ELL/MLL Grad and Dropout Toolkit

Multilingual Learner/English Language

Learner Graduation Rate Improvement

and Dropout Prevention

PLANNING TOOL

New York State Education Department

Office of Bilingual Education and World Languages

Introduction

The New York State Education Department (NYSED) has experienced steady progress toward higher levels of

English language proficiency for Multilingual Learners/English Language Learners (MLLs/ELLs). The percentage

of MLLs/ELLs achieving the commanding/proficient level has increased across all grade levels from 12.0% in

school year 2016-17 to 13.8% in school year 2017-18. Improved results were seen across all elementary grades,

in which the percentage of MLLs/ELLs achieving commanding/proficient levels increased from 12.8% in school

year 2016-17 to 14.3% in school year 2017-18. In addition, 20,870 MLLs/ELLs have exited MLL/ELL status via the

expanded exit criteria.

Despite the promising increases in English language proficiency rates, we are concerned

about our MLL/ELL graduation and dropout levels. According to NYSED 2018 high school graduation data (for

the cohort entering 9

grade in 2014), the overall 4-year graduation rate was 80.4%, yet disconcerting

achievement gaps exist for Current ELLs. The 2014 cohort MLL/ELL graduation rate was 29.0%, an increase

from the 2013 cohort rate of 26.6%. The 2018 dropout rate for the 2014 MLL/ELL cohort was 27.5%; this is an

improvement of 2.2% over the previous year, but still notably higher than the overall dropout rate of 6.0%. In

addition, only 18.7% of MLLs/ELLs attained a Regents diploma, while only 1.1% attained an Advanced Regents

diploma. A significant proportion (40.5%) of non-graduating MLLs/ELLs remain enrolled in hopes of graduating

in their 5

or 6

year of high school. Given this data, we must focus our efforts to better serve MLLs/ELLs if

we aim to continue to turn around these inequitable and unacceptable outcomes. We are encouraged by the

progress made so far and deem it important to note what has worked to be able to build on those successes.

In order to develop a strong plan to increase high school graduation rates and to decrease dropout rates for

MLLs/ELLs, New York State (NYS) school districts need to first examine data for this diverse population and

ascertain what is impacting these outcomes. Districts and schools then need to determine any changes they

must make in their policies, programs, and instructional practices and ultimately identify (short and long-term)

goals that will result in higher numbers of MLLs/ELLs graduating and ready for college and career. As districts

and schools look at their data, review their instructional practices, and use this planning tool to inform their

goals, current and additional resources and structures for implementation need to be aligned and/or secured.

Districts outline this plan in Section I of the Comprehensive ELL Education Plan (CEEP).

The Multilingual Learner/English Language Learner Graduation Rate and Dropout Prevention Planning Tool

provides research-informed effective practices and strategies, protocols, and templates for use by districts

and schools as they dive into the MLL/ELL data. It is designed to jump start your district’s or school’s study,

reflection and planning to improve policies, programs, and instructional practices geared toward improvement

in MLL/ELL graduation rates. In addition, the planning tool includes embedded links to helpful resources, such

as articles, research, and effective practices related to graduation and dropout prevention. This planning tool

supports implementation of the NYS Blueprint for MLL/ELL Success and NYSED Commissioner’s Regulations

Part 154, but it is not a comprehensive guidance tool; it is intended to be used to facilitate conversations and

planning in districts and schools.

Expanded Exit Criteria: MLLs/ELLs score at or above a state designated level of advanced/expanding on the NYSESLAT in all

modalities, and at or above proficient on the Grades 3-8 English Language Arts Test or at having met or exceeded proficiency standards

on the Regents Examination in Comprehensive English or the Regents Examination in English Language Arts (ELA).

To commence this work, we need to take an in-depth look at what we are doing programmatically and

instructionally for Current ELLs. To understand our diverse MLL/ELL population, we can apply the following

questions to gain a better understanding of the root causes affecting graduation outcomes:

• How are students performing in English Language proficiency development and academics?

• Why are our students dropping out (e.g., social-emotional needs, chronic absenteeism)?

• What challenges are our district and/or school facing in terms of dropout rates for MLLs/ELLs?

• What challenges are our district and/or school facing in terms of graduation rates for MLLs/ELLs?

• What are some common reasons why our students do not graduate on time?

We can apply an inquiry lens to reflect on the district/school practices,

processes and structures to identify and address

predictors/antecedents of MLLs/ELLs at risk of dropping out and/or not

graduating on time.

• Is there an early warning system in place?

• What supports and programs exist to assist MLLs/ELLs once they

are identified as off track to graduation and at risk of dropping

out?

• How is our district engaging parents or persons in parental

relation of MLLs/ELLs?

• How is support from Community Based Organizations being

leveraged to address the needs of MLL/ELL students off track to

graduation or at risk of dropping out?

• What types of additional opportunities are available to increase MLL/ELL graduation rates (e.g., Career

and Technical Education programs, extended day learning programs, blended learning opportunities,

flexible scheduling)?

This planning tool is designed to help districts and schools explore and answer these critical questions and as

leaders examine and address practices, programs and policies that will lead to increased graduation rates and

decreased dropout levels among their MLL/ELL populations.

How to Use This Planning Tool

Each chapter of the Planning Tool introduces a key component of a system that influences MLL/ELL

opportunities toward successful graduation, namely Demographic Data, Early Warning System, MLL/ELL High

School Guidance, Family Engagement and Diverse MLL/ELL Supports. The chapter includes useful techniques

for data analysis intended to help stakeholders understand individual MLLs’/ELLs’ progress towards

graduation. Districts and schools can then use this analysis to create a set of appropriate practices, programs

and policies to address MLLs’/ELLs’ needs in an informed fashion.

Key Components

• Demographic and Performance Data summarizes who MLLs/ELLs are, how they are performing, and

what experiences and opportunities are afforded to them. Key Questions and Implications exercises

are included in this section along with related charts. Broad questions such as “What are three things

you notice about this data?” are meant to be used as guides for your district-level data inquiry. They

will work alongside your completed Data Activities to help you determine the trends and patterns your

district can glean from the MLL/ELL data.

• Early Warning System identifies the core components of a system to proactively monitor and support

MLLs/ELLs and describes indicators that, in combination with general, research-based indicators can

help districts craft their own Early Warning System to monitor the progress of the MLLs/ELLs they are

educating. Districts should use this system to identify MLLs/ELLs at risk of dropping out and implement

appropriate interventions.

• MLL/ELL High School Guidance identifies the core components of strong, effective guidance tools for

MLLs/ELLs, such as information about the New York State English as a Second Language Achievement

Test (NYSESLAT) and pathways to graduation. This chapter also includes examples and other resources

to assist districts in beginning to craft their own guidelines for MLLs/ELLs.

• Family Engagement includes an exercise designed to build awareness of the three core components

of family engagement programs for MLLs/ELLs, inviting districts/schools to use a Planning Template

designed to annually organize and chart all the components in the district’s family engagement plan.

• Diverse MLL/ELL Supports reflects the reality that MLLs/ELLs comprise a heterogenous group with

diverse needs and provides guidance and examples that allow districts to think of ways to reduce the

dropout rate among specific subgroups at the secondary level, including Newcomers, Students with

Interrupted/Inconsistent Formal Education (SIFE), and Long-Term ELLs, the three most vulnerable

subgroups.

Each chapter begins with an introduction to the main topic followed by practical templates and exercises to

be used by districts/schools in accordance with their specific circumstances. For example, for the Demographic

Data component, nearly every state-level chart is presented side-by-side with an attached template for

districts to enter their own data. As such, the potential uses for the planning tool are numerous. It may help

districts identify and understand the kind of data they should be analyzing, help provide support to individual

schools to better understand statewide outcomes and compare them to their respective data to discern

effective practices, help districts or schools gain access to valuable resources, and it may help districts

complete their CEEP Section I. Above all else, this document should be viewed as a hands-on, interactive tool

to assist districts in preventing MLLs/ELLs from dropping out and to improve their graduation rates. This tool

should be used not only by district level administrators but also by principals, assistant principals and even

teachers to discern root causes and potential interventions for any group of MLLs/ELLs for which they are

responsible.

One example of how a district might use this tool involves programming. For instance, if a district has an influx

of newly arriving immigrant adolescents to the U.S. district leaders might consider the creation of a newcomer

program. If a majority of these MLLs/ELLs have interrupted/inconsistent formal education, the district should

use the Multilingual Literacy SIFE Screener designed to assess SIFE literacy and consider implementing the

Bridges to Academic Success Program. These students may have in common that they come from traumatic

situations, which would necessitate a program focusing on social emotional learning. If attendance data

reveals that secondary MLLs/ELLs are often late to school, the root cause may be working long hours after

school, in which case districts should consider the creation of a Twilight Program

, extending school hours or

implementing Saturday School programs.

Instructional practices should also be considered as part of student programming. An example of this is a case

in which data analysis reveals many Long-Term ELLs in a district. These MLLs/ELLs are usually verbally fluent

in English but have less well-developed literacy skills in both their primary language and in English. These

students might be co-taught by a literacy specialist and an MLL/ELL specialist who can create an after-school

program focusing on literacy and academic (disciplinary) language development.

Twilight Programs are offered after regular school hours and are appropriate for students who may be under credited or for those

who need an alternative placement.

