ell program road maps · according to saunders, goldenberg, and marcelletti (2013), as ell students...

ELL Program Road MapsSHELTERED INSTRUCTION

January 2016

Contents1 Research foundation

5 Guiding principles

17 Reflective tool

31 Bibliography

The following educators were collaborative partners throughout this process. Without their expertise, creation of the Beaverton Road Maps would not have been possible.

Sandra Boe, ELL TOSA, Beaverton Welcome CenterShawn Davitt, Assistant Principal, Sunset Elementary School

1ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction

Research FoundationThis guide synthesizes several bodies of research to serve as a planning tool for sheltered instruction. We use the term sheltered instruction to refer to techniques within mainstream core classes or other carefully designed classes that integrate sheltered instruction strategies that maintain grade-level content outcomes. This definition is important—sheltered instruction is an integrated approach to teaching English language learners (ELLs) academic language and content by using specialized techniques to promote access to content while also developing English language proficiency.

Sheltered instruction strategies ensure access to content and skills. Student access is not only essential for ELL academic preparedness; it is also required as a civil right. Federal courts have decided on two separate occasions (Lau v. Nichols and Casteñada v. Pickard) that access to core content is a fundamental responsibility of school districts, schools, and educators. It is this civil right that implores school districts to expect all staff to utilize sheltered instruction practices.

Goldenberg (2013) notes that “the goal of sheltered strategies is to facilitate the learning of grade-level academic content and skills …. Sheltered instruction can be expected to contribute to English language development, but its real focus is academic content and skills.” Consequently, sheltered techniques are best practices utilized in an inclusive classroom and are critical for ELLs to be able to access content and skills regardless of their English proficiency.

As a result, Beaverton School District recommends that sheltered instruction techniques be utilized by educators throughout a student’s school day. In addition, we recommend that sheltered core classes (courses) only be offered at the secondary level for beginning to early-intermediate level ELLs (levels 1 & 2 as deemed by ELPA 21). Once students have reached a level 3, they should be integrated into mainstream classes that employ sheltered techniques.

2 ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction

Sheltered Instruction Program Descriptions

Component Description Student population

Techniques Instruction provided in English and strategic use of native language (if possible). Sheltering techniques are used in order for students to gain access to content and develop mastery of grade-level learning targets.

Active ELLs, ever ELLs, and students from culturally diverse backgrounds.

Sheltered core-content classes

Instruction provided in English and strategic use of native language. Sheltering techniques are used in order for students to gain access to content and develop mastery of grade-level learning targets.

Can be designed exclusively for ELLs or for a mixture of ELLs and non-ELLs (Oregon Department of Education program model definitions).

These principles share common goals for students:1. All students are provided access to academic content at or above grade level.2. A variety of techniques and strategies are employed to teach academic language.3. Students are provided opportunities and support to apprentice language skills.

The intent of a sheltered class is to provide an environment for students to learn grade-level core content and language skills through instruction that uses sheltered instruction techniques. As such, the simultaneous demand for learning academic content, language, and literacy compels schools and districts to consider approaches that promote clear access to content standards, while providing the space for students to apprentice in the specific language and literacy of the discipline (Heritage, Walqui, & Linquanti, 2015).

At the secondary level, sheltered classes give teachers and students the space to negotiate the content, language, and literacy demands of a particular subject. To be clear, a sheltered class does not modify the expectations of the subject, but rather emphasizes the instructional practices designed for access. The following table offers a clear representation of what sheltered instruction is and what it is not.

ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction 3

Clarifying Sheltered Instruction

Sheltered instruction does … Sheltered instruction does not …

Focus on helping students master grade-level learning targets

Focus on remedial or below grade-level learning targets

Provide classroom teachers with training and support in sheltered instruction techniques

Assume that teachers are competent in sheltered instruction techniques; instruction does not support ELL access in the content or skills

Encourage teachers to incorporate both language and content goals when designing instruction

Focus solely on language development or content goals

Provide students with culturally relevant and grade-appropriate materials

Provide materials that are representative of a dominant culture and lack a diversity of backgrounds and experiences

Involve students in an interactive, collaborative learning environment

Consider students to be recipients of content knowledge within a teacher-directed learning environment, with few opportunities for academic interactions with peers

Use multiple academic measures to determine students’ entry to and exit from an instructional program

Determine entry or exit from an instruction program on behavior-based criteria or a single academic measure

Consider student placement (in a sheltered core class) to be a temporary transition into a mainstream course

Consider student placement (in a sheltered core class) to be permanent, with no opportunity for students to participate with native speakers despite language proficiency


Guiding PrinciplesThis document is organized into the following seven programmatic strands, based on Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education from the Center for Applied Linguistics (Howard, Sugarman, Christian, Lindholm-Leary, & Rogers, 2007):1. Program Structure2. Curriculum3. Instruction4. Assessment & Accountability5. Educator Effectiveness & Professional Learning6. Family & Community7. Support & Resources

In the pages to follow, each guiding principle will be detailed to provide specific suggestions for best practice. In the accompanying reflective tool, each guiding principle is further supported with reflective questions and an organizer for planning.


Program Structure

The dual goals of sheltered instruction are to provide access to mainstream, grade-level content and to promote the development of English language proficiency. Because the intent of sheltered instruction is to provide access to the core curriculum for all students, effective sheltered programs must continually be monitored for instructional fidelity. To ensure that students are gaining meaningful access to core content, school leadership must ensure that key instructional practices are used consistently within each content area. Explicit instructional goals, focused sheltered-practice observations, and systemic sheltered-practice professional development and implementation support can help

achieve fidelity of practice throughout a school.

Sheltered classes may have an unintended effect of lowering educational outcomes for ELLs when compared to nonsheltered versions of a particular subject. School leadership must monitor the sheltered program to ensure that sheltered classes teach to grade-level standards, achieve grade-level outcomes for the particular content area, and use sheltered strategies with fidelity.

According to Saunders, Goldenberg, and Marcelletti (2013), as ELL students acquire greater levels of English proficiency,

7

they should be increasingly included in classrooms with native English speakers. Simply put, students with higher levels of English language proficiency are best served in mainstream classrooms with native English speakers. Due to the fact that students develop English language more effectively when engaged with native speakers, it is recommended that sheltered classes be primarily used for beginner or early intermediate-level ELL students.

Based on this research, it is essential that schools establish exit criteria for moving students out of sheltered courses and into mainstream courses with native speakers. In a mainstream setting, teachers should still employ sheltered strategies in appropriate

situations. In sheltered settings, teachers create the space for students to learn language through purposeful practice. “Language spirals in sophistication, depth, and eventually, correctness, based on students learning in content contexts” (Heritage, Walqui, & Linquanti, 2015).

Grade-level considerations

Elementary SchoolElementary schools might focus on building teacher capacity to provide developmentally appropriate sheltered instruction techniques within their classrooms. Sheltering is an effective strategy for all students as they build academic language; sheltered instruction strategies can scaffold access to grade-level content. Intentionally keeping students on grade will help students access coursework aligned to college and career-ready standards.

Middle School and High SchoolIn addition to building teacher capacity for providing sheltered instruction techniques, secondary schools may also provide sheltered core classes.

Sheltered instruction is even more essential for students with emerging English language proficiency in the middle and high school grades. As coursework becomes more rigorous, access to content becomes more challenging for ELLs. As a result, schools must embrace a vision of instructional access for all, with clear expectations that all students, irrespective of their language of origin, will have access to grade-level content.

ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction

8

Curriculum

Deborah Short has often written about how English learners do “double the work” when learning new academic content in English (Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007). The same could be said for teachers in their planning, as they must account for a myriad of complexities in academic language features and content. In particular, there are three dimensions of academic complexity to consider when designing curriculum. Valdés, Kibler, and Walqui (2014) discuss these dimensions in depth, revealing that teachers must account for (1) the analytical practices associated with college and career-readiness standards, (2) the academic content associated with the discipline, and (3) the discipline-specific language required for success in the content.

These three dimensions fit squarely with sheltered principles—the grade-level standards are the primary target, but teachers must be aware of the “constellation” of the other demands associated with the content standards (Heritage et al., 2015). As such, teachers will do well to anticipate these demands and incorporate them in their planning. Backward planning design principles, such as Understanding by Design, are helpful frameworks for including each of these dimensions into planning, so as to anticipate and appropriately shelter academic standards for greater student access.

Additionally, the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) offers a number of planning tools to ensure that

teachers logically integrate language, content, and literacy. For more information on SIOP, in addition to other sheltering strategies, please consult the instructional staff at the Beaverton School District Welcome Center. Sheltered instruction is not a separate curriculum. Rather, it is a set of instructional techniques and student supports that provide access to district-approved curricula.

Finally, language modality (reading, writing, listening, speaking) is a critical consideration for curriculum planning. These modalities are essential for students to access rigorous coursework, as noted in the Common Core State Standards. The Oregon English Language Proficiency (ELP) Standards can help teachers intentionally plan tasks that incorporate modalities within their content. The ELP Standards provide correspondences, or crosswalks, between the Common Core, Next Generation Science Standards, and the ELP Standards. The ELP Standards, in particular, can be a helpful tool for identifying the overlap of key academic practices, which then illustrate the type of language that must be emphasized (see p. 33 of the standards).

Writing skills are a powerful avenue to demonstrate learning, build cognitive skills, and practice academic language. It is highly recommended that curricula involve multiple opportunities to write. Reading tasks should be designed to engage students in interacting with complex text to develop comprehension skills.


9


All Grade LevelsScaffolding and differentiation are essential instructional considerations for any learner, but they are especially important when working with ELLs . With relatively few years in the program, ELLs will benefit from specific instruction scaffolding differentiated to their level of language proficiency. Teachers should consult the proficiency level descriptors of the relevant ELP Standard to learn more about how to provide differentiated scaffolds for the ELLs in their classrooms. The use of sheltering techniques and language scaffolding are especially important within sheltered core classes.


10

Instruction

There is a large body of research to support the direct link between high-quality instruction and positive student outcomes. It doesn’t matter how great the planning is if the implementation through instruction is weak. One of the pillars of high-quality instruction is the reciprocal interaction model—genuine interaction between teacher and student that fosters critical thinking, promotes student agency, and emphasizes student learning over factual recall (Howard et al., 2007). Reciprocal instruction looks and feels more like facilitation than actual instruction. Teachers create the space for students to engage one another, learn cooperatively, and respond dynamically to problems and projects developed by the teacher.

Another pillar of high-quality instruction is the way teachers facilitate student discourse and learning through collaboration. The interstudent discourse required to collaborate creates the optimal space for negotiating new content and language for meaning. Lev Vygotsky wrote of the value of engaging students in their zone of proximal development, defined as “the area beyond what the learner can do independently, but where actions can be accomplished with the assistance of more able others” (Vygotsky, 1978). When thinking about learning as a social construct, it shifts the teacher’s role to one of facilitator—the guide in the room that creates “invitations” for students to apprentice themselves in the content, analytical practices, and language of the discipline (Heritage et al., 2015). The

invitations described by Heritage, Walqui, and Linquanti are essential to language development, as they offer the time and space for students to experiment with language while negotiating class content.

Finally, teachers must account for the specific needs of all learners during instruction. In both planning and implementation, a feedback loop of formative assessment information will help teachers adjust their planning and instruction to student need. Formative assessment doesn’t have to be formal—simply listening to how students are using language to express their understanding of class content will reveal much about how and where to adjust instruction.

Sheltered instruction practices provide integrated support so that students can steadily develop the conceptual understandings, academic skills, and specific language associated with the discipline. As such, teachers will need a dependable repertoire of sheltering techniques to employ as their students negotiate grade-level content. These strategies must serve as scaffolds into complex texts and themes, while simultaneously introducing and developing the academic language students will need to express their understanding of the content.

Lesson development tools could include standards-based learning targets and rubrics mapped to ELP Standards. Using these tools will support student learning of discipline-specific language. To ensure


11

the development of essential, complex language skills, instruction should include motivating tasks in which students engage with sophisticated texts, discuss them with their peers, and put their thoughts in writing.

Currently, the Beaverton School District utilizes the 5D+ instructional domains and rubrics to define effective instructional practices. It’s important to note that expertise in all of these domains is essential for providing the effective instruction that

is critical to ELL success. In addition, some domains and indicators resonate strongly with effective sheltered instruction.

The box below shows high-leverage instructional practices for teaching ELLs as recommended by the ELL Research Group during the 2014–2015 school year and outlined in the “Informed Decisions” document.

Best Practices for Sheltered InstructionThe 5D+ domains and indicators highlighting these practices are included in parentheses.

Assessment• Set clear goals and objectives (P1, P5)• Provide students with informative feedback (A6)• Assess learning frequently and reteach when needed (A3, A4, A6)

Scaffolding• Use well-designed instruction to strategically scaffold student participation, engagement,

and interactions with peers (CP6)• Link lessons to previous learning and/or build background knowledge (P2, P3)• Practice culturally responsive teaching methods (SE4)• Use pictures (e.g., picture cards), demonstrations, and real-life objects (CP2)• Use illustrative texts and picture books (CP2)• Use technology such as Smart Boards, tablets, and computers (CEC2)• Provide information in multiple ways (e.g., gestures, visual cues, technology; CEC2, CP1, CP2) • Use sheltered strategies and differentiated instruction (CP5, CP7)

Language• Emphasize academic, as well as conversational, language in ELD instruction (SE5, SE6, CEC3)• Use sentence frames to help ELLs talk about content (CP5, CP7)• Use strategies that take into consideration the unique needs of newcomer students (CP5, CP7)• Use home language strategically to support core content instruction (SE4)


12


All Grade LevelsIn order for students to demonstrate their learning, they will need to access assessments. When designing assessments, teachers should be cognizant of the language demands required and accommodate as necessary, which could include a variety of measures with multiple opportunities.

Assessment & Accountability

Assessment is a foundational component of the feedback loop between teacher and student, as it illustrates what a student knows and is able to do with language, literacy, and content. Assessments should be carried out in consistent and systematic ways, which means they must be aligned to learning targets and utilize multiple mea-sures (Howard et al., 2007). Such a system requires professional learning around the identification of concrete, integrated learn-ing targets that lend themselves to assessing performance tasks (see the example on p. 24 of the ELP Standards). This will also ensure that teachers are responding to student needs expressed on formative and summa-tive assessments. Student assessment data should inform careful planning of future units to ensure that all students are reaching grade-level targets.


