English Language Development

Sign up for the Curriculum Listserv
English Language Development Listserv Button

Links

English Language Development

English Learner status is a federally protected class, entitling students to discrimination protection and educational supports. English Language Development (ELD) instruction is designed specifically to advance English learners (ELs) knowledge and use of English in increasingly sophisticated ways. In the context of the larger effort to help English learners succeed in school, ELD instruction is designed to help them learn and acquire English to a level of proficiency that maximizes their capacity to engage successfully in academic studies taught in English. Although there might be multiple goals for ELD instruction—engaging in social interactions inside and outside of school and in other pursuits requiring English proficiency (e.g., obtaining news, serving as a juror, voting, shopping, banking, and locating and using information)—we would argue that preparation for academic studies taught in English remains the top priority because of its relevance to school and career success. Helping ELs succeed in academic contexts is no doubt the most challenging goal and most likely the greatest need to emerge in recent English learner research.

Basis for English Learner Programs

Federal Law

The most important Federal laws establishing the rights of all students are set forth in:

The Constitution of the United States, Fourteenth Amendment (1868)

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that “. . . No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Civil Rights Act, Title VI (1964)

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 declares that “. . . No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color or national origin . . . be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

Equal Educational Opportunities Act (1974)

The Equal Educational Opportunities Act makes educational institutions responsible for taking the necessary steps to overcome linguistic and/or cultural barriers that keep students from equal participation in instructional programs. Specifically “. . . No State shall deny equal educational opportunity to an individual on account of his or her race, color, sex or national origin, by . . . the failure of an educational agency to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers that impede equal participation by its students in its instructional programs . . .”

Supreme Court

In addition to the Federal laws, the following select court rulings further define the rights of English Learners:

Lau v. Nichols (1974)

In Lau v. Nichols (1974), the United States Supreme Court held that San Francisco’s failure to provide supplemental English language instruction to 1,800 students of Chinese ancestry violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (42 USC, Section 2000d).

Lau establishes a district’s obligation to provide English Learners with meaningful access to the educational program. When a parent declines participation in a particular formal language instruction program, the district must continue to ensure that the student has an equal opportunity to have his or her English language and academic needs met.

Castañeda v. Pickard (Texas, 1981)

While Lau was important in the development of the legal basis to defend the rights of English Learners, Castañeda has a special relevance, since it provides important criteria for determining a school’s degree of compliance with the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974.

In the Castañeda suit, parents of Mexican American children charged the Raymondville Independent School District (Texas) with instructional practices that violated their children’s rights. Reversing an initial District Court finding, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the Mexican American plaintiffs. It then went on to formulate a test to determine school district compliance with the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (1974). Compliance requires the satisfaction of three criteria:

Theory: The school must pursue a program based on an educational theory recognized as sound or, at least, as a legitimate experimental strategy Practice: The school must actually implement the program with instructional practices, resources, and personnel necessary to transfer theory into reality Results: The school must not persist in a program that fails to produce results.

Enforcement Policy

Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for the United States Department of Education 

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is charged with monitoring school districts’ compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It does not prescribe a specific educational program that will provide adequate learning opportunity for English Learners. Rather, each school district must choose a proven approach, or an approach that promises to be successful, and is most appropriate to its own needs, conditions, and resources. The OCR, however, requires that all programs carry out certain basic functions by which schools will properly identify students who need language services; develop programs that are effective in promoting learning; provide adequate teachers, educational materials, and physical space; and adequately evaluate students’ progress.

OCR investigates complaints that allege a district’s failure to comply with these requirements or with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Consultation with Private Schools

ESSA, Title VIII, Sections 8501 – Consultations with Private Schools

Identification, Placement, & Scheduling

Enrollment

When enrolling an English learners (ELs), district personnel face a number of key understandings. One such understanding is that ELs are an incredibly diverse group. These students may be refugees, migrants, have limited or interrupted formal education (SLIFE), be unaccompanied minors, gifted learners, students with disabilities or identify in several of these categories. The students’ educational backgrounds can be just as diverse. Some arrive having received quality education in their home country, while others have not. Some have taken formal English classes or have attended international schools where English was the language of instruction. The design of the enrollment process should gather as much information as possible to identify the strengths and challenges the students bring with them to the school.

