Aligning English Language Proficiency Standards With Content Standards: Shared Opportunity and Responsibility Across English Learner Education and Content Areas

Abstract

The Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 mandates that English language proficiency (ELP) standards align with content standards. As the fast-growing population of English learners (ELs) is expected to meet college- and career-ready content standards, the purpose of this article is to highlight key issues in aligning ELP standards with content standards. The overarching question is how to align ELP standards with academically rigorous and language-intensive disciplinary practices of content standards while respecting and maintaining the nature of the discipline within each area. I begin by describing contributions and shortcomings of content standards and ELP standards. Next, I propose consideration of three components in aligning ELP standards with content standards: (a) norms of disciplinary practices across content areas, (b) developmental progressions of disciplinary practices across K–12 grade levels or bands and across content areas, and (c) language use across levels of English proficiency. For each component, the challenges in establishing alignment and potential trade-offs in addressing these challenges are discussed. Finally, I highlight how these challenges present opportunities for substantive collaboration between EL education and content areas to move these fields forward and ensure ELs achieve academically rigorous content standards while developing ELP.

Keywords

bilingual/bicultural educational policy equity literacy mathematics education policy analysis science education

English learners (ELs) make up the fastest growing subset of the U.S. student population. According to the most recent statistics, ELs constituted 9.5% of the public school population, or an estimated 4.8 million students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2018). In addition to their increasing number, the EL population is becoming increasingly diverse in terms of their home country and language, proficiency in their home language, prior language learning experiences, prior schooling in their home country and/or the United States, and prior knowledge in content areas, to name a few. This heterogeneity should be considered in EL education (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017, 2018).

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 mandates that English language proficiency (ELP) standards address (a) the four domains of speaking, listening, reading, and writing; (b) different levels of ELP (shortened to “proficiency” hereafter); and (c) alignment with content standards (U.S. Department of Education, 2015, p. 24). Unlike language domains and proficiency levels, which fall squarely within the realm of EL education, alignment of ELP standards with content standards is less likely to be familiar to EL educators, since it requires extensive knowledge of multiple sets of content standards and underlying disciplinary norms. The challenge of ensuring alignment is intensified by the arrival of college- and career-ready standards that are both academically rigorous and language intensive with all students, especially ELs (Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2012; Lee, Quinn, & Valdés, 2013). As the sizable and fast-growing population of ELs is expected to meet these content standards, issues in aligning ELP standards with content standards merit serious consideration.

The purpose of this article is to highlight key issues in aligning ELP standards with content standards. Specifically, I propose consideration of three components. The first component involves norms of disciplinary practices across content areas (see Figure 1), including the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for English language arts (ELA; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices [NGA Center] & CCSSO, 2010a) and mathematics (NGA Center & CCSSO, 2010c) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States, 2013a). The second component involves developmental progressions of disciplinary practices across K–12 grade levels or bands and across content areas (see Figure 2). The third component involves language use across levels of proficiency (see Figure 3). For each component, challenges in establishing alignment and potential trade-offs in addressing these challenges are discussed.

Figure 1.

Norms of disciplinary practices across content areas.

Figure 2.

Developmental progressions of disciplinary practices across K–12 grade levels or bands and across content areas.

Figure 3.

Language use across levels of proficiency.

While the article addresses each component separately for conceptual clarity, addressing any component requires consideration of the other components. Moreover, the three components may need to be addressed sequentially, since each component depends on the previous ones (e.g., ELP standards need to consider what counts as a disciplinary practice according to disciplinary norms before considering when the disciplinary practice is expected according to developmental progressions). Throughout the article, the disciplinary practice of argument is used across content areas to illustrate the interrelationships and sequential nature of the three components.

Since ELP standards must align with content standards (and not the other way around), content areas must be the point of departure for ensuring alignment. Thus, I take the vantage point of content areas while emphasizing that alignment of ELP standards with content standards is a shared opportunity and responsibility that calls on the expertise of educators across EL education and content areas.

