Year 4 ELL Improvement Plan

Nyssa School District

May 2012

Section A: Planning

Comprehensive Needs Assessment

  1. Assessment Results

Two years of assessment results were considered which correlate with the two years that the AMAO areas have been similarly calculated, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. For reading/language arts, as the students go up in grades, the difference between the percent of non-ESL students who meet or exceed the standard as compared to the percent of ESL students who meet or exceed increases dramatically.

Table 1: Percents of Nyssa students meeting or exceeding the Oregon reading / language arts standard.

Reading/LA
Meets/Exceeds
Percentage / Not ESL / Limited English Proficient
2009-2010 / 2010-2011 / 2009-2010 / 2010-2011
High School / 47% / 73% / 31% / 17%
Middle School / 86% / 88% / 33% / 43%
Elementary School / 90% / 86% / 81% / 78%

In mathematics, while it may appear all students performed poorly during 2010-2011 as compared to the previous year, the explanation is that the score required to “meet” the standard increased at both the elementary and middle school levels. Nyssa School District calculated the percentages that may have met or exceeded during 2010-2011 if the same standard and been applied, and the percentages were similar to 2009-2010. The table below shows evidence that once again, our non-ESL students outperform our LEP students by large percentages and at all levels.

Table 2: Percents of Nyssa students meeting or exceeding the Oregon mathematics standard.

Mathematics
Meets/Exceeds
Percentage / Not ESL / Limited English Proficient
2009-2010 / 2010-2011 / 2009-2010 / 2010-2011
High School / 48% / 47% / 20% / 28%
Middle School / 83% / 59% / 38% / 13%
Elementary School / 82% / 63% / 84% / 37%

AMAO status for the past two years shows improvement in AMAO 1 and AMAO 2B. AMAO 3 corroborates the information from Tables 1 and 2, indicating that our LEP students are struggling with academic content.

Table 3: AMAO status results for Nyssa School District.

AMAO 1 / AMAO 2A / AMAO 2B / AMAO 3 / Overall
Percent / Status / Percent / Status
2010-2011 / 46.04% / Not Met / 15.07% / Not Met / 26.79% / Met / Middle School / Not Met / Not Met
2009-2010 / 41.88% / Not Met / 16.36% / Met / 22.37% / Met / Met / Not Met

The goals for AMAO 1 (percent of LEP students moving from one level to the next) were 50% for 2009-2010 and 53% for 2010-2011. While there seems to be improvement, both years we were about 7 to 8 percentage points below the target. Our percentage of students who attain proficiency at the end of the year on ELPA (AMAO 2A) was .43% below what the goal was (15.5%), and we met the target in 2009-2010. In addition, we have been able to meet AMAO 2B targets for two years, meaning that our students who have been in the ELL program for five or more years are progressing to the advanced level at the expected rate. Finally, last year, after several years of meeting AYP, the middle school did not meet AYP in both reading and math for our LEP students.

Table 4: English proficiency progress – percentage of EL students moving from one level to the next

Percent of students moving up at least one level when comparing
2009-2010 ELPA results with 2010-2011 ELPA results
Beginning
(Level 1) / Early Intermediate
(Level 2) / Intermediate
(Level 3) / Early Advanced
(Level 4) / Advanced
(Level 5)
20 students in 2009-2010 / 59 students in 2009-2010 / 94 students in 2009-2010 / 143 students in 2009-2010 / 16 students in 2009-2010
70% / 53% / 55% / 38% / 75%

This information indicates that our students in highest need of services that will move them up at least one level are those at Level 4. Other levels meet the expected gain (53% as stated for AMAO 1).

  1. Teacher Practices

Traditionally, district staff has annual training for sheltered instruction strategies which is the district’s selected program in our ELL plan. This began many years ago with in-depth training but eventually turned into annual refreshers. The difficulty is that at this point, we need to build a stronger foundation as many of the teachers who had deeper training have now retired or left the district. Materials to assist our teachers, who are in the position to be able to train others with these strategies, have been purchased. We started with an introduction this year (2011-2012) and plan to expand during the next several years.

