Staff Development While You Teach: Collaborating to Serve English Learners

Communities of Participation in TESOL

Staff Development While YouTeach: Collaborating to Serve

English Learners

CONSTANCE WALKERTINA SCOTT EDSTAM

University of Minnesota

This article examines the nature of a sustained staff develop-ment program for teachers serving English learners in elemen-tary schools. It begins by exploring the need for learners to haveoptimum language and content development, and indicates thatmany U.S. grade-level and content area teachers have not beenprepared to meet that need. Focusing on the experience of oneelementary teacher, it then describes the 2-year collaborativeteam effort within and between four elementary schools thatprovided for both individual and collective growth as profes-sionals, as well as structure and motivation that would encour-age the emergence of successful instructional practices. A keyoutcome of this model of staff development was the importanceand value of treating educators as professionals—respectingtheir time, energy, need for connections with peers, and willing-ness to engage in professional growth. Another outcome wasthe unanimous positive response to staff development that waslong term, focused, and sustained. Learning how best to addressthe needs of second-language learners requires conversationwithin a school building. The challenge of bringing grade leveland content area teachers together with peers to both exploreand enhance their practice is substantial.doi: 10.1002/tesj.81

Many changes in recent years have focused attention on therichness and challenges of diverse classrooms in U.S. publicschools. Unfortunately teacher preparation has not kept up withthose changes, resulting in both new and veteran teachers feelingunprepared to attend to one particular group, those learners for

TESOL Journal 4.2, June 2013 345© 2013 TESOL International Association

whom English is a second language. The following is an accountof a teacher who felt, despite her experience, that she was unsureof what would most validate and connect her English learners(ELs) to classroom learning. She embraced an opportunity toexplore in depth her practice, her relationships with colleagues,and her curiosity about her community of learners. Through herexperience, we describe her participation in a staff developmentprogram, the direction she and her colleagues chose to go toimprove their professional skills.

THE NEW CLASSROOM REALITYNancy had been teaching for 21 years before she admitted toherself that she had encountered a challenge she was not preparedfor. She thought she had met and welcomed every possible kind oflearner into her small-town elementary classroom, from those withphysical challenges to those with emotional and behavioral ones,from those with gifted abilities to those with identifiable learningdisorders. Yet these newest arrivals had her feeling like the noviceteacher she once was two decades ago. Nancy’s community wasexperiencing a recent population growth due in great part to ameat processing plant’s hiring of a mainly immigrant and refugeework force and a slow but steady arrival of non–English-speakingfamilies from the state’s major metropolitan area looking for moreaffordable living. This fall Nancy found that her third-grade classlist contained eight English learners—four from Mexico, threefrom Somalia, and a Karen speaker from Myanmar. With twoEnglish as a second language (ESL) teachers for a school of 450students (20% of whom were English learners), her school hadseen a doubling of the EL population over the previous 7 years—not uncommon in many suburban and rural communities thesedays.

Historically, the concentration of students learning Englishwhile at the same time learning academic content has been limitedto urban areas of states in the southwest and northeast, and therural agricultural southwest. During the 1990s, enrollment of ELsin the United States increased by 105% (Kindler, 2002), with themidwest and south, for example, showing significant gains inLatino and African student populations. Some communities saw a

346 TESOL Journal

200%–300% increase in second-language learners over a 5-yearperiod. While urban areas have historically witnessed increases innumbers and changing ethnolinguistic patterns of enrollment, thechallenges are new to many small and rural U.S. communities.Nancy’s classroom reflects the changing pattern of enrollment inmany of these communities. In her school district, while thegeneral student population increased 0.8% over the past 7 years,the population of ELs increased 88%.

