a .- RECEIVED TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 February 7, 2002 Ann Marshall, ODM FEB 1 2 2002 (SnCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING bl-i FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: 2000-2001 ESL Program Evaluation We are attaching a copy of the 2000-2001 ESL program evaluation. Please share it also with Horace Smith. We are rather pleased with the findings. Weve come a long way. Let us know if you have questions. BAL/adg Attachment frtn tJlSC) i-it-IZ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: PREPARED BY: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ^^onnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: February 28, 2002 SUBJECT: Program Evaluation: Alternative Language Program Background Information A part of the Districts Commitment to Resolve with the Office for Civil Rights in 1999 was to conduct an annual program evaluation of the Alternative Language Program and to modify the programs and services based on the findings. The first program evaluation was presented to the Board of Education in August 2000 and submitted to OCR in October 2000. The second annual evaluation is now ready for Board review. Eddie McCoy was assigned the lead responsibility for writing the program evaluation in fall 1999. Other staff (Karen Broadnax, Ed Williams, Ken Savage, and Bonnie Lesley) have worked with her to verify data and the overall accuracy of the report. Mark Vasquez served as consultant to the process. Fiscal Impact No fiscal impact is anticipated. Recommendation That the Board of Education review and provide feedback to the ESL program evaluation. BAL/adg Attachment cc: Karen Broadnax Dr. Eddie McCoy I The Second Annual Program Evaluation for Alternative Language Program (ALP) School Year: 2000-2001 (Introduction and Key Findings/Recommendations) January 30, 2002 Division of Instruction Little Rock School District Prepared by Eddie Williams-McCoy Karen Broadnax Dr. Ed Williams Ken Savage Dr. Bonnie Lesley Mark Vasquez, Consultant T Table of Contents I I 1 I Section I: introduction Introduction Program Goals and Objectives Research Questions Methodology Evaluation Design and Focus Assessments Outline of Program Evaluation Section II: Policies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance i I Top Ten Languages of PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE Students PHLOTE Students LEP Students FEPE Students Policy, Procedural, and Program Changes Program Objective 1 (Student Identification) Program Objective 2 (Assessment) Program Objective 3 (Program Placement) Organization and Role of LPACs Student Assignment Program Objective 4 (ESL Program) Curriculum Standards and Benchmarks Assessments ESL InstructionElementary Schools ESL InstructionMiddle Schools ESL InstructionHigh Schools Program Objective 5 (Staffing/Development) ESL Training Program (Elementary) ESL Training Program (Secondary) Schedule for ESL Training Summary of ESL Training Participation ESL Endorsement Program Summary of ESL Endorsement Participation Program Objective 6 (Instructional Materials) Program Objective 7 (Program Exit) Program Objective 8 (Parental Involvement) Program Objective 9 (Special Programs) Special Education Gifted and Talented Special Programs by PHLOTE and Grades Third Grade G/T PHLOTE Students Fourth Grade G/T PHLOTE Students Fifth Grade G/T PHLOTE Students 1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5 5-6 7-9 7 8 8-9 9 9-10 10 10-12 11 11-12 13-16 13-14 14 14-15 15 16 17-19 17 17 18 18 18-19 19 21 22 22 22-27 23 23-24 24 24 24-25 25r- Middle-Level G/T and Special Education PHLOTE Students Special Education PHLOTE Students GfT PHLOTE Students Senior-Level G/T and Special Education Special Education PHLOTEs (9-10) G/T PHLOTEs (9-10) Special Educatoin PHLOTEs (11-12) G/T PHLOTEs (11-12) Program Objective 10 (Exited LEPs) Students Who Exited Prior to Fall 2000 Students Who Exited in 2000-2001 Program Objective 11 (Program Evaluation) Program Objective 12 (Student Records) Program Cost Section III: English Language Acquisition of LEP and FEPE Students Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten Performance Overall Performance of PHLOTEs Kindergarten PHLOTES with PreK Kindergarten PHLOTES without PreK Overall Performance of LEPs Kindergarten LEPs with PreK Kindergarten LEPs without PreK Kindergarten FEPEs Kindergarten PerformanceTwo Years Overall Performance of PHLOTEs Overall Performance of LEPs Summary and Conclusions First Grade PerformanceTwo Years Overall Performance of PHLOTEs Performance of LEPs Summary and Conclusions Second Grade PerformanceTwo Years Overall Performance of PHLOTEs Performance of LEPs Performance of FEPEs Summary and Conclusions Newcomer Centers School Enrollment by PHLOTE Elementary Newcomer Centers Elementary Non-Newcomer Centers DRA Results by Schools DRA by Newcomer Centers DRA by Non-Newcomer Centers Overall Performance of PHLOTEs 25 25 26 26 26 27 27 27 28-34 29-32 32-34 34-35 35-36 36 37-38 38- 38-39 39 39-40 40 40-41 41 42 42-44 42-43 43 43-44 44-45 44 44-45 45 45-47 46 46-47 47 47 48- 48 48-49 49-50 50-54 50 50-51 51-52 iiOverall Performance of LEPs Conclusions Achievement Level Tests 52-54 54 54-55 Data Interpretation for LEPs and FEPEs 55 ALT ReadingGrade 2 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 2 LEPs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 3 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 3 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 3 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 4 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 4 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 4 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 5 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 5 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 5 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 6 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 6 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 6 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 7 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 7 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 7 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 8 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 8 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 8 FEPEs ALT ReadingGrade 9 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 9 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 9 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 10 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 10 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 10 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions Conclusions
ALT Reading 55-56 56 56 56-57 57 58 58-59 59-60 60 60-61 61 61-62 62-63 63 63 63-64 64-65 65 65 65-66 66-67 67 67 68 68-69 69-70 70 71 71-72 72 72-73 73 73-74 74 74 ALT Language Usage ALT Language Grade 2 LEPs ALT Language Grade 2 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 3 LEPs ALT Language Grade 3 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 4 LEPs ALT Language Grade 4 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 5 LEPs 74-75 75 75 75-76 76 76-77 77 78 iiiALT Language Grade 5 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 6 LEPs ALT Language Grade 6 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 7 LEPs ALT Language Grade 7 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 8 LEPs ALT Language Grade 8 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 9 LEPs ALT Language Grade 9 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 10 LEPs ALT Language Grade 10 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 11 LEPs ALT Language Grade 11 FEPEs 78-79 79 79-80 80 80-81 81 81-82 82 82-83 83 83 83 83-84 Section IV: Content Area Knowledge and Skills of LEP and FEPE Students ALT Mathematics Grade 2 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 2 FEPEs ALT Mathematics Grade 3 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 3 FEPEs ALT Mathematics Grade 4 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 4 FEPEs ALT Mathematics Grade 5 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 5 FEPEs ALT Mathematics Grade 6 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 6 FEPEs ALT Mathematics Grade 7 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 7 FEPEs ALT Mathematics Grade 8 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 8 FEPEs ALT Algebra I LEPs and FEPEs ALT Algebra 11 LEPs and FEPEs ALT Geometry LEPs and FEPEs 85 85 86 86-87 87 87-88 88 88-89 89 89-90 90 90 91 91 91-92 92 92 ALT Biology LEPs and FEPEs ALT Physics LEPs and FEPEs ALT Chemistry LEPs and FEPEs 93 93 93-94 Stanford Achievement Test, 9* Edition Grade 5 PHLOTEs Grade 5 LEPs Grade 5 FEPEs Grade 7 PHLOTEs Grade 7 LEPs Grade 7 FEPEs Grade 10 PHLOTEs Grade 10 LEPs Grade 10 FEPEs 94-95 95 95-96 96 96-97 97 97 97-98 98 98 ivArkansas Benchmark Examinations Primary and Middle Level Definitions Grade 4 PHLOTEs Grade 4 LEPs Grade 4 FEPEs Grade 8 PHLOTEs Grade 8 LEPs Grade 8 FEPEs 99 99-100 100 100-101 101 101 101-102 102 Section V: Behavioral Performance Indicators of LEP and FEPE Students Background Information on PHLOTEs in District Grade Distribution of PHLOTEs Grade Distribution of LEPs and FEPEs Six Highest PHLOTE Student Enrollments School Enrollment by LEP and FEPE PreKindergarten PHLOTEs Kindergarten PHLOTEs First Grade PHLOTEs Second Grade PHLOTEs Third Grade PHLOTEs Fourth Grade PHLOTEs Fifth Grade PHLOTEs Sixth Grade PHLOTEs Seventh Grade PHLOTEs Eighth Grade PHLOTEs Ninth Grade PHLOTEs Tenth Grade PHLOTEs Eleventh Grade PHLOTEs Twelfth Grade PHLOTEs 103 103-104 104 105 105 106 106 106-107 107 108 108-109 109-110 110-111 111 112 112-113 113-114 114-115 115-116 Graduation Rates for PHLOTEs Summary Who Are the Dropouts? 116 116 116-117 Section VI
Key Findings and Recommendations Research Question 1 (Policies, Procedures, Programs) Research Question 2 (Special Opportunity Programs) Research Question 3 (Quality of Instruction) Research Question 4 (Learning English) Effect of PreKindergarten Two-Year Comparison of Kindergarten DRAs Two-Year Comparison of Grade 1 DRAs Two-Year Comparison of Grade 2 DRAs Summary of K-2 Findings 118 118 118-119 119-125 119-120 120 120-121 121 121 VComparison of K-2 Students in Newcomer and Non-Newcomer Center Schools Summary of Findings 121-122 122 Cohort Performance on ALT Reading Summary of Findings 122-123 123 Cohort Performance on ALT Language Usage Summary of Findings 123-124 124 Stanford Achievement Test Summary of Findings 124-125 125 Arkansas Benchmark Examinations Summary of Findings Conclusions 125 125 125 Research Question 5 (Content Knowledge and Skills) Cohort Performance on ALT Mathematics Summary of Findings 125-127 125-126 126 ALT High School Mathematics/Science Summary of Findings 126-127 127 Stanford Achievement TestMathematics Summary of Findings 127 127 Arkansas Benchmark Examinations Summary of Findings Conclusions 127 127 127 Research Question 6 (Behavioral Indicators) Attendance Discipline and Suspensions Retention Dropouts Graduation Rate Summary of Findings 127-129 128 128 128 128 128 128-129 Recommendations 129-130 References 131 vi Second Annual Evaluation of the Little Rock School Districts Alternative Language Program Section I: Introduction This Second Annual Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) Alternative Language Program builds on the information provided in an earlier report that was submitted to the Board of Education in August 2000 and to the Dallas Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in October 2000. The report for school year 2000-2001 is a part of the Little Rock School Districts continuing efforts to meet the requirements outlined in the LRSDs Commitment to Resolve (CTR) agreement with the Office for Civil Rights (September 29, 1999), to comply with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and to meet the requirements of the Arkansas Department of Education. The requirement to conduct an annual evaluation of the Alternative Language Program was formally established by the Board of Education in its adoption of Policy IHBEA: English as a Second Language, on November 18,1999. Specific requirements and procedures were delineated in the administrative regulations (IHBEA-R) as adopted in October 1999 and amended in November 2001. This report also is in compliance with the Boards Policy IL: Evaluation of Instructional Programs, adopted on March 22, 2001, that requires program evaluations to include valuable insights into how programs are operating, the extent to which they are serving the intended purpose of increasing student achievement, the strengths and weaknesses, the cost effectiveness, and directions for the future. Program Goals and Objectives According to the Districts Administrative Regulation IHBEA-R: English as a Second Language (adopted in September 1999 and amended in November 2001), the first goal of the ESL program is to enable identified students to master English language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and comprehension/understanding) and content area concepts and skills so that the students are able to participate effectively in the regular program as quickly as possible. The second goal of the program is to provide identified students with the cultural literacy necessary for them to feel comfortable in participating in the school, community, and greater community. To reach those goals, the District also established twelve program objectives. Each one addressed a policy, procedural, or program requirement mandated by federal, state, and/or local governance bodies. They are as follows: 1 I 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. To implement and maintain consistent procedures for student identification processes. To assess all students who have a primary home language other than English (PHLOTE), regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for entry and placement into an ESL program. To diagnose student needs and provide appropriate ESL standards/ benchmarks, instruction, and assessments to meet identified students individual needs for English-language instruction, for understandable instruction in other content areas, and for positive self-concept and identification with personal/family cultural heritages. To hire, train, and continually develop highly motivated, sensitive, and caring ESL teachers and other staff to provide effective ESL instruction, interact one-to- one with the identified students and their families, and serve as liaisons between school and relevant community. To provide appropriately aligned instructional materials. To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for exit from an ESL program. To provide for parental/family involvement in the school setting to support improved student learning. 9. To provide equitable access to other district programs and services, including special education and gifted/talented education and all procedural safeguards. 10. To monitor the progress of all identified students during program participation and after program exit and to reclassify students as needed. 11 .To evaluate the ESL program and make program modifications as needed. 12.To maintain accurate and useful student records, including procedural safeguards. Research Questions To address the requirements of federal, state, and local governance, the following research questions were selected to guide the evaluation of the effectiveness of the Districts Alternative Language program
