Category: Uncategorized

Collaborative discussions have become a part of classroom practice due in large part to CCSS listening and speaking standards as well as skills called for in other state standards. For English learners, it can be quite challenging to think critically about a topic and use academic language to express ideas, summarize another’s points, and pose the kinds of questions that advance a discussion. They need to be taught the skills to do so but they also need to spend time actually using academic language – talking, listening, interacting.

This creates a bit of a dilemma: finding the right balance.

An elementary school principal told me that at her school, which has a high percentage of English learners, they practice the 90-10 approach. That is, 90% student talk and 10% teacher directed instruction.

Now, I’ve been promoting less teacher talk since publishing research on instructional conversations in the early 1990’s. In fact, one of the eight components of the SIOP Model is Interaction. My colleagues and I have been encouraging teachers to “get out of the way” and give students opportunities to talk to one another for a couple of decades, especially those students who are learning English.

However, a 90%—10% approach seems extreme, especially for young English learners who are just beginning to learn about the world around them and the books in front of them. This ratio begs the question: What, for example, can second-graders teach each other or practice talking about for 90 percent of the school day, or even the ELA block? Especially students who are still in the process of learning English? Much of the interaction in classrooms involved techniques such as turn-and-talk, popcorn questioning, and think-pair-share.

Asking students to turn-and-talk or think-pair-share frequently simply for the sake of reducing teacher talk is a case of student interaction gone awry.

Interactive activities — for elementary and secondary students — should to be purposeful and used as a means of achieving specific learning goals. For students to participate in high quality interaction, teachers need to clearly communicate to students what they are going to talk about and why they are doing the interactive activity, whether the oral exchange is brief or is an extended academic discussion where students express their ideas, grapple with concepts, discuss issues, and argue a point.

In our book, Developing Academic Language (2016), my co-author Deborah Short and I present guidelines for conducting collaborative academic discussions. These include:

1. Teach students the rules for discussion. Participating in an academic discussion doesn’t come naturally for anyone so we can’t expect to set students loose to have a productive conversation. Rules such as turn-taking, staying on topic, being respectful, listening actively and building on each other’s comments are skills that need to be taught and practiced with guidance.
2. Align the discussion to the lesson objectives. The topic of discussion should reflect the lesson’s purpose but so should grouping configurations. Students might be organized in pairs, triads or groups of 4 to 6. The composition of groups might vary as well, depending on the objectives. Partners or groups are matched by English proficiency level (the same level or English learner with English proficient), language background (same language background for support or different languages), and reading levels.
3. Pose good questions to prompt high quality discussions. If you want students to have a productive, interesting discussion, you need to begin with an interesting question. And, good questions are those that drive higher-order thinking, that force students to grapple with an idea or issue and draw on information they’ve gained during the lesson or unit.
4. Teach students how to ask questions. Help students understand that there are different reasons for asking questions such as clarifying (Can you explain that more?), confirming (I think you said that…), eliciting (How does this connect to what we were reading?), or predicting (Do you think that in the next chapter…). Also, questions should advance the discussion rather than simply repeating a language frame or using similar questions over and over.
5. Link oral discourse with reading and writing. Research tells us that the domains of reading, writing, listening and speaking are interrelated and best developed together. Student discussions should include reference to text evidence, using text or writing as a basis for making a point and so forth.
6. Hold students accountable for their talk. The most productive discussions are those that have clear expectations and some type of accountability for each student’s participation such as the teacher circulating with a clipboard assigning points on a rubric or having students take responsibility for judging participation.
7. Set reasonable time limits. Students are sometimes left to turn-and-talk or think-pair-share for several minutes about questions that could be answered in 10-15 seconds, questions that are often mundane and without a strong instructional purpose. Those wasted minutes here and there add up to a lot of lost instructional time. With academic discussions, teachers should monitor pacing and make sure discussions don’t stall.

The need for these guidelines is exemplified in the following lesson on nutrition. The teacher asked students to talk to their partner and discuss, “What do you like to eat for after-school snacks?” Students talked for several minutes, then regrouped and shared their answers some of which included liking candy and hot dogs. The teacher accepted all answers, presumably not wanting to shut down participation, and went around the circle asking students to use a language frame to answer: I like _______ because ________. The process continued until each child had a turn.

