English Language Development Improvement Plan · Web viewClearly defined and relevant language instruction to improve access to curriculum. ELD Instruction: Clearly defined instructional

English Language Development Improvement PlanCentral School District 13J

Section A: Planning – Comprehensive Needs Assessment

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

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

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

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

Data collected for the design of this plan includes:

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

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

1

Summary of Teacher Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary:

2

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

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

Summary of Administrator Survey

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

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

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

2. 60% of the administrators somewhat disagreed that they know enough of the details of the ELL plan as they relate to individual schools and the district as a whole.

3. 50% felt they somewhat agreed they could model language objectives for their teachers.

4. 50% felt they somewhat agreed they could model content objectives for their teachers.

5. 90% indicated that they strongly disagree that all their teachers post language and content objectives.

6. 50% indicated that they strongly disagree that 100% of their teachers encourage extensive oral communication among their students as part of each lesson.

7. 70% indicated that they somewhat agree that they are comfortable modeling how to use effective techniques to encourage students to use oral language during lessons.

8. 60% felt that they somewhat disagreed that they know how to do a walk-through observation of a classroom that quantifies the amount of oral communication among students that reflects their understanding of the subject matter.

3

9. 50% indicated they somewhat agree that they know how to evaluate an ELD lesson.

10. 80% indicated they somewhat agree that they understand their role as it relates to the ELL plan.

11. 70% somewhat disagreed that their respective buildings are effectively meeting the expectations of the ELL plan.

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

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

Assessment Results

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

Teacher Practices

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

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

4

Comprehensive Needs Assessment Matrix – Qualitative Data

Spring 2011Survey Data

Curriculum Instruction OrganizationStrength 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 InstructionFormative 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.



Curriculum Instruction OrganizationStrengths Needs Strengths Needs Strengths Needs

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.



Curriculum Instruction OrganizationStrengths 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 helpThe writing processReading 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 strategiesSupport 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 42.58% 174 or 37% 267 or 47% Target: 53%

Gain a level a English Language Proficiency

Target: 35%MET

Target: 35%MET

Target: 50%Not Met

Criterion 2Percent 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%

* AMAO 2A is the percentage of students who exited ELD out of ALL current ELD students. * AMAO 2B is the percentage of students who exited ELD out of all students who have been in school in the US for 5 years or longer.

The split of AMAO 2 occurred during the 09 – 10 school year. The district must meet for both 2A and 2B in order to meet the standard for AMAO 2.

Comprehensive Needs Assessment – Quantitative DataAMAO 3

Table shows the academic progress of all third grade ELL students over four consecutive years based on OAKS.Criterion 3 07 – 08 State target: 08 - 09 State target: 09 – 10 State target: 10 – 11 State target:

Percent of students meeting/exceeding OAKS

Reading 60% Math 59%Total ELL students: 52




DNM NM M E DNM NM M E DNM NM M E DNM NM M E

Reading 12% 1% 37% 50% 13% 18% 52% 17% 13% 38% 48% 1% 14% 20% 61% 4%

Math 10% 4% 63% 23% 33% 19% 44% 4% 24% 11% 52% 13% 46% 27% 27% 0%

Table shows the academic progress of all fifth grade ELL students over four consecutive years based on OAKS.Criterion 3Percent of students meeting/exceeding OAKS

07 – 08 State target:Reading 60% Math 59%Total ELL students: 54

08 - 09 State target:Reading 60% Math 59%Total ELL students: 53




Reading 24% 24% 48% 4% 15% 36% 49% 0% 8% 23% 67% 2% 15% 42% 42% 1%

Math 34% 9% 44% 13% 28% 25% 47% 0% 13% 37% 50% 0% 57% 18% 25% 0%

Table shows the academic progress of all eighth grade ELL students over four consecutive years based on OAKS.

