View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
ELL Program Road MapsSHELTERED INSTRUCTION
January 2016
Contents1 Research foundation
5 Guiding principles
17 Reflective tool
31 Bibliography
The following educators were collaborative partners throughout this process. Without their expertise, creation of the Beaverton Road Maps would not have been possible.
Sandra Boe, ELL TOSA, Beaverton Welcome CenterShawn Davitt, Assistant Principal, Sunset Elementary School
1ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction
Research FoundationThis guide synthesizes several bodies of research to serve as a planning tool for sheltered instruction. We use the term sheltered instruction to refer to techniques within mainstream core classes or other carefully designed classes that integrate sheltered instruction strategies that maintain grade-level content outcomes. This definition is important—sheltered instruction is an integrated approach to teaching English language learners (ELLs) academic language and content by using specialized techniques to promote access to content while also developing English language proficiency.
Sheltered instruction strategies ensure access to content and skills. Student access is not only essential for ELL academic preparedness; it is also required as a civil right. Federal courts have decided on two separate occasions (Lau v. Nichols and Casteñada v. Pickard) that access to core content is a fundamental responsibility of school districts, schools, and educators. It is this civil right that implores school districts to expect all staff to utilize sheltered instruction practices.
Goldenberg (2013) notes that “the goal of sheltered strategies is to facilitate the learning of grade-level academic content and skills …. Sheltered instruction can be expected to contribute to English language development, but its real focus is academic content and skills.” Consequently, sheltered techniques are best practices utilized in an inclusive classroom and are critical for ELLs to be able to access content and skills regardless of their English proficiency.
As a result, Beaverton School District recommends that sheltered instruction techniques be utilized by educators throughout a student’s school day. In addition, we recommend that sheltered core classes (courses) only be offered at the secondary level for beginning to early-intermediate level ELLs (levels 1 & 2 as deemed by ELPA 21). Once students have reached a level 3, they should be integrated into mainstream classes that employ sheltered techniques.
2 ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction
Sheltered Instruction Program Descriptions
Component Description Student population
Techniques Instruction provided in English and strategic use of native language (if possible). Sheltering techniques are used in order for students to gain access to content and develop mastery of grade-level learning targets.
Active ELLs, ever ELLs, and students from culturally diverse backgrounds.
Sheltered core-content classes
Instruction provided in English and strategic use of native language. Sheltering techniques are used in order for students to gain access to content and develop mastery of grade-level learning targets.
Can be designed exclusively for ELLs or for a mixture of ELLs and non-ELLs (Oregon Department of Education program model definitions).
These principles share common goals for students:1. All students are provided access to academic content at or above grade level.2. A variety of techniques and strategies are employed to teach academic language.3. Students are provided opportunities and support to apprentice language skills.
The intent of a sheltered class is to provide an environment for students to learn grade-level core content and language skills through instruction that uses sheltered instruction techniques. As such, the simultaneous demand for learning academic content, language, and literacy compels schools and districts to consider approaches that promote clear access to content standards, while providing the space for students to apprentice in the specific language and literacy of the discipline (Heritage, Walqui, & Linquanti, 2015).
At the secondary level, sheltered classes give teachers and students the space to negotiate the content, language, and literacy demands of a particular subject. To be clear, a sheltered class does not modify the expectations of the subject, but rather emphasizes the instructional practices designed for access. The following table offers a clear representation of what sheltered instruction is and what it is not.
ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction 3
Clarifying Sheltered Instruction
Sheltered instruction does … Sheltered instruction does not …
Focus on helping students master grade-level learning targets
Focus on remedial or below grade-level learning targets
Provide classroom teachers with training and support in sheltered instruction techniques
Assume that teachers are competent in sheltered instruction techniques; instruction does not support ELL access in the content or skills
Encourage teachers to incorporate both language and content goals when designing instruction
Focus solely on language development or content goals
Provide students with culturally relevant and grade-appropriate materials
Provide materials that are representative of a dominant culture and lack a diversity of backgrounds and experiences
Involve students in an interactive, collaborative learning environment
Consider students to be recipients of content knowledge within a teacher-directed learning environment, with few opportunities for academic interactions with peers
Use multiple academic measures to determine students’ entry to and exit from an instructional program
Determine entry or exit from an instruction program on behavior-based criteria or a single academic measure
Consider student placement (in a sheltered core class) to be a temporary transition into a mainstream course
Consider student placement (in a sheltered core class) to be permanent, with no opportunity for students to participate with native speakers despite language proficiency
ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction 5
Guiding PrinciplesThis document is organized into the following seven programmatic strands, based on Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education from the Center for Applied Linguistics (Howard, Sugarman, Christian, Lindholm-Leary, & Rogers, 2007):1. Program Structure2. Curriculum3. Instruction4. Assessment & Accountability5. Educator Effectiveness & Professional Learning6. Family & Community7. Support & Resources
In the pages to follow, each guiding principle will be detailed to provide specific suggestions for best practice. In the accompanying reflective tool, each guiding principle is further supported with reflective questions and an organizer for planning.
6 ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction
Program Structure
The dual goals of sheltered instruction are to provide access to mainstream, grade-level content and to promote the development of English language proficiency. Because the intent of sheltered instruction is to provide access to the core curriculum for all students, effective sheltered programs must continually be monitored for instructional fidelity. To ensure that students are gaining meaningful access to core content, school leadership must ensure that key instructional practices are used consistently within each content area. Explicit instructional goals, focused sheltered-practice observations, and systemic sheltered-practice professional development and implementation support can help
achieve fidelity of practice throughout a school.
Sheltered classes may have an unintended effect of lowering educational outcomes for ELLs when compared to nonsheltered versions of a particular subject. School leadership must monitor the sheltered program to ensure that sheltered classes teach to grade-level standards, achieve grade-level outcomes for the particular content area, and use sheltered strategies with fidelity.
According to Saunders, Goldenberg, and Marcelletti (2013), as ELL students acquire greater levels of English proficiency,
7
they should be increasingly included in classrooms with native English speakers. Simply put, students with higher levels of English language proficiency are best served in mainstream classrooms with native English speakers. Due to the fact that students develop English language more effectively when engaged with native speakers, it is recommended that sheltered classes be primarily used for beginner or early intermediate-level ELL students.
Based on this research, it is essential that schools establish exit criteria for moving students out of sheltered courses and into mainstream courses with native speakers. In a mainstream setting, teachers should still employ sheltered strategies in appropriate
situations. In sheltered settings, teachers create the space for students to learn language through purposeful practice. “Language spirals in sophistication, depth, and eventually, correctness, based on students learning in content contexts” (Heritage, Walqui, & Linquanti, 2015).
Grade-level considerations
Elementary SchoolElementary schools might focus on building teacher capacity to provide developmentally appropriate sheltered instruction techniques within their classrooms. Sheltering is an effective strategy for all students as they build academic language; sheltered instruction strategies can scaffold access to grade-level content. Intentionally keeping students on grade will help students access coursework aligned to college and career-ready standards.
Middle School and High SchoolIn addition to building teacher capacity for providing sheltered instruction techniques, secondary schools may also provide sheltered core classes.
Sheltered instruction is even more essential for students with emerging English language proficiency in the middle and high school grades. As coursework becomes more rigorous, access to content becomes more challenging for ELLs. As a result, schools must embrace a vision of instructional access for all, with clear expectations that all students, irrespective of their language of origin, will have access to grade-level content.
ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction
8
Curriculum
Deborah Short has often written about how English learners do “double the work” when learning new academic content in English (Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007). The same could be said for teachers in their planning, as they must account for a myriad of complexities in academic language features and content. In particular, there are three dimensions of academic complexity to consider when designing curriculum. Valdés, Kibler, and Walqui (2014) discuss these dimensions in depth, revealing that teachers must account for (1) the analytical practices associated with college and career-readiness standards, (2) the academic content associated with the discipline, and (3) the discipline-specific language required for success in the content.
These three dimensions fit squarely with sheltered principles—the grade-level standards are the primary target, but teachers must be aware of the “constellation” of the other demands associated with the content standards (Heritage et al., 2015). As such, teachers will do well to anticipate these demands and incorporate them in their planning. Backward planning design principles, such as Understanding by Design, are helpful frameworks for including each of these dimensions into planning, so as to anticipate and appropriately shelter academic standards for greater student access.
Additionally, the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) offers a number of planning tools to ensure that
teachers logically integrate language, content, and literacy. For more information on SIOP, in addition to other sheltering strategies, please consult the instructional staff at the Beaverton School District Welcome Center. Sheltered instruction is not a separate curriculum. Rather, it is a set of instructional techniques and student supports that provide access to district-approved curricula.
Finally, language modality (reading, writing, listening, speaking) is a critical consideration for curriculum planning. These modalities are essential for students to access rigorous coursework, as noted in the Common Core State Standards. The Oregon English Language Proficiency (ELP) Standards can help teachers intentionally plan tasks that incorporate modalities within their content. The ELP Standards provide correspondences, or crosswalks, between the Common Core, Next Generation Science Standards, and the ELP Standards. The ELP Standards, in particular, can be a helpful tool for identifying the overlap of key academic practices, which then illustrate the type of language that must be emphasized (see p. 33 of the standards).
Writing skills are a powerful avenue to demonstrate learning, build cognitive skills, and practice academic language. It is highly recommended that curricula involve multiple opportunities to write. Reading tasks should be designed to engage students in interacting with complex text to develop comprehension skills.
ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction
9
Grade-level considerations
All Grade LevelsScaffolding and differentiation are essential instructional considerations for any learner, but they are especially important when working with ELLs . With relatively few years in the program, ELLs will benefit from specific instruction scaffolding differentiated to their level of language proficiency. Teachers should consult the proficiency level descriptors of the relevant ELP Standard to learn more about how to provide differentiated scaffolds for the ELLs in their classrooms. The use of sheltering techniques and language scaffolding are especially important within sheltered core classes.
ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction
10
Instruction
There is a large body of research to support the direct link between high-quality instruction and positive student outcomes. It doesn’t matter how great the planning is if the implementation through instruction is weak. One of the pillars of high-quality instruction is the reciprocal interaction model—genuine interaction between teacher and student that fosters critical thinking, promotes student agency, and emphasizes student learning over factual recall (Howard et al., 2007). Reciprocal instruction looks and feels more like facilitation than actual instruction. Teachers create the space for students to engage one another, learn cooperatively, and respond dynamically to problems and projects developed by the teacher.
Another pillar of high-quality instruction is the way teachers facilitate student discourse and learning through collaboration. The interstudent discourse required to collaborate creates the optimal space for negotiating new content and language for meaning. Lev Vygotsky wrote of the value of engaging students in their zone of proximal development, defined as “the area beyond what the learner can do independently, but where actions can be accomplished with the assistance of more able others” (Vygotsky, 1978). When thinking about learning as a social construct, it shifts the teacher’s role to one of facilitator—the guide in the room that creates “invitations” for students to apprentice themselves in the content, analytical practices, and language of the discipline (Heritage et al., 2015). The
invitations described by Heritage, Walqui, and Linquanti are essential to language development, as they offer the time and space for students to experiment with language while negotiating class content.
Finally, teachers must account for the specific needs of all learners during instruction. In both planning and implementation, a feedback loop of formative assessment information will help teachers adjust their planning and instruction to student need. Formative assessment doesn’t have to be formal—simply listening to how students are using language to express their understanding of class content will reveal much about how and where to adjust instruction.
Sheltered instruction practices provide integrated support so that students can steadily develop the conceptual understandings, academic skills, and specific language associated with the discipline. As such, teachers will need a dependable repertoire of sheltering techniques to employ as their students negotiate grade-level content. These strategies must serve as scaffolds into complex texts and themes, while simultaneously introducing and developing the academic language students will need to express their understanding of the content.
Lesson development tools could include standards-based learning targets and rubrics mapped to ELP Standards. Using these tools will support student learning of discipline-specific language. To ensure
ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction
11
the development of essential, complex language skills, instruction should include motivating tasks in which students engage with sophisticated texts, discuss them with their peers, and put their thoughts in writing.
Currently, the Beaverton School District utilizes the 5D+ instructional domains and rubrics to define effective instructional practices. It’s important to note that expertise in all of these domains is essential for providing the effective instruction that
is critical to ELL success. In addition, some domains and indicators resonate strongly with effective sheltered instruction.
The box below shows high-leverage instructional practices for teaching ELLs as recommended by the ELL Research Group during the 2014–2015 school year and outlined in the “Informed Decisions” document.
Best Practices for Sheltered InstructionThe 5D+ domains and indicators highlighting these practices are included in parentheses.
Assessment• Set clear goals and objectives (P1, P5)• Provide students with informative feedback (A6)• Assess learning frequently and reteach when needed (A3, A4, A6)
Scaffolding• Use well-designed instruction to strategically scaffold student participation, engagement,
and interactions with peers (CP6)• Link lessons to previous learning and/or build background knowledge (P2, P3)• Practice culturally responsive teaching methods (SE4)• Use pictures (e.g., picture cards), demonstrations, and real-life objects (CP2)• Use illustrative texts and picture books (CP2)• Use technology such as Smart Boards, tablets, and computers (CEC2)• Provide information in multiple ways (e.g., gestures, visual cues, technology; CEC2, CP1, CP2) • Use sheltered strategies and differentiated instruction (CP5, CP7)
Language• Emphasize academic, as well as conversational, language in ELD instruction (SE5, SE6, CEC3)• Use sentence frames to help ELLs talk about content (CP5, CP7)• Use strategies that take into consideration the unique needs of newcomer students (CP5, CP7)• Use home language strategically to support core content instruction (SE4)
ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction
12
Grade-level considerations
All Grade LevelsIn order for students to demonstrate their learning, they will need to access assessments. When designing assessments, teachers should be cognizant of the language demands required and accommodate as necessary, which could include a variety of measures with multiple opportunities.
Assessment & Accountability
Assessment is a foundational component of the feedback loop between teacher and student, as it illustrates what a student knows and is able to do with language, literacy, and content. Assessments should be carried out in consistent and systematic ways, which means they must be aligned to learning targets and utilize multiple mea-sures (Howard et al., 2007). Such a system requires professional learning around the identification of concrete, integrated learn-ing targets that lend themselves to assessing performance tasks (see the example on p. 24 of the ELP Standards). This will also ensure that teachers are responding to student needs expressed on formative and summa-tive assessments. Student assessment data should inform careful planning of future units to ensure that all students are reaching grade-level targets.
ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction
13
Educator Effectiveness & Professional Learning
Teacher capacity to deliver sheltered in-struction must be addressed when sup-porting students in all classes. Instructional capacity is especially relevant for teachers of a sheltered core class. Fundamentally, any effort surrounding professional devel-opment must be founded on the expec-tation that all staff members are expected to implement sheltered techniques and to grow in their mastery of sheltered practices. School administrators will want to ensure that teachers are effectively implementing sheltered instruction with fidelity. One effective way to monitor practice is to lead focused instructional rounds, or learning walks. Learning walks are a high-leverage tool for supporting teachers in their craft, while simultaneously monitoring the sys-tem for fidelity. Please refer to the chart on page 11 for further examples of instruction-al best practices.
The Beaverton Welcome Center offers a variety of professional learning supports for sheltered instruction. Please consult a Beaverton School District Welcome Center staff person to learn more about the specific professional learning supports available.
Grade-level considerations
Elementary SchoolGiven the importance of high-quality teachers, program planners will need to establish a sustained practice of professional development. As with our students, teachers learn in a variety of ways. Modeling, focused learning walks, and professional learning teams are examples of practices teachers can use to extend their learning and collegiality. In addition, focused professional discussion of contemporary research will ensure that all staff members understand the language development process.
Middle School and High SchoolConsiderations noted above are consistent for all teachers. Program planners must take care to ensure that teachers are not only highly qualified, but that they are proficient in academic language and sheltered instruction techniques for their discipline.
ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction
14
Family & Community
School staff must work to educate stakeholders on how sheltered instruction practices support student learning, student achievement, and career and college-readiness goals. This includes discussing details of the sheltered instruction approach, such as its focus on grade-level targets and outcomes.
All language programs depend on active support from families and the greater community. The program’s vision must reflect the values of the families and the community it serves. It’s also critical that families embrace the program’s vision. Emerging programs should incorporate parents and the community in the feedback loop as valued stakeholders in each phase of the program’s design. It is critical that families understand the educational impact of sheltered instruction and how it will benefit their child’s long-term academic success.
In order for families and the community to fully embrace the program’s vision, the implementation team—with the support of the entire school staff—must work to educate all stakeholders in the intricacies of language learning. This mutual understanding of the language development process will encourage families to become program partners. Through a school-family partnership, educators can share specific strategies for supporting reading, writing, math, and language acquisition at home.
It is the school’s responsibility to empower families. Our nonnative, English-speaking families may need extra support. For example, they may have very little experience with the U.S. school system and may lack the English language skills necessary to communicate with monolingual teachers. In order for the partnership to evolve, schools need to get all families involved and engaged. Research has found that students with involved parents, regardless of family income or background, are more likely to earn higher grades and test scores, attend school regularly, show improved behavior, graduate, and go on to postsecondary education (Henderson & Mapp, 2002). Beaverton School District’s Volunteerism and Engagement Plan (2011–2015) supports the work of Dr. Joyce Epstein’s framework of family engagement (Epstein, 2009). Her model of six types of parent involvement has helped schools nationwide develop effective school and family partnership programs. The six types are:
1. Parenting: Help all families establish home environments to support children as students.
2. Communicating: Design effective forms of school-to-home and home-to-school communications about school programs and children’s progress.
3. Volunteering: Recruit and organize parent help and support.
ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction
15
Grade-level considerations
All Grade LevelsSchools must find ample opportunities to communicate the purpose and vision of the school’s language programs, which may mean that students will need time to develop academic language proficiency. State assessments may not reveal all that students know and are able to do.
4. Learning at home: Provide information and ideas to families about how to help students at home with homework and other curriculum-related activities, decisions, and planning.
5. Decision making: Include parents in school decisions, developing parent-leaders and representatives.
6. Collaborating with communities: Identify and integrate resources and services from the community to strengthen school programs, family practices, and student learning and development.
Epstein’s framework aligns with an important recommendation from Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education—assigning a parent liaison “who speaks the languages of the program [and] understands the needs of the parents in the community,” as well as the structure of the program (Howard et al., 2007).
ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction
16
Support & Resources
Many schools report that they have provided specific professional development for sheltered instruction. However, implementation with fidelity is often missing from mainstream classrooms. Given the tension of “covering” content standards, it is not surprising that teachers (especially at the secondary level) struggle to adequately shelter their instruction. As a result, school leadership must make sheltered practices an instructional expectation of all teachers. With a common expectation, school and district leaders must commit resources to providing ongoing professional learning through workshops and, more importantly, regular classroom observations. Focused learning walks are a great way to model and exchange novel instructional strategies. The budgetary considerations for focused learning walks are considerable, and as such, school and district leaders might consider a 2-year plan when establishing their sheltered instruction priorities.
The Welcome Center will work collaboratively with individual school teams to allocate resources to buildings based on a combination of data points to include demographics of the school, ELL population, and the design of the program model chosen for the building. Additional support needed to effectively carry out the program model should be discussed with the Welcome Center staff.
ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction
Grade-level considerations
All Grade LevelsIt is essential that a district or school site commit various resources to bring sheltered practices to fidelity and to scale. Examples include:• Funds for initial training, materials, and ongoing support• Access to ongoing professional development and support for teachers• Time for teacher collaboration and observation• Access to data for monitoring and decision making
ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction 17
Reflective ToolThis tool is designed to support both the implementation of new ELL programs and existing programs. This document is intended to be used collaboratively with a school-based implementation team comprised of teachers and school leadership, as well as other members of the school community. For grade-specific considerations, please consult the Guiding Principles descriptors on the preceding pages.
As a team, use the guiding questions in the following organizer to facilitate discussion and guide reflection on your school’s program of choice to serve ELL students. Through careful analysis and rich discussion, take stock of each program consideration to determine whether it is (1) already in place, (2) not evident, or (3) a potential area to develop. Based on these determinations, the team can use the features under “Next Steps” to plan for short, and midterm solutions, as well as prioritize immediate action items. When planning, teams might consider the SMART Goal framework, delegating tasks as necessary for program success.
Program sustainability. To ensure that the program is healthy in years to come, this guide can serve as a reflective tool to guide an evaluation of your school’s ELL program. As your school’s implementation team completes its analysis, please consider the following questions:
1. How will the implementation team know when it has reached its program vision?2. How will the team respond when it has met its program goals?3. How and when will the implementation team return to this document to execute the plan?
Connections. How do your team’s plans connect to other school programs, other district programs, and the school district’s vision for the future?
18 ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction
Pro
gra
m S
tru
ctu
re R
eflec
tive
Tool
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Prog
ram
Vis
ion
The
prog
ram
has
a c
ohes
ive,
sha
red
visi
on a
nd a
set
of g
oals
that
est
ablis
h:
• H
igh
expe
ctat
ions
for a
ll st
uden
ts•
Com
mitm
ent t
o an
inst
ruct
iona
l fo
cus
on E
nglis
h la
ngua
ge
deve
lopm
ent a
nd m
ultic
ultu
ralis
m
• D
oes
the
prog
ram
est
ablis
h a
clea
r vi
sion
that
con
side
rs th
e pe
rspe
ctiv
es
of a
ll st
akeh
olde
rs (e
.g.,
stud
ents
, fa
mili
es, c
omm
unity
par
tner
s, te
ache
rs,
adm
inis
trat
ors)
?
• D
oes
the
prog
ram
follo
w b
est p
ract
ices
fo
r acc
essi
ng c
ore
cont
ent w
ith
shel
tere
d in
stru
ctio
n?
