Embedded Files
"Who is not benefiting? Who is being marginalized? Who is being underserved?"
Some of my leadership goals in creating this space for my RLP group was to invite my colleagues to identify together the areas where we saw equity issues. It was important to me as a leader to not explicitly state the issues I saw on-site that I wanted addressed, but rather demonstrate my understanding of democratic leadership where I open up space for their voices and input to be honored and represented. I desired to facilitate the group discussion in a way where it invited and pulled folks in for authentic dialogue. It was through an on-going dialogue that we were able to narrow down to a group of underserved, marginalized, and vulnerable students.
The RLP group was made of 5 individuals-- 2 Kindergarten teachers, 2 1st grade teachers, and 1 5th grade teacher. We have been at our school site for varying years-- some as long as 18 years and others as long as 4-5 years. The problem we, collectively, identified together during our first official meeting was that our EL students are not receiving adequate services. There was qualitative data from individuals in the group to support this claim. One teacher shared that her newcomers who arrived in November received some support from our ELD Instructional Aides in November and December, but then were put aside for ELPAC testing purposes. Another shared that though about a third of her class have the EL classification, they have not received any designated ELD instruction all year long. Under this equity issue, we were able to identify 4 different sub-groups: 1. Newcomers; 2. P-LTELs and LTELs; 3. Students who are deemed to be “okay,” but have not exited out of the ELD program; 4. Armenian boys.
After listing out our sub-groups of students, we were able to share a bit of our positionalities and identities that directly impacted the identifying of the marginalized group. One teacher that had identified “Newcomers” as her marginalized group shared that she has received newcomers over the years throughout the school year and the inconsistent support has been extremely detrimental to her group of students. In the upper grades, they are often in a room of 32-34 students and they are not able to find points of entry in these classrooms. One teacher identified P-LTELs and LTELs as a group that is being marginalized and this came from her being in the ELD system herself who, then, was lucky enough to be reclassified during her elementary school years. She shared that her brother, on the other hand, did not reclassify until 8th grade and that made a stark difference in their class assignments and what they were each able to “take on” at high school level. One teacher identified the kids who fall through the cracks as they are not serviced properly and adequately within their time as EL students. They are not “low enough” to require designated ELD time, yet are not able to reclassify– at no fault of their own. Last student group that was brought up were Armenian boys. Our school sees a large representation of Armenian boys who are classified as ELs at the 5th grade level; the 5th grade teacher believed this was an over-representation and wanted to know why. Ultimately, after engaging in a dialogue, we narrowed it down to P-LTELs and LTELs.
co-constructed actions
Some co-constructed actions that were taken to address the equity issue were done in waves. Each member took on a co-constructed action plan to further investigate and study the current situation and context. Our actions varied greatly though we focused on the same equity issue.
We had a member (GB) who took a quantitative approach and dug into data. She tracked 8 specific LTELs dating back to their TK and Kinder years and charted available data. It ranged from who their teachers were, what their ELPAC scores were across the domains, SBAC scores if applicable, school attended (if not our current site, whether it was parochial, charter, another school within the district, etc.), and ELD Matrix score as well. This was to see if there were any noticeable trends across our LTEL students over the years. Something we noticed was that there was a large discrepancy in our ELD Matrix scores– it largely depended on the teacher. A wondering that came out of this was: “How do teachers grade our students on the matrices? How can we explore this in a way where grading is not purely subjective?”
Another member (MP) took a look at our vertical alignment of our writing curriculum at our school. This co-construction action derived from recognizing that our LTELs and P-LTELs scored the lowest across the grades w in the writing section of the ELPAC. This is also the case when examining our school as a collective whole. As a 5th grade teacher, she went to our 4th grade team and asked them to administer a writing task on describing their favorite book/movie. The teammember collected about 20 writing samples and identified trends across them. She saw that the 4th grade students did not have a clear understanding of the prompt (identification vs. description) and demonstrated many grammatical and syntax errors, as well as spelling and punctuation errors as well. We collectively recognized that not having a vertical alignment of a writing curriculum could very well add to this lackluster writing. We looked into bringing back a former curriculum that was used (Step Up to Writing) which follows a strong, logical structure and builds on previous year’s work. Another step we decided to take was to create a writing folder that would be added into the student’s CUM folder at the end of the year. It would house BOY, MOY, and EOY writing samples from year to year. The goal would be two-fold: the student’s progress would be tracked throughout the year, and the teacher the following year would have a picture of the student’s writing abilities and would have an idea of areas of strengths and needs.
