1. Title III Accountability Report & English Language Development Update January 19, 2016 7:00 P.M. JUHSD Board Room

2. Overview I.English Learner Demographic Data II.Title III Accountability Report (2014-2015) III.Title III Expenditures (2014-2015) IV.Achievement in Motion - EL Story

3. English Learner Population Trend

4. Language Groups (14-15) Language Total Number Students Whose Primary Language is Not English Percent of Students Whose Primary Language is Not English Filipino (Pilipino or Tagalog)86617.65% Spanish78215.94% Cantonese3086.28% Arabic1072.18% Burmese1032.10% Portuguese330.67% Vietnamese290.59% Mandarin (Putonghua)270.55% Other non-English languages260.53% Hindi220.45% Ilocano170.35% Russian120.24% Samoan110.22% Indonesian100.20% Thai80.16% Italian70.14% Cebuano (Visayan)70.14% Japanese60.12%

5. Language Groups (14-15) Language Total Number Students Whose Primary Language is Not English Percent of Students Whose Primary Language is Not English Korean60.12% Urdu50.10% Khmer (Cambodian)40.08% Pashto30.06% Polish30.06% Punjabi20.04% Tigrinya20.04% Tongan20.04% Gujarati20.04% Farsi (Persian)20.04% Bengali10.02% Greek10.02% French10.02% Serbo-Croatian (Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian) 10.02% Lao10.02% Jefferson Union High District Total 2,417 49.27% San Mateo County Total 43,109 45.29% California State Total 2,672,128 42.85%

6. English Learner Demographic Data # of English LearnersTotal # of Students District6174586 Jefferson2471162 Oceana48622 Terra Nova341012 Thornton23121 Westmoor2651669

7. English Learner Growth Comparison School # ELs (2014-2015) # ELs (2015-2016) % Change between Selected Academic Year # EL's and Previous Year # EL's Jefferson203248+ 22% Non-public School550% Oceana3848+ 26% Terra Nova3134+ 10% Thornton4323- 47% Westmoor235265+ 13% District555623+ 12%

8. English Learner Reclassification Data Trend 2008-092009-102010-112011-122012-132013-142014-15 # of RFEPs67629569579024 Percentage 17%13.6%18.5%14.6%10.7%17.4%4% For the 2015–16 school year, the reclassification criteria, pursuant to California Education Code Section 313, remain unchanged: 1.Assessment of English language proficiency, using an objective assessment instrument, including, but not limited to, the state test of English language development 2. Teacher evaluation, including, but not limited to, a review of the student's curriculum mastery 3. Parent opinion and consultation 4. Comparison of student performance in basic skills against an empirically established range of performance in basic skills based on the performance of English proficient students of the same age. LEAs are to use these four criteria to establish local reclassification policies.

9. What is Title III Accountability? Federal grant under Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that provides supplemental funds to ensure that English learners and immigrant youths attain English proficiency and meet the same challenging academic content and achievement standards that other students are expected to meet.

10. Title III State Requirements Establish English language proficiency standards Conduct an annual assessment (AA) of English language proficiency Define two AMAOs for increasing the percentage of EL students’ developing and attaining English proficiency Include a third AMAO relating to meeting AYP for the EL student group at the LEA or consortium level Hold LEAs and consortia accountable for meeting the three AMAOs

11. Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives An AMAO is a performance objective, or target, that Title III subgrantees must meet each year for their EL populations Annual Measurable Achievement ObjectivesAssessment AMAO 1: Percentage of ELs Making Annual Progress in Learning English CELDT AMAO 2: Percentage of ELs Attaining the English Proficient Level on the CELDT CELDT AMAO 3: AYP Requirements for EL Student Group at the LEA or Consortium Level CAASPP

12. California English Language Development Test (CELDT) Purpose: Identify students with limited English proficiency. Determine the level of English language proficiency of those students. Assess the progress of limited English-proficient students in acquiring the skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing in English. Level 1 Beginning Level 2 Early Intermediate Level 3 Intermediate Level 4 Early Advanced Level 5 Advanced

13. Comparison of CELDT and ELPAC CELDTELPAC Aligned with the 1999 CA ELD Standards (5 proficiency levels) Aligned with 2012 CA ELD Standards (3 proficiency levels) Emerging - Expanding – Bridging One test for two purposes (initial and annual)Two separate tests for two purposes: (1) initial identification and (2) annual summative assessment. The initial identification will be brief and locally scored Paper-pencil testsPaper-pencil tests with potential to transition to computer-based tests July 1 - October 31 Annual Assessment window Annual Summative Assessment window to be a four-month period after January 1 (proposed February 1 - May 31), allowing for more pre- test instructional time. Domains: Listening, Reading, Writing, and Speaking

14. CELDT to ELPAC Assessment type 2015-20162016-20172017-20182018-2019 ELPAC Pilot Testing December 2015N/A Field Test Administration (No Score Reported) N/A ELPAC Summative (Spring) ELPAC Initial (Fall) N/A Operational (Scores Reported) CELDT CELDT (Initial) ELPAC (Summative) Spring 2018 ELPAC (Initial and Summative)

