Section 6: Title III Local Educational Agency Improvement Plan Addendum (IPA)---

Focus on English Learners

  1. Conduct an analysis of data. Identify and describe the factors that prevented the local educational agency (LEA) from achieving the Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs)
  2. Analysis of Data and problems found :

The ELSSA subcommittee completed a detailed analysis of data related to the performance of ELs on CELDT, CST and CAHSEE. This is some of the analysis and key findings that emerged from discussions of the data. Data tables are provided for your convenience.

AMAO 1: CELDT Progress

AMAO 1: Percent of EL Students Making Annual Progress in Learning English
2005-06 / 2006-07 / 2007-08 / 2008-09
Target / 52.0% / 48.7% / 50.1% / 51.6%
Percent Meeting Target / 57.5% / 50.9% / 57.4% / 58.8%
Was Target Met? (Y/N) / YES / YES / YES / YES

Analysis: San Leandro EL students met the AMAO #1 targets related to progress each year on the CELDT exam. There was consistent growth each year. We surpassed the state targets every year by a comfortable margin and are even close to the highest target (2014) already. The last 2 years we rose over 7 points from 50.9% meeting this target to 58.8%. Recent changes in CELDT may be contributing to this rise. Furthermore, it is recognized that the CELDT is only a test of basic English skills and is not necessarily an indicator of success with grade level academic standards.

AMAO 2: CELDT Proficiency

AMAO 2: Percent of EL Students Attaining English Proficiency
2005-06 / 2006-07 / 2007-08 / 2008-09
Target / 31.4% / 27.2% / 28.9% / 30.6%
Percent Meeting Target / 37.0% / 31.2% / 37.2% / 42.9%
Was Target Met? (Y/N) / YES / YES / YES / YES

Analysis: We also succeeded in meeting AMAO 2, the % of students reaching proficiency within a reasonably expected amount of time. SLUSD’s EL students made significant gains over the last 2 years, soaring from 31.2% meeting the target in 2006-07 to 42.9% in 2008-09. We exceeded the final goal for 2014 already. Our trend up and down mirrors the target going up and down so again it is recognized that the changes in the CELDT after 2006-07 may be responsible for this pattern and some of the recent growth. We believe progress at the elementary level on the implementation of 30 minutes of daily ELD organized by CELDT level contributed to these incremental gains.

AMAO 3: CST/CAHSEE ELA & Math Proficiency

AMAO 3: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for EL Subgroup at the LEA Level: Percent Proficient
2005-06 / 2006-07 / 2007-08 / 2008-09
ELA / Math / ELA / Math / ELA / Math / ELA / Math
% Proficient Target / 23.0% / 23.7% / 23.0% / 23.7% / 34.0% / 34.6% / 45.0% / 45.5%
% Proficient or Above / 24.7% / 35.4% / 26.9% / 39.7% / 25.6% / 36.1% / 31.4% / 38.6%
Was Target Met? (Y/N) / YES / YES / YES / YES / NO / YES / NO / NO

Analysis: The reason that we are in Title III Year 2 is because we did not meet the ELA part of AMAO #3 the last two years. While we had a very high participation rate, the proficiency targets were not met. We are proud that we did increase our % proficient almost 6 points, from 25.6% to 31.4% but this was short of the rapidly rising federal target. These proficiency targets on the ELA CSTs and ELA CAHSEE are the same targets that caused our district to become a Program Improvement Year 1 district. Our Math scores have remained high but in 2008-09 we did not meet the new target. See Section 1 C below for a list of factors contributing to our failure to meet AMAO #3.

