evaluation of english language learner programs in...

Evaluation of English Language Learner Programs In Alexandria City Public Schools

Barbara D. Acosta, Senior Research Scientist Lottie Marzucco, Research Associate

Breanna Bayraktar, Research Associate Charlene Rivera, Principal Investigator and Executive Director

The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education

The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education’s mission is to

advance education reform so all students achieve to high standards. GW-CEEE conducts policy and applied research, designs and implements program evaluations,

and provides professional development and technical assistance for clients in state education agencies, school districts, schools, foundations, and federal agencies.

GW-CEEE The George Washington University Center for Equity & Excellence in Education

www.ceee.gwu.edu 800.925.3223

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the many individuals in the Alexandria City Public Schools who provided information and insights for this evaluation. Bethany Nickerson, Director of ELL Programs and Gwen Carol Holmes, Chief Academic Officer of Curriculum and Instruction, coordinated the project. Drs. Nickerson and Holmes, Danielle Wierzbicki, and Viki Sosa-Kirkpatrick, ELL instructional specialists, shared information and insights. The ELL Office staff, including Augusta Barbato, Rachel Ersoz, and Dina Carroll, provided documentation and key data. George Massie under the direction of Marya Runkle of Education and Business Systems Support, and in coordination with Amy Yamashiro and her staff at the Department of Accountability helped compile student outcome data from across a range of sources. Margaret Lorber, the division-wide bilingual parent liaison, was a key provider of information and helped facilitate the parents’ focus group. In addition, 15 staff including Rosario Casiano, Keisha Boggan, Mark Eisenhower, Monte Dawson, John Brown, Christine Richardson, Katherine Harman, Erin Joy, James Waddell, Madye Henson, and Francis Chase participated in a one-day needs assessment to provide insights that helped shape the evaluation. Many of them also participated in follow-up interviews. We appreciate the division and school administrators, teachers and students, as well as members of the ELL Leadership Team, and the school and division administrative staff who helped facilitate the data collection process. Also, we are grateful to Ron Ferguson of Cambridge Education for his collaboration in preparing customized analyses of the Tripod student data.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... i Findings for Student Outcomes ................................................................................................... i Findings Under the PEAS Dimensions ....................................................................................... ii Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... iii

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 1 National, State, and Division Context............................................................................................. 2

National ....................................................................................................................................... 3 State............................................................................................................................................. 3 Division ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Overview of ACPS ELL Programs ................................................................................................. 4 Elementary Level ........................................................................................................................ 4 Middle School Level ................................................................................................................... 5 High School Level ...................................................................................................................... 6

Findings for Student Outcomes ...................................................................................................... 6 Summary of Findings .................................................................................................................. 6 Examination of English Language Development ....................................................................... 7 Examination of Mathematics Achievement .............................................................................. 11 Examination of Reading/Language Arts Achievement ............................................................ 14 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 16

Findings for the PEAS Dimensions of Best Practice .................................................................... 19 Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................ 19 Leadership ................................................................................................................................. 20 Qualified Personnel ................................................................................................................... 21 Professional Development ........................................................................................................ 22 Curriculum and Instruction ....................................................................................................... 24 Assessment and Accountability ................................................................................................ 29 Parent and Community Outreach .............................................................................................. 30 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 32

Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 32 Summary of Recommendations ................................................................................................ 33 Leadership ................................................................................................................................. 33 Qualified Personnel ................................................................................................................... 34 Professional Development ........................................................................................................ 34 Curriculum and Instruction ....................................................................................................... 36 Assessment and Accountability ................................................................................................ 40 Parent and Community Outreach .............................................................................................. 41

Limitations of This Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 42 References ..................................................................................................................................... 43 Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 45 Appendix A. Method for Student Outcome Data ......................................................................... 46 Appendix B. Data Collection and Sampling ................................................................................. 48

Appendix C. PEAS Needs Assessment Tool ................................................................................ 52 Appendix D. Summary of Results: Administrator Survey ........................................................... 53 Appendix E. Summary of Results: Teacher Survey ..................................................................... 54 Appendix F. Summary of Results: Classroom Observations........................................................ 55

Tables

Table 1.Elementary cohort: Crosstab of ACCESS for ELLs® proficiency level in 2009-10 by 2010-11 proficiency level ............................................................................................................... 9 Table 2.Elementary cohort: Percent of students who regressed, showed no change, or progressed......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 3.Middle school cohort: Crosstab of ACCESS for ELLs® proficiency level in 2009-10 by 2010-11 proficiency level ............................................................................................................... 9 Table 4.Middle school cohort: Percent of students who regressed, showed no change, or progressed ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Table 5.High school cohort: Crosstab of ACCESS for ELLs® proficiency level in 2009-10 by 2010-11 proficiency level ............................................................................................................. 10 Table 6.High school cohort: Percent of students who regressed, showed no change, or progressed....................................................................................................................................................... 10

Figures Figure 1. Percent of ACPS ELLs and all students proficient on Mathematics SOL (Cross-sectional analysis). ........................................................................................................................ 12 Figure 2. Elementary cohort pass rates on the math SOL (longitudinal analysis). ....................... 13 Figure 3. Middle school cohort pass rates on the math SOL (longitudinal analysis). .................. 13 Figure 4. High school cohort pass rates on the mathematics end-of-course assessments. ........... 14 Figure 5. Percent of ACPS ELLs and all students proficient on Reading SOL (Cross-sectional analysis). ....................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 6. Elementary school cohort pass rates on the Reading/ELA SOL. .................................. 17 Figure 7. Middle school cohort pass rates on the Reading/ELA SOL. ......................................... 18 Figure 8. High school cohort pass rates on the Reading/ELA SOL. ............................................ 18

The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education l http://ceee.gwu.edu i

Executive Summary This evaluation was conducted to examine the extent to which Alexandria City Public Schools (ACPS; also known as the Division), is meeting its goals for English language learners (ELLs), as well as to assess the quality of its programs and services for this population. ACPS superintendent Morton Sherman and the school board requested the evaluation be carried out by an objective third party, The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education (GW-CEEE), to verify the need for recommended reforms and to support decisions about resource allocation. For this evaluation GW-CEEE examined both longitudinal student outcome data and data on programs and practices to assess the extent to which effective systems are in place in ACPS to support the needs of ELLs. Analyses of longitudinal student outcomes examined the extent to which ELLs in the Division were making progress in developing English and closing gaps in academic achievement. Student outcome data were collected through the Division’s Assessment and Accountability Department as well as the Virginia state report card. ELL students’ language growth was measured through the WIDA ACCESS for ELLs ® (ACCESS). Math and reading achievement were measured through the change in pass rates on the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOLs) for three cohorts of students. GW-CEEE used its Promoting Excellence Appraisal System (PEAS), a research-based framework based on an extensive knowledge base regarding effective programs for ELLs, to assess the extent to which ACPS’ programs and services are consistent with best practices for ELLs. Methods for collecting practice data included school visits to six ACPS schools, including one high school, three middle schools, and two elementary schools. GW-CEEE conducted 36 classroom observations and 12 focus group interviews with administrators, ELL teachers, and general education teachers who serve ELLs. GW-CEEE also conducted a focus group for 18 parents of ELLs enrolled in ACPS. In addition, GW-CEEE administered two online surveys, one to 806 general education and 95 ELL teachers, and one to 24 school administrators from 19 schools. The evaluation findings are organized by student outcomes (English language development, mathematics achievement, and reading/language arts achievement), and the dimensions of PEAS’ standards of practice: leadership, qualified personnel, professional development, instructional program design, instructional program implementation, assessment and accountability, and parent and community outreach. For the purposes of this report instructional program design and instructional program implementation have been combined into a section on curriculum and instruction. Findings for Student Outcomes English Language Development

Limited English proficiency (LEP) students demonstrated varying rates of progress in English language development depending on grade span and initial proficiency.

The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education l http://ceee.gwu.edu ii

Mathematics Achievement Adequate yearly progress (AYP) benchmarks for ELLs were not met but the Division

made safe harbor during the last three years. Progress in closing achievement gaps in math varied by grade-level cohort.

Reading/Language Arts Achievement AYP benchmarks for ELLs were not met but the Division made safe harbor during the

last three years. Three cohorts of ELLs made progress in closing achievement gaps in reading.

Findings Under the PEAS Dimensions

Leadership ACPS does not have a focused and articulated plan of action for achieving high

expectations for ELLs. Qualified Personnel

ELLs are not adequately served by teachers with expertise to meet their needs. Professional Development

ACPS does not have a coherent and sustained professional development program to prepare all teachers to serve ELLs.

Curriculum and Instruction The new ACPS curriculum is not adequately differentiated to support ELLs. The inclusive instruction approach used by ACPS to teach ELLs does not sufficiently

ensure that students have access to grade-level content instruction. ACPS’ program for English language development is not sufficiently focused on

supporting the development of academic language ELLs need to succeed in meeting grade level content expectations.

Some ELLs get placed into lower tracks. Systematic processes have not been built into special education identification, diagnostic,

and placement procedures to prevent disproportionate representation of ELLs in special education.

The International Academy at T.C. Williams shows promise for meeting the needs of secondary ELLs.

Programs for ELLs at John Adams Elementary School do not adequately address the needs of these students.

Assessment and Accountability The new student data system does not yet have the capacity to monitor ELL students’

growth over time in language and academic content learning. ACPS does not have a cohesive system of continuous improvement of its ELL programs.

Parent and Community Outreach ACPS has in place a basic system for outreach to families of ELLs. ACPS has constructive relationships with community organizations that work with

immigrant youth and families. The recommendations are organized by the dimensions of PEAS’ standards of practice: leadership, qualified personnel, professional development, instructional program design, instructional program implementation, assessment and accountability, and parent and community

The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education l http://ceee.gwu.edu iii

outreach. Again, for the purposes of this evaluation instructional program design and instructional program implementation have been combined into a section title Curriculum and Instruction. Recommendations Leadership

Coordinate across ACPS departments and offices to ensure that division initiatives are focused, evaluated, and adequately consider the needs of ELLs.

Provide written guidance and professional development to ensure all division personnel have a thorough understanding of expectations for teaching ELLs both English and academic content to high standards.

Qualified Personnel Require ELL and content teachers working with ELLs to demonstrate that they are

prepared to support these students. Professional Development

Prepare all teachers who work with ELLs to provide instruction in the academic language of the content. Prepare ELL teachers to support both content learning and the learning of language related to the content.

Prepare ELL and general education teachers to implement effectively the ACPS inclusion model for ELLs.

Institute a system for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of professional development.

Curriculum and Instruction Differentiate the new division-wide content curriculum for ELLs at different ELP levels. Strengthen the co-teaching model for classrooms with ELLs. Provide explicit instruction for English language development (ELD). Develop an ELD curriculum. Schedule dedicated time for ELD. Ensure ELLs have equitable access to paths to career and college. Continue to support the development of the International Academy at T.C. Williams. Ensure ELLs at John Adams receive coordinated supports across ESL, Success for All,

and dual language programs. Assessment and Accountability

Continue efforts to improve the accessibility of the student data system to support instructional decisions for ELLs.

Monitor instruction and learning in all classrooms that have ELLs. Develop a system of continuous improvement for programs and services for ELLs.

Parent and Community Outreach Engage families of ELLs as active partners in the schools and in their children’s

education.

The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education l http://ceee.gwu.edu 1

Background During the 2010-2011 school year, the English Language Learner (ELL) Office of Alexandria City Public Schools (ACPS) developed New Directions: The ACPS Plan to Serve Our English Language Learners, a report on the current status of the Division’s ELL programs and recommendations for improvement. In response to this report, ACPS Superintendent Dr. Morton Sherman and the school board requested a systematic program evaluation to be carried out by an objective third party to verify the need for recommended reforms and to support decisions about resource allocation. The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education (GW-CEEE) conducted the requested evaluation to examine the extent to which the Division is meeting its goals for ELLs, as well as to assess the quality of its programs and services for this population. This evaluation was carried out using GW-CEEE’s Promoting Excellence Appraisal System (PEAS), a research-based framework regarding effective programs for ELLs. GW-CEEE developed PEAS based on nearly two decades of research on best practices for ELLs in K–12 public schools. PEAS emerged as an outgrowth of Promoting Excellence: Guiding Principles for Educating English Language Learners (2009), a national initiative begun in 1998 to provide educators with comprehensive, research-based, guidance on issues critical to providing an optimal learning environment for ELLs. The Guiding Principles suggest that an effective program of support for ELLs is characterized as one that is enriched, academically challenging, long-term, and integrated with programs for native English speakers. PEAS is comprised of a set of observable standards of practice that can be used to examine the extent to which the Guiding Principles are in place and provide guidance to school divisions to ensure they are implementing a sound and equitable educational program for ELLs. PEAS is designed to provide school divisions with the information they need to make decisions about improvements most likely to promote student learning. PEAS examines seven dimensions and corresponding sets of standards; these include leadership, qualified personnel, professional development, instructional program design, instructional program implementation, assessment and accountability, and parent and community outreach. The PEAS Needs Assessment Tool (Appendix C) lists constructs and standards of practice for each of the seven dimensions. These standards guided the evaluation. Methodology During the fall of 2011, the GW-CEEE evaluation team collected and analyzed a variety of data across multiple stakeholder groups. In collaboration with the ACPS Department of Accountability, the team examined ELL student outcome data to determine whether these students were making expected progress in English and closing achievement gaps with their native English-speaking peers. In addition, the evaluation team reviewed division documents, conducted classroom observations, examined Tripod student survey responses, and conducted surveys and interviews of division and school administrators, general education teachers, ELL teachers, and parents.


GW-CEEE examined both longitudinal student outcome data and data on programs and practices to assess the extent to which effective systems are in place in ACPS to support the needs of ELLs. Analyses of longitudinal student outcomes examined the extent to which ELLs in ACPS were making progress in developing English and closing gaps in academic achievement. Student outcome data were collected through the district’s Assessment and Accountability Department as well as the Virginia state report card. ELL students’ language growth was measured through the WIDA ACCESS for ELLs ® (ACCESS). Math and reading achievement were measured through the change in pass rates on the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOLs) for three cohorts of students. Additional details about the methodology for the analysis of student outcomes may be found in Appendix A. The evaluation team also examined the seven PEAS dimensions of practice to assess the extent to which ACPS programs and services are consistent with best practices for ELLs. Methods for collecting practice data included school visits to six ACPS schools, including one high school, three middle schools, and two elementary schools. GW-CEEE researchers conducted 36 classroom observations and 12 focus group interviews with administrators, ELL teachers, and general education teachers who serve ELLs. GW-CEEE staff also conducted a focus group for 18 parents of ELLs enrolled in ACPS. In addition, GW-CEEE administered two online surveys, one to 806 general education teachers and 95 ELL teachers, and one to 24 school administrators from 19 schools. Cambridge Education collaborated to conduct customized analyses of Tripod student data to address parts of this evaluation. Formative data were also collected through document and website reviews. These data were compiled and analyzed to assess the extent to which each of the PEAS standards of practice were in place. Sampling and response rates for each instrument are detailed in Appendix B. The PEAS Needs Assessment Tool showing the standards of practice are found in Appendix C. Aggregated results of the administrator and teacher surveys and classroom observations are found in Appendices D, E, and F. Additional technical details regarding data collection and analysis and copies of instruments are available upon request. National, State, and Division Context Federal policy recognizes the obligation of states and local education agencies to take “appropriate action” to help ELLs overcome language barriers to ensure equal educational opportunity (Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974). The Office of Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education utilizes a three-part test, derived from a seminal Supreme Court decision, for evaluating the quality of programs designed for ELLs: 1) The program is informed by a sound educational theory; 2) the program must be “implemented effectively,” with adequate resources and personnel; and 3) the program must be evaluated as effective in overcoming language barriers (Castañeda v. Pickard, 1981). Research suggests that effective programs for ELLs are those that provide a cohesive and sustained system of support that helps eliminate gaps in achievement (Thomas & Collier, 2009). Because these students typically perform behind their English-speaking counterparts when they enter school in the U.S., ELLs must make more than one year’s progress each and every school year in order to catch up to grade-level benchmarks. Research indicates that ELLs who are provided effective support take at least five to six years to attain grade level achievement as


measured by standardized tests in English (Collier, 2009; Garcia, 2000). However, ELLs who are enrolled in ineffective programs are expected to take much longer to attain grade-level benchmarks; in fact, many of them fall farther behind their English speaking peers as they proceed from grade to grade. These students are among those most at risk of not completing high school. From a civil rights perspective, it is imperative for school districts to provide effective support throughout ELLs’ schooling, and to have in place an effective means of monitoring student outcomes to ensure programs are meeting their goals for ELLs. National Currently, research indicates continuing achievement gaps for ELLs across the nation. Recent results from the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show the following:

In 4th-grade reading, 70 percent of ELLs scored below basic and 7 percent performed at or above proficient.

In 8th-grade reading, 71 percent of ELLs scored below basic and only 3 percent performed at or above proficient.

In 4th-grade math, 42 percent of ELLs scored below basic while 14 percent performed at or above proficient.

In 8th-grade math, 72 percent of ELLs scored below basic and 5 percent performed at or above proficient.

ELLs’ performance for each of these measures represents negligible or no change since 2009 (Maxwell, 2011).

State ELLs’ achievement on state content assessments across the nation also shows considerable gaps in relation both to English-speaking students and to state and local benchmarks. As yearly benchmarks rise over time, more states and districts are failing to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for their ELL subgroup. Division Alexandria’s student population represents a rich diversity of racial, ethnic, and socio-economic groups, including ELLs. The total number of ACPS students enrolled as of September 2011, consists of 34% Black, 30% Hispanic, 28% White, and 6% Asian. Among these students, more than 75 different native languages are spoken, representing a diverse body of ELLs. Alexandria’s growing diversity reflects national trends across the United States. From 1998-99 to 2008-09, the national ELL population grew by 51%, compared to a 7.2% growth rate for all students (National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition [NCELA], 2010). Growth rates in Virginia far surpass national rates. The percentage of ELLs in Virginia public schools grew 261% compared to a 10.8% overall student growth rate (NCELA, 2010). At the division level, Alexandria has witnessed a similarly rapid increase in its ELL population. The number of ELLs in ACPS has nearly doubled within the past six years, from 1,484 ELLs enrolled during the 2005-06 school year to 2,827 ELLs enrolled in 2011-12. This number includes those students currently receiving ELL services as well as those who have opted out of ELL services. ELLs currently make up 23% of the ACPS student body, which means every school and most classrooms enroll at least some ELLs and/or former ELLs.


For the past three years, ACPS has not made AYP for students in the limited English proficient (LEP) subgroup, although the division made “safe harbor.” In addition, in 2010-11 only 56% of ELLs in ACPS met the Federal graduation indicator (FGI) for “on-time graduation,” which measures the number of students who graduate within four years of enrollment in high school. Overview of ACPS ELL Programs The current ELL program in ACPS serves ELLs at all 19 of its schools, including 12 elementary schools, 1 preK-8 school, 5 middle schools, and 1 high school with 2 campuses. In general, ELLs’ language proficiency level as measured by the ACCESS test determines the amount of time and support they receive from ELL teachers. The ELL population varies substantially in size and demographics across schools. The types of programs and services available to ELLs also vary across grade spans and schools. Typically, elementary schools provide a combination of push-in support, co-teaching, and English as a second language (ESL) pull-out. ELLs in Grades 6 - 8 may receive instruction in co-taught and/or sheltered classrooms, depending on their English language proficiency (ELP) levels. T.C. Williams currently implements a new International Academy for ELLs at Levels 1 through 3, while students at higher ELP levels are served in inclusive classrooms. Division documentation regarding the ELL instructional program articulates goals to support both grade-level state standards of learning and the five ACCESS ELP standards that emphasize academic language in the content areas. According to the website description of the ELL program, “instruction is adapted to students’ English proficiency levels to assist students in meeting the same state academic content and achievement standards as all students are expected to meet.” As of the current school year, the written guidance available for implementation of ELL instructional programs is addressed through Guidance Models, which are available on the ACPS ELL website. These documents, originally developed in 2008 and most recently updated in 2009-2010, provide guidelines for allocating the amount of ELL service delivery time depending on students’ ELP levels, with students at beginning ELP levels receiving more ELL instructional time than those with higher ELP levels. Elementary Level At the elementary level, ELL teachers serve students either through push-in support or pull-out support, providing instruction through a balanced literacy framework. ACPS provides two Guidance Models for elementary schools, one for “pull-out” instruction and the other for “inclusionary” instruction. According to the ELL Office, these two models were developed to provide schools flexibility in scheduling ELL staff, given that ELL teachers at some schools serve students across multiple grade levels, whereas at other schools ELL teachers work closely with one or two grade levels. In both models, the ELL teacher provides between 36 and 72 minutes of daily instruction, depending on the students’ ELP and grade levels, with students at lower ELP levels generally receiving more time than students with higher ELP levels. For both pull-out and inclusionary delivery models, ACPS recommends that ELL teachers provide daily support for ELLs at all ELP levels through a balanced literacy approach that includes instruction in oral language, explicit vocabulary, authentic writing, guided reading, and read alouds. In addition, the Guidance Models for both pull-out and inclusionary models emphasize the integration of all four language domains in instruction. Neither the pull-out nor the inclusionary


guidance model provides guidance for placing ELLs in academic content instruction, other than stating that students will receive at least part of language arts instruction with an ELL teacher. However, according to the ELL Office, all elementary ELLs are placed into general education classrooms.

The two elementary Guidance Models differ in their emphasis on collaboration. The document for the pull-out model refers to the ESL/ELL teacher and the grade level teacher as “collaborating teachers,” while the inclusionary model document provides a more detailed description of six “ACPS Collaborative Strategies” that were created with assistance from Dr. Virginia Rojas, ASCD Language Education Consultant. These include complementary teaching, alternative teaching, parallel teaching, station teaching, peer teaching, and support teaching. Whereas the pull-out Guidance Model designates particular instructional components (e.g., read aloud, guided reading, interactive writing) of the balanced literacy framework to be used by ELL and grade level teachers, the inclusionary Guidance Model indicates that the ESL/ELL teacher and the grade level teacher collaborate to provide instruction in all the components using one or more of the six ACPS Collaborative Strategies. The inclusionary Guidance Model also suggests that collaborating teachers can use the SIOP model “to frame instructional planning and delivery in a co-teaching environment,” in which the ESL/ELL teacher focuses on “English language proficiency objectives connected to the grade level teacher’s instruction on content skill and knowledge objectives.” Middle School Level Middle school ELL teachers serve students through sheltered content instruction, push-in or co-teaching of academic content classes. ELL placement procedures take into account students’ ELP levels, as measured by the ACCESS or W-APT. The Guidance Model for Grades 6-12 recommends that ELLs, depending on the ELP levels, receive at least some instruction through sheltered courses. Sheltered instruction is defined as “differentiation to meet ELL student needs whether in an inclusionary or pull-out setting … for one or more of the following: materials, task, learning strategy, or grouping configuration.” The guidance provides for ELLs at ELP Levels 1 and 2 to receive two ELL-only sheltered courses, whereas ELLs at ELP Levels 3-5 receive one ELL-only sheltered course. A review of division documentation and interviews indicated that beginning level ELLs typically receive English language arts instruction from an ELL teacher using sheltered instructional techniques.

Students at higher ELP levels are integrated into academic content classes. ELL teachers are typically scheduled to push-in or co-teach classes in which a significant number of ELLs are concentrated. The Guidance Model specifies that ELLs at ELP Levels 1-5 should receive “no less than 45 minutes per day (or the equivalent) of direct instruction from an ESL endorsed teacher whether in an inclusionary or pull-out setting,” ensuring that all ELLs receive time with a teacher who has expertise in English language development (ELD). The Guidance Model for grades 6-12 is less detailed than those for the elementary level. While the Guidance Model specifies the number of sheltered classes ELLs at each ELP level were to receive, it does not specify the content areas to be provided. According to the ELL Office, guidance for math placement is given to schools on individual ELLs based on math screener tests


ELLs take at enrollment or during fifth grade. ELLs are taught to the content standards for English language arts, but no dedicated English as a second language instruction is provided. High School Level In the past, instruction for ELLs at the high school level followed the grades 6–12 Guidance Model. Beginning in the current (2011-12) school year, T.C. Williams instituted a new International Academy to serve ELLs primarily at ELP Levels 1-3. The ELL plan states that the aim of the International Academy is to provide intensive support to address ELLs’ linguistic, academic, and sociocultural needs. The design of the International Academy differs from that of the previous program by strategically placing a dedicated team of teachers with ELLs in sheltered courses, and locating sheltered classrooms in close proximity to one another to encourage collaboration among teachers. In addition, the International Academy employs a guidance counselor and social worker dedicated to the needs of ELLs. As part of the International Academy, ELLs at ELP Levels 1–3 receive academic instruction in self-contained sheltered courses in language arts, science, social studies, and math. Sheltered classes are either co-taught by an ELL and content teacher, or taught by a single dually-certified teacher. Of these sheltered courses, some are designed for ELLs at ELP Level 1 and count as electives rather than graduation credits. Because the strand of sheltered courses for ELLs at ELP Level 1 presented a barrier to graduation, the ELL Office reported that the high school is eliminating these elective strand sheltered courses and offering English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classes for beginning level ELLs. The EAP classes are matched to SOL-bearing classes with the aim of providing instruction for ELLs in the academic language and background knowledge they need in order to succeed in the core content areas and to earn credits toward graduation. T.C. Williams also offers a literacy intervention class and a math intervention class for students with interrupted formal schooling. High school ELLs at Levels 4 and 5 take general education classes in the regular program at T.C. Williams and receive support from an ELL teacher through a co-taught class in one content area. Findings for Student Outcomes This section includes an examination of student outcomes in order to determine what progress ELLs were making in developing English and attaining proficiency on Virginia Standards of Learning assessments in mathematics and reading. Findings are presented for English language development, mathematics achievement, and reading achievement. A detailed description of the methods used to analyze student outcomes and the limitations of these analyses are available in Appendix A.

Summary of Findings English Language Development

LEP students demonstrated varying rates of progress in English language development depending on grade span and initial proficiency level.

Mathematics Achievement AYP benchmarks for ELLs were not met but the Division made safe harbor during the

last three years. Progress in closing achievement gaps in math varied by grade-level cohort.


Reading/Language Arts Achievement AYP benchmarks for ELLs were not met but the Division made safe harbor during the

last three years. Three cohorts of ELLs made progress in closing achievement gaps in reading.

Examination of English Language Development English language learners by definition have not yet mastered enough English to be able to fully access instruction in English or to demonstrate their knowledge and skills on tests given in English. An effective language support program must demonstrate that ELLs are making progress over time in both English language development and academic achievement. As stated in the introduction, ELLs typically begin their schooling with very little English and a substantial gap in achievement (a national average of two standard deviations below grade level) on statewide tests of math and reading. Research indicates that effective programs produce achievement gap closure by supporting ELLs to develop full proficiency in English as well as grade-level proficiency on state content assessments within five to six years of entry into the school division (Collier and Thomas, 2009). Thus, it is important to track ELLs’ achievement over time.

Finding: Limited English proficient (LEP) students demonstrated varying rates of progress in English language development depending on grade span and initial proficiency.

To assess ELLs’ development of English language proficiency, ACCESS for ELLs® composite scores were examined for school years 2009-10 and 2010-11. It was not possible to examine growth on this measure for more than two years due to the recent adoption of a new state assessment. Tables 1-6 show analyses for each cohort of LEP students’ English language development from 2009-10 to 2010-11. Tables 1, 3, and 5 show cross-tabulations of students’ proficiency levels in 2009-10 (first column) by 2010-11 proficiency level (horizontal labels). Tables 2, 4, and 6 show the numbers of students at each level who regressed, showed no change, or progressed. Students at Levels 1–5 are considered limited English proficient (LEP). For purposes of these analyses, students who attained full proficiency in English and were no longer tested on the ACCESS were thereafter coded as “Exited.” This category includes students in Monitoring Year 1 (6-1), Monitoring Year 2 (6-2) and exited (T). Each cell represents the percentage of all students in the cohort. Tables 2, 4, and 6 show the percentage of LEP students who regressed by one or more levels, showed no change, or progressed by one or more levels, and the total count. Results for the elementary cohort indicated that 62% of 131 students grew by at least one ACCESS level from 2009-10 to 2010-11. Thirty-five percent demonstrated no change, and 3% regressed. A total of 29 students (22%) exited from LEP status. All students who began at Levels 1 and 2 made progress. However, 41% of students who started at Level 3, 36% of students who started at Level 4, and 56% of students who started at Level 5 did not make progress or regressed.


For the middle school cohort, 38% of 126 students made progress, 14% regressed, and 48% showed no change. Only five students (4%) exited from LEP status. The three students who began at Level 1 in 2009-10 made progress. However, 26% of students who started at Level 2, 65% of students who started at Level 3, 71% of students who started at Level 4, and 86% of students who started at Level 5 did not make progress or regressed. For the high school cohort, 73% of 95 students made progress, 5% regressed, and 22% showed no change. A total of 21 students (22%) exited from LEP status. However, 14% of students who started at Level 1, 33% of students who started at Level 2, 36% of students who started at Level 3, 19% of students who started at Level 4, and 44% of students who started at Level 5 did not make progress or regressed. (Note that these are outcomes for students who attended T.C. Williams High School before the implementation of the new International Academy.) Results of these analyses indicate that the rate of progress differed by initial grade level and initial English language proficiency level. These results are generally consistent with nation-wide findings that students who begin at lower grade levels and lower English language proficiency levels tend to make faster progress than their peers who begin at higher grade levels and/or higher English language proficiency levels (Cook, Boals & Lundren, 2011; U.S. Department of Education, 2012). Because ACCESS scores were available for only two years and it is not known how long students had been enrolled in programs of support, it is not possible to draw conclusions about whether ACPS programs were effective in supporting expected growth rates from year to year.


Table 1.Elementary cohort: Crosstab of ACCESS for ELLs® proficiency level in 2009-10 by 2010-11 proficiency level

From /to Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Exited Total

Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Count

Level 1 0.00% 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 0.00% 0.00% 3

Level 2 0.00% 0.00% 83.33% 5 16.67% 1 0.00% 0.00% 6

Level 3 0.00% 2.56% 1 38.46% 15 51.28% 20 2.56% 1 5.13% 2 39

Level 4 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 35.94% 23 34.38% 22 29.69% 19 64

Level 5 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 15.79% 3 42.11% 8 42.11% 8 19

Grand Total 0.00% 0 2% 2 16% 21 37% 48 24% 31 22% 29 131 Table 2.Elementary cohort: Percent of students who regressed, showed no change, or progressed

From /to % % %

Regressed No change Progressed

Level 1 100.0% Level 2 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Level 3 2.6% 38.5% 59.0% Level 4 0.0% 35.9% 64.1% Level 5 15.8% 42.1% 42.1%

Grand Total 3.1% 35.1% 61.8% Source: ACPS Office of Technology Services

Table 3.Middle school cohort: Crosstab of ACCESS for ELLs® proficiency level in 2009-10 by 2010-11 proficiency level



Level 1 0.00% 2.38% 3 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3

Level 2 0.00% 4.76% 6 11.11% 14 2.38% 3 0.00% 0.00% 23

Level 3 0.00% 0.79% 1 21.43% 27 11.90% 15 0.00% 0.00% 43

Level 4 0.00% 0.00% 3.97% 5 15.87% 20 6.35% 8 1.59% 2 35

Level 5 0.00% 0.00% 1.59% 2 7.94% 10 5.56% 7 2.38% 3 22

Grand Total 0.00% 0 10 48 48 15 5 126


Table 4.Middle school cohort: Percent of students who regressed, showed no change, or progressed From /to % % %


Level 1 100.0% Level 2 0.0% 26.1% 73.9% Level 3 2.3% 62.8% 34.9% Level 4 14.3% 57.1% 28.6% Level 5 54.5% 31.8% 13.6%


Table 5.High school cohort: Crosstab of ACCESS for ELLs® proficiency level in 2009-10 by 2010-11 proficiency level



Level 1 0.00% 2 7.14% 9 1.59% 2 0.79% 1 0.00% 0.00% 14 Level 2 0.00% 1 3.97% 5 6.35% 8 2.38% 3 0.00% 0.79% 1 18 Level 3 0.00% 0.79% 1 5.56% 7 7.94% 10 0.79% 1 2.38% 3 22 Level 4 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.76% 6 11.11% 14 9.52% 12 32 Level 5 0.00% 0.00% 0.79% 1 1.59% 2 0.79% 1 3.97% 5 9

Grand Total 3.16% 3 12% 15 14% 18 17% 22 13% 16 17% 21 95

Table 6.High school cohort: Percent of students who regressed, showed no change, or progressed

From /to % % %


Level 1 14.3% 85.7% Level 2 5.6% 27.8% 66.7% Level 3 4.5% 31.8% 63.6% Level 4 0.0% 18.8% 81.3% Level 5 33.3% 11.1% 55.6%



Examination of Mathematics Achievement This section examines two questions: 1) to what extent were ELLs attaining AYP benchmarks on the mathematics SOL? and 2) What was the three-year growth trajectory for three cohorts of ELLs in comparison to non-ELLs on the mathematics SOL? The first question presents results of the cross-sectional data reported to the Virginia Department of Education for AYP purposes. The second question examines longitudinal data for three cohorts of students over time to examine their progress in closing achievement gaps over time.

Finding: AYP benchmarks for ELLs were not met but the Division made safe harbor during the last three years.

An examination of cross-sectional SOL data reported to the Virginia Department of Education indicated that ELLs in ACPS fell short of adequate yearly progress benchmarks in mathematics but made “safe harbor” during each of the last three years (2009 – 2011) as shown in Figure 1. The percentage of ACPS ELLs who scored proficient on the Mathematics SOL was 68% in 2008-09, 74% in 2009-10, and 73% in 2010-11. The pass rate for ELLs lagged behind state benchmarks by 11%, 5%, and 12% respectively. (The benchmark was raised in 2010-11). The gap between the ELL pass rate and the pass rate for “all students1” was 8%, 4%, and 6% respectively, indicating that there was no meaningful gap closure across the three years.

Finding: Progress in closing achievement gaps in math varied by grade level cohort. The cross-sectional analysis provided in the previous finding (i.e., AYP data reported to the state) has limited usefulness for program evaluation purposes in that it examines changing groups of students each year. ELLs at the most advanced English proficiency levels get moved out of the LEP category while new students with lower English proficiency levels enter the division, making it difficult to show progress in closing achievement gaps. To provide an improved measure of achievement gap closure, evaluators worked with the ACPS Office of Technology to conduct three longitudinal cohort analyses. Three cohorts of students (elementary, middle and high school) were selected, each of which was disaggregated for ELLs and non-ELLs. In the ELL category, students were selected if they had been coded LEP at any time prior to 2010-11, thus allowing an examination of the three-year growth trajectory for these students regardless of whether they exited LEP status. Results were analyzed to determine whether ELLs were making sufficient annual growth to close the achievement gap within five to six years, an indicator of an effective educational program (Collier & Thomas, 2009). The elementary cohort consisted of 224 ELLs and 442 non-ELLs who were enrolled in Grade 5 in 2010-11. The pass rate on the mathematics SOLs for ELLs in this cohort (Figure 2) increased from 73% proficient when most of these students were in Grade 3 to 82% proficient in Grade 5. By Grade 5, the ELL pass rate was 3.8% below the benchmark. However, ELLs slowed their progress from Grade 4 to Grade 5, with a “true gap” of 9.2% remaining in relation to their non-ELL peers. ELLs will need to continue to make 4–5% gains in pass rates for each of the next two years in order to close the achievement gap within the expected time (i.e., in 2014 when they are in Grade 8). As students in this cohort move up in grade level, the academic coursework and the

1 To measure the “true gap,” the state would need to provide data on “non-LEP” versus “LEP” students, as subsets of “all students.”


language required to meet grade level expectations will become more challenging. These students will need additional supports to continue the desired growth trajectory. The middle school cohort consisted of 118 ELLs and 131 non-ELLs who were tested on the Grade 8 math SOL in 2010-11. Data for this cohort in Figure 3 showed both ELLs and non-ELLs began substantially below state benchmarks in Grades 6 and 7. Both groups increased their math achievement in Grade 8, but remained well below target pass rates. The pass rate for ELLs grew from 19.5% in Grade 6 to 57.6% in Grade 8, well below the 85% target. The average annual growth in pass rates was 19.1%. However, this cohort did not include students who had taken Grade 8 Algebra, thus results of this analysis may underestimate achievement gaps. This cohort of students must therefore make more accelerated progress to catch up with peers who enrolled in this important gateway course by Grade 8. The high school cohort consisted of 137 ELLs and 235 non-ELLs who were tested on the Geometry end-of-course exam in 2010-11 when they were enrolled in Grade 11. Progress was tracked for pass rates on Grade 8 math and two end-of-course tests in Algebra I and geometry. ELLs in the high school cohort (Figure 4) showed achievement gaps on the Grade 8 math test and the end-of-course geometry test, but surpassed 2009-10 targets in Algebra I. However, like the middle school cohort, students who enrolled in algebra in Grade 8 were excluded, thus both ELLs and non-ELLs in the sample were likely on a lower track. For this reason, results of this analysis may underestimate the size of the achievement gap.

Figure 1. Percent of ACPS ELLs and all students proficient on Mathematics SOL (Cross-sectional analysis). Source: Virginia Department of Education 2011

Target


Figure 2. Elementary cohort pass rates on the math SOL (longitudinal analysis). Source: ACPS Office of Technology Services N = 224 ELLs and 442 non-ELLs enrolled in ACPS during all 3 years of this analysis

Figure 3. Middle school cohort pass rates on the math SOL (longitudinal analysis). Source: ACPS Office of Technology Services N =118 ELLs and 131 non-ELLs enrolled in ACPS during all 3 years of this analysis


Figure 4. High school cohort pass rates on the mathematics end-of-course assessments. Source: ACPS Office of Technology Services N =137 ELLs and 235 non-ELLs enrolled in ACPS during all 3 years of this analysis

Examination of Reading/Language Arts Achievement This section examines two questions: 1) to what extent were ELLs attaining AYP benchmarks on the reading SOL? and 2) What was the three-year growth trajectory for three cohorts of ELLs in comparison to non-ELLs on the reading SOL? The first question presents results of the cross-sectional data reported to the Virginia Department of Education for AYP purposes. The second question examines longitudinal data for three cohorts of students over time to examine their progress in closing achievement gaps over time.

Finding: AYP benchmarks for ELLs were not met but the Division made safe harbor during the last three years.

