Deconstructing the LTEL Label

By Carly Spina

“She doesn’t like me.”
“He rolled his eyes at me when I spoke Spanish.”
“She doesn’t think I’m smart.”
“I’m not good at science, and he knows that.”

The above statements are painful to read. But these are statements that middle school students have shared with multilingual (ML) educators over the years. Do you know to whom the students are referring? Not their peers, but their teachers. It is my hope that you don’t have students in your schools that have said these things or experienced these things, but as I talk with teachers across the country, I fear that your students may have said similar things or experienced similar things. This must be a wake-up call for educators and leaders. This has to drive us. This has to propel us forward to creating CHANGE in our schools, because all of these statements are dangerous. If students feel these things from the adults who serve them, we can’t feign shock if or when students disengage.

The above statements were all shared by students who the field would identify as “Long Term English Learners.” This means that they have been identified as a language learner for 5 years or more and have not yet “exited” services based on an ACCESS composite score of 4.8. If we know that all of the latest research suggests that it takes closer to 7-10 years to deeply develop language, then why do we assign this additional label to students? Research suggests that this should be the norm.

It must be noted that like multilingual learners, LTEL students are not a homogenous group. There are many factors that can impact and influence language acquisition. Therefore, it is inappropriate to make blanket statements about LTEL students.

As I ask folks in education to share one word that describes LTEL students, many will supply the word “unmotivated.” By describing a student as being unmotivated, we are doing them a disservice. It is more appropriate to be specific about what does not motivate the individual student and instead tap into their skills, passions, talents, and interests. By building those things into our instruction, we can shift our focus to things that could really empower the students we serve.

As schools plan for multi-tiered systems of support for students, we must also be cognizant of our tier 1 services. If we examine across five or more years of both content and language instruction, how many of us can say with 100% confidence and certainty that all five of those years provided students with adequate support at the tier 1 level (meaning high-quality, accessible instruction appropriate for the students’ language needs)? Furthermore, it’s important to note the variations of programming available to students, especially as they move in and out of school districts (even if they’re geographically very close). If a student spent two years in a bilingual program, but then moved to a school district where it wasn’t offered and was given TPI services, how does that impact their language journey? Will they be assigned the LTEL label in just a few short years?

As we focus closer on language growth and development of our students, no matter how long they’ve been in a TPI/TBE/DL program, we must keep in mind that one annual language assessment cannot be the sole indicator of how we view or instruct our students. Our classrooms and schools are swimming in data, so it’s important that we take time to unpack how we use it. This is not to suggest that we add in additional assessments. On the contrary, I’m suggesting that we take the measures that we are already using and be more strategic. For example, if students were recently posting a video on Seesaw about a science experiment, we can take that same video and use it as a speaking sample. We can use a WIDA speaking rubric and measure speaking growth on that rubric. Better yet, we can have students take a student-friendly speaking rubric, assess themselves, and track their own growth over time.

As many folks will point out, language growth isn’t always linear. This means that it is critical that we remind ourselves and our students that depending on our interest, our passion for the subject, or our understanding of the topic, we may sometimes have less or more to say about the topic. This is true for us as adults as well. If I’m interested in the topic, I’ll have much more to say about it, and I’ll speak about it much more confidently. But if I don't have much to say about a particular topic, this doesn’t mean I’m “stuck” or that I’ve “plateaued” in my language level.

While the field is hungry for strategies, it is more important for us to reflect on our own biases, our own understanding of language growth and development, and our own pedagogy of education. Without ongoing and deep reflection of those things, a list of strategies can simply serve as a band-aid.

With that being said, we must also recognize the age level in which we typically identify students as LTELs. After around 5 years, many students are entering middle school. Research tells us that our middle school students simply don’t have enough time to talk about content with their peers. By embedding purposeful, intentional, structured (and also unstructured) time to speak with peers, we will help our students have more opportunities to deeply understand their content and also grow in their language development.

Many TPI programs are structured in a way where we load services up for beginning proficiency levels and then begin to remove or strip support and services as students gain higher levels of proficiency. If the language demand moves upward and outward as students grow in their proficiency, then this model may not make the most sense. Students still require support, scaffolding, and services as they grow in their proficiency—perhaps more so!