Along with Nancy and her colleagues, teachers nationallyreport feeling unprepared to serve this population (Han, Baker, &Rodriguez, 1997; National Center for Education Statistics, 2002;Zeichner, 2005). At the same time, the No Child Left Behind(NCLB) Act has increased pressure on schools to meetachievement goals for all subgroups of learners, requiring thatindividual teachers as well as schools take responsibility for theachievement demonstrated by ELs—a direct contrast to thehistorical practice of leaving the responsibility of instructionalmost exclusively to ESL and bilingual specialists. While Nancy’sschool did have an ESL teacher, that individual’s efforts werefocused on a typical pull-out model, in that she worked with smallgroups of students throughout the day away from their grade-level classroom. Required by the state to be certified to teach ESL,this individual, like many of her peers, was the repository ofknowledge concerning state practices with respect to curriculum,instruction, and assessment of ELs. At the same time, as an ESLteacher she served in an advocate capacity, often as a cultural andlinguistic “broker” between the school and parents. The schooldistrict as a whole paid limited attention to the struggles of ELs inthe community until No Child Left Behind took effect. Nancy’sschool did not meet the adequate yearly progress (AYP)benchmarks the state had set for achievement for English languagelearners (ELLs) in mathematics and reading, and found itself “onthe list.” Like many school districts in similar situations, thisparticular district turned its efforts toward bringing in experts to“fix” the low achievement of learners for whom English was asecond language. Staff development followed traditional models ofisolated workshops and information that was disconnected fromdaily classroom practice.

Staff Development While You Teach 347

Yet the field of professional development for practicingteachers was witnessing new thinking that underscored a moreholistic and site-based approach for improving teacher practice.Generating professional knowledge for teaching was thewatchword, and the consensus among researchers today is thatstaff development yields the best results when it is long term, sitebased, involves the collaborative process, and focuses on studentlearning (Clark, 2001; DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005; Garet,Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Tellez & Waxman, 2006).

One of the critical elements of effective staff development foreducators who work in schools serving ELs is professionalcommunity (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Mullen, 2000; Semadeni,2010; Von Frank, 2009.) The challenge of bringing grade level andcontent area teachers together with peers to both explore andenhance their practice is substantial. Teachers surveyed in twomajor recent studies (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation andScholastic, 2012; MetLife, 2010) overwhelmingly reported thatgreater collaboration among teachers and school leaders wouldhave a significant impact on student learning, and that suchcollaboration is very important in ensuring their persistence in theprofession. When schools specifically enrolling ELs are examined,professional development is one of the top school and districtfactors influencing ELLs’ academic success (Goldenberg &Coleman, 2010).

Thus, (1) as demographic changes with respect to ELs wereevident across the United States, (2) teachers were not prepared toaddress the demands of NCLB that the achievement gap beexamined with an eye toward remedy. Research on optimalprofessional development was moving in new directions (3), andfinally, (4) more sophisticated knowledge about second-languagelearning and the best ways to integrate language and content weretaking place in the field of second-language education (August &Hakuta, 1997; Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989; Grabe & Stoller,1997; Hinkel, 2005). These four currents came together in the late1990s and into the new century, just as we, as teacher educators,began to entertain the idea of seeking support to bring elementaryteachers together for a sustained in-service experience. A desire to“think small” in our efforts to work with individual schools

348 TESOL Journal

addressing ELL student needs required that we identify fourelementary schools—urban, suburban, and rural—to form a teamof teams. In addition to developing a sustained staff developmentmodel, we wanted to build in the opportunity to have teachersreflect on their experiences in conversations, written journals,team leader interviews, reader responses, evaluations, and finalreflections at the close of the project. The result was richqualitative data for subsequent examination. As data is now beinganalyzed for a total of 105 teachers (across both elementary andmiddle school cohorts), there are hundreds of documents that offera rich texture of teacher thinking during an extended process ofstaff development. We present here but a snapshot of what welearned from our first cohort of elementary teachers, through theexperience of one veteran teacher.

