Title III Evaluation Report - Wikispacesocpsesolevaluation.wikispaces.com/file/view/latest+vers… · Web viewTitle III Evaluation Report. ... the education of English Language

November 4, 2009

Title III Evaluation ReportOrange County Public Schools

I. Project Summary

Orange County Public Schools (OCPS) received funding under Title III of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act to enhance the education of English Language Learners (ELL) also known as limited English proficient (LEP)* students during the 2007-2008 school year. The purpose of Title III is to ensure that LEP students develop English proficiency and meet the same academic achievement standards that other children are expected to meet.

Needs Assessment

In order to determine the types of research-based supplementary services and materials that are needed to provide quality education to English Language Learners (ELL) and former ELL, the OCPS Multilingual Student Education Services (MSES) Department utilized different research and planning activities. This process included a Teacher Training Needs Assessment, an Instructional Materials Needs Assessment, an analysis of the Peer Coaching Classroom Walkthroughs and an analysis of Support Services Survey gathered for all Title III Instructional Coaches and Student Advocates/Parent Liaisons. Input from the parents/community was gathered using a Parent Training Needs Assessment and a review of a written journal containing feedback from parents who attended the Family Leadership Institute. Only services, instructional programs and materials that have been proven to impact positively the linguistic, social/cultural and academic needs of ELL and former ELL are sponsored with Title III funds to meet compliance requirements.

An analysis was also completed on the levels of English language proficiency from the district/school level reports such as the CELLA, Aprenda, DIBELS, IDEL, and Edusoft assessments. For academic achievement we reviewed the statewide assessments of FCAT and CELLA, and the disaggregated AYP reports. The research and planning activities conducted were used to identify the linguistic and academic needs of ELL and former ELL at each school, to identify the linguistic and academic needs of ELL and former ELL at each school and to identify the specialized training needs for instructional staff, parents, and administrators.

Need 1: Based on test results, ELLs are still not attaining minimum proficiency at sufficient levels in reading, mathematics and science. Challenges still exist in the areas of literacy levels for students arriving in our schools. In addition to the previous needs, the graduation rate for ELL and former ELL students needs to continue increasing steadily.

Evidence: According to the district’s 2006-2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report, 35% of ELL are scoring at or above grade level in reading, and 40% of ELL are scoring at or above grade level in mathematics and 38% in science. These percentages are below the acceptable AYP percentages (44% and 50% respectively). Based on AYP data, the graduation rate was 46% for ELL. Source: Florida Department of Education AYP Report. This will be updated when the 2007-2008 data becomes available from the FLDOE. The Student Advocates/Parent Liaisons will continue to provide support services to 32 middle schools and 17 high schools in the district. When feasible, we will continue to purchase additional supplementary materials in the student’s native language in order

1

November 4, 2009

to provide ELL with comprehensible instruction in reading, math, and science that will transfer to academic success in English.

Need 2: Teachers have requested and demonstrated a need for (1) more specialized training in best practices to meet the educational needs of the ELL, (2) how culture impacts the academic performance of ELL, and (3) differentiating instruction by second language proficiency levels.

Evidence: Teacher training analysis shows that all ESOL teachers are in the process of becoming certified or are already certified in ESOL. These teachers are receiving training to improve reading strategies, subject area strategies, and research-based practices in the field of educating ELL and former ELL. Also, administrators and counselors are receiving special training designed to meet the unique needs of ELL. However, more application training is needed to ensure a highly-qualified teacher in every classroom and administrators that can provide needed support to teachers in second language acquisition effective practices. Therefore, teachers and administrators need additional training to assist ELL to stay in school and improve their language proficiency and academic skills. The Title III Instructional Coaches will provide support services to 127 schools to address the area of needs communicated by teachers and administrators.

Need 3: Parents need training/information opportunities that address how they can guide their children in good study habits that will result in achieving linguistic and academic success, on family literacy, and understanding the school system. They also need awareness of community services and on how they can become leaders in their communities. Parent awareness and involvement are strongly tied to student success in school. Based on these parent needs the Multilingual Student Education Services Department established the following priorities for FY 2008-2009:

1. Continue to implement parent literacy and community involvement activities to enhance the education of eligible ELL and former ELL through the Family Leadership Institute.

2. Continue to establish partnerships with community organizations to promote linguistic, academic achievement, cross-cultural communication and an understanding of students who are English Language Learners.

3. Increase parent awareness of available services in our schools and communities through: parent workshops and newsletters sent home in the native language when feasible, the Connect ED phone system that reaches all the parents of the students in a particular school and the Trans Act Talk System that allows simultaneous translations in various languages to take place at meetings and workshops.

Proposed Activities

The Multilingual Student Education Services Department at the School District of Orange County has identified the following activities to be carried out for all English Language Learners (ELL) and former ELL under the 2008-2009 Title III grant:

2

November 4, 2009

1. Enhance literacy development in the primary home language, when feasible and in English for English Language Learners (ELL)/former ELL. (Language Arts Strands and Standards, Strand A: Reading: k-2, 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12.) The bilingual teachers participating in Title III trainings (NCLB Subpart 3, Sec. 3231) will demonstrate successful use of research-based literacy practices for ELL through fidelity of implementation of language enhancement and/or reading and content area programs and research-based Spanish supplementary materials proven to be effective with the ELL population. The Title III Teacher Trainers and Title III Curriculum & Support Teachers, Instructional Coaches and Student Advocates/Parent Liaisons will assist in implementing these activities.

2. Increase ELL academic performance and mastery of Sunshine State Standards through participation in supplementary services focusing on research-based instructional programs, non-mandatory ESOL Summer Camps for ELL, tutoring services as needed and appropriate for ELL. The Title III Curriculum & Support Teachers, Instructional Coaches and Student Advocates/Parent Liaisons will assist in implementing these activities.

Ten new Instructional Coaches will be hired to provide daily support to 10 elementary schools with bilingual education programs. These Instructional Coaches will be responsible for training, mentoring and coaching teachers to achieve the goals and objectives of Title III for ELL. They will be responsible for tutoring students, as applicable, based on students’ unique linguistic and academic needs as demonstrated by assessment data. (DIBELS, IDEL, APRENDA, FCAT, EDUSOFT) These services and programs will provide supplementary language enhancement instruction to increase language proficiency to aid ELL in meeting grade level performance indicators of academic content and preparing them for demonstration of the mastery of Florida academic standards. Title III Instructional Staff will focus on schools that are not making AYP for ELL. Collaboration and partnerships will continue to be developed with administrators and school leadership teams to achieve Title III goals and objectives.

3. Increase teachers’ and administrators’ knowledge and expertise on research-based proven practices for ELL. The Title III Teacher Trainers will continue to provide supplementary training sessions for the Title III Instructional Coaches and teachers assigned to teach ELL to supplement their subject matter knowledge, second language acquisition knowledge, pedagogy, and teaching skills. All training programs are supplementary in nature and do nod supplant required ESOL training paid by FEFP or local funds.

4. Implement supplementary innovative language enhancement research-based practices proven to be effective for ELLs. The Title III Administrator will continue to implement a monitoring process and periodic school visits to ensure that supplementary instructional services funded under Title III are implemented accurately and with fidelity as required by federal mandates.

5. The Title III Student Advocates/Parent Liaisons will continue to provide supplementary training sessions to parents based on a Parent Training Topic Survey that parents completed in May 2008 and as requested by school staff and administrators in the annual Customer Satisfaction Survey for Student Advocates. One additional Student Advocate/Parent Liaison will be hired to increase services to secondary students and their parents. The training sessions are above and beyond those required by the district, META Consent Decree and described in Orange County’s District ELL Plan. At least 2 additional training sessions will

3

November 4, 2009

take place at each of their assigned schools per school year. Topics such as :Guiding your child with good study habits, How to help your children achieve linguistic and academic success, family literacy and other topics as requested by parents or identified based on the academic support at home needed by ELL. Consultants for Summer Institute, family literacy training and other parent and teacher training sessions will assist with these activities.

6. Provide supplementary instructional materials and textbooks for Haitian-Creole and Spanish speaking students and other languages, as feasible. Supplementary bilingual instructional materials will be available in the classroom as well as the library to allow ELL to build literacy in their own language as well as English. The provision of these materials will enhance the English learning experience by increasing the number of supplementary English resources available to the student, as well as foster faster development of the English language to impact academic achievement.