AMAO 1 by CELDT level

Prior Year CELDT Level / Number in Proficiency Level Prior Year / % in Proficiency
Level Prior Year / Number Meeting
Growth Target / % Meeting
Growth Target / State Avg. Meeting Growth Target
Beginning / 366 / 18.8% / 237 / 64.8% / 63.7%
Early Intermediate / 451 / 23.1% / 290 / 64.3% / 62.1%
Intermediate / 833 / 42.7% / 410 / 49.2% / 40.4%
Early Adv. / Advanced: Not English Proficient / 111 / 5.7% / 54 / 48.6% / 51.4%
Early Adv. / Advanced: English Proficient / 190 / 9.7% / 154 / 81.1% / 74.2%
Total / 1951 / 100.0% / 1145 / 58.7%

Analysis: While we succeeded in meeting AMAO #1, there are very different rates of success when the progress is disaggregated by CELDT level. EL students at the lowest and highest CELDT levels made the most significant progress, but the Intermediate level students, along with the small number of more advanced but not yet CELDT proficient students, have made the least progress. Intermediate is also the largest group, representing 42.7% of our ELs. This indicates that our ELD program is succeeding in moving students up the first few years of schooling but that there is substantial stagnation at the Intermediate level.. The Beginners level is a very low percent of ELs because moving from 1 to 2 is not difficult. Not only there stagnation at level 3 (intermediate) but there is backsliding from 3 to 2 at one school and that may be a district wide trend.

AMAO 2 by time in US Schools

Length of Time in
U.S. Schools / Early Advanced or Advanced English Proficient / Early Advanced or Advanced; Not English Proficient / Inter-mediate / Early Inter-mediate / Total (by Time)
Number / Beginning
Percent
6 or more years / n= / 118 / 128 / 190 / 60 / 24 / 520
% / 23% / 25% / 37% / 12% / 5% / 27%
5 years / n= / 91 / 9 / 64 / 17 / 6 / 187
% / 49% / 5% / 34% / 9% / 3% / 10%
4 years / n= / 77 / 6 / 96 / 27 / 19 / 225
% / 34% / 3% / 43% / 12% / 8% / 12%
3 years or less / n= / 271 / 8 / 379 / 252 / 109 / 1019
% / 27% / 1% / 37% / 25% / 11% / 52%
Total (by ELD level) / n= / 557 / 151 / 729 / 356 / 158 / 1951
% / 29% / 8% / 37% / 18% / 8%

Analysis: 27% of the ELs are stagnant and still ELs after 6 years. 54% of these long-term ELs are stuck at Intermediate or below. This is further evidence that our biggest challenge within the EL population are the long-term ELs at the intermediate level. Many of these long-term low ELs are placed in self-contained ELD classes at the secondary level alongside newcomers. This contributes to many becoming unmotivated and developing an oppositional attitude towards school. This leads to a cycle of failure often resulting in drop outs.

AMAO 3- Intermediate CELDT on the CST ELA

ELA CST Performance / Number / Grade / Grade / Grade / Grade / Grade / Grade / Grade / Total
Percent / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / (by CST)
Far Below Basic / n= / 3 / 9 / 2 / 12 / 12 / 6 / 6 / 50
% / 3% / 9% / 3% / 24% / 26% / 25% / 27% / 12%
Below Basic / n= / 13 / 37 / 24 / 14 / 20 / 11 / 10 / 129
% / 13% / 37% / 31% / 29% / 43% / 46% / 45% / 31%
Basic / n= / 46 / 41 / 39 / 20 / 12 / 7 / 6 / 171
% / 46% / 41% / 50% / 41% / 26% / 29% / 27% / 41%
Proficient / n= / 34 / 12 / 12 / 3 / 2 / 0 / 0 / 63
% / 34% / 12% / 15% / 6% / 4% / 0% / 0% / 15%
Advanced / n= / 4 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 6
% / 4% / 1% / 1% / 0% / 0% / 0% / 0% / 1%
Total (by grade) / n= / 100 / 100 / 78 / 49 / 46 / 24 / 22 / 419
% / 24% / 24% / 19% / 12% / 11% / 6% / 5%

Analysis: Looking closer at the ELs stuck at the Intermediate CELDT level we find that the number of ELs Far Below and Below Basic on the CST ELA increases as you move to the 5th grade level and even more dramatically at the 6th grade level. At Elementary, the majority score at basic (Gr 2-5). In Grade 6-8 the majority score below basic. It is important to look at both the FBB and BB combined. By 7-8 there are 0% proficient and advanced on CST. There is a shift at the intermediate level at each grade level but though the % is smaller, the total numbers are closer.