Here are a few problems with this student-to-student interaction and why the guidelines above would be useful:

• The interaction needed to be more closely aligned with the topic of nutrition. Asking students to talk about healthy snack choices they’ve read about rather than asking them to talk about what they like to eat would have better met the objectives of the lesson. (#2, #5) Further, once some students reported that they like snack foods that are not nutritious, the teacher was caught in a bind. Either she points out why those foods may not be the best nutritional choice and risk criticizing the student and/or his family or she accepts the answer, makes no judgment (e.g., Ok, thanks Minh), and implicitly endorses the food choice. It appeared she did the latter. The problem could have been avoided with more purposeful planning.
• The question driving the interaction was mundane and didn’t require higher-order thinking. There aren’t many ways to think critically about why one likes a certain food! (#3)
• The same frame used repeatedly becomes boring and often leads to students disengaging. (#4) After students talk together, have several students report out using the frame, then move on with the lesson. Better yet, provide the frame for the students to use when talking together. The teacher can circulate to hear their language use and when the group reconvenes, call on one or two students to share.
• Too much time was spent on student talk; it takes only seconds to name a food and say why you like it. Also, having every student repeat the frame ate up time resulting in lost instructional minutes. (#7) Time spent on this part of the lesson could have been reduced significantly and been put to better use.

Back to the issue of balance: The amount of student talk vs. teacher directed or teacher facilitated instruction is tricky. Until we have empirical evidence to guide us, we need to rely on what seems reasonable to meet lesson objectives, meet standards, and develop students’ academic language.

But, the quality of interaction may be even more important than the amount. Hopefully, you’ll find the guidelines useful.

 

 

 

With the large and growing numbers of English learners (ELs) in the U.S., my colleagues Deborah Short, MaryEllen Vogt and I set out to develop and test an approach for making grade-level instruction understandable for ELs while at the same time, developing their English proficiency. That was 20 years ago…..

Since that time, there have been lots of books and other resources produced on the topic of effective instruction for English learners. Much of it is good and has been helpful to teachers who work diligently to educate the English learners in their classrooms.

In this post, I’d like to share what is unique about SIOP: It has a solid and growing research base that demonstrates that it actually helps kids achieve academically and improve their English proficiency.

SIOP is an approach for lesson planning and  delivery that is used widely across the U.S. and in numerous countries. SIOP’s features are research-based, as are most other programs and practices out there for teaching English learners.

However, the difference is that there are also empirical studies conducted on the SIOP Model itself demonstrating its effectiveness.

Selected research conducted thus far is described below followed by a more comprehensive list of SIOP research studies and resources.

• The observation protocol has a 5-point scale for each of SIOP’s features  which measures its level of implementation. A study was conducted to establish the validity and reliability of the SIOP protocol and found the SIOP instrument to be a highly reliable and valid measure of sheltered instruction (Guarino, et al., 2001);
• A professional development process was developed including training materials and videotapes, and it has been shown to be effective in improving teachers’ practice as they work with English learners (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2000; Short, Fidelman, & Louguit, 2012);
• When the features of the SIOP Model are implemented to a high degree, the achievement of English learners improves (Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2006; Echevarria, Richards, Chinn & Ratleff, 2011);
• The features of the SIOP Model provide the language supports that English learners need to improve literacy skills. When teachers applied the features effectively, student reading scores in English improved (McIntyre, Kyle, et al., 2010);
• Students in middle and high school classes (mathematics, science, social studies, language arts, ESL, health, and computer) with SIOP-trained teachers outperformed comparison students (those without trained teachers) on the IDEA Language Proficiency Tests (IPT) to levels of statistical significance in oral language, writing, and overall mean scores, indicating that the SIOP Model had a positive impact on the development of English language proficiency (Short, Fidelman, & Louguit, 2012);
• There are multiple schools and districts that report increased student performance when teachers implement the SIOP Model (Echevarria, 2012; Echevarria, Short & Vogt, 2017);
• English-speaking students as well as English learners in SIOP classes outperformed similar students in control classes (Short & Himmel, 2013).

 

Batt, E. (2010). Cognitive coaching: A critical phase in professional development to implement sheltered instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education 26, 997-1005.

Bertram, R. L. (2011). Sheltered instruction: A case study of three high school English teachers’ experiences with the SIOP Model (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3486471)

Calderon, C. T., & Zamora, E. (2014). Factors affecting the implementation of sheltered instruction observation protocols for English language learners. National Forum of Educational Administration & Supervision Journal, 31 (3), 20-32.

