los angeles orange riverside san bernardino san diego ventura p ursuing r egional pportunities for m...

Los Angeles Los Angeles •• Orange Orange •• Riverside Riverside •• San Bernardino San Bernardino • • San Diego San Diego •• VenturaVentura

PPursuingursuing RRegional egional pportunities pportunities forfor MMentoring, entoring,

IInnovation, nnovation, andand SSuccess uccess forfor EEnglish Learnersnglish Learners

PROMISE Research Monograph

Report on FindingsFebruary 10, 2010


Purposes of Presentation

• To share the findings from the four PROMISE research studies, cross-themes,and implications;

• To prompt dialogue and reflection about implications of the research for

the continuing work of strengthening schools for English Learner success


Agenda • Introduction

• Research Findings

Study 1 (Laurie Olsen)

Study 2 (Magaly Lavadenz &

Elvira Armas/LMU)

Study 3 (Franca Dell’Olio - LMU)

Break

Study 4 (Kathryn Lindholm-Leary)Cross-Research Findings (Laurie Olsen)

• Implications and Next Steps Discussion

• Share-out and Wrap-up


PROMISE: PROMISE: a collaborative across a collaborative across

a six county regiona six county region

SAN BERNARDINO

ORANGE

VENTURALOS

ANGELES

RIVERSIDE

SAN DIEGO


Introduction to Pilot Study History• Initiated in 2002 by 5 County Superintendents

concerned with EL academic achievement in the region - joined in 2005 by Ventura

• A common vision for EL success was developed, and research-based guiding principles were distilled;

• A joint commitment to design and pilot a process for enacting core principles in local contexts,

including an infrastructure to support implementation.

(Chapter 1: Timeline in Table 1.1)


Three-year PROMISE PILOTThree-year PROMISE PILOT (ended June (ended June 2009)2009)

6 Districts, 14 Schools- Pre-K - 12th Grade6 Districts, 14 Schools- Pre-K - 12th Grade

County Offices of County Offices of Education & PartnersEducation & Partners

LOS ANGELESLOS ANGELESBaldwin Park USDBaldwin Park USD

ORANGEORANGESaddleback Valley USDSaddleback Valley USD

RIVERSIDERIVERSIDEMoreno Valley USDMoreno Valley USD

VENTURAVENTURAOcean View ESDOcean View ESD

SAN DIEGOSAN DIEGOEscondido Union USDEscondido Union USD

California TomorrowCalifornia Tomorrow

SAN BERNARDINOSAN BERNARDINOSan Bernardino City USDSan Bernardino City USD

Loyola Marymount Loyola Marymount UniversityUniversity


• The 6 PROMISE counties serve over 2/3 of ELs in California.

• PROMISE counties, districts, and schools vary widely in student population and context.

• Variation is much greater at the school level than at the county or district level.

• Vast majority of PROMISE students were Spanish speaking ELs, economically disadvantaged, and had parents with high school diploma or less.

(Chapter 1, Tables 1.2-1.5)

Introduction to Pilot Study

Demographic Context


Introduction to Pilot StudyResearch – 4 Areas of Inquiry

• What is the PROMISE model, and what has occurred in schools as a result of implementing the PROMISE model?

• What has occurred in classroom practices as a result of engagement in PROMISE?

• What knowledge, skills, and expertise did PROMISE site principals have and need to effectively lead the implementation of the PROMISE model?

• What was the impact of PROMISE on student learning and participation?


Introduction to Pilot Study-

Research Approaches

• Four research studies represent a variety of approaches

• Were carried out by separate research teams

• The teams collaborated to share emerging findings and to provide multiple perspectives on the PROMISE pilot to the schools and districts participating in the Initiative


Study 1

Implementation of the PROMISE Model and Theory of

Change: a qualitative analysis(Chapter 2 and Volume 2)

Laurie Olsen, Ph.D.


Study 1

Four research questions

• What is the PROMISE model?

• What changes occur in schools as a result of implementing the PROMISE model?

• What lessons can be learned about strengthening school responses to the needs of ELs?

• What lessons can be derived from the PROMISE pilot that contribute to an

understanding of school reform?


