Dodge City School District Needs AssessmentCompleted February 2010

Cynthia Lee and ZoeAnn Brown, WestEd

On behalf of Project Director, Joseph Sassone, WestEd is pleased to submit the following needs assessment to Dodge City School District for English Language Acquisition. The goals of Title III English Language Acquisition are to ensure that all English Language Learners (ELLs) attain English proficiency and meet challenging state academic standards. Title III specifies that if a district does not meet the AMAOs for two consecutive years, it must develop an improvement plan that addresses the factors that prevented it from meeting the objectives. Our goal is to provide assistance to the development of the improvement plan.

In the introduction to Results Now: How We Can Achieve Unprecedented Improvements in Teaching and Learning, Mike Schmoker asserts that “….our greatest opportunity for better schools [is]: a simple, unswerving focus on those actions and arrangements that ensure effective, ever-improving instruction.” Ample research supports that assertion. A thorough and honest assessment process in schools and districts that calls for improvement is likely to identify numerous needs in the area of instruction. Schools and districts with high proportions of English learners, for example, often discover through the process that the instruction they are providing simply is not adequate for the English learner population. More focus on oral language acquisition, building academic vocabulary, and/or providing verbal and instructional scaffolding may be necessary. Poor student achievement in math or reading may indicate other weaknesses in classroom instruction or curriculum. For example, perhaps student engagement or higher-order questioning in classrooms is adequate.

The challenge at this stage of the needs assessment is to narrow the focus of the action plan to just a few high priority areas that are likely to have the greatest positive impact on student achievement. Educators have often participated in and been subjected to action plans that are “a mile wide and an inch deep.” No one knows where to start, and little gets done as a result of the action planning process. To minimize that possibility and strengthen the odds that the action plan will actually be implemented successfully, it is essential to, “… determine which needs

1

are the most important. Altschuld and Witkin describe several approaches for prioritizing needs, including simple rank ordering, the “rule of three,” disaggregated decision-making, and risk assessment. In school and district improvement processes, where there is likely to be a long list of complex needs, and resources may be redirected as a result, it is important to identify priorities in a manner that can withstand challenges.

Description of Dodge City School District Needs Assessment:

Rubric Self-Assessment by ELL committee (comprised of teachers from all grade levels and district office personnel).

Interviews and conversations with teachers and others throughout visit Classroom Observations Review of school data based on:

o Demographic datao KELPA datao KCA math and reading datao Drop out rate informationo Teacher certification information

The District has taken many steps toward improving curriculum and instruction. These steps have created a strong foundation upon which the district can build.

The identified strengths are:

1. There are models of mainstream classrooms in K-6 with effective instructional strategies for all learners, especially ELL.

2

2. There is evidence of student engagement strategies used throughout the schools (graphic organizers, accessing prior knowledge, similarities/differences, etc.).

3. There is effective classroom management and positive student/teacher relationships in a majority of classrooms across the district.

4. Many mainstream classrooms have paraprofessional staff members working with students and assisting teachers.

5. Many teachers use instructional scaffolding in their daily lessons.6. Teachers in the Newcomers classrooms use instructional strategies effectively to meet the needs of their ELL

students.7. Classrooms are well equipped and teachers have resources available to them.8. At the middle school, most of classrooms had both the language and content objective on board and

communicated to students.

Based upon observations and interviews, the following include areas upon which the School District can focus to improve student achievement.

1. Most mainstream teachers are unaware of which students in their classroom are English Language Learners and there is no common language across the district about ELLs.

2. Most teachers (>80%) do not post or communicate the standard or learning objective to students.3. Teaching is focused on the unit, text, or reading rather than the Essential Indicator.4. Very little accountable, academic student talk during class time. Teachers are doing a majority of the

speaking in class.5. Most teachers do not explicitly teach academic vocabulary by having students interact with the language.

Teachers introduce and define words, but don’t require the students use the words regularly.6. Student engagement (check for understanding) during direct instruction is not mandatory for all students and

is happening irregularly.

3

7. ELL students are all placed in mainstream classes unless they are designated as a newcomer. There are no additional services provided for ELL students in the mainstream classes.

8. Reading 180 at the high school replaces the student’s English course, but does not cover the other skills on the KELPA (speaking, listening, and writing).

9. The district does not have a method to predict how a student will perform on the KELPA.10.There is a high percentage of students (43%) who have been identified as ELL for more than 5 years.11.ELL students perform significantly lower than mainstream on the state assessment and the gap increases, as

they get older.12.In math, ELLs perform close to the non-ELL population until 8th and 11th grade where the gaps increase

significantly.