Chen, C., Kyle, D., & McIntyre, E. (2008). Helping teachers work effectively with English language learners and their families. The School Community Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1.

Echevarría, J. (2012). Effective practices for increasing the achievement of English learners. Washington, DC: Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of English Language Learners. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/create/resources/pubs/

Echevarria, J., Richards-Tutor, C., Canges, R., & Francis, D. (2011). Using the SIOP Model to promote the acquisition of language and science concepts with English learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 34 (3), 334-351.

Echevarria, J., Richards-Tutor, C., Chinn, V., & Ratleff, P. (2011). Did they get it? The role of fidelity in teaching English learners. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 54 (6), 425-434.

Echevarría, J., & Short, D. (2004). Using multiple perspectives in observations of diverse classrooms: The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP). In H. Waxman, R. Tharp, & S., Hilberg (Eds.), Observational research in U.S. classrooms: New approaches for understanding cultural and linguistic diversity. Boston: Cambridge University Press.

Echevarria , J., & Short, D. (2010). Programs and practices for effective sheltered content instruction. In California Department of Education (Ed.). Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches. (pp. 250-321). Sacramento, CA: CDE Press.

Echevarría, J., & Short, D. (2011). The SIOP^® Model: A professional development framework for comprehensive schoolwide intervention. Washington, DC: Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of English Language Learners. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/create/resources/pubs/professional-development-framework.html

Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: An instructional model for English language learners. Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 195-210.

Echevarria, J., & Vogt, ME. (2010). Using the SIOP Model to improve literacy for English learners. New England Reading Association Journal, 46 (1), 8-15.

Friend, J., Most, R., & McCrary, K. (2009). The impact of a professional development program to improve urban middle-level English language learner achievement. Middle Grades Research Journal, 4(1), 53–75.

Guarino, A.J., Echevarria, J., Short, D., Schick, J.E., Forbes, S., & Rueda, R. (2001). The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol. Journal of Research in Education, 11(1), 138–140.

Himmel, J., Echevarria, J. & Short, D. (under review). Increasing teacher knowledge of sheltered instruction. Middle School Journal.

Himmel, J., Short, D.J., Richards, C., & Echevarria, J. (2009). Using the SIOP Model to improve middle school science instruction. Washington, DC: Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of English Language Learners. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/create/resources/pubs/siopscience.htm

Honigsfeld, A., & Cohan, A. (2008). The power of two: Lesson study and SIOP help teachers instruct ELLs. Journal of Staff Development, 29(1), 24-28.

Kang, AeJin. (2005). How to promote comprehension and participation in CBI courses: The SIOP model. English Teaching, 60(4), 159-196.

Kareva, V. & Echevarria, J. (2013). Using the SIOP Model for effective content teaching with second and foreign language learners. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 1 (2), 239-248.

McIntyre, E., Kyle, D., Chen, C., Muñoz, M. & Beldon, S. (2010). Teacher learning and ELL reading achievement in sheltered instruction classrooms: Linking professional development to student development, Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(4), 334-351.

Nora, J. & Echevarria, J. (2016). No more low expectations for ELLs (N. Duke & E..Keene, Eds.)  Not This But That series. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

O’Neal, D., Ringler, M. C., & Lys, D. B. (2009). Skeptics to partners: University teams with district to improve ELL instruction. Journal of Staff Development, 30(4), 52–55.

Polat, N. & Cepik, S. (2015). An exploratory factor analysis of the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol as an evaluation tool to measure teaching effectiveness. TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 0, No. 0, DOI: 10.1002/tesq.248

Portillo, C. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions on the use of Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol as a districtwide professional development reform. (Doctoral Dissertation) Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3723058)

Short, D. (2000). What principals should know about sheltered instruction for English language learners. NASSP Bulletin, 84 (619), 17-27. doi:10.1177/019263650008461902

Short, D. (2013). Training and sustaining effective teachers of sheltered instruction. Theory Into Practice, 52(2), 118-127.

Short, D., Cloud, N., Morris, P., & Motta, J. (2012). Cross-district collaboration: Curriculum and professional development. TESOL Journal, 3(3), 402-424.

Short, D., & Echevarria, J. (1999). The sheltered observation protocol: A tool for researcher-teacher collaboration and professional development. (Educational Practice Report No. 3). Santa Cruz, CA and Washington, DC: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence.

Short, D., & Echevarria, J. (2004). Teacher skills to support English language learners. Educational Leadership, 62(4), 9–13.