In this article, discipline refers to a community of experts who pursue knowledge in a particular domain (e.g., scientists). Content area refers to the teaching and learning of a discipline in school (e.g., science education). Content standards refer to the policy initiatives that reflect the latest knowledge in a discipline and current conceptualizations of how students learn in that content area (e.g., NGSS). The overarching question is how to align ELP standards and content standards across EL education and content areas while respecting and maintaining the nature of the discipline within each area.

Underlying Issues With Content Standards and ELP Standards

The notion of alignment (also referred to as “correspondence”) between ELP standards and content standards has appeared consistently in the history of federal legislation since the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (for details, see Lee, 2018). Most recently, the ESSA of 2015 reinforced the mandate for alignment:

Each State plan shall demonstrate that the State has adopted English language proficiency standards that–(i) are derived from the 4 recognized domains of speaking, listening, reading, and writing; (ii) address the different proficiency levels of English learners; and (iii) are aligned [emphasis added] with the challenging State academic standards. (U.S. Department of Education, 2015, p. 24)

To situate the issue of alignment, I begin by describing underlying issues that content areas and EL education are each contending with in aligning ELP standards with content standards. The discussion highlights the contributions and shortcomings of content standards and ELP standards, which present both opportunities and challenges for alignment.

Current content standards make several inroads when it comes to alignment with ELP standards. First, the content standards in ELA, mathematics, and science were initially developed in the early 1990s and have been evolving for the past three decades to reflect changes in the education system and society. Second, today’s content standards reflect contemporary thinking in each discipline (e.g., what counts as science) and the current knowledge base on teaching and learning in each content area (e.g., how children learn science). Third, they provide guidance for implementation in the present (e.g., how the education system needs to be [re]structured to enable implementation of science standards). Fourth, they offer the roadmap for revisions and improvements as each discipline advances and the knowledge base on teaching and learning in each content area continues to evolve. Finally, unlike the previous generation of content standards that was developed within each content area, the current generation of content standards makes connections across content areas. The CCSS for ELA (NGA Center & CCSSO, 2010a) identifies connections to literacy across content areas, and the NGSS identifies connections to the CCSS for mathematics (NGSS Lead States, 2013b) and ELA (NGSS Lead States, 2013c). Moreover, the current generation of content standards consistently highlights disciplinary practices within and across content areas (Stage, Asturias, Cheuk, Daro, & Hampton, 2013).

Content standards also have shortcomings when it comes to alignment with ELP standards. First, content standards are a “moving target” because they are continually being developed and revised. Second, while connections identified across content areas are an improvement over the previous generation of content standards that remained in silos, there has been a lack of communication and collaboration among writers of different sets of content standards. As a result, convergences and discrepancies across content standards have begun to emerge (e.g., Lee, 2017).

Similarly, current ELP standards are poised to foster alignment with content standards. First, unlike the previous generation of ELP standards, which was developed in isolation from content areas (e.g., Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, 1997), current ELP standards aim to reflect the language used to engage in content learning (Boals et al., 2015). Second, whereas the previous generation of ELP standards was developed by individual states, current ELP standards were developed by multistate consortia (with several notable exceptions, described below). The creation of multistate consortia has generated increased collaboration and sharing of resources across states to support ELs in acquiring proficiency and attaining content standards. Recent efforts to establish a common definition of ELs across multistate consortia have further expanded this collaboration (Linquanti, Cook, Bailey, & MacDonald, 2016).

However, ELP standards have a primary shortcoming—the lack of a general consensus on what language is and how language is learned in EL education (Lee, 2018; Valdés, Kibler, & Walqui, 2014). The lack of a general consensus on these fundamental constructs in EL education presents a major challenge to aligning ELP standards with content standards. If the field of EL education attempts to establish a general consensus on what language is and how language is learned, EL educators and researchers might look to how the fields of ELA, mathematics, and science education came to a general consensus on frameworks reflecting their disciplines. Through heated debates, ELA education agreed on both whole language and phonics (National Research Council [NRC], 1998), mathematics education agreed on both problem-solving and computation (NRC, 2001), and science education agreed on both science inquiry and content (NRC, 1996). Currently, EL education has not agreed on how to resolve or bring together the multiple theoretical perspectives on what counts as language and how ELs learn language.