A cross-sectional analysis of AYP data reported to the Virginia Department of Education for the Reading SOLs indicated that ELLs in ACPS fell short of adequate yearly progress benchmarks in reading but made “safe harbor” during each of the last three years (2009–2011) (Figure 5). The percentage of ACPS ELLs who scored proficient on the Reading SOL was 77% in 2008-09, 78% in 2009-10, and 74% in 2010-11. Thus ELLs fell behind in respect to state targets, with gaps of 4%, 3%, and 12% respectively. Some of this increased gap was due to the higher benchmark in 2010-11. The gap with the pass rate for “all students” also increased slightly, from 8% in 2008-09 to 9% in 2010-11, suggesting achievement gaps in ACPS remain about the same for the overall ELL population in comparison with all students.

Finding: Three cohorts of ELLs made progress in closing achievement gaps in reading.


As in the mathematics longitudinal analysis, the evaluation team worked with the ACPS Office of Technology to examine outcomes on the reading SOLs for the same groups of students to investigate whether they were making progress in closing achievement gaps over time. Three cohorts of students (elementary, middle, and high school) were selected, each of which was disaggregated for ELLs and non-ELLs. Results were analyzed to determine whether ELLs were making sufficient annual growth in reading to close the achievement gap within five to six years, an indicator of an effective educational program (Collier & Thomas, 2009). The elementary cohort consisted of 209 ELLs and 440 non-ELLs who were enrolled in Grade 5 in 2010-11. ELLs in this cohort (Figure 6) increased from 75% proficient in Grade 3 to 83% proficient in Grade 4, but decreased to 81% proficient on the Grade 5 Reading SOLs, 5% below the state target of 86%.The achievement gap in relation to non-ELLs each year was 11.2%, 8.6%, and 8.7% respectively, indicating that progress had stalled from Grade 4 to Grade 5. This cohort will need to make at least 4% growth in pass rates over each of the next two years in order to close the achievement gap with their peers by Grade 8. Concerns were expressed by the Division that Virginia Grade Level Alternative (VGLA) results may be inflated in relation to SOLs. To address this question, data were disaggregated for ELLs who took the VGLA versus the SOL. Eighteen ELLs (9%) in Grade 3, 13 (6%) in Grade 4, and 1 (.5%) in Grade 5 took the VGLA and the rest took the standard SOL. The pass rates for students who took the VGLA were 78% (14 of 18 students), 100% (13 students), and 100% (1 student) respectively across the three year period from 2009-2011. Thus if these scores did indeed overestimate student achievement, they could have inflated overall pass rates for this cohort of ELLs in Grades 3 and 4, but probably not in Grade 5 when only one student in the cohort took the VGLA. The middle school cohort, Figure 7, consisted of 220 ELLs and 331 non-ELLs who were enrolled in Grade 8 in 2010-11. ELLs in this cohort decreased their pass rate from 81% proficient in Grade 6 to 78% proficient in Grade 7, then increased to 85% proficient in Grade 8, falling just 1.5% short of the target pass rate for reading. Because non-ELLs also increased their pass rate, the gap between ELLs and non-ELLs also increased slightly, from 2.3% in Grade 6 to 4.3% in Grade 8. If ELLs continue at the current rate of growth, they will be on a trajectory to close the achievement gap with their native English speaking peers within two more years (i.e. by Grade 10). VGLA and SOL scores were disaggregated for the middle school cohort to assess possible inflation of pass rates. Twenty-five ELLs (11%) in Grade 6, 10 ELLs (6%) in Grade 7 and 7 ELLs (4%) in Grade 8 took the VGLA and the rest took the standard SOL. The pass rates for students who took the VGLA were 100% (25 students), 71% (10 of 14 students), and 75% (6 of 8 students) respectively across the three year period from 2009 - 2011. Thus if these scores did indeed overestimate student achievement, they could have inflated overall pass rates for this cohort of ELLs in Grade 6. However, the pass rate for ELLs who took the VGLA in Grades 7 and 8 were lower than those for ELLs who took the SOL, thus it is less likely these scores were inflated.


The high school cohort, Figure 8, consisted of 108 ELLs and 307 non-ELLs who were enrolled in Grade 11 in 2010-11. Two sets of test scores were available for the high school cohort, one on the 2007-08 Grade 8 reading SOL and a second on the 2010-11 end-of-course reading test. Both ELLs and non-ELLs increased their pass rates across these two tests. The pass rate for ELLs fell short of benchmarks for each assessment, but increased from 74% on the Grade 8 test to 84% on the end-of-course test. The pass rate for ELLs on the latter test was just two percentage points behind non-ELLs, indicating this achievement gap was nearly closed for these students. However, the sample includes only students who had data points on both assessments, thus it excludes students who dropped out before Grade 11. In addition, it excludes a substantial number of ELLs who took English Part I and English Part II in Grades 9 and 10, two elective courses for ELLs who were considered not yet ready for credit-bearing English classes. In other words, it is likely that this cohort includes only the highest-achieving high school ELLs. Conclusions The analyses of student outcomes examined ELLs’ progress in developing English and closing achievement gaps with their non-ELL peers in mathematics and reading. Results indicated that overall, ELLs are making progress in attaining proficiency in English, but due to limitations in the data available it was not possible to draw conclusions about whether ACPS programs are supporting sufficient progress in English language development. For mathematics and reading achievement, it is difficult for school divisions to show progress for the LEP subgroup on measures of AYP because the higher-achieving students tend to exit the subgroup while students with less English enter. A better measure of achievement gap closure can be attained by analyzing the progress of cohorts of ELLs over time. Results for longitudinal analyses of mathematics SOLs indicated that elementary ELLs made good progress from Grades 3 to 4, but slowed from Grade 4 to 5 as students moved into more challenging grade levels. At the middle school level, a cohort of both ELLs and non-ELLs who were on the regular mathematics track demonstrated very low achievement in Grades 6 and 7, and then accelerated their pass rates in Grade 8. Because they were not provided access to the gateway Algebra I course in Grade 8, students in this cohort will need to continue to make accelerated progress in order to close achievement gaps and to have equitable access to college and career pathways. The high school cohort of ELLs who completed end-of-course tests in Algebra I and Geometry appeared to be making uneven progress toward achievement gap closure. However, ELLs who were placed in lower tracks were not included in the sample because they would not yet have taken the end-of-course exams. Results of the longitudinal analysis of reading SOLs indicated that, similar to results for math, elementary ELLs as well as non-ELLs slowed their progress from Grade 4 to 5 as they moved into more challenging subject matter, and achievement gaps remained. For middle school, both ELLs and non-ELLs made some progress, but achievement gaps increased slightly from Grade 6 to Grade 8. Results for reading at the elementary and middle school level should also be interpreted with caution due to possible inflation at some grade levels due to the effects of ELLs who took the VGLA, which is scored differently from the SOL. For the high school cohort, both groups also increased their achievement from the time they took the Grade 8 Reading SOL to the end-of-course English assessment, and the ELL – non-ELL achievement gap was nearly closed. This cohort, as for math, excludes students who may have dropped out of high school before


Grade 11 or who did not take the end-of-course assessment because they were placed on a lower track. Thus for the high school cohort, it was not possible to attain an unbiased estimate of achievement gaps.

Figure 5. Percent of ACPS ELLs and all students proficient on Reading SOL (Cross-sectional analysis). Source: Virginia Department of Education (2011)

Figure 6. Elementary school cohort pass rates on the Reading/ELA SOL. N = 209 ELLs and 440 non-ELLs enrolled in ACPS during 3 years of study Source: ACPS Office of Technology Services

Target


Figure 7. Middle school cohort pass rates on the Reading/ELA SOL. N = 220 ELLs and 331 non-ELLs enrolled in ACPS during 3 years of study Source: ACPS Office of Technology Services

Figure 8. High school cohort pass rates on the Grade 8 Reading SOL and end-of-course Reading test. N = 108 ELLs and 307 non-ELLs enrolled in ACPS during 3 years of study Source: ACPS Office of Technology Services


Findings for the PEAS Dimensions of Best Practice Findings statements are presented for each of the seven dimensions of PEAS. Full descriptions follow with an examination of evidence that best practices are in place for ELL education in ACPS. Because they are interrelated, findings for instructional program design and instructional program implementation are discussed together in a section entitled Curriculum and Instruction. Evidence was analyzed in relation to the dimensions, constructs and standards of practice that make up PEAS (Appendix C). Data for these analyses were compiled across multiple sources and the range of data collection instruments described in the Methodology section. Summary of Findings Leadership

ACPS does not have a focused and articulated plan of action for achieving high expectations for ELLs.

Qualified personnel ELLs are not adequately served by teachers with expertise to meet their needs.

Professional development ACPS does not have a coherent and sustained professional development program to

prepare all teachers to serve ELLs. Curriculum and Instruction

The new ACPS curriculum is not adequately differentiated to support ELLs. The inclusive instruction approach used by ACPS to teach ELLs does not sufficiently

ensure that students have access to grade-level content instruction. ACPS’s program for English language development is not sufficiently focused on

supporting the development of academic language ELLs need to succeed in meeting grade level content expectations.

Some ELLs get placed into lower tracks. Systematic processes have not been built into special education identification, diagnostic,

and placement procedures to prevent disproportionate representation of ELLs in special education.

The International Academy at T.C. Williams shows promise for meeting the needs of secondary ELLs.

Programs for ELLs at John Adams Elementary School do not adequately address the needs of these students.

Assessment and accountability The new student data system does not yet have the capacity to monitor ELL students’

growth over time in language and academic content learning.. ACPS does not have a cohesive system of continuous improvement of its ELL programs.

Parent and community outreach ACPS has in place a basic system for outreach to families of ELLs. ACPS has constructive relationships with community organizations that work with

immigrant youth and families.


Leadership Educating ELLs to high standards requires strong division leadership that prioritizes ELLs. This requires that the Division’s vision, mission, and goals are inclusive of all students and specifically address ELL needs. Exemplary leadership practices create a sense of shared responsibility for ELLs. That is, improving the academic success of ELLs resides not just with the ELL program staff and teachers, but with all educators. To promote a sense of shared responsibility for ELLS, divisions should provide clear guidance to schools to support effective learning and teaching. Lastly, division programs and policies should foster a positive climate that values students’ and families’ cultural and linguistic diversity. Evidence of strong leadership and shared responsibility for ELLs should be apparent at the district, school, and classroom levels. This evaluation examined multiple sources of data to assess the degree to which there was evidence of division- and school-level leadership for educating ELLs to high standards. The evaluation team examined documents that articulated the Division’s vision, mission, and goals for ELLs, along with division personnel’s understanding of the ELL program’s mission and goals. The team also examined the survey and interview data reflecting the perspectives of educators and parents on the extent to which responsibility for educating ELLs was shared and focused across all offices, programs, and classrooms and the extent to which ELL personnel were included in decision making processes. One finding emerged from collected data.

Finding: ACPS does not have a focused and articulated plan of action for achieving high expectations for ELLs.

The Division’s vision, mission, and goals outlined in the ACPS five-year strategic plan are inclusive of and set high expectations for all students, including ELLs. Every school has developed objectives for achieving AYP for each of its subgroups, including ELLs, in its education plan. However, the goals and objectives in both division and school plans are relatively broad. The specific actions that need to be taken to attain school goals for ELLs were unclear from the documentation reviewed. The Division has invested attention and resources to examine inequities affecting ELLs and other subgroups. For example, in October 2011 the Accountability Office published a Disproportionality Report that revealed inequities in discipline, graduation and dropout rates for a range of student subgroups, including ELLs. In addition, the ELL director stated that a priority for ACPS this year is to “address disproportionality in all areas, including opportunity to learn, honors course enrollment, suspension rates, and identification for special education services.” The commissioning of the current evaluation and the ongoing discussion of ELLs at the division level also indicates a commitment to improving learning and teaching for ELLs. However, a clear plan of action for doing so has not yet been articulated. Responses to focus group interviews and open-ended survey items indicated a lack of clarity regarding goals for ELLs and expectations for where to focus efforts to improve learning and teaching for their students. More than half of the 82 ELL teachers surveyed felt that the Division and their school did not share an understanding of the best ways to work with ELLs. Further, a majority of survey respondents reported that content teachers did not understand their school’s goals for ELLs. Respondents also indicated a need for more guidance regarding strategies for


teaching content to ELLs, written policies for the ELL instructional programs (e.g., selecting appropriate supports), and the process for procuring resources and materials for ELLs. In addition, a majority of general education teachers wanted more guidance for teaching language to ELLs. Qualified Personnel Research on effective ELL programming highlights the importance of human capacity in developing and implementing educational programming that meets ELLs’ linguistic and academic needs. School divisions with this human capacity are able to recruit and retain highly- qualified general education and ELL teachers, counselors, principals, and support services personnel with the expertise to provide instruction and support services that address the academic, linguistic, and sociocultural needs of ELLs. This evaluation examined specific indicators to determine the degree to which ACPS ensured all educators of ELLs were well-prepared and qualified to teach these students. Data were examined to determine whether there was an adequate number of ELL teachers to serve the educational needs of ELLs. The evaluation team also examined information on ELL teacher hiring and retention, as well as certification and training requirements for ELL and general education teachers who serve ELLs. Finally, the evaluation examined the perceptions of district and building leaders on ACPS educators’ capacity to provide a high-quality education for ELLs. These data led to one main finding that all ELLs are not served adequately by teachers with expertise to meet their needs.

Finding: ELLs are not adequately served by teachers with expertise to meet their needs. The current staffing formula, as articulated in the ACPS Guidance Models for elementary and secondary levels, schedules ELLs with ELL teachers based on their ELP and grade levels. The ELL Office expressed concern that this formula has been interpreted too strictly, without flexibility to address the needs of the diverse population of ELLs. Elementary schools scheduled ELL teachers to provide ESL pull-out and/or push-in support for at least part of the day, whereas secondary schools scheduled ELL teachers to provide self-contained sheltered content classes and/or to co-teach in inclusion classrooms. However, the amount of time ELLs were scheduled to be served by an ESL-certified teacher varied widely across schools. Some ELLs were spending a substantial part of their day with teachers who did not have certification or training in pedagogy for ELLs. Administrators across schools and grade spans reported concerns about inexperienced or unqualified staff, particularly in regard to teachers’ ability to differentiate instruction or to help ELLs with the academic language needed to access instruction. This concern was seconded by both ELL and general education teachers, many of whom indicated on the survey that content teachers were not equipped to adapt lessons for ELLs. Classroom observations at four schools also revealed weaknesses in pedagogy. Specifically, in 21 of the 36 classrooms observed, teachers did not post or discuss language objectives; and ELL or general education teachers in fewer than 10 classrooms explicitly connected lessons to ELLs’ backgrounds, languages, and cultures.


The ELL Office has developed plans to address many of these issues. A December 2011 status update on the ELL plan proposed that rather than hiring more ELL teachers, the Division would establish a goal for recruiting and retaining dually certified teachers, and for increasing the numbers of current teachers who attain an ESL endorsement added on to their state teaching certificate. In addition, the ELL Office proposed to concentrate ELL teachers in co-taught classrooms where they will serve students at ELP Levels 1–3, while preparing general education teachers to serve ELLs at more advanced proficiency levels. The ELL Office also reported that it is developing a plan to require all teachers of ELLs to obtain a division-wide professional certificate within the next three years. This plan shows promise for ensuring more ELLs are served by teachers who are prepared to meet their needs. Professional Development Research-based best practices suggest that staff and teachers need to receive comprehensive professional development focused on planning and delivering instruction that is aligned to content standards, while addressing the needs of ELLs. To enable all general education and ELL teachers to work effectively with ELLs, professional development should address the process of second language development and methods for integrating language instruction into content. This section examines the kinds of ELL professional development provided to staff who work with ELLs and the perceptions of participants about the quality of this professional development. Opportunities for school-based professional development, including regular collaboration among teachers in planning instruction, were also examined.

Finding: ACPS does not have a coherent and sustained professional development program to prepare all teachers to serve ELLs.

Many of the Division’s professional learning opportunities related to instructing ELLs are not coherent or sustained, and not all staff that works with ELLs is required to participate. For instance, survey data indicated that one third of general education teachers and half of elementary principals who work with ELLs reported that they had not participated in professional learning opportunities within the last two years. The Division’s professional development also included shifting goals and instructional approaches that left many teachers confused about what they were expected to do. For example, the Division has changed its approach to teaching content to ELLs during the last three years. At all grade levels, there were efforts to provide professional development in the Structured Immersion Observational Protocol (SIOP) to teachers who wanted to learn it, but evidence from surveys and interviews indicated that this approach was not systematically sustained. During the current school year, a different approach, Quality Teaching for English Learners (QTEL) was offered to a cadre of high school teachers. According to the ELL Office, post-workshop evaluations indicated a low degree of satisfaction with the initial QTEL session; however, teacher feedback was more positive about subsequent QTEL training. At the elementary level, although ACPS continued to hold some workshops on SIOP, many schools appear to have moved away from this approach. Instead, the Division has worked with a


variety of providers including Virginia Rojas of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) as well as the Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) and Kagan Cooperative Learning to offer a range of professional development topics. ACPS has also recently initiated Success for All, a new comprehensive reading program, in three elementary schools. While each of these approaches is based on sound research, they differ in goals and emphases. ACPS is in the process of developing a professional development plan for its proposed ACPS ELL certificate. However, at the time of the evaluation, the Division had not yet developed a clear set of expectations for the knowledge and skills to be required of teachers who work with ELLs. Recently, the Division has begun efforts to integrate coaching support for staff to master the knowledge and skills supported by the professional learning offered. The QTEL provider and Virginia Rojas’s professional development opportunities integrate coaching to support planning and implementation. The ELL office also employs three coaches to assist ELL teachers at elementary, middle and high school levels, but no other ELL-related coaching is available for general education teachers who serve ELLs unless they co-teach with an ELL teacher. ELL coaching is provided on an “on-demand” basis, rather than as part of a system to ensure professional learning is sustained and job-embedded. In focus group interviews, administrators and teachers also expressed concern that teachers are being asked “to do too much” and are being “pulled in too many directions.” Although the Division has offered numerous learning opportunities related to making content accessible for ELLs, few opportunities existed for ELL teachers to improve their knowledge and skills of the content area they were teaching. Some general education teachers at the secondary level reported that ELL co-teachers were not helpful because they did not understand the concepts taught in the class. The Division also does not have much in place to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of professional development for teachers of ELLs. Currently, participant evaluations are collected and reviewed after each professional development session. These evaluations are analyzed and used to make decisions about future professional development. Although post-workshop evaluations measure participants’ opinions of the professional development, they do not ensure that teachers have mastered new learning and that instructional changes are sustained over time. ACPS has taken steps to address many of these issues and to establish a coherent program of professional development for general education teachers who work with ELLs. The Division recently established a partnership with George Mason University to prepare teachers to become dually certified in ESL and a subject area or grade level. To date, an initial cohort of nine teachers and a second cohort of another nineteen teachers have enrolled in the program. In addition, according to a draft plan developed by the ELL Office, the Division will develop an ACPS ELL certificate that will be required of all teachers who work with ELLs. This division certificate will focus on ELL, special education, second language acquisition, cultural competencies, and student engagement, and will include a set of standards so that teachers and administrators are held accountable for demonstrating the skills and knowledge needed to work with ELLs. The Department of Curriculum and Instruction also plans to hire coaches to support the professional learning required for the division certificate. At the time of this report, no plans


have been made to ensure that all ELL teachers are provided with training in the content areas in which they support ELLs. In sum, the ELL Office has begun to implement a sound plan of action to strengthen its professional development offerings by developing a required division ELL certificate. However, the Division has not yet developed a means to ensure that ELL teachers receive professional development in the content concepts. More work is also needed to ensure that the professional development plan is coordinated with other division initiatives, aligned with professional development standards for teachers of ELLs, meets the needs of participants, and sustained over time. Additionally, the Division needs to establish a process to evaluate the impact of the professional development on teacher practice. Curriculum and Instruction Two dimensions in the PEAS rubric address curriculum and instruction: instructional design and instructional implementation. Because these dimensions are interrelated, findings regarding both sets of standards are discussed below. The PEAS instructional design dimension consists of four constructs, including: alignment of design to research-based practices; ensuring access to grade-level content; providing language development curriculum and instruction; and guaranteeing that ELLs are equitably represented in all parts of the curriculum. The standards of practice for the instructional implementation dimension outline best practices for ensuring that the ELL program design is implemented as intended. The standards for instructional implementation address the following six constructs: fidelity of program implementation; collaboration among teachers; access to challenging academic content; language development; socially constructed learning; and classroom assessment. Although standards of practice for instructional implementation are measured separately from standards for instructional design, exemplary instructional implementation is dependent on an effective design. Data related to curriculum and instruction were collected through a review of division documents, interviews with the ELL Director and staff, surveys and interviews of teachers and administrators, and classroom observations. Findings are presented for areas most in need of improvement.

Finding: The new ACPS curriculum is not adequately differentiated to support ELLs. During the current school year, ACPS rolled out a new curriculum for the academic content areas. This curriculum integrated high expectations for all students, to be measured through culminating assessments, referred to as “transfer tasks.” ELL teachers and general education teachers who serve ELLs reported during interviews and on the survey that they had received very little guidance on how to differentiate the curriculum for students who are learning English, and that all students were expected to complete the same culminating assessments. These teachers expressed concern that many of the transfer tasks presented barriers to ELLs due to language issues. To examine this issue, evaluators conducted a review of the fifth grade social studies curriculum guide. This curriculum guide divides the social studies content into seven 3 - 4 week units, each


of which includes a culminating “transfer task” and corresponding rubric as a summative assessment measure. The transfer tasks include a variety of types of innovative assessments (e.g., students must create a web-based tool for the National Geographic Society, a commercial about the southeast region, and a written speech about the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers). Many of these tasks require a final written artifact, which is graded based in part on the student’s ability to write “a well-supported analysis.” ELLs at beginning and intermediate language proficiency levels might not yet possess the language skills to craft such an essay, but they might be able to demonstrate understanding of the content objectives through extra-linguistic means, such as creating a poster, an illustrated timeline, or a chart. However, the curriculum guide does not permit teachers to differentiate the transfer tasks. The Division has developed a document on differentiation strategies to accompany the curriculum, but the recommended strategies are broad and do not address ways to make specific units or transfer tasks accessible to ELLs. In addition, the ELL Office reported that this differentiation guide has not yet been introduced to teachers through systematic professional development. The ELL Office reports that it has recently begun work to differentiate the curriculum. Staff are currently developing exemplars of differentiated instruction and assessments, and will be working with a team of teachers to complete development of this initiative over the next few months.

Finding: The inclusive instruction approach used by ACPS to teach ELLs does not sufficiently ensure that students have access to grade-level content instruction.

The Division has made efforts to integrate ELLs into classrooms with their native English-speaking peers and to expose them to the same core curriculum as all other students. ACPS has implemented a co-teaching model as a means to support the Division’s inclusive philosophy of education in which educators share responsibility for all students. In inclusion classrooms with ELLs, a general education teacher and an ELL teacher work together to provide instruction. Evidence indicated two interrelated issues in regard to the design and implementation of the inclusion approach for ELLs. First, evidence indicated that co-teachers did not always work effectively as a team in a joint relationship to meet the needs of students. Second, due to the limited number of qualified ELL teachers and ongoing issues of scheduling, providing direct support for ELLs in every content area has not been possible. Thus, many ELLs spend at least part of their day in classrooms for which little support is provided to address their needs. Survey and interview data indicated that co-teachers often did not receive adequate time to co-plan or to reflect together about their practice. Although the ELL Office said it has worked with schools to address the need for common planning time, many teachers reported that this time was often usurped by other activities. In the schools reviewed for this evaluation, teachers and administrators reported that ELL teachers are included (as schedules allow) in grade-level meetings in which they could contribute to general planning. However, little or no time was provided for co-teachers to meet to plan lessons specific to the classes taught. Many ELL and general education co-teachers also reported in interviews and surveys that they were unclear


about expectations for serving ELLs in an inclusion setting. ELL teachers who served as co-teachers in inclusion classrooms reported that it was often not possible to adequately plan lessons across multiple content areas and across multiple grade levels. This was particularly problematic at the middle school level, where some ELL co-teachers were required to prepare four or more different classes. These teachers noted that working across multiple content areas and grade levels made their work extremely challenging, and they were concerned that they were not able to best serve their ELL students when they were spread across so many different classes. Observations of some inclusion classrooms indicated that co-teaching does not consistently provide ELLs with the scaffolding to access the content standards. Although pockets of team teaching were observed, most co-taught classrooms did not involve both ELL and general education teacher taking the instructional lead. For example, evaluators observed several middle school ELL co-teachers moving among students to provide individual support, but there was little evidence of co-planning. In these classrooms, teachers did not coordinate to scaffold instruction or to teach the language related to the lesson objectives. An additional concern related to the inclusion model at ACPS is that there were not enough ELL teachers to co-teach every content area. Because of this staffing concern, many ELLs, particularly at elementary and middle school levels, were receiving very limited access to content instruction in the core content areas (i.e., ELA, math, science, and social studies). Students at ELP Levels 1–3 typically received sheltered instruction for one content area, and were placed in general education classrooms for the rest of the day. Overall, these data suggest a general lack of systematic, targeted support for ELLs across the core content areas.

Finding: ACPS’s program for English language development is not sufficiently focused on supporting the development of academic language ELLs need to succeed in meeting grade level content expectations.

Evaluators found two issues of concern in regard to English language development. First, time allocations for ESL support with an ELL teacher are reduced as students increase in English language proficiency. When English language instruction is curtailed for intermediate level ELLs, these students might not develop sophisticated forms of academic language needed to succeed in school. Second, the focus of ESL classes is primarily on content goals with only a secondary emphasis on language goals. At the elementary level, classroom observations indicated that ESL pull-out instruction was primarily focused on the state ELA standards and the division-wide ELA curriculum, not on language objectives specific to the academic language needed by ELLs to be successful in subject matter content areas. Furthermore, little explicit academic language instruction was observed other than the vocabulary and reading instruction that was provided to all students as part of the balanced literacy curriculum. In addition, ELL teachers reported that the allocated time was often reduced when students were released late from their grade-level classrooms. In some schools teachers said they lacked sufficient classroom space for ESL. At the middle school level, no separate English language development classes were offered apart from sheltered English language arts. Observations in a sample of middle school sheltered


classrooms indicated that instruction in these classes focused on content objectives rather than on the full range of academic language functions and discourses. All three of the middle schools visited reported that they had instituted intensive reading interventions for struggling readers, including ELLs. Teachers at one middle school said the school now has a reading support class specific to ELLs. However, it was not clear from the data the extent to which these classes address oral language, grammar, academic language discourses, or other explicit instruction to help ELLs develop the language of the content areas. In contrast to programs at the middle school level, the International Academy at T.C. Williams High School provides a formal program of courses that are intended to support English language development. There, ELLs at the beginning ELP levels can enroll in Academic Enrichment classes, which are designed to provide instruction in the academic language of content classes. However, results of evaluators’ observations of a sample of these classes indicated a lack of emphasis on academic language objectives. Rather, there seemed to be a focus on pre-teaching content. There was no evidence that ELLs at ELP Level 4 and above receive dedicated English language instruction tailored to their needs beyond what is integrated into sheltered content classes. The ELL Office reported plans to develop English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classes with a focus on academic language.

Finding: Some ELLs get placed into lower tracks. The evaluation team found no written guidance for referring English language learners for talented and gifted or to ensure ELLs have equitable access to honors and advanced classes, and few ELLs appeared to be enrolled in these classes. Evaluators observed that some middle school ELLs had been placed into classrooms together with special education and/or low-performing students. This practice effectively places ELLs on a lower “track,” in which they have less access to college preparatory courses and greater risk of dropping out. The ACPS Disproportionality Report also reports substantial gaps in high school completion rates for ELLs in comparison with white students, in addition to low numbers of ELLs who complete advanced diplomas.

Finding: Systematic processes have not been built into special education identification, diagnostic, and placement procedures to prevent disproportionate representation of ELLs in special education.

Evaluators found little written guidance for appropriately referring ELLs for special education or to help distinguish between language barriers and special education needs. Neither did there appear to be a pre-referral process for ELLs. Evidence was mixed in regard to administrators’ and teachers’ perceptions of the special education referral process for ELLs in their schools. Whereas some staff reported on surveys and interviews that their school’s practice of identifying ELLs who have special education needs was adequate or exemplary, others indicated the practice needed improvement.


Finding: The International Academy at T.C. Williams shows promise for meeting the needs of secondary ELLs.

While it is still too early to determine the level of effectiveness of the new academy, administrators and teachers in surveys and interviews generally expressed enthusiasm for the program and were confident that it would support improvements in ELLs’ academic achievement. A majority of 25 International Academy teachers surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that the International Academy has created a collaborative learning environment for teachers. A majority also agreed that ELLs in the academy feel comfortable about participating and asking questions in class, that they have access to the standard curriculum, receive the social and emotional supports they need, and have equitable access to college-preparatory courses. Most also thought ELLs were placed adequately and that they received the right level of support. However, survey respondents were less sure whether ELLs were monitored appropriately after they exited LEP status and whether they were identified appropriately for either special education or advanced coursework.

Finding: Programs for ELLs at John Adams Elementary School do not adequately address the needs of these students.

John Adams Elementary School is one of two ACPS schools that offer Spanish/English dual language programs. Due to concerns about the progress of ELLs enrolled in dual language at John Adams, GW-CEEE was asked to observe the program at this school. To examine these issues, evaluators reviewed school and division documents, observed dual language classrooms, interviewed the principal and teachers, and surveyed ELL teachers, general education teachers, and dual language teachers about the program. Findings for this question should be regarded as preliminary, since a comprehensive evaluation of the program was beyond the scope of the current evaluation. The evaluation team identified two inter-related issues. First, the school was encountering difficulties scheduling its ELL teachers so that these students could receive adequate support for language and content learning. Second, there was a lack of coordinated supports for ELLs who were enrolled in the dual language program. The new principal reported that she had been hired to raise overall achievement at the school, which is in improvement status, and that she was responsible for overseeing multiple reforms as part of the school improvement plan. At the time the evaluators visited the school in October of 2011, John Adams was in the process of rolling out Success for All (SFA), a comprehensive whole-school improvement program with a strong focus on reading and cooperative learning. Staff had recently begun professional development for the new program, and was in the process of determining how ELL teachers would be scheduled for SFA reading groups. During focus group interviews, they expressed concern about how the school would ensure ELLs would receive support for language development and access to the rest of the core content areas other than reading. It was not clear at the time of the school review how SFA or ELL services would be coordinated with the dual language program. The Division’s website on dual language programs provides a


link to the Two-Way Immersion Toolkit (Howard et al., 2005), which states goals of high achievement, bilingualism, and bi-literacy for both English speakers and Spanish speakers. However, evidence from the school visit and surveys indicated that the design of the John Adams program was not aligned with these goals, or with best practices for ELLs in two-way immersion. Instead, the program design was consistent with that of a foreign language immersion program intended to meet the needs of native English-speaking children who are learning Spanish as an additional language. Further, little written guidance was evident regarding which students were eligible to enroll in the dual language program, nor how program staff was expected to support ELLs. In some cases, interview participants said Spanish-speaking students were denied entry to the dual language program for scheduling reasons. In other cases, Spanish-speaking students were placed in the program at upper grade levels, even though they had not previously received instruction in Spanish and were not literate in their native language. Observations indicated that some of these students were unable to keep up with the pace of instruction. Dual language staff reported they had received little recent professional development related to teaching dual language instruction. They also reported that few supports were provided to address the specific needs of ELLs, and that there was a lack of coordination between the dual language program and ELL services. Survey and interview data indicated that teachers differed in their opinions about whether ELLs could appropriately be served in dual language. For example, some agreed with a survey item that few ELLs can keep up with the pace of instruction in dual language. An even greater number also agreed that the school’s placement of ELLs needed improvement and a majority said the school needed to do a better job of providing the right level of support to ELLs. Overall, evaluators found a lack of clarity regarding how ELLs were to be served in general as well as how and whether they could be served within the dual language program. This lack of clarity was associated with a lack of consistency and coordination of services for ELLs. According to the ELL director, some of the issues observed have since been addressed, but no data were available to indicate what changes had been put into place. Assessment and Accountability Effective assessment and accountability are integral to ensuring the quality of an ELL program. The PEAS dimension of assessment and accountability outlines three constructs that are necessary for division ELL programs. The Division should have a clear and consistent system for identifying and placing ELLs appropriately that considers student backgrounds, including levels of English language proficiency, previous educational experiences, and cultural background. Additionally, assessments for measuring ELLs’ progress in language and content should be appropriate and valid for ELLs. Data on assessment results needs to be accessible to teachers and administrators so that they can be used to make instructional decisions. Exemplary division data systems include student background information and have the capacity to track ELLs’ progress over time from their enrollment in the Division until they complete high school. Finally, divisions need a system for evaluation and continuous improvement of the ELL programs.


This evaluation examined evidence to determine the extent to which ACPS has in place effective assessment and accountability systems for ELLs, as described by the three PEAS constructs described above. Data included responses from teachers and administrators on survey items, interview questions during focus groups, and a review of ACPS policies regarding ELL identification, placement, and assessment. The following section describes findings related to assessment and accountability.

Finding: The new student data system does not yet have the capacity to monitor ELL students’ growth over time in language and academic content learning.

The evaluation team examined survey and interview data to investigate how school and division leaders monitor ELLs’ progress toward grade-level achievement before and after exit from LEP status, and the extent to which administrators ensure students are receiving support to complete pathways to career and college. The majority of administrators from all grade spans surveyed reported that they regularly examined ELL student assessment data to track their progress. However, a review of the data system capabilities indicated that the data available typically span only a year or two. ACPS is currently in the process of implementing new student information and reporting systems, but these systems are not yet fully operational. Neither is there yet a seamless system for accessing pre-existing longitudinal reports to assist educators in examining ELLs’ academic growth.

Finding: ACPS does not have a cohesive system of continuous improvement of its ELL programs.

Currently, there have been few written criteria for monitoring instruction for ELLs in ACPS. The ELL Office reported it is currently working with division leadership to develop this criteria and guidance. For example, the ELL Office had been working to develop a set of indicators and monitoring tools for schools. ELL staff collaborated with the Department of Special Education to create classroom walkthrough instruments for division administrators to use when observing and evaluating instruction for inclusion classrooms. However, this instrument was adjusted to meet the needs of inclusion classrooms with students with disabilities and it now lacks a focus on instruction for ELLs. Without an adequate set of criteria for monitoring both academic and language instruction for ELLs, holding school personnel accountable, implementing effective programs and services for ELLs is difficult. Parent and Community Outreach An effective ELL program leverages parents and communities as partners in the education of ELLs in appropriate, relevant, and culturally sensitive ways. Three constructs comprise the PEAS dimension of Parent and Community Outreach, including: communication with parents, parent involvement, and family and community partnerships. Effective ELL programs not only communicate information to parents in the native language, but they also provide opportunities for parents to be involved in their children’s education as well as resources that help them reinforce their children’s language and content learning. Also important are the Division’s and schools’ efforts to partner with families and communities of ELLs to enrich the curriculum as well as to give voice to the diverse communities in the Division.


To assess the district’s programs for Parent and Community Outreach, the evaluation team conducted focus groups with 18 parents of ELLs who spoke Spanish, Amharic, or Arabic, the three most common languages among ACPS ELLs. Translators assisted in translating and administering a parent survey that was used to ignite a conversation about parent outreach in ACPS. As part of the parent interviews, respondents were asked about the district’s communications and outreach efforts to ELL parents, their level of involvement in the schools, and parents’ perceptions of the quality of education their children were receiving. In addition, questions about parent outreach were included in ACPS’ leader and principal surveys, and were also asked of staff in four schools that participated in school reviews. The following section represents findings from these data sources.

Finding: ACPS has in place a basic system for outreach to the families of ELLs. The ELL Office employs a bilingual parent liaison who is dedicated to conducting outreach and education for the families of ELLs. The liaison has established a number of processes and structures to support parents, including translation and interpretation services, family education workshops, and orientation for parents who are new to ACPS. The Division makes efforts provide interpreters as needed for meetings and events, and also has headsets available for simultaneous translation into multiple languages. Most of the parents interviewed for this evaluation seemed satisfied with this service. In addition, the Division employs a variety of external consultants to translate important documents and written communications to parents. However, ACPS does not meet all the needs of parents of ELLs, especially at the school levels. Parents reported that they did not generally receive information about their child’s academic progress (e.g., report cards and standardized test results) in a language or format they could understand. Most individual schools did not employ personnel responsible for conducting outreach with immigrant parents, nor did most schools have outreach plans specifically for this population. Thus, there was little means to ensure that communications between schools and parents was responsive to their linguistic and cultural needs.

Finding: ACPS has constructive relationships with community organizations that work with immigrant youth and families.

ACPS had developed partnerships with at least a dozen community organizations to provide training for parents. The Division has established partnerships with two organizations in particular, The Campagna Center and Tenants and Workers United (TWU), to support improved student achievement. The Campagna Center organizes Building Better Futures, a program that provides tutoring and mentoring for ELLs at T.C. Williams High School to support their success in school and beyond. The Campagna Center also implements several other programs to support ACPS students, including Head Start, and before- and after-school childcare, and tutoring for elementary students. TWU holds an annual Parent's Institute as well as the College Prep for All Campaign to help improve achievement for ACPS students. In addition, in 2009 TWU signed a memorandum of understanding with ACPS with the aim of improving cultural competency of division staff, providing mutual support to design and implement Individualized Student Education Plans for secondary students, and fostering a “culture of parent and youth involvement.” The ELL Office reported that good progress had been made on the initiatives


outlined in the MOU, including community walk-throughs, and the development of strategies to recruit more diverse staff, among other initiatives. Conclusions A comprehensive review of ACPS policies and practices for ELLs in relation to standards of practice across seven dimensions of the Promoting Excellence Appraisal System indicates a number of strengths as well as areas of concern. Evaluators found that ACPS articulates goals that hold all students, including ELLs, to high expectations. School and division administrators, ELL teachers and many general education teachers who serve ELLs care about their students’ success and are working very hard to address their needs. The Division implements an inclusion model that ensures ELLs are integrated with their native English-speaking peers for most instruction. ACPS has established a new high school International Academy that is based on a sound theory and holds promise for addressing the needs of secondary ELLs. The Division also ensures most parents have access to key information and events in a language they can understand, and maintains strong partnerships with several community organizations to support learning and teaching for ELLs. However, reforms are needed in regard to three critical issues: increased support for academic language development, access to academic content instruction in all core content areas, and equitable access to paths to college and career. Currently, ELLs are not being provided sufficient support from teachers who are prepared to meet their needs. The inclusion and collaborative teaching models are implemented inconsistently, and many ELLs spend a large part of their day without the supports they require to develop academic language and understand the content instruction. There is little guidance in the new ACPS curriculum for differentiating instruction or assessments for ELLs. Beyond beginning and intermediate proficiency levels, ELLs receive little explicit instruction in academic language, particularly as they move into the upper grade levels when they need more sophisticated language to succeed in school. The ELL professional development program lacks coherence and sustainability, and few general education teachers participate in professional learning opportunities to improve instruction for ELLs. Teachers and administrators also need more guidance on how to carry out the required supports for ELLs. The Division does not have a systematic means of monitoring and continuously improving the quality of programs for these students, or a system that allows educators at all levels to access the information they need to monitor ELLs’ progress from enrollment until high school completion. Recommendations Based on the findings, GW-CEEE is in agreement with the recommendations in New Directions: The ACPS Plan to Serve Our English Language Learners (henceforth referred to as the ACPS ELL plan) as well as revisions shared by the ELL office. GW-CEEE’s recommendations resulting from the review follow and are organized into six sections in alignment with the PEAS dimensions: Leadership, Qualified Personnel, Professional Development, Curriculum and Instruction, Assessment and Accountability, and Parent and Community Outreach. (Curriculum and Instruction combines two PEAS dimensions:


Instructional Program Design and Instructional Program Implementation.) First a summary of recommendations is presented followed by detailed descriptions of each by category. Summary of Recommendations Leadership

Coordinate across ACPS departments and offices to ensure that division initiatives are focused, evaluated, and adequately consider the needs of ELLs.

