The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title III

Transcription

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title III
Phillip Middleton, ESL Coordinator
Beth Trujillo, ESL Lead Teacher
Kim Harvell, LEA Test Coordinator
Duplin County Schools
Title III Monitoring Visit
Table of Contents
Section
Pages
Student Demographics
3—7
Performance Data
8—16
ESL Personnel
17
ESL Instructional Program Design
18—30
- Implementation of WIDA Standards
- Types Service
- Service By School
- Resources
Identification and Exiting Procedures
31—32
Communication and Parental Involvement
33
Budget and Finance
34
National Origin Minority
Students (NOMS)
Home Language
NOMS Count
Spanish
2860
Chinese
6
Vietnamese
1
Arabic/Egyptian/Lebanese Syrian
9
Gujarati/Gujarathi
1
Burmese/Myanmasa
1
Chinese (Zhongwen)
1
Creoles & Pidgins (French)
4
Malagasy
1
Mixteco
1
Polish
1
Rade
-
Tagalog/Filipino
1
Total
2887
Limited English Proficient (LEP)
Identified NOMS
Non-LEP, 1125
39%
LEP, 1762
61%
LEP
Non-LEP
The majority of National Origin Minority Students have been identified as Limited
English Proficient in Duplin County Schools. These students receive the support of
Title III for language acquisition.
WMS
2%
WRH
2%
Current LEP Population
DECHS
0%
BES
5%
WARE
9%
BFG
23%
WALE
8%
CES
2%
RHM
17%
CMS
4%
ND Jr/Sr
4%
NDE
12%
KES
2%
JKHS
4%
EES
4%
EDHS
3%
BES
BFG
CES
CMS
EDHS
EES
JKHS
KES
NDE
ND Jr/Sr
RHM
WALE
WRH
WARE
WMS
DECHS
Limited English Proficient Students attend schools throughout Duplin County.
The schools receiving most Limited English Proficient students are Rose HillMagnolia Elementary, B.F. Grady Elementary, and North Duplin Elementary. These
school populations of Limited English Proficient students represent 52% of all the
LEP students in Duplin County Public Schools.
The majority of the population of Limited English Proficient students in Duplin
County Schools are in the elementary schools. Middle schools and high schools
have much smaller populations.
Percentage of LEP Students
on Free/Reduced Lunch
#LEP not F&R
12%
# LEP F&R
# LEP F&R
88%
#LEP not F&R
In Duplin County Schools, we have 1.578 LEP students receiving Free and Reduced lunch.
These students face not only language barriers; they also face economic challenges.
Therefore, the need for supplemental services is paramount.
School
# LEP F&R
#LEP not F&R
% LEP F&R
BFG
352
52
88%
BES
84
2
98%
CMS
58
17
78%
CES
26
1
97%
WES
139
20
88%
DECHS
2
0
100%
EES
53
13
81%
EDHS
45
9
84%
JKHS
64
6
92%
KES
36
4
90%
NDE
183
31
86%
NDJRSR
59
7
90&
RHM
292
21
94%
WALE
129
11
93%
WRH
24
10
74%
WMS
32
7
82%
DCS
1578
211
88%
There is a slight variation in the number of LEP students in each school receiving Free and
Reduced Lunch; however, between 75% to 100% of LEP students at given schools receive
Free and Reduced Lunch county-wide.
Performance Data
Annual Measurable Achievement Objective – Progress on the
Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English
State-to-State for English Language Learners (ACCESS) Test for
English Language Proficiency
Performance Year
Established Target
Percentage of
Limited English
Proficient Students
Making Progress
Percentage of
Duplin Limited
English Proficient
Students Actually
Making Progress
2010-2011
55.1%
57.0% √
Progress is based upon the following:
• 55.1% of LEP’s reach the 4.8 composite score on the ACCESS test, and/or
• 55.1% of LEP’s increase to the next English language proficiency level on the ACCESS
test, and/or
• 55.1% of LEP’s increase their previous score by 0.5 the ACCESS test.
Performance Data
Annual Measurable Achievement Objective – Proficiency on
the Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English
State-to-State for English Language Learners (ACCESS) Test for
Performance Year
2010-2011
Established Target Percentage of Duplin
Percentage of
Limited English
Limited English
Proficient Students
Proficient Students
Actually Making
Making Proficiency
Proficiency
12.4%
13.5% √
• Proficiency is determined by an overall composite score of 4.8 or above, with at least a
4.0 on the reading subtest and at least a 4.0 on the writing subtest on the state’s
