english language development (eld) intervention...

Presentation Overview

Context

Curriculum

Field Work

Partnerships & Parent Involvement

Teacher Professional Development

Evaluation Process

Unity Conference Presentation: California Chicano-Latino Intersegmental Convocation/California Latino School Boards Association October 1, 2010 - LAX Sheraton © 2010 No part of this presentation may be reproduced or repurposed without written permission from the presenters.

Context

Lennox, CA:

Unincorporated area – 1.1 sq. miles

Population of 22,950 with 5,235 housing units

Lennox School District:

5 elementary schools

1 Middle School

1 Charter High School

Unity Conference Presentation: California Chicano-Latino Intersegmental Convocation/California Latino School Boards Association October 1, 2010 - LAX Sheraton © 2010 No part of this presentation may be reproduced or repurposed without written permission from the presenters.

Purpose/Rationale

Large population of English Language Learners

High numbers of Beginning & Early Intermediate levels of English Proficiency according to CELDT

Far Below Basic & Below Basic in English Language Arts according to CSTs

Had been in school for 4 years & not making progress

Unity Conference Presentation: California Chicano-Latino Intersegmental Convocation/California Latino School Boards Association October 1, 2010 - LAX Sheraton

© 2010 No part of this presentation may be reproduced or repurposed without written permission from the presenters.

“Long-Term English Learner”

(LTELs)

Concept of “Long Term English Learners” is defined in the literature primarily for middle and high school English Learners

59% of secondary ELs in the California are “LTELs”

California school districts do not have a shared definition of LTELs

“Few districts have designated programs or formal approaches designed for Long Term English Learners” (Olsen, 2010)

(Olsen & Jaramillo, 1999; Freeman & Freeman, 2002; Menken & Kleyn, 2009, 2010; Olsen, 2010)

Unity Conference Presentation: California Chicano-Latino Intersegmental Convocation/California Latino School Boards Association October 1, 2010 - LAX Sheraton © 2010 No part of this presentation may be reproduced or repurposed without written permission from the presenters

What is the Program? Design, pilot and implement a district-wide supplemental

intervention program focused on English language learners.

Project-Based After School Program: Journalism Theme

11 Week Cycle

After school program [2 days/week for 2 hours/day in 5 elementary schools and 1 middle school (6th grade only)]

Focused on 4 domains: Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing

Small Group Instruction: 4 to 7 students per certified teacher (2-4 teachers/site)

Friday is for planning (1-2 hours)


Partnerships

Parents & Students

Teachers / Administrators

Community

District Personnel / School Board

University Partners / Evaluators

Weingart Foundation


Student Eligibility

English Language Learners in Grades 3 - 6

Have been in school for at least 4 years

Are a Beginning or Early Intermediate level of English proficiency (CELDT)

Are Far Below Basic or Below Basic in CA Language Arts standardized test (CSTs)

Have received multiple intervention services


Goals: Results:

Provide differentiated, data-driven instruction in skills that lead to the acquisition of English to a targeted group

Create a model of intervention to be used District-wide

Involve parents to support English acquisition

Increase student achievement in California Content Standards, API, and CST scores

Raise students’ enthusiasm for learning and English acquisition

Expand the number of parents who are partners in their child’s education


Why the program works? Interactive/Engaging

Purpose/Audience - Accountable

Broadens student’s experiences & prior knowledge

Small Group Instruction- Target missing skills

Balanced: Includes the 4 domains

Informal & Formal Assessments

Conduct Research/Prepare Questions

Field Trips/Interview

Write Articles - Writing Process (Graphic Organizers)

Edit their Writing

Type Article/Publish

Distribute Newspaper

Incentive: Include Technology


Teacher Professional Development

Teacher Collaboration – Developed Curriculum

Share Strategies, Modifications

Observations

Bi-annual Trainings & Weekly Planning Meetings

Teacher voice, input, feedback

Evidence from Research Practice

District Professional Development


Curriculum


Field Work

Karla interviews an LMU basketball

player

Student journalists interview a giraffe

specialist at the L.A. Zoo


PROCESS EVALUATION APPROACH

STAGES OF PROCESS EVALUATION

• Form Collaborative Relationships

• Determine Program Components

• Determine Methodology (Evaluation Design)