Framing the Challenge ............................................................................................................................... 1

The Achievement Gap ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Demographic and Performance Data: Analyzing MLL/ELL Data for Insights, Urgency, and Planning ............ 4

A: Demographic Data ....................................................................................................................................... 5

B: MLL/ELL Performance Data ......................................................................................................................... 9

C: Graduation Rate Data ................................................................................................................................ 16

D: Dropout Rate Data ..................................................................................................................................... 19

Exercise 1: Quantitative Data Analysis Task 1: On Opportunities to Learn ................................................... 22

Exercise 2: Quantitative Data Analysis Task 2: From Graduation/Dropout Data Inquiry to Possible Root

Causes ............................................................................................................................................................. 22

Additional Resources:

Resource 1: MLL/ELL Data Analysis Task: MLLs/ELLs and School Experiences …………………………………..22

Resource 2: Newcomer MLLs/ELLs Data Analysis Task …………………………………………………..…………………22

Resource 3: Long-Term ELLs Data Analysis Task …………………………………………………………………..…………..22

Resource 4: Former ELLs Data Analysis Task… ………………………………………………………………………………….22

Early Warning System ............................................................................................................................. 23

A: Core Components of an Early Warning System.......................................................................................... 24

B: Examples of Indicators Used for MLLs/ELLs ............................................................................................... 26

C: Resources .................................................................................................................................................... 27

Exercise 3: Creating Your District’s Early Warning System …………………………………………………………………………27

Additional Resources:

Resource 5: Analysis of MLL/ELL Stressors ……………………………………………………………………………………..…27

Resource 6: High School Graduation and Dropout: Some Predictors and Antecedents………………….… 27

Resource 7: Facts About School Attendance ......................…………………………………………………….…………27

MLL/ELL High School Guidance ............................................................................................................... 28

A: Qualities of a Strong District/High School MLL/ELL Guidance Plan for Students and Families ................. 28

B: Characteristics of Implementation Processes and Structures .................................................................... 29

C: Individual Graduation Plan Template for MLLs/ELLs .................................................................................. 30

Exercise 4: Complete High School Guidance Task ………………………………………………………………………………………30

Additional Tools:

Resource 8: MLLs/ELLs and High School Courses for Graduation ………………………………………………………30

Resource 9: Individual Graduation Plan Template …………………………………………………………………………….30

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents (continued)

D. Resources……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..31

Family Engagement ................................................................................................................................ 33

Academic Achievement, Advocacy and Decision Making, and Resource Brokerage ..................................... 33

Exercise 5: Complete the Family Engagement Planning Template …………………………………………………………….35

Supporting Diverse MLLs/ELLs ................................................................................................................ 36

Diverse MLLs/ELLs: Introduction..................................................................................................................... 36

Exercise 6: Newcomer MLLs/ELLs Program Planning Tool ............................................................................. 37

Exercise 7: Long-Term ELLs Planning Tool ...................................................................................................... 37

Additional Resources:

Resource 10: Newcomer MLLs/ELLs Program Planning Tool—Essential Features …………………….……….37

Resource 11: Long-Term ELLs Planning Tool—Essential Features ………………….………………………………….37

References ............................................................................................................................................. 38

1 | P a g e

NYS Current ELL, Ever ELL, and Never‐ELL 4‐Year

(2013) June Cohort HS Grad. Rate

TERMS USED TO DEFINE LANGUAGE STATUS:

CURRENT ELLs: Students currently classified as MLL/ELL.

EVER ELLs: Students initially classified as MLL/ELL who met

exit criteria.

NEVER ELLs: Students who have never been classified as

MLL/ELL including monolingual English-speaking students

or students assessed on the NYSITELL and found to be

initially fluent.

Framing the Challenge

The Achievement Gap

While New York State (NYS) is making progress as a whole, we have seen disconcerting gaps in achievement,

particularly for Current ELLs. Each year the New York State Education Department (NYSED) releases high

school graduation and dropout data. In January of 2019 NYSED released the high school graduation data for

the cohort of students who entered 9

grade in 2014. The MLL/ELL four-year graduation rate has increased

from 26.6% for the 2013 cohort to 29% for the 2014 cohort, but the dropout rate for MLLs/ELLs is alarmingly

high at 27.5%. In addition, we see that a very low percentage of MLLs/ELLs are obtaining a Regents Diploma

with Advanced Designation. There is a high rate of MLLs/ELLs still enrolled in the hopes of gaining a diploma

in their 5th or 6th year in high school. The data shows that as a state it is essential to focus our efforts and

learn how to better serve MLLs/ELLs if we are to turn around this flat and potentially downward trend in

graduation rates for MLLs/ELLs. Notwithstanding these figures, we should be mindful that Ever ELLs are doing

very well. In the 2014 cohort, Ever ELLs had a graduation rate of 85.5%, which exceeded the Never ELL

graduation rate of 82.9%.

While the overall graduation rate for NYSED increased, an analysis of MLL/ELL

results is warranted to determine whether significant achievement gaps exist. The charts below will help us

examine the status of the different MLLs/ELLs after 4 years in high school over the period of two years.

CURRENT ELLS

The graduation rate is

26.6%, and the

dropout rate is 29.7%

EVER ELLS

The graduation rate is

82.6%, and the

dropout rate is 4.1%

NEVER ELLS

The graduation rate is

82.9%, and the

dropout rate is 5.2%

2 | P a g e

Key Questions—2013 Data

When you look across all the 2013 data for Current ELLs (Blue Bar), what stands out for you? What do

you think are the “root causes” for these results? What do you think needs to be in place, including

resources to change these results?

When you look across all the data for Ever ELLs (Orange Bar), what stands out for you? What do you

think are the “root causes” for these results? What do you think needs to be in place, including

resources to change these results?

When you look across all the data for Never ELLs (Green Bar), what stands out for you? What do you

think are the “root causes” for these results? What do you think needs to be in place, including

resources to change these results?

In looking at the Dropout data, what strategies/resources are now in place to reduce the dropout rate

for Current ELLs? What additional resources would be needed after determining “root causes”?

CURRENT ELLS

The graduation rate is

29%, and the dropout

rate is 27.5%

EVER ELLS

The graduation rate is

85.5%, and the

dropout rate is 2.4%

NEVER ELLS

The graduation rate is

84.4%, and the

dropout rate is 5.0%

3 | P a g e

The charts above help us examine the status of Current ELLs, Ever ELLs, and Never ELLs after 4 years in high

school over two years. The graduation rate for Ever ELLs continues to show strong progress. The Ever ELLs

have improved from a graduation rate of 84.4% for the 2013 cohort to 85.5% for the 2014 cohort significantly

outpacing the statewide average of 80.4%. The graduation rate for Current ELLs, however, continues to lag

far behind the statewide rate. Only 27.5% of the Current ELLs 2014 cohort are shown to be graduating on time,

up slightly from the 2013 cohort rate of 26.6%.

To understand how well we are serving Current ELLs in NYS, a deeper look at graduation and dropout data is

warranted, to examine the whole population of Current ELLs in addition to the types of diplomas awarded.

The chapters and appendices that follow contain guidance and resources that will aid schools and districts as

they engage in their own analysis of their school and district level data. It is critical that, moving forward,

schools and districts engage in this inquiry in order to review their instructional practices, meet the needs of

diverse MLLs/ELLs, and improve graduation rate outcomes. In addition, it is important to frame this inquiry

within the basic principles that guide MLL/ELL instruction in New York State, as outlined in the Blueprint for

MLL/ELL Success and Commissioner’s Regulations Part 154.

Key Questions—2014 Data

What do we know about the Current ELLs who attained the Regents Diploma? If you were not sure,

how would you go about finding out information on the factors that contributed to their success?

What are the “root causes” for the 27.5% dropout rate of Current ELLs? If you were not sure, how

would you go about finding out information on the factors that impacted their dropping out?

3. Which courses are the Current ELLs having difficulty with or failing?

4. Have Regents courses been designed to standards with MLLs/ELLs in mind?

How have teachers of MLLs/ELLs in secondary been prepared to integrate language development,

disciplinary literacy, and content?

4 | P a g e

MLL/ELL data analysis helps educators understand who MLLs/ELLs are, how they are performing, and what

experiences as well as opportunities are being afforded to them. Data can also help you create interest,

manage expectations, and cultivate urgency. Data helps shine the light on the impact of district and school

policies, programs, and instructional practices for MLLs/ELLs. District and school teams need to delve into

multiple quantitative and qualitative data sets to inform and drive improvements throughout their systems.

District and school teams can use inquiry cycles to bring a district or school picture into focus.

In this section you will review multiple New York State Education Department data sets from 2017-18. As you

explore the data that follows, ask yourselves:

• What does this data tell us?

• What doesn’t it tell us?

• What more do we want to know?

Data activities are included after the key questions and implications reflection prompts with which districts

will create district-level charts to analyze local data. After you review and reflect on these NYSED data sets,

determine what data you have for your MLLs/ELLs and what additional data you must secure to inform

systemic improvement planning throughout your district. Use the Data Activities to create your district’s charts

to support your inquiry into the data and discussion of implications.

All data is limited; therefore, it is critical that multiple data sources are used in any analysis

process that seeks to understand what is impacting student performance, graduation

rates, and dropout rates.

Demographic and Performance Data: Analyzing

MLL/ELL Data for Insights, Urgency, and Planning

5 | P a g e

What We Know about Diverse MLLs/ELLs

New York State’s Multilingual Learners/English Language Learners (MLLs/ELLs) are among the most diverse

in the nation. There is a total of 2,785,250 students in New York State, of which 272,292 are MLLs/ELLs, who

make up 9.8% of the student population. Many were born in New York State or elsewhere in the U.S., while

others emigrated with their families from countries all over the world. Those who emigrate may have arrived

as young children while others arrived as young adults. Some arrive with high levels of literacy in English

and/or their native language, while others may have lower levels of literacy in their native language and/or in

English. Some have disabilities and some have come from war-torn countries or countries ravaged by natural

disasters and therefore may have gaps in their education. Some have been in the U.S. for most of their lives

and others for only a few days. Many are multilingual, which can be considered one of their greatest strengths.

Among the many things they have in common is their desire for success and the opportunity to secure an

education that provides a strong foundation for college and career readiness.

MLLs/ELLs are not a monolithic group. MLLs/ELLs can vary by initial and current English proficiency levels,

home language proficiency levels, and home language literacy levels as well as schooling experiences such as

time in U.S. schools, prior formal schooling, length of enrollment and the quality of instructional program

model(s) in which they are taught. They are also very diverse in

relation to the grade level at which they exit the MLL/ELL

classification and how much time they take to exit as well as the time

that has lapsed since their exit. As previously noted, many of NYS’s

MLLs/ELLs and many non-MLLs/ELLs are bilingual or multilingual. In

the 2017-2018 school year, 1,758 students received the Seal of

Biliteracy. These students represent 64 different countries and 38

distinct languages.

