Case+Study+Paper

When beginning a study about ELLs I sought students who didn't have a clue, or who appeared not to. Students who sat 'lost' in class, who didn't understand a thing, who were lucky to even know why they were there. I asked other teachers to recommend students and was dissatisfied when they gave me names of students who I had spoken with, and had seen interact, in English, regularly, with their peers and other staff members. These students I thought were not ELLs, what I learned is that an invisible ELL population exists. The invisible ELL population is the students who were, perhaps, once as I imagined ELL students would be. In time they became functional, and even proficient English speakers. This achievement, however, has proven to be a double edged sword because it allows them and their needs to become invisible. In the case of the students in this case study, these needs are in the development of written language.Students A and B in my case study are, as I have described 'invisible ELLs' while student C is (again by my own definition) a 'typical ELL.' These students receive similar supports, which consist of differentiated instruction at the discretion of the general education teacher, and 'specialized' (low-level) ELD and Reading groups for a total of five hours a week. The difference is that student C, because of her 'visibility' often receives more one-on-one help from her teachers and peers, and that the low-level classes, which these students all take together, focus more on //spoken // language. I have come to the conclusion that ELL students' spoken language develops faster and that prolonged time 'behind benchmark' comes from underdeveloped understanding of written language through triangulation of data collected from students A and B across classrooms and subjects and to a minimal degree time. Triangulating evidence requires the use of a minimum of three data sources which support a conclusion about a particular skill (Shea et.al, 2005). The skills being addressed here are spoken abilities (speaking and listening) and written abilities (reading and writing.) The spoken abilities of students A and B are moderate to strong. The first types of data which support this are observations and thinking data. Students A and B frequently raise their hands in class to answer the teacher's questions, and their responses are correct with at least 70% accuracy (consistent with the average student in the class.) They use signs to communicate understanding of verbal instructions and lessons (such as thumbs up, thumbs down.) And when prompted, they can verbalize thoughts and ideas about topics in classes. All of these observations occurred during general ed. classes, ELD classes, and Specials (Art and PE.) Although student A struggles to interact with her classmates academically, she does interact with them socially. Student B interacts regularly with his classmates academically and socially. The second type of data which supports that their spoken abilities are moderate to strong is student interviews. Both students A and B were able to answer my questions and carry on conversations with me about any topic of my choosing in a variety of settings. This ability shows that they are capable of engaging in classroom discourse, a method which will increase their ability to self-assess and to think in more complex ways, then to retain the knowledge outside of the classroom (Moss, 2009). The third type of data which supports the conclusion that student A and B's spoken language abilities are moderate to strong is teacher interviews. Speaking with the general ed. teacher of these students it was understood that student B displays advanced thinking, through questions and answers given during whole group instruction. The general ed. teacher of student A explained that despite diagnosing and treating (with a hearing aid) an 80% hearing loss in one ear, student A remained well below benchmark and, although this likely affected her early learning experiences, isn't likely the cause of current struggles; because the student can communicate instructions and ideas about class actives. The second skill being assessed is the written abilities of these students. Students A and B struggle to comprehend and complete written assignments across subject areas. Norm referenced-state-level data clearly support this, and is the first evidence in the triangulation of data. As required by the school and district, students take a variety of assessments throughout the year; one which is frequently used to assess students' reading skills is DIBLES (//Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills). // According to their DIBLES scores, students A and B fall well below the expected reading ability of the class. Students are expected to read 70 words per minute; student A read 31, while student B read 11. They will be expected to read 100 words by the end of the school year. Another assessment used is the CELA (//Colorado English Language Acquisition Proficiency Assessment // (CELApro)). Both students A and B took this assessment because their parents reported that a language other than English was spoken at home. They both received the scores in the lowest possible category, NEP (Non-English Proficient,) which requires them to be in the low level ELD class (mentioned earlier.)MAPS is the final assessment which provides norm-referenced state-level data evidence of the abilities of students A and B. MAPS (//Measure of Academic Progress,) // are the only assessment I observed being used at the school, which show individual progress over time. This function is increasingly important as teachers are learning the value of assessing whether a student is making personal improvements, rather than always comparing them to the current abilities of their classmates and state/district bench marks (Colorado Growth Model, 2008). From the period of 8/2010 - 8/2011, student A showed slow, consistent growth in the areas of reading, language, and math. From the period of 12/2010- 8/2011, student B showed almost no growth in all mentioned subject areas. Student A's results show that she is improving in her written abilities, however she and student B still score drastically behind their classmates. Student B's lack of growth over the eight month period is very concerning. In the class bench marks will be the second point of triangulation to show that students A and B struggle to comprehend and complete written assignments. The general education teacher uses a variety of assessments, usually weekly, to understand the abilities of her students. Students A and B show they are having great difficulty during these times when they are required to work 100% independently. They show this on a writing practice test, which mirrors the CSAP (Colorado Student Assessment Program) writing assessment (the expectation is that students are able to write complete paragraphs.) Here student A struggled to write anything, once the teacher gave her a little help she was able to write a sentence or two. Student B shows an understanding of paragraph forms and uses topic sentences and transition words independently and correctly, however spelling is difficult to read as it is invented and mixed with Spanish. Also, he is unable to complete the paragraphs in allotted time. In class spelling tests therefore, are extremely challenging for student B, who received a 3% score on his in-class spelling test. While student A received a 55% score on the same test. As we are looking at students’ written abilities, it is important to consider students' performance across subjects. Math assessments also show students A and B scoring below class benchmarks with scores less than 50% (this statistic comes from my knowledge of the classroom, since only one exam is provided under supporting data.) The third part of the written ability triangle is thinking data. Thinking data is “evidence of mental processing and indicates changes of knowledge of self, others, and the world” (Elliot, 2011). The two main evidences of thinking data used here are observations of students in the classroom context and journal entries. I have observed students A and B in a variety of classroom settings. In my observations I have noticed a pattern of I do, we do, you do teaching method. During the 'I do' portions, the teacher models for the class and students A and B are able to follow along well. During the 'we do' portions students are asked to participate, usually by copying what the teacher has written on the document camera. Student A usually copies with 80% accuracy and student B usually copies with 40% accuracy. When students are asked to continue independently during the 'you do' portion, student A often writes nothing until given assistance from a teacher; while student B usually writes, but his work is unreadable. The journal entries of the students support that they have difficulty writing independently as it can be seen that they often write very little, and in the case of student B this writing is difficult to read/ understand. As can be seen from these two sets of triangulated data, students A and B have moderate to strong spoken abilities in class, across subject areas; while their written abilities remain below the expected and performing level of their classmates. As discussed previously they are receiving special services from their general education teacher and pull out teachers. These services have been chosen as a response to the students' involvement in the school's RtI (Response to Intervention) program. The RtI was