Criterion 3Percent of students meeting/exceeding OAKS

07 – 08 State target:Reading: 60% Math 59%Total ELL students: 42

08 - 09 State target:Reading: 60% Math 59%Total ELL students: 37

09 – 10 State target:Reading: 60% Math 59%Total ELL students: 40


DNM NM M E DNM NM M E DNM NM M E DNM NM M EReading 47% 24% 29% 0% 68% 27% 5% 0% 52% 20% 28% 0% 38% 30% 30% 0%

Math 49% 37% 19% 0% 73% 17% 10% 0% 57% 27% 16% 0% 57% 8% 33% 0%

Comprehensive Needs Assessment – AMAO 3 Data

All ELL and monitor students attending Central High School

Criterion 3Percent of students meeting/exceeding

07 – 08 Reading: 60% Math 59%

Total number of students: 58

08 - 09 Reading: 60% Math 59%


09 – 10 Reading: 60% Math 59%


10 – 11 Reading 70% Math 70%


OAKS DNM NM M E DNM NM M E DNM NM M E DNM NM M E

Reading 69% 21% 10% 0% 74% 20% 7% 0% 73% 18% 9% 0% 55% 29% 15% 0%

Math 74% 15% 11% 0% 80% 15% 6% 0% 85% 12% 3% 0% 80% 12% 8% 0%

All ELL students attending Central High School

Criterion 3Percent of students meeting/exceeding OAKS

07 – 08 Reading: 60% Math 59%


08 - 09 Reading: 60% Math 59%


09 – 10 Reading: 60% Math 59%


10 – 11 Reading 70% Math 70%

Total number of students: 63DNM NM M E DNM NM M E DNM NM M E DNM NM M E

Reading 76% 16% 8% 0% 84% 10% 6% 0% 85% 13% 6% 0% 67% 21% 12% 0%

Math 78% 10% 13% 0% 90% 8% 3% 0% 85% 10% 5% 0% 92% 5% 3% 0%

Comprehensive Needs Assessment – AMAO 3 Cohort Data

Tables show the academic performance of the same students for four consecutive years. Some students might have exited the ELD program to monitor status.

Total number of students: 18Criterion 3Percent of students meeting/exceeding OAKS

07 – 08 Third GradeReading: 60% Math 59%

08 - 09 Fourth GradeReading: 60% Math 59%

09 – 10 Fifth GradeReading: 60% Math 59%

10 – 11 Sixth GradeReading 70% Math 70%


Reading 28% 0% 28% 44% 33% 39% 22% 6% 55% 28% 17% 0% 33% 28% 39% 0%

Math 28% 5% 67% 0% 55% 22% 22% 0% 44% 5% 44% 5% 72% 22% 5% 0%

Total number of students: 23Criterion 3CohortPercent of students meeting/exceeding OAKS

07 – 08 Fifth GradeReading: 60% Math 59%

08 - 09 Sixth GradeReading: 60% Math 59%

09 – 10 Seventh GradeReading: 60% Math 59%

10 – 11 Eighth GradeReading 70% Math 70%


Reading 52% 30% 13% 4% 35% 48% 17% 0% 17% 48% 35% 0% 30% 52% 17% 0%

Math 65% 4% 22% 9% 52% 22% 26% 0% 17% 57% 26% 0% 78% 9% 13% 0%

Total number of students: 13Criterion 3CohortPercent of students meeting/exceeding OAKS

07 – 08 Eighth Reading: 60% Math 59%

08 - 09 Ninth GradeReading: 60% Math 59%

09 – 10 Tenth GradeReading: 60% Math 59%

10 – 11 Eleventh GradeReading 70% Math 70%


Reading 40% 33% 27% 0% 85% 15% 0% 0% 77% 8% 23% 0% 38% 31% 31% 0%

Section A: Inquiry

Cause – Effect Relationships

Based on the comprehensive needs assessment, why are elementary ELD students failing to increase an ELD level each school year?

Inadequate curriculum for ELD instruction. Teaching staff not consistently implementing high impact sheltered instructional

strategies. District leadership lacks training in the Dutro Framework and in conducting classroom

walk-throughs with the purpose of improving both ELD and content instruction.

Based on the comprehensive needs assessment why are secondary students unable to meet/exceed OAKS reading and math?

Not all classrooms are using sheltered instructional strategies. ELD curriculum is insufficient and there is a lack of alignment between the middle

school and the high school ELD programs. High school ELD and sheltered classroom teachers experience continuous changes in

teaching assignment. District leadership lacks training in the Dutro Framework and conducting classroom

walk-throughs with the purpose of improving both ELD and content instruction.

