GWU Evaluation of English Language Learner ...

Evaluation of English Language Learner Programs In Alexandria City Public Schools

Barbara D. Acosta, Senior Research Scientist Lottie Marzucco, Research Associate Breanna Bayraktar, Research Associate Charlene Rivera, Executive Director and Principal Investigator The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education

The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education’s mission is to advance education reform so all students achieve to high standards. GW-CEEE conducts policy and applied research, designs and implements program evaluations, and provides professional development and technical assistance for clients in state education agencies, school districts, schools, foundations, and federal agencies.

GW-CEEE The George Washington University Center for Equity & Excellence in Education www.ceee.gwu.edu 800.925.3223

Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the many individuals in the Alexandria City Public Schools who provided information and insights for the evaluation. Dr. Bethany Nickerson, Director of ELL Programs and Dr. Gwen Carol Holmes, Chief Academic Officer of Curriculum and Instruction, who coordinated the project. Drs. Nickerson and Holmes, Ms. Danielle Wierzbicki, and Ms. Viki Sosa-Kirkpatrick, ELL instructional specialists, shared information and insights. The ELL Office staff, including Ms. Augusta Barbato, Rachel Ersoz, and Dina Carroll, provided documentation and key data. Mr. George Massie under the direction of Marya Runkle of Education and Business Systems Support, and in coordination with Dr. Amy Yamashiro and her staff at the Department of Accountability helped compile student outcome data from across a range of sources. Ms. Margaret Lorber, the division-wide bilingual parent liaison, was a key provider of information and helped facilitate the parents’ focus group. In addition, 15 staff including Rosario Casiano, Keisha Boggan, Mark Eisenhower, Monte Dawson, John Brown, Christine Richardson, Katherine Harman, Erin Joy, James Waddell , Madye Henson, and Francis Chase participated in a one-day needs assessment to provide insights that helped shape the evaluation. Many of them also participated in follow-up interviews. We appreciate the division and school administrators, teachers and students, as well as members of the ELL Leadership Team, and the school and division administrative staff who helped facilitate the data collection process. Also, we are grateful to Ron Ferguson of Cambridge Education for his collaboration in preparing customized analyses of the Tripod student data.

Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 5 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 2 Limitations of This Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 3 National, State and Division Context.............................................................................................. 3 Current Design of ACPS ELL programs ........................................................................................ 4 Findings for Student Outcomes ...................................................................................................... 7 Mathematics achievement ......................................................................................................... 12 Reading/Language Arts Achievement ...................................................................................... 14 Findings for the PEAS Dimensions of Best Practice .................................................................... 17 Leadership ................................................................................................................................. 18 Qualified Personnel ................................................................................................................... 19 Professional Development ........................................................................................................ 20 Curriculum and Instruction ....................................................................................................... 22 Assessment and Accountability ................................................................................................ 26 Parent and Community Outreach .............................................................................................. 27 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 29 Leadership. ................................................................................................................................ 29 Qualified personnel. .................................................................................................................. 29 Professional development. ........................................................................................................ 30 Curriculum and instruction. ...................................................................................................... 31 Assessment and accountability. ................................................................................................ 35 Parent and community outreach................................................................................................ 36 Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 39 Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 40 Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 41 Document Reviews ................................................................................................................... 41 Tripod Student Survey .............................................................................................................. 41 Teacher Surveys ........................................................................................................................ 42 Administrator Surveys .............................................................................................................. 42 School Visits ............................................................................................................................. 43 Parent Focus Group................................................................................................................... 43 Interviews with ELL Director and Central Office Staff ........................................................... 43 Appendix C ................................................................................................................................... 45

Tables Table 1. Elementary cohort: Crosstab of ACCESS for ELLs® proficiency level in 2009-10 by 2010-11 proficiency level ................................................................................................ 9 Table 2.Elementary cohort: Percent of students who regressed, showed no changed, or progressed ........................................................................................................................ 9 Table 3. Middle school cohort: Crosstab of ACCESS for ELLs® proficiency level in 2009-10 by 2010-11 proficiency level .............................................................................................. 10 Table 4. Middle school cohort: Percent of students who regressed, showed no changed, or progressed ...................................................................................................................... 10 Table 5. High school cohort: Crosstab of ACCESS for ELLs® proficiency level in 2009-10 by 2010-11 proficiency level .............................................................................................. 11 Table 6. Middle school cohort: Percent of students who regressed, showed no changed, or progressed ...................................................................................................................... 11 Figures Figure 1. Percent of ACPS ELLs and all students proficient on Mathematics SOL (Crosssectional analysis)......................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2. Elementary cohort pass rates on the math SOL (longitudinal analysis) ........................ 13 Figure 3. Middle school cohort pass rates on the math SOL (longitudinal analysis) ................... 13 Figure 4. High school cohort pass rates on the mathematics end-of-course assessments ............ 14 Figure 5. Percent of ACPS ELLs and all students proficient on Reading SOL (Cross-sectional analysis) ........................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 6. Elementary school cohort pass rates on the Reading/ELA SOL ................................... 15 Figure 7. Middle school cohort pass rates on the Reading/ELA SOL .......................................... 16 Figure 8. High school cohort pass rates on the Reading/ELA SOL ............................................. 16

Evaluation of English Language Learner Programs in Alexandria City Public Schools

Background During the 2010-2011 school year, the English Language Learner (ELL) Office of the Alexandria City Public Schools (ACPS) developed New Directions: The ACPS Plan to Serve Our English Language Learners, a report on the current status of the division’s ELL programs and recommendations for improvement. In response to this report, ACPS superintendent Dr. Morton Sherman and the school board requested a systematic program evaluation to be carried out by an objective third party to verify the need for recommended reforms and to support decisions about resource allocation. The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education (GW-CEEE) conducted the requested evaluation to examine the extent to which the division is meeting its goals for ELLs, as well as to assess the quality of its programs and services for this population. This evaluation was carried out using GW-CEEE’s Promoting Excellence Appraisal System (PEAS), a research-based framework regarding effective programs for ELLs. PEAS is designed to provide school divisions with information from which to make sound decisions about improvements most likely to improve learning and teaching for ELLs. During the fall of 2011, the GW-CEEE evaluation team collected and analyzed a variety of data across multiple stakeholder groups. In collaboration with the ACPS Department of Accountability, the team examined ELL student outcome data to determine whether these students were making expected progress and closing achievement gaps with their native Englishspeaking peers. In addition, the evaluation team reviewed division documents, made school site visits, examined Tripod student survey responses, and conducted surveys and interviews of division and school administrators, general education teachers, ELL teachers, and parents. Promoting Excellence Appraisal System Federal policy recognizes the obligation of states and local education agencies to take “appropriate action” to help ELLs overcome language barriers to ensure equal educational opportunity (Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974). The Office of Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education also utilizes a three-part test, derived from a seminal Supreme Court decision, for evaluating the quality of programs designed for ELLs: (1) The program is informed by a sound educational theory; (2) the program must be “implemented effectively,” with adequate resources and personnel; and (3) the program must be evaluated as effective in overcoming language barriers (Castañeda v. Pickard, 1981). Research suggests that effective programs for ELLs are those that provide a cohesive and sustained system of support that helps eliminate gaps in achievement (Thomas & Collier, 2009). Because these students typically perform behind their English-speaking counterparts when they enter school in the U.S., ELLs must make more than one year’s progress each and every school year in order to catch up to grade-level benchmarks. Research indicates that ELLs who are provided effective support take at least five to seven years to attain grade level achievement as measured by standardized tests in English (Collier, 1989; Garcia, 2000). However, ELLs who are enrolled in ineffective programs are expected to take much longer to attain grade-level benchmarks; in fact, many of them fall farther behind their English speaking peers as they proceed from grade to grade. These students are among those most at risk of not completing high school. From a civil rights perspective, it is imperative for school districts to provide effective The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education l http://ceee.gwu.edu

1


support throughout ELLs’ schooling, and to have in place an effective means of monitoring student outcomes to ensure programs are meeting their goals for ELLs. GW-CEEE developed the Promoting Excellence Appraisal System (PEAS) based on nearly two decades of research on best practices for ELLs in K–12 public schools. PEAS emerged as an outgrowth of Promoting Excellence: Guiding Principles for Educating English Language Learners (2009), a national initiative begun in 1998 to provide educators with comprehensive, research-based, guidance on issues critical to providing an optimal learning environment for ELLs. The Guiding Principles suggest that an effective program of support for ELLs is characterized as one that is enriched, academically challenging, long-term, and integrated with programs for native English speakers. The Promoting Excellence Appraisal System (PEAS) is comprised of a set of observable standards of practice that can be used to examine the extent to which the Guiding Principles are in place and provide guidance to school divisions to ensure they are implementing a sound and equitable educational program for ELLs. PEAS is designed to provide school divisions with the information they need to make decisions about improvements most likely to promote student learning. PEAS examines seven dimensions and corresponding sets of standards; these include  leadership,  qualified personnel,  professional development,  instructional program design,  instructional program implementation,  assessment and accountability, and  parent and community outreach. The PEAS Needs Assessment Tool (Appendix C) lists constructs and standards of practice for each of the seven dimensions. These standards guided the evaluation. Methodology GW-CEEE examined both longitudinal student outcome data and data on programs and practices to assess the extent to which effective systems are in place in ACPS to support the needs of ELLs. Analyses of longitudinal student outcomes examined the extent to which ELLs in the district were meeting district goals for English language development and closing gaps in academic achievement. Student outcome data were collected through the district’s Assessment and Accountability Department as well as the Virginia state report card. ELL students’ language growth was measured through the WIDA ACCESS for ELLs ®. Math and reading achievement were measured through the change in pass rates on the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOLs) for three cohorts of students. Additional details about the methodology for the analysis of student outcomes may be found in Appendix A. The evaluation team also examined the seven PEAS dimensions of practice to assess the extent to which ACPS programs and services are consistent with best practices for ELLs. Methods for collecting practice data included school visits to six ACPS schools, including one high school, The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education l http://ceee.gwu.edu

2


three middle schools, and two elementary schools. During each day-long visit, GW-CEEE researchers conducted 36 classroom observations and 12 focus group interviews with administrators, ELL teachers, and general education teachers who serve ELLs. GW-CEEE staff also conducted a focus group for 18 parents of ELLs enrolled in ACPS. In addition, GW-CEEE administered two online surveys, one to 806 general education and 95 ELL teachers, and one to 24 school administrators from 19 schools. Cambridge Education also collaborated to conduct customized analyses of Tripod student data to address parts of this evaluation. Formative data were also collected through document and website reviews. These data were compiled and analyzed to assess the extent to which each of the PEAS standards of practice were in place. Sampling and response rates for each instrument are detailed in Appendix B. Additional technical details regarding data collection and analysis and copies of instruments are available upon request. Limitations of This Evaluation This evaluation examines strengths and areas in need of improvement in ACPS’ services for ELLs in relation to the PEAS standards of practice. It is not designed to measure the effects of the current program. Such a study would require a rigorous experimental or quasi-experimental design that was beyond the scope of the current project. This evaluation describes student achievement measures and the extent to which current division instructional practices and structures of support align with research-based indicators described in the PEAS. However, many other factors, such as poverty; immigration status; race and ethnicity; student rates of mobility, school absences and suspensions; and other unknown variables, can also affect outcomes. Findings of the evaluation may be used to make decisions about the need for programmatic reforms that would be likely to improve teaching and learning. However, drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of individual personnel, division offices or schools based on these findings would not be appropriate. National, State and Division Context Currently, research indicates continuing achievement gaps for ELLs across the nation. Recent results from the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show that  In 4th-grade reading, 70 percent of ELLs scored below basic and 7 percent performed at or above proficient.  In 8th-grade reading, 71 percent of ELLs scored below basic and only 3 percent performed at or above proficient.  In 4th-grade math, 42 percent of ELLs scored below basic while 14 percent performed at or above proficient.  In 8th grade, 72 percent of ELLs scored below basic and 5 percent performed at or above proficient.  ELLs’ performance for each of these measures represents negligible or no change since 2009 (Maxwell, 2011). ELLs’ achievement on state content assessments also shows considerable gaps in relation both to English-speaking students and to state and local benchmarks. As yearly benchmarks rise over

The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education l http://ceee.gwu.edu

