esl
Discuss why classroom practice for language is seen different than classroom practice for perceived non-language content? What are five takeaways from the chapter?
STATEBOARD OF EDUCATION
JOHN C. AUSTIN – PRESIDENT
• CASANDRA E. ULBRICH – VICE PRESIDENT
MICHELLE FECTEAU – SECRETARY • PAMELA PUG H – TREASURER
LUPE RAMO S-MONTIGNY – NASBE DELEG ATE • KATHLEEN N. STRAUS
EILEEN LAPPIN WEISER • RICHARD ZEILE
608 WEST ALLEGAN STREET • P.O. BOX 30008 • LANSING, MICHIGAN 4890
9
www.michigan.gov/mde • (517) 373-332
4
RICK SNYDER
GOVERNOR
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
LANSING
BRIAN J. WHISTON
STATE SUPERINTENDENT
DATE: October 27, 201
5
TO: State Board of Education
SUBJECT: Approval of the Michigan Standards for the Preparation of Teachers of World
Languages
In pursuit of its goal to improve teacher quality, the State Board of Education (SBE) is being
presented with the proposal for adoption of new Standards for the Preparation of Teachers of
World Languages. These standards will replace Michigan’s current Standards for the
Preparation of Teachers of Arabic (Modern Standard), Chinese (Mandarin), French, German,
Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Latin, Other World Languages, Polish, Russian and Spanish
as the guiding set of standards for initial teacher preparation in world language instruction
and will serve as the standards to support professional development of in-service teachers.
These standards will also form the basis for revised standards in American Sign Language and
Anishinaabemowin, which will require different guidance for assessing language proficiency
than the other languages in which Michigan teachers may be endorsed.
The World Language Advisory Committee (WLAC), composed of representatives from
Michigan’s public and independent teacher preparation programs in world languages and the
Michigan World Language Association (MIWLA), met over the past two years to update
Michigan’s Standards for the Preparation of Teachers of World Languages. This action was
motivated by the 2013 update of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
(ACTFL) and the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) Program
Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers, which were developed with
significant leadership from Michigan higher education representatives. Attachment A provides
details on the process of development of the proposed standards, including feedback received
during a period of public comment. Attachment B is the proposed Michigan Standards for the
Preparation of Teachers of World Languages.
The standards were submitted for SBE review at its October 13, 2015, meeting and for
approval at the November 10, 2015, meeting.
It is recommended that the State Board of Education approve the Michigan Standards for the
Preparation of Teachers of World Languages, as presented to the Board October 13, 2015,
and as described in the Superintendent’s memorandum dated October 27, 2015.
2
Attachment A
Introduction to Standards
for the Preparation of
Teachers of World
Languages
3
Conceptual Framework for the Preparation of Teachers in Michigan
A teacher preparation program is comprised of multiple interdependent components
that prepare candidates for certification to demonstrate proficiencies defined in
several aligned sets of standards.
• The Michigan Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (MI-
InTASC) Model Core Teaching Standards, adopted by the State Board of
Education (SBE) in 2013, define the theoretical and practical knowledge,
skills, and dispositions that all entry level teachers should possess upon
completion of an approved teacher preparation program.
• The Michigan Certification Standards for the Preparation of All Elementary
and Secondary Teachers in Reading Instruction specify the expected
knowledge and skills in the areas of reading that all teachers at the
elementary and secondary levels should possess upon entry to the
profession, regardless of content area specialization.
• Michigan-specific content standards define the central concepts, tools of
inquiry, and structures of the specific discipline(s) in which teacher
candidates seek endorsement, as well as pedagogical applications of that
disciplinary knowledge.
A recommendation for teacher certification is an assurance on the part of
the teacher preparation program that a candidate demonstrates the
appropriate proficiencies specified in each of these sets of standards.
Standards for the Preparation of Teachers of World Languages
Purpose
The purpose of the Standards for the Preparation of Teachers of World Languages is
to establish a shared vision for the knowledge and skills that entry level teachers of
world languages in Michigan should possess and be able to demonstrate in their
teaching, regardless of whether they follow a traditional or alternate route into the
profession. This document provides standards across six domains of professional
preparation to teach world languages, with indicators for acceptable levels of
performance at the point of entry to the field in the core elements of each standard
and substandard. These standards establish outcomes for graduates of teacher
preparation programs in world languages, and should be used to inform program
development and continuous improvement efforts at Michigan’s institutions of
higher education and alternate route providers. To support program evaluation and
continuous improvement, a rubric that includes the indicators of acceptable
performance detailed within the standards as well as indicators of target levels of
performance for new teachers to develop toward during the induction phase of their
teaching career, and unacceptable levels of performance has been developed. The
standards and rubric are based upon the American Council on the Teaching of
Foreign Languages (ACTFL) and Council for the Accreditation of Educator
Preparation (CAEP) Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign Language
Teachers, and because they incorporate the same standards and performance
indicators used by national accrediting bodies and specialty program associations
for recognition and accreditation decisions, Michigan programs’ alignment to these
state standards will support their accreditation activities.
4
Development of the Proposal
The World Language Advisory Committee (WLAC), composed of representatives
from Michigan’s public and independent teacher preparation programs in world
languages, began discussions about updating Michigan’s teacher preparation
standards early in 2014. This action was motivated by the 2013 update of the
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) and Council for
the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) Program Standards for the
Preparation of Foreign Language Teachers, which were developed with significant
leadership from Michigan higher education representatives. As Michigan’s Standards
for the Preparation of Teachers of World Languages, adopted by the SBE in 2004,
were based on ACTFL’s 2002 program standards, the WLAC considered the question
of whether to reaffirm existing Michigan standards, compose new standards, or
adopt the new ACTFL/CAEP Program Standards as Michigan’s standards. The WLAC
met on September 18, 2014, at the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) and
again on October 23, 2014, at the Michigan World Language Association Conference
to review the 2013 ACTFL/CAEP Program Standards and consider their applicability
for updating Michigan’s standards. The consensus was to recommend adoption of
the ACTFL/CAEP Program Standards as Michigan Standards for the Preparation of
Teachers in World Languages, with an additional substandard in the area of
Cultures, Linguistics, Literatures, and Concepts from Other Disciplines to ensure
Michigan teachers of world languages would be able to demonstrate a deeper
“understanding of the complex and abstract nature of language and distinguish
between language and communication” (Standard 2.d) than provided in the
ACTFL/CAEP Program Standards.
These standards have strong continuity with the previous Michigan standards with
respect to the level of proficiency teachers of world languages are expected to
demonstrate in target languages, as well as depth and breadth of knowledge of
cultures and cultural texts, language acquisition theories and processes, standards
for world language learning, lesson planning, curriculum standards and professional
behaviors. As in the previous Michigan standards and consistent with current ACTFL
guidelines, expected proficiency levels in oral interpersonal communication,
interpretive reading, and interpersonal and interpretive writing vary based on the
target language’s Foreign Service Institute (FSI) grouping, which takes into account
the amount of time that it takes to develop oral proficiency in these languages
when the native language is English: Advanced Low or higher for Groups I, II, III:
French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish; Intermediate High
for Group IV: Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean. … The languages are [also]
described in terms of their writing system: (1) languages that use a Roman
alphabet such as French, German, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish; (2) languages
that use a non-Roman alphabet such as Arabic, Hebrew, Korean, and Russian; (3)
languages that use characters such as Chinese and Japanese; and (4) classical
languages (Latin and Greek) where emphasis is on interpreting original texts.
