|
|
THE STATE
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY
OF THE STATE OF |
|
TO: |
EMSC-VESID Committee |
|
FROM: |
Jean C. Stevens |
|
SUBJECT: |
Closing the Achievement Gap: Strategies to Improve the
Performance of LEP/ELL Students |
|
DATE: |
November 21, 2006 |
|
STRATEGIC
GOAL: |
Goals 1 and 2 |
|
AUTHORIZATION(S): |
|
SUMMARY
Issue for Discussion
Are there additional strategies that staff
should implement to improve the performance of Limited English
Proficient/English Language Learners (LEP/ELL)
students?
Reason(s) for Consideration
Review of Policy.
Proposed Handling
This question will come before the Regents
EMSC-VESID Committee for discussion on December 4, 2006.
Procedural History
The Board of Regents and the Department are
committed to raising the academic achievement of all students and closing the
gap in student academic performance.
Building the capacity of schools to strengthen educational services for
LEP/ELL students is critical in reducing the gap. To this end, the Regents and the
Department adopted a policy on the performance of LEP/ELL students. Periodic reports are presented to the
Regents on implementation of this policy.
The last comprehensive report was submitted in March 2005. Action step 3 of the P-16 reform
strategy calls for improving outcomes for LEP/ELL students by setting
performance targets, promoting effective practices, and holding schools
accountable for dramatic improvements.
The second-year data on the newly developed and improved NYSESLAT is
being used by staff to set performance targets in accordance with the federal
Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAO). This data permits the Department to set
realistic targets to which schools will be
accountable.
Background Information
In October 2004, 10 strategies were
identified to improve the performance of LEP/ELL students. The Department was asked to develop an
implementation plan and to report periodically on the progress in implementing
the 10 strategies. This report will provide an update on how the fourth strategy
is being implemented. This strategy
refers to the organization and dissemination of New York State English as a
Second Language Achievement Test (NYSESLAT) data and the results of the NYSESLAT
that was administered in May 2006 and a summary of the four action steps that
will help districts improve those results.
Attachment A provides an analysis of the
performance of LEP/ELL students on the NYSESLAT. The Department is
developing a consistent measurement tool (second year of a five-year development
plan) to assess the performance of LEP/ELL students. This assessment has
enabled the Office of Bilingual Education and Foreign Language Studies to begin
to analyze the performance of schools that provide instruction to LEP/ELL
students. As the individual student
record system is implemented, it will provide additional and more refined data
on which to base recommendations for effective programs for the education of
LEP/ELL students.
Attachment B provides a description of the
steps the Department has taken to make sure that the data are used by teachers
and administrators to inform classroom practice and to identify high-and
low-performing programs. In order
to focus the work of the Office of Bilingual Education and Foreign Language
Studies, four key elements have been identified to assist districts to improve
the performance of LEP/ELL students.
Attachment C is the complete listing of the
Board of Regents strategies adopted in September 2004 to improve LEP/ELL
performance.
Recommendation
Staff recommend that the Board
of Regents review the data and strategies and provide direction to staff on
changes to implementation of these strategies. Staff will analyze this data and submit to the
Board of Regents at a future meeting revised AMAOs for review and approval. We will also present follow-up
information and data on the status and effectiveness of the 10 strategies, the
results of
Timetable for Implementation
Not
applicable.
