Cedarburg School District ELL Program Plan CREATED 2014-15 Michelle Garcia, ELL Coordinator “Where inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin-minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students.” Office for Civil Rights, May 25, 1970 Memorandum Cedarburg School District Mission Statement The mission of the Cedarburg School District is to provide an exemplary education that challenges students in a nurturing environment to become lifelong learners, to be responsible members of a global community and to achieve their goals and dreams.
34
Embed
ELL Action Plan - Cedarburg School District Cedarburg... · 2016-06-14 · Cedarburg School District ELL Program Plan CREATED 2014-15 Michelle Garcia, ELL Coordinator “Where inability
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Cedarburg School District
ELL Program Plan
CREATED 2014-15
Michelle Garcia, ELL Coordinator
“Where inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin-minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students.”
Office for Civil Rights, May 25, 1970 Memorandum
Cedarburg School District Mission Statement
The mission of the Cedarburg School District is to provide an exemplary education that challenges students in a nurturing environment to become lifelong learners, to
be responsible members of a global community and to achieve their goals and dreams.
2 | P a g e
Table of Contents
Mission Statement………………………………………………………………… 3
Goals for the ELL Program…………………………………………………….. . 3
Legal Foundation………………………………………………………………… 4
Educational Rationale…………………………………………………………… 5
Program Procedures
Identification……………………………………………………………….. 6
English Language Proficiency Assessment……………………………….. 8
English Language Learner Program Model……………………………… 9
Staff and Resources……………………………………………………….. 10
Exit Criteria…………………………………………………………......... 10
Monitoring Process……………………………………………………….. 11
Program Evaluation……………………………………………………………… 12
Appendices (ELL Forms)
A. Home Language Survey………………………………………………. 13
B. Parental Approval/Refusal Form for ELL Program…………………. 14
C. ACCESS Score Report (sample)…………………………………....... 16
D. Letter to Accompany ACCESS Parent/Guardian Score Report…....... 17
E. Individual English Language Learner Plan (sample)……………….. 18
F. Exit Letter (English)…………………………………………………. 22
G. Student Monitoring Form (Elementary/Secondary)…………………. 23
H. ELL Program Evaluation Checklist…………………………………. 30
References………………………………………………………………………. 33
3 | P a g e
Mission Statement
The Cedarburg School District serves approximately 3,100 students with approximately 40 English Language
Learners (ELLs). More than fifteen native languages are spoken by students in the district. Despite the high
number of Spanish and Hmong speaking students in Wisconsin, seventy-seven percent of Cedarburg School
District’s culturally and linguistically diverse students speak languages other than Spanish or Hmong. The
assets that these students may bring to the classroom and the school include multilingualism and familiarity
with multiple cultures and ethnicities.
It is the fundamental philosophy of the Cedarburg School District to provide equal educational opportunities to
all students. The purpose of the Cedarburg School District Plan for English Language Learners is to give an
overview of the procedural requirements and services to be provided to students with English language
acquisition needs. The force of legislation and administrative regulation protects the rights of this group of
students to an equal education.
Goals for the ELL Program
The Cedarburg School District, in an effort to best serve its ELL students, outlines the following goals for the
English Language Learner Program. In addition, the section details the collaborative approach that all District
professionals will take to achieve and measure these goals. District professionals include members of the ELL
Department, District teachers, and District administration.
Goal 1: ELL students will develop and maintain listening, speaking, reading and writing competency in English
as outlined in the WIDA (World-class Instructional Design and Assessment) standards and measured by the
ACCESS for ELLs assessment.
Approach: Data from the ACCESS for ELLs assessment will be used to determine students’ exact
competency in each of the four areas. Working in collaboration, regular education teachers will design
units and lessons to meet the needs of ELL students using the framework of district benchmarks and
WIDA standards. Additional resource support for pre-teaching and post-teaching students will help to
achieve this goal.
Goal 2: ELL students will demonstrate proficiency according to state and district benchmarks as measured by
state standardized assessments and curriculum-based measures such as formative and summative assessments.
