1 LEP SSI Updates June 5, 2006 Georgina K. González Director Bilingual / ESL Education Susie Coultress Assistant Director Bilingual / ESL Education Adela

1

LEP SSI Updates

June 5, 2006

Georgina K. González Director

Bilingual / ESL Education

Susie CoultressAssistant Director

Bilingual / ESL Education

Adela EsquivelAssistant to the Directors

Texas Education AgencyDivision of Curriculum

2

Limited English Proficient

• Texas Education Code (TEC)§29.052 defines…

“Student of limited English proficiency (LEP) – a student whose primary language is other than English and whose English language skills are such that the student has difficulty performing ordinary class work in English.”

• The term English Language Learner (ELL) is used interchangeably with LEP.

3

There are a total of 711,737 Identified English Language Learners (ELLs) in Texas.

PEIMS, Fall 2005

Did you know...?

4

2000-2001 2004-2005

1,650,560 (41%) Hispanics 1,969,097 (45%)1,713,436 (42%) White 1,660,392 (38%) 586,712 (14%) African Am. 623,535 (14%) 12,120 (0.3%) Native Am. 14,350 (0.3%)

PEIMS

Texas Student Profile Grades Pre K - 12

5

Texas ELL Special Language Program Participation

• ELLs 711,737

• Bilingual 376,170

• ESL 280,660

• ELL Parental Denials 46,528

• Not Served 8,379

PEIMS Fall 2005

6

Spanish 655,074

Vietnamese 12,300

Urdu 3,476

Arabic 3,093

Korean 2,824

Mandarin Chinese 1,910

PEIMS, Fall 2005

129 languages are represented in Texas schools

Major Language Groups in Texas Schools

7

Number Of Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students

2000-01 570,603

2001-02 601,791

2002-03 630,345

2003-04 660,707

2004-05 684,583

2005-06 711,737

PEIMS

Number of LEP StudentsSchool Year

8

Number of Bilingual Students Per Grade 2000-2006

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

2000-01 47,717 49,369 52,885 48,465 42,297 28,790 20,816 4,282

2001-02 41,752 52,946 55,419 51,201 44,912 30,862 22,045 4,343

2002-03 45,161 56,338 57,684 52,654 47,409 33,142 23,484 4,520

2003-04 50,298 58,927 60,648 55,051 47,705 33,547 25,878 4,829

2004-05 55,119 62,556 62,771 57,883 50,552 34,819 26,605 5,185

2005-06 57,881 66,836 66,267 59,787 54,419 36,827 29,168 4,490

PK Bilingual

K Bilingual

1 Bilingual

2 Bilingual

3 Bilingual

4 Bilingual

5 Bilingual

6 Bilingual

9

Texas Regions with Highest ELL Populations

• Region IV (Houston) 181,503

• Region I (Edinburg) 144,371

• Region X (Dallas) 119,190

• Region XI (Ft. Worth) 60,104

• Region XIV (El Paso) 50,882

PEIMS 2005-06

10

Identification of LEP Students

To identify our LEP students the Texas Administrative Code (TAC §89.1215) requires districts to include two specific questions in the home language survey presented to the parents of new incoming students to the districts:

(1) "What language is spoken in your home most of the time?“

(2) "What language does your child (do you) speak most of the time?

If a language other than English is written as a response then appropriate assessments are required.

11

List of Approved Tests for Identification of LEP Students

May 1, 2006 the Committee convened to review publishers and approve a new list of tests for identification, placement and exit of Bilingual/ESL students. The updated list has been provided through the listserve.

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/taa/stanprog052806.html

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/taa/stanprog052806.html

12

Legal Requirements

When is a Bilingual Program required?

• Each school district which has an enrollment of 20 or more limited English proficient students (LEP) of the same language classification in the same grade level district-wide shall offer a bilingual education program for LEP students in Pre-K to grade 5

• Grade 6 shall be included when clustered with the elementary grades TAC[§89.1205 (a)]

13

Legal Requirements

When is an English as a Second Language (ESL) program required?

