A Principal’s Framework for Supporting MLLs
By Alex Guzman
Throughout my leadership journey, I have seen different practical approaches to address the needs of all learners. As a high school principal, I read educational practitioner and research articles, conducted research, and spoke to colleagues with more experience than I had to learn from their lessons. Driven by my inquiry approach and guided by my wonder, I knew I needed to establish my foundation to support my students and teachers.
As a bilingual student, the equitable education of bilingual students is one of my drivers. The increasing number of Multilingual Language Learners (MLLs) in the United States, New Jersey, and school districts have provided us with an excellent opportunity to build community and provide MLLs with the power of language and instill in them a love for learning. Knowing that MLLs’ education is a multifaceted and complicated endeavor, I always wondered what other high school principals are doing to address the needs of MLLs.
An MLL’s profile can vary from newcomers to the country, some who have been in the US public schools for 2-3 years, and some who are “long-term” MLLs. Regardless of where they are in their journey, they are my students. Yes, we have federal, state, and local accountability measures, but these are the minimum standards. As a high school principal, knowing I only have four years, sometimes less, to prepare them to graduate from high school and set them up for success in the next chapter of their lives, no matter what that may be, the minimum was not going to do it. I needed guidance, research, and something practical. My wonder helped me develop a simple yet practical framework to support MLLs while addressing the high school principal’s many responsibilities.
The Framework
The framework starts at the center and focuses on getting to know my MLLs. My goal was to gather specific information by the end of September. Weekly meetings would be scheduled with the ESL teachers, school counselors, and the Child Study Team, if applicable. Sometimes we would meet all together, while other times we met separately. The specific questions used to gather information are listed below. The three different categories of information, developmental needs, family conditions, and neighborhood conditions, would provide me with an idea of the social context my MLLs grew up in. We focused on the listed factors which impact Latinx children’s growth and development because most of our MLLs were from Latin America and Spanish speaking. (Guandera & Contreras, 2009). Most of my experience was with Spanish-speaking MLLs.
Developmental Needs
- Has the student sought out the nurse for some health care?
- Has the student exhibited signs of needing mental health counseling?
- Does the student purchase or come with lunch? Breakfast?
- Do we have primary language translators available for students and parents?
- How does the student see themself within the school community? Greater community?
Family Conditions
- What is the parents’ educational background?
- Does the student receive free/reduced lunch?
- Do they have siblings in the school? District? What is the family structure?
- Does the student know which classes prepare one for college? How to get involved, and what activities can lead to opportunities beyond school?
- Does the student know how things work at the high school level?
- How long has the student been in the ELL program? District? The state? Country?
Neighborhood Conditions
- Where do they live? What part of town?
- Is there a need for community and county resources?
- Are they involved with any institutions outside school, i.e., sports, religious institutions, and community groups?
- Who are they surrounding themselves with?
Meetings would be structured to discuss the points mentioned above, and I would collect the information in a Google Doc for accessibility. We were building an “MLLs baseball card,” but it is not just about numbers. It is about the individual’s assets and building empathy among team members.
As the figure below illustrates, five components impact our ELL’s high school experience and are affected by the behaviors of the adults in the school community: 1) Orientation Practices, 2) Curriculum, 3) Instruction, 4) Professional Learning, and 5) Leadership. As the principal, I coordinated my actions and induced adults in the school community to incorporate the five components in their thinking and actions. However, this article highlights my intentional actions and interactions with ESL and content area teachers, counselors, and CST.
Orientation Practices
Orientation practices, those actions that introduce MLLs to their learning and socializing environments and the school community, are essential as they introduce how we do things. MLLs will get an initial feel of the school culture through their observations of artifacts, which only tell part of our story and are challenging to understand (Stein, 2006).
Although there are many layers to orienting our MLLs to the school community, I paid attention to three aspects: access to the principal, parent visits, and communications. Firstly, I made my presence known, showed them I was there to listen and walked with them. I would make frequent stops in their classrooms, both ESL and content areas, make eye contact, and sit next to them. Although I was an ELL student, I knew their experience was different from mine and did not want my bias to get in the way. While walking the halls between classes, I always asked, “How can I, as the principal, support you?” At first, I would get a nod indicating no or nothing; eventually, they would open up, asking simple questions. My goal was to earn their trust. I knew I gained their trust when they sought me out.
Secondly, when ELL’s parents visit the school, I ensure I get an opportunity to meet them, even if it is for 30 seconds. I asked the school counselors and CST to inform my secretary or me when an ELL parent was scheduled to come in. I always felt that if they saw the principal welcoming them into his home, they would remember a pleasant and personable experience and start building trust. It was my opportunity to put a face to a name, and even if I did not speak their language, it showed I was there to listen, help, and support them. If I could not make it, I would ensure I informed a building-level administrator, whether it was an assistant principal, a supervisor assigned to my building, or an athletic director. I would ask them to make a simple gesture to welcome them.