7. The Title III Instructional Coaches will continue to provide supplementary instruction to ELL and collaborate with teachers assigned to teach ELL to supplement the instructional program, as requested by school staff and administrators in the annual Customer Satisfaction Survey for Instructional Coaches. Title III Instructional Coaches will continue to conduct classroom walk-through observations with a peer coaching approach, as requested by school staff, to ensure the attainment of goals and objectives in this application. The What is Expected in the Curriculum Self-Check Tool will continue to used to assist teachers of ELL and former ELL focus on the effectiveness of the learning process implemented in the classroom and to differentiate instruction by second language proficiency levels. These Instructional Coach positions are above and beyond district coaches hired by different departments. All functions are supplementary in nature and do not supplant local, state or other federal mandates. These positions work directly with the teachers in their assigned schools and also work in partnership with the school literacy coaches and leadership team.

All Title III district positions funded under this grant are supplementary in nature and go above and beyond what OCPS has already implemented to meet the Consent Decree requirements. These positions are needed in order to achieve the goals and objectives described herein. OCPS hires 3 Directors, 2 secretaries, 1 system support clerk, 6 program assistants and 7 district resource teachers to manage the implementation and monitoring the Consent Decree requirements for the education of ELL. These positions are paid with district basic funding. The district also hires 71 highly qualified teachers who are responsible for teaching the ESOL classes mandated by the Consent Decree.

District Goals

One of the goals of Orange County Public Schools (OCPS) is to offer quality educational programs to LEP students. For this reason only research-based programs with the following instructional approaches are offered:

• Instruction in the basic subject areas using the students’ native language • Instruction in basic subject areas using ESOL strategies

4

November 4, 2009

• Instruction in basic subject areas using both ESOL strategies and the native language of the students.

These instructional approaches were provided through different types of program models implemented in the district:

√ One-Way Developmental Bilingual Education √ Two-Way Developmental Bilingual Education √ Sheltered Instruction √ Mainstream instruction with ESOL, and √ Language Arts/ESOL.

Methods, approaches and program delivery models are research-based in nature and were implemented according to specifications for the model and within the framework of the League of United Latin American Citizens et al. v. State Board of Education, et al. Florida META Consent Decree approved in federal district court in August 14, 1990. All schools in OCPS are required to deliver instruction in English using ESOL strategies to ensure that LEP students receive comprehensible instruction. Based on data available at this time, the evaluator found that the proposed objectives were met.

Summary of Test Results

CELLA Test ResultsResults from the Fall 2007 and Spring 2008 revealed that listening/speaking is the strongest area for LEP students, followed by reading and then writing, relative to state-defined criteria. A comparison between Fall 2007 and Spring 2008 results shows that students are making significant gains in English language proficiency. An addendum to this report will be provided to the school district in October 2008 with the comparison of 2008 CELLA scores.

APRENDA Test Results Results indicate that on average, LEP students demonstrated at least a 3% substantial gain in literacy development in the native language when compared to the 2007-2008 APRENDA test score data (based on the 2005-06 APRENDA baseline data). Therefore, the objective was met. Due to the fact that a high percentage of LEP students performed below average in specific schools, it is recommended that special attention be provided to students in these schools to ensure that their academic achievement is improved.

FCAT Test ResultsLEP students are not receiving waivers for the reading or language arts tests under section 1111(b)(3)(C) and therefore are fully participating in the FCAT assessment.

• LEP students who took the FCAT in reading, writing, and math have demonstrated on average, positive gains in all sections of the tests and outperformed LEP students statewide.

• LEP students are closing the achievement gap with their non-LEP counterpart as demonstrated on the FCAT average test scores.

• LEP students that met district requirements have transitioned into classrooms not tailored to Limited English Proficient children, and have attained a sufficient level of English proficiency to permit them to achieve in an English classroom environment.

5

November 4, 2009

• LEP students are meeting the same challenging state academic content and student academic achievement standards.

• An addendum to this report will be prepared as soon as the desegregated FCAT data is available.

Graduation Rate

Professional Development (Update numbers)Instructional Coaches and the Curriculum and Instructional Team provided extensive training to teachers and administrators throughout the academic year. The proposed objective was fully met by increasing the participation of teachers in Title III staff development from 311 to 450. An analysis of pre and post-test results show that on average, participants increased their knowledge and expertise on research-based practices from 27% to 86%. These results meet the proposed objective since it shows that a high percentage of teachers improved their knowledge and expertise on best practices to teach LEP students.

Parental Involvement (check application)The Title III Student Advocates/Parent Liaisons provided assistance and information to parents to ensure their participation in school activities and to increase their involvement in the education of their children. In order to meet this objective, the student advocates/parent liaisons engaged in a variety of activities. A total of 941 parents and 446 students participated. Although the objective was not met, there was a significant number of parents participating in at least one of 6 the parent training activities conducted by the Student Advocates/Parent Liaisons and ESOL staff designed to improve literacy skills of LEP students. Services provided under Title III met the GPRA Indicators that relate to LEP students.

Recommendations

Program Description

For the purpose of the NCLB Act, “language instruction educational program" means an instruction course in which LEP students are placed for the purpose of attaining English proficiency, while meeting challenging state academic achievement standards. A language instruction educational program shall make use of both English and a child's native language to enable the child to develop and attain English proficiency, when feasible. Programs may include the participation of English proficient students in addition to LEP students and former LEP students.

All LEP students receive English Language Arts through ESOL as part of the district's ESOL Program. LEP students enrolled in the ESOL Program received instruction based on their individual needs. Teachers are informed of the students' LEP status and language classification by the ESOL compliance teacher at the schools.

Philosophy, Mission and Goals of Multilingual Student Education Services

6

November 4, 2009

Orange County Public Schools believes that: Limited English Proficient (LEP) students may receive their academic instruction in English and in the native language in instructional models such as One-Way and Two-Way Developmental Bilingual programs, sheltered instruction, and/or via ESOL strategies in the mainstream classroom.

Literacy shall be developed in English and the student's first language, when feasible, to promote academic achievement in English.

Multilingual Student Education Services promotes cultural understanding and encourages successful participation in the monolingual classroom for LEP.

The cultural and linguistic diversity of the LEP shall be valued and accepted as an asset that enriches every classroom.

Mission Statement

The mission of the Multilingual Student Education Services (MSES) Department is to use staff knowledge and leadership to promote second language acquisition and academic achievement for the Limited English Proficient (LEP) students. The MSES mission is aligned with the district’s vision: “to be the top producer of successful students.” The department seeks to promote cultural awareness, community involvement and quality services through best practices for these students. The MSES Department strives to provide academic support to the parents of the students they serve, personnel staff and administrators of Orange County Public Schools.

Goals and Objectives

The goal of the instructional programs for LEP students is to develop each child's proficiency in English, while ensuring that all students reach their full academic potential. All programs must also furnish opportunities for the development of self-esteem and cross-cultural understanding. The expectation is that all schools will follow the policies, plan and procedures for the LEP instructional programs. The overall, long-term objectives of the Orange County Public Schools’ Multilingual Student Education Services Program are as follows:

1. The student will be provided with grade-appropriate instruction in all content areas following state standards and district benchmarks. 2. The student will be provided with language arts instruction in his/her native language at all bilingual centers. 3. The student will be provided with ESOL/Language Arts instruction daily.

Table 1: Areas of Emphasis

Listening The Student will progressively comprehend spoken English.

Speaking The student will progressively develop fluent speaking skills in English.

Reading The student will progressively develop reading comprehension skills in

7

November 4, 2009

English.

Writing The student will progressively develop the ability to write English correctly and creatively.

Culture The student will develop a positive image of the American culture while retaining pride in the native culture. The student will have an understanding of how his/her native culture contributes to the making of the United States of America.

Self-Concept The student will develop a positive self-image in order to function satisfactorily in a pluralistic society.

Goals of Multilingual Student Education Services Department

• Foster language development and academic achievement through best practices and technology

• Strengthen program models to reflect current research• Provide specialized training to teachers, staff, and administrators.• Promote an optional assessment environment for LEP students• Enhance the availability and use of teacher resources.• Encourage sensitivity toward the culturally diverse population of Orange County Public

Schools.• Provide support to all learning communities on the implementation of the Florida

Multilingual Education Training Advocacy (META) Consent Decree.

Title III Application Goals & Objectives

This section identifies the District’s goals and objectives for increasing the English proficiency of English Language Learners by the end of the 2008-2009 school year at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Goals/objectives must include baseline data from the 2007 administration of the Comprehensive English Language Learning Assessment (CELLA). Performance Goal 2(a): By 2013-2014, all English language learners will become proficient in English.

Supplementary Instructional Services to Increase Proficiency of LEP students (application)

Language Proficiency Performance Indicator: The percentage of ELL, determined by cohort, who have attained English proficiency by the end of the school year. [It is expected that LEAs will include baseline data from 2006 administration of Comprehensive English Language Learning Assessment (CELLA).]

