Gresham Barlow School District
4-Year Title III Improvement Plan – June 2012
Background and Context
Basic demographics
The district had approximately 1,300 active ELL students during the 2011-12 academic
year, out of a total population of 11,000. English language learners account for
approximately 12% of our total district population. In addition, there were about 400
students on monitor status. A relatively low number of our students are recent immigrants.
Most of our English language learners are US born and speak Spanish as their first
language. We do have a small percentage of Eastern European and Asian speakers.
District mission and beliefs
Our newly developed district mission is “Every student prepared for success.” In order to
meet our mission we must address the academic needs of all students, including subgroups
such as our English language learners, and ensure that we provide them with the academic
support they need to be successful.
One of the basic district beliefs is that “Instruction, staff development and assessment
efforts must be aligned to maximize effective achievement of goals.” Alongside this belief is
our district goal that “All students will show annual growth and achievement at or above the
highest levels of proficiency as demonstrated on statewide assessment and other measures
established in the district’s comprehensive assessment system.” Taken together, these
make it essential that we focus on improving our instructional programs for ELLs so that we
can support them in achieving academically in all content areas. The AMAO (Annual
Measurable Academic Objectives) data below demonstrates that we must improve our
programs to better serve our ELLs.
Planning
Strengths
Our school district has some key processes and strategies in place to support English
language development in a cohesive and systematic way. At the elementary level, ELD is
part of the master schedule and all active ELLs receive 30 minutes of instruction 4 to 5 days
per week and are grouped by language proficiency level. At the middle and high schools,
all active ELLs are enrolled in an ELD course which meets their proficiency needs. All ELD
teachers are FASELD trained and generally implement the framework strategies.
By 4th grade we have students are starting to exit the program by reaching proficiency as
measured by ELPA. This year 16% of all active 4th graders and 63% of those who were at
level 4, exited via ELPA. At the 5th grade level, 32% of all active students exited and of the
level 4s, 71% scored a 5 on ELPA. In 6th grade we exited 25% of all students, 38% of the
level 4s scored a 5. This suggests that many of our students are progressing according to
expectations based on research, 5 to 7 years of language support.
1
In terms of accessing core content, our district as a whole is emphasizing sheltering
instruction at all grade levels. There is a sheltered instruction TOSA that provides staff
development to teachers on a rotating schedule throughout the school year. She has also
conducted walk-throughs this fall and spring and visited all elementary classrooms, middle
school core content classes and high school clustered and sheltered core courses. Her
data suggests that teachers are beginning to incorporate more active engagement
strategies to involve students at all language proficiency levels.
Challenges
In ELD, our challenges are in the area of instructional consistency, rigor of instruction and
communication instructional objectives with students on a regular basis. The ELD walk –
throughs conducted this fall and spring show progress but there is much room for
improvement in these three areas. Staff development activities planned for next year will
target these areas.
Sheltering instruction is a large undertaking in our district as it encompasses the core
content teachers across 11 elementary, 5 middle and 2 large and 1 small high schools. We
have struggled with communicating expectations for sheltering clearly to teachers and
involving site administrators in the process more directly. As we plan for next year, we will
use this year’s walk-through data to select a smaller focus area within sheltered instruction
and provide professional development to administrators to include them more actively in
supporting and monitoring sheltered instruction.
General AMAO Data
Table 1: 2010-11 AMAO data for the district
District Met?
10-11
AMAO 1 –
50%
Not Met
(students who made proficiency
level gain on ELPA)
AMAO 2A – (students who
exited, out of total ELL pop.)
AMAO 2B – (students who
exited, of those in program 5
years or more)
AMAO 3* – (ELL subgroup
meeting AYP)
10/11 11/12
target target
53% 57%
12/13
target
61%
13/14
target
66%
14%
Not Met
15.5% 17%
19%
21%
30%
Met
24%
26.5%
29%
32%
Not Met
70%
80%
90%
100%
In 2011-12 we met AMAO 2B but did not meet the other AMAOs. We were close on both
AMAO 1 and AMAO 2A but fell short. We have consistently failed to meet AMAO 3. This
plan includes much more detailed data in the following pages. It is organized In sections
around the AMAOs that each set of data, goals and action steps corresponds with.
2
Data and Goals for AMAO 1 and AMAO 2A:
AMAO 1 represents the percentage of English language learners showing progress toward
attaining English language proficiency. Expected progress is one level of language
proficiency per year as measured by ELPA.
In analyzing our ELPA data for the 2010-11 and preliminary 2011-12 academic years we’ve
noticed the continuation of a trend which seemed to start in 2009-10, students who are at
level 2 seem to be having great difficulty in moving up a level. Students at level 4 also
appear to struggle to move up a level as well, but this is a trend we have noticed for over 5
years.
The table below demonstrates that only 44% of students at level 2 and 41% of students at
level 4 progressed to the next ELPA level within the academic year for 2011-12. The
percentages were 43% and 40% respectively in 2010-11. In addition, further review of the
data demonstrates that elementary students stay at level 2 longer than expected while
secondary students stay at level 4.
Last year, our final AMAO 1 showed that we had 50% of our English language learners
progressing by one ELPA level within the academic year. Our preliminary figures for 201112, suggest that 47% made growth which falls short of the 57% target for 2012. The target
increases to 61% for 2013, making it imperative that we continue to focus our attention to
increasing progress in language proficiency.
Table 2: Preliminary data on the percentage of ELLs making progress during the
2011-12 academic year, by language proficiency level.
ELPA Level in
2010 - 2011
Number of Students
at this Level
Number of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA in 2012
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA in 2012
1
146
81
55%
2
353
156
44%
3
222
119
54%
4
214
87
41%
All Levels
935
443
47%
Because of our consistent difficulty in meeting AMAO 1, we have looked at the data
more closely. The following pages provide a data breakdown by school as well as by
proficiency level. We do not have all of our ELPA results back at this point, with two
schools, Gordon Russell and West Gresham, lacking a significant percentage of their
scores due to later than expected test completion.
While most schools demonstrate the district trend of lower percentages of students
making growth at levels 2 and 4, there are exceptions. Some elementary school seem
to have achieved higher growth across all levels of proficiency than others. We can
use this school level data to look for practices which may be more effective in helping
students progress linguistically. The following five pages detail the ELPA growth data,
so far, for 2011-12 for our 11 elementary, 5 middle and 2 large high schools.
3
Table 3: Preliminary data on the percentage of ELLs making progress during
the 2011-12 academic year, by language proficiency level and by school.
