New York State Education Department



Kenmore-Tonawanda UFSD

[pic]

Instructional

Improvement Plan

2010-2011

Department: L.O.T.E. Languages Other Than English

CLS: Cindy Kennedy

|PLAN OUTLINE |

| |

| |

|DEPARTMENT INFORMATION/STAKEHOLDER SIGNATURES |

| |

| |

|DEPARTMENT PLANNING TEAM/DEPARTMENT TEAM MEMBERSHIP SIGNATURE PAGE |

| |

| |

|PART I: DISTRICT VISION/DEPARTMENT MISSION STATEMENT |

| |

| |

|PART II: NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE DEPARTMENT |

| |

| |

|PART III: DATA COLLECTION |

|SECTION A – DEPARTMENT DEMOGRAPHIC DATA |

|SECTION B – STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA |

|SECTION C – OTHER PERTINENT DATA RELATED TO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT |

| |

| |

|PART IV: NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND IDENTIFIED CONCLUSION STATEMENTS,ROOT CAUSES, IMPLICATIONS AND PRIORITIES |

| |

|PART V: PROCESS TO INFORM STAFF AND PARENTS |

| |

|PART VI: DEPARTMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND ACTION PLANS |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

| |

|DEPARTMENT INFORMATION |

| |

| | | DISTRICT: |Kenmore –town of tonawanda ufsd | |

|department contact person: | Cindy Kennedy | |

| |

|Department Telephone: |716-874-8402, EXT. 5111 |Fax: |716-874-8446 | |

| | |

|CLS OFFICE LOCATION: |Kenmore East High School, room 111 | |

|EMAIL: CKENNEDY@KENTON.K12.NY.US |

| | | | | |

|Assistant Superintendent: |Janet Gillmeister | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

|* Indicates that the person has reviewed this document. Comments may be attached to this plan | |

[pic]

PART I: DISTRICT VISION AND DEPARTMENT MISSION

District Vision

We educate, prepare, and inspire all students to achieve their highest potential.

Languages for a Global Society: Ken-Ton LOTE Department Statement

In today’s global society, knowledge of a language other than English is essential. Businesses list the ability to speak a foreign language among their top ten desired job skills.

Studying a language other than English will expand your child’s world. We live in an international tourist destination area, filled with opportunities for speaking a second language. Many of our students are able to use their language skills at work as they meet tourists and visitors from other counties.

The LOTE Department believes in the position statements from our state language association, NYSAFLT, New York State Association of Foreign Language Teachers:

“The study of a language other than English fosters an appreciation and understanding of other cultures, promotes a better understanding of one’s own language and culture, supports learning and improves performance in other content areas, and cultivates the qualities of global citizens who are well-educated and prepared to compete professionally in an increasingly interconnected world.

Therefore, language learning should be a part of the core curriculum at all levels of instruction from pre-kindergarten through graduate school and be available and encouraged for students of all abilities and backgrounds.” NYSAFLT, 2008

PART II: NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE DEPARTMENT

Overview of the LOTE Instructional Program:

The Ken-Ton LOTE Department offers three languages: French, German, and Spanish. Students begin LOTE instruction in 6th grade, and then progress through the three NYS Checkpoints: A, B, and C. Detailed descriptions of the various Checkpoints can be found in Appendix A (See pages 32-33) of this document.

1. 6th Grade Exploratory Program: 10 weeks in French/German/Spanish.

2. Checkpoint A – first level of student proficiency in NYS: 7th and 8th grade

Assessment for Checkpoint A: Second Language Proficiency Exam (65% passing score)

Regents Diploma – requires 1 credit of LOTE

3. Checkpoint B- second level of proficiency in NYS: 9th and 10th grade (Courses B1 and B2)

Assessment for Checkpoint B: Comprehensive Regents Exam (65% passing score)

Regents Diploma with Advanced Designation – requires 3 LOTE credits + exam.

4. Checkpoint C-third level of proficiency in NYS: 11th and 12th grade (Courses C1 and C2)

Assessment for Checkpoint C: Local exam

Regents Diploma with Advanced Designation with Honors

Overview of the LOTE Department Members:

Thirty teachers make up the Ken-Ton LOTE Department, with 27 full-time and 3 part-time. The LOTE Department staffing for 2010-2011 consists of:

• 5.0 teachers at Hoover Middle,

• 4.0 teachers at Franklin Middle,

• 5.4 teachers at Kenmore Middle,

• 7.6 teachers at Kenmore West,

• 6.0 teachers at Kenmore East.

Other department information:

• We have five teachers who travel between buildings.

Department Involvement and Achievements:

• Several of our teachers are involved in our professional organizations WNYFLEC (Western New York Foreign Language Educators Council-regional), NYSAFLT (New York State Association of Foreign Language Teachers-state), AATF (American Association of Teachers of French), AATG (American Association of Teachers of German), AATSP (American Association of Teachers of Spanish), and ACTFL (American Council of Teachers of Foreign Language-national).

• Many of our teachers have been workshop presenters through the Ken-Ton Staff Development Center or at the WNYFLEC Regional and the NYSAFLT State Conferences.

• Approximately 50% of the LOTE department attended the NYSAFLT conference in October 2009 in Buffalo.

• Three teachers or 10% of the LOTE department attended the national ACTFL conference in November 2009 in San Diego.

• Three Hoover Middle LOTE teachers participated in the Flip Camera Study in 2009-2010.

• One German teacher is the Executive Director of NYSAFLT, serves on the national board for JNCL-NCLIS (Joint National Committee for Languages and the National Council for Languages and International Studies), and is on the College Board CDAC Committee to revise the German AP. He has written test items for the NYS Proficiency and Regents Examinations, and has also presented a workshop at the ACTFL National Conference.

• The LOTE CLS is the Northeastern Representative to a three-year term on the national Executive Council of AATG, as well as a former Regional Director of NYSAFLT, has served on the Annual Meeting Planning Committee, and has been selected to receive the NYSAFLT Remunda Cadoux Award for Leadership in Foreign Language Supervision for 2010. She will be presenting and chairing a workshop session at the ACTFL National Conference in Boston this November.

• One German teacher was named the WNYFLEC Outstanding Educator in 2009, has received a Kinder Lernen Deutsch grant from AATG, has written test items for the NYS Proficiency and Regents Examinations, and is a Building Literacy Facilitator at Hoover Middle.

• Four LOTE teachers have been recipients of the NYSAFLT study travel scholarships to Germany or Quebec.

• One German teacher has received a Kinder Lernen Deutsch grant from AATG as well as the Gertrude Rossin classroom grant from NYSAFLT.

• One German teacher is the President of the WNY-AATG and organized Sprachfest at Canisius College.

• One French teacher is the Western New York Contest Administrator for the National French Contest, sponsored by AATF.

• Two Spanish teachers have been adjunct Spanish instructors at ECC and UB.

• Many of our teachers have served as translators or interpreters for various businesses or organizations.

New York State Standards:

Our instructional programs address the LOTE New York State standards of Communication and Culture at both the intermediate and commencement levels. Our core curriculum alignment to the NYS standards is found in our CORE maps.

NYS LOTE Standard #1: Students will be able to use a language other than English for communication.

NYS LOTE Standard #2: Students will develop cross-cultural skills and understandings.

Partnerships and other enrichment activities:

French:

• We offer the National French Exam at Kenmore East and Kenmore West. One of the Kenmore West French students scored in the top 10% in the nation in 2008. In 2010, 75 Ken-Ton French students participated in the exam, with 11 students ranking in the top 10 regionally.

• Kenmore East and West students participate in the French Exchange with Lycée Colbert in Tourcoing, France. One of the 2007 Exchange highlights was attendance at the World Cup Rugby Championships in France.

• In addition to our French Exchange, FMS offers a Quebec trip in the spring, and KE/KW offer a joint Quebec trip every other year to the Winter Carnival.

• We have French Clubs at Kenmore East and Kenmore West.

• Our students and classes participate in National French Week activities such as French cuisine tasting and the Beaufleuve Festival of French dancing, food and song.

German:

• We offer the National German Exam at Kenmore East and Kenmore West. One of the Kenmore West German students scored in the 90+ percentile in 2008, and would have received a trip to Germany, but he was too young to accept the travel award. Three participants in 2010 scored in the top 10% regionally.