In the absence of an agreed-on framework, there are six sets of ELP standards, each with its own theoretical orientation toward what is language and how language is learned. The ELP standards adopted by the majority of states in the nation were developed by two consortia: (a) WIDA (WIDA Consortium, 2012; https://www.wida.us/membership/states/) serving 35 states and four territories and representing approximately 37% of ELs in the nation (NCES, 2018) and (b) English Language Proficiency Assessment for the 21st Century (ELPA21; CCSSO, 2014; https://www.elpa21.org/about/governance-structure) serving 10 states and representing approximately 10% of ELs in the nation. Of the remaining five states that are not affiliated with either consortium, Connecticut (serving 1% of ELs in the nation) adopted ELP standards that were nearly identical to ELPA21 standards, while Arizona, California, New York, and Texas developed their own state-specific standards. These four states represent approximately 52% of ELs in the nation—1% in Arizona, 27% in California, 5% in New York, and 19% in Texas.

The underlying issues with content standards and ELP standards, described above, present both opportunities and challenges for alignment. While content areas are contending with convergences and discrepancies in disciplinary practices, EL education is contending with a lack of general consensus on ELP standards. Despite these challenges, EL education in collaboration with content areas must forge ahead with ensuring alignment of ELP standards with content standards (see the “Charting a Path Forward” section). The aim of this article is to contribute to the movement toward alignment and to push the fields of EL education and content areas so that all students receive an academically rigorous and equitable education.

Alignment Across Content Areas: Norms of Disciplinary Practices

The issue of alignment has gained heightened significance in the wake of content standards in ELA, mathematics, and science that present an “unprecedented level of language demands” (Boals et al., 2015, p. 123). In particular, the content standards call for all students, including ELs, to engage in academically rigorous and language-intensive disciplinary practices, such as arguing from evidence and constructing explanations (Lee et al., 2013). To align with content standards, ELP standards must reflect the language learning opportunities and demands of content standards. Specifically, ELP standards must reflect the language needed to engage in disciplinary practices of content standards.

Norms of Disciplinary Practices Across Content Areas

In response to the ESEA Flexibility of 2012 (U.S. Department of Education, 2012), the CCSSO (2012) developed a framework for evaluating alignment (or correspondence) of ELP standards to the CCSS for ELA and mathematics and the NGSS. This document, Framework for English Language Proficiency Development Standards Corresponding to the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards (abbreviated as ELPD Framework), provides guidance to states as they adapt or develop ELP standards that reflect the sophisticated language that ELs need in order to meet rigorous content standards. In particular, the ELPD Framework highlights language-intensive disciplinary practices across ELA, mathematics, and science (see Table 1).

Table 1

Disciplinary Practices Across ELA, Mathematics, and Science

ELA Practices^a	Mathematical Practices^b	Science and Engineering Practices^c
Demonstrate independence Build strong content knowledge Respond to the varying demands of audience, task, purpose, and discipline Comprehend as well as critique Value evidence Use technology and digital media strategically and capably Understand other perspectives and cultures	Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them Reason abstractly and quantitatively Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others Model with mathematics Use appropriate tools strategically Attend to precision Look for and make use of structure Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning	Ask questions (for science) and define problems (for engineering) Develop and use models Plan and carry out investigations Analyze and interpret data Use mathematics and computational thinking Construct explanations (for science) and design solutions (for engineering) Engage in argument from evidence Obtain, evaluate, and communicate information

Note. ELA = English language arts.

NGA Center & CCSSO (2010a, p. 7).

NGA Center & CCSSO (2010b, pp. 6–8).

NRC (2012, pp. 41–82).