Study 1 Exploratory, descriptive, ethnographic approach• Principal Investigator as Participant- Ethnographer

• Dual-role data collection tools, formats and reflection activities

• Documents, meeting notes, documentation logs, Lead Team reflections, leadership interviews, site visits

• Analyzed by site, by chronology, by levels of schooling, by core principle

(Chapter 2, Study Methodology and Design - pgs. 19 - 24)


Study 1 The PROMISE Theory of Change and Theoretical Model

Begin with…. Provide…. Resulting in… Impacting… Outcomes..

A vision of Student Success

Research-derived core principles

Processes of Codesign and Reflective Practices

Create a community of schools in a network

Customized & continually refined PROMISE Plans for Action

Changes in policies, leadership capacity, structures & climate

High levels of student success per the PROMISE vision

Provide a system of leadership and support

Changes in classroom practices

Chapter 2: Pgs. 24 - 34


Study 1 THE PROMISE PILOT

The Three Year Plan(Chapter 2: pgs. 34 - 55)


Study 1 Preparing for the Pilot: Recruitment, application, selection of sites

• Reasons for participation: inspiration of vision, sense of urgency, credibility of the County offices, and the promise of support, to be part of a community of schools;

• Not always “voluntary” or an informed choice Assurances signed - but not always followed;

• The application and selection process itself was important.


Year One: Selecting core principles, developing a plan, and answering: “What IS PROMISE?Affirming learning environment 5Empowering pedagogy 4Challenging and relevant curriculum 6Parent and community engagement 7High quality instructional resources 1High quality professional development 10Valid assessment systems 0Advocacy oriented leadership 0


Study 1

Years 2 and 3

• Implementation of plans, reflection, deepening the work

• Professional development tended to be similar across sites

• Lead Teams faced challenges and obstacles

• Degree of implementation varied

• From work on a few principles to more

• Advocacy oriented leadership emerged


Study 1 IMPACT: Changes in Schools

• Degree of engagement with and implementation of the PROMISE model made a difference in number and depth of research-based changes made in schools;

• The more deeply schools engaged in the model, the more comprehensively their work addressed needs of ELs;

• PROMISE engagement built and strengthened leadership at the sites - building more collaborative responsibility for EL program and success.

(Chapter 2: pgs. 72-82)


Study 1 Lessons Learned: The Vision

• Inspired participation

• Needed to be revisited throughout

life of the project

• All but 2 schools implemented or strengthened existing programs and activities related to bilingualism


Study 1 Lessons Learned: Core principles• Unfamiliar approach - required learning• Meaning-making is a process• Some principles were more challenging than others

(e.g., empowering pedagogy, relevant curriculum, advocacy oriented leadership)

• Led to research-based practices - and new exemplars of all principles!

• Created sense of coherence, reduces sense of fragmentation and overwhelm

• Each principle opened a door to the others• Do not stand alone!


Study 1 Lessons Learned:Co-design and reflective practice

• Plans deepened and became more research-based over time

• External lens of partners, Working group and Design Center were helpful

• Relied on trust and forums where people could work together across roles


Study 1

Lessons Learned:System of leadership & Infrastructure of Support

• County Offices of Education

• PROMISE Design Center

• PROMISE Facilitators

• PROMISE Lead Teams

• PROMISE Partners

• PROMISE sites and district leadershipThe PROMISE Networks!


Study 1 Conclusions:

• PROMISE results in EL specific research-based changes

• It is a better match for some sites than others• The model works for all levels of schooling• The PROMISE Vision mattered• Core-principles gave coherence to school

improvements and led to a more comprehensive reform

• Each component of the model is essential to the impact

(Chapter 2: pgs. 102-106)


Study 1

Reflection and Dialogue time

10 minutes:

• Key findings that seem particularly important

• Thoughts on implications for

your continuing work or for the field

Questions?

[email protected]


Study 2

Changes in classroom teaching practices as a result of engagement in the PROMISE model(Chapter 4)

Magaly Lavadenz, Ph.D & Elvira Armas, Ed.D.