13

Educator Effectiveness & Professional Learning

Teacher capacity to deliver sheltered in-struction must be addressed when sup-porting students in all classes. Instructional capacity is especially relevant for teachers of a sheltered core class. Fundamentally, any effort surrounding professional devel-opment must be founded on the expec-tation that all staff members are expected to implement sheltered techniques and to grow in their mastery of sheltered practices. School administrators will want to ensure that teachers are effectively implementing sheltered instruction with fidelity. One effective way to monitor practice is to lead focused instructional rounds, or learning walks. Learning walks are a high-leverage tool for supporting teachers in their craft, while simultaneously monitoring the sys-tem for fidelity. Please refer to the chart on page 11 for further examples of instruction-al best practices.

The Beaverton Welcome Center offers a variety of professional learning supports for sheltered instruction. Please consult a Beaverton School District Welcome Center staff person to learn more about the specific professional learning supports available.


Elementary SchoolGiven the importance of high-quality teachers, program planners will need to establish a sustained practice of professional development. As with our students, teachers learn in a variety of ways. Modeling, focused learning walks, and professional learning teams are examples of practices teachers can use to extend their learning and collegiality. In addition, focused professional discussion of contemporary research will ensure that all staff members understand the language development process.

Middle School and High SchoolConsiderations noted above are consistent for all teachers. Program planners must take care to ensure that teachers are not only highly qualified, but that they are proficient in academic language and sheltered instruction techniques for their discipline.


14

Family & Community

School staff must work to educate stakeholders on how sheltered instruction practices support student learning, student achievement, and career and college-readiness goals. This includes discussing details of the sheltered instruction approach, such as its focus on grade-level targets and outcomes.

All language programs depend on active support from families and the greater community. The program’s vision must reflect the values of the families and the community it serves. It’s also critical that families embrace the program’s vision. Emerging programs should incorporate parents and the community in the feedback loop as valued stakeholders in each phase of the program’s design. It is critical that families understand the educational impact of sheltered instruction and how it will benefit their child’s long-term academic success.

In order for families and the community to fully embrace the program’s vision, the implementation team—with the support of the entire school staff—must work to educate all stakeholders in the intricacies of language learning. This mutual understanding of the language development process will encourage families to become program partners. Through a school-family partnership, educators can share specific strategies for supporting reading, writing, math, and language acquisition at home.

It is the school’s responsibility to empower families. Our nonnative, English-speaking families may need extra support. For example, they may have very little experience with the U.S. school system and may lack the English language skills necessary to communicate with monolingual teachers. In order for the partnership to evolve, schools need to get all families involved and engaged. Research has found that students with involved parents, regardless of family income or background, are more likely to earn higher grades and test scores, attend school regularly, show improved behavior, graduate, and go on to postsecondary education (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). Beaverton School District’s Volunteerism and Engagement Plan (2011–2015) supports the work of Dr. Joyce Epstein’s framework of family engagement (Epstein, 2009). Her model of six types of parent involvement has helped schools nationwide develop effective school and family partnership programs. The six types are:

1. Parenting: Help all families establish home environments to support children as students.

2. Communicating: Design effective forms of school-to-home and home-to-school communications about school programs and children’s progress.

3. Volunteering: Recruit and organize parent help and support.


15


All Grade LevelsSchools must find ample opportunities to communicate the purpose and vision of the school’s language programs, which may mean that students will need time to develop academic language proficiency. State assessments may not reveal all that students know and are able to do.

4. Learning at home: Provide information and ideas to families about how to help students at home with homework and other curriculum-related activities, decisions, and planning.

5. Decision making: Include parents in school decisions, developing parent-leaders and representatives.

6. Collaborating with communities: Identify and integrate resources and services from the community to strengthen school programs, family practices, and student learning and development.

Epstein’s framework aligns with an important recommendation from Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education—assigning a parent liaison “who speaks the languages of the program [and] understands the needs of the parents in the community,” as well as the structure of the program (Howard et al., 2007).


16

Support & Resources

Many schools report that they have provided specific professional development for sheltered instruction. However, implementation with fidelity is often missing from mainstream classrooms. Given the tension of “covering” content standards, it is not surprising that teachers (especially at the secondary level) struggle to adequately shelter their instruction. As a result, school leadership must make sheltered practices an instructional expectation of all teachers. With a common expectation, school and district leaders must commit resources to providing ongoing professional learning through workshops and, more importantly, regular classroom observations. Focused learning walks are a great way to model and exchange novel instructional strategies. The budgetary considerations for focused learning walks are considerable, and as such, school and district leaders might consider a 2-year plan when establishing their sheltered instruction priorities.

The Welcome Center will work collaboratively with individual school teams to allocate resources to buildings based on a combination of data points to include demographics of the school, ELL population, and the design of the program model chosen for the building. Additional support needed to effectively carry out the program model should be discussed with the Welcome Center staff.



All Grade LevelsIt is essential that a district or school site commit various resources to bring sheltered practices to fidelity and to scale. Examples include:• Funds for initial training, materials, and ongoing support• Access to ongoing professional development and support for teachers• Time for teacher collaboration and observation• Access to data for monitoring and decision making


Reflective ToolThis tool is designed to support both the implementation of new ELL programs and existing programs. This document is intended to be used collaboratively with a school-based implementation team comprised of teachers and school leadership, as well as other members of the school community. For grade-specific considerations, please consult the Guiding Principles descriptors on the preceding pages.

As a team, use the guiding questions in the following organizer to facilitate discussion and guide reflection on your school’s program of choice to serve ELL students. Through careful analysis and rich discussion, take stock of each program consideration to determine whether it is (1) already in place, (2) not evident, or (3) a potential area to develop. Based on these determinations, the team can use the features under “Next Steps” to plan for short, and midterm solutions, as well as prioritize immediate action items. When planning, teams might consider the SMART Goal framework, delegating tasks as necessary for program success.

Program sustainability. To ensure that the program is healthy in years to come, this guide can serve as a reflective tool to guide an evaluation of your school’s ELL program. As your school’s implementation team completes its analysis, please consider the following questions:

1. How will the implementation team know when it has reached its program vision?2. How will the team respond when it has met its program goals?3. How and when will the implementation team return to this document to execute the plan?

Connections. How do your team’s plans connect to other school programs, other district programs, and the school district’s vision for the future?


Pro

gra

m S

tru

ctu

re R

eflec

tive

Tool

Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Prog

ram

Vis

ion

The

prog

ram

has

a c

ohes

ive,

sha

red

visi

on a

nd a

set

of g

oals

that

est

ablis

h:

• H

igh

expe

ctat

ions

for a

ll st

uden

ts•

Com

mitm

ent t

o an

inst

ruct

iona

l fo

cus

on E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge

deve

lopm

ent a

nd m

ultic

ultu

ralis

m

• D

oes

the

prog

ram

est

ablis

h a

clea

r vi

sion

that

con

side

rs th

e pe

rspe

ctiv

es

of a

ll st

akeh

olde

rs (e

.g.,

stud

ents

, fa

mili

es, c

omm

unity

par

tner

s, te

ache

rs,

adm

inis

trat

ors)

?

• D

oes

the

prog

ram

follo

w b

est p

ract

ices

fo

r acc

essi

ng c

ore

cont

ent w

ith

shel

tere

d in

stru

ctio

n?

Scho

ol E

nviro

nmen

t

The

dist

rict,

scho

ol, a

nd c

omm

unity

em

brac

e th

e pr

ogra

m a

nd p

rovi

de:

• A

saf

e, o

rder

ly e

nviro

nmen

t•

A w

arm

, car

ing

com

mun

ity•

Awar

enes

s of

the

dive

rse

need

s of

st

uden

ts o

f diff

eren

t lin

guis

tic a

nd

cultu

ral b

ackg

roun

ds

• If

the

prog

ram

is a

str

and

with

in th

e sc

hool

, how

doe

s it

inte

ract

with

the

rest

of t

he s

choo

l?

