Professor Sylvia Lazos Professor LeAnn G Putney Professor Ralph E. Reynolds

1. CCSD‐UNLV Research Consortium on ELL: Demographics, Principal Perspectives, and Student Performance Data Professor Sylvia Lazos Professor LeAnn G Putney Professor Ralph E. Reynolds

2. Demographic Data

3. States with Largest Hispanic Share of Total Population, 2010 Source: PewHispanicCenter, Tabulationsof U.S. CensusBureau Redistricting_Files-PL_94-171 for states

4. Close to one in two Nevadans is from a minority racial/ethnic group Source: Census Scope-2010 Census

5. Three in five children in Nevada are from a minority racial/ethnic group 60% Source: Census Scope-2010 Census

6. In Las Vegas two in three children are from a minority racial/ethnic group 14% 33% 42% 11% Source: William Frey, America's Diverse Future, App. B

7. Nevada is #3 in experiencing greatest “Racial Generation Gap,” 2010 #3 Source: William Frey, America's Diverse Future, T. 2

8. Las Vegas experienced the second greatest demographic “pivot” in racial composition of its child population, 2000-2010 #2 #@ Source: Frey, America's Diverse Future, App. B

9. CCSD English Language Learners (ELL) • Recent enrollment data, show that Latinos make up 43% of CCD students. In 2009-2010, 50% of 3rd graders were Latino students. • In 2009-2010, 51% of Latino students in 3rd grade were identified as ELL students. • ELL students perform less well than their non-ELL peers in 3rd grade standardized tests – • 15% lower in READING • 9 % lower in MATH

10. Qualitative Results

11. Instructional Leadership – Teachers and Principals • Mindset – Meeting the needs of all kids, individually, and regardless of ELL status • Goals – Using best instructional practice • Instructional practice – Additional adult interactions with kids (tutoring) for optimal language use/ “…children will be successful if they stay with us.”

12. Professional Development • TESL Endorsement • HQSI • ELL Specialists “So you can call it high quality, but basically its just good teaching strategies and instruction that we need to be developing and using in all of our programs.”

13. Curriculum & Teaching Strategies Standard CCSD Programs Supplemental Programs Rosetta Stone– ELL oriented Imagine Learning– ELL oriented Lexia Reading A TO Z Walk To Read Leap Frog • Trophies – • Basal reader • Voyager – • Reading Intervention Program We don’t need any more programs. We need expert educators to spend time with kids.

14. Parental Involvement • Parent Center • Parent Workshops • Event Nights • Family Leadership Institute “Again, it’s tougher for our parents. We are not the kind of school where you have a ton of parent volunteers. Because if I’m not confident in my English skills and I know I’m going to be asked to help kids, I’m less apt to come into the school.”

15. Policy • Budget Cuts - Issues • Loss of ELL Facilitator/specialists • Loss of teachers resulting in Higher Teacher/Student ratio • Lack of funding for additional resources/programs “Because, for the most part, teachers want to help out. They want to do everything they can. But it is frustrating…when you want…something but we don’t have the money for that because we had to pay for other things. That makes it challenging.”

16. Policy • Testing and NCLB • Amount of testing • Testing in English when it takes years to become English proficient • Having to work more toward test taking to break even on test scores. “One of the challenges is that we know it takes years to become proficient in a language. Unfortunately, the way the laws are written now, its just really difficult because they don’t have a full year, just the academic year.”

