The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction recently convened a task force for the purpose of expanding dual language programs in our state for all students. Should the initiative get traction and be implemented throughout our state, this would make dual language available across our state. All students would have access to instruction in two languages. As an English language educator and the parent of a child in the Spanish Immersion program in Spokane, the prospect of dual language rolling out for all students is exciting. The benefits of bilingualism are countless, including expanded job opportunities and brain function.

Few districts in our state currently provide dual language programs. However, there are a few ahead of the game and can serve as prime examples of what dual language can look like and accomplish. Pasco school district has a robust bilingual program which particularly supports their Spanish speaking English Language Learners. They are working on expanding to all students. Seattle public schools also has several dual language programs in multiple languages and there are successful programs in Burlington and Mt. Vernon. 

One program in particular, though, serves as a model for the potential outcomes of successfully implementing dual language throughout a school – Evergreen Elementary School in the small district of Shelton, Washington. Evergreen elementary school implements a 50/50 model, in which students have instruction in both English and Spanish every school day, across all subjects. This is a key piece to the program. Students have access to academic language for every subject, which is essential to gaining true biliteracy. Additionally, Evergreen serves students from pre-k through 5th grade and has shown tremendous growth in all students. 

Under the new Every Student Succeeds Act which measures academic growth, Evergreen is a Tier 1 school, outperforming the other two elementary schools in the Shelton school district in academic growth for Hispanics, whites, students of poverty and English Language Learners. In addition, Evergreen has the highest transition rate for English Language Learners. This success is based on data from 2014 to 2017 (See data link below).

An additional impact of the program has been a positive effect on attendance. In Shelton, Evergreen has the highest attendance rate for the whole district at 94.4%. Students are not only learning content and language, but also learn to value school. They enjoy being at Evergreen and are so engaged in their classes and connected with their teachers and one another that they want to go to school every day.

I had the pleasure of meeting the pre-school teacher, Celia Butler. She is from Columbia. Her passion was clear from the moment I walked into her classroom and her connection with her students was inspiring. She greeted her students in English and in Spanish and had a room rich in color and in language. Each tiny student who came in, greeted their teacher with “Good Morning” and a hug. There was love in her classroom – an uplifting community to get them started on there journey through school. This classroom is representative of all the classrooms in this school. This in and of itself shows the community and engagement in a dual language environment. 

I am anxious to see what comes out of the OSPI task force for dual language. With such tremendous programs, like Evergreen elementary, with its excellent student outcomes, the Office of the Superintendent has good examples to draw from in developing the initiative as it rolls out across the state. One of my English language learning colleagues, Amy Ingram, is a member of the Task Force. I’ll be following Amy’s blog, as she documents the work of the task force. Particularly, how it will work in concert with existing English language learning programs and its potential positive impact on recruiting bilingual and diverse educators. 

Check out Evergreen Elementary’s date:

http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/SchoolIndex_2018.aspx?groupLevel=District&schoolId=1&reportLevel=State&yrs=2016-17&year=2016-17

(The report is on the OSPI Report Card site.  You have to press New WA School Improvement Framework, and then go into the SIF Data Display tab, and click on district and school.)

Statue of Liberty seen from the Circle Line ferry, Manhattan, New York

I would be willing to guess that most people born in the United States have at least one immigrant in their family. Immigrants are people who settle in a country other than the one in which they were born. This can be said of most of our ancestors. Unless you identify as “Native American,” a member of an indigenous tribe here in the United States, you are likely the descendant of immigrants. Immigration is a permanent and important part of our shared history in the United States. Despite this shared history, every day in my newsfeed, I witness a heated debate about immigration. 

One important piece of that debate is terminology. I see people use the terms, “immigrant,” “documented immigrant,” “undocumented immigrant,” and “refugee” interchangeably. I also see some use other terms, more derogatory terms that seek to dehumanize others, which only work to divide us. Since this post focuses on creating a shared understanding, I will not share those here. 

