5 describes the actions that both teacher and coach need to take prior to the observation to minimize the impact of language on the quality of evidence the observer is able to collect. Chapter 6 explains the observation process for coaches. This process is the heart of the book because it encompasses the most important and difficult work that a coach must do. Bilingual and dual-language classrooms are dynamic environments. They require the coach to think creatively, recognize creativity, and be able to trust his or her own judgment, yet remain open to new ideas and other perspectives. In order to generate value from this process, coaches must be able to articulate what they observe and share their insights about complex behaviors and interactions. Chapter 7 describes the post-observation conference, offering a clear model for coaches that connects the act of gathering accurate evidence from a variety of sources with identifying high-leverage feedback.
The book concludes with two appendices, which take a more detailed look at various program models and offer answers to the most frequently asked questions by coaches and teachers.
When coaches understand the complexities of these classrooms and have the tools to overcome the language barrier, they realize how much they can contribute to teacher and student success. Bilingual and dual-language teachers serve the fastest-growing student demographic in the United States, and they deserve and require these supports. That is the goal of this book—to provide the tools that coaches need to level the playing field in schools. In the end, structuring schools to provide equal access to instructional supports is the only way to make it work for all teachers and transform outcomes for students.
Part 1
Essential Skills for Implementing the Observation and Feedback Cycle
CHAPTER 1
Fair Observations in Bilingual and Dual-Language Classrooms
Many coaches have asked me about the need for a new set of tools that ensures a fair observation and feedback cycle for bilingual and dual-language classrooms. They want to trust the efficacy of the tools at their immediate disposal. Their questions usually sound something like this: “Aren’t the district-adopted observation and evaluation frameworks designed for just that? Don’t they ensure quality of instruction that leads to student achievement? If so, how could using anything else be considered fairer?” When it comes to language learners, the answer is both yes and no. It is not a question of what these frameworks were designed to do. Teacher evaluation frameworks are used by every school to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of teachers against a common definition of good teaching. These frameworks are used by building administrators and coaches not only for evaluating teacher quality, but to guide coaches in the capacity-building efforts with teachers, as well.
Instead, it is more a question of how to get the right evidence during an observation. The important point to understand is that if we are to have fair observations in bilingual and dual-language classrooms, we must have clear practices in place for observing effectively and accurately, regardless of the school- or districtwide adopted teacher evaluation framework.
However, after reviewing the statewide evaluation frameworks and teacher evaluation rubrics adopted by districts across the United States, it became abundantly clear that these frameworks lack clarity in how to gather data when observing, especially when the observation is in another language, despite the vast number of programs that exist (Danielson, 2011, 2013; Marshall, 2013; Marzano, 2001b).
The failure to acknowledge the uniqueness of bilingual and dual-language classrooms creates huge challenges for the observing coach and the teachers they observe alike (Higher Educators in Linguistically Diverse Education, 2015). Without processes for the accurate identification of best practice in bilingual and dual-language settings and for collection of evidence from lessons delivered in a language that the coach does not speak, observations will struggle to be fair and effective at improving student outcomes. Let’s begin by defining what fair means in the observation and feedback cycle.
A Definition of Fair
In order to establish best practices, we need to establish a shared definition of fair observation and what it means for our practice. Fair means honest and bias-free. Fair means embracing actions and systems that ensure justice for everyone affected. Most important, to be fair requires a legitimate approach with clearly defined rules or conditions. Observations must credibly put student learning across language, culture, and content at the center of the process.
This may or may not be the definition many think of for fair, but any definition that fails to reach the level of social justice, equity, and access is simply not good enough. So, what does this mean for the process of observing in the language learning classroom? It means that we need more useful tools to minimize biases that stem from what we expect to see in monolingual classrooms. Unfortunately, most of the current observation and evaluation frameworks don’t contain these tools, which make them only fairish.
The Challenges of Current Teacher Evaluation Frameworks
Many teacher observation and evaluation frameworks are valuable tools in defining the ingredients of effective teaching, but they do not recognize the strengths and challenges of English learners (ELs) (Fenner, Kozik, & Cooper, 2014). None require teachers to have high levels of proficiency in a language other than English. None require teachers to demonstrate how they use their knowledge or skills to analyze academic language proficiency so they can differentiate and adapt their instruction to ensure that their students access grade-level learning. In fact, none identify the evidence-based practices that embody the most effective bilingual and dual-language classrooms.
More concerning is the number of assumptions about highly effective content, curriculum, and tools that are apparent in most of the observation protocols—assumptions that often conflict with language learner needs. Assumptions may include but are not limited to the following.
• Word walls that are organized by the alphabet are beneficial.
• Unit tests accurately assess content learning rather than language proficiency even for emergent bilinguals.
• Only one language will be used by students at all times during the lesson.
Take, for example, one assumption that frustrates primary teachers who leverage Spanish literacy as part of their programs. No framework defines what early Spanish literacy content, instruction, outcomes, and resources highly effective teachers should use to develop early literacy, but many educators assume the best resources to use are those based on research that supports systematic, synthetic phonics instruction (Slavin, Lake, Chambers, Cheung, & Davis, 2009). Naturally, these teachers expect to see content that includes phonics, effective phonics methods, assessments that measure students’ progress with phonics skills, and lots of phonics-based resources that they should use with fidelity.
The problem isn’t the strategic alignment that reflects highly effective teaching and learning. The problem is the assumption that phonics is necessary for all students. Systematic, synthetic phonics instruction is not necessary for early Spanish literacy. The sequence of letter sounds and emphasis of building on those sounds to create English words tend to confuse students and delay the most effective research-based methods for Spanish literacy. So, what happens to teachers who could accelerate early literacy in Spanish but are mandated to use English phonics, English phonics–based assessments, and phonics-based resources with fidelity? It’s like trying to be a vegetarian while eating pork; it’s counterproductive.