annual English language proficiency test for kindergarten and Tiers B and C in grades 1
– 12.
Performance Data
Annual Measurable
Achievement Objective –
Meeting AYP
2010-11 Duplin AYP Title I Improvement – LEP Subgroup
Performance
Grade Span
Subject
Target Goal
Proficiency
Status
3-5
Reading
71.6
53.5
Met w/SH
3-5
Math
88.6
81.7
Met w/SH
6-8
Reading
71.6
34.6
Not Met
6-8
Math
88.6
63.0
Not Met
10
Reading
69.3
20.9
Not Met
10
Math
84.2
61.9
Not Met
LEP Performance Data
(EOG/EOC—Percent Proficient)
School
Reading
2008-2009
Reading
2009-2010
Reading
2010-2011
BF Grady
Elementary
36.3
31.5%
31.8%
Beulaville Elementary
45.8
45.2
44.2
Charity Middle School
47.2
38.5
32.3
Chinquapin Elementary
40.0
38.9
46.7
East Duplin High
42.3
55.2
47.8
E. E. Smith Middle
35.2
36.6
31.6
James Kenan High
25.8
56.8
60.0
Kenansville Elementary
50.0
33.3
50.0
North Duplin Elementary
47.0
44.0
45.6
North Duplin Jr/Sr
29.4
47.1
20.0
North Duplin Jr/Sr
[High School]
44.4
35.7
45.5
Rose Hill—Magnolia
Elementary
39.3
39.7
44.1
Wallace Elementary
43.1
51.6
43.8
Wallace—Rose Hill
High
19.0
64.3
69.2
Warsaw Elementary
35.5
27.1
37.7
Warsaw Middle
19.5
25.0
23.8
[LEP]
39.1
37.3
37.5
(EOG/EOC—Percent Proficient)
Limited English Proficient Students
EOG - Reading Proficiency 2008
- 2011
EOC - English I Proficiency 2008 2011
37.5
37.3
39.1
23.8
25
19.5
Warsaw Middle
Warsaw Elementary
37.7
35.5
27.1
Wallace—Rose Hill High
64.3
19
Wallace Elementary
43.8
43.1
44.1
39.7
39.3
69.2
51.6
[High School]
North Duplin Jr/Sr
45.5
44.4
35.7
20
North Duplin Jr/Sr
47.1
29.4
Reading 2010-2011
45.6
44
47
33.3
James Kenan High
Reading 2009-2010
50
50
Reading 2008-2009
60
56.8
25.8
31.6
36.6
35.2
E. E. Smith Middle
47.8
East Duplin High
42.3
38.9
40
32.3
38.5
55.2
46.7
47.2
44.2
45.2
45.8
31.80
31.54
36.3
BF Grady
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
School
Math
2008-2009
Math
2009-2010
Math
2010-2011
BF Grady
Elementary
74.6
69.4
70.2
66.7
61.9
71.2
77.8
69.2
67.7
Chinquapin
Elementary
70.0
61.1
66.7
East Duplin High
42.9
61.8
36.0
E. E. Smith Middle
75.0
69.0
62.0
James Kenan High
35.0
67.4
30.4
Kenansville
Elementary
55.6
74.1
80.0
North Duplin
Elementary
68.7
75.0
78.6
North Duplin Jr/Sr
67.6
85.3
63.3
North Duplin Jr/Sr
[HighSchool]
70.0
60.0
81.8
Elementary
71.9
77.4
75.7
Wallace Elementary
81..0
79.0
76.6
Wallace—Rose Hill
High
33.3
61.9
55.2
Warsaw Elementary
64.5
64.3
71.4
Warsaw Middle
43.9
42.5
45.2
[LEP]
70.8
70.5
70.7
ACCESS Performance Data (2010—2011)
Elementary Grades
90
80
70
60
50
40
% Exiting
30
Reading 5 or more
20
Writing 4 or more
10
0
Grades 6-8
70
60
50
40
% exiting
Reading 5 +
30
Writing 4 +
20
10
0
EES
WMS
CMS
BFG
BES
CES
ND
High Schools
70
60
50
40
% Exiting
Reading 5 +
30
Writing 4 +
20
10
0
ED
JK
WRH
ND
School name
# tested
% exited
% 5+ in reading
% 4+ in writing
BFG k-5
296
7%
48%
20%
BES k-5
69
13%
43%
19%
CES k-5
16
19%
44%
25%
nde k-5
188
10%
60%
27%
WARE
151
11%
61%
30%
WES
147
11%
52%
21%
KES
55
36%
78%
38%
RHM
337
14%
52%
26%
Total/avg
1259
15%
55%
26%
EES
79
8%
41%
15%
WMS
45
11%
36%
13%
CMS
69
10%
42%
10%
BFG 6-8
75
4%
27%
9%
BES 6-8
22
9%
36%
18%
CES 6-8
5
0%
60%
0%
ND 6-8
48
6%
31%
10%
Total/avg
343
7%
39%
11%
Early College
2
50%
50%
50%
EDHS
56
29%
29%
48%
JK
58
38%
36%
66%
WRH
48
48%
44%
63%
ND 9-12
26
27%
46%
42%
Total/avg
190
38%
41%
54%
Schools by grade level- showing number tested, percentage of those students
that exited, percentage scoring a 5 or higher in reading, and percentage scoring a 4.0 or more in writing.
AMAOs
Duplin County Schools has not met AMAO 3 consistently for two years, beginning in 2009-2010. The failure to meet AMAO 3 results from having not met the
standards for participation and not having achieved proficiency by LEP students in the End of Grade/End of Course tests in reading and mathematics.
LEP students have historically not met the 95% participation standard. Particularly, LEP students at the high school level have not participated well in the
annual assessments. Coupled with the low participation rate of LEP high