Program Implementation 1. Has the District implemented appropriate policies, procedures, and programs to comply with federal law, the Commitment to Resolve with OCR, the ADE, and local LRSD policy? What has been the cost of implementation? 2. What is the evidence that LEP students have appropriate access to the range of special opportunity programs in the District, including special education, gifted/talented programs, 504 programs, and co/extra-curricular programs? 3. Has the District been successful in improving the quality of instruction through either ensuring an adequate number of ESL-endorsed teachers to serve the identified LEP students or in providing adequate training to ensure competent performance? I 2 I 5 t Academic Progress 4. Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Pmnrorr* _ __________ ____ .. . _ iy prggress in learning reading and English language arts soki/iiHllcsO? How does their _p__e__rfco__r_m___a nce compare wi_t_h__ _t_h e general popiyulation with PHLOTE students in general, and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? 5. Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program making progress in learning content knowledge and skills? How does their performance compare with the general population, with PHLOTE students in general, and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? Other Behavioral Indicators 6. What are the attendance rates, retention rates, discipline/suspension rates dropout rates, and graduation rates of identified LEP students being served i the Alternative Language Program? How does their performance compare with that of the general population, with PHLOTE students in general and in with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? Methodology A team comprised of staff from the Division of Instruction and from the Department of Testing, Research and Evaluation was assembled early in the year to determine the scope and focus of the evaluation, to formulate the research questions, and to ensure the availability of appropriate data upon which to base findings and conclusions. During all stages of the process, this team relied on findings from best practices in the development aanud ceififceucutivvec iimiiippileemmeennitaaitiioonn oorf AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee LLaanngguuaaggee PPrrooggrraammss and effective techniques for monitoring and assessing the performance of limited-EnqIish Mr. Mark Vasquez, an expert on the requirements for compliance with the Office of Civil Rights relating to LEP issues, served as a consultant to the team who prepared the program evaluation. Since this study is a year-two evaluation, the team decided to focus on the gualitv of the iimmnplloemmoennttoattiiroinn of the program, Xto__ _m___o__n:ixt_o_r 1t1h. e. _p errf ormance of _L__E__P_ and__ _F__EjPr ^E1 sUtudents academic performance in relation to the performance of the general student population in both acquiring English language skills and content knowledge and skills, and to monitor certain behavioral variables such as attendance, retention, discipline/ suspension, dropout, and graduation rates. Compiled data results for each academic or behavioral variable are displayed Tables follow the descriptions of the data. The descriptions always start with an overview of the demographics of the table, i.e., how many LEPs, FEPs, etc. The demographic overview is followed by An Overview of the Overall Performance of PHLOTE Students (Primary Home Language Other Than English) students. Caul description proceeds with the performance of LEP (Limited English Proficient) and in tables. Each FEPE (Fluent English Proficient Exited) students. A summary follows each description 3 of each PHLOTE category. Conclusions are included at the end of each grade-level section. Unless otherwise indicated, pre assessment refers to the spring of the 1999-2000 school year, and post refers to the spring of the 2000-2001 school year. The exception is with the Development Reading Assessment (DRA) for the kindergarten, first grade, and second grade students who took the DRA during the 2000-2001 school year. In these cases, pre refers to the fall of the 2000-2001 school year, and post refers to the spring of the 2000-2001 school year. Evaluation Design and Focus The general population for this report will consist of all students in the LRSD except the PHLOTE (Primary Home Language Other Than English) students. PHLOTE students include the following sub-populations: LEP, FEP, FEPE, NALMS, REFUSE, LEPREC, and LEPREF which are designated by acronyms. The acronyms and the definitions of the sub-populations of PHLOTE students are as follows: LEP (Limited-English Proficient): Students administered the Language Assessment Scale (LAS) upon admission to the LRSD and determined not to be proficient in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and/or speaking English. NALMS (Not Assessed Language Minority Students): PHLOTE students whose English language proficiency has not been assessed. FEP (Fluent-English Proficient): PHLOTE students administered the LAS upon admission to the LRSD and determined to be proficient in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English. FEPE (Fluent-English Proficient and Exited from the program): PHLOTE students initially identified as LEP
received LRSD ESL program services
and then exited the program after the LAS indicated a proficiency in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English. REFUSE (Parent Refused Initial Assessment): PHLOTE students whose parents refused permission to assess the students English proficiency. I i I J LEPREC (Limited English Proficient Reclassified): FEPE students whose performance after exiting the ESL program required that the student to again be identified as LEP. LEPREF (Limited English Proficient Refused Services)
PHLOTE students who were identified through language assessment to be LEP
however, the parents refused permission to place the student in the ESL program. 4Although the evaluation analyzes the achievement of PHLOTE students as a group, the primary focus of the evaluation is the performance (behavioral and academic) of LEP (Limited- English Proficient) and FEPE (Fluent-English Proficient Exited) students. LEP students are the students receiving ALP (Alternative Language Program) services, and FEPE students are former LEP students who have been exited from the AL program and are no longer receiving direct services. The performance (academic) of FEPE students must be monitored in case reclassification is necessary. Reclassification is the process by which a FEPE student re-enters the ALP because he/she was not successful in the regular school program and is, thus, reclassified as LEP. Assessments The descriptions of academic performance in the English language arts are based upon student performance on the following national, state, and local assessments
" Stanford Achievement Test Series - Ninth Edition (grades 5, 7 and 10),Total Reading and Total Language
Arkansas Benchmark Examination (grade 4 and 8), Literacy Examinations
Developmental Reading Assessment (grades K-2)
LRSD Achievement Level Tests
Reading and Language Usage (grades 2 through 11). The descriptions of academic performance in specific content knowledge and skills are based upon student performance on the following assessments
LRSD Achievement Level Tests
Elementary Mathematics (Grades 2-5)
Middle School Mathematics (Grades 6-8), and the following content courses at the secondary level
Physics Chemistry Biology, Algebra I and II Geometry. Outline of Program Evaluation This document is divided into six sections. Each of sections ll-V addresses specific research questions. Section I: Introduction The first section includes the introduction, an outline of the Districts program goals and objectives, a delineation of the research questions for the study, a description of methodologies, the evaluation focus, a list of assessments used to gather academic and behavioral data, and an outline of the sections in the stud/ Section II
Policies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance Section II includes evidence of the Districts implementation of numerous new policies, procedures, and programs to ensure compliance and quality, including cost data, all aligned with the twelve program objectives. Also included are demographic datanumbers of PHLOTE, LEP, and PEPE students, as well as statistics on the top ten language communities represented by each subpopulation. 5 s Section III: English Language Acquisition Performance of LEP and FEPE Students This section includes an evaluation of the effectiveness of programs that develop students' English language arts skills. Section IV: Content Area Knowledge and Skills of LEP and FEPE Students This section evaluates LEP and FEPE students' progress in attaining content area knowledge and skills. Section V
Behavioral Performance Indicators of LEP and FEPE Students This section evaluates LEP and FEPE students' performance in relation to attendance, retention, discipline and suspension, dropout, and graduation rates. Section VI: Key Findings and Recommendations
Bibliography 6Section VI: Key Findings and Recommendations Program Implementation 1. Has the District implemented appropriate policies, procedures, and programs to comply with federal law, the Commitment to Resolve with OCR, the ADE, and local LRSD policy? What has been the cost of implementation? A review of documents submitted to OCR as per the agreed-upon schedule, of the annual report to the ADE, and of LRSD data and reports, along with the information provided for this program evaluation provides adequate evidence for the Districts compliance with federal, state, and local expectations. Although the District has invested substantial funding in these efforts, most of the funds have come from the federal Class-size Reduction grant, from Title I, and from the States allocation for LEP students. District funds have been used to pay the salaries and office expenses of the ESL Supervisor, one-half secretary, and 20 percent of the ESL Parent Coordinators salary. The remaining 80 percent of her salary is paid through Title I. 2. What is the evidence that LEP students have appropriate access to the range of special opportunity programs in the District, including special education, gifted/talented programs, 504 programs, and co/extra-curricular programs? 5 J i As described under Program Objective 9 above, the LRSD has established and implemented appropriate policies and procedures, as well as training of various levels of staff, to ensure compliance with the expectation that LEP students will have appropriate access to the range of special opportunity programs. The District has provided evidence of the inclusion of LEP students in its special education and gifted/talented programs. In addition to the data provided, LEP students are also represented in the Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses at all secondary schools and in the University Studies (concurrent enrollment with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock) at Hall High School. Section III of this study also provides evidence of the participation of LEP students in the Districts pre-kindergarten program. 3. Has the District been successful in improving the quality of instruction through either ensuring an adequate number of ESL-endorsed teachers to serve the identified LEP students or in providing adequate training to ensure competent performance? Program Objective 5 activities described above includes evidence of the Districts effort's to support teacher endorsement in ESL, to provide training for scores of other teachers to enhance their effectiveness, to provide administrator training, and to schedule students appropriately with the trained or endorsed teachers. The ESL Supervisors database provides further evidence of the Districts commitment to provide quality instruction for LEP students. At all three levels of schools (elementary, middle, and high), the District already had at the end of the second year (2000-2001) more endorsed teachers than they projected a need for in the fall of 1999. 118Having more and more teachers endorsed allows a school to be more flexible in scheduling students, and it also enables the District to serve without so much stress its growing population of LEP students. 1 i Academic Progress 4. Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program making progress in learning reading and English language arts skills? How does their performance compare with the general population, with PHLOTE students in general, and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? i i i 5 Effect of Prekindergarten on Academic Progress The performance of six groups of kindergarten students were displayed in the tables in the first part of Section 111
all kindergarten PHLOTE students
kindergarten PHLOTE students with pre-kindergarten
kindergarten PHLOTE students without pre- kindergarten
all kindergarten LEP students
kindergarten LEP students with pre- kindergarten
and, finally, kindergarten LEP students without pre-kindergarten. Each of the groups is rank-ordered below in terms of its performance on the spring 2001 DRA the percent of students performing At/Above the readiness level: PHLOTE kindergarten with pre-kindergarten LEP kindergarten with pre-kindergarten LRSD General Population All PHLOTE kindergarten All LEP kindergarten PHLOTE kindergarten without pre-kindergarten LEP kindergarten without pre-kindergarten 86% 81% 81% 78% 76% 68% 67% The rank order of the groups according to gains from the fall 2000 pre-test to the spring 2001 post-test is as follows: LEP kindergarten with pre-kindergarten PHLOTE kindergarten with pre-kindergarten All LEP kindergarten All PHLOTE kindergarten LEP kindergarten without pre-kindergarten PHLOTE kindergarten without pre-kindergarten 76%age points 72%age points 67%age points 67%age points 57%age points 57%age points Either way the data are examined reveals the importance of students participation in the pre-kindergarten program for more rapid acquisition of English language skills. The PHLOTE and LEP students with LRSD pre-kindergarten experience both out-performed those without pre-kindergarten, and they grew at faster rates. In comparison to all kindergarten students in the District, both the PHLOTE and LEP kindergarten students with LRSD pre-kindergarten experience out-performed the general population. The LRSD average in spring 2001 for all students was 80.7. The PHLOTE kindergarten average was 86%, and the LEP kindergarten average was 81%. It is also important to examine the differences in the performance of PHLOTE kindergarten students with LRSD pre-kindergarten (86% At/Above readiness) and those 119 without (68%)a difference of 18 percentage points. A similar disparity is found between the LEP kindergarten students with LRSD pre-kindergarten (81% At/Above readiness) and those without (67%)a 14 point difference. These differences are especially important, given that there is almost no difference between the performance of PHLOTE kindergarten students in general (78% At/Above readiness) and LEP kindergarten students in general (75% At/Above readiness), although the LEP students comprise 86 percent of the total kindergarten PHLOTE population. This study further finds that LEP kindergarten students who have attended LRSD pre-kindergarten (81 % At/Above readiness) out-perform PHLOTE kindergarten students in general (78% At/Above) and LRSDs general population (80.7% At/Above readiness). The students with the pre-kindergarten experience had an advantage over the students without the pre-kindergarten experience. This finding validates the research on the importance of early childhood education (Bredekamp, Knuth, Kunesh, and Shulman. 1992
