Co-Teaching a Life-Cycles Unit with Mixed Proficiency and an IEP
Ms. Rivera co-teaches a second-grade class of 22 students. Eight are ELs: one newcomer, Mai, who arrived from Vietnam two months ago and has had limited schooling; three at the emerging level; three at the developing level; and one, Jamal, who has an IEP for speech-language impairment and is also an EL. The class is starting a three-week science unit on life cycles. Ms. Rivera has a 30-minute daily push-in block with the ESL teacher and one 45-minute weekly planning period shared with the special education teacher. The district requires a content objective and a language objective for every lesson and uses a standardized end-of-unit test with short constructed responses. The principal expects all students to take the same test on the same day.
1. Write a plan for the first week that differentiates for Mai, the developing ELs, and Jamal. Include content and language objectives and at least two SIOP features.
Read the worked answer
For the first week, the content objective is that students will sequence the stages of a butterfly life cycle and use evidence from observations to describe one stage. The language objective is that students will use sequence words (“first,” “next,” “then,” “finally”) and present-tense verbs to describe the stages orally and in one written sentence.
I would open with a realia and picture walk using a large life-cycle poster and a short time-lapse video with narration paused for description. That is comprehensible input plus meaningful interaction. Mai would receive a Vietnamese-labeled picture glossary, a sequenced set of four picture cards, and a partner who models the oral sequence; her task would be to arrange the cards and say two labels with “first” and “then,” not to produce a full paragraph. The developing ELs would use a sentence frame (“First the ___. Next the ___.”) and a word bank with egg, larva, pupa, adult. Jamal would have the same content but a shorter oral response and extra wait time; I would coordinate with the speech-language pathologist on the specific vocabulary and sentence length so his language goal and the science language objective reinforce each other rather than compete. All students would do a hands-on observation of larvae, with a shared science notebook page that allows drawing and labeling before writing. Formative checks would be a sequence-card retell and a one-sentence notebook entry.
2. How would you assess student learning without letting the standardized end-of-unit test produce invalid results for ELs? Propose specific modifications and a grading decision rule.
Read the worked answer
The end-of-unit test should measure science understanding, not unrelated English proficiency. For Mai, the test would be read aloud in simplified English, with picture-supported items and a word bank; she could label and sequence rather than write full sentences. For the emerging and developing ELs, I would allow extended time, oral directions, a bilingual glossary for key terms, and a separate setting if the classroom is distracting. For Jamal, I would follow his IEP accommodations and coordinate with the SLP so that speech intelligibility is not scored as science knowledge. I would not translate the entire test into Vietnamese if the construct is English science explanation, because that would change what is being measured; a glossary and oral clarification preserve the construct better.
Grading should separate content from language conventions. I would use a two-column rubric: one column for science accuracy (correct sequence, correct evidence) and one for language control (sequence words, sentence completeness). For ELs, the content column determines the science grade; the language column is feedback, not a penalty, unless the district policy explicitly requires otherwise. If the standardized test is the only required measure, I would supplement it with a performance task-students sequence cards and explain one stage orally-and use that evidence in the body of evidence for the unit grade. This is a validity decision, not a lowering of expectations.
3. Jamal is not making expected progress in phonics. How would you and the team determine whether this is a language difference, a speech-language issue, or a reading disability?
Read the worked answer
The team should not choose among the three explanations in a single meeting. We would start with the data we already have: Jamal’s IEP goals, his progress in speech-language therapy, his oral English and home-language performance, his response to the phonics intervention, and his attendance. I would ask the SLP whether the error pattern is consistent with his speech-language profile or with second-language phonology, and I would gather a language sample in both languages if possible. I would also examine whether his phonics difficulties occur in decoding tasks, spelling, or both, and whether they persist when the vocabulary is familiar.
Next, we would implement a short, explicit phonics cycle with weekly progress monitoring and a clear decision rule: if he does not respond after a defined number of weeks, the team reconvenes. Throughout, we would rule out exclusionary factors-limited English exposure, interrupted schooling, hearing or vision concerns, attendance, and lack of appropriate instruction. A bilingual assessment or dynamic assessment would help distinguish a language difference from a disability. If the data show a persistent, instruction-resistant pattern across languages and contexts, a special education referral would be appropriate; if the pattern tracks his speech-language goals, we would adjust those services first. The key is to avoid both premature referral and indefinite delay.