Bilingual – English as a Second Language Program … – English as a Second Language Program Evaluation ... competent in listening, speaking, reading ... Beginning with the 2011‐2012

Bilingual – English as a Second Language

Program Evaluation

2011-12 to 2015-16

Office of Assessment and Evaluation Clear Creek Independent School District

Office of Assessment and Evaluation

Bilingual – English as a Second Language Program Evaluation

Presented to Board of Trustees on March 6, 2017

2016‐2017 Board of Trustees Program Evaluation Team

Laura DuPont, Ph.D., President Page Rander, Vice President Charles Pond, Secretary Ken Baliker, Member Jay Cunnigham, Member Ann Hammond, Member Win Weber, Member Greg Smith, Ph.D., Superintendent

Steven Ebell, Ed.D., Deputy Superintendent, Curriculum & Instruction Tacy King, Director of Instructional Services for ELLs Melissa Sanchez, Bilingual Programming & Spanish Language Arts Coordinator Julie Ulrickson, Title III Coordinator of ESL‐ELL Jonathan Maxwell, Ph.D., Executive Director, Assessment and Evaluation Laura Gaffey, Data Analyst, Assessment and Evaluation Pat McKenna, Data Analyst, Assessment and Evaluation

BIL‐ESL Evaluation 2011‐12 to 2015‐16

Page | 1

Background Information on BIL‐ESL

The purpose of evaluating programs in CCISD shall be multi‐faceted and shall result in findings, recommendations, and/or conclusions that:

Ensure program alignment with the District strategic plan;

Assess strengths and weaknesses of the program;

Measure the success of the program in meeting its expressed goals; and/or

Result in improvements in, revisions to, or discontinuation of the program.

As part of CCISD’s program evaluation process, the Office of Assessment and Evaluation has completed a program evaluation for the BIL‐ESL program encompassing the five‐year period from the 2010‐11 through 2015‐16 school years.

CCISD’s Strategic Plan includes the following seven strategies, and the BIL‐ESL Program aligns with each strategy as detailed below:

I. We will inspire learning through an array of personalized opportunities and experiences. English Language Learners (ELLs) come to CCISD with varying levels of linguistic and academic skill levels. Campuses will assess those levels to determine the appropriate plan to meet the individual needs of each of these students.

Campuses continuously assess and monitor English Language Learners for their language and academic acquisition. As students progress through their language and academic acquisition, they are transitioned from being classified as ELL, to first year monitored, to second year monitored, and finally reclassification of their ELL status.

II. We will provide student support to meet the needs and aspirations of each student. ELL teachers support students’ needs and aspirations through the relationships they build with their students. Campuses track student progress in a variety of ways including LPACS, Laser Focus, individual Education Plans (IEPs for ELL students who are also receiving special education services; and other data sources, such as district and state assessments (TELPAS and STAAR).

III. We will ensure safe and nurturing learning environments. English Language Learners have opportunities for additional small group instruction, which includes purposeful, focused lessons specific to students’ linguistic and academic needs. Teachers incorporate English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS). The ELPS provide instructional components for classroom teachers to use when helping students in their linguistic and academic acquisitions.

As evident in the student, parent, and teacher surveys conducted in fall 2016, schools are friendly environments for students, parents, and families, and students enjoy going to school.

IV. We will ensure each student understands and assumes his or her role as a productive citizen. As new students acquire English as their second language and learn about the diversity of America, they learn to grow as American citizens. Through participation in sheltered instruction and interaction with native English speaking students, ELLs develop the character traits necessary to apply themselves inside and outside of school. Effective communication and interpersonal skills are also developed in a variety of interactional settings and with a focus on language objectives.

V. We will broaden and strengthen connections within our communities. As evident in the student, parent, and teacher surveys conducted in fall 2016, parents and students feel comfortable in participating in school activities.


Page | 2


VI. We will ensure mutual understanding and support through effective communication. As evident in the parent and teacher surveys conducted in fall 2016, both groups have an effective line of communication with respect to their students’ linguistic and educational progress.

VII. We will build capacity for organizational change ELL teachers and staff members participate in a variety of professional learning opportunities at the local and state level. The focus of these professional learning sessions is to incorporate best practices in curriculum and instruction to ensure success for ELLs in linguistic and academic acquisition.

ELL teachers are supported and trained by district level staff throughout the school year on individual, campus, or district level sessions.


Page | 3


Chapter 89 Information

According to Chapter 89. Adaptations for Special Populations, Subchapter BB. Commissioner's Rules Concerning State Plan for Educating English Language Learners:

(b) The goal of bilingual education programs shall be to enable English language learners to become competent in listening, speaking, reading, and writing in the English language through the development of literacy and academic skills in the primary language and English. Such programs shall emphasize the mastery of English language skills, as well as mathematics, science, and social studies, as integral parts of the academic goals for all students to enable English language learners to participate equitably in school.

(c) The goal of ESL programs shall be to enable English language learners to become competent in listening, speaking, reading, and writing in the English language through the integrated use of second language methods. The ESL program shall emphasize the mastery of English language skills, as well as mathematics, science, and social studies, as integral parts of the academic goals for all students to enable English language learners to participate equitably in school.

(d) Bilingual education and ESL programs shall be integral parts of the total school program. Such programs shall use instructional approaches designed to meet the special needs of English language learners. The basic curriculum content of the programs shall be based on the essential knowledge and skills required by the state.


Page | 4


Chapter 29, Subchapter B Information

Chapter 29, Subchapter B. Bilingual Education and Special Language Programs of the Texas Education Code, outlines State policy in which “public schools are responsible for providing a full opportunity for all students to become competent in speaking, reading, writing, and comprehending the English Language.” (Texas Constitution and Statues, Education Code 29)

The code establishes procedures for identifying districts, which are required to offer bilingual education programs along with the reporting of the number of students of limited English proficiency on each campus, and their classification based on their primary language proficiency. The code also defines the exceptions to the bilingual program’s requirements.

The code defines the program content and methods of instruction requirements. The core content areas will be taught in a dual language setting, which provides for learning basic skills in the student’s primary language along with mastery of English language skills.

Enrollment of students in the program is determined through a set of identification, assessment, and classifications of ELLs for entry into the program. Parental permission is required for entry into the program, placement in the program, or exiting from the program. Appendix A outlines the steps to determine if a student meets the criteria to be entered into the bilingual program.

The code establishes the guidelines for monitoring students who have been exited out of the program and re‐evaluating them if they fail a core content course to determine if they should be reenrolled in the program.

The code provides the requirements for offering bilingual education to preschool students, summer school, and extended time programs. It determines the requirements for teachers who have the skills in speaking, reading, and writing in a language other than English and who meet the general requirements for their teaching certification field to be issued in bilingual education instruction.

The code outlines the requirements in which a school district will be evaluated to determine the effectiveness of the bilingual program and special language programs.

Language Proficiency Assessment Committees (LPAC) are required for districts that offer bilingual education and special language programs. These committees play a vital role in assessing ELLs’ placement and progress. These committees review the academic record, the home language survey information, and English and primary language proficiency test results. Based on these reviews, the committee will make academic placement recommendations, which will meet the needs of the student as well as offer appropriate challenges. The committee will review the progress of the ELL student at the end of the year. The committee will monitor the progress of students who have transferred out to the bilingual education or special language program.

Lastly, the code defines the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) reporting requirements, which states districts will provide demographic information of students in the program, the number and percentage of students in the program, and the number of students identified as ELL who do not receive specialized instruction.


Page | 5


Recommendations from previous evaluation:

1. Beginning with the 2011‐2012 school year, all K‐12 content area Teachers leading students classified as English Language Learners will participate in two‐day Sheltered Instruction training.

A list of all teachers who have completed the two day sheltered instruction PL is maintained in the Bilingual‐ESL Office. Campuses who are unsure who has completed this PL refer to this list to ensure the teachers they assign as sheltered instruction teachers have completed the necessary professional learning. If they have not, administrators instruct their teacher(s) to register for upcoming sessions. Sessions are offered throughout the school year and during the summer. During the 2015‐2016 school year, seven sessions were offered and 197 teachers participated in these sessions. In addition, Clear Lake Intermediate and Space Center Intermediate requested, and were provided, this two day PL for their entire campus.

2. Beginning in August 2012, all teachers of English Language Learners will be provided an annual three‐hour update.

Initially, a district PL was created using a video and a trainer of trainer model (TOT) as an update on the entire sheltered instruction model. During the 2012‐2013 school year, a facilitator for each campus attended a TOT session to watch the video and engage in the activities that were embedded in the PL update. Principals chose a date for the facilitator to turn this around and provide the PL on their campus. Teachers watched the video, and the facilitator periodically stopped to engage teachers in strategies, discussions, reflections, etc. During the 2013‐2014 and 2014‐2015 school years, the trainer of trainer model continued, but each semester a module focusing on one component of sheltered instruction was the focus for the PL. An overall plan was developed by the Director of Instructional Services with a menu of activities and strategies for campuses to choose from in their delivery of the PL. Each module consisted of a learning point, a take way (something to implement in the classroom), and a reflection (time to come back together to reflect on the implementation).

3. Beginning in August 2012, all current teachers of Language Arts at the Elementary and Secondary levels will be strongly encouraged to obtain English as a Second Language certification within three years for current CCISD teachers. Newly hired teachers of English Language Arts shall obtain this certification within two years of being hired to teach in CCISD.

Newly hired language arts teacher have an addendum to their contract stating they need to complete their ESL certification by February of the current school year. Principals have strongly encouraged all their language arts teachers to complete their ESL certification. The majority of elementary school language arts teachers are ESL certified. Secondary campuses with large numbers of ELLs have experienced more success at achieving ESL certification with their language arts teachers. The legal requirement is ELLs receive language arts instruction from an ESL certified teacher, and secondary campuses have more flexibility in scheduling when most of their language arts teachers are ESL certified.