Kagan, 1995
Schwartz, 1996). Two-Year Comparison of Kindergarten DRA Scores Just as the students in the second year of the Districts new literacy program improved at each grade level, K-2, over the performance of students in the first year of the programs implementation, so did the PHLOTE and LEP students. LRSDs general kindergarten population improved from 72% readiness to 81%-9 points. Kindergarten PHLOTE students improved from 67% to 79%12 points. Kindergarten LEP students improved from 59% to 76%-17 points. Both PHLOTE and LEP students improved more on average than the general population, with LEP students achieving the most improvement. The gap between the general population and PHLOTE students decreased from 5 points in 1999-2000 to only 2 points in 2000-2001 The gap between the general population and LEP students decreased from 13 points to 5 points in the second year. Two-Year Comparison of Grade 1 DRA Scores At grade 1, the general population, PHLOTEs and LEPs students all improved the second year of the program: LRSDs general grade 1 population improved from 54% to 64%-10 points. Grade 1 PHLOTE students improved from 33% to 60%--17 points. Grade 1 LEP students improved from 23% to 59%--36 points. Again, both PHLOTE and LEP students improved more on average than the general population, and, again, with LEP students improving the most. The gap between the general population and PHLOTE students decreased from 21 points in 1999-2000 to 4 120 I points in 2000-2001, and the gap between the general population and LEPs decreased from 31 points to 5. Two-Year Comparison of Grade 2 DRA Scores The pattern of improved achievement during the second year of program implementation continued for grade 2 for the general population, PHLOTEs, LEPs, and FEPEs. LRSDs general population at grade 2 improved from 68% to 75%--7 points. Grade 2 PHLOTE students improved from 56% to 65%--9 points. Grade 2 LEP students improved from 50% to 57%--7 points. Grade 2 FEPE students improved from 60% to 100%~40 points. The grade 2 PHLOTE and FEPE students both improved more in the second year than did the general population. The LEP students improved the same. The gap between the general population and PHLOTE grade 2 students decreased from 12 points to 10 points in the second year and for the FEPE students decreased from 8 points to -25. The gap remained the same for LEP students18 points. Summary of K-2 Findings LEP students grew more than PHLOTE students or the general population in both kindergarten and grade 1. FEPE students, although small in number, all achieved the District standard at grade 2 (100% readiness), and their improvement in the second year was 40 points. FEPE students outperformed the general population in grade 3. Comparison of K-2 Students in Newcomer and Non-Newcomer Schools At the K-2 levels, there were 145 PHLOTE students attending Newcomer Schools in 2000-2001, and 140 attended non-Newcomer Center schools. Eight elementary schools had no PHLOTE students. At the kindergarten level the Newcomer Center PHLOTE students (82%) outperformed the District (81%) and non-Newcomer Center schools (76%) with the percent of students reaching the readiness standard. LEP students (83%) at Newcomer Centers also outperformed the District and non-Newcomer Center schools (70%). At grade 1 the PHLOTE (66%) students at the non-Newcomer Center schools outperformed the PHLOTE students at Newcomer Centers (53%), as well as the general population (64%). LEP students at the Newcomer Center schools performed as well as those in non-Newcomer Center schools (59%), but not as well as the general population (64%), 121 i Grade 2 non-Newcomer Center school PHLOTE students (70%) performed significantly better than those in the Newcomer Center schools (56%) and just five points below the general population (75%). Non-Newcomer Center LEP students (76%) also significantly outperformed LEP students in the Newcomer Centers (44%) and outperformed the general population by one point (75%). Summary of Findings Both PHLOTE and LEP students at the kindergarten level at the Newcomer Center schools outperformed the PHLOTE and LEP students at the non-Newcomer Center schools, as well as the Districts general population. At grades 1 and 2, however, both PHLOTE and LEP students at the non-Newcomer Center schools outperformed their peers in the Newcomer Center schools. In grade 1 the PHLOTE students in the nonNewcomer Center schools outperformed the general population. Cohort Performance on the Achievement Level Reading Test The Northwest Evaluation Association recommends the use of median RIT scores for the purpose of evaluating student performance. The Grade 2 general population (183) outperformed both PHLOTE (171) and LEP (179) students. The 1999-2000 grade 2 FEPE students grew 21 points by the end of grade 3, as compared to an 18-point growth by PHLOTEs, a 10-point growth by LEPs, and only one point by the general population. Both PHLOTE and FEPE students scored higher than the general population in grade 3 during 2000-2001. i 1 The 1999-2000 grade 3 PHLOTE students grew 16 points by the end of grade 4, as compared to a 13-point growth by LEPs, 10 points by FEPEs, and no growth by the general population. FEPE students outperformed the general population both in grade 3 in 1999-2000 and in grade 4 in 2000-2001. PHLOTE students also outperformed the general population in 2000-2001. The 1999-2000 grade 4 LEP students grew 11 points by the end of grade 5, as compared to 10 points by the FEPEs, 3 points by the general population and a -9 points by PHLOTES, Both PHLOTEs and FEPEs outperformed the general population in grade 4 in 1999-2000, and FEPEs outperformed the general population in grade 5 in 2000-2001. The 1999-2000 grade 5 LEP students grew 6 points by the end of grade 6 in 2000- .- 2001, as compared to 4 points each by PHLOTEs, FEPEs, and the general population. The general population outperformed PHLOTEs, LEPs, and FEPEs at the end of grade 6. The 1999-2000 grade 6 FEPE students grew 15 points by the end of grade 7 in 2000-2001, as compared to 10 points by PHLOTEs, 3 points by LEPs, and 2 points by the general population. The general population scored higher than PHLOTEs, 122LEPs. and FEPEs in grade 6. but both FEPEs (222) and PHLOTEs (221) outperformed the general population (216) in grade 7. The 1999-2000 grade 7 PHLOTE students grew 15 points by the end of grade 8 in 2000-2001, as compared to 10 points by FEPEs. 7 points by LEPs, and 2 points by the general population. The general population outperformed the PHLOTEs. LEPs. and FEPEs in grade 7. but PHLOTE students significantly outperformed the general population in grade 8. The 1999-2000 grade 8 LEP students grew 7 points by the end of grade 9 in 2000- 2001. as compared to only one point of growth by PHLOTE and FEPE students and none by the general population. The general population outperformed the PHLOTE. LEP. and FEPE students in both grades 8 and 9. The 1999-2000 grade 9 PHLOTE students grew 6 points by the end of grade 10 in 2000-2001. as compared to only one point by the general population, no growth by FEPEs. and a -2 by LEPs. Summary of Findings In general. PHLOTE and FEPE students performed better than the general population on the ALT Reading test in grades 3-4 and 7-8. This finding provides evidence of the strength and effectiveness of the elementary Alternative Language Program. The lower performance of these students in grades 6 and 9-10 requires examination to determine whether their lower performance is a result of the schools to which they are assigned, changes in the LEP and FEPE populations themselves from year to year, or the quality the Alternative Language Program at these levels. I Cohort Performance on the Achievement Level Language Usage Test Both the DRA and ALT reading scores already reported provide evidence that PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students are improving in their ability to read in English. The following analysis provides evidence of the acquisition of English usage skills for these students. At grade 2 in 2000-2001, the FEPE students outperformed the general population. The 1999-2000 grade 2 LEP students grew 14 points by the end of grade 3 in 2000- 2001. as compared to 11 points by the general population and 10 points by FEPE students. The grade 2 FEPE students outperformed the general population, as did the grade 3 FEPE students in 2000-2001. The 1999-2000 grade 3 FEPE students grew 8 points by the end of grade 4 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 5 points by the LEPs and no growth by the general population. The grade 3 FEPE students outperformed the general population, as did the FEPE students in grade 4 in 2000-2001. The 1999-2000 grade 4 LEP students grew 12 points by the end of grade 5 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 5 points by FEPE students and 4 by the general population. 123The grade 4 FEPE students outperformed the general population in 1999-2000, as well as in grade 5 in 2000-2001. The 1999-2000 grade 5 LEP students grew 3 points, as compared to no growth by FEPEs and -2 by the general population by the end of grade 6 in 2000-2001. The general population outperformed the LEP and FEPE students in both grade 5 and grade 6. The 1999-2000 grade 6 FEPE students grew 5 points by the end of grade 7 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 1 point for LEP students, and -2 for the general population. The general population outperformed LEP and FEPE students in grade 6, but the FEPE students outperformed the general population in grade 7. The 1999-2000 grade 7 FEPE students grew 7 points by the end of grade 8 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 2 points for LEP students and none for the general population. The general population outperformed the LEP and FEPE students in both grades 7 and 8. The 1999-2000 grade 8 LEP students grew 4 points by the end of grade 9, but both FEPEs and the general population declined. The general population outperformed both LEP and FEPE students in both grades 8 and 9. The 1999-2000 grade 9 general population posted no growth by the end of grade 10, and both the LEPs and FEPEs posted declines. The general population outperformed both the LEPs and FEPEs in grades 9 and 10. i Summary of Findings FEPE students in grades 2-5 consistently outperformed the general population on the English Language Usage ALT. With only one exception, however, neither LEP nor FEPE students scored as well as the general population in grades 6-10. I Stanford Achievement Test The degree to which PHLOTE students, as well as LEPs and FEPEs, are acquiring English reading and language arts skills can also be measured by the SAT9 reading and language subtests, although not all LEP students take these tests, as they do the DRA and ALTS. j I At grade 5, the FEPE students (64' %ile) significantly outperformed the general population (42 %ile) on the language subtest. PHLOTE students (45 %ile) also outperformed the general population. At grade 7 the PHLOTE students (45' %ile) outperformed the general population (39^ %ile) on the reading subtest. The FEPE students scored at the 38' %ile. At grade 7 both the PHLOTES (49' %ile) and FEPEs (51 %ile) outperformed the general population (SS^^ %ile) on the language subtest. i I 124 At grade 10 the PHLOTE students (44** %ile) outperformed the general population (42" %ile). I Summary of Findings PHLOTEs outperformed the general population at all three grade levels tests on the language subtest, and FEPE students did better in grades 5 and 7. Only in grade 7 did PHLOTEs and FEPEs outperform the general population in reading. Arkansas Benchmark Examinations Not all LEP students take the Benchmark Examinations, but the scores on these tests can also be analyzed to determine the degree to which PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students are acquiring English literacy skills. At grade 4, FEPE students (75%) significantly outperformed the general population (35%). PHLOTEs were close behind with 33%. At grade 8, both PHLOTE (28%) and FEPE (25%) students outperformed the general population (17%). Summary of Findings Both PHLOTE and FEPE students are doing very well on the state Benchmark Examinations, as compared to the general population. i Conclusions A review of PHLOTE, FEPE, and LEP performance on the DRA, ALT reading, ALT language usage, SAT9 reading, SAT9 language usage, and Arkansas Benchmark Literacy Examinations, as compared to the general population, shows strong performance by PHLOTE and FEPE students at the elementary level and to some degree at the middle school level. Both PHLOTE and FEPE students compared to the general population more favorably on the SAT9 and Arkansas Benchmark examinations than they did on the ALTs. Kindergarten students who attended the LRSD prekindergarten program performed significantly better than those without this experience. Grades 1-2 students in the non-Newcomer Center schools outperformed their peers in the Newcomer Centers. ! I 5. Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program making progress in learning content knowledge and skills? How does their performance compare with the general population and with fluent English- proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? This question will be answered through analysis of student performance on the ALT mathematics test, the SAT9 mathematics subtest, and the Arkansas Benchmark Mathematics Examinations. Scores are also included for high school science ALTs. Cohort Performance on the Achievement Level Mathematics Test The 2000-2001 grade 2 FEPE students outperformed the general population, and the LEPs did as well as the general population. 125 The 1999-2000 grade 2 LEP students grew 17 points by the end of grade 3 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 9 points by FEPEs and 2 points by the general population. In grade 2 the general population outperformed LEPs and FEPEs, but FEPEs outperformed the general population in grade 3, and the LEPs tied their score. The 1999-2000 grade 3 FEPE students grew 8 points by the end of grade 4, compared to 5 points for LEPs and 2 points for the general population. The FEPE students outperformed the general population in grade grade 3 and grade 4. . The 1999-2000 grade 4 LEP students grew 11 points by the end of grade 5, as compared to 3 for the general population, and none for FEPEs. FEPE students tied the performance of the general population in grade 4, and the general population outscored both LEPs and FEPEs in grade 5. The 1999-2000 grade 5 general population grew 4 points, as compared to none for LEP students and 6 for FEPEs. The FEPEs tied the performance of the general population in grade 5, but the general population outperformed the LEP and FEPE students in grade 6. The 1999-2000 grade 6 LEP students grew 5 points by the end of grade 7 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 2 for the general population and none by FEPEs. The general population outperformed both groups in both grades 6 and 7. The 1999-2000 grade 7 LEP students grew 8 points by the end of grade 8 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 3 by the general population and none for FEPEs. The general population performed slightly higher than FEPEs in grade 7 and slightly higher than LEPs in grade 8. Summary of Findings FEPE students generally outperformed the general population in mathematics in grades 2-4. They fall behind, however, in grades 508. Achievement Level Test: High School Mathematics and Science FEPE students outperformed the general population in 2000-2001 in Algebra I. FEPE students outperformed the general population in 2000-2001 in Algebra II. FEPE students outperformed the general population in 2000-2001 in Geometry. The general population outperformed FEPEs in 2000-2001 in Biology. The general population outperformed FEPEs in 2000-2001 in Physics. FEPE students outperformed the general population in 2000-2001 in Chemistry. 