• Develop Logic Model

• Consider a Management Information System

• Implement Data Collection and Analysis

• Write Report


LENNOX SCHOOL DISTRICT EVALUATION DESIGN

PROJECT GOAL

To develop and operate an

Intervention Program to improve the English

skills and academic achievement of long-term English Learners

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

REPLICABLE MODEL

PARENT/COMMUNITY

INVOLVEMENT

FORMATIVE

ASSESSMENT SUMMATIVE

ASSESSMENT

Collaborative Conversations

Program Modifications

Objective #1: ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT

• ELD Intervention Data

Profiles

• Project-based Writing Tasks

(Lennox Voices)

• Small group student feedback

sessions

• Monitoring progress toward

criteria for Redesignation

• CST English Language Arts

Data

• CELDT Annual Data

• IPT (Pre and post)

• District-wide Writing Tests

STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS # of students

ENROLLED

# of students COMPLETED

Girls Boys Gr 3 Gr 4 Gr 5 Gr. 6 Special Education

RSP

Spring 2008 Cycle 1 One School: Felton

24

24 13 11 10 8 6 0 6 5

Fall 2008 Cycle 2 Three Schools: Felton –LMS 6 -Jefferson

70 (12 return

participants)

55 27 43 14 25 14 17 9 7

Spring 2009 Cycle 3 Six Schools: Felton – LMS 6 – Jefferson Moffett – Buford - Huerta

105 (31 return

participants)

80 (4 students

L’d out; data for 76

students)

52 53 48 28 14 15 15 9

Fall 2009 Cycle 4 Six Schools: Felton – LMS 6 – Jefferson Moffett – Buford - Huerta

94 80 50 44 41 21 18 14 13 7

Spring 2010 Cycle 5 Six Schools: Felton – LMS 6 – Jefferson Moffett – Buford - Huerta

99 75 43 32 39 13 14 9 3 4

TOTALS

392 314 185 183 152 95 66 55 46 32

CELDT Results – Cycle 3 California English Language Development Test

Pre-Program Post-Program 76 students from 5 Elementary Schools & 1 Middle School - Grades 3-6

1 = Beginning English Language Proficiency Level 2 = Early Intermediate 3 = Intermediate 4 = Early Advanced 5 = Advanced

CELDT - Overall- 09-10

4%

19%

69%

7%

1%

1

2

3

4

5

IPT Results – Cycle 4 The Idea Proficiency Test (IPT) (Ballard, Tighe, and Dalton, 1979, 1982, 1984, 1991, 2005)

Pre-program Post-program 77 students from 5 Elementary Schools & 1 Middle School (LMS) - Grades 3-6 1 = Beginning 2 = Early Intermediate 3 = Intermediate 4 = Early Advanced 5 = Advanced

IPT-Overall - Pre

51%

43%

6%

0%

0%

1

2

3

4

5

IPT-Overall-Post

8%

43%39%

10% 0%

1

2

3

4

5

CST English Language Arts Results – Cycle 3 California Standards Test, Spring 2008 results versus Spring 2009

Pre-program Post-program 76 students from 5 Elementary Schools & 1 Middle School - Grades 3-6

1 = Far Below Basic 2 = Below Basic 3 = Basic 4 = Proficient 5 = Advanced

CST 07-08 (C3)

34%

39%

27%

0%

0%

1

2

3

4

5

CST 08-09 (C3)

20%

36%

37%

6% 1%

1

2

3

4

5

Reclassified Fluent English

Proficient (RFEP) – Lennox SD

YEAR Students Reclassified as FEP DISTRICT-WIDE

Percent of English Learner Population DISTRICT-WIDE

2006-07 467 9.7%

2007-08 415 8.8%

2008-09 877 19.8%


RFEP: Road to Reclassification Elementary Level Criteria CRITERIA #1: CST scaled score 325 or above (Basic Level)

