Boston University School of Education

Two Silber Way

Boston, MA 02215

NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATION
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
BOSTON, MA
PERMIT NO. 1839

J O URNAL O F ED UCATIO N

Journal of Education

J O UR N A L O F E D UC AT I ON
Founded in 1875

Volume 196 Number 2 2016

EARLY CAREER SCHOLARS
Letter from the Editor
Roselmina Indrisano
Learning to Think Mathematically: Problem Solving, Metacognition,
and Sense Making in Mathematics (Reprint)
Alan H. Schoenfeld
Difference Not Deficit: Reconceptualizing Mathematical Learning Disabilities (Reprint)
Katherine E. Lewis

Volume 196 Number 2 2016

Becoming a Researcher: A Reflection

Alan H. Schoenfeld and Katherine E. Lewis
Supporting Teachers to Implement Contextualized and Interactive
Practices in Vocabulary Instruction
Michelle Rimbey, Margaret Mckeown, Isabel Beck, and Cheryl Sandora
Complementing the Common Core with Holistic Biliteracy
Susan Hopewell, Sandra Butvilofsky, and Kathy Escamilla
Teaching Social Studies/History to Elementary School Students
Through a Discipline-Specific Approach
Kristy A. Brugar

ESSAY BOOK REVIEWS

Academic / Professional Texts
Daniel J. Osborn
Books for Young Readers
Laura Jimenz, Michelle Carney, and Elizabeth Nolan

Boston University School of Education

Boston University School of Education

J O U R N A L O F E D U C AT I O N
volume 196, number 2, 2016
Early Career Scholars

Letter from the Editor

vii

Roselmina Indrisano

Learning to Think Mathematically: Problem Solving, Metacognition, and Sense Making in Mathematics (Reprint)

Alan H. Schoenfeld

Difference Not Deficit: Reconceptualizing Mathematical Learning Disabilities (Reprint)

39

Katherine E. Lewis

Becoming a Researcher: A Reflection

63

Alan H. Schoenfeld and Katherine E. Lewis

Supporting Teachers to Implement Contextualized and Interactive Practices in Vocabulary Instruction

69

Michelle Rimbey, Margaret Mckeown, Isabel Beck, and Cheryl Sandora

Complementing the Common Core with Holistic Biliteracy

89

Susan Hopewell, Sandra Butvilofsky, and Kathy Escamilla

Teaching Social Studies/History to Elementary School Students Through a Discipline-Specific Approach

101

Kristy A. Brugar

ESSAY BOOK REVIEWS

academic/professional texts

115

books for young readers

121

Daniel J. Osborn

Laura Jimenz, Michelle Carney, and Elizabeth Nolan

Boston University School of Education

Complementing the Common Core with Holistic Biliteracy

susan hopewell, sandra butvilofsky, and kathy escamilla, university of colorado boulder

ABSTRACT

and communicators who make decisions that are rooted in the

interest of social justice, equity, honesty, and reasonableness. The
students we teach today will become the decision makers in their
communities, and schools are part of those communities. While
the CCSS might be critiqued solely from the perspective of the
extent to which students have a part in decision-making within
their schooling experiences, we concede that the standards were
developed with the intent of promoting a greater collective good.
We question, however, whose communities are reflected when language arts are viewed solely as English language arts in a nation that
has no official national language. Is it less meaningful, fulfilling, and
intellectually challenging to acquire these skills in a language other
than English? Might students benefit from acquiring these skills in
multiple languages?
Ultimately, ability and progression in language arts is measured and understood as the skills and knowledge associated with
text-based literacy. Even a cursory glance at the CCSS reveals
that while oral language is included, the standards are manifestly
focused on English language text-based literacy, that is, the processes of reading and writing. In fact, the Partnership for Assessment and Readiness for College and Career (PARCC) and Smarter
Balance, the consortia charged with creating assessment systems
aligned with the CCSS, are developing tests that measure development and growth in the English language arts only in terms of
these abilities. These text-based skills will serve as proxies for students collective receptive (reading and listening) and productive
(writing and speaking) abilities in the language arts, albeit solely
in English.
English language text-based literacies are critically important,
yet, as we have argued elsewhere, biliteracy is a greater and more
complex form of literacy than monolingual literacy (Hopewell &
Escamilla, 2014a). If the CCSS are meant to establish a common
set of academic expectations that create the conditions for both
collective and individual advancement, we contend that bilingualism and biliteracy are more inclusive and elevated goals that merit
consideration but have not been given serious attention.
There is great value in becoming bilingual. The social, economic, and cognitive benefits are substantial and well documented.
Research confirms that bilingual individuals have improved executive functioning (Carlson & Meltzoff, 2008; Poulin-Dubois,
Blaye, Coutya, & Bialystok, 2011), an increased ability to attend
to important information or conversely to filter out extraneous
information (Bialystok & Martin, 2004; Kroll, Bobb, Misra, &
Guo, 2008), and a delayed onset of cognitive deterioration linked
to disorders of aging, such as Alzheimers Disease (Alladi, Bak,

In this article the authors propose that biliteracy is a more challenging and rigorous form of literacy than the English-only orientation
of the Common Core State Standards (NGACBP & CCSSO, 2010).
Because learning to read and write in two languages differs from
learning to read and write in one, we argue that biliteracy requires
its own pedagogies, methodologies, and assessment systems. Data
derived from the reported study support a trajectory toward bilingualism informed by a framework that capitalizes on theories of
integrated and holistic biliteracy in order to re-conceptualize the
ways educators can interpret biliteracy assessments of emerging
bilingual learners in Spanish and English.

