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

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

tests, organizational skills, prioritizing assignments

Wisconsin Academic Standards

are universal standards and

benchmarks

Research-based comprehensive

literacy and math programs

10 | P a g e

Staffing and Resources

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

education classes.

http://dpi.wi.gov/esea/pdf/bul_0702.pdf

12 | P a g e

A monitoring form is completed each subsequent year with data from WKCE tests and the MAP assessments.

The ESL staff will be responsible for distributing monitoring forms and should retain a copy for both personal

records and the student’s cumulative file. The ESL staff will be notified if there are concerns about any student

on monitoring status. The ESL staff will review students of concern and administer the MODEL screener if

needed.

If concerns are noted on the monitoring form, an intervention team will meet to review academics, English

proficiency and other reasons.

Staff responsible for monitoring: ELL personnel, classroom teachers and school psychologists.

Reclassification Procedure: If observations and academic performance indicate that a student is still in need of ELL services, the ELL

teachers will examine the student's scores on the WKCE standardized tests. They should also conduct in-depth

discussions with the general education teacher(s) to receive their feedback on a possible re-entry into the

Program. Next, the ELL teacher is responsible for completing the Re-Entry Form. The reclassification must be

completed in the Individual Student Enrollment System (ISES) during the initial data submission period.

Program Evaluation

ELL Program evaluation is a component of our CIP (Continuous Improvement Process). Data is reviewed to

determine the effectiveness of the program, identify areas of concerns, propose program modifications, and set

new program goals. Additionally, WI DPI Title III Self Monitoring Tools will be used to evaluate how well the

district is meeting the legal requirements of Title III funding. ELL Program evaluation may include

administrators, classroom teachers, ELL Staff, ELL student(s), and parents(s). The review includes a focus on

improving student learning with recommendations to the superintendent to guide the planning, implementation,

evaluation and modifications of the language instruction educational program. The designated team reviews

and reports on the processes for identification, implementation of the program, staffing, assessment,

accommodations and exit criteria. It also includes analysis of student data and growth on the annual language

proficiency exam and the state content standards exams. Other data may also be included such as grades, honor

roll, graduation rates, drop-out rates, discipline referrals, participation in extracurricular activities, and parent

information. Questions the team may consider include:

a. Are students acquiring English language skills at a pace that is consistent with ELL program goals?

b. Is the rate of language development progress compatible with district’s objectives for academic progress?

c. How are ELL students performing in English language skills compared to the district’s goals and standards?

d. Are ELL students progressing in English language skills so they will be able to successfully handle regular

coursework?

e. Do former ELL students who have exited the program continue to demonstrate English language skills that

enable them to successfully handle regular coursework?

f. Are ELL students who are currently receiving English language development services progressing

academically relative to the program goals/expectations?

g. Are ELL students making sufficient academic progress so that they are either at grade level or closing the

gap between their instructional level and grade level?

h. How are ELL and former ELL students doing, over time, as compared to the academic performance of all

other students generally?

i. Are multiple measures used to assess the overall performance of ELL students in meeting the goals the

district has established for its ELL Program?

13 | P a g e

Appendix A: Home Language Survey Cedarburg School District

Home Language Survey & ELL Enrollment/Referral Application

**Complete this form ONLY if you are new to the Cedarburg School District**

PARENT/GUARDIAN HOME LANGUAGE SURVEY

Student’s Name

Grade

Relationship of Person Completing Survey

Mother Father Guardian Other Specify

Directions: Answer questions #1-5.

1. What is the first date your child enrolled in a school in the United States? _____/____/_____

Month/ Day /Year

English

Other

Other language(s)

2. What language did your child speak when he or she first began to talk?

3. What language do you use most of the time when talking to your child?

4. What language does your child speak most of the time at home?

5. What is your preferred language for home/school communication?

SIGNATURE

Signature of Person Completing Survey

Date Signed

FOR STAFF COMPLETION TO BE COMPLETED FOR ALL NEW STUDENTS

ELL File Opened

Yes No

ELL Evaluator

Today’s Date

Copies of Completed Form:

File in Student Cum Folder at School /District ELL Coordinator (only if language other than English)

14 | P a g e

Appendix B:

Parental Approval/Refusal Form for ELL Program

Name of Student: ______________________________________________

Grade: _________________

Your child is eligible to receive services from the English Language Learner Program. This program teaches

your child the English skills needed to do well in school and provides content-based language instruction within

the mainstream classroom. With the help of targeted academic language instruction, your child will have the

skills necessary for academic success in the mainstream classroom.