school students, established proficiency levels have not been met. Both LEP
students in Grades 3 - 8 and high school LEP students have historically not
achieved the proficiency standards for Annual Yearly Progress. For the school
years 2010-2011, Duplin County Schools' middle grades and high school students have failed to achieve the AYP standard. The proficiency levels for middle grades LEP students reveal a consistent pattern of below standard in
mathematics, and high school students demonstrate an inconsistent pattern
of performance in both reading and mathematics.
Within the targets for AMAO 3, Duplin County Schools' LEP student populations have identifiable areas of commendation. LEP students in Grades 3-5
have consistently met the participation standards and have consistently met
the proficiency standards for both reading and mathematics. Also, LEP students in the middle grades (Grades 6-8) have consistently attained the AYP
participation and proficiency standards set for students in reading.
ACCESS
Duplin County Schools has tested all LEP students with the ACCESS for ELLs
which determines a student’s proficiency level, accommodations on state testing, LEP status, and can be used to track individual students’ growth in the
four language domains and the five WIDA Standards. ESL and classroom
teachers have been trained in working with this data. Several trends emerge in
analyzing county data, among them the tendency for higher writing scores in
the high schools and lower proficiencies and less student growth in grades 68. Overall, writing is the area most in need of improvement. Reading proficiency tends to mirror student performance on state reading assessments.
ESL Personnel
School
Teacher
Assistant
BF Grady
Elementary
Tolitha Prybylinski
Georgiana Burton
Melania Dipietro
Ruth Diaz –Retired
Wandymari Andino
Kathering Foronda
Victor Sanchez
Carolyn Brown
East Duplin High
Sylvia Tadeo
E. E. Smith Middle
Jose Barrios
James Kenan High
Nivia Batista
Maria Uribe
Amy Cooke
Julie Coates
Trina Carias
Allison Morales
Sandra Pope Rollins
North Duplin Jr/Sr
Carlos Sosa
Sandra Pope Rollins
Elementary
James Roa
Peggy Guthrie
Adela Chavez
Maria Cornejo
Beatriz Gonzalez
Claudia Castenada
Wallace Elementary
Sally Whitfield
Sonya Moody
Masquenada Johnson
Wallace—Rose Hill High
Edith Sosa
Masquenada Johnson
Warsaw Elementary
Octo Flores
Celia Forehand
Maria Pineda
Warsaw Middle
Jorge Becerra
Consuelo Johnson
Katie Brooks
THE WIDA ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY STANDARDS
There are five WIDA English Language Proficiency (ELP) Standards, which appear in two frameworks: Summative and Formative. The two frameworks can be used for planning curriculum, instruction and assessment of
English language learners (ELLs). The common elements of the two frameworks are the 1) ELP standards, 2)
language domains, 3) grade level clusters and 4) language proficiency levels.
The English Language Proficiency Standards and their Abbreviations
Standard
Standard 1
Standard 2
Standard 3
Standard 4
Standard 5
Abbreviation
English language learners communicate for
Social and Instructional purposes within
the school setting
English language learners communicate
information, ideas and concepts necessary
for academic success in the content area of
Language Arts.
Mathematics
Science
Social Studies
Social and Instructional language
The language of
Language Arts.
The language of
Mathematics
The language of
Science
The language of
Social Studies
THE WIDA ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY STANDARDS
The Language Domains
Each of the five English language proficiency standards encompasses four
language domains that define how ELLs process and use language:
Listening – process, understand, interpret, and evaluate spoken language in a
variety of situations
Speaking – engage in oral communication in a variety of situations for a variety of purposes and audiences
Reading – process, understand, interpret, and evaluate written language,
symbols and text with understanding and fluency
Writing – engage in written communication in a variety of situations for a variety of purposes and audiences
