Using SIOP and Standards Based Grading Methods to Reduce the

Achievement Gap

Revised Description and Interpretation of “Gap Closing” Instruction

Instructional Leadership EDLPS 571 A

Professors Michael Knapp & Kyle Kinoshita

by

Donna J. Morris

December 21, 2012

I would like to offer the following findings to the Washington High School Staff. Our entire staff has

been commissioned this year, by our district administration, to be trained on the SIOP (sheltered

instruction observation protocol) to be used as a tool to help close the achievement gap within the

Westside School District. We will utilize the definition of achievement gap as: the difference in

performance between low-income and minority students compared to that of their peers on standardized

tests. The focus of this document is about identifying classroom strategies that can be implemented to

help close the achievement gap of our students at Washington High School. I will highlight the SIOP

Model instructional strategies that were observed in a high school geometry lesson along with standards

based grading strategies that are currently making a difference for the students in the observed class. I

was one of three teachers from the Math Department that was trained on the SIOP model over a three day

period in October, 2012.

The SIOP model is a researched-based and a validated model of sheltered instruction that has been proven

effective in addressing the academic needs of English learners throughout the United States. This model

helps teachers to plan and deliver lessons that allow English learners to acquire academic knowledge as

they develop English language proficiency. The SIOP was originally designed as an observation and

rating tool for the researchers to use while viewing the participating teachers in the classroom. During the

course of the project, however, the participating teachers discovered its potential as a tool for lesson

planning and reflection. As the number of English learners increases in schools across the United States,

educators are seeking effective ways to help them succeed in K-12 ESL, content area, and bilingual

classrooms. Research shows that when teachers fully implement the SIOP Model, English learners'

academic performance improves. In addition, teachers report that SIOP-based teaching benefits all

students, not just those who are learning English as an additional language.

The SIOP Model consists of eight interrelated components:

Lesson Preparation

2

Building Background

Comprehensible Input

Strategies

Interaction

Practice/Application

Lesson Delivery

Review/Assessment

Using instructional strategies connected to each of these components, teachers are able to design and

deliver lessons that address the academic and linguistic needs of all diverse learners in their classrooms.

We can make a connection between these components and the CREDE (Center for Research on

Education, Diversity, and Excellence) standards for effective Pedagogy for culturally and linguistically

diverse students and students living in poverty.

CREDE Standards

Contextualization: Connect teaching and curriculum to the experiences, values, knowledge,and needs of students. Learning through Observation-Modeling:Promote student learning through observation by modeling behaviors, thinking processes, andprocedures.

Challenging Activities/Teaching Complex Thinking: Challenge students toward cognitive complexity.Language and Literacy Development across the Curriculum: Develop student competence in the language and literacy of instruction across the curriculum.Instructional Conversation: Teach through conversation.Joint Productive Activity/Teachers and Students Producing Together: Facilitate learningthrough activity shared by educators and students.Student Choice: Encourage student decision making.

Here are statistics, provided by OSPI about our students at Washignton HS, to help us in determining

where the achievement gap lies in our school and what we can do to narrow the gap.

Gender (October 2011)

3

Male 686 51.2%Female 655 48.8%Race/Ethnicity (October 2011)American Indian/Alaskan Native 18 1.3%Asian 126 9.4%Pacific Islander 4 0.3%Asian/Pacific Islander 130 9.7%Black 38 2.8%Hispanic 224 16.7%White 931 69.4%Special ProgramsFree or Reduced-Price Meals 482 38.3%Special Education 152 12.1%Transitional Bilingual 56 4.4%Migrant (May 2012) 18 1.4%Section 504 (May 2012) 82 6.5%Foster Care (May 2012) 0 0.0%

From our data, we can see that we do not have significant racial diversity, but we have a fair number of

students who are qualified for Free or Reduced-Price Meals. This is more difficult to detect in the

classroom as teachers are not aware of which students qualify for Free or Reduced Meals due to privacy

laws. We are only made aware of the breakdown of achievement on the state assessment which we

currently receive once a year after the school year has ended.

