MONEY: SECOND LANGUAGE CURRICULUM IN EDUC

BELOW AN ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHER REBUTS HER PRINCIPAL\'S UNFAIR EVALUATIONS. BE AWARE THAT SCHOOLS RECEIVE FUNDING FOR SPECIFIC PLACEMENTS, WHICH MAY EXPLAIN WHY THESE STUDENTS ARE ERRONEOUSLY PLACED AND WHY THE TEACHER IS TOLD WHAT THE ASSESSMENT RESULTS NEED TO BE. YOU WILL HEAR THE NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS OF TEACHER ABUSE THROUGHOUT HER REBUTTAL. ALSO, INTERESTINGLY, THIS TEACHER WROTE IN TO US AFTER READING ABOUT THIS VERY SAME PRINCIPAL, WHO HAD ABUSED TEACHERS IN ANOTHER DISTRICT, ON OUR WEBSITE. KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS PRINCIPAL KEEPS SECURING EMPLOYMENT WHILE THE TEACHERS GIVE UP ON EDUCATION AND THE STUDENTS SUFFER. NAPTA

My background is one of teaching second language. I have taught both English and Spanish to beginning language students of all ages for the past 20 years. I have acquired and am fluent in three languages—English, Spanish and Italian. I have my masters in Spanish Linguistics with studies in Applied Linguistics, Language Acquisition and Methodology. After 20+ years teaching language part-time and independently, I procured my type 29—Transitional Bilingual Certification –and I am taking graduate classes to pursue an 03 teaching certificate with graduate-level studies in Bilingual Bicultural Education.

According to what I’ve been learning in Bilingual Foundations, Bilingual Education—TBE and TPI are not in compliance with state code at my school. TBE: Hispanic students should be integrated with their English mainstream classmates for specials, not just receive instruction by the special’s teacher in English; By law they are supposed to receive instruction in the core subjects.

**This is an area of concern**TPI:

Per the state code, a transitional program of instruction will include assistance in the student’s home language as necessary to enable him/her to keep pace with his/her age or grade peers. A student of limited English proficiency remains in the program until the student has achieved English language proficiency which meets or exceeds district’s exit criteria.

English pull-out classes, even disguised as “push-in” which the principal claims is best practice should not consist of students who are at the 50% level of English monolingual children in the mainstream classes. The principal asserts that “even when students are doing fine, it does not mean they need less time.” Yes, it does. TPI/ESL services are mandated for students who need them. Students who are doing well in mainstream classrooms and are in the system because they have exposure to another language need to be monitored for two years for assured continued success and academic language development. They should be given support in their home language to develop cognitively and academically while they acquire English language competence. Most of the students on my caseload are doing well in mainstream classes and are English dominant. That is to say, many of these students are developing cognitively and academically and have little or no other home language in which to support development.

I have attached the District’s ESL Job Description and TPI Entry (and Exit) Criteria as provided by the administration. If the principal is aware of these criteria, she needs to make them known to her staff. This is an area of concern. Conversely, ELL students who are struggling would benefit by receiving additional services and more time. Back in October and November I tried to make my schedule, allotting for additional time for students who were behind mainstream classmates. The principal reprimanded me and asked me how I could prioritize my students—that they were all entitled to ESL services. Several of these students are now in the TAT process to document concerns about their progress and determine how they can be assisted.

Even a “push-in” class, if it does not support the teacher or the student and is another teacher-directed (well-articulated and differentiated per student ability) lesson is a pull-out class. The principal changed my schedule in November to remove my “push-in” times to assist students with their writing to a separate time when I should be teaching the students “language arts” or “literacy skills” in English. This sounds more like the job description of a Reading Specialist—not an ESL teacher. It makes no sense to pull English dominant students who are at or above level from a mainstream environment activity to learn English as a Second Language. Again, this is a majority of the students on my caseload which the principal instructed me to service every day.

