Limited English Proficient (LEP)
Caucus Presentation
November 2010
LEP Caucus
The LEP Caucus includes school board members and
staff from school districts:
• that have a large Limited English Proficient (LEP)
student population, or
• an increasing LEP student population, or
• who are simply interested in issues concerning the
impact of LEP students on a school district.
LEP Data: Enrollment in Virginia
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
• Total LEP enrollment for 1993 = 17,594
• Total LEP enrollment for 2009 = 86,751
Data from VDOE ESL Web Page – November 2010
LEP Data: Languages in Virginia
Top 5 Shown Below – 187 Total
Other
23%
Urdu
3%
Vietnamese
4%
Arabic
4%
Korean
4%
Spanish
62%
Data from VDOE ESL Web Page – November 2010
Overview – Language Acquisition
Reaching Year 2 – WIDA 6
Reaching Year 1 – WIDA 6
EXIT LEP Status
Bridging Year 2 – WIDA 5
Bridging Year 1 – WIDA 5
WIDA 4
WIDA 3
WIDA 2
WIDA 1
World-Class Instructional
Design and Assessment
(WIDA) English Language
Proficiency (ELP) Standards
But, Who Are Our LEP Students?
Many LEP students are born in the USA, for example,
in Arlington 56.3% of all APS LEP students are born in
the United States. (APS Survey of Limited English Proficient Students for 2009-2010)
LEP students affect us in several ways:
• They bring a wonderful diversity to our schools.
• They help prepare everyone for a global economy.
• They also bring added costs and, especially, testing
requirements because of ESEA.
Goals for LEP Students
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA),
formerly called NCLB, has two goals for LEP students:
• English language learners attain English proficiency
in order to develop high levels of academic
achievement
• English language learners meet the same academic
content standards that all students are expected to
meet
How do we, in Virginia, work to support and achieve
those goals?
ESEA Assessment Requirements
ESEA requires two types of assessments for LEP students,
while other students only take one:
1. Subject Content: Grade level reading and
mathematics tests for all students, these tests are
either the SOL or the VGLA, Virginia Grade Level
Alternative (Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP)
2. English Proficiency: Yearly assessments of LEP
students in listening and speaking, reading, and
writing to document English language proficiency
(Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives –
AMAO)
Note: 95% of students must participate in the annual tests for
reading and mathematics.
ESEA Assessment
2010-2011
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY
SUBJECT CONTENT
Annual Measurable Achievement
Objectives (AMAOs)
Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP)
SOL – Reading1 and Math
(Grades 3-8)
English Language Proficiency
Assessment (Grades K-12)
Levels 1-5
Levels 3-5
Math SOL
Plain English
Math SOL3
Reading SOL
or VGLA
Levels 1-32
Writing
Reading
Speaking
Listening
ACCESS for ELLs
Reading SOL
Levels 1-5
1. Students enrolled in a U.S. school for less than 12 months receive a one-time exemption from the Reading SOL.
2. Level 3 students may be eligible for VGLA and PEM depending on their ACCESS for ELLs score.
3. LEP students who are first year enrollees in U.S. schools are also eligible to take the PEM.
How Are LEP Students Counted
For AYP Determinations?
LEP students may count in many different categories.
In one example, a group of 58 students included 38
students who were counted in the groups of:
–
–
–
–
All Students,
LEP,
Poverty, and
Hispanic
Accountability of Groups – Example
Groups in Which LEP Students are Included for AYP
(58 LEP Students in Reading)
So, who pays for it?
We do.
The United States Department of
Education does not pay for the mandated
tests …
The Commonwealth of Virginia does not
pay for the mandated tests …
So, who pays? We do -- approximately
$30 per student
LEP Caucus Issue #1
Funding
The need for the state to cover the cost of the
mandated tests taken by LEP students.
Rationale:
Currently these are the only mandated tests not
funded by the state. This is inequitable and makes
those divisions with many LEP students carry a
heavier financial burden for testing than other
divisions.
LEP Caucus Issue #2
Staffing
The need to increase the staffing ratio for ESOL from
17 teachers for every 1,000 students to 30 for every
1,000 students in the Standards of Quality, and to
provide for 2 pupil personnel positions per 1,000
LEP students.
Rationale:
This will provide adequate staffing for reasonable
class sizes and sound instruction in the classroom as
well as the external support (parent liaisons,
interpreters, counselors, social workers) vital for our
LEP students’ school success.