As shown in Table 1, much attention has been paid to convergences of disciplinary practices across content areas (Stage et al., 2013). While similar in name, the nature of these practices and the language needed to engage in them may vary from one discipline to the next. For example, although the disciplinary practice of argument is emphasized consistently across the CCSS for ELA and mathematics and the NGSS, what counts as argument (i.e., disciplinary norms of argument) differs across these sets of content standards, and these differences are grounded in differences in research literature across these content areas (see Lee, 2017 for differences between ELA and science). The CCSS for ELA states that “different disciplines call for different types of evidence (e.g., documentary evidence in history, experimental evidence in science)” (NGA Center & CCSSO, 2010a, p. 7). The guide for implementing the NGSS also states that “the nature of an effective argument and what counts as evidence is specific to each subject” (NRC, 2015, p. 31). In an NRC workshop summary report on ELA/literacy for science education at the intersection of the CCSS and NGSS, David Pearson, chair of the steering committee for the workshop, expressed that “the details underlying these differences remain ‘an open question’” (NRC, 2014, p. 78). At present, the extent of convergences and discrepancies in norms of disciplinary practices across content areas is unknown.

As ELs come from varied cultures within the United States and abroad, they bring their cultural norms and practices that may interact with disciplinary norms and practices in content areas. For example, the disciplinary practice of argument in school may either complement or conflict with ELs’ home and community practices. It is important to acknowledge that ELs come to academic learning with rich cultural and linguistic resources and to capitalize on their prior knowledge and experiences. For example, argumentative discussion is a major feature of social interaction among Haitian adults and can be seen in the way people in Haiti bay odyans, or “give talk” (Hudicourt-Barnes, 2003). When in a culturally affirming environment, Haitian American students participate in animated arguments about scientific phenomena in a way that is characteristic of Haitian culture and congruent with scientific practices (Warren, Ballenger, Ogonowski, Rosebery, & Hudicourt-Barnes, 2001).

The Challenge and Trade-Offs in Establishing Alignment

Alignment in terms of norms of disciplinary practices across content areas (Figure 1) raises the following question: How do ELP standards reflect language use for different norms of disciplinary practices across content areas? This question highlights a challenge and trade-offs.

Given the unknown extent of convergences and discrepancies in the norms of disciplinary practices across content areas, EL education must decide whether to align ELP standards (a) with each content area specifically, (b) across content areas broadly, or (c) through some combination of both approaches. Choosing among these options involves trade-offs. If ELP standards are aligned with each content area specifically, they may reflect norms of disciplinary practices more accurately but could also become unwieldy and minimally useful. Alternatively, if ELP standards are aligned across content areas broadly, they may be more practically feasible to implement but could fall short of accurately reflecting norms of disciplinary practices. A further concern in the latter scenario is that differential weights may be given to certain content areas. It is likely that ELA and mathematics would be prioritized over science and other content areas due to tradition (i.e., an emphasis on literacy and numeracy skills) and policy (i.e., accountability) in the education system. In light of this challenge, EL education will need to consider trade-offs in aligning ELP standards with norms of disciplinary practices across content areas.

Alignment Across K–12 Grade Levels or Bands and Across Content Areas: Developmental Progressions of Disciplinary Practices

Once the norms of disciplinary practices in each content area are defined, ELP standards need to consider expectations for engaging in disciplinary practices at each grade level or band for K–12 (i.e., developmental progressions of disciplinary practices) and across content areas.

Developmental Progressions of Disciplinary Practices Across K–12 Grade Levels or Bands and Across Content Areas

The CCSS for ELA and mathematics do not identify developmental progressions of disciplinary practices across K–12 grade levels or bands: “The research base to document any given progression from K through grade 12 simply does not exist” (Pearson, 2013, p. 243). As a result, readers have to extract implicit expectations of developmental progressions from individual standards. The NGSS, on the other hand, identify developmental progressions of science and engineering practices across K–2, 3–5, 6–8, and 9–12 grade bands (NGSS Lead States, 2013d), and these developmental progressions guided the development of individual standards statements (called “performance expectations” in the NGSS).