  1. Acts of Leadership

The district cannot determine the level of implementation of sheltered instruction in the classroom because it has not been monitored, either informally or formally, in any of the buildings. Clearly, we are in need of a feedback tool that administrators can use for teachers of all content areas both to demonstrate the importance of using the strategies as well as improving the use of them. Since we will be implementing the Marzano Observation Protocol next year, our plan is to include sheltered instruction strategies as additional teaching behaviors we’ll be documenting. Systematic ELD training of trainers for our district will occur during the summer of 2012, so we will be begin the process of including those teacher practices in our observations in the spring of 2013.

  1. Strengths
  • Students who have been in the ELL program for five or more years attain proficiency at the expected rate.
  • At the elementary level, the meet or exceeds percentages for reading and language arts is close, 86% for non-ESL and 78% for ESL.
  • Participation for parent-teacher conferences at the elementary and middle school levels is 100%. Attendance at parent-teacher conferences at Nyssa High School is required for all classes in which the student earned less than an A. Each teacher must be met with individually, and those conferences are also at 100%
  • During the previous five years (2004-2005 through 2009-2010), all schools met AYP.
  • Student attendance rates at all schools is above the state average, and LEP student attendance is comparable to non-LEP student attendance.
  • Attendance during 2010-2011 for our LEP students at the elementary level was 96.07 compared to 94.68 for non-LEP students. (LEP group was 1.39% higher.)
  • Attendance during 2010-2011 for our LEP students at the middle school was 95.22 compared to 95.07 for non-LEP students. (LEP group was .15% higher.)
  • Attendance during 2010-2011 for our LEP students at the high school was 94.4 compared to 94.72 for non-LEP students. (LEP group was .32% lower.)
  • All teachers who instruct the 40-minute ELD classes at the elementary school either have an ESL endorsement or have been instructing LEP students for more than five years, have had training in sheltered instruction, and have demonstrated successful instruction for students who are LEP.
  • Because Spanish is almost always the first language of our LEP students, we are able to provide Spanish-speaking instructional assistants to help non-English speakers with the transition to an English only school.
  1. Challenges and analysis of adult actions
  • Staff has indicated through survey responses that staff development geared toward the instruction of our EL students is a ‘somewhat high need’. On this survey of 19 elements related to improvement, only two items, Full Day Kindergarten and Class Size Reduction, were identified as ‘high need’. Instruction for LEP students was indicated in two of the survey questions with both being rated ‘somewhat high need’.
  • The district cannot determine the level of implementation of sheltered instruction in the classrooms.
  • By not monitoring ELPA scores more closely, the district has not indicated to staff that English language development is important.
  • By not monitoring the use of sheltered instruction strategies in the classroom, the district has not indicated to staff that using research based strategies specific to EL students is important.
  • Staff recognizes the need for students at the lower levels of English language proficiency to have high quality instruction not only for ELD but also for content areas. Teaching assignments and student schedules are usually based on the idea that our Level 4 students are en route to proficiency, so focus on the English development of our Level 4 students is not seen as a priority.
  1. Identified Needs
  • Implementation of sheltered instruction strategies needs to be monitored.
  • Staff development in Systematic ELD should be provided so that teachers have additional understanding of the needs of English language learners as well as additional strategies to meet those needs.
  • Reports of the progress all of our LEP students, regardless of level, on the ELPA needs to be provided to district staff as well as the school board to reinforce that English language development is an important part of over half of our district’s student population.

Inquiry

  1. Possible cause-effect relationships and analysis of adult actions

Based on survey responses and data analysis, we believe that our deficiencies with our LEP students are closely related to our lack of attention to the needs of these students. By improving the professional development for teachers, monitoring the use of classroom strategies for LEP students, and increasing awareness of the progress of this specific subgroup, Nyssa School District English language learners will meet assessment goals in order to ‘meet’ AMAO requirements.