17. Cross Case Analysis

18. Summary • The Principals make several great points that not coincidentally reflect some of the main goals of the instruction and instructional intervention approaches supported by research data and that form the core of the reforms that we will advocate in our project. • Mindset– Meeting the needs of all kids, individually, and regardless of ELL status; • We would rephrase in terms of our project: It is essential to meet the needs of all vulnerable children, if we are to increase school success for Nevada children. We define vulnerable childrento mean: • linguistically different (ELL) students, • culturally different students, and • low SES students

19. Summary • Goals– Using best instructional approaches. • We would note that the research literature suggests that all vulnerable students can benefit from research-verified approaches to instruction, tutoring, and instructional interventions. • Instructional practice –. Additional adult interactions with kids (tutoring) for optimal language use. • We would be a bit more specific about what appropriate instructional practice would include:

20. Summary • Language enrichment to provide appropriate cultural context for reading comprehension, • Instruction in reading comprehension strategies, • Increased instruction to help vulnerable students enlarge their spoken vocabularies to the level of middle class, dominant culture kids, • Research-verified word identification instruction so that vulnerable students become well versed in the orthographic and phonetic structure of the English language.

21. Quantitative Data

22. CCSD Data – 10 High-Density ELL,Minority, and FRL Elementary Schools

23. Ethnicity by ELL and FRL – Grade 4

24. Reading Proficiency Level Based on CRT Data – Grade 4

25. The Reading Performance of Nevada Children Based on the NAEP Test – Grade 4

26. Relative Reading Performance Rank of Nevada Students Compared to Other States Based on the NAEP Test – Grade 4

27. Data Summary • NAEP data show that 76% Nevada children do not read well enough to do “C” level classroom work. • Extrapolating from the State CRT data, we can estimate that roughly 61% of those NAEP identified low performing 4th graders fall into the category that we have identified as vulnerable children.

28. Why do Vulnerable Children tend to Read Poorly? • They frequently speak a language other that English in their homes, which limits English language exposure. • They tend to come from homes in which academic English is never spoken, which limits their exposure to school words. • They tend to come from poor (low SES) families, which limits they amount of verbal interaction they hear (see next table). • They do not always get reading instruction appropriate for their language backgrounds.

29. Why do Vulnerable Children tend to Read Poorly?

30. Take Home Points Important Take Home Point # 1 The poor CCSD student reading performance revealed by both the CRT and NAEP was not simply/individually: • an ELL issue • nor was it simply a cultural issue • nor was it a simply a poverty issue. Instead, the poor performance was primarily the result of delayed attainment of adequate reading skills by vulnerable students. (Wong-Fillmore, 2000; Walqui, 1996)

31. Take Home Points Important Take Home Point # 2 Research has verified that school Principals can have a significant effect on student learning (Hall, 2006). • Hence, we must ensure that all CCSD Principals create a school culture that supports vulnerable students, engaging the parents of these students. • One aspect of creating this culture must be recommending to their teachers the best research-verified instructional practices and curricular materials.

32. Take Home Points Important Take Home Point # 3 Research has verified that the greatest change agent in any school child’s life is a knowledgeable, responsive teacher. • Hence, the focus of future efforts must center on research-validated preparation and professional development for teachers of highly vulnerable students • We must ensure that all CCSD teachers are using the best research-verified instructional practices and the best research-verified curricular materials.

33. Current Progress and Future Steps • We are working on three projects that go beyond the Lincy Fellowship: • The CCSD/UNLV Reading Skills Development Center to assist young vulnerable children in acquiring adequate reading Skills before the end of the third grade. • Grand Opening = December 9, 2012. • We will conduct pilot studies in two CCSD elementary in spring, 2012. • We will scale up the project in fall 2012.

34. Current Progress and Future Steps • We are continuing to collaborate in the CCSD/UNLV ELL Partnership. • We have one project in which we are testing ELL learning software for efficiency and effectiveness. • A second project has been designed to understand and document why some schools’ ELL students read so much better than those from other schools.

35. Current Progress and Future Steps • We have initiated a project to help vulnerable children enroll and succeed in college. • Teaching classes to high school seniors that focus on the skills they will need to succeed in college. • Financial literacy • Study skills • Motivation • Time management • Comprehension and writing skills.

36. Current Progress and Future Steps • A continuation of the project will intervene with younger students to help them understand that going to college is a future possibility for them -- eighth graders and 5th graders. • Finally, in order to accomplish any of our goals, we must being to involve parents and communities in all of our future work.