This notable diversity is reflected in the charts on the following pages.

The charts serve as models for the kind of breakdown of the data that

will support the thorough analysis that schools and districts should

perform at the local level. Each chart is followed by data analysis

points in the form of Key Questions and Implications and a related

activity.

Demographic Data

ADDITIONAL DEMOGRAPHIC

DATA TO ANALYZE INCLUDES:

• Languages spoken

• Free and reduced lunch

participation

• Attendance rate

• Grades 3 to 8 ELA and

Mathematics Tests scores

• NYSITELL performance level

• ELL subgroup category

• Entry date

• Age

• Disability classification if

applicable

• SIFE status If applicable

6 | P a g e

Linguistic Diversity 2017-2018 School Year

Key Questions

 What are the MLL/ELL languages with the largest representation?

 Has there been a shift in language representation over the last five years? Ten years?

 How do you keep track of these shifts over time and what systems do you have in place to address them?

 What is the proportion of staff that is available to support diverse language groups in the district?

 Does each school have staff that can support parents and students in their home language? If not, what are the

district’s systemic support structures and processes to support communication and learning that value home

languages?

Implications

 Understand the cultural and linguistic diversity of New York’s MLLs/ELLs.

 Create a system to track language shifts in your school/district.

 Recruit and hire staff to address comprehensive instructional and communication needs for MLLs/ELLs and the

academic goals of the school/district.

 Create translation and interpretation structures and supports for students and parents in home languages.

 Secure culturally and linguistically representative guidance and instructional resources (e.g., brochures,

graduation plan, instructional materials, libraries) for use by students, educators, and community.

Source: IRS 2017-2018 SY

ACTIVITY 1

FOR YOUR DISTRICT, CREATE A SIMILAR CHART AND ANALYZE THE

DATA. CLICK HERE FOR LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY TEMPLATE.

7 | P a g e

Source: IRS 2017-2018 SY

MLL/ELL Subgroups

MLL/ELL subgroups are distinguished by the length of time an individual student has received MLL/ELL services

and whether that student has exited MLL/ELL status and is thus a “Former ELL” entitled to two additional years

of MLL/ELL services and testing accommodations. Within these categories some students may have a dual

designation, as they may have a disability or have had interrupted/inconsistent formal education. These

categories are distinct from English language proficiency levels and must be considered as you conduct your

data analysis.

SUBGROUP 2017-2018

DEFINITION

MLLs/ELLs

Newcomer MLL/ELL

MLL/ELL student in U.S. schools for 3 years or less.

48.0%

Developing MLL/ELL

Student who has received MLL/ELL services for 4 to 6 years.

33.7%

Long-Term MLL/ELL

Student who has completed at least 6 years of MLL/ELL services in a NYS school

and continues to require MLL/ELL services.

18.3%

MLL/ELL with an IEP

MLL/ELL served by an IEP. IEP team determines student’s eligibility for Special Ed

services and the language in which Special Ed services are delivered.

22.1%

Student with

Interrupted/Inconsistent

Formal Education (SIFE)

MLL/ELL in U.S. schools less than 12 months and who, upon enrolling, is 2 or more

years below grade level in L1 literacy and/or Math, due to inconsistent or

interrupted schooling prior to U.S. arrival.

3.0%

Former ELLs

Student who was MLL/ELL and met criteria for exiting MLL/ELL status within the

past 2 years. Entitled to receive at least 2 years of Former ELL services.

8.8% of all

students

Key Questions

 What percentage of Long-Term ELLs are students with disabilities?

 What percentage of Newcomers are Students with Inconsistent/Interrupted Formal Education?

 How do effective services for Newcomers differ from those provided to Developing or Long-Term ELLs?

 How do effective services for Long-Term ELLs differ from those designed for Developing MLLs/ELLs?

 How is your school providing services to Former ELLs?

Implications

 Understand the needs of all the subgroups.

 Develop targeted supports for each subgroup.

 Align core and supplemental fiscal and human resources to meet the needs of MLLs/ELLs.

 Support capacity development for staff to increase their effectiveness with the subgroups.

ACTIVITY 2

FOR YOUR DISTRICT, CREATE A SIMILAR CHART AND ANALYZE THE DATA.

CLICK HERE FOR SUBGROUPS TEMPLATE.

8 | P a g e

Percentages of Newcomer, Developing, and Long-Term MLLs/ELLs by

Grade Level 2017-2018 School Year

Key Questions

 As we progress from K to 12, what are the reasons for the changes in the results? If you are not sure, how would

you find out?

 In which grade levels are Newcomers the most dominant MLL/ELL population?

 In which grade levels are Long-Term ELLs increasing significantly?

 In which grade levels are Long-Term ELL and Newcomer populations decreasing in high school? What might be

influencing those changes?

Implications

 Examine grade level enrollment patterns to identify which grade level spans require additional resources

 Offer strong integrated English as a New Language (ENL) throughout an MLL’s/ELL’s day.

 Provide targeted disciplinary literacy supports to Long-Term ELLs in middle and high school.

 Provide robust Newcomer supports and programs to help MLLs/ELLs succeed with demanding courses at the

secondary level.

ACTIVITY 3

FOR YOUR DISTRICT, CREATE A SIMILAR CHART AND ANALYZE THE DATA.

CLICK HERE FOR SUBGROUPS BY GRADE LEVEL TEMPLATE.

Source: IRS 2017-2018 SY

86.1%

92.3%

77.5%

34.6%

33.8%

38.6%

36.8%

42.9%

44.1%

56.6%

53.4%

42.9%

34.8%

0.2%

6.4%

48.7%

49.3%

44.0%

20.6%

17.3%

15.9%

16.7%

17.7%

21.1%

35.0%

0.1%

0.4%

6.5%

26.9%

26.0%

25.3%

21.5%

18.3%

15.1%

19.9%

13.9%

7.4%

16.1%

16.7%

16.5%

10.8%

15.7%

13.8%

14.7%

5.2%

10.7%

20.9%

10.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Former ELL LTE Developing Newcomer

9 | P a g e

Percentage of MLLs/ELLs by Performance Levels on the 2017 vs. 2018 New York

State English as a Second Language Achievement Test (NYSESLAT)

Key Questions

 When you look at the results from the NYSESLAT, what are three things that stand out for you?

 What are the competencies needed to move from one level to the next (e.g., transitioning to expanding)?

 What supports are in place for MLLs/ELLs to accelerate their movement from level to level of the NYSESLAT?

 What professional development is provided for the teachers of MLLs/ELLs on the NYSESLAT and on the

implications for targeted instruction in accordance with the performance level?

Implications

 Target disciplinary language development in each content area across the district.

 Organize ENL throughout the district to provide robust learning opportunities for MLLs/ELLs that:

• integrate an explicit focus on language into the teaching of concepts and practices;

• intentionally support MLLs/ELLs in drawing on their full range of linguistic competencies and resources while

guiding them towards a focus on content meaning-making; and

• engage MLLs/ELLs in using different modalities for representing information in content areas.

 Provide educators with sustained professional learning to ensure robust learning opportunities for MLLs/ELLs.

MLL/ELL Performance Data

ACTIVITY 4

FOR YOUR DISTRICT, CREATE A SIMILAR CHART AND ANALYZE THE

DATA. CLICK HERE FOR NYSESLAT 2017 VS. 2018 TEMPLATE.

Source: IRS 2017-2018 SY

10 | P a g e

Source: IRS 2017-2018 SY

Key Questions

 Why is the Expanding rate higher at each level?

 Why is the Commanding rate significantly lower at the high school level?

 What does this distribution suggest about Long-Term ELLs at each level?

 What does this distribution show about Newcomers at each level?

 What is the instruction offered by all teachers of MLLs/ELLs that is generating these results?

 What are the promising practices that accelerate language proficiency at each grade level span?

Implications

 Design curriculum to deepen disciplinary reading and writing at each level aligned to NYSESLAT standards

 Increase the rigor of academic language development throughout the day

 Engage MLLs/ELLs in relevant, diverse, engaging, grade-level and standards aligned, diverse texts and tasks

 Build the capacity of all teachers to integrate ENL in all subject matter classes

 Create novel support structures such as block scheduling, looping and extended days for secondary Newcomers

(that do not lead to isolation)

ACTIVITY 5

FOR YOUR DISTRICT, CREATE A SIMILAR CHART AND ANALYZE THE DATA.

CLICK HERE FOR NYSESLAT BY SCHOOL LEVEL TEMPLATE

11 | P a g e

Source: IRS 2017-2018 SY

NYSESLAT Performance by Grade Level 2017-2018 School Year

Key Questions

 What are three things that stand out from this data set?

 What do you think happens by grade 12 where the percentage of Commanding students is reduced?

 What can you infer about middle school (6th-8th) practices given the large percentage of MLLs/ELLs at Expanding

and Commanding?

 What do we know about 9

grade MLLs/ELLs and their high rate at Entering and Emerging? What needs to be

offered to accelerate their movement?

6.6%

4.1%

3.7%

2.9%

4.4%

3.2%

4.6%

2.8%

2.6%

6.1%

2.6%

1.6%

1.3%

13.2%

17.7%

10.9%

9.8%

11.2%

8.1%

9.4%

12.4%

11.7%

20.4%

14.6%

8.6%

7.6%

14.4%

35.1%

22.7%

24.9%

18.8%

24.7%

21.3%

19.5%

18.6%

27.6%

27.7%

24.8%

29.4%

49.1%

34.8%

42.6%

49.1%

48.3%

52.3%

46.5%

48.7%

49.4%

39.4%

43.8%

51.2%

53.4%

16.7%

8.3%

20.1%

13.2%

17.2%

11.7%

18.3%

16.7%

17.7%

6.5%

11.2%

13.8%

8.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Grade K Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12

Commanding Expanding Transitioning Emerging Entering

Implications

 Center teaching and learning on the disciplinary literacies required for each grade.