ACTION STEPS TO CONSIDER

Goal Setting and Date Inquiry

Schmoker (1999) tells us that without explicit, measurable learning goals, educational systems are neither set up nor organized for improvement and results. It is by establishing such goals, he explains, that systems are able to analyze, monitor, and adjust practice in order to foster improvement. Similarly, Goodlad (1970) suggests that “clearly discernible …clear-cut specified goals for schooling at all levels of responsibility” are needed for reforms to take hold in our schools. An outgrowth of goal setting, according to Little (1990), is a sense of collegiality or “shared responsibility” that school teams can begin to experience. Lastly, it is essential that systems not take on more goals than they can manage (Schmoker, 1999). Fullan (1993) also cautions systems from attempting too many initiatives at one time for fear of what her calls “massive failure.” He also suggests that “overload” is the greatest enemy of improvement. In a like manner, Hopkins (1994) states that “successful schools set priorities for development that are few in number.”

4

1. Consider a systemic approach to ensuring the academic success of ELs.2. Use goals and data to develop instructional program expectations for ELs.3. Consider strategies for setting district-wide goals and monitoring expected progress in ELD and academic

core subjects.

Examples of goals to be monitored by the district:

Students in our district will make steady progress toward meeting grade-level indicators in core academic subjects

Students at “Academic Warning” will progress in one year to “Approaches Standard” Students at “Approaches Standard” will progress in one year to “Meets Standard” Students at “Meets Standard” will progress in one year to “Exceeds Standard” Students at “Exceeds Standard” will progress in one year to “Exemplary”

ELL students in our district five years or longer will meet grade level standards in core academic subjects Kansas General Reading Assessment (3-11) and General Math Assessment (3-11)” -Meets

Standard

ELL students will make steady progress in developing academic English language proficiency Students at “Beginner” will progress in one year to “Low Intermediate” Students at “Low Intermediate” will progress in one year to “High Intermediate” Students at “High Intermediate” will progress in one year to “Low Advance” Students at “Low Advance” will progress in one year to “High Advanced” Students at “High Advance” will progress in one year to the English proficient level Students reaching English proficient level will maintain it until reclassified fluent English

proficient

5

Promote a systematic approach to EL and Core Curriculum and Instruction:

1. Classroom teachers explicitly need to know which students are ELL and the skill levels in the domains of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. (Beginner, Low Intermediate, High Intermediate, Low Advance, High Advance, Proficient)

2. Consider a separate ELD block taught by a qualified SEI teacher (30 minutes or more) for Beginner and Low Intermediate ELL students.

3. Progress monitor ELL students in key components of reading – phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension

4. Monitor ELL students performance on the district reading and math mini-assessments.5. Provide meaningful access to grade-level academic content via appropriate instruction

Communicate the indicator and learning objective for every lesson. Use high levels of student engagement strategies to check for understanding for all students. Frequent in-class common assessments to identify students who are falling behind and need more

help. Incorporate re-teach and enrichment time in reading and/or math (only one content area in

elementary school) in all grade levels. Develop capacity and protocols for effective data team meetings to discover student

misunderstandings. Train administrators and instructional coaches on conducting classroom walk-throughs. Create essential indicators and instructional calendars for the Newcomers and Transition classes.

6. Develop students’ academic English language proficiency (All Teachers) Provide structured academic (talk) conversation to build vocabulary and comprehension. Use proven techniques for teaching word recognition skills Create lists of tier 1, 2, and 3 words for each grade and content area. Use scaffolding tasks and structures to impact the academic success of ELLs. (Walqui @ WestEd

2006)

6

References

Altschuld, J., & Witkin, B. 2000. From Needs Assessment to Action: TransformingNeeds Into Solution Strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Bristol, PA: FalmerPress.

Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement, 2nd edition.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Schmoker, M. 2006. Results Now: How We Can Achieve Unprecedented Improvements in Teachingand Learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Walqui, A (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English Learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, 9(2).

7

DistrictsMovingUp - Implementation Rubric – Final for Dodge City School District—February 2010

1 Readiness 2 Starting 3 Progressing 4 Approaching 5 Full Implementation

6 Outstanding

1. Focus unwaveringly on good instruction that reflects sound research and best practice. Based on the total number of T4S classroom observations made by the principal and coach during the reporting period….1. 0% of teachers communicate selected standards or objectives to all students.