CRITERIA #2: Overall CELDT score is EA (Early Advanced) or above and CELDT L/S/R/W subtests are Intermediate or above

CRITERIA #3: District writing test score of 3 or above

# of Students who

Met CST Criteria

# of Students who

Met CELDT Criteria

# of Students who

Met District Writing Test

Criteria

# of Students who Met

all 3 criteria

Cycle 1

6 5 2 2

Comparison

Group

4

3

1

0 Cycle 2

7

5

4

2 Cycle 3

5

3

3

2 Cycle 4

TBD – Spring 2010 results

TBD – Fall 2010 results

TBD

TBD

Cycle 5

TBD – Spring 2010 results

TBD – Fall 2010 results

Objective #2: REPLICABLE MODEL

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT SUMMATIVE

ASSESSMENT

Formative feedback through scheduled

discussion sessions about:

• Program Description & Timeline

• Modifications to Program Design

• Professional Development

Components

• Implementation Calendar

• Link between Intervention Program

and “regular day” classroom instruction

• Teacher Implementation

Survey (Content Analysis)

• Program Manual (Content

Analysis)


TEACHER DEMOGRAPHICS CATEGORY RESULTS

Years Teaching 14.89 Mean (Average)

Years Teaching

in Lennox

14.11 Mean (Average) – Experience from Pre-K-Adult (Majority 5th grade, 61%)

Type of Program 54.5% teach in Structured English Immersion, 9.1% in Bilingual, and 36.4% in Mainstream

Type

of Credential

89% Multiple Subject

11%Special Education

Additional

Authorization

89% BCLAD; 11% CLAD

Highest Degree 100% hold a Master’s Degree

Ethnicity 78% Hispanic/Latino; 11% White/Anglo; 1 declined to state

Gender 82.4% Female – 17.6% Male

Age Range 33.3% between 31-35 years old

22.2% between 36-40 years old

16.7% between 26-30 and the rest 41 and older

Spanish

Language

Fluency

88.9% speak Spanish well or very well

88.2% read Spanish well or very well

77.7% write Spanish well or very well


Teacher Survey:

RIGOROUS & RELEVANT CURRICULUM

Definition: The curriculum is cognitively complex, coherent, relevant, challenging, and appropriate for linguistically diverse populations.

Mean Score

2008-09 – 2.78 2009-10 - 2.76

What decisions do you make about the delivery of curriculum to ensure that you meet you students’ needs? Scaffolding Use reading material at instructional level High Expectations & Modeling (provide examples of product

(newspaper) Survey students to determine needs Use ELD reading/writing levels to differentiate instruction

Self-reported Rating Scale: 1- Never 2- Sometimes 3- Often Unity Conference Presentation: California Chicano-Latino Intersegmental Convocation/California Latino School Boards Association October 1, 2010 - LAX Sheraton © 2010 No part of this presentation may be reproduced or repurposed without written permission from the presenters

Teacher Survey:

CONNECTIONS Definition: Teachers are mindful about providing opportunities for

students to link content to their lives, histories, and realities in order to create change.

Mean Score

2008-09 – 2.88 2009-10 – 2.89

What strategies do you use to help ELs make connections to content or daily lives? Real life connections Discuss current events Connections from their community Ask students about prior knowledge (KWL charts) QEIA strategies Use videos and books to illustrate content and connect to lives

Self-reported Rating Scale: 1- Never 2- Sometimes 3- Often


Teacher Survey:

COMPREHENSIBILITY Definition: Instruction allows for maximum student understanding and

teachers utilize effective strategies to help students access content.

Mean Score 2008-09 – 2.94 2009-10 - 2.63

What strategies do you use to make sure that students understand what you are teaching? Students restate/retell information Use signals (Thumbs up, middle, down) Thinking Map frames to scaffold Use L1 to explain Use visuals, realia and technology Think-pair-share Ask questions Informal assessments and observations



Teacher Survey:

INTERACTIONS

Definition: Varied participation structures allow for interactions that maximize engagement, leadership opportunities, and access to the

curriculum.

