ELD School Improvement Plan Forest Grove School District June 2011

Page 1 of 35 Executive Summary:

Forest Grove School District is committed to continuous improvement of programs and services for all students including English Language Learners. The following plan reflects an analysis of current practices and the strengths and challenges that face FGSD in meeting the needs of ELL students enrolled in the district. The following is a list of authors, reviewers and contributors to the plan:

Lisa Aguilar, ELD TOSA, Forest Grove School District

Lucinda Aguilar, ELD Teacher, Forest Grove High School

Ethan Bull, ELD Teacher, Forest Grove High School

Tracey Burford, ELD Lead Teacher, Neil Armstrong Middle School

Melissa Carter, Principal, Joseph Gale Elementary School

Chandra Cooper, Principal, Tom McCall Upper Elementary School

Yvonne Curtis, Superintendent, Forest Grove School District

Dave Dorman, Principal, Fern Hill Elementary School

Kristina Granby, ELD Teacher, Forest Grove High School

Kirsten Humbird, ELD Lead Teacher, Echo Shaw Elementary

Brandon Hunley, Principal, Neil Armstrong Middle School

Laura Manning-Martinez, ELD Lead Teacher, Cornelius Elementary School

Brigetta Martell, Testing Coordinator, Forest Grove High School

Rogelio Martinez, Principal, Echo Shaw Elementary School

Jerri Matuszak, Principal, Hervey Clark Elementary School

Naomi Montelongo, Principal, Dilly Elementary School

John O’Neill, Director of Student Achievement, Forest Grove School District

Lynetta Richardson, ELD Teacher, Forest Grove High School

Karen Robinson, Principal, Forest Grove High School

Perla Rodriquez, Principal, Cornelius Elementary School

Leonard Terrible, ELD Facilitator, Forest Grove High School

Page 2 of 35 Section A: Planning

Strengths The mission of the Forest Grove School District (FGSD) is to inspire excellence while preparing all students for college, career and citizenship. The goal for the district’s ELD program is to promote meaningful participation of English Language Learners in all district academic and extracurricular activities. FGSD has trained all English Language Development teachers in Systematic ELD by Susana Dutro. Curriculum has been developed aligning instruction to the forms and functions of Systematic ELD. The research based instructional programs used in FGSD vary based on the individual needs of students at each of the ten schools. All schools offer English Language Development. Other available programs, based on enrollment at each site, include Two-Way Immersion and Native Language Literacy. The district implements state approved curriculum materials and aligns instructional materials to Oregon Curriculum Standards across all content areas. ELD program curricula are aligned with Oregon’s English Language Proficiency Standard and Systematic ELD functions and forms.

All FGSD ELL students receive ELD instruction: in elementary schools instruction is 30 minutes a day, in the middle school instruction is 47 minutes a day and in the high school instruction is 88 minutes a day for beginners and 88 minutes every other day for early intermediate, intermediate and early advanced proficiency levels. ELD instruction is a full class period at Cornelius, Echo Shaw and Fern Hill elementaries, Tom McCall upper elementary, Neil Armstrong middle school and Forest Grove High School. An ELD Pull-out service is offered at Joseph Gale, Harvey Clark, Dilley and Gales Creek elementaries and CALC (the FGHS alternative program).

The district’s English Language Development classes are instructed by certified teachers and supported by qualified instructional assistants. The hiring and placement of teachers is consistent with the type of certification held by the employee. ELD teachers are ESOL endorsed by the Oregon Teacher Standards and Practices Commission. To ensure that instructional assistants are qualified, they must meet one or more of the following criteria: an associates degree (or higher), two years of college or pass a local assessment called Wordkey. Instruction in core level classes serving ELLs are taught by discipline certified teachers who have been trained in sheltered instruction techniques and strategies.

All certified and classified employees working with ELLs are provided trainings and are involved in professional development opportunities related to the ELD Program. On-going staff development is available to train teachers in Systematic ELD, GLAD, SIOP, Constructing Meaning and Effective Strategies for ELLs. FGSD provides outreach and resource opportunities to both certified and classified employees to obtain the certifications/training needed to support ELLs in ELD and content area classrooms. Multiple measures are used to determine the impact of professional development in the classroom. These include ELPA results, writing samples, AMAOs, OSAT results, curriculum based common formative and summative assessments, work samples, students’ grades, teachers’ input and classroom walk throughs.

Leadership for the ELD Program is a shared responsibility in the Forest Grove School District. The Superintendent and Director of Student Achievement collaborate with the district’s Title III Coordinator, building administrators, the ELD TOSA, the 7-12 ELD lead teacher, ELD building lead teachers, the district’s Latino PAC, and site ELL/Migrant parents groups to ensure ELL student

Page 3 of 35 achievement is a district wide priority. The district’s CIP Plan as well as the individual schools’ SIP Plans all include clearly stated measurable goals for ELL student achievement.

ELD Program improvement and revision is an on-going process in FGSD. As a result of the district’s focus on data-driven decision making and the implementation of Data Teams /PLC throughout the district’s schools, changes and modification have been made since the 2008-2009 academic year to better serve the needs of the ELLs and to strengthen teachers’ practices.

K-4 Continuous Improvement Time (CIT):

FGSH has implemented bimonthly Continuous Improvement Time for all district school. The following is a description of special training offered during 2009-2010 to K-4 teachers of English Language Learners

Day 1: Introduction of ODEs Self-Assessment and Progress Monitoring for Sheltered English Instruction Classrooms Rubric. Teachers used the Teacher Behavior - Planning and Instruction and the Student Behavior Instruction- to highlight their strengths and areas they needed more support in. This information was used to design follow up staff development. The strengths and needs assessment was compiled for principals. A GLAD strategy (cooperative strip paragraph) was also reviewed. The concept of peer coaching was introduced as well.

Day 2: Introduction/review of how to write a language objective including forms and functions, how to use a sentence frame and how to incorporate the use of structured language practice routines throughout the day. The structured language practice routine - Clock appointments - was used as an example. The teachers were provided with other examples and directed to the Systematic ELD Handbook for additional support.

Two elementary schools received one more additional CIT training devoted to Spanish Literacy. One elementary school received one CIT training devoted to increasing cultural competency.

5-6 Continuous Improvement Time (CIT):

Seven session of CIT time were devoted to English Language Development. The following is a list of some of the topic discussed: ELD curriculum alignment (Systematic ELD and GLAD), formative assessments (tied to Forms Alignment Documents), portfolio exits, use of ELD listening, speaking, reading and writing rubrics, and ELD data analysis. Multiple sessions were devoted to aligning curriculum for ELD.