Elementary Schools:
Deep Creek ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
Number of Students
at this Level
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
5
1
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
20%
2
11
4
36%
3
4
1
25%
4
1
0
0%
All Levels
21
6
29%
East Gresham ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
Number of Students
at this Level
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
16
4
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
25%
2
39
13
33%
3
18
6
33%
4
14
8
57%
All Levels
87
31
36%
East Orient ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
Number of Students
at this Level
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
1
0
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
0%
2
11
3
27%
3
5
3
60%
4
6
3
50%
All Levels
23
9
39%
Hall ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
at this Level
Number of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
15
8
53%
2
20
15
75%
3
36
6
17%
4
20
7
35%
All Levels
91
36
40%
4
Highland ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
Number of Students
at this Level
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
36
20
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
56%
2
44
20
45%
3
25
16
64%
4
10
6
60%
All Levels
115
62
54%
Hogan Cedars ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
at this Level
Number of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
8
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
12
2
40
20
50%
3
24
15
63%
4
17
10
59%
All Levels
93
53
57%
Hollydale ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
Number of Students
at this Level
Showing Growth on
ELPA
67%
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
7
5
71%
2
19
11
58%
3
14
10
71%
4
9
6
67%
All Levels
49
32
65%
Kelly Creek ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
Number of Students
at this Level
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
15
13
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
87%
2
39
12
31%
3
19
12
63%
4
11
5
45%
All Levels
84
42
50%
5
North Gresham ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
at this Level
Number of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
11
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
16
2
57
23
40%
3
15
8
53%
4
10
3
30%
All Levels
98
45
46%
Powell Valley ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
Number of Students
at this Level
Showing Growth on
ELPA
69%
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
6
4
67%
2
18
8
44%
3
9
4
44%
4
11
5
45%
All Levels
44
21
48%
West Gresham ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
Number of Students
at this Level
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
2
1
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
50%
2
12
7
58%
4
4
3
75%
All Levels
18
11
61%
6
Middle Schools:
Clear Creek ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
at this Level
Number of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
1
2
13
10
77%
3
17
8
47%
4
29
8
28%
All Levels
60
27
45%
Damascus ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
Number of Students
at this Level
Showing Growth on
ELPA
2
1
1
100%
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
100%
4
2
0
0%
All Levels
3
1
33%
Dexter McCarty ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
at this Level
Number of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
0
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
2
2
3
3
100%
3
9
6
67%
4
16
7
44%
All Levels
30
16
53%
Gordon Russell ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
Number of Students
at this Level
Showing Growth on
ELPA
0%
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
3
2
2
100%
4
2
0
0%
All Levels
4
2
50%
West Orient ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
7
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
at this Level
Number of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
2
1
3
5
3
60%
4
3
2
67%
All Levels
9
6
67%
100%
8
High Schools:
Sam Barlow Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
at this Level
Number of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
1
2
4
2
50%
3
10
4
40%
4
19
5
26%
All Levels
34
12
35%
Gresham High Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
Number of Students
at this Level
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
6
5
100%
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
83%
2
5
3
60%
3
26
15
58%
4
33
8
24%
All Levels
70
31
44%
In addition to reviewing the data by school, we also analyzed it by grade level. We were
interested in seeing if there were trends by grade level. We have noticed a dip in the
percentage of ELLs who make progress on ELPA in the second grade. The data from this
year demonstrates that the dip is still present and continues into 3 rd grade. A steep
increase in the percentage of students making growth as measured by ELPA can be seen in
4th and 5th grade. The highest percentage of students making growth is at fifth grade and
then the percentage decreases again, with a slight bump up at 12th grade.
Table 4: Number and percentage of students demonstrating progress at each ELPA
level by grade (spring 2012 data)
1st grade ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
Number of Students
at this Level
Showing Growth on
ELPA
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
63
45
71%
2
73
27
37%
3
16
1
6%
4
5
2
40%
All Levels
157
75
48%
9
2nd grade ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
Number of Students
at this Level
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
33
8
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
24%
2
89
24
27%
3
30
18
60%
4
11
2
18%
All Levels
163
52
32%
3rd grade ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
Number of Students
at this Level
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
21
11
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
52%
2
89
33
37%
3
48
15
31%
4
17
1
6%
All Levels
175
60
34%
4th grade ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
Number of Students
at this Level
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
8
3
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
38%
2
51
35
69%
3
37
31
84%
4
30
19
63%
All Levels
126
88
70%
10
5th grade ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
Number of Students
at this Level
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
11
7
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
64%
2
24
17
71%
3
22
16
73%
4
45
32
71%
All Levels
102
72
71%
6th grade ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
at this Level
Number of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
4
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
2
5
3
9
7
78%
4
26
10
38%
All Levels
40
21
53%
7th grade ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
Number of Students
at this Level
Showing Growth on
ELPA
80%
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
2
0
0%
2
8
8
100%
3
12
7
58%
4
13
4
31%
All Levels
35
19
54%
8th grade ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
Number of Students
at this Level
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
1
1
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
100%
2
5
3
60%
3
12
5
42%
4
13
3
23%
All Levels
31
12
39%
11
9th grade ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
Number of Students
at this Level
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
3
3
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
100%
2
4
2
50%
3
9
4
44%
4
17
4
24%
All Levels
33
13
39%
10th grade ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
Number of Students
at this Level
Showing Growth on
ELPA
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
2
1
50%
2
2
1
50%
3
10
4
40%
4
15
5
33%
All Levels
29
11
38%
11th grade ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
Number of Students
at this Level
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
1
1
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
100%
2
1
1
100%
3
6
4
67%
4
10
1
10%
All Levels
18
7
39%
12th grade ELL Students 10/11 to 11/12
ELPA Level in 10/11
Number of Students
Number of Students
at this Level
Showing Growth on
ELPA
1
1
1
# of Students
Showing Growth on
ELPA
100%
2
2
1
50%
3
11
7
64%
4
12
8
67%
All Levels
26
17
65%
12
In addition to ELPA data, we utilize ADEPT and GapFinder scores as well as scored
writing samples and ongoing assessments. All active ELL students are administered
the ADEPT and/or GapFinder twice a year. The frequency of writing samples and
ongoing assessments is determined by individual ELL teachers at this point. The
results of these assessments are utilized for making instructional decisions for specific
students and ELD instructional groups and is not collected and disaggregated for
program improvement purposes at this time. Thus, our goals are established using
ELPA data in order to match AMAO expectations.
AMAO 1, Goal: The percentage of ELL students at each proficiency level who
demonstrate a level or more of progress in language proficiency during the
academic year 2012-13, as measured by ELPA, will increase by 10% by the
spring of 2013.
That would mean that level 1 students would go from 55% to 65%, level 2 from 44% to 54%,
level 3 from 54% to 64%, and level 4 from 41% to 51%.
By 2013, the percentage of ELLs who are expected to make a years’ progress or more
increases to 61%. The specific steps and timeline related to these goals will be described in
a later section of this plan.
AMAO 2A reflects the percentage of ELL students who exit the program as a fraction of the
total ELL student population. We have received ELPA scores for 1272 of our active ELL
students and are expecting about 100 more scores in the next month. The scores received
thus far suggest that we will not meet AMAO 2A this year as the goal has increased to 17%
and we are likely to be at about 12%. The table below demonstrates that our percentage of
students at various proficiency levels across the district has remained relatively stable from
last year to this one. Only 11% of our students scored a 5 on ELPA so far this year.
Table 5: Percentage of students at each ELPA level in 2010-11 and 2011-12
2010 – 2011 ELPA
Level
ELPA 1
ELPA 2
ELPA 3
ELPA 4
ELPA 5
Total
#
177
427
279
322
173
1378
%
13%
31%
20%
23%
13%
2011 - 2012 ELPA
Level
ELPA 1
ELPA 2
ELPA 3
ELPA 4
ELPA 5
Total
#
186
368
269
315
134
1272
%
15%
29%
21%
25%
11%
The data demonstrates that 134 students have scored a 5 on ELPA. Most of these will be
exited, with the exception of a few whose teachers collect evidence that the student does
not consistently display the language skills to succeed in academic content without
additional language support. In addition, we are likely to exit a few students who have
scored multiple 4s and have consistently demonstrated their English language proficiency
over the course of the school year in other ways.