1-24% of teachers communicate selected standards or objectives to students.

25-49% of teachers communicate selected standards or objectives to students.

50-79% of teachers communicate selected standards or objectives to students.

80-99% of teachers communicate selected standards or objectives to students.

100% of teachers communicate selected standards or objectives to students.

2. 0% of teachers emphasize key vocabulary.

1-24% of teachers emphasize key vocabulary.

25-49% of teachers emphasize key vocabulary.

50-79% of teachers emphasize key vocabulary.

80-99% of teachers emphasize key vocabulary.

100% of teachers emphasize key vocabulary.

3. 0% of teachers provide verbal scaffolding to assist and support student use of academic language.

1-24% of teachers provide verbal scaffolding to assist and support student use of academic language.

25-49% of teachers provide verbal scaffolding to assist and support student use of academic language.

50-79% of teachers provide verbal scaffolding to assist and support student use of academic language.

80-99% of teachers provide verbal scaffolding to assist and support student use of academic language.

100% of teachers provide verbal scaffolding to assist and support student use of academic language.

4. 0% of teachers provide instructional scaffolding to assist and support student understanding.

1-24% of teachers provide instructional scaffolding to assist and support student understanding.

25-49% of teachers provide instructional scaffolding to assist and support student understanding.

50-79% of teachers provide instructional scaffolding to assist and support student understanding.

80-99% of teachers provide instructional scaffolding to assist and support student understanding.

100% of teachers provide instructional scaffolding to assist and support student understanding.

5. 0% of teachers ensure student engagement throughout the learning.

1-24% of teachers ensure student engagement throughout the learning.

25-49% of teachers ensure student engagement throughout the learning.

50-79% of teachers ensure student engagement throughout the learning.

80-99% of teachers ensure student engagement throughout the learning.

100% of teachers ensure student engagement throughout the learning.

6. 0% of teachers use selected student engagement techniques to engage students in instruction.

1-24% of teachers sometimes (every 10 minutes) use selected student engagement techniques to engage some students in instruction.

25-49% of teachers use selected student engagement techniques about every 10 minutes to engage all students in instruction.

50-79% of teachers use selected student engagement techniques frequently (every 3-5 minutes) to engage all students in instruction; these strategies are not the most appropriate.

80-99% of teachers use selected appropriate student engagement techniques frequently (every 3-5 minutes) to engage all students in instruction.

100% of teachers use selected appropriate student engagement techniques frequently (every 3-5 minutes) to engage all students in instruction.

8

9

1 Readiness 2 Starting 3 Progressing 4 Approaching 5 Full Implementation

6 Outstanding

7. Teachers provide less than 10% of class time for students to discuss academic subjects.

Teachers provide some opportunities (10-15% of class time) on some days for students to discuss academic content.

Teachers provide several opportunities (15 - 20% of class time) on some days for students to discuss academic content.

Teachers provide numerous opportunities most days (20-30% of class time) for students to discuss academic content.

Teachers provide ample opportunities (>30% of class time) most days for both short and extended discussions of academic content.

Teachers provide ample opportunities (>30% of class time) every day for short and extended discussions of academic content.

8. Teachers list key vocabulary from the lesson but do not teach it.

Teachers list key vocabulary from the lesson and provide some explanation for some of the words.

Teachers list key content and high leverage vocabulary from the lesson and provide explicit instruction for some of the words.

Teachers list key content and high leverage academic vocabulary, explicitly teach several strategically selected words and provide follow-up lessons to ensure deep word knowledge.

Teachers list key content and high leverage academic vocabulary, explicitly teach several strategically selected words and provide follow-up lessons to ensure deep word knowledge. Both Tier 2 and 3 words are taught each week.

Teachers list key content and high leverage academic vocabulary, explicitly teach strategically selected words and provide follow-up lessons to ensure deep word knowledge. At least five Tier 2 words in K-3 and 8 Tier 2 words in grades 4-8 are taught each week.

2. Align standards, curriculum, assessments and instruction.1. Beginning teacher awareness about standards; performance levels not defined.

Content standards given to all teachers; performance levels not defined.

Content standards and performance levels given to all teachers.

Content standards and performance levels given to all teachers and parents.

Content standards and performance levels understood by all teachers; given to all teachers.

Content standards and performance levels understood by all teachers, parents and students.

2. Standards not visible in classrooms.

Standards rarely visible in classrooms in student-friendly language.

Standards visible in a few classrooms in student-friendly language.

Standards visible in some classrooms in student-friendly language.