Loyola Marymount University

Center for Equity for English Learners (CEEL)


Study 2

Purpose and MethodsPURPOSE:

• To generate an evidence base for powerful and transformative teaching for English Learners

RESEARCH DESIGN:• Descriptive/observational research method• Mixed-methods design (Triangulated Data Collection)

- Quantitative data - observations using the OPAL instrument

- Qualitative data - semi-structured interview protocols

(Chapter 4– Methodology: Research Design, Figure 4.1)


Study 2 Research Questions

• Research questions

- What are teachers’ current practices in instruction of ELs?

- How do these practices reflect current research on effective instruction of ELs as measured by the OPAL?

- What are teachers’ perceptions of current practices for meeting the needs of ELs? What professional development do they still need?


Study 2 Participants

• 381 classroom observations

78 ES – 145 MS – 158 HS

• 177 teacher interviews

34 ES – 72 MS – 71 HS

(Chapter 4 – Methodology: Participants, Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.8)


What is the OPAL?

• Observation Tool

• Measures classroom practices and interactions

• Aligned to California and national standards

• Within the PROMISE context, a powerful tool for

describing teacher capacity and informing systemic

supports• Likert-scale rating (1 -2 Low 3-4 Middle 5-6 High)

• Anecdotal Notations

The OPAL’s Four Domains

• Rigorous & Relevant Curriculum

• Connections

• Comprehensibility

• Interactions

(See Chapter 4 – Methodology: Observation Instrument & Validity, Table 4.3)

Study 2

Observation InstrumentThe OPAL (Observation Protocol for Academic Literacies)


Study 2

OPAL: Year 1, Year 2, and Year3

Rigorous & Relevant Curriculum

OPAL Domains

Entire K-12 Sample

By Grade Span Samples: K-5, 6-8, and 9-12

K-12Y1 n =78Y2 n =145Y3 n =158M (SD)

Change in Mean Score

K-5Y1 n =21Y2 n =59Y3 n=58 M (SD)


6-8Y1 n=33Y2 n=30Y3 n=43 M (SD)


9-12Y1 n=24Y2 n=56Y3 n=57 M (SD)


Rigorous & Relevant Curricu-lum

Y1 2.72 (0.85) Y2 3.29 (1.11)Y3 2.93 (0.95)

Y1 to Y2+ 0.57 Y2 to Y3- 0.36

Y1 2.79 (0.78)Y2 3.88 (1.09)Y3 3.28 (0.98)

Y1 to Y2+ 1.09 Y2 to Y3- 0.60

Y1 2.63 (0.82)Y2 3.15 (1.00)Y3 2.78 (0.83)

Y1 to Y2+ 0.52 Y2 to Y3- 0.37

Y1 2.80 (0.97)Y2 2.74 (0.87)Y3 2.68 (0.92)

Y1 to Y2- 0.06 Y2 to Y3- 0.06

Quantitative Findings

(Chapter 4 – Results: Table 4.9; Grade Span Results Figures 4.2 – 4.4; Program Type Tables 4.15 - 4.16)


Study 2

OPAL: Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3Connections

OPAL Domains

Entire K-12 Sample


K-12Y1 n=78Y2 n=145Y3 n= 158M (SD)


K-5Y1 n=21Y2 n=59Y3 n=58M (SD)


6-8Y1 n=33Y2 n=30Y3 n=43 M (SD)


9-12Y1 n=24Y2 n=56Y3 n=57M (SD)


Connec-tions

Y1 2.76 (1.06)Y2 3.07 (1.20)Y3 2.80 (1.10)

Y1 to Y2+ 0.31 Y2 to Y3- 0.27

Y1 2.90 (0.93)Y2 3.42 (1.16)Y3 3.02 (0.99)

Y1 to Y2+ 0.52Y2 to Y3- 0.40

Y1 2.70 (1.12)Y2 3.22 (1.03)Y3 2.42 (0.89)

Y1 to Y2+ 0.52 Y2 to Y3- 0.80

Y1 2.72 (1.10)Y2 2.63 (1.21)Y3 2.88 (1.29)

Y1 to Y2- 0.09 Y2 to Y3+ 0.25


(Chapter 4 – Results: Table 4.9 ; Grade Span Results Figures 4.2 – 4.4; Program Type Tables 4.15 – 4.16)


Study 2

OPAL: Year 1, Year 2, and Year3Comprehensibility

OPAL Domains

Entire K-12 Sample


K-12Y1 n= 78Y2 n=145Y3 n=158

M (SD)


