Program evaluations, Volume III

B VOLUME III Bl received 1 4 2003 office of desegregation monitoringt. .i4 ii l.iii.i: 'U --IH' -H
I ii i.'i ! J r 1 11 iiii Uli ii "!: It! -:!!! .."Illi UI ..."ii .....^i pii SI la 5 r fe'V . \ H .V ,rt' ?,?A : li* A' ,.K 1S=V * !? V 111 ill IJ-j iri ii H I'! I diii iii i lil I ' I ii I 'll' fl II I 'ilii DI ill Til II" IN
1 ix I I 71 J t J. * 1 i< PS 1 i o I if .1 .!l i< P J II 'fL. E Li., P F_ - i'Ll iiiiilff E ! o W X o w w 2 !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: onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: December 19, 2002 SUBJECT: Third Annual Evaluation of the Alternative Language Program (ALP), 2001-2002 Background The Board of Education reviewed in fall 2000 and in fall 2001 the evaluations of the Alternative Language Program (ALP) for limited-English proficient (LEP) students for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. These were brought back to the Board for formal approval, in compliance with Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy " in November 2002. s Officials at the Office for Civil Rights in Dallas had high praise for the 2000-2001 program evaluation and requested our permission to share it with other districts in the five-state region. They also requested that the LRSD team be available to conduct workshops for other districts in how to develop a qualitv program evaluation. The 2001-2002 program evaluation was developed, for the most part, according to the procedural guidelines outlined in Administrative Regulations IL-R adopted by the Board of Education in October 2002. The background information required by Judge Wilson in his Compliance Remedy can be found as follows
1. Steps that have been taken to implement the recommendations for improvement from prior program evaluationssee pp. 49-53. 2. Names of administrators involved in the program evaluationsee cover page for the names of team members
also see p. 19. I 1006 I J Third Annual Evaluation of the Alternative Language Program - Board Memo December 19, 2002 Page Two h IT 3. Name and qualifications of the external expert who served on the evaluation teamsee pp. 18-19. 4. Grade-level descriptions of teaphers who were involved in the assessment processsee p. 19. The ALP is not, of course, relevant to Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan since it does not address the academic achievement of African American students. It is required annually, nevertheless, as a part of the District's voluntary Commitment to Resolve with the Office for Civil Rights (signed in September 1999). An outline of the eight sections of the report follows: 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 data, and an outline of the sections in the study. It also includes demographic data for PHLOTEs, LEPs, and FEPEs, including languages spoken, enrollment by grade level, and enrollment by school. Section II
Policies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance, Equity, and Effectiveness 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. Section III
Students English Language Acquisition Performance of LEP and FEPE 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. 1007 1 z o z i 9 O X SThird Annual Evaluation of the Alternative Language Program - Board Memo December 19, 2002 Page Three ri Section V
Performance of LEP and FEPE Students in Advanced Courses This section evaluates LEP and FEPE student performance in high school Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and University Studies courses. Section VI: Monitoring the Progress of Fluent English Proficient Exited Students (FEPEs) This section is a cohort study of the academic achievement of students who exited the ALP in 1999-2000 with an analysis of all the available assessment data on those specific students through 2001-2002. Section VII: Behavioral Performance Indicators of LEP and PEPE Students This section evaluates LEP and FEPE students performance in relation to attendance, retention, discipline and suspension, dropout, and graduation rates. Section VIII: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations This section summarizes the key findings for each of the research questions, draws general conclusions on the academic and behavioral performance of LEP and FEPE students, and makes recommendations for program improvement in 2002-2003. s S 5- I This evaluation includes two important new sections. Section V provides data on those LEP students and students exited from the Alternative Language Program (FEPEs) enrolled in advanced high school courses (Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and University Studies). Section VI provides a three-year analysis of the academic progress of students who exited the Alternative Language Program in 1999-2000. In order to meet the requirements of federal, state, and local expectations, the evaluation addresses seven research questions, as follows: Program Implementation 1. Has the District implemented appropriate policies, procedures, and programs to comply with federal law, the Commitment to Resolve with OCR, the Arkansas Department of Education, and local LRSD policy? What has been the cost of implementing this program? (See Section 11.) o z oo WX I 1008 .w I Third Annual Evaluation of the Alternative Language Program - Board Memo December 19, 2002 Page Four 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, and 504 programs? (See Section II.) 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? (See Section II.) Academic Progress 4. 5. 6. 7. rs Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program making progress in acquiring reading and English language arts skills? How does their performance compare with that of the general population and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? (See Section III.) 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)? (See Section IV.) Are there LEP and FEPE students participating in the Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and University Studies courses at the secondary level? Are they being successful in those courses? (See Section V.) Are FEPE students successful in the mainstream curriculum? (See Section VI.) Behavioral Indicators 8. 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 the general population and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? (See Section VII.) zO o -J o pn X z X 1009 {] Third Annual Evaluation of the Alternative Language Program - Board Memo December 19, 2002 Page Five Section I includes several sets of demographic data so that the reader can understand who the children are who are served in the ALP and which schools they attend. The final chapter. Section VIII, is a summary of all previous sections, including key findings, conclusions, and recommendations for program improvement. Intermediate chapters include descriptions of the available data that address the various research questions. Upon the Boards approval of this study, it will be forwarded to the Office for Civil Rights in Dallas for their review, and it will be submitted to Judge Wilson as a part of the District's compliance report for Section 2.7.1. Fiscal Impact None. Recommendation That the Board of Education review and formally approve the 2001-2002 evaluation of the Alternative Language Program. z BAL/adg .K oz o O X z 1010 ft r The Third Annual Program Evaluation Alternative Language Program (ALP) Little Rock School District 2001-2002 December 2002 rjL. i X Prepared by Dr. Eddie Williams-McCoy Dr. Ed Williams Karen Broadnax Ken Sa /age Anita Gilliam Dr. Bonnie Lesley Mark Vasquez, Consultant Division of Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/447-3320 www.lrsd.orq oz 5e o Pl X If n z w I 1011 Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction and Background Background 1 Alternative Language Program (ALP) Goals and Objectives 1-2 Demographic Data 3 Background Information on the PHLOTE Students in the District 3 Top Ten Languages of PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE Students PHLOTE Students by Language Table 1
Top Ten Languages, PHLOTE Comparison LEP Students by Language Table 2: Top Ten Languages, LEP Comparison FEPE Students by Language Table 3: Top Four Languages, FEPE Comparison 3 3-4 4 4-6 6 6-7 7 Grade Level Distribution of PHLOTE Students Table 4: Grade Level Distribution of PHLOTE Students Comparison 7-8 8 z Grade Level Distribution by LEP and FEPE Students Table 5: Grade Level Distribution by LEP and FEPE Students Comparison 8-9 9 Elementary School Enrollments by PHLOTE. LEP. and FEPE Changes in Former Newcomer Center Enrollments Magnet School Enrollments Highest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Elementary School Lowest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Elementary School Lowest LEP Student Enrollments by Elementary School Table 6: Elementary Schools Enrollment by PHLOTE. LEP, and FEPE Comparison 9-10 9-10 10 10 11 11 11-12 Secondary School Enrollments by PHLOTE, LEP. and FEPE Changes in Secondary Newcomer Center Enrollments Magnet School Enrollment Highest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Secondary School Lowest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Secondary School Lowest LEP Student Enrollments by Secondary School Table 7: Secondary Enrollment by PHLOTE, LEP. and FEPE Comparison 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 zO S8 o o Xm nz 1 1012 Highest Enrollment by LEP and FEPE Table 8: School Enrollment by LEP and FEPE Schools Identified for Improvement under No Child Left Behind" Exiting the School Improvement Designation Table 9
Schools Identified for Improvement Methodology Interpretation of Assessment Results Evaluation Design and Focus Assessments Research Questions Program Evaluation Outline 14-15 15 15-17 16-17 17 17-18 18 18-19 20 n 20-21 21-22 Section II: Policies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance, Equity, and Effectiveness Policy, Procedural, and Program Changes ESL Program Administrative Handbook Program Objective 1: To implement and maintain consistent procedures for student identification processes. Program Objective 2: To assess all students who have a primary home language other than English (PHLOTE), regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. Assessment Timelines Program Objective 3: To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for entry and placement into an ESL program. Student Assignment Program Objective 4: 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. Definition of the LRSD ALP Curriculum Standards and Benchmarks 23 24 n 24-25 25-26 26 26-29 27 29-35 29 30-31 ii nr K K 101Assessments ESL InstructionElementary Schools ESL InstructionMiddle Schools Middle School Newcomer Centers ESL InstructionHigh Schools High School Newcomer Center No Child Left Behind Requirements Program Objective 5: 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. Program Objective 6
To provide appropriately aligned instructional materials. Program Objective 7: To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for exit from an ESL program. Program Objective 8: To provide for parental/family involvement in the school setting to support improved student learning. Program Objective 9
To provide equitable access to other district programs and services, including special education and gifted/ talented education and all procedural safeguards. Special Education Special Education (LEP and FEPE) by Grade Levels Table 1: Special Education (LEP and FEPE) by Grade Level Comparison 504 LEP and FEPE Students Table 2
LEP and FEPE Students Receiving 504 Services Gifted and Talented (LEP and FEPE) Students Gifted and Talented (LEP and FEPE) by Grade Levels Table 3: Gifted and Talented (LEP and FEPE) Comparison Program Objective 10: To monitor the progress of all identified students during program participation and after program exit and to reclassify students as needed. Students Who Exited the ALP Prior to the 2001-2002 School Year 31 31-32 32-33 33 33-34 34 34 35-37 38 38-39 39-40 40-46 40 40-41 41-42 42-43 42 43-44 44-45 45 46-48 47 III z 1014 t Table 4: All Students Exited Prior to the 2001-2002 School Year Comparison k 48 Program Objective 11: To evaluate the ESL program and make program modifications as needed. 49-53 Program Objective 12: To maintain accurate and useful student records, including procedural safeguards. 53-54 Program Costs 55 Section III: English Acquisition by LEP and FEPE Students k Developmental Reading Assessment, Grades K-2 56-57 Performance of Kindergarten LEP Students Overall Performance of Kindergarten LEP Students Table 1: Overall Performance of Kindergarten LEP Students Kindergarten LEP Students, Spring 2001 and Spring 2002 Comparison Table 2: Kindergarten LEP Students 57-59 57-58 58 58-59 59 Performance of First Grade LEP Students Overall Performance of First Grade LEP Students Table 3: Overall Performance of First Grade LEP Students First Grade LEP Students, Spring 2001 and Spring 2002 Comparison Table 4: First Grade LEP Students 59-60 59-60 60 60 60 Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students Overall Performance of Second Grade LEP Students Performance of Second Grade LEP Students Performance of Second Grade FEPE Students Table 5: Overall Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students 61-62 61 61 61 62 Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students, Spring 2001 and Spring 2002 Comparison Performance of LEP Students Performance of FEPE Students Table 6: Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students 62 62 62 63 k iv 101Achievement Level Test 63 Achievement Level Test Data Interpretation for LEP and FEPE Students 63 Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Second Grade LEP Students Performance of Second Grade FEPE Students Table 7: Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 64 64 64 64 Performance of Third Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Third Grade LEP Students Performance of Third Grade FEPE Students Table 8: Performance of Third Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 65-66 65 65 66 Performance of Fourth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Fourth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fourth Grade FEPE Students Table 9: Performance of Fourth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 66-67 66 67 67 Performance of Fifth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Fifth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fifth Grade FEPE Students Table 10: Performance of Fifth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 67-69 68 68-69 69 Performance of Sixth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Sixth Grade LEP Students Performance of Sixth Grade FEPE Students Table 11: Performance of Sixth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 69-70 69 70 70 Performance of Seventh Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Seventh Grade LEP Students Performance of Seventh Grade FEPE Students fable 12: Performance of Seventh Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 70-72 71 71 72 V z 1016 Performance of Eighth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Eighth Grade LEP Students 72-73 72 k Performance of Eighth Grade FEPE Students Table 13: Performance of Eighth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 72-73 73 Performance of Ninth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Reading Performance of Ninth Grade LEP Students Performance of Ninth Grade FEPE Students Table 14: Performance of Ninth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Reading 73-74 73 74 74 Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Second Grade LEP Students Performance of Second Grade FEPE Students Table 15: Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 74-75 75 75 75 Performance of Third Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Third Grade LEP Students Performance of Third Grade FEPE Students Table 16
