Collaboration in SPPS

The ELL Department in SPPS is nationally recognized for its high caliber collaborative efforts.  Collaboration is a process that has not been achieved overnight.  In fact, it is a continually evolving process that has taken us almost a decade to reach our current level of operation.  We strive to continually refine and further develop our efforts - and our success has been high.  Below are some of the resources that we have published on the topic of collaboration. 

Philosophy of ELL: Language Through Content

Experts in the field of second language acquisition advocate the teaching of second language through, not prior to, academic content; in recent years, the ELL programs in SPPS have been guided by this philosophy.  The district’s ELL programs provide instruction in which learners acquire English through participation in age-appropriate, academic content that is driven by national, state, and district standards.  The teaching of English through academic content requires ELL instruction that is aligned with and integrated into grade-level curriculum. Academic content must be differentiated as necessary to make standards and curricula accessible to ELL students at all levels.

In order to effectively teach language through academic content, it is necessary for general education staff and ELL staff to work together. Collaboration between ELL and classroom teachers appears to be one of the best means for serving English language learners in elementary schools. In a review of scholarly literature on teacher teaming, Spraker (2003) nicely sums up the need for collaborative practices among teachers:

"Those working on educational reform today argue that quality schooling is achieved through an ongoing, collaborative, and transformative process in a situation where people work together in respectful collegiality, rather than isolation, and where they create solutions through mutual decision-making and adaptation" (p. 3).

Collaboration Guidelines

Seven Strands Coming Together

In the past several years, seven factors have led the ELL department to see the effectiveness and the necessity of collaborative instructional models:    

1. RESEARCH ON LANGUAGE LEARNING:  The predominant theory of language learning for school-aged children is that students acquire second languages through participation in meaningful activities, not through targeted instruction in English as a distinct subject area (Collier & Thomas, 2002; Krashen, 2003).  Accordingly, students in St. Paul elementary schools must be learning English through participation in academic instruction and activities in school along with their native English-speaking peers.  Collaboration between teachers is necessary to make curricula accessible and comprehensible for English language learners so that they can progress academically as they acquire English proficiency.
2. RESEARCH ON ESL PROGRAM MODELS:  Research suggests that, for English language learners in English-only programs (i.e., where English is the sole target language and the sole language of instruction), the most successful program models are those in which students learn English with their native English-speaking peers rather than in isolated or alternative classroom settings (Collier & Thomas, 1999).
3. RESEARCH ON PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES:  Researchers have found that there is a positive relationship between a sense of professional community among teachers and the academic achievement of students (Hord, 1997; Kruse, Louis & Bryk, 1995).  In addition, collaborative professional development activities that are focused specifically on teachers’ daily work and on students—such as the planning and conversation that happens among co-teachers—are related to higher quality instruction and higher student achievement.  
4. CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS:  In the past ten years, the proportion of students in St. Paul elementary schools that are English language learners has grown such that it is no longer practical to provide supplemental English language instruction in a pullout instructional model.  
5. SERVING NEWCOMER STUDENTS:  The ELL department, with strong support from the district, has gone to great lengths to develop the Language Academy program, in which beginning English learners are placed in mainstream classrooms instead of in alternative newcomer settings.  Beginning English learners can participate successfully in mainstream classroom activities, but collaboration among teachers is necessary to ensure that instruction is sufficiently differentiated and is accessible to all students at their level.
6. “SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT”:  Federal and state funding is allocated to Saint Paul Public Schools to support the instruction of English language learners, and it is made clear in law that this funding is provided to supplement the mainstream, “general” instruction provided to all students (No Child Left Behind/ESEA Act of 2001 Assurances).  The Saint Paul ELL Department and its programs and resources must aim to enable students to participate in mainstream instruction and not to replace or supplant any part of the academic program of any student.  
7. SPECIAL EDUCATION:  The field of special education has provided decades of research and practical experience supporting the notion that students in diverse instructional classrooms, in which teachers collaborate to provide instruction, have more academic success than students taught in isolated situations (Friend & Cook, 2003).

The Big Picture: Defining Characteristics of Collaboration

Friend & Cook (2003) have developed a useful list of  “Defining Characteristics of Collaboration.”  According to their framework:

• Collaboration is voluntary.
• Teachers share mutual goals.
• Teachers share resources.
• There is parity between the two teachers.
• The two teachers share responsibility.
• The two teachers have shared accountability.

For more information, see Friend & Cook’s Interactions: Collaboration Skills for School Professionals (2003, Allyn & Bacon).

Components of Collaboration

This graphic, developed by Friend & Cook (2003), depicts the over-arching framework upon whichthe ELL Department has based all work related to collaboration over the past several years. The graphic shows the different levels of factors involved in the development of collaborative instruction.  The district, school, and teacher must attend to each of the factors simultaneously as progress is made toward more effective collaborative instructional programs.

 “True Collaboration”

It is important to make a distinction between working together and collaboration.  According to DuFour (2003), cooperative tasks and activities can be characterized as “collaboration lite” and are distinguished from “true collaboration” by the absence of substantive conversation and work around student needs and instructional practices.  More specifically:

• “Collaboration lite” can involve all staff and includes cooperation on routine issues such as schedules, school policies, discipline, event planning, and procedures, where teacher participation is low-risk, usually short-term, and is focused on the efficient management of the school.  Successful “collaboration lite” is evidenced by smooth operations, successful events, and a feeling of accomplishment among staff.
• “True collaboration” takes place among teachers and involves sharing of planning, joint delivery of instruction, and honest talk about teaching practices.  Teachers talk about their own skills and their students’ work, taking risks and supporting each other in a process of continued improvement.  This work is guided by ongoing, concrete knowledge of student needs and progress.  Successful “true collaboration” is evidenced by improvements in teachers’ skills and increases in student achievement.

