This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 24 November 2014, At: 06:05Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

Preparing Early Childhood Teachers forEnglish Language LearnersDonna E. McCrary a , Jennifer Sennette a & David L. Brown aa Department of Curriculum and Instruction , Texas A&M University-Commerce , Commerce, Texas, USAPublished online: 09 May 2011.

To cite this article: Donna E. McCrary , Jennifer Sennette & David L. Brown (2011) Preparing EarlyChildhood Teachers for English Language Learners, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education,32:2, 107-117, DOI: 10.1080/10901027.2011.572229

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2011.572229

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32:107–117, 2011Copyright © National Association of Early Childhood Teacher EducatorsISSN: 1090-1027 print / 1745-5642 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10901027.2011.572229

Preparing Early Childhood Teachers for EnglishLanguage Learners

DONNA E. MCCRARY, JENNIFER SENNETTE,AND DAVID L. BROWN

Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Texas A&M University-Commerce,Commerce, Texas, USA

Children whose native language is one other than English face formidable challengeswhen they enter English-dominant schools. The task of learning English, progressingin one’s native language, and acculturating to the school environment is a compli-cated one that requires the child to develop many new skills. In the past, children whowere English Language Learners (ELLs) encountered a school system that offered lit-tle support. New teachers who enter the workforce must now know how to help thesechildren move successfully into the school setting and learn English at the same time.The purpose of this article is to describe the process of change that occurred duringthe first year of a professional development grant aimed at infusing English LanguageLearner (ELL) competencies within an early childhood higher education teacher prepa-ration program. A process is described that helped the faculty move from an awarenesslevel to one that embraced a system to integrate ELL skill development within theircoursework.

Introduction

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; 2002) mandates that the academic progress ofevery child be tested in reading and math including those children who have been identifiedas English Language Learners (ELLs). This legislation allows states the freedom to findand use the best methods of instruction available to ELLs; however, states are required toestablish English language proficiency standards and provide scientifically based instruc-tion. Moreover, states and local education agencies are required to place highly qualifiedteachers in all classrooms, including when ELLs are present.

To meet the mandates of NCLB, educational institutions have been forced to thinkabout ways that instruction is provided to children who enter our schools with varyinglevels of English proficiency. A number of factors highlight the challenges that teachers andstudents face as they begin English instruction. These children are generally from low SEShomes, perform well below native English speakers on state-mandated achievement tests,and experience higher levels of dropout rates than their English speaking peers (Ovando,Combs, & Collier, 2006). “In 2006, about 20% of children ages 5–17 spoke a languageother than English at home, and 5% spoke English with difficulty. This represents about an11% increase in the ELL population . . .” (Planty et al., 2008, p. 12).

Received 27 April 2010; accepted 29 April 2010.Address correspondence to Donna E. McCrary, Department of Curriculum and Instruction,

Texas A&M University-Commerce, P. O. Box 3011, Commerce, TX 75429, USA. E-mail:mccraryd@sbcglobal.net

107

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

05 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

108 D. E. McCrary et al.

To summarize the difficulty, ELLs must learn academic content in reading and math-ematics while learning English at an academic level (Ovando et al., 2006). This processoften leads to many ELL children being mislabeled as learning disabled and placed in class-rooms for learners with special needs (Artiles & Trent, 1994) or exiting the educationalsystem altogether.

The field of early childhood education is responding to this need. Many early child-hood textbooks now include sections describing ways to address ELL challenges (e.g.,Gonzalez-Mena, 2008; Morrison, 2009). The National Association for the Education ofYoung Children (NAEYC) provides position statements, books, and resources for educa-tors who seek to meet the needs of the ELL population (NAEYC, 2009). States such asTexas are providing English Language Proficiency Standards that teachers must utilize ifan ELL child is present in their classroom (Texas Education Agency, 2009). Other statessuch as Florida require teachers to complete at least 3 semester hours of training concern-ing ELLs (Florida Department of Education, 2001). Teacher preparation programs are alsoprompted to examine their program models and determine how to best help preserviceteachers prepare for ELL children.