I would now like to share with you an example of how the SIOP strategies are currently being used on our

campus along with other strategies that are being employed to narrow the achievement gap of our

students. On November 15, 2012, I visited a Geometry class where I was able to see evidence of all eight

components used within the lesson. The lesson I observed was during 6th period with 28 students,

comprised of 19 Freshmen, 6 Sophomores, 2 Juniors, and 1 Senior. There were six students out of the 28

that were non-Caucasian. Two of the students were ELL students and there were two students receiving

special services. The freshmen students are advanced by one year in math, sophomores are on track for

the average sophomore student, while the junior and senior students are repeating the course. The students

who are currently receiving a D or F in the course are either a Junior or a Senior. The teacher, Ms. Dryer,

was one of the three math teachers who were trained on the SIOP model two weeks before the

4

observation. The week prior to the observation, each of the Washignton High School teachers who were

trained on the SIOP model used an early release to collaborate and discuss the strategies they started

implementing in their classes, and share their goals for continued implementation and growth. Ms. Dryer

shared that her goal was to intentionally incorporate and communicate language goals each day along

with her math content goals. She also shared that she intended to increase student involvement, student

discourse, and develop their communication skills in each lesson.

The sixth period class I observed was on a 75-minute block schedule that day. The class began at 1:00 pm

and ended at 2:15 pm. I used a simple recording sheet, which contained four columns to jot down each of

my observations. The column headings were “time”, “teacher observations”, “student observations”, and

the last column was for my questions or thoughts that I wanted to address at another time. The class was

using the CPM (College Preparatory Mathematics) curriculum. The teacher is new this year to the district

but has been teaching for the last seven years at a nearby district and has changed districts to teach closer

to her home. She has been trained on the CPM materials and has used them the last two years.

I entered the classroom at 1:05 and sat in the back. Students were sitting at tables facing forward with two

students at each table. Ms. Dryer was walking around the room stamping each student’s homework

recording sheet to verify if their homework assignment was complete. Students were given directions on

the projector that stated “Check 3-5 through 3-9”. The following questions were also on the overhead:

“Are there any problems that you need to go back and revise?”

“Which ones?”

Ms. Dryer had brief discussions with students about the assignment as she quickly went around the room

stamping their sheets. She made the comment “If you haven’t done the homework, than you do it now.”

Several students had questions for her about what the implications of the late stamp. She explained to

them that they could still earn some of the points if they finished the assignment. Ms. Dryer placed

answer sheets from the homework on each of the tables and students used them to correct their work. She

5

asked, “Are there any questions that we need to talk about as a whole class?” One student asked, “How do

you do number 6b?” “Why do you multiply by….?” Ms. Dryer wrote on the board (5x + 9)/ 2 = 12. She

talked about two methods that could be used. She went further into the explanation of the proportion

method and showed another example 5/x = 20/8. She emphasized the vocabulary of ratio and proportion,

writing those terms on the board as she used them. She continued to refer back to them by pointing to

those words on the word wall as she said them. One student stated, “isn’t that called criss-cross?” She

replied, “yes, some of you might remember that by the criss-cross apple sauce technique.” At this point,

one student had his head on his desk and another was texting on his phone. Ms. Dryer commented, “I

need your eyes up here to fully engage”. As she went on to demonstrate and directed the class by saying

“eyes here”.

Once the questions from the homework were answered, she placed another slide on the projector. The

slide said “Warm-Up. Complete problems 3-17 and 3-18 individually. Be ready to compare answers with

the rest of the class in 5 minutes.” The time was 1:20. Ms. Dryer told the class, “I will check back with

you at 1:30.” During that time, students were working on those two problems by themselves until about

1:28. Students began speaking to one another about their learning. I could hear students using the same

vocabulary they heard emphasized in the lesson. I saw how students were using one another to ask

questions and share information to solidify their learning. I observed one student asking the student next

to him if he understood. The second student showed some understanding but still had some confusion.

