E as a S Language (ESL) a E velopment (ELD) Program R al ...host.ontariodirectors.ca/CODE-TLF/artifacts/PDSB/PDSB-Demographic.pdfThis report uses Stage 1 and Stage 2 English Language

EE

R

EnglishEnglish

Report

h as a Sh Litera

t 2: Co

Paul

Secondacy De

ontextu

l Favaro, Ph

d Langevelopm

ual and

h.D. Kim B

Mar

guage (ment (E

d Demo

Bennett, M.S

rch 201

(ESL) aELD) P

ograph

Sc. Elana

3

and Program

hic Prof

Gray, M.Sc.

m

file

.

putting researchinto practice

h

Thank you to Leslie Parsons for the coordination of the Southern Ontario and GTA School Board Survey, Tom Lam for the production of the Geographic Information System (GIS) maps, and Pat Hare for her assistance

with the report production.

Note: The term “parent” is used throughout this document to refer to the legal guardian of any student under 18 years of age.

© Peel District School Board

This report uses Stage 1 and Stage 2 English Language Learners (ELLs) for all analyses of student achievement and demographic achievement data. EQAO reading, writing, and mathematics results in grade 3

and grade 6 were analyzed for this report.

Table of Contents

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1

Methodology ............................................................................................................................................ 5

The Canadian and Ontario Context ......................................................................................................... 7

Southern Ontario and GTA School Board Survey Results ..................................................................... 11

Peel District School Board ELL Background & Demographic Information ........................................... 19

ESL Stages of Second-Language Acquisition for ELLs .......................................................................... 35

Elementary ESL/ELD Staffing Trends Over 7 Years ................................................................................ 37

Discussion and Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 39

References .............................................................................................................................................. 43

ESL/ELD Program - Report 2: Contextual and Demographic Profile 1 Research, Accountability & School Success Planning March 2013

English as a Second Language (ESL) and English Literacy Development (ELD) Program

Contextual and Demographic Profile

Introduction In North America, the number of children entering school who speak a language other than English at home is increasing much more rapidly than the overall school-aged population (Jimenez-Castellanos & Topper, 2012; Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students, 2010). Educational systems are becoming more challenged in providing effective programs designed to ensure English language learners (ELLs) reach the level of proficiency required for learning sophisticated academic content in English. School systems are also experiencing an increasingly more diverse ELL population. This requires modifying course content, curriculum expectations, and assessments to fit their needs (Huang, Clarke, Milczarski, & Raby, 2011). What is meant when the term ELL is used? The Ontario Ministry of Education (2007a) defines ELLs as “English language learners are students in provincially funded English language schools whose first language is a language other than English, or is a variety of English (sometimes referred to as dialects) that is significantly different from the variety used for instruction in Ontario’s schools, and who may require focused educational supports to assist them in attaining proficiency in English.” (p. 8). The Ontario Ministry of Education (2007b) also specifies that English as a Second Language

(ESL) programs are designed for ELLs who “have age-appropriate first-language literacy skills and educational backgrounds” (p. 6). English Literacy Development (ELD) programs are designed to support ELLs “most often from countries in which their access to education has been limited, so that they have had limited opportunities to develop language and literacy skills in any language. Schooling in their countries of origin has been inconsistent, disrupted, or even completely unavailable throughout the years that these children would otherwise have been in school. As a result, they arrive in Ontario schools with significant gaps in their education” (p. 6). The overall goals for ESL/ELD programs are to assist students in developing the English literacy skills they require to achieve success at school. ELLs are a heterogeneous group of learners. There are large differences in ELLs’ ethno-cultural backgrounds, socioeconomic status, first language skills, English language skills, age at arrival in Canada, and immigration category (e.g., refugee vs. skilled migrant). Ontario’s Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) provincial assessment data show that ELLs in Ontario schools perform below the provincial average in grade 3. The achievement gap widens in later years, with ELLs in grade 6 performing 22 percentage points below the provincial average in reading, followed by 12 percentage points below in writing, and 10 percentage points below in mathematics (EQAO, 2010).


ESL/ELD Programs at the Peel District School Board The Peel District School Board (PDSB) is one of the largest and most diverse school boards in Canada, with a significant portion of the elementary student population (45%) speaking a first language other than English. The PDSB provides English as a Second Language (ESL) and English Literacy Development (ELD) programs for English language learners (ELLs) in elementary and secondary schools. ELLs may be Canadian-born or may have recently arrived from other countries. They come from diverse backgrounds and school experiences, and have a wide variety of strengths and needs. Canadian-born ELLs may be raised in families or communities where languages other than English are spoken: Aboriginal students whose first language is other than English; children who were born in communities that have maintained a distinct cultural and linguistic tradition; and children who were born in immigrant communities in which languages other than English are primarily spoken. Newcomers from other countries may include: children who have arrived in Canada with their families as part of a voluntary, planned immigration process; children who have arrived in Canada as a result of war or other in their home country; and international or “visa” students who have paid fees to attend school in Ontario (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2007a, pp. 8-9). The provincial expectation is that ELLs acquire English and develop a full range of literacy skills, while working towards achieving the Ontario curriculum expectations. As a result, all teachers share the responsibility for the development of the English language skills of their students (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2008). Program delivery models in PDSB elementary schools may include a variety and blending of the following: integrated classroom support (the classroom teacher and the

ESL/ELD teacher collaborate in the planning, instruction, and assessment of grade level curriculum for ELLs), and tutorial/withdrawal support (instruction may be provided to small groups of English language learners by the ESL/ELD teacher). The type of program delivery models are considered on a student-by-student basis, and may depend on different factors, such as a school’s ELL population, an ELL’s language proficiency, and available ESL/ELD staff at a given school. The Ontario Ministry of Education (2007a) recommends that school boards “initiate a process for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the plan based on the implemented strategies and evidence of student success” (p. 14). The Peel Board recognizes the importance of implementing the 2007 Provincial ESL/ELD Policies and Procedures, and will review system programs to ensure alignment with the provincial mandate. ESL/ELD Stages of Second-language Acquisition The ESL/ELD Stages of Second-Language Acquisition are designed to assist teachers with programming and assessment for ELLs. The ESL stages provide indicators of the learner’s four stages of development (from beginning to native-like proficiency) in the following five broad areas of second-language development: writing, reading, speaking, listening, and orientation (adapting to Canadian environment) (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2008). Examples of ESL Stages of Second-Language Acquisition for writing: Stage 1: Begin to write using English structures. Stage 2: Write in a variety of contexts using simple English structures. Stage 3: Write English in a variety of contexts with increasing independence and accuracy. Stage 4: Write English for a variety of purposes using appropriate conventions.


Length of time to become proficient in English to succeed academically in grade-level work Cummins (2000) makes a distinction between two kinds of language proficiency. The “surface” skills of conversational English are referred to as Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS), and take only one to two years to develop. Academic and content-specific English needed for success in school environments is referred to as Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP), and takes at least five to seven years to develop. ELLs typically require at least five years to catch up to their English-speaking peers in literacy-related language skills (e.g., reading, writing, and vocabulary). On average, ELLs need to make 15 months of progress in every 10-month school year in order to catch up to native English speakers within a six-year period (Cummins, 2006). Hakuta (2011) found that it took seven years for approximately 80% of ELLs to gain proficiency in listening, speaking, reading, and writing, with about 80% reaching intermediate status within two years. It takes less time for ELLs to become orally proficient in English syntax than it does for them to master reading and writing in English. Roessingh and Elgie (2009) reported that it is difficult for educators to assess ELLs’ English language proficiency, because strengths in everyday, conversational English can mask underlying weaknesses in academic language proficiency. Even though ELLs may “sound good” in English, they may not have developed grade-level proficiency in academic language skills (Chall & Jacobs, 2003; Roessingh & Kover, 2003).

Arriving in the country at a younger age leads to both stronger English oral language skills and grammatical knowledge (Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2009; Carhill, Suárez-Orozco, & Páez, 2008; Flege, Yeni-Komshian, & Liu, 1999; Kovelman, Baker, & Petitto, 2008; Reichle, 2010). Flege and Mackay (2004) reported that ELLs who immigrated to Canada after age 12 achieved native-like perception of vowel sounds, indicating perception of English language sounds is possible for later arriving ELLs. Reese, Garnier, Gallimore, and Goldenberg, (2000) found that children who begin school with higher first language literacy skills and higher oral English language skills transitioned to English language instruction more rapidly, and showed stronger English reading skills in middle school. Collectively, these studies indicate that young ELLs can be successful English language learners, but only after several years. ELLs are more likely to reach native-like proficiency in English oral fluency, vocabulary, and literacy tasks than on grammatical intuition tasks or pronunciation, especially if they start after age 12. These differences in grammar and pronunciation are unlikely to affect overall academic achievement. Additionally, ELLs whose first language is more distant from English (e.g., Korean) will take longer to acquire the second language than children whose first language and English are closer (e.g., Italian) (Bialystok & Miller, 1999; Birdsong & Molis, 2001; McDonald, 2000) (see Coelho, 2012, for a practical approach review of the ELL literature and Dixon, Zhao, Shin, Wu, Su, Burgess-Brigham, Gezer, & Snow, 2012, for a complete review of the academic second language acquisition literature, pp. 5-60).


Methodology The ESL/ELD program review involved gathering provincial perspectives on elementary ESL/ELD programs from other school boards across Southern Ontario and the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), and examining the Peel District School Board’s elementary ESL/ELD program. Components explored with the ESL/ELD program in the PDSB included program funding and staffing trends, ELL population trends, and ELL demographic profiles. Research Questions The following research questions guided the data collection process: 1. What do the elementary ESL/ELD programs look like in other demographically similar GTA school

boards? 2. What is the elementary ESL/ELD landscape in the Peel District School Board?