The second key understanding involves rulings by federal courts on a number of issues involving the rights of English learners in schools. One such ruling states that ELs must be provided equitable access to an educational program meaning any class in which they are enrolled. The court decided that it was insufficient to place students in classes alongside native English speakers without supports, accommodations, or modifications as the students are deprived of a meaningful education (Lau v. Nichols, 1974). 

The provided information is intended to support districts with enrollment, individual career and academic plans (ICAP) and instructional and assessment strategies. This guidance further endeavors to provide English learners from across the spectrum a motivating pathway to graduation.

Identification

Additional information on screening students with the WIDA Screener or Newcomer Kit can be found on the EL Assessment - Identification webpage.

Opting Out Of Services

Note: A student who has been formally identified as and English Learner must be administered the ACCESS for ELLs annually until that student attains the State’s definition of English language proficient. This is true even if the parent refuses the ELD services offered by the school.

Placement, Scheduling, and Graduation

SLIFE and Newcomer Support

Instruction

Curriculum And Instruction

With the development of the Missouri Learning Standards, and the accompanying MAP tests, schools have available both the state’s educational goals and a means to measure student performance against them. ELs have a legal and educational right to schooling that assists them in meeting these standards. The following discussion of curriculum focuses on a few additional guidelines, which can help schools, ensure that their programs respond to the unique educational needs of linguistically diverse students.

The ELD curriculum used must be tied to scientifically based research on teaching ELs and must have demonstrated effectiveness, which involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to educational activities and programs. Local school systems will use the Missouri English Language Development (ELD) Standards as a basis for developing their own curricula, incorporating a scope and sequence that can be adapted to their individual program requirements and their EL population. With the Missouri ELD Standards as a guide and through collaboration of EL and content area teachers, ELs are provided quality instruction that enables them to meet school expectations, perform well on mandated assessments, and become college and career ready.

All teachers involved in the student’s education must pay attention to supporting students as they acquire both content knowledge and English proficiency (EL Toolkit, 2015). As always, district personnel must consider the characteristics and needs of the students as well as have specific training necessary to provide evidence-based support for ELs. Some newcomers arrive with an extensive, quality education in their home country. In some cases, these students have taken years of English classes. Students who have received a formal education in their home country may need minimal accommodations or modifications to access subject area content and will catch up quickly, especially those with a high level of literacy in the native language.

On the other end of the spectrum, the student may not have attended school for months or years. They likely have little understanding of English and may or may not be literate in their home language. Some speak a dialect of the home language that is unfamiliar to school personnel. Due to the variety of characteristics, ELs will need varying levels of modifications, accommodations and supports from all of their teachers to be successful. Resources and considerations to support students in all classrooms are available through the ELD webpage.

In addition to sufficient training, all teachers should be familiar with the student’s English Language Proficiency Level as determined by the WIDA Online Screener or the yearly ACCESS assessment and are responsible for providing scaffolds and supports targeting the student’s specific ELP level. These assessments allow teachers to make data-informed decisions to meet the students where they are and to take them to the next level. 

Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP)
MSIP 6 Standards and Indicators

AS1 - Instructional staff implement a comprehensive, rigorous, guaranteed, and viable curriculum for all instructional courses and programs aligned to the Missouri Learning Standards where applicable.

  1. The school system’s curriculum aligns externally to all Missouri Learning Standards and the English language development standards and internally between grade levels and courses.
  2. Building leaders and instructional staff ensure the written, taught, and assessed curriculum are aligned.
  3. The school system develops written procedures to ensure the written curriculum is implemented and is evaluated. Prekindergarten instructional staff are included when the program is offered by the system.
  4. The school system implements a systematic plan for developing and/or revising the curriculum for all content areas.
  5. The school system provides opportunities for each student to excel (e.g. gifted and/or enrichment, at-risk, special education, etc.).
  6. Educators provide learning opportunities that are aligned to the district curriculum and have clearly identified and communicated learning targets.

Aligning the Curriculum

It is critical that the content of these settings be aligned with the district’s overall curriculum for the subject and grade level. Ideally, this is accomplished at the same time that the EL curriculum is developed. If the district’s curriculum is aligned with state standards, then adapting the curriculum should maintain that alignment. Administrators can support this effort by allowing teachers and curriculum developers a time to meet and coordinate EL teaching with the regular classroom program.

