FINAL 101713 Council Minutes - Learning Community · 2019-10-17 · Evaluation Report of Elementary Learning Programs 2012/2013 – Lisa St. Clair iv. Elementary Levy RFP Funding

11/15/2013 1

LEARNING COMMUNITY OF DOUGLAS AND SARPY COUNTIES

LEARNING COMMUNITY COORDINATING COUNCIL

AGENDA

November 21, 2013 – 6:00 p.m.

Thompson Center at UNO, 6705 Dodge Street Omaha, NE 68182

1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Public Notice and Compliance with Open Meetings Act 3. Roll Call 4. Approval of Council Minutes – October 17, 2013 5. Reports

a) Chair

b) Treasurer

i. Action Item: Accept Treasurer’s Report dated October 31, 2013

c) Chief Executive Officer

d) Legal Counsel 6. Public Comment 7. Subcommittee Reports

a) Diversity Plan Subcommittee

b) Elementary Learning Center Subcommittee

i. Learning Community Center of North Omaha – Renee Franklin

ii. Learning Community Center of South Omaha – Renee Franklin

iii. Evaluation Report of Elementary Learning Programs 2012/2013 – Lisa St. Clair

iv. Elementary Levy RFP Funding and Process Update

v. Elementary Learning Center Programming Agreements

1. Action Item: Approve the form “Elementary Learning Center Programming Agreement” to be used for elementary learning programming for Ralston Public Schools.

2. Action Item: Approve the form “Elementary Learning Center Programming Agreement” to be used for elementary learning programming for Millard Public Schools.

c) Budget, Finance & Audit Subcommittee d) Administration & Personnel Subcommittee

e) Legislation Subcommittee

11/15/2013 2

8. New Business

a) Action Item: To approve the 2014/2015 Limited English Proficiency Plans submitted by the following member school districts and certification of said approval to the Nebraska Department of Education in accordance with statute:

i. Bellevue Public School District

ii. Bennington Public School District

iii. Douglas County West Community School District

iv. Elkhorn Public School District

v. Gretna Public School District

vi. Millard Public School District

vii. Omaha Public School District

viii. Papillion-La Vista School District

ix. Ralston Public School District

x. Springfield Platteview Community School District

xi. Westside Community School District

b) Action Item: To approve the 2014/2015 Poverty Plans submitted by the following member school districts and certification of said approval to the Nebraska Department of Education in accordance with statute:

i. Bellevue Public School District

ii. Bennington Public School District

iii. Douglas County West Community School District

iv. Elkhorn Public School District

v. Gretna Public School District

vi. Millard Public School District

vii. Omaha Public School District

viii. Papillion-La Vista School District

ix. Ralston Public School District

x. Springfield Platteview Community School District

xi. Westside Community School District

9. Unfinished Business

10. Achievement Subcouncil Reports

11. Next Council Meeting December 19, 2013, 6:00 p.m., UNO Thompson Center, 6705 Dodge Street, Omaha, NE

12. Adjournment

UPCOMING LEARNING COMMUNITY EVENTS:

Advisory Committee – To Be Determined

LC Coordinating Council – December 19, 2013, 6:00 p.m.

11/15/2013 3

UNO Thompson Center, 6705 Dodge Street, Omaha, NE

Subcouncil #1 – To Be Determined Subcouncil #2 – December 4, 2013, 9:00 a.m. TAC, 3215 Cuming Street, Omaha, NE

Subcouncil #3 – To Be Determined

Subcouncil #4 – To Be Determined Subcouncil #5 – December 10, 2013, 9:00 a.m. LC Center of South Omaha, 2302 M St., Omaha, NE

Subcouncil #6 – To Be Determined

HANDOUTS TO ACCOMPANY THIS AGENDA ARE AS FOLLOWS:

LCCC Minutes dated October 17, 2013

Treasurer’s Report dated October 31, 2013

Evaluation Report of Elementary Learning Programs 2012/2013

Ralston Elementary Learning Center Programming Agreement

Millard Elementary Learning Center Programming Agreement

Summary and Recommendation for LEP and Poverty Plans

1


LEARNING COMMUNITY COORDINATING COUNCIL

October 17, 2013

A meeting of the Coordinating Council of the Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy Counties was held on October 17, 2013, at the Thompson Center at UNO, 6705 Dodge Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68182. Notice of the meeting, containing the date, time, place, and agenda, was given in advance thereof by publication in the Daily Record on October 9, 2013. Notice of the meeting was also given in advance by publication in the Bellevue Leader, Douglas County Post Gazette, El Perico, Gretna Guide, Omaha Star, Ralston Recorder and Papillion Times between October 8 and October 11, 2013, 2013. The proofs of publication have been received and will be made a permanent part of the record of the meeting. Notice of the agenda was given to all members of the Council on October 10, 2013. 1. Call Meeting to Order. The meeting was convened and called to order by Chair Chang at 6:05 p.m. 2. Public Notice & Compliance with Open Meetings Act. Chair Chang announced that the Nebraska Open Meetings Act was posted at the entrance to the room and that copies of materials being reviewed by the Council were available to the public. 3. Roll Call.

Voting Members Present: Anderson, Avery, Friedman, Hager, Hartnett, Heidel, Holthaus, Jacobson, Jones, McCulloh, Snow, Wickham, Chang

Voting Members Excused: Pate, Slosburg, Synowiecki, Wolford Voting Members Absent: Carter Nonvoting Members Present: Nonvoting Members Excused: Nonvoting Members Absent: Staff Present: Stilwill, Gabrial, Benzel Also Present: Margaret Hershiser

4. Approval of Minutes. Chair Chang presented the minutes from the September 19, 2013 meeting of the Council. Motion by Mr. Hartnett, seconded by Mr. McCulloh, to approve the minutes of the Council meeting held on September 19, 2013, as presented. Yeas: Anderson, Avery, Friedman, Hartnett, Heidel, Holthaus, Jacobson, McCulloh, Snow, Wickham, Chang. Abstain: Hager, Jones. Nays: None. Motion carried. 5. Reports.

a) Ms. Chang thanked those involved with the grand opening of the Learning Community Center of South Omaha and reported on the meetings she had attended.

November 21, 2013 Agenda Item 4

2

b) Mr. Hartnett presented the Treasurer’s Report. Motion by Mr. Hartnett, seconded by Mr. Avery, to approve the Treasurer’s Report dated September 30, 2013. Yeas: Anderson, Avery, Friedman, Hager, Hartnett, Heidel, Holthaus, Jacobson, Jones, McCulloh, Snow, Wickham, Chang. Nays: None. Motion carried. Mr. Hartnett presented the Fourth Quarter Budget to Actual Report. Motion by Mr. Hartnett, seconded by Ms. Jacobson, to approve the Budget to Actual Report. Yeas: Anderson, Avery, Friedman, Hager, Hartnett, Heidel, Holthaus, Jacobson, Jones, McCulloh, Snow, Wickham, Chang. Nays: None. Motion carried.

c) Mr. Stilwill reported he has had the opportunity to speak at service clubs and that there

will be an Advisory Committee meeting on October 29, 2013 at UNO. d) Ms. Hershiser of Koley Jessen, P.C., LLO indicated there was no report.

6. Public Comment. None. 7. Subcommittee Reports

a) Diversity Plan Subcommittee

i. Chair Chang reviewed the process for Subcouncils to hold meetings to review LEP/Poverty plans.

ii. Chair Chang reminded Subcouncils to review Diversity Plan and hold a forum by December 31.

iii. Mr. Stilwill provided a brief presentation on LEP/Poverty plans.

b) Elementary Learning Center Subcommittee

i. Learning Community Center of North Omaha – Mr. Stilwill provided an update.

ii. Learning Community Center of South Omaha – Mr. Stilwill provided a video of the Learning Community Center of South Omaha.

iii. ELC Showcase – Ms. Jacobson provided a report.

a) Budget, Finance & Audit Subcommittee

i. Banking RFP Update – Mr. Hartnett presented the Banking RFP. b) Administration & Personnel Subcommittee – No Report

e) Legislation Subcommittee – No Report.

8. New Business 9. Unfinished Business

a) Proposed Amendments to Bylaws (Second Reading) - Chair Chang provided the Second Reading of the proposed amendments to the Bylaws and explained the revisions. Motion by Mr. Hartnett, seconded by Ms. Jacobson, to approve proposed amendments to Bylaws. Yeas: Anderson, Avery, Friedman, Hager, Hartnett, Heidel, Holthaus, Jacobson, Jones, McCulloh, Snow, Wickham, Chang. Nays: None. Motion carried.

b) Proposed Revisions to the Learning Community Policies and Procedures - Chair Chang explained the revisions. Motion by Mr. Avery, seconded by Mr. Wickham, to approve revisions to the Learning Community Policies and Procedures as presented. Yeas: Anderson, Avery, Friedman, Hager, Hartnett, Heidel, Holthaus, Jacobson, Jones, McCulloh, Snow, Wickham, Chang. Nays: None. Motion carried.

3

c) Proposed Revisions to the Employee Handbook – Chair Chang explained the revisions. Motion by Ms. Friedman, seconded by Ms. Anderson, to approve revisions to the Employee Handbook as presented. Yeas: Anderson, Avery, Friedman, Hager, Hartnett, Heidel, Holthaus, Jacobson, Jones, McCulloh, Snow, Wickham, Chang. Nays: None. Motion carried.

10. Achievement Subcouncil Reports – No Reports.

11. Next Council Meeting

November 21, 2013, 6:00 p.m., Thompson Center at UNO, 6705 Dodge Street, Omaha, NE 68182

12. Adjournment – 7:12 p.m.

Handouts provided were as follows, copies of which will be made a permanent part of the record of the meeting:

LCCC Minutes dated September 19, 2013

Treasurer’s Report dated August 31, 2013

Fourth Quarter Budget to Actual Report

Banking Draft RFP

Learning Community Bylaws Amendments

Learning Community Policies and Procedures Revisions

Learning Community Employee Handbook Revisions

___________________________

Nancy Jacobson, Secretary

LEARNING COMM OF DOUGLAS SARPY COUNTY

Treasurer's Report

October 31, 2013

Trans Description Credit Amt Date Reference

Stamps.com 52.51$ 10/1/13 DCnFocus Solutions 399.00$ 10/2/13 DCLandmark Properties, Inc. 2,047.50$ 10/3/13 2506BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEBR 4,492.25$ 10/3/13 2507Madison National Life 307.71$ 10/3/13 2508Colonial Life 525.50$ 10/3/13 2509COX CABLE 993.46$ 10/3/13 2510Base 31.25$ 10/3/13 2511Base Flex Account 75.00$ 10/7/13 DCBase Flex Account 75.00$ 10/8/13 DCPAYCHEX 103.16$ 10/10/13 DCBase Flex Account 75.00$ 10/11/13 DCAT&T 30.00$ 10/15/13 DCPaychex deduction for direct deposits 22,128.58$ 10/15/13 Oct 2013 PayrollPaychex deduction for payroll taxes 11,291.99$ 10/15/13 Oct 2013 PayrollBase Flex Account 75.00$ 10/16/13 DCAT&T 30.00$ 10/16/13 DCHELP Foundation of Omaha 12,814.07$ 10/17/13 1339Omaha Home for Boys 810.00$ 10/17/13 1340COX CABLE 210.44$ 10/17/13 1341Koley Jessen 2,754.50$ 10/17/13 1342RDG Planning & Design 30,127.36$ 10/17/13 1343UNMC 50,957.16$ 10/17/13 1344One World Community Heatlh Cen 65,000.00$ 10/17/13 1345Lutheran Family Services 66,500.00$ 10/17/13 1346Completely Kids 9,851.60$ 10/17/13 1347Salvation Army 7,050.00$ 10/17/13 1348Girls Inc 9,700.40$ 10/17/13 1349Girls Inc 4,850.20$ 10/17/13 1350Educare 8,225.20$ 10/17/13 1351Salvation Army 5,000.00$ 10/17/13 1352Papillion-La Vista School Dist 15,168.15$ 10/17/13 1353Philadelphia Insurance Compani 116.33$ 10/17/13 2512All Makes Office Equipment Co. 251.25$ 10/17/13 2513The Thompson Center at UNO 112.50$ 10/17/13 2514KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTI 353.99$ 10/17/13 2515Brandeis Catering 101.20$ 10/17/13 2516PAY-LESS OFFICE PRODUCTS, INC. 83.48$ 10/17/13 2517MIDWEST SOUND & LIGHTING INC 1,087.50$ 10/17/13 2518United Rent-All 127.43$ 10/17/13 2519Fastsigns 323.00$ 10/17/13 2520Paparazzi By Appointment 374.95$ 10/17/13 2521Eddie's Catering 987.50$ 10/17/13 2522Nonprofit Association of the M 99.00$ 10/17/13 2523DAILY RECORD 77.50$ 10/17/13 2524DOUGLAS COUNTY POST GAZETTER 13.22$ 10/17/13 2525GRETNA GUIDE 12.80$ 10/17/13 2526The Omaha Star, Inc. 72.00$ 10/17/13 2527Pioneer Publishing, Inc. 50.00$ 10/17/13 2528Amy Friedman 194.97$ 10/17/13 2529Envisage Creative Group 24.95$ 10/17/13 2530P&L Technologies 550.00$ 10/17/13 2531Seim, Johnson, Sestek & Quist, 250.00$ 10/17/13 2532Volano Solutions 3,131.25$ 10/17/13 2533Bert Jackson 2,188.75$ 10/17/13 2534Jensen Rogert Associates, Inc. 2,000.00$ 10/17/13 2535Carroll Communications 5,312.50$ 10/17/13 2536Koley Jessen 2,406.50$ 10/17/13 2537All Makes Office Equipment Co. 150.76$ 10/17/13 2538Base Flex Account 75.00$ 10/25/13 DCStamps.com 15.99$ 10/25/13 DCPrincipal Financial Retirement 300.68$ 10/30/13 DCStamps.com 100.00$ 10/31/13 DC

Total October Expenditures 352,696.99$

November 21, 2013 Agenda Item 5(b)i

EVALUATION REPORT OF ELEMENTARY LEARNING PROGRAMS

2012‐2013

November 21, 2013 Agenda Item 7(b) iii

EVALUATION REPORT OF ELEMENTARY LEARNING PROGRAMS

2012‐2013

External evaluation director: Lisa St. Clair, Ed.D., Interdisciplinary Center for Program Evaluation, Munroe Meyer Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center. Report prepared November 1, 2013.

Background The elementary learning centers funding levy was established to launch innovative programs to

impact the achievement of elementary students who face challenges in the educational

environment due to poverty, limited English skills, or mobility.

Evaluation Approach and Rationale

Generally based upon a Utilization‐Focused evaluation design (Patton, 2012), the evaluation plan

employed multiple methods to describe and measure the quality of implementation, the nature

of programming, and to report outcomes demonstrated by the elementary learning programs

funded by the LC. These programs included Jump Start Kindergarten, Extended Learning

(Tutoring, After School, and Summer School programs), Literacy Coaching, and the Family Liaison

program. The overarching evaluation questions were:

1. Implementation: What was the nature and quality of implementation? Who accessed and

participated in the program? Was there variation in implementation and if so, what

factors contributed?

a. What happened?

b. For whom?

c. What was the quality of implementation?

2. Academic focus: What were short and long term outcomes related to academic

achievement?

a. Did other stakeholders report improvement in student learning or engagement

(parents, school day teachers)?

b. Was there improvement in communication skills (literacy)?

c. Was there improvement in quantitative thinking skills (numeracy)?

3. Family support focus: What did the program or school provide to families/parents that

will allow greater student success in school?

a. What processes did the program or school use to support the needs of families?

b. What processes did the program or school use to develop resources for helping to

meet those needs?

Program Impacts

To quantify program impacts, we will report all pre and post measures relative to significance

(were the results significant) and if so, what was the magnitude of the change (effect size). To

understand effect size and to place it in context, Cohen suggests using d=0.20 to be small, d=0.50

to be medium, and d=.80 to be a large effect. To describe this another way, John Hattie in Visible

Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta‐Analyses Relating to Achievement, uses a concept called

“zone of desired effects” that starts at a medium

effect size, 0.40 (Hattie, 2009). Hattie suggests that a

1.0 effect size (as shown in Hattie’s graph) is equal to

about 2‐3 years of student growth and learning. Effect

sizes can be greater than 1.0; however, they are less

common and are therefore not shown on the graphic.

Effect sizes tend to be smaller with very young

children, so you must adjust your zone of desired effects to begin at around .20. With younger

students (infant through kindergarten), effect size is often lower because the range of

measurement error is larger with very young children (Burchinal, 2008). This concern, seconded

by the smaller number of early childhood assessments that measure learning domains, it is easy

to see why there might be more measurement error in the testing of young children. Therefore,

for the very young, an effect size less than .40 may be in the zone of desired effects.

Program Descriptions

Subsection I.1 Extended Learning Time (ELT) Programs

I.1.1 Comprehensive Out of School Time: These programs provide out of school time

programming throughout the school year. Students would be offered after school programming

greater than one hour per day. This design would typically target academic and social/behavioral

supports, and in some cases, family engagement services.

I.1.2 Tutoring: Tutoring ELT programs provide after school tutoring targeted to students at

greatest risk for academic failure during the school year. This is typically offered in one hour

sessions, one or two times per week.

I.1.3 Summer: Summer extended learning programs provide summer programming which

targets academic and social/behavioral supports typically to students who have been identified

as needing additional supports, and in some cases also includes recreation, health/wellness, and

family engagement services.

Subsection I.2 Literacy Coaching

Literacy Coaching: Literacy coaching programs provided literacy coaches to teachers in

elementary buildings with high levels of students qualifying for free/reduced lunch. The coaches

provided support in a multiple areas including individual work with teachers, professional

development for teaching teams, data analysis, assessment assistance and assistance with

gathering resources for use in classrooms.

Subsection I.3 Jump Start to Kindergarten Programs

Jump Start to Kindergarten programs offer programming to support students in the summer prior

to entry into kindergarten.

Subsection I.4 Family Literacy Program

The Family Literacy Program is offered through the Learning Community of South Omaha (LCCSO)

in partnership with One World Community Health Centers. This program provides family literacy

and parenting education to families in the broader South Omaha area, with a predominant focus

on serving high poverty parents who are learning English.

Subsection I.5 Learning Community Family Liaison Program

The Learning Community Family Liaison Program (in partnership with Lutheran Family Services):

The Family Liaison Model was established to reduce barriers to learning by providing services to

students and families that address underlying issues affecting the family and child. The program’s

multi‐pronged approach to service delivery address a variety of factors that impact the student’s

ability to learn.

Subsection I.1: Extended Learning Time Programs

Lead: Jolene Johnson Ed.S.

Introduction

The Learning Community funded a number of

Extended Learning Time programs that included

comprehensive out‐of‐school time programs

throughout the school year, before‐school and

after‐school tutoring sessions with targeted

academic support, and summer learning

programs to students. Below is a description of

the programs that served students during 2012‐

2013.

School Year Program Descriptions

Bellevue Extended Learning. This program featured extended learning time in the subjects of

reading, writing, and mathematics during the school year to target students at risk for falling

behind academically. It was implemented in six elementary schools across the district. Students

targeted for this program were in grades 3‐6. The program incorporated collaboration time for

teachers to design lessons specifically targeted for individual student areas in need of

improvement. A Lead Teacher was hired to organize the programs and improve their flow and

consistency. A Literacy Coach and English Language Learner Teacher were incorporated to

intensely focus on literacy and offer pull‐out services for direct reading instruction to targeted

students. In addition literacy bags were provided for families in English as well as Spanish to

encourage reading at home. This program operated two nights per week during the school year.

Completely KIDS. This program focused on academic

proficiency, youth development, food/nutrition, and

family engagement. Completely KIDS’s academic

programming (mathematics, reading, writing, and

science) was designed by licensed educators to align with

Nebraska State Educational Standards and to supplement

classroom learning in the core areas. Licensed educators

will also contracted with to support individual and group

learning needs while at program. Many lessons were

molded to the individual learning needs of each student. The program also provided students

with many opportunities to participate in educational enrichment activities, family engagement,

Extended Learning Key Findings

2,588 students were served School year‐1,850 students were served an average of 50 hours Summer‐738 students were served an average of 38 hours

83% of students were eligible for free/reduced lunch

An overall effect size was calculated and is considered small (d=0.30), though there was a broad range (no significant change to d=1.94)

and Coordinators worked closed with Family Liaisons (one funded by the Learning Community of

Douglas and Sarpy Counties, one privately funded) to identify additional supports for families.

Students from Pre‐Kindergarten through sixth grade were targeted for this program at two

schools. The program ran Monday through Friday from 3:55‐6:00pm after school, for 34 weeks

during the school year.

Girls Inc. This program featured an out‐of‐school setting literacy program to promote phonemic

awareness, word recognition, fluency, vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension. It was

sponsored by a community agency and the program complements the local school district’s

reading curriculum, utilizing the same phonics program and sequence of instruction. Certified

teachers were included in the program staff to enhance the expertise, as well as to design specific

interventions in response to individual needs. The overall focus of the program was to improve

the percentage of students reading at grade level. This program ran Monday through Friday, for

three hours per day during the school year at two sites.

Omaha Area Health Education Center (OAHEC) at Lothrop Elementary. This school year program

featured a Science and Math Enrichment Camp designed to increase competencies among

underserved students at Lothrop Magnet Center utilizing programming from Carolina’s Inquiry‐

Based Science and Math Curriculums developed in partnership with the National Academies and

the Smithsonian Institution. Students involved in this program participated in substantive

afterschool classroom learning including hands‐on activities and presentations, designed to

prepare students for academic and career opportunities. Students participated in science and

math programming in areas such as the life cycle of organisms, concepts in algebra and geometry

(collecting and sorting, plotting on graphs, etc.) and taking measurements of all sorts. In addition

to science and math programming, students in grades 3 and 4 and some members of their

immediate family were trained on providing life‐saving first aid care to friends and family. This

program operated for 10 weeks, three days per week, for two hours per session. All students at

Lothrop from grades K‐4 were targeted for participation in this program.

Omaha Public Schools Extended Learning Time (Tutoring). This school year program featured

Extended Learning Time (ELT) provided to select students with academic needs designed to help

them master content in reading, writing and mathematics. The program design created a cohort

of students with a common teacher to establish long term relationships and in‐depth learning

opportunities within a small group. The teacher from the ELT program and the regular classroom

teacher worked together to customize instruction for each student and incorporated planned

instruction time for students. An individualized goals agreement was developed for each student

and had a weekly focus. Progress towards goals was reported to parents every five weeks. The

program ran for 21 weeks, consisting of two to three tutoring sessions per week, for one hour

per day during the school year for students in grades K‐6. This ELT program was designed by the

school district and was implemented in 37 schools. A district support team was established to

assist schools in the implementation of programs and for coordination of resources that included

a district level contact for administration, a lead teacher in each school to ensure individualized

instruction was planned for every student, as well as incorporated an internal evaluation.

Salvation Army/North Corps: This after school program focused mainly on math and reading

skills. Many students needed help and practice with calculation skills (such as addition and

subtraction) as well as help understanding story problems. Reading skills worked on included

vocabulary, sight words, fluency and comprehension strategies. Students were able to access the

program as needed to work on homework or specific academic skills. The students were able to

work on skills using a variety of programs and materials (games, manipulatives and puzzles). The

program ran Monday‐Friday for four hours each day serving students in grades k‐12 with 95% of

the participants being K‐8.

South Sarpy. Students served by this after school program were identified using MAP scores to

target those most in need of mathematics intervention. The intervention format broke students

into small groups and combined direct instruction with manipulatives. Students rotated through

mathematics centers and worked on skills such as basic math facts, number sense and problem‐

solving.

Summer Program Descriptions

Bellevue Summer School. This summer program featured intense instruction in the areas of

reading, writing, and mathematics. The program targeted Title I students, ELL students, and

other students at risk of falling behind academically. The program operated for two weeks during

the summer for 7 hours per day, five days per week. Students entering kindergarten and 1st grade

were targeted for this program. Although the summer program was held in one elementary

building, it was a collaborative effort and students from multiple schools in the district

participated.

Catholic Charities Summer. This program provided academically focused summer enrichment, as

well as physical and experiential activities to low income students. Goals were structured to

support participants in increasing their communication skills in reading and writing along with

their quantitative thinking skills in mathematics. A certified teacher structured the lessons and

coached the staff to work with staff from local schools to ensure summer offerings

complemented and enhanced the school curriculum. The program also provided students with

the opportunity to participate in fine arts activities such as music class, swimming skills in

partnership with the Red Cross, health and proper nutrition promotion activities, computer

lessons, and field trips. The program was implemented for 10 weeks during the summer, 9.5

hours per day, Monday through Friday, and also allowed for early/late pick up. Students in grades

K‐6th were served in this ten week program. The program ran Monday‐Friday from 6:30 am‐ 6:00

pm.

Douglas County West. This summer enrichment program focused targeting children in poverty,

English language learners, and/or students who had high mobility. Academic support was

provided from several teachers in the district to maintain or to improve student academic

performance. Through this funding, a sliding scale system was provided to students depending

on free and reduced lunch status to help cover the cost of participation in the program. The

program operated for 4 weeks during the summer with three hours per day being devoted to

instruction. Students targeted for this program were in grades K‐6.

Elkhorn Public Schools. Jump Start to Reading. This program served incoming first through fourth

grade students who met certain criteria based on the winter benchmarking national norms.

Students scoring at or below the 25th percentile received an invitation to attend the program.

The 3‐week program was held four days week for three hours each day. The program focused on

individual student reading needs and provided instruction based on one or more programs

(Reading Street’s My Sidewalks, Read Naturally, Guided Reading and/or writing). Students

received instruction from a certified teacher in an average ratio of one teacher to five students.

Girls Inc. Summer. This summer literacy program was designed to promote phonemic awareness,

word recognition, fluency, vocabulary acquisition, and reading comprehensive. It was designed

to complement the local school district’s reading curriculum, utilizing the same phonics program

and sequence of instruction. Certified teachers were included in the program staff to design

specific interventions in response to individual needs and to help the program improve the

percentage of students reading at grade level. Girls aged 5 through 9 were targeted for

participation. The program operated Monday through Friday for nine hours per day throughout

the summer.

Kroc Center/Salvation Army Summer. Camp Kroc provided increased opportunities for

underserved youth to develop skills and talents and utilize a curriculum that provides educational

programming, arts enrichment and positive social interaction. Elements of the program included

education, enrichment, interaction and involvement, literacy and English learning and resources

for immigrants. Students targeted for this program were in grades 1‐7 and the program was

implemented Monday through Friday for eight hours a day all summer long. About 70 students

ages 6‐13 were served in this 9‐week program. Students were engaged in structured academic

and enrichment activities based around weekly theme. Daily reading instruction was

supplemented with computer classes, art, music, and drama classes. Students also participated

in activities to build life skills such as cooking, team building and leisure activities.

Millard Public Schools Summer. This program featured summer school learning targeted to

students who are economically disadvantaged and/or limited in English proficiency and have

academic deficiencies in an effort to prevent summer learning loss. Instruction was provided to

students with deficiencies in writing, reading, and mathematics. In addition, the district provided

informational, instructional, and community services in areas such as successful strategies to

support student learning, health and wellness, personal finance, assessing social services, child

care, and English language classes. Transportation, meals, and books were provided to students,

along with a bilingual liaison and licensed social worker to help

families who could benefit from those services. The program was

implemented for three weeks, three hours per day, during the

summer in two elementary schools in the district. Students targeted

for this program were in grades K‐2. Students entering kindergarten

are also invited to attend this program as a jump‐start experience

for school.

Students Served

Who did these programs serve? Participation data were collected on

2,588 elementary students who attended the programs.

School Year‐1,850 students

Summer programs – 738 students

Demographic data provided on these students indicated that 83% of the students served were

eligible for free/reduced lunch.

Generally, the population being served by the extended learning time programs appeared to fall

within the target of the population identified to benefit from the resources of the Learning

Community—those most at risk for academic failure due to socio‐economic status.

Evaluation Data Collection

Quality. Quality programs have been linked to immediate, positive developmental outcomes, as

well as long‐term positive academic performance (Beckett, Capizzano, Parsley, Ross, Schirm, &

Taylor, 2009); Burchinal, Peisner‐Feinberg, Bryant, & Clifford, 2000). Measurement of the quality

of programs is central to a program evaluation. This section reports on the CLASS observations

completed by the UNMC evaluation team with extended learning programs funded through the

Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy Counties (LC).

To examine program instructional quality, the evaluation team recommended use of the

Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS). Developed by Bob Pianta and others at the

University of Virginia Center for the Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning, this external

observation tool measures classroom quality across multiple domains including: emotional

support, organization, and instructional delivery. According to its authors, the CLASS “is an

observational tool that provides a common lens and language focused on what matters—the

classroom interactions that boost student learning.” It has three domains:

In addition to these domains, interactions are further considered relative to dimensions. These

dimensions include aspects such as: positive climate (focuses on how teachers interact with

students to develop warm relationships that promote student’s enjoyment of

the classroom community) and concept development (focuses on how

teachers interact with students to promote higher‐order thinking and

cognition).

For these reasons, the evaluation team has identified the CLASS observation

tool as a valid way to gather an externally rated measure of quality, and one

with the added benefit of it having the potential to drive continuous

improvement because of the specificity of the feedback from the

observation.

Eighteen after school and summer school sites participated in this optional piece of the

evaluation. Given the nature of out of school and summer school programs, CLASS scores were

calculated for the program rather than per teacher. Multiple teachers were recorded, scored and

the CLASS score given to the program was an average of those scores (see Figure I.1.1).

Emotional Support

•Positive climate

•Teacher sensitivity

•Regard for student's perspectives

Classroom Organization

•Behavior management

•Productivity

•Instructional learning formats

Instructional Support

•Concept development

•Quality of feedback

•Language modeling

•Literacy focus

CLASS

Classroom Assessment Scoring System

Author: Pianta, LaParo & Hamre, 2008

Scale:

1‐2 = Low quality

3‐5 = Moderate quality

6‐7 = High quality

Average CLASS ratings across after school and summer school programs were 5.99 for Emotional

Support, 5.87 for Class Organization and 2.98 for Instructional Support. Scores at or above 6.00

indicate high levels of quality, scores at or above 3.00 are in moderate quality range, with scores

below 3.00 indicating low quality. CLASS scores in national studies scores have been found to be

in the low to moderate quality for Instructional Support (Kane et al, 2013), but effectively support

continuous improvement/professional development to support teacher effectiveness. Overall,

the programs scored near the high range for both Emotional Support and Class Organization and

near the moderate range for Instructional Support. Recent research on pre‐kindergarten and

child care programs (Burchinal, Vandergrift, Pianta & Mashburn, 2010) indicated that scores of

3.25 or higher are needed within the domain of instructional support to show measurable impact

on student achievement.

Student Achievement

Student achievement data was submitted by nine of the thirteen programs with one program

completing an internal evaluation. Three of the programs did not collect pre and post student

achievement data this year. Of the nine programs submitting student achievement data, six

programs submitted data allowing for analysis (standardized scores or scores that could be

standardized). An overall effect size for the extended learning program was calculated (d=0.30)

and is considered to be small. For the six programs with pre to post data, paired samples t‐tests

were conducted. Five of the six programs showed significant student gains in at least one

academic area with other program showing no significant loss or gain in student scores. For

programs showing significant gains in student achievement, effect sizes were calculated to

measure the size of the change. The following effect sizes were calculated for the specific

academic areas of reading, mathematics and writing, and are based on those same six programs

along with the results from one district’s internal evaluation.

1.00

3.00

5.00

7.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Ratings

Figure I.1.1 Program CLASS ratings

Emotional Support Class Organization Instructional Support

Table I.1.2: Effect Sizes in Local Achievement Data Results

Content Area Measured Effect Sizes

Reading 0.12 ‐ 0.87*

Writing 0.42*

Mathematics 0.21 ‐ 1.94* *Effect size calculated only if significant differences are found.

While the overall results of the extended learning program indicate that it was effective in improving student achievement, the magnitude of the improvement varied within and between programs. The effect sizes also varied within subject areas by program. Significant effects ranged from small effect sizes (d=0.12) to large effect sizes (d=1.94). However, student scores improved in each subject area across the programs included in the analysis. Family support focus. Parent surveys were collected for students enrolled in the extended learning programs. Table I.1.3: Parent Survey Results

Survey Question Average Score

% Strongly Agree or Agree

I was satisfied with the hours of the program. 4.43 93%

I was satisfied with the length of the program. 4.37 89%

I was satisfied with the program as a whole. 4.43 92%

The staff were excellent (caring, reliable, skilled). 4.51 92%

My child enjoyed attending the program. 4.41 90%

I was able to communicate with my child’s teacher. 4.15 80%

I was informed about my child’s progress. 3.75 63%

I believe that my child will be more successful in school next year as a result of the program.