13
Table 6: Number of students at each ELPA level by school (spring 2012 data)
ELPA 1
7
33
1
28
36
18
11
12
18
Deep Creek
East Gresham
East Orient
Hall
Highland
Hogan Cedars
Hollydale
Kelly Creek
North
ELPA 2
8
44
10
40
62
37
14
45
58
ELPA 3
4
17
3
25
35
29
16
21
29
ELPA 4
4
19
8
23
26
27
19
21
24
ELPA 5
1
12
7
10
11
15
10
7
6
We typically do not expect to see kindergarten students exit. Their ELPA scores
merely set their English proficiency baseline and give us a starting point for ELD group
placement for the following year. This year we did have one kindergarten student who
scored a 5 on ELPA and will be exited from the program.
Table 7: Kindergarten ELPA results (spring 2012 data)
ELPA 11/12 scores for Kindergarteners
Deep Creek
East Gresham
East Orient
Hall
Highland
Hogan Cedars
Hollydale
Kelly Creek
North
Powell Valley
West Gresham
Totals
ELPA 1
1
13
9
16
11
4
7
7
3
2
73
ELPA 2
1
8
2
10
12
9
3
6
12
7
4
74
ELPA 3
ELPA 4
ELPA 5
1
2
7
2
2
3
3
4
24
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
10
1
Total
2
22
4
22
37
24
9
17
24
15
6
182
Overall we found that out of the 182 kindergarten students only 1 exited, out of 157 first
graders only 2 exited, out of 163 second graders only 2 exited and out of 175 third graders
only 1 exited via ELPA. This data is not surprising as research suggests that it takes
approximately 5 years for students to acquire sufficient English language proficiency to be
successful in academic content without additional linguistic support. Students in
kindergarten to 3rd grade made up almost 700 of our ELL student population this year, over
55% of our ELL population.
Our grade level data demonstrates that starting in 4 th grade there is a dramatic increase in
the percentage of students who exit the program. Over 15% of 4th graders, 31% of 5th
graders, and 25% of 6th graders exited by obtaining an ELPA 5. Others are in the process
14
of being considered for portfolio exits at these grade levels. Since most of our ELL students
enter our district in kindergarten, 4th-6th grades represent their 5th to 7th year of ELL services.
Table 8: ELPA scores by years in ELL Program (Spring 2012)
ELPA 2011/2012 comparison to years in ELL
Years in ELL
1
2
3
ELPA
1
ELPA
2
ELPA
3
ELPA
4
ELPA
5
%
Exit
4
5
6
7
8
1
9
10
11
12
13
+
88
35
37
12
11
2
2
80
101
77
72
23
15
3
30
52
33
62
30
19
14
11
8
8
5
7
16
27
58
45
60
29
32
18
15
19
4
9
4
11
4
9
38
41
16
7
7
2
2
1
218
2%
227
5%
211
2%
203
4%
166
23%
111
37%
73
22%
44
16%
38
18%
39
5%
21
10%
1
11
0%
Only 126 or 9% of our active ELLs have been in the program over 8 years. Of these
students, 19 scored a 5 on ELPA this year and will not be continuing in our program.
The remaining students are at levels 3 and 4 on ELPA with only 2 students at levels 1
and 2. Students completing their 5th year of services exited at 23%, those completing
their 6th year of services exited at 37% and those completing their 7 th year of services
exited at 22%. The table above demonstrates that we have significantly decreased
the number of long term ELLs in our school district.
AMAO 2A, Goal: The percentage of ELL students exiting the ELL program
within the 5th to 7th years of ELL support will increase by 5 percentage points
each so that by the spring of 2013, 19% of the total ELLs in our program will exit.
That would mean that students finishing their 5th year of service would exit at 28%, those
finishing their 6th year of service would exit at 42% and those finishing their 7th year of
service would exit at 26%.
Current Practices
The district follows an instructional approach that involves a 30-minute pull out to deliver
ELD for ELLs at the elementary level and a period of ELD for ELLs at the middle and high
school levels. Over the past 4 years we have ensured that ELD does not replace nor
conflict with any core content instruction. The district has also made ELD instruction a
priority by ensuring that it is part of the master schedule at all levels.
Our district is in its 7th year of implementing Focused Approach to Systematic English
Language Development as a framework to develop students’ language proficiency. All
current and newly hired ELL teachers are trained in this instructional approach and we are
15
17
6%
in the process of monitoring implementation and are continually refining our practice. Staff
development is scheduled at regular intervals over the course of the academic year to allow
ELL teachers to reflect, collaborate and refine their instructional practices.
Leadership and Direction
The ELL program has had a director in place for the last 8 years. The FTE and title of that
position have changed over time. The leadership also includes some administrator FTE to
support high school ELL as well as a .5 elementary ELL TOSA and a .5 secondary ELL
TOSA. These leaders work together and with district and site administrators to create a
program that supports the linguistic and academic needs of ELLs in the district.
Program leaders are involved in walk-throughs, professional development planning,
individualized support for teachers as needed and communication with staff at all levels.
The director takes responsibility for communicating program goals, needs and guidelines
with administrators at the site. Some opportunities are provided during district held
meetings for site administrators to present data and professional development for site
administrators around the ELL program, ELL students and effective practices to support
these students linguistically and academically.
Identifying Needs
In reviewing our ELL Program in respect to AMAO 1 and AMAO 2A, we focused on the
following areas which impact the progress of ELL students in terms of English language
proficiency as measured by ELPA and thus, exiting the program as they reach proficiency:




Professional Development for ELL teachers
Instructional Design and Strategies in ELD
Curriculum and Assessment for ELD
Procedures, Practices and ELL Program Design
Each of the above areas represents causal adult behaviors that contribute to the language
proficiency progress ELL students make and their ability to eventually exit the program. Our
review included gathering data on these areas from teacher and principal surveys,
instructional walk-throughs, procedural practices, professional development calendars, and
conversations with ELL teaching staff.
This year the ELL leadership team, including the director and Teachers on Special
Assignment (TOSAs) used the Systematic ELD Self-Reflection/Observation tool to conduct
walk-throughs of K-12 ELL teachers in the fall and of K-5 and 9-12 ELL teachers in the
spring. In addition, a survey of instructional practice implementation was completed by ELL
teachers this spring. Ten elementary school principals completed a self-evaluation to gauge
their knowledge, perceptions and needs in regard to the instruction of ELLs in their schools.
The results of these, in conjunction with the student data, have led to the identification of
potential barriers to meeting AMAOs. By addressing the adult behaviors that may be posing
barriers to student learning, we anticipate that English language learners will demonstrate
more consistent progress toward attaining English language proficiency and our district will
be able to meet AMAO 1 and AMAO 2A.
16
Implementation Plan for AMAO 1 and AMAO 2A
The first area addressed will be professional development for ELL teachers.