created to be "a framework that promotes a well-integrated system connecting general, compensatory, gifted, and special education in providing high quality, standards based instruction and intervention that is matched to students' academic, social-emotional, and behavioral needs" (CDE, 2011). Its principles are to given interventions early, so that they can be most effective, and that students are able to improve when instructional decisions are based on data. I believe that in the cases of students A and B, the first is true while the latter is not. These students were entered into the RtI process as early as first grade (in the case of student A, second grade in the case of student B.) However, evidence does not support that the special services which these students are receiving have been tailored to their needs, as supported by data. Rather, two of the supplementary classes they receive for 1.5 hours (in two 45 minute blocks) a day, three to four days a week, are low-level reading and English classes which focus often on spoken English and do not provide the individualized instruction these students seek. Also, the general education teacher differentiates her instruction for these students; however this method also focuses on giving lower-level materials/expectations, rather than supplying individual support. It is clear then that what these students lack most is individualized support. I have spoken with the RtI coordinator at the school about students in the RtI process to get a better understanding of why these students aren't receiving services which better fit their needs. She informed me that this was due mostly to funding and lack of space in our school. There are currently 54 students at our school in the RtI process and many more 'on watch.' She explained that it has become the focus of herself and paraprofessionals at the school to work with intensive students (which would be the 'lost' students I mentioned in the beginning.) It seems that the teachers and staff are working very hard to meet the needs of all students, however, when sources are limited there is only so much they can do; and when individualized instruction is what the students need it makes it even more difficult to provide for them.Because school resources are so limited, at home could be a place where students could receive this support. The general education teacher has meet with the parents (who have a good level of English) of both student A and B and suggested ways in which they could help at home (reading books at their level and site words.) She told me that student A's father was defensive and replied "well I wasn't good at school either" when she showed the levels at which this daughter was performing, and that they "have books at home," when she offered to send home site words and to allow their daughter to bring home books from school (as all students are.) The general education teacher also told me that student B's mother was embarrassed when she suggested that her son spend more time doing homework and he said that he tries but his mom is always rushing him. Based on these conversations it seems that the students had and will continue to have little support at home. Many of the teachers and staff whom I spoke to about these students assured me that, "it will take time," "because they are ELL students they need time," however I can't help but think that if they were given just a little of the individualized support they need they would be able to perform many of the tasks of their classmates; and that every day they are sitting in class wasting time, as when they are asked to read and write about something they cannot comprehend (and this applies across subjects areas, such as story problems in math or note-taking in science class.) With these thoughts on my mind and all of that data which I have collected, I have come up with a plan of action for future use in my classroom. The main thing which I have learned is that when students are struggling, the best way to help them is to individualize lessons for them. As a general education teacher I will differentiate my instruction during whole group and small group lessons. I plan to do so using tiered assignments, which are created to better match the instruction with student's individual needs; I will try to make my tiering invisible whenever possible, so as to keep students from feeling badly about their 'level.' I also plan to use flexible grouping for students during small group activities, which will be created based on the particular needs of the students. In these flexible groups I will try to offer choices whenever possible, because I have learned that choices keep students interested, which motivates them to learn. Choices can be offered in variety of ways, I plan to use challenge centers, which offer stations for students to move around to. Also I would like to use Pathways which allow students choices among projects or activities, while assessing the same skill(s) (Heacox, 2002). Assessments will be another focus of my plan of action. As I saw in my case study, the students were asked to write (complete) self assessments, however, little attention was paid to them after they were completed. I would like to take this idea a little further and meet with my students to discuss any disagreements we may have in the assessment, also to give them encouragement for the things they specifically have done well/ correctly, and to make a plan for improvement in the areas where it is needed. Moss and Brookhart suggest that three questions guide formative assessments: Where am I going? Where am I now? and What strategy/strategies can help me get where I need to go? (2009). I plan to ask these questions to my students and myself regularly and to encourage my students to ask them to themselves and their peers. Knowing the personal lives of students will also greatly improve my ability to teach effectively. Polakow points out that, although the McKinney Act has worked to break down barriers for homeless children entering schools, students still face a many more barriers once enrolled, such as attendance, low achievement/ failure, inappropriate placement, and lack of special services (2007). These barriers and more can exist for a variety of students facing social issues besides homelessness, so knowing if my students are effected will help me work with them to set realistic goals and expectations, as well as provide any additional services when possible. In the instance of students A and B, I believe that it would greatly benefit these students to get some tutoring after or before school, since they lack academic support at home. I would try to get to know the families better and work with them and the school to make these services available. While collecting data I have learned that it is very important to collaborate with other teachers and staff members at the school and in the community. Because the goal of data collection is to understand the whole child, I will be mindful of speaking to other teachers whom my students see regularly to see if there is anything occurring which I am not seeing, or if there is a method which works particularly well for a student/ group of students. As mentioned earlier in the case of students A and B, personalized instruction will be the most beneficial for struggling students, so I would also like to meet with other staff members who interact regularly with students to determine skills and goals to focus on. Todd Whiteman, principle at Foxfire Center for Student Success emphasizes the importance of relationships among teachers, parents, and students and that treating each student as an individual is the key to student success (2009). Personalizing for my students will help them to feel accepted as members of the classroom community. When creating my classroom community I will make it a priority to allow students' input in creating the rules and expectations for the class. I will encourage students to share about their family, culture, and experiences outside of the classroom. Weinstein et. al. writes, “It is critical that teachers deliberately model respect for diversity- by expressing admiration for a student’s bilingual ability, by commenting enthusiastically about the number of different languages that are represented in the class, and by including examples and content from a variety of cultures in their teaching.” I believe that students A and B would also benefit from a classroom community which values their diverse ability, rather than feel isolated by them; as student A told me "(I speak) a language (at home) that no one knows...no one knows it only we speak it at home no one knows what that is" (Schwietz, 2011). I believe that by implementing these strategies I would be able to help all students in my classroom, including ELLs. Students A and B are going through the system as it is written. They receive ELD classes in response to the Colorado Department of Education requirement that "ELLs need to be provided universal supports that enhance language acquisition in conjunction with content instruction" (2008). Yet some students fail to progress adequately despite these ELL services and therefore are placed on an RtI program (as is the case of students A and B). They are receiving interventions; however, due to lack of resources and an 'overcrowded' system, the true needs of these students remain invisible. Therefore it will be my job as a general education teacher to find these true needs, make them visible, and work with the students, staff, and parents to meet them.