Currently, there is little available information about convergences and discrepancies of developmental progressions of disciplinary practices across content areas. This is largely due to (a) the absence of developmental progressions of disciplinary practices in the CCSS for ELA and mathematics and (b) a lack of explicit and careful attention to convergences and discrepancies in disciplinary practices across content areas, as described in the previous section. One exception is the recent attention paid to the disciplinary practice of argument, which is emphasized consistently across the CCSS and NGSS. When argument is expected developmentally (i.e., developmental progressions of argument) and differs across these sets of content standards, these differences are grounded in differences in research literature across these content areas (see Lee, 2017 for differences between ELA and science).

Specifically, the CCSS for ELA and NGSS differs on whether K–5 children are able to engage in argument. The CCSS for ELA expects “opinion” for K–5 children. Meanwhile, the term argument does not appear until Grade 6, with associated constructs of “evidence,” “claim,” and “reasoning” appearing gradually over the span of Grades 3–8. The CCSS for ELA (NGA Center & CCSSO, 2010b) states the following:

Although young children are not able to produce fully developed logical arguments, they develop a variety of methods. . . . These kinds of expository structures are steps on the road to argument. In grades K-5, the term “opinion” is used to refer to this developing form of argument. (p. 23)

In contrast to the CCSS for ELA, the NGSS expects the disciplinary practice of argument from the earliest grade level. A Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012), which informed the development of the NGSS, states the following:

Young students can begin by constructing an argument for their own interpretation of the phenomena they observe and of any data they collect. They need instructional support to go beyond simply making claims—that is, to include reasons or references to evidence and to begin to distinguish evidence from opinion. (p. 73)

The developmental progression of argument in the CCSS for ELA illustrates why it is more challenging to identify grade level or band expectations for disciplinary practices with elementary students than with secondary students. Typically, disciplinary norms are more accessible to students at higher grade levels (e.g., closer proximity between what literary critics do and what high school students are able to do in the discipline) than to students at lower grade levels (e.g., wider distance between what literary critics do and what elementary students are able to do in the discipline). In the CCSS for ELA, secondary students are expected to engage in argument from Grade 6, while K–5 elementary students give their opinions as “steps on the road to argument” (NGA Center & CCSSO, 2010b, p. 23).

It should be noted that the deficit view of children’s ability to engage in argument in ELA is refuted by emerging intervention studies with elementary students (see literature review in Lee, 2017). These studies indicate that, when provided with effective instruction, elementary students are able to grasp the complexity of an issue and develop an argument in a sophisticated way. Thus, the view of children’s ability to engage in argument evident in emerging intervention studies in ELA is consistent with the view in science education. This case highlights the need for convergences in disciplinary practices across grade levels or bands and across content areas.

The Challenges and Trade-Offs in Establishing Alignment

Alignment in terms of disciplinary practices across K–12 grade levels or bands and across content areas (Figure 2) raises the following question: How do ELP standards reflect language use at different grade levels or bands and across content areas? This question highlights two challenges and trade-offs.

The first challenge is that EL education must decide whether to use (a) different ELP standards at each grade level, (b) the same ELP standards across K–12, or (c) some combination of both approaches (e.g., K–2, 3–5, 6–8, and 9–12 grade bands). For example, should ELP standards aligned with mathematics standards at the 3–5 grade band be the same as or different from ELP standards aligned with mathematics standards at the 6–8 grade band? The second challenge is that, given the unknown extent of convergences and discrepancies in developmental progressions of disciplinary practices across content areas, EL education must decide whether to align ELP standards (a) with each content area specifically, (b) across content areas broadly, or (c) through some combination of both approaches. For example, should ELP standards aligned with mathematics standards at the 3–5 grade band be the same as or different from ELP standards aligned with science standards at the 3–5 grade band? This second challenge is similar to the one described in the previous section, as both relate to convergences and discrepancies in disciplinary practices across content areas, except that this challenge needs to consider learning progressions in disciplinary practices across content areas as an added layer of complexity.

In addressing both challenges, there are trade-offs between accurate reflection of content standards, on the one hand, and practicality, on the other. For example, by using different ELP standards at each grade level that are aligned with each content area specifically (i.e., both options “a” above), ELP standards may reflect developmental progressions of disciplinary practices more accurately but could become unwieldy and minimally useful. Alternatively, by using the same ELP standards across K–12 that are aligned across content areas broadly (i.e., both options “b” above), they may be more practically feasible to implement but could fall short of accurately reflecting developmental progressions of disciplinary practices. In light of these challenges, EL education will need to consider trade-offs in aligning ELP standards with developmental progressions of disciplinary practices across K–12 grade levels or bands and across content areas.

