CONVERSATIONS ABOUT INCLUSION: CONNECTING MAINSTREAM AND ESL
Lisa M. Bolt Simons
ABSTRACT
In the past few years, inclusion or collaboration has become the English as a second Language (ESL) model used by several schools and districts, including the St. Paul Public Schools, which has increasingly closed the achievement gap for its ESL population. Though there are drawbacks and potential problems with this model, the author and her colleagues have found its application successful in their elementary school. Examples of how inclusion works in various elementary classroom settings end the report. The following is based on a presentation given by the author and her co-worker, Becky (Bonertz) Gibson, at the 2006 MinneTESOL Conference, as well as at a 2007 meeting for the University of Minnesota’s TEAM UP (Teaching English Language Learners Action Model to Unite Professionals) development program.
INTRODUCTION
According to the Minnesota Department of Education, there are several ESL programs: Sheltered English Instruction, Structured English Immersion, Specifically Designed Academic Instruction delivered in English (SDAIE), Content-based ESL, and Pull-out (2005). Inclusion, one of several program models, could be considered a blend of all of the above.
Though comprehensive studies by Thomas & Collier (1997; 2002) have shown that “two-way” (dual language) bilingual education programs have the highest levels of long-term academic achievement and fewest dropouts and whose students outperform those who only speak one language, the limited resources and shortage of bilingual teachers in our district do not allow for such a program model. Thomas & Collier write that if a school must use all-English instruction, it is best to teach ESL “through academic content and current approaches to teaching as a more efficacious alternative that helps students develop academically and cognitively to a greater degree” (1997).
In an exemplar paper for North Carolina State University, “Implementing an ESL/Bilingual Inclusion Model,” Christine Ann Gebhardt writes, “Inclusion is a planned philosophy of instruction for ESL students in which the classroom teacher and the ESL teacher work together in one of three 3 distinct ways: co-teaching, consultation, and classroom support” (2003). In other words, it means collaboration that better addresses ESL students’ needs. Elizabeth Platt, in her article, “White Papers: The Inclusion of Limited English-Proficient Students in Florida’s K-12 Content Classrooms,” writes that three expectations must be met for inclusion to be successful: “comprehensible instruction, opportunities for participation and interaction, and an appropriate curriculum” (n.d.). According to a paper through the Bureau of Academic Achievement through Language Acquisition (AALA) at the Florida Department of Education, “Inclusion is a term that is often used to describe the provision of instruction within the conventional/mainstream classroom” (2006). Inclusion is NOT, however, a “sink or swim” theory when no language assistance is given in the mainstream classes. Further, the AALA paper states, “Inclusion is an innovative approach prompted by the goal of full and more meaningful participation of all students in all instructional programs.”
For the purpose of this paper, the author specifies “inclusion” as the name of a program model with “collaboration” as the key component. Though St. Paul Public Schools use “collaboration” more often in regards to a model or pedagogy that addresses ESL student needs, the district has also created and experimented with such specific models as the TESOL Inclusion Program, or TIP.
WHAT DOES INCLUSION LOOK LIKE?
For the past nine years, St. Paul Public Schools has been focusing on “inclusive instructional collaboration models” (H. Bernal, personal communication, June 11, 2008) to replace tracking or pulling out ESL students. In fact, the central office mandates the practice (Zehr, 2006). In an Education Week article, author Mary Ann Zehr writes that “the district has even produced purple buttons that say, ‘Got Collaboration?’” According to Zehr’s article and another published in Minnesota Parent by Simons (2006), ESL students are passing standardized tests at the same rate as native English speakers, which means the district has been making adequate yearly progress for its English language learners (ELLs) under No Child Left Behind.
The following formats of inclusion are adapted from Friend, Burrello, & Burrello (1996). Except for not listing “one teach, one observe” and the “centers” being referred to as “station teaching,” Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie also listed the following variations of inclusion (2007).
1. One teach, one observe
While the classroom or ESL teacher teaches, the other observes oral production, listening skills, behavior, etc. It is important to note that the ESL teacher can teach the whole mainstream classroom. This can also be a time for the mainstream teacher to pull out one of her students and work with that student one-on-one, which can be a rarity otherwise.
2. One teach, one drift
While either the classroom or ESL teacher instructs the class, the other teacher circulates to students, monitors progress, adjusts instruction, and/or provides feedback. There are times, for example, when a teacher is teaching, and the drifting teacher is sitting on the floor next to a group of the neediest children. She can whisper, repeat information, clarify, ask questions, and help generate answers.
3. Centers
This can happen two ways: the ESL students are divided as equally as possible between all center groups, so that one or two are in a group. The ESL teacher then works with one center all week as the students rotate, giving her the opportunity to work with ESL and mainstream students. The second way is when the ESL students are in one group, and the ESL teacher follows the students through each center during the week.
