COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
IN ONE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: A FOCUS ON
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
INTRODUCTION
Like many teacher
educators in the field of second language, we have, over the years, received
numerous and often frenzied requests from school districts around the state to
‘fix the problem’ of their English language learners (ELLs). The proverbial ‘three-hour ESL in-service’ on a day devoted
to staff development seemed a popular choice.
Anxious to help, we would make our forays into school auditoriums,
libraries, or cafeteria spaces set up for such efforts and then leave these
sites wondering how effective these ‘sage on the stage’ workshops had really
been. Though the material and resources
offered were sound and our own knowledge base grounded in research, we
questioned how productive for the long-term this mode of staff development
really was. How likely were these
teachers to continue processing what they had learned, implement a new strategy
or idea, assess and reflect on the outcome of doing so, and then re-enter that
professional development cycle with their colleagues? More importantly, were
our efforts likely to improve student learning outcomes, the real purpose for
staff development? Our own understanding
of best practices for staff development ran counter to those one-shot approaches,
and seeking U.S. Department of Education funds for teacher development to
implement a new strategy for long-term work with teachers seemed to be an
avenue worth exploring. Research on
cooperative learning and effective staff development pointed to very focused
and contextualized opportunities for teachers to work together to create their
own settings for professional growth. We
wanted to work with small, inviting within-school teams of seven to begin a process
of study and conversation about their work that would last two years. Thus the team members had an opportunity to
work collaboratively in addressing the needs of their ELLs; and we had an
opportunity to support their efforts and observe on a micro level the
challenges they faced and the rewards they reaped.
This article
documents the ways that a team of educators worked within this professional
development model to rethink the ways in which they offered instruction to
English language learners in their elementary school. It lays out our professional development
philosophy as well as the educators’ thoughts regarding it. It describes the collaborative instructional
efforts they made, the individual changes in practice they reported, and the
bureaucratic and administrative features that either enhanced or impeded the
collaborative relationships they tried to establish.
No examination of our project can begin without
touching upon two important issues that not only highlight the need for a new
kind of professional development but also reflect the under preparedness of
many teachers to address the needs of a culturally and linguistically diverse
population - the impact of the changing
demographics in our schools and the implementation of No Child Left Behind
education policies.
CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS
We know that the
changing demographics of American schools have been a fact of life for several
decades now. During the period between 1995 and 2005, the national growth rate
of K-12 limited English proficient students was 61% while the overall growth
rate for all students enrolled in public schools was 2.6% (National
Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and
Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students, 2006.) Particular
areas of states – urban communities, for example – can no longer claim to be
the sole school districts impacted by linguistically and culturally diverse
student populations. From 1999-2005, there was a 29.57% increase in the
national enrollment growth of ELLs in rural districts (communities of less than
25,000) as compared to 4.45% in non-rural districts (ELL Student Enrollment,
2006). Regions of the United States that have never had to be concerned with
students’ language needs at school – in particular the Midwest and South - show significant gains in Latino and
African student populations.
In Minnesota,
during the ’95-’05 period, ELL growth was 161%, outpacing the national growth trend significantly, while the state
total K-12 enrollment decreased by
6.5% (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2006.) There are
over 60,000 ELLs currently enrolled in Minnesota schools, representing more
than 110 different language groups. While a majority of our ELLs reside in the
general metropolitan area, a significant and growing number can be found in our
smaller cities and rural communities around the state.
The impact of increasing numbers of second language
learners (ELLs or English language learners) on teachers ill-prepared to meet
their needs is substantial in many communities (Walker, Shafer, & Iiams,
2004). One key report on the preparedness
of K-12 teachers to work with English language learners notes that only 27
percent of teachers are prepared to do so (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2002). Clearly those states with high populations
of English language learners historically demonstrate a more prepared teacher
force – yet even in those locales, significant numbers of teachers have yet to
meet what have been identified as necessary skills for the task (Gándara,
Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll (2005).