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were developed

by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practice (NGACBP) and the Council of Chief State School Officers
(CCSSO) to establish a common set of academic expectations in
English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science,
and technical subjects (NGACBP & CCSSO, 2010) for K12 students in the United States. The stated goal is to ensure that all
students graduate from high school with the skills and knowledge
necessary to succeed in college, career, and life (p. 1). Though not
intended to be a national mandate, the standards have been adopted
by 43 states, the District of Columbia, four territories, and the
Department of Defense Education Activity, creating the conditions
by which they have become a nearly de facto set of expectations.
For the foreseeable future their influence and impact will continue
to be far reaching.
Few would argue that a uniform and exacting set of standards is
misguided. In fact, families are likely to be reassured that the expectations from one school to another are intended to be relatively
stable. Third graders in one school should be acquiring knowledge
and skills that are comparable to third graders in another school.
Teachers and administrators need not be apprehensive that they
are asking less of their students than might be asked elsewhere. It
remains to be seen, however, if the CCSS have resulted in codifying
standards that are sufficiently comprehensive and proportionately
reflective of our democratic ambitions.
Arguably, a mainstay of democratic schooling is education of the
masses in service to equitably distributed interests (Dewey, 1916,
p. 100). In the United States, we strive to prepare students to participate in a citizenry in which both the individual and collective
good are balanced through the development of mature thinkers
89

Russ, Shailaja, & Duggirala, 2013; Craik, Bialystok, & Freedman,

2010). Aside from these advantages, bilingualism is a fundamental
part of a persons identity. Whether nurtured from birth or developed later in life, the ability to communicate in more than one
language proffers power and the means to resist oppression (Cummins, 2000). It amplifies our ability to establish and maintain social
networks (Granados, 2015). What we say, how we view the world,
and with whom we can communicate are intimately related to our
linguistic capacity (Edwards, 2013).
Given these advantages, it is fair to ask if it is in the interest of
the public good to find ways to support and nurture bilingualism.
We, therefore, find it puzzling to understand why our students
who enter schools already exposed to a language other than English
are educated according to standards that address only English language arts, and may have the (perhaps) unintended consequence
of devaluing other languages. Fully 21% of students currently
attending U.S. public schools come from a home in which there
is an influence of a language other than English (Armario, 2013).
These learners are the fastest growing school-age demographic in
the United States and are projected to comprise 25% of all students in U.S. schools by 2020 (Fry, 2008; Loes & Saavedra, 2010).
While these students are often referred to as English language
learners, we prefer the term emerging bilingual learners (EB)
as it demarcates the importance of the development of a students
entire linguistic repertoire and emphasizes that these languages
are unfolding and coming into prominence in complementary and
intersecting contexts. It is not inconsequential that 80% of EB students live in homes in which Spanish is the other language (Kindler,
2002, p.6). Importantly, the great majority of these students, 77%
at the elementary level and 56% at the secondary level, were born
in the United States (Capp, Fix, Murray, Ost, Passel, & Herwantoro, 2005). Three-quarters of the students who come to school
with exposure to more than one language are U.S. citizens who, in
less than five years, will comprise one in four school-age children.
They have never spoken only English, yet the standards they will be
asked to meet when they enter school specify that language arts be
taught and measured in English and excludes the potential benefits
of complementing this skill set with mature bilingualism.
In this article, we describe a more comprehensive and encompassing vision of language arts that proposes that including a focus
on becoming biliterate is justified and argue for a more holistic and
integrated vision of multilingualism that begins with the students
who enter school speaking more than one language, but which
might easily inform a vision that includes bilingualism for all. We
imagine that a more apropos and ambitious starting place for the
CCSS would be to adopt the belief that all students are capable of
learning in and through two or more languages.
While it is imperative to recognize that bilingualism for all is
the pinnacle, we propose we have an immediate moral, ethical,
and legal obligation to institute best practices for EBs beginning
with a robust consideration of linguistically inclusive holistic language arts. Holistic biliteracy entails more than simple attention
to literacy in two distinct languages. Learning to read and write
90

in two languages differs in fundamental ways from learning to

read and write in one (Commins & Miramontes, 2006; Grant &
Wong, 2003). The implication is that pedagogies, methodologies, and assessment systems designed for monolingual children
are often inadequate for the vast majority of bilingual students.
In an effort to move the field forward with regard to interpreting
biliteracy development for Spanish-English bilingual children, we
have developed and tested a novel and potentially powerful way to
begin to understand biliteracy reading development through the
application of a trajectory toward biliteracy that capitalizes on theories of integrated and holistic biliteracy. This framework and the
concomitant philosophical shift in interpreting biliteracy reading
assessments introduces one way for educators to begin to augment
and think beyond the current CCSS language arts standards with
respect to bilingual learners.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
A holistic vision of language and literacy begins with the recognition that what is known and understood in one language contributes to what is known and understood in the other, and that all
languages contribute to a comprehensive linguistic and cognitive
system. In much of the literature this vision is referred to as holistic bilingualism (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011, p. 1; Durn & Palmer,
2014, p. 378). Adherents to a holistic or multicompetence conceptualization of bilingualism hold that the sum total of a persons
linguistic repertoire creates the conditions by which to acquire,
create, and accomplish more than when named languages are
conceived of as independent and mutually exclusive or fractional
(Cook, 1992; Grosjean, 1982). A fractional view of bilingualism
holds that the bilingual speaker must be measured in comparison
to a monolingual speaker of either language, thereby creating the
conditions by which most bilingual speakers are viewed as less than
their monolingual counterparts. This approach has been referred
to as monolingual bias (Grosjean, 1989, p. 4). The fracturing, or
compartmentalizing of languages, has led to bilingual programing
that interprets and tests each language one at a time and adheres
to policies of strictly separating languages. These policies and practices have been referred to as code-segregation (Guerra, 2012, p.
30), parallel monolingualism (Fitts, 2006, p. 352; Heller, 2001,
p. 219), or two solitudes (Cummins, 2005, p. 4).
In direct contrast to policies of strict separation of languages are
those programs that are informed by the premise that all languages
are available to a student at all times, and that the processes students use to make sense of any given context are dynamic and often
transcend any socially-constructed language boundaries. These
understandings of translanguaging move the field from perceiving
linguistic development as bound and language specific to a view
in which the heteroglossic nature of languaging disrupts monoglossic hierarchies. It envisions and enacts educational opportunities in which a holistic lens informs and defines the way bilingual
learners are taught (Garca & Wei, 2014; Jonsson, in press). Key
to this construct, and most relevant to this article, is the need to
J O U R N A L O F E D U C AT I O N V O L U M E 1 9 6 N U M B E R 2 2 0 1 6