Page | 6


Recommendations from previous evaluation continued:

4. Beginning in August 2012 all campus administrators will be trained in Sheltered Instruction and the English Language Proficiency Standards with a focus on instructional monitoring.

During the Administrators’ Retreat in 2012, 2013, and 2014 one of the breakout sessions was facilitated by the Bilingual‐ESL Department. This session allowed for administrators to participate in PL focused on sheltered instruction and ELPS. This is no longer a breakout session at the retreat.

5. Beginning in August 2012 District‐developed e‐learning modules for Beginning of Year, Mid‐year, and End of Year Language Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC) trainings will be implemented.

The LPAC training and documents are currently available in Itslearning in an e‐course. LPAC members are able to access this at any time, including information for the beginning, mid, and end of year LPAC. A district e‐learning platform has not been established to fully support interactive PL modules.

6. Beginning in May 2012 the District will provide a list of approved instructional materials from which campus leaders can choose to make purchases for English Language Learner and content classes for the coming school year.

Lists have been developed to guide campus leaders in choosing materials to include in sheltered instruction classes. This includes content specific lists, such as social studies, science, and math, and programmatically specific, including what materials are needed in a bilingual classroom. These are dynamic lists as different materials become available or as teacher capacity shifts in implementing sheltered instruction methodologies.


Page | 7


The table below displays the demographics for students identified as Bilingual in Clear Creek ISD during the five year period of this study. There is an equal representation of males and females. There is a high percentage of Hispanic and economically disadavanted students. Not every student is ELL as they may be native English speakers.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

F M AS BL HI WH Eco Dis LEP SPED GT

Bilingual Demographics 2011‐12 Through 2015‐16

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016


Page | 8


The table below displays the demographics for students identified as English as a Second Language in Clear Creek ISD during the five year period of this study. There is a high percentage of Asian, Hispanic, and economically disadavanted students. Every ESL student is also at‐risk due to language acquisition.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

F M AS BL HI WH Eco Dis LEP SPED GT

ESL Demographics 2011‐12 Through 2015‐16

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016


Page | 9


The table below displays the demographics for students identified as English Language Learners in Clear Creek ISD as compared to the state during the last twelve years. The district has increased by 3.5% as compared to Region IV’s increase of 4.0% and the state’s 3.2% increase in ELL population.

Data Source: AEIS and TAPR

6.7% 6.6% 6.4% 6.6% 7.3% 7.3% 7.5% 7.8% 8.1% 8.6% 9.2% 9.8% 10.2%

17.9% 18.2% 18.1% 18.4%19.6%

20.2% 20.4% 20.3% 20.1% 20.3% 20.7%21.5% 21.9%

15.3% 15.6% 15.8% 16.0%16.7% 16.9% 16.9% 16.9% 16.8% 17.1% 17.5% 18.2% 18.5%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

ELL Comparison 2004 ‐ 2016

District Region IV State


Page | 10


Students who are speakers of languages other than English and who have limited linguistic proficiency in English are eligible for linguistic programs designed to support language acquisition in English in listening, speaking, reading, and writing in all content areas. The goals of these programs are for students to become proficient in English, achieve academically, and grow affectively through research based instruction and social and cultural support.

Bilingual education for Spanish speakers is available at Brookwood Elementary, Landolt Elementary, League City Elementary, McWhirter Elementary, and Stewart Elementary. Additional bilingual and native language support is available for Vietnamese speakers at Weber Elementary and for Urdu speakers at Whitcomb Elementary. Within the bilingual program, instruction in the students’ native language is used to maintain academic progress and instruction in English is implemented to increase English proficiency in both social and academic language. Students transfer content learned in their native language to English as their English proficiency increases.

English as a Second Language (ESL) is available in elementary, intermediate, and high school. The ESL program includes sheltered instruction in English and the support of an ESL teacher. Sheltered instruction and strategies specifically designed for English language learners support students’ growth in English proficiency while ensuring academic content is meaningful and accessible to English language learners.

Other linguistic opportunities available in CCISD include: Foreign Language Enrichment Program at Brookwood Elementary Dual Language at Stewart Elementary, McWhirter Elementary, Landolt Elementary, and Clear

Creek Intermediate

(Bilingual/English as a Second Language ‐ Clear Creek)

Although ELL students may quickly acquire social language skills, it may take 5‐7 years to acquire the necessary academic language skills to be academically successful. There are challenges for this group of students with respect to reading textbooks, participating in classroom discussions, writing papers, and taking standardized tests. (Cummins, p.19)


Page | 11

Program Evaluation Questions

The following questions were determined by this program evaluation team to evaluate BIL‐ESL:

1. What is Bilingual – English as a Second Language?

2. How have sheltered instructional strategies been incorporated in the curriculum and classroom practice and what are the outcomes?

3. What are the student, parent, and teacher perceptions of the program?

4. What Professional Learning opportunities are there for teachers and what types of support are available?

5. What are the annual expenditures?


Page | 12


As of August 2016, there are 73 different languages spoken by the 41,000+ students in Clear Creek ISD to meet the needs of all students.

English language learner (ELL) ‐‐ "Student of limited English proficiency" means a student whose primary language is other than English and whose English language skills are such that the student has difficulty performing ordinary classwork in English. The terms LEP and English language learners (ELLs) are used interchangeably. (Texas Education Code Sec. 29.052)

Bilingual (BIL) – a program model that uses two languages for instruction.

Bilingual Models in CCISD –

Transitional bilingual/late exit is a bilingual program model that serves a student identified as limited English proficient in both English and Spanish, or another language, and transfers the student to English‐only instruction.

Dual language immersion/one‐way is a biliteracy program model that serves only students identified as limited English proficient. This model provides instruction in both English and Spanish.

Dual language immersion/two‐way (TWI) is a biliteracy program model that integrates students proficient in English and students identified as limited English proficient. This model provides instruction in both English and Spanish.

English as a Second Language (ESL) – instruction in English using second language methodologies for speakers of languages other than English with limited English proficiency.

ESL Models in CCISD –

An English as a second language/content‐based program model is an English program that serves only students identified as English language learners by instruction for all content area by certified ESL and sheltered instruction teachers.

An English as a second language/pull‐out program model is an English program that serves only students identified as English language learners by providing an ESL certified teacher to provide English language arts instruction, while the student remains in a mainstream instructional arrangement in the remaining content areas.

ELL Progress Measure – The Texas English Language Learner (ELL) Progress Measure provides performance expectations on the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR®) content‐area assessments for Texas ELLs. The STAAR expectations take into account the level of English language proficiency ELLs possess, thus providing a more meaningful gauge of annual improvement or progress for these students than the general STAAR progress measure.


Page | 13


Language Proficiency Assessment Committees (LPAC) – as previously introduced on page 3, the committee reviews the academic and language progress of each ELL to determine the academic placement which best meets the student’s needs.

Linguistic Progress – Progress demonstrated in the four domains of language (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) over time. Students may be at the beginning, intermediate, advanced, or advanced high in each domain.

Monitored Student – A student who has been reclassified as a fluent English speaker and is academically monitored for two years by the LPAC. If a monitored student struggles because of language, linguistic programming may be reoffered.

Proficiency Level Descriptors for ELL Progress There are four levels for each of the following areas: listening (grades K‐12), speaking (grades K‐12); reading (grades K‐1 and grades 2‐12), and writing (grades K‐1 and grades 2‐12). The levels are beginning, intermediate, advanced, and advanced high. (ELL Progress Measure)

Sheltered Instruction – A model of instruction designed to make grade‐level academic content understandable for English learners while at the same time developing their academic English language proficiency. (Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners)


Page | 14


English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS)

Overview

“Approved by the State Board of Education in 2007–2008, the ELPS are second language acquisition curriculum standards that support the ability of ELLs to learn the academic English they need for meaningful engagement in subject‐area instruction.” The ELPS are set forth in Title 19, Chapter 74.4 of the Texas Administrative Code (TAC).

Chapter 74.4 (a)(1) requires the ELPS to be published along with the TEKS for each subject. Every teacher who has an ELL in class is responsible for fulfilling the requirements of the subject‐area TEKS and the ELPS. There are three instructional components of the ELPS:

1. Cross‐curricular second language acquisition essential knowledge and skills These standards, which apply across the curriculum, represent what ELLs need to learn to become proficient in English in the context of academic instruction. The knowledge and skills are stated as student expectations and are divided into five sections—learning strategies, listening, speaking, reading, and writing.

2. Proficiency level descriptors (PLDs) These descriptors define four stages of second language acquisition called English language proficiency levels. The four proficiency levels are beginning, intermediate, advanced, and advanced high. The PLDs describe how well ELLs at each proficiency level are able to understand and use English to engage in grade‐appropriate academic instruction. There are separate PLDs for listening, speaking, reading, and writing.

3. Linguistic accommodations Linguistic accommodations are English‐language supports that help make content area instruction accessible to ELLs. The proficiency level descriptors, which describe the English that ELLs are able to understand and use at each proficiency level, guide teachers in providing appropriate linguistic supports and accommodations.

These three instructional components work together to accelerate the rate at which ELLs learn English and subject matter.” (TELPAS ‐ Texas Education Agency, p.1‐2)

ELLs must acquire social as well as academic language proficiency in English. Social language proficiency is what is needed to have daily social interactions. Academic language proficiency is needed “to think critically, understand and learn new concepts, process complex academic material, and interact and communicate in English academic settings.” (Seidlitz, J. p.10).