126Summary of Findings FEPE students outperformed the general population in all three required mathematics courses and in Chemistry. Stanford Achievement Mathematics Test At grade 5 PHLOTE students (40* %ile) outperformed the general population (31 %ile). At grade 7 PHLOTE students (53^' %ile) and FEPEs (41 %ile) both outperformed the general population %ile). At grade 10 PHLOTE students (52"'^ %ile) and LEPs (48* %ile) both outperformed the general population (46 %ile). Summary of Findings PHLOTE students outperformed the general population at all three grade levels on the SAT9 mathematics subtest. FEPE students outperformed the general population at grade 7 and LEPs outperformed them at grade 10. Arkansas Benchmark Mathematics Examination PHLOTE (46%), LEP (33%), and FEPE (75%) students all outperformed the general population on the grade 4 Benchmark. PHLOTE (25%) students outperformed the general population (17%) in grade 8. Summary of Findings As seen in elementary reading and language usage and in elementary mathematics on the ALT, PHLOTE students outperformed the general population in both grades 4 and 8. In addition, both LEP and FEPE students outperformed the general population in grade 4 on this important measurement. Conclusions Based on the available data on mathematics achievement, PHLOTE and FEPE students appear to be doing very well at all three levels of schools, even though the scores were weaker at the middle school level on the ALT. PHLOTE and FEPE achievement was good in chemistry, but weaker in biology and physics. Other Behavioral Indicators 6. What are the attendance rates, retention rates, discipline/suspension rates, dropout rates, and graduation rates of identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program? How does their performance compare with that of the general population, with PHLOTE students in general, and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? The data indicate that kindergarten and grade 1 have the largest PHLOTE enrollments
kindergarten through grade 3 the largest LEP enrollment, and grades 3 and 4 the 127 largest FEPE enrollment. The elementary school with the largest enrollment is Chicot with 109
the middle school with the most PHLOTEs is Cloverdale
and the high school with the largest PHLOTE enrollment in Hall High School. Attendance FEPE students attendance is better than the general population in grades kindergarten, 2-6, and 8-12. PHLOTE students attendance is better than the general population at grades 4-7 and grade 12. LEP students attendance is better than the general population at grade 12. LEP students missed an average of 18 days at grade 9, apparently as a result in part of their being suspended. Discipline/Suspensions There were no PHLOTE, LEP, or FEPE students disciplined in grades K-4. At grade 5 there were 2 students with 3 sanctions
at grade 6 there were 6 students with 9 sanctions
at grade 7 there were 6 students with 10 sanctions
and at grade 8 there were 9 students with 15 sanctions. I At the high school level at grade 9 there were 17 students with 41 sanctions and 416 missed days of school for suspensions. Grade 10 had 12 students, 26 sanctions, and 93 days of suspension. Twenty of the 29 students receiving discipline were LEP. At grade 11 there were 5 students, 6 sanctions, and 19 days of suspension. Only 5 seniors were disciplined, with 10 sanctions, but with 371 days of missed school. Retention A total of 50 PHLOTE students were retained in 2000-2001. Nineteen of these were in grades K-5
6 in grades 6-8
and 26 in grades 9-12. Dropouts Only 4 PHLOTE students dropped out in 2000-2001. Graduation Rate In 2000-2001,42 of the 48 PHLOTE students (88%) graduated, as compared to 27 of 27 the year before. Summary of Findings Attendance of FEPE and PHLOTE students generally was better than the attendance of the general population. LEP attendance typically was not. Discipline/suspensions does not appear to be a problem for any PHLOTE students, except at grades 9-10 and 12. The largest sub-group of those receiving sanctions is LEP students. Retention occurs infrequently for PHLOTEs at the elementary and middle schools. 128 The retention rate of LEP students at the high school level is a weakness. . The dropout rate of PHLOTE students is less than that of the general population. The graduation rate of PHLOTE students is about the same as the general population. Recommendations The District's school-level staff must ensure that LEP students are scheduled with teachers who are either endorsed, partially endorsed, or fully trained in ESL methodologies. District-level staff should monitor carefully at the beginning of each school year to ensure compliance. The District should continue to be advocates for more state funds for the education of LEP students. The District should develop a plan in spring 2002 for the potential loss of the Classsize Reduction grant from the federal government and how extra teachers and professional development may be funded in 2002-2003. District-level staff should complete and publish the procedural handbook for school staff in identifying and serving students in the Alternative Language Program. . Parent recruiters, the ESL Parent Coordinator, and other staff should actively recruit LEP students for the prekindergarten program, given the importance of that extra year in LEP students reading performance. The District should continue with its plan to phase out elementary Newcomer Centers, given the performance of students in the non-Newcomer Center schools. The District should examine the dip of performance of middle school LEP students to determine the cause. The District should examine the attendance and discipline problems of LEP students in grades 9-10 and develop plans for improvement. PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE student performance on the elementary ALT science tests should be analyzed in 2002-2003 to help determine whether these students are acquiring content area knowledge and skills. The 2002-2003 program evaluation should include an analysis of PHLOTE, LEP, Ine ZUUZ'ZUUO piuyidi11 cvdiuduiut oiluuiu >v- j i and FEPE participation in Pre-AP, AP, and University Studies courses at the middle and high school levels. 129 The District should continue to provide high levels of professional development for staff responsible for the Alternative Language Program to ensure continuous improvement. i I I s i 130Agenda RECEIVED FEB 2 8 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting February 2002 R. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: PREPARED BY: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ^/Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent of Instruction DATE: April 25, 2002 SUBJECT: Proposed Revision of Policy IHBEA: English as a Second Language Background Information The District gathered data in 1999-2000 on its identified limited-English proficient students (LEP) relating to where they were attending school. Significant percentages were assigned to the five elementary Newcomer Centers, the two middle school centers, and the one high school center. What surprised everyone, however, is how many were attending their neighborhood schools. Virtually every school in the District had LEP students in attendance. In 1999-2000 the District also conducted its first ESL program evaluation. That study included a look at the performance of students in the Newcomer Centers as opposed to other schools. Tentative findings indicated that the elementary students in the nonNewcomer schools were performing as well as or better than those assigned to the Newcomer Centers. That finding was repeated in the 2000-2001 study, with the exception of kindergarten LEP students. This important finding told the staff several things: 1. The literacy curriculum was working well for both native English speakers and for second-language students
2. The assignment of LEP students to trained/endorsed teachers, regardless of whether the school was a Newcomer Center, was reaping benefits
3. Significant savings could result in transportation if LEP students, at least at the elementary level, could attend their neighborhood schools
4. Parental involvement for LEP students would more likely improve if LEP students were not bused to Newcomer Centers but attended school closer to their homes. Also, of course, the Districts obligation to provide an alternative language program is the same in the non-Newcomer schools as it is in the Newcomer schools. Board of Education April 25, 2002 Page Two District staff began informally to phase out the automatic assignment of elementary LEP students to Newcomer Centers in 2000-2001 and have continued to allow (and not discourage) attendance at the neighborhood school in 2001-2002. Those who wished to stay in the Newcomer schools to complete elementary school were allowed to do so. The proposed deletions to Policy IHBEA remove the language relating to Newcomer Centers to reflect this proposed change. At this time LEP secondary students continue to be offered an assignment to a Newcomer Center. If, however, enrollment continues to grow in other secondary schools, this option may in the future also be discontinued as more and more students are served well in their zoned schools. Fiscal Impact This proposed change will not cost the District anything. Instead, it should continue to provide opportunities to save money formerly required for transportation. Recommendation That the Board of Education approve on first reading the proposed amendments (deletions of language) to Policy IHBEA: English as a Second Language. BAL/adgLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IHBEA ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE The Board of Education is committed to providing appropriate and equitable programs and services in compliance with federal and state mandates and which are designed to ensure that students who are limited-English-proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District. The Districts program will be designed to address the affective, linguistic, and cognitive needs of the limited-English proficient (LEP) students. A research-based English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) program will be provided in designated Newcomer Centers at the elementary, middle, and high school levels for all identified students, regardless of the students grade levels and home language, except where parents have denied placement in the program. The District will meet its obligations to provide language services to students whose parents have denied services and placement in a Nowcomer Center through teachers professional development in ESL methodologies, tutoring, summer school opportunities, parental involvement, and monitoring of students academic progress. The District will ensure the provision of appropriate ESL curriculum standards and benchmarks, professional development, technical assistance, parent involvement, staffing, materials, access to special education and other special opportunity programs, qualified staff, and othqr resources to ensure compliance and effectiveness. The District will annually conduct an evaluation of the ESL programs and services, report the findings to the Board of Education, and make appropriate program modifications based on the evaluation. Revised: Adopted: November 18,1999 Legal Reference: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. 2000d seq., and sections 100.3(a), (b) of its implementing regulation, at 34 C.F.R. Part 100.0b/iy/2002 08: 48 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS RAISE 01/05 810 West Markham Is Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 447-1027 " (501)447-1161 Fax: DATE: June 19, 2002 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Central Arkansas Media Cynthia Howell, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette JuHe Davis, Communications Specialist ESL Graduate Academy Continues through June 28 Forty-one teachers from the Little Rock School District have joined forces with teachers from other central Arkansas school districts at the two-week ESL (English As a Second Language) Graduate Academy, held at the Oasis Renewal Center, 14913 Cooper Orbit Road. Technology Day, held on June 27, will take place at three locations: Williams Magnet Elementary (7301 Evergreen St.), Southwest Middle School (3301 S. Bryant St.) and the Instructional Resource Center (3001 S. Pulaski St.). The academy is sponsored by the Little Rock School District, the Arkansas Department of Education and Arkansas Tech University. The Little Rock School District is home to students who speak 42 foreign languages. Spanish-speaking children comprise the largest segment of this population. A schedule of activities and a list of presenters are attached. ###06/19/2002 08:49 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 02/05 ESL GKADUATE ACADEMY VI Week One at a Glance June 17 - 22,2002 Little Rock, Arkansas Time Monday 6/17 Tuesday 6a8 Wednesday 6/19 Thursday 6/20 Friday 6/21 Saturday 6/22 9:00 Welcome Addresses 10:00 11:00 Limguage Acquisition/ ESL . Medtodology JOr-Carmen Sarudtez-Sadek Life of an Immigrant Child Dr. Urisula Chandler Teaching with Arkansas Frameworks MaTgaret Zoller Language Acquisition (Continued) -
L--
