English Language Development Improvement Plan
Central School District 13J
Section A: Planning – Comprehensive Needs Assessment
Central School District (CSD) submitted the ELD Improvement Plan for English Language
Learners December 2009. This plan was approved without revision. Since the implementation of
the plan, which began spring of 2009, the district has made significant growth with AMAO 2,
some progress with AMAO 1 and struggled to make AMAO 3 at the secondary level. Also in
this time period the district has experienced changes in leadership, significant reductions in staff,
small program changes, and has supplemented the ELD curriculum at the secondary level and is
in the process of supplementing at the elementary level.
The overall process of identification, serving, and monitoring English Language Learners (ELLs)
has improved throughout the district. There are now district-wide forms, checklists with
accountability for the process of identification, and regularly scheduled monitoring sessions. The
instructional process for ELLs includes the district–wide Response to Intervention (RTI). ELL
students are monitored for their academic achievement in core subjects and participate in
intervention groups determined by formative assessments.
The plan includes both an early-exit transition model and a late-exit transition model to better
meet the needs of the students. At Independence Elementary and Ash Creek Elementary students
receive literacy instruction in Spanish, gradually transitioning to English by the end of the third
grade. Henry Hill Elementary currently transitions students to English by the end of the fifth
grade. Monmouth Elementary offers an ELD only program with optional busing for ELLs to Ash
Creek. Transition to English is supported by daily ELD instruction by trained, licensed teachers.
Talmadge Middle School and Central High School use SIOP strategies to support ELL students
in core academic subjects. ELL students also receive daily ELD instruction.
The following comprehensive needs assessment matrix will demonstrate both the strengths and
weaknesses of the 2009 improvement plan. The inquiry section will summarize the data and
discuss the cause and effect correlation between the collected data and student learning.
Data collected for the design of this plan includes:
Qualitative Data
 Teacher survey regarding sheltered language instruction
 Administrator survey regarding instructional leadership for ELD instruction.
 District discussion group to evaluate the current plan
 Parent participation at school/district events
Quantitative Data
 OAKS ELL student data grades 3, 5, and 8 for reading and math
 OAKS ELL student data for Central High School
 OAKS ELL cohort student data grades 3, 5 and 8 starting 2007 - 2008
 ELPA data/ELD levels, three years
1
Summary of Teacher Survey
The teachers were given an electronic survey that covered 8 different areas. The staff were
separated into secondary (6-12) and elementary (K-5) levels. The answer choices on the survey
focused on 8 areas: language goals, vocabulary strategies, interaction strategies, metacognitive
strategies, review and assessment of student performance, instructional needs, participation in
past professional development, and future professional development needs. 36 secondary
teachers and 49 elementary teachers responded to the survey.
An analysis of the survey indicated that teachers do use a variety of the 8 areas that were
surveyed. However the consistency of using those strategies is not apparent. Also quite apparent
is that teachers frequently indicated that they knew of a certain strategy but that they did not use
it on a frequent basis or that they only used it occasionally.
Across all grade levels the use of content and language goals was inconsistent. At the
elementary level 23 of the 49 teachers surveyed reported that they give little thought to language
and content goals. At the secondary level 16 of the 36 teachers surveyed reported that they use
some types of language/content goals. Teacher clarity, an embedded strategy in this area, appears
to be quite limited since the use of goals is inconsistent.
Vocabulary strategies are used by a majority of the teachers across all grade levels to some
degree. At both the elementary and secondary levels, word walls were the most consistently
used strategies. The teachers indicated that they knew at least 50% of the vocabulary strategies
listed on the survey but that they frequently used only about 25% of them.
Interaction strategies followed a similar pattern to the vocabulary strategies. Think-pair-share
and the jigsaw were the most common strategies that teachers reported both knowing about and
frequently using. This appeared across the grade levels. The remainder of the strategies were less
known about and less frequently used.
Metacognitive strategies are clearly used by the majority of teachers but are restricted primarily
to think-alouds and graphic organizers. Strategies like reciprocal teaching and interactive reading
guides were less known about and less frequently used.
Review and Assessment data indicated that most teachers know about twenty percent of the
listed strategies but the strategies are not used frequently. This section of the survey clearly
indicates the need for professional development in the area of developing and using formative
assessments.
Needs data showed that teachers indicated they want more time for planning and preparation.
That was followed by more requests for professional development in developing key vocabulary,
grouping, comprehensible input, scaffolding techniques, building background and alternative
assessments.
Summary:
2
The needs assessment given to the teachers attempted to quantify whether teachers knew of a
certain strategy and whether they frequently or occasionally used the strategy. In survey of this
type an underlying assumption is that if teachers report they know of a strategy then their
understanding of that strategy is comprehensive. A similar assumption must be made in terms of
the definitions of frequent or occasional use. That is, one assumes that frequent use means 80%
or more of the time and occasional use means less than 40% of the time. Keeping in mind those
assumptions, the survey showed a pattern of teachers knowing about 50% of the strategies and
frequently using about the same number.
The analysis showed a need for more professional development in how to write and use
language/content goals, how to use more effective teaching strategies and how to write and use
formative assessments.