• D

oes

the

scho

ol e

nviro

nmen

t pr

ojec

t the

val

ues

esta

blis

hed

by th

e pr

ogra

m’s

visi

on?

Scho

ol L

eade

rshi

p

The

impl

emen

tatio

n te

am a

nd s

choo

l pr

inci

pal l

ead

the

prog

ram

tow

ards

its

visi

on a

nd g

oals

.

• Ad

voca

te fo

r the

pro

gram

• Co

ordi

nate

the

prog

ram

bas

ed o

n pl

anni

ng•

Des

ign

and

faci

litat

e pr

ofes

sion

al

lear

ning

and

pro

mot

e st

aff c

ohes

ion

• En

sure

equ

itabl

e al

loca

tion

of fu

nds

• D

oes

plan

ning

sup

port

the

prog

ram

vi

sion

?

• D

oes

prog

ram

lead

ersh

ip re

spon

d w

hen

impl

emen

tatio

n ve

ers

away

from

th

e pr

ogra

m’s

visi

on?

• A

re th

e pr

ogra

m’s

goal

s cl

early

ar

ticul

ated

to a

ll st

akeh

olde

rs?


Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Ong

oing

Pla

nnin

g

With

an

eye

for s

usta

inab

ility

, the

pr

ogra

m g

uide

s im

plem

enta

tion

thro

ugh

care

ful p

lann

ing.

• G

oals

alig

n w

ith th

e pr

ogra

m’s

visi

on•

The

prog

ram

art

icul

ates

ver

tical

ly

thro

ugh

grad

es a

nd it

erat

es

horiz

onta

lly a

cros

s gr

ades

• In

stru

ctio

n is

gui

ded

by a

n ev

olvi

ng

scop

e an

d se

quen

ce th

at is

de

velo

pmen

tally

, lin

guis

tical

ly, a

nd

cultu

rally

app

ropr

iate

• D

oes

the

prog

ram

vis

ion

refle

ct th

e va

lues

of t

he s

choo

l and

com

mun

ity

and

purp

ose

of th

e pr

ogra

m?

• D

oes

the

prog

ram

hav

e a

set o

f sho

rt-

term

and

mid

term

goa

ls to

real

ize

its

visi

on?

• D

oes

the

prog

ram

acc

ount

for

alig

nmen

t to

stat

e st

anda

rds

and

the

ELP

Stan

dard

s?

Lang

uage

Dev

elop

men

t

The

prog

ram

is fo

unde

d on

prin

cipl

es

that

are

sup

port

ed b

y re

sear

ch a

nd

best

pra

ctic

e.

• Pr

inci

ples

of s

econ

d la

ngua

ge

deve

lopm

ent

• Eff

ectiv

e in

stru

ctio

nal

met

hodo

logi

es a

nd c

lass

room

pr

actic

es•

Belie

f in

and

com

mitm

ent t

o se

cond

la

ngua

ge a

cqui

sitio

n th

eory

• D

oes

best

-pra

ctic

e re

sear

ch g

uide

te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng?

• W

hat c

an b

e do

ne to

pro

mot

e th

e fa

mili

es’ la

ngua

ge a

nd c

ultu

re in

the

scho

ol a

nd c

omm

unity

?

• D

o te

ache

rs a

nd a

ll pr

ogra

m s

taff

unde

rsta

nd a

nd a

pply

the

prin

cipl

es o

f se

cond

lang

uage

dev

elop

men

t?

Mas

ter S

ched

ule

The

scho

ol m

aste

r sch

edul

e m

ust

take

stu

dent

nee

d in

to a

ccou

nt

whe

n de

finin

g sh

elte

red

cour

se

offer

ings

. Stu

dent

s sh

ould

par

ticip

ate

in m

ains

trea

m c

ours

es a

s m

uch

as

poss

ible

. Add

ition

ally

, the

mas

ter

sche

dule

mus

t pro

vide

tim

e fo

r te

ache

r col

labo

ratio

n.

• D

oes

the

mas

ter s

ched

ule

faci

litat

e co

nsis

tent

teac

her c

olla

bora

tion?

• D

oes

the

mas

ter s

ched

ule

allo

w fo

r fle

xibl

e gr

oupi

ng b

ased

on

stud

ents

’ ne

eds?

• D

oes

the

mas

ter s

ched

ule

cont

ain

suffi

cien

t offe

rings

for a

ll EL

L st

uden

ts

that

requ

ire s

helte

red

clas

ses?


Cu

rric

ulu

m R

eflec

tive

Tool

Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Cultu

ral R

elev

ance

Curr

icul

um le

vers

rele

vant

them

es a

nd

topi

cs a

s ve

hicl

es to

eng

age

stud

ents

in

sta

ndar

ds-a

ligne

d le

arni

ng.

• Cu

rric

ulum

wea

ves

cultu

rally

re

leva

nt c

onte

nt w

ith g

rade

-ap

prop

riate

ski

lls a

nd la

ngua

ge

stan

dard

s•

Uni

t the

mes

pro

mot

e co

nnec

tions

an

d cr

oss-

cultu

ral e

xcha

nge

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um re

flect

the

valu

es

of th

e st

uden

t’s h

ome

com

mun

ity?

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um o

ffer a

n au

then

tic,

unas

sum

ing

pers

pect

ive

of s

tude

nt

cultu

re?

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um in

corp

orat

e re

gula

r opp

ortu

nitie

s to

pra

ctic

e la

ngua

ge th

roug

h ac

adem

ic d

isco

urse

?

Alig

nmen

t

Curr

icul

um p

rovi

des

a pl

an fo

r stu

dent

le

arni

ng a

ligne

d ho

rizon

tally

acr

oss

one

grad

e le

vel a

nd v

ertic

ally

acr

oss

prev

ious

and

sub

sequ

ent g

rade

s.

• Cu

rric

ulum

at e

ach

grad

e le

vel

deta

ils w

hat s

tude

nts

mus

t kno

w

and

be a

ble

to d

o by

the

end

of

each

gra

de•

Each

gra

de’s

expe

ctat

ions

art

icul

ate

to th

e ne

xt g

rade

leve

l

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um a

lign

to

grad

e-ap

prop

riate

con

tent

and

ELP

st

anda

rds?

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um o

ffer

oppo

rtun

ities

for l

angu

age

deve

lopm

ent a

cros

s al

l lan

guag

e pr

ofici

ency

leve

ls w

ithin

con

tent

are

as?

• D

o te

ache

rs o

n th

e sa

me

grad

e an

d de

part

men

t tea

ms

colla

bora

tivel

y de

sign

and

impl

emen

t cur

ricul

um?

• D

o th

ey c

olla

bora

tivel

y co

mpa

re a

nd

cont

rast

out

com

es?

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um o

ffer

oppo

rtun

ities

to d

evel

op la

ngua

ge,

liter

acy,

and

con

tent

kno

wle

dge

sim

ulta

neou

sly?


Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Dep

th

Dee

p cu

rric

ulum

pro

vide

s opp

ortu

ni-

ties f

or st

uden

ts to

eng

age

conc

epts

, sk

ills,

and

lang

uage

ass

ocia

ted

with

rig

orou

s, co

mpe

lling

wor

k in

mul

tiple

co

ntex

ts. D

eep

curr

icul

um e

ncou

rage

s co

nnec

tions

acr

oss c

onte

xts,

and

em-

beds

skill

s and

lang

uage

dev

elop

men

t.

• Pr

ovid

es c

oope

rativ

e le

arni

ng

oppo

rtun

ities

to e

xten

d cr

itica

l th

inki

ng in

to c

olla

bora

tive

spac

e•

Incl

udes

app

ropr

iate

sca

ffold

s an

d di

ffere

ntia

ted

supp

orts

so

all s

tude

nts

can

acce

ss ri

goro

us,

enga

ging

lear

ning

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um e

ncou

rage

hig

her

orde

r thi

nkin

g?

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um a

ccou

nt fo

r di

vers

e le

arne

rs?

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um e

nric

h th

e st

uden

t le

arni

ng e

xper

ienc

e?

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um e

mbe

d au

then

tic

skill

s an

d ac

adem

ic la

ngua

ge

deve

lopm

ent?

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um in

corp

orat

e ap

prop

riate

sca

ffold

s fo

r stu

dent

s to

ac

cess

dee

p co

ncep

ts?

Them

atic

Inte

grat

ion

The

them

es in

tegr

ate

lang

uage

, co

nten

t, an

d an

alyt

ical

pra

ctic

es (e

.g.,

Bloo

m’s

Taxo

nom

y, D

epth

of K

now

l-ed

ge) i

n cu

ltura

lly re

leva

nt u

nits

of

stud

y.

• Co

here

nce

thro

ugho

ut th

e ye

ar—

unit

them

es c

ompl

emen

t one

an

othe

r•

Cros

s-cu

rric

ular

coh

eren

ce—

unit

them

es c

onne

ct a

cros

s co

nten

t and

la

ngua

ge

• D

o th

e un

it th

emes

con

nect

to:

– Pr

evio

us le

arni

ng–

Futu

re le

arni

ng–

Oth

er s

ubje

cts


Cu

rric

ulu

m R

eflec

tive

Tool

(con

t’d)

Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Enri

chm

ent v

s. R

emed

iatio

n

Shel

tere

d in

stru

ctio

n pr

ogra

ms

are

built

to e

nric

h st

uden

t acc

ess

to c

lass

co

nten

t. Cu

rric

ular

pla

nnin

g m

ust:

• Ch

alle

nge

stud

ents

with

dee

p cr

itica

l thi

nkin

g•

Prom

ote

liter

acy

deve

lopm

ent i

n En

glis

h•

Prom

ote

acad

emic

lang

uage

de

velo

pmen

t

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um e

nric

h th

e st

uden

t le

arni

ng e

xper

ienc

e?

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um p

ush

stud

ents

to

exte

nd a

nd a

pply

thei

r lea

rnin

g ac

ross

co

ntex

ts?

• D

oes

the

curr

icul

um e

xten

d op

port

uniti

es to

bui

ld la

ngua

ge

and

liter

acy

skill

s w

ithin

gra

de le

vel

cont

ent?


Inst

ruct

ion

Refl

ectiv

e To

ol

Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Inte

grat

ing

Lang

uage

, Con

tent

, &

Ana

lytic

al P

ract

ices

Shel

tere

d in

stru

ctio

n sh

ould

si

mul

tane

ousl

y de

velo

p th

e ac

adem

ic

lang

uage

that

stu

dent

s ne

ed in

co

nten

t-ar

ea c

lass

es. S

helte

red

inst

ruct

ion

prog

ram

s:

• W

eave

lang

uage

and

lite

racy

into

co

mpe

lling

con

tent

that

stu

dent

s ne

ed fo

r sch

ool s

ucce

ss•

Crea

te m

any

oppo

rtun

ities

for

stud

ents

to u

se E

nglis

h to

neg

otia

te

clas

s co

nten

t

• D

o te

ache

rs fo

ster

crit

ical

thin

king

an

d m

eani

ngfu

l stu

dent

dis

cour

se in

En

glis

h?

• D

oes

the

teac

her c

reat

e op

port

uniti

es

for s

tude

nts

to d

evel

op u

nder

stan

ding

of

dis

cipl

ine-

spec

ific

lang

uage

, co

nten

t, an

d an

alyt

ical

pra

ctic

es?

Mul

timod

al E

xpos

ure

to A

cade

mic

La

ngua

ge T

hrou

gh C

onte

nt

As

a co

re p

rinci

ple

of la

ngua

ge

deve

lopm

ent,

stud

ents

mus

t exe

rcis

e al

l fou

r mod

aliti

es (l

iste

ning

, spe

akin

g,

read

ing,

and

writ

ing)

as

they

dev

elop

En

glis

h.

• Te

ache

rs w

eave

lang

uage

de

velo

pmen

t tas

ks in

to c

lass

co

nten

t•

Teac

hers

reco

gniz

e la

ngua

ge

stru

ctur

es in

Eng

lish

and

prov

ide

expl

icit

lang

uage

dev

elop

men

t in

stru

ctio

n

• D

o te

ache

rs c

reat

e th

e op

port

unity

fo

r stu

dent

s to

eng

age

clas

s co

nten

t th

roug

h ea

ch o

f the

mod

aliti

es in

En

glis

h?

• D

o lis

teni

ng a

nd s

peak

ing

com

plem

ent r

eadi

ng a

nd w

ritin

g ta

sks?

• D

o te

ache

rs e

mbe

d la

ngua

ge

deve

lopm

ent w

ithin

cla

ss c

onte

nt?


Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Form

ativ

e A

sses

smen

t

Ong

oing

form

ativ

e as

sess

men

t cr

eate

s a

feed

back

loop

bet

wee

n te

ache

r and

stu

dent

. Mul

tiple

sou

rces

of

inpu

t fro

m s

tude

nts

will

indi

cate

ho

w to

bes

t sup

port

stu

dent

s in

la

ngua

ge, l

itera

cy, a

nd c

onte

nt.

Form

ativ

e as

sess

men

t doe

sn’t

have

to

be

form

al—

care

ful a

tten

tion

to

stud

ent o

utpu

t rev

eals

muc

h ab

out

the

dept

h of

mas

tery

of l

angu

age,

lit

erac

y, a

nd c

onte

nt s

tand

ards

.

• W

hat d

o st

uden

t dat

a re

veal

abo

ut

wha

t stu

dent

s kn

ow a

nd a

re a

ble

to

do?

• D

o te

ache

rs c

reat

e m

ultip

le

oppo

rtun

ities

for s

tude

nts

to s

how

w

hat t

hey

know

and

are

abl

e to

do?

• D

o te

ache

rs u

se fo

rmat

ive

asse

ssm

ent

data

to re

flect

on

thei

r pra

ctic

e?

• D

o te

ache

rs s

hare

thes

e da

ta w

ith

colle

ague

s in

lear

ning

team

s?

Flex

ible

Gro

upin

g &

Coo

pera

tive

Lear

ning

Coop

erat

ive

lear

ning

cre

ates

the

spac

e fo

r stu

dent

s to

eng

age

and

disc

uss

clas

s co

nten

t, w

hile

exe

rcis

ing

acad

emic

lang

uage

in E

nglis

h. F

lexi

ble

grou

ping

str

ateg

ies

enab

le te

ache

rs

to s

truc

ture

gro

ups

hete

roge

neou

sly

or h

omog

eneo

usly

to s

uppo

rt a

pa

rtic

ular

inst

ruct

iona

l foc

us.