Furthermore, there have been at least two students who are English-Only as specified by their home language survey, but who have been erroneously included in my caseload. The principal discouraged me from following up with these parents and their concerns, I should merely remove them from my caseload and she would contact them. I have no idea how the principal explained the misplacement of these children to their parents.

The principal misled me about the position to get me to accept it in the 11th hour. She told me that I would be very valuable, working with children who were very LEP, really needing my services. The principal never gave me a written job description or answered questions via email. She knew about my experience yet persisted in giving contradictory directives (always verbally), contrary to my expertise, to Dr. H’s research in phonemic awareness, and to administrative direction on ELL instruction. The principal told me I needed to learn more about language acquisition, about the level of my students, and reprimanded me for asking questions, seeking support to understand my position better, redirecting student behavior. I asked the president of the union to accompany me to mediate with the principal to request that she clearly explain my caseload and schedule (which at that time were nearly 60 students a day and 11 different lessons). I also requested that she stop confronting me by surprise to “clarify” directives, indicating that I reserved the right to invoke my Weingarten rights. My mistake was to trust that the principal knew what was best for the students and that she would be able to assist me to develop to better serve those students.

I don’t know why she would develop a position, caseload or schedule like mine. Of course, we know it would not be ethical to knowingly include students who should be monitored or exited from LEP status so that a school’s AMAO scores would show improvement or the district would unfairly receive funding for the education of those children. Therefore, the principal needs to learn more about ESL entry/exit and best practices for ESL resource positions.

There is little rationale to defend myself with regards to the summative evaluation as provided by the principal. First, much of the evaluation is fabricated, loosely related to events or badly interpreted. Second, it is based on goals that the principal re-wrote in September, explaining to me that her comments were “just to prove that we met.” Since the beginning of the year, she has given contradictory directives, sometimes erroneous advice, and exercised punitive if not tyrannical control in my opinion. She has made demeaning and unprofessional statements such as: “You are overstepping your bounds.” “I hired you to be a professional.” “I am paying you a lot of money to do your job.” “No one is going to do your lesson plans for you.” “You are not supposed to talk in the first grade meetings—just listen.” “The teachers are not comfortable with you pulling their students because they don’t know what you’re doing with them.” “Some people just weren’t meant to be teachers”…etc.

I had been warned by other teachers in the beginning of the year not to question the principal, apologize for anything she accused me of and to keep my mouth shut. I had hoped through honest work and open communication we would provide a wonderful environment for learning. I just couldn’t believe that the environment was so toxic.

With regards to Planning, Instructional Competency and Methods, I have not struggled with planning or instructional competency and methods. If my evaluation were based on the students, their achievement, their parents or their classroom teachers, I believe that this would be evident. My students are excelling and their classroom teachers would confirm that the majority is at or above level. I struggled with how the principal determined which ELL students would receive what amount of services, her restrictions of what instruction could contain, how she wanted lesson plans articulated, and how to reconcile the discrepancy between the Houghton-Mifflin curriculum and materials since they are way below the language proficiency of my students. I have tried to raise the level of instruction and materials in accordance with the WIDA standards for the children. I have worked very hard to develop my students’ academic vocabulary for continued success in school, especially for those who do not have home support in English. For the most part, their literacy is emerging at an acceptable rate as can be verified by their BRIs. Although I am not a Reading Specialist, I have been learning and implementing best practices for developing literacy and continue to learn more.

The principal’s recommendations for improving instruction would have only served to impede appropriate instruction. Some of the more ludicrous examples are:

• My vocabulary is too advanced and maybe I should not be teaching K-1 students.

• I need to speak slower so students will gain understanding and comprehension, but I need to “move (my) lessons along, adjusting pace and difficulty.”

• I should be incorporating ESL Strategies, such as “language experience, modeling, hands- on manipulatives, and TPR” by “pushing-in” to the mainstream classroom, but I am not to disrupt the mainstream teacher, students or their activities. One teacher even expects me and the students to whisper—it is hard to facilitate language development in this environment.