Professional Development for ELL Teachers
Strengths
Possible Barriers
- All ELL teachers are FASELD trained
1. Site administrators are not fully familiar with
- Instructional coaches are FASELD
the expectations and core elements of ELD
presenters and have solid expertise
instruction
- Ongoing support was scheduled so
2. Site administrators generally do not
that all staff were able to attend regularly participate in walk-throughs nor use the
during 2011-12
observation tool
- Regularly scheduled professional
3. ELL director and coaches have not utilized
development opportunities had an
“Refining Our Practice” tool to encourage more
instructional focus based on walkteacher involvement and focus on instructional
through data results during 2011-12
practice
In order to ensure that teachers are well prepared and continue to refine and development
their instructional strategies for English language development instruction we provide a
focused, ongoing professional development calendar. We have ensured that all teachers
are trained in FASELD (Focused Approach to Systematic ELD). The training includes
descriptions and examples of students at all language proficiency levels.
This year we began to design our ongoing support to respond to the needs observed during
walk-through instructional observations. We have also redesigned our professional
development calendar so that all meetings are held at a time when part time as well as full
time staff can attend. By being more intentional in our ongoing staff development we expect
to see more consistent progress in English language proficiency in our students.
We believe we need to be even more focused and specific in our staff development. Using
“Refining our Practice” as a resource will allow us to explicitly look at our student data and
focus our efforts on the specific needs of students at proficiency levels 2 and 4 so that they
can demonstrate more consistent progress in language proficiency, as stated in goals 1 and
2 for AMAO 1. We will take the actions described below to address these.
Potential
Barrier
1. Site
administrators
are not fully
familiar with the
expectations
and core
elements of ELD
instruction
2. Site
Current
Evidence/Data
Principal survey,
conversations
during
administrative
meetings
Fall ’11 and
Response
Timeline
Effectiveness of
response
Principals’
Principal surveys,
meetings,
inter-rater
every other reliability from
month, 20 to observations
30 minutes, based on videos
starting fall
2012
Presentations to
principals to
include video
lessons to observe
as a group,
familiarizaion with
observation tool,
sample activities
Principal joins
Late Fall
Principal surveys,
17
administrators
generally do not
participate in
walk-throughs
nor use the
observation tool
3. ELL director
and coaches
have not utilized
“Refining Our
Practice” tool to
encourage more
teacher
involvement and
focus on
instructional
practice
Spring ’12 ELD
walk-throughs
conducted by
ELL director or
TOSAs only
TOSA or director
for walk through at
least once a year,
preferably both
times
and/or
Spring of
2012-13
informal
conversations, list
of principals who
participated in
walk-throughs
Agendas from
professional
development,
teacher self
reflection,
discussions at
staff
development
meetings
Director and
TOSAs will utilize
“Refining our
Practice” tool to
increase the focus
of instructional
conversations as
well as individual
and group goal
setting
Starting in
Fall 2012
and utilizing
the tool at
least 3 times
over the
course of
the year
Agendas for
professional
development,
teacher selfreflection and goal
sheets
18
The spring walk-through observations, ELL teacher surveys and principal surveys revealed
the potential barriers related to instructional practices and strategies listed below.
Instructional Strategies in ELD
Strengths
- All ELL teachers implement FASELD
- All ELL teachers provide opportunities
for interactive oral language practice
- All teachers utilize sentence frames
Possible Barriers
4. Students are NOT provided sufficient and
varied oral language practice during ELD.
5. Language objectives for ELD do NOT
include both form and function and are NOT
clearly communicated.
6. ELD is NOT consistently rigorous and
organized to develop English to the next level.
We used ELAchieve’s “Refining Our Practice” implementation guide to design the
walk-through tool (see appendix for walkthrough tool). The observations revealed that
while all teachers were implementing FASELD in delivering instruction, there were
areas of inconsistency. Those areas have been identified as possible barriers. They
will become the focus of our FASELD ongoing support during the academic year.
Our intention is to; deepen teachers’ understanding of the appropriate rigor of
instruction for each language proficiency level, particularly levels 2 and 4; assist
teachers in writing objectives that include both form and function and consistently
communicating these to students; and model a broader range of oral practice
strategies and provide further opportunities for teachers to observe peers during
instruction to build their repertoire. We expect this to lead to more consistent progress
in English language proficiency as stated in goals for AMAO 1 and AMAO 2A.
Potential
Barrier
4. Students are
NOT provided
sufficient/varied
oral language
practice during
ELD.
5. Language
objectives do
NOT include
form & function
& NOT clearly
communicated.
6. ELD is NOT
consistently
rigorous and
organized to
develop English
to the next level.
Current
Evidence/Data
Fall & Spring ’12
ELD
walkthrough
observation
results:
Principal survey
Fall & Spring ’12
ELD
walkthrough
observation
results:
Spring ’1s
Principal selfassesment
Fall & Spring ’12
ELD
walkthrough
observation:
Spring ’12 ELL
teacher survey
Response
Timeline
Effectiveness of
response
Professional
Fall, winter
Fall ’11 & Spring
development:
and spring
’12 walkthrough;
videos, peer
2011-12
Spring ‘12
observ., bi-monthly
Principal survey;
sharing of
Refining practice
language practice
self-reflection
Professional
Fall and
Fall ’12& Spring
development;
winter 2012- ’13 walkthrough
sample objectives, 13
data
identifying clear
Spring ‘13
objectives, ways to
Principal survey
communicate obj.
results
Professional
development:
review proficiency
descriptions,
adapting lesson to
increase challenge
Fall, winter
and spring
2012-13
Fall ’12 & Spring
’13 walkthrough
data
Spring ’13 ELL
Teacher survey
results
19
ELL teacher survey results, conversations with teachers and discussions across
districts revealed some potential barriers in the area of curriculum and assessment.
Curriculum and Assessment for ELD
Strengths
- FASELD units are used and shared
- Colleagues collaborate on unit
development and materials
- ADEPT, GapFinder and writing
samples are administered
Possible Barriers
7. Insufficient number of FASELD units
available
8. Sequence of instruction is not clearly
defined
9. ELD is NOT designed based on formative
language assessment.
ELL teachers in the district use the FASELD framework for instruction. They rely on
the matrix and instructional units to determine instructional concepts and topics and
they share and create materials together. One concern is that we do not have
sufficient ELD units in the district. In addition, we are moving toward creating a more
cohesive sequence of instruction to increase consistency and support students who
move within our district or between districts. These efforts will also help ensure that
instruction at the various levels of English proficiency is approached more consistently.
We participated in efforts by MESD to increase the cohesion of ELD instruction across
the district. Part of the project included the design of formative assessments to
accompany units and assist teachers in determining whether students mastered a
concept or require additional instruction. Delivering more cohesive instruction and
more frequent formative assessments will lead to greater progress in language
proficiency, as stated in goals 1 and 2 for AMAO 1.
Potential
Barrier
7. Insufficient
number of
FASELD units
available
8. Sequence of
instruction is not
clearly defined
9. ELD is NOT
designed based
on formative
language
assessment.