Based on information provided by the Home Language Survey, we learned that your child speaks another

language other than English. Your child’s English language proficiency has been assessed. His/her level is

________. Please review a description of your child’s proficiency level included in this letter.

By state law, all English Language Learners must be assessed using a state approved test. Our district uses the

ACCESS for ELLs proficiency assessment. This test is given each year between December and February. You

will receive a copy of the results in May. When your child reaches full English proficiency, he or she will be

exited from the program. Your child is eligible for exit with an overall level 6 score, or with an overall level 5

score and a level 5 literacy subscore.

We believe that your child would benefit from the English Language Learner Program. Given your permission,

we would like to serve your child through this program. Upon enrollment, if you would like to remove

your child from the services provided in the program, please contact your child’s ELL Teacher.

I want my child to receive services through the Cedarburg School District ELL Program.

I do NOT want my child to receive services from the Cedarburg School District English

Language Learner Program. I understand that the ACCESS test is federally mandated and that

my child will participate in this testing.

_______________________________________ __________________

Parent Signature Date

________________________________________________________________

ELL Teacher/School Representative

15 | P a g e

Appendix B (continued):

Parental Approval/Refusal Form for ELL Program

Description of English Language Proficiency Levels

Proficiency Level Description

1: Entering

Knows and uses minimal social language and minimal

academic language with visual support

2: Beginning

Knows and uses some social English and general


3: Developing

Knows and uses social English and some specific


4: Expanding

Knows and uses social English and some technical

academic language

5: Bridging

Knows and uses social and academic language

working with grade level material

6: Reaching

Knows and uses social and academic language at the

highest level measured by this test

Source: www.wida.us/assessment/ACCESS/ScoreReports/ACCESS_Interpretive_Guide11.pdf

16 | P a g e

Appendix C: Sample ACCESS Score Report

17 | P a g e

Appendix D: Letter to Accompany ACCESS

Parent/Guardian Score Report

DATE

Dear Parent or Guardian,

This past winter, English Language Learner (ELL) students in grades kindergarten through twelfth grade

participated in the administration of the ACCESS for ELLs® language proficiency test. ACCESS provides a

standardized measurement of academic language proficiency for ELL students throughout the state of

Wisconsin and in other states. With this information, we will be able to monitor individual ELL student

progress on an annual basis.

Enclosed you will find your child’s results on ACCESS. The Parent/Guardian Report provides information

about your child’s English Language Proficiency Level. This information is for you to review and keep.

If you have any questions regarding this test or the information that is being sent to you about how your child

performed on this test, please contact me, your child’s ELL teacher, or the school principal.

Sincerely,

Ted Noll Michelle Garcia

Director of Pupil Services ELL Coordinator

Cedarburg School District Cedarburg School District

Ph: 262-376-6601 Ph: 262-376-6301

[email protected] [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

18 | P a g e

Appendix E: ELL Student Language Development Plan

19 | P a g e

Appendix E (continued):

20 | P a g e


21 | P a g e


22 | P a g e

Appendix F: Exit from ELL Services Parent Letter

23 | P a g e

Appendix G: Post-Exit Student Monitoring Forms Post-Exit ELL Monitoring Form (Elementary)

Pages 1 and 3 to be completed by the appropriate ELL Staff

Student Name

Grade in 1st

year of monitoring

Academic Year

Name of classroom teacher (1

st year of monitoring)

The classroom teacher is responsible for completing this form at semester intervals and returning it to the ELL teacher for review.

Name of classroom teacher (2

nd year of monitoring)

Name of ELL teacher (1

st year of monitoring)

The ELL teacher is responsible for reviewing this form each time that it is completed by the classroom teacher. Name of ELL teacher

(2nd

year of monitoring)

ELL Coordinator (Responsible for ensuring that this form is completed each quarter and maintained in the student’s academic record)

Exiting ACCESS for ELLs® Results:

Composite Listening Speaking Reading Writing Literacy Comprehension Oral

Language

WKCE Results (Minimal, Basic, Proficient, Advanced):

Reading Mathematics Writing

1st

Year of monitoring

2nd

year of monitoring

1st year of monitoring

2nd year of monitoring

Is the student receiving any special services? (any academic services/programs in addition to the standard academic program)

NO YES NO YES

If yes, describe the services (1st year):

If yes, describe the services (2nd

year):

Report Card Results:

1st

year of monitoring 2nd

year of monitoring

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

LA

Math

Science

Social Studies

24 | P a g e

Appendix G (continued):

Student Name: ______________________________

1st 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

1st 2nd

1. The student completes assignments on-time. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2. The student communicates effectively with teacher. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

3. The student participates effectively in class projects.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4. The student participates effectively in class discussions. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

