English Language Learner (ELL) Plan

“They have access to language learning opportunities which

prepare them for engagement in

linguistically and culturally diverse communities.”

Cultural Competence • Our graduates interact adeptly in diverse settings

• They build meaningful relationships with people from different backgrounds… • Our graduates value how the diverse assets of the people with whom they interact

give them access to ideas, experiences, and perspectives to help them grow.

MMSD Vision for

College, Career, and Community Ready Graduates

ELL Plan – Specific Purpose for all

ELLs

•Provide a clear outline of the changes needed to ensure that consistent,

coherent services are provided to English Language Learners (ELL) and

Bilingual Learners (BL).

•Provide equitable access to high quality ELL services (English as a

Second Language and bilingual education) for all ELLs in the most

integrated setting possible.

According to statutory requirements for programming under Bilingual-Bicultural, 115.97, Wis.

Stats, access to bilingual programs is required when the following triggers are met:

K-3=10 students

4-8=20 students

9-12=20 students

Currently, access to bilingual programming is restricted to 9/32 elementary schools

ELL Plan – Six Main Focus Areas

1. ELL Communication and Monitoring Systems

2. Professional Learning and Building System Capacity

3. English Language Learner: English as a Second

Language Services

4. English Language Learner: Bilingual Education

Services

5. Diversity within Bilingual Programs

6. Community Building

For each plan component there is a demonstrated need,

evidence and set of recommendations

ELL Plan Feedback Form

10%

9%

15%

16%

6%

6%

8%

7%

18%

15%

16%

20%

29%

28%

26%

21%

36%

42%

35%

36%

Communications and Monitoring

Professional Development

Shifts to ESL and bilingual service delivery

Timeline

1 = Disagree with all/most recommendations 2 3 4 5 = Agree with all/most recommendations

Responses trended toward agreement in all areas;

higher agreement for Communications and Monitoring and Professional Development

Feedback Themes Online Feedback Form and Meeting Notes

We received both supportive and constructive feedback

in the following areas:

•Communication and Monitoring

•Equity, Expansion, and Access

•Evidence

•Instructional Model

•School Unity

•PD and Training

•Staffing

•Student Learning and Needs Does not include feedback from two sessions held at Goodman Center and Centro

Hispano.

ELL Plan Meeting Outcomes

•Build Confidence in DLI Programming

•Build Confidence in Non-DLI Programming

•Discuss potential changes to the plan before

finalization

DLI Programming

Dual Language Immersion Goals Unique to Dual Language programs

• Bilingualism (high levels of proficiency in two languages)

• Biliteracy (ability to read and write and communicate

around social and academic texts in two languages)

• Intercultural skills (skills and dispositions to understand

cultures other than one’s own, and work productively

with people from different cultural backgrounds)

Dual Language Immersion What Does the Research Show?

• Minority/target language is elevated, which positively supports identity for language minority students

• Additive model of bilingual education

• All students have the opportunity to be language models as well as language learners – this creates

positive interrelationships among learners

• All students’ home languages are positively affirmed

• Increased opportunities in the global market

because of bilingualism • Increases cognitive abilities and brain development

Biliteracy Data

We have limited ability to fully capture the benefits of a

dual language education program in MMSD.

• Current information reflects results only in English • Lack of:

Standardized test results for academic achievement

in Spanish (content)

Standardized test results for language proficiency in

Spanish

Ability to understand the interconnection between two

languages

Elementary MAP Results for DLI and Non-DLI Students

in DLI Schools and Grades Strand Schools Only

MAP Spring

Reading

Proficiency

MAP Spring Math

Proficiency

MAP Fall-Spring

Reading Growth

MAP Fall-Spring

Math Growth

2012-

13

2013-

14

2014-

15

2012-

13

2013-

14

2014-

15

2012-

13

2013-

14

2014-

15

2012-

13

2013-

14

2014-

15

Spanish-speaking ELL in DLI * 5% 14% * 17% 20% 44% 57% 61% 89% 69% 67%

Spanish-speaking ELL not in DLI * 12% 22% * 18% 28% 67% 64% 56% 44% 38% 64%

Other students in DLI 53% 60% 60% 70% 69% 70% 53% 68% 57% 72% 72% 70%

Other students not in DLI 27% 18% 27% 16% 25% 35% 64% 55% 54% 56% 49% 62%

Reading and math

proficiency for DLI students in strand schools has improved

over the past two years

DLI students have met MAP growth targets at higher rates than their Non-DLI peers over the past three years in math,

one year in reading * only one school and few students; not appropriate for comparison