AMAO 3- Intermediate CELDT on the CST MATH

Math CST Performance / Number / Grade / Grade / Grade / Grade / Grade / Grade / Grade 8 / Grade 8 / Total
Percent / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / Gen. Math / Algebra / (by CST)
Far Below Basic / n= / 0 / 1 / 3 / 3 / 15 / 3 / 6 / 3 / 34
% / 0% / 1% / 4% / 6% / 33% / 14% / 46% / 20% / 8%
Below Basic / n= / 11 / 22 / 17 / 18 / 23 / 14 / 7 / 6 / 118
% / 11% / 22% / 22% / 38% / 50% / 64% / 54% / 40% / 28%
Basic / n= / 30 / 22 / 31 / 14 / 5 / 3 / 0 / 4 / 109
% / 30% / 22% / 40% / 30% / 11% / 14% / 0% / 27% / 26%
Proficient / n= / 38 / 42 / 24 / 11 / 2 / 2 / 0 / 1 / 120
% / 38% / 42% / 31% / 23% / 4% / 9% / 0% / 7% / 29%
Advanced / n= / 21 / 13 / 3 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 40
% / 21% / 13% / 4% / 2% / 2% / 0% / 0% / 7% / 10%
Total (by grade) / n= / 100 / 100 / 78 / 47 / 46 / 22 / 13 / 15 / 421
% / 24% / 24% / 19% / 11% / 11% / 5% / 3% / 4%

Analysis: Looking at the intermediate level and their progress on the CST Math there is a significant trend in the drop from 5th grade Basic and aboveto 6th grade: 55% to 17%. There is a question whether any of the issues are with the different math curriculum –Envision and Holt. The overall shift and trend is the same as in ELA. Kids in Primary grades are starting higher but then going lower. It was pointed out that there is a nationwide middle school drop off, regardless of EL status.

English Proficient on CELDT performing on CST ELA

ELA CST Performance / Number / Grade / Grade / Grade / Grade / Grade / Grade / Grade / Total
Percent / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / (by CST)
Far Below Basic / n= / 0 / 0 / 1 / 6 / 4 / 5 / 13 / 29
% / 0% / 0% / 2% / 10% / 13% / 12% / 27% / 9%
Below Basic / n= / 0 / 4 / 1 / 16 / 6 / 16 / 15 / 58
% / 0% / 11% / 2% / 26% / 19% / 39% / 31% / 17%
Basic / n= / 11 / 25 / 16 / 32 / 18 / 16 / 19 / 137
% / 15% / 68% / 36% / 52% / 56% / 39% / 39% / 41%
Proficient / n= / 45 / 8 / 22 / 6 / 4 / 4 / 2 / 91
% / 62% / 22% / 49% / 10% / 13% / 10% / 4% / 27%
Advanced / n= / 17 / 0 / 5 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 23
% / 23% / 0% / 11% / 2% / 0% / 0% / 0% / 7%
Total (by grade) / n= / 73 / 37 / 45 / 61 / 32 / 41 / 49 / 338
% / 22% / 11% / 13% / 18% / 9% / 12% / 14%

Analysis: We are getting many to Proficiency on CELDT but not Proficient level on CST ELA. Many will be eligible for reclassification by Grade 4 but then they will not be eligible as they go up to 5th and above. There are concerns with motivation when long term EL students are not reclassified and then go to the middle school and don’t have access to electives or are placed in separate ELD classrooms alongside newcomers.

English Proficient on CELDT performing on CST Math

Math CST Performance / Number / Grade / Grade / Grade / Grade / Grade / Grade / Grade 8 / Grade 8 / Total
Percent / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / Gen. Math / Algebra / (by CST)
Far Below Basic / n= / 0 / 0 / 0 / 6 / 1 / 0 / 3 / 9 / 19
% / 0% / 0% / 0% / 10% / 3% / 0% / 18% / 32% / 6%
Below Basic / n= / 1 / 3 / 4 / 12 / 17 / 1 / 10 / 15 / 63
% / 1% / 8% / 9% / 20% / 53% / 50% / 59% / 54% / 21%
Basic / n= / 9 / 11 / 12 / 24 / 11 / 0 / 4 / 4 / 75
% / 12% / 30% / 27% / 39% / 34% / 0% / 24% / 14% / 25%
Proficient / n= / 30 / 12 / 16 / 14 / 3 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 76
% / 41% / 32% / 36% / 23% / 9% / 50% / 0% / 0% / 26%
Advanced / n= / 33 / 11 / 13 / 5 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 62
% / 45% / 30% / 29% / 8% / 0% / 0% / 0% / 0% / 21%
Total (by grade) / n= / 73 / 37 / 45 / 61 / 32 / 2 / 17 / 28 / 295
% / 25% / 13% / 15% / 21% / 11% / 1% / 6% / 9%