Candidates who are native speakers of English and teach target languages that use
the Roman alphabetic system are able to attain a higher level of reading and
writing skill in those languages because they do not have to focus on learning a
5
new writing system.1
The new standards provide a stronger emphasis on pedagogical skills that teachers
of world languages are expected to demonstrate, particularly in the areas of
assessment of student learning and language proficiencies across several
dimensions of world language study, questioning strategies for eliciting student
language use, and providing opportunities for students to participate in authentic
interactions with native speakers of the target language. The standards require that
teacher preparation programs assess world language teacher candidates’ oral
proficiency skills via ACTFL’s Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI), a rigorous,
internationally recognized, valid and reliable assessment. Finally, as noted in the
previous section, these standards provide learning progressions for teachers
beyond their completion of an initial teacher preparation program to guide teacher
professional development through the induction phase of their careers. These
learning progressions take the form of a rubric that programs may use to assess
the performance of their teacher candidates.
Public comment on the proposed standards was solicited in May and June of 201
5.
An announcement of the public comment period was distributed in the MDE Weekly
Official Communication email (Memo #052-15) on May 14, and the Michigan World
Language Association (MIWLA) also sent two announcements to its membership
soliciting comments on May 18 and June 5. The public comment period ended on
June 14 at 5:00 PM, and five official comments were received by MDE. Three of the
comments expressed strong support for the standards as written, with particular
support offered for the proficiency levels specified in Standard 1.
A fourth comment expressed disappointment that the standards did not require a
study abroad experience to give candidates an immersive first-hand experience in
another country’s language and culture. MDE notes that while the previous
Standards for Preparation of Teachers of World Languages did not require a study
abroad or cultural immersion experience, the new standards do recognize the value
of teacher candidates having first-hand experiences living and studying in another
culture for strengthening their understanding of culture and proficiency in the target
language. Acceptable performance indicators for standard 2.a specify that
“[c]andidates gain personal experience to support academic language study by
spending planned time in a target culture or community.” While this could be
accomplished in the context of a study abroad experience, MDE recognizes that not
all educator preparation institutions have the capacity to facilitate international
programming and not all teacher candidates have the resources to accommodate
such an experience. Furthermore, MDE recognizes that increasing levels of linguistic
and cultural diversity across Michigan afford the possibility of adequately satisfying
this standard without leaving the state.
A fifth comment expressed concern that the new standards do not ensure adequate
preparation to enable World Language-certified teachers to teach subject matter
content in their target language effectively. While Standard 2 establishes the
1 American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2014, July). ACTFL/CAEP
program standards for the preparation of foreign language teachers. Retrieved from
http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ACTFLStandardsJULY2014
6
expectation that “[c]andidates demonstrate understanding of the multiple content
areas that comprise the field of world language studies” and “demonstrate
understanding of texts on literary and cultural themes as well as interdisciplinary
topics,” MDE emphasizes that the purpose of these standards is to establish the
knowledge and skills necessary to increase children’s global competence by learning
how to speak, read, write and listen in a world language, as well as by gaining an
understanding of the world cultures associated with the target language. A world
language endorsement by itself does not qualify a teacher to provide content area
instruction (such as in mathematics or science) in the target language. In order to
be qualified to provide content area instruction in a language other than English,
teachers should possess an endorsement in the specific content area to be taught
and either possess a Bilingual Education (Y_) endorsement in the target language
or be able to demonstrate appropriate proficiency in the target language.
Program Requirements
Educator preparation institutions wishing to recommend candidates for
endorsements in world languages must ensure that candidates have completed a
program of study that includes:
• elementary, secondary or K-12 major of at least 30 semester hours OR
elementary or secondary minor of at least 20 semester hours for initial
certification. For programs leading to an additional endorsement on an
existing teacher certificate, at least 20 semester hours for an elementary
or secondary endorsement or 30 hours for a K-12 endorsement;
• language coursework beyond the first four semesters of language
instruction in commonly taught languages (inclusive of Categories I and II
of the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) scale). For commonly taught
languages, coursework in the first four semesters of language instruction
must be considered prerequisite to programs’ minimum credit
requirements;
• ongoing assessment of candidates’ oral proficiency, including terminal
proficiency at the appropriate level noted in Standard 1 on ACTFL’s Oral
Proficiency Interview regardless of grade level authorization sought or
major/minor program status;
• a minimum of one methods course dealing specifically with the teaching
of world languages to the appropriate age group (elementary, secondary
or K-12) for which the endorsement is sought;
• field experiences prior to and inclusive of student teaching in world
language classrooms, supervised by a qualified world language educator;
and
• a separate professional education program of at least 20 semester hours
appropriate to grade level of the endorsement sought that prepares the
candidate to the appropriate learning progression of the MI-InTASC Model
Core Teaching Standards and the appropriate Michigan Certification
Standards for the Preparation of All Elementary and Secondary Teachers
in Reading Instruction.
In addition, K-12 initial and additional endorsement programs must provide:
• structured field experiences (inclusive of student teaching) in three areas:
elementary, middle school, and high school;
• course work in growth and development for early childhood and
7
adolescent learners; and
• preparation in instructional methods with specific strategies of instruction
for limited-English proficient students appropriate to all levels of
certification.
Endorsement Authorizations
Teachers possessing a secondary certificate with a World Language (6-12)
endorsement may teach the endorsed World Language in grades 6-12 only.
Teachers possessing a secondary certificate with a World Language (K-12)
endorsement may only teach the endorsed World Language in grades K-12. They
are not authorized to teach any other subjects in grades K-5 without additional
elementary certification or endorsements or any other subjects in grades 6-
12
without additional secondary endorsements.
Teachers possessing an elementary certificate with a World Language (K-8)
endorsement may teach all subjects K-5, including the endorsed World Language.
They may also teach the endorsed World Language in departmentalized instruction
in grades 6-8.
Teachers possessing an elementary certificate with a World Language (K-12)
endorsement may also teach all subjects K-5, including the endorsed World
Language. They may also teach the endorsed World Language in departmentalized
instruction in grades K-12
The chart below illustrates the different authorizations available to teachers earning
a World Language endorsement on an elementary or secondary teaching certificate.
Type of certificate
Endorsement Elementary Secondary
grade levels
K-8 • All subjects + World Language, • Not permitted
K-5
6-12 • Not permitted • World Language only,
6-12
K-12 • All subjects + World Language, • World Language only,
K-5 K-12
• World Language only, 6-12
8
Participants in Standards Development
Michael Braun
Master Faculty Specialist, Department
of Spanish
Western Michigan University
Christina DeNicolo, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Bilingual and
Bicultural Education
Wayne State University
Vickie De Vries, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of French
Calvin College
Julie A. Foss, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Modern Foreign
Languages
Saginaw Valley State University
Paul R. Fossum, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Education
University of Michigan – Dearborn
Wafa Hassan, Ed.D.