Universities have addressed the problem in one of three ways. First, some provideofferings that include separate classes focusing on teaching strategies. Second, universi-ties may infuse curriculum with ELL content. Finally, universities may use a combinationof the two approaches (Ballantyne, Sanderman, & Levy, 2008). Once this decision hasbeen made, course content must be addressed. Research on ELL learners has not yieldeda common set of standards applicable to all levels of English language acquisition. Inaddition, ELL program models such as two-way immersion (Howard & Sugerman, 2007)or the more structured program, Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners:The SIOP® Model (SIOP®) (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2008) have not been institution-alized across states. University-based teacher education programs often utilize Teachersof English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) and the National Council for theAccreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) standards that apply to all learners and/oradhere to their own state requirements (Ballantyne et al.).

Individual states may respond to English Language Learners in varying ways. In theparticular state where this study occurred, preservice students can focus on either BilingualCertification or English as A Second Language Certification (ESL). The BilingualCertification standards emphasize communication proficiency in the first language (L1)and second language (L2), an understanding of biculturalism, a demonstrated knowledgeof the process of L2 acquisition, knowledge of the development and assessment of literacyin the L1 and L2 languages, and comprehensive knowledge of content-area instruction inboth languages. ESL standards emphasize areas such as fundamental language concepts;ESL teaching methods that can be applied to developmentally appropriate practice, andrecognition of cultural, family, and community involvement in the ESL classroom (StateBoard of Educator Certification, 2009).

This article describes the journey of one university-based team of early childhoodteacher educators and their quest to prepare themselves to become leaders in training pre-service teachers to provide quality instruction for ELLs. This description is the outcome ofthe 1st-year participation with a federal personnel preparation grant that was awarded tothe larger Curriculum and Instruction Department of this university. The process of study,reflection, and change the early childhood team experienced during year 1 of the 5-yearproject are covered.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

05 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

English Language Learners 109

Surveying the Context

The university began as a teacher’s college in 1889 and has provided teacher preparationprograms consistently since that time. The university has expanded to include over 100degrees and is now a doctoral-granting institution. In 1990 the Department of Curriculumand Instruction created a partnership with several local school districts to restructure itspreservice teacher training program. Now the program includes a two-semester field place-ment for students. Moreover, the program also encompasses a professional developmentmodel that focuses on greater collaboration among university faculty and local teachers.

The field placement sites occur in rural, suburban, and urban districts with a focus onpre-K thru fourth grades and include high percentages of ELLs. Preservice student ethnic-ity is 75% Caucasian, 15% African American, 7% Hispanic, and 3% other. Approximately400 students complete the program each year.

The Curriculum and Instruction Department has been involved with the field ofBilingual and ESL training for over 20 years. In 2004, a new director of Bilingual/ESLprograms was hired to build capacity within the department for ELL training. A seriesof awareness sessions was held among faculty to determine the level of interest andexpertise participants possessed in ELL understanding. In 2007, the U.S. Department ofEducation ELL Professional Development grant was awarded. Its purpose was to buildupon the 20-year Bilingual/ESL work produced by past faculty and create greater technicalexpertise among the current faculty.

Within the Curriculum and Instruction Department there are six major areas of study(Bilingual, Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, Reading, Middle LevelEducation, and Secondary Education Courses). Each area became a study team withinthis project. Individual involvement of Curriculum and Instruction faculty in the grant wasvoluntary with 33 out of 37 members of the department choosing to participate in the grantactivities.

The Early Childhood team included six members: Two African Americans one ofwhich was a full professor and the other an assistant professor; four Caucasians whichincluded one full professor, one associate, and two assistant professors. Within that groupthere were two men and four women. All were native English speakers. None were bilin-gual or had previous Bilingual/ESL training. They represented expertise in a number ofareas: Child Development, Early Childhood/Literacy, Diversity, and Special Education.Each Early Childhood participant reported that changing demographics and needs withinthe urban, suburban, and rural field placement sites prompted their participation withthe grant. All members of the Early Childhood team volunteered to participate in grantactivities.

