Cedarburg School District ELL Program Plan

CREATED 2014-15 Michelle Garcia, ELL Coordinator

“Where inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin-minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students.”

Office for Civil Rights, May 25, 1970 Memorandum

Cedarburg School District Mission Statement The mission of the Cedarburg School District is to provide an exemplary education that challenges students in a nurturing environment to become lifelong learners, to be responsible members of a global community and to achieve their goals and dreams. Table of Contents

Mission Statement………………………………………………………………… 3

Goals for the ELL Program…………………………………………………….. . 3

Legal Foundation………………………………………………………………… 4

Educational Rationale…………………………………………………………… 5

Program Procedures Identification……………………………………………………………….. 6 English Language Proficiency Assessment……………………………….. 8 English Language Learner Program Model……………………………… 9 Staff and Resources……………………………………………………….. 10 Exit Criteria…………………………………………………………...... 10 Monitoring Process……………………………………………………….. 11

Program Evaluation……………………………………………………………… 12

Appendices (ELL Forms) A. Home Language Survey………………………………………………. 13 B. Parental Approval/Refusal Form for ELL Program…………………. 14 C. ACCESS Score Report (sample)…………………………………...... 16 D. Letter to Accompany ACCESS Parent/Guardian Score Report…...... 17 E. Individual English Language Learner Plan (sample)……………….. 18 F. Exit Letter (English)…………………………………………………. 22 G. Student Monitoring Form (Elementary/Secondary)…………………. 23 H. ELL Program Evaluation Checklist…………………………………. 30

References………………………………………………………………………. 33

2 | P a g e

Mission Statement

The Cedarburg School District serves approximately 3,100 students with approximately 40 English Language Learners (ELLs). More than fifteen native languages are spoken by students in the district. Despite the high number of Spanish and Hmong speaking students in Wisconsin, seventy-seven percent of Cedarburg School District’s culturally and linguistically diverse students speak languages other than Spanish or Hmong. The assets that these students may bring to the classroom and the school include multilingualism and familiarity with multiple cultures and ethnicities.

It is the fundamental philosophy of the Cedarburg School District to provide equal educational opportunities to all students. The purpose of the Cedarburg School District Plan for English Language Learners is to give an overview of the procedural requirements and services to be provided to students with English language acquisition needs. The force of legislation and administrative regulation protects the rights of this group of students to an equal education.

Goals for the ELL Program

The Cedarburg School District, in an effort to best serve its ELL students, outlines the following goals for the English Language Learner Program. In addition, the section details the collaborative approach that all District professionals will take to achieve and measure these goals. District professionals include members of the ELL Department, District teachers, and District administration.

Goal 1: ELL students will develop and maintain listening, speaking, reading and writing competency in English as outlined in the WIDA (World-class Instructional Design and Assessment) standards and measured by the ACCESS for ELLs assessment.

Approach: Data from the ACCESS for ELLs assessment will be used to determine students’ exact competency in each of the four areas. Working in collaboration, regular education teachers will design units and lessons to meet the needs of ELL students using the framework of district benchmarks and WIDA standards. Additional resource support for pre-teaching and post-teaching students will help to achieve this goal.

Goal 2: ELL students will demonstrate proficiency according to state and district benchmarks as measured by state standardized assessments and curriculum-based measures such as formative and summative assessments.

Approach: Regular education teachers, in cooperation with ELL staff, will monitor student proficiency on grade level expectations and give feedback to students and families. Assessments are modified and accommodated to best meet student needs and reflect what students have learned.

Goal 3: ELL students will develop and apply academic language as measured by curriculum-based assessments.

Approach: Academic language development within vocabulary-rich environments will be provided to students within the general education classroom. For students who need more individualized instruction, language development and vocabulary instruction will also occur during the supplemental support services they receive.

Goal 4: ELL students and families will be members of and participate in the school community.

3 | P a g e

Approach: The district will provide opportunities for school, family, and community partnerships to support families so they can be more actively involved in their child`s educational experiences. The added benefit is an increased staff capacity to work effectively with families and the community. Co- curricular activities, such as clubs and athletics, will be accessible to all ELL students.

Goal 5: School District staff will work cooperatively with ELL staff through both collaboration and resources to maintain best practice in order to build capacity for educating English Language Learners.

Approach: Through job-embedded and additional professional development opportunities, school personnel will receive training and coaching in cultural competency strategies and approaches aligned with best practice for English Language Learners.

Legal Foundation

A number of documents detail the federal requirements for the education of LEP students. Brief summaries or excerpts from key documents are listed.

Title VI, Civil Rights Act, 1964 No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of , or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

The Bilingual Education Act, 1968 (Amended in 1974 and 1978) In order to establish equal educational opportunity for all children, Congress declared that the policy of the United States would be as follows: (a) to encourage the establishment and operation, where appropriate, of educational programs that use Bilingual educational practices, techniques, and methods; and (b) for that purpose, to provide financial assistance to local education agencies, and to state education agencies for certain purposes.

Equal Education Opportunities Act of 1974 This law requires that students not be denied access to educational opportunities based on race, color, sex, or national origin. The need for agencies to address language barriers is discussed specifically.

Lau v. Nichols, 1974 This class action suit was brought by parents of non-English-proficient Chinese students against the San Francisco Unified School District. The Supreme Court ruled that identical education does not constitute equal education under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court ruled that the district must take affirmative steps to overcome educational barriers faced by the non-English speaking students.