Performance of Third Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 75-76 75-76 76 76 Performance of Fourth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Fourth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fourth Grade FEPE Students Table 17
Performance of Fourth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 76-78 77 77-78 78 Performance of Fifth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Fifth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fifth Grade FEPE Students Table 18
Performance of Fifth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 78-79 78-79 79 79 k Performance of Sixth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language 79-81 R vi R 101Performance of Sixth Grade LEP Students Performance of Sixth Grade FEPE Students Table 19: Performance of Sixth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 80 80 81 Performance of Seventh Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Seventh Grade LEP Students Performance of Seventh Grade FEPE Students Table 20: Performance of Seventh Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 81-82 81 81-82 82 Performance of Eighth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Eighth Grade LEP Students Performance of Eighth Grade FEPE Students Table 21: Performance of Eighth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Language 82-83 82-83 83 83 Performance of Ninth Grade LEP and FEPE Students on the ALT Language Performance of Ninth Grade LEP Students Performance of Ninth Grade FEPE Students Table 22: Performance of Ninth Grade LEP and FEPE Students. ALT Language 83-85 84 84 85 Stanford Achievement Test SeriesNinth Edition (SAT9) Report by Scaled and NCE Scores 85-86 SAT9Total ReadingGrade 5 Performance of Fifth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fifth Grade FEPE Students Table 23: SAT9 Total Reading, Grade 5 86-87 86-87 87 87 SATOTotal ReadingGrade 7 Performance of Seventh Grade LEP Students Performance of Seventh Grade FEPE Students Table 24
SAT9 Total Reading, Grade 7 88-89 88 88-89 89 SAT9Total ReadingGrade 10 Performance of Tenth Grade LEP Students Performance of Tenth Grade FEPE Students Table 25: SAT9 Total Reading, Grade 10 89-90 89-90 90 90 SAT9Total LanguageGrade 5 Performance of Fifth Grade LEP Students 90-91 90-91 vii 1018 zo OO pr X 5 X Performance of Fifth Grade FEPE Students Table 26: SAT9 Total Language, Grade 5 91 91 k k SAT9Total LanguageGrade 7 Performance of Seventh Grade LEP Students Performance of Seventh Grade FEPE Students Table 27: SAT9 Total Language, Grade 7 92-93 92 92 93 k SAT9Total LanguageGrade 10 Performance of Tenth Grade LEP Students Performance of Tenth Grade FEPE Students Table 28: SAT9 Total Language, Grade 10 93-94 93 93 94 k Arkansas Benchmark Examinations 94-95 k Performance Level Definitions 95 Primary (Grade 4) Benchmark ExaminationLiteracy Performance of LEP and FEPE Students Table 29
Primary (Grade 4) Benchmark ExaminationLiteracy 96 96 96 k Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark ExaminationLiteracy Performance of LEP and FEPE Students Table 30
Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark ExaminationLiteracy 97 97 97 Middle Level (Grade 8) Benchmark ExaminationLiteracy Performance of LEP and FEPE Students Table 31: Middle Level (Grade 8) Benchmark ExaminationLiteracy 97-98 98 98 End-of-Level ExaminationLiteracy (Grade 11) Performance of 11 Grade LEP and FEPE Students Table 32
End-of-Level ExaminationLiteracy (Grade 11) 98-99 98 99 Section IV: Content Area Knowledge and Skills of LEP and FEPE Students Achievement Level Tests
Elementary Mathematics (Grades 2-5) 100 R viii 103 i|'i i Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Second Grade LEP Students Performance of Second Grade FEPE Students Table 1
Performance of Second Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics Performance of Third Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Third Grade LEP Students Performance of Third Grade FEPE Students Table 2: Performance of Third Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics Performance of Fourth Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Fourth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fourth Grade FEPE Students Table 3: Performance of Fourth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics Performance of Fifth Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Fifth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fifth Grade FEPE Students Table 4: Performance of Fifth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics Achievement Level Test: Middle School Mathematics (Grades 6-8) Performance of Sixth Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Sixth Grade LEP Students Performance of Sixth Grade FEPE Students Table 5: Performance of Sixth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics Performance of Seventh Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Seventh Grade LEP Students Performance of Seventh Grade FEPE Students Table 6
Performance of Seventh Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics Performance of Eighth Grade LEP and FEPE Students Performance of Eighth Grade LEP Students Performance of Eighth Grade FEPE Students Table 7: Performance of Eighth Grade LEP and FEPE Students, ALT Mathematics 100-101 100 100-101 101 101-102 101 102 102 102-104 103 103 104 104-105 104 105 105 105 105-106 105-106 106 106 107-108 107 107-108 108 108-109 108 108-109 109 IX s 1020 Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition, Mathematics 109 SATOTotal MathematicsGrade 5 Performance of Fifth Grade LEP Students Performance of Fifth Grade FEPE Students Table 8: SATO Total Mathematics, Grade 5 109-110 109-110 110 110-111 SAT9Total MathematicsGrade 7 Performance of Seventh Grade LEP Students Performance of Seventh Grade FEPE Students Table 9
SAT9 Total Mathematics, Grade 7 111-112 111 111-112 112 SAT9Total MathematicsGrade 10 Performance of Tenth Grade LEP Students Performance of Tenth Grade FEPE Students Table 10
SAT9 Total Mathematics, Grade 10 112-113 112-113 113 113 Primary (Grade 4) Benchmark ExaminationMathematics Performance of LEP and FEPE Students Table 11
Primary (Grade 4) Benchmark ExaminationMathematics 113-114 113-114 114 Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark ExaminationMathematics Performance of LEP and FEPE Students Table 12: Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark ExaminationMathematics 114-115 114-115 115 Middle Level (Grade 8) Benchmark ExaminationMathematics Performance of LEP and FEPE Students Table 13
Middle Level (Grade 8) Benchmark ExaminationMathematics 115-116 115 116 Arkansas End-of-Course Examinations
Algebra I and Geometry Performance of LEP and FEPE StudentsAlgebra I Performance of LEP and FEPE StudentsGeometry Table 14: End-of-Course Examinations (Algebra I and Geometry) 116-117 116 116 117 X - 102(i Section V: Performance of LEP and FEPE Students in Advanced Courses Pre-Advanced Placement Courses, Grades 9-12 English I Pre-AP Performance of Ninth Grade LEP Students Performance of Ninth Grade FEPE Students Table 1: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in English I Pre-AP English I Workshop Pre-AP Table 2: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in English I Workshop Pre-AP English II Pre-AP Table 3: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in English II Pre-AP English III Pre-AP Performance of Eleventh Grade FEPE Student Table 4
Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in English III Pre-AP Algebra I Pre-AP Table 5: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in Algebra I Pre-AP Algebra II Pre-AP Table 6
Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in Algebra II Pre-AP Geometry Pre-AP Trigonometry/Advanced Algebra Pre-AP Physics I Pre-AP Table 7: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in Physics I Pre-AP Biology I Pre-AP Table 8: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in Biology I Pre-AP Chemistry I Pre-AP 118-127 118-119 119 119 119 119-120 120 121 121 121-122 122 122 122-123 123 123-124 124 124 124 124-125 125 125-126 126 126 XI 1022 X I zO 5 o o w X P5 z r e*5 Civics Pre-AP Table 9: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in Civics Pre-AP 126-127 127 H Advanced Placement Courses English IV AP Performance of LEP Student Table 10: Grade Distribution for LEP and FEPE Students in English IV AP 128-134 128 128 128 Statistics AP 128-129 Calculus BC AP 129 Physics III AP 129 Biology II AP 129 Environmental Science AP 129-130 Economics AP 130 United States History AP 130-131 World History AP 131 Spanish IV AP Table 11: Spanish IV AP 131-132 132 Spanish V AP Table 12: Spanish V AP 132-133 133 Spanish VI AP Table 13: Spanish VI AP 133-134 134 University Studies Courses (Hall High School) English IV U Physics I Pre-AP U 134-135 134 134-135 Section VI: Monitoring the Academic Progress of FEPE Students f Longitudinal Study: Monitoring FEPE Students 136 XU 104 Students Exited from the Table T. Students ALP During 1999-2000 Exited from the ALr 136-137 137 137-138 Cohort 1 Table 2
second Grade FEPE Students' 138 ?fW3 A^ Scores for Second Grade (Spring 2001) and Third Grade (Spring 2002) 138 '^*'"Table 4
ALT
Three-Year Analysis 138-139 139 Cohort 3 Table 5
Grade 4 Benchmark Examination 139-140 140 Cohort 4 Table 6
Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Table 7- SAT9 Scores Table 8
ALT
Three-Year Analysis 140-141 140 141 141 ^\^ble9
ALT: Three-Year Analysis 141-142 142 ^^\^ble10
SAT9 Scores jSSn: Z?T: Three-Year Anatysts 142 143 143 '^'''rable 12: ALT
Three-Year Analysis 143-144 144 Cohort 8 a--Analysis 8 Benchmark Examination 144 144 145 '^Tabl.lS: AET: Three-Year Analysis 145-146 146 Cohort 10 Table 16
ALT
Three-Year Analysis 146 147 147 Summary xiii z 1024 -I V Section VII: Behavioral Performance Indicators of LEP and FEPE Students Attendance for LEP and FEPE Students for the 2001-2002 School Year LEP Attendance FEPE Attendance Table 1: Attendance for LEP and FEPE Students 148-149 148-149 149 149 I I Discipline and Suspension for LEP and FEPE Students LEP Students FEPE Students Table 2: Discipline and Suspension for LEP and FEPE Students, 2000-2001 Table 3
Discipline and Suspension for LEP and FEPE Students, 2001-2002 Retention of LEP and FEPE Students Table 4: Retention for LEP and FEPE Students Dropout Data for LEP and FEPE Students Graduation Rates for LEP and FEPE Students Table 5: Graduation Rates for LEP and FEPE Section VIII: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations Section I Summary: Introduction and Background Enrollment Languages Spoken Grade-Level Distribution Former Newcomer Center School Enrollments Elementary Magnet School Enrollment Elementary School Enrollments Secondary Newcomer Center School Enrollments Secondary Magnet School Enrollments Secondary School Enrollments Schools Identified for School Improvement under No Child Left Behind 150-151 150 150 150 151 151-152 152 152 152-153 153 154-156 154 154 154-155 155 155 155 155 155 155 156 XIV 102 II Section II Summary: Policies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance, Equity, and Effectiveness Policies, Procedures, and Programs Compliance Access to Special Opportunity Programs Qualified Teachers for LEP Students 156-158 156-157 157-158 158 o r Section III Summary: English Acquisition by LEP and FEPE Students 158-169 Key Findings and ConclusionsLEPs Grades K-2 LEPs Grades K-2 ConclusionsLEPs Grade 3 LEPs Grade 4 LEPs Grade 5 LEPs Grades 3-5 ConclusionsLEPs Grade 6 LEPs Grade 7 LEPs Grade 8 LEPs Grades 6-8 Conclusions-LEPs Grade 9 LEPs Grade 10 LEPs Grade 11 LEPs Grades 9-12 Conclusions-LEPs 158 158-159 159-160 160-161 161 161 162 162 162-163 163 163-164 164 164 164 164-165 s Key Findings and ConclusionsFEPEs Grades K-2 FEPEs Grade 3 FEPEs Grade 4 FEPEs Grade 5 FEPEs Grades K-5 ConclusionsFEPEs Grade 6 FEPEs Grade 7 FEPEs Grade 8 FEPEs Grades 6-8 ConclusionsFEPEs Grade 9 FEPEs Grade 10 FEPEs Grade 11 FEPEs Grades 9-12 ConclusionsFEPEs 165 165 165 165-166 166 166 167 167 167-168 168 168 168 169 169 Section IV Summary: Content Area Knowledge and Skills of LEP and FEPE Students 169-173 o z 90 O O X z XV 1026 JKey Findings and ConclusionsLEPs Grade 2 LEPs Grade 3 LEPs Grade 4 LEPs Grade 5 LEPs Grades 2-5 ConclusionsMathematicsLEPs Grade 6 LEPs Grade 7 LEPs Grade 8 LEPs Grade 6-8 ConclusionsMathematicsLEPs Grade 10 LEPs High School LEPs High School ConclusionsMathematicsLEPs 169 169 169 169-170 170 170 170 170-171 171 171 171 171 172 Key Findings and ConclusionsFEPEs Grade 2 FEPEs Grade 3 FEPEs Grade 4 FEPEs Grade 5 FEPEs Grades 2-5 ConclusionsMathematics-FEPEs Grade 6 FEPEs Grade 7 FEPEs Grade 8 FEPEs Grades 6-8 ConclusionsMathematicsFEPEs Grade 10 FEPEs High School FEPEs High School ConclusionsMathematicsFEPEs 172 172 172 172 172 172-173 173 173 173 173 173 174 174 Section V Summary: Performance of LEP and FEPE Students in Advanced Courses 174-175 Pre-Advanced Placement Courses Advanced Placement Courses University Studies Courses Conclusions 174 174-175 175 175 Section Vl Summary: Monitoring the Academic Progress of FEPE Students 175-177 Key Findings and Conclusions by Cohort 176 Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3 176 176 176 XVI 102'Cohort 4 Cohort 5 Cohort 6 Cohort 7 Cohort 8 Cohort 9 Cohort 10 Conclusions Section VMSumma^ Behavioral Performance Indicators of LEP and FEPE Students Key Findings and Conclusions trp&n^ Suspension LEP Retentions LEP Dropouts LEP Graduation Rates ConclusionsLEi^s Key Findings and Conclusion FEPE Attendance jon FEPE Discipline and t>u p FEPE Retentions FEPE Dropouts FEPE Graduation Rates Conclusions-FEPEs Recommendations for Program Improvement 176 176 176 177 177 177 177 177 178-181 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 178 179 179 179 179 179 179-181 xvii 1028 n r o "Z. o O n XS rr z. X Third Annual Evaluation of the Little Rock School Districts Alternative Language Program, 2001-2002 Section 1