The grant timeline is divided into two main sections. Years 1 and 2 deal with capac-ity building among the Curriculum and Instruction faculty within the university. Years 3through 5 will build teaching resources and connections with teachers in local schooldistricts in order to continue grant activities past the 5-year award period.

Changing the Outlook

The evolution of a new ELL emphasis within the early childhood program area occurredthrough an immersion process that led faculty members through a series of reflective expe-riences. Members of the team participated in a visiting scholars program, book studies,outside conferences, ELL course competency development, and course revisions. As theteam participated in the process of learning, reflection, and practice, they sought to build a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

05 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

110 D. E. McCrary et al.

program based on developmentally appropriate practice and functional outcomes for ELLchildren and native English speakers. Each component of the process is described below.

Visiting Scholars

Four sessions were planned that introduced faculty to the need for ELL strategy implemen-tation. Researchers in the ELL field known for a specific type of ELL expertise were invitedto the faculty colloquiums. Each researcher(s) utilized approximately 2 hours explainingtheir research and particular field of knowledge. As the year progressed the presentationsgrew increasingly complex, revealing more information concerning the ELL’s transition toEnglish and greater understanding of various ELL instructional models.

The first presenter described the ELL phenomenon from both a personal and demo-graphic viewpoint. The presenter described painful experiences as an ELL learner recallingbeing chastised for seeking to communicate in Spanish at school. Demographic statisticswere also revealed in the presentation that highlighted the extremely large numbers of ELLchildren currently learning in America’s schools (Tinajero, 2007).

Various models of structured ELL support were presented in the remaining scholarstudies. Each model was supported with underlying research and examples of operatingclassrooms. The two-way immersion model was stressed throughout the year as a strategyparticularly beneficial to both native English speakers and ELLs. Other models proposedby the visiting scholars were (1) teaching language through content within the naturalclassroom context, (2) integration of the structured Making Content Comprehensible forEnglish Learners: The SIOP® Model (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2008) within the les-son plan, and (3) community-based activities such as expanded use of libraries within thecommunity. Table 1 describes two of the major ELL instructional models.

Table 1Two Major English Language Learner Instructional Models

Instructional program Description

Realizing the Vision ofTwo-Way Immersion:Fostering EffectivePrograms and Classrooms

A form of education in which native English speakersand speakers of another language (usually Spanish) areintegrated within the regular classroom. The goals ofprograms include the development of bilingualism,biliteracy, and cross-cultural competence in addition tograde-level performance. Children receive instructionin their native language for a percentage of the day andthen in the nonnative language the remainder of thetime (Howard & Sugarman, 2007).

Making ContentComprehensible forEnglish Learners: TheSIOP® Model

An approach to lesson planning that teaches contentmaterial to English Language learners. The modelguides the teacher through a series of activities todevelop language and content objectives for the ELL,related activities, and assessment strategies. TheSIOP® Model approach to lesson planning can beused in any setting (Echevarria et al., 2008).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

05 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

English Language Learners 111

Following the presentations, faculty met with their curriculum teams to discussthe mornings’ presentations. During these meetings, the teams used a formal rubric tocrystallize the information gained. Questions included in the rubric are presented below.

� What did you learn (new information or ah-has) or notice?� What do you wonder/question?� What do you speculate (hunches about instructional practices that might be effec-

tive or factors about the learning context or learners that could be important asinstructional design)?

� What are the implications?� How might we proceed?

The information gained during this session was recorded and analyzed by an externalreviewer to provide ongoing assessment of the project’s development.

Book Studies

At each visiting scholar’s meeting, ELL specific books were distributed to the faculty.Three books were selected to create foundational knowledge: (a) Realizing the Vision ofTwo-Way Immersion: Fostering Effective Program and Classroom (Howard & Sugarman,2007), (b) Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners: The SIOP® Model(Echevarria et al., 2008), and (c) Bilingual and ESL Classroom: Teaching in MulticulturalContexts (Ovando et al., 2006).