Castenada v. Pickard, 1981 The major outcome of this case was a set of three guidelines to use to evaluate programming for English Language Learners (ELLs): (1) Is the program theoretically sound or experimentally appropriate? (2) Is the program set up in a way that allows this theory to be put into practice? (3) Is the program regularly evaluated and adjusted to ensure that it is meeting the linguistic needs of the students it serves?

4 | P a g e

Phyler v. Doe, 1982 The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying a free public education to undocumented immigrant children regardless of their immigrant status.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) Title III: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students This portion of NCLB mandates English language proficiency testing of ELLs, discusses a number of issues related to programming for ELLS, and outlines ELL-specific parent notifications, in addition to addressing a number of other related issues.

Educational Rationale

The legal rationale provides only part of the reason that special instructional programs for English language learners (ELLs) are necessary. Equally important is the fact that Cedarburg School District’s ELL program is program is consistent with best educational practices.

General Considerations ELLs need not give up their first language to learn a second language. The development and maintenance of skills and proficiency in the first language enhance acquisition of a second language. Compared to students who are not proficient in their first language, those who are first- language proficient will acquire English more quickly, and will learn to read faster and more easily. It is, therefore, neither useful nor practical, and in many ways counterproductive, to discourage parents of ELLs from speaking their first language with their children at home. Parents can provide much support in the first language and should be encouraged to speak and read to their children in any language that is comfortable for them to use. The school and parents together can plan for additional rich and pleasant experiences for ELLs in English, both in and out of school.

Lack of English proficiency does not in itself qualify a student for Special Education services. A student who lacks English language skills is different from an individual with a language disorder. A student from another culture may have learning styles and concepts of appropriate school and classroom behavior that, while they may differ from the American mainstream perception of the same, may be appropriate to that student’s cultural background and experiences. In the course of normal second language acquisition, a student may not be able to perceive or pronounce certain sounds that do not exist in his or her first language, or that are not used in the same position. Normal sound patterns and interference from the first language may lead students to fail to discriminate sounds in the second language. This is not a learning, speech, or hearing disorder. In addition, a student may acquire oral and written skills in English at different rates. Oral fluency in English may not be an indication of the overall English language skills necessary for academic achievement. Therefore, before a student can be served in Special Education, he or she should be assessed in the first language to determine whether the suspected condition exists in the language and cultural context with which the student is most familiar and comfortable. A suspected speech disorder, for example, that does not appear in the first language can be assumed to be a natural characteristic of second-language acquisition. Consequently, the student should be referred for English as a second language instruction.

It may take a long time for a student to learn English well enough to participate fully in an all-English- language mainstream classroom. Researchers have concluded that it may take from three to ten years to master sophisticated English in the four skill areas (listening, speaking, reading, writing) required for full participation and learning in an academic setting (Cummins, 1991; Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000; Thomas & Collier, 2002). The amount of time will vary 5 | P a g e with each student’s background, age, experience, and first-language literacy, as well as with the amount of support provided by school and parents. It is important to note that the oral language needed for basic survival, while acquired relatively quickly (1 to 3 years), by itself is not sufficient for students to perform well in the classroom. Early acquisition of basic, predictable oral language—or even slang—may lead mainstream teachers to believe that an English language learner is reasonably proficient in English. Yet, the student actually may not know enough English to fully participate academically in an English-medium mainstream classroom. The acquisition of these Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS) (Cummins, 1979, 1981) is an important first step in learning English. BICS alone, however, are not sufficient to enable English language learners to take advantage of the educational opportunities offered in the all-English mainstream classroom. First-language content instruction, as well as English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction, will provide both academic and linguistic support for the English language learner until Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) (Cummins, 1979, 1981) can be reached and the student is able to actively and fully achieve academic success.

Program Procedures

Identification

1. When a student enrolls in the school district, a home language survey is completed. This survey is distributed by the school secretary. The home language survey must be completed at the time of registration. Translations of the Home Language Survey are available in the following languages: Arabic, Chinese (Mandarin), Hebrew, Hindi, Hmong, French, Korean, Russian, Spanish, Tagalog, and Vietnamese. 2. Any surveys with languages other than English indicated anywhere on the form are immediately forwarded to the district ELL staff. In cases such as this, the ELL teacher will first check the student's Cumulative folder for other records regarding the student's English language proficiency. The Cumulative folder may hold a program of services, Individual Language Plan, and/or scores from the ACCESS FOR ELLs assessment from the student's previous school. Next, the ELL teacher will informally screen the student by meeting and speaking with the student. The ELL teacher will also contact the parents to determine potential ELL status and enrollment in the school's ELL program. When the screening and identification process is complete, a copy of the the Home Language Survey will be returned to the school secretary. The secretary will place the HLS in the student's ELL folder within the Cumulative folder. 3. At that point, a decision to administer the MODEL screener by the district ELL staff will be made. The identification and assessment of new ELL students as described will occur within 30 days if the child enters the district at the beginning of the school year, or within 14 days if the child enters after September 30th. 4. The results of the screener are analyzed by the ELL staff to record the proficiency level and determine if the student qualifies for ELL service.

New students to the district who have been previously enrolled in a Wisconsin school will have ELL and ACCESS data available that will be used in the identification process, and no MODEL screener will be needed in most cases. ELL staff will review cumulative folders and acknowledge past ELL services and academic experience.

