Coaching Teachers in Bilingual and Dual-Language Classrooms. Alexandra Guilamo
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. It’s a struggle that usually ends with stressed teachers due 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