Finally, we need to analyze how our schools are prioritizing multilingual students and their families. Many times, instructional leadership teams will come together within a school to design new units or adopt new curriculum resources with “everyone” in mind. They’ll make a decision based on serving “all.” Then, after decisions have been made, the instructional leadership team will then come together (or form a task force group or committee) to “make this work” for multilingual learners or students with IEPs. I have dubbed this “The After Slap.” We make decisions for one group and then figure out how to slap on a caveat, an accommodation, a modification, or a “twist.” Many times, the most overly-used “slap” is to “just add visuals.” It’s time for us to move beyond the After Slap, move beyond visuals, and move beyond the way we’ve done things to really make our schools more equitable for those we serve.

The truth is we can absolutely use data to help us identify areas of growth to help students grow academically and linguistically—but we can also use the same data to help us grow as educators and to help our leadership grow our system. Let me be clear here—we don’t need to “fix” our students, or change our students. We need to change our mindsets. We need to confront our biases. We need to start asking questions. We need to change our systems.

About Carly Spina:
Carly Spina has 15 years of experience in Multilingual Education, including her service as an EL teacher, a third-grade bilingual classroom teacher, and a district-wide Multilingual Instructional Coach. She is currently a multilingual education specialist at the Illinois Resource Center, providing professional learning opportunities and technical assistance support to educators and leaders across the state and beyond. Spina enjoys connecting with other educators and leaders across the country and beyond and is an active member of the multilingual education professional learning community. Her first book, Moving Beyond for Multilingual Learners, is now available through EduMatch Publishing.

About the IRC:
The Illinois Resource Center guides, connects, and supports teachers and administrators serving linguistically and culturally diverse communities in Illinois. The IRC strives to make that vision a reality through accessible and highly relevant programming from a team of experienced, dedicated education specialists, including free workshops and webinars, networking opportunities to build community with like-minded peers, custom professional development, and consulting and endorsement courses for bilingual and ESL teachers with National Louis University. Visit the IRC website: https://www.thecenterweb.org/programs/irc-programs-for-the-english-language-learners/


