PRINCIPALS’ MEETING MARCH 19, 2015 Agenda on Wiki at hsprograms.pbworks.com

Welcome! Teresa Bunner Coordinating Literacy Teacher for HS

Updates  Teresa Pierrie  David Wehbie  Glenda Harrell

IMPROVING THE WCPSS LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM (LIEP) FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS English As a Second Language (ESL) Program Update March 19, 2015 Glenda Harrell, ESL Director

Session Objectives  Review student data related to students learning English as a second (or third) language.  State tests and retention  Measures of English language proficiency  Review WCPSS Language Instruction Educational Program (LIEP).  Evidence-based components  ESL courses  Step-Up!

LEP = ELL = EL  ELL English Language Learner  EL English Learner  LEP Limited English Proficient  Terminology used by US ED prior to Jan 2015  Exited LEP/EL = Former LEP/EL  ESL English as a Second Language  An instructional program supported by theories of Second Language Acquisition

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) January, 2015 “…joint guidance for meeting legal obligations to ensure that English Learner students can participate meaningfully and equally in educational programs and services Issued by: Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

Language Instruction Educational Program (LIEP) Requirements Language support services for ELLs must 1. Be based on a sound educational theory, 2. Implemented effectively with sufficient resources and personnel, and 3. Be evaluated annually to determine whether they are effective in helping students overcome language barriers (and achieve academic success).

WCPSS Reading Results: Predictable outcomes without change in practice Source: WCPSS Graduation Rate Update – September 2013, WCPSS D& A

Source: Achievement Gap Update Focus on Literacy WCPSS, D&A February, 2014

WCPSS: Grade 9 Students, Never LEP 11, % Retained in Gr % Retained 2x in Gr % LEP or Former LEP 2, % Retained in Gr % Retained 2x in Gr % Grade 9 Total% of Total All Students 13,446100% Retained in Gr % Retained 2x in Gr %

Grade 9 Total% of Total LEP & Former LEP2,166 Retained in Gr % Retained 2x in Gr % WCPSS: Grade 9 LEP & Former LEP, LEP910 Retained in Gr % Retained 2x in Gr % Former LEP 1256 Retained in Gr % Retained 2x in Gr %

Grade 9 Total% of Total LEP & Former 1532 Retained in Gr % Retained 2x in Gr % WCPSS: Grade 9 LEP and Former LEP, (Who also have Grade 3 EOG Math Results) LEP395 Retained in Gr % Retained 2x in Gr % Former LEP1137 Retained in Gr % Retained 2x in Gr %

ELLs Nov, 2014 (n=12,009)

English Learner Specific Data  AMAO 1 Progress of English Language Development  Includes all LEP students with at least two data points (two years of test results). Progress is met by 1) increase to next overall ELP level, 2) increase the previous overall score by.5, or 3) meet exit criteria.  AMAO 2 Proficiency in English  Includes all LEP students. Students exit LEP designation when reaching an overall composite score of 4.8 or higher, with at least a 4.0 on the reading and the writing subtests.  AMAO 3 LEP Subgroup  Is based upon the same decision rules used for AMOs for Title I.

WCPSS AMAOs # LEP Students (K-12) 11,18311,589 12,019 AMAO 1 Progress Target: 57.1% Met 59.1% Target: 58.1% Met 58.8% Target: 59.1% TBD AMAO 2 Proficiency (Exited LEP identification) Target: 13.5% Met 17.5% Target: 14.0% Met 16.5% Target: 14.6% TBD AMAO 3 AMO Reading and Math for LEP Subgroup Met all proficiency AMOs for LEP subgroup; Missed HS Math Participation Met all proficiency AMOs for LEP subgroup; Missed HS Reading & Math Participation TBD

How Long Does it Take? At least 5 to 7 years ELLs can reach parity with English-speaking peers in 5 years when they make at least 1.5 years of academic growth each year. Thomas, W. P., Collier, V. P., & Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students' long-term academic achievement :

Language Instruction Educational Program WCPSS Continuum of Services (LIEP) School/ District Content/ Subject Area ESL Graduation Rate MTSS R2A Language of the content Scaffolding for access Schedules/Placement Academic Language of the content areas Interaction – 4 domains

Evidence Base : Academic Language  Language IS the means of instruction.  Students demonstrate conceptual understandings through language.  Students of other languages and non-standard English bring knowledge and experiences that are valuable. They are bright and capable.  Decisions about students’ abilities are based upon their use of standard academic language.  Teachers modeling of academic language is critical. Oral language is a bridge to literacy.  Vocabulary is one aspect of academic language. Words are useful only when put together to convey meaning.