Assistant Professor of Arabic
Western Michigan University
Susan Knight, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Foreign
Languages, Literatures and Cultures
Central Michigan University
Sean Kottke, Ph.D.
Education Consultant
Michigan Department of Education
Kathy López
Certification Officer/College of
Education
Office of Admissions & Certification
Saginaw Valley State University
Thomas Lovik, Ph.D.
Professor of German
Michigan State University
Margaret Mandl
Student Teacher Supervisor
Oakland University
Fran Meuser, Ph.D.
Professor of Spanish
Oakland University
Anne Nerenz, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of World
Languages
Eastern Michigan University
Janel Pettes Guikema, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of French
Grand Valley State University
Norma H. Richardson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Spanish
Central Michigan University
Regina Smith, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of German
Grand Valley State University
Emily Spinelli, Ph.D.
Executive Director, American
Association of Teachers of Spanish
and Portuguese
Professor Emerita, University of
Michigan-Dearborn
Irma Torres
Consultant, World Languages
Oakland Schools
Bill VanPatten, Ph.D.
Professor of Spanish & Second
Language Studies
Michigan State University
Anne Violin-Wigent, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of French
Michigan State University
Michael Vrooman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Spanish
Grand Valley State University
9
Attachment B
Standards for the Preparation of Teachers of
World Languages (FA-FS)
World Languages (FA-FS) Content Standards
10
Source of ACTFL/CAEP Program Standards for the Program/Subject World
Guidelines/Standards: Preparation of Foreign Language Area: Languages
Teachers, 20
14
No. Guideline/Standard
1.
Language proficiency: Interpersonal, Interpretive, and Presentational
Candidates in world language teacher preparation programs possess a high level of proficiency
in the target languages they will teach. They are able to communicate effectively in
interpersonal, interpretive, and presentational contexts. Candidates speak in the interpersonal
mode at a minimum level of “Advanced Low” (French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Portuguese,
Russian, and Spanish) or “Intermediate High” (Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) on the
ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI). They comprehend and interpret oral, printed, and video
texts by identifying the main idea(s) and supporting details, inferring and interpreting the
author’s intent and cultural perspectives, and offering a personal interpretation of the text.
Candidates present information, concepts, and ideas to an audience of listeners or readers with
language proficiency characteristic of a minimum level of “Advanced Low” or “Intermediate
High” according to the target language, as described above.
1.a. Pre-service teachers will speak in the interpersonal mode of communication at a minimum level
of “Advanced Low” or “Intermediate High” (for Arabic, Chinese, Japanese and Korean) on the
ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) according to the target language being taught.
Acceptable Performance Indicators
Candidates speak at the Advanced Low level on the ACTFL proficiency scale except for candidates in Arabic,
Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, who speak at the Intermediate High level.
Advanced Low speakers narrate and describe in the major time frames in paragraph-length discourse with
some control of aspect. They handle appropriately the linguistic challenges presented by a complication or
unexpected turn of events within the context of a situation.
11
Intermediate High speakers handle a number of tasks of the Advanced level, but may be unable to sustain
performance of these tasks, resulting in one or more features of linguistic breakdown, such as the inability
to narrate and describe fully in a time frame or to maintain paragraph-length discourse.
1.b. Pre-service teachers will interpret oral, printed, and videotexts by demonstrating both literal
and figurative or symbolic comprehension.
Acceptable Performance Indicators
As listeners, candidates at the Advanced Low level are able to understand short conventional narrative and
descriptive texts with a clear underlying structure though their comprehension may be uneven. The listener
understands the main facts and some supporting details.
For readers of target languages that use a Roman alphabet, including classical languages, candidates read
at the Advanced Low level; they understand conventional narrative and descriptive texts with a clear
underlying structure though their comprehension may be uneven.
For readers of target languages that use a non-Roman alphabet or characters, candidates read at the
Intermediate High level; they understand fully and with ease short, non-complex texts that convey basic
information and deal with personal and social topics to which the reader brings personal interest or
knowledge.
1.c. Pre-service teachers will present oral and written information to audiences of listeners or
readers, using language at a minimum level of “Advanced Low” or “Intermediate High”
according to the target language being taught.
Elements Acceptable Performance Indicators
1.c.1. Presentational
Communication:
Speaking
Candidates deliver oral presentations extemporaneously, without reading notes
verbatim. Presentations consist of familiar literary and cultural topics and those
of personal interest. They speak in connected discourse using a variety of time
frames and vocabulary appropriate to the topic. They use extralinguistic support
as needed to facilitate audience comprehension.
12
1.c.2. Interpersonal and
Presentational
Communication: Writing
For target languages that use the Roman alphabet, candidates write at the
Advanced Low level on the ACTFL proficiency scale: they narrate and describe in
all major time frames with some control of aspect. They compose simple
summaries on familiar topics.
For target languages that use a non-Roman alphabet, candidates write at the
Intermediate High level on the ACTFL proficiency scale: they narrate and
describe in different time frames when writing about everyday events and
situations. They write compositions and simple summaries related to work and/or
school experiences.
No. Guideline/Standard
2.
Cultures, Linguistics, Literatures, and Concepts from Other Disciplines
Candidates demonstrate understanding of the multiple content areas that comprise the field of
world language studies. They demonstrate understanding of the interrelatedness of
perspectives, products, and practices in the target cultures. Candidates know the linguistic
elements of the target language system, and they recognize the changing nature of language.
Candidates identify distinctive viewpoints in the literary texts, films, art works, and documents
from a range of disciplines accessible to them only through the target language.
2.a. Pre-service teachers will demonstrate target cultural understandings and compare cultures
through perspectives, products, and practices of those
cultures.
Elements Acceptable Performance Indicators
2.a.1. Cultural
Knowledge
Candidates cite key perspectives of the target culture and connect them to
cultural products and practices. Candidates use the cultural framework of
ACTFL’s World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages (2015)2, or another
cross-cultural model, that connects perspectives to the products and practices
as a way to compare the target culture to their own or to compare a series of
2 Throughout this document, references to ACTFL’s World-Readiness Standards for Language Learning (2015) are intended to represent the
most recent framework for K-12 language learning promoted by ACTFL.
13
cultures.
2.a.2. Cultural
Experience
Candidates gain personal experience to support academic language study by
spending planned time in a target culture or community.
2.b. Pre-service teachers will demonstrate understanding of linguistics and the changing nature of
language, and compare language systems.
Elements Acceptable Performance Indicators
2.b.1. Language
System: Phonology (P),
Morphology (M), Syntax
(SN), Semantics (SM)
P: Candidates identify phonemes and allophones of the target language, cite
rules of the sound system, and diagnose their own pronunciation difficulties.
M: Candidates describe how morphemes in the target language are put together
to form words, and they derive meaning from new words through morphological
clues (e.g., word families).
SN: Candidates identify syntactic patterns of the target language, such as
simple, compound, and some complex sentences, and questions and contrast
them with their native languages. They recognize key cohesive devices used in
connected discourse such as adverbial expressions and conjunctions.
SM: Candidates understand the inferred words and sentences as well as high-
frequency idiomatic expressions, and they identify semantic differences between
their native languages and the target language.