develop assessment systems and frameworks for examining students understandings and academic achievement that embrace
this holistic lens and that conceptualize translingual processing as a
natural part of this endeavor.
Adopting a holistic understanding of language and literacy
development necessitates consideration of how to expand opportunities to develop literacy and language learning such that they
establish, sustain, and advance mature bilingualism. From this perspective, it is understood that all reading, writing, speaking, listening, and viewing, regardless of language, contribute to a strong
foundation for the development of biliteracy. Thus, the totality of
childrens experiences leading to formal schooling provides a vast
linguistic repertoire that should be valued and accessed in service
to inclusive language and literacy development.
A theory of holistic bilingualism allows the reconceptualization
of how literacy achievement intersects across named languages. It
provides a framework for creating an assessment trajectory that
requires that students in biliteracy programs be assessed in two
languages and that these assessments be interpreted together to
allow a more complete understanding of literacy accomplishments
and biliterate proficiencies.
Key to this plan is the development of assessment systems for
examining students understandings and academic achievement
that embrace this holistic lens and a conceptualization of translingual processing as a natural part of this endeavor. Attention to the
pedagogies of bilingualism that create the conditions and contexts
within which students can thrive is a universal responsibility that
will require knowledgeable leadership. Beyond the mandates of the
CCSS, we need to explore and test promising practices that invite
and celebrate biliteracy, but, in addition, we must adopt frameworks that are defensible, affirming, and holistic.
PEDAGOGICAL MODEL: Literacy Squared
Literacy Squared (Escamilla et al., 2014) is an innovative biliteracy
model that provides a pedagogical framework for complementing
and augmenting the language arts standards in the CCSS. Initiated
in 2004, Literacy Squared begins with the premise that literacy across
languages should be synchronized, and that instruction in two languages begins in kindergarten. The introduction to two-language
literacy (paired literacy) beginning in kindergarten is a fundamental departure from traditional bilingual education models that insist
on delaying literacy instruction in one language until students meet
a particular set of criteria in the other. In this model literacy is not
conceived as specific to individual languages, rather, it is enacted
holistically such that instruction in each language is coordinated
and interdependent.The literacy instruction that takes place in one
language is directly and explicitly connected to the literacy instruction that takes place in the other. The overarching connections
begin with the themes, genres, texts, comprehension strategies,
and oracy structures that overlap to provide a common context for
reading and writing instruction. From the outset, a teacher plans
knowing that the genres and texts that students experience in one

language should relate to the genres and texts students experience

in the other. These are not duplicative, but parallel and complementary. Further, this holistic bilingual pedagogical framework
proposes that reading, writing, oracy, and metalanguage be incorporated in balanced proportion, and that two-language assessment
systems be administered and interpreted through a lens of holistic
bilingualism. In this study, the languages were Spanish and English;
however, the theoretical and pedagogical underpinnings have the
potential to inform instruction in other languages.
THE STUDY
A foundational aspect of our work is that we accept as axiomatic the
fact that development of literacy in two-language literacy differs
from the development of literacy in only one (Bernhardt, 2003;
Commins & Miramontes, 2006; Grant & Wong, 2003). Thus, we
hypothesized that typically developing trajectories toward biliteracy would likely present differently than monolingual literacy trajectories, and that the collection and examination of two-language
reading outcome data had the potential to offer profound insights
into these differences. These conjectures led us to use informal
measures of biliteracy to develop a hypothetical trajectory toward
biliteracy that might allow us to better capture the totality of what
students were accomplishing with regard to reading and writing
in Spanish and English. The trajectory, while initially hypothetical,
gave us a point from which to begin to analyze and evaluate students biliterate progress differently. It also led to a breakthrough
in our thinking about how best to plan literacy instruction. In the
following sections, we present and explain the trajectory, describe
the data that validated the trajectory, and offer an explanation of
how the trajectory helped inform a pedagogy of holistic biliteracy
that might serve to complement the CCSS.
Two questions guided this inquiry: (1) What evidence-based
trajectory can be created to model reading development in two
languages? (2) To what extent does the trajectory to biliteracy
capture the reading achievement of students learning in a K5,
Spanish-English paired-literacy program? The theoretical and
evidence-based considerations that were weighed in the creation
of the trajectory will be described along with empirical evidence
of the extent to which the trajectory captures and accounts for the
biliterate reading outcomes of students in a paired-literacy (two
languages) model.
Phase I: The Biliteracy Reading Trajectory
Using an inductive methodology grounded in the theory of holistic
bilingualism, we designed and tested the trajectory to contribute
to the national dialogue regarding the role of languages other than
English in a comprehensive language arts agenda that complements the adoption and enactment of the CCSS. We collected and
analyzed biliteracy reading data from more than 2,900 children
and used grounded theory to create a hypothetical description of
biliteracy reading advances that might be projected to describe
students trajectories to becoming biliterate (Strauss & Corbin,

COMPLEMENTING THE COMMON CORE WITH HOLISTIC BILITERACY

91

1996). Specifically, we invoked evidence to create and test a biliterate reading trajectory that describes and predicts students biliteracy reading development when they are taught within a biliteracy
reading model, in this instance, Literacy Squared, described in the
previous section.
Knowing that becoming literate in two languages differs from
becoming literate in one led to the conclusion that monolingual
assessments and monolingual expectations were likely not capturing or documenting the aggregate accomplishments of students
becoming biliterate. In response, we hypothesized that because the
path to biliteracy is uniquely singular, varying by languages, contexts, and age of acquisition, an individuals trajectory would be
better measured using a two-language continuum that allowed for
a students reading achievement to be interpreted in comparison
to a range of levels rather than a fixed cut score (Hopewell & Escamilla, 2014b). Further, biliterate development is not always a linear process, and ranges of levels reflect better the complexity that
becoming biliterate entails (Moll, Sez, & Dworin, 2001). While
a true biliterate trajectory should include attention to more than
reading, we needed a starting place, and reading theory, research,
and assessment in both monolingual and bilingual systems are better established than those of writing or oral language. Therefore,
we began by examining how systems of reading assessments might
be used to model the development of biliteracy.
Our initial conjecture established a series of increasingly more
advanced ranges of reading outcomes that would allow us to capture and better describe students relative progress across two languages without the concomitant need to describe that trajectory
in unnecessarily negative, derogatory, or deficit terms. Reading
ranges differ from traditional cut scores in that a wider spectrum of outcomes is accepted as evidence of sufficient progress as
opposed to a single minimum score. At first grade, for example,
the publisher of the tests we administered, the Evaluacin de lectoescritura (EDL2) (Ruiz & Machado Cuesta, 2007) and Developmental
Reading Assessment (DRA2) (Beaver & Carter, 2007), recommends
that a student should end the year reading independently at a level
16. In biliteracy classrooms, we suggest that reading scores in the
range of 1216 in Spanish and 810 in English be interpreted as
evidence of adequate biliteracy progress. By rejecting a fixed cut
score we also changed the dialogue with regard to these students
accomplishments and recognized that literacy development in two
languages may take longer and follow a unique path with regard to
reading levels. It is not without precedent for a student to plateau
in one language as the other advances. This student should not be
considered in terms of stagnating growth but rather, having made
advances within the overall system. While the establishment of
ranges does not completely eradicate the problems inherent in cut
scores, it somewhat attenuates what can be an unstable and unreliable means of making decisions regarding growth and development
(Francis, Fletcher, Stuebing, Lyon, Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S.
E., 2005). Furthermore, it begins to capture the holistic notion
that a students language and literacy capacities may vary by context and content, and that all these variables must be considered
92