4.20 85%

I feel more prepared to support my student as a learner as a result of the program.

4.05 81%

My child believes that school will be a fun place to learn.

4.48 92%

Scale ranges from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree

Overall, the parents rated the summer programs positively. Parents not only reported that their

student benefitted from the program, but parents reported feeling better able to support them

in their learning. One area of growth for most programs was communication with parents both

in frequency and in content.

Extended Learning Conclusions and Implications for Program Improvement

Extended learning programs served 2,588 students across three major types of programs:

tutoring programs, broader extended learning programs during the school year that served

students greater than one hour daily and all/most days of the week, and summer extended

learning programs. Eighty‐three percent (83%) of students were eligible for free/reduced lunch.

Students benefitted from participating in extended learning programs (d=0.30). It is worth noting

this effect is most likely a result of collective impact, rather than singularly attributable to

extended learning programming. Significant effects were seen in reading, writing and

mathematics indicating that this type of programming can make a difference in multiple areas.

One area of improvement for the evaluation would be for all programs to work with the

evaluation team in submitting student level pre to post‐test data that can be analyzed for

effectiveness. The effects noted in this evaluation were based on less than 60% of the programs

funded. Many of the programs submitting student data indicated that their students had made

progress based on raw scores or grades but that data could not be used for comparison purposes.

In terms of parent feedback, 92% were satisfied with the program as a whole. One opportunity

for improvement would be strengthened communication and report of student progress.

Sub‐Section I.2: Literacy Coaching Lead: Jolene Johnson, Ed.S. Literacy Coaching was implemented with the

belief that improving teachers’ instruction of

literacy would improve student achievement in

the area of reading. Hattie’s research indicated

that ongoing use of formative evaluation by the

teacher including data analysis and use of

evidence‐based models yielded an effect size in

the high range (d=0.90). Given that literacy

coaching provides teachers with formative

information, it is possible to affect change in

teacher instruction (Hattie, 2009). Other research into literacy coaching found that intensive

coaching activities such as modeling and conferencing are significant predictors of student

reading achievement (Elish‐Piper & L’Allier, 2011).

Summary of Program Models

Two districts were funded to implement literacy coaching. To avoid revealing specific district

outcomes, results were merged into one aggregate finding. However one of the two districts

participated in a full external evaluation and the other utilized only internal evaluation. For one

district, literacy coaching has been implemented for three years while for the other district 2012‐

13 was the first year of implementation.

Who was served in this program?

Across both districts, a total of 13,243 students were served through literacy coaching in the

building in which they were located. Of these students, 83% were eligible for free/reduced lunch.

A total of 45 literacy coaches served 533 teachers across the two districts.

Findings from District A

What was the quality of implementation of the program?

To examine program quality, multiple focus groups were conducted with teachers, literacy

coaches and building principals. Overall, feedback from all three sets of participants found

literacy coaching to be a positive and worthwhile endeavor.

Literacy Coaching Key Findings

13,243 students were served in two districts


From one district, students showed significant improvement in reading (NeSA Reading) from beginning of the program to end of the program (d=0.56)

Demographics of Focus Group participants. A sampling of teachers (80% women, 18% men, 2%

undisclosed) participated in the interviews. They represented both primary (59%) and upper

elementary grades (41%). A majority of the teachers (45%) had been teaching for 10 or more

years, 39% had been teaching for 3 to 10 years, and only 15% had been teaching for fewer than

three years. Principals and literacy coaches were also interviewed.

Literacy program successes. Responses to the literacy coaching program were overall very

positive. Principals strongly agreed that the literacy coach in their buildings had helped their

teaching staff improve their literacy teaching skills and the teachers echoed the sentiment, with

84% agreeing that they had changed as a teacher because of their work with the literacy coaches.

Additionally, 75% of teachers believed literacy coaching had affected the academic achievement

of their students. Coaches strengthened this argument, noting that data indicators support the

teachers’ intuition that students are indeed advancing academically. In‐depth discussions

indicated that principals believed literacy coaches were in a unique position to “really make a

huge difference in what teachers are doing in classrooms” and “absolutely have” changed the

literacy teaching practices in their buildings. The coaches themselves reported teachers were

open and welcoming to the coaches in their classrooms. Comments from the teachers included

“we heart her,” “we have the best literacy coach,” and “you can never replace her!”

Positive relationships. Teachers reported feeling respected by the literacy coach, with a strong

majority responding positively to the following questions about the literacy coach in their

buildings.

Table I.2.1

Question Strongly Agree or

Agree

Strongly Disagree

or Disagree

My Literacy Coach Is Interested In Helping Me

Grow As A Teacher (Multiple Choice) 95% 5%

My Literacy Coach Is Interested In Me Both As A

Person And As A Teacher (Multiple Choice) 98% 2%

My Literacy Coach Listens To Me (Multiple

Choice) 98% 2%

My Literacy Coach Respects My Time (Multiple

Choice) 96% 4%

My Literacy Coach Communicates With Me

Clearly (Multiple Choice) 98% 2%

Literacy coaches also commented on the need to respect the teachers’ time; “Teachers have so

much to do. There is a competition for time—it can’t all be about literacy.” Teachers appreciated

this respect and noted that a high quality literacy coach is one that understands all of the

demands on teachers. Both sides did note, however, that time was a barrier.

Teachers reported that the literacy coach was able to provide detailed responses to their needs;

95% of teachers either agreed or strongly agreed that “when I have a problem, my literacy coach

is helpful in developing a plan to address it.” Teachers shared several personal stories of how

their literature coach had successfully addressed a concern the teacher had raised with her. As

one teacher recounted, “When I was ready to change my centers, we had it done in a week. I

was like ‘wow’. And this was just an idea I floated past her in the hallway one day…and she was

like ‘all right, on it!’” Coaches also noted that teachers felt comfortable coming to them, stating,

“Most of the time I’m invited to join a lesson…there are very few cases where I go to them first.”

Teachers strongly preferred to have informal interactions over formal interactions with their

literacy coach; only 2 (5%) of respondents said they would prefer the formal interaction. One

literacy coach noted feedback was best received when she respected the way an individual

teacher learns. She also saw an increase of a “buy‐in” from teachers as the year progressed,

indicating she was able to successfully tailor her mentorship to the needs of the teachers.

Professional development and better teaching practices. Administrators and coaches felt the

coaches were able to provide important professional development; the literature coaches

“allowed us to work on wider skills teachers need.” Having a specialized and advanced education

in literacy, the literacy coach can provide novel forms of professional development. Teachers

also mentioned the benefits of skill development, specifically noting that help in designing lesson

plans, co‐planning, brainstorming, and learning new strategies such as keeping anecdotal notes

and response journaling were the most helpful. Teachers and principals also mentioned the

literacy coaches helped them develop strategies and lesson plans for specific topics such as

increasing comprehension, organization patterns, defining literacy stations, guided reading,

creating reading programs over breaks, and integrating all content areas (e.g., science and social

studies) into reading.

Teachers also spoke passionately about having the literature coach model for them. “In our

profession they assume you know how to do everything because you are already a teacher. But

it was so helpful for her to come in and model different things for me. I felt like that made me

grow as a teacher and, in turn, it made my students more successful.” Many teachers reported

their literacy coach had modeled specific lessons (such as teaching specific books) as well as more

global strategies (such as running small groups or center time, modeling the language to use to

facilitate different skills, and modeling discussions of the material to get more meaningful

participation). Teachers noted that their literature coach often presented them with good ideas

to try, but thought the information would be more beneficial if she had come in and modeled it;

“I think I have an idea of to do it, then I start to do it and it was like ‘whoa, I have no idea how to

do this!’ But now, [because of modeling and work with the literature coach] I feel really good

about my abilities to help students individually.” As one principal noted, “teachers want to do

things the right way,” and literacy coaching is one way to help them improve their teaching.

Literacy coaches noticed positive changes in teaching practices as well and agreed with the

statement “the teaching staff at my school has changed their literacy teaching practices this

year.” Moreover, they felt teachers who used the literacy coaches as a resource most often were

also the ones who made the most progress. Coaches also identified modeling as one of the most

effective strategies to increase teacher performance, but included videotaping and real‐time

feedback after observations as other successful strategies. One coach also mentioned that

teachers appreciated when she would follow up professional development activities with in‐

classroom observations to see how the teacher implemented the new tool or skill, which may be

another strategy similar to modeling to help teachers learn the new material.

As one principal noted, “It’s a very common catch phrase to talk about ‘lifelong learners.’ [The

literacy coach program] allows us to walk the walk; teachers get to be a lifelong learner, hone

their skills over time.”

Areas for growth and directions for the future. Although the program was overall considered a

success, respondents also noted several ways the program could be improved.

Time. “Time is a barrier” according to one principal, as he/she felt the building needed more

hours from the literacy coach. About a third of the teachers (32%) reported spending less than

one hour a month with the literacy coach, a majority (59%) reported 1‐5 hours, and only 9%

spent more than 5 hours per month with their literacy coach. Several teachers reported they

did not get to see the literature coach much, although there were mixed reasons for this

conclusion; some teachers felt the literature coach focused all of her time with other teachers

and some felt the literature coach spent most of her time preparing to help the teachers but

needed little face‐time to implement the new solutions. Suggested solutions to these

problems would be to preschedule the literature coach’s time with allotted times per grade

level, and acknowledging the time in the literature coach’s day that is spent gathering

resources. Some teachers said they did not see the coach often, but admitted she was

available if they needed her and they simply did not seek her out. These result are echoed in

the survey questions in that only 3 (7%) of respondents disagreed with the statement “My

literacy coach is available when I need her” and zero teachers strongly disagreed with the

statement. Still other teachers reported the literacy coach was impressively active in their

school and were not interested in changing how she spent her time in their building. These

respondents reported that if even if they had not seen their literature coach in a while, she

would make it a point to check in on them and find out if there was anything she could do for

them. Thus, the concern of the literature coach’s time with teachers is one that is inconsistent

across respondents and may be a building‐level or individual‐level focus area.

Teachers’ time was also a concern; coaches mentioned the difficulty teachers had finding and

using a new resource because of the initial time investment necessary. Given the other things

that take up a teacher’s day, sometimes they did not have the time to implement the

strategies suggested by the literature coach. This resulted in either the coach having to do the

legwork, or the teacher being unable to implement the new strategy. Again, this concern was

limited to a few respondents, with others lauding their literature coach for “being really

effective” with their time and appreciative of the time she was able to save teachers by finding

resources for them and her “quick turnaround” time solving problems and implementing new

strategies.

Changes to the role of the literacy coach. Despite the general positive relationships between

literacy coaches and the teachers, there remain some barriers. Coaches noted that teachers

sometimes view them as a threat; “I don’t want to be seen as evaluative or threatening, or

like an administrator. I want to be seen as a partner more than an evaluator.” Note, however,

that teachers did not always share this concern. As one stated, “I like how easy it was to

collaborate with her. I never felt I was being critiqued; it felt like collaborative teaching when

she’d watch or model for me.”

Coaches reported sometimes feeling that teachers approached them with questions or

requests that would be more appropriately addressed to an administrator. Although the

coaches want teachers to continue to come to them when in need or when brainstorming,

they also think the program would benefit from a more defined role for the literacy coach.

Another literacy coach suggested an expansion of the literacy coach role to be part of

educational assistance “so we can be more collaborative and streamlined,” and a principal

wanted to see stronger collaborations between the literacy coach and other leadership in the

building. Several teachers made a similar suggestion, arguing that their literacy coach did a

great job within the constraints of her position but would be a greater asset to the school if

she could spend her time focusing on professional development of the teachers rather than

on acquiring materials for them; “She would be better used to help with the skills rather than

our gopher to find things. Those things should already be available to us.” Teachers were

careful to point out that the coach “is doing 100% of what we are asking,” and believe the

conflict is due to the limitations imposed by the curriculum and district‐level expectations.

Teachers felt confused and frustrated by the amount of disparate information they were

expected to incorporate, and argued that a more streamlined curriculum would free the

literacy coach from the more mundane resource collection tasks; teachers reported the

current system requires them to “pull from a lot of things to teach reading, which makes it

difficult for teachers to streamline. But we don’t have control over it, so we have to use the

literacy coach as we can, and she is just as helpful as she can be.” Teachers also noted that

the literature coach was occasionally pulled from her coaching job to do non‐literacy jobs (e.g.,

bus duty, lunch duty, etc.) and that this “limits what literacy‐related activities she can do.”

Literacy Coach Activity Log. Literacy coaches were asked to record their activities throughout

the year. The activities were assigned into the following categories: Educational discussion,

Classroom environment, Classroom observation, Collaborative lesson, Demonstration lesson,

Testing, Gathering resources and Individual student work. Coaches recorded the frequency of

working with each teacher and/or grade level. A large portion of literacy coaching time was

spent in educational discussions (43%) and in gathering resources (16%). Activities directly

related to intensive coaching practices (class observation, collaborative lesson and

demonstration lessons) occurred less frequently (see Figure I.2.1). The log also revealed the

dosage per teacher. The number and amount of time spent with each teacher varied greatly.

Analysis of dosage by teacher revealed no differences in student achievement gains.

Student Academic Achievement Student reading scores were assessed using two types of measures—AIMSweb and state

assessments. One measure is part of a district screening process using AIMSweb benchmark

probes three times a year. The probes are timed and designed to screen for students at‐risk for

reading failure and to inform teachers on student progress. AIMSweb probes should not be seen

as indicative of complete reading ability, or as a diagnostic assessment, but rather they serve as

proxy indicators to broad reading skills.

The screening measures allow schools to track student over the course of a year while the NeSA‐

R allows for year to year cohort comparisons. As the NeSA‐R does not start until 3rd grade, the

AIMSweb measures were used for K‐2 as well as 3rd‐6th. Normal curve equivalents were used

784

59

202

74

162

38

296

216

Education discussion

Classroom Environment

Observation

Collaborative Lesson

Demonstration Lesson

Testing

Gathering Resources

Ind. Student Work

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Figure I.2.1 Literacy Coaching Activities

because of the difference in measures across the grades and because the AIMSweb assessments

do not provide standard scores. Raw scores are given percentile ranks. For the purpose of the

evaluation, the percentile ranks were converted to NCEs (normal curve equivalents). Normal

curve equivalents was developed for the US Department of Education by the RMC Research

Corporation as a way of standardizing scores received on a test with a 0‐100 scale. By preserving

the equal‐interval properties, it is then possible to use inferential statistical tests to examine

differences from fall to spring. Thus, converting to NCEs allowed comparisons across grade levels

and across measures.

The second measure used to track student achievement was the Nebraska State Assessment‐

Reading (NeSA‐R). NeSA‐R is the state reading assessment given to all students in grades 3‐8 and

11. It is a multiple choice assessment yielding scaled scores that can be compared across years.

A scaled score of 85 indicates proficiency on the assessment.

AIMSweb results. With the exception of 4th grade, all of the AIMSweb NCE scores decreased from

fall to spring (see Figure IV.2.2). While students improved their raw scores, the raw score gains

did not translate into maintaining or improving the NCE score. To put it another way, while the

students improved from fall to spring, other students in the same national aggregate group

improved more.

NeSA‐R results. Paired‐samples t‐tests were conducted to analyze change in NeSA‐R student

performance from 2010‐2013 and from 2012‐2013 with the hypothesis being that the longer

students were in a building with a literacy coach the more effect literacy coaching in combination

with other literacy practices would have on student performance. Both of the paired‐samples t‐

tests indicated that students demonstrated significant gains in their NeSA scores both over the

course of one year and across four years. Student scores showed a larger effect size (d=0.56)

when compared over four years (2010 to 2013) than student scores compared over one year

(2012‐2013), d=0.19. Data were then disaggregated into male and female subgroups. Both

subgroups experienced significant gains in their NeSA‐R scores from 2010‐2013 but the males

improved at a higher rate and ended with an effect size considered to be in the large range

K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th

Fall NCE 50.25 34.25 47.09 46.11 40.63 46.91 46.78

Spring NCE 39.32 31.6 42.24 40.23 45.4 43.5 42.83

0

50

100

Figure I.2.2 AIMSweb NCE Scores

Fall 2012 to Spring 2013 Fall NCE

Spring NCE

(d=0.69). While the NeSA‐R scores of 3rd grade males were about six points less than females, by

the end of 6th grade that gap had narrowed to less than one point.

Table I.2.1: NeSA‐R Scores

2010 NeSA‐R

Scale Score

Mean

2013 NeSA‐R

Scale Score

Mean

Change Score

(from 2010‐

2013)

Effect Size

Females (n=36) 97.83 114.03 +16.19 0.43*

Males (n=41) 91.90 113.83 +21.93 0.69**

Overall (n=77) 94.68 113.92 +19.25 0.56***p<.05, **p<.01, Cohen’s d was calculated by dividing the paired samples mean change score by the paired samples standard deviation.

Parenting Impacts or Feedback

Because the literacy coaching program is a professional development effort focused on

classroom teachers’ instructional practices, parenting impacts and feedback were not included

in the evaluation.

Summary of Findings from District B

District B conducted an internal program evaluation. Given that it was District B’s first year

implementing literacy coaching, the primary focus of the evaluation was on the level and quality

of the implementation and improvement in practices, rather than on measuring student

achievement changes. Student achievement data were collected but should be understood as

baseline data.

What was the quality of implementation of the program?

A focus group was conducted with the literacy facilitators of the program. As it was a new

program, the facilitators expressed some challenges in helping teachers and building leaders

understand their role. It was particularly difficult for facilitators who had worked in a different

role the prior year as teachers were used to having them work on a consistent basis with students

needing intervention. Some facilitators expressed that building relationships with the teachers

was difficult when they themselves didn’t fully understand their role. The Literacy Facilitators

spoke about needing support understanding the coaching model more fully, perhaps having a

mentor, and having enough time with each other to bounce off ideas, learn new strategies and

collaborate. Being the only coach in a building left some of the facilitators feeling isolated at

times.

Quoting from the District B internal evaluation report provided to ICPE: Overall, Literacy

Facilitators felt the program is beneficial to teachers and students. Initially, there were struggles

to get teachers to understand their role. They think district leaders and building principal share

the responsibility of clarifying the role of the Literacy Facilitator for teachers. Also, they would like

more support on coaching as there are certain barriers to overcome in relationship building that

must happen before coaching can begin. Literacy Facilitators benefit from conversations with

each other for ideas on how to work with teachers and they see improvements in teaching &

student performance.

Teacher surveys asking about the program were administered but had a very low response rate.

The results from the survey indicated that the majority of teachers responding to the survey were

unsure of the role of the literacy facilitator. However, once the program started, 58% reported

that the literacy facilitator was mostly to completely available and 58% reported having had the

opportunity for a modeling and/or coaching session. As with District A, the dosage of coaching

per teacher varied greatly with some teachers reporting ten or more modeling sessions with the

coach while other teachers reported zero sessions with the facilitator. It should be noted that

facilitators did not have a systematic way of working with teachers across the district therefore

a dosage analysis for this initial year would not yield useful data. Teachers mirrored facilitators’

responses in asking for help in better understanding the role of the facilitator and the importance

of having the support of the building leadership for the program.

Overall, teachers were complimentary of the Literacy Facilitator Program. They benefited from

the additional support of the coach and the training on new district initiatives in the reading

curriculum. Teachers were concerned about the lack of knowledge they had on the program at

the beginning of the school year and felt that building leadership is a crucial component of

teachers accepting the Literacy Facilitator’s Role in their classrooms (District B, internal

evaluation).

Literacy Facilitator Program Successes

Some of the successes from the program’s first year were an increased use of the vocabulary and

‘Think Aloud’ methods, teachers and paraprofessionals began to see the literacy facilitators as a

resource, discussions about literacy increased in the buildings and between teachers, and student

engagement about reading increased. Teachers reported learning new ideas for writing and

reported that the literacy coaching improved instruction through more emphasis on detailed

lesson plans and meaningful feedback to students.

Student Academic Achievement

Baseline data were collected using the district’s K‐2 Reading Assessment and the Nebraska State

Reading Assessment (NeSA‐R). Students showed an increase in raw scores on the K‐2 Reading

Assessment and gained an average of 1.6 scaled score points on the NeSA‐R. No conclusions

were drawn using the data from the first year of implementation. Data will continue to be

collected and next year the data will be analyzed for growth.

Literacy Coaching Program Conclusions and Implications for Program

Improvement

Overall, 13,243 students were impacted through literacy coaching in their buildings. The staff

level of coaches in buildings varied across schools with some having one literacy coach for the

building and other schools receiving part‐time literacy coaching in a building. About 83% of

students in these buildings were eligible for free/reduced lunch.

Teachers and administrators reported that literacy coaching was useful in improving teachers’

literacy instruction, providing meaningful staff development, and improving student’s love and

passion for reading. Student effects varied depending on the type of measure used with effects

being more prominent when examined over multiple years than over the course of one year. The

differing effects possibly indicate that in a model in which the adults are the target audience for

intervention, it may take longer than one or two years to find measurably large gains with

students. Program suggestions include having a defined role for the literacy coach and removing

as many extraneous duties as possible (recess duty, lunch duty), providing feedback to teachers

based on their video‐taped lessons, and focusing on the evidence‐based intensive coaching

activities that result in student achievement.

It is recommended that external and internal evaluation be blended in the 2013‐14 program year

to provide the richness of internal evaluation along with the credibility of external evaluation.

Recommendations for programs funded for literacy coaching in the next program year:

1. Measure teacher change over time (with the CLASS) while continuing to track the type of

activities coaches are engaging in with teachers.

2. Track both district reading measurements (AIMSweb or similar progress monitoring tool,

Fountas & Pinnell levels) as well as state testing results.

3. In order to track the NeSA‐R scores long‐term, access to the NSSRS identification numbers

for students is extremely helpful and will allow for further disaggregation of scores in the

future.

Sub‐Section I.3: Jump Start to Kindergarten Programs Lead: Abbey Siebler, M.A., supervised by Lisa St. Clair, Ed.D.

Kindergarten students from low income families benefit most from high quality classrooms with

high quality teacher‐child interactions along with high quality instruction by demonstrating

higher social competence and academic outcomes (Burchinal, Vandergrift, Pianta, Mashburn,

2010).

Summary of Program Model

Jump Start programming is designed to

provide students the opportunity to become

more prepared for Kindergarten and start at

the same level as their peers that may have

had previous preschool experiences. The

programming focuses on pre‐academic skills,

routines and social skill development.

Who was served in these programs?

Jump Start to Kindergarten programs were

funded in five districts and one community

agency. All subcouncils were represented

with programs. The programs ranged from

two weeks to eight weeks, with varying hours

and days per week. All programs utilized certified teachers for part or all of their staffing.

There were a total of 810 Kindergarten students served by the Jump Start programs. They were

served an average of 118 hours. Pre‐post student

achievement data were collected data on 692

students. Some brief demographic data follow:

54% male

46% female

61% eligible for free/reduced lunch

Jump Start to Kindergarten Key Findings

810 kindergarten students were served in five districts and one community agency, and were served an average of 118 hours in the summer

61% were eligible for free/reduced lunch

Students were significantly more prepared for kindergarten by the end of the program (d=0.59)

96% of parents reported their child would be more successful in kindergarten as a result of the program

What was the quality of implementation for the Jump Start Kindergarten Programs?

The Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) was used to measure classroom quality in

Kindergarten programs. Developed by Bob Pianta and others at the University of Virginia Center

for the Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning, this external observation tool measures

classroom quality across multiple domains.

CLASS was more widely implemented in this program this year. A total of 31

CLASS ratings were completed of the 62 classrooms funded through the

Learning Community, representing approximately 50% of the funded

classrooms. These classrooms were drawn from all funded districts and one

community agency that received Jump Start Kindergarten funding. All but

one school district completed CLASS observations in all Jump Start

classrooms. Classrooms were video‐recorded, submitted, and then scored

at UNMC. A CLASS report was prepared for each participating classroom and

results were sent to each district and agency. Districts and agencies

determined how best to share the information with the teachers. The CLASS

reports included video clips and written feedback along with dimension and

domain scores. CLASS ratings were collected at one point in time only (summer 2013). Table

IV.3.1 summarizes the average CLASS domain scores for the last three years.

Table I.3.1: CLASS Domain Averages

Summer # of classrooms

observed

Emotional

Support

Classroom

Organization

Instructional

Support

2013 32 5.55 5.82 2.55

2012 15 6.15 6.08 2.78

2011 7 6.41 5.80 3.14

It is unclear why scores in some domains have increased and others have decreased over time.

One reason could be that as use of the CLASS instrument has become more widespread, the

average scores on some domains have decreased along with the increase of teachers new to the

Emotional Support

•Positive climate

•Teacher sensitivity

•Regard for student's perspectives

Classroom Organization

•Behavior management

•Productivity

•Instructional learning formats

Instructional Support

•Concept development

•Quality of feedback

•Language modeling

•Literacy focus

CLASS

Classroom Assessment Scoring System

Author: Pianta, LaParo & Hamre, 2008

Scale:

1‐2 = Low quality

3‐5 = Moderate quality

6‐7 = High quality

tool. As more CLASS ratings are collected, the evaluation team will be able to analyze trends over

time.

The CLASS will be added to the evaluation plan as mandatory observation with future Jump Start

Kindergarten programs. Programs may wish to explore professional development training with

a focus on continuous improvement, particularly in the Instructional Support domain.

Student Academic Achievement

The importance of concept development, particularly for students from diverse cultural and

linguistic backgrounds, has been demonstrated in numerous research articles (Neuman, 2006;

Panter and Bracken, 2009). Some researchers have found that basic concepts are a better means

of predicting both reading and mathematics than are traditional vocabulary tests such as the

PPVT‐IV (Larrabee, 2007). The norm‐referenced assessment selected to measure Kindergarten

student’s school readiness is the Bracken School Readiness Assessment (BSRA). The BSRA was

used to measure the academic readiness skills of young students in the areas of colors, letters,

numbers/counting, sizes, comparisons and shapes. The mean of the BSRA is 100, with 86 to 114

falling within the average range (one standard deviation above and below the mean). It has been

used in numerous studies, including the Joint Center for Poverty Research, NICHD study of early

child care and youth development, Harlem Project, and the national implementation study of

Educare, to name but a few. The limitation of this assessment is that it does not measure

social/emotional readiness for school, executive functioning, and other important qualities to

consider relative to “readiness for school.”

BSRAs were completed pre and post in 36 classrooms with a total of 692 students. BSRA standard

scores are displayed in Figure IV.2.2. The blue bar displays average pre standard scores and the

yellow bar displays average post standard score increases.

4.081.24

2.12 5.66 7.17

4.47

3.89

70

85

100

115

Overall(n=692)

Program 1 Program 2 Program 3 Program 4 Program 5 Program 6

Figure I.3.2: Bracken School Readiness Assessment (BSRA) Standard Scores

B‐SS‐2

B‐SS‐1

Students significantly improved overall in the Jump Start program, as well as within each of the

individual districts and agencies as a whole. Significant improvement was not always found at the

school or site level, as there were significant variations in change from pre to post at the

individual school or site level as well as variations in the numbers of students attending each

program. The change scores ranged from a 7.97 to a .70 gain in BSRA standard score (SS), as

demonstrated in Figure IV.3.3.

Overall, the group of 692 students significantly improved in their readiness for kindergarten

(p<.001). Mean standard scores on the Bracken increased from 86.42 to 90.50‐‐a mean gain of

4.08 points moving them from just the beginning of the average range closer to the desired mean

of 100. Of the 692 students assessed pre and post, almost a third (32%) were at or above a

standard score of 100.

Strong effect sizes continued to be found with the Jump Start Kindergarten program. Table IV.3.4

summarizes student outcome information by program. This includes the percent of students

eligible for free/reduced lunch served by the program, the program duration, average pre and

post Bracken School Readiness Assessment Standard Scores, statistical significance using a paired

samples test (or T‐test), and the effect size of the significance if change was found to be

significant. The effect size test used was Cohen’s d (Cohen, 1988). One of the strongest effect

sizes reported in Hattie’s research was for Reciprocal Teaching methods, with an overall effect

size of 0.74.

55

70

85

100

115

Figure I.3.3: BSRA SS Change by School

Pre SS Post SS

Table I.3.4: Bracken School Readiness Assessment (BSRA) Standard Scores ‐ Summer 2013

Program

% F/R Lunch Programming

Duration

Average

Pre

Standard

Scores

Average

Post

Standard

Scores

Statistical

significance

Effect

Size

Overall 61% 70‐260 hours 86.42 90.50 p<.001* d=0.59

Program 1 56% 2 weeks, 35 hrs/wk 92.32 93.56 p=.037* d=0.26

Program 2 100% 8 weeks, 32.5 hrs/wk 95.85 97.97 p<.001* d=0.29

Program 3 13% 4 weeks, 12 hrs/wk 91.97 97.63 p<.001* d=0.80

Program 4 59% 3 weeks, 22.5 hrs/wk 94.30 101.48 p<.001* d=0.72

Program 5 58% 4 weeks, 31 hrs/wk 82.15 86.62 p<.001* d=0.65

Program 6 66% 4 weeks, 20 hrs/wk 94.47 98.35 p<.001* d=0.58*Significant improvement using a paired samples t‐test, one‐tailed Effect size calculated using paired samples mean differences/mean standard deviation

Utilization of Results with Schools and Programs. Teachers and schools were debriefed on the

Bracken SRA results of each of their students, as well as their group of students, by a member of

the evaluation team following both pre and post Bracken administration. The results were

delivered to the teachers and schools one to two days after pre‐assessment so that the results

could be used by the teaching teams to inform and individualize instruction. Post results were

also delivered to teachers and schools one to two days after Bracken administration was

completed to inform them of the progress their students made.

Student Achievement Summary (Bracken School Readiness Assessment). Results for the program

have remained consistent over three years. For the 2011 year, there was an average standard

score gain of 4.28 with an effect size of d=0.58. In 2012, there was an average standard score

gain of 4.11 with an effect size of d=0.63. For the 2013 summer, the average standard score gain

was 4.08 and resulted an effect size within the zone of desired effects (d=0.59).

The Jump Start Kindergarten outcomes on the Bracken suggest that an area of strength for these

students was color naming (93% mastery). An area for improvement would be

Sizes/Comparisons (54% mastery). Sizes/Comparison may be a higher level skill for students as

this subtest assesses their understanding of location words, comparison concepts and

understanding directional concepts.

Table I.3.5: Bracken School Readiness Overall Standard Scores

Year

# of students Average Pre

Standard

Scores

Average Post

Standard

Scores

Average

Bracken SRA

Standard

Scores Change

Statistical

significance

using T‐Test

analysis

Effect

Size

2013 649 86.42 90.50 4.08 P<.001* d=0.59

2012 800 87.97 92.08 4.11 p<.001* d=0.63

2011 156 85.85 90.13 4.28 p<.001* d=0.58*Significant improvement using a paired samples t‐test, one‐tailed

Effect size calculated using paired samples mean differences/mean standard deviation

What did parents report about the Jump Start Kindergarten Programs?

Parents provided feedback on the value or usefulness of the Jump Start Kindergarten Program.

Using a collaborative process across all districts and agencies, a master parent survey was

developed. Districts or agencies were then able to choose which sections they would use for

their program. Parent survey data was received from each of the participating districts and

agencies. Parent survey results are displayed in Table IV.3.6 (n=340).

Table I.3.6: Parent Satisfaction and Ratings of Impact

How much do you agree or disagree with each statement: Average % Agree or Strongly Agree

a. I was satisfied with the hours of the program. 4.60 96%

b. I was satisfied with the length of the program. 4.50 93%

c. I was satisfied with the program as a whole. 4.60 96%

d. The staff were excellent (caring, reliable, skilled). 4.64 95%

e. My child enjoyed attending the program. 4.70 96%

f. I was able to communicate with my child’s teacher. 4.42 87%

g. I was informed about my child’s progress. 4.20 79%

h. I believe that my child will be more successful in Kindergarten as a result of the program.

4.59 93%

i. I feel more prepared to be the parent of a Kindergartener as a result of the program.

