English Language Development Improvement Plan

English Language Development Improvement Plan

Central School District 13J

Section A: Planning – Comprehensive Needs Assessment

Central School District (CSD) submitted the ELD Improvement Plan for English Language Learners December 2009. This plan was approved without revision. Since the implementation of the plan, which began spring of 2009, the district has made significant growth with AMAO 2, some progress with AMAO 1 and struggled to make AMAO 3 at the secondary level. Also in this time period the district has experienced changes in leadership, significant reductions in staff, small program changes, and has supplemented the ELD curriculum at the secondary level and is in the process of supplementing at the elementary level.

The overall process of identification, serving, and monitoring English Language Learners (ELLs) has improved throughout the district. There are now district-wide forms, checklists with accountability for the process of identification, and regularly scheduled monitoring sessions. The instructional process for ELLs includes the district–wide Response to Intervention (RTI). ELL students are monitored for their academic achievement in core subjects and participate in intervention groups determined by formative assessments.

The plan includes both an early-exit transition model and a late-exit transition model to better meet the needs of the students. At Independence Elementary and Ash Creek Elementary students receive literacy instruction in Spanish, gradually transitioning to English by the end of the third grade. Henry Hill Elementary currently transitions students to English by the end of the fifth grade. Monmouth Elementary offers an ELD only program with optional busing for ELLs to Ash Creek. Transition to English is supported by daily ELD instruction by trained, licensed teachers. Talmadge Middle School and Central High School use SIOP strategies to support ELL students in core academic subjects. ELL students also receive daily ELD instruction.

The following comprehensive needs assessment matrix will demonstrate both the strengths and weaknesses of the 2009 improvement plan. The inquiry section will summarize the data and discuss the cause and effect correlation between the collected data and student learning.

Data collected for the design of this plan includes:

Qualitative Data

1

• Teacher survey regarding sheltered language instruction
• Administrator survey regarding instructional leadership for ELD instruction.
• District discussion group to evaluate the current plan
• Parent participation at school/district events

Quantitative Data

• OAKS ELL student data grades 3, 5, and 8 for reading and math
• OAKS ELL student data for Central High School
• OAKS ELL cohort student data grades 3, 5 and 8 starting 2007 - 2008
• ELPA data/ELD levels, three years

Summary of Teacher Survey

The teachers were given an electronic survey that covered 8 different areas. The staff were separated into secondary (6-12) and elementary (K-5) levels. The answer choices on the survey focused on 8 areas: language goals, vocabulary strategies, interaction strategies, metacognitive strategies, review and assessment of student performance, instructional needs, participation in past professional development, and future professional development needs. 36 secondary teachers and 49 elementary teachers responded to the survey.

An analysis of the survey indicated that teachers do use a variety of the 8 areas that were surveyed. However the consistency of using those strategies is not apparent. Also quite apparent is that teachers frequently indicated that they knew of a certain strategy but that they did not use it on a frequent basis or that they only used it occasionally.

Across all grade levels the use of content and language goals was inconsistent. At the elementary level 23 of the 49 teachers surveyed reported that they give little thought to language and content goals. At the secondary level 16 of the 36 teachers surveyed reported that they use some types of language/content goals. Teacher clarity, an embedded strategy in this area, appears to be quite limited since the use of goals is inconsistent.

Vocabulary strategies are used by a majority of the teachers across all grade levels to some degree. At both the elementary and secondary levels, word walls were the most consistently used strategies. The teachers indicated that they knew at least 50% of the vocabulary strategies listed on the survey but that they frequently used only about 25% of them.

Interaction strategies followed a similar pattern to the vocabulary strategies. Think-pair-share and the jigsaw were the most common strategies that teachers reported both knowing about and frequently using. This appeared across the grade levels. The remainder of the strategies were less known about and less frequently used.

Metacognitive strategies are clearly used by the majority of teachers but are restricted primarily to think-alouds and graphic organizers. Strategies like reciprocal teaching and interactive reading guides were less known about and less frequently used.

Review and Assessment data indicated that most teachers know about twenty percent of the listed strategies but the strategies are not used frequently. This section of the survey clearly indicates the need for professional development in the area of developing and using formative assessments.

Needs data showed that teachers indicated they want more time for planning and preparation. That was followed by more requests for professional development in developing key vocabulary, grouping, comprehensible input, scaffolding techniques, building background and alternative assessments.

Summary:

The needs assessment given to the teachers attempted to quantify whether teachers knew of a certain strategy and whether they frequently or occasionally used the strategy. In survey of this type an underlying assumption is that if teachers report they know of a strategy then their understanding of that strategy is comprehensive. A similar assumption must be made in terms of the definitions of frequent or occasional use. That is, one assumes that frequent use means 80% or more of the time and occasional use means less than 40% of the time. Keeping in mind those assumptions, the survey showed a pattern of teachers knowing about 50% of the strategies and frequently using about the same number.

The analysis showed a need for more professional development in how to write and use language/content goals, how to use more effective teaching strategies and how to write and use formative assessments.