Ontario School Board Survey An online survey was sent to ESL/ELD program co-ordinating staff in 14 school boards in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and across Southern Ontario, using the SurveyMonkey survey software tool. The school board survey inquired about background board information, the ELL population, ESL/ELD support models, staff support, and parent involvement. Each board representative was contacted prior to distribution of the survey, and informed of the purpose and goals of the ESL/ELD program review survey. The school boards were selected based on the following criteria: (1) geographical location (Southern Ontario and the Greater Toronto Area), (2) relatively large school boards, and (3) large populations. Public and Catholic school boards were included in the sample.

Document and Record Review Various reports, documents, and records were reviewed to obtain information about the ESL/ELD program in the Peel Board, and provincial policies and procedures regarding ESL/ELD support. The information sources included: school board records and documents, information systems, Census data, and Ontario Ministry of Education reports.

Student Information Databases A variety of elementary student background characteristics were obtained from the Peel Board’s Student Information System (SIS). The data reflected the 2010-2011 school year and trends over time. The SIS provided student and family background information, and data regarding the Stages of Second-Language Acquisition for ELLs in the elementary ESL/ELD program in the Peel Board.

Research Questions Evaluation Dimensions Methodology Sample

1. What do the elementary ESL/ELD programs look like in other demographically similar GTA school boards?

ESL/ELD identification and selection criteria

Staffing, programming, and support models for ELLs

ELL demographic profiles Parental engagement

Ontario school board online survey

Selected Ontario school boards (location, size, ELL population, demographically similar to Peel Board)

ESL/ELD program administrators, coordinators, consultants

2. What is the elementary ESL/ELD landscape in the Peel Board?

Program funding and staffing ESL/ELD program statistics

and trends ELL demographic profiles Progression through Stages

of Second-Language Acquisition among ELLs

Record and document review

SIS Census data (2006)

System and school data Program reports (enrolment,

ELL Stages, staffing) ELL data (demographic

characteristics) Ontario Ministry of Education

policy documents

ER

Citymh1widiPKaiCpsMSco( T

WmmTmtw

ESL/ELD ProgramResearch, Accounta

Canada hasmmigration

takes in appryear (total million). Thhas shifted 1970, the mwere from Emmigrants

developing mmigration

Philippines, Korea, Colomand Algeriantroduces ap

Canadian pupercent of speaking, aMontreal, TSchwartz, 20context, 27%outside Cana(Statistics Ca

The Peel Re

With a totamillion in 20most populToronto Armillion) (Regthe total GTwhich is t

+3

Peel Re

2001 988,948residents

m - Report 2: Contability & School S

Thes one of

per capita roximately 2population

he pattern ofover time.

majority of Europe. Ove

have comeworld. Thto Canada United K

mbia, Sri La. This ppproximatelublic schoothese stude

and 90% wToronto or 011, p. 149% of Ontaada, and 20%anada, 2006)

egion Cont

l population011, the Peeous municirea (GTA) gion of PeelTA populatithe second

+17%

31%

egion Population

8 s

21,15resi

textual and DemogSuccess Planning

e Canathe highesin the wor

250,000 immis approx

f immigratio Until ap

immigrantser the last 40e from As

he leading care: China

Kingdom, Ianka, Franc

pattern of ly 40,000 neols each yeents are nowill go to

Vancouver 9). Within ario student% are visibl).

text

n of approxel Region isipality in t

behind Tol, 2011). Peion in 2011

largest sh

+12%

n Growth 2001 t

2006 59,455 idents

graphic Profile

adian ast rates ofld. Canadamigrants perximately 34on in Canadapproximately to Canada

0 years, mostsia and thecountries ofa, India, theIran, Southce, Romaniaimmigration

ewcomers toar. Eightyon English-

school in(Mehta &

the Ontariots are bornle minorities

ximately 1.3s the secondthe Greateroronto (2.6el’s share of

1 was 21%,hare behind

to 2011

2011 1,296,814 residents

and Onf a r 4 a y a t e f e h ,

n o y -n

& o n s

3 d r 6 f , d

Toropoputo 2Peeland Peelto 2decr PeelOntaexpegrowbetwhighYorkperio1,15popuresidgrowPeel9% 17%to 20 FromgrewCalea de2006BramMisspopu523,59,4(612 The be 0PeelresidgroweverMiss

ntario Conto’s 43%ulation (21%2011. Missl’s populatio

Caledon (5l population 2011, while reased (by 2%

l is one of ario. Fromerienced apwth rate perween 2006 hest growth k (16%), anod, the po

59,455 to 1,ulation grodents. It hawth in the l’s populatiofor the GT

% from 2001 011 (Region

m 2006 to w 21%, whedon grew 4ecline in gr6 time pempton, 13%sissauga. Fulation incr,911), Caled

460), and M2,925 to 713

annual rate 0.8% per yeal will hadents, a 22%wth is projery six years sissauga, 20

Contex%. Peel’s %) remained sissauga accon, followed 5%). Bramhas increaseMississauga

% and 5%, r

the fastest m 2001 to proximatelyr year. Foand 2011, rate in the

nd Halton (opulation o,296,814. I

owth, Peel as the secon

GTA, behion grew by

TA. Peel’s to 2006, an

n of Peel, 20

2011, Brahile Mississa4%. All threrowth compaeriod, whic% for CaleFrom 2001 treased by

don increasedMississauga ,443).

of growth inar from 201ave approx

% growth froected to be

for the nex10; Region o

xt share of ththe same fr

counted for by Brampto

mpton’s shared by 3% fra and Caledrespectively)

growing re2011, Peel

y a 31,000 or the 5-yea

Peel had tGTA (12%)(14%). Duf Peel gre

In terms of grew by

d highest pond York (1

y 12%, compopulation d by 31% fr11).

ampton’s poauga grew ee municipalared to the ch was 3edon, and to 2011, Bra

61% (325d by 18% (5

increased

n Peel is pro2 to 2031.

ximately 1om 2012. The approximaxt 18 years of Peel, 200

7 March 2013

he GTA rom 2006

55% of on (40%), re of the rom 2006 don have ).

egions in l Region

resident ar period the third ), behind

uring this ew from

absolute 137,359

opulation 139,812).

mpared to grew by

rom 2001

opulation 7%, and lities had 2001 to

33% for 9% for

ampton’s 5,428 to 50,595 to by 16%

ojected to In 2031, ,640,000

he rate of ately 7%

(City of 8, 2011).


Population growth between 2001 to 2012 was fuelled primarily by immigration. In 2006, 49% of Peel’s population (561,240 residents) was made up of immigrants. This was significantly higher when compared to Ontario (28%) and Canada (20%). Between 2001 and 2006, Peel’s immigrant population grew by 32%, compared to 34% for York, 30% for Halton, 19% for Durham, 14% for Canada, 12% for Ontario, and

2% for Toronto. The immigrant population grew by 20% in Mississauga, 59% in Brampton, and 19% in Caledon. The Peel immigrant population growth was six times the rate of non-immigrant population growth - 32% vs. 5% respectively (Region of Peel, 2008, 2011; Social Planning Council of Peel, 2009; Statistics Canada, 2006).

Peel Region and Greater Toronto Area Population Statistics (2001-2011)

Note: 1. Immigrant population refers to people who are or have been, landed immigrants in Canada. 2. Non-immigrant population refers to people who are Canadian citizens by birth. 3. Visible minorities refers to persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour according to

the Employment Equity Act (1995).

The majority of immigrants in Peel were born in Southern Asia (168,750 residents), Southern Europe (63,380 residents), and Southeast Asia (53,130 residents). Collectively, these three immigration groups make up 51% of the total immigrant population in Peel. One in four Peel residents identified themselves as South Asian in 2006. Forty-four percent of Peel’s population did not speak English or French as their first language. The most common non-official (English/French) home language is Punjabi in Peel and Brampton, Urdu in Mississauga, and

Italian in Caledon (Social Planning Council of Peel, 2009). In 2006, 50% of the population in Peel (576,665 residents) were visible minorities, compared to 23% of the population in Ontario, and 16% of the population in Canada. The visible minority population in Peel is significantly higher than Halton (13%), Durham (17%), York Region (37%), and is similar to Toronto (47%). Brampton had the highest proportion of visible minorities (57%), followed by Mississauga

Mississauga Brampton Caledon Peel Durham York Toronto Halton

Population increase from 2001 to 2006

+9% +33% +13% +17% +11% +22% +1% +17%

Population increase from 2006 to 2011

+7% +21% +4% +12% +8% +16% +5% +14%

Immigrant population increase from 2001 to 20061

+20% +59% +19% +32% +19% +34% +2% +30%

Visible minorities in 20062

+49% +57% +7% +50% +17% +37% +47% +13%

Non-immigrant population increase 2001 to 20063

-2% +15% +11% +5% +9% +14% -1% +13%

Population increase 2001 to 2011

+16% +61% +18% +31% +20% +42% +5% +34%


(49%), and Caledon (7%). Overall, the rate of growth in the visible minority population in Peel between 2001 and 2006 was 52%, almost two times the rate of growth for both Ontario (27%) and Canada (28%). Brampton experienced the highest visible minority population growth (89%) from 2001 to 2006, followed by Caledon (63%), and Mississauga (33%). In 2031, Peel will have approximately 820,000 residents reporting themselves as visible minorities. The three largest visible minority groups in Peel are South Asian (272,765 residents), Black

(95,570), and Chinese (54,290). Collectively, these three visible minority groups make up 73% of all visible minority groups, and 37% of the total Peel population (Social Planning Council of Peel, 2009; Statistics Canada, 2006). Peel Region is more culturally, linguistically, and racially diverse than Ontario and Canada. It is one of the most diverse regions of the world (Mehta & Schwartz, 2011; Social Planning Council of Peel, 2009).