Analysis: Looking at how CELDT proficient students do on the Math, we wonder if the the drastic change in numbers could be because RFEPs are pulled out of the data set. The biggest drop off is from 4th to 5th grade where the % proficient slips from 65% to 31%. This trend continues in middle school, dropping to 9% in 6th grade. It was suggested that we need intervention through 6th and 7th grade math companion classes.

RFEP performing on CST ELA

ELA CST Performance / Number / Grade / Grade / Grade / Grade / Grade / Grade / Grade / Total
Percent / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / (by CST)
Far Below Basic / n= / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 4 / 3 / 8
% / 0% / 0% / 0% / 0% / 1% / 3% / 2% / 1%
Below Basic / n= / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 7 / 7 / 13 / 28
% / 0% / 0% / 0% / 1% / 6% / 5% / 10% / 5%
Basic / n= / 0 / 5 / 5 / 23 / 35 / 58 / 52 / 178
% / 0% / 21% / 12% / 31% / 29% / 40% / 39% / 33%
Proficient / n= / 0 / 13 / 21 / 29 / 55 / 53 / 44 / 215
% / 0% / 54% / 50% / 39% / 46% / 36% / 33% / 40%
Advanced / n= / 1 / 6 / 16 / 22 / 22 / 24 / 23 / 114
% / 100% / 25% / 38% / 29% / 18% / 16% / 17% / 21%
Total (by grade) / n= / 1 / 24 / 42 / 75 / 120 / 146 / 135 / 543
% / 0% / 4% / 8% / 14% / 22% / 27% / 25%

Analysis: Looking at how RFEPS are doing on the CST ELA, the majority in 2-8 are in the proficient and above range. This shows we are reclassifying the right students since they are being successful. Most are staying at Basic or above.We need to consider when they were reclassified. There are greater numbers Proficient in middle school. These reclassified students are the most successful students and that may increase over time.

RFEP performing on CST Math

Math CST Performance / Number / Grade / Grade / Grade / Grade / Grade / Grade / Grade 8 / Grade 8 / Total
Percent / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / Gen. Math / Algebra / (by CST)
Far Below Basic / n= / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 4 / 5 / 1 / 7 / 17
% / 0% / 0% / 0% / 0% / 3% / 3% / 25% / 8% / 3%
Below Basic / n= / 0 / 0 / 0 / 3 / 14 / 38 / 1 / 37 / 93
% / 0% / 0% / 0% / 4% / 12% / 25% / 25% / 43% / 19%
Basic / n= / 0 / 1 / 5 / 13 / 26 / 73 / 2 / 31 / 151
% / 0% / 4% / 12% / 17% / 22% / 49% / 50% / 36% / 30%
Proficient / n= / 1 / 4 / 15 / 30 / 53 / 27 / 0 / 10 / 140
% / 100% / 17% / 36% / 40% / 44% / 18% / 0% / 12% / 28%
Advanced / n= / 0 / 19 / 22 / 29 / 23 / 7 / 0 / 1 / 101
% / 0% / 79% / 52% / 39% / 19% / 5% / 0% / 1% / 20%
Total (by grade) / n= / 1 / 24 / 42 / 75 / 120 / 150 / 4 / 86 / 502
% / 0% / 5% / 8% / 15% / 24% / 30% / 1% / 17%

Analysis: With RFEPs we are not succeeding as well on Math as in ELA. The drop off to Basic and below is greater as you move to middle school. The Advanced level really drops off dramatically while the BB/FBB goes up. There are 6th and 7th grade students who are placed in higher math class. There are concerns about why an RFEP could score so low in a test below the math level they are in. Perhaps the may be missing some of the academic language that is necessary for success. There are also skills that are hard to reteach quickly.

