Scaffolded Content Instruction - Letter - CLDE 5820

.docx

School

University of Colorado, Denver *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

5820

Subject

English

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by marisol321

Dear Dr. Fox, Frederick High School is blessed with a staff full of dedicated, knowledgeable, and caring staff. While all staff work diligently to help all students succeed, we are all aware that students who speak English as a second language have some additional difficulties and often struggle academically, despite a staff that is committed to helping each student achieve their personal best. Based on information from Sugarman (2018), Frederick High School follows an English only model with some pull-out supports and occasional push-un supports for our multilingual students. The benefits of this system is that multilingual students are not isolated, and the school should have an ELL expert who can assist students on a more individualized basis during pull- out classes, or push-in to co-taught classes to serve students. Students focus on English language acquisition, and learning English is an asset both inside and outside the classroom The unfortunate side of the English Only model is that students may have to neglect their home / heart language in order to focus on their English acquisition. This sometimes sends the message to students and parents that their home language, and therefore their culture, is less desirable and less valuable. I personally I have seen the advantages of a dual-immersion program, and while I wish all multilingual students had access to such a program, I also realize that that is not realistic for our relatively small population of multilingual students Many educators believe that for academic achievement as well as for social-emotional growth, multilingual students are able to be mainstreamed with their English speaking peers during class time. Although we cannot make FHS a dual immersion school, many teachers are doing anything and everything they can think of to support these multilingual learners, myself included. “Improving access to mainstream academic content courses is one strategy to ensure [multilingual students] can accumulate sufficient credits to graduate and gain the knowledge and skills to succeed in life after high school” (Sugarman, 2018, p. 8). Content area teachers at Frederick High are working diligently to do just that – improve access, but our efforts have not brought about the desired results. Many high school multilingual students are not Long-Term English Learners (LTEL), and will graduate or drop out before they can shake the ELL label. LTEL students may feel like they are not learning, that there is no hope, and there is no end in sight. The problematic factors in testing that may fail to correctly identify what and how much students are learning, and the socially constructed grouping and labels can be an educational barrier. This seems like an obvious idea and pattern that high school teachers see often; however, qualitatively and anecdotally, LTEL students are also more likely to face obstacles other than just acquiring English which will impact their academic growth and achievement. The ELL label itself and the cycle of ACCESS testing itself may be perceived as an obstacle and may not address root causes that keep LTEL’s from catching up with and keeping up with their fluent-English peers (Brooks, 2019, p. 91). The students who cycle through year after year of ACCESS testing and have plateaued in their diagnostic and prescriptive identification as English Learners after three to five years, but who fail to test out may deal with labels and an EL testing cycle that can be disheartening and discouraging. Despite the accommodations, modifications, translations, and SIOP lessons, LTEL students have at Frederick High continue to plateau in their English language acquisition, which is why many