Alignment Across Levels of ELP

Once the norms and developmental progressions of disciplinary practices are defined, ELP standards need to articulate how ELs across proficiency levels engage in those practices. While content standards expect all ELs to engage in disciplinary practices, ELs at different levels of proficiency use language differently.

Language Use Across Levels of ELP

ELP standards should identify ways in which ELs engage in disciplinary practices using language commensurate with their proficiency level. However, existing ELP standards fail to demonstrate how ELs across proficiency levels can engage in disciplinary practices. ELP standards are typically organized in such a way that language functions increase in cognitive expectations across proficiency levels. For example, to meet the cognitive expectation of “apply,” ELs at different levels of proficiency perform different language functions suited to their particular proficiency level: “label” at Level 1, “define” at Level 2, “describe” at Level 3, “compare and contrast” at Level 4, and “explain” at Level 5 (for details, see Lee, 2018). The underlying assumption is that ELs at lower levels of proficiency are only capable of doing lower cognitive reasoning as they engage in disciplinary practices of content standards that are expected of all students, including ELs. Thus, instead of holding constant the cognitive expectations across proficiency levels, ELP standards lower the cognitive expectations for ELs at lower levels of proficiency.

The Challenge and Trade-Offs in Establishing Alignment

Alignment in terms of language use across proficiency levels (Figure 3) raises the following question: How do ELP standards maintain the same cognitive expectations for disciplinary practices while varying the expectations for language use across proficiency levels? This question highlights a challenge and trade-offs in aligning ELP standards with content standards in terms of language use across proficiency levels. In particular, this question presents a challenge with ELs at lower levels of proficiency who may be perfectly capable of grade-appropriate cognitive work despite needing support to demonstrate their abilities.

Students at lower levels of proficiency, by definition, can do less with language (i.e., English) in oral and written forms. Yet they are expected to engage in disciplinary practices in cognitively demanding ways according to content standards. Therefore, use of home language may be critical to supporting ELs at lower levels of proficiency to engage in disciplinary practices. In addition, nonlinguistic modalities (e.g., drawings, symbols, equations, tables, and graphs) are essential semiotic resources of the disciplines and can enable ELs to communicate their ideas (Grapin, 2019). For example, ELs make strategic use of digital media (ELA), graphs (mathematics), and models (science) as they engage in disciplinary practices.

How and to what extent home language and nonlinguistic modalities are considered in aligning ELP standards with content standards involve trade-offs. Whereas home language and nonlinguistic modalities can support ELs to engage in disciplinary practices, ELP standards are ultimately focused on developing students’ proficiency in English. In light of this challenge, EL education will need to consider trade-offs in aligning ELP standards with content standards in terms of language use across proficiency levels.

Charting a Path Forward

With the arrival of rigorous content standards and the fast-growing population of ELs in K–12 schools, EL education and content areas face both opportunities and challenges. Federal legislation mandating that ELP standards align with content standards calls for increased attention to how ELs across proficiency levels use language to engage in disciplinary practices of content standards. This article highlights key issues in aligning ELP standards with content standards, focusing specifically on challenges and trade-offs in establishing alignment. In this section, I discuss how these challenges present opportunities for EL education and content areas to move forward with the tasks that lie ahead.

Conclusions and Implications for Future Research

The first component of alignment involves norms of disciplinary practices across content areas. The CCSS and NGSS recognize that disciplinary norms differ across content areas, but they do not offer guidance on these differences (for example, see Lee, 2017 on what counts as argument in ELA vs. science). As a result, we must consider how ELP standards reflect language use for different norms of disciplinary practices across content areas.