when determinations are made regarding emerging bilingual students growth and development in language and literacy (Grosjean, 2008).
Any assessment system purporting to chronicle a trajectory
toward biliteracy must include evaluations in each language; therefore, we created a SpanishEnglish trajectory that began with the
premise that each students literacy levels would need to be measured in both Spanish and English. The scores of the EDL2 (Ruiz
& Machado Cuesta, 2007) and the DRA2 (Beaver & Carter, 2007)
were used to determine the relationship of reading levels that represented what students who were becoming biliterate ought to achieve
if each students abilities in each language grew in parallel, though
not necessarily at an equivalent pace. This assessment system was
chosen because the EDL2 and DRA2 are parallel instruments that
measure similar constructs in Spanish and English and have been
determined to be valid and reliable measures of reading (Pearson
Education, 2011). While these instruments served our purposes
well, the trajectory was not contingent upon the use of these particular assessments; the theoretical and practical suppositions could be
applied using any set of parallel assessment instruments to document
and understand students biliteracy achievement.
With regard to a SpanishEnglish trajectory, we assumed that
a students literacy level in Spanish would be slightly higher than
the literacy level in English, and that given appropriate instruction, including explicit attention to paired literacy across languages
beginning in kindergarten, there would not be an extensive gap
between these levels, and that over time the literacy outcomes
might converge. We expected Spanish to be the language of greater
literacy accomplishment for two reasons: (a) in nearly all biliteracy programs designed to meet the needs of SpanishEnglish
emerging bilingual learners, literacy instruction begins with the
language thought to be more dominant in the home (i.e., Spanish),
and (b) Spanish (as compared to English) has a more transparent
orthography whereby the pronunciation of a word is predictable
as lettersound correspondence is mostly stable and strongly rule
governed. The set of skills and strategies associated with becoming literate in Spanish, however, is applicable to those required to
become literate in English, so we determined that with appropriate instruction in which teachers made these connections clear,
English language literacy would advance in parallel. The EDL2 and
DRA2, when administered and examined simultaneously, provided insights into these relationships and allowed us to observe
and document childrens holistic growth with regards to biliterate patterns of progression as each documents the development of
emergent concepts about print, oral reading fluency, oral reading
accuracy, and comprehension ability in both fiction and non-fiction
texts. Considerations across languages with regard to establishing
comparable text difficulty include text structure, number and size
of graphic features, literary features such as description of setting
or character development, amount of picture support, text size
and layout, and number of words/lines per page (Pearson, http://
assets.pearsonglobalschools.com/asset_mgr/current/201324/
EDL2_Sampler.pdf, n.d.). Each evaluation system includes
J O U R N A L O F E D U C AT I O N V O L U M E 1 9 6 N U M B E R 2 2 0 1 6

suggestions for monitoring reading instruction and documenting

student growth and change over time. The parallel construction of
the instruments allowed for the measurement of comparable skills
and strategies across languages.
The biliterate reading trajectory considers parallel ranges to
represent ideal zones for biliteracy development (Escamilla et al.,
2014). Determining a zone requires assessing a student in Spanish and English and plotting that childs reading development
side-by-side. These outcomes are then interpreted in relation to
one another. A student is considered in the biliterate reading zone
when the Spanish reading score and English reading score are in
parallel boxes on the biliteracy reading trajectory (see Table 1).
While growth across time is represented somewhat linearly, the
acceptance of ranges of scores allowed for some flexibility with
regard to fluctuation and periods of language/literacy plateau.
The original trajectory and the concomitant zones were originally
hypothetical and theoretically conceived, and in the study reported
here, they were tested empirically (see Table 1).
Table 1. Biliterate Reading Trajectory
BILITERATE READING ZONES
EDL2 Level (Spanish)

DRA2 Level (English)

A3

A3 (Exposure)

46

A3

810

46

1216

810

1828

1216

3038

1828

40

3038

5060

collected reading achievement outcomes in Spanish and English

for over 2,900 children in grades K4 from 18 schools across
Colorado and Texas. Participants were all Latino/Latina, primarily of Mexican-American heritage, and the majority qualified for
free and reduced price lunch. All were attending schools that had
adopted the Literacy Squared model.
As has been noted, Literacy Squared differs from other models of
biliteracy in that it asks teachers to begin paired literacy in Spanish
and English in kindergarten. Initially, however, in Phase I we advocated Spanish-only literacy instruction in kindergarten with paired
literacy in two languages beginning in first grade. The instructional approaches, strategies, and assessments were coordinated
across languages such that lessons were complementary, but not
duplicative. Equal attention was given to reading, writing, oracy,
and metalanguage, and the literacy instruction was conceived and
planned holistically with both languages comprising the entirety of
the literacy block. Detailed explication of the instructional components and strategies beyond what has been described in this article
can be found in Biliteracy from the Start: Literacy Squared in Action
(Escamilla et al., 2014).
Table 2 presents a comparison of the hypothesized reading
zones to the students actual reading achievement in English when
examined in relationship to Spanish language outcomes.
Table 2. Targeted and Research-Based Biliteracy Zones
(Phase I, 2009)
Targeted Zones

40+

As seen in Table 1, to adequately interpret a students progress,

assessments of reading development in both Spanish and English
were administered. The levels were then interpreted through the
use of the ranges represented in Table 1. A student who was considered in a zone that represents a positive trajectory toward biliteracy would have reading levels in each language that appear in
parallel boxes. For example, if a students assessment indicated a
Spanish reading level between 12 and 16, we expected that child
to demonstrate the skills, strategies, and language development in
English associated with levels 8 to 10. Again, the expectation in
English is slightly below that in Spanish because the reading skills
and strategies mastered in Spanish are highly applicable and relevant to reading development in English. In fact, we contend that a
slightly depressed score in English had little to do with academic
literacy achievement, and more to do with language acquisition
and has implications for biliterate reading instruction.
To test our hypothetical biliteracy reading trajectory, we
began collecting and analyzing EDL2 and DRA2 outcome data
for each student in Phase I (20072009). During this phase we

Research Results Ranges

EDL2 (Spanish)

DRA2 (English)