Teachers can plan the centers together, or the ESL teacher can help the mainstream teacher modify the centers for the ESL students.
4. Parallel teaching
This format occurs when both the ESL and mainstream teachers teach the same lesson, content, or skill. This can happen with a small group of ESL students, a pair of students, or one-on-one. In my school, I usually take a small group of students (this past year, the groups were anywhere between four and 17) to another location versus staying in the classroom.
Modifications are apparent with this format. The pace is slower, there is one-on-one support or the total student number is smaller, the visuals are more elaborate, etc. The bottom line is that the focus and objectives are the same as in the mainstream classroom. Each teacher is responsible for planning her own lesson, although the ESL teacher will focus more on language objectives versus the content objectives.
5. Alternative teaching (Push-in or pull-out)
The ESL teacher either works at a separate table with individuals or a small group of ESL students. She pushes them in (stays at a table or corner of the classroom) or pulls them out (goes outside the classroom) to work on a specific concept being taught in the mainstream class. This could be used for pre-teaching and/or reviewing in particular.
6. Co- or team-teaching
This format involves both mainstream and ESL teachers teaching part of the lesson in the same classroom, one after the other, or teaching different skills within the same lesson at the same time. This format can provide a good opportunity to model ESL teaching strategies for the mainstream teacher. It’s also an opportunity for the ESL teacher to observe the mainstream teacher’s strategies.
The class can be divided into two groups with the ESL teacher teaching the ESL students and possibly low-level English speakers, while the mainstream teacher teaches the other students, which may include high-level ESL students. It is important to emphasize that the ESL teacher can instruct low-level English speakers because lesson modifications can help those children. In addition, some higher-level ESL students benefit from staying with equally leveled students versus being put in a low-level group solely because of their ESL label.
THE POSITIVE ASPECTS OF INCLUSION
Based on my experiences and on research, I have found numerous positives of inclusion.
+ Inclusion is true collaboration in the name of growth, progress, and success for ALL students. As Duke & Mabbott state in their article, “An Alternative Model for Novice-Level Elementary ESL Education,” one of the reasons the alternative model was successful when implemented was the fact that “each member of our team was committed, flexible, and willing to change the way things had always been done because of the common goal of providing the best education possible to all students” (2001). Brice, Miller, & Brice write, “Studies (Brice, 2002; Brice, Miller, & Brice, 2006; Figureroa & Hernandez, 2000) have shown that students in ELL classrooms, speech and language or special education classrooms, and general education classrooms all benefit from more lesson planning and co-planning with other school professionals” (2006). Sakash & Rodriguez-Brown (1995) state, “Creating closer collaboration between mainstream and bilingual/ESL teachers in schools with programs that serve limited English proficient (LEP) students is one type of partnership that can result in a shared commitment to systemic school reform leading to higher achievement and greater multicultural understanding in America’s schools.”
+ When inclusion is practiced effectively, ESL students are not missing mainstream content classes, which has become more important with “the nation’s emphasis on standards and accountability” (Reeves, 2006). In fact, with inclusion, there is the awareness of the importance of language in ALL content classes, whether it’s science, history, or math. For example, a student cannot answer the following math problem without knowing the English language: “Erika has 14 cents. Juan has 15 cents. How many cents do they have all together? Who has more? How much more?” With content-based and sheltered instruction, ESL students learn the curriculum through language, not just about the language (Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2006; Krashen, 1991; Reed and Railsback, 2003). Stephen Krashen (1991) writes that teaching subject matter together with teaching language “is very time-efficient; students get both language and subject matter knowledge at the same time.”
+ Inclusion provides many more classroom content connections. This helps “link core academic instruction to the content standards set by the state” (Reed and Railsback, 2003). Inclusion also provides background knowledge. If a class is going to be reading a story about hermit crabs, perhaps the ESL teacher can bring in a live hermit crab and have the students see it and ask questions about it. If bringing in a live animal is not possible, the teacher can at least show the students pictures and talk about the creature, so that when the story is read, the students will already have some knowledge about this animal they might not otherwise know. Inclusion also provides comprehensible input for the students. “Comprehensible input” is when students build upon their understanding of English based on what they already know, while new information is given (Krashen, 2003; Reed and Railsback, 2003). For example, I taught a student from México who came to our school in March of her 1st grade year. The student learned, “Get your pencil(s)” quickly because that phrase was used so often in the mainstream classroom. One day, approximately two months after she had arrived at our school, there was a pencil lying on the floor. I asked the student, “Is that your pencil?” She shook her head and told me whose pencil it was. The student already comprehended “pencil” and was challenged with the question versus a command or statement. There wasn’t an explicit lesson about questions and answers. Instead, this student received more English language input by engaging in authentic dialogue with me.