A SMALL GROUP BEGINS PROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENTNancy and her colleagues chose to respond to the challenge byjoining a 2-year in-service project offered by a large university thatwould create the parameters for a collaborative process. Nancy,together with the ESL teacher, a grade-level paraprofessional, andfour other grade-level instructors formed a team that committeditself to a sustained, long-term conversation about the best ways toprovide instruction that would optimize learning for ELs. Asparticipants in the TEAM UP Project (Teaching English-language-learners Action Model to Unite Professionals), four schools formedteams that came together as a large group during two summerinstitutes and three 2-day sessions during each of two academicyears. In addition, each team met for all-day meetings away fromschool each month (Walker, Edstam, & Stone, 2006; Walker &Stone, 2003).

In an initial survey, the 28 educators reported on theirknowledge of the nature of second-language learning, culturaland community characteristics of their learners, and whichstrategies might most effectively enhance both language andcontent learning at school. The surveys examined generalknowledge related to teaching ELL students, as well asconfidence at working with these students. Generally, while


there were a few misconceptions, initial survey results indicatedthat participants across roles had some degree of understandingof the principles of second-language learning, but reported gapsin their understanding of culture(s) and communities and of thebest ways to enhance content learning. A fundamental premiseof the TEAM UP project recognizes that people are at differentplaces in their professional development, a fact borne out by thesurvey results.

Through follow-up discussions within school teams, acrossteams, and with university staff, teachers amplified what theywanted to know to be more effective in the classroom with ELs.The following theme areas emerged as important for structuring acohesive (yet fluid) professional development curriculum. Wehave put them in question form:

• Culture—How can we find out more about the backgrounds, experiences,values, behaviors, and family and community lives of my students?

• Community outreach—How can we connect with these learners throughbetter connections with families, neighborhoods, associations, and so forth?

• Instruction—In what ways can I improve my teaching to best address thestudents’ needs for content learning and language development?

• Assessment—How can assessment be more equitable and effective for ELs?

• Empathy—How can we encourage ourselves and fellow staff members tounderstand the strengths and challenges of our bilingual learners?

• First language—In what ways can we optimize learning by attending to andincorporating the first language?

• Increased confidence in professional ability—How can I be more confidentin my teaching, knowing that I am incorporating “best practice” in my workwith ELs?

These guiding themes set the course for the next 2 yearsfor us as teacher educators. At the same time, both teams andindividuals charted their own plan for professional exploration.Each team developed a school action plan specific to their site thatwould respond to these goals and would drive their efforts atimproving ELs’ achievement. Nancy and her colleagues wanted todo the following:

1. Improve outreach to ELL families;2. Initiate change in the model of ESL instruction to foster a more collaborative

approach;3. Improve assessment and evaluation of ELLs; and

350 TESOL Journal

4. Provide classroom teachers with the tools needed for “best practice” inteaching ELLs.

Team action plans, developed by each team independently, allincluded a component that signified a wish to improve theconnections between families and school. Whether dissatisfiedwith communication between home and school or observingevidence of disconnection from school among families of ELs, eachteam identified this as a critical issue to be addressed over the2-year period.

Each member within a team developed a Personal ProfessionalAction Plan (PPAP) at the beginning of the process to map acourse for individual professional development. They identifiedtheir individual needs and the actions they wanted to take to meetthem, including a combination of connecting with communities,readings around a particular theme or topic, taking a course in alanguage represented in their school, gathering resources,observing other teachers, or addressing particular aspects of theirown teaching or areas of curriculum. Each plan was unique andprovided a personal map for the upcoming 2-year experience. As aclassroom teacher, Nancy chose to do the following:

• Implement different teaching strategies that would enable second languagelearners to more easily access the mainstream curriculum;

• Learn more about her students’ backgrounds, schooling, and literacyexperiences;

• Read articles on the cultures represented by her new students; and

• Begin to work collaboratively with the ESL teachers to address languageand content objectives in lesson planning.