Rigor in ELD:

To begin the year a ½ day Rigor in ELD Training was provided for all teachers who teach ELD at the k-8 levels. At this time the k-12 Forms Alignment Documents were introduced. K-6 teachers were asked to use the documents to guide their ELD instruction. Each teacher received the book, Rigor is Not a Four Letter Word. To follow up with teachers’ needs and requests, four ½ day Rigor in ELD days were provided for k-4 teachers.

Day 1: Focus - Raising the Level of Content: Creating Connections, Valuing Depth – Building Academic Vocabulary (Marzano’s Six Steps), ELL Vocabulary Matrix, and ELL Proficiency Levels.

Day 2: Focus – Increasing Complexity: Valuing Depth, Increasing Text Difficulty, Creating Connections, Games, Projects, Writing – effective use of sentence response frames, ELD Matrix BINGO, Grammatical Forms. Teacher Share Out of strategy used from last training.

Day 3: Focus: Raising Expectations: Role, Audience, Format and Topic (R.A.F.T.), ELD Lessons, Syntax Surgery, and Cubing. Teacher Share Out of game used from last training. Page 4 of 35 Day 4 Focus: Checking for Understanding: Oral language, Writing, Non-verbal Cues, Games, Storytelling, Persuasive Writing (incorporating Empower), Summarizing and Physical Movement.

Dual Language of New Mexico:

Elia Maria Romero provided two days of training to k-6 TWI teachers in regard to Language Transfer/Making Connections between English and Spanish.

Effective Strategies for English Language Learners:

K-4 teachers were provided 10 sessions of Effective Strategies for English Language Learners for two hours each session.

Bi-literacy:

During the 2009-2010 academic year the k-4 TWI schools moved to full implementation of a bi-literacy model. Primary language instruction remains at kindergarten and first grade while bi-literacy instruction begins in second grade. This has proved to move more students into the Bi-literacy Zone (Kathy Escamilla) and has enhanced the English language proficiency of the TWI English language learners.

7-12 English Language Development Alignment:

During the 2009-2010 academic year the English Language Development Department at the high school began working with the ELD Department at the middle school. The group met throughout the year creating a common scope and sequence for the five proficiency levels of ELD, structuring aligned lesson plans and common formative assessments. At the completion of the year, the effects of the work were evident. Traditionally, 60% of the students transitioning from the middle school to the high school entered Grade 9 at or below the Intermediate proficiency level. At the completion of 2009-2010, there was a significant change in the transitioning population, with 67% of the students transitioning between schools entering high school at the Early Advanced and Advanced levels of proficiency.

7-12 Forms Alignment Documents:

The ELD facilitators from the middle school and high school collaborated during the months of June- August, 2010, to create the K-12 Forms Alignment Documents. The ELD Forms Alignment Documents establishes a consistent sequence for the instruction of grammatical forms at each level of English Language proficiency. Additionally, the forms document promotes the necessary rigor at each level to foster timely student acquisition of language. The expectation is that all forms at each proficiency level be taught in one school year. Each site will create and develop lessons to meet the needs of their student population using in-house curriculum. Lessons will continue to focus on language function. The Form Alignment Documents were implemented in 7-12 schools in 2009-2010. K-6 implementation will be part of this school improvement plan.

9-12 ELD Workshops:

During the 2009-2010 academic year the ELD Department at FGHS expanded ELD offerings to create an ELD Reading Workshop for 10th grade English Language Learners. The rationale for creating this class was to offer ELLs a reading intervention tailored to their individual needs. The regular Reading Workshop

Page 5 of 35 classes offered to high schools students weren’t sufficiently supporting ELLs working to meet OSAT standards. The ELD Reading Workshop was staffed with an ESOL endorsed teacher, and curriculum was designed to foster student achievement. At the completion of the year, 75% of the ELLs registered in the class met the OSAT target score of 236. The ELD Department expanded its offering of ELD Reading Workshop during the 2010-2011 academic year. The Department currently offers ELD Reading Workshops at Grades 9, 10, 11, thereby offering English Language Learners a tailored reading intervention at each grade level.

During the 2010-2011 academic year, a ELD Writing Workshop was offered to support ELL achievement in the area of writing. The class is taught by an ELD teacher endorsed in both language arts and ESOL. The curriculum is also designed to offer ELLs instruction to address their unique writing needs.

7-12 SEI Rubric/Constructing Meaning Project:

The high school’s 2009-2010 SEI Rubric Project was expanded to the middle school and offered in conjunction with a three day training in Susana Dutro’s Constructing Meaning. Thirty-three teachers from the language arts, science and social studies departments participated in the training. Criteria for participant selection were based on a capacity model in order to create a seamless ELD instructional design for use in key core classes. Constructing Meaning was chosen, as it allows the creation of a common terminology and approach for addressing language instruction between the ELD and core level classes. CM training was given by three in-district certified CM presenters. At the completion of the training each participant submitted a CM lesson in their discipline, which were critiqued by the three presenters and debriefed with each participant. The second phase of the project was designed using a coaching model. Seven CM/sheltered instruction coaches from both the high school and middle school worked with the 33 participants from the CM training. Coaches did a pre- observation conference, a class observation and a post-observation conference with each participant. The coaches used both the CM Observation Tool and the SEI Rubric to determine the degree of CM and sheltered instruction implementation in the daily classroom practices of each participant. As part of the post observation, coaches discussed areas of strength and identified areas needing additional implementation. A district rubric was then created for implementation and funding has been secured to continue the project with the same participants during the 2011-2012 academic year, thereby offering continued support to achieve systemic implementation.

Challenges Despite the progress made in Forest Grove School District in recent years to close the achievement gap for English Language Learners, there continues to be an inequity in the achievement level of ELLs in comparison to the overall student population. This inequity in achievement requires FGSD to continue ongoing evaluation and monitoring of programs and strategies in order to refine practices and services to better prepare ELLs for college, career and citizenship. The following questions clearly identify the challenges facing the FGSD:

1. What strategies must be in place K-12 to systematically deliver quality English instruction in both English Language Development classes and core content classes?

2. What strategies will ensure that ELLs acquire English proficiency in a timely manner?

Page 6 of 35 3. What special strategies are needed to support long term English Language Learners who have not achieved the necessary level of proficiency to exit the ELD program within 5-7 years?

4. What interventions are required to support ELL success on state reading, writing and math assessments?

5. What program modifications are needed to increase rigor in all classes to prepare ELLs to successfully achieve the new OSAT target scores?