When we use “immigrant,” “documented immigrant,” “undocumented immigrant,” and “refugee” interchangeably, we are confusing the conversation. It is essential when discussing people coming to our nation seeking refuge that we use the appropriate terminology, otherwise, we have the tendency to group all people and “other” anyone not born in the United States. This leads to fear and isolation, neither of which connects our communities or makes them stronger. 

Here are the basic definitions of the three terms:

Immigrant: A person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.

Documented Immigrant: A person who comes to live in a foreign country, either permanently or temporarily, having the appropriate legal documentation. 

Undocumented Immigrant: A person who comes to live in a foreign country, either permanently or temporarily, not having the appropriate legal documentation.

Refugee: A person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster and has been granted legal refuge in a foreign country.  

More importantly, behind each of these terms, is a person – a man, woman or child – with a story. As the teacher at the Newcomer Center at Joel E. Ferris High School in Spokane, Washington, I have the honor of being the first teacher for some of the immigrant and refugee children in our country. In the United States, public schools are responsible for educating all students and cannot check a student’s immigration status or otherwise discriminate on the basis of a students national origin. As a public school teacher, I get to know these students and their families as people, hear their stories and understand their cultures. It’s incredible. These stories are what is missing from the debate I read about each and every day. Here are just a few: 

Sara is a refugee. She came to the United States from Kenya. She was originally from Sudan, but war and persecution in her home country forced her family to flee their nation in order to find hope and life in a foreign country. During their journey to refuge, they walked on foot for hundreds of miles and spent several months hiding in caves. When they finally arrived at the refugee camp in Kenya, they struggled to provide enough food for the family and lacked sufficient water. Due to this upheaval, Sara had severely interrupted formal education. They applied for refuge as a family. After seven years of waiting, they were granted legal entrance into the United States. Sara came as an eighth grader. Despite her limited formal education prior to coming to the U.S., Sara graduated from high school only five years after coming to our country. She entered University and is studying to be a nurse. She applied for and took the exam to become a U.S. citizen as a freshman in college. She is now a U.S. citizen and productive member of our community. 

Jesus was a documented immigrant who became undocumented. Jesus came to the U.S. with his mother, brother, and sister. His mother was working in a law firm in Mexico, but after she discovered corruption in her office, she feared for her family’s safety and decided to move to the U.S. She applied for and was granted a six-month work visa. After moving to the U.S., she had some difficulty finding work that matched her skills, but found a job on an orchard. She attempted to extend her work visa, but was denied. Back in Mexico, her former boss had been arrested, and feared returning home until she knew it was safe for her children. She overstayed her visa, and the family became undocumented. Jesus, the oldest son, wants to attend university to work with computers. He is an excellent student, but is not sure there is a path for him to attend college. He hopes one day he can a U.S. citizen. 

Linda was an undocumented immigrant from El Salvador who became documented. She came to the United States because of extreme violence due to civil war in her nation. Her life and the lives of her family members were in danger, and they had to flee their home. They fled on foot, crossed rivers, road on busses and trains to get to the border. They crossed the border at the southern end of our nation and took refuge with a church, who fed their family, clothed them, and gave them a safe place to stay as they attempted to navigate the immigration process. After countless more Salvadorians entered our nation due to the civil war, the U.S. finally granted them temporary protected status, opening a way to citizenship. After a lengthy and difficult process, Linda received her Green Card, became a permanent resident, and after fifteen years became a U.S. citizen. She works as a Paraeducator, helping to instruct students who are going through similar traumatic experiences.

It is important as we address immigration in our nation that we understand the difference between documented and undocumented immigrants, and refugees. It also is important that we be compassionate and empathetic to the circumstances under which most people leave their home countries in search of refuge in the United States. While refugees are granted entry to the U.S. due to violence and persecution in their home countries, it is clear that many documented and undocumented immigrants also seek entry into the U.S. for equally dire reasons that are not yet recognized for refugee status. No one wants to leave their home. It is not easy and takes a toll on themselves and their families. But what would you do if your children’s lives were in danger? Moreover, what I have come to learn the most as the Newcomer Center teacher is that immigrants and refugees who come to this nation are dedicated, focused, and determined to give back to this country. They are committed to becoming productive and successful members of our communities and they succeed in doing so. 

