Members: Jonathan Fost-Newberg Leigh Anne Scherer-North Clackamas Pam Russell Bejerano- Centennial

1. Article #4 Summary“Realizing Opportunities for English Learners in the Common Core English Language Arts and Disciplinary Literacy Standards” Members: Jonathan Fost-Newberg Leigh Anne Scherer-North Clackamas Pam Russell Bejerano- Centennial Karina Bruzzese-Gresham-Barlow Elanie Morelock-CESD Lori Cullen-CESD

2. Guiding Question #1: What is the overall message of the article? • It is essential to have a shared responsibility for preparing ELs for the language called for by CCSS and that responsibility rests with content teachers, curriculum directors, ELD teachers, administrators, researchers and other educational specialists.

3. Guiding Question #2:Whatimportant factors/questions/concerns came up for our group after reading this article and that speak to the mission of the workgroup? • Question: Are we being asked to align ELD to content standards? Are we addressing Language only within the context of CCSS? • Concern: Helping all students access the depth of the language in CCSS is not the sole responsibility of ELD teachers. • We recognize the importance of embedding more language into academic core as much as the need to embed more content into ELD. • CCSS incorporates language requirements that many native speakers lack. Who will support the classroom teachers in addressing those students’ needs?

4. Guiding Question #3:What key factors/discoveries/conclusions did the authors discuss? Authors envision: • shared responsibility • Language instruction must be presented in the context of academic endeavors • In order to meet the rigor and depth of knowledge required by the CCSS, ELD must address reading, listening, speaking, and writing.

5. Additional thoughts… • The state may need to mandate something similar to California’s CLAD Certificate for all content teachers to be able to achieve CCSS • Conversely, ELD Teachers will need specific PD to feel more confident in their ability to teach language in the context of more rigorous academic contexts.

6. Additional thoughts and questions… • This article seems to imply that the CCSS will drive ELD instruction (e.g. the language demands within the standards will determine what we will teach, when we will teach each language function, and how we will teach functions according to the level of demand required by a standard). • Additionally, the authors assume a high degree of communication and cooperation between ELD and content area teachers. How will we build those relationships when we all work on different service models?

7. Still more thoughts and questions… • We are still a bit confused about the purpose and eventual outcomes for this work group. We would like more clarity on expected results. • We were also unclear about the direct relevance of the articles to the work we are doing. However, that may be due to our own lack of understanding of our purpose and expected outcomes.

9. We recognize: Core= Needs more explicit language ELD= Needs more academic content

10. Other resources to consider: • Language Instruction Educational Programs (LIEPs): A Review of the Foundational Literature (WDOE) • Improving Education for English Learners: Research-based Approaches (California Dept. of Education 2010) • Effective Literacy and English Language Instruction for English Learners in the Elementary Grades (IES Practice Guide from What Works Clearinghouse-2007)

11. Other resources to consider: • Developing Literacy in Second Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (CAL- August 2006/Shanahan) • Teaching English Language Learners: What the Research Does and Does Not Say (Goldenberg)