Implementation of WIDA Standards
Sample Lesson Plan Template for ESL Teachers
Teacher _____________________
Date___________________
Period ____________________
Student level(s):
WIDA Standard(s): The Language of
_____________________________________________________
SCOS Topic:
MPI:
Language Objective(s):
Domain(s):
Focus and Review:
Teacher Input:
Guided Practice:
“Independent” Practice:
Closure/demonstration of MPI:
Peer Observation/ Self-Assessment Instrument
Assessing Implementation of WIDA Standards and Best Practice in the Field of ESL
This document is to be filled out partially by a colleague in the field of ESL and partially
by the individual teacher as a means of reflecting on his/her practice. The peer observer
should only initial in the rubric where appropriate for the particular lesson observed.
The teacher may initial any and all areas.
Teacher Name:
Observed by:
Date:
Time:
Grade level:
Proficiency levels:
WIDA Standard(s): (Circle all that apply)
The Language of Language Arts,
The Language of Math, The Language of Science,
The Language of Social Studies, Social and Instructional Language
Domain(s) addressed: (circle all that apply)
Listening
Speaking
Reading
Writing
Specific Language Objective(s):
Addressing: (circle all that apply)
Linguistic Complexity
Vocabulary Usage
Language Control
NCSCOS topic(s):
1= not observed or practiced at this time
2= observed/practiced to some degree
3= clearly and consistently observed/practiced
4= the teacher is a model for others in this area and could be used to train other teachers in this facet of ESL instruction.
Best Practice in General:
Observations /Reflections
1
2
3
4
Comments
Instruction reflects effective practice in general. (For
example: The lesson is well-designed, students are challenged, activities are structured, relevant, purposeful,
and appropriate for students’ levels of readiness, the
lesson addresses different learning styles, and feedback
is timely and appropriate, enthusiastic teacher, integration of technology, etc).
Peer Observation Tool Cont’d.
Best Practice in ESL:
Observations/ Reflections
1
2
3
4
Comments
Teacher demonstrates an understanding of the subject matter being taught (the English language: standard pronunciation and intonation, grammar, spelling, idiomatic expressions, etc…
Teacher gives immediate feedback on students’ questions
and errors. Teacher knows what to correct and what to ignore, gives effective encouragement, and promotes selfcorrection.
Teacher uses effective voice, body language, gestures and
cues.
The classroom environment is conducive to language learning with a low affective filter.
Teacher makes an effort to build upon prior knowledge
(including the first language) and experiences of students
and seeks to create this background knowledge when there is
none.
Students are encouraged to communicate with one another
and with the teacher in the target language.
Each of the four domains is being addressed in the lesson,
though one may receive more emphasis than the others.
It is apparent that the lesson is language driven instead of
content driven.
Students are given a chance to share their learning with the
teacher, with one another, and with their other non- ELL
peers.
Language objective being taught is aligned with individual
student needs as opposed to being selected simply because it
“goes” well with some topic being taught in the regular classroom.
The NCSCOS topic being addressed has yet to be taught—it
is coming up in the near future. Students are being prepared
before the lesson as opposed to being remediated afterward.
Peer Observation Tool Cont’d.
WIDA Standards Implementation (not addressed elsewhere):
Observations/Reflections
1
2
3
4
Comments
Academic language is emphasized (in addition to
conversational language when appropriate).
Teacher uses a variety of supports (sensory, graphic,
and interactive) to make content accessible to students.
The WIDA Standard(s) being addressed is/are apparent to the students and any onlookers.