Improved Implementation of DLI To Increase Fidelity of Programming

•Support increased use of Scope and Sequence documents and Core

Materials for biliteracy

•Emphasize fidelity of minutes within core instruction across content

areas in DLI to support biliteracy

•Quarterly grade level planning for DLI teachers with a focus on

language development and use of formative data to inform instruction

•Addition of Language Proficiency standards on new K-5 Draft Report

Card

•High School course content development for dual language

continuation

•Provide increased outreach to underrepresented students with the goal

of diversifying DLI classrooms

•Explore new admission policies and procedures for enrollment in DLI

Non-DLI Programming

Demographics

DLI and Non-DLI

Demographics within Current Bilingual Strand Schools

African-American White Special Education Free/Reduced

6% in DLI vs. 26% in

Non-DLI (Total = 17%) DLI – Ranges from 3%

(Lincoln) to 9% (Leopold)

Non-DLI – Ranges from 7% (Chavez) to 51% (Leopold)

31% in DLI vs. 34% in

Non-DLI (Total = 33%) DLI – Ranges from 21%

(Sandburg) to 39% (Midvale)

Non-DLI – Ranges from 17% (Leopold) to 61%

(Chavez)

9% in DLI vs. 16% in

Non-DLI (Total = 13%) DLI – Ranges from less

than 8% (Chavez) to 11% (Sandburg)

Non-DLI – Ranges from 13% (Chavez) to 24%

(Glendale)

56% overall in DLI vs. 61%

in Non-DLI (Total = 59%) DLI – Ranges from 37%

(Chavez) to 63% (Sandburg)

Non-DLI – Ranges from 23% (Chavez) to 80%

(Leopold)

Note – While these are overall percentages, there are some schools, especially in the primary grades, where

the demographics in DLI/Non-DLI sections more closely represent the overall school demographics. This is due to increased outreach, parent engagement and knowledge of the benefits of bilingual programming.

DBE – At DBE schools, demographic differences between DBE and Non-DLI sections are substantial, with DBE

programs being almost universally Hispanic/Latino and low-income.

Elementary and Middle School

Class Sizes DLI and Non-DLI

Elementary 59% of Non-DLI classes have fewer students than DLI classes

24% of Non-DLI classes are the same size or have 1 more student than DLI classes

11% of Non-DLI classes have 2-4 more students than DLI classes

(all of these classes have fewer than 20 students with the exception of Chavez – 3

classes of 24)

6 Non-DLI classes have 5 more students than DLI classes

(Leopold grade three – ELI 18/19, DLI 13/14, still below class size guidance)

2 Non-DLI classes have 9/10 more students than DLI

(4th Grade Glendale Non-DLI 25, DLI 15/16)

Middle School

6th Grade Cherokee – Non-DLI classes have 4-5 more students than DLI

6th Grade Sennett – Non-DLI classes have 8-9 more students than DLI

7th-8th Sennett – Non-DLI classes have 5 more students than DLI

MAP Spring

Reading

Proficiency

MAP Spring

Math

Proficiency

MAP Fall-Spring

Reading Growth

MAP Fall-Spring

Math Growth

2012-

13

2013-

14

2014-

15

2012-

13

2013-

14

2014-

15

2012-

13

2013-

14

2014-

15

2012-

13

2013-

14

2014-

15

Non-DLI Students in DLI

Schools and Grades 23% 17% 26% 13% 24% 34% 65% 56% 55% 54% 48% 62%

Students in Schools of Grades

without DLI 36% 42% 44% 44% 47% 50% 50% 59% 58% 57% 63% 65%

MAP Results for Non-DLI students in DLI Schools

and Students in English-Only Schools or Grades

Reading and math proficiency for Non-DLI students in

DLI schools and grades is lower than students in schools or grades without DLI, but improved

significantly from 2013-14 to 2014-15; Non-DLI schools

overall have some of the highest proficiency rates in the district (e.g. Randall, Van Hise, Shorewood)