No Child Left Behind
No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) has increased pressure on schools to meet achievement goals for
all subgroups of learners, requiring that individual teachers as well as
schools take responsibility for the achievement demonstrated by English
language learners – a direct contrast to the historical practice of leaving
this work exclusively to ESL and bilingual specialists. How are schools responding to the growth of
English language learners, given federal of accountability requirements for the
achievement of all children? Clearly this task has fallen to in-service
education. While most pre-service teacher preparation programs require some
attention to the needs of English language learners, a focus on these students
is generally limited within an already tight curriculum (Lucas & Grinberg,
2007). Veteran teachers, who have
not had such preparation, comprise the vast majority of the teaching staff of
impacted schools. Staff development then becomes the single most important
component in bringing ELL students to full learner status. And sustained, long-term, collaborative
models of staff development hold the best chance of supporting mainstream
teachers in their efforts to meet both the content and language learning needs
of their students.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: A WAY OF THINKING WHOSE TIME
HAS COME
There is new
interest and increased support for “generating professional knowledge for
teaching” (Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002). The consensus among
researchers is that staff development yields the best results when it is
long-term, school-based, involves the collaborative process, and focuses on
student learning (Clark, 2001; Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999; Garet,
Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Lampert, 2001; Tellez & Waxman,
2006). A paradigm shift, as described by
Sparks & Hirsch (1997), is clearly at work, one that has teachers
constructing their own paths towards integrating new knowledge and practices
into their teaching, rather than receiving new methods or programs through
traditional in-service models.
As teacher
educators, we drew on our sense of what might be an ideal environment for
in-service professional development. Our plan focused on small teams of staff
members working together in what we believe is a natural marriage between the
need for teachers to be part of a learning community as they explore best
practices in serving English language learners and the improvement of their
teaching such that student achievement itself is enhanced. The project brought
together teams of teachers (seven individuals who were mainstream, ESL, special
staff, and paraprofessional), from eight schools, to spend two years addressing
the needs of bilingual learners at their school site, and putting into practice
the kind of instruction that might positively affect student achievement.
Schools were chosen in order to obtain a balance in terms of region (urban,
suburban, and rural) and population representation (ethnicities/language
groups). We looked for a level of
willingness, energy, and commitment from both the building principal and the
school, and included those schools which had been identified as needing
improvement in learner outcomes for ELL students.
The following underlying philosophy guided the process
and grounded the project for the work ahead.
Teams worked
together as a large group during two summer institutes and three two-day
sessions during each academic year, in addition to their own monthly on-site
meetings at their schools. Each team developed a school action plan that would
drive their efforts at improving English language learner achievement,
resulting in several long-term goals agreed upon by all participants. Action
plans were designed at the start of the first year and reviewed again at the
start of second year to reflect on progress and examine whether or not
adaptation was necessary.
Each team member
developed an individual Professional Action Plan at the beginning of the
process to map a course for professional self-development. They identified
their individual needs and the steps they wanted to take to meet them.
Professional Action Plans included steps to connect with communities, readings
around a particular theme or topic, courses in students’ languages, the
gathering of resources, peer observations, or a strong focus on particular
areas of curriculum.
The project
provided a framework through graduate coursework and professional consultation
by experienced teacher educators in the fields of K-12 ESL and bilingual
education. Grant funding was available for substitute teachers to cover monthly
meetings, academic year meetings, and team leader work days, as well as books
and other resources. A small yearly
stipend was also included as professional pay for time spent outside of the
normal school day.
Choosing
a Focal School
For
purposes of this article, we highlight one focal school team out of eight
school teams in the two two-year cohorts.
While we use the experiences and voices of individual members on this
team, we found that their perspectives and thoughts on their work were
representative of their role groups (mainstream, ESL, special staff,
paraprofessional) across the eight schools. The leadership exhibited by this
school principal also offered us unique insights into the critical role of
principals in school improvement (DuFour and Berkey, 1995; Porter and Soper,
2003).
We carefully examined the collaborative efforts and
personal writing put forth by this one small team of teachers who worked with
us over a two-year period. We watched
the team members come together as a professional learning community that was
directed toward improving teacher understanding of and ability to address
English language learner needs. This intense focus on one elementary school
provided us a window into the struggle that takes place in many schools working
with second language learners.
The personal writing included a Professional Action
Plan developed by each team member which recorded their goals for the two-year
process, seven reader responses based on individually selected readings, and a
summary reflective piece in which team members were asked to reflect on
perspectives and changes that might have occurred over the course of the two
years.
The following questions guided our examination of their
written work, providing a framework for what we observed and noted from our
conversations with team members:
1) What types of collaborative
instructional efforts emerged over the course of the two year project between
ESL and mainstream teachers?