• We have National German Honor Society chapters at Kenmore East, at Kenmore West, and at Hoover Middle School.

• Kenmore East and West students participate in the German Exchange with Franken-Gymnasium in Zülpich, Germany, that is in its third cycle during 2010.

• Canisius College German Program Partnership: Ken-Ton students attend the Sprachfest German Immersion Day held at Canisius College each year. Our level C students visit German classes on the college campus each fall.

• We have a NYC trip to the German-American Steuben Festival, concentrating on German art and immigration to the US.

• Hoover Middle students participate in an annual Oktoberfest to meet NYS LOTE Standard #2-culture.

• We have German Clubs at Kenmore East and Kenmore West.

Spanish:

• Eleven Kenmore Middle Spanish 8 students participated in the National Spanish Exam. One student scored in the top 10% in the nation (out of approximately 40,000 participants). There were 2 silver, 3 bronze and 3 honorable mentions among the 11 participants.

• Franklin Middle 7th and 8th grade Spanish classes went to El Buen Amigo to participate in team-building exercises, Spanish dancing, and a Hispanic luncheon.

• Kenmore West has a new Foreign Exchange Club.

• Kenmore Middle has a Foreign Language Club with a 7th grade poster contest, an 8th grade Spanish spelling bee and cultural web quests.

• Kenmore East and West students participate in the Spanish Exchange with Instituto de Enseñanza Secundaria in Zamora, Spain. Over 30 students participated in the 2008-2009 exchange.

• We have Spanish Clubs at Kenmore West, Kenmore East, and Kenmore Middle.

All Languages:

• BASE(Before and After School Experiences) at Franklin Elementary: Kenmore East French, German, and Spanish students volunteer to teach elementary language classes after school in the Franklin Elementary after school program. Each year, approximately 36 high school and 110 elementary students participate in this program.

• Many students participate in the NYSAFLT and WNYFLEC poster contests with past winners in French and German from Hoover Middle and in German from Kenmore West.

• We have had departmental partnerships between the Hoover Middle LOTE and Art Departments on the poster contest and other Art projects, and the Franklin Middle Spanish and GT Departments on the Amazing Race project.

• National Foreign Language week activities have included the International Breakfast at HMS, Spanish Game Show and Spelling Bee at KMS, Linguafest at FMS, Cultural/Food Fests at KE/KW, Snow-tubing Trip at KW, Language Club Volleyball Tournaments, and in-class enrichment activities at all schools.

• Many of our students receive achievement awards from the AATF and the AATG, the national sponsoring organizations for French and German teachers.

Professional Development:

• Approximately 50% of the LOTE Department has participated in LOTE Staff Development Courses including: “Authentic Assessments in the L.O.T.E. Classroom”, “Curriculum Mapping”, “Hands-On Activities”, “CPS-Clickers in the Classroom”, “LOTE Standard #2: Culture in the Classroom”, and the LOTE Seminars and Collegial Circles.

• 100% of LOTE teachers have been involved on Staff Development Days in the test deconstruction of the French and Spanish Second Language Proficiency Exam and the French and Spanish Regents Comprehensive Exam. We have received data from the Data Warehouse for the past four testing years.

• 100% of LOTE teachers have participated in data team meetings.

• 57% of LOTE Teachers have completed training in the Literacy Cohort.

• Our teachers have increased participation in WNYFLEC, NYSAFLT, and ACTFL.

We have attained several key achievements in our department, notably:

• LOTE Resource Folder on the S-Drive, where teachers may share materials

• CORE Map creation, as well as common CORE Vocabulary lists for each level, which are common to all three languages

• Computer projectors in most high school classrooms—but needed in all classrooms: directly related to both LOTE NYS standards of communication and cultural understanding.

• Increasing student interest in the exchange programs.

o The number of Kenmore students participating in the French Exchange has increased from 13 participants in 2003 to 22 in 2009.

o The number of Kenmore students participating in the German Exchange has increased from 10 participants in 2004 to 20 in 2010.

o The number of Kenmore students participating in the Spanish Exchange has increased from 25 in 2003 to 31 in 2010.

The LOTE Department analyzed the fidelity and efficacy of the 2009-2010 LOTE IIP to determine the basis for the 2010-2011 LOTE IIP.

Analysis of the Fidelity and Efficacy of the 2009-2010 LOTE IIP

Goal: By 2014, students will achieve 100% passing rate of 65% (levels 3 and 4) on the LOTE Second Language Proficiency and the Regents Comprehensive Exam.

Objective: By June 2010, students will achieve increased passing rates. (See Objective Target Charts on pages 33-34).

Strategy: To improve student learning by insuring that all LOTE teachers are aware of and are utilizing standards-based instruction.

Targeted Audience: LOTE Students

Root Causes Addressed: #1. Students demonstrate a lack of knowledge of vocabulary base.

#2. Teachers have different expectations of what students should know, understand, and be able to do.

|Activity |Fidelity |Efficacy |

| |Have we done what we said we were |How well did we do it and how do we know? |

| |going to do? | |

| | |What difference did our actions make? |

|Continue to implement NYS Standards-based instruction focused on|Yes |Teachers in 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th grade continued |

|CORE vocabulary lists | |instruction based on the new CORE vocabulary lists as |

| | |evident by instructional materials posted in the LOTE Share|

| | |folder and in teacher lesson plans. |

| | | |

| | |Students in all languages and levels were exposed to common|

| | |CORE units in the same time frame. |

|Revise mid-year listening and reading common formative |Yes |Teachers revised the Listening and Reading portions of the |

|assessments for learning in French, German and Spanish for grade| |exam and added a writing component. After analysis of the |

|7 | |assessments and results from January 2010, teachers would |

| | |like to equalize the difficulty of the 3 languages’ |

| | |assessments. |

| | | |

| | |Teachers at all three middle schools have a common mid-year|

| | |formative assessment for grade 7. |

|Revise mid-year listening, reading, and writing common |Yes |Teachers revised the Listening and Reading portions of the |

|formative assessments for learning in French, German and Spanish| |exam and added a writing component. |

|for | | |

|level B1 | |Teachers at both high schools have a common mid-year |

| | |formative assessment for grade 9. |

|Create mid-year listening and reading and writing common |Yes |Common formative assessments were created for French, |

|formative assessments for learning in French, German and Spanish| |German, and Spanish for grade 8. The assessments mirrored |

|for grade 8 | |the NYS SLP. |

| | | |

| | |Teachers at all three middle schools have a common mid-year|

| | |formative assessment for grade 8. |

|Create mid-year listening, reading, and writing common |Yes |Common formative assessments were created for French, |

|formative assessments for learning in French, German and Spanish| |German, and Spanish for grade 10. The assessments mirrored|

|for | |the NYS Regents Comprehensive Exam. |

|level B2 | | |

| | |Teachers at both high schools have a common mid-year |

| | |formative assessment for grade 10. |

|Administer common formative assessments for learning in French, |Yes |Common formative assessments were administered to grade 7 |

|German, and Spanish grade 7 and grade 8 | |and 8 during the week of January 19-22, 2010. |

| | | |

| | |Students were exposed to expectations of the final course |

| | |assessments. |

|Administer common formative assessments for learning in French, |Yes |Common formative assessments were administered to grade 9 |

|German, and Spanish grade 9/B1 and grade 10/B2 | |and 10 during the week of January 19-22, 2010. |

| | | |

| | |Students were exposed to expectations of the final course |

| | |assessments. Students were more serious and exam-focused. |

|Score common formative assessments for learning in French, |Yes |Common formative assessments were scored in each building |

|German, and Spanish grade 7, grade 8, grade 9/B1 and grade 10/B2| |by January 29, 2010. |

| | | |

| | |Obtained data at each level for each student. |

|Collaborative review and analysis of common formative |Yes |LASW in January 2010, SDD in February 2010. Formed |

|assessments for learning results in French, German, and Spanish | |implications for instruction charts by language and level. |

|grade 7, grade 8, grade 9/B1 and grade 10/B2 | | |

| | |Teachers collected the 2nd year of listening and reading |

| | |data/and the 1st year of writing data. |

|Adjust instruction based on assessment results, areas of |Yes |Results were shared with students in various classroom |

|strength and areas of need | |settings: whole group/peers, etc. |

| | | |

| | |Students were able to receive immediate feedback as well as|

| | |give input on assessment items. Analysis showed a need for |

| | |a mini-unit on pivot/transition/high frequency words. |

Goal: By 2014, students will achieve 100% passing rate of 65% (levels 3 and 4) on the LOTE Second Language Proficiency and the Regents Comprehensive Exam.