Tauent-& . Commiini^ "'ReJationslups Al Lopez Culture (Continued) 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 ' Dmguage Aeqaieitiotd- ESL Methodology . (Continued) Language Acquisition/ ESL Methodology (Continued) Lanj^a^ Acquisition Dr. tlena Iztftiierdp L^guage Acquiritioh (Cdntiiiuiid)' Culture , . Dr. Afa^ . Bmitei Culture (Continued ~ ~ L U N C H 4:00 5:00 --DINl^ER-- 6:00 7:00 I^guage Acquisitioii/ f'jSL Methodology (Cqnrinuedl Language '/Acquisition/ ,, I^thodolo^ (Continued) Laiigua^ , Acquisition (Continued). .Language Acqulsitiqiv . Vitali ' }- 8:00 --DISMISSAL-- fKv. 't ESL Graduate Academy VI Coordinators: Little Rock School OiatricL Karen Broadnax Arkansas Tech University# Dr- Ursula Chandler 06/13/2002 08:43 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 03/05 Time 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5-.00 6z00 7:00 8:00 Sunday 6/23 Group Projects Project^ Showcase Asiui Odtnie Mai te Ngttyeii ESL GRADUATE ACADEMY VI Week Two at a Glance June 23 - 28,2002 Little Rock, Arkansas Monday 6724 Tuesday 6/25 Wedaesday 6/26 Thursday 6/27 Triday 6/28 ESL Standards Workshop Dehhtr Sabo & Lisa Poteet ADE Ron Tolson Methodology Dr. Prank Gonzales (Ltem.) & Diana Conzalez Worthen (Secondary) Language Assessment Dr. Carmen Sanchez-Sadei Technology. Dr. Yvonne Watts, .. -CItzistote z B^k & Grace Kerr /tssesemeiA Karen Broadnax '--LUNCH Office of Civil Rights Recjuirements Mark Vas/fuez ESL Strategies Karen Broadnax AXKTESOt Resouice Display Methodology & Children's Literature (Continued) Language Assessment (Condhued) Technolo^ (Cp'ntUaed) Gtaduation , --DINNER-- Assessmmt Karen Broadnax . .. Hispanic Cultiue S tella Lt^a i ^^DISMISSAL-- ESI Graduate Academy VI Coordinators: Little Kock School DistricL Karen Broadnax Arkansas Tech University, Dr. Ursula Chandler 06/19/2002 08:49 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 04/05 Little Rock School District ESL Graduate Academy Oasis Renewal Center Little Rock, AR June 17-28, 2002 Presenters and Topics 1. Dr. Mario Benitez, Chair (Emeritus), Curriculum and Instruction, University of Texas at Austin Topic: Socio-Cultural Influences of Language on Learning 2. Dr. Carmen Sanchez-Sadek, Educational Consultant/Program Evaluator, Los Angeles, California Topic- Second Language Acquisition, ESL Methodology and Assessment 3. Dr. Ursula Chandler, Department Head, Foreign Languages and International Studies. Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, AR Topic: The Life of an Immigrant child 4. Dr. Elena Izquierdo, College of Education. University of Texas at El Paso Topic: Second Language Acquisition 5. Mark Vasquez, Esq., Consultant/Civil Rights Attorney, Dallas, Texas Topic: Civil Rights Requirements for Language Minority Students 6. Dr. Frank Gonzales Topic: Methodology/Childrens Literature (Elementary) 7. Christine Black, ESL Services/Gifted Education, Lake Hamilton School District Grace Kerr, Media Specialist, The New School. Fayetteville, AR Dr. Yvonne Waits, Consultant/ADE, Little Rock, Arkansas Topic: Utilizing technology for ESL/ Core Content Instruction with LEP students 8. Dr. Diana Worthen Topic: Methodology/Childrens Literature (Secondary) The following presenters will provide special presentations^ Arkansas Department of Education Ron Tolson, Director Professional Licensure Topic: The ESL Endorsement Application Process Al Papa Rap Lopez, Springdale Public Schools/N.W. Arkansas Multicultural Youth Clubs Topic: Parent and Community Relationships06/19/2002 08:49 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 05/05 ESL Graduate Academy Oasis Renewal Center Little Rock, AR June 17-28, 2002 The following presenters will provide special presentations: Fort Smith Public Schools Mai Le Nguyen Topic: Asian Culture Little Rock School District Debbie Sabo and Lisa Poteet Topic: ESL Standards Workshop Little Rock School District Karen Broadnax, ESL Supervisor Topic: The Language Assessment Scales/An Introduction Little Rock School District Stella Loya, ESL Parent Liaison Topic: Hispanic Culture0 f/ov. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: ^^Sonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: SUBJECT: November 21,2002 Approval of the ESL Program Evaluations for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Background The LRSDs Compliance Plan for completion of the tasks relating to page 148 of the Final Compliance Report (Section 2.7.1) requires the Boards approval of already completed program evaluations that were conducted with the assistance of external experts. Two of those completed program evaluations are those for the English-as-a-Second Language program for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, which the Board has previously reviewed. The external expert who participated on those evaluation teams was Mr. Mark Vasquez, a former employee of the Office for Civil Rights in Dallas and an expert on OCRs expectations for the evaluation of alternative language programs. Those participating in the design and writing of the 1999-2000 evaluation included Dr. Ed Williams, Karen Broadnax, Ken Savage, and Mr. Vasquez. The Board of Education initially reviewed this program evaluation in fall 2000. Those participating in the design and writing of the 2000-2001 evaluation included Dr. Eddie McCoy, Dr. Ed Williams, Karen Broadnax, Ken Savage, Dr. Bonnie Lesley, and Mr. Vasquez. The Board of Education initially reviewed this program evaluation in fall 2001. Neither of these program evaluations included data related to the improvement or remediation of student achievement for African American students. Rather, the data were disaggregated for limited-English proficient students and fluent-English proficient students who had exited the LRSDs alternative language program. These data were then compared to the data for the general population. The research questions, the data to be collected, and the disaggregations were Board of Education - Memo November 21,2002 Page Two specified, for the most part, in the Commitment to Resolve, the District's voluntary agreement with OCR to put into place the necessary programs, policies, and procedures to be in full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Fiscal Impact None Recommendation That the Board of Education formally approve the following: 1. 1999-2000 program evaluation for LRSDs alternative language program 2. 2000-2001 program evaluation for LRSDs alternative language program & i BAL/adg 3 Attachment 1?ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students *1 Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.die ess .on .tor 197 Introduction: Promising Futures ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students All elementary and secondary school students currently in the United States will be Ihing in and contributing to an increasingly diverse society and interdependent community' of nanons in the 21st century. To realize their personal, social, and long-term career goals, indincuals will need to be able to communicate with others skillfully, appropriately, and effectively. The challenge of contemporary education is to prepare all students for life in this new world, including those learners who enter schools with a lang'uage other than English. The purpose of this document is to identify the ESL standards and their role in meeting this challenge. Why ESL Standards Are Needed Schools and communides throughout the United States are facing increased linguistic and cultural diversity. Ever}' year, more and more studencs who speak languages ocher than Er h r from homes and communities with diverse histones, traditions, world news, and experiences, populate classrooms in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Th num: school-age children and youth who speak languages other than English at home increas 68.6% in the past 10 years. By 1993 English lang'uage learners in U.S. public schools m more than 2.5 million. Current projections estimate that by the year 2000 the majonty school-age population in 50 or more major U.S. cities will be from language minor.?.' b: grounds. I I 1 fn this document use [WO acronyms. E5L and ESOL. ES refers io [hefieid oj ing'.ish as a se: 0 com.e tonal
en oy imbered of the .1 fSOL students vary greatly in proficiency level and academic needs. Some ESOL students are recent immigrants, brought to the United States by families seeking refuge from political repression or persecution or by families seeking economic opporrunim Others are members of ethnolinguisuc groups that have lived on this continent for generations, some for longer than the United States has e.xisted as a nation. Some'have had prior education, including literacy, in their native languages. Others hav'e had limited formal schooling. Some have had normal dev'elopmental histories, while others have identified disabilities that challenge their learning. Our' primary concerns in this document are with students in elementary and secondary' schools who are not native speakers of English, and whom we refer to as ESOL students and learners. ESL Standards describe the language skills necessary for social and academic purposes. The standards described in this document specify the language competencies ESOL students tn elementary and secondary schools need to become fully proficient in English, to have unre- ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students I I I i i language ana te cht scandards chemsecves. EiCL ( En^iish io sve-iic' oy ocher languagesj refers co che ieamer u ho are idencifiea a sccll in the process o acquiring Engiish a an additional language. 1 stricted access to grade-appropriate instruction in challenging academic subjects, and ultimately to lead nch and productive lives. The development of these standards has been informed by the work of other national standards groups, particularly by the English language arts and foreign language standards. All three language standards projects share an emphasis on the importance of: language as communication language learning through meaningful and significant use the indixddual and societal value of bi- and multilingualism 8' th the role of ESOL students native languages in their English language and general acade- -SU mic development o' o' cultural, social, and cognitive processes in language and academic development * assessment that respects language and cultural diversity let th The ESL Standards provide the bridge to general education standards expected of all Ths ESL standards articulate the developmental Endish language needs of ESOL learners and highlight special instructional and assessment considerations that must be given to ESOL learners if they are to benefit from and achieve the high standards proposed for other subjects. 2 dents in the United States. stu- Standods do not ano cannot stand alone. Other professional have developed standards that organizations and groups Of useful. Thes
including E and strategic are world-class, imponant. developmentally appropriate, and standards mandate high levels of achievement in content learning for ail learners. :Oi- students. But the content standards do not orovide educators the directions
s mey need to assist ESOL leaimers to attain these standards because t student understanding of and ability to use English to engase with content. Many tent stanna
O' do not acknowledge the central role of language in the achievement of iSor do they highlight the learning styles and particular instructional and assessme learners who are still developing proficiency in English. In sum. the content stand: 14 Er bii ac e\ assume f the Con: content, needs of s do not in addiess the specific needs of ESOL students who are adding znglish to their home !an<maoes. Therefore. ESL standards are needed. o O or mt The uSL standards recognize that upon entry to scnool ESOL learners must acquire an addi- tional language and culture and learn the English language com.petencies that are characteristic of native Englisn speakers of the same age and, most importantly, that are fundamental to the full attainment of English language arts and other content standards. The ESL standards articu- late the developmental English language needs of ESOL learners and highlight special mstruc- tional and assessment considerations that must be given-to. ESOL learners if they are to benefit from and achieve the high standards proposed for other subjects. Thus, the ESL Standards important because they: aniculate the English language development needs of E5OL learners pro\-ide directions to educators on how to meet the needs of ESOL learners emphasize the central role of language in the attainment of other standards are Introduction: Promising Futures if. T fo
du In ESely he 1 ce Myths About Second Language Learning Several myths regarding second language learning prevail both among many lay persons and some educational professionals and policy makers. One intent of this document is to refute these myths. Myth 1
ESOL students learn English easily and quickly simply by being exposed to and surrounded by native English speakers. Fact: Learning a second language takes time and significant intellectual effort on the part of the learner. Learning a second language is hard work
even the youngest learners do not simply pick up" the language. Myth 2: When ESOL learners are able to converse comfortably in English, they have developed proficiency in the language. Face It can take 6-9 years for ESOL students to achie^/e the same le'.'cls of proficiency in academic English as native speakers. Moreover, ESOL students participating in thoughtfiilly designed programs of bilingual or sheltered content instruction remain in school longer and attain signifii academic achie'/ement in comparison to students without such advantages. I Myth 3: In earlier times immigrant children learned English rapidly and into American life. '.dy higher ra[es of niiated .1- I i I Fact: Many immigrant students during the early part of this century did not learn English auicklv or well. Many dropped out of school to work in Jobs that did not require the kinds of academic achie.'e-ment and communication skills chat substantive employment oppotiunities reauire :odav. 1- I i TESOLs Vision of Effective Education for All Students The role of ESL standards can only be fully understood in the broader context of education for ESOL students. Therefore, before presenting the ESL Standards, it is important to desenbe our overarching vision of effecave education. In TESOLs vision: Effective education for ESOL students includes nativelike levels of proficient?/ in English. Effective education for ESOL students includes the maintenance and promotion of ESOL students' native languages in school and community contexts. > All educational personnel assume responsibility for the educadon of ESOL students. - Effective education also calls for comprehensive provision of first-rate services and full access to those services by all students > Knowledge of more than one language and culture is advantageous for all students. !S ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students 3 Effective education for ESOL students includes nativelike levels of proficiency in English. For ESOL students to be successful in school and ultimately in the world outside school. they must be able to use English to accomplish their academic, personal, and social goals with the same proficiency as native speakers of English. In school environments, ESOL students need to be able to use spoken and written English both to acquire academic content and to demonstrate their learning. ESOL learners also need to be able to follow routine classroom instructions given o' in English and understand and use appropriate communication patterns so that they can be successful learners in academic environments. Finally, ESOL learners need to use English to function effectively in social settings outside the school, as well as in academic settmgs. The ESL standards in this document are concerned with these types of social and acad- emic skills. Moreover, appropriate performance and assessment standards that distinguish between language and academic achievement are also required if ESOL students are* to be given full credit for learning academic content while acquiring English. o' Effective education for ESOL students includes the maintenance and promotion of ESOL students native languages in school and community contexts. The auHinmeni. oi ihallenging, wo.'-ld- ciass eaucatioria
By definition. ESOL learners already know and use another language. Both the academic Siam SLUG .cards by ui! ier.LS is oniv j achievement and the school completion of ESOL learners is significantly enrianced when they are able to use their native languages to leam in school. In fact, full proficiency in the native language (including literacy) facilitates second language development. Developing and using COSSfOL scnoos i design their i I ESOL students guistic and cul
Bilingualism is o native languages also sen'es U.S. national interests because it increases the lin- rral resources available as the United States competes in the global economy. UI dsset whose \aiue for the indhidual and for societv can onlv increase as the a, Kmc Sim Sdiv |at} id me U Ian ^Th S sp< i she cot eaucanonai | :ons v.-.d- EiCi.
