“Where Do I Start?” Inquiry into K-12 Mainstream Teachers’ Knowledge about Differentiating Instruction for ELLs in One U.S. School District

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to report themes identified in questions K-12 mainstream teachers in one U.S. school district posed about differentiating instruction for English language learners (ELLs) in order to hear directly from teachers about topics they would like to learn more about. Teachers in the district completed a selected-response and open-ended survey to inform future professional development opportunities. Findings suggest that most teachers work with ELLs but are underprepared to teach them. Teachers posed questions about curriculum and assessment; instruction; building community; language difference versus disability; and where to start in teaching ELLs. Conclusions are drawn about how well ELLs are being educated in the district. Implications for teacher professional development and policy are also discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• English language learners
• English learners
• teacher education
• teacher professional development
• differentiated instruction

Historically, mainstream teachers in the USA have received little to no preparation for teaching English language learners (ELLs) (Villegas, SaizdeLaMora, Martin, & Mills, 2018, p. 139). Available evidence suggests that specific preparation to work with ELLs is still not required of mainstream teachers in most states; as of 2014, over half of states still did not require ELL training for general classroom teachers (Education Commission of the States, 2014). This is problematic for a number of reasons, but particularly because more ELLs are placed in mainstream classes than ever before. In the USA, the current practice of mainstreaming ELLs into general education classrooms for most or all of the day began in the 1990s for at least three reasons: 1) the ELL population grew more quickly than the capacity of pull-out English as a Second Language programmes available in schools, 2) English-only policies in some states and a general political backlash against bilingual education motivated schools to mainstream ELLs, and 3) schools assumed that immersion in English would support an improvement in ELLs’ standardised test scores as high-stakes testing became the norm (Villegas et al., 2018, p. 139). It is a necessity to mainstream when qualified ESL educators are not available to provide bilingual education or direct services to ELLs. This situation is likely more prevalent in linguistically heterogeneous states like Maine, in the northeastern U.S., where this inquiry was conducted.

The problem of underprepared English teachers is not one unique to the USA. In recent research conducted in countries around the globe, it is evident that preparing, inducting, and retaining qualified English teachers presents challenges. Green and Pappa (2021), in their study of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teacher education in Finland, have argued,

As a result of increased mobility and migration globally, language teacher education has been tasked with responding to economic and cultural pressures for students to be adept in multilingual communication, especially in English. Yet in most countries, slow and contested responses to the need for teacher education reform mean that many teacher training institutions struggle to prepare teachers to meet growing demands. (p. 552)

Similarly, Carmel and Badash's (2018) research in Israel revealed that teachers in that country felt unprepared for the job and cited “one of the major challenges facing education institutions and schools is how to prepare effective, qualified EFL teachers, and once they begin teaching English in schools, how to support them and prevent their attrition” (p. 142). Yook and Lee's (2016) research in Korea underscored the increasing need for EFL teacher education to prepare teachers to implement English language teaching reforms. The Ministry of Education encouraged teacher education programmes to revise their curricula to prepare teachers for communication-oriented teaching and schools to strengthen and diversify in-service training for teachers. Results suggested that the enacted teacher education curricula and pedagogies presented limitations and lacked practical relevance in the local context. Yook and Lee suggest that in Korea and in other contexts, EFL theories and methods should “reasonably reflect local needs and realities” (p. 534). These studies illustrate the global concern for effective English language teacher preparation.

In the USA, just over 9% of students are ELLs (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). Maine is a predominantly White, monolingual state. Recent census data note that the population is 94.4% White (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). While overall student enrolment in Maine has been declining, the ELL student population has increased nearly 100% over the last 15 years to 3% of total enrolment (Maine Data Warehouse, 2017). With immigration trends and refugee resettlement, certain school districts have seen steady increases in the ELL population well above the statewide average, anywhere from 5%-30% of their total student population. Due primarily to limited resources, it is quite typical for these districts to employ few, if any, certified ELL educators and for students to be mainstreamed in regular education classrooms with limited language supports.