*Names and minor details such as locations in each story were changed to ensure identify protection.

I am passionate about my students and providing them with every opportunity to advance toward a happy and fulfilling future. For most this means graduating from high school and going on to some sort of post-secondary education. One requirement which can be a hurdle for them is world language. Most universities require students to take 2 years of a foreign language. For my students, English is their foreign language, so studying a language on top of English can be daunting. Over the past two years, though, Washington state has introduced the option to show language proficiency through a competency based credit (CBC) exam. This exam can result in the equivalent of two years of language study and can also qualify students for the Seal of Biliteracy. The exam is currently given for hundreds of languages, so many of my students are able to take this exam for their first language and receive credit. This gives students pride in their first languages and a leg up as they move forward in life. This is not, however, the case for our Native American students. 

During my recent visit to White Swan High School, a public school on the Yakama Reservation, Jenny Tenney, 2018 Education Service District 105 Regional Teacher of the Year, gave me a tour of her school. As she took me through the halls of the high school, Jenny shared the demographics of the student body, 60% Native, 38% Hispanic, and 2% a smattering of white and other ethnic groups. She also shared the community’s efforts in teaching the tribe’s indigenous language, Sahaptin. The district has the start of a program at the elementary school, through which they teach Sahaptin to the 3rd and 4th graders. There is discussion of moving classes to the high school, but because classes in Sahaptin are not counted for world language credit, students would only receive elective credit. This might limit enrollment. 

After this discussion, I wondered if this was the case across the state. As an English language teacher, I understand the value of having literacy in one’s first language, and its impact on learning English. Plus, fluency in one’s native language also increases pride in one’s culture. 

Washington state has a large number of Native American tribes, with a wide array of indigenous languages spoken throughout our state. The idea that students would not receive world language credit for learning their native tongue didn’t make sense to me, so I did some digging. What I found was inconsistency.

Right here in Spokane, WA. both Rogers High School and North Central High School offer Salish language classes. Students who take these courses receive world language credit. The teacher, Robert Wynecoop, is highly qualified and fluent in Salish. He explained to me that he teaches “a curriculum similar in nature to what is taught at Salish School of Spokane (…written by the same people). It is similar to what is included in [other] world language curriculums and has the same basic scope and sequence.” Rogers HS currently offers Salish 1 and Salish 2, with a total enrollment of between 35 to 50 students. 

Another program is offered at Port Angeles High School in Port Angeles, WA. This program is taught and was created by Jamie Valadez. Valadez teaches Klallam language, a language that was nearly extinguished due to federal policies concerning the schooling of Native children, during the 19th and 20th centuries. Since implementing the Klallam language program, the school has seen dramatic shifts in their Native students. Their grades have improved and they have a sense of pride in their culture. Over 600 students have completed the course since 1999. 

At the university level Native American students also struggle to receive world language credit for their indigenous languages. Yale University offers students an opportunity to study indigenous languages, such as Cherokee and Navajo, through their Native American Language Project, but not for credit. While at the University of Washington students are beginning to see progress, as a student recently became one of the first to receive world language credit for showing proficiency in her native language, Quinault. 

Based on my research, it would appear that one major hurdle for Native American students to study and receive credit for their indigenous languages is a lack of qualified and fluent educators to teach the courses and/or to score the exams. Robert Wynecoop and Jamie Valadez are in the minority as highly qualified educators who are also fluent in their respective indigenous languages. However, this is no fault of the individual tribes. For centuries Native Americans have faced the systematic dismantling of their cultures. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries Native American children were sent to boarding schools in an attempt to force them to assimilate to white culture, in an effort to “kill the Indian in him, and save the man.” Due to these abusive federal policies, many indigenous languages were nearly extinguished. Over the past several decades, however, various tribes are revitalizing their indigenous languages and their cultures. 

It is clear that providing Native American students with an opportunity to learn, study, and use their indigenous languages leads to positive academic outcomes. Studying their indigenous languages also increases pride in their Native culture and preserves their heritage. As a state we make a concerted effort to meet the language needs of our immigrant and refugee populations. We should be doing the same for our Native American students. Indigenous languages are world languages and deserve to be credited as such. 