All LEP students for whom a district is not required to offer a Bilingual education program shall be provided an ESL program, regardless of the students’ grade levels and home Language, and regardless of the number of students.

Texas Administrative Code (TAC) [§89.1205 (d)]

14

Language Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC)

The Language Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC) is responsible for:

• Identifying• Processing

• Annually reviewing• Exiting

• Monitoring

All ELL students on each campus

15

Updates to the LPAC Process Manual

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/curriculum/biling/teares-lpac-processmanual.html



16

Bilingual Education and English as a Second Language (ESL)

Program ModelsGeorgina González

Director of Bilingual EducationDivision of Curriculum

Texas Education AgencyMarch 6, 2006

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/curriculum/biling/ProgramModels-revised110304.ppt



17

News from the field of English

Language Learners Research

A large scale study has been completed by Dr. Claude Goldenberg and Dr. Michael Kamil of California State University

Their Preliminary report reflects the following:

• Primary language instruction is very important for the academic success of second language learners

• Vocabulary development is a critical factor in second language literacy

• Parents with low literacy will increase their personal libraries when informed of the importance of reading and book availability for their children

(American Association of Publishers October 2004-Washington D.C.)

18

Best Practice for English Language Learners

• Integrated Language and Content Instruction• Lessons and units that foster concept

development, practice, and application• Building background knowledge by providing

concrete experiences• Instruction that incorporates students’ cultures

and language

(Dr. Emma Violand-Sánchez, Supervisor English for Speakers of Other Languages & High Intensity Language Training Arlington Public Schools,

Oct. 2004)

19

Recent Literacy development findings in Spanish-speaking ELLs

• Spanish phonemic awareness, letter identification, and word reading measured in grade 2 were reliable predictors of English performance on parallel tasks at the end of grades 3 and 4

(The International Dyslexia Association quarterly newspaper August, Carlo, Calderon, and Proctor, Spring 2005)

20


• Vocabulary-building activities that require students to interact meaningfully with words through writing, making personal and semantic connections, and that specifically teach word learning strategies appear to be the most promising pedagogies to increase reading comprehension.


21


• L1 word reading skills transfer to L2, but children must have first language literacy in the skill for the transfer to take place; oral proficiency in the first language is not sufficient.

• Vocabulary is an extremely important predictor of reading comprehension


22


• Children instructed bilingually were able to achieve high levels of English and Spanish literacy. Adjusting for SES, they were at the 7.2 grade level in Spanish Broad Reading and the 5.8 grade level in English Broad Reading at the end of Grade 5.


23

David J. Francis National Reading Panel Research on Effective Instruction:

Overall Findings

• Few studies examine the benefits of teaching phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, oral reading fluency, reading comprehension, writing, or spelling

• Few use experimental or quasi-experimental research designs to come to firm conclusions about effective practices for building literacy in language minority students.

• This is very different than the research situation with L1 students.– NRP identified 450 experimental/quasi-experimental

studies of instruction with English-only students– NLP identified 17 such studies

(Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics-Presentation on March 7, 2006 )

24


Overall Findings

• In the aggregate, however, it appears that what works with native-speaker populations generally works with English-language learners.

• In fact, instruction that emphasizes literacy components confers a learning advantage to English language learners.

• The effect sizes for such teaching tend to be in the moderate range, meaning that its benefits are large enough to be important.


25


Overall Findings

• Effect sizes for language minority students are lower and more variable than those for native-English speaking students, suggesting that such teaching is likely to be necessary but insufficient.

• It is possible that combining high-quality instruction in the literacy components with adjustments that take into account student’s first and second language proficiency would lead to higher effect sizes.

• Research is needed to test this hypothesis.


26


Issues for ELLs

• Specific sounds and sound placement in words differ for different languages.

• Phonological tasks with unknown words are more difficult.

• For ELLs, unfamiliar phonemes and graphemes make decoding and spelling difficult.

• For literate ELLs, English graphemes have different sounds in L1.

• Limited English proficiency prevents children from using word meaning to figure out how to read a word.