Maine is one of five states where Spanish is not the most commonly spoken language by ELLs and one of 13 states identified as linguistically heterogeneous, meaning less than half of ELLs spoke the predominant language (Soto, Hooker, & Batalova, 2015b). At the time of this study, nearly 100 languages were spoken by ELLs in the state; the predominant language was Somali at 33.4% of the ELL population, Arabic was second at 11.4%, and Spanish was third at 9.9% (Soto, Hooker, & Batalova, 2015a). In Maine developing and providing effective services for ELLs has been complicated due to the linguistic heterogeneity of ELLs coupled with the fact that Maine is one of the 30 states that does not require specific preparation for mainstream teachers in teaching ELLs.

The purpose of this paper is to report themes identified in questions K-12 mainstream teachers in one school district posed about differentiating instruction for ELLs in order to hear directly from teachers about topics they would like to learn more about; these topics were meant to inform future professional development opportunities and subsequently improve teachers’ efficacy in working with ELLs. In addition, the themes are critically analysed to draw conclusions about how well ELLs are being educated in the district and to subsequently determine how to better support teachers in providing ELLs with equitable educational opportunities. This topic is particularly timely as refugee and immigrant families settle in more small cities and suburban and rural school districts across the country, and the mainstream teachers who work with these ELLs are generally underprepared to teach them. Professional learning may be optimised when teachers’ voices are valued through systematic inquiry.

Review of the Literature

In this section, research on mainstream teachers’ beliefs and learning about teaching ELLs is reviewed. Next, the theoretical framework guiding this study – linguistically responsive teaching – is discussed.

Literature on Mainstream Teachers’ Beliefs and Learning to Teach ELLs

More than two decades ago, Byrnes, Kiger, and Manning (1997) explored regular education teachers’ attitudes about language diversity and linguistically diverse students. The 191 teachers surveyed from three U.S. states reflected a range of language-diversity experiences teachers might encounter. Employing the Language Attitudes of Teachers’ Scale, the researchers determined that those with the most positive attitudes were teachers with more training, more experience with linguistic-minority children, and those holding a graduate degree. They concluded that formal training for teaching linguistically diverse children should focus on attitudes necessary to “understand and appreciate language development and cultural diversity” and to sensitise teachers “to the important role language plays in maintaining cultural identity and social ties” (p. 642).

Karabenick and Clemens Noda (2004) surveyed 729 mainstream teachers in one midwestern suburban school district with rising enrollments of immigrant and refugee ELLs about their beliefs and attitudes towards ELLs. Generally, teachers were positive about having ELLs in their classes and most were certain about the advantages of bilingualism, though only 43% stated that they would like to have ELLs in their classes and most expressed a lack of confidence in their ability to teach ELLs. Similar to Byrnes, Kiger, and Manning (1997), Karabenick and Clemens Noda found that those with more experience teaching ELLs held more positive attitudes. Interestingly, less experienced elementary grades teachers were more positive than those with more experience teaching high school. The results of the survey were used to design trainings on instructional strategies and approaches for teaching ELLs, and the researchers reported a year after the district sought their help with the survey, that “positive change had taken hold” through “needs-responsive models of districtwide professional development and in-service training initiatives” (p. 74).

In a comprehensive literature review on mainstream teachers’ beliefs about teaching ELLs, Pettit (2011) found teachers held many misconceptions about second language learning and were unprepared to the point of suggesting a “'poverty of language learning’ in mainstream teacher education” (p. 139). She noted that beliefs can be difficult to change, but the most important predictor she found for influencing positive beliefs was the amount of second language training teachers received, asserting beliefs can change with experience. Pettit concluded that there is a “need for increased professional development in order for teachers to adopt a new set of beliefs for the successful inclusion of ELLs” (p. 123). This new set of beliefs includes having high expectations of ELLs, accepting responsibility for teaching them, supporting native language use at home and at school, developing an awareness of the time it takes to learn academic English, and desiring professional development on teaching ELLs (p. 144).