6. What strategies must be in place K-12 to ensure that ELLS meet all state requirements for graduation?

Though the challenges are evident, the solutions are not. FGSD recognizes that student achievement, or lack of it, is a direct reflection of the adult actions currently in practice in the district, and that solutions require a shared effort of leadership, instructional staff, and parents.

Student Achievement-Assessment Results

AMAO Progress 55.9030% of the district’s English Language Learners met AMAO #1, the annual language proficiency increase, exceeding the state target of 50%.  Of the 10 schools in the district, six schools exceeded the state’s target: five elementary schools, the middle school and the high school with the following percentages: 66.6667, 53.1034, 54.2857, 69.4779, 73.4104 and 68.7500.

21.7737% of the district’s English Language Learners met AMAO #2a, the annual exit rate for all students participating in the English language Development Program, exceeding the state’s target of 14%.

 40.7534% of the district’s English Language Learners met AMAO #2b-the annual exit rate for students enrolled in the English Language Development Program for 5 or more years, exceeding the state’s target of 22%.

 The overall exit rate for the district over the past two years is also a noted strength. Over the past two years the district has exited 455 English Language Learners into general education classes.

The district did not meet AMAO #3; however, eight of the ten schools met the annual AYP target, all seven K-4 elementary schools and the high school.

Page 7 of 35 A Deeper Analysis of AMAO Data

AMAO #1

Even though Forest Grove School District has experienced some positive progress in ELL student achievement in the recent past, a deeper analysis of AMAO data is needed. In order to illustrate this point, 2009-2010 data was analyzed using cohorts for the following grade bans: Grade 2, Grade 3, Grade 4, Grade 6, Grade 8 and Grade 10.

Elementary Grades 2-4 (ELD instruction at the kindergarten level is not included in the analysis.)

Cohort Data: Grade 2 A cohort of 157 students was identified at this grade level. The cohort represents 157 students who were enrolled in grade 2 during the 2009-2010 academic year and who also had an ELPA score from 2008-2009. Students in this cohort had received 2 years of English Language Development in the Forest Grove School District.

An analysis of proficiency level growth over the two year period identified that: 1. 74% of the cohort had no level change 2. 24% of the cohort moved 1 proficiency level 3. 1.5 % of the cohort moved 2 proficiency levels 4. .5% of the cohort moved 3 proficiency levels

An analysis of the proficiency level distribution at the completion of grade 2 for this cohort identified that: 1. 18% of the cohort was beginning proficiency level 2. 48% of the cohort was early intermediate 3. 21% of the cohort was intermediate 4. 13% of the cohort was early advanced proficiency level

Summary: After 2 years of ELD instruction 98% of the cohort moved 0-1 level of proficiency in a two year period and 66% of the cohort had proficiency levels of beginning or early intermediate.

Cohort Data: Grade 3 A cohort of 135 students was identified at this grade level. The cohort represents 135 students who were enrolled in grade 3 during the 2009-2010 academic year and who also had an ELPA score from 2007-2008. Students in this cohort had received 3 years of English Language Development in the Forest Grove School District. An analysis of proficiency level growth over the three year period identified that:

1. 40% of the cohort had no level change, 2. 42% of the cohort moved 1 proficiency level, 3. 17 % of the cohort moved 2 proficiency levels Page 8 of 35 4. 1% of the cohort moved 3 proficiency levels

An analysis of the proficiency level distribution at the completion of grade 3 for this cohort identified that: 1. 8% of the cohort was beginning proficiency level 2. 36% of the cohort was early intermediate 3. 33% of the cohort was intermediate 4. 18% of the cohort was early advanced proficiency level 5. 5% of the cohort was advanced proficiency level.

Summary: After 3 years of ELD instruction 82% of the cohort moved 0-1 level of proficiency, 44% of the cohort had proficiency levels of beginning or early intermediate.

Cohort Data: Grade 4 A cohort of 98 students was identified at this grade level. The cohort represents 98 students who were enrolled in grade 4 during the 2009-2010 academic year and who also had an ELPA score from 2006- 2007. Students in this cohort had received 4 years of English Language Development in the Forest Grove School District. An analysis of proficiency level growth over the four year period identified that:

1. 6% of the cohort had no level change 2. 34% of the cohort moved 1 proficiency level 3. 30% of the cohort moved 2 proficiency levels 4. 25% of the cohort moved 3 proficiency levels 5. 4% of the cohort moved four proficiency levels

An analysis of the proficiency level distribution at the completion of grade 4 for this cohort identified that: 1. 3% of the cohort was beginning proficiency level 2. 28% of the cohort was early intermediate 3. 26 % of the cohort was intermediate 4. 30% of the cohort was early advanced proficiency level 5. 14% of the cohort was advanced proficiency level

Summary: After 4 years of ELD instruction 41% of the cohort moved 0 or 1 level of proficiency in a four year period and 31% of the cohort had proficiency levels of beginning or early intermediate.

Page 9 of 35

Page 10 of 35 Cohort Data: Grade 6 A cohort of 101 students was identified at this grade level. The cohort represents 101 students who were enrolled in grade 6 during the 2009-2010 academic year and who also had an ELPA score from grade 4 in 2007-2008. Students in this cohort had received 2 years of English Language Development in the upper elementary school of the Forest Grove School District. An analysis of proficiency level growth over the two year period identified that:

1. 5% of the cohort had no level change 2. 48% of the cohort moved 1 proficiency level 3. 42% of the cohort moved 2 proficiency levels 4. 5% of the cohort moved 3 proficiency levels

An analysis of the proficiency level distribution at the completion of grade 6 for this cohort identified that: 1. 1% of the cohort was beginning proficiency level 2. 5% of the cohort was early intermediate 3. 30% of the cohort was intermediate 4. 46% of the cohort was early advanced proficiency level 5. 18% of the cohort was advanced proficiency level

Summary: After 2 years of ELD instruction in the upper elementary school 95% of the cohort moved at least 1 level of proficiency in a two year period and 64% of the cohort had proficiency levels of advanced or early advanced.

Cohort Data: Grade 8 A cohort of 61 students was identified at this grade level. The cohort represents 61 students who were enrolled in grade 8 during the 2009-2010 academic year and who also had an ELPA score from grade 6 in 2007-2008. Students in this cohort had received 2 years of English Language Development in the middle school of the Forest Grove School District. An analysis of proficiency level growth over the two year period identified that:

1. 23% of the cohort had no level change 2. 41% of the cohort moved 1 proficiency level 3. 33% of the cohort moved 2 proficiency levels 4. 1.5% of the cohort moved 3 proficiency levels 5. 1.5% of the cohort moved 4 proficiency levels

An analysis of the proficiency level distribution at the completion of grade 8 for this cohort identified that 0% of the cohort was beginning proficiency level, 5% of the cohort was early intermediate, 23 % of the cohort was intermediate, 31% of the cohort was early advanced proficiency level and 25% of the cohort was advanced proficiency level.