Provide written guidance and professional development to ensure all division personnel have a thorough understanding of expectations for teaching ELLs both English and academic content to high standards.

Qualified Personnel Require ELL and content teachers working with ELLs to demonstrate that they are

prepared to support these students. Professional Development

Prepare all teachers who work with ELLs to provide instruction in the academic language of the content. Prepare ELL teachers to support both content learning and the learning of language related to the content..

Prepare ELL and general education teachers to implement effectively the ACPS inclusion model for ELLs.

Institute a system for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of professional development.

Curriculum and Instruction Differentiate the new division-wide content curriculum for ELLs at different ELP levels. Strengthen the co-teaching model for classrooms with ELLs. Provide explicit instruction for English language development (ELD). Develop an ELD curriculum. Schedule dedicated time for ELD. Ensure ELLs have equitable access to paths to career and college. Continue to support the development of the International Academy at T.C. Williams. Ensure ELLs at John Adams receive coordinated supports across ESL, Success for All,

and dual language programs. Assessment and Accountability

Continue efforts to improve the accessibility of the student data system to support instructional decisions for ELLs.

Monitor instruction and learning in all classrooms that have ELLs. Develop a system of continuous improvement for programs and services for ELLs.

Parent and Community Outreach Engage families of ELLs as active partners in the schools and in their children’s

education. Leadership

Recommendation: Coordinate across ACPS departments and offices to ensure that division initiatives are focused, evaluated, and adequately consider the needs of ELLs.


Coordinate across departments to prioritize division-wide initiatives that comprehensively address the needs of instructing ELLs. When designing programs, such as piloting the content curriculum and implementing division-wide professional development, division leadership should make efforts to involve ELL personnel from the onset to ensure that ELLs’ needs are integrated and not an afterthought.

Recommendation: Provide written guidance and professional development to ensure all division personnel have a thorough understanding of expectations for teaching ELLs both English and academic content to high standards.

Develop a division-wide ELL Handbook that provides explicit guidance to all educators (Central Office, school administrators, counselors, general education, ELL, SPED and TAG teachers and instructional support personnel) about ACPS policies, programs and services for ELLs. The handbook should address the Division’s educational approach for instructing ELLs, identification, assessment, placement, grading and retention, staffing and resources, transition from ELL services, monitoring, and program evaluation (U.S. Office of Civil Rights, 1999). This handbook, along with other division guidance related to the ELL program, might be made available online so that it is easily accessible and subject to additional updates. Qualified Personnel

Recommendation: Require ELL and content teachers working with ELLs to demonstrate that they are prepared to support these students.

Move forward with the proposed plan to require all general education teachers who work with ELLs to earn an ACPS certificate based on division-wide professional development that emphasizes the academic language of the core content (ELA, math, science, social studies). In addition, develop parallel requirements for ELL teachers to demonstrate expertise in supporting the content areas. To succeed in school, ELLs need support from both general education and ELL teachers. To earn a division certificate, both ELL and general education teachers must demonstrate they are able to effectively integrate language and content. However, general education teachers with a division certificate should not be considered a replacement for ELL teachers, nor ELL teachers a replacement for content teachers. Professional Development

Recommendation: Prepare all teachers who work with ELLs to provide instruction in the academic language of the content. Prepare ELL teachers to support both content learning and the learning of language related to the content..

General education and ELL teachers come to the classroom with different sets of training and expertise. While the general education teacher is well-versed in the content area, the ELL teacher is knowledgeable about second language development and linguistic needs of ELLs. To provide effective instruction for ELLs that addresses both their academic content and language needs,


general education and ELL teachers need to receive professional development and ongoing, job-embedded support in language and content concepts, respectively. Recommended professional development for each type of teacher follows.

General education teachers. Design the ACPS ELL certificate to include professional development on second language acquisition, culturally relevant pedagogy, and the academic language of the specific content areas. Other topics related to ELLs and making content accessible may also be appropriate to add as well. Ensure that the professional development sequence for the certificate is tailored to meet the learning needs of teachers in different content areas. That is, secondary teachers from each of the four core content areas (i.e., ELA, math, social studies, and science) should receive in depth training on how to identify and to provide instruction on the academic language particular to their content area (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2008).

ELL teachers. Develop requirements for ELL teachers to demonstrate knowledge of the content area in which their students are learning. To ensure that the ELL teachers possess the knowledge unique to the required content in ACPS schools, provide professional development that addresses both the content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge necessary for particular courses. Like the professional development recommended for the general education teachers, differentiate professional development for ELL teachers depending on their needs. That is, secondary ELL teachers who co-teach in algebra classes need to learn algebraic concepts and general methods of teaching these concepts. Alternately, elementary ELL teachers who serve students in the primary grades need to learn about literacy and numeracy development in young children. In addition, prepare ELL teachers to support the full range of academic language related to the content areas. They must be able to provide instruction in general academic vocabulary as well as content-specific vocabulary. In addition to vocabulary instruction, ELL teachers must be well-versed in teaching the grammar (e.g., use of passive voice in science) and language functions (e.g., explaining the causes of the civil war in social studies) associated with the content areas. Within the professional development plan for both ELL and general education teachers, provide opportunities for teachers to learn research-based concepts and practices, to apply their knowledge in the classroom, and to receive continuous feedback and support from coaches. In addition, establish structures, such as professional learning communities that focus on instructing ELLs, to encourage general education and ELL teachers to collaborate regularly and expand their learning (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2010). Seek external feedback on the professional development plan to ensure it is based on research and best practices for professional development of ELL and general education teachers who work with ELLs.

Recommendation: Prepare ELL and general education teachers to implement effectively the ACPS inclusion model for ELLs.


To ensure effective implementation of the ACPS inclusion model, ELL and general education teachers need professional development that enables them to learn together and time collaborating to design instruction and assessment utilizing their unique areas of expertise (Dove & Honigsfeld, 2010). The Division should train administrators about how to support and monitor effective co-teaching practices, and this training should distinguish effective co-teaching for ELLs from co-teaching for other special populations.

Recommendation: Institute a system for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of professional development.

Develop a means to determine the extent to which professional development impacts teachers’ practice. Continue utilizing the participant evaluations, but add other tools to assess implementation of learning, such as classroom walk-through protocols, evidence of structures in place that sustain the learning (e.g., coaches and teacher leaders who support implementation and continuous improvement), and participant reflections on changes in their instruction over time. Make decisions about improvements, changes, or additions to the professional development based on these implementation data. Once the initiative is considered fully implemented, examine data to see if instructional changes might be associated with improved student learning. Guskey (2000) outlines one model that can be used to guide monitoring and evaluation of professional learning. The model is organized into five cumulative levels: 1) participant reactions, 2) participant learning, 3) organization support and change, 4) participant use of new knowledge and skills, and 5) student learning outcomes. Curriculum and Instruction The largest number of findings relates to the PEAS dimensions of Instructional Program Design and Instructional Program Implementation. Because these two dimensions are inter-related, the recommendations for these two dimensions are presented together. This section is organized by PEAS constructs of a) access to grade-level content, b) equity, c) language development, and d) effective design.

Access to grade-level content.

Recommendation: Differentiate the new division-wide content curriculum for ELLs at different ELP levels.

Continue efforts to develop exemplars of differentiated transfer tasks and instruction that enable ELLs to meet the expectations of the curriculum. Hire a team of ELL and general education teachers with expertise in the content areas to draft this differentiation guidance. In addition, develop and/or identify accompanying curricular resources for teachers to use with students at different ELP levels. Once completed, conduct external reviews of the guidance by experts in content areas and ELL education to ensure it retains the same skill or knowledge objectives intended by the original transfer tasks, while enabling ELLs at various English proficiency levels to demonstrate their understanding (Latina & Swedlow, 2003; Echevarria & Short, 2010). Pilot the ELL curricular guidance and resources with a group of volunteer teachers who can provide feedback for future


revisions. When differentiated curriculum is finalized, train all ELL and general education teachers who work with ELLs, and establish a process for continuous review based on student outcomes and teacher feedback.

Effective program design.

Recommendation: Strengthen the co-teaching model for classrooms with ELLs.

Develop and implement structures that ensure effective co-teaching for ELLs. Strategically schedule ELL and general education teachers for co-teaching and provide written guidance on effective co-teaching for ELLs. Pursue plans to prioritize scheduling of ELLs and ELL teachers to ensure that all ELLs receive the language and academic support they need through co-teaching. One practical way to ensure effective co-teaching at the elementary level is to cluster ELLs in one or two homerooms. These homerooms should be taught by grade level teachers interested in meeting the needs of ELLs and willing to collaborate with the ELL teachers. At the middle and high school levels, pair ELL teachers with content teachers and limit the number of content areas ELL teachers support. Ensure that secondary ELL teachers who co-teach are working in content areas in which they have expertise (Zacarian, 2011, p. 84). The co-teachers’ schedules should allow for weekly common planning time that is protected from other demands. Hold administrators accountable for providing and maintaining structures that support collaborative teaching (e.g., common planning time, space, resources, effective scheduling of co-taught classes, and professional development to support collaboration). Provide written guidance and professional development for administrators, ELL and general education co-teachers regarding effective collaboration for ELLs. Ensure that inclusion classrooms with ELLs support the dual goals of making content accessible and teaching the language necessary to access the content. For collaborative teaching to be effective, the ELL teacher and the content teacher must regard one another as equal partners with shared responsibility for the success of all of the students in the classroom (Van Loenen and Haley, 1994; Zacarian, 2011). In particular, it is recommended that the Division strengthen collaboration through the integration of four important elements. These are instructional planning, collaborative teaching, assessment and monitoring, and reflection and adaptation (Friend & Cook, 2003).

Recommended Resource: The Saint Paul Public Schools (SPSS) are nationally recognized for their collaborative approach to teaching ELLs. SPSS Elementary and Secondary ELL Guidelines specific to collaboration and clustering ELLs are available from http://ell.spps.org/StaffHandbook.html

Language development.

Recommendation: Provide explicit instruction for English language development (ELD).


Ensure all ELLs receive explicit instruction in the academic English of the content areas they are expected to master. To do this, ACPS needs to develop an ELD curriculum that has a focus on academic language, prepare teachers to teach this curriculum, and create the organizational structures and resources that allow teachers to teach the curriculum effectively.

Recommendation: Develop an ELD curriculum.

Develop an ELD curriculum that is aligned to both the state ELP standards and state content standards in all four core academic areas (i.e., English language arts, math, science, social studies). The ELD curriculum should be intrinsically linked to ELLs’ content learning. Ensure that this curriculum provides instructional guidance (e.g., scope and sequence for learning, unit plans, formative assessments, and suggested resources) that is tailored for ELLs at each ELP and grade level. At a minimum, the ELD curriculum should include the following elements:

Language objectives and targeted instruction for each language proficiency level as defined by ACCESS, as well as clear instructional guidance for ELL teachers to help students achieve these objectives.

Systematic explicit language teaching as well as communicative language activities in which students have an opportunity to use English in authentic ways

Instructional guidance to help ELLs develop English proficiency in all four language domains: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Formative assessments that measure ELP in all four language domains.

Curricular links to the students’ content curriculum, with particular emphasis on the academic language necessary to achieve grade-level content expectations.

Instructional resources necessary for implementing the ELD curriculum, including technology, books, and materials.

Coordinate between the Department of Curriculum and Instruction and the ELL Office to plan the development of the ELD curriculum. Ensure that ELL and general education teachers are involved, and, as needed, draw on external consultants with expertise in ELLs and the content area.

Recommendation: Schedule dedicated time for ELD.

Schedule ELLs at all proficiency levels so that they receive daily ELD instruction using the new curriculum. At the elementary level, consider providing ELD instruction during the ELA block. At the middle school, consider emulating the high school English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses. At both the middle and high school levels, ensure that these EAP courses are focused on the academic language and background knowledge necessary to understand the grade appropriate content. These EAP courses would aim to enhance the learning of ELLs by providing explicit instruction about the language demands of the content. Also consider providing ELD classes for ELLs at these levels.

Recommended resource: California Department of Education. (2010). Improving education for English language learners: Research-based approaches. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education. Chapters 1 through 3 provide overviews of research-based principles for English language development.


Equity.

Recommendation: Ensure ELLs have equitable access to paths to career and college.

Develop and implement written policies and practices to guarantee that ELLs have the same college and career opportunities as native English speaking students. Ensure that ELL status does not lead to student placement in classes designed for low performing students and students with disabilities. Research suggests that once students are placed in lower tracks, they are less likely to receive the same intellectual rigor as their peers and as a result, they leave high school unprepared for careers or college (Mehan, 2007). Continue the policy of open enrollment for honors and advanced placement courses, but provide teachers of these courses with training on how to differentiate instruction for ELLs and continue to provide academic supports, such as Advancement through Individual Determination (AVID). Develop a process for identifying and advising ELLs who qualify for honors, TAG, and advanced coursework. In addition, develop an early warning system to identify ELLs and former ELLs who may be at risk for dropping out, and provide appropriate interventions. Continue to employ dedicated counselors and social workers at the secondary level who are prepared to work with ELLs and their families.

Recommendation: Continue to support the development of the International Academy at T.C. Williams.

To ensure the International Academy is aligned with best practices in the field ACPS should move forward with its plan to partner with the Internationals Network for Public Schools (INPS). This organization promotes a sound program design that is geared to the needs of adolescent ELLs, and a demonstrated record of success in raising achievement and improving graduation rates and college attendance for this population.

Recommended resource: Short, D.J. & Boyson, B.A. (2012). Helping newcomer students succeed in secondary schools and beyond. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. www.cal.org/help-newcomers-succeed.

Recommendation: Ensure ELLs at John Adams receive coordinated supports across ESL, Success for All, and dual language programs.

GW-CEEE supports ACPS’ plans to improve overall services at John Adams through a comprehensive school-wide model. To improve achievement for ELLs and all students, the school needs to ensure that supports for ELLs are coordinated across all of its programs, including ESL pull-out and/or push-in, Success for All, and dual language. We recommend the school continue to work with its Success for All provider to integrate best practices for ELLs that ensure these students develop not only reading but academic language in all four domains (listening, speaking, reading, and writing). Thus, reading instruction should be considered only one aspect of a comprehensive program of services for ELLs, not a replacement for explicit ESL instruction. In addition, grade level teachers must be prepared to make content instruction


accessible to students at all proficiency levels during both English-language and Spanish-language content instruction. To provide consistent services (if it has not yet done so), the school can consult with the Success for All provider about how to adapt the program for the Spanish-English dual language program. Regarding the dual language program as implemented at John Adams, it is recommended that division leaders and the school staff meet with external experts to learn more about effective two-way immersion programs. A growing body of research has shown the success of well-designed and well-implemented dual language programs throughout the U.S. These programs have demonstrated high academic achievement in two languages, and the development of positive interrelations between ELLs and their English-speaking counterparts (August & Hakuta, 1997; Brisk, 2006; Cummins, 1999 Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Thomas & Collier, 2009). To attain similar results, John Adams must align its program with the goals of two-way immersion programs so that both groups of students (Spanish speakers learning English and English speakers learning Spanish) can succeed. In particular, the Division and school must ensure

a shared understanding and commitment by the school principal and all staff regarding the goals of two-way immersion programs;

a curriculum that promotes the development of bilingualism, biliteracy, and cross-cultural competencies for both groups of students;

professional development for teachers to implement strategies to meet these goals and to make academic content instruction accessible to both groups of students;

improved coordination and scheduling to ensure ELLs receive explicit instruction in English language development;

revised eligibility guidelines to ensure students who enter the program after Grade 1 have the requisite literacy and academic proficiency in Spanish to benefit from the program; and

engagement of the parents of Spanish-speaking students as equal partners with English-speaking parents in supporting the goals of the program.

Recommended resource: Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., Christian, D., Lindholm-Leary, K. J., & Rogers, D. (2007). Guiding Principles for Dual Language Education (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. http://www.cal.org/twi/guidingprinciples.htm

Assessment and Accountability

Recommendation: Continue efforts to improve the accessibility of the student data system to support instructional decisions for ELLs.

Collaborate with the Departments of Accountability and Technology Services to ensure that teachers, principals, and division administrators can easily examine student data at the individual, classroom, school and division levels, while ensuring adequate privacy protections. Integrate all ELL data, as available, including background characteristics (e.g., native language, time in U.S. schools, prior schooling, ACCESS scores and literacy levels in both languages on entry to ACPS) and division- and state-wide formative and summative achievement data as part


of a single system. Ensure that ELL performance can be tracked across time from enrollment in the Division until high school completion. Consult with the Virginia Department of Education to determine statewide percentile rankings on the SOLs for ELLs who start at each English language proficiency level, then track the progress of ELLs in the division to determine whether ACPS students are making expected progress on these assessments (see U.S. Department of Education, 2012). In addition, design and produce accessible longitudinal reports so that division and school personnel can examine (1) the achievement gap between ELL subgroups and native English speakers; and (2) ELLs’ progress over time. Scores on state content assessments, time until exit from LEP status, time in program, information on students’ course enrollment patterns and high school completion rates should be included. These data should be disaggregated for ELLs who enter at lower, middle and upper grade levels as well as for students with interrupted formal schooling and ELLs identified with disabilities.

Recommendation: Monitor instruction and learning in all classrooms that have ELLs. Train school administrators on the criteria to look for when monitoring classrooms with ELLs. To ensure that administrators can distinguish between effective practices for ELL inclusion and special education inclusion, current administrator walkthrough checklists as well as other monitoring instruments should be updated to include items that represent good instructional practices for ELLs. In addition, continue to develop and refine the School Expectations Rubric to reflect best practices for ELLs.

Recommendation: Develop a system of continuous improvement for programs and services for ELLs.

Consider maintaining the ELL leadership team established to participate in the current evaluation as a means of involving multiple stakeholder groups in a system of continuous improvement. The leadership team can use the PEAS Needs Assessment Rating Tool (Appendix C) annually to monitor the implementation of the ELL plan and the quality of division-wide programs and services for ELLs. Based on this annual needs assessment, the team can meet regularly to refine goals, prioritize a manageable number of reforms each year, and collect data to track implementation of the reforms and progress toward goals. As needed, collaborate with external professional development providers and ELL experts to ensure the implementation of new initiatives is monitored and adequately supported and sustained. Conduct periodic internal and external evaluations of division-wide programs and services for ELLs. The ELL Office should periodically update its plan by integrating findings and recommendations from the annual needs assessment and the formal evaluations. Parent and Community Outreach

Recommendation: Engage families of ELLs as active partners in the schools and in their children’s education.


Pursue the recommendations from the ACPS ELL Office related to parent and community outreach. In addition, ensure all educators take an active role in engaging families as partners in the education of ELLs in appropriate and culturally responsive ways. To do this, require each school to develop and implement a culturally responsive family outreach plan to forge partnerships with ELL parents and their communities. Potential goals would include increasing the involvement of parents of ELLs in school decision-making bodies, supporting leadership development, and partnering with parents in culturally responsive ways. The outreach plan should also include strategies for creating a welcoming environment for culturally and linguistically diverse families (e.g., training front office staff, and affirming students’ cultural and linguistic heritages throughout classroom and school displays, newsletters, assemblies, and other school-wide communications). Continue to provide a guidance counselor and social worker dedicated to ELLs at the International Academy in T.C. Williams. As the budget permits, hire personnel to serve these roles at the elementary and middle school levels as well.

Recommended resource: Waterman, R. and Harry, B. (2008). Building collaboration between schools and parents of English language learners: Transcending barriers, creating opportunities. Tempe, AZ: National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCREST). Available: http://www.nccrest.org/publications/briefs.html

Limitations of This Evaluation This evaluation examines strengths and areas in need of improvement in ACPS’ services for ELLs in relation to the PEAS standards of practice. It is not designed to measure the effects of the current program. Such a study would require a rigorous experimental or quasi-experimental design that was beyond the scope of the current project. This evaluation describes student achievement measures and the extent to which current division instructional practices and structures of support align with research-based indicators described in the PEAS. However, many other factors, such as poverty; immigration status; race and ethnicity; student rates of mobility, school absences and suspensions; and other unknown variables, can also affect outcomes.

Findings of the evaluation may be used to make decisions about the need for programmatic reforms that would be likely to improve teaching and learning. However, drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of individual personnel, division offices or schools based on these findings would not be appropriate.


References August, D. & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language minority children: A

research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Brisk, M.E. (2006). Bilingual Education: From compensatory to quality schooling. Second

Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. California Department of Education. (2010). Improving education for English language

learners: Research-based approaches. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.

Cambridge Education (2011, January). Cambridge education and the Tripod project – Background and capabilities. Author: Cambridge, England.

Castañeda v. Pickard. (1981). (No. 648 F.2d 989 5th Circuit. Collier, V. P. (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second

language. TESOL Quarterly, 23(3). Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2009). Educating English learners for a transformed world (1st

ed.). Albuquerque, NM: Dual Language Education of New Mexico/Fuente Press. Cook, H.G., Boals, T., & Lundberg, T. (2011). Academic achievement for English learners:

What can we reasonably expect? Phi Delta Kappan, 93 (3): 66-69 Cummins, J. (1999). Alternative paradigms in bilingual education research: Does theory have a

place? Educational Researcher, 28(7), 26-31. Dove, M. & Honigsfeld, A. (2010). ESL coteaching and collaboration: Opportunities to develop

teacher leadership and enhance student learning. TESOL Journal, 1, 3-22. DuFour, R, DuFour, R. Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010) Learning by doing: A handbook for

professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Echevarria, J. & Short, D. (2010). Programs and practices for effective sheltered content

instruction. In Improving education for English learners: Research-based approaches. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.

Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33, 209-224. Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 U.S.C. § 170-1721 (1974). Fang, Z. & Schleppegrell, M.J. (2008). Reading in the secondary content areas: A language-

based pedagogy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2003). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (4th

ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Garcia, G. (2000). Lessons from research: What is the length of time it takes for limited English

proficient students to acquire English and succeed in all-English classrooms? Issue Brief No. 5. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Guskey, T. (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Howard, E.R., Sugarman, J., Perdomo, M., & Adger, C.T. (2005). Two-way immersion toolkit.

Providence, RI: The Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University Education Alliance.

Latina, K. & Swedlow, J. (Eds.). (2003). Claiming opportunities: A handbook for improving education for English language learners through comprehensive school reform. Providence, RI: Brown University.

Maxwell, L. (2011, Nov. 2). Nation's Report Card: How ELLs Fared in 2011. Learning the Language. Education Week.


National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. (2010). Virginia: Rate of LEP Growth. http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/20/Virginia_G_0708.pdf

Peterson, P., & Lastra-Anadón, C. State Standards Rise in Reading, Fall in Math. http://educationnext.org/state-standards-rising-in-reading-but-not-in-math/

Kagan, S. and Kagan, M. (2009). Kagan Cooperative Learning (2nd ed.). San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing.

Saunders, W. & Goldenberg, C. (2010). Research to guide English language instruction. In Improving education for English language learners: Research-based approaches. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.

Short, D.J. & Boyson, B.A. (2012). Helping newcomer students succeed in secondary schools and beyond. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education (2009). Promoting excellence: Guiding principles (2nd ed.). Arlington, VA: The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education.

U.S. Department of Education (2012). National Evaluation of Title III Implementation Supplemental Report: Exploring Approaches To Setting English Language Proficiency Performance Criteria and Monitoring English Learner Progress. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.

U.S. Office for Civil Rights. (1999). Programs for English language learners: Resource materials for planning and self-assessments. Washington, DC: U.S. Office for Civil Rights.

Van Loenen, R. & Haley, P.K. (1994). Consultation and collaboration: English as a second language and regular classroom teachers working together. http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED372645.pdf

Virginia Department of Education (2011). School, School Division and State Report Cards. https://p1pe.doe.virginia.gov/reportcard/

Zacarian, D. (2011). Transforming schools for English learners: A comprehensive framework for school leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.


Appendices


Appendix A. Method for Student Outcome Data To examine student outcomes, GW-CEEE collaborated with staff from the Alexandria City Public Schools (ACPS) Offices of Accountability and Technology Services to compile and analyze data from the school division student information system. GW-CEEE provided a Microsoft Excel template to guide ACPS technology staff in pulling the data required for each evaluation question. For English language development, the evaluation examined progress as measured by the ACCESS for ELLs ®. Prior to 2008-09, the state used the Stanford English Language Proficiency Test (SELP). The ACCESS for ELLs® was administered in Virginia beginning in the 2008-09 school year. Due to concerns about the quality of ACCESS data during the first year of test implementation, data for only two more recent years (2009-10 and 2010-11) were analyzed. For mathematics and reading, progress in pass rates on the Virginia Standards of Learning (SOLs) was examined for the following questions:

(1) How large were achievement gaps between ELLs and non-ELLs in relation to state targets?

(2) What was the three-year growth in pass rates of ELLs and non-ELLs in relation to state targets?

Question 1 is a cross-sectional analysis, based on data from the ACPS report card comparing outcomes for all students and ELLs on mathematics and reading SOLs. Question 2 examined longitudinal student outcomes using data provided by the ACPS Office of Technology from the Division’s student information system. For this question, data were examined for students who had been identified as limited English proficient (LEP) at any time during their enrollment in ACPS. The identified cohorts included current LEP students, monitored Year 1 and Year 2, and exited (former) LEP students. In other words, the longitudinal analyses followed the progress of English language learners (ELLs) over time, retrospectively, regardless of changes in LEP status. ACPS technology staff were asked to pull data for three cohorts of students (elementary, middle, and high school) to determine ELLs’ progress in English language proficiency as measured by the Standards of Learning assessments in Mathematics and Reading. Limitations Cross-sectional analyses such as those required for determining adequate yearly progress provide little information about program effects for shifting populations such as ELLs. Longitudinal studies, while more useful than cross-sectional studies for purposes of program evaluation, are also subject to some limitations. First, it is not always possible to determine the causes of changes in student performance because the study design provides little or no control of nuisance variables (i.e., external factors such as shifts in poverty and unemployment rates, and changes in federal, state and local policies that may have affected student outcomes). Thus, while longitudinal studies provide a better indication of possible program effects, it is not possible to attribute causality.


In addition, cohort studies are constrained by the effects of student mobility. That is, sample size tends to decrease in direct relation to the length of the study. It was not possible within the scope of this evaluation to know whether students who moved out of the cohort would have performed differently than those who remained.

There is some concern that the Virginia Standards of Learning are set relatively low in relation to national and international standards. Peterson and Lastra-Anadón (2010) rated Virginia among the lowest quartile of states in regard to the rigor of standards in relation to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which they consider a gold standard of “world-class” rigor. For example, a much smaller percentage of students in Virginia (40% of fourth graders and 33% of eighth graders) scored proficient or above on the 2009 NAEP Reading test, compared with 88% who scored proficient above on the Reading SOLs. Because the ceiling is lower on the SOLs, the achievement gap for ELLs on this measure may be underestimated. And while 79% of ELLs passed the Virginia SOLs in Reading, only 12% of ELL fourth graders and 9% of ELL eighth graders in Virginia scored proficient or above on the NAEP Reading assessment (NCES, 2011). Thus, student outcomes for the SOLs should be considered a minimal, but not necessarily an ideal, level of achievement.


Appendix B. Data Collection and Sampling Document Reviews GW-CEEE worked with the English Language Learner (ELL) Office, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, and the Department of Accountability to collect school division policies, plans, and other relevant documentation pertaining to the ELL program. Evaluators also carefully read and analyzed the April 2011 proposed ELL plan, New Directions. These documents were analyzed to measure the extent to which Alexandria City Public School’s (ACPS’) written documentation supported best practices as outlined in the Promoting Excellence Appraisal System (PEAS) rubric. Tripod Student Survey ACPS contracted with Cambridge Education to administer the Tripod student survey, with the aim of measuring student engagement as well as students' perceptions of the quality and rigor of instruction. The Tripod student survey was administered to ACPS high school students three times: spring 2010, spring 2011 and fall 2011. During each administration, data were collected for each teacher at least twice. Students may have completed the survey multiple times (for different teachers) during each survey administration. Within the Tripod, teaching effectiveness was measured through the “7C's,” which included the constructs Care, Control, Challenge, Clarify, Captivate, Confer, and Consolidate. Constructs for student engagement included Academic Goals and Behaviors, Academic Beliefs and Feelings, Social Goals and Behaviors, and Social Beliefs and Feelings. (See Cambridge Education, 2011, for definitions of these constructs.) Findings from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project indicate that student ratings of teaching quality using the 7 C’s predict value-added learning growth for both mathematics and English Language Arts. (Report available at www.MetProject.org.) The Tripod student survey is administered during a complete class period through an online computerized format. Students may switch as needed between English and Spanish versions of the survey. To support the ELL evaluation, Cambridge Education was asked to disaggregate the Tripod data by limited English proficient (LEP) status (LEP versus non-LEP), by English language proficiency (ELP) level, and by percentage of ELLs in the classroom. Cambridge Education reported an overall reliability of .7 to .8 for this instrument. Concerns were expressed by some ACPS teachers and students that ELLs at lower ELP levels might have had difficulty comprehending some of the Tripod survey questions. At the request of GW-CEEE, Cambridge Education ran Cronbach’s alpha calculations to test the student-level reliability of selected scales by ELP level. Results indicated that reliability ranged between .80 and .92. Reliability was somewhat lower for students at the lower ELP levels, but well within an acceptable level. For purposes of this evaluation, results were identified that indicated strengths and areas in need of improvement in relation to PEAS constructs in two dimensions. Under the Leadership


dimension, Tripod results were examined in relation to school climate. Under the Instructional Implementation dimension, the 7Cs were examined as an indicator of rigorous academic instruction. In addition, the Tripod student engagement constructs were examined in relation to student engagement, classroom environment, and meaning-based learning in the PEAS Instructional Implementation dimension. Results were examined to determine whether there were differences between ELLs and non-ELLs; whether there were differences in responses across ELP levels; and whether there were differences between classrooms that enrolled differing proportions of ELLs and non-ELLs. Teacher Surveys An online survey was administered to a list of all ACPS teachers, with the aim of capturing the population of teachers who serve at least one ELL during the current school year. A total of 901 invitations were sent, including 806 general education teachers and 95 ELL teachers. Eleven respondents opted out of the survey, and 195 indicated they were not eligible to take the survey because they did not serve at least one ELL this school year. Another 192 teachers did not respond to the invitation. Of the 517 teachers who responded to the survey, 435 (84%) were general education teachers and 82 (16%) were ELL teachers, compared with 87% and 13% of the overall population of teachers. The overall response rate was 77%, comprised of a 76% response rate for general education teachers and an 86% response rate for ELL teachers. These figures indicate the sample was slightly under-weighted for general education teachers and somewhat over-weighted for ELL teachers. Assuming this were a random sample, the error rate at the 95% confidence level would be estimated at 2.3% overall, 2.6% for general education teachers, and 4.0% for ELL teachers. This would mean, for example, that if 63% of respondents agreed with a particular statement, one could be relatively confident that the actual percentage in the population ranged from 61 to 67%. However, given that teachers who did not respond to the survey may have differed in important ways from those who completed the survey, it is not possible to know the exact rate of error. The survey consisted of Likert-type items as well as two open-ended items. The survey is available to the Division upon request. Administrator Surveys An online survey was administered to a division-provided list of all ACPS principals at schools with ELLs. A total of 24 invitations were sent, and 18 principals responded for a response rate of 75%. These principals included representation from all 13 division elementary schools (including Jefferson-Houston, a K-8 school), all three Frances Hammond High Schools, and T.C. Williams High School at both the main campus and the Minnie Howard campus. Surveys were not received from the George Washington Middle Schools. Assuming this were a random sample, the error rate at the 95% confidence level would be estimated at 11.8% overall. This would mean, for example, that if 63% of respondents agreed with a particular statement, one could be relatively confident that the actual percentage in the population ranged from 51 to 75%. However, given that administrators who did not respond to


the survey may have differed in important ways from those who completed the survey, it is not possible to know the exact rate of error. The survey consisted of Likert-type items as well as two open-ended items. The survey is available to the Division upon request. School Visits/Classroom Observations GW-CEEE staff conducted full-day visits to four school sites. These schools include John Adams Elementary School, William Ramsay Elementary School, Frances Hammond Middle School (all three campuses), and T.C. Williams High School. During these visits, GW-CEEE staff collected interview and classroom observation data from principals, teachers, and students. Three focus group interviews were conducted at each school. These focus groups consisted of school administrators, ELL teachers, and general education teachers who serve ELLs. At the elementary level, 8 administrators participated, 15 ELL teachers participated, and 17 general education teachers who serve ELLs participated. At the middle school level, 3 administrators participated, 4 ELL teachers participated, and 3 general education teachers who serve ELLs participated. At the high school level, 5 administrators participated, 10 ELL teachers participated, and 8 general education teachers who serve ELLs participated. A total of 36 classrooms were observed. Of these observations, 17 were in the two elementary schools, 6 were in the middle school, and 12 were in the high school. Observations were conducted using GW-CEEE’s PEAS classroom observation protocol. This observation instrument is available to the Division upon request. Parent Focus Group GW-CEEE collaborated closely with Margaret Lorber, the ACPS division-wide bilingual parent liaison, to identify and organize a sample of parents for a focus group interview. ACPS provided Spanish, Arabic, and Amharic translators for the parent interview, and arranged for transportation and refreshments during the focus group. Interviews with ELL Director and Central Office Staff Throughout the evaluation process, GW-CEEE periodically conducted telephone and face-to-face interviews of the ELL director and division-level staff. Evaluators also interviewed staff in other division offices including the Department of Technology Services and the Department of Accountability. Table B-1 shows a list of data collection instruments and samples for each.


Table B-1. Instruments and sampling

Instrument Collection

dates Sample N

Number responded

Response rate

Administrator Survey

11/2011 School principals 24 18 75%

Teacher Survey 11/2011 ELL and general education teachers who serve ELLs

901 711 79%

ELL Director interviews

8/2011- 1/2012

ELL Director 1 1 N/A

Document review

8/2011- 1/2012

Specified documents requested from ELL Director and documents available online

N/A N/A N/A

Parent interview 11/2011 Parents from purposive sample of top 3 language groups who volunteered to participate

N/A 18 N/A

School reviews (Focus Group Interviews with Principals, General Ed Teachers,& ELL Teachers)

9/2011-10/2011

John Adams William Ramsay Frances Hammond 1, 2, 3 TC Williams

6 N/A N/A

Classroom Observations

9/2011-10/2011

John Adams William Ramsay Frances Hammond 1, 2, 3 TC Williams

36 N/A N/A


Appendix C. PEAS Needs Assessment Tool

Rating Scale

0 = no or very little evidence that the standard is in place.

1 = emerging (evidence that very little is in place to support the standard).

2 = adequate (evidence suggests the standard is mostly in place, at a satisfactory level of development).

3 = exemplary, at a level commensurate with best practices in the field.

Promoting Excellence Appraisal System

Needs Assessment Rating Tool

Instructions

Step 1. Conduct an individual rating.

1. Review the constructs and standards for the assigned dimension(s) of best practice for ELLs

(Leadership, Qualified Personnel, Professional Development, Instructional Program Design,

Instructional Implementation, Assessment and Accountability, or Parent and Community Outreach).

2. For each construct, examine the list of standards and reflect on how your district is doing. Rate each

standard within the construct using the rating scale below.

3. Reflect on your rating across all of the standards within the construct. Then, decide on an overall rating

for the construct. Rather than trying to find a mathematical average, think holistically about the entire set

of standards for the construct.

4. Use the NOTES column to comment on what you have observed to support your ratings.

Step 2. Discuss your ratings with your group.

Discuss areas of agreement or disagreement.

What have you observed to support your rating?

What additional information is needed to make a fair judgment?

Step 3. Prepare to share out.

1. Assign a spokesperson to share a summary of your ratings and your discussion with the whole group.

2. On easel paper, make a T chart. List up to 3–5 strengths on the left side of the T. List up to 3–5 areas in

need of improvement on the right side of the T.

For each strength or need, please specify either the construct or the code of a specific standard. Add a

short description in your own words.

3. On the bottom of the T chart, make note of what else you would need to know in order to make a fair

judgment about the ratings.

0 = Not in place 1 = Emerging 2 = Adequate 3 = Exemplary

The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education | http://ceee.gwu.edu 2

Dimension 1: LEADERSHIP

CONSTRUCT STANDARDS STANDARD

0-1-2-3

CONSTRUCT

0-1-2-3 NOTES

Vision, Mission

and Goals

LV1. The district’s overall vision, mission, and goals are

inclusive of ELLs.

LV2. The district’s ELL program has clearly articulated

vision, mission, and goals that address the needs of

ELLs for learning language, content, and culture.

LV3. The district’s vision, mission, and goals for ELLs are

effectively articulated to, and understood by, all

district personnel.

LV4. District and school leaders convey high expectations

for ELLs to succeed academically, complete high

school, and go on to college and satisfying careers.

Shared

Responsibility

LS1. The district holds schools and educational personnel

accountable for implementing ELL programs and

policies as designed.

LS2. District and school leaders include ELL personnel in

decision-making processes.

LS3. The district ensures that all educators (including

central office, school leaders, general education

teachers and ESL/bilingual teachers) have a thorough

understanding of the ELL program.

LS4. District leaders ensure the work of educating ELLs is

focused, sustained, and coordinated across district

offices and schools.

Climate

LC1. The district programs and policies foster an inclusive

environment for ELLs.

LC2. District and school leaders create a positive climate

in which the diverse languages and cultures of ELLs

and their families are seen as resources to be

developed rather than problems to be overcome



Dimension 2: QUALIFIED PERSONNEL


0-1-2-3

CONSTRUCT

0-1-2-3 NOTES

Expert Teachers

QE1. The district assesses the need for qualified teachers of

ELLs and develops plans to address these needs.