6 | P a g e

Each identified English language learner will have the following documents in an ELL record file stored both in the district office and in the student’s cumulative folder:  Home Language Survey  Parent Permission to Serve Letter  Screener Result  ACCESS Report  Exit Form  Individualized English Language Learner Plan  Monitoring Form

7 | P a g e

English Language Proficiency Assessment

When students enter the district, parents complete a home language survey. If the home language survey indicates potential ELL needs, the screening process will commence. The identification and assessment of new ELL students as described will occur within 30 days if the child enters the district at the beginning of the school year, or within 14 days if the child enters after September 30th. The Cedarburg School district utilizes assessment tools from WIDA (World-class Instructional Design and Assessment) Consortium, namely the MODEL (Measure of Developing English Language). The MODEL assessment will be given to students in kindergarten through grade 12.

A student's score on one of these screeners will determine his/her need for inclusion in the school's ELL program and his/her need for district services. The results of this screener will indicate an English proficiency level of 1 through 6. A score of Level 1 through Level 5 indicates to the ELL teacher that the student is in need of further English language development and ELL services. The ELL teacher will contact the parents of the ELL student to obtain written permission for placement into the district's ELL Program. The teacher will attempt to contact the parent(s) at least three times; each attempt will be documented. If no parent contact can be made, the student is automatically placed in the ELL Program. Parents who were not successfully contacted will be invited to attend a conference in October where the school will explain the ELL Program and the services the child will be receiving.

The services that will best suit the particular ELL student will be determined by the results from the MODEL screener. The ELL teacher will indicate the student's English language proficiency levels on the Individual Language Plan (ILP); the ELL teacher will then distribute this ILP to the necessary stakeholders, like the regular education teachers, guidance counselor, parents, and the school principal. In addition, the screener will be placed in the student's Cumulative folder.

There will be cases where the Home Language Survey indicates a need for screening by the MODEL, yet the child scores at a level higher than Level 5.5. When this occurs, the student most likely does not need ELL services from the district and is not Limited English Proficient (LEP). The screener results and corresponding decision will be reported, stapled to the HLS, and placed in the student's Cumulative folder. In the case that a parent refuses ELL services for the student, the signed form will be kept in the student's Cumulative folder.

New students to the district who have been previously enrolled in a Wisconsin school will have ELL and ACCESS data available that will be used in the identification process. No MODEL screener will be needed in most of these cases.

ELL assessments are administered by certified test administrators (ELL coordinator, reading teachers), who can receive training through the local CESA (Cooperative Educational Service Agency) or online.

All ELL records are kept with the student’s cumulative records.

Assessment Tools:

 WIDA MODEL : Measure of Developing English Language  ACCESS for ELLs: Measures language proficiency in content areas  Past Academic Record  WKCE scores/Badger Exam scores  MAP scores  Teacher observations (result of consulting with the teacher) 8 | P a g e

English Language Learner Program Model

As shown in Table 1, the Cedarburg School District is dedicated to providing a high-quality educational experience to English Language Learners. The table is composed by grade level and details the services, approaches, and curriculum that will be used to teach ELL students.

Table 1. The Program of ELL Services for Cedarburg School District

Grade Content Learning & Standards- English Language Development Level Based Curriculum

 Content-based language instruction in which English is taught through vocabulary related  Wisconsin Academic Standards to the content areas; aimed at proficiency in English and academic achievement are universal standards and  Literacy-based instruction in which ELL teacher teaches language goals based on the benchmarks WIDA standards

 Co-taught content-based instruction in which ELL teacher teaches language goals based  Research-based comprehensive

on the WIDA standards, in collaboration with the regular education teacher literacy and math programs

K-12  Collaboration with the regular education teacher to modify curriculum to enrich language development  Small group instruction through push-in ELL programming for students with limited or no command of the English language (students with LEP levels of 1 or 2)  Students are clustered to increase access to language instruction  ELL teacher provides instructional materials to promote language development

 Study hall/resource hour for ELL students (in collaboration with mainstream teachers) –  Wisconsin Academic Standards includes pre and post teaching concepts, monitoring daily work progress, reviewing for are universal standards and 6-12 tests, organizational skills, prioritizing assignments benchmarks additionally  Research-based comprehensive literacy and math programs

9 | P a g e

Staffing and Resources

A certified ESL teacher will provide content based/consultative ESL, pull-out ESL, and push-in ESL to content and special area teachers. The staff hours are determined by proficiency level of students and overall student enrollment.

Materials and Resources

Core instructional materials are purchased through local funds. Supplemental materials are purchased through Title III funds. Materials are purchased based upon students` needs.

Examples of materials include, but are not limited to:

 Traditional textbooks  Modified texts  Native language texts  Web based instructional materials  ESL content materials by subject area  Audio books  Bilingual supplemental books (novels, fiction)  Computer software  Peer tutoring  After school study support  Scheduled teacher tutoring time  Parent / Family communication aides

The district`s ELL staff will review the resources needed quarterly.

Exit Criteria

The Cedarburg School District uses input from Wisconsin's Department of Public Instruction to determine the exit criteria. DPI issued a baseline set of criteria that must be met for a student to be eligible for exiting a district's ELL program. The District, in an effort to fully evaluate the student's growth in English proficiency, uses additional data to develop its own exit criteria.

The Department of Public Instruction issued the following ELL mandate, titled Criteria for Reclassification of English Language Learners into Fully English Language Proficient Status (Exiting)

A) AUTOMATIC RECLASSIFICATION (EXITING) A student is automatically reclassified as Fully English Proficient, or no longer identified as ELL/LEP in the statewide Individual Student Enrollment System (ISES), when the student reaches:  ELP 6 in grades K-12 by achieving a composite (overall) score of 6.0 on ACCESS for ELLs, Wisconsin’s English-language proficiency assessment; OR  ELP 6 in grades 4- 12 by achieving a composite (overall) score of 5.0 or above plus a minimum literacy sub score of 5.0 or above on the ACCESS for ELLs.