2.b.2. Rules for
Sentence Formation,
Discourse, Sociolinguistic
and Pragmatic
Knowledge
Candidates explain rules for word and sentence formation (e.g., verbal system,
agreement, use of pronouns) and provide examples. They identify pragmatic
and sociolinguistic features (e.g., politeness, formal/informal address) of the
target discourse and identify features for creating coherence and discourse in
extended spoken and written texts.
2.b.3. Changing nature
of language
Candidates identify key changes in the target language over time (e.g., writing
system, new words, spelling conventions, grammatical elements). They identify
discrepancies between language in instructional materials and contemporary
14
usage.
2.c. Pre-service teachers will demonstrate understanding of texts on literary and cultural themes as
well as interdisciplinary topics.
Elements Acceptable Performance Indicators
2.c.1. Knowledge of
Literary and Cultural
Texts
Candidates interpret literary texts that represent defining works in the target
cultures. They identify themes, authors, historical style, and text types in a
variety of media that the cultures deem important to understanding their
traditions.
2.c.2. Content From
Across the Disciplines
Candidates derive general meaning and some details from materials with topics
from a number of disciplines (e.g., ecology, health). They comprehend more
from materials on topics with which they have some familiarity and can
determine the meaning of words from context.
2.d. Pre-service teachers will demonstrate understanding of the complex and abstract nature of
language and distinguish between language and communication.
Elements Acceptable Performance Indicators
2.d.1. Understanding the
Nature of Language
The candidate understands the difference between mental representation and
pedagogical rules and is able to appropriately limit the testing of pedagogical
rules.
2.d.2. Language and
Communication
The candidate is able to explain the difference between activities that promote
language acquisition and those that promote communication and is able to
determine what kind of activity promotes acquisition and/or communication.
2.d.3. Communication
The candidate understands the purpose of communication, the role that context
plays in communication, and can recognize tasks that are communicative in
nature.
15
No. Guideline/Standard
3.
Language Acquisition Theories and Knowledge of Students and Their Needs
Candidates demonstrate an understanding of the principles of language acquisition and use this
knowledge to create linguistically and culturally rich learning environments. Candidates
demonstrate an understanding of child and adolescent development, the context of instruction,
and their students’ backgrounds, skills, and learning profiles in order to create a supportive
learning environment that meets individual students’ needs.
3.a. Pre-service teachers will demonstrate an understanding of key principles of language
acquisition and create linguistically and culturally rich learning environments.
Elements Acceptable Performance Indicators
3.a.1. Language
Acquisition Theories
Candidates exhibit an understanding of language acquisition theories, including
the use of target language input, negotiation of meaning, interaction, and a
supporting learning environment. They draw on their knowledge of theories, as
they apply to K-12 learners at various developmental levels, in designing
teaching strategies that facilitate language acquisition.
3.a.2. Target Language
Input
Candidates use the target language to the maximum extent in classes at all
levels of instruction. They designate certain times for spontaneous interaction
with students in the target language. They tailor language use to students’
developing proficiency levels. They use a variety of strategies to help students
understand oral and written input. They use the target language to design
content-based language lessons.
3.a.3. Negotiation of
Meaning
Candidates negotiate meaning with students when spontaneous interaction
occurs. They teach students a variety of ways to negotiate meaning with others
and provide opportunities for them to do so in classroom activities.
3.a.4. Meaningful
Classroom Interaction
Candidates design activities in which students will have opportunities to interact
meaningfully with one another. The majority of activities and tasks is standards-
based and has meaningful contexts that reflect curricular themes and students’
16
interests.
3.b. Pre-service teachers will demonstrate an understanding of child and adolescent development to
create a supportive learning environment for each student.
Elements Acceptable Performance Indicators
3.b.1. Theories of
Learner Development
and Instruction
Candidates describe the physical, cognitive, emotional, and social
developmental characteristics of K-12 students. They implement a variety of
instructional models and techniques to accommodate these differences.
3.b.2. Understanding of
Relationship of
Articulated Program
Models to Language
Outcomes
Candidates describe how world language program models (e.g., FLES, FLEX,
immersion) lead to different language outcomes.
3.b.3. Adapting
Instruction to Address
Students’ Language
Levels, Language
Backgrounds, Learning
Styles
Candidates seek out information regarding their students’ language levels,
language backgrounds, and learning styles. They implement a variety of
instructional models and techniques to address these student differences.
3.b.4. Adapting
Instruction to Address
Students’ Multiple Ways
of Learning
Candidates identify multiple ways in which students learn when engaged in
language classroom activities.
3.b.5. Adapting
Instruction to Meet
Students’ Special Needs
Candidates implement a variety of instructional models and techniques that
address specific special needs of their students.
3.b.6. Critical Thinking
and Problem Solving
Candidates implement activities that promote critical thinking and problem-
solving skills.
17
3.b.7. Grouping
Candidates differentiate instruction by conducting activities in which students
work collaboratively in pairs and small groups. They define and model the task,
give a time limit and expectations for follow-up, group students, assign students
roles, monitor the task, and conduct a follow up activity, as appropriate.
3.b.8. Use of
Questioning and Tasks
Candidates recognize that questioning strategies and task-based activities serve
different instructional objectives. They use tasks as they appear in their
instructional materials.
No. Guideline/Standard
4.
Integration of Standards in Planning, Classroom Practice, and Use of Instructional Resources
Candidates in world language teacher preparation programs understand and use the national
World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages (2015) and their state standards to make
instructional decisions. Candidates demonstrate an understanding of the standards and
integrate them into their curricular planning. They design instructional practices and classroom
experiences that address these standards. Candidates use the principles embedded in the
standards to select and integrate authentic materials and technology, as well as to adapt and
create materials, to support communication in their classrooms.
4.a. Pre-service teachers will demonstrate an understanding of the World-Readiness Standards for
Learning Languages and Michigan standards and use them as the basis for instructional
planning.
Acceptable Performance Indicators
Candidates create activities and/or adapt existing instructional materials and activities to address specific
World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages and Michigan standards.
4.b. Pre-service teachers will integrate the goal areas of the World-Readiness Standards for Learning
Languages and Michigan standards in their classroom practice.
Elements Acceptable Performance Indicators
18
4.b.1. Integration of
Standards into
instruction
Candidates adapt activities as necessary to address World-Readiness Standards
for Learning Languages and Michigan standards.
4.b.2. Integration of
Three Modes of
Communication
Candidates design opportunities for students to communicate by using the three
modes of communication in an integrated manner.
4.b.3. Integration of
Cultural Products,
Practices, Perspectives
Candidates design opportunities for students to explore the target language
culture(s) by making cultural comparisons by means of the 3Ps framework.
4.b.4. Connections to
Other Subject Areas
Candidates design opportunities for students to learn about other subject areas
in the target language. They obtain information about other subject areas from
colleagues who teach those subjects.
4.b.5. Connections to
Target Language
Communities
Candidates provide opportunities for students to connect to target language
communities through the Internet, email, social networking and other
technologies.
4.c. Pre-service teachers will use the World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages and
Michigan standards to select and integrate authentic texts, use technology, and adapt and
create instructional materials for use in communication.
Elements Acceptable Performance Indicators
4.c.1. Selection and
Integration of Authentic
Materials and Technology
Candidates identify and integrate authentic materials and technology to support
standards-based classroom practice. They help students to acquire strategies
for understanding and interpreting authentic texts available through various
media.
