| Title III Year 4 Needs Assessment 1. IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM: Describe the challenge area(s) for the LEA. - Provide a description of findings from the results of analysis of the CELDT, CST, CAHSEE, and other assessments used by the LEA to measure EL student English proficiency and academic achievement.
O’Farrell Community School has not met AMAO 3 for four consecutive years in the area of language arts and math. The data shows that the large number of students test at both the intermediate level at CELDT and the basic proficiency level on the CST for language arts and math. As EL students progress through the grades, their proficiency level at English and math may increase, but the percentage that may score proficient in Language Arts and math in the CST drops steadily. In this area, O’Farrell has not met its NCLB targets. Therefore, it is our concern and we have developed and focused our action plan to address this target area. AMAO 1 results indicate that from year 2006-2009, there has been a significant increase in scores and state target has been met. However, a large percentage of EL students in this area need to receive strategic and targeted interventions. AMAO 2 results indicate that 3% of EL students score below the state target. AMAO 3 results indicate that targets have not been met. In general the data demonstrates that the targets were not met from 2005-2009 in ELA and math. Concerning EL students meeting CELDT level growth, students are making the least amount of progress in the beginning levels and early advanced/advanced proficient levels. Students make the most progress at the early intermediate and intermediate levels. Students who are in US schools for three years or less show significant improvement. This is much greater than the improvements made by students who are in US schools four years or more. The sample sizes are too small or varied to make an accurate judgment as to what strategies are being implemented to ensure success, most predominantly in groups who have been in US schools for more than five years. Summary: ELs whose language is at the intermediate or early advanced on the CELDT tend to not score well on the CST. In addition, looking at the data, there seems to be a difference in classroom achievement of EL students served with language arts High Point intervention instruction as well as students who are classified as RFEPs in the general education classroom, and their scores on the CELDT and CST, respectively. A majority of the students who are served by the High Points curriculum continue to score basic or lower on the CST. Additionally, RFEP and EL student programs seem to lack a monitoring system to help ensure their success. - Describe the strengths and weaknesses of the current Title III LEA Improvement Plan Addendum or Title I LEA Plan Addendum.
Strengths: GLAD strategies are in use by many of O’Farrell’s core teachers in their daily instruction. SDAIE retraining also takes place throughout the school year. EL paraprofessionals at each grade level are taking an active role in assisting student achievement. These individuals are strategically placed in EL classrooms and teach after school EL tutoring classes. More emphasis has been placed on ELAC meetings to increase parent involvement. The establishment of ELA and math interventions like “Club Del Sol” and extended day has proven to increase academic performance. “Club Del Sol” is an after school intervention program which identifies EL students’ weaknesses in both math and Language Arts and implements strategies to improve student understanding of those concepts. Extended Day classes offer additional academic support through tutoring in English Language Arts and Math, and will be expanded to increase EL student participation. Weaknesses: It is evident that more time and effort must be placed in differentiating instruction primarily and specifically for EL students. Not all teachers are trained in GLAD strategies. Professional development for all staff working with the EL population is needed. Vocabulary toolkits are currently being used to pre-teach academic vocabulary and concepts to EL students in content area classrooms. Vocabulary toolkits and other classroom interventions are lacking in proper implementation. A more aggressive intervention policy must be established to address individual needs of EL students and RFEPs. A more concrete monitoring system to track ELs and RFEPs needs to be implemented.
2. IDENTIFY THE CAUSE(S): Identify and describe the root causes of the problem(s) or what prevented the LEA from achieving the AMAO(s). Describe how root causes were verified. 1. Some EL students receive ELD instruction daily while others receive none at all. Not all content area classroom teachers implement ELD standards into their curriculum. Time allotments vary and the state adopted curriculum and assessments are inconsistently used throughout the school. ELD interventions are not being properly implemented. 2. A transitional program for EL students and moving out of Reading Intervention classes and into the mainstream language arts classroom is lacking. Approximately 100% of 6th graders, 85% of 7th graders, and 99% of 8th graders in the intermediate CELDT category are still not proficient on the CSTs in Language Arts. There is a lack of intervention geared specifically to address our EL and RFEP students in language arts classrooms. 3. In mathematics, 96% of 6th graders, 85% of 7th graders, and 100% of grade eight general math intermediate students were not proficient. In 2007/2008 and 2008/2009, AYP targets were not met within the EL subgroup. Interventions in math classrooms to address our EL and RFEP population are not implemented. 4. The school lacks the proper amount of monitoring and follow up in the area of data collection to inform classroom instruction. There is insufficient school and administrative follow-through in the monitoring of EL students. Content area benchmark assessments given to EL students need to be aligned to classroom instruction so that EL student progress may be more carefully monitored. Currently, the school monitors progress of students through CELDT scores, content area assessments, and grades. 3. IDENTIFY THE SOLUTION(S): Describe the research-based solutions to solve the low achievement problem(s) listed above. 1. Full and consistent implementation and monitoring of standards-based ELD instruction at all grade levels. Increase classroom instructional time allotted toward ELD instruction. Provide additional intervention programs that support ELD instruction. Continued professional development for teachers and administrators, focusing on all aspects of ELD success. 2. Consistent implementation of targeted language arts interventions. The use of core and supplemental materials to ensure equal access to language arts standards and curriculum. Professional development will include time for collaboration among the teachers. Administration will be responsible for ensuring that teachers are supported sufficiently to implement the strategies. 3. Consistent implementation of targeted math interventions. The use of core and supplemental materials to ensure equal access to math standards and curriculum. Professional development will include time for collaboration among the teachers. Administration will be responsible for ensuring that teachers are supported sufficiently to implement the strategies. 4. Utilization of a data system to monitor benchmarks and EL and RFEP student success. Professional development for DataDirector. Teachers will have time to collaborate on the analysis and application of data shared on DataDirector. |