DRA2 (English)

A2

A2

A2

36

A2

13

810

36

24

1216

810

36

1828

1216

1018

3038

1828

2028

40

3038

3040

5060

40+

38+

For each EDL2 level, we looked at the percent of students who

scored at a particular DRA2 level each year, and based on the most
frequent DRA2 scores, determined a range of DRA2 scores for
each EDL2 level. For example, for all the students who scored a
16 on the EDL2 in 2007, the modal score for the DRA2 level was
6. This continued to be true in 2008 and in 2009. Although the
mode was 6, the mean score on the DRA2 was 3, and in Table 2 we
report levels 36 in the research results ranges. As can be seen in this
table, students from Phase I scored lower in English in relation to
Spanish when their Spanish language results were between levels
8 and 16; however, once reaching levels 1828 in Spanish, their
reading development reflected the expected trajectory. Phase I,
however, involved a steep learning curve for teachers and students,
so we waited until the end of Phase II to decide whether lowering the expectations at the early end of the continuum merited

COMPLEMENTING THE COMMON CORE WITH HOLISTIC BILITERACY

93

discussion. The hope was that with greater fidelity of implementation to the instructional aspects of Literacy Squared, we might anticipate increased student outcomes.
Phase II: Refining the Trajectory
Again, and importantly, in Phase I, we advocated beginning paired
literacy instruction in Spanish and English beginning in first grade.
During Phase II, the explicit and formal introduction to English
literacy, scaffolded on the literacy skills and knowledge being
acquired in Spanish, began in the spring of the kindergarten year
and had important and consequential effects on students likelihood

of demonstrating biliteracy achievement that reflects the biliteracy

reading trajectory. In the following section, we report on Phase II,
during which the trajectory was refined.
Allowing for the passage of time, the increased fidelity of implementation, and the addition of paired literacy beginning in kindergarten, we re-examined the proposed trajectory to understand
the extent to which it represented students actual achievement.
Fidelity of implementation was established through annual observations of literacy instruction that were guided by a two-page
researcher-developed observation protocol (see Appendix A).
Teachers were systematically observed once or twice per year

Table 3. Targeted and Research-Based Biliterate Reading Zones, Phase II, 20102014, N = 209

20102011
(Grade 1)

DRA2 Range
above
projections

N of Ss above
DRA2 range

Total N of Ss in
or above
projected ranges

10

83

11

92

13

62

824

18

86

810

28

45

1216

12

40

65

89

1216

34

38

1828

44

78

88

18

1828

11

61

30

14

78

3038

n/a

40+

n/a
TOTAL

161

77

EDL2 Range

N of Ss in EDL
Range

DRA2
Projected Range

N of Ss in
projected zone

46

12

A3

810

21

46

1216

62

1828
3038
40
50-60
20112012
(Grade 2)

46

A3

810

46

25

10

50

1216

12

810

25

1218

67

1828

88

12 -16

37

42

18 30

37

74

84

3038

88

1828

44

50

3040

37

81

92

40

13

3038

10

77

40

11

85

50-60

40+

100

100

177

85

TOTAL
20122013
(Grade 3)

20132014
(Grade 4)

46

A3

100

100

810

46

1216

810

1630

100

1828

26

1216

27

1834

18

25

96

3038

105

1828

28

28

3040

68

96

91

40

57

3038

21

37

50

30

51

90

50-60

16

40+

16

100

16

100

TOTAL

191

91

46

A3

810

46

1216

810

1828

11

1216

1440

10

11

100

3038

52

1828

12

23

3050

39

51

98

40

69

3038

25

36

50

42

67

97

5060

74

40+

66

89

66

89

195

93

TOTAL

94

J O U R N A L O F E D U C AT I O N V O L U M E 1 9 6 N U M B E R 2 2 0 1 6

by two or more researchers, and categorized into low, medium,

and high implementers based on the outcomes of these observations. During observations, each feature of literacy instruction
was marked as: (a) developing/not evident, (b) evident, or (c)
exceptional. The teacher was categorized as a low, medium, or
high implementer of Literacy Squared based on the overall total.
Patterns that emerged across teachers and schools were then used
to define the topics for the four full-day professional development
experiences teachers had each year. Further, on-site instructional
coaches met with individual teachers to discuss the feedback from
the observations and offered to help plan or model future instruction. Over time more teachers were categorized as medium to
high implementers as they experienced greater professional development and feedback from instructional coaches.
To better understand a typically developing trajectory, we
selected a cohort of 209 students from 13 schools in a school district in the Northwest United States who began kindergarten in
20092010 in Literacy Squared schools, and examined their biliterate development from kindergarten to Grade 4. To be included
in the analyses, participants needed to have complete Spanish and
English reading data (EDL2 and DRA2 scores) from Spring 2010
through Spring 2014. We used frequency counts to determine how
many students were in the projected Biliterate Reading Zones. We
first categorized students according to their EDL2 outcomes.Then,
for the students within each range, we determined the number
and percentage who were demonstrating reading achievement in
the projected DRA2 range. Because we found that many students
within a particular EDL2 range were reading beyond the projected
DRA2 zone, we also report the number of students whose DRA2
scores exceeded the projected range. Finally, these numbers were
combined to show the total number of students reading within and
beyond the projected range (see Table 3).
As seen in Table 3 the great majority of students at all grade levels were reading at or above their projected levels in English when
interpreted in relation to their Spanish reading levels. In first grade,
77% of the 209 children were in the projected biliteracy zone, and
this percentage increases to 93% by the spring of Grade 4.

Knowing if a student is proceeding along a biliterate trajectory,

however, does not necessarily indicate that child is performing at
grade level. Within Literacy Squared, prior to Grade 4, we accept
a broader range of levels as indicative of sufficient progress toward
grade level biliteracy than is indicated by the publisher of the
assessments. As can be seen in Table 4, the percentage of students
in this cohort reading at grade level in Spanish ranged from 68%
to 91%. Of the students reading at grade level in Spanish, over
three-quarters (78%96%) were in their biliteracy zones indicating that they were making adequate progress in English while
not sacrificing their literacy development in Spanish. Though the
percentage of children achieving at grade level in Spanish drops
in fourth grade, it is important to note that it is a function of the
assessment that in fourth grade, the only level available to show
grade level achievement is level 40. This is the exact level that
would be expected of a student becoming literate in only one
language. By fourth grade, two-thirds of the students who have
participated in paired literacy instruction since kindergarten were
reading in Spanish at a level comparable to what would be expected
of a monolingual speaker of English in an English-only literacy program. Additionally, nearly 100% of fourth graders reading at grade
level in Spanish were also demonstrating comparable growth in
English. These students were becoming highly biliterate, indicating
that the language arts skills and strategies required by the CCSS
(e.g., determine the theme of a story, drama, or poem from details
in the text; or describe in depth a character, setting, or event in a
story or drama, drawing on specific details in the text) were attainable in two languages given adequate instruction, sufficient time,
and the application of a biliterate lens to interpret their literacy
accomplishments across the years.
Figure 1. Students Meeting Projected and Research-Based
Biliteracy Zones
Projected and Research-Based Biliterate Zones
100
90
80