3


time, more states and districts are failing to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for their ELL subgroup. Alexandria’s student population represents a rich diversity of racial, ethnic, and socio-economic groups, including ELLs. The total number of ACPS students enrolled as of September 2010, consists of 34% Black, 31% Hispanic, 25% White, and 5% Asian. Among these students, 75 different native languages are spoken, representing a diverse body of ELLs. Alexandria’s growing diversity reflects national trends across the United States. From 1998-99 to 2008-09, the ELL population grew by 51%, compared to a 7.2% growth rate for all students (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition [NCELA], 2010). Growth rates in Virginia far surpass national rates. The percentage of ELLs in Virginia public schools grew 261% compared to a 10.8% overall student growth rate (NCELA, 2010). At the division level, Alexandria has witnessed a similarly rapid increase in its ELL population. The number of ELLs in ACPS has nearly doubled within the past six years, from 1,484 ELLs enrolled during the 2005-06 school year to 2,718 ELLs enrolled in 2010-11. This number includes those students currently receiving ELL services as well as those who have opted out of ELL services or are in monitoring status. ELLs currently make up 24% of the ACPS student body, which means every school and most classrooms enroll at least some ELLs and/or former ELLs. For the past three years, ACPS has not made AYP for students in the limited English proficient (LEP) subgroup. In addition, in 2010-11 only 56% of ELLs in ACPS met the Federal graduation indicator (FGI) for “on-time graduation,” which measures the number of students who graduate within four years of enrollment in high school. Current Design of ACPS ELL programs The current ELL program in ACPS serves ELLs at all 19 of its schools, including 12 elementary schools, 1 preK-8 school, 5 middle schools, and 1 high school with 2 campuses. In general, ELLs’ language proficiency level as measured by the WIDA ACCESS test determines the amount of time and support they receive from ELL teachers. The ELL population varies substantially in size and demographics across schools. The types of programs and services available to ELLs also vary across grade spans and schools. Typically, elementary schools provide a combination of push-in support, co-teaching, and ESL pull-out. ELLs in Grades 8–9 may receive instruction in co-taught and/or sheltered classrooms, depending on their English language proficiency levels. T.C. Williams currently implements a new International Academy for ELLs at levels 1 through 3, while students at higher ELP levels are served in inclusive classrooms. These programs are described in more detail in the Findings section under the Instructional Program Design dimension. Division documentation regarding the ELL instructional program articulates goals to support both grade-level state standards of learning and the five WIDA English language proficiency standards that emphasize the academic language in the content areas. According to the website description of the ELL program, “instruction is adapted to students’ English proficiency levels to assist students in meeting the same state academic content and achievement standards as all


4


students are expected to meet.” As of the current school year, the written guidance available for implementation of ELL instructional programs is addressed through Guidance Models, which are available on the ACPS ELL website. These documents, originally developed in 2008 and most recently updated in 2009-2010, provide guidelines for allocating the amount of ELL service delivery time depending on students’ ELP levels, with students at beginning ELP levels receiving more ELL instructional time than those with higher ELP levels. Elementary Level At the elementary level, ELL teachers serve students either through push-in support or pull-out support, providing instruction through a balanced literacy framework. ACPS provides two Guidance Models for elementary schools, one for “pull-out” instruction and the other for “inclusionary” instruction. According to the ELL Office, these two models were developed to provide schools flexibility in scheduling ELL staff, given that ELL teachers at some schools serve students across multiple grade levels, whereas at other schools ELL teachers work closely with one or two grade levels. In both models, the ELL teacher provides between 36 and 72 minutes of daily instruction, depending on the students’ ELP and grade levels, with students at lower ELP levels generally receiving more time than students with higher ELP levels. For both pull-out and inclusionary delivery models, ACPS recommends that ELL teachers provide daily support for ELLs at all ELP levels through a balanced literacy approach that includes instruction in oral language, explicit vocabulary, authentic writing, guided reading, and read alouds. In addition, the Guidance Models for both pull-out and inclusionary models emphasize the integration of all four language domains in instruction. Neither the pull-out nor the inclusionary guidance model provides guidance for placing ELLs in academic content instruction, other than stating that students will receive at least part of language arts instruction with an ELL teacher. However, according to the ELL Office, all elementary ELLs are placed into general education classrooms. The two elementary Guidance Models differ in their emphasis on collaboration. The document for the pull-out model refers to the ESL/ELL teacher and the grade level teacher as “collaborating teachers,” while the inclusionary model document provides a more detailed description of six “ACPS Collaborative Strategies” that were created with assistance from Dr. Virginia Rojas, ASCD Language Education Consultant. These include complementary teaching, alternative teaching, parallel teaching, station teaching, peer teaching, and support teaching. Whereas the pull-out Guidance Model designates particular instructional components (e.g., read aloud, guided reading, interactive writing) of the balanced literacy framework to be used by ELL and grade level teachers, the inclusionary Guidance Model indicates that the ESL/ELL teacher and the grade level teacher collaborate to provide instruction in all the components using one or more of the six ACPS Collaborative Strategies. The inclusionary Guidance Model also suggests that collaborating teachers can use the SIOP model “to frame instructional planning and delivery in a co-teaching environment,” in which the ESL/ELL teacher focuses on “English language proficiency objectives connected to the grade level teacher’s instruction on content skill and knowledge objectives.” Middle Level Middle school ELL teachers serve students through sheltered content instruction, push-in or coteaching of academic content classes. ELL placement procedures take into account students’ The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education l http://ceee.gwu.edu

5


English language proficiency levels, as measured by the WIDA ACCESS for ELLs ® or WAPT. The Guidance Model for Grades 6-12 recommends that ELLs, depending on the ELP levels, receive at least some instruction through sheltered courses. Sheltered instruction is defined as “differentiation to meet ELL student needs whether in an inclusionary or pull-out setting … for one or more of the following: materials, task, learning strategy, or grouping configuration.” The guidance provides for ELLs at ELP levels 1 and 2 to receive two ELL-only sheltered courses, whereas ELLs at ELP levels 3-5 receive one ELL-only sheltered course. A review of division documentation and interviews indicated that beginning level ELLs typically receive English language arts instruction from an ELL teacher using sheltered instructional techniques. Students at higher ELP levels are integrated into academic content classes. ELL teachers are typically scheduled to push-in or co-teach classes in which a significant number of ELLs are concentrated. The Guidance Model specifies that ELLs at ELP levels 1-5 should receive “no less than 45 minutes per day (or the equivalent) of direct instruction from an ESL endorsed teacher whether in an inclusionary or pull-out setting,” ensuring that all ELLs receive time with a teacher who has expertise in English language development. The Guidance Model for grades 6-12 is less detailed than those for the elementary level. While the Guidance Model specifies the number of sheltered classes ELLs at each ELP level were to receive, it does not specify the content areas to be provided. According to the ELL Office, guidance for math placement is given to schools on individual ELLs based on math screener tests ELLs take at enrollment or during fifth grade. ELLs are taught to the content standards for English language arts, but no dedicated English as a second language instruction is provided. High School Level In the past, instruction for ELLs at the high school level followed the grades 6–12 Guidance Model. Beginning in the current (2011-12) school year, T.C. Williams instituted a new International Academy to serve ELLs primarily at ELP levels 1-3. The ELL plan states that the aim of the International Academy is to provide intensive support to address ELLs’ linguistic, academic, and sociocultural needs. The design of the International Academy differs from that of the previous program by strategically placing a dedicated team of teachers with ELLs in sheltered courses, and locating sheltered classrooms in close proximity to one another to encourage collaboration among teachers. In addition, the International Academy employs a guidance counselor and social worker dedicated to the needs of ELLs. As part of the International Academy, ELLs at ELP levels 1–3 receive academic instruction in self-contained sheltered courses in language arts, biology, social studies, and math. Sheltered classes are either co-taught by an ELL and content teacher, or taught by a single dually-certified teacher. Of these sheltered courses, some are designed for ELLs at ELP level 1 and count as electives rather than graduation credits. Because the strand of sheltered courses for ELLs at ELP level 1 presented a barrier to graduation, the ELL Office reported that the high school is eliminating these elective strand sheltered courses and offering English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classes for beginning level ELLs. The EAP classes are matched to SOL-bearing classes with the aim of providing instruction for ELLs in the academic language and background knowledge they need in order to succeed in the core content areas and to earn credits toward graduation. T.C. Williams also offers a literacy intervention class and a math intervention class


6


for students with interrupted formal schooling. High school ELLs at levels 4 and 5 take general education classes in the regular program at T.C. Williams and receive support from an ELL teacher through a co-taught class in one content area. Findings for Student Outcomes This section examines student outcomes to determine what progress ELLs were making in developing English and attaining proficiency on Virginia Standards of Learning assessments in mathematics and reading. English language learners by definition have not yet mastered sufficient English to be able to fully access instruction in English or to demonstrate their knowledge and skills on tests given in English. An effective language support program must demonstrate that ELLs are making progress over time in both English language proficiency and academic achievement. As stated in the introduction, ELLs typically begin their schooling with very little English and a substantial gap in achievement (a national average of two standard deviations below grade level) on statewide tests of math and reading. Research indicates that effective programs produce achievement gap closure by supporting ELLs to develop full proficiency in English as well as grade-level proficiency on state content assessments within five to six years of entry into the school division (Collier and Thomas, 2009). Thus, it is important to track ELLs’ achievement over time. A detailed description of the method used to analyze student outcomes and the limitations of these analyses is available in Appendix A. This section reports two findings for English language development, mathematics achievement, and reading achievement. LEP students at intermediate and advanced English proficiency levels and middle school students at all levels are not making enough progress in English language development. To assess ELLs’ development of English language proficiency, ACCESS for ELLs® composite scores were examined for school years 2009-10 and 2010-11. It was not possible to examine growth on this measure for more than two years due to the adoption of a state assessment. Tables 1-6 show analyses for each cohort of LEP students’ English language development from 2009-10 to 2010-11. Tables 1, 3, and 5 show cross-tabulations of students’ proficiency levels in 2009-10 (first column) by 2010-11 proficiency level (horizontal labels). Tables 2, 4, and 6 show the numbers of students at each level who regressed, showed no change, or progressed. Students at Levels 1 – 5 are considered limited English proficient (LEP). For purposes of these analyses, students who attained full proficiency in English and were no longer tested on the ACCESS were thereafter coded as “Exited.” This category includes students in Monitoring Year 1 (6-2), Monitoring Year 2 (6-2) and exited (T). Each cell represents the percentage of all students in the cohort. The last three columns show the percentage of LEP students who regressed, made no change, or progressed, and the total count. Results for the elementary cohort indicated that 62% of 131 students grew by at least one ACCESS level from 2009-10 to 2010-11. Thirty-five percent demonstrated no change, and 3%


7


regressed. A total of 29 students (22%) exited from LEP status. All students who began at Levels 1 and 2 made progress. However, 41% of students who were Level 3, 36% of students who were Level 4, and 56% of students who were level 5 did not make progress or regressed. For the middle school cohort, 38% of 126 students made progress, 14% regressed, and 48% made no change. Only five students (4%) exited from LEP status. The three students who began at level 1 in 2009-10 made progress. However, 26% of students who were Level 2, 65% of students who were Level 3, 71% of students who were Level 4, and 86% of students who were level 5 did not make progress or regressed. For the high school cohort, 73% of 95 students made progress, 5% regressed, and 22% showed no change. A total of 21 students (22%) exited from LEP status. However, 14% of students who were Level 1, 33% of students who were Level 2, 36% of students who were Level 3, 19% of students who were Level 4, and 44% of students who were level 5 did not make progress or regressed. (Note that these are outcomes for students who attended T.C. Williams High School before the implementation of the new International Academy.) Results of these analyses indicate that overall, a majority of elementary and high school LEP students made progress in English language development, but few middle school students did so. Moreover, at all grade spans, substantial numbers of students at the intermediate and advanced levels were not making progress. This issue is of particular concern at the middle school level, where nearly two-thirds of LEP students in levels 3 and 4 failed to advance, and over half of students at Level 5 fell back a level. The numbers of Levels 3 - 5 students who failed to make progress at the elementary level, and Levels 2 - 3 students at the high school level, were also of concern. These results suggest that intermediate and advanced students and most middle school students may not be receiving sufficient support to develop English language proficiency.