Outcomes of effective curriculum alignment would include:

  • Content and language goals/objectives for each unit, topic or theme
  • Specific Missouri Learning Standards covered
  • Measures that are both formative and summative are used for evaluating unit, topic or theme

ELD Programs and Instruction

 

WIDA Resources

Additional Resources

ASL and ELs

Coaching

Collaboration

Distance Learning

Publications from the United State Department of Education and OELA

Tools for Teaching/Lesson Planning

Reclassification

Reclassification

DESE defines a proficient student as one who scores a 4.7 or above on the yearly ACCESS for ELLs assessment. Students must receive services until reaching proficiency unless portfolio data, as described below, provides compelling evidence to justify reclassification. Districts should exercise caution when considering changing the EL status of a student who has already been through the EL determination process, regardless of outcome. In the case of English language proficiency, It is recognized that such a high-stakes decision should not rest on one test score alone and consequently, the reclassification policy reads as follows:

ACCESS ScoreDistrict Actions
4.7 - 6.0The student must be exited barring compelling evidence in the EL Portfolio suggesting the student should remain in the LIEP.
Below 4.7The student must remain in the LIEP barring compelling evidence that the student is capable of fully participating in a classroom where English is the language of instruction. A traditional or digital portfolio must be collected and include evidence that any unsatisfactory domain score on the ACCESS is not indicative of their ability.

Note: Students with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) should meet the above criteria or have Individual Education Plans (IEPs) that specify parallel, alternate standards-based criteria.

Districts have flexibility on how additional evidence is gathered, the extent to which it is gathered, who collects and stores the data, and the final decision as to whether the evidence is sufficient to reclassify the student. ESSA has included provisions that scores on standardized content assessments (MAP Grade-Level, EOC) must not be considered when making reclassification decisions.

Districts should consider starting the data collection process early in the school year for students with an overall ACCESS score of 3.5 or higher, especially for students earning that score on the screener. Those responsible for the student’s education should collect evidence from existing formative assessments, projects, formal reports or writing assignments. In the final quarter, evidence can easily selected from the portfolio to serve as a summary of the student’s abilities and used to support what the student earns on the ACCESS for ELs when the performance reports are given to districts.

Student-created digital portfolios are an excellent strategy districts may use to minimize the burden placed on their teachers. Additionally, the effects of students knowing where they are in their learning and where they need to be have a significant effect on student achievement. Teaching students what the next steps in their English acquisition looks and sounds like and asking students to collect artifacts that show their improvement is an excellent strategy to meet the revised procedures.

Masking

The concept of masking refers to scenarios when a student’s limited English proficiency “masks,” or prevents school personnel from identifying other areas in need of attention or development. The following are common scenarios that can be “masked” by a student’s limited English proficiency.

  • Student A has been in the LIEP for 5 years and has earned two consecutive scores in the 5 range on the ACCESS for ELs. However, the student continues to underperform in class. This student is potentially in need of a specific intervention other than ELD.
  • Student B consistently performs at the top of his class, shows remarkable leadership skills, creative thinking, and visual or performing arts skills. In other words, he shows the signs of a gifted and talented student, but is in an LIEP and is consequently not identified or assessed for a gifted program.
  • Student C is a long-term EL who consistently scores high on the ACCESS for ELs, but has excessive absences, poor class grades and consequently, an inadequate portfolio. This student continues in the LIEP because of poor content performance and most likely will not produce the evidence necessary to successfully complete the eventual monitoring period.

In each of these scenarios, the local district has the option to use professional judgment to provide the most appropriate support or interventions. District personnel may determine that a student may be exited from the LIEP when assessment information paired with objective data supports the decision that English proficiency is no longer a barrier to performing in a class where English is the language of instruction.

Misclassification

Misidentified as an English Learner

Should an issue arise, a district should first determine what evidence has been collected about the student's language background, both in the current district and any other district. Possible sources for this information include the student's academic record, the district SIS, and previous assessments. 

After collecting all available information, the district should then decide if the proper EL determination has been made based on the data collected. Care should be taken to examine when the Language Use Survey (LUS)  was completed and what screener information was used, as these data from a previous district may take precedence over screening in the current district.

If it appears that the full EL determination process has not been followed, or has been followed incorrectly, the district should complete any procedurally incomplete parts, and collect any missing data. The results of the complete process should be used for classifying the student's EL status appropriately.

Results of this investigation must be communicated to the parents/guardians, along with the final EL determination.