The following is a list of some instructional strategies which could be used to assist students in their academic language proficiency: (Seidlitz, J.).

use prior knowledge and experiences to understand meanings in English;

monitor oral and written language production and employ self‐corrective techniques or other resources;

use strategic learning techniques such as concept mapping, drawing, memorizing, comparing, contrasting, and reviewing to acquire basic and grade‐level vocabulary;


Page | 15

2. How have sheltered instruction strategies been incorporated in the curriculum and classroom

practice and what are the outcomes?

English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS) (continued)

Speak using learning strategies such as requesting assistance, employing non‐verbal cures, and using synonyms and circumlocution (conveying ideas by defining or describing when exact English words are not known);

Internalize new basic and academic language by using and reusing it in meaningful ways in speaking and writing activities that build concept and language attainment;

Use accessible language and learn new and essential language in the process;

Demonstrate an increasing ability to distinguish between formal and informal English and an increasing knowledge of when to use each one commensurate with grade‐level learning expectations, and

Develop and expand repertoire of learning strategies such as reasoning inductively or deductively, looking for patterns in language, and analyzing sayings and expressions commensurate with grade‐level learning expectations.

Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS)

“TELPAS assesses English language proficiency in direct alignment with the ELPS. It measures the ELPS student expectations in accordance with the four levels of English language proficiency defined in the PLDs. TELPAS is designed to directly support the state’s educational goals for meeting the language and content needs of ELLs.” (TELPAS ‐ Texas Education Agency, p.2)

The graphic below helps show the relationship between language proficiency as a whole, academic

achievement as a whole, and the overlapping section—academic language proficiency.

Academic Language Proficiency

Language Proficiency Academic Achievement

Social Language Proficiency Academic Language Proficiency Academic Achievement

• Language of social interaction • Language acquisition often outside of school

• Tied to everyday life • Grounded in language proficiency standards

• Language of content‐based instruction

• Language acquisition mainly within school

• Tied to school life • Grounded in language proficiency standards

• Concepts of content‐based instruction

• Conceptual development • Tied to curriculum in specific content areas

• Grounded in academic content standards

The TELPAS Reading scores are banded together as 2, 3, 4‐5, 6‐7, 8‐9, 10‐12. The Proficiency Ratings are Beginning, Intermediate, Advanced, and Advanced High. The scale score range changed in 2014. For example, in the 6‐7 band, the scale score range was 320 to 941. In 2014, it changed to 355 to 955.


Page | 16

2. How have sheltered instruction strategies been incorporated in the curriculum and classroom practice

and what are the outcomes?

Four‐year graduation rates of ELL students was examined for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 4‐year longitudinal cohorts. Only students who were identified as ELL while enrolled in CCISD were accounted for in this section.

Cohort Year Cohort ELLs Percentage of Graduations

2014 126 63.5%

2015 170 68.2%

2016 246 72.4%

The number of identified ELLs has increased during the last three years as well as the 4‐year graduation rate has increased over that same period of time.

Of the 2,888 2016 seniors, 322 had been identified as ELL at some point during their enrollment in CCISD. Of the 322, 215 or 66.8%, were enrolled in a university, college, or trade school in the fall of 2016 as reported through the National Clearinghouse. There were 256 students were not listed in the National Clearinghouse data.

Not Enrolled Enrolled

Non ELL 680 26.5% 1,662 64.8%

ELL 75 23.3% 215 66.8%

Total 755 26.1% 1,877 65.0%


Page | 17



There were 58 of the 322 identified ELL students who registered for a CTE certification exam in the 2014‐15 and/or 2015‐16 school year. Of those 58 students, 82.3% passed at least one exam (of the 141 total exams) as compared to 263 non‐ELL students who passed 88.9% of their 702 total exams.

Non ELL ELL

Did Not Test 0.3% 0.7%

Did not Pass 5.0% 5.7%

Passed 88.9% 82.3%

No Results* 5.8% 11.3%

Total Exams 702 141

Total Students 263 58 * Not all results have been reported for exams administered in August.

* Not all results have been reported for exams administered in August.

The 58 identified ELL students took a total of 141 exams as compared to the 263 non‐ELL students, who took a total of 702 exams. A greater percentage of the identified ELL students took one, four, or five exams as compared to the non‐ELL students.

Number of Exams Non ELL ELL

1 24.7% 39.7%

2 24.0% 17.2%

3 33.8% 19.0%

4 7.6% 10.3%

5 4.9% 12.1%

6 3.4% *

10 * 0.0%

11 * 0.0%

12 * 0.0%

Total Students 263 58

Total Exams 702 141

* 5 of fewer students


Page | 18



As part of this study, varieties of non‐state administered exam opportunities were investigated to determine how ELL students performed (identified as ELL at some point during their enrollment in CCISD), compared to students who had not been identified while enrolled in CCISD.

A comparison of ELL and non‐ELL students was conducted for other world language and culture AP exams performance and participation for the 2015 and 2016 administrations. There were 34 students identified as ELL during their enrollment in CCISD, of which 91.2% passed their exam with a 3, 4, or 5.

Did Not Pass Pass Total

Non ELL 13.7% 86.3% 73

ELL 8.8% 91.2% 34

Of the 34 students (out of the total 322 students) identified as ELL during their enrollment in CCISD, 26.5% took at least one world language AP exam.

No. of Exams 1 2 Total

Non ELL 91.8% 8.2% 73

ELL 73.5% 26.5% 34

Total 85.98% 13.08% 107

The following table represents the number and percentage of students who were Superintendent Scholar recipients during the time of their enrollment in CCISD. The values displayed are for only those 2,888 seniors in 2015‐16.

Superintendent Scholar Recipients

Non ELL 209 89.7%

ELL 24 10.3%

Total 233

For the 2011‐12 school year, the development of Spanish for Spanish Speakers evolved for native Spanish speakers. Each course is designed as a semester long course, with Spanish for Spanish Speakers 1 and 2 combined for a year course as well as Spanish for Spanish Speakers 3 and 4. Students qualify for the course through an assessment process. The assessment changed for the 2015‐16 school year and courses were added at the intermediate level.

Course 2011‐12 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 Total

Spanish for Spanish Speakers 1 86 30 92 138 274 620

Spanish for Spanish Speakers 2 79 31 97 135 271 613

Spanish for Spanish Speakers 3 20 39 52 96 207

Spanish for Spanish Speakers 4 84 84

Total 165 81 228 325 725 1524


Page | 19



Campus Instructional Staff Survey Results

For each of the following, please indicate the degree to which it is a challenge in your school.

Significant

challenge

Moderate

challenge

Slight

challenge

Not a

challenge at

all

Identifying ELLs 0.8% 7.1% 25.6% 62.0%

Identifying the English proficiency levels of ELLs

2.5% 14.1% 41.1% 38.0%

Monitoring the academic progress of ELLs 3.8% 14.9% 40.3% 37.3%

Engaging the parents of ELLs 12.4% 32.9% 35.9% 15.5%

Applying ELL program reclassifying criteria 3.3% 17.6% 40.5% 29.3%

Implementing response to intervention (RTI) services with ELLs

5.2% 24.5% 40.2% 25.0%

Implementing ELL instructional models as they are intended to be implemented

6.3% 20.1% 40.3% 28.5%

ELL teachers collaborating with general education teachers

6.9% 18.4% 27.0% 43.0%

Lack of resources available to devote to the education of ELLs

10.9% 20.5% 31.2% 32.5%

Monitoring the linguistic progress levels of ELLS

4.8% 17.8% 38.8% 32.9%

Meeting the needs of the twice exceptional* student

11.3% 22.4% 41.5% 20.3%

Some responded with no answer *Twice exceptional for this study refers to students identified as BIL or ESL and GT and/or Special Education. Twice exceptional refers to intellectually gifted children who have some form of disability.

When campus instructional staff were asked to indicate the degree to which it is a challenge in your school for several areas, 87.6% responded it was a slight challenge or not a challenge at all to identify ELLs; 79.1% responded it was a slight challenge or not a challenge at all to identify the English proficiency levels of ELLs; and 77.6% responded it was a slight challenge or not a challenge at all to monitor the academic progress of ELLs. There were 45.3% “significant challenge” or “moderate challenge” responses to engaging the parents of ELLs.


Page | 20



The TELPAS Yearly Progress Indicator shows the proficiency level progress if the current year can be matched to a previous year record. It will be blank if a match cannot be made. 0 = The student’s composite rating is lower or the same as the previous year’s composite rating* 1 = The student’s composite rating is one level higher than the previous year’s composite rating* 2 = The student’s composite rating is two levels higher than the previous year’s composite rating 3 = The student’s composite rating is three levels higher than the previous year’s composite rating * The yearly progress indicator is set to 1 if a student is advanced high in the current and previous year

Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

N 455 464 475 391 367 281 163 142 101 99 77 55 32

For the 2013‐14 school year TELPAS Yearly Progress Indicator, most students had a 0 or 1 as their indicator with the highest percentages for one level higher in grades 1 through 8. There is a spike in grade 9 for students with no match and remains above 30% for grades 10‐12. Students with a composite rating lower or the same as the previous year remained relatively the same for grades 1 through 11, with a spike to nearly 60% in grade 12.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2013‐14 TELPAS Yearly Progress Indicator

0 1 2 3 Blank


Page | 21



Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

N 514 487 486 459 339 327 250 143 131 112 88 63 35

For the 2014‐15 school year TELPAS Yearly Progress Indicator, most students had a 0 or 1 as their indicator with the highest percentages for one level higher in grades 1 through 8. There is a spike in grade 9 for students with no match and remains above 30% for grades 10‐12. Students with a composite rating lower or the same as the previous year remained relatively the same for grades 1 through 12.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