Examples of Demographics in APS Elementary
Schools
School
Economically
LEP
Disadvantaged
Carlin Springs
80.9%
72.0%
Abingdon
50.9%
50.0%
Oakridge
31.0%
33.0%
Long Branch
27.5%
21.0%
Science Focus
19.8%
19.0%
Ashlawn
18.2%
22.0%
Nottingham
1.4%
1.0%
Additional Staffing Allocations in APS Operating Budget (Planning Factors)
Program
LEP (ESOL=Intermediate Level
or above)
LEP (HILT=Beginning Level)
Resource Teacher for the Gifted
# of Staff Based on # Students
# of Students
Itinerant Teacher
1-15 ESOL students
0.5 Teacher
16-47 ESOL students
1.0 Teacher
48-79 ESOL students
1.5 Teacher
80 – 111 ESOL students
2.0 Teachers
112 – 143 ESOL students
2.5 Teachers
144 – 175 ESOL students
3.0 Teachers
176 – 207 ESOL students
3.5 Teachers
208 – 239 ESOL students
4.0 Teachers
240 – 271 ESOL students
0.5 Teacher
1-15 HILT students
0.5 Teacher + 0.5 Assistant
16-24 HILT students
1.0 Teacher + 0.5 Assistant
25-40 HILT students
1.5 Teachers + 1.0 Assistant
50-64 HILT students
1.5 Teachers + 1.5 Assistants
65-73 HILT students
2.0 Teachers + 1.5 Assistants
74-88 HILT students
2.0 Teachers + 2.0 Assistants .
89-97 HILT students
2.5 Teachers + 2.0 Assistants
98 – 102 HILT students
2.5 Teachers + 2.5 Assistants
103 – 111 HILT students
0.5 Teacher
1-499 Pre-K-5 students
1.0 Teacher
500+ Pre-K-5 students
LEP Caucus Issue #3
On-Time Graduation Rate
The need to change the way the On-Time Graduation Rate
is calculated to allow credit, in calculating the rate, for
those students who remain in school beyond the time when
they count against a district in the calculation of the ontime rate.
Rationale:
There is a contradiction between wanting to enroll LEP
students who are over 18 and under 22 but who lack credits
or English proficiency. As calculated now, these students
then contribute to low on-time graduation rates. This
disincentivizes districts for pursuing these students for
enrollment and/or offering diploma or GED programs.
LEP Caucus Issue #4
DREAM Act
The need to provide support for the DREAM Act.
Rationale:
The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM)
Act is bipartisan legislation that addresses the situation faced by young
people who were brought to the United States years ago as undocumented
immigrant children and who have since grown up here, stayed in school,
and kept out of trouble. The DREAM Act would enact two major
changes in current law:
• Permit certain immigrant students who have grown up in the U.S. to
apply for temporary legal status and to eventually obtain permanent
status and become eligible for U.S. citizenship if they go to college or
serve in the U.S. military
• Eliminate a federal provision that penalizes states that provide in-state
tuition without regard to immigration status.
States that Have Passed DREAM
Act Legislation
30 states have considered legislation to allow in-state
tuition for undocumented students and 10 states have
passed legislation:
•
•
•
•
•
California
Illinois
Kansas
Nebraska
New Mexico
•
•
•
•
•
New York
Oklahoma
Texas
Utah
Washington
Final Note:
2010 General Assembly Legislation
Senate Bill 354 (Obenshain):
§ 1. That local school divisions in the Commonwealth may
administer a limited English proficiency assessment
mandated for students pursuant to the federal No Child Left
Behind Act that is locally developed or selected and has been
approved by the Board of Education in accordance with
federal requirements.
Arlington is considering pursuing, depending on cost and
time constraints, applying to VDOE to use its existing local
body of evidence as a locally developed proficiency
assessment. We will share our progress and eventual product
with everyone.
What Else? Next Steps
1. Monitor changes to VDOE reporting to ensure
appropriate counting for funding purposes of all
LEP students receiving services in districts
2. Support efforts in General Assembly that provide
adequate funding and staffing for LEP student
progress and achievement
3. Monitor reauthorization of Elementary and
Secondary Education Act for impact on LEP (Title
III) funding and programs
LEP Caucus Link
www.apsva.us/LEPCaucus
Libby Garvey
Arlington Public Schools