Classroom Impact Analysis Report #2

Transcription

1 Classroom Impact Analysis Report #2 School: Key Strategy: Mooberry Elementary School Focused and Integrated ELD Enrollment 482 Poverty >95% ELL 46% Students with Disabilities 9% Historical Performance During the school year, 65.1% of all students met or exceeded the state standard in reading in grades 3-6. Only 28.4% of students designated as Limited English Proficient met the reading standard. In Math, 57.4% of students met or exceeded the benchmark in the same grade span. Only 37.8% of students designated as Limited English Proficient met the state standard. Overview of Strategy The principal and staff at Mooberry Elementary School began the implementation of Focused and Integrated English Language Development in earnest during the spring of During the school year, they added both an instructional coach for ELD, as well as a push in model for their ESL specialist to support the classroom teacher differentiate for language needs within the core instruction. Four teachers were asked about their perceptions of the training they received, as well as suggestions for improvement. The questions and associated comments are organized below: 1. What has your training included to begin teaching focused and integrated ELD to English Learners? In Hillsboro - Susana Dutro ELD training and Constructing Meaning As a teacher in LAUSD - Professional development for ELD and MELD (Mainstream English Language Development), training in ELD curriculum. As a teacher in NYCDOE - Columbia's Teacher's College Reading Writing Project no working with ESL students, Professional development in differentiating with academic language in the classroom. As part of my Master's in Education at UCLA's Teacher Education Program - training to work with ESL populations (led to ELD endorsement in Oregon) I completed my ESOL endorsement through HSD/University of Portland classes, along with Systematic ELD training, and Constructing Meaning Training

2 I attended a 3- day ELD training with an additional 3 day Constructing Meaning Training. We ve received several professional development trainings during our PLC/Academic Seminar days. We ve also been given several half- day planning secessions to work with our coaches and teammates to plan real integrated ELD lessons for our own classes. Susana Dutro's Systematic ELD through HSD, ESOL endorsement (prior to coming to HSD), FIELD training through HSD summer 2013, EdM independent research What is your impression of the training you received? How could it be improved? The Dutro training was a 3 day training that was not very cohesive and difficult to understand and implement as a whole. I took away parts of the training to use in the classroom, most specifically different ways of getting students to increase oral practice (lines of communication, clock partners, etc.) The binder that we received with the many forms and functions and different language levels is a good tools when trying to create sentence frames, but can be overwhelming when trying to create language objectives that correlate with academic standards. The presenters didn't seem to be on the same page and the presentation was very disjointed, and difficult o follow. Meanwhile, the Constructing Meaning training, was much more helpful and applicable to create sentence frames, understanding forms, and creating lessons that can easily be integrated into the reading and writing curriculum. The time that we had to bring in curriculum and use the constructing meaning resources was helpful as well. The electronic material that includes dialectical journals and many other resources was extremely helpful as well. I found the information I learned in my ESOL classes along with the Constructing Meaning trainings to have been the most useful, organized, and have practical applications for teaching our ELLs. I found that the Systematic ELD training included information our school (Mooberry) had already learned and had already put into practice, so it was a bit redundant. I enjoyed the training I received. Although the 3 day trainings were very intense and a bit overwhelming at the time. I always started my training day with tons of ideas but I left overwhelmed and a tad deflated. I think more hands on activities mixed in with the data and text would be more manageable and realistic. The Dutro training was extremely difficult to follow and was taught by multiple instructors that appeared to have different agendas. It was also not clear what the purpose of the training was or what was expected of classroom teachers given the training. The FIELD training last summer was very well planned, organized and