Approach: Regular education teachers, in cooperation with ELL staff, will monitor student proficiency
on grade level expectations and give feedback to students and families. Assessments are modified and
accommodated to best meet student needs and reflect what students have learned.
Goal 3: ELL students will develop and apply academic language as measured by curriculum-based assessments.
Approach: Academic language development within vocabulary-rich environments will be provided to
students within the general education classroom. For students who need more individualized instruction,
language development and vocabulary instruction will also occur during the supplemental support
services they receive.
Goal 4: ELL students and families will be members of and participate in the school community.
4 | P a g e
Approach: The district will provide opportunities for school, family, and community partnerships to
support families so they can be more actively involved in their child`s educational experiences. The
added benefit is an increased staff capacity to work effectively with families and the community. Co-
curricular activities, such as clubs and athletics, will be accessible to all ELL students.
Goal 5: School District staff will work cooperatively with ELL staff through both collaboration and resources to
maintain best practice in order to build capacity for educating English Language Learners.
Approach: Through job-embedded and additional professional development opportunities, school
personnel will receive training and coaching in cultural competency strategies and approaches aligned
with best practice for English Language Learners.
Legal Foundation
A number of documents detail the federal requirements for the education of LEP students. Brief summaries or
excerpts from key documents are listed.
Title VI, Civil Rights Act, 1964
No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of , or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity receiving federal financial assistance from the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
The Bilingual Education Act, 1968 (Amended in 1974 and 1978)
In order to establish equal educational opportunity for all children, Congress declared that the policy of
the United States would be as follows: (a) to encourage the establishment and operation, where
appropriate, of educational programs that use Bilingual educational practices, techniques, and methods;
and (b) for that purpose, to provide financial assistance to local education agencies, and to state
education agencies for certain purposes.
Equal Education Opportunities Act of 1974
This law requires that students not be denied access to educational opportunities based on race, color,
sex, or national origin. The need for agencies to address language barriers is discussed specifically.
Lau v. Nichols, 1974
This class action suit was brought by parents of non-English-proficient Chinese students against the San
Francisco Unified School District. The Supreme Court ruled that identical education does not constitute
equal education under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court ruled that the district must take
affirmative steps to overcome educational barriers faced by the non-English speaking students.
Castenada v. Pickard, 1981
The major outcome of this case was a set of three guidelines to use to evaluate programming for English
Language Learners (ELLs):
(1) Is the program theoretically sound or experimentally appropriate?
(2) Is the program set up in a way that allows this theory to be put into practice?
(3) Is the program regularly evaluated and adjusted to ensure that it is meeting the linguistic needs of
the students it serves?
5 | P a g e
Phyler v. Doe, 1982
The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying a free public
education to undocumented immigrant children regardless of their immigrant status.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965)
Title III: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students
This portion of NCLB mandates English language proficiency testing of ELLs, discusses a number
of issues related to programming for ELLS, and outlines ELL-specific parent notifications, in
addition to addressing a number of other related issues.
Educational Rationale
The legal rationale provides only part of the reason that special instructional programs for English language
learners (ELLs) are necessary. Equally important is the fact that Cedarburg School District’s ELL program is
program is consistent with best educational practices.
General Considerations
ELLs need not give up their first language to learn a second language.
The development and maintenance of skills and proficiency in the first language enhance acquisition of a
second language. Compared to students who are not proficient in their first language, those who are first-
language proficient will acquire English more quickly, and will learn to read faster and more easily. It is,
therefore, neither useful nor practical, and in many ways counterproductive, to discourage parents of ELLs from
speaking their first language with their children at home. Parents can provide much support in the first language
and should be encouraged to speak and read to their children in any language that is comfortable for them to
use. The school and parents together can plan for additional rich and pleasant experiences for ELLs in English,
both in and out of school.
Lack of English proficiency does not in itself qualify a student for Special Education services.