Students in grades K-12 who receive composite (overall) scores of 6.0, and students in grades 4-12 who receive composite (overall) score of 5.0 or above plus literacy sub score of 5.0 or above on the ACCESS

10 | P a g e

for ELLs will automatically attain language level code of 6.0 in ISES in subsequent collections and will no longer be classified as English Language Learners/Limited English Proficient.

B) MANUAL RECLASSIFICATION Students may be manually reclassified from: 1) Limited English Proficient (ELP 5) to Fully English Proficient (ELP 6). Students may be manually reclassified by districts to Fully English Proficient status (ELP 6) when the student achieves a composite (overall) score of 5.0 or above on the ACCESS for ELLs and the student shows clear evidence of English proficiency, but was not automatically reclassified because the student did not meet the Literacy subscore benchmark. 2) Fully English Proficient (ELP 6) to Limited English Proficient (ELP 5) . Students who were automatically reclassified to Fully English Proficient status (ELP 6) may be manually reclassified to ELP 5 and maintain their English Language Learner (ELL)/Limited English Proficiency (LEP) status. If observations and academic performance indicate that a student should maintain their LEP status, the language level code in ISES (Individual Student Enrollment System) may be manually changed to an ELP 5, continuing the student’s LEP status.

The determination for manually reclassifying a student’s ELP status should be based on whether the student has sufficiently developed the academic language to demonstrate understanding in English.2  The district has evaluated at least two pieces of evidence of academic performance that support the reclassification decision and keeps evidence on file in the district for at least two years. Evidence should include demonstrations of grade-level proficiency, without the use of adapted or modified English materials or EL accommodations on standardized measures such as: *District benchmark examinations (in multiple content areas); *Writing samples or performance assessments scored with formal, standardized rubrics; *State assessments at applicable grade levels; and *Academic records such as semester or end-of-course grades.

 Evaluation for a reclassification decision should include the bilingual and/or ESL teacher, classroom teachers, parents and other relevant staff. Parent(s) and educators should agree whether language is no longer a barrier to the students’ ability to access academic content. Evidence from assessments should support educators’ judgment of English proficiency. Source: http://dpi.wi.gov/esea/pdf/bul_0702.pdf

Furthermore, the Cedarburg School District examines data and results from the ACCESS for ELLs assessment, Wisconsin Knowledge and Content Exams (WKCE), district MAP assessments, classroom grades, and anecdotal teacher data when determining a student’s eligibility for exit or re-entry into the ELL program.

Teachers and parents are consulted prior to exiting from ELL services. The ELL staff is responsible for completing the Exit Form and contacting the parents. The phone call to parents is accompanied by a letter sent to the parents explaining the student's readiness for general education with no extra services and requesting a signature of acceptance. The ELL staff places a copy of the Exit Form in the student’s Cumulative folder and also updates any relevant forms found there. The student is, at this point, formally exited from the ELL Program.

Monitoring Process

“Newly English proficient students must be monitored during the first two years after being classified as fully English proficient, or formerly Limited English proficient, LEP.” - DPI source July 17th, 2008

All former ELL students who formally exit the ELL Program are to be monitored for two (2) years. The act of monitoring their progress ensures their continued language development – and their success in general education classes. 11 | P a g e

A monitoring form is completed each subsequent year with data from WKCE tests and the MAP assessments. The ESL staff will be responsible for distributing monitoring forms and should retain a copy for both personal records and the student’s cumulative file. The ESL staff will be notified if there are concerns about any student on monitoring status. The ESL staff will review students of concern and administer the MODEL screener if needed.

If concerns are noted on the monitoring form, an intervention team will meet to review academics, English proficiency and other reasons.

Staff responsible for monitoring: ELL personnel, classroom teachers and school psychologists.

Reclassification Procedure: If observations and academic performance indicate that a student is still in need of ELL services, the ELL teachers will examine the student's scores on the WKCE standardized tests. They should also conduct in-depth discussions with the general education teacher(s) to receive their feedback on a possible re-entry into the Program. Next, the ELL teacher is responsible for completing the Re-Entry Form. The reclassification must be completed in the Individual Student Enrollment System (ISES) during the initial data submission period.

Program Evaluation

ELL Program evaluation is a component of our CIP (Continuous Improvement Process). Data is reviewed to determine the effectiveness of the program, identify areas of concerns, propose program modifications, and set new program goals. Additionally, WI DPI Title III Self Monitoring Tools will be used to evaluate how well the district is meeting the legal requirements of Title III funding. ELL Program evaluation may include administrators, classroom teachers, ELL Staff, ELL student(s), and parents(s). The review includes a focus on improving student learning with recommendations to the superintendent to guide the planning, implementation, evaluation and modifications of the language instruction educational program. The designated team reviews and reports on the processes for identification, implementation of the program, staffing, assessment, accommodations and exit criteria. It also includes analysis of student data and growth on the annual language proficiency exam and the state content standards exams. Other data may also be included such as grades, honor roll, graduation rates, drop-out rates, discipline referrals, participation in extracurricular activities, and parent information. Questions the team may consider include: a. Are students acquiring English language skills at a pace that is consistent with ELL program goals? b. Is the rate of language development progress compatible with district’s objectives for academic progress? c. How are ELL students performing in English language skills compared to the district’s goals and standards? d. Are ELL students progressing in English language skills so they will be able to successfully handle regular coursework? e. Do former ELL students who have exited the program continue to demonstrate English language skills that enable them to successfully handle regular coursework? f. Are ELL students who are currently receiving English language development services progressing academically relative to the program goals/expectations? g. Are ELL students making sufficient academic progress so that they are either at grade level or closing the gap between their instructional level and grade level? h. How are ELL and former ELL students doing, over time, as compared to the academic performance of all other students generally? i. Are multiple measures used to assess the overall performance of ELL students in meeting the goals the district has established for its ELL Program? 12 | P a g e

