Title III Year 2 LEA
Improvement Plan Addendum
Campbell Union Elementary
School District
2010-11
Directions: Provide information requested for each cell in the outline. The
cells expand to allow space needed for narrative responses under each item. All Title III Year 2 LEAs must submit a copy
of this IPA to their regional COE lead and to CDE at LEAP-TITLEIIIYear2@cde.ca.gov.
1. Conduct an analysis of data. Identify and describe the factors that prevented the local educational agency (LEA) from achieving the Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) (Five page maximum for this item).
A. Analysis of data based on CELDT, CST, CMA, CAPA, and CAHSEE, and problems found.
Campbell Union Elementary School District analyzes English Learner data on a regular basis. Benchmark assessments are given every 7 weeks to all English Learners. This data is disaggregated at the district, site and classroom level in order to provide feedback to teachers and administrators. CELDT data is analyzed upon receipt in February and then further analysis occurs at the site and classroom level. Additional analysis occurs with classroom level assessments including the EL Achieve Gap Finder and the ADEPT. In addition, in preparation for the development of the LEAP plan in 2009-10 and the Title III plan, deeper analysis occurred through the use of the ELSSA tool. When the district realized that AMAO #2 target was not met in the Fall of 2010, the Instructional Services team pulled data on every Long Term English Learner in Campbell Union School district. This data was shared with teachers, coaches, and site administrators. Through this drill down we are able to identify all of our Long Term English Learners by site, grade, and name. This allows for comprehensive analysis of individual student needs in addition to the development of the district wide plan. This also ensures that the data is reviewed by the practitioners closest to the students. Throughout the Spring of 2011, the district will continue to use this data to ensure that all students, and in particular, Long Term English Learners, are making progress.
Back in 2008-09, AMAO 3 was not made overall with only 39.8% of ELs proficient or advanced on the ELA CST. While the district met AMAO 1 (meeting the target for ELs learning English) and AMAO 2 (meeting the target for the number of ELs attaining English-Language Proficiency), one school, Monroe Middle, did not make AMAO 1 as a school (48.7%; target was 51.6%) and three individual schools did not make AMAO 2: Campbell Middle (26.2%), Monroe Middle (24.6%), Rosemary Elementary (29.3%); The AMAO 2 target was 30.6%.
With commitment and focus, Campbell Union School District is proud that the EL subgroup grew 5.9 percentage points to 45.7% resulting in a Safe Harbor designation for AMAO #3 for 2009-2010. Unfortunately in this same year the new AMAO #2 target split into both long term and short term EL targets and identified that the Long Term English learners were not making sufficient progress in their English development. With 24.7% of EL students with less than 5 years in the United States, reaching proficient on CELDT, the district has exceeded the state target of 17.4%. However, only 32.6% of our English learners with more than 5 years in the US scored as proficient, while the state target for this group was 41.3%.
Because AMAO 3 was missed in 2008-09 and AMAO 2 was missed in 2009-10 Campbell Union Elementary School District has not met Title III progress requirements. The data show that large numbers of students test at both the intermediate level on the CELDT and Below Basic level on the CST for language arts. Upon analyzing our ELs who scored proficient on the CELDT, only 18% scored proficient on the CST ELA. Eighty-two percent of ELs who scored proficient on CELDT scored Basic or below on CST ELA. Of these students, 65% scored BB or FBB. As ELs progress through the grades, their proficiency level in English may increase - but often not up to the target levels - and the percentage that are able to score Basic, Proficient, or Advanced on the CST for English Language Arts drops steadily. For example, ELs scoring FBB and BB increased from 18% in grade 2 to 72% in grade 8. R-FEPs score very well on CST, with 65% scoring proficient or above in ELA.
CELDT data reveals that only 25% of intermediate level English Learners make the required one or more levels of growth, while over 70% of the students in the higher levels do meet their respective goals. Approximately 35% of students in levels one and two are progressing. After looking more closely at the CELDT data, we have found that reading is consistently the lowest sub-score on the CELDT. The percentage of ELs who are able to reach English proficiency jumps dramatically (from 20 to 35 percent) as they reach six years of schooling in the U.S. However, 65% of ELs who have been in school for six or more years are still at the Intermediate level.
B. Strengths and weaknesses of current plan:
(i.) Instructional program implementation
(ii.) Instructional strategies
(iii). Professional development
(iv.) Parental participation
The strengths of the Title III LEA Plan include the following in each sub-area:
i. Instructional
program implementation:
á Participation
in the A Look at Learning (ALL) collaborative facilitates the use of high
quality instructional tools focused on improving instruction for English
Learners.
á A
new data system (LearningQube) has been put in place that allows for teachers
and administrators to analyze data quickly and monitor progress of subgroups,
grade levels, classes and individual students.
á A
district-wide equity initiative has given administrators and teacher leaders
the background knowledge and understanding to create a moral imperative for
improvement.
á In
2009-2010, CUSD grew 25 API points (3rd highest of 33 districts in
the county).
á For the first time since the implementation of AYP targets, all 18 subgroups improved in ELA and Math and the disadvantaged subgroups narrowed the achievement gap as compared to their more privileged peers. We raised the roof AND narrowed the gap!
ii. Instructional strategies:
á The
rewriting of the site coach job description and reallocation of coach time
allows for coaching to occur at the sites with the most English Learners and
moves coaches into the classroom to improve instruction ensuring the
implementation of professional development.
á The
majority of district teachers has been trained in Systematic ELD and GLAD strategies, and teachers are applying these
strategies in their classrooms.
iii. Professional development:
á The development of site level GLAD experts (GLADiators) builds a cadre of district teacher leadership that supports the implementation of GLAD strategies and the creation of GLAD model classrooms (including in the State Pre-school classes).