Current
Evidence/Data
Material
inventory;
ELL teacher
responses to
activity
Fall & Spring ’12
ELD
walkthrough
observation
results: ELL
teacher survey
Spring ’12 ELL
Teacher survey
Response
Timeline
Effectiveness of
response
Purchase
Late spring/ ELL teacher
additional FASELD summer
survey results,
units to address
2012
check-in
gaps
conversations,
utilization logs
Draft options for
Spring &
Spring ’12 ELD
instructional
Summer
walkthrough
sequence at
2012
observation
elementary level
Disseminate results: ELL
fall 2012
teacher survey
ADEPT and/or
GapFinder;
Formative
collaboration; use
of unit formative
assessment,
Fall & Spring
writing for
2nd-12th
ADEPT or
GapFinder
for all 2
Spring 2012 ELL
Teacher survey
results,
assessment
results collection,
review of
20
writing
assessment for
2nd-12th graders
times per
year
assessment
results at prof.
dev. meetings
The last area we reviewed was the overall ELL program design and our processes and
current practices. This revealed that we may need to design some more specific ELD
instruction to address the needs of groups of students that are consistently not making
the expected progress in English language proficiency.
Procedures, Practices and ELL Program Design
Strengths
Possible Barriers
- ELD courses DO NOT conflict with
10. Long term, secondary ELL & low literacy
core content
elementary students may need more
- ELD courses are part of the master
intentionally designed ELD instruction
schedule
11. Lack of consistent formative language
- ELL students are promptly placed in
proficiency assessments for tracking progress
ELD classes upon arrival
12. Students may need more time in ELD,
particularly at the lower grade levels.
Some students seem to have additional struggles with English acquisition, particularly
in overcoming challenges with reading and writing in English. At the elementary level,
this can result in students having difficulties moving beyond level 2 due to struggles
with literacy development. These students often have the most difficulty with reading
comprehension, particularly beyond the literal level.
At the secondary level, some students struggle to move out of level 4 and exit the
program. Reading comprehension and academic writing are often the areas that most
impede their overall progress in overall English language proficiency. It is often the
case that these students have spent all or almost all of their academic years in the US.
We have begun to consider systematic modifications to ELD for students who fall into
these groups and we hope this will lead to increased progress in English proficiency,
as stated in goals 1 and 2 for AMAO 1.
Potential
Barrier
10. Long term,
secondary ELL
& low literacy
elementary
students may
need more
intentionally
designed ELD
instruction
11. Lack of
consistent
formative
proficiency
Current
Evidence/Data
Spring ’12 ELL
Teacher survey:
Spring ’12
Principal self
assessment;
ELL teacher
informal
conversations
Spring ’12 ELL
Teacher survey:
Spring ’12
Principal self-
Response
Timeline
Effectiveness of
response
Discussion topics
Bimonthly
Spring 2032 ELL
and presentations; ELL program Teacher survey
Group these HS
meetings;
results:
students in
Fall & winter ADEPT &
separate class;
2012-13;
GapFinder
Increase reading
Fall term
pre/post 2012-13;
comprehension for 2013
DRA pre/post for
specific ELD groups
elem, MAZE for
middle school
Discussion topics
Bimonthly
Spring ’12 ELL
and presentations; ELL program Teacher survey:
Pilot increased
meetings;
Spring ’12
reading
Fall term
Principal self21
assessments for
tracking
progress
assessment;
ELL teacher
informal
conversations
12. Students
may need more
time in ELD,
particularly at
the lower grade
levels.
ELPA growth
data for 2nd
grade
comprehension for
specific ELD
groups of 4th-5th
grade upper
language
proficiency level
students;
Adjust master
schedule at pilot
school where this
will be tried, Elem
ELL TOSA suppor
with planning
2012
assessment;
DRA pre/post
Academic
year 201213
ELPA data for 1st
and 2nd grade
students, focusing
on growth
One school will be lengthening their ELD block for 1st and 2nd grade students from 30
minutes to 45 minutes. This will be a pilot project to see if it helps 2 nd graders make
greater gains on ELPA. Another change that will be made is that all schools where
ELD groups are consistently larger than 6 students, ELD will be delivered 5 days a
week.
Data and Goals for AMAO 3:
AMAO 3 is a measure of English language learners’ ability to meet state standards in
mathematics and language arts. It demonstrates these students’ ability to access grade
level content. For 2012, the target for AMAO 3 was that the ELL subgroup make Adequate
Yearly Progress by having 80% or more students meet or exceed state benchmarks in
reading/language arts and mathematics. By 2013 the target increases to 90%.
The gap between the total student population and the ELL subgroup appears to be holding
steady, with no significant increases or decreases. The data demonstrates that our ELL
students’ ability to meet state benchmarks decreases from elementary to high school. At
the elementary level it has hovered around 60% in both reading and math for the past five
years, except when the change in the math cut scores led to a drastic decrease of the
percentage of ELLs meeting in mathematics.
The OAKS data is not available officially at this point in a way that allows for comparisons at
the elementary, middle and high school levels. Past trends, however, demonstrate that
English language learners perform approximately 20 to 30 percentage points below the all
student group on reading and math. At the middle school level the difference becomes
even more pronounced, with the gap widening to the 40 percentage point range.
Middle school ELLs have met state benchmark in reading at about 40% and have shown
increases in meeting the benchmark in mathematics until this year, when they also dropped
about 10% below last year. The percentage of high school ELLs who meet benchmark has
consistently decreased in language arts but seems on the rise again in mathematics. The
gap between ELL and all students has widened significantly at the high school level.
22
Table 8: District AYP data from 2006 to 2011, with ELL subgroup information
Grade Ranges
and Subgroup
%
Met/Exceeded
2006 – 2007
%
Met/Exceeded
2007 – 2008
%
Met/Exceeded
2008 - 2009
%
Met/Exceeded
2009 - 2010
%
Met/Exceeded
2010 - 2011
%
Met/Exceeded
2011 - 2012
Rdg.
Math
Rdg.
Math
Rdg.
Math
Rdg.
Math
Rdg.
Math
Rdg.
LEP
60.26
62.78
56.39
61.14
52.34
51.86
49.01
52.86
58.28
35.79
All Students
Middle School
LEP
All Students
82.47
81.26
80.56
77.76
80.45
78.17
78.53
78.24
81.67
57.35
45.09
77.52
47.42
76.17
43.79
77.38
50.42
78.94
34.06
76.54
46.71
79.97
35.09
77.30
47.81
78.97
35.98
76.06
25.73
59.57
38.74
67.89
33.14
57.49
37.28
75.18
38.70
67.52
15.52
73.73
5.36
59.13
11.59
77.68
16.42
63.04
14.04
84.70
22.41
72.50
Elementary
High School
LEP
All Students
Continuing the trend illustrated in the table above will not lead us to meet AMAO 3. We
understand that ELLs who are at a level 1 or 2 on ELPA have difficulties meetings state
standards on OAKS in English. However, ELLs whose English language proficiency is a 3
or 4 on ELPA possess the language skills that allow them to demonstrate their mastery of
mathematics and reading/language arts content in English through OAKS.
Since OAKS reading and math are only administered to 3 rd through 12th graders, below is a
table representing reading data for 1st through 5th grade students. Each elementary student
in our district is given the DRA (Developmental Reading Assessment) twice a year. The
results of this information are provided in the table below.
