Building Bridges : A Pre-Ninth Grade Intervention for Low Literacy Newcomers

1. Deborah Short, Bridges Evaluator Elaine Klein, BridgesPrincipal Investigator Suzanna McNamara, Bridges Curriculum Coordinator Annie Smith, Bridges PD Coordinator Rebecca Curinga, Bridges Researcher Brenda Custodio, Discussant TESOL 2014, Portland, Oregon, March 28, 2014 Building Bridges: A Pre-Ninth Grade Intervention for Low Literacy Newcomers Website: http://bridges.ws.gc.cuny.edu/

2. BRIDGES • Is a project of the Center for Advanced Study in Education (CASE) and the Research Institute for the Study of Language in Urban Society (RISLUS), The Graduate Center, City University of New York • Is generously supported by grants from • The NYC Department of Education • The NYS Education Department • The NY Community Trust

3. Outline of TESOL Colloquium • U.S. & NYC Context – Deborah Short, Academic Language Research & Training • Overview of Bridges Development and Implementation – Elaine Klein, City University of New York • Bridges Curriculum Development – Suzanna McNamara, Bronx International High School • Bridges Professional Development and Coaching – Annie Smith, Bright Minds Educational Consulting • Bridges Research & Evaluation – Rebecca Curinga, City University of New York, and Deborah Short • Discussion – Brenda Custodio, Ohio State University

4. U.S. & NYC Context for Newcomer Students

5. Exemplary Programs for Newcomer ELLs at the Secondary Level (2008-2011) National research study by Center for Applied Linguistics Survey of middle and high school programs Online, searchable database(www.cal.org/CALWebDB/Newcomer) Case studies of 10 promising programs Report: Helping Newcomer Students Succeed in Secondary Schools and Beyond(www.cal.org/help-newcomers-succeed) Funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York

6. Newcomer students are found in every state in the U.S.

7. Newcomer Students – Definitions Vary Newcomer ELLs lack English proficiency and have gaps in their educational backgrounds. They may be • Literate newcomers • SIFE (students with interrupted formal education) newcomers • Late-entrant immigrant newcomers

8. Late entrants can fit into any of the categories.

9. Newcomer Programs Specifically designed for recent immigrants—with no or limited English proficiency and often limited formal education Enrollment is for a limited time Most are programs within a school May use sheltered instruction or bilingual approach for curriculum, instruction and assessment Most programs are for students who are not ready for regular ESL 1 classes.

10. Newcomer Program Goals • Help students acquire beginning English skills • Provide some instruction in core content areas • Guide student acculturation to U.S. schools • Develop or strengthen native language literacy

11. Newcomer Database Findings Over 90 countries of origin and 55 native languages are represented. Student size in programs ranges from 9 students in one high school to 930 in another. Some programs serve mostly refugees; others, immigrants; and others, a mix. 96% of programs have some SIFE students. Over 90% of students qualify for free/reduced lunch.

12. SIFE: Sub-group of Emergent Bilinguals (EBs) in NYS HSs • Adolescent newcomers • Limited home language (L1) literacy • Limited academic skills • 2+ years of educational gaps = SIFE • Presently over 15,800 SIFE in NYC high schools: 10% of total EBs; mostly in grades 9-12 (NYC DOE Demographic Report, 2013)

13. What do we know about students like these in ourschools? EBs in NYC (NYCDOE Report: The Class of 2012 Four-Year Longitudinal Report and 2011-2012 Event Dropout Rates) • 4-Year Graduation Rates: 44.5% EBs vs. 68.4% EPs • Drop-out Rates: 18.8%EBs vs. 9.2% EPs Note: 1/3 of all dropouts occur in 9th grade (AEE, 2010) SIFE in NYC (Advocates for Children of New York, 2010) • Performance on all measures is significantly below other EBs’

14. Urgent need for dramatic interventions to better serve these students • Klein & Martohardjono (2006) • August & Shanahan (2006) • DeCapua, Smathers& Tang (2007) • Short & Fitzsimmons(2007) • Garrison-Fletcher, Barrera-Tobon, Fredericks, Klein, Martohardjono, O'Neill & Raña (2008) • Advocates for Children Report (2010) • Short & Boyson (2012)

15. Klein & Martohardjono, 2006 In NYC study of 107 Spanish-speaking 9th grade SIFE, researchers found that of these students • Almost all show typical language development in L1 (oral comp, lexicon, syntax, working memory) • All show significant delays in • Text–level reading skills in L1 (M: gr 3.5) • Content area knowledge in L1 (M: gr 2) • Only 6% had 2+year gaps in prior schooling

16. Accelerating language, literacy and content learning for emergent bilinguals with limited home language literacy

17. The Building of Bridges Purpose and Objectives:To prepare students for achievement in mainstream 9th grade classes and subsequent grades by: Developing academic English language skills. Providing a rigorous, accelerated transitional program, focused on building background content knowledge and academic skills. Developing and implementing the Bridges Curriculum, a research-based, interdisciplinary intervention that integrates language, literacy and academic content across ELA, Math, SS and Science. Developing and implementing strong professional development (PD) for high school content area teachers to deliver the Bridges Curriculum and its instructional strategies.