+ ESL strategies help mainstream teachers develop their teaching skills for ALL students. The mainstream teacher can develop ways to differentiate instruction for ESL and native English speakers when the ESL teacher is not in the classroom. [Editor’s note: See the Dahlman, Hoffman & Brauhn article in this volume for more information about differentiation.] One extremely important note: there are high-level ESL students, just as there are low-level native English speakers. ESL strategies can help teachers reach low-level, native English speakers and develop their language and content-area skills. The past few years, based on my ESL assessments as well as mainstream assessments, I have chosen to work with native English speakers who lack literacy skills. I have also monitored ESL students on my caseload because they are at grade level academically, even if they didn’t pass the oral fluency test.
+ Inclusion can ease the burden of lesson planning for the teachers. Sharing ideas with each other while creating content and language objectives and activities can solidify lessons (Coltrane, 2002). Collaboration can also actuate staff collegiality, connections, and respect (Levine, 2005; Thousand, Villa, & Nevin, 2006).
+ This teaching model allows for more individualized instruction and attention to need (Duke & Mabbott, 2001; Hansen-Thomas, 2008; Thousand, Villa, & Nevin, 2006). In addition, Thousand, Villa, & Nevin write, “With multiple instructors there is increased flexibility in grouping and scheduling, thus making it possible for students to experience less wait time for teacher attention and increased time on task, an important factor documented to increase academic productivity (Kneedler & Hallahan, 1981; Lloyd, 1982; Wheldall & Panagopoulou-Stamatelatou, 1991).”
+ With inclusion, students are not taught in isolation in comparison to exclusive pull-out (Coltrane, 2002; Duke & Mabbott, 2001; Sakash & Rodriguez-Brown, 1995; Thomas & Collier, 2002). In addition, there is little stigma that a student is different from his peers when inclusion and push-in models are used. “‘They don’t feel like outcasts,’” write Duke & Mabbott (2001). A charter school liaison and special-projects coordinator for the St. Paul School District said of her ESL experience in the late 1970s, “‘I remember being pulled out of class all the time—I think it was three times a week. It made me feel like I’m dumb and don’t know anything. Kids think maybe something is wrong with you if you need extra services’” (Zehr, 2006). Moreover, there are more interactions with native English speakers in inclusive classrooms (Duke & Mabbott, 2001; Hawkins, 2001; Platt, Harper, & Mendoza, 2003; Seaman, 2000; Thomas & Collier, 1997).
+ When the ESL teacher attends the students’ conferences, the parents see this as a team effort; plus, the ESL teacher learns exactly how the students are doing in class in every content area. In addition, the ESL teacher and/or a cultural liaison can communicate success or concerns with the parent because interpreters are there; therefore, parent/school communication increases (Duke & Mabbott, 2001; Sakash & Rodriguez-Brown;1995).
+ Inclusion promotes an interest in bilingualism (Platt, Harper, & Mendoza, 2003) or even biliteracy, and it also promotes multiculturalism (DaSilva Iddings, 2005; Simons, 2006). Furthermore, inclusion spreads understanding and awareness of students learning English as another language throughout the school (Duke & Mabbott, 2001).
THE DRAWBACKS OF INCLUSION
No method, ideology, theory, or practice is perfect. As beneficial as inclusion has been, these factors are what I have found to be detrimental to its complete success.
- There is not enough common planning or prep time, if any at all (Coltrane, 2002; Duke & Mabbott, 2001; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007). This is probably one of the biggest concerns at my school.
Possible solutions: Talking with the principal about the importance of common prep time might help make it a priority. One possible solution was tried at my school. For the first 20 minutes of the school day on Tuesdays and Thursdays, grade level teachers had a common prep while their students went to a different grade level to eat breakfast. For example, on Tuesday, the 1st grade teachers would meet while the 5th graders and their teachers came to the 1st grade pod (classroom area). On Thursday, the 5th graders still came to 1st grade, but the 5th grade teachers met. This short amount of time only once a week is not at all ideal, and it was hard for the teacher teaching kindergarten and 1st to know which grade level meeting to attend. However, the idea of that common planning time was a step in the right direction.
Another solution is to have a working/planning lunch once a week, which is what I have done with kindergarten.
One year, I spent a great deal of time on the phone with the teachers I worked with—from my home to theirs on nights and weekends—in order to plan together.
- On occasion, there is unwillingness to share one’s territory and collaborate with someone with equal authority or expertise (Coltrane, 2002; Garza & Crawford, 2005; Williams, 2003). Because it is difficult for some teachers to share their classroom with another teacher, the ESL teacher may be treated like a paraprofessional, even unintentionally.