K-5Y1 n=21Y2 n=59Y3 n=58 M (SD)


6-8Y1 n=33Y2 n=30Y3 n=43 M (SD)


9-12Y1 n =24Y2 n =56Y3 n=57 M (SD)


Compre- hensibility

Y1 3.33 (1.05)Y2 3.85 (1.26)Y3 3.54 (0.98)

Y1 to Y2+ 0.52 Y2 to Y3- 0.31

Y1 3.40 (1.06)Y2 4.43 (1.20)Y3 3.91 (0.89)

Y1 to Y2+ 1.03Y2 to Y3- 0.52

Y1 3.23 (1.16)Y2 3.92 (1.15)Y3 3.50 (0.89)

Y1 to Y2+ 0.69Y2 to Y3- 0.42

Y1 3.41 (0.92)Y2 3.22 (1.07)Y3 3.18 (1.02)

Y1 to Y2- 0.19 Y2 to Y3- 0.04


(Chapter 4 – Results: Table 4.9 ; Grade Span Results Figures 4.2 – 4.4; Program Type Tables 4.15-4. 16)


Study 2

OPAL: Year 1, Year 2, and Year3Interactions

OPAL Domains

Entire K-12 Sample


K-12Y1 n=78Y2 n=145Y3 n=158

M (SD)


K-5Y1 n=21Y2 n=59Y3 n=58 M (SD)


6-8Y1 n=33Y2 n=30Y3 n=43 M (SD)


9-12Y1 n=24Y2 n=56Y3 n=57 M (SD)


Inter-actions

Y1 3.17 (1.07)Y2 3.22 (1.08) Y3 3.41 (0.99)

Y1 to Y2+ 0.05 Y2 to Y3+ 0.19

Y1 3.07 (0.91)Y2 3.46 (1.07)Y3 3.74 (0.95)

Y1 to Y2+ 0.39 Y2 to Y3+ 0.28

Y1 3.19 (1.28)Y2 3.53 (1.11)Y3 3.42 (0.84)

Y1 to Y2+ 0.34 Y2 to Y3- 0.11

Y1 3.22 (0.92)Y2 2.80 (0.96)Y3 3.06 (1.01)

Y1 to Y2- 0.42 Y2 to Y3+ 0.26


(Chapter 4 – Results: Table 4.9; Grade Span Results Figures 4.2 – 4.4; Program Type Tables 4.15 – 4.16)


Study 2

OPAL: Year 1, Year 2, and Year3Overall OPAL (Four Domains)

OPAL Domains

Entire K-12 Sample


K-12Y1 n = 78Y2 n=145Y3 n=158

M (SD)


K-5Y1 n=21Y2 n=59Y3 n=58 M (SD)


6-8Y1 n =33Y2 n =30Y3 n=43 M (SD)


9-12Y1 n =24Y2 n=56Y3 n=57 M (SD)


Overall OPAL (Four domains)

Y1 3.00 (0.87)Y2 3.39(1.01) Y3 3.18 (0.87)

Y1 to Y2+ 0.39Y2 to Y3- 0.21

Y1 3.04 (0.71)Y2 3.86 (0.94)Y3 3.51 (0.81)

Y1 tY2+ 0.82Y2 toY3- 0.35

Y1 2.93 (0.99)Y2 3.46 (0.95)Y3 3.06 (0.71)

Y1 to Y2+ 0.53 Y2 to Y3- 0.40

Y1 3.05 (0.85)Y2 2.87 (0.86)Y3 2.94 (0.94)

Y1 to Y2- 0.18 Y2 to Y3+ 0.07


(Chapter 4 – Results: Table 4.9) ; Grade Span Results Figures 4.2 – 4.4; Program Type Tables 4.15 -14.6)


Study 2OPAL: Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3

Rigorous & Relevant Curriculum

• Theme 1: Reliance on a Prescriptive Curriculum - Instructional decisions primarily guided by pacing guides

and grade level standards - Limited use of supplemental instructional materials (some

increase over 3 years)

- Content driven by core materials

- Students primarily engaged in lower-level teaching and learning activities

- Limited evidence of student-generated goals

Qualitative Findings

(Chapter 4: Qualitative Findings – Rigorous & Relevant Curriculum)