Summary of Administrator Survey
The administrators of Central 13J were given a needs assessment that focused on their
knowledge of the plan, their skill in implementing the plan and their role as an educational leader
with the plan. There were 11 questions with the responses being categorized in four areas;
strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree and strongly disagree. The questions were
written in a first-person format.
The following summary of results correlates to the numbered questions on the needs assessment,
1. 80% of the administrators somewhat disagreed that they have a complete understanding
of how to effectively lead their schools in implementing and maintaining the ELL plan.
2. 60% of the administrators somewhat disagreed that they know enough of the details of
the ELL plan as they relate to individual schools and the district as a whole.
3. 50% felt they somewhat agreed they could model language objectives for their teachers.
4. 50% felt they somewhat agreed they could model content objectives for their teachers.
5. 90% indicated that they strongly disagree that all their teachers post language and content
objectives.
6. 50% indicated that they strongly disagree that 100% of their teachers encourage extensive
oral communication among their students as part of each lesson.
7. 70% indicated that they somewhat agree that they are comfortable modeling how to use
effective techniques to encourage students to use oral language during lessons.
8. 60% felt that they somewhat disagreed that they know how to do a walk-through
observation of a classroom that quantifies the amount of oral communication among
students that reflects their understanding of the subject matter.
3
9. 50% indicated they somewhat agree that they know how to evaluate an ELD lesson.
10. 80% indicated they somewhat agree that they understand their role as it relates to the
ELL plan.
11. 70% somewhat disagreed that their respective buildings are effectively meeting the
expectations of the ELL plan.
Summary:
The results clearly show that the administrative team needs to have focused professional
development.
There is abundant research that suggests the principal is a key factor in the success of the
students in his or her school. Central School District 13J is fortunate to have caring, dedicated
administrators who want the best for all children. Their candid answers on the survey, as well as
several in-depth group discussions, clearly indicate the need for focused professional
development on the details of the ELL plan, how to model instructional methodologies for their
teachers that support student achievement and how to effectively evaluate ELD lessons taught by
the teachers.
Assessment Results
The assessments used in the development of this plan and for continued program evaluation
include OAKS data, classroom summative assessments, the ADEPT, and student observations.
The district ELL Specialist, with school data teams, monitor student progress using an excel
spreadsheet saved on the district’s secured shared drive. Student Program over Time (SPOT) is
used to document assessment results such as DRAs and IRIs for reading, math computational
timed test and other forms of assessments. The school data team analyzes the assessment results
to determine program strengths and weakness, along with patterns and trends of student skill
levels.
Teacher Practices
Instruction is supported by the district’s adopted research-based ELD program that uses Treasure
Chest at the elementary level supplemented by Make & Take curriculum units and High Points
and Vision at the secondary level supplemented by the Summit curriculum. The literacy program
K-5 uses Literacy by Design and the 6-12 program uses Spring Board. The math curriculum for
the district includes Bridges and Scotts Foresman at the elementary level and Connected Math at
the secondary level. The district has not adopted new math curriculum in over 6 years. The
secondary programs are supplementing with Oregon Focus and other resources to provide
instruction aligned with the 2007 math standards.
Professional development is needed to improve and support instruction. This improvement plan
coordinates staff training with the comprehensive needs assessment. Monitoring of improved
instructional practices occurs through coaching and administrative actions.
4
Comprehensive Needs Assessment Matrix – Qualitative Data
Spring 2011
Survey Data
Elementary Level
District adopted
ELD Curriculum:
Treasure Chest
Supplemental:
Make & Take
Units
Curriculum
Strength
ELD Instruction:
Make & Take
curriculum units to
supplement Treasure
Chest for ELD
instruction. Units are
relevant and age
appropriate for ELD
instruction.
Make & Take units
better aligned to the
Dutro Framework.
Instruction
Needs
Strength
Needs
ELD Instruction:
Sporadic use of
Treasure Chest,
teachers needed
supplemental
materials.
ELD Instruction:
School-wide program
with classroom
sheltered instruction.
(One elementary uses
a pull-out program.)
ELD Instruction
Formative
assessments for ELD
instruction
Treasure Chest
curriculum lacked
sufficient support for
speaking and
listening.
Use of additional
coaching to improve
student scores on
ELPA. Priority to
allow students a
practice attempt on
ELPA.
Consistent staffing for
ELD instruction.
Core Content:
Relevant to student
learning, focus on
vocabulary and
grammar
development.
Teachers are
resourceful to
supplement as
formative assessment
dictates.
Core Content:
Increase use of
GLAD units.
Current district
adoptions are out-ofdate for math and
science.
Organization
Strength
Needs
Improved
identification process
and monitoring.
Consistent
implementation of
program design.
Improved exit
meeting format.
Monitor student
progress throughout
ELD program.
Professional
Development and
coaching available for
ELD teachers.
All ELD teachers
following the
curriculum map for
Make & Take.
Training for using
Make & Take ELD
curriculum.
Core Content:
Three schools
offering Spanish
literacy as a transition
to English.
Intervention tutoring
available before,
during, and after
school.
Core Content:
Training for
developing language
goals/objectives,
scaffolding
instruction and high
impact sheltered
instruction strategies.