QE2. The district recruits teachers with expertise in addressing

the needs of ELLs.

QE3. The district retains teachers who have expertise in

addressing the academic, linguistic, and cultural needs of

ELLs.

QE4. Teachers who provide academic content instruction to

ELLs have expertise in addressing the academic,

linguistic, and cultural needs of ELLs.

QE5. Teachers who provide language instruction to ELLs have

expertise in supporting the language and background

knowledge ELLs need to succeed in the content areas.

Teacher

Certification

QT1. English language development teachers hold and maintain

certification in ESL.

QT2. Bilingual/dual language teachers hold and maintain

certification in bilingual education and in the content

area(s) they teach.

QT3. Content/grade-level teachers who serve ELLs hold and

maintain certification in the content area(s)/grade level(s)

they teach.

Program Staffing

QS1. Each school employs adequate staff to meet the

requirements of the program design.

QS2. The district employs a sufficient number of teachers in

each school qualified to provide English language

development for ELLs.

QS3. The district employs a sufficient number of teachers in

each school with the expertise to provide content

instruction for ELLs.

QS4. The district places its most effective teachers in schools

and classrooms with the highest concentrations of ELLs.



Dimension 3: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT


0-1-2-3

CONSTRUCT

0-1-2-3 NOTES

Building

Educator

Capacity

PDB1. The district provides in-depth, research-based professional

development that prepares educators to meet the needs of

ELLs.

PDB2. The professional development for educators of ELLs

addresses TESOL standards in the domains of

• language,

• culture,

• planning, implementing, and managing instruction for

ELLs,

• formal and informal assessment, and

• professionalism and collaboration.

PDB3. All educational personnel (administrators, counselors,

general education teachers, and ELL teachers) in schools

and classrooms that serve ELLs participate in the full range

of professional development available on ELL issues.

Quality

PDQ1. The district’s ELL professional development is sustained

over time and job-embedded.

PDQ2. The district’s ELL professional development is useful, and

aligned to the needs of participants.

PDQ3. High quality coaching is provided for teachers who teach

academic content to ELLs.

PDQ4. The district provides ongoing support for new teachers of

ELLs through orientation, professional development, and

mentoring.

PDQ5. The district monitors and assesses the effectiveness of the

ELL professional development and coaching.



Dimension 4: INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM DESIGN


0-1-2-3

CONSTRUCT

0-1-2-3 NOTES

Effective Design

DE1. The district’s ELL program design is consistent with current theory and

research about effective instructional programs for ELLs.

DE2. The district’s ELL program design is aligned with the district’s overall

vision, mission and goals for ELLs.

DE3. The district’s ELL program design addresses the needs of the diverse

populations of ELLs in the district (students at different English language

proficiency levels, ages, linguistic and cultural backgrounds, time in the

U.S., and levels of prior schooling).

Access to Grade-

Level Content

DA1. The district’s ELL program design is academically rigorous (not remedial),

and promotes the knowledge and higher-level thinking skills to prepare

students for college and satisfying careers.

DA2. The district’s ELL program(s) are designed to ensure ELLs have equitable

access to grade-level instruction in the academic content areas.

DA3. The district provides additional grade-level academic support for ELLs,

including translators, tutors, and bilingual instructional aides during

academic content instruction, as well as extended day, weekend academies

and/or summer programs).

DA4. The district provides sufficient and equitable access to high quality

instructional materials, educational technology, libraries, laboratories and

other relevant resources that support ELLs’ English language development

and grade-level, academic content learning in English and the native

language.

DA5. High quality native language instructional materials and resources are

available at each grade level and subject area to support literacy and

academic content learning.

DA6. Instructional materials and resources that reflect and value a wide diversity

of cultural backgrounds and histories are integrated throughout the general

education curriculum for all students.

DA7. The district ensures sustained, consistent and coherent instructional support

from grade to grade until ELLs have reached parity with English speaking

students on measures of academic achievement in the core content areas.

DA8. The ELL plan includes a timely means for identifying struggling students

who need additional support, including both active ELLs and those who are

not currently receiving ELL services.



Dimension 4: INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM DESIGN


0-1-2-3

CONSTRUCT

0-1-2-3 NOTES

Language

Development

DL1. The district has a curriculum for English language development that is

aligned with state English language proficiency standards.

DL2. The district’s English language development curriculum is responsive to

students’ English language development stages (i.e., from beginning to

intermediate to advanced), as appropriate across the grade levels.

DL3. The district’s English language development curriculum prepares students

with the language needed to access grade-level academic content.

DL4. ELLs receive adequate instructional time to support language development.

Equity

DEQ1. The district’s instructional programs are designed so that native English-

speaking students work and learn together with their English language

learner peers.

DEQ2. The district ensures that ELLs have equitable access to the same courses and

in-school activities as other students (e.g., all core courses, electives, music

and art, as well as field trips, assemblies, internship opportunities).

DEQ3. The district ensures that ELLs participate equitably in extracurricular sports,

clubs and activities.

DEQ4. The district ensures that ELLs participate equitably in gifted and talented,

honors and advanced placement courses.

DEQ5. The district has an effective system for identifying and serving ELLs with

special educational needs (i.e. ELLs are neither under- nor over-represented

in special education).

Counseling

DS1. ELLs and their families receive appropriate guidance to successfully

complete requirements for high school graduation, college admission and

career.

DS2. Counselors and/or social workers provide culturally responsive counseling

to support ELLs’ healthy affective development.



Dimension 5: INSTRUCTIONAL IMPLEMENTATION


0-1-2-3

CONSTRUCT

0-1-2-3 NOTES

Program

Implementation

INP1. Teachers implement ELL programs as designed.

INP2. School administrators and teachers monitor and support ELLs from initial

enrollment through completion of high school.

Collaboration

INC1. The district and schools provide structural support (e.g., time, scheduling,

and resources) to foster collaboration among teachers.

INC2. Teachers with expertise in both language and content instruction collaborate

systematically within and across grades to design and implement instruction

for ELLs.

Access to

Challenging

Academic

Content

INR1. Teachers who serve ELLs convey high expectations through rigorous, grade-

level instruction.

INR2. Teachers scaffold to make instruction comprehensible to ELLs.

INR3. Teachers differentiate instruction for ELLs at different English proficiency

levels through varied approaches to content, process, and product.

INR4. School administrators, guidance counselors and teachers use the native

languages and cultural heritages of ELLs and their families to enrich and

support instruction and the learning of academic content.

INR5. Instruction for ELLs elicits a high level of student engagement.

Language

Development

INL1. Teachers provide instruction for ELLs that addresses social and instructional

language for communication.

INL2. Teachers provide instruction for ELLs to develop academic language needed

to access content.

INL3. Teachers provide opportunities for students to learn and practice all four

language modalities (reading, writing, listening, and speaking.

Socially

Constructed

Learning

INS1. Teachers create classroom environments that facilitate peer interaction

around academic content.

INS2. ELLs actively participate in meaningful activities that are appropriate to their

level of development.

Classroom

Assessment

INA1. Content/grade level teachers implement classroom assessments appropriate

for students at different language proficiency levels.

INA2. School administrators and teachers make instructional decisions for English

language learners based on multiple sources of data, including formative

classroom assessments and school, district, and state assessment results.



Dimension 6: ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY


0-1-2-3

CONSTRUCT

0-1-2-3 NOTES

Identification

and Placement

AP1. The district has clear and consistent policies and procedures for identifying, placing, and

exiting ELLs.

AP2. Procedures for identifying and placing ELLs take into account English and native

language literacy, previous educational experiences, language/cultural background, age,

and appropriate and valid student assessment results from multiple sources.

AP3. The ELL placement process ensures each student receives optimal support for English

language development and equitable access to academic content instruction.

Use of Data

AD1A. The district and schools use appropriate and valid district-wide assessments to measure

ELLs’ growth in academic content areas (e.g., district formative and benchmark

assessments, reading assessments).

AD1B. The district and schools use appropriate and valid district-wide assessments to measure

ELLs’ growth in the English language.

AD2. The district has a data system that tracks and monitors individual ELLs’ progress over

time on state and district English proficiency and academic achievement assessments

from enrollment until completion of high school.

AD3. The district data system integrates academic information with ELL student background

data including home language, prior schooling, language(s) of instruction, ELL program

participation, academic history, and progress in English language development.

AD4. The district ensures data on ELL’s progress is accessible to teachers and administrators of

ELLs as needed throughout the school year.

AD5. The district and schools support teachers to examine a variety of ELL data to make

instructional decisions.

Continuous

Improvement

AI1. District and school administrators use clearly articulated criteria for assessing the

effectiveness of the English language development program.

AI2. District and school administrators use clearly articulated criteria for assessing the quality,

accessibility, and effectiveness of academic content instruction for ELLs.

AI3. The district reviews a variety of ELL assessment data to determine whether district ELL

programs are meeting district goals for English (and native) language development, high

academic achievement, and high school graduation.

AI4. The district has an ongoing process to evaluate and improve its programs and services for

ELLs.



Rev. 2/13/2012

Dimension 7: PARENT AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH


0-1-2-3

CONSTRUCT

0-1-2-3 NOTES

Family and

Community

Partnerships

PF1. The district and schools provide parents of ELLs with high quality outreach

programs and resources.

PF2. The district and schools engage families as partners in the education of ELLs in

appropriate and culturally responsive ways.

PF3. The district and schools partner with community organizations to support

educational programs for ELLs (e.g., to enrich the curriculum, to give voice to

the diverse communities that make up the district, to participate in new

initiatives, to address problems and to seek additional resources for schools).

Parent

Involvement

PI1. The district and schools support parents of ELLs to reinforce their children’s

language and literacy development and academic content learning.

PI2. Parents of ELLs are actively involved in the school and school-related activities.

PI3. Parents of ELLs are actively involved in supporting their children’s language and

literacy development and academic content learning.

Communication

PC1. The district provides information and parent communication in the home

languages of students.

PC2. The district and schools provide teachers, counselors, and administrators with the

cultural and linguistic understanding to communicate effectively with families

and guardians from non-English language backgrounds.


Appendix D. Summary of Results: Administrator Survey

1 of 45

PEAS - Alexandria Administrator Survey

1. Please indicate personnel who will help complete this survey. (Check all that apply)

Response

PercentResponse

Count

Principal 87.5% 14

Assistant Principal 12.5% 2

Counselor 6.3% 1

Social worker 0.0% 0

ESL coordinator 6.3% 1

ESL teacher 18.8% 3

Other (please specify)

1

answered question 16

skipped question 2

2 of 45

2. Please select your school from the drop-down list.

Response

PercentResponse

Count

Charles Barrett Elementary School 5.6% 1

Cora Kelly School for Math, Science and Technology

5.6% 1

Douglas MacArthur Elementary School

5.6% 1

Francis C. Hammond 1 Middle School

5.6% 1


5.6% 1


5.6% 1

George Mason Elementary School 5.6% 1

George Washington 1 Middle School 0.0% 0


Interim Education Program 0.0% 0

James K. Polk Elementary School 5.6% 1

Jefferson-Houston School 5.6% 1

John Adams Elementary School 5.6% 1

Lyles-Crouch Traditional Academy 5.6% 1

Matthew Maury Elementary School 5.6% 1

Mount Vernon Community School 5.6% 1

Patrick Henry Elementary School 5.6% 1

Samuel W. Tucker Elementary School

5.6% 1

T.C. Williams High School - Minnie Howard campus

5.6% 1

3 of 45

T.C. Williams High School –Main campus

11.1% 2

William Ramsay Elementary School

0.0% 0


skipped question 0

3. What are your school's goals for students in the dual language program?

Response

Count

2

answered question 2

skipped question 16

4. What are your school's policies for placing ELLs in dual language? (e.g., Can an ELL enter the program at any grade level? Are there criteria for minimum literacy level in one or both languages, English or Spanish language proficiency levels, or other criteria?)

Response

Count

2

answered question 2

skipped question 16

4 of 45

5. What kinds of support are provided for ELLs to access content instruction in the dual language program?

Response

PercentResponse

Count

Dual language teachers use strategies for making content

instruction in English accessible to ELLs.

0.0% 0

During English content instruction, an ELL teacher co-teaches the class with the content teacher.

0.0% 0

An ELL teacher pushes in for some content instruction.

100.0% 2

No additional support is provided to ELLs when content is taught in

English. 0.0% 0

Other support is provided to help ELLs access content instruction

(please specify).

50.0% 1

answered question 2

skipped question 16

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

5 of 45

6. What kinds of support are provided for English language development of ELLs in the dual language program?

Response

PercentResponse

Count

Pull-out ESL instruction is provided by an ESL teacher.

100.0% 2

Push-in instruction is provided by an ESL teacher specifically for English language development.

0.0% 0

ELLs participate in English language arts along with their English-

speaking peers (with no additional support).

0.0% 0

Other support is provided for English language development

(please specify).

50.0% 1

answered question 2

skipped question 16

6 of 45

7. How much do you agree or disagree with each statement?

Stronglydisagree Disagree

Neitheragreenor

disagree AgreeStrongly

agree

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

ELLs in the International Academy receive sufficient time every day with a teacher who is prepared to meet their language development

needs.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)100.0%

(2)0.0% (0) 4.00 2

ELLs in the International Academy receive sufficient support to

access content instruction in all subject areas.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (1) 50.0% (1) 4.50 2

The current schedule stretches ELL teachers too thinly to adequately

address both the language and content needs of ELLs.

0.0% (0)100.0%

(2)0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2.00 2

The International Academy will help to close academic achievement

gaps for ELLs.0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)

100.0%(2)

0.0% (0) 4.00 2

answered question 2

skipped question 16

7 of 45

8. How would you rate each of the following practices in the International Academy?

Needs

improvement Adequate ExemplaryDon'tKnow

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

Placing ELLs appropriately 0.0% (0) 50.0% (1) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 2.50 2

Monitoring ELLs after they have exited LEP status

50.0% (1) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1.50 2

Identifying ELLs who need extra support

100.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1.00 2

Identifying ELLs who have special education needs

100.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1.00 2

Identifying ELLs for gifted and talented

50.0% (1) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1.50 2

Counseling ELLs and their families about paths to college and career

0.0% (0) 50.0% (1) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 2.50 2

Placing ELLs in advanced coursework

100.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1.00 2

Supporting ELLs to successfully complete advanced coursework

100.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1.00 2

Appropriately promoting ELLs to the next grade level

0.0% (0) 100.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2.00 2

Ensuring ELLs complete required credits for graduation

0.0% (0) 100.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2.00 2

answered question 2

skipped question 16

8 of 45

9. In your opinion, how many of the content teachers who teach in the International Academy engage in each of the following?

Veryfew

(0 - 30%)Some

(31 - 60%)Most

(>60%)Don'tKnow

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

Understand the International Academy's goals for ELLs

0.0% (0) 50.0% (1) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 2.50 2

Foster a supportive climate for ELLs

0.0% (0) 50.0% (1) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 2.50 2

Understand how the International Academy is supposed to work

0.0% (0) 100.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2.00 2

Understand how to make content instruction accessible to ELLs

0.0% (0) 100.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2.00 2

Believe ELLs are the responsibility of the ESL teacher

50.0% (1) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1.50 2

Understand how language should be taught to ELLs.

50.0% (1) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1.50 2

Believe ELLs must attain English language proficiency before they

can be successful in content classes

50.0% (1) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1.50 2

Integrate language into content instruction.

50.0% (1) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1.50 2

Develop supportive relationships with ELLs

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 3.00 2

Understand ELL students' cultural backgrounds and heritages

0.0% (0) 100.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2.00 2

See students' languages and cultures as barriers to learning

0.0% (0) 50.0% (1) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 2.50 2

Cooperate with colleagues to meet goals for ELLs

0.0% (0) 100.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2.00 2

answered question 2

skipped question 16

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

9 of 45

10. Thinking about your school's programs for ELLs overall, how much do you agree or disagree with each statement? (Note: Do not include the T.C. Williams International Academy or the dual language programs at Mt. Vernon or Adams.)


Neitheragreenor


agree

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

ELLs receive sufficient time every day with a teacher who is prepared

to meet their language development needs.

5.6% (1) 38.9% (7) 11.1% (2) 33.3% (6) 11.1% (2) 3.06 18

ELLs receive sufficient support to access content instruction in all

subject areas.0.0% (0)

55.6%(10)

11.1% (2) 16.7% (3) 16.7% (3) 2.94 18

The current schedule stretches ELL teachers too thinly to adequately

address both the language and content needs of ELLs.

0.0% (0) 22.2% (4) 11.1% (2) 33.3% (6) 33.3% (6) 3.78 18

Programs for ELLs in this school are helping to close academic

achievement gaps.0.0% (0) 16.7% (3) 33.3% (6) 44.4% (8) 5.6% (1) 3.39 18


skipped question 0

10 of 45

11. How would you rate each of the following practices in your school? (Note: Do not include the T.C. Williams International Academy or the dual language programs at Mt. Vernon or Adams.)

Needs


RatingAverage

ResponseCount

Placing ELLs appropriately 5.6% (1) 77.8% (14) 16.7% (3) 0.0% (0) 2.11 18


50.0% (9) 38.9% (7) 5.6% (1) 5.6% (1) 1.53 18


22.2% (4) 44.4% (8) 33.3% (6) 0.0% (0) 2.11 18


38.9% (7) 33.3% (6) 27.8% (5) 0.0% (0) 1.89 18

Identifying ELLs for gifted and talented

61.1% (11) 27.8% (5) 11.1% (2) 0.0% (0) 1.50 18


62.5% (10) 18.8% (3) 12.5% (2) 6.3% (1) 1.47 16

Placing ELLs in advanced coursework

43.8% (7) 37.5% (6) 6.3% (1) 12.5% (2) 1.57 16

Supporting ELLs to successfully complete advanced coursework

43.8% (7) 37.5% (6) 0.0% (0) 18.8% (3) 1.46 16

Appropriately promoting ELLs to the next grade level

5.9% (1) 52.9% (9) 35.3% (6) 5.9% (1) 2.31 17

Ensuring ELLs complete required credits for graduation

6.3% (1) 43.8% (7) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (8) 1.88 16


skipped question 0

11 of 45

12. In your opinion, how many of the content teachers who teach ELLs engage in each of the following? (Note: Do not include the T.C. Williams International Academy or the dual language programs at Mt. Vernon or Adams.)

Veryfew

(0 - 30%)Some

(31 - 60%)Most

(>60%)Don'tKnow

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

Understand the school's goals for ELLs

22.2% (4) 38.9% (7) 38.9% (7) 0.0% (0) 2.17 18


5.6% (1) 22.2% (4) 72.2% (13) 0.0% (0) 2.67 18

Understand how the school's programs for ELLs are supposed to

work16.7% (3) 38.9% (7) 38.9% (7) 5.6% (1) 2.24 18


44.4% (8) 38.9% (7) 16.7% (3) 0.0% (0) 1.72 18

Believe ELLs are the responsibility of the ESL teacher

44.4% (8) 33.3% (6) 22.2% (4) 0.0% (0) 1.78 18


33.3% (6) 55.6% (10) 11.1% (2) 0.0% (0) 1.78 18

Believe ELLs must attain English language proficiency before they

can be successful in content classes

22.2% (4) 27.8% (5) 44.4% (8) 5.6% (1) 2.24 18


33.3% (6) 38.9% (7) 27.8% (5) 0.0% (0) 1.94 18


5.6% (1) 16.7% (3) 77.8% (14) 0.0% (0) 2.72 18


5.6% (1) 50.0% (9) 44.4% (8) 0.0% (0) 2.39 18

See students' languages and cultures as barriers to learning

50.0% (9) 33.3% (6) 16.7% (3) 0.0% (0) 1.67 18


16.7% (3) 16.7% (3) 66.7% (12) 0.0% (0) 2.50 18


12 of 45

skipped question 0

13. Indicate which groups of ELLs in your school (if any) typically receive each type of program. (Check all that apply.)

WIDA

Levels1 - 2

WIDALevels3 - 4

WIDALevels5 - 6 Monitored None

ResponseCount

Sheltered instructionThe teacher uses sheltered

methodology to provide content instruction to ELLs in an ELL-only

classroom.

72.2% (13) 22.2% (4) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 27.8% (5) 18

Dual languageClasses are provided in Spanish and English for mixed groups of

ELLs and non-ELLs.

5.9% (1) 5.9% (1) 11.8% (2) 5.9% (1) 88.2% (15) 17

ESL Pull-outELLs are “pulled out” of a general

education classroom for English language instruction.

72.2% (13) 11.1% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 27.8% (5) 18

ESL Push-inThe ELL teacher goes into content

classrooms to work with English language learners.

61.1% (11) 77.8% (14) 66.7% (12) 38.9% (7) 16.7% (3) 18

Co-taught (CT) Classes are taught by a content

teacher and an ELL teacher. 61.1% (11) 88.9% (16) 77.8% (14) 50.0% (9) 5.6% (1) 18

Enriched academic classes (EAP)(Typically secondary). A specialized class for English language learners

to provide the language and background information associated

with a content class. )

25.0% (4) 18.8% (3) 6.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 68.8% (11) 16

General education A single general education teacher provides content instruction in an

integrated classroom that includes ELLs and non-ELLs. (Do not include

co-taught or push-in classes.)

35.3% (6) 58.8% (10) 82.4% (14) 58.8% (10) 17.6% (3) 17

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

13 of 45

General education + instructional aide

A general education teacher receives support from an ESL or

bilingual instructional aide to provide content instruction in an integrated classroom that includes ELLs and

non-ELLs. (Do not include co-taughtor push-in classes.)

5.9% (1) 0.0% (0) 5.9% (1) 5.9% (1) 88.2% (15) 17

Other model 10.0% (1) 10.0% (1) 10.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 90.0% (9) 10

Please specify other model

1


skipped question 0

14. Please describe any additional criteria considered in placing ELLs in the programs listed above (e.g., age, grade level, literacy skills, prior schooling).

Response

Count

9

answered question 9

skipped question 9

14 of 45

15. For each grade level offered in your school, for which subject areas is contentinstruction supported by an ELL teacher and/or a teacher who is trained to make content accessible to ELLs? (Include push-in, co-taught classes, and/or sheltered classes.)

ELA/Reading ELA/Writing Math ScienceSocial

StudiesN/A

ResponseCount

K 76.9% (10) 61.5% (8)30.8%

(4)23.1%

(3)23.1%

(3)23.1%

(3)13

1 76.9% (10) 69.2% (9)30.8%

(4)30.8%

(4)30.8%

(4)15.4%

(2)13

2 76.9% (10) 69.2% (9)38.5%

(5)38.5%

(5)38.5%

(5)15.4%

(2)13

3 76.9% (10) 61.5% (8)38.5%

(5)30.8%

(4)30.8%

(4)15.4%

(2)13

4 76.9% (10) 61.5% (8)38.5%

(5)30.8%

(4)30.8%

(4)15.4%

(2)13

5 76.9% (10) 61.5% (8)38.5%

(5)30.8%

(4)30.8%

(4)15.4%

(2)13

6 57.1% (4) 57.1% (4)28.6%

(2)42.9%

(3)42.9%

(3)57.1%

(4)7

7 57.1% (4) 57.1% (4)28.6%

(2)42.9%

(3)42.9%

(3)42.9%

(3)7

8 57.1% (4) 57.1% (4)28.6%

(2)42.9%

(3)42.9%

(3)42.9%

(3)7

9 40.0% (2) 40.0% (2)40.0%

(2)40.0%

(2)40.0%

(2)60.0%

(3)5

10 33.3% (2) 33.3% (2)33.3%

(2)33.3%

(2)33.3%

(2)66.7%

(4)6

11 33.3% (2) 33.3% (2)33.3%

(2)33.3%

(2)33.3%

(2)66.7%

(4)6

12 33.3% (2) 33.3% (2)33.3%

(2)33.3%

(2)16.7%

(1)66.7%

(4)6

Secondary (multiple grades) 20.0% (1) 20.0% (1)20.0%

(1)20.0%

(1)20.0%

(1)80.0%

(4)5

15 of 45

Use this space to clarify your answers above.

4


skipped question 0

16. For each of the content areas that is supported by an ELL teacher as indicated above, how many ELLs at the specified grade levels are served, on average?

Some(< 40%)

Abouthalf

(41 - 60%)

More thanhalf

(61 - 80%)

Almostall

(80 - 100%)

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

ELA/Reading 23.5% (4) 17.6% (3) 35.3% (6) 23.5% (4) 2.59 17

ELA/Writing 31.3% (5) 18.8% (3) 37.5% (6) 12.5% (2) 2.31 16

Math 50.0% (7) 7.1% (1) 35.7% (5) 7.1% (1) 2.00 14

Science 50.0% (7) 35.7% (5) 14.3% (2) 0.0% (0) 1.64 14

Social Studies 42.9% (6) 35.7% (5) 21.4% (3) 0.0% (0) 1.79 14

Use this space to clarify your response above

2


skipped question 1

17. What support is provided to help ELLs access content instruction when a trained ELL teacher is not present?

Response

Count

17


skipped question 1

16 of 45

18. Does your school provide services specifically for ELLs with interrupted formal schooling? (i.e. students who have little or no formal schooling and are at least three grade levels behind their peers of their own age)

Response

PercentResponse

Count

Yes 27.8% 5

No, and the school has at least a few students in this category

61.1% 11

No, but the school does not enroll any students in this category

11.1% 2

Please describe these services.

4


skipped question 0

19. In your opinion, how well are the school's ELL programs working to support Englishlanguage development for each group of ELLs?

Needs

improvement AdequatelyVerywell

Don'tKnow

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

ELLs with limited formal schooling 66.7% (12) 16.7% (3) 11.1% (2) 5.6% (1) 1.41 18

Beginning (WIDA Levels 1 - 2) 27.8% (5) 44.4% (8) 27.8% (5) 0.0% (0) 2.00 18

Intermediate (WIDA Levels 3 - 4) 16.7% (3) 38.9% (7) 44.4% (8) 0.0% (0) 2.28 18

Advanced (WIDA Levels 5 - 6) 5.6% (1) 44.4% (8) 44.4% (8) 5.6% (1) 2.41 18

Monitored 12.5% (2) 50.0% (8) 31.3% (5) 6.3% (1) 2.20 16

Please describe any issues in need of improvement.

5


skipped question 0

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

17 of 45

20. In your opinion, how well are the school's ELL programs working to support academicachievement growth for each group of ELLs?

Needs

improvement AdequatelyVerywell

Don'tKnow

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

ELLs with limited formal schooling 47.1% (8) 41.2% (7) 5.9% (1) 5.9% (1) 1.56 17

Beginning (WIDA Levels 1 - 2) 29.4% (5) 41.2% (7) 29.4% (5) 0.0% (0) 2.00 17

Intermediate (WIDA Levels 3 - 4) 11.8% (2) 47.1% (8) 41.2% (7) 0.0% (0) 2.29 17

Advanced (WIDA Levels 5 - 6) 12.5% (2) 18.8% (3) 68.8% (11) 0.0% (0) 2.56 16

Monitored 18.8% (3) 43.8% (7) 37.5% (6) 0.0% (0) 2.19 16

Please describe any issues in need of improvement.

2


skipped question 1

21. Who is responsible for supervising and monitoring the implementation of the school's instructional programs for ELLs? (Check all that apply)

Response

PercentResponse

Count

Principal 94.4% 17

Assistant Principal 72.2% 13

Dedicated ESL coordinator 33.3% 6

Special programs coordinator (in addition to other non-ESL duties)

5.6% 1

ESL chair/ESL instructional leader 61.1% 11


2


skipped question 0

18 of 45



Neitheragreenor


agree

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

The school lacks sufficient space for ESL/ELL classes.

38.9% (7) 16.7% (3) 5.6% (1) 22.2% (4) 16.7% (3) 2.61 18

ESL instructional resources are of high quality.

0.0% (0) 16.7% (3) 38.9% (7) 44.4% (8) 0.0% (0) 3.28 18

ELLs in this school receive sufficient time with an ESL teacher.

11.1% (2) 27.8% (5) 5.6% (1) 50.0% (9) 5.6% (1) 3.11 18

Scheduling ELL teachers has been a problem this year.

16.7% (3) 16.7% (3) 5.6% (1) 38.9% (7) 22.2% (4) 3.33 18

An ELL specialist participates in creating the master schedule.

11.1% (2) 27.8% (5) 16.7% (3) 27.8% (5) 16.7% (3) 3.11 18

The ELL schedule is created first, then the master schedule.

11.1% (2)55.6%(10)

27.8% (5) 5.6% (1) 0.0% (0) 2.28 18

The school has a policy of placing its most effective teachers in

classrooms with ELLs.5.6% (1) 33.3% (6) 22.2% (4) 16.7% (3) 22.2% (4) 3.17 18

Use this space (as needed) to clarify your responses above

3


skipped question 0

19 of 45



Neitheragreenor


agree

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

I am familiar with the division’svision, mission and goals for ELLs.

0.0% (0) 5.9% (1) 5.9% (1) 35.3% (6) 52.9% (9) 4.35 17

The central office and my school share an understanding of the best

ways to work with ELLs.0.0% (0) 11.8% (2) 41.2% (7) 35.3% (6) 11.8% (2) 3.47 17

New initiatives in this division adequately address the needs of

ELLs.5.9% (1) 29.4% (5) 29.4% (5) 29.4% (5) 5.9% (1) 3.00 17

There is a lack of follow-through for new initiatives for ELLs.

16.7% (3) 22.2% (4) 33.3% (6) 16.7% (3) 11.1% (2) 2.83 18

School administrators have access as needed to division data about

ELL students' progress.0.0% (0) 11.1% (2) 5.6% (1)

55.6%(10)

27.8% (5) 4.00 18

Teachers received timely information about their ELLs' WIDA English language proficiency levels

this year.

0.0% (0) 16.7% (3) 5.6% (1)61.1%(11)

16.7% (3) 3.78 18

Teachers have access to high quality supplemental resources

appropriate for ELLs (e.g., visuals and manipulatives).

0.0% (0) 33.3% (6) 22.2% (4) 44.4% (8) 0.0% (0) 3.11 18


skipped question 0

20 of 45

24. How would you rate the quality of the guidance available to administrators and faculty in your school for each of the following?

Needs


RatingAverage

ResponseCount

Strategies for teaching content to ELLs

38.9% (7) 61.1% (11) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1.61 18

Strategies for teaching language to ELLs

50.0% (9) 38.9% (7) 11.1% (2) 0.0% (0) 1.61 18

Written curricular guidance for addressing the needs of ELLs in

content instruction66.7% (12) 33.3% (6) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1.33 18

Written policies for the ELL instructional programs (e.g.,

selecting appropriate supports)61.1% (11) 38.9% (7) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1.39 18

Written policies for grading, promotion and retention of ELLs

61.1% (11) 33.3% (6) 0.0% (0) 5.6% (1) 1.35 18

Process for procuring resources and materials for ELLs

27.8% (5) 61.1% (11) 11.1% (2) 0.0% (0) 1.83 18


skipped question 0

25. Please list any guidance developed specifically by your school in relation to the topics mentioned above.

Response

Count

4

answered question 4

skipped question 14

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

21 of 45

26. Thinking about the parents of ELLs in your school, for how many is each statement true?

Veryfew

(0 - 30%)Some

(31 - 60%)Most

(>60%)Don'tknow

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

Parents of ELLs receive written communications from the central

office in a language they can understand.

16.7% (3) 33.3% (6) 38.9% (7) 11.1% (2) 2.25 18

Parents of ELLs receive written communications from the school in

a language they can understand.5.6% (1) 61.1% (11) 33.3% (6) 0.0% (0) 2.28 18

Parents who attend school events and meetings are provided an

interpreter if they need one.11.1% (2) 0.0% (0) 88.9% (16) 0.0% (0) 2.78 18

Parents of ELLs contact the school when they have concerns about

their child.5.6% (1) 38.9% (7) 55.6% (10) 0.0% (0) 2.50 18

Parents of ELLs attend parent-teacher conferences.

5.6% (1) 50.0% (9) 44.4% (8) 0.0% (0) 2.39 18

Parents of ELLs are active in the PTO/PTA.

50.0% (9) 38.9% (7) 5.6% (1) 5.6% (1) 1.53 18

Parents of ELLs help make decisions in our school.

66.7% (12) 22.2% (4) 5.6% (1) 5.6% (1) 1.35 18


skipped question 0

22 of 45

27. Does your school have someone specifically assigned to conduct outreach and/or communication with the parents of ELLs?

Response

PercentResponse

Count

Yes, there is a full-time parent liaison

22.2% 4

Yes, a teacher or other staff member performs these duties on a

part-time basis22.2% 4

No 55.6% 10

Please describe

7


skipped question 0

28. Does your school have an outreach plan specifically for the parents of ELLs?

Response

PercentResponse

Count

Yes, as part of the school's overall parent outreach plan.

61.1% 11

Yes, the school has a separate outreach plan for parents of ELLs.

5.6% 1

No 33.3% 6

Use this space to clarify your response above

5


skipped question 0

23 of 45

29. How often does your school typically hold the following kinds of instructional team meetings?

Never Occasionally Monthly Weekly

Severaltimes

a week

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

Grade-level team 5.6% (1) 5.6% (1)16.7%

(3)44.4%

(8)27.8%

(5)3.83 18

Vertical team (across grade levels) 5.6% (1) 50.0% (9)33.3%

(6)11.1%

(2)0.0% (0) 2.50 18

Subject-area/department team 5.6% (1) 22.2% (4)33.3%

(6)33.3%

(6)5.6% (1) 3.11 18

ELL team17.6%

(3)17.6% (3)

23.5%(4)

41.2%(7)

0.0% (0) 2.88 17

Other instructional team 5.9% (1) 23.5% (4)23.5%

(4)41.2%

(7)5.9% (1) 3.18 17

Please specify other type of instructional team

5


skipped question 0

24 of 45

30. How often do instructional teams engage in the following activities?

Never Occasionally RegularlyDon'tKnow

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

Plan or design curriculum for ELLs 27.8% (5) 33.3% (6) 38.9% (7) 0.0% (0) 2.11 18

Plan instruction for ELLs 5.6% (1) 33.3% (6) 61.1% (11) 0.0% (0) 2.56 18

Examine ELL students' work 11.8% (2) 47.1% (8) 41.2% (7) 0.0% (0) 2.29 17

Examine ELL district or school-widedata (e.g., test scores, course

taking, or discipline referrals)11.1% (2) 61.1% (11) 27.8% (5) 0.0% (0) 2.17 18

Discuss learning from peer observations of ELL instruction

44.4% (8) 50.0% (9) 5.6% (1) 0.0% (0) 1.61 18

Learn new strategies for teaching ELLs

11.1% (2) 77.8% (14) 11.1% (2) 0.0% (0) 2.00 18


skipped question 0

31. Does your school provide classes that are co-taught by an ELL teacher and a content teacher this school year? (Check all that apply.)

Response

PercentResponse

Count

Teachers provide push-in support 72.2% 13

Teachers co-teach in classrooms with ELLs

83.3% 15

None of the above 0.0% 0


skipped question 0

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

25 of 45

32. How often do the following occur in co-taught classes?

Never Occasionally RegularlyDon'tKnow

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

Co-teachers meet to plan together. 5.6% (1) 38.9% (7) 55.6% (10) 0.0% (0) 2.50 18

The content teacher does most of the teaching while the ELL teacher

supports.11.1% (2) 61.1% (11) 27.8% (5) 0.0% (0) 2.17 18

Alternative (The content teacher instructs one group while the ELL

teacher instructs ELLs in a smaller group with a modified lesson)

5.6% (1) 61.1% (11) 33.3% (6) 0.0% (0) 2.28 18

Stations (Each teacher instructs different content to multiple groups

of rotating students)5.6% (1) 61.1% (11) 27.8% (5) 5.6% (1) 2.24 18

Teaming (The ELL teacher and the content teacher collaborate to

deliver the lesson together)5.6% (1) 50.0% (9) 44.4% (8) 0.0% (0) 2.39 18

Other co-teaching model 38.5% (5) 15.4% (2) 7.7% (1) 38.5% (5) 1.50 13


1


skipped question 0

26 of 45

33. During the last 12 months, how often have school administrators examined each kind of data to monitor the progress of ELLs?

0

times1

time2

times3 - 4

times>4

timesRating

AverageResponse

Count

SOLs 0.0% (0) 11.8% (2) 5.9% (1) 17.6% (3)64.7%(11)

4.35 17

WIDA ACCESS 5.9% (1) 17.6% (3) 23.5% (4) 17.6% (3) 35.3% (6) 3.59 17

Division benchmark assessments 17.6% (3) 17.6% (3) 35.3% (6) 17.6% (3) 11.8% (2) 2.88 17

Other standardized assessments (e.g., reading tests)

0.0% (0) 11.8% (2) 5.9% (1) 52.9% (9) 29.4% (5) 4.00 17

Grades 23.5% (4) 5.9% (1) 11.8% (2) 35.3% (6) 23.5% (4) 3.29 17

Attendance 5.9% (1) 23.5% (4) 5.9% (1) 23.5% (4) 41.2% (7) 3.71 17

Suspension/disciplinary rates 6.3% (1) 25.0% (4) 6.3% (1) 31.3% (5) 31.3% (5) 3.56 16

Graduation rates 46.7% (7) 26.7% (4) 6.7% (1) 13.3% (2) 6.7% (1) 2.07 15

Drop-out rates 40.0% (6) 26.7% (4) 13.3% (2) 13.3% (2) 6.7% (1) 2.20 15

College acceptance80.0%(12)

6.7% (1) 6.7% (1) 6.7% (1) 0.0% (0) 1.40 15

Other data 33.3% (4) 16.7% (2) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (3) 25.0% (3) 2.92 12

Please specify other data

4


skipped question 1

27 of 45

34. During the school year, how often are ELL data used to support the following kinds of decisions in your school?

ELL data are used to...

0

times1 -2

times3 - 4

times Monthly WeeklyRating

AverageResponse

Count

discuss with faculty to make decisions about instruction

0.0% (0) 38.9% (7) 16.7% (3) 33.3% (6) 11.1% (2) 3.17 18

make decisions about scheduling ELL teachers

0.0% (0) 33.3% (6) 33.3% (6) 27.8% (5) 5.6% (1) 3.06 18

make decisions about course enrollment for ELLs

41.2% (7) 23.5% (4) 17.6% (3) 17.6% (3) 0.0% (0) 2.12 17

make decisions about providing additional academic support for

ELLs0.0% (0) 33.3% (6) 11.1% (2) 38.9% (7) 16.7% (3) 3.39 18

develop the school improvement plan

0.0% (0) 16.7% (3) 38.9% (7) 33.3% (6) 11.1% (2) 3.39 18

support other decisions 13.3% (2) 33.3% (5) 6.7% (1) 33.3% (5) 13.3% (2) 3.00 15

Describe other kinds of decisions

1


skipped question 0

28 of 45

35. During the last 2 years (including the current school year), how many of your school's teachers who serve ELLs have participated in the following opportunities to improve their practice with ELLs?