Objective: By June 2010, students will achieve increased passing rates. (See Objective Target Charts on pages 33-34).

Strategy: Imbed Literacy Cohort strategies into LOTE classroom instruction.

Targeted Audience: LOTE Students

Root Causes Addressed: Students are not distinguishing between main ideas and less-important details in reading and listening.

|Activity |Fidelity |Efficacy |

| |Have we done what we said we were |How well did we do it and how do we know? |

| |going to do? | |

| | |What difference did our actions make? |

|Attend Secondary Literacy Cohort (8 teachers: KE, HMS, KMS |Yes |Eight teachers attended the Literacy Cohort Training and |

|represented) | |implemented the strategies in their own classrooms. |

| | | |

| | |Students in LC classrooms exhibit more confidence in the |

| | |Literacy Cohort Strategies. |

|Continue to train LOTE teachers in Literacy Cohort reading |No |Data-team and LASW training took precedence during SDD. |

|strategies for finding the main idea of a passage (close | |The LOTE 2009-2010 IIP included too many activities. |

|reading). | | |

|Implementation of trained strategy in LOTE instruction |No |See above |

|Share electronically at least one teacher-created authentic |No |See above |

|document-based activity (best practice) using a reading strategy| | |

|useful to all languages. | | |

|Post best practices in the LOTE Share Drive |Yes |During March LASW, all teachers posted best practices to |

| | |the LOTE Share Drive. A tracking system for who submitted |

| | |what and who accessed what would be helpful, but is not |

| | |available at this time. |

| | | |

| | |Teachers had more resources at their availability. |

|Share best practices at March early release day and SDD |Yes |Teachers shared within their data teams. Some data teams |

| | |worked amazingly well together and others did not |

| | |accomplish as much. |

| | | |

| | |Teachers have time to share and analyze student work and |

| | |best practices. |

|Examine and review results collaboratively—looking at student |No |During LASW, teachers mainly looked at writing samples and |

|work | |projects. We had intended to look more at checking for |

| | |understanding assessments. |

| | | |

| | |Because of the type of student work that was examined, not |

| | |much data was gleaned from the samples. |

|Adjust instruction based on reflection and examination of |Yes |Teachers completed a template of the characteristics of |

|results of formative assessments | |low/medium /high writing samples, and brainstormed |

| | |classroom strategies to address the gaps and other |

| | |implications for instruction. |

Addressing Root Cause #1 from the 2009-2010 LOTE IIP: “Students demonstrate a lack of knowledge of vocabulary base.”

We have included this as a root cause in the 2010-2011 plan, because students are still demonstrating the root cause. Through Literacy Cohort Strategies and further development of our own vocabulary acquisition activities, of COIIs, and through discussions in our data teams, we feel that we will be able to continue to address this root cause with our students.

Our measurement tools to analyze the efficacy were common formative mid-year assessments for learning in grades 7, 8, 9(B1), and 10(B2). The assessment questions were from our NYS test question bank, and were chosen with the CORE unit performance indicators and vocabulary in mind. The assessments were administered over a three-day period in mid-January under normal testing conditions. After administering and scoring the assessments, teachers shared the results with the students in various ways. Many teachers showed the exam questions on the large computer screen and asked for students’ input and rationale for choosing a specific answer. Through this method, students had an opportunity to hear strategies from other students. Students also received information from the teachers regarding areas of strength and areas of need. Another method of sharing the results was for students to complete peer editing and evaluation on the writing section of the assessment. Anchor papers were distributed to students for comparison with their own writing. Teachers used the information gained from this formative assessment to modify their classroom instruction during the second half of the year. During the February LASW data team meetings, teachers analyzed the results from the listening and reading sections of the assessments. During the March LASW data team meetings, teachers collaboratively reviewed the writing section of the assessments and created a list of strengths, needs, and implications for instruction. Instruction was adjusted based on these findings.

We had set a goal for the 2009-2010 school year for 90% of all students to achieve a passing score of 65% on the common formative mid-year assessments for learning in grades 7, 8, 9, and 10, which our students did not achieve. The data for this year’s midyear assessment follows in the data section of the IIP. Our team formulated our new midyear common formative assessment goals for the 2010-2011 school year with a more appropriate passing rate goal of 80%, based on this year’s results. We will track the results over three years to establish trend data.

Addressing Root Cause #2 from the 2009-2010 LOTE IIP: “Teachers have different expectations of what students should know, understand, and be able to do.”

We were in our second year of implementation of our new CORE maps in all languages in grade 7 –level B2 (grade 10). Our measurable evidence is that the CORE maps were distributed and discussed, instructional best practices were posted to the LOTE Resource Folder, and common core vocabulary lists were created, posted and utilized by all teachers.

Our second strategy in the 2009-2010 LOTE IIP was to imbed Literacy Cohort Strategies into LOTE instruction. We did have eight teachers attend the Literacy Cohort last year. Those eight teachers did incorporate Literacy Cohort strategies in their own teaching, as well as shared these strategies informally with LOTE colleagues within their buildings. Department members involved in the Literacy Cohort training have observed the goals of the Literacy Cohort taking place: students are more self-directed and more comfortable learning from each other; and the classrooms have become more student-centered. We are finding it perhaps too soon and somewhat difficult to collect empirical data. Due to district-wide Data Team and LASW protocol training, we were not able to share and train the LOTE department members in the Literacy Cohort to the extent that we had planned. However, the Data Team and LASW training will serve as excellent avenues for targeting this goal in the 2010-2011 school year. We have included them in this year’s action plan. Ten more members of the LOTE department will be participating in the Literacy Cohort this year.

Addressing Root Cause #3 from the 2009-2010 LOTE IIP: “Students are not distinguishing between main ideas and less-important details in reading and listening”

This is still a root cause that we will continue to target in this year’s LOTE IIP. We will focus on listening and reading formative assessments which require students to focus on the main idea. We did not set a target for success on finding the Main Idea on the June 2010 B1 and B2 Regents Comprehensive exam. We will attempt to collect formative data to be able to set targets during this year.

PART III: DATA COLLECTION – SECTIONS A, B, AND C

PART III - SECTION A: School Demographic Data

|STUDENT INFORMATION |PERCENT OR NUMBER * |

|Grades served |6-12 |

|Enrollment (total number of students served)( may be disaggregated by course/section) |1302 HS |

| |1871 MS |

|Attendance Rate (%)where pertinent (course, section, lab) |94% HS |

| |96% MS |

|Percent of economically disadvantaged/ low-income students (eligible for free or reduced lunch) by assessment |22% HS |

| |36% MS |

|Percent of general education students |81% HS |

| |80% MS |

|Percent of students with disabilities (receiving IEP-mandated services) |19% HS |

| |20% MS |

|Number of English Language Learners (ELL)/ Limited English proficient (LEP) |22 HS |

| |16 MS |

|Ethnicity and gender data: : Please use the following equation…Number in subgroup/TOTAL number of students= % |

|White: 92% HS, 89% MS |Asian or Pacific Islander: 0.5% HS, 13% MS |Male: 51% HS, 51% MS |

|Black: 3% HS, 6% MS |American Indian / Alaskan Native: 0.5% HS, 0.9% MS |Female: 49% HS, 49% MS |

|Hispanic: 5% HS, 3.6% MS | |

*in percent or number…Indicate data can be found in appendix and attach Starbase and /or D.W. data.

