to the pressure following the assumed definition of highly effective practice, and it ends with students not having their needs met.
Even coaches who do not carry these common assumptions, or who are able to see possibilities beyond them, are likely to make many faulty inferences during observations in bilingual and dual-language classrooms. Why are these faulty inferences so likely? When coaches are unable to recognize the unique ingredients of quality bilingual and dual-language instruction and the complex needs of bilingual and dual-language students, there’s a high probability that coaches will jump to conclusions about parts of the observation and add meanings to lessons that do not exist, ending with inaccurate understandings of the teaching and learning that occurred. These are hardly conditions for fairness.
A fair observation process should help observers look for the right ingredients across a range of program models:
The literature suggests the importance of the following variables: (a) which language of instruction is used, and for what content (Heras, 1994); (b) how the first and second languages may be used together (Heras, 1994); (c) how students are physically grouped for instruction (Strong, 1986), (d) what types of learning activities occur, and with what opportunity for student language use (Berducci, 1993), and (e) how listening, speaking, writing and reading communication modes are utilized for language learning (Krashen & Biber, 1988). (Bruce, et al., 1997, p. 24)
Even though these variables address essential ingredients in bilingual and dual-language classrooms, they are absent from traditional teacher evaluation frameworks. Teacher evaluation frameworks are even less helpful when coaches don’t fully understand the language of instruction (a reality for the majority of coaches in bilingual and dual-language programs). In these cases, the probability of coaches making inferences that lead to inaccurate judgments is even higher. The probability increases because listening to the words that teachers say, questions they ask and print and post around the room, and other instances of language use, is ingrained in what most coaches do every day. Even for the most experienced coaches, it is almost impossible to have an honest and fair observation and feedback cycle with so much room for error.
The preceding issues represent significant barriers to creating a fair system. Observation frameworks are supposed to improve student learning through clear, defined expectations and practices. Yet this formula rarely accounts for any of the ingredients that are defined as most effective for bilingual and dual-language students. According to Jennifer F. Samson and Brian A. Collins (2012), “It seems reasonable that when teachers receive clearly articulated, consistent expectations on how best to work with ELLs as part of their preparation, certification, and evaluation, the outcomes for their ELL students will reflect this increased emphasis” (p. 20).
That means that for these frameworks to work, coaches need a more explicit, defined, and legitimate process for how to support teachers’ capacity to best work with students, regardless of whether they fully know the language of instruction. It is a shift that is necessary for coaches to honestly and consistently identify and support expectations and variables that improve student learning. Only then can coaches help bilingual and dual-language teachers navigate their individual “competencies or confusions,” “strengths or weaknesses,” “strategies missed or used,” and “evidence of what … [students] … understand,” in service of student success (Andrade, Basurto, Clay, Ruiz, & Escamilla, 1996, p. 7). And when coaches are able to navigate the strengths and challenges of classroom teachers and match bilingual and dual-language teachers with the professional development necessary for success, we see amazing growth for students (Fenner et al., 2014).
The observation and feedback cycle and tools presented in this book provide clear guidance to coaches for how to fairly observe a lesson, especially when they don’t understand the language. I do not aim to replace adopted teacher evaluation frameworks. Instead, I present an observation and feedback cycle that is a fair and just means of using such frameworks to improve student learning. When schools use this observation and feedback cycle in concert with teacher evaluation frameworks, they provide a level of neutrality, consistency, and accuracy that supports effective teachers of ELs (Fenner et al., 2014).
The Role of Advocacy in Coaching
One of the most basic mindsets that coaches can transfer from their prior experience is the idea that they must work to improve teacher practice while also advocating to overcome challenges that may stand in the way of teacher effectiveness. Many challenges stand in the way of bilingual and dual-language teachers’ ability to be most effective. These challenges include:
• Being used as interpreters and translators rather than having time to plan high-quality instruction
• Receiving no curriculum materials in the language of instruction
• Teaching double the standards and learning targets while being expected to maintain the same pace as monolingual teachers
• Receiving no training in the pedagogy, practices, and strategies that meet the needs of language learners
• Having no process to distinguish struggling or honors-level language learners from the language-learning process
• Being required to use English-only data to determine student progress, needs, and teacher evaluation
Sadly, I could add many more items to this list. This status quo would seem appalling if we were discussing an international baccalaureate (IB) program or gifted classroom. Yet schools still expect EL, DL, and TBE teachers to reach the same level of growth and success with their students despite having fewer opportunities, fewer resources, and fewer tools for success. That’s why coaches must be powerful advocates and allies in helping to overcome these challenges and barriers.
This is where coaches from outside the EL, DL, and TBE program have the advantage. It’s easier to identify inequities when there’s a more equitable reference point. These coaches know the many systems, infrastructures, and supports their schools have to ensure access, equity, and dignity in other programs. Structures like professional development plans, cohesive and viable curricula, collaborative planning, feedback, and use of valid data to drive decision-making processes exist to strengthen the ability to achieve success. Coaches must take action to ensure that the lack of these tools doesn’t undermine this success for bilingual and dual-language teachers and students they work with. As coaches provide feedback to teachers, it is critical that they use their monolingual reference point as a sort of check and balance. They might ask themselves, “What would we do if this were happening outside of this program?”
For example, during post-observation conversations, coaches might find themselves discussing with teachers the lack of scaffolds to improve student engagement and learning. In digging deeper into the issue, a coach learns that the teacher didn’t have time to create those scaffolds because she spends about eight hours every week translating the curriculum she received into the language other than English (LOTE), even though she has been told that she must teach that content in English. The coach must address this challenge because students learning another language need scaffolds to access the curriculum. Fair and effective coaches will pause to check their monolingual reference point. Would we ask monolingual teachers to spend eight hours translating their districtwide curriculum? Clearly we would not. Therefore, teachers need coaches who see these issues as matters beyond a teacher’s control and who will work on teachers’ behalf to get rid of those obstacles (Kotter, 2012).
Data Gathering
In the 1980s, schools used open-ended visits and checklists as their methods for gathering observation data. These tools had various components from state to state and provided very little guidance for what to do during observation to objectively determine whether components were strengths or weaknesses. But with time, these tools changed. From the late 1990s to early 2000s, a number of
