Principle #3 Standards-Driven Access
Standards-aligned instruction for ELLs is rigorous, grade-level appropriate, and provides deliberate and appropriate scaffolds. Instruction that is rigorous and standards-aligned reflects the key shifts in the CCSS and NGSS. Such shifts require that teachers provide students with opportunities to describe their reasoning, share explanations, make conjectures, justify conclusions, argue from evidence, and negotiate meaning from complex texts. Students with developing levels of English proficiency will require instruction that carefully supports their understanding and use of emerging language as they participate in these activities.
What Teachers Do
- Classroom practice is cognitively challenging and aligned to grade-level standards
- Teachers communicate clearly to students the academic expectations of the classroom (i.e. learning targets, rationale), ultimately strengthening students’ metacognitive abilities
- The design of instructional tasks includes scaffolds for English learners that do not diminish their engagement with complex concepts and text.
- Collaboration to plan units of instruction and/ or lesson plans
-Students are instructed with lessons accessing grade-level standards - regardless of English language proficiency level
-Students are instructed with planned lessons with aligned content and language targets designed to develop discipline-specific academic language for progressive English language development (i.e. Stage I or desired results of UBD backwards planning curriculum model on Rubicon) -Students are instructed with planned lessons using formative and summative authentic performance assessment tasks to collect evidence of attainment of the content and language targets (i.e. Stage II or evidence of desired results of the UBD backwards planning curriculum model on Rubicon)
-Students are instructed with strategically-planned learning experiences to facilitate ELs to complete authentic performance tasks (i.e. Stage III of UBD backwards planning curriculum model) HEAR and -Students are instructed with tailored and flexible lessons targeting specific strategies for different English language proficiency levels (i.e. decreased scaffolding for higher levels of English and increased scaffolding for lower levels of English proficiency)
-Students benefit from planned daily lessons using the second language acquisition model of 'input/ intake/ output' (i.e. 'I do/ we do/ you do' gradual release of responsibility framework)
-Students benefit from teachers working collaboratively in the planning, preparation & implementation of standards-based instruction with clarity of roles & responsibilities
-Students benefit from teachers working collaboratively in the planning, preparation & implementation of lessons with the intent to extend language usage and academic achievement
-Students are instructionally supported through the strategic and flexible use of different co-teaching models
-Co-teachers have conversations detailing the instructional advantages and disadvantages for attainment of content and language objectives of specific lessons as applicable to grade-level and subject area context -Students benefit from-teachers' joint decision making and shared management regarding lesson pacing, delivery of instruction, assessments, resources, grading, classroom behavior, parent communication, room set up
-Students benefit from an infrastructure of collaboration among staff with different areas of expertise in order to integrate delivery of services (i.e. EAL, Special Needs, counselors, etc.)
Areas of Concern
-Thinking that grade-level standards are too difficult for ELs (e.g. deficit or remedial approaches)
-Overreliance on winging it through unplanned lessons
-Planning UBD units out of compliance and not for improving ELs' language and learning
-Overreliance of 'teach-test-teach' vs. 'backwards planning' lessons
-Thinking that the same learning experiences apply to all learners
-Thinking that equates 'teacher talk with student learning' (i.e. the transmission of information instructional model)
-Collaboration reduced to: EAL teachers serving as additional classroom teachers (i.e. tutoring ELs on content rather than explicit academic language development)
-EAL teachers pulling 'out' ELs inside classrooms
-Co-teachers' overuse of ineffective co-teaching models (i.e. one watches while other teaches or the 'take turns' model; EAL teacher 'sits & squats' next to ELs only)
-Overreliance on "your kids, my kids" ownership issues
-Co-teachers use opportunity to 'get other work done' (e.g. planning, email, etc.)