8

November 4, 2009

Making Progress Performance Indicator: The percentage of students making progress in learning English. [It is expected that LEAs will identify the percentage of ELL moving from one proficiency level to the next.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LEVEL

Goal 1.0: Provide supplementary instructional services to enhance literacy development at the elementary level (K-5) in English for English Language Learners (ELL) and former ELL to ensure a yearly increase of at least 5% in English language acquisition (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) on the established 2007 CELLA data and to ensure students meet AMAO #1 requirement set by the State Educational Department. Note: Even though the focus is on reading initiatives, we will continue to support L/S/ skills as applicable.

Objective 1.1:At the end of the 2008-09 academic school year, there will be at least a 5% increase in English language acquisition over the baseline data established at the end of FY 2006-2007 or the next proficiency level with the CELLA test.

Objective 1.2:At the end of the 2008-09 academic school year, there will be at least a 5% substantial gain in literacy development in the native language when compared to the FY 2007APRENDA test baseline data of an average of 84% of the students scoring at or above level.

MIDDLE SCHOOL LEVEL

Goal 1.0: Increase ELL second language acquisition proficiency level and academic language proficiency.

Objective 1.1:At the end of the 2008-2009 academic school year, there will be at least a 5% increase in English language acquisition over the baseline data established at the end of FY 2006-2007 or the next proficiency level with the CELLA test.

Objective 1.2:The Title III Student Advocates/Parent Liaisons will continue to work with guidance counselors and other school/district support staff and departments to assist in providing more awareness of linguistic and academically challenging programs and services to parents that are available and implemented at each middle school in order to ensure:

1) Increased participation of ELL and former ELL in honors courses and advanced placement courses regardless of L2 proficiency levels 2) Increased participation of ELL and former ELL in gifted programs regardless of L2 proficiency levels 3) Increased graduation rates of ELL and former ELL

9

November 4, 2009

4) Decreased retention rates for ELL and former ELL 5) Decreased drop out rates of ELL and former ELL

HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL

Goal 1.0:

Increase the language proficiency of ELL by providing supplementary instructional programs, including tutoring programs that will focus on grade level language arts benchmarks using effective ESOL strategies and the four domains tested in CELLA. academic language proficiency.

Objective 1.1: Using CELLA baseline data from the end of 2006-2007, by the end of FY 2008-2009 at least 65% of ELL participating in the intensive ESOL Language Arts class will show at least a 5% gain in English language development.

Instructional Services to Increase the academic Achievement of Current and Former ELLs

Performance Goal 2(b): By 2013-2014, all current and former English language learners will reach high academic standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science and the provision of highly qualified teachers.

Reading Goal 1.0: Using FY 2006-07 AYP baseline data, the percentage of ELL students reading below grade level will show a 4% improvement in reading FCAT.

Objective 1.1: By end of FY 2008-09, when compared to FY 2006-07 AYP baseline data there will be a reduction of at least 4 percentage points on the number of ELL scoring at Level 1 on FCAT reading, from 44% to 40%.

Math Goal 1.0: By end of FY 2008-09, the percentage of ELL scoring at performance Level 2 or above on FCAT Math will increase by 3 percentage points from the baseline data established in FY 2006-07, from 31% to 34%.

Objective 1.1: Provide students with grade appropriate instruction in math following state standards/district benchmarks in the native language at K-8 One-Way Developmental and Two-Way Developmental Bilingual (applicable grades), Sheltered programs and mainstream classes to increase achievement on FCAT Math.

Science Goal 1.0: By end of FY 2008-09, the percentage of ELL scoring at performance Level 2 or above on FCAT Science will increase by 3 percentage points from the baseline data established in FY 2006-07, from 26.5% to 29.5%.

Objective 1.1: Provide students with grade appropriate instruction in science following state standards/district benchmarks in the native language at K-8 One-Way Developmental and Two-

10

November 4, 2009

Way Developmental Bilingual Education (applicable grades), Sheltered programs and mainstream classrooms to increase achievement on FCAT Science.

Performance Goal: 2.0

At the end of FY 2008-2009, the percentage of ELL in high school who graduate with a regular diploma will increase from the baseline data established by the State (AYP report) of 48% to 50%

Objective 2.1Increase the graduation rate of ELL and former ELL by at least 2% from the baseline data FY 2006-2007.

Demographics (OCPS website-Literature part- document # of population)

Figure 1 (OCPS- Student Ethnic Breakdown) NEED

Student Classification SENDThe students classified as “LY” and “LF” are considered active LEP students in OCPS. The “LY” students received services from research-based exemplary programs that are implemented by dedicated teachers who are experts in the field of second language acquisition. The total active LEP population for FY 2007-2008 was 40,857 students and it is divided as follows. LY:34,759 and LF:6,098. An additional 198 students were served by Charter Schools (LY=173 and LF=25 students). The breakground by grade level is included under Table 2 on the next page.

Table 2: Number of LEP students By Grade level (NEED)

Project Staff

According to the grant project description, the following positions were covered under Title III funds: • One Title III Senior Administrator • One Title III Curriculum and Instruction Coordinator • Two Title III Teacher Trainers • Four Title III Curriculum and Instruction Support Teachers • Fourteen Title III Instructional Coaches • One Title III Data Analyst • Nine Title III Student Advocates/Parent Liaisons • One Title III Secretary • One Title III Finance Specialist • One part-time Title III Support Services Clerk.

Staff members provided all services proposed in the grant application.

11

November 4, 2009

III. EVALUATION DESIGN (Edit with our information)

Drs. Joyce Nutta and Edwidge Creveocuer-Bryant, consultants, were hired as the external evaluator for FY 2008-2009. The external evaluator met with the Title III Senior Administrator and the MSES Department Director to delineate the expectations for the annual evaluation. The evaluator also met with the student advocates, the instructional coaches, and the data analyst to set up the parameters for data collection. This assistance provided needed support to determine how the projects implemented enhanced LEP and non-LEP student academic achievement and GPA for secondary students

The evaluation process reflects all requirements as stated in No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The Title III Senior Administrator developed and implemented a monitoring process to ensure that schools used the Title III supplementary materials in the literacy and content area classes with fidelity to ensure the attainment of all Title III goals and objectives.

This summative evaluation describes the strengths and weaknesses of projects implemented with Title III funds. Evaluation data and project information were collected from a variety of sources including the district mainframe files, which provide demographics, LEP status, academic achievement and literacy information. The senior administrator provided programmatic information from records kept by the entire staff.

Language proficiency test scores were used to determine expected gains and progress of LEP students participating in the projects implemented. FCAT scores and reading inventories were used to determine progress and performance in Florida Sunshine Standards. FCAT data was obtained from the DOE web site. The evaluation plan is comprehensive and it focused on objectives, and quantifiable outcomes. The evaluators measured the attainment of each objective and assessed how effectively the program met proposed measurable objectives.

Assessment Instrument Used

Comprehensive English Language Learning Assessment (CELLA) • APRENDA Test to measure language proficiency and academic achievement in Spanish

(Language Arts and Math) • FCAT: The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (Reading and Writing) • FCAT: The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (Math and Science)

CELLA

In order to meet the Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) required by No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the United States Department of Education has mandated all states to administer an annual assessment to measure the English proficiency of LEP students in Kindergarten through grade 12. In response to this requirement, Florida cooperated with the Education Testing Services (ETS) to develop the Comprehensive English Language Learning Assessment (CELLA). This instrument assesses listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills. The CELLA was administered to all LEP students in Florida for the first time in August 2006.

12

November 4, 2009

The CELLA was administered again in April 2007. The results of the 2006-07 administrations were used as baseline data to establish a scoring rubric for future administrations.

APRENDA (Standard 9 Test)

APRENDA (La prueba de logros en español) measures Spanish speaking students’ school achievement in listening, reading, writing, and mathematics as required by federal mandates. The second edition was used to provide updated content that reflects the current “national consensus curriculum” for bilingual programs and modern educational trends. Results were calculated using the established stanines that range from a low of 1 to a high of 9, with 5 designating average performance. Stanines, like percentile ranks, indicate a student’s relative standing with respect to a reference group. The following breakdown indicates performance categories:

• Levels 1-3: Below Average • Levels 4-6: Average • Levels 7-9: Above Average

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) Reading

FCAT is designed to measure reading content as defined by the Sunshine State Standards. The test is administered to LEP students with modifications that are determined to be appropriate for their particular needs. The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) uses five achievement levels, numbered 1-5 with 1 the lowest level and 5 the highest level. For purposes of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) implementation, Level 1 is “Below Basic,” Level 2 is “Basic,” Levels 3 and 4 are “Proficient,” and Level 5 is “Advanced.” FCAT results will continue to be reported with the original numbering system, but all NCLB reports will include references to the titles required in federal legislation.