 Increase extended learning time and support in alignment with the academic and language development

demands.

 Provide texts and tasks aligned to standards that include planned and just-in-time scaffolds.

 Build the capacity of language development specialists to plan and deliver lessons in partnership with subject

matter teachers.

ACTIVITY 6

FOR YOUR DISTRICT, CREATE A SIMILAR CHART AND ANALYZE THE DATA.

CLICK HERE FOR NYSESLAT PERFORMANCE BY GRADE LEVEL TEMPLATE.

12 | P a g e

Source: IRS 2017-2018 SY

Statewide MLL/ELL Performance in ELA (Grades 3-8) 2015-2018 School Year

Key Questions

 What practices are in place that might limit the percentage of Current ELLs scoring 3 and above?

 What do you think is/are the cause(s) for the increase in Level 3 performance in every MLL/ELL category from

2014-2017?

 What is the relationship between students’ performance on the ELA and on the NYSESLAT?

Implications

 Align ENL instruction and supports to the ELA standards and integrate ENL and ELA development for all

MLLs/ELLs.

 Provide robust learning opportunities for MLLs/ELLs to explore how language works within fiction and nonfiction

texts.

 Build the capacity of all ELA teachers to integrate disciplinary literacy into their course content.

 Build the capacity of ELA teachers to design purposeful scaffolds for sense making and language production that

draw on MLLs’/ELLs’ cultural and linguistic assets.

 Build the capacity of ENL teachers to co-teach with ELA teachers.

ACTIVITY 7

FOR YOUR DISTRICT, CREATE A SIMILAR CHART AND ANALYZE THE

DATA. CLICK HERE FOR ELA PERFORMANCE TEMPLATE.

13 | P a g e

Source: IRS 2017-2018 SY

Statewide MLL/ELL Performance in Math (Grades 3-8) 2015-2018 School Year

Key Questions

 What practices are in place that might limit the percentage of the Current ELLs scoring 3 and above?

 What do you think is/are the cause(s) for the slight increase in Level 3 in every ELL category from 2015-2018?

Implications

 MLLs/ELLs need to engage regularly with complex texts/problems and discuss ideas while being introduced to

formal academic language use in mathematics by all teachers.

 Align ENL instruction and supports to the math standards.

 Establish language development structures (i.e., groupings and accountability) and routines (e.g., Number Talks,

Three Read Protocol) in the math classroom.

 Provide robust learning opportunities for MLLs/ELLs to explore how language works when generalizing,

explaining, proving, and explaining for discipline specific purposes.

 Engage MLLs/ELLs in text, problems and tasks that build their capacity apply academic language (oral and written)

for specific disciplinary purposes.

 Build the capacity of all math teachers to integrate disciplinary literacy in course content.

 Build the capacity of ENL teachers to co-teach with math teachers.

ACTIVITY 8

FOR YOUR DISTRICT, CREATE A SIMILAR CHART AND ANALYZE THE

DATA. CLICK HERE FOR MATH PERFORMANCE TEMPLATE.

14 | P a g e

Source: IRS 2017-2018 SY

Students Meeting Grade Level Performance on State ELA Assessment

2017-18 School Year

Key Questions

 What are three things you notice about this graph?

 Why do you think there is a drop in ELA performance for Former ELLs from 5th to 6th grade?

 How well are teachers prepared to integrate language development and ELA?

 How are teachers advantaging MLLs’/ELLs’ assets to increase their success in ELA?

Implications

 Align ENL instruction and supports to the ELA standards.

 Build the capacity of all teachers to design purposeful scaffolds for more demanding disciplinary specific tasks

and texts.

 Build the capacity of all teachers to provide rigorous grade-level aligned instruction for MLLs/ELLs.

 Provide intensive extended integrated ENL/ELA learning structures such as block scheduling and looping for

MLLs/ELLs.

17.7%

11.2%

3.0%

6.1%

2.2%

3.9%

68.9%

65.6%

42.1%

54.1%

38.2%

46.2%

53.7%

50.3%

39.2%

52.5%

42.8%

50.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Grade 3 ELA Grade 4 ELA Grade 5 ELA Grade 6 ELA Grade 7 ELA Grade 8 ELA

ELL Former ELL Non-ELL

ACTIVITY 9

FOR YOUR DISTRICT, CREATE A SIMILAR CHART AND ANALYZE THE DATA.

CLICK HERE FOR GRADE LEVEL PERFORMANCE ON ELA TEMPLATE

15 | P a g e

Source: IRS 2017-2018 SY

Students Meeting Grade Level Performance on State Math Assessment

2017-2018 SY

Key Questions

 What are three things you notice about this graph?

 Why do you think there is a drop-in math performance for Former ELLs from 5th to 6th grade?

 How does your district data compare to the state data?

 How well are teachers prepared to integrate language development and mathematics?

 How are teachers advantaging MLLs’/ELLs’ assets to increase their success in mathematics?

Implications

 Teachers need to tap into MLLs/ELLs language assets, prior learning and peers to increase their success.

 Align ENL instruction and supports to the math standards and integrate ENL and math development for all

MLLs/ELLs.

 Provide robust learning opportunities for MLLs/ELLs that integrate an explicit focus on language development

in English and the home language into the teaching of concepts and practices.

 Provide grade-level instruction, curriculum, instructional materials and assessments in English and the home

language (as available).

 Build the capacity of math teachers to design purposeful scaffolds for MLLs/ELLs to make meaning and produce

evidence of understanding by using multiple modalities including the use of home language.

 Build the capacity of bilingual teachers to facilitate instruction as well as disciplinary discourse in mathematics

in the language of instruction.

26.4%

16.5%

11.6%

11.1%

9.5%

9.7%

73.7%

65.6%

53.6%

46.7%

41.5%

36.0%

56.3%

50.9%

46.5%

47.2%

43.8%

31.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Grade 3 Math Grade 4 Math Grade 5 Math Grade 6 Math Grade 7 Math Grade 8 Math

ELL Former ELL Non-ELL

ACTIVITY 10

FOR YOUR DISTRICT, CREATE A SIMILAR CHART AND ANALYZE THE DATA.

CLICK HERE FOR GRADE LEVEL PERFORMANCE ON MATH TEMPLATE.

16 | P a g e

Source: IRS 2017-2018 SY

Cohort 2014 Graduation Outcomes of Top 15 MLL/ELL Home Languages

Key Questions

 What do you notice about this data? What might be one reason for these results?

 Evaluate the opportunities to learn, the social-emotional supports, and the structures and systems of support

for MLLs/ELLs with the top four home language dropout rates. What additional supports will be needed?

Implications

 Determine the “root cause” for the high dropout rate of high incidence populations in your district such as

Nepali, Burmese, Punjabi, Spanish MLLs/ELLs.

 Provide language supports and bilingual education for all courses, especially Regents.

 Create strong course completion pathways in English and in high incidence languages.

 Recruit and hire staff that can deliver core Regents courses in the high incidence languages.

 Inform MLLs/ELLs and parents of graduation requirements and ways to meet the Advanced Regents diploma.

Graduation Rate Data

ACTIVITY 11

ACTIVITY

FOR YOUR DISTRICT, CREATE A SIMILAR CHART AND ANALYZE THE DATA.

CLICK HERE FOR OUTCOMES BY HOME LANGUAGE TEMPLATE.

17 | P a g e

Source: IRS 2017-2018 SY

2014 Cohort Percentage of Newcomers, Developing MLL/ELL, LTEs, ELLs with

an IEP, and SIFE by Graduation Outcome

Key Questions

 What are three things that resonate with you when you look at this set of data?

 What do you think is impacting the high dropout rate of Newcomers and other subgroups?

 What do you think are three immediate actions that can be implemented to change these results?

Implications

 Determine the “root cause” for the high dropout rate of Newcomers, Long-Term ELLs, MLLs/ELLs with IEPs and

SIFE populations in your district.

 Provide a foundational instructional language development approach that specifies how high-quality academic

standards-based integrated content and language development is delivered throughout the MLL’s/ELL’s day with

literacy enrichment in English and the home language.

 Design assessments and protocols to determine academic and social academic needs of MLLs/ELLs.

 Provide intensive social-emotional supports that draw on strategic community and family partnerships.

 Design structured programs to provide instruction that accelerates language, literacy and numeracy skills for

SIFE students.

 Provide professional learning sessions on curriculum development and instructional strategies for all teachers

that accelerate academic attainment of all subgroups.

ACTIVITY 12

ACTIVITY

FOR YOUR DISTRICT, CREATE A SIMILAR CHART AND ANALYZE THE

DATA.

CLICK HERE FOR GRADUATION OUTCOMES BY SUBGROUP

TEMPLATE.

38.4%

18.7%

20.4%

18.2%

22.5%

26.7%

35.0%

31.8%

34.8%

16.7%

34.8%

46.2%

47.9%

47.0%

60.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Newcomer Developing LTE ELL with an IEP SIFE

Still Enrolled

Graduated

Dropout

18 | P a g e

Source: IRS 2017-2018 SY

Average Number of Credits in Advanced Courses by Never, Ever, and

Current ELLs 2017-2018 School Year

Key Questions

 What percent of MLLs/ELLs participate in AP, Honors, or Dual Credit Programs? How does this percent vary by

language status and school level?

 What programs and supports are in place to provide MLLs/ELLs opportunities to address their credit gaps?

 How often are MLLs’/ELLs’ credit attainments reviewed?

Implications

 Establish an early warning system.

 Monitor MLL/ELL credit attainment on a quarterly basis.

 Develop an Individual Graduation Plan to be introduced to MLLs/ELLs and their parents upon high school

enrollment.

 Provide each MLL/ELL with an adult mentor that will use the Individual Graduation Plan to support the

MLL/ELL towards graduation.