Attachments
Attachment
A
Summary
of 2006
(Preliminary Statewide
Results)
The NYSESLAT operational test was
administered in Spring 2006 to 192,425 LEP/ELL students in 3,384 public schools
and 527 districts across
1)
Description of the 2006 ELL
Population
|
Table 1: Distribution of 2006 LEP/ELL
Students by Grade Level | ||
Grade |
Number |
Percent |
|
K |
24,102 |
12.5 |
|
1 |
25,632 |
13.3 |
|
2 |
23,046 |
12.0 |
|
3 |
18,860 |
9.8 |
|
4 |
14,896 |
7.7 |
|
5 |
13,227 |
6.9 |
|
6 |
10,925 |
5.7 |
|
7 |
12,111 |
6.3 |
|
8 |
12,118 |
6.3 |
|
9 |
14,148 |
7.4 |
|
10 |
12,659 |
6.6 |
|
11 |
6,808 |
3.5 |
|
12 |
2,667 |
1.4 |
|
Ungraded K-6 |
818 |
0.4 |
|
Ungraded 7-12 |
277 |
0.1 |
|
Unspecified |
131 |
0.1 |
|
State
Total: |
192,425 |
100.0 |
|
Table
2: Distribution of LEP/ELL Students
by Need/Resource Category | ||
|
Need/Resource
Category |
Number |
Percent |
|
|
134,300 |
69.8 |
|
Big 4
Cities |
10,160 |
5.3 |
|
High Need
Urban/Suburban |
19,671 |
10.2 |
|
High Need
Rural |
1,218 |
0.6 |
|
Average
Need |
17,562 |
9.1 |
|
Low
Need |
9,003 |
4.7 |
|
Charter
Schools |
511 |
0.3 |
|
Total: |
192,425 |
100.0 |
Table
4: Distribution of LEP/ELL Students
by Home Language | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
(N =
192,425) |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Home
Language |
Number |
Percent | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Spanish |
113,062 |
58.8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
English |
11,994 |
6.2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chinese |
4,178 |
2.2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bengali |
3,787 |
2.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arabic |
3,585 |
1.9 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Russian |
3,377 |
1.8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Haitian
Creole |
3,286 |
1.7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Korean |
2,021 |
1.1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
French |
1,591 |
0.8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Albanian |
1,423 |
0.7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Polish |
1,308 |
0.7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Punjabi |
1,101 |
0.6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The 2006 LEP/ELL student population reported
over 160 home languages. Table 4
shows only those home languages reported by 1,000 LEP/ELL students or more. The
rest of the languages were reported by less than 1,000 students.
2) English
Proficiency Levels
NYSESLAT yields four raw scores for each of
the four modalities as well as two scale scores for the two modality
combinations: Listening and Speaking (L/S); and Reading and Writing (R/W).
LEP/ELL students receive two designations of proficiency levels for L/S and R/W
respectively based on their scale scores on the two modality combinations. LEP/ELL students’ overall proficiency
level is determined by the lower of the two proficiency levels. For example, if
a student scored Proficient on L/S and Advanced on R/W, the student’s overall
proficiency level is Advanced Level not Proficient Level. The distributions of
LEP/ELL students scoring at each of the four proficiency levels by grade level
in L/S, R/W, and overall proficiency level are summarized in the following three
tables.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOTE:
The total Ns are different for some tables due to missing data. For
example, Table 5 on listening and speaking proficiency level shows a N of 189,981 instead of 192,425,
because some students were missing either listening or speaking scores,
therefore, they did not receive proficiency level designation for listening and
speaking. Another example is Table 10. Only 189,461 out of the 192,425 LEP/ELLs
reported on the Years of Service variable.