The focus on a collaborative process over time, together withgrant funds, allowed for university teacher educators (the authors)in the fields of K–12 ESL and bilingual education to coordinateresources for intensive instruction and interaction over the 2 years.Years of offering in-service staff development through traditionalmeans led us to imagine that, with support for development of anew model, we could move away from the tried-and-true (andoften futile) toward a chance for meaningful conversation aroundactual practice, where professionals could collaborate to sharetheir practice as they expanded knowledge and skills over an


extended period of time. The research base for best practicedetermined both the content and the process by which the TEAMUP project was developed (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2000;Gibbons, 2002; Lucas, 2011). The model offered course credit andprovided for release time to allow for substitute teachers to covermonthly meetings, academic year meetings, and team leaders’workdays. Books and resources specifically for teacher learningwere purchased for each school, providing a base for readingand written reflection required of each teacher. The purchasedmaterials resulted in a professional library available to alleducators at the site, housed in the school library. Carefullyselected readings from journals, books, websites, and newslettersprovided texts for the exploration of particular topics and issues(see www.teamupmn.org for both workshop agendas as well asreadings and resources).

Nancy, together with her colleagues in the project, wroteextensively in both journals and their reader responses wereobserved in classrooms and met with and discussed their teachingwith TEAM UP staff at various points in the school year. Mostimportantly, they planned and discussed with each other on acontinuous basis throughout 2 years of teaching just how theymight better serve those learners new to English in their schools.

LONG-TERM SUSTAINED PROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENTAs a university staff, we began to learn about Nancy at the firstsummer institute, and over the course of two years built a wealthof knowledge about her personal teaching style, her strengths, herconcerns, and her relationships with team members as well asother staff at her school. We observed her teach, which gave us animmediate view of her environment and her practice. By sitting inon each team’s monthly meetings at least twice during theacademic year, and by closely observing the teams’ interactionsduring institutes and academic year meetings, we were able to seeNancy in the many contexts of her professional role. Nancy andthe members of the four teams communicated with us via e-mailas well. In that way they were able to maintain personal contactbetween project workshops and our school and meeting visits.

352 TESOL Journal

The TEAM UP project was designed to consider professionaldevelopment in a more systematic and extended manner thatfacilitated relationships on several levels. By facilitating smallgroup teacher collaboration at each school site and conversationsamong individuals with particular roles across schools, it was ourhope that the school districts themselves could become part of alarger in-service learning process. Indeed, Nancy’s teamestablished a strong reputation in their district and eventuallyproposed to the district a model for staff development that couldinclude both middle school and high school buildings as well.

Reports from team members during and at the close of the2-year process were consistent in their enthusiasm for “diggingdeeper” and getting the support they needed to make changes inteaching. Nancy and her colleagues were hungry for informationand a glimpse into what other teachers were doing to improvelearning for their students who were becoming bilingual. Webelieved that a radical departure from traditional staffdevelopment could assist them in this process. We required acommitment to 2 years of conversation and a willingness toseriously examine with colleagues the most effective ways inwhich to meet learner needs. Our enthusiasm for the sustainedprofessional development relationship with the 28 teachers in theproject was matched by the teachers themselves, who reportedorally and through written reader reflections and final evaluationsthe impact of an opportunity to engage in work through acollaborative process that included a focus on both theory andpractice. Nancy reported that she found value in the experiencein that it connected directly with her practice: “When I attendother conferences, I may gather the information and use it butsometimes it doesn’t become a stepping stone for continuedprofessional growth nor do I get to continue communicating withcolleagues I meet at the conference. With TEAM UP there wasrarely a time I couldn’t go back to my room or to my elementaryschool setting and utilize or share what I have learned. Sometimesit was just knowledge I was taking back to my students andcolleagues but other times it was actual teaching strategies I coulduse.” As one of her team colleagues observed, “The structure ofthe TEAM UP program is one that promotes real professional


growth. Its ongoing nature lets the participants learn a new idea,collaborate with others about the new idea, try it out in theclassroom, and find out how things went for others, beforerepeating the process. The follow-up necessary for success isplanned. Collaboration over time is also a key. The network ofpeers working toward the same goal re-energizes you as a teacherand gives you license to take the risk necessary to make realchange.”