0 1 2 3 Blank


Page | 22



Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

N 480 528 494 487 386 322 275 183 137 148 97 61 41

For the 2015‐16 school year TELPAS Yearly Progress Indicator, most students had a 0 or 1 as their indicator with the highest percentages for one level higher in grades 1 through 8. There is a spike in grade 9 for students with no match and near or above 20% for grades 10‐12. Students with a composite rating lower or the same as the previous year remained relatively the same for grades 1 through 11, with a spike to over 50% in grade 12.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


0 1 2 3 Blank


Page | 23



Please see Appendix A for 2014 and 2015 STAAR data

When comparing 2016 STAAR results for elementary students across different subgroups, the results show that first and second year monitored students outperformed their peers on similar State assessments. The passing percentage for ELLs and students in ESL is lower on most every assessment as compared to the non‐ELL and first and second year monitored students.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2016 STAAR Comparisons ‐ Elementary

Total Students Non ELL ELL First Yr Second Yr BIL ESL


Page | 24



When comparing 2016 STAAR results for intermediate tested students across different subgroups, the results show that non‐ELL, first and second year monitored students outperformed their peers on similar State assessments.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Gr 6 Reading Gr 6 Math Gr 7 Reading Gr 7 Math Gr 7 Writing Gr 8 Reading Gr 8 Math Gr 8 Science Gr 8 SS

2016 STAAR Comparisons ‐ Intermediate



Page | 25



Data is based on First Time Test Takers

When comparing 2016 End of Course results for first time tested students across different subgroups, most all subgroups had similar results for all tests with the exception of ELL and ESL students on ELA 1 and ELA 2 exams.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Algebra 1 Biology ELA 1 ELA 2 US History

2016 STAAR Comparisons ‐ High School

Total Students Non ELL ELL First Yr Second Yr ESL


Page | 26



In order to receive a STAAR progress measure, a student must meet ALL of the following criteria within the same content area (reading, mathematics, or writing):

Have a valid score from the prior year and the current year

Have tested in successive grade levels or end of course (EOC) tests in the prior year and the current year. Students who took the same grade‐level or EOC test in the prior year and the current year will not receive a progress measure. Students who skipped a grade level between the prior year and the current year, with the exception of grade 7 mathematics to Algebra I, will not receive a progress measure.

Have taken the same version or type of test in the prior year and the current year (i.e., STAAR, STAAR Modified, or STAAR Alternate)

Have taken tests in the same language in the prior year and the current year (i.e., English or Spanish)

ELLs receive either a STAAR progress measure or an ELL progress measure. (See Appendix G for more details to computing STAAR progress measure.)

(Calculating STAAR Progress Measures)

The following charts compare non‐ELL students to ELLs’ STAAR progress for each test in which the progress measure which can be computed. The calculation for STAAR progress is the same for each different test.


Page | 27



N Non ELL ELL Non ELL ELL

2348 111 2571 80 *Mathematics STAAR progress cannot be computed for the 2015 assessment due to the change in TEKS for grades 3‐8.

For grades 4 and 5 Reading tests, ELLs had a higher percentage of students who did not meet or exceed adequate STAAR progress as compared to non‐ELL students. In grade 5, 60% of the ELLs met or exceeded adequate STAAR progress.

N Non ELL ELL Non ELL ELL Non ELL ELL Non ELL ELL

2513 173 2500 201 2588 179 2572 126

For grade 4 Math in 2016, there was a higher percentage of ELLs who exceeded STAAR progress as compared to non‐ELLs. For grade 4 Reading, there was a higher percentage of ELLs who did not meet or exceed adequate STAAR progress as compared to non‐ELLs. For grade 5 Math and Reading, there were similar results with respect to meeting or exceeding adequate STAAR progress.

0%

20%

40%

60%

Non ELL ELL Non ELL ELL Non ELL ELL Non ELL ELL

Math‐4 Read‐4 Math‐5 Read‐5

35% 36% 34%

49%

23%29% 31% 32%

40%34%

46%

35%

52% 54%

43% 44%

25%29%

20%15%

24%

17%

26% 25%

2016 STAAR Progress Measure ‐ Elementary

Did Not Meet Met Exceeded

0%

20%

40%

60%

Non ELL ELL Non ELL ELL

Read‐4 Read‐5

34%

52%

27%

40%40% 41%43% 45%

26%

7%

30%

15%

2015 STAAR Progress Measure ‐ Elementary



Page | 28



N Non LEP ELL Non ELL ELL Non ELL ELL

2629 60 2679 34 2808 23

For grades 6, 7, and 8 Reading tests, ELLs had a higher percentage of students who did not meet or exceed adequate STAAR progress as compared to non‐ELL students.

N Non ELL ELL Non ELL ELL Non ELL ELL Non ELL ELL Non ELL ELL Non ELL ELL

2783 123 2809 116 2843 99 2887 99 2046 53 2847 54

For grades 6 and 7 tests, ELLs had a higher percentage of students who did not meet or exceed adequate STAAR progress as compared to non‐ELLs for both Math and Reading. For grade 8 Math and Reading tests, there was a higher percentage of ELLs meeting or exceeding STAAR progress as compared to non‐ELLs.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Non ELL ELL Non ELL ELL Non ELL ELL

Read‐6 Read‐7 Read‐8

45%

73%

35%

50%

29%

57%

42%

23%

45%

35%

50%

39%

13%

3%

20%15%

21%

4%

2015 STAAR Progress Measure ‐ Intermediate


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Non ELL ELL Non ELL ELL Non ELL ELL Non ELL ELL Non ELL ELL Non ELL ELL

Math‐6 Read‐6 Math‐7 Read‐7 Math‐8 Read‐8

46%

59%

51%

65%

31%

56%

39%44%

33% 32%29% 30%

47%

36% 37%

29%

55%

37%

46% 43%

61%

53% 53% 56%

7% 6%12%

6%

14%7%

15%12%

6%

15%18%

15%

2016 STAAR Progress Measure ‐ Intermediate



Page | 29




2760 14 2824 6

For EOC tests, ELLs had a higher percentage of students who did not meet or exceed adequate STAAR progress as compared to non‐ELLs in both Algebra I and ELA II.


2893 35 2889 22

For EOC tests, ELLs had a higher percentage of students who did not meet or exceed adequate STAAR progress as compared to non‐ELLs in both Algebra I and ELA II.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


ALG I ELA II

34%

93%

40%

67%

33%

0%

58%

33%33%

7%2% 0%

2015 STAAR Progress Measure ‐ EOCs


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Alg I ELA II

32%

74%

40%45%

29%

17%

58% 55%

38%

9%2% 0%

2016 STAAR Progress Measure ‐ EOCs



Page | 30



There are three steps involved in computing the ELL progress measure. (2016 Calculating the Texas ELL Progress Measure.)

Determine if the student is eligible to receive the ELL progress measure. o Has a valid STAAR scale score o Is classified as LEP o Does not have parent denial for ELL services o Took an English language version of a STAAR assessment

Determine the appropriate plan for the student. o Number of years in US schools o TELPAS composite rating o Extenuating circumstances

Compare the student’s STAAR scale score to the appropriate ELL progress measure Met and Exceeded expectations.

ELL progress is a one‐year measure as opposed to STAAR progress which compares two tests from different years. ELL students are counted as meeting STAAR standard if they meet or exceed ELL progress.

The following charts displays students’ ELL progress for each test in which the progress measure can be computed. The calculation for ELL progress is the same for each different test.


Page | 31



N Math‐3 Read‐3 Math‐4 Read‐4 Writing‐4 Math‐5 Read‐5 Science‐5

166 149 127 81 82 39 37 40

For grade 3 Math and Reading tests, 62% or more of the students met or exceeded adequate ELL progress. For grade 4 Math, Reading, and Writing tests, 51% or more of the students did not meet adequate ELL progress. For grade 5 Math, almost 80% of the students met or exceeded ELL progress. For grade 5 Reading and Science tests, 45% or more of the students did not meet adequate ELL progress.


2893 35 2889 22

For grade 3 Math and Reading tests, 62% or more of the students met or exceeded adequate ELL progress. For grade 4 Math, Reading, and Writing tests, 45% or more of the students did not meet adequate ELL progress. For grade 5 Math, 78% of the students met or exceeded ELL progress. For grade 5 Reading and Science tests, 39% or more of the students did not meet adequate ELL progress.

0%

20%

40%

60%

Math‐3 Read‐3 Math‐4 Read‐4 Writing‐4 Math‐5 Read‐5 Science‐5

36% 38%

52% 51%54%

21%

54%

45%

35% 36%

23%

31%

39%36%

30%35%

30% 27% 25%19%

7%

44%

16%20%

2015 ELL Progress Measure ‐ Elementary


0%

20%

40%

60%

Math‐3 Read‐3 Math‐4 Read‐4 Writing‐4 Math‐5 Read‐5 Science‐5

38%35%

45%48% 47%

22%

46%

39%

30% 30%

21%

27%

47%

30%

22%

43%

32%34% 34%

25%

6%

48%

32%

17%

2016 ELL Progress Measure ‐ Elementary



Page | 32



N Math‐6 Read‐6 Math‐7 Read‐7 Writing‐7 Math‐8 Read‐8 Science‐8 SS‐8

36 36 44 43 43 35 36 38 38

There is a higher percentage of students who did not meet or exceed ELL progress for all intermediate level STAAR exams with the exception of grade 6 math. This could be a result of students still needing to acquire the necessary academic skills it takes to be successful.