Specifications of NCLB Achievement Standards

FCAT Achievement Standards No Child Left BehindAchievement Standards

5 Advanced

3-4 Proficient

2 Basic

1 Below Basic

All LEP students in Orange County Public Schools are expected to take the FCAT in grades 3-10. However flexibility exists for LEP students who have been enrolled in an approved English for

13

November 4, 2009

Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program for 12 months or less. These students may be exempted from the test if it is determined on an individual basis and at an LEP Committee meeting that their participation in FCAT is harmful to their emotional health. The students must then be assessed using alternative measures of academic performance that mirror the FCAT and results must be reported to the Florida Department of Education. During the 2007-2008 FCAT administration NO LEP student was exempted from FCAT.

FCAT Writing

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Florida plan utilizes the results of the FCAT writing assessment in grades 4, 8, and 10 as “other indicator.” The FCAT Writing is provided to students in grade levels 4, 8, and 10. Accommodations for this test are also provided to LEP students.

The Florida Writing Assessment requires students to produce a piece of writing within established guidelines and specific parameters. Each student receives a writing folder containing one writing prompt (topic) with two-lined pages for the written response. Students are given 45 minutes to read the prompts independently, plan their responses, and write their responses in the folders. The student responses are scored by trained readers using the holistic method to evaluate a piece of writing for its overall quality. The readers consider four elements:

• Focus • Organization • Support • Convention

14

November 4, 2009

A six-point rubric is used to score the test: From “0 point” for unscorable to “6 points” for best score possible.

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) Math FCAT Mathematics covers five content areas. Students in Grades 3–10 respond to questions from each of these areas, but the emphasis on each area varies from grade to grade.

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) Science FCAT Science is administered annually to public school students in the fifth, eighth, and eleventh grades.

EVALUATION RESULTS

Elementary School Level (Application change date and objective)

Goal 1.0: Provide supplementary instructional services to enhance literacy development at the elementary level (K-5) in English for English Language Learners (ELL) and former ELL to ensure a yearly increase of at least 5% in English language acquisition (listening, speaking, reading and writing) on the established 2007 CELLA data and to ensure students meet AMAO #1 requirements set by the State Educational Department. Note: Even though the focus is on reading initiatives, we will continue to support L/S skills as applicable.

Objective 1.1: At the end of the 2008-09 academic school year, there will be at least a 5% increase in English language acquisition over the baseline data established at the end of FY 2006-2007 or the next proficiency level with the CELLA test.

Objective 1.2:At the end of the 2008-09 academic school year, there will be at least a 5% substantial gain in literacy development in the native language when compared to the FY 2007-2008 11APRENDA test baseline data of an average of 84% of the students scoring at or above level.

OutcomesIn order to meet this objective, the following activities took place:

Curriculum and Instruction Resource Teachers and Instructional Coaches will continue to provide supplementary training to teachers on understanding the language goals assessed in CELLA to ensure language acquisition proficiency in the four domains tested. The Title III staff will continue to conduct focus classroom walkthroughs as part of the progress monitoring on application of the training to classroom practice.

1.1.2 Bilingual, ESOL/mainstream teachers participating in the supplementary trainings will continue to use research-based practices for ELL through the implementation of language and/or reading and content area programs proven to be effective for ELL.

1.1.3 Curriculum and Instruction Resource Teachers will participate in the district meetings with literacy coaches and the curriculum department to continue collaboration and planning of aligned

15

November 4, 2009

strategic services to increase language acquisition for academic performance. They will also provide curriculum support at their assigned schools.

1.2.1 One & Two-Way Bilingual Education teachers participating in the supplementary trainings for these language enhancement models will demonstrate successful use of native language research-based literacy practices such as: Houghton Mifflin Spanish Reading Series, Imagínalo, El Nuevo Bravo Bravo, Voyager "Pasaporte" Intervention Spanish Literacy Program, Santillana Literature Classic Series, Vivens Literature Classic Series.

1.2.2 Kindergarten teachers in One & Two-Way Developmental Spanish Bilingual Education programs will continue to implement the Literacy Program “Aprendo a Leer con La Cartilla.” Kindergarteners will receive a take home copy of "La Cartilla Fonética" in May to continue literacy development at home during the summer.

1.2.3 The Training Coordinator will continue to coordinate supplementary staff development workshops with the publishing companies to ensure fidelity of implementation of instructional programs based on model to meet goals and objectives.

1.2.4 New teachers in the Two-Way Developmental Bilingual Education Programs will continue to participate in supplementary research-based training on implementing this language enhancement program model with the national consultant who initiated these trainings in FY 2004-2005 and continues to take schools to the next level of effective implementation.

1.2.5 English Language proficiency will be tested annually with CELLA for ELL in One & Two-Way Bilingual Programs and with Pre-LAS (K) and LAS (1-7) for Spanish Second Language Learners in Two-Way Developmental Bilingual Programs.

Americops members served as tutors to LEP students who needed more individual instruction and language support to successfully perform in school. The Notre Dame Americorps placed a tutor in Lovell Elementary School from October, 2007 to May, 2008.

A total of ---students received tutoring services. All students were tested with DIBELS. Table 4 provides the number of students who were at each level:

16

November 4, 2009

Table 4: Title III Tutoring Partnership with Americorps Volunteers ProgramFY 2008-2009 Lovell Elementary School

ELL Code LY/LF

*DIBELS (code)

Grades K-2 Sept. 18-30

2008

*DIBELS (code) Grades K-2 Jan. 23 - Feb. 5, 2009

*DIBELS (code) Grades K-2 April 28- May 18, 2009

* MATH Benchmark #1

(code/%) Sept. 2008 Grades 3-5

*Benchmark #2 (code/%) Dec. 2008 Grades 3-5

*Benchmark #3 (code/%)

April 2009 Grades 3-5

LY NMI/32% NMI/20% N/52%

LY NI/36% OT/58% OT/64%

LY OT/64% NMI/36 N/44%

LY NMI/16% NI/50 NM/28%LY N/42% OT/58% NM/21%LY NMI/29% NMI/8% NM/38%LY NMI/0% NMI/ 37.5 NM/29%LY NMI/25% NI/46% N/52%LY NMI/21% NMI/29% N/44%LY NMI/29% NMI/37.5 --%LY NMI/21% NI/46% N/52%LY NMI/21% OT/54% NM/32%LY INTENSIVE STRATEGIC INTENSIVE LY INTENSIVE STRATEGIC NOT COMPL. LY INTENSIVE STRATEGIC INTENSIVE LY STRATEGIC STRATEGIC STRATEGIC LY STRATEGIC INTENSIVE STRATEGIC LY INTENSIVE INTENSIVE STRATEGIC LY STRATEGIC STRATEGIC NOT FOUND LY INTENSIVE STRATEGIC INITIAL INST LY STRATEGIC INTENSIVE STRATEGIC

LY INTENSIVE INITIAL INST INITIAL INST

An analysis of these numbers shows that of the 4 students “Struggling” at Benchmark 1, two reached “On-track” at Benchmark 3. Out of the seven students classified as “Emerging, ” five were “On-track” at Benchmark 3. Only two students that were “On-track” in Benchmark 1 did not maintain that level at Benchmark 3. As it can be observed, participating students increased their scores, which demonstrates that services provided by Americorps had a positive impact on the academic achievement of students served.

Programs for Kindergarten Students Teachers of kindergarten students in One-Way and Two-Way Developmental Spanish Bilingual Education programs implemented the Santillana Program Aprendo a Leer con La Cartilla. Kindergarten children receive "La Cartilla Fonética" (Spanish phonics book) in May of every school year to continue literacy development in the native language during their summer vacation. This literacy program seeks to increase literacy skills in the native language in order to expedite the literacy process in English.