4.c.2. Adaptation and
Creation of Materials
Candidates adapt and/or create materials as necessary to reflect standards-
based goals and instruction when materials fall short.
19
No. Guideline/Standard
5.
Assessment of Languages and Cultures
Candidates in world language teacher preparation programs design ongoing assessments using
a variety of assessment models to show evidence of K‐12 students’ ability to communicate in the
instructed language in interpretive, interpersonal, and presentational modes, and to express
understanding of cultural and literary products, practices, and perspectives of the instructed
language. Candidates reflect on results of assessments, adjust instruction, and communicate
results to stakeholders.
5.a. Pre-service teachers will design and use ongoing authentic performance assessments using a
variety of assessment models for all learners, including diverse students.
Elements Acceptable Performance Indicators
5.a.1. Plan for
Assessment
Candidates design and use authentic performance assessments to demonstrate
what students should know and be able to do following instruction.
5.a.2. Formative and
Summative Assessment
Models
Candidates design and use formative assessments to measure achievement
within a unit of instruction and summative assessments to measure
achievement at the end of a unit or chapter.
5.a.3. Interpretive
Communication
Candidates design and use authentic performance assessments that measure
students’ abilities to comprehend and interpret authentic oral and written texts
from the target cultures. These assessments encompass a variety of response
types from forced choice to open-ended.
5.a.4. Interpersonal
Communication
Candidates design and use performance assessments that measure students’
abilities to negotiate meaning as listeners/speakers and as readers/writers in an
interactive mode. Assessments focus on tasks at students’ levels of comfort but
pose some challenges.
5.a.5. Presentational Candidates design and use assessments that capture how well students speak and write in planned contexts. The assessments focus on the final products
20
Communication created after a drafting process and look at how meaning is conveyed in
culturally appropriate ways. They create and use effective holistic and/or
analytical scoring methods.
5.a.6. Cultural
Perspectives
Candidates devise assessments that allow students to apply the cultural
framework to authentic documents. Student tasks include identifying the
products, practices, and perspectives embedded in those documents.
5.a.7. Integrated
Communication
Assessments
Candidates use existing standards-based performance assessments (e.g.,
integrated performance assessments) that allow students to work through a
series of communicative tasks on a particular theme (e.g., wellness, travel).
They evaluate performance in a global manner.
5.a.8. Assessments
Reflect a Variety of
Models Designed to Meet
Needs of Diverse
Learners
Candidates assess what students know and are able to do by using and
designing assessments that capture successful communication and cultural
understandings. They commit the effort necessary to measure end
performances.
5.b. Pre-service teachers will reflect on and analyze the results of student assessments, adjust
instruction accordingly, and use data to inform and strengthen subsequent instruction.
Elements Acceptable Performance Indicators
5.b.1. Reflect Candidates observe and analyze the results of student performances to discern global success and underlying inaccuracies.
5.b.2. Adjust Instruction Candidates use insights gained from assessing student performances to conduct whole group review and then to adapt, change, and reinforce instruction.
5.b.3. Incorporate
Results and Reflect on
Instruction
Candidates incorporate what they have learned from assessments and show
how they have adjusted instruction. The commitment to do this is evident in
their planning.
21
5.c. Pre-service teachers will interpret and report the results of student performances to all
stakeholders in the community, with particular emphasis on building student responsibility for
their own learning.
Elements Acceptable Performance Indicators
5.c.1. Interpret and
Report Progress to
Students
Candidates interpret and report accurately the progress students are making in
terms of language proficiency and cultural knowledge. They use performances
to illustrate both what students can do and how they can advance.
5.c.2. Communicate with
Stakeholders
Candidates report student progress to students and parents. They use
appropriate terminology and share examples that illustrate student learning.
Candidates report assessment results accurately and clearly.
No. Guideline/Standard
6.
Professional Development, Advocacy, and Ethics
Candidates engage in ongoing professional development opportunities that strengthen their own
linguistic, cultural, and pedagogical competence and promote reflection on practice. Candidates
articulate the role and value of languages and cultures in preparing all students to interact
successful in the global community of the 21st century. They understand the importance of
collaboration to advocate for the learning of languages and cultures. Candidates understand and
explain the opportunities and responsibilities inherent in being a professional language educator
and are committed to equitable and ethical interactions with all stakeholders.
6.a. Pre-service teachers will engage in ongoing professional development opportunities that
strengthen their own linguistic, cultural and pedagogical competence and promote reflection on
practice.
Elements Acceptable Performance Indicators
6.a.1. Awareness of
Professional Learning
Candidates identify and participate in at least one pertinent professional
learning community.
22
Communities
6.a.2. Lifelong
Commitment to
Professional Growth
Candidates identify immediate professional development needs and pursue
opportunities to meet them.
6.a.3. Inquiry and
Reflection as a Critical
Tool for Professional
Growth
Candidates frame their own reflection and research questions and show
evidence of engaging in a process of inquiry to improve teaching and learning.
6.a.4. Seeking
Professional Growth
Opportunities
Candidates seek counsel regarding opportunities for professional growth and
establish a plan to pursue them.
6.b. Pre-service teachers will articulate the role and value of languages and cultures in preparing all
students to interact successfully in the global community of the 21st century. They also
understand the importance of collaborating with all stakeholders, including students,
colleagues, and community members to advocate for the learning of languages and cultures as a
vital component in promoting innovation, diverse thinking, and creative problem solving, and
they work collaboratively to increase K-12 student learning of languages and cultures.
Elements Acceptable Performance Indicators
6.b.1. Develop an
Advocacy Rationale for
Language Learning
Candidates develop a rationale for advocating the importance of language
learning.
6.b.2. Access, Analyze
and Use Data to Support
Language Learning
Candidates select appropriate data sources to develop products in support of
language learning for designated audiences.
6.b.3. Recognize the
Importance of
Collaboration and
Building Alliances for
Candidates provide evidence of participating in at least one professional and/or
social network designed to advocate for the increase of K-12 student learning in
languages and cultures.
23
Advocacy that Support
Increased K-12 Student
Learning
6.c. Pre-service teachers will understand and explain the opportunities and responsibilities inherent
in being a professional language educator and demonstrate a commitment to equitable and
ethical interactions with all students, colleagues and other stakeholders
Elements Acceptable Performance Indicators
6.c.1. Become a Member
of the Profession
Candidates shadow officers and members in professional learning communities
and avail themselves of programs sponsored by these organizations.
6.c.2. Successful
Interaction in
Professional Settings
Candidates demonstrate appropriate conduct when interacting in various and
more challenging professional contexts.
- MEMORANDUM
- DATE: October 27, 2015
- SUBJECT: Approval of the Michigan Standards for the Preparation of Teachers of World Languages
- In pursuit of its goal to improve teacher quality, the State Board of Education (SBE) is being presented with the proposal for adoption of new Standards for the Preparation of Teachers of World Languages. These standards will replace Michigan’s curren…
- The World Language Advisory Committee (WLAC), composed of representatives from Michigan’s public and independent teacher preparation programs in world languages and the Michigan World Language Association (MIWLA), met over the past two years to update…
- The standards were submitted for SBE review at its October 13, 2015, meeting and for approval at the November 10, 2015, meeting.
