Language Framework Planning
Language Framework Planning is a lesson-design practice in which teachers plan, post, and teach a content objective (what students will learn about the subject) alongside a language objective (the academic listening, speaking, reading, or writing students will use to access and demonstrate that learning). It treats academic language as a deliberate, visible outcome of every lesson rather than an incidental byproduct, so emergent bilingual (EB) students engage grade-level content while their academic English develops in tandem. The practice operationalizes the SIOP Model's Lesson Preparation component and Texas's requirement that the English Language Proficiency Standards be implemented as an integral part of each subject in the required curriculum. Under the revised Texas ELPS adopted in 2024 (19 TAC Chapter 120) and implemented beginning in 2026-2027, this expectation is strengthened: language development is intentionally embedded across all content areas as a shared responsibility of every educator, reinforcing why content and language are planned together.
How it’s typically applied
- 1Start from the grade-level content standard (TEKS) and write a clear content objective that names what students will know or do, then identify the matching ELPS cross-curricular student expectation in listening, speaking, reading, or writing that the lesson will develop.
- 2Analyze the lesson's language demands: the key academic vocabulary, the language functions students must perform (describe, compare, explain, justify, sequence), the sentence structures or grammar the task requires, and the receptive and productive skills the activities embed.
- 3Write one focused, observable language objective using a stem such as 'Students will [function] using [language or structure] by [mode]' (for example, 'Students will orally explain the water cycle using cause-and-effect signal words'). Keep it to the single most essential language priority so it stays teachable and assessable.
- 4Post both objectives in student-friendly wording, read them aloud at the start of the lesson, and connect them to what students already know and can do in their home language and in English.
- 5Build in scaffolds that let students meet the language objective: sentence frames, word banks, modeled examples, cognate supports, visuals, and structured talk time with peers.
- 6Provide planned, low-risk opportunities for students to produce the target language (paired talk, structured writing, academic discussion) so the language is practiced, not just heard.
- 7Revisit both objectives at the close of the lesson, have students self-assess against them, and use what you observe about their language production to plan the next lesson's objectives.
Why it works for emergent bilingual students
Emergent bilingual students arrive with rich home-language resources and full grade-level thinking capacity; what they are still building is the academic English needed to display that thinking. Cummins's distinction between conversational and academic language proficiency explains why a student can be socially fluent yet still need sustained, focused support with the cognitively demanding language of school, so making that academic language an explicit, planned objective gives EBs equal access to rigorous content rather than a simplified curriculum. Because language and literacy skills draw on a common underlying proficiency that transfers across a learner's languages, naming the target language function lets teachers build deliberately on what students already control in their first language. The dual objective also reflects complementary SLA theory: a clear content objective with scaffolds keeps input comprehensible (Krashen), while the language objective ensures students are pushed to produce language, which Swain argues is necessary for developing accurate, advanced proficiency. The result is an asset-based design that holds EBs to grade-level expectations while supplying the linguistic tools to meet them.
Adapting it across proficiency levels
Pre-Production
At Pre-Production, keep the content objective fully grade-level but make the language objective receptive and high-support: students point, match, sort, label, or respond non-verbally and with single words or memorized phrases. Pair every objective with visuals, gestures, realia, total-physical-response actions, bilingual glossaries, and home-language preview so students can show understanding before producing extended English. Honor and invite first-language responses as evidence of content mastery.
Beginning
At Beginning, language objectives target short phrases and high-frequency academic words with heavy scaffolding: students complete sentence starters, choose from word banks, and speak or write in simple structures about familiar, context-embedded topics. Model the exact language, provide cloze frames, and allow drawing-plus-labeling and choral practice so the objective is reachable while content stays at grade level.
Intermediate
At Intermediate, language objectives ask students to use simple but complete sentences and connected academic language in more contexts: explaining a process, comparing two ideas, or justifying an answer using provided transition words and sentence frames. Reduce scaffolds gradually, expand academic vocabulary, and build in structured peer talk and short writing so students produce more language with moderate support.