17

November 4, 2009

Comprehensive English Language Learning Assessment (CELLA) Results

The CELLA Fall 2006 scores are used to establish baseline data to determine English language proficiency. The Fall 2006 CELLA results and the Spring 2007 CELLA results for grades K-5 on combined average are as follows:

Table 5: OCPS 2006/2007CELLA Data Summary

Average Scale Scores

KG 1 2 3 4

Listening/Speaking

620/651 652/679 678/698 696/720 708/727

Reading 405/539 559/649 657/696 687/714 711/728 Writing 548/623 628/670 674/693 684/706 702/717

Data Analysis

A comparison of 2006 and 2007 results using average scores obtained on the Fall 2006 and Spring 2007 CELLA, shows that in Listening/Speaking, students were able to increase their scores significantly. This indicates that on average, students showed a good knowledge of vocabulary and grammar, and were able to participate in most conversations. At grade levels 3 and 4, Spring 2007 CELLA results indicate that students were able to surpass the third anchor point (700). Fifth graders almost reached the fourth and highest anchor point (740), which indicates that students can use English to learn new ideas in their classes. In Reading, the mean scale score for kindergarten students remained below the minimum anchor point (620) although students showed a significant increase of 134 points in the Spring 2007 results from the Fall 2006 CELLA results. In first grade the mean scale score for LEP students was also below the first anchor point but in the Spring 2007 test, they were able to surpass it. Results for the Fall 2006 show that the mean scale score was almost reaching the second anchor point for second graders-these students were still learning to read. However, in the Spring 2007, their average scores were reaching the third anchor point (700). The 2006 mean scale score was beyond the second anchor (660) point for third graders, demonstrating that students were still learning but approaching the ability to read independently. During the Spring 2007, students were able to surpass the third anchor point. In grades 4 through 5 the mean scale score surpassed the third anchor point (700), showing students’ ability to become independent readers. In Writing, the 2006 CELLA results show that writing scores for Kindergarten students were below the minimum anchor point (620). However, 2007 CELLA results show that they were able to reach this anchor point. First graders increased their scores significantly, from 628 to 670 surpassing the second anchor point (660). Scores for second graders were above the second anchor point and improved to 693, almost reaching the third anchor point (700). Spring 2007 mean scale scores for third graders show students were able to reach the third anchor point. Fourth graders reached the third anchor point (700), and grade 5 students were able to surpass that point, reaching a mean scale score of 725, which means that students were moving from writing sentences to writing paragraphs although still their writing was difficult to understand due to errors. Overall, results from the Spring 2007 administration show that students at the elementary level were able to increase their scores in all four language skills, demonstrating a 3.5% increase in listening/speaking, a 9% increase in reading, and a 4.5% in writing over the Fall 2006 CELLA

18

November 4, 2009

baseline data. A composite score shows that on average, students at the elementary level increased their scores by 5.5%. An addendum to this report will be made to analyze the 2008 CELLLA results to determine if the objective was met.

Analysis of Pasaporte Spanish Reading Intervention Program Results (REPORT COMPANY WILL SEND)

Analysis of Pasaporte Spanish Reading Intervention Program Results Pasaporte from Voyager Expanded Learning provides students in grades K-3 targeted reading intervention in Spanish. Daily lessons provide 30-40 minutes of direct, systematic instruction in the five essential components of reading as outlined in No Child Left Behind to accelerate students to grade-level proficiency. Highly motivating, age appropriate content keeps young learners engaged, while built-in assessment and progress monitoring tools provide teachers with vital information about student learning so they can adjust instruction, when needed. During FY 2007-2008, 22 OCPS elementary schools participated in the Voyager/Pasaporte program, K-2. For the purpose of this report, data gathered on the Fluidez en la segmentación de fonemas (FSF), Fluidez en el nombramiento de las letras (FNL), Fluidez en las palabras sin sentido (FPS), and Fluidez en la lectura oral (FLO) measures have been analyzed. Fluidez en la segmentacion de fonemas (FSF) Measured primarily in kindergarten, FSF is translated as Phoneme Segmentation Fluency. FSF measures a student’s ability to recognize the individual sounds, or phonemes, that make up words. Fluidez en las palabras sin sentido (FPS) Measured primarily in first grade, FPS is translated as Nonsense Word Fluency. (NWF) is a measure of phonics, focusing on a student’s ability to recognize letter-sound correspondence in nonsense words. Fluidez en la lectura oral (FLO) Measured primarily in first and second grades, FLO is translated as Reading Connected Text (RCT) is a measure of fluency, focusing on a student’s ability to read text accurately. In order to provide the clearest indication of performance change for the year, the data in this report are for the OCPS students tested at all benchmark periods. (See Table 6 on the next page).30 Table 6: Number of Students Tested at Each Benchmark Period Grade Level

Benchmark 1 Benchmark 2 Benchmark 3 Combined

Kindergarten 423 423 423 457 First Grade 518 453 497 421 Second Grade 489 476 513 396 Third Grade 62 47 90 36 TOTAL 1,492 1,399 1,523 1,310

Kindergarten Fluidez en la segmentacion de fonemas (FSF)

19

November 4, 2009

In order to track progress, Fluidez en la segmentacion de fonemas (FSF) is given at all three benchmarks. Kindergarten students demonstrate proficiency in FSF by attaining a goal of 50 sounds per minute by Benchmark 3. Students began the year averaging 6.6 sounds per minute and increased average scores to 53.8 by Benchmark 3. The percentage of “struggling” readers decreased by 37 percentage points from Benchmark 1 to Benchmark 3. The percentage of “on track” readers increased from 12% to 56%. Figure 2 shows the percentage of students who were classified in each one of the three levels: Struggling, Emerging, and On Track.

Figure 2 (p.30)

First Grade Fluidez en las palabras sin sentido (FPS) During the first part of first grade, students need to develop their phonics skills by learning to match sounds to letters. Strong phonics abilities, as demonstrated by success in the Fluidez en las palabras sin sentido (FPS) measure, lead to strong oral reading fluency development. Results show that the FPS mean increased from 60.7 letter-sounds per minute to 112.5, which represents an increase of 51.8 letter-sounds per minute. The percentage of “struggling” readers decreased from 26% at Benchmark 1 to 23% at Benchmark 3. The percentage of “on track” readers increased from 62% to 67%. (see figure 3)

Figure 3 (p. 31)

Fluidez en la lectura oral (FLO) Fluidez en la lectura oral (FLO) is the key measure of student progress, building toward a goal of 40 words per minute at Benchmark 3. Strong fluency abilities, as demonstrated by Fluidez en la lectura oral (FLO) measure, have a high correlation with strong comprehension ability. Results from Benchmark 2 to Benchmark 3 show an increase in the FLO mean from 40.1 words per minute to 54.4, an improvement of 14.3 words per minute. The percentage of “struggling” readers increased from 16% at Benchmark 2 to 19% at Benchmark 3. Although the percentage of “on track” readers decreased from 73% to 67%, the percentage of “emerging readers” increased by three percentage points, from 11% to 14%. (See Figure 4 on the next page).

Figure 4: (p. 32)

Second Grade Fluidez en la lectura oral (FLO) Results from Benchmark 1 to Benchmark 3 show an increase in the FLO mean from 44.2 words per minute to 70.5, an increase of 26.3 words per minute. The percentage of “struggling” readers increased by one percentage point from Benchmark 1 to Benchmark 3. The percentage of “on track” readers also decreased from 64% to 58%. However, the percentage of emerging readers increased from 15% to 21%. (See Figure 5). Figure 5: Fluidez en la lectura oral (FLO) Second Grade Results (p. 32)

Third Grade Fluidez en la lectura oral (FLO)

20

November 4, 2009

Results from Benchmark 1 to Benchmark 3 show an increase in emerging readers from 14% to 27% There was a significant decrease in the percentage of “on track” readers from Benchmark 1 to 3. (See Figure 6). Figure 6: Fluidez en la lectura oral (FLO) Third Grade Results p. 33

Although the percentage of “on track” readers on the third benchmark was only 49%, the number of words per minute increased from 79.7 words per minute to 84.9, an improvement of 5.2 words per minute. These results demonstrate that on average students participating in Voyager/Pasaporte have made significant improvement in basic literacy skills. These outcomes meet Goal 1, Indicator 1.2 all participating students demonstrated significant educational progress toward achieving higher academic skills.

APRENDA OUTCOMES One Way and Two way Programs

APPRENDA Test Results

The APRENDA (La prueba de logros en espanol) test was provided to Spanish speaking to measure school achievement in language arts skills. In this section, an analysis was made on the language skills attained by students from kindergarten to eighth grade levels to determine how students are improving literacy skills in their native language. Results were calculated using the established stanines that range from a low of 1 to a high of 9, with 5 designating average performance. The following breakdown indicates performance categories:

Levels 1-3: Below Average Levels 4-6: Average Levels 7-9: Above Average

One-Way Development Program (Elementary)

Table _ and Table __ provide the number of students that took the APRENDA Lectura test in the One-Way and Two-Way Development Programs and received a score

One-way Developmental Programs (Elementary)

Table ___: Number of Students with Scores that took the APRENDA Lectura Test by Grade and Percentage of Students Scoring at each Level (K-5)

2008-2009Levels Numbers Tested Percentage of Students Scoring at Each Level

21

November 4, 2009

BA A AAKindergarten 382 8% 51% 41%

First Grade 374 9% 45% 45%

Second Grade 423 12% 46% 43%

Third Grade 387 14% 59% 27%

Fourth Grade 267 23% 55% 22%

Fifth Grade 254 7% 55% 38%

First grade had the highest number of students scoring at above average (AA).

