1

ELA DEPARTMENT & CONSENT DECREE OVERVIEW

February 27th, 2018

2

OVERVIEW OF THE WORK

The Consent Decree

The ELA Department

ELA Programs at Schools

ELA Priorities

33

Denver Public Schools at a glance

• Approximately 94,000 students and 200 schools

• 67% FRL

• Diverse student population

• 56% Latino

• 23% White

• 14% African-American

• 3% Asian

• 4% Other

• English language learners: 33,650 or 36.8%

• 170+ Languages - Top languages spoken by students:

• Spanish

• Vietnamese

• Arabic

• Somali

• Amharic

• French

• Nepali

• Russian

44

Denver Public Schools is under a Consent Decree for our English learner programs.It establishes “the floor” for the services we provide to ELs in DPS

55

The DPS Consent Decree is rooted in our history and the struggle for civil rights.

66

History of the Consent Decree

•Wilfred Keyes vs. School District 1

Supreme Court decision. Minority students were segregated by race in Denver (de juresegregation).

1973• Federal legislation of the Equal Educational Opportunities (EEO) Act passed.

•Lau vs. Nichols: A class action suit was brought by non-English-speaking Chinese students in California.

1974• Court complaint was filed by the Congress of Hispanic Educators (CHE)

claiming DPS was violating the federal 1974 EEO Act

1980•Castañeda vs. Pickard: US Court of Appeals established how bilingual education programs would be held responsible for meeting the EEO Act.

1981• District Court found DPS in violation of the 1974 EEO Act

•“Program for Limited English Proficient Students”

1984

•The Congress of Hispanic Educators (CHE) files a motion for civil contempt against DPS for failure to implement the 1984 court order.

1994

•DPS declared “unitary” - move more towards English Language Acquisition compared with bilingual education.

1995

•DPS found in contempt of court, and the “English Language Acquisition Program” replaces 1984 program.

1999

• Denver Public Schools School Board approves the Modified Consent Decree (MCD)

2012

• District Court approves Consent Decree for the DPS English Language Acquisition Program

2013

77

Main Components of the CDIt includes several specific requirements in these categories

CD Chapter Main Areas of Focus (number of requirements)

Ch.1 – Instructional Services

School Programming (12)Classroom Support (22)Staffing (6)Newcomer & SIFE (5)RTI/GT/Materials (12)

Ch.2 – Instructional Services Advisory Team ISA Team/Student Identification and Placement (44)

Ch.3 – Student Screening, Provisional Placement…ISA Team/Student Identification and Placement (44)Parent Comm. And Student Placement (35)

Ch.4 – Redesignation & Exiting Program Redesignation & Exiting (4)

Ch.5 – Personnel & Training

Teacher Training (27)HR Teacher Designation and Qualification (25)Teacher Evaluations (19)Principal Evaluations (8)Teacher Hiring/Recruiting/Retention (4)

Ch.6 – Parental Oversight PACs & DACs (11)

Ch.7 – Special Education for ELs Student Services – IEPs & 504s (14)

Ch.8 – Charter Schools Support for ELs in Charter Schools (3)

Ch.9 - Accountability Monitoring, Reporting, Ownership (63)

88

External MonitoringCD implementation oversight by parties in the case

• Monthly visits

• Conducts spot audits on every CD chapter

• Issues reports to the judge periodically

Independent Court Monitor

• Every 6 to 10 months

• Attorney’s do school visits, interviews and discussions with District leaders

• Focus on specific CD chapters and/or issues

DoJ & Plaintiff visits

• Reporting requirements established in the CD

• Created by DPS every 6 months (July & January)

• Shared with all parties in the caseCD reporting

99

Internal ELA Monitoring & Supports“Be our best monitors” & Support student’s academic achievement

1010

ELA Department OverviewOur vision for the work and our students

WE EMPOWER SCHOOLS & COMMUNITIES TO PROVIDE ROBUST,

CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR

MULTIL INGUAL LEARNERS.

Lead with a strategy centered on language that:• Elevates language as a skill and competency• Delivers support and guidance to schools integrated in core academic strategy• Engages families & communities celebrating their language, heritage & culture as an asset.

Compliance Ownership & Support

Language as disability Language as asset

Special needs group Integrated instruction

English Learner Emerging Bilingual & Multilingual

1111

Types of ELA Program Schools at DPS

ESL

(ELA-E)

Classes are taught in English by teachers with special training to help

students become fluent in English.

Students also receive special instruction in English Language

Development.

ESL programs are intended for speakers of

all languages.

75 schools

Transitional Bilingual

(TNLI)

This program is for Spanish-speaking

students.

Students are instructed in Spanish and English.

As students learn more English, the proportion of

English instruction increases.

ELA-S teachers are fluent in Spanish and are

specially trained to teach English.

71 schools

Dual Language Immersion

This program is for Spanish & English speaking students.

Students at the school receive instruction in both

English and Spanish throughout the day.

6 schools

Newcomer Center

Designated to serve SIFE students

Provide support in different parts of the

district

6 centers

1212

Main Areas of Focus for ELA DepartmentHigh leveraged research & evidence based areas of focus to improve academic achievement for ELs

Dedicated ELD

Integrated ELD

BiliteracySchool

Service ModelData &

MonitoringProfessional Development

Students who received explicit language instruction showed growth at 5X the rate of their peers who did not receive explicit language instruction (Goldenberg, et al).