27


NLP Phonemic Awareness and Phonics: Research

• Findings are consistent with the very solid L1 research findings-both phonemic awareness and phonics instruction confer clear benefits on children’s reading development.

• There is no evidence that phonemic awareness and phonics instruction in English needs to be delayed until a certain threshold of English oral language proficiency is attained.

• * Important to keep in mind issues raised in previous slide.

• Helping students hear English sounds that don’t exist or are not salient in their home language is beneficial.


28


Fluency: Issues for ELLS

• Fluency embraces both word recognition and comprehension.

• ELLs often have less opportunity to read aloud in English with feedback.

• There are too few studies of teaching oral reading fluency with ELLs to draw firm conclusions.

• Fluency is an important factor in comprehension and comprehension training influences fluency.


29


Fluency: Research

• Fluency training similarly benefits ELLs and English-speaking students.

• Existing studies have used good English models and paired ELLs with proficient English readers.

• Existing studies ensure students understand the text before they read it.

• With good instruction, ELLs can meet the same benchmarks.


30


Vocabulary: Issues/Strengths for ELLS

• ELLS arrive at school with a much more limited English vocabulary than English-speaking students.

• There are many basic words that English-Speaking students know that ELLs do not.

• ELLs may lack labels in English for concepts they know and have labels for in their first language.

• ELLs and English speakers may have different concepts for the same label.


31


Vocabulary: Issues/Strengths for ELLS

• There is some English vocabulary that may be especially important in comprehending connected text-cohesion markers for example—that necessitates explicit instruction.

• Words with multiple meanings can be of a source of confusion.

• ELLs literate in a first language that has many cognates with English have an important resource.


32

David J. Francis National Reading Panel Research on Effective Instruction: Vocabulary Research: Summary

• Very few empirical studies• Incidental earning improved vocabulary when the

oral discourse is aligned with the visual images. Students need to have some English proficiency to benefit from its intervention.

• Intentional learning improves vocabulary– Recurrent exposure to novel words,– Use in meaningful contexts,– Active processing of word meanings– Explicit word analysis

• (Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics-Presentation on March 7, 2006 )

33

David J. Francis National Reading Panel Research on Effective Instruction: Comprehension: Issues for ELLs

• Limited word recognition skills and fluency impede comprehension.

• Limited vocabulary impedes comprehension.• Structural differences between languages can mislead

ELLs.• Culturally unfamiliar text is more difficult to

comprehend.


34

David J. Francis National Reading Panel Research on Effective Instruction: Comprehension Research: Summary

• Few empirical studies focused exclusively on comprehension and ELLs.

• Too few studies to determine best ways to facilitate comprehension in ELLs

• Unlike first language research, strategy instruction did not always help reading comprehension.


35


Examples of modifications to interventions based on research

• Identify and clarify difficult words and passages– Pre-teach vocabulary– Paraphrase text to make it more comprehensible– Use children’s first language

• Constantly monitor student’s comprehension– Ask lots of questions– Ask different levels of questions

• Provide opportunities for students to practice L2– Story retells– Written responses


36


Program of Research

• Oracy/Literacy Development of Spanish-Speaking Children (HD39521;$17M)

• Biological and Behavioral Variation in the Language Development of Spanish-speaking Children (R305U010001;$4M

• Jointly funded by– The National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development.– US DOE Institute of Education Sciences.


37


Project investigators

• University of Houston– D.Francis, C.Carlson, E. Hogan, P. Crino, H. Rivera

• Cal-State – Long Beach– C. Goldenberg, L. Reese, B. Sanders

• Southern Methodist– P. Mahree

– Temple University• A. Iglesias• University of Texas-Austin.