PLC using formative
assessments to plan
and implement
instruction.
Implementation of
math dyads to
encourage increased
student dialog.
Instructional feedback
includes DRAs, IRIs,
the ADEPT, ELD
rubrics and
summative
assessments.
Increase use of word
walls, personal
dictionaries, sentence
frames, and think
maps.
Teachers created a
curriculum map using
the Dutro Grammar
Matrix.
Increased number of
students exiting the
ELD program.
(AMAO 2)
5
Comprehensive Needs Assessment Matrix – Qualitative Data
Spring 2011
Survey Data
Secondary Level
Curriculum
Strengths
Needs
ELD Instruction:
comprehensible
materials,
developmental in
nature. All domains
covered. Engaging.
Implemented Summit
as supplemental
curriculum to High
Points and Visions.
District adopted ELD
curriculum: High
Points and Vision
Supplemental:
Summit
Summit materials are
easy to use and
provide a good
foundation in which
to build instruction.
Core Content:
Broad and engaging,
age-appropriate, and
required for further
learning.
INEA available for
high school students.
Purchase of additional
Summit Units to
supplement High
Points and Visions.
ELD Instruction:
ease of use of Summit
materials, and
provides good
foundation to build
instruction.
Increase use of
technology
Develop more support
materials for each
domain as indicated
by formative
assessments.
Core Content:
knowledge of content
materials, standards,
and strategies to
increase student
learning.
High school adapting
to 30% of ELL
population having less
then 5 years in the
district.
Need additional
supplemental
curriculum and
support materials.
Instruction
Organization
Strengths
Needs
Strengths
Needs
ELD Instruction:
Differentiated and
engaging instructional
strategies utilized.
ELD Instruction:
Clearly defined
instructional learning
targets for students –
by lesson and unit.
Well-articulated plan
for language
acquisition and
support for learning
across the curriculum.
Develop differentiated
strategies, including
use of technology.
Development of
quality formative
assessments.
Clearly defined
language acquisition
targets, written in
student friendly
language.
Use of Dutro
Framework for
instruction.
Instructional
strategies address all
domains for students
to progress, and are
differentiated for
student need.
Core Content:
Engaging and
differentiated, aligned
instruction
Clearly defined and
relevant language
instruction to improve
access to curriculum.
Core Content:
Use of sheltered
strategies across all
classes.
All: Use of formative
assessments &
proficiency based
instructional
strategies
Dedicated and welltrained staff with a
strong foundation in
ELD instructional
strategies and
curriculum, and a
developing skill level
related to
implementing
sheltered instructional
strategies.
SIOP Coaches
available to support
sheltered instruction.
Vertical alignment of
ELD curriculum and
instruction.
Continued
development and
support for improved
use of higher level
sheltered strategies.
Need to monitor
fidelity to plan and
program.
Sheltered instruction
in all secondary core
content classes.
Conduct a student
survey reading class
selection and
instruction.
Improved use of
formative assessments
targeting language
acquisition barriers in
content areas.
Continued
development and
improvement of
sheltered strategies.
6
Comprehensive Needs Assessment Matrix – Qualitative Data
Spring 2011
Survey Data
Parents &
Community
Curriculum
Strengths
Needs
Parent information
night in Spanish
offered at the middle
school to help explain
curriculum and
instructional process.
Instruction
Strengths
Needs
District reports to
parents’ student
academic progress to
state standards.
Parents receive 6week reports for
secondary students.
Improved homeschool connection for
secondary students.
Organization
Strength
Needs
Some teachers
provide information
night for parents of
ELL students. Topics
include:
Homework help
The writing process
Reading with your
child.
ELL Celebration
Night held yearly for
students exiting the
ELD program.
Administration Principals
Knowledgeable of
adopted ELD
curriculum.
Management of ELD
curriculum and core
content curriculum.
Administrators need
training regarding the
Dutro Framework.
Some knowledge of
sheltered language
strategies
Support for the PLC
process.
Conducting some
classroom walkthroughs.
Established process
to monitor student
progress.
Additional training
for conducting walkthroughs, what to
look for in sheltered
instruction, using a
rubric to give
teachers additional
feedback.
Training for
principals regarding
ELD instruction and
the use of a rubric to
provide feedback to
ELD teachers.
Improved monitoring
process, use of RTI.
Management of
OAKS, ELPA, and
ADEPT assessment
process.
Better record keeping
regarding parent
participation.
Conduct a needs
survey for parents of
ELL students.
Develop a parent
focus group districtwide to help identify
needs and increase
family involvement.
Cadre of parents at
the secondary level to
meet regularly to
discuss program
needs.
Improved
accountability system
for the use of
sheltered instruction
strategies.
Scheduling of
appropriate classes,
meeting all time
requirements,
appropriately
assigning staff, and
providing time for
teachers to
collaborate.
