I assume this was a space carefully moderated by a teacher as students engaged in interactive learning experiences? The word that caught my attention was "safe." My students have been generally respectful of each other despite their differing viewpoints on things during remote learning activities we've done. However, I know there have been instances of bullying this school year through social media platforms. Such negative behavior impacted multiple students in my classes, and several of the cases were alarming with administrative involvement. Again, this was all outside of class. I just wonder to what extent you can keep the online educational spaces safe without a LOT of diligent monitoring, particularly in very large classes.

I love the idea of drawing on communication forms with which ESL students are already familiar. Ironically, I'm the reverse of this quote--I have plenty of background in formal academic writing but have very limited experience with social media. I don't even have a Facebook account. I think letting the students know my inexperience and having them teach me things about social media could be very empowering for them. They will see that everybody faces a learning curve somewhere in their daily life. There are all kinds of limitations on using social media platforms with students, but I could see setting up digital chats through Google Classrooms or creating assignments modeled on social media platforms (i.e. create a Facebook page for a historical figure, write a series of tweets between two characters in a book, etc.). I could also see creating lessons about social media so that ESL newcomers could more readily assess whether something they are reading online is accurate and from a reliable source.

This is a powerful section of the article for me because even if you knew you would be (and wanted to be) working with a diverse population, there are still so many changes as your career progresses that you could not have anticipated. The source of your school's diversity may change over time. For example, we used to have a robust Bosnian bilingual program that no longer exists. Now, our Arabic speaking population is growing, as is our contingent of Somali refugees. ESL (and general education) methods have changed and are more focused on oral communication and collaborative group work. Desks being in rows used to be the norm, but now that room organization is less popular. Cell phones were virtually non-existent when I started teaching, and now technology in education is both a boon and a bane that teachers have to navigate. I don't think I ever could have anticipated teaching remotely for months through a pandemic, struggling to meet the needs of my EL and DL students through a computer screen. In the midst of all this change, teachers still need to provide all their students (and ESL newcomers in particular) with stability, access to what they need to thrive, and preparation for what the future may bring in an ever-changing country and world. That's a tall order.

I'd love to know more about how these native language literacy programs are structured up to 3rd grade. It seems like such an odd dichotomy to have just language arts completely in your native language and then the rest of your day in English. We have been learning how much easier it is for younger children to learn languages, so why delay learning to read in English? There are bilingual books for children; students could learn to read something first in their native language and then read the story again in English. They are exposed to English for the rest of their day, but there is no place for them to process things they don't understand if language arts is completely in their first language. Do they use any of that language arts time to bridge gaps in understanding students have regarding things they learned during other parts of their day? It sounds like the model is working for the district and the kids are scoring well after exiting the program, but I wonder if there are any missed opportunities for promoting full biliteracy at an earlier age.

This part reminds me of some of our discussions regarding intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. I think language acquisition is probably most successful if students see a larger purpose to what they are doing and are motivated to engage in the learning as a result. For example, they need the language in the near future to enroll in college or succeed in a career. Or, on a more immediate level, they need to know how to order something at a restaurant or how to ask where the bathroom is. In communities where you can get by with your native language and never learn English to go about your daily life, people may not speak English well because they don't have to. When you are immersed in a community where you must communicate in the target language to get what you want, acquisition is probably more likely.

This resonated with me because I have some students, and not just ESL students, who are afraid to participate in discussions. Putting pressure on them to do so often just increases their anxiety, making the situation worse. I sometimes wonder to what extent you can simulate a classroom environment focused on "acquisition" rather than "learning" of language modeled on the experiences of young children acquiring their first language. Very young children are usually not afraid to experiment with language, try out new things linguistically, and laugh if something sounds awkward. The teenagers I teach have moved way beyond that stage of unselfconsciousness that is so endearing in toddlers and pre-K students. Instead, they are in a heightened state of self-identity formation that works against them feeling comfortable with themselves and others. I believe that as teachers, we can do a lot to promote the "house party" atmosphere the author of the article mentions and lessen anxiety in the classroom. However, I don't think we can ever fully help our students (or ourselves, for that matter) reclaim that carefree feeling of the very young with respect to language or anything else.