15. AMAO 1 and 2 Summary Results (14-15) AMAO 1 CELDT Annual Growth AMAO 2 Attaining English Proficiency on the CELDT Less Than Five Years More Than Five Years District 61.4%22.4%47.4% 2014-2015 Target 60.5%24.2%50.9% Met Target ? YESNO

16. AMAO 3 Summary Results Criteria (AYP)District Rate Target Rate Met Target? CAASPP EL Participation Rate in English Language Arts 88%95%YES* (Y3) CAASPP EL Participation Rate in Math 82%95%NO EL Graduation Rate80.66%72.57%YES DID NOT MEET AMAO 3 * Y3 = Passed by using 3-year average: Schools, LEAs, or student groups that did not meet the AYP 95 percent participation rate criteria using a one- or two- year formula met the participation rate using a three-year formula

17. AMAO 1 – Trend Percentage of ELs Making Annual Progress in Learning English

18. AMAO 2 – Trend Percentage of ELs Attaining the English Proficient Level on the CELDT Less than 5 years cohort More than 5 years cohort

19. AMAO 1 (School Level Data) Number in Cohort Number Met AMAO 1 Percent Met AMAO 1 Jefferson 1579560.5% Oceana 342161.8% Terra Nova 26-- Thornton 29-- Westmoor 18111563.5 % TARGET 60.5%

20. AMAO 2 (School Level Data) Less than 5 Years5 Years or More Number in Cohort Number Attaining Eng Prof. Level Percent Attaining Eng Prof. Level Number in Cohort Number Attaining Eng Prof. Level Percent Attaining Eng Prof. Level Jefferson 1052120%874450.6% Oceana 7311754.8% Terra Nova 523 Thornton 328 Westmoor 1353223.7%924242.4% TARGET 24.2%50.9%

21. AMAO 3 (School Level - AYP) SchoolELA Participation Rate (EL) Math Participation Rate (EL) Graduation Rate (EL) Jefferson95% (YES)94% (YES)*90% (YES) Oceana100% (YES) N/A** Terra Nova100% (YES) N/A** Thornton71% (NO)77% (NO)N/A** Westmoor82% (YES)***69% (NO)83.78% (YES) TARGET RATE95% JHS (76.66%) WHS (81.10%) *Y2 = Passed by using 2-year average: Schools, LEAs, or student groups that did not meet the AYP 95 percent participation rate criteria using a one-year formula met the participation rate using a two-year formula. **U50 = Graduation cohort less than 50: Schools, LEAs, or student groups that have fewer than 50 students in the graduation rate denominator (graduates plus non-graduates) in the current year's graduation data do not have a graduation rate reported. Y3 = Passed by using 3-year average: Schools, LEAs, or student groups that did not meet the AYP 95 percent participation rate criteria using a one- or two- year formula met the participation rate using a three-year formula.

22. Achievement in Motion https://medium.com/@SMCOETweet/217b06589ffa

23. AIM – Highlights How Did They Do It?. Academic Vocabulary Curriculum Alignment Technology Integration Ongoing Assessment “We start looking at pieces, current event pieces, and we can look at them in ELD 2, in ELD 3, in ELD 4. Not the same ones, but the same skills that we’re practicing and guide them at their levels.” — Lisa Etchepare, English and ELD 3 Teacher, JHS

24. AIM – Highlights How Did They Do It? Teachers began to spend time together, look at materials together, and attend conferences together, which helped them get more out of their professional development and build a rich professional learning community. Professional Development Opportunities & Collaboration

25. AIM – Highlights How Did They Do It? “One of the key, key things to having a successful program is having teachers [who] want to teach English Learners.” – Helena Fokin

26. 2014-2015 Title III LEP Allocation and Expenditure Allocation$47,759 Carryover$4,201 Indirect $(936.00) Budget $51,024 ObjectCost ELD Summer School Teachers (4)$24,000 JHS Language Lab Teacher$14,580 WHS Language Lab Teacher$12,130 Technology Equipment$1,901 Edmentum$850 Materials $678 TOTAL$50,710

27. 2015-16 Title III Allocation ALLOCATION$50,237 Object Estimated Cost JHS Language Lab (1 section) $ 16,000 WHS Language Lab (2 sections) $ 32,000 Edmentum (All levels) $ 4,600 TOTAL$52,600

28. Next Steps Revise and propose 2015-16 interim reclassification criteria Review ELD curriculum materials (core and supplementary) Develop scope and sequence-curriculum aligned with ELA Provide support to parent liaisons Participate in the Community Schools Initiative Offer ELD coaching sections Implement EL Achieve Provide after school support for Long-term EL’s at JHS and WHS Provide family night and outreach to EL parents Address attendance rates/truancy/chronic absenteeism/drop out rates for EL students Stay tuned to the requirements of Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)