ER

SAraTsaEmiwsstbsBl(EC S

DSo

ED((sS5


14

school board surveys distribute

Survey MetAn online representativacross SouthToronto Aresoftware. Thabout backgELL studentmodels, stnvolvement

was contactesurvey, inforsurvey, and that time. Tbased on the similarities Board, and ocation - So

(2) relativelyESL/ELD poCatholic scho

Survey Part

Data AnalySurvey data on program s

English LanDuring the 2(grades 1-8) (45%) or junsmall proporSpecial Educ52% (mean=


ed

8 su

4

4 C

South

thodology survey w

ves from hern Ontarioea (GTA) ushe school boground boart populationtaff suppo. Each boed prior to rmed of the pparticipatio

The school bfollowing cto the Pee

d included: outhern Onty large schoopulations, ool boards.

ticipation

yses for all schoosimilarities a

nguage Lea2010-2011 in the Peel

nior (38%) drtion of elemcation progr

=24%), with


urveys returned

public boards

Catholic boards

ern On

was distribu14 school

o and in the sing SurveyMoard survey ird informati, ESL/ELD ort, and oard represdistribution

program revn was requeoards were s

criteria that rel District

(1) geogrtario and thol boards, (and (4) pub

ol boards weand differenc

C

arners (ELLschool yearl District Scdivisions, anmentary EL

ram (4%). Tthe proporti

graphic Profile

5

respo

ntario aSurve

uted to boards

Greater Monkey inquired ion, the support

parent entative

n of the view and ested at selected

reflected School

raphical he GTA, 3) large blic and

ere coded, caces with the

Contextu

Ls) r, ELLs accchool Boardnd 17% of E

LLs were enThe proportion of ELLs

57%

onse rate

and GTey Resu

Rhpcte

ategorized, aPeel Distric

al Inform

ounted for d. The majoELLs were nrolled in thon of ELLs decreasing f

Peel District S

Other school

Peel District S

Other school

(bas

Peel District S

Other school

Numb

Peel District S

Other school

TA Schults

Respondents had the mostprogram in thcoordinator/ceachers; and

and summarict School Bo

mation

43% of theority of thesin the interm

he French Imin other sch

from the prim

Number of E

School Board: 1

boards: r m

Total Stud

School Board: 1

boards: r m

% Elementased on local sc

School Board:

boards: r m

ber of Elemen

School Board: 2

boards: r m

hool Bo

consisted t knowledge heir respecticonsultants; d program su

ized. Resultsard.

e elementaryse students mediate divimmersion phool boards mary to inter

Elementary Sc

196 schools (20

range: 40 - 4mean: 148 sc

dent Enrolme

151,072 studen

range: 23,286mean: 87,628

ry ELL Populchool board d

43%

range: 10% - mean: 24%

ntary ESL/ELD

206 teachers

range: 10 - 3mean: 127 te

oard

of individu about the Eive board: E

ELL upervisors.

s are present

y student powere in theision. In ad

program (8%ranged from

rmediate div

chools

010-2011)

75 schools chools

ent

nts (2010-2011

6 - 260,000 stu8 students

lation definitions)

52%

D Teachers

53 teachers eachers

11 March 2013

uals who ESL/ELD ESL/ELD

resource

ted based

opulation e primary ddition, a %) or the m 10% to vision.

)

udents


ESL/ELD Program Enrolment Information

Peel District School Board Southern Ontario and GTA School Boards

Percentage of elementary ELLs 43%

(excludes kindergarten) Range: <10% - 52% Mean: 24%

Percentage of ELLs – Primary 45% Range: 3% - 45% Mean: 22%

Percentage of ELLs – Junior 38% Range: 3% - 25% Mean: 13%

Percentage of ELLs – Intermediate 17% Range: 2% - 17% Mean: 9%

Percentage of ELLs enrolled in the French Immersion program

8% Range: 0.1% - 23% Mean: 6%

Percentage of ELLs enrolled in the Special Education program (identified and non-identified students)

4% Range: 0.2% - 8% Mean: 5%

Top Languages Spoken Among English Language Learners

Punjabi was the top language spoken by ELLs in the Peel District School Board, followed by Urdu, Hindi, Tamil, Arabic, and Gujarati. Arabic (in four other boards) and Urdu (in three other boards) were also the top languages spoken among ELLs across other school boards. In contrast to the Peel District School Board, other school boards across Southern Ontario and the GTA reported Spanish (in five other boards) and/or Chinese (in four other boards - includes Mandarin and Cantonese) to be in the top six languages spoken by ELLs. ESL/ELD Program Staffing During the 2010-2011 school year, the Peel District School Board employed a total of 206 ESL/ELD teachers full-time equivalent (FTE) in the elementary panel. Among the external boards surveyed, the total number of ESL/ELD teachers ranged from 10 to 353 per board (mean=127 teachers). Both the Peel District School Board and boards across Southern Ontario and the GTA identified the following teaching support staff available to elementary schools:

► Resource teachers: literacy teachers, special education resource teachers/consultants

► Educational assistants ► Curriculum and instruction support

teachers/staff ► Settlement workers ► Reception centre assessors/staff ► Translators/interpreters (language/cultural) Additional supports within the Peel District School Board include: subject-specific resource teachers (e.g., Instruction technology resource

Top Six Languages Spoken Among ELLs Across Eight Southern Ontario and GTA School Boards in the 2010-2011 School Year (Excluding English)

Southern Ontario and GTA School Boards

Peel District School Board

Board 1

Board 2

Board 3

Board 4

Board 5

Board 6

Board 7

Punjabi Chinese Filipino Arabic Arabic Arabic Spanish Cantonese

Urdu Tamil Spanish Creole Mandarin Chalden Tagalog Mandarin

Hindi Urdu Portuguese Spanish Urdu Spanish French Tamil

Tamil Gujarati Ukrainian Hindi Somali Tagalog Arabic Russian

Arabic Somali Tamil Tagalog Spanish Vietnamese Portuguese Urdu

Gujarati Bengali Chinese Malayalam Hungarian Swahili Vietnamese Chinese


teachers, math resource teachers); psychology, speech and language staff; and school-based Identification, Placement, and Review Committees. Within other school boards, additional support staff include: ESL itinerant teachers, community liaison teachers, equity consultants, special assignment teachers, student at risk teachers, and guidance counsellors. ELL Definition All school boards sampled (including the Peel District School Board) utilized the definition of English language learners, as provided by the Ontario Ministry of Education (2007b). Two ESL/ELD operational definitions are used in the Peel District School Board: 1. Ontario Ministry of Education definition for

purposes of funding: (1) Recent Immigrant Component - entry date into Canada (in the last four years) and born in a country other than Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand; and, (2) Pupils in Canada Component – born in Canada, don’t speak English or French – based on local census data.

2. Peel Student Information System (SIS) definition for reporting stages of second language acquisition: assessment of second language proficiency on a four-stage developmental continuum (an open profile in the ELL module of Peel’s SIS at Stages 1 to 4 of the writing developmental continuum).

Assessment and Monitoring of ELLs A wide range of assessment and monitoring data is collected for ELLs by both the Peel District School Board and other boards across southern Ontario and the GTA: ► We Welcome the World and

Newcomer/Reception Centre assessments of English language proficiency.

► English language proficiency is categorized into four stages of second language acquisition and literacy development (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2001).

► Ongoing assessments (e.g., observations, conversations, student work) collected by classroom and ESL/ELD teachers.

► Report cards - student achievement in all subject areas is based on students' success with the Ontario curriculum expectations with accommodations and modifications as required.

► EQAO assessments (grade 3 and 6 reading, writing, and math assessments).

► ELL data housed in board-wide databases (e.g., Student Information System, Trevlac, Trillium, School Success Planning website).

Other Southern Ontario and GTA school boards also reported using ESL/ELD Resource Group of Ontario (ERGO) assessments, and parental input as sources of data to identify and monitor the progress of ELLs. Provision of ESL/ELD Support In the Peel District School Board, teachers provide support to students in the ESL/ELD program, through a combination of the integrated model and the withdrawal model. These models include: 1. Integrated support model where the student

remains in the regular classroom, and the classroom teacher and ESL/ELD teacher collaborate in the planning, instruction, and assessment of grade-level curriculum.

2. Withdrawal support model where the ESL/ELD teacher withdraws small groups of ELLs from the regular classroom to provide opportunities for practice and reinforcement of language skills studied in the classroom.

3. A combination of integrated and withdrawal support models.

4. A combination of ESL/ELD support provided to ELLs and In-school Support Programs (ISSP) support provided to Special Education students, using the integrated model.

5. A combination of ESL/ELD support provided to ELLs and In-school Support Programs (ISSP) support provided to


Special Education students, using the withdrawal model.

6. A combination of ESL/ELD support provided to ELLs and In-school Support Programs (ISSP) support provided to Special Education students, using both integrated and withdrawal support models.