Connections

• Theme 2: Limited Opportunities to Make

Connections - Few engaged students in critical thinking about subject

matter to make it meaningful- Few included opportunities to compare things from the

past and consider cultural traditions - Few opportunities to make cross-curricular

connections


(Chapter 4: Qualitative Findings – Connections)



Comprehensibility

• Theme 3: Increase in Targeted Efforts for Comprehensible Input and Output - Increased implementation of research-based strategies

- Intentional use of graphic organizers from focused PD efforts

- Increased use of realia and/or visuals

- Common strategies for monitoring comprehension: Q & A, walking around, checking papers, use of whiteboards

- Increased number of teachers MS/HS classrooms using note-taking and checking strategies

- Lack of clarity around use of primary language


(Chapter 4: Qualitative Findings – Comprehensibility)



Interactions

• Theme 4: Predominance of Teacher Directed Instruction - Increased attempts to provide opportunities for varied groupings

across k-12th grade classrooms

- Many teachers identified this as an area for improvement

- Most classroom interactions were teacher centered

- Few teachers mentioned language proficiency as factor for grouping

- Few teachers provide opportunities for self-selected groups(Chapter 4: Qualitative Findings – Interactions)



Study 2Implications for Teacher Professional Development

Language Development Strategies and Support

• Project GLAD (English and Spanish)

• Vocabulary Instruction (three tiers, word walls, academic language, front loading)

• WRITE Institute/ASPIRE (English and Spanish)Systematic

• ELD (English Language Development)

• Thinking Maps

• Step Up to Writing

• Reciprocal Teaching

• SDAIE Institutes

• CLAD Program

Colleague

Collaboration

Peer observations (including videos)

PLCs/PlanningSDAIE

Strategy of the Month

PROMISE Conferences

PROMISE Facilitators (coaching, materials, demonstration lessons)

What PD supported teachers’ efforts in the PROMISE Initiative?

(Chapter 4: Implications for Teacher Professional Development)


Study 2 Implications for Teacher Professional Development

• Teachers want and need additional support

• We must provide structure and guidance for including research-based PD efforts in on-going professional development

(Chapter 4: Implications for Teacher Professional Development)

“I felt as if my lens was out of focus. I could see things that I had never noticed before. I saw inequity in the system that I possibly was aware of, but hadn’t realized… With this PD, I suddenly realized that these are different techniques … if you use them in the right way you can move students very quickly so that the playing field is leveled.”

– High school teacher

“We have applied only a few of the strategies, but I see a big difference from last year to this year. We should continue the focus.”

– Elementary school teacher


Study 2


10 minutes:




Questions?

[email protected]

[email protected]


Study 3

Skills and knowledge needed by site principals to effectively lead PROMISE implementation

(Chapter 5)

Franca Dell’Olio, Ed.DLoyola Marymount University

Center for Equity for English Learners (CEEL)


Study 3

Impact of PROMISE on Site Administrators

• Purpose: To generate an evidence base for powerful and transformative advocacy-oriented leadership for English learners.

• Research approach: Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from the principals at the 15 school sites (early childhood, elementary, middle and high school).


Research Questions To what extent do principals act upon

their current knowledge, skills, & expertise of the PROMISE Core Principles as they relate to ELs?

What are the principals’ perceptions of current practices for meeting the needs of ELs?

What additional Professional Development is needed?


Study 3

Impact of PROMISE on Site Administrators

• The Protocol for Advocacy Oriented Leadership & Administration (PAOLA) is a research-based tool for assessing site principal’s perceptions of their own current knowledge, skills, expertise, and implementation of advocacy-oriented leadership as defined by the PROMISE Core Principles:

aligned with the California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders

recapitulates six school administrative domains

(Chapter 5 - Table 1)


Study 3Impact of PROMISE on Site AdministratorsResearch Methods

• Structured follow-up interviews and focus groups

• Quantitative findings: Analyzed and reported using descriptive statistical measures, specifically, measures of central tendency including arithmetic mean

(Chapter 5 - Tables 2 – 7)

• Qualitative findings: Analyzed through content analysis approaches, specifically constant comparative method, to generate themes, patterns and trends and reported holistically.