• H

eter

ogen

eous

gro

ups l

ever

age

stu-

dent

stre

ngth

s as m

odel

s in

Engl

ish

• Te

ache

rs m

ight

em

ploy

ho

mog

eneo

us g

roup

s to

di

ffere

ntia

te la

ngua

ge a

nd c

onte

nt

skill

s fo

r par

ticul

ar s

tude

nt g

roup

s

• D

o st

uden

ts e

ngag

e co

oper

ativ

ely

to s

olve

com

plex

pro

blem

s w

hile

de

velo

ping

aca

dem

ic la

ngua

ge fo

rms

and

func

tions

?

• D

o te

ache

rs h

ave

a sy

stem

to

flexi

bly

arra

nge

stud

ents

bas

ed o

n in

stru

ctio

nal p

riorit

ies

and

stud

ent

need

s?

Cultu

rally

Res

pons

ive

Inst

ruct

ion

Teac

hers

eng

age

stud

ents

by

desi

gnin

g in

stru

ctio

n th

at in

tegr

ates

st

uden

ts’ c

ultu

ral,

lingu

istic

, and

ac

adem

ic fu

nds

of k

now

ledg

e.

• D

o te

ache

rs tr

eat s

tude

nts’

cultu

ral,

lingu

istic

, and

aca

dem

ic e

xper

ienc

es a

s as

sets

for l

earn

ing?

Inst

ruct

ion

Refl

ectiv

e To

ol (c

ont’d

)


Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Form

ativ

e A

sses

smen

t

Ong

oing

form

ativ

e as

sess

men

t cr

eate

s a

feed

back

loop

bet

wee

n te

ache

r and

stu

dent

. Mul

tiple

sou

rces

of

inpu

t fro

m s

tude

nts

will

indi

cate

ho

w to

bes

t sup

port

stu

dent

s in

la

ngua

ge, l

itera

cy, a

nd c

onte

nt.

Form

ativ

e as

sess

men

t doe

sn’t

have

to

be

form

al—

care

ful a

tten

tion

to

stud

ent o

utpu

t rev

eals

muc

h ab

out

the

dept

h of

mas

tery

of l

angu

age,

lit

erac

y, a

nd c

onte

nt s

tand

ards

.

• W

hat d

o st

uden

t dat

a re

veal

abo

ut

wha

t stu

dent

s kn

ow a

nd a

re a

ble

to

do?

• D

o te

ache

rs c

reat

e m

ultip

le

oppo

rtun

ities

for s

tude

nts

to s

how

w

hat t

hey

know

and

are

abl

e to

do?

• D

o te

ache

rs u

se fo

rmat

ive

asse

ssm

ent

data

to re

flect

on

thei

r pra

ctic

e?

• D

o te

ache

rs s

hare

thes

e da

ta w

ith

colle

ague

s in

lear

ning

team

s?

Flex

ible

Gro

upin

g &

Coo

pera

tive

Lear

ning

Coop

erat

ive

lear

ning

cre

ates

the

spac

e fo

r stu

dent

s to

eng

age

and

disc

uss

clas

s co

nten

t, w

hile

exe

rcis

ing

acad

emic

lang

uage

in E

nglis

h. F

lexi

ble

grou

ping

str

ateg

ies

enab

le te

ache

rs

to s

truc

ture

gro

ups

hete

roge

neou

sly

or h

omog

eneo

usly

to s

uppo

rt a

pa

rtic

ular

inst

ruct

iona

l foc

us.

• H

eter

ogen

eous

gro

ups l

ever

age

stu-

dent

stre

ngth

s as m

odel

s in

Engl

ish

• Te

ache

rs m

ight

em

ploy

ho

mog

eneo

us g

roup

s to

di

ffere

ntia

te la

ngua

ge a

nd c

onte

nt

skill

s fo

r par

ticul

ar s

tude

nt g

roup

s

• D

o st

uden

ts e

ngag

e co

oper

ativ

ely

to s

olve

com

plex

pro

blem

s w

hile

de

velo

ping

aca

dem

ic la

ngua

ge fo

rms

and

func

tions

?

• D

o te

ache

rs h

ave

a sy

stem

to

flexi

bly

arra

nge

stud

ents

bas

ed o

n in

stru

ctio

nal p

riorit

ies

and

stud

ent

need

s?

Cultu

rally

Res

pons

ive

Inst

ruct

ion

Teac

hers

eng

age

stud

ents

by

desi

gnin

g in

stru

ctio

n th

at in

tegr

ates

st

uden

ts’ c

ultu

ral,

lingu

istic

, and

ac

adem

ic fu

nds

of k

now

ledg

e.

• D

o te

ache

rs tr

eat s

tude

nts’

cultu

ral,

lingu

istic

, and

aca

dem

ic e

xper

ienc

es a

s as

sets

for l

earn

ing?

Ass

essm

ent

& A

cco

un

tab

ilit

y Re

flect

ive

Tool

Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Mon

itors

Pro

gram

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

Ass

essm

ents

, im

plem

ente

d in

“c

onsi

sten

t and

sys

tem

atic

way

s”

reve

al m

uch

abou

t how

stu

dent

s ne

gotia

te c

onte

nt in

Eng

lish.

A

sses

smen

ts fo

r she

ltere

d in

stru

ctio

n pr

ogra

ms

focu

s on

con

tent

are

a st

anda

rds

and

asso

ciat

ed E

LP

Stan

dard

s.

• D

o te

ache

rs a

nd p

rogr

am s

taff

m

onito

r stu

dent

gro

wth

to d

eter

min

e if

the

prog

ram

is re

achi

ng it

s go

als

(e.g

., st

uden

t sch

olar

ship

dat

a)?

Incl

udes

Mul

tiple

Mea

sure

s

Mul

tiple

poi

nts

of in

put c

reat

e a

deep

er, c

lear

er p

ictu

re o

f how

st

uden

ts a

re p

rogr

essi

ng in

lang

uage

, lit

erac

y, a

nd c

onte

nt in

Eng

lish.

M

ultip

le a

sses

smen

ts o

f lea

rnin

g st

anda

rds

pain

t a m

ore

accu

rate

pi

ctur

e of

wha

t stu

dent

s kn

ow a

nd

are

able

to d

o w

ith la

ngua

ge.

• D

oes

the

prog

ram

em

bed

mul

tiple

m

easu

res

of s

tude

nt p

rogr

ess?

• D

o as

sess

men

ts m

easu

re p

rogr

ess

in c

onte

nt s

tand

ards

, lite

racy

, and

la

ngua

ge d

evel

opm

ent a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith th

e di

scip

line?

Ass

esse

s A

cade

mic

Con

tent

&

Lang

uage

How

are

stu

dent

s pr

ogre

ssin

g in

co

nten

t-ar

ea s

tand

ards

? Sc

hool

s an

d EL

L pr

ogra

m s

taff

shou

ld u

se m

ultip

le

indi

cato

rs o

f gro

wth

to d

eter

min

e ho

w s

tude

nts

are

prog

ress

ing

in th

eir

cont

ent-

area

stu

dies

and

lang

uage

de

velo

pmen

t.

• D

oes

the

prog

ram

ass

ess

indi

vidu

al

stud

ent p

rogr

ess

in la

ngua

ge, l

itera

cy,

and

cont

ent i

n th

e di

scip

line?