Appendix A: Home Language Survey Cedarburg School District Home Language Survey & ELL Enrollment/Referral Application

**Complete this form ONLY if you are new to the Cedarburg School District**

PARENT/GUARDIAN HOME LANGUAGE SURVEY

Student’s Name Grade

Relationship of Person Completing Survey Mother Father Guardian Other Specify

Directions: Answer questions #1-5.

1. What is the first date your child enrolled in a school in the United States? _____/____/_____ Month/ Day /Year

English Other Other language(s)

2. What language did your child speak when he or she first began to talk?

3. What language do you use most of the time when talking to your child?

4. What language does your child speak most of the time at home?

5. What is your preferred language for home/school communication?

SIGNATURE

Signature of Person Completing Survey Date Signed 

FOR STAFF COMPLETION TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL NEW STUDENTS

ELL File Opened ELL Evaluator Today’s Date Yes No

Copies of Completed Form: File in Student Cum Folder at School /District ELL Coordinator (only if language other than English) 13 | P a g e

Appendix B: Parental Approval/Refusal Form for ELL Program

Name of Student: ______

Grade: ______

Your child is eligible to receive services from the English Language Learner Program. This program teaches your child the English skills needed to do well in school and provides content-based language instruction within the mainstream classroom. With the help of targeted academic language instruction, your child will have the skills necessary for academic success in the mainstream classroom.

Based on information provided by the Home Language Survey, we learned that your child speaks another language other than English. Your child’s English language proficiency has been assessed. His/her level is ______. Please review a description of your child’s proficiency level included in this letter.

By state law, all English Language Learners must be assessed using a state approved test. Our district uses the ACCESS for ELLs proficiency assessment. This test is given each year between December and February. You will receive a copy of the results in May. When your child reaches full English proficiency, he or she will be exited from the program. Your child is eligible for exit with an overall level 6 score, or with an overall level 5 score and a level 5 literacy subscore.

We believe that your child would benefit from the English Language Learner Program. Given your permission, we would like to serve your child through this program. Upon enrollment, if you would like to remove your child from the services provided in the program, please contact your child’s ELL Teacher.

I want my child to receive services through the Cedarburg School District ELL Program.

I do NOT want my child to receive services from the Cedarburg School District English Language Learner Program. I understand that the ACCESS test is federally mandated and that my child will participate in this testing.

______Parent Signature Date

______ELL Teacher/School Representative 14 | P a g e

Appendix B (continued): Parental Approval/Refusal Form for ELL Program

Description of English Language Proficiency Levels

Proficiency Level Description 1: Entering Knows and uses minimal social language and minimal academic language with visual support

2: Beginning Knows and uses some social English and general academic language with visual support

3: Developing Knows and uses social English and some specific academic language with visual support

4: Expanding Knows and uses social English and some technical academic language

5: Bridging Knows and uses social and academic language working with grade level material

6: Reaching Knows and uses social and academic language at the highest level measured by this test

Source: www.wida.us/assessment/ACCESS/ScoreReports/ACCESS_Interpretive_Guide11.pdf

15 | P a g e

Appendix C: Sample ACCESS Score Report

16 | P a g e

Appendix D: Letter to Accompany ACCESS Parent/Guardian Score Report

DATE

Dear Parent or Guardian,

This past winter, English Language Learner (ELL) students in grades kindergarten through twelfth grade participated in the administration of the ACCESS for ELLs® language proficiency test. ACCESS provides a standardized measurement of academic language proficiency for ELL students throughout the state of Wisconsin and in other states. With this information, we will be able to monitor individual ELL student progress on an annual basis.

Enclosed you will find your child’s results on ACCESS. The Parent/Guardian Report provides information about your child’s English Language Proficiency Level. This information is for you to review and keep.

If you have any questions regarding this test or the information that is being sent to you about how your child performed on this test, please contact me, your child’s ELL teacher, or the school principal.

Sincerely,

Ted Noll Michelle Garcia Director of Pupil Services ELL Coordinator Cedarburg School District Cedarburg School District Ph: 262-376-6601 Ph: 262-376-6301 [email protected] [email protected]

17 | P a g e

Appendix E: ELL Student Language Development Plan

18 | P a g e

Appendix E (continued):

19 | P a g e

Appendix E (continued):

20 | P a g e

Appendix E (continued):

21 | P a g e

Appendix F: Exit from ELL Services Parent Letter

22 | P a g e

Appendix G: Post-Exit Student Monitoring Forms Post-Exit ELL Monitoring Form (Elementary)

Pages 1 and 3 to be completed by the appropriate ELL Staff

Student

Name Grade in 1st year of Academic Year monitoring Name of classroom teacher The classroom teacher is responsible for st (1 year of monitoring) completing this form at semester intervals Name of classroom teacher and returning it to the ELL teacher for nd (2 year of monitoring) review. Name of ELL teacher st (1 year of monitoring) The ELL teacher is responsible for reviewing this form each time that it is Name of ELL teacher nd completed by the classroom teacher. (2 year of monitoring)

ELL Coordinator (Responsible for ensuring that this form is completed each quarter and maintained in the student’s academic record)

