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

2. 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)

3. District Funding to Support English Language Learners (2011-12 School Year) 3  State’s Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program funds  Provides $886 per student  Total: $ 4.819 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

4. 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

5. ELL Demographics Data 2012-2013 5

6. 6

7. 7 English Language Learners as a Percent of All Students by Grade Based on 2012-2013 SY

8. 8 Top Languages Spoken in Seattle School District 2012-2013

9. 9

10. ELLs Receiving Special Education Services 10

11. 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

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

13. 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. 14 Percent of English Language Learners Making Gains in English Proficiency 2011-2012 SY Year 2010-2011 3139 78.7%848 21.3% 1158 32%2460 68% Year 2009-2010

15. 15 Percent of Elementary School ELL Students Making Gains in English Language Proficiency 2011-12 SY

16. 16 Percent of Middle School ELL Students Making Gains in English Language Proficiency 2011-12 SY 67.2% Target

17. 17 Percent and Number of High School ELLs Making Gains on Language Proficiency 2011-2012 SY

18. 18 Percent of ELL Students Exiting in the ELL Program in 2011-12 SY

19. 19 Meeting Standard on the 2011-12 School Year Math, Reading & Writing State Assessment (MSP-HSPE)

20. 20 English Language Learners Meeting Math and Reading Standards by Grade Levels, Year 2011-2012 (MSP-HSPE)

21. 21 Reading MAP Spring 2012 RegionSouth EastCentralNorth EastNorth WestWestMiddle SchoolsHigh Schools Students tested 1319327226307556759422 Met Standard 688164107143234486293 % Meeting Standard 52%50%47% 42%64%69% Met Standard By Grade Spam K to 1 25354%5549%3742%3638%4128% 2 to 3 22144%5749%3944%5545%9646% 4 to 5 20360%5253%3165%5258%8654% 6 to 8 48664% 9 to 12 29369% Math MAP Spring 2012 RegionSouth EastCentralNorth EastNorth WestWestMiddle SchoolsHigh Schools Students tested 1291327227304551752373 Met Standard 707178115162261480256 % Meeting Standard 55%54%51%53%47%64%69% Met Standard By Grade Spam K to 1 22349%5751%3943%4143%5631% 2 to 3 27255%5951%4551%6050%11254% 4 to 5 21263%6262%3163%6169%9358% 6 to 8 48064% 9 to 12 25669% English Language Learners Results in Reading and Math on the Spring MAP by Grade Spam and Cluster. Year 2011-2012

22. Next Steps Considerations for Next Steps 22

23. 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

24. 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)