 Establish a credit recovery and/or acceleration program during the year.

0.2

0.6

0.78

0.14

0.29

0.3

0.02

0.06

0.09

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Current ELL Ever ELL Never ELL

AP Credits Earned

Dual Credits Earned

Honors Credits Earned

ACTIVITY 13

ACTIVITY

FOR YOUR DISTRICT, CREATE A SIMILAR CHART AND ANALYZE THE DATA.

CLICK HERE FOR CREDITS IN ADVANCED COURSES BY SUBGROUP

TEMPLATE.

19 | P a g e

Source: IRS 2017-2018 SY

Cohort 2014 Age Distribution of MLL/ELL Dropouts

Key Questions

 What do you notice about this data?

 What can be done to reduce the dropout rates of students who are 18-20 years old?

 What is influencing the dropout rate for students 18, 19, or 20 years old?

 What is influencing the dropout rate of students who are 16 and 17 years old?

Implications

 Determine the “root causes” for the high dropout rate of students over 18.

 Develop flexible schedules in high schools to afford students over the age of 18 with multiple avenues to obtain

credits towards graduation.

 Create Early Bird, Twilight and summer programs to help student accelerate course attainment.

 Provide bilingual courses and Regents examination prep in high incidence languages.

 Work with community colleges to create transition programs.

 Establish Career Pathways that can award credits for work experience and internships.

Dropout Rate Data

0.1%

3.0%

20.4%

28.7%

26.7%

16.0%

4.1%

1.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Age 16 Age 17 Age 18 Age 19 Age 20 Age 21 Age 22 Age 23

ACTIVITY 14

FOR YOUR DISTRICT, CREATE A SIMILAR CHART AND ANALYZE THE

DATA. CLICK HERE FOR DROPOUT AGE DISTRIBUTION TEMPLATE.

20 | P a g e

Chronic Absenteeism Rates by Never, Ever, and Current ELLs

2017-2018 School Year

Key Questions

 What are the “root causes” of chronically absent MLLs/ELLs?

 What are the differences in chronic absenteeism between the first months and after November?

 What are some of the social-emotional factors (e.g., illness, living status, bullying, etc.) that affect student

absenteeism?

 What are the academic factors (e.g., low grades, low expectations, lack of challenging curriculum) that affect

student absenteeism?

Implications

 Examine the “root causes” for Severely Chronically/Chronically Absent MLLs/ELLs.

 Create a plan to address attendance policies that might be impacting MLL/ELL attendance.

 Create an attendance campaign with district, school and community celebrations.

 Set improvement targets for the district and schools and monitor them quarterly.

 Develop a mentoring program, support groups or clubs to reengage Severely Chronically Absent Students.

 Create early credit recovery and acceleration strategies and structures.

ACTIVITY 15

FOR YOUR DISTRICT, CREATE A SIMILAR CHART AND ANALYZE THE DATA.

CLICK HERE FOR CHRONIC ABSENTEEISM TEMPLATE.

18.2

34.2

20.1

9.5

23.1

11.2

15.3

24.2

14.5

ES MS HS

Current ELL

Ever ELL

Never ELL

Source: IRS 2017-2018 SY

21 | P a g e

Percent Suspended of Never, Ever, and Current ELLs 2017-2018 School Year

Key Questions

 What percent of students were ever suspended?

 How does this percent vary by language status and school level?

 What would you examine to understand the “root causes” for shifts in data?

 What are some of the social-emotional factors (e.g., illness, living status, bullying) that affect student

suspensions?

Implications

 Establish significant transitional grades supports to meet academic, language development and social-

emotional needs.

 Build student and parent engagement sessions.

 Develop partnerships with community-based organizations to support students and families with social-

emotional needs.

 Develop partnerships with parents to set improvement goals and celebrate accomplishments.

 Develop a mentoring program, support groups or clubs to reengage students.

Source: IRS 2017-2018 SY

ACTIVITY 16

FOR YOUR DISTRICT, CREATE A SIMILAR CHART AND ANALYZE THE

DATA. CLICK HERE FOR PERCENT SUSPENDED TEMPLATE.

0.5

4.3

5.4

0.3

3.1

5.6

1.8

7.8

12.7

ES MS HS

Current ELL

Ever ELL

Never ELL

22 | P a g e

Quantitative Data Analysis Tasks One and Two on Opportunities to Learn

This task extends and deepens your district data profile beyond MLL/ELL demographics and performance to

explore students’ opportunities to learn (OTL). Four key questions are offered to drive your data collection

and analysis. Each question provides an indication of students’ equity of opportunity to engage in learning

academic uses of language and rigorous subject matter practices.

Exercise 1: Complete Quantitative Data Task 1 on Opportunities to Learn

Exercise 2: Complete Quantitative Data Task 2 from Graduation/Dropout Data Inquiry to Possible Root

Causes Using Your 2014 Cohort Data

Additional Resources

• Resource 1: MLL/ELL Data Analysis Task: MLLs/ELLs and School Experiences

• Resource 2: Newcomer ELLs/MLLs Data Analysis Task

• Resource 3: Long-Term ELLs Data Analysis Task

• Resource 4: Former ELLs Data Analysis Task

23 | P a g e

A well implemented Early Warning System can

help educators identify MLLs/ELLs who need

additional supports to succeed in school and

meet graduation requirements for New York

State’s diploma options. Upon MLLs’/ELLs’ entry

to the U.S. school system, districts should

provide them with a choice of diverse program

service models pursuant to regulatory

population triggers (e.g., Transitional Bilingual

Education, One or Two Way Dual Language,

and/or English as a New Language Programs).

Chronic absence and suspension data can help

shine the light on potential social-emotional

challenges for MLLs/ELLs. Examining failure

rates for MLLs/ELLs in core academic courses

can propel a deeper exploration of course design

and quality, as well as instructional practices

needed to accelerate the language development

acquisition and content knowledge of

MLLs/ELLs. These reviews help highlight systemic challenges and opportunities that can be addressed more

strategically by studying groups of students outside of the sphere of success. An Early Warning System

designed to support MLLs/ELLs can help educators identify, implement, and monitor the effects of academic

and social-emotional supports for this high need population that has an alarming dropout rate and a low

graduation rate.

Most Early Warning Systems are developed to identify off-track students in middle and high school and to

design and assess interventions to keep them on track to graduate. NYSED policies and reporting practices

encourage systems to support MLLs/ELLs to graduate by reporting and acknowledging graduation at the 4th,

5th and 6th year in high school. The low graduation rate of MLLs/ELLs, the rate of MLLs/ELLs still enrolled in

high school, and the high dropout rates call on educators to consider the design of an Early Warning System.

When this system is put into practice it can help increase graduation rates with 4, 5, or 6 years in high school

for MLLs/ELLs and also support over age students to stay in school until graduation. The design of the system

needs to consider the instructional quality of programs and the support structures that will address this diverse

and complex student population’s needs as they strive for Regents and Advanced Regents diplomas.

Early Warning System

24 | P a g e

This section presents the core components of an Early Warning System as well as examples

of indicators school systems have used to monitor and support MLLs/ELLs. It also introduces

links to resources for developing an Early Warning System.

Most Early Warning Systems include five core components that must be well implemented. The list below

names each component, offers a brief description, and highlights important consideration for its

application.

1. Representative team that implements the system in a school/district: This is a dedicated team of staff

who will work together to identify students who are off track, assign them supports, and monitor their

progress. Inclusion of district partners is recommended, data analysis expertise must be available, strong

structures for communications and follow-up are a must and professional development on the system and

data use is required.

2. Accurate Indicators: These are the strongest predictors of high school graduation and/or of dropping

out. They need to be valid for the purpose, actionable by the school, meaningful and easily understood, and

aligned to school/district improvement priorities. It is advisable to start small and expand over time as needed.

Research informed indicators include attendance, behavior, and course performance. Test the indicators to

determine their usefulness as predictors. Use local data as much as possible and include state assessments as

appropriate since regular data analysis is key.

3. Useful and easy to follow reports that promote action: Tailor your reports to the user. What will be

useful for them to understand regarding progress and impact of supports? Report should be updated regularly

to support team meetings. Absence data and suspensions data might be more readily available whereas

progress reports and grades might be reviewed every three to six weeks based on the accessibility of the data.

Some districts use a color-coding method or symbols to communicate urgency or progress.

4. Mapping appropriate support to student needs: All MLLs/ELLs need quality instruction that integrates

content and language development. When considering the additional supports needed for MLLs/ELLs, it is

Cor

Core Components of an Early Warning System

An effective Early Warning System relies on readily available data housed at the school to

accomplish the following:

• Rely on early warning indicators

• Predict which students are at at-risk of missing key educational milestones

• Target resources to support off-track MLLs/ELLs early

• Examine patterns and identify specific school and district policy, programs,

and practices and needs that need to be addressed

–Susan Therriault

25 | P a g e

5. important to determine the quality of core instruction provided in academic and English as a New

Language (ENL) settings as well as their access and inclusion in standards-aligned content courses, guidance,

and extra-curricular activities. The core program for MLLs/ELLs might need to be addressed in conjunction

with the mapping of appropriate additional supports. The district/school should maintain a list of supports for

diverse MLL/ELLs that have proven to be successful (i.e., comprehensive and welcoming intake orientations,

home visits, block scheduling, thematic/project-based units, extended day supports, flexible scheduling and

family engagement). The list of supports is to be assessed regularly for level of effectiveness against

investment in the particular context. Consider the needs of each student using flagged indicators, and match

supports to their needs. Some districts characterize supports as low, medium and high to distinguish the levels

of supplemental support and evaluate effectiveness of implementation.

6. Evaluating student progress and the effectiveness of supports: The team regularly reviews student

progress and the effectiveness of the supplemental supports. The varied indicators for each student as well

as their progress in those areas are closely monitored. Student progress is monitored related to the prescribed

supplemental support to address the leading indicators. Progress data for subgroups of MLLs/ELLs is evaluated

to determine the effectiveness of the supports for specific needs.