A student who lacks English language skills is different from an individual with a language disorder. A student
from another culture may have learning styles and concepts of appropriate school and classroom behavior that,
while they may differ from the American mainstream perception of the same, may be appropriate to that
student’s cultural background and experiences. In the course of normal second language acquisition, a student
may not be able to perceive or pronounce certain sounds that do not exist in his or her first language, or that are
not used in the same position. Normal sound patterns and interference from the first language may lead students
to fail to discriminate sounds in the second language. This is not a learning, speech, or hearing disorder. In
addition, a student may acquire oral and written skills in English at different rates. Oral fluency in English may
not be an indication of the overall English language skills necessary for academic achievement. Therefore,
before a student can be served in Special Education, he or she should be assessed in the first language to
determine whether the suspected condition exists in the language and cultural context with which the student is
most familiar and comfortable. A suspected speech disorder, for example, that does not appear in the first
language can be assumed to be a natural characteristic of second-language acquisition. Consequently, the
student should be referred for English as a second language instruction.
It may take a long time for a student to learn English well enough to participate fully in an all-English-
language mainstream classroom. Researchers have concluded that it may take from three to ten years to master sophisticated English in the four
skill areas (listening, speaking, reading, writing) required for full participation and learning in an academic
setting (Cummins, 1991; Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000; Thomas & Collier, 2002). The amount of time will vary
6 | P a g e
with each student’s background, age, experience, and first-language literacy, as well as with the amount of
support provided by school and parents. It is important to note that the oral language needed for basic survival,
while acquired relatively quickly (1 to 3 years), by itself is not sufficient for students to perform well in the
classroom. Early acquisition of basic, predictable oral language—or even slang—may lead mainstream teachers
to believe that an English language learner is reasonably proficient in English. Yet, the student actually may not
know enough English to fully participate academically in an English-medium mainstream classroom. The
acquisition of these Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS) (Cummins, 1979, 1981) is an important
first step in learning English. BICS alone, however, are not sufficient to enable English language learners to
take advantage of the educational opportunities offered in the all-English mainstream classroom. First-language
content instruction, as well as English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction, will provide both academic and
linguistic support for the English language learner until Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP)
(Cummins, 1979, 1981) can be reached and the student is able to actively and fully achieve academic success.
Program Procedures
Identification
1. When a student enrolls in the school district, a home language survey is completed. This survey is
distributed by the school secretary. The home language survey must be completed at the time of
registration. Translations of the Home Language Survey are available in the following languages:
Arabic, Chinese (Mandarin), Hebrew, Hindi, Hmong, French, Korean, Russian, Spanish, Tagalog, and
Vietnamese.
2. Any surveys with languages other than English indicated anywhere on the form are immediately
forwarded to the district ELL staff. In cases such as this, the ELL teacher will first check the student's
Cumulative folder for other records regarding the student's English language proficiency. The
Cumulative folder may hold a program of services, Individual Language Plan, and/or scores from the
ACCESS FOR ELLs assessment from the student's previous school. Next, the ELL teacher will
informally screen the student by meeting and speaking with the student. The ELL teacher will also
contact the parents to determine potential ELL status and enrollment in the school's ELL program. When
the screening and identification process is complete, a copy of the the Home Language Survey will be
returned to the school secretary. The secretary will place the HLS in the student's ELL folder within the
Cumulative folder.
3. At that point, a decision to administer the MODEL screener by the district ELL staff will be made. The
identification and assessment of new ELL students as described will occur within 30 days if the child
enters the district at the beginning of the school year, or within 14 days if the child enters after
September 30th
.
4. The results of the screener are analyzed by the ELL staff to record the proficiency level and determine
if the student qualifies for ELL service.
New students to the district who have been previously enrolled in a Wisconsin school will have ELL and
ACCESS data available that will be used in the identification process, and no MODEL screener will be needed
in most cases. ELL staff will review cumulative folders and acknowledge past ELL services and academic
experience.
7 | P a g e
Each identified English language learner will have the following documents in an ELL record file stored both in
the district office and in the student’s cumulative folder:
Home Language Survey
Parent Permission to Serve Letter
Screener Result
ACCESS Report
Exit Form
Individualized English Language Learner Plan
Monitoring Form
8 | P a g e
English Language Proficiency Assessment
When students enter the district, parents complete a home language survey. If the home language survey
indicates potential ELL needs, the screening process will commence. The identification and assessment of new
ELL students as described will occur within 30 days if the child enters the district at the beginning of the school
year, or within 14 days if the child enters after September 30th
. The Cedarburg School district utilizes
assessment tools from WIDA (World-class Instructional Design and Assessment) Consortium, namely the
MODEL (Measure of Developing English Language). The MODEL assessment will be given to students in
kindergarten through grade 12.