Sal Khan

Most of you are likely familiar with Khan Academy. Khan Academy is an online tutorial program, offering support in Math and other subjects. According to Sal Khan, founder of Khan Academy, he developed the website after determining, through tutoring his family members in math, that educators are limited by time and the educational system to meet the individual needs of the students in their classrooms. At first, he created his online learning platform so his family could access his math tutorials when he was not in town. He eventually expanded the endeavor and opened access to anyone with an internet connection. In his words he wants “a world class education for anyone, anywhere.” Khan Academy is now used in many classrooms as an additional support for students to either access during class or from home.

Since going worldwide, Sal Khan conjectured that because of his success in tutoring through Khan Academy, maybe his ideas would also work in a brick and mortar school. This led to the creation of the Khan Lab School in Mountain View, California. Originally, the Lab School focused on online learning. They soon discovered, however, that the key impact on student learning is the teacher. With this understanding they rethought their program model and brought in teachers to facilitate student learning. Once they shifted the model, they saw positive outcomes for students. This is a very important point to note.

A couple of additional things to know about the Lab School – First, it is a private school with a large price tag to attend. Second, the Lab School serves a highly affluent community, not only because of the high price of tuition, but also because it serves the families in Silicon Valley. This second element calls into question the efficacy of the program. In its current iteration, it fails to serve our most challenging students. It is easy to prove a program works when it is implemented in an area and with students who guarantee success. I, personally, would love for Mr. Khan, to take this idea and implement it in the most challenging school in San Francisco or Oakland to really test the efficacy of the program. It is only in our most challenging environments that we can truly see how an innovative program works.

With all of my skepticism, there is one particular aspect of the Khan Lab School which I believe would benefit our most underserved students, and with careful planning, could be implemented in our public schools – the Khan Lab grading system. It is unique and non-punitive. What Khan Lab School has done is remove grade levels and the standard letter-grade system, instead focusing on mastery and independence levels.

Rather than assign students to a grade-level based on their age, students demonstrate mastery of content. Students are provided a rubric through which they must show ability in both knowledge and skill, according to a specific standard of learning. Students can assess mastery whenever they and their teachers determine they are ready. This means that if a study is at a second grade reading level, but fifth grade math, they are able to study both subjects at their mastery levels. This provides students a flexible timeline through which they may master content at an appropriate rate for their individual needs and teachers are better able to differentiate instruction for each of their students.

A student’s independence level determines how much autonomy s/he has in learning. Independence is also measured on a rubric and assessed when both the student and teacher deem the student is ready. Khan Lab School calls student schedules a “playlist.” Students have certain classes assigned to them based on their mastery, but then there are several spaces left open for students themselves to determine their classes for the week. In their first year at the Lab School there are no open spaces in a student’s “playlists.” As the student moves up independence levels, more spaces open for the student to control her/his trajectory through school. This is extremely empowering, as students are learning to be self-starters, that they have agency, how to advocate for themselves and take control of their learning and their futures.

Group of Friends Smiling

I believe this way of rethinking grades and grade levels would be powerful for all students, especially our most underserved. Imagine implementing a grade system that honors students’ abilities, encourages and teaches independence, and creates a growth mindset in students by developing a focus on their assets, rather than on their deficits. Now imagine a system in which thought leaders, like Sal Khan, endeavored to implement their innovations not in an exclusive school, but in a school accessible to all students, a public school. Students of all backgrounds and abilities would be empowered. Just imagine…

Has your district and/or school been creative with grading students? What are your thoughts on the Khan Lab School mastery and independence levels? Can we make something like this work in our public schools? Why? Share your thoughts and opinions in a comment below. Let’s start the conversation.

All persuasive arguments begin with a story. That’s exactly what I was greeted with during my first “Teacher of the Year” school visit to Oakesdale elementary, middle and high school. Upon my arrival, Superintendent and Principal, Jake Dingman, immediately took me on a tour of the newly renovated building. I use the term, renovated, loosely, as the changes and additions are merely upgrades to an old foundation. You see, the Oakesdale school house was built in the early 1900’s and the last time the windows in the hallway were replaced was in 1956. They were single-pane, floor-to-ceiling, and in the last several years, they’d begun to leak during bouts of rain or snow. Over the years, the leaks worsened and students simply understood that they had to do their best to walk around the puddles flooding their hallways. Finally, one of the walls of windows collapsed altogether.

