TExES Bilingual Ed 164 cheat sheet

Bilingual education models fall on a continuum: transitional (early exit or late exit), developmental/maintenance, dual-language/two-way immersion, and English-only (ESL/SEI); each aims at different long-term language outcomes.

Subtractive bilingualism replaces L1 with L2, whereas additive bilingualism develops L2 while maintaining L1; dual-language and maintenance programs are additive by design.

The threshold hypothesis (Cummins) holds that bilingual children must reach age-appropriate competence in both languages to avoid cognitive deficits; partial competence in one language may produce neither benefit nor harm.

Cummins's BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills) develops in roughly 1–3 years; CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency) requires roughly 5–7 years in a second language.

The common underlying proficiency (CUP) model posits that skills learned in L1 transfer to L2, so strong L1 literacy supports L2 academic literacy.

Legal milestones: Lau v. Nichols (1974) requires meaningful access to instruction; Castañeda v. Pickard (1981) established the three-prong test (research-based program, implementation, effectiveness); Plyler v. Doe (1982) guarantees K–12 access regardless of immigration status.

Texas policy: Chapter 89 of the Texas Administrative Code governs bilingual/ESL program identification, exit criteria, and parental notification; the state seal of biliteracy recognizes high-level proficiency in two languages.

Program placement is determined by the Language Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC), which reviews home-language surveys, language proficiency tests, and academic records.

The LPAC also monitors and reclassifies English learners; exit from a bilingual program typically requires meeting state English proficiency and academic standards, with parent notification and post-exit monitoring.

Second-language acquisition stages (Krashen): preproduction (silent period), early production, speech emergence, intermediate fluency, and advanced fluency; expectations for output should match the stage.

Krashen's input hypothesis: comprehensible input at i + 1 drives acquisition; the affective filter hypothesis holds that anxiety and low motivation can block intake.

Cummins's quadrant model: cognitively undemanding/context-embedded tasks are easiest; cognitively demanding/context-reduced tasks are hardest and require CALP.

Transfer of literacy: phonemic awareness, decoding, and comprehension strategies can transfer from L1 to L2, but orthographic and phonological differences (e.g., Spanish–English) affect the rate and type of transfer.

Cross-linguistic transfer is stronger when L1 and L2 share an alphabet; for students with non-alphabetic L1s, explicit L2 decoding instruction is more necessary.

The stages of reading development (Chall) move from emergent/pre-alphabetic to alphabetic, orthographic, and advanced; bilingual readers may be at different stages in each language.

Interactive writing, shared reading, and guided reading are evidence-based contexts for developing both languages; sheltered instruction (SIOP) integrates language objectives with content objectives.

Semantic and syntactic knowledge in L1 supports L2 vocabulary and grammar; cognate instruction (e.g., Spanish–English academic cognates) is an efficient bridge.

Assessment of reading in two languages should consider language of instruction, exposure time, and whether the measure is standardized on bilingual populations.

Sheltered instruction (SIOP) components include lesson preparation, building background, comprehensible input, strategies, interaction, practice/application, lesson delivery, and review/assessment.

The language experience approach (LEA) uses students' oral narratives as text for reading instruction, bridging oral language and literacy in either language.

Preview–view–review and frontloading vocabulary are scaffolding techniques that make grade-level content accessible during English instruction.

Alternative assessment for ELs includes portfolios, performance tasks, oral interviews, and writing samples scored with language-appropriate rubrics; standardized tests may underrepresent ability.

Texas uses the TELPAS to assess English learners' listening, speaking, reading, and writing; results inform LPAC decisions and instructional planning.

Program exit criteria in Texas include performance on TELPAS and STAAR (or state-approved alternatives) plus LPAC review; exit is not based on a single test score.

Formative assessment in bilingual classrooms should separate language proficiency from content mastery; a student may know content but lack the English to demonstrate it.

Accommodations for ELs on content assessments include extra time, clarified directions, bilingual glossaries, and small-group administration, depending on state policy.

Cooperative learning structures (e.g., think-pair-share, jigsaw) increase oral language output and are recommended for bilingual and ESL settings.

Culture is dynamic and learned; cultural competence involves awareness of one's own biases, knowledge of students' cultures, and skills for cross-cultural interaction.

Acculturation models (e.g., Berry) include assimilation, separation, integration, and marginalization; integration (biculturalism) is associated with the most positive outcomes.

Funds of knowledge (Moll) refers to the skills and knowledge families possess; instruction that draws on them improves engagement and relevance.

Family involvement predicts academic success; barriers include language differences, work schedules, unfamiliarity with school norms, and immigration-related fear.

Effective family engagement uses translated materials, bilingual staff, flexible meeting times, and home-language communication.

Additive bilingual programs support identity development; subtractive policies can contribute to language loss and lowered self-esteem.

Special education referral of ELs should rule out language difference before disability; assessment must be in the child's dominant language and use multiple sources.

Community cultural wealth (Yosso) includes aspirational, navigational, social, linguistic, familial, and resistant capital that students bring to school.

Teachers should avoid deficit thinking and instead adopt asset-based perspectives that recognize bilingualism as a cognitive and social strength.