Scho
ol E
nviro
nmen
t
The
dist
rict,
scho
ol, a
nd c
omm
unity
em
brac
e th
e pr
ogra
m a
nd p
rovi
de:
• A
saf
e, o
rder
ly e
nviro
nmen
t•
A w
arm
, car
ing
com
mun
ity•
Awar
enes
s of
the
dive
rse
need
s of
st
uden
ts o
f diff
eren
t lin
guis
tic a
nd
cultu
ral b
ackg
roun
ds
• If
the
prog
ram
is a
str
and
with
in th
e sc
hool
, how
doe
s it
inte
ract
with
the
rest
of t
he s
choo
l?
• D
oes
the
scho
ol e
nviro
nmen
t pr
ojec
t the
val
ues
esta
blis
hed
by th
e pr
ogra
m’s
visi
on?
Scho
ol L
eade
rshi
p
The
impl
emen
tatio
n te
am a
nd s
choo
l pr
inci
pal l
ead
the
prog
ram
tow
ards
its
visi
on a
nd g
oals
.
• Ad
voca
te fo
r the
pro
gram
• Co
ordi
nate
the
prog
ram
bas
ed o
n pl
anni
ng•
Des
ign
and
faci
litat
e pr
ofes
sion
al
lear
ning
and
pro
mot
e st
aff c
ohes
ion
• En
sure
equ
itabl
e al
loca
tion
of fu
nds
• D
oes
plan
ning
sup
port
the
prog
ram
vi
sion
?
• D
oes
prog
ram
lead
ersh
ip re
spon
d w
hen
impl
emen
tatio
n ve
ers
away
from
th
e pr
ogra
m’s
visi
on?
• A
re th
e pr
ogra
m’s
goal
s cl
early
ar
ticul
ated
to a
ll st
akeh
olde
rs?
ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction 19
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Ong
oing
Pla
nnin
g
With
an
eye
for s
usta
inab
ility
, the
pr
ogra
m g
uide
s im
plem
enta
tion
thro
ugh
care
ful p
lann
ing.
• G
oals
alig
n w
ith th
e pr
ogra
m’s
visi
on•
The
prog
ram
art
icul
ates
ver
tical
ly
thro
ugh
grad
es a
nd it
erat
es
horiz
onta
lly a
cros
s gr
ades
• In
stru
ctio
n is
gui
ded
by a
n ev
olvi
ng
scop
e an
d se
quen
ce th
at is
de
velo
pmen
tally
, lin
guis
tical
ly, a
nd
cultu
rally
app
ropr
iate
• D
oes
the
prog
ram
vis
ion
refle
ct th
e va
lues
of t
he s
choo
l and
com
mun
ity
and
purp
ose
of th
e pr
ogra
m?
• D
oes
the
prog
ram
hav
e a
set o
f sho
rt-
term
and
mid
term
goa
ls to
real
ize
its
visi
on?
• D
oes
the
prog
ram
acc
ount
for
alig
nmen
t to
stat
e st
anda
rds
and
the
ELP
Stan
dard
s?
Lang
uage
Dev
elop
men
t
The
prog
ram
is fo
unde
d on
prin
cipl
es
that
are
sup
port
ed b
y re
sear
ch a
nd
best
pra
ctic
e.
• Pr
inci
ples
of s
econ
d la
ngua
ge
deve
lopm
ent
• Eff
ectiv
e in
stru
ctio
nal
met
hodo
logi
es a
nd c
lass
room
pr
actic
es•
Belie
f in
and
com
mitm
ent t
o se
cond
la
ngua
ge a
cqui
sitio
n th
eory
• D
oes
best
-pra
ctic
e re
sear
ch g
uide
te
achi
ng a
nd le
arni
ng?
• W
hat c
an b
e do
ne to
pro
mot
e th
e fa
mili
es’ la
ngua
ge a
nd c
ultu
re in
the
scho
ol a
nd c
omm
unity
?
• D
o te
ache
rs a
nd a
ll pr
ogra
m s
taff
unde
rsta
nd a
nd a
pply
the
prin
cipl
es o
f se
cond
lang
uage
dev
elop
men
t?
Mas
ter S
ched
ule
The
scho
ol m
aste
r sch
edul
e m
ust
take
stu
dent
nee
d in
to a
ccou
nt
whe
n de
finin
g sh
elte
red
cour
se
offer
ings
. Stu
dent
s sh
ould
par
ticip
ate
in m
ains
trea
m c
ours
es a
s m
uch
as
poss
ible
. Add
ition
ally
, the
mas
ter
sche
dule
mus
t pro
vide
tim
e fo
r te
ache
r col
labo
ratio
n.
• D
oes
the
mas
ter s
ched
ule
faci
litat
e co
nsis
tent
teac
her c
olla
bora
tion?
• D
oes
the
mas
ter s
ched
ule
allo
w fo
r fle
xibl
e gr
oupi
ng b
ased
on
stud
ents
’ ne
eds?
• D
oes
the
mas
ter s
ched
ule
cont
ain
suffi
cien
t offe
rings
for a
ll EL
L st
uden
ts
that
requ
ire s
helte
red
clas
ses?
20 ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction
Cu
rric
ulu
m R
eflec
tive
Tool
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Cultu
ral R
elev
ance
Curr
icul
um le
vers
rele
vant
them
es a
nd
topi
cs a
s ve
hicl
es to
eng
age
stud
ents
in
sta
ndar
ds-a
ligne
d le
arni
ng.
• Cu
rric
ulum
wea
ves
cultu
rally
re
leva
nt c
onte
nt w
ith g
rade
-ap
prop
riate
ski
lls a
nd la
ngua
ge
stan
dard
s•
Uni
t the
mes
pro
mot
e co
nnec
tions
an
d cr
oss-
cultu
ral e
xcha
nge
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um re
flect
the
valu
es
of th
e st
uden
t’s h
ome
com
mun
ity?
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um o
ffer a
n au
then
tic,
unas
sum
ing
pers
pect
ive
of s
tude
nt
cultu
re?
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um in
corp
orat
e re
gula
r opp
ortu
nitie
s to
pra
ctic
e la
ngua
ge th
roug
h ac
adem
ic d
isco
urse
?
Alig
nmen
t
Curr
icul
um p
rovi
des
a pl
an fo
r stu
dent
le
arni
ng a
ligne
d ho
rizon
tally
acr
oss
one
grad
e le
vel a
nd v
ertic
ally
acr
oss
prev
ious
and
sub
sequ
ent g
rade
s.
• Cu
rric
ulum
at e
ach
grad
e le
vel
deta
ils w
hat s
tude
nts
mus
t kno
w
and
be a
ble
to d
o by
the
end
of
each
gra
de•
Each
gra
de’s
expe
ctat
ions
art
icul
ate
to th
e ne
xt g
rade
leve
l
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um a
lign
to
grad
e-ap
prop
riate
con
tent
and
ELP
st
anda
rds?
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um o
ffer
oppo
rtun
ities
for l
angu
age
deve
lopm
ent a
cros
s al
l lan
guag
e pr
ofici
ency
leve
ls w
ithin
con
tent
are
as?
• D
o te
ache
rs o
n th
e sa
me
grad
e an
d de
part
men
t tea
ms
colla
bora
tivel
y de
sign
and
impl
emen
t cur
ricul
um?
• D
o th
ey c
olla
bora
tivel
y co
mpa
re a
nd
cont
rast
out
com
es?
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um o
ffer
oppo
rtun
ities
to d
evel
op la
ngua
ge,
liter
acy,
and
con
tent
kno
wle
dge
sim
ulta
neou
sly?
ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction 21
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Dep
th
Dee
p cu
rric
ulum
pro
vide
s opp
ortu
ni-
ties f
or st
uden
ts to
eng
age
conc
epts
, sk
ills,
and
lang
uage
ass
ocia
ted
with
rig
orou
s, co
mpe
lling
wor
k in
mul
tiple
co
ntex
ts. D
eep
curr
icul
um e
ncou
rage
s co
nnec
tions
acr
oss c
onte
xts,
and
em-
beds
skill
s and
lang
uage
dev
elop
men
t.
• Pr
ovid
es c
oope
rativ
e le
arni
ng
oppo
rtun
ities
to e
xten
d cr
itica
l th
inki
ng in
to c
olla
bora
tive
spac
e•
Incl
udes
app
ropr
iate
sca
ffold
s an
d di
ffere
ntia
ted
supp
orts
so
all s
tude
nts
can
acce
ss ri
goro
us,
enga
ging
lear
ning
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um e
ncou
rage
hig
her
orde
r thi
nkin
g?
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um a
ccou
nt fo
r di
vers
e le
arne
rs?
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um e
nric
h th
e st
uden
t le
arni
ng e
xper
ienc
e?
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um e
mbe
d au
then
tic
skill
s an
d ac
adem
ic la
ngua
ge
deve
lopm
ent?
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um in
corp
orat
e ap
prop
riate
sca
ffold
s fo
r stu
dent
s to
ac
cess
dee
p co
ncep
ts?
Them
atic
Inte
grat
ion
The
them
es in
tegr
ate
lang
uage
, co
nten
t, an
d an
alyt
ical
pra
ctic
es (e
.g.,
Bloo
m’s
Taxo
nom
y, D
epth
of K
now
l-ed
ge) i
n cu
ltura
lly re
leva
nt u
nits
of
stud
y.
• Co
here
nce
thro
ugho
ut th
e ye
ar—
unit
them
es c
ompl
emen
t one
an
othe
r•
Cros
s-cu
rric
ular
coh
eren
ce—
unit
them
es c
onne
ct a
cros
s co
nten
t and
la
ngua
ge
• D
o th
e un
it th
emes
con
nect
to:
– Pr
evio
us le
arni
ng–
Futu
re le
arni
ng–
Oth
er s
ubje
cts
22 ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction
Cu
rric
ulu
m R
eflec
tive
Tool
(con
t’d)
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Enri
chm
ent v
s. R
emed
iatio
n
Shel
tere
d in
stru
ctio
n pr
ogra
ms
are
built
to e
nric
h st
uden
t acc
ess
to c
lass
co
nten
t. Cu
rric
ular
pla
nnin
g m
ust:
• Ch
alle
nge
stud
ents
with
dee
p cr
itica
l thi
nkin
g•
Prom
ote
liter
acy
deve
lopm
ent i
n En
glis
h•
Prom
ote
acad
emic
lang
uage
de
velo
pmen
t
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um e
nric
h th
e st
uden
t le
arni
ng e
xper
ienc
e?
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um p
ush
stud
ents
to
exte
nd a
nd a
pply
thei
r lea
rnin
g ac
ross
co
ntex
ts?
• D
oes
the
curr
icul
um e
xten
d op
port
uniti
es to
bui
ld la
ngua
ge
and
liter
acy
skill
s w
ithin
gra
de le
vel
cont
ent?
ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction 23
Inst
ruct
ion
Refl
ectiv
e To
ol
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Inte
grat
ing
Lang
uage
, Con
tent
, &
Ana
lytic
al P
ract
ices
Shel
tere
d in
stru
ctio
n sh
ould
si
mul
tane
ousl
y de
velo
p th
e ac
adem
ic
lang
uage
that
stu
dent
s ne
ed in
co
nten
t-ar
ea c
lass
es. S
helte
red
inst
ruct
ion
prog
ram
s:
• W
eave
lang
uage
and
lite
racy
into
co
mpe
lling
con
tent
that
stu
dent
s ne
ed fo
r sch
ool s
ucce
ss•
Crea
te m
any
oppo
rtun
ities
for
stud
ents
to u
se E
nglis
h to
neg
otia
te
clas
s co
nten
t
• D
o te
ache
rs fo
ster
crit
ical
thin
king
an
d m
eani
ngfu
l stu
dent
dis
cour
se in
En
glis
h?
• D
oes
the
teac
her c
reat
e op
port
uniti
es
for s
tude
nts
to d
evel
op u
nder
stan
ding
of
dis
cipl
ine-
spec
ific
lang
uage
, co
nten
t, an
d an
alyt
ical
pra
ctic
es?
Mul
timod
al E
xpos
ure
to A
cade
mic
La
ngua
ge T
hrou
gh C
onte
nt
As
a co
re p
rinci
ple
of la
ngua
ge
deve
lopm
ent,
stud
ents
mus
t exe
rcis
e al
l fou
r mod
aliti
es (l
iste
ning
, spe
akin
g,
read
ing,
and
writ
ing)
as
they
dev
elop
En
glis
h.
• Te
ache
rs w
eave
lang
uage
de
velo
pmen
t tas
ks in
to c
lass
co
nten
t•
Teac
hers
reco
gniz
e la
ngua
ge
stru
ctur
es in
Eng
lish
and
prov
ide
expl
icit
lang
uage
dev
elop
men
t in
stru
ctio
n
• D
o te
ache
rs c
reat
e th
e op
port
unity
fo
r stu
dent
s to
eng
age
clas
s co
nten
t th
roug
h ea
ch o
f the
mod
aliti
es in
En
glis
h?
• D
o lis
teni
ng a
nd s
peak
ing
com
plem
ent r
eadi
ng a
nd w
ritin
g ta
sks?
• D
o te
ache
rs e
mbe
d la
ngua
ge
deve
lopm
ent w
ithin
cla
ss c
onte
nt?
24 ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Form
ativ
e A
sses
smen
t
Ong
oing
form
ativ
e as
sess
men
t cr
eate
s a
feed
back
loop
bet
wee
n te
ache
r and
stu
dent
. Mul
tiple
sou
rces
of
inpu
t fro
m s
tude
nts
will
indi
cate
ho
w to
bes
t sup
port
stu
dent
s in
la
ngua
ge, l
itera
cy, a
nd c
onte
nt.
Form
ativ
e as
sess
men
t doe
sn’t
have
to
be
form
al—
care
ful a
tten
tion
to
stud
ent o
utpu
t rev
eals
muc
h ab
out
the
dept
h of
mas
tery
of l
angu
age,
lit
erac
y, a
nd c
onte
nt s
tand
ards
.
• W
hat d
o st
uden
t dat
a re
veal
abo
ut
wha
t stu
dent
s kn
ow a
nd a
re a
ble
to
do?
• D
o te
ache
rs c
reat
e m
ultip
le
oppo
rtun
ities
for s
tude
nts
to s
how
w
hat t
hey
know
and
are
abl
e to
do?
• D
o te
ache
rs u
se fo
rmat
ive
asse
ssm
ent
data
to re
flect
on
thei
r pra
ctic
e?
• D
o te
ache
rs s
hare
thes
e da
ta w
ith
colle
ague
s in
lear
ning
team
s?
Flex
ible
Gro
upin
g &
Coo
pera
tive
Lear
ning
Coop
erat
ive
lear
ning
cre
ates
the
spac
e fo
r stu
dent
s to
eng
age
and
disc
uss
clas
s co
nten
t, w
hile
exe
rcis
ing
acad
emic
lang
uage
in E
nglis
h. F
lexi
ble
grou
ping
str
ateg
ies
enab
le te
ache
rs
to s
truc
ture
gro
ups
hete
roge
neou
sly
or h
omog
eneo
usly
to s
uppo
rt a
pa
rtic
ular
inst
ruct
iona
l foc
us.