Mean Score 2008-09 – 2.91 2009-10 – 2.64

How do you vary the interactions and/or grouping in your after school ELD Intervention classroom to promote maximum engagement and differentiated instruction? Think-Pair/share Round Table Use homogenous & heterogenous groupings Change groupings for flexibility Peer tutoring Group by interest and abilities Because of small class size in Intervention program can individualize

instruction



Objective #3: PARENT/COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT

Formative feedback through

scheduled discussion sessions

about:

• Parent/Family Involvement Plan

Description & Timeline

• Connection between district-

wide/school-wide parent

involvement plan and Intervention

plan

•Parent Survey (Quantitative &

Qualitative Analysis)


PARENT DEMOGRAPHICS Category Results

N = 88

Gender 22.7% male

77.3% female

Age Majority between 31-40 (59.3%)

17.4% between 22-30

19.8% over 41

3.5% under 21

Ethnicity 100% identified themselves as Latino/Hispanic

Language (s) Spoken in the Home 67% reported speaking only Spanish

29.6% reported speaking Spanish/English

3.4% reported speaking only English

Number of Children in Lennox

School District

63.2% have 2-3 children in Lennox SD

25.3% have only 1 child in Lennox SD

11.5% have 4 or more children in Lennox SD

Number of Children in ELD

Intervention Program

82.8% have 1 child in ELD Intervention Program

15% have 2-3 children in ELD Intervention Program

2.3% reported having NO children in program

Knowledge of child’s participation in

programs for English Learners

(yes/no response)

76.7% - yes

12.8% - no

10.5% - “I don’t know.”

OVERALL SATISFACTION

Using a 5-point

scale,

1 = unacceptable

5 = very well

Parents’ Overall Rating of

District Support

Parents’ Overall Rating of

ELD Intervention Program

Support

ELD Intervention

Program Parent

Respondents

N=88

Mean % Grade Mean % Grade

4.28 96 A 4.10 82 B

Lennox School District ELD Intervention Program Parent Satisfaction


PROGRAM COMPONENTS

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

Parent Rating - Scale 1-5, Low to High

Parent Rating - Scale 1-5,Low to High

PROGRAM COMPONENTS


OPEN RESPONSES Question: What helped your child the most?

COMMON THEMES:

MOTIVATION – CONFIDENCE INCREASED ENGAGEMENT – RELEVANT CURRICULUM

“La pasión de mi hija [en aprender inglés] viene del periódico (My daughter’s passion to learn English comes from the newspaper).”

“El ahora se comunica más y se espresa más seguro [en inglés] – He now communicates more and expresses himself with more confidence, in English.”


REFLECTIONS MAIN MESSAGE:

Focus on long-term English Learner student achievement with an emphasis on:

Vision and Distributed Leadership

Relevant & Differentiated Curriculum

Partnerships

Reflective Practice

Evaluation Processes


Thank you!

Contact Information: Rosalinda Barajas, M.S. [email protected] Magaly Lavadenz, Ph.D. [email protected] Elvira G. Armas, Ed.D. [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]



Research on LTELs Freeman, Y. & Freeman, D. with Mercuri, S. (2002). Closing the

achievement gap: How to reach limited-formal-schooling and long-term English learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Menken, K. & Kleyn, T. (2009). The Difficult Road for Long-Term English Learners, Educational Leadership, 66:7.

Menken, K. & Kleyn, T. (2010). The long-term impact of subtractive schooling in the educational experiences of secondary English language learners. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, v. 13, no. 4, July 2010, 399-417.

Olsen, L. (2010). Reparable Harm: Fulfilling the Unkept Promise of Educational Opportunity for California’s Long Term English Learners. Californians Together: Long Beach, CA. www.californianstogether.org

Olsen, L. & Jaramillo (1999) Turning the Tides of Exclusion: A Guide for Educators and Advocates for Immigrant Students. Oakland, CA: California Tomorrow.


http://www.californianstogether.org/

english language development (eld) intervention...

Documents