LESSONS LEARNEDOur most interesting outcome from the elementary TEAM UPproject was the reinforcement of our sense of the importance andthe impact of the culture of each school. School culture, “theunderground stream of norms, values, beliefs, traditions andrituals that builds up over time as people work together, solveproblems, and confront challenges” (Deal and Peterson, 1998),worked in Nancy’s favor. The four elementary school sites sharedcertain similarities—a concern about scarce resources, space as apremium, and decisions based upon the ever-elusive “equal”division of labor, whether the labor was learners or materials. Inthe face of predictable cultural characteristics, and the strong pullfor maintaining the status quo, each team faced unique challengesas they attempted to implement best practices for EL studentswithin their particular schools.

Nancy’s school had strong principal support throughout the2-year project, providing a reinforcement and appreciation of theefforts made by the team. Nancy’s team also had a team leaderwhose personality and teaching philosophy brought a distinctivedynamic that nurtured team members and welcomed schoolstaff into the process of making change. Each team memberreported feeling more empowered in her role, whether as aparaprofessional, classroom teacher, or ESL teacher.

Another outcome was the overwhelming response fromparticipants that this kind of staff development—long term,ongoing, and sustained—was both personally and professionallyrewarding. They often wrote of the contrast between staffdevelopment that had long been part of their district culture, andthe very different opportunities for exploration and reflection that

354 TESOL Journal

this project provided. Learning how best to address the needs ofsecond-language learners requires a community conversationwithin a school building. Nancy and her team shared their newlyacquired knowledge via staff workshops, newsletters, andone-on-one collaborative relationships with colleagues developedduring the two years.

As we examine the more quantitative indicators of ELacademic success measured by standardized tests, we can alreadymeasure success in qualitative ways, which indicate to us thatchange is indeed occurring (Walker, Edstam, & Stone, 2006, 2007,2008). Participating elementary teachers reported that theirstudents were more engaged, and that as teachers they felt moreaware of the individual talents and needs of their ELs. IncreasedESL parent attendance at school meetings and conferences wasnoted. The effect of a small team of teachers systematicallyexploring their practice guided by research that underscoreseffective staff development cannot be underestimated (Walker &Edstam, 2012). We found a new willingness among each school’sclassroom teachers outside of the original team to collaborate withESL teachers in instructional and curricular planning. Nancy andher school are indeed responding to their changing demographicsby embracing their newest arrivals with some new teaching tools,a positive school culture, feelings of self-efficacy, and anunderstanding of the value of ongoing professional development.A key outcome of this model of staff development was thefeedback, both informally and through program evaluations,concerning the importance and value of treating educators asprofessionals—respecting their time, energy, need for connectionswith peers, and willingness to engage in professional growth.Nancy and her peers reported the strong contrast of thisexperience with both their preservice preparation as well as in-service experiences so common to teaching. As participatingteachers shared with school colleagues their experiences atproductive conversations and a new kind of professional learning,the value of their work with the TEAM UP project becameapparent—and their schools began to approach staff developmentwith a new vision.


Building school-based professional development requiresvision and efforts grounded in the daily lives of teachers in orderto be successful. Most of all it requires patience and anunderstanding that changes in attitudes, beliefs, and practice areslow to come to the world of teaching. Two years was enoughtime for us, as teacher educators, to see growth and change and tounderstand the powerful dynamic of personal relationships inimproving teacher learning.

This particular professional development experience enabledNancy to retain the exuberance of her novice self and has enhancedthe confidence of an already skilled teacher, one willing to evolve asa professional. Most importantly, the culture of staff developmenthas changed in her school, as Nancy and her peers have themselvesguided both content and process as her school seeks to improveboth teacher and student learning. Everyone wins.

THE AUTHORSConstance Walker is a faculty member in second languages andcultures education at the University of Minnesota, where she doesteaching and research in teacher development related to Englishlanguage learners. She is director of the TEAM UP project, acollaborative model for enhancing the efforts of elementary andsecondary teachers.