None

Some(10 -40%)

Abouthalf(41 -60%)

Almostall

(80 -100%)

Don'tKnow

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

Attended professional learning workshops about meeting the needs

of ELLs0.0% (0) 23.5% (4) 35.3% (6) 23.5% (4) 17.6% (3) 3.00 17

Took college or graduate courses for teachers of ELLs

5.6% (1)77.8%(14)

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 16.7% (3) 1.93 18

Received coaching to facilitate and guide their learning of instructional

strategies for ELLs5.6% (1) 44.4% (8) 11.1% (2) 22.2% (4) 16.7% (3) 2.60 18

Had opportunities to see instructional strategies for ELLs

modeled11.1% (2)

55.6%(10)

5.6% (1) 11.1% (2) 16.7% (3) 2.20 18


skipped question 0

36. During the last two years (including the current school year), what professional learning opportunities has the school provided for teachers to improve teaching and learning for ELLs? (Please specify topics and numbers of workshops/coaching sessions.)

Response

Count

13


skipped question 5

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

29 of 45

37. In the last 2 years (including the current school year), have you participated in professional learning opportunities or coursework about English language learners?

Response

PercentResponse

Count

Yes 66.7% 12

No 33.3% 6


skipped question 0

38. During the last 2 years, how often did you participate in the following opportunities to improve your practice with ELLs?

0

times1 or 2 times

> 2times

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

Professional learning workshops about meeting the needs of ELLs

(PD5)0.0% (0) 80.0% (8) 20.0% (2) 2.20 10

College or graduate courses about ELL issues (PD5)

70.0% (7) 20.0% (2) 10.0% (1) 1.40 10


skipped question 7

30 of 45

39. Please indicate:

A. Specific topics for which you have received professional learning opportunities or coursework during the last 2 years.

B. Topics for which you would like to receive professional learning opportunities in the future.

A. Havereceived

B. Wouldlike toreceive

ResponseCount

Administrative issues related to ELLs

70.0% (7) 30.0% (3) 10

Analysis of ELL student data 63.6% (7) 45.5% (5) 11

Classroom assessment for ELLs 60.0% (6) 40.0% (4) 10

Cooperative learning 100.0% (9) 11.1% (1) 9

Co-teaching/Co-planning for ELLs 70.0% (7) 40.0% (4) 10

Cultural issues 77.8% (7) 22.2% (2) 9

Differentiating instruction 77.8% (7) 33.3% (3) 9

Professional learning teams 55.6% (5) 44.4% (4) 9

Quality Teaching for English Learners (QTEL)

54.5% (6) 54.5% (6) 11

Sheltered Instruction Observational Protocol (SIOP)

72.7% (8) 45.5% (5) 11

Success for All (SFA) 50.0% (3) 50.0% (3) 6

Teaching Strategies to Students Learning to Read in English

20.0% (2) 80.0% (8) 10

Teaching the English Language Learner in the Content Area

Classroom44.4% (4) 55.6% (5) 9

VGLA 66.7% (6) 33.3% (3) 9

WIDA ACCESS for ELLs 55.6% (5) 44.4% (4) 9

31 of 45

Other ELL-related topic(s) 0.0% (0) 100.0% (2) 2

Please specify other topics 0


skipped question 7

40. Thinking overall about the ELL professional learning and coursework you and/or your faculty have received, how much do you agree or disagree with each statement?


Neitheragreenor

disagreeAgree

Stronglyagree

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

The ELL professional learning opportunities were useful for

improving practice in our school.0.0% (0) 5.9% (1) 47.1% (8) 41.2% (7) 5.9% (1) 3.47 17

ELL professional learning opportunities have been ongoing

and sustained.17.6% (3) 17.6% (3) 41.2% (7) 23.5% (4) 0.0% (0) 2.71 17

The ELL professional learning opportunities have had a minimal

impact on practice for ELLs in our school.

0.0% (0) 47.1% (8) 29.4% (5) 23.5% (4) 0.0% (0) 2.76 17


skipped question 1

41. What other barriers has your school encountered that prevent effective teaching and learning for ELLs?

Response

Count

11


skipped question 7

32 of 45

42. What else could the district do to help improve teaching and learning for ELLs in your school?

Response

Count

11


skipped question 7

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle


Appendix E. Summary of Results: Teacher Survey

1 of 96

PEAS - Alexandria ELL Teacher Survey

1. For purposes of this survey, English language learners (ELLs) are students who are learning English as a second language. The survey addresses ELLs who are currently receiving services such as English as a second language (ESL), as well as those who are no longer receiving services or whose parents waived services.

To see if you need to take this survey, please indicate whether you have at least one ELL in your classroom this school year (including active or former ELLs).

Response

PercentResponse

Count

Yes 85.4% 607

No 8.9% 63

Don’t know 5.8% 41


skipped question 0

2 of 96

2. We would like to hear from teachers who teach core content to ELLs (both general education teachers and ELL teachers).

Please indicate the kinds of classes you teach this year (check all that apply).

Response

PercentResponse

Count

English language arts 49.5% 301

Math 42.9% 261

Reading 36.5% 222

Science 40.1% 244

Social studies 40.1% 244

ESL pull-out/ESL push-in 12.0% 73

ELL Sheltered classes 7.6% 46



skipped question 103

3 of 96

3. Please select your school from the drop-down list.

Response

PercentResponse

Count

Charles Barrett Elementary School 3.1% 16

Cora Kelly School for Math, Science and Technology

3.7% 19

Douglas MacArthur Elementary School

3.7% 19


4.3% 22


4.7% 24


4.3% 22

George Mason Elementary School 4.3% 22



Interim Education Program 0.2% 1

James K. Polk Elementary School 3.7% 19

Jefferson-Houston School 1.9% 10

John Adams Elementary School 6.0% 31

Lyles-Crouch Traditional Academy 2.1% 11

Matthew Maury Elementary School 1.9% 10

Mount Vernon Community School 6.6% 34

Patrick Henry Elementary School 4.5% 23

Samuel W. Tucker Elementary School

5.4% 28

T.C. Williams High School - MinnieHoward campus

6.0% 31

4 of 96

T.C. Williams High School –Main campus

16.1% 83

William Ramsay Elementary School

7.9% 41



4. Do you teach in the dual language program?

Response

PercentResponse

Count

Yes 39.4% 26

No 60.6% 40



Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

5 of 96



Neitheragreenor


agree

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

I understand the goals of the dual language program.

0.0% (0) 3.8% (1) 11.5% (3)65.4%(17)

19.2% (5) 4.00 26

My building administrator supports the goals of the dual language

program.3.8% (1) 3.8% (1) 23.1% (6)

65.4%(17)

3.8% (1) 3.62 26

The dual language program is appropriate for almost any ELL.

16.0% (4) 20.0% (5) 12.0% (3) 32.0% (8) 20.0% (5) 3.20 25

ELLs in dual language feel comfortable about participating and

asking questions in class.0.0% (0) 15.4% (4)

38.5%(10)

30.8% (8) 15.4% (4) 3.46 26

Few ELLs can keep up with the pace of instruction in dual

language.11.5% (3)

42.3%(11)

30.8% (8) 11.5% (3) 3.8% (1) 2.54 26

I am familiar with the research about ELLs in dual language

programs.3.8% (1) 23.1% (6) 7.7% (2)

42.3%(11)

23.1% (6) 3.58 26

In the last 2 years, I have received professional development about

effective instruction in a dual language program.

20.0% (5) 20.0% (5) 20.0% (5) 24.0% (6) 16.0% (4) 2.96 25



6 of 96

6. Do you teach ESL Pull-out?

Response

PercentResponse

Count

Yes 14.9% 30

No 85.1% 172





Neitheragreenor


agree

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

My building administrator supports the goals of ESL pull-out.

0.0% (0) 6.7% (2) 16.7% (5)46.7%(14)

30.0% (9) 4.00 30

Sufficient space is provided for ESL pull-out classes.

20.0% (6)33.3%(10)

10.0% (3) 30.0% (9) 6.7% (2) 2.70 30

ESL resources and texts are of high quality.

3.3% (1) 20.0% (6) 30.0% (9)43.3%(13)

3.3% (1) 3.23 30

ELLs receive sufficient time in ESL pull-out.

16.7% (5)46.7%(14)

6.7% (2) 26.7% (8) 3.3% (1) 2.53 30

Language instruction in pull-outclasses is aligned with students'

content classes.0.0% (0) 3.3% (1) 3.3% (1)

56.7%(17)

36.7%(11)

4.27 30

Beginning level ELLs receive instruction in social language.

3.4% (1) 24.1% (7)37.9%(11)

27.6% (8) 6.9% (2) 3.10 29



7 of 96

8. Do you teach one or more ELL sheltered or Enriched Academic classes in the International Academy?

Response

PercentResponse

Count

Yes 30.1% 25

No 69.9% 58



8 of 96



Neitheragreenor


agree

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

The International Academy has created a collaborative learning

environment for teachers and students.

8.0% (2) 8.0% (2) 24.0% (6)48.0%(12)

12.0% (3) 3.48 25

Now that I teach in the International Academy, I have changed my

instructional strategies.4.0% (1) 12.0% (3) 32.0% (8)

44.0%(11)

8.0% (2) 3.40 25

ELLs in the International Academy feel comfortable about participating

and asking questions in class.0.0% (0) 12.5% (3) 12.5% (3)

54.2%(13)

20.8% (5) 3.83 24

ELLs in the International Academy have access to the standard

curriculum.0.0% (0) 4.0% (1) 8.0% (2)

64.0%(16)

24.0% (6) 4.08 25

ELLs in the International Academy receive the social and emotional

supports they need.4.0% (1) 8.0% (2) 12.0% (3)

52.0%(13)

24.0% (6) 3.84 25

ELLs in the International Academy have equitable access to college-

preparatory courses.4.0% (1) 8.0% (2) 24.0% (6)

44.0%(11)

20.0% (5) 3.68 25

The International Academy will help improve academic achievement for

ELLs.0.0% (0) 4.0% (1) 24.0% (6)

52.0%(13)

20.0% (5) 3.88 25



Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

9 of 96

10. How would you rate each of the following practices in the International Academy?

Needs


RatingAverage

ResponseCount

Placing ELLs in classes at the right level of support

40.0% (10) 44.0% (11) 12.0% (3) 4.0% (1) 1.71 25

Providing the appropriate level of support for ELLs

24.0% (6) 48.0% (12) 16.0% (4) 12.0% (3) 1.91 25


20.0% (5) 20.0% (5) 0.0% (0) 60.0% (15) 1.50 25


32.0% (8) 36.0% (9) 24.0% (6) 8.0% (2) 1.91 25


60.0% (15) 12.0% (3) 8.0% (2) 20.0% (5) 1.35 25

Identifying ELLs for gifted and talented or advanced coursework

32.0% (8) 12.0% (3) 12.0% (3) 44.0% (11) 1.64 25


20.0% (5) 20.0% (5) 12.0% (3) 48.0% (12) 1.85 25



10 of 96

11. In your opinion, how many of the content teachers who teach in the International Academy engage in each of the following?

Very few Some MostDon'tKnow

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

Understand the International Academy's goals for ELLs

8.0% (2) 48.0% (12) 20.0% (5) 24.0% (6) 1.84 25


0.0% (0) 28.0% (7) 52.0% (13) 20.0% (5) 1.35 25

Understand how the International Academy is supposed to work

16.0% (4) 40.0% (10) 28.0% (7) 16.0% (4) 1.86 25


4.2% (1) 33.3% (8) 45.8% (11) 16.7% (4) 1.50 24


28.0% (7) 36.0% (9) 20.0% (5) 16.0% (4) 2.10 25


16.7% (4) 25.0% (6) 41.7% (10) 16.7% (4) 1.70 24


0.0% (0) 32.0% (8) 44.0% (11) 24.0% (6) 1.42 25


20.0% (5) 20.0% (5) 36.0% (9) 24.0% (6) 1.79 25

Build on students' languages and cultures as assets for learning

16.0% (4) 32.0% (8) 24.0% (6) 28.0% (7) 1.89 25


8.0% (2) 24.0% (6) 48.0% (12) 20.0% (5) 1.50 25



11 of 96

12. Do you teach Academic Enrichment (EAP) classes?

Response

PercentResponse

Count

Yes 8.0% 2

No 92.0% 23





Neitheragreenor


agree

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

The Academic Enrichment class provides essential background

knowledge to help ELLs understand the content.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (1) 50.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 3.50 2

The Academic Enrichment class is helping ELLs acquire academic

English.0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (1) 50.0% (1) 4.50 2

The Academic Enrichment class reinforces content knowledge.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)100.0%

(2)0.0% (0) 4.00 2

The Academic Enrichment class will improve my ELLs’ performance in

their content class.0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)

100.0%(2)

0.0% (0) 4.00 2

answered question 2


12 of 96

14. Do you teach classes for ELLs outside of the International Academy?

Response

PercentResponse

Count

Yes 36.4% 8

No 63.6% 14



15. How would you rate each of the following practices for ELLs in your school? (For T.C. Williams,do not include the International Academy.)

Needs


RatingAverage

ResponseCount

Placing ELLs in classes at the right level of support

38.5% (184) 43.9% (210) 10.3% (49) 7.3% (35) 1.70 478

Providing the appropriate level of support for ELLs

45.3% (217) 37.0% (177) 10.9% (52) 6.9% (33) 1.63 479


34.4% (165) 30.0% (144) 5.2% (25) 30.4% (146) 1.58 480


30.7% (148) 42.9% (207) 16.2% (78) 10.2% (49) 1.84 482


38.9% (187) 30.6% (147) 10.8% (52) 19.8% (95) 1.65 481

Identifying ELLs for gifted and talented or advanced coursework

32.8% (158) 28.5% (137) 6.4% (31) 32.2% (155) 1.61 481

Counseling ELLs and their families about the path to college and career

27.3% (131) 17.7% (85) 6.5% (31) 48.4% (232) 1.60 479



Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

13 of 96

16. In your opinion, how many of the content teachers who serve ELLs engage in each of the following? (For T.C. Williams, do not include International Academy teachers.)

Very few Some MostDon'tKnow

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

Understand the school's goals for ELLs

16.2% (77) 38.7% (184) 34.5% (164) 10.7% (51) 1.80 476


5.2% (25) 31.4% (150) 55.4% (265) 7.9% (38) 1.45 478

Understand how sheltered instruction for ELLs is supposed to

work24.0% (114) 40.2% (191) 18.9% (90) 16.8% (80) 2.06 475


13.4% (64) 50.2% (239) 26.9% (128) 9.5% (45) 1.85 476

Understand how language should be taught to ELLs

22.9% (109) 46.7% (222) 19.6% (93) 10.7% (51) 2.04 475

Integrate language into content instruction

14.6% (70) 41.2% (197) 34.5% (165) 9.6% (46) 1.78 478


5.0% (24) 29.6% (141) 57.2% (273) 8.2% (39) 1.43 477


12.2% (58) 46.1% (219) 32.4% (154) 9.3% (44) 1.78 475

Build on students' languages and cultures as assets for learning

16.2% (77) 47.6% (226) 25.9% (123) 10.3% (49) 1.89 475


7.8% (37) 37.1% (176) 46.7% (222) 8.4% (40) 1.57 475



14 of 96



Neitheragreenor


agree

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

The division and my school share an understanding of the best ways

to work with ELLs.9.9% (47)

25.5%(121)

31.6%(150)

30.3%(144)

2.7% (13) 2.91 475

New initiatives in this division adequately address the needs of

ELLs.

15.6%(74)

27.2%(129)

34.7%(165)

20.6%(98)

1.9% (9) 2.66 475

There is a lack of follow-through for new initiatives for ELLs.

5.9% (28)12.0%(57)

43.2%(205)

30.6%(145)

8.2% (39) 3.23 474

I have access as needed to division data about my ELL

students' progress.7.9% (37)

18.7%(88)

30.8%(145)

38.2%(180)

4.5% (21) 3.13 471

I received timely information about my ELLs' WIDA English language

proficiency levels this year.8.3% (39)

19.1%(90)

17.2%(81)

44.2%(208)

11.3%(53)

3.31 471

I have access to high quality supplemental resources appropriate

for ELLs in my classroom (e.g., visuals and manipulatives).

14.1%(67)

29.7%(141)

24.4%(116)

25.3%(120)

6.5% (31) 2.80 475



15 of 96



Neitheragreenor


agree

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

It is hard to focus on ELLs due to so many competing initiatives.

4.2% (20)16.1%(76)

18.0%(85)

37.2%(176)

24.5%(116)

3.62 473

In this school, the needs of ELLs tend to be an afterthought.

12.7%(60)

40.4%(191)

20.9%(99)

19.5%(92)

6.6% (31) 2.67 473

ELLs are held to lower standards than other students.

12.9%(61)

48.9%(232)

20.9%(99)

15.0%(71)

2.3% (11) 2.45 474

There are tensions between students of different races and

cultures.

20.9%(99)

40.9%(194)

21.1%(100)

14.3%(68)

2.7% (13) 2.37 474

There are physical confrontations between students of different races

at least once a month.

32.6%(154)

36.8%(174)

24.9%(118)

4.4% (21) 1.3% (6) 2.05 473



16 of 96

19. How would you rate the quality of the guidance available from your district and school for each of the following?

Needs

improvement Adequate Exemplary Don't KnowRating

AverageResponse

Count

Strategies for teaching content to ELLs

43.9% (209) 41.2% (196) 7.8% (37) 7.1% (34) 1.61 476

Strategies for teaching language to ELLs

45.5% (216) 36.4% (173) 6.7% (32) 11.4% (54) 1.56 475

Written curricular guidance for addressing the needs of ELLs in

content instruction57.1% (270) 26.8% (127) 2.5% (12) 13.5% (64) 1.37 473

Written policies for the ELL instructional programs (e.g.,

selecting appropriate supports)49.4% (234) 26.8% (127) 2.5% (12) 21.3% (101) 1.40 474

Written policies for grading, promotion and retention of ELLs

56.1% (266) 22.2% (105) 1.9% (9) 19.8% (94) 1.32 474

Process for procuring resources and materials for ELLs

51.7% (245) 28.7% (136) 4.0% (19) 15.6% (74) 1.44 474



Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

17 of 96

20. Thinking about the parents of your ELLs, for how many is each statement true?

None Some Most Don't KnowRating

AverageResponse

Count

Parents of my ELLs receive written communications from the school in

a language they can understand.0.6% (3) 40.9% (194) 46.6% (221) 11.8% (56) 2.52 474

Parents who attend school events and meetings are provided an

interpreter if they need one.1.9% (9) 26.8% (127) 62.4% (296) 8.9% (42) 2.66 474

Parents of my ELLs contact me or the school when they have concerns about their child.

16.6% (78) 60.1% (283) 17.8% (84) 5.5% (26) 2.01 471

Parents of my ELLs attend parent-teacher conferences.

2.7% (13) 56.2% (266) 35.1% (166) 5.9% (28) 2.34 473

Parents of my ELLs are active in the PTO/PTA.

18.2% (86) 34.7% (164) 2.3% (11) 44.8% (212) 1.71 473

Parents of ELLs help make decisions in our school.

23.0% (109) 29.3% (139) 1.5% (7) 46.2% (219) 1.60 474



18 of 96

21. What certifications do you hold? (Check all that apply.)

Response

PercentResponse

Count

Elementary education 54.3% 258

Secondary content area (math, science, social studies, English

language arts)38.9% 185

ESL 19.4% 92

Bilingual education 1.5% 7

Spanish as a foreign language 2.5% 12

Special education 9.5% 45

Reading specialist 4.8% 23

Other certification(s) (please specify)

17.3% 82



22. In the past 2 years (including the current school year), have you participated in professional learning or coursework about English language learners?

Response

PercentResponse

Count

Yes 69.3% 329

No 30.7% 146



19 of 96

23. During the last 2 years (including the current school year), how often did you participate in the following opportunities to improve your practice with ELLs?

0

times1 or 2 times

> 2times

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

Attended professional learning workshops about meeting the needs

of ELLs6.5% (21) 49.5% (161) 44.0% (143) 2.38 325

Took college or graduate courses for teachers of ELLs

65.1% (211) 22.8% (74) 12.0% (39) 1.47 324

Received coaching to facilitate and guide my learning of instructional

strategies for ELLs24.4% (79) 41.4% (134) 34.3% (111) 2.10 324

Had opportunities to see instructional strategies for ELLs

modeled31.0% (100) 40.6% (131) 28.5% (92) 1.98 323



20 of 96

24. Please indicate:

A. Specific topics for which you have received professional learning opportunities or coursework during the last 2 years.


A. Havereceived

B. Wouldlike toreceive

ResponseCount

Analysis of ELL student data 49.6% (124) 52.4% (131) 250

Classroom assessment for ELLs 38.7% (96) 62.9% (156) 248

Cooperative learning 74.6% (200) 28.0% (75) 268

Co-teaching/Co-planning for ELLs 71.4% (202) 35.0% (99) 283

Cultural issues 52.6% (121) 48.3% (111) 230

Differentiating instruction 80.3% (228) 23.6% (67) 284

Professional learning teams 73.4% (174) 30.0% (71) 237

Quality Teaching for English Learners (QTEL)

35.8% (83) 65.1% (151) 232

Sheltered Instruction Observational Protocol (SIOP)

48.8% (105) 53.5% (115) 215

Success for All (SFA) 32.5% (54) 68.1% (113) 166

Teaching Strategies to Students Learning to Read in English

40.9% (101) 62.3% (154) 247

Teaching the English Language Learner in the Content Area

Classroom50.6% (132) 52.9% (138) 261

VGLA 48.6% (87) 53.1% (95) 179

WIDA ACCESS for ELLs 56.5% (113) 44.5% (89) 200

Other ELL-related topic(s) 43.1% (44) 62.7% (64) 102

Please specify other topics31

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

21 of 96



25. Thinking about the ELL professional learning and coursework you have received, how much do you agree or disagree with each statement?


Neitheragreenor

disagreeAgree

Stronglyagree

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

The ELL professional learning opportunities were useful for my

practice.4.3% (14) 5.6% (18)

20.5%(66)

58.1%(187)

11.5%(37)

3.67 322

ELL professional learning opportunities have been ongoing

and sustained.4.0% (13)

25.9%(83)

29.9%(96)

35.2%(113)

5.0% (16) 3.11 321

The ELL professional learning opportunities have had a minimal

impact on my practice.8.4% (27)

47.7%(153)

27.7%(89)

13.7%(44)

2.5% (8) 2.54 321



22 of 96

26. How often do you participate in the following kinds of instructional team meetings?

Never Occasionally Monthly Weekly

Severaltimes

a week

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

Grade-level team10.8%(49)

8.8% (40)13.4%(61)

36.5%(166)

30.5%(139)

3.67 455

Vertical team (across grade levels)34.4%(155)

30.7% (138)25.1%(113)

7.6%(34)

2.2%(10)

2.12 450

Subject-area/department team15.1%(67)

16.2% (72)27.0%(120)

24.9%(111)

16.9%(75)

3.12 445

ELL team45.7%(203)

21.4% (95)9.9%(44)

16.4%(73)

6.5%(29)

2.17 444

Other instructional team38.5%(124)

15.2% (49)18.3%(59)

19.6%(63)

8.4%(27)

2.44 322

Please specify other type of instructional team

114



23 of 96

27. Thinking about the instructional teams you are part of, how often do the teams engage in the following activities?

Never Occasionally Regularly

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

Plan or design curriculum for ELLs 47.7% (215) 31.7% (143) 20.6% (93) 1.73 451

Plan instruction for ELLs 35.6% (160) 34.0% (153) 30.4% (137) 1.95 450

Examine ELL students' work 32.4% (145) 39.7% (178) 27.9% (125) 1.96 448

Examine ELL district or school-widedata (e.g., test scores, course

taking, or discipline referrals)51.3% (230) 40.6% (182) 8.0% (36) 1.57 448

Discuss learning from peer observations of ELL instruction

56.3% (253) 33.4% (150) 10.2% (46) 1.54 449

Learn new strategies for teaching ELLs

37.1% (167) 51.1% (230) 11.8% (53) 1.75 450



24 of 96



Neitheragreenor


agree

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

Our school provides sufficient time for instructional teams to meet.

22.5%(103)

28.4%(130)

14.2%(65)

27.3%(125)

7.6% (35) 2.69 458

Educational personnel in this school understand how to function as an

instructional team.6.2% (28)

16.9%(77)

31.4%(143)

37.4%(170)

8.1% (37) 3.24 455

Instructional teams in this school are working well together.

4.8% (22)14.3%(65)

30.3%(138)

42.6%(194)

7.9% (36) 3.35 455

My participation in instructional teams has improved the quality of

my instruction for ELLs.8.3% (38)

18.2%(83)

35.7%(163)

32.5%(148)

5.3% (24) 3.08 456



29. Which of the following is true for you this year?

Response

PercentResponse

Count

I provide push-in support for ELLs 13.6% 63

I co-teach in a classroom with ELLs

53.0% 246




Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

25 of 96

30. How often does each of the following occur in relation to the classes in which you co-teach or push in?

Never Occasionally RegularlyRating

AverageResponse

Count

Co-teachers meet to plan together. 10.5% (27) 39.7% (102) 49.8% (128) 2.39 257

The content teacher does most of the teaching while the ELL teacher

supports.14.1% (35) 46.6% (116) 39.4% (98) 2.25 249

The ELL teacher and the content teacher collaborate to deliver the

lesson together.13.7% (34) 41.9% (104) 44.4% (110) 2.31 248

The content teacher instructs one group while the ELL teacher

instructs ELLs in a smaller group.19.8% (49) 55.5% (137) 24.7% (61) 2.05 247

Each teacher instructs different content to multiple groups of

rotating students.41.0% (98) 35.6% (85) 23.4% (56) 1.82 239

Other co-teaching model 52.9% (55) 29.8% (31) 17.3% (18) 1.64 104


21



26 of 96



Neitheragreenor


agree

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

My co-teacher(s) and I work well together.

2.0% (5) 4.7% (12) 6.7% (17)48.0%(122)

38.6%(98)

4.17 254

Having two teachers in a content class allows for the teaching of

both content and language.2.4% (6) 6.7% (17)

17.0%(43)

44.3%(112)

29.6%(75)

3.92 253

Having two teachers in the classroom has increased the

academic achievement of ELLs.2.0% (5) 6.7% (17)

19.8%(50)

44.8%(113)

26.6%(67)

3.87 252

ESL teachers lack the expertise to teach content in co-taught classes.

26.9%(68)

39.9%(101)

20.9%(53)

8.3% (21) 4.0% (10) 2.23 253



27 of 96



Neitheragreenor


agree

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

The work required of students in the new ACPS curriculum is too

advanced for ELLs.3.1% (14)

24.1%(108)

28.5%(128)

32.1%(144)

12.2%(55)

3.26 449

It is a good practice to allow ELLs more time to complete coursework.

0.7% (3) 5.1% (23)21.7%(98)

52.9%(239)

19.7%(89)

3.86 452

There is not enough time to teach both language and content.

3.8% (17)19.6%(89)

26.7%(121)

36.6%(166)

13.2%(60)

3.36 453

The common assessments which drive my instruction prevent me

from focusing on language instruction.

3.3% (15)18.2%(82)

30.9%(139)

35.1%(158)

12.4%(56)

3.35 450

I know how to differentiate instruction for ELLs.

1.6% (7)11.2%(50)

17.2%(77)

55.6%(249)

14.5%(65)

3.70 448

I feel comfortable that I can meet the needs of ELLs at the lowest

English language proficiency levels.

9.3% (42)31.1%(140)

19.1%(86)

31.1%(140)

9.3% (42) 3.00 450



28 of 96

33. How often is each practice used in your classroom?

AlmostNever

Somelessons

Almostall

lessons

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

Using the Standards of Learning to plan a lesson

7.0% (31) 18.1% (80) 74.9% (332) 2.68 443

Using the WIDA English Language Proficiency Standards to plan a

lesson61.3% (271) 32.6% (144) 6.1% (27) 1.45 442

Following the new ACPS curriculum to plan a lesson

2.7% (12) 10.6% (47) 86.7% (385) 2.84 444



Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

29 of 96

34. How often is each practice used in your classroom?

Almostnever

Somelessons

Almostall

lessons

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

Providing background knowledge to help ELLs comprehend instruction

2.7% (12) 34.8% (154) 62.4% (276) 2.60 442

Providing contextual support to help ELLs comprehend instruction (e.g.,

visuals, graphic organizers, demonstrations)

2.7% (12) 25.5% (112) 71.8% (316) 2.69 440

Spiraling back through important concepts

4.5% (20) 36.4% (160) 59.1% (260) 2.55 440

Providing modified materials for ELLs

15.0% (66) 45.2% (199) 39.8% (175) 2.25 440

Using cooperative learning 2.5% (11) 40.0% (177) 57.6% (255) 2.55 443

Teaching academic vocabulary specifically for ELLs

10.7% (47) 43.6% (191) 45.7% (200) 2.35 438

Teaching strategies to help ELLs understand complex academic text

11.2% (49) 48.5% (213) 40.3% (177) 2.29 439

Explicitly teaching the grammar and discourse of academic language

(e.g., the language of math, science, social studies or literary

scholarship)

10.5% (46) 42.0% (185) 47.5% (209) 2.37 440

Using students' languages and cultures as assets for learning

17.0% (74) 56.9% (248) 26.1% (114) 2.09 436

Providing alternative classroom assessments so ELLs can

demonstrate what they know23.0% (100) 53.1% (231) 23.9% (104) 2.01 435



30 of 96

35. During content classes, for how many of your ELL students is each statement true?

Veryfew Some Most

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

ELLs understand the instruction. 3.4% (15) 53.3% (234) 43.3% (190) 2.40 439

ELLs have trouble following directions.

22.3% (98) 68.1% (299) 9.6% (42) 1.87 439

ELLs work hard in my class. 1.4% (6) 43.2% (189) 55.5% (243) 2.54 438

ELLs are off-task. 39.6% (174) 57.6% (253) 2.7% (12) 1.63 439

ELLs complete their assignments. 3.9% (17) 52.8% (230) 43.3% (189) 2.39 436

ELLs are reluctant to participate in class discussions.

23.5% (103) 65.4% (287) 11.2% (49) 1.88 439

ELLs are engaged in activities at about the right level of challenge (not too hard and not too easy).

6.4% (28) 52.9% (231) 40.7% (178) 2.34 437

ELLs make connections between the lesson and their own lives and

communities.10.1% (44) 62.9% (273) 27.0% (117) 2.17 434



36. Did your students take the Tripod survey?

Response

PercentResponse

Count

Yes 31.3% 142

No 21.1% 96

Don't know 47.6% 216



31 of 96

37. For your ELL students who took the Tripod, how many...

None Some MostDon'tknow

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

received support to understand the Tripod survey questions

41.4% (58) 17.1% (24) 8.6% (12) 32.9% (46) 1.51 140

used the Spanish language feature of the survey

33.1% (46) 18.0% (25) 4.3% (6) 44.6% (62) 1.48 139

understood the Tripod survey questions

5.0% (7) 24.5% (34) 17.3% (24) 53.2% (74) 2.26 139



38. What other barriers have you encountered that prevent effective teaching and learning for ELLs?

Response

Count

273



39. In your opinion, what are the most important things your school or district needs to do to improve teaching and learning for ELLs?

Response

Count

297



32 of 96

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

33 of 96

Page 17, Q21. What certifications do you hold? (Check all that apply.)

1 6-8 Language Arts, 6-8 Math Nov 22, 2011 7:07 PM

2 Masters in Curriculum and Instruction Nov 22, 2011 5:43 PM

3 Art Education K-12 Nov 22, 2011 3:20 PM

4 Guidance Elementary Nov 22, 2011 3:11 PM

5 School Counselor Nov 22, 2011 11:42 AM

6 National Board Certification Nov 22, 2011 10:17 AM

7 Administration and Supervision preK-12 Nov 22, 2011 8:01 AM

8 Math 6-8 Nov 22, 2011 7:39 AM

9 Masters in Education Nov 22, 2011 7:38 AM

10 Physical Education/Driver's Education Nov 21, 2011 8:02 PM

11 Middle School education, Administration & Supervision Nov 21, 2011 7:16 PM

12 Administration and Supervision Nov 21, 2011 5:34 PM

13 Masters Nov 21, 2011 5:06 PM

14 Administration and Supervision Nov 21, 2011 2:45 PM

15 National Board Certification Nov 21, 2011 2:21 PM

16 Currivulum and Instruction MEd Nov 21, 2011 2:08 PM

17 English Nov 21, 2011 12:47 PM

18 supposed to be anonymous Nov 21, 2011 12:05 PM

19 Early Childhood Education Nov 21, 2011 11:40 AM

20 Masters in Elementary Education Nov 21, 2011 10:27 AM

21 Gift education Nov 20, 2011 12:48 PM

22 MATESOL Nov 20, 2011 11:39 AM

23 Secondary Music Nov 18, 2011 3:53 PM

24 Masters Degree Nov 18, 2011 2:14 PM

25 MS in Science Education Nov 18, 2011 12:19 PM

26 Masters Curriculum and Instruction Nov 18, 2011 10:29 AM

27 Gifted and Talented Nov 18, 2011 7:53 AM

34 of 96


28 Masters in Reading Curriculum and Instruction Nov 18, 2011 7:09 AM

29 Mid Level Math and Social Studies Nov 17, 2011 8:47 PM

30 Adult ESL Nov 17, 2011 6:08 PM

31 MA Adult Ed. Nov 17, 2011 5:48 PM

32 Administration/Principal Nov 17, 2011 3:52 PM

33 EARLY CHILDHOOD Nov 16, 2011 6:28 PM

34 Nursery-elementary Nov 16, 2011 5:34 PM

35 CLAD (ESL endoresement from the state of CA) Nov 16, 2011 4:19 PM

36 masters in teaching Nov 16, 2011 1:42 PM

37 Suoervision and Administration Nov 16, 2011 1:28 PM

38 I am currently enrolled in a program that will give me my ESL certification uponcompletion.

Nov 16, 2011 11:10 AM

39 Gifted and Talented Nov 16, 2011 11:09 AM

40 Masters in Education, teacher /Consultant with the Northern VA Weiting Project Nov 16, 2011 10:57 AM

41 Admin. Supervision Nov 16, 2011 9:12 AM

42 Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist Nov 16, 2011 8:53 AM

43 education administration Nov 16, 2011 8:17 AM

44 Middle Ed. 6-8 Language Arts Nov 16, 2011 8:15 AM

45 Math Specialist Nov 16, 2011 6:25 AM

46 National Board Certification: Early Childhood Generalist Nov 15, 2011 1:59 PM

47 Middle School and Elementary School Administration Nov 15, 2011 9:03 AM

48 ESL trained Nov 15, 2011 8:38 AM

49 Early Childhood-8th BilinguaL Generalist Nov 14, 2011 9:43 PM

50 Education Leadership and Administration Nov 14, 2011 4:30 PM

51 English K-12 Nov 14, 2011 2:33 PM

52 ESL-preK-to 12 grade/ Nov 14, 2011 11:41 AM

53 Masters Nov 14, 2011 10:48 AM

54 French Nov 14, 2011 9:42 AM

35 of 96


55 Educational Leadership/Administration Nov 14, 2011 8:26 AM

56 technology Nov 13, 2011 8:00 PM

57 elementary math specialist Nov 11, 2011 3:08 PM

58 certified in 3 areas Nov 10, 2011 12:41 PM

59 Educational Administration Nov 10, 2011 11:46 AM

60 Administration and Supervision Nov 10, 2011 9:05 AM

61 pre-K-8th grade Nov 10, 2011 8:54 AM

62 Nursery/pre-school Nov 10, 2011 8:10 AM

63 middle grades 4 - 8 and english Nov 10, 2011 7:59 AM

64 Gifted Education Nov 10, 2011 7:38 AM

65 German Nov 9, 2011 9:46 PM

66 Masters in Education Nov 9, 2011 9:32 PM

67 Early Childhood Ed. Special Edu. Endorcement Nov 9, 2011 9:19 PM

68 French Nov 9, 2011 7:43 PM

69 Masters in Curriculum and Instruction Nov 9, 2011 7:33 PM

70 Administration Nov 9, 2011 7:21 PM

71 NBCT, MST Nov 9, 2011 5:53 PM

72 BCLAD - California credential for working with ELLs, SIOP trained, CELDTtrained (CA test for ELLs)

Nov 9, 2011 5:06 PM


74 Post Graduate Administration K-12 Nov 9, 2011 4:14 PM

75 K-12 Administration Nov 9, 2011 4:00 PM

76 Reading Recovery Nov 9, 2011 3:59 PM

77 currently working on my masters in technology Nov 9, 2011 3:46 PM

78 workin on my ESOL cert. Nov 9, 2011 3:45 PM


80 Gifted Ed Nov 9, 2011 3:25 PM

81 M.A. Educational Leadership Nov 9, 2011 3:13 PM

36 of 96


82 ESOL certificate of completion District training Nov 9, 2011 3:06 PM

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

37 of 96 38 of 96

Page 18, Q24. Please indicate: A. Specific topics for which you have received professional learning opportunities or coursework during the last2 years. 


1 Specific ways to integrate cultural features of ELLs into the content area(including cultures besides Latin)

Nov 22, 2011 10:58 AM

2 Beginner/Kinder Specific Concept of Word for ELLs Nov 22, 2011 7:22 AM

3 Skillful Teacher Workshops High Trust workshops Nov 21, 2011 12:52 PM

4 Reaching students who are no longer categorized ELL under WIDA but forwhom English is still their second language.

Nov 20, 2011 9:22 PM

5 Access to instructional programs, resources for teaching ELL students math. Nov 20, 2011 12:50 PM

6 What I have learned about teaching ELL students has come from my coteacher Nov 17, 2011 4:42 PM

7 Assessment Nov 16, 2011 6:30 PM

8 managing cooperative learning Nov 16, 2011 1:26 PM

9 QTEL is not worth it! Nov 16, 2011 11:38 AM

10 How to look and think about the new curriculum to include ELLs. Nov 16, 2011 11:15 AM

11 Have presented a workshop on ways to help ELL learners in the classroom at aconference.

Nov 16, 2011 11:03 AM

12 note: Most of these trainings came in a previous district. Nov 16, 2011 10:45 AM

13 All staff need more help and resources for Level 1 and Level 2 students. Nov 16, 2011 10:03 AM

14 Serving and Identifying ELLs with Special Needs Nov 16, 2011 9:18 AM

15 Vocabulary Development Spanish Literacy Nov 16, 2011 8:21 AM

16 Newcomer written curriculum implementation (Level 1 ELL): language arts,science

Nov 15, 2011 9:18 AM

17 Spanish Language Arts Spanish Literacy Dual Language model SpanishLanguage Learners Strategies

Nov 14, 2011 9:46 PM

18 How levels are assigned to ELL students entering ACPS - they seldom correlatewith how they perform on assessments at school such as PALS tests

Nov 14, 2011 4:42 PM

19 High Trust workshop on how to build positive relationships with troubledstudents.

Nov 14, 2011 3:43 PM

20 High Trust for everyone, so there is consistency More Kagan CooperativeLearning More Skillful Teacher training for newer

Nov 14, 2011 12:33 PM

21 have attended conferences on Bilingual Special Education for ELL students Nov 14, 2011 11:45 AM

39 of 96

Page 18, Q24. Please indicate: A. Specific topics for which you have received professional learning opportunities or coursework during the last2 years. 