Possible solutions: At Frost Lake Magnet School in St. Paul, teachers were not being held accountable “for students’ progress in all areas, [so] teachers had to learn to trust their colleagues and share that responsibility” (Duke & Mabbott, 2001). This will not happen overnight, but hopefully the success found with other teams will extend to other teachers and teams, as well as the entire staff in the schools (Platt, Harper, & Mendoza, 2003).
As for the ESL teacher feeling like a paraprofessional, I believe it’s the attitude the ESL teacher has that needs to be adjusted. ESL teachers have gone to school and attained a license just like their colleagues. Though a particular task could be seen as something a para could do, especially during one-on-one time or centers, I find myself instructing students differently than a para because of my expertise and background. In addition, because I am willing to do other tasks to assist the mainstream teacher, I feel I earn more respect from my co-workers.
- The time the ESL teacher spends in the classroom (usually 30 minutes in the entire day) is not enough (Duke & Mabbott, 2001).
Possible solutions: Because I work with ten teachers, I try to work with pairs of them instead of all individually. For example, with the five first grade teachers, I team with two sets of two and then team one-on-one with the fifth teacher. In other words, Mrs. L, Miss B., and I have a working-with-words lesson scheduled at the same time. It is during this time they use flexible grouping, so with the addition of the ESL teacher, the group numbers are smaller. Teaming with more than one teacher allowed me longer blocks of instruction time.
Another solution could be to cluster the ESL students. At another elementary school in my district, the classrooms are clustered, so that the ESL teacher gets to work with students in two classrooms instead of four.
- Inclusion doesn’t provide a “safe haven within the school” for ESL students (Platt, Harper, & Mendoza, 2003).
Possible solutions: Parallel teaching in another part of the school in smaller groups addresses this problem. In addition, pull-out sessions with some of the newcomers can also help. Ideally, working one-on-one with students helps build trust and a sense of security. Usually, ESL teachers will have an office or a classroom where a student knows he or she can go to for support and encouragement.
- If working with more than one grade level, the ESL teacher may not feel a sense of belonging with any grade. For example, where does the ESL teacher go during grade level meetings? One year, I was teaching 1st, 3rd, and 5th grade, which made my decisions on where to go extremely difficult.
Possible solutions: Ideally, there would be one ESL teacher per grade level. Since this is not possible at the school where I teach, I either attend half of the meeting in each grade level or rotate—this day/meeting, I’m with kindergarten; the next one, I’m with 1st grade.
- As always with education, there is not enough money for curriculum, staff development, resources, etc. (Batt, 2008; DaSilva Iddings, 2005; Karabenick & Noda, 2004).
Possible solutions: The ESL teachers in another school in my district have written numerous grants to help fund resources and programs. As for staff development, instead of paying an outside consultant hundreds if not thousands of dollars, the ESL teachers in the schools can lead the training. Other ESL teachers and I have done this before with much success.
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH INCLUSION
· If newcomers and students with limited English proficiency, limited formal education, posttraumatic stress disorder, or students who are not progressing do not have some pull-out time, they may not be adequately supported (Platt, 2005; Platt, Harper, & Mendoza, 2003).
Discussion: Platt, Harper, & Mendoza (2003) write, “Indeed, Brisk (1998) found that many different conditions distinguish successful educational programs for language minority students, and several studies have shown that type of instruction cannot be easily mapped according to program model (Baker, 1993; Ramírez, Yuen, & Ramey, 1991; Tikunoff, 1983).” In other words, there isn’t a simple solution. Many factors have to be considered when structuring programs to address individual student need. Inclusion, as I stated above, is a blend of several models, which includes pull-out. Moreover, especially with children who have lived in refugee camps and have posttraumatic stress disorder, a social worker and other school professionals might need to step in to address other issues. It’s truly a team effort.
· If a student is not progressing, the inclusion model may not have adequate instruction and assessment modification (DaSilva Iddings, 2005; Platt, Harper, & Mendoza, 2003).
Discussion: This furthers the case for working as a team. The ESL teachers need to help mainstream teachers modify lessons. In addition, more training and staff development may be needed. Teachers need to make site visits that help show how successful inclusion models work. Mainstream teachers need to learn about and utilize more strategies to reach the lower-level students, such as using concrete objects or manipulatives and including pictures for new vocabulary, on a more consistent basis.
The bottom line remains: it can take between five and ten years for a student to learn academic English, and this is when the student is literate and does not have learning disabilities. English is an extremely difficult language to learn (and teach) because of its idiosyncrasies, rules, and inconsistencies.