Exiting ACCESS for ELLs® Results: Oral Composite Listening Speaking Reading Writing Literacy Comprehension Language

WKCE Results (Minimal, Basic, Proficient, Advanced): Reading Mathematics Writing 1st Year of monitoring 2nd year of monitoring 1st year of 2nd year of monitoring monitoring Is the student receiving any special services? NO YES NO YES (any academic services/programs in addition to the standard academic program) If yes, describe the services (1st year):

If yes, describe the services (2nd year):

Report Card Results: 1st year of monitoring 2nd year of monitoring 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Math

Science Social Studies

23 | P a g e

Appendix G (continued): Student Name: ______

1st Semester 2nd Semester 1st Year of Teacher’s Monitoring Initials: ______Semester Rate the student’s performance in each of the following areas: 1st 2nd 1 = never 2 = seldom 3 = sometimes 4 = often 5 = always 1. The student completes assignments on-time. ------2. The student communicates effectively with teacher. ------3. The student participates effectively in class projects.------4. The student participates effectively in class discussions. ------5. The student is able to work independently. ------6. The student attends class regularly. ------7. The student displays effort and enthusiasm in class. ------8. The student requires additional assistance with assignments. ------9. The student shows evidence of difficulty with language. ------10. The student has discipline problems that interfere with his/her academic progress. 1st 2nd Have ESL strategies been implemented to respond to the language needs of the former ELL? Y N Y N

Do you recommend that this student be considered for reclassification as an ELL? Y N Y N

If you have additional comments, attach them to this form when you return it into the ESL teacher. Make sure you identify which monitoring year and quarter you are commenting on.

1st Semester 2nd Semester 2nd Year of Teacher’s Monitoring Initials: ______Semester Rate the student’s performance in each of the following areas: 1st 2nd 1 = never 2 = seldom 3 = sometimes 4 = often 5 = always 1. The student completes assignments on-time. ------2. The student communicates effectively with teacher. ------3. The student participates effectively in class projects.------4. The student participates effectively in class discussions. ------5. The student is able to work independently. ------6. The student attends class regularly. ------7. The student displays effort and enthusiasm in class. ------8. The student requires additional assistance with assignments. ------9. The student shows evidence of difficulty with language. ------10. The student has discipline problems that interfere with his/her academic progress. 1st 2nd Have ESL strategies been implemented to respond to the language needs of the former ELL? Y N Y N

Do you recommend that this student be considered for reclassification as an ELL? Y N Y N

If you have additional comments, attach them to this form when you return it into the ESL teacher. Make sure you identify which monitoring year and quarter you are commenting on.

24 | P a g e

Appendix G (continued):

Student Name: ______

To be completed by appropriate ESL staff

1st year of Monitoring 1st 2nd I received and reviewed this form. (ESL staff member initials) ______

Complete the following items only if the information on______this form indicates that the former______ELL is struggling:

I have collaborated with the classroom teacher to incorporate instructional strategies to respond to the language needs of the former ELL. (if the answer is “Yes”, describe the collaboration in the comments section) Comments: 1st Yes No

Comments: 2nd Yes No

NOTE: A student may not be recommended for reclassification if collaboration between the ESL and classroom teacher has not taken place.

1st 2nd I recommend that this student be reclassified as an ELL.

If a recommendation is made to reclassify, have the parents been notified? YES NO

2nd year of Monitoring 1st 2nd I received and reviewed this form. (ESL staff member initials) ______

Complete the following items only if the information on______this form indicates that the former______ELL is struggling:

Comments: 2nd Yes No

NOTE: A student may not be recommended for reclassification if collaboration between the ESL and classroom teacher has not taken place.

1st 2nd I recommend that this student be reclassified as an ELL.

If a recommendation is made to reclassify, have the parents been notified? YES NO

25 | P a g e

Appendix G (continued): Post-Exit ELL Monitoring Form (Middle/Secondary)

Pages 1 and 4 to be completed by the appropriate ELL staff

Student Monitoring Year (circle):

Name 1st year | 2nd year Grade Academic Year

Name of Language Arts teacher

Name of Mathematics teacher The classroom teacher is responsible for completing this form at quarterly intervals and returning it to the ELL teacher for Name of Science teacher review. Name of Social Studies teacher The ELL teacher is responsible for Name of ELL teacher reviewing this form each time that it is completed by the classroom teacher.

ELL Coordinator (Responsible for ensuring that this form is completed each quarter and maintained in the student’s academic record)

Exiting ACCESS for ELLs® Results: Oral Composite Listening Speaking Reading Writing Literacy Comprehension Language

WKCE Results (Minimal, Basic, Proficient, Advanced):

Reading Mathematics Writing

Is the student receiving any special services? NO YES (any academic services/programs in addition to the standard academic program) If so, describe the services:

Report Card Results: 1st Comments 2nd Comments 3rd Comments 4th Comments

Math

Science

Social

Studies

26 | P a g e

Appendix G (continued):

st nd Student Name: ______Monitoring Year (circle): 1 year | 2 year

1st Semester 2nd Semester Teacher’s Language Arts Initials: ______Semester Rate the student’s performance in each of the following areas 1st 2nd 1 = never 2 = seldom 3 = sometimes 4 = often 5 = always 11. The student completes assignments on-time. ------12. The student communicates effectively with teacher. ------13. The student participates effectively in class projects.------14. The student participates effectively in class discussions. ------15. The student is able to work independently. ------16. The student attends class regularly. ------17. The student displays effort and enthusiasm in class. ------18. The student requires additional assistance with assignments. ------19. The student shows evidence of difficulty with language. ------20. The student has discipline problems that interfere with his/her academic progress. ------

1st 2nd Have ESL strategies been implemented to respond to the language needs of the former ELL? Y N Y N

Do you recommend that this student be considered for reclassification as an ELL? Y N Y N If you have additional comments, attach them to this form when you return it into the ESL teacher. Make sure you identify which monitoring year and quarter you are commenting on.