ELs performing on the CAHSEE ELA

Performance of EL Students on CAHSEE / Number of Years in U.S. Schools / Total
ELs
# / 0 to 3 / 4 to 5 / 6 or more / Unknown
Percent / Years / Years / Years / Years
Tested in ELA / n= / 18 / 7 / 62 / 1 / 88
Passed ELA / n= / 6 / 2 / 15 / 0 / 23
% / 33% / 29% / 24% / 0% / 26%
Proficient ELA / n= / 1 / 0 / 2 / 0 / 3
% / 6% / 0% / 3% / 0% / 3%
Tested in Math / n= / 18 / 7 / 61 / 1 / 87
Passed Math / n= / 12 / 2 / 19 / 0 / 33
% / 67% / 29% / 31% / 0% / 38%
Proficient Math / n= / 8 / 1 / 4 / 0 / 13
% / 44% / 14% / 7% / 0% / 15%

Analysis: On the CAHSEE ELA, it appears that the longer a student is inUS schools the less proficient they become. These are the so-called “lifers” who have not been RFEPed. The longer in US schools as ELs, the more the failure rate increases. Many of them are RSP students but the exact percent is being researched. 62 of the 88 10th grade ELs taking the CAHSEE are 6+ years in the US. Teachers know personally about the 0 to 3 year group and those rates are impressive: 33% on ELA CAHSEE, which is usually related to solid academic primary language foundation.

RFEPSperforming on the CAHSEE MATH

Performance of RFEP Students on CAHSEE / Number of Years in U.S. School / Total
RFEPs
Number / 0 to 3 / 4 to 5 / 6 or more / Unknown
Percent / Years / Years / Years / Years
Tested in ELA / n= / 3 / 7 / 154 / 1 / 165
Passed ELA / n= / 2 / 7 / 139 / 1 / 149
% / 67% / 100% / 90% / 100% / 90%
Proficient ELA / n= / 1 / 3 / 93 / 1 / 98
% / 33% / 43% / 60% / 100% / 59%
Tested in Math / n= / 3 / 7 / 154 / 1 / 165
Passed Math / n= / 2 / 7 / 138 / 1 / 148
% / 67% / 100% / 90% / 100% / 90%
Proficient Math / n= / 1 / 7 / 89 / 1 / 98
% / 33% / 100% / 58% / 100% / 59%

Analysis: On the CAHSEE Math, the longer a RFEP has been in the US the better they perform but the numbers are very, very small in the “0-5 years in the US” categories. The 90% passing rate in both ELA and Math is higher than the 75% rate schoolwide. But there is a huge discrepancy between passing CAHSEE and CST test proficiency. For instance, 9th Grade Geometry or 10th Grade Algebra 2 Prof shows a significant drop off. You are not prepared for 4 year college or able to focus on SATs, etc. if not passing CAHSEE. We should celebrate that there are twice as many total RPEP 10th graders (165) as there are EL 10th grader (88)As a group lower grade proficiency % were higher but it evens out by High School.

B.Strengths and weaknesses of current plan

A survey and discussion of our current EL program based on the EL components of our latest LEA Plan and the EL Master Plan revealed much strength to celebrate as well as weaknesses which pose significant challenges. In revising the plan we noted that the current plan is extremely ambitious and does not focus on a limited number of fundable, high priority items.

Here is a look at the degree of implementation of our plan in four major areas:

Instructional Program:

The STRENGTHS include the following:

Our recently-adopted math program contains many components that help teachers to help increase access of ELs to the grade level math curriculum

ELs are placed in appropriate math classes at the secondary level

A comprehensive system exists to reclassify students and monitor the progress of RFEPs for two years.

Elementary schools have made significant progress in the number of classrooms providing 30 minutes of daily ELD to ELs.

Our annual CELDT testing program is well-organized, with close to 100% of students being tested.