· “If an inclusion program attempts to conceal the so-called English language deficits of students, or if the school ignores the linguistic and cultural diversity that English language learners bring, then the goals of inclusive education are subverted” (Platt, Harper, & Mendoza, 2003).
Discussion: This is not a problem in my school for the most part. Two years ago, the bulletin board in the school’s foyer had “Welcome” in at least ten languages, including all the languages spoken by our students, as well as American Sign Language. This past year, the bulletin board had a world map on it with pins stuck in various countries around the world, countries where our students originally came from. In another elementary school in my district, the staff and community hosts an International Night with food, crafts, costumes, activities, and dancing from people around the world. Most teachers try to bring in not only students’ stories but also incorporate multicultural texts throughout the school year.
Though my colleagues and I don’t speak Somali, we’ve tried to learn some words, especially “thank you,” for the students’ and their families’ benefit. During 1st grade’s morning meeting, the students can choose one of three languages (English, Spanish, and French) for the birthday song. In Mrs. G.’s class, the students write “Happy Birthday” to classmates in English, Spanish, or Somali. (Though there wasn’t an exact phrase in Somali, the Somali liaison provided Mrs. G. a close translation.)
In Garza & Crawford (2005), a bilingual ESL teacher (referred to in this article as an “English Language Acquisition” or “ELA” teacher) used Spanish in teaching her students. Questions were asked bilingually, and Spanish answers were permitted. The teacher even encouraged Spanish responses if they could not think of answers in English. “Therefore [the students] are allowed to speak their native language for clarification and to respond to evaluative question. The messages the ELLs receive about native language use in [this teacher’s] ELA classroom are permissive and validating even though learning English is the goal of the instruction.”
Thomas & Collier (1997) write, “In a socioculturally supportive school, all students and staff and parents are respected and valued for the rich life experiences in other cultural contexts that they bring to the classroom. The school is a safe, secure environment for learning, and students treat each other with respect, with less expression of discrimination, prejudice, and hostility.”
· If training is not given to mainstream teachers about ESL students—for example, the difference between BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills) and CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency)—then the priority of inclusion and the success of ESL students could be diminished (Batt, 2008; Cartiera, 2006; Coltrane, 2002; Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2006; Glenn & Gort, 2008; Hansen-Thomas, 2008; Karabenick & Noda, 2004; Platt, 2005; Platt, Harper, & Mendoza, 2003; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007; Zehr, 2007).
Discussion: As mentioned earlier, training, observations, and site visits are vital to understanding and working with ESL students. Though consultants and speakers from other schools and businesses could be helpful, especially if they steer away from theories and role model specific strategies, in-district staff could be the experts who share their wealth of information.
· If inclusion is looked upon to solve an inequity battle, as in ESL students need to be part of the mainstream classroom all the time in the name of equity, then that could diminish the whole point of inclusion (DaSilva Iddings, 2005).
Discussion: As stated before, inclusion includes pull-out as part of its practice. It just defines pull-out sessions differently than the traditional way with its isolation, lack of collaboration, and lack of connections with mainstream content. The goal of inclusion is to help students learn the English language while learning content. If an ESL basal is teaching a 1st grader about what objects float on water and why, but the mainstream teacher is teaching about the moon, then there is no background knowledge and connections provided in the ESL pull-out session. However, if the ESL teacher pulls out a student and practices spelling and sounding out “moon,” as well as “night” and other things having to do with the moon, then background knowledge and connections are made through the English language.
In many ways, forcing teachers and students to commit to the mainstream format can be detrimental. In DaSilva Iddings’ article, she writes that the school she studied had cut the bilingual program and the students moved to mainstream classrooms not only because was it judged to be ineffective based on standardized test scores, but also because the principal claimed that ESL students would interact more with native English speakers. DaSilva Iddings notes that “it was evident that in the urgency to get ELLs to achieve academic proficiency in English, little value was placed on the identities of competence they did gain as students…teachers were severely underestimating these students.” Further, DaSilva Iddings states that with marginal expectations of ESL students, they were “at a serious educational disadvantage in relation to the native speakers of English” (2005).
· If an ESL teacher is not considered an expert in language acquisition, a valuable resource for mainstream teachers, and a support system for ESL students, then any model for ESL students is insubstantial. Moreover, if ESL teachers are relegated to other district responsibilities, like interpreting or translating, especially in the middle of their own classes, then their student contact time is shortened and educational background diluted (Batt, 2008; Platt, Harper, & Mendoza, 2003).
Discussion: ESL teachers specialize in language acquisition and multiculturalism. They are licensed professionals whose job it is to not only provide a student with English-language instruction through vital content but also cultural recognition and respect. In turn, the ESL teacher should extend her expertise to those who have ESL students in their classrooms. Mainstream teachers are also valuable resources for the ESL teacher in terms of sharing information about expectations, state standards, and assessments. Interpreters and translators should be hired, so that the sometimes erratic time commitments and burdens don’t fall on teachers who are trying to actually teach.