Another more recent comprehensive literature review conducted by Villegas, SaideLaMora, Martin, and Mills (2018) considered the research on preparing preservice teachers for teaching ELLs in mainstream classrooms. They noted that an overwhelming number of studies focused on teacher candidates’ beliefs and less on how to provide them with tools for learning and from practice. Field experiences linked to courses offered opportunities for authentic learning. A primary conclusion of their review, as other researchers cited in this section also asserted, is that mainstream teachers need some knowledge of second language development as a foundation for understanding how to appropriately plan instruction for them.

With the adoption of much more rigorous learning standards in U.S. K-12 schools, Bunch (2013) has argued that “the education of ELs must be seen as a shared responsibility by all teachers and that the knowledge and skill base for all teachers must be reconceptualized accordingly” (p. 301). In what he describes as this “new standards” era, “the question facing decision makers will undoubtedly be what is absolutely essential for mainstream teachers to know and be able to do in order to create the instructional conditions in which ELs can productively engage in the key practices call for by the common standards” (p. 329). The literature reviewed here provides some suggestions for mainstream teachers’ professional development. In the next section, a framework for teacher learning about teaching ELLs further conceptualises what teachers of ELLs should know and be able to do.

Theoretical Framework: Linguistically Responsive Teaching

In their Framework for Linguistically Responsive Teaching, Lucas and Villegas (2010) suggest that there are three orientations, conceived as tendencies towards ideas or actions informed by beliefs, and four types of language-related knowledge and skills that all teachers must possess to effectively teach ELLs. The three orientations are 1) sociolinguistic consciousness, 2) value for linguistic diversity, and 3) inclination to advocate for ELLs (p. 302). Lucas and Villegas argue these orientations are essential to embrace and apply the knowledge and skills, which represent elements 4–7 of their framework: 4) learning about ELL students’ language backgrounds, experiences, and proficiencies, 5) identifying the language demands of classroom discourse and tasks, 6) knowing and applying key principles of second language acquisition, and 7) scaffolding instruction to promote ELL students’ learning (p. 302). Lucas and Villegas (2010) argue that “the increasing inclusion of ELLs in mainstream classrooms – a trend resulting from demographic changes, prevailing political views, and federal education policies – necessitates the preparation of all teachers to teach ELLs, especially given the critical role of language in learning and schooling” (p. 311).

Lucas and Villegas (2013) advocate these dispositions and skills be introduced and reinforced during preservice teacher education. Teacher educators who enhance their attention to culturally responsive teaching by articulating a corresponding vision of linguistically responsive teaching may decide how to structure preservice learning to realistically incorporate appropriate learning during the relatively short preparation timeframe. Novice teachers “certainly need to continue building their repertoire for teaching ELLs” (p. 106) and in-service professional development for practicing teachers is a vehicle for reinforcing linguistically responsive teaching.

Method

Two overarching research questions guided this study: 1) How prepared are mainstream K-12 teachers to instruct English language learners placed in their classrooms? and 2) What are teachers’ questions about differentiating instruction for ELLs in mainstream classrooms? Evaluating teachers’ preparation and teaching concerns may provide insights into how well ELLs are served in the district and future professional development needs of teachers.

In the school district where this inquiry was conducted, the ELL population had recently begun to increase and reached about 5% of the student population (2014–2015 school year). This district’s ELL enrolment is greater than the statewide average of 3% yet still below the national average of 9% and likely representative of the demographics in many smaller cities and suburbs across the USA. Like the vast majority of teachers in Maine, teachers in this district are primarily White, native English speakers.

Initially, data were collected in collaboration with the K-5 schools in the district to determine the elementary teachers’ preparedness to teach ELLs. Preparedness to teach ELLs was evaluated through a selected-response survey adapted from Karabenick and Clemens Noda (2004) completed by all K-5 teachers at a district-wide staff meeting. The results of the survey motivated an increasing interest in providing professional development for teachers at all grade levels in the district.