á Twelve professional development modules have been developed internally to build on existing expertise and provide consistent professional development across the district.
iv. Parental participation:
á CUSD has high functioning DELAC and ELAC committees with collaborative trainings for administrators and parents.
á Project Cornerstone, Latino Family Literacy Project and adult ESL classes are provided to parents of English Learners.
The weaknesses of the Title III LEAP plan include the following in each sub-area:
i. Instructional program implementation:
á The district Master Plan outlines specific policies and expectations, but does not provide a clear framework for the ÒhowÓ.
á Accountability systems are dependent on testing, but do not have a systematic way of monitoring the use of curriculum or programs at the daily classroom level.
á A cohesive system of interventions for struggling English Learners has been articulated. Although the RTI framework is in place and schools have identified individual programs to work with students, a clear districtwide intervention program has not been actualized.
á Collaboration between Special Education staff and general education staff has been limited. This has inhibited the ability of both departments to effectively serve students with disabilities, particularly English learners with disabilities.
á There has not been full and consistent
implementation of standards-based ELD instruction to ELs at all grade levels at
all school sites.
ii. Instructional strategies:
á Teachers
are not consistently providing access to content through differentiated
instruction and scaffolding.
á Coaches
have not been sufficiently utilized as site level experts or peer coaches to
model and coach teachers in best instructional
practices.
iii. Professional development:
á Site and district administrators have only begun to understand the relationship between socio-economic status, language, and ethnicity and student achievement.
á Although training has been provided to teachers, support for implementation of new skills and strategies has been minimal.
iv. Parental participation:
á Although
there are pockets of strong parent participation at specific sites, there is
not a clear vision of formal parent education or a district-wide parent
involvement plan.
C. Factors contributing to failure to meet AMAO(s):
1) An analysis of the English language learner program in 2009-2010, found that explicit ELD instruction was not delivered consistently at all of our schools. Different materials were in use depending on the site. The tracking of students who were languishing at a CELDT level and have been in the district for 5 years without adequately progressing was non-existent and/or appropriate interventions were not put in place. Inconsistent training and lack of clarity regarding use of materials were contributing factors to the fragmentation of the program.
2) Even teachers that had been trained in ELD and had adequate materials, did not have ongoing access to coaching and support for implementation of high quality focused English Language Development.
3) Through classroom observations, site level coach interviews, and site administrator surveys, it was discovered that although the majority of district teachers have been trained in Guided Language Acquisition Design (GLAD), very few were fully implementing with multiple strategies throughout the content areas and GLAD standard-based units. So in addition to a weak ELD program, students were not receiving adequate differentiation or scaffolding to reach grade level content standards.
4) In addition to ELD, Sherman Oaks, a CUSD dual-immersion elementary school (and in PI Year 2), is only beginning in 2010-11 to implement a well articulated dual immersion model developed last year that should ensure that students are able to show mastery of appropriate skills in English and Spanish.
5) For long-term English learners, there was not a fully developed intervention plan in place. Some students at some sites were receiving Language!, but guidelines for implementation were not clear. Many interventions were not being delivered with fidelity, nor were there adequate monitoring and accountability timelines established.
6) Many parent involvement programs have been offered (Latino Family Literacy Project, PIQE, Los Dichos, Project Cornerstone, Adult ESL), however there has not been a clear district purpose articulated for Parent Education for both English only and English learner parents in the district. The result has been special interest trainings without a cohesive message and without any evaluation of effectiveness.
7) All the survey instruments used during the 2008-09 LEAP plan update, especially the Integrated Services Survey (ISS), highlight a systemic problem of special education and general education operating independent of each other. Collaboration is a value that is evident in the districtÕs support of structured teacher planning time every week. Nevertheless, there is a pervasive lack of collaboration between the two divisions, between general education and special education teachers, and a lack of alignment of curriculum, adherence to standards, training and budgeting between the two populations of students. Of the 444 students identified as Long Term English Learners, 116 are also students with disabilities. Consequently, instruction for students with disabilities must be linked to district best practices and high expectations for all students. The entire professional staff must be made to understand that Òall of our children are all of our children.Ó
D. Conclusions from analysis that inform program modifications:
The Instructional Services Department is committed to improving the instructional program for English learners in order to ensure that all students are able to reach English language proficiency and have access to the core grade level content. In January 2010, the Instructional Services Department began implementation of the updated LEAP addendum. Many new practices were put into effect. As the district continues to implement and refine these practices in the areas of instruction, professional development, and parent involvement, we are optimistic that academic achievement for English learners will improve significantly. From thorough examination of English learner data as well as observations and interviews, the Instructional Services Department has identified seven main objectives. The seven objectives for improvement include;
1) Full and
consistent implementation of standards-based ELD instruction to ELs at all
grade levels.
2) Guaranteed access to grade level content through differentiated instruction and scaffolding.
3) All site and district administrators, teachers and coaches will participate in Equity training in order to understand and reflect on the role of ethnicity, language, and class in the teaching and learning context and to implement culturally conscious practices.
4) Development of a comprehensive district Response to Intervention plan specifically targeting students who are basic or below in their achievement.
5) Training and support to ensure that all teachers have the skills to utilize research-based strategies and implement them in daily instruction.
6) A focused parent outreach and training effort to help parents help become active participants in supporting their childrenÕs academic achievement.
7) Development of a comprehensive plan to support English Learners who are also students with disabilities in both the general education and special education context.