• H

ow d

oes

the

prog

ram

com

mun

icat

e th

is in

form

atio

n to

oth

er s

take

hold

ers

like

ELD

teac

hers

and

fam

ilies

?


Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Dat

a A

naly

sis

The

scho

ol d

isag

greg

ates

stu

dent

da

ta to

und

erst

and

how

to s

uppo

rt

each

stu

dent

in th

e sh

elte

red

inst

ruct

ion

prog

ram

. Tea

ms

of

teac

hers

and

adm

inis

trat

ors

anal

yze

form

ativ

e an

d su

mm

ativ

e as

sess

men

t da

ta to

und

erst

and

how

stu

dent

s ar

e pe

rfor

min

g re

lativ

e to

sta

ndar

ds.

• W

hat d

o st

uden

t for

mat

ive

and

sum

mat

ive

asse

ssm

ent d

ata

reve

al

abou

t stu

dent

s’ de

pth

of m

aste

ry o

f th

e co

nten

t sta

ndar

ds, l

angu

age,

and

lit

erac

y fe

atur

es?

• D

o te

ache

rs a

nd s

choo

l dat

a te

ams

disa

ggre

gate

stu

dent

dat

a to

lear

n m

ore

abou

t how

ELL

s fa

re in

con

tent

, la

ngua

ge, a

nd li

tera

cy?

Dat

a In

form

Pro

gram

mat

ic &

In

stru

ctio

nal D

ecis

ions

Teac

hers

follo

w a

form

ativ

e as

sess

men

t cyc

le to

info

rm

inst

ruct

iona

l dec

isio

ns. S

tude

nt

perf

orm

ance

rela

tive

to s

tand

ards

su

ppor

ts te

ache

rs in

pla

nnin

g in

stru

ctio

n be

st s

uite

d to

thei

r st

uden

ts’ n

eeds

.

• D

o te

ache

rs, a

dmin

istr

ator

s, an

d EL

L pr

ogra

m s

taff

act o

n co

nclu

sion

s dr

awn

from

stu

dent

dat

a?

• A

re th

e re

sults

use

d to

info

rm p

lann

ing

and

inst

ruct

ion?

Ass

essm

ent L

itera

cy

The

scho

ol c

omm

its to

bui

ldin

g ca

paci

ty in

ass

essm

ent l

itera

cy.

Teac

hers

kno

w h

ow to

des

ign

perf

orm

ance

task

s lin

ked

to s

peci

fic

lang

uage

and

con

tent

sta

ndar

ds. T

he

scho

ol p

rovi

des

furt

her p

rofe

ssio

nal

lear

ning

to a

naly

ze a

nd in

terp

ret

resu

lts a

nd d

eter

min

e ho

w th

e re

sults

can

info

rm fu

ture

inst

ruct

iona

l de

cisi

ons.

• W

hat t

ypes

of p

rofe

ssio

nal l

earn

ing

will

bu

ild te

ache

r cap

acity

in a

sses

smen

t lit

erac

y?

• W

hat t

ypes

of d

ata

prot

ocol

s ar

e in

pla

ce to

gui

de a

naly

sis

and

inte

rpre

tatio

n of

stu

dent

dat

a?

Ass

essm

ent

& A

cco

un

tab

ilit

y Re

flect

ive

Tool

(con

t’d)


Edu

cato

r Eff

ecti

ven

ess

& P

rofe

ssio

nal

Lea

rnin

g R

eflec

tive

Tool

Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Teac

her C

ertifi

catio

n &

Pre

para

tion

Effec

tive,

fully

cre

dent

iale

d te

ache

rs

are

trai

ned

on s

helte

red

inst

ruct

ion

stra

tegi

es e

mbr

aced

by

Beav

erto

n Sc

hool

Dis

tric

t. Te

ache

rs a

re b

oth

endo

rsed

and

ski

lled

in th

eir d

isci

plin

e an

d la

ngua

ge d

evel

opm

ent p

ract

ices

.

• A

re te

ache

rs p

repa

red

with

a d

eep

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

cla

ss-c

onte

nt

stan

dard

s an

d En

glis

h la

ngua

ge

deve

lopm

ent?

• H

ave

teac

hers

rece

ived

trai

ning

(and

fo

llow

-up)

?

Expe

rtis

e in

She

ltere

d In

stru

ctio

n

Teac

hers

in s

helte

red

inst

ruct

ion

prog

ram

s ar

e ex

pert

s in

dev

elop

ing

lang

uage

whi

le s

imul

tane

ousl

y te

achi

ng c

onte

nt, s

kills

, and

lite

racy

. G

iven

the

com

plex

ity o

f thi

s ta

sk,

teac

hers

mus

t hav

e pr

epar

atio

n an

d co

ntin

ued

prof

essi

onal

lear

ning

. Pr

ogra

ms

offer

regu

lar o

ppor

tuni

ties

for p

rofe

ssio

nal l

earn

ing

in s

helte

red

prac

tices

.

• Is

pro

fess

iona

l lea

rnin

g in

she

ltere

d pr

actic

es o

ffere

d an

d en

cour

aged

by

the

scho

ol?

• D

o te

ache

rs c

olla

bora

te to

sha

re b

est

prac

tices

in s

helte

red

inst

ruct

ion?

• A

re s

helte

red

inst

ruct

ion

stra

tegi

es

shar

ed s

choo

lwid

e?

Prof

essi

onal

Lea

rnin

g

Prof

essi

onal

lear

ning

prio

ritie

s ar

e de

velo

ped

colla

bora

tivel

y an

d tr

ansp

aren

tly w

ith s

taff

and

are

part

of

the

prog

ram

’s co

mm

itmen

t to

cont

inua

l im

prov

emen

t.

• A

re th

ere

clea

r prio

ritie

s fo

r pr

ofes

sion

al le

arni

ng?

• D

o te

ache

rs h

ave

a ro

le in

est

ablis

hing

pr

iorit

ies

for p

rofe

ssio

nal l

earn

ing?

• D

oes

the

prof

essi

onal

lear

ning

co

ntrib

ute

to c

ontin

ual i

mpr

ovem

ent?

• D

oes

the

prog

ram

pro

vide

sus

tain

ed

follo

w-u

p to

con

cept

s pr

esen

ted

in

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t tim

e?

• D

oes

the

prog

ram

inco

rpor

ate

conc

epts

from

pro

fess

iona

l de

velo

pmen

t int

o pr

ofes

sion

al

expe

ctat

ions

?


Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Lear

ning

Wal

ks &

Pro

fess

iona

l Re

flect

ion

Focu

sed

lear

ning

wal

ks a

re a

cor

e pr

ofes

sion

al le

arni

ng to

ol. R

ound

s of

obs

erva

tions

are

focu

sed

thro

ugh

defin

ed in

stru

ctio

nal l

ense

s w

ith

the

purp

ose

of e

xcha

ngin

g be

st

prac

tice.

Lea

rnin

g w

alks

are

acc

epte

d as

a p

rofe

ssio

nal n

orm

and

as

an o

ppor

tuni

ty fo

r per

sona

l and

pr

ofes

sion

al g

row

th.

• W

hat s

yste

ms

are

in p

lace

to e

nabl

e le

arni

ng w

alks

to o

ccur

with

min

imal

im

pact

to te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng?

• W

hat a

re th

e pr

ofes

sion

al e

xpec

tatio

ns

of le

arni

ng w

alks

?