- Program/Subject Area:
FROM: Brian J. Whiston, Chairman
UAttachment A
Standards for the Preparation of Teachers of World Languages
Purpose
The purpose of the Standards for the Preparation of Teachers of World Languages is to establish a shared vision for the knowledge and skills that entry level teachers of world languages in Michigan should possess and be able to demonstrate in their te…
Development of the Proposal
Attachment B
1
Introduction to Standards
for the Preparation of
Teachers of English as a
Second Language
Approved by the Michigan State Board of Education
February 14, 2017
Introduction to Standards for the Preparation of Teachers English as a Second Language
2
Conceptual Framework for the Preparation of Teachers in Michigan
A teacher preparation program is comprised of multiple interdependent components
that prepare candidates for certification to demonstrate proficiencies defined in
several aligned sets of standards.
The Michigan Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (MI-
InTASC) Model Core Teaching Standards, adopted by the SBE in 2013, define
the theoretical and practical knowledge, skills, and dispositions that all entry
level teachers should possess upon completion of an approved teacher
preparation program.
The Michigan Certification Standards for the Preparation of All Elementary
and Secondary Teachers in Reading Instruction specify the expected
knowledge and skills in the areas of reading that all teachers at the
elementary and secondary levels should possess upon entry to the
profession, regardless of content area specialization.
Michigan-specific content standards define the central concepts, tools of
inquiry, and structures of the specific discipline(s) in which teacher
candidates seek endorsement, as well as pedagogical applications of that
disciplinary knowledge.
A recommendation for teacher certification is an assurance on the part of
the teacher preparation program that a candidate demonstrates the
appropriate proficiencies specified in each of these sets of standards.
Standards for the Preparation of Teachers of English as a Second Language
Purpose
The purpose of the Standards for the Preparation of Teachers of English as a
Second Language (ESL) is to establish a shared vision for the knowledge and skills
that entry level teachers of ESL in Michigan should possess and be able to
demonstrate in their teaching, regardless of whether they follow a traditional or
alternate route into the profession. This document provides standards across six
domains of professional preparation to provide instruction
for English
Learners.
These standards establish outcomes for graduates of teacher preparation programs
in ESL, and should be used to inform program development and continuous
improvement efforts at Michigan’s institutions of higher education and alternate
route providers. They exemplify the following “Beliefs for Supporting Linguistically
and Culturally Diverse Learners in English/Multilingual Teaching,” developed and
adopted by the MDE’s OFS’ English Learner Advisory Committee (ELAC) in its
strategic planning process and revised in November 2016.
We are committed to providing intensive, intentional, and appropriate
instructional opportunities that meet the unique needs of English Learners,
and ensuring their academic success by building on the prior knowledge,
cultural and linguistic assets students bring to their learning communities.
We are committed to teacher preparation and ongoing professional learning
that leads to effective teaching so that all students are able to make
Introduction to Standards for the Preparation of Teachers English as a Second Language
3
contributions to economic, social, civic, technological and cultural
advancements.
We are committed to advocating for educational equity and excellence for
linguistically and culturally diverse learners which includes fostering climates
that welcome, honor and respect diversity, multilingualism, multiliteracy, and
students’ cultural contributions in a global society.
These standards are rooted in the belief that the primary role of an English as a
Second Language (NS) endorsed teacher is to promote educational equity and the
academic achievement of students whose home languages are not English by
delivering instruction in how to speak, read, write, listen and communicate in
English and by supporting their acquisition of content knowledge and academic
language while they learn English. This role is distinct from that of the World
Language (F_) endorsed teacher, whose primary role is to increase children’s global
competence by delivering instruction in how to speak, read, write and listen in a
target world language that is not their home language, as well as by supporting
students’ understanding of the world cultures associated with the target language.
It is also distinct from that of the Bilingual Education (Y_) endorsed teacher, whose
primary role is to promote educational equity by making content curriculum
accessible to students whose home languages are not English by delivering content
area instruction in the students’ home language(s), supporting the maintenance
and development of literacy in students’ home language(s), and simultaneously
providing direct instruction in English language and literacy.
These standards are aligned with the TESOL/CAEP Standards of the Recognition of
Initial TESOL Programs in P-12 ESL Teacher Education (2010). Because they are
aligned with the same standards used by national accrediting bodies and specialty
program associations for recognition and accreditation decisions, Michigan
programs’ alignment to the state standards will support their accreditation
activities.
Development of the Proposal
The ELAC, led by the MDE’s OFS and composed of representatives from Michigan’s
local education agencies, intermediate school districts, and public and independent
teacher preparation programs in bilingual education and ESL, began discussions
about updating Michigan’s teacher preparation standards in November 2014. This
action was motivated by recognition of a critical shortage of appropriately prepared
teachers to meet the needs of Michigan’s growing population of students eligible for
ESL or bilingual education services. For example, in the 2015-2016 school year,
90,121 students were identified as English Learners1 and eligible for ESL or bilingual
education programs yet only 733 full-time equivalent instructional positions (FTEs)
were devoted to serving this population by teachers holding NS or Y_
endorsements, according to the Registry of Educational Personnel for End of Year
2016. Further impetus for updating the standards came after the November 201
5
SBE adoption of updated standards for world language teacher preparation. At its
March 17, 2016, meeting, the consensus of the ELAC was to review the
TESOL/CAEP 2010 standards and Michigan’s Standards for the Preparation of
1 Source: MI School Data, 2015-2016 Student Count
Introduction to Standards for the Preparation of Teachers English as a Second Language
4
Teachers of English as a Second Language (NS) adopted by the SBE at its July 7,
2004, meeting to determine whether an adoption of the TESOL/CAEP standards or a
targeted revision of the English as a Second Language (NS) standards would be the
best approach to updating Michigan’s standards. Members of the ELAC were
surveyed for their interest to serve on a workgroup engage in this work and bring
an updated set of standards for ELAC approval before its fall 2016 meeting. The
ESL Standards Workgroup met at the MDE on May 10, 2016, and determined that a
targeted revision of the 2004 NS standards was the best approach for updating
Michigan standards. It identified 19 standards for revision and drafted new
language for the identified standards. The workgroup met again at the ELAC’s June
2, 2016, meeting to review recommended revisions from the May meeting and
reach consensus on draft language for standards that were not considered during
the May meeting. The workgroup met for a third time at the MDE on August 3,
2016, to review the standards holistically, discuss the purpose of the English as a
Second Language (NS) endorsement, and consider both preparation program
requirements and endorsement authorizations, discussed later in this document.
These standards were submitted for the SBE review at its November 15, 2016,
meeting. This presentation was followed by a period of public comment through
January 17, 2017. Seven comments explicitly addressing the proposed NS
standards were submitted, and all were strongly supportive of the standards. One
commenter recommended that Program Requirements be amended to require non-
native English speakers pursuing the NS endorsement to “prove that they had
taken a certain number of college credits in English.” Because teacher preparation
coursework for the NS endorsement is taught in English and teacher licensure
assessments are administered in English, the demonstration of English proficiency
represented by “successful completion of coursework in an approved program and
required assessments for teacher licensure” in Standard 1.1 was considered
sufficient by the ESL Standards Workgroup for addressing this concern, and no
changes to the standards or program requirements were made as a result of this
feedback.