The cause and effect relationship between teacher actions and student learning are routinely discussed during data team meetings (every 4 weeks). Action steps for improved instruction follow the data analysis and creation of SMART goals.

Section A: SMART Goals

1. 57% of ELL students will move up one level in ELD, based on their ELPA score, by spring of 2012.

2. Secondary ELL students at ELD levels 3, 4, and 5 will improve by 10% meeting/exceeding on the OAKS reading and math during the 2011 – 2012 school year.

3. Secondary ELL students will, at a minimum, meet AYP Growth Target scores on OAKS in Language Arts and Math for the 2011-2012 school year. (The ensuing years of 2012-2014 the goal will be increased to include the percentage of students meeting OAKS standards.)

Analysis of Adult Actions

The comprehensive needs assessment shows that Central School District’s ELL student population is unable to perform well in the core content subjects. The teacher survey confirmed that not all grade level teachers are consistently using high-impact instructional strategies. The

administrators lack the training to conduct walk throughs and provide feedback to teachers for improved instruction. The ELD Program Plan submitted December 2009 has not been followed with consistency across all grade levels.

To address these issues the ELD Improvement Plan will focus on implementing high-impact teaching practices, district leadership training for increased accountability, and establishing coaching support for classroom instruction and ELD instruction.

Section B: ImplementationSmart Goals and Research-Based Strategies

Smart Goals:1. 57% of ELL students will move up one level in ELD, based on their ELPA score, by

spring of 2012.


3. Secondary ELL students will, at a minimum, meet AYP Growth Target scores on OAKS in Language Arts and Math for the 2011-2012 school year. (The ensuing years of 2012-2014 the goal will be increased to include the percentage of students meeting OAKS standards.)

Research-based Strategies: The following strategies are taken from Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement by John Hattie.

1. Use of formative assessments to improve the instructional process for sheltered classrooms and ELD instruction.

This action step was included in the original plan but not followed through at all grade levels and subject areas. Teachers began Professional Learning Communities 2007-2008 in grade-alike and vertical groups to address several questions regarding student learning. The question “How will I know when my students have learned the content?” requires developing formative assessments and then changing teaching behaviors and/or resources based on the assessment. Hattie (2009) describes the process as powerful feedback that should direct change. Interventions applied to students who are struggling to learn should be intentional and monitored using formative assessments. (p. 181)

2. Teacher clarity – communication

This strategy emphasizes the importance of teachers communicating the intention or objective of the lesson and describing what success will look like. The basis for such communication is the relationship between the teacher and the student. The strategy requires providing the student with explanations, examples, guided practices and feedback regarding student learning (Hattie, p. 125 – 126).

Application of this strategy to instruct ELL students requires the use of content and language objectives for core content subject areas.

3. Reciprocal teaching

This style of teaching is the process of teachers using cognitive strategies such as summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting to increase the ability of the student to learn the content. The process includes scaffolding so that there is a gradual release of responsibility from the teacher to the student. With reciprocal teaching students learn to self-monitor their learning, moving from a spectator to a performer after modeling and guided practice by the teacher (Hattie, p 203 – 204). The ability to use these “thinking” strategies is critical for ELL students to learn core academic subjects such as math and reading.

This strategy will be tailored to improve the use of shelter techniques in order to specifically design a lesson to meet the needs of ELD students.

The following action plans will include these strategies in addition to the critical elements of instructional leadership by the principal. Professional development will provide teachers and district administrators with the knowledge and support to implement this improvement plan.

Section B: Master Plan DesignSMART Goals:1. 57% of ELL students will move up one level in ELD, based on their ELPA score, by spring of 2012.


Strategy / Action Step Person Responsible Monitor / Evaluation Resources Needed Timeline

Use of formative assessments to improve the instructional process for sheltered classrooms

Classroom teachersSIOP CoachELL Specialist

Principals to oversee process.

Data teams to monitor student progress every 4 weeks.

