Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-31-1999 - 1aVIV7 41_15� _LCL, 01 re-, 1: N, E_ ��Uv ME CHAPEL HILL- CARROORO CITY SCHO FEB - 8 1��J Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill load Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 -2881 Telephone: (919) 967 -8211 Noll 6. Pedersen Am Y. Hurt, Amstent Superintendent Superintendent of #nstriwAlanol Sere ctreslor F. tom. AwLqMnt Supor<<nUrftrn of Stww SVVk= TO: Niue Nelson, Mayor Town of Carrboro Rosemary Waldorf, Mayor Town of Chapel Hill Alice Gordon, Chair Orange County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Neil G.: Pederse Superintendent rf RE: Recommendations for LEP Students DATE: February S, 1999 At its Ming last evening, the Chapel Hill- Cwboro City Board of Education approved the enclosed recommendations for educational services for Limited English Proficient (LEP) students, dependent on the availability of funds. The Board requested that you receive a copy since there are community and funding implications to the recommendations. All of us have a responsibility, as well as a desire, to support hakes in out community that are not native ]English speakers. Our efforts to educate LEP students are de t upon removing the bails that impede the full integration of these families into our community. The support of local governments is vital. Several elected: officials and govemment staff members.served on this task force. Please take the tune to review the recommendations to lean where your assistance is essential. If you have questions regarding this document, please do not hesitate to contact me. NGP /asb a Bob Dorgan Cal John ohn Link r/ �. .� . .. ....: ... .... ......r.�v.+. ..N CHAPEL HILL - CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS Lincoln Center, Merritt Mill Road Chapel Hill, NC 27515 Telephone_ (919) 967 -8211 Fax (919) 933 -4550 Nell G. Pedersen Ann Y. Hart, Assistant Superintendent Superintendent for Instructional Services Chester F. Preyar, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services To: Neil Pedersen Superintendent From: Ann Hart 01V� Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Services Re: Recommendations of Task Force on Educational Services for Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students Date: January 27, 1999 Accompanying this memorandum are the recommendations of the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools Task Force on Educational Services for Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students. The budget for the LEP Task Force recommendations was not included in the Task Force's report to the Board on January 14, 1999. This complete report is submitted for your review and presentation to the Board of Education at the meeting of February 4, 1999. The proposed timeline and cost estimates of recommendations in this report are prioritized over a three year period according to the greatest needs for improving educational services to our LEP student and their families. The timeline also reflects the immediate implementation of recommendations that. either have a minimal cost or no cost to the school system to implement during the 1998 -99 school year (i.e., development of guidelines for registering and identifying LEP students, establishing a six to seven - member oversight committee to monitor implementation of recommendations). Additionally, the cost estimates show evidence of efforts to closely review current budgets in the Instructional Services Division to cover cost of implementing some action items (i.e., translation and interpreting services, annual parent and student events, coordination with community agencies). Finally, the three -year budget projections represent realistic assessments of services that will move the school system forward in adequately and appropriately addressing the needs of LEP students and their families. Resolution: Be it, therefore, resolved that the Board of Education accepts the report of the Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools Task Force on Educational Services for Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students with implementation dependent on availability of funds. Be it, further, resolved that the Board of Education intends to establish an oversight committee as recommended in the report, and requests the Superintendent to prepare a charge for the committee and a recommendation for appointments for consideration by the Board. Be it further resolved that the Board of Education requests that this report be transmitted to other elected boards in Orange County for consideration of the special needs of LEP students and their families. Findings and .Recommendations of the Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools Task Force on Educational Services for Limited English Proficient for . Students Compiled by Josephine Harris and Abbie Tom Co- Chairs of LEP Task Force Instructional Services Division Lincoln Center Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools December 17, 1998 Findings and Recommendations of the Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools Task Force on Educational Services for Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students Table of Contents Introduction