Another member (MF) looked to examine our current ELD support model. We have push-in models for most of our students with the exception of our newcomers who get pulled across classes. Her initial co-construction action was about informing and learning. We, as an RLP group, read an article on language acquisition and providing services at an early age. She was able to share this article with our ELD team as well. The wondering that came about in this process was: “What does equipping and training look like for our ELD IAs to ensure that our EL students receive quality services and minutes?” Our ELD Coordinator was able to share the current practices within the ELD Team. The RLP team felt that perhaps a way to build onto this is to brainstorm as a grade level team on what needs we see among our language learners, so that we are in communication with the ones who are providing the support.
Another member (DW) looked to conduct empathy interviews with our LTEL and P-LTEL students in 4th and 5th grade. The hope was to capture real life experiences of being a language learner on our school campus. She interviewed 6 students– four 4th graders and two 5th graders. Of the 6, 2 have been in the EL program since K, 1 since 1st, and 3 since 2nd/3rd grade. They recognized their strengths as being bilingual (and for one, trilingual) and they saw it as an asset that they are able to code switch between school and home. They mentioned there being a relational trust that had been built with ELD Instructional Aides over the years they had received small group support. An interesting finding was that many echoed this notion of being told to “only speak English when in class” which led us to wonder: “How can schools better support the EL students to embrace their racial and ethnic identity while guiding them to grow in English proficiency?” Another takeaway during the empathy interviews showed that none of the students knew what “designated ELD” time was in class. This led us to wonder if designated ELD was happening and if so / if not, how are / were teachers being held accountable?
I looked to engage with the parents and caregivers of ELs to better understand their perspective when it came to our EL students’ learning and growing. I initially created a Google Survey with six questions with 1-5 rating scale to share with the families; however, upon further reflection, I recognized that this was the same strategy used for parent engagement by many school organizations that fail to truly hear the voices of the masses. I recall hearing from our ELD Coordinator that when an ELAC survey is sent out to all 270 families, she receives about 20 surveys back. I decided to conduct empathy interviews to hear and amplify our EL families’ and caregivers’ needs, concerns, and hopes for their students. I was able to chat with 4 caretakers– one in person, one on the phone, and two on Zoom. There was an overwhelming sense of frustration and defeat from the parents about their children being classified as ELs; they felt that their students would be at a disadvantage in middle school. They had heard from relatives and other connections that their students would not be able to take electives, but would be placed in an additional, remedial ESL class. They also expressed frustration with the home language survey that they are asked to fill out. Of the four, one shared that due to the survey, her son is misidentified as an EL when he does not speak anything else at home. Due to the fact that multiple generations live under one roof, there is another language that is spoken at home (Armenian), but the student does not speak nor understand the language. Another parent shared, “Now that I have seen it with my older son, I had to mark that [name withheld] first
spoke English even though it’s not true. I don’t get how they can take what my son said when he was 1 to dictate how his schooling should be.” She expressed that seeing firsthand how this language survey have served as a gatekeeper for her son, she knowingly marked that English was the first language for her second child. This led the team to wonder: “How can we provide clear guidelines for language surveys or assist them when filling them out? When recognizing that students are being misidentified, what steps can be taken to amend this error?”
One of the anticipated short-term outcomes was to create waves. I recognize that this is not a common practice on our school site; however, this RLP group was committed to being introspective and examining systems in place. We wanted to challenge the status quo and push beyond our comfort zones when focusing on this glaring equity issue. Long-term outcomes of the leadership project was to allow for different processes and voices. Every RLP group member took on a co-constructed action that allowed for an expanded understanding of the equity issue. Upon researching and investigating, it was clear that this was multi-layered and multi-faceted and that we would need to look at multiple systems within the school site. The long-term goal was to have our administration and teachers have a fuller understanding of our emerging bilingual students while recognizing what we have at hand is not a sufficient model to meet their needs. Ultimately, a long-term goal is to work towards a collaborative working relationship with our administration and the ELD Team and help redirect and shift our school culture when it comes to our English Learners.
I mainly wore the hat of a facilitator while working with my colleagues in identifying the equity issues through RLP conversations. Though I brought the group together, it was important for me that we create norms that reinforced what the group was about. The act of reciprocity means “the practice of exchanging things with others for mutual benefit.” We were all in this together– we were of the same importance and we all contributed our piece equally. I ensured that we had this common understanding at our first meeting, and this was something we came back to often to ground ourselves.