38


Overview of Projects

I. MeasurementII. DevelopmentIII. InstructionIV. ContextV. Early Intervention/PreventionVI. Classroom LanguageVII. Functional Neuroimaging


39


Central Theme: The Role of Language in Literacy Development

• Identify factors and conditions under which Spanish-speaking children develop proficient literacy skills in English and in Spanish

• Factors operating at different levels (child, classroom, family, school, community) account for variability in development of these skills

• Explication of this variability requires systematic measurement and analysis of these factors within and between these different levels


40


Sampling Frame: Language of Instruction

• Structured Immersion Predominantly English instruction from beginning of school

• Transitional: Early Exit Initially instruction in Spanish, with predominantly English instruction beginning after GI, but before G4

• Transitional: Late Exit Initially instruction in Spanish, with predominantly English instruction beginning after G3

• Dual Language Balance of English and Spanish language instruction is maintained at through elementary grades


41


School Selection Criteria

• 40%+ Hispanic/Latino• 30%+ ELL in Kindergarten• TEA/API Rating (Acceptable+/610+_• Language Programs:

– Transition– Structured English Immersion– 2-way (dual language)(maintenance) (dbe)

• 3 Regions (Urban TX; Border TX; Urban CA)


42


Phonemic Awareness and Phonics: Research and Instruction

• A broad research base on native speakers of alphabetic languages shows that phonological awareness is important to acquisition of literacy in all alphabetic languages (Ziegler & Goswami, 2005).

• As mentioned, findings from the limited research on instruction with language minorities are consistent with the very solid L1 research findings.

• Phonemic awareness and phonics instruction confer clear benefits on children’s reading development


43

David J. Francis National Reading Panel Research on Effective Instruction: Basis

for Research

• Research Questions:

– To what extent is phonological awareness a single construct across languages?

– To what extent is phonological awareness distinct from letter-word identification?

• Motivating Perspective:

– Relations among outcomes may reveal important insights, esp. across languages (multivariate)

– Education is a social phenomenon in which the context may have important implications, i.e., classrooms may differ in important ways (multilevel)


44


Test of Phonological Processes in Spanish: TOPP-S

• Sound Matching (Initial Sounds/Final Sounds)• Blending Phonemes into Words• Blending Phonemes into Non-words• Phonemes Elision• Segmenting Phonemes into Words• Segmenting Phonemes into Non-words


45

Performance-Based Monitoring and Interventions

June 1, 2006

46

2006 PBMAS Update

• 2006 PBMAS– BE/ESL Indicators were previewed during March TETN

– CTE Indicators also previewed during March TETN

– NCLB Indicators were previewed during April TETN

– SPED Indicators were previewed during May TETN

– Other System Components will be previewed today

– 2006 PBMAS Manual will be available during the summer

47

2006 PBMAS Preview

Program Area

PBMAS Componen

t

2005 PBMAS

2006 PBMAS

Other System Components

Minimum size requirement (MSR)

Denominator equal to or greater than 30

Numerator of at least 5 for all dropout indicators.

MSR can be met in current year or by aggregating numerators and denominators for most recent two years.

No change

48

2006 PBMAS Preview

Program Area

PBMAS Component

2005 PBMAS

2006 PBMAS


Availability of 3 years of data for some indicators

N/A—no indicators had more than 2 years of data (2004 and 2005)

Three years of data will be considered when available in the following situations:1) When MSR is met over two years;

2) In automated special analysis; and

3) In professional judgment special analysis.

49

2006 PBMAS Preview

Program Area

Component Name

2005 PBMAS

2006 PBMAS


Special Analysis Automated and professional judgment special analysis available on certain indicators for group sizes of 15-29 and 5-14 over two years.

Only change will be to consider three years of data when available. (See attached charts on Special Analysis Process Determination.)

50

2006 PBMAS Preview

Program Area

Component Name

2005 PBMAS

2006 PBMAS


TAKS Standards for TAKS passing rate indicators

M=35%

R/ELA=50%

Sc=25%

SS=50%

W=50%

M=40%

R/ELA=60%

Sc=35%

SS=60%

W=60%


Standards for AYP Economically Disadvantaged Indicator (NCLB)

M=42%

R/ELA=53%

No change


AMAO Standard for LEP Progress K-2

N/A—AMAO not in place

15%

51

2006 PBMAS Preview

Program Area

Component Name

2005 PBMAS

2006 PBMAS


AMAO Standard for LEP Progress Grades 3-12

40% 42%


AMAO Standard for LEP Attainment K-2

1.5% 2.0%


AMAO Standard for LEP Attainment Grades 3-12

Method 1=25%

Method 2=40%

Method 1=25.5%

Method 2=42%

52

2006 PBMAS Preview

Program Area

Component Name

2005 PBMAS

2006 PBMAS


Standard for SPED LEP Representation

N/A—was Report Only in 2004 and 2005

Same standards as other representation indicators (e.g., African American and Hispanic)


Standard for NCLB Highly Qualified Indicator

N/A—was Report Only in 2004 and 2005

Still TBD but anticipate standards will be set and PL assigned.