A student's score on one of these screeners will determine his/her need for inclusion in the school's ELL
program and his/her need for district services. The results of this screener will indicate an English proficiency
level of 1 through 6. A score of Level 1 through Level 5 indicates to the ELL teacher that the student is in need
of further English language development and ELL services. The ELL teacher will contact the parents of the
ELL student to obtain written permission for placement into the district's ELL Program. The teacher will
attempt to contact the parent(s) at least three times; each attempt will be documented. If no parent contact can
be made, the student is automatically placed in the ELL Program. Parents who were not successfully contacted
will be invited to attend a conference in October where the school will explain the ELL Program and the
services the child will be receiving.
The services that will best suit the particular ELL student will be determined by the results from the MODEL
screener. The ELL teacher will indicate the student's English language proficiency levels on the Individual
Language Plan (ILP); the ELL teacher will then distribute this ILP to the necessary stakeholders, like the
regular education teachers, guidance counselor, parents, and the school principal. In addition, the screener will
be placed in the student's Cumulative folder.
There will be cases where the Home Language Survey indicates a need for screening by the MODEL, yet the
child scores at a level higher than Level 5.5. When this occurs, the student most likely does not need ELL
services from the district and is not Limited English Proficient (LEP). The screener results and corresponding
decision will be reported, stapled to the HLS, and placed in the student's Cumulative folder. In the case that a
parent refuses ELL services for the student, the signed form will be kept in the student's Cumulative folder.
New students to the district who have been previously enrolled in a Wisconsin school will have ELL and
ACCESS data available that will be used in the identification process. No MODEL screener will be needed in
most of these cases.
ELL assessments are administered by certified test administrators (ELL coordinator, reading teachers), who can
receive training through the local CESA (Cooperative Educational Service Agency) or online.
All ELL records are kept with the student’s cumulative records.
Assessment Tools:
WIDA MODEL : Measure of Developing English Language
ACCESS for ELLs: Measures language proficiency in content areas
Past Academic Record
WKCE scores/Badger Exam scores
MAP scores
Teacher observations (result of consulting with the teacher)
9 | P a g e
English Language Learner Program Model
As shown in Table 1, the Cedarburg School District is dedicated to providing a high-quality educational
experience to English Language Learners. The table is composed by grade level and details the services,
approaches, and curriculum that will be used to teach ELL students.
Table 1. The Program of ELL Services for Cedarburg School District
Grade
Level English Language Development Content Learning & Standards-
Based Curriculum
K-12
Content-based language instruction in which English is taught through vocabulary related
to the content areas; aimed at proficiency in English and academic achievement
Literacy-based instruction in which ELL teacher teaches language goals based on the
WIDA standards
Co-taught content-based instruction in which ELL teacher teaches language goals based
on the WIDA standards, in collaboration with the regular education teacher
Collaboration with the regular education teacher to modify curriculum to enrich language
development
Small group instruction through push-in ELL programming for students with limited or no
command of the English language (students with LEP levels of 1 or 2)
Students are clustered to increase access to language instruction
ELL teacher provides instructional materials to promote language development
Wisconsin Academic Standards
are universal standards and
benchmarks
Research-based comprehensive
literacy and math programs
6-12 additionally
Study hall/resource hour for ELL students (in collaboration with mainstream teachers) –
includes pre and post teaching concepts, monitoring daily work progress, reviewing for
A certified ESL teacher will provide content based/consultative ESL, pull-out ESL, and push-in ESL to content
and special area teachers. The staff hours are determined by proficiency level of students and overall student
enrollment.
Materials and Resources
Core instructional materials are purchased through local funds. Supplemental materials are purchased through
Title III funds. Materials are purchased based upon students` needs.