Page 1 Background Information Page 2 Sub - Committee Findings Page 4 Sub- Committee on The Profile of Students, Their Families, and Communities Page 4 Sub - Committee on Instructional Delivery Models Page 5 Sub - Committee on Staff Development and Support for School Staff Page 6 Sub - Committee on Translation and Interpretation Services Page 6 Sub - Committee on Community Partnerships, Collaboration and Coordination of Sery ices Page 7 Major Recommendations Page 8 Timeline of Implementing Recommendations Page 11 Conclusion Page 20 INTRODUCTION Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools is committed to ensuring a free and appropriate public education for all students, including language minority or Limited English Proficient (LEP) students who bring rich cultural and linguistic resources to the community, and to giving these students equal access to appropriate educational services. The purpose of this report is to share information about the-review of present educational services for LEP students and present findings and recommendations of the 31- member Task Force, established by members of the Board of Education in August, 199e. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Researchers and educators across the country agree that the key to success for schools with large numbers of Limited English Proficient students, in addition to teaching them English, is to respect and value the language and culture that these students bring to schools. Maintenance of minority languages and cultures as well as the sharing of them with the language majority students is crucial for the success of language minority students. As our community experiences globalization in business and communication, our next generation faces an increasing need for developing cultural understanding and cross - cultural communication skills. Language minority or LEP students, provide the language majority group with excellent opportunities for developing cross- cultural awareness. Often, LEP students are viewed as having a 'language problem' that needs to be fixed. While LEP students do have specific educational needs; many of them do not have linguistic, cognitive, academic and cultural 'deficits.' They are simply adding competencies in the new language and culture to their existing abilities in their native language and culture. Therefore, teaching English As A Second Language ( ESL) to these students is enrichment and additive in nature rather than remedial and subtractive. Over the past ten yearn or more, the Limited English Proficlent (LEP) student population has increased tremendously in the Chapel Hill- CCarrboro City Schools and across North Carolina. LEP students moving into the schools experience a cultural shock as they are faced with a new and unreadable language, new faces, different value systems, different historical heritage, and a strange environment. Many experience frustrations as they attempt to adjust to their new environment and loam how to survive within the school culture. The Chapel Hill- Carrboro City School System began serving LEP students district -wide in 1987 with one teacher working with 67 students. Prior to this district -wide effort to meet the needs of LEP students, the school system contracted with Dialogo, an educational consulting service for non - English speaking students, to serve high school LEP students only. Durham Technical Community College, through a three -year grant, also provided additional class periods of English as a Second Language (ESL) services at the high school level. Presently, there are eight ESL teachers serving about 320 LEP students and meeting the growing and diverse needs of the system's LEP student population. -2- While learners of English in the school system create unique opportunities for educators and students to loam about different cultures and languages, the diverse population also challenges educators to develop programs that afford opportunities for LEP students to succeed in school and reach their goals. The challenges that the school system fates in meeting the diverse needs of the fast growing LEP student population are multi - facetted, from staffing needs and instructional delivery models to meeting the interpretation and translation needs of LEP students and their families. Additionally, with an Increasing number of LEP students beginning to arrive during the past two years with great skill deficiencies in their native language, the challenge of finding available resources to provide adequate support for students' language needs as well as skill development in their native language is critical. With the growing educational needs of the system's LEP population, the increasing number of languages represented (82 plus), the challenges that educators face in serving this segment of the student population,-and the need to address the effectiveness of the school system in meeting the educational needs of LEP students, members of the Chapel Hill- Carrboro City School Board of Education directed the Superintendent to develop a proposal which would establish a Task Force on Educational Services. for Limited English Proficient Students. In August, 1998, the Superintendent presented a proposal to the School Board