Above Average Percentages

Table _8_ indicates the five schools with the highest percentage of students reaching Above Average (AA)

2008-2009Levels Five Schools with the highest percentage of students reaching AAKindergarten Pine Hills

(77%)Spring Lake

(75%)Zellwood

(71%)Shingle Creek

(65%)Azalea Park

(60%)First Grade Zellwood

(100%)Lovell (86%)

Chickasaw (82%)

Ventura (73%)

Spring Lake & Lake

Weston(64%)Second Grade

Zellwood (84%)

Wyndham Lakes (69%)

Lovell (67%)

Spring Lake (62%)

Engelwood (60%)

Third Grade Oakshire (54%)

Chickasaw (52%)

Clay Springs (44%)

Waterbridge (43%)

Zellwood (37%)

Fourth Grade

Pine Hills (50%)

Zellwood (45%)

Waterbridge (37%)

Chickasaw (43%)

Lake Weston &Shingle

Creek (27%)Fifth Grade Lake Weston

(70%)Zellwood

(64%)Waterbridge

(59%)Chickasaw

(56%)Pine Hills

(50%)

Zellwood had students reaching Above Average (AA) percentages at all grade levels. Chickasaw had students reaching AA percentages in First, Third, Fourth, Fifth grades.

(2007-2008)The five schools with the highest percentage of students reaching AA by grade levels:

• Kindergarten: Apopka (100%), Palmetto (76%), Chickasaw (69%), Waterbridge (68%), Cheney (63%)

22

November 4, 2009

(Meadow Woods did not have this program in kindergarten) • 1st Grade: Lovell (88%), Apopka (86%), Chickasaw (75%), Pine Hills (67%), Zellwood

(65%) • 2nd Grade: Lake Weston (77%%), Clay Springs (71%), Oakshire, (67%), Waterbridge

(65%), Wyndham Lakes (61%) • 3rd Grade: Ventura (50%), Waterbridge (50%), Lovell (40%), Palmetto (36%), Zellwood

(33%), • 4th Grade: Waterbridge (64%), Chickasaw (35%), Zellwood (33%), Lovell (33%),

Sadler (32%). (Apopka, (Clay Springs and Engelwood, Millennia, Palmetto, Shingle Creek, Spring Lake, Ventura, and Wyndham Lakes did not have this program at this grade level).

• 5th Grade: Spring Lake (50%), Little River (50%), Oakshire (48%), Waterbridge (47%), Zellwood (40%). (Apopka, Clay Springs, Engelwood, Lovell, Millennia, Shingle Creek, and Wyndham Lakes did not have this program at this grade level).

Below Average Percentages (One)

Table _8_ indicates the five schools with the highest percentage of students scoring Below Average (BA)

2008-2009Levels Five Schools with the highest percentage of students reaching (BA)Kindergarten Oakshire

(36%)Cheney (25%)

Little River (20%)

Wyndham Lakes/Ventura

(18%)

Lancaster (16%)

First Grade McCoy (40%)

ClaySprings (33%)

Pinelock (18%)

Wyndham Lakes (16%)

Engelwood (16%)

Second Grade

Clay Springs (44%)

Cheney (32%)

Sadler (28%)

Pineloch (26%)

McCoy (18%)

Third Grade Tildenville (53%)

Pineloch (39%)

Shingle Creek (32%)

McCoy (28%)

Lancaster (25%)

Fourth Grade

Lovell (55%)

Lancaster (44%)

McCoy (39%)

Little River (32%)

Tildenville (31%)

Fifth Grade Azalea Park (45%)

McCoy (20%)

Lancaster (17%)

Sadler (14%) Pine Hills (10%))

Special attention must be placed on schools such as McCoy and Lancaster that have three grades or more with students scoring at the highest below average levels.

(2007-2008)The five schools with the highest percentage of students scoring (BA) by grade levels:

23

November 4, 2009

Kindergarten: Engelwood (67%), McCoy (33%), Lancaster (32%), Tildenville (31%), Little River (28%)

1st Grade: Spring Lake (33%), McCoy (24%), Hillcrest (22%), Cheney (20%), Sadler (13%)

2nd Grade: Hillcrest (62%), Sadler (38%), Cheney (36%), McCoy (29%), Palmetto (23%)

3rd Grade: Hillcrest (78%), Lancaster (47%), Azalea Park (44%), Sadler (42%), Clay Springs (22%)

4th Grade: Hillcrest (59%), Lake Weston (50%), McCoy (42%), Little River (35%), Azalea Park (31%)

5th Grade: Azalea Park (43%), Hillcrest (43%), Sadler (29%), Pineloch (28%), Cheney (19%).

Two-Way Developmental Bilingual Programs: Elementary

Table___: Number of Spanish Speaking Students with Scores that took the APRENDA Lectura Test by Grade and Percentage of Students Scoring at each

Level (K-5)2008-2009

Levels Numbers tested SS/ES

Percentage of Students Scoring at Each Level


76 37% 62% 1%

First Grade 101 3% 48% 50%

86 30% 69% 1%

Second Grade 74 11% 42% 47%

73 66% 32% 3%

Third Grade 42 12% 57% 31%

10 50% 40% 10%

Fourth Grade 27 11% 44% 44%

6 33% 33% 33%

Fifth Grade 25 16% 44% 40%

9 67% 33% 0%

24

November 4, 2009


Table __ indicates the five schools with the highest percentage of Spanish speaking students reaching Above Average (AA)

2008-2009Levels Schools with the highest percentage of Spanish Speakers reaching AAKindergarten Union Park

(33%)Tildenville

(29%)Hunters Creek

(7%)First Grade Hunters Creek

(80%)Tildenville

(71%)Three Points

(31%)Union Park

(25%)Metrowest

(17%)Second Grade

Hunters Creek (83%)

Tildenville (68%)

Union Park (44%)

Three Points (14%)

Meadow Woods (10%)


Fourth Grade

Tildenville (44%)

Fifth Grade Tildenville (40%)

Tildenville students at each grade level have reached the highest Above Average percentages.

2007-2008 • Kindergarten: Three Points (54%), Tildenville (41%), Camelot (22%), Metro West (20%), Hunter’s Creek (15%) • 1st Grade: Hunter’s Creek (91%), Tildenville (75%), Meadow Woods (42%), Union Park (33%), Three Points (20%).

Below Average Percentages

Table __ indicates the five schools with Spanish speaking (SS) the highest percentage of students scoring Below Average (AA)

2008-2009

Levels Schools with the highest percentage of Spanish Speakers scoring Below Average (BA)

Kindergarten Metrowest (60%)

Three Points (50%)

Union Park (17%)

Meadow Woods (13%)

Hunters Creek (13%)

First Grade Three Points Meadow Hunters Creek Metrowest Tildenville

25

November 4, 2009

(15%) Woods (8%) (0%) (0%) (0%)Second Grade

Union Park (25%)

Three Points (14%)

Meadow Woods (10%)

Hunters Creek (8%)

Tildenville (0%)


Fourth Grade

Tildenville (11%)


2007-2008The five schools with the highest percentage of Spanish speaking students scoring Below Average (AA):• Kindergarten: Metrowest (20%), Three Points (15%), Union Park (15%), Camelot (11%) • 1st Grade: Union Park (7%)


Table __ indicates the five schools with the highest percentage of English speaking students reaching Above Average (AA)

2008-2009Levels Schools with the highest percentage of English Speakers scoring

Above Average (AA)Kindergarten Hunters

Creek (7%)Union Park

(0%)Meadow

Woods (0%)Metrowest

(0%)Three Points (0%)

First Grade Metrowest (6%)

Hunters Creek (0%)

Three Points (0%)

Tildenville (0%)

Union Park (0%)

Second Grade

Meadow Woods (14%)

Hunters Creek (0%)

Three Points (0%)

Tildenville (0%)

Union Park (0%)


Fourth Grade

Tildenville (33%)


2007-2008

26

November 4, 2009

The five schools with the highest percentage of English speaking students reaching Above Average (AA):

• Kindergarten: Hunter’s Creek (8%), Tildenville (8%) • 1st Grade: Meadow Woods (40%), Tildenville (21%), Hunter’s Creek (6%), Three Points (6%).