8


Table 1.Elementary cohort: Crosstab of ACCESS for ELLs® proficiency level in 2009-10 by 2010-11 proficiency level From /to Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Level 1 0.00% 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 0.00% Level 2 0.00% 0.00% 83.33% 5 16.67% 1 0.00% Level 3 0.00% 2.56% 1 38.46% 15 51.28% 20 2.56% 1 Level 4 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 35.94% 23 34.38% 22 Level 5 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 15.79% 3 42.11% 8 Grand Total 0.00% 0 2% 2 16% 21 37% 48 24% 31

Exited Percent Count 0.00% 0.00% 5.13% 2 29.69% 19 42.11% 8 22%

29

Total Count 3 6 39 64 19 131

Table 2.Elementary cohort: Percent of students who regressed, showed no changed, or progressed % % % From /to No change Regressed Progressed Level 1 Level 2 0.0% Level 3 2.6% Level 4 0.0% Level 5 15.8% Grand Total 3.1% Source: ACPS Office of Technology Services

0.0% 38.5% 35.9% 42.1% 35.1%

100.0% 100.0% 59.0% 64.1% 42.1% 61.8%


9


Table 3.Middle school cohort: Crosstab of ACCESS for ELLs® proficiency level in 2009-10 by 2010-11 proficiency level From /to Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Level 1 0.00% 2.38% 3 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Level 2 0.00% 4.76% 6 11.11% 14 2.38% 3 0.00% Level 3 0.00% 0.79% 1 21.43% 27 11.90% 15 0.00% Level 4 0.00% 0.00% 3.97% 5 15.87% 20 6.35% 8 Level 5 0.00% 0.00% 1.59% 2 7.94% 10 5.56% 7 Grand Total 0.00% 0 10 48 48 15

Exited Percent Count 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.59% 2 2.38% 3 5

Table 4.Middle school cohort: Percent of students who regressed, showed no changed, or progressed % % % From /to No change Regressed Progressed Level 1 100.0% Level 2 0.0% 26.1% 73.9% Level 3 2.3% 62.8% 34.9% Level 4 14.3% 57.1% 28.6% Level 5 54.5% 31.8% 13.6% Grand Total 14.3% 47.6% 38.1% Source: ACPS Office of Technology Services


10

Total Count 3 23 43 35 22 126


Table 5.High school cohort: Crosstab of ACCESS for ELLs® proficiency level in 2009-10 by 2010-11 proficiency level From /to Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Level 1 0.00% 2 7.14% 9 1.59% 2 0.79% 1 0.00% Level 2 0.00% 1 3.97% 5 6.35% 8 2.38% 3 0.00% Level 3 0.00% 0.79% 1 5.56% 7 7.94% 10 0.79% 1 Level 4 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.76% 6 11.11% 14 Level 5 0.00% 0.00% 0.79% 1 1.59% 2 0.79% 1 Grand Total 3.16% 3 12% 15 14% 18 17% 22 13% 16

Exited Percent 0.00% 0.79% 2.38% 9.52% 3.97% 17%

Table 6.Middle school cohort: Percent of students who regressed, showed no changed, or progressed % % % From /to No change Regressed Progressed Level 1 Level 2 5.6% Level 3 4.5% Level 4 0.0% Level 5 33.3% Grand Total 5.3% Source: ACPS Office of Technology Services

14.3% 27.8% 31.8% 18.8% 11.1% 22.1%

85.7% 66.7% 63.6% 81.3% 55.6% 72.6%


11

Count

Total Count

1 3 12 5 21

14 18 22 32 9 95


Mathematics achievement AYP benchmarks show achievement gaps for ELLs during the last three years. ELLs in ACPS fell short of adequate yearly progress benchmarks in mathematics during each of the last three years (2009 – 2011) as shown in Figure 1. Progress in closing achievement gaps in math varied by grade span. An elementary ELL cohort (Figure 2) increased from 73% proficient to 82% proficient on the mathematics SOLs during the three year period from 2009 - 2011, indicating that although they had not yet attained the state target of 85%, they were on track to close achievement gaps with native English-speaking peers within a total of five years, assuming pass rates continue to increase at the same rate. Data for a middle school cohort in Figure 3 showed both ELLs and non-ELLs began substantially below state benchmarks in Grades 6 and 7. Both groups increased their math achievement in Grade 8, but remained well below target pass rates. The pass rate for ELLs grew from 19.5% in Grade 6 to 59.6% in Grade 8. These students will need to make substantially accelerated progress in order to close the achievement gap before they complete high school. At the high school level, students take three end-of-course tests in mathematics: Grade 8 mathematics, algebra I, and geometry. ELLs in a high school cohort (Figure 4) showed achievement gaps on the 2008-09 Grade 8 math and the 2010-11 geometry tests, but surpassed 2009-10 targets in algebra.

Target

Figure 1. Percent of ACPS ELLs and all students proficient on Mathematics SOL (Cross-sectional analysis) Source: Virginia Department of Education 2011

The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education l http://ceee.gwu.edu 12


Figure 2. Elementary cohort pass rates on the math SOL (longitudinal analysis) Source: ACPS Office of Technology Services n = 224 ELLs and 442 non-ELLs enrolled in ACPS during all 3 years of this analysis

Figure 3. Middle school cohort pass rates on the math SOL (longitudinal analysis) Source: ACPS Office of Technology Services n = 118 ELLs and 131 non-ELLs enrolled in ACPS during all 3 years of this analysis


13


Figure 4. High school cohort pass rates on the mathematics end-of-course assessments Source: ACPS Office of Technology Services n = 137 ELLs and 235 non-ELLs enrolled in ACPS during all 3 years of this analysis

Reading/Language Arts Achievement AYP benchmarks show achievement gaps for ELLs during the last three years ELLs in ACPS fell short of adequate yearly progress benchmarks in reading during each of the last three years (2009 – 2011) (Figure 5). Three cohorts of ELLs made progress in closing achievement gaps in reading. The elementary ELL cohort (Figure 6) increased from 75% proficient to 81% proficient on the Reading SOLs during the three year period from 2009 – 2011, falling short of the state target of 86%. The pass rate for ELLs increased from Grade 3 to Grade 4, but decreased slightly in Grade 5. This cohort will need to accelerate its growth in order to close the achievement gap within the next two years. The middle school ELL cohort, Figure 7, increased its pass rate from 81% proficient in Grade 6 to 85% proficient in Grade 8, falling just short of the target pass rate for reading. The gap between ELLs and non-ELLs also increased slightly. If ELLs continue at the current rate of growth, they will be on a trajectory to close the achievement gap with their native English speaking peers within two more years. Two sets of test scores were available for the high school cohort, one on the 2008-09 Grade 8 reading SOL and a second on the 2010-11 End of Course reading test (Figure 8). The pass rate fell short of benchmarks for each test, but increased from 74% on the Grade 8 test to 84% on the End of Course test. The pass rate for ELLs on the latter test was just two percentage points behind non-ELLs, indicating this achievement gap was nearly closed for these students.


14


Target

Figure 5. Percent of ACPS ELLs and all students proficient on Reading SOL (Cross-sectional analysis) Source: Virginia Department of Education (2011)

Figure 6. Elementary school cohort pass rates on the Reading/ELA SOL N = 209 ELLs and 440 non-ELLs enrolled in ACPS during 3 years of study Source: ACPS Office of Technology Services


15


Figure 7. Middle school cohort pass rates on the Reading/ELA SOL N = 220 ELLs and 331 non-ELLs enrolled in ACPS during 3 years of study Source: ACPS Office of Technology Services

Figure 8. High school cohort pass rates on the Reading/ELA SOL N = 108 ELLs and 307 non-ELLs enrolled in ACPS during 3 years of study Source: ACPS Office of Technology Services


16


Findings for the PEAS Dimensions of Best Practice Findings statements are presented for each of the seven dimensions of PEAS. Full descriptions follow with an examination of evidence that best practices are in place for ELL education in ACPS. Because they are interrelated, findings for instructional program design and instructional program implementation are discussed together in a section entitled Curriculum and Instruction. Evidence was analyzed in relation to the dimensions, constructs and standards of practice that make up the PEAS (Appendix C). Data for these analyses were compiled across multiple sources and the range of data collection instruments described in the Methodology section. (1) Leadership  ACPS is committed to high expectations for all students, including ELLs, but does not have a focused and articulated plan of action for supporting ELLs to meet these expectations.  ACPS has multiple, and at times competing, division initiatives which do not adequately consider the needs of ELLs, nor are they adequately being sustained. (2) Qualified Personnel  ELLs are not adequately served by teachers with expertise to meet their needs. (3) Professional Development  ACPS does not have a coherent and sustained professional development program to prepare all teachers to serve ELLs. (4/5) Curriculum and Instruction (Instructional Program Design and Instructional Program Implementation Combined)  ACPS has provided little guidance for differentiating its new curriculum for ELLs.  ACPS’s approach to inclusive instruction does not ensure ELLs have access to gradelevel content instruction.  ACPS does not have a cohesive program for teaching English language development.  Some ELLs get placed into lower tracks.  Few systematic processes are in place to prevent disproportionate representation of ELLs in special education.  The International Academy at T.C. Williams shows promise for meeting the needs of secondary ELLs.  The dual language program at John Adams requires major reforms. (6) Assessment and Accountability  ACPS’ new student data system does not yet have the capacity to monitor ELL student progress over time.  ACPS’ does not have an adequate set of criteria for monitoring both academic and language instruction for ELLs. (7) Parent and Community Outreach.  ACPS has in place a basic system for outreach to the families of ELLs.  ACPS has constructive relationships with community organizations that work with immigrant youth and families.


17


Leadership Educating ELLs to high standards requires strong division leadership that prioritizes ELLs. This requires that the division vision, mission, and goals are inclusive of all students and specifically address ELL needs. Exemplary leadership practices create a sense of shared responsibility for ELLs. That is, improving the academic success of ELLs resides not just with the ELL program staff and teachers, but with all educators. To promote a sense of shared responsibility for ELLS, divisions should provide clear guidance to schools to support effective learning and teaching. Lastly, division programs and policies should foster a positive climate that values students’ and families’ cultural and linguistic diversity. Evidence of strong leadership and shared responsibility for ELLs should be apparent at the district, school, and classroom levels. This evaluation examined multiple sources of data to assess the degree to which there was evidence of division- and school-level leadership for educating ELLs to high standards. The evaluation team examined documents that articulated the division’s vision, mission, and goals for ELLs, along with division personnel’s understanding of the ELL program’s mission and goals. The team also examined the perspectives of educators and parents on the extent to which responsibility for educating ELLs was shared and focused across all offices, programs, and classrooms and the extent to which ELL personnel were included in decision making processes. Discussed below are the two main findings that emerged from collected data. Finding: ACPS is committed to high expectations for all students, including ELLs, but does not have a focused and articulated plan of action for supporting ELLs to meet these expectations. The division vision, mission, and goals outlined in the ACPS five-year strategic plan are inclusive of and set high expectations for all students, including ELLs. Every school has developed objectives for achieving AYP for each of its subgroups, including ELLs, in its education plan. However, the goals and objectives in both the division and school plans are relatively broad. The specific actions that need to be taken to attain school goals for ELLs were unclear from the documentation reviewed. The division has also invested attention and resources to examine inequities affecting ELLs and other subgroups. For example, in October 2011 the Accountability Office published a Disproportionality Report that revealed inequities in discipline, graduation and dropout rates for a range of student subgroups, including ELLs. In addition, the ELL director stated that a priority for ACPS this year is to “address disproportionality in all areas, including opportunity to learn, honors course enrollment, suspension rates, and identification for special education services.” The commissioning of the current evaluation and the ongoing discussion of ELLs at the division level also indicates a commitment to improving learning and teaching for ELLs. High expectations are evident in written guidance for ACPS instructional programs for ELLs. The evaluation team examined a variety of documentation including the Guidance Models for serving ELLs at the elementary and secondary levels as well as samples of the new ACPS curriculum and found that the division holds ELLs to the same grade-level standards as all other students across the academic subject areas.


18


While the commitment to high expectations for ELLs was clearly articulated, more than half of the 82 ELL teachers surveyed felt that the division and their school did not share an understanding of the best ways to work with ELLs. Further, during focus group interviews and responses to open-ended survey items, a substantial number of both ELL and general education teachers across grade spans expressed a lack of clarity regarding goals for ELLs and expectations for where to focus efforts to improve learning and teaching for their students. Finding: ACPS has multiple, and at times competing, division initiatives which do not adequately consider the needs of ELLs, nor are they adequately being sustained. ACPS has invested in a wide range of initiatives to improve learning and teaching, including Skillful Teacher and Skillful Leader, Research for Better Teaching, and Claims, Evidence, Impact, Judgment. The ELL Office reported that it had worked with providers to add an “ELL lens” to some of these initiatives. However, survey data indicated that a majority of ELL teachers at the elementary and middle school levels and nearly half at the high school level perceived division initiatives as failing to adequately address the needs of ELLs In regard to ELL-specific initiatives, the division has changed its approach to teaching content to ELLs during the last three years. At the secondary level, the division switched from the Structured Immersion Observational Protocol (SIOP) to Quality Teaching for English Learners (QTEL). At the elementary level, although ACPS continued to hold some workshops on SIOP, many schools appear to have moved away from this approach. Instead, the division has worked with a variety of providers including Virginia Rojas of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) as well as the Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) and Kagan Cooperative Learning to offer a range of professional development topics. ACPS has also recently initiated Success for All, a new comprehensive reading program, in three elementary schools. While each of these approaches is based on sound research, they differ significantly in goals and emphases. Data from interviews and surveys indicated that many administrators and teachers perceived the work of educating ELLs as unfocused and not sustained. Qualified Personnel Research on effective ELL programming highlights the importance of human capacity in developing and implementing educational programming that meets ELLs’ linguistic and academic needs. School divisions with this human capacity are able to recruit and retain highlyqualified general education and ELL teachers, counselors, principals, and support services personnel with the expertise to provide instruction and support services that address the academic, linguistic, and sociocultural needs of ELLs. This evaluation examined specific indicators to determine the degree to which ACPS ensured all educators of ELLs were well-prepared and qualified to teach these students. Data were examined to determine whether there was an adequate number of ELL teachers to serve the educational needs of ELLs. The evaluation team also examined information on ELL teacher hiring and retention, as well as certification and training requirements for ELL and general education teachers who serve ELLs. Finally, the evaluation examined the perceptions of district and building leaders on ACPS educators’ capacity to provide a high-quality education for ELLs.