7
Comprehensive Needs Assessment – Quantitative Data, AMAO Data of all ELL Students
07-08
42.58%
Target: 35%
MET
08-09
174 or 37%
Target: 35%
MET
09-10
267 or 47%
Target: 50%
Not Met
10 – 11
Target: 53%
24.3%
Not Met – 50% Target
41 or 15%
Not Met - 50% Target
N/A
N/A
Criterion
2A*
N/A
N/A
Target: 15.2%
Criterion
2B*
N/A
N/A
102 exited or 15.2%
Target: 14%
MET
72% exited or 31.2%
Target: 22%
MET
School Year
Criterion 1
Gain a level a
English
Language
Proficiency
Criterion 2
Percent of
students
exiting the
ELD Program
Target: 24%
* AMAO 2A is the percentage of students who exited ELD out of ALL current ELD students.
* AMAO 2B is the percentage of students who exited ELD out of all students who have been in school in the US for 5 years or longer.
The split of AMAO 2 occurred during the 09 – 10 school year. The district must meet for both 2A and 2B in order to meet the standard
for AMAO 2.
8
Comprehensive Needs Assessment – Quantitative Data
AMAO 3
Table shows the academic progress of all third grade ELL students over four consecutive years based on OAKS.
Criterion 3
Percent of students
meeting/exceeding
OAKS
Reading
Math
07 – 08 State target:
Reading 60% Math 59%
Total ELL students: 52
DNM NM
M
E
08 - 09 State target:
Reading 60% Math 59%
Total ELL students: 48
DNM NM
M
E
09 – 10 State target:
Reading 60% Math 59%
Total ELL students: 48
DNM NM
M
E
10 – 11 State target:
Reading 70% Math 70%
Total ELL students: 45
DNM NM
M
E
12%
1%
37%
50%
13%
18%
52%
17%
13%
38%
48%
1%
14%
20%
61%
4%
10%
4%
63%
23%
33%
19%
44%
4%
24%
11%
52%
13%
46%
27%
27%
0%
Table shows the academic progress of all fifth grade ELL students over four consecutive years based on OAKS.
Criterion 3
Percent of students
meeting/exceeding
OAKS
Reading
Math
07 – 08 State target:
Reading 60% Math 59%
Total ELL students: 54
DNM NM
M
E
08 - 09 State target:
Reading 60% Math 59%
Total ELL students: 53
DNM NM
M
E
09 – 10 State target:
Reading 60% Math 59%
Total ELL students: 51
DNM NM
M
E
10 – 11 State target:
Reading 70% Math 70%
Total ELL students: 52
DNM NM
M
E
24%
24%
48%
4%
15%
36%
49%
0%
8%
23%
67%
2%
15%
42%
42%
1%
34%
9%
44%
13%
28%
25%
47%
0%
13%
37%
50%
0%
57%
18%
25%
0%
Table shows the academic progress of all eighth grade ELL students over four consecutive years based on OAKS.
Criterion 3
Percent of students
meeting/exceeding
OAKS
Reading
Math
07 – 08 State target:
Reading: 60% Math 59%
Total ELL students: 42
DNM NM
M
E
08 - 09 State target:
Reading: 60% Math 59%
Total ELL students: 37
DNM NM
M
E
09 – 10 State target:
Reading: 60% Math 59%
Total ELL students: 40
DNM NM
M
E
10 – 11 State target:
Reading 70% Math 70%
Total ELL students: 28
DNM NM
M
E
47%
24%
29%
0%
68%
27%
5%
0%
52%
20%
28%
0%
38%
30%
30%
0%
49%
37%
19%
0%
73%
17%
10%
0%
57%
27%
16%
0%
57%
8%
33%
0%
Comprehensive Needs Assessment – AMAO 3 Data
9
All ELL and monitor students attending Central High School
Criterion 3
Percent of students
meeting/exceeding
OAKS
Reading
Math
07 – 08
Reading: 60% Math 59%
Total number of students: 58
DNM NM
M
E
08 - 09
Reading: 60% Math 59%
Total number of students: 61
DNM NM
M
E
09 – 10
Reading: 60% Math 59%
Total number of students: 90
DNM NM
M
E
10 – 11
Reading 70% Math 70%
Total number of students: 92
DNM NM
M
E
69%
21%
10%
0%
74%
20%
7%
0%
73%
18%
9%
0%
55%
29%
15%
0%
74%
15%
11%
0%
80%
15%
6%
0%
85%
12%
3%
0%
80%
12%
8%
0%
All ELL students attending Central High School
Criterion 3
Percent of students
meeting/exceeding
OAKS
Reading
Math
07 – 08
Reading: 60% Math 59%
Total number of students: 49
DNM NM
M
E
08 - 09
Reading: 60% Math 59%
Total number of students: 50
DNM NM
M
E
09 – 10
Reading: 60% Math 59%
Total number of students: 73
DNM NM
M
E
10 – 11
Reading 70% Math 70%
Total number of students: 63
DNM NM
M
E
76%
16%
8%
0%
84%
10%
6%
0%
85%
13%
6%
0%
67%
21%
12%
0%
78%
10%
13%
0%
90%
8%
3%
0%
85%
10%
5%
0%
92%
5%
3%
0%
Comprehensive Needs Assessment – AMAO 3 Cohort Data
Tables show the academic performance of the same students for four consecutive years. Some students might have exited the ELD
program to monitor status.