L .S. role in the global market place expands in the next centurv. siuden Olh: < as well ss i All educational personnel assume responsibility for the education of ESOL students. Ai in mi: ' I I I i I The attainment of challenging, worid-class educational standards by al! students is only possible it scnools design their educational missions with ESOL students, as well as others, in mind, u.omprehen.si'. e education calls tor shared responsibility by and collaboration among all educational protessionals wort-ting wuth ESOL students. It also calls for professionals to expand their knowledge to encompass issues of relevance to the education of ESOL students. This e.xpanded knowledge base includes an understanding of similarities and differences in first and second language acquisition, the role ot the native language in second language and content learning, instructional methods and strategies that facilitate both English language and content learning, instructional practices that accommodate individual differences in learning styles, the interrelationships between culture, cogniuon and academic achievement, alternative approaches to assessment, and the imponance of community-school linkages in education. These are all for tx'scf f?- tin & ^wh det ^coi aca 4 I 1 I I part of the professional development of ESL specialists that general educators must tap into if educational reform is to result in the attainment of high standards by all students. Effective education also calls for comprehensive provision of first-rate services and full access to those services hy all students. Quality educational experiences and ser\nces must be made fully accessible to all ESOL students. These include, among others, comprehensive and challenging curricula, access to the full range of curricula (e .g., gifted classes, laboratory sciences, college preparatory courses), safe and Introduction: Promising Futures we us< off
Sr' wc ?- ^0 ESi a:h 1 ) id- 2n well-equipped classrooms, appropriate instructional practices and assessment measures, inclusion in extracurricular activities, fully and appropriately certified teachers, and other educational specialists and resources. However, this is often not the case in most schools. To have quality programs and to serve ESOL students appropriately on their way to mastery of English, instruction must take into account the different entry-level abilities in English that ESOL learners have. Some learners come to school with oral and written skills
others do not. In addition, where necessary, programs should provide some instruction in the native languages of ESOL students. TESOLs Access Brochure provides a description of the conditions needed to provide ESOL students with equitable opportunities to leam. (See Appendix A.) Knowledge of more than one language and culture is advantageous for all students. Internationalism is the hallmark of modem U.S. education and of the education reform movement, and linguistic and cultural diversity are the hallmarks of internationalism. The challenge of contemporary education is to contribute to students abilities to live in increasingly diverse local communities and an ever-shrinking world community. Effective education for the 21st century' must provide firsthand opportunities for students to leam about the cultural diversity around them and to leam world languages. Cross-cultural competence can be fostered bv meaningful and long-term interactions with others with different world views, life e.xperiences. languages, and cultures. Language learning can be fostered by interactions with native speakers. This means that, not only should ESOL students leam about the U.S. from native-Envli^h speakers, but native-English-speaking students, teachers, administrators, and school staff should leam about the world and its languages from ESOL students, their families, and their communities. IfESOLsiudii iO have full aci challenging i cumeuia and: i achieve :o che I high level content a: native Ens Audience >5- 1 This document is written for educators who work with ESOL learners. First, it is intended for educators who work directly with ESOL students at elementary
middle, and secondarv school levels. This includes designated ESL teachers (whether in resource or self-contained set- tings), bilingual teachers who work with ESOL students in their native languages and English, 'O 4 t e .es and teachers who work with ESOL students with special needs and talents. Other educators who will use these standards are content area teachers who teach ESOL students. If ESOL students are to have full access to challenging curricula and to achieve to the same high level in the content are:^ as native English speakers, then content area specialists must become aware of the importance of language in relationship to their disciplines, so that they' can better facilitate the ^^demic achievement of their ESOL students. Curriculum developers and program coordinators are likely to refer to thus document as The standards and descriptors will be helpful for developers of ESL curricula and may be ^rj^^ out learning objectives. The sample progress indicators, vignettes, and discussions ^yoffer ideas for learning activities, assessment and program design. 111 id speakers, "ler. content area specialists rat-t become awareate imponar.ee of language in relationship to ateir disciplines sc that they can better facilitate the academic achievement of their ESOL students. document may be used as a reference for educators such as counselors, school social ^ud psychologists who provide additional service to ESOL students and for profes- ^onals whose activities and decisions affect programs for ESOL students, that is, building es i KL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students 5i i ! i I 6 administrators, preservice and in-service teacher educators, and local, state and national policy makers. Parents and communities with ESOL learners may also wish to consult this document so that they may better understand what constitutes appropriate and effective education for their children. General Principles of Language Acquisition . A number of general principles derived from current research and theory about the nature of language, language learning, human development, and pedagogy, underlie the ESL standards described in this document. These principles are described briefly here. Language is functional
O o Language varies. o Language learning is cultural learning. Language acquisition is a long-term process. Language acquisition occurs through meaningful use and interaction. Language processes develop interdependently. Native language proficiency contributes to second language acquisition. ,x Etc ca idf t f- Bilingualism is an indixidual and societal asset. Language is junctional. Language, oral and written, is primarily a means of communication used by people in multiple and varied social contexts to express themselves, interact with others, learn about the world, and meet their indi\-idual and collective needs. Successful language learning and language teaching emphasize the goal of functional proficiency. This is a departure from traditional pedagogical approaches that new language learning and teaching primarily as mastety of the elements of language, such as grammar and vocabulary, without reference to their functional usefulness. Therefore, what is most important for ESOL learners is to function effectively in English and through English while learning challenging academic content. Language varies. Language, oral and written, is not monolithic
it comes in different varieties. Language varies according to person, topic, purpose, and situation. Everyone is proficient in more than one of these social varieties of their native language. Language also varies with respect to regional, social class, and ethnic group differences. Such language varieties are characterized by distinctive structural and functional characteristics, and they constitute legitimate and functional systems of communication within their respective sociocultural niches. Additionally, language varies from one academic domain to anotherthe language of mathematics is different from the language of social studies. As competent language users, ESOL students already use their own language varieties. They must also learn the oral and written language varieties used in schools and in the community in large. What is most important for ESOL learners is to function effectively in academic environments, while retaining their own native language varieties. Introduction: Promising Futures Bl S ar be le
ac ac > er F.i/ Li e L er ^ac ^le Seb L-f' to ^in g'lb ^al feicy .nt -e of s Language learning is cultural learning. Patterns of language usage vary across cultures and reflect differences in values, norms, and beliefs about social roles and relationships in each culture. 'When children learn their first language, they learn the cultural values, norms, and beliefs that are characteristic of their cultures. To learn another language is to learn new norms, behaviors and beliefs that are appropriate in the new culture, and thus to extend one's sociocultural competence to new environments. To add a new language, therefore, is to add a new culture. Learning a new language and culture also provides insights into ones own language and culture. This is imponant for ESOL students because general education in U.S. schools tends to reflect a culture other than their own. If ESOL students are to attain the same high standards as native-English-spealdng students, educational programs must be based on acknowledgment of, understanding of, respect for, and valuing of diverse cultural backgrounds. What is imponant for all language learners is to develop attitudes of additive bilingualism and biculturalism. Language acquisition is a long-term process. iki- rld. dae- j fo ties .f 5- Language acquisition occurs over time with learners moving through developmental stages and gradually growing in prohciency. Individual learners however move through these stages at variable rates. Rates of acquisition are influenced by multiple factors including an indhiduals educational background, first language background, learning style, cognitive style, motivation, and personality. In addition, sociocultural factors, such as the influence of the English or native language communir. in the learners life, may play a role in acquisition. In many instances. learners pick up" conversation skills related to social language more quickly than th acquire academic language skills. Educational programs must recognize the length of time it takes to acquire the English language skills necessary for success in school. This means that ESOL !eam- ers must be given the time it takes to attain full academic proficiency in English, often fro.m 5 to 1 years. Language acquisition occurs through meaningful use and interaction. Research in first and second language acquisition indicates that language is learned most effectively when it is used in significant and meaningful situations as learners interact with others (some of whom should be more proficient than the learners are) to accomplish their purposes. Language acquisition takes place as learners engage in activities of a social nature with opportunities to practice language forms for a variety of communicative purposes. Language acquisition also takes place during actixnties that are of a cognitive or intellectual nature where learners have oppormnities to become skilled in using language for reasoning and mastery of S- challenging new information. This means that ESOL learners must have multiple opportunities to Efigiish, to interact with others as they study meaningful and intellectually challengng content, and receive feedback on their language use. ^Language processes develop interdependently. Learner K' conversation
related to sect language more 5- quickly man: acquire acace: O' / Educui ?ro.^ra: recoi^r.izs 'O of time it acquire tf language le le :e: necessar.' ior 5UCCSS5 in sc
ICCl. I lan^. Traditional distinctions among the processes of reading, listening, writing, and speaking are ^^cial. So is the conceptualization that language acquisition as linear (with listening preced- ion jres peaking, and speaking preceding reading, and so forth). Authentic language often entails simultaneous use of different language modalities, and acquisition of functional language ^^lities occurs simultaneously and interdependently, rather than sequentially. Thus, for exam- 'depending on the age of the learner, reading activities may activate the development of Standards for Pre-K-12 Students 71 -I 8 speaking abilities, or vice versa. Additionally, listening, speaking, reading, and writing develop as learners engage with and through different modes and technologies, such as computers. music, film, and video. This means that ESOL learners need learning environments that provide demonstrations of the interdependence of listening. e> speaking, reading, and writing. They also need to develop all of their language abilities through the use of varied modes and technologies. Native language proficiency contributes to second language acquisition. Because, by definition, ESOL students know and use at least one other language, they have acquired an mtuitive understanding of the general structural and functional characteristics of language. They bring this knowledge to the task of second language learning..students also come to the task of learning English and learning content through. English already lit- erate in their native languages. These learners know what a Some E5OL stu- it means to be literatethey know that they can use written forms of language to leam more about the world, to convey information and receive information from others, to establish and maintain relationships with others, and to e.xplore the perspectives of others. Literacy in the native language correlates positively with the acquisition of literacy' in a second language. In addition, academic A fl i - ! 1 I I i i j I i I I 1 I I I includes the use of E5OL students instraction that native languages, especially if they are literate in that Ian- guage. promotes learners' academic achievement while they are acquiring the English needed to benefit fully from instruction through English. Native language literacy abilities cin a_____ students in English-medium classrooms to construct meaning from academic materials and o ESOL expenences in English. And. in learning a new language, students also leam more about their natii e tongae-. This means that for aSOL leatmers the most effective teaching and learning are those th romote ESOL students' native langua< environments for secona language as a foundation jor English language and academic dc'.elopment. Bilingualism is an individual and societal asset. o' '.ge and literacy development .Acquisition of two languages simultaneously is a common and normal developmental ph? nomenon and that acquisition of a second (or third) language can confer certain cognitive and linguistic advantages on the indindual. To realize these benefits, however, advanced levels of pne- proficiency in both languages are necessary. Therefore, the most effective educational environ- ments for ESOL learners are those that promote the continued development of learners' primary' languages for both academic and social purposes. In addition, as noted earlier, bilingual proficiency enhances employment possibilities in the international marketplace and enhances the competitive strength of U.S. industry' and business worldwide. This means that bilingualism benefits the individual and serves the national development of multiple languages. Goals for ESOL Learners o' interest, and schools need to promote the retention and TESOL has established three broad goals for ESOL learners at all age levels, goals that include personal, social, and acadermc uses of English. Each goal is associated wth three dis- tinct standards. In TESOLs vision, ESOL learners will meet these standards as a result of the instruction they receive, thereby achieving the goals. Our schools need to ensure that all stu- Introduction
Promising Futuresop dents achieve the English language competence needed for academic success and for life in a literate culture. 0 Goal 1: To use English to communicate in social settings
ve if lU- y lit- V .la- s, V SB' A primary goal of ESL instruction is to assist students in communicating effectively in English, both in and out of school. Such communication is vital if ESOL learners are to avoid ' the negative social and economic consequences of low proficiency in English and are to panici- pate as informed participants in our democracy. ESOL learners also need to see that ere are j personal rewards to be gained from communicating effectively in English. This goal does not S'suggest, however, that students should lose their native language proficiency. Standards for Goal 1 Students will
:d to SOL
.x gi- 1. 2. 3. use English to participate in social interaction interact in, through, and with spoken and written English for personal expression and enjoyment use learning strategies to extend their communicative competence
ir nags r.snt Goal 2: To use English to achieve academically in ail content areas In school settings, English competence is critical for success and expectations fcr -SOL I learners are high. They are expected to leam academic content through the English .anguase I lend m- T'and to compete academically with native-English-speaking ^/kamers use spoken and written Engiish in their schooiwor ig^ndards for Goal 2 -Students will
eers. This process requires that
al :es im nd use English to interact in the classroom use English to obtain, process, construct, and proxide subject matter information in spoken and written form use appropriate learning strategies to construct and apply academic knowledge s- 1- in socially and culturally appropriate ways ^tt^udents in U.S. schools come into contact with peers and adults who are different ^^rlmguistically and culturally. The diversity in U.S. schools mirrors the diversity in g^^y and around the world that young people will encounter as they move into the 21st of work. In order to work and live amid diversity, students need to be able to appreciate people who are different and communicate effectively with them. ^^^gmcation includes the ability to interact in multiple social settings. itures for Pre-K-12 Students 9 aStandards for Goal 3 Students will: 1. 2. use the appropriate language variety, register, and genre according to audience, purpose, and setting use nonverbal communication appropriate to audience, purpose, and setting 1. J. use appropriate learning strategies to extend their sociolinguistic and sociocultural competence Conclusion 11 The ESL standards dsscnoe the proficiencies in Enaiish that ESOL students need to acquire sc they can Full proficiency in English is critical for the long-term personal, social, and economic development .of all students in the United States. In this document, TESOL outlines a framework for considering and planning language education for ESOL students and for interpreting and making use of the ESL standards. The ESL standards describe the proficiencies in English that E50L students need to acquire so.they can attain the same high level standards in other content domains, including English language arts, as fully proficient English-speaking students. Thus, the ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Siudenis is the starting point for developing effective and equitable education for ESOL students. Planning effective English language instruction for ESOL students cannot be don isolation. It must be part of a comprehensive and challenging educational program that takes into a same hish itandaros in 0! lonisnt domains, including English language arts, as .fully proficient English- speaking students. 10 account OL students social, educational, and personal backgrounds as well as the: existing skills and knowledge bases. It must understand and respond appropriatelv to the interrelation- ships between language, academic, and sociocultural developm^ent. The linguistic, cosnitive. and sociocultural competencies that ESOL students bring to school are a solid base for buildin: 'g their future, in terms of educational and career success. Only if tSL instruction is part of a comprehensive, challenging, and enriching educational program, however, will the promising futures of ESOL learners be realized. Introduction: Promising Futures 31ie Hie ^Haku! ?K
Ho&r ^^Krash lihdfc II cLat rCac ilii I* Sta s m- .'el-for ik- OL References for Further Reading Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisiti(^n < Ai d: August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Ed.). (1997). Improving schooling^^rl(ingiiage-mindri^,cifyi>^, A' research agenda. Washington, DC
National Academy K^sS' 'V Bialystok, E., & Hakuta, K. (1994). In ocher words: The scienc'^^nd:psvchplogy oj secori^^ldtx^iage acijuisicion. New York: Basic Books. A'-.. . d- Collier, V (1987). Age and rate of acquisitio'^.bt^econd langua^)fe?.