The second component of alignment involves developmental progressions of disciplinary practices across K–12 grade levels or bands and across content areas. Each content area has expectations (whether implicitly or explicitly stated) for what students can do with disciplinary practices at each grade level or band. Moreover, developmental progressions differ across content areas (for example, see Lee, 2017 on when children are developmentally able to engage in argument in ELA vs. science). As a result, we must consider how ELP standards reflect language use at different grade levels or bands and across content areas.

The third component of alignment involves language use across proficiency levels. Current ELP standards typically confound proficiency in English with cognitive expectations of disciplinary practices, thus lowering the cognitive expectations for ELs at lower levels of proficiency (Lee, 2018). Therefore, we must consider how ELP standards maintain the same cognitive expectations for disciplinary practices while varying the expectations for language use across proficiency levels.

The challenges of aligning ELP standards with content standards are compounded at multiple levels and can be illustrated with the disciplinary practice of argument. First, ELP standards need to consider what counts as argument across content areas (Component 1). Once disciplinary norms of argument are defined, ELP standards need to consider when argument is expected across K–12 grade levels or bands and across content areas (Component 2). Once disciplinary norms and developmental progressions of argument are defined, ELP standards need to consider how ELs across proficiency levels engage in argument (Component 3). Addressing any component requires consideration of the other components. Moreover, the three components may need to be addressed sequentially, since each component depends on the previous ones.

Each of the three components of alignment offers areas for future research addressing theory, policy, and practice. For each component, future research could address such questions as “What are potential theoretical frameworks to guide alignment?”; “How do policymakers apply these frameworks for alignment to the development and revision of ELP standards and content standards?”; and “What are the consequences of classroom implementation of ELP standards aligned with content standards on ELs’ learning and achievement?”

Collaboration Across EL Education and Content Areas

Aligning ELP standards with content standards faces various challenges. To start with, there are underlying issues with content standards and ELP standards, which present both opportunities and challenges for alignment. Content areas are contending with convergences and discrepancies in disciplinary practices, while EL education is contending with the absence of an agreed-on framework for ELP standards. Moreover, there has been a lack of substantive communication and collaboration between EL education and content areas (as an exception, see Understanding Language Initiative, 2012). In the era of alignment, the tradition of working in silos is no longer viable.

Challenges in establishing alignment offer opportunities that could prove mutually beneficial to EL education and content areas. For EL educators, collaboration with content areas could promote understanding of content standards and help ensure that ELP standards reflect the language needed to engage in disciplinary practices. For content area educators, collaboration with EL education could help highlight the language learning opportunities and demands that content standards present to ELs. It could also provide the impetus for improving content standards and addressing convergences and discrepancies of disciplinary practices across multiple sets of content standards. Through this mutually beneficial collaboration, EL education and content areas can each take a seat at the table to ensure ELs achieve academically rigorous content standards.

Initially, the work may involve collaboration among scholars to establish conceptualizations of alignment and policymakers to apply these conceptualizations to the development and revision of ELP standards. Considering the history of how the fields of ELA education (NRC, 1998), mathematics education (NRC, 2001), and science education (NRC, 1996) came to a general consensus on frameworks reflecting their disciplines, a general consensus on a framework for ELP standards would involve resolving and bringing together multiple theoretical perspectives on what counts as language and how ELs learn language.

Then, the current six sets of ELP standards across the nation would be considered, and a single set of ELP standards would be supported that echoes the general consensus in the field. Next, individual states would decide to fully adopt, adapt, or reject these standards. Eventually, this theoretical and policy foundation would make it possible for practitioners to implement ELP standards in a conceptually sound and practically feasible manner in the classroom.

In identifying the three key components for aligning ELP standards with content standards, this article highlights challenges in establishing alignment and potential trade-offs in addressing these challenges. While any approach to aligning ELP standards with content standards will involve trade-offs, purposeful decision-making requires strategic consideration of the multiple components of alignment, including disciplinary norms, developmental progressions, and proficiency levels. A general consensus on ELP standards in the field would offer an entry point for content areas to establish substantive collaboration with EL education. Moreover, just as each set of content standards should be seen as “a living document that is constantly scrutinized” (Pearson, 2013, p. 243), ELP standards will also need to be continually revisited and revised. Aligning ELP standards with content standards can help move these fields forward by reflecting the current knowledge base, providing guidance for implementation in the present, and offering a roadmap for revisions and improvements in the future.