A second commenter on both the NS and Y_ standards recommended that
references to “academic vocabulary” and “language acquisition” throughout both
sets of standards and introductory remarks be changed to “academic language” (to
acknowledge that achieving proficiency in academic disciplines involves more than
the mastery of discrete words) and “language development” (to acknowledge that
language is not a commodity to be acquired, but rather a social resource that
develops in interaction with others), respectively, to be more in line with current
research and teaching in the field. This same commenter also recommended the
addition of a standard “to acknowledge current research on language in different
disciplinary and content areas that is showing how teachers can benefit from
understanding the different discourse expectations for language in different
subjects.” A third commenter, representing the collective feedback of the faculty
from a Michigan educator preparation institution, recommended slight rewordings of
selected standards (specifically, 1.4, 1.5, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 in both NS and Y_
standards) for clarity. The ESL Standards Workgroup reviewed these
recommendations and endorsed updating the standards accordingly.
These standards have strong continuity with the previous Michigan standards in
Introduction to Standards for the Preparation of Teachers English as a Second Language
5
terms of the core competencies that teachers in ESL programs should be able to
demonstrate, with most of the targeted revisions consisting of subtle updates in
language that increase the currency of the standards and provide stronger
distinctions between expected competencies for ESL, bilingual and world language
teachers. Standards related to teachers’ understanding of the role that culture plays
in language development and ability to apply their understanding of different
cultural perspectives in instruction with English Learners (Standards 2.1 – 2.4) are
unchanged from the 2004 standards. Outdated language referring to “limited-
English proficient” learners was updated throughout to reference English Learners
to align with the language adopted in the Every Student Succeeds Act (e.g., 3.7,
6.4). Standards relating to assessment (5.1 – 5.6) were updated to more clearly
emphasize that teachers of ESL must be able to demonstrate assessment literacy
not only in general, but also in the unique context of working with English Learners
in an ESL setting. New standards (4.6 and 5.7) were added to further emphasize
the need for teachers of ESL to be able to implement a variety of accommodations
in both instruction and assessment that are appropriate to the needs of English
Learners. Lastly, a new standard (1.5) was added to support bilingual teachers’
ability to distinguish patterns of behavior and performance in the second language
development process that may resemble patterns of behaviors exhibited by children
with learning disabilities from manifestations of true learning disabilities.
The most significant change in the updated standards is the expectation for
language proficiency in English that teacher candidates are to demonstrate (1.1).
The 2004 standards specified “At least a superior level of speaking, listening,
reading, and writing proficiency in English using a variety of testing protocols.” The
new Standard 1.1 specifies that candidates demonstrate “an ability to serve as
effective models of spoken and written English as demonstrated by successful
completion of coursework in an approved program and required assessments for
teacher licensure.” The rewritten standard aligns with the performance indicator for
exceeding TESOL/CAEP’s corresponding standard. As teacher preparation programs
in ESL are delivered in English and multiple certification testing requirements for
earning an NS endorsement (e.g. Professional Readiness Exam, Michigan Test for
Teacher Certification #086) assess candidates’ reading and writing skills at a high
level, the consensus view of the ESL Standards Workgroup is that reifying
additional formal testing of candidates’ English proficiency within the standards was
not warranted.
Program Requirements
Educator preparation institutions wishing to recommend candidates for
endorsements in world languages must ensure that candidates have completed a
program of study that includes:
an elementary or secondary program of study of at least 20 semester
hours, or K-12 program of study of at least 24 semester hours connected
with a program of study of at least 30 semester hours in Elementary
Education, Language Arts, Social Studies, Science or Mathematics for
initial endorsement on an elementary or secondary teaching certificate.
For programs leading to an additional endorsement on an existing teacher
certificate, at least 20 semester hours for an elementary or secondary
endorsement and 24 semester hours for a K-12 endorsement;
Introduction to Standards for the Preparation of Teachers English as a Second Language
6
Prerequisite/co-requisite: documented experience learning a second
language equivalent to two semesters’ worth of college-level study in
order to gain an understanding and appreciation of the processes of
learning an additional language. Any semester hours earned in language
coursework in fulfillment of this requirement may not count toward the 20
semester hour minor or 24 semester hour group minor; and
for initial certification, a separate professional education program of at
least 20 semester hours appropriate to grade level of the endorsement
sought that prepares the candidate to the appropriate learning
progression of the Michigan Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support
Consortium (MI-InTASC) Model Core Teaching Standards and the
appropriate Michigan Certification Standards for the Preparation of All
Elementary and Secondary Teachers in Reading Instruction.
In addition K-12 initial and additional endorsement programs must provide:
structured field experiences with a gradual release of responsibility
(inclusive of student teaching) in three areas: elementary, middle school,
and high school;
course work in growth and development for early childhood and
adolescent learners; and
preparation in instructional methods with specific strategies of instruction
for English Learners and multilingual learners appropriate to all levels of
certification.
Endorsement Authorizations
Teachers possessing an English as a Second Language (NS) endorsement may
provide instruction in an ESL classroom in the grade levels indicated on their
certificate for the NS endorsement. Teachers possessing an English as a Second
Language (NS) endorsement and an endorsement in a core subject area may
provide sheltered instruction2 in all subjects according to certificate grade level and
Michigan Merit Curriculum (MMC) credit in core subject areas in which they are
endorsed (e.g., a teacher with English as a Second Language (NS) and Social
Studies (RX) endorsements with 6-12 grade level authorizations may serve as the
instructor of record for a course granting MMC credit in social studies offered only
to students in grades 6-12 who qualify for ESL services).
Teachers possessing an English as a Second Language (NS) endorsement may also
provide support for students who qualify for ESL services through co-teaching with
teachers possessing appropriate certification in any subject area and in any grade
level within the span of the NS endorsement. They may also provide instruction in a
resource room setting for students who qualify for ESL services, and may serve as
instructor of record for courses granting elective credit under the MMC without
2 Sheltered instruction is defined as a classroom setting in which teachers use specific
strategies to teach a specific content area (e.g., social studies or math) in ways
comprehensible to students whose home language is not English while promoting their
English language development.
Introduction to Standards for the Preparation of Teachers English as a Second Language
7
possessing additional subject area endorsements.
The NS endorsement is not authorization to teach in a bilingual classroom in
Michigan.
Introduction to Standards for the Preparation of Teachers of English as a Second Language
8
Participants in Standards Development
Martha A. Adler, Ph.D.
Associate Professor,
Reading/Language Arts & ESL
University of Michigan-Dearborn
Elizabeth Corah-Hopkins, Ph.D.
Program Coordinator,
Bilingual/Bicultural Education
Wayne State University
Christina DeNicolo, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Bilingual and
Bicultural Education
Wayne State University
Casey L. Gordon
Special Populations Consultant
Kent Intermediate School District
Norma Hernandez
Director, Office of English Language
Learners
Detroit Public Schools
Sean Kottke, Ph.D.
Education Consultant
Michigan Department of Education
Sarah-Kate LaVan, Ph.D.
Manager, Professional Preparation and
Learning Unit
Michigan Department of Education
Su McKeithen-Polish, Ph.D.