4.44 89%

j. My child believes that school will be a fun place to learn. 4.68 97%

k. If my child begins to struggle in Kindergarten I would feel comfortable approaching his/her teacher or principal.

4.60 88%

Scale ranges from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree

Families reported high overall satisfaction with the structure and environment of the program.

They also reported high levels of impact on such items as believing their child is more ready for

kindergarten as a result of the program and feeling comfortable to talk with their child’s teacher

if a problem emerges. The lowest level of satisfaction was 79% for being informed about their

child’s progress.

Parents were also surveyed about the frequency of communications with their child’s teacher

(see Table IV.3.7). A total of 311 parents responded to this section.

Table I.3.7: Parent Report of Communication

During the Jump Start program activity occurred:

Almost Every

Week or Weekly

Once or Twice

Never No Response

Your child’s teacher talked to you about your child’s development.

38% 27% 26% 10%

Your child’s teacher talked to you about your child’s behavior.

34% 21% 36% 8%

You visited your child’s classroom for more than just dropping off/picking up your child.

34% 32% 22% 12%

More than half of the parents reported talking to their child’s teacher about their behavior and/or

development once or twice during the program. Approximately 35% of parents reported meeting

with their child’s teacher almost every week.

Parents were also surveyed about whether or not they felt that their children improved in

targeted behaviors (see Table IV.3.8). A total of 305 parents responded to this section.

Table I.3.8: Parent Report of Child Changes as a Result of Program

How much do you agree or disagree that your child made improvements in each of the following areas (if necessary):

Average Rating

Agree/Strongly Agree

Child Already Excellent with this Behavior

Willingness to separate from parents 4.32 66% 26%

Likes to listen to stories 4.46 78% 18%

Recognizes letters of the alphabet 4.41 79% 13%

Knows different colors and shapes 4.54 77% 18%

Plays well with other children 4.37 76% 15%

Willingness to share with other children 4.28 73% 13%

Interest in sharing what they have learned

4.43 82% 10%

Attentiveness when read to 4.32 74% 15%

Attention span for tasks 4.19 73% 11%

How much do you agree or disagree that your child made improvements in each of the following areas (if necessary):

Average Rating

Agree/Strongly Agree

Child Already Excellent with this Behavior

Eagerness to attend school 4.51 87% 11%

Overall 4.38 76.50% 15% Scale ranges from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree

The most positively rated behaviors were eagerness to attend school and liking to listen to

stories, with 75.5% of parents agreeing or strongly agreeing that their child showed improvement

across ten key behaviors associated with kindergarten success. A limitation in the interpretation

of these data was that it is unclear what percentage of parents marked “already excellent” versus

left the rating blank. Interpretations regarding the percent of students noted as already being

excellent in an area should be drawn with caution.

Jump Start Kindergarten Program Conclusions and Implications for Program

Improvement

Jump Start Kindergarten programs were implemented in five districts and one community

agency. A total of 810 Kindergarten students were served an average 118 hours total over the

summer. Students significantly improved on the Bracken School Readiness Assessment (Bracken

2009, p<.001, d=0.59). Parents reported high levels of satisfaction with and impact by the Jump

Start Kindergarten programs. All districts used the CLASS observation tool to assess quality in

their Jump Start classrooms, with all but one school district completing CLASS observations in all

classrooms. With the CLASS observation tool becoming a mandatory component of the Jump

Start Kindergarten evaluation beginning in the fall of 2013, it is recommended that districts use

the results to refine and continuously improve each program, as well as to guide the general

continuous improvement process for programs funded by the Learning Community. Given the

consistently positive results for the students after attending the Jump Start Kindergarten summer

programs, districts and programs may want to follow students to see if the programming has

lasting effects.

Section I.4 Family Literacy Program

Lead: Jolene Johnson, Ed.S.

This evaluation report is intended to build upon

last year’s baseline report and to provide

information on the implementation of the

Family Literacy Program through the Learning

Community Center Program in South Omaha

(LCCSO) in partnership with One World

Community Health Centers. This report will

summarize data for program activities from

June 2012 to present. These data are intended

to support program planning and continuous

improvement of the services provided to

students and families.


LCCSO was formed in 2012 as a collaborative

effort of The Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy County, OneWorld Community Health

Centers, and Boys Town. LCCSO began providing family literacy services to parents and their

children in its temporary location across the street from the Public Library in South Omaha, and

moved into its permanent center in South Omaha in the fall of 2013. Parents participating in the

program met at the center to attend classes and access services. While parents participated in

educational activities, on‐site child care was provided for their children eight years old and under.

To help children from low‐income families succeed in school, LCCSO collaborated with member

school districts and community partners to activate

long term strategies to support parents in their

efforts to promote their children’s education by

teaching them the skills they need. LCCSO

participants received a wide range of interrelated

services, including, but not limited to:

Parenting Education

Navigator Services

Adult Education

Family Literacy Program Key Findings

100 adults and 263 students have enrolled in the program

100% were Hispanic/Latino English language learners and 100% were eligible for free/reduced lunch

98% were “mostly satisfied” to “very

satisfied” with program services

Parents significantly improved their

English language skills (d=1.06)

Parents demonstrated significant

improvement in their parent‐child

interactions (d=0.41)

Parent and child outcomes were measured using a variety of assessments in order to evaluate

the effectiveness of the various components of the program. The following sections will address

what is being measured and present initial and follow‐up results, beginning with parents/adults

and followed by their children.

Parenting Education

Group Parenting Workshops: Parenting workshops engaged participants in activities that trained

parents on how to partner with education systems and how to support their children’s

educational success. Parents were taught how to: work with teachers, help their children with

homework, prepare for teacher conferences, read a report card, set high expectations for school

work, support learning at home, etc. Workshops were held every other week for three hours

during the academic year and for one and a half hours during summer months. The classes were

tailored to the needs of the participants, as identified by the Navigators and support staff.

Examples of the areas of need that emerged were: Nutrition, Scholarship resources, Self Esteem,

Car Seat Safety, and Child Abuse Awareness.

LCCSO collaborates with various organizations to deliver diverse workshops (Education Quest,

Project Harmony, etc.). A further example of this is the program’s alliance with Boys Town which

integrated Common Sense Parenting® (CSP) into LCCSO group workshops. CSP was a practical,

skill‐based six week parenting program which involved classroom instruction, videotape

modeling, roleplaying, feedback and review. Professional parent trainers provided instruction,

consultation and support to LCCSO participants, addressing issues of communication, discipline,

decision making, relationships, self‐control and school success. Parents were taught proactive

skills and techniques to help create healthy family relationships that fostered safety and well‐

being.

Navigator Services

LCCSO employed navigators that served as personal parent advocates, helping parents gain

better understanding of the public school system, community resources and adult education

programs. Navigators built strong relationships with participants to ensure individualized

education and support.

Parents And Children Time (PACT) Events: All participants and their children were invited to

attend social events where parents and children interact together with other families. Navigators

modeled positive parent‐child interaction in these group socialization events. These events were

intended to give parents opportunities to engage in positive parent‐child interactions; parents

were encouraged to practice proactive problem solving and decision making.

Home Visitations: Navigators visited participants’ homes to communicate with parents, conduct

informal needs assessments, connect parents with resources, model supportive learning

activities, coach parenting skills, and attend to specific needs. Navigators completed home

visitations as necessary, but on average once a month. Each participant worked with their

navigator to design a Family Literacy Plan (FLP) and set personal and familial goals.

Adult Education/Literacy

English as a Second Language (ESL): Adult participants attended English language classes two

days a week during the academic year. During summer months, the English language classes met

for one and a half hours, two days a week.

Each class was comprised of eight to twelve students and met for three hours/day. ESL classes

taught functional English skills and communication, with specific focus on parents’ needs to

support their children in school and collaborate with their teachers. Parents’ homework was

often expected to be done together with their children. The English skills parents learned were

often useful for both participants and their children.

Computer Training: Computer training was provided to impart information technology skills to

parents in order to assist in parents’ educational endeavors and support communication with

their children’s schools. Topics covered included: basic computer skills (language software

programs, sending emails, accessing school parent portals, etc.).

Who did LCCSO Serve?

LCCSO served families from Subcouncil Five of the Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy

Counties, specifically parents and children in the South Omaha area. Since its inception, the

program has enrolled 100 adult participants and their respective children under the age of 18 still

living at home and attending school (263 students). Adult participants had children attending

one of the following Omaha Public Schools elementary buildings: Indian Hill, Gomez Heritage,

Ashland Park‐Robbins, Spring Lake, Highland, Chandler View and Castelar. All students were

eligible for free/reduced lunch. All were English language learners.

What was the Quality of Services Implemented?

Multiple tools were used to measure growth, assess perceptions of the participants and

demonstrate program quality. The evaluation is both summative and developmental in nature.

The tools selected for the evaluation provided outcome information as well as informed the

implementers about what is working and what needs improvement.

Focus Groups

Multiple focus groups were conducted with the cohorts in July of 2013. In the focus group, the

participants were asked to respond to both multiple choice and open‐ended questions. Overall,

the participants (n=48) reported being satisfied with the program, staff, teachers and

administration. Many have experienced success in this program after facing failure in other

programs. They shared that the teachers helped them feel comfortable, motivated, and

confident in learning English and new parenting strategies.

Parent Surveys

Participants completed an intake survey upon entrance into the program and a follow‐up survey

this summer as part of the focus group process. The survey measured beliefs about school

engagement, experience with child care, family reading habits, and interactions with the

community.

Parent and Student Academic Achievement

Normed measures of English language, preschool language, and school readiness were collected

from the participants or their children. Normed measures allow for pre/post comparisons to track

growth over time. Evaluation results encompassed four sections: improved language, improved

relationships, improved sense of confidence and student achievement. Most sections were

supported with both qualitative and quantitative data. Parent and student academic

achievement results are described first, with improved relationships and sense of confidence in

using English in the Parenting Impacts section.

Parents significantly improved their English language skills. The participants have improved

their English in reading, writing and speaking. They reported speaking English daily with their

children and in the community. Many expressed satisfaction in being able to understand two to

three words on a sign and being able to know what they needed to do in social situations and

how to respond. Others discussed being able to communicate with people at the grocery store,

medical clinics, schools and in their own homes with repairmen. Participants had more

confidence in being able to communicate without needing a translator. One participant spoke

about having more confidence in her ability to communicate with those in the community stating,

“Before I would turn the other way because I was embarrassed that I couldn’t respond. And now

with basic English, I understand and I know how to speak a little more.”

As a result of the program, parents report being able to read with their children and to help with

homework. The parents feel more comfortable approaching their child’s teacher with questions.

When attending parent‐teacher conferences, they felt like they knew what questions to ask and

how to respond to the teacher. Parents reported reading more to their children and were much

more consistent in having their children read on a frequent basis. One mother exemplified what

many parents expressed stating, “Because now that I know a little more how to read, I am now

reading a bit more with her. And, now she is learning to read and getting better.”

Participants in the program were assessed as they entered the program and again after every 60

hours of language instruction using the BEST Plus Oral Proficiency Test for Adults (Center for

Applied Linguistics, 2005). A total of 58 participants with a pre‐test score and at least one post‐

test score were analyzed for differences. Participants entered the program with a mean score in

the low beginning stage of language development (M=406.84). At this stage, participants are

able to produce very limited words and phrases and have a great deal of difficulty communicating

with a native English speaker. The current post‐test mean (M=471.74) is at the low intermediate

stage of language development indicating that participants can meet basic survival needs and

handle some routine social interactions. A native English speaker would still have difficulty

understanding the speaker at this level but the person could handle an entry level job that

involved simple oral communication. A paired‐samples t‐test was conducted and indicated

significant improvement in English language growth (t=8.08, p<.01, one‐tailed). Cohen’s d1 effect

size was calculated (d=1.06) and resulted in a large effect size. An effect size of 1.0 or greater

indicates that participants improved by one full standard deviation. Moving from a level two to

a level four has real world implications for

the participants meaning that they have

moved from knowing only a few words and

phrases to being able to communicate about

basic needs and handling social interactions

within the community.

Young children’s language skills did not

significantly change. Children were assessed

pre and post using the Preschool Language

Scales‐Fifth Edition (Zimmerman, I., Steiner,

V., & Pond, R., 2011‐English, 2012‐Spanish).

Young children’s language skills did not

significantly change. Paired‐samples t‐tests were completed to examine the effects from pre to

post testing on the Preschool Language Scale (PLS‐V) Assessment both in English and in Spanish.

The analysis indicated no significant differences in gains or losses in any of the PLS‐V scores, either

the English or Spanish versions. The mean total post‐PLS score in English (M=73.00) is in the

delayed range while the mean total post PLS score in Spanish (M=88.29) is in the low average

range.

406.84

471.74

360

380

400

420

440

460

480

Best Plus

Figure I.4.1Parent English Assessment

Pre‐Test

Post‐Test

Bracken School Readiness Assessment. The Bracken School Readiness Assessment (Bracken,

2002) measures pre‐academic skills for students entering kindergarten. For the purposes of

LCCSO only students entering into kindergarten were given this assessment. The BSRA was

administered in English. The overall mean score for students (n=29) entering school was in the

delayed range (M=77.89). This score indicates their level of performance on an English only

assessment.

School age students. School age assessment data will be collected on those students whose

parents were participants in the LCCSO program. Data from the school district on attendance,

grades, and district assessments will be reported in the 2013‐2014 evaluation report.

Parenting Impacts

Parents reported improved parent‐child relationships; this qualitative finding was bolstered by

externally rated parent/child interactions showing significant improvement and effect sizes

within the zone of desired effects. Participants stated that learning more effective parenting

strategies as opposed to spanking had led to increased quality of their interactions with their

children. Parents stressed how they now made a conscious effort to take their children to the

park, to play with them and to read with them frequently. Parents mentioned that learning to

have a daily schedule or routine had reduced conflict in the home and that their children were

developing the habit of reading and completing chores with fewer acting out behaviors.

Consequently, the parents felt less stressed about home life.

Participants discussed changes in their parenting practices due to increased knowledge and

understanding of more positive discipline strategies. “The classes helped me a lot. Because it

helped me understand more than anything…my child better. Before, I expected him to

understand me. Now, I understand him.” The parenting classes were a particularly strong

resource to the participants of children with disabilities ranging from autism to ADHD to

74.52 73.00

85.7188.29

77.89

70

85

100

Pre‐English PLS Post‐English PLS Pre‐Spanish PLS Post‐Spanish PLS Bracken

Figure I.4.2Student Achievement Scores for 2012‐2013

Pre‐English PLS Post‐English PLS Pre‐Spanish PLS Post‐Spanish PLS Bracken

speech/language issues. Parents felt that the classes helped them realize that the disabilities

required different approaches and gave them strategies to implement. Several parents talked

about how spanking use to be the go‐to form of discipline and parenting but that the classes have

helped them reduce the spanking and improve their quality time with the children. Seventy‐

seven percent of the participants attended at least five parenting classes and 89% of the

participants reported being very satisfied or satisfied with the classes.

Parents acknowledged that being in class and having homework helped them to understand their

child’s and teacher’s perspectives more. The importance of doing well in school and completing

homework was something they now felt confident in modeling and expressing to their children.

One parent reported telling her son, “I want to keep learning so that I can help you, and as you

get better in school I also need to improve to be able to help you,” while another shared, “My

daughter says, ‘Mommy, I will help you do your homework’. And so she is the one who helps

me.” Parents and children have now become partners in learning as evidenced by 100% of the

parents attending parent teacher conferences and 88% attending four or more school events.

The Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale (KIPS) was used to assess and measure parent‐child

interactions across three categories: Building Relationships, Promoting Learning and Supporting

Confidence. Parents were video‐recorded once a year to assess parenting skills and behaviors

with their children under 6 years of age. Navigators recorded the parent and had it analyzed by

the evaluation team. Once the Navigator received the report back, he or she provided feedback

and coaching to the parent on parenting strategies and techniques. Pre and post KIPS scores were

analyzed using a paired samples t‐

test (n=28). The results of the t‐

test were significant (t=2.178, p

<.05, two‐tailed). Cohen’s d1 was

calculated (d=0.41), which is in the

zone of desired effects.

Parents reported increased social

capital and increased confidence.

Parents stated that the child care

provided at LCCSO allowed their

children to become more

socialized with other adults and

children. Several mothers

reported that prior to attending the program their children would cry and scream if they were

left with anyone else and that this had been their first experience with child care. The children

When exposed to Watch DOGS (Dads of Great Students),

mothers from LCCSO with children attending Gomez Heritage

formed their own parent group called “Super Moms.” “The

parents will see how teachers teach math and they will

actually learn some of them…Most of them don’t speak

English, so they are actually learning.”

Read more: http://www.ketv.com/news/local‐news/Mothers‐lend‐a‐hand‐at‐Gomez‐

Heritage‐Elementary‐School/‐/9674510/19603178/‐/pfvq9bz/‐

/index.html#ixzz2hoLb02SY”

are now excited to come to the program and “school” and the mothers shared that their children

were more prepared to start programs such as Head Start and public school.

Participants reported higher involvement in the community. Several expressed that before

beginning the program they stayed home all day and never left the house. Now, several said they

were confident enough to venture out to the parks, library, schools and stores. Many had

developed friendly relationships with other members of their cohort and felt that was a benefit

as well. The participants pointed out the work of the Navigators in guiding them to new

resources. When asked about their experiences with the Navigators, 98% responded that they

were either “very satisfied” or “mostly satisfied.”

Participants expressed much appreciation and acknowledgement for the resources provided by

LCCSO. They stated that without transportation and child care many of them would not be able

to attend. One member said, “You realize the money they are spending on us and we appreciate

it. The community cares about us, the kids, and that the kids are good people, that they become

professionals. We are the parents and we have to help them be the best persons they can be.”

Suggestions for the Program from the Focus Groups:

1. Longer Time: Participants would like to have class 3‐4 days a week. They would like the

classes to continue to be three hours in length. The change to 1.5 hours during the

summer felt short to them and some reported it wasn’t a good use of time, especially

having to get their children ready and transported to the center.

2. Better Communication: Participants often felt out of the loop as to what was going on in

the program. At times, events and changes were communicated to some but not all

participants and this caused some frustration. One suggestion was to give the

announcements at the midway point in class.

3. Leveling of the Groups: A suggestion was made to level the classes according to language

proficiency. When in a mixed group of proficiencies, the participants felt that the students

with the lowest proficiency received the most instruction.

4. Additional Classes: Participants expressed interest in a variety of other classes such as

GED, finances, understanding the laws and immigration, and self‐esteem.

Family Literacy (LCCSO) Program Conclusions and Implications

The Family Literacy Program (LCCSO) has significantly impacted families in poverty in South

Omaha by improving their English language skills and increasing both their knowledge level and

use of improved parenting techniques and strategies. Participants reported high levels of

satisfaction across the English classes, parenting classes and Navigator services. The

improvement in English language skills of the participants was significant as were the changes in

parent‐child interactions. The confidence gained through learning English and having a

supportive environment appears to have led to other outcomes including school engagement,

increased confidence by the parents to interact socially and an increased involvement in the

community. While significant student gains were not yet found, this is not unexpected given the

nature of the program. It would be expected that student gains may not be immediately seen as

the direct services are taking place with the parents and not the students. It is recommended

that these students be followed as they enter and progress through school. As parents increase

their own parenting capacity and more strongly engage with their child’s school, it is possible

that effects will be shown with school age data such as attendance, district level assessments,

and the Nebraska State Assessments.

Subsection I.5 Learning Community Family Liaison

Program

Lead: Kristina Norwood, Supervised by Lisa St. Clair, Ed.D. The Learning Community Family Liaison Program

(in partnership with Lutheran Family Services) was

established to reduce barriers to learning by

providing services to address the underlying issues

affecting the family and child that impact the

child’s ability to learn. This intensive program is

designed to support the needs of students who

have multiple, complex challenges that are

associated with needs outside of the school

environment but are impacting school and

academic success. These stressors affecting both

family and child may be wide ranging and inclusive

of financial, physical, psychological, logistical or

other factors. Service provision occurred primarily

via the Family Liaison (LCFL) was housed in the

school and provided targeted services to

individual students and their families.1


The program placed Family Liaisons (LCFLs) in 12 elementary schools within the Omaha Public

School District. Schools that had an LCFL were located in achievement subcouncils two (2) and

five (5). The program employed 13 staff including one (1) program director and twelve Learning

Community Family Liaisons.2

1 The Learning Community signed a contract with Lutheran Family Services to begin services in April, 2011. 2 Completely Kids (CK), partnered with Lutheran Family Services to provide this program. Lutheran Family Services felt it advantageous to utilize the two CK staff already employed in a similar role in three schools targeted for this program. A partnership was established resulting in a team that includes three Completely Kids employees who are jointly overseen by both agencies.

Family Liaison Program Key Findings

Served 282 students within 264 families in 12 schools


The model evolved over time and the program’s implementation varied by school and student, family needs

Parent stress ratings significantly decreased from intake to discharge (d=1.67)

Student reading, writing and mathematics improved from intake to discharge (small effect sizes found for reading, d=0.35, and writing, d=0.22)

The Learning Community Family Liaison Program’s (LCFLP) intent was to build on existing school

efforts to provide supports and problem‐solve the needs of students. The LCFL was responsible

for brokering services to meet the student and family’s needs.

The LCFL provided case management, intensive intervention in two ways—targeted student

supports and universal student supports.

The Learning Community Family Liaison Program model has evolved to include four different

strategies for service provision. The LCFL’s primary intent was to support at‐risk students who

struggled academically and experienced significant challenges in the home, often due to stress

within the family. This primary objective has remained consistent since the program’s inception.

The model was changed this year to eliminate the LCFL’s role in school‐wide events to enhance

more targeted service planning to meet individualized goals. In order to support this effort, the

addition of service domains was implemented as a way to better categorize the services being

brokered.

LCFLP Service Domains. The LCFLP services domains are the most common areas of need for

students and families served by the Learning Community Family Liaison. Identifying the service

Table I.5.1 – LCFL Program Model

Input

Who/what’s

involved

Activities

What occurs

Output

First effects

Outcome

Second effects

Impact

Over time effects

Persons involved

include:

School staff, Family

Liaisons, family,

professionals,

community

resources, students,

Student Assistance

Teams

Location: At school,

at the family’s home

and in the community

(accessing resources

as needed)

Time: 90 Days

FLs provide intensive

student and family

support for 90 days via:

Targeted service planning to meet individualized goals (Domains include: Family, Living Situation, Social Support, Health, Safety, Legal, Educational‐Vocational.

Family/student assessments to identify academic/family need

Team meetings to monitor progress and revise service plan as needed

FL partners with family and other stakeholders to create tailored service plan for youth/family using SMART goals

Family/child are assessed across academic and behavioral/mental health domains

Student’s academic needs are targeted

Parental stress is reduced and/or positively impacted

Student and stakeholders implement service plan which addresses need

90% of goals (per student) will be met at the end of the 90 day period

Parents are empowered, develop knowledge and/or ability to manage stress

Student’s academic success indicators increase and/or are positively impacted

domains through a series of assessments and organizational intake processes are integral in

identifying the appropriate interventions, supports and S.M.A.R.T. goals essential for developing

an effective individual student and family case plan.

Family. In human context, a family is a group of people commonly classified as: a nuclear family

(husband, wife, and children); single parent (mother or father and children); extended family

(grandparent, aunt or uncle and children) or non‐related family (associated through other

arrangements including foster parenting.) In most societies the family is the principal institution

for healthy development and socialization of children.

Living Situation. The living situation encompasses a description of the circumstances in which

the family unit resides. It may include the type of housing, the link between housing and family,

or the lack of housing (homelessness).

Social Support. Social support is the perception and actuality that one is cared for, has assistance

available from other people, and is part of a supportive social network. These supportive

resources can be emotional (e.g., nurturance), tangible (e.g., financial assistance), informational

(e.g., advice), or companionship (e.g., sense of belonging). Support can come from many sources,

such as family, friends, organizations, etc.

Health‐Physical.

Are the student’s physical health needs being addressed?

Has the student accessed the School Based Health Center?

Does the student have access to Medicaid, SCHIP, or private insurance?

Are there unmet physical health needs within the family?

Target: Individual

students and families who

provide consent

Mental (Behavioral & Emotional).

Does the student have any behavioral or emotional needs that are not being addressed?

Does the student have any unresolved or unmet needs that are impacting student or adult

relationships in the school setting?

Are any problem behaviors blocking a family member’s chances of having a good life?

Do any other family members living in the family unit or living outside of the family unit

have any unmet mental health (behavioral or emotional) needs?

Are there unresolved issues that impede normal interaction within the family or

community?

Safety. Safety is the state of being "safe" the condition of being protected against physical, social,

spiritual, financial, political, emotional, occupational, psychological, educational or other types

or consequences of failure, harm or any other event which could be considered non‐desirable.

Legal. Legal refers to the system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social

institutions to govern behavior of an individual, family, organization or community.

Educational/Vocational. Educational/vocational encompasses the educational needs of the

child, children in the family as well as the parents and/or guardians. The vocational needs are

pertinent to older youth, but also to the family unit.

Individual LCFLs described challenges and successes the LCFLP referral process. Team members’

reported experiences vary over time, by school, and school district. Bi‐monthly reflection

sessions were held with the full LCFL team to explore their experiences implementing the

program. Data collected demonstrate that each LCFL experience differs. School community

members including principals, guidance counselors, Student Assistance Team (SAT) team

members and teachers impacted the LCFLs’ ability, or opportunity, to implement the program.

Reflection sessions explored the topic of how referrals were received. LCFLs described a wide

range in this process that varied by school. Referrals came predominantly from school guidance

counselors and principals but LCFLs also reported that they came after or during SAT meetings,

through teachers, other school staff, parents, and through pursuing them on their own.

This year the LCFL program worked with OPS to integrate the LCFLs into SAT meetings. In

reflection sessions, LCFLs reported variation in having access to SAT meetings by school. One of

the barriers that they reported was not always being alerted when a SAT meeting was scheduled,

possibly due to not being on the OPS e‐mail system. Some of the LCFLs reported greater success

with getting SAT meeting notifications as the school year progressed.

The LCFLs reported that being part of SAT meetings was valuable in their work in that it gave

them opportunities to give parents their information and resources. They also identified SAT

teams as an asset in relationship building with school staff and families, and as another way to

get background information on children and families.

Who did the LCFL Program Serve?

The Learning Community Family Liaison program served approximately 282 students with one‐

on‐one services across 12 schools in the Omaha Public Schools. These students represented 264

distinct families.

Students served ranged from kindergarten through sixth grade.

Of the students served, 53.2% were served in Subcouncil 2, 45% were served in Subcouncil 5, and 1.8% did not complete this field.

Of students served, 62.1% were male, 33.7% were female, and 4.3% did not respond to

this question on the intake survey.

The majority of students were identified as Hispanic (48.2%) or African American

(31.9%).

Most students received free/reduced lunch (93.3%).

Students were referred for behavioral concerns (34%), poor academics (27%), poor attendance

(10%), or a family issue (9%).

Students had the following types of service domain goals assigned throughout their time in the

program: Cultural/Spiritual, Educational/Vocational, Family, Legal, Living Situation, Medical,

Mental Health, Safety and Social.

Goals were developed for each of students enrolled in the LCFL program. Of the 267 goals

assigned in Subcouncil 2, the most frequently assigned goals categories were

Educational/Vocational (69%), Family (10%), and Social (10%). Of the 323 goals assigned in

Subcouncil 5, the most frequent assigned goals categories were Educational/Vocational (66%),

Family (20%), Mental Health (4%) and Social (3%).

Table I.5.2 Goals by Service Domain

Service Domain Sub. 2

(n=150)

% Sub. 5

(n=127)

% Totals

Educational 184 69% 214 66% 398 67%

Family 28 10% 64 20% 92 16%

Living Situation 4 1% 4 1% 8 1%

Mental Health 11 4% 14 4% 25 4%

Social 27 10% 11 3% 38 6%

Medical 1 1% 8 2% 9 2%

Legal 2 1% 2 1% 4 1%

Safety 3 1% 1 1% 4 1%

Cultural/Spiritual 0 0% 2 1% 2 0%

Other 7 3% 3 1% 10 2%

Total Goals 267 100% 323 100% 590 100%

Students generally had a positive influence in their lives. Students rated themselves on the 40

Developmental Assets. Students reported a low to mid‐low sense of academic self‐efficacy,

suggesting that they did not feel confident in their ability to be as academically successful as their

peers. The majority of students served, 47%, had between 21 and 30 assets of out a possible 40.

They averaged 27 assets. According to the Search Institute, the assets “represent the

relationships, opportunities, and personal qualities that young people need to avoid risks and to

thrive (Search Institute’s website: http://www.search‐institute.org/content/what‐are‐

developmental‐assets).” Research shows that the more assets a young person has, the less likely

they are to engage in high risk behavior. These numbers suggested that the overall program

population were more likely to have assets compared to the Search Institute’s research on youth

in 6th‐12th grade which showed that girls have an average of 19.9 assets while boys have 17.2.3

However, some caution must be exercised with this comparison because the national data is for

an older group of children than those served for the Learning Community.

3 For reference, the Search Institute’s research on youth in 6th‐12th grade shows that girls have an average of 19.9 assets while boys have 17.2. However, the population served by this program are at a different developmental stage (kindergarten through 6th grade) and should not be strictly compared to these numbers.

There was variation in the quality of service planning by individual LCFL. Average scores from a

review of 31 randomly selected service plans suggest that the quality of service planning

conducted by LCFLs varied throughout the school year with the highest score being 23.25 and

the lowest 17.91 out of a possible 28 points. In January 2012, a Service Plan Rubric was developed

by the Family Liaison team with support from UNMCs evaluation team as a strategy for improving

the quality of service plans written by LCFLs.4 The rubric addressed three areas: Responsiveness;

SMART goals and Professionalism. The areas were determined by FSL management to ensure

that the service plans aligned with program goals. Responsiveness required that the service plan

responds to all of the unique needs of that student and family present at intake and that later

emerge. SMART goals required that all goal areas be specific, measureable, achievable, realistic,

and timely. Professionalism required that documentation accurately describe the work being

done with the target child and family.

The rubric assigned a point value to each of the fourteen indicators within the three overarching

categories. A score of low quality received a zero, of medium quality received a one, and of high

quality received a two. There were 28 points possible. The LCFL team voted to set a score of 23

as their indicator of quality. In other words, the team agreed that a score of 23 indicated that the

plan had addressed the student/family’s need, was written in such a way that the goals were

appropriate and achievable and accurately described the nature of their work with their clients.

4 Service plans are critical to the work of the FL. They include individualized student/family goals, service provision rationale and strategies for monitoring and adjusting their work with the family.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0‐10 Assets 11‐20 Assets 21‐30 Assets 31‐40 Assets

Figure I.5.140 Developmental Assets Profile of Students (n=122)

The evaluation team reviewed a randomly selected sample of 31 services plans. Before the rubric

was established, the average score was 17.8 points and last year the average score after the

rubric was established was 20.3 points. This year, the average score was 20.47 points, a gain of

0.17 points. This suggests that limited progress had been made, although the average did not

meet the team’s established indicator of quality (a score of 23). There was clear variation by FSL

as some scores fell into the high quality range consistently and others scored consistently low.

Qualitative data suggest that the rubric was viewed positively by the LCFL team.

Student Impacts and Student Achievement

Students achieved 44.6% of the goals designed for them by their LCFL. Qualitative data suggests

that the achievability of the goals developed for clients varied among LCFLs and varied over time,

limiting the meaningfulness of this percentage as an indicator of effectiveness. Data from case

notes and service plans demonstrated that there was variability in the goals established for

clients. Variability can be attributed to multiple factors, including lessened family engagement

or that some goals were not achievable or realistic within a 90 day timeframe. LCFLs have

continued to have training and to utilize the rubric developed for quality. There were several

new LCFLs this year which may account for some of the variability. The number of goals achieved

increased from 31% in 2011‐2012 to 45% in 2012‐2013 showing a 14% increase.

Teacher ratings of student ability in the areas of mathematics, reading, and writing increased

across all subjects from intake to discharge. These increases were found to be statistically

significant only in the areas of reading and writing.5

Teachers were asked to rate students’ ability in the areas of mathematics, reading and writing at

intake. These ratings ranged from 1 to 3 with a rating of 1 indicating a student’s ability to be

‘below expectations,’ 2 indicating a student’s ability ‘meets expectations’ or 3 indicating a

student’s ability ‘exceeds expectations.’ The pre/post ability ratings by teachers (n=63) are

depicted in Table IV.4.4.