Examples of materials include, but are not limited to:
Traditional textbooks
Modified texts
Native language texts
Web based instructional materials
ESL content materials by subject area
Audio books
Bilingual supplemental books (novels, fiction)
Computer software
Peer tutoring
After school study support
Scheduled teacher tutoring time
Parent / Family communication aides
The district`s ELL staff will review the resources needed quarterly.
Exit Criteria
The Cedarburg School District uses input from Wisconsin's Department of Public Instruction to determine the
exit criteria. DPI issued a baseline set of criteria that must be met for a student to be eligible for exiting a
district's ELL program. The District, in an effort to fully evaluate the student's growth in English proficiency,
uses additional data to develop its own exit criteria.
The Department of Public Instruction issued the following ELL mandate, titled Criteria for Reclassification of
English Language Learners into Fully English Language Proficient Status (Exiting)
A) AUTOMATIC RECLASSIFICATION (EXITING) A student is automatically reclassified as Fully English Proficient, or no longer identified as ELL/LEP in
the statewide Individual Student Enrollment System (ISES), when the student reaches: ELP 6 in grades K-12 by achieving a composite (overall) score of 6.0 on ACCESS for ELLs, Wisconsin’s
English-language proficiency assessment;
OR ELP 6 in grades 4- 12 by achieving a composite (overall) score of 5.0 or above plus a minimum literacy sub
score of 5.0 or above on the ACCESS for ELLs.
Students in grades K-12 who receive composite (overall) scores of 6.0, and students in grades 4-12 who
receive composite (overall) score of 5.0 or above plus literacy sub score of 5.0 or above on the ACCESS
11 | P a g e
for ELLs will automatically attain language level code of 6.0 in ISES in subsequent collections and will
no longer be classified as English Language Learners/Limited English Proficient.
B) MANUAL RECLASSIFICATION
Students may be manually reclassified from:
1) Limited English Proficient (ELP 5) to Fully English Proficient (ELP 6). Students may be manually
reclassified by districts to Fully English Proficient status (ELP 6) when the student achieves a composite
(overall) score of 5.0 or above on the ACCESS for ELLs and the student shows clear evidence of English
proficiency, but was not automatically reclassified because the student did not meet the Literacy subscore
benchmark.
2) Fully English Proficient (ELP 6) to Limited English Proficient (ELP 5) . Students who were
automatically reclassified to Fully English Proficient status (ELP 6) may be manually reclassified to ELP
5 and maintain their English Language Learner (ELL)/Limited English Proficiency (LEP) status. If
observations and academic performance indicate that a student should maintain their LEP status, the
language level code in ISES (Individual Student Enrollment System) may be manually changed to an ELP
5, continuing the student’s LEP status.
The determination for manually reclassifying a student’s ELP status should be based on whether the
student has sufficiently developed the academic language to demonstrate understanding in English.2
The district has evaluated at least two pieces of evidence of academic performance that support the
reclassification decision and keeps evidence on file in the district for at least two years. Evidence
should include demonstrations of grade-level proficiency, without the use of adapted or modified
English materials or EL accommodations on standardized measures such as: *District benchmark examinations (in multiple content areas);
*Writing samples or performance assessments scored with formal, standardized rubrics;
*State assessments at applicable grade levels; and
*Academic records such as semester or end-of-course grades.
Evaluation for a reclassification decision should include the bilingual and/or ESL teacher, classroom
teachers, parents and other relevant staff. Parent(s) and educators should agree whether language is no
longer a barrier to the students’ ability to access academic content. Evidence from assessments should
support educators’ judgment of English proficiency. Source: http://dpi.wi.gov/esea/pdf/bul_0702.pdf
Furthermore, the Cedarburg School District examines data and results from the ACCESS for ELLs assessment,
Wisconsin Knowledge and Content Exams (WKCE), district MAP assessments, classroom grades, and
anecdotal teacher data when determining a student’s eligibility for exit or re-entry into the ELL program.
Teachers and parents are consulted prior to exiting from ELL services. The ELL staff is responsible for
completing the Exit Form and contacting the parents. The phone call to parents is accompanied by a letter sent
to the parents explaining the student's readiness for general education with no extra services and requesting a
signature of acceptance. The ELL staff places a copy of the Exit Form in the student’s Cumulative folder and
also updates any relevant forms found there. The student is, at this point, formally exited from the ELL
Program.