Summary: After 2 years of ELD instruction in the Middle School 77% of the cohort moved at least 1 level of proficiency in a two year period and 56% of the cohort had proficiency levels of advanced or early advanced.

Page 11 of 35 Cohort Data: Grade 10 A cohort of 48 students was identified at this grade level. The cohort represents 48 students who were enrolled in grade 10 during the 2009-2010 academic year and who also had an ELPA score from grade 8 in 2007-2008. Students in this cohort had received 2 years of English Language Development in the high school of the Forest Grove School District. An analysis of proficiency level growth over the two year period identified that:

1. 15% of the cohort had no level change 2. 60% of the cohort moved 1 proficiency level 3. 25% of the cohort moved 2 proficiency levels

An analysis of the proficiency level distribution at the completion of grade 10 for this cohort identified that 0% of the cohort was beginner proficiency level, 0% of the cohort was early intermediate, 15 % of the cohort was intermediate, 60% of the cohort was early advanced proficiency level and 25% of the cohort was advanced proficiency level.

Summary: After 2 years of ELD instruction in the high school 85% of the cohort moved at least 1 level of proficiency in a two year period and 85% of the cohort had proficiency levels of advanced or early advanced.

Page 12 of 35

Page 13 of 35 AMAO #2a and AMAO #2b Over the past two years, Forest Grove School District has exited 455 students from the English Language Development Program into general education classes. The rate of exit for the district far exceeds the state average. A deeper analysis of AMAO #2 would necessitate adjustment of data based on revised ODE 2009-2010 reporting. The percentage required prior to 2009-2010 has been adjusted to be a more realistic expectation for exiting students. When 2009-2010 requirements are applied to data prior to 2009-2010, FGSD’s exit rate would meet the required goal.

AMAO #3 FGSD has not met the state’s requirement for AMAO #3 in the past four years. As mentioned in the strengths section of this report, during 2009-2010, eight of the district’s ten schools met AYP requirement and two did not. It is clear that a deeper analysis of AYP data is necessary to determine the causes of the district’s inability to meet AYP targets for all grade levels; however, an analysis of AYP data for the past four years should be cautious. Even though an analysis of the past four years would provide some useful information, the information would not give the necessary depth required to make informed decisions about future challenges. In order to get the necessary information to inform future decisions, all data must be adjusted to reflect the new OSAT targets in both reading and math.

If new target scores are applied to previous data, it is evident that the majority of the district’s schools would not met the requirements for AYP; however, the data would not give the necessary detail to determine the causes of the problem. Since new target scores are calibrated close to a 50th percentile, an analysis of how ELLs perform at a 50th percentile would give the most useful data. Presently, the OSAT target score at 10th grade is closest to a 50th percentile; therefore, an analysis of historical data for the 10th grade test would yield clear indications of the challenges that will affect all grade levels.

The identified population for this analysis is present ELLs in grade 11 who hadn’t met the 10th grade target score of 236 prior to September 2010. First, a review of their 8th grade OSAT scores was completed. The review of 8th grade scores showed that of those students who scored a 222 or lower in 8th grade, 68% still haven’t passed the reading test; however, once the 8th grade scores had risen above 222, this percentage dropped drastically. Students with 8th grade scores in the 223-226 range, just above 222, have only 33% not meeting as 11th graders.

Page 14 of 35

Historical ELPA data was then added to the analysis. 2007-2008 ELPA proficiency levels for the population were compared to 10th grade performance on the state assessment. When present 11th grade ELLs were in 8th grade, 13% of the population was early intermediate proficiency level, 57% was intermediate proficiency level and 30% was early advanced proficiency level. 10th grade OSAT reading scores were then analyzed for each of the proficiency bans. In order to be consistent in analyzing the data, ELPA scores lower than a 513 were examined separately. The results of the analysis yielded the following:

 of the 13% of the population working at an early intermediate level of proficiency, 17% of the population met the 10th grade OSAT target score;

 of the 57% of the population working at an intermediate level of proficiency in the 8th grade, 21% had an 8th grade ELPA score 513 or lower, and 20% met the 10th grade OSAT target score;

 of the 57% of the population working at an intermediate proficiency level in 8th grade, 36% had an 8th grade ELPA score of 514 or higher, and 65% met the 10th grade OSAT target score;

 of the 30% of the population working at an early advanced proficiency level in the 8th grade, 86% met the 10th grade OSAT target score.

Page 15 of 35 Next, the most recent ELPA proficiency levels for the same population were compared to 10th grade performance on the state assessment. The analysis yielded the following:  6% of the population was working at an intermediate level of proficiency,  62% of the population was working at an early advanced level of proficiency and

 32% of the population was working at an advanced level of proficiency.

10th grade OSAT reading scores were then analyzed for each of the proficiency bans and found:  Of the 6% of the population working at an intermediate level of proficiency, 0% have reach the OSAT target score of 236;  of the 42% of the population working at an early advanced level of proficiency, 41% have reach the OSAT target score of 236;

 of the 32% of the population working at an advanced level of proficiency, 93% have reach the OSAT target score of 236.

Page 16 of 35

An analysis was then performed using historical assessment data for the math assessment. The review of 8th grade scores showed that of those students who scored a 222 or lower in 8th grade, 44% still haven’t passed the math test; however, once the 8th grade scores had risen above 223, this percentage dropped. Students with 8th grade scores in the 223-226 range, just above 222, have 29% not meeting as 11th graders.

2007-2008 ELPA proficiency levels for the population were compared to 10th grade performance on the math state assessment. The results of the analysis yielded the following:  of the 13% of the population working at an early intermediate level of proficiency, 50% of the population met the 10th grade OSAT target score;  of the 57% of the population working at an intermediate level of proficiency in the 8th grade, 21% had an 8th grade ELPA score 513 or lower, and 60% met the 10th grade OSAT target score;

 of the 57% of the population working at an intermediate proficiency level in 8th grade, 36% had an 8th grade ELPA score of 514 or higher, and 82% met the 10th grade OSAT target score;

Page 17 of 35  of the 30% of the population working at an early advanced proficiency level in the 8th grade, 79% met the 10th grade OSAT target score.