|STAFF INFORMATION |PERCENT OR NUMBER |

|Total number of full time teachers in department |27 |

|Total number of part time teachers in department |3 |

|Percent of teachers fully licensed and permanently assigned to the department |100% |

|Percent of teachers with more than 2 years teaching in this department |93.33% |

|Percent of teachers with more than 5 years teaching anywhere |86.67% |

|Percent of teachers with Masters Degree or higher |96.67% |

|Total number of department chairs |5 |

PART III - SECTION B: Department Achievement Data

NYS Assessment Data

Learning Data: French Proficiency Exam 2005-2006 through 2008-2009

|Year |2005-2006 |2006-2007 |2007-2008 |2008-2009 |

|Total Number Tested |209 |174 |159 |168 |

|Total % Passing with 65% |96.17% |98.85% |97.48% |95.24% |

|Gen. Ed. % Passing with 65% |96.61% |98.73% |99.25% |99.31% |

|Spec. Ed. % Passing with 65% |93.75% |100% |88.46% |69.57% |

|% level 4 (85-100%) |59.33% |68.39% |76.10% |63.69% |

|% level 3 (65-84%) |36.84% |30.46% |21.38% |31.55% |

|% level 2 (55-64%) |1.91% |0.57% |1.26% |4.17% |

|% level 1 (0-54%) |1.91% |0.57% |1.26% |0.60% |

Learning Data: German Proficiency Exam 2005-2006 through 2008-2009

|Year |2005-2006 |2006-2007 |2007-2008 |2008-2009 |

|Total Number Tested |134* |126 |142 |131 |

|Total % Passing with 65% |99.26% |100% |99.30% |97.71% |

|Gen. Ed. % Passing with 65% |not available | | | |

|Spec. Ed. % Passing with 65% |not available | | | |

|% level 4 (85-100%) |66.42% |76.19% |84.50% |83.21% |

|% level 3 (65-84%) |32.84% |23.81% |14.79% |14.50% |

|% level 2 (55-64%) |0% |0% |0.70% |1.53% |

|% level 1 (0-54%) |0.74% |0% |0% |0.76% |

*(not including KMS—data not available)