School-based decisions determine the support model used. The type of support provided is tailored to meet student needs and allows for a high level of flexibility in providing ESL/ELD support at the local school level. In some schools, ESL/ELD teachers may provide resource support in the form of a consultative role to staff, and/or indirect support where some students may be monitored as they become proficient in English, requiring less modifications/accommodations. ELLs in Stages 1 to 4 are entitled to modifications and accommodations as needed, and are determined at the school level by the instructional team (which includes ESL/ELD teachers). Students in any of the stages may receive direct ESL/ELD support from an ESL/ELD teacher or their classroom teacher. However, students in Stages 1 and 2 usually require the most support. Decisions regarding support are influenced by each school's ESL/ELD pedagogy, vision, and school success plans. Five boards reported using a combination of integrated and withdrawal models to support their ELLs, one board reported using the integrated support model only, and one board supported ESL/ELD and ISSP students together through a combination of integrated and withdrawal models. The following additional aspects regarding ESL/ELD support were reported by Ontario school boards: ► Support for ELLs is flexible and may

involve a combination of models, which is determined at the school level based on the

number of ELLs, and their level of English language proficiency.

► A shift towards more in-class support offered by specialist teachers for a more inclusive model.

► Schools offer an Accelerated Literacy Program for ELLs.

► Schools offer ELLs the opportunity to spend 50% of their day with the ESL/ELD teacher (student/teacher ratio of 12:1), and are integrated into the classroom for some subjects.

► Homeroom ESL classrooms and students are integrated throughout the day.

► ESL/ELD teachers create work plans based on on-going needs assessments, in collaboration with classroom teachers.

Overall, two boards considered their ESL/ELD program to be very effective, four school boards considered it to be effective, and two boards considered their program to be moderately effective. A variety of methods was used to determine if an elementary ELL receives direct support from an ESL/ELD teacher. These methods are as follows: ► Assessments/student information (e.g.,

initial assessment from the We Welcome the World and Newcomer Reception Centre; teacher assessments; portfolio assessments; Comprehension, Attitudes, Strategies, Interests [CASI] results; PM Benchmarks results; Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening [PALS] results; EQAO results; Ontario Student Record information; parent information).

► Students in Stages 1 or 2 of second language acquisition receive direct support.

► Teachers (ESL/ELD and classroom) decide based on ELL profiles.

► ELL enrolment at individual schools. ► Student list generation of Ontario School

Information System (OnSIS) qualified ELLs for each school (does not include Canadian-born ELLs).


Changes in ELL Profiles Over Time The Peel District School Board and other Southern Ontario and GTA school boards reported the following changes in their ELL profiles over the past five years:

Involving and Engaging Parents of ELLs The Peel District School Board and Southern Ontario and GTA school boards reported using similar methods to communicate with parents of ELLs. These methods include: ► Translation services: via settlement workers,

cultural interpreters, community liaison workers, or We Welcome the World and Reception Centre staff.

► Meetings: school council meetings, parent-teacher meetings, student-led conferences.

► Website (translation available). ► Telephone calls. ► Events: school-based open houses,

presentations. ► Report cards to communicate student

progress and program adaptations.

A number of boards also reported using e-communication, school and board letters/brochures, Ontario Ministry of Education resources (including translated resources), and organizing events such as school gatherings and community feedback sessions.

Both the Peel District School Board and other Southern Ontario and GTA school boards reported using the following strategies to engage and involve parents in their child’s school: ► School council events/fundraisers. ► Open houses, meet the teacher nights. ► Parent volunteer opportunities. ► MSEP (Multicultural, Settlement and

Educational Partnership) workers. ► Interpreters and multi-language translated

materials.

School boards also reported using the following parent engagement strategies: hosting a variety of school-based community events (e.g., Parent Nights for Newcomers, multicultural celebrations, literacy and math nights), implementing family literacy and math programs, parent access to school-based resources (e.g., library, computers), and involving community agencies (i.e., Citizenship and Immigration Canada, municipal social services) in school and parent events.

Peel District School Board Increase in: ► The total number of ELLs. ► Newcomer students arriving from India,

Pakistan, China, U.S., Jamaica, United Arab Emirates, Sri Lanka, Saudi Arabia, Guyana, Philippines, Nigeria.

► The number of Canadian-born ELLs. ► ELLs with special education needs. ► ELLs in French Immersion. ► Students with both parents born outside

Canada. ► Immigrant population. ► Visible minority population.

Southern Ontario & GTA School Boards Increase in: ► The total number of ELLs. ► Newcomer students arriving from the Middle

East, Hungary, Iraq, Philippines, Syria, Greece, Kenya, Thailand, Czech Republic, Slovakia, South Korea, Congo, Mexico, Haiti, U.S.

► The number of Canadian-born ELLs. ► ELLs with special education needs. ► Students requiring ELD support. ► Students with both parents born outside

Canada. ► Refugee claimants. ► Visible minority population.


Trends and Issues in ESL/ELD Programming and Support The Peel District School Board and other Southern Ontario and GTA school boards identified the following trends and issues in providing ESL/ELD support at the board and/or provincial levels: Defining ELLs ► Operational definitions of ELLs vary across

Ontario school boards. This presents problems for the equitable distribution of ESL/ELD resources across the province and prevents board-wide data comparisons throughout Ontario.

Funding ► Province-wide lack of funding for ESL/ELD

programs from the Ontario Ministry of Education makes it challenging for Ontario school boards to meet the academic, social, and emotional needs of increasing numbers of ELLs.

► Support resources and training are required from the Ontario Ministry of Education to implement the Steps to English Proficiency (STEP) assessment resource system-wide.

► Funding from Citizenship and Immigration Canada has decreased over time, and will significantly impact the level of supports available to ELL families across the province.

Socio-demographic and Staffing Trends ► Increase in refugee claimants has resulted in

increased demands for programs that address the needs of students who have limited or interrupted prior schooling (i.e., Literacy Enrichment Academic Program [LEAP]). These programs are expensive to deliver and are presently underfunded.

► Increase in ELLs with special education needs.

► Increase in ELLs entering French Immersion programs.

► The proportion of ELLs is increasing and boards/schools require more ESL/ELD

teaching and support staff to effectively meet their needs.

ELL Reception and Transition Processes ► Need for more effective reception,

assessment, and orientation of ELLs (e.g., We Welcome the World Centres, Newcomer Reception Centres).

► Need for more ELL support during transitions (e.g., kindergarten to grade 1, grade 8 to grade 9, ESL to the regular class).

ESL/ELD Program Model and Curriculum ► There is not one model that can address the

complexity of the ESL/ELD service demands. Flexibility and adaptability are needed.

► Increased use of the integrated ESL/ELD program model results in decreased direct support to ELLs.

► A need for differentiated curriculum development in ESL/ELD.

► Need to have ESL/ELD qualifications for teaching ESL/ELD programs.

► Need to develop a policy regarding the identification of ELLs with special education needs. It often is unclear if ELLs are misidentified as having a special needs designation due to their English language development.

► ELLs receiving exemptions on EQAO assessments (nonparticipation in the assessment program should not count as zero).

Program Priority and Accountability ► Need to establish ESL/ELD programs as a

board priority, and not relegate it under another umbrella (e.g., literacy, safe and inclusive schools).

► Provincial and Board School Improvement Plans need to address the needs of ELLs, and improvement strategies for ELLs.

► Need for more accountability regarding use of funds allocated to ELL support.

► Achievement data disaggregated in a variety


of ways (i.e., language spoken, country of birth, length of time in the ESL/ELD program) may provide further insights regarding factors that are associated with ELL achievement.

Professional Learning/Support ► An increase in the provision of professional

development. Job-embedded and system-wide professional development would build capacity among all staff to better support ELL success.

► Need for professional development sessions for ESL teachers and school staff focusing on ELL transitions from grades 8 to 9.

► Need to understand Canadian-born ELLs and their specific academic and social needs.

► Increased opportunities for ESL/ELD teachers to provide educators with innovative professional learning opportunities that would support innovative ESL/ELD practices.

Parent Communication ► Misconceptions in the school community

about the ESL/ELD programs need to be addressed through information shared at the local school level, the social service delivery system, and through meaningful partnerships with ESL/ELD families.

ERESL/ELD ProgramResearch, Accounta

Pe


eel Dist


trict ScDem

graphic Profile

chool Bmograph

Board hic Info

ELL Baormati

ackgroion

ound &

19 March 2013

&

ER

C

1

2

F

PP

L

O


Component1. Recent Im

a) Entry dab) Born in

2. Pupils in Ca) For nee

French)b) Based o

Funding for

PDSB ELLs iPDSB ELLs f

Limitations Not direc Not align Provides Only capt

- Misses- Misses

May misIreland, U

May inclu Based on

Ontario Min

Funded ELLs

21

$16,000,000

$18,000,000

$20,000,000

$22,000,000

$24,000,000


ts of the Elmigrant Comate into Cana a country oth

Canada Comeds not cove). on 2006 local

r ELLs

n Stages 1, 2,funded by the

s of the Ontctly related to ned to the actu

only four yeatures first gens students whs second genes students fro

United States,ude newcome

n 2006 Census

nistry of Edu

Ontario M

1%

$21,401,659

2006-2007


lementary Emponent ada in the last her than Cana

mponent red by recen

Census data.