CHALLENGES
If I were to go through the RLP process again, I would step into my role as a leader with a bit more confidence and approach it with a little more authority. By authority, I do not mean dictating on my end or blind obedience from my team members, but rather one where I model confidence. This system of a Reciprocal Learning Partnership system was new to me, so I felt myself fumble here and there. During our meetings, there were times where we lost focus and in turn, lost valuable time. I believe as a leader, I could have kept our team accountable by speaking up as needed. Another component I could have improved on is having a system for more consistent check-ins. I do not mean policing, but rather gently reminding. I also believe having a shared understanding of scheduling such as setting up meeting times (ie. meeting bi-weekly or meeting on the first Tuesday of the month) would have been helpful to have the teammates stay on track with their co-constructed actions as many of us struggled to see our co-constructed actions be taken before our next meeting time.
Overall, many of our equity actions and ideas changed overtime. As our conversations ebbed and flowed, the direction we were going shifted here and there, and we honored the changes. One of the challenges we ran into was time constraints. It proved to be a tough one to compete with as we were all full-time teachers with families and various obligations. Intentionally carving out time was tough and at times, we had to meet remotely over the weekends. Additionally, some more logistical scheduling issues revolved around empathy interviews. We worked with 4th and 5th grade teachers to communicate our needs to “pull” students during their instructional time. We recognized the importance of having our EL students being present during instruction, but also saw that their voices were extremely crucial in navigating our RLP conversations. Empathy interviews for parents had to be done in time slots/frames that worked for both parties. I made myself available in the morning and afternoon and gave the parents the option of meeting in person, talking on the phone, and/or meeting on Zoom. We had our share of last-minute cancellations; parenting and caring for students is never linear and last-minute things are bound to happen. Though it may not have been convenient, it was important to be able to hear and amplify our parents’ and caretakers’ voices and perspectives.
IDENTITIES + POSITIONALITIES
My identity as a former English Learner and an immigrant youth impacted my planning and implementation of my leadership project. Educational equity is something I want and desire for students and adults of all walks of life, but/and I feel a special tug in my heart for students who are often marginalized and overlooked due to language barriers. In an odd way, this leadership project also allowed for a time of healing for me as I saw much of my former, younger self lost in the educational system. I was able to navigate this project with renewed passion as I got to connect with students and parents who are directly impacted by the decisions made on school grounds. It redeemed much of my earlier years in the schooling system where I never felt heard or seen; it allowed me to reframe the way parents can be seen as partners and valuable stakeholders– something I did not feel like schools allowed people like my mom to be.
My leadership teammates’ identities and positionalities, as well as their lived experiences as teachers, impacted much of the leadership project. Though none of them were former ELs, they were invested in this equity issue because they saw the glaringly obvious breakdown of the systems. The team also learned from one another. For one, many of the primary teachers (TK-2nd) were not aware of the implications EL students of LTEL and P-LTEL standings would have in post K-5 institutions. It was the upper grade level teachers (3rd-5th) who were able to shine light onto this issue.
The most significant skill I relied on in my experience throughout the leadership project was my ability to connect and build authentic relationships. For the RLP project, I invited several colleagues who I believed to know the school and its operations, were willing to have difficult conversations and act on them. In my five years at Miller, I have worked extremely hard to meet the needs of my students and have been recognized for my efforts as an educator; however, I argue I have also worked equally as hard to help create a school culture for our students, staff, and families that is rooted in joy and being our authentic selves. I already had an existing relationship with each member rooted in relational trust, but I was able to model this and bridge the gaps among the 5 of us as not everyone had a strong basis and foundation with each other. I also was able to leverage my connections and relationships from my former students from past years to conduct empathy interviews with parents and caregivers. Though I may have had their child 3-4 years ago, we had maintained a connection through the years, so my invitations for empathy interviews were gladly accepted. Students and parents felt safe to share their perspective and voices with me and the team.
Much of my work was influenced by Institutional Culture of Care and tents of socio-cultural learning theory. Culture of Care was not just about the EL students here on the school site, but it also went beyond into their homes and lived experiences. The RLP team examined the current systems on our school site and recognized that we were at an aesthetic level of caring. To foster and create a culture of care meant two folds– we, as a school, needed to pause on our quick fixes and temporary solutions, and look to our ELL students and families and center them. We looked for ways to not simply involve them, but rather hear them and better understand where they were coming from. It was evident that over years of being ignored and silenced, they had grown restless and frustrated. The RLP team looked to elevate their voices and center their voices in our equity-driven co-constructed actions.
The RLP team was made up of 5 very distinct individuals with varying levels of teaching experiences and areas of expertise. It was important that we saw each other through an asset-based lens and as equals. Each time we gathered together, we came together to make sense of the quantitative and qualitative data together and created meaning as a group. We learned from one another and sometimes were challenged by one another. I can proudly say that our work was grounded in passion and collaboration; we will continue the work together over summer and into the next school year.
CAPES
Supporting Documents
Page updated
Report abuse