Table 9: DRA Results for 1st to 5th graders, Spring 2012
Grade Status
# of Stdnts Met
st
1 Active ELL 171
33%
All Students 730
61%
Not Met
67%
39%
2nd Active ELL 151
All Students 665
29%
57%
71%
43%
3rd Active ELL 183
All Students 794
25%
57%
75%
43%
4th Active ELL 130
Monitored
16
All Students 754
24%
75%
59%
76%
25%
41%
5th Active ELL 103
Monitored
57
All Students 801
12%
54%
55%
88%
46%
45%
23
Math
The pre-preliminary data for 2012-13 provide further detail regarding the specific academic
challenges faced by ELL students. The data utilized here is not adjusted for group size or
margin of error. It is the raw data representing the number and percentage of students at
each language proficiency level who met or exceed on OAKS. As would be expected,
students with higher language proficiency were more likely to meet OAKS. However, as
ELL students progressed through the grade levels it became increasingly difficult for them
to meet state standards regardless of their language proficiency level.
At the elementary level, the percentage of ELLs who met in math and those who met in
reading at third grade were comparable, about 15%. As students moved to 4th and 5th
grade they were more likely to meet in math than in reading. We also noticed a significant
difference between the percentage of active and monitored ELL students who met on ELPA.
Data Table 10: Details of Elementary OAKS results by ELPA level (Spring 2012)
Grade
3
4
5
Lang Prof
Level 11-12
1
2
3
4
5
ALL ELL
Monitored
Number of
Students
15
74
64
38
1
192
12
1
2
3
4
5
ALL ELL
Monitored
7
18
29
52
36
142
17
1
2
3
4
5
ALL ELL
Monitored
4
17
19
33
44
117
58
#
Math
M/E
29
7
%
M/E
Math
0%
8%
14%
37%
0%
15%
58%
2
11
13
26
10
0%
0%
7%
21%
36%
18%
59%
2
4
6
25
0%
0%
0%
6%
9%
5%
43%
6
9
14
#
M/E
Rdg
26
10
%
M/E
Rdg
0%
1%
16%
39%
0%
14%
83%
3
11
19
33
14
0%
0%
10%
21%
53%
23%
82%
2
7
9
31
0%
0%
0%
6%
16%
8%
53%
1
10
15
AMAO 3, Goal 1: The percentage of active ELL students at level 4 and 5 who meet
OAKS in reading and math will increase at the 3rd and 5th grade levels by 15
percentage points.
24
At the middle school level ELL students are having even more difficulty meeting state
standards in both mathematics and reading/language arts. The most successful group was
sixth graders at level 5 who met OAKS on reading at the rate of 25% and on math at the
rate of 23%. Seventh grade level 5 students met OAKS math at the rate of 29% and 8 th
graders at levels 4 and 5 met at the rate of about 17% on math. Students at the lower
proficiency were not able to meet OAKS in either math or reading.
Due to the more abstract nature of the curriculum and the more complex texts that students
are expected to comprehend in middle school, it is critical that teachers consistently scaffold
instruction and utilize sheltering strategies to ensure ELL students access to the content.
These language demands of OAKS assessments are exceedingly difficult for students at or
below an ELPA proficiency level of 3 to meet. Our focus at the middle school will be to
refine our implementation of sheltering strategies and provide focused instruction in the
language of mathematics and reading comprehension, particularly for students at levels 4
and 5 on ELPA.
Data Table 11: Details of Middle School OAKS results by ELPA level (Spring 2012)
Grade
6
7
8
Lang Prof
Level 1112
2
3
4
5
ALL ELL
Monitored
Number of
Students
3
8
24
13
48
65
1
2
3
4
5
ALL ELL
Monitored
4
1
13
15
8
41
75
1
2
3
4
5
ALL ELL
Monitored
2
4
9
19
6
40
49
#
Math
M/E
1
2
3
19
%
M/E
Rdg
0%
0%
4%
15%
6%
29%
2
2
5
28
25%
0%
0%
13%
29%
13%
37%
0
31
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
43%
0
0
0
3
1
4
10
0%
0%
0%
16%
17%
10%
21%
1
1
11
0%
0%
0%
0%
17%
3%
22%
3
3
16
1
%
M/E
Math
0%
0%
0%
23%
6%
25%
#
M/E
Rdg
AMAO 3, Goal 2: The percentage of middle school 6th to 8th grade ELL students, at
ELPA proficiency levels of 4 and 5, who meet or exceed OAKS reading and math will
increase 20 percentage points.
25
At the high school level the number of ELL students has decreased significantly. They are
also not assessed in OAKS each year. These high school ELL students are not meeting
state standards in mathematics or reading/language arts in any appreciable numbers.
Almost all of these students are at the intermediate level or above in terms of English
language proficiency as measured by ELPA. Despite this, the students are failing to meet
state standards. This is particularly troubling since demonstrating the ability to meet state
standards in reading is a requirement for graduation in OR beginning this academic year.
Just as in middle school, the abstract nature of the curriculum and the more complex texts
that students are expected to comprehend make it critical that teachers consistently scaffold
instruction and utilize sheltering strategies to ensure ELL students access to the content.
Our focus at high school level will be to offer additional, specially designed courses in
mathematics and language arts to provide the increased academic language that ELL
students need in order to meet state standards in these areas.
Data Table 12: Details of High School OAKS results by ELPA level (Spring 2012)
Grade
9
10
11
12
Lang Prof
Level 11-12
2
3
4
5
ALL ELL
Monitored
Number of
Students
1
6
4
2
13
15
# Math
M/E
0
10
% M/E
Math
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
21%
2
3
4
5
ALL ELL
Monitored
2
9
13
3
27
9
0
0
1
1
2
1
0%
0%
9%
33%
7%
20%
3
4
5
ALL ELL
Monitored
7
16
3
26
13
2
2
3
0%
0%
67%
8%
23%
2
3
4
5
ALL ELL
Monitored
1
4
10
2
17
7
0
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
#
M/E
Rdg
0
1
%
M/E
Rdg
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
1
1
4
0%
0%
0%
33%
4%
50%
2
2
2
0%
0%
67%
8%
20%
0
1
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
14%
26
AMAO 3, Goal 3: The percentage of high school ELL students, at ELPA levels 4 and
5, who meet or exceed OAKS reading and math will increase 25 percentage points.
Current Practices
The district is in its second year of a new curriculum adoption for K-5, Literacy by Design.
Teachers are implementing this with increased consistency. It includes multiple
opportunities for literacy instruction and engagement for students at all level of language
and literacy. In addition, the district is utilizing the RTI process to identify students who are
below expected level in reading. ELL students are fully included in this model and are
provided access to reading interventions as appropriate based on their literacy needs.
In math, the district has begun to utilize IXL to provide student with additional, self-paced
opportunities to practice mathematical concepts. This is available to all students, including
ELL. We are in the process of exploring additional approaches, strategies and interventions
to support all students in math.
Teachers are at varying levels of implementation of sheltered instruction. The sheltered
instruction walkthroughs carried out by the district Sheltered TOSA demonstrate a need to
increase consistency of instructional practices in this area. The data from the sheltered
instruction walk-throughs is provided in the appendix as a reference. The results of the
elementary principal self-reflections can also be found in the appendix.
Leadership and Direction
The curriculum department, including the district Sheltered Instruction TOSA, works closely
with the ELL Program to conduct professional development and support for the
implementation of sheltering strategies. Our current focus is on implementation of
strategies rather than new training.