· If a band-aid approach to the growing number of ESL students is to hire paraprofessionals and/or cultural liaisons who are not schooled in language acquisition, then mainstream teachers will not have the benefit of ESL teachers’ expertise and ESL students’ academic success will suffer (Batt, 2008; DaSilva Iddings, 2005; Echevarria, Short, & Powers, 2006).
Discussion: As mentioned earlier, ESL teachers go to school and take not only general education classes, but also the classes that allow them to be expert resources in the area of language acquisition. Though paraprofessionals and cultural liaisons are vital to the staff and success of program models and student achievements, they have not been trained like licensed teachers. In addition, because ESL teachers are licensed, they can teach whole group, mainstream lessons.
EXAMPLES OF INCLUSION
For the following, I have included at least one example of each variation of inclusion, which I have practiced with my colleagues.
Kindergarten
One teach, one drift
The mainstream teacher, Mr. T., has students reach in a bag to feel for and recognize the chosen shapes during math time. He includes the color when he announces which one to find. As the ESL teacher, I stay with the newcomer and help him identify the shape he pulls from the bag, and I assist him in naming the shapes and colors correctly. I also make sure to emphasize other descriptors for the shapes, such as sides and corners. I also circulate and check in with other ESL students during this time.
Language objectives:
The student will name the color word before the name of the shape; name colors; name shapes; and differentiate between “sides,” “corners,” and other attributes.
Content objectives:
The student will name shapes and describe a shape using an attribute.
Centers
I stay with the ESL group the entire week for math centers. However, once a week, during a math manipulative exploration, I bring in my own literacy activity to work on with the ESL students (i.e., letter recognition working with the students’ names, a guided reading book, etc.).
Language objectives:
In math, the objectives vary. As an example, I’ll use sorting coins. The student will know what a “coin” is and what “cent” means; be introduced to the colors “silver” and “copper”; know the names of the coins; and recall the names of the numbers 1, 5, 10, and 25. For language arts, the objectives also vary but align with the theme, the alphabet letter, or “star word” (sight word) of the week.
Content objectives:
The students will recognize and name the four different coins.
First Grade
One teach, one observe
I teach the writing mini-lesson about using periods. I tell the class that a period means holding one’s breath, that it can’t be let out until one sees a capital. Meanwhile, Mrs. G. sits with the students on the floor, close to the lowest-level ESL children, monitoring their comprehension. Sometimes during these lessons, we teachers engage in conversation to role model metacognitive skills or ask questions aloud in order to see if students can figure out the answers themselves. Then during Writers’ Workshop, both teachers circulate to the students; I focus on the ESL students primarily but do not ignore the English-speaking students.
Language objectives:
The student will be introduced to new terms like “punctuation” and review old terms like “capital letter,” “period,” and “finger space.”
Content objectives:
The student will demonstrate understanding of sentence structure by starting each sentence with a capital letter and ending with a period.
Parallel Teaching
Mrs. G. teaches the short E vowel sound and incorporates that sound into a word family, or rhyming pattern, and the students write down the words. She then leads the class into reading the story that has short E as its focus. I pull out my ESL students and do the same lesson. I modify the lesson, however, by having the students highlight the words in the word family in a reproducible book the students can then take home.
Language objectives:
The student will practice hearing and identifying rhymes; review the terms “vowel,” “short,” “long,” “rhyme,” and “word family”; reproduce the short E sound; listen and identify similar sounding words; and learn the term “highlighter.”
Content objectives:
The student will read rhyming words in the short-E word families.
Alternative Teaching (Push-in or Pull-out)
During silent sustained reading (SSR) time, I take a group of students to a table in the classroom and teach a word-building lesson, or I take a group of students out during the classroom’s SSR time in order to focus on contractions, which is one of the skills being taught for the shared reading book of the week.
Language objectives:
The student will review the meaning of a contraction and will practice reading and listening for contractions in sentences; will listen to contractions, separate the words, and identify the missing letter(s) and sound(s); and will learn what an “apostrophe” is.
Content objectives:
The student will recall the two words that make up the contraction and how to read the words when joined by an apostrophe.
Second Grade
Co- or Team-teaching
I work with a group of ESL students and low-level English speakers and focus on compound words that are in the reading selection; the words are already written on separate index cards (the first word in blue; the second, red). I raise one fist and say, “Com”; I raise the other fist and say, “Pound.” Then I put my fists together and say, “Word.” Then we sound out and read the words and match the words. The mainstream teacher, Ms. M., works with the mid-level students, which may include higher-level ESL students. Ms. M.’s group focuses on finding compound words in the story and writing them down. The highest-level group, which could include monitored ESL students, creates compound word puzzles or riddles (written on separate cards) for the middle group to put together/solve.