2) What kinds of individual changes in
practice as well as professional changes have occurred for each of the
participating team members?
3. What bureaucratic or administrative
features enhanced or impeded professional relationships and/or collaboration?
JAGUAR ELEMENTARY:
DESCRIPTION/DEMOGRAPHICS/GOALS
Jaguar Elementary
is a K-5 school in a semi-rural area of a large Midwestern state. The school has a total enrollment of
570. While the district itself reports
that 14 percent of its school-age students are English language learners,
Jaguar Elementary has 23 percent ELL enrollment. The proportion of poverty in the school
(measured by free or reduced school lunch enrollment) is 54 percent. The team that was formed for the project
consisted of two grade-level/mainstream teachers, three ESL teachers, one
paraprofessional (a Somali speaker) and a speech clinician. One grade-level
teacher was a veteran of over twenty-five years; the other had taught for seven
years. Two ESL teachers held dual
licensures in elementary education and ESL; the third had an ESL license and
complete fluency in Spanish. As a team, they examined their own site, using the
Minnesota Quality Indicators as a reference point, building upon their own
knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of their school’s ability to address
the needs of its ELLs. Their resulting school Action Plan consisted of three
major goals:
1) To increase ELL family
involvement for student learning
2) To promote and foster the
academic language proficiency of ELLs
3) To disseminate information to
other staff members
The unique viewpoints of the mainstream teachers, ESL
teachers, paraprofessional, and speech clinician on this team, explain many of
the struggles that take place within elementary school contexts where the
issues of placement, curriculum, instruction, and assessment are concerned.
Results reported below reflect the thoughts and perspectives of each role
group.
1. What types of
collaborative instructional efforts emerged over the course of the two-year
project between ESL and mainstream teachers?
Mainstream
teachers
At Jaguar
Elementary, collaborative efforts occurred initially within the team when two
grade-level (mainstream) teachers and two ESL teachers specifically took steps
to work together. The mainstream
teachers set up consistent collaboration with the ESL teachers, consciously
setting aside planning time to do so.
They were thoughtful, careful, and raised continuous questions about
what they do and why. Grade level
teachers began to integrate language objectives into their teaching in a
systematic way, a practice that was new to them. Doing so led to further conversations with
their ESL colleagues to be sure that appropriate language objectives were being
used. Collaborating with another individual
brought new challenges -- as one teacher
indicated, “Being the classroom teacher, I had to give up some control.” One interesting outcome was viewing “their
students” with another teacher, as the ESL teacher worked directly in the
classroom in an instructional capacity.
One mainstream teacher reported that focusing on the needs of the
learners instead of thinking about “what I need to do” was a positive outcome
of the collaborative process. Her
comment was representative of many mainstream teachers: “Working with an ESL teacher and planning for academic learning through
language is powerful.”
ESL teachers
While the ESL
teachers were working closely in classrooms with specific classroom teachers, they were responsible at
the same time for remaining in contact with the classroom teachers who were
part of their assigned “pull-out” instructional load within the school. At Jaguar, since the ESL teachers worked by
grade-level groupings, this could mean that they had 2-3 additional classrooms
they worked with as they brought children out for instruction in the ESL
classroom setting. In describing specifically their collaborative efforts, the
ESL teachers developed a positive stance toward co-teaching, and were enthused
by the development of strong relationships with a mainstream teacher,
relationships that went beyond the typical fast-paced on-the-fly consultations
that typify contact between mainstream and ESL teachers. They described a delicate balance in offering
their ESL expertise, respecting the prior knowledge and experience of veteran
teachers while at the same time building professional relationships with them.
“This is the part of team teaching that gets
interesting, as we negotiate between ideologies, comfort levels, and possible
pressure from other teachers at the grade level to have some sort of uniform
outcomes, whether it be real or perceived.”
The ESL teachers
on the team were in the unique position to be reaching ELLs through both the
collaborative process as well as the traditional pull-out model – to observe
their practice in two very different professional and contextual situations.
The ESL teachers
reported that they began to focus more on language objectives, and that they
began to specifically align their work with that of the classroom teacher. One of the benefits of such collaboration is
the fact that both instructors plan and conduct instruction that reinforces,
complements, and extends each other’s efforts.
ESL teachers reported that they were specific and direct in communicating
language objectives with their students.