• D

o te

ache

rs a

nd a

dmin

istr

ator

s fo

llow

up

aft

er le

arni

ng w

alks

?

• A

re n

orm

s in

pla

ce fo

r gui

ding

roun

ds

of le

arni

ng w

alks

?

Prof

essi

onal

Col

labo

ratio

n

The

prog

ram

ena

bles

, enc

oura

ges,

and

expe

cts p

rofe

ssio

nal c

olla

bora

tion

thro

ugh

horiz

onta

l (w

ithin

gra

de

leve

ls) o

r ver

tical

(acr

oss

grad

e le

vels

) gr

ade

and

depa

rtm

ent t

eam

s.

• D

oes

the

mas

ter s

ched

ule

crea

te th

e sp

ace

for p

rofe

ssio

nal c

olla

bora

tion?

• A

re le

arni

ng te

ams

guid

ed b

y co

mm

on

prof

essi

onal

nor

ms

and

stud

ent-

focu

sed

prot

ocol

s?

• D

oes

scho

ol le

ader

ship

est

ablis

h co

llabo

rativ

e ex

pect

atio

ns fo

r lea

rnin

g te

ams?

• D

oes

scho

ol le

ader

ship

est

ablis

h ex

pect

atio

ns fo

r and

coa

ch n

orm

s an

d pr

otoc

ols?

Edu

cato

r Eff

ecti

ven

ess

& P

rofe

ssio

nal

Lea

rnin

g R

eflec

tive

Tool


Fam

ily

& C

om

mu

nit

y Re

flect

ive

Tool

Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Scho

ol-B

ased

Par

ent/

Com

mun

ity

Liai

sons

The

fam

ily li

aiso

n co

mm

unic

ates

st

uden

t pro

gres

s to

par

ents

and

is

awar

e of

the

stru

ctur

e fo

r she

ltere

d in

stru

ctio

n pr

ogra

ms.

• D

oes

the

fam

ily li

aiso

n un

ders

tand

th

e pu

rpos

e of

she

ltere

d in

stru

ctio

n pr

ogra

ms?

• D

oes

the

fam

ily li

aiso

n co

mm

unic

ate

stud

ent p

rogr

ess

in s

helte

red

cour

ses

to fa

mili

es?

Com

mun

icat

ion

The

scho

ol a

nd s

helte

red

inst

ruct

ion

prog

ram

mai

ntai

n re

gula

r co

mm

unic

atio

n w

ith fa

mili

es to

cla

rify

the

purp

ose

of s

helte

red

inst

ruct

ion

and

deta

il st

uden

t pro

gres

s.

• D

oes

the

prog

ram

use

mul

tiple

mod

es

of c

omm

unic

atio

n to

con

nect

with

fa

mili

es?


Sup

po

rt &

Res

ou

rces

Refl

ectiv

e To

ol

Prog

ram

con

side

ratio

nsG

uidi

ng q

uest

ions

Curr

ent s

tatu

sN

ext s

teps

Alre

ady

in pla

ceNo

t ev

ident

Pote

ntial

ar

eas t

o de

velop

Actio

n ite

ms

Tim

elin

e

Inte

rim ch

eck-

in da

teFin

al ev

aluat

ion

date

Equi

tabl

e A

lloca

tion

of R

esou

rces

Giv

en th

at e

qual

ity is

n’t e

quity

—th

e lo

cal s

choo

l boa

rd, d

istr

ict,

and

scho

ol

staff

und

erst

and

how

to d

istr

ibut

e re

sour

ces

to e

quita

bly

fund

she

ltere

d in

stru

ctio

n (e

spec

ially

ong

oing

pr

ofes

sion

al d

evel

opm

ent)

.

• D

oes

the

scho

ol d

istr

ict,

the

loca

l sc

hool

boa

rd, s

choo

l, an

d di

stric

t le

ader

ship

pla

n fo

r allo

catin

g re

sour

ces

to s

uppo

rt E

LL s

tude

nts?

• D

oes

prog

ram

lead

ersh

ip c

omm

it ad

equa

te fu

nds

to a

chie

ve th

e pr

ogra

m’s

inte

nded

out

com

es?

Hum

an R

esou

rces

The

loca

l sch

ool b

oard

, sch

ool,

and

dist

rict l

eade

rshi

p ha

ve a

robu

st

plan

for r

ecru

iting

and

reta

inin

g hi

ghly

effe

ctiv

e st

aff m

embe

rs th

at

unde

rsta

nd c

onte

nt s

tudi

es a

nd

lang

uage

dev

elop

men

t req

uire

d fo

r eff

ectiv

e sh

elte

red

inst

ruct

ion.

• D

oes

the

dist

rict h

ave

a st

rate

gy fo

r re

tain

ing

high

ly q

ualifi

ed te

ache

rs?

• D

oes

the

dist

rict e

quita

bly

dist

ribut

e hi

ghly

qua

lified

teac

hers

whe

re

need

ed?


Bibliography

ReferencesEpstein, J. (2009). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the research on English learners: What we know—and we don’t yet know—about effective instruction. American Educator, 37(2), 4–11. Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Goldenberg.pdf

Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement: Annual synthesis. Retrieved from SEDL, National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools website: https://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/evidence.pdf

Heritage, M., Walqui, A., & Linquanti, R. (2015). English language learners and the new standards: Developing language, content knowledge, and analytical practices in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., Christian, D., Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Rogers, D. (2007). Guiding principles for dual language education (2nd ed.). Retrieved from Center for Applied Linguistics website: http://www.cal.org/twi/Guiding_Principles.pdf

Saunders, W., Goldenberg, C., & Marcelletti, D. (2013). English language development: Guidelines for instruction. American Educator, 37(2), 13–25, 38–39. Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Saunders_Goldenberg_Marcelletti.pdf

Short, D. J., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners. Retrieved from Carnegie Corporation of New York website: https://www.carnegie.org/media/filer_public/bd/d8/bdd80ac7-fb48-4b97-b082-df8c49320acb/ccny_report_2007_double.pdf


Valdés, G., Kibler, A., & Walqui, A. (2014). Changes in the expertise of ESL professionals: Knowledge and action in the era of new standards. Retrieved from TESOL International Association website: http://www.tesol.org/events-landing-page/2014/06/18/default-calendar/changes-in-the-expertise-of-esl-professionals-in-the-era-of-new-standards

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

ResourcesBardack, S. (2010). Common ELL terms and definitions. Retrieved from American Institutes for Research website: http://www.air.org/resource/common-ell-terms-and-definitions

Burke, A., & Rodriguez-Mojica, C. (2015). Informed decisions: Recommendations from Beaverton School District’s review of program models and instructional strategies for English language learners. Retrieved from Education Northwest Google Drive file: https://drive.google.com/a/educationnorthwest.org/file/d/0B-M-2w0V8AjRN3lRT0QwZkgwTFk/view?pref=2&pli=1

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2014). English Language Proficiency (ELP) Standards with correspondences to K–12 practices and Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from Oregon Department of Education website: http://www.ode.state.or.us/opportunities/grants/nclb/title_iii/final-4_30-elpa21-standards.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition, National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2015). English Learner Tool Kit for state and local education agencies (SEAs and LEAs). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/english-learner-toolkit/index.html

101 SW Main St, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97204 | 800.547.6339

Prepared by

ell program road maps · according to saunders, goldenberg, and marcelletti (2013), as ell students...

Documents