that diminishes the challenges of observing in the complex and diverse classrooms that serve language learners and helps coaches who support bilingual and dual-language teachers acquire the skills and perspectives necessary to effectively coach in these classrooms. In doing so, coaches will be better prepared to actively develop and engage in a fair and meaningful process that can transform current and future options for students.
The Time Is Now
You might ask, “Why now?” Why have the number of bilingual and dual-language classrooms increased so much that they have reached a breaking point that demands a new model of coaching? The reality is that classrooms have undergone massive demographic changes. In fact, 2014 marked the first time in U.S. history that students who were once considered the minority are now the majority (Maxwell, 2014). Maxwell (2014) states: “This fall, for the first time, the number of Latino, African-American, and Asian students in public K–12 classrooms is expected to surpass the number of non-Hispanic whites.” In particular, educators have struggled with how to sufficiently and effectively serve the number of English learners (ELs) in K–12 schools.
English learners are a very diverse group, and we know that different states use a range of terms to discuss that diversity. However, for the purpose of this text, I will use the term bilingual and dual-language students. I have chosen to use this term because it refers to students who are developing two language and literacy systems as part of their K–12 bilingual and dual-language educational experiences. These are students who emerge as truly bilingual and biliterate, rather than simply proficient in the English language.
To some, the distinction between biliterate and proficient is a small one. However, it is an important distinction in terminology that plays a role in teacher choices for leveraging educational theory and implementing best practices.
Before 2010, bilingual and dual-language students were present in only a handful of states. The Migration Policy Institute reports that between 2011 and 2015, the percentage of K–3 emergent bilinguals was 44.6 percent in California, 42.6 percent in New York, 45.3 percent in Texas, and 44.7 percent in Florida, while other states like West Virginia, South Dakota, and Kansas hovered between 1 percent and 5 percent (Park, O’Toole, & Katsiaficas, 2017).
But this trend of bilingual and dual-language students residing in only a handful of states has dramatically changed. In fact, between 2000 and 2017, “the young Dual Language Learner (DLL) population in the United States has grown by 24 percent” (Park et al., 2017, p. 1). What does that mean for schools across the United States? Based on 2017 figures, more than one-third of all U.S. students in grades preK through third grade are emergent bilinguals (Park et al., 2017). This immense growth in the number of bilingual and dual-language students has brought about a new education imperative for us all: improve the quality and impact of instruction for this growing number of students or face the consequences of a majority of the U.S. population without the expertise and training necessary to be our future workforce.
As schools rethink how to ensure high-quality instruction for bilingual and dual-language learners, sweeping school-level, program-level, and policy changes are happening across the United States. One of the policy changes that influenced other U.S. states was California’s repeal of English-only requirements with Proposition 58 in 2016 (Hopkinson, 2017). This move has opened the door to a growing number of options for schools to leverage bilingual and dual-language programs—programs that have proven to be more effective than English-only models that result in a consistent pattern of failure for language learners (Collier & Thomas, 2004).
Educators must take steps to ensure that the growing number of bilingual and dual-language students served by an expanding number of programs and schools is set up for success. The teachers in these schools are in varying stages of expertise and ownership and need support. With the range of teachers, students, programs, and situations, the best form of support is a coach who is successfully and consistently able to help teachers effectively drive student achievement.
Consequences of Failing to Act
If we don’t develop and maintain supports for language learners, their teachers, and their coaches, the consequences will be serious. In failing to act, we turn our backs on the fundamental belief of education to place student learning at the center of teaching. In acting to prevent failure, schools must ensure that all teachers have access to building-level supports designed to improve student learning, especially for classrooms that serve the complex needs of language learners. With the rapidly growing number of bilingual and dual-language students represented in our schools, our collective future depends on their success.
There are many program models that serve these students. However, the observation and feedback cycle offered in this book works just as effectively in each model. The observation and feedback cycle offered in this book supports each of the four most widely used models: (1) dual-language (DL) programs, (2) transitional bilingual education (TBE), (3) foreign language immersion (FLI) programs, and (4) transitional programs of instruction (TPI), such as English as a second language (ESL) and English to speakers of other languages (ESOL). Teachers using these programs truly need the type of coaching and collaboration outlined in this book. Table I.1 (page 6) provides a brief description of these four models, or program types.
Each of the four program models contains distinctive characteristics. Additionally, one of four different formats can be used for each of the four distinctive models. These formats include one-way programs, two-way programs, early-exit programs, and late-exit programs (see figure I.1).
Figure I.1: Program models and classrooms organized under the language learner programs umbrella.
Table I.1: Program Models and Descriptions
| Program Model | Acronym | Description |
| Dual-Language Programs | DL | In this program, students receive 50 percent of their school day (instructional and noninstructional time) in English and 50 percent in the target language (language other than English). |
| Transitional Bilingual Education | TBE | In this program, classrooms generally begin in kindergarten with 90 percent of instruction in the target language and 10 percent of instruction in English. With each grade after kindergarten, students further increase their percentage of English instruction until they transition to English only. |
| Foreign Language Immersion Programs | FLI | In this program, non–language learners receive instruction in the target language for a specified number of courses (for example, French social studies or Spanish science) as enrichment. |
| Transitional Programs of Instruction | TPI (such as English as a second language [ESL] and English to speakers of other languages [ESOL]) | In these programs, language specialists either push into the general education classroom or pull students out of the classroom to teach language learners from a variety of language backgrounds; they often leverage native language during instruction for language learners early in their English acquisition. |
One-way programs serve students who represent one linguistic group and subsequently one direction of language learning—for example, all Spanish-speaking students who are all learning English. Two-way programs serve students in two linguistic groups and therefore two directions of language learning, such as in the case of a classroom containing half Chinese-speaking and half English-speaking students who must learn from each other. Early-exit programs focus on early education, and typically students leave them between second and third grade. Late-exit programs allow a longer period for second language acquisition, often spanning seven academic