to establish a 31- member Task Force to address the needs of the school system's LEP student population and families. Following approval of the proposal by School Board members, the task force members began their work on August 30, 1998, and concluded on December 12, 1998. Working together, within a five - subcommittee stricture, over a three and a half month period, task force members used a variety of methods in collecting data and developing recommendations for serving LEP students and their families. Task Force members finalized their work with findings and recommendations in five areas: (1) Profile of LEP Students, Their Families and Communities (2) Instructional Delivery Models (3) Staff Development and Support for School Staff (4) Translation and Interpreting Services (5) Community Partnerships, Collaboration and Coordination of Services -3- Within the stricture of the five sub - committees, Task Force members addressed the following goals and objectives: (1) To look at methods to appropriately identify LEP students, assessing their language proficiency, and diagnosing their instructional needs. (2) To identify resources to assist administrators in becoming more knowledgeable of IegaVeducational issues and to implement practices and procedures to assure more culturally and educationally responsive programs for LEP students. (3) To identify strategies to coordinate and provide equal access to all school system programs and services for LEP students. (4) To establish consistency in the criteria for entry/exit of LEP students into the English as a. Second Language (ESL) Program. (5) To develop a demographic profile of the school system's Limited English Proficient Population. (6) To develop recommendations of- delivery models and strategies for serving multi-lanyuage LEP populations. (7) To collect feedback from the community and educators on: a. the educational needs of Limited English Proficent students as perceived by parents and teachers (ESL and mainstream teachers) b. the perception of LEP families of the Chapel HIII- Carrboro City Schools; and C. educational strategies that the community believes might be successful with students from different countries and cultures. (8) To identify community resources upon whiob the school system can draw to address the needs of Limited English Proficient students. (9) To identify resources and services for translating documents in the most common languages in the school system. (10) To identify a pool of volunteers or other resources to use as translators for LEP students and their families as needed. 01) To identify professional development programs and training activities for mainstream teachers that will help them adapt content area instruction for the LEP learners in their classrooms. .4- (12) To provide techniques for educators to become more familiar with alternative instructional assessment strategies for students of other language and cultural backgrounds. (13) To identify ways of actively involving parents of LEP students in their children's educational process. (14) To develop recommendations for a more effective approach to meeting the educational needs of LEP students and their families. SUB - COMMITTEE FINDINGS Sub - Committee on The Profile of LEP Students, Their Families and Communities: A few points to highlight about the sub - committee's findings are (1) the top ten languages for National Origin Minority Students (NOMS), students whose native language is not English, (2) profile of LEP families, and (3) problems LEP families encounter in dealing with the schooling of their children. See the detailed sub - committee report in AA9&-7dbr B. The top ten languages of NOMS for 1998-99 are Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Russian, French, German, Arabic, HindVlndian/Urdu, and Polish. Of the 350 LEP students served in the English As A Second Language (ESL) Program, 46% of the fathers of the students are employed at UNC or UNC hospitals, 68% of the mothers are not employed outside the home,. 65% of the fathers English language ability is rated 'good' or 'understandable," 45% of the mothers English language ability is rated Ogoodm or ' understandable,' and 38% of the students are from Mexico. Families of LEP students consider the following areas as problematic for them and their children's schooling: (1) Homework is a problem. Parents have a hard time helping their children with homework, either because they don't understand English, or because their literacy level is low In their native language. (2) Transportation is a problem for using resources and getting to schools in the evening. (3) Families want to know more about what is going on at school but have ditflculty communicating with the teachers. (4) Parents feel uncomfortable volunteering because they don't understand English that well. .5- (5) LEP families and students have problems with interpreters who are not fluent enough. Also, they feel that there aren't enough interpreters: . (6) They encounter racism on the part of some school staff and tensions between African Americans and Hispanics. (7) Parents are unfamiliar with how the school works. (8) Parente have concerns about how their children deal with US culture and values around