Standards visible in almost all classrooms in student-friendly language; model products.

Standards visible in all classrooms in student-friendly language; model products.

3. Assessments are not aligned to standards.

Few appropriate local assessments are aligned to standards; planning process for improvement.

Some appropriate local assessments aligned to some standards at some grade levels.

Appropriate local assessments aligned to many standards at many grade levels.

Appropriate local assessments aligned to many standards at all grade levels.

Appropriate local standards-based assessments at all grades with options to meet diverse students’ needs.

10

1 Readiness 2 Starting 3 Progressing 4 Approaching 5 Full Implementation

6 Outstanding

4. Teachers have a foundational understanding of essential standards; performance levels are not defined.

All teachers receive essential standards; performance levels are not defined.

Essential standards and performance levels are defined and given to all teachers.

All teachers and parents receive essential standards and performance levels.

All teachers understand essential standards and performance levels, which are given to students and parents.

All teachers understand and systematically use essential standards and performance levels.

5. Essential standards are not unpacked or aligned to the New Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Few of the essential standards are unpacked and aligned to the New Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Some of the essential standards are unpacked and aligned to the New Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Essential standards are systematically unpacked and aligned to the New Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Essential standards are systematically unpacked and aligned to the New Bloom’s Taxonomy. Performance objectives are developed and calendared.

Performance objectives are developed and calendared from unpacked standards. All classroom teachers use essential questions for instructional planning.

6. “Big ideas” are not developed for essential standards.

Few “big ideas” are developed for essential standards.

Some “big ideas” are developed for essential standards.

“Big ideas” are developed for all essential standards but not used systematically.

Classroom teachers use “big ideas” to plan daily lessons.

Students verbalize “big ideas” in their own words.

7. Essential questions have not been developed.

Essential questions are not systematically developed and are rarely visible in classrooms.

Some essential questions are developed and visible in a few classrooms.

Essential questions are systematically developed and communicated to classroom teachers. They are visible in some classrooms.

Daily lesson plans and common formative assessments incorporate essential questions that are visible in most classrooms.

Teachers discuss essential questions with students during instruction. Essential questions are posted in all classrooms and communicated to parents.

8. Essential standards are defined, but grade-level instructional calendars have not been developed.

Grade-level instructional calendars have been developed.

Instructional calendars are given to all teachers.

Instructional calendars are given to all teachers and all parents.

Instructional calendars are given and understood by all teachers and given to all parents.

Instructional calendars drive instructional decisions in the grade level. Calendars are given to and understood by parents.

9. Classroom teachers do not use instructional calendars.

Classroom teachers rarely use instructional calendars.

Teachers in a few classrooms use instructional calendars.

Most classroom teachers in a few grade levels use instructional calendars.

All grade-level teachers use instructional calendars.

All grade-level teachers use instructional calendars systematically and collaboratively.

11

1 Readiness 2 Starting 3 Progressing 4 Approaching 5 Full Implementation

6 Outstanding

10. Teachers only have a beginning awareness of the need to teach essential standards in grade-level alignment.

Teachers rarely teach essential standards in grade-level alignment.

Teachers periodically teach essential standards in grade-level alignment.

Teachers frequently teach essential standards in grade-level alignment.

Teachers teach all essential standards in grade-level alignment.

Teachers teach all essential standards with system-wide alignment in all grade-level classrooms.

11. Instructional calendars have no spiraling of essential standards.

Instructional calendars have few spiraled essential standards.

Instructional calendars have some essential standards spiraled in a few grade levels.

Instructional calendars have most essential standards spiraled in a few grade levels.

Instructional calendars have purposeful spiraling of essential standards for all grade levels.

Instructional calendars demonstrate purposeful spiraling of essential standards for all grade levels with assessments.

3. Build capacity to analyze and use data effectively to make decisions.1. Implementation data are rarely collected.

Implementation data for one local accountability are systematically collected and used to make decisions.

Implementation data for a few local accountability elements are systematically collected and used to make informed decisions.

Implementation data for some local accountability elements are systematically collected and used to make informed decisions.

Implementation data for most local accountability elements are systematically collected and used to make informed decisions.

Implementation data for all local accountability elements are systematically collected, interconnected and used to make informed decisions.

12

1 Readiness 2 Starting 3 Progressing 4 Approaching 5 Full Implementation

6 Outstanding

2. Annual staff report of year-end student data.

Awareness of need to improve.

Developing plan to monitor student progress.

Annual report of year-end student data.