22 How to teach ELLs when they are tracked into lower level classes with SPED Nov 10, 2011 2:32 PM

23 Using data to drive instruction. Nov 10, 2011 10:09 AM

24 I would like to know how ACPS determines the number of ELL teachers to havein each school.

Nov 9, 2011 7:24 PM

25 Learning explicit vocabulary instruction Nov 9, 2011 4:38 PM

26 How to adapt the writing workshop for ELLs, I truly miss having Lisa Haskins asan instructional coach. She trained new teachers very well and kept us in theloop with current practices in her curriculum circle.

Nov 9, 2011 4:15 PM

27 Teaching English/Language Arts content in a sheltered classroom. ** Wouldreally like to observe some other teachers**

Nov 9, 2011 4:05 PM

28 Graduate course work in reading - applicable to all learners Nov 9, 2011 3:40 PM

29 Dr Rojas is the best investment our school, GWMS, has received. Any directivesfor supporting ELL has been from my principal, Mr Mann. The district is juststarting to recognize how much our ELL students need support.

Nov 9, 2011 3:17 PM

30 How to appropriately grade beginner ELLs according to grade level standardsand expectations

Nov 9, 2011 3:12 PM

31 WIDA representative stated the training I received in Fla surpassed WIDA and isan optimal model

Nov 9, 2011 3:08 PM

40 of 96

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

41 of 96

Page 20, Q26. How often do you participate in the following kinds of instructional team meetings?

1 Reading Support Nov 27, 2011 1:10 PM

2 RTI Nov 26, 2011 5:48 PM

3 CETA Nov 25, 2011 8:58 AM

4 Administrative-led planning meetings Nov 23, 2011 11:49 AM

5 Co teacher Nov 22, 2011 6:34 PM

6 curriculum coaches Nov 22, 2011 3:47 PM

7 Special Education team Nov 22, 2011 3:26 PM

8 goal committies Nov 22, 2011 3:06 PM

9 Special Education Nov 22, 2011 2:58 PM

10 Title 1 Leadership meetings Nov 22, 2011 1:35 PM

11 School Education Plan goal team Nov 22, 2011 11:04 AM

12 Coaches Nov 22, 2011 10:19 AM

13 PBIS/Discipline Goal Team Nov 22, 2011 9:29 AM

14 Instructional coach, Professional Learning Council Nov 22, 2011 8:51 AM

15 Leadership Nov 22, 2011 8:07 AM

16 . Nov 22, 2011 8:05 AM

17 Balanced Literacy Committee Nov 21, 2011 3:15 PM

18 Sped co-teaching, Leadership Nov 21, 2011 2:24 PM

19 SPED Nov 21, 2011 2:09 PM

20 Reading Specialist and ELL teacher Nov 21, 2011 1:43 PM

21 Leadership Team Nov 21, 2011 12:25 PM

22 pbis Nov 21, 2011 12:18 PM

23 SST Nov 21, 2011 12:03 PM

24 ELL Co-teacher and Me Nov 21, 2011 11:18 AM

25 Habits of Mind Nov 21, 2011 11:13 AM

26 Special Education Nov 21, 2011 10:30 AM

27 social studies vertical chair Nov 21, 2011 7:37 AM

42 of 96


28 Special Education Nov 21, 2011 7:26 AM

29 gifted Nov 20, 2011 12:52 PM

30 I meet with GW1 8th grade science teachers to plan weekly. Nov 19, 2011 10:38 AM

31 LD Nov 18, 2011 7:49 PM

32 Language Arts/Math specialist Nov 18, 2011 1:09 PM

33 Professional Learning Committee Nov 18, 2011 1:08 PM

34 PLTs Nov 18, 2011 11:56 AM

35 PLP/21 Hour Nov 18, 2011 10:40 AM

36 Habits of Mind Nov 18, 2011 8:46 AM

37 PLT Nov 18, 2011 8:21 AM

38 admin Nov 18, 2011 7:10 AM

39 Formative Assessment Data Nov 17, 2011 9:22 PM

40 I pair up with another brand new teacher to debrief Nov 17, 2011 5:06 PM

41 COACHES Nov 17, 2011 3:56 PM

42 administration Nov 17, 2011 2:42 PM

43 Meeting with instructional coach Nov 16, 2011 7:26 PM

44 Relationship meetings Nov 16, 2011 5:11 PM

45 Professional Learning Team - Data Collection Nov 16, 2011 4:43 PM

46 School Leadership Team Nov 16, 2011 3:06 PM

47 CLT Nov 16, 2011 2:54 PM

48 Co teacher Nov 16, 2011 2:52 PM

49 PLT Nov 16, 2011 2:39 PM

50 ELL Co-Teacher Nov 16, 2011 2:07 PM

51 Professional Learning Teams/Curriculum Changes Nov 16, 2011 1:29 PM

52 content area team Nov 16, 2011 1:28 PM

53 Content Learning Team (same grade and content) Nov 16, 2011 12:16 PM

54 LD teacher Nov 16, 2011 11:05 AM

43 of 96


55 Instructional Coach Nov 16, 2011 11:03 AM

56 RTI and SEP Nov 16, 2011 10:58 AM

57 leadership, plp groups Nov 16, 2011 10:22 AM

58 RTI Nov 16, 2011 10:01 AM

59 CLT - Content Meetings for all 3 schools JUST LA teachers Nov 16, 2011 9:00 AM

60 technology leadership project Nov 16, 2011 8:36 AM

61 I meet frequently with my ELL co-teacher Nov 16, 2011 8:21 AM

62 PLT Nov 16, 2011 7:49 AM

63 Building team meetings Nov 16, 2011 7:36 AM

64 Reading Specialists Nov 16, 2011 6:20 AM

65 Instructional Council Nov 16, 2011 6:17 AM

66 co-teachers and I plan Nov 15, 2011 11:18 AM

67 Faculty meetings, Student Support Nov 15, 2011 9:26 AM

68 grade level, subject area CLT, cross-campus Nov 15, 2011 8:26 AM

69 Reading and SPED teams Nov 14, 2011 9:04 PM

70 Leadership Team Nov 14, 2011 7:01 PM

71 PLT Group Nov 14, 2011 6:36 PM

72 Special Education Team Nov 14, 2011 5:54 PM

73 High Trust Professional Learning Community Nov 14, 2011 3:46 PM

74 Sped/ Co-teacher meetings Nov 14, 2011 3:17 PM

75 Technology Nov 14, 2011 2:58 PM

76 High Trust PLT Nov 14, 2011 12:36 PM

77 co teaching schedule prevents me from attending grade level teams Nov 14, 2011 12:27 PM

78 Instructional Council, IB Division Team, Professional Learning Committee Nov 14, 2011 12:01 PM

79 parent engagement committee Nov 14, 2011 10:52 AM

80 International Baccalaureate PTL, Vision and Action Nov 14, 2011 10:24 AM

81 QTEL PLT group Nov 14, 2011 9:17 AM

44 of 96


82 Leadership Team Nov 14, 2011 7:37 AM

83 Professional Learning Team Nov 13, 2011 5:12 PM

84 Science Fair Nov 12, 2011 10:55 PM

85 EAP meetings, PLT, and co-teaching team Nov 12, 2011 1:31 PM

86 special ed., OT, speech Nov 11, 2011 7:26 AM

87 All teachers and administrators related to grade level instructions includingreading and ELL specialists.

Nov 10, 2011 8:23 PM

88 Special Education Nov 10, 2011 6:35 PM

89 Special Ed Nov 10, 2011 12:59 PM

90 RTI, ILT, CLT (weekly--although these meetings have little value towards myteaching)

Nov 10, 2011 11:13 AM

91 PLT Nov 10, 2011 10:43 AM

92 Professional Learning Council Nov 10, 2011 10:11 AM

93 PLT Nov 10, 2011 9:29 AM

94 IB/MYP Nov 10, 2011 9:07 AM

95 Content Learning Team Nov 10, 2011 8:01 AM

96 Parent Involvement Nov 10, 2011 7:55 AM

97 Gifted Meetings Nov 10, 2011 7:40 AM

98 Coteaching pair Nov 9, 2011 9:06 PM

99 reading Nov 9, 2011 7:48 PM

100 SFA, PYP Nov 9, 2011 4:46 PM

101 Professional Learning Team (PLT), and QTEL Nov 9, 2011 4:18 PM

102 Reading specialists, special educators Nov 9, 2011 4:17 PM

103 I meet w/ 8th grade English teachers from across schools, but I'm not invited tomeetings of all FCH 2 8th grade teachers.

Nov 9, 2011 4:10 PM

104 Work with other teachers in same content area that are also newer Nov 9, 2011 3:49 PM

105 Reading, Math Nov 9, 2011 3:44 PM

106 Special Education Team Nov 9, 2011 3:29 PM

107 SEP Goal Team Nov 9, 2011 3:27 PM

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

45 of 96


108 weekly meeting with coaches Nov 9, 2011 3:25 PM

109 Literacy Coaches Nov 9, 2011 3:24 PM

110 I am in some sort of meeting all of the time, be it a CLT or IB or other contentrelated meeting. I rarely have time to either co-plan or formulate my ideas onhow to modify the new initiatives or the transfer tasks, let alone find resources tosupplement these transfer tasks to meet the needs of all students.

Nov 9, 2011 3:23 PM

111 special education Nov 9, 2011 3:22 PM

112 community out reach Nov 9, 2011 3:21 PM

113 Professional Learning Committee; There is no ELL Team at this school. Nov 9, 2011 3:10 PM

114 too many meetings Nov 9, 2011 3:10 PM

46 of 96

47 of 96

Page 22, Q30. How often does each of the following occur in relation to the classes in which you co-teach orpush in?

1 The teaching model in kindergarten push-in classes is mostly working ascenters: each teacher instructs different content to multiple groups of rotatingstudents. For other grade levels, it depends; some teachers work well with co-teaching model while some prefer to instruct one group while the ELL teacherinstructs ELLs in a smaller group. 80% of the co-teachers I work with prefer thatthe ELL teachers provide instruction to ELLs in a smaller group in the sameclassroom.

Nov 27, 2011 7:27 PM

2 Teachers teach the same content to different groups. Whole group lessons aretaught jointly, often piggybacking. Co-teaching is only during reading.

Nov 25, 2011 9:05 AM

3 parallel teaching Nov 22, 2011 11:11 AM

4 create different stations Nov 21, 2011 8:46 PM

5 Both push-in and pull-out Nov 21, 2011 1:47 PM

6 SPED teacher co-teaches also Nov 20, 2011 3:53 PM

7 parallel, stations, paired instruction, Nov 18, 2011 9:39 AM

8 I only have a special education co teacher Nov 16, 2011 2:54 PM

9 ELL teacher pprovides most of the teaching while the content teacher supports. Nov 16, 2011 10:21 AM

10 This really does not apply to me. Nov 16, 2011 8:58 AM

11 there are more ells in the class than there are regular ed. so the gen ed teahcherhas fewer students to work with than the ll when we do differentiated break outgroups.

Nov 16, 2011 8:39 AM

12 parallel teaching with different groups Nov 16, 2011 8:09 AM

13 Parallel Teaching in different locations Nov 14, 2011 6:37 PM

14 Parallel teaching, Station teaching Nov 11, 2011 2:02 PM

15 Amount of PD at Middle School does not allow for planning Nov 10, 2011 2:37 PM

16 Math co-teaching not very helpful (ELL push in) Nov 10, 2011 2:09 PM

17 Language Focus, then Content Focus, Labs Nov 10, 2011 10:12 AM

18 I co-teach b/c I am a SpEd teacher; I have never seen co-teaching w/one gen edand one ELL teacher at this school.

Nov 9, 2011 8:41 PM

19 We provide small group instruction by level and needs of students and do notgroup by ELL/non-ELL.

Nov 9, 2011 4:18 PM

20 my coteacher is only in my room 2 days a week due to not having enough ELLsupport

Nov 9, 2011 3:50 PM

21 alternative-teaching, parallel teaching, and team teaching Nov 9, 2011 3:27 PM

48 of 96

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle


Appendix F. Summary of Results: Classroom Observations

4. School:

Response

Count

36


skipped question 0

5. School level

Response

PercentResponse

Count

Elementary 48.6% 17

Middle 17.1% 6

High 34.3% 12


skipped question 1

6. Teacher(s):

Response

PercentResponse

Count

Teacher 1

100.0% 36

Teacher 2

61.1% 22


skipped question 0

o

7. Subject area(s)

Response

Count

36


skipped question 0

8. Grade level(s)

Response

PercentResponse

Count

PK 0.0% 0

K 14.3% 5

1 8.6% 3

2 8.6% 3

3 8.6% 3

4 2.9% 1

5 5.7% 2

6 0.0% 0

7 5.7% 2

8 5.7% 2

9 2.9% 1

10 2.9% 1

11 0.0% 0

12 0.0% 0

Elementary (multiple grades) 0.0% 0

Middle (multiple grades) 2.9% 1

High (multiple grades) 31.4% 11


skipped question 1

9. Teaching configuration

Response

PercentResponse

Count

single teacher 39.4% 13

teacher & aide 3.0% 1

co-teachers 57.6% 19


1


skipped question 3

o

10. Type of classroom:

Response

PercentResponse

Count

General education (no push-in) 2.9% 1

Sheltered 28.6% 10

Dual Language 5.7% 2

Bilingual 0.0% 0

ESL push-in 28.6% 10

ESL pull-out 22.9% 8

ESL self-contained 2.9% 1


8.6% 3


skipped question 1

11. Language(s) of instruction

Response

PercentResponse

Count

English 97.2% 35

Spanish 5.6% 2

Other (please specify) 0


skipped question 0

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

12. Number of students

Response

Count

34


skipped question 2

13. Approximately how many ELLs are enrolled in this class?

Response

PercentResponse

Count

All ELLs 57.1% 20

> half 28.6% 10

< half 14.3% 5

1 - 2 0.0% 0


skipped question 1

14. Students' ELP levels (check all that apply)

Response

PercentResponse

Count

Levels 1 - 2 (beginner) 84.8% 28

Levels 3 - 4 (intermediate) 72.7% 24

Levels 5 - 6 (advanced) 36.4% 12

Exited 18.2% 6


skipped question 3

-

19. Briefly describe the lesson

Response

Count

33


skipped question 3

20. (AC1A) Teachers of ELLs convey high expectations through rigorous grade-levelinstruction.

Not

observed0

Weakevidence

1Adequate

2Strength

3N/A

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

AC1A.1 Content objective(s) were clearly identified orally and in

writing.14.7% (5) 23.5% (8)

52.9%(18)

8.8% (3) 0.0% (0) 2.56 34

AC1A.2 (S) Language objective(s) were clearly identified orally and in

writing.

61.8%(21)

5.9% (2) 11.8% (4) 8.8% (3) 11.8% (4) 1.63 34

AC1A.3 Instruction was appropriate to grade level.

2.9% (1) 14.7% (5)52.9%(18)

26.5% (9) 2.9% (1) 3.06 34

AC1A.4 Instruction addressed the lesson objectives.

8.8% (3) 11.8% (4)55.9%(19)

17.6% (6) 5.9% (2) 2.88 34

AC1A.5 Instruction engaged students in higher order thinking.

5.9% (2)38.2%(13)

35.3%(12)

20.6% (7) 0.0% (0) 2.71 34

AC1A.6 Teacher used a variety of question types (literal, analytic,

interpretive, etc.)6.1% (2)

39.4%(13)

36.4%(12)

18.2% (6) 0.0% (0) 2.67 33

AC1A.7 Teacher elicited extended responses (e.g., did not accept incomplete/partial responses).

12.1% (4) 27.3% (9)33.3%(11)

24.2% (8) 3.0% (1) 2.72 33

AC1A.8 Students were on task. 0.0% (0) 12.1% (4)54.5%(18)

33.3%(11)

0.0% (0) 3.21 33

AC1A.9 Students were actively

engaged in instruction (e.g., expressed enthusiasm, asked questions, contributed ideas,

solved problems).

0.0% (0)33.3%(11)

36.4%(12)

30.3%(10)

0.0% (0) 2.97 33


skipped question 2

21. (AC8) School administrators and teachers who serve ELLs use the native languages and cultural heritages of ELLs and their families to enrich and support instruction and the learning of academic content.

Not

observed0

Weakevidence

1Adequate

2Strength

3N/A

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

AC8.1 Teacher connected lesson concepts to students’ backgrounds,cultural heritages and experiences.

67.6%(23)

8.8% (3) 17.6% (6) 2.9% (1) 2.9% (1) 1.55 34

AC8.2 (S) Students had the opportunity to orally clarify key

concepts in L1 as needed (e.g., with teacher, aide or peer(s)).

55.9%(19)

2.9% (1) 20.6% (7) 8.8% (3) 11.8% (4) 1.80 34

AC8.3(S) Teacher clarified concepts in L1 as needed.

67.6%(23)

2.9% (1) 5.9% (2) 11.8% (4) 11.8% (4) 1.57 34

AC8.4 (S) High quality supplementary L1 materials and

texts were provided.

72.7%(24)

3.0% (1) 3.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 21.2% (7) 1.12 33

AC8.5 (S/B) Teacher supported students to make connections between their two languages.

59.4%(19)

3.1% (1) 6.3% (2) 6.3% (2) 25.0% (8) 1.46 32

AC8.6 (S/B) Teacher explicitly taught strategies for transferring

what students know in L1 to English and vice versa (e.g.,

cognates, concepts, etc.)

67.6%(23)

5.9% (2) 2.9% (1) 0.0% (0) 23.5% (8) 1.15 34

AC8.7 (B) High quality L1 texts and materials supported the grade level

objectives.

32.4%(11)

0.0% (0) 2.9% (1) 0.0% (0)64.7%(22)

1.17 34

AC8.8 (B)Teacher used appropriate academic language in L1 for the 24.2% (8) 0.0% (0) 6.1% (2) 3.0% (1)

66.7%(22)

1.64 33

-

content area.

AC8.9 Texts and materials reflected the cultural heritages and backgrounds of the students in the

class.

85.3%(29)

5.9% (2) 2.9% (1) 2.9% (1) 2.9% (1) 1.21 34


skipped question 2

22. (AC5A) Teachers create classroom environments that facilitate peer interaction around academic content.

Not

observed0

Weakevidence

1Adequate

2Strength

3N/A

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

AC5A.1 The classroom was well managed.

2.9% (1) 5.9% (2)52.9%(18)

38.2%(13)

0.0% (0) 3.26 34

AC5A.2 The teacher used grouping strategies appropriate to the

objectives.

29.4%(10)

8.8% (3)44.1%(15)

17.6% (6) 0.0% (0) 2.50 34

AC5A.3 The teacher used structured cooperative learning

strategies (i.e., clear goals, individual accountability,

interdependence, and equal participation).

52.9%(18)

11.8% (4) 23.5% (8) 11.8% (4) 0.0% (0) 1.94 34

AC5A.4 ELLs and non-ELLs worked together as equal status peers.

11.8% (4) 2.9% (1) 17.6% (6) 14.7% (5)52.9%(18)

2.75 34

AC5A.5 Students demonstrated mutual respect and cooperation.

5.9% (2) 26.5% (9)52.9%(18)

14.7% (5) 0.0% (0) 2.76 34


skipped question 2

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

23. (AC6) In classrooms enrolling ELLs, the efforts and contributions of all students are respected and encouraged.

Not

observed0

Weakevidence

1Adequate

2Strength

3N/A

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

AC6.1 The teacher was respectful to students.

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0)44.1%(15)

55.9%(19)

0.0% (0) 3.56 34

AC6.2 Students were respectful to teacher.

0.0% (0) 2.9% (1)58.8%(20)

38.2%(13)

0.0% (0) 3.35 34

AC6.3 The teacher encouraged all students to participate as

appropriate.5.9% (2) 2.9% (1)

52.9%(18)

38.2%(13)

0.0% (0) 3.24 34

AC6.4 The teacher acknowledged the efforts and contributions of

students.2.9% (1) 20.6% (7)

50.0%(17)

26.5% (9) 0.0% (0) 3.00 34


skipped question 2

-

24. (AC12) Teachers engage ELLs in active learning (e.g., experiments, real-world problem solving) to construct and reflect on new knowledge.

Not

observed0

Weakevidence

1Adequate

2Strength

3N/A

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

AC12.1 Teachers engaged ELLs in active learning (e.g., experiments,

real-world problem solving) to construct and reflect on new

knowledge.

11.8% (4) 26.5% (9)47.1%(16)

14.7% (5) 0.0% (0) 2.65 34

AC12.2 Instructional approaches were appropriate to lesson

objectives.2.9% (1) 2.9% (1)

70.6%(24)

20.6% (7) 2.9% (1) 3.12 34

AC12.3 Instructional approaches were well-implemented.

2.9% (1) 11.8% (4)70.6%(24)

11.8% (4) 2.9% (1) 2.94 34


skipped question 2

-

25. (AC9) Content/grade level teachers implement classroom assessments appropriate for students at different language proficiency levles.

Not

observed0

Weakevidence

1Adequate

2Strength

3N/A

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

AC9.1 Assessment was ongoing throughout lesson.

23.5% (8) 26.5% (9)32.4%(11)

17.6% (6) 0.0% (0) 2.44 34

AC9.2 Assessment addressed the lesson objectives.

20.6% (7) 8.8% (3)50.0%(17)

5.9% (2) 14.7% (5) 2.48 34

AC9.3 Assessment was appropriate to the grade-level standards.

18.2% (6) 6.1% (2)66.7%(22)

0.0% (0) 9.1% (3) 2.53 33

AC9.4 Rubrics, models or other assessment exemplars were

developed with and/or explained to students.

76.5%(26)

8.8% (3) 5.9% (2) 2.9% (1) 5.9% (2) 1.31 34

AC9.5 Assessment was designed to test content knowledge, not

English skills.23.5% (8) 8.8% (3)

35.3%(12)

5.9% (2) 26.5% (9) 2.32 34

AC9.6 Students had opportunities to demonstrate knowledge and

skills in a variety of ways (e.g., oral or written summary, non-

linguistic representation) depending on their ELP level.

55.9%(19)

20.6% (7) 14.7% (5) 8.8% (3) 0.0% (0) 1.76 34

AC9.7 Teacher adjusted instruction based on progress monitoring.

58.8%(20)

14.7% (5) 23.5% (8) 2.9% (1) 0.0% (0) 1.71 34


skipped question 2

--

26. (ACI3) Teachers provide opportunities for students to learn and practice all four language modalities (reading, writing, listening and speaking).

Teacher provided...

Not

observed0

Weakevidence

1Adequate

2Strength

3N/A

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

ACI3.1 opportunities to read academic texts.

26.5% (9) 17.6% (6)41.2%(14)

14.7% (5) 0.0% (0) 2.44 34

ACI3.2 opportunities to write using academic language.

20.6% (7) 17.6% (6)44.1%(15)

17.6% (6) 0.0% (0) 2.59 34

ACI3.3 opportunities to listen to academic language.

14.7% (5) 17.6% (6)52.9%(18)

14.7% (5) 0.0% (0) 2.68 34

ACI3.4 opportunities to practice speaking academic language.

17.6% (6)29.4%(10)

41.2%(14)

11.8% (4) 0.0% (0) 2.47 34


skipped question 2

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

27. (AC7A) Teachers differentiate instruction for ELLs at different English proficiency levels through varied approaches to content, process, and product.

The teacher...

Not

observed0

Weakevidence

1Adequate

2Strength

3N/A

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

AC7A.1 differentiated supports for ELLs at different ELP levels to

make concepts clear (e.g., auditory, kinesthetic, visual

supports, graphic organizers).

47.1%(16)

17.6% (6) 14.7% (5) 17.6% (6) 2.9% (1) 2.03 34

AC7A.2 used content materials adapted to all levels of language

proficiency.

47.1%(16)

11.8% (4)29.4%(10)

8.8% (3) 2.9% (1) 2.00 34

AC7A.3 used speech appropriate for students at a variety of

language proficiency levels (e.g., slower rate, clear enunciation).

11.8% (4) 17.6% (6)41.2%(14)

29.4%(10)

0.0% (0) 2.88 34

AC7A.4 paced the lesson as appropriate for students at a

variety of language proficiency levels.

11.8% (4) 17.6% (6)44.1%(15)

26.5% (9) 0.0% (0) 2.85 34


skipped question 2

--

28. (AC7B) Teachers scaffold instruction to help ELLs connect what they already know with new learning.

The teacher...

Not

observed0

Weakevidence

1Adequate

2Strength

3N/A

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

AC7B.1 previewed new content (e.g., using K-W-L, advance

organizers).

32.4%(11)

2.9% (1)38.2%(13)

14.7% (5) 11.8% (4) 2.40 34

AC7B.2 connected new concepts to prior learning.

18.2% (6) 3.0% (1)45.5%(15)

27.3% (9) 6.1% (2) 2.87 33

AC7B.3 used verbal scaffolding techniques (e.g., prompting,

questioning, and elaboration).8.8% (3) 17.6% (6)

41.2%(14)

26.5% (9) 5.9% (2) 2.91 34

AC7B.4 used procedural scaffolding techniques (e.g.,

explicit modeling before practice).11.8% (4) 17.6% (6)

29.4%(10)

35.3%(12)

5.9% (2) 2.94 34

AC7B.5 used instructional scaffolding (e.g., graphic

organizers, nonlinguistic supports).17.6% (6) 11.8% (4)

38.2%(13)

32.4%(11)

0.0% (0) 2.85 34

AC7B.6 allowed sufficient wait time after questions.

11.8% (4) 17.6% (6)41.2%(14)

20.6% (7) 8.8% (3) 2.77 34


skipped question 2

-

29. (LG2) Teachers provide instruction for ELLs that addresses social and instructional language for communication.

Not

Observed0

Weakevidence

1Adequate

2Strength

3N/A

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

LG2.1 provided explicit instruction in social language

58.8%(20)

17.6% (6) 14.7% (5) 0.0% (0) 8.8% (3) 1.52 34

LG2.2 taught vocabulary that included common terms and

idiomatic expressions.

58.8%(20)

11.8% (4) 14.7% (5) 5.9% (2) 8.8% (3) 1.65 34

LG2.3 provided multiple opportunities to communicate in

authentic contexts.

29.4%(10)

26.5% (9)32.4%(11)

2.9% (1) 8.8% (3) 2.10 34


skipped question 2

--

30. (LG8) Teachers provide instruction for ELLs to develop academic language needed to access content. The teacher...

Not

Observed0

Weakevidence

1Adequate

2Strength

3N/A

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

LG8.1 provided explicit instruction in academic language (e.g.,

grammar, discourse) .

44.1%(15)

20.6% (7)29.4%(10)

5.9% (2) 0.0% (0) 1.97 34

LG8.2 taught general academic vocabulary

52.9%(18)

17.6% (6)29.4%(10)

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1.76 34

LG8.3 taught content-specificvocabulary

26.5% (9) 17.6% (6)32.4%(11)

23.5% (8) 0.0% (0) 2.53 34

LG8.4 provided multiple exposures to vocabulary words

26.5% (9)35.3%(12)

17.6% (6) 20.6% (7) 0.0% (0) 2.32 34

LG8.5 engaged students in a variety of activities to deepen their

knowledge of language.

35.3%(12)

20.6% (7)32.4%(11)

11.8% (4) 0.0% (0) 2.21 34

LG8.6 presented language within authentic and meaningful contexts

(e.g., within grade-level content texts, spoken language about

subject-area content)

5.9% (2) 5.9% (2)76.5%(26)

11.8% (4) 0.0% (0) 2.94 34

LG8.8 aligned language instruction with students' content classes.

17.6% (6) 2.9% (1)32.4%(11)

17.6% (6)29.4%(10)

2.71 34

LG8.9. integrated language instruction with content instruction.

26.5% (9) 5.9% (2)44.1%(15)

14.7% (5) 8.8% (3) 2.52 34


skipped question 2

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

31. How would you characterize the approach to team teaching (if applicable)?

Response

PercentResponse

Count

NA 38.2% 13

Stations (each teacher instructs different content to multiple groups

of rotating students)5.9% 2

Parallel (teachers instruct the same content to separate groups of

students simultaneously)20.6% 7

Alternative (one teacher instructs the large group while another

teacher instructs a smaller group with a modified lesson)

0.0% 0

Teaming (teachers deliver the same instruction at the same time)

11.8% 4

One lead/One collect data 0.0% 0

One lead/One support 23.5% 8

One teacher with paraprofessional support

0.0% 0

Other 0.0% 0

Please explain (as needed)

17


skipped question 2

-

32. How would you rate the quality of team teaching (if applicable)?

Not

observed1

Weakevidence

1Adequate

2Strength

3

RatingAverage

ResponseCount

AC4.1 Lesson ran smoothly 0.0% (0) 11.1% (3) 51.9% (14) 37.0% (10) 3.26 27

AC4.2 Co-planning evident 28.6% (6) 9.5% (2) 23.8% (5) 38.1% (8) 2.71 21

AC4.3 Communication betweeen teachers

23.8% (5) 4.8% (1) 38.1% (8) 33.3% (7) 2.81 21

Please explain (as needed)

5


skipped question 9

33. Overall, how did the lesson go? (e.g., How accessible was this lesson to the ELLs in this classroom? To what extent was there evidence that all students – including ELLs – learnedwhat was expected of them? What was the overall level of rigor?)

Response

Count

33


skipped question 3

-

34. Use the boxes below to describe evidence for constructs for which you found either the greatest strengths or the greatest areas in need of improvement.

Response

PercentResponse

Count

Effective co-teaching (if applicable) (AC4)

59.4% 19

Access to challenging academic content? (AC1A, AC1B, AC7A,

AC7B, AC8, AC12)

93.8% 30

Support for language development (LG2, AC13, LG8)

87.5% 28

Learning as a socially constructed process (AC5A,

AC5B, AC6)

96.9% 31

Classroom assessment (AC9, AC10)

93.8% 30


skipped question 4

-

Page 1, Q4. School:

1 Dickinson Nov 14, 2011 5:02 PM

2 Hammond ! Nov 3, 2011 10:58 AM

3 Polk Elementary Nov 2, 2011 11:25 AM

4 Hammond I Nov 2, 2011 8:53 AM

5 Hammond 3 Nov 1, 2011 5:35 PM

6 Hammond 1 Nov 1, 2011 5:11 PM

7 Hammond I Nov 1, 2011 11:58 AM

8 Hammond 2 Oct 28, 2011 1:28 PM

9 Ramsay Elementary Oct 27, 2011 2:56 PM



12 Ramsay Elementary Oct 27, 2011 11:13 AM

13 Ramsay Oct 26, 2011 8:20 PM

14 Ramsay Oct 26, 2011 8:10 PM

15 Ramsay Oct 26, 2011 7:33 PM

16 Ramsay Oct 26, 2011 7:11 PM

17 Ramsay Oct 26, 2011 5:46 PM

18 TC Williams Oct 26, 2011 4:42 PM




22 TCWHS Oct 26, 2011 11:51 AM

23 TCWHS Oct 26, 2011 11:44 AM

24 TCWHS Oct 26, 2011 10:28 AM

25 TCWHS Oct 26, 2011 10:10 AM

26 TCWHS Oct 26, 2011 9:40 AM

27 TCWHS Oct 22, 2011 3:07 PM

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

, Q4. School:

28 John Adams Oct 21, 2011 10:39 AM





33 Adams Oct 20, 2011 3:32 PM

34 Adams Oct 20, 2011 3:15 PM

35 Adams Oct 20, 2011 2:32 PM


-

Page 1, Q7. Subject area(s)

1 ESL English Nov 14, 2011 5:02 PM

2 Resource Class Nov 3, 2011 10:58 AM

3 ESL, level 1-2, pull out Nov 2, 2011 11:25 AM

4 ELL Lang Arts Nov 2, 2011 8:53 AM

5 ELL Language Arts Nov 1, 2011 5:35 PM

6 CT English language arts Nov 1, 2011 5:11 PM

7 CT-science 7th Nov 1, 2011 11:58 AM

8 CT Math 8th Oct 28, 2011 1:28 PM

9 1st Oct 27, 2011 2:56 PM

10 Writing Oct 27, 2011 2:01 PM

11 Reading Oct 27, 2011 1:35 PM

12 Language Arts Oct 27, 2011 11:13 AM

13 2nd Grade Push-In Science Oct 26, 2011 8:20 PM

14 5th Grade ESL Pullout Oct 26, 2011 8:10 PM

15 2nd Grade ESL Pull-Out Oct 26, 2011 7:33 PM

16 3rd Grade Reading Oct 26, 2011 7:11 PM

17 Kindergarten ESL pull-out Oct 26, 2011 5:46 PM

18 ELL Biology Oct 26, 2011 4:42 PM

19 Enriched Academic World Civilization I Oct 26, 2011 4:40 PM

20 ELL Algebra Part I Oct 26, 2011 4:38 PM

21 ELL World Civilization I Oct 26, 2011 4:36 PM

22 ELL Geometry Oct 26, 2011 11:51 AM

23 ELL Level I Language Arts Oct 26, 2011 11:44 AM

24 ELL Algebra I Oct 26, 2011 10:28 AM

25 ELL Academic Enrichment World Civilization II Oct 26, 2011 10:10 AM

26 ELL English 9 Oct 26, 2011 9:40 AM

27 Algebra II Oct 22, 2011 3:07 PM

-

Page 1, Q7. Subject area(s)

28 Math Oct 21, 2011 10:39 AM

29 ESL, level 1 Oct 21, 2011 10:06 AM

30 ESL, level 1 Oct 21, 2011 10:03 AM

31 Writing Oct 21, 2011 9:23 AM

32 Academic Enrichment Earth Science Oct 20, 2011 4:01 PM

33 Science and Social Studies Oct 20, 2011 3:32 PM

34 Math Oct 20, 2011 3:15 PM

35 Social Studies Oct 20, 2011 2:32 PM

36 English 10 Oct 19, 2011 5:04 PM

Page 1, Q9. Teaching configuration

1 Mr. Bresner had someone from the ACPS office helping him--they were co-teaching.

Nov 2, 2011 8:53 AM

Page 1, Q10. Type of classroom:

1 "resource class" (study hall) Nov 3, 2011 10:58 AM

2 EAP Oct 26, 2011 4:40 PM

3 EAP Oct 20, 2011 4:01 PM

-

Page 1, Q12. Number of students

1 9 Nov 14, 2011 5:02 PM

2 6 Nov 3, 2011 10:58 AM

3 5 Nov 2, 2011 8:53 AM

4 14 Nov 1, 2011 5:35 PM

5 7 Nov 1, 2011 5:11 PM

6 22 Nov 1, 2011 11:58 AM

7 16 Oct 28, 2011 1:28 PM

8 15 Oct 27, 2011 2:56 PM

9 17 Oct 27, 2011 2:01 PM

10 17 Oct 27, 2011 1:35 PM

11 19 Oct 27, 2011 11:13 AM

12 19 Oct 26, 2011 8:20 PM

13 5 Oct 26, 2011 8:10 PM

14 13 Oct 26, 2011 7:33 PM

15 9 Oct 26, 2011 5:46 PM

16 13 Oct 26, 2011 4:42 PM

17 13 Oct 26, 2011 4:40 PM

18 7 Oct 26, 2011 4:38 PM

19 10 Oct 26, 2011 4:36 PM

20 22 Oct 26, 2011 11:51 AM

21 9 Oct 26, 2011 11:44 AM

22 24 Oct 26, 2011 10:28 AM

23 9 Oct 26, 2011 10:10 AM

24 18 Oct 26, 2011 9:40 AM

25 27 Oct 22, 2011 3:07 PM

26 18 Oct 21, 2011 10:39 AM

27 6 Oct 21, 2011 10:06 AM

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

, Q12. Number of students

28 6 Oct 21, 2011 10:03 AM

29 17 Oct 21, 2011 9:23 AM

30 12 Oct 20, 2011 4:01 PM

31 16 Oct 20, 2011 3:32 PM

32 15 Oct 20, 2011 3:15 PM

33 20 Oct 20, 2011 2:32 PM

34 14 Oct 19, 2011 5:04 PM

-

Page 2, Q1. Standard:

1 n/a Nov 3, 2011 11:00 AM

2 not listed Nov 2, 2011 11:41 AM

3 Essential Question: How to people change over time? Nov 2, 2011 9:07 AM

4 none posted EQs: 1) How does adapting to change shape and inform a person'scharacter? 2) How do characters change in works of fiction and nonfiction? Whatcauses these changes?

Nov 1, 2011 5:36 PM

5 none posted EQs: How do authors use text to make statements about the world?What is my relationship with my school, my community and the world?

Nov 1, 2011 5:17 PM

6 Cell organization SOL_LS3:a-c SOL_LS1:a-h Nov 1, 2011 12:25 PM

7 none posted Essential questions: To what extent is similarity used in everydayliving?

Oct 28, 2011 1:33 PM

8 not listed Oct 27, 2011 3:03 PM

9 Not listed; Essential Question: How can I communicate my ideas effectively inwriting?

Oct 27, 2011 2:11 PM


11 Not listed; EQ: How can I make myself a better reader? Oct 27, 2011 11:25 AM

12 not posted Oct 26, 2011 8:22 PM

13 not posted Essential qustion: How and why should I adjust my writing for aparticular format, purpose, audience or topic?

Oct 26, 2011 8:11 PM



16 None posted. Essential question: How can I communicate my ideas effectivelyto others in speaking?

Oct 26, 2011 5:50 PM

17 NA Oct 26, 2011 4:37 PM

18 Not provided Oct 26, 2011 11:51 AM

19 Essential questions: What is your story? What do good readers do? Oct 26, 2011 11:44 AM

20 Not listed Oct 26, 2011 10:28 AM

21 Essential questions: To what extent is history shaped by connections andinteractions between and among societies and cultures? What language isneeded to write an opinion essay?

Oct 26, 2011 10:11 AM

22 Not observed Oct 26, 2011 9:40 AM

23 Essential questions: How can we use modeling to link classroom mathematics Oct 22, 2011 3:08 PM

-

Page 2, Q1. Standard:

and statistics to everyday life, work, and decision making? How can we usetechnology to support mathematical modeling?