Table __ indicates the five schools with English speaking (ES) the highest percentage of students scoring Below Average (AA)

2008-2009Levels Schools with the highest percentage of English Speakers scoring

Below Average (BA)Kindergarten Metrowest

(61%)Hunters

Creek (33%)Tildenville

(29%)Union Park

(26%)Meadow Woods (20%)

First Grade Meadow Woods (60%)

Metrowest (44%)

Tildenville (22%)

Union Park (15%)

Hunters Creek (15%)

Second Grade

Three Points (78%)

Union Park (72%)

Tildenville (69%)

Hunters Creek (63%)

Meadow Woods (50%)


Fourth Grade

Tildenville (33%)


2007-2008The five schools with the highest percentage of English speaking students scoring Below Average (AA):

• Kindergarten: Camelot (59%), Metro West (45%), Tildenville (32%), Meadow Woods (31%), Union Park (25%), • 1st Grade: Three Points (39%), Union Park (29%), Hunter’s Creek (13%), Tildenville (8%).

Special attention must be placed on schools such as Camelot, Union Park, and Metrowest that continue to have students scoring at the highest below average scores throughout all grade levels as compared to students participating in other Two-Way Developmental Programs. When average scores of all elementary school students are compared with the baseline data (FY 2004-2005), results show that there is a significant increase in the percentage of students scoring Above Average (AA) at the kindergarten, first, second, and fourth grade levels in FY 2007-2008 vs. previous years. (See Table 12).

27

November 4, 2009

Table 12: A Comparison of APRENDA Above Average (AA) Test Scores FY 2004-2005 to 2008-2009

Grade Level FY 2004-2005 FY 2006-2007 FY 2007-2008 FY 2008-2009Kindergarten 21% 25% 35% 41%First Grade 28% 43% 43% 45%Second Grade 37% 38% 41% 43%Third Grade 27% 23% 22% 27%Fourth Grade 18% 15% 21% 22%Fifth Grade 17% 32% 28% 38%

One-way Developmental Programs (Middle)

Table ___: Number of Students with Scores that took the APRENDA Lectura Test by Grade and Percentage of Students Scoring at each Level (K-5)

2008-2009Levels Numbers

TestedPercentage of Students Scoring at Each Level

BA A AASixth Grade 219 26% 61% 13%

Seventh Grade 207 30% 52% 18%

Eight Grade 192 20% 58% 22%

Eighth grade had the highest number of students scoring above average.


Table __ indicates the five schools with the highest percentage of students reaching Above Average (AA)

2008-2009

Levels Three Schools with the highest percentage of students reaching AASixth Grade

Apoka (27%)

OCOEE (23%)

Jackson (14%)

Seventh Grade

OCOEE (35%)

Meadowbrook (27%)

Meadow Woods

28

November 4, 2009

(23%)Eighth Grade

Westbridge (35%)

OCOEE (32%)

Apoka (31%)


Table __ indicates the five schools with the highest percentage of students scoring Below Average (BA)

2008-2009

Levels Three Schools with the highest percentage of students scoring Below Average (BA)

Sixth Grade

Apoka (13%)

Westridge (10%)

Freedom (8%)

Seventh Grade

Apoka (25%) Freedom (11%)

Jackson (10%)

Eighth Grade

Apopka (14%)

Freedom (8%)

Jackson (7%)

Outcomes

APRENDA Test Results

One-Way Developmental Programs (Middle)Table 17 on the next provides the number of middle school students that took the APRENDA test (grades 6-8) with scores reported in One-Way Developmental Schools and the percentage of students attaining Below Average (BA), Average (A) and Above Average (AA) levels: 45 Number of Students in One-Way Developmental Programs Taking the APRENDA Test and Average Scores by Grade Level (6-8) Sixth Grade

Seventh Grade Eighth Grade

233 242 193 Total: 668 students

BA: 19% BA: 15% BA: 10% A: 56% A: 63% A: 60% AA: 25% AA: 22% AA: 30%

One-Way Developmental Programs

29

November 4, 2009

Table 17 on the next provides the number of middle school students that took the APRENDA test (grades 6-8) with scores reported in One-Way Developmental Schools and the percentage of students attaining Below Average (BA), Average (A) and Above Average (AA) levels: 45

30

November 4, 2009

Table 17: Number of Students in One-Way Developmental Programs Taking the APRENDA Test and Average Scores by Grade Level (6-8) Sixth Grade

Seventh Grade Eighth Grade

233 242 193 Total: 668 students

BA: 19% BA: 15% BA: 10% A: 56% A: 63% A: 60% AA: 25% AA: 22% AA: 30%

Two-Way Developmental Bilingual Programs: Middle

Table___: Number of Spanish Speaking Students with Scores that took the APRENDA Lectura Test by Grade and Percentage of Students Scoring at each

Level (6-7)2008-2009

(insert)


Table __ indicates the one school with the highest percentage of Spanish speaking students reaching Above Average (AA)

2008-2009

Levels The highest percentage of students reaching Above Average (AA)

Sixth Grade Lakeview (27%)

Seventh Grade

Lakeview (91%)


Table __ indicates the one school with Spanish speaking (SS) the highest percentage of students scoring Below Average (AA)

2008-2009

Levels The highest percentage of students reaching Below Average (BA)

Sixth Grade Lakeview (7%)

31

November 4, 2009

Seventh Grade

Lakeview (0%)

Above Average Percentages(English)

Table __ indicates the five schools with the highest percentage of English speaking students reaching Above Average (AA)

2008-2009

Levels The highest percentage of students reaching Above Average (AA)Sixth Grade Lakeview

(29%)Seventh Grade

Lakeview (38%)


Table __ indicates the five schools with English speaking (SS) the highest percentage of students scoring Below Average (AA)

2008-2009

Levels The highest percentage of students reaching Below Average (BA)

Sixth Grade Lakeview ((0%)

Seventh Grade

Lakeview (25%)

32

November 4, 2009

APRENDA Math Results

The APRENDA Math test was provided to Spanish speaking students to measure academic achievement in math. In this section, an analysis was made on the math skills attained by students from kindergarten to eighth grade levels to determine how students are improving math skills in their native language. Results were calculated using the established stanines that range from a low of 1 to a high of 9, with 5 designating average performance. The following breakdown indicates performance categories:

• Levels 1-3: Below Average (Noted as BA in tables)

• Levels 4-6: Average (Noted as A in tables)

• Levels 7-9: Above Average (Noted as AA in tables)

The following tables provide the number and percentage of Elementary students that took the APRENDA Math Test and received a score in One-Way and Two-Way Developmental Programs.

One-way Developmental Programs (Elementary)

Table ___: Number of Students with Scores that took the APRENDA Math Test by Grade and Percentage of Students Scoring at each Level (K-5)




First Grade 385 22% 59% 19%

Second Grade 425 17% 52% 31%

Third Grade 392 24% 57% 31%

Fourth Grade 275 22% 58% 20%

Fifth Grade 260 13% 65% 22%

33

November 4, 2009


Table __ indicates the five schools with the highest percentage of students reaching Above Average (AA) in Math

2008-2009Levels Five Schools with the highest percentage of students reaching AA

Kindergarten Waterbridge (88%)

Spring Lake (71%)

Azalea Park (60%)

Pine Hills (54%)

Chickasaw/Ventrua(53%)

First Grade Chickasaw (82%)

Zellwood (62%)

Cheney/Pine Hills

(33%)

Lovell (31%)

Lake Weston (29%)

Second Grade

Zellwood (64%)

Wyndham Lakes (58%)

Oakshire (53%)

Waterbridge

(52%)

Shingle Creek (48%)

Third Grade Chickasaw (43%)

Zellwood (37%)

Waterbridge/

Wyndham Lakes (35%)

Clay Springs (33%)

Oakshire (32%)

Fourth Grade Pineloch (45%)

Pine Hills

(43%)

Waterbridge (29%)

Lake Weston/Shingle Creek (27%)

Azalea Park(24%)

Fifth Grade Zellwood (55%)

Waterbridge

(41%)

Lake Weston(36%)

Pine Hills (30%)

Tildenville (29%)


Table __ indicates the five schools with the highest percentage of students scoring Below Average (BA) -Math

2008-2009Levels Five Schools with the highest percentage of students reaching (BA)

Kindergarten Wyndham Lakes

Oakshire (33%)

Lancaster(32%)

Engelwood/Pineloch

Cheney(25%)

34

November 4, 2009

(35%) (31%)

First Grade McCoy (70%)

Little River (44%)

Wyndham Lakes (35%)

Engelwood (33%)

Oakshire (32%)

Second Grade

Ventura (56%)

McCoy (38%)

Pineloch (32%)