Evidenced-Based LIEP Whole School Approach ESL Instruction ESL Course ESL Co-Teacher Content Instruction All Courses Sheltered Courses Spanish for Native Spkrs Collaboration Academic Progress

Collaboration: LEP Plan  When content teachers know:  Students’ English proficiency levels (by domain),  Years in U.S. schools,  English proficiency ≠ Cognitive ability, and that  Students bring valuable learning experiences  Then effective scaffolding can occur.  Comprehensible lessons  Manageable assignments  Feasible assessments  Supportive formative feedback  When ESL teachers know:  Linguistic complexity needed for success  How to accelerate development of academic language  Then rigorous ESL instruction can occur:  Acceleration of language learning  Documentation and sharing of language progression

ESL Course Change Formerly known as ESL Resource Tutoring Re-Focus the course to address the academic language and skills needed for success in the content classes rather than a time to re- teach content/tutor. *ELLs = English Language Learners *

ESL Course Transformation ESL Resource Tutoring Goal: Additional academic and organizational support  Assistance for content, study time, extended testing, instructional assistance, study skills  Students work independently  Student profile – Student would benefit from academic support,  ESL Teacher provides one-on-one support  ESL Teacher conferences with students  ESL teacher communicates with content teachers (about what to reteach)  ESL Tchr assists implementation of instructional mods and accommodations  Access to computers and supplies. Advanced Language Support Goal: Expansion of academic language development  Deepen word knowledge and expand working vocabulary needed to fully participate  Combination of whole and small group work  Student profile – student is not more appropriately placed in ESL I, II, or III and/or ESL IV is not offered  ESL Teacher creates interactive lessons focused on academic language that benefits the entire group  ESL teacher conferences with students  ESL teacher communicates with content teachers (to collaborate academic language taught and share evidences of student language growth)  ESL Tchr supports content-teacher modification of instruction and assessment  Access to computers and supplies.

Key Scheduling Information  ESL Course Offerings  Maintain course fidelity ESL I, II, III, IV Advanced Language Support for ELs Sheltered Instruction ESL Co-Teaching  Student Placement  Should be made based upon individual student need.  Proficiency level of the students for placement in each course is a general guideline  Revised course descriptions will assist in appropriate placement of ELs

International Transcripts  Award English I credit for international students only when one year of high school literature AND English as a world language appear on school records.  Award English II credit for international students only when two years of high school literature AND English as a world language appear on school records.  Award elective English credit for each year of high school English as a world language.  Consider W-APT reading and writing results (administer the entire W-APT, don’t observe ceiling).

Step-Up!  What: Collaborative meeting where elementary, middle and high school ESL teachers will exchange student information in an effort to improve the transition for ELs.  When: May 4, 2015 (8:30-4:30)  Where: Crossroads II, Room 1400  Who: Middle School ESL Teachers – All Day Elementary ESL Teachers – A.M. High School ESL Teachers – P.M.

District Priorities for Teaching ELs Fully implement the Language Instruction Educational Program (LIEP). Minimize students’ academic gaps. Empower ELs by providing access to language of school. Prevent long-term ELs. Ensure credit accrual and guide program completions (e.g. CTE). Provide rigorous ESL instruction. Provide accessible, grade-level teaching and learning.

Vision 20/20 Strategic Leadership

Vision 20/20

A Closer Look Chart it out  What do schools own?  What do we (HS Programs) own?  What do we BOTH own?

K-12 Aligned Literacy Instructional Leadership

Writing Focus Group Sherri Miller, Sherri Miller, K-12 Director Sara Overby, Sara Overby, HS ELA Melissa Hurst, Melissa Hurst, MS ELA Shanta Lightfoot, Shanta Lightfoot, MS ELA Sharon Collins, Sharon Collins, ES ELA Barbara Sorensen, Barbara Sorensen, ES ELA Walter Harris, Walter Harris, ES ELA

The Heart of Writing

Argument Training Day 1 Day 2– March 2, 2015 CR Send the same team for Day 2. HS Programs pays for subs.

Day 4—Writing in the Content Areas Day 5—Performance Tasks/Integrated Units

Designing Aligned K-12 Writing Rubrics 24 Teachers Across District Across Grades K -12 Across Content Areas David Balmer, SocSt, Heritage Tammy King, SocSt, Holly Springs Kristen Larsen, SocSt, Sanderson Laura Stiles, Sci, Wakefield Molly Bostic, Sci, Heritage Mary Cate Larocca, ELA, Southeast Raleigh Jenni Greene, ELA, Holly Springs Lauren Genesky, ELA, Millbrook Carrie Horton, ELA, Vernon Malone

Argument Informative Narrative Aligned Rubrics for Quality  K through 12

Cross-Curricular Implementation

2. Look across: one skill criterion What do you notice about growth within and across grade spans? How might these rubrics support a call to rigor in content-area learning? 1.Look down What do you notice about skills and criteria? How might these fit all content areas? Apply It: Apply It: Choose a skill criterion. Read the student response. What subskill feedback would you give this student? How can the quality continuum be used to support qualitative student growth, rather than quantitative grades? Table Talk

Bright Ideas We Need Some Bright Ideas! Google Response Form One per group? Per pair? What ideas do you have for implementation in a high-school culture and climate?

Teacher Professional Development Fidelity of Cross-Curricular Implementation

Interactive Digital Rubrics K-12 Digital Portfolios

Cary High School Nolan Bryant Summer IMP-stitute

Ruth Steidinger ETF Update

Sonia Dupree Anna Jackson Mid-Year Data Review

Sara Overby Teresa Bunner Planning for Literacy Coaches