19


These data led to one main finding that all ELLs are not served adequately by teachers with expertise to meet their needs. Finding: ELLs are not adequately served by teachers with expertise to meet their needs. The current staffing formula, as articulated in the ACPS Guidance Models for elementary and secondary levels, schedules ELLs with ELL teachers based on their English language proficiency (ELP) and grade levels. The ELL Office expressed concern that this formula has been interpreted too strictly, without flexibility to address the needs of the diverse population of ELLs. Elementary schools scheduled ELL teachers to provide either ESL pull-out and/or push-in support for at least part of the day, whereas secondary schools scheduled ELL teachers to provide self-contained sheltered content classes and/or to co-teach in inclusion classrooms. However, the amount of time ELLs were scheduled to be served by an ESL-certified teacher varied widely across schools. Some ELLs were spending a substantial part of their day with teachers who did not have expertise to serve them. Administrators across schools and grade spans reported concerns about inexperienced or unqualified staff, particularly in regard to content teachers’ ability to differentiate instruction or to help ELLs with the language needed to access instruction. This concern was seconded by both ELL and general education teachers, many of whom indicated on the survey that content teachers were not equipped to adapt lessons for ELLs. The ELL Office has developed plans to address many of these issues. A December 2011 status update on the ELL Plan proposed that rather than hiring more ELL teachers, the division would establish a goal for recruiting and retaining dually certified teachers, and for increasing the numbers of current teachers who attain an ESL endorsement added on to their state teaching certificate. In addition, the ELL Office proposed to concentrate ELL teachers in co-taught classrooms where they will serve students at English language proficiency levels 1 – 3, while preparing general education teachers to serve ELLs at more advanced proficiency levels. The ELL Office also reported that it is developing a plan to require all teachers of ELLs to obtain a division-wide professional certificate within the next three years. Given current budget constraints, this plan shows promise for ensuring more ELLs are served by teachers who are prepared to meet their needs. Professional Development Research-based best practices call for school division to provide opportunities for division staff and teachers to receive comprehensive professional development focused on planning and delivering instruction that is aligned to content standards, while addressing the needs of ELLs. To enable all general education and ELL teachers to work effectively with ELLs, professional development should address the process of second language development and methods for integrating language instruction into content. This section examines the kinds of ELL professional development provided to staff who work with ELLs and the perceptions of participants about the quality of this professional development. Opportunities for school-based professional development, including regular collaboration among teachers in planning instruction, were also examined.


20


Finding: ACPS does not have a coherent and sustained professional development program to prepare all teachers to serve ELLs. Many of the division’s professional learning opportunities about instructing ELLs are not coherent or sustained, and not all staff that works with ELLs is required to participate. For instance, one third of general education teachers and half of elementary principals who work with ELLs reported they had not participated in professional learning opportunities within the last two years. The division’s professional development also included shifting goals and instructional approaches that left many teachers confused about what they were expected to do. For example, after investing substantial resources in preparing teachers to implement the SIOP model beginning in 2007, the initiative was dropped in 2010-11 in favor of QTEL at the secondary level. In focus group interviews, administrators and teachers also expressed concern that teachers are being asked “to do too much” and are being “pulled in too many directions.” Currently, the division does not appear to provide enough time for staff to master the knowledge and skills supported by the kinds of professional learning offered, many of which are conducted simultaneously. In addition to the lack of focus, evidence suggested that professional learning opportunities are not always sustained and job-embedded. The ELL office employs three coaches to assist ELL teachers at elementary, middle and high school levels, but no ELL-related coaching is available for general education teachers who serve ELLs. Furthermore, coaching is provided on an “ondemand” basis, and no coherent plan existed to ensure that teachers have multiple opportunities to see new practices modeled and to receive feedback on their implementation of these new practices. Although the division has offered numerous learning opportunities related to making content accessible for ELLs, few opportunities existed for ELL teachers to improve their knowledge and skills of the content area they were teaching. A few general education teachers at the secondary level reported that some ELL teachers were not helpful in co-teaching situations because they did not understand the concepts taught in the class. The division also does not have a strong means to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of professional development for teachers of ELLs. Currently, participant evaluations are collected and reviewed after each professional development session. These evaluations are analyzed and used to make to make decisions about future professional development. For instance, based on negative evaluation responses from the QTEL training, the ELL Office reported that it is not planning to abandon this approach and instead investigate other professional development providers. In contrast, recent efforts by several schools to bring in Dr. Virginia Rojas from the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) appeared to be better received by participants. Although evaluations measure participants’ opinions of the professional development, they do not ensure that teachers have mastered new learning and that instructional changes are sustained over time. ACPS has taken steps to establish a coherent program of professional development for general education teachers who work with ELLs. The division recently established a partnership with George Mason University to prepare teachers to become dually certified in ESL and a subject


21


area or grade level. To date, an initial cohort of nine teachers and a second cohort of another nineteen teachers have enrolled in the program. In addition, according to a draft plan developed by the ELL Office, the division will develop an ACPS ELL certificate that will be required of all general education teachers who work with ELLs. This division certificate will focus on ELL, special education, second language acquisition, cultural competencies, and student engagement, and will include a set of standards so that teachers and administrators are held accountable for demonstrating the skills and knowledge needed to work with ELLs. At the time of this report, no plans have been made to ensure that all ELL teachers are provided with training in the content areas in which they support ELLs. In sum, the ELL Office has begun to implement a sound plan of action to strengthen its professional development offerings by developing a required division ELL certificate. However, the division has not yet developed a means to ensure that ELL teachers receive professional development in the content concepts. More work is also needed to ensure that the professional development plan is coordinated with other division initiatives, aligned with professional development standards for teachers of ELLs, meets the needs of participants, and sustained over time. Additionally, the division needs to establish a process to evaluate the impact of the professional development on teacher practice. Curriculum and Instruction Two dimensions in the PEAS rubric address curriculum and instruction: instructional design and instructional implementation. Because these dimensions are interrelated, findings regarding the standards of practice in both instructional design and instructional implementation are discussed below. The PEAS instructional design dimension consists of four constructs, including: alignment of design to research-based practices; ensuring access to grade-level content; providing language development curriculum and instruction; and guaranteeing that ELLs are equitably represented in all parts of the curriculum. The standards of practice for the instructional implementation dimension outline best practices for ensuring that the ELL program design is implemented as intended. The standards for instructional implementation address the following six constructs: fidelity of program implementation; collaboration among teachers; access to challenging academic content; language development; socially constructed learning; and classroom assessment. Although standards of practice for instructional implementation are measured separately from standards for instructional design, exemplary instructional implementation is dependent on an effective design that supports implementation. Data related to curriculum and instruction were collected through a review of division documents, interviews with the ELL Director and staff, surveys and interviews of teachers and administrators, and classroom observations. Findings are presented for areas most in need of improvement. Finding: ACPS provides little guidance for differentiating its new curriculum for ELLs. Little guidance exists on how to differentiate instruction for ELLs. The division has developed a document on differentiation strategies to accompany the curriculum, but the recommended


22


strategies are broad and do not address ways to make specific units or transfer tasks accessible to ELLs. In addition, this differentiation guide has not yet been introduced to teachers through systematic professional development. The curriculum requires all students to complete the same culminating assessments, referred to as “transfer tasks.” A review of a grade 5 social studies curriculum guide revealed that many of these tasks require complex written products that may act as barriers for ELLs to be able to demonstrate what they know and can do in regard to the content objectives. Finding: ACPS’s approach to inclusive instruction does not ensure ELLs have access to grade-level content instruction. The division made efforts to integrate ELLs into classrooms with their native English-speaking peers and to expose them to the same core curriculum as all other students. ACPS has implemented a co-teaching model as a means to support the division’s inclusive philosophy of education in which educators share responsibility for all students. In inclusion classrooms with ELLs, a general education teacher and an ELL teacher work together to provide instruction. Data indicated two interrelated issues in regard to the design and implementation of the inclusion approach for ELLs. First, evidence indicated that co-teachers did not always work effectively as a team in a joint relationship to meet the needs of students and to model collaborative relationships. Second, due to the limited number of qualified ELL teachers and ongoing issues of scheduling, providing direct support for ELLs in every content area was not been possible. Thus, most ELLs spend at least part of their day in classrooms for which little support is provided to address their needs. Data indicated that co-teachers often did not receive adequate time to co-plan or to reflect together about their practice. Although the ELL Office said it has worked with schools to address the need for common planning time, many teachers reported that this time was often usurped by other activities. In the schools reviewed for this evaluation, teachers and administrators reported that ELL teachers are included (as schedules allow) in grade-level meetings in which they could contribute to general planning. However, little or no time was provided for co-teachers to meet to plan lessons specific to the classes taught. Many ELL and general education co-teachers also reported in interviews and surveys that they were unclear about expectations for serving ELLs in an inclusion setting. ELL teachers who served as co-teachers in inclusion classrooms reported that it was often not possible to adequately plan lessons across multiple content areas and across multiple grade levels. This was particularly problematic at the middle school level, where some ELL co-teachers were required to prepare four or more different classes. These teachers noted that working across multiple content areas and grade levels made their work extremely challenging, and they were concerned that they were not able to best serve their ELL students when they were spread across so many different classes. Observations of some inclusion classrooms indicated that co-teaching does not consistently provide ELLs with the scaffolding to access the content standards. Although pockets of team teaching were observed, most co-taught classrooms did not involve both ELL and general education teacher taking the instructional lead. For example, evaluators observed several middle school ELL co-teachers moving among individual students to provide support, but there was


23


little evidence of co-planning or explicit instruction of the language related to the lesson objectives. An additional concern related to the inclusion model at ACPS is that there were not enough ELL teachers to co-teach every content area. Because of this staffing concern, many ELLs, particularly at elementary and middle school levels, were not receiving access to content instruction in the core content areas (i.e., ELA, math, science, social studies). Overall, these data suggest a general lack of systematic, targeted support for ELLs across the core content areas. Finding: ACPS does not have a cohesive program for teaching English language development. Evaluators found two issues of concern in regard to English language development. First, time allocations for support with an ELL teacher ESL are reduced as students increase in English language proficiency. When English language instruction is curtailed for intermediate level ELLs, these students might not develop sophisticated forms of academic language needed to succeed in school. Second, the focus of ESL classes focus primarily on content goals with only a secondary emphasis on language goals. At the elementary level, classroom observations indicated that ESL pull-out instruction was primarily focused on the state ELA standards and the division-wide ELA curriculum, not on WIDA standards or language objectives specific to the needs of ELLs. Furthermore, little explicit academic language instruction was observed other than the vocabulary and reading instruction that was provided to all students as part of the balanced literacy curriculum. In addition, ELL teachers reported that the allocated time was often reduced when students were released late from their grade-level classrooms. In some schools teachers said they lacked sufficient classroom space for ESL. At the middle school observations, instruction focused on content objectives rather than on the full range of academic language functions and discourses. All three of the middle schools visited reported that they had instituted intensive reading interventions for struggling readers, including ELLs. Teachers at one middle school said the school now has a reading support class specific to ELLs. However, it was not clear from the data the extent to which these classes address oral language, grammar, academic language discourses, or other explicit instruction to help ELLs develop the language of the content areas. In contrast to programs at the middle school level, the International Academy at T.C. Williams High School provided a formal program of courses that are intended to support English language development. There, ELLs at the beginning ELP levels can enroll in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classes, which are designed to provide instruction in the academic language of content classes. However, results of evaluators’ observations of a sample of EAP classes indicated a lack of emphasis on language objectives. Rather, there seemed to be a focus on preteaching content. There was no evidence that ELLs at ELP level 4 and above receive dedicated English language instruction tailored to their needs beyond what is integrated into sheltered content classes.