Differentiating instruction provides ELLs in mainstream classrooms access to grade level content in ways that are comprehensible. Tomlinson and Imbeau (2010) define four curricular elements that should be modified in the instructional cycle to achieve differentiation. Teachers may differentiate a) content, which refers to the knowledge of skills students are expected to learn; b) process, which refers to the how students come to understand the content; c) product, which refers to how students demonstrate their learning; and d) affect, which refers to how students’ emotions and feelings impact learning. The district was committed to improving teachers’ pedagogical skills related to differentiation, which provided the focus of the next phase of the research.

A few months after the initial survey data were collected, all of the district’s K-12 teachers were invited to respond to a new, open-ended survey question, which was framed in response to a district request of the author to provide more professional development on differentiating instruction for ELLs. At a district-wide staff meeting, all teachers were invited to respond to the following prompt: Write 1–2 questions you have about differentiating for ELLs in your classroom. Table 1 represents the number of teachers (169) and the number of questions posed (246) by grade level.

Table 1. Total questions posed and percentage by grade level

Grade Level	Number of Teachers who Wrote Questions	Total Number of Questions Posed	Percentage of Questions by Grade Level
Kindergarten	15	20	8%
Grades 1–3	22	35	14%
Grades 4–5	30	48	20%
Grades 6–8	39	58	23%
Grades 9–12	63	85	35%
TOTALS	169	246	100%

This approach to data collection is grounded in the concept of inquiry as stance. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) have long argued that transformation of teaching, learning, and schooling is not possible without positioning practitioners and practitioner knowledge at the centre of reform efforts. In order to best support teachers in meeting the demographic changes in their district, it was necessary to ask them directly about their wonderings to plan future learning opportunities.

Guided by the constructivist paradigm, inductive coding procedures were employed to generate categories and themes from teachers’ questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Constructivist research aims to “gain understanding by interpreting subject perspectives” (Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2017, p. 114). In order to understand the experiences of teachers’ work with ELLs, it was necessary to foreground their voices by closely examining their responses for thematic trends. Described above, Lucas and Villegas' (2010) framework for linguistically responsive teachers also informed the inductive coding procedures that were employed. The researchers assumed that both teachers’ orientations towards ELLs and their language-related knowledge and skills would emerge as concerns. Systematic data analysis would reveal the degree to which both aspects of the framework were evident in teachers’ questions.

Teachers’ questions were read several times by the research team, first individually and then collaboratively. The initial coding process for each researcher focused on In Vivo Coding in order to “prioritize and honor the participant’s voice” (Saldana, 2016, p. 295). Coding categories were inductively generated from the teachers’ own words. At the first data analysis meeting, the initial, emergent 11 coding categories were combined and reduced to 5 total. This Pattern Coding (Saldana, 2016, p. 296) provided categories to guide the next round of data analysis. The researchers read the data set again individually and then met together for a second time to discuss how each teacher’s question was coded and reach consensus. Five major themes were identified, representing areas of need expressed by these teachers.

Findings

Data analysis suggests that teachers in this district are generally underprepared to teach ELLs. They expressed many wonderings and dilemmas of practice in their questions that focused on differentiating curriculum, assessment, and instruction, per the prompt, but many teachers also wrote questions related to building community, discerning language differences from language disabilities, and most striking, simply where to start in working with ELLs. In this section, the preparedness of teachers based on the selected-response survey will be shared as background information supporting the second phase of the study, which is the primary focus of this paper.

Teachers’ Preparedness to Teach ELLs

As illustrated in Figure 1, the selected-response survey revealed that more than two-thirds of the 118 K-5 teachers across three schools reported that they currently teach ELLs (69.5%). Only 10% had the equivalent of at least a 3-credit course, and 3% held the state’s ESL endorsement, while nearly nine out of ten teachers (87.5%) had no preparation (68.3%) or the equivalent to one day of professional development (19.2%), illustrating a trend in the research literature that mainstream teachers are generally underprepared to teach ELLs (Pettit, 2011).