Short, D., Echevarria, J., & Richards-Tutor, C. (2011). Research on academic literacy development in sheltered instruction classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 363-380.

Short, D., Fidelman, C., & Louguit, M. (2012). Developing academic language in English language learners through sheltered instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 333-360.

Short, D., & Himmel, J. (2013). Moving research on sheltered instruction into curriculum and professional development practice. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, April 2013.

Song, K. (2016, February). Systematic professional development training and its impact on teachers’ attitudes toward ELLs: SIOP and guided coaching. TESOL Journal. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tesj.240/full doi: 10.1002/tesj.240 .

Song, K. (2016,). Applying an SIOP-Based instructional framework for professional development in Korea. TESL-EJ, 20 (1).

Vidot, J. L. (2011). The efficacy of sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP) in mathematics instruction on English language learners. (Doctoral dissertation) Available from http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/943/

Vogt, ME. (2012). English learners: Developing their literate lives. In R. M. Bean & A. S. Dagen (Eds.), Best practice of literacy leaders: Keys to school improvement (pp. 248-260). New York: The Guilford Press.

Watkins, N. M., & Lindahl, K. M. (2010). Targeting content area literacy instruction to meet the needs of adolescent English language learners. Middle School Journal, 41(3), 23–32.

Welsh, L. & Newman, K. (2010). Becoming a content-ESL teacher: A dialogic journey of a science teacher and teacher educator. Theory Into Practice, 49:137–144.

Whittier, L. E., & Robinson, M. (2007). Teaching evolution to non-English proficient students by using Lego Robotics. American Secondary Education, 35(3), 19–28.

Back-to-school is an exciting time for teachers and students alike. I always look forward to the beginning of a new school year, although in the past my own children didn’t always appreciate my enthusiasm! Nonetheless, it is a time of preparation, new beginnings, and anticipation. There is also a certain amount of nervousness involved, especially for students such as English learners (ELs) who may be anxious about doing well in school.

There are a lot of good suggestions on blog sites and through other sources for making the transition from summer to school smooth for students. In this post, I’ll offer my own tips based on my experiences in working with English learners.

In this post, I’ll offer my own tips based on my experiences in working with English learners.

1. Be welcoming in your words and affect. Teachers’ attitudes and behaviors have a tremendous impact on how students feel about themselves as learners and on their academic performance. A smile, eye contact, a kind word, or gesture are simple actions that will go a long way in making English learners feel welcome and that they are a valued members of your class.
2. Learn your students’ names and how to pronounce them correctly. I know from personal experience how embarrassing it can be when a teacher butchers your name or makes a comment such as, “Oh, this is a tough one. Let’s see if I can say it.” Such comments usually incite laughter from other students. One’s name is linked to one’s identity and sense of self. It doesn’t take much effort to practice saying your students’ names correctly and with the same intonation as when saying, for example, Jason Thomas.
3. Display items and visuals around the classroom that represent your students’ cultures and languages such as photos, posters, and books. Use labels on items in English and the students’ languages, and ask students how some words or greetings are said in their home language. In elementary schools, a photo of each student with their name displayed on a wall communicates that every child is equally recognized and valued. A modified version may be devised for secondary students.
4. Communicate high expectations, with support provided. Spell out expectations, generate enthusiasm for the upcoming year, and communicate confidence that all students will be able to achieve their best work. Make sure that ELs know that there will be instructional supports in place to make them successful.
5. Be sensitive about asking the class how they spent their summer, where their family went on vacation, and other kinds of typical back-to-school sharing activities or assignments. Some English learners come from affluent households but statistically speaking, most live in low socioeconomic circumstances so it is unlikely that they attended summer camp or went on a family vacation. When I was a new teacher in an inner city high school, I naively asked my students what they had done during the summer. Many responded that they had mostly stayed indoors and watched TV or had to go to work with their parents. I was amazed at how eager most students were to return from summer break because school provided structure, safety, social interaction, and a purpose to their day.
6. Post the daily schedule and classroom rules/expectations in a visual manner that is easy for English learners to understand, even if they can’t comprehend every word. You may teach a mini-lesson for English learners to be sure that they understand the rules and expectations in a positive way and can participate fully in classroom routines and activities. Set them up for success!
7. Don’t criticize students if they are a day or more late in returning back to school. Teachers are excited about the new school year and it can be understandably disappointing if students aren’t in attendance from the first day when you have spent time and effort establishing a classroom culture and all that that entails. However, it isn’t the student’s fault when she misses some days because her family had other responsibilities to tend to. Just this past year I was observing in a school that had been in session for a little over two weeks. In a 4^th grade classroom that had a high number of English learners, a girl approached the teacher to say she didn’t know what to do for her report, an assignment the other students were working on. The teacher replied that since the girl’s family “chose to take an extra two weeks of vacation in Mexico” she would have to figure it out herself or ask a student. He pointed out that the other children returned to school on time and knew the assignment. Needless to say, I was shocked that a student was made to feel unworthy of help because of circumstances beyond her control. Don’t take your frustrations out on students –ever.