, 3, & 4 (grade Ontario Min

tario Minisproficiency i

ual number ofars of direct funeration newcho have been heration immigom the exclu, Australia, aner students whs – may not re

ucation Tot

Ministry of

Unfunded ELLs 79%

2007-2008

graphic Profile

ESL/ELD G

four years. ada, Great Bri

nt immigrant

des 1-8):nistry of Educ

stry of Educin the Englishf identified ELfunded supporcomers withinhere longer thgrants who douded countriend New Zealaho are proficieflect current

tal Funding

Education

2008-2009 2

rant

itain, Ireland,

component

37cation: 7

cation’s Fuh language. LLs in the Pert for each imn the last fourhan four yearso not speak Enes who are noand). ient in EnglishELL populat

g for Elemen

n Element

► In 20EducPeel 2, 3 &

$2

2009-2010 2

, United State

(e.g., born in

7,569 7,762

nding Form

eel Board. mmigrant ELLr years. s but are still nglish at homot proficient

h. tion.

ntary ESL/E

tary ELL Fu

010-2011, thecation’s fundiBoard elemen& 4 by 79% (

►

0,667,653

2010-2011

es, Australia, a

n Canada, do

mula

.

not proficienme.

in English (C

ELD Program

unding Fo

e Ontario Mining formula untary ELLs in(29,807 stude

► ESL/ELD provided bMinistry oimmigrantin Canada decreased 2006-2007

and New Zea

on’t speak E

nt in English.

Canada, Grea

m Over Five

ormula

nistry of underfunded n Stages 1, ents).

program fundby the Ontarioof Education (t component &component) by $734,006

7 and 2010-20

20 March 2013

aland.

English or

at Britain,

e Years

ding o (recent & pupils

between 011.

ER

S

L

S2

L


Stages 1 &

Open ELNon-ELTotal nu

Limitations

Does no Under-r Represe

Stages 1, 22010-2011

Open ELNon-ELTotal nu

Limitations

The leve May ove

E

Elem


2 ELL Pop

LL profile anLLs (all otherumber of stu

s of the ESL

ot include sturepresents thents students

, 3, & 4 EL School Ye

LL profile anLLs (all otherumber of stu

s of the ESL

el of ELL suer-represent

Elementary

ELLs26%

ELLs

43%

mentary EL


pulation in t

nd ESL/ELDr students): dents in grad

L/ELD Stag

udents in Stae total ELL at the begin

LL Populatioar

nd ESL/ELDr students): dents in grad

L/ELD Stag

upport these the ELL pop

y ELLs in S

Non‐EL74%

Non‐EL57%

Ls in Stag

graphic Profile

the Peel Di

D writing Sta

des 1 to 8:

ges 1 & 2 D

ages 3 & 4. population.

nning and int

on in the P

D writing Sta

des 1 to 8:

ges 1, 2, 3,

students recpulation rece

Stages 1 &

Ls

LLs %

ges 1, 2, 3,

istrict Scho

ages 1 & 2:

efinition

termediate le

Peel Distric

ages 1, 2, 3,

& 4 Definit

eive may vaeiving ELL

& 2 in the

► In 20studen(grad

, & 4 in th

► In 2010in the P1-8) we

ool Board -

22,556 stu65,464 stu88,020 stu

evels of seco

t School Bo

& 4: 37,56 50,45

88,02

tion

ary. resources an

Peel Distr

10-2011, 26nts in the Pees 1-8) were

e Peel Dis

-2011, 43% eel District Sre ELLs in S

- 2010-201

udents udents udents

ond-languag

oard -

69 students 51 students 20 students

nd support.

rict School

% of elemeneel District Se ELLs in St

strict Scho

of elementaSchool BoarStages 1, 2, 3

1 School Y

e acquisition

l Board

ntary School Boardages 1 & 2.

ool Board

ary students rd (grades 3 & 4.

21 March 2013

Year

n.

d




Socio-Demographic Characteristics of ELLs

Relationship between Number of ELLs Living in a Peel Region Census Dissemination Area (DA) and Socio-Demographic Characteristics*

Number of ELLs in each

PDSB DA by Ranges

Total Number of

ELLs**

Number of DAs with

ELLs

Social Risk Index

Average Household

Income

Owner- Occupied Dwelling

Speak Neither

English nor French

Recent Immigrants

Mobility Over

1 Year

Unemploy-ment Rate

Reliance UponGovernment

Payments

Without High School

Diploma

Lone Parent Families

1 - 5 1136 411 2.76 $102,497 87.63% 1.88% 3.72% 8.87% 5.44 7.58% 19.40% 19.33%

6 - 10 1671 214 3.09 $94,296 84.80% 2.79% 6.42% 9.11% 5.87 7.92% 19.26% 20.78%

11 - 30 7228 396 4.02 $85,857 82.48% 4.14% 10.60% 12.92% 6.74 8.88% 20.66% 20.20%

31 - 50 5565 143 5.00 $77,621 78.90% 5.58% 14.56% 14.57% 6.95 9.64% 21.27% 20.80%

51 or more 20447 156 5.72 $75,059 73.69% 6.05% 17.03% 19.90% 7.65 10.46% 21.75% 20.59%

Caledon 124 34 2.12 $101,906 88.62% 0.68% 0.97% 7.94% 4.76 6.71% 21.38% 15.59%

Brampton 18761 478 4.29 $83,760 84.39% 3.96% 8.91% 13.05% 6.53 9.11% 22.86% 21.84%

Mississauga 17162 808 3.56 $93,317 82.00% 3.51% 9.34% 11.62% 6.27 8.37% 18.64% 19.32%

All DAs in the PDSB with ELLs 3.78 $90,096 83.04% 3.60% 8.97% 12.04% 6.32 8.59% 20.24% 20.13%

All DAs in the PDSB with no ELLs 1.77 $116,558 90.55% 1.19% 1.72% 8.63% 4.65 6.28% 17.38% 16.44%

* Data represent the 2006 Census. ** Total number of ELLs includes students with valid addresses only (students with invalid addresses are not included). As the ELL population increases within DAs: ► social risk index increases (2.76 to 5.72). ► the proportion of residents who speak neither English nor French increases (1.9% to 6.1%). ► the proportion of recent immigrants increases (3.7% to 17.0%). ► the proportion of lone parent families increases (19.3% to 20.6%). ► unemployment rate increases (5.4 to 7.7). ► the proportion of families reliant on government transfer payments increases (7.6% to 10.5%). ► mobility over one year increases (8.9% to 19.9%). ► the proportion of residents without a high school diploma increases (19.4% to 21.8%). ► average household income decreases ($102,497 to $75,059). ► the proportion of owner-occupied dwellings decreases (87.6% to 73.7%). ELLs who lived in Brampton, lived in communities of higher social risk (4.29), followed by Mississauga (3.56), and Caledon (2.12). Compared to DAs with no ELLs, ELLs lived in communities of higher social risk, lower income, and higher mobility. Additionally, their communities had higher levels of recently arrived immigrants, and higher unemployment rates. Families of ELLs were more likely to be renters, speak neither English nor French, and live in two-parent families.


Percentage of Non-ELLs and ELLs Over Five Years

Over five years (2006-2007 to 2010-2011) in the Peel Board:

► the proportion of ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 increased by 7% (from 19% to 26%).

► the proportion of ELLs in Stages 3 & 4 increased by 3% (from 14% to 17%).

► the proportion of non-ELLs decreased by 11% (from 68% to 57%).

68% 65% 63%60% 57%

19% 20% 21% 24% 26%

14% 15% 16% 16% 17%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

Non-ELLs

ELLs in Stages 1 & 2

ELLs in Stages 3 & 4


Percentage of ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 by Grade Over 5 Years

Over five years (2006-2007 to 2010-2011), the percentage of ELLs in Stages 1 & 2: ► increased most in the primary grades (8% increase in grade 1, 11% increase in grade 2, and 11% increase

in grade 3), followed by the junior grades (8% increase in grade 4, 8% increase in grade 5, and 5% increase in grade 6), and the intermediate grades (4% increase in grade 7, and 2% increase in grade 8).

► decreased an average of 37% from grades 1 – 8 (with an average of 44% in grade 1, and 7% in grade 8).

Percentage of ELLs in Stages 3 & 4 by Grade Over 5 Years

Over five years (2006-2007 to 2010-2011), the percentage of ELLs in Stages 3 & 4: ► decreased in the primary grades (2% decrease in grade 1, 4% decrease in grade 2, and 3% decrease in

grade 3). ► increased in the junior grades (4% increase in grade 4, 6% increase in grade 5, and 9% increase in grade

6), and intermediate grades (9% increase in grade 7, and 8% increase in grade 8). ► increased an average of 18% from grades 1 – 5 (with an average of 4% in grade 1, and 22% in grade 5),

and decreased an average of 6% from grades 6 – 8 (with an average of 19% in grade 6, and 13% in grade 8).

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

41%

32%

23%

18%

13%10%

8%6%

41%

34%

25%

19%

14%11%

9%7%

43%

36%

28%

21%

15%12%

9%7%

45%

40%

31%

24%

18%

14%11%

8%

49%

43%

34%

26%

21%

15%12%

8%

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011


5%

12%

19% 19% 18%14% 12%

10%

5%

13%

19%21% 21%

17%12% 12%

5%

12%

20% 22% 24%19%

16%12%3%

10%

17%22% 23% 21%

19%15%

3%8%

16%

23% 24% 23%21%

18%

2010-2011 2009-2010 2008-2009 2007-2008 2006-2007

2010-2011 2009-2010 2008-2009 2007-2008 2006-2007


Percentage of ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 and ELLs in Stages 3 & 4 by Grade and Gender 2010-2011 School Year

► In the 2010-2011 school year, the proportion of male ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 increased across grade

levels by 8% (from 53% in grade 1 to 61% in grade 8). Correspondingly, the proportion of female ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 decreased by 8% (from 47% in grade 1 to 39% in grade 8).

► In the 2010-2011 school year, the proportion of male ELLs in Stages 3 & 4 increased across grade levels by 11% (from 43% in grade 1 to 54% in grade 8). Correspondingly, the proportion of female ELLs in Stages 3 & 4 decreased by 11% (from 57% in grade 1 to 46% in grade 8).


ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 ‐ Females 47% 46% 45% 42% 42% 38% 39% 39%

ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 ‐Males 53% 54% 55% 58% 58% 62% 61% 61%

.

ELLs in Stages 3 & 4 ‐ Females 57% 51% 54% 52% 48% 48% 47% 46%

ELLs in Stages 3 & 4 ‐Males 43% 49% 46% 48% 52% 52% 53% 54%

ER

R TP I ►


Regions of

Total NumbePercentage E

Interpretatio

► In the 2040% wer


Birth – Pee

er of StudenELLs (Stages

on Example:

010-2011 schre ELLs in S


el District S

nts (2010-20s 1 & 2 and

:

hool year, 1,Stages 1 & 2

graphic Profile

School Boa

011) Stages 3 &

,031 student, 22% were

ard Student

4) and Non-

s in the PDSELLs in Sta

ts

-ELLs

SB were bornages 3 & 4, a

n in Africa. Oand 38% wer

Of these studre non-ELLs

28 March 2013

dents, s.


Countries and Regions of Birth

North America Caribbean

*English Speaking Europe East Asia South-East Asia

Canada Anguilla* Albania China Brunei Darussalam

United States + Bermuda Antigua and Barbuda* Austria Hong Kong Cambodia

Bahamas* Belarus Japan Indonesia

Africa Barbados* Belgium Korea North Malaysia

Algeria British Virgin Islands* Bosnia & Herzegovina Korea South Myanmar

Angola Grenada* Bulgaria Macau Philippines

Botswana Jamaica* Croatia Mongolia Singapore

Cameroon St. Kitts and Nevis* Czech Republic Taiwan Thailand

Congo St. Lucia* Denmark Oceania Vietnam

Democratic Republic of the Congo Trinidad and Tobago* England Australia West Asia (Middle East)

Côte d'Ivoire Turks and Caicos Islands* Estonia Fiji Armenia

Djibouti Cayman Islands Finland Guam Azerbaijan

Egypt Cuba France New Zealand Bahrain

Eritrea Dominican Republic Germany Northern Mariana Islands Cyprus

Ethiopia Haiti Greece Pacific Island Trust Iraq

Ghana Puerto Rico Hungary Palau Israel

Guinea St. Vincent & the Grenadines Iceland Papua New Guinea Jordan

Kenya West Indies Ireland Pitcairn Island Kuwait

Lesotho Central & South America Italy Central & South Asia Lebanon

Liberia Argentina Kosovo Afghanistan Palestine

Libya Belize Latvia Bangladesh Oman

Malawi Bolivia Lithuania Bhutan Qatar

Mali Brazil Republic of Macedonia India Saudi Arabia

Mauritania Chile Malta Iran Syrian Arab Republic

Mauritius Colombia Republic of Moldova Kazakhstan Turkey

Morocco Costa Rica Netherlands Kyrgyzstan United Arab Emirates

Namibia Ecuador Norway Maldives Yemen

Nigeria El Salvador Poland Nepal

Rwanda Guatemala Portugal Pakistan

São Tomé and Príncipe Guyana Romania Sri Lanka

Senegal Honduras Russian Federation Tajikistan

Seychelles Mexico Scotland Turkmenistan

Sierra Leone Nicaragua Serbia Uzbekistan

Somalia Panama Slovakia

South Africa Peru Slovenia

Sudan Suriname Spain

Swaziland Uruguay Sweden

Tanzania United Republic Venezuela Switzerland

Tunisia Ukraine

Uganda United Kingdom

Zaire Wales

Zambia

Zimbabwe

Data from PDSB Student Information System


Percentage of ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 by Region of Birth 2010-2011 School Year ► In the 2010-2011 school year, 65% of ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 in the PDSB were born in Canada, and 35% were born outside of Canada. ► Of the ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 who were born outside of Canada, 20% were born in South and Central Asia; 5% were born in West Asia; 2% were born in the United States, Africa, and East Asia; 1% were born in Europe, South-East Asia, the Caribbean – English speaking, and South and Central America; and 0.3% of ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 were born in other regions.

Percentage of ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 by Region of Birth Over Five Years ► Over five years (2006-2007 to 2010-2011),

the percentage of ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 born in Canada increased by 7% (from 58% to 65%). A 1% increase was also seen among ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 born in West Asia and the Middle East (from 4% to 5%) and the United States (from 1% to 2%).

► Conversely, over five years (2006-2007 to 2010-2011), a decrease was seen among ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 born in South and Central Asia by 6% (from 26% to 20%), East Asia by 1% (from 3% to 2%), and Europe by 1% (from 2% to 1%).

► The percentage of ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 born in Africa, South-East Asia, Caribbean – English speaking, South and Central America, and other regions remained stable over five years.

Canada65%

West Asia 5%

United States 2%

Africa 2%

East Asia 2%Europe 1%

South-East Asia 1%Caribbean-English Speaking 1%South & Central America 1%

Other 0.3%

Outside Canada

35%

South & Central Asia 20%

Canada South & Central Asia

58%

26%

65%

20%

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

West Asia & Middle East

United States East Asia Africa Europe South-East Asia Caribbean -English Speaking

South & Central America

Other

4%

1%

3%2% 2%

1% 1% 1%0.2%

5%

2% 2% 2%1% 1% 1% 1%

0.3%

2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011


Percentage of ELLs in Stages 3 & 4 by Region of Birth 2010-2011 School Year ► In the 2010-2011 school year, 64% of ELLs in Stages 3 & 4 in the PDSB were born in Canada, and 36% were born outside of Canada. ► Of the ELLs in Stages 3 & 4 who were born outside of Canada, 23% were born in South and Central Asia; 4% were born in West Asia; 3% were born in the United States; 2% were born in East Asia; 1% were born in Africa and Europe; 0.7% were born in South-East Asia and the Caribbean – English speaking; 0.6% were born in South and Central America; and 0.2% of ELLs in Stages 3 & 4 were born in other regions.

Percentage of ELLs in Stages 3 & 4 by Region of Birth Over Five Years ► Over five years (2006-2007 to 2010-2011),

the percentage of ELLs in Stages 3 & 4 born in Canada increased by 6% (from 58% to 64%). A 2% increase was also seen among ELLs in Stages 3 & 4 born in the United States (from 1% to 3%).

► Conversely, over five years (2006-2007 to 2010-2011), a decrease was seen among in ELLs in Stages 3 & 4 born in South and Central Asia by 4% (from 27% to 23%), East Asia by 2% (from 4% to 2%), Africa by 1% (from 2% to 1%), and Europe by 1% (from 2% to 1%).

► ELLs in Stages 3 & 4 born in West Asia and the Middle East, South-East Asia, Caribbean – English speaking, South and Central America, and other regions remained stable over five years.

Canada64%

West Asia 4%

United States 3%

East Asia 2%Africa 1%

Europe 1%South-East Asia 0.7%

South & Central America 0.6%Other 0.2%

Outside Canada

36%

South & Central Asia 23%

Caribbean-English Speaking 0.7%

Canada South & Central Asia

58%

27%

64%

23%

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

West Asia & Middle East

United States East Asia Africa Europe South-East Asia Caribbean -English Speaking

South & Central America

Other

4%

1%

4%

2% 2%1% 1% 1%

0.1%

4%3%

2%1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

0.2%

2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011


Percentage of ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 by Language Spoken at Home 2010-2011 School Year ► In the 2010-2011 school year, 91% of ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 in the PDSB spoke a language other than English at home. ► The languages most frequently spoken at home by ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 were: Punjabi (32%), Urdu (18%), and English (9%); followed by Arabic (6%); Chinese (All) (5%); Tamil (5%); Hindi (5%); Gujarati (4%); Vietnamese (3%); Spanish (1%); and Persian (Farsi) (1%). In addition, 11% of ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 spoke other languages at home.

Percentage of ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 by Language Spoken at Home Over Five Years

► Over five years (2006-2007 to 2010-2011), an increase of 1% was seen among ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 who spoke the following languages at home: Punjabi (from 31% to 32%), Urdu (from 17% to 18%), Arabic (from 5% to 6%), and Hindi (from 4% to 5%).

► Conversely, over five years (2006-2007 to 2010-2011), a decrease of 1% was seen among ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 who spoke English (from 10% to 9%), Chinese (All) (from 6% to 5%), and Spanish (from 2% to 1%) at home.

► The percentage of ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 who spoke Tamil, Gujarati, Vietnamese, Persian (Farsi), Bengali, Korean, Tagalog, Somalian, Albanian, and Malayalam at home remained stable over five years.

5%6%

5%4% 4%

3%2%

1% 1% 1.0%

6%5% 5% 5%

4%3%

1% 1% 1% 0.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5%

English 9%

Punjabi 32%

Urdu 18%

Arabic 6%

Chinese (All) 5%

Tamil 5%

Hindi 5%

Gujarati 4%Vietnamese 3%Spanish 1%

Persian (Farsi) 1%

Other 11%

Language other than

English91%

Punjabi Urdu English

31%

17%

10%

32%

18%

9%

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011


Percentage of ELLs in Stages 3 & 4 by Language Spoken at Home 2010-2011 School Year

► In the 2010-2011 school year, 91% of ELLs in Stages 3 & 4 in the PDSB spoke a language other than English at home. ► The languages most frequently spoken at home by ELLs in Stages 3 & 4 were: Punjabi (30%), Urdu (16%), and English (9%); followed by Chinese (All) (7%); Tamil (6%); Hindi (6%); Gujarati (5%); Arabic (4%); Vietnamese (3%); Spanish (1%); and Persian (Farsi) (1%). In addition, 12% of ELLs in Stages 3 & 4 spoke other languages at home.