Figure 1. Teachers’ preparedness to work with ELLs

The unfortunate reality in this district, like many others, is that ELLs were provided with limited pull-out services by a qualified ESL teacher or a paraprofessional who may or may not have preparation to work with ELLs, sometimes for only 30 minutes a day or every other day. The vast majority of the time, ELLs in this district found themselves mainstreamed with little to no support from well-prepared mainstream teachers or paraprofessionals.

The results of this survey led the district and the researchers to pursue more information directly from the teachers about topics they would like to learn more about in order to provide on-going professional development and better serve the ELLs mainstreamed in their classes.

Teachers’ Questions about Differentiating Instruction for ELLs

The five primary themes that emerged from data analysis included questions about curriculum and assessment, instruction, community, distinguishing difference from disability, and where to start when teaching ELLs. In this section, each of these themes is explored in more detail.

Curriculum and Assessment

As illustrated in (Figure 2), wonderings about how to adapt curriculum and assessment for ELLs lead the concerns expressed by these teachers: 29%, or 72 questions, dealt with this topic. These questions centred around what to teach and assess and were more broadly framed than those that dealt specifically with how to instruct and differentiate for ELLs. For example, an intermediate grade teacher asked, “How can I begin unpacking a standard if my student is brand new to our country?” Similarly, a primary school teacher wondered, “When ELLs are barely speaking English, how do you engage them and show growth with a Common Core standard?” With the nationwide push in the U.S. for standards-based education, questions about differentiating the curriculum standards and making them relevant to ELLs were not surprising. Appropriately related to curriculum were assessment questions, such as “How do I know if a child is understanding if their English is limited?” (kindergarten teacher), “Core Standards measured how?” (middle school teacher), and “Do they take tests in English or their language?” (middle school teacher). Finally, questions about programme models and when and how to integrate ELLs into mainstream classrooms were also posed, such as this question from an intermediate teacher: “How do you feel/thoughts about inclusion/immersion versus pull out?” With the majority of questions falling into this category, it seems teachers did have curriculum and assessment of learning at the forefront.

Figure 2. Percentage of teachers’ questions by theme

Instruction

The initial prompt asked teachers of all grades levels to pose one to two questions they had about differentiating instruction for ELLs, and about a quarter related directly to this prompt (26%, or 63 questions). Most of these questions were about how to teach in ways that ELLs can best learn. Questions ranged from instruction in general to content-area instruction to use of native language in the classroom, and middle and high school teachers tended to ask these questions more than the elementary teachers in the sample. For example, general questions asked “How do you find the right balance of differentiating instruction for ELL students while not spending too much time with them?” (middle school teacher), and “How do you keep the pace of the class and still differentiate?” (high school teacher). More specific questions about instruction asked primarily about how to teach vocabulary – “What would be the best way to teach vocab to ELL students?” (middle school teacher) – and how to make complex secondary school texts accessible – “What do I do when a student can’t read the text?” (high school teacher).

Many of the instruction questions were directly related to when and how to incorporate native language into lessons. A kindergarten teacher wondered “How do you incorporate first language into reading activities?” Similarly, a high school teacher asked whether it is “appropriate to have students translate into their native tongue in the margins” while taking notes.