|
Table 6:
Distribution of LEP/ELL Students by Reading/Writing Proficiency
Level and Grade (N =
190,595) | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(% Within Grade Level)
| ||||
|
Grade |
Beginning |
Intermediate |
Advance |
Proficient |
|
K |
40.5 |
40.6 |
10.0 |
8.8 |
|
01 |
16.1 |
28.1 |
27.0 |
28.7 |
|
02 |
12.1 |
32.2 |
33.8 |
21.9 |
|
03 |
9.6 |
22.2 |
39.5 |
28.7 |
|
04 |
9.9 |
20.1 |
38.4 |
31.6 |
|
05 |
14.3 |
21.8 |
38.1 |
25.8 |
|
06 |
18.5 |
24.8 |
32.6 |
24.1 |
|
07 |
22.0 |
33.4 |
27.3 |
17.3 |
|
08 |
23.3 |
34.5 |
20.6 |
21.6 |
|
09 |
14.5 |
42.5 |
23.9 |
19.0 |
|
10 |
8.4 |
40.3 |
28.7 |
22.7 |
|
11 |
4.8 |
43.3 |
26.9 |
24.9 |
|
12 |
4.4 |
50.7 |
22.7 |
22.2 |
|
Ungraded K-6 |
55.2 |
26.6 |
13.7 |
4.5 |
|
Ungraded 7-12 |
84.8 |
12.5 |
2.7 |
0.0 |
|
State
Total: |
17.4 |
31.8 |
28.3 |
22.6 |
|
Table 7:
Distribution of LEP/ELL Students by Overall Proficiency Level and
Grade (N =
189,461) | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(% Within Grade Level)
| ||||
|
Grade |
Beginning |
Intermediate |
Advance |
Proficient |
|
K |
41.2 |
41.8 |
11.7 |
5.3 |
|
01 |
16.6 |
30.5 |
36.7 |
16.3 |
|
02 |
12.3 |
32.5 |
37.4 |
17.7 |
|
03 |
10.2 |
22.8 |
47.5 |
19.5 |
|
04 |
10.8 |
20.9 |
47.3 |
21.0 |
|
05 |
15.1 |
22.7 |
42.8 |
19.4 |
|
06 |
20.3 |
25.9 |
37.7 |
16.1 |
|
07 |
22.6 |
33.4 |
30.0 |
14.0 |
|
08 |
24.2 |
34.5 |
23.6 |
17.7 |
|
09 |
20.4 |
40.5 |
25.9 |
13.2 |
|
10 |
12.9 |
43.7 |
29.0 |
14.3 |
|
11 |
7.8 |
47.9 |
29.5 |
14.8 |
|
12 |
7.9 |
56.9 |
22.5 |
12.7 |
|
Ungraded K-6 |
55.8 |
26.5 |
15.2 |
2.5 |
|
Ungraded 7-12 |
85.6 |
12.6 |
1.8 |
0.0 |
|
State
Total: |
18.8 |
32.8 |
33.0 |
15.4 |
3) Attaining
English Proficiency
LEP/ELL students need to attain English
proficiency in order to exit ESL/bilingual services. Attaining English proficiency is defined
by scores at the Proficient Level on both the L/S and R/W components of the
NYSESLAT. In 2006, a total of
29,216 of all LEP/ELL students (15.4%) who took the NYSESLAT scored at the
Proficient Level on both the L/S and R/W components, compared to the 11.3
percent exiting rate in 2005. The
distributions of LEP/ELL students who attained English proficiency by
need/resource category, grade level, and years of service are detailed in the
tables below.
|
|
| |||
|
|
Table 8:
Number and Percent of LEP/ELL Students Exiting | |||
|
|
(N =
189,461) | |||
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Need/Resource
Category |
Number |
Percent | |
|
|
|
19,060 |
14.4 | |
|
|
Big 4
Cities |
1,225 |
12.6 | |
|
|
High Need
Urban/Suburban |
2,941 |
15.2 | |
|
|
High Need
Rural |
202 |
16.8 | |
|
|
Average
Need |
3,535 |
20.3 | |
|
|
Low
Need |
2,167 |
24.4 | |
|
|
Unspecified |
86 |
17.7 | |
|
|
State
Total: |
29,216 |
15.4 | |
|
Table 9:
Number and Percent of LEP/ELL Students Exiting by
Grade | ||
|
(N =
189,461) | ||
|
Grade |
Count |
% |
|
K |
1,256 |
5.3 |
|
01 |
4,141 |
16.3 |
|
02 |
4,055 |
17.7 |
|
03 |
3,666 |
19.5 |
|
04 |
3,107 |
21.0 |
|
05 |
2,547 |
19.4 |
|
06 |
1,749 |
16.1 |
|
07 |
1,681 |
14.0 |
|
08 |
2,118 |
17.7 |
|
09 |
1,809 |
13.2 |
|
10 |
1,762 |
14.3 |
|
11 |
986 |
14.8 |
|
12 |
328 |
12.7 |
|
Ungraded K-6 |
11 |
2.5 |
|
Ungraded 7-12 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
State
Total: |
29,216 |
15.4 |
|
Table 10:
Number and Percent of LEP/ELL Students
Exiting by Years of ESL Service
| ||
|
(N =
189,461) | ||
|
Year of
ESL Service |
Number |
Percent |
|
Less than
One |
1,085 |
9.9 |
|
One
Year |
3,396 |
8.6 |
|
Two
Years |
5,491 |
16.9 |
|
Three of More
Years |
15,280 |
20.6 |
Attachment
B
Actions to Close the Gap for Limited English
Proficient Students
To assist districts to improve results in a way that
will have the greatest impact statewide, and in accordance with the P-16
initiative to provide technical assistance to low performing schools, the Office
of Bilingual Education and Foreign Language Studies has identified the following
strategies:
- Hold schools and districts accountable for
meeting improvement targets in English language acquisition. Raise the level
of improvement required over time.