Half-day PLC to design and analyze formative assessments

Essential standards for math and reading aligned with curriculum.

Once a month for PLC

Use of formative assessment to improve the instructional process for ELD instruction

ELD teachersELD Coach

Principals to oversee process.

ELD Coach to support instruction and monitor student progress.

ELD teachers to track student progress.



Teacher clarity/communication:Classroom teachers will use content and language objectives as an integral part of their lesson plans.

Classroom teachersELL SpecialistSIOP Coach

Principals will conduct walk throughs using sheltered instruction scoring rubric

ELL Specialist will provide coaching support

Sheltered instruction scoring rubric

Daily/weekly use of content and language objectives.

Reciprocal teaching:Summarizing, questioning, clarifying, predicting with student involvement


Principals will conduct walk throughs using sheltered instruction scoring rubric

Data teams will monitor student progress

Professional development for teachers and administrators

Monitoring by data teams every 4 weeks

SMART Goal:

3 Secondary ELL students will, at a minimum, meet AYP Growth Target scores on OAKS in Language Arts and Math for the 2011-2012 school year. (The ensuing years of 2012-2014 the goal will be increased to include the percentage of students meeting OAKS standards.)


Secondary teachers of all ELL students in Language Arts and Math will use three to five SIOP strategies as integral parts of their lessons

Classroom teachersSIOP CoachELL SpecialistBuilding Principals

Principals to oversee process

Data teams to monitor student progress every 4 weeks. Evaluation of specific strategies as they relate to student achievement every four weeks

Half-day PLC to develop instructional units aligned with three to five SIOP strategies.

Essential standards for math and reading aligned with curriculum.


Secondary teachers of ELL students will use bi-monthly formative assessments to improve the instructional process for core instruction in Secondary Language Arts and Math

Classroom Teachers of ELL students Principals collect and evaluate formative assessments.

Six week student progress reports evaluated by principals



Teacher clarity/communication:

Secondary classroom teachers will use content and language objectives in all secondary classrooms

Classroom teachesELL SpecialistSIOP Coach

Principals will conduct walk- throughs using sheltered instruction scoring rubrics

ELL Specialist will provide coaching support

Sheltered instruction scoring rubric

Daily/weekly use of content and language objectives through the entire school year

Reciprocal teaching:

Secondary teachers will use summarizing, questioning, clarifying, predicting and student oral engagement in classes with ELL students


Principals will conduct walk- throughs using rubrics for reciprocal teaching

Data teams will monitor student progress related to reciprocal teaching strategies

Professional development for teachers and administrators

Observational rubrics for reciprocal teaching

Monitoring by data teams every 4 weeks

Section B: Professional Development

Performance of ELL and Special Ed subgroups has prevented several schools from meeting AYP targets. Increases in cut scores for math and ELA will make achieving AYP even more difficult. Data on IEP’s indicate over identification of students, many who do not receive timely interventions. Writing scores continue below state averages for all students. Identified needs for teacher professional development include:

1. All secondary teachers of ELL students need to implement SIOP strategies with greater fidelity and effectively utilize the instructional strategies of the improvement plan. All elementary teachers of ELL students need to better implement GLAD and effectively utilize the instructional strategies of the improvement plan for improved student learning of core content.

2. All K-12 teachers need to be engaged in the work of Professional Learning Communities to better serve the specialized needs of their students. Instruction and assessments must be better aligned with the National Common Core Standards.


Utilize the services of a part-time SIOP coach and a portion of the district ELL Specialist

CHS PrincipalTMS PrincipalSuperintendent

Superintendent and Federal Programs Specialists oversee training process and monitor every 6 weeks

Title IIA will fund the coach (.5 FTE) and a third (.3 FTE) of the ELL Specialist.

Full year 2011 - 2012

Provide release time for content and/or grade level PLC’s to meet with focus on meeting needs of all students, including ELL.

Principals and District Office Administrators.

Principals oversee process and report to the Superintendent monthly

Title IIA will fund most release time. Two inservice days will also be devoted to PLC time and support.

Half-day PLC meetings will occur monthly throughout the school year.