27 Community Workers Oct 20, 2011 3:38 PM

28 Thematic EQs: How has geography shaped patterns of human settlement andthe ways that people live? How does where you live affect how you live?

Oct 20, 2011 2:36 PM

-

Page 2, Q2. Content objectives:

1 n/a Nov 3, 2011 11:00 AM

2 (oral only): Making connections between text and self, world, and other texts(oral only): introducing the genre of autobiography (oral only): identify charactertraits

Nov 2, 2011 11:41 AM

3 SWBAT write a paragraph about how identity has changed. Complete transfertask.

Nov 2, 2011 9:07 AM

4 none posted Nov 1, 2011 5:36 PM

5 Big Goals: 1) Read, comprehend and discuss The Giver 2) Write a completenarrative 3) (Honors) Read and booktalk two more books Daily Goals: Day 1:Students will design a graphic to symbolize their understanding of the Giver Day2: Students will critique the authors' use of narrative elements by writing a briefparagraph for each element Day 3: Students will infer the them of The Giver andprovide evidence to support their choice Day 4: Students will demonstrateunderstanding of a narrative text by sharing and answering "deep" questions ona discussion board.

Nov 1, 2011 5:17 PM

6 Distinguish between unicellular and multicellular organisms and recognize thatmulticellular organisms exhibit a hierarchy of cell organs.

Nov 1, 2011 12:25 PM

7 Master objectives: Module 1: Hat of the wumps Module 2: Drawing wumpsSpecific objectives: 1) I can use the algebraic rule to produce similar figures on acoordinate grid. 2) I can show that both length and angles are criteria forsimilarity 3) I can contrast similar figures with non-similar figures

Oct 28, 2011 1:33 PM


9 Students will be able to use sense of smell Oct 27, 2011 2:11 PM

10 Language Arts Objectives (on board): We will... write and draw like authors andillustrators practice writing names, the alphabet, and words around the roomdiscover the problem and solution of a story

Oct 27, 2011 1:42 PM

11 We will be able to synthesize text clues to make inferences Oct 27, 2011 11:25 AM

12 I will be able to construct a forest Oct 26, 2011 8:22 PM

13 Use technology to produce, edit and publish writing. Oct 26, 2011 8:11 PM


15 WWBAT 1) define 10 new describing words 2) ask questions before, during andafter 3) compare and contrast two different stories

Oct 26, 2011 7:15 PM

16 This was an ESL class - the language objective was the only objective. Oct 26, 2011 5:50 PM

17 1) Use scientific method to conduct experiment 2) Distinguish the independentvariable from the dependent variable in context

Oct 26, 2011 4:42 PM

18 SWBAT describe early human development, the effects of developinggovernment, religion, and social structure, compare and contrast early

Oct 26, 2011 4:40 PM

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

, Q2. Content objectives:

civilizations, and discuss benefits and drawbacks

19 Students will write possible words to represent variables in order to understandwhy substitution is used to simplify expressions

Oct 26, 2011 4:38 PM

20 Understand how the Stone Age came to an end. Oct 26, 2011 4:37 PM

21 Agenda: SOL Mini Quiz Go over answers Notes on new vocabulary Go overhomework Move your bodies to BE special angle pairs

Oct 26, 2011 11:51 AM

22 We will be able to: explain and describe the meanings of vocabulary words usinga sort and graphic organizer with a partner sequence and retell one story usingtransition words and targeted vocabulary using pictures, words, and sentencesdecode and comprehend a readers' theatre using a prepared script working in asmall group discuss and analyze the beginning, middle, and end of the storywith a partner create a visual representation of the beginning, middle, and endwith a partner identify the elements of a narrative text with a partner using astory map

Oct 26, 2011 11:44 AM

23 Combine like terms Undo addition by subtraction/adding to both sides Undomultiplication/division Simplify

Oct 26, 2011 10:28 AM

24 SWBAT compile and present information on immigration patterns from theirnative countries.

Oct 26, 2011 10:11 AM

25 Student will know universal elements in world myths, sentence structures, endpunctuation, subject-verb agreement

Oct 26, 2011 9:40 AM

26 Mastery objectives: Students will be able to: 1. solve problems involving directvariation 2. understand the slope as a rate of change 3. write linear equationsmodeling problems that involve rate of change and initial amounts 4. find theequation of a best fit line 5. use prediction eqauations, as well as makepredictions using the graph of data

Oct 22, 2011 3:08 PM

27 Not listed; Essential question: What strategies help me add or subtract faster? Oct 21, 2011 10:43 AM

28 I can match each sensing organ with its associated sense. I can match sensorydescriptors with the senses.

Oct 21, 2011 10:15 AM

29 Not explicit; Board included the following: "Essential Question: SmallMoments/Celebrate I can write a small moment"

Oct 21, 2011 9:33 AM

30 You will create collaborative posters to teach your classmates about a layer ofthe Earth.

Oct 20, 2011 4:01 PM

31 EQ: How do people make money? Oct 20, 2011 3:38 PM

32 Vamos a usar conocimiento de valor posicional para crear dibujos (We are goingto use our understanding of place value to draw pictures)

Oct 20, 2011 3:17 PM

33 Topical EQs: How is VA divided geographically into regions? How do these 3regions affect life and culture of the people both past and present?

Oct 20, 2011 2:36 PM

34 You will work in groups to paraphrase a sonnet. Oct 19, 2011 5:21 PM

-

Page 2, Q3. Language objectives:

1 n/a Nov 3, 2011 11:00 AM

2 not listed (but content objectives involved reading) Nov 2, 2011 11:41 AM


4 none Nov 1, 2011 12:25 PM

5 none posted Oct 28, 2011 1:33 PM

6 Students will use a sentence frame to make a verbal prediction about the text. Oct 27, 2011 3:03 PM


8 We will be able to discuss inferences using think, pair, share Oct 27, 2011 11:25 AM



11 SWBAT use a sentence frame to make a verbal prediction from text. Oct 26, 2011 5:50 PM

12 No separate language objective was indicated Oct 26, 2011 4:42 PM

13 no indication of separate language objectives Oct 26, 2011 4:40 PM

14 [No indication of whether above objective was intended to be content orlanguage or both - however it does address writing words in relation to variablesin expressions which could be considered a language objective]

Oct 26, 2011 4:38 PM

15 Embedded in content objectives Oct 26, 2011 11:44 AM

16 Not listed, but co-teacher explained that in the second phase of this class (afterlunch), students would be using language to explain errors in students' problemsolutions. A model for student response would be provided (Explain the error:The student did not...., The mistake happened when she....)

Oct 26, 2011 10:28 AM


18 none Oct 22, 2011 3:08 PM


20 I can describe the physcial properties of an object. I can tell other people what Iam thinking. I can understand what I read.

Oct 21, 2011 10:15 AM

21 Not explicit Oct 21, 2011 9:33 AM

22 no separate language objective is indicated Oct 20, 2011 4:01 PM

-

Page 2, Q4. Target vocabulary:

1 n/a Nov 3, 2011 11:00 AM

2 for whole group: allowed, segregation, marshals, friends, famous for small groupone (individual student): ready, prove, course for small group two (two students):won't closer, hear, away

Nov 2, 2011 11:41 AM

3 (on board, review from previous lesson?): Brainstorming, drafting, revising,editing, publishing

Nov 2, 2011 9:07 AM


5 theme Nov 1, 2011 5:17 PM

6 (not posted at beginning of lesson) from PPT presentation: cell, organelle, form,function, organ, organism, cell membrane, various names of organelles

Nov 1, 2011 12:25 PM

7 none posted Oct 28, 2011 1:33 PM

8 pumpkin, path, forest, afraid, startled, brave, cottage, pair of pants, scarecrow Oct 27, 2011 3:03 PM

9 "I infer that..." Oct 27, 2011 11:25 AM

10 Word wall and vocabulary list were evident Oct 26, 2011 8:22 PM

11 trunk beak scream grouchy jaws spotted chest aphids tusks Oct 26, 2011 7:34 PM

12 pumpkin path afraid startled brave cottage pair of pants scarecrow (Each wasillustrated with a picture)

Oct 26, 2011 5:50 PM

13 Independent variable dependent variable Oct 26, 2011 4:42 PM

14 homo habilis homo sapiens Oct 26, 2011 4:40 PM

15 herder settle permanent Oct 26, 2011 4:37 PM

16 Corresponding Alternate interior Same side interior Alternate exterior Same sideexterior

Oct 26, 2011 11:51 AM

17 unclear Oct 26, 2011 11:44 AM

18 add, both sides, combine, divide, equation, multiple, negative, positive, signsubtract, undo

Oct 26, 2011 10:28 AM


20 wickedness strive repented fowls prevailed nostrils assuaged sole pluck abated Oct 26, 2011 9:40 AM

21 Direct Variation Direct Proportion Constant of Proportionality Constant ofVariation Slope Rate of Change Initial Amount

Oct 22, 2011 3:08 PM


23 hard, smooth, soft, bumpy, rough, Oct 21, 2011 10:15 AM

-

Page 2, Q4. Target vocabulary:

24 Not explicit Oct 21, 2011 9:33 AM

25 depth composition state of matter Oct 20, 2011 4:01 PM

26 banker doctor police officer letter carrier metro worker Oct 20, 2011 3:38 PM

27 valor posicional unidades decenas centenas millares decenas de millarescentenas de millares million de millares

Oct 20, 2011 3:17 PM

28 imagery simile metaphor Oct 19, 2011 5:21 PM

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

, Q5. Briefly describe the lesson

1 The students were engaged in working on homework. Four students were allworking on the same math worksheet, while two were doing different work. Theteacher floated around helping the students in small groups and individually. Theteacher said at the beginning of class that she had to "throw out" her plan for theday (some math word problems) to give the students time to work on theirhomework.

Nov 3, 2011 11:00 AM

2 Teacher began reviewing about autobiography and character traits. Sheintroduced a book about Ruby Bridges by previewing vocabulary (integrate), andasking kids to listen for the question, "What makes Ruby memorable?" in theread aloud, and then asking kids to make a prediction about "what will Ruby do?"Move to library area to read aloud the story. Showed vocabulary words frombook (teacher chosen- allowed, segregation, marshals, friends, famous) andasked kids to raise their hands when they hear a word. As the teacher read thebook aloud, she used think alouds to demonstrate Ruby's character traits (e.g.,"this part shows me that Ruby is brave") and to determine meaning ofvocabulary words (e.g., "looking at the pictures, it seems that you can do it ifyou're allowed, but you can't if you're not). All three students engaged, raisingtheir hands a lot. However, teacher mostly modeled with think alouds and rarelycalled on students. After reading (15 minutes later), teacher asked students toshare using inside-outside circle technique: "What makes Ruby memorable?"Then, teacher transitioned class to independent work and guided reading. Whileteacher met with group (group one had one studetn; group two had twostudnets), students worked independently on writing prompt: "If you were tomeet Rubry, what would you do together based on her character traits?" ONwriting form, studetns completed space for "trait" "likes" "dislikes" and "activity".At the timer, students put away independent writing for homework and choose abook for independent reading. Meanwhile: in 1st guided reading group, teacherreviewed connections using chart with picture ("How do connections help usread?). Then, introduced leveled book and said that "we are going to make aconnection with the characters' feelings and emotions." Teacher also reviewedvocabulary in book from previous day (ready, prove, course). It was unclear if thevocabulary was chosen for comprehension or decoding. As student reads book,teacher does running record for decoding/fluency score. After reading, teacherand student talked about connections they made in book and then teacher askedsome basic comprehension questions about the book. Then, groups switched.The one student in guided reading group went to work on the independentwriting response, while the other two students came for guided reading lesson(very similar to first guided reading lesson, but using a book at a higher level withdifferent vocab.; focus was still on connecting)

Nov 2, 2011 11:41 AM

3 Mr. Bresner was being helped by the ACPS staff member to (1) review thewriting process, and (2) help student finish their brainstorming and begin writinga paragraph.

Nov 2, 2011 9:07 AM

4 1) Teacher reviewed homework on projector (making inferences) 2) Warm-up:group discussion topic (selected by a student): What makes you happy? (2 minsdiscussion, then students share what they learned about each other 3) Literaturecircles - students were asked to share their summaries of what they had readand answer questions about the reading. 4) Reading log

Nov 1, 2011 5:36 PM

5 Teacher presented directions for the lesson and reviewed them with students.She then reviewed the meaning of the term "theme" and asked students to

Nov 1, 2011 5:17 PM

-

Page 2, Q5. Briefly describe the lesson

provide examples and support their thinking. Students and both teachers thenparticipated in a Blackboard discussion about the theme of The Giver. Studentswere instructed to talk "with their fingers" not with their mouths, to elaborate andsupport their arguments during the online discussion.

6 The teachers began by having the student fill out a KWL on cells. Studentsvolunteered responses for what they already know and for what they want toknow. Then Ms. Mohamed presented information on organelles (cell organs) andhad students fill in the blanks on their handouts with key words from the PPT.

Nov 1, 2011 12:25 PM

7 1)Warm-up: review anges of a geometrical figure 2) Content teacher reviewedhomework on overhead projector (whole class). The homework had to do withdrawing "wumps" on a coordinate grid and identifying impostors. 3) Independentwork. Students calculated coordinates for mouth and nose of a "Wump" (afigure) on a coordinate grid. They then identified "impostors" - Wumps that arestretched into a different shape than the model Wump. Both teachers circulatedto help students as needed.

Oct 28, 2011 1:33 PM

8 As whole group on the carpet, one teacher reviewed the vocabulary showing thepicture. Teacher said the word and asked student to repeat. Then, secondteacher introduced the book by doing an interactive picture walk that focused onvocabulary. (e.g., 'look at this picture, here is a ...path... that we talked about...and what about this? what is this thing?"). While each teacher led, other teacherhelped with students, mostly with classroom management issues and behavior.12:15- Teachers split students into two groups (4 kids in one group at the table;10 kids in another on the floor). Both teachers seemed to teach same lesson:brief picture walk (again), modeled how to make a prediction, asked students tomake a prediction using the sentence stem ("I predict that"). Group of 4 kidsmuch more on task than bigger group on floor (perhaps b/c they were a smallergroup and were sitting at a table). Group of 10 on the floor were easily distractedand very noisy. Teacher asked these students to 'turn and talk' with theirpredictions, but many got off task after they gave their prediction. Then, teacherof big group asks kids to sit at table (this takes a few minutes to get them at thetable). She gives them half-page with pictures of vocabulary words (pumpkin andforest) and asks students to label the picture. Some do immediately, while othersget off task and act silly.

Oct 27, 2011 3:03 PM

9 all student on carpet at the beginning. Prior to observation, they had just smelleda mystery item and were now listing words describing the smell. As they listedthe words, the ESL teacher wrote them on the whiteboard. Then, the ELLteacher reviewed each word and negotiated with students which were 'negative'smells. She circled these smells. From the list of words, the teacher tellsstudents that they are going to write sentences with one of these words. 11:32:Using an interactive writing approach, teacher asks students to raise hands andthen calls on a student to provide a word from a list and then asks student to saya sentence. Student says a sentence, and then teacher writes sentence stem.Student writes in word, usuallly copying spelling from list that teacher just made.This happens with four different students, while other students watch quietly.After each sentence the teacher re-reads the sentences with all students,pointing to words in the air. (sentences included: "I think they mystery itemsmells bad" and "'It is stinky"). 11:40- teacher tells students to go to their seatsto do a writing/drawing activity. Students are supposed to respond to the prompt:"What did you think was in the bag?" Most students drew pictures and wrote

Oct 27, 2011 2:11 PM

-


words to accompany pictures; a few students became distracted when theyfinished early. Both ELL and content teacher walked around to help as needed(e.g. hearing sounds in words, asking students to tell about their pictures) 11:52:students gather on carpet again and each reads 'story' they wrote (i.e., what theythought was in the bag) one by one while others listened. 11:58: Lined up to goto next activity.

10 (9:45) whole group on carpet listening to audio version of "Ms. BindergartenGets Ready for Kindergarten." ELL teacher turns pages of book as audio readswords. After story, ELL teacher asks questions while showing pictures from book(e.g., "Who is Ms. Bindergarten?" "What is she doing here?" "Do you havesomething like this in your class?" "Does Ms. Bindergarten remind you ofsomeone you know?"). (9:55) ELL teacher asks students to think about whatthey do to get ready for school. ELL teacher asks K teacher and K paraprof. toanswer the question as a model, then ELL teacher answers question for herself.THen, she instructs children to "turn and talk" about what they do to get ready.During turn-and-talk: students engaged at first, but got off topic. Teacher tried togo around to most of the pairs, but meanwhile other students started acting sillyb/c they were finished with the task. 10:00 ELL teacher instructs students todraw picture of what they do to get ready for school. During this process, bothELL and K teacher walk around to assist students and ask students to describetheir picture 10:10 Content teacher asks students to make a circle to share.Students share stories one at a time, then they 'turn and talk' to share stories.Teacher instructs students to keep the pictures on their desk for the writersworkshop period.

Oct 27, 2011 1:42 PM

11 ELL and content teacher gave mini-lesson with all students on the carpet. Thecontent teacher reminded students of how they made an inference on theprevious day using a graphic organizer (drawn on the board). Teacher than usedthe chart to make an inference and said something was wrong with it. She askedstudents to 'turn and talk' about what was wrong with it, and then as a groupdiscussed how her inference was problematic b/c it was straight from the bookrather than beyond the book. Then, the ELL teacher read aloud a section of"Because of Winn-Dixie." Each child had their own book and followed along. Asshe was reading, she stopped and went over certain vocabulary words usinggestures and exampes (e.g., "shrugged" and "pathological"). She also stopped inthe middle of the chapter to ask kids to make an inference about how a certaincaracter felt. The kids 'turn and talked,' and then the content teacher modeledhow to put the inference and details in the graphic organizer on the board. Nearthe end of the chapter, the ELL teacher told the students to listen carefully b/cthey would make an inference about a particular character. Then, after finishingthe chapter, the content teacher told students to 'turn and talk' to make aninference (i.e., what do you think the dog will do that night?). The kids talkedabout it and the teachers circulated the room, encouraging them to find evidence('what the characters do and say') from the book to support their inference. Then,as a whole group, the content teacher negotiated with class to come up with aninference to the question using details from the book. She wrote in theseelements in the graphic organizer chart drawn on the board. Next (9:00), thekids went to desks to do independent reading. During this time the contentteacher pulled 4 students to back desk and the ELL teacher worked with 5students in guided reading groups. Each guided reading group focused on thestrategy of inferencing, but each group used books at different reading levels. Inthe ELL group, the ELL teacher had students do a 'familiar read,' and then went

Oct 27, 2011 11:25 AM

-


over some vocabulary (e.g., "hinges") in the book. During the guided readinglesson, both teachers, listened to each kid in the group read aloud (to informallyassess fluency and decoding, I assume) and asked comprehension questions. \

12 1) Review characteristics of living and non-living things 2) students use theSmartboard to identify whether objects in pictures are living or non-living 3)Students work in teams to create diorama (not observed)

Oct 26, 2011 8:22 PM

13 Students worked on PowerPoints on the theme "All About Me" Oct 26, 2011 8:11 PM

14 Warm-up: Read date aloud 1. finish B.M.E. (Beginning - Middle - End) 2. Retellthe story 3. Write in your notebook

Oct 26, 2011 7:34 PM

15 Students were dividedinto six groups (e.g., Terrific Toads, Fantastic Frogs)Teachers posted on projector rotating centers for each group including:Formative assessment vocabulary packet Guided reading task Dictionarypractice Reader's response 3 teachers led the leveled group guided readingwhile the remaining students worked independently on the other centers.

Oct 26, 2011 7:15 PM

16 First part NOT observed: 1) Teacher introduced the vocabulary. 2) Studentsmade predictions about text using the frame "I think __________." Turn andtalk Observed: 3) Picture walk and read aloud "The Little Old Lady Who Was NotAfraid of Anything." 4) Identify the letter Pp in the vocabulary 5) Draw a pumpkinand label with initial sound Pp.

Oct 26, 2011 5:50 PM

17 During the observation, students were asked to work in groups to readsentences describing an experiment and identify the IV and the DV. The teacherthen reviewed the first 4 of 8 sentences on the screen with students and hadthem correct their own work. She stated they would do the last 4 the next class.The teacher was about to move them into lab experiment when observationended.

Oct 26, 2011 4:42 PM

18 Students were asked to work in groups of 3 to compare and contrast homohabilis and homo sapiens by writing 3 sentences based on pictures of each thatteacher projected onto the screen. When one student requested help, theteacher modeled for all by writing on the whiteboard: Homo habilis is similar tohomo sapiens because... She then asked one student to model how to completethe sentence.

Oct 26, 2011 4:40 PM

19 Students worked individually or in pairs on solving algebra puzzles usingtriangular shaped pieces which had an algebraic expression on each of twosides and the answer to another expression on the third side. They had to matchthe expression to its answer on each side so that they formed a larger triangle.They were asked to show their work on individual white boards. The co-teacherscirculated to check work. Students were able to clarify in L1 with peer or ateacher. Students then were assigned to work independently to complete 10warm-up problems

Oct 26, 2011 4:38 PM

20 When I went in, students working independently on problems. Then, theteachers asked students to move desks to uncover angles that had been createdon the floor, using blue masking tape. Students were assigned to groups basedon birthdays (winter, spring, summer, fall). Each group received cards that hadequations on one side and corresponding vocabulary on the other side. Students

Oct 26, 2011 11:51 AM

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

, Q5. Briefly describe the lesson

first identified different angles by standing on the appropriate line (s), then wrotean equation, then found partner with corresponding angle. Both teachers workedwith groups, asking every student to demonstrate one or more angles.

21 The story was "Going Home" by Eve Bunting. When I came in, students werelistening to the story narrative with headphones, and following along with thetext. The teacher went around to each student to see where they were in theirlistening task/if they could follow the text. Then she placed the class into twogroups to read the narrative aloud. Each group was asked to identify a leader,who would help the group set their reader roles. She spent time with each group,asking them questions, and listening to their reading. After, she went over theelements of narrative (characters, setting, problems) with the whole class, usingillustrations and Spanish words to aid comprehension.

Oct 26, 2011 11:44 AM

22 Teacher did two problems on board that students had been working on, withstudents helping and answering teacher questions. The co-teacher examinedstudent work and added explanations and examples. Examples of questions:"What is - 44 plus 15? Why is it negative? What's the word?" Students workedindividually, in pairs and small groups on a handout designed to lead into theafternoon session (explain the error ).

Oct 26, 2011 10:28 AM

23 The first ten minutes were for individual journal writing: Write about reasons whypeople move to a new country. Why did you or your family move to the US? Theteacher asked for responses and wrote on white board. She then asked onestudent to read the first essential question aloud, and "broke it down" with thestudents to make sure they understood. She used the smart board to showimmigration statistics by country, and demonstrated the task she wanted thestudents to complete: Research immigration statistics for selected country (theirown/family's) and selected years. The ultimate goal was for students to write anopinion essay.

Oct 26, 2011 10:11 AM

24 During the section of class observed, the students were working individually onlaptops. Some were completing an exam they had missed. Some were writingan essay that was supposed to have been completed. Some were working ondefinitions. Some were off-task, just talking,

Oct 26, 2011 9:40 AM

25 The section of the class observed was largely devoted to review of 5 exam itemsinstead of the original lesson. The teacher explained "There's a reason whywe've put the class on pause and gone over these again. We're coming back tothese, everything we do is based on these." For each item, students would workin pairs or groups of 3 to solve the problem, then one student would read theitem aloud to the class. Another student would try to solve the problem while theteacher elaborated on their response, clarified their response, asked forjustification. At several points, the teacher made mistakes deliberately or probedto see if students would stand by their answer. After the review, the teacherasked students to "Write three things you've heard about direct variation" as away to find out what students knew before starting the lesson. Throughout thelesson, the teacher went around the room examining student work.

Oct 22, 2011 3:08 PM

26 Teacher reviewed 'fact power' and modeled how to use different strategies foraddition (e.g., adding up, using doubles). Then, she divided class into fourgroups for rotating math games. She briefly described each game (includingcomputers). Once kids were in game groups, the teacher of the game (i.e., ELL

Oct 21, 2011 10:43 AM

-


teacher, Parent helper, and classroom teacher) explained the rules in moredetail using the Everyday Math Reference book (which includes step-by-stepdirections for each game). Lead teacher facilitated the game, and then at about15 minutes, groups rotated.

27 Begins with picture bingo of different fall items. During the game, the teacherelicited involvement and language from students (e.g., "What color is this?" "Iknow xx has a rake. Who else does?" "Do pumpkins grow down on the groundor up in the air?"). Then, group moved to carpet and reviewed ABC chart bychorally singing the song and following along on chart as well as by individuallyselecting letters that the teacher named (e.g., "xx, can you point to the R?" "xxcan you point to a letter in your name?") Next, the group reviewed the targetvocabulary words posted on the board that were accompanied with realia thatexemplify each word (e.g., cotton ball for soft). Then, the teachers modeled apair activity in which each person had to describe their object to their partnerusing some of the target words; then the students worked in pairs with thisactivity. During this time, both teachers took notes on students' oral language.After this, the students moved back to their tables and sequenced pictures froma read-aloud book (i.e., It's Pumpkin Time!) and together 'read' their picturesusing words from the book (e.g., 'vine') and sequence words (e.g., 'next', 'then')Then, the kids moved back to the carpet and reviewed their storywheel. Theylistened as the teacher modeled re-telling the story using the storywheel.

Oct 21, 2011 10:15 AM

28 9:10-9:40- Students worked on writing small moments (from Lucy Calkinscurriculum; narrative unit 1). Students worked independently at their tableswriting their stories, while the teacher called over groups of 4-5 students at atime to conference about their writing. During these small groups, teacher askedeach student to share a part of his/her story and then prompted students abouttheir writing (e.g., "What else did you buy at the store? Can you write aboutthat?") ESL teacher came in at about 9:25 and ciruclulated the room, workingone-on-one with particular ELLs, helping them discriminate the sounds in wordsand then write them; she also helped some students by prompting them to addto their stories. ELL teacher had clipboard with index cards for each ELL onwhich she made anecdotal notes about students' progress. 9:40-10:00: Allstudents shared their writing in front of the class. Before sharing, the ELLteacher modeled how not to speak in front of a group, and the modeled theappropriate way to speak in front of a group. Teacher called on students (most ofthem raised their hands) to share their stories in front of the class, while the restlistened. At the end of each story, teacher always made a comment relating tostudent's story or work habits (e.g., "wow, that's really funny about your brother!"or "I know xxx has been working on hard on this story"). After each story, allstudents clapped. All students read their story except for one who did not wantto.

Oct 21, 2011 9:33 AM

29 Agenda: 1. Journal warm-up 2. Round robin sharing (these were not observed)Observed: 3. Intro video 4. Layer research Not observed: 5. Collaborativeposters (to be completed during the class period) 6. Presentations/Cornell notesDuring the observation, students were told to watch a video about the Earth'slayers on their laptops. They then were told to work in groups to complete astructured note-taking tool to research and take notes about the earth's layers.They were to use multiple sources such as the video, internet, or readings andmake note of which source they used to find the required facts. By the end ofthe observation, the teacher told them they would be working in groups to create

Oct 20, 2011 4:01 PM

-


a collaborative poster about the Earth's layers to present to their peers.

30 ELL teacher begins lesson by showing a video about a letter carrier on the SmartBoard. She then calls the children to the rug where she reviews the EQ and thenames of the community workers they learned about in a prior lesson. Next, sheleads the students in a song about community workers. The K teacher thenwalks over wearing a postal worker's uniform and carrying a mail bag. She tellsthe children her husband is a mail carrier and these are the things he uses. Sheshows them various kinds of hats and asks what they think he puts in the bag.The ELL teachers models for the students on easel paper how they will conductthe next activity, and instructs them to write their names, then the name of theirfavorite community helper, and to draw a picture of that person. The K teacherwrites the names of the community workers on the white board so children cancopy them. One NES boy says he does not know how to spell and the teachersreassure him they will help. Students then conduct the activity. At the end ofclass a mail carrier knocks on the door and comes in to deliver mail to thestudents.

Oct 20, 2011 3:38 PM

31 1) Students return from the library with books they have chosen in Spanish andin English. Teacher allows them to read in Spanish independently for a fewminutes, then asks them to put them away in their lockers to take home andread. 2) Teacher asks students to draw using 10-base blocks and unit blockscut from paper. When they have finished their drawings, they are to count thetens and units in their drawing.

Oct 20, 2011 3:17 PM

32 1) Teacher reviews the 3 regions of VA (not observed) 2)Teacher reads aloudfrom text about the lives of early Indian tribes in VA projected on smartboard asstudents listen on rug. (20 mins) 3) Students cut out and then match cards withthe name of a tribe and its language to a map showing the region of VA wherethey lived. (15 mins)

Oct 20, 2011 2:36 PM

33 Agenda (as posted) 1. Review homework 2. sonnets project 3. presentation ofproject Students were instructed to choose an article to read fromEmpower3000 on their laptops and answer the questions. They were remindedto use a summarizing strategy provided through Empower3000 - to summarizewhat your read every 2 paragraphs (15 mins). Then the teacher reviewed thehomework, which consisted of translating Old English into modern-day English(thou, thee, thine, etc.) Teacher discussed with whole class what figurativelanguage is. ( A Figurative Language Rap handout was provided but teacher didnot go over the Rap on first page but students seemed familiar with the terms(personification, alliteration, assonance, etc.). Teacher went over the meaning ofexamples of figurative language on second page (e.g., "When i told my Mom,she hit the roof." Teacher provided observer with handouts for next activity (notobserved) which was to work in groups to paraphrase a sonnet.

Oct 19, 2011 5:21 PM

-

Page 6, Q1. How would you characterize the approach to team teaching (if applicable)?

1 Sometimes they took turns, sometimes they worked each with a small group orindividual student.

Nov 2, 2011 9:18 AM

2 The content teacher led the introduction. The two teachers participated togetherwith the students in the online discussion.

Nov 1, 2011 5:23 PM

3 Ms. Mohamed (science teacher) led the KWL activity and the lecture. Ms.Gillepie (ESL) interjected occasionally and walked around the class to checkstudents' work and answer questions.

Nov 1, 2011 1:08 PM

4 Teachers reported they have not been able to find time to co-plan. Oct 28, 2011 2:01 PM

5 Parallel and teaming Oct 27, 2011 3:10 PM

6 ELL teacher lead, content teacher support Oct 27, 2011 2:23 PM

7 ELL teacher led most of the lesson, while the content teacher supported Oct 27, 2011 1:50 PM

8 Note: we need to change these answer selections so that you can respond tomore than one. In this class, the teachers used Teaming and Stations.

Oct 27, 2011 11:32 AM

9 Excellent model of teaming - both teachers had a chance to lead while othersupported

Oct 26, 2011 8:31 PM

10 Each teacher circulated to help individual students Oct 26, 2011 8:15 PM

11 Teacher 1 worked with whole group while Teacher 2 pulled out individualstudents to hear them retell the story

Oct 26, 2011 7:40 PM

12 Guided reading groups led by 3 teachers Oct 26, 2011 7:22 PM

13 The co-teacher was absent and replaced by a sub Oct 26, 2011 6:01 PM

14 Both ELL teachers Oct 21, 2011 10:24 AM

15 ELL teacher did a lot of the instruction. K teacher supported. Oct 20, 2011 3:43 PM

16 T1 taught the lesson. ELL teacher showed students how to create the activity. Oct 20, 2011 2:42 PM

17 Content teacher and ELL teacher both circulated to help students. Duringobservation, almost all instruction consisted of independent work.

Oct 19, 2011 2:17 PM

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

, Q2. How would you rate the quality of team teaching (if applicable)?

1 I'm not sure how much was pre-planned, since they do not normally worktogether. The lesson ran smoothly and they appeared to work well together.

Nov 2, 2011 9:18 AM

2 The lesson ran smoothly because one teacher was the lead, but there wasn'tevidence of co-planning and not many opportunities to observe theircommunication, as one teacher was lead.

Nov 1, 2011 1:08 PM

3 Each teacher worked on similar objectives with different groups (they were notobserved to communicate among themselves)

Oct 26, 2011 7:22 PM

4 Because the co-teacher was a sub, there was no opportunity for prior planning.Little communication was observed.

Oct 26, 2011 6:01 PM

5 ELL teacher was able to tell observer what she would see (evidence of co-planning)

Oct 19, 2011 2:17 PM

-

Page 7, Q1. Overall, how did the lesson go? (e.g., How accessible was this lesson to the ELLs in this classroom?To what extent was there evidence that all students – including ELLs – learned what was expected of them? Whatwas the overall level of rigor?)

1 When the class hour started, the students were working independently on mathor social studies homework. The teacher noted that "they are struggling withmath" and that in this class they work on whatever they need help with (e.g.,homework) or she (the teacher) works on language and math lessons that sheprepares. The students doing math (4) were practicing their plotting skills. Theteacher was floating, helping individuals/small groups as needed. She spent afair amount of time (perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 of her utterances) getting students backon task. One student in particular was consistently off-task throughout thelesson, and was clearly distracting/disturbing student around him, but theteacher only made minimal, and unsuccessful, attempts to get him to focus andstop bothering other students. The teacher tried to explain the math work to thestudents, but it seemed that she was only able to explain how to complete theworksheet in one way (i.e., every time a student asked her a question aboutplotting, her explanation was the same).

Nov 3, 2011 11:21 AM

2 Seemed to be an effective lesson. All students participated and were engaged;opportunities for using all four langauge modalities. Teacher was able to coverLA content objectives (e.g., using strategy of connecting) while making languageaccessible for students. Although objectives were not posted, the teacherexplained them to students explicitly. One concern is choice of vocabularywords. In some cases, it was unclear if the teacher chose the words forcomprehension or decoding purposes (e.g., "ready"), and in other cases, itseemed that the students were familiar with the words already (e.g., "friends"and "famous" in the read aloud book). During the read aloud, there were severalidiomatic phrases that I doubted the students knew- those might have beenbetter choices. Note: this class had only 3 ELLs. It was an excellent lesson, andI think the ESL teacher could have even pulled out a few higher level ELLs aswell given that the content covered grade level material for LA. More higher levelELLs might also have been helpful to serve as language models for thebeginners.

Nov 2, 2011 11:52 AM

3 Mr. Bresner had called someone in the ACPS office for help with working withthis specific class, and she came to teach with him the day I observed. The focusof the lesson was on writing a paragraph about how they have changed. Mr.Bresner connected the day's goal to their prior work of brainstorming for thistopic, and asked them to develop their brainstorm into a paragraph. The studentswere reluctant and very hesitant about their writing abilities in English, but Mr.Bresner and the ACPS staff member worked with them in small groups andindividually, providing support in Spanish for the Spanish-speakers (3 of the 5students), to encourage them to develop their ideas into sentences. Mr. Bresnerdrew a T-chart on the board to help the students visualize the "before...after" ofhow their life has changed since coming to the US. He continued to try to pushstudents to think more about how they have changed as a person, rather thanfocusing only on more simple changes like "in my old school, we went home forlunch. Here, we eat lunch at school" (one of the examples a student provided forhim to write on the T-chart on the board). The three Spanish-speaking girls wereminimally on-task/engaged for the first half of the class, but settled down moretowards the end, particularly after Mr. Bresner moved one of them to the otherside of the class. Throughout the lesson Mr. Bresner gave students otheroptions: "make a chart OR write sentences" for the paragraph, for example. Or,"write some in English and some in Spanish" and later "write in Spanish and

Nov 2, 2011 9:53 AM

-


then I'll help you with translating and re-writing." At the end it seemed likeeveryone had some writing done, but hard to tell how much was in English ortheir L1.

4 This classroom consisted of 7 students - three ELLs and four students withdisabilities or behavioral disorders, according to the teacher. She referred to thistype of inclusion as a type of tracking, and told the observer that ELLs were thehigher achieving students in the class. The online discussion format appeared tobe accessible to all of the students. ELLs received considerable feedback fromtheir teacher and other students.The observer was able to watch part of thediscussion in which some students posted short responses and the teacherprompted them to support their arguments. One peer also corrected a student'sspelling and grammar. In addition, the teacher reported that she planned toinvolve students from other classrooms in the discussion, including honorsstudents, who would serve as additional models.

Nov 1, 2011 5:35 PM

5 This class was taught by a teacher with dual ESL/ELA certification. Littleevidence that ELLs were able to access more than the superficial meaning of thebooks they were reading. Questions were of high level, but students did notdemonstrate ability to engage in higher level thinking. The instruction appearedto be over their heads.

Nov 1, 2011 5:09 PM

6 Some students (around 1/3) were off-task or not engaged for the majority of thelesson. The lesson focused on cell organelles, but the content objective statedthat students would compare ("distinguish between") uni-and multicellularorganisms. The science teacher led the class several times in repeating thehierarchy (organisms have systems, systems have organs, organs have...) butnever connected that back to the content objectives or made explicit what shewas having them repeat. (ie, never articulated "multicellular organisms have ahierarchy...") The ESL teacher (Gillespie) at several points as she floatedaround the room drew students attention to their prior knowledge (eg, comparingchemistry-protons as building blocks of an atom; cell organs as parts of a cell).The KWL showed that lots of students had good connections to prior knowledgeof cells, and they came up with lots of questions that they wanted to learn moreabout. The teachers didn't write these down, so I'm not sure how/if they plannedto use this information in planning the unit. Lecture (w/PPT) took the bulk of theclass, and the science teacher (Mohamed) reminded students several times toput away other materials and "just take notes" on their handout. Told severalstudents with comments/questions: "don't tell me" or "hold on" to keep movingforward with the PPT. There's no space in the classroom to write or draw forstudents--only white boards are taken up with the content objectives, etc. Onlyone instance of a teacher writing/drawing to support what they were explaining(Gillespie, a cell wall). Teachers provided conflicting/confusing explanations of acell membrane versus a cell wall. ESL teacher had several instances of helpingstudents to remember new vocabulary (eg, "MITochrondria are MIGHTy" and"VACuole is like a VACuum cleaner"). The students' "exit ticket" was to review"in your mind" the units of the body--by which Ms. Mohamed meant the hierarchy(organism--systems--organs, etc.)

Nov 1, 2011 1:29 PM

7 This lesson appeared to be on-grade level and reasonably rigorous. Theessential questions and content objectives were not explained orally. However,

Oct 28, 2011 2:11 PM

-


the teacher's questions were relatively high level. The lesson was not madeaccessible to ELLs or differentiated in any way during whole class instruction.The ELL teacher circulated to help individual students. There were 3 newcomerstudents in the classroom with whom she spent extra time modeling andexplaining what they were to do. One Spanish-speaking newcomer was able toclarify his understanding in Spanish with the ELL teacher, who responded inEnglish. At least one ELL seemed lost. The teacher reported that 70% of herstudents had not completed their homework. When the observer asked studentsto explain what they were doing, most were able to explain the directions theywere asked to follow, but could not explain the overall concept they werelearning.