High Intermediate / Advanced
At High Intermediate and Advanced, language objectives target extended, precise, grade-appropriate academic discourse with minimal scaffolding: students elaborate arguments, synthesize sources, use discipline-specific vocabulary and complex syntax, and self-monitor for accuracy. Offer optional sentence stems for sophisticated functions and shift from supplying language to refining it, coaching tone, cohesion, and nuance so students extend their academic register toward grade-level expectations.
In the classroom
In a 7th-grade science lesson on ecosystems, the teacher posts a content objective ('Students will explain how energy flows through a food web') and a language objective ('Students will describe energy transfer, orally and in writing, using cause-and-effect language such as because, as a result, and therefore'). She pre-teaches key terms with images and Spanish-English cognates (energy/energia, consumer/consumidor), provides a sentence frame ('Energy moves from the ___ to the ___ because ___'), and has students rehearse in pairs before writing. Pre-Production students sequence labeled picture cards of a food web and supply one-word labels; Intermediate students complete the frame in full sentences; Advanced students write a paragraph linking three transfers without the frame. The class revisits both objectives at the end, and students rate how well they met each, giving the teacher language data to plan the next lesson.
Research basis
Posting and teaching a content objective alongside a language objective is the foundational Lesson Preparation component of the SIOP Model, a research-validated framework for making grade-level content comprehensible while developing academic English for English learners.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. J. (2017). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP Model (5th ed.). Pearson.
Language objectives give English learners equal access to rigorous curriculum by specifying the academic vocabulary, language functions, structures, and skills a lesson requires, and they can be developed through a clear, replicable process.
Himmel, J. (2012). Language objectives: The key to effective content area instruction for English learners. Colorín Colorado. https://www.colorincolorado.org/article/language-objectives-key-effective-content-area-instruction-english-learners [link]
Conversational language develops more quickly than the cognitively demanding academic language of school, which justifies planning academic language as an explicit instructional objective for emergent bilinguals.
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121-129.
Academic language proficiency is interdependent across a learner's languages and rests on a common underlying proficiency, so skills and knowledge developed in the first language transfer to and support learning in the second.
Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In B. V. Street & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 71-83). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_36 [link]
Texas requires the ELPS, including the cross-curricular second language acquisition student expectations in listening, speaking, reading, and writing, to be implemented as an integral part of each subject in the required curriculum, which is the basis for planning content and language together.
English Language Proficiency Standards, 19 Tex. Admin. Code § 74.4 (2007). https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/texas/19-Tex-Admin-Code-SS-74-4 [link]
The revised Texas ELPS, adopted by the State Board of Education in 2024 and implemented beginning in 2026-2027, define five English language proficiency levels (Pre-Production, Beginning, Intermediate, High Intermediate, and Advanced) and embed cross-curricular language development across all content areas as a shared responsibility of every educator.
Texas Education Agency. (2025). English language proficiency standards (ELPS) update: 2026-2027. https://www.txel.org/elps [link]
Comprehensible input that is understandable yet slightly beyond the learner's current level supports second language acquisition, which justifies scaffolded, clearly framed content objectives for emergent bilinguals.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
Pushing learners to produce language (output), not only to comprehend it, contributes to developing accurate, advanced second language proficiency, which language objectives operationalize by requiring productive academic language.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Newbury House.
The WIDA ELD Standards Framework integrates content and language through Key Language Uses (narrate, inform, explain, argue) and Language Expectations, helping educators plan unit-level language goals alongside academic content standards.
WIDA. (2020). WIDA English language development standards framework, 2020 edition: Kindergarten-grade 12. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. https://wida.wisc.edu/teach/standards/eld [link]
Sources reviewed by an independent second-language-acquisition specialist and an adversarial citation audit.
Ask Verónica about Language Framework Planning
Verónica is our AI tutor, and she knows this strategy. Tell her about your classroom, your mix of proficiency levels, or a specific TEKS you are planning to teach, and she will help you put Language Framework Planning to work.
These strategies are part of the free ELPS Online Helper. Learn the 2026 ELPS and earn 1 hour of CPE credit.
Explore the free course