Superintendent Dingman and his staff worked for several years to pass a bond, to renovate the school, but to no avail. He informed me that rural folks don’t like to carry debt and bonds can last from 20 to 25 years. It wasn’t until Dingman tried for a capital levy that he was able to make some updates to the building. He was quite proud of the new walls and windows in the hallways. To most visitors these updates wouldn’t seem like much, but to Dingman and the students and teachers in Oakesdale, they meant freedom of movement and warmth during cold months.

The high school, on the same campus as the elementary-middle school, was built in 1936. There was a remodel in 1970, which covered up the beautiful wooden floors with tile squares, but little has been done since. The plumbing is on the outside of the walls, because the old pipes located beneath the building have corroded to the point of uselessness. Needless to say, both buildings are still in need of major renovation.

Beyond the actual buildings, Oakesdale also lacks technology. The district currently contracts with the prison to purchase computers. Inmates refurbish the units, the district buys them at a minimal cost, then they add additional RAM and programs to make them usable. With the passing of their most recent capital levy, along with additional renovations, they plan to purchase Chromebooks for the high school. The computer science teacher is very excited.

Oakesdale‘s story is not uncommon in rural areas. Often these towns struggle to pass levies and bonds because they not only count on the voters in their town, but also on voters in neighboring towns, who may not have children attending their school. Additionally, Dingman explained, the restrictions on the use of levy dollars through House Bill 2242 during the 2017 legislative session will also have a drastic impact on his school, as he may be faced with losing $300-400,000 due to levy equalization. This is particularly interesting, as equalization was intended to benefit small rural districts.

I think it’s important to briefly explain the differences between a bond, an enrichment levy, and a capital levy.

– A bond is a debt, meaning, the school district borrows money from investors and uses that money for capital projects, such as construction projects, renovations, or vehicle/equipment purchases. The bond is paid back over an extended period of time, usually over 20 to 25 years, with interest. It requires a vote by the people and must pass by 60%.
– An enrichment levy is funded through a property tax during the life of the levy, usually 3 years. It covers curriculum, programs, extracurricular activities, and anything else that falls under the broad umbrella of enrichment in a school district, but may not be used for capital assets, like building updates or maintenance. Many school districts have also used these funds to pay Paraeducators and some classroom teachers, but this is no longer allowed under HB 2242. This type of levy requires a vote by the people and must pass by 50%.
– A capital levy is also funded through a property tax during the life of the levy, usually 3 years. This levy covers acquiring, maintaining, or improving capital assets like a school building or technology solutions. It does not cover new construction or full renovations, as the funds are not adequate for such large projects. This type of levy also requires a vote by the people and must pass by 50%.

School funding is tricky. It is important to understand how legislation impacts all areas of our state, as each district has different needs. A bill, as passed by the legislature, may not do what it originally intended. We must remember that bills, even when passed, are not set in stone. I am looking forward to seeing the changes that come out of this legislative session in an effort to adjust HB 2242 to what the legislature intended, a true fix in providing funding equity for all districts.

While Oakesdale is a great example of the challenges small rural districts face in remodeling and renovating their schools and in acquiring adequate technology (including access to high-speed wifi), it is also a great example of the benefits of a small community. Class sizes are small, and teachers really know ALL of their students. There is even a community calendar that highlights important dates for every member of the community down to anniversaries and birthdays. Individualized instruction is attainable and implemented. It’s also clear that Principal Dingman and the eductors are proud of their school and love to be there. It’s super cool to see.

There are challenges and benefits to every size school district. Being Teacher of the Year has afforded me the opportunity to see them firsthand and to share them with others. What are some of the challenges and benefits in your district? Share them in a comment below.