drugs, alcohol, and sexuality. (9) LEP families feel the critical need to have multi -- language personnel in special services and other services at the schools and Lincoln Center, the administrative office. Additional findings include the need to recruit volunteer families to pair up with LEP families to become familiar with school system procedures and polices. Finally, in surveying parents, many fait the need for ESL teachers to have a smaller studentReacher ratio for better coordination and collaboration with regular classroom teachers, administrators, parents, and other staff. Sub- Committee on Instruatlonsl Delb= Models-, The highlights of this sub - committee's findings relate to (1) the registration process at Uncoln Center which initiates the identification of LEP students for ESL services at school sites, (2) assessing of students for ESL services, and (3) instructional delivery models and stmte ies. See a detailed copy of the sub-committee's report in Appendix C. For many families of LEP students, the school registration process is not 'user friendly.' There are no dear -cut guidelines on orienting families to the school district. AMxK* the home language survey is completed by parents for early identification purposes, weeks go by before the ESL teacher receives a copy of the survey to initiate the assessment of students for ESL services. Following identification of LEP students via home language survey, teacher referral, and parent recommendation, ESL teachers informally and formally assess students to determine their level of English proficiency for entrance into the ESL program. Once- In the program, LEP students' academic and language progress is monitored regularly by ESL and regular classroom teachers. When students roach a level of English proficiency to discontinue ESL services, several criteria are considered: (1) quality of work in student's portfolio, (2) results of formal testing, (3) oral proficiency, (4) writing proficiency, (5) EOG or EOC test results, (6) collaborative agreement among parents, ESL teacher and regular classroom teacher, and (73 adherence to school system guidelines on exiting -students from ESL services. 0 In considering instructional delivery models and strategies, the sub - committee's findings reflected the initial need to reduce the ESL teacher /student ratio to better serve students. The federal government guidelines on education of LEP students recommend a 1:20 ratio, giving ESL teachers an opportunity to provide direct services to students and opportunities to coordinate across instructional programs with teachers within the school setting. Other findings include the need to have bilingual staff in schools with large language minority groups; individual school resource centers; and comprehensive, on -going services to support LEP students during the 5-7 year period needed to become academically proficient. The instructional delivery models examined by the sub - committee included the following: (1) Sheltered classes at the secondary level in History, ELP (Economics, Legal and Political Systems), and Biology (2) Clustered content classes at elementary level (3) Literacy Groups (4) Dual Immersion (Two-Way Bilingual) Programs (5) Proficiency Grouping of LEP Students (6) Multi - Content -Based ESL Instruction (7) ESL Reading classes for target language beginners (8) ESL Centers for Secondary Schools (designate one site) (9) Newcomer Center for Port -of -Entry Sub - Committee on Staff Development and Support for School Staff: Highlights of this sub- committee's findings are comments and suggestions collected from a surrey of school staff. The surrey responses indicate a level of frustration on the part of non -ESL teachers and staff related to having. the necessary training needed to appropriately address the instructional needs of LEP students. Addidonal findings also disclose that regular classroom teachers do not know (or feel they do not know) much about LEP students or ESL programs. The survey findings further indicate that some teachers are hoping that the challenges presented by the presence of LEP students in their classrooms will simply.go away or resolve themselves in time. The findings also show that some teachers are not trying alternative methods of instruction or assessment with LEP students. Finally, the survey findings indicate that 80% of teachers do not directly communicate with parents of LEP students. See Appendix D for a copy of the detailed sub - committee report. Sub - Committee on Translation and Interpretation Services: The need for translating documents and interpreting conversations is great in the Chapel Hill- Canboro City Schools rding to the findings of this sub- committee. Interviews with LEP parents and teachers reflect many concerns about the issue of translation and interpretation services. See Appendix E for a copy of the detailed sub - committee report. -7- Parents of children with Limited English Proficiency disliked using other parents or children to interpret during important or confidential meetings about behavior or academics. The concern with having an older child translate is that staff cannot verify what the child is really saying. Parents have difficult understanding the written materials that