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