·
The Department
has in place rigorous targets to measure and raise the expected level of
performance of LEP/ELL students. Schools will continue to be held accountable
for meeting adequate yearly progress (AYP) and annual measurable achievement
objectives (AMAOS). Through this accountability system, schools must report the
results of student achievement in English language arts. Schools that fail to
meet the expected targets will be identified and required to submit an
improvement plan. If, after four consecutive years, such schools still do not
meet the established accountability requirements, the Department will require
them to modify their curriculum or redirect/eliminate funds, and replace
educational personnel.
·
The U.S. Department of Education (USDOE)
determined that
·
The six New York
City BETACS with the collaboration of the New York City Department of Education,
Division of English Language Learners, have been providing professional
development conferences and workshops for teachers and administrators around the
city. The focus this year has been the high schools that have been identified as
in need of improvement based on the NYSESLAT. Schools have been selected in each
of the BETAC service areas in which the School Quality Review will be
implemented.
- Increase monitoring to ensure that
students are receiving all required time and services in English and native
language instruction. Report
results. The Regents will determine consequences for
noncompliance.
·
Monitoring
activities will be increased and will focus on the implementation of the
Department’s approved Language Allocation Policy. The monitoring plan for 2006-2007 will
include the Big 5 and districts with large numbers of LEP/ELL students. The
assessment as to how the districts are implementing this policy begins with the
review of the district’s Comprehensive Plans. Districts that fail to implement
the policy will not be granted approval of their Part 154 Comprehensive Plan and
will not be entitled to claim State or federal funds for the education of
LEP/ELL students.
· To strengthen the linkages between bilingual education and the seven State learning standards areas, in February 2006 the Office of Bilingual Education and Foreign Language Studies became part of the Office of Curriculum and Instructional Services. Through this alignment, and that office’s strong ties to the Office of State Assessment, we will ensure that the needs of English language learners are considered in all curricular and assessment policy discussions.
- Improve the quality of bilingual and
English as Second Language (ESL) teachers through new incentives and expanded
professional development.
Certification
Requirements:
·
Increased collaboration with the Office of
Teaching Initiatives will continue to examine current requirements and obstacles that prevent the recruitment,
certification and retention of bilingual/ESL teachers. The Intensive Teacher
Institute will continue to provide financial support to those teachers seeking a
bilingual education or ESL certificate.
Recruitment:
·
The Department
has provided IDEA funds ($898,395.00) to the New York City Department of
Education to support the preparation of special education and bilingual special
education teachers.
·
The Department
has expanded outreach to minority populations through events like the Forum on
the Future of Hispanic Education, the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus, the Angelo
Del Toro Hispanic Youth Leadership Institute, the Somas El Futuro Conference
sponsored by the Puerto Rican/Hispanic Assembly/Senate Task Force and the
Hispanic Heritage Month Celebration among others.
·
The
efforts of the Office of Teaching Initiatives to increase the pool of qualified
teachers in
·
The
creation of the Intensive Teachers institute (ITI) will address the shortage of
bilingual and ELL teachers in general education.
Expert Advice:
·
A selected,
experienced group of practitioners in the field of bilingual education/English
as a second language was formed in March 2006. This group of experts will meet
periodically with the Commissioner and staff to keep them abreast of the latest
issues surrounding the education of LEP/ELL students and offering their sound
advice and recommendations for action.