The teacher addresses all types of language objectives at some point (though not necessarily in the
same lesson): linguistic complexity, language control, and vocabulary usage.
Students are being asked to do tasks consistent with
their proficiency levels (see CAN-DO Descriptors)
and are challenged by asking them to do tasks from
the next level as well.
Teachers ask students to think critically and then
provide appropriate tasks and supports for them to
be able communicate those ideas (regardless of language proficiency).
To be completed by teacher:
Areas I want to improve upon before my next visit:
I am really proud of:
Other Comments? :
ESL Teacher_________________________________________ Date _____________________
Observer___________________________________________ Date_____________________
WIDA Professional Development Dates
2011—2012
School
Date
Presenter
Partial NDE, mix
June 2010 (full day)
Dr. Joy McLaughlin
WES
Oct. 4 2010
“
RHM
Oct. 5, 2010
“
KES
Oct. 6, 2010
“
BFG
Dec. 7, 2010
“
BES
Dec. 8, 2010
“
CES
Dec. 9, 2010
“
ESL Teachers
Jan. 25, 2011
Beth Trujillo
WARE
Feb. 15-16
“
WMS, CMS, EES
Mar. 24, 2011
“
JK
May 10, 17 2011
“
mixed
June 17, 2011
“
NDJS
Sept. 7,15 2011
“
Early College
Sept. 12,14 2011
“
EDHS
Nov. 10,29 2011
“
WRH
Nov 30, Dec.7 2011
“
Types of ESL Service
1
.
Transitional Developmental Spanish Program: The aim of Developmental
Maintenance Bilingual Education is to develop and maintain both students’
primary language as well as English. Students are provided primary language
instruction for a minimum of fifty percent or more or the instructional day as they
simultaneously acquire proficiency in English.
2. Self-contained ESL Program: This is a teaching approach in which limited English
proficient/LEP students receive instruction in English for the majority of the day
with mainstreaming into resource classes (physical education, art, and music/band)
with English speaking peers. The self-contained ESL program cannot serve LEP
students more than two (2) years unless it is an extreme situation. Extreme situations
must be documented by the ESL teacher and reviewed by the School Assistance
Team before third year placement. LEP students can continue to receive language
services through ESL pullout, inclusion, multi-grade classrooms and team teaching
arrangements, etc. Students are also moved into the mainstream education program
when they achieve at or above proficiency level on assessment. These assessments
include formal testing; observations, anecdotal notes, etc.
3. Mainstream Education Program with ESL pullout: Students spend part of the school
day in a mainstream classroom, but are pulled out to receive instruction in English as
second language.
4. Inclusion (Mainstream Education teacher and ESL teacher): Inclusion is a planned
philosophy of instruction for ESL students in which the regular classroom teacher and
ESL teacher work together in one of three distinct ways: co-teaching, consultation,
or classroom support.
Inclusion should not be confused with submersion; the dated practice of placing students in mainstream classes without a planned program of instruction designed by an ESL teacher. Submersion is
not a program model as it is not in compliance with U. S. federal standards as described in the Supreme Court decision, Lau v. Nicholas (Thomas and Collier, 1997). Several planned instructional programs can offer practical ways for implementing the philosophy of inclusion. These programs require
time for planning and are described in more detail below:
1. Co-Teaching
The ESL teacher and mainstream education teacher share the responsibility for planning
and teaching both the LEP students and the students in the regular curriculum. Coteaching can be accomplished in many different ways. One way of co-teaching is called a
duet in which the teachers take turns teaching. The regular education teacher generally
takes responsibility for instructional strategies. Another co-teaching method is called
parallel teaching in which the ESL teacher and the general education teacher divide the