Learning Data: Spanish Proficiency Exam 2005-2006 through 2008-2009

|Year |2005-2006 |2006-2007 |2007-2008 |2008-2009 |

|Total Number Tested |355 |368 |350 |351 |

|Total % Passing with 65% |90.42% |91.30% |92.29% |92.88% |

|Gen. Ed. % Passing with 65% |92.83% |95.05% |97.43% |97.11% |

|Spec. Ed. % Passing with 65% |79.03% |73.85% |74.36% |77.03% |

|% level 4 (85-100%) |50.14% |55.43% |56.57% |49.86% |

|% level 3 (65-84%) |40.28% |35.87% |35.71% |43.02% |

|% level 2 (55-64%) |6.76% |5.43% |4.57% |4.56% |

|% level 1 (0-54%) |2.82% |3.26% |3.14% |2.56% |

NYS Assessment Data

Learning Data: French Regents Comprehensive Exam 2005-2006 through 2008-2009

|Year |2005-2006 |2006-2007 |2007-2008 |2008-2009 |

|Total Number Tested |132 |122 |109 |111 |

|Total % Passing with 65% |99.24% |97.54% |95.41% |98.20% |

|Gen. Ed. % Passing with 65% |96.97% |97.48% |95.28% |98.17% |

|Spec. Ed. % Passing with 65% |100% |100% |100.00% |100.00% |

|% level 4 (85-100%) |68.94% |62.30% |52.29% |59.46% |

|% level 3 (65-84%) |30.30% |35.25% |43.12% |38.74% |

|% level 2 (55-64%) |0.76% |1.64% |1.83% |0.90% |

|% level 1 (0-54%) |0% |0.82% |2.75% |0.90% |

Learning Data; German Regents Comprehensive Exam 2005-2006 through 2008-2009

|Year |2005-2006 |2006-2007 |2007-2008 |2008-2009 |

|Total Number Tested |83 |57 |81 |82 |

|Total % Passing with 65% |90.36% |98.25% |91.36% |92.68% |

|Gen. Ed. % Passing with 65% |not available |98.82% |92.11% |92.21% |

|Spec. Ed. % Passing with 65% |not available |100.00% |80.00% |100.00% |

|% level 4 (85-100%) |51.81% |54.39% |46.91% |51.22% |

|% level 3 (65-84%) |38.55% |43.86% |44.44% |41.46% |

|% level 2 (55-64%) |2.41% |1.75% |1.23% |4.88% |

|% level 1 (0-54%) |7.23% |0% |7.41% |2.44% |

Learning Data: Spanish Regents Comprehensive Exam 2005-2006 through 2008-2009

|Year |2005-2006 |2006-2007 |2007-2008 |2008-2009 |

|Total Number Tested |253 |274 |216 |225 |

|Total % Passing with 65% |92.89% |95.62% |93.05% |93.33% |

|Gen. Ed. % Passing with 65% |93.42% |96.14% |95.52% |94.31% |

|Spec. Ed. % Passing with 65% |80.00% |86.67% |60.00% |78.57% |

|% level 4 (85-100%) |36.76% |60.95% |43.52% |52.00% |

|% level 3 (65-84%) |56.13% |34.67% |49.54% |41.33% |

|% level 2 (55-64%) |3.56% |2.55% |4.17% |4.00% |

|% level 1 (0-54%) |3.56% |1.82% |2.78% |2.67% |

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Ken-Ton Middle School LOTE

2009/2010 Midyear Common Formative Assessment Data

|French 7 |Franklin |Hoover |Kenmore Middle |Ken-Ton |Passing Rate |

| |Middle |Middle | |MS Total | |

|Total Tested |46 |23 |71 |140 |92.85% |

|level 4 (85-100%) |45.65% |21.74% |56.34% |47.14% | |

|level 3 (65-84%) |52.17% |52.17% |39.44% |45.71% | |

|level 2 (55-64%) |2.17% |13.04% |1.96% |3.57% | |

|level 1 (0-54%) |0% |13.04% |2.82% |3.57% | |

|German 7 |Franklin |Hoover |Kenmore Middle |Ken-Ton |Passing Rate |

| |Middle |Middle | |MS Total | |

|Total Tested |39 |74 |25 |138 |75.36% |

|level 4 (85-100%) |30.77% |18.92% |12.0% |21.01% | |

|level 3 (65-84%) |56.41% |54.05% |52.0% |54.35% | |

|level 2 (55-64%) |7.69% |9.46% |8.0% |8.7% | |

|level 1 (0-54%) |5.13% |17.57% |2.8% |15.94% | |

|Spanish 7 |Franklin |Hoover |Kenmore Middle |Ken-Ton |Passing Rate |

| |Middle |Middle | |MS Total | |

|Total Tested |73 |84 |97 |254 |76.38% |

|level 4 (85-100%) |36.99% |39.29% |35.05% |37.01% | |

|level 3 (65-84%) |36.99% |33.33% |46.39% |39.37% | |

|level 2 (55-64%) |18.81% |23.8% |13.4% |18.11% | |

|level 1 (0-54%) |8.22% |3.57% |5.15% |5.51% | |

|French 8 |Franklin |Hoover |Kenmore Middle |Ken-Ton |Passing Rate |

| |Middle |Middle | |MS Total | |

|Total Tested |62 |31 |84 |177 |88.13% |

|level 4 (85-100%) |45.16% |41.99% |33.33% |38.98% | |

|level 3 (65-84%) |46.77% |51.61% |50.0% |49.15% | |

|level 2 (55-64%) |6.45% |3.23% |9.52% |7.34% | |

|level 1 (0-54%) |1.61% |3.23% |7.14% |4.52% | |

|German 8 |Franklin |Hoover |Kenmore Middle |Ken-Ton |Passing Rate |

| |Middle |Middle | |MS Total | |

|Total Tested |42 |78 |13 |133 |72.18% |

|level 4 (85-100%) |28.57% |24.36% |23.08% |25.56% | |

|level 3 (65-84%) |52.38% |44.87% |38.46% |46.62% | |

|level 2 (55-64%) |14.29% |7.69% |30.77% |12.03% | |

|level 1 (0-54%) |4.76% |11.54% |7.69% |9.02% | |

Ken-Ton Middle School LOTE

2009/2010 Midyear Common Formative Assessment Data

|Spanish 8 |Franklin |Hoover |Kenmore Middle |Ken-Ton |Passing Rate |

| |Middle |Middle | |MS Total | |

|Total Tested |73 |90 |121 |284 |76.41% |

|level 4 (85-100%) |20.55% |31.11% |35.53% |30.28% | |

|level 3 (65-84%) |50.68% |36.67% |50.41% |46.13% | |

|level 2 (55-64%) |15.07% |17.78% |9.92% |13.77% | |

|level 1 (0-54%) |13.7% |21.11% |4.13% |11.97% | |

Ken-Ton High School LOTE

2009/2010 Midyear Common Formative Assessments

|French A |Kenmore East |Kenmore West |Total |Passing |

| | | | |Rate |

|Total Tested |N/A |6 |6 |100% |

|level 4 (85-100%) | |50.00% |50.00% | |

|level 3 (65-84%) | |50.00% |50.00% | |

|level 2 (55-64%) | |0% |0% | |

|level 1 (0-54%) | |0% |0% | |

|Spanish A |Kenmore East |Kenmore West |Total |Passing |

| | | | |Rate |

|Total Tested |22 |24 |46 |65.22% |

|level 4 (85-100%) |31.82% |41.67% |36.96% | |

|level 3 (65-84%) |31.82% |25.00% |28.26% | |

|level 2 (55-64%) |36.36% |12.5% |23.91% | |

|level 1 (0-54%) |0% |20.83% |10.87% | |

|French B1 |Kenmore East |Kenmore West |Total |Passing |

| | | | |Rate |

|Total Tested |62 |72 |134 |92.54% |

|level 4 (85-100%) |54.84% |61.11% |58.21% | |

|level 3 (65-84%) |35.48% |33.33% |34.33% | |

|level 2 (55-64%) |8.06% |2.78% |5.22% | |

|level 1 (0-54%) |1.61% |4.17% |2.99% | |

Ken-Ton High School LOTE

2009/2010 Midyear Common Formative Assessments

|German B1 |Kenmore East |Kenmore West |Total |Passing |

| | | | |Rate |

|Total Tested |56 |54 |110 |80.91% |

|level 4 (85-100%) |28.57% |40.74% |34.55% | |

|level 3 (65-84%) |48.21% |44.44% |46.36% | |

|level 2 (55-64%) |16.07% |11.11% |13.64% | |

|level 1 (0-54%) |7.14% |1.85% |4.55% | |

|Spanish B1 |Kenmore East |Kenmore West |Total |Passing |

| | | | |Rate |

|Total Tested |127 |146 |273 |63.74% |

|level 4 (85-100%) |17.32% |21.23% |19.41% | |

|level 3 (65-84%) |44.09% |44.52% |44.32% | |

|level 2 (55-64%) |14.17% |15.75% |15.02% | |

|level 1 (0-54%) |25.20% |18.49% |21.61% | |

|French B2 |Kenmore East |Kenmore West |Total |Passing |

| | | | |Rate |

|Total Tested |49 |63 |112 |90.18% |

|level 4 (85-100%) |44.90% |38.10% |41.07% | |

|level 3 (65-84%) |48.98% |49.21% |49.11% | |

|level 2 (55-64%) |4.08% |7.94% |6.25% | |

|level 1 (0-54%) |2.04% |4.76% |3.57% | |

|German B2 |Kenmore East |Kenmore West |Total |Passing |

| | | | |Rate |

|Total Tested | | |86 |83.73% |

|level 4 (85-100%) |(no breakdown available) | |31.40% | |

|level 3 (65-84%) | | |52.33% | |

|level 2 (55-64%) | | |11.63% | |

|level 1 (0-54%) | | |4.65% | |

|Spanish B2 |Kenmore East |Kenmore West |Total |Passing |

| | | | |Rate |

|Total Tested |93 |120 |213 |82.16% |

|level 4 (85-100%) |37.67% |35.83% |36.62% | |

|level 3 (65-84%) |46.24% |45.0% |45.54% | |

|level 2 (55-64%) |12.9% |14.67% |13.62% | |

|level 1 (0-54%) |3.27% |5.0% |4.23% | |

Achievement Trends/Conclusion Statements:

On all New York State LOTE Exams:

• The percentage of all students achieving a passing score of 65% remains relatively constant on all exams from 2006-2009. See below for specific exams and languages.

• The greatest number of errors on the Second Language Proficiency Exam and the Regents Comprehensive Exam in all three languages is in understanding the main idea.

• The greatest number of errors on the Second Language Proficiency Exam and the Regents Comprehensive Exam in all three languages is in understanding discrete vocabulary in context.

On the Second Language Proficiency Exam:

• In French, 95%-98% of all students achieved the passing score of 65% or higher from 2006-2009.

• In German, 97.7%-100% of all students achieved the passing score of 65% or higher from 2006-2009.

• In Spanish, 90-92.88% of all students achieved the passing score of 65% or higher from 2006-2009.

• In French, the percentage of all students achieving the mastery of 85% or higher increased from 59% to 63% from 2006-2009.

• In German, the percentage of all students achieving the mastery of 85% or higher increased from 66% to 83% from 2006-2009.

• In Spanish, the percentage of all students achieving the mastery of 85% or higher increased from 50% to 56% from 2006-2008, but decreased to 49.86% in 2009.

On the Regents Comprehensive Exam:

• In French, 98.2% of all students achieved 65% passing in 2009, exceeding the target objective of 96%.

• In French, 95.41-99.24% of all students achieved the passing score of 65% or higher from 2006-2009.

• In French, the percentage of all students achieving the mastery of 85% or higher decreased from 68% to 52%.from 2006-2008, but rose to 59.46% in 2009.

• In German, 90%-98%.of all students achieved the passing score of 65% or higher from 2006-2009.

• In German, the percentage of all students achieving the mastery of 85% or higher varied between 46.91%-54.39%.from 2006-2009.

• In Spanish, the percentage of all students achieving the passing rate of 65% fluctuated between 92-95%.from 2006-2009.

• In Spanish, the percentage of all students achieving the mastery of 85% or higher increased from 36%-60% from 2006 to 2007, dropped to 43% in 2008, and rose to 52% in 2009.

PART III - SECTION C: Other Pertinent Data Related to Student Achievement

Processes and Structure:

• There are no LOTE co-teaching classes at any level or in any language.

PART IV: NEEDS ASSESSMENT:

Analysis of Student Achievement and Program Effectiveness

|Conclusion Statement #1 |

|The percentage of all students achieving a passing score of 65% remains relatively constant on all exams from 2006-2009. |

|Root Cause (s) for Conclusion Statement #1 |

|The Ken-Ton CORE Common Curriculum Maps were in their first year of implementation in 8th and 10th grade in 2009-2010. |

|The Ken-Ton LOTE Common CORE Maps are aligned to the NYS standards and syllabus. |

|The NYS Second Language Proficiency Exam and the Regents Comprehensive Exam are aligned to the NYS standards and syllabus. |

|The Ken-Ton common formative and summative assessments are aligned to mirror the NYS Exams. |

|Implications for Instructional Programming for Conclusion Statement #1 |

|Application of vocabulary acquisition strategies (written during LOTE Seminar/CO2) based on CORE map vocabulary lists in the four skill areas of listening, |

|speaking, reading, and writing. |

|Train LOTE teachers in Literacy Cohort reading strategies for finding the main idea of a passage (word sort, close reading). |

|Implementation of Literacy Cohort Strategy of “Word Sort” by all teachers. |

|Add Literacy Cohort Strategies to CORE Maps and LOTE Resource Folder. |

|Work to increase the number of students achieving mastery (85%) versus passing (65%). |

|Insure that all LOTE teachers are utilizing standards-based instruction. |

|Conclusion Statement #2 |

|On the French Second Language Proficiency Exam, 95%-98% of all students achieved the passing score of 65% or higher from 2006-2009. |

|Root Cause (s) for Conclusion Statement #2 |

|The Ken-Ton CORE Common Curriculum Maps were in their first year of implementation in 8th and 10th grade in 2009-2010. |

|The Ken-Ton LOTE Common CORE Maps are aligned to the NYS standards and syllabus. |

|The NYS Second Language Proficiency Exam and the Regents Comprehensive Exam are aligned to the NYS standards and syllabus. |

|The Ken-Ton common formative and summative assessments are aligned to mirror the NYS Exams. |

|Implications for Instructional Programming for Conclusion Statement #2 |

|Application of vocabulary acquisition strategies (written during LOTE Seminar/CO2) based on CORE map vocabulary lists in the four skill areas of listening, |

|speaking, reading, and writing. |

|Train LOTE teachers in Literacy Cohort reading strategies for finding the main idea of a passage (word sort, close reading). |

