Early Learning Standards for DLLs: How Can States Do Better?

The good news is that, according to a 2014 National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) report, all of the 53 state-funded pre-K programs in 40 states and Washington, D.C. now have comprehensive early learning standards in place. That’s progress. In 2004, less than half of state programs — 49 percent — had such standards in place.

As more states have adopted early learning standards, many are recognizing that dual language learners (DLLs) have unique linguistic and academic needs. And given that DLLs account for roughly a quarter of all U.S. children under age 8, policymakers cannot afford to overlook them in their efforts to get early learning right.

How, then, are states supporting pre-K-aged DLLs through early learning standards and guidelines? And how can they improve?

A recent report by the BUILD Initiative answers these questions by analyzing trends across 21 states and Washington, D.C. ((The following states were analyzed: Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.)) Researchers Linda Espinosa and Miriam Calderon analyzed the early learning standards of states with a high proportion of DLLs and those participating in the recently formed K–3 Assessment Consortium. First, they identified the specific standards and supporting documents that each state uses to address DLLs, 3–5 years old. Then, they determined how well those standards align with the “explosion of research” in the past decade on best practices for DLLs.

Let’s take those up in reverse: first, we’ll explore the researchers’ approach to evaluating states’ early learning standards. What exactly does this “explosion of research” suggest?

Most fundamentally, dual language development is increasingly recognized as a cognitive asset that should be nurtured in DLLs to support their academic achievement. As The Atlantic recently reported, bilingual education has been “linked to numerous positive and long-term benefits, including stronger literacy skills, narrowing of achievement gaps, and higher graduation rates.”

However, the BUILD report notes, DLLs’ language development unfolds differently, in ways that “may look like delays to the uninformed observer.” Indeed, DLLs can make make slower initial progress than monolinguals. However, any delays for DLLs are most often “temporary and disappear as young DLLs become more proficient in each of their languages.” Further, these lags are understandable given that fact that a bilingual child, navigating two languages at once, has to process language in a much more complex way than a monolingual peer. The fact that the bilingual brain has to work harder is precisely what researchers believe helps DLLs develop the “Bilingual Advantage.”

The researchers also pointed to socioemotional benefits to supporting DLLs’ native languages. For example, the use of their native languages in early learning environments helps DLLs preserve the ability to fully communicate with parents and family members and can foster closer relationships with their teachers.

The report’s authors used this body of research to classify each state’s early learning standards into one of three categories: a dual language approach, English Language Development (ELD), or English immersion.

On one end of the spectrum, the dual language designation indicates that a state’s standards explicitly prioritize maintaining students’ bilingualism. In the middle ground, an ELD classification denotes a hybrid of English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction and transitional bilingual education (i.e. temporary bilingual supports used to speed up the acquisition of English). (For more on the difference between additive and subtractive bilingual models, see here.) On the other end, English immersion captures states using  a “sink-or-swim” English-only approach.

Out of the 21 states, only one — New Jersey — outlines an explicitly dual language approach in its pre-K standards. Five states — Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, South Carolina and D.C. — use an English immersion approach.

The majority of states, 15, fell somewhere in the middle; that is, they use an ELD approach.

To unpack the characteristics of those 15 states’ standards and guidelines further, researchers examined other criteria, including: their statements of philosophy, use of a separate domain for language development, DLL identification procedures, DLL assessment recommendations, multilingual family engagement strategies, teacher qualification rules, and instructional strategies.

[caption id="attachment_9270" align="aligncenter" width="362"] Espinosa & Calderon, 2015.[/caption]

The results “present a picture of highly variable approaches” to supporting DLLs across the country. Particularly worrisome is the fact that most states fail to provide a clear process for identifying and assessing DLLs, a distinct developmental trajectory for DLLs, and specific qualifications for teachers of DLLs.  

But, on a more encouraging note, the report highlights exemplar states in these generally weak areas, including Texas and California. In Texas, the Administrative Code provides clear regulations on state pre-K teachers and specific DLL standards with literacy and language techniques aligned to each standard. These include the use of role playing, anchor charts, graphic organizers, visual cues, restating commands in the home language, and more.

California has a separate English-language development domain in its early learning standards, which was only the case in two other states. California also has specific assessment recommendations in its curriculum framework: these stipulate that DLLs must be assessed in their home language across all domains other than English proficiency — and they provide guidance on how to do so.

Importantly, the report considered supplemental state materials when categorizing standards. As the report concludes, “simply stating a learning expectation...without detailed guidance on how to assess what the child should know and what instructional guidelines will help achieve that learning expectation, does not constitute a standard (and likely will leave programs frustrated when it is communicated as an expectation for them).” So, while research-based, developmentally appropriate standards are fundamental, standards alone do not chart the course of how an educator feasibly reaches those guideposts.

Nevertheless, standards remain a vital starting point for states to articulate the foundational expectations that will drive granular-level practices in the classroom. The report is a call for most states to think more critically about their early learning approaches. It asks them to consider: what is our philosophy towards supporting DLLs? Why? Is it backed in research? Too often, states are myopic with regard to language learners. They focus on academic gains in the short- versus long-term, inadequately accounting for DLLs’ developmental needs and stripping them of their bilingualism. This report sheds light on the need for many states to rethink their approach to serving DLLs and, by highlighting examples from exemplar states, drives the conversation forward on how to do so.

Click here to read the report.

—This post is part of New America’s Dual Language Learner National Work Group. Click here for more information on this team’s work. To subscribe to the biweekly newsletter, click here, enter your contact information, and select “Education Policy.”

 "