struggle to reach academic benchmarks. Students are not progressing as well as we would like – but not because they are lazy and not because teachers don’t care. Our LTEL students are some of our most vulnerable students, and I have seen too many LTEL students drop out. I believe one of the biggest impediments to the success of multilingual students’ generally, and LTEL’s specifically, is communication among staff. ACCESS scores allow teachers who have WIDA training and background to understand which modifications might be most beneficial for each student as well as help identify what limitations they have. The ELL teachers may have this information on each student on their case load, but that information is never communicated to content area teachers. If we are able to, content teachers may be able to decode the ACCESS scores, but it is difficult if not impossible to get to know each multilingual student in our classes and analyze their ACCESS reports, evaluate their linguistic and academic needs, decipher their WIDA level, peruse the SIOP lessons and various suggested modifications, and come up with an individualized plan. And yet, this is exactly what needs to be done to support these students. Instead of forcing content area teachers to attempt to make modifications for students using trial and error, trying one strategy and then reevaluating and trying another, why not identify which scaffolds best suit each student’s needs? The good news is, our ELL teachers have done, or should have done, all of this work already. They have small group classes, and one-on-one interactions with students on their case load. Teachers with CLDE certifications understand the raw scores and the scale scores, can identify each student’s proficiency level, and evaluate which modifications are necessary. They can identify what the WIDA standards dictate about a student’s current proficiency levels, and which domains teachers should focus on. They should have a strong understanding of the scaffolds needed to help students reach the next level of academic performance. Only the ELL teachers monitor student progress by comparing current and previous test scores, analyze student performance in the classroom, and plan different methods of scaffolding language learning. I am thankful for all the work our ELL staff does with our multilingual learners, but that information is rarely if ever communicated to content teachers. One of the many reasons our students on IEP’s have been so successful is that their needs and modifications are clearly documented and communicated. The student and their parents sit down with their case manager, and go through their test scores, their academic performance, ad their goal and participate in coming up with a plan. Students, parents, and an expert educator familiar with the student, discuss what the student needs and how best to support them. Each person’s responsibilities are clearly defined. Most high school students rightly take on the role of asking their teachers when they need extended time or communicating a need for modifications. Parents monitor students’ grades and are asked to communicate with teachers. The case manager checks in with students’ progress and provide additional supports in pull-out classes as needed. Classroom teachers provide the modifications and scaffolds to ensure students are being challenged and achieve academic growth while also making sure the learning is not beyond their reach or abilities. The IEPs have been generally successful, and Frederick High has seen more students coming off their IEP plans and testing out of their SPED needs. What if this same process could be applied to our students who are flagged as ELL. Each student and their parent would understand their language proficiencies, have a say in which scaffolds are most beneficial, and be guided through the process by the ELL teacher, who would

then communicate those needs to the content area teachers, document their progress, and make adjustments to the plan as needed. Such a plan could be uniformly implemented across all of a student’s classroom teachers, provide for parents and students to have input, and clarify students goals and needs clearly to content teachers. A plan for our young, multilingual scholars could be similar to the IEP plans we use now. The ELL teacher would review data every year, make modifications, and discuss with students are parents their progress and goals. Teachers wouldn’t have to guess at which scaffolds the student needs. Struggling and underachieving students would have more clarity about what they need to focus on in order to test out, have more of a say in communicating their real-world goals, and would be able to address potential obstacles both inside and outside the classroom. Educators need to leverage students’ language abilities to foster growth in two or more languages. An ELL plan would give FHS the opportunity to empower students and encourage their continued development in their first language. “This does not mean ignoring the fact that students are bilingual and their bilingualism in certain situations will provide unique affordances or difficulties. However, it means recognizing students as individuals with multifaceted linguistic abilities” (Brooks, 2019, p. 93). Student’s language goals in English and Spanish could also be a documented part of their plan, and this would serve students who have goals of achieving the SVVSD seal of biliteracy. This is most important for our LTEL students because part of their ELL plan could incorporate language growth goals in English as well as their home / heart language, make it clear to students what they need to do in order to test out of ELL, and help students have some say in how to utilize their strengths in achieving academic and language benchmarks. We could call it an ILLP (Individualized Language Learning Plan), and we wouldn’t even have to change much to accomplish creating an ILLP for each multilingual student. ELL teachers already have all of the multilingual students identified as ELL’s on a caseload and meet with the students either in a pull-out class time or during ELL Extension, ELL class support, or ELL unit recovery. They could leverage that time to create, update, and modify students ILLP’s. We could communicate ILLP’s for each student in Infinite Campus, just like we do for IEPs, and teachers could report back when the plan is reviewed annually about a student’s progress. Like an IEP, and ILLP could be reviewed and renewed each year, and that annual review could be done after ACCESS scores are available. ILLPs would allow all content area teachers to capitalize on the knowledge and expertise of ELL teachers in a way that we have never done before. ILLPs would benefit both teachers and students, and ensure we are doing everything we can to help these students engaged in deep, meaningful, but accessible learning. I believe this would empower all multilingual students, but - at the high school level - the students who need it most are LTEL’s, who likely have the most to say and the most information about what they want and what they need to be successful. FHS has never had a documented, consistent, systemic approach to involving multilingual students in the modification and scaffolding needs process, and ELL teachers have never communicated language needs and limitations to all teachers before. ILLPs could improve standardized test scores, decrease F rates among our minority students, and improve graduation rates for some of our most vulnerable young scholars. More importantly, an

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help