Principals receive training on the Dutro Framework, conducting walk-throughs using observational rubrics for sheltered instruction and ELD instruction and instructional strategies of reciprocal teaching

SuperintendentFederal Program Specialists

Superintendent will meet with elementary principals to monitor the use of rubrics every 6 weeks. Federal Program Specialist will monitor and evaluate professional development for administrators

General fund, Title IA, Title IIA Full year 2011 - 2012

Administrative team reviews progress made by PLC’s in terms of ELL goals.

SuperintendentFederal Program Specialists

Each school’s data reviewed and analyzed for progress

General fund, Title IA, Title IIA Every 6 weeks

ELD Coach to support improved instructional process for all ELD teachers.

ELL SpecialistPrincipalsSuperintendent

Superintendent will meet with the ELD Coach every 6 weeks to monitor coaching model.

General fund, Title III Full year 2011 - 2012

Section B: Parent/Community InvolvementStrategy / Action Step Person Responsible Monitor / Evaluation Resources Needed Timeline

Develop a parent focus group to gain information concerning district services to ELL and to improvement parent involvement.

Begin with parents of secondary ELL students.

ELL Specialist Log of agenda items, attendance at meetings.

Meeting minutes

Meeting space, child care, refreshments

One meeting each trimester for the 2011 – 12 school year.

Develop a parent survey. Include program communication, ELD and content instruction and transition process.

ELL SpecialistDistrict ELD Teachers

Survey results used to make program improvements.

Survey, opportunity to disperse the survey.

One survey during the 2011 – 2012 school year.

Increase information meetings to parents of elementary ELD students.

Elementary classroom teachersELD teachersELL Specialist

Attendance records of events and feedback sheet at the end of the event.

Meeting space, materials, refreshments, child care

2011- 2012 school year. Each elementary school to host at least one parent information night during the school year.

Increase information meetings to parents of secondary ELL students regarding student learning, grading, homework support, educational resources.

Secondary classroom teachersELD teachers

Attendance records, parent survey, feedback from parent focus group

Meeting space, materials, refreshments, child care

2-3 opportunities for parents during the 2011-12 school year.

Section C: Monitoring and Evaluation of ELD Improvement Plan

Evaluation of Program Goals: The measurement of student progress toward ELD program goals is the first and most critical aspect of the program evaluation. CSD will evaluate the ELD program with a thorough internal evaluation aligned with English Language Proficiency standards (ELP) along with external ODE approved assessments. The process will include levels of accountability with documentation connected to increased achievement for each of AMAOs. District and building level ELD teams will review results quarterly.

The overall program goal addressing AMAO 1 is to improve the number of ELL students increasing their English language ability as assessed by the ADEPT (mid-year) and ELPA (spring). Check points throughout the school year include ELD formative assessments aligned to the ELP standards. Fidelity of implementation of the ELD program will be determined by PLC documentation, summative assessments and data, course curriculum maps and observations. Increased professional training for district administrators will assure implementation in all classrooms. Principals will use scoring rubrics for ELD and sheltered instruction to provide feedback to teachers for improved instruction and to assure that the strategies listed within this improvement plan are being implemented at the highest level.

A large number of students lack English language proficiency skills, which greatly impacts their access to core content instruction and meeting/exceeding the OAKS for reading and math, AMAO 3. To address this challenge CSD will monitor ELL students in year 4 and 5; tracking the English proficiency levels using formative and summative assessments aligned to the ELD curriculum. Schools will implement research-based interventions for those students who are not progressing. Teachers will be supported through continued professional development aligned with the needs of the ELD students.

The evaluation plan covers all aspects of the ELL program, including program implementation practices and student performance. Implementation practices are evaluated at the building and district level using a variety of data. The ELL Specialist oversees identification of students new to the district and the process to see services begin in a timely manner. The school data team, along with the ELL Specialist evaluates bi-annually all aspects of program implementation. This includes services to ELL students, alignment of resources, use of interventions and the process to exit and monitor. At the district level program implementation is evaluated based on student outcomes, feedback from the building administrators and the ELL Specialist.

