[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-586328-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":80,"doc-detail-586328-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","integrated-eld-tensions-of-implementation-comparing-policy-with-implementation","Integrated ELD: Tensions of Implementation - Comparing Policy with Implementation","","Integrated ELD examines how school districts manage tensions between language policy and day-to-day implementation. The brief compares three districts’ integrated models—co-teaching, consulting, and dual endorsed teachers—showing how policy specificity shapes uniformity or local variation. It details placement and clustering rules for EL-classified multilingual learners, including target ratio thresholds, staffing impacts, and cohort effects on peer access. It also contrasts district approaches to co-teaching content areas, scheduling, and teacher pairing.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/integrated-eld-tensions-of-implementation-comparing-policy-with-implementation/586328/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/integrated-eld-tensions-of-implementation-comparing-policy-with-implementation/586328.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Quinn Holloway","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-06","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":30},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What integrated ELD models are compared in the brief?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"The brief compares coteaching, consulting, and dual endorsed teachers. Each model describes different roles for ESOL and content-area teachers in delivering integrated content and ELD instruction.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"How do clustering and placement policies for EL-classified multilingual learners work across districts?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"All three districts aim to place EL-classified multilingual learners in integrated classes without segregating them from non-EL peers. District guidance targets specific proportions per class (40% in Mountain View; 50% in Woodside and Deerfield) and schools hold co-taught seats early for latearriving students.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What tensions emerge when districts allow more flexibility in implementing integrated ELD?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"More options can lead to greater variation and reduced use of the district’s preferred model, alongside increased pressure on ESOL teachers to implement and promote the model with colleagues. Conversely, more specific district guidelines lead to more uniformity across schools.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},586328,1792855938,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,87,91,95,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":131},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":30,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":26,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":96,"preview_page_count":4},2336474466712,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_a8503ba1806abce46bf441b54a3ca4cd","MAY 2026  \n\n| Integrated ELD: Tensions of Implementation |\n| --- |\n| COMPARING POLICY WITH IMPLEMENTATION |\n\nIntegrated ELD Models  \nThis brief highlights the tensions between policy and implementation that school districts face when utilizing different models to serve English learner (EL)-classified multilingual learners (MLs) . We explored how three different districts developed programs that integrated content and English language development (ELD) via three different models: coteaching, consulting, and dual endorsed teachers. We then explored the policies guiding these practicesand how implementation aligned with or differed from policy.  \nCo-teaching-a content teacher and an English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) teacher work together to plan and deliver integrated content and language instruction.  \nConsulting-an ESOL teacher consults with students directly to provide support or consults with a content area teacher to determine learning targets, resources, and strategies for working with ELclassified MLs.  \nDual Endorsed teacher-a teacher holding a license in ESOL and at least one content area delivers instruction that supports both language and content development.  \nBelow we highlight some key contextual differences between the districts (names are pseudonyms):  \n Mountain View- long-standing (>10 years) district-wide coteaching model  \n Woodside-new district-wide implementation of co-teaching and consulting  \n Deerfield-new district-wide implementation of co-teaching, consulting, and use of dual endorsed teachers.  \nPrevalence of Integrated ELD Models  \nCo-teaching  \nConsulting  \nDual Endorsed  \n\n|  |\n| --- |\n|  |\n|  |\n|  |\n|  |\n\nMountain View  \nWoodside  \nDeerfield  \n0  \n20  \n60  \n40  \n80  \n100  \nImplementation: The Mountain View school district had a policy identifying coteaching as their model for delivering ELD services. Woodside and Deerfield had more recently started using integrated ELD models and allowed more leeway in how schools delivered ELD services. Woodside used a combination of co-teaching and consulting , while Deerfield utilized all three models.  \nTensions: Allowing more options led to more variation and less use of the district leaders' preferred option (co-teaching) . When the instructional model was left up to the schools, ESOL teachers reported increased pressure to implement the model and promote it with their colleagues. Conversely, the more specificity there was in district guidelines, the more uniformity across schools. An additional tension relates to serving recently-arrived students. As these students arrived in schools, schools requested and sought ways to establish separate and additional services for these students either through an additional co-taught class (Mountain View) or through an additional content area support class (Woodside) or through a standalone ELD class (all 3 districts) .  \nClustering and Placement Policies for ELs  \nImplementation: All three districts had policies about placing EL-classified MLs in integrated classes with non-EL-classified students: these policies were designed to make make ELD services feasible without segregating students from their non-EL peers. Districts attempted to cluster EL-classified MLs together but keep the proportion below certain percentage in each class: 40% in Mountain View , and 50% in Woodside and Deerfield. The schools took the guidance seriously , and exceeding the target percentage per class tended to only happen when they had an unexpected influx of EL-classified MLs throughout the year. Schools in all three districts tried to hold seats in co-taught classes at the beginning of the year in anticipation of latearriving students.  \nTensions: Three tensions arose in the clustering policies. First , lower ratios of ELclassified MLs to peers in co-taught classes meant schools had to hire more ESOL teachers to cover all of the sections needed. Second , when ESOL teachers were scheduled as co-teachers for more sections, it was mor","cbCailAJowoiPTUD","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCailAJowoiPTUD","pdf",249292,"English","# Integrated ELD Models\n# Prevalence of Integrated ELD Models\n# Implementation and Tensions\n## Implementation: District Models and Options\n## Tensions: Variation, Pressure, and Recently-Arrived Students\n# Clustering and Placement Policies for ELs\n## Implementation: Clustering and Seat-Holding\n## Tensions: Ratios, Staffing, and Cohort Effects\n# Co-teaching: Content Area, Scheduling, and Pairing\n## Content Area and Scheduling\n## Pairing and Resulting Tensions","[{\"question\":\"What integrated ELD models are compared in the brief?\",\"answer\":\"The brief compares coteaching, consulting, and dual endorsed teachers. Each model describes different roles for ESOL and content-area teachers in delivering integrated content and ELD instruction.\"},{\"question\":\"How do clustering and placement policies for EL-classified multilingual learners work across districts?\",\"answer\":\"All three districts aim to place EL-classified multilingual learners in integrated classes without segregating them from non-EL peers. District guidance targets specific proportions per class (40% in Mountain View; 50% in Woodside and Deerfield) and schools hold co-taught seats early for latearriving students.\"},{\"question\":\"What tensions emerge when districts allow more flexibility in implementing integrated ELD?\",\"answer\":\"More options can lead to greater variation and reduced use of the district’s preferred model, alongside increased pressure on ESOL teachers to implement and promote the model with colleagues. Conversely, more specific district guidelines lead to more uniformity across schools.\"}]","Integrated ELD: Tensions of Implementation - Comparing Policy with Implementation | PDF",1792057599]