Introduction and Background Backqround This third annual evaluation of the Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) Alternative Language Program (ALP) builds on the information provided in the two earlier reports that were submitted to the Board of Education in August of 2000 and November 2001 and then to the Dallas office of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). This 2001-2002 study is a part of the LRSDs continuing efforts to meet the requirements outlined in the LRSDs Commitment to Resolve (CTR) agreement with OCR of September 1999, to comply with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and to meet both the expectations of the Arkansas Department of Education and the LRSD Board of Education. As a follow-up to the CTR, the LRSD Board of Education adopted in November 1999 Policy IHBEA: English as a Second Language. Among its requirements was an annual program evaluation. Specific procedures were delineated in the administrative regulations (IHBEA-R) also adopted in 1999 and amended in November 2001. r K This report is also in compliance with Board Policy IL: Evaluation of Instructional Programs, adopted in March 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. Alternative Lanquaqe Program (ALP) Goals and Objectives ALP goals and objectives were established in administrative regulations IHBEA-R in 1999 and have not been revised. The two goals are as follows: 1. 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. 2. To provide identified students with the cultural literacy necessary for them to feel comfortable in participating in the school, community, and greater community. R To reach those goals, the District also established twelve program objectives in IHBEA-R in 1999-2000. Each one addressed a policy, procedure, or program requirement mandated by federal, state, and/or local governance bodies. They are as follows: R R I 1 102 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 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. 9 z 1030 o Demographic Data Important to an understanding of this program evaluation is an understanding of who the students are whose performance is being analyzedtheir language communities, their enrollment by grade level, and their enrollment by school. The following tables display the demographic data of the umbrella group of students examined in this program evaluation, as well as the two most critical sub-groups. k PHLOTE students are the umbrella group of all students, regardless of English- language fluency, whose primary home language is other than English. (In Arkansas those students are referred to as LMS or Language Minority Students.) Demographic data include the numbers of students classified as PHLOTE, in addition to those in each of two sub-groups, limited-English proficient (LEP) and fluent-English proficientexited (FEPE), as well as the language communities which they represent. Background Information on the PHLOTE Students in the District There were 985 PHLOTE students in the District during the 2001-2002 school year. In 1999-2000 there were 805 PHLOTE students in LRSD. The 2001-2002 enrollment represents a two-year increase of 180 students (or 22 percent). Of that number, 632 (or 64 percent) were Limited English Proficient (LEP). In 1999-2000 there were 467 LEP students. The 2001-02 enrollment represents an increase of 165 LEP students (or 35 percent) in two years. Of that number, 94 (or 9.5 percent) were Fluent English Proficient Exited (FEPE). The 1999-2000 FEPE enrollment was 25. The 2001-2002 enrollment represents an increase of 69 FEPE students (or 276 percent) over two years. (The 1999-2000 data are found on page 11 of the Program Evaluation for English as a Second Language, 1999-2000.) Top Ten Languages of PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE Students PHLOTE Students by Language The total number of PHLOTE students in the Little Rock School District remained approximately the same from 2000-2001 to 2001-2002from 989 to 985, a decrease of four students. The 985 PHLOTE students in the Little Rock School District during 2001-2002 represented 45 different languages. Table I displays a comparison of the top ten largest non-English languages in the District for the 2000 -2001 and 2001-2002 school years among PHLOTE students. The N for each school year is the total enrollment of PHLOTE students in each language group. The %" column is the calculation of N divided by the total PHLOTE enrollment in the District for that school year. 3 103:The next-to-last row in the table shows the number of students represented in the most common language groups and the percent of the total PHLOTE population that they represent. The last row provides the total PHLOTE enrollment for each year. n According to the table, 631 (or 64 percent) of the PHLOTE students in 2001- 2002 spoke Spanish, the largest non-English speaking group in the District. Chinese-speaking students (6.5 percent) represented the next largest group. The top ten language groups represented 88 percent of the total PHLOTE population. The Spanish-speaking population increased by 37 students from 2000-2001 to 2001-2002. The number of Chinese-speaking students decreased by nine, and the number of Urdu-speaking students increased by six, moving from sixth place to third place in the Top Ten Languages. Table 1 Top Ten Languages, PHLOTE Comparison 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 1 ( PHLOTE Student 2000-2001 School Year 2001-2002 School Year I N N % % 1. Spanish 2. Chinese I 594 60.1 3. Korean 4. Vietnamese 5. Arabic 6. Urdu 7. Telugu 8. Russian 9. Assyrian 10. Hindi Persian ' Total of Top Ten ' t otal PHLOTE Enroll 73 I Ti r 7.4 3.1 29 25 22 20 15 13 12 12 I 846 989 2.9 2.5 2.2 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 86% 100% 1. Spanish 1. Chinese 2. Urdu 3. Vietnamese 4. Telugu 5. Korean 6. Hindi 7. Arabic Russian 8. Persian 9. Assyrian Tagalog Total of Top Ten j 631 64 28 27 18 17 16 14 14 12 11 11 863 64.1 6.5 1 2.8 I 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.1 88% Total PHLOTE Enroll | 985 100% I I r L I I z + I I I I I I I I I I + I I 1 J LEP Students by Language The total number of LEP students in the Little Rock School District increased by 12 in 2001-2002 over the 2000-2001 school year. There were 632 LEP 4 1032 o z J8 o o X w z n Jstudents in the Little Rock School District during 2001-2002, representing 34 different languages. k Table 2 displays the most commonly spoken languages by LEP students in the Little Rock School District. The N" for each school year is the total enrollment of LEP students in each language group. The "% column is the calculation of N divided by the total LEP enrollment in the District forthat school year. The next-to-last row in the table shows the number of students represented in the most common language groups and the percent of the total LEP population that they represent. The last row provides the total LEP enrollment for each year. In this case the percent column is the calculation of what percentage the LEP population is of the total PHLOTE population (see Table 1). k k According to Table 2, approximately 75 percent of the LEP students spoke Spanish, the largest non-English speaking group in the District. Chinesespeaking students (4 percent) represented the next largest LEP group. Twelve (or 1.9 percent) of the LEP population spoke Urdu. The top ten language groups of LEP students represented approximately 95 percent of the total LEP population. The number of LEP students in the District increased by 12. The number of Spanish-speaking LEP students increased by 30 The number of Chinese-speaking LEP students declined by eight. The number of Urdu speaking LEP students increased by four. k The LEP enrollment has constituted about 64 percent of the PHLOTE enrollment over the past two years. Approximately 95 percent of all LEP students in the LRSD speak 16 languages. 5 R 1032000-2001 School Year LEP Students r I! Table 2 Top Ten Languages, LEP Comparison 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 N _______i 2001-2002 School Year j % I LEP Students N i % 1. Spanish 2. Chinese 3. Arabic Korean 4. Telugu 5. Assyrian Urdu 6. Vietnamese 7. Persian 8. Igbo 9. Russian 10. Greek Gujarati Hindi Laotian Swahili Total of Top Ten LEP Total LEP Enrollment i 441 I i - I 36 17 17 13 8 8 7 6 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 582 620 71.1 5.8 2.7 2.7 2.1 1.3 1.3 I i 0.8 j 0?6 0.6 0.6 0.6 I 0.6 i ! 0-6 1 1. Spanish 2. Chinese 3. Urdu 4. Korean Telugu 5. Vietnamese 6. Hindi Russian 7. Arabic Persian 8. Assyrian Igbo 9. Japanese 10. Gujarati Laotian Swahili 471 I 74.5 4.4 I iI 12 , 1.9 I 10 I 1.6 I 10 ! 1.6 I 9 1.4 8 j 1.3 i 8 i 1.3 i 1 I 1.1 ! ! 7 i 1.1 6 i 0.9 ! 6 i 5 I I 4 4 4 94% j Total of Top Ten LEP 599 I 63% Ii Total LEP Enrollment , 632 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.7 95% 64% FEPE Students by Language There were 94 FEPE students in the Little Rock School District during 2001-2002 school year, representing 17 different languages. Sixty-two (or 66 percent) of the FEPE student population spoke Spanish, the largest non-English speaking group in the District. Chinese-speaking students (11.7 percent) represented the next largest FEPE group. The number of FEPE students increased by 47. The number of Spanish-speaking FEPE students increased by 48. 6 rj z 1034 The number of Chinese-speaking FEPE students increased by eight. FEPEs made up 10 percent of the PHLOTE population in 2001-2002. Approximately 90 percent of the FEPE students came from seven language communities. Table 3 Top Four Languages, FEPE Comparison 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 2000-2001 School Year 2001-2002 School Year FEPE Students FEPE Students 1. Spanish 2. Chinese 3. Slovak Portuguese Pakistani Arabic Mandarin 14 29.7 6.4 2.1 2.1 2.1 i 2-1 ! 1 2.1 1. Spanish 2. Chinese 3. Arabic Indonesian 4. Assyrian Portuguese Telugu % j 66.0 i i 3.2 j 31 2.1 2.4 2.4 N 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 % N i j I I 11-7 ! 3 I 3 2 2 2 I Laotian 2.1 FEPE Top Four Total FEPEs 23 49% FEPE Top Four 85 90% I 47 J__ 5% Total FEPEs 94 10% Grade Level Distribution of PHLOTE Students Table 4 provides the PHLOTE enrollment by grade level and the percentage of the total PHLOTE enrollment by grade level. Second-grade and kindergarten had the highest enrollment of PHLOTE students during the 2001-2002 school year, with percentages of 11.1 and 10.2, respectively. The most one-year growth was in grade 2 (+21) and grade 5 (+21). The eleventh and twelfth grade had the lowest enrollment of PHLOTE students with percentages of 2.9 and 3.0, respectively. Overall, the PHLOTE enrollment for the 2001-2002 school year was less than the PHLOTE enrollment for the 2000-2001 school year by four students. 7 103 Table 4 Grade Level Distribution of PHLOTE Students Comparison 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 j Grade Ppk j Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 j Grade 3 i Grade 4 ' Grade 5 i Grade 6 ! Grade 7 ! Grade 8 ' Grade 9 ! Grade 10 I Grade 11 I Grade 12 Total PHLOTE 2000-2001 2001-2002 DIF N 47 4.8 [ 38 3.9 -9 106 100 88 96 85 68 66 59 66 72 49 39 48 989 10.7 10.1 8.8 9.7 8.6 6.9 6.7 6.0 6.7 7.3 5.0 3.9 4.9 100% 100 10.2 -6 98 9.9 -2 j 109 j 11.1 I +21 ! 89 85 89 67 63 61 68 1 59 i 30 9.0 8.6 I 9.0 I 6.4 6.2 6.9 6.0 2.9 3.0 -7 i +21 +1 ! +4 -5 [ +10 j j -10 1 985 j 100% i -4 i 1 I I I L I I I I I N I tI I i I i T % N I I I I % I i I I I I I i I 0 I 1 I I I I I I ! I X I Grade Level Distribution by LEP and FEPE Students According to Table 5, the primary grade levels, kindergarten through the third grade, had the highest enrollment of LEP students, with kindergarten having the highest enrollment (15.5 percent) in 2001-2002. The eleventh and twelfth grades had the lowest enrollment of LEP students with percentages of 1.7 and 1.9, respectively. The fourth and fifth grades had the highest enrollment of FEPE students, both with percentages of 14.9. 8 1036 oz so s -i ow X zn nr Table 5 Grade Level Distribution by LEP and FEPE Students Comparison 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 School Years LEP 2000-2001 ! FEPE 2001-2002 2000-2001 I 2001-2002 N % N % N % N % Grades I' 3 Year-Old 0.02 0 0 1 0 0 i 0 I 0 i 1 PK 44 7.1 38 6.0 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 I Total I______ 94 78 62 66 49 45 29 21 37 39 25 14 17 620 15.2 12.6 10.0 10.6 7.9 7.3 4.7 3.4 6.0 6.3 4.0 2.3 2.7 100% 98 92 86 59 53 46 33 24 20 36 23 11 12 632 15.5 14.6 13.6 9.3 8.4 7.3 5.2 3.8 3.2 5.7 3.6 1.7 1.9 100% 8.3 16.7 16.7 4.2 I 10.4 6.3 10.4 10.4 4.2 6.3 6.3 14 14 10 11 11 NA I NA NA 2.1 8.5 I 14.9 14.9 5.3 9.6 10.6 11.7 11.7 7.4 3.2 47 i 100% j 94 I 100% 0 0 0 4 8 8 2 5 3 5 5 0 0 0 j 0 i 0 2 8 I I J I 2 3 2 I 1 5 9 k I I 7 3 Elementary School Enrollments by PHLOTE. LEP, and FEPE Table 6 provides the enrollment (and percentages of the total) for PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students, by school, at the elementary level. Changes in Former Newcomer Center Enrollments In fall 2000 the District began to phase out the formerly designated elementary Newcomer Centers. The impact on enrollment in those five schools is as follows: Bradys PHLOTE enrollment was down 6 in 2001-2002, the LEPs were down 9, and the FEPEs increased by 2. Chicots PHLOTE enrollment was down 32 in 2001-2002, the LEPs down by 33, and the FEPEs increased by 7. 9
-103i(I Romines PHLOTE enrollment was down by 10 and the LEPs down by 6. Romine had no FEPE students in 2000-2001 or 2001-2002. Terrys PHLOTE enrollment was down by 13, the LEPs down by 8, and the FEPEs up by 2. Washingtons PHLOTE enrollment was down by 12, the LEPs down by 2, and the FEPEs up by 3. All five of the former Newcomer Centers lost some PHLOTE and LEP enrollment, Chicot the most. In general, the FEPE enrollment was up. Magnet School Enrollment The District has encouraged LEP students to exercise their option to attend one of the four stipulation elementary magnet schools in LRSD. Three of the four schools increased their enrollment during 2001-2002