Members of the early childhood team were assigned selected portions of each bookand met regularly for discussion. As the group researched the pithy portions of the books,they utilized methods similar to a literature circle model used in many early childhoodclassrooms today. The literature circle model was used to create praxis of ideas to guidetheir thinking. Topics such as dual language instruction, current statistics concerning ELLstudents, and sheltered instruction emerged from the books studies as points of referencefor team discussion and individual reflection.

Personal Learning Activities

Individual members of the early childhood team pursued learning activities outside thoseprovided by the grant. Several members attended conferences throughout the year (e.g.,Council for Exceptional Children International Conference, National Association forBilingual Education Conference) to increase their knowledge concerning ELL issues.Through these conferences faculty were introduced to issues such as identification andcharacteristics of the ELL learner with special education needs and classroom assessmentof ELL learners. Other team members visited models of ELL-focused classrooms thatincorporated the two-way immersion model and the content integration model. Informationgained during these meetings were compiled and presented to the early childhood team.

From Research to Practice

Members of the early childhood team reviewed the information gained from the scholarstudies, book studies, conference proceedings, classroom visits, and related literature.This information was used to identify skills needed by preservice early childhood educa-tors to effectively integrate ELL strategies within the general education early childhood

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

05 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

112 D. E. McCrary et al.

classroom. These skills were then grouped around five broad competencies. Thesecompetencies and a brief description of each are described below.

Competency 1

Students will articulate the legal foundations for teaching children with ELL needs.Students are required to articulate the models, theories, and practices that form the basis ofELL instruction and demonstrate their knowledge of the legal requirements for identifying,assessing, and teaching children who are ELLs.

Competency 2

Students will demonstrate ways to plan and manage learning environments for successfulELL learning outcomes. Students must design learning environments that encourage activeparticipation of ELL children, select appropriate activities that are developmentally, cultur-ally, and linguistically relevant, describe effective behavior management strategies for usewith ELL children, and identify various means for communicating with families of ELLchildren.

Competency 3

Students will demonstrate appropriate methods for assessing ELL children. Students mustbe able to evaluate the ELLs’ stage of English language acquisition (e.g., beginning stage,early production stage, speech emergent stage, intermediate fluency, and fluency stage).Students will be able to screen for reading problems and monitor progress in the acquisitionof phonological processing, letter knowledge, and word and text reading.

Competency 4

Students will demonstrate methods of appropriate instructional content and practice.Students must be able to provide vocabulary instruction and plan peer-assisted instructionwith ELL students at varying levels of English level proficiencies.

Competency 5

Students will demonstrate culturally responsive methods for creating collaborative part-nerships with families. Students must create opportunities to develop oral and writtencommunication skills with families.

Once competencies were clearly articulated, the various sections were linked withNAEYC Standards, TESOL/NCATE Standards, creation of new learning activities, andassignments. Table 2 describes this progression for competencies 4 and 5.

Course Revision

The five broad competencies were either aligned with or added to current early childhoodeducation syllabi. Learning activities were then modified in the course to match the newELL competencies. For example, in one class students were required to examine currentevents that effect ELL families to help fulfill the goal of creating culturally competentpartnerships with families as described in Competency 5. Other activities included use of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

05 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Tabl

e2

Cou

rse

Rev

isio

nPr

ogre

ssio

nM

ovin

gFr

omC

ompe

tenc

yto

New

Ass

ignm

ent

TE

SOL/N

CA

TE

Com

pete

ncy

NA

EY

CC

ompe

tenc

ySt

anda

rds

New

lear

ning

activ

ities

New

assi

gnm

ent

Com

pete

ncy

4:St

uden

tsw

illde

mon

stra

tem

etho

dsof

appr

opri

ate

inst

ruct

iona

lcon

tent

and

prac

tice.

Stan

dard

24b:

Stud

ents

know

and

unde

rsta

ndan

dus

ea

wid

ear

ray

ofef

fect

ive

appr

oach

es,

stra

tegi

es,a

ndto

ols

topo

sitiv

ely

influ

ence

child

ren’

sde

velo

pmen

tan

dle

arni

ng.