Chickasaw/Tildenville

(29%)

Cheney26%

Third Grade Ventura (45%)

McCoy/ Shingle Creek(44%)

Pineloch/Tildenville

(42%)

Cheney(29%)

Lovell(28%)

Fourth Grade

McCoy (53%)

Shingle Creek (45%)

Azalea Park/Chickasaw

(29%)

Lake Weston(27%)

Little River (26%)

Fifth Grade Azalea Park (40%)

Lancaster(33%)

McCoy(27%)

Little River/Pine Hills

(20%)

Lovell (18%)

One-way Developmental Programs (Middle)

Table ___: Number of Students with Scores that took the APRENDA Math Test by Grade and Percentage of Students Scoring at each Level (Middle)



BA A AASixth grade 241 37% 58% 5%

Seventh grade 207 49% 48% 3%Eighth grade 182 54% 41% 5%

Above Average Percentages (Middle)

Table __ indicates the five schools with the highest percentage of students reaching Above Average (AA) Math

2008-2009Levels Three Schools with the highest percentage of students reaching AA

Sixth grade Freedom (18%)

Meadow Woods

Apopka(13%)

35

November 4, 2009

(16%)Seventh grade

Westridge(9%)

Meadowbrook(8%)

Union Park(7%)

Eight grade Union Park(17%)

Apopka(15%)

Meadow Woods(13%)

Below Average Percentages (Middle)

Table __ indicates the five schools with the highest percentage of students scoring Below Average (BA) Math

2008-2009

Levels Three Schools with the highest percentage of students scoring (BA)Sixth grade Jackson

(53%)Union Park/

Walker(42%)

Meadow Woods(41%)

9Seventh grade

Jackson(65%)

Walker(62%)

Meadow Woods(54%)

Eight grade Jackson(82%)

Walker(68%)

Union Park(58%)

Elementary Two-Way

Two-Way Developmental Bilingual Programs: Elementary

Table___: Number of Spanish & English Speaking Students with Scores that took the APRENDA Math Test by Grade and Percentage of Students Scoring at each

Level (K-5)2008-2009

Levels Numbers tested Percentage of Students Scoring at Each Level

SS/ES BA A AAKindergarten 92

107First Grade 107

99Second Grade 76

72Third Grade 41

36

November 4, 2009

10Fourth Grade 27

6Fifth Grade 26

9

Above Average Percentages (Math)

Table __ indicates the five schools with the highest percentage of Spanish speaking students reaching Above Average (AA)

2008-2009Levels Schools with the highest percentage of Spanish Speakers reaching AAKindergarten

First Grade

Second Grade

Third Grade

Fourth Grade

Fifth Grade

Tildenville students at each grade level have reached the highest Above Average percentages.

2007-2008


Table __ indicates the five schools with Spanish speaking (SS) the highest percentage of students scoring Below Average (AA)

2008-2009Levels Schools with the highest percentage of Spanish Speakers scoring Below

Average (BA)Kindergarten

First Grade

Second Grade

37

November 4, 2009

Third Grade

Fourth Grade

Fifth Grade

Title III Student Advocates/Parent Liaisons –Objectives

Title III Secondary Guidance

Counselors’ Task Force

Outcomes:

The Secondary Guidance Counselors’ Task Force is a partnership between the Senior Administrator for Title III, the Title III Student Advocates/Parent Liaisons and the district level guidance counselors, four school-based counselors, the Title I Migrant Education Counselor and the district gifted and/or AVID coordinator.

The Task Force was formed in order to support the academic goals and linguistic objectives set forth by Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 pertaining to English Language Learners (ELLs).

The Title III Student Advocates/Parent Liaisons follow the goals/recommendations/guidelines that were initially issued by the task force. Following these guidelines allows them to have the support they need from the school staff and personnel at the school(s) where they are assigned.

The Task Force meets at least three to four times during the school year.

School Year 2008-2009:

The Secondary Guidance Counselors’ Task Force met three times: September 30,2008, December 9, 2008 and February 24, 2009.

As an initiative from the MSES Director and the Senior Administrator that coordinates the Secondary Guidance Counselors’ Task Force, the last meeting consisted of inviting the Immigrant and Refugee Coordinator for Catholic Services, Leslie Hungerford, to present at the District Counselors’ <meeting for Secondary Schools. Leslie provided an overview of Catholic Charities services to refugees, specifically the services provided by the Refugee Youth and Family Services Program. She also gave some background on current refugee groups and the challenges they face within the school system.

This meeting took place on February 24, 2009 at Mid- Florida Tech. Elizabeth Heinzman, Title III Curriculum Resource Teacher, spoke to the counselors about the Refugee Literacy Camp. Juanita Munera, the Title III Senior Administrator, presented all the counselors with a copy of the handbook

38

November 4, 2009

Cultural Portraits- A Synoptic Guide and explained how it can help them learn more and have a better understanding of other cultures (total of 72 countries represented in the handbook). She also explained that copies were being sent to all the counselors at the schools, the principal, the ESOL Compliance Teacher (CT) and the media specialist.

The last meeting that was scheduled for April 16, 2009 was cancelled due to many schedule changes and other department priorities.

Bob Milstead, the lead counselor for secondary schools at the district level, is retiring from OCPS in June.

There is a power point presentation that delineates all the information beginning with the purpose of the Task Force, its members, recommendations for the student advocates/parent liaisons, and other important information as its pertains to the implementation f the Title III grants.

The Task Force members decided that the Title III Advocates continue to follow the recommendations/guidelines that have helped tem increase the support/collaboration that they have experienced at their school(s).

Minutes/agendas for the meetings are made available upon request.

Task Force Members for 2008-09

Juanita K Munera, Senior Administrator, Title III Projects/Task Force Coordinator Nancy Ortiz-Jackson, Title III Student Advocate/Parent Liaison/Task Force Representative Robert A. Milstead, District High School Lead Guidance Counselor Monica Hite, District Middle School Lead Guidance Counselor Martha A. Kesler, District Gifted Program Coordinator Alex Reyes, District AVID Coordinator Olga Marquez, Title I Migrants Education Guidance Counselor Twaquana Gibson, Jones High Guidance Counselor Karen King, Robinswood Middle, Guidance Counselor Brenda Hernandez, Apopka High, Guidance Counselor Rafael Caballero, University High, Guidance Counselor

Recommendations/Initiatives from the Task Force to the Student Advocates/Parent Liaisons: (ongoing)

Meet with the guidance department hair at the school to explain their role (Aug.-Sept.) Start early in the school year promoting/informing LEP students (and their parents) on how they

can enroll in honors classes, the gifted programs, AP classes etc., by collaborating with the

39

November 4, 2009

guidance department at their assigned schools (e.g., attend the school’s Open House, have display/table)

Obtain the schedule for department/faculty meetings and request to be on the agenda Become knowledgeable with the schools guidelines for students who are recommended to be

placed in honors and/or advanced classes (According to the district counselor, there are no district guidelines for students who want to be placed in honors classes.) Schools usually set the guidelines (e.g., must have obtained an A or B grade in Algebra I before enrolling in Algebra II Honors)

Initiate early in the school year a continuous collaboration with the guidance counselor and be prepared to recommend/facilitate the placement of LEP students in honors or AP classes, etc.

It is highly recommended that the student advocate:

Prepare/send a monthly calendar with scheduled visits to counselors at each campus served. Work with the school counselor’s schedule (networking) and invite the ESOL Compliance

Teacher (CT) to the meetings when feasible. (Aug.-Sept.) Ask to be part of a faculty meeting (a good opportunity for the principal to

introduce you to the faculty) Participate in the district-wide meeting for all counselors (during pre-planning week) Contact Bob Milstead about attending some of the district guidance chair meetings that are held

at the high schools and middle schools Include in your e-mails the district counselors (Cc:) them with parent training information, PLCs,

etc. Attend the AVID meeting held every 1st Thursday of the month (Alex Reyes will e-mail the

advocates) Inform parents of the excellent Title I tutoring services available for a few Title I middles schools

(no high schools). (This is a part of the Title III collaboration with Title I.) Facilitate a continuous collaboration between student advocates, the guidance department and

the school/administration/staff by consistently communication and keeping involved Continue implementing (for 2009/10) these ongoing recommendations/initiatives in order to

promote and establish a good partnership with the guidance counselors and the school administration/staff.

Table 23: Number of LY and LF students Participating in Honors and Advanced Placement Classes (SEND)

40

Title III Evaluation Report - Wikispacesocpsesolevaluation.wikispaces.com/file/view/latest+vers… · Web viewTitle III Evaluation Report. ... the education of English Language

Documents