Bookers PHLOTE enrollment was up 5 and the LEPs were up 5. There are no FEPEs at this school. Carvers PHLOTE enrollment was down 5, and the LEP enrollment was down 1. There are no FEPEs at this school. Gibbss PHLOTE enrollment was up 3, the LEPs up 1. and the FEPEs were up 2. Williams PHLOTE enrollment was up 7, LEPs up 5, and FEPEs up 2. Highest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Elementary School Elementary schools with the highest enrollment of PHLOTE students are follows
as Elementary Schools Chicot Elementary Washington Elementary Wakefield Elementary Terry Elementary Cloverdale Elementary McDermott Elementary Romine Elementary Williams Elementary 83 63 55 54 43 42 36 25 10 1038 i z zo 5O8 O Xn r z Lowest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Elementary School The following elementary schools had no PHLOTEs in 2001-2002: Badgett, Fair Park, Mitchell, Rightsell, and Woodruff. Badgett was closed at the end of the 2001-2002 school year. 3 Lowest LEP Student Enrollments by Elementary School Six elementary schools had no LEP students in 2001-2002: Badgett, Fair Park, Jefferson, Mitchell, Rightsell, and Woodruff. Table 6 Elementary Schools Enrollment by PHLOTE, LEP and FEPE Comparison for the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 School Years Schools Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot I Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King (M) Mabelvale McDermott j Meadowcliff ! Mitchell 2000-2001 School Year PHLOTE N I % I 0 I NA N 0 LEP % NA FEPE 2001-2002 School Year PHLOTE 12 5 4 I 14 1.2 0.5 10 4 I .0.4 j 0 1.4 14 1.6 0.6 NA 2.3 I 21 j 2.1 I I 13 2.1 115 11.6 19 1 1. 4 8 I 100 16.1 1.9 j 14 j 2.3 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.8 I I 1-1 5 4 2 21 1 41 7 i 0 0.5 0.2 2?T i 0-1 5 3 3 0.8 0.5 0.5 3 0.5 8 N 0 2 0 % NA 4.2 NA 0 i NA 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 I I NA NA 4.2 NA NA N 0 16 6 9 8 16 83 43 14 % NA 1.6 0.6 I 0.9 0.8 1.6 I 8.3 4.4 1.4 ) NA 0 i NA NA NA 1.3 I 1 i 2.1 I I ' 8 5 13 I I I 0.5 pry] 3 I 0.5 i 2
4.2 I 13 1.3 | 3 1 10 T 4.1 i 27 ' I 0.5 t 0 : NA I 7 LEP N I % 0 15 6 NA 2.4 0.9 5 I 0.8 I 5 12 67 39 12 0 7 3 11 11 : 0.7 I 4 0.2 ! 0 i NA I 2 : 0.2 I 0 I 1.6 I 0 , NA 1 19 i 1.9 j 13 NA T 0.8 1.9 10.6 6.2 1.9 NA 1.1 0.5 1.7 I 1-7 j 0.6 i NA FEPE I N 0 1 I % NA 1.1 0 j NA 0 2 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 I 2.1 I 1 i 0 , NA I 7 j 0.7 I 5 i 0.8 4.4 I 0
NA i 42 4.3 ! 31 i 4.9 0.7 I 7 j 1.1 ' 0 i NA i 6 I 0.6 I 5 j NA 0 ! NA I 0 I NA I 0 , NA . ! I J 1 I 4 NA 2.1 NA 9.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.1 2.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 4?3 0.8 0 NA 0 ! NA 0 11 103?I i 2000-2001 School Year 2001-2002 School Year n ( I I Schools PHLOTE i LEP I FEPE PHLOTE LEP FEPE f otter Creek Pulaski H. Rightsell I 6 i % i 0.6 3 % I N 1^ 0.5 0 N I I NA I 10 I % 1,0 I N7 % , 1.1 N % 0 NA I 12 I 1.2 0 NA Rockefeller | 5 0.5 Romine 46 4.6 5 0 2 40 i 0.8 NA 0.3 2 4.2 0 0 NA NA 12 1.2 1 7 I 1-1 i 3 3.2 0 5 NA I I 0 3 j NA i 0 I 0.5 ! NA I 1 M.1 Stephens | Terry i Wakefield 1 7 jO.7 6 ! 6-5 I 1 1.0 ' 0 0 NA NA I j 67 I 6.8 I 46 I Washington j 75 j 7.6 | i Watson I I 7 51 I 8.2 j 4,6 ) 44 I 6.6 46 7.4 1 I 2.1 3 j 6.3 1 2.1 I 0.7 5 0.8 0 I NA 36 i Z.l I 34 , 5.4 I 0 , NA 11 1.1 I 8 i 1.3 0 i NA
j Western H. i Williams ' Wilson : Woodruff Totals I 1 0 18 8 0 ! NA 0 i NA ! ^-8 ! 1 1 0.8 t NA 601 I1 61 1 0 4 0 0.3 0.6 I 3 54 I 5.5 j 55 1 5.6 63 10 6.4 43 i 6.8 I 3 i 3.2 i 51 44 i s-i I 3 i 3-2 i I 7.0 j 4 I 4.3 NA I 61' 0 NA I NA I 0 436 I 70 17 5 25 8 NA 35 I 0 611 1.0 0.5 i 10 4 2.5 i 1 0.8 NA 1.6 i 0 I NA i 0.6 i J 0 i NA i 1.1 i 5 ] 5.3 , 4 0 0.6 j 0 j NA z j NA j 0 I NA 62% i 474 ! 75 39 I 42 Enrollment: June 2001: PHLOTE Enrollment (990)
LEP Enrollment (620)
FEPE Enrollment (48)
June 2002: PHLOTE Enrollment (985)
LEP Enrollment (632)
FEPE Enrollment (94) Secondary School Enrollments by PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE Table 7 proyides the enrollment (and percentages of the total) for PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students by school at the secondary leyel. Changes in Secondary Newcomer Center Enrollments Cloverdale Middle Schools PHLOTE enrollment went down one student, the number of LEPs remained the same, and the FEPEs increased by four. Dunbar Middle Schools PHLOTE enrollment increased by one, the LEPs were down by 12, and the FEPEs increased by eight. Hall High Schools PHLOTE enrollment went down by 15, the LEP enrollment was down by 23, and the FEPEs increased by 11. zo oo X 12 z c> 1040 J Magnet School Enrollment The District has encouraged LEP students to exercise their option to attend one of the two stipulation magnet schools at the secondary level (Mann Middle and Parkview High) or one of the magnet programs in other schools. k Manns PHLOTE enrollment is down by one, the LEPs are up by one, and the FEPE enrollment stayed the same. Parkviews PHLOTE enrollment is up by five, the LEPs up by three, and the FEPEs up by two. Highest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Secondary School Middle and high schools with the highest enrollment of PHLOTE students are as follows: Secondary Schools Hall High Cloverdale Middle Dunbar Middle Central High Parkview High Henderson Middle Mann Middle 93 56 52 36 31 25 21 M Lowest PHLOTE Student Enrollments by Secondary School Every secondary school had PHLOTE enrollments in 2001-2002. The two lowest were Southwest Middle School (6) and Pulaski Heights Middle School (8). Lowest LEP Student Enrollments by Secondary School Forest Heights Middle School and Southwest Middle School each had only one LEP student in 2001-2002. 13 104,! Table 7 Secondary (Middle and High School) Enrollment by PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE Comparison for the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 School Years 2000-2001 School Year 2001-2002 School Year Schools______ Middle Schools Cloverdale PHLOTE LEP FEPE PHLOTE LEP FEPE Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Totals Schools High Schools Central J.A Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Totals N 57 51 14 26 8 22 9 3 191 % 5.8 5.2 14 2.6 0.8 2.2 0.9 0.3 19.4 N 44 27 3 9 2 1 3 0 89 % 7.1 4.4 0.5 1.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 NA 14.4 N2 2 3 3 0 1 0 1 12 2000-2001 School Year PHLOTE N % N LEP % N 36 12 108 15 26 197 3.6 1.2 10.9 1.5 2.6 19.9 2 3 84 4 2 95 0.3 0.5 13.5 0.6 0.3 15.3 0 0 % 4.3 4.3 6.4 6.4 NA 2.1 NA 2.1 25.5 FEPE % NA NA 12 0 1 13 25.5 NA 2.1 27.7 N 56 52 12 25 10 21 8 6 190 % 5.7 5.3 1.2 2.5 1.0 2.1 0.8 0.6 19.3 N 44 15 1 10 2 2 2 1 77 % 7.0 2.4 0.2 1.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 12.2 N6 10 2 2 1 1 0 2 24 2001-2002 School Year PHLOTE N % N LEP % 36 12 93 12 31 184 3.7 1.2 9.4 1.2 3.1 18.7 7 2 61 5 5 81 1.1 0.3 9.7 0.8 0.8 12.8 Enrollment: June 2001: PHLOTE Enrollment (990): LEP Enrollment (620)
FEPE Enrollment (48)
June 2002: PHLOTE Enrollment (985)
LEP Enrollment (632)
FEPE Enrollment (94) % 6.4 10.6 2.1 2.1 1.1 1.1 NA 2.1 25.5 FEPE N 0 3 23 2 3 31 Highest Enrollment by LEP and FEPE According to Table 8, of the 632 LEP-identified students in the District, Chicot Elementary School and Hall High School had the highest enrollment of LEP students, with percentages of 11 and 10, respectively. Hall is a Newcomer Center school and Chicot is a former Newcomer Center school. 14 % NA 3.2 24.5 2.1 3.2 33.0 z 1042 o Of the 94 FEPE students in the District, Hall High School and Dunbar Magnet School had the highest enrollment of FEPE students, with percentages of 24.5 and 10.6, respectively. Hall High and Dunbar Magnet are both Newcomer Center Schools. Chicot, a former Newcomer Center school, had the next highest enrollment of FEPE students (9.6 percent). Four hundred forty-four (or 70 percent) of the LEP students were distributed among eleven schools, and 73 (or 78 percent) of the FEPE students were distributed among eleven schools. Table 8 School Enrollment by LEP and FEPE, 2001-2002 Schools Chicot ES Hall HS Wakefield ES Cloverdale MS Washington ES Terry ES Cloverdale ES Romine ES McDermott ES Dunbar MS Bale ES Total11 schs. Total LEP FEPE 67 61 51 44 44 43 39 34 31 15 15 444 632 10.6 10.0 8.1 7.0 7.0 6.8 6.2 5.4 4.9 2.4 2.4 70% 100% Hall HS Dunbar MS Chicot ES Cloverdale MS Williams ES McDermott ES Washington ES J.A. Fair HS Pulaski Heights ES Terry ES Parkview HS Total11 schs. Total 23 10 73 94 24.5 10.6 9.6 6.4 5.3 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 78% 100% N % N 9 6 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 % Schools Identified for Improvement under No Child Left Behind" The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) identified ten LRSD schools for School Improvement in 2002-2003. The list of schools and their PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE enrollment follow in Table 9. This information is important to the ALP evaluation since two of the ten schools (Chicot Elementary and Wakefield Elementary) have substantial numbers of PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students in their school population. 15 104Identification of Arkansas schools in compliance with No Child Left Behind was based on SAT9 scores for 1998-1999,1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002. Schools with fewer than 25 percent of their students performing at/above the 50' .th n r percentile were, first, designated as High Priority schools. Using 1998-1999 as the baseline year, then, the state made decisions for identification. In order to avoid being identified for School Improvement, the High Priority schools had to demonstrate growth on the Basic Battery in the percent at/above the 50*' percentile. The also had.to demonstrate improvement in moving students out of the bottom quartile. Ironically, the Arkansas Department of Education had told districts since 1999 in the accountability plan-Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP)that the SAT9 was no longer important. Rather, the only tests mentioned were the state Benchmark examinations at grades 4, 6, and 8 and the end-of-course/level examinations at high school. LRSD relied upon that document in providing guidance to its principals and teachers and had been emphasizing improved performance on the Benchmarks since 1999, not the SAT9. Identification based on the SAT9 scores surprised everyone. The impact of these decisions on PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students in the ten identified schools is as follows: X Of the 985 PHLOTE students in LRSD in 2001-2002, 198 students (or 20 percent) were enrolled the identified schools. Of the 632 LEP students in 2001-2002,165 (or 26 percent) were enrolled in the identified schools. Of the 94 FEPE students in 2001-2002,16 (or 17 percent) were enrolled in the identified schools. Eight percent of the Districts PHLOTE students, 11 percent of the LEP students, and 10 percent of the FEPE students attend Chicot Elementary. Six percent of the Districts PHLOTE students, eight percent of the LEP students, and three percent of the FEPE students attend Wakefield Elementary. Exiting the School Improvement Desiqnation ADE has determined that the identified schools can exit the designation based upon performance on the Benchmark examinations (not the SAT9), using 2000- 2001 as the baseline year. Five of the ten schools (Bale, Chicot, Dodd, Mitchell, and Stephens) made substantial improvements in both mathematics and literacy in 2001-2002 over their 2000-2001 performances, and if they continue to improve 16 1044 o z > o O 71 X z r Jin 2002-2003, they will exit the School Improvement designation when 2002- 2003 Benchmark scores arrive in the state. Another three schools made substantial improvements in mathematics in 2001- 2002 in comparison to their 2000-2001 performances. Those schools were Baseline, Fair Park, and Wakefield. These schools, then, may be able to exit the designation in 2003-2004. Table 9 Schools Identified for Improvement (NCLB) 2001-2002 Schools PHLOTEs LEPs FEPEs Bale ES 16 15 N % 2 N % 2 N 1 % 1 Baseline ES 0 0 1 6 1 6 Chicot ES Dodd ES 83 14 67 12 11 10 8 1 2 9 0 0 Fair Park ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mabelvale ES 1 1 1 5 1 7 Mitchell ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 Stephens ES Wakefield ES 11 55 51 6 1 0 0 8 3 3 Southwest MS <1 6 1 1 2 2 Total Total District 198 985 20% 100% 165 632 26% 100% 16 94 17% 100% Methodology A team composed of staff from the Division of Instruction, from the department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, and from the department of Computer Information Services was selected early in the year to work with a designated external consultant in the design, research, writing, and production of the evaluation of the Alternative Language Program for 2001-2002. Mr. Mark Vasquez, an expert on the requirements for compliance with OCR relating to LEP issues, including program evaluation, served as the team consultant and attended every team meeting. Other team members included Karen Broadnax, the ESL Supervisor, Dr. 17 I - 10Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction
Ken Savage, programmer and data retriever from Computer Information Systems
Dr. Ed Williams, statistician and research specialist