The Sheltered Instruction TOSA communicates regularly with curriculum and ELL
administrators to share data and plan for action steps. The information from the walkthroughs is shared at district meetings and individually with site administrators. For the
coming school year, four schools have selected a particular focus on sheltered instruction.
The TOSA will work closely with them to tailor support to the specific needs of staff at these
sites. The model will serve as a pilot to develop strategies that my be effective in supporting
the implementation of sheltering strategies at other schools in the future.
Identifying Needs
In reviewing our ELL Program in respect to AMAO 3, we focused on the following areas
which impact the ability of ELLs to access grade level content in English, particularly in the
core areas of mathematics and reading/language arts:




Professional Development for Classroom and Core Content Teachers
Instructional Design and Strategies in the Core Content Areas
Curriculum and Assessment for Core Content Instruction
Procedures, Practices and Policies in the ELL department
27
Each of the above areas represents causal adult behaviors that have a direct impact on
ELL students’ academic success. Our review included gathering data on these areas from
sheltered instruction walk-throughs, procedural practices, professional development
calendars, and conversations with ELL and general teaching staff.
While the district has a clearly defined instructional model for English Language
Development (ELD) instruction, this is not the case for content area instruction for ELLs.
Our ELL students are spread across 19 schools and receive content instruction from
teachers who are highly qualified in their content area and grade level. These teachers
have varying degrees of expertise in and implementation of sheltered instructional
strategies to support ELLs in accessing core, grade level content.
Implementation Plan for AMAO 3:
The professional development we provide for classroom and content area teachers is the
first area we reviewed for potential barriers.
Professional Development for Classroom and Core Content Teachers
Strengths
Possible Barriers
Sheltered training (K-12),at least
1. All secondary (6-12) math and lang. arts
at a basic level, has been provided teachers have NOT been sheltered trained or
districtwide to teachers at all
supported regularly in strategy development.
schools.
2. Elementary classroom teachers are not
Reading curriculum training,
familiar with content of ELD lessons and thus
Literacy by Design (LBD), was
struggle to make connections with their own
delivered throughout the year in
content.
2010-12 (K-5).
3. Reading specialists, language arts teachers,
and classroom teachers need more info about
language and literacy development with (K-12).
4. Expectations for implementation of specific
sheltering strategies has not been consistently
communicated by district and site administrators.
Potential
Barrier
1. All secondary
(6-12) math and
lang. arts
teachers have
NOT been
sheltered trained
or supported
regularly in
strategy
development.
2. Elementary
classroom
teachers are not
familiar with
Current
Evidence/Data
Attendance
sheets &
records of
trainings;
Administrator
survey results
Response
Timeline
Provide
ongoing, followup opportunities
and support to
math and
language arts
teachers at the
middle and high
schools
Fall 2012 Spring 2013 for
follow-up;
Fall 2013 and
Spring 2013 for
walk-through
observations
Principal selfreflection;
TOSA and
instructional
Provide sample
powerpoints to
ELL teachers for
use with staff;
Fall 2012 for
powerpoints;
Fall 2012 –
Spring 2013 for
Effectiveness of
response
Attendance
sheets and
records of
training:
Administrator
survey results;
Math & lang. arts
teachers’ selfreflections &
feedback
ELL teacher
survey; ELL
teacher selfreflection; TOSA
28
content of ELD
lessons and
thus struggle to
make
connections with
their own
content.
coach feedback;
ELL teacher
feedback and
conversations
3. Reading
specialists,
language arts
teachers, and
classroom
teachers need
more info about
language and
literacy
development
with (K-12).
ELL teacher
survey;
Administrator
self-assessment
and
conversations
4. Expectations
for
implementation
of specific
sheltering
strategies has
not been
consistently
communicated
by district and
site
administrators.
Elementary
principal selfassessments,
administrative
meetings,
conversations
with site leaders
Develop
communication
tools to use
between ELL
and classroom;
explore utilizing
functions as a
focus across a
school
Powerpoint as a
resource;
consistently
utilize resource
created by
sheltered TOSA
that highlights
which activities
are most
successful with
students at
various
proficiency
levels
Schedule time
on elementary,
middle and high
school principal
agendas to
present on
sheltering;
agree on basic
sheltering
expectations for
academic year
utilization of
interviews;
communication
principal selftool; Pilot central reflection tool
function concept
at a couple of
schools during
the school year
Fall 2012 for
powerpoint; Fall
– Spring 2012 to
put resource tool
into consistent
use
ELL teacher
survey;
Administrator
self-assesment;
Reading
specialist
pre/post surveys;
classroom
teacher
feedback
Fall – Spring
2012-13 for a
minimum of four
20-30 minute
presentations;
Fall 2013 – to
develop and
communicate
sheltering
expectations
Elementary selfassessments,
agendas from
principals’
meetings,
conversations
with site leaders
The content areas, particularly mathematics and reading/language arts, depend on
various strategies. In our program review, we took a close look at both the design of
courses and instruction as well as the implementation of sheltering strategies.
Instructional Design and Strategies in the Core Content Areas
Strengths
Possible Barriers
Sheltered Walk-Throughs have
5. Teachers do NOT consistently shelter content
been conducted in all elementary
instruction in mathematics and language arts. (Kclassrooms, middle school core
12)
content classes and high school
6. Sheltered professional development (K-12)
sheltered classrooms (K-12).
has failed to focus on the specific strategies and
A variety of online resources is
language of mathematics.
29
available on the website, including
brief video clips of sheltered
strategies.
Potential
Barrier
5. Teachers do
NOT
consistently
shelter content
instruction in
mathematics
and language
arts. (K-12)
Current
Evidence/Data
Sheltered walkthrough data
from fall 2011
and spring
2012;
Administrator
self-assessment
6. Sheltered
professional
development (K12) has failed to
focus on the
specific
strategies and
language of
mathematics.
TOSA and
administrator
informal
observations;
professional
development
plans; data
review meetings
Response
Timeline
Effectiveness of
response
Collaborate with Late summer &
Sheltered walkadministrators to fall 2012 to
throughs in Fall
use walk-thru
collaborate with 2012 and Spring
tool & provide
admin; Fall 2012 2013;
feedback;
– Spring 2013
Administrator
provide access
continue to
selfto model
model for/with
assessments;
strategies online teachers
Classroom/
and in person
content teacher
self-reflections
Design
Fall/Winter 2012 Administrator
sheltered follow- Follow-up math self-assessment;
up with math
sheltered staff
professional
focus; continue
dev.; Fall 2012 – development
secondary math Spring 2013 for records;
teacher ongoing secondary math attendance at
staff dev.
group
math support;
support group;
teacher selfcommunicate
reflections
specific
expectations
related to
sheltering
strategies.
30
The curriculum and student assessment practices also impact the extent to which our
ELL students are able to access content.
Curriculum and Assessment for Core Content Instruction
Strengths
Possible Barriers
DIBELS & DRA are administered
7. DIBELS and DRA data are not collected,
multiple times during the year (Kdisaggregated or analyzed by ELL status or
5).
language proficiency level. (K-5)
Middle school students are
8. Secondary ELL students are not provided with
administered the MAZE to assess consistent access to specific courses designed to
reading comprehension
help them meet state standards in reading. (6-12)
ELL students (6-12) are placed in
sheltered classes as needed.