24


Finding: Some ELLs get placed into lower tracks. The evaluation team found no written guidance for referring English language learners for talented and gifted or to ensure ELLs have equitable access to honors and advanced classes, and few ELLs appeared to be enrolled in these classes. Evaluators observed that some middle school ELLs had been placed into classrooms together with special education and/or low-performing students. This practice effectively places ELLs on a lower “track,” in which they have less access to college preparatory courses and greater risk of dropping out. The ACPS Disproportionality Report also reports substantial gaps in high school completion rates for ELLs in comparison with white students, in addition to low numbers of ELLs who complete advanced diplomas. Finding: Few systematic processes are in place to prevent disproportionate representation of ELLs in special education. There was little guidance for appropriately referring ELLs for special education or to help distinguish between language barriers and special education needs. Neither did there appear to be a pre-referral process for ELLs. Evidence was mixed in regard to administrators’ and teachers’ perceptions of the special education referral process for ELLs in their schools. Whereas some staff reported that their school’s practice of identifying ELLs who have special education needs was adequate or exemplary, others indicated the practice needed improvement. Finding: The International Academy at T.C. Williams shows promise for meeting the needs of secondary ELLs. While it is still too early to determine the level of effectiveness of the new academy, administrators and teachers generally expressed enthusiasm for the program and were confident that it would support improvements in ELLs’ academic achievement. Finding: The dual language program at John Adams requires major reforms. Two ACPS schools, Mount Vernon and John Adams Elementary Schools, offer dual language programs that enroll both native Spanish-speakers (many of whom are ELLs) and native English speakers. Due to concerns about the progress of ELLs enrolled in dual language, GW-CEEE was asked to specifically examine the program at John Adams. A growing body of research supports the promise of dual language programs for ELLs. Welldesigned and well-implemented dual language programs throughout the U.S. have demonstrated high academic achievement in two languages, and the development of positive interrelations between ELLs and their English-speaking counterparts (August & Hakuta, 1997; Brisk, 2006; Cummins, 1999 Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Thomas & Collier, 2009) The division Website on dual language programs provides a link to the Two-Way Immersion Toolkit (Howard et al., 2005), which states goals of high achievement, bilingualism and biliteracy for both English speakers and Spanish speakers. The ELL Office reported that Mount Vernon Community School was in the process of reforming its dual language program and had enlisted the support of the Illinois Resource Center and the Center for Applied linguistics to provide professional development for its faculty. In contrast, the program at John Adams has received relatively little attention. The new principal reported that she had been hired to raise overall achievement at the school, which is in


25


improvement status, and that she was responsible for overseeing multiple reforms as part of the school improvement plan. She stated that with so many other initiatives underway, in particular the implementation of a new Success for All program, making the dual language program a priority was difficult. Dual language staff there reported they had received little recent professional development related to improving their instruction. The design of the John Adams program was not aligned with best practices for ELLs in two-way immersion. The program was designed primarily to meet the needs of native English-speaking children who are learning Spanish as an additional language. Few supports were provided to address the specific needs of ELLs, and there was a lack of coordination between the dual language program and ELL services. Some dual language teachers expressed the opinion that ELLs with high Spanish literacy belong in the program, but not those who have low Spanish literacy. In some cases, Spanish-speaking students were denied entry to the dual language program for scheduling reasons. In other cases, Spanish-speaking students were placed in the program at upper grade levels, even though they had not previously received instruction in Spanish and were not literate in their native language. Observations indicated that some of these students were unable to keep up with the pace of instruction. Overall, evaluators found the John Adams dual language program is deficient in relation to both its design and the implementation of research-based practices. Assessment and Accountability Effective assessment and accountability are integral to ensuring the quality of an ELL program. The PEAS dimension of assessment and accountability outlines three constructs that are necessary for division ELL programs. The division should have a clear and consistent system for identifying and placing ELLs appropriately that considers student backgrounds, including levels of English language proficiency, previous educational experiences, and cultural background. Additionally, assessments for measuring ELLs’ progress in language and content should be appropriate and valid for ELLs. Data on assessment results needs to be accessible to teachers and administrators so that they can be used to make instructional decisions. Exemplary division data systems include student background information and have the capacity to track ELLs’ progress over time from their enrollment in the division until they complete high school. Finally, divisions need a system for evaluation and continuous improvement of the ELL programs. This evaluation examined evidence to determine the extent to which ACPS has in place effective assessment and accountability systems for ELLs, as described by the three PEAS constructs described above. Data included responses from teachers and administrators on survey items, interview questions during focus groups, and a review of ACPS policies regarding ELL identification, placement, and assessment. The following section describes findings related to assessment and accountability. Finding: ACPS’ student data system does not yet have the capacity to monitor ELL student progress over time. Because ELLs may not be able to demonstrate what they know and can do on a test in English, monitoring their progress over time, from division enrollment until high school completion, is important. The majority of administrators from all grade spans reported that they regularly


26


examined ELL student assessment data to track their progress. However, the data available typically span only a year or two. ACPS is currently in the process of implementing new student information and reporting systems, but these systems are not yet fully operational. Neither is there yet a seamless system for accessing pre-existing longitudinal reports to assist educators in examining ELLs’ academic growth. Finding: ACPS’ does not have an adequate set of criteria for monitoring both academic and language instruction for ELLs. Although no written criteria for monitoring instruction for ELLs exists in ACPS, the ELL Office is currently working with the division leadership to develop this criteria and guidance. For example, the ELL Office had been working to develop a set of indicators and monitoring tools for schools. ELL staff collaborated with the Department of Special Education to create classroom walkthrough instruments for division administrators to use when observing and evaluating instruction for inclusion classrooms. However, this instrument was originally designed for inclusion classrooms with students with disabilities and ELL needs are only represented by an inserted indicator. Without an adequate set of criteria for monitoring both academic and language instruction for ELLs, holding school personnel accountable, implementing effective programs and services for ELLs is difficult. Parent and Community Outreach An effective ELL program leverages parents and communities as partners in the education of ELLs in appropriate, relevant, and culturally sensitive ways. Three constructs comprise the PEAS dimension of Parent and Community Outreach, including: communication with parents, parent involvement, and family and community partnerships. Effective ELL programs not only communicate information to parents in the native language, but they also provide opportunities for parents to be involved in their children’s education as well as resources that help them reinforce their children’s language and content learning. Also important are the division’s and schools’ efforts to partner with families and communities of ELLs to enrich the curriculum as well as to give voice to the diverse communities in the division. To assess the district’s programs for Parent and Community Outreach, the evaluation team conducted focus groups with 18 parents of ELLs who spoke Spanish, Amharic, or Arabic, the three most common languages among ACPS ELLs. Translators assisted in translating and administering a parent survey that was used to ignite a conversation about parent outreach in ACPS. As part of the parent interviews, respondents were asked about the district’s communications and outreach efforts to ELL parents, their level of involvement in the schools, and parents’ perceptions of the quality of education their children were receiving. In addition, questions about parent outreach were included in the district leader and principal surveys, and were also asked of staff in four schools that participated in school reviews. The following section represents findings from these data sources. Finding: ACPS has in place a basic system for outreach to the families of ELLs. The ELL Office employs a bilingual parent liaison who is dedicated to conducting outreach and education for the families of ELLs. The liaison has established a number of processes and structures to support parents, including translation and interpretation services, family education workshops, and orientation for parents who are new to ACPS. The division makes efforts


27


provide interpreters as needed for meetings and events, and also has headsets available for simultaneous translation into multiple languages. Most of the parents interviewed for this evaluation seemed satisfied with this service. In addition, the division employs a variety of external consultants to translate important documents and written communications to parents. However, ACPS does not meet all the needs of parents of ELLs, especially at the school levels. Parents reported that they did not generally receive information about their child’s academic progress (e.g., report cards and standardized test results) in a language or format they could understand. Most individual schools did not employ personnel responsible for conducting outreach with immigrant parents, nor did most schools have outreach plans specifically for this population. Thus, there was little means to ensure that communications between schools and parents was responsive to their linguistic and cultural needs. Finding: ACPS has constructive relationships with community organizations that work with immigrant youth and families. ACPS had developed partnerships with at least a dozen community organizations to provide training for parents. The division has established partnerships with two organizations in particular, The Campagna Center and Tenants and Workers United (TWU), to support improved student achievement. The Campagna Center organizes Building Better Futures, a program that provides tutoring and mentoring for ELLs at T.C. Williams High School to support their success in school and beyond. The Campagna Center also implements several other programs to support ACPS students, including Head Start, and before- and after-school childcare, and tutoring for elementary students. TWU holds an annual Parent's Institute as well as the College Prep for All Campaign to help improve achievement for ACPS students. In addition, in 2009 TWU signed a memorandum of understanding with ACPS with the aim of improving cultural competency of division staff, providing mutual support to design and implement Individualized Student Education Plans for secondary students, and fostering a “culture of parent and youth involvement.” The ELL Office reported that good progress had been made on the initiatives outlined in the MOU, including community walk-throughs, and the development of strategies to recruit more diverse staff, among other initiatives.


28


Recommendations Based on the findings, GW-CEEE is in agreement with the recommendations in New Directions: The ACPS Plan to Serve Our English Language Learners (henceforth referred to as the ACPS ELL plan) as well as the December 2011 update to the plan provided by the ELL Office. GW-CEEE’s recommendations resulting from the review follow and are organized into six sections in alignment with the PEAS dimensions: Leadership, Qualified Personnel, Professional Development, Curriculum and Instruction, Assessment and Accountability, and Parent and Community Outreach. (Curriculum and Instruction combines two PEAS dimensions: Instructional Program Design and Instructional Program Implementation.) Leadership Coordinate across ACPS departments and offices to ensure that division initiatives are focused and adequately consider the needs of ELLs. Coordinate across departments to prioritize a manageable number of division-wide initiatives that comprehensively address the needs of instructing ELLs. Research suggests that highperforming school districts focus on a limited number of goals and initiatives each year (California Comprehensive Center at WestEd, 2011). When designing programs, such as piloting the content curriculum and implementing division-wide professional development, division leadership should make efforts to involve ELL personnel from the onset to ensure that ELLs’ needs are integrated and not an afterthought. Provide written guidance to ensure all educators have a thorough understanding of the ELL programs. Develop a division-wide ELL Handbook that provides explicit guidance to all educators (Central Office, school administrators, counselors, general education, ELL, SPED and TAG teachers and instructional support personnel) about ACPS policies, programs and services for ELLs. The handbook should address the division’s educational approach for instructing ELLs, identification, assessment, placement, grading and retention, staffing and resources, transition from ELL services, monitoring, and program evaluation (U.S. Office of Civil Rights, 1999). This handbook, along with other division guidance related to the ELL program, might be made available online so that it is easily accessible and subject to additional updates. Qualified personnel Define the qualifications required of ELL and general education teachers who work with ELLs. Move forward with the proposed plan to require all general education teachers who work with ELLs to earn an ACPS certificate based on division-wide professional development that emphasizes the academic language of the core content (ELA, math , science, social studies). In addition, develop parallel requirements for ELL teachers to participate in professional development that builds their knowledge and skills of the content area. To succeed in school, ELLs need support from both general education and ELL teachers. Thus,


29


additional qualifications should not be considered a replacement for support from both ELL and general education teachers. Instead, these qualifications should enable ELL teachers to integrate content and general education teachers to integrate language more effectively in their instruction. Professional development Prepare all general education teachers who work with ELLs with the knowledge to provide instruction in the academic language of the content. Prepare all ELL teachers with the content knowledge that their ELLs learn in the general education. General education and ELL teachers come to the classroom with different sets of training and expertise. While the general education teacher is well-versed in the content area, the ELL teacher is knowledgeable about second language development and linguistic needs of ELLs. To provide effective instruction for ELLs that addresses both their academic content and language needs, general education and ELL teachers need to receive professional development and ongoing, jobembedded support in language and content concepts, respectively. Recommended professional development for each type of teacher is described below. General education teachers Design the ACPS ELL certificate to include professional development on second language acquisition, culturally relevant pedagogy, and the academic language of the specific content areas. Other topics related to ELLs and making content accessible may also be appropriate to add as well. Ensure that the professional development sequence for the certificate is tailored to meet the learning needs of teachers in different content areas. That is, secondary teachers from each of the four core content areas (i.e., ELA, math, social studies, and science) should receive in depth training on how to identify and to provide instruction on the academic language particular to their content area (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2008). ELL teachers Develop requirements for ELL teachers to demonstrate knowledge of the content area in which their students are learning. To ensure that the ELL teachers possess the knowledge unique to the required content in ACPS schools, provide professional development that addresses both the content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge necessary for particular courses. Like the professional development recommended for the general education teachers, differentiate professional development for ELL teachers depending on their needs. That is, secondary ELL teachers who co-teach in algebra classes need to learn algebraic concepts and general methods of teaching these concepts. Alternately, elementary ELL teachers who serve students in the primary grades need to learn about literacy and numeracy development in young children. Within the professional development plan for both ELL and general education teachers, provide opportunities for teachers to learn research-based concepts and practices, to apply their knowledge in the classroom, and to receive continuous feedback and support from coaches. In addition, establish structures, such as professional learning communities that focus on instructing ELLs, to encourage general education and ELL teachers to collaborate regularly and expand their learning (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2010). Seek external feedback on the professional development plan to ensure it is based on research and best practices for professional development of ELL and general education teachers who