Stan

dard

1:C

andi

date

spr

epar

ing

tow

ork

insc

hool

sas

teac

hers

orot

her

scho

olpr

ofes

sion

als

know

and

dem

onst

rate

the

cont

ent

know

ledg

e,pe

dago

gica

lco

nten

tkno

wle

dge

and

skill

s,pe

dago

gica

land

prof

essi

onal

know

ledg

ean

dsk

ills,

and

prof

essi

onal

disp

ositi

ons

nece

ssar

yto

help

all

stud

ents

.

Rew

rite

less

ons

plan

sob

tain

edfr

omth

ein

tern

etto

incl

ude

EL

Ls

with

rega

rdto

best

prac

tices

.

Cre

ate

ale

sson

plan

that

incl

udes

aSI

OP

activ

ity.

Com

pete

ncy

5:St

uden

tsw

illde

mon

stra

tecu

ltura

llyre

spon

sive

met

hods

for

crea

ting

colla

bora

tive

part

ners

hips

with

fam

ilies

.

Stan

dard

4a:C

onne

ctch

ildre

nw

ithfa

mili

es.

Stan

dard

2a3:

Und

erst

and

and

appl

ykn

owle

dge

abou

thom

e/sc

hool

com

mun

icat

ion

toen

hanc

eE

SLte

achi

ngan

dbu

ildpa

rtne

rshi

psw

ithE

SOL

fam

ilies

.

Rev

iew

the

U.S

.D

epar

tmen

tof

Edu

catio

n’s

web

site

:To

ols

for

His

pani

cFa

mili

es.

Cre

ate

aSp

anis

h/E

nglis

hlit

erac

yba

ckpa

ck.

113

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

05 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

114 D. E. McCrary et al.

videos, outside readings, and inclusion of relevant ELL websites within the course supportmaterials.

Assignment Revision

After competencies were aligned and/or added to existing course syllabi, faculty met todiscuss and design related assignments. This process involved group and individual work.While group discussion guided the process, individual faculty were free to design theirown coursework. Some assignments were new creations and others were modifications ofexisting tasks.

Examples of assignments developed by faculty include a Spanish/English literacybackpack that goes home with children and the creation of newsletters and classroom calen-dars. Suggestions from the U.S. Department of Education’s Toolkit for Hispanic Families(U.S. Department of Education, 2009) were used by students to complete the newslettersand calendars. One faculty member required students to evaluate a classroom learning envi-ronment by using the Early Childhood Rating Scale (ECERS) (Harms, Clifford, & Cryer,1998). Students were instructed to use the ECERS indicators as a guideline to suggest waysthe classroom teacher could design the classroom environment to meet the needs of ELLchildren. This required students to use skills they had learned all semester and apply thatknowledge to a functioning learning environment for ELL children in the early childhoodyears.

Results

Quantitative data were used to evaluate the initial effectiveness of this intervention on fac-ulty and preservice students. The results of the data indicate that the process of embeddingELL instruction within existing course content was positive. The following data describethe attempts to determine impact on students and faculty.

Student Data

Survey responses of students reflect a favorable attitude of the ELL immersion interven-tion within their class content after year 1. Students were surveyed using four items with a4-point response scale with 1 representing “strongly disagree” to 4 representing “stronglyagree.” On each item, students revealed that they believed they had increased their knowl-edge and practice of working with children who are ELLs. The highest mean rating (3.46)revealed that students believed their teacher education courses did prepare them to teachELL learners. Table 3 shows mean and standard deviation scores for all four items.

Students who enter the internship and residency phase of their preservice programreport that the assignments and products they created in the classroom help them connectto the ELL children they encounter. Tasks such as backpacks and lesson plans promptedexcitement among the students as they began to see success in their personal teachingjourney.