53

2006 PBMAS Preview

Program Area

Component Name

2005 PBMAS

2006 PBMAS


Standards for participation rate indicators:•LEP TAKS/SDAA II Participation•SPED TAKS Only Participation Rate•SPED SDAA II Only Participation Rate•SPED Statewide Assessment Exemption Rate

Standards for participation rate indicators:•LEP TAKS/SDAA II Participation=RO•SPED TAKS Only Participation Rate=RO•SPED SDAA II Only Participation Rate=RO•SPED Statewide Assessment Exemption Rate=3.0% and 8.0% depending on ADA

Standards for participation rate indicators:•LEP TAKS/SDAA II Participation=2004 Standard reinstated.•SPED TAKS Only Participation Rate=TBD•SPED SDAA II Only Participation Rate=TBD•SPED Statewide Assessment Exemption Rate=No Change

54

2006 PBMAS Preview

Program Area

Component Name

2005 PBMAS

2006 PBMAS


TAKS Grade 8 Science

N/A Students taking TAKS Grade 8 Science will be included in three of the participation rate indicators:•LEP TAKS/TAKS-I/SDAA II Participation Rate•SPED TAKS Only Participation Rate•SPED TAKS/TAKS-I Only Participation Rate

55

2006 PBMAS Preview

Program Area

Component Name

2005 PBMAS

2006 PBMAS


TAKS-I N/A Students taking TAKS-I will be included in two of the participation rate indicators:•LEP TAKS/TAKS-I/SDAA II Participation Rate•SPED TAKS/TAKS-I Only Participation Rate

56

2006 PBMAS Preview

Program Area

Component Name

2005 PBMAS

2006 PBMAS


Required Improvement (RI)

Implemented as a pilot component

Continue RI and add additional indicators for which it’s available.For TAKS RI indicators, keep the RI calculation the same to take account of the 10 percentage point increase in accountability standards

57

2006 PBMAS Preview

Program Area

Component Name

2005 PBMAS

2006 PBMAS


Hurricanes Katrina and Rita

N/A Based on the KRI coding from the student assessment answer documents, KRI students will be excluded from PBMAS TAKS performance and participation indicators.

58

2006 PBMAS Preview

Program Area

Component Name

2005 PBMAS

2006 PBMAS


Use of the Not Evaluated (NE) performance level

Used as one of the PBMAS performance levels

The label Not Assigned more accurately captures the result and will be used instead.

59

Interventions Update: General Information

• A number of letters of acknowledgement / reports related to on-site validation activities have been disseminated, with more to follow.

• TEA reviews of 2005-2006 submissions are ongoing.

• Dissemination of special education correspondence related to 2005-2006 has begun and will continue during the summer.

• 2005-2006 CTE/CR on-site reviews are in their final phases and should be completed in June.

• 2005-2006 correspondence for program areas other than special education will begin to be disseminated during summer 2006.

60

Interventions Update: General Information (continued)

• 2005-2006 correspondence includes a link to PBM & Data Integrity Monitoring System Evaluation

2005-2006.• Survey is available on the TEA website at:

http://hancock.tea.state.tx.us/tea.pmi.web/survey_logon.aspx.