The new school year is a time of excitement, anticipation, and new challenges. Students are more likely to attend school and actively engage in learning when their social, emotional, and intellectual needs are satisfied in the classroom environment. There is a lot that teachers can do to get the school year off to a good start, which may put English learners on a trajectory for tremendous academic and linguistic growth, even for the most reluctant learners.

Hopefully some of these tips will inspire teachers to make their classrooms positive learning environments for every student. Have a great year!

Have you ever been at a social event where people are talking about something with which you’re not familiar, like fintech, but you’re a little embarrassed to admit you don’t know what it is?

Or worse, when you’re at work and colleagues are using an acronym or educational term that everyone seems to know…except you. You think, As an educator, I should know what he’s talking about so I’m not going to ask. Embarrassing, right? I’ve been there, believe me.

A friend told me the other day that she went through the interview process for her first teaching job. After college she served in the Peace Corps and is bilingual in English and Spanish. She returned to the US and got her teaching credential. She was near tears after an interview for her job of choice because she felt like she blew the interview. “They threw so many terms and acronyms at me that I didn’t know! It was really uncomfortable,” she exclaimed with audible tension in her voice.

We do have a lot of terminology and acronyms in education, and new terms seem to crop up regularly. When it comes to English learners, different terms are used in different geographical regions, certain terms are preferred over others by some groups or organizations, and some terms lack universal agreement on their meaning.

By the way, she got the job. Apparently even educators realize that it takes time and experience to master Educationese.

In this blog, I will attempt to create a primer for those of you who find yourselves perplexed by the wide variety of terms used for students who are not yet fully proficient in academic English and qualify for language support services. (Notice how I had to work hard not to use one of the terms below?!) I’ll do my best to define terms as I understand them; terminology is ever-evolving.

English learners (EL), or English language learners (ELL). These terms are currently most commonly used and are straightforward descriptors of students who are learning the English language used in schools. The terms imply that another language is spoken at home and that these students are in the process of becoming English-proficient.

Limited English proficient (LEP). No longer used because of its connotation that students having the gift of more than one language are somehow “limited.” However, it is an artifact of the past and as such is in federal law, so the exception is that it is used for reporting/accountability purposes.

English for speakers of other languages (ESOL), and English as a second language (ESL). These terms refer to programs but are sometimes applied to students, as in “She is ESOL” or “We have 37 ESL students in fourth grade.”

Second language learner. Used widely internationally and in the literature to indicate a student who is learning the mainstream, or official, language used in a country’s schools. In the U.S., it is English.

English as an Additional Language (EAL) is another term that is used more internationally than in the U.S. but it aptly describes this population. These are children who are adding English to their linguistic repertoire.  English may be their second language or their fifth.

Ever-ELL. This term is used typically for research purposes. It is assigned to a student who has been designated as an English learner at some point in his or her school career. The category accounts for students who become English proficient but at some point were English learners. They are distinct from native English-speaking students.

Never-ELL, English only (EO), or native English speaker. These terms all refer to students whose home language is English and English is the student’s first or native language. Some concern about English Only as a designation is that it connotes monolingualism when that may not be accurate.

Emergent bilingual (EB). Becoming more widely used as another term for a student who is not yet proficient in English but is learning English. The term has an aspirational connotation, implying that these students will end up as bilingual individuals.

Dual language learner (DLL). When referring to young children ages birth to 5 in their homes, communities, or early care and education programs, the term “dual language learners” or “DLLs” is most often used. the term “English learners” or “ELs” is most often used. The term “English learners” or “ELs” is most often used when referring to children ages 5 and older in the pre-K to 12 education system and the term “DLLs/ELs” is often used for the broader group of children and adolescents ages birth to 21.