Faculty Data

Disaggregated data was not available for individual teams within the Department ofCurriculum and Instruction. However, aggregate data that included responses from eachteam revealed positive changes between implementation of the intervention and at the end

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

05 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

English Language Learners 115

Table 3Means and Standard Deviations for Student Feedback After Year 1

Average StandardItem N rating deviation

1. My teacher education courses at this universityare preparing me to teach ELL learners.

28 3.46 .96

2. My attitude toward ELL changed as a result ofour work in this class.

28 3.43 .96

3. I am confident in my knowledge of ELLstrategies.

28 3.14 .89

4. The things I learned in this class will directlyrelate to my teaching career.

28 3.43 .96

of year 1. However, faculty beliefs concerning their own knowledge of culturally and lin-guistically relevant assessment issues revealed a negative change in perception between theonset and the end of year 1 of the project.

First, faculty reported their knowledge of the characteristics of children who areEnglish Language Learners was positively affected. At the beginning of the project only7.4% of the faculty stated they were very knowledgeable of the characteristics of ELLssuch as demographic data, strengths, and needs. Postsurvey results revealed that 16.7%reported being very knowledgeable of ELL characteristics, demonstrating a 9.3% increase.

Second, faculty reported an increase in their knowledge of effective strategies forteaching children who were ELLs. Prior to the intervention, 7.4% of the faculty felt veryknowledgeable concerning teaching strategies of ELL learners. After year 1 of the grant,16.7% of the project participants believed they had increased their knowledge concern-ing effective teaching strategies that would maximize academic success for ELLs, alsorepresenting a 9.3% increase.

Third, faculty rated their knowledge of ways to appropriately assess ELLs in culturallyand linguistically fair ways. At the beginning of year 1, 11.1% of the faculty believed theywere “very knowledgeable” while 7.4% believed they had “no knowledge of the issues.”At the conclusion of year 1, only 5.6% reported being “very knowledgeable” of assessmentissues while 0.0% reported “no knowledge of assessment issues.”

Results of the survey data concerning personal knowledge of faculty members aboutELLs reveal a general positive trend in the areas of ELL characteristics and teaching strate-gies. Faculty report that they do believe they know more about the ELL child and haveincreased their repertoire of teaching strategies that will help make the ELL more suc-cessful in school. However, the survey data also reveal that faculty perception of ways toassess ELL children effectively in culturally and linguistically appropriate ways could bestrengthened.

Future Plans

The early childhood faculty are optimistic about future implementation of the ELL pro-gram restructuring process. Plans have been made to expand the survey feedback forstudents concerning their attitudes and developing understanding of the ELL competencies.Field placement sites are being groomed for future collaborative work with the preservice

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

05 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

116 D. E. McCrary et al.

teachers that will strengthen the students’ practice of ELL strategies. Overall, initial con-versations within the early childhood team meetings indicate the grant activities (i.e.,scholar presentations, book studies, curriculum revision) have been powerful vehicles forbringing about changes within the early childhood program of study.

Implications

Schools represent a microcosm of society; they are becoming more diverse while theteaching force is overwhelmingly still coming from Caucasian middle-class backgrounds.According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2008), children of color will be the majority ofstudents populating American classrooms by 2035, increasing to 57% by the year 2050(i.e., Asian and Hispanic). However, Hodgkinson (2002) notes that this change will notyield an increase of Asian and Hispanic preservice teachers: “The nation’s teaching forcesuggests a profile that is quite different from the student profile, with White teachers cur-rently accounting for some 86% of the teaching force and teachers of color collectivelyaccounting for 14% (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1997)” (Cochran-Smith,2004, p. 5). This represents a cultural incongruity between teachers and the studentsthey teach. To meet the changing tapestry, teachers must acquire skills that recognizethe strengths of diverse populations and utilize those strengths within their teachingpractices.

This article summarizes the process of change that occurred in year 1 of a federalgrant that prompted university-level early childhood educators to participate in a processaimed at infusing English Language Learner (ELL) knowledge and strategies into an earlychildhood teacher preparation program. This was done to prepare preservice teachers tobetter meet the needs of the ELL child. The early childhood faculty increased their ownknowledge base concerning ELL learners, embedded ELL skills into current syllabi, andcreated new assignments linked with ELL outcomes.