Monitoring Process
“Newly English proficient students must be monitored during the first two years after being classified as fully
English proficient, or formerly Limited English proficient, LEP.” - DPI source July 17th
, 2008
All former ELL students who formally exit the ELL Program are to be monitored for two (2) years. The act of
monitoring their progress ensures their continued language development – and their success in general
9. The student shows evidence of difficulty with language. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10. The student has discipline problems that interfere with his/her academic progress.
1st 2nd
Have ESL strategies been implemented to respond to the language needs of the former ELL? Y N Y N
Do you recommend that this student be considered for reclassification as an ELL? Y N Y N
If you have additional comments, attach them to this form when you return it into the ESL teacher. Make sure you identify which monitoring year and quarter you are commenting on.
2nd Year of Monitoring
Teacher’s Initials:
1st Semester
______
2nd Semester
______
Semester
Rate the student’s performance in each of the following areas: 1 = never 2 = seldom 3 = sometimes 4 = often 5 = always
9. The student shows evidence of difficulty with language. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10. The student has discipline problems that interfere with his/her academic progress.
1st 2nd
Have ESL strategies been implemented to respond to the language needs of the former ELL? Y N Y N
Do you recommend that this student be considered for reclassification as an ELL? Y N Y N
If you have additional comments, attach them to this form when you return it into the ESL teacher. Make sure you identify which monitoring year and quarter you are commenting on.
25 | P a g e
Appendix G (continued):
Student Name: ______________________________
To be completed by appropriate ESL staff
1st year of Monitoring 1st 2
nd
I received and reviewed this form. (ESL staff member initials)
__________
__________
__________
__________
Complete the following items only if the information on this form indicates that the former ELL is struggling:
I have collaborated with the classroom teacher to incorporate instructional strategies to respond to the language needs of the former ELL. (if the answer is “Yes”, describe the collaboration in the comments section)
1st
Yes No
Comments:
2nd
Yes No
Comments:
NOTE: A student may not be recommended for reclassification if collaboration between the ESL and classroom teacher has not taken place.
1st 2
nd
I recommend that this student be reclassified as an ELL.
If a recommendation is made to reclassify, have the parents been notified? YES NO
2nd year of Monitoring 1st 2
nd
I received and reviewed this form. (ESL staff member initials)
__________
__________
__________
__________
Complete the following items only if the information on this form indicates that the former ELL is struggling:
I have collaborated with the classroom teacher to incorporate instructional strategies to respond to the language needs of the former ELL. (if the answer is “Yes”, describe the collaboration in the comments section)
1st
Yes No
Comments:
2nd
Yes No
Comments:
NOTE: A student may not be recommended for reclassification if collaboration between the ESL and classroom teacher has not taken place.
1st 2
nd
I recommend that this student be reclassified as an ELL.
If a recommendation is made to reclassify, have the parents been notified? YES NO
26 | P a g e
Appendix G (continued):
Post-Exit ELL Monitoring Form (Middle/Secondary)
Pages 1 and 4 to be completed by the appropriate ELL staff
Student Name
Monitoring Year (circle):
1st year | 2nd year Grade Academic Year
Name of Language Arts teacher
The classroom teacher is responsible for completing this form at quarterly intervals and returning it to the ELL teacher for review.
Name of Mathematics teacher
Name of Science teacher
Name of Social Studies teacher
Name of ELL teacher The ELL teacher is responsible for reviewing this form each time that it is completed by the classroom teacher.
ELL Coordinator (Responsible for ensuring that this form is completed each quarter and maintained in the student’s academic record)
19. The student shows evidence of difficulty with language. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
20. The student has discipline problems that interfere with his/her academic progress. - - - - - - - -
1st 2nd
Have ESL strategies been implemented to respond to the language needs of the former ELL? Y N Y N
Do you recommend that this student be considered for reclassification as an ELL? Y N Y N
If you have additional comments, attach them to this form when you return it into the ESL teacher. Make sure you identify which monitoring year and quarter you are commenting on.