Deconstructing the LTEL Label By Carly Spina “She doesn’t like me.” “He rolled his eyes at me when I spoke Spanish.” “She doesn’t think I’m smart.” “I’m not good at science, and he knows that.” The above statements are painful to read. But these are statements that middle school students have shared with multilingual (ML) educators over the years. Do you know to whom the students are referring? Not their peers, but their teachers. It is my hope that you don’t have students in your schools that have said these things or experienced these things, but as I talk with teachers across the country, I fear that your students may have said similar things or experienced similar things. This must be a wake-up call for educators and leaders. This has to drive us. This has to propel us forward to creating CHANGE in our schools, because all of these statements are dangerous. If students feel these things from the adults who serve them, we can’t feign shock if or when students disengage. The above statements were all shared by students who the field would identify as “Long Term English Learners.” This means that they have been identified as a language learner for 5 years or more and have not yet “exited” services based on an ACCESS composite score of 4.8. If we know that all of the latest research suggests that it takes closer to 7-10 years to deeply develop language, then why do we assign this additional label to students? Research suggests that this should be the norm. It must be noted that like multilingual learners, LTEL students are not a homogenous group. There are many factors that can impact and influence language acquisition. Therefore, it is inappropriate to make blanket statements about LTEL students. As I ask folks in education to share one word that describes LTEL students, many will supply the word “unmotivated.” By describing a student as being unmotivated, we are doing them a disservice. It is more appropriate to be specific about what does not motivate the individual student and instead tap into their skills, passions, talents, and interests. By building those things into our instruction, we can shift our focus to things that could really empower the students we serve. As schools plan for multi-tiered systems of support for students, we must also be cognizant of our tier 1 services. If we examine across five or more years of both content and language instruction, how many of us can say with 100% confidence and certainty that all five of those years provided students with adequate support at the tier 1 level (meaning high-quality, accessible instruction appropriate for the students’ language needs)? Furthermore, it’s important to note the variations of programming available to students, especially as they move in and out of school districts (even if they’re geographically very close). If a student spent two years in a bilingual program, but then moved to a school district where it wasn’t offered and was given TPI services, how does that impact their language journey? Will they be assigned the LTEL label in just a few short years? As we focus closer on language growth and development of our students, no matter how long they’ve been in a TPI/TBE/DL program, we must keep in mind that one annual language assessment cannot be the sole indicator of how we view or instruct our students. Our classrooms and schools are swimming in data, so it’s important that we take time to unpack how we use it. This is not to suggest that we add in additional assessments. On the contrary, I’m suggesting that we take the measures that we are already using and be more strategic. For example, if students were recently posting a video on Seesaw about a science experiment, we can take that same video and use it as a speaking sample. We can use a WIDA speaking rubric and measure speaking growth on that rubric. Better yet, we can have students take a student-friendly speaking rubric, assess themselves, and track their own growth over time. As many folks will point out, language growth isn’t always linear. This means that it is critical that we remind ourselves and our students that depending on our interest, our passion for the subject, or our understanding of the topic, we may sometimes have less or more to say about the topic. This is true for us as adults as well. If I’m interested in the topic, I’ll have much more to say about it, and I’ll speak about it much more confidently. But if I don't have much to say about a particular topic, this doesn’t mean I’m “stuck” or that I’ve “plateaued” in my language level. While the field is hungry for strategies, it is more important for us to reflect on our own biases, our own understanding of language growth and development, and our own pedagogy of education. Without ongoing and deep reflection of those things, a list of strategies can simply serve as a band-aid. With that being said, we must also recognize the age level in which we typically identify students as LTELs. After around 5 years, many students are entering middle school. Research tells us that our middle school students simply don’t have enough time to talk about content with their peers. By embedding purposeful, intentional, structured (and also unstructured) time to speak with peers, we will help our students have more opportunities to deeply understand their content and also grow in their language development. Many TPI programs are structured in a way where we load services up for beginning proficiency levels and then begin to remove or strip support and services as students gain higher levels of proficiency. If the language demand moves upward and outward as students grow in their proficiency, then this model may not make the most sense. Students still require support, scaffolding, and services as they grow in their proficiency—perhaps more so! Finally, we need to analyze how our schools are prioritizing multilingual students and their families. Many times, instructional leadership teams will come together within a school to design new units or adopt new curriculum resources with “everyone” in mind. They’ll make a decision based on serving “all.” Then, after decisions have been made, the instructional leadership team will then come together (or form a task force group or committee) to “make this work” for multilingual learners or students with IEPs. I have dubbed this “The After Slap.” We make decisions for one group and then figure out how to slap on a caveat, an accommodation, a modification, or a “twist.” Many times, the most overly-used “slap” is to “just add visuals.” It’s time for us to move beyond the After Slap, move beyond visuals, and move beyond the way we’ve done things to really make our schools more equitable for those we serve. The truth is we can absolutely use data to help us identify areas of growth to help students grow academically and linguistically—but we can also use the same data to help us grow as educators and to help our leadership grow our system. Let me be clear here—we don’t need to “fix” our students, or change our students. We need to change our mindsets. We need to confront our biases. We need to start asking questions. We need to change our systems. About Carly Spina: Carly Spina has 15 years of experience in Multilingual Education, including her service as an EL teacher, a third-grade bilingual classroom teacher, and a district-wide Multilingual Instructional Coach. She is currently a multilingual education specialist at the Illinois Resource Center, providing professional learning opportunities and technical assistance support to educators and leaders across the state and beyond. Spina enjoys connecting with other educators and leaders across the country and beyond and is an active member of the multilingual education professional learning community. Her first book, Moving Beyond for Multilingual Learners, is now available through EduMatch Publishing. About the IRC: The Illinois Resource Center guides, connects, and supports teachers and administrators serving linguistically and culturally diverse communities in Illinois. The IRC strives to make that vision a reality through accessible and highly relevant programming from a team of experienced, dedicated education specialists, including free workshops and webinars, networking opportunities to build community with like-minded peers, custom professional development, and consulting and endorsement courses for bilingual and ESL teachers with National Louis University. Visit the IRC website: https://www.thecenterweb.org/programs/irc-programs-for-the-english-language-learners/
Fall 2021 - Volume 49, Issue 2