The first student said, “Here, let me show you how it works”, as he explained his understanding. Ms.

Dryer chose a student’s work at 1:30 and placed it under the document camera. The problem was about

enlargement and dilation. She asked, “Can you visualize the rubber band stretching from yesterday?”

Students responded as if they did. She drew two right triangles on the board to discuss Proportional

Equations. The larger right triangle had sides 15 and 20 while the smaller right triangle had sides 6 and 8.

She emphasized similar figures and missing angles. She asked, “Which angle is congruent to which

6

angle?” She added, “Corresponding angles are congruent.” She placed the proportion 6/8 = 15/20 on the

board while saying “6 is to 8 as 15 is to 20?” She asked if anyone had a different proportion.

At 1:40, she projected the learning goal for the day, “11/15 Learning Goal; Learn how to write and solve

a proportional equation to find missing side lengths in similar figures.” The following directions were

also projected, “Working with your table partner, read aloud and complete problems 3-22 through 3-26,

be prepared to share your answers with the class in 20 minutes.” Ms. Dryer stated they had 20 minutes

for the 5 problems giving them about 4 minutes per problem. During this time, she continued to walk

around the room answering questions and asking probing questions to redirect student’s thinking or get

them back on track. She made comments about looking for the zoom factor and looking at the center of

the shape. She made comments about tying their learning to what they did yesterday. Students could be

heard discussing problems and asking each other questions about the assignment. Students were getting

up for rulers or calculators as needed. I observed some students reading aloud to their group, some were

reading quietly. Some students were working together and some were working independently. Ms. Dryer

continued to go from group to group asking and answering questions. She continued to reinforce the

vocabulary of fractions as ratios pointing them out on her word wall. I heard students engaging each other

with comments about dilations and enlargements. Some questions were about the assignment and some

were hypothetical questions.

At 2:00, with 15 minutes left in the class, Ms. Dryer directed the students to get out their composition

books to take notes. She demonstrated under the document camera how to fill out the entry on the table of

contents, including the date and title of math content. She placed a sentence starter on a slide that said,

“Figures are similar if ______________.” She hinted that “you may want to write something about

angles, corresponding, and congruent.” After a minute or two, she placed more on the initial phrase,

“Figures are similar if their corresponding angles are congruent and _______________.” She hinted

“something about their size.” After another minute, she projected the rest of the sentence: “and

corresponding sides need to be proportional.” She directed the class to make a picture on their notes

7

showing a proportional equation (she highlighted that phrase), to prove corresponding sides are

proportional.

At 2:10, Ms. Dryer passed out the homework sheets for that night. Students looked these over to see if

they had any questions and then they began to get cleaned up for the 2:15 class dismissal.

As I looked around the room I noticed the “Word Wall” with current or recently learned vocabulary.

These descriptors included pictures to aid students in recalling definitions. The other walls were full of

visuals including student work with helpful information on recently learned math skills.

Robert Marzano speaks to the effects of vocabulary instruction in content-specific words which produces

greater learning (Williams, 2003). To illustrate, think of two students who are quizzed on their

understanding of what they read. The student who has not received direct vocabulary instruction, received

a score on the test at the 50th percentile. The student who received direct vocabulary instruction will

obtain a score at the 83rd percentile.

Here is the evidence of the eight SIOP components I observed in this lesson.

Lesson Preparation – Clearly defined lesson objectives, both content and language. The goal for the lesson included a language goal (write a proportional equation) and the learning required reading, writing, and discussion. Language development was observed while students were reading (some aloud and some quietly), writing (in composition books), and discussing their mathematical learning.

Building Background – Making connections to previously learned content, drawing upon classroom experiences.

Comprehensible Input – The teacher frequently used TPR (total physical response) to emphasize key ideas as she was talking, established word wall was clearly visible to increase student understanding and usage of new vocabulary.

