Mary Fay Pendleton

ENGLISH LEARNERS (EL)

DEMOGRAPHICS
Demographics of Mary Fay Pendleton School
American Indian/Alaskan Native, 21, 2% Chinese, 4, 1% Samoan , 5, 1% Black/African American, 129, 15% Cambodian, 2, 0% Tahitian, 1, 0% Japanese, 12, 1% Filipino, 37, 4% White (non-Hispanic), 383, 44% Korean, 8, 1% Native Hawaiian, 5, 1% Laotian, 1, 0% Other Asian, 6, 1% Hispanic, 237, 27% Other (not specified), 1, 0% Other Pacific Islander, 1, 0% Vietnamese, 7, 1% Guamanian, 6, 1%

American Indian/Alaskan Native Vietnamese Samoan

Black/African American Filipino Tahitian

Cambodian Guamanian Native Hawaiian

Chinese Japanese Korean

Laotian
Hispanic

Other Asian
White (non-Hispanic)

Other (not specified)

Other Pacific Islander

In ELA, ELs had a mean score of 347 compared to a mean score of 384 for the general population; comparing the ELs mean scores to their counterparts reveals a gap of 10% as they only score at a level 90% of their EO counterparts score.
A like comparison reveals similar results in math as the ELs mean score is only 372 compared to a mean score of 421 for the general population; comparing the ELs mean scores to their counterparts reveals a gap of 12% as they only score at a level 88% of their EO counterparts score.

440

422 420

400 384 380 372

360 347 340 EO ELA EL ELA RFEP ELA IFEP ELA EO Math EL Math RFEP Math IFEP Math

COMPARISON OF MEAN CST SCORES

THE PERCENT AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT - ELA

THE PERCENT AT OR ABOVE PROFICIENT - MATH

API GROWTH BY SUBGROUP

Number of Students Included in 2013 API 534 69 15 137 267 31 213 13 64

Groups Schoolwide Black or African American Filipino Hispanic or Latino White Two or More Races Socioeconomically Disadvantaged English Learners Students with Disabilities

2013 Growth
889 867 895

2012 Base
873 849 899

2012-13 Growth 16 18 -4

848
917 871 863 762 712

848
891 851 841 864 721

0
26 20 22 -102 -9

ALREADY IMPLEMENTED BEST PRACTICE

Professional Learning Communities

Obermans (2005) three recommendations are: to support the use of frequent and common diagnostic assessments; to provide educators with input on best practices at the classroom, at the school and district level; and to provide time for ongoing, site-based professional development and collaboration.

Gateways (Focus on data driven instruction, resources, standards-based curriculum and objectives)

Williams et al. (2007) found schools with high EL populations that do better on state tests utilize one or more of the following four interventions: use assessment data to improve student achievement and instruction, ensure the availability of instructional and other resources, implement a coherent, standards-based curriculum and instructional program, and prioritize student achievement (using measurable and monitored objectives). de Jong and Harper (2005) while good teaching practices for native English speakers are often relevant for ELLs, they will be insufficient to meet their specific linguistic and cultural needs (p. 102).

Direct Interactive Instruction

ACTION PLAN: GOAL 1 - ELEMENTARY EL INTERVENTION (EL SPECIALIST TEACHER)

Gersten et al. (2007) make four recommendations for elementary level intervention based on strong evidence:

to screen for reading problems and monitor progress to provide intensive small-group reading interventions to provide extensive and varied vocabulary instruction to schedule regular peer-assisted learning opportunities.

Their single recommendation based on low evidence is to develop academic English (Gersten et al., 2007) Change the status of the current Gateways teacher (middle level) from half-time to full-time with the goals of implementing the five interventions above with elementary students. Mary Fay TOSA to support teachers with the same.

ACTION PLAN: GOAL 2 OUT-OF-SCHOOL PROGRAM (MCCS ONSITE & FISHER CENTER)

Maxwell-Jolly (2011) points out that a number of research-supported strategies for improving EL achievement can potentially be applied in OSP settings:

incorporating primary language use providing opportunities for practice and interaction in a relatively risk-free environment addressing ELs individual differences including a wide range of backgrounds and English proficiency fostering student motivation and engagement promoting connections with students families and communities

After reviewing research, Maxwell-Jolly (2011) recommended:

a coordination between the out-of-school program and the school staff (EL Specialist & TOSA) intentional planning of activities (EL Specialist) professional development of staff ($) hiring staff with shared backgrounds (EL Specialist to assist with interviews) funding for training and technical assistance ($)

REFERENCES

de Jong, E. J., Harper, C. A. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English-language learners: is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly (32.2), 101-124. Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., Scarcella, R. (2007, July). Effective Literacy and English Language Instruction for English Learners in the Elementary Grades. Institute of Education Sciences Practice Guide, NCEE 2007-4011. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED497258.pdf Maxwell-Jolly, J. (2011). English learners and out-of-school time programs: the potential of OST programs to foster EL success Afterschool Matters (14), 1-12. Oberman, I. (2005). Challenged Schools, Remarkable Results: Three Lessons from California's Highest Achieving High Schools. A Report on Findings from Year Two of the California Best Practices Study Conducted by Springboard Schools. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532063.pdf Williams, T., Perry, M., Oregon, I., Brazil, N., Hakuta, K., Haertel, E., Kirst, M., Levin, J. (2007, May). Similar English Learner Students, Different Results: Why Do Some Schools Do Better? A Follow-Up Analysis Based upon a Large-Scale Survey of California Elementary Schools Serving High Proportions of Low-Income and EL Students. Report of Findings. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED496646.pdf