  1. Strategies driven by specific needs and analysis of adult actions
  • Monitoring tool for sheltered instruction use
  • Staff development in Systematic ELD
  • Monitoring tool for Systematic ELD implementation in the classroom
  • Student progress reports to staff, school board, students, and community regarding the progress of our LEP students on the ELPA and on statewide assessments

S.M.A.R.T. Goals

1)At the conclusion of the 2012-2013 Oregon ELPA testing, 61% of the ELL students in the Nyssa School District will move from one proficiency level to a higher proficiency level.

AMAO 1
2009-2010
Data year / 2010-2011
Data year / 2012-2013 Data year
GOAL / Percent increase required / Total number
2012-2013
Data year
(denominator) / Number required to meet goal (numerator)
Elementary / 42.2% / 42.7% / 61% / 18.3%
Middle / 39.8% / 61.1% / 61% / 0.0%
High / 45.7% / 40.0% / 61% / 21.0%
District / 41.9% / 46.0% / 61% / 15.0%

2)At the conclusion of Oregon ELPA testing, 19% of the ELL students in the Nyssa School District will earn a 5 on the exam or be exited from the program due to their English language proficiency.

AMAO 2A
2009-2010
Data year / 2010-2011
Data year / 2012-2013 Data year
GOAL / Percent increase required / Total number
2012-2013
Data year
(denominator) / Number required to meet goal (numerator)
Elementary / 15.1% / 3.7% / 19% / 15.3%
Middle / 17.6% / 34.7% / 19% / 0.0%
High / 20.3% / 27.8% / 19% / 0.0%
District / 16.4% / 15.1% / 19% / 3.9%

3)At the conclusion of the 2012-2013 Oregon ELPA testing, 29% of the Nyssa School District ELL students who have been in the ELL program for five or more years will earn a 5 on the exam or be exited from the program due to their English language proficiency.

AMAO 2B
2009-2010
Data year / 2010-2011
Data year / 2012-2013 Data year
GOAL / Percent increase required / Total number
2012-2013
Data year
(denominator) / Number required to meet goal (numerator)
Elementary / 30.6% / 13.7% / 29% / 15.3%
Middle / 18.5% / 34.6% / 29% / 0.0%
High / 23.7% / 26.7% / 29% / 2.3%
District / 22.4% / 26.8% / 29% / 2.2%

4)All schools in the district will meet AYP requirements in both reading and mathematics for students who are limited English proficient.

AMAO 3
AYP Status for LEP Students
Percents include the Margin of Error / 2010-2011
Reading / 2010-2011
Math / 2011-2012
Reading / 2011-2012
Math / 2012-2013
Reading / 2012-2013
Math
Elementary / 88.71% / 73.03%
Middle / 75.41% / 64.60%
High / Suppressed / Suppressed
Target / 70% / 70% / 80% / 80% / 90% / 90%

These goals will be accomplished by completing the following steps:

  • By September 2012, achievement results on the ELPA will have been shared with district staff, school board members, the community, and students.
  • Beginning in September 2012, monthly meetings for parents of LEP students will occur. Information and education regarding student progress, pertinent school issues, services, etc., will be shared at each meeting.
  • In the October 2012 Bulldog Bulletin, information regarding plans for improvement of services to our LEP students will be outlined. Information will be provided in both Spanish and English.
  • By October 2012, achievement results of our LEP students on the statewide assessment will be provided to district staff, the school board, the community, and students.
  • By February 2013, district staff will have been introduced to Systematic ELD.
  • By January 2013, a monitoring tool for the classroom use of sheltered instruction will have been developed and shared with district certified staff.
  • By May 2013, administrators will have used the sheltered instruction monitoring tool at least once on every teacher.
  • By May 2013, a monitoring tool for the classroom use of Systematic ELD will have been developed and presented to district staff.
  • Quarterly reports of progress on the Title III Improvement Plan as well as the data collected from classroom observations and team meeting notes will be sent to district staff.