ach
^^ic purposes. ' TESOL Quarterly, 21 (3), 617-641.' 'f fi ' ' ' ' "(S'' % Collier, V (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academ.ic achievement in a second language. TE5OL Quarterly, 23(2), 509-532' W- p Hak-uta, K. (1986). mVirror o/language
1 he dehafil^n'New York^^^sic Books. Hoffman, C. (1991). Introduction to bilingualism. NetV.-YSfk: Longmian. Krashen, S. (1982). Princi_p!es of first and second lang'.iage^cduisicion. O.xford: P. iamon. Lindfors, J. (1987). Children's language and leatming. (2nd ed<)
^ Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentl Hall. .ulus McLaughlin, B. (1984). Second language acquisition in children. Volume 1: Preschool children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McLaughlin, B. (1985). Second language acquisition in children. Volume 2
School-age children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McLaughlin, B. (1992). Myths and misconceptions about second language learning:,.What teacher needs to know. Educational Practice Report No. 5. Santa Cruz, CA and'^asl^.'gt^n^ DC: Nauqnal Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language t^rhins. a
Pease-Alvarec, L, & Hakuta, K. (1992). Enriching our views of bilingualism and bilin'^i^i^U' cation. Educational Researcher, 21(2), 4-6. Bilingual Education: Importance of Native Language Collier, V (1992). A synthesis of studies'e-xamining long-term language-minority student data on academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16(1/2), 187-212. ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students Si-f* ! 1 II I si-.- \ hi, v<- %%. '.v 11 V Exhibit No. 66: LI230-90 Program Evaluation for English as a Second Language.Section L. Program Evaluation Program Goals The Little Rock School district shall provide a research-based English-as-a- Second Language (ESL) program for its students who are identified limited-English proficient (LEP). The first goal of the ESL program is to enable students to master English language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening), content area concepts, and skills so that the students are able to participate effectively in the regular program as quickly as possible. The second goal of the ESL program is to provide identified students with the cultural literacy necessary for them to feel comfortable in participating in the school, community, and greater community. Program Objectives ESL program objectives are as follows: 1. 2. J. 4. 5, 6. 1. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. To implement and maintain consistent procedures for student identification processes. To assess all students who have a primary language other than English (PHLOTE), regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for entry and placement into an ESL program. To diagnose student needs and provide appropriate ESL standards/benchmarks, instruction, and assessments to meet identified students individual needs for English-language instruction, for understandable instruction in other content areas, and for positive self-concept and identification with personal/family cultural heritages. To hire, train, and continually , develop highly motivated, sensitive, and caring ESL teachers and other staff to provide effective ESL instruction, interact one-on-one with the identified stodents and their families, and serve as liaisons between school and relevant community. To provide appropriately aligned instructional materials. To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for exit from an ESL program. To provide for parental/family involvement in the school setting to support improved student learning. To provide equitable access to other district programs and services, including special education, gifted/talented education, and all procedural safeguards. To monitor the progress of all identified students during program participation and after program exit and to reclassify students as needed. To evaluate the ESL program and make program modifications as needed. To maintain accurate and useful student records, including procedural safeguards (See Administrative Regulations, IHBEA-R, approved November, 1999). Categories of English Second Language Students An objective of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) is to assess all PHLOTE students regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. After attempting to assess these students, they are tagged within the Districts database as: (1) LEP - Limited English proficient, (2) NALEP - not assessed, or (3) FEP - Fluent English proficient. As of June 2,2000 the District has identified 805 PHLOTE students (LEP = 467, N-AfcEP = 45, and FEP = 293). -4here-i3-&fte-horTte-schQoled-sludent that has heerLassessed-EEPrbtrrwiltTTorbe included in this~' Supporting charts reflect three data gathering points, 11/30/99, 3/24/00, and 6/2/00, and correspond to the Districts reporting to the Arkansas State Department of Education, Districts Quarterly Report, and the Annual OCR report. The Districts primary database is the AS400 mainframe computer using CIMS, an electronic student database software. Student data are collected at school level. Cunent year data are filed with the students permanent record file (PRF). Baseline data are stored in ESL Department files. 'BSi7pTograirrand'DRtricrstaff1iave-reviewed-studenliiala_aud_mlLcnittinueJu44pdate4he mainframe database. As i^fereRecririrHlhHApdan. District staff are members nCthe Divi.sion of Curriculum andTnstraction. The Divisions-Associate Superintendent is Dr. Bonnie-Lesley^ The initial portion of this section will report demographic data (i.e,, gender, language, school location, grade level distribution, and any sub-groups) on LEP, NALEP, and FEP students. The subsequent sections will report academic and behavioral progress (e.g., attendance) of LEP students and how LEP students compare on academic and behavioral variables to NALEP, LEP, and the Districts general school population. Description of Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students. As of June 2, 2000, there are 467 LEP students in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). Demographics on this population are: 255 male (54.6%) and 212 female (45.4%), Newcomer Centers serve most of the LEP students, 309 students (66.2%) (see also Figure#!), 3 LRSD has 48 schools, LEP students are being served in all of the High schools. Middle schools, and all but six of the Elementary schools (i.e., Badgett, Dodd, Jefferson, Mitchell, Western Hills, Rightsell, and Woodruff), Non-Newcomer Centers serve the remaining LEP students (N = 158), with the top seven schools serving between 7 and 20 students (see also Figure 2), The elementary level (grades Kindergarten through 5*) has the highest number of students per grade level with an average grade level enrollment of 46. Middle school (grades 6* through 8*') average grade level enrollment is 29, and high school (grades 9* through 12'*) per grade level enrollment averaged 19. The pre-kindergarten program (i.e. LRSDs 4-year- old program) had 29 LEP students enrolled, and Among LEP students Spanish is the most common language spoken (71.1%), followed by Chinese (4.5%), Arabic (3.6%), Assyrian (2.3%), Korean (2.3%), and Vietnamese (1.5%). An additional 29 languages account for the remaining 14.3% of LEP students. One student has no language listed. Within the LEP population are several sub-groups: LEPNC - LEPSO - In an ESL program at a Newcomer Center (N = 309) Being served at a school other than a Newcomer Center (N = 158) LEPNS - Not being served (N = 9) LEPSPD - Receiving special education services (N = 9) LEPGT- Receiving gifted and talented (GT) services (N = 7) LEPREC - Students who have left the program, have been reclassified, and have re-entered the program (N = 0) Additional demographic data on these sub-populations are: Newcomer Centers serve all of the students receiving gifted and talented services (N = 8), Five of the Center, ^e^ students receiving special education services (LEPGT) attend a Newcomer Five of the nine LEP students not receiving services (LEPNS) attend Newcomer Centers, and Students not rei being monitored (N = 4y lirect services (LEPNS) have either refused services (N = 5) or areNewcomer Center LEP Enrollment Brady Chicot Romine Terry V\feshington 11/30/99 26 _____68 33 22 38 3/24/00 25 71 30 18 33 6/2/00 ___ 74 28 23 30 Cloverdale Middle Dunbar Middle 42 16 44 16 47 13 Hail High Total Languages LMS [ Figure 2 Top 7 Non-Newcomer Centers serving LEP Students Wakefield Cloverdale El McDermott Bale Garland Henderson Middle Forest Heights 11/30/99 21 17 17 10 6 7 11 3/24/00 22 14 18 9 8 8 10 6/2/00 20 14 13 12 8 8 7 Total I 97 I 73 88 Description of Not Assessed Limited English Proficient (NALEP) Students. There are 45 NALEP students identified in the Districts database. Demographics for this population are: 23 Male (51.1%) and 22 Female (48.9%), Spanish is the most common language (31.1%), followed by Korean (15.5%), Gujarati (8.9%), German (4.4%), Farsi (4.4%), and Chinese (4.4%), Grades kindergarten through 5* have an average grade level enrollment of 1, grades 6* through 8* have an average enrollment of 2, and grades 9* through 12* have an average enrollment of 8, 5 Most NALEP students, 80% (N = 36), have refused to be assessed, three (6.7%) are special education students and were unable to complete the Language Assessment Survey (LAS), three (6.7%) have not been at school when the LAS was administered, one (2.2%) is auditing, one (2.2%) has not returned the signed letter from a parent, and one (2.2%) has been assessed but the score report has not been received by the ESL office, and Only 6.7% (N - 3) attend a Newcomer Center. Parkview High School has the most NALEP students, 44.4% (N = 20). Description of Fluent English Proficient (FEP) Students. There are 299 FEP in the Little Rock School District. Demographics for this population are: 147 male (50.2%) and 146 female (49.8%), Spanish is the most common language (32.2%), followed by Chinese (11.2%), Vietnamese (6.4%), Urdu (4.1%), Korean (3.1%), Arabic (3.1%), and Russian (2.7%). While 34 remaining languages constitute an additional 31.4%, 5.8% (N = 17) have no language listed, One hundred and eighteen (N = 118, 31.8%) of the students attend a Newcomer Center, with Chicot Elementary having 75 students, Cloverdale Middle having 46 students, and Hall High having 72 students. For grades Kindergarten through 5 the average grade level distribution is 26, grades 6* through 8the average grade level distribution is 27, and grades 9 through 12^'the average grade level distribution is 13. There are nine FEP students in the Districts 4-year old program. Evaluation Plan Across four components listed below data will be collected, analyzed, and used to make appropriate, research-based, modifications to the program. The process of this evaluation is to report not only the basic program, demographic, and achievement data, but to used the data and data analysis to investigate and develop new and innovative instructional strategies. 1.(2, Discussion of variables. All LEP academic and other data (e.g/lattendance) will be compared to the general population. The general population for this report consists of all students in the Little Rock School District except those students classified as LEP and students receiving special education services. The District will not compile the graduation, attendance, or retention rates for the 1999-2000 school year until August of 2000y These data will not be reported. LAS scores have only been entered into the Districts debase for those students who have become fluent after October 1999. Since most of the LEP, r and Pep students were not tagged in the Districts database 1999-2000 school ye^graduation data for 1998-1999 is not available. Retention and attendance data only will be reported for the 1998-1999 school year. Database information indicates that no students dropped out during the 1998-1999 or 1999-2000 school year. / Evaluation Components Curriculum service delivery, including curriculum for students who are identified for both Special Education and ESL. Materials and resources
staffing, including the number of teachers and aides trained, frequency of training, scope of training and results
and student progress. Student progre^^^ademic progress of LEP students in ESL programs, LEP students who have been exited, anoifEP students not served in ESL programs. Examination of the number of retentions, drop-outs, and the student attendance rates of LEP students, former LEP students, and non-LEP students, and the extra become proficient in English/^ extent to which the aforementioned groups are becoming or have _______ .eview and comparison of data reflecting the gradtiation-and-