The early childhood faculty sought to look at their task in terms of a holistic frame-work in order to meet the myriad of challenges facing the ELL student. This method isconsistent with school reform movements that analyze the total school system in order tocreate change within school climate and practice (Noell & Gansle, 2009; Schlechty, 2002).They realized that students must engage with a total system that analyzes the ethical, the-oretical, and pragmatic issues surrounding ELL education. By employing this systemicapproach, the faculty created a model of change that focused on five distinct elements:(a) legal foundations for teaching children with ELL needs, (b) planning and managinglearning environments, (c) assessing and evaluating children, (d) instructional content andpractice, (e) collaboration and collaborative partnerships in order to build a shared visionof success for children with ELL needs.

Conclusion

The general education teacher who can apply differentiated knowledge and skills to meetthe needs of their ELL students will effectively teach all of the students in the ever-increasingly diverse classroom. If past population trends from the federal government areaccurate, the number of ELL children in classrooms will continue to increase: “It is clearthat the responsibility for educating these children can no longer fall only on those teacherswho have been trained specifically to provide bilingual education and ESL services. Thisresponsibility needs to be shared by all teachers and all schools” (Nieto & Bode, 2007,pp. 238–239).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

05 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

English Language Learners 117

References

Artiles, A. J., & Trent, S. C. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special education: Acontinuing debate. Journal of Special Education, 27, 410–437.

Ballantyne, K. G., Sanderman, A. R., & Levy, J. (2008). Educating English language learn-ers: Building teacher capacity. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English LanguageAcquisition.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher education.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English learners:The SIOP® model. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Florida Department of Education, Bureau of Educator Recruitment and Professional Development.(2001). Preparing Florida teachers to work with limited English proficient students. Retrievedfrom http://www.fldoe.org/profdev/pdf/finalesol.pdf

Gonzalez-Mena, J. (2008). Foundations of early childhood education: Teaching children in a diversesociety (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Harms, T., Clifford, R., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early childhood rating scale (Rev. ed.). New York, NY:Teachers College Press.

Hodgkinson, H. (2002). Demographics and teacher education: An overview. Journal of TeacherEducation, 53, 102–105.

Howard, E., & Sugarman, J. (2007). Realizing the vision of two-way immersion: Fostering effectiveprograms and classrooms. McHenry, IL: Delta.

Morrison, G. (2009). Early childhood education today. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.NAEYC, National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). Where we stand on

responding to linguistic and cultural diversity. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/diversity.pdf

Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2007). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multiculturaleducation (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, Pub. L. No 107-110, § 101, 115 Stat. 1425.Noell, G. H., & Gansle, K. A. (2009). Moving from good ideas in educational systems change to

sustainable program implementation: Coming to terms with some of the realities. Psychology inthe Schools, 46(1), 78–89.

Ovando, C., J., Combs, M. C., & Collier, V. P. (2006). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching inmulticultural contexts (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

Planty, M., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Provasnik, S., Kena, G., Dinkes, R., . . . Kemp, J. (2008). TheCondition of Education 2008 (NCES 2008-031). Washington, DC: National Center for EducationStatistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Schlechty, P. (2002). Working on the work: An Action Plan for Teachers, Principals, andSuperintendents. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

State Board of Educator Certification. (2009). Approved education standards. Retrieved from http://www.sbec.state.tx.us/SBECOnline/standtest/edstancertfieldlevl.asp

Texas Education Agency. (2009). English language proficiency standards. Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/curriculum/biling/elps.html

Tinajero, J. (2007, September). First visiting scholars round table. Symposium conducted at themeeting of !Listo! Sharp and Ready research group, Commerce, TX.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). Cumulative estimates of the components of population change by raceand Hispanic origin for the United States (No. NC-EST2007-05). Retrieved from www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2006-compchg.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Toolkit for Hispanic families. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/parents/academic/involve/2006toolkit/index.html

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

05 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014