5. The student is able to work independently. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

6. The student attends class regularly. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

7. The student displays effort and enthusiasm in class. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

8. The student requires additional assistance with assignments. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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

1st 2nd










10. The student has discipline problems that interfere with his/her academic progress.

1st 2nd




25 | P a g e


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)

__________

__________

__________

__________



1st

Yes No

Comments:

2nd

Yes No

Comments:


1st 2

nd



26 | P a g e


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)

Exiting ACCESS for ELLs® Results:

Composite Listening Speaking Reading Writing Literacy Comprehension Oral

Language

WKCE Results (Minimal, Basic, Proficient, Advanced):

Reading Mathematics Writing

Is the student receiving any special services? (any academic services/programs in addition to the standard academic program)

NO YES

If so, describe the services:

Report Card Results:

1st Comments 2nd Comments 3rd Comments 4th Comments

LA

Math

Science

Social Studies

27 | P a g e


Student Name: _______________________________ Monitoring Year (circle): 1st year | 2nd year

Language Arts 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

1st 2nd

11. The student completes assignments on-time. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

12. The student communicates effectively with teacher. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



15. The student is able to work independently. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

16. The student attends class regularly. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

17. The student displays effort and enthusiasm in class. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

18. The student requires additional assistance with assignments. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

19. The student shows evidence of difficulty with language. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

20. The student has discipline problems that interfere with his/her academic progress. - - - - - - - -

1st 2nd




Mathematics Teacher’s Initials:

1st Semester

______

2nd Semester

______

Semester


1st 2nd











1st 2nd




28 | P a g e



Science Teacher’s Initials:

1st Semester

______

2nd Semester

______

Semester


1st 2nd











1st 2nd




Social Studies Teacher’s Initials:

1st Semester

______

2nd Semester

______

Semester


1st 2nd











1st 2nd




29 | P a g e



To be completed by appropriate ELL staff

I received and reviewed this completed form.

1st 2

nd

__________ (Initial)

___________ (Initial)



1st

Yes No

Comments:

2nd

Yes No

Comments:


1st 2

nd


YES NO YES NO

Additional Recommendation(s):


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

Update Bulletins, located: http://www.dpi.wi.gov/ell/titleiii.html.

Initial Questions Yes No Comments

IDENTIFICATION and ASSESSMENT

Is the school aware of the District’s ELL Plan? Is the ELL Plan being

implemented within the school?

Is the school administration aware of the legal requirements pertaining

to identifying and placing ELL students? Does every student have a

Home Language Survey (HLS) on file?

Are all possible new ELL students being first screened using the

WIDA screener (W-APT), and if identified as possible ELL, then

given the ACCESS Test in the fall/spring?

Is the school administration aware of the requirement to address the

individual needs of each ELL student?

Do ELL students have an Educational Learning Plan (ELP), inclusive

of language goals and benchmarks, if they are given accommodations

or adaptations within the classroom and subsequently on assessments?

31 | P a g e

Is the school using both formative and summative assessment and

language proficiency assessment data to guide instruction for

individual students?

PROGRAMMING and EDUCATIONAL APPROACHES

Is the program addressing the needs of ELL students within each

content area (i.e. Math, Science, as well as language acquisition)?

Is the entire faculty and administration aware of the ELL students and

their needs within the school?

Are all teachers utilizing the English Language Proficiency Standards

(ELP) as a tool and entry point in teaching ELL students?

Are the ELL students placed in pull out ESL classrooms? If so, are

they learning content area vocabulary and skills?

If ELL students are taught within the classroom, are they receiving

additional assistance with language instruction? Are ELL students

being served within the regular classroom?

Are ELL students learning content knowledge and skills, as well as

making progress in learning the English language?

Is the curriculum for ELL students challenging and academically

based?

Does the district have a content-based ELL Plan in place? How will

the ELL students learn throughout their content classes?

Is your school/district providing before/after or summer school

programs for ELL students?

Do the district and school make it a priority to allocate district funding

to serve ELL students?

STAFFING and PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Do regular classroom teachers have the resources, skills and

knowledge to address the needs of ELL students in their classroom?

Are content teachers trained in specific methodologies to target ELL

students?

If ESL teachers are teaching content area, do they have certification in

the specific content area, as well as their ESL certification?

Are middle and high school ELL students receiving specific attention

in each class?

Is there an accountability plan in place for all teachers to take

ownership of the ELL students in their classroom and serve them with

effective instructional practices?

Is the administration of the school encouraging of all teachers to

implement best & effective teaching practices to ELL students?

Does the school have mainly paraprofessionals serving the ELL

students? Why?