Strategies – Teacher changed up activities every 20 minutes or less. Math vocabulary was emphasized multiple times by the teacher verbally, by pointing to the written form, and highlighting to bring students’ attention to these key words.

Interaction – Lesson had a good balance between teacher and student talk. With the design of the lesson, all students were able to interact with the teacher as she spent considerable time moving

8

from group to group making herself available for help. The teacher designed appropriate groups to increase student interaction. She utilized wait time when asking questions during the lesson. Student interaction was observed while they were discussing their mathematical learning.

Practice/Application – Students practiced and applied new learning on classroom and homework assignments. The curriculum materials that were used are designed to have students learning the math concepts conceptually, interacting with other students, and applying their learning to real world problems.

Lesson Delivery – There was evidence of a well planned lesson with no down time, followed clearly defined content and language goals for lesson, students engaged in the learning process, and utilizing strategies for adequate pacing.

Review/Assessment – Skills review occurred during daily warm-up activity, students received verbal feedback as teacher progressed through the room and answered questions and gave individual direction.

In addition to the SIOP Model components that were observed during the lesson, Ms. Dryer also

implements other achievement gap closing strategies which ensure her students are progressing toward

mastering the necessary skills to be successful in this class and the next. She aligns her curriculum to the

Washington State Math Standards and clarifies which standards and skills are to be learned in each unit of

study. Student grades are comprised only on their level of performance of mastery on these skills. Her

students have multiple opportunities to show mastery with a variety of assessment types. Three question

quizzes, exit slips, and classroom presentations are among the variety of assessments offered to her

students besides the end of unit tests and district common quarterly summative assessments. Students

maintain a tracking sheet of the skills within the current unit which provides students the ability to keep

track of their progress on each skill. This tracking sheet also provides students a place to set goals and

reflect on their learning. Utilizing standards based grading and having students monitor their own

progress are some of the teaching best practices revered by school reform experts.

The research and experts in the field have overwhelmingly asserted that standards-based grading and

reporting allows us to align our grading and reporting practices to our standards-based instructional

practices. When implemented, standards-based grading and reporting (SBGR) allows us to more

9

accurately and consistently report student achievement to students and families as it relates to state and

local standards.

To summarize, the SIOP model strategies which were displayed in this lesson are instrumental in

identifying clear targets, engaging students in the learning process and mathematical discourse,

effectively communicate new concepts, and make connections to previous knowledge. There was a

definite focus on new vocabulary and language development that was tied to learning the math content. I

observed a good balance of student talk and teacher talk during this lesson. The CPM curriculum helps

students construct their mathematical learning in a collaborative learning environment with real-world

problems. The standards-based grading methods help students to focus on what they need to learn and not

on getting busy work completed or looking for extra credit to pass. Students are regularly focused on their

progress in the class as they maintain their evidence of math skills per unit.

In the list of Characteristics of Schools Where Achievement Gaps are Closing (Williams, 2003), we see

the following characteristics:

Important, visible and attainable goals

Focus on the learners and on teaching and learning that builds on learners’ experiences

Instruction aligned to standards

Frequently monitored individual student progress

Staff development and scheduled time for teachers to discuss and plan

There are multiple facets to consider when attempting to close the achievement gap. I only focused on the

aspects of classroom strategies in this document. Through examination of the SIOP components, we see

how utilizing these strategies improves our pedagogy for culturally and linguistically diverse students and

students living in poverty. We also see how these strategies align with the first four characteristics of

Schools where achievement gaps are closing.