Section B: Implementation

Research-Based Strategies

Sheltered Instruction

Sheltered Instruction is a teaching style founded on the concept of providing meaningful instruction in the content areas (social studies, math, science) for transitioning Limited English Proficient (LEP) students towards higher academic achievement while they reach English fluency. Nyssa School District uses this method in mainstream secondary classrooms where the students have a foundation of English education. Instead of providing watered down curriculum for LEP student, sheltered instruction allows for the content to be equal to that of native English speakers while improving their grasp of the language. Our teachers provide varied methods of instruction that allow students to create meaning of multifaceted content in classroom discussion, activities, reading and writing. Teachers call on a number of different instruction methods such as the use of socialization practices, and the multiple intelligences to allow the content to be more accessible. Sheltered instruction does not focus entirely on language development; instead, through various other topics in the curriculum, English proficiency is achieved.

Systematic ELD

Systematic ELD provides a framework for teachers to use in designing an effective English language development program. The system teaches students the English language that they are not likely to learn outside of school or efficiently pick up on their own, that they will not be explicitly taught in other subject areas, and that these students need to be able to use every day for effective academic learning and classroom participation.

Marzano Observation/Evaluation Protocol

The Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model is an aggregation of the research on specific elements shown to correlate with student academic achievement. In addition to the research on which it was originally based, the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model has undergone continuous study in the field since its inception.

Understanding and use of this protocol will be new to the district. Through implementation, we will improve instruction for all students, thus increasing the likelihood that our middle school students will meet AYP. In addition, we will be able to model a monitoring system for sheltered instruction and Systematic ELD after this protocol, creating consistency.