Misidentified as English Proficient

If a student is not identified as an EL but there is evidence that they may be, this lack of identification most likely stems from one of the following issues:

  • the LUS was not administered;
  • the LUS indicated that the student was not eligible for screening

If the student's parents/guardians did not fill out a LUS, this should be administered, and the typical process for EL determination should be followed. 

If the LUS indicated not to administer a screener, ask the student's parents or guardians if answers on the LUS  are correct, and ensure that they understood the purpose of the LUS, the questions, and that it was administered in a language they understood. 

  • If the parents/guardians indicate that the LUS was answered correctly, the student should not be screened, and thus does not have English Learner status.
  • If the parent indicates that the LUS was answered incorrectly,  re-administer the LUS, and follow the standard EL determination process. 
Discrepancies Between LUS and Prior Data

If a new-to-district student is not identified as a potential EL on the LUS but a review of their education history shows that the student has taken an ACCESS test, districts should investigate this discrepancy.

Until a resolution to this discrepancy is found, the student  should be considered an EL using the most recent ELP score from the ACCESS assessment. If the student's educational record is available, districts should determine how and when the error occurred. If the error occurred during the LUS process due to the parents' misunderstanding of the purpose or the implications of the LUS, the district should clear up any misconceptions, potentially reassuring parents about the purpose of the LUS and informing parents of their rights to refuse the type of EL services provided.

In some instances, students will arrive in a school without an educational record. Districts should communicate in a timely manner with parents/guardians, with and interpreter if needed, to understand the student's previous school history and previous language services. 

Sample Resolution of English Learner Misclassification Form

Sample Parent Letter

Long-term ELs

Another piece of evidence that should not be considered as a basis for transition is time in the ESOL program. Arbitrary program time limits as the basis for transitioning students from language support programs are not supported by language acquisition research or program evaluation. ELs should be transitioned from ESOL services based on ELP and progress in academic skills.

Too many factors contribute to student progress to make a single time period appropriate for all ELs. Several decades’ worth of research on language minority student academic achievement clearly indicates that anywhere from five to ten years are needed for a given student to reach parity with same-age peers.

Even after being transitioned, ELs must receive two-year periodic follow-up to ensure that they no longer need ELD services. More information can be found in the Identifying and Reclassifying English Learners guidance document.

Additional Resources

Monitoring

Missouri LEAs are required to monitor all students for two school years after exit from LEP classification. Districts must keep documentation (state assessment scores, final ELP scores, parental notification) on file throughout the two-year monitoring period. Students in the monitoring period do not take the yearly ACCESS for ELs.

During this time, LEAs are to provide assistance or support in the general education classroom for all students who struggle academically. LEAs continue to have the responsibility of ensuring that all students are successful in meeting state standards. Occasionally, this means that a monitored student may need to be re-admitted to the ESOL program, if the student’s academic problems are determined to be as a result of continued difficulty with their ELP.

For purposes of accountability, in the first year of monitoring the student is classified as LEP/MY1. The second year the student will be reclassified as LEP/MY2. At the end of the second school year on monitor status, districts will no longer be required to keep documentation on file showing successful performance in the general education setting. However, these former ELs will continue to be included in accountability measures for an additional two years. The codes used after MY1&2 will be LEP/AY3 and LEP/AY4. After the fourth and final year, students will be coded as NLP. 

Reclassification document

Coding

The final step to reclassification is coding in MOSIS. ESSA allows for states to include former ELs in the accountability system for 4 years; however, only two years are required for monitoring. The additional MOSIS codes AY3 and AY4 are added to identify former ELs who have successfully completed the two-year monitoring period. Following the AY4 year, students would be entered as NLP. Please see the chart below for the codes needed for reclassification.

CodesDescriptions
MY1Monitored Year 1 - Former EL students in the first year of monitor status.
MY2Monitored Year 2 - Former EL students in the second year of monitor status.
AY3Academic Year 3 - Former EL students in the third year since exiting the program are no longer monitored, but recognized as a former EL in the accountability system.
AY4
Academic Year 4 - Former EL students in the fourth year since exiting the program are no longer monitored, but recognized as a former EL in the accountability system.
ACCESSStudents reclassified due to an overall score of at least a 4.7 on the ACCESS assessment.
PORStudents reclassified via the portfolio option. The student has an overall score of 4.6 or less on the ACCESS assessment, and a traditional or digital portfolio is collected that includes evidence that any unsatisfactory domain score on the ACCESS is not indicative of the student ability.
 
