LEP District Improvement Plan Workshop

1
LEP District Improvement PlanWorkshop

• Dr. Fernanda M. Brendefur
• Idaho State Department of Education
• Wendy St. Michell
• Idaho Office of the State Board of Education
• Dr. Roger Stewart
• Boise State University
• September 10 18, 2008

2
The What of LEP Improvement Plans

• LEP Improvement Plans are a federal mandate.
• Under NCLB, Title III Language Instruction for
  Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students
  3122(b)(2).
• The newly written LEP Improvement Plans will
  become the new District LEP Program Plans.
• Will need to be revised and updated annually
• Will be uploaded into the CIP tool (Word doc.).
• No extra funding is connected to these
  improvement plans.

3
The What of LEP Improvement Plans

• Current plans and CIP tool district and school
  improvement plans do not meet the requirements of
  Title III.
• Tool does not allow districts to address in depth
  and with specificity elements for LEP students
  required by Title III.
• Readers with expertise in language acquisition,
  English as a Second Language and Bilingual
  Education will be hired to review and provide
  feedback on plans.

4
Characteristics of Effective District LEP
Programs

• Strong and actively involved leadership.
• Supportive district-wide climate.
• Strong effort is made to hire highly qualified
  teachers endorsed in ESL and/or bilingual
  education.
• Customized learning environments at each school
  site.
• Collaboration and common goals between schools.
• Systematic student assessment across the
  district.
• Specific and appropriate professional development
  for all teachers who work with LEP/ELL students.
• Parental Involvement goes beyond the informative
  level.

5
Characteristics of Effective SchoolLEP Programs

• Strong and actively involved school leaders.
• Culturally responsive school climate.
• Shared sense of responsibility for LEP student
  success.
• Developmentally appropriate and challenging
  curriculum.
• High expectations for LEP students.

6
Characteristics of Effective SchoolLEP Programs

• Instruction builds on LEP students prior
  knowledge and experiences.
• Active engagement and interest in native language
  and culture.
• Instructional strategies that enhance
  understanding.
• Integration of content teaching with English
  language teaching.
• Valid and appropriate assessments that take into
  account the language acquisition stages and
  cultural backgrounds of LEP students.

7
Surveys of Enacted Curriculum

• Professional development opportunity.
• Math, science and ESL/bilingual teachers take a
  two-hour survey on their teaching philosophies,
  instructional practices, and content area
  knowledge.
• Data from surveys is compiled by Council of Chief
  State School Officers (CCSSO) and presented to
  each district during data days.
• Professional development by national experts is
  given to districts following the data analysis.
• On-going support provided to all districts
  participating.
• Contact Fernanda if you are interested in
  participating. Idaho is limited to 5 districts.

8
Title III/LEP Annual Measurable Achievement
Objectives (AMAOs)

• All LEAs, Title III and non Title III LEAs alike,
  serving Limited English Proficient (LEP) students
  are held accountable to demonstrating annual
  progress and proficiency in English language
  acquisition
• (NCLB, Title III, section 3122(b)).
• AMAO 1 Progress in English
• AMAO 2 Proficiency in English
• AMAO 3 - AYP
• Accountability and sanctions are applicable to
  all districts with LEP students, whether Title
  III funding is received or not.

9
Title III/LEP AMAOs

• English Language Progress/Growth (Progress)
  On an annual basis, 55 (fifty-five percent) of
  LEP students will achieve progress, as measured
  on the IELA, within each LEA.
• Progress is defined as advancing one level of
  language proficiency per year, as indicated by
  the Idaho English Language Assessment (IELA).

10
Title III/LEP AMAOs

• 2. English Language Proficiency (Proficiency)
  On an annual basis, 20 of LEP students within an
  LEA will achieve proficiency on the IELA (as
  defined below) in order to begin transition out
  of a language development program.
• A student is defined as proficient in English
  on the IELA, if both the following are met
• 1. the student tests at the overall Fluent level
  on the IELA and
• 2. the student tests at an early fluent and above
  (EF) level within each domain (listening,
  speaking, reading, writing) assessed on the IELA.

11
Title III/LEP AMAOs

• 3. AYP pulled directly from the LEP subgroup
  calculations for AYP. AYP is not calculated if
  district has less than 34 students.