Percentage of ELLs in Stages 3 & 4 by Language Spoken at Home Over Five Years

► Over five years (2006-2007 to 2010-2011), an increase of 1% was seen among ELLs in Stages 3 & 4 who spoke the following languages at home: Punjabi (from 29% to 30%), Tamil (from 5% to 6%), and Gujarati (from 4% to 5%).

► Conversely, over five years (2006-2007 to 2010-2011), a decrease of 1% was seen among ELLs in Stages 3 & 4 who spoke English (from 10% to 9%), and Vietnamese (from 4% to 3%) at home.

► The percentage of ELLs in Stages 1 & 2 who spoke Urdu, Chinese (All), Hindi, Arabic, Spanish, Persian (Farsi), Bengali, Korean, Tagalog, Malayalam, Telugu, and Albanian at home remained stable over five years.

English 9%

Punjabi 30%

Urdu 16%

Chinese (All) 7%

Tamil 6%

Hindi 6%

Gujarati 5%

Arabic 4%Vietnamese 3%Spanish 1%

Persian (Farsi) 1%

Other 12%

Language other than

English91%

Punjabi Urdu English

29%

16%

10%

30%

16%

9%

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

Chinese (All)

Hindi Tamil Gujarati Arabic Vietnamese Spanish Persian (Farsi)

Bengali Korean Tagalog Malayalam Telugu Albanian

7%6%

5%4% 4% 4%

1% 1% 1% 1%

7%6% 6%

5%4%

3%

1% 1% 1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.4%

2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011


ESL Stages of Second-Language Acquisition for ELLs ► In the 2010-2011 school year, 21%

of ELLs (in grades 1-8) were in Stage 1 of second-language acquisition, 42% were in Stage 2, 28% were in Stage 3, and 9% of ELLs were in Stage 4.

► Of the ELLs who entered Stage 1 of second-language acquisition in grade 1 (in 2006-2007), 33% remained at this stage in grade 2. By grade 5, 8% of ELLs remained at Stage 1.



► Of the ELLs who entered Stage 4 of second-language acquisition in grade 1 (in 2006-2007), 63% remained at this stage in grade 5.

► Overall, within five years, 94% of ELLs who entered Stage 1 in grade 1, progressed to the next stage (by grade 5); 74% of ELLs who entered Stage 2 in grade 1, progressed to the next stage in this time frame; 51% of ELLs who entered Stage 3 in grade 1, progressed to the next stage by grade 5; and 37% of ELLs who entered Stage 4 in grade 1, no longer required ESL/ELD support by grade 5.

ESL Stages of Second-Language Acquisition

The ESL/ELD Stages of second-language acquisition are designed to assist teachers with programming and assessment for ELLs. The ESL stages provide indicators of the learner’s four stages of development (from beginning to native-like proficiency) in the following five broad areas of second-language development: writing, reading, speaking, listening, and orientation (adapting to Canadian environment) (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2008). Example: Stages of Second-Language Acquisition for Writing Stage 1: Begin to write using English structures. Stage 2: Write in a variety of contexts using simple English structures. Stage 3: Write English in a variety of contexts with increasing independence and

accuracy. Stage 4: Write English for a variety of purposes using appropriate conventions.

100% 100% 100% 100%

33%

64%

78%

71%

13%

43%

60%63%

10%

35%

54%

65%

6%

26%

49%

63%

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

Percentage of ELLs Remaining in each ESL/ELD Stage Over Five Years2006-2007 Cohort Analysis

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Percentage of ELLs Remaining in each ESL/ELD Stage over Five Years

2006-2007 Cohort Analysis


Progression Through the ESL/ELD Stages of Second-Language Acquisition Tracking the 2006-2007 Cohort from Grade 1 through to Grade 5 Of the ELLs who entered grade 1, in Stage 1, in 2006-2007:

► 6% of these ELLs were still in Stage 1, four years later, in Grade 5 (2010-2011).

► 48% of these ELLs were in Stage 2, four years later, in Grade 5 (2010-2011).



Grade 5 2010-2011 school year

6% were still in Stage 1

48% were in Stage 2

31% were in Stage 3

15% were in Stage 4

to grade 5

Tracking these ELLs All ELLs who entered

Grade 1, in Stage 1

Grade 1 2006-2007 school year


Elementary ESL/ELD Staffing Trends Over 7 Years

School Year Total Number of

ELL Open Profile Stages 1, 2, 3, 4

Allocation Number of ESL/ELD

Teachers

ESL/ELD Teacher to

ELL Ratio

2012-2013 41,148 213 1:193

2011-2012 38,608 210 1:184

2010-2011 36,065 206 1:175

2009-2010 32,865 206 1:160

2008-2009 31,003 206 1:151

2007-2008 28,757 206 1:140

2006-2007 26,458 204 1:130

% increase from 2006-2007 to

2012-2013 +56% +4% –

Note: ELL numbers are based on open profile and Stages 1, 2, 3, 4 in writing. Over seven years (2006-2007 to 2012-2013), there was a 56% increase in the number of ELLs in Stages 1, 2, 3, 4 in the PDSB (26,458 to 41,148).

Over seven years (2006-2007 to 2012-2013), there was a 4% increase in the number of ESL/ELD teachers (204 to 213), and the ESL/ELD teacher to ELL ratio increased by 63 students per teacher (from 130 ELLs per ESL/ELD teacher, to 193 ELLs per ESL/ELD teacher).

Newly Hired Elementary Staff with ESL/ELD Qualifications Over 3 Years

School Year Total Number of New Hires

% Teachers with ESL/ELD

Qualifications (Part 1, 2, Specialist)

2011-2012 325 28%

2010-2011 343 34%

2009-2010 298 30%

Average 322 31%

► Over three years, an average of 31% of all newly hired elementary teaching staff had ESL/ELD qualifications (either of Part 1, Part 2, Specialist).


Discussion and Recommendations Demographic Trends in the Peel Region and the PDSB Peel is one of the fastest growing regions in Ontario. The region is more culturally, linguistically, and racially diverse than either Ontario or Canada. It is one of the most diverse regions of the world. The rate of growth of the visible minority population over the last ten years was approximately fifty percent. This was twice the rate of the visible minority growth in Ontario (Region of Peel, 2011). It is projected that the rate of growth of the general population in Peel Region from 2012 to 2031 will be 22% (City of Mississauga, 2010). This population growth will be fuelled by immigration. The immigrant population growth will continue to be approximately six times the rate of the non-immigrant population. By 2031, there will be approximately 820,000 residents reporting themselves as visible minorities. It is also projected that the largest visible minority groups in Peel Region will continue to be South Asian (e.g., India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka), Black (e.g., Caribbean, Ghana, Somalia), and Chinese (e.g., China, Hong Kong, Taiwan). The demographic trends indicate that the ESL/ELD percentages in the PDSB will continue to increase over the next 20 years. The PDSB will be experiencing continued growth of its visible minority student population that were born outside of Canada, and speak a language other than English as their first language. Currently, ELLs are the fastest growing segment of the kindergarten to grade 8 student population in the PDSB, with the largest increases in the primary grades (grades 1 to 3). The ELL population at the PDSB increased 8% in grade 1, 12% in grade 2, and 11% in grade 3. Over the last seven years, the number of ELLs in Stages 1, 2, 3, 4 has increased by 56%. ELLs in Stages 1 and 2 presently make up 26% of the elementary student population, while Stage 1 to

Stage 4 ELLs make up 43% of the PDSB elementary student population. The rate of growth of the ELL population over the last five years at the PDSB has increased by a rate of 1.6% per year. Each year, approximately 1,363 ELLs are added to the total PDSB elementary student population. This rate of ELL growth is projected to be consistent to the year 2031. Fifty-four percent of all Peel Board elementary schools have had ELL populations in excess of 20% of the total school population. There are more males enrolled in the ESL/ELD program than females across all grades (grades 1 to 8). Overall, there are 22% more males in the program than females. Sixty-six percent of ELLs in the PDSB were born in Canada, and 34% were born outside of Canada. Of the students born outside of Canada, 20% were born in South Asia, 4% in West Asia, and 2% in the United States. Ninety-nine percent of all ELLs live in the city of Mississauga (47%) and the city of Brampton (52%), and they are geographically dispersed throughout all sections of both cities.

Recommendation: In order to capitalize on the richly diverse

backgrounds of its students and communities, the Peel Board needs to continue to emphasize the implementation of culturally responsive approaches to curriculum, teaching, and assessment.

ELLs in the PDSB tend to live in high social risk communities that are characterized as low income, high mobility, higher levels of recently arrived immigrants, and higher unemployment rates. This finding indicates that many ELL families may be economically and socially disadvantaged. Numerous studies have consistently shown that one of the strongest predictors of educational achievement and attainment is the socio-economic status (SES) of the student’s family (Levin, 2009; Willms, 2002). Berliner (2005) reminds us that solutions


to poverty and student achievement must be understood in the context of the community, and not just within the school system.

Recommendation: The Peel Board needs to continue to

provide additional resources to schools where high ELL population intersects with high social risk.

