Fourteen Students and a Scheduling Conflict
This year the district moved 14 ELs at Northside High from the ESL block into a 'Foundations of Reading' course because of a scheduling conflict, with the promise of 'push-in support.' In practice the ESL teacher spends 20 minutes in each of those classes supervising silently, and the number of ELs reclassifying fell from 19 to 7. Meanwhile, a chemistry teacher refuses to let an EL student use a bilingual dictionary on a unit test, saying, 'It's not fair to the other kids.' A parent calls the ESL office, upset that her daughter was placed in ESL, insisting, 'She speaks English fine at home.' The principal asks the ESL teacher for a recommendation by Friday.
1. What should the ESL teacher recommend about the scheduling change, and how should the recommendation be framed and documented?
Read the worked answer
The scheduling change is a program and compliance issue before it is a scheduling issue. Moving 14 ELs out of a dedicated ESL block into a reading course, with 20 minutes of silent push-in described as support, likely means the students are not receiving the English-language development service their placement requires. The drop from 19 to 7 reclassifications is a signal worth investigating, though it is not proof by itself. The ESL teacher should document minutes, services, and student outcomes, and frame the recommendation around students' access rather than around blame: the district's obligation is a sound program, implemented with adequate resources, and evaluated - the three-part test used in program cases. Propose concrete options: restore the ESL block for students at lower proficiency, schedule push-in as co-taught instruction with a language objective rather than observation, and protect co-planning time. Bring data - proficiency levels, minutes, reclassification rates, and parent concerns - to the principal in writing, and keep a record of the recommendation and the response.
2. Analyze the chemistry teacher's dictionary refusal and propose a response.
Read the worked answer
The dictionary refusal should be analyzed by asking what the test measures. If the chemistry test measures understanding of chemical concepts, a bilingual dictionary is an accommodation that gives access to the content without changing the construct; it does not give the student an unfair advantage in chemistry, and 'fairness' is not sameness when the assessment otherwise measures English proficiency alongside chemistry. If the test measures English vocabulary, the dictionary would change the construct, and the teacher's objection would have more weight. The ESL teacher should meet with the chemistry teacher, not escalate first, and offer alternatives: a word-to-word glossary, a bilingual word bank for key terms, or separate scoring of content and language. Note that the accommodation should be available to any EL who needs it, not just one student, and that it should be documented. If the teacher still refuses, the ESL teacher should consult the program coordinator or an administrator, since accommodations for ELs are typically part of the student's service plan and not a matter of individual teacher discretion.
3. How should the ESL teacher handle the parent's call?
Read the worked answer
The parent's call needs to be handled as an information gap, not as an objection to overcome. 'She speaks English fine at home' is a common and understandable observation: conversational proficiency develops in one to three years, while academic English takes five to seven, so a child can sound fluent at home and still need support with academic reading and writing. The ESL teacher should thank the parent, explain the difference in plain language, and share concrete evidence - the language proficiency score, a writing sample, and what support looks like in class - with a qualified interpreter if the parent prefers. Explain the reclassification criteria and process, and clarify that ESL is a service, not a label, and that parents have rights regarding placement and can request a review. Avoid jargon and defensiveness. Set a follow-up meeting and invite the parent to observe or review progress data. Document the conversation and the information provided. If the parent still disagrees, explain the formal options and respect them while continuing to advocate for the student's access.