Two things you should know prior to reading this post: 1) I am writing through the lens of both a parent and a secondary educator (meaning I’m far from being an expert), and 2) my child has two amazing Kindergarten teachers. They are passionate and kind, they ensure my son loves school, and I can tell they care deeply about him. This is what every parent wants for their children. With these two admissions, I will proceed. I recently received two unsettling emails from my son’s teachers.

The first email was expected, but still a bit disappointing, as we all want to believe our children are little well-behaved geniuses. So, the hard truth is a bit difficult to swallow. According to the email, my son struggles at times to pay attention, he is easily distracted by his peers, and when he becomes unengaged he is often stubborn and unwilling to reengage, especially when the task is a difficult one. Lack of focus and inability to pay attention sometimes is exactly what I would expect of a five-year-old. He is still learning to be a student, his attention-span is growing, he loves to play with his friends, and he tends to shift focus from more difficult endeavors to easier ones. As far as the stubborn element, well, he is my son. I’ve learned these characteristics are fairly common among the Kindergarten-set, as evidenced by the discussions I’ve had at birthday parties with other parents. Also, in that same email, my son’s teachers had plenty of praise for him. He is helpful, kind, and a good friend, all awesome qualities, so I wasn’t particularly concerned.

The unsettling part came when I received the next email — about recess. In it, my son’s teachers outlined the new plan. After the winter break, they would be cutting lunch recess from 45 minutes to 30 minutes (which includes time to eat). The rationale for this decision was that per district recommendations, the first half of the year, Kindergartners are allotted an extra 15 minutes at lunch to meet their social-emotional needs, but that the time should be cut during the second half of the year. The reasoning for the cut was not explained, nor the implication that Kindergartners somehow no longer need the social-emotional support of a longer recess after only four months of school. The email went on to describe the practice they’d been doing as a class to prepare for the change. They’d implemented a “quiet lunch” in which the kids must be silent during the first 5 to 10 minutes, in order to focus on eating. They could then socialize for the remaining 5 minutes of lunch and 15 minutes of recess.

I’d also recently had some discussion with area elementary teachers about this topic. Along with being a parent and an educator, I am also a teacher leader. I recently took on the role of facilitator for the Washington Education Association’s National Board Teacher Leadership Academy. NBCTs in my region sign up and we work together to develop teacher leadership plans. Through our discussions I have learned a great deal about elementary school recess and have discovered that not all schools are implementing recess in the same ways. Anecdotally speaking, schools with fewer behavior issues have more recess, while schools with more behavior problems, have fewer minutes of recess.

This knowledge in combination with the change in my own child’s recess, got me thinking about the rationale for the cut in recess time. Many of us parents received similar reports from the teachers about inattention and disengagement. This discovery led to more discussion of the consequences for such behavior, which often meant removal of free-time and/or sitting with head down while the other students participated in an activity. It appears to me there is a logical disconnect. Students are losing social-time for poor behavior, but schools with statistically fewer discipline issues have more social-time. To me, that would suggest that increased social-time leads to more positive behaviors. This thought process warranted a bit of research.

I found several studies and articles supporting my hypothesis that increased recess decreases behavior issues in the classroom. One study in particular, by Theresa Phillippo at Hamline University, was a comprehensive overview of the impact of recess on behavior in Kindergarten. This researcher found “evidence that students are able to display more self-control when given more opportunities for movement during the day. Students were also more successful at showing soft skills such as cooperation, problem-solving, negotiation, compromising, and forming new friendships.” The author asserts that “a positive connection was found indicating that recess has a positive effect on classroom behavior. Results indicate that the long-term effects of providing recess may outweigh the short-term effects or reducing recess.”

I am not an expert, and an afternoon of research into recess does not qualify me to give advice to my son’s two amazing Kindergarten teachers. I do believe, though, that our schools need to think more deeply about their strict focus on seat-time and learning, especially in Kindergarten. Free play has such a positive impact on a child’s ability to connect and bond with others, problem-solve, be self-motivated, and is just plain good to get the wiggles out. These qualities and abilities are essential to being ready to learn.