System monitors progress of individual students and required groups and issues periodic reports of elements linked to periodic student progress.

System monitors progress of individual students and groups and issues periodic, timely reports of elements linked to student progress.

System monitors progress of individual students and groups and issues periodic, timely and user-friendly reports of elements linked to multiple measures of student progress; success is celebrated.Data indicate many areas of continual, meaningful improvement.

System monitors progress of individual students and groups and issues periodic, timely and user-friendly reports of elements linked to multiple measures of student progress; success is celebrated.Data indicate improvement is continual, meaningful system-wide.

3. Feedback on assessments is delayed or not useful.

Feedback on assessments is delayed.

Feedback on assessments is provided on a quarterly or trimester basis.

Quarterly or trimester feedback on assessments is provided immediately.

Quarterly or trimester feedback on assessments is provided immediately.

Seamless cycles of instruction and assessment; quarterly or trimester summary data.

4. Build capacity to develop and use effective common formative assessments at regular intervals throughout the school year to monitor progress and make adjustments accordingly.

1. Common formative assessments are not developed or aligned to essential standards.

Individual teachers develop common formative assessments that are aligned to textbooks.

Grade-level teachers develop common formative assessments that are aligned to some essential standards.

Grade-level teachers develop common formative assessments that are aligned to all essential standards.

Ongoing common formative assessments are used to guide instruction are aligned to all essential standards.

A variety of common formative assessments are developed and used ongoing to guide instruction and student interventions.

2. Teachers do not collaborate to design common formative assessments.

Teachers occasionally collaborate to design common formative assessments.

Teachers regularly collaborate to design common formative assessments in a few grade levels.

Teachers routinely collaborate to design common formative assessments in some grade levels.

Teachers routinely collaborate to design common formative assessments in all grade levels using multiple choice or open response items.

“Full Implementation” + performance assessments and/or essential questions to demonstrate a depth of knowledge.Most teachers consistently use pre-assessment as a basis to differentiation instruction.

13

1 Readiness 2 Starting 3 Progressing 4 Approaching 5 Full Implementation

6 Outstanding

3. Assessments include no or one item per essential standard.

Assessments include three items per essential standard.

Assessments include four items per essential standard.

Assessments include five items per essential standard.

Assessments include five items per essential standard. Students must demonstrate 80% mastery.

Select response assessments include five or more items per essential standard. Students must demonstrate 80-90% mastery. Rubrics are designed and used to score proficiency levels on performance tasks and narrative responses.

4. Teachers are not collaborating.

Teachers rarely collaborate and few, if any, teachers perform error analysis on their common formative assessments as a basis for re-teaching.

Teachers sometimes collaborate and few perform error analysis on their common formative assessments as a basis for re-teaching.

Teachers occasionally collaborate and some perform error analysis on their common formative assessments as a basis for re-teaching.

Teachers routinely collaborate to perform error analysis on their common formative assessments as a basis for re-teaching and enrichment.

Teachers consistently collaborate and perform error analysis on their common formative assessments and use results to place students in reteach or enrichment activities.

5. Students who do not reach mastery on the common formative assessment are rarely given opportunities to reach mastery.

Students who do not reach mastery on the common formative assessment are given extra work to take home.

Students who do not reach mastery on the common formative assessment are referred to tutoring.

Students who do not reach mastery on the common formative assessment are engaged in some reteach activities during the school day.

Students who do not reach mastery on the common formative assessment are engaged in daily reteach activities a couple of days per week during the school day. The learning activities are specifically designed to be qualitatively different from the initial instruction.

Students who do not reach mastery on the common formative assessment are engaged in daily reteach activities a couple of days per week during the school day. The learning activities are specifically designed to be qualitatively different from the initial instruction. Following reteach activities, non-proficient students are assigned intensive tutoring .

14

1 Readiness 2 Starting 3 Progressing 4 Approaching 5 Full Implementation

6 Outstanding

6. Students who reach mastery on the common formative assessment are rarely given opportunities to broaden or extend learning.

Students who reach mastery on the common formative assessment are given extra work to complete independently.

Students who reach mastery on the common formative assessment are sometimes offered enrichment activities.

Students who reach mastery on the common formative assessment are offered opportunities for enrichment through a special class or after-school activity.

Students who reach mastery on the common formative assessment are sometimes engaged in daily enrichment activities.

Students who reach mastery on the common formative assessment are engaged in daily special enrichment activities. A wide variety of activities are used to broaden, extend and challenge students to go beyond the grade-level standard or cognitive level.

15