Table I.5.3 Teacher Ratings of Students’ Pre‐Post Academic Achievement

Intake Mathematics Reading Writing

Below 54% 63% 59%

Meets 43% 33% 38%

Exceeds 3% 4% 3%

Average Rating 1.49 1.40 1.44

5 To analyze teacher ratings of academic ability, the Paired Samples T Test was used.

Discharge Mathematics Reading Writing

Below 51% 49% 51%

Meets 44% 46% 44%

Exceeds 5% 5% 5%

Average Rating 1.54 1.56 1.54

For proper comparison, only the ratings of students with complete pre and post data were

analyzed (n=63). From intake to discharge, more students were rated as meeting or exceeding

expectations in the subject of mathematics. The mean score difference was determined to not

be statistically significant using a one‐tailed, paired samples t‐test (M=.045, t(62)=.903, p=.185),

and therefore, no effect size was calculated. In the area of reading, significantly more students

were rated as meeting or exceeding expectations at discharge. The difference in teacher ratings

of reading was determined to be statistically significant using a one‐tailed, paired samples t‐test

(M=.16, t(62)=2.816, p=.004). Cohen’s d was calculated yielding an effect size that approached

the zone of desired effects (d=0.35) for reading. Significantly more students were rated as

meeting or exceeding expectations at post in the subject of writing, using a one‐tailed, paired

samples t‐test (M=.10, t(62) 1.761, p=.041). The effect size (d=0.22) was in the low range.

While teacher ratings of student ability indicated evidence of student growth in reading and

writing, it should be noted that no other measures of student achievement were collected or

analyzed. One recommendation would be to collect student NeSA scores or other school

assessment data to quantifiably measure change in student achievement.

Success Story

This story comes from Lutheran Family Services and is part of their promotional literature.

Finding a way to make a fresh start can be hard. Sometimes families need a little help.

Just ask Jackson. He’s married – the father of five – and trying hard to provide for his family.

His biggest challenge? He and his wife are both medically disabled. They manage to get by, but

just barely. Jackson often gives plasma, just to have money for dinner.

When their youngest daughter, Rosie started having problems in school, it turned out to be a

blessing. An LCFL, Djuan Johnson, became aware of the family and made a visit to their home.

Turns out, Rosie was missing school because her family was just days away from homelessness.

Her parents were frustrated and scared. They fought every day. School simply wasn’t a priority

for the family at that moment. The family’s financial problems became a huge barrier to

learning for little Rosie, as well as her brothers and sisters. Having a warm place to sleep was a

much greater concern.

It did not take Djuan Johnson long to connect Jackson and his family with community resources.

As he guided the family towards a safe, affordable home, food pantries and other resources,

Djuan was coaching Jackson on how to be a better father. Sometimes, Djuan just stopped by

with a donated bag of groceries and stayed a while to chat. Jackson says without such

intervention, his family of seven would have been homeless, broken, and lost. And perhaps

fatherless, because for him – suicide had also become an option. “He’s our angel in disguise.

He changed our lives.” Today, Rosie is winning awards in school for her academic progress!

Families are strengthened.

Parenting Impacts

Parent stress ratings from intake to discharge

significantly decreased. Ratings changed from

6.66 at intake to 3.89 at discharge. At intake,

parents rated their perceptions of stress on a

scale of 1 to 10 with 1 indicating a low level of

stress and 10 indicating a high level of stress.

For proper comparison, only the ratings of

parents with complete pre and post data were

analyzed (n=35). Parents reported an initial

mean stress rating of 6.66. The decrease of

parent stress ratings from 6.66 to 3.89 was

statistically significant using a one‐tailed,

paired‐samples t‐test (M=2.77, t=9.852, p<.001) which indicates that this change was not due to

chance. The effect size was strong (d=1.67), as it was in the previous year (d=1.39).12

Families rated the services positively (between ‘good’ and ‘excellent’). When asked if the 90

day timeframe was sufficient, responses were mixed with several stating that they would like the

time frame extended.

Overall, parents rated the quality of the FL program highly. Surveys used a 5‐point Likert scale to

rate parent responses to “As a result of the Family Liaison Program…” There were 23 responses.

Table I.5.4: Parent Rating of Impact of LCFL Program

Item Rating Interpretation

I feel more confident in my ability to support my child academically.

1.5

Parent rating is positive, exactly between agree and strongly agree.

I have a better understanding of my children’s academic needs.

1.3 Parent rating is positive, leaning towards agree.

I believe I have a better understanding of how to deal with stress.

1.3 Parent rating is positive, leaning towards agree.

I have a better understanding of the attendance requirement at my child’s school.

1.6 Parent rating is positive, exactly between agree and strongly agree.

I was satisfied with the referrals I received.

1.4 Parent rating is positive, leaning slightly more towards agree.

Disagree Strongly= ‐2; Disagree = ‐1, Neutral = 0; Agree = 1; Strongly Agree = 2

LCFL Program Conclusions and Implications

6.66

3.89

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Intake Discharge

Figure I.5.2Parent Stress Rating

The LCFL program was widely viewed as an asset within schools and to families for multiple

reasons. The program continued to expand services with more families, despite an evolving

model. Parental stress significantly decreased and teacher ratings of student reading and writing

achievement levels increased. The quality of service plans continues to improve. The families and

students served by this program viewed it positively and, while mixed on this, some would have

liked for more length of time in the program. One thing to consider is the long‐term effects of

this short‐term program. Are families able to sustain the lower levels of stress without receiving

continued supports? In the next year’s evaluation, the possibility of following up with families six

months to a year after services end to see if the changes have been maintained would be worth

considering.

Section I.6 Elementary Learning Programs Overall

Conclusions

The Learning Community funded a variety of programs to serve its mission of overcoming barriers

to student achievement. The evaluation used diverse methods, combining quantitative and

qualitative approaches, to describe and measure the quality of implementation, the nature of

programming, and to report outcomes demonstrated by the elementary learning programs

funded by the LC: Extended Learning, Literacy Coaching, Jump Start Kindergarten, and Family

Support focused programs. The LC served 17,186 students in the past program year. Overall, the

evaluation results of the funded programs were positive and suggested that the Learning

Community’s efforts were accomplishing two overarching tasks: (1) programs appear to be using

evaluation data for improvement and (2) examination of family or student data suggested they

were showing improvement. Student achievement results were consistently strong for Jump

Start Kindergarten over multiple years. Long‐term student achievement in reading showed

positive impact over multiple years through Literacy Coaching. Results showed more variability

in extended learning, with some non‐significant outcomes and some strong effect sizes found.

This was likely attributable to variation in intensity of the program (duration), focus of the

instruction, quality of programming, and measurement sources.

The following table summarizes findings for the 2012‐13 year by program. It includes the type of

program, the number of student served, the percent of those students eligible for free or reduced

price lunch in school, the type of measurement source used for calculation of effect size, and the

effect size found. Some notations are made to draw attention to results that are most likely

attributable to collective impact—the result of multiple efforts from the schools, parents,

community partners, and the program described.

Table I.6.1 Summary of Findings for 2012‐13

Program

Number of

Students

Served

% Eligible

for Free‐

Reduced

Lunch

Measurement Effect Size

Extended Learning

(multiple districts

and agencies)

2,588 83% Multiple, including

AimsWeb, MAP, NESA 0.301

Literacy Coaching

(Two districts) 13,243 83% NESA‐Reading 0.561

Program

Number of

Students

Served

% Eligible

for Free‐

Reduced

Lunch

Measurement Effect Size

Jump Start

Kindergarten

(multiple districts

and agencies)

810 61% Bracken School

Readiness Assessment 0.59

Learning

Community Center

of South Omaha

263

and 100

families

100%

BEST‐Adult English

KIPS‐Parent Child

Interactions

1.06

0.41

Family Liaison

Program

282

and 264

families

93%

Parent Stress

Reading

Writing

Mathematics

1.67

0.35

0.22

NS

Overall 17,186

students 82% NS to 1.67

1Collective impact

The table that follows compares effect sizes found across programs over multiple years, where

such results exist. If NS is noted, the results were not significant. A dash ( ‐‐ ) indicates no data

available to calculate a group result. For the 2011‐12 year, extended learning had a range of

effect sizes found but there was such variability in the data provided and examined, it was

deemed most appropriate to report a group effect size for 2012‐13. If an estimate were used for

the 2011‐12 year for extended learning, it would have been approximately in the .10 to .20 range.

Table I.6.2 Comparison of Effect Size Impacts Across Years

Program 2010‐11 Effect

Size

2011‐12 Effect

Size

2012‐13 Effect

Size

Extended Learning (multiple districts

and agencies) ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.301

Literacy Coaching

(Two districts) ‐‐ NS 0.561

Jump Start Kindergarten (multiple

districts and agencies) 0.58 0.63 0.59

LCCSO Family Literacy ‐‐ ‐‐ BEST 1.06

KIPS 0.41

Program 2010‐11 Effect

Size

2011‐12 Effect

Size

2012‐13 Effect

Size

Family Liaison Program ‐‐

Stress 1.39

Rdg 0.481

Wrtg 0.501

Math 0.471

Stress 1.67

Rdg 0.351

Wrtg 0.221

Math NS1

Overall ‐‐ NS to 1.39 NS to 1.671Collective impact

Summary of Programs

Extended Learning Programs. Extended learning programs served 2,588 students and included

three major types of programs: comprehensive out of school time programs serving students

after school (1,117 students, multiple districts and community partners), tutoring programs (733,

two districts), and summer programs (738, multiple districts and community partners). Across

programs, the overall effect size change for student achievement was d=0.30; however, the range

was very broad with some programs showing no significant improvement and some showing

effect size change of d=1.94. Some elements associated with programs with the greater effect

size change was emphasis on positive relationships, focus or intensity of the program although

this did not always mean greater dosage, and effective teaching of concepts (e.g., mathematics)

more so than specific skills for an upcoming assessment.

Literacy Coaching Programs. Two districts were funded with literacy coaching programs. A total

of 13,243 students were served and approximately 83% were eligible for free/reduced lunch.

Using external evaluation in one district, students showed significant improvement in reading

(NeSA Reading) from beginning of the program implementation, 2010, to end of the program,

2013 (d=0.56). In 2013‐14, two districts have been funded with literacy coaching. External

measures of teaching quality will be implemented (CLASS). CLASS videos will be rated for

participating teachers (pre and post).

Jump Start to Kindergarten Programs. Jump Start to Kindergarten programs were provided in

five districts and one community agency. A total of 810 kindergarten students were served an

average 118 hours total over the summer; 61% eligible for free/reduced lunch. Students

significantly improved on the Bracken School Readiness Assessment and showed medium to

nearly high effect size changes at the individual program levels as well as the overall LC program

level (Bracken 2009, gained 4.11 standard score points, p<.001, d=0.59, similar to findings of the

previous two years. Parents reported high levels of satisfaction with and impact by the Jump

Start Kindergarten programs. An external measure of the quality of teaching/learning

interactions, the CLASS was used in all programs, with all but one district collecting it for all

classrooms. Results can be used to refine and continuously improve each program, as well as to

guide the general continuous improvement process for programs funded by the Learning

Community. The CLASS will be used in all classrooms in next year’s evaluation.

Family Literacy Programs. Through the Learning Community Center of South Omaha and in

partnership with One World Community Health Centers, Family Literacy services were provided

for parents with children attending elementary schools within Subcouncil Five. A total of 100

parents and 263 students were served by LCCSO. LCCSO participants received a wide range of

interrelated services, including, but not limited to: Parenting Education, Navigator Services and

Adult Education (ESL & Computer Training). Parents showed significant improvements with

strong effects in learning English. Qualitative findings and externally rated assessments of

parent‐child interactions also showed significant improvement within the zone of desired effects.

Young children’s language skills did not significantly change, suggesting that with the parent as

the impact target, it is too soon to measure changes within children.

Learning Community Family Liaison Program. In partnership with Lutheran Family Services, LCFL

services were provided for students and their families in 12 elementary schools within Omaha

Public Schools (subcouncils two and five). A total of 282 students and 264 families were served.

Outcomes in the areas of student academics and family stress were positive (and statistically

significant) and satisfaction ratings from parents were positive.

Summary

Overall, the programs evaluated in this report served the students that the Learning Community

targeted and provided quality programming. A total of 17,186 students were served this program

year. When available, outcomes related to academic achievement were measured and in general,

showed that students benefitted from the additional resources, with strongest effect sizes found

in school readiness and reading achievement. It is challenging to quantify the results of the

evaluation in such a way as to show which programs impact students more when asked, which

types of programs yield the best outcomes? To answer these questions during the 2013‐14 year,

the evaluation design must include the addition of two major components: (1) consistent

utilization of a same or similar tool to be used to assess program quality, at least in programs

focused on teaching and learning (CLASS); and (2) student level data provided by all districts and

programs to the program evaluation team. Without these, it is difficult to address what elements

in the program were associated with positive benefits for students, and similarly, we can’t really

respond to questions about variation in benefits for students. Do some students benefit more

than others? Are there subgroups not making gains?

Although there are still improvements to be made, the foundation for closing the achievement

gap has been established. Some programs are showing no significant differences, some programs

are showing low to medium effects, and others show strong effects, especially over time. With

continued focus on improvement, additional gains should be expected. Recommendations

concerning program types cannot be made. Where some non‐significant and lower effect sizes

were found, there was also great variability across agencies and districts, with some showing

strong effect sizes within the same broad category type (e.g., Extended Learning). The most

consistency was found with Jump Start Kindergarten.

Recommendations

1. It is recommended that the evaluation team be provided student state identification

numbers (NSSRS numbers), demographic variables, and student performance on NeSA

reading, writing, and mathematics over time. The true impact of Learning Community

participation can best be measured over multiple years.

2. The Classroom Assessment and Scoring System (Pre‐K to Upper Elementary CLASS, Pianta)

external observation tool has been added as a mandatory item for all 2013‐14 programs

in the areas of extended learning, literacy coaching, early childhood, and jump start

kindergarten programming.

3. The process and concept of ‘knowledge transfer’ or sharing of best practices across

buildings, districts, community agencies, and systems, should be evaluated as part of the

external program evaluation of the Learning Community.

References

Beckett, M., Borman, G., Capizzano, J., Parsley, D., Ross, S., Schirm, A., & Taylor, J. (2009). Structuring out‐of‐school time to improve academic achievement: A practice guide (NCEE #2009‐012). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides.

Bracken, B. (2002). Bracken school readiness assessment. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment Inc.

Burchinal, M., Vandergrift, N., Pianta, R., & Mashburn, A. (2010). Threshold analysis of association between child care quality and child outcomes for low‐income children in pre‐kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(2), 166–176.

Center for Applied Linguistics (2005). BEST Plus Test Administrator Guide. Washington, DC.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Elish‐Piper & L’Allier (2011). Examining the relationship between literacy coaching and student reading gains in grades k‐3. The Elementary School Journal, 112 (1), 83‐106.

Hamre, B., Goffin, S. & Kraft‐Sayre, M. (2009). Measuring and improving classroom interactions in early childhood settings. http://www.teachstone.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/06/CLASSImplementationGuide.pdf

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta‐analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kane, T. J., McCaffrey, D. F., Miller, T., & Staiger, D. O. Have We Identified Effective Teachers? Validating Measures of Effective Teaching Using Random Assignment (research paper). Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved January 30, 2013, from http://www.metproject.org/reports.php.

Larrabee, A. (2007). Predicting academic achievement through kindergarten screening: An evaluation of development and school readiness measures (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from: Dissertation Abstracts International section A: Humanities and social sciences. (AAI3228216).

Nebraska Department of Education, 2011‐2012 State of the Schools Report: A Report on Nebraska Public Schools. Retrieved from: http://reportcard.education.ne.gov/Main/Home.aspx.

Neuman, S. (2006). N is for nonsensical. Educational Leadership, 64(2), 28‐31.

Panter, & Bracken, B. (2009). Validity of the Bracken school readiness assessment for predicting first grade readiness. Psychology in the schools, 46(5), 397‐409.

Patton, M. Q. (2012). Essentials of Utilization‐Focused Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pianta, R., LaParo, K., & Hamre, B. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system (CLASS). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

Zimmerman, I., Steiner, V., & Pond, R. (2011‐English, 2012‐Spanish). Preschool Language Scale, 5th Edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Funding for this external program evaluation was provided through the Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy Counties.

http://learningcommunityds.org

Report prepared by: St. Clair, L.; Johnson, J.; Siebler, A.; Robbins, R. and Norwood, K (2013). Section IV. Evaluation report of programs funded by elementary learning centers 2012‐13. Omaha, NE: Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy Counties, http://learningcommunityds.org.

Director of this Learning Community Evaluation Lisa St. Clair, Ed.D.

Assistant Professor, MMI & Pediatrics Munroe‐Meyer Institute

University of Nebraska Medical Center 985450 Nebraska Medical Center

Omaha, NE 68198‐5450 [email protected]

(402) 559‐3023 (office) and (402) 677‐2684 (cell)

Project Director‐Jolene Johnson, Ed.S.

Evaluation Team Nicole Buchholz Becky Harris

Jennifer Harmon Kristina Norwood

Kari Price Karime Rios

Regina Robbins Colleen Schmit Belle Scheef Abbey Siebler Millie Smith Becky Zessin

Special thanks to the assistance of research/evaluation staff and administration of district and agency partners, as well as to the staff of the Learning Community.

Collaborate Evaluate Improve

4843-8988-8534.1


ELEMENTARY LEARNING CENTER PROGRAMMING AGREEMENT (Subcouncil #3)

This ELEMENTARY LEARNING CENTER PROGRAMMING AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into as of , 2013 by and between the Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy Counties, a Nebraska political subdivision (“Learning Community”) and Ralston Public Schools, a Nebraska political subdivision (“District”).

WHEREAS, Learning Community is statutorily authorized to establish a system of elementary learning centers to enhance the academic achievement of elementary students within Learning Community, particularly students who face challenges in the educational environment due to factors such as poverty, limited English skills, and mobility; and

WHEREAS, Learning Community has determined that, in those Subcouncil Districts in which it has not established an elementary learning center, offering programming in partnership with member school districts, including District, is the most effective means to fulfill its statutory mission; and

WHEREAS, District is willing to offer elementary learning programming in partnership with Learning Community.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements, promises and covenants set forth herein, Learning Community and District (each referred to herein individually as “Party” and collectively as “the Parties”) agree as follows:

1. Statement of Work

a. Pursuant and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, LearningCommunity hereby agrees to provide funding and District agrees to undertake and conduct the program (the “Program”) more specifically set forth in the Elementary Learning Center Programming Proposal & Budget (“Proposal”) in the form submitted by District and approved by Learning Community (including any amendments thereto), a copy of which is marked as Exhibit “A” attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (all references herein to the “Agreement” include the Agreement as supplemented by the Proposal).

b. The purpose of the Program is to enhance the academic success of elementarystudents of District, particularly students who face challenges in the educational environment due to factors such as poverty, limited English skills, and mobility.

2. Performance Period. District will commence work on the Program on or after July 14, 2013and will conclude work on the Program on or before August 1, 2014 (“Program Term”), which date may be extended by mutual written agreement of the parties hereto. Notwithstanding the foregoing, neither party to this Agreement shall hold the other party responsible for damages or delays in performance caused by acts of God, strikes, lockouts, accidents, or other events beyond the reasonable control of said party.

3. Fiscal Agent. District shall be the fiscal agent for the Program. As fiscal agent, District shall besolely responsible for compliance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement related to the incurring of Program expenses, including the approval thereof, the payment of any and all bills and

November 21, 2013 Agenda Item 7(b) v. 1

2 4843-8988-8534.1

invoices related to the Program, and the submission of financial reports to Learning Community related to the Program. 4. Elementary Learning Center Program. The Program shall be implemented as an Elementary Learning Center program of Learning Community and District. Funding for the Program shall be provided from the Elementary Learning Center Fund Budget of Learning Community. The parties acknowledge and agree that the Program funding provided under this Agreement may not be the exclusive source of funding for the Program. The Learning Community’s Executive Director, Elementary Learning Centers (“ELC ED”) shall, on behalf of and for Learning Community, have general oversight of the Program with regard to compliance by District with the terms of this Agreement, but shall have no authority with regard to the implementation, day-to-day operations or staffing of the Program, which shall be the sole responsibility of District. 5. Participants. District shall determine how many students will enroll in the Program and select the students that will participate in the Program; provided, however, that the Program shall not have an official enrollment of less than fifty percent (50%) of the projected enrollment set forth in the Proposal. 6. Program Funding. a. Learning Community shall provide District with funding for the services performed and costs incurred, whether by District or by a third party contracted by District, related to the Program in a total amount of $100,000.00 (“Program Amount”), which Program Amount shall be funded in three (3) installments, as follows:

50% of the Program Amount, consisting of $50,000.00, will be remitted on or before January 1, 2014; 30% of the Program Amount, consisting of $30,000.00, will be remitted on or before May 1, 2014; and 20% of the Program Amount, consisting of $20,000.00, which represents the final installment payment, will be remitted as set forth herein subsequent to the Program Term completion date and submission of the final report pursuant to Section 7.b herein and approval of same by Learning Community. The final report shall include an invoice for Program services provided during the Program Term, which invoice shall set forth an itemized listing of expenses actually incurred by District and shall be accompanied by documentation substantiating all itemized expenses set forth on such invoice. Learning Community shall, after review and approval of the invoice submitted by District pursuant to this subsection, remit the final installment payment to District within 30 days after receipt of the final report; provided, however, that the amount remitted in the final installment shall not result in the total amount paid to District pursuant to this section exceeding either the Program Amount or the total amount of Program expenses actually incurred by District. If, at the conclusion of the Program Term, upon receipt and review of the final report, Learning Community has, after application of all remittances made pursuant to this Section 6.a, made payments to District which exceed the total amount of Program expenses actually incurred by District, District shall refund to Learning Community the amount by which the total remittances made by Learning Community exceed total expenses actually incurred.

b. The amount(s) to be paid by Learning Community as provided under Section 6.a shall constitute the entire amount of funding by Learning Community for the Program. Learning Community

3 4843-8988-8534.1

shall not be liable for any further costs, including, but not limited to, such items as overhead, social security, pension, employment compensation, taxes, or any other expenses, incurred by District in the performance of the services related to the Program. c. District expressly agrees and acknowledges that District shall be solely and exclusively responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Program and for any and all payments to any contracted service providers contracted by District for services related to the Program. Learning Community shall not be responsible for any payment to any such contracted service providers for services related to the Program and District specifically acknowledges that Learning Community has no obligation for the day-to-day operations of the Program or for any payments of any kind or nature to any contracted service providers. d. Learning Community reserves the right to withhold or suspend any payment(s) to be made by Learning Community pursuant to this Agreement, or to require a total or partial refund of Learning Community funds, if, as determined by Learning Community in its sole discretion, such action is necessary: (i) because District has not complied with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; (ii) to protect the purposes and objectives of the Program; or (iii) to comply with the requirements of any law or regulation applicable to Learning Community, District, or the Program. e. District expressly agrees and acknowledges that the enactment of legislation by the Nebraska Legislature subsequent to the date of this Agreement which either eliminates or reduces the levy authority of Learning Community pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-3442(2)(i) may result in the termination of this Agreement by Learning Community in accordance with Section 10 herein. 7. Reporting.

a. Within 60 days of the termination of the Program or expiration of the Program Term,

whichever occurs first, District shall collect and report to the Munroe-Meyer Institute for Genetics and Rehabilitation, University of Nebraska Medical Center (“Evaluator”), the third-party evaluator of the Program retained by Learning Community, or such other qualified third-party evaluator retained by Learning Community and who is compliant with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, as amended (“FERPA”), specified demographic and program evaluation data, as follows: (i) that data specified in the Proposal; and (ii) data mutually agreed upon by District, Learning Community and Evaluator. Learning Community acknowledges and agrees that any personally identifiable student information obtained by Evaluator from District pursuant to this Agreement is subject to FERPA, and in accordance with District’s position thereon, such personally identifiable information shall not be disclosed to Learning Community, and Learning Community will not be provided access to such personally identifiable information.

b. Within 60 days of Program completion, District shall prepare and submit to Learning

Community a written final Program report (“Report”). The Report shall include a narrative description of Program activities and accomplishments, including progress made on student learning outcomes and evaluation data described in the Proposal, and a detailed accounting of all expenditures made from payments received pursuant to Section 6.a. Said Report shall be submitted to the ELC ED. At the request of Learning Community, District shall make a live presentation of the Report to the Learning Community Coordinating Council, Achievement Subcouncil No. 3, and the Elementary Learning Centers Task Force. 8. Obligations of District.

4 4843-8988-8534.1

a. District is responsible for administering and conducting the Program in accordance with this Agreement and for maintaining documentation of all actions taken and expenditures incurred with regard to the Program in a manner consistent with the parameters of the Program as outlined on Exhibit “A” and as set forth in the Learning Community of Douglas & Sarpy Counties Statement of Assurances. District acknowledges that failure to comply with the requirements of this Agreement could result in suspension or termination of the Program Amount by Learning Community and could result in District being required to return Learning Community funds to Learning Community. Prior to commencing the Program, District shall have submitted a fully-executed Statement of Assurances regarding the Program to Learning Community with this Agreement. b. The ELC ED, or other designated representative of Learning Community, will be permitted to conduct pre-arranged site visit(s) to the Program during the Program Term in order to evaluate the Program, the provision of services, and the administration and implementation of the Program. For purposes of this Section 8.b, such site visits shall be scheduled by the ELC ED, or other designated representative of Learning Community, with District not less than 24 hours in advance. c. Absent express approval from Learning Community, funds provided by Learning Community pursuant to this Agreement shall be accounted for separately in the financial books and records of District. District shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate financial records for the Program, which records shall include a systematic accounting of the receipt and disbursement of Learning Community funds, and shall retain original substantiating documents related to specific expenditures of Learning Community funds and shall make these records available for review by Learning Community, or its designated representatives, upon request. District shall keep all financial records with respect to this Program for at least four (4) years following the year during which the Program Term ended. Learning Community, or a designated representative thereof, reserves the right, upon prior written notice, to audit District's books and records relating to the expenditure of any funds provided by Learning Community related to the Program. d. District shall assure that all District employees providing services in conjunction with the Program shall have the appropriate credentialing or other licenses required by state law. District shall require, via contract with any contracted provider of Program services, that such third party shall require that its employees have the appropriate credentialing or other licenses required by state law. e. District shall conduct, for its employees providing Program services who will, or may, directly interact with children a criminal background check, a national sex offender registry check, and a Nebraska Sex Offender Registry check, and District shall require, via contract with any contracted provider of Program services, that such third party conduct said checks on all officers, employees and volunteers of said contracted provider involved with the Program who will, or may, directly interact with children. Neither District nor, if applicable, a contracted entity shall knowingly permit the involvement with the Program of any officer, employee or volunteer of said entity who does not pass all checks. f. If applicable, District shall assure that all entities with whom District contracts to provide services for the Program have a license to operate in Nebraska. g. District shall procure and maintain at all times during the Program Term, and, if applicable, shall require that all contracted service providers with whom District contracts for the Program procure and maintain at all times during the Program Term, the following minimum types and amounts of insurance:

(i) Commercial General Liability Insurance providing coverage to District and naming Learning Community as Additional Insured on a primary and non-contributory

5 4843-8988-8534.1

basis, including completed operations, with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, $2,000,000 product and completed operations aggregate, and $1,000,000 personal and advertising injury. District shall waive its rights of recovery against Learning Community and will obtain such waiver of subrogation from its insurer. Such waiver of subrogation shall be endorsed to the policy in favor of Learning Community;

(ii) Sexual Abuse & Molestation coverage with a limit of not less than $500,000 each occurrence and $1,000,000 in the annual aggregate;

(iii) Professional or Educator’s Legal Liability insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000 each claim;

(iv) Automobile Liability insurance with a combined single limit for bodily injury, death and property damage of not less than $1,000,000 per accident, which coverage shall apply to all owned, hired and non-owned vehicles used by District, its employees, agents, representatives, volunteers in conducting the Program;

(v) Workers’ Compensation Insurance covering District and its employees for all costs and statutory benefits and liabilities under the Nebraska Workers Compensation Act and any similar laws for its employees, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limits of not less than $100,000 each employee injury, $100,000 each employee disease, and $500,000 policy limit for all accident injury or disease. District shall waive its rights of recovery and obtain such waiver of subrogation from its insurer in favor of Learning Community; and

(vi) Umbrella / Excess Liability Insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence which shall provide additional liability coverage in excess of the Commercial General Liability, Auto Liability and Employer’s Liability.

Before District or any contracted service provider shall be permitted to begin work or provide services, District and all such contracted service providers shall provide Learning Community with evidence of such insurance issued on a standard ACORD Certificate of Insurance as will meet all insurance requirements stated in this Agreement. It is the sole responsibility of District and any contracted service provider to provide Learning Community with written notice should any required insurance pursuant to this section be cancelled or non-renewed. Failure of District or a contracted service provider to provide and maintain all insurance required, or failure to provide written notice, shall not relieve District or such contracted service provider of its obligation under this Agreement. By requiring insurance under this Agreement, Learning Community does not represent that the coverage and limits required will necessarily be adequate to protect the District or its contracted service providers for all claims or amounts of loss. Such coverage and limits shall not be deemed or construed to be any limitation of the District’s, or its contracted service provider’s, liabilities under any indemnification obligations provided to Learning Community under this Agreement. h. District shall allow Learning Community to review and approve the text of any proposed publicity or external communication concerning the Program prior to its release, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Learning Community may include information regarding the Program, any photographs provided by the parties, and any general information about the parties and their activities in any external communications of Learning Community; provided, however, that

6 4843-8988-8534.1

Learning Community shall not use any District logos or trademarks without the prior approval of District, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. i. District shall comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, as well as all applicable laws, rules, and regulations applicable to District. 9. Obligations of Learning Community. Learning Community shall:

a. Provide funds to District in a manner consistent with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and b. Comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, as well as all applicable laws, rules, and regulations applicable to Learning Community 10. Warranties & Representations. District hereby warrants and represents to Learning Community that: a. The Program and use of Learning Community funds will comply with the terms of this Agreement, as well as all applicable laws, rules and regulations applicable to District and the Program. b. There is no fact known to District, its board members, officials, employees, representatives or agents which would materially affect the decision of Learning Community to enter into this Agreement which was not been disclosed to Learning Community. c. District is responsible for administering the Program in accordance with this Agreement and for maintaining documentation of all actions taken and expenditures incurred with regard to the Program in a manner consistent with parameters of the Program as outlined on Exhibit “A” and as set forth in the Learning Community of Douglas & Sarpy Counties Statement of Assurances. District acknowledges that failure to comply with the requirements of this Agreement could result in suspension or termination of the Program Amount by Learning Community and could result in District being required to return Learning Community funds to Learning Community. 10.11. Termination. Either a. Each party may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, at any time upon sixty (60) days prior written notice to the other party; provided, however, that performance may be terminated with immediate effect by Learning Community upon delivery of written notice to District if Learning Community determines, in its sole discretion, that District is in breach of this Agreement if the other party is in default of any material obligation hereunder which default is incapable of cure, or which, being capable of cure, has not been cured within forty-five (45) days after receipt of written notice of such default or such additional cure period as the nondefaulting party may authorize in writing.

b. The parties may terminate this Agreement without cause by mutual written consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.

c. Learning Community may terminate this Agreement immediately in the event of a legislatively mandated loss of funding.

7 4843-8988-8534.1

11.12. Notice. Any notice required to be given by this Agreement shall be sufficient if communicated in writing and sent by hand delivery or by certified United States Mail, postage prepaid, or by facsimile transmission. Notice shall be given as follows: If to Learning Community: Frederick M. Stilwill, Chief Executive Officer Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy Counties 6949 South 110th Street Omaha, Nebraska 68128-5722 If to District: Dr. Mark Adler, Superintendent Ralston Public Schools 8545 Park Drive Ralston, Nebraska 68127 FAX: (402) 331-4843 or to such other address as any party hereto may, from time to time, give notice of to the other party in the above manner. 12.13. Independent Contractor. The parties hereto are independent contractors in their relationship to one another and are not, by virtue of this Agreement or otherwise, made agents, employees, employers, or joint venturers of one another. Neither party shall have any authority to bind the other party hereto. 13.14. Indemnification. District covenants and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Learning Community, its Council members, officers, consultants, agents, employees and representatives, and their successors and assigns, individually and collectively, (collectively, the “Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages, suits, actions, fines, penalties, demands or claims of any kind, including, but not limited to, attorney’s fees, in any way arising out of or based upon the negligent or willful acts or omissions of District, its employees or agents in administering the Program as specified in this Agreement, and District further agrees to pay all expenses in defending against any claims made against the Indemnified Parties; provided, however, that District shall not be liable for any injury, damage or loss occasioned by the negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. 14.15. Non-Discrimination. The parties to this Agreement shall not, in the performance of this Agreement, discriminate or permit discrimination in violation of federal or state laws or local ordinances because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, age, marital status, citizenship status, or economic status.