and Dr. Eddie McCoy, lead writer for the study. This team met initially to review the 2000-2001 study, to discuss changes made or to be made in the 2001-2002 program, to establish the research questions, and to ensure the collection or 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 and effective implementation of ALPs and effective techniques for monitoring and assessing the performance of LEP students. The evaluation team met monthly to determine the status of the work, to review assignments, and to assign next steps. As the work progressed and drafts were available for review, those were discussed in detail, and all members of the team participated in checking data for accuracy and in proofreading the text. The original plan was to have the study completed for final review no later than September 1 so that final editing and proofing could be done and copies made in time for the October agenda of the Board of Education. The LRSD did not, however, receive the hard copies of the states Benchmark examinations until late September, and the states electronic database was not availabl until mid-October. The final draft was not submitted for review and editing, therefore, until late October 2002. Other participants in this evaluation include all the principals, LPAC members, testing coordinators, and other staff in schools with PHLOTE, LEP, and/or FEPE enrollment. All K-12 teachers of these students also participated, not only in providing instruction, but in assisting with the administration of assessments. This third-year study differs from the two previous ones in that data are compared, to the extent possible, over three years to measure the growth of specific students those exiting the ALP in 1999-2000, rather than just comparing the mean performance of LEP and FEPE students with that of the general population. These cohort studies are useful to staff in determining program effectiveness over time. Interpretation of Assessment Results LRSD now has sufficient numbers of PHLOTE and LEP students at any one grade level for the assessment results to be statistically valid. There are, however, small numbers of FEPEs at any one grade level, and these results, grade level by grade level, should not be generalizedexcept that the study will show that the FEPE students at almost every grade level out-perform the general population. This preponderance of evidence, therefore, may be generalized. Evaluation Design and Focus The general population for this report will consist of all students in the LRSD, including the PHLOTE (Primary Home Language Other Than English) students who took the various assessments. PHLOTE students include the following sub-o > 30 O O X 18 1046 populations: LEP, FEP, FEPE, NALMS, REFUSE, LEPREC, and LEPREF that are designated in the Districts database and in this report by the following acronyms. 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 student's English proficiency. LEPREC (Limited English Proficient Reclassified): FEPE students whose performance after exiting the ESL program required that the student 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. Although the evaluation includes data for PHLOTE students as a group, the primary focus of the evaluation is the performance (academic and behavioral) of LEP and FEPE students. LEP students are the students receiving Alternative Language Program (ALP) services, and FEPE students are former LEP students who have been exited from the ALP and are no longer receiving direct services. The academic performance of FEPE students must be monitored for two years after exiting the ALP 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. 19 104Assessments The descriptions of academic performance in the English language arts are based upon student performance on the following national, state, and local assessments: Developmental Reading Assessment (grades K-2)
LRSD Achievement Level Tests: Reading and Language Usage (grades 2 through 9). Stanford Achievement Test Series - Ninth Edition (grades 5, 7, and 10), Total Reading and Total Language Arkansas Benchmark Literacy Examinations (grades 4, 6, and 8) Arkansas End-of-Level Literacy Examination (grade 11) The descriptions of academic performance in specific content knowledge and skills are based upon student performance on the following assessments: Achievement Level Tests: Elementary Mathematics (grades 2-5) and Middle School Mathematics (Grades 6-8) Stanford Achievement Test SeriesNinth Edition (grades 5, 7, and 10) Total Mathematics Arkansas Benchmark Mathematics Examinations (grades 4, 6, and 8) z Arkansas End-of-Course Examinations in Algebra I and Geometry ^^g^2rch Questions To address the requirements of federal, state, and local governance, the following research questions were established to guide the evaluation of the effectiveness o the Districts Alternative Language Program. I Program Implementation 1. Has the District implemented appropriate policies, procedures, an programs to comply with federal law, the Commitment to Resolve with ^iv^iaiiio iw kzMiiipij wiui ivuviui > r O OCR, the Arkansas Department of Education, and local What has been the cost of implementing this program? (See Sec ion and see Program Objectives 1-4, 6-8,11-12.) 2. What is the evidence that LEP students have appropriate access to the range of special opportunity programs in the District, including special oz > 9O0 o X wz o 20 1048 education, gifted/talented programs, and 504 programs? (See Section II and see Program Objective 9.) 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? (See Section II and see Program Objective 5.) Academic Progress 4. 5. 6. Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program making progress in acquiring reading and English language arts skills? How does their performance compare with that of the general population and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? (See Section III and see Goals 1-2.) 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)? (See Section IV and see Goals 1-2.) R Are there LEP and FEPE students participating in the Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and University Studies courses at the secondary level? Are they being successful in those courses? (See Section V and see Program Objective 9.) 7. Are FEPE students successful in the mainstream curriculum? (See Section VI and see Program Objective 10.) Behavioral Indicators 8. 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 the general population and with fluent English- proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? (See Section VII and see Goal 1.) Program Evaluation Outline This document is divided into eight sections. Each of sections ll-VII addresses specific research questions. 21 104SSection 1: Introduction The first section includes the introduction, an outline of the District's 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 data, and an outline of the sections in the study. It also includes demographic data for PHLOTEs, LEPs, and FEPEs, including languages spoken, enrollment by grade level, and enrollment by school. Section II: Policies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance, Equity, and Effectiveness 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. 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: Performance of LEP and FEPE Students in Advanced Courses This section evaluates LEP and FEPE student performance in high school Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and University Studies courses. Section VI: Monitoring the Progress of Fluent English Proficient Exited Students (FEPEs) This section is a cohort study of the academic achievement of students who exited the ALP in 1999-2000 with an analysis of all the available assessment data on those specific students through 2001-2002. Section VII: 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 VIII: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations X This section summarizes the key findings for each of the research questions, draws general conclusions on the academic and behavioral performance of LEP and FEPE students, and makes recommendations for program improvement in 2002-2003. 22 1050 Section II: Policies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance, Equity, and Effectiveness Section II describes the Districts educational program for limited-English proficient students, including the policies, procedures, and programs that have been implemented to ensure compliance, equity, and effectiveness. The research questions answered in this section are as follows: 1. Has the District implemented appropriate policies, procedures, and programs to comply with federal law, the Commitment to Resolve with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), and local LRSD policy? What has been the cost of implementing this program? 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, and 504 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? k k k k Policy, Procedural, and Program Changes To illustrate the changes that have been implemented during the past three years under the Commitment to Resolve, the ESL Supervisor constructed and has maintained a matrix. The matrix (see relevant components under the discussion of each program objective in this section) includes a list of program features that correspond with the established program objectives and the status of each in 1998- 99, the year of the Compliance Review site visit by the Office of Civil Rights. Subsequent columns for 1999-2001, and 2001-2002 detail the changes in policies, procedures and programs that have been necessary to ensure compliance, equity, and effectiveness in the Little Rock School Districts Alternative Language Program. Matrix components have been broken out to illustrate the progress made toward achievement of each of the twelve program objectives. The first two rows pertain to the adoption of appropriate policies and administrative regulations (procedures), as well as the publication of a procedural handbook for principals and other school-level staff (developed in 2001-2002, but not disseminated until fall 2002). All staff have been provided the policy and regulations annually. The policy, administrative regulations, the administrative directive, and the administrative handbook have all been developed since fall 1999. 23 k 10ESL Program Administrative Handbook The Districts first Administrative Handbook for the ALP was drafted in 2001-2002 and then published and disseminated in fall 2002. Its contents include the following: I. II. Introduction (with copies of Policy IHBEA, Administrative Regulations IHBEA-R, and Administrative Directive IHBEA-AD) ESL Curriculum and Instruction tel III. ESL Procedures and Practices IV. Language Proficiency Assessment Committee V. Professional Development VI. Division of Exceptional Children (with sections on Special Education, 504, and Gifted/Talented Education) VII. Appendix (Glossary of Terms, ESL Parent Coordinator, and Translators and Telephone Numbers) VIII. Forms/Letters s IX. Language Minority Student Reports (Instructions for Generating Reports
Language Codes
and LAS Scoring, Administration and Interpretation) X. Office for Civil Rights (Commitment to Resolve) Program Feature Policies and Regulations Procedural Handbook 1998-99 None None
occasional memoranda to explain procedures. 1999-01____________________ Policy and Regulations adopted by the LRSD Board of Directors November 1999 - IHBEA and IHBEA-R. Legal Reference - Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964______________________ This is a work in progress and will be ready for the 2001-2002 school year. Currently in draft form.______________________ 2001-2002_____________ _ Continuation of implementation of policy and regulations. Minor revisions to the regulations were adopted by the Board of Education in November 2001. Administrators' Handbook was written and reviewed and rescheduled for fall 2002 publication. Program Objective 1: To implement and maintain consistent procedures for student identification processes. A crucial step in meeting the needs of students from language backgrounds other than English is the identification of students who need language-assistance services. This process presumes an operational definition of English-language proficiency. o z> 3o0 o Xn 24 zn M 1052 Prior to the 1978 Education Amendments, the term Limited English Speaking Ability (LESA) vi/as used to define the population served through Title VI funding. This term was broadened in the 1978 Amendments to include not only those students who were limited in their speaking ability but also those who had sufficient difficulty in reading, writing, or understanding the English language
hence the term limited-English proficient (Anstrom (1996), citing Stewner-Manzanaries (1988). Limited-English proficient students in the Little Rock School District are identified according to a specific process that is established in the Administrative Regulations IHBEA-R: English as a Second Language. The first step is the administration of the Home Language Survey form to every student enrolled in the school, regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. If the student and/or his/her parent/guardian indicate in answers to one or more questions that there is a need for language proficiency assessment, then the student is referred. Other indicators, according to the regulations, that may lead to the administration of the Language Assessment Scale (LAS) include interviews with student/family/guardian, review of previous school records, lack of previous school records, and counselor/teacher concern regarding English language cognitive processes." k Program Feature LEP Identification Procedures 1998-99 1999-01 2001-2002 Students identified through Home Language Survey (HLS) and verified through testing
no LPAC review or placements Students identified through the HLS administered upon initial registration at the school site or Student Registration Office. Level of English proficiency verified through the administration of the LAS by qualified ESL tester. District or school-based LPAC review and recommendations for ESL program services and/or school placement. Continuation of LEP identification procedures from 1999-2001. Also, continuation of the bi-annual training of school office staff in the registration procedures for language minority students (or PHLOTEs). IHBEA-ADwas developed to guide scheduling of LEP students. k Program Objective 2: To assess all students who have a primary home language other than English (PHLOTE), regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. LRSD primarily utilizes the Language Assessment Scale (LAS) for placement of students into, exit from, and re-entry to the Alternative Language Program (ALP). Specific cut-off scores for placement of students in the ALP program have been established and provide procedures for the Language Proficiency Assessment Committees (LPACs). Students are classified as Level I (monolingual in home language). Level II (some level of English-language proficiency), or Level III (advanced level of English-language proficiency, but not yet at exit level): Level I: N (Pre-LAS) LAS 1 (oral proficiency only) LEPa (oral and reading/writing) k 25 R - 105i
