Our Mission

1. Our Mission We are here to ensure academic excellence for all students. DV2011

2. Goal Explain the new law that went into effect on September 21, 2006 that will substantially change the way ELL students are educated. DV2011

3. Objectives • History of the law • Model development process • Components of the models • English Language Development • Compliance with the law • SEI Incremental Cost Budget Form DV2011

4. Classroom Observations • Some ELL students are unable to comprehend classroom activities • Some ELL students in high school are failing content classes because they are not proficient in English • Some ELL students are being improperly placed in bilingual classrooms DV2011

5. Classroom Observations • At some schools the only ELD provided is by paraprofessionals • Some teachers don't know which of their students are classified as English Language Learners or their English language proficiency level • On average, only 12% of ELL students become proficient each year DV2011

6. What is the history of the law? DV2011

7. Lau v. Nichols(1974) U.S. Supreme Court A class action suit filed on behalf of non-English speaking students of Chinese ancestry in the San Francisco school system DV2011

8. Lau v. Nichols(1974) Ruling: A unanimous decision based on § 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, declared“…there is no equality of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum; for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meaningful education” DV2011

9. Lau v. Nichols(1974) “Basic English skills are at the very core of what public schools teach. Imposition of a requirement that, before a child can effectively participate in the educational program, he must already have acquired those basic skills is to make a mockery of public education. We know that those who do not understand English are certain to find their classroom experiences wholly incomprehensible and in no way meaningful.” English language acquisition gives students an equitable competitive edge in their future. (i.e. college, business) DV2011

10. Lau v. Nichols(1974) • Districts “must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students” • “No specific remedy is urged” DV2011

11. Castañeda v. Pickard(1981) U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit Parents of Mexican-American children in Texas charged the Raymondville Independent School District with instructional practices that violated their children’s rights DV2011

12. Castañeda v. Pickard(1981) Ruling:The grouping of children on the basis of language for a language remediation program is “an unobjectionable practice” DV2011

13. Castañeda v. Pickard(1981) "Thus, as a general rule, school systems are free to employ ability grouping, even when such a policy has a segregative effect, so long, of course, as such a practice is genuinely motivated by educational concerns and not discriminatory motives." DV2011

14. Castañeda v. Pickard(1981) • Formulated a Three-Prong Federal Test to determine district compliance with the Equal Education Opportunity Act(1974 Amendments) • Compliance requires the satisfaction of three criteria: • Program based on sound educational theory • Implement the program with the instructional practices, resources and personnel • Must not persist in a program that fails to produce results DV2011

15. Castañeda v. Pickard(1981) Stated that the EEOA “. . . § 1703(f) leaves schools free to determine the sequence and manner in which limited English speaking students tackle this dual challenge so long as the schools design programs which are reasonably calculated to enable these students to attain parity of participation in the standard instructional program within a reasonable length of time after they enter the school system” DV2011

16. Castañeda v. Pickard(1981) • Described 2 options for teaching ELL students Sequential 1.) Teach English 2.) Teach content • Allowed for language ability based grouping Simultaneous Teach English and content conjointly DV2011

17. Flores v. Arizona(1992) Arizona District Court • A lawsuit was filed in Nogales, AZ alleging a violation of the Equal Education Opportunity Act (1974 Amendments) • Final ruling is still pending DV2011

18. Flores v. AZ (August 2000)Consent Order • Standardize methods of identifying LEP students Arizona’s current assessment  AZELLA  • Establish uniform performance standards for English proficiency • Alignment of curriculum with standards • Establish criteria for individual learning plans • Compensatory Instruction • ADE monitoring and compliance DV2011

19. Feedback Questions or clarifications about the previous portion of the presentation DV2011

20. 15 minute break DV2011

21. What was the process? DV2011

22. PolicyElements taken from the law • Schools must teach English(A.R.S. §15-752) • Materials and instruction in English (A.R.S. §15-752) • ELL students may be grouped together by proficiency in a Structured English Immersion (SEI) classroom(A.R.S. §15-752) DV2011