Non-DLI students in DLI schools and grades show similar MAP growth to students in English-

only schools or grades (3% differences in 4 of 6

subjects/years)

Improved Implementation of Non-DLI

•Support increased use of K-12 Scope and Sequence documents

•Utilize Common Core State Standards Implementation Tool (emphasis on

academic language development)

•Support increased use of Core Materials and supplemental texts for all K-5

classrooms

•Newly adopted writing materials K-5 (English)

•Current focus on middle school literacy and reading

•Focus on Middle School Algebra and Geometry at the secondary level

•Course vetting process to ensure high quality instruction and alignment

•Quarterly grade level planning for K-2 Non-DLI teachers with a focus on

foundational skills

•Web-based resources for K-2 intensive schools as a supplement to core

and/or intervention

Guidance and Support for Principals

in Strand Schools

Implement a “Workshop Approach” for Principals at Strand Schools

(January/February)

Analyze resources at strand schools (local funding, Title I, Special

Education) to better inform budget and allocation process

Analyze enrollment patterns and trends

Identify areas of needed flexibility

Identify staffing needs

Discuss integrated scheduling

Emphasize fidelity of minutes within core instruction across content

areas in DLI to support biliteracy

Review MTSS Plan – support across the Tiers for students who struggle

and Advanced Learners

Identify critical professional development needs

Emphasis on Community Building

Compelling Need

•There is a need for all learners in a school with a bilingual strand

program to feel part of a strong school community.

•Qualitative data from stakeholder groups, school staff, and principals

indicate a stronger need for community building in schools with a

bilingual strand.

Recommendation

•Focus on global awareness, culture and language learning for all

with implementation of World Language elementary programming

within a content area

•Provide support and guidance around integrated specials

scheduling

•Increased emphasis on collaboration across strands

Next Steps

•Begin tuition reimbursement process and finalize

programming for licensure with Concordia

•Continue discussions and monitor enrollments in East

attendance area (Spanish access) and West attendance

area (Hmong)

•Increase hiring and recruitment of Hmong BRTs (and

other languages as needed)

•Engage in Community Schools and Long-Range Facilities

Planning conversations to inform long-term ELL

programming

Possible revisions to the Draft ELL Plan

•Plan Components

•Timeline

•Next Steps

Discussion and Feedback

Appendix

Recommendations (in draft plan) Location of new Bilingual Programs (Spanish

and Hmong)

Attendance

Area

New K-5 Site Middle

School

Rationale

Memorial

Attendance Area

Falk

(Spanish DLI)

Jefferson • Meets “trigger numbers”

• Building has capacity • Provides access to Huegel and Orchard Ridge ELLs • Meets cross-functional team criteria

West

Attendance Area

Thoreau

(Spanish DLI)

Cherokee • Meets “trigger numbers”

• Building has capacity • Meets cross-functional team criteria

LaFollette

Attendance Area

Allis

(Spanish DLI)

Sennett • Meets “trigger numbers”

• Building has capacity • NMCS maintains enrollment from Frank Allis • Meets cross-functional team criteria

LaFollette

Attendance Area

Schenk

(Spanish DLI )

Whitehorse • Meets “trigger numbers”

• Building has capacity • Meets cross-functional team criteria

East

Attendance Area

Lakeview

(Hmong DBE)

Blackhawk • Meets “trigger numbers” through its own enrollment,

Mendota, Gompers and Lindbergh Hmong-speaking ELLs • Building has capacity • Meets cross-functional team criteria

Implementation Timeline (in draft plan) (2015-2018)

2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018

Elementary

School

4 Spanish DLI

Falk (5K)

Allis (5K)

Schenk (5K)

Thoreau (5K)

1 Hmong DBE

Lakeview (5K-1)

4 Spanish DLI

Falk (5K- 1)

Allis (5K-1)

Schenk (5K-1)

Thoreau (5K-1)

Middle School

Continuation

Cherokee 6 Cherokee 6-7

Sherman 6 Cherokee 6-8

Sherman 6-7

Jefferson 6