I plan on visiting my school board and giving them my opinion about district policy concerning recess in Kindergarten. I will include the research I did today, but I’d love some additional resources to support my assertion that we should be adding minutes, not subtracting them from recess and that removal of free time is not an effective consequence for misbehavior, if anything it only makes the problem worse. Do you have anything to add? Let me know in the comments below. I can definitely use the help.

The email came out on Thursday. Another spirit week is underway. Winter sports is the reason and the theme is the season – winter and holiday cheer, complete with a staff dance based on the “12 Days of Christmas.” The English language department will take on “2 turtle doves” – not sure what that will look like, but we’ve been brainstorming. My first thoughts, though, are always on my students, equity, and access.

My usual questions are: 1) Have the leadership students considered the diversity of our student body? 2) Are multiple student groups being represented? and 3) Do all students have an opportunity to participate? In addition to general cultural responsiveness, I also ask myself can my students, brand new English language learners, participate and will participation be meaningful for them.

The answer to the first question is “no”. Even the staff dance number has a specific cultural lens. If students don’t celebrate Christmas, it will have little meaning. At the very least, it will be amusing for them, watching their teachers and other staff members making fools of themselves in front of the entire student body. There’s merit in that, watching the adults in their lives be silly. Imagine, though, the greater impact it would have should the activity reflect all of the members of the study body, their interests and beliefs.

As for the second and third questions, sports cons (otherwise known as pep rallies) rarely represent multiple student groups. They celebrate the athletes and encourage others to be athletic supporters. I do give our school leadership props in their effort to include as many students as they can through class competitions and the like, but with the multitude of sports teams, it’s difficult to eek out time for the non-athletic. The cons are exuberant and fun, but many students feel left out of the celebration.

Here’s where dress up days come into play. Dress up days are intended to create an in-road for the less involved students. They begin the build up to the big event at the end of the week and are intended to promote school spirit. However, each time I receive the email, I go through the list for the week and must determine which days I will attempt to make meaningful to my English language learners, and during which days I will encourage them to participate. Usually these are few and far between and some weeks I don’t even bother at all for several reasons.

Access is the main issue in determining the importance of tackling dress up days with my class. There are two main access issues. First, many of the days are culturally specific to the U.S., to Spokane, and even to specific neighborhoods. They also have socio-economic implications, meaning they are only accessible and relatable if you grew up in a middle or upper class household.

The second access issue is money. Many of the days require students to purchase items in order to participate. For example, Jersey Thursday, which is a common one for our school. Students either have to have access to their own jersey as members of a sports team, or have the funds to purchase a jersey of their favorite college or professional sports team. This is also true of any day that requires specific elements like flowered shirts or days specific to an era.

The cost is often unattainable for many students. They can choose not to participate in that particular day, but this usually leads to not participating at all. Who wants to admit they simply can’t afford to participate in one dress up day? They may as well choose to sit the whole thing out. At least then their peers will assume they just don’t want to, not that they can’t. It’s easier to pretend school spirit simply isn’t cool than to admit you can’t afford to look spirited.

This week’s dress up days are a little more accessible. I may encourage my kids to participate, particularly in those days based solely on a color. Even twins day isn’t too hard, if you choose something simple. As far as Friday goes, with its ugly sweater theme, I might be able to lend a hand in that area, maybe we’ll make our own. I need to go a step further, though. Instead of checking the list and determining whether I’ll encourage my students to participate, I should instead speak to the leadership class. Ask them to consider culture and cost when planning events in which they want all students to participate.

What have your experiences been with spirit weeks? What are your suggestions in increasing access? Participating in school activities is important to each student’s confidence and success at school. Some simple steps we can take in ensuring access during spirit weeks is to check the demographics of the school. We may be surprised by the diversity we find. Choose days which are easy to accomplish, for example days based on colors (make sure the colors are common and students would likely have them in their closets), pajama days, mismatch days, or any idea that does not require purchasing items in order to pull it off. We might also consider having at least one non-sport assembly which celebrates the other activities and people in the school who do not participate in sports. An example is the culture assembly at Kent Meridian High School in Kent, Washington. It is essential we make every opportunity accessible to all of our students. It is through access that we achieve equity.