come home about field trips, school activities, etc. Although some parents were able to take the papers to be translated by a friend or relative, many parents simply did not read the materials. Most parents said that they would participate more in conferences, Open Houses, and school activities, if they knew that an interpreter would be present. Teachers in the school system felt that lack of participation and communication with parents of LEP students could be improved by using interpreters and having more documents and school notices translated. Teachers also wanted more dictionaries, library resources, and textbooks in the children's native languages. A concern expressed by bilingual teachers and teaching assistants was the pressure to do translations and interpretations for administrators and teachers along with their other full -time tasks. Although most of the bilingual teachers are happy to help, they am either neglecting their own jobs and duties or having to double their work. On the issues of confidential and non- confidential translating and interpreting, the sub - committee found that non- confidential forms (new student information, district policy, school calendars, and notices, _forms for special education and other programs) and conversations could be done by volunteer translators. However, when translations and interpretations are of a confidential nature (individual letters to parents, reports of bad behavior, progress reports, and specs! education and other program evaluation reports), professional translators and interpreters are essential. Sub- committee findings also focus on both commercial and non - commercial programs for translation and interpretation, including translation serviose from TransAct Education, Inc.; translators and interpreters from ICN Language Services of Raleigh; and the use of local volunteers and students from universities and colleges in the Triangle area surrounding the school system. Sub - Committee on Community Partnership4h Collaboration and Coordination of Services: This sub - committee developed a survey and distributed it to over 900 Individuals, businesses, organizations, and agencies in Orange County, especially the Chapel Hill and Carrboro communities. The recommendations of the sub - committee from the survey include having a centralized bilingual information and referral service that also provides employment and housing information; providing system -wide orientation events for the LEP community that help parents and their children understand school expectations and services that are available to assist them; providing available and adequate translation services, and expanding the ESL program throughout the community at sites that are convenient for parents and children. See copy of sub- committee's report in Appendix F. .a- MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS Each sub - committee developed recommendations following its findings. The large Task Force reviewed these recommendations, synthesized them through notation of similarities and differences, and reached consensus on the following recommendations for School Board Consideration: 1. Reduce the ESL teacher /student ratio to 1:20 to help: a. facilitate intake of students (assessment issues) b. work and collaborate with classroom teachers, administrators, parents, and other staff working with LEP students C. allow more time for ESL teacher to identify and assess LEP students d. coordinate the accessibility to services and other educational services and programs e. provide on -going services to advanced proficiency ESL students f. strengthen effectiveness of ESL program at school and system levels g. provide more on- school alts time for ESL teachers to advocate for LEP student needs h. have ESL teacher serve no more than 2 schools 1. provide 50% direct services to LEP students and 50% collaborative services J. coordinate auxiliary services including tutoring, use of volunteers, after school activities, language heritage programs, translation and interpreting needs k. pilot successful ESL programs 2. Provide multiple instructional - service delivery models for students, including: a. duster students on school -wide and system -wide levels b. offer sheltered content classes at secondary levels in core courses including History, Biology, ELP .9- C. consolidate LEP students within schools or across the school system in centers (i.e., elementary center, middle school center, high school centers) d. provide summer school programs for ESL students e. establish after school literacy programs f. provide bilingual assistants and other bilingual staff for 20 or more students in a same language group g. establish ESUlntemational Resource center at each school for use by teachers, parents, and community 3. Revise centralized registration and identification/entry procedures for LEP students: a. develop guidelines for registering and identifying LEP students at district and school levels b. provide orientation programs for LEP students and their familiesh including videos about the school system in major languages, and translated documents c. provide s early assessment of LEP students during summer d. provide comprehensive, on -going monitoring of students