Interestingly, working with a mainstream teacher has made them better
pull-out teachers: they describe
themselves as more familiar with the content, rhythm, and themes of the
mainstream classroom. They recognize the
challenge of building relationships with complete classrooms, rather than
working with small groups of students typical of traditional ESL instructional
practice. A telling comment by an ESL
teacher describes the dual-edged sword of the new directions taken:
“Having
once been the only ESL teacher in my building with a small little room and 40
pull-out students, I am amazed at how far we have come. Some days I miss the autonomy and solitude of
closing my door, doing my own thing and letting the classroom teachers worry
about content curriculum. I do not,
however, miss the limited progress my students made, or the disconnect between
myself and the rest of the staff. I love
getting to know my students in their own classrooms, in a community setting. I really enjoy teaching academic content and
sharing their excitement as they learn about the world around them. I feel that my students are making greater
progress in an inclusion setting.”
Paraprofessional
The
paraprofessional on this team (and, as it turns out, on each of the teams)
found that consistent and challenging work with a team of individuals had a
profound impact on their roles as well as on their feelings about their
work. The paraprofessional became a team
member in a meaningful way – she moved beyond a role as a peripheral staff
member in her school to a more integrated position. The paraprofessional at Jaguar became an
expert in her own right, regarding culture and language, and was able to share
knowledge and insight over the course of the project. She facilitated communication with families
in new and creative ways, ways that served to bring communities and school
personnel together.
Speech Clinician
Jaguar Elementary
was fortunate to have a speech clinician on its team, one who was committed to
learning about English language learners in order to improve her work with
them. Through her work with TEAM UP, she focused on informing herself, then
began to inform others within the school about the complexity of making
decisions regarding language learning and learning disabilities. She found ways
to initiate more collaborative endeavors with mainstream teachers within her
school, discussing the type of classroom material for ELLs that could help
reinforce content through speech instruction focused on language needs. It is important to note that speech
clinicians often have much wider contact with other district personnel in
special education. For this individual,
it was an opportunity to share her newfound knowledge and perspectives beyond
the school setting.
2. What kinds of
individual changes in practice as well as professional changes have occurred
for each of the participating team members?
Mainstream
Teachers
The mainstream
teachers, in reflecting on their orientation toward ESL instruction prior to
working with the TEAM UP project, reported being happy to have ELL students
removed from the classroom for ESL pullout.
Collaborative experiences changed their perspectives, resulting in their working to implement language
objectives with a lesson-planning framework.
Their readings and discussions about the complexity of language learning
helped them to realize the implications of the distinction between social and
academic language. They reported
increased knowledge concerning the cultural backgrounds of students, and
described themselves as using more effective instructional strategies to
increase comprehension (acting, drawing, pictures, songs, movement, visuals,
etc.). They recognized the value of
thematic instruction and the ways in which it builds, reinforces, and sustains
both language learning and academic content learning. At the same time, they became increasingly
aware of the conflict between grade level material and what ELLs can do when
they are still developing skills in both oral and written language. The grade-level mainstream teachers reported
a more nuanced appreciation for alternative assessment, and report recognizing
the value of ongoing formative as well as summative assessment. Comments in their final written reflections
were illustrative of changes in both perspective and attitude, as they began to
view themselves as learners as well as teachers.
“I’ve
become more purposeful in looking [not only] at what I teach, but also at the
language in what I teach.”
“I
have learned to take a step back and think about what prior knowledge students
need to have in order to be successful in a unit or lesson. I have learned how important it is to make
lessons as visual as possible and that all students benefit from it. I have learned that all assessment doesn’t
have to take place at the end of each unit and doesn’t have to be a paper
pencil test. I have learned that
strategies that benefit ELL learners benefit not only students in poverty, but
also white middle class students. I have
learned that honoring students’ cultures and backgrounds adds to a classroom
community. I have learned that having
differences in race, culture, socioeconomic status and religion is beneficial
to all students and that they can have meaningful discussions about those very
topics.”
ESL Teachers
ESL teachers
offered unique insight into this process of collaboration to better serve
English language learners. They became
more focused on academic language objectives, and became more confident in
their role as language specialists. As a
result, they were less peripheral to the instructional process, offering
experience, insight, ideas to the team process.
