17. RESEARCH BASE PLC: California Department of Education. Ed. Ong, F. 2010. Improving Education for English Learners: Research-based approaches. Sacramento: California Department of Education Press City, E., Elmore, R., Fiarman, S., Teitel, L. 2009. Instructional rounds in education: a network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. DuFour, R., Eaker, R., 1998. Professional learning communities at work: best practices for enhancing student achievement. Reston, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Fisher, D., Frey, N., Rothenberg, C. 2011. Implementing RTI with English Learners. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Killion, J. 2008. Teachers teaching teachers for a dynamic community of teacher leaders. National Staff Development Council. 3(8). Marzano, R. 2003. What in schools: translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Reeves, D. 2010. Transforming professional development into student results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. TIERED SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT: Allington, R. 2009. What really matters in response to intervention research-based designs. Boston, MA: Pearson. Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. 2011. Response to Intervention (RtI) and English Learners: Making it happen. Boston: Pearson. J. 2009. Questions and some answers on dual identified ELL/SPED students. Presentation to Title III Directors. Fisher, D., Frey, N., Rothenberg, C. 2011. Implementing RTI with English Learners. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Horwitz, A.R., et al. 2009. Succeeding with English language learners: lessons learned for the city schools. Council of the Great City Schools. October 2009 Howard, M. 2009. RTI from all sides: what every teacher needs to know. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Howell, R., Patton, S., Deiotte, M. 2008. Understanding response to intervention: a practical to systemic implementation. Marzano, R. 2003. What works in schools: translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
U.S. Department of Education. Ed. Faulkner-Bond, M., et al. 2012. Language Instruction Educational Programs (LIEPs): A review of the foundational literature. . Walqui, A., van Lier. 2010. Scaffolding the academic success of adolescent English language learners. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. LITERACY: August, D., Shanahan, T., 2006. Executive Summary - Developing literacy in second-language learners: report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates California Department of Education. Ed. Ong, F. 2010. Improving Education for English Learners: approaches. Sacramento: California Department of Education Press Callan, R. 2006. The intersection of accountability and language: can reading intervention replace English language development? Bilingual Research Journal. 30(1). Cappellini, M. 2005. Balancing reading and language learning: a resource for teaching English language learners K-5. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. Hill, J., Flynn, K. 2006. Classroom instruction that works with English language learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Horwitz, A.R., et al. 2009. Succeeding with English language learners: lessons learned for the great city schools. Council of the Great City Schools. October 2009 Goldenberg, C., Coleman, R. 2010. Promoting Academic Achievement English Learners: A guide to the research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Goldenberg, C. 2008. Teaching English language learners: what the research does-and does not-say. American Educator. Summer. Marzano, R. 2003. What works in schools: translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 18. – 23. FOR THE DISTRICT ELD PROGRAM: GOALS 18-19. GOALS 20-21. MEASURE 22. TIMEFRAME ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY The percentage of students advancing one level on ELPA will increase from 52.15% to 53.65% by June, 2015. AMAO2a: The percentage of all students exiting ELL services will increase from 12% to 12.5% by June, 2015. Common Assessments utilized during the Data Teams Process during weekly PLC meetings Weekly meetings Fall, Spring Fall, Spring Spring
AMAO2b: The percentage of long term (5+ years in ELL) students exiting the ELL program will increase from 30.8% to 31.8% by June 2015. ADEPT (Elem) GAP Finder (Secondary) ELPA CORE CONTENT - ELLs DISTRICT FIVE YEAR NON-NEGOTIABLE GOALS (from Achievement Compact, submitted to OEIB on 10/15/14): End of 3rd grade: every child at grade level in reading, writing and math End of 8th grade: every child academically ready for 9th grade End of 9th grade: every student has credits necessary to graduate on time End of high school: every student graduates ready for college and/or career Assessments utilized during the Data Teams Process during weekly PLC meetings DRA (Elem) Academic credits grades and progress reports meetings Fall, Spring Semester Semester and quarterly Annual LEP: 3rd Reading: 57% of all 3rd graders will meet benchmarks in reading achievement. 6th attendance: 87% of EL students will have a daily attendance rate of 90% or higher. 9th 80% of EL students will earn 6 credits by the end of 9th grade. ALL: 3rd Reading: 57% of all 3rd graders will meet benchmarks in reading achievement. 6th attendance: 87% of all students will have a daily attendance rate of 90% or higher. 9th Grade: 80% of all students will earn 6 credits by the end of 9th grade. MEASURE: 3RD Grade: SBAC Reading assessment 6th Grade: attendance tracking 9th Grade: number of earned credits TIME FRAME: 3rd Grade: Summer 2015 6th Grade: currently piloting an attendance tracking program; details are still in the planning phase. 9th Grade: student progress is tracked weekly by teachers during PLC meetings. Additional credit tracking occurs at mid terms and final grading periods.