Level II Level III L (Pre-LAS) LEPb, c (oral and reading/writing) o LEPd, e (oral and reading/writing) Based on the results of the assessment, a program placement recommendation is made by the LPAC for each student to meet language needs and to provide him/her equal access to the curriculum. Assessment Timelines Students enrolled at or near the beginning of the school year must be tested no later than September 20 of each school year. Students enrolled after that date are tested upon referral. Within 20 school days of their initial enrollment in the district, students are identified, assessed, and classified for ESL programs according to the criteria and procedures established by state and local rules. According to the document. Alternative Language Programs for English Language Learners, Little Rock School District, LEP students are initially identified for assessment through the Home Language Survey (HLS), administered upon initial registration at the school site or Student Registration Office, and the level of English proficiency is verified through the administration of the Language Assessment Scale (LAS) by a qualified ESL tester. Program Objective 3: To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for entry and placement into an ESL program. z Orqanization and Role of LPACs The District has established Language Proficiency Assessment Committees (LPACs), according to need. Almost every school has established its own LPAC. Membership on each LPAC includes, as a minimum, the following: one or more appropriate ESL teachers, including one special education teacher as a counselor, and a campus administrator. The District LPAC or a school-based LPAC reviews and makes decisions for ALP services and/or program placement (Broadnax, 2000). This procedure was established during the 1999-2000 school year. The most recent revision of the regulations requires Newcomer Centers and other schools to establish their own LPAC if they have five or more identified LEP students. According to LRSD Administrative Regulation IHBEA-R (1999 and amended in 2001), 26 o z 5 o o pl X pl Pl z o pl 1054.. .all members of LPACs must receive at least one-half day of training in LPAC duties
OCR, state, and LRSD laws, policies, and regulations governing LEP programs and services
interpretation of language proficiency assessments
laws and rules governing confidentiality of student records
and identification, placement, and exit procedures for the Districts ESL program. As of February 2000, all counselors in the District were trained, along with identified building administrators and ESL teachers to serve as LPAC members. Two training sessions were held during the 2000-2001 school year. Training was provided for new LPAC members at identified school sites during the 2001-2002 school year (Broadnax, 2001). LPAC training is provided bi-annually. Student Assignment During the 2000-2001 school year, elementary LEP students were assigned to attendance zone schools except where they had been previously assigned to Newcomer Center elementary schools. Newcomer Center LEP students were grandfathered into those schools as long as they remained in the ESL program. This decision to phase out the elementary Newcomer Centers was data-based. First, the Districts enrollment data indicated that LEP students were enrolled in almost every elementary school in the District in 1999-2000, and some neighborhood schools had more LEP students than some of the Newcomer Centers. These data, plus anecdotal data, indicated that parents of LEP students much preferred their children to attend neighborhood schools than to be bused some distance to a Newcomer Center. Second, data from the Districts 1999-2000 ALP evaluation revealed that, in general, elementary LEP students in the neighborhood schools performed as well as or better than those clustered in the Newcomer Centers. Chicot Elementary School, a former Newcomer Center, still has large numbers of LEP students, but most live in that attendance zone. f I Middle and high school LEP students were still encouraged in 2001-2002 to attend Newcomer Center Schools - Cloverdale Middle, Dunbar Middle, and Hall High School. This policy is still in place
however. District staff members are closely examining the demographic trends of where students' parents choose to live
the enrollment of LEP students in neighborhood middle and high schools, and the achievement and behavior data for LEP students. All possible information will be used to determine whether the middle and high school Newcomer Centers should also be phased out. Tables 1-8 in Section 1 provide demographic data for PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students by language community, grade level, and school. R R 27 1 1051 a u - Program Feature Entry criteria and guidelines Organization and Role of LPACs Student Assignment Scheduling of students 1998-99 1999-01 2001-2002 None fonnally documented or articulated None LMS students strongly encouraged or required to enroll in Newcomer Centers Randomly assigned in all schools, except for LEPs assigned to designated ESL courses at Hall High Entry into ESL Programs Students who are identified as LEP, through the standardized assessment (LAS) are recommended for ESL program services either in the attendance zone elementary schools, which include the Newcomer Center Schools or recommended to attend the NC middle or high school, as is age/grade appropriate.___________ Training began in February 2000, all counselors in district trained along with identified building administrators and ESL teachers. Two training sessions held during the 2000-2001 school year, three held during the previous year. Elementary LEP students are assigned to attendance zone schools except where they were previously assigned outside of their attendance zones to Newcomer Center elementary schools. Those students are grand fathered into those schools as long as they remain in the ESL program. Middle and High School aged LEP students are recommended to attend Newcomer Center Schools - Cloverdale Middle, Dunbar Middle, and Hall High School. LEP students clustered at grade level or in courses/classrooms with endorsed or trained teachers in all schools Continuation of implementation of the Entry criteria and guidelines established during 1999-2001. Monitoring of these processes to ensure compliance with CTR requirements. Continuation of organization and role of LPAC and monitoring committees to ensure compliance with CTR specifications. Schools with at least five LEP students must have a site-based LPAC. New training is provided for new LPAC members at identified school sites bi-annually. Effective fall 2002, elementary LEP students were no longer referred to Newcomer Centers. Out-of-zone LEP students currently attending Newcomer Centers are allowed to remain in those schools until they complete grade 5 or until they exit the ESL program. Middle and high school LEP students are recommended to attend Newcomer Center schoolsCloverdale Middle, Dunbar Middle, and Hall High School. __________ Continuation of the scheduling of LEP students based on an identified need for ESL program services. Scheduling of students aligned with ESL endorsed or trained teachers. During March 2002 the administrative directive on the scheduling of LEP students was distributed to all principals, counselors, and registrars (IHBEA-AD)._________________________ 28 1056 z Program Feature Class-Sizes 1998-99 1999-01 The Class-Size Reduction Grant allowed use of this money to provide additional teachers to 5 elementary NC schools (previously indicated). Funding became available for one teacher at an elementary site with a sizeable LEP population - Wakefield Elementary. The additional teachers have been used between grades K-3 and have allowed those schools to configure their ESL classes in smaller groups, some split-grade groupings, or with a team-teaching model.___________ 2001-2002 Continuation of the implementation of instructional support using the Class-Size Reduction grant. Program Objective 4: 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 selfconcept and identification with personal/family cultural heritages. To be credible, the Districts educational approach for the education of limited- English proficient students must be recognized as sound by experts in the field or recognized professionally as a legitimate educational strategy to ensure that LEP students acquire English-language proficiency and are provided meaningful access to the regular educational program. This approach must address each aspect of the Districts program for LEPs, at all grade levels, and at all schools in the district. Definition of the LRSD ALP Although District staff commonly refer to the District s ALP as ESL, its delivery is not the same as a traditional ESL program. Rather, the LRSD ALP is characterized by the following: LEPs scheduled with ESL-endorsed/trained teachers in core subject areas: LEPs clustered in heterogeneous classes with a majority of English speakers (with some exceptions at Hall High School where there are sufficient numbers of LEP students to have separate classes in some subject areas)
Instruction delivered through English immersionwith scaffolding, or differentiated strategies and appropriate materials informed by ESL and Total Physical Response training. Full access to the Districts standards-based curriculum and assessments. R 29 R 105:M Curriculuni ^XtSKds and grade-lev decision to estab^h^^-^^^ English-language learners *,udents. It is LRSD's same for all students. Ma)orinitiati learning) benchmarks curriculum for all other students and local expectations separate curriculum for for student learning shouU be the I i r BS~-rnem^ successful
I I 1 The District has standards-based
.3 consciously selected ^PP'^^Pgsrooms, including for the diversity of learners in a ------ SSSSSSS 504 students, and the new 2001. Standards Km for social languages development for the fine arts an is in progress. 2 The District has established-instmchonalsfo^^^^^^^^ 2 during 2001-2002 that 'also guide the profes.^onal Waisal System during, summer 2002 th j a de development program and s jhe models that were .2002 and the adoption of a new^^^^ Professional T eacher sssKasgsssasKS Learning goes from whole to part. z Lessons should be learner-centered of knowledge. because learning is the active construction Lessons should have meaning and purpose for students now. Learning occurs in in social interaction. . Reading, writing, speaking , and listening all develop together. o 2 90 O o n X 30 P5 2 PI 1058 Lessons should support students first languages and cultures. Faith in the learner expands learning potential, (pp. 25-26) 3. The TESOL instructional standards have been adopted as the framework for teachers of English-language learners to use in designing not only their daily instructional plans, but also in designing small group work and other interventions that may be necessary for individual LEP students to learn English. Copies of these standards were purchased in 1999-2000 for all schools and for most individual teachers. Subsequently, the Arkansas Department of Education developed for fall 2002 publication a set of learning standards, the English Language Acquisition Framework, which the LRSD will also adopt. Assessments All LEP students took the Districts Achievement Level Tests in grades 2-9 in reading, language usage, mathematics, and science in school years 1999- 2000 through 2001-2002. (The Board of Education has eliminated those assessments, effective fall 2002, in anticipation of the new/ criteriori- referenced tests in grades 3-8 and high school that are mandated in No Child Left Behind.) Grades K-2 students all took the Developmental Reading Assessment and the sub-tests that compose the Observation Surveys. LEP students took the grade 9 Civics assessment, given for the first time in spring 2002. LEP students who have been in the United States for at least three years also take the Arkansas Benchmark Examination, including the End-of- Course Examinations (Literacy, Mathematics, Algebra, GeometryL Some LEP students are exempt from the Stanford Achievement Test (9 edition) and the State Benchmark tests, but those exempt from the Benchmarks must instead complete a portfolio assessment. These data enable District staff and parents to measure student growth not only in English-language learning, but also in the content areas. ESL InstructionElementary Schools The theoretical base for the Little Rock School Districts English-as-a Second Language (ESL) instructional strategies is the same as that for the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) and Effective Literacy instructional strategies (LRSD Administrative Regulations IHBEA-R, 1999 and revised in 2001). All teachers assigned to serve LEP students in core subject areas must be ESL-endorsed, be working on that endorsement, or have received at least 30 hours of ESL training. Elementary students may be served in classrooms in one of the following models: R 31 105 Clustered in heterogeneous classrooms with provisions to group LEP students within class for special instruction. n Multi-aged classrooms that are composed only of LEP students or that are heterogeneous. Care must be taken not to isolate LEP students from their English-speaking peers. Assigned to a classroom composed solely of LEP students, but with provisions during the school day for integration with English-speaking students. Clustered in a heterogeneous classroom in a co-teacher model (two teachers in the same classroom sharing the instructional duties. A combination of any of the above. The instructional expectations are as follows: The instructional strategies and the amount of time devoted to ESL instruction for Level I students must be differentiated from the strategies and time commitments that are appropriate for Levels Il-Ill students, even though all three levels may be in the same classroom. Elementary level 1 students must be scheduled for at least two and one-half hours daily of English-language instruction. Level II and III students must have at least two hours daily of English-language instruction. Prek-5 teachers are expected to modify instruction, pacing, materials, assessments, and grouping, as appropriate, for the proficiency levels of limited-English proficient students assigned to their classrooms. Grading of student progress in English language arts will be based on students progress toward meeting the ESL standard for the grade level. Grading in other subject areas allow LEP students to demonstrate their skill and knowledge in their primary language or in oral English rather than in writing, if appropriate. z ESL Instruction-Middle Schools The theoretical base that guides the ESL English instructional strategies in the Little Rock School District is the same as that behind the Reading/Writing Workshop provided for students in grades 6-8. The theoretical base for the instructional strategies in the grades 6-8 mathematics, science, and social studies programs are likewise compatible with the strategies that are effective Oz SO8 o Xn 32 1060 z n with ESL students as they learn the content areas. ESL students must be scheduled with ESL and content-area teachers who are ESL-endorsed, who are working on their endorsements, or have participated in at least 30 hours of training. Teachers of middle school limited-English proficient students are expected to modify instruction, pacing, materials, assessment, and grading practices to reflect the developmental needs of the middle school LEP students. When appropriate, teachers allow students to demonstrate the content knowledge and skill in their primary language or in oral, rather than written English. Pages 66-68 of the 2001-2002 Middle School Curriculum Catalog provide a list of approved ESL middle school courses and guidance in scheduling LEP students at each grade level. Middle School Newcomer Centers The following middle schools serve as Newcomer Centers
