Lessons Learned from Five Years of English Learner National Professional Development Grants

By

Leslie Villegas

In August of this year the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) at the U.S. Department of Education released a report evaluating the National Professional Development (NPD) grant program. The NPD program was created in 2002 to help improve educators' qualifications and classroom instruction for students identified as English learners (ELs). NPD grants are also part of a feedback loop which aims to build high-quality evidence about professional development practices that have been deemed effective in real-life. As such, the report examines the implementation and perceptions of two cohorts of grantees in hopes of identifying ways to improve the grant program.

A total of 92 grantees, awarded funding in 2016 and 2017, were surveyed to evaluate the extent to which they had lived up to the intended goals and outcomes in their applications. The survey asked:

• Who is being served?
• What topics are being covered?
• How is professional development being delivered?
• Were activities grounded in research?
• Were projects effective at improving outcomes for EL students and how was this evaluated?

According to grantee responses, all 92 projects placed current teachers at the core of their PD activities and just over 50 percent also included teachers still in preparation. In terms of impact, grantees reported serving a total of 18,373 current teachers and 4,443 teachers in preparation at the time the survey was conducted, and that they believed they had been able to increase the number of educators served who were learning to better-support ELs. Much of their work focused on both general education teachers as well as EL specialists, mostly in early elementary grades. The three most common topics covered by professional development (PD) activities were: 1) Instructional strategies for English language development (ELD); 2) instructional strategies for ELs' academic content mastery; and 3) culturally responsive teaching strategies.

The top two PD delivery methods were individualized coaching and traditional coursework, followed closely by school-year workshop, academy, or training module. Around 91 percent of grantees stated that at least some of their project activities were informed by research that met the program's "moderate evidence of effectiveness" standard. And lastly, although almost all grantees intended to evaluate the effectiveness of their projects, many had not established the data collection mechanisms necessary to be able to conduct such evaluations.

Challenges & Lessons Learned

Through the evaluation, the authors uncovered several challenges with grantees' ability to follow through with several key aspects of the NPD program. First, not all grantees were able to reach their target number of teacher participants. Survey respondents identified educators' lack of time, shifting state/local priorities, and state/local staff turnover as potential challenges for meeting these targets. Furthermore, although almost all grantees stated that their PD topics and/or approach was based on research that met the department's standard, survey respondents shared that teams found it challenging to implement the practices identified in research. Survey respondents pointed to issues like limited EL expertise among higher ed faculty, changing state and/or local priorities, and a lack of time as potential barriers to implementation. And lastly, data collection challenges were cited as a reason for not being able to conduct the rigorous project evaluations necessary to continue building the evidence base on EL-focused PD at the core of the NPD program.

Moving forward, the authors offer several points of consideration for potential grantees and NPD program leaders to better-hone future efforts. To start, the authors note that while the NPD program offers significant flexibility about the activities grantees can undertake and who they will serve, applicants may be better off with a less is more approach. For example, the authors posit that perhaps NPD grant funds may go further if grantees narrow their scope to a particular type of educator and/or less topics. It should be noted that NPD grant applications often include multiple competitive priority areas, which may incentivize applicants to expand the scope of their projects. Additionally, the authors note that NPD program leaders should explore and learn more about the challenges grantees faced in both implementing evidence-based practices and evaluating the efficacy of their projects. In addition to telling us how grantees implemented their projects, the survey also provided valuable insight by shining a light on gaps in how funds were used.

First, according to survey responses, early childhood, middle and high school educators were not the primary target of PD activities. However, the EL population in the US is growing and diversifying in a way that may require more attention and capacity building in these grade bands. For example, one in three children from birth to the age of five are dual language learners (DLLs), meaning they are learning English and while still developing proficiency in their home language. Furthermore, in fall 2021 roughly 43 percent of all EL were enrolled in grades 6-12. These students may fall outside of our traditional conceptualization of who EL-classified students are, but they are nevertheless in our classrooms and require a workforce prepared to meet their academic and linguistic needs.

Secondly, the four least covered PD topics, in descending order, were: EL assessment and using data to inform EL instruction; supporting different groups of ELs; response to intervention or multi-tiered system of supports for ELs; and ELs' social-emotional health. And although the NPD applications used for these cohorts incentivized applicants who intend to focus on family engagement and dual language instruction in their PD activities, these topics were not reported to be the main focus of grantees' activities. Though these topics may have been on the fringes of NPD activities, they are nevertheless vital to the linguistic and academic success of students identified as ELs. Dual language instruction, for example, has been known to have a positive impact on ELs' academic outcomes. This positive correlation has led the U.S. Department of Education to play a strong role advocating for bilingualism in schools across the country over the last several years under the Biden administration.

And lastly, less than 50 percent of grantees used their funds to pay for teachers' certifications/licenses, and innovative approaches such as competency-based micro-credentialing programs and alternative educator pathway programs, like Grow Your Own (GYO) and residency, were low on grantees' priority lists. The most recent call for applications placed a more heavy emphasis on GYO and expanding the workforce through alternative pathways. Considering the chronic need for educators prepared to serve EL students, particularly bilingual educators, future NPD cohorts have an opportunity to help grow the workforce in a targeted way.

As the report notes, NPD grants are "one of the largest federal investments in EL-focused professional learning and workforce development" awarding over $900 million in grants since its inception. As the EL population continues to grow and diversify, these grants offer the opportunity to ensure educators are up to speed on best practices in how to meet the needs of these students. However, as the report made clear, this program needs grantees to continue to add to the knowledge base driving EL-specific PD activities. Future iterations must pay closer attention to both the implementation challenges and lessons learned from previous cohorts to help ensure the rigor and high standard of the program is maintained.