Sheltered strategies facilitate the learning of grade-level academic content and skills for students who have limited proficiency in the language. (Saunders & Goldenberg, 2010).

For each year a student is enrolled in Bilingual services (from Kindergarten to 4th grade), the likelihood of being an LTEL in 2015 decreases by 23%

ELA Network Partner role -ELA subject matter experts at school networks 80% of the time.

Developed a platform to identify, place and monitor every EL in the district.

TeacherQualification program.School embedded model throughout the year.Aligned with research-based best practices & district initiatives

13

RESULTS…SO FAR

1414

DPS ELL students performed higher in Math than ELL students across the State.

State rates exclude DPS.

38%

46% 46%

50%48%

50%51%

53% 53% 54%

56%

20%

26%

30%

36%

38%

41%

45%

53%

55%

61%62%

11%

18%

21%23% 23%

25%27%

27%26%

28%

26%

8%

15%

18%19% 19%

23%

26% 26%

29%

25%

30%

27%

32%31%31%

40%41%

6%

8%7%

8%

10%

12%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

ExitedRedesignated

DPS

ExitedRedesignated

State

ELL - DPS

ELL - State

Transition to CMAS PARCC assessments

1515

DPS ELL students performed higher in Reading than ELL students across the State.

State rates exclude DPS.

ExitedRedesignated

DPS

ExitedRedesignated

State

ELL - DPS

ELL - State

62%60%

63%

67% 67% 68%

72% 71%73%

75%76%

36%

39%

44% 44%

50%

54%

64%

68%

73%

76%

79%

17%16%

18%20% 21% 22%

24% 25% 25%28%

26%

13%

9%10%

13% 14%16%

20% 19%

25%

21%

27%

41%

44%47%

45%

55%

61%

7%9% 8%7%

11%

14%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Transition to CMAS PARCC assessments

1616

DPS ELL students performed higher in Writing than ELL students across the State.

State rates exclude DPS.

ExitedRedesignated

DPS

ExitedRedesignated

State

ELL - DPS

ELL - State

48% 48%46%

51%

48%

52% 52%

56%57%

59%

61%

26%

30%29%

32%34%

42%

44%

53%

60% 60%

67%

10% 10% 10%12% 11%

13% 13%

16% 16% 17% 17%

8%

4% 4%

8% 7%

11% 11%13%

18%

14%

20%

41%

44%47%

45%

55%

61%

7%9%

8%7%

11%

14%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Transition to CMAS PARCC assessments

1717

All focus groups made gains in ELA MGPs.However, all reference groups have higher growth rates. Students in focus groups will need to outperform the reference groups for gaps to close.

6564

5757

6463

5859

53

55

49

54

52

54

38

42

FRL

State MGP: 50

White

SOC

Non-ELL

ELL

Non-FRL

2016 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017

LanguageRace/Ethnicity Income Students with Disabilities

2016 2017

Non-SWD

SWD

Focus groups include: Students of Color (SOC), In-Service ELLs, FRL, and Students with DisabilitiesReference groups include: White Students, Non-ELLs (excluding Exited ELLs), Non-FRL, and Students without Disabilities.

1818

The number of Students taking CMAS in Spanish rose by 433 from 2016 to 2017. The % of students Meeting or Exceeding Expectations rose by 5 percentage points.

7.9% 6.6%

31.7%

26.7%

39.6%

40.1%

18.6%23.5%

2.2% 3.0%

2016 (N=1382) 2017 (N=1815)

CSLA Overall Proficiency Rates in 2016 & 2017

Exceeded Expectations

Met Expectations

Approached Expectations

Partially Met Expectations

Did Not Meet Expectations

20.8%

26.7%

2016 (N=1382) 2017 (N=1815)

% Met or Exceeded Expectations

1919

Trajectory On-track Rates

Elementary81% 80%

Middle School14%

34%

High School61% 54%

District63% 65%

*See Appendix for more.

2016 2017

Overall, the 2017 District On-track rate increased slightly to 65%. • Middle school students still had the lowest performance despite changes to the

test; the 2017 middle school test appears to be of similar difficulty to the other edlevels.*

2020

Students who are in Spanish Bilingual (ELA-S) instruction are most likely to be On-track.

80%

60%

73%

51%

Bilingual (ELA-S)(N=4168)

Spanish-speaking ESL (ELA-E)(N=12826)

Non Spanish-speaking ESL (ELA-E)(N=2511)

Parent Opt-out (PPF3)(N=1142)

Secondary ELs also have higher outcomes in bilingual programs, though there are few in bilingual programming (N=238). This is true for all ACCESS proficiency levels: the benefit of being bilingual

remains strong even when students have higher English levels.

2017 On-track Rates by ELA Program

*This trend is generally true for all ed levels: Spanish-speaking students perform best if they are in Bilingual programs.

2121

The Seal of Biliteracy program is growing rapidly

195

490

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2016 2017

Number of Students Graduated wi th Seal

15

1

2021

5

29

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Languages Represented Multiple Languages Schools Participating

2016 2017

2222

QUESTIONS?