30


work with ELLs. Prepare ESL and general education teachers to implement effectively the ACPS inclusion model for ELLs. To ensure effective implementation of the ACPS inclusion model, ELL and general education teachers need professional development that enables them to learn together and time collaborating to design instruction and assessment utilizing their unique areas of expertise (Dove & Honigsfeld, 2010). The division should train administrators about how to support and monitor effective co-teaching practices for ELLs in schools. Institute a system for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of professional development. Develop means to determine the extent to which professional development impacts teachers’ practice. Continue utilizing the participant evaluations, but add other tools to assess implementation of learning, such as classroom walk-through protocols, evidence of structures in place that sustain the learning (e.g., coaches and teacher leaders who support implementation and continuous improvement), and participant reflections on changes in their instruction over time. Make decisions about improvements, changes, or additions to the professional development based on these implementation data. Once the initiative is considered fully implemented, examine data to see if instructional changes might be associated with improved student learning. Guskey (2000) outlines one model that can be used to guide monitoring and evaluation of professional learning. The model is organized into five cumulative levels: (1) participant reactions, (2) participant learning, (3) organization support and change, (4) participant use of new knowledge and skills, and (5) student learning outcomes. Curriculum and instruction The largest number of findings relates to the PEAS dimensions of Instructional Program Design and Instructional Program Implementation. Because these two dimensions are inter-related, the recommendations for these two dimensions are presented together. This section is organized by PEAS constructs of (a) access to grade-level content, (b) equity, (c) language development, and (d) effective design. Access to grade-level content Differentiate the new division-wide content curriculum for ELLs at different ELP levels. Continue efforts to develop exemplars of differentiated transfer tasks and instruction that enable ELLs to meet the expectations of the curriculum. Hire a team of ELL and general education teachers with expertise in the content areas to draft this differentiation guidance. In addition, develop and/or identify accompanying curricular resources for teachers to use with students at different ELP levels. Once completed, conduct external reviews of the guidance by experts in content areas and ELL education to ensure it retains the same skill or knowledge objectives intended by the original transfer tasks, while enabling ELLs at various English proficiency levels to demonstrate their


31


understanding (Latina & Swedlow, 2003; Echevarria & Short, 2010). Pilot the ELL curricular guidance and resources with a group of volunteer teachers who can provide feedback for future revisions. When differentiated curriculum is finalized, train all ELL and general education teachers who work with ELLs, and establish a process for continuous review based on student outcomes and teacher feedback. Equity Ensure ELLs have equitable access to paths to career and college. Develop and implement written policies and practices to guarantee that ELLs have the same college and career opportunities as native English speaking students. Ensure that ELL status does not lead to student placement in classes designed for low performing students and student with disabilities. Research suggests that once students are placed in lower tracks, they are less likely to receive the same intellectual rigor as their peers and as a result, they leave high school unprepared for careers or college (Mehan, 2007). Continue the policy of open enrollment for honors and advanced placement courses, but provide teachers of these courses with training on how to differentiate instruction for ELLs and continue to provide academic supports, such as Advancement through Individual Determination (AVID). In addition, develop a process for identifying and advising ELLs who qualify for honors, TAG, and advanced coursework. Language development Provide explicit instruction for English language development (ELD). Ensure all ELLs receive explicit instruction in the academic English of the content areas they are expected to master. To do this, ACPS needs to develop an ELD curriculum that has a focus on academic language, prepare teachers to teach this curriculum, and create the organizational structures and resources that allow teachers to teach the curriculum effectively. Develop an ELD curriculum . Develop an ELD curriculum that is aligned to both the state English language proficiency (ELP) standards and state content standards in all four core academic areas (i.e., English language arts, math, science, social studies). The ELD curriculum should be intrinsically linked to ELLs’ content learning. Ensure that this curriculum provides instructional guidance (e.g., scope and sequence for learning, unit plans, formative assessments, suggested resources) that is tailored for ELLs at each ELP and grade level. At a minimum, the ELD curriculum should include the following elements:  Language objectives and targeted instruction for each language proficiency level as defined by ACCESS, as well as clear instructional guidance for ELL teachers to help students achieve these objectives.  Systematic explicit language teaching as well as communicative language activities in which students have an opportunity to use English in authentic ways  Instructional guidance to help ELLs develop English proficiency in all four language domains: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Formative


32


 

assessments that measure English language proficiency in all four language domains. Curricular links to the students’ content curriculum, with particular emphasis on the academic language necessary to achieve grade-level content expectations. Instructional resources necessary for implementing the ELD curriculum, including technology, books, and materials.

Coordinate between the Department of Curriculum and Instruction and the ELL Office to plan the development of the ELD curriculum. Ensure that ELL and general education teachers are involved, and, as needed, draw on external consultants with expertise in ELLs and the content area. Schedule dedicated time for ELD. Schedule ELLs at all proficiency levels so that they receive daily ELD instruction using the new curriculum. At the elementary levels, consider providing ELD instruction during the ELA block. At the middle school, consider emulating the high school English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses. At both the middle and high school levels, ensure that these EAP courses are focused on the academic language and background knowledge necessary to understand the grade appropriate content. These EAP courses would aim to enhance the learning of ELLs by providing explicit instruction about the language demands of the content. Given that ELLs at ELP levels 3-5 are not making enough progress, also consider providing ELD classes for ELLs at these levels. Recommended resource: California Department of Education. (2010). Improving education for English language learners: Research-based approaches. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education. Chapters 1 through 3 provide overviews of researchbased principles for English language development. Effective program design. Strengthen the co-teaching model for classrooms with ELLs. Develop and implement structures that ensure effective co-teaching for ELLs. Strategically schedule ELL and general education teachers for co-teaching and provide written guidance on effective co-teaching for ELLs. Pursue plans to prioritize scheduling of ELLs and ELL teachers to ensure that all ELLs receive the language and academic support they need through co-teaching. One practical way to ensure effective co-teaching at the elementary level is to cluster ELLs in one or two homerooms. These homerooms should be taught by grade level teachers interested in meeting the needs of ELLs and willing to collaborate with the ELL teachers. At the middle and high school levels, pair ELL teachers with content teachers and limit the number of content areas ELL teachers support. Ensure that secondary ELL teachers who co-teach are working in content areas in which they have expertise (Zacarian, 2011 ,p. 84). The co-teachers’ schedules should allow for weekly common planning time that is protected from other demands. Hold administrators accountable for providing and maintaining structures that support collaborative teaching (e.g., common planning time, space, resources, effective scheduling of co-taught classes, and professional development to support collaboration).


33


Provide written guidance and professional development for administrators, ELL and general education co-teachers regarding effective collaboration for ELLs. Ensure that inclusion classrooms with ELLs support the dual goals of making content accessible and teaching the language necessary to access the content. For collaborative teaching to be effective, the ELL teacher and the content teacher must regard one another as equal partners with shared responsibility for the success of all of the students in the classroom (Van Loenen and Haley, 1994; Zacarian, 2011). In particular, it is recommended that the division strengthen collaboration through the integration of four important elements. These are: instructional planning, collaborative teaching, assessment and monitoring, and reflection and adaptation (Friend & Cook, 2003). Recommended Resource: The Saint Paul Public Schools (SPSS) are nationally recognized for their collaborative approach to teaching ELLs. SPSS Elementary and Secondary ELL Guidelines specific to collaboration and clustering ELLs are available from http://ell.spps.org/StaffHandbook.html Continue to support the development of the International Academy at T.C. Williams. To ensure the International Academy is aligned with best practices in the field ACPS should move forward with its plan to partner with the Internationals Network for Public Schools (INPS). This organization promotes a sound program design that is geared to the needs of adolescent ELLs, and a demonstrated record of success in raising achievement and improving graduation rates and college attendance for this population. Recommended resource: Short, D.J. & Boyson, B.A. (2012). Helping newcomer students succeed in secondary schools and beyond. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. www.cal.org/help-newcomers-succeed. Reform the dual language program at John Adams so that it aligns with best practices for ELLs in two-way immersion. GW-CEEE supports the ELL Office’s plan to enhance dual language program models and expand into secondary schools. Nationwide, this program model has demonstrated some of the most promising outcomes, including full achievement gap elimination for ELLs (see Collier & Thomas, 2009). However, to attain this level of achievement, schools must adhere to a strong program design and commit the resources to implement the model with fidelity. Regarding the dual language program as implemented at John Adams, it is recommended that division leaders and the school staff meet with external experts to learn more about effective two-way immersion programs. If the program is to continue, it will need substantial reforms to meet the needs of ELLs. In particular, the division and school must ensure:  a shared understanding and commitment by the school principal and all staff regarding the goals of two-way immersion programs;  a curriculum that promotes the development of bilingualism, biliteracy, and crosscultural competencies for both groups of students;  professional development for teachers to implement strategies to meet these goals and to make academic content instruction accessible to both groups of students; The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education l http://ceee.gwu.edu

34


  

improved coordination and scheduling to ensure ELLs receive explicit instruction in English language development; revised eligibility guidelines to ensure students who enter the program after Grade 1 have the requisite literacy and academic proficiency in Spanish to benefit from the program; engagement of the parents of Spanish-speaking students as equal partners with English-speaking parents in supporting the goals of the program.

Recommended resource: Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., Christian, D., Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Rogers, D. (2007). Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. http://www.cal.org/twi/guidingprinciples.htm Assessment and accountability Continue efforts to improve the accessibility of the student data system. Collaborate with the Departments of Accountability and Technology Services to ensure that teachers, principals, and division administrators can easily examine student data at the individual, classroom, school and division levels. Integrate all ELL data, as available, including background characteristics (e.g., native language, time in U.S. schools, prior schooling, and literacy levels in both languages on entry to ACPS, WIDA scores) and formative and summative achievement data as part of a single system. Ensure that ELL performance can be tracked across time from enrollment in the division until high school completion. In addition, design and produce accessible longitudinal reports so that division and school personnel can examine (1) the achievement gap between ELL subgroups and native English speakers; and (2) ELLs’ progress over time. Scores on state content assessments, information on students’ course enrollment patterns and high school completion rates should be included. These data should be disaggregated for students who enter at lower, middle and upper grade levels as well as for students with interrupted formal schooling. Monitor instruction and learning in all classrooms that have ELLs. Train school administrators on the criteria to look for when monitoring classrooms with ELLs. To ensure that administrators can distinguish between effective practices for ELL inclusion and special education inclusion, current administrator walkthrough checklists as well as other monitoring instruments should be updated to include items that represent good instructional practices for ELLs. In addition, continue to develop and refine the School Expectations Rubric. Develop a system of continuous improvement for programs and services for ELLs. Consider maintaining the ELL leadership team established to participate in the current evaluation as a means of involving multiple stakeholder groups in a system of continuous improvement. The leadership team can use the PEAS Needs Assessment Rating Tool (Appendix C) annually to monitor the implementation of the ELL plan and the quality of division-wide programs and services for ELLs. Based on this annual needs assessment, the team can meet regularly to refine goals, prioritize a manageable number of reforms each year, and collect data to track implementation of the reforms and progress toward goals. As needed, collaborate with external


35


professional development providers and ELL experts to ensure the implementation of new initiatives is monitored and adequately supported and sustained. Conduct periodic internal and external evaluations of division-wide programs and services for ELLs. The ELL Office should periodically update its plan by integrating findings and recommendations from the annual needs assessment and the formal evaluations. Parent and community outreach Engage families of ELLs as active partners in the schools and in their children’s education. Pursue the recommendations from the ACPS ELL Office related to parent and community outreach. In addition, ensure all educators take an active role in engaging families as partners in the education of ELLs in appropriate and culturally responsive ways. To do this, require each school to develop and implement a culturally responsive family outreach plan to forge partnerships with ELL parents and their communities. Potential goals would include increasing the involvement of parents of ELLs in school decision-making bodies, supporting leadership development, and partnering with parents in culturally responsive ways. The outreach plan should also include strategies for creating a welcoming environment for culturally and linguistically diverse families (e.g., training front office staff, and affirming students’ cultural and linguistic heritages throughout classroom and school displays, newsletters, assemblies, and other school-wide communications). Continue to provide a guidance counselor and social worker dedicated to ELLs at the International Academy in T.C. Williams. As the budget permits, hire personnel to serve these roles at the elementary and middle school levels as well. Recommended resource: Waterman, R. and Harry, B. (2008). Building collaboration between schools and parents of English language learners: Transcending barriers, creating opportunities. Tempe, AZ: National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCREST). Available: nccrest.org/Briefs/PractitionerBrief_BuildingCollaboration.pdf


36


References August, D. & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Brisk, M.E. (2006). Bilingual Education: From compensatory to quality schooling. Second Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. California Department of Education. (2010). Improving education for English language learners: Research-based approaches. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education. Cambridge Education (2011, January). Cambridge education and the Tripod project – Background and capabilities. Author: Cambridge, England. Castañeda v. Pickard. (1981). (No. 648 F.2d 989 5th Circuit. Collier, V. P. (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 23(3). Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2009). Educating English learners for a transformed world (1st ed.). Albuquerque, NM: Dual Language Education of New Mexico/Fuente Press. Cummins, J. (1999). Alternative paradigms in bilingual education research: Does theory have a place? Educational Researcher, 28(7), 26-31. Dove, M. & Honigsfeld, A. (2010). ESL coteaching and collaboration: Opportunities to develop teacher leadership and enhance student learning. TESOL Journal, 1, 3-22. DuFour, R, DuFour, R. Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010) Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Echevarria, J. & Short, D. (2010). Programs and practices for effective sheltered content instruction. In Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education. Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33, 209-224. Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 U.S.C. § 170-1721 (1974). Fang, Z. & Schleppegrell, M.J. (2008). Reading in the secondary content areas: A languagebased pedagogy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2003). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Garcia, G. (2000). Lessons from research: What is the length of time it takes for limited English proficient students to acquire English and succeed in all-English classrooms? Issue Brief No. 5. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Guskey, T. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Howard, E.R., Sugarman, J., Perdomo, M., & Adger, C.T. (2005). Two-way immersion toolkit. Providence, RI: The Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University Education Alliance. Latina, K. & Swedlow, J. (Eds.). (2003). Claiming opportunities: A handbook for improving education for English language learners through comprehensive school reform. Providence, RI: Brown University. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2010). Virginia: Rate of LEP Growth. http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/20/Virginia_G_0708.pdf Peterson, P., & Lastra-Anadón, C. State Standards Rise in Reading, Fall in Math. http://educationnext.org/state-standards-rising-in-reading-but-not-in-math/ Kagan, S. and Kagan, M. (2009). Kagan Cooperative Learning (2nd ed.). San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing.