The following graphics illustrate DuFour’s distinction between “collaboration lite” and “true collaboration.”

Collaboration Rubric: Assessment and Staff Development Tool

Introduction

Based on Friend & Cook’s model of components of collaboration, in 2005 the ELL department developed a “Collaboration Rubric” to guide and assess teacher, school, and district implementation of collaboration.  The information on the rubric provides a comprehensive description of the instructional practices and school-level structures that are necessary for successful collaboration.  It is available in a bulleted format, as “Guidelines for Collaboration” or in a survey format for use as an assessment tool.
At present, the rubric addresses items related to "school-level factors” and "instructional-level factors” (see Components of Collaboration graphic).  Additional components may be added in the future.  The complete rubric is included in Appendix A.
Intended Uses for Rubric
The collaboration rubric is intended for use in several ways:

• By all SPPS staff as a guide to the components of effective collaborative programs;
• By teachers and principals as a tool for assessing collaboration, setting goals for continued improvement, and guiding professional development plans;
• By the ELL department as a tool for assessing district-wide progress toward collaborative ELL services in the district-wide initiatives of reader's, writer's, and math workshop;
• By school leadership teams in the spring SCIP planning process; and
• By School Quality Review teams as a guide for when reviewing ELL services.

District-Wide Collaboration “Data”

During the 2005-06 school year, elementary teachers and principals were asked to complete the collaboration rubric as a survey to report on the status of collaboration in their schools.  The completed results will be used by each school and by the district as a whole.  In schools, ELL department staff will present the data and work with school leadership to create a plan for ongoing professional development, district support, and school-level structural changes that will improve and sustain collaboration.  At the district level, the data will be used to determine how to support schools’ progress toward effective collaborative instruction.  

Note:  Collaboration survey data will not be used in the evaluation of individual teachers’ or principals’ performance and will never be included in personnel or other job-related records.

Collaboration Rubric Part One: School-Level Factors

“School-level factors” refers to the school-wide structures that must be in place in order for collaboration to be successful.  Decisions about school-level factors are made by the principal with the school leadership team or other involved staff members, and they greatly affect teachers’ ability to collaborate.  

 The five school-level elements of collaboration are:

• Time
• Space
• Resources
• Classroom Placement
• Professional Development

Supporting Information: Classroom Placement

The fourth section in part one of the rubric is “Classroom Placement.”  It describes the procedures that should be in place in schools to ensure that class lists are constructed in a manner that maximizes the available teaching staff and therefore strengthens instructional services.  In most cases, ELL students should be clustered in one or two classrooms or should be placed according to their instructional or language proficiency levels or other specific needs.

Specific guidelines for placing ELL students:

ELL percentage of school    Clustering guideline
Less than 30% of students ELL    Cluster ELLs in one or two classrooms
30% - 50% of students ELL    Cluster, but be sure ELLs do not exceed 50% of any class roster
50% or more of students ELL    Distribute ELL among all classrooms, but group by need or language level
Note:  Students can also be clustered according to native language

Additional factors to consider when clustering ELL students:

• Academic needs of students (not equality of class size!);
• Rationale for clustering, in terms of service to students;
• Role and understanding of all school staff in clustering model; and
• Combination of ELL cluster with other, appropriate clusters:  G/T, special education, etc.

A detailed scenario for clustering ELL students can be found in section 3.0, Language Academy Guidelines, page 16.

Collaboration Rubric Part Two: Instructional-Level Factors

“Instructional-level factors” refers to the instructional practices and habits in which teachers must become skilled in order to collaborate successfully.  Part Two of the collaboration rubric is divided into four sections.  The four sections are based on the four instructional elements of collaboration that have been identified to clarify what is expected of ELL and general education teachers. The four instructional elements of collaboration are:

• Planning
• Co-Teaching
• Assessment/Evaluation
• Reflection

Supporting Information: Co-Teaching

The most visible aspect of collaboration is co-teaching, in which two teachers work together in the planning, delivery, and assessment of instruction.  In addition, teachers jointly reflect on their teaching practice and refine their approaches and skills as necessary to facilitate student learning.

Basic Standards for Co-Teaching

There are five characteristics of successful co-teaching that characterize effective co-teaching and enable teachers to take full advantage of the skills and expertise of both.

• Both co-teachers should be professionals, i.e., not paraprofessionals or volunteers.
• Co-teaching involves the delivery of substantive, academic instruction and not activities such as buddy reading or art projects.
• Co-teaching takes place with a diverse group of students.
• Co-teaching takes place in a single space or utilizes other shared spaces in addition to the mainstream classroom.  When alternative spaces are used, those spaces should be seen as shared space by all students.  Students should not be consistently placed in only one space.
• Co-teaching results in a reduced student-teacher ratio.  
• Co-teachers should possess two different types of professional expertise, e.g., an ELL teacher and a general education teacher.  

Classroom Configurations (Models) for Co-Teaching

There are numerous configurations in which teachers can share classrooms.  Teachers should determine the most appropriate model for each lesson or activity based on student needs and instructional goals.  Six common models and their descriptions are shown in the following pages.