Some high school ELL students
receive targeted literacy
interventions and math
interventions
Potential
Barrier
7. DIBELS and
DRA data are
not collected,
disaggregated
or analyzed by
ELL status or
language
proficiency level.
(K-5)
8. Secondary
ELL students
are not provided
with consistent
access to
specific courses
designed to help
them meet state
standards in
reading. (6-12)
Current
Evidence/Data
Data not
available with
necessary
details and
identification;
attempts to
complete this
project in 11-12
failed
TOSA
observations;
high and middle
school
administrator
feedback;
classes not
currently
available at both
high schools or
all 3 large
middle schools
Response
Timeline
Coordination
between ELL,
assessment,
technology, RTI
and Title I staff
to ensure data
with needed
information
Fall 2012
Place active and
monitored ELL
middle school
students who
are below
benchmark in
reading INSIDE
reading
intervention
class: Place
high school
students in
literacy support
or math support
classes as
needed
Offer courses fall
- spring 20122013; Provide
ELL and
sheltered TOSA
support to assist
teachers in
planning for,
delivering and
reflecting on
instruciton
Effectiveness of
response
DIBELS and
DRA data
available with
disaggregation
capacity for ELL
TOSA
observations;
secondary
administrator
feedback; class
enrollment &
OAKS progress
of students;
31
Elements of our ELL program practices and design often need to be adjusted in order
to ensure we are responding to the academic needs of our students.
Procedures, Practices and Policies in ELL Program
Strengths
Possible Barriers
Secondary students are placed in
9. Classroom and content area teachers are
sheltered courses as needed
NOT routinely provided with clear explanations of
based on language need and
their students’ language proficiency level and
teacher recommendation. ELL
corresponding expected academic behaviors. (Kstudents are provided with Title I
12)
reading support, special education 10. Secondary ELL educational assistants are
services and any other
not used consistently to support students in
interventions or supports available meeting content standards. (6-12)
to all students.
Potential
Barrier
9. Classroom
and content
area teachers
are NOT
routinely
provided with
clear
explanations of
their students’
language
proficiency level
and
corresponding
expected
academic
behaviors. (K12)
Current
Evidence/Data
ELL Teacher
survey; current
program
procedures and
practices
Response
10. Secondary
ELL educational
assistants are
not used
consistently to
support students
in meeting
content
standards. (612)
TOSA
observations;
secondary
administrator
feedback; ELL
EA
conversations
Meet w/admin to
reiterate EA
roles &
communicate to
teachers; Train
ELL EAs to
effectively
support content
& teachers in
utilization
Timeline
Continue to
Fall 2012; Fallprovide report
Spring 2012-13
by classroom
and by content
class with
language
proficiency
information;
Deliver a
powerpoint with
basic descriptive
information and
revisit
information at
least once
during the
school year
Fall 2012 to
communicate
with admin; Late
fall 2012 to
communicate to
content teachers
and provide
training;
Effectiveness of
response
ELL Teacher
survey; modified
program
procedures and
practices;
classroom/
content teacher
feedback
Content teacher
feedback; ELL
EA observations
and survey;
secondary
administrator
survey
32
Parental Involvement and Input
Our district has joined the Family Involvement Matters consortia led by PSU. Through that
group we have begun to develop clear plans and goals for parent communication and
involvement. In addition, three schools in our district have decided to make family
involvement a focus for next year. We also have in place five Spanish speaking liaisons and
one Russian speaking liaisons to support teachers and administrators with oral and written
communication with non-English dominant parent, many of whom have ELL students. They
also assist with interpreting for parent conferences.
In the past, liaisons have worked with specific schools to plan and conduct parent information
nights. In addition, partner organizations such as El Programa Hispano and SUN schools
have also worked with us to communicate with parents who are not English dominant, the
largest group of whom are Spanish speakers in our district. Often these meetings have
focused on practical topics related to accessing social services, health and law enforcement,
attendance, parenting and other matters. While some academic support information was
shared, it has not always been the focus.
Our goal next year is to survey parents, including those of ELL students, about their
preferences related to communication modes and ways we can assist them in supporting
their own children’s academic success. Working with our liaisons, we will begin gathering
information in the fall through phone calls, meetings and written communication as needed.
The information will be used to tailor district and school communications to the specific needs
of families. We will also use their input to develop more options for two-way communication,
particularly for limited English-speaking families.
We will also be making academic conversations the focus of ELL family informational
meetings. Working more closely with administrators at the district and site levels we will set
goals around critical academic topics to share with limited-English speaking families at the
elementary, middle and high school levels.
Lastly, our district equity team has been working to increase access to all families in the
district. We will be providing professional development to all administrators regarding
diversity issues, including language in the late summer of 2012. A team from the equity
group will also present strategies for helping limited-English speaking families feel more
welcome and engaged to front office staff in the late summer/early fall 2012.
Evaluation of data and goals:
In reviewing our student and staff data, it has become evident that we need to develop
systems to collect formative data for our ELL students. Currently, only state assessment
data is easily accessible to monitor ELL student progress.
An overarching goal for the coming year is to input and track formative language proficiency
data to include:
- ADEPT
- Gap Finder
- Writing Samples
33
-
Teacher created formative assessment
Unit assessments
In addition, we will collect ELL status and language level along with DIBELS data to allow us
to include this information in our analysis. As the district works to develop a database of
formative assessment data for reading and math progress we will ensure that ELL
information is included in that as well. Adding this information will allow us to fine tune our
AMAO goals to meet the specific needs of ELL student subgroups.
Monitoring and Evaluation of Plan
The ELL Improvement Plan, has two major components, one addresses English language
development progress and the other academic achievement in mathematics and
reading/language arts. Both sections of the plan will be monitored by the ELL Director and
the high school ELL administrator.
This plan requires constant communication and collaboration of all district departments;
elementary education, secondary education, curriculum and instruction, assessment and
technology, federal programs, and ELL. The actions that form this plan will be implemented
as part of a broader district continuous improvement plan effort and activities shown to result
in increased academic success with students will be refined, replicated and broadly
implemented.
The effectiveness of each response to a barrier will be evaluated with the collection of adult
behavior data, as described in the far right column of each implementation chart. Student
summative data (OAKS and ELPA) as well as formative data (DRA, DIBELS, and district
assessments will also be used to evaluate the effectiveness and revise goals and actions.
In addition to the specific timeline of activities in the plan, the plan itself will be reviewed by
the ELL Director, the secondary ELL administrator, the district elementary director, and the
sheltered and ELL TOSAs 3 times during the school year to monitor progress.
Communications regarding the key actions in the plan will be provided to site administrators
in the early fall of 2013. Site administrators will receive an update at least twice during the
year in regularly scheduled district meetings. Data and evidence of the completion of various
activities will be collected and organized by the ELL Program department.
In the spring, a team of administrators, ELL teachers, TOSAs and classroom/content area
teachers will have an opportunity to review data collected and make recommendations to
revise the plan for the following year. This will allow a broader audience to review the data
and provide input.
Our data clearly demonstrates that the ELL subgroup continues to need effective, focused
support to meet academic grade level standards. This plan was designed in direct response
to specific data in the hope that the actions selected will have a positive impact on the
academic success of active and monitored ELL students so that we can create an
environment where “Every student prepared for success.”.
34