|Implementation of Literacy Cohort Strategy of “Word Sort” by all teachers. |

|Add Literacy Cohort Strategies to CORE Maps and LOTE Resource Folder. |

|Work to increase the number of students achieving mastery (85%) versus passing (65%). |

|Conclusion Statement #3 |

|On the German Second Language Proficiency Exam, 97.7%-100% of all students achieved the passing score of 65% or higher from 2006-2009. |

|Root Cause (s) for Conclusion Statement #3 |

|The Ken-Ton CORE Common Curriculum Maps were in their first year of implementation in 8th and 10th grade in 2009-2010. |

|The Ken-Ton LOTE Common CORE Maps are aligned to the NYS standards and syllabus. |

|The NYS Second Language Proficiency Exam and the Regents Comprehensive Exam are aligned to the NYS standards and syllabus. |

|The Ken-Ton common formative and summative assessments are aligned to mirror the NYS Exams. |

|Implications for Instructional Programming for Conclusion Statement #3 |

|Application of vocabulary acquisition strategies (written during LOTE Seminar/CO2) based on CORE map vocabulary lists in the four skill areas of listening, |

|speaking, reading, and writing. |

|Train LOTE teachers in Literacy Cohort reading strategies for finding the main idea of a passage (word sort, close reading). |

|Implementation of Literacy Cohort Strategy of “Word Sort” by all teachers. |

|Add Literacy Cohort Strategies to CORE Maps and LOTE Resource Folder. |

|Work to increase the number of students achieving mastery (85%) versus passing (65%). |

|Conclusion Statement #4 |

|On the Spanish Second Language Proficiency Exam, 90-92.88% of all students achieved the passing score of 65% or higher from 2006-2009. |

|Root Cause (s) for Conclusion Statement #4 |

|The Ken-Ton CORE Common Curriculum Maps were in their first year of implementation in 8th and 10th grade in 2009-2010. |

|The Ken-Ton LOTE Common CORE Maps are aligned to the NYS standards and syllabus. |

|The NYS Second Language Proficiency Exam and the Regents Comprehensive Exam are aligned to the NYS standards and syllabus. |

|The Ken-Ton common formative and summative assessments are aligned to mirror the NYS Exams. |

|Implications for Instructional Programming for Conclusion Statement #4 |

|Application of vocabulary acquisition strategies (written during LOTE Seminar/CO2) based on CORE map vocabulary lists in the four skill areas of listening, |

|speaking, reading, and writing. |

|Train LOTE teachers in Literacy Cohort reading strategies for finding the main idea of a passage (word sort, close reading). |

|Implementation of Literacy Cohort Strategy of “Word Sort” by all teachers. |

|Add Literacy Cohort Strategies to CORE Maps and LOTE Resource Folder. |

|Work to increase the number of students achieving mastery (85%) versus passing (65%). |

|Conclusion Statement #5 |

|On the French Regents Comprehensive Exam, 95.41-99.24% of all students achieved the passing score of 65% or higher from 2006-2009. |

|Root Cause (s) for Conclusion Statement #5 |

|The Ken-Ton CORE Common Curriculum Maps were in their first year of implementation in 8th and 10th grade in 2009-2010. |

|The Ken-Ton LOTE Common CORE Maps are aligned to the NYS standards and syllabus. |

|The NYS Second Language Proficiency Exam and the Regents Comprehensive Exam are aligned to the NYS standards and syllabus. |

|The Ken-Ton common formative and summative assessments are aligned to mirror the NYS Exams. |

|Implications for Instructional Programming for Conclusion Statement #5 |

|Application of vocabulary acquisition strategies (written during LOTE Seminar/CO2) based on CORE map vocabulary lists in the four skill areas of listening, |

|speaking, reading, and writing. |

|Train LOTE teachers in Literacy Cohort reading strategies for finding the main idea of a passage (word sort, close reading). |

|Implementation of Literacy Cohort Strategy of “Word Sort” by all teachers. |

|Add Literacy Cohort Strategies to CORE Maps and LOTE Resource Folder. |

|Work to increase the number of students achieving mastery (85%) versus passing (65%). |

|Conclusion Statement #6 |

|On the German Regents Comprehensive Exam, 90%-98%.of all students achieved the passing score of 65% or higher from 2006-2009. |

|Root Cause (s) for Conclusion Statement #6 |

|The Ken-Ton CORE Common Curriculum Maps were in their first year of implementation in 8th and 10th grade in 2009-2010. |

|The Ken-Ton LOTE Common CORE Maps are aligned to the NYS standards and syllabus. |

|The NYS Second Language Proficiency Exam and the Regents Comprehensive Exam are aligned to the NYS standards and syllabus. |

|The Ken-Ton common formative and summative assessments are aligned to mirror the NYS Exams. |

|Implications for Instructional Programming for Conclusion Statement #6 |

|Application of vocabulary acquisition strategies (written during LOTE Seminar/CO2) based on CORE map vocabulary lists in the four skill areas of listening, |

|speaking, reading, and writing. |

|Train LOTE teachers in Literacy Cohort reading strategies for finding the main idea of a passage (word sort, close reading). |

|Implementation of Literacy Cohort Strategy of “Word Sort” by all teachers. |

|Add Literacy Cohort Strategies to CORE Maps and LOTE Resource Folder. |

|Work to increase the number of students achieving mastery (85%) versus passing (65%). |

|Conclusion Statement #7 |

|On the Spanish Regents Comprehensive Exam, the percentage of all students achieving the passing rate of 65% fluctuated between 92-95%.from 2006-2009. |

|Root Cause (s) for Conclusion Statement #7 |

|The Ken-Ton CORE Common Curriculum Maps were in their first year of implementation in 8th and 10th grade in 2009-2010. |

|The Ken-Ton LOTE Common CORE Maps are aligned to the NYS standards and syllabus. |

|The NYS Second Language Proficiency Exam and the Regents Comprehensive Exam are aligned to the NYS standards and syllabus. |

|The Ken-Ton common formative and summative assessments are aligned to mirror the NYS Exams. |

|Implications for Instructional Programming for Conclusion Statement #7 |

|Application of vocabulary acquisition strategies (written during LOTE Seminar/CO2) based on CORE map vocabulary lists in the four skill areas of listening, |

|speaking, reading, and writing. |

|Train LOTE teachers in Literacy Cohort reading strategies for finding the main idea of a passage (word sort, close reading). |

|Implementation of Literacy Cohort Strategy of “Word Sort” by all teachers. |

|Add Literacy Cohort Strategies to CORE Maps and LOTE Resource Folder. |

|Work to increase the number of students achieving mastery (85%) versus passing (65%). |

|Conclusion Statement #8 |

|The greatest number of errors on the Second Language Proficiency Exam and the Regents Comprehensive Exam in all three languages is in understanding the main |

|idea. |

|Root Cause (s) for Conclusion Statement #8 |

|Students have difficulty differentiating between key ideas and lesser important ideas in a reading or listening passage. |

|Students are not confident readers in their first language (English) or in their second language (French, German or Spanish). |

|Students feel confident in what they know and understand but feel intimidated by unfamiliar texts. |

|Students haven’t been exposed to vocabulary in various contexts. |

|Students need to strategies to decode meaning from written or spoken materials. |

|Implications for Instructional Programming for Conclusion Statement #8 |

|Insure that all teachers are imbedding instruction around the utilization of more authentic documents in formative and summative assessments that target the |

|main idea. |

|Insure that all teachers are imbedding instruction around the utilization of Literacy Cohort strategies for close reading and word sorts |

|Provide professional development to LOTE teachers in performance-based assessment. |

|Continue to implement instruction based on common CORE map thematic topics. |

|Conclusion Statement #9 |

|The greatest number of errors on the Second Language Proficiency Exam and the Regents Comprehensive Exam in all three languages is in understanding discrete |

|vocabulary in context. |

|Root Cause (s) for Conclusion Statement #9 |

|Students demonstrate a lack of knowledge of vocabulary base. |

|Students have not been exposed to CORE vocabulary in various contexts. |

|Reading and listening questions include multiple pieces of information that include active and passive vocabulary. |

|Students feel confident with active vocabulary, but lack strategies for decoding passive vocabulary. |

|Students lack confidence in guessing at the meaning of new vocabulary in context. |

|Students need strategies to practice moving vocabulary from passive to active use. |

|Implications for Instructional Programming for Conclusion Statement #9 |

|Increased teacher participation in the Secondary Literacy Cohort. |

|Insure that all teachers are imbedding instruction around the utilization of Literacy Cohort strategies for close reading and word sorts |

|Practice strategies with students to help them build confidence to guess at the meaning of new vocabulary in context. |

|Insure that all LOTE teachers are utilizing standards-based instruction and are imbedding instruction around the utilization of more authentic documents to |

|expose students to CORE vocabulary in new contexts. |

Based on the above analysis the following priorities have been identified for 2010-2011

▪ Increased teacher participation in the Secondary Literacy Cohort.

