No abstract

This article reports on a longitudinal, quasi‐experimental comparison of two English language development (ELD) models implemented from kindergarten through Grade 3 to support oral English language development among Spanish‐speaking English language learners (ELLs). Specifically, the study examined oral English language proficiency among students who received only integrated English language development (I‐ELD; n = 39) and students who received I‐ELD with 30 minutes of daily designated ELD (D‐ELD) entailing four specific routines and strategies (n = 65). The study also compared oral proficiency with English‐only speakers (EO) from the same school (n = 47). Oral language proficiency was measured by the IDEA Proficiency Test (IPT I‐Oral; Ballard & Tighe, 2017). A repeated‐measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) across Grades 2 and 3 indicated significant (p < .001; η2 = 0.53) increases in oral proficiency for ELL students who received D‐ELD. A follow‐up analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) indicated significant positive effects (p < .001; η2 = 0.19) of the D‐ELD approach on ELL students' oral proficiency compared to only I‐ELD in Grade 3. The ANCOVA also found no significant (p > .05) differences in oral proficiency between ELL students who received D‐ELD and EO students in Grade 3, indicating similar oral English skills. The D‐ELD model's instructional strategies and practical implications are discussed.

Childhood exposure to adversity and its consequences is a significant public health challenge. Schools are beginning to understand the impact of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and some schools are considering screening for ACEs. However, dissemination of the ACEs screener and subsequent interventions may lead to challenges and iatrogenic outcomes for students if caution is not taken. This paper examines key considerations, including ethical and legal guidelines, surrounding screening for ACEs within the school system. Through conceptual analysis, the National Association of School Psychologists Principles for Professional Ethics are examined in conjunction with educational law regarding ACEs screening. Additionally, key considerations and limitations such as whether the screener captures trauma rather than adversity, the use of parents as informants, racial inequities, and potential stigma of conducting ACEs screening in schools are addressed through the integration of ACEs scholarship. Recommendations and alternative solutions for school districts seeking to address ACEs within their student population are provided in support of trauma‐sensitive schools.

No abstract