N Math‐6 Read‐6 Math‐7 Read‐7 Writing‐7 Math‐8 Read‐8 Science‐8 SS‐8

66 66 48 48 48 54 56 56 56

There is a higher percentage of students who did not meet or exceed ELL progress for all intermediate level STAAR exams with the exception of grade 6 and 7 math and grade 8 science.. This could be a result of students still needing to acquire the necessary academic skills it takes to be successful.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Math‐6 Read‐6 Math‐7 Read‐7 Writing‐7 Math‐8 Read‐8 Science‐8 SS‐8

36%

53%

64%

77% 77%

46%

61%

42%

58%

44%39%

27%23% 21%

31%28%

42%34%

19%

8% 9%

0% 2%

23%

11%16%

8%

2015 ELL Progress Measure ‐ Intermediate


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Math‐6 Read‐6 Math‐7 Read‐7 Writing‐7 Math‐8 Read‐8 Science‐8 SS‐8

39% 41%

58%

73% 73%

52%

75%

39%

80%

30%

41%

29%25% 25%

39%

23%

57%

13%

30%

18%13%

2% 2%

9%

2% 4%7%

2016 ELL Progress Measure ‐ Intermediate



Page | 33



N Alg I Biology ELA I ELA II US History

69 55 75 57 23

For Algebra I and Biology, 49% or more of the students did not meet or exceed ELL progress. For ELA I and ELA II, 88% or more of the students did not meet or exceed ELL progress. For US History, 74% or more of the students did meet or exceed ELL progress.

N Alg I Biology ELA I ELA II US History

80 64 86 87 39

For Algebra I, 67% of the students met or exceeded ELL progress. For Biology, 53% of the students did not meet or exceed ELL progress. For ELA I and ELA II, 72% or more of the students did not meet or exceed ELL progress. For US History, 70% or more of the students met or exceeded ELL progress.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ALG I Biology ELA I ELA II US History

52% 49%

95%88%

26%29%

45%

5%11%

52%

19%

5%0% 2%

22%

2015 ELL Progress Measure ‐ EOCs


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Alg I Biology ELA I ELA II US History

34%

53%

72%

86%

31%33%

42%

28%

14%

44%

34%

5%0% 0%

26%

2016 ELL Progress Measure ‐ EOCs



Page | 34



Analysis Strengths:

From the staff survey results, the areas reported as being the least challenging were Identifying ELLs (87.6% Not a Challenge or Slight Challenge); Identifying the English proficiency levels of ELLs (79.1% Not a Challenge or Slight Challenge); and Monitoring the academic progress of ELLs (77.6% Not a Challenge or Slight Challenge).

4‐year graduation rates for ELL students have increased from 63.5% to 72.4% since 2014.

A higher percentage of ELL students enrolled in a university, college, or trade school in the fall of 2016 compared to non‐ELL students.

A higher percentage of ELL students passed the AP World Languages and Culture exams compared to non‐ELL students (91.2% compared to 86.3%).

A similar percentage of ELL students earned at least one CTE certification by passing an exam compared to non‐ELL students (82.3% compared to 88.9%).

Students who exited from the bilingual or ESL program and are in their first or second year of monitoring outperformed students who were labeled as LEP, ESL, or bilingual on the STAAR assessment.

At the elementary level, these first and second year monitored students outperformed the students who were labeled as non‐LEP as well.

Areas for Improvement:

From the staff survey results, areas for improvement include: Engaging the parents of ELL students (45.3% Significant or Moderate Challenge); Meeting the needs of the twice exceptional student (33.7% Significant or Moderate Challenge); and Lack of resources available to devote to education of ELLs (31.4% Significant or Moderate Challenge).

Even though the 4‐year graduation rate for ELL students is increasing, it is still lower than the overall district rate.

There is a significant gap between ELL students and their peers who were identified as first and second year monitored students for all grade levels on STAAR. o This gap is more prominent in the intermediate grades for all subjects and at the high school level for

English I and II.

There is also a gap in the performance on STAAR between ELL students and non‐ELL students. Non ELLs are outperforming first and second year monitored students at the intermediate level, and again there is a wider gap at the high school level in the area of English I and II.

The data for the TELPAS Yearly Progress Indicator shows that many students are earning a 0, which means the student’s composite rating is lower or the same as the previous year’s composite rating. o The ratio of students rated as a 0 compared to a 1 at the secondary level is higher than at the

elementary level – could be due to new ELL students to the district or long term ELL students.

A higher percentage of ELLs are not meeting the STAAR Progress Measure compared to Non ELLs at almost every level and in every content area. o The ELL Progress Measure shows that many of the students are not meeting this measure in the

district.


Page | 35


Student Survey Results (835 Responses, 19.6% Rate)

I participate in the: BIL ESL TWI

13.7% 66.9% 17.8%

There is a translator available when needed at my school.

No Yes

34.4% 65.0%

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Mean

I feel welcome at my school. 1.2% 4.1% 47.7% 46.5% 3.38

I feel comfortable in participating in my school activities.

2.5% 3.1% 51.1% 43.0% 3.34

There are systems in place to provide extra help when I need it.

3.4% 6.0% 56.0% 34.0% 3.20

I feel the ELL program involves me in my education.

4.0% 10.1% 55.9% 28.7% 3.07

I feel the ELL program is meeting my linguistic needs.

2.8% 11.7% 56.9% 27.8% 3.08

The communication between my parent(s)/guardian(s) and the school/teacher is effective.

2.9% 8.0% 51.5% 35.8% 3.17

My school respects all cultures and diversity. 1.6% 5.1% 50.5% 41.7% 3.30

My school is a friendly environment for students, parents, and families.

1.2% 4.2% 45.4% 48.1% 3.38

If I have a question, concern, or comment, the teacher, principal, or guidance counselor gets back to me right away.

2.9% 12.2% 57.5% 30.3% 3.21

My parents are invited to meetings so that they can learn about what is going on in the school.

4.6% 6.3% 51.0% 36.5% 3.16

My parent(s)/guardian(s) are given information about services to support my learning, behavior needs, and/or enhance my talents.

1.3% 5.5% 54.3% 37.5% 3.25

I am making progress at the rate I expect. 1.1% 6.2% 55.8% 36.4% 3.27

My teachers make an effort to learn about my life outside of school.

5.3% 19.6% 49.9% 24.2% 2.91

I feel respected and liked by my teachers. 2.5% 4.2% 47.1% 45.5% 3.34


Page | 36


Student Survey Results (continued)

Strongly Disagree


Mean

My teachers take the time to help me understand the content.

1.0% 5.1% 49.6% 44.1% 3.36

I enjoy going to school. 5.9% 8.6% 45.0% 39.9% 3.18

My teachers have high expectations for me. 1.4% 5.0% 53.3% 39.2% 3.28

My teachers use a variety of strategies to help me understand the content.

1.0% 6.3% 49.5% 42.9% 3.34

My school values speaking a language other than English.

4.1% 8.0% 51.9% 35.9% 3.19

Overall Mean 3.18

Students who participate in the Bilingual, ESL, or TWI program completed a BIL‐ESL survey in November 2016. Questions were measured with a Likert scale of 1‐4 with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 4 being “Strongly Agree.” The Likert scale scores were averaged to determine a mean score per question and an overall average.

Average Likert scale score ranged from 2.91 to 3.38. Overall average Likert scale score was 3.18.


Page | 37


Parent Survey Results (596 Responses, 16.8% Return)

My student participates in the: BIL ESL TWI

16.6% 62.1% 17.6%

There is a translator available when needed at my student's school.

No Yes

36.2% 59.2%

Strongly Disagree


Mean

I feel welcome at my student's school. 3.4% 2.9% 34.6% 58.4% 3.46

I feel comfortable in participating, as a parent, in my student's school activities.

2.9% 3.2% 46.5% 46.0% 3.33

There are systems in place to provide extra help when my student needs it.

2.5% 5.9% 50.3% 39.6% 3.24

I feel the ELL program involves me in my student's education.

4.7% 9.2% 52.7% 31.5% 3.07

I feel the ELL program is meeting my student's linguistic needs.

3.5% 6.2% 51.3% 37.1% 3.18

The communication between myself and the school/teacher is effective.

2.3% 5.2% 47.7% 43.0% 3.28

My student's school respects all cultures and diversity.

1.7% 2.2% 40.9% 54.2% 3.46

My student's school is a friendly environment for students, parents, and families.

1.7% 2.7% 37.2% 56.9% 3.46

If I have a question, concern, or comment about my student, the teacher, principal, or guidance counselor gets back to me right away.

2.5% 4.4% 44.0% 47.3% 3.32

I am invited to meetings so that I can learn about what is going on in the school.

2.0% 4.4% 43.3% 48.3% 3.34

I am given information about services to support my student's learning, behavior needs, and/or enhance his or her talents.

3.0% 7.9% 43.6% 43.3% 3.23


Page | 38


Parent Survey Results Continued

Strongly Disagree


Mean

My student is making progress in the ELL program at the rate I expect.

2.5% 6.7% 49.0% 38.9% 3.19

The teachers make an effort to learn about my student's life outside of school.

4.2% 16.8% 50.3% 26.3% 2.94

My student feels respected and liked by his/her teachers.

1.3% 1.7% 42.6% 53.2% 3.45

Teachers take the time to help my student understand the content.

1.5% 4.2% 48.7% 44.5% 3.34

My student enjoys going to school. 1.7% 2.7% 36.6% 58.2% 3.50

My student's teachers have high expectations for my student.

1.5% 4.0% 46.5% 46.6% 3.36

Overall Mean 3.26

Parents of students who participate in the Bilingual, ESL, or TWI program completed a BIL‐ESL survey in November 2016. Questions were measured with a Likert scale of 1‐4 with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 4 being “Strongly Agree.” The Likert scale scores were averaged to determine a mean score per question and an overall average.



Page | 39


Campus Instructional Staff Survey Results (N=523, 31.7% response Rate)

I participate in the: BIL ESL TWI

8.0% 78.4% 4.4%

There is a translator available when needed at my school.