8 The teachers had lots of good strategies for ELLs (sentence stems, vocabularyfrom authentic context, visual supports, opportunities to speak with pairs).However, the lesson was not as effective as it could have been b/c of classroommanagement issues. The group seemed too large and students did not havetheir own space to work. The teacher seemed to give too much time for certainactivities (e.g., 'turn and talk'- students finished quickly and didn't know what todo next). Also, some students may have needed more explicit modeling. Thewriting activity following the turn and talk prediction activity did not help studentsexpand on the prediction skill, and instead engaged them in the low-level-thinking activity of labeling.

Oct 27, 2011 3:27 PM

9 The lesson was okay- not great, though. The teachers used hands-onexperiences by having students smell the mystery bag and then list words todescribe what they smelled. However, the interactive writing period only involvedfour students, while the others just watched (and seemed bored). Given thatthere were two teachers in the room, one of the teachers could have been 'put tobetter use' if she had engaged the remaining students in a related activity. Also,in the interactive writing there didn't seem to be much differentiation orchallenge- all students just copied the word (when some of them may have beenable to write some other parts of the word). The topic for interactive writing was"what words describe the smell," while the topic for the indep. drawing/writingwas "what do you think was in the bag." Because there was no modeling of thedrawing/writing topic, it was a far transfer task for some students (e.g,. somestudents thought they were supposed to describe what the item smelled likerather than what it was). During the drawing/writing time, students were on task,but again, teachers could have challenged students more by asking more open-ended questions and encouraging more writing.

Oct 27, 2011 2:49 PM

10 Lesson went okay- not great. A lot of sitting for K students; too much time to 'turnand talk,' and draw the pictures, so kids got off task. Teachers often asked kidsabout picture or story, and would just say "good" to students' responses ratherthan probing for more language. Objective of the activity was not clear. Theobjectives listed on the board only connected to the lesson indirectly.

Oct 27, 2011 1:55 PM

11 The lesson went very well. All students appeared engaged and on task duringmini-lesson and read-aloud. Teachers integrated reading skills (i.e., inferencing)in multiple activities involving authentic texts (novels, short stories). Teacherused graphic organizer- modeled on board and then students practiced using themodel independently or in guided reading groups.

Oct 27, 2011 11:39 AM

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

, Q1. Overall, how did the lesson go? (e.g., How accessible was this lesson to the ELLs in this classroom?To what extent was there evidence that all students – including ELLs – learned what was expected of them? Whatwas the overall level of rigor?)

12 Very warm classroom climate e.g., "We don't laugh at each other if we make amistake." Teachers worked very well together. Even when Smartboard did notcooperate, they kept going and figured out a way to make it work (had studentsuse mouse)

Oct 26, 2011 8:31 PM

13 Very short lesson was observed. Students worked independently onPowerPoints as 2 teachers circulated to help. One teacher showed observer agraphic organizer and planning handout students used to plan their powerpoints.Activity was designed to give students practice in writing, using technology andpresenting orally. Lesson was not observed long enough to judge studentlearning.

Oct 26, 2011 8:19 PM

14 Class was late getting started (teacher explained later that often content teacherlets them out late) so observation was very short. Evidence of learning:Although these students were very low beginners and still struggling to producespoken English, students used some of the language of the story (e.g., if youinsist, aphids) during retelling. Some had trouble remembering the names of allthe animals in the story.

Oct 26, 2011 7:53 PM

15 This classroom was like a well-rehearsed circus. There were multiplesimultaneous activities going on all at once, the noise level was at a muffled roar(not too loud and not too soft), and all students appeared to be engaged andworking at the right level of challenge. The ELL teacher used an Ipad to showher guided reading group illustrations of vocabulary words; she also used it totake notes on student progress (good use of technology). ELLs were readingThe Legend of the Bluebonnet, published by On Our Way to English. She usedplenty of modeling, explicit strategy instruction, and gradual release ofresponsibility. (e.g., Read until you get to the sticky note, then stop and askyourself a question about the story). Evidence of learning was that studentsworking independently could explain to observer what they were supposed to bedoing, some with a little prompting. (One boy said he was learning dictionary"stuff". When prompted he was able to explain what guide words were and howto use them)

Oct 26, 2011 7:31 PM

16 This first-year teacher did a generally very good job of scaffolding language andcontent using a Kindergarten leveled reader and evidence-based literacypractices. When she conducted a picture walk, few of her (mostly Level 1) ELLsinitially participated. Then as she began to read aloud, she actively engaged thechildren to move with her each time she came to the repetitive chorus (clompclomp, wiggle, wiggle, clap clap). The book was on a Halloween theme but theteacher was not observed to discuss the meaning of this holiday in U.S. culture.When asked about this later, she looked flustered, and explained that many ofher students are Muslims and do not celebrate this holiday, so she was not surehow to bring it up.

Oct 26, 2011 7:09 PM

17 Very nicely managed. Teacher had great rapport with students, used lots ofencouragement, did not accept excuses. A student who asked to go to thebathroom was told in a friendly, joking manner that he would first have to answerthe question correctly. Some of the sentences provided were very complex ALe.g. " If the amount of calcium chloride added to the water increases, thetemperature of the water increases." - little support to pull the AL apart and

Oct 26, 2011 4:43 PM

-


analyze

18 Entire observation consisted of small group/independent work comparing andcontrasting homo habilis with homo sapiens. The activity observed consistedprimarly of writing sentences using the AL of compare/contrast. All students butone were actively engaged in activity; teacher pulled one student into hall to talkThe teacher at first instructed everyone to begin work without modeling; whenone student requested help she then modeled how to write the sentence stemand asked another student to model how to complete the stem (adjustedinstruction in response to monitoring student understanding) Students appearedto be mixed in their ability to explain to observer what they were doing. Somesaid the activity was easy, others hard, others about right. When observer asked2 students where they went for extra support one said libreria another saidafterschool help.

Oct 26, 2011 4:41 PM

19 The portion of the lesson I observed seemed accessible to most ELLs because itallowed them the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge kinesthetically, inwriting, and orally. All students had to participate and teachers gave more/lesssupport depending on need. The teachers seemed to be doing constantassessment. The rigor of the lesson seemed on target - students wereresponsible for grade-level content.

Oct 26, 2011 12:10 PM

20 The lesson was planned and implemented well, and was accessible to ELLs.She used gestures, wait time, sentence frames, other supports and scaffolds.Eight of the nine students were on task throughout the lesson (the one ended upgoing to the nurses), and made attempts to read their role with expression, andanswer questions about the story.The level of rigor was unclear: The text isbelow grade level but teacher used grade-level academic terms (e.g., setting).She also explained she is still assessing students' reading levels and plans todifferentiate instruction based on her findings.

Oct 26, 2011 11:50 AM

21 The lesson showed planning and planned focus on both language and content.Students were on task when I went around the room, but very few askedquestions or gave explanations. At one point, the teacher asked "What is 11times - 4" and it took students a while to answer (language or content or lack ofattention?). Many students also seemed to not understand or be able to explainthe errors on the pre-assignment.

Oct 26, 2011 10:43 AM

22 In terms of access, the teacher clearly had routines in place, e.g., journal writing,paced the lesson well, assessed understanding by moving around the room toexamine student work. She demonstrated the directions for student work, andtried to make it meaningful for students by asking them to examine statistics fortheir own/family's country. However, scaffolding for the language (e.g., sentenceframes) might have been helpful for some students, In terms of rigor, the use ofdata charts was on target. Most students did not seem actively engaged.

Oct 26, 2011 10:18 AM

23 All students were ELLs. The textbook and writing assignment were on gradelevel.

Oct 26, 2011 10:10 AM

24 Overall, this was accessible to some ELLs: The teacher has routines in placethat are easy to follow, e.g., students work in pairs/groups, then whole class. He

Oct 26, 2011 9:13 AM

72 of 85


called on students randomly and students appeared to be on task and able toanswer at least partially. Students appeared to have a friendly relationship withhim. The coursework appeared to be on grade level, and he asked students tojustify their answers.

25 Because the lesson centered on math games, most of the students wereengaged and had opportunities to speak with each other (e.g., negotiate turn-taking, etc.). The station set-up (with one teacher for each game) was good sothat teachers instructed smaller groups. It was clear that students had worked ingroups before and played some of these math games in the past. However, itdidn't seem that the ELL teacher knew the content because she was unsure ofthe rules of the game and didn't understand some of the resources (e.g., thestudents had to show her what the directions meant by the 'number grid' in theirbook). Although ELL students were integrated wtih native speakers, theteachers did not ensure that the material was comprehensible or accessible forthe ELLs. For instance, in one of the math games, one ELL girl did not speak atall and didn't seem to understand how to play because another boy basically didher turn for her. The ELL teacher pointed out language in an 'ad-hoc' way (suchas "die vs. dice"), but language instruction was not explicit, targeted, or pre-planned.

Oct 21, 2011 1:20 PM

26 In general, the lesson seemed to be accessible to all ELLs in the classroom. Theteachers provided multiple opportunities to interact with the content words andprovided verbal modeling of sentences. Rigor was high relative to level ofstudents (beginning English speakers in K). Evidence that ELLs learnedincluded: 1) pair speaking activity demonstrated that students could correctly usethe the vocabulary words in sentences and apply concepts to senses to theirobjects; 2) each student was able to sequence pictures from story and explainpictures verbally using words from the book (at different levels of complexity-e.g., some just named words, while other spoke in longer phrases)

Oct 21, 2011 10:32 AM

27 Much of the lesson consisted of independent writing time for studnets. Part ofthis might be the Lucy Calkins Writing Workshop lesson procedures (e.g.,majority of writing class time is for students to be writing independently andteacher conferencing with small groups or individuals). ALthough the teacherconferenced with some students, she did not seem to have a particular goal forpulling the students together. Rather, she used the time to ask students to shareabout their work individually. The teacher clearly cared for the students andknew them, as evidenced by her familiarity with events and people in theirnarratives and thoughtful questions about their stories. The ELL teacher walkedaround the room, helping particular ELL students (3 in total) at their desk. Sheused a clip board and index cards to take anecdotal notes. About 20 minutes ofthe observation consisted of students sharing their stories in front of the wholeclass. During this time, there was little opportunity for students to speak orengage in any activity other than (passively) listening to their peers read theirstories.

Oct 21, 2011 10:02 AM

28 Students were highly engaged - they showed this through posture, open faces,bright eyes, and lots of questions. They seemed to love it when the teacherdressed up as a postal worker.

Oct 20, 2011 3:46 PM

73 of 85


29 3 ELLs told observer they like being in the DL program. Two said their parentsspeak Spanish. One ELL said she transferred from the English program becauseDL seemed more fun (they were playing games during the Summer). Her Dadwas happy because he thinks she mixes her languages too much. Another boysaid he was looking forward to going to Peru and meeting his older brother forthe first time and being able to speak to him in Spanish.

Oct 20, 2011 3:28 PM

30 The lesson went very quickly, as the children had to go to specials, so many ofthem did not finish the matching activity.

Oct 20, 2011 2:45 PM

31 Lesson appeared to be well-planned and well-managed. Provided language andstudy skills as needed to access content. When asked, most students said theyfelt the class is helping them in their content class.

Oct 19, 2011 4:53 PM

32 All students appeared to be actively engaged in the learning activities. Observerdid not get to see first half of class; however the content teacher did tell thestudents "Today we are going to work on getting a variable for multiplication anddivision." ELL teacher was able to clarify directions and concepts in Spanish.

Oct 19, 2011 2:23 PM

33 Students seemed very engaged with the exception of one student. It was notclear what was going on with that student. The teacher took him into the hall totalk. Teacher explained to observer later that the student was new. Aftercompleting the quiz and the graphic organizer, the teacher asked students tocome to him to review it. Only 4 students did so. The graphic organizer seemedhelpful for comprehension purposes. A few students seemed to find it relativelyeasy while a few struggled with it - especially the 2 new students. One of thenew students was unable to understand a basic word in the text (cart). Whenobserver told him meaning in Spanish, he was still able to only partially answerthe question on the graphic organizer. There was little evidence of structuredcooperation even though the teacher assigned them to work in groups. However,one student called to a friend in Spanish at another table asking for some of theanswers. At one table everyone spoke a different language. A Spanish-speakingboy had a conversation with his Arabic-speaking peer comparing and contrastingwords across the two languages but the conversation was off topic. Theinstruction seemed to be below grade level and was at a low cognitive level(mostly comprehension questions both on the quiz and in the graphic organizer).Teacher also explained that the two articles students were assigned were basedon their lexile levels which were at about 4th or 5th grade level. Teachershowed the observer the grade-level text for the course and explained he did notuse that text but rather an alternative text that was selected a few years ago by aprevious ELL department chair. The text looked quite a bit shorter. When asked,the teacher told observer the text was not a very high cognitive level.

Oct 19, 2011 11:52 AM

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

, Q2. Use the boxes below to describe evidence for constructs for which you found either the greateststrengths or the greatest areas in need of improvement.

Effective co-teaching (if applicable) (AC4)

2 n/a Nov 2, 2011 9:53 AM

3 The ELL teacher participated along with the content teacher and the students inthe online discussion.No evidence of co-planning.

Nov 1, 2011 5:35 PM

5 No: There was a clear lead teacher and assistant teacher. Nov 1, 2011 1:29 PM

6 The teachers reported they have had no time available to co-plan. The ELLteacher often does not get the lesson plan until Saturday for Monday's class andhas very little time to prepare modified materials for ELLs. She often is not toldwhen the content teacher plans to change her lesson plan.

Oct 28, 2011 2:11 PM

7 teachers planned together and shared lesson responsibilities; problems becauseof lack of space for both teachers to conduct groups (i.e., too noisy anddistracting for groups).

Oct 27, 2011 3:27 PM

8 ELL teacher led most of lesson, while gen ed teacher supported; at times, thetwo teachers might have been used better if they had strategically split the classinto smaller groups so more kids would be engaged.

Oct 27, 2011 2:49 PM

9 Seemed to run smoothly, but ELL teacher led most of the class with K teacherwatching or supporting.

Oct 27, 2011 1:55 PM

10 Both teachers moved fluidly; team-taught whole class during mini-lesson andtaught different groups for guided reading lessons

Oct 27, 2011 11:39 AM

11 Strong evidence of effective teaming; both teachers took turns leading andsupporting

Oct 26, 2011 8:31 PM

12 Students benefitted from having one-to-one help from achers Oct 26, 2011 8:19 PM

13 Strength: this model worked well in which T1 could teach whole class while T2listened to individual child retelling

Oct 26, 2011 7:53 PM

14 Strength: These teachers took the initiative to begin learning centers and guidedreading before they were required to, and it seemed to be working quite well.

Oct 26, 2011 7:31 PM

18 STRENGTHS: AC4-lesson went smoothly and both teachers participatedrelatively equally in providing instructional support. Through co-teaching,teachers were able to provide assistance to all students.

Oct 26, 2011 12:10 PM

24 this is a weakness. The ELL teacher was in the room, but she did not seem toknow the rules of the math game she was facillitating, and seemed to just dowhatever the classroom teacher told her to do.

Oct 21, 2011 1:20 PM

25 Very effective- teachers clearly planned together and shared responsibility ofleading the lesson; when one teacher was not instructing, the other was eitherhelping a particular student or taking anecdotal notes for assessment.

Oct 21, 2011 10:32 AM

26 Content teacher led; ELL teacher walked around and helped ELL students one-on-one

Oct 21, 2011 10:02 AM

76 of 85

Page 7, Q2. Use the boxes below to describe evidence for constructs for which you found either the greateststrengths or the greatest areas in need of improvement.

27 evidence of co-planning and excellent coordination between the teachers;teachers appeared to have equal status

Oct 20, 2011 3:46 PM

29 Gen ed teacher did all the teaching; ELL teacher assisted with activity Oct 20, 2011 2:45 PM

32 Both teachers appeared to have equal status during period observed; bothappeared to know what was expected of students

Oct 19, 2011 2:23 PM

Access to challenging academic content? (AC1A, AC1B, AC7A, AC7B, AC8, AC12)

3 The teacher provided rigorous, “deep” questions. Both teachers used higherorder questions and prompted students to elaborate on and support theiranswers.

Nov 1, 2011 5:35 PM

4 The books selected seemed appropriate to the interests of adolescent readers .Weaknesses: However, there was little support to help ELLs access the meaningof the books they were reading.

Nov 1, 2011 5:09 PM

5 No: Students were given handouts to fill in the blanks directly from sentences onthe PPT.

Nov 1, 2011 1:29 PM

6 The level of rigor was high, but there was very little scaffolding. Beginning leveland newcomer ELLs seemed to have little access to instruction.

Oct 28, 2011 2:11 PM

7 Vocabulary approporiate and challenging; some of the activities (e.g., labelpictures) engaged low level skills, and other activities (e.g., make a prediction topartner) could have been expanded

Oct 27, 2011 3:27 PM

8 All students expected to use the sense of smell and write about it. Teachers didnot always ask probing questions or challenge students who finished early towrite more.

Oct 27, 2011 2:49 PM

9 All kids listened to "Ms. Bindergarten" book; could be more challenging ifteachers had asked students to extend their responses.

Oct 27, 2011 1:55 PM

10 All students expected to apply skill of inferencing. All students (even beginners)challenged to make an inference and tell support. ELL teacher made specialeffort to go over vocabulary that might be unfamiliar (e.g., 'hinges' and 'shrugged'and 'beyond') using pictures, examples, and gestures. Also

Oct 27, 2011 11:39 AM

11 Lots of rigorous, grade-level instruction, lots of scaffolding (pictures, anchorcharts, connections with prior learning)

Oct 26, 2011 8:31 PM

12 challenging level of rigor not observed - topic was about self; but helped studentsto express themselves in writing and orally

Oct 26, 2011 8:19 PM

13 Strength: Good ESL lesson, with lots of scaffolding, modeling, repetition, andchecking for understanding.

Oct 26, 2011 7:53 PM

14 Strength: great example of differentiated instruction; each student appeared tobe getting attention from teacher or working independently at the right level ofchallenge; lots of HOTS was observed within all 3 reading groups

Oct 26, 2011 7:31 PM

77 of 85


15 Strength: evidence of research-based reading practices. Weaknesses: Most ofher questions were basic comprehension (Is it a he or a she?); no connectionswith students' backgrounds or discussion of cultural meaning of Halloween

Oct 26, 2011 7:09 PM

16 Teacher began lesson talking very rapidly but gradually reduced speed of talklater in lessonStudents seemed to benefit from lots of practice to distinguish IVfrom DV. Sentences provided may have been hard for some students at lowerELP levels. Teacher taught an explicit strategy (draw a picture) for students touse to help analyze IV and DV and pointed out it was a good study strategy.

Oct 26, 2011 4:43 PM

17 Compare/contrast activity at Bloom's Analyzing level. The activity was related tolesson objective, but covered only a very small part of the objective.

Oct 26, 2011 4:41 PM

18 STRENGTHS: AC1A.9, AC12.1 - This was an active lesson -- students wereengaged in finding different angles/relationships between angles. AC7A.1,3-Teachers provided kinesthetic/visual support as part of lesson, and useddifferent types of questions and assessments.

Oct 26, 2011 12:10 PM

19 IMPROVEMENTS: AC1A.3 - Text used was below grade level. However,teacher stated she was building toward higher level texts for those students whohad higher reading levels. STRENGTHS: AC1A.1-2, 4,7-9- The lessonobjectives were written on the board and referred to during the lesson sectionobserved. The lesson closely followed the agenda and supported activeengagement of students. (SEE lesson summary.) ACI3.3-4 - Students listenedto the text and read the text aloud. In addition, the teacher connected the textand guided students to connect the text to ELA-specific features (e.g., thefeatures of a narrative such as plot, setting, character). AC7A.3-4- The teachers'speech and pacing were appropriate to level I students. AC7B.5 - She excelledat providing wait time for student response, and maintained student focus on thekind of response she wanted. E..g, "Think. Don't shout out. What is oneproblem in the story?"

Oct 26, 2011 11:50 AM

20 IMPROVEMENT: AC1A.7,9 -The teachers did not do a great deal of extendedstudent responses during the observed period. Students did not readily answerwhen called upon, and did not express enthusiasm by asking questions orsuggesting solutions. Student desk work showed that they were on task.STRENGTHS: AC7B.3 - Teachers provided explicit modeling of solving andjustifying a problem, using the smart board to show the different steps, andtaking time to think aloud.

Oct 26, 2011 10:43 AM

21 IMPROVEMENTS: AC1A.7,9 and AC7B.2 - The teacher rarely extendedstudent responses, accepting one-word answers and completing their responsesherself. In several instances, students had to be coaxed to respond. This mayhave been because of lack of understanding rather than lack of interest.

Oct 26, 2011 10:18 AM

22 AC1A.8-9-The content was on grade-level and the teacher was available forhelp. However, in the section of class observed, approximately 1/4 of thestudents were off task, talking about non-school subjects. The other studentswere working independently. Very few students asked questions, showedenthusiasm.

Oct 26, 2011 10:10 AM

23 STRENGTHS: AC1A.7- Teacher consistently extended student responses, Oct 26, 2011 9:13 AM

78 of 85


either by recasting what was said or by probing for further information. On twooccasions, he made a conscious mistake and then asked students to verify theanswer and fix it if incorrect. AC7B.3-The teacher explictly modeled problemsolutions and,justifications, and to a lesser extent the content-specific vocabularyto be used (direct variation). IMPROVEMENTS: AC7A.4- The lesson was fastpaced. As noted, my observation suggested that students were followingbecause of the routines that had been established, but that may not be the casefor all ELP levels. ACB.5 - In addition, the teacher did not allow sufficient waittime on a regular basis. The movement from activity to activity did not allow forstudents who needed more time to process.

24 The math games were designed so that all students had an opportunity to applythe math strategies in different ways. However a few ELLs seemed to be veryquiet and only participate by having another student help.

Oct 21, 2011 1:20 PM

25 Students challenged to use academic language of K science standards, as wellas sequence words (e.g., 'then' 'next' 'last'); also challenged to understandconcepts of science unit (e.g., differences among the tactile features of items)

Oct 21, 2011 10:32 AM

26 All students expected to write narratives; little evidence of ensuring that thisprocess was challenging for students

Oct 21, 2011 10:02 AM

27 on grade level; pacing was very fast; not clear if lower level ELLs were able tofollow

Oct 20, 2011 3:46 PM

28 Content was on grade-level and integrated art with math; very accessible tolearners at different ELP levels; Most students were able to explain what theywere learning except for one girl who said she did not understand Spanish (shehas been in the program 1 year)

Oct 20, 2011 3:28 PM

29 Students had to apply what they had learned by matching language and tribe toregion; ELLs had trouble explaining to visitor in English what they were doing,although they seemed to get the big ideas

Oct 20, 2011 2:45 PM

30 Teacher went over objective and explained meaning of paraphrase but theobjective was worded as an activity;Instruction was on grade level but not clear ifall students could access it; relatively low level thinking (understand, apply);lesson was paced very fast

Oct 19, 2011 5:35 PM

31 Very well aligned with content instruction; challenging assignment requiredstudents to use multiple sources to find information

Oct 19, 2011 4:53 PM

32 Instruction appeared to be on grade level and appropriate to objectives, at aboutright level of challenge for most students, with help.

Oct 19, 2011 2:23 PM

Support for language development (LG2, AC13, LG8)

1 Strength: Teacher helped student construct grammatically correct sentences todescribe their math problems.

Nov 3, 2011 11:21 AM

2 Strength: Students were exposed to, and asked to use, the content language(the writing process) as well as language to describe themselves and how theyhave changed.

Nov 2, 2011 9:53 AM

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle


3 Strengths. The learning activity required students to have read and understood agrade-level book and make inferences about the reading. The lesson activityalso required them to write using academic language. Students who wrote using“street” language were prompted by both teachers and peers to express theirthoughts using AL.

Nov 1, 2011 5:35 PM

4 The only language instruction was related to the ELA content (e.g., makinginferences) but no evidence of explicit language teaching. If a student inquiredabout the meaning of a word, the teacher defined it quickly but did not provideeffective vocabulary development strategies.

Nov 1, 2011 5:09 PM

5 Yes: ESL teacher floated and interjected language-specific help (as describedabove).

Nov 1, 2011 1:29 PM

6 No explicit language instruction was provided; few opportunities to speak or writeusing English.

Oct 28, 2011 2:11 PM

7 sentence stems; visuals accomanying vocabulary; slower speaking pace andmore modeling may have helped for some students

Oct 27, 2011 3:27 PM

8 Teachers listed adjectives describing smell, and helped students understandconcept of word by the interactive writing activity. Some students needed moresupport for the writing activity (e.g,. sentence stems) than was given. Otherstudents may have benefitted from explicit modeling of the writing activity (ordoing a writing activity that was more closely aligned to the mini-lessoninteractive writing activity)

Oct 27, 2011 2:49 PM

9 ELL teacher drew attention to items in book that were in the classroom (e.g.,'shelves')

Oct 27, 2011 1:55 PM

10 Teachers included common and general academic vocabulary in lesson aswords came up; opportunity for students to read, listen, and speak. There wasonly little opportunity for writing, but that may be because the observation wasnot long enough.

Oct 27, 2011 11:39 AM

11 Plenty of practice with AL (Who can tell me one characteristic of what makessomething living? - points to anchor chart to support student extended response;all students had a chance to practice

Oct 26, 2011 8:31 PM

12 lots of support for language development Oct 26, 2011 8:19 PM

13 Strengths: use of sentence stems, vocabulary Oct 26, 2011 7:53 PM

14 Language development was in the context of engaging reading material Oct 26, 2011 7:31 PM

15 Strengths: use of sentence stems, repetitive language, rhythm, vocabulary Oct 26, 2011 7:09 PM

16 Some of the lower ELP students would have benefitted from more scaffolding tounderstand complex AL; pointed out confusion between "depth" and "death";little otherno explicit instruction of AL;

Oct 26, 2011 4:43 PM

17 Lots of practice for writing using AL (similar to.., different from); focus mostly on2 content vocabulary words; little explicit instruction in general academic

Oct 26, 2011 4:41 PM

80 of 85


vocabulary but hard to tell if teacher had introduced compare/contrast wordspreviously; little or no focus on L, S or R

18 STRENGTHS: LG8.4-5 - The section of the lesson observed focused on studentunderstanding of a few key concepts and related vocabulary. Students listenedto the content-specific vocabulary in the questions posed to each student, andwere encouraged to use the specific vocabulary in their answers. Students alsohad to read sentences using the vocabulary, match them to equations, and writesentences with the vocabulary.

Oct 26, 2011 12:10 PM

19 STRENGTHS: LG8.5,7 - Students were engaged in three domains - listening,speaking, reading. Activities included independent listening, guided andindependent reading, oral discussion of narrative and narrative features in smallgroups and as a whole class. The teacher provided explicit instruction in theelements of a narrative (discourse features).

Oct 26, 2011 11:50 AM

24 The ELL teacher pointed out vocabulary as it appeared in the math game (e.g.,"roll the die" vs. "roll the dice"); the content teacher drew little picturesrepresenting each role for the calculator-vs-brain game

Oct 21, 2011 1:20 PM

25 This was an ESL class- lots of support for language development, includingmany opportunities to speak using vocabulary from content and book; modelingof speech by teachers

Oct 21, 2011 10:32 AM

26 No explicit support for language development outside of writing task except forELL teacher's one-on-one work with three of the ELL students.

Oct 21, 2011 10:02 AM

27 strong emphasis on content-specific vocabulary (postal worker, police officer,etc.) and on all four language modalities; teachers reminded students to listen forthe first sound of the word and find it on the whiteboard to copy

Oct 20, 2011 3:46 PM

28 almost none, except that all language was presented within meaningful context(content); teacher reminded students to speak only in Spanish

Oct 20, 2011 3:28 PM

29 little evidence of language instruction Oct 20, 2011 2:45 PM

30 focus on figurative language; several students appeared to understand termsand made connections with lesson; analysis and paraphrasing of figurativelanguage seemed appropriate to content objective

Oct 19, 2011 5:35 PM

31 language was integrated with content instruction but little explicit languageinstruction was observed

Oct 19, 2011 4:53 PM

32 Virtually no explicit focus on language was observed Oct 19, 2011 2:23 PM

Learning as a socially constructed process (AC5A, AC5B, AC6)

1 No: students worked independently to complete homework Nov 3, 2011 11:21 AM

2 Strength: Students worked together and with teachers to build on their priorknowledge, their home experiences, and their L1 and English knowledge to writetheir paragraphs.

Nov 2, 2011 9:53 AM

81 of 85


3 Strengths: Students engaged in authentic written communication with teachersand peers in a non-threatening forum. Students were asked to “rate” eachother’s postings. The teacher reported that when she conducted this sameexercise last year, students transformed their writing.

Nov 1, 2011 5:35 PM

4 Strengths: Use of Literature circles. Weaknesses: most ELLs appeared to havedifficulty holding a conversation about the book, seemed embarrassed toparticipate. Little evidence they were able to understand the meaning of whatthey are reading. It appeared many had not completed the homework, and werenot actively engaged in the conversation.

Nov 1, 2011 5:09 PM

5 No: students worked independently to come up with prior knowledge andquestions abotu cells, but then wrote down basic information presented by theteacher.

Nov 1, 2011 1:29 PM

6 All instruction was either whole group or independent work. Teachers circulatedto help individual students.

Oct 28, 2011 2:11 PM

7 Students encouraged to work together, but little structure (i.e., students finishedtask quickly and then go off task)

Oct 27, 2011 3:27 PM

8 Students seemed to get along and talked with each other at the table as theywere writing/drawing. During whole class time, little opportunity for students toengage in meaningful conversation; instead there was a lot of I-R-E patterns

Oct 27, 2011 2:49 PM

9 Students used "turn and talk," but this was not completely effective b/c somestudents got off task very quickly.

Oct 27, 2011 1:55 PM

10 Students used 'turn and talk' multiple times and seemed to understand routine;students also talked with each other in guided reading groups.

Oct 27, 2011 11:39 AM

11 (not observed)students were instructed to construct a diorama throughcooperative groups in which every member has a job (but was not clear howthey were individually accountable)

Oct 26, 2011 8:31 PM

12 students appeared to be actively engaged Oct 26, 2011 8:19 PM

13 Teacher with small group or teacher with individual student Oct 26, 2011 7:53 PM

14 Most learning was teacher to small group or independent; appeared to beworking well

Oct 26, 2011 7:31 PM

15 Students were only passively engaged in the read aloud until they got to thechorus! No cooperative learning was evident but this was a small KindergartenESL class. 2 teachers worked one on one with children to complete assessmentactivity (drawing a pumpkin)

Oct 26, 2011 7:09 PM

16 students did not do much cooperating; worked very quietly; teacher proddedthem (you are very quiet today)

Oct 26, 2011 4:43 PM

17 students appeared to be engaged but little cooperation was observed Oct 26, 2011 4:41 PM

18 STRENGTHS: AC61-3 - Teachers and students worked well in groups and were Oct 26, 2011 12:10 PM

-


actively participating in the lesson. The teachers called on every student atsome point in the lesson.

19 STRENGTHS: AC5A.1-3, 5 - Class activities were managed in a way thatsupported the lesson objectives. For example, students listened to the storynarrative independently while the teacher provided individual support. Studentsthen worked in structured groups to conduct a role play of the story. During thistime, the teacher listened and asked comprehension questions. On severaloccasions, students helped each other to figure out how to pronounce or definea word. When shifting to new groupings for the next task, students continued toshow cooperation. AC6.1-2,4 - Teacher and students showed mutual respect byremaining on task and following directions closely. The teacher gave studentspraise for this.

Oct 26, 2011 11:50 AM

21 STRENGTHS: AC6.1-2-The teacher and students appeared to be on goodterms, and the teacher had no trouble getting students' attention.

Oct 26, 2011 10:18 AM

22 AC5A.1- During the observed period, there was little demonstration ofdifferentiated instruction or effective student grouping. Students in one group didnot seem to have a clear idea of what to do when finished with their main task.

Oct 26, 2011 10:10 AM

23 STRENGTHS: AC5A.1-The class seemed to have established routines, suchas solving problems, justifying solutions, and being ready to respond. Theyseemed to have little trouble following the lesson despite a relatively fast pace.AC6.1-2 - The atmosphere of the class was friendly and respectful. There wereno disruptions due to behavior, students answered readily, and the teachertreated students as capable mathematicians.

Oct 26, 2011 9:13 AM

24 Students worked together in the math games; Oct 21, 2011 1:20 PM

25 Pair work for speaking activity; at tables, they were encouraged to tell each otherabout their story sequence

Oct 21, 2011 10:32 AM

26 Desks were arranged in tables, so students could and did ask each otherquestions (e.g., "how do you spell...?" or "Can I use your eraser?"), but nostructured learning groups were observed

Oct 21, 2011 10:02 AM

27 Students were actively engaged; was not a cooperative activity Oct 20, 2011 3:46 PM

28 Students were actively engaged; was not a cooperative activity Oct 20, 2011 3:28 PM

29 Lesson was structured around whole group and independent work but studentswere observed helping their peers with directions

Oct 20, 2011 2:45 PM

30 All work was either independent or whole class; 4 students were called onrepeatedly; 6 had their heads down for the last half of class and others lookedbored; no cooperative activities observed

Oct 19, 2011 5:35 PM

31 Students showed no evidence of cooperation, even when teacher asked groupsto agree on a topic sentence; 1 student showed me hers but not clear it wascooperatively determined they were very quiet; several students appeared tolack confidence (this was mixed)

Oct 19, 2011 4:53 PM

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle


32 Students were highly engaged but did not do much cooperating. Oct 19, 2011 2:23 PM

Classroom assessment (AC9, AC10)

1 Strength: teacher checked in on students throughout the lesson and worked witheach one individually.

Nov 3, 2011 11:21 AM

2 Strength: Teacher was continually working with small groups or individuals tocheck how they were doing, and to modify the assignment as needed.

Nov 2, 2011 9:53 AM

3 The teachers could observe the entire online discussion and assess students’participation.

Nov 1, 2011 5:35 PM

4 The teacher made rounds with a clipboard. She said she was checking to seewho did the homework.

Nov 1, 2011 5:09 PM

5 Yes: asked students to orally recite the hierarchy (but never articulated it as ahierarchy) at several points during the lesson.

Nov 1, 2011 1:29 PM

6 The assessment was appropriate to the objectives and was not dependent uponlanguage to complete.

Oct 28, 2011 2:11 PM

7 No assessment evident (unless final activity of labeling the picture was theassessment? not clear to observer) If this was the assessment, it assessedstudents' knowledge of vocabulary, but not of prediction skills

Oct 27, 2011 3:27 PM

8 No assessment was evident. As teachers circulated room, they may have beenpracticing informal observation, but they did not record their notes.

Oct 27, 2011 2:49 PM

9 Not evident, other than informal observation (but observed no notes taken) Oct 27, 2011 1:55 PM

10 Teacher used thumbs up/thumbs down to see if all students were ready to share,and when many had 'thumbs down', she gave them more time (example ofaltering instruction based on informal assessment); teachers listened to studentsread aloud in guided reading and listened to students in groups as they talkedabout inferencing, but did not take notes, so unclear if the assessment wasrecorded.

Oct 27, 2011 11:39 AM

11 Diorama of a forest - not clear how this would demonstrate learning of objective Oct 26, 2011 8:31 PM

12 The oral presentation and powerpoint were in process Oct 26, 2011 8:19 PM

13 story retelling (reading and oral language) Oct 26, 2011 7:53 PM

14 All children were required to complete a formative assessment related tocomparing and contrasting

Oct 26, 2011 7:31 PM

15 Was not clear how the activity (drawing a pumpkin and labeling the Pp)addressed the objective of making prediction from text

Oct 26, 2011 7:09 PM

16 Not clear how the teacher knew who was getting it and who was not Oct 26, 2011 4:43 PM

17 teacher circulated to check work Oct 26, 2011 4:41 PM

-


18 STRENGTHS: AC9.1-2 - Both teachers probed for understanding, and askedstudents to respond to specific questions/assessments that addressed differentlevels of conceptual understanding and ELP (e.g., Do you agree? Are theycongruent? What did you notice? Stand on the congruent lines.)

Oct 26, 2011 12:10 PM

19 STRENGTHS: AC9.1- The teacher was actively engaged throughout the lesson,going from student to student and group to group to assess understanding oftask and text. She assessed understanding through verbal means (e.g., specificquestions) and non-verbal means (e.g., thumbs up, stand up). She also usedlimited Spanish.

Oct 26, 2011 11:50 AM

20 STRENGTHS: AC9.1- Both teachers assessed learning throughout lesson -- byreviewing student desk work, by asking for a show of hands, and prior to theobservation, through a quiz.

Oct 26, 2011 10:43 AM

23 STRENGTHS: AC9.1-The teacher demonstrated different assessmentmethods, including asking students to raise their hands if they had the answer,walking around the room to review problem solutions, having students writethree things they knew about the new topic, and the previously describedmethod of pretending he had made a mistake.

Oct 26, 2011 9:13 AM

24 No assessment was evident except (perhaps?) informal observation, butteachers did not seem to take any notes.

Oct 21, 2011 1:20 PM

25 anecdotal notes during activities Oct 21, 2011 10:32 AM

26 Only assessment observed was ELL teacher's anecdotal notes on clipboard. Itappeared that she had index cards for each of her students and used these towrite notes about what she talked to the students about and particular strugglesthey encountered (especially related phonemics and phonics, such as hearingsounds in words and writing the letters to represent those sounds).

Oct 21, 2011 10:02 AM

27 teachers circulated to check work Oct 20, 2011 3:46 PM

28 Not clear how the teacher planned to assess the lesson Oct 20, 2011 3:28 PM

29 no ongoing assessment was observed; it was not clear how the activity would beassessed

Oct 20, 2011 2:45 PM

30 no evidence teacher was aware of who was not getting it since she only calledon the same 4 students each time and allowed them to dominate; however thiswas the only teacher observed who went over the rubric before assessment

Oct 19, 2011 5:35 PM

31 Authentic assessment - collaborative poster (but did not get to observethis);Rubric was included in packet - with focus on oral presentation skills - noevidence teacher explained the rubric or how students would be assessed;Noevidence teacher was aware of who was getting it, who was left behind; observertalked to 1 student who was not understanding (e.g., did not understand "depth"or "thick"; some had trouble knowing what to look for to complete assignment

Oct 19, 2011 4:53 PM

32 No formal assessments were given, but both teachers circulated to checkstudent work; no evidence that instruction was adjusted in response to results of

Oct 19, 2011 2:23 PM

-


any assessment during short period observed

Roshaun

Rectangle

Roshaun

Rectangle

evaluation of english language learner programs in...

Documents