15.16. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted according to the law of the State of Nebraska. 16.17. Citizenship Verification. District agrees and acknowledges that itThe parties agree and acknowledge that they shall use a federal immigration verification system to determine the work eligibility status of new employees physically performing services within the State of Nebraska pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 4-108 to 4-114, as amended. 17.18. Compliance with Applicable Laws. The parties hereto shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and ordinances applicable to the Program, including, but not limited to, FERPA and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-712 to 84-712.09, as amended.

8 4843-8988-8534.1

18.19. Amendment. This Agreement may only be amended or modified by written agreement of all parties hereto. The parties hereto agree that amendments or modifications to the Program services, activities or budget which do not increase the total Program Amount set forth in this Agreement may be approved on behalf of Learning Community by Learning Community’s Chief Executive Officer or Executive Director. 19.20. Severability. Should any part hereof or any sections of this Agreement be rendered or declared illegal, invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby. 20.21. Waiver. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not operate as or be construed as a waiver of any other provision or any subsequent breach.

21.22. Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned or transferred by either party to this Agreement except by written agreement of the non-assigning party.

22.23. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with any exhibits or schedules hereto, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties as to the subject matter hereof, and replaces all prior written and oral statements and understandings.

[Signature page follows]

9 4843-8988-8534.1

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed in duplicate on the respective

dates set forth below.

RALSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS, a Nebraska political subdivision By: ______________________________ Its: ______________________________ Date: ____________________________

LEARNING COMMUNITY OF DOUGLAS AND SARPY COUNTIES, a Nebraska political subdivision By: ______________________________ Its: ______________________________ Date: ____________________________

4843-8988-8534.1

ELEMENTARY LEARNING CENTER PROGRAMMING AGREEMENT

Exhibit “A”

Elementary Learning Center Programming Proposal & Budget

(See Attached)

4843-8988-8534.1

Learning Community of Douglas & Sarpy Counties

SUMMARY Ralston Summer Extended

RFP PROPOSALRFP Summary File Name: Sub3-RalstonSchools-SummerExtended

School District/Organization Name: Ralston Public Schools

Program Name: Elementary Summer School

Program Category: X summer/extended year ☐ afterschool/extended day

☐ early childhood/jumpstart ☐ literacy coach

Amount Requested: $100,000

Sub-council: (choose only one) ☐ #1 ☐ #2 X #3 ☐ #4 ☐ #5 ☐ #6

Program Start Date: July 14, 2013 Program End Date: Aug. 1, 2014 Program Costs & Data: Total Cost of Program: $110,000 # of Weeks Per Year of Program: 3 # Program Hours Per Week: 15 # of Children in Program: 180 Cost Per Child Per Program Hr: $10.19 Executive Summary: (limit to five sentences)

Ralston Public Schools Elementary Summer School program will provide instructional services to approximately 180 students in grades K-6. The summer school will focus on reading and mathematics skills. Current classroom data will determine student eligibility. Summer school services will include breakfast, lunch, physical activity, parent involvement, and library services. Summer school teachers will collaborate with classroom teachers in the identification of individual learning goals for each student.

Rater Ranking 6 of 9 Free/Reduced Lunch Status 57.3%

Reading Achievement Data 72.6% Mathematics Achievement Data 62.3%

Staff Recommendations: Educational need, strong likelihood for direct positive impact on students.

4843-8988-8534.1

PROGRAM BUDGET

Program Revenue Amount Comment

Non-Learning Community Revenue (including in-kind) $ 10,000.00 Custodial services, food service, utilities, facilities use

Learning Community Request $ 100,000.00

Total Program Revenue $ 110,000.00

Program Expenses Amount Comment

Salaries & Wages

$ 58,100.00 15 FTE teacehrs; 15 FTE paraprofessionals; 1 admin FTE

Insurance Benefits $ 14,250.00

Transportation Costs $ 2,400.00 2 Drivers

Training $ 8,500.00 Stipend for curriculum and instruction training

Equipment

Supplies

$ 14,750.00 Intervention kits, supplies for family night events, books for kids

Printing & Copying $ 2,000.00

Telephone & Internet $

Postage $

Rent & Utilities $

In-Kind $ 10,000.00

Other (please specify) $

Total Program Expenses $ 110,000.00

Total Program Net $ - TOTAL NET SHOULD EQUAL $0.00

Document comparison by Workshare Compare on Tuesday, October 01, 2013 12:55:14 PM Input:

Document 1 ID C:\Users\rsevc\Documents\ndEcho\LC - Ralston Elementary Summer School 2013-2014 LC Programming Agt(1).doc

Description C:\Users\rsevc\Documents\ndEcho\LC - Ralston Elementary Summer School 2013-2014 LC Programming Agt(1).doc

Document 2 ID C:\Users\rsevc\Documents\ndEcho\LC - Ralston Elementary Summer School 2013-2014 LC Programming Agt.doc

Description C:\Users\rsevc\Documents\ndEcho\LC - Ralston Elementary Summer School 2013-2014 LC Programming Agt.doc

Rendering set Standard Legend:

Insertion

Deletion

Moved from

Moved to

Style change

Format change

Moved deletion

Inserted cell

Deleted cell

Moved cell

Split/Merged cell

Padding cell Statistics:

Count

Insertions 25

Deletions 17

Moved from 0

Moved to 0

Style change 0

Format changed 0

Total changes 42

1



(Subcouncil # 4)

This ELEMENTARY LEARNING CENTER PROGRAMMING AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into as of ________________, 2013 by and between the Learning

Community of Douglas and Sarpy Counties, a Nebraska political subdivision (“Learning Community”) and Douglas County School District No. 17, aka, the Millard Public School

District, a Nebraska political subdivision (“District”).

WHEREAS, Learning Community is statutorily authorized to establish a system of elementary learning centers to enhance the academic achievement of elementary students within Learning Community, particularly students who face challenges in the educational environment due to factors such as poverty, limited English skills, and mobility; and

WHEREAS, Learning Community has determined that, in those Subcouncil Districts in which it has not established an elementary learning center, offering programming in partnership cooperation with member school districts, including District, is the most effective means to fulfill its statutory mission obligations; and

WHEREAS, District is willing to offer elementary learning programming in partnership cooperation with Learning Community.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements, promises and covenants set forth herein, Learning Community and District (each referred to herein individually as “Party” and collectively as “the Parties”) agree as follows:

1. Statement of Work

a. Pursuant and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement andthe District’s Proposal, Learning Community hereby agrees to provide funding and District agrees to undertake and conduct the program (the “Program”) more specifically set forth in the Elementary Learning Center Programming Proposal & Budget (“Proposal”) in the form submitted by District and approved by Learning Community (including any amendments thereto), a copy of which is marked as Exhibit “A” attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (all references herein to the “Agreement” include the Agreement as supplemented by the Proposal).

b. The purpose of the Program is to enhance the academic success of elementarystudents of District, particularly students who face challenges in the educational environment due to factors such as poverty, limited English skills, and mobility.

November 21, 2013 Agenda Item 7(b) v. 2

2

2. Performance Period. District will commence work on the Program on or after September 1, 2013 and will conclude work on the Program on or before August 31, 2014 (“Program Term”), which date may be extended by mutual written agreement of the parties hereto. Notwithstanding the foregoing, neither party to this Agreement shall hold the other party responsible for damages or delays in performance caused by acts of God, strikes, lockouts, accidents, or other events beyond the reasonable control of said party. 3. Fiscal Agent. District shall be the fiscal agent for the Program. As fiscal agent, District shall be solely responsible for compliance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement related to the incurring of Program expenses, including the approval thereof, the payment of any and all bills and invoices related to the Program, and the submission of financial reports to Learning Community related to the Program. 4. Elementary Learning Center Program. The Program shall be implemented as an Elementary Learning Center program of funded by the Learning Community and operated by the District. Funding for the Program shall be provided from the Elementary Learning Center Fund Budget of Learning Community. The parties acknowledge and agree that the Program funding provided under this Agreement may not be the exclusive source of funding for the Program. The Learning Community’s Executive Director, Elementary Learning Centers (“ELC ED”) shall, on behalf of and for Learning Community, have general oversight of authority to monitor the Program with regard to ensure compliance by District with the terms of this Agreement and the District’s Proposal, but ELC ED shall have no authority with regard to the implementation, day-to-day operations or staffing of the Program, which shall be the sole responsibility of District. 5. Participants. District shall determine how many students will enroll in the Program and select the students that will participate in the Program; provided, however, that the Program shall not have an official enrollment of less than fifty percent (50%) of the projected enrollment set forth in the Proposal. 6. Program Funding. a. Learning Community shall provide District with funding for the services performed and costs incurred, whether by District or by a third party contracted by District, related to the Program in a total amount of $__167,432.56_______ (“Program Amount”), which Program Amount shall be funded in three (3) installments, as follows:

50% of the Program Amount, consisting of $__83,716.28______, will be remitted on or before November 1, 2013 January 1, 2014;

30% of the Program Amount, consisting of $__50,229.77______, will be remitted on or before May 1, 2014; and

20% of the Program Amount, consisting of $__33,486.51 ____, which represents the final installment payment, will be remitted as set forth herein subsequent to the Program

3

Term completion date and submission of the final report pursuant to Section 7.b herein and approval of same by Learning Community. The final report shall include an invoice for Program services provided during the Program Term, which invoice shall set forth an itemized listing of expenses actually incurred by District and shall be accompanied by documentation substantiating all itemized expenses set forth on such invoice. Learning Community shall, after review and approval of the invoice submitted by District pursuant to this subsection, remit the final installment payment to District within 30 days after receipt of the final report; provided, however, that the amount remitted in the final installment shall not result in the total amount paid to District pursuant to this section exceeding either the Program Amount or the total amount of Program expenses actually incurred by District. If, at the conclusion of the Program Term, upon receipt and review of the final report, Learning Community has, after application of all remittances made pursuant to this Section 6.a, made payments to District which exceed the total amount of Program expenses actually incurred by District, District shall refund to Learning Community the amount by which the total remittances made by Learning Community exceed total expenses actually incurred.

b. The amount(s) to be paid by Learning Community as provided under Section 6.a shall constitute the entire amount of funding by Learning Community for the Program. Learning Community shall not be liable for any further costs, including, but not limited to, such items as overhead, social security, pension, employment compensation, taxes, or any other expenses, incurred by District in the performance of the services related to the Program. c. District expressly agrees and acknowledges that District shall be solely and exclusively responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Program and for any and all payments to any contracted service providers contracted by District for services related to the Program. Learning Community shall not be responsible for any payment to any such contracted service providers for services related to the Program and District specifically acknowledges that Learning Community has no obligation for the day-to-day operations of the Program or for any payments of any kind or nature to any contracted service providers. d. Learning Community reserves the right to withhold or suspend any payment(s) to be made by Learning Community pursuant to this Agreement, or to require a total or partial refund of Learning Community funds, if, as determined by Learning Community in its sole discretion, such action is necessary: (i) because District has not complied with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; (ii) to protect the purposes and objectives of the Program as represented in its Proposal; or (iii) to comply with the requirements of any law or regulation applicable to Learning Community, District, or the Program. e. District expressly agrees and acknowledges that the enactment of legislation by the Nebraska Legislature subsequent to the date of this Agreement which either eliminates or reduces the levy authority of Learning Community pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-3442(2)(i) may result in the termination of this Agreement by Learning Community in accordance with Section 10 herein.

4

7. Reporting. a. Within 60 days of the termination of the Program or expiration of the Program Term, whichever occurs first, District shall collect and report to the Munroe-Meyer Institute for Genetics and Rehabilitation, University of Nebraska Medical Center (“Evaluator”), the third-party evaluator of the Program retained by Learning Community, or such other qualified third-party evaluator retained by Learning Community and who is compliant with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, as amended (“FERPA”), specified demographic and program evaluation data, as follows: (i) that data specified in the Proposal; and (ii) data mutually agreed upon by District, Learning Community and Evaluator. Learning Community acknowledges and agrees that any personally identifiable student information obtained by Evaluator from District pursuant to this Agreement is subject to FERPA, and in accordance with District’s position thereon, such personally identifiable information shall not be disclosed to Learning Community, and Learning Community will not be provided access to such personally identifiable information. b. Within 60 days of Program completion, District shall prepare and submit to Learning Community a written final Program report (“Report”). The Report shall include a narrative description of Program activities and accomplishments, including progress made on student learning outcomes and evaluation data described in the Proposal, and a detailed accounting of all expenditures made from payments received pursuant to Section 6.a. Said Report shall be submitted to the ELC ED. At the request of Learning Community, District shall make a live presentation of the Report to the Learning Community Coordinating Council, Achievement Subcouncil No. 4, and the Elementary Learning Centers Task Force. 8. Obligations of District. a. District is responsible for administering and conducting the Program in accordance with the District’s Proposal and this Agreement and for maintaining documentation of all actions taken and expenditures incurred with regard to the Program. District acknowledges that failure to comply with the requirements of this Agreement could result in suspension or termination of the Program Amount by Learning Community and could result in District being required to return Learning Community funds to Learning Community. Prior to commencing the Program, District shall have submitted a fully-executed Statement of Assurances regarding the Program to Learning Community with this Agreement. b. The ELC ED, or other designated representative of Learning Community, will be permitted to conduct pre-arranged site visit(s) to the Program during the Program Term in order to evaluate the Program, the provision of services, and the administration and implementation of the Program. For purposes of this Section 8.b, such site visits shall be scheduled by the ELC ED, or other designated representative of Learning Community, with District not less than 24 hours in advance. c. Absent express approval from Learning Community, funds provided by Learning Community pursuant to this Agreement shall be accounted for separately in the financial books

5

and records of District. District shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate financial records for the Program, which records shall include a systematic accounting of the receipt and disbursement of Learning Community funds, and shall retain original substantiating documents related to specific expenditures of Learning Community funds and shall make these records available for review by Learning Community, or its designated representatives, upon request. District shall keep all financial records with respect to this Program for at least four (4) years following the year during which the Program Term ended. Learning Community, or a designated representative thereof, reserves the right, upon prior written notice, to audit District’s books and records relating to the expenditure of any funds provided by Learning Community related to the Program. d. District shall assure that all District employees providing services in conjunction with the Program shall have the appropriate credentialing or other licenses required by state law. District shall require, via contract with any contracted provider of Program services, that such third party shall require that its employees have the appropriate credentialing or other licenses required by state law. e. District shall conduct, for its employees providing Program services who will, or may, directly interact with children a criminal background check, a national sex offender registry check, and a Nebraska Sex Offender Registry check, and District shall require, via contract with any contracted provider of Program services, that such third party conduct said checks on all officers, employees and volunteers of said contracted provider involved with the Program who will, or may, directly interact with children. Neither District nor, if applicable, a contracted entity shall knowingly permit the involvement with the Program of any officer, employee or volunteer of said entity who does not pass all checks. f. If applicable, District shall assure that all entities with whom District contracts to provide services for the Program have a license to operate in Nebraska. g. District shall procure and maintain at all times during the Program Term, and, if applicable, shall require that all contracted service providers with whom District contracts for the Program procure and maintain at all times during the Program Term, the following minimum types and amounts of insurance: (i) Commercial General Liability insurance providing coverage to District and

naming the Learning Community as Additional Insured on a primary and non-contributing basis including completed operations, with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, $2,000,000 product and completed operations aggregate, and $1,000,000 personal and advertising injury. District shall waive its rights of recovery against the Learning Community and will obtain such waiver of subrogation from its insurer. Such waiver of subrogation shall be endorsed to the policy in favor of the Learning Community;

(ii) Sexual Abuse & Molestation coverage with a limit of not less than $500,000 each occurrence and $1,000,000 in the annual aggregate;

6

(iii) Professional or Educator’s Legal Liability insurance with a limit of not less than

$1,000,000 each claim;

(iv) Automobile Liability insurance with a combined single limit for bodily injury, death and property damage of not less than $1,000,000 per accident, which coverage shall apply to all owned, hired and non-owned vehicles used by District, its employees, agents, representatives, volunteers in conducting the Programs;

(v) Workers’ Compensation Insurance covering District and its employees for all

costs and statutory benefits and liabilities under the Nebraska Workers Compensation Act and any similar laws for its employees, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limits of not less than $100,000 each employee injury, $100,000 each employee disease, and $500,000 policy limit for all accident injury or disease. District shall waive its rights of recovery and obtain such waiver of subrogation from its insurer in favor of the Learning Community; and

(vi) Umbrella / Excess Liability Insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000 each

occurrence which shall provide additional liability coverage in excess of the Commercial General Liability, Auto Liability and Employer’s Liability.

Before District or any contracted service provider shall be permitted to begin work or provide services, District and all such contracted service providers shall provide Learning Community with evidence of such insurance issued on a standard ACORD Certificate of Insurance as will meet all insurance requirements stated in this Agreement. It is the sole responsibility of District and any contracted service provider to provide Learning Community with written notice should any required insurance pursuant to this section be cancelled or non-renewed. Failure of District or a contracted service provider to provide and maintain all insurance required, or failure to provide written notice, shall not relieve District or such contracted service provider of its obligation under this Agreement. By requiring insurance under this Agreement, Learning Community does not represent that the coverage and limits required will necessarily be adequate to protect the District or its contracted service providers for all claims or amounts of loss. Such coverage and limits shall not be deemed or construed to be any limitation of the District’s, or its contracted service provider’s, liabilities under any indemnification obligations provided to Learning Community under this Agreement. h. District shall allow Learning Community to review and approve the text of any proposed publicity or external communication concerning the Program prior to its release, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Learning Community may include information regarding the Program in any external communications of the Learning Community and the District may acknowledge that the Learning Community provided funding support for the Program in any of its external communications. Learning Community may include information regarding the Program, any photographs provided by the parties, and any general information about the parties and their activities in any external communications of Learning Community;

7

provided, however, that the use of any photographs of any of the District’s students complies with the Family Education Records Protection Act (FERPA) and Learning Community shall not use any District logos or trademarks without the prior approval of District, which approval shall not bee unreasonably withheld. 9. Warranties & Representations. District hereby warrants and represents to Learning Community that: a. The Program and use of Learning Community funds will comply with the terms of this Agreement, as well as all applicable laws, rules and regulations applicable to District and the Program. b. There is no fact known to District, its board members, officials, employees, representatives or agents which would materially affect the decision of Learning Community to enter into this Agreement which had not been disclosed to Learning Community. c. District is responsible for administering the Program in accordance with this Agreement and for maintaining documentation of all actions taken and expenditures incurred with regard to the Program. District acknowledges that failure to comply with the requirements of this Agreement could result in suspension or termination of the Program Amount by Learning Community and could result in District being required to return Learning Community funds to Learning Community. 10. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, at any time upon sixty (60) days prior written notice to the other party; provided, however, that performance may be terminated with immediate effect by Learning Community upon delivery of written notice to District if Learning Community determines, in its sole discretion, that District is in breach of this Agreement. 11. Notice. Any notice required to be given by this Agreement shall be sufficient if communicated in writing and sent by hand delivery or by certified United States Mail, postage prepaid, or by facsimile transmission. Notice shall be given as follows: If to Learning Community: Frederick M. Stilwill, Chief Executive Officer Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy Counties 6949 South 110th Street Omaha, Nebraska 68128-5722 If to District: Dr. Keith Lutz, Superintendent Millard Public School District 5606 South 147th Street Omaha, Nebraska 68137 or to such other address as any party hereto may, from time to time, give notice of to the other party in the above manner.

8

12. Independent Contractor. The parties hereto are independent contractors in their relationship to one another and are not, by virtue of this Agreement or otherwise, made agents, employees, employers, or joint ventures of one another. Neither party shall have any authority to bind the other party hereto. 13. Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, specifically, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 79-516, the District covenants and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Learning Community, its Council members, officers, consultants, agents, employees and representatives, and their successors and assigns, individually and collectively, (collectively, the “Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages, suits, actions, fines, penalties, demands or claims of any kind, including, but not limited to, attorney’s fees, in any way arising out of or based upon the negligent or willful acts or omissions of District, its employees or agents in administering the Program as specified in this Agreement, and District further agrees to pay all expenses in defending against any claims made against the Indemnified Parties to the extent permitted by law, specifically, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 79-516; provided, however, that District shall not be liable for any injury, damage or loss occasioned by the negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. 14. Non-Discrimination. The parties to this Agreement shall not, in the performance of this Agreement, discriminate or permit discrimination in violation of federal or state laws or local ordinances because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, age, marital status, citizenship status, or economic status. 15. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted according to the law of the State of Nebraska. 16. Citizenship Verification. District agrees and acknowledges that it shall use a federal immigration verification system to determine the work eligibility status of new employees physically performing services within the State of Nebraska pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 4-108 to 4-114, as amended. 17. Compliance with Applicable Laws. The parties hereto shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and ordinances applicable to the Program, including, but not limited to, FERPA and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-712 to 84-712.09, as amended. 18. Amendment. This Agreement may only be amended or modified by written agreement of all parties hereto. The parties hereto agree that amendments or modifications to the Program services, activities or budget which do not increase the total Program Amount set forth in this Agreement may be approved on behalf of Learning Community by Learning Community’s Chief Executive Officer or Executive Director. 19. Severability. Should any part hereof or any sections of this Agreement be rendered or declared illegal, invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby.

9

20. Waiver. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not operate as or be construed as a waiver of any other provision or any subsequent breach. 21. Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned or transferred by either party to this Agreement except by written agreement of the non-assigning party. 22. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with any exhibits or schedules hereto, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties as to the subject matter hereof, and replaces all prior written and oral statements and understandings. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed in duplicate on the respective dates set forth below. DOUGLAS COUNTY SCHOOL LEARNING COMMUNITY OF DOUGLAS DISTRICT NO. 17, aka MILLARD AND SARPY COUNTIES, PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, a Nebraska political subdivision a Nebraska political subdivision By: ______________________________ By: __________________________________ Its: _______________________________ Its: __________________________________ Date: _____________________________ Date: ________________________________

00128231.1


Exhibit "A"

Elementary Learning Center Programming Proposal & Budget

(See Attached)

Summary: sentences)

Learning Community of Douglas & Sarpy Counties

SUMMARY Millard Summer Extended

1'3. year

Dearly childhood/jumpstart

$1

o afterschoollextended day

o literacy coach

15 . nstructional,

{;;;':;.';·';:d 20 including other activities

$11.63

i program i I serve 280 students from elementary buildings. Students will be entering Kindergarten through third grade and will qualify for free or reduced price lunch and have academic deficiencies in reading, writing, and math. The program will be five days a week for three weeks and will include three hours per day instructional time, free transportation, breakfast, lunch and three family involvement days.

NlA 39.2%

84.6% 81.8%

Millard Public School ~ RFP Budget and Program Data, Page 2

or new to program

art supplies, paper, pencils, costs of Family

Individ.

0 OH .. Hrly Rate "CA Pension Total wages

Classroom Teachers 27 81.75 32.19 2,46 3,18 $ 83,498.64

Supervisor 2 130 32.19 2,46 3.18 $ 9,835.61

Counselor/Social Worke 1 90 32.19 2.46 3.18 $ 3,404.63

Secretary 2 80 16.57 1.27 1.64 $ 3,116.40

PwPTrainer • 15 32.19 2,46 3,18 $ 2,269,76

Para 2 75 12.03 0,92 1.19 $ 2,120.86

ELL liaison!Translator 2 75 16,29 1.25 1.61 $ 2,871.79

Technology Support 1 15 32.19 2.46 3.18 $ 567,44

Testers 2' 6 23.22 1.78 2.29 $ 3,929.75

Total Staff $ 111,614.88

Instructional Materials $4.586.68 Supplies $4,270.00

Equipment $0.00

Transportation $40,000.00

Training $4,961.00

Mileage $0.00

Contract Services $0.00

Nutritional Services $2,000.00

Total Other costs $55,811.68

Total Budget minus In-kind services and revenue $ 167,432.56

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

FOR

LEP AND POVERTY PLANS

BELLEVUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

BENNINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS

DOUGLAS COUNTY WEST COMMUNITY SCHOOLS

ELKHORN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

GRETNA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

MILLARD PUBLIC SCHOOLS

OMAHA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

PAPILLION-LA VISTA SCHOOL DISTRICT

RALSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS

SPRINGFIELD PLATTEVIEW COMMUNITY SCHOOLS

WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS

November 21, 2013 Agenda Item 8(a) and 8(b)

1

Summary of Review for LEP PLAN Bellevue Public Schools

The review provides a summary and recommendation of the review of the LEP Plan and a

recommendation for action. The school district submitted an estimated expenditure of

$1,000,000.00 which yielded an estimated allowance of $850,000.00.

Identification of students with Limited English Proficiency:

Questions in this section:

1. Did the district have policies or procedures to identify LEP students?

a. YES

2. Are specific language proficiency assessments identified?

a. YES

3. Are the identification (entrance) criteria specific as to the score or level needed for

students to qualify as LEP?

a. YES

Reviewer summary and Recommendations:

o The plan submitted by the district described the procedures for identifying

students with limited English proficiencies, assessments used to measure

language proficiency, and student qualification criteria. According to the plan,

identification will begin during the registration process with the student or the

parents completing a Home Language Survey. If needed, an interpreter will

assist with the enrollment process including the completion of registration forms

and information needed for the LEP program. When the home language survey

indicates the student speaks a language other than English, a language

proficiency assessment will be administered. Students entering the district from

another Nebraska school and currently identified will be provided with LEP

services. The district will use the Language Assessment Scales (LAS) as well as

informal assessments to determine if the student qualifies for services. The

criteria to be used by the district to determine which students will receive

services will include scores form the LAS, prior educational information, social

experiences, and written recommendations by current and previous instructional

staff. Parent notification will be included as part of the identification and

placement process.

Instructional Approaches:


4. Has the district described the instructional approaches to be used to assist LEP

children in acquiring language for both social and academic purposes?

a. YES

2

5. Has the district indicated how these instructional approaches are recognized as best

practice by experts in the field?

a. YES


o The plan submitted by the district summarized the instructional approaches and

if they were recognized as best practices by experts in the field. The plan

indicated that the goal of the program will be to help students learn English and

meet age‐appropriate academic achievement standards. General education

teachers will receive annual professional development to learn the skills needed

to meet the language and academic needs of the LEP students. The LEP program

will be a content‐based program where students spend the majority of their

school day enrolled in general education classrooms with appropriate

educational support. The program content and goals will follow the structure

provided by NDE ELL Guidelines for Grades K‐12. ELL staff has received training

and will use the Sheltered Instructional Observation Protocol (SIOP) to assist

with instructional intervention. The plan summarized the instructional

approaches and the research that supported the approaches. The reader is

referred to the attachment for this section of the plan for additional information

regarding the approaches and the research sources.

Assessment of LEP students’ progress toward mastering the English Language:


6. Did the plan have specific criteria established to determine when the LEP student

has mastered English?

a. YES

7. Is there an objective language assessment test identified?

a. YES

8. Is there at least one objective measure identified that assesses student progress

toward meeting content standards?

a. YES

9. Does the plan identify subjective measures that may be used?

a. YES

10. Has the district uploaded additional information for this item, as needed?

a. NO

Reviewer summary and recommendations:

o The plan submitted by the district provided information regarding the criteria

the district plans to use to determine when a student has mastered English. In

addition, the plan identified the assessments that will be used to measure

progress in listening, speaking, reading, writing, and content knowledge. The

3

district will use the English Language Development Assessment (ELDA), Nebraska

State Accountability (NeSA) Reading, and teachers’ recommendations to

determine when a student is ready to exit the program. For students with

disabilities, the information concerning their performance and needs will be

reviewed by a committee composed of staff from the LEP program, special

education staff, and at least one representative from the IEP team before exiting

the student. Students who exit the program will be monitored for a minimum of

two years. Objective assessments that will be used to measure progress will

include: ELDA, NeSA assessments, and district essential objectives. The plan

indicated that teacher observations, student’s efforts, and recommendations

from staff will be the subjective measures used to monitor student performance.

Evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the LEP plan elements:


11. Does the plan describe the approach that will be used to evaluate the effectiveness

of the program?

a. YES

12. Has the district listed the types of data (both formative and summative) that will be

collected?

a. YES

13. Has the district described how the data will be used in an ongoing evaluation

process?

a. YES


o The plan submitted by the district indicated the program would be evaluated

using a team of educators that would collect and analyze data regarding the

process for identifying students, instructional approaches, student performance,

staffing levels, assessment procedures, and requirements for exiting the

program. The district will also review the Academic Measurable Achievement

Objectives (AMAO) as another component of the program review. A written

report of the review will be prepared, submitted to the superintendent, and

retained for public information. Program areas identified as being in need of

improvement will determine the professional development planned and

provided for teachers. The identified area of needed improvement will be used

in the process used to study and adopt curriculum, instruction, and intervention

programs.

4

Other:


14. Has the district identified other information that has not been addressed in other

sections?

a. YES

15. Has the district uploaded additional information for this item as needed?

a. NO


o The plan submitted by the district indicated that transportation is a critical

component of the program needed for students to access the services provided

by the district. The district will provide interpreters, bilingual liaisons, family

literacy and information nights, and adult ELL classes. The plan also includes a

list of additional services the district would like to provide if funds become

available in the future.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required LEP plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79‐1014 and Rule 15; Regulations and Procedures for the Education of Students with Limited English Proficiency in the Public Schools. A review of the plans submitted by Bellevue Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

5

CHECKLIST FOR POVERTY PLAN REVIEW

The review provides a summary and recommendation of the review of the Poverty Plan and a


$3,100,000.00 which yielded an estimated allowance of $2,635,000.00.

Attendance/Mobility:


1. Are attendance policies, procedures, or practices used described?

a. YES

2. Are transportation options for student who live more than one mile from the

attendance center described?

a. YES

3. Are there policies, procedures, or practices that allow students who move to

continue at original attendance area?

a. YES

4. Are any additional services, supports, or resources available for students who miss

instruction due to absence or mobility?

a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendation:

o The plan submitted by the district provided information regarding the district’s

practices for managing student attendance, transporting students qualifying for

free or reduced lunch, options for students who are mobile and additional

supports for students who miss instruction. The district will work with families

to identify the reasons for poor attendance and provide services designed to

improve attendance. Some of the services to improve attendance listed in the

plan were: conferences with the student and parents, referral to the Family and

Student Empowerment Team (FASE), referral to the Student Assistance Team

(SAT), referral to the Learning Community GOALS Team, and referral to the

county attorney. The district will provide transportation to and from school for

students living in some of the district’s high poverty areas. Students who move

to a different attendance area during the school year may continue to attend

their original school. If the area is served by a bus route to the building they

attend, the student may ride the bus, providing there is room. The district will

offer services for students who miss instruction due to absence or mobility. The

district will provide free summer school where academic weakness or gaps will

be addressed. Extended learning options will be provided in the district’s highest

poverty buildings.

6

Parent Involvement:


5. At the school building level, do parent/family engagement opportunities target

parents in poverty and from diverse backgrounds?

a. YES

6. At the district level, do parent/family engagement opportunities target parents in

poverty and from diverse backgrounds?

a. YES

7. Does the district use methods to secure input and participation of parents in poverty

and from other diverse backgrounds?

a. YES

8. Are any additional services, supports, or resources used to promote parent/family

engagement of parents in poverty and from other diverse backgrounds?

a. YES


o The plan submitted by the district indicated that parent involvement activities

will be offered at both the building and district levels and will focus on

educational programs and processes. Some of the activities listed in the plan

are: parent/student/teacher conferences, curriculum nights, electronic access to

their child’s educational information and progress, Literacy Nights, Family Fun

Nights, Bellevue Parents as Coaches Program, board of education meetings,

District Safety Committee, Early Childhood Literacy Center, computer classes,

district accreditation activities, Intergenerational Choir, and parental review of

standards, assessments, and curriculum materials. The plan indicated the

district will seek parental input through advisory committees, surveys, and

parent volunteer activities. The district will work with parents to reduce barriers

and encourage involvement in the schools.