• Functionality very similar to the 2004-2005 version.• Survey will make available questions on PBM

and/or DIM as appropriate to the LEA selected.

http://hancock.tea.state.tx.us/tea.pmi.web/survey_logon.aspx

http://hancock.tea.state.tx.us/tea.pmi.web/survey_logon.aspx

61

Other Oversight Activities: RF Monitoring

• Update on TEA Website

• Update on RF Tracker

• Upcoming Activities and Timelines

62

Other Oversight Activities: RF Monitoring (continued)

• Update on TEA Website

– RF Monitoring information available at: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/pmi/rfmon/

– Now includes new section entitled Reference Materials

– A number of reference materials have been posted with others to follow

– Will include monitoring materials when finalized

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/pmi/rfmon/

63


• RF Tracker Update– LEAs continue to enter data– Deadline for data entry is June 16, 2006– LEAs continue to request and receive TEASE access to

RF Tracker– System has been established to provide ongoing status

updates related to regional reporting trends– Updates sent to ESC contact designated at each ESC to

receive RF Tracker reporting updates– Submit any additional ESC contact information for

RF Tracker reporting to [email protected]– Reminder: LEAs can contact ESCs with requests for

financial assistance related to RF Tracker data entry

mailto:[email protected]

64


• Upcoming Activities and Timelines– By June 30, 2006, internal TEA staff training

related to RF monitoring

– By August 31, 2006, ESCs and LEAs to be educated concerning RF monitoring

• Discussion: Additional Strategies for RF Monitoring Training and Education

65

PBMI TETN Dates (Thursdays 9 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.)

Upcoming 2006 Dates

June 29

August 3

September 7

October 5

November 2

December 7

66

Texas English Language Learner Initiatives

And

Training

67

Mathematics EnglishLanguage Learner

(MELL) Initiative

Texas State University System (TSUS)/TEA partnership

The MELL project is focused on creating practical instructional tools for K-12 educators teaching mathematics to English Language Learning (ELL) students.

68

• Effective Mathematics Instructional tools

• Professional development

• Classroom-based research

• Best practices in university-based teacher training programs

• Guidance for policymakers

Additional information regarding MELL at: www.tsusmell.org

MELL Initiative

http://www.tsusmell.org/

69

Texas Mathematics Diagnostic System

• Online math tool in English and

• Spanish targeting students in grades 3-8

• Grades 9-12 will be added in 2006

• Aligned with TAKS/TEKS

• Over 3,000 test items

www.accesstmds.com/tmds

http://www.accesstmds.com/tmds

70

2005 TEA Summer Trainer of Trainers (TOT) for

educators serving ELLs:

All ESCs can provide training now:

• Bilingual Elementary Science (1-5)• Dual Language Program Implementation

71

2006 TEA Summer Trainer of Trainers (TOT) for

educators serving ELLs:

TOT on LEER MAS II and trainings on the ELP aligned charts will be available during the summer and fall of this year (2006)

• LEER MAS II• Spanish Reading Academies 2nd-6th grade• • Training of Trainers• Sept. 6-8, 2006 Houston Hobby Airport Hilton• • Sept. 26-28, 2006 Edinburg Region One ESC• • This training of trainers is sponsored by • Region One ESC-Tesoro Initiative and • the Texas Education Agency• Funded by a LEP SSI Cycle 3 Grant

• Ask your ESC to provide you this training

72

Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) Revisions

• English as a second language (ESL) TEKS review is being done simultaneously with Spanish and English Language Arts TEKS in 2006

73

• (3) English language learners (ELLs) in fourth grade may be at different stages of language acquisition. The following general proficiency levels are not grade specific: beginning, intermediate, advanced, and advanced high. ELLs may exhibit different proficiency levels within the four language domains: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. For example, an ELL may exhibit oral proficiency in English at the advanced level and reading and writing proficiency at the intermediate level. The proficiency levels within the language domains are affected by opportunities in and outside of school.

Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) Revisions

74

Instructional Materials • Proclamation 2004 is moving forward and the 6th grade

Spanish Math was presented to the publishers on October 21, 2005.

• New Spanish 6th grade TEKS are included.

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/textbooks/proclamations/proc2004/proc2004.pdf

• Proclamation 2005 includes K 5th grade Spanish Math it includes the new TEKS you may access it at: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/textbooks/proclamations/proc2005/proc2005.pdf





75

Social Studies and Science / ELP ChartTrainings were be conducted during

May 2006

These charts are currently available on the bilingual website under Documents.