class into two groups. A third method of co-teaching called shadow teaching involves the
ESL teacher reteaching the concepts taught by the general education teacher to the ESL
students. A final approach to co-teaching involves dividing the students into skill
groups; the ESL teacher and the general education teacher work with various groups according to skill level.
Consultation
The ESL teacher consults with the general education teacher on a regular basis to assist
the general education teacher in planning instruction for the ESL students in his/her
classroom. The ESL teacher models strategies, presents demonstration lessons, provides
resources, and monitors ESL student achievement.
Classroom Support
A paraprofessional works under the supervision of the ESL teacher and the general education teacher to provide assistance to identified ESL students.
Scheduled ESL Classes: ESL students are placed into ESL classes as part of
their instructional day. The ESL teacher is responsible for developing the ESL students’ academic, cognitive, and linguistic abilities simultaneously.
The ESL program is provided through various delivery models based on the student’s proficiency level. Instructional placement minutes per day will be as follows according to the proficiency level as recommended by the ESL teacher and reviewed by the principal or his/her designee. Each school will strive for the instructional minutes per day as outlined below.
Grade 1
Level 1
Kindergarten
30
Grades 3-6
Grades 6-8
Grades 9-12
60-80
Grad
e2
45-60
45-60
120-180
120-180
Level 2
*
45-60
45-60
45-60
45-60
90-120
Level 3
*
*
*
*
*
*
Level 4
*
*
*
*
*
*
These students’ needs might be better met by using a different type of
program such as co-teaching or consultation in addition to or instead of
scheduled ESL classes.
Consultations, Exiting and Monitoring
To exit the program, the student must meet the Comprehensive Objective Composite (COC) as
set by the state. The COC defines the attainment of English language proficiency by the student reaching an overall composite score of 4.8 or above, with at least a 4.0 on the reading subtest and at least a 4.0 on the writing subtest on the ACCESS for ELLs for kindergarten students
and Tier B or Tier C for grades 1-12.
A requirement of NCLB Title III is to monitor transitional (exited) students’ academic achievement and program for a period of two years after exit from our program. The primary purpose
is to monitor a former ELL’s academic achievement after exit and to ensure that he/she is continuing to progress and be successful with encountering difficulty as result of English language
skills. Monitoring of student progress shall begin as soon as the student exits our program.
Grades, local and state assessments, work samples, and other relevant academic achievement
records are to be viewed. During the two year monitoring period, any student encountering
academic difficulty that is determined as a result of English language skills may be reclassified
and placed back in our program if needed. Content and ESL teachers’ input is critical in the
process.
Major Instructional Resources
Currently Employed
Rosetta Stone
Finish Line for ELL’s
Open Book—Middle & High Schools
English in a Flash—Elementary School
Oxford Picture Dictionary
IPAD and Applications
Under Consideration
Teacher Created Material Technology Assisted Learning
National Geographic Reach—Elementary E-Books & E-Assessments
National Geographic Inside—Middle E-Books & E-Assessments
National Geographic Edge—High School E-Books & E-Assessments
Imagine Learning English (K-5)
The Exit Documentation form must be completed and signed. A copy must be sent home and a
copy kept in the cumulative folder. These students will not be served in the ESL classroom,
but will be monitored for two years after exiting. Each quarter the mainstream teacher(s) will
complete the Monitor Student Progress Sheet, reporting the student’s difficulties and successes to the ESL teacher. At any time, if both teachers agree that there is a second language
acquisition problem, the student may re-enter the ESL program and remain until he/she is