Speakers of languages other than English (LOTE) or Primary home language other than English (PHLOTE). These terms accurately depict students who have the asset of one or more languages in their repertoire. Not used widely at this point.

Non-English Language Background  (NELB) is a broad term that includes English learners and bilingual/multilingual children and is similar to LOTE and PHLOTE, above.

Linguistically diverse. A broader term that includes students who are not yet proficient in academic English and also those students who speak a non-standard form of English such as speakers of African American vernacular English (AAVE), Creole, or Hawaiian Pidgin English.

Long-term English Learners (LTEL). These students have been enrolled in U.S. schools and designated as English learners for six or more years, many since kindergarten. Definitions and classification criteria vary by state and district. Some specify fewer years as EL or differ on criteria regarding levels of progress toward English proficiency and academic levels.

Students with interrupted formal education (SIFE) and Students with limited or interrupted formal education (SLIFE). These terms are used specifically with Newcomer students who have had interruptions in their educational backgrounds of more than two years or, in the case of SLIFE, may have had limited formal education before enrolling in U.S. schools.

The last two terms are useful for labeling students in particular circumstances so that schools can provide appropriate programs and services for them.

As you can see, we’ve outdone ourselves with the number of terms for students learning English as an additional language. Terms that better describe the unique needs of subgroups of learners are useful, e.g. LTELs, DLL and SIFE. However, it would be helpful to educators and researchers – and students and their parents – to use one universally agreed-upon term for each subgroup rather than a variety of terms for the same students. But, when it comes to acronyms and terminology, if past practice in education is an indicator….I won’t hold my breath.

I’ve been around long enough to remember the prominent and divisive debates about bilingual education and whether or not English should be the only language of instruction in U.S. schools. Some of the arguments — both for and against — were as steeped in ideology as they were in fact, but that is often the case with issues that hit folks at the core of what they think should and shouldn’t be. Things have simmered down a bit and it seems that discourse around bilingualism tends to be more about research demonstrating the advantages bilinguals have over monolinguals.

In recent years, dual immersion programs have grown in popularity in the U.S. In these schools, native English speakers learn a target language (e.g., Spanish or Chinese) alongside classmates who speak the target language and are learning English. In fact, dual immersion schools often have waiting lists for enrollment. Apparently, the number of parents who want their children to be bilingual and biliterate exceeds the current capacity of dual immersion schools.

Worldwide, the number of bilingual individuals is steadily growing because of increased economic globalization and migration. Nearly 66% of the world is bilingual, and many of those individuals speak more than two languages. In the United States, the number children between the ages of 5 and 17 years old who speak a language other than English at home exceeds 20%.

Bilingual students in the U.S. are not necessarily biliterate. There are obvious advantages to being able to speak other languages but it’s even more of a plus to be able to read, write, speak, and understand more than one language. A movement is growing in the U.S. to encourage, recognize, and affirm biliteracy through the Seal of Biliteracy, an award given by a school, district, or county office of education to students who have studied and attained proficiency in two or more languages by high school graduation. Currently, seventeen states have approved the seal and it being considered by others.

In school settings, there are a number of cognitive and academic benefits of bilingualism. Some include:

• Teaching academic skills, such as reading, in a child’s home language is more effective for second language achievement than simply being immersed in English instruction. So, time spent in high-quality native language literacy instruction may speed up English proficiency in the long run.
• Switching between languages tends to build cognitive flexibility, and bilinguals’ ability to read and think in two languages promotes higher levels of abstract thinking.
• Having greater capacity for attention and task-switching which are critical skills in schooling.
• Understanding math concepts and solving word problems more easily.
• Developing strong thinking skills, including metacognitive capacities for thinking about language and learning other languages.
• Being better able to focus, remember, and make decisions.

There are also social-emotional benefits to bilingualism. Some include:

• Developing of a person’s sense of self is enhanced when she is able to communicate effectively with multigenerational family members, friends, and others in her cultural community.
• Making friends and exploring a culture more deeply is made possible with the ability to talk to others and gain an understanding of their values and perspectives.
• Learning a second language typically contributes to empathy toward limited-English speakers encountered in day-to-day situations. Knowing firsthand how difficult it is to reach native-like fluency in a new language adds an element of understanding towards English learners.

As you can see, the benefits of bilingualism extend beyond the classroom. Advantages begin in early childhood and continue across the lifespan. In fact, bilingualism has been found to delay cognitive decline  in older individuals. So, it seems that bilingualism offers something for every age group.