Instructional Services:


9. Are there policies, procedures, or practices to reduce or maintain small class sizes in

the elementary grades?

a. YES

10. Are there policies, procedures, or practices to designate uninterrupted teaching time

on a weekly basis?

a. YES

11. Are there policies, procedures, or practices to limit school day interruptions?

a. YES

7

12. (Learning Community ONLY) Is there a description of the services provided by the

achievement subcouncil as part of the elementary learning center and district

coordination with the center?

a. YES

13. (Learning Community ONLY) Is there a description of the coordination activities

between the school district, individual attendance centers, and the elementary

learning centers?

a. YES


o The plan submitted by the district indicated the board of education had adopted

class size parameters for all schools and will be studying methods to further

reduce classroom sizes in buildings with the highest number of students from

low income homes. Nebraska guidelines, regarding weekly instructional time to

be provided for all subjects, will be implemented in the district. Instructional

blocks for reading and math will be built into classroom instructional schedules.

An eight day calendar for instruction that was adopted and implemented at the

elementary level to assist with the provision of blocks of time for instruction will

be continued. The plan provided information regarding the district’s relationship

with the Learning Community and the services provided to students with the

Learning Community’s assistance. Some of the services that will be

implemented are: Bellevue Parents as Coaches Program, various parent training

opportunities, and Boystown Parent Training classes. The plan indicated that

district administrators will continue to participate in the Learning Community

Planning and Coordination meetings.

Specialized Services:


14. Are early childhood programs described?

a. YES

15. Is there a description of how children in poverty are provided access to early

childhood programs?

a. YES

16. Is there a description of how children in poverty are provided access to social

workers?

a. YES

17. Are there summer school programs?

a. YES

18. Are there extended‐school‐day programs?

a. YES

8

19. Are there extended‐school‐year programs?

a. YES

20. Are any additional specialized services, supports, or resources available?

a. YES


o The plan submitted by the district described the specialized services that

consisted of early childhood service, summer school, extended school day

services, extended school year services, and other specialized supports and

resources. The early childhood program will serve approximately 900 preschool

children, birth to entrance into kindergarten. The following programs will be

provided: Early Childhood Literacy Center/Nature Explore Classroom, Partners

with Parents, home based early childhood education services, and preschool

classrooms. The district will also cooperate with Sarpy County Head Start to

provide services for preschool children. The district will provide the preschool

services at no cost to parents. The district will continue to employ social workers

to assist students and their parents. The social workers are members of the

Family and Student Empowerment Team (FASE Team) who work with families to

remove or minimize barriers to educational growth for students and their

parents. The staff positions represented on the team are three social workers,

an administrator, and a counselor. Free summer school will be available for all

students enrolled in the district. The program provides services and classes that

support academic achievement, physical development, performance skills, and

social development. A jump start program targeting incoming kindergarten,

primary, and LEP students in the district’s highest poverty schools will be funded

by the Learning Community. Each high poverty school will offer an extended day

program funded with the assistance of the Learning Community. Extended year

services will be offered to students with disabilities as described in the student’s

IEP. The district will continue to assign lead teachers to the three highest

poverty elementary buildings. The lead teachers will provide support to address

the following concerns: truancy, student discipline, student motivation and

engagement, instructional strategies, and parent contact. Full time counselors

will be assigned to the elementary buildings with the highest poverty rates.

Other elementary buildings will share counselors. The elementary schools with

the highest academic needs based on NeSA achievement, MAP growth, and free

and reduced lunch rates will have instructional coaches. The district will

cooperate with the back pack program and other programs providing assistance

to low income families.

9

Professional Development:


21. Are there district policies, procedures, or practices for mentoring new or newly

reassigned teachers?

a. YES

22. Is there a description of the staff development provided for teachers and

administrators to address the educational needs of students in poverty and from

diverse backgrounds?

a. YES

23. Are any additional specialized services, supports, or resources for teachers and

administrators to address the educational needs of students in poverty and students

from diverse backgrounds?

a. YES


o The plan submitted by the district summarized the mentoring and staff

development programs. The plan indicated the mentoring program will be a

three year program for new teachers and will provide support needed to assist

them with meeting the needs of students in the 21st Century. The mentor will

assist new teachers with curriculum and lesson planning, classroom

management, building procedures, and reflective thinking. The program will

utilize a checklist that includes a list of topics and guidance for discussions with

new teachers. Professional development activities and in‐classroom coaching

will be provided for new teachers at the beginning and throughout the school

year. Staff development activities will be designed and implemented to provide

administrators and teachers with skills needed to address the needs of students

from low income homes and diverse backgrounds. The district plans to continue

sending selected staff members to regional, state, and national trainings

designed to provide the skills to meet the needs of low income and diverse

students. Social workers, counselors, teachers, and administrators will continue

meeting to consider the needs of at‐risk students and identify services that will

be available for students and their families. The district will continue to work

closely with Offutt Air Force Base family support staff to assist with meeting the

needs of military families.

Evaluation:


24. Does the district describe how it determines the effectiveness of the elements of the

poverty plan?

a. YES

10


o The plan submitted by the district summarized the process that will be used to

evaluate the effectiveness of the poverty plan and the services supported with

the resources provided by the plan. The district will consider data from all

poverty plan activities when determining the effectiveness of the plan.

AdvancED survey information from staff, parents, and students will be included

in the data reviewed. The information gathered will be processed through the

FASE Team, counselors, building administrators, and district administrators.

Programs funded with Learning Community funds will be evaluated by a third

party evaluator hired by the Learning Community.

Other:


25. Does the district provide any additional information?

a. YES


o Included in the plan was a statement that the district collaborated within and

between district departments and the greater community to ensure success of

the poverty plan. The plan indicated that the district intended to expand

programs and services if funding was available.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required poverty plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79‐1013. A review of the plans submitted by Bellevue Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

1

Summary of Review for LEP PLAN Bennington Public Schools



$49,565.00 which yielded an estimated allowance of $42,130.00.




a. YES


a. YES



a. YES


o The plan submitted by the district described the identification process,

assessments used, and the specific criteria for identifying students with limited

English proficiency. The district indicated that a home language survey will be

obtained for incoming kindergarten students and all students new to the district.

Based on information from the home language survey, students will be selected

for evaluation using the Language Assessment Scales (LAS) or the LAS Links to

determine the level of language proficiency. Students will be identified as

limited English proficient if the home language survey indicates the student has a

home language other than English and the student’s performance on the

language assessment indicates the student is not proficient in English. Parents

will be notified regarding the student’s qualification.





a. YES



a. YES


o The district described the instructional approaches that will be used in the

program and the research that supported the specific approach. The plan

indicated that the following program options will be used in the district:

collaboration, content based English, ELL pull out, ESL class period, ESL resource

2

center, and bilingual instruction. The instructional approaches are researched

based and the program content and goals will follow the structure provided by

the Nebraska Department of Education ELL guidelines and the national standards

of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL).





a. YES


a. YES



a. YES


a. YES


a. NO


o The plan described the criteria that will be used to determine when a student

has mastered English, assessments that will be used to measure language

proficiency, and the objective and subjective measures that will be used to

measure student progress. The criterion for English proficiency will include

information related to performance on the annual language proficiency test and

a teacher’s recommendation for students K through grade 2. For students, grade

3 and above, the student must demonstrate proficiency on the annual language

proficiency assessment and meet or exceed the standards on the Nebraska State

Accountability Reading Assessment. The district will utilize several objective

language measures to assess listening, speaking, reading and writing. The

district will measure progress on content standards by using the state developed

NeSA assessments and regional and district developed assessments. Subjective

measures included in the plan were observations and comments from both the

classroom and ELL teachers.

3




of the program?

a. YES


collected?

a. YES


process?

a. YES


o The district indicated in the plan they will follow the guidelines established by

the Nebraska Department of Education to evaluate the effectiveness of the ELL

program. The language proficiency and academic performance of individual

students will be assessed and reported to the Department and used by the

district in the assessment of the success of the district plan. The plan listed data

that will be collected as part of the program evaluation. This data will include

NeSA test results, Elda reports, student grades, performance on other

assessments, and teacher observations. All the data will be part of the district’s

ongoing evaluation process designed to identify the program’s strengths and

weaknesses and modify the program to better meet the needs of the students.

The district is encouraged to review the requirements of NDE Rule 15 to ensure

the evaluation of the plan meets the expectations of the Rule.

Other:



sections?

a. NO


a. NO


o The district did not provide any additional information for this optional section of

the plan.

4

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required LEP plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79‐1014 and Rule 15; Regulations and Procedures for the Education of Students with Limited English Proficiency in the Public Schools. A review of the plans submitted by Bennington Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

5








a. YES



a. YES



a. YES



a. YES


o The plan described the attendance practices and the support provided to

students who are mobile. The plan indicated the board policies and building

level procedures were in place to ensure students attend school on a regular

basis. The attendance procedures were listed in building handbooks provided to

parents. The plan did not provide additional details concerning the policies or

procedures. According to the plan, district policies indicated the number of days

a student can be absent before the record is sent to the Attendance Committee.

The district will follow the same policy for transportation of all students,

including students who qualify for free or reduced lunch. The plan did not

provide additional information regarding the transportation options available for

students living more than a mile from the attendance center. Students who

move within the district or the learning community will be allowed to continue

attending their original school. Transportation will be provided by the district for

students who qualify through open enrollment program to the original school.

The plan included a statement that the district would make every effort to

provide education to students with legitimate absences or mobility occurrences

that interfere with the education of the student. The exact services would be

based on the student’s needs.

6

Parent Involvement:




a. YES



a. YES



a. YES



a. YES


o The plan described the parent engagement opportunities, methods that will be

used to secure parent input, and the additional services provided to promote

parent involvement. The plan included several parent/family engagement

opportunities at the building and district for all families, including families in

poverty or from a diverse background. The opportunities will include but not

limited to building level committees, parent meetings, parent and teacher

organizations, conferences, grandparents day, kindergarten round‐up, early

childhood service coordination, and activities focused on identifying the needs of

individual students. The district will also provide information to parents so they

can locate and obtain support from agencies outside the district. The district will

assist families by paying for a specified number of counseling visits from a

community service agency.





a. YES


on a weekly basis?

a. YES


a. YES

7




a. N/A, currently no centers are located within the district.



learning centers?

a. N/A The district coordinates with the Learning Community.


o The plan submitted by the district included information regarding class sizes,

limiting interruptions to teaching time and school day, and the relationship

between the district and the Learning Community. The district will monitor

classroom enrollments and attempt to maintain a class size of 20 or less for

classrooms with students qualifying for free or reduced lunch. Para educators

will be provided for some classrooms with high enrollments or high student

needs. The schools and the district will place an emphasis on limiting

interruptions to the teaching time and the school day. The district will continue

to exceed the minimum hours of instruction required by NDE Rule 10. The

district will continue using a calendar that has reduced the number of shortened

instructional days. The plan indicated that elementary learning centers do not

currently exist in the district but the district will coordinate with the centers

when they are located within the district.




a. YES


childhood programs?

a. YES


workers?

a. YES


a. YES


a. YES


a. YES

8


a. YES


o The submitted plan provided information regarding services for preschool

children, student access to social workers, summer services, extended day

services, and other specialized services for students. The district will continue to

provide a center based program for children ages 3 and 4 that will meet the

requirements of NDE Rule 11. The program will be available to identified

children at no charge. The guidelines for accessing early childhood programs will

remain the same for all children, including children from poverty. The district

will support the access of children to social workers if it does not interfere with

academics. The plan indicates that summer school, extended day, and extended

year programs will be available for students. According to the plan, extended

year activities will be provided but these services will be limited to students with

disabilities. The extended day programs will continue to be provided through

the Bennington School Foundation with a sliding fee schedule for families with

limited income. The plan listed several before and after school activities that will

be available to all students at no cost. Examples of these activities are: walking

club, academic coach, and chess club. The plan indicated that the school district

will provide additional support for families through Arbor Family Counseling and

pay for the initial two visits. The counseling service will provide scholarships for

those who qualify.





a. YES




a. YES




a. YES


o The plan provided information regarding the mentoring and staff development

programs that will be available for district staff. The district will continue to

9

provide a mentoring program for new staff with the goal of improving student

achievement, supporting first year or newly employed staff, and assisting with

the mastery of teaching competencies. All new teachers will be assigned a

mentor and the district will provide time for the new teacher and the mentor to

work together. The professional development program will focus on providing

skills that will enhance the educational development of all students. The plan

acknowledges that the community is growing more diverse and indicates that

the district will seek ways to help all students be successful.

Evaluation:



poverty plan?

a. YES


o The district described the evaluation plan that will be implemented to determine

the effectiveness of the poverty plan. . The district will evaluate the poverty plan

by analyzing data related to academic achievement, attendance, teaching skills,

and instructional strategies. The data to be reviewed will include attendance

records, discipline records, test results, surveys, and participation information.

Other:



a. NO


o The district provided no additional information for this optional question.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required poverty plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79‐1013. A review of the plans submitted by Bennington Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved.

_______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date

________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

1

Summary of Review for LEP PLAN Douglas County West Community Schools







a. YES


a. YES



a. YES


o The district plan described the process for identifying and determining if

students qualified as limited English proficient. The identification process will

utilize enrollment/survey forms to identify students whose native home

language is not English. A follow‐up interview with parents or caregivers will be

conducted to determine the language spoken by the student or used in the

home. The district will evaluate the students’ listening, speaking, reading, and

writing skills within seven school days of enrollment or the beginning of the

school year. Parents will be notified of the evaluation results and the LEP

qualification status of their children. Staff will contact the previous school

district for information regarding assessment results and services provided for

identified students transferring into the district. The district will use the IDEA

Proficiency Test to measure the students’ English language proficiency levels.

Criteria used to determine a student’s English language proficiency will include

results from the IDEA Proficiency Test and information from the Home Language

Survey.





a. YES



a. YES

2


o The plan described the instructional approaches utilized by the LEP program and

how these approaches were recognized by experts in the field. The curriculum

that will guide the instruction will be based upon a document written by district

staff members. The document was titled, “The English Language Learner

Program Goals and Outcomes.” Lessons in the LEP classrooms will be centered

on the four domains of language: reading, writing, speaking, and listening. The

primary instruction for students in the program will be provided in the

mainstreamed classrooms. A matrix for instructional modification and

accommodation developed by district staff will be used as part of the guidance

for the program. The instructional approaches listed in the plan are recognized

as best practices in the field. These practices included: newcomer program,

Classroom Instruction that Works for English Language Learners, and Total

Physical Response. The reader is referred to question number 5 of the plan for

additional information.





a. YES


a. YES



a. YES


a. YES


a. NO


o The plan included the students’ mastery of English, development of language

skills, knowledge of academic content, and overall growth as the components of

the student assessment. The district will use “The Student Progress Rubric

Checklist of Essential Learning” to measure overall student progress. According

to the plan, teachers will continue to develop and implement common formative

assessments as part of their work within the LEP/ELL Professional Learning

Community. Evidence from the rubric/checklist and formative assessments will

be used to track student progress through the five levels of language proficiency.

3

The district will administer the ELDA as required by the Nebraska Department of

Education. The objective measures that will be used include: district content

assessments, formative assessments developed by the teachers, writing

assessments, and norm referenced assessments. The plan listed the “Student

Progress/Checklist of Essential Learning” as the subjective measure that will be

used to monitor student progress.




of the program?

a. YES


collected?

a. YES


process?

a. YES


o The plan indicated that an annual evaluation would be conducted to determine if

LEP students are progressing toward English proficiency. In addition, the

evaluation may include an evaluation of staff, resources, and other areas (areas

were not listed in the plan) to determine effectiveness of the program. The

evaluation plan included the following elements: achievement test results,

language proficiency tests, year to year test scores, teacher observations,

parental observations and feedback, length of time in the program, grades in

core subjects, identification process, and documentation of services. NDE Rule

15 requires that a report of the annual review of the LEP program be prepared

and submitted to the superintendent. The plan did not specifically mention a

report but did indicate data would be used to establish improvement goals as

part of the district accreditation process and strategic planning. The district is

encouraged to review Rule 15 to ensure the district plan meets the intent of the

rule.

Other:



sections?

a. YES

4


a. NO


o The predominate language, other than English, spoken by students in the

program was Spanish. The district will use a Spanish liaison/interpreter to

increase communications between the family and the school.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required LEP plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79‐1014 and Rule 15; Regulations and Procedures for the Education of Students with Limited English Proficiency in the Public Schools. A review of the plans submitted by Douglas County West Community Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

5








a. YES



a. YES



a. YES



a. YES


o The plan described the attendance practices, transportation options available for

students, support for mobile students, and other services available for students

within the district. The district will monitor and follow up on attendance as

outlined in board policies and the plan developed by school districts within the

Learning Community and agencies serving students in Douglas and Sarpy

Counties. The district will ensure that parents are contacted each day their child

is not in school. The district will send letters concerning the attendance to

parents following five, ten, fifteen, and twenty days of absences. The district

may contact the county attorney following twenty days of absences from school.

The district may contact the GOALS Team within one to twenty days of absences

seeking assistance for the student and their parents. The district will meet the

statutory transportation requirements regarding students qualifying for free or

reduced priced lunch. Rural bus routes will continue to be provided as well as

transportation to school from bus stops within the communities of Waterloo and

Valley. The bus stops in the two communities will reduce the need for students

to cross busy streets. Shuttle bus service for students will continue to be

provided to schools in the other community. The district will provide

transportation services as outlined in the open enrollment procedures.

Secondary students will have options for making up lost credits.

6

Parent Involvement:




a. YES



a. YES



a. YES



a. YES


o The plan described the activities provided and supported by the district to

facilitate and encourage parental involvement in the district’s educational

programs. The district will sponsor events focused on the involvement of all

parents, including parents from low income homes and diverse populations. The

following parent activities may be provided: home visits, curriculum nights,

kindergarten roundup, parent teacher conferences, and parent information

sessions. Additional parent information will be provided by school newsletters

and web sites. The district will provide opportunities for parent involvement

through activities that involve district strategic planning, site based planning, and

the school improvement process. The district will select individuals that

represent all areas of the district to serve as members of the Strategic Planning

Team. The team will: review the existing strategic plan, initiate changes to the

plan, and rewrite the plan to address the critical issues identified by the team.





a. YES


on a weekly basis?

a. YES


a. YES

7




a. YES



learning centers?

a. YES


o The plan described practices to reduce or maintain smaller class sizes, manage

teaching time, and limit school day interruptions. The plan also described the

relationship between the district and the Learning Community centered on

services for students. The plan indicated that class size will be monitored with a

focus on lowering class size in response to the district’s increasing population of

students qualifying for free or reduced priced lunches. During the 2013/14

school year the district reduced class sizes and plans to continue using funds

generated through the poverty plan to maintain two additional classroom

teachers. The district will minimize interruptions to instruction and the school

day by avoiding school‐wide public address announcements and unplanned

classroom visitations. The school district will continue to provide summer school

with the financial support from the Learning Community. District students will

receive summer school support in reading and math.




a. YES


childhood programs?

a. YES


workers?

a. YES


a. YES


a. YES


a. YES

8


a. NO


o The plan described early childhood services, access to social workers, summer

services, and extended learning opportunities. The district will continue to

provide center‐based preschool programming for children ages three and four.

The early childhood program will continue to meet the requirements of NDE

Rule 11. Student with disabilities and neighborhood children will continue to be

served through the program. Children from low income families will be able to

attend at a reduced rate or at no cost. The district will continue to access

training and program support from Education Service Unit 3. The district does

not employ social workers but will work with state and county agencies as

necessary for assistance in meeting the needs of students and their families. The

district will continue to contract with Visiting Nurses Association to meet the

health care needs of district students. The district, with support from the

Learning Community, will continue to partner with the YMCA to provide

elementary extended summer programing.





a. YES




a. YES




a. YES


o The plan described the district mentoring and staff development programs and

services. The district will continue to assign in‐house mentors to teachers new

to the profession. The district will obtain workshops from ESU 3 for new and

newly assigned teachers. Principals will provide support for new and newly

assigned teachers, assistance toward mastery teaching competencies, and

successful assimilation into the district and building cultures. Staff development

activities will address the following topics: review of data, use of technology,

9

thinking/curriculum mapping, instructional strategies for success with LEP

students, differentiated instruction, and brain based learning. The district will

continue early dismissal every Friday to provide time for staff development and

teacher collaboration.

Evaluation:



poverty plan?

a. YES


o The evaluation of the poverty plan will be part of the district’s Strategic Plan.

Student achievement data, attendance data, discipline referrals, and test data

will be analyzed to determine the effectiveness of the plan.

Other:



a. YES


o The school district will continue to seek partnership with groups within the

community to assist with meeting the needs of enrolled students.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required poverty plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79‐1013. A review of the plans submitted by Douglas County West Community schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved.



1

Summary of Review for LEP PLAN Elkhorn Public Schools



$295,000.00which yielded an estimated allowance of $250,750.00.




a. YES


a. YES



a. YES


o The plan submitted by the district explained the LEP identification procedures, language proficiency assessments used, and the qualification criteria. Students will be referred to the program based upon the following information: results of the home language survey, parent referral, classroom teacher referral, counselor referral, or Student Assistance Team referral. Students enrolled in an LEP program in their previous school will be enrolled until additional testing can be completed. Students will continue enrollment in the program until they have met the criteria for exiting. The district will continue the use of the Language Assessment Scales (Pre‐LAS and LAS Links) and informal assessments to determine language proficiency levels. The qualification criteria will consider assessment scores in reading, writing, listening, and speaking.





a. YES



a. YES


o The plan described the instructional approaches used by the district and how

these approaches were recognized as best practices by experts in the field.

Instructional services to be provided by the district will range from intensive

services to collaborative services within the classroom. The submitted plan

provides a description of the services received at each of the following

2

instructional levels: intensive educational instruction, content based instruction,

pull‐out language development, ESL class‐period, resource center, and

collaborative services. The plan indicated the instructional services were

researched based and the goals followed the structure of the Nebraska

Department of Education and National TESOL standards.





a. YES


a. YES



a. YES


a. YES


a. NO


o The plan described the process for determining when a student has mastered English and the formal and informal assessments used to measure student progress. The plan described the criteria for exiting the program. The district will consider results from the Nebraska State Assessments, ELDA scores, and teacher recommendations when deciding if a student is ready to exit the program. Subjective measures used to measure student growth will include: recommendations from staff and parents, student achievements and awards, and passing grades on their report cards.




of the program?

a. YES


collected?

a. YES


process?

a. YES

3


o The district described the approach that will be used to evaluate the program. According to the plan, the evaluation will be part of the overall comprehensive school improvement plan, and data will be collected and analyzed to determine program effectiveness. The data for LEP students’ performance will be compared to the general population as part of the analysis. The description of the evaluation process included reference to the District Strategic Plan and the School Improvement Plan. The district is encouraged to review the requirements from the program review section of Rule 15 to ensure that their LEP evaluation procedures meet the expectation of the Rule.

Other:



sections?

a. NO


a. NO


o The plan indicated, “While our overall numbers did not change dramatically, the

ethnicity of our LEP population and the number of native languages changed.”

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required LEP plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79‐1014 and Rule 15; Regulations and Procedures for the Education of Students with Limited English Proficiency in the Public Schools. A review of the plans submitted by Elkhorn Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

4








a. YES



a. YES



a. YES



a. YES


o The plan described the attendance procedures, transportation options, services for mobile students, and options available for students who miss instruction due to absences or mobility. The district will continue contacting parents when the student is absent from school. The district may provide the following services to assist with encouraging regular attendance and addressing the concerns: problem solving meetings with the student and parent, educational counseling, educational evaluations, investigation of the issues that may be contributing to attendance problems, and referrals to outside agencies for services. The district will continue to transport students living more than four miles from their school and waiving the fee for parent pay transportation under the four mile limit for students qualifying for free or reduced lunch. Students who move during the school year to a different attendance area may request to continue attending their original school. The superintendent has the authority to approve the request to continue attending the original school. The district will continue to provide options for students who move outside district boundaries. The district will continue to provide programs and services that allow additional time and support for student needing additional instructional time and opportunities to complete assignments.

5

Parent Involvement:




a. YES



a. YES



a. YES



a. YES


o The plan described the parent engagement opportunities provided by the district and the methods used to secure parental input. The district will continue to provide monthly newsletters, monthly parent communication meetings at designated schools, and financial planning nights for parents with students preparing for college. The schools will continue to facilitate parent‐teacher organizations and encourage parents volunteering in the schools. The district will continue the use of an electronic messenger program to provide both school and district level information to parents. Translators will continue to be available to assist with parent communication at conferences and other school/parent activities.





a. YES


on a weekly basis?

a. YES


a. YES




a. YES

6



learning centers?

a. YES


o The plan described the practices designed to maintain small class sizes, monitor teaching time, control interruptions to the school day, and relationships with the Learning Community. The district will continue to monitor class sizes and additional teachers will be hired in the spring for assignment in the fall to buildings where class sizes need to be reduced or maintained. The practice of placing special emphasis on class sizes in buildings with relative high numbers of low income students will continue. The strong focus on student learning and limiting interruptions to the instructional time available to teachers will be continued. The district will continue providing summer services that target struggling students with the support of the Learning Community. The plan indicated there was not an elementary learning center located within the district.




a. YES


childhood programs?

a. YES


workers?

a. YES


a. YES


a. YES


a. YES


a. YES


o The plan indicated the district will continue to provide early childhood programs, facilitate student access to student and family assistance services, provide summer and extended summer services, provide extended school day supports for students, and provide other specialized services. The district will continue

7

offering district wide preschool services that are in compliance with NDE Rule 11 as well as services for students with disabilities and students identified as LEP. In addition to serving the children, the early childhood programs will provide support and information for parents. The plan did not indicate the district employed social workers but did provide information concerning the referral of students and their families to other agencies in the community for support. The district will continue to have school resource officers provided through the Omaha Police Department and the Douglas County Sheriff’s office. The district will continue providing a summer school program and summer credit recovery options. In addition to the traditional summer school, the district will continue a jump start program prior to the start of the new school year for identified students. Extended school programs and options will continue to be available at all levels of the district. Some of these after school services will be provided with the assistance of the Elkhorn Public School’s Foundation. The district will provide access to mentoring programs that match students with community members. Fees will be waived for students from low income homes to allow these students to participate in extra‐curricular activities.





a. YES




a. YES




a. YES


o The plan described the mentoring and professional development program available to district staff. The mentoring program provided in past years will be continued for new teachers. The program will support teachers new to the profession for two years and teachers new to the district for one year. Grade level/department meetings and Professional Learning Communities will be used to provide ongoing support and professional development for all teachers. In addition to district provided staff development opportunities, the district will work with ESU 3 to access additional opportunities for staff. The district will continue providing supplemental support classes and services designed to allow students to remain on a college‐ready instructional track.

8

Evaluation:



poverty plan?

a. YES


o The plan described the evaluation to determine the effectiveness as following the AdvancED Accreditation model. Student performance data will be disaggregated to determine program strengths and areas needing improvement. This process will be used to determine goals and objectives for the District’s strategic plan and building school improvement plans.

Other:



a. YES


o The plan indicated the district’s desire to continue to add additional supplemental services for students.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required poverty plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79‐1013. A review of the plans submitted by Elkhorn Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

1

Summary of Review for LEP PLAN Gretna Public Schools







a. YES


a. YES



a. YES


o The plan submitted by the district provided information for the identification

process, language assessments, and the criteria used to determine which

students qualify as limited English proficient. All students are required to

complete enrollment forms/surveys before starting school. All identified

students and their parents participate in a follow‐up interview with school

personnel following completion of the enrollment process. School personnel will

contact the previous school of transferring students for information concerning

previous placement and services. If additional testing is needed, the district will

use the Language Assessment Scales (LAS) to determine the level of language

proficiency. The district will refer students from other countries enrolling in a

school in the United States for the first time to the Ralston Public Schools for

evaluation and determination of appropriate placement. The district will base

qualifications for the LEP program on the student’s use of their primary language

and/or a qualifying score on the LAS or IDEA proficiency test.





a. YES



a. YES

2


o According to the plan submitted by the district, enrollment in the program is

small, three students during the 2013/14 school year. Services for students

enrolled in the program will be determined by the students’ individual needs.

Intensive reading, speaking, writing, and listening instruction will be provided by

the classroom teachers, reading specialist, and other certificated staff. Social

interactions will be encouraged and monitored. Classroom teachers are trained

in Classroom Instruction that Works for English Language Learners.





a. YES


a. YES



a. YES


a. YES


a. NO


o The plan summarized the district criteria for determining when students have

mastered English and the objective language measures used to assess listening,

speaking, reading, and writing. The plan included the objective and subjective

measures used to assess student progress. The district will use the LAS and IDEA

Language Profile Rubric to assist with determining when a student has mastered

English. State and local formative and summative assessments will be used to

determine student progress, interventions, and the need for additional services.

The district will administer the English Language Development Assessment

(ELDA) as required by the Nebraska Department of Education. The following

objective assessments will be used: district criterion reference tests, classroom

tests, Nebraska state assessments, and norm referenced tests to assess progress

toward meeting content standards. Classroom progress, social interactions,

report card/grades, and parent input are some of the subjective measures that

will be used to measure student progress.

3




of the program?

a. YES


collected?

a. YES


process?

a. YES


o The plan described the evaluation approach that will be used to determine the

effectiveness of the LEP program. Student progress and success will be used as

evidence of program effectiveness. The program will be continually reviewed

and adjustments made based upon student progress or lack of progress. Staff

development opportunities will be provided which are consistent with best

practices in the field. Student data will be reviewed as part of the evaluation

process and will include: report cards, attendance, behavioral referrals, credit

accumulation, extra‐curricular involvement, social development, parent

involvement, and graduation rates. The data will become an integral part of the

district’s school improvement plan.

Other:



sections?

a. YES


a. NO


o The district indicated that two students from the Philippines will be moving into

the district in November, 2013. The program provided for the 2014/15 school

year will be determined by the needs of these students and any additional

students enrolling for the 2014/15 school year.

4

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required LEP plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79‐1014 and Rule 15; Regulations and Procedures for the Education of Students with Limited English Proficiency in the Public Schools. A review of the plans submitted by Gretna Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

5








a. YES



a. YES



a. YES



a. YES


o The submitted plan described the district’s practices for: monitoring attendance,

mobile students, and additional student resources that are available. Building

principals will ensure that student attendance is monitored and parents are

informed of student absences. When students are absent, parents will be called

and sometimes the school resource officer will go to the home and transport the

student to school. The district may refer students with attendance issues to the

GOALS Team of Douglas and Sarpy Counties for interventions or resources from

agencies responsible for the welfare of children. The plan stated that the district

transports all students within the district needing transportation at no cost.

Parents may request that their children continue to attend their current school

when they move to a different attendance area. The requests will be reviewed

and approved on a case by case basis. Teachers and administrators will work

with students who miss school due to absences or mobility to provide instruction

and the opportunity to complete missed assignments.

Parent Involvement:




a. YES

6



a. YES



a. YES



a. YES


o The district summarized the services, supports, and resources utilized to

promote parent involvement and engagement in the schools and the district.

The plan reported that the district has nearly 100 percent attendance at the

elementary and middle school parent/teacher conferences. District and school

information will be provided to parents through phone calls, e‐mails,

newsletters, district websites, newspapers, and an automatic messenger service.

The district will host parent forums each November that focus on child,

adolescent, and community safety issues. The district and schools will provide

the following parent engagement opportunities: PTO family nights, curriculum

nights, reading and math activities, art and music activities, and the district’s

Citizen Committee.





a. YES


on a weekly basis?

a.


a. YES




a. YES

7



learning centers?

a. YES


o The plan described the following district instructional services: class size

monitoring, uninterrupted teaching time, and relationships with the Learning

Community. The district plans to monitor class sizes and implement the needed

actions to maintain small class sizes for students. According to the plan, the

district has constructed additional instructional spaces during the past several

years to provide room for additional classrooms. The plan indicated that 13.1

new staff positions were added for the 2013/14 school year to maintain small

class sizes. Scheduled teaching time will be monitored to manage and limit

interruptions to teaching time or the school day. At the elementary level, blocks

of time will be scheduled for the teaching of math, reading, and language arts.

