Dr. Joslyn Richardson: Welcome to the PL Reality Check, brought to you by Rivet Education. In just a few moments, we’ll strip away the buzzwords and get real about professional learning. Each episode brings insider insight from experts and partners, so you can make smarter, faster decisions for your district. I am Dr. Joslyn Richardson, the Director of the Professional Learning Partner Guide here at Rivet. Today, we are continuing our conversation with Dr. Chalon Jones, Instructional Specialist at the English Learners Success Forum, about professional learning for educators supporting multilingual learners. Welcome back, Chalon!
So, last time, we talked about shortcomings and gaps in general professional learning design that can lead teachers to not being adequately prepared to support our MLL students. Let’s dive into how leaders can make sure this isn’t the reality in their district.
To kick us off, I want to focus on the professional learning provider. When a provider claims expertise in supporting multilingual learners, what is the very first question a district should ask, and what does a strong answer actually sound like?
Dr. Chalon Jones: Thank you for asking that. The very first question a district should ask is, how does your professional learning translate your expertise with multilingual learners into concrete classroom practices for teachers and leaders? When a district is listening to that response, they should hear things like how their ML expertise translates into day-to-day classroom practice and shifts, how they support teachers and leaders with leveraging formative assessments to track content learning and language development through strategic adjustments to instructional materials implementation and planning. Overall, there should be a deep-seated belief in the cultural and linguistic assets of multilingual learners and how they are honored within student-centered learning environments.
Dr. Joslyn Richardson: Asset-based pedagogy is so important. This makes me think about how important it is for teachers to see multilingualism as an asset and not with a deficit lens. When educators understand this and reinforce this, there are numerous benefits, both for multilingual learners and for non-multilingual learners.
Many providers say that their professional learning incorporates language development. Can you tell us what questions help uncover whether a PL provider’s approach is really grounded in research and integrated with curriculum?
Dr. Chalon Jones: Yes. Language and content are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. One cannot develop without the other and should not be taught in isolation, but in context. At ELSF, we promote three key materials must-haves that should be in all high-quality instructional materials to help support meeting this need.
To uncover whether a provider’s approach is grounded in this research-aligned belief, districts can ask: how does your professional learning support teachers in developing a strong understanding of English language development and second language acquisition? What opportunities do teachers have to develop and leverage integrated language and content objectives? And how does your professional learning build teachers’ capacity to analyze both content and language assessment data to adjust instruction?
Each of these responses, when listening, should also be accompanied by specific examples of PL activities to showcase what this actually looks like in action. These are only a starting place, a starting baseline, to dig into that PL provider’s approach and whether it’s research-informed and curriculum-aligned.
Dr. Joslyn Richardson: Excellent. One of the things we’ve heard from districts is that they often struggle to tell whether a provider can build teacher capacity, not just talk about it. What questions can leaders ask to assess whether a provider has a proven track record of improving instruction for multilingual learners?
Dr. Chalon Jones: To determine their track record, especially with supporting multilingual learners, districts should ask questions that press for specific evidence, what classroom practice looks like, and outcomes over time, rather than just general commitments or general beliefs.
A few questions they could ask are: what specific changes in teacher practice have you seen as a result of your professional learning, and how do you know? Being able to share very specific examples of what that looks like, potentially accompanied with data, can help illustrate those changes over time. Another question is, how do you measure whether teachers are actually implementing what they learn after they participate in your PL? How does your PL help teachers employ an asset-based view of multilingual learners, and can you share specific examples of those? Another is, how do you help teachers plan instruction where language development is embedded within rigorous grade-level content?
All of those questions can help districts get to the root of a provider’s capacity, as well as their expertise.
Dr. Joslyn Richardson: These are great. I appreciate your recommendation for each question. There is a push for leaders to ask providers to share specific examples in the examples you gave of how these things look in practice. This isn’t only helpful in determining if a provider has tangible results, it is also supporting two other key actions. It helps district leaders think about how they will assess whether the PL services are having the necessary impact in their classrooms, and it also helps them evaluate their own PL and impact in this area.
Well, this concludes our time for today. I just want to thank you, Chalon, again, for your insight into this very important topic. Listeners, if you missed Part 1, please check out our website, riveteducation.org. Until next time! Bye!