·
For the past
four years, the Bilingual and ESL Teacher Leadership Academy (BETLA) have worked
with a group of teachers each year to develop mentor teachers and leaders for
English language learners. The programs consist of a one-month intensive summer
program and monthly classroom visits and meetings throughout the year. We are
considering increasing the BETLA funding next year to increase the number of
participating teachers.
Professional
Development:
·
For the
2006-2007 academic year, four regional bilingual/ESL Teacher Institutes for
teachers and administrators of LEP/ELL programs will be held. Over 1,500 are expected to
participate in these Teacher Institutes.
This year’s focused agenda is on literacy, administration of the 2006
NYSESLAT, and accountability.
·
The 14 BETACs
have conducted statewide professional development for Bilingual and ESL
teachers, mainstream teachers, administrators, students, parents and clinicians,
and have reached 10,000 participants statewide. The professional development
addresses issues of effective strategies for the education of LEP/ELL students,
the content area, cross training with parent networks, understanding,
identifying and educating bilingual special education students,
etc.
·
The Department
has developed a document that provides information on the history, culture and
education systems of the
4.
Increase
outreach with the New York City Department of Education to provide better
information to parents on ESL and bilingual programs that can improve the
parents’ own levels of reading, writing, and speaking
English.
·
The
Department will continue to work with the New York City Department of Education
to expand Title III funded activities that provide outreach to parents of
immigrant students and LEP/ELL students. The development and dissemination of
school-related information to parents, in the language they understand, will
also continue. The Department, in coordination with the New York City Department
of Education, has developed a tool kit for parents (in different languages) to
keep them informed and engaged in school-related activities associated with
their children’s education.
·
Information on the Parent and Family
Partnership Policy undergoing revisions for the Board of Regents is being
disseminated in several languages.
Once the policy is approved, it will be translated in the top five
languages spoken by parents of LEP/ELL students in
Attachment
C
Strategies to Build Capacity
to
September
2004
- Improve the quality of teachers of English
as a second language (ESL) and bilingual education programs by developing a
Transitional B certificate program to enable teachers certified in other areas
to teach ESL and bilingual education, and expand professional development for
teachers and building administrators on the best practices and strategies for
instructing ELLs. These actions
will be undertaken in cooperation with the New York City Department of
Education (NYCDOE) and other school districts serving high concentrations of
ELLs.
- Improve the quality of ESL and bilingual
education curriculum and instruction by disseminating
- Increase monitoring by both the SED and
NYCDOE to ensure that language allocation requirements are in place - i.e.,
the proportion of time spent on English and native language instruction at
different grade levels.
- Organize and disseminate data from the New
York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test (NYSESLAT). Take steps to make sure the data is
used by teachers and administrators to improve classroom practice and to
identify high-and low-performing programs.
- Review high school equivalency programs
that serve ELLs to determine if these programs should be subject to the same
intensive English requirements that exist for regular high school level
programs for ELLs.
- Advocate for additional funding from the
federal government and State Legislature to expand dual language programs and
create a program of educational support services for students who transition
from ELL status into the regular education program. Also, institute a process for
reviewing all entitlement funding programs under No Child Left Behind that can
be used to support the needs of ELLs in all large city and high-need school
districts. In 2004-2005, SED
reviewed the use of Title III funds as a part of a consolidated application
from these districts.
- Support the New York City Department of
Education and other school districts serving high concentrations of ELLs in
the training of principals and other administrators to improve their awareness
of the needs of ELLs and to inform them of the most effective instructional
strategies.
- Work with the New York City Department of
Education and other school districts serving high concentrations of ELLs to
establish better information for parents on English as a second language and
bilingual programs and on programs that can improve parents’ own levels of
reading, writing and speaking English.
- Work with the New York City Department of
Education to identify new funding for immigrant students, which can be
allocated to improve instruction and support services for English-speaking
- Create a Committee of
Practitioners to advise the Commissioner and the Regents on implementation of
State policy on ELLs.