Seattle Public School ELL Data Veronica Maria Gallardo, Director of ELL 1

Identification and Progress Monitoring for English Language Learners 2  Placement Test  Given to students who indicating that they speak a language other than English at home on the Home Language Survey  Annual Proficiency Exam  Determines if a student is still eligible to receive services and amount of growth in English language proficiency  Both Tests  Measure student’s abilities in reading, writing, listening, and speaking in English  Identify a level of English proficiency  Level 1 – Beginning  Level 2 – Intermediate  Level 3 – Advanced  Level 4 – Transitional (English proficient)

District Funding to Support English Language Learners ( School Year) 3  State’s Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program funds  Provides $886 per student  Total: $ million  Title III English Language Learner Funds  Total: $ 1.04 million  Title 1 Part C Migrant Funds  Total: $ 105,641  Refugee Impact Grant  School’s Out Washington oversees funds  Total: $ 30,000

Purpose of ELL Data Analysis  Understand who make up the English Language Learner (ELL) population in Seattle;  Identify their current level of performance on a range of academic indicators:  District and State Content Assessments  Washington English Language Proficiency Assessment (WELPA)  Identify any schools with good outcomes for ELLs and those really struggling to serve students  Determine which indicators are useful in determining success of ELL students for the purpose of monitoring success of Levy investments 4

ELL Demographics Data

6

7 English Language Learners as a Percent of All Students by Grade Based on SY

8 Top Languages Spoken in Seattle School District

9

ELLs Receiving Special Education Services 10

ELLs Demographic Data Not Captured 11  Current data collection does not include:  Student’s level of education in native country  Student’s native language proficiency  Student’s proficiency in content areas such as math  Student with interrupted formal education (SIFE)  Social, emotional, and health needs of students

Seattle ELL Performance Data Note: Data from, WLPT 2012 etc. 12

ELL Performance Data Federal Performance Measures Seattle Public School Performance Measure 13  Three Annual Measureable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs)  Percent of ELLs making English language proficiency gains  Percent of students who transition out of program  Percent of students meeting standard on state’s content assessment  Measurement of Student Progress (two times a year)  Percent of ELLs meeting or exceeding typical growth in the 12 Level 1 elementary schools (~21% of ELLs)  Target: 65% of ELLs  Actual (Dec.-Feb.): 61% of ELLs

14 Percent of English Language Learners Making Gains in English Proficiency SY Year % % % % Year

15 Percent of Elementary School ELL Students Making Gains in English Language Proficiency SY

16 Percent of Middle School ELL Students Making Gains in English Language Proficiency SY 67.2% Target

17 Percent and Number of High School ELLs Making Gains on Language Proficiency SY

18 Percent of ELL Students Exiting in the ELL Program in SY

19 Meeting Standard on the School Year Math, Reading & Writing State Assessment (MSP-HSPE)

20 English Language Learners Meeting Math and Reading Standards by Grade Levels, Year (MSP-HSPE)

21 Reading MAP Spring 2012 RegionSouth EastCentralNorth EastNorth WestWestMiddle SchoolsHigh Schools Students tested Met Standard % Meeting Standard 52%50%47% 42%64%69% Met Standard By Grade Spam K to %5549%3742%3638%4128% 2 to %5749%3944%5545%9646% 4 to %5253%3165%5258%8654% 6 to % 9 to % Math MAP Spring 2012 RegionSouth EastCentralNorth EastNorth WestWestMiddle SchoolsHigh Schools Students tested Met Standard % Meeting Standard 55%54%51%53%47%64%69% Met Standard By Grade Spam K to %5751%3943%4143%5631% 2 to %5951%4551%6050%11254% 4 to %6262%3163%6169%9358% 6 to % 9 to % English Language Learners Results in Reading and Math on the Spring MAP by Grade Spam and Cluster. Year

Next Steps Considerations for Next Steps 22

Current Work 23  Common Core – Sharing major shifts in new standards  Tiered Service Model – Prioritize ELL services in 64 schools, Tier 1, 2 and 3  Roles and Responsibilities – SPS/SEA collaboration to identify roles and responsibilities for IA’s, ELL and regular education teachers, ELL coaches and principals  Communication Tools via Electronic Binder – shared with all ELL staff and school administrators  Assessment and Data Reports – MAP, ESIS, WELPA and MSP  ELL Retreat – 2 ELL teachers and 2 IA’s per region, coaches, 1 person per department. Goal is to create strategic initiatives that align with the district strategic plan

ELL Feedback/Survey 24  Based on the student data and information shared today, what do you believe is working for our ELL students?  What do you recommend we modify or change to better serve our ELL students?  How can the ELL Department partner more effectively with the our community and parents in general?  What are three goals you would like the ELL department to work on this academic year? (based on student data)