Team members came to rely on them for their experience with English
Language Learners and their communities.
The ESL teachers developed stronger identities as leaders and over the
course of the two years were able to exert influence on administrative and
structural decisions such as schedules, clustering, and instructional options.
Yet the role of
the ESL teacher requires stepping delicately.
They reported doing more of the adjusting, as they were the teachers
going “in” to other classrooms, entering someone else’s territory, separate and
unique classroom cultures. They often reported
on the “chameleon-like” nature of their work, having to adjust to the unique
and varied personalities inherent in an elementary teaching culture. ESL staff at a school are in a position to
see their learners over a long period of time witnessing both their triumphs
and their struggles. ESL staff at Jaguar
appreciated the added opportunity to see the richness of their students’
learning experiences when they were collaborative instructors with the
mainstream teacher.
As they reported
in their writing, the ESL teachers developed individual areas of interest
within education: writing, brain-based
learning, white privilege, family literacy development, culture. They pursued these interests when choosing
readings or finding a “niche” for themselves within their team. Just
as the grade-level teachers began to attend to language, the ESL teachers began
to be mindful of content. They used
content material in their teaching and realigned their work to address content
standards as well as language standards.
The increased focus on content helped them to understand that
non-fiction material is key in building prior knowledge with ELL students. Finally, the ESL teachers extended their
professional conversations beyond their buildings to educators within and
beyond their districts. They were asked
to consult with other teachers in their district through district in-service,
and presented their efforts at state-wide professional conferences.
Paraprofessional
The
paraprofessional on the Jaguar team reported experiences very similar to the
paraprofessionals on each of the other teams in the cohort. As a Somali speaker of English as a second
language, she often reflected on her own language learning experience, relating
it to what she saw happening with her students.
The native English-speaking paraprofessionals became aware of the
nuances of immigrant and refugee life as they began to read and explore with
their team members the strengths and challenges of adaptation to a new land and
the school experience.
The
paraprofessionals acquired a professional vocabulary with respect to language
learning and education, and as their experiences grew, they reported feeling an
increased comfort level when speaking in both small and large groups. The bilingual paraprofessionals felt freer to
use their first language in classrooms with students, and reported being
involved in classroom activities in a more systematic, purposeful way. Information that seemed directed to the
classroom teachers or the ESL teachers, we found, often found its way, or
“trickled down” to the paraprofessionals.
They reported feeling more
respected by staff, and we noted definite personal as well as professional
growth throughout the term of the project.
Speech Clinician
The role of the special
educator, in this case the speech clinician, in the team effort was one that we
could not have predicted. As she
continued to be exposed to new knowledge about ELL students, she reported that
she was now realizing the fundamental differences between language difference
and language disorder. Along with the
paraprofessional, the speech clinician was present for each and every
discussion that involved “big picture” issues such as assessment and placement,
as well as the micro aspects of classroom instruction. Her knowledge of the curriculum within
particular grade levels grew, and she used mainstream curriculum to inform her
own “pull out” work with students.
Information about and resources on specific cultures resulted, in this
case, in the speech clinician integrating
multicultural material and Spanish language material into her own work,
generally that of diagnosis and remediation of language difficulties. She changed some referral forms to better
address students’ needs, and cautioned mainstream teachers to look for other
interventions for ELL students. Most
notably, she took it upon herself to reach beyond her team and her work at
Jaguar Elementary. In conversations with
other individuals through established connections in the community (family
members, minister, and school board members) she tried to correct misinformation about language learners. Her
strong belief in continuing to learn as a professional was reflected in the
following quote:
“When
we make our lesson plans, we should also think ‘What students can I learn more
about today?’ Only when we continue to
educate ourselves will we really continue to educate the students we work with
every day.”
3. What
bureaucratic or administrative features enhance or impede professional
relationships and/or collaboration?
The collaborative
process does not occur in a vacuum.
Even when both the opportunity for and the intent of individuals to
establish collaborative practice are in place, there are often several factors
that are likely to affect the outcome.