able to perform successfully in the mainstream classroom. This student will not be considered
LEP and will not count toward allotments.
An important element that must be considered is communication with parents. Parents must
be notified of the student’s progress and any evaluation to reclassify the student into the program if monitoring of the student’s academic achievement progress identified the need for
continued program instruction.
It is important for schools to note that exiting ESL does not ensure grade-level competency.
Students who have exited have shown that they have the language skills needed to succeed in
the mainstream classroom. All aspects of classroom performance (attendance, participation,
behavior, obligations outside the classroom) should be considered before a student re-enters
the ESL program.
Students who are performing well in the classroom but have not yet met exit criteria may be
put on consultative status. The student is still LEP and must be monitored by the ESL teacher.
He/she continues to be assessed on the ACCESS until meeting the exit criteria.
Students who have a certified exceptionality may be exempt from the normal ESL exiting
guidelines. The members of the IEP team must agree that second language acquisition is not
interfering with the student’s learning. If all IEP team members agree, the team should compose a letter detailing their decision to remove a student from LEP status. All members should
sign the letter and place it in the student’s cumulative folder. Once the child is no longer classified LEP he/she will no longer be tested using the ACCESS. (Entrance/Exit Criteria – Exit
Documentation Form)
Type of ESL Service By School
2011—2012
Scheduled
Course
Self(High
Total PopuContained
School
lation
Consultative
ESL
Pull-Out
Only)
Inclusion
School
Current LEP
Population
BES
86
934
37.0
0
54
BFG
404
929
226.0
0
182
0
CES
27
622
2.0
0
25
2
CMS
75
515
25.0
0
38
12
EDHS
54
865
22.0
0
0
EES
66
370
20.0
0
24
JKHS
70
614
19
0
0
KES
40
479
1.0
0
33
6
NDE
214
641
89
0
102
23
ND Jr/Sr
66
500
27.0
0
22
RHM
313
682
107
126
80
0
WALE
140
754
75
0
65
0
WRH
34
545
20.0
0
0
WARE
159
500
100.0
0
59
0
WMS
39
213
10.0
0
26
3
DECHS
2
32
0
22
25
10
26
7
14
2
Flow Chart for Identifying and Serving LEP Students
Exiting Procedures for LEP Students
Consultations, Exiting and Monitoring
To exit the program, the student must meet the Comprehensive Objective Composite (COC) as set by the state.
The COC defines the attainment of English language proficiency by the student reaching an overall composite
score of 4.8 or above, with at least a 4.0 on the reading subtest and at least a 4.0 on the writing subtest on the
ACCESS for ELLs for kindergarten students and Tier B or Tier C for grades 1-12.
A requirement of NCLB Title III is to monitor transitional (exited) students’ academic achievement and program
for a period of two years after exit from our program. The primary purpose is to monitor a former ELL’s academic achievement after exit and to ensure that he/she is continuing to progress and be successful with encountering difficulty as result of English language skills. Monitoring of student progress shall begin as soon as the
student exits our program. Grades, local and state assessments, work samples, and other relevant academic
achievement records are to be viewed. During the two year monitoring period, any student encountering academic difficulty that is determined as a result of English language skills may be reclassified and placed back in
our program if needed. Content and ESL teachers’ input is critical in the process.
The Exit Documentation form must be completed and signed. A copy must be sent home and a copy kept in the
cumulative folder. These students will not be served in the ESL classroom, but will be monitored for two years
after exiting. Each quarter the mainstream teacher(s) will complete the Monitor Student Progress Sheet, reporting the student’s difficulties and successes to the ESL teacher. At any time, if both teachers agree that there is a