37


Saunders, W. & Goldenberg, C. (2010). Research to guide English language instruction. In Improving education for English language learners: Research-based approaches. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education. Short, D.J. & Boyson, B.A. (2012). Helping newcomer students succeed in secondary schools and beyond. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education (2009). Promoting excellence: Guiding principles (2nd ed.). Arlington, VA: The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education. Van Loenen, R. & Haley, P.K. (1994). Consultation and collaboration: English as a second language and regular classroom teachers working together. http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED372645.pdf Virginia Department of Education (2011). School, School Division and State Report Cards. https://p1pe.doe.virginia.gov/reportcard/ Zacarian, D. (2011). Transforming schools for English learners: A comprehensive framework for school leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.


38


Appendices Appendix A Student Outcome Data Method To examine student outcomes, GW-CEEE collaborated with staff from the Alexandria City Public Schools (ACPS) Offices of Accountability and Technology Services to compile and analyze data from the school division student information system. GW-CEEE provided a Microsoft Excel template to guide ACPS technology staff in pulling the data required for each evaluation question. For purposes of these analyses, data were examined for students who had been identified as limited English proficient (LEP) at any time during their enrollment in ACPS. The identified cohorts included current LEP students, monitored Year 1 and Year 2, and exited (former) LEP students. In other words, the longitudinal analyses followed the progress of English language learners (ELLs) over time, retrospectively, regardless of changes in LEP status. ACPS technology staff were asked to pull data for three cohorts of students (elementary, middle, and high school) to determine ELLs’ progress in English language proficiency as measured by the Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners (ACCESS for ELLs ®), published by World Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA), as well as academic achievement in mathematics and reading as measured by pass rates on the SOLs. For English language development, the evaluation examined progress as measured by the ACCESS for ELLs®. Prior to 2008-09, the state used the Stanford English Language Proficiency Test (SELP). The ACCESS for ELLs® was administered in Virginia beginning in the 2008-09 school year. Due to concerns about the quality of WIDA ACCESS data during the first year of test implementation, data for only two more recent years (2009-10 and 2010-11) were analyzed. For mathematics and reading, progress in pass rates on the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOLs) was examined for the following questions: (1) (2)

How large were achievement gaps between ELLs and non-ELLs in relation to state targets? What was the three-year growth in pass rates of ELLs and non-ELLs in relation to state targets?

Question 1 is a cross-sectional analysis, based on data from the ACPS report card comparing outcomes for all students and ELLs on mathematics and reading SOLs. Question 2 examined longitudinal student outcomes using data provided by the ACPS Office of Technology from the division’s student information system.


39


Limitations Cross-sectional analyses such as those required for determining adequate yearly progress provide little information about program effects for shifting populations such as ELLs. Longitudinal studies, while more useful than cross-sectional studies for purposes of program evaluation, are also subject to some limitations. First, it is not always possible to determine the causes of changes in student performance because the study design provides little or no control of nuisance variables (i.e., external factors such as shifts in poverty and unemployment rates, and changes in federal, state and local policies that may have affected student outcomes). Thus, while longitudinal studies provide a better indication of possible program effects, it is not possible to attribute causality. In addition, cohort studies are constrained by the effects of student mobility. That is, sample size tends to decrease in direct relation to the length of the study. It was not possible within the scope of this evaluation to know whether students who moved out of the cohort would have performed differently than those who remained. There is some concern that the Virginia Standards of Learning are set relatively low in relation to national and international standards. Peterson and Lastra-Anadón (2010) rated Virginia among the lowest quartile of states in regard to the rigor of standards in relation to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which they consider a gold standard of “world-class” rigor. For example, a much smaller percentage of students in Virginia (40% of fourth graders and 33% of eighth graders) scored proficient or above on the 2009 NAEP Reading test, compared with 88% who scored proficient above on the Reading SOLs. Because the ceiling is lower on the SOLs, the achievement gap for ELLs on this measure may be underestimated. And while 79% of ELLs passed the Virginia SOLs in Reading, only 12% of ELL fourth graders and 9% of ELL eighth graders in Virginia scored proficient or above on the NAEP Reading assessment (NCES, 2011). Thus, student outcomes for the SOLs should be considered a minimal, but not necessarily an ideal, level of achievement.


40


Appendix B Data Collection and Sampling Document Reviews GW-CEEE worked with the English Language Learner (ELL) Office, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, and the Department of Accountability to collect school division policies, plans, and other relevant documentation pertaining to the ELL program. Evaluators also carefully read and analyzed the April 2011 proposed ELL plan, New Directions. These documents were analyzed to measure the extent to which Alexandria City Public School’s (ACPS’) written documentation supported best practices as outlined in the Promoting Excellence Appraisal System (PEAS) rubric. Tripod Student Survey ACPS contracted with Cambridge Education to administer the Tripod student survey, with the aim of measuring student engagement as well as students' perceptions of the quality and rigor of instruction. The Tripod student survey was administered to ACPS high school students three times: spring 2010, spring 2011 and fall 2011. During each administration, data were collected for each teacher at least twice. Students may have completed the survey multiple times (for different teachers) during each survey administration. Within the Tripod, teaching effectiveness was measured through the “7C's,” which included the constructs Care, Control, Challenge, Clarify, Captivate, Confer, and Consolidate. Constructs for student engagement included Academic Goals and Behaviors, Academic Beliefs and Feelings, Social Goals and Behaviors, and Social Beliefs and Feelings. (See Cambridge Education, 2011, for definitions of these constructs.) Findings from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project indicate that student ratings of teaching quality using the 7 C’s predict value-added learning growth for both mathematics and English Language Arts. (Report available at www.MetProject.org.) The Tripod student survey is administered during a complete class period through an online computerized format. Students may switch as needed between English and Spanish versions of the survey. To support the ELL evaluation, Cambridge Education was asked to disaggregate the Tripod data by limited English proficient (LEP) status (LEP versus non-LEP), by English language proficiency (ELP) level, and by percentage of ELLs in the classroom. Cambridge Education reported an overall reliability of .7 to .8 for this instrument. Concerns were expressed by some ACPS teachers and students that ELLs at lower ELP levels might have had difficulty comprehending some of the Tripod survey questions. At the request of GW-CEEE, Cambridge Education ran Cronbach’s alpha calculations to test the student-level reliability of selected scales by ELP level. Results indicated that reliability ranged between .80 and .92. Reliability was somewhat lower for students at the lower ELP levels, but well within an acceptable level.


41


For purposes of this evaluation, results were identified that indicated strengths and areas in need of improvement in relation to PEAS constructs in two dimensions. Under the Leadership dimension, Tripod results were examined in relation to school climate. Under the Instructional Implementation dimension, the 7Cs were examined as an indicator of rigorous academic instruction. In addition, the Tripod student engagement constructs were examined in relation to student engagement, classroom environment, and meaning-based learning in the PEAS Instructional Implementation dimension. Results were examined to determine whether there were differences between ELLs and nonELLs; (b) whether there were differences in responses across ELP levels; and (c) whether there were differences between classrooms that enrolled differing proportions of ELLs and non-ELLs. Teacher Surveys An online survey was administered to a list of all ACPS teachers, with the aim of capturing the population of teachers who serve at least one ELL during the current school year. A total of 901 invitations were sent, including 806 general education teachers and 95 ELL teachers. Eleven respondents opted out of the survey, and 195 indicated they were not eligible to take the survey because they did not serve at least one ELL this school year. Another 192 teachers did not respond to the invitation. Of the 517 teachers who responded to the survey, 435 (84%) were general education teachers and 82 (16%) were ELL teachers, compared with 87% and 13% of the overall population of teachers. The overall response rate was 77%, comprised of a 76% response rate for general education teachers and an 86% response rate for ELL teachers. These figures indicate the sample was slightly under-weighted for general education teachers and somewhat over-weighted for ELL teachers. Assuming this were a random sample, the error rate at the 95% confidence level would be estimated at 2.3% overall, 2.6% for general education teachers, and 4.0% for ELL teachers. This would mean, for example, that if 63% of respondents agreed with a particular statement, one could be relatively confident that the actual percentage in the population ranged from 61 to 67%. However, given that teachers who did not respond to the survey may have differed in important ways from those who completed the survey, it is not possible to know the exact rate of error. The survey consisted of Likert-type items as well as two open-ended items. The survey is available to the division upon request. Administrator Surveys An online survey was administered to a list of all ACPS principals at schools with ELLs. A total of 24 invitations were sent, and 18 principals responded for a response rate of 75%. These principals included representation from all 13 division elementary schools (including JeffersonHouston, a K-8 school), all three Frances Hammond High Schools, and T.C. Williams High School at both the main campus and the Minnie Howard campus. No principal from the George Washington Middle Schools responded to the survey, so the administrative perspectives at these schools were not represented in these survey data.


42


Assuming this were a random sample, the error rate at the 95% confidence level would be estimated at 11.8% overall. This would mean, for example, that if 63% of respondents agreed with a particular statement, one could be relatively confident that the actual percentage in the population ranged from 51 to 75%. However, given that administrators who did not respond to the survey may have differed in important ways from those who completed the survey, it is not possible to know the exact rate of error. The survey consisted of Likert-type items as well as two open-ended items. The survey is available to the division upon request. School Visits GW-CEEE staff conducted full-day visits to four school sites. These schools include John Adams Elementary School, William Ramsay Elementary School, Frances Hammond Middle School (all three campuses), and T.C. Williams High School. During these visits, GW-CEEE staff collected interview and classroom observation data from principals, teachers, and students. Three focus group interviews were conducted at each school. These focus groups consisted of school administrators, ELL teachers, and general education teachers who serve ELLs. At the elementary level, 8 administrators participated, 15 ELL teachers participated, and 17 general education teachers who serve ELLs participated. At the middle school level, 3 administrators participated, 4 ELL teachers participated, and 3 general education teachers who serve ELLs participated. At the high school level, 5 administrators participated, 10 ELL teachers participated, and 8 general education teachers who serve ELLs participated. A total of 36 classrooms were observed. Of these observations, 17 were in the two elementary schools, 6 were in the middle school, and 12 were in the high school. Observations were conducted using GW-CEEE’s PEAS classroom observation protocol. This observation instrument is available to the division upon request. Parent Focus Group GW-CEEE collaborated closely with Margaret Lorber, the ACPS division-wide bilingual parent liaison, to identify and organize a sample of parents for a focus group interview. ACPS provided Spanish, Arabic, and Amharic translators for the parent interview, and arranged for transportation and refreshments during the focus group. Interviews with ELL Director and Central Office Staff Throughout the evaluation process, GW-CEEE periodically conducted telephone and face-toface interviews of the ELL director and division-level staff. Evaluators also interviewed staff in other division offices including the Department of Technology Services and the Department of Accountability. Table B-1 shows a list of data collection instruments and samples for each.


43


Table B-1. Instruments and sampling Collection Instrument Sample dates Administrator 11/2011 School principals Survey Teacher Survey

11/2011

ELL Director 8/2011interviews 1/2012

24

Number responded 18

Response rate 75%

ELL and general education teachers who serve ELLs ELL Director

901

711

79%

1

1

N/A

N

Document review

8/20111/2012

Specified documents requested from ELL Director and documents available online

N/A

N/A

N/A

Parent interview

11/2011

Parents from purposive sample of top 3 language groups who volunteered to participate

N/A

18

N/A

School reviews

9/201110/2011

John Adams William Ramsay Frances Hammond (all three schools) TC Williams

4

N/A

N/A


44


Appendix C PEAS Needs Assessment Tool


45

Promoting Excellence Appraisal System

Needs Assessment Rating Tool Instructions Step 1. Conduct an individual rating. 1. Review the constructs and standards for the assigned dimension(s) of best practice for ELLs (Leadership, Qualified Personnel, Professional Development, Instructional Program Design, Instructional Implementation, Assessment and Accountability, or Parent and Community Outreach). Rating Scale 0 = no or very little evidence that the standard is in place. 1 = emerging (evidence that very little is in place to support the standard). 2 = developing (i.e. evidence suggests the standard is partially in place, but more development is needed). 3 = exemplary, at a level commensurate with best practices in the field.