26 | P a g e

Research has identified 110 indicators being used in schools to

identify students not on track to graduate.

Attendance, behavior, and course performance are the three

categories of indicators most frequently used by schools to identify

students in need of targeted supports. Districts/schools examine

attendance data such as daily attendance, tardiness, and/or chronic

absence rates. For behavior districts/schools are looking at data on

referrals, disciplinary actions, suspensions, expulsions, and/or

mobility. Course performance data examined by districts/schools

might include Grade Point Average, credits attained, course failure,

English Language Arts (ELA) grade, math grade, math score, and/or

reading score. These indicators have been proven to be predictive

of student needs in most contexts. There is limited research on predictive indicators specifically focused on

MLLs/ELLs. Large school systems have been using a variety of indicators to identify MLLs/ELLs in need of

supplemental support.

Early Warning Indicators that are strong predictors of graduation and/or dropout:

Attendance

Behavior

Performance

Daily attendance

Tardiness

Chronic absence rate

Referrals

Disciplinary action

Suspensions

Expulsions

Mobility

Grade Point Average

ELA grade

Math grade

Math score

Reading Score

In addition to the indicators used for all students, districts/schools have used what is known as “flags” to

identify MLLs/ELLs in need of targeted support. MLL/ELL specific flags include U.S. schooling entrance date,

reclassification date, and Former ELL, Long-Term ELL, Newcomer MLL/ELL and dually identified MLL/ELL with

an IEP status. One MLL/ELL performance indicator that is reviewed is progress in learning English, usually

defined as year for year growth on English Language Proficiency assessments. Progress toward redesignation

is another performance indicator used where language proficiency and literacy criteria are used together to

identify students for acceleration. Districts/schools should consider the supports that will help MLLs/ELLs

attain proficiency and exit MLL/ELL status. For example, one California district identifies MLLs/ELLs as being

at the point of exiting when they make sufficient growth in meeting either language proficiency or literacy

proficiency. The progress of these students is monitored for a year, and they are provided with targeted

supports. New York State districts/schools might consider investigating the relationship between years in

Long-Term ELL status and dropout rates.

Effective Early Warning Systems

Effective Early Warning Systems are informed by research, regularly validate the usefulness of indicators,

develop customized tools and supports for the users, invest in professional development to launch and

implement the system, communicate its purpose to students, parents and community, and regularly assess

and improve processes.

Examples of Indicators Used for MLLs/ELLs

DISTRICTS AND SCHOOLS

IMPLEMENTING EARLY WARNING

SYSTEMS HAVE:

• Decreased disciplinary actions

• Improved attendance

• Decreased the number of Long-

Term ELLs

• Increased credit accumulation

• Increased graduation rates

Cor

ent

Ear

rni

Sys

27 | P a g e

Consider reviewing the following resources as you develop plans for an Early Warning System. Start small with

readily available data in your system and the MLL/ELL flags specific to your student population.

Early Warning and Risk Prevention for English Learner Webinar

Institute of Education Sciences (IES)

This webinar examines how Early Warning Systems can be refined to target at-risk MLL/ELLs. Two researchers

share national perspectives on Early Warning Systems as well as the experiences of eight districts with large

MLL/ELL populations and established Early Warning Systems. In addition, a team from Fresno Unified School

District shares the tools, practices, and indicators they used to identify English Learners as well as providing

examples of social emotional and academic supports.

District Guide for Creating Indicators for Early Warning Systems

WestEd

This is a step-by-step guide that school districts can use to identify and select their own early warning

indicators. It includes templates to document decisions and organize the analysis to identify and select

appropriate early warning indicators for your district or school.

For a list of supports explore the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) What Works Clearinghouse

Exercise 3: Use the resources referenced and your own to start creating your district’s Early Warning

System.

Additional Resources

• Resource 5: Analysis of MLL/ELL Stressors

• Resource 6: High School Graduation and Dropout: Some Predictors and Antecedents

• Resource 7: Facts About School Attendance

Resources

28 | P a g e

MLLs/ELLs need to know what they

must to do to be successful in high

school and beyond.

Districts and high schools with strong student

supports understand the needs of MLLs/ELLs

and their families, and they create tools and

structures to promote those students’ success.

Effective guidance for MLLs/ELLs include: a

family component, guidance tools, resources in

home languages and English, partnerships with

community-based organizations that support

MLLs/ELLs and their families, and opportunities

for regular interactions with knowledgeable

teachers and staff.

Districts need to ensure that for high school-aged MLLs/ELLs new to the U.S. there is a comprehensive review

of any transcripts from other countries. Districts and schools need to grant as many credits as merited for

secondary courses completed in any other country. This ensures that MLLs/ELLs who are new to the U.S. are

placed in the proper grade level and will be less likely to age out before completing their diploma

requirements. The family component includes elements such as guidance tools, resources, and information

sessions. These sessions focus on orientations to grade level demands and college preparation, school campus

visits, compacts, and trainings (e.g., English Language Development, Planning for College, Supporting your

MLL/ELL student). The parent/guardian support would also include a meeting with school staff at least once

every year, in addition to other generally required meetings to discuss their student’s overall learning and

language development progress. Guidance tools would include everything a student and families would need

to know about graduation requirements, supports for MLLs/ELLs, rights and responsibilities, and college

planning. All core guidance resources need to be in the families’ preferred language and mode of

communication. Readily available and updated multi-modal resources for families and students in their home

languages are crucial.

MLL/ELL High School Guidance

Qualities of a strong district/school MLL/ELL

guidance plan for students and families

GUIDANCE RESOURCES

NYSED guidance on transfer credit

NYSED guidance on multiple pathways to graduation

Regulations Related to Additional Graduation Option for English Language Learners

(field memo)

General Education and Diploma Requirements including info on the commencement credential

Five World Languages Assessments Approved for 4+1 Pathway to Graduation

29 | P a g e

A student guidance tool that is regularly reviewed will help an MLL/ELL plan their journey to graduation and

beyond. The guidance tools and resources include important information about how to make the most of

high school.

A comprehensive MLL/ELL student’s guidance tool would include information about:

• required courses and their descriptions,

• programs available for MLL/ELL students,

• Bilingual Education and ENL instruction and families’ rights to have children study in a Bilingual

Education program (when there are 20 or more grade-level students in a district that speak the same

home/primary language),

• the NYSESLAT and understanding NYSESLAT scores,

• exiting ELL status and Former ELL services,

• postsecondary opportunities and how to obtain them,

• graduation pathways, particularly the Language Other Than English (LOTE) Pathway,

• graduation requirements and Regents exams,

• Career and Technical Education programs,

• Advanced Placement and/or International Baccalaureate courses and assessments,

• concurrent enrollment opportunities at a college,

• reading school report cards and state assessment results,

• attendance policies and the importance of attendance,

• behavior policies,

• the value of multilingualism and how to obtain the New York State Seal of Biliteracy,

• guidance and resources on college preparation,

• guidance and resources on applying to college including information about postsecondary options,

selecting and applying to colleges, and completing the Free Application for Federal Student Aid

(FAFSA) and learning about financial resources,

• career preparation opportunities such as job shadowing, mentors, and internships, and

• civic preparation opportunities such as service learning or volunteer opportunities.

The guide would also include: updated websites with information about community organizations, activities

to engage in the exploration of interests and careers, local guidance supports, explanations of college, career,

and civic readiness milestones by grade level, an educational planning tool, and additional programs from

which MLLs/ELLs can seek support on their path to graduation.

Characteristics of Implementation Processes and

Structures

30 | P a g e

Districts and schools with strong welcoming and orientation structures include families of MLL/ELL students

as partners in the educational planning process.

One tool that schools can use to support MLLs/ELLs is an Individualized Graduation Plan. Such a plan is a

template that should include elements important for all students as well as elements specific to MLLs/ELLs.

Assigned advisory educators use the Individualized Graduation Plan during quarterly sessions with the

MLL/ELL and their family to monitor progress.

Some districts have created innovative and proactive structures and processes to welcome and sustain family

and student engagement toward successful graduation. One such innovative structure is the use of centralized

intake and enrollment centers that not only assess and orient MLLs/ELLs to the district and schools but also

connect parents to numerous support services. Some of these centers offer classes for parents as well. As

another example of innovative structures, some schools, employ parent coordinators who partner with

guidance staff to organize support and learning opportunities for students and parents, monitor student

progress, address potential concerns with students and families, and conduct home visits. Districts and

schools that establish these types of structures and processes are able to more regularly assess student

progress and align support services to meet their evolving needs. As part of their work, they also regularly

celebrate the MLL/ELL students’ accomplishments in school. In addition, they communicate frequently with

parents about students’ growth and accomplishments as well as other matters that may require attention and

supports.

Exercise 4: Complete High School Guidance Task by Adopting or Modifying the Individualized Graduation

Plan Template

Additional Tools:

Resource 8: MLLs/ELLs and High School Courses for Graduation

Resource 9: Individualized Graduation Plan Template

Individual Graduation Plan Template for MLLs/ELLs

31 | P a g e

Chapter 10 of the U.S. Department of Education English Learner Tool Kit addresses LEAs’ obligations to

communicate with families of MLLs/ELLs and includes sample tools and resources.

The USDE Newcomer Toolkit offers guidance resources to help districts and schools understand the diversity

of newcomers and their needs. It also includes resources and examples of effective practices used to support

MLLs/ELLs and establish partnerships with families.

The article Getting Ready for College: What ELL Students Need to Know (Colorin Colorado) delineates what

school communities need to consider when supporting MLLs’/ELLs’ hopes and aspirations to attend college.

Topics include first steps, academic preparation, guiding MLLs/ELLs and their families through the college

application process, support programs, financial aid, and eligibility. The article has links to multiple resources

and examples.

The article Creating a College-Going Culture for English Language Learners introduces elements that need to

be considered when establishing a culture of college readiness in a school that will be supportive of MLLs/ELLs.