Language objectives:
The student will learn the meaning of the term “compound word” and explore the meanings of several compound word examples.
Content objectives:
The students will recognize compound words when broken into the two parts, identify compound words in a text, brainstorm more compound word examples, or generate compound word puzzles or riddles.
Fifth Grade
Co- or Team-teaching
The mainstream teacher, Mr. D., and I team during a lesson about fractions. First, I pre-teach about fractions using a cookie recipe. I review the recipe on the overhead and show the students my measuring cups. I make sure to emphasize that if I had to make the recipe for the whole class, I would need to double the fractions. On the overhead, the students help me double the fractions. At the end of my pre-teaching lesson, I pass out the cookies I made with the recipe. Mr. D. then teaches the fraction lesson from the math curriculum.
Language objectives:
The student will understand and use such words as “one-half,” “one-fourth,” and “double”; differentiate between “denominator” and “numerator,” as well as “above” and “below”; and remember that “add” means to make bigger.
Content objectives:
The student will understand what a fraction is and add fractions.
CONCLUSION
Though the Minnesota statutes have changed over the course of several years between different representatives and various bills and amendments, the following was included in Sec. 39. Minnesota Statutes 2002, section 124D.61:
“(c) An education program for English language learners must meet the following requirements…
(2) the curriculum of the educational program for English language learners must be coordinated with the mainstream curriculum in which the English language learners are involved and must be consistent with standards set forth by the commissioner…
(4) to the extent possible, the district must avoid isolating English language learners for a substantial part of the school day…” (State of Minnesota, 2002).
I strongly believe in the validity of this statement. Inclusion, when bilingual models are not available, is quickly becoming best practice because it focuses on what is most apt for ESL students—content, comprehensible input, and connections—and drives toward students’ long-term success. As Platt, Harper, and Mendoza (2003) write in, “Dueling Philosophies: Inclusion or Separation for Florida’s English Language Learners?”, “ESL professionals must advance the academic program through instruction that is well integrated with the content and the skills of the academic disciplines, balanced with attention to the language development needs of the students.” Inclusion is a great model to achieve this. Batt sums it up: “The success of ELL students cannot remain the sole responsibility of ESL and bilingual educators in the era of No Child Left Behind” (2008).
Inclusion is also beneficial for native English speakers. In Simons’ Minnesota Parent article (2006), Ann Rummel, a 1st grade teacher at Centennial Elementary in Richfield, said that “‘the exposure to the diversity is such a positive thing for kids and for the awareness of what the real world is like. We have all of these cultures and people right within our classroom to learn about and to become comfortable with a young age.’”
In order for inclusion to work, the staff involved needs to be EXTREMELY flexible, able to make mistakes, and willing to experiment with new strategies. When I have encountered reluctance by colleagues to engage in collaboration, I depend on my passion for this program model and also on my beliefs that it has proven to be effective for increasing student progress. In addition, because of the success I have achieved with the 1st grade team, other co-workers have agreed to try inclusion and have continued to team with me in concurrent years.
Asking an entire school staff to start practicing inclusion at the same time is not wise; it would be too much all at once. If teachers don’t agree philosophically about collaboration and inclusion, perhaps site visits can be arranged to demonstrate the possibilities. Ultimately, teachers cannot be forced to practice a model they don’t feel comfortable with, and conflicting personalities will not make any program run smoothly. Hopefully, research in best practice will continue to prove that the benefits of inclusion outweigh the challenges.
AUTHOR
Lisa M. Bolt Simons has taught ESL in the Faribault School District for five years. After completing the Second Languages and Cultures Master of Education program at the University of Minnesota in 1994, Simons taught English as a Foreign Language in Japan. Upon her return, she taught high school English and elementary ESL in the Mankato district and Adult Basic Education in St. Peter, Le Sueur, and Hutchinson. Simons is indebted to Becky Gibson for her assistance with the original presentations and with this paper.
REFERENCES
Batt, E. (2008). Teachers’ perceptions of ELL education: Potential solutions to overcome the greatest challenges. Multicultural Education, 15(3), 39-44.
Bureau of Academic Achievement through Language Acquisition. Inclusion as an instructional model for LEP students. Retrieved March 15, 2006 from www.firn.edu/doe/omsle/tapinclu.htm.
Brice, A., Miller, K., & Brice, R. (2006). Language in the English as a second language and general education classrooms: A tutorial. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 27(4), 240-247.