Is the main service for ELL students just translating? Is there

academic learning in the translation?

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT

Are parents of ELL students given notifications in their home

language?

Are parents of ELL students included in decisions within the school?

32 | P a g e

Are parents informed and given educational information regarding the

school system and how to help their children at home?

PROGRAM EVALUATION and REVIEW

Is the school keeping complete data for each student in order to

calculate growth in language proficiency from year to year?

Is the school evaluating the programs and services annually?

Who is responsible for monitoring services and determine if they are

effective and make changes, if necessary?

EXITING STUDENTS

Is the school creating a data system to track the achievement of

Former ELL students (FLEP)?

Is the school in agreement to the elements of data to include in the

monitoring criteria for Former ELL students?

Is the school, at least annually, monitoring the progress of Former

ELL students (FLEP)?

SPECIAL EDUCATION & TALENTED/GIFTED

How does the district/school ensures that ELL students are not

overrepresented in special education.

How does the district/school ensures that ELL students are not

underrepresented in gifted/talented (G/T) education.

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRESS MADE BY ELLS

Describe the progress made by ELL students in learning English and

meeting academic standards

Describe the progress made by ELL students in meeting State

academic content and student achievement standards for each of the

two years after they no longer receive ESL services. Describe the

district/school monitoring process.

Describe the parent involvement activities conducted by the

district/school. Address specifically in this description the process

used by the district/school to notify parents of ELL students about:

school required and optional activities; language acquisition program

placement; and failure of the school to meet AMAOs

STATE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Did the state offer technical assistance in regards to instructional

programs and curricula for ELLs?

Did the state assist in developing improvement plans and other

technical assistance to districts/schools failing to meet AMAOs for

two or more consecutive years?

(Acknowledgments: Idaho Department of Education & Utah Title III Office)

33 | P a g e

References

August, D., Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1998). Educating language minority children. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.

Biagini, J., Díaz, M., & Phommasouvanh, B. (1991). Guidelines for serving students with limited English

proficiency. St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Education.

Castenada v. Pickard, 648 F. 2d 989 (5th Cir., 1981).

Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review

of educational research, 49, 222-151.

Cummins, J. (1981). Schooling and language minority Students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3-50). Los

Angeles: California State University, Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center.

Cummins, J. (1991). Schooling for Language Minority Students (pp. 3-49). Sacramento, CA: California

Department of Education.

Diana v. State Board of Education, No. C-70 RFT (N. D. Cal. 1970).

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. 89–10, 79 Stat. 27 (1965).

Equal Education Opportunities Act of 1974, 20 U. S. C. §1203(f).

Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1703. Retrieved September 5, 2004, from

http://www.maec.org/laws/eeo.html

Fairbairn, S. and Jones-Vo, S. (2010) Differentiating Instruction and Assessment for English Language

Learners: A Guide for K-12 Teachers.

Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English language learners to attain

proficiency? (The University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute Policy Report 2000-1).

Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved August 18, 2004, from

http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/Docs/HowLong.pdf

Lau v. Nichols, No. 72 – 6520, Supreme Court of The United States 414 U.S. 563 (1974).

Malakoff, M., & Hakuta, K. (1990): History of language minority education in the United States.

In M. Padilla, H. Fairchild, and C. Valadez (Eds.), Bilingual education. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Masiarchin, T. English Language Development Plan. (2013) CESA 6 Language and Culture Center.

Masiarchin, T. Title III District Evaluation Tool. (2013) CESA 6 Language and Culture Center.

Masiarchin, T. Weekly Tips. (2013) CESA 6 Language and Culture Center (2013). [email protected]

http://www.stanford.edu/~hakuta/Docs/HowLong.pdf

34 | P a g e

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 1001-1908, 115 Stat. 1439-1620; § 301-3304, 115

Stat. 1689-1734, (2002). Retrieved February 25, 2003, from

http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/107-110.pdf

Plyler v. Doe, No. 80-1538, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. 457 U.S. 202 (1982). The

Bilingual Education Act of 1968, 20 U. S. C. §3283.

Terrel, A Natural Approach to Second Language Acquisition, Modern Languages Journal 6, pp.325-337

Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’

long-term achievement final report: Project 1.1. Retrieved August 18, 2004, from

http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/llaa/1.1_final.html

Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Revised, 1999), 34 CFR 100.1. Retrieved August 18, 2004, from

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_99/34cfr100_99.html

United States Department of Education. (1970, May 25). Identification of discrimination and denial of services

on the basis of national origin. Retrieved August 18, 2004, from

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ell/may25.html

http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/107-110.pdf

http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/llaa/1.1_final.html

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_99/34cfr100_99.html

Documents

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