One differentiation concern that is likely shared in other districts in linguistically heterogeneous states such as Maine is captured by the following question: “What is the best way to differentiate when you have multiple ELL students who have multiple languages?” (high school teacher). There are distinct challenges to differentiating when a classroom has only a few students still learning English who are from different native language backgrounds. By way of example, a teacher recently shared the challenges of planning her mainstream grade 3 science lesson with 4 different ELLs: An Arabic speaker with emerging English (WIDA Levels of English Proficiency indicated here) reading at a first-grade level, a French speaker with emerging English reading at a kindergarten level, and two Spanish speakers, one with developing English and one with expanding English, who were both reading at a late second-grade/early third-grade level. In this classroom, the teacher may have been able to have the Spanish speakers work together to clarify science concepts in their native language as necessary, but this was not possible for the Arabic speaker nor the French speaker. This real-life scenario playing out in classrooms across the country illustrates why helping teachers learn to differentiate content and language instruction is necessary, and going to the teachers to ask them for their input about what they want to learn more about is one way to value teachers’ knowledge and interests in the process. In this study, some teachers reinforced this challenge by asking questions such as this: “How can we differentiate in a small group setting with one ELL in the group?” (primary school teacher). This presents unique challenges in districts with lower ELL populations that higher incidence districts have more resources and experience to address.

Building Community

Sixty-three questions, or 26% of the total questions posed, centred on how to build community in the classroom and with families. Most of these questions were some variation of wondering about “the best way to help ELL students feel a part of the class” (kindergarten teacher). Teachers asked, “How do we incorporate their beliefs and traditions and learning styles in the classroom?” (primary school teacher); “How can we account for their social needs with their general peers to help them feel welcome?” (intermediate school teacher); and “How do you introduce them to our (USA) culture and beliefs and not take away from everything they’ve learned?” (middle school teacher). A few questions wondered specifically about how to manage cultural differences, such as “parent-imposed barriers, i.e. not sitting with the opposite sex” (middle school teacher).

Overall, these seemed to be the most encouraging questions in the analysis of the data because they showed that despite about a quarter of the questions having nothing to do with the prompt about differentiating instruction, per se, they were relevant to making ELLs and their families feel welcome in the schools, an important aspect of culturally and linguistically responsive teaching (Gay, 2010; Lucas & Villegas, 2010).

Disability

Questions about discerning language differences from language disabilities that require special education comprised only 5% of the total questions at 12 questions. A kindergarten teacher’s question illustrates most of the questions in this category: “How do you determine if lack of understanding is due to learning disability or lack of communication due to not understanding English?” A few teachers wondered more specifically about how to learn about ELLs’ “proficiency/performance in native language to help determine the presence of a language-based disability” (primary school teacher). The topic of proper identification of ELLs for special education services was also identified as important to teachers in another Maine school district where similar research was conducted (Stairs-Davenport & Zeimer, 2016). Scholars with expertise in language acquisition and learning disabilities underscore the complexity of the process of distinguishing between language differences and disabilities, as well as the frequency with which “ELLs are referred for comprehensive special education evaluations without ever being observed in the classroom or in their intervention groups – which are often taught by teacher aides who do not have any training in working with ELLs” (Klingner & Eppolito, 2014, p. 94). There is simply no easy, straightforward solution to ascertain whether an ELL exhibits characteristics of a learning disability outside of mainstream teachers working collaboratively on hypothesis testing, assessment, and intervention with a team of language acquisition and special education experts.

Where to Start

“Where do I start? How do I get/keep them engaged with other students in the room?” (middle school teacher). The most surprising finding in this study was how frequently teachers asked a variation of this question. A total of 36 questions, representing 14% of questions posed, expressed concerns about how to approach educating ELLs in general, including where to begin with new immigrant students who spoke limited English. The questions in this category lacked specificity about differentiation for ELLs; teachers were simply asking about how to get started working with ELLs who were newly assigned to their classrooms. For example, a high school teacher asked, “What is the best way to make an ELL student feel successful right from the start?” and an intermediate teacher asked, “How can we communicate with students who don’t speak ANY English? I have tried Google translate, and it doesn’t work”. One question from a middle school teacher stood out: “Where do you start? How do you take into consideration fear?” In analysing the data, the research team wondered to whom the teacher was referring when mentioning fear – the ELL students or the teacher him/herself.