Roadmap to College: A College Access Guide for English Language Learners/Multilingual Learners in New York

State

Resources

32 | P a g e

Planning for strong family engagement to meet graduation requirements and dropout

prevention with attention to three core components: Academic Achievement, Advocacy and

Decision Making, and Resource Brokerage.

This exercise is designed to build your awareness of the core components of strong family engagement

programs for MLLs/ELLs and have you reflect on your practices related to three core components. You will be

asked to complete a template that can serve as a tool to organize your thinking and planning to address the

three core components in your program.

Read Chart 1: Organizing Family and Community Engagement for Impact

This chart presents three core components of strong family engagement programs that impact MLL/ELL

families’ experiences with schooling in the U.S. The chart briefly describes each component and summarizes

the potential impact of well-designed activities for families within each component. The chart also describes

a few effective delivery methods for each component of a strong family engagement program and ultimately

identifies who needs to share the responsibility for engaging families. As you read the chart underline areas

that you are not currently attending to and circle areas that are being addressed in your family engagement

activities and plans.

Family Engagement

33 | P a g e

Tables: Organizing Family and Community Engagement for Impact on Graduation and

Dropout Rates

Component 1:

Academic

Achievement

Impact

(Why)

Approach

(How)

People

Responsible

(Who)

Opportunities for

engagement are:

• Directly linked to

student grade

level learning

goals

• Directly linked to

students’

aspirations and

successful

graduation

• About two-way

communication

and collaboration

with teachers and

school leaders

• Family knowledge of language

development

• Family knowledge and

understanding of key grade level

learning concepts

• Family knowledge of graduation

requirements

• Family knowledge of youth’s

aspirations and goals as well as the

pathways to reach them

• Greater ability to apply strategies

that support grade level learning

concepts anywhere and anytime

• Strong collaboration between

teachers and families

• Higher expectations for learning

and achievement

• Improved student achievement,

attendance and behavior

• Family ability and access to

monitor progress regularly

• Increased interaction with learning

between parents/family and

children

• Track English language proficiency

• Ongoing professional learning

opportunities for school leaders,

teachers, and support staff

• Systematic application of research

and evidence-based practices in

engagements

• Personal outreach by teachers

• Integration of family engagement

into the fabric of teaching and

learning

• Effective and targeted use of time,

human and fiscal resources

• District/school

leadership team

• Teachers

• Parents/families

• Support staff

• Parent

coordinators

(Adapted from: The United States Department of Education’s Newcomer Tool Kit released in 2017 that can be downloaded at:

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/newcomers-toolkit/index.html )

34 | P a g e

(Adapted from: The United States Department of Education’s Newcomer Tool Kit released in 2017 that can be downloaded at:

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/newcomers-toolkit/index.html )

Component 2:

Advocacy and

Decision-making

Impact

(Why)

Approach

(How)

People

Responsible

(Who)

Opportunities for

engagement are:

• Related to school

academic and non-

academic

programming

• Related to pathways

to graduation

• Connected to

exercising advocacy

and shared decision-

making.

• About successful

transitions

• Increased family participation in

the life of the school community

through organized meetings,

groups, and committees

• Increased knowledge and

understanding about parents’

rights and responsibilities

• More families as thought

partners for district/school

improvement

• Access to academic and non-

academic resources and after

school programs

• Better understanding of

curriculum, academic standards

and benchmarks

• Better understanding of NYS

diplomas, graduation

requirements and pathways

• Better understanding of

guidance opportunities

• Knowledge of district/school

vision, mission and policies

• More volunteers

• Personal invitations

• Coordinated parent/family

orientation that includes

transition years, academic

milestones and college and

career readiness

• Individual graduation plan

• Redesigned compacts

• Quarterly newsletter

• Structured and targeted open

house

• Welcome centers

• Home visits

• Personal outreach by guidance

staff

• Comprehensive intake

orientation for Newcomers

• District/school

leadership team

• Guidance Team

• Parent

coordinators

• Title I staff

• Volunteers

• Front office staff

35 | P a g e

(Adapted from: The United States Department of Education’s Newcomer Tool Kit released in 2017 that can be downloaded at:

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/newcomers-toolkit/index.html )

Exercise 5: Complete the Family Engagement Planning Template

Component 3:

Resource

Brokerage

Impact

(Why)

Approach

(How)

People

Responsible

(Who)

Opportunities for

engagement are:

• Linked to social

services

• Connected to civic

readiness and

college and career

readiness

• Connected to adult

education

• About information

and access to

community

resources

• Increased number of partnerships

with specialized community

organizations

• Increased number of partnerships

with Institutions of Higher

Education (IHEs)

• Increased number of partnerships

with businesses

• Greater selection of services and

resources for families throughout

the community

• Increased number of academic and

non-academic opportunities for

children beyond the bell

• Efficient and effective use of fiscal

and human resources across the

community

• Increased number of community

organizations, businesses and IHEs

engaged in supporting

district/school goals

• A district/school strategic

plan for community

partnerships that targets the

needs of MLLs/ELLs in the

community

• A district/school strategic

plan for IHE and business

partnerships that targets the

aspirations and needs of

MLLs/ELLs

• An organized family and

community engagement

leadership team that meets

regularly and includes

partners across service areas

• An organized family and IHE-

business engagement

leadership team that meets

regularly and includes

partners across college and

career areas

• A directory of mentorship

and internship opportunities

• Marketing

• Strategic community

partners

• Volunteers

• IHE and business

partners

• Parent coordinator

• District leadership

36 | P a g e

Students designated as MLLs/ELLs comprise a

diverse group with varied needs.

In order to address the dropout rate among MLLs/ELLs, we will

focus on the subgroups that are dropping out at higher rates.

The data previously presented, shows us that in NYS the

subgroups with the highest dropout rates at the high school

level are Newcomers, SIFE, and Long-Term ELLs. The following

section provides guidance and examples that allow districts

and schools to think of ways they can reduce the dropout rate

among these subgroups at the secondary level.

Recent research suggests that in particular, and in many cases,

distinct strategies and services are critical to improving achievement among the various MLL/ELL

subgroups. For example, Long-Term ELLs benefit from courses on academic and home language

development, placement in rigorous grade-level content courses, and from systems for monitoring

progress and triggering support, among other program components (Olsen, 2014). On the other

hand, MLLs/ELLs with an IEP require services that address their English and home language learning

needs, as well as their special and general education needs (Hamayan, Marler, Sanchez-Lopez, &

Damico, 2013). Meanwhile, Newcomer MLLs/ELLs are best served when they receive content and

academic-based language and literacy instruction, along with targeted reading and writing

instruction (Francis, Rivera, Lesauz, Kieffer, & Rivera, 2006). Additionally, all MLL/ELL subgroups

need to be provided with programmatic services such as flexible scheduling, extended time for

instruction and support, and connections with families and social services (Short & Boyson, 2012;

Walqui, 2000).

In order to increase graduation rates and decrease dropout rates, each district needs to convene a

planning task force with representatives from participating stakeholder groups to design,

implement, and monitor services and supports for the various MLL/ELL subgroups. Task force

members gather to analyze data on each subgroup including interviews of MLLs/ELLs on track for

graduation as well as for those that might not be graduating in four years. The task force conducts

research on successful models, interviews staff at sites (e.g., principals, guidance staff, content

teachers, and ENL specialists), and identifies currently available services for each subgroup by

analyzing the information collected from schools. In addition, the task force codifies the effective

practices drawn from research and districts/schools that have successfully implemented

differentiated services for each MLL/ELL subgroup. Based on this information, the task force will

determine capacity development needs and craft delivery models for Long-Term ELLs and

Newcomers including SIFE.

The tool that follows serves as a guide for school communities. This tool summarizes the essential

elements to consider in the design of supports for Long-Term ELLs and Newcomers including SIFE.

Supporting Diverse MLLs/ELLs

37 | P a g e

Each essential feature includes descriptors of components and examples of practices within each

essential feature from successful secondary schools. Planning templates are aligned to the essential

features with guiding questions that the task force should consider when designing their Secondary

Newcomer Program and/or Long-Term ELL Program.

For Newcomers

Exercise 6:

a. Read the research informed Guidance for Planning a Secondary Newcomer MLLs/ELLs Strategic

Academic & Literacy Support Model that Builds College and Career Readiness.

b. Complete Newcomer MLLs/ELLs Program Planning Tool-Essential Features

For Long-Term ELL

Exercise 7:

a. Read the research informed Guidance for Planning a Long-Term ELL Strategic, Academic and

Literacy Support Model that Builds College and Career Readiness

b. Complete Long-Term ELLs Planning Tool—Essential Features

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

• Resource 10: Newcomer MLLs/ELLs Program Planning Tool—Essential Features

• Resource 11: Long-Term ELLs Planning Tool—Essential Features

38 | P a g e

Abbott, S. E. & Hastings, M. “Ninth Grade Counts: Strengthening the High School Transition

for English Language Learners.” New Great Schools Partnership. U.S. Department of

Education. 2012. Web. n.d.

Addis, S., Withington, C., “Improving High School Graduation Rates Among Males of Color: Trends,

Findings, and Recommendations.” (Issues Brief). Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. (2016). Print.

“Advancing Student Success by Reducing Chronic Absence.” Attendance Works. 2014. Web. n.d.

Allensworth, E.M., & Easton, J. Q. “The On-track Indicator as a Predictor of High School Graduation.”

CCSR. University of Chicago, Consortium on Chicago School Research, 2005. Web. n.d.

American Institutes for Research [AIR]. National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments.

American Institutes for Research. 2014. Web. n.d.

Applied Survey Research [ASR]. “Attendance in Early Elementary Grades: Associations with Student

Characteristics, School Readiness, and Third Grade Outcomes.” Attendance Works. Watsonville, CA:

Author. 2011. Web. n.d.

Arias, M. B., & Morillo-Campbell, M. “Promoting ELL Parental Involvement: Challenges in Contested

Times.” (Policy Brief). Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Research Unit, Division of Educational

Leadership and Policy Studies. Arizona State University College of Education. 2008. Web. n.d.