Bilingual Education/Title III Consultant
Macomb Intermediate School District
Lena Montgomery
Manager
Wayne Regional Education Service
Agency
Rui Niu-Cooper, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Education
Aquinas College
Maria Selena Protacio, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Literacy Studies
Western Michigan University
Marcie Pyper, Ph.D.
Professor of Spanish
Calvin College
Sara Rainwater
ESL Coordinator
Genesee Intermediate School District
Maura Sedgeman
Language & Literacy/SIOP Trainer
Dearborn Public Schools
Kerry Segel, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Saginaw Valley State University
Maria Elena Silva
English Learner Consultant
Michigan Department of Education
Kay Smith
ELL Coordinator
Grand Rapids Public Schools
Shereen Tabrizi, Ph.D.
Manager, Special Populations Unit
Michigan Department of Education
Suzanne Toohey, M.Ed.
ESL/Title III Consultant
Oakland Schools
Michelle Williams
Migrant Education Consultant
Michigan Department of Education
9
English as a Second Language (NS)
Content Standards
English as a Second Language (NS) Content Standards
10
No. Guideline/Standard
1.0
Language, Linguistics, Comparisons
Candidates for endorsement in English as a Second Language will demonstrate:
1.1
An ability to serve as effective models of spoken and written English as demonstrated by successful
completion of coursework in an approved program and required assessments for teacher licensure.
1.2
Knowledge of the linguistic elements (such as phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and
discourse) of English and their role in developing literacy.
1.3 An understanding of the dynamic changing nature of language systems.
1.4
Knowledge of socio-linguistic elements such as language varieties, dialects, registers, and the value of
bilingualism/multilingualism.
1.5
An ability to distinguish between learning challenges and behaviors associated with language development
and those associated with learning disabilities.
1.6
An understanding of the ways language varies across subject areas and familiarity with the discursive and
grammatical challenges of language use in different subjects.
2.0
Cultures, Literatures, Cross-Disciplinary Concepts
Candidates for endorsement in English as a Second Language will demonstrate:
2.1
Knowledge, understanding, and use of the major concepts, principles, theories, and research related to the
nature and role of culture in language development and academic achievement that support students
learning.
2.2
Application of knowledge and understanding of how valuing cultural groups and students’ cultural identities
affect language learning and school achievement.
English as a Second Language (NS) Content Standards
11
2.3
An understanding of the value and role of literary and cultural texts that reflect students’ heritage and
cultures and the ability to use them to interpret and reflect upon a variety of cultural perspectives over
time.
2.4
An understanding of similarities and differences between English-speaking and heritage cultures, and
knowledge of how to make thoughtful comparisons between them that indicate the valuing of learners’
home cultures while enabling them to adapt to the new culture.
3.0
Second Language Development Theories and Instructional Practices
Candidates for endorsement in English as a Second Language will demonstrate:
3.1
An understanding of second language development theories and research, inclusive of error analysis,
performance analysis, and interlanguage analysis.
3.2
An ability to use language development knowledge to create a supportive classroom-learning environment
that includes opportunities for interaction and negotiation of meaning in English.
3.3
A variety of instructional practices that produce language outcomes through articulated program models
that address the needs of linguistically and culturally diverse learners.
3.4
Knowledge and use of second language development theories and research in classroom organization,
developing teaching strategies, and choosing and adapting classroom instructional resources.
3.5
Knowledge of individual learner variables (e.g., linguistic, cognitive, affective, social) in the second
language development process.
3.6
Knowledge of second language teaching methodologies and their applicability in developing instructional
practices and resources to meet the needs of individual English Learners.
3.7
Knowledge and use of a variety of strategies to promote full participation of English Learners in
classrooms.
English as a Second Language (NS) Content Standards
12
3.8
Knowledge and use of a wide range of materials, resources, and technologies in effective content teaching
for English Learners.
3.9
Competency in teaching English Learners to acquire and use English in listening, speaking, reading, and
writing for social and academic purposes.
4.0
Integration of Standards Into Curriculum and Instruction
Candidates for endorsement in English as a Second Language will demonstrate:
4.1
An understanding of the standards and benchmarks currently approved in Michigan for K-12 content and
English language proficiency in curricular planning.
4.2
An ability to integrate the standards and benchmarks currently approved in Michigan for K-12 content and
English language proficiency into instruction with appropriate strategies and techniques that support
students in accessing the core curriculum as they learn both language and academic content.
4.3
An ability to use standards and benchmarks to evaluate, select, design, and adapt instructional resources
by connecting curriculum to students’ experiences and skills of home and community.
4.4
An ability to manage and implement standards-based content instruction to support English Learners
in accessing the core curriculum as they learn language and academic content.
4.5
Knowledge, understanding, and use of standards-based practices and strategies related to planning,
implementing, and managing content instruction including the use of critical thinking skills for English
Learners.
4.6
Familiarity with and adaptive use of a wide range of standards-based materials, resources, and
technologies in the delivery of effective content curriculum for English learners.
4.7
Knowledge and use of differentiated instruction and appropriate and timely accommodations based on the
needs of the needs of English Learners.
5.0 Assessment
English as a Second Language (NS) Content Standards
13
Candidates for endorsement in English as a Second Language will demonstrate:
5.1
Knowledge of the nature of assessment and multiple ways to assess that are age, level, and language
appropriate.
5.2
Effective and timely assessment practices including: analysis of formative, interim and summative
assessment results, and use of outcome data to inform instruction and to interpret and communicate
student achievement results to all stakeholders.
5.3
Knowledge of various assessment issues affecting English Learners (e.g., cultural and linguistic bias,
political, social, linguistic and psychological factors).
5.4
Knowledge and use of various standards-based language proficiency instruments to inform instruction and
the value of data for identification, placement, and demonstration of language proficiency and academic
achievement of English Learners.
5.5
Knowledge of the difference between language proficiency testing and other types of assessment (e.g.,
standardized achievement tests of overall mastery) as they affect English Learners.
5.6 Knowledge of the relationship between standards and assessment decisions.
5.7
Knowledge and use of a variety of assessment accommodations appropriate to the needs of English
Learners.
6.0
Professionalism
Candidates for endorsement in English as a Second Language will demonstrate:
6.1 Knowledge of culturally responsive teaching practices.
6.2
Knowledge of the additive value that multilingualism brings to the overall success of all students and an
understanding of the teacher’s role as an advocate with students, colleagues, and members of the
community in promoting and developing multilingualism.
English as a Second Language (NS) Content Standards
14
6.3
An ability to identify, analyze, and reflect upon professional knowledge and language proficiency, and seek
resources for improvement.
6.4
Knowledge of legislative impact on teaching in programs for world languages, English Learners, and
bilingual education.
6.5 Knowledge of the teacher’s role as a professional within a discipline.
6.6
Knowledge of the history and current state of teaching world languages, English Learners, and bilingual
students as it affects public policy and advocacy issues.
6.7
An ability to serve as a professional resource, advocate for students, and build partnerships with students’
families and communities.
- Untitled
Introduction to Standards for the Preparation of Teachers of English as a Second Language
Standards for the Preparation of Teachers of English as a Second Language
Development of the Proposal