Announcements will be limited to the beginning and end of the school day and

extra‐curricular activities will be scheduled outside the school day when

possible. The plan indicated there was not an elementary learning center

sponsored by the Learning Community within the district boundaries. The

district has not applied for any grants from the Learning Community because the

district’s poverty level is lower than other districts within the Learning

Community.




a. YES


childhood programs?

a. YES


workers?

a. YES


a. YES


a. YES


a. YES

8


a. YES


o The plan described early childhood services, access to social workers, summer

services, and extended learning opportunities available for students. The district

plans to continue preschool services for children with disabilities and

neighborhood children. Children from low income homes will attend

neighborhood preschool programs without charge. The district will continue in‐

home services to assist preschool age children and their parents. The district will

continue active membership in the Sarpy County Head Start Cooperative and

participate in their services for young children and their families. The plan

indicated that the superintendents of the Learning Community will be

developing a plan for early childhood education for Douglas and Sarpy Counties.

The district does not employ social workers but will work with private and public

agencies to meet the needs of their students and families. If a family cannot

afford the cost of services, the district will work to provide these services

without cost. Supplemental summer services will be provided as needed.

Historically, there has not been a need for remedial services during the summer

month. School staff will support students and provide assistance before and

after school as needed. Children from families who cannot afford specialized

equipment, access to camps, and access to activities will be supported with the

assistance of school and community resources.





a. YES




a. YES




a. YES


o According to the plan, the district has provided mentoring and staff development

for over 30 years and will continue these services. The mentoring program will

9

provide opportunities for new teachers to participate in district and school

orientation activities prior to the first day of school. The mentoring program will

continue throughout the school year with discussions of best practices,

impressions, and issues of mutual concerns. New teachers will be surveyed at

the end of the year for recommendations concerning ways to improve the

program. All teachers will receive staff development that addresses the needs of

all students. Teachers will be trained to recognize and intervene with struggling

readers in all subjects. Additional staff development will be provided to address

writing, language arts, mathematics, and technology. The district plans to

develop cooperative staff development opportunities with other districts

focusing on the needs of students from poverty and diverse backgrounds.

Evaluation:



poverty plan?

a. YES


o The plan indicated the evaluation will be reflective of individual student

achievement. The district plans to regularly review multiple assessment data to

assess program effectiveness. The evaluation of the poverty plan will be part of

the district’s school improvement plan.

Other:



a. NO


o The district did not provide any additional information in response to this

optional question.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required poverty plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79‐1013. A review of the plans submitted by Gretna Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved.

_______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

Page 1 of 11

Summary of Review for LEP PLAN Millard Public Schools







a. YES


a. YES



a. YES


o The plan described the policies and procedures that will be used by the district

to identify students as Limited English Proficient (LEP) and qualifying for

enrollment in a program or services for LEP students. The initial step in the

identification process will be the completion of a Home Language Survey upon

initial enrollment in the district. If the survey indicates that a student speaks a

language other than English, a language proficiency assessment will be

administered to determine if the student is limited English language proficient.

In addition to administering the English language proficiency assessment, the

district will assign a bilingual liaison to each family to help with the completion of

the enrollment process. New students who were identified by other Nebraska

school districts and had not exited the program will continue to be eligible for

LEP program enrollment. The district will use the Language Assessment System

to determine English language proficiency in listening, speaking, reading, and

writing. If the assessment indicates the student is not English language

proficient the parents will be informed. A file containing the LEP information will

be prepared and maintained, and the appropriate information will be entered

into the district student information system.





a. YES

Page 2 of 11


practices by experts in the field?

a. YES


o The plan described the instructional approaches and the research and best

practices that supported the instructional approaches. The plan emphasized

that the district served students from a diverse language and cultural

background. The ELL program is a content‐based English Language Development

program with students spending the majority of their day in general education

classes with appropriate support services provided by trained ELL teachers. The

district’s English Language Development Standards and Indicators were prepared

by district teachers and were aligned to the Nebraska K‐12 Guidelines for English

Language Proficiency, district and state language arts standards, and English

language proficiency standards published by Teachers of English to Speakers of

Other Languages in 2006. The plan indicated there is a focus on oral language

literacy development as well as the importance of the student’s native language

and culture. The instructional approaches are supported by research conducted

by experts and researchers in the field. The reader is referred to the plan for a

listing of publications and experts in the field used to develop and support the

district instructional approaches. The district places importance on the four

domains of language: reading, writing, speaking, and listening. The teachers will

work with students to build background and develop the vocabulary needed by

students to participate in the core curriculum. The district and staff will monitor

students throughout the school year to identify needed interventions and

determine the effectiveness of these interventions. The district will not only

provide students with the appropriate instruction and support but also support

the staff working with the students and provide needed staff development

activities.





a. YES


a. YES



a. YES

Page 3 of 11


a. YES


a. YES, copy of entire ELL plan


o The plan described the criteria that will be used to determine mastery of English

and progress toward meeting content standards at the district and state levels.

Students will be exited from the program when they are proficient in English and

receive a positive recommendation from the classroom teacher. The plan listed

the assessments both objective and subjective that will be used by teachers to

guide the process of determining when a student is ready to exit the program.

School and district teams that include ELL teacher(s) and member(s) of the

student’s IEP team might recommend a student with disabilities exit the

program, provided that English language proficiency is not the major factor

affecting the educational progress. Students who exited the program will be

monitored during the two year transition period for success in the general

education program. The plan listed and described the objective and subjective

measures and activities that will be used to measure oral language development

and progress toward meeting content standards. The reader is referred to the

plan if more specific information is desired.




of the program?

a. YES


collected?

a. YES


process?

a. YES


o The plan described the activities that will be used by the district to determine

the effectiveness of the LEP plan. The district will rely on the district’s

“Instructional Approaches, Curriculum and Assessment Review Procedures for

the ELL Program” to guide the evaluation of the effectiveness of the program.

A committee with representations from the ELL program, a principal from an

ELL site, and the ELL Coordinator will meet annually to review the program

Page 4 of 11

content and effectiveness. The team will review program practices,

procedures, and documents to ensure compliance to district and state policies

and rules. The committee will review best practices in the field. The

committee will identify program strengths and weaknesses in addition to

reviewing the identification procedures, instructional approaches, proficiency

standards and indicators, and assessment procedures. Based upon the

information examined, the committee will establish goals for improving

student learning. Modifications will be recommended based on the results of

the review. The program evaluation process will be conducted annually and

summarized in the English Language Learner Program Year End Report

submitted to the Superintendent and Board of Education. The report will be

available to the public and retained in electronic format. The plan included a

list of student data and procedures that would be examined by the committee.

The reader is referred to the plan for additional information about the data or

evaluation procedures.

Other:



sections?

a. YES


a. YES copy of entire plan as word attachment


o The plan included additional information concerning the changes in the student

population. Also included was a statement concerning the potential need for

additional staff based upon the predicted changes and growth in the number of

students who might need support provided by the program. The plan also listed

support services provided to parents and family members as part of the

program. The district employs two bilingual liaisons to increase communications

between the school and the family. The district will translate selected

documents into languages other than English. Interpreters will be available to

facilitate communication between the parents and school staff. Summer school

will be available and the district will encourage and facilitate attendance by

providing transportation services. The district will provide a preschool program

for students whose home language is other than or in addition to English. The

district will provide ongoing professional staff development activities to support

staff as they work to meet the needs of the identified students and their families.

Page 5 of 11

The reader should review the submitted plan for additional details regarding the

plan

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required LEP plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79‐1014 and Rule 15; Regulations and Procedures for the Education of Students with Limited English Proficiency in the Public Schools. A review of the plans submitted by Millard Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved.



Page 6 of 11




$1,170,000.00 which yielded an estimated allowance of $994,500.




a. YES



a. YES



a. YES



a. YES


o The plan included a description of the procedures and activities associated with

the attendance and mobility section of the plan. The narrative summarized

mandatory attendance requirements and described the procedures that will be

initiated by the district to encourage regular school attendance. Included in the

narrative were the actions that would be implemented by the district to work

with students who do not attend school on a regular basis. These actions

included: parent notification letters, meeting with parents, educational

counseling, educational evaluation, and additional investigation if warranted.

The district will follow requirements of Nebraska law and refer all students with

excessive absences of more than twenty days or the hourly equivalent to the

county attorney. The district will provide transportation options for low income

students who live more than a mile from the school they are assigned to attend.

The district will pay all transportation fees for students who qualify for free or

reduced school lunch. The plan summarized the transportation arrangements

provided to students enrolling in the district through the Learning Community

open enrollment plan. The district has procedures that allow students to

continue attending their current school when the family moves to a different

attendance area during the school year or enrolls in a building outside their

attendance area. Included within the plan was information regarding the

process for students to apply for enrollment through the in‐district transfer,

Page 7 of 11

open enrollment, and option enrollment programs. The reader is referred to the

plan for detailed information concerning the procedures and approval process.

The additional services for students who miss instruction due to absence or

mobility included in the plan were: providing homework, allowing time to

complete missed assignments, and modifying schedules for completing exams.

The plan provided a description of the district’s “Response to Instruction +

Intervention Model” that focuses on the individual students and provides a

vehicle to strengthen the performance of struggling students.

Parent Involvement:




a. YES



a. YES



a. YES



a. YES


The poverty plan summarized the district’s parent involvement plan for both the

individual schools and for the district level. Parents will be encouraged to become

involved with school improvement teams at both the school and district level. This

opportunity will allow parents to assist in the development of the school improvement

plans and evaluate the success of the plans. Parents will be involved in decisions at the

building and district levels. These activities will give parents input into such decisions as

schedules, activities, and school calendars. In addition, the Title 1 schools and the

district will host annual Title 1 parent involvement meetings as required by Title 1. The

district will focus on increasing attendance at parent teacher conferences and school

programs. The district will use technology to support online conversations where

parents and patrons can share thoughts and ideas to strengthen the district. The

District Strategic Plans will be updated with the assistance of a team composed of

administrators, parents, teachers, staff members, and students. The district and

individual schools will make an effort to recruit parent volunteers for all site planning

committees. The reader is referred to the plan if additional information is wanted.

Page 8 of 11





a. YES


on a weekly basis?

a. YES


a. YES




a. YES‐ Elementary Learning Center Summer Program



learning centers?

a. YES


o District class size will be managed by attempting to maintain class size in higher

poverty schools at 20 or lower for K‐1 classrooms and cap intermediate

classrooms at 28 students. The district has increased the total hours of

uninterrupted teaching time to 1161 in each elementary school, 1215 hours in

each middle school, and 1170 in each high school. The district has increased the

number of days of instruction to 180 days for all schools. The plan indicated that

Elementary Learning Centers provided by the Learning Community do not

currently exist in the Sub‐district # 4, but when they are available the district will

coordinate with the centers. The district will participate in the Elementary

Learning Center Summer program and will apply for funding for pilot programs

when funds are available through the Learning Community.




a. YES


childhood programs?

a. YES

Page 9 of 11


workers?

a. YES


a. YES


a. YES


a. YES


a. YES


o The plan listed and described the early childhood programs currently available

through the district. The programs utilize a variety of funding sources to provide

services needed by young children and their families. In addition to services for

children, the district will provide support to staff, parents, and community

preschool service providers. Title 1 eligible students will be screened for

enrollment into available programs throughout the district. The district will

employ social workers who will receive referrals for student services from

teachers, administrators, and parents. Summer school opportunities will be

provided for student support in reading, writing, mathematics, enrichment

activities, and for‐credit classes. The extended school‐day programs will be

located in specific buildings and funded by the MPS Foundation and other

sources. The extended day programs will focus on academic supports and

student growth. Extended school year programs will be provided with resources

from the Learning Community. The district will be implementing the Food Bank

of the Heartland weekend BackPack program at eight elementary schools. The

submitted plan contains some additional details about the support provided

through the poverty plan.





a. YES




a. YES

Page 10 of 11




a. YES


o The district will continue to provide a mandatory three‐year District Mentor and

New Staff Induction Program for all first year and newly employed certificated or

licensed staff members. The comprehensive professional development plan that

includes culturally responsive teaching will be continued throughout the three

year induction process. The professional development plan outlined in the

poverty plan is comprehensive and specific. The professional development plan

uses the expertise of district staff members as well as professors from the

university. Each aspect of the plan is described in detail including the role of

participants in the program. Because of the detail included in the plan, the

reader is referred to the submitted plan for specific information.

Evaluation:



poverty plan?

a.


o The plan submitted by the district indicated that the activities implemented

would undergo a program evaluation. The purpose of the program evaluation

would be to provide a detailed description of the systems and attributes of the

plan and data needed to determine the effectiveness. The plan indicates that

the researcher would gather both qualitative and quantitative data to evaluate

each section of the plan. A written report will be provided to the Superintendent

of Schools and the Board of Education.

Other:



a. YES


o The submitted plan indicated that the district is experiencing a change in

demographics and socioeconomic statues of their enrollment. The reader is

referred to the table that is included on page 34 of the plan for more specific

information.

Page 11 of 11

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required poverty plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79‐1013. A review of the plans submitted by Millard Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved.



1

Summary of Review for LEP PLAN Omaha Public Schools







a. YES


a. YES



a. YES


o In the submitted plan, the district described the identification process, the

language assessments used in the process, and the specific criteria used to

qualify students as LEP. The plan indicated that parents will complete a Home

Language Survey as part of the enrollment process. The staff will administer the

Language Assessment Scales (LAS) to determine the level of language proficiency

if the Home Language Survey indicated there was a language other than English

spoken in the home. The plan listed the scores on the LAS that will be used to

qualify a student as a LEP student. The qualification scores are listed in two

categories, kindergarten through first grade and second grade through twelfth

grade. The reader is referred to the submitted plan for the specific scores for

each of these two categories. The plan indicated that the level of English

language proficiency influences the amount of time needed for the LAS to be

administered. The plan stated that if the student is a competent speaker, the

reading and writing assessments will be given and this will increase the amount

of time needed to complete the assessment. The results of the assessments will

be shared with both the student and the parents. The plan indicated the district

will use the criteria in NDE Rule 15 to determine when a student is ready to exit

the program. The reader is referred to the submitted plan and to Rule 15 for

more information concerning both the criteria for qualifying for and exiting from

the program.

2





a. YES



a. YES


o The plan submitted by the school district provided a comprehensive description

of the instructional approaches and the research that supported these

instructional approaches. This summary will identify some of the highlights of

the information in the plan and the reader is referred to the submitted plan for

additional information and details. The district will provide a range of

comprehensive instructional programs for LEP students and supports for their

families. The plan indicated the program will be designed to provide students

with: specialized instruction that will develop abilities to read, write, speak, and

understand English; skills needed for participation in the curriculum of the

school; and supports for maintenance of the first language and pride in the

cultural heritage. The plan provided a detailed description of elementary,

secondary, and extended learning opportunities that will be available in the

district. The elementary program section of the plan included a detailed

description of the services provided by these service models: ESL Inclusion, ESL

Resource, and Dual Language. For a comprehensive description of the service

models, the reader is referred to the submitted plan. The plan indicated that the

ESL curriculum used by the district is based upon the grade level language arts

standards and the K‐12 Guidelines for English Language Proficiency. The

description for the secondary program portion of the plan indicated that middle

and high school programs will provide academic support through ESL course

offerings, sheltered English content area courses, mainstreamed support, and

tutorial support. ESL course offerings will be provided in three levels based on

the individual needs of the students. The plan indicated as the number of ESL

courses decrease with the increase of English proficiency, the number of

mainstreamed courses will increase. The reader is referred to the submitted

plan for comprehensive information concerning the secondary program. The

district described the additional learning opportunities available not only to the

student but also the parents in the Extended Learning Opportunities section of

the plan. These opportunities will include summer school, student leadership,

3

ESL classes and educational opportunities for parents. The plan provided a

comprehensive summary of the research that supported the instructional

approaches that will be utilized by the district. The research is summarized

according to these instructional approaches: dual language or two‐way language

immersion program; academically rich programs; culturally relevant pedagogy;

literacy standards across the content areas: and ongoing professional

development. The reader is referred to the actual plan for additional

information regarding the relevant research. The plan indicated that not all

schools have all the programs described in the plan. The reader is referred to

the plan for information regarding the services available in specific schools.





a. YES


a. YES



a. YES


a. YES


a. YES


o The plan identified the criteria used to determine when the LEP student has

mastered English and how progress is monitored. Progress will be monitored

though the use of information with running records, report card grades, and

writing samples. The district will use the exit criteria in NDE Rule 15. The plan

indicated that LEP students participate in the district’s assessment program

which includes NeSA Reading, NeSA Writing, ELDA, and reading records at the

elementary level. All LEP students will participate in the district’s assessment

program. The student’s progress toward meeting content standards will be

reported to parents. The subjective measures listed in the plan were running

records, formative assessments in reading and writing, and writing samples.

4




of the program?

a. YES


collected?

a. YES


process?

a. YES


o The district plan provided a detailed summary of the approaches that will be

used to evaluate the LEP program. The plan listed the following as purposes of

the evaluation: determine the extent of the accomplishment of the improved

high school achievement and graduation rates; determine the extent of the

accomplishment of program objectives; and determine the impact of the

program on the achievement of LEP students. The evaluation section of the plan

listed the specific objectives for high school achievement and increased

graduation rate. The reader is referred to the submitted plan for specifics

concerning these objectives. The plan included a table that displayed the

components of the plan, the objectives, key strategies, measures, progress

indicators, and staff responsible for each component. Also included in the plan

was an evaluation calendar that displayed the evaluation event, plan alignment,

and the timeline. The plan indicated the purpose of the calendar was to

integrate the evaluation steps into district and school operations at appropriate

times to protect the teaching and learning times and accommodate the

evaluation components. The types of data that will be collected as part of the

evaluation included: running records, coaching visits, state reading and writing

tests, parent satisfaction surveys, and ELDA results. Administrators and teachers

will review the assessment data to determine areas of concentration for student

achievement. The district will collect Parent Surveys and use the information to

identify the needs for additional services. The reader is encouraged to review

the two tables (pages 12 & 13) that are included in the section of the plan.

5

Other:



sections?

a. YES


a. YES


o The plan indicated that the district’s number of refugee students and students

with interrupted formal schooling has dramatically increased. This will impact

the budget and the need for additional staff. The district demographics have

changed and currently LEP and former LEP students constitute approximately

25% of the district’s enrollment. The district enrolled 1600 new LEP students at

the beginning of the 2013/14 school year which increased the overall LEP

student enrollment by 700 students. The plan indicated that transportation is a

critical component for ensuring that students can attend school during the

regular school year as well as summer school. Parents indicated that additional

transportation services are needed and that the lack of transportation creates a

barrier for accessing services. Many Pre K LEP children are not served because

the district does not currently provide transportation to these students. The

plan included a list of services that would be added or maintained if additional

funds become available to the district. The reader is referred to the plan for a

list of services.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required LEP plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79‐1014 and Rule 15; Regulations and Procedures for the Education of Students with Limited English Proficiency in the Public Schools. A review of the plans submitted by Omaha Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

6








a. YES



a. YES



a. YES



a. YES


o The district plan provided information concerning student attendance practices,

options for student transportation, options available for students who move

during the school year, and supports available for students who miss instruction

due to absence or mobility. The plan provided a detailed summary of the

attendance policies, procedures, and practices utilized by the Omaha Public

Schools. In addition to describing these, the plan also included details

concerning the resources provided by and available through the district to

encourage and support regular school attendance. The plan outlined

transportation options available for students that would allow a student to

continue attending the original school if they moved to a different attendance

area during the school year or if the student became homeless. Additional

information regarding student access to transportation to and from school was

described in the last section of the plan starting on page 34. The plan listed the

district’s objectives for improving attendance and decreasing student mobility.

The objective for attendance was to increase attendance rates at the school and

district levels to 95 percent and to decrease mobility rates at the school and

district levels annually. Both objectives placed an emphasis on schools with a

poverty rate of 50 percent or larger. The plan included a description of the

activities that would be implemented by the district to follow up with parents of

students who are absent from school. In addition to the follow up provided at

7

the time of the absence, the plan included a description of district follow up

activities that would occur at intervals following the first absence. The plan

included a description of the timeline for sending written communication to the

parents on page two. Activities included in the plan were individual and family

supports from the school, district, and outside agencies. Assistance could

include support and intervention through the county attorney’s offices in

Douglas or Sarpy counties. In addition to outlining the specific resources and

supports available following instances of absence or mobility, the plan provided

significant information regarding the numerous proactive services available

within the district to encourage attendance and decrease mobility. The plan

provided a detailed description of the programs, services, and staff positions that

have a role in encouraging regular attendance, decreasing mobility, and meeting

the needs of students with life circumstances that provide challenges to

accessing education and fully participating in the educational experience. The

plan indicated the Department of Student and Community Services would assist

schools in “addressing the challenge of attendance by taking a child‐centered

approach to addressing medical, social, and economic contexts that preclude

learning through the use of designated staff and/or the facilitation of external

resources and service providers.” The reader is referred to the plan for a more

detailed description of the designated staff, resources, and the

services/programs that support students and their families. The plan provided a

summary of the roles and responsibilities of staff positions that are involved with

student attendance and mobility. The plan listed the programs and services

available to students who miss instruction due to absence or mobility. These

services will be available in both traditional schools and alternative schools and

programs. The reader is referred to the plan for more specific information

regarding attendance, mobility, and services for students who miss instruction

because of attendance or mobility.

Parent Involvement:




a. YES



a. YES



8

a. YES



a. YES


o The submitted plan provided a description of the parent/family engagement

opportunities offered by the schools and the district; parental input and

participation at the school and district level; and additional services, supports,

and resources used to promote parent/family input. This section included

district objectives for increased parent involvement at parent/teacher

conferences and increased parent satisfaction with opportunities to participate

at schools. The plan included a listing of services, programs, and supports that

would facilitate participation, relationships, and involvement in the schools and

the district. These programs and supports included the following: community

relation specialists, family room liaisons, student personnel assistants,

psychological services, health services, The Native American Indian Centered

Education Program, and wellness initiatives. The reader is referred to the

submitted plan for additional information concerning these programs, services,

and supports. The plan summarized various advisory committees and activities

designed to facilitate parental and community involvement in the district. These

committees included but were not limited to Superintendent’s Citizen Advisory,

Special Education Advisory, and Student Assignment Plan Advisory. Student and

family services will work and meet with advocacy groups to: monitor progress

data, obtain parental viewpoints, obtain information regarding pre‐

collegiate/academic opportunities, and monitor the effectiveness of specific

grants awarded to schools. The reader is referred to the plan for more

information regarding parental engagement and input.





a. YES


on a weekly basis?

a. YES


a. YES

9




a. YES



learning centers?

a. YES


o The instructional services section of the plan provided a description of the

practices to reduce or maintain small class sizes, practices to limit interruption to

teaching time and the school day, and working relationships with the Learning

Community. The plan submitted by the district included objectives for reduction

and maintenance of small class sizes and for uninterrupted teaching time. The

objective for class size is focused on Academy Program Schools. According to the

plan, Academy Program Schools are those schools in which the student

population in the attendance area has participation level in the federal lunch

program at 70 percent or higher. The plan indicated that on average these

schools have class sizes that are 24% smaller than classes in a non‐Academy

Program School. The plan indicated that the Student Assignment Plan for the

district established 23 Academy Program Schools in which the class size goal

ranges from 15 to 17 in primary classrooms and 20 to 23 in intermediate

classrooms. The plan established a goal of uninterrupted teaching time at each

organizational level in the core academic areas of reading and mathematics. The

district had a principal focus group provide suggestions for the support of

uninterrupted teaching time at the elementary level. The plan indicated that at

the secondary level, schedules allow maximum time for teaching. Middle

schools will use the team concept that provides flexibility with time and

instructional delivery. Each building in the district will use a school‐wide

discipline plan to assist with efficient transitions and limit interruptions of

teaching. The plan indicated that the district will coordinate with elementary

learning centers. An internal administrative team has been established to lead

the coordination and implementation of elementary learning center activities in

the district. The district will continue to have a designated administrator in the

Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment to facilitate programing

and related activities of the elementary learning centers. The plan stated that

the district is currently working with Achievement Subcouncils 2 and 5 on the

development of hub sites. Subcouncil 5 is currently operating a family resource

10

hub site with strong linkages to the schools. Subcouncil 2 is developing a plan in

partnership with the school district to support the parents, care providers, and

teachers serving children in Subcouncil 2. Three key components of the

Subcouncil 2 plan is to increase access to early childhood education, increase

learning time, and professional development in the urban setting.




a. YES


childhood programs?

a. YES


workers?

a. YES


a. YES


a. YES


a. YES


a. YES


o The plan submitted by the Omaha Public Schools provided a description of the

early childhood programs, services from social workers, summer school,

extended day and extended year services, and other services that will assist

families in accessing social services. The district will provide early childhood

programs that include district pre‐kindergarten programs, Head Start, Educare,

special education services, and other grant funded programs. With the

exception of special education, placement will be based on student needs.

Students with the greatest needs will be served first. Head Start participation

criteria will include family income, families who are homeless, families receiving

welfare, or children in foster care. An early childhood leadership team will

manage the selection and placement process for district sponsored programs.

The plan indicated the district would provide access to social workers and other

programs designed to connect families to community resources and services.

Social workers will be located in all 7 high schools and 2 alternative education

11

programs. School social workers will meet with students, staff, family members,

and community representatives. The social workers will address barriers to

school attendance, facilitate access to community resources, and assist families

with understanding and engaging in the educational planning for their children.

In addition, the plan indicated the following resources would be available to

assist families with accessing social services: school counselors, community

relation specialists, and student personnel assistants. The reader is referred to

the submitted plan for more details regarding these programs that support

access to social services. The plan indicated that the goal of the district is to

provide additional summer and extended services for students. The plan

described the programs at the elementary, middle school, and high school level

and provided information regarding the emphasis of the programs. The

emphasis at the elementary level will be on reading and mathematics; the

emphasis at the middle level will be on remediation and building a foundation

for literacy; and the high school will provide a jump start for incoming ninth

graders and focus on basic literacy skills and orientation to the high school

experience. In addition to summer school, the district will provide extended day

and year services at all levels. The submitted plan provided a more complete

description of these services and the reader is encouraged to access the plan for

specific information.





a. YES




a. YES




a. YES


o The submitted plan provided a detailed description of the mentoring and staff

development program. The district plans to continue mentoring and focused

support for new teachers during the 2014/15 school year. The mentoring

program will provide support for many aspects of teaching: classroom

12

management and planning, interpersonal relationships with others in the

profession, information concerning their building and the district, increasing

effectiveness in the classroom, working with diverse student populations,

improving teaching performance and skills, and a variety of professional growth

opportunities. The district will also provide access to a web‐based professional

development library to assist in the teaching and learning process. The

submitted plan provided a detailed description of the professional development

activities designed to assist teachers in meeting the needs of all students as well

as students in poverty and from diverse backgrounds. The district will provide

individual, school based, and district based approaches to professional

development. Professional development opportunities will be delivered through

building, district, and individual selected approaches. The district will support

teachers in the process of obtaining National Board Certification. The plan

described additional information in the area of professional development that

deals with the topics of using student achievement data to improve instruction;

introducing and inducting teachers into the district; educating all staff on the

cultures within the district; and leadership development opportunities and

training. In addition to the structured and unstructured training sessions, time

will be devoted at meetings of various groups to share best practices and

strategies that support instruction. The mentoring and professional

development section of the plan contains extensive information that is very

informative and the reader is referred to the plan for this detail.

Evaluation:



poverty plan?

a. YES


o The plan summarized the approaches and data that will be utilized to review the

effectiveness of the poverty plan. The Educational Equity Plan of the Omaha

Public Schools will be managed and evaluated with goals, objectives, and

strategies. Four over‐arching goals have been established for the evaluation of

the Plan. These goals are consistent with the Mission and Aims of the Board of

Education of the Omaha Public Schools. Twelve enabling objectives have also

been established with each objective aligned to and supporting a designated

component of the Educational Equity Plan. Enabling objectives are designed to

work incrementally toward success of the four over‐arching project goals. In

addition to enabling objectives, each component of the Educational Equity Plan

13

is supported by strategies that describe the actions that will be undertaken by

school and district staff to accomplish the enabling objectives and, subsequently,

the over‐arching goals. The plan included a list of the over‐arching goals and

provided information regarding how the progress on the goals will be measured.

Also included in the plan are tables that display plan components, objectives,

strategies, how progress will be measured, indicators of progress, and

responsible individual(s). An evaluation calendar is included in the plan that will

integrate evaluation steps into school operations. The evaluation plan provided

valuable information and the reader is encouraged to access this section of the

plan as part of the review process.

Other:



a. YES


o This section of the plan provided additional information regarding the student

assignment plan, transportation services, and other areas of service in the

district. The plan indicated that the internal school selection plan is aligned with

the directives of the Learning Community Diversity Plan. The narrative provided

an excellent description of the criteria to determine when a student can access

transportation services to and from school. The narrative included information

regarding security services, student information services, and student and family

services. The description provided information concerning the roles these

services play in the district and the support they provide. The last portion of this

description listed what would be added for the 2014/15 school year to support

children living in poverty if additional funding becomes available.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required poverty plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79‐1013. A review of the plans submitted by Omaha Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved.



1

Summary of Review for LEP PLAN Papillion La Vista Public Schools







a. YES


a. YES



a. YES


o The plan provided information regarding the district’s procedures for identifying

students as limited English proficient. The process was started with the family

completing a home language survey during the school registration process. The

district had registration, health, and emergency information forms available in

seven languages, including English. Parents who need assistance because of a

language barrier can request an interpreter to assist with the registration

process. Staff will call the former district for records if the student indicates they

participated in the LEP program in their previous school. If needed, the district

will complete new a language assessment test for the student. Following testing

or a review of records, a meeting is held with the parents to determine

placement and degree of assistance needed by the student. Parents are

provided with a written description of the program and the criteria for entering

and exiting from the program. Annually, the student’s program is reviewed and

information is shared with the parents concerning student needs and language

proficiency. The plan listed the language proficiency assessments used by the

district and the specific criteria used to determine which students qualified for

services. For specific information concerning criteria submitted in the plan, the

reader is encouraged to review the information for question 3 of the plan.

Students with current English Language Development Assessment (ELDA) scores

may not need additional evaluation. The district may administer the LAS (LAS

Links Form A) to determine language proficiency if current language proficiency

scores are not available. The district has a continuum of services available for

students ranging from a newcomer program to support services within the

2

general education program. Once a student exits the program, the district will

monitor their performance and progress for a minimum of two additional school

years.





a. yes



a. YES


o The district described their instructional approaches and the research supporting

these approaches in the plan. The instructional approaches are designed to

support LEP students as they learn English and acquire academic skills. The LEP

program is designed to provide specialized instruction for language acquisition,

access to grade level academic content, and the opportunity to learn to use

instructional resources to improve educational growth and development. The

program is based on the ELL reading, listening, writing, and listening standards of

the Nebraska Department of Education and the Papillion La Vista Public Schools.

The district program for LEP students utilizes inclusion and content based ESL

instruction to provide access to language instruction and grade level educational

content. The plan indicated that instruction was provided through individual,

small group, co‐taught classrooms, and general education classrooms depending

on the language proficiency level of the student. Support from ELL staff is

available to support LEP students throughout their educational experience. The

district provides support and staff development activities for both the general

education staff as well as the ELL staff. The district’s five elementary ELL magnet

sites are located in schools with the highest number of LEP students. LEP

students who are unable to walk to the school are transported by the district to

their school at no charge. The district cooperates with the Ralston Public Schools

to provide a newcomer program for secondary students. This program provides

intensive instruction in speaking, listening, reading, and writing. The plan

provided additional information concerning the service delivery model for LEP

students enrolled in the district. The reader is referred to the plan for more

detailed information. The plan described how the instructional models and

approaches are recognized as best practices by experts. The reader is referred

3

to the plan for a detailed description of the resources and research that support

the approaches used by the district.





a. YES


a. YES



a. YES


a. YES


a. No additional information upload for this section


o The plan provided by the district described the specific criteria and plan the

district has established to determine the student’s language proficiency and

progress toward meeting content standards. The district uses both objective and

subjective assessments to measure student growth and development. The

objective measures include state, district, and classroom assessments. The

district follows state guidelines for determining proficiency levels. Students take

the ELDA each year, the state language proficiency test. Performance on the

ELDA, other state assessments, and district formal and informal assessments are

used to determine student performance and growth. The district follows the

guidelines provided by NDE Rule 15 to determine when a student should exit the

program. The plan described the objective measures used at the elementary,

middle school, and high school level in the district. The plan listed the following

additional subjective measures used to assist with determining when a student is

ready to exit the program: passing grade in core subjects, length of time in

program, involvement in school activities, recommendation of teachers, and

approval of parents. The plan stated that the goal of the program is “to develop

self‐motivated learners and students who participate in the school community

such as, sports, choir, and clubs because students who are involved in school

have better student achievement.”