Family

Family And Culture

The subject of family and cultural influences on schooling is far too broad to address adequately in a few resources. However, it is absolutely essential that all of the foregoing program considerations, from planning to evaluation, be framed by an awareness of and sensitivity to the diverse cultural expectations students and their families bring to school. These expectations can be easily overlooked as educators become engrossed in the program development and implementation concerns. One way to avoid forgetting who the program recipients are is to involve the parents and community in program planning and implementation. The remaining discussion indicates some of the ways school personnel can address the varied socio-cultural backgrounds of ELs and their families.

Resources

ELs w/Disabilities

Serving ELs With Disabilities

Considering program guidelines for ELs with Disabilities, as with other populations, one might expect to find a range of abilities among students whose English proficiency is limited. The difficulty often arises in determining whether a learning problem is related only to ELP level or whether the student has an actual disability. Students learning English, because of their cultural and linguistic background, have special instructional needs. When a student is having difficulty mastering specific skills, it is important for the teacher to differentiate the instructional strategies and/or instructional pace for the student. Just because the student requires accommodations to his/her program, it does not necessarily mean that he/she has a disability or that he/she should be referred to for a comprehensive evaluation for possible special education services.

If the student continues to have difficulty after consistent language differentiation and instructional interventions have been implemented, the student can be referred for a comprehensive evaluation if the team suspects a disability. The ESL teacher has training in English language acquisition and should be a member of the team considering the referral. The ESL teacher is also familiar with the usual rate and stages of acquisition, as well as the typical errors to be expected. Once a referral is made, a comprehensive evaluation is conducted. The evaluation team will determine if the student is eligible to receive special education services as a student with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

If the student is eligible for special education services, an Individual Education Program (IEP) is developed by the IEP team which includes required members as specified in the Missouri State Plan Special Education, IDEA, Part B. The IEP should address the student’s need(s) for services based on the students’ disability to be able to progress in the general education curriculum. If the IEP team deems appropriate, language assistance and support can be addressed in the present level of academic achievement and functional performance. If appropriate, ELs may be served through both programs.

If the severity of the student’s disability indicates more special education services are needed to meet the student’s needs rather than ESL services, the ESL specialist should work with school and district personnel to set up a consultative model for that student’s language development.

The ESL specialist should meet regularly with the special education teacher and maintain a record of consultations. Missouri uses ACCESS for ELLs® as its annual English Language Proficiency assessment. Students who are in monitored status for EL do not take the assessment. Form D is used by the IEP team to address the student’s participation with or without accommodations. For additional information, refer to: /quality-schools/assessment/el-assessment.

Resources

Missouri DESE

CCSSO

WIDA

  • Advancing ALTELLA 
    • The Advancing ALTELLA: Alternate Assessment Redesign project applies lessons learned from research on successful instructional practices, accommodations, and assessment of English learners with the most significant cognitive disabilities to inform development of alternate English language proficiency assessments.
  • Culturally And Linguistically Responsive RtI2 Planning Form

Other Publications

Prof Development

Professional Development

DESE has scheduled free professional development opportunities for Missouri K-12 educators in English language development. Use the TeamUp calendar on the DESE Curriculum page to register and get more information.

WIDA eLearning

MELL

The MELL program is designed to use existing resources to better serve English Learners (EL) and migrant students in Missouri public schools. The regional Migrant and English Language Learner (MELL) instructional specialists help districts with the following topics