18. 21

19. Theoretical and Empirical Framework, I Very strong relationships between • Academic achievement andacademic literacy (Cloud et al., 2010) • Academic literacy inL1and L2  Transfer of skills(Cummins, 1979, 1981, 1984; Gilbert, Lundstrum, & Moseley, 2005; August & Shanahan, 2006) • Strong oral language and reading comp. ((L1) Goswami 2000; (L2) Freeman & Freeman, 2009; Cloud et al., 2010):Vocabulary(e.g. Brisbois, 1995), Morphology(Curinga, 2014), Syntax(Martohardjono et al., 2005; Morvay, 2009)

20. Theoretical and Empirical Framework, II • Centralityoflanguageandliteracyin • schema building (P.L. Carrell, 1984, 1987) • content teaching (Janzen, 2008) • Homogeneous/Sheltered grouping  accessibility of content and language (Short, 2000; Tomlinson, 2003; Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007) • Focus on input and interaction for foundational  text level literacy(Long, 1980; Gass & Madden, 1985; Mackey, 1999; Gass, 2008)

21. Theoretical and Empirical Framework, III • Socio-cultural theory  language learning takes place in social context with help of scaffolding (Gibbons, 2003; Walqui,2006) • More school time needed for EBs, particularly SIFE, in order to develop academic literacy and build schema (Cummins, 2006; Klein & Martohardjono, 2006; Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007; Goldenberg, 2008)

22. Our Bridges Students Low-literacy high school newcomers: Home language reading and writing assessed from intake diagnostics = 0 - 4th grade level Diverse backgrounds, languages and cultures Oral questionnaire administered in home language upon entry to school 25

23. Bridges Students Similarities: Knowledge of home language (L1) and culture Little to no knowledge of English (L2) Age-appropriate cognitive capacity Other EBs Similarities: Knowledge of home language (L1) and culture Little to no knowledge of English (L2) Age-appropriate cognitive capacity Bridges Students and Other Emergent Bilinguals

24. Bridges Students Differences: Cannot read or write proficiently in L1 Reading skills in L1 are 5 grades or more below grade level (i.e., 9th grader reads at 4th grade level, max) Severely limited oral academic vocabulary and content knowledge in L1 Other EBs Differences: Can read and write in L1 Reading skills in L1 are grade-level appropriate Grade-level appropriate oral academic vocabulary and content knowledge in L1 Bridges Students and Other Emergent Bilinguals

25. What makes Bridges?

26. ELA Math Social Studies Science

27. Music P.E. / Dance Art Drama Home Language Language + Literacy ELA Math Social Studies Science 5th class

28. Bridges Implementation Year One (2011-12): 4 NYC High Schools, 67 students entering 9th grade Bridges Curriculum devel. began (ELA, SS, Sci, Math) PD for Bridges teachers began Year Two (2012-13): 3 NYC High Schools, 58 students entering 9th grade Bridges Curriculum development cont’ PD for Bridges teachers; Curric. Coaching began

29. Bridges Implementation Year Three (2013-14): 4 NYC High Schools, 77 students entering 9th grade PD for NYC SIFE teachers; Curric Coaching cont’ Upper NYS PDs began in 3 school districts; program planning for Bridges next year in these districts New SIFE Curriculum in ELA and FLL being developed for NYS students, to be completed late 2015

30. Reflections • Collaborative design process; schools must take ownership and custom-design program • Bridges needs strong support/buy-in from school administrators, who provide resources for Bridges • Necessity for Bridges teachers to be open, flexible, willing to work with challenging students • Team meetings are essential and teachers need extra time to meet and collaborate; Team Leader needs released time • Adequate PD is essential (quantity and quality)

31. Accelerating language, literacy and content learning for emergent bilinguals with limited home language literacy

32. Bridges Curriculum Development

33. 42

34. Acceleration in Bridges Starting Point Goal Read to Learn (academic) LITERACY No Print Skills Learn to Read (basic) CONCEPTS Immediate Context Academic THINKING Academic Abstract Concrete & Pragmatic Full participation in academic contexts Limited participation in academic contexts

35. A Responsive Curriculum Bridges Students Low Literacy in any Language Limited Academic Concepts Academic/ Abstract Thinking Bridges Curriculum Teach learning to read Build conceptual knowledge Develop academic language, literacy, & habits of mind

36. Curriculum Features that Promote Acceleration • Four subjects, four units • Interdisciplinary thematic connections • Projectsdriven by essential questions • Structured unit cycle across classes

37. 1. Four Subjects • Apprentice students into each discipline • Build high-traction concepts relevant to K-12 • Include topics from K-8 (some 9) • All teachers integrate content, language, and literacy

38. 2. Thematic & Interdisciplinary • Overarching theme for each of the four units across subjects • Key concepts and essential questions linked across classes to promote deep conceptual knowledge

39. Interdisciplinary Units & Essential Questions

40. Studying a Concept through Discipline Lenses

41. 3. Culminating Projects • Units build toward project in Week 6 of each unit • Synthesis of unit content and language • Integration of listening, speaking, reading, writing • Creative response to essential question that engage and provoke inquiry • Student-centered and collaborative • Requires planning, organizing, and problem solving • Presentation of finished product

42. Unit 3 ELA Project

45. 4. Bridges Unit Cycle

46. Interdisciplinary Academic Skills • Describe • Explain • Define • Compare & Contrast • Cause & Effect • Main Idea & Detail • Summarize • Evaluate • Claim-Evidence

47. Reflections • Building the plane as we fly it • Challenge of integrating multiple parts • Learning to Read – underdeveloped • Struggle to balance basic with academic • Limited collaboration - designing, vetting, and norming • Curriculum needs to provide more guidance for teachers (what and how)

48. Next Steps • Regular collaboration on Bridges team for vetting, norming, and refining the vision • Tighter alignment of the many parts within and across units • Make the implicit pieces more explicit (e.g., interdisciplinary connections across classes) • Develop more lesson plans to guide teachers • More focused development of Learning to Read • Integration of more technology

49. Bridges Professional Development

50. Participating Schools