second language acquisition problem, the student may re-enter the ESL program and remain until he/she is able
to perform successfully in the mainstream classroom. This student will not be considered LEP and will not
count toward allotments.
An important element that must be considered is communication with parents. Parents must be notified of the
student’s progress and any evaluation to reclassify the student into the program if monitoring of the student’s
academic achievement progress identified the need for continued program instruction.
It is important for schools to note that exiting ESL does not ensure grade-level competency. Students who have
exited have shown that they have the language skills needed to succeed in the mainstream classroom. All aspects of classroom performance (attendance, participation, behavior, obligations outside the classroom) should
be considered before a student re-enters the ESL program.
Students who are performing well in the classroom but have not yet met exit criteria may be put on consultative
status. The student is still LEP and must be monitored by the ESL teacher. He/she continues to be assessed on
the ACCESS until meeting the exit criteria.
Students who have a certified exceptionality may be exempt from the normal ESL exiting guidelines. The members of the IEP team must agree that second language acquisition is not interfering with the student’s learning.
If all IEP team members agree, the team should compose a letter detailing their decision to remove a student
from LEP status. All members should sign the letter and place it in the student’s cumulative folder. Once the
child is no longer classified LEP he/she will no longer be tested using the ACCESS. (Entrance/Exit Criteria – Exit
Documentation Form)
Parent Communication & Involvement
The district and schools provide the parents of LEP students with notices containing the same information
that is provided to the parents of their non-LEP or English-only peers. To be adequate, such notices are furnished in a language appropriate to the parents, a parent’s native language.
The district and schools provide all written information in a timely manner to all parents in each family’s
preferred language(s), as shown on the Home Language Survey (HLS). The ESL Director is responsible for
district communication to the parents; the Principal is responsible for the school communication to the parents in the appropriate language.
The school informs all parents of the purpose of the DCS program for LEP students, and other programs and
special opportunity programs offered. This information is communicated in a timely manner in the preferred language of the parent(s) as indicated on the Home Language Survey (HLS) or the enrollment information. Communication occurs upon enrollment via information in the students/parent handbook, and in a
cover letter with the Home Language Survey. This information is translated into Spanish and other languages, as needed.
The district and schools maintain a resource list of qualified translators to translate documents for specific
language groups. The district and schools utilize these qualified translators instead of utilizing other instructional personnel fluent in English and the language of the parents to avoid instructional disruptions
during regular school hours.
Title
Personnel
ESL Coordinator
Phillip Middleton
District Liaison Translator
Elizabeth Straughn
Parent Liaison Translator
Edgardo Fletcha
Building Level Administrator
Principals

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title III

Transcription

Similar documents

ESL-- Model Standards for Adult Education Programs

Danny A. Robertozzi, Ed.D Bryan A. Russell Yelena A. Horré June

Directions from NCTAMS to Helemano Elementary School

English Language Teaching Resources on the Internet

PDF - Absolute Sounds

International House CAM Application Form Please complete the

Castori Elementary School - Twin Rivers Unified School District

St. Thomas More School

Learn about Electronic Shelf Labels

Go Beyond Providing Translations to Building Strong Parental