When Perry talks about the way disciplinary literacy has


benefitted his students, he discusses the way this approach is more like the way we learn in the “real world.” “In life,” he says, “you’re not given a range of choices where


only one is right. Life just doesn’t work that way.” And he’s right. Through the routines and structures that create a dis-


ciplinary literacy classroom, students are required to read, analyze and annotate complex text; write about what they are learning; discuss their learning with their peers in multiple ways, ranging from pairs to whole group; chart their learning and display it in the classroom; read texts multiple times for multiple purposes; draw connections between texts in order to synthesize understanding; and learn significant content while simultaneously learning to think.


If you can’t see it in the core, it’s not there As Harvard Professor Richard Elmore discusses in his


book “Instructional Rounds in Education” (2009), the in- structional core has three elements: the academic content, the student’s relationship to the content, and the teacher’s knowl- edge and skill. Elmore and his colleagues argue that the only way to improve instruction is to improve the core. They also state that if we improve one element of the core, we must im- prove the other two. When we examine the work of disciplinary literacy that is


happening in Perry’s class (and elsewhere across our district), we realize that this approach is grounded in changing all three elements of the core. First, students in a disciplinary literacy classroom are read-


ing and analyzing primary source documents instead of sim- ply reading their textbook’s interpretation of historical events. This addresses – and improves – the level and quality of aca- demic content in their classroom. Second, their interactions with the content change as stu-


dents become not passive recipients of information, but ac- tive creators of meaning. In the disciplinary literacy approach, working with peers to create these interpretations through meaningful dialogue is essential. Finally, a very important component in all of this is the


training and support the classroom teachers receive. By the time the school year is over, Perry and the other teachers par- ticipating in the introduction to disciplinary literacy will have attended 12 days of training, provided by the Institute for Learning from the University of Pittsburgh. In addition to that, Perry is provided with coaching from his principal, as well as a teacher on special assignment.


The nested learning model In San Juan Unified, we believe in a nested learning model,


where district-level administrators coach principals, princi- pals coach teachers, and teachers coach their students. Through the disciplinary literacy introduction, principals


have received very explicit leadership training around how to support teachers who are shifting to a disciplinary literacy ap- proach in their classrooms. They are also provided opportuni- ties to learn alongside their teachers so that they are familiar with the rituals and routines they should be seeing as they work with classroom practitioners.


Everyone learning together This principal training sets the expectation that everyone is


learning together, and it aligns with our district’s theory of ac- tion that student learning will improve only when the quality of instruction improves. We know, however, that we cannot have high ex- pectations for teachers or principals when we do not provide appropriate levels of support. Perry will tell you that


Another benefit to this work is that it is laying the groundwork for our transition to the Common Core State Standards in our district.


the coaching he receives is instrumental in his suc- cess. Because his principal understands and supports the work he is doing in his classroom, Perry has the security of taking risks, trying new approaches, and knowing that it’s safe to make mistakes. And because his principal understands how a disciplinary literacy classroom may look different than a traditional one, he knows how to support Perry in pushing his practice to the next level.


Learning high-level content at a deep level Of course, the benefit of all of this work is that it has tre-


mendous impact on student learning. Not only do students see that what they are doing matters; they also are learning high-level content at a deep level. Students who were not writ- ing at the beginning of the term now construct arguments, use evidence and synthesize texts. Instead of hearing “I don’t know,” when teachers initiate a


whole-class discussion, we now hear students saying, “I agree with Taylor because…” or “What is your evidence for that ar- gument?” This has happened because the teacher, through the support of regular coaching and feedback, has set and mod- eled these expectations with his students and because he con- tinues to grow as an educator. Students are also succeeding on more traditional forms


of assessment. For example, their grades have improved dra- matically during the course of Perry’s implementation, with students who were failing his class early in the term demon- strating proficiency in their writing and reasoning skills on his semester final.


May/June 2012 9


Part of our approach to this shift is to embed Common Core into the literacy instruction we are already doing districtwide, and disciplinary literacy is a perfect fit.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40