These are aligned with the English Proficiency Standards.

Please provide training to all your teachers so that content area instruction is provided through ESL and the Spanish speaking parents of ELL’s are informed of their children’s content education standards.

Please ask you ESCs to provide you with that training.

76

Math /ELP Charts

These charts will are being created this year and will available on the bilingual website under Documents.

These are aligned with the English Proficiency Standards.

These are for all teachers of English Language Learners so that Math instruction is provided through ESL and the Spanish speaking parents of ELL’s are informed of their children’s content education standards.

77

National Assessment ofEducational Progress

(NAEP)

On the fourth-grade mathematics test, Texas tied with two other states for fourth place nationally with 87% scoring at or above the Basic performance level (i.e., Basic, Proficient, or Advanced)

Grade 4 Mathematics

% At or Above Basic

Massachusetts 91%

New Hampshire

North Dakota89%

Kansas

Minnesota88%

Texas Wyoming

Vermont

87%

78

National Assessment ofEducational Progress

(NAEP)

When comparing Texas students to students across the nation, our white, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian-American student groups each performed significantly better than the national average.

Grade 4

Mathematics

At or Above Basic At or Above Proficient

Nation Texas Nation Texas

White 89 96 47 60

African-American 60 75 13 18

Hispanic 67 82 19 28

Asian-American 89 96 54 72

79

Dallas ISD Valedictorians and Salutatorians 2002-2005 that started as LEP

YEAR EX LEP VALEDICTORIANS

EX LEP SALUTATORIANS

TOTAL # OF EX LEP

2001 3 3 2002 3 2 5 2003 1 3 4 2004 3 4 7 2005 3 4 7

80


STARTED IN BILINGUAL PROGRAMS

EX LEP VALEDICTORIANS STARTED IN ESL

PROGRAMS

EX LEP IMMIGRANTS

TOTAL NUMBER

OF EX LEP

2001 10 3 6 19

2002 6 4 5 15

2003 7 6 9 22

2004 9 4 4 17

2005 8 3 2 13

Houston ISD 2001-2005 Valedictorians that started as

LEP Students

81

Austin ISD Valedictorians and Salutatorians Spring 2002-2005 that

started as LEP Students


EX LEP SALUTATORIANS

TOTAL # OF EX LEP

2001 3 3

2002 3 2 5

2003 1 3 4

2004 3 4 7

2005 3 4 7

82

Texas Education Agency Bilingual/ESL Education

Website

Additional information on Bilingual/ESL education, can be accessed by visiting the Bilingual/ESL Unit website at:

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/curriculum/biling/


83

Additional Websites

http://www.sbec.state.tx.us/SBECOnline/

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/pbm/

http://www.texes.nesinc.com/


http://www.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter089/ch089bb.html

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/curriculum/biling/exceptions.html

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/curriculum/biling/recruitment1.ppt

http://www.sbec.state.tx.us/SBECOnline/

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/pbm/

http://www.texes.nesinc.com/


http://www.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter089/ch089bb.html

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/curriculum/biling/exceptions.html

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/curriculum/biling/recruitment1.ppt

84

TEA-Sponsored Training Modules and Resources available on our website

• Framework for the Language Proficiency Assessment Committee Process Manual

• Sheltered Instruction in the Middle School

• Effective Writing Training

• Building Connections in High School Content Areas Through Sheltered Instruction

• LEER MAS • Enhancing Instruction for Second Language Learners

• Elementary ESL in the Content Areas

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/curriculum/biling/tearesources.html



85

• Go to: www.tea.state.tx.us/list• Enter name• Enter email address• Select “Bilingual/ESL” from drop down• Click on “Join a list” button• Reply to the email confirmation to complete the listserve process

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/list

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/list

86

For technical assistance with bilingual/ESL program questions, please contact the bilingual/ESL

coordinator at your District or Regional Service Center

Thank you! ¡Gracias!