My first year in education, I worked as a Paraeducator in a Designed Instruction classroom. At the time, I didn’t know how deeply that experience would impact my practice as a classroom teacher. I spent one year in that DI classroom. In that time, I instructed students one-to-one on reading and life-skills, and also worked with the whole class to build a boat, to learn independent living through grocery shopping and cooking, and also coached the Special Olympics basketball team. These were amazing experiences and sparked my initial interest in becoming a certified teacher, but the most important impact came from how the lead teacher worked with our team. I didn’t know how much his actions affected me until I took a position in which I worked in concert with others and realized how much I had learned from him.

Most of us have heard the phrase “it takes a village to raise a child.” The same can be said in education. Student success does not happen as the result of one educator’s effort, there is a whole team involved. The way that team works together can make or break a classroom. Thinking back to that first lead teacher I worked with, I learned so much. The most important lesson he taught me, he did not expressly say, but rather he showed me through his interactions with the educational support staff in our classroom and through the respect he showed in both word and action.

As a team we had weekly meetings in which the lead teacher would specifically elicit feedback and suggestions from the entire staff in the classroom as to next steps, what worked and what didn’t work during the week and how we, as a team, could better meet the needs of the students. He recognized that we, as Paraeducators, were the ones working most closely with the kids. We had knowledge of their progress and interests that he did not have, because he mainly taught whole group, while we worked beside the students. He also greatly respected and worked toward each of our strengths, encouraging us to take on roles in the classroom that would have the most benefit to our students and also help us grow in our work. He created an environment in which we all felt empowered and encouraged to work independently and collaboratively. We felt safe and respected and, thus, also treated one another with respect and kindness.

It has only been in the last seven years that these lessons have really come into focus for me. Not only do I work in a team with sign language interpreters and a bilingual specialist, I also act as an advocate through our local education association for my co-workers throughout the district. Most often, when my colleagues come to me for something related to the association, it deals with interpersonal issues with their co-workers and their working environment. Many are Paraeducators, who feel disrespected by the lead teachers with whom they work and consider their environment to be hostile.

Recently, as a board member, I met with the Paraeducator Board to develop Paraeducator Standards and discuss alternative routes to certification. Inevitably our focus always falls on the element of our work that relates to the creation and implementation of training for administrators and teachers on working with Paraeducators. This is a massive element currently missing from teacher preparation programs. Teachers are expected to work with Paraeducators and other support staff, but are given little to no guidance on what that work looks like or how that sounds in a classroom. Plus, lead teachers are often given mixed messages from supervisors as to their role in reference to Paraeducators. In most cases, the teacher’s job is to guide instruction in the classroom and ensure everyone understands their roles and responsibilities in working with students and within the general structure of the classroom. Often, however, Administrators rely on teachers to provide supervision, which is not a lead teacher’s role. This can create a heirarchy in the classroom, which empowers the lead teacher, but makes the other staff in the room feel they do not have a voice and are not respected.

As I work with the board to plan training, and I also work with my co-workers to help them find resolution, I remember the lead teacher I worked with when I was a Paraeducator. His actions were simple. He created an environment in which every staff member felt ownership. He did this by using inclusive language. There was no such thing as “mine” only “ours.” It was our classroom. The students were our students. Second, he didn’t assign us roles. He directed us toward positions and responsibilities which best matched our skills and took into account our opinions about what we liked and wanted to do. We had four Paraeducators working in that DI room. Some of us worked exclusively one-to-one with particular students, others of us floated around. He also capitalized on our individual training. That’s how I became the basketball coach. I had played in college. Even though he loved coaching the team, he recognized that I might have some skills in this area that would better benefit the kids on the team, and so offered the position to me. That lead teacher had the ability to see the students and their needs first. He did not wield power, but instead shared responsibility.

I have carried these lessons with me throughout my 19 years in the classroom. Even with years of practice, I still have to be cognizant because it’s so easy to fall into language patterns and roles which diminish my classroom partners. When we work as a team, collaborate, capitalize on one another’s strengths, and empower one another, we create the best environment for our students.

What about in your schools? How do you, as an Education Support Professional or Lead Teacher, navigate roles and responsibilities in the classroom? Let’s start a conversation.