4




of the program?

a. YES


collected?

a. YES


process?

a. YES


o The LEP Plan provided a description of the approach used to evaluate the

effectiveness of the program, the type of data that will be considered, and how

the data will be used as part of the evaluation process. The objective and

subjective data used in the evaluation will be analyzed by the ELL Director and

ELL teachers. The ELL staff members are surveyed annually to determine what is

working well and the perceived needs of teachers and students. Objective data

includes data from the ELDA, classroom academic information, absences, school

tardiness, grades on report cards, drop out statistics, referrals for specialized

services, student memberships in clubs and organizations, summer school

attendance, enrollment in honors classes, office referrals, and the number of

students who continue enrollment in post‐secondary programs. The timeline for

program evaluation demonstrates that the evaluation process is ongoing and

occurs throughout the school year. In addition to reviewing student data, the

district also examines the timeliness of the referral, evaluation, and enrollment

process. The district ensures there is evidence of in‐classroom data collection

regarding instructional approaches, planning, and support for staff development

activities to assist with providing appropriate instruction. Data collected

regarding preschool attendance and the effect upon kindergarten achievement

and language development will be analyzed to determine the effect of preschool

on learners with limited English proficiency. Additional information regarding

the evaluation is available in the submitted plan. The district is encouraged to

review section 8 (LEP Program Review) of NDE Rule 15 to ensure all

requirements for program review are operational in the district.

5

Other:



sections?

a. YES


a. No additional information was uploaded for this section


o Included in the LEP Plan was information that family involvement activities focusing on parent/child interactions are held at elementary schools. The activities emphasize the area of reading, math, and problem solving.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required LEP plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79‐1014 and Rule 15; Regulations and Procedures for the Education of Students with Limited English Proficiency in the Public Schools. A review of the plans submitted by Papillion La Vista Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

6








a. YES



a. No the plan indicates that with neighborhood schools minimal transportation

is needed



a. YES



a. YES


o The plan described the policies, procedures, and practices to encourage regular

student attendance and monitor absences. Student attendance is tracked

electronically by each school with the goal being 100 percent attendance for all

students. The district has implemented a variety of interventions to work

toward this goal. School staff design intervention plans to help students achieve

100 percent attendance. Parents of students who are absent are called each day

by a staff member or an electronic calling system to ensure the parents are

aware of the absence. Students who are absent or behind in their class work are

provided with opportunities for additional instruction or time to complete

assignments before, during, or after school. In addition to the instructional staff,

guidance counselors and school social workers follow up on students who have

been absent and lead parent meetings as needed. School social workers work

with truant students and their parents prior to a formal referral to the county

attorney. The plan indicated neighborhood schools result in the need for

minimal district provided transportation. Open enrollment students who qualify

for free or reduced lunch are provided with transportation in accordance with

open enrollment guidelines. Students residing in group homes or detention

centers are provided transportation as part of the Title 1 services. The district

provides a program of instruction across the district that enables mobile

7

students to receive the same curriculum in any building. Students who relocate

to a different attendance area or outside the district are permitted to continue

at their original school for the remainder of the school year provided parents are

willing to transport the student to school. School social workers and guidance

counselors assist in planning and implementing transition plans for students

transferring to a different school during the school year. Staff members meet

weekly to plan interventions designed to assist students with attendance or

school performance concerns. The district’s highest poverty schools have access

to additional staff development activities. These buildings have paraprofessional

support and extended day programs. The staff to student ratio in high poverty

buildings is lower as a result of class size reductions, additional reading

specialists, and more contact with paraprofessionals. The district operates the

IDEAL Alternative Education Program for students who may be unable to attend

school on a regular basis or need an alternative schedule to accommodate

work/family responsibilities.

Parent Involvement:




a. YES



a. YES



a. YES



a. YES


o The plan indicated the target is to involve 100 percent of parents in meaningful

activities that relate to student learning. The district has a major initiative to

involve students and parents in student‐involved conferencing and goal setting.

The district has a high percentage of parents involved in the conferences and

goal setting activities. The district developed a District App to enhance

communication and engagement with parents. Communication and

engagement with parents occur through personal contact, district website,

newsletters, parent nights, and curriculum nights. Every elementary teacher is

8

asked to make contact with each of their student’s parents on a weekly basis.

Teachers use a variety of approaches to make this contact with parents. The

district provides parent training sessions that include a variety of topics to

support them and assist with their child’s school success. Schools with the

highest poverty develop parent, child, and teacher contracts that focus on the

student’s education and what each will do to support the student’s school

performance. The district provides interpreters as needed to enhance and

facilitate parent communication. The district’s electronic calling system

translates for those families that are not proficient in English and assist with the

district goal of ensuring that all parents receive the same information.





a. YES


on a weekly basis?

a. YES


a. YES




a. No services are provided



learning centers?

a. No Currently there are no elementary learning centers within the district


o The district works toward having classrooms sizes for kindergarten through third

grade at twenty or fewer students, fourth through sixth grade at twenty‐four or

fewer students. The district places the highest priority for reduced class sizes on

the buildings with the highest poverty levels. The district schedules teacher in‐

service on non‐student days so classroom instruction is not interrupted. The

teachers use this time to work in teams to: plan instruction, analyze data,

develop classroom goals, and develop student interventions. Assemblies and

other activities are scheduled around core instructional time. The classroom

schedules provide for blocks of time for reading and math instruction. The

9

schedule was redesigned for the 2013/14 school year to provide intervention

and enrichment time within the daily schedule. School announcements and

interruptions are managed so a priority is placed teaching and learning. Extra‐

curricular activities are scheduled outside the instructional day when possible.

The plan indicated the school district has recommended that the Learning

Community Coordinating Council establish elementary learning centers in, or

nearby the district boundaries. The plan indicated that currently no centers exist

within or near district boundaries.




a. YES


childhood programs?

a. YES


workers?

a. YES


a. YES


a. YES


a. YES


a. YES


o The plan provided information about district preschool services and indicated

that all district preschool programs met the requirements of NDE Rule 11. The

district provides services to children, parents, and community providers. A

review of the information indicated that the district provided services for

children with disabilities, children who are at risk, and children who are

developing typically. Services are provided through district preschool

classrooms, community based preschool settings, cooperative agreement with

the YMCA, and Sarpy County Head Start program. The district shares

professional development activities with community childcare providers to

enhance and support the providers. The district provides training activities for

parents of preschool age children as part of their preschool services. The district

10

employs school social workers to work with students and their families. In

addition to providing direct services, the school social workers provide support

and referral services. The plan summarized the extended opportunities for

support and learning provided through summer school and extended day

programs at no cost to families. In addition to summer school, the district

provides a summer nutritional program (breakfast and lunch) for all students.

Transportation is available for students who do not live within the attendance

area of the school hosting the program. As part of the extended school year the

district provides a Jump Start program supported with funding from the Learning

Community Subcouncil 6. The plan listed these activities as being available in

one or more Title 1 schools: after school tutoring, home visits by teachers,

workshops focused on literacy instruction in the classroom, I Pads and apps to

support literacy development, and math and literacy coaches.





a. YES




a. YES




a. YES


o According to the plan, new staff members are provided with two days before

school starts to attend trainings regarding district policies, procedures, and

curriculum practices. In addition, principals meet with new staff members to

provide an orientation to their assigned building. Each building in the district has

professional learning teams that are focused on curriculum, instruction, and

assessments. Each new teacher is assigned a building level mentor. The district

provides a professional development program focused on the implementation of

best practices in curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Teachers are trained

to use instructional assessment data to address the individual needs of their

students. Administrators meet on a weekly basis for professional learning

11

activities. Two of the topics discussed each month during these meetings are

school improvement and staff development.

Evaluation:



poverty plan?

a. YES


o The plan indicated that data collected by the district and buildings is used to

determine the effectiveness of the poverty plan. A continuous improvement

model is used at each level of the school system to determine the effectiveness

of all improvement plans. Multiple data sources are used as part of the

evaluation process to determine the effectiveness of the Poverty Plan. Some of

the data used in the evaluation process includes: achievement test data, earned

credits, grades, graduation rates, dropout rates, IEP goals, attendance, class size,

student mobility, and teacher turnover rates. The data is reviewed and analyzed

by teams at the building and district levels to provide guidance with the

determination of building and district needs. The District Curriculum Team

reviews the data to provide guidance in determining needs in the areas of: staff

development, class size, student/staff ratios, increased need for specialists, and

other supportive resources.

Other:



a. NO


o This question is optional and districts do not need to respond to the question.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required poverty plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79‐1013. A review of the plans submitted by Papillion La Vista Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved.



1

Summary of Review for LEP PLAN Ralston Public Schools







a. YES


a. YES



a. YES


o The plan submitted by the district summarized the procedures utilized to identify

students as Limited English Proficient. New families complete a Home Language

Survey at the time they register their child for school and complete the

registration, health, and emergency forms. The district will provide the forms

used in the registration process in seven languages, including English. Parents

needing language support during the registration process may request an

interpreter and/or the assistance of the district’s bilingual liaison. The district

will use the Language Assessment Scales (LAS) or the LAS Links Form A to

determine a student’s language proficiency. The district’s goal is to have

students proficient on language proficiency tests and at grade level in core

subjects. The district will provide a continuum of services ranging from

maximum help for newcomers to minimum assistance for students fully

transitioned into general education classrooms. Students who are exited from

the program will be monitored for two or more years to ensure they are being

successful without the support and assistance provided by the program.





a. YES



a. YES

2


o The instructional approaches for LEP students identified in the plan consisted of

services to assist with learning English and academic content. The program will

provide a continuum of services and be designed to meet the individual needs of

the students. The program will be designed to provide the following: specialized

instruction for language acquisition, access to grade level content, and

independent use of instructional resources. The program will be based on the

Nebraska and Ralston Public Schools ELL standards for reading, writing, listening,

and speaking. The plan listed the ELL proficiency levels and provided the type of

services that might be provided for students. The reader is referred to the plan

for this information. The district used research provided by the U. S. Department

of Education to identify the instructional approaches selected for

implementation in the district. Please see the information provided in response

to question 5 for additional information.





a. YES


a. YES



a. YES


a. YES


a. NO


o In this section of the plan, the district outlined information regarding: criteria for

determining English proficiency; objective language measures used to assess

listening, speaking, reading, and writing; objective measures to assess progress

toward meeting content standards; and subjective activities used to measure

student progress. The district relies on the guidance provided in NDE Rule 15 to

determine when a student should be exited from the program. The English

Language Development Assessment (ELDA) or the LAS will be used as English

proficiency tests and as a portion of the information for determining when a

student is ready to exit the program. Students enrolled in the LEP program

3

participate in the same assessments as all other students enrolled in the district.

In addition to the objective measures, the district will use the following

subjective activities to measure progress: ability to maintain passing grades,

school activity participation, club memberships, sports involvement, and

involvement in other events within the school.




of the program?

a. YES


collected?

a. YES


process?

a. YES


o The district will evaluate the effectiveness of the program by reviewing data,

analyzing trends in student achievement, and examining program needs. The

district will survey ELL staff and building administrators each spring to determine

student and program needs. The district will review the identification and

enrollment procedures to determine if timeliness of the process is appropriate

and the needed information is entered into the student management system.

Student data will be disaggregated into a number of categories for analysis. ELL

staff will modify the program to ensure that student needs are met and the

program complies with Nebraska guidelines. Following the review, a report will

be prepared and presented to the Superintendent of Schools.

Other:



sections?

a. YES


a. NO

4


o In addition to other services described in previous sections of the plan, the

district will provide additional parent involvement activities which will include

information about the school district and the community.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required LEP plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79‐1014. A review of the plans submitted by Ralston Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

5








a. YES



a. YES



a. YES



a. YES


o The plan provided information concerning the district’s attendance and mobility

policies, procedures, and practices. According to the plan, the district utilized

multiple programmatic approaches to improve student attendance. The

approaches listed in the plan included: a call to parents after the student had

been absent for five days, conversations with counselors and social workers,

home visits, school refusals assessments, and incentive programs. The school

district will make adjustments at the classroom level for missing assignments and

provide additional supports for students who are absent for more than five days.

Following ten days of absence, a building level team, including the student and

parents, will meet to develop and implement an individual plan for the student.

The plan may include the following activities or supports: additional time to

make up classwork assignments, participation in after‐school homework clubs

lead by teachers, Building Bright Futures mentoring program involvement,

home/school contracts, and referrals to school or community agencies for

support. The school district will work with metro area attendance agencies and

mentor/mentee programs to provide services to encourage regular attendance.

The plan did not include any information regarding transportation options for

non‐open enrollment students qualifying for free or reduced lunch living more

than a mile from the attendance center. According to the plan, students who

transfer through open enrollment, contribute to the socioeconomic diversity of

6

the building, and live more than a mile from the building they attend may be

provided with transportation. Students who are considered neglected,

delinquent, or homeless may be provided with transportation through federal

funded programs such as Title 1 or the McKinney‐Vento Homeless Assistance

Act. Students who move to another attendance center within the district or

outside the district boundaries may continue attending their current school for

the remainder of the school year. Students moving outside the district may

apply to continue their enrollment the following school year through the

provisions of the open enrollment program. Parents must assume

transportation responsibilities unless the student qualifies for transportation

according to open enrollment procedures.

Parent Involvement:




a. YES



a. YES



a. YES



a. YES


o This section of the plan described the parent involvement activities and parent

supports provided by the district and the schools. The district will provide access

to the following services/supports for students and their parents: Back Pack

Food Bank Program, before and after school instructional services, health

screenings, One World Dental Services bus, free eye wear and checkups, and

clothing. The schools will utilize back to school events and kindergarten roundup

to inform parents of topics, resources, and services related to poverty and

diversity. The schools also will use personalized phone calls and home visits to

connect with parents. Interpreters will be available to ensure that

communication is in the parent’s home language. Communications and

information from the schools and the district will be translated into the family’s

home language. The district will use the communication provided to families,

7

home visits, and family activities to solicit input from parents. The district will

provide a support group for teen parents at the high school facilitated by staff

from the health office. In addition, the Ralston Foundation will continue to

provide on‐site child care services including services for high school students

who are parents.





a. YES


on a weekly basis?

a. YES


a. YES




a. NO



learning centers?

a. NO


o The plan summarized the practices to maintain class size, ensure teaching time

was protected, and interruptions to the school day were limited. According to

the plan, each grade level will be assessed to determine the number of students

qualifying for free or reduced lunch enrolled in each classroom. Classes with

students qualifying for free or reduced lunch will have 20 or fewer students,

whenever possible. The school district will assign para‐educators to classrooms

with high numbers of academically or behaviorally challenged students. The

district will provide structures for scheduled teaching time that will be free from

interruptions. This structured time will include time for teachers to plan for

instruction and collaborate with other teachers. Uninterrupted time for reading,

math, science, and social studies will be included in the instructional schedule.

Assemblies and other activities will be limited and scheduled around core

instructional time. The plan contained no information concerning services

8

provided by the Learning Community Achievement Subcouncil or coordination

activities between the school district and an elementary learning center.




a. YES


childhood programs?

a. YES


workers?

a. YES


a. YES


a. YES


a. YES


a. NO


o The plan summarized the specialized services to be provided by the district. The

services included: early childhood services, summer school, extended day

services, and extended school year options. A positive preschool learning

environment for resident children, who are three and four years old will be

available and supported by the district. The research based program will provide

the opportunity for children to participate in developmentally appropriate

activities. Seven all day preschool classrooms will be operated by the district.

The program will emphasize development of language, social skills, motor

development, and learning skills. Developmental screenings and child find

activities will be held throughout the district to identify children for participation

in the program and inform parents of the opportunities for their children. The

district will continue to employ two full time social workers to serve students,

preschool through high school. Summer school at no cost to families will be

provided by the district. The summer program will focus on building confidence

and preparing students for the next school year. Summer nutritional services,

breakfast and lunch, will be included as part of the program. Elementary

9

students will be provided with before and after school tutoring, homework clubs,

and intramurals. Summer credit recovery opportunities will be available.





a. YES




a. YES‐ very limited




a. YES


o The plan described the district’s mentoring program, staff development

opportunities, and other supports and resources available to support staff

working with students. The mentoring program will provide support for a period

of three years for new and newly reassigned teachers. Helping teachers

understand the importance of using data to enhance student achievement will

be included in the mentoring program. The mentoring program will be designed

to promote leadership at the building level and help new teachers make a

seamless transition from the induction process to meaningful professional

development. Professional learning communities are operational at each

building and will continue to meet regularly to analyze data and differentiate

support based on the needs and talents of staff and students. Substitute

teachers will be utilized to provide opportunities for teachers to observe other

teachers. Monthly after school workshops on current topics will be provided for

teachers.

Evaluation:



poverty plan?


o The district indicated that the effectiveness of the plan would be evaluated by

reviewing district level, building level, and individual student achievement. The

district will review data and how the activities supported by the plan impacted

10

the performance of subgroups. The district will compile and compare data

trends.

Other:



a. NO


o No information was provided in the plan for this optional question.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required poverty plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79‐1013. A review of the plans submitted by Ralston Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

1

Summary of Review for LEP PLAN Springfield Platteview Community Schools

According to Nebraska statute 79‐1007.08 a school district may decline to participate in the

limited English proficiency allowance by provided a maximum limited English proficiency

allowance of zero dollars ($00.00). The Springfield Platteview Community Schools has

submitted an allowance of zero dollars thereby indicating they are declining participation in the

limited English proficiency allowance. Districts requesting no LEP allowance are not required to

answer any of the questions in the plan.

_______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

2








a. YES



a. YES



a. YES



a. YES


o The plan provided information regarding the practices to encourage regular school

attendance, transportation options for students, and options for students who move

to a different attendance area during the school year. The plan included a list of

interventions for students with poor attendance including: home visits from the

school resource officer, referral to the GOALS Committee, and meetings between

the parents and school staff to address the attendance issues. The plan included the

provision of transportation for all students in grades 7‐12 and transportation for K‐6

students who live over four miles from the attendance center. The plan did not

include a description of transportation options for students based on free or

reduced lunch qualifications. Transportation will continue to be provided for open

enrollment students within the Learning Community who meet qualification

requirements. The district will provide support for all students when they miss

instruction.

Parent Involvement:




a. YES

3



a. YES



a. YES



a. YES


o The district described parent involvement and input activities implemented by

the district. The plan indicated that parent involvement was an essential part of

each school’s improvement plan and the continuous improvement process. Each

school will continue to use a committee focused on parent involvement,

communication, and participation with the school. The district will receive input

through Facebook, websites, surveys, informal parent meetings, community

forums, parent advisory groups, and board meetings. According to the plan, the

district has a strong culture and parents feel welcomed, appreciated, and a part

of their school. Counselors will support students and families and connect them

with social services to meet their needs.





a. YES


on a weekly basis?

a. YES


a. YES




a. YES



learning centers?

a. Not Applicable

4


o The plan indicated that the district had a policy that limited class sizes at the

elementary level and will be working on a policy to limit class sizes at all grade levels.

Administrators will continue to work with teachers to limit interruptions to teaching

time. Each school will continue to have a master schedule that assists with limiting

interruptions. Activities will be scheduled at the end of the day to limit interruptions

to instruction and the school day. The plan indicated that the Learning Community

will provide a grant for an after school program for second and third grades that

need additional support in math. The district will collaborate with other districts to

address issues facing schools.




a. YES


childhood programs?

a. YES


workers?

a. YES


a. YES


a. YES


a. NO


a. YES


o The plan described services for preschool children, student access to support

services, summer programs, and extended day services. The district will

continue to provide an early childhood program for all 3 and 4 year old children

within the district and continue the relationship with the Sarpy County Head

Start Cooperative operated by the four districts in the county. The district has no

current plans to employ a social worker but will provide contact information to

parents as needed. The district will continue to provide an outside counselor for

a free referral meeting with students and parents. In cooperation with the Sarpy

County Sherriff, a school resource officer will be available to assist the school

5

district and students. The district will provide a four week remedial math and

reading summer program for elementary students. The district will provide

assistance for students needing to make up class credits. A math extended

school day program will be continued by the district. The district will continue to

work with day care after school programs and provide educational assistance if

needed. The district will provide personalized support services based upon the

individual needs of students.





a. YES




a. YES




a. YES


o The plan described the mentoring and staff development program designed for the district. Mentors will be assigned to new teachers. The plan indicated that a majority of the support for new teachers will be provided through grade level teams, Director of Learning, and principals. Professional development and training will include professional learning communities, response to intervention, differentiated instruction, and assessment analysis. The district’s collaboration model will continue to be an important asset in meeting the needs of students. Teachers and administrators will implement practices that support students and help them be successful. The district will continue to work on a new grading system that will be more consistent and more focused on student learning.

Evaluation:



poverty plan?

a. YES


o The plan indicated the district would evaluate the program by disaggregating the MAP and state assessment (NeSA) results for poverty and non‐poverty students. The district will use a Performance Index that will give the district a score based

6

on multiple assessments. The index will provide the district with the option to analyze data at both the subgroup and individual student level. The district will use a continuous improvement process and intervention model that will focus on areas where the district is not meeting their goals.

Other:



a. NO


o The district provided no additional information for this optional question.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required poverty plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79‐1013. A review of the plans submitted by Springfield Platteview Community Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

1

Summary of Review for LEP PLAN Westside Community Schools







a. YES


a. YES



a. YES


o The plan submitted by the district summarized the district’s process for

identifying and assessing the English language proficiency of students referred

for the LEP program. The plan indicated that the identification of LEP students

followed NDE Rule 15 and included a Home Language Survey completed for all

kindergarten students and students new to the district. The district reviewed

existing school records and completed additional assessments if the survey

indicated there was a second language or influence of a second language in the

home. If a referral for language assessment is initiated, the student’s English

skills will be assessed using the IDEA Language Proficiency Test (IPT) and the

Language Assessment Scales (LAS). Students who entered from a Nebraska

school who were currently identified as LEP were enrolled in the program.

Records from the previous school will be requested and if records were not

received within 30 days, a formal assessment will be initiated. The plan provided

additional details concerning the specific criteria used by the district to qualify

students as having limited English proficiency. The reader is referred to the plan

for this specific information.





a. YES



a. YES

2


o The plan provided a summary of instructional approaches used by the district

and the research supporting the approaches. The district indicated that bilingual

classes were not feasible because there were 22 different languages spoken by

the LEP student population of less than 200 students. The district will attempt to

allow students access to content in their native languages by providing laptop

computers with online resources and language translation capabilities, student

buddy and mentoring programs, bilingual service learning opportunities, and

bilingual texts and resources. The district will continue to provide neighborhood

school services for all students, and LEP students will be placed in age‐

appropriate grade level classrooms where English is the only language of

instruction. All classroom teachers will participate in staff development

programs that will focus on the essential elements of instruction. The district is

committed to providing professional supports so teachers have the necessary

instructional strategies for LEP students. The program will utilize Classroom

Instruction that Works with ELL Students, Sheltered Instruction Observation

Protocol, Total Physical Response, and Essential Elements of Instruction as well

as other strategies that include all aspects of social development, acculturation,

and language acquisition for academic success.





a. YES


a. YES



a. YES


a. YES


a. NO


o The submitted plan summarized the assessment approaches that will be used to

measure the student’s English language development, content knowledge, and

growth and development. The plan indicated that LEP students must meet the

exit criteria to be re‐designated as English fluent, described in NDE Rule 15. The

3

criteria used to determine if a student can exit the program included student

performances on ELDA, teacher recommendations, and performance on the

Nebraska state reading assessment. The grade level of the student will

determine what information will be used for exiting the program. The reader is

referred to the plan for specifics concerning the exit criteria for grade levels and

the information utilized. The district will determine if students in grades 3‐12

meet the exit criteria on an individual basis and not rely only on the student’s

performance on assessments. Students with disabilities may exit the program

and have their needs met through the special education program. These

decisions will be made on an individual basis by a team knowledgeable of the

student’s needs and educational options. The district has employed an English

proficient Spanish liaison who is a certified teacher to assist district psychologists

and other diagnostic personnel with special education assessments. The liaison

will also provide translation services for diagnostic team meetings and IEP

meetings. The district will annually assess the student’s development using the

English Language Development Assessment (ELDA) and the Language

Assessment Scales‐Links (LAS‐Links). NeSA assessments, district assessments,

benchmark assessments, and formative classroom measures will be used to

assess student progress toward content standards. The plan indicated that the

following subjective information will provide evidence of student growth and

performance: teacher input, parent input, student portfolios, grades, honors,

awards, and special recognitions.




of the program?

a. YES


collected?

a. YES


process?

a. YES


o The submitted plan described the program review approach, data to be

considered, and how the data will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the

plan. The district will continue to take an active role in program planning and

evaluation of the program. The district will utilize a team as required by NDE

4

Rule 15. The team will complete an annual review and prepare a report for the

superintendent. The report will be made available for review by the public,

when requested. The report will include a review of all components of the

program. The submitted plan contains an extensive list of the types of student

performance data that will be considered as part of the evaluation. The resulting

report will provide information concerning the data and will compare the

academic performance of LEP students to native English speaking students. The

reader is referred to the plan for specifics regarding this data and the

comparisons that will be available in the evaluation report. The plan indicated

that subjective and objective data will be used in the evaluation process and

program modifications will be made following the analysis of the information.

Other:



sections?

a. YES


a. NO


o Extended learning opportunities will be provided for all students including LEP

students to ensure academic success and provide academic enrichment. LEP

students will be encouraged to participate in elementary summer school

activities that include academic and non‐academic experiences. The plan

contained a description of district supports and services that will be provided to

LEP students and their families. The reader is encouraged to read the last

section of the plan for this information.

5

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required LEP plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79‐1014 and Rule 15; Regulations and Procedures for the Education of Students with Limited English Proficiency in the Public Schools. A review of the plans submitted by Westside Community Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

6








a. YES



a. YES



a. YES



a. YES


o The district plan provided information concerning student attendance practices,

student transportation options, options available for students who move during

the school year, and supports available for students who miss instruction due to

absence or mobility. The plan indicated that the Executive Director of

Administrative Services is the district’s designated Attendance Officer and

responsible for the enforcement of state law and the provisions of the Learning

Community Superintendent’s Plan relating to compulsory attendance. The plan

detailed the monitoring of attendance and provision of notification letters

regarding student absences. School social workers will be alerted when students

are having attendance problems. The district’s student information system will

combine both absences and tardies when determining total amount of time

absent from school. When students reach a total of twenty days of absences

(absences + tardies) a letter will be sent to the county attorney concerning the

student’s absences. A list of interventions that could be implemented prior to

referral to the county attorney is included in the plan. The district will provide

student transportation to an area of the district with a significant number of

students who qualify for free and reduced lunch. The district will also provide

bus passes for middle and high school students based on need. The district will

work with students and families individually if there is a need for to

transportation to and from school. Students will be able to continue to attend

7

the original elementary school of enrollment when the family moves to a

different attendance area. The district will provide additional services, supports,

and resources for students from low income families or with special needs. The

plan provides more details concerning these additional services, supports, and

resources. These supports and services include activities that occur both during

and outside the school day.

Parent Involvement:




a. YES



a. YES



a. YES



a. YES


o The plan provided a description of the parent engagement, methods for seeking

input from families, and additional supports or resources available to promote

parent involvement. The plan indicated that the individual schools do many

parent engagement activities in common but some schools provide unique

activities. A variety of parent engagement activities that will provide student

and family supports at each of the buildings and the district level were described

in the plan. The plan included a list of school based activities, community

involvement activities, and family assistance and supports provided by the

district and the community. The reader is directed to the plan for a list of these

building and district activities designed to support individual students as well as

families. The plan described activities the individual schools and the district will

use to solicit input from parents. These will include both group activities and

one on one contact between parents and staff members as well as requesting

completion of paper and/or electronic surveys. The district will work with

community social service agencies to assist low income parents and parents

from diverse backgrounds. This assistance will be supported by school social

8

workers and will include sharing information and facilitating services and

resources to support families.





a. YES


on a weekly basis?

a. YES


a. YES




a. YES



learning centers?

a. YES


o The instructional services section of the plan provided a description of the

practices to reduce or maintain small class sizes, practices to limit interruptions

to teaching time or the school day, and working relationship with the Learning

Community. The district included a statement in the plan that research indicates

that smaller class sizes increase student achievement when class size reduction is

targeted and intentional. The district established class size parameters at the

elementary level that vary based on the building’s Title 1 eligibility status. The

plan detailed the class size parameters for elementary classrooms and the reader

is encouraged to review the plan for this specific information. Classroom sizes

will be monitored and class size will influence the acceptance of students from

outside the attendance area who apply to attend the school. The plan stated

that the district will work to reduce classroom interruptions by working to

reduce tardiness, implementing a behavioral management program at the

elementary schools and the middle school, and providing behavioral

interventionists for the middle school. The modular schedule at the high school

will provide flexibility for working with students individually without interrupting

9

instruction or the school day. Activities not related to academic learning, such as

extracurricular and club activities, will be scheduled in a manner not to interrupt

instruction. After the start of the school day, access to buildings will be

controlled and monitored by office staff. All parents and guests will be required

to check in at the office rather than go to the classroom during instructional

time. The district and individual schools will continue to work with the

Elementary Learning Centers and have received a grant from the Learning

Community to provide additional supports for students. The activities supported

by the Learning Community will be evaluated by researchers assigned by the

Learning Community.




a. YES


childhood programs?

a. YES


workers?

a. YES


a. YES


a. YES


a. YES


a. YES


o The plan described the district’s early childhood programs, student access to

social workers, summer activities, extended school day and year programs, and

other specialized services for children in poverty. The district will provide an

early childhood program which will provide free or reduced tuition to parents

with financial needs or from diverse backgrounds. The district is continuing the

development of an early childhood parent resource center. The district plans to

seek partnerships with local community businesses to support the resource

center. The district is considering the expansion of the preschool and early

childhood programs with an emphasis on serving more children in poverty. The

10

district will continue to employ social workers who are assigned to every building

in the district. The social workers will work with families to design a support

system for the student and the family. The district will provide summer school

programs, extended school day services, and extended school year programs.

Summer school tuition will be waived for students eligible for free or reduced

priced lunch. The district will provide additional specialized services, supports

and resources. One of the specialized services described in the plan was a Family

Learning Center funded by the district located in an apartment complex. The

submitted plan indicated that the district had added an attachment to the plan

to provide additional information concerning sections of the plan. There was not

an additional document attached to the plan.





a. YES




a. YES




a. YES


o The plan described the mentoring and staff development program provided by

the district to support new teachers and provide skills needed to meet the needs

of students. The plan indicated that the district will continue to provide all new

teachers with a district assigned mentor. In addition, new teachers will

participate in a formal three year induction program focused on effective

teaching. The district will utilize grade level and course level Professional

Learning Communities with a focus on student achievement to support all

teachers. The district will continue to provide a variety of staff development

activities for all staff designed to provide teachers with the skills to work

effectively with students in poverty and from diverse backgrounds. The plan

provided a list of staff development activities and the reader is directed to the

plan for the list of activities. According to the plan, during the 2013/14 school

year a district‐wide professional development and learning community

11

framework will be created. The administrators and team leaders will attend

trainings four times during the year and then deliver the training to teachers

during Professional Learning Community meetings. The district will provide staff

and programs to assist and support teachers and administrators as they work to

meet the needs of all students. The district will contract with Arbor Family

Services to provide a limited number of services to families. The reader is

referred to the plan for a complete list of professional development activities

and other specialized services, supports, and resources available to staff and

students.

Evaluation:



poverty plan?

a. YES


o The plan summarized the approaches and data that will be utilized to review the

effectiveness of the poverty plan. The plan indicated that each component of

the plan will be evaluated on a regular basis. The evaluation will analyze building

and district level data for each component of the plan. Some of the data that

will be analyzed include: attendance data, data collected from parent

involvement activities, summer school data, and information from staff surveys.

Programs and services funded by the Learning Community will be evaluated by

an outside agency contracted by the Learning Community. The plan indicated

that the directors for teaching and learning will meet regularly with data

representatives from each building to analyze data and these representatives

will replicate the data analysis with building staff.

Other:



a. YES


o The district provided no information for this optional item.

12

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required poverty plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79‐1013. A review of the plans submitted by Westside Community Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved.