Definition of English Language Learners At a general level, English language learners are students whose first language is a language other than English, or is a variety of English (sometimes referred to as dialects) that is significantly different from the variety used for instruction in Ontario’s schools, and who may require focused educational supports to assist them in attaining proficiency in English. ELLs can be newcomers from other countries or Canadian-born. The Ontario Ministry of Education’s definition for funding purposes is not directly based on English language proficiency, and therefore it is not directly aligned to the actual number of identified ELLs. This under-represents the actual number of ELLs funded in the PDSB. Additionally, the Ontario Ministry of Education ELL funding formula only provides financial support to ELLs for four years. This is considerably shorter than the seven years it takes for ELLs to become proficient in listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Cummins, 2000; Hakuta, 2011). ELLs can become successful, but only after five to seven years of ESL/ELD support. The Ontario Ministry of Education funding model should reflect the length of time required to obtain cognitive academic language proficiency (Cummins, 2011). The PDSB definition recognizes that its ESL/ELD program is transitional in nature, is progressive through the stages of second language acquisition, and that the purpose of the program is to facilitate the integration of ELLs into the regular program.

It would be helpful to determine each student’s starting point in English, using language performance descriptors that are appropriate for children who are still in the process of learning English as a second or additional language, and continue to use these descriptors to assess performance and growth over time (Coelho, 2007).

Recommendation: Advocate for a consistent approach in the

operational definition of ELLs across the province. This would standardize the process of identifying ELLs in school boards and allow comparisons across boards.

Financial Models for Funding Education to ELLs Given that ELLs are the fastest growing elementary student population in both the GTA and the PDSB, school financial models should be developed with the explicit purpose of developing a more precise picture of the costs associated with providing adequate education to ELLs. Financial costing models should be developed to better account for the diverse and complex needs of the increasing ELL population. The present funding formula and costing processes obscure the needs and diversity of ELLs. Financial models need to document how funds are allocated and to identify what programs, instructional materials, and staffing resources have contributed to their high success rates. Identifying the funding and resources needed to successfully serve ELLs in the current climate of student accountability is inherently an issue of social justice (Levin, 2009). Recommendations: Develop a PDSB framework for conducting

cost studies that authentically account for ELLs.

Explore reallocation of financial resources

to support schools with large numbers of ELLs.


Continue to work with the federal and provincial governments to gain increased funding support to address settlement and social development issues of newcomers.

Staffing Trends The ESL/ELD teacher to English language learner ratio has not kept pace with the increase in the total number of Peel District School Board ELLs over the last seven years. The ELL teacher to student ratio has increased from 1 to 130 in 2006–2007 to 1 to 193 in 2012–2013. Over the last three years, approximately one-third of the newly hired PDSB staff at the elementary level have ESL/ELD qualifications. The level of new hires with ESL/ELD qualifications may not meet the staffing demands for transitioning to a whole school approach to ESL/ELD programming.

Recommendations: Support the creation of a University-PDSB

collaboration in order to facilitate conducting ELL research in the district. Knowledge mobilization of evidence-based ELL practice would be a key component of the collaboration.

Develop an AQ course for ESL/ELD I, II, III, at cost to Peel Board teachers and Peel Board school teams.

ELL Monitoring System Data collected for this study indicated great variability regarding the accuracy, depth, and type of information collected on ELLs. Presently, there is no longitudinal tracking of ELLs through secondary school and beyond. Also, dropouts from the ESL/ELD program are not tracked. There is little understanding of the extent to which ELLs are enrolling in adult education courses to complete secondary school, or what proportion of ELLs graduate or go on to college or university. A longitudinal database would allow us to document whether the variables identified as predictors of ELL achievement in reading, writing, and mathematics contribute to students’ academic success in the long term. It is important to document each student’s development in English over a period of several years. It is important to track ELLs over a multi-year period and ensure that updated information is passed on when students move into a higher grade or when they change schools. Monitoring needs to be a shared responsibility between ESL/ELD staff and classroom teachers.

Recommendations: Improve the ELL tracking system within

SIS.

Create platforms that will allow for data collected over time (e.g., time in program, progression over time, educational outcomes, graduation rates, pathways).

Summarize individual ELLs’ level of English language acquisition and include it in the student’s Ontario Student Record (OSR) on a yearly basis.


References Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language:

Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59, 249–306. doi:10.1111/j.1467 –9922.2009.00507.x.

Berliner, D. (2005). Our impoverished view of educational reform. Retrieved from http://www.terecord/content. asp?contentid=12106.

Bialystok, E., & Miller, B. (1999). The problem of age in second language acquisition: Influences from language, structure, and task. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2,127–145.

Birdsong, D., & Molis, M. (2001). On the evidence for maturational constraints in second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 235–249. doi:10.10006/jmla.2000.2750

Carhill, A., Suárez-Orozco, C., & Páez, M. (2008). Explaining English language proficiency among adolescent immigrant students. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 1155–1179. doi:10.3102/0002831208321443

Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A. (2003). Poor children's fourth-grade slump. American Educator. Retrieved from: http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/spring2003/chall.html

City of Mississauga. (2010). Mississauga growth patterns. Mississauga, Ontario.

Coelho, E. (2007). How long does it take? Lessons from EQAO data on English language learners in Ontario schools. Inspire, The Journal of Literacy and Numeracy for Ontario. Retrieved from www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/equity/ELL-July 30.html

Coelho, E. (2012). Language and learning in multilingual classrooms: A practical approach. UK: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (2006). How long does it take for an English language learner to become proficient in a second language? In E. Hamayan, & R. Freeman, (Eds.), English language learners at school: A guide for administrators. (pp. 59-61). Philadelphia: Caslon Publishing.

Cummins, J. (2011). Putting the evidence back into evidence-based policies for underachieving students. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

de Ramírez, R. D., & Shapiro, E. S. (2006). Curriculum-based measurement and the evaluation of reading skills of Spanish-speaking English language learners in bilingual education classrooms. School Psychology Review, 35, 356–369.

Dixon, O. L., Zhao, J., Shin, J.Y., Wu, S., Su, J., Burgess-Brigham, R., Gezer, M. U., & Snow, C. (2012). What we know about second language acquisition: A synthesis from four perspectives. Review of Educational Research, 82, 5–60.

Flege, J. E., & MacKay, I. R. A. (2004). Perceiving vowels in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 1–34. doi:10.10170/S0272263104261010

Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 78–104. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2638


Government of Canada. (1995). Employment Equity Act. Department of Justice Publication.

Hakuta, K. (2011). Educating language minority students and affirming their equal rights: Research and practical perspectives. Educational Researcher, 40, 163–174. doi:10.3102/0013189X11404943

Huang, J. H., Clarke, K., Milezarski, E., & Raby, C. (2011). The assessment of English language learners with learning disabilities: Issues, concerns, and implications. Education, 131(4), 732–739.

Jimenez-Castellanos, O., & Topper, A. M. (2012). The cost of providing an adequate education to English language learners: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 82, 179–232.

Kovelman, I., Baker, S. A., & Petitto, L. A. (2008). Age of first bilingual language exposure as a new window into bilingual reading development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,11, 203–223. doi:10.1017/S1366728908003386

Levin, H. (2009). The economic payoff to investing in educational justice. Educational Researcher, 38, 5-20.

McDonald, J. L. (2000). Grammaticality judgments in a second language: Influences of age of acquisition and native language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 395–423.

Mehta, J. D., & Schwartz, R. B. (2011). Canada looks a lot like us but gets much better results. In M. S. Tucker (Ed.), Surpassing Shanghai: An agenda for American education built on the world’s leading systems (pp. 141–165). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students. (2010). The growing number of English learner students 1997/98–2007/08. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2001). Special education: A guide for educators. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/speced/guide/specedhandbooke.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2007a). English language learners, ESL and ELD program and services: Policies and procedures for Ontario elementary and secondary schools, kindergarten to grade 12. Available from: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/esleldprograms/esleldprograms.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2007b). The Ontario curriculum, grades 9-12: English as a Second Language and English Literacy Development, 2007. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/ secondary/esl.html

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2008). Supporting English Language Learners: A practical guide for Ontario educators grades 1 to 8. Available from: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/esleld programs/guide.pdf

Reese, L., Garnier, H., Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2000). Longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of emergent Spanish literacy and middle-school English reading achievement of Spanish-speaking students. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 633–662. doi:10.3102/00028312037003633

Region of Peel. (2008). Peel Data Centre–2006 Census highlights. Planning Policy and Research Division. Brampton, Ontario.

Region of Peel. (2011). Peel Data Centre. 2011 Census bulletin population & dwelling counts. http://www.peelregion.ca/planning/pdc/data/census/2011-Census/pdf/2011-Bulletin-8x11.pdf


Reichle, R. V. (2010). Judgments of information structure in L2 French: Nativelike performance and the critical period hypothesis. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 48, 53–85. doi:10.1515/iral.2010.003

Roessingh, H., & Elgie, S. (2009). Early language and literacy development among young English language learners: Preliminary insights from a longitudinal study. TESL Canada Journal. P 24–45.

Roessingh, H., & Kover, P. (2003). Variability of ESL learners’ acquisition of cognitive academic language proficiency: What can we learn from achievement measures? TESL Canada Journal, 21(1), 1–21.

Social Planning Council of Peel. (March 2009). Portraits of Peel, 2001 & 2006. Mississauga, Ontario: SPCP.

Statistics Canada. (2006). 2006 Community profiles [Online]. Available: http://www12.statcan.ca /english/census06/data/ profiles/community/ Index.cfm?Lang=E

Thürmann, E., Vollmer, H., & Pieper, I. (2010). Language(s) of schooling: Focusing on vulnerable learners. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/ ListDocs_ Geneva2010.asp

Willms, J. D. (2002). Vulnerable children: Findings from Canada’s National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta Press.

.

putting research into practice

Documents

E as a S Language (ESL) a E velopment (ELD) Program R al ...host.ontariodirectors.ca/CODE-TLF/artifacts/PDSB/PDSB-Demographic.pdfThis report uses Stage 1 and Stage 2 English Language