1. ELL Program Advisory Group November 10, 2015

2. TWO PHASES of WORK ELL Program Advisory Group PHASE ONE 1/1/2016As Specified in HB 3499 1. Criteria Determine school districts not meeting needs of ELL students. Take demographics and student learning challenges into account. 2. Annual report on student progress indicators Information to include in annual report on student progress indicators for ELL students. 3. Technical assistance Provided by ODE to districts. 4. Guidelines for applying funding Direct school district on how to expend monies received PHASE TWO 1/1/2017As Specified in HB 3499 1. Long-term ELL Definition 2. Best Practices Ongoing support for student no longer eligible Engaging parents Identifying students who are eligible, incl. pre-K Providing accommodations for assessments Assessing ELL students Acquiring student library books (non-English) Providing support to ELL students

3. CURRENT STATUS & UPCOMING STEPS ELL Program Advisory Group PHASE ONE 1/1/2016 STATUS / STEPS 1. Criteria 11/10 – Advisory Group input 12/1 – Final input on written Rules 2. Annual report on student progress indicators 12/1 – Advisory Group input 3. Technical assistance 12/1 – Advisory Group input 4. Guidelines for applying funding 12/1 – Advisory Group input Present Rules for Adoption Completed Criteria (#1) Initial work on #2, #3, #4

4. Data Analysis Raw Data Need Index Statistical Model District Improvement Grants (3 districts) 197 districts Produces multiple lists ranking districts Draft Framework for Applying Criteria ELL Program Advisory Group Draft: October 6, 2015 Federal Focus / Priority Schools (~ 120 schools) OBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE Professional Judgment e.g., Geography Data Trends Leadership Programs Funding DISTRICT ENGAGEMENT “Improvement” Districts $$ and Resources “Target” Districts Resources Produces list of 25 eligible districts ACCESS TO ODE RESOURCES Determines category & schools for four-year involvement

5. Framework for Applying Criteria Data Analysis Raw Data Need Index Statistical Model Produces multiple lists ranking districts OBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE DISTRICT ENGAGEMENT “Improvement” Districts $$ and Resources “Target” Districts Resources Produces list of 25 eligible districts Determines category & schools for four-year involvement Professional Judgment e.g., Geography Data Trends Leadership Programs Funding November 10 th Data modifications Support districts with small numbers of ELL students Definition of Long-term ELL Additional elements of Draft Rules

6. Public Comments CONCERNRESOLUTION/PROGRESS District Selection – required or opt in, avoid “penalty box” system Rules currently direct ODE to select districts Voted that Rules will reflect: ODE identifies district;, notifies of eligibility; requests written response from Superintendent and Board Chair if district declines, with explanation. Participating districts identify list of schools. Language reflects collaboration. School selectionRules were amended to outline process Voted to Amend out of Rules the number of districts in each category. Voted to Amend out of Rules the number of schools in each district; provide guidelines and discuss with districts. Ever ELLs, current ELLs & former ELLs Rules were amended to direct disaggregation of data for current ELLs and former ELLs May be dependent on how data is used. More work needed. Long-term ELL – use of dataRules do not address. Delayed for workgroup discussion. More work needed.

7. Public Comments CONCERNRESOLUTION/PROGRESS Percentage of students who attend college should be percentage of students who enroll in post-secondary systems or should not be used Rules direct use of data for students who attend college Voted Yes. Acknowledge undocumented students don’t have opportunity for post-secondary. Labeling of districts Use of terms such as low- performing and outcomes as opposed to student progress indicators Rules use “Improvement” and “Target” Advisory Group members voted for: “Transformation” All districts eligible for support including focus and priority Rules state can only qualify for one improvement program General agreement on merits of double identifying districts. Do not use school district size or geographic location Rules currently use both of these factors for district selection Voted yes, geographic diversity should be a factor.

8. Public Comments CONCERNRESOLUTION/PROGRESS Use of average length of time as district selection criteria Rules do not currently use, may be addressed through Long-term ELL discussion Student movementRules use best available data ODE will explore data. Oversight Committee and stakeholder input Rules do not create new committee. Workgroup continues until 1/2/17 in HB 3499. Voted to recommend to ODE to establish Oversight Committee. It will not bespecific to HB 3499. Very small district supportODE will present proposal to workgroup Received input from Advisory Group. Use of OAKS, SBAC, ELPA and ELPA 21 Rules direct use statewide standardized assessment and that data must be best available Currently no alternative; use what we have. District accountability and.5 weight expenditure Rules currently mention.5 weight as consequence but do not provide details General agreement this is the right level of detail for now.

9. Long Term ELL Definition Used for identification of data for district selection Used for district reporting

10. Long Term ELL Definition K-8 students who are enrolled in an ELL program for 7 or more years Any 12 th grade student enrolled in ELL program

11. SMALL GROUP EXERCISES Select a table leader Select a scribe Review & provide input Capture on flip charts 1.PROs 2.CONs 3.SUGGESTIONS

12. GALLERY WALK Visit notes taken by other tables Use Sharpie to add your notations = Strong Agreement X = Strong concern ? = Don’t understand Visit your team’s notes periodically to answer “?”