Summary of Administrator Survey

The administrators of Central 13J were given a needs assessment that focused on their knowledge of the plan, their skill in implementing the plan and their role as an educational leader with the plan. There were 11 questions with the responses being categorized in four areas; strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree and strongly disagree. The questions were written in a first-person format.

The following summary of results correlates to the numbered questions on the needs assessment,

1. 80% of the administrators somewhat disagreed that they have a complete understanding of how to effectively lead their schools in implementing and maintaining the ELL plan.

1. 60% of the administrators somewhat disagreed that they know enough of the details of the ELL plan as they relate to individual schools and the district as a whole.

1. 50% felt they somewhat agreed they could model language objectives for their teachers.

1. 50% felt they somewhat agreed they could model content objectives for their teachers.

1. 90% indicated that they strongly disagree that all their teachers post language and content objectives.

1. 50% indicated that they strongly disagree that 100% of their teachers encourage extensive oral communication among their students as part of each lesson.

1. 70% indicated that they somewhat agree that they are comfortable modeling how to use effective techniques to encourage students to use oral language during lessons.

1. 60% felt that they somewhat disagreed that they know how to do a walk-through observation of a classroom that quantifies the amount of oral communication among students that reflects their understanding of the subject matter.

1. 50% indicated they somewhat agree that they know how to evaluate an ELD lesson.

1. 80% indicated they somewhat agree that they understand their role as it relates to the ELL plan.

1. 70% somewhat disagreed that their respective buildings are effectively meeting the expectations of the ELL plan.

Summary:

The results clearly show that the administrative team needs to have focused professional development.

There is abundant research that suggests the principal is a key factor in the success of the students in his or her school. Central School District 13J is fortunate to have caring, dedicated administrators who want the best for all children. Their candid answers on the survey, as well as several in-depth group discussions, clearly indicate the need for focused professional development on the details of the ELL plan, how to model instructional methodologies for their teachers that support student achievement and how to effectively evaluate ELD lessons taught by the teachers.

Assessment Results

The assessments used in the development of this plan and for continued program evaluation include OAKS data, classroom summative assessments, the ADEPT, and student observations. The district ELL Specialist, with school data teams, monitor student progress using an excel spreadsheet saved on the district’s secured shared drive. Student Program over Time (SPOT) is used to document assessment results such as DRAs and IRIs for reading, math computational timed test and other forms of assessments. The school data team analyzes the assessment results to determine program strengths and weakness, along with patterns and trends of student skill levels.

Teacher Practices

Instruction is supported by the district’s adopted research-based ELD program that uses Treasure Chest at the elementary level supplemented by Make & Take curriculum units and High Points and Vision at the secondary level supplemented by the Summit curriculum. The literacy program K-5 uses Literacy by Design and the 6-12 program uses Spring Board. The math curriculum for the district includes Bridges and Scotts Foresman at the elementary level and Connected Math at the secondary level. The district has not adopted new math curriculum in over 6 years. The secondary programs are supplementing with Oregon Focus and other resources to provide instruction aligned with the 2007 math standards.

Professional development is needed to improve and support instruction. This improvement plan coordinates staff training with the comprehensive needs assessment. Monitoring of improved instructional practices occurs through coaching and administrative actions.

1

Comprehensive Needs Assessment Matrix – Qualitative Data

Spring 2011
Survey Data / Curriculum / Instruction / Organization
Strength / Needs / Strength / Needs / Strength / Needs
Elementary Level
District adopted ELD Curriculum:
Treasure Chest
Supplemental: Make & Take Units / ELD Instruction: Make & Take curriculum units to supplement Treasure Chest for ELD instruction. Units are relevant and age appropriate for ELD instruction.
Make & Take units better aligned to the Dutro Framework.
Core Content:
Relevant to student learning, focus on vocabulary and grammar development.
Teachers are resourceful to supplement as formative assessment dictates. / ELD Instruction:
Sporadic use of Treasure Chest, teachers needed supplemental materials.
Treasure Chest curriculum lacked sufficient support for speaking and listening.
Consistent staffing for ELD instruction.
Core Content:
Increase use of GLAD units.
Current district adoptions are out-of-date for math and science. / ELD Instruction: School-wide program with classroom sheltered instruction. (One elementary uses a pull-out program.)
Use of additional coaching to improve student scores on ELPA. Priority to allow students a practice attempt on ELPA.
Core Content:
Three schools offering Spanish literacy as a transition to English.
Intervention tutoring available before, during, and after school.
PLC using formative assessments to plan and implement instruction.
Instructional feedback includes DRAs, IRIs, the ADEPT, ELD rubrics and summative assessments. / ELD Instruction
Formative assessments for ELD instruction
Core Content: Training for developing language goals/objectives, scaffolding instruction and high impact sheltered instruction strategies.
Implementation of math dyads to encourage increased student dialog.
Increase use of word walls, personal dictionaries, sentence frames, and think maps. / Improved identification process and monitoring.
Improved exit meeting format.
Professional Development and coaching available for ELD teachers.
Training for using Make & Take ELD curriculum.
Teachers created a curriculum map using the Dutro Grammar Matrix.
Increased number of students exiting the ELD program. (AMAO 2) / Consistent implementation of program design.
Monitor student progress throughout ELD program.
All ELD teachers following the curriculum map for Make & Take.