Footnotes

Author

OKHEE LEE, PhD, is a professor at New York University, 239 Greene Street, Room 620, New York, NY 10003; olee@nyu.edu . Her research areas include science education, language and culture, and teacher education.

References

Boals

Kenyon

D. M.

Blair

Cranley

M. E.

Wilmes

Wright

L. J.

(2015). Transformation in K-12 English language proficiency assessment: Changing contexts, changing constructs. Review of Research in Education, 39, 122–164.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Framework for English language proficiency development standards corresponding to the Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: Author.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2014). English language proficiency (ELP) standards with correspondences to K-12 English language arts (ELA), mathematics, and science practices, K-12 ELA standards, and 6-12 literacy standards. Retrieved from http://www.elpa21.org/sites/default/files/Final%204_30%20ELPA21%20Standards_1.pdf

Grapin

S. E.

(2019). Multimodality in the new content standards era: Implications for English learners. TESOL Quarterly, 53(1), 30–55.

Hudicourt-Barnes

(2003). The use of argumentation in Haitian Creole science classrooms. Harvard Educational Review, 73(10), 73–93.

Lee

(2017). Common Core State Standards for ELA/literacy and Next Generation Science Standards: Convergences and discrepancies using argument as an example. Educational Researcher, 46(2), 90–102.

Lee

(2018). English language proficiency standards aligned with content standards. Educational Researcher, 47(5), 317–327.

Lee

Quinn

Valdés

(2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223–233.

Linquanti

Cook

H. G.

Bailey

A. L.

MacDonald

(2016). Moving toward a more common definition of English learner: Collected guidance for states and multi-state assessment consortia. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

10.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Promoting the educational success of children and youth learning English: Promising futures. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

11.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). English learners in STEM subjects: Transforming classrooms, schools, and lives. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

12.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). The condition of education 2018 (NCES 2018-144). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

13.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010a). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/ELA_Standards1.pdf

14.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010b). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Appendix A: Research supporting key elements of the standards, glossary of key terms. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A.pdf

15.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010c). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/wpcontent/uploads/Math_Standards1.pdf

16.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

17.

National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

18.

National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

19.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

20.

National Research Council. (2014). Literacy for science: Exploring the intersection of the Next Generation Science Standards and Common Core for ELA standards: A workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

21.

National Research Council. (2015). Guide to implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

22.

Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013a). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

23.

Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013b). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Appendix L–Connections to the Common Core State Standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org

24.

Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013c). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Appendix M–Connections to the Common Core State Standards for literacy in science and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org

25.

Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013d). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Appendix F–Science and engineering practices in the NGSS. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org

26.

Pearson

P. D.

(2013). Research foundations of the Common Core State Standards in English language arts. In Neuman

Gambrell

(Eds.), Quality reading instruction in the age of Common Core State Standards (pp. 237–262). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

27.

Stage

E. K.

Asturias

Cheuk

Daro

P. A.

Hampton

S. B.

(2013). Opportunities and challenges in Next Generation Standards. Science, 340(6130), 276–277.

28.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. (1997). ESL standards for pre-K-12 students. Alexandria, VA: Author.

29.

Understanding Language Initiative. (2012). Language, literacy, and learning in the content areas. Retrieved from http://ell.stanford.edu/

30.

U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Elementary and Secondary Education Act Flexibility. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/polcy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html

31.

U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114s1177enr/pdf/BILLS-114s1177enr.pdf

32.

Valdés

Kibler

Walqui

(2014). Changes in the expertise of ESL professionals: Knowledge and action in an era of new standards. Alexandria, VA: TESOL International Association.

33.

Warren

Ballenger

Ogonowski

Rosebery

Hudicourt-Barnes

(2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday language. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529–552.

34.

WIDA Consortium. (2012). Amplification of the English language development standards. Madison, WI: Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. Retrieved from http://www.wida.us/standards/eld.aspx