• I should not spend an entire lesson plan on phonemic awareness and ing, among other things should not be taught.

• The food group’s lesson was not age appropriate, fruits and vegetables should be taught as separate categories, dairy products should be taught as “milk” products.

• A lesson on feelings, how to handle them, and feeling words was then too “easy.”

• She expressed that cause and effect would be too difficult for students to understand during the pre-observation conference. During the lesson, we discussed the effect of all the students talking at once, and what it “caused.” In the post observation, the principal criticized that I spent too much time “redirecting” students.

• Even though two of my six-year-old students did not know how to correctly hold a pencil in order to write, the principal reprimanded me, telling me that “that is not (my) job.”

For the second trimester reports, the principal informed me that they should contain “satisfactory” or “needs improvement” grades. If they “exceeded,” they would not need my services, would they? I filled out the second trimester progress reports, according to students’ progress in English and made additional comments where student performance had changed. Many students were “satisfactory” and some “exceeded.” I turned the Progress Reports in before the deadline and heard nothing about them by Friday for conferences. As I was out sick, I emailed teachers, notifying them that the principal had the progress reports. When I returned, the principal called me to her office and pointed out a typo that needed to be corrected, wanted comments added for each student (even though the parents had never read the first comments because the progress reports were never sent home), wanted me to rephrase comments about incomplete homework, and wanted me to add a cover letter that the progress reports were late due to my illness. I corrected the typo and added/rephrased comments. I was not even sure the principal would allow them to be distributed. The principal seemed annoyed that I would try to reprint the progress reports so they could be distributed before I came to her office as summoned without her even having scheduled an appointment for my last post-observation conference. I was surprised that the principal said that it was an “area of concern” that “2nd Trimester Progress Reports needed to be redone to reflect positive comments and correct inaccurate information” when she suppressed them so long. I wonder if they would have been released at all had I not emailed the teachers to tell them they were available. Again, the classroom teachers did not need most of the Progress Reports, as many of my students are receiving an “A” or “B,” and are at or above level.

I have always been exemplary with regards to professional responsibilities and attendance. I have always aimed at being prompt given the principal’s unrealistic expectations. In her revision of my schedule, the principal has me simultaneously leaving one class and starting another with no passing time. She then reprimanded me for being late, and instructed me to “set (my) watch when the bell rang in the morning” to reflect the correct time.

It is disturbing that the principal would deem that “numerous absences due to (my) illness have interfered with the continuity of instruction and support.” It is the principal who determined that I would not need a substitute in the event of an absence, so it is the principal, herself, who interfered with a continuity of instruction and support.

It is true that I have been ill more than I ever have been in the course of one school year. As the principal says in my summative and I concur, I have “had a challenging year at this school.” I have documented doctor’s evidence of repeated illness. It was so unusual for me, the doctor requested blood work to ensure that nothing out of the ordinary was wrong with me. Blood Tests and the doctor confirm that there is nothing systemically wrong with me. I am getting sick due to too much stress, a high exposure to young children, and exacerbation with dust and mold levels in the basement.

Furthermore, the principal lacks the forethought of appropriate circumstances for discipline. She has indicated that the children should be able to stand in an orderly fashion in their bus lines. We are frequently understaffed in supervising the bus lines; there are no clear rules for student behavior, and no logical consequences for breaking these rules. The children do not stand in an orderly fashion, keeping their hands, feet, and backpacks to themselves. They move around and play with their friends. It is impossible to ensure a safe environment and I am uncomfortable being one of the responsible staff.

The worst of this is that nobody feels comfortable bringing any concerns to the principal because there is a fear that she will “shoot the messenger.” The staff tries to gauge what kind of day she’s having before approaching her about anything.

Reflecting on this Addendum, the principal’s performance is unsatisfactory and does not meet my high standards. Because of the hostile work environment, I would not renew a commitment to work with her again.

An Anonymous Teacher Trying to Teach the English as a Second Language Money Game

Top

BACKGROUND