Thirdly, pay attention to what communications to parents of MLLs. MLLs and their families have diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds and experiences. They may not have the “cultural capital” to help them determine how to navigate the high school experience best. I would follow up with the student to ensure they receive all communications and address any questions.
Curriculum
In conversations with ESL and content area teachers, I focus on the WIDA Standards, Can Do Descriptors, and Content Area Curricula. The WIDA Language Development standards (WIDA, 2020), from my experience, are less well-known among non-ESL teachers than they are. These standards are equally as important as the New Jersey Student Learning Standards (NJSLS). The teachers and I unpacked the WIDA Standards and Can-Do Descriptors (WIDA, 2020), a process that we found valuable. The Can-Do descriptors helped my staff visualize what MLLs can do in the four domains. It made it more concrete for content area teachers. It also helped us realize that we must change our deficit-based perspective to an asset-based one (Scanlan, 2007). With the new 2020 WIDA standards and the news that the organization may do away with the Can-Do-Descriptors, I will look to find out how we can make the standards more user-friendly.
As teachers and I developed a common language around what MLLs “Can Do,” we transitioned the conversations to identify the language for math, science, language arts, and social studies. We dug deep and examined academic language development in different content areas. I asked my teachers to identify the respective academic language’s attributes explicitly. These were long-term conversations in department meetings and PLCs, intending to change their planning and instruction.
Instruction
My conversations regarding instruction started with data to inform teachers’ instructional planning decisions. I introduced some primary data on MLLs’ language proficiency levels and filled them in with the information gathered from my conversation with school counselors and CST. However, the numbers are not the end-all, be-all. My next step was to conduct a task analysis. City et al. (2009) state in “Principle #3: If you can’t see it in the core, it’s not there.” The task analysis examined the relationship between the student, teacher, and content as students completed a learning task. The fundamental question here is, what were we asking students to do? The analysis helped us understand both the content and language demands of the learning tasks and how we can explicitly incorporate language development strategies and scaffolding language learning to address those demands. We took it slow at first to develop a common language around academic language and communication. Cummins (2014) argues “that students will gain expertise in understanding and using academic language when instruction engages them in the co-construction of knowledge and provides opportunities for them to use academic language for intellectually powerful purposes.” (p.146)
Professional Learning
As defined by Fullan and Quinn (2018), “deepening learning” was my driver as I empowered my staff. The one element of deepening learning that I focused on was “shift practices through capacity building.” I knew learning besides them would be vital in changing mindsets and practices. Learning together, showing them that we will make mistakes, and supporting them through failures was an essential part of the process. My goal with professional learning was working collaboratively with district-level administrators to bring in professional learning opportunities that aimed for transformational change by increasing teacher knowledge, changing attitudes, developing skills, and developing teacher aspirations to ultimately change behaviors that maintain the status quo (Killion, 2017).
Leadership
As a leader, I always look to learn from others because everyone can add value to our professional and personal lives. My conversations with my ESL teacher and content area teachers were always critical because they allowed me to learn about the students and the teacher themselves and continue building our relationship. As a high school principal, I knew I had to model what I wanted to see from my teachers. Modeling an inquiry approach, a love for learning, problem-solving, and collaborating is what I value. Therefore, I would always make time to meet with the teachers throughout my week and day to talk specifically about our MLLs.
I share this framework as a compass to guide my fellow high school principals as they lead and manage many responsibilities. I hope that high school principals start conversations focused on MLLs and build on this framework because “communication is not merely an exchange of information but an act of power.” (Genesee et al., 2005)
References
City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., Teitel, L., & Lachman, A. (2018). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Harvard Education Press.
Common Core State Standards (Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).
Cummins, J. (2014). Beyond language: Academic communication and student success. Linguistics and Education, 26, 145-154. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2014.01.006
ELSF: Resource: Analyzing Content and Language Demands. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.elsuccessforum.org/resources/math-analyzing-content-and-language-demands
Echevarría, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2017). They are making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP Model. Pearson.
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and systems. Corwin.
Gandara, P. C., & Contreras, F. (2010). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed social policies. Harvard University Press.
Genesee, F. (2008). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. Cambridge University Press.
Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching English language learners in the mainstream classroom. Heinemann.
Killion, J. (2017). Assessing impact: Evaluating staff development (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Next Generation Science Standards. (2020, October 01). Retrieved from http://nextgenscience.org/
Schein, E. H. (2006). Organizational Culture and Leadership: CafeScribe. Wiley
WIDA’s 2012 Amplification of the English Language Development Standards, Kindergarten–Grade 12 (“WIDA ELD Standards”). (Version 1.6 Revised 2/6/17). Retrieved from https://wida.wisc.edu/
WIDA’s 2020 English Language Development Standards, Retrieved from https://wida.wisc.edu/
Recent Comments