▪ Imbed Literacy Cohort strategies into LOTE classroom instruction. (word sort, close reading)

▪ Insure that all LOTE teachers are utilizing standards-based instruction and are imbedding instruction around the utilization of more authentic documents to expose students to CORE vocabulary in new contexts.

▪ Application of vocabulary acquisition strategies (written during LOTE Seminar/CO2) based on CORE map vocabulary lists in the four skill areas of listening, speaking, reading, and writing.

▪ PART V: PROCESS FOR REPORTING NEEDS ASSESSMENT FINDINGS

The LOTE needs assessment findings were based on the summative assessment data from the Second Language Proficiency (SLP) Exam and the Regents Comprehensive Exam over four years. The LOTE IIP Planning Team reviewed Data Warehouse results for French and Spanish, as well as teacher-tabulated data for German, made conclusions statements, determined root causes, and discussed instructional implications. School data is shared at department meetings, faculty meetings, and on Staff Development Days. Students and parents receive individual results on report cards, progress reports, STARBASE, and overall learning data information through the LOTE IIP data posted on the District LOTE Website.

PART VI: SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND ACTION PLAN

Goal: By 2014, 100% of students will pass at 65% on the LOTE Second Language Proficiency and the Regents Comprehensive Exams.

Objective: By June 2011, 94% students will pass at 65% on the LOTE Second Language Proficiency and the Regents Comprehensive Exams. (See pp. 30-31)

Strategy: Imbed Literacy Cohort strategies into LOTE classroom instruction.

Targeted Audience: LOTE Students

Root Causes Addressed: Students are not distinguishing between main ideas and lesser-important details in reading and listening. Students feel confident in what they know and understand but feel intimidated by unfamiliar texts. Students need to strategies to decode meaning from written or spoken materials.

|Activities |Timeframe |Participants |Lead Person |Resources |Measurable Evidence of Success |

|List these sequentially | | | | | |

|Train LOTE teachers in Literacy Cohort reading |Staff Development Days|All LOTE teachers |Karen Boehm and Secondary Literacy |Cohort materials, signature |Signatures of attendance |

|strategies for finding the main idea of a passage |& LOTE Seminar | |Cohort Members |sheet | |

|(word sort, close reading). | | | | | |

|Implement trained strategy in LOTE instruction |2010-2011 school year |All LOTE teachers |Cindy Kennedy and all department |teacher produced reading |Teacher reflection, perception data collected |

| | | |chairs |strategy, meeting minutes |at monthly dept. meeting/data team minutes |

|Assess student learning |2010-2011 school year |All LOTE teachers |Cindy Kennedy and all department |teacher produced assessment |Checking for understanding assessments by |

| | | |chairs | |individual teachers Student results from |

| | | | | |assessments |

|Share learning and associated strategies with |2010-2011 LASW data |All LOTE teachers |Cindy Kennedy and Data Team |teacher produced reading |Teacher reflection, perception data collected |

|colleagues |team meetings | |Facilitators |strategy, assessments, |from data teams, teachers share what worked. |

| | | | |meeting minutes | |

|Modify instruction based on reflection and |2010-2011 school year |All LOTE teachers |Cindy Kennedy and all department |teacher produced reading |Teacher lesson plans, reflection, data |

|examination of results of formative assessments | | |chairs |strategy, meeting minutes, |collected from data team meetings, teachers |

| | | | |lesson plans |share what worked. |

|Begin cycle again |2010-2011 school year |All LOTE teachers |Cindy Kennedy and all department |teacher produced reading | |

| | | |chairs |strategy, meeting minutes | |

|Share electronically at least one teacher-created |March 18, 2011 |All LOTE teachers |Cindy Kennedy and Data Team |teacher produced strategies, |Teachers will email classroom activity and |

|authentic document-based strategy at each level in | | |Facilitators |departmental list |implementation of strategy to Cindy Kennedy. |

|French, German and Spanish using a Literacy Cohort | | | | | |

|Strategy | | | | | |

|Post best practices in the LOTE Share Drive |March 23, 2011 |Cindy Kennedy |Cindy Kennedy |teacher produced strategies |Strategies posted for entire department in the|

| | | | |sent by e-mail |LOTE Share Drive/NY Learns CORE Maps |

|Adapt best practices from one language or level to |2010-2011 school year |All LOTE teachers |Cindy Kennedy |LOTE Resource Folder |Best practices posted for entire department in|

|another | | | | |the LOTE Share Drive |

Milestone: Mid-year common formative listening and reading common assessments: common by language and level at grade 7, grade 8, grade 9/B1, and grade 10/B2.

Evaluation: By January 2011, 100% of students will achieve a success rate of 85% on the mid-year common formative assessment questions focused on the main idea.

Follow-up: Modify instruction based on midterm results. Gather trend data over three years on mid-year assessment results. Set a target for success on finding the main idea on the June 2011 B1 and Regents Comprehensive exams. Modify tools if needed.

Goal: By 2014, 100% of students will pass at 65% on the LOTE Second Language Proficiency and the Regents Comprehensive Exams.

Objective: By June 2011, 94% students will pass at 65% on the LOTE Second Language Proficiency and the Regents Comprehensive Exams. (See pp. 30-31)

Strategy: Insure that all LOTE teachers are utilizing standards-based instruction.

Targeted Audience: LOTE Students

Root Causes Addressed: Students demonstrate a lack of knowledge of vocabulary base. Students haven’t been exposed to vocabulary in various contexts. Students lack confidence in guessing at the meaning of new vocabulary in context.

|Activities |Timeframe |Participants |Lead Person |Resources |Measurable Evidence of Success |

|List these sequentially | | | | | |

|Analyze student work based on authentic documents |October 2010-June 2011|LOTE teachers |Cindy Kennedy, all department |Student work, formative assessments |Data team notebooks, post exemplary |

|during the LASW Early release days. | | |chairs |based on authentic documents |student work samples. |

|Administer and score common formative assessments |by January 25-28, 2011|7th grade, 8th grade, 9th |Cindy Kennedy, all department |Documents created by exam committees|Teacher lesson plan notes with |

|for learning in French, German, and Spanish grade 7,| |grade/A/B1 and 10th grade/B2 |chairs | |administration dates. Scores recorded |

|grade 8, grade 9, and grade 10. | |LOTE teachers | | |and copied to CLS. |

|Collaboratively review and analyze common formative |February 20, 2011 |7th grade, 8th grade, 9th |Cindy Kennedy, all department |Student results, teacher lesson |Results shared with students. Areas of|

|assessments for learning results in French, German, |(early release day) |grade/B1, and 10th grade/B2 |chairs |plans. |strength and areas of need, |

|and Spanish grades 7, 8, grade 9/B1 and grade 10/B2 | |LOTE teachers | | |implications for instruction list. |

|Adjust instruction based on assessment results, |February-June 2010 |7th grade, 8th grade, 9th |Cindy Kennedy, all department |LOTE Resource Folder |Teacher lesson plans. |

|areas of strength and areas of need. Begin cycle | |grade/B1, and 10th grade/B2 |chairs | | |

|again. | |teachers | | | |

Milestone: Mid-year common formative assessments: by language and level at grade 7, grade 8, level B1, and B2 to give student feedback mid-year.

Evaluation: By January 2011, 80% of all students will pass at 65% on the common formative mid-year assessments.

Follow-up: Set student targets for improvement before June 2011 exam. Adjust instruction based on midterm results. Modify tools if needed.