Cloverdale Middle and Dunbar Middle Schools. The middle school Newcomer Centers provide core courses (Reading/Writing Workshop, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies) for LEP students at all three grade levels. k ESL Instruction-High Schools The theoretical base that guides the ESL English instructional strategies in the Little Rock School district is the same as that behind the English I Workshop, provided for students in grade 9 for two periods and for English ll-IV. Likewise, teachers of mathematics, science, and social studies teach standards-based curricula, using similar strategies to teach for meaning and understanding in highly engaged classrooms. High school teachers of limited-English proficient students are expected to modify instruction, pacing, materials, assessment, and grading practices to reflect the developmental needs of the LEP high school students. High schools must schedule LEP students with ESL content-area teachers who are ESL endorsed, who are working on their endorsements, or who have participated in at least 30 hours of training. Teachers of ESL English courses are to grade student progress according to the ESL Standards for the course. 33 106
1 Teachers of other subject areas shall allow LEP students to demonstrate their knowledge and skill in their primary language or in oral, rather than written English. n Pages 93-97 of the 2001-2002 High School Curriculum Catalog provide a list of all approved ESL courses, along with guidance in scheduling students at each level. High School Newcomer Center (Hall High School) ESL-adapted courses are provided in all the following core subject areas: English language arts, communications, mathematics, science, and social studies. Level I students must be scheduled into ESL English I Workshop daily. Level II and III students must be scheduled into ESL English daily. LEP students are scheduled with ESL and content-area teachers who are ESL-endorsed, who are working on their endorsements, or who have participated in at least 30 hours of training. No Child Left Behind Reguirements LRSD staff members have followed the development, passage, and roll-out of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, referred to as No Child Left Behind by the Bush administration. During 2001-2002 the staff examined the portions of the law that involve requirements for LEP students and concluded that the work done to fully implement the letter and spirit of the Commitment to Resolve had enabled the District to be ahead of the game, so to speak, regarding LEP student performance. z I Program Feature Curriculum Instruction 1998-99__________ Same as regular students: no adaptations_______ Students in Newcomer Centers received 30 minutes one-on-one tutoring each week 1999-01___________________ Same as regular students with adaptations and modifications 2001-2002 ____________ Same as regular students with adaptations and modifications Students at Newcomer Centers and Non-Newcomer Center Schools (elementary) benefit from in-class instruction from teachers who are either ESL endorsed or in the process of completing the endorsement requirement or teachers who are participating in the ESL training program_______ Review of the instructional model previously used with LEP students to assess the effectiveness of such approaches for success or failure. o z 38 o o x 34 n z tn 1062Program Feature Assessments 1998-99_________ LEP students generally exempted 1999-01______________________ LEP students included in the criterion referenced district-level assessments (ALTs) as much as possible, exempt from standardized assessments if deemed appropriate by LPAC (up to two years after initial enrollment), implementation of the Alternate Portfolio Assessments in place of the State Benchmarks assessments for LEP students' grades 4,6, and 8. End of level State assessments for grades 10 and 11 to be added during the 2001-2002 school year_________ 2001-2002 Continuation of inclusion of LEP students in district CRT's: alternative portfolio assessments extended to include LEP students in grades 4,6, 8, and 11. 1 Program Objective 5: 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. Teachers learn through their endorsement courses and through the training provided by the Little Rock School District how to adapt, not the curriculum, for LEP students, but the instructional strategies, materials, pacing, and assessments. This area is perhaps the one in which the District has made its most dramatic improvements since fall 1999. LRSD has moved from having only a part-time Director for the Alternative Language Program at the central office level in 1998-99 to the employment of a full-time ESL Supervisor, a half-time secretary, a full-time program evaluator, a full-time ESL parent coordinator, and a half-time secretary for her. At the school level, the District had only seven ESL-endorsed teachers in 1998-99. When school started in fall 2002, there were 172 teachers fully endorsed, with another 18 near completion. Both the District and the Arkansas Department of Education have fully supported the tuition-reimbursement program that was necessary to make this kind of progress. Administrators are much more knowledgeable now as well, and, consequently, much more supportive of the Alternative Language Program. Program Feature District-Level staffing 1998-99_________ 1/10 of Curriculum Director 1/10 of department secretary 1999-2001 ESL Supervisor % secretary ESL Parent Coordinator reports to VIPs director, /a secretary for parent involvement ESL Program Evaluator 2001-2002___________________ Continuation of same level of staffing. II 35 106I Program Feature I School-Level Staffing 1998-99 7 uncertified, unendorsed part-time tutors assigned to elementary and middle school Newcomer Centers 1999-2001 Elementary staffing - The five (5) Newcomer Center Schools and another AZ school (recently added) have received instructional support in the area of class size reduction as follows: Brady Elementary 1 additional teacher Chicot Elementary 3 additional teachers Romine Interdistrict 2 additional teachers Terry Elementary 2 additional teachers Washington Magnet 2 additional teachers Wakefield 1 additional teacher (new position) 2001-2002___________________ Elementary staffing -Continuation of the use of instructional support (i.e. class size reduction) at the Elementary Newcomer Center Schools, with the exception of Brady, and the addition of two other elementary sites as participants in this grant - Cloverdale Elementary, King Elementary, and Wakefield Elementary. Brady Elementary was dropped due to low LEP enrollment. r Middle School staffing - Continuation of the assignment of ESL endorsed teachers to teach LEP students in ESL adapted courses or mainstreamed inclusion model ESL adapted courses. k Middle School Staffing - At Dunbar Middle School the LEP students were taught by ESL endorsed teachers or teachers in the process of completing the ESL endorsement in mainstreamed classes. At Cloverdale Middle Level Academy, LEP students were clustered in discrete ESL classes and taught by ESL endorsed teachers or teachers working on their ESL endorsement. High School Staffing - At Hall High School the Newcomer Center Program is staffed with a half-time ESL-endorsed teacher/Coordinator, who is responsible to oversee the sight-based operation of the ESL program. ESL endorsed teachers teach LEP students in ESL classes. High School staffing - Continuation of the position of ESL Coordinator/ teacher at Hall High School as well as ESL endorsed teachers to teach the ESL courses required by LEP students. z 36 1064 Id Program Feature Number of Endorsed Teachers Teacher Professional Development Administrator Professional Development 1998-99 There were 5 teachers who were either ESL- endorsed at the start of the 1998-99 school year or had competed the ESL endorsement during that school year (4 at Hall High School and 1 at Terry Elementary). Vi-time UALR instructor provided on-site coaching and professional development Infrequent meetings of Newcomer principals only I 1999-2001 Currently there are 50 ESL endorsed teachers and another 10 expected to complete the course requirement May 2001(9 teachers and 1 administrator). Specific details provided on ESL Teacher Endorsement Table. Summer 2001 projections for the ESL Graduate Academy include up to 50 participants to complete the ESL endorsement requirement. Another 8 candidates may continue to complete their ESL endorsement course requirements through UALR. Implementation of a Professional Development Program developed by the Center for Applied Linguistics. This program was launched during summer 2000 with continuing sessions into the fall of 2000 and spring 2001. Elementary, middle, and high school teachers were provided with an initial 2 to 2'/2 day comprehensive training sessions which addressed the following areas: Culture, Second Language Acquisition, Assessment, and ESL Instructional Methodology. The final sessions will be delivered during the spring and early summer 2001._____________ Professional development sessions delivered through Leadership Team Meetings during the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 school years. Topics included- Compliance with the terms of the CTR
Evaluation of teachers of LEP students. ESL instructional methodologies and strategies. 2001-2002 Approximately 172 teachers completed the ESL endorsement course requirements. Another 18 completed at least one course and are in the process of completing the others. Another ESL Graduate Academy is planned for summer 2003. Review the assignment of ESL endorsed teachers to LEP students or ESL courses to determine areas of future need. Reduction of the numbers of teachers who are approved to receive tuition support for completing the ESL endorsement courses. Monitoring the number of ESL endorsed teachers who actually remain in-district will also help to define the need. Continuation of the professional development program for elementary, middle, and high school teachers. Implementation of targeted assistance workshops for middle and high school teachers of LEP students on 'Sheltered Instruction' and TPR (Total Physical Response). These workshops will begin in 2002-03. Extension of ESL training to include all specialty area teachers, specialists, special education etc... 1 Continuation of professional development for administrators. As new administrators are hired, they will be scheduled to receive training in all applicable areas for compliance with the CTR. 37 II to R 106!V Program Objective 6: To provide appropriately aligned instructional materials. The District has invested considerable sums of money in the past three years to equip teachers with appropriate standards-based materials to use in instruction with diverse studentsscience kits, mathematics manipulatives, classroom sets of trade books at all reading levels and with cultural sensitivity, and dictionaries, in addition to especially designed materials for LEP students who are learning not only content and skills, but the English language and American culture. Or Program Feature Teaching Materials 1998-99_________ Totally teacher selected: available only in Newcomer Centers 1999-01 Much of the teaching materials used in our programs have been selected wflth teacher input as well as guidance from the ESL Supervisor. This year the district adopted a new reading series for Grade K-5 and this was a collaborative process with the Early Childhood/Literacy Department and the ESL Department. The program selected had specific modifications, materials and references provided for LEP students and their teachers. Our Science and Mathematics materials are likewise inclusive of strategies and modifications for our LEP students. Currently the Social Studies curriculum is under revision.____________ 2001-2002____________________ Provision of supplementary funds to all elementary schools to provide for minimum expenditures on supplementary materials based on a per student allotment. Review materials currently used in all levels of programs to ensure appropriateness and effectiveness in a students language development i z Program Objective 7: To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for exit from an ESL program. In 1998-99 the District had no evidence that students had been formally exited from the Alternative Language Program. At the end of 2001-2002 the District had documentation of at least 94 exited students as a result of improved instruction, monitoring, assessment, and procedures. Tables 1-8 in Section 1 provide demographic data for PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students by language community, grade level, and school. 38 1066 oz o o PJ X 2 k Program Feature Exit criteria and guidelines 1998-99 None formally documented or articulated 1999-01 Exit from ESL Programs LEP students currently receiving ESL Program services are reviewed annually to determine current English proficiency status, progress in attaining the goals of the program, and the need to either remain in the program or exit the ESL Program. Students who demonstrate fluency in the four areas of reading, writing, speaking, and listening comprehension, who have been acculturated to US schools, are 'exited' from the program. These recommendations are made by the LPAC at each school site. Parents are usually notified of these changes in the services provided to their students. 2001*2002 1 Continuation of implementation of the Entry/Exit criteria and guidelines established during 1999-2001. Monitoring of these processes to ensure compliance with CTR requirements. II k Program Objective 8: To provide for parental/family involvement in the school setting to support improved student learning. Major culture changes in the District have occurred relating to this area. In 1998-99 almost no one ever thought about the need for translated documents in communicating with parents or the need to provide oral translators for any level of parent meetings. This sensitivity is now evident in all departments of the District. For instance, the letter to send to parents relating to No Child Left Behind requirements for public school choice was immediately translated into Spanish once it was initially drafted. The addition of the ESL parent coordinator, who is a Spanish speaker, has also made a major difference in the Districts ability to work with Hispanic, as well as other LEP students parents. Her outreach efforts resulted in many LEP students parents participating in the Districts study circles for high school reform, in the Parent Institutes (Saturday workshops for parents twice each year), and in other activities. Page 39 of the ESL Administrator Handbook provides information about the ESL Parent Coordinator, and pages 40-41 include a list of available translators. Program Feature Parent Communication 1998-99 1999-01 Full-time ESL Parent Coordinator joined the Parent Team. This position is funded through Title I and local funds (approximately $35.000.00). 2001-2002 Continuation and review of duties of the full-time position of ESL Parent Coordinator. k R 39 106 RIn i. Program Feature Translated Documents 1998-99 Home Language Survey form 1999-01 Home Language Survey form Refrigerator Curriculum Course Selection Sheets SAIP LPAC documents for distribution to parents Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbooks will be available in Spanish for the 2001-2002 school year_______ 2001-2002 Increase in the awareness level of