This district was experiencing an influx of newly arrived immigrants with limited formal schooling in home countries and limited to no English. With the current staffing, students were placed in mainstream classes at all grade levels, with limited opportunities for pull-out content-based ESL classes taught by qualified teachers. This placed enormous pressure on the ESL teachers and ESL paraprofessionals in the schools, as well as on the mainstream teachers, and this explains why some questions asked about what to do when students at any age are mainstreamed and do not know English: “How do you differentiate for non-English speaking students?” (primary school teacher), and “What do you do when they don’t speak a word of English?” (middle school teacher). Overall, there was an underlying sense of frustration expressed by many teachers who posed questions in this category, that they were not ready to ask questions about differentiating instruction when they most immediately wanted to know how to communicate with their new students.

Discussion

The purpose of this paper was to report on themes identified in questions K-12 mainstream teachers in one U.S. school district posed about differentiating instruction for ELLs to inform future professional development opportunities and analyse what teachers’ questions reveal about learning opportunities for ELLs. Data analysis identified five themes in teachers’ questions: adapting curriculum and assessment, differentiating instruction, building community in the classroom, discerning language differences from disabilities, and where to start in working with ELLs. Ideally, these questions would be addressed proactively in teacher preparation tied to certification and in practicing teacher professional development coursework tied to re-certification requests (Lucas & Villegas, 2013). Unfortunately, this was not the case for the mainstream teachers in this district. These teachers revealed they have legitimate and pressing questions about educating ELLs who are currently enrolled in their classes. In light of this reality, the five themes may be critically examined to suggest implications for professional development and to draw conclusions about how well ELLs are being educated in the district.

Lucas and Villegas (2013) argue that “because so many practicing teachers are unprepared to teach this population, school districts bear much of the responsibility for providing professional development for teaching ELLs” yet “learning to teach [culturally and linguistically diverse] students in particular, should begin in preservice preparation and continue throughout a teacher’s career” (p. 99). Until this is a reality across the USA, increased attention must be paid to the content and quality of teachers’ professional development offered by districts, which often occurs in collaboration with universities. Collecting data about teachers’ prior knowledge and beliefs, as in this inquiry, can guide decisions about the nature of professional development offerings. Yook and Lee’s study in a Korean EFL context revealed that “in-service teacher education programmes with practical curricula were perceived to have a stronger influence on the participants’ teaching than theory-oriented pre-service teacher education programmes” (p. 533). There is a global concern for reforming teacher preparation by “incorporating in-service EFL teachers’ continuing professional development as an integral part of its efforts to prepare more qualified EFL teachers” (p. 533).

Green and Pappa's (2021) research in the Finnish context suggests that attention might be less focused on the practices and methods and more on the development of teacher agency and identity for EFL teacher educators to positively influence the preparation of EFL teachers.

[T]he development of language teacher education through the agency of EFL teacher educators is not simply a matter of extrapolating, articulating, or identifying appropriate pedagogical practices that exist as methods apart from the teachers themselves. Rather, the practices are intimately tied to the interests, expertise, and commitments (that is, professional identity) that teacher educators are able to express and negotiate with students and colleagues within their professional communities.

Centering teachers’ and teacher educators’ concerns through an inquiry approach as in the study presented here aligns with Green and Pappa’s call for locally-relevant, teacher-focused professional development.

Lucas and Villegas' (2010) seven-part framework for developing linguistically responsive teachers also provides a theoretical and practical lens through which to build professional development opportunities. As explained earlier, they outline three orientations and four sets of knowledge and skills, suggesting that without developing teachers’ positive orientations towards ELLs and their families, and nurturing the belief that additional language development is an asset to embrace and not a challenge to overcome, then teachers will not as effectively enact instructional techniques, including identifying the language demands of classroom discourse and differentiating instruction for ELLs. The questions posed by teachers in this inquiry did not explicitly suggest a deficit orientation or generally disrespectful attitudes towards ELLs. In fact, 26% did ask about building community in the classroom with ELLs and their families, which reveals the positive orientations necessary to instruct these students well.