• H
eter
ogen
eous
gro
ups l
ever
age
stu-
dent
stre
ngth
s as m
odel
s in
Engl
ish
• Te
ache
rs m
ight
em
ploy
ho
mog
eneo
us g
roup
s to
di
ffere
ntia
te la
ngua
ge a
nd c
onte
nt
skill
s fo
r par
ticul
ar s
tude
nt g
roup
s
• D
o st
uden
ts e
ngag
e co
oper
ativ
ely
to s
olve
com
plex
pro
blem
s w
hile
de
velo
ping
aca
dem
ic la
ngua
ge fo
rms
and
func
tions
?
• D
o te
ache
rs h
ave
a sy
stem
to
flexi
bly
arra
nge
stud
ents
bas
ed o
n in
stru
ctio
nal p
riorit
ies
and
stud
ent
need
s?
Cultu
rally
Res
pons
ive
Inst
ruct
ion
Teac
hers
eng
age
stud
ents
by
desi
gnin
g in
stru
ctio
n th
at in
tegr
ates
st
uden
ts’ c
ultu
ral,
lingu
istic
, and
ac
adem
ic fu
nds
of k
now
ledg
e.
• D
o te
ache
rs tr
eat s
tude
nts’
cultu
ral,
lingu
istic
, and
aca
dem
ic e
xper
ienc
es a
s as
sets
for l
earn
ing?
Inst
ruct
ion
Refl
ectiv
e To
ol (c
ont’d
)
ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction 25
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Form
ativ
e A
sses
smen
t
Ong
oing
form
ativ
e as
sess
men
t cr
eate
s a
feed
back
loop
bet
wee
n te
ache
r and
stu
dent
. Mul
tiple
sou
rces
of
inpu
t fro
m s
tude
nts
will
indi
cate
ho
w to
bes
t sup
port
stu
dent
s in
la
ngua
ge, l
itera
cy, a
nd c
onte
nt.
Form
ativ
e as
sess
men
t doe
sn’t
have
to
be
form
al—
care
ful a
tten
tion
to
stud
ent o
utpu
t rev
eals
muc
h ab
out
the
dept
h of
mas
tery
of l
angu
age,
lit
erac
y, a
nd c
onte
nt s
tand
ards
.
• W
hat d
o st
uden
t dat
a re
veal
abo
ut
wha
t stu
dent
s kn
ow a
nd a
re a
ble
to
do?
• D
o te
ache
rs c
reat
e m
ultip
le
oppo
rtun
ities
for s
tude
nts
to s
how
w
hat t
hey
know
and
are
abl
e to
do?
• D
o te
ache
rs u
se fo
rmat
ive
asse
ssm
ent
data
to re
flect
on
thei
r pra
ctic
e?
• D
o te
ache
rs s
hare
thes
e da
ta w
ith
colle
ague
s in
lear
ning
team
s?
Flex
ible
Gro
upin
g &
Coo
pera
tive
Lear
ning
Coop
erat
ive
lear
ning
cre
ates
the
spac
e fo
r stu
dent
s to
eng
age
and
disc
uss
clas
s co
nten
t, w
hile
exe
rcis
ing
acad
emic
lang
uage
in E
nglis
h. F
lexi
ble
grou
ping
str
ateg
ies
enab
le te
ache
rs
to s
truc
ture
gro
ups
hete
roge
neou
sly
or h
omog
eneo
usly
to s
uppo
rt a
pa
rtic
ular
inst
ruct
iona
l foc
us.
• H
eter
ogen
eous
gro
ups l
ever
age
stu-
dent
stre
ngth
s as m
odel
s in
Engl
ish
• Te
ache
rs m
ight
em
ploy
ho
mog
eneo
us g
roup
s to
di
ffere
ntia
te la
ngua
ge a
nd c
onte
nt
skill
s fo
r par
ticul
ar s
tude
nt g
roup
s
• D
o st
uden
ts e
ngag
e co
oper
ativ
ely
to s
olve
com
plex
pro
blem
s w
hile
de
velo
ping
aca
dem
ic la
ngua
ge fo
rms
and
func
tions
?
• D
o te
ache
rs h
ave
a sy
stem
to
flexi
bly
arra
nge
stud
ents
bas
ed o
n in
stru
ctio
nal p
riorit
ies
and
stud
ent
need
s?
Cultu
rally
Res
pons
ive
Inst
ruct
ion
Teac
hers
eng
age
stud
ents
by
desi
gnin
g in
stru
ctio
n th
at in
tegr
ates
st
uden
ts’ c
ultu
ral,
lingu
istic
, and
ac
adem
ic fu
nds
of k
now
ledg
e.
• D
o te
ache
rs tr
eat s
tude
nts’
cultu
ral,
lingu
istic
, and
aca
dem
ic e
xper
ienc
es a
s as
sets
for l
earn
ing?
Ass
essm
ent
& A
cco
un
tab
ilit
y Re
flect
ive
Tool
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Mon
itors
Pro
gram
Effe
ctiv
enes
s
Ass
essm
ents
, im
plem
ente
d in
“c
onsi
sten
t and
sys
tem
atic
way
s”
reve
al m
uch
abou
t how
stu
dent
s ne
gotia
te c
onte
nt in
Eng
lish.
A
sses
smen
ts fo
r she
ltere
d in
stru
ctio
n pr
ogra
ms
focu
s on
con
tent
are
a st
anda
rds
and
asso
ciat
ed E
LP
Stan
dard
s.
• D
o te
ache
rs a
nd p
rogr
am s
taff
m
onito
r stu
dent
gro
wth
to d
eter
min
e if
the
prog
ram
is re
achi
ng it
s go
als
(e.g
., st
uden
t sch
olar
ship
dat
a)?
Incl
udes
Mul
tiple
Mea
sure
s
Mul
tiple
poi
nts
of in
put c
reat
e a
deep
er, c
lear
er p
ictu
re o
f how
st
uden
ts a
re p
rogr
essi
ng in
lang
uage
, lit
erac
y, a
nd c
onte
nt in
Eng
lish.
M
ultip
le a
sses
smen
ts o
f lea
rnin
g st
anda
rds
pain
t a m
ore
accu
rate
pi
ctur
e of
wha
t stu
dent
s kn
ow a
nd
are
able
to d
o w
ith la
ngua
ge.
• D
oes
the
prog
ram
em
bed
mul
tiple
m
easu
res
of s
tude
nt p
rogr
ess?
• D
o as
sess
men
ts m
easu
re p
rogr
ess
in c
onte
nt s
tand
ards
, lite
racy
, and
la
ngua
ge d
evel
opm
ent a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith th
e di
scip
line?
Ass
esse
s A
cade
mic
Con
tent
&
Lang
uage
How
are
stu
dent
s pr
ogre
ssin
g in
co
nten
t-ar
ea s
tand
ards
? Sc
hool
s an
d EL
L pr
ogra
m s
taff
shou
ld u
se m
ultip
le
indi
cato
rs o
f gro
wth
to d
eter
min
e ho
w s
tude
nts
are
prog
ress
ing
in th
eir
cont
ent-
area
stu
dies
and
lang
uage
de
velo
pmen
t.
• D
oes
the
prog
ram
ass
ess
indi
vidu
al
stud
ent p
rogr
ess
in la
ngua
ge, l
itera
cy,
and
cont
ent i
n th
e di
scip
line?