2. For each construct, in blue ink, circle standards that you think are strengths, and in red ink, circle standards that you think need improvement. 3. Use the NOTES column to comment on what you have observed to support your ratings. Step 2. Discuss your ratings with your group.   

Discuss areas of agreement or disagreement. What have you observed to support your rating? What additional information is needed to make a fair judgment?

Step 3. Prepare to share out. 1. On easel paper, make a T chart. List up to 3–5 strengths on the left side of the T. List up to 3–5 areas needing improvement on the right side of the T. (For each strength or need, please specify the standard code and add a short description in your own words.) On the bottom, make note of what else you would need to know in order to make a fair judgment about the ratings. 2. Share a summary of your ratings and your discussion with the whole group. +   

   

  

   

WHAT ELSE WE NEED TO KNOW  

Dimension 1: LEADERSHIP CONSTRUCT

STANDARDS LV1. LV2.

Vision, Mission and Goals

LV3. LV4.

LS1. LS2. Shared Responsibility

LS3.

LS4.

LC1. Climate

LC2.

The district’s overall vision, mission, and goals are inclusive of ELLs. The district’s ELL program has clearly articulated vision, mission, and goals that address the needs of ELLs for learning language, content, and culture. The district’s vision, mission, and goals for ELLs are effectively articulated to, and understood by, all district personnel. District and school leaders convey high expectations for ELLs to succeed academically, complete high school, and go on to college and satisfying careers. The district holds schools and educational personnel accountable for implementing ELL programs and policies as designed. District and school leaders include ELL personnel in decision-making processes. The district ensures that all educators (including central office, school leaders, general education teachers and ESL/bilingual teachers) have a thorough understanding of the ELL program. District leaders ensure the work of educating ELLs is focused, sustained, and coordinated across district offices and schools. The district programs and policies foster an inclusive environment for ELLs. District and school leaders create a positive climate in which the diverse languages and cultures of ELLs and their families are seen as resources to be developed rather than problems to be overcome.

RATING 0-1-2-3

NOTES

0 = Not in place

1 = Emerging

2 = Developing

3 = Exemplary

Dimension 2: QUALIFIED PERSONNEL CONSTRUCT

STANDARDS QE1. QE2. QE3.

Expert Teachers

QE4.

QE5.

QT1. Teacher Certification

QT2. QT3.

QS1. QS2. Program Staffing

QS3. QS4.

RATING 0-1-2-3

NOTES

The district assesses the need for qualified teachers of ELLs and develops plans to address these needs. The district recruits teachers with expertise in addressing the needs of ELLs. The district retains teachers who have expertise in addressing the academic, linguistic, and cultural needs of ELLs. Teachers who provide academic content instruction to ELLs have expertise in addressing the academic, linguistic, and cultural needs of ELLs. Teachers who provide language instruction to ELLs have expertise in supporting the language and background knowledge ELLs need to succeed in the content areas. English language development teachers hold and maintain certification in ESL. Bilingual/dual language teachers hold and maintain certification in bilingual education and in the content area(s) they teach. Content/grade-level teachers who serve ELLs hold and maintain certification in the content area(s)/grade level(s) they teach. Each school employs adequate staff to meet the requirements of the program design. The district employs a sufficient number of teachers in each school qualified to provide English language development for ELLs. The district employs a sufficient number of teachers in each school with the expertise to provide content instruction for ELLs. The district places its most effective teachers in schools and classrooms with the highest concentrations of ELLs.

The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education | http://ceee.gwu.edu

3

0 = Not in place

1 = Emerging

2 = Developing

3 = Exemplary

Dimension 3: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCT

STANDARDS PDB1. PDB2.

Building Educator Capacity PDB3.

PDQ1. PDQ2. PDQ3. Quality PDQ4. PDQ5.

RATING 0-1-2-3

NOTES

The district provides in-depth, research-based professional development that prepares educators to meet the needs of ELLs. The professional development for educators of ELLs addresses TESOL standards in the domains of • language, • culture, • planning, implementing, and managing instruction for ELLs, • formal and informal assessment, and • professionalism and collaboration. All educational personnel (administrators, counselors, general education teachers, and ELL teachers) in schools and classrooms that serve ELLs participate in the full range of professional development available on ELL issues. The district’s ELL professional development is sustained over time and job-embedded. The district’s ELL professional development is useful, and aligned to the needs of participants. High quality coaching is provided for teachers who teach academic content to ELLs. The district provides ongoing support for new teachers of ELLs through orientation, professional development, and mentoring. The district monitors and assesses the effectiveness of the ELL professional development and coaching.


4

0 = Not in place

1 = Emerging

2 = Developing

3 = Exemplary

Dimension 4: INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM DESIGN CONSTRUCT

STANDARDS DE1. DE2.

Effective Design

DE3.

DA1.

DA2. DA3.

DA4. Access to Grade-Level Content

DA5.

DA6.

DA7.

DA8.

RATING 0-1-2-3

NOTES

The district’s ELL program design is consistent with current theory and research about effective instructional programs for ELLs. The district’s ELL program design is aligned with the district’s overall vision, mission and goals for ELLs. The district’s ELL program design addresses the needs of the diverse populations of ELLs in the district (students at different English language proficiency levels, ages, linguistic and cultural backgrounds, time in the U.S., and levels of prior schooling). The district’s ELL program design is academically rigorous (not remedial), and promotes the knowledge and higher-level thinking skills to prepare students for college and satisfying careers. The district’s ELL program(s) are designed to ensure ELLs have equitable access to grade-level instruction in the academic content areas. The district provides additional grade-level academic support for ELLs, including translators, tutors, and bilingual instructional aides during academic content instruction, as well as extended day, weekend academies and/or summer programs). The district provides sufficient and equitable access to high quality instructional materials, educational technology, libraries, laboratories and other relevant resources that support ELLs’ English language development and grade-level, academic content learning in English and the native language. High quality native language instructional materials and resources are available at each grade level and subject area to support literacy and academic content learning. Instructional materials and resources that reflect and value a wide diversity of cultural backgrounds and histories are integrated throughout the general education curriculum for all students. The district ensures sustained, consistent and coherent instructional support from grade to grade until ELLs have reached parity with English speaking students on measures of academic achievement in the core content areas. The ELL plan includes a timely means for identifying struggling students who need additional support, including both active ELLs and those who are not currently receiving ELL services.


5

0 = Not in place

1 = Emerging

2 = Developing

3 = Exemplary

Dimension 4: INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM DESIGN CONSTRUCT

STANDARDS DL1. DL2.

Language Development

DL3.

DL4.

Equity

NOTES

The district has a curriculum for English language development that is aligned with state English language proficiency standards. The district’s English language development curriculum is responsive to students’ English language development stages (i.e., from beginning to intermediate to advanced), as appropriate across the grade levels. The district’s English language development curriculum prepares students with the language needed to access grade-level academic content. ELLs receive adequate instructional time to support language development.

DEQ1. The district’s instructional programs are designed so that native Englishspeaking students work and learn together with their English language learner peers. DEQ2. The district ensures that ELLs have equitable access to the same courses and in-school activities as other students (e.g., all core courses, electives, music and art, as well as field trips, assemblies, internship opportunities). DEQ3. The district ensures that ELLs participate equitably in extracurricular sports, clubs and activities. DEQ4. The district ensures that ELLs participate equitably in gifted and talented, honors and advanced placement courses. DEQ5. The district has an effective system for identifying and serving ELLs with special educational needs (i.e. ELLs are neither under- nor overrepresented in special education). DS1.

Counseling

RATING 0-1-2-3

DS2.

ELLs and their families receive appropriate guidance to successfully complete requirements for high school graduation, college admission and career. Counselors and/or social workers provide culturally responsive counseling to support ELLs’ healthy affective development.


6

0 = Not in place

1 = Emerging

2 = Developing

3 = Exemplary

Dimension 5: INSTRUCTIONAL IMPLEMENTATION CONSTRUCT Program Implementation

STANDARDS INP1. INP2.

Collaboration

Access to Challenging Academic Content

INR1. Teachers who serve ELLs convey high expectations through rigorous, grade-level instruction. INR2. Teachers scaffold to make instruction comprehensible to ELLs. INR3. Teachers differentiate instruction for ELLs at different English proficiency levels through varied approaches to content, process, and product. INR4. School administrators, guidance counselors and teachers use the native languages and cultural heritages of ELLs and their families to enrich and support instruction and the learning of academic content. INR5. Instruction for ELLs elicits a high level of student engagement.

Language Development

INL2. INL3.

Socially Constructed Learning

Classroom Assessment

NOTES

Teachers implement ELL programs as designed. School administrators and teachers monitor and support ELLs from initial enrollment through completion of high school.

INC1. The district and schools provide structural support (e.g., time, scheduling, and resources) to foster collaboration among teachers. INC2. Teachers with expertise in both language and content instruction collaborate systematically within and across grades to design and implement instruction for ELLs.

INL1.

RATING 0-1-2-3

Teachers provide instruction for ELLs that addresses social and instructional language for communication. Teachers provide instruction for ELLs to develop academic language needed to access content. Teachers provide opportunities for students to learn and practice all four language modalities (reading, writing, listening, and speaking.

INS1.

Teachers create classroom environments that facilitate peer interaction around academic content. INS2. ELLs actively participate in meaningful activities that are appropriate to their level of development. INA1. Content/grade level teachers implement classroom assessments appropriate for students at different language proficiency levels. INA2. School administrators and teachers make instructional decisions for English language learners based on multiple sources of data, including formative classroom assessments and school, district, and state assessment results.


7

0 = Not in place

1 = Emerging

2 = Developing

3 = Exemplary

Dimension 6: ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY CONSTRUCT

STANDARDS AP1. AP2.

Identification and Placement AP3.

Use of Data

NOTES

The district has clear and consistent policies and procedures for identifying, placing, and exiting ELLs. Procedures for identifying and placing ELLs take into account English and native language literacy, previous educational experiences, language/cultural background, age, and appropriate and valid student assessment results from multiple sources. The ELL placement process ensures each student receives optimal support for English language development and equitable access to academic content instruction.

AD1A. The district and schools use appropriate and valid district-wide assessments to measure ELLs’ growth in academic content areas (e.g., district formative and benchmark assessments, reading assessments). AD1B. The district and schools use appropriate and valid district-wide assessments to measure ELLs’ growth in the English language. AD2. The district has a data system that tracks and monitors individual ELLs’ progress over time on state and district English proficiency and academic achievement assessments from enrollment until completion of high school. AD3. The district data system integrates academic information with ELL student background data including home language, prior schooling, language(s) of instruction, ELL program participation, academic history, and progress in English language development. AD4. The district ensures data on ELL’s progress is accessible to teachers and administrators of ELLs as needed throughout the school year. AD5. The district and schools support teachers to examine a variety of ELL data to make instructional decisions. AI1. AI2.

Continuous Improvement

RATING 0-1-2-3

AI3.

AI4.

District and school administrators use clearly articulated criteria for assessing the effectiveness of the English language development program. District and school administrators use clearly articulated criteria for assessing the quality, accessibility, and effectiveness of academic content instruction for ELLs. The district reviews a variety of ELL assessment data to determine whether district ELL programs are meeting district goals for English (and native) language development, high academic achievement, and high school graduation. The district has an ongoing process to evaluate and improve its programs and services for ELLs.


8

0 = Not in place

1 = Emerging

2 = Developing

3 = Exemplary

Dimension 7: PARENT AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH CONSTRUCT

STANDARDS P1.

Family and Community Partnerships

P2. P3.

P4. Parent Involvement

P5. P6. P7.

Communication

P8.

RATING 0-1-2-3

NOTES

The district and schools provide parents of ELLs with high quality outreach programs and resources. The district and schools engage families as partners in the education of ELLs in appropriate and culturally responsive ways. The district and schools partner with community organizations to support educational programs for ELLs (e.g., to enrich the curriculum, to give voice to the diverse communities that make up the district, to participate in new initiatives, to address problems and to seek additional resources for schools). The district and schools support parents of ELLs to reinforce their children’s language and literacy development and academic content learning. Parents of ELLs are actively involved in the school and school-related activities. Parents of ELLs are actively involved in supporting their children’s language and literacy development and academic content learning. The district provides information and parent communication in the home languages of students. The district and schools provide teachers, counselors, and administrators with the cultural and linguistic understanding to communicate effectively with families and guardians from non-English language backgrounds.

Rev. 1/12/2012


9