10
Total number of students: 18
Criterion 3
Percent of students
meeting/exceeding
OAKS
Reading
Math
07 – 08 Third Grade
Reading: 60% Math 59%
DNM NM
M
E
08 - 09 Fourth Grade
Reading: 60% Math 59%
DNM NM
M
E
09 – 10 Fifth Grade
Reading: 60% Math 59%
DNM NM
M
E
10 – 11 Sixth Grade
Reading 70% Math 70%
DNM NM
M
E
28%
0%
28%
44%
33%
39%
22%
6%
55%
28%
17%
0%
33%
28%
39%
0%
28%
5%
67%
0%
55%
22%
22%
0%
44%
5%
44%
5%
72%
22%
5%
0%
Total number of students: 23
Criterion 3
Cohort
Percent of students
meeting/exceeding
OAKS
Reading
Math
07 – 08 Fifth Grade
Reading: 60% Math 59%
DNM NM
M
E
08 - 09 Sixth Grade
Reading: 60% Math 59%
DNM NM
M
E
09 – 10 Seventh Grade
Reading: 60% Math 59%
DNM NM
M
E
10 – 11 Eighth Grade
Reading 70% Math 70%
DNM NM
M
E
52%
30%
13%
4%
35%
48%
17%
0%
17%
48%
35%
0%
30%
52%
17%
0%
65%
4%
22%
9%
52%
22%
26%
0%
17%
57%
26%
0%
78%
9%
13%
0%
Total number of students: 13
Criterion 3
Cohort
Percent of students
meeting/exceeding
OAKS
Reading
Math
07 – 08 Eighth
Reading: 60% Math 59%
DNM NM
M
E
08 - 09 Ninth Grade
Reading: 60% Math 59%
DNM NM
M
E
09 – 10 Tenth Grade
Reading: 60% Math 59%
DNM NM
M
E
10 – 11 Eleventh Grade
Reading 70% Math 70%
DNM NM
M
E
40%
33%
27%
0%
85%
15%
0%
0%
77%
8%
23%
0%
38%
31%
31%
0%
79%
14%
7%
0%
89%
11%
0%
0%
77%
15%
8%
0%
72%
9%
18%
0%
11
Section A: Inquiry
Cause – Effect Relationships
Based on the comprehensive needs assessment, why are elementary ELD students failing to
increase an ELD level each school year?



Inadequate curriculum for ELD instruction.
Teaching staff not consistently implementing high impact sheltered instructional
strategies.
District leadership lacks training in the Dutro Framework and in conducting classroom
walk-throughs with the purpose of improving both ELD and content instruction.
Based on the comprehensive needs assessment why are secondary students unable to
meet/exceed OAKS reading and math?




Not all classrooms are using sheltered instructional strategies.
ELD curriculum is insufficient and there is a lack of alignment between the middle
school and the high school ELD programs.
High school ELD and sheltered classroom teachers experience continuous changes in
teaching assignment.
District leadership lacks training in the Dutro Framework and conducting classroom
walk-throughs with the purpose of improving both ELD and content instruction.
The cause and effect relationship between teacher actions and student learning are routinely
discussed during data team meetings (every 4 weeks). Action steps for improved instruction
follow the data analysis and creation of SMART goals.
Section A: SMART Goals
1. 57% of ELL students will move up one level in ELD, based on their ELPA score, by
spring of 2012.
2. Secondary ELL students at ELD levels 3, 4, and 5 will improve by 10%
meeting/exceeding on the OAKS reading and math during the 2011 – 2012 school year.
3. Secondary ELL students will, at a minimum, meet AYP Growth Target scores on OAKS
in Language Arts and Math for the 2011-2012 school year. (The ensuing years of 20122014 the goal will be increased to include the percentage of students meeting OAKS
standards.)
Analysis of Adult Actions
The comprehensive needs assessment shows that Central School District’s ELL student
population is unable to perform well in the core content subjects. The teacher survey confirmed
that not all grade level teachers are consistently using high-impact instructional strategies. The
12
administrators lack the training to conduct walk throughs and provide feedback to teachers for
improved instruction. The ELD Program Plan submitted December 2009 has not been followed
with consistency across all grade levels.
To address these issues the ELD Improvement Plan will focus on implementing high-impact
teaching practices, district leadership training for increased accountability, and establishing
coaching support for classroom instruction and ELD instruction.
Section B: Implementation
Smart Goals and Research-Based Strategies
Smart Goals:
1. 57% of ELL students will move up one level in ELD, based on their ELPA score, by
spring of 2012.
2. Secondary ELL students at ELD levels 3, 4, and 5 will improve by 10%
meeting/exceeding on the OAKS reading and math during the 2011 – 2012 school year.
3. Secondary ELL students will, at a minimum, meet AYP Growth Target scores on OAKS
in Language Arts and Math for the 2011-2012 school year. (The ensuing years of 20122014 the goal will be increased to include the percentage of students meeting OAKS
standards.)
Research-based Strategies: The following strategies are taken from Visible Learning: A synthesis
of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement by John Hattie.
1. Use of formative assessments to improve the instructional process for sheltered classrooms
and ELD instruction.