PART VI: SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND ACTION PLAN

Objective Target Charts by Exam and Language:

|Exam |French |French |French Proficiency |French Proficiency |French Proficiency |

| |Proficiency |Proficiency | | | |

|Year |2005-2006 |2006-2007 |2007-2008 |2008-2009 |2009-2010 |

|% Passing with 65% |96.17% |98.85% |97.48% |95.24% | |

By June 2010, 96% of students will achieve a passing rate of 65% on the French SLP Exam.

|Exam |French Proficiency |French |French Proficiency |French |French |

| | |Proficiency | |Proficiency |Proficiency |

|Year |2009-2010 |2010-2011 |2011-2012 |2012-2013 |2013-2014 |

|Targets |96% |97% |98% |99% |100% |

|Exam |German |German Proficiency |German Proficiency |German Proficiency |German Proficiency |

| |Proficiency | | | | |

|Year |2005-2006 |2006-2007 |2007-2008 |2008-2009 |2009-2010 |

|% Passing with 65% |99.26% |100% |99.30% |97.71% | |

By June 2010, 99% of students will achieve a passing rate of 65% on the German SLP Exam.

|Exam |German |German |German |German |German |

| |Proficiency |Proficiency |Proficiency |Proficiency |Proficiency |

|Year |2009-2010 |2010-2011 |2011-2012 |2012-2013 |2013-2014 |

|Targets |98% |98.5% |99.0% |99.5% |100% |

|Exam |Spanish Proficiency |Spanish Proficiency |Spanish Proficiency |Spanish Proficiency |Spanish Proficiency |

|Year |2005-2006 |2006-2007 |2007-2008 |2008-2009 |2009-2010 |

|% Passing |90.42% |91.30% |92.29% |92.88% | |

By June 2010, 94% of students will achieve a passing rate of 65% on the Spanish SLP Exam.

|Exam |Spanish Proficiency |Spanish Proficiency |Spanish Proficiency |Spanish Proficiency |Spanish Proficiency |

|Year |2009-2010 |2010-2011 |2011-2012 |2012-2013 |2013-2014 |

|Targets |94.0% |95.5% |97% |98.5% |100% |

Objective Target Charts by Exam and Language:

|Exam |French |French Regents |French Regents |French Regents |French Regents |

| |Regents | | | | |

|Year |2005-2006 |2006-2007 |2007-2008 |2008-2009 |2009-2010 |

|% Passing with 65% |99.24% |97.52% |95.41% |98.2% | |

By June 2010, 98.5% of students will achieve a passing rate of 65% on the French Regents Comprehensive Exam.

|Exam |French Regents |French |French |French |French |

| | |Regents |Regents |Regents |Regents |

|Year |2009-2010 |2010-2011 |2011-2012 |2012-2013 |2013-2014 |

|Targets |98.5% |98.8% |99.1% |99.5% |100% |

|Exam |German Regents |German |German |German |German |

| | |Regents |Regents |Regents |Regents |

|Year |2005-2006 |2006-2007 |2007-2008 |2008-2009 |2009-2010 |

|% Passing with 65% |90.36% |98.25% |91.36% |92.68% | |

By June 2010, 95% of students will achieve a passing rate of 65% on the German Regents Comprehensive Exam.

|Exam |German |German |German |German |German |

| |Regents |Regents |Regents |Regents |Regents |

|Year |2009-2010 |2010-2011 |2011-2012 |2012-2013 |2013-2014 |

|Targets |94.00% |95.50% |97.00% |98.50% |100% |

|Exam |Spanish Regents |Spanish Regents |Spanish Regents |Spanish Regents |Spanish Regents |

|Year |2005-2006 |2006-2007 |2007-2008 |2008-2009 |2009-2010 |

|% Passing with 65% |92.89% |95.62% |93.05% |93.33% | |

By June 2010, 94.6% of students will achieve a passing rate of 65% on the Spanish Regents Comprehensive Exam.

|Exam |Spanish Regents |Spanish |Spanish |Spanish |Spanish |

| | |Regents |Regents |Regents |Regents |

|Year |2009-2010 |2010-2011 |2011-2012 |2012-2013 |2013-2014 |

|Targets |94.6% |96% |97.3% |98.6% |100% |

APPENDIX A: Overview of the LOTE Instructional Program

The Ken-Ton LOTE Department offers three languages: French, German, and Spanish. Students begin LOTE instruction in 6th grade, and then progress through the three NYS Checkpoints: A, B, and C.

6th grade:

• The 6th grade program is a 10-week exploratory course that encompasses an introduction to LOTE and 3 weeks of each language. Students then make a choice between French, German, or Spanish to complete their Checkpoint Sequence.

7th grade:

• A Regents Diploma requires students to complete LOTE Checkpoint A (one unit of study). Students complete Checkpoint A, part 1, in 7th grade with daily 40-week LOTE instruction in the chosen language. In 2008, we began administering a 7th grade-speaking exam as a common summative assessment. In 2009, we began administering a 7th grade midterm common formative assessment (based on the NYS SLP) at the end of the 1st semester.

8th grade:

• Students continue their instruction at Checkpoint A, part 2, in 8th grade with daily 40 week LOTE instruction in the chosen language. Students must take and pass the Second Language Proficiency Exam in June with a passing score of 65% to receive one unit of study in LOTE and meet the NYS graduation requirement. In 2010, we began administering a midterm common formative assessment to all 8th graders at the end of the 1st semester. We used the 2009 NYS SLP for this assessment.

9th grade:

• Students who are not successful on the Second Language Proficiency Exam in 8th grade must repeat Checkpoint A in 9th grade. At this time, they may repeat Spanish A at Ken East and at Ken West, and French A at Ken West. There is no German A at either school. At the end of the Checkpoint A, 9th grade daily 40 week course, students must take the Second Language Proficiency Exam again, and either pass the exam with a 65%, or pass the course (course grades and exam averaged) with a 65% to meet the NYS graduation requirement. They may then continue on to Checkpoint B.

• Students who were successful on the Second Language Proficiency Exam in 8th grade continue on to Checkpoint B, part 1, or B1, with daily 40 week LOTE instruction in the chosen language. Students take a common formative assessment in January, and a common local summative assessment at the end of 9th grade, both modeled after the NYS Regents Comprehensive Exam.

10th grade:

• Students complete Checkpoint B, part 2, or B2 in 10th grade, with daily 40-week LOTE instruction in the chosen language. The Regents Comprehensive Exam is administered at the end of 10th grade. Students must pass the exam with 65% and pass the course to receive credit. This meets the requirement for the Regents Diploma with Advanced Designation. In 2010, we began administering a midterm common formative assessment to all B2 students at the end of the 1st semester. The 2009 NYS Regents Comprehensive Exam was used for this assessment in French and Spanish, and the 2008 was used for German.

Enriched curriculum offerings:

11th grade:

• Checkpoint C, part 1, or C1 is offered in 11th grade for high school honors credit in a daily 40-week LOTE course in the chosen language. Students may concurrently receive Advanced Studies/College Acceleration Program SUNY credits through Erie Community College for French and Spanish, and Niagara County Community College for German because ECC does not offer German in their curriculum. We administer a common local summative assessment at the end of 11th grade.

12th grade:

• Checkpoint C, part 2, or C2 is offered in 12th grade for high school honors credit in a daily 40-week LOTE course in the chosen language. Students may concurrently receive Advanced Studies/College Acceleration Program SUNY credits through Erie Community College for French and Spanish, and Niagara County Community College for German because ECC does not offer German in their curriculum. We administer a common local summative assessment at the end of 12th grade.

APPENDIX B: Root Cause Data: Error Analysis

The greatest number of errors on the Second Language Proficiency Exam and the Regents Comprehensive Exam in all three languages is in understanding the main idea and in understanding discrete vocabulary. The charts below demonstrate the highest district gaps in questions assessing the skills of understanding simple language (vocabulary) and understanding the main idea and some discrete information.

Root Cause Data: Highest District Gaps in Vocabulary and Main Idea Questions

[pic]

Root Cause Data: Achievement Levels on Most Frequently-Missed Vocabulary

and Main Idea Questions

[pic]

Root Cause Data: Highest District Gaps in Vocabulary and Main Idea Questions

[pic]

Root Cause Data: Highest District Gaps in Vocabulary and Main Idea Questions

[pic]

Root Cause Data: Achievement Levels on Most Frequently-Missed Vocabulary

and Main Idea Questions

[pic]

Root Cause Data: Highest District Gaps in Vocabulary and Main Idea Questions

[pic]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download