23. PolicyElements taken from the law • Goal is for ELL students to become fluent English proficient in a period “not normally intended to exceed one year” (A.R.S. §15-756.01 C) • Cost efficient, research based models that meet all State and Federal laws (A.R.S. §15-756.01 D) DV2011

24. Goals of Models • Clear Direction for Teachers • Achievable Targets • Student Progression to Proficiency DV2011

25. Principles • English is fundamental to content area mastery • Language ability based grouping facilitates rapid language learning • Time on task increases academic learning • Discrete language skills approach facilitates English language learning DV2011

26. Feedback Questions or clarifications about the previous portion of the presentation DV2011

27. What is ELD? DV2011

28. ELD Components Phonology: Speech, sounds Pragmatics How you use language Morphology: Parts of words, verb tenses Semantics: Meaning of words or sentences Vocabulary Syntax: Grammar, sentence structure, language rules Lexicon: Collection of words you know DV2011

29. Phonology Not connected to print • Studies the SOUND patterns of a specific language • Phonology describes the way sounds function within a given language or across languages • An important part of phonology is studying which sounds are distinctive units within a language - in English, for example, /b/ and /d/ are distinctive units of sound aBove v. a Dove DV2011

30. Morphology • Parts of words; adding affixes to change base words • Verb tenses • Word families: addend additive addaddendum adding added addition DV2011

31. Syntax • Focuses on the form of language not meaning • The rules that govern the structure of sentences • Algorithm of language • Horizontal flow L  R • Sentences are like a train that has to be in specific order I likefluffykittens. NOT Fuffykittens I like. DV2011

32. Lexicon • The collection of words you know • Lexicon organizes the mental vocabulary in a speaker's mind • Word list, dictionary, glossary • blackberry • outback • davenport DV2011

33. Semantics The study of meaning in a language Lexicon + Semantics = Vocabulary ~ a pull-down menu I like fluffy kittens. kitties cats felines love adore DV2011

34. Pragmatics The decoding of meaning in language and involves three major communication skills: 1. Using language for different purposes, such as • greeting (e.g.,  hello, goodbye) • informing (e.g., I'm going to get a cookie) • demanding (e.g., Give me a cookie) • promising (e.g., I'm going to get you a cookie) • requesting (e.g., I would like a cookie, please) DV2011

35. Pragmatics 2. Changing language according to the needs of a listener or situation, such as • talking differently in a classroom with students than with adults in the teacher’s lounge • use of appropriate intonation • giving background information to an unfamiliar listener • speaking differently in a classroom than on a playground DV2011

36. Pragmatics 3. Following rules for conversations and storytelling, such as • taking turns in conversation • introducing topics of conversation • staying on topic • rephrasing when misunderstood • how to use verbal and nonverbal signals DV2011

37. ELD and ContentThe lesson objective is ELD. “Classroom materials used in an ELD class may reflect content from a variety of academic disciplines. Classroom materials must be appropriate for the students’ level of English language proficiency. Selection of content materials must be based on the materials’ effectiveness in facilitating and promoting the specific English language objective(s) of the class. Such materials must predominantly feature specific language constructions that align with the English language objectives based on the ELL Proficiency Standards and the DSI” (SEI Models, September 13, 2007) DV2011

38. ELD and Content The lesson objective is ELD ELD “is distinguished from other types of instruction, e.g., math, science, or social science, in that the content of ELD emphasizes the English language itself.” (SEI Models of the Arizona English Language Learner Task Force, June 15, 2007) ELD is not a math, science or social studies lesson. Content from academic subjects are the vehicles to help achieve the goal of developing English language. DV2011

39. ELD is the driver Academic content is the vehicle DV2011

40. Feedback Questions or clarifications about the previous portion of the presentation DV2011

41. How do I comply with the law? DV2011

42. How Will This Help My School? Students’ proficiency will enable schools to achieve better results on: • AYP • AMAO • AZLEARNS DV2011

43. DV2011