Bailey, A.L., & Carroll, P.E. “Assessment of English Language Learners in the Era of New Academic

Content Standards.” Review of Research in Education. (2015): 39, 253-294. Print.

Bolivar, J. M., & Chrispeels, J. H. “Enhancing Parent Leadership Through Building Social and

Intellectual Capital.” American Educational Research Journal, (2010): 48(1), 4–38. Print.

Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. Organizing Schools for

Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010. Print.

Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. Learning to Improve: How America’s Schools

Can Get Better At Getting Better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Publishing, 2015. Print.

Bunch, G., Kibler, A. & Pimentel, S. “Realizing Opportunities for English Language Learners in the

Common Core English Language Arts and Disciplinary Literacy Standards.” Understanding

Language Initiative. Stanford University. 2012. Web. n.d. Retrieved from

REFERENCES

Family Engagement

39 | P a g e  
 
 
Castellón, M., Cheuk, T., Greene, R., Mercado-Garcia, D., Santos, M., Skarin, R. &
 
Zerkel, L. “Schools 
To Learn From: How Six High Schools Graduate English Language Learners College And Career 
Ready.” Stanford Graduate School of Education. Stanford University. 2015. Web. n.d. Retrieved  
 
Chappell,  S.L.,  O’Connor,  P.,  Withington,  C.,  &  Stegelin,  D.  A.  A  Meta-Analysis  of  Dropout 
Prevention  Outcomes and  Strategies  (A  Technical Report  in Collaboration  with  The Center  for 
Educational Partnerships at Old Dominion University). Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention 
Center at Clemson University. The Center for Educational Partnerships at Old dominion University 
and the National dropout Center/Network at Clemson University. 2015. Print. 
 
“Creating a College-Going Culture for English Language Learners.” Colorín Cororado. Web. n.d.  
 
Custodio, B. How to Design and  Implement a Newcomer Program.  New York: Pearson, 2011. 
Print. 
 
Farbman, D. A. “Giving English Language Learners the Time They Need to Succeed: Profiles of 
Three Expanded Learning Time Schools.” National Center on Time & Learning. Boston, MA.  2015. 
Web. n.d.  
 
Deussen T., Hanson, H., & Bisht, B. “Are Two Commonly Used Early Warning Indicators Accurate 
Predictors of Dropout for English Learners Students? Evidence from Six Districts in Washington 
State (REL 2017-261).” Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation 
and  Regional  Assistance,  Regional  Educational  Laboratory  Northwest  Washington,  DC:  U.S. 
Department of Education. 2017. Web. n.d.. 
 
Francis, D.J., Rivera, M., Lesauz, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. Research-Based Recommendations 
for Serving Adolescent Newcomers. Houston: Center on Instruction. 2006. Print. 
 
Frazelle, S. & Nagel, A. “A Practitioner’s Guide to Implementing Early Warning Systems (REL 
2015–056).”Institute  of  Education  Sciences,  National  Center  for  Education  Evaluation  and 
Regional  Assistance,  Regional  Educational  Laboratory  Northwest.  Washington,  DC:  U.S. 
Department of Education. 2015. Web. n.d.  
 
Gandara, P., & Orfield, G. “A Return to the “Mexican Room”: The Segregation of Arizona’s English 
Learners.” University of California Los Angeles, The Civil Rights Project. Los Angeles, CA.  2010. 
Web. n.d.  
 
 
“Getting Ready for College: What ELLs Students Need to Know.” Colorín Colorado. n.d. Web. n.d.  
 
Ginsburg, A., Jordan, P., & Chang, H. “Absences Add Up: How School Attendance Influences 
Academic Success.” Attendance Works. Washington DC. 2014. Web. n.d.  
 
 
 
         
 

40 | P a g e

Gold, N., & Maxwell-Jolly, J. “The High Schools We Need for English Learners.” (Policy Paper).

University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute. Santa Barbara, CA. 2006. Web. n.d.

Goldenberg, C. “Unlocking the Research on English Learners: What We Know—And Don’t Yet

Know—About Effective Instruction.” American Educator 37.2 (2013): 4-11, 38. Print.

Gwynne, J., Pareja, A. S., Ehrlich, S. B. & Allensworth, E. “What Matters for Staying On-

Track and in Chicago Public Schools: A Focus on English Language Learners.” University of

Chicago, Consortium on Chicago School Research. Chicago. 2012. Web. n.d.

Hamayan, E., Marler, B. Sanchez-Lopez, C. & Damico, J. Special Education Considerations for English

Language Learners: Delivering a Continuum of Services (2

ed.). Philadelphia: Caslon, 2013. Print.

Hammond, C., Linton, D., Smink, J., & Drew, S. Dropout Risk Factors and Exemplary Programs.

Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center, Communities in Schools, Inc., 2007. Print

Heritage, M., Walqui, A., & Linquanti, R. “Formative Assessment as Contingent Teaching and

Learning: Perspectives on Assessments for Language Learning in the Content Areas.”

Understanding Language Initiative. Stanford University. 2013. Web. n.d.

Horwitz, A. R., Uro, G., Price-Baugh, R., Simon, C., Uzzell, R., Lewis, S., & Casserly, M. Succeeding

with English Language Learners: Lessons Learned from the Great City Schools. Council of the Great

City Schools. Washington, DC., 2009. Print.

Jerald, C. “Keeping Kids in School: What Research Tells Us about Preventing Dropouts.” Center for

Public Education. 2007. Web. n.d. Retrieved from

Li, Y., Scala, J., Gerdeman, D., & Blumenthal, D. “District Guide for Creating Indicators for Early

Warning Systems.” San Francisco: REL West @ WestEd. 2016. Web. n.d.

Mapp, Karen L., and Kuttner, Paul J. “Partners in Education: A Dual Capacity-Building Framework

for Family–School Partnerships.” SEDL. 2013. Web. n.d.

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. “Funds of Knowledge for Teaching: Using a

Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and Classrooms.” Theory into Practice 31.2 (1992): 132-

141. Print.

National Research Council. Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and

Skills in the 21

Century. Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2012. Print.

New York State Education, Office of Bilingual Education and World Languages. “Blueprint for

Multilingual Learner/English Language Learner Success.” NYSED. 2014. Web. n.d.

41 | P a g e  
 
 
New  York  State  Education  Department,  Office  of  Bilingual  Education  and  World  Languages. 
“Commissioner’s Regulations Part 154-2 Subpart B.” NYSDE. 2015. Web. n.d. 
 
New  York  State  Education  Department,  Office  of  Bilingual  Education  and  World  Languages. 
“Transfer Student Question and Answer.” NYSDE. n.d. Web. n.d. Retrieved from NYSED guidance 
on transfer credit 
 
New York State Education Department, Office of Bilingual Education and World Languages. “Multiple  
Pathways.” NYSED. n.d. Web. n.d.   
 
New York State Education Department, Office of Bilingual Education and World Languages.   
“English Language Learner Field Advisory.” NYSED. 2015. Web. n.d. 
 
New York State Education Department, Office of Bilingual Education and World Languages.  
“Five World Languages Assessments Approved for 4 + 1 Pathway to Graduation.” NYSDE. n.d. Web. n.d.  
 
New York State Education Department, Office of Bilingual Education and World Languages.  
General Education and Diploma Requirements. NYSED. n.d. Web. n.d.  
 
New  York  State  Education  Department,  Office  of  Bilingual  Education  and  World  Languages. 
“Roadmap to College for English Language Learners/ Multilingual Learners: A College Access Guide 
for English Language Learners/Multilingual Learners in New York State.”  NYSED. n.d. Web. n.d.  
 
New York State Education Department. “Next Generation English Language Arts and Mathematics 
Learning Standards.” NYSED. n.d. Web. n.d.   
 
New  York  State  Education  Department,  Office  of  Bilingual  Education  and  World  Languages. 
“Bilingual Common Core Progressions.” NYSED. n.d. Web. n.d.  
 
NGSS Lead States. “Next Generation Science Standards, Appendix F – Science and Engineering 
Practices in the NGSS.” NGSS. 2013. Web. n.d.  
 
Olsen, L. Meeting the Unique Needs of Long Term English Language Learners. Washington, DC: 
National Education Association. 2014. Print. 
 
Orellana, M.F. Translating Childhoods: Immigrant Youth, Language and Culture. New Brunswick, 
NJ: Rutgers University Press. 2009. Print. 
 
Paredes, M. “Academic Parent-Teacher Teams: Reorganizing Parent-Teacher Conferences Around 
Data.” FINE Newsletter [Volume II, Issue 3]. 2010. Web. n.d.  
 
Paredes, M. “Parents as Partners in Student Achievement.” WestEd. 2013 Web. n.d.  
 
 
         
 

42 | P a g e

Patrikakou, E. N., Weissberg, R. P., Redding, S. & Walberg, H. J. School-Family Partnerships:

Enhancing the Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning of Children. In E. N. Patrikakou, R. P.

Weissberg, S. Redding & H. J. Walberg, (Eds.), School-Family Partnerships For Children’s Success

(pp. 1–17). New York: Teacher College Press. 2005. Print.

Attendance Works. “Portraits of Change: Aligning School and Community Resources to Reduce

Chronic Absence.” Attendance Works. 2017. Web. n.d.

Rodela, K. How Are Parents of ELLs/EB’s Seen By Schools and “Parent Education” Programs? In G.

Valds, K. Menken, & M. Castro (Eds.), Common Core and ELLs/Emergent Bilinguals: A Guide for

All Educators. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon. 2015. Print

Rumsey, A., & Milsom, A. “Dropout Prevention and Trauma: Addressing a Wide Range of Stressors

that Inhibit Student Success.” National Dropout Prevention Center/Network. Clemson, SC. 2017.

Web. n.d.

Santos, M., Castellón, M., Cheuk, T., Greene, R., Mercado-Garcia, D., Zerkel, L., Hakