Reflections on Teaching Multilingual Learners

With rigorous state standards, there has been greater attention to teaching academic language to multilingual learners. However, the reality is that academic language is a new language for all learners. It differs from the type of language used in everyday settings and most students have had little exposure to the type of language used in school. For example, all students need to learn terminology used in various content areas such as extinction in science, dividend in math and territory in social studies, and much, much more. While acquiring new words and expanding one’s vocabulary is critical for school success, there is more to academic language than vocabulary. Students must learn and use other aspects of academic language such as:

Active and Passive Voice 

Social studies mostly uses passive voice – The National Industrial Recovery Act was declared unconstitutional in 1935.

Science uses both passive and active voice – They collected samples from ten counties in Arizona and Samples were collected from ten counties in Arizona.

The English language arts include a variety of text types but active voice is typically used in stories – The kid chased the dog out of the house.  

Math uses active voice – Multiply the number rows by the number of seats to find the seating capacity of the room.

Grammar and Language Structures

Complex sentence structure is new to many students. For example, the use of dependent and independent clauses such as Since the music hall was crowded, Showen sat outside to listen to the concert. And, While I was careful to observe the experiment, I almost dropped the beaker since I didn’t realize it was hot. Embedded clauses can be difficult because the subject of the verb can be confusing, as in The spider, which had built its web under my chair, pounced on its prey. There are many other aspects of grammar that can be tricky for students such as if-then clauses and verb tenses. 

Language Skills and Functions

Reading, writing, speaking and listening are skills that need to be explicitly taught and practiced within the context of content learning. Will students need to read and find evidence in the text to support their answer? Does the lesson call for students to debate a topic and argue a position? Will students watch a video and identify the major points or details? Does the lesson require students to make predictions or draw conclusions?

It’s easy for teachers to underestimate the level of academic language that students need to know and use in content lessons. The examples above represent only a fraction of what students need to be successful in school. 

Language objectives are an effective way of teaching academic language by integrating it into content area lessons. For multilingual learners, as well as many English-speaking students, making academic language visible and teaching it explicitly in content lessons is critical. Their growing academic language proficiency depends on having opportunities to learn about how English works and is used in texts and tasks. 

Let me begin the discussion of language objectives by saying that there isn’t one particular way to write language objectives. Any focus on academic language will contribute to advancing language proficiency. 

Content objectives represent what students will learn about the topic being studied.

Language objectives are what students will learn about language in the lesson that will advance their English proficiency. We suggest that teachers consider the many aspects of English as they design, post, and share the lesson’s language objectives with students. For example:

Content objective: 

Students will identify the causes of the Great Depression and of the economic crisis of 2008.

Language objectives: 

Students will use conjunctions when explaining the causes of the two events.

Students will compare the causes of the events using comparative language.

In this case, specific uses of language will be reviewed, for example, by referring to a posted list of conjunctions and discussing comparative language using examples. The activity might be to discuss the events with a partner and write sentences about the causes and points of comparison on a poster. The discussion and written points will provide the opportunity for students to use conjunctions and comparative language. 

Using language objectives as a “teachable moment” advances students’ language learning; language teaching and practice are embedded into content lessons. Teachers don’t need to have a strong background in English grammar to design effective language objectives. ESL or ELD standards provide language structures and grammar points that students need to learn and are an excellent resource for teachers as you write language objectives.  

We suggest that you select and write language objectives that address the type of academic language your multilingual learners need to understand the content and perform the activities in the lesson.  

This puts the focus squarely on teaching and learning, not activities. 

Activities are not language objectives, although they may provide language practice. Here’s another example to help make the distinction clear.  Students will complete a Venn diagram is not a language objective. A Venn diagram is a tool that can help a student demonstrate meeting an objective such as, Students will read a text to find and record similarities and differences between two animals. If they complete the graphic organizer after reading, the teacher can see whether they can read for a purpose and find details. The Venn diagram might in fact be used later as a resource to support another language objective such as Students will use comparative language to discuss similarities and differences with a partner, but while it has captured information and is used to talk about that information, it is not the learning objective.

Multilingual learners require opportunities throughout their school day to learn about and practice using English, not just during time with the ESL or ELD teacher. Writing language objectives prompts teachers to think about the language needed for full participation of all students in a lesson and makes the specific aspect of English being learned and practiced visible to students. 

For further discussion on language objectives, see Developing Academic Language Using the SIOP Model and Making Content Comprehensible for Multilingual Learners: The SIOP® Model

After three school years filled with challenges, long hours, and unpredictability, teacher burnout has been common. So, it was particularly heartening that our 2022 SIOP National Conference was filled with participants who were enthusiastic, engaged, and generous in sharing their own experiences and expertise. I asked Dr. Katie Toppel, who recently joined our SIOP author team, to provide her perspective on the conference. I hope you’ll be able to use some of the ideas she shares as a new school year begins.

Attending professional conferences leaves me feeling reenergized, brimming with new ideas to put into practice and share with colleagues. This year, in particular, I was really in need of that spark. There is something so special about coming together with other passionate educators and learning with one another. I always love the opportunity to decide what sessions I want to attend because I get to choose areas for professional learning that match my personal interests and curiosities, my specific role, and the professional goals I’ve set for myself.  Sometimes it’s challenging to choose among all of the fantastic offerings! The 2022 SIOP National Conference once again exceeded all of my expectations. Educators from across the globe came together in virtual community, filled with excitement, outstanding ideas for implementing SIOP, and an openness to learn from one another. Even though it would have been wonderful to be together in person, the virtual conference experience includes the added benefit of being able to view recorded sessions afterwards. What a wonderful opportunity to listen to more, listen again, and process all the information! 

When I reflect on the sessions I attended, the keynotes, and all the interaction on Twitter and the Whova app, I am so thankful to be part of the SIOP community. The SIOP National Conference is a great learning experience for both new and established SIOP educators. What is truly amazing is the wide variety of ways presenters use SIOP as a foundation for navigating many different aspects of instruction such as technology integration, SEL, and co-teaching. On behalf of the SIOP author team, I want to extend a sincere thank you to all of the presenters who took the initiative and time to share their ideas and expertise with our community. This year’s conference theme says it perfectly—we are Better Together! 

I was excited when Jana asked me to write a blog post about the conference because writing is a helpful way to reflect and process new learning. I created a graphic for each session I attended to highlight key points, and I am excited to revisit those to share with you! 

The graphic below shows some of the memorable takeaways from a wonderful session on differentiation by Yvonne Williams. I really loved the ABC acronym Yvonne used (Activity Before Concept), emphasizing how beneficial it is to engage students in activities that set a foundation for learning prior to introducing new content concepts. Shared experiences support SIOP’s Building Background component by providing opportunities for students to engage with activities that intentionally contribute to their understanding of more complex concepts. I was reminded of the Language Experience Approach and how meaningful it is when students can communicate ideas based on their own lived experiences. It’s particularly fun when those experiences are shared within the classroom community. Yvonne included a graphic (created by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation) with bicycles to contrast equity and equality. She made the point that we don’t need to change the mode of transportation (the mode of lesson delivery), but to make adjustments based on students’ needs. She identified many strategies, supports, and scaffolds that support educators in differentiating content for multilingual learners that align with SIOP’s Comprehensible Input, Practice & Application, Interaction and Lesson Delivery components.

Social Emotional Learning (SEL) has become a priority in classrooms as a result of the pandemic and the role it plays in creating caring, just, inclusive, and equitable learning environments in which students can thrive emotionally and academically. Andrea Rients’ session on SIOP and SEL showcased many ways educators can connect to and leverage multilingual learners’ assets, such as their cultural funds of knowledge or language brokering skills, in SEL lessons.  SIOP Feature 7, Concepts linked to students’ backgrounds, is an integral part of Building Background as well as designing culturally and linguistically responsive instruction. Social Emotional Learning centers students’ feelings, stories, and experiences, so there is a natural connection to designing lessons that support students to accurately communicate what they are thinking and feeling as well as empathetically listen to their peers to gain understanding of multiple perspectives. Using SIOP as a framework for SEL lessons is a powerful way to ensure that multilingual learners’ have a voice and feel connected as valued members of their school and classroom communities.

One of the presenters I learned a lot from was Susan Patterson in her session on text engineering. SIOP Feature 5, Adaptation of content, is necessary to ensure students at different levels of language proficiency can access and understand content. One way to adapt content is through adapting texts, or text engineering. Susan emphasized the importance of amplifying, rather than simplifying, texts through the strategic use of visuals, audio, and additional text such as synonyms, translations, subheadings, or simple summaries. The goal of engineering text is not to alter a text so that it is easier to read because it is devoid of challenging content, rather to enhance a text so that it retains the same content with features that make it more comprehensible. Susan also shared a resource called The Noun Project, where she finds photos and icons to use in engineered texts. In the past I worried that adapting texts was too challenging and time consuming, so I really appreciated Susan’s session which gave some clear, actionable ideas for text engineering. 

Another session that left me feeling really excited was Shadia Salem’s presentation on technology tools that promote language development and student engagement. Technology is everywhere and we need to be selective about the tools we choose with a specific lens on how well they promote language development. Shadia shared examples of multimodal tech tools that engage all of the language domains. She talked about the value of tech tools that empower students by providing opportunities to express and represent knowledge uniquely through various options that incorporate reading, writing, speaking, and listening. I was incredibly impressed with the videos she showed of young students using lots of content vocabulary as they engaged in assignments and explained their thinking about the work.  One of the new ideas I got from Shadia’s session was using Padlet to have students share about books they are reading or have read. I love the idea of students posting selfies with their books along with written or audio content to describe the books and encourage others to read them. Shadia’s session was a great reminder to carefully choose tools that give students access to technology that supports SIOP Feature 21, Application of content and knowledge in new ways, and SIOP Feature 22, Integration of all language skills. 

Finally, I can’t leave out the fabulous keynote presentation by Kelly Yang, author of the Front Deskseries. Another benefit to the virtual conference is that I was able to enjoy Kelly’s session alongside my two elementary-aged daughters who love her books. Kelly shared about her experiences as an immigrant student who came to the United States at age six, not knowing a single word of English and who barely spoke in her first-grade classroom. Her dream was to be an author, but she questioned if that could be a reality because none of the authors of books she read looked like her. Kelly’s session contained so many important messages about the value of representation and making sure that all students see themselves, their language, their families, their cultures, and many other facets of their identities in the books, lessons, and curriculum that they encounter in school. 

These are just a few highlights from three wonderful days of learning. I am so appreciative of the excitement and dedication within our SIOP community because sharing our ideas, strategies, and techniques helps us all continue improving our instructional practices for the benefit of multilingual learners (like Kelly!) who have big dreams and deserve to achieve them. 

Now that a new school year is upon us and we are generally able to gather together again safely, it seems timely to repost about family-school partnerships. First posted in August 2020, the pandemic delayed in-person meetings which meant that readers couldn’t begin taking steps to start a similar literacy program. The program featured here has benefits for students, families, and schools. I hope you’ll garner something useful that might be implemented in your school. 

The advantages of parent involvement in their child’s school life are well documented. Students’ academic achievement is positively impacted when their parents are involved in their education. What constitutes “involvement?” A meta-analysis of studies found that the relationship between parent involvement and student achievement was strongest if parental involvement was defined as parents’ expectations for the academic achievement of their children. This means that parents, especially those of multilingual learners, need to know the academic expectations of school in order to support their children in meeting those expectations. 

There are myriad ways to create family-school partnerships with multilingual learner families. A family-school program at a middle school in Texas created a path for parent literacy called, English for All. The program was unique in 3 ways and went beyond the typical adult ESL programs offered to communities as an outreach method. First, a goal of the program was to create a student-centered school, one in which families become an integral part. Secondly, classes were geared to the needs of the parents rather than simply being an English language class. Finally, the program offered an avenue for speaking to parents about their student’s performance in the classroom. 

One of the most significant outcomes of the English for All program was that student achievement improved for those students whose parents were in the program. Based on practice standardized tests, growth in reading, writing, speaking, and listening for participating students exceeded that of students whose parents did not participate in the program. This trend is promising, although the Covid-19 pandemic interrupted standardized testing, making official data unavailable. However, the trend is consistent with research on parent involvement and its positive impact on student achievement. 

How did English for All get started?

In order to recruit participants for the program, a letter was sent home to the families of all mutlilingual students at the school describing the benefits of the program and the nature of the classes. The letter was written in both English and Spanish. Parents were asked to return a form indicating their interest. Once the number of parent participants was known, then the following 5-step process was initiated.

English for All: Five Steps 

1. Identify a team. One team member was an administrator so that the team had someone with authority to open the building, be a liaison to the superintendent and/or site principal, acquire funds as needed and so forth. The superintendent approved funds for teacher pay and for necessary supplies. Teachers on the team volunteered to participate and were paid for their time. In other programs similar to this one, teachers might give their time as a service to the community since finds aren’t always available to support teachers after regular hours. However, it is highly recommended that funds are provided to teachers, especially since most teachers already go the extra mile.

2. Assess the needs of the adult students. There were two aspects to the assessment. At the initial meeting, each parent was given a questionnaire asking about their perception of the school, what they expected to learn in the course, and specific needs they may have. The assessment revealed that, for example, some parents wanted GED preparation while others wanted to learn and practice interview skills. In addition, parents were given an entry quiz to determine their home language and their level of English proficiency. 

3. Devise a plan based on assessment results. All parents were Spanish speakers so the only consideration for planning for class groups was level of English proficiency.  Admittedly, the program couldn’t accommodate each of the requests that parents wrote on the questionnaire, but the course content was centered on what the majority wanted and set out to make it “a great place to learn” for all. 

Teachers were assigned to classes based on their strengths. One teacher had an affinity for newcomer students, so she was assigned to beginning speakers while an English teacher was assigned to the advanced group. Knowing teachers’ strengths and using them appropriately was important for the program’s success. 

It was decided that sessions would take place on Tuesday and Thursday evenings from 5:30 – 7:30. 

The team elected to include students in the program to serve as a support to their parents in the adult classes. Students could also receive tutoring in math, history, and science if they needed extra support in those subjects.

 4. Implement the plan. When parents arrived, they went to their assigned classroom where there was a sign-in sheet. Light refreshments were provided which was appreciated since many parents came straight from work. 

5. Conduct follow-up and feedback. Using feedback to inform the program was a priority and was one of the most important aspects of the five steps. For example, the original 5:30 meeting time didn’t work for some parents, so the time was changed to 6:00. This adjustment based on feedback illustrated its value. If not for the feedback, some parents may have quit coming without the teacher ever knowing why. 

Teachers also were provided feedback by the administrator who observed classes. For instance, he suggested ways to make content and language objectives more student-centered and made suggestions for changing some content. Teachers also shared with their school colleagues about what they did in their evening classes and colleagues provided feedback. Follow up and feedback were done in a spirit of collaboration. Parents appreciated the responsiveness of the team and teachers felt supported by the administrator and fellow teachers. 

Structure of English For All Classes

Classes were designed to give parents a window into their child’s school day, so each class was set up to resemble the usual classroom. Since Aldine ISD uses the SIOP Model for lesson planning and teaching, evening lessons also reflected SIOP’s components. Parents were able to experience a teaching and learning process that was similar to that of their students. 

Teachers posted content and language objectives for the lessons each evening. The team thought it was important for parents to see that lessons were well thought out and were not pulled together on the spur of the moment. Each lesson provided opportunities for parents to speak, listen, read, and write. 

The most important components of SIOP for adult learners in Aldine’s program were Lesson Preparation, Building Background, Comprehensible Input, Strategies, Interaction, and Practice & Application. (Lesson Delivery and Review & Assessment weren’t as critical in this context). Some of the specific SIOP features the teachers utilized included:

• Define clear content and language objectives.
• Plan meaningful activities that incorporate language.
• Provide opportunities to engage in academic conversations. 
• Teach specific academic vocabulary. For example, vocabulary terms were taught before practicing interview skills.
• Plan with all proficiency levels in mind. 
• Use wait time appropriately.
• Clarify concepts as needed.
• Ask higher order questions.
• Provide hands-on activities such as vocabulary cards for beginners and computer programs for the advanced group. 
• Differentiate instruction based on parents’ needs and strengths.
• Use a variety of grouping configurations, allowing parents to move around.

Parents were involved in a variety of activities such as role playing, mock interviews, matching pictures with English words and saying words aloud, and friendly competitions where each table of parents tried to be the first to complete an activity and win a door prize. Also, homework was given, and completed homework assignments were presented in class. 

The teachers created a safe classroom environment where parents felt free to actively participate. Parents were grouped in ways that ensured that each would be successful. They clapped for one another and were very supportive. Parents were from various regions of Latin America and through the activities they learned about other cultures and shared their differences. For example, during the holidays, classes made snow globes to represent their cultures. Each parent, usually along with their child, did a presentation of their snow globe in English. 

There were numerous benefits of the program. The primary purpose of this program was to increase parents’ English proficiency. In the process, it created a bridge between the school and families. Relationships that developed through the program carried over to the school environment. As mentioned, students’ academic performance improved, and there were social-emotional benefits as well. For example, a girl was having difficulty getting along with others in her class. The girl and her parent had been participating in the English for All program and during one of the evening classes, the student’s teacher and the administrator had the opportunity to discuss the issue with her. The student confided that there were a group of girls who did not like her because she was different. The next school day her teacher and the administrator met with the students and had a conversation about the issue and about how they were going to find a solution. The students apologized to the girl, and they then became friends. Subsequently, the girl began flourishing in the classroom and growing academically. 

A special thanks to Dr. Frank Cisneros, Assistant Principal in Aldine ISD, who had the vision to start the English for All program and was the administrator behind its implementation. 

Admittedly, I’ve been somewhat surprised by the pushback expressed on various social media platforms about multilingual learners and what is currently called the science of reading (SOR). First, as I discussed previously, SOR refers to the body of multi-disciplinary research evidence about how individuals learn to read. Many of these empirical studies have been around for decades and have been supported by subsequent research. The term, science of reading, has more recently become popular since an APM podcast went viral prompting the topic to become a prominent discussion in educational circles and in the media. 

It’s possible that the concerns expressed are rooted in past practices where the needs of multilingual learners were not met – or even addressed. Those of us who have been advocates for multilingual learners for decades have worked to raise teacher expectations, provide access to grade-level curricula, promote an asset orientation, and ensure that teachers make content comprehensible for multilingual learners.  

However, some of the comments reflect misconceptions about what SOR is. The most common include:

Phonics. Explicitly teaching sound-symbol correspondence is essential for students to be able to decode words automatically and accurately. But it’s not the whole enchilada. The National Reading Panel Report and the subsequent National Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth, as well as the What Works Clearinghouse Practice Guide promote the full complement of literacy skills, including development of oral language, academic vocabulary, and comprehension. 

Perhaps it seems like there is an overemphasis on phonics but that may be because many teachers have not been adequately prepared to teach students how to unlock the code. In our work with multilingual learners, we focus on ways to increase English proficiency, to scaffold instruction and to help students access grade-level text. Teachers may have lots of good ideas for building vocabulary or engaging students in partner talk to develop oral language but teachers themselves report that they typically don’t explicitly teach phonics. In a 2019 Education Week Research Center survey:

86 percent of teachers who train teachers said they teach phonics. But surveyed elementary school teachers often use strategies that contradict a phonics-first approach: Seventy-five percent said they use a technique called three cuing. This method teaches children to guess words they don’t know by using context and picture clues, and has been criticized for getting in the way of learning to decode. More than half of the teachers said they thought students could understand written passages that contained unfamiliar words, even without a good grasp of phonics.

Phonics instruction is only one piece of the complex process of literacy development, but it is critical piece and apparently underemphasized in classrooms. 

A curriculum. There seems to be a perception that SOR is a “thing.” One of my favorite stories in this regard came from a colleague who taught a language and literacy course. Toward the end of the semester a well-meaning student asked, “Do you know of an article that will help me learn what the science of reading is and how to do it?”  The professor took a deep breath and tactfully explained that what they had studied all semester is the science of reading. 

Certainly, reading instruction is most effective when teachers are provided with the necessary guidance and student materials to implement research-based literacy instruction well. The science of reading should be reflected in the materials and resources used, but a curriculum is not SOR, per se. 

“Drill and kill” is a pejorative term referring to decontextualized, repetitive skill practice that takes the fun out of learning. Research confirms that explicit teaching followed by practice is effective for multilingual learners, but practicing a skill seems to have a negative connotation. I’m a tennis player and I continue to take lessons — explicit instruction on a specific skill with lots of practice. I would be a better player if I had more time to practice! Practice builds competence.

Literacy skill practice need not be drudgery. Practice can be made meaningful in a number of ways. For example, by talking about the skill (e.g., decoding short e), reading a text and pointing out words with the sound, asking students to repeat the words, and having students write a sentence with the words and read it to a partner. There is also a vast array of digital resources that offer fun, engaging practice of literacy skills.

One-size-fits-all. This idea is an artifact of the past. Differentiation has become part of the fabric of lesson planning. Teachers have become much more aware that multilingual learners are learning to read in a language they are simultaneously learning to speak and understand so literacy instruction is not the same for every student. 

A “disservice” for multilingual learners. This misconception is unfortunate. In the past several years, I’ve observed in over 200 classrooms and have witnessed firsthand what I would consider a disservice. Too often multilingual learners are languishing as they sit for extended periods of time with a book they cannot read, and they only meet with the teacher for instruction once or twice a week. There has been lots of unproductive, lost instructional time which is a disservice to the very students who can least afford it. 

These many, many students cannot comprehend stories because they cannot decode the words in the story. There is no joy or love of reading unless students are taught to read well. 

Hopefully, with more knowledge and understanding – and with more students learning to read well by using resources that reflect the research — these misconceptions will fade away. After all, we all want the same thing: students who are confident, proficient readers and writers, preferably in more than one language. 

An elaborated podcast on this topic can be found at Leading Literacy https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/leading-literacy/id1566671003?i=1000574657928

When was the last time you were in a situation where colleagues were using an acronym or educational term that everyone seemed to know…except you?  

We use a lot of specific terminology and acronyms in education, and new ones seem to crop up regularly. When it comes to multilingual learners, terms vary by geographic region, and certain terms are preferred over others by some groups or organizations. A version of this topic was posted in 2016 and since its first posting, there have been additional changes which warrant an update. Consider the information here as a resource 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?!) 

English learners (EL), or English language learners (ELL).  These terms have been 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. 

Multilingual learner (ML). Becoming widely used to acknowledge the home language assets these students possess in addition to acquiring English. For some students, English is their second, third (or more) language making the term more accurate in capturing their linguistic competencies. “Multilingual learner” is used by WIDA, appears in some U.S. Department of Education documents and academic publications. 

Emergent bilingual (EB). Another term for students who are not yet proficient in English but are moving toward becoming fully bilingual. They continue to develop their home language while learning English. The term demonstrates the value of both the home language and English. Emergent bilingual is the official term adopted by, for example, Texas and Illinois. 

Limited English proficient (LEP). No longer used because of its deficit connotation. An artifact of the past, it appears in federal law so 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 (L2). Used widely internationally and in the literature to indicate a student who is learning the official language used in a country’s schools in addition to the home language.

Dual language learner (DLL). Used specifically for children under the age of five who have at least one parent or guardian who speaks a language other than English at home. These children are developing their native language proficiency while learning English simultaneously. 

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

English learner student with a disability (ELSWD) or dually identified student. These terms are used for students who have been formally identified as having a disability and have an IEP. Their dual status means that they are entitled to full English learner services including daily English language development (ELD) in addition to special education services.

Long-term English Learners (LTEL). These students have been enrolled in U.S. schools and designated as English learners for six or more years and have not yet met exit criteria. Definitions and exit criteria vary by state and district. Some specify fewer years as EL or differ on criteria needed to exit English learner services. 

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 distinction these terms offer is important for providing appropriate programs and services.

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. 

Non-English Language Background (NELB). A school designated term for students in homes in which a language other than or in addition to English is used. That is, any home other than a monolingual English-speaking home. 

Speakers of languages other than English (LOTE) or primary home language other than English (PHLOTE).  These terms describe students who have the asset of one or more languages in their repertoire. Used in dual language programs. 

As you can see, some terms depict the unique needs of subgroups of learners, e.g., LTELs, ELSWD, and SIFE, and are critical for ensuring that schools provide appropriate programs and services for them. However, when referring to other students learning the language of school, it would be helpful to educators, researchers, policy makers, students, and their parents if there were a single agreed-upon term. Uniformity is unlikely though since educational terminology and related acronyms are ever evolving.