e. establish better procedurea for port -of -entry of students or newcomers f. provide clear and appropriate criteria for exiting students from ESL services 4. Provide adequate, appropriate, and mandatory professional development opportunities for all school atoll! a. provide mandatory staff development at district and school level (ESL strategies, cultural diversity, cultural sensitivity, language diversity training, etc.) b. structure staff development to focus on collaborative modeling of ESL methodologies, strategies, etc. with ESL teacher and mainstream teacher C. provide opportunities for mainstream teachers to participate in staff development for half a day during the summer and actual teaching of LEP students during the other half of the day -10- d. provide handbook on serving LEP students to all school staff (including district guidelines and procedures, best instructional practices in serving LEP students, tips, suggestions for instructional and assessment modifications, etc.) e. offer training In language speaking to school staff (include languages of major LEP student language groups) f. provide training opportunities for school and central office administrators and office personnel at school and district level in serving LEP students and their families g. use ESL teachers and administrators as trainers and leaders in staff development opportunities S. Provide translation and Interpreting services: a. establish a directory of translators and interpreters for school and district use b. purchase a TransAct Translation Library Ucense Agreement as well as the additional Translation package C. hire bilingual school personnel d. use professional tranelatore terpreters for confidential Items e. use student and volunteer translators for non-confidential items f. crate an 'intemationai' phone line at Uncoln Center g. compensate translators and interp inters according to experience and expertise h. provide orientation sessions for translators and interpreters 6. Provide parent outreach and involvement activities for LEP families: a. expand each schools' PTA/PTSA to include parent representation and needs of LEP parents b. enlist volunteer parents/families to adopt new families to the school community C. continue annual pamnbstudent events for LEP students and their families -11- 7. Coordinate and collaborate with other organizations, Institutions, and agencies In the Chapel Hill and Carrboro communities and Orange County in providing services to LEP students and . families: a. provide a centralized bilingual information and referral service that also provides employment and housing information b. create and plan system -wide orientation events for the LEP community that help parents and their children understand available services C. expand ESL programs throughout the community at sites that are convenient for parents and children d. establish partnerships with Chamber of Commerce, universities in Triangle area, and other agencies to provide services to LEP students and families 8. Establish a six to seven- member oversight committee to monitor Implementation of LEP Task Force Recommendations: a. schedule meetings of the oversight committee periodically to receive updates on the progress of recom a b. compose oversight committee with LEP Task Fame members who are non - employees of the school system and one school system staff contact TIMELINE OF IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations will be implemented with consideration given first to those recommendations that are non -cost or low -cost items to the school system. Following implementation of these recommendations, the multi -year plan that follows on pages 12 -19 will be used to implement hems with budgetary implications. Action plans for each recommendation will be developed according to the muiti--year plan. 12 Proaosed LEP Timeline and Cost Estimates ACTION ITEMS RESOURCE & PERSON(S) ESTIMATED 1998 -1999 COSTS RESPONSIBLE COST RECOMMENDA TIONS 1. Reduce the ratio Facilitate intake of Time Director of Special of ESL students Programs, ESL Teacher /Student to (assessment Specialists, 1:20 issues). Begin Registrar, identifying issues Principals related to intake and serving of eligible students 2. Provide multiple Offer summer Time Director of Special $14,486 instructional school for ESL Funds for teaching Programs, ESL ($9,972 -2 teachers, service delivery students at and support staff, Specialists, $4,514 -2 teacher models for elementary and ESL instructional Director of Human assistants) students middle school materials, printing Resources, levels and paper costs Coordinator of Teacher Recruitment and Induction, Principals 3. Revise Develop guidelines Time Director of Special From current staff centralized for registering and Meeting facilities Programs, ESL development registration and identifying LEP Funds for Specialists, budget identification/entry students at district refreshments and Registrar, procedures for and school levels printing needs Management/Infor LEP students mation Director, Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Services 4. Provide Provide summer Time Director of Special $4,800 adequate, training Funds for Programs, Director ($3000 for appropriate, and opportunities