This action step was included in the original plan but not followed through at all grade
levels and subject areas. Teachers began Professional Learning Communities 2007-2008 in
grade-alike and vertical groups to address several questions regarding student learning. The
question “How will I know when my students have learned the content?” requires
developing formative assessments and then changing teaching behaviors and/or resources
based on the assessment. Hattie (2009) describes the process as powerful feedback that
should direct change. Interventions applied to students who are struggling to learn should be
intentional and monitored using formative assessments. (p. 181)
2. Teacher clarity – communication
This strategy emphasizes the importance of teachers communicating the intention or
objective of the lesson and describing what success will look like. The basis for such
communication is the relationship between the teacher and the student. The strategy requires
providing the student with explanations, examples, guided practices and feedback regarding
student learning (Hattie, p. 125 – 126).
13
Application of this strategy to instruct ELL students requires the use of content and
language objectives for core content subject areas.
3. Reciprocal teaching
This style of teaching is the process of teachers using cognitive strategies such as
summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting to increase the ability of the student to
learn the content. The process includes scaffolding so that there is a gradual release of
responsibility from the teacher to the student. With reciprocal teaching students learn to selfmonitor their learning, moving from a spectator to a performer after modeling and guided
practice by the teacher (Hattie, p 203 – 204). The ability to use these “thinking” strategies is
critical for ELL students to learn core academic subjects such as math and reading.
This strategy will be tailored to improve the use of shelter techniques in order to specifically
design a lesson to meet the needs of ELD students.
The following action plans will include these strategies in addition to the critical elements of
instructional leadership by the principal. Professional development will provide teachers and
district administrators with the knowledge and support to implement this improvement plan.
14
Section B: Master Plan Design
SMART Goals:
1. 57% of ELL students will move up one level in ELD, based on their ELPA score, by spring of 2012.
2. Secondary ELL students at ELD levels 3, 4, and 5 will improve by 10% meeting/exceeding on the OAKS reading and math during the
2011 – 2012 school year.
Strategy / Action Step
Person Responsible
Monitor / Evaluation
Resources Needed
Timeline
Use of formative assessments to
improve the instructional process
for sheltered classrooms
Classroom teachers
SIOP Coach
ELL Specialist
Principals to oversee process.
Half-day PLC to design and
analyze formative assessments
Once a month for PLC
Use of formative assessment to
improve the instructional process
for ELD instruction
ELD teachers
ELD Coach
Data teams to monitor student
progress every 4 weeks.
Principals to oversee process.
Essential standards for math and
reading aligned with curriculum.
Half-day PLC to design and
analyze formative assessments
Once a month for PLC
Sheltered instruction scoring
rubric
Daily/weekly use of content and
language objectives.
Professional development for
teachers and administrators
Monitoring by data teams every
4 weeks
ELD Coach to support
instruction and monitor student
progress.
Teacher clarity/communication:
Classroom teachers will use
content and language objectives
as an integral part of their lesson
plans.
Classroom teachers
ELL Specialist
SIOP Coach
ELD teachers to track student
progress.
Principals will conduct walk
throughs using sheltered
instruction scoring rubric
Reciprocal teaching:
Summarizing, questioning,
clarifying, predicting with
student involvement
Classroom teachers
ELL Specialist
SIOP Coach
ELL Specialist will provide
coaching support
Principals will conduct walk
throughs using sheltered
instruction scoring rubric
Data teams will monitor student
progress
15
SMART Goal:
3
Secondary ELL students will, at a minimum, meet AYP Growth Target scores on OAKS in Language Arts and Math for the 2011-2012
school year. (The ensuing years of 2012-2014 the goal will be increased to include the percentage of students meeting OAKS standards.)
Strategy / Action Step
Person Responsible
Monitor / Evaluation
Resources Needed
Timeline
Secondary teachers of all ELL
students in Language Arts and
Math will use three to five
SIOP strategies as integral
parts of their lessons
Classroom teachers
SIOP Coach
ELL Specialist
Building Principals
Principals to oversee process
Half-day PLC to develop
instructional units aligned
with three to five SIOP
strategies.
Once a month for PLC
Secondary teachers of ELL
students will use bi-monthly
formative assessments to
improve the instructional
process for core instruction in
Secondary Language Arts and
Math
Classroom Teachers of ELL students
Teacher
clarity/communication:
Classroom teaches
ELL Specialist
SIOP Coach
Secondary teachers will use
summarizing, questioning,
clarifying, predicting and
student oral engagement in
classes with ELL students
Principals collect and
evaluate formative
assessments.
Essential standards for math
and reading aligned with
curriculum.
Half-day PLC to design and
analyze formative assessments
Once a month for PLC
Sheltered instruction scoring
rubric
Daily/weekly use of content and
language objectives through the entire
school year
Professional development for
teachers and administrators
Monitoring by data teams every 4
weeks
Six week student progress
reports evaluated by
principals
Secondary classroom teachers
will use content and language
objectives in all secondary
classrooms
Reciprocal teaching:
Data teams to monitor
student progress every 4
weeks. Evaluation of specific
strategies as they relate to
student achievement every
four weeks
Principals will conduct walkthroughs using sheltered
instruction scoring rubrics
ELL Specialist will provide
coaching support
Classroom teachers
ELL Specialist
SIOP Coach
Principals will conduct walkthroughs using rubrics for
reciprocal teaching
Data teams will monitor
student progress related to
reciprocal teaching strategies
Observational rubrics for
reciprocal teaching
16
Section B: Professional Development
Performance of ELL and Special Ed subgroups has prevented several schools from meeting AYP targets. Increases in cut scores for math and
ELA will make achieving AYP even more difficult. Data on IEP’s indicate over identification of students, many who do not receive timely
interventions. Writing scores continue below state averages for all students. Identified needs for teacher professional development include:
1.