(d^but rates of LEP a^former LEP students with that of their non-LEP peers. 7 Description of LRSDs Academic Testing to Assess LEP Student Progress State Mandated ACTAAP Benchmark Examination, Grades 4 & 8. The State is in the process of implementing its Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment & Accountability Program (ACTAAP) which includes a Benchmark Examination containing a measure of mathematics achievement and literacy. The intent and purpose of this component is to identify students in need of additional instruction in mathematics and literacy. This examination process is being developed, piloted, and implemented in a sequential and cumulative process beginning with 4* grade in SY 1997-98, and including 8* grade in SY 1998-99. SY 2000-01 will incorporate the math measure for 6* grade currently being piloted in other schools across Arkansas. Also end-of- course measures for Algebra I, Geometry, and Biology I are currently in the item development phase. All ESL students are to take the test unless parental permission to exempt is given. The comprehensive mathematics and literacy components contain multiple-choice and openresponse questions based on The Arkansas Mathematics, Reading, and English/Language Arts Curriculum Frameyvorks. Items are developed with the assistance and approval of the Arkansas Content Advisory Committees composed of active Arkansas educators with expertise in mathematics and literacy. The committees developed and reviewed both multiple-choice and open-response items to ensure they reflect the Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks and are grade-appropriate. While multiple-choice questions are scored by machine to determine if the student chose the correct answer from four options, responses to open-response mathematics questions are scored by trained readers using a pre-established set of scoring criteria. Students are given scores in math and literacy. Students can receive a test score of one through four with four representing Advanced followed by Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. Achievement Level Test (ALT), Grades 2-11. The recently implemented Achievement Level Test (ALT) includes a series of mathematics, reading, language, usage, and science achievement measures that increase in difficulty across eight levels. This type of measurement is designed to document growth by assessing students at the cutting edge of their individual achievement level. Fall and spring administration across grades 3-11 permit measurement of growth within and across school years expressed in two kinds of scores: percentile scores and scale or RIT (Rasch Interval Scale) scores. Percentile scores can be used to compare students to the large group of test takers using the ALT developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association. It is important to note that this is a comparative group currently involving 104 schools districts and 500,000 students and growing 4 to 13 points annually. This is not a norm group configured to represent public school populations. All ESL students are to take the test unless parental permission to exempt is given. More importantly, demonstration of growth within and across an individuals matriculation in grades 2 - 11 is documented using the RIT score designed to make direct comparisons to a criterion performance level along a scale from 160 to 250. Students typically start at a RIT score of about 170-190 in the fall of the 3"^* grade and progress to the 230-260 range by high school. Students at 235 have reached a readiness level for Algebra I. It is very important to note that along the Rasch Interval Scale, scores have the same meaning regardless of the individual students grade level. This type of measurement allows some students to start at a higher RIT level and some low-achieving students to never reach the top level. The design provides an accurate measure of each students achievement where the typical standardized test, by its nature, provides inadequate measures for many students, especially those at the high and low ends of the scale. Also important is the fact that tests are aligned with The Arkansas Mathematics, Reading, and English/Language Arts Curriculum Frameyvorks, thus enabling the District to determine impact and effectiveness of its instructional programs. The pool of test questions, developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association, has been extensively field tested to insure items of the highest quality and fairness. A balance of math teachers and curriculum specialists (i.e., race, gender, and grade level) matched the pool of questions to the standards and their attending benchmarks included in the aforementioned Frame^vorks. During test development activities, questions were calibrated for difficulty and assigned to a level (e.g.. Math levels 1-8). For example: An appropriate expectation of a Level 1 student is to multiply whole numbers, while a Level 6 student should be able to multiply fractions. This calibration makes it possible to calculate the RIT score which is tied directly to the curriculum. ALTs are administered during the f and 4th quarters. Stanford Achievement Test- O*** edition (SAT-9). The Sat-9 is a overall measure of achievement in reading, mathematics, language arts, science, and social science. The SAT-9 is designed to measure student achievement in relation to the performance of a national sample selected to be representative of the nations students in each of the grades tested. The test provides a method for comparing the achievement of students with that of students in the same grade across the country. The SAT-9 is administered to students in grades 5, 7, and 10 during the month of September. The SAT-9 is a timed test. In addition to a raw score, mean scaled scores, normal curve equivalent (NCE), percentile, and stanine scores are provided. For this report, NCE scores are to be used.Marie M. Clav: An Observation Survey (AOS). The AOS is an observational measure that is used to guide student work on tasks related to reading and writing. The AOS consists of six measurable tasks. Running Records records student behavior as text is read aloud. Letter Identification records the what letters a student knows. Concepts in Print records what a student is attending to on the printed page. Word Test records the number of words a students knows. Writing records a students writing behavior, and Writing Vocabulary records all the words a student can write in ten minutes. Running records is considered the pivotal task among the remainder of the observation tasks. During this observation the student reads materials that are typically used within the classroom and the observer records the directional movements that are made, errors or miscues, and the student is assessed on deriving meaning, structure and information from the material. Given the number of observational tasks, only the running record data will be reported. The AOS is administered in the fall and spring to Kinderg^en through 2"* grade. The AOS is written for classroom teachers who want to become careful observers of young children as they learn to read and write. The Survey is useful to teachers who work one-on-one with students who are having difficulty in learning to read and write. The AOS is administered to all students. Results State Mandated ACTAAP Benchmark Examination. Grades 4 & 8. The State Benchmark exam for the 1999-2000 school year was given in April 2000 and the results will not be available to the District until October 2000. The Benchmark exam was given to 4* and 8* grade students in February 1999 for the 1998-1999 school year. Data from the 1998-1999 school year will be used Jbr this report. Initial test results are provided to the District in hard copy form, only disagregating the data by race and ethnicity. At this time database data (e.g. Excel file) are only available for 4* grade students. Several LEP students (N = 18) did not take the test. The State of Arkansas allows LEP students, with permission from their parents, to be exempted from taking the test. This is probably the case for most of these students. The Arkansas Department of Education is currently field testing an alternative assessment for exempted students. Training on the administration of the alternative assessment will begin in fall 2000. There were no 4^ grader NALEP students, thus no test results. LEP students that took the test performed below District results and FEP students performed above District results (see Figures 3 & 4). (insert Figures 3 & 4) CL Stanford Achievement Test, 9^ edition (SAT-O). Students in the 5*, 7*, and lO'^ grades took the SAT-9 during September 2000. The complete battery scores reported are a compilation of reading, mathematics, language, spelling, study skills, science, social science, using information, and thinking skills subtest results. Percentile scores are reported (see Figure 5). The general population consists of all student with the exception of exempted LEP and special education students. A number of students (18 5 graders, 15 graders, and 18 10* graders) did not take the SAT-9. The State of Arkansas allows LEP students, with permission from their parents, to be exempted from taking the test. %js=?rpF^ably=^e<ise-fb-iaastailise-stedeHts. The Arkansas Department of Education is currently field testing an.alteBtrative assessment for exempted students. Training on the administration of the altemativ
assessment will begin in fall 2000. Figure 5 SAT-9 Complete Battery Percentile Scores Grade General Population LEP NALEP FEP Sth 7th 10th 36 N = 1481 42 N = 1363 40 N = 1448 15 N = 11 27 N = 22 30 N=2 78 N = 2 40 N = 5 55 N = 30 71 N = 21 55 N = 16 Marie M. Clay: An Observation Survey (AOS). During the 1999-2000 school year, kindergarten through 2"' grade students were assessed during the early fall and late spring on the six categories of the AOS. No students were to be exempted from taking the test. However, there were some students that were not assessed. During the fall testing 10 kindergarten, 19 1 grade, and 19 2" grade students and during spring testing 11 kindergarten, 15 1 grade, and 5 2"'' grade wee not assessed. There was an improvement from fall to spring on the number tested. On most of the State and District assessments (i.e., SAT-9 and State Benchmark), LEP students are allowed to be exempted, with parental permission, from testing. Teachers were asked to assess all students. With the exception of Kindergarten, LEP students did not grow as fast as the general population (see Figures 6, 7, & 8). V (insert figures 6, 7, & 8) rd Retention rate. Twenty-five students (16 LEP, 1 NALEP, arid 8 FEP)^ere retained after the 1998-1999 school year. Retention rates of these subpopulatiQns_were generally higher than the general school population (see Figure 8). Among the LEP students there were 10 male and 6 female students, and 14 students spoke Spanish, with 1 speaking Chinese and 1 Filipino. The one NALEP student was female and spoke Spanish. Among the FEP students there were 6 male and 2 females, with 7 speaking Spanish and 1 speaking Portuguese Figure 4 Retention Rate for the 1998-1999 school year by Level Level General Population LEP NALEP lElementar^ |Middle f HZ 1.33%| 4.29% I [High EI 0.98%| 2.94^ 0.42%| 1,31^ 3.30% I ^.00%| I 0.65%l iJ-- I 5.06%] EP I Attendance. The average daily attendance for the District in 1998-1999 was 92%. District data is not reported by level. Average Daily Membership (ADM) data is sent to the Arkansas State Department of Education and the Dept, of Ed. calculates the attendance rate. Dropout. According to the Districts database, no LEP, NALEP, FEP students dropped out during the 1998-1999 or 1999-2000 school years. However, 63 students did leave the District. Reasons for leave were: Moved to another country, 23%, N = 15 Transferred to a private school, 10%, N = 6 Moved out of state, 30%, N = 19 Moved to another school District within the state, 35%, N = 22 Withdrew from school, 2%, N = 1 / ^eview^f academic dataj)f students reclassified and exited from ESL programs. Review of data reflecfing fh'e number of LEP students who have exited from ESL but returned to e ESL program to address academic deficits. Twenty-five students, since 11/30/99, have beeia-r/clasai-fied fro
200 school year, no students have exited the program and ret
, ,^me^ De data for this subpopulation are: ,EP to FEP. ^uring the 1999- le^ Demographic and academic 12 males (48%) and 13 females (52%), 10 students with aLASof3/4andl5 students with a L AS o f 3/5, 2 students exited March 2000, 5 exited April 2000, 10 exited May 2000, and 8 have no exit date, 17 of the 25 students do not have a language code in the database. All of the students receive Gifted and Talented (GT) services. 64% of the exited students were from grades 2" through 5*, 28% from grades 6* through 8*, / and 8% from grades 9 and 11, / 11 of the students (44%) were from Newcomer Centers. /fcr 4 P Z L L 1^- Figure 5 SAT-9 Complete Battery Percentile Scores Grade General Population LEP NALEP FEP Sth 7th 10th Figure 9 36 N = 1481 42 N = 1363 40 N = 1448 15 N = 11 21 N =22 30 N =2 78 N = 2 40 N = 5 55 N = 30 71 N = 21 55 N= 16 Retention Rate for the 1998-1999 school year by Level Level General Population LEP NALEP LEP 3 J I Elementary} 1.33% I 4.29% I I 0,65^ [Middle 0.98%| 2.9
This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.