That being said, some professional development in Lucas and Villegas’ three orientations – sociolinguistic consciousness, value for linguistic diversity, and inclination to advocate for ELLs – could enhance teachers’ positive orientations towards ELLs. The teachers’ questions did explicitly reveal a lack of understanding related to Lucas and Villegas’ four sets of knowledge and skills. Teachers in this district would benefit from learning about their ELLs’ language backgrounds, experiences, and proficiencies; how to analyse the language demands of their curriculum; and how to plan instruction and assessment that is appropriately scaffolded and aligned with key principles of second language learning. The questions reveal that teachers had many concerns beyond how to differentiate instruction, the topic identified by the administration as a pressing need. Taken alongside Lucas and Villegas’ framework, the themes identified in this study can inform professional development in this district and others with similar demographic profiles internationally.

First and foremost, professional development in districts like the one described in this inquiry must attend to the “Where do I start?” questions by sharing foundational information about each ELL’s background and levels of proficiency in language and literacy in native languages and English and what an ELL’s profile might suggest about differentiating instruction. Then, professional development can gradually build teachers’ knowledge and skills. This can best be accomplished through collaboration among ESL educators, mainstream teachers, and university faculty. In addition, district infrastructure must be examined, with attention to less pull-out ESL programming and more co-teaching models and/or dual-language models, and policies should be enacted that support, or perhaps require, professional development in teaching ELLs for all teachers and administrators (Hopkins, Lowenhaupt, & Sweet, 2013).

The U.S. Supreme Court in Lau v. Nichols (1974) determined that English language learners (ELLs) must be provided with meaningful opportunities to participate in public education. As an educational community, have we made enough progress to feel confident that ELLs, particularly in districts like the one described here, are receiving an equitable education? Or are they merely being provided the same facilities, textbooks, teachers and curriculum without differentiation to meet their specific content and language learning needs? The questions teachers posed in the present study lead to the conclusion that the mandate of Lau has not been fully realised in this district, nor, perhaps, in others with similar demographic profiles and trends. Opportunities for meaningful content and language instruction when ELLs are mainstreamed with underprepared teachers are limited when basic questions about effectively teaching ELLs persist for the classroom teachers who are educating them.

The legal mandates in the U.S. outlined in the Every Student Succeeds Act (U.S. Department of Education, nd) provide an opportunity to make mainstream teachers’ learning to teach ELLs a priority. The January 2015 Dear Colleague Letter, authored by the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (2015), provides joint guidance to assist “all public schools in meeting their legal obligations to ensure that EL students can participate meaningfully and equally in educational programs and services” (p. 2). Districts should review their obligations in this document carefully to be sure that they are providing ELLs with qualified teachers and access to core grade-level curriculum with language supports. The letter reiterates that the law requires districts take “affirmative steps” and “appropriate actions” to address language barriers ELLs face in pursuit of an equal and meaningful education (p. 5). The district described in this inquiry would benefit from a comprehensive review of ELL programming before submitting its consolidated state plan as expected by the Every Student Succeeds Act to assure compliance with legal and civil rights expectations.

If we strive to reach the highest levels of research-based ELL programming, listen to mainstream teachers of ELLs, and design professional development and learning experiences that authentically address teachers’ questions, we have an opportunity to improve the education of ELLs in districts of all sizes and demographic profiles. The most relevant and authentic professional learning is teacher-driven, determined by those closest to the daily work with ELLs. As an education community, we must advocate for teachers and students to experience the learning they deserve and be sure that legal mandates for equal opportunity are a reality not just in theory, but also in practice.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank graduate research assistants Ayla Zeimer and Julia Gersen for their participation on the research team for this project.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research study was supported by funding from USM’s Center for Collaboration and Development.

Notes on contributors

Andrea Stairs-Davenport

Andrea Stairs-Davenport is Professor in the Department of Literacy, Language, and Culture and Associate Dean of the School of Education and Human Development at the University of Southern Maine, Gorham, Maine, U.S.A. Her research interests include examining how teachers learn to teach culturally and linguistically students over time, literacy education, teacher research, and qualitative research methods.