No Yes

35.9% 61.0%

Strongly Disagree


Mean

Parents and students feel welcome at my school.

2.7% 1.7% 42.1% 52.8% 3.43

Parents and students feel comfortable in participating in school activities.

2.5% 3.3% 50.5% 42.8% 3.32

There are systems in place to provide extra help when students need it.

3.6% 8.6% 50.1% 36.5% 3.17

I feel the ELL program involves parents and students in their education.

3.3% 14.0% 62.1% 18.5% 2.92

I feel the ELL program is meeting my students' linguistic needs.

5.2% 17.6% 55.8% 18.9% 2.84

The communication between me and my students' parents is effective.

2.9% 12.6% 59.8% 23.3% 3.01

My school respects all cultures and diversity. 2.7% 0.6% 32.7% 63.3% 3.55


1.7% 1.3% 35.8% 60.8% 3.55

If parents or students have a question, someone gets back to them right away.

1.5% 1.3% 46.7% 49.3% 3.41

My students' parents are invited to meetings so that they can learn about what is going on in the school.

1.5% 3.3% 45.3% 48.0% 3.36

My students' parents are given information about services to support their student's learning

1.5% 6.9% 51.2% 38.8% 3.24

Most of my students are making progress at the rate I expect.

2.3% 13.4% 61.8% 21.2% 2.99

I make an effort to learn about my students' lives outside of school.

1.0% 2.9% 53.9% 41.1% 3.33

My students feel respected and liked by his/her teachers.

1.0% 1.0% 45.1% 52.0% 3.46

I take the time to help my students understand the content.

1.0% 0.2% 35.6% 62.0% 3.56


Page | 40


Campus Instructional Staff Survey Results Continued

Strongly Disagree


Mean

My students enjoy coming to school. 1.0% 2.5% 52.2% 43.4% 3.36

I have high expectations for my students. 1.0% 0.4% 27.7% 69.4% 3.63

Overall Mean 3.30

Campus instructional staff members who have students in the Bilingual, ESL, or TWI program completed a BIL‐ESL survey in November 2016. Questions were measured with a Likert scale of 1‐4 with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 4 being “Strongly Agree.” The Likert scale scores were averaged to determine a mean score per question and an overall average.


What is one aspect you like best about the ELL program?

The support for students’ growth and the success of students through best teaching practices (which

are beneficial for all students)

Support and collaboration of students, support staff, teachers, and campus and district administrators

ESL and ELL teachers and coaches

What is one aspect you would like to change about the ELL program?

More support‐‐more resources (material, curriculum suggestions for scaffolding, training, staff, co‐

teachers, push‐in support, and pull‐out support)

More time to plan and collaborate

Full time ELL teacher/coach on campus is needed


Page | 41


Survey Mean Comparison Across Groups

Mean

Student Parent Staff

I feel welcome at my school. 3.38 3.46 3.43

I feel comfortable in participating in my school activities. 3.34 3.33 3.32

There are systems in place to provide extra help when I need it. 3.20 3.24 3.17

I feel the ELL program involves me in my education. 3.07 3.07 2.92

I feel the ELL program is meeting my linguistic needs. 3.08 3.18 2.84

The communication between my parent(s)/guardian(s) and the school/teacher is effective.

3.17 3.28 3.01

My school respects all cultures and diversity. 3.30 3.46 3.55


3.38 3.46 3.55

If I have a question, concern, or comment, the teacher, principal, or guidance counselor gets back to me right away.

3.21 3.32 3.41

My parents are invited to meetings so that they can learn about what is going on in the school.

3.16 3.34 3.36

My parent(s)/guardian(s) are given information about services to support my learning, behavior needs, and/or enhance my talents.

3.25 3.23 3.24

I am making progress at the rate I expect. 3.27 3.19 2.99

My teachers make an effort to learn about my life outside of school.

2.91 2.94 3.33

I feel respected and liked by my teachers. 3.34 3.45 3.46

My teachers take the time to help me understand the content. 3.36 3.34 3.56

I enjoy going to school. 3.18 3.50 3.36

My teachers have high expectations for me. 3.28 3.36 3.63

Overall Mean 3.18 3.26 3.30

A comparison of the means of the survey results is displayed in the table above. Student means ranged from 2.91 to 3.38, with an overall mean of 3.18. Parent survey result means ranged from 2.94 to 3.50, with an overall mean of 3.26. Staff survey results ranged from 2.84 to 3.63, with an overall mean of 3.30.


Page | 42


Examples of activities to build school and community relationships with ELL populations include (some activities are campus specific while other activities occur at several campuses):

Sueño Latino

Chinese Club, Spanish Club, Muslim Student Association, Mix It Up Days (diversity day)

International Festival

Multicultural Night, Homework and Technology Night

Adult ESL and Citizenship Classes

ELL Home and School Connection Meetings, Diversity Night

Saturday tutorials for ELLs only

October all ELL Parent Sessions and Activities, Fall and Spring Student Performance and Parent Information Session for all Dual Language Families, Learning Camp (Spanish Language Development 10 days in July), Spanish Enrichment Activities 1 day a week in summer, Ballet Folklorico

Parent Curriculum Night for ELL Parents, Welcome to Houston Resource Guide, ELL Parent Serves on CIIC, Spanish Translator for Family Nights and Conferences

ELL Parent Night (credit, graduation, accessing grades) with Spanish speakers

Cultural Celebration in May, Summer Science Camp, Dual Language Picnic in Summer Science Night, Literacy Night, Math Night collaboration with other campuses

Analysis Strengths:

The survey results show high ratings for most areas of the program. The average student response was 3.18; for parents, the average was 3.26; and for teachers, the average was 3.30. These averages are between the Agree and Strongly Agree ratings.

The highest responses students gave (3.38) were in the categories of “I feel welcome at my school” and “My school is a friendly environment for students, parents, and families.”

The highest responses parents gave (3.46) were in the categories of “I feel welcome at my school,” “My school respects all cultures and diversity,” and “My school is a friendly environment for students, parents, and families.”

The highest responses teachers gave (3.56 & 3.55) were in the categories of “I take the time to help my students understand the content,” “My school respects all cultures and diversity,” and “My school is a friendly environment for students, parents, and families.”


There is a difference between the response data of students, parents, and teachers in the area of “My teachers make an effort to learn about my life outside of school.” o The students and parents rated this question the lowest at 2.91 and 2.94 respectively, yet the

teachers rated this area at 3.33.

All three groups rated “I feel the ELL program involves me in my education” as one of the lowest areas (3.07, 3.07, and 2.92). Parents and students need to be included in the education decision process to ensure all students are receiving the best, individualized education. o This aligns with the findings of question 4, as many educators were interested in professional learning

opportunities for “Family and Community Involvement Strategies.”


Page | 43


There are many Professional Learning (PL) opportunities for BIL‐ESL and sheltered instruction teachers and administrators within as well as outside of CCISD. The previous BIL‐ESL program evaluation had Superintendent’s recommendations, which addressed a need for increased PL opportunities for both administrators and teachers addressing strategies as well as curriculum. Below is an overview of PL opportunities during the last five years:

30 Two day sheltered instruction PL sessions

29 English Language Proficiency PL session

22 ESL Review PL sessions

6 Social Studies Specific PL for ELLs sessions

4 Math Specific PL for ELLs sessions

4 Science Specific PL for ELLs

3 LPAC PL sessions each year (beginning, middle, end)

Ongoing PL on bilingual campuses with an outside consultant

Ongoing ELL coach meetings

District days – bilingual specific and pairing with our department for content

Annual Bilingual Institute

Curriculum/resource specific PL including Palabras a su paso, Soluciones, resource sharing

ELD PL Ongoing

Language Targets Development (language progress reports)

Ongoing Spanish curriculum writing

6 Sheltered Instruction Learning Rounds

3 New ELL Leads Trainings

ELL Leads Collaboration

2 Language Targets Curriculum Writing

1 Vocabulary Strategies PL

Two Day Teaching for Biliteracy (facilitated by author Cheryl Urrow)

State and national conferences attended during the five‐year period of this study:

NABE Conference (National Association for Bilingual Education) ‐ annual conference

TABE Conference (Texas Association for Bilingual Education) ‐ annual conference

Teaching for Biliteracy annual conference in the summer in Chicago

Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages annual conference

Region IV PL Sessions including LPAC, Strategies for Teaching Beginning English Language Learners Across the Curriculum, Bilingual Conference, Leadership Network

Harris County of Department of Education: a variety of PL sessions, including ESL certification preparation

Texas Education Telecommunications Network Updates for ELLs and Immigrant Students

Pearson online SIOP training

Seven Steps to a Language Rich Interactive Classroom

38 Great Academic Language Builders

Making Words Real


Page | 44


Campus Instructional Staff Survey Results (N=523, 31.7% response Rate)

Including this year, I have worked in CCISD for:

1 Year 2‐5 Yrs 6‐10 Yrs 11+ Yrs

9.8% 31.2% 22.6% 35.8%

In the past five years or since you have been employed in CCISD, how many total hours of professional learning have you received with respect to the education of ELLs?