The WEAKNESSES include the following:

Our K-12 ELA, ELA intervention and ELD materials are outdated and not optimal for meeting the ongoing needs of ELs both in ELD and ELA.

Elementary level ELs do not all receive standards-based ELD instruction by proficiency level on a daily basis.

Counselors following the plan’s placement criteria are inappropriately placing long-term low achieving ELs in separate ELD classrooms.

ELs requiring both ELD and intervention are not able to often receive both in the current schedules.

We have not sufficiently monitored ELD to ensure it is implemented daily.

Instructional Strategies

The STRENGTHS include the following:

Almost 100% of our teachers have the appropriate authorization (CLAD/BCLAD or the equivalent) required to teach ELs. This has ensured that there is a minimal level of awareness of ELD and SDAIE instructional techniques.

The WEAKNESSES include the following:

At the secondary level, there is not a clear criteria for providing ELD in a mainstream English class.

At the elementary level, many are familiar with SDAIE strategies but there is very sporadic implementation of these strategies.

Professional Development

The STRENGTHS include the following:

Cohorts from each school were trained in SIOP, SALT and Frontloading. We have some excellent in-house experts on these SDAIE instructional approaches.

Culturally-responsive teaching, especially addressing the needs of lower achieving Latino ELs, has happened systematically at the district level as well as at the site level (Beyond Diversity training, Center for Culturally Responsive Teaching and Learning (CCRTL) workshops/coaching)

The WEAKNESSES include the following:

There were limited efforts to set up administrators and teachers with the EL-specific materials-based AB430/SB472 trainings

ELD training has not happened

The plan lacked a focus on the professional development needs of our primary language paraeducators and EL records clerks.

Parental Participation

The STRENGTHS include the following:

ELAC and DELAC guidelines are well-established

Several schools have excellent, frequent ELACs with a lot of parent participation

The DELAC has met frequently this year and empowered a number of parent leaders.

The WEAKNESSES include the following:

There are still schools that have not had ELAC and have not officially delegated the responsibilities to the SSC

C. Identify and describe factors contributing to failure to meet AMAOs

Based on the analysis of data, extensive surveys and discussions among the various subcommittees and groups we concluded that the main reasons that ELs failed to meet AMAO #3 (% Prof of CST and CAHSEE) are:

Outdated K-12 ELD Materials are not closely aligned with ELD and ELA standard (EPC 1)

Outdated K-12 ELA materials do not have strong ancillary materials for EL access to the core curriculum (EPC 1)

Current K-3 instructional minutes makes scheduling daily ELD very difficult (EPC 2)

EL Master Plan as written makes it difficult to appropriately place long-term ELs who are low on CELDT in the appropriate classes (EPC 2)

The secondary Master Schedules has limited opportunity for Intervention support classes in ELA and Math for mainstreamed struggling ELs (EPC 2)

No pacing guides currently exist for ELD (EPC 3)

Administrators are not adequately trained to support teachers in implementing EL strategies (EPC 4)

Teachers, especially at the secondary level, have not received enough training in using the ELD materials and adapting the ELA core materials for ELs (EPC 5-6)

We lack a systematic assessment and data system for analyzing the progress of EL students (EPC 7)

Administrators and teachers have not been adequately trained in collaboration protocols for analyzing data from formative assessment to inform and modify instructional practices. (EPC 8)

D. Conclusions

As a result of extensive analysis of data, observations of classrooms and discussions among district stakeholders we believe that success for our ELs will be maximized if we focus on ensuring that ELD is provided in an appropriate setting with the best materials available; that teachers providing ELD be fully trained in all aspects of the program; that RLA and Math teachers be trained in methods to make standards-based grade level content and current texts accessible to ELs; that access to both core curriculum and appropriate interventions be built into schedules and that assessments be developed and regularly administered that will help teachers to monitor progress and collaboratively discuss results in order to better meet the needs of ELs.

Monitoring Visits will take place:

April 2010 / July 2010 / October 2010 / January 2011/ April 2011/ July 2011

1/11: Elvia Teixeira: The focus of the conversation for the monitoring visit in January will be on comprehensive district-wide ELD and Professional development goals.