Grade EDL2 Goal

N Reaching
EDL2 (Spanish)
Benchmark or
Higher

% Reaching
EDL2 (Spanish)
Benchmark
(N/209)

% of Ss at
Benchmark
or Higher in
Spanish and in
Biliteracy Zone

Level 12 or
higher

170

81

78

Level 18 or
higher

190

91

88

Level 30 or
higher

178

85

92

Level 40 or
higher

139

70
Number of Students

Table 4. Students Reaching Spanish Reading Benchmark

and in Biliteracy Reading Zone

60
50
40
30
20
10

68

96

COMPLEMENTING THE COMMON CORE WITH HOLISTIC BILITERACY

0
Gr Gr
1 2

Gr Gr Gr
1 2 3

Gr Gr Gr Gr
1 2 3 4

Gr Gr Gr Gr
1 2 3 4

Gr Gr Gr
2 3 4

EDL2 810
DRA2 46/
820

EDL2 1216
DRA2 810/
1030

EDL2 1828
DRA2 1216/
1840

EDL2 3038
DRA2 1828/
1840

EDL2 40
DRA2 3038/
4050

Above Projected DRA2 Range

Projected DRA2 Range

95

Importantly, in the two ranges that were in question in the first

analysis (EDL2 810 and EDL2 1216), in Figure 1, which shows
students meeting projected and research-based biliteracy zones,
we see that the majority of students (up to 100% depending on
the range and grade level) scored in the projected zones. Further,
at many levels, students English reading outcomes in relation to
their Spanish reading outcomes exceeded the projections, causing
us to wonder if we should elevate expectations. This is particularly true beginning at EDL2 range 3038 when, beginning in
Grade 2, nearly as many students exceeded the trajectory as were
captured by it. In fact, by Grade 3, more students in this EDL2
range exceeded the projections for DRA2 levels than were in it.
These findings confirmed that the biliterate trajectory as currently
rendered showed potential for interpreting childrens developing
bilingualism. Further, while it sets appropriate minimum expectations in Spanish and English, analyses indicated that students may
have regularly exceeded the current biliterate zones. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship of students who were meeting the English
language literacy projections for their comparable Spanish language literacy score as compared to those who exceeded it.
Figure 2. Students Reaching Spanish Reading Benchmark and in
Biliteracy Reading Zone

200
180

Number of Students

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Gr 1

Gr 2

Achieved EDL2 Benchmark

Gr 3

Gr 4

Achieved Spanish Benchmark

and in Biliteracy Zone

Instructional Implications Linked to the Trajectory

In theorizing the biliterate reading trajectory and applying a holistic
understanding of language and literacy development, we proposed
that a students Spanish reading score should form the basis for all
literacy instruction; the literacy skills and knowledge the student
exhibited in Spanish would serve as a full indication of that students
reading capacity, while the English score would be interpreted as
more indicative of language development. A student who demonstrates mastery of reading ability in one language knows how to read
and can apply these skills and strategies to additional languages.What
96

will keep that student from demonstrating comparable ability in the

additional language will not be reading ability, but rather less familiarity with the cultural context, a heightened demand to comprehend and produce complex language forms and vocabulary, and an
overall need to develop the discourses of literacy and literacy assessment.While both scores are needed to understand the biliteracy trajectory, the Spanish language score underpins reading instruction in
both Spanish and English.This assumes, as is the case for the students
in our study, that Spanish is the language of greater proficiency upon
school entry.While we might hypothesize an inverse expectation for
students who have greater English dominance, we do not have the
empirical data to support such conjecture, and consider this an area
for future research.
Consistent with the framework, we asked teachers to use the
biliteracy reading zones to choose materials and plan instruction.
A student reading at level 30 in Spanish, for example, would be
exposed to English language reading materials in the range of
1828, regardless of what that students actual reading outcome in
English would have determined to be appropriate. Students were
then held accountable for applying the skills and knowledge they
could demonstrate in Spanish (in the example above this would
mean the reading skills indicative of level 30 reading) to the work
of reading in English. Central to this approach to biliteracy development was the requirement that the teacher be intimately familiar
with each students biliteracy profile. This paradigm shift resulted
in many students being exposed to text in English that their assessments would have originally indicated were too difficult.
As demonstrated through the analysis of Phase II data, this pedagogical shift seems to have resulted in the great majority of students
exhibiting biliterate reading behaviors appropriate to their zones,
corroborating that the biliterate reading trajectory has potential
not only to help make sense of typically developing biliteracy, but
also the instructional practices that might serve to accelerate them.
It also demonstrates that skills and abilities in language arts need
not be isolated to those included in English language assessments,
as is currently required by the CCSS. Rather, students should be
credited for what they know and can do in language arts regardless
of the language of demonstration, and this information should be
used to nurture and accelerate trajectories toward biliteracy.
DISCUSSION
We have argued that biliteracy is a greater and more complex
form of literacy than single-language literacy, and that this construct should complement the CCSS, which are focused solely on
English. As seen through the examination of the trajectory toward
biliteracy, with appropriate instruction, two-thirds of the students
were able to meet monolingual benchmarks albeit in Spanish,
while simultaneously demonstrating impressive gains in English
language literacy. The grade level language arts standards that were
achieved were applied in a language other than English.
If, as we have argued, education in a democracy is designed to
serve both the individual and the collective good, a system that
J O U R N A L O F E D U C AT I O N V O L U M E 1 9 6 N U M B E R 2 2 0 1 6