available translated documents (ESL Handbook - Appendix). Increase the number of documents translated into Spanish. Allocation of resources to include translation of documents info one other minority language, if feasible. f I i Program Objective 9: To provide equitable access to other district programs and services, including special education and gifted/talented education and all procedural safeguards. This section examines equal access for PHLOTE students to the full range of district programs including special education, 504 services, and gifted/talented programs. Special Education According to LRSD Policy IHBA, the Board of Education believes in and is committed to the provision of educational programs through individualized instruction and related services for children who have special needs. s The District has established a process through the ESL Supervisor and the Director of the Department of Exceptional Children for monitoring and documentation of the services provided to LEP students who also require special education services. LEP students can receive services in both special education as well as the Alternative Language Program. This area was reviewed and reported to OCR twice annually. Special Education teachers are included in ESL training, as well as in the ESL endorsement process. This procedure was established during the 1999-2000 school year and continues. Special Education resource room teachers are receiving in fall 2002 updated and in-depth professional development in implementing the Districts standards-based curriculum. Section 9 of Administrative Regulations IHBEA-R establishes specific procedures for students who may require both LEP and Special Education services. (See pages 13-14 of the ESL Administrators Handbook.) Special Education (LEP and FEPE) by Grade Levels According to data from the LRSD Department of Exceptional Children, of the 48 Special Education PHLOTE students in the District, 42 (or 87.5 percent) were LEP 40 zo S>8 e o >n< w zn rw 1068 students, two (or 4.2 percent) were FEPE students, two (or 4.2 percent) were NALMS students, and three (or 6.3 percent) were FEP students. There were no REFUSE students identified as needing special education services. H Table 4 displays the LEP and FEPE students receiving special education services by grade level. According to the data, 42 (or 6.6 percent) of the LEP students and two (or 2.1 percent) of the FEPE students in the District received special education services during the 2001-2002 school year. The increase in the special education population from the 2000-2001 school year to the 2001-2002 school year raised a red flag among evaluation team members. Further investigation confirmed the accuracy of 2001-2002 numbers, but the count for 2000-2001 is below what it should have been due to a computer malfunction, and data could not be recovered. L I k Table 1 Special Education (LEP and FEPE) by Grade Levels Comparison 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 2000-2001 School Year 2001-2002 School Year Grade LEP Students FEPE Students LEP Students FEPE Students Enroll N 3-Yr. PreK W "sT 1' 2 s 7 inB" 79" TF 0 y 78 y 49 45 0 Z y y 7 T 3 7 % NA yr yr Z6 ys Ts yr y2 Enroll 0 o o' s' "2 N 0 q q % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Enroll 1 86 53 N 0 o' I I 4 4 5 T % na NA yr TT yz Enroll 0 o" y y T y 14 14 N 0 o q q q T "o % NA NA NA NA y y TJ y 41 R 102000-2001 School Year 2001-2002 School Year Grade 7^ To 11th 1^ Totals LEP Students Enroll 29 21 37 39 25 14 17 620 N 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 23 FEPE Students LEP Students FEPE Students % 6.9 NA 8.1 2.6 0 0 0 4% Enroll 5 3 5 2 5 3 2 47 N 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 % 0 33.3 0 0 0 0 0 2% Enroll 33 24 20 36 23 11 12 632 N 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 42 % 5.9 8.3 10.0 5.6 13.0 9.1 8.3 7% Enroll 5 9 10 11 11 7 3 94 N % 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 504 LEP and FEPE Students Table 5 shows the number (N) of LEP and FEPE students receiving 504 services, as compared to the total population (Enroll) of LEP and FEPE students enrolled in LRSD during 2001-2002. There were five (less than one percent) PHLOTE students identified as receiving 504 services in 2001-2002. According to Table 5, four of the students receiving 504 services were LEPs, and one student was FEPE. Table 2 LEP and FEPE Students Receiving 504 Services 2001-2002_________________ Grade Kdg. S'" 8' 157 9^ 10th LEP LEP Students FEPE Students 0 0 0 9.1 0 0 0 2% Enroll 98 59 20 36 23 632 N 1 1 1 0 1 4 % 0.2 0.2 0.2 NA 0.2 >1% Enroll 0 0 0 11 0 94 N 0 0 0 1 0 1 % 0 0 0 9.1 0 1.1 42 1070 I X o2 S>8 e o m X m2 r* 1 Bl Program Feature SPED/LEP Procedures 1998-99 Undocumented participation in terms of students receiving both types of services. 1999-01 Monitoring and documentation of the services provided to LEP students. Students can receive both services in Special Education as well as the Alternative Language Services Program. This area is reviewed and reported on to OCR twice annually. Special Education teachers are included in our ESL Training as well as the ESL endorsement process. 2001-2002 Continuation of monitonng SPED/LEP procedures implemented 1999-2001 fe Gifted and Talented (LEP and FEPE) Students According to LRSD Policy IHBB, Gifted students are those who have outstanding abilities and who are capable of high performance, as identified by professionals using appropriate, multidimensional identification instruments and procedures. In order to make their contribution to self and society and develop their talent, ability, and potential, these students require differentiated programs and/or services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program. The term B B "gifted includes the following characteristics: high intellectual ability, task commitment and/or motivation, and creative ability. Second graders are assessed during the spring of the school year
however, the gifted and talented program does not start until third grade. Identification procedures are outlined in District policy
more specific guidelines are found in the gifted/talented administrative handbook. The District monitors and tracks the participation rates among LEP students according to procedures created and implemented during the 1999-2000 school year. The GT Coordinator and GT Supervisor conduct documentation of evidence of LEPGT students and services provided to them. Training was provided to all GT Facilitators and GT Specialists on the characteristics of LEPGT students during the 1999-2000 school year. Three professional development sessions were held during the 2000-2001 school year on the LEPGT student and how to provide equitable access and services in the special opportunity programs. Currently, there are five GT Specialists who have obtained the ESL endorsement. Other specialists have participated in ESL training either offered through the District's professional development program or through their cluster meetings. As new G/T specialists are assigned, they will also receive specialized training in this area. II 43 107I IM The District will continue the monitoring and tracking of LEPGT students and the access/availability of special opportunity programs for LEP students (Broadnax, 2001). Plans fortraining initiatives were developed and conducted for the 2001- 2002 school year. Section 9 of Administrative Regulations IHBEA-R establishes specific procedures for identification of students who are both LEP and gifted/talented. (See page 14 of the ESL Administrators Handbook.) I o % % ! Gifted and Talented (LEP and FEPE) by Grade Levels According to available data, of the 161 PHLOTE students receiving gifted and talented services in the District in 2001-2002, 23 (or 14 percent) were LEP students, 24 (or approximately 15 percent) were FEPE students, 106 (or 66 percent) were FEP students, and seven (or approximately 4 percent) were REFUSE students. There were no Not Assessed Language Minority Students (NALMS) identified as receiving gifted and talented services. The LEP students participating in the gifted/talented program in 2001-2002 increased by 11, almost doubling those served in 2000-2001. FEPE participation also improvedby 10. Almost all the improvement was at the elementary level, perhaps as a result of the professional development provided to elementary GT specialists, but also probably a result of the secondary curriculum being more complex for LEP and FEPE students to master. Important to understanding these data is that secondary students are not identified for the gifted/talented program unless there is evidence that the courses they are currently taking are not meeting their needs. Both gifted/talented and other advanced students (who may also be gifted/talented, although not formally identified) are served academically in the Pre-AP and AP courses in the middle and high schools. Table 6 displays, by grade level, the data for LEP and FEPE students. Enroll designates the total number of LEP or FEPE students enrolled in LRSD for that school year. The number of LEP or FEPE students receiving gifted/talented services is given in the N column for each year. The percent (%) column is calculated by dividing N by Enroll. X 44 1 zo > o o g 5 5 1072 Grades 3-Yr. PreK K 2nd 3^ 7^ 8"^ 11th 1^ Total 3-12 Totals Table 3 Gifted and Talented (LEP and FEPE) Comparison 2001 and 2002 2000-2001 School Year LEP Students FEPE Students 2001-2002 School Year LEP Students FEPE Students Enroll 0 44 94 7Q 62 66 49 45 29 21 37 39 25 14 17 342 620 N 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 % N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4% 2% Enroll 0 0 0 0 4 8 8 2 5 3 5 5 2 3 2 43 47 N 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 14 14 % N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 88 63 0 0 0 3 50 0 0 0 33% 30% Enroll 1 38 98 92 86 59 53 46 33 24 20 36 23 11 12 318 632 N 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 23 % N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 13.6 13.2 15.2 2.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 7% 4% Enroll 0 0 0 0 2 8 14 14 5 9 10 11 11 7 3 92 94 N 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 8 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 24 24 Section V
Performance of LEP and FEPE Students in Advanced Courses analyzes the performance of high school LEP and FEPE students in Pre-Advanced Placement, Advanced Placement, and University Studies courses. These courses serve the needs of high school students identified as gifted/talented. 45 % N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 63.5 50.0 57.1 20.0 0 9.1 9.1 0 0 22% 26% 10 ! 107 Ie Program Feature Access to GT, Pre-AP, AP, and other special opportunities 1998-99 Undocumented participation 1999-01_________________________ Training was conducted on the characteristics of the LEPGT student during the 1999-2000 school year. Three PD sessions were also held this year on the LEPGT students and how to provide equitable access and services in the special opportunity programs. There were 2 GT Specialists who had obtained the ESL endorsement. One of them was actively involved in ESL training and support for GT specialists/teachers across the district.________________ I 2001-2002 Continuation of monitonng and tracking of LEPGT students and the access/availability of special opportunity programs to LEP students. Continuation of training initiatives as described previously. Program Objective 10: To monitor the progress of all identified students during program participation and after program exit and to reclassify students as needed. I O r The District has assigned to the Language Proficiency Assessment Committees (LPACs) the responsibility of monitoring at least quarterly the performance of all enrolled LEP students and to track as well the progress of all exited (FEPE) students. When the LPAC determines that an LEP student should be exited from the program or when an FEPE student should be reclassified as LEP, appropriate notice is given to the ESL Supervisor, who changes the student tag in the data base. z This section evaluates the procedures and criteria for determining when students no longer need Alternative Language Program services as well as the methods that the District uses to monitor the success of students after AL program services have been discontinued and the students have exited the program. The determination of English-la
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.