What can enhance opportunities for educators to development
relationships around their teaching? Our
work with the elementary school teams has made one thing very clear: a supportive, enthusiastic principal, with
strong curricular knowledge, is at the heart of the process. It also helps, as it did in the case of
Jaguar, to have a principal who possesses a competitive fire – a desire to push
her staff to new efforts, and to have her school represented well within the
district. The team had the ear of their
principal, and she was in attendance at several of the project course
workshops, wanting to inform herself of the issues and options for working with
English language learners. The school
district, in this case, was supportive and tolerant of grass-roots change, and
the team took a proactive stance in inviting key district players to
meetings. Rather than waiting to be led,
the team offered professional development to administrators within the district,
and took advantage of a district-level structure in place for specialists to
meet – ESL, Special Educators, for example.
This opened doors for collaboration and cross-fertilization. Clearly the Jaguar team had an optimal
environment in which to move in new directions – an energized, committed team,
a proactive principal, district interest, and three ESL teachers who were
leaders.
But where did they struggle? What were issues that they faced over the
course of the two years that make their personal professional development
efforts more difficult and their school action plan tough to implement? Team
members noted that having the ear of the principal was indeed a double-edged
sword. They reported being perceived by
their colleagues as among the “chosen few” within the school. The structure and model of this professional
development project, one that works with a small critical core of professionals
for an intensive time period, was new to them and other staff needed to accept
both the premise and the practice that resulted from such efforts.
In the
egalitarian culture of elementary schools, any singling out of individuals or
groups is often seen as threatening (Walker, Edstam, & Stone, 2006). The elementary school culture generally
reflects the desire for an equal division of resources -- students, materials,
release experiences. An in-service
opportunity offered to a select group was not always met with open arms. Staff resistance to change was
evident, even at a school such as Jaguar. Individual teachers resisted hearing
about new efforts developed by their colleagues, and school-wide changes
suggested by the team in terms of structure or instructional/assessment
practice were sometimes met with resistance.
Team members continued to report on a tendency for staff to focus on the
English language learner as the source of the problem.
Time is always a
challenge. The lack of it needs little
amplification in the world of education, as teachers are unanimous is
describing it as a major impediment to achieving their goals. The mainstream teachers, ESL teachers,
paraprofessional, and speech clinician on this team were no different. To a person they valued the time provided by
the project, which, through funding of substitute teachers on a regular basis,
allowed for the teachers to have extended opportunities to work together to
change practice.
The structure of
the elementary school brought about several challenges for professional
development and change in practice, as blocks of instructional time for
different specialists (art, P/E, music) often dictated school schedules and the
windows of opportunity available for collaborative practice. Difficult conversations had to take place
about whose needs were really taking precedence - teachers’ or students’?
Answers usually came only when the staff as a whole was willing to ‘think
outside the box’ and use creative and innovative ways to manage both time and
structure.
Finally, as is so
often discussed when instructional practice for ELL students is examined, the
large shadow of testing is always present.
It impacts planning, scheduling, instruction, curriculum, general school
culture, and the theme of testing and tests was often evident in the teachers’
writing about their work. So often the
Jaguar team talked about the ways in which testing drove curriculum and
schedules, affected instructional time, had a negative impact on getting to the
real questions of what English Language Learners knew and could accomplish at
school. NCLB policies had bearing on
every instructional and curricular decision.
CONCLUSION
Preparing teachers to work effectively with
English language learners is part of the national teacher education
agenda. Professional development for
practicing teachers, “in-service education,” is now believed to be most
effective when it combines a wide range of continuous, collaborative
experiences that provide for an exploration of issues together with
opportunities for communication that address specific problems within a school. Research has shown that an inquiry-based
model of staff development sets the stage for teachers being part of a learning
community (DuFour & Eaker, 1998;
Feimer-Nemser, 2001; Hopkins, 1987; Leiberman, 1986; York-Barr, Ghere, &
Sommerness, 2007). Several components characterize effective staff development
(Claire, 1995; Tellez & Waxman, 2006; Walker, Edstam & Stone, 2006,
2007) when the goal is to improve learning outcomes for English language
learners:
Educators at Jaguar Elementary reported great
satisfaction at the challenge and the professional growth they experienced as a
result of working toward common goals with a small group of colleagues over a
period of two years. They read, wrote,
discussed, and deliberated their ideas and their perspectives. Best of all, they created a learning
community of their own. They reported a
sense of both personal growth and professional efficacy. The components noted above
were all an integral part of their staff development experience, occurring
within the context of their own elementary school where they practiced their
craft with real learners, in actual classrooms.