Mathematics Teacher’s Initials:
1st Semester
______
2nd Semester
______
Semester
Rate the student’s performance in each of the following areas 1 = never 2 = seldom 3 = sometimes 4 = often 5 = always
9. The student shows evidence of difficulty with language. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10. The student has discipline problems that interfere with his/her academic progress. - - - - - - - -
1st 2nd
Have ESL strategies been implemented to respond to the language needs of the former ELL? Y N Y N
Do you recommend that this student be considered for reclassification as an ELL? Y N Y N
If you have additional comments, attach them to this form when you return it into the ESL teacher. Make sure you identify which monitoring year and quarter you are commenting on.
28 | P a g e
Appendix G (continued):
Student Name: _______________________________ Monitoring Year (circle): 1st year | 2nd year
Science Teacher’s Initials:
1st Semester
______
2nd Semester
______
Semester
Rate the student’s performance in each of the following areas 1 = never 2 = seldom 3 = sometimes 4 = often 5 = always
9. The student shows evidence of difficulty with language. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10. The student has discipline problems that interfere with his/her academic progress. - - - - - - - -
1st 2nd
Have ESL strategies been implemented to respond to the language needs of the former ELL? Y N Y N
Do you recommend that this student be considered for reclassification as an ELL? Y N Y N
If you have additional comments, attach them to this form when you return it into the ESL teacher. Make sure you identify which monitoring year and quarter you are commenting on.
Social Studies Teacher’s Initials:
1st Semester
______
2nd Semester
______
Semester
Rate the student’s performance in each of the following areas 1 = never 2 = seldom 3 = sometimes 4 = often 5 = always
9. The student shows evidence of difficulty with language. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10. The student has discipline problems that interfere with his/her academic progress. - - - - - - - -
1st 2nd
Have ESL strategies been implemented to respond to the language needs of the former ELL? Y N Y N
Do you recommend that this student be considered for reclassification as an ELL? Y N Y N
If you have additional comments, attach them to this form when you return it into the ESL teacher. Make sure you identify which monitoring year and quarter you are commenting on.
29 | P a g e
Appendix G (continued):
Student Name: _______________________________ Monitoring Year (circle): 1st year | 2nd year
To be completed by appropriate ELL staff
I received and reviewed this completed form.
1st 2
nd
__________ (Initial)
___________ (Initial)
Complete the following items only if the information on this form indicates that the former ELL is struggling:
I have collaborated with the classroom teacher to incorporate instructional strategies to respond to the language needs of the former ELL. (if the answer is “Yes”, describe the collaboration in the comments section)
1st
Yes No
Comments:
2nd
Yes No
Comments:
NOTE: A student may not be recommended for reclassification if collaboration between the ESL and classroom teacher has not taken place.
1st 2
nd
I recommend that this student be reclassified as an ELL.
YES NO YES NO
Additional Recommendation(s):
If a recommendation is made to reclassify, have the parents been notified? YES NO
30 | P a g e
Appendix H: ELL Program Evaluation Checklist
Program Evaluation: School Improvement Planning Checklist
School/District__________________________________ Date ____________________
We must ensure that our programs whether small or large are in fact effective since school districts are being
held accountable for their language acquisition (Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) and
knowledge of academic content area (Adequately Yearly Progress (AYP), how do we help students meet the
language and academic requirements at the same time?
As each school begins to assess its programming for ELL students, it is important to remember 3 main points:
It takes the whole school, including administrators to address the ELL students. ELL students are within
the school and school system, not just in a “program”.
It takes teachers willing and able to give differentiated instruction to meet the needs of ELL students.
ELL students are required to have content area instruction and are in regular classrooms in most
districts.
All students will succeed if kept to high expectations. ELL students are not necessarily limited in
education.
Please use the following questions below to evaluate your programs and services for ELL students. It is
essential that each school keep accurate and up-to-date data for each ELL student. ELL student growth should
be measured through language proficiency testing, as well as academic content testing and classroom grades.
Also, please align your practices to the recently published Bulletins, Title III-Related ESEA Information