values and promotes bilingualism and bilingual language arts is in

our national interest. The CCSS were developed to prepare children for college and career yet in each decade innovation spawns
new industries and careers that could not have been anticipated.
Consider for example careers as app creators, Cloud Service specialists, and developers of online learning. It is possible to imagine
a future that requires knowledge, skills, and abilities that have not
yet been discovered. On the other hand, in an increasingly global
world it is difficult to imagine that biliteracy would not be advantageous. By restricting our students to systems that value only what
can be demonstrated in English, we not only underestimate their
potential, we limit their futures. By complementing the CCSS with
biliteracy, we create conditions for universal, inclusive, and elevated literacy achievement that expands and augments opportunities rather than limiting them.
Doing so, however, requires novel ways to assess and interpret
these unique bilingual trajectories. One possibility is the biliterate reading trajectory presented here. It offers a research-tested
means of determining if students are making adequate progress
toward attaining literacy in two or more languages. Further, it can
be used to make distinctions to inform instruction. A limitation of
this system, however, is that it only represents one domain of literacy (reading). Future work is needed to create similar trajectories
in writing and oral language development. Further, the research
to support this particular interpretation of biliteracy trajectories
was done with simultaneous bilingual learners who are acquiring
Spanish and English in segregated Latino/Latina schools. We need
to understand the trajectories of many other populations who are
being educated in very different contexts. Finally, we recognize
that two-language assessments impose an additional burden on
teachers, and that the time it takes to administer these assessments
is time that cannot be spent in instruction.
Another possible way to acknowledge biliteracy achievement as
complementary and exceeding the CCSS language arts standards
is for states to adopt and endorse a Seal of Biliteracy, or awards or
recognitions that are added to a diploma or transcript to indicate
to colleges and potential employers that an individual has attained
high levels of bilingualism and biliteracy in English and one or two
additional languages beyond the English language arts required
by the Common Core. In 2011, California was the first state to
approve, adopt, and regulate a Seal of Biliteracy program. Now,
there are eight states that have such seals, with eight additional
states taking it up legislatively, and seven states in the early stages of
adoption (Californians Together). Clearly, there is a movement to
acknowledge that those students who achieve biliteracy in addition
to the English language arts standards required by the Common
Core have achieved something worthy of recognition.
The CCSS have been lauded as ambitious and forward thinking. We continue to ponder, however, if they privilege particular
ways of demonstrating language competencies and if for some,
their codification of the importance of English only actually limits
students educational experiences. While we do not argue for the
creation of additional standards, we do believe it is in our interest

to expand our notion of what counts as language arts knowledge

and ability, and to find ways to reward and celebrate those students whose biliteracy achievements are superior to the accomplishments of students who achieve the CCSS in only one language.
References
Alladi, S., Bak, T. H., Russ, T. C., Shailaja, M., & Duggirala, V. (2013).
Bilingualism delays age at onset of dementia, independent of education
and immigration status. Neurology, 81(22), 19381944.
Armario, C. (2013). U.S. bilingual education challenge: Students
learning English as second language at risk. Huffington Post. Retrieved
from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/14/us-bilingualeducation-_n_3079950.html
Beaver, J., & Carter, M. (2007). Developmental Reading Assessment (2nd
ed.). Parsippany, NJ: Pearson.
Bernhardt, E. (2003). Challenges to reading research from a multilingual
world. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1), 112117.
Bialystok, E., & Martin, M. M. (2004). Attention and inhibition in
bilingual children: Evidence from the dimensional change card sort
task. Developmental Science, 7(3), 325339.
Californians Together. Seal of Biliteracy. Retrieved from http://
sealofbiliteracy.org/faq.
Capp, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J. S., & Herwantoro, S.
(2005). The new demography of Americas schools: Immigration and the No
Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Carlson, S. M., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2008). Bilingual experience and
executive functioning in young children. Developmental Science, 11(2),
282298.
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2011). A holistic approach to multilingual
education: Introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 339343.
Commins, N., & Miramontes, O. (2006). Addressing linguistic diversity
from the outset. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 240246.
Cook, V. J. (1992). Evidence for multi-competence. Language Learning,
(42)4, 557591.
Craik, F., Bialystok, E., & Freedman, M. (2010). Delaying the onset of
Alzheimer disease, Neurology, 75(19), 17261729.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the
crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (2005).Teaching for cross-language transfer in dual language
education: Possibilities and pitfalls. Paper presented at the TESOL
Symposium of Dual Language Education: Teaching and Learning Two
Languages in the EFL Setting. Istanbul, Turkey, September 23, 2005.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy
of education. New York, NY: MacMillan.
Durn, L., & Palmer, D. (2014). Pluralistic discourses of bilingualism and
translanguaging talk in classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy,
14(3), 367388.
Edwards, J. (2013). Bilingual and multilingualism: Some central concepts.
In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism and
multilingualism (2nd ed., pp. 525). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Retrieved from http://media.johnwiley.com.au/product_data/
excerpt/76/11189412/1118941276-22.pdf
Escamilla, K., Hopewell, S., Butvilofsky, S., Sparrow, W., SolteroGonzlez, L., Ruiz-Figueroa, O., & Escamilla, M. (2014). Biliteracy
from the Start: Literacy Squared in action. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon
Publishing.

COMPLEMENTING THE COMMON CORE WITH HOLISTIC BILITERACY

97

Fitts, S. (2006). Reconstructing the status quo: Linguistic interaction in a

dual-language school. Bilingual Research Journal, 30, 337366.
Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz,
B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the
identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 98108.
Fry, R. 2008. The role of schools in the English language learner achievement
gap. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://
pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=89
Garca, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and
education. New York, NY: Palgrave.
Granados, N. R. (2015). Dual language graduates participation in
bilingual and biliterate communities of practice across time and space.
Bilingual Research Journal, 38(1), 4564.
Grant, R. A., & Wong, S. D. (2003). Barriers to literacy for language
minority learners: An argument for change in the literacy education
profession. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 46(5), 386394.
Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists beware! The bilingual is not two
monolinguals in one. Brain and Language, 36, 315.
Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying bilinguals. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Guerra, J. C. (2012). From code-segregation to code-switching to codemeshing: Finding deliverance from deficit thinking through language
awareness and performance. In P. J. Dunston, S. K. Fullerton, C. C.
Bates, K. N. Headley, & P. M. Stecker (Eds.), 61st Literacy Research
Association yearbook (pp. 2929). Oak Creek, WI: Literacy Research
Association.
Heller, M. (2001). Undoing the macro/micro dichotomy: Ideology and
categorization in a linguistic minority school. In N. Coupland (Ed.),
Sociolinguistics and social theory (pp. 261296). Harlow, UK: Pearson.
Hopewell, S., & Escamilla, K. (2014a). Biliteracy development in
immersion contexts. Journal of Immersion and Content-based Language
Education, 2(2), 181195.
Hopewell, S., & Escamilla, K. (2014b). Struggling reader or emerging
biliterate student?: Reevaluating the criteria for labeling emerging
bilingual students as low achieving. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(1),
6889.
Jonsson, C. (in press). Translanguaging as a theoretical construct and its
ideological implications: Moving away from a monolingual norm. In
A.Wedin, J, Rosn, B. Paulsrud, & B. Straszer (Eds.), Translanguaging
and education: New perspectives from the field.
Kindler, A. (2002). Survey of the states limited English proficient students and
available educational programs and services: 20002001 summary report.
Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language
Acquisition and Language Instruction Programs.