Cartiera, M. R. (2006). Addressing the literacy underachievement of adolescent English language learners: A call for teacher preparation and proficiency reform. New England Reading Association Journal, 42(1), 26-33.
Coltrane, B. (2002). Team teaching: Meeting the needs of English language learners through collaboration. ERIC/CLL News Bulletin, 25(2).
DaSilva Iddings, A. C. (2005). Linguistic access and participation: English language learners in an English-dominant community of practice. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1), 165-184.
Duke, K. & Mabbott, A. (2001). An alternative model for novice-level elementary ESL education. ERIC Digest. (ERIC Reproduction service No. 458 807.)
Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: A model for English-language learners. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 195–211.
Friend, M., Burrello, L., & Burrello, J. (1996). The Power of 2: Making a Difference Through Co-Teaching (VHS recording). Bloomington: Indiana University Forum on Education.
Garza, A. & Crawford, L. (2005). Hegemonic multiculturalism: English immersion, ideology, and subtractive schooling. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(3), 599-620.
Gebhardt, C. (2003, Fall). Implementing an ESL/Bilingual model. Globe: An online newsletter of NC State University. Retrieved September 19, 2008, from http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/swisher/vol1_no1/exemplars/Christine’s%20paper.html
Glenn, W. & Gort, M. (2008). Discomfort, deficiency, dedication: Preservice teachers voice their ELL-related concerns. English Leadership Quarterly, 30(3), 9-13.
Hansen-Thomas, H. (2008). Sheltered instruction: Best practices for ELLs in the mainstream. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 44(4), 165-169.
Hawkins, S. (2001). Effect of total language immersion as opposed to ESL pullout programs at a rural, western Arkansas middle school. Retrieved May 18, 2005 from Arkansas Tech University Web site http://education.atu.edu/people/swomack/Sonya.htm
Karabenick, S. & Noda. P. (2004). Professional development implications of teachers’ beliefs and attitudes toward English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 28(1), 55-75.
Krashen, S. (1991). Sheltered Subject Matter Teaching. Cross Currents, 18, 183-188.
Krashen, S. (2003, December). Effective second language acquisition. Paper presented at Staff Development Resources (SDR), Minneapolis, MN.
Levine, L. (2005). Teacher collaboration for the achievement of all learners. TEIS News: The newsletter of TESOL’s Teacher Education Interest Section, 20(2).
Minnesota Department of Education (2005). ELL Education Program Guidelines 2004. Retrieved September 19, 2008, from http://www.education.state.mn.us/mdeprod/groups/EnglishLang/documents/Manual/002097.pdf
Platt, E. (n.d.). White papers: The inclusion of limited English-proficient students in Florida’s K-12 content classrooms. Retrieved May 18, 2005 from College of Education, Florida State University Web site: www.coe.fsu.edu/whitepapers/inclusion.htm.
Platt, E., Harper, C., & Mendoza, M. B. (2003). Dueling philosophies: Inclusion or separation for Florida’s English language learners? TESOL Quarterly, 37(1), 105-133.
Reed, B. & Railsback, J. (2003). Strategies and resources for mainstream teachers of English language learners. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Reeves, J. (2006). Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English-language learners in mainstream classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research. 99(3). ERIC Digest. (ERIC Reproduction service No. EJ 744 225.)
Sakash, L. & Rodriguez-Brown, F.V. (1995). Teamworks: Mainstream and bilingual/ESL teacher collaboration. ERIC Digest. (ERIC Reproduction service No. 389 205.)
Scruggs, T., Mastropieri, M., & McDuffie, K. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392-416.
Seaman, A. (2000). Evaluating an innovative elementary ESL program. American Language Review, 4(5).
Simons, L. (2006). Our changing classrooms: Parents may worry about the rising numbers of non-native English speakers in schools, but evidence shows that their inclusion benefits all students. Minnesota Parent, 21(5).
State of Minnesota. (2002). www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/statutes.asp.
Thomas, W. & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. ERIC Digest. (ERIC Reproduction service No. 436 087.)
Thomas, W. & Collier, V. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence. ERIC Digest. (ERIC Reproduction service No. 475 048.)
Thousand, J., Villa, R., & Nevin, A. (2006). The many faces of collaborative planning and teaching. Theory into Practice, 45(3), 239-248.
Williams, M. (2003). One + one = second language learning in the mainstream classroom. TESOL Matters, 13(3).
Zehr, M. A. (2006). Team-teaching helps close language gap. Education Week, 26(14), 26-29.
Zehr, M. A. (2007). Instructional Model May Yield Gains for English-Learners. Education Week, 27(14), 12.
MinneWITESOL Journal www.minnewitesoljournal.org Volume 25, 2008