< 5 Hrs 6‐10 Hrs 11‐20 Hrs 21‐30 Hrs 30+ Hrs

15.9% 21.8% 25.2% 12.8% 23.3%

In the past five years or since you have been employed in CCISD, in which of the following areas have you received professional learning that is specific to the education of ELLs? (check all that apply)

Second Language Acquisition 44.0%

Culturally responsive education practices 30.4%

Family and community involvement strategies 21.2%

Research‐based instructional methods for ELLs 65.2%

Assessment practices for ELLs 46.5%

ELLs in special education 15.9%

ELL teacher evaluation 18.4%

Evaluation of general education teachers with ELLs in their classroom 23.5%

Response to intervention (RTI) for ELLs 39.2%

In which of the following areas would you like to receive more professional learning that is specific to the education of ELLs? (check all that apply)

Second Language Acquisition 20.5%

Culturally responsive education practices 24.7%

Family and community involvement strategies 31.0%

Research‐based instructional methods for ELLs 34.0%

Assessment practices for ELLs 29.3%

ELLs in special education 21.8%

ELL teacher evaluation 18.4%

Evaluation of general education teachers with ELLs in their classroom 12.2%

Response to intervention (RTI) for ELLs 28.3%

Campus instructional staff that taught ELLs completed a Bilingual‐ESL survey in November 2016. For questions relating to professional learning (PL), staff members responded by checking all that apply to PL they have received over the past five years and would like to receive. Over 58% of teachers who responded to the survey, have been employed in CCISD for 6 or more years. Roughly 25% of those who responded have participated in 30 or more hours of ELL professional learning.


Page | 45


Campus Instructional Staff Survey Results Continued

The highest percentage of teacher survey responses (65.2%) received training in researched‐based instructional methods for ELLs. The lowest percentage of teacher survey responses (15.9%) received training in ELLs in receiving special education services. The highest percentage of teacher survey responses (34.0%) would like to receive training in researched‐based instructional methods for ELLs. The lowest percentage of teacher survey responses (12.2%) would like to receive training in the evaluation of general education teachers with ELLs in their classroom.

Analysis Strengths:

There were many professional learning opportunities provided to teachers and instructional leaders in and outside of Clear Creek ISD over the past five years.

Teachers have received training in researched‐based instructional methods for ELLs and the responses indicate continued training in this area.


Additional professional learning opportunities for “Family and Community Involvement Strategies,” as it was the third lowest for participation rates, but the second highest area that teachers were interested in more learning opportunities.

Additional professional learning opportunities for “Assessment Practices for ELL,” as it was the third highest area that teachers were interested in more learning opportunities, and less than half of respondents stated that they had participated in related professional learning opportunities over the past five years.

More than a third of respondents stated that over the past five years, they have attended less than 10 hours of professional learning for ELLs. Teachers have a limited amount of time available for professional learning, and these smaller numbers may indicate that teachers are having to choose between different professional learning opportunities (such as pedagogy, content, special education, ELLs, etc.).


Page | 46

5. What are the annual expenditures?

Annual Expenditures

2011‐12 2012‐13 2013‐14 2014‐15 2015‐16 Total

Total Adult Education $125,670 $110,580 $102,970 $2,880 $41,009 $383,109

Total Dollar General Literacy Grant

$18,628 $9,000 $27,628

Total Education Foundation

$690 $4,931 $6,025 $4,959 $16,605

Total Foreign Language Assistance

$167,706 $167,706

Total General Fund $1,184,937 $1,155,729 $1,173,838 $1,220,978 $1,213,904 $6,030,495

Total Region 4 Grant $11,040 $11,040

Total Summer School LEP $31,868 $27,922 $31,133 $27,485 $81,108* $118,409

Total Title III $424,512 $388,342 $612,134 $603,877 $651,910 $2,680,775

Total $1,953,321 $1,683,263 $1,925,006 $1,881,286 $1,992,890 $9,435,766 Data provided by CCISD Finance Department * Summer school is a state requirement for ELLs in grades PK‐K. Additional grant funds were used for an extension summer school program for students in grades 1‐5 in summer 2016.

Annual total expenditures ranged from $1,881,286 in 2014‐15 to $1,992,890 in 2015‐16 with a total of $9,435,766 spent through the ELL program over the five‐year period of this study. Funds for expenditures have come from a variety of sources such as grants, federal funds, and Title funding. Examples of expenditures include salaries, extra duty pay, transportation, supplies and materials, instructional supplies and materials.


Page | 47

Summary of Findings

Below is a summary of findings for the majority of the program evaluation questions:

1. What is Bilingual – English as a Second Language? Bilingual/ESL encompasses different programs or models within the program as a whole, which include, but is not limited to, the following: Bilingual models including Transitional bilingual/late exit, Dual Language, Two‐way

Immersion (TWI) English as a Second Language (ESL) (content‐based programs and pull‐out programs) Sheltered instruction model

2. How has BIL‐ESL strategies been incorporated in curriculum and instruction? Strengths:

From the staff survey results, the areas reported as being the least challenging were Identifying ELLs (87.6% Not a Challenge or Slight Challenge); Identifying the English proficiency levels of ELLs (79.1% Not a Challenge or Slight Challenge); and Monitoring the academic progress of ELLs (77.6% Not a Challenge or Slight Challenge).

4‐year graduation rates for ELL students have increased from 63.5% to 72.4% since 2014.

A higher percentage of ELL students enrolled in a university, college, or trade school in the fall of 2016 compared to non‐ELL students.

A higher percentage of ELL students passed the AP World Languages and Culture exams compared to non‐ELL students (91.2% compared to 86.3%).

A similar percentage of ELL students earned at least one CTE certification by passing an exam compared to non‐ELL students (82.3% compared to 88.9%).

Students who exited from the bilingual or ESL program and are in their first or second year of monitoring outperformed students who were labeled as LEP, ESL, or bilingual on the STAAR assessment.

At the elementary level, these first and second year monitored students outperformed the students who were labeled as non‐LEP as well.


From the staff survey results, areas for improvement include: Engaging the parents of ELL students (45.3% Significant or Moderate Challenge); Meeting the needs of the twice exceptional student (33.7% Significant or Moderate Challenge); and Lack of resources available to devote to education of ELLs (31.4% Significant or Moderate Challenge).

Even though the 4‐year graduation rate for ELL students is increasing, it is still lower than the overall district rate.

There is a significant gap between ELL students and their peers who were identified as first and second year monitored students for all grade levels on STAAR.

o This gap is more prominent in the intermediate grades for all subjects and at the high school level for English I and II.


Page | 48

Summary of Findings

3. How has BIL‐ESL strategies been incorporated in curriculum and instruction? Continued

There is also a gap in the performance on STAAR between ELL students and non‐ELL students. Non ELLs are outperforming first and second year monitored students at the intermediate level, and again there is a wider gap at the high school level in the area of English I and II.

The data for the TELPAS Yearly Progress Indicator shows that many students are earning a 0, which means the student’s composite rating is lower or the same as the previous year’s composite rating.

o The ratio of students rated as a 0 compared to a 1 at the secondary level is higher than at the elementary level – could be due to new ELL students to the district or long term ELL students.

A higher percentage of ELLs are not meeting the STAAR Progress Measure compared to Non ELLs at almost every level and in every content area.

o The ELL Progress Measure shows that many of the students are not meeting this measure in the district.

4. What are the student, parent, and teacher perceptions of the program? Strengths:

The survey results show high ratings for most areas of the program. The average student response was 3.18; for parents, the average was 3.26; and for teachers, the average was 3.30. These averages are between the Agree and Strongly Agree ratings.

The highest responses students gave (3.38) were in the categories of “I feel welcome at my school” and “My school is a friendly environment for students, parents, and families.”

The highest responses parents gave (3.46) were in the categories of “I feel welcome at my school,” “My school respects all cultures and diversity,” and “My school is a friendly environment for students, parents, and families.”

The highest responses teachers gave (3.56 & 3.55) were in the categories of “I take the time to help my students understand the content,” “My school respects all cultures and diversity,” and “My school is a friendly environment for students, parents, and families.”


There is a difference between the response data of students, parents, and teachers in the area of “My teachers make an effort to learn about my life outside of school.” o The students and parents rated this question the lowest at 2.91 and 2.94

respectively, yet the teachers rated this area at 3.33.

All three groups rated “I feel the ELL program involves me in my education” as one of the lowest areas (3.07, 3.07, and 2.92). Parents and students need to be included in the education decision process to ensure all students are receiving the best, individualized education. o This aligns with the findings of question 4, as many educators were interested in

professional learning opportunities for “Family and Community Involvement Strategies.”


Page | 49

Summary of Findings

5. What Professional Learning opportunities are there for teachers and what types of support are available? Strengths:

There were many professional learning opportunities provided to teachers and instructional leaders in and outside of Clear Creek ISD over the past five years.

Teachers have received training in researched‐based instructional methods for ELLs and the responses indicate continued training in this area.


Additional professional learning opportunities for “Family and Community Involvement Strategies,” as it was the third lowest for participation rates, but the second highest area that teachers were interested in more learning opportunities.

Additional professional learning opportunities for “Assessment Practices for ELL,” as it was the third highest area that teachers were interested in more learning opportunities, and less than half of respondents stated that they had participated in related professional learning opportunities over the past five years.

More than a third of respondents stated that over the past five years, they have attended less than 10 hours of professional learning for ELLs. Teachers have a limited amount of time available for professional learning, and these smaller numbers may indicate that teachers are having to choose between different professional learning opportunities (such as pedagogy, content, special education, ELLs, etc.).

6. What are the annual expenditures? Annual total expenditures ranged from $1,881,286 in 2014‐15 to $1,992,890 in 2015‐16 with a total of $9,435,766 spent through the ELL program over the five‐year period of this study.


Page | 50

Superintendent’s Recommendations

1. We will develop a professional learning plan to address: a. Strategies to increase family and community involvement; b. Best practices for assessing ELLs; & c. Incorporating research based instructional strategies for teachers to utilize with

ELLs by August 2017.

2. We will review staffing for bilingual campuses to determine if adjustments need to be recommended to meet the needs of the campuses.