(Chapter 5 - Tables 8 – 10)


Study 3Impact of PROMISE on Site AdministratorsSummary of Findings

By Year 3, Principals reported the following impact:

• Vehicle to stimulate change

• Focus on research-based best practices

• Focus on biliteracy

• Collaboration


Study 3Impact of PROMISE on Site AdministratorsSummary of FindingsImpact (continued):

• Emergence of “new” leaders

• Identification of program, instruction and materials for Early Education

• Early Education – identification of program, instruction, & materials

• Elementary Schools - instruction, parental engagement, English Language Development and program consistency

• Middle Schools - placement, instruction, parental engagement, and school culture

• High Schools - program coherence, appropriate placement, instruction, academic support and monitoring, and student involvement/leadership

• Accountability measures, data and analysis



Principals reported the following challenges: • Initial misconception

• Need to create collaborative meaning and group learning

• Lack of consistent district level support

• Lack of overall vision from district

• Site PROMISE Lead Teams

• Lack of resources



Principals reported the following leadership support & overall professional development as being most useful:

• Mid-year symposia and end-of-year reflection and planning sessions

• Targeted workshops and trainings

• Collaboration with facilitators

• Integration of researchers and practitioners afforded by PROMISE partners

• Networks formed by PROMISE



Principals reported need for additional support :

• Fiscal and human resources

• More consistent district level support

• Additional meetings between counties and site principals and opportunities to network

• Explicit focus on leadership development & support

• In-depth professional development for principals on bilingualism and ELs


Study 3Impact of PROMISE on Site AdministratorsConclusions

The PROMISE Initiative and support system provided the opportunity and possibility for much positive growth and gave birth to several notable site administrator best-practices:

• Incorporated ELs into life of school community

• Encouraged staff take part in school governance

• Provided EL professional development

• Provided opportunities to dialogue

• Esteemed the utilization of two languages

• Empowered the school community


Study 3Impact of PROMISE on Site AdministratorsConclusionsCritical areas of need that were not completely addressed by the PROMISE Initiative and support system:

• Addressing the needs of the site administrators

• Providing professional development specific to leadership & language development

• Formalizing leadership networks or support systems/groups

• Ongoing mentoring and exposure to research and professional expertise

• Building core leadership capacity


Study 3

Reflection and Dialogue timeBREAK

15 minutes:




Questions?

[email protected]


Study 4

Impact of PROMISE on Student Achievement

(Chapter 3)

Kathryn Lindholm-Leary, Ph.D.


Study 4Impacts on Student AchievementPURPOSE

• Purpose of study:Describe the demographic characteristics of the PROMISE schools and students

Describe impacts of PROMISE upon language proficiency, academic achievement, and other student outcomes.


Study 4

Data Collected

• Student-level data – 14,000 EL and R-FEP students in grades 2-12.

• Outcomes CELDT, CST, CAHSEE, Spanish (Aprenda and STS), and other achievement measures (high school drop out). Analyzed by grade level for each

PROMISE site and across the PROMISE sites. Focus - year 3 and progress over the duration of the PROMISE Initiative.


Study 4

Risk Factors• In comparison to the district, county, and state

averages, PROMISE school sites had far more EL, Hispanic, and economically disadvantaged students, and students whose parents had a high school education or less.

• Student risk factors associated with lowered achievement Hispanic EL Economically disadvantaged Parent with high school education or less Having a disability

(Chapter 3: Tables 3.6-3.13, Charts 3.1 – 3.5)


Study 4Results – English Proficiency

• Considerable variation across sites in percent of students attaining English proficiency.

• Consistency across sites - from grade 7, almost ¾ of students English proficient (R-FEP or Early Advanced/Advanced on CELDT).

• Excellent growth in English language development.

• Narrowed gap between the State average and the PROMISE average.


Study 4Results – English Proficiency

From grade 7, almost ¾ of students English proficient (R-FEP or Early Advanced/Advanced on CELDT


Study 4 Results – Achievement in English

• PROMISE elementary and middle school students made significant gains in achievement

Narrowed gap between PROMISE average and State average.

• PROMISE high school students showed mixed results:

declines in scale scores, but some increase in the percent of Proficient/Advanced in ELA.