All secondary teachers of ELL students need to implement SIOP strategies with greater fidelity and effectively utilize the instructional
strategies of the improvement plan. All elementary teachers of ELL students need to better implement GLAD and effectively utilize the
instructional strategies of the improvement plan for improved student learning of core content.
2.
All K-12 teachers need to be engaged in the work of Professional Learning Communities to better serve the specialized needs of their
students. Instruction and assessments must be better aligned with the National Common Core Standards.
Strategy / Action Step
Person Responsible
Monitor / Evaluation
Resources Needed
Timeline
Utilize the services of a parttime SIOP coach and a portion
of the district ELL Specialist
CHS Principal
TMS Principal
Superintendent
Title IIA will fund the coach (.5
FTE) and a third (.3 FTE) of the
ELL Specialist.
Full year 2011 - 2012
Provide release time for content
and/or grade level PLC’s to meet
with focus on meeting needs of
all students, including ELL.
Principals and District Office
Administrators.
Superintendent and Federal
Programs Specialists oversee
training process and monitor
every 6 weeks
Principals oversee process and
report to the Superintendent
monthly
Title IIA will fund most release
time. Two inservice days will
also be devoted to PLC time and
support.
Half-day PLC meetings will
occur monthly throughout the
school year.
Principals receive training on the
Dutro Framework, conducting
walk-throughs using
observational rubrics for
sheltered instruction and ELD
instruction and instructional
strategies of reciprocal teaching
Superintendent
Federal Program Specialists
Superintendent will meet with
elementary principals to monitor
the use of rubrics every 6 weeks.
Federal Program Specialist will
monitor and evaluate
professional development for
administrators
General fund, Title IA, Title IIA
Full year 2011 - 2012
Administrative team reviews
progress made by PLC’s in
terms of ELL goals.
Superintendent
Federal Program Specialists
Each school’s data reviewed and
analyzed for progress
General fund, Title IA, Title IIA
Every 6 weeks
ELD Coach to support improved
instructional process for all ELD
teachers.
ELL Specialist
Principals
Superintendent
Superintendent will meet with
the ELD Coach every 6 weeks to
monitor coaching model.
General fund, Title III
Full year 2011 - 2012
17
Section B: Parent/Community Involvement
Strategy / Action Step
Person Responsible
Monitor / Evaluation
Resources Needed
Timeline
Develop a parent focus group to
gain information concerning
district services to ELL and to
improvement parent
involvement.
ELL Specialist
Log of agenda items, attendance
at meetings.
Meeting space, child care,
refreshments
One meeting each trimester for
the 2011 – 12 school year.
Meeting minutes
Begin with parents of secondary
ELL students.
Develop a parent survey.
Include program
communication, ELD and
content instruction and
transition process.
ELL Specialist
District ELD Teachers
Survey results used to make
program improvements.
Survey, opportunity to disperse
the survey.
One survey during the 2011 –
2012 school year.
Increase information meetings
to parents of elementary ELD
students.
Elementary classroom teachers
ELD teachers
ELL Specialist
Attendance records of events
and feedback sheet at the end of
the event.
Meeting space, materials,
refreshments, child care
2011- 2012 school year.
Each elementary school to host
at least one parent information
night during the school year.
Increase information meetings
to parents of secondary ELL
students regarding student
learning, grading, homework
support, educational resources.
Secondary classroom teachers
ELD teachers
Attendance records, parent
survey, feedback from parent
focus group
Meeting space, materials,
refreshments, child care
2-3 opportunities for parents
during the 2011-12 school year.
18
Section C: Monitoring and Evaluation of ELD Improvement Plan
Evaluation of Program Goals: The measurement of student progress toward ELD program
goals is the first and most critical aspect of the program evaluation. CSD will evaluate the ELD
program with a thorough internal evaluation aligned with English Language Proficiency
standards (ELP) along with external ODE approved assessments. The process will include levels
of accountability with documentation connected to increased achievement for each of AMAOs.
District and building level ELD teams will review results quarterly.
The overall program goal addressing AMAO 1 is to improve the number of ELL students
increasing their English language ability as assessed by the ADEPT (mid-year) and ELPA
(spring). Check points throughout the school year include ELD formative assessments aligned to
the ELP standards. Fidelity of implementation of the ELD program will be determined by PLC
documentation, summative assessments and data, course curriculum maps and observations.
Increased professional training for district administrators will assure implementation in all
classrooms. Principals will use scoring rubrics for ELD and sheltered instruction to provide
feedback to teachers for improved instruction and to assure that the strategies listed within this
improvement plan are being implemented at the highest level.