Student performance is evaluated at the classroom, building, district and state level. Teachers use PLC time to review formative assessments and make adjustments to

instruction. Building level data teams review student assessment results every grading period to see

that progress is being made. District level evaluation of student performance takes places bi-annually and is part of the

continuous improvement model. Student data is reviewed and discussed by the administrative team. Professional Development is then planned based on the data and

progress towards meeting AMAOs. State evaluative data is reviewed bi-annually by teachers, principals and district

administrators. OAKS achievement data and ELPA scores are a measure of program success.

Information is collected at both the district and building level. Each school collects data through PLC time, ELD formative assessments, attendance and behavior referral data. Information is then reviewed by the building level data team and brought to the district administrative team for further analysis.

The district ELL Specialist and classroom teachers monitor student progress towards AMAOs and collect the relevant data. A Student Progress over Time (SPOT) document in the form of a spreadsheet will be maintained on the district secured shared drive. The spreadsheet will include those measurements used across grade levels such as DRAs and IRIs for reading, math computational timed test and other forms of assessments. The collected data will monitor the progress the students are making toward achieving AMAO 3. The ADEPT will be used in January and May as a measurement tool for language acquisition.

Student data is reviewed every grading period by the school data team. In addition to this review teachers use PLC time to analyze the results of instruction based on formative assessments. The review process continues at the building level led by the principal. Staff members grouped by grade and/or content area evaluate the progress students are making toward the program goals. Each school follows the improvement plan that includes the AMAO goals and current data. Principals share the building level progress at the district administrative team meeting. Goals and program adjustments are made based on student outcomes.

The results of student assessment, maintained on the SPOT document, are reviewed by the school’s data team with the ELL Specialist every January and May.

Plan for Modification/Improvement: Modifications and improvements will be made as student data is collected and analyzed. At this juncture the program model needs time to produce the expected results, that is, students begin to demonstrate increased English language proficiency. Program modifications include increased professional development for teachers and administrators, using observation rubrics to provide feedback to classroom teachers and ELD teachers, and supplementing the ELD curriculum at the elementary and secondary levels.

Implementing Program Changes: CSD monitors the progress towards AMAOs every grading period and makes adjustments as needed. Any program changes must be supported by student data. At this time teachers and administrators need time to implement the current program with fidelity, consistency, intensity and quality.

Administrators will work closely with all teachers who have ELL students in their classes to assure that the translation from instructional theory to instructional practice is happening at a rate that is beneficial to student achievement. Teachers who need extra support and assistance in helping their students achieve the goals of the improvement plan will be provided with extra

assistance from their administrators and/or other staff development professionals. The monitor/evaluation process will assure that ineffective instructional practices will no longer occur.

Evaluation Cycle: The district administrators and the ELL Specialist review student outcomes every grading period. The reviews are considered checkpoints toward meeting the district AMAO goals. Support and intervention plans are available to classroom teachers. Student formative assessments are reviewed weekly. This process along with continued professional development empowers teachers to make decisions in instruction so that student academic needs are being met. The cause and effect relationship between teacher actions and student learning are routinely discussed during data team meetings (every 4 weeks). Action steps for improved instruction follow the data analysis and creation of SMART goals.

An additional review stems from administrators conducting a regular Walk-Through or Learning Walk to observe and provide feedback regarding SI, ELD and SIOP effectiveness. ODE’s Guidance for Implementation of Content Support Program for ELLs contains an observational tool to be used when conducting a Learning Walk. This process provides teachers with immediate feedback regarding instructional strategies to assist the learning process for ELL students. It is expected that district administrators will conduct regular Learning Walks with the goal of improving instruction and maintaining program fidelity.

Alignment of Evaluation with Goals and Objectives: CSD aligns the district improvement plan and the professional development plan along with the individual school improvement plans. Each plan is based on district goals and objectives, includes curriculum, assessment, interventions, person responsible, time line, necessary resources and current student data. The ELL program plan and evaluation is designed in the same format acting as a guide for program decisions. The program is evaluated from a variety of levels, check points to see that CSD is on track to meeting the AMAO goals stated in this plan.

Documents

English Language Development Improvement Plan · Web viewClearly defined and relevant language instruction to improve access to curriculum. ELD Instruction: Clearly defined instructional