98

Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., Misra, M., & Guo, T. (2008). Language selection
in bilingual speech: Evidence for inhibitory processes. Acta Psychologica
128(3), 416430.
Loes, K., & Saavedra, L. (2010). A new vision to increase the academic
achievement for English language learners and immigrant students.
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.
urban.org/UploadedPDF/412265A-New-Vision-to-IncreaseAcademic-Achievement.pdf
Moll, L. C., Sez, R., & Dworin, J. (2001). Exploring biliteracy: Two
student case examples of writing as social practice. The Elementary
School Journal, 101, 435449.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of
Chief State School Officers [NGACBP & CCSSO]. (2010). Common
Core State Standards for English language arts & literacy in history/
social studies, science, and technical subjects (with Appendices A &
B). Washington, DC: Author.
Pearson Education (2011). DRA2 K8 Technical manual (2nd ed.)
Retrieved from http://assets.pearsonschool.com/asset_mgr/
current/20139/DRA2_Technical_Manual_2012.pdf.
Pearson Publishing. (n.d.). Evaluacin del desarrollo de la lectura,
Segunda Edicin. Retrieved from http://assets.pearsonglobalschools.
com/asset_mgr/current/201324/EDL2_Sampler.pdf
Poulin-Dubois, D., Blaye, A., Coutya, J., & Bialystok, E. (2011). The
effects of bilingualism on toddlers executive functioning. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 108(3), 567579.
Ruiz, O., & Machado Cuesta, V. (2007). Evaluacin del desarrollo de la
lectura (2nd ed.). Parsipanny, NJ: Pearson.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1996). Grounded theory in practice. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Susan Hopewell is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Equity and Cultural Diversity in the School of Education at the University of Colorado Boulder. Dr. Hopewell can be reached at susan.hopewell@colorado.edu.
Sandra Butvilofsky is a professional research associate in the BUENO Center
for Multicultural Education at the University of Colorado Boulder. Dr. Butvilofsky can be reached at sandra.butvilofsky@colorado.edu.
Kathy Escamilla is a professor in the Department of Educational Equity and
Cultural Diversity in the School of Education at the University of Colorado Boulder. Dr. Escamilla can be reached at kathy.escamilla@colorado.edu.

J O U R N A L O F E D U C AT I O N V O L U M E 1 9 6 N U M B E R 2 2 0 1 6

APPENDIX A. Literacy Squared Observation Protocol*

Circle the teaching approach used (M, E/S, C, I), and identify the implementation level for each domain/indicator (, , +). Include
evidence, comments, or questions about implementation in the empty columns. Review the protocol with the teacher to identify strengths
and focal areas for professional development.
Date

School

Observer

Time

Teacher

Grade

SPANISH LITERACY
Scheduled
min
Observed
min

Domain/Indicators
= Developing/Not evident
= Evident
+ = Exceptional
N/A = Not applicable (Only possible for italicized indicators)

Reading
MCEI
Writing
MCEI

Subject
LITERACY-BASED ELD
Scheduled
min
Observed
min
Reading
MSCI
Writing
MSCI

Text Selection or Production

Relevant to teaching objective
Appropriate linguistic aspects of text (e.g., syntax, vocabulary)
Appropriate literary aspects (e.g., genre, contextualized)
Culturally and personally relevant
Literacy Objective
Standards based ( = teaches to standard; + = includes all language domains)
Authentic to language environment

Oracy
Matches literacy objective
Students likely to encounter or use target vocabulary (from text and objectives)
Opportunities to dialogue are purposeful
Student participation in dialogue is scaffolded to ensure their success
Meaningful selection of language structures
Multiple opportunities for students to rehearse, appropriate, and respond to
target language structures
Teacher talk vs. student talk ( = 40%60% student talk;
+ = 61% student talk)
Multiple opportunities for connected discourse
Specifically address register and language variation
Structured student talk (e.g., think-pair-share, inside outside circles)

Accountability
Teacher has high and clear student expectations
All students are held accountable for actively participating in the activity/lesson
Teacher checks for student understanding
Teacher provides appropriate feedback to enhance student learning

All students are held accountable for completing their work

Cross-Language Connections
Connection between literacy environments (e.g., theme, genre, standards)
Visual side-by-side analysis of languages (e.g., cognates, anchor posters)
Metalanguage
Strategic translation (e.g., as se dice, homonym translation)
Teacher uses languages strategically to enhance student learning
(e.g., clarification, preview/review, instructions)
Teacher flexibly responds to students language alternations
(e.g., response to code-switching)

COMPLEMENTING THE COMMON CORE WITH HOLISTIC BILITERACY

99

Student Involvement
Students are actively engaged in activity/lesson
Students actively use language related to the lesson
Students communicate in whole groups or w/peers in a way that is
relevant to the lesson objective
Reading
Writing (or text related drawing)
Listening
Speaking
Students share prior knowledge or personal connections
Students demonstrate understanding of objectives or new learning
Students take pride in their work/learning

Lesson Delivery
Teacher clearly communicates literacy objective to students (How)
Teacher clearly communicates literacy objective to students (Why)
Teacher clearly communicates oracy objective to students
Teacher fosters safe environment for risk taking
Language specific metalanguage
Teacher successfully scaffolds students literacy learning based on their needs
Teacher explicitly models literacy and language objectives
Teacher gradually releases responsibility to students in an appropriate way,
allowing them to successfully meet the learning/language objective(s)

TheDictado
Students skip lines
Students use colored pen to self-correct
Students make self-corrections
TheDictado is comprehensible and contextualized
Same Dictado 3x/week
Clear teaching points
Explicit talk through is metalinguistic
TheDictado is between 1520 minutes
TheDictado has a title
Teacher reads entire Dictado for meaning

100

J O U R N A L O F E D U C AT I O N V O L U M E 1 9 6 N U M B E R 2 2 0 1 6