A large number of students lack English language proficiency skills, which greatly impacts their
access to core content instruction and meeting/exceeding the OAKS for reading and math,
AMAO 3. To address this challenge CSD will monitor ELL students in year 4 and 5; tracking the
English proficiency levels using formative and summative assessments aligned to the ELD
curriculum. Schools will implement research-based interventions for those students who are not
progressing. Teachers will be supported through continued professional development aligned
with the needs of the ELD students.
The evaluation plan covers all aspects of the ELL program, including program implementation
practices and student performance. Implementation practices are evaluated at the building and
district level using a variety of data. The ELL Specialist oversees identification of students new
to the district and the process to see services begin in a timely manner. The school data team,
along with the ELL Specialist evaluates bi-annually all aspects of program implementation. This
includes services to ELL students, alignment of resources, use of interventions and the process to
exit and monitor. At the district level program implementation is evaluated based on student
outcomes, feedback from the building administrators and the ELL Specialist.
Student performance is evaluated at the classroom, building, district and state level.



Teachers use PLC time to review formative assessments and make adjustments to
instruction.
Building level data teams review student assessment results every grading period to see
that progress is being made.
District level evaluation of student performance takes places bi-annually and is part of the
continuous improvement model. Student data is reviewed and discussed by the
administrative team. Professional Development is then planned based on the data and
19

progress towards meeting AMAOs.
State evaluative data is reviewed bi-annually by teachers, principals and district
administrators. OAKS achievement data and ELPA scores are a measure of program
success.
Information is collected at both the district and building level. Each school collects data through
PLC time, ELD formative assessments, attendance and behavior referral data. Information is
then reviewed by the building level data team and brought to the district administrative team for
further analysis.
The district ELL Specialist and classroom teachers monitor student progress towards AMAOs
and collect the relevant data. A Student Progress over Time (SPOT) document in the form of a
spreadsheet will be maintained on the district secured shared drive. The spreadsheet will include
those measurements used across grade levels such as DRAs and IRIs for reading, math
computational timed test and other forms of assessments. The collected data will monitor the
progress the students are making toward achieving AMAO 3. The ADEPT will be used in
January and May as a measurement tool for language acquisition.
Student data is reviewed every grading period by the school data team. In addition to this review
teachers use PLC time to analyze the results of instruction based on formative assessments. The
review process continues at the building level led by the principal. Staff members grouped by
grade and/or content area evaluate the progress students are making toward the program goals.
Each school follows the improvement plan that includes the AMAO goals and current data.
Principals share the building level progress at the district administrative team meeting. Goals and
program adjustments are made based on student outcomes.
The results of student assessment, maintained on the SPOT document, are reviewed by the
school’s data team with the ELL Specialist every January and May.
Plan for Modification/Improvement: Modifications and improvements will be made as student
data is collected and analyzed. At this juncture the program model needs time to produce the
expected results, that is, students begin to demonstrate increased English language proficiency.
Program modifications include increased professional development for teachers and
administrators, using observation rubrics to provide feedback to classroom teachers and ELD
teachers, and supplementing the ELD curriculum at the elementary and secondary levels.
Implementing Program Changes: CSD monitors the progress towards AMAOs every grading
period and makes adjustments as needed. Any program changes must be supported by student
data. At this time teachers and administrators need time to implement the current program with
fidelity, consistency, intensity and quality.
Administrators will work closely with all teachers who have ELL students in their classes to
assure that the translation from instructional theory to instructional practice is happening at a rate
that is beneficial to student achievement. Teachers who need extra support and assistance in
helping their students achieve the goals of the improvement plan will be provided with extra
20
assistance from their administrators and/or other staff development professionals. The
monitor/evaluation process will assure that ineffective instructional practices will no longer
occur.
Evaluation Cycle: The district administrators and the ELL Specialist review student outcomes
every grading period. The reviews are considered checkpoints toward meeting the district
AMAO goals. Support and intervention plans are available to classroom teachers. Student
formative assessments are reviewed weekly. This process along with continued professional
development empowers teachers to make decisions in instruction so that student academic needs
are being met. The cause and effect relationship between teacher actions and student learning are
routinely discussed during data team meetings (every 4 weeks). Action steps for improved
instruction follow the data analysis and creation of SMART goals.
An additional review stems from administrators conducting a regular Walk-Through or Learning
Walk to observe and provide feedback regarding SI, ELD and SIOP effectiveness. ODE’s
Guidance for Implementation of Content Support Program for ELLs contains an observational
tool to be used when conducting a Learning Walk. This process provides teachers with
immediate feedback regarding instructional strategies to assist the learning process for ELL
students. It is expected that district administrators will conduct regular Learning Walks with the
goal of improving instruction and maintaining program fidelity.
Alignment of Evaluation with Goals and Objectives: CSD aligns the district improvement
plan and the professional development plan along with the individual school improvement plans.
Each plan is based on district goals and objectives, includes curriculum, assessment,
interventions, person responsible, time line, necessary resources and current student data. The
ELL program plan and evaluation is designed in the same format acting as a guide for program
decisions. The program is evaluated from a variety of levels, check points to see that CSD is on
track to meeting the AMAO goals stated in this plan.
21