• H
ow d
oes
the
prog
ram
com
mun
icat
e th
is in
form
atio
n to
oth
er s
take
hold
ers
like
ELD
teac
hers
and
fam
ilies
?
26 ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Dat
a A
naly
sis
The
scho
ol d
isag
greg
ates
stu
dent
da
ta to
und
erst
and
how
to s
uppo
rt
each
stu
dent
in th
e sh
elte
red
inst
ruct
ion
prog
ram
. Tea
ms
of
teac
hers
and
adm
inis
trat
ors
anal
yze
form
ativ
e an
d su
mm
ativ
e as
sess
men
t da
ta to
und
erst
and
how
stu
dent
s ar
e pe
rfor
min
g re
lativ
e to
sta
ndar
ds.
• W
hat d
o st
uden
t for
mat
ive
and
sum
mat
ive
asse
ssm
ent d
ata
reve
al
abou
t stu
dent
s’ de
pth
of m
aste
ry o
f th
e co
nten
t sta
ndar
ds, l
angu
age,
and
lit
erac
y fe
atur
es?
• D
o te
ache
rs a
nd s
choo
l dat
a te
ams
disa
ggre
gate
stu
dent
dat
a to
lear
n m
ore
abou
t how
ELL
s fa
re in
con
tent
, la
ngua
ge, a
nd li
tera
cy?
Dat
a In
form
Pro
gram
mat
ic &
In
stru
ctio
nal D
ecis
ions
Teac
hers
follo
w a
form
ativ
e as
sess
men
t cyc
le to
info
rm
inst
ruct
iona
l dec
isio
ns. S
tude
nt
perf
orm
ance
rela
tive
to s
tand
ards
su
ppor
ts te
ache
rs in
pla
nnin
g in
stru
ctio
n be
st s
uite
d to
thei
r st
uden
ts’ n
eeds
.
• D
o te
ache
rs, a
dmin
istr
ator
s, an
d EL
L pr
ogra
m s
taff
act o
n co
nclu
sion
s dr
awn
from
stu
dent
dat
a?
• A
re th
e re
sults
use
d to
info
rm p
lann
ing
and
inst
ruct
ion?
Ass
essm
ent L
itera
cy
The
scho
ol c
omm
its to
bui
ldin
g ca
paci
ty in
ass
essm
ent l
itera
cy.
Teac
hers
kno
w h
ow to
des
ign
perf
orm
ance
task
s lin
ked
to s
peci
fic
lang
uage
and
con
tent
sta
ndar
ds. T
he
scho
ol p
rovi
des
furt
her p
rofe
ssio
nal
lear
ning
to a
naly
ze a
nd in
terp
ret
resu
lts a
nd d
eter
min
e ho
w th
e re
sults
can
info
rm fu
ture
inst
ruct
iona
l de
cisi
ons.
• W
hat t
ypes
of p
rofe
ssio
nal l
earn
ing
will
bu
ild te
ache
r cap
acity
in a
sses
smen
t lit
erac
y?
• W
hat t
ypes
of d
ata
prot
ocol
s ar
e in
pla
ce to
gui
de a
naly
sis
and
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
stu
dent
dat
a?
Ass
essm
ent
& A
cco
un
tab
ilit
y Re
flect
ive
Tool
(con
t’d)
ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction 27
Edu
cato
r Eff
ecti
ven
ess
& P
rofe
ssio
nal
Lea
rnin
g R
eflec
tive
Tool
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Teac
her C
ertifi
catio
n &
Pre
para
tion
Effec
tive,
fully
cre
dent
iale
d te
ache
rs
are
trai
ned
on s
helte
red
inst
ruct
ion
stra
tegi
es e
mbr
aced
by
Beav
erto
n Sc
hool
Dis
tric
t. Te
ache
rs a
re b
oth
endo
rsed
and
ski
lled
in th
eir d
isci
plin
e an
d la
ngua
ge d
evel
opm
ent p
ract
ices
.
• A
re te
ache
rs p
repa
red
with
a d
eep
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
cla
ss-c
onte
nt
stan
dard
s an
d En
glis
h la
ngua
ge
deve
lopm
ent?
• H
ave
teac
hers
rece
ived
trai
ning
(and
fo
llow
-up)
?
Expe
rtis
e in
She
ltere
d In
stru
ctio
n
Teac
hers
in s
helte
red
inst
ruct
ion
prog
ram
s ar
e ex
pert
s in
dev
elop
ing
lang
uage
whi
le s
imul
tane
ousl
y te
achi
ng c
onte
nt, s
kills
, and
lite
racy
. G
iven
the
com
plex
ity o
f thi
s ta
sk,
teac
hers
mus
t hav
e pr
epar
atio
n an
d co
ntin
ued
prof
essi
onal
lear
ning
. Pr
ogra
ms
offer
regu
lar o
ppor
tuni
ties
for p
rofe
ssio
nal l
earn
ing
in s
helte
red
prac
tices
.
• Is
pro
fess
iona
l lea
rnin
g in
she
ltere
d pr
actic
es o
ffere
d an
d en
cour
aged
by
the
scho
ol?
• D
o te
ache
rs c
olla
bora
te to
sha
re b
est
prac
tices
in s
helte
red
inst
ruct
ion?
• A
re s
helte
red
inst
ruct
ion
stra
tegi
es
shar
ed s
choo
lwid
e?
Prof
essi
onal
Lea
rnin
g
Prof
essi
onal
lear
ning
prio
ritie
s ar
e de
velo
ped
colla
bora
tivel
y an
d tr
ansp
aren
tly w
ith s
taff
and
are
part
of
the
prog
ram
’s co
mm
itmen
t to
cont
inua
l im
prov
emen
t.
• A
re th
ere
clea
r prio
ritie
s fo
r pr
ofes
sion
al le
arni
ng?
• D
o te
ache
rs h
ave
a ro
le in
est
ablis
hing
pr
iorit
ies
for p
rofe
ssio
nal l
earn
ing?
• D
oes
the
prof
essi
onal
lear
ning
co
ntrib
ute
to c
ontin
ual i
mpr
ovem
ent?
• D
oes
the
prog
ram
pro
vide
sus
tain
ed
follo
w-u
p to
con
cept
s pr
esen
ted
in
prof
essi
onal
dev
elop
men
t tim
e?
• D
oes
the
prog
ram
inco
rpor
ate
conc
epts
from
pro
fess
iona
l de
velo
pmen
t int
o pr
ofes
sion
al
expe
ctat
ions
?
28 ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Lear
ning
Wal
ks &
Pro
fess
iona
l Re
flect
ion
Focu
sed
lear
ning
wal
ks a
re a
cor
e pr
ofes
sion
al le
arni
ng to
ol. R
ound
s of
obs
erva
tions
are
focu
sed
thro
ugh
defin
ed in
stru
ctio
nal l
ense
s w
ith
the
purp
ose
of e
xcha
ngin
g be
st
prac
tice.
Lea
rnin
g w
alks
are
acc
epte
d as
a p
rofe
ssio
nal n
orm
and
as
an o
ppor
tuni
ty fo
r per
sona
l and
pr
ofes
sion
al g
row
th.
• W
hat s
yste
ms
are
in p
lace
to e
nabl
e le
arni
ng w
alks
to o
ccur
with
min
imal
im
pact
to te
achi
ng a
nd le
arni
ng?
• W
hat a
re th
e pr
ofes
sion
al e
xpec
tatio
ns
of le
arni
ng w
alks
?
• D
o te
ache
rs a
nd a
dmin
istr
ator
s fo
llow
up
aft
er le
arni
ng w
alks
?
• A
re n
orm
s in
pla
ce fo
r gui
ding
roun
ds
of le
arni
ng w
alks
?
Prof
essi
onal
Col
labo
ratio
n
The
prog
ram
ena
bles
, enc
oura
ges,
and
expe
cts p
rofe
ssio
nal c
olla
bora
tion
thro
ugh
horiz
onta
l (w
ithin
gra
de
leve
ls) o
r ver
tical
(acr
oss
grad
e le
vels
) gr
ade
and
depa
rtm
ent t
eam
s.
• D
oes
the
mas
ter s
ched
ule
crea
te th
e sp
ace
for p
rofe
ssio
nal c
olla
bora
tion?
• A
re le
arni
ng te
ams
guid
ed b
y co
mm
on
prof
essi
onal
nor
ms
and
stud
ent-
focu
sed
prot
ocol
s?
• D
oes
scho
ol le
ader
ship
est
ablis
h co
llabo
rativ
e ex
pect
atio
ns fo
r lea
rnin
g te
ams?
• D
oes
scho
ol le
ader
ship
est
ablis
h ex
pect
atio
ns fo
r and
coa
ch n
orm
s an
d pr
otoc
ols?
Edu
cato
r Eff
ecti
ven
ess
& P
rofe
ssio
nal
Lea
rnin
g R
eflec
tive
Tool
ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction 29
Fam
ily
& C
om
mu
nit
y Re
flect
ive
Tool
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Scho
ol-B
ased
Par
ent/
Com
mun
ity
Liai
sons
The
fam
ily li
aiso
n co
mm
unic
ates
st
uden
t pro
gres
s to
par
ents
and
is
awar
e of
the
stru
ctur
e fo
r she
ltere
d in
stru
ctio
n pr
ogra
ms.
• D
oes
the
fam
ily li
aiso
n un
ders
tand
th
e pu
rpos
e of
she
ltere
d in
stru
ctio
n pr
ogra
ms?
• D
oes
the
fam
ily li
aiso
n co
mm
unic
ate
stud
ent p
rogr
ess
in s
helte
red
cour
ses
to fa
mili
es?
Com
mun
icat
ion
The
scho
ol a
nd s
helte
red
inst
ruct
ion
prog
ram
mai
ntai
n re
gula
r co
mm
unic
atio
n w
ith fa
mili
es to
cla
rify
the
purp
ose
of s
helte
red
inst
ruct
ion
and
deta
il st
uden
t pro
gres
s.
• D
oes
the
prog
ram
use
mul
tiple
mod
es
of c
omm
unic
atio
n to
con
nect
with
fa
mili
es?
30 ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction
Sup
po
rt &
Res
ou
rces
Refl
ectiv
e To
ol
Prog
ram
con
side
ratio
nsG
uidi
ng q
uest
ions
Curr
ent s
tatu
sN
ext s
teps
Alre
ady
in pla
ceNo
t ev
ident
Pote
ntial
ar
eas t
o de
velop
Actio
n ite
ms
Tim
elin
e
Inte
rim ch
eck-
in da
teFin
al ev
aluat
ion
date
Equi
tabl
e A
lloca
tion
of R
esou
rces
Giv
en th
at e
qual
ity is
n’t e
quity
—th
e lo
cal s
choo
l boa
rd, d
istr
ict,
and
scho
ol
staff
und
erst
and
how
to d
istr
ibut
e re
sour
ces
to e
quita
bly
fund
she
ltere
d in
stru
ctio
n (e
spec
ially
ong
oing
pr
ofes
sion
al d
evel
opm
ent)
.
• D
oes
the
scho
ol d
istr
ict,
the
loca
l sc
hool
boa
rd, s
choo
l, an
d di
stric
t le
ader
ship
pla
n fo
r allo
catin
g re
sour
ces
to s
uppo
rt E
LL s
tude
nts?
• D
oes
prog
ram
lead
ersh
ip c
omm
it ad
equa
te fu
nds
to a
chie
ve th
e pr
ogra
m’s
inte
nded
out
com
es?
Hum
an R
esou
rces
The
loca
l sch
ool b
oard
, sch
ool,
and
dist
rict l
eade
rshi
p ha
ve a
robu
st
plan
for r
ecru
iting
and
reta
inin
g hi
ghly
effe
ctiv
e st
aff m
embe
rs th
at
unde
rsta
nd c
onte
nt s
tudi
es a
nd
lang
uage
dev
elop
men
t req
uire
d fo
r eff
ectiv
e sh
elte
red
inst
ruct
ion.
• D
oes
the
dist
rict h
ave
a st
rate
gy fo
r re
tain
ing
high
ly q
ualifi
ed te
ache
rs?
• D
oes
the
dist
rict e
quita
bly
dist
ribut
e hi
ghly
qua
lified
teac
hers
whe
re
need
ed?
ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction 31
Bibliography
ReferencesEpstein, J. (2009). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the research on English learners: What we know—and we don’t yet know—about effective instruction. American Educator, 37(2), 4–11. Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Goldenberg.pdf
Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement: Annual synthesis. Retrieved from SEDL, National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools website: https://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/evidence.pdf
Heritage, M., Walqui, A., & Linquanti, R. (2015). English language learners and the new standards: Developing language, content knowledge, and analytical practices in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., Christian, D., Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Rogers, D. (2007). Guiding principles for dual language education (2nd ed.). Retrieved from Center for Applied Linguistics website: http://www.cal.org/twi/Guiding_Principles.pdf
Saunders, W., Goldenberg, C., & Marcelletti, D. (2013). English language development: Guidelines for instruction. American Educator, 37(2), 13–25, 38–39. Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Saunders_Goldenberg_Marcelletti.pdf
Short, D. J., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners. Retrieved from Carnegie Corporation of New York website: https://www.carnegie.org/media/filer_public/bd/d8/bdd80ac7-fb48-4b97-b082-df8c49320acb/ccny_report_2007_double.pdf
32 ELL Program Road Maps: Sheltered Instruction
Valdés, G., Kibler, A., & Walqui, A. (2014). Changes in the expertise of ESL professionals: Knowledge and action in the era of new standards. Retrieved from TESOL International Association website: http://www.tesol.org/events-landing-page/2014/06/18/default-calendar/changes-in-the-expertise-of-esl-professionals-in-the-era-of-new-standards
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ResourcesBardack, S. (2010). Common ELL terms and definitions. Retrieved from American Institutes for Research website: http://www.air.org/resource/common-ell-terms-and-definitions
Burke, A., & Rodriguez-Mojica, C. (2015). Informed decisions: Recommendations from Beaverton School District’s review of program models and instructional strategies for English language learners. Retrieved from Education Northwest Google Drive file: https://drive.google.com/a/educationnorthwest.org/file/d/0B-M-2w0V8AjRN3lRT0QwZkgwTFk/view?pref=2&pli=1
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2014). English Language Proficiency (ELP) Standards with correspondences to K–12 practices and Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from Oregon Department of Education website: http://www.ode.state.or.us/opportunities/grants/nclb/title_iii/final-4_30-elpa21-standards.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition, National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2015). English Learner Tool Kit for state and local education agencies (SEAs and LEAs). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/english-learner-toolkit/index.html
101 SW Main St, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97204 | 800.547.6339
Prepared by
Recommended