for professional of Elementary materials, $1800 mandatory school staff development Education and for stipends for 3 professional training, Staff ESL teachers. for 5 development instructional Development, ESL days) opportunities for materials, Teachers, all school staff consultant fees Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Services 13 1"8-" ACTION ITEMS RESOURCES & PERSON(S) ESTIMATED Continued: COSTS RESPONSIBLE COST RECOMMENDA TIONS 5. Provide Continue offering Funds for Director of Special $5,000 in current translation and Translation and translators and Programs, budget interpreting Interpretation interpreters Assistant services services for school Time Superintendent for and district level Instructional LEP student and Services family needs 6. Provide parent- Continue annual Time Director of Special From current staff outreach and parenttstudent Funds to support Programs, ESL development involvement events for LEP paper products. Specialists budget activities for LEP students and their drinks, and select families families food items for duck suppers 7. Coordinate and Begin establishing Time Superintendent, From current staff collaborate with coordination with Funds to support School Board development other community meetings and Members, budget organizations, agencies, printing needs in Assistant institutions, and universities, and correspondences Superintendent for agencies in the businesses in Instructional and Chapel Hill and meeting LEP Support Services, Carrboro student and family Assistant to the communities and needs Superintendent, Orange County Principals, ESL Teachers, Director of Special Programs 8. Establish a six Establish LEP Time Director of Special to seven - member Oversight Programs, LEP oversight Committee Task Force committee to Members, School monitor Board implementation of LEP Task Force Recommendations 14 1999 -2000 ACTION ITEMS RESOURCES & PERSON(S) ESTIMATED RECOMMENDA COSTS RESPONSIBLE COST TIONS 1. Reduce the ratio Begin hiring more Funds for new Instructional $199,472 of ESL ESL teachers to ESL positions - 4 Services Staff, ($49,868Aeacher) Teacher /Student to reduce class size to teachers Superintendent, 1:20 1:35. This will School Board, move the district Human Resources toward the goal of Office 1:20 ratio Work to Time Director of Special collaborate with Programs, ESL classroom Specialists, teachers, Cabinet, administrators, Principals, parents, and other Teachers, Parents staff working with LEP students Allow more time Time, funds to hire ESL Teachers, Already listed for ESL teacher to additional ESL Director of Special identify and assess teachers (1:35) to Programs, LEP students allow more time, Registrar funds for new assessments Begin coordinating Time, reduced Director of Special auxiliary services student/teacher Programs, ESL including tutoring, ratio for ESL staff Teachers, School use of volunteers, and District Staff after school activities, language heritage programs, translation and interpreting needs Begin piloting Time, funds to School Board, Already listed successful ESL reduce Cabinet, District programs student/teacher and School Level ratio for ESL staff Administrators 2. Provide multiple Increase offerings Time, funds to ESL Specialists, Already listed instructional of sheltered reduce Secondary delivery models content classes at student/teacher Principals, for students secondary levels ratio for ESL staff Director of Special Programs 15 1999 -2000 ACTION ITEMS RESOURCES & PERSON(S) ESTIMATED Continued COSTS RESPONSIBLE COST RECOMMENDA TIONS Integrate after Time, funds for Director of $22,000 school literacy additional after Community ($2,000/ES &MS) programs in school staff, funds Schools, Director present after for literacy of Special school programs materials and Programs, Cabinet, across school training of staff ESL Specialists, stem Principals Begin hiring Time, funds for School Board, Through attrition bilingual staff in bilingual staffing, Cabinet, School or growth positions across grants and District Level the system, both Administrators pars - professional and professional Begin establishing Time, funds for Principals, ESL $13,000 Resource Centers materials, space at Specialists, ($1000 /school) at each school for schools Director of use by teachers, Facilities parents, and Management, community Cabinet, Director of Special Proxrams Begin developing Time, funds for Assistant to the Translation - orientation videos, translated Superintendent, $5,385 activities for LEP entry documents, Director of Special Orientation - students and their orientation Programs, ESL $2,800 families about the sessions, Specialists, ($1000 for school system Principals and materials, $1800 School Staff for 3 ESL teachers for 5 days) Revise and clarify Time ESL Specialists, appropriate criteria Director of Special for exiting students Programs, Cabinet from ESL services 16 1999 -2000 ACTION ITEMS RESOURCES & PERSON(S) ESTIMATED Continued: COSTS RESPONSIBLE COST RECOMMENDA TIONS 4. Provide Begin offering Time, funds for Director of Special $4,500 adequate, mandatory staff staff development Programs, Director ($3000 for appropriate, and development for activities of Elementary materials, mandatory all staff at district (consultants fees, Education and $1500 for stipends professional and school level refreshments, Staff for presenters) development (ESL strategies, printing) Development, ESL opportunities for cultural diversity, Specialists all school staff cultural sensitivity, language diversity training) Offer collaborative Time, funds for ESL Specialists, Already listed model of ESL staff development Mainstream teachers working activities Teachers, Director with mainstream of Elementary teachers in training Education and structures Staff Development, Director of Special Programs Provide staff Time, funds to Director of Special Already listed development cover staff Programs, Director opportunities for development of Elementary mainstream activities Education and teachers to (consultant fees, Staff participate in staff materials, printing Development, development for a refreshments), Cabinet, ESL half a day during funds for summer Specialists, the summer (2000) school program Cabinet and actual teaching of LEP students during the other half of the day Begin developing Time, funds for Director of Special $3,400 handbook for printing handbook, Programs, ESL ($1000 for mainstream stipends for Specialists materials/printing, teachers, personnel working $2400 for 4 ESL administrators and during summer or teachers for 5 other staff on year to develop days) serving LEP handbook students 17 1999 -2000 ACTION ITEMS RESOURCES & PERSON(S) ESTIMATED Continued: COSTS RESPONSIBLE COST RECOMMENDA TIONS Use ESL teachers Time, funds for Director of Special Already listed and administrators staff development Programs, ESL as trainers and activities Specialists leaders in staff development opportunities 5. Provide Evaluate TransAct Time, funds for Director of Special Already listed translation and Library as a license agreement Program, ESL interpreting possible resource and translation Specialists, School services for translation package and District needs. If the Administrators and library proves to Staff, LEP Parents, be effective, Bilingual Staff purchase the Members license agreement and additional translation acka e. Use student and Time Volunteer/Partners volunteer hip Director, translators for non- Director of Special confidential items Programs, University and other Agencies Providing Volunteers in the community Contract with Time, fiords to pay School Board, $5,000 professional professional Cabinet, Director translatorsrnterpre translators and of Special ters for interpreters Programs confidential items and compensate translators and interpreters according to experience and expertise Provide orientation Time, fiords to Director of Special Within staff sessions for cover expenses of Programs, ESL development translators and orientation Teachers budget interpreters sessions 18 1999 -2000 ACTION ITEMS RESOURCES & PERSON(S) ESTIMATED Continued: COSTS RESPONSIBLE COST RECOMMENDA TIONS 6. Provide parent Work with PTAs Time School and District outreach and and PTSAs to Level PTAs, involvement expand their PTSAs, and PTA activities for LEP services and Council families representation to address involvement of LEP families 7. Coordinate and Begin exploring Time Director of Special collaborate with the expansion of Programs, Cabinet, other ESL programs for ESL Specialists, organizations, LEP students and School and District institutions, and families Administrators and agencies in the throughout the Teachers Chapel Hill and community, Canboro especially at sites communities and that are convenient Orange County for them 2000 -2001 ACTION ITEMS RESOURCES & PERSON(S) ESTIMATED RECOMMENDA COSTS RESPONSIBLE COST TIONS 1. Reduce ESL Reduce ESL Funds for hiring School Board, $99,736 teacher /student teacher /student additional staff - 2 Cabinet, ($49,868Aeacher) ratio to 1:20 ratio to 1:30 teachers Instructional Services Division, School Staff 2. Provide multiple Offer clustering Time, funds to ESL Staff, Already listed instructional students within reduce Director of Special service delivery schools, provide student/teacher Programs, ISD models for additional ratio ESL staff Staff, School Staff students sheltered classes 3. Revise Provide early Funds to Director of Special $2,800 centralized assessment of compensate ESL Programs, ESL ($1000 for registration and LEP students Specialists for Specialists, assessments, identification/entry during summer summer Cabinet $1800 for 3 ESL procedures of LEP months assessment of teachers for 5 students students, funds for days) ESL assessments 5. Provide Create an Funds to support Director of Special $1,500 translation and "international' creation of Programs, ESL interpreting phone line and " international line" Teachers, Director services web site at Lincoln and web site at of Facilities Center Lincoln Center Management, Director of Management Information Services -20- CONCLUSION Members of the LEP Task Force believe that with the implementation of the recommendations included in this report, the school system and community will be moving toward providing appropriate and adequate services to our LEP population. Additionally, embedded in the recommendations is the desire and need to see our LEP students and families as enhancers of our multicultural and diverse community.