References

CDE (2011, May 16). Response to Intervention. Retrieved from []

Colorado Department of Education, National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment (2008). Introducing Colorado's Growth Model- Tutorial #1: Overview. Retrieved from[]

Elliot, Lori (2011). //Possibilities for Data Source Documents. // Retrieved from lecture notes online website** [|www.ucdenver.edu] **

Heacox, D. (2002). //Differentiating Instruction in the Regular Classroom. // Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Press.

Moss, C. & Brookhart, S. (2009). Enriching classroom discourse: Planning for and asking strategic questions. In //Advancing Formative Assessment in Every Classroom: A Guide for Instructional Leaders. // Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Polakow, V. (2007). In the shadows of the ownership society: Homeless children and their families. In Sue Books (ed.), //Invisible children in the society and its schools. // Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schwietz, M (2011). ELLs Supporting Data. Retrieved from http://mschwietz.wikispaces.com/Supporting+Data

Shea, M., Murray, R., & Harlin, R. (2005). //Drowning in Data?: How to Collect, Organize, and Document Student Performance. // Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

The Colorado Department of Education (2008). Response to Intervention: A Practitioner’s Guide to Implementation.Retrieved from []

Weinstein, C., Tomlinson-Clarke, S., & Curran, M. (2004). Toward a conception of culturally responsive classroom management. //Journal of Education // 55(1).

Whiteman, Todd (2009). //Building a Personalized Culture Using the Five Big Rocks. // Foxfire Center for Student Success. OH Retrieved from[]