Though no longer ‘officially’ participating in the TEAM
UP teacher development project, the individuals who took part in this
professional development experience are still active leaders within their
school and within their district. They continue to serve as ELL advocates in
their different role group capacities and are participating in other
school-based professional learning communities that reflect what we know is
best practice for professional development. These professionals thus pass on
the wisdom of their experience and what they have learned. As teacher educators, we feel privileged to
have worked with them.
AUTHORS
Tina Scott Edstam, Ph.D. is the grant
coordinator of a professional development project at the University of
Minnesota, focusing on long-term collaborative processes for serving English
language learners. Her areas of interest include teacher professionalism, ESL
practices and policies in the public schools, and the education of mainstream
teachers about ESL issues.
Constance L. Walker, Ph.D. is
a faculty member in Second Languages and Cultures Education at the
University of Minnesota. Her interests lie in the experience of teachers who
work with culturally and linguistically diverse populations, and the issues of
school policy and practices where second language learners are concerned.
REFERENCES
Clair, N. (1995).
Mainstream classroom teachers and ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 189-196.
Clark, C. (2001). Talking
shop: Authentic conversations and teacher learning. New York: Teachers College.
Darling-Hammond, L., &
Sykes, D. (Eds.) (1999). Teaching as the
learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc.
DuFour, R. & Berkey,
T. (1995). The principal as staff developer. Journal of Staff Development, 16(4), 2-6.
DuFour, R. & Eaker, R.
(1998). Professional learning communities
at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
ELL student enrollment in
rural districts increasing at much faster rate than non-rural districts. (2006,
November). Rural Policy Matters, 8(11).
Feimer-Nemser, S. (2001).
From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain
teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6),
1013-1055.
Gandara, P.,
Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language learners: A survey of
California teachers’ challenges, experiences, and professional development
needs. Santa Cruz, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education, The Center
for the Future of Teaching and Learning, and U.C. Linguistic Minority Research
Center.
Garet, M., Porter, A.,
Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes professional
development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4),
915–945.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore,
R., & Stigler, J. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession. Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3-15.
Hopkins, D. (1987). Teacher
research as a basis for staff development.
In M. Wideen & I. Andrews (Eds.) Staff development for school
improvement (pp. 111-128). New York:
Falmer Press.
Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of
teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lieberman, A. (1986).
Collaborative work. Educational leadership, 43, 4-8.
Lucas,
T., & Grinberg, J. (2007). Responding to the linguistic reality of
mainstream classrooms: Preparing all teachers to teach English language
learners. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman Nemser, J. McIntyre, & J. Demmer
(Eds.) Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in
changing contexts (3rd Edition) (pp. 606-636). New York: Routledge/Taylor &
Francis with ATE.
National Center for
Education Statistics. (2002). The condition of education 2002. Contexts of
elementary and secondary education: Indicator 33: Participation in professional
development. Retrieved September 13, 2006 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_3/3_3/q3-3.asp.
National Clearinghouse for English
Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for
Limited English Proficient Students. (2006). The growing
numbers of limited English proficient students. U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved December 15, 2008 from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/4/GrowingLEP_0506.pdf
Porter, K. & Soper, S.
(2003). Closing the achievement gap: Urban schools. CSRConnection. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for
Comprehensive School Reform.
Sparks, D. & Hirsch,
S. (1997). A new vision for staff
development. Arlington, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Tellez, K. & Waxman,
H. (2006). (Eds.) Preparing quality educators
for English Language Learners. Research,
policies, and practices. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Walker, C., Edstam, T.
& Stone, K. (2006). Long-term
Collaborative Staff Development to Better Serve English Language Learners. American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA, April 7-11.
Walker, C., Edstam, T.
& Stone, K. (2007). Two Years, Three
Kinds of Educators, and Four Schools:
Improving Education for English Language Learners. American Educational Research Association,
Chicago, IL, April 9-13.
Walker, A., Shafer, J.,
& Iiams, M. (2004). “Not in my classroom”: Teacher attitudes towards
English language learners in the mainstream classroom. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2(1), 130-160.
York-Barr, J., Ghere, G.,
& Sommerness, J. (2007). Collaborative teaching to increase ELL student
learning. Journal of Education for
Students Placed at Risk, 12(3),
301-335.
© MinneWITESOL Journal
www.minnewitesoljournal.org Volume 26, 2009