2/3 passed both the ELA and math sections of the CAHSEE

pass rates for R-FEP students in PROMISE and the state average were similar for both reading and math.


Study 4 Achievement in English – High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)

PROMISE ELL & R-FEP students show similar achievement as peers in Calif.


Study 4Factors That Influence Achievement in English:Risk Factors

• At all grade levels: language proficiency and achievement measures (CST & CAHSEE) highly related to:

District & School Demographic risk factors – attending higher risk districts and schools lowers student achievement

Student background/risk factors – more risk factors lower student achievement

• R-FEPs scored at least comparable to the State average for R-FEPs and closed the achievement gap with English speaking students in English language arts.


Study 4 Factors That Influence Achievement in English:Risk Factors

Risk Factors: EL, Hispanic, Economically Disadvantaged, Parent with HS or less education, Disability

Students with more risk factors show lower student achievement


Study 4 Factors That Influence Achievement in English:Type of Instructional Program• Students in two-way programs achieved at higher levels than

students in SEI/English mainstream programs.

• Enrollment of two-way students in challenging math courses more likely than SEI/Mainstream students, and as/more likely than state average.

• Students in two-way programs scored average to high in reading and math achievement in Spanish.

• Achievement in Spanish was highly correlated to achievement in English students with high scores in Spanish reading/math had high scores in English language arts/math on CST and CAHSEE.


Study 4 Factors That Influence Achievement in English:Type of Instructional Program

Table 22: CST Math Scale Scores by Participation in Two-Way Program vs. SEI/Mainstream Programs

Note. Statistical analyses (ANOVAs) control for student, school, and district risk factors. NS = Not statistically significant, ** p < .01, *** p < .001


Study 4 Impact of PROMISE on Student Achievement:

Conclusions:

• Relatively high-risk students in low to high risk settings made progress toward proficiency and achievement in English.

• Considerable variation in student outcomes by sites and grade spans, but 3/4 of students proficient in English by grade 7.

Students make progress in achieving in English language arts and math and passing the CAHSEE.

• Participation in two-way programs helped students outperform students in SEI/Mainstream programs.


Study 4


10 minutes:




Questions?

[email protected]


Cross-Research Findings and Conclusions

(Chapter 6)Reported by Laurie Olsen


PROMISE resulted in positive change for ELs at all levels

• Achievement gains and narrowing of the gap

• More research-based practices and models

• Redefined visions and stronger plans for ELs


Enabling infrastructure and communities of practice

• Opportunity to collaborate was a “draw”• Network increased identifying good

practices, and enhanced capacity to replicate

• Involving multiple levels of system improved data collection

• PROMISE collaboration built relationships that can last beyond the pilot


PROMISE assisted responses to challenges of accountability system

• PROMISE increased sense of efficacy among teachers and improved practices

• More emphasis on longer-term academic impact rather than just short-term accountability demands

• More alignment and strengthening of program improvement plans for ELs

• Collecting outcomes in Spanish showed evidence of positive outcomes


Biliteracy models improved student outcomes

• Two-way programs outscored SEI/mainstream

• Teachers of L1 instruction had higher ratings in effective classroom practices

• Deeper understanding of research on L1 led to new and strengthening L1 development programs, purchase of Spanish materials, well-designed programs


IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL REFORM

• Schools seeking to improve EL outcomes need support infused with EL expertise

• Reform efforts must be appropriately measured and given adequate time

• Create partnerships and networks to develop and disseminate models and practices

• Long-term and in-depth professional development and leadership development are needed for EL success


Final Thoughts…..

• Pilot schools are works in progress, and would benefit from continuing support, engagement in networks of practice, access to research, and opportunities to share lessons learned.

• PROMISE is not only a model to initiate and support changes, but is a model for how the school system might function for the ongoing tasks of refining practices and creating schools appropriate for and effective for all students.


10 minutesReflection and Dialogue

What seems particularly important to you about the PROMISE research findings?

What implications do the research results have for your continuing work?


REPORTS FROM COUNTY OFFICES

Los Angeles County Office of Education

Orange County Office of Education Riverside County Office of Education San Bernardino Superintendent of

Schools San Diego County Office of Education Ventura County Office of Education