3 taught. The facilitators modeled lessons at multiple grade levels, shared planning tools such as lesson templates and allowed time to plan units and ask questions. It was clearly stated how this training directly relates to the classroom and how to immediately begin using these tools. 3. In your opinion, how has the new strategies improved student outcomes in your classroom? Focusing on increasing not only English, but Academic language has shown an improvement in my students writing, especially after attending the Constructing Meaning training and using many of the tools to help with writing. I have also seen an increase in the level of oral language as student are more likely to use complete sentences and higher academic language while being a part of class discussions. I have had incredible growth in student Math and Reading data based on OAKS especially for my ELL students. I attribute a large part of this success to looking at my instruction within a ELL lens being sure to include adequate vocabulary instruction, creating content with hands on or visual examples, along with oral and written practice in all subjects using ELP based sentence frames/stems so that students have the "mortar" to explain their thinking. In my opinion, more of my students are connecting with the lessons and the materials. I am better prepared to teach all the students in my class. I ve stopped lecturing to let them talk more, and although my classroom is noisier than ever, the things they say are far better than what I could ever have said. As a push- in ELL Specialist, I do not have my own classroom, however our coaches and I have many opportunities to model these strategies and integrate them into grade level planning meetings. I consistently see students striving for target level language and an increase in output- both verbal and written. Through the integration of CCSS and ELP standards, our ELL are gaining access to grade- level content. 4. What is the next level of training you believe you need? The next level is to provide teachers training to create comprehensive units to integrate writing and reading, but keeps language at the front. I find a big tendency that I have is to weave language into my content, but to have the content in the fore front and sometimes the language isn't as emphasized. Integrating content and language together with equal emphasis on both would be where I would need the most development.

4 I would appreciate continued support in planning time to work with our teams and our language and instructional coaches to create and develop literacy based ELD units that incorporate the strategies we have learned from trainings, the CCSS and ELP standards, along with finding culturally relevant text that build on students context and schema. I would like to see other classrooms at other schools with my teammates to discuss what we see and how we could implement any good ideas. I would also like to look into slowly taking some of the courses required for an ESOL endorsement. I have also tried to learn how to better serve ESL students by trying to put myself in their shoes by learning Spanish. I take classes twice a week at PCC and I wish HSD would support those classes as well by continuing to provide higher level courses for teachers in district. In my current PCC class there are six HSD employees enrolled. I would like additional training on bridging lessons and transfer. Additionally I would like to be CM and GLAD trained so I can model these strategies for our teachers. 5. What role does instructional coaching plan for you as you learn more about FIELD? As we start implementing lessons in the classroom, it would be nice to have coaches and other teachers there to observe and debrief with to talk about how to improve practice. It would also be helpful to have coaches modeling lessons that teacher's can actually use in the classroom. For example lessons that are separate from the curriculum that is being taught at that time in the classroom. Our coaches have been integral at helping us develop FIELD lessons during out quarterly planning times. In addition they have assisted in administering student assessments, retrieving data needed to review and analyze the effectiveness of our instruction, and also helping create some of the more time consuming lesson components like narrative input charts. The coaches support by providing feedback and lesson suggestions. They are very valuable in our half- day planning times because they focus our discussions. I also personally need help with the new ESL standards and how they relate to the pacing guide. I like to have a plan in front of me for what forms and functions need to be taught and the coaches can help fit the new standard into our HSD pacing guide. I believe that instructional coaching is crucial in our building. Through grade level planning meetings with coaches, we are able to co- plan Integrated ELD units at all grade levels. This allows us to share new instructional strategies that are best for our ELL with teachers and opens the door for co- teaching and modeling. There are also many trainings that only a few staff members from each building can attend;

5 instructional coaches have the ability to share new information with those who are not able to attend. As a former classroom teacher I appreciated the opportunity to watch coaches model strategies in my classroom. It allows the classroom teacher the opportunity to see how their students benefit from the strategy and what it looks like with their specific students. Summary The Feedback from Mooberry staff members provides us with essential information about our next steps in teacher preparation for meeting the needs for English Language Learners. The feedback above mirrors what we have collected after each of our professional development session. Primarily, we are preparing to substantially reduce our investment in the two- day, Systematic ELD training mentioned above. It is clear that teachers do not like this experience, nor does it seem to impact classroom practice. However, the response regarding the Constructing Meaning training leads us to continue offering it to remaining staff, while continuing with our already- trained teachers in deeper learning activities, including the use of instructional coaches.