1st Semester 2nd Semester Teacher’s Mathematics Initials: ______Semester Rate the student’s performance in each of the following areas 1st 2nd 1 = never 2 = seldom 3 = sometimes 4 = often 5 = always 1. The student completes assignments on-time. ------2. The student communicates effectively with teacher. ------3. The student participates effectively in class projects.------4. The student participates effectively in class discussions. ------5. The student is able to work independently. ------6. The student attends class regularly. ------7. The student displays effort and enthusiasm in class. ------8. The student requires additional assistance with assignments. ------9. The student shows evidence of difficulty with language. ------10. The student has discipline problems that interfere with his/her academic progress. ------1st 2nd Have ESL strategies been implemented to respond to the language needs of the former ELL? Y N Y N

Appendix G (continued):

st nd Student Name: ______Monitoring Year (circle): 1 year | 2 year 1st Semester 2nd Semester Teacher’s Science Initials: ______Semester Rate the student’s performance in each of the following areas 1st 2nd 1 = never 2 = seldom 3 = sometimes 4 = often 5 = always 1. The student completes assignments on-time. ------2. The student communicates effectively with teacher. ------3. The student participates effectively in class projects.------4. The student participates effectively in class discussions. ------5. The student is able to work independently. ------6. The student attends class regularly. ------7. The student displays effort and enthusiasm in class. ------8. The student requires additional assistance with assignments. ------9. The student shows evidence of difficulty with language. ------10. The student has discipline problems that interfere with his/her academic progress. ------

1st 2nd Have ESL strategies been implemented to respond to the language needs of the former ELL? Y N Y N

1st Semester 2nd Semester Teacher’s Social Studies Initials: ______Semester Rate the student’s performance in each of the following areas 1st 2nd 1 = never 2 = seldom 3 = sometimes 4 = often 5 = always 1. The student completes assignments on-time. ------2. The student communicates effectively with teacher. ------3. The student participates effectively in class projects.------4. The student participates effectively in class discussions. ------5. The student is able to work independently. ------6. The student attends class regularly. ------7. The student displays effort and enthusiasm in class. ------8. The student requires additional assistance with assignments. ------9. The student shows evidence of difficulty with language. ------10. The student has discipline problems that interfere with his/her academic progress. ------

1st 2nd Have ESL strategies been implemented to respond to the language needs of the former ELL? Y N Y N

28 | P a g e

Appendix G (continued):

st nd Student Name: ______Monitoring Year (circle): 1 year | 2 year

To be completed by appropriate ELL staff

1st 2nd I received and reviewed this completed form. ______(Initial) (Initial)

Complete the following items only if the information on this form indicates that the former ELL is struggling:

1st Yes No

Comments:

2nd Yes No

NOTE: A student may not be recommended for reclassification if collaboration between the ESL and classroom teacher has not taken place.

1st 2nd I recommend that this student be reclassified as an ELL. YES NO YES NO

Additional Recommendation(s):

If a recommendation is made to reclassify, have the parents been notified? YES NO

29 | P a g e

Appendix H: ELL Program Evaluation Checklist

Program Evaluation: School Improvement Planning Checklist

School/District______Date ______

We must ensure that our programs whether small or large are in fact effective since school districts are being held accountable for their language acquisition (Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) and knowledge of academic content area (Adequately Yearly Progress (AYP), how do we help students meet the language and academic requirements at the same time?

As each school begins to assess its programming for ELL students, it is important to remember 3 main points:

 It takes the whole school, including administrators to address the ELL students. ELL students are within the school and school system, not just in a “program”.

 It takes teachers willing and able to give differentiated instruction to meet the needs of ELL students. ELL students are required to have content area instruction and are in regular classrooms in most districts.

 All students will succeed if kept to high expectations. ELL students are not necessarily limited in education.

Please use the following questions below to evaluate your programs and services for ELL students. It is essential that each school keep accurate and up-to-date data for each ELL student. ELL student growth should be measured through language proficiency testing, as well as academic content testing and classroom grades. Also, please align your practices to the recently published Bulletins, Title III-Related ESEA Information Update Bulletins, located: http://www.dpi.wi.gov/ell/titleiii.html.

Initial Questions Yes No Comments IDENTIFICATION and ASSESSMENT Is the school aware of the District’s ELL Plan? Is the ELL Plan being implemented within the school? Is the school administration aware of the legal requirements pertaining to identifying and placing ELL students? Does every student have a Home Language Survey (HLS) on file? Are all possible new ELL students being first screened using the WIDA screener (W-APT), and if identified as possible ELL, then given the ACCESS Test in the fall/spring? Is the school administration aware of the requirement to address the individual needs of each ELL student? Do ELL students have an Educational Learning Plan (ELP), inclusive of language goals and benchmarks, if they are given accommodations or adaptations within the classroom and subsequently on assessments? 30 | P a g e

