Examples from ELP Standards
As described in the previous sections, states and ELP consortia (i.e., ELPA21 and WIDA) have endeavored to reflect the language demands manifested in CCR standards in their latest ELP standards. At the time of writing, ELPA21 and WIDA’s standards have been adopted by 43 states, while the remaining states with large EL populations (e.g., Arizona, California, New York, Texas) have their own ELP or ELD standards with differing approaches to reflect CCR language demands in their ELP standards. Thus, some convergence and divergence in ELP standards to derive the ELP construct are evident. Below we use a few example ELP standards to illustrate variability across the standards in how they conceptualize the ELP construct, particularly in relation to the facets of language-in-use outlined earlier. To differing degrees, the standards selected demonstrate our argument that the most current ELP standards have shifted to be more aligned with the CCR content standards than in previous renditions of such standards.
The following standard from the New York New Language Arts Progressions (ESL/New Language) is at the highest ELL) level (Commanding) for Grades 9 and 10 in Speaking and Listening: Speaking-Centered Activity.
Example 5:
1. Use knowledge of the topic, text or issue, independently, to pose and respond to questions that connect ideas and propel conversations, when speaking in partnership, small group and/or whole class settings.
This standard focuses on language production, specifically what students need to do discursively with the knowledge they are gaining in the content areas. The diversity in the interactions of content classrooms is emphasized in the different participation configurations that are mentioned (with partners, in small groups, etc.), but in each case the student needs to be able to ask and answer questions tailored to connecting content area concepts and ideas to which they are being exposed. This standard most strongly entails the “language-in-use” facet involving understanding contexts of language use.
The following example is from the California ELL) Standards at the highest ELD level (Bridging) for Grades 11 and 12 in Section 2: Elaboration on Critical Principles for Developing Language and Cognition in Academic Contexts: Part I: Interacting in Meaningful Ways.
Example 6:
- 12. Selecting language resources
- a) Use a variety of grade-appropriate general (eg., alleviate, salutary) and domain-specific (eg., soliloquy, microorganism) academic words and phrases, including persuasive language, accurately and appropriately when producing complex written and spoken texts.
This standard focuses on the language production of students in the written and spoken modalities and clearly states that students need to know the circumstances for choosing the different types of academic vocabulary entailing the "language-in-use” facets involving understanding the context of language use. Moreover, the mention of grade-appropriate usage shows some acknowledgment of the “language-in-use” facet focused on the effects of learner characteristics (in this case age/grade) on language production in both the written and spoken modalities. It converges on some of the same genre skills likely necessary for the CCR content standards that also require students to perform some “persuasive” action with language, as in “evaluate multiple sources of information” in CCSS Reading Standards for ELA (Example 2), “justify conclusions" as in CCSS for Mathematics (Example 3), or “apply evidence” as in NGSS: Earth and Space Sciences (Example 4).
The final example is also taken from the California ELD Standards at the highest ELD level (Bridging) for both Grades 9 and 10 and Grades 11 and 12 in Section 2: Elaboration on Critical Principles for Developing Language and Cognition in Academic Contexts: Part 1: Interacting in Meaningful Ways.
Example 7:
- 6. Reading/viewing closely
- b) Explain inferences and conclusions drawn from close reading of grade-level texts and viewing of multimedia using a variety of verbs and adverbials (e.g., creates the impression that, consequently).
This standard focuses on productive language (written or spoken is left unspecified) resulting from reading. It entails a number of “language-in-use” facets, including prominently the integration of the different language modalities and overt language functions, as well as understanding linguistic complexity (achieved through use of a variety of forms), and a consideration of learner characteristics (age-appropriateness) with the mention of grade-level texts. Note how the targets of language learning, including the mention of different media uses, described in this example ELD standard strongly converge with the language uses described in the CCSS Reading Standards for ELA Standard 7 (Example 2). "Explain inferences and conclusions drawn from close reading” also echoes the “persuasive language” that cuts across most of the example standards as discussed above in Example 6.
These examples from the CCSS and NGSS standards and the different ELP standards demonstrate the complexities of assessing ELP in a way that is aligned with CCR standards. For example, even if CCSS ELA, Grades 11 and 12, Standard 4 (Example 1) above explicitly delineates language skill expectations where other standards do not, as in Standard 7 (Example 2), it still presupposes a host of additional supporting language skills and knowledge that are not explicitly acknowledged. For instance, to demonstrate the skills covered in Standard 4 (Example 1), students must be able to use the conventions of providing formal definitions, they must be able to talk or write about word choice and semantic refinement as objects of study, and they must understand and use the language of sequencing in order to keep track of word usage across the text. CCSS ELA, Grades 11 and 12, Standard 7 (Example 2), which rather implicitly embeds a wide range of language skills, requires a thorough identification of all the language skills involved. The specific complexity these examples raise is that the CCSS ELA standards may presuppose higher-order skills without providing any information about constituent lower-order skills that students need to master before they get to the higher-order skills.
Considering that the CCR standards by their nature describe the expected end-goals at each grade level, identifying underlying or relevant language skills is a challenging but critical step to take for teaching and assessing EL students. For EL students, we need to specify the entirety of other implicit language skills that will also be needed to meet the standards. Then, the role of ELP assessments is to measure the extent to which EL students are able to meet the language demands of the standards in order to identify where they are in their language learning and what they need instructionally to move their learning forward.
Characterizing the inherent language demands of the CCR standards should be at the heart of attempts to articulate the construct(s) operationalized by ELP assessments given the current conceptualization of ELP standards to contain language knowledge and skills to support EL students’ access to academic content learning. As illustrated from the standards examples, not all standards can be adequately assessed in large-scale, standardized assessment settings, and some standards may be more effectively assessed in classroom-based summative and formative assessment (Bailey & Duran, 2020). As we consider convergence of the ELP and CCR standards, it is worth noting that the CCR standards we reviewed here cover language functions, linguistic complexity, and integrating skills, but not the first or the last facets of the "language-in-use” model (contexts & individual differences), which were more explicitly addressed in the ELP standards we reviewed. It will be important to investigate further precisely what language demands are included in the CCR content standards and how they are reflected in current ELP standards on which ELP assessments should be based.