Page | 51

References

2016 Calculating the Texas ELL Progress Measure. (n.d.). Retrieved September 16, 2016, from http:// tea.texas.gov/student.assessment/calculatingELLprogressmeasure.pdf

Bilingual/English as a Second Language ‐ Clear Creek. (n.d.). Retrieved June 16, 2016, from http://www.ccisd.net/departments/bilingual__english_as_a_second_language/

Calculating STAAR Progress Measures. (n.d.). Retrieved December 8, 2016 from http://www.esc17.net/users/0225/staar‐calculateprogresslmeasures.pdf

Cummins, J. (1981). EMPIRICAL AND THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION. The Journal of Education, 163(1), 16‐29. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42772934

ELL Progress Measure ‐ Texas Education Agency. (n.d.). Retrieved September 28, 2016, from http://tea.texas.gov/student.assessment/ellprogressmeasureQandA.pdf

Seidlitz, J. (2010). ELPS FLIP BOOK, A USER FRIENDLY GUIDE FOR ACADEMIC LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION

TELPAS ‐ Texas Education Agency. (n.d.). Retrieved October 6, 2016, from http://tea.texas.gov/student.assessment/ell/telpas/

Texas Constitution and Statues, Education Code 29. (n.d.) Retrieved on August 26, 2016 from http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/


Page | 52

Appendix A

Data is based on STAAR Level II Phase‐in 1 Standard


40%

60%

80%

100%

2014 STAAR Comparison ‐ Elementary



Page | 53

Appendix A



20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2015 STAAR Comparisons ‐ Elementary



Page | 54

Appendix A



20%

40%

60%

80%

100%





Page | 55

Appendix A



20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%





Page | 56

Appendix A

Data is based on STAAR Level II Phase‐in 1 Standard, First Time Test Takers

When comparing 2016 End of Course results for first time tested students across different subgroups, the results show that non‐ELL, first and second year monitored students outperformed their peers on similar State assessments.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


2014 STAAR Comparison ‐ High School



Page | 57

Appendix A

Data is based on STAAR Level II Phase‐in 1 Standard, First Time Test Takers

When comparing 2015 End of Course results for first time tested students across different subgroups, most all subgroups had similar results for all tests with the exception of LEP and ESL students on ELA 1 and ELA 2 exams.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


2015 STAAR Comparison ‐ High School



Page | 58

Appendix B

LPAC Acronyms

A – Advanced LEP – Limited English Proficient AH – Advanced High LPAC – Language Proficiency Assessment

Committee AMAOs – Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives

MOY – Middle of the Year

ARD – Admission, Review, and Dismissal NON‐LEP – Student not identified as LEP/ELL AYP – Annual Yearly Progress NON‐ELL – Student not identified as LEP/ELL B – Beginning NRT – Norm Referenced Test BE – Bilingual Education OLPT – Oral Language Proficiency Test BICS – Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills PBM – Performance Based Monitoring BOY – Beginning of the Year PBMAS – Performance Based Monitoring

Analysis System CALP – Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency

PD – Professional Development

DL – Dual Language PEIMS – Public Education Information Management System

DLI – Dual Language Immersion PLDs – Proficiency Language Descriptors ELL – English Language Learner PGP – Personal Graduation Plan ELPS – English Language Proficiency Standards R – Reading EOC – End of Course S – Second year monitored (M2) EOY – End of Year S – Speaking ESL – English as a Second Language SI – Sheltered Instruction ESOL – English for Speakers of Other Languages STAAR ALT 2 – State of Texas Assessment of

Academic Readiness Alternate 2 F – First year monitored (M1) STAAR L – State of Texas Assessment of

Academic Readiness Linguistically Accommodated

HLS – Home Language Survey TA – Technical Assistance I – Intermediate TAC – Texas Administrative Code IEP – Individualized Education Program TEA – Texas Education Agency L – Listening TEC – Texas Education Code L1 – Native/First Language TEKS – Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills L2 – Second/Target Language TELPAS – Texas English Language Proficiency

Assessment System LEA – Local Education Agency (School District/Charter)

W – Writing


Page | 59

Appendix C

Flowchart

English is the only language on the HLS A language other than English is on the HLS

Home Language Survey (HLS)

LPAC Meeting

Test

PreK‐1st Oral Language Proficiency Test

2nd‐12th OLPT & Norm Referenced Standardized Achievement Test

Non‐LEP/Not an ELL

Recommended Placement: Bilingual Program All ELLs with Spanish on HLS regardless of proficiency in Spanish

General Education Classroom ELL/LEP Non‐LEP/Not an ELL

Parental Notification

Offer ESL

Parent Conference

Recommended Placement: ESL Program

Parental Permission Parental Permission

No Yes Yes No

No Yes

No Yes

Parent Conference

No Yes

Denial of Services

Meets Reclassification Criteria

Non‐LEP/Not an ELL

Bilingual

ESL

Parent Conference

No Yes

ESL

Denial of Services


Page | 60

Appendix D


Page | 61

Appendix E

End of Year LPAC Procedures for 2016

Administer OLPT for PreK and K ELLs. Test all PreK and K ELLs including SPED/ESL, SPED denials and general denials if they have not already scored fluent. Input these scores in Aware. Do not re‐test new PreK and K students who came 2nd semester after February 1st. Grades 1-12 ELLs use TELPAS

Listening and Speaking as end of year testing data.

Schedule End of Year LPAC Meeting

TELPAS scores are populated in LaserFocus and STAAR scores will populate in June.

Grades for monitored students in LaserFocus will populate by the end of the school year.

Fill out all end of the year information in LaserFocus for EOY LPAC. Do not forget to fill out the information for the monitored students

as well.

Have EOY LPAC meeting. All individual LPACs for Bilingual, ESL, Denials, and Monitored students must be signed.

Send the list of students recommended for reclassification pending STAAR results to the ELL Department. If these students meet reclassificaiton criteria, an exit letter will be sent home, with a request it be signed and returned. A copy will also be sent to

the campus to be placed in the green folder. (Except 5th and 8th)

The ELL Department will complete the PEIMS Identification Form for students who have met reclassification criteria.

Send home Notification of Progress to Parents. Place a copy in the green folder.

Update the Student History worksheet in laser focus. Print a copy and place it in the green folder.

Scan and email LPAC minutes sheet to [email protected].


Page | 62

Appendix F

2015–2016 English Proficiency Exit Criteria Chart

At the end of the school year, a district may transfer (exit, reclassify, transition) a LEP student out of a bilingual or ESL education program for the first time or a subsequent time if the student is able to participate equally in a regular all‐English instruction program as determined by satisfactory performance in all three assessment areas below and the results of a subjective teacher evaluation.1

For State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) English reading and English writing, the performance level for program exit is Level II (Satisfactory Academic Performance) or above.

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th/12th

Current School

Year Oral =

Listening &

Speaking

Scored Fluent on English

OLPT2


OLPT2

Scored Fluent on English2

Scored Fluent on

English2



Scored Fluent on

English2





OLPT2

English Reading3

Norm‐Referenced Standardized Achievement

Test2 (Rdg./Lang.)

40th percentile or

above


Test2 (Rdg./Lang.)

40th percentile or

above

STAAR5 STAAR5 STAAR5 STAAR5 STAAR5 STAAR5

STAAR4/5 STAAR4/5


Test2 (Rdg./Lang.)

40th percentile or

above

English Writing3

Agency‐Approved

Writing Test2

Agency‐Approved

Writing Test2

Agency‐Approved Writing Test2




Agency‐Approved

Writing Test2

Subjective Teacher

Evaluation Assessments, anecdotal notes, portfolios, etc.

1 19 TAC §89.1225(h) 2 In the 2015–2016 List of Approved Tests for Assessment of Limited English Proficient Students available on the following web page: http://tea.texas.gov/bilingual/esl/education/ 3 For STAAR, English reading and English writing refer to the grade‐level tests in grades 3–8 and to the applicable end‐of‐course English I and II reading and writing assessments.

4 Exception: Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) Reading and Writing Advanced High will be used for all students with the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) as their graduation requirement under state policy.

5 Includes STAAR A without linguistic accommodations.

Note: ELLs may be exited only after the end of first grade based on 19 TAC §89.1225(i).

Note: ELLs for whom the LPAC has recommended linguistic accommodations on the STAAR reading or writing test should not be considered for exit.


Page | 63

Appendix G

PEIMS Codes

LEP Indicator Codes

Code Translation

0 Not LEP

1 Identified as limited English proficient (LEP)

F Student exited from LEP status (First year of monitoring)

S Student exited from LEP status (Second year of monitoring)

Parental Permission Codes

Code Translation

3 Parent has requested placement of non‐LEP student in bilingual program

7 Parent did not respond

8 Parent was not contacted

A Parent has denied placement in bilingual program but has approved placement

in ESL program

B Parent has approved placement of PK‐8 LEP student ESL program but has not

denied placement in bilingual program

C Parent has denied placement of student in any special language program

D Parent has approved placement in bilingual program

E Parent has approved placement in bilingual program but the program is not

available so the parent has approved placement in the ESL program

F Parent has approved placement of 9‐12 student in ESL program

G Parent has approved placement of exited non‐LEP student in bilingual or ESL

program

Bilingual Program Type Codes

Code Translation

0 Student does not participate in bilingual education program

2 Transitional bilingual/early exit (two to five years in program)

3 Transitional bilingual/late exit (six or seven years in program)

4 Dual language immersion/two‐way

5 Dual language immersion/one‐way

ESL Program Type Codes

Code Translation

0 Student does not participate in ESL program

2 English as a second language/content based

3 English as a second language/pull‐out (students receiving ELA in an ESL setting

with only ELLs participating in the ELA class)


Page | 64

Appendix H


Page | 65

Appendix I

Documents

Bilingual – English as a Second Language Program … – English as a Second Language Program Evaluation ... competent in listening, speaking, reading ... Beginning with the 2011‐2012