Strategy / Master Plan Design
Sheltered Instruction / Activity 1 / A monitoring tool, aligned with the Marzano model for observation, will be created. Administrators and sheltered instruction trainers will meet to design this.
Timeline / September 2012 through December 2012
Dates: 1st meeting October 4 after school; subsequent meetings will be scheduled at that time.
Person Responsible / All district administrators
Kevin Draper, Tad Hansen, Nickie Shira
Resources / Title III – funding for after school time will be provided to teachers.
Need: training on Marzano
Activity 2 / Each teacher will have been observed using the sheltered instruction monitoring tool at least once.
Timeline / January 2013 through May 2013
Person Responsible / Jana Iverson – Principals report feedback by providing copies of the observation information and sharing thoughts/ideas.
Building Principals and Vice-Principals as they determine.
Resources / Title III
Need: schedule of observation dates for each teacher
Strategy / Master Plan Design
Systematic
E.L.D. / Activity 1 / A team of ELD teachers at both elementary and secondary levels will become trained to be trainers for systematic ELD for our district.
Timeline / May 2012 through August 2012
May 18, 25, June 1 (initial training)
July 30 – August 3 (seminar for presenters)
Person Responsible / Jana Iverson – Coordinator
Team – John Moyes, Connie Cabrera, Martha Lazo
Resources / Title III
Need: registration, travel arrangements
Activity 2 / District staff will be trained in Systematic ELD strategies.
Timeline / January 2013 through April 2013
Dates: January 18, March 22, April 19 All day training
(Other dates may need to be used if these don’t work out.)
Person Responsible / Jana Iverson – Coordinator
Team – John Moyes, Connie Cabrera, Martha Lazo
Resources / Title III
Need: binders for each staff member
Activity 3 / A monitoring tool for the classroom use of Systematic ELD will be developed, presented to staff, and used by administrators. This should have alignment to the Marzano observation protocol.
Timeline / April 2013 through June 2013
April, May, June - ½ day meetings
Person Responsible / Jana Iverson – Coordinator
Administrators and presenters will work together.
Resources / Title III
Need:
Activity 4 / Message to parents in Bulldog Bulletin regarding plan for improvement for services to LEP students and their families.
Timeline / October 2012
Person Responsible / Jana Iverson
Resources / General Fund
Strategy / Master Plan Design
Focus through Reporting
and
Sharing / Activity 1 / Share ELPA results with district staff.
Timeline / August/September 2012
Person Responsible / Jana Iverson
ELPA results will be included along with the summary of other Oregon Statewide Assessments.
Resources / General Fund
Activity 2 / Share ELPA results with school board, parents, and students.
Timeline / October 2012
Person Responsible / Jana Iverson, Marshell Hooker, Shawn Jensen
Presentations for PAC/Title IA/ELL parents, school board, and article for newsletter.
Resources / General Fund
Activity 3 / Share results of common assessments in ELD classes during team meetings / PLC time.
Timeline / Meetings during the school year. (This will be an item on the agenda for every meeting.)
Person Responsible / Building principals
(Meeting notes will be recorded and turned in to each Principal.)
Resources / General Fund
Activity 4 / Parent meetings for parents of students who are in a Title I school, who are LEP, and who are Migrant. Agendas will include reporting on student progress, other pertinent information regarding each school building, and education for parents (helping their children at home, services available, etc.)
Timeline / Monthly beginning in September 2012
(Dates will be set during annual calendar meeting.)
Agendas will be set two weeks prior to each meeting.
Person Responsible / Jana Iverson
Shawn Jensen
Resources / Title I, Title 1C, Title III
Activity 5 / Quarterly reports to staff regarding improvement plan implementation.
Timeline / October 25, 2012 January 4, 2013 March 21, 2013 August 25, 2013
Person Responsible / Jana Iverson
Resources / General Fund
Timeline for Activities
Month
Year / Sheltered Instruction / Systematic ELD / Reporting/Sharing/Monitoring / Overall Analysis
May
2012 / Systematic ELD initial training for expert team on May 18, 25, and June 1.
June
2012
July
2012 / Systematic ELD trainer workshop occurs in Portland on July 30 – August 3.
August
2012 / ELPA results are summarized and presented to staff with other assessment data.
September
2012 / Presentation of ELPA results prepared for parent meetings.
October
2012 / First meeting regarding monitoring tool for SI occurs on October 4. / Systematic ELD experts meet to plan for upcoming training for staff. / Staff discusses ELD common assessments and student progress during team meetings or PLC time.
Parent meeting – report ELPA results.
Bulldog Bulletin article regarding ELL program improvements inserted. / Quarterly analysis of Improvement Plan implementation and possible changes is sent to staff.
November
2012 / Meeting for SI monitoring tool occurs – date TBD. / Parent meeting -
Timeline for Activities
Month
Year / Sheltered Instruction / Systematic ELD / Reporting/Sharing/Monitoring / Overall Analysis
December
2012 / Monitoring tool is finalized for use during the remainder of the year. / Binders for Systematic ELD training are ordered for staff. / Staff discusses ELD common assessments and student progress during team meetings or PLC time.
Parent meeting
January
2013 / Opportunities to observe/report use of SI in classrooms begins. Draft schedule for each building turned in at last administrative meeting of the month (January 28). / District staff receives Day 1 training on Systematic ELD on January 18. / Parent meeting / Quarterly analysis of Improvement Plan implementation and possible changes is sent to staff.
February
2013 / Staff discusses ELD common assessments and student progress during team meetings or PLC time.
Parent meeting
March
2013 / District staff receives Day 2 training on Systematic ELD on March 22. / Parent meeting / Quarterly analysis of Improvement Plan implementation and possible changes is sent to staff.
April
2013 / District administrators discuss and analyze monitoring of SI implementation during administrative meeting. / District staff receives Day 3 training on Systematic ELD on April 19. / Staff discusses ELD common assessments and student progress during team meetings or PLC time.
Parent meeting
Timeline for Activities
Month
Year / Sheltered Instruction / Systematic ELD / Reporting/Sharing/Monitoring / Overall Analysis
May
2013 / Final opportunity to observe/report use of SI in classrooms. / Parent meeting / ELPA achievement results are collected and summarized.
June
2013 / All district administrators meet to review and analyze ELPA results and have year-end discussion about quarterly observations. This will occur on the morning of the annual Calendar Planning in June.
Quarterly analysis of Improvement Plan implementation and possible changes is prepared to be sent to staff in August 2013.

Section C: Monitoring