REGIONCONTACT
Region 1:
Andrew, Atchison, Buchanan, Caldwell, Carroll, Cass, Clay, Clinton, Daviess, DeKalb, Gentry, Grundy, Harrison, Henry, Holt, Jackson, Johnson, Lafayette, Livingston, Mercer, Nodaway, Platte, Ray, Worth		Guadalupe Magana-Duran
MELL Instructional Specialist
816-235-8844
maganag@umkc.edu
Region 2:
Adair, Audrain, Benton, Boone, Callaway, Camden, Chariton, Clark, Cole, Cooper, Howard, Knox, Lewis, Linn, Macon, Maries, Marion, Miller, Moniteau, Monroe, Morgan, Osage, Pettis, Putnam, Ralls, Randolph, Saline, Schuyler, Scotland, Shelby, Sullivan		Reah Morabith
MELL Instructional Specialist
360-773-6704
rmorabith@missouri.edu
Region 3:
Franklin, Gasconade, Jefferson, Lincoln, Montgomery, Pike, St. Charles, St. Louis, Warren		Robert Greenhaw
MELL Instructional Specialist
314-692-1256
rgreenhaw@edplus.org
Region 4:
Barry, Barton, Bates, Cedar, Christian, Dade, Dallas, Douglas, Greene, Hickory, Howell, Jasper, Laclede, Lawrence, McDonald, Newton, Ozark, Polk, Pulaski, St. Clair, Stone, Taney, Texas, Vernon, Webster, Wright		Rhonda Hittenberger-Ortiz
MELL Instructional Specialist
417-836-4093
rhittenbergerortiz@missouristate.edu
Region 5:
Bollinger, Butler, Cape Girardeau, Carter, Crawford, Dent, Dunklin, Iron, Madison, Mississippi, New Madrid, Oregon, Pemiscot, Perry, Phelps, Reynolds, Ripley, Scott, Shannon, St. Francois, Ste. Genevieve, Stoddard, Washington, Wayne		Julie Antill
MELL Instructional Specialist
573-986-6794
jantill@semo.edu
DESE ELD Curriculum:
MELL, EL Instruction, building capacity in educational programs and strategies, assistance to LEAs in enhancing English language proficiency and academic achievement of ELs		Cammy Goucher
ELD Curriculum Director
573-751-3926
cammy.goucher@dese.mo.gov
DESE Student Support Services:
Foster Care, Title III EL, Title I.C Migrant Education Program, Title I.C Immigrant Children and Youth		VACANT
Student Support Services Director
573-751-8280
DESE Assessment:
WIDA ACCESS, WIDA Screener		Drew Linkon
Assistant Director Of Assessment
573-751-8285
drew.linkon@dese.mo.gov
Resources

Additional Resources

Certification

Gifted ELs

Teacher Observation Tools

World Languages

World Languages

New and unprecedented global challenges make the need for international understanding and collaboration more valuable than ever before. By providing students with pathways to develop multi-literacy and global competence, they will be prepared to engage in intercultural communication with cultures from around the world. Global influences within our state can only be enriched and enhanced by providing increased opportunities for students throughout the state to develop multi-literacy through the study of languages in addition to English.

All Missouri students should have the opportunity to develop proficiency in languages other than English, including their heritage language, and to develop global competence by demonstrating intercultural proficiency. This means that rather than being discouraged from enrollment in world languages courses, each and every student, including English Learners (EL), students living in poverty, migrant students, students with visible and non-visible disabilities, underserved students, Deaf and hard of hearing students, students with interrupted formal education (SIFE), Gifted and Talented students, and students with low academic skills deserve the opportunity to develop their skills in both English and at least one language other than English in order to prepare them to be college- and career-ready.

Learning a World Language

  • promotes an understanding of different cultures and allows students to connect with others and value diversity
  • increases the understanding of one's own language and culture
  • strengthens literacy in all subject areas
  • enhances and enriches life opportunities
  • positively affects intellectual growth

A well-articulated and properly sequenced program of study results in higher levels of proficiency which are demonstrated in reading, writing, listening, speaking, and presentational skills through performance of authentic tasks.

Understanding multiple languages and cultures can offer students professional opportunities and success in a variety of career fields and future endeavors such as graduate studies, education, Foreign Service work, business, social work, public service, law, journalism, and health professions. To promote such participation in a global society, the Missouri Seal of Biliteracy has encouraged and recognized students for high levels of proficiency in English and at least one additional language since 2017.

Missouri is now a member of the National Council of State Supervisors for Language (NCSSFL).

The vision of NCSSFL is a nation in which all individuals will be prepared for the demands of an interdependent world by attaining competence in more than one language and culture.

The mission of NCSSFL is to provide leadership in facilitating and promoting policies and practices that support language education.

The purpose of NCSSFL is to affect state and national policy and practice in language education by:

  • identifying and advocating positions on key issues in support of the vision of the organization;
  • collaborating with other organizations to advance and support quality teaching, learning and leadership;
  • communicating best practices across international boundaries; and
  • fostering and promoting the establishment, maintenance, and effectiveness of state-level positions in languages.

For more information visit: https://www.ncssfl.org/

Resources