12
Title III/LEP AMAOs

• District improvement planning determinations were
  made based on the 2007 and 2008 AMAOs
• The Accountability measures, as set forth in
  section 3122(b), state that
• If a district LEP program fails to make progress
  toward meeting these objectives for two (2)
  consecutive years, the State Department of
  Education will work with the district to develop
  an improvement plan that specifically addresses
  the factors that prevented the district from
  achieving the objectives.

13
Title III/LEP AMAOs

• If a district LEP program fails to meet these
• objectives for four (4) consecutive years, the
  State
• Department of Education will determine if the
• district must
• 1. Modify the curriculum and LEP program
• 2. Determine if funding should continue and/or
• 3. Require the district to replace educational
  personnel.

14
Title III/LEP AMAOs

• Parental Notification
• Each district that has failed to make progress on
  the annual measurable achievement objectives for
  any fiscal year, shall separately inform a parent
  or the parents of a child identified for
  participation or participating in such program of
  such failure within 30 days of notice of failure
  to reach AMAOs. All notifications sent home to
  parents, must be translated into the home
  language, to the extent practicable. In
  addition, a parent has the right to remove their
  child from an LEP program at any time, see
  3302(a)(A), 3302(b).
• Need copy of letter sent annually to IELA
  Program

15
Title III/LEP AMAOs

• Idaho will seek to revise the progress and
  proficiency targets for the AMAOs in fall 2008
• 3 years of data
• New federal guidance to be released by November
• Required to set annual increases for the targets
• Will bring together a group of Idaho educators to
  inform process
• New targets will inform the 2009 AMAOs

16
Title III/LEP AMAOs

• Any type of improvement plan or restructuring
  should be seen as an opportunity for an LEA to
  thoroughly evaluate their programs and assess
  what steps need to be taken, or changes that need
  to be made, so that the LEA is able to better
  serve the LEP population!

17
Title III/LEP AMAOs

• Questions?

18
Title III/LEP District Improvement Plan
Plan Contents 5 components 1. Cover pageLEA
name, address, superintendents signature and
board of trustees chair signature.
19

• Overview of Plan Components Continued.
• NOTE When taken together, plan components 2, 3,
  4, 5 can
• not exceed 20 pages, single spaced with 12 pt.
  font.
• 2. Introduction
• description of community or area served
• description of specific school(s) included in
  plan
• the number and characteristics of the schools
  students and faculty
• grade levels included
• other information describing context in which
  LEP students are served
• why the district is in needs improvement
• overview of underlying data driving the needs
  improvement status

20

• Overview of Plan Components Continued
• 3. Three Essential Topics--Address these
  overarching issues throughout the plan
• identification and assessment of LEP students
• staffing and professional development
• educational approaches including integration of
  English Language Development (ELD) Standards
• parent involvement
• equal access to other district programs
• ongoing monitoring of student progress
  including exited LEP students for 2 years
• monitoring and evaluation of LEP programs

21
Overview of Plan Components Continued. 3.
Contents of Three Essential Topics Topic 1
Addressing the Linguistic Needs of LEP Learners
(BICS and CALP) a. Describe current programming
that addresses linguistic needs of LEP
learners. b. Provide evidence of current
programming strengths and weaknesses in this
specific area. c. Proposed activities to
better address linguistic needs of LEP
learners.
22
Overview of Plan Components Continued. 3.
Contents of Three Essential Topics Topic 2
Addressing the Academic Needs of LEP Learners
(academic success) a. Describe current
programming that addresses academic needs of
LEP learners. b. Provide evidence of current
programming strengths and weaknesses in this
specific area. c. Proposed activities to
better address academic needs of LEP learners.
23
Overview of Plan Components Continued. 3.
Contents of Three Essential Topics Topic 3
Addressing the Cultural Needs of LEP Learners
(recognizing and sustaining linguistic
and cultural origins) a. Describe current
programming that addresses cultural needs of
LEP learners. b. Provide evidence of current
programming strengths and weaknesses in this
specific area. c. Proposed activities to
better address cultural needs of LEP learners.
24
Overview of Plan Components Continued. 4.
Budget Narrative (Coordination of
Resources) (no budget template is required
will compare to CIP budget) Thorough budget
narrative 5. Appendices - not required -
Letters of support from external agencies -
Letters of support from school staff - Other
important information that did not fit under
Three Essential Topics
25

• The plan document also includes
• Suggestions for Plan Writers
• A Rubric for Evaluating Title III/LEP District
  Improvement Plans

26

• Questions?