL/ESOL

Multiple subjects

All subjects (e.g., K-5 teachers)I support other teachers by working directly with students in the

classroom, but I am not the primary instructorEnglish

Other

Math

Social studies

Science

40%

38%

33%

17%

17%

12%

11%

8%

7%

6%

Percentage of CGCS respondents indicating the percentage range of ELL students at their school,

2012 (n=250)

0-10% 10-30% 30-50% >50% I don't know Not applicable0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

12%

30%

23%

26%

3%

7%

Percentage of CGCS respondents selecting statement that best describes ELL instruction at

their school, 2012 (n=218)

Instruction is provided in English with native language support, if needed and available

Instruction is provided in both English and native language with the goal of bi-literacy

Instruction is provided in both English and native language, if feasible, with goal of proficiency in English

State law restricts the use of native language for instruction of ELLs

Other

63%

17%

14%

4%

2%

ELLs and the Common Core

Very pre-pared; 14%

Prepared; 35%

Somewhat prepared;

41%

Not prepared; 10%

Percentage of CGCS re-spondents prepared to implement instructional shifts required by the CCSS, 2012 (n=252)

Very pre-pared; 14%

Prepared; 37%

Somewhat prepared;

36%

Not pre-pared; 13%

Percentage of CGCS re-spondents prepared to

use specific strategies to ensure ELLs meet the CCSS, 2012 (n=252)

ELLs and the Common Core

Implementing instruction shifts

Using specific strategies for ELLs to

meet CCSSAbout half of all ELL and general education teachers do not feel prepared to implement instructional shifts required by the Common Core.

Nearly half of ELL and general education teachers do not feel prepared to use specific strategies for ELLs to meet the CCSS

60 percent of school administrators feel prepared to implement the instructional shifts of the CCSS.

80 percent of school administrators feel prepared to use specific strategies for ELLs

Two-thirds of district-level ELL Directors did not feel prepared to implement the instructional shifts.

Majority of district level ELL Directors do not feel prepared to use specific strategies to ensure ELLs meet the CCSS.

Percentage of CGCS respondents indicating how they choose

instructional materials for ELLs, 2012 (n=218)

I get recommendations from other teachers

I use the materials my district requires me to use (I have no choice)

I choose from a list of district-approved materials

I choose whichever materials I want, with no guidance from my state or district

I choose from a list of district-recommended materials

Other

I choose from a list of state-recommended materials

I choose from a list of state-approved materials

I get recommendations from vendors

46%

37%

33%

32%

29%

20%

17%

16%

9%

Selecting and acquiring materials for ELLs are difficult, time consuming and expensive (Figure 11).

In schools were over 30 percent of students are considered ELL, the largest issue was the difficulty and time consuming nature of the process (Table 3).

Challenges in selecting and acquiring ELL instructional materials

Percentage of CGCS respondents using various types of instructional materials for

ELL students, 2012 (n=284)

Other printed supplemental material (e.g., novels, dictionaries)

Materials I make on my own

Basal general ed. materials (e.g., core curriculum)

Supplemental ELL materials bundled with core curriculum

ELL-specific literacy intervention materials or programs

General literacy intervention materials or programs

Online programsSubject-specific ELL supplements not affiliated with a basal

programBasal ESL programs

Offline software (e.g., programs installed locally on a particular computer)

51%

50%

48%

42%

38%

32%

29%

25%

24%

18%

How well do materials meet criteria?

Respondents were asked about the following criteria• Reflect the rigor of the Common Core• Aligned with core general education curriculum• Can be used to teach subject-area content• Are engaging• Are grade-appropriate • Can be used to teach students with different native

languages• Can be used to teach students with different ELP

levels• Can be used to teach English language development

• Perceived quality of materials decreased by grade level • In middle and high school, nearly half of respondents did not know

the quality of materials

Grade

• About half of respondents rated ESL and ELA materials as “high” or “average” quality

• Materials in math, science and social studies were perceived as the lowest quality

Subject

• Quality of materials for ELLs who were 3 years behind grade level were rated the lowest (67%)

English language proficiency

Rating the quality of ELL Materials

Developing criteria for instructional materials

Improving the selection of quality instructional materials for ELLs.

Calling out the need for high-quality professional development for general education and ESL teachers in ELL strategies that are aligned to the Common Core State Standards.

Ensuring that high-quality ELL instructional materials are readily accessible for general education and ESL teachers.

Conclusions and Ongoing Projects