Is the school using both formative and summative assessment and language proficiency assessment data to guide instruction for individual students? PROGRAMMING and EDUCATIONAL APPROACHES Is the program addressing the needs of ELL students within each content area (i.e. Math, Science, as well as language acquisition)? Is the entire faculty and administration aware of the ELL students and their needs within the school? Are all teachers utilizing the English Language Proficiency Standards (ELP) as a tool and entry point in teaching ELL students? Are the ELL students placed in pull out ESL classrooms? If so, are they learning content area vocabulary and skills? If ELL students are taught within the classroom, are they receiving additional assistance with language instruction? Are ELL students being served within the regular classroom? Are ELL students learning content knowledge and skills, as well as making progress in learning the English language? Is the curriculum for ELL students challenging and academically based? Does the district have a content-based ELL Plan in place? How will the ELL students learn throughout their content classes? Is your school/district providing before/after or summer school programs for ELL students? Do the district and school make it a priority to allocate district funding to serve ELL students? STAFFING and PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Do regular classroom teachers have the resources, skills and knowledge to address the needs of ELL students in their classroom? Are content teachers trained in specific methodologies to target ELL students? If ESL teachers are teaching content area, do they have certification in the specific content area, as well as their ESL certification? Are middle and high school ELL students receiving specific attention in each class? Is there an accountability plan in place for all teachers to take ownership of the ELL students in their classroom and serve them with effective instructional practices? Is the administration of the school encouraging of all teachers to implement best & effective teaching practices to ELL students? Does the school have mainly paraprofessionals serving the ELL students? Why? Is the main service for ELL students just translating? Is there academic learning in the translation? PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT Are parents of ELL students given notifications in their home language? Are parents of ELL students included in decisions within the school?

31 | P a g e

Are parents informed and given educational information regarding the school system and how to help their children at home? PROGRAM EVALUATION and REVIEW Is the school keeping complete data for each student in order to calculate growth in language proficiency from year to year? Is the school evaluating the programs and services annually? Who is responsible for monitoring services and determine if they are effective and make changes, if necessary? EXITING STUDENTS Is the school creating a data system to track the achievement of Former ELL students (FLEP)? Is the school in agreement to the elements of data to include in the monitoring criteria for Former ELL students? Is the school, at least annually, monitoring the progress of Former ELL students (FLEP)? SPECIAL EDUCATION & TALENTED/GIFTED How does the district/school ensures that ELL students are not overrepresented in special education. How does the district/school ensures that ELL students are not underrepresented in gifted/talented (G/T) education. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRESS MADE BY ELLS Describe the progress made by ELL students in learning English and meeting academic standards Describe the progress made by ELL students in meeting State academic content and student achievement standards for each of the two years after they no longer receive ESL services. Describe the district/school monitoring process. Describe the parent involvement activities conducted by the district/school. Address specifically in this description the process used by the district/school to notify parents of ELL students about: school required and optional activities; language acquisition program placement; and failure of the school to meet AMAOs STATE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Did the state offer technical assistance in regards to instructional programs and curricula for ELLs? Did the state assist in developing improvement plans and other technical assistance to districts/schools failing to meet AMAOs for two or more consecutive years?

(Acknowledgments: Idaho Department of Education & Utah Title III Office)

32 | P a g e

References

August, D., Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1998). Educating language minority children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Biagini, J., Díaz, M., & Phommasouvanh, B. (1991). Guidelines for serving students with limited English proficiency. St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Education.

Castenada v. Pickard, 648 F. 2d 989 (5th Cir., 1981).

Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of educational research, 49, 222-151.

Cummins, J. (1981). Schooling and language minority Students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3-50). Los Angeles: California State University, Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center.

Cummins, J. (1991). Schooling for Language Minority Students (pp. 3-49). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.

Diana v. State Board of Education, No. C-70 RFT (N. D. Cal. 1970).

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. 89–10, 79 Stat. 27 (1965).

Equal Education Opportunities Act of 1974, 20 U. S. C. §1203(f).

Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1703. Retrieved September 5, 2004, from http://www.maec.org/laws/eeo.html

Fairbairn, S. and Jones-Vo, S. (2010) Differentiating Instruction and Assessment for English Language Learners: A Guide for K-12 Teachers.

Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English language learners to attain proficiency? (The University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute Policy Report 2000-1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved August 18, 2004, from http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/Docs/HowLong.pdf

Lau v. Nichols, No. 72 – 6520, Supreme Court of The United States 414 U.S. 563 (1974).

Malakoff, M., & Hakuta, K. (1990): History of language minority education in the United States.

In M. Padilla, H. Fairchild, and C. Valadez (Eds.), Bilingual education. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Masiarchin, T. English Language Development Plan. (2013) CESA 6 Language and Culture Center.

Masiarchin, T. Title III District Evaluation Tool. (2013) CESA 6 Language and Culture Center.

Masiarchin, T. Weekly Tips. (2013) CESA 6 Language and Culture Center (2013). [email protected]

33 | P a g e

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 1001-1908, 115 Stat. 1439-1620; § 301-3304, 115 Stat. 1689-1734, (2002). Retrieved February 25, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/107-110.pdf

Plyler v. Doe, No. 80-1538, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. 457 U.S. 202 (1982). The Bilingual Education Act of 1968, 20 U. S. C. §3283.

Terrel, A Natural Approach to Second Language Acquisition, Modern Languages Journal 6, pp.325-337

Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term achievement final report: Project 1.1. Retrieved August 18, 2004, from http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/llaa/1.1_final.html

Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Revised, 1999), 34 CFR 100.1. Retrieved August 18, 2004, from http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_99/34cfr100_99.html

United States Department of Education. (1970, May 25). Identification of discrimination and denial of services on the basis of national origin. Retrieved August 18, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/may25.html

34 | P a g e