10

Additional Comments: (to be included into the EDLPS 571 A assignment, not included in document to

Sehome HS Staff)

After interviewing Ms. Dryer, I learned that she normally has the students articulate the goal for the day,

and provides a short skill assessment every 2 to 3 days. The skill assessment provides the students

feedback on how they are progressing in the development of the current skill. It also provides her the

knowledge on how to progress with instruction. She shared that she recently discovered that the students

in the class I observed were more likely to participate when given open ended tasks where they used

higher level thinking and creativity. She said it was counterintuitive to her thinking, she felt they would

engage in easier tasks, but there were more behavior issues when she gave simple tasks rather than more

challenging tasks. She also shared with me where the class had progressed to since that lesson. When I

asked her about what components of her lesson were helping to close the achievement gap, she paused

and looked at her grade book. She went down her roster and the most recent grades. She identified which

students were of different ethnicity, which were ELL students, the SPED students, and the students she

assumed to be from homes of poverty. She said, “you know, those students are all getting a C or better”.

She then went on to identify the students who were getting below a C were Juniors and the Senior in the

class who did not fall in the categories above. She mentioned that she was still new at implementing the

SIOP strategies but she did say that she believes the strategies are helping her to be a better

communicator. She stated the evidence for that belief is that students have less questions about what she

is asking them to do. The strategies are helping her to give adequate time for students to be

communicating with each other in class, and to have clear content and language goals. She is also more

intentional in changing up the learning activities every 20 minutes to keep students engaged and curtail

the down time.

In reviewing this lesson through the lens of the Danielson Instructional Framework, I will address

Domains 2 and 3 which are related to gap closing and can be observed in a lesson. Danielson’s Domain 2

is about the Classroom Environment. I observed a classroom environment of respect and rapport as

11

students were following the classroom procedures, students treated each other and the teacher with

respect. I did not observe any students hindering the learning of another student. I observed an established

culture for learning as students were on task and most students had completed their assignment from the

night before. Students were engaged in the learning and were freely asking questions throughout the

lesson. Student utilized each other for help and worked well in pairs. Students were following classroom

procedures with the exception of a few students texted on their cell phone a couple of times throughout

the period. The physical space was organized so that students could work in pairs throughout the period.

In Domain 3: Instruction – I observed the teacher communicating with students through instructional

goals, modeling during the lesson, answering questions before and during the lesson. She also used

questioning techniques to remind them of their previous learning, and providing writing prompts during

their reflection writing at the end of the lesson. She engaged them in learning by making connections to

previous learning, through using examples in the lesson that they could relate to, by interacting with her

students as she walked through the room answering questions and redirecting students in their thinking

when needed. I did not observe an assessment during this lesson but the teacher explained to me that she

uses skill assessments every 2 to 3 days. I did not observe flexibility and responsiveness but she shared

with me examples of how she has made changes in her instruction depending on the results of the skill

assessments that she gives.

After interviewing the teacher and seeing the lesson through the lens of the Danielson framework, I was

able to see a few more aspects of the lesson I had not contemplated before. During the interview with the

teacher, we looked at what could have been more motivational for students to engage in the learning. She

mentioned incorporating more open ended questions that included higher level thinking and the chance

for students to use their creativity. Finding and utilizing those questions help to draw students into the

learning that otherwise would have been disengaged. Keeping students engaged in the learning is a key

component to closing the achievement gap. The Danielson framework showed me that some form of

12

assessment and evidence of flexibility and responsiveness could have been incorporated into this lesson.

Although, the teacher shared with me that she uses both of these in the majority of her lessons.

References

Black, P. & Wiliam, D.(1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappa, 80(2), 139-149.

Downey, C. (2003). 50 Ways to Close the Achievement Gap. Johnston: CMSi

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M.E., Short, D.J. (2008). Making Content Comprehensible For English Learners: The SIOP Model. Boston: Allyn and Bacon

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning. New York: Routledge.

Mendoza Reis, N & Reveles, C. (2007). C.A.R.E.: Strategies for Closing the Achievement Gaps. NEA, 14.

Williams, B. (2003). Closing the Achievement Gap. Alexandria: ASCD, 57, 191.

13

Observation Template

Time Teacher Students Questions/Comments

14