Comprehensive Needs Assessment Matrix – Qualitative Data

1

Spring 2011
Survey Data / Curriculum / Instruction / Organization
Strengths / Needs / Strengths / Needs / Strengths / Needs

1

Secondary Level
District adopted ELD curriculum: High Points and Vision
Supplemental:
Summit / ELD Instruction: comprehensible materials, developmental in nature. All domains covered. Engaging.
Implemented Summit as supplemental curriculum to High Points and Visions.
Summit materials are easy to use and provide a good foundation in which to build instruction.
Core Content:
Broad and engaging, age-appropriate, and required for further learning.
INEA available for high school students.
Purchase of additional Summit Units to supplement High Points and Visions. / ELD Instruction: ease of use of Summit materials, and provides good foundation to build instruction.
Increase use of technology
Develop more support materials for each domain as indicated by formative assessments.
Core Content: knowledge of content materials, standards, and strategies to increase student learning.
High school adapting to 30% of ELL population having less then 5 years in the district.
Need additional supplemental curriculum and support materials. / ELD Instruction: Differentiated and engaging instructional strategies utilized.
Use of Dutro Framework for instruction.
Instructional strategies address all domains for students to progress, and are differentiated for student need.
Core Content:
Engaging and differentiated, aligned instruction
Clearly defined and relevant language instruction to improve access to curriculum. / ELD Instruction:
Clearly defined instructional learning targets for students – by lesson and unit.
Develop differentiated strategies, including use of technology. Development of quality formative assessments.
Core Content:
Use of sheltered strategies across all classes.
All: Use of formative assessments & proficiency based instructional strategies
Continued development and improvement of sheltered strategies. / Well-articulated plan for language acquisition and support for learning across the curriculum.
Clearly defined language acquisition targets, written in student friendly language.
Dedicated and well-trained staff with a strong foundation in ELD instructional strategies and curriculum, and a developing skill level related to implementing sheltered instructional strategies.
SIOP Coaches available to support sheltered instruction. / Vertical alignment of ELD curriculum and instruction.
Continued development and support for improved use of higher level sheltered strategies.
Need to monitor fidelity to plan and program.
Sheltered instruction in all secondary core content classes.
Conduct a student survey reading class selection and instruction.
Improved use of formative assessments targeting language acquisition barriers in content areas.

Comprehensive Needs Assessment Matrix – Qualitative Data

Spring 2011
Survey Data / Curriculum / Instruction / Organization
Strengths / Needs / Strengths / Needs / Strength / Needs
Parents &
Community / Parent information night in Spanish offered at the middle school to help explain curriculum and instructional process. / District reports to parents’ student academic progress to state standards. Parents receive 6-week reports for secondary students. / Improved home-school connection for secondary students. / Some teachers provide information night for parents of ELL students. Topics include:
Homework help
The writing process
Reading with your child.
ELL Celebration Night held yearly for students exiting the ELD program. / Better record keeping regarding parent participation. Conduct a needs survey for parents of ELL students.
Develop a parent focus group district-wide to help identify needs and increase family involvement.
Cadre of parents at the secondary level to meet regularly to discuss program needs.
Administration - Principals / Knowledgeable of adopted ELD curriculum.
Management of ELD curriculum and core content curriculum. / Administrators need training regarding the Dutro Framework. / Some knowledge of sheltered language strategies
Support for the PLC process.
Conducting some classroom walk-throughs.
Established process to monitor student progress. / Additional training for conducting walk-throughs, what to look for in sheltered instruction, using a rubric to give teachers additional feedback.
Training for principals regarding ELD instruction and the use of a rubric to provide feedback to ELD teachers. / Improved monitoring process, use of RTI.
Management of OAKS, ELPA, and ADEPT assessment process.
Scheduling of appropriate classes, meeting all time requirements, appropriately assigning staff, and providing time for teachers to collaborate. / Improved accountability system for the use of sheltered instruction strategies.

Comprehensive Needs Assessment – Quantitative Data, AMAO Data of all ELL Students

School Year / 07-08 / 08-09 / 09-10 / 10 – 11
Criterion 1
Gain a level a English Language Proficiency / 42.58%
Target: 35%
MET / 174 or 37%
Target: 35%
MET / 267 or 47%
Target: 50%
Not Met / Target: 53%
Criterion 2
Percent of students exiting the ELD Program / 24.3%
Not Met – 50% Target / 41 or 15%
Not Met - 50% Target / N/A / N/A
Criterion 2A* / N/A / N/A / 102 exited or 15.2%
Target: 14%
MET / Target: 15.2%
Criterion 2B* / N/A / N/A / 72% exited or 31.2%
Target: 22%
MET / Target: 24%

*AMAO2A is the percentage of students who exited ELD out of ALL current ELD students.