Tina Scott Edstam is a teacher educator in second languages andcultures education at the University of Minnesota. With extensiveexperience in teacher education, she coordinates the TEAM UPproject, providing in-service staff development to teachers inurban, suburban, and rural schools serving English languagelearners.

REFERENCESAugust, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language-

minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: NationalResearch Council.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation & Scholastic. (2012). America’steachers on the teaching profession. New York, NY: ScholasticInc.

356 TESOL Journal

Brinton, D., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-basedsecond language instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Clark, C. M. (Ed.). (200l). Talking shop: Authentic conversation andteacher learning. New York: Teachers College Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessonslearned from exemplary programs. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1998). Shaping school culture: Theheart of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dufour, R., Eaker, R. & Dufour, R., (2005). On common ground: Thepower of professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN:Solution Tree.

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. J. (2000). Making contentcomprehensible for English Language Learners: The SIOP model.Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon,K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective?Results from a national sample of teachers. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Goldenberg, C., & Coleman, R. (2010). Promoting academicachievement among English learners: A guide to the research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (1997). Content-based instruction:Research foundations. In M. A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.),The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating languageand content (pp. 5–21). New York, NY: Longman.

Han, M., Baker, D., & Rodriguez, C. (1997). A profile of policies andpractices for limited English proficient students: screening methods,program support, and teacher training. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education. NCES: 97-472.

Hinkel, E. (Ed.). (2005). Handbook of research in second languageteaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Inc.

Kindler, A. (2002). Survey of the states’ limited English proficientstudents and available educational programs and services: 2000–2001summary report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for


English Language Acquisition and Language InstructionEducational Programs.

Lucas, T. (Ed.). (2011). Teacher preparation for linguistically diverseclassrooms: A resource for teacher educators. New York, NY:Routledge.

MetLife. (2010). MetLife survey of the American teacher:Collaborating for student success. Available at: https://www.metlife.com/metlife-foundation/what-we-do/student-achievement/survey-american-teacher.html?WT.mc_id=vu1101

Mullen, C. A. (2000). Constructing co-mentoring partnerships.Walkways we must travel. Theory Into Practice, 39(1), 4–11.doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3901_2

National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). The condition ofeducation 2002. Contexts of elementary and secondaryeducation: Indicator 33: Participation in professionaldevelopment. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_3/3_3/q3-3.asp

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. (2002). Public Law 107–110.Washington, DC: US Congress. Available at: www2. ed. gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110. pdf

Semadeni, J. (2010). When teachers drive their learning. EducationalLeadership, 67(8), 66–69.

Tellez, K., & Waxman, H. (2006). Preparing quality educators forEnglish language learners: Research, policy, and practice. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Von Frank, V. (2009, August/September). Leadership teams createlasting change. Tools for Schools, 13(1), 1–7.

Walker, C. & Edstam, T. (2012). Preparing teachers for diverseclassrooms – What two veteran teacher educators have learned.American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting,Vancouver, BC, April 13-17, 2012.

Walker, C., Edstam, T., & Stone, K. (2006, April). Long-termcollaborative staff development to better serve English languagelearners. Paper presented at the meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Walker, C., Edstam, T., & Stone, K. (2007, April). Two years, threekinds of educators, and four schools: Improving education for

358 TESOL Journal

English language learners. Paper presented at the meeting ofthe American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Walker, C., Edstam, T., & Stone, K. (2008, April). Schools servingEnglish language learners: How effective staff development isdetermined by school cultures. Paper presented at the meetingof the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Walker, C., & Stone, K. (2003, May). Rethinking professionalgrowth to serve English language learners. Paper presented atthe Third International Conference on Language TeacherEducation, Minneapolis, MN.

Zeichner, K. (2005). A research agenda for teacher education. InM. Cochran-Smith, & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teachereducation. The report of the AERA Panel on Research and TeacherEducation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.


Documents

Staff Development While You Teach: Collaborating to Serve English Learners