Next, the most recent ELPA proficiency levels for the same population were compared to 10th grade performance on the state assessment. The analysis yielded the following: of the 6% of the population working at an intermediate level of proficiency, 0% have reach the OSAT target score of 236; of the 42% of the population working at an early advanced level of proficiency, 41% have reach the OSAT target score of 236 and of the 32% of the population working at an advanced level of proficiency, 93% have reach the OSAT target score of 236.

Page 18 of 35 Data Implications

The results of the data indicate that there is a strong correlation between English Language Learners’ proficiency levels and their abilities to perform well on state assessments, especially in the area of reading and literature.

Analysis of ELPA data supports that FGSD performed well in meeting the ODE requirement of 50% of the district’s ELLs increasing one level of proficiency during the 2009-2010 academic year; however, with the more detailed analysis of the data using cohorts, it was clear the majority of the increase was realized in our grade 5-12 schools. Additionally, the deeper analysis of AMAO #1 data showed inconsistencies in the percentage of students progressing through the five proficiency levels in a timely fashion (5-7 years). Progression to the higher proficiency levels is again seen in the district’s 5-12 schools, whereas progression in K-4 schools was slow.

Forest Grove School District met ODE’s requirement for AMAO #2a and AMAO #2b, but a deeper analysis of data again showed that the district’s successful performance occurred in its 5-12 schools and not in K-4 schools. It is expected that the percentage of students exiting the English Language Development program would be higher in the upper grades; however, there should be a greater population of students working at higher proficiency levels by completion of Grade 4 than is currently being realized. Even though the AMAO #2a overall exit rate for the upper elementary school was 31.25% and the AMAO #2b exit rate for students who have been in the program for five or more years was 31.5789% in 2009-2010, it is clear these rates could be easily increased if more students were entering the upper elementary school with higher proficiency levels.

FGSD has not met AMAO #3 requirements for the past four years. Analysis of OSAT data along with ELPA data showed the direct correlation between OSAT performance and ELL proficiency levels. When looking at the impact the new OSAT scores have on ELL performance, the need for attaining high proficiency levels at earlier grades is imperative for ELL student achievement. Moreover, the data also showed ELLs performance is not only related to English Language proficiency level but also to skills development. Analysis of reading and math scores in 8th grade in comparison with 10th grade scores illustrated how, irrespective of proficiency level, low performance on the 8th grade assessments (scores 222 or lower) predicted low performance on the 10th grade assessments.

Cause Data For the purpose of clarity, all cause data will be presented in light of the six areas identified as challenges which FGSD must meet to close the present achievement gap for English Language Learners and provide all students an equitable opportunity to be better prepared for college, career and citizenship. After analyzing the data, the six identified challenges stem from several common isolated causes. The six identified challenges are: 1. What strategies must be in place K-12 to systematically deliver quality English instruction in both English Language Development classes and core content classes? 2. What strategies will ensure that ELLs acquire English proficiency in a timely manner?

3. What special strategies are needed to support long term English Language Learners who have not achieved the necessary level of proficiency to exit the ELD program within 5-7 years?

Page 19 of 35 4. What interventions are required to support ELL success on state reading, writing and math assessments?

5. What program modifications are needed to increase rigor in all classes to prepare ELLs to successfully achieve the new OSAT target scores?

6. What strategies must be in place K-12 to ensure that ELLs meet all state requirements for graduation?

Common causes between the six identified challenges: A. Need to achieve systemic implementation FGSD has adopted Susana Dutro’s “A Focused Approach Blueprint” as the framework of services offered for its ELL population. As mentioned earlier in this report, all district ELD teachers have been trained in Systematic ELD, and classroom and content area teachers have been offered on- going professional development in GLAD, SIOP, Constructing Meaning and Effective Strategies for ELLs; nevertheless, a systemic implementation of practices and strategies has not occurred district wide. There are pockets of excellence in some district schools, but classroom observations, walk-throughs and testing data indicate the need for greater support and continued trainings to achieve a systemic implementation. The lack of a systemic implementation of Systematic ELD in the ELD classrooms, and the lack of a systematic implementation of sheltered instruction techniques and practices in content area classrooms is identified as a contributing cause of inconsistent assessment results across the district.

Previous efforts to implement Systematic ELD have proven positive; however, these efforts have not produced the systemic implementation required. In order to achieve this level of implementation, the plan requires collaborative effort and strategies by district level administration, building administration, TOSAs, building lead teachers, ELD teachers, classroom teachers and parents.

Acts of Leadership and Strategies Driven by Identified Need On a district level, the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent and Title III TOSA must ensure that all central administrators and building administrators understand the strategies and practices that need to be in place for ELL success. In addition to an overview of strategies and practices, district level administrators must offer highly focused professional development opportunities to train building administrators in how to use observation and walk-through tools to identify practices and strategies in the classroom. Furthermore, building administrators need the support and guidance of a highly trained ELD lead teacher in each building who will accompany them during classroom observations and walk-throughs. In this way, building administrators will receive the on-going support of an expert in ELD, ensuring refinement of their ability to offer feedback and meaningful support to teachers when needed. The implementation plan must also include a defined cycle for the use of observation tools and allow district level discussions of the identified strengths and needs to inform professional development activities for the instructional staff. The district must also articulate the implementation plan to district level parent groups (The Latino Parent Action Committee and

Page 20 of 35 the Title Programs Parent Group) so they understand the plan and are able to communicate and support the plan when interfacing with parents.

At the building level, building administrators must clearly communicate the district’s mandate to systemically implement both Systematic ELD and sheltered instruction to all teachers. Administrators must also inform teachers of the use of observation and walk-through tools to identify implementation levels in classrooms. Teachers will be given an overview of the tools and a list of the ELD lead teachers in place to support implementation. Additionally, building administrators must communicate the implementation plan to parents during scheduled parent meetings and inform teachers that ELL language proficiency and its implications with respect to individual student achievement need to be routinely discussed with parents.

At the teacher level, teachers must design lessons and deliver instruction using the strategies and techniques prescribed by the adopted framework. Strategies and techniques must be observable in both lesson planning and delivery. Classroom implementation must also be observable in student behaviors seen during instruction. Students will demonstrate an awareness of instruction routines and sequences and must actively interact throughout the lesson. Teachers will communicate with students the goals of lessons, and students must understand and be able to articulate the reasons why they are learning. English language proficiency data will be included in all discussions with ELL parents and teachers will explain the meaning of proficiency data and the implications the data presents with respect to the student’s future academic success.

B. Need for articulation of scope and sequence

The lack of a systemic implementation of Systematic ELD and sheltered instruction district wide is a cause for ELLS not acquiring English language proficiency in a timely manner. A secondary cause is the lack of a K-12 articulation of scope and sequence for the instruction of ELLs. During the 2010-2011 schools year, all 7-12 schools used the Forms Alignment Documents described in the strengths section of this report to guide and document instruction. The use of these documents helped strengthen alignment and articulation between the high school and the middle schools. The Forms Alignment Documents were also adapted for use in the elementary schools; however, full implementation and use was postponed until the 2011-2012 academic year. The documents were given to elementary teachers during 2010-2011 only to serve as a guide for what needs to be taught on a yearly basis, so implementation of all components of forms alignment was not realized.

Acts of Leadership and Strategies Driven by Identified Need As part of the ELD School Improvement Plan, the implementation of the K-12 Forms Alignment Documents needs to occur in all district schools. The expressed procedure for the use of the documents will be expanded to include all schools K-6. Implementation requires the Page 21 of 35 collaboration of district and building leadership as well as ELD building lead teachers. The first phase of implementation will be an explanation of the document to K-6 administrators followed by a roll out of the documents at each individual site. In order to make the process more user- friendly, the entire K-12 Forms Alignment Document will be converted to an electronic format, thereby streamlining the process to ensure ease of use.

Use of the Forms Alignment Documents will ensure that ELLs acquire English proficiency in a timely fashion. The documents clearly identify all forms that must be taught yearly at each proficiency level. In addition, each proficiency level provides a suggested scope and sequence for the instruction of forms, along with an on-going tool for classroom formative assessments. The scope and sequence is provided as a suggested guide but does not dictate when forms are to be taught. Teachers are asked to work with proficiency level teams in their building to identify what forms will be covered at a particular time in order to best meets the needs of their students. The on-going tool for classroom formative assessment was created so teachers can quickly and easily document students’ lack of proficiency or mastery, and transfer these common formative assessment results to individual student documentation forms.

The component pieces of the K-12 Forms Alignment Documents give teachers an on-going data source to inform daily instruction, thus allowing the creation of Systematic ELD lesson tailored to the immediate needs of the students. Additionally, the implementation of the documents creates a clear, easy, systemic process to articulate student proficiency or need from teacher to teacher, grade level to grade level, building to building. Moreover, the Forms Alignment Documents create a consistent tool for communicating students’ strengths and needs with parents.

C. Long-term ELLs, 5 or more years

FGSD, like many districts in the state, has an identified population of ELLs receiving services for more than five years. The data supports the fact that the current programs in place have impacted this segment of the population. In addition to students promoted from the ELD program with an ELPA score of 5, a rigorous portfolio exit process is in place in the upper elementary, middle and high schools. All early advanced students scoring below a 5 on ELPA are reviewed by teams at each site. When documentation is gathered to support the reclassification of a student into the general education program, the student is exited. If documentation does not support reclassification, ELD services continue to be designed to meet the specific needs of the student.

Instead of focusing on the strategies needed to support long term English Learners, it is more productive to isolate the causes that have created the present reality. As John Hattie states in his book, Visible Learning, research has proven that a student internalizes his/her academic abilities by Grade 4. If students haven’t experienced success in their early academic interactions, they accept failure as their reality. Once accepted as reality, a student loses the willingness to work and overcome the obstacles preventing success. Therefore, it is imperative to break the cycle by isolating the causes of the problem and correcting them before students have the opportunity to internalize failure.

Page 22 of 35 One of the causes of the cycle is the direct effect that English language proficiency has on student performance on state assessments. If students aren’t working at a more advanced proficiency level by the end of their early elementary experience, they will not be able to meet the academic challenges presented in subsequent years. The need to focus instruction on proficiency level once a student leaves the early elementary environment has a direct relationship on the instructional staff’s ability to move the student to more advanced levels of study. Instruction and interventions are put in place to remediate the problem, but at the same time, the student is being left behind as his/her peers advance in their acquisition of knowledge. With each grade level, the gap between the ELL and his/her peer group grows wider and wider.

Acts of Leadership and Strategies Driven by Identified Need By addressing proficiency level gains in the early elementary grades, the causes of the problem will begin to diminish. The implementations expressed in #1 and # 2 above will ensure that ELLs progress at a greater rate in the early grades and the cycle will be broken.

D. Skills development In addition to the previously identified causes, the data also indicates skills development as an area of concern. Even though language proficiency level plays a role in overall skills development, it is not the sole reason for the lack of progress in this area. Lack of skills development is the result of literacy and math programs currently in place.

FGSD has recognized the lack of consistent skills development and the lack of consistent progress monitoring across the district. For this reason, the district has adopted a core literacy program to be implemented in grades K-6 during the 2010-2011 academic year. Additionally, the district has adopted easy CBM as a progress monitoring tools for grades K-8 district wide.

The implementation plans being developed for both the core literacy adoption and easy CBM will not be included in this ELD School Improvement Plan; however, the implementation of these programs will directly affect the progress of ELLs. The implementation of a core literacy program in both English and Spanish will ensure that all district students are receiving consistent literacy instruction in K-6 schools. Monitoring student progress using easy CBM in reading and math will supply teachers with on-going data to inform instruction in the content areas.

FGSD’s focus on literacy and math instruction in the elementary schools will affect the readiness of students to meet the academic challenges of the secondary environment. Students will enter the secondary schools with a stronger foundation in reading and math, thereby reducing the time students must spend in remedial level classes.

Acts of Leadership and Strategies Driven by Identified Need

Page 23 of 35 FGSD will begin to compile data on its implementation of the core adoption and easyCBM over the next three to five years and will analyze the data to determine the impact of these initiatives on student achievement. Disaggregated data for ELLS will be analyzed to determine how implementations of these particular programs are affecting ELL student achievement.

Summary In summary, the data presented clearly demonstrates how ELL student achievement district wide is affected by the rate at which ELLs move to the higher English Language proficiency levels. Lower proficiency levels directly affect students’ abilities to meet OSAT target scores and realize academic success as they move through the grades. If gains are realized in grades K-4, students will experience success as they transition into the upper grades, and there will be a diminished need to focus on increasing language proficiency and remediation. One identified cause of the problem is the lack of a systemic implementation of Systematic ELD and sheltered instruction techniques and strategies in K-4 schools. Another cause is the lack of a systemic alignment and scope and sequence for English Language Development in K-6 schools. By eliminating the causes of the problem, FGSD will be able increase ELL student achievement and focus on offering an equitable education for all students.

The plans presented in this report will be implemented in all district schools; however, the major focus will be directed toward ELD instruction K-4. By focusing on K-4 schools, changes made will have a direct effect on instruction 5-12.

Smart Goals

The percentages for the Smart Goals are taken from 2009-2010 AMAO reporting and 2009-2010 ELPA results.

Grades K-4 (by school)

(Smart Goals will not be given for Dilley Elementary School or Gales Creek Elementary School. The ELL population in each of the schools is too small to be considered in this plan.) 1. The percentage of students making one proficiency level gain in Cornelius Elementary School will increase from 41.9512% to 60% during the next four years. 2. The percentage of students exiting the ELD program at Cornelius Elementary School will increase from 10.5469% to 20% in the next four years.

3. The percentage of students making one proficiency level gain in Echo Shaw Elementary will increase from29.444% to 60% during the next four years.

4. The percentage of students exiting the ELD Program will increase from 4.8% to 20% in the next four years.

Page 24 of 35 5. The percentage of students making one proficiency level gain in Fern Hill Elementary School will increase from 53.1034% to 75% in the next four years.

6. The percentage of students exiting the ELD Program in Fern Hill Elementary School will increase from 8.5106% to 20% in the next four years.

7. The percentage of students making one proficiency level gain in Joseph Gale Elementary School will increase from 41.5094% to 60% in the next four years.

8. The percentage of students exiting the ELD Program in Joseph Gale Elementary School will increase from 5.7971% to 20% in the next four years.

9. The percentage of students making one proficiency level gain in Harvey Clark Elementary School will increase from 54.2857% to 65% in the next four years.

10. The percentage of students exiting the program in Harvey Clack Elementary School will increase from 18.1818% to 25% in the next four years.

Grades K-4 (by district) 11. The percentage of students in grade 4 performing at the early advanced level of proficiency will increase from 27% to 34% in the next 4 years. 12. The percentage of students in grade 4 performing at the intermediate level of proficiency will increase from 28% to 38% in the next 4 years.

13. The percentage of students in grade 3 performing at the early advanced level of proficiency will increase from 18% to 28% in the next 4 years.

14. The percentage of students in grade 3 performing at the intermediate level of proficiency will increase from 28% to 38% in the next 4 years.

15. The percentage of students in grade 2 performing at the early advanced level of proficiency will increase from 12% to 22% in the next 4 years.

16. The percentage of students in grade 2 performing at the intermediate level of proficiency will increase from 22% to 32% in the next 4 year.

17. The percentage of students in grade 1 performing at the early advanced level of proficiency will increase from 7% to 14% in the next 4 years.

18. The percentage of students in grade 1 performing at the intermediate level of proficiency will increase from 19% to 29% in the next 4 year.

Grades 5-12 Smart goals will not be written for Grades 5-12. Since AMAO reporting for AMAO #1, AMAO#2a and AMAO #2b for grades 5-12 are exceeding ODE’s requirement, no specific goals will be made for

Page 25 of 35 these grade bans. The goal of grades 5-12 will be to continue to exceed ODE requirement by at least 10% for each of the next four year.

Page 26 of 35 Section B: Implementation

Implementation Plan for a Focused Approach (Systematic ELD)

Adult Actions - District level Implementation Responsibility: Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, ELD TOSA Specific actions taken at the district level to implement this initiative: 1. District will provide all new ELD teachers with a three-day training on Susana Dutro’s Systematic ELD. (once yearly) 2. District will supply resources to provide certified Systematic ELD presenters training when needed to ensure each site has a certified presenter on staff. (once yearly) 3. All district ELD teachers will be trained on the use of the K-12 Forms Alignment Documents. (once yearly in August or September) 4. District will direct certified Systematic ELD Leads to work directly with classroom ELD teachers to implement Systematic ELD functions, forms and strategies into daily lesson plans.(on-going through plan cycle) 5. District will direct Systematic ELD Leads to work with ELD teachers on the use of the K-12 Forms Alignment Documents. (on-going through plan cycle) 6. District will direct principals to support teachers to implement Systematic ELD functions, forms and strategies into daily lessons. (on-going through plan cycle) 7. District will direct principals to help ELD teachers implement the K-12 Forms Alignment Documents in order to track individual student language proficiency. (on-going through plan cycle) 8. District will train all building administrators on the use of the Systematic ELD Observation Tool. (once yearly in August or September) 9. District will ask all principals to report the results of classroom observations as documented on the Systematic ELD Observation. (once every trimester) 10. Based on the feedback given by principal, the district will design and supply resources for professional development opportunities. All PD will be tailored to meet the individual needs of each school. Possible PD opportunities may include: model lessons, refreshers, peer observations, coaching, re-training, modeling of strategies, etc. (on-going through plan cycle) 11. The ELD TOSA will present the Systematic ELD implementation plan to the Migrant/ELL/Latino PAC and the Title Parent Group. Work with parents will focus on the following:  understanding proficiency levels,  understanding the relationship between proficiency level and success on the state assessments,  using data,  understanding what questions to ask to receive desired information, etc. (September and on-going presentations throughout the plan cycle

Page 27 of 35 Page 28 of 35 Adult Actions - Building level Implementation responsibility: Principals, Certified Systematic ELD Leads Specific actions taken at the district level to implement this initiative:

1. Principals direct their ELD staff to use Systematic ELD for English Language Development instruction. (on-going through plan cycle) 2. Principals meet with ELD leads and teachers to plan for Systematic ELD implementation in all ELD classrooms, including time for team planning. (on-going through plan cycle) 3. Principals provide CIT time for ELD issues as needed. (on-going through plan cycle) 4. Principals work with the Certified Systematic ELD Lead and teachers to implement the use of the K-12 Forms Alignment Documents in all ELD classrooms. (on-going through plan cycle) 5. Principals with support of the Certified Systematic ELD Leads and ELD TOSA use classroom walkthroughs using the Systematic ELD Observation Tool to examine whether Systematic ELD functions, forms and strategies are being used for instruction. (once every trimester) 6. Principal provide district administrators with feedback on Systematic ELD observations and walk throughs in order to identify PD needs and opportunities for their staff. (once every trimester) 7. Principal direct teachers to include language proficiency information in all discussions with parents. (on-going throughout plan cycle) 8. Principals include an agenda item at building parent meetings to discuss English language proficiency. (on-going through plan cycle)

Adult Actions- ELD Teachers Responsible at the instructional level for the implementation of this plan: ELD Teachers Specific actions taken at the ELD teacher level to implement this initiative Page 29 of 35 1. ELD Teachers deliver Systematic ELD instruction with fidelity as evidenced by lesson plans and the results of classroom observations using the Systematic ELD Observational Tool. (daily) ELD Teachers must include the following actions in their daily instruction: Adult Actions- Teacher Actions as evidenced by Student Behaviors Implementation responsibility: Student Behaviors Specific actions seen at the student level which verify implementation of this initiative. 1. Students interact throughout lesson as document on the Systematic ELD Observational Tool. (daily) The following student behaviors verify the implementation of Systematic ELD in daily instruction:  Students know the focus of the learning  Student are engaged and actively listening throughout the lesson  Students know instructional routines  Students participate in all activities (whole group, small group, partners)  Students successfully practice targeted language function and for stated in lesson objective  Students respond in complete sentences, demonstrating language which stretches beyond current ability  Students are actively using targeted language orally for at least 50% of the instructional time  Students will take language to application, using the “You do it” activity  Students self-assess via Partner Share, Ticket out the Door, etc.

Page 30 of 35 Implementation Plan for a Focused Approach (Sheltered Instruction)

Adult Actions- District Implementation responsibility: Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, ELD TOSA Specific actions taken at the district level to implement this initiative. 1. All district content area teachers responsible for instruction of ELL students will be provided sheltered instruction training (elementary teachers will be trained in GLAD and secondary teachers will be trained in SIOP). (once yearly) 2. District will identify lead sheltered instruction teachers at each site who will work directly with content area teachers to implement sheltered instruction protocols into daily lesson plans. (on-going through plan cycle) 3. The district will direct principals to support teachers to implement sheltered instruction protocols into daily lesson plans. (on-going through plan cycle) 4. The district will train all administrators on the use of the ODEs Sheltered Instruction Rubric (SEI). (once yearly in September) 5. Principal will provide the district with input from classroom observations documented on the SEI Rubric. (once per trimester) 6. Based on the feedback given by principal, the district will design and supply resources for professional development opportunities. All PD will be tailored to meet the individual needs of each school. Possible PD opportunities may include: model lessons, refreshers, peer observations, coaching, re-training, modeling of strategies, etc. (on-going through plan cycle) 7. The district will support trainer of trainers training to teachers scoring an overall Tier 3 score on the SEI Rubric. (on-going through plan cycle) 8. The ELD TOSA will present the sheltered instruction implementation plan to the Migrant/ELL/Latino PAC and the Title Parent Group. “The Focused Approach Blueprint” will be used as a visual to help parents understand the role English language instruction plays in the content area.

PageAdult 31 Actions- of 35 Principals Implementation responsibility: Principals, building sheltered instruction leads (GLAD, SIOP) Specific actions taken at the building level to implement this initiative. 1. Principals inform their content area staff responsible for instruction of ELL students to use sheltered instruction protocols in their daily classroom lessons. (on-going through Page 32 of 35 Section C: Monitoring

The following monitoring cycles will be used to document the implementation degree of instructional strategies and to assess progress towards identified smart goals.

A. K-12 Forms Alignment Documents:

The K-12 Forms Alignment Documents establish an on-going district wide cycle for monitoring English Language Learners. The cycle will take place every six weeks of the academic year.

K-12 Forms Alignment Documents: Adult Action- Teacher (on-going through plan cycle)

The following procedure will be adapted by each building to meets site specific needs.

1. At each site, ELD teachers at the same proficiency level meet to determine what functions and forms to teach during the six week period.

2. Teachers create smart goals for the six weeks of instruction.

3. Teachers create and administer a pre-test to identify areas of strength and need.

4. Teachers begin instruction. Each teacher assesses students’ proficiency of function and form through common formative assessments. The teacher records students’ performance on common formative assessments on an on-going common formative assessment tool. Teacher records students’ performance by indicating if the students lacked proficiency, demonstrated proficiency with scaffolding or demonstrated proficiency independently. Additionally, the teacher records the domain assessed on the assessment: listening, speaking, reading or writing. More than one domain can be assessed on an assessment.

5. Every two weeks teachers discuss the results of common formative assessments during Professional Learning Community time. FGSD has scheduled bimonthly PLC time at each school. Analysis of common formative assessment data is used to inform instruction for the coming weeks.

6. At the completion of the two week period, the teacher transfers common formative assessment data for their class to the district’s K-12 Forms Alignment Documents database. The database will merge data to individual Forms Alignment Documents for each student in their class.

7. The cycle continues for the next four weeks of the six week period. As teachers enter on-going common formative assessment data into the Forms Alignment Documents database, they will update previously entered data to reflect changes to students’ proficiency.

Page 33 of 35 8. As teachers begin to identify struggling students, they will print out an individual report for each of the students. The teacher will discuss each student with their PLC, the ELD Lead teacher, the principal or the ELD TOSA in order to plan added supports for the students.

9. At the completion of the six week cycle, teachers meet again to review smart goals and plan for the next six weeks. New smart goals are written and a new cycle begins.

K-12 Forms Alignment Documents: Adult Action- Teacher (three times per academic year)

1. Teachers review individual forms alignment documents for all ELPA level 4 students to evaluate proficiency. From the evaluation teachers determine students who should exit the program at the completion of the year. Teachers begin to develop a body of evidence to support promotion from the ELD Program or reclassification of the student based on portfolio exit criteria.

K-12 Forms Alignment Documents: Adult Action- Building and District

1. Throughout the academic year the ELD TOSA and building principals use the Forms Alignment Documents database to monitor individual student progress.

2. The ELD TOSA and building principals use the Forms Alignment Documents database along with classroom observations and walkthroughs to identify professional development needs of staff.

B. Writing Samples:

Writing samples are used to determine students’ ability to control language beyond the sentence level. Writing samples are a way to determine students’ overall language proficiency level.

Writing Samples: Adult Action- Teachers (three times per academic year)

Grade 3-12 ELD teachers schedule three writing samples for their ELD classes during the academic year (October, January and March). The writing samples are scored using FGSD ELD Writing Rubric. Writing samples are used to measure and track data on individual student’s progress.

Writing Samples: Adult Action- Building and District (three times per academic year)

The ELD TOSA and building principal analyze the results of writing sample scoring in order to access program strengths and needs.

Page 34 of 35 C. State Assessment Data

State Assessment Data: Adult Action- District (on-going through plan cycle)

At the start of each academic year the ELD TOSA generates a report for each building principal showing the correlation between ELPA scores and state assessment scores for all English Language Learners enrolled at their sites. This baseline data is used to measure language proficiency growth and OSAT score growth.

As each school goes through its state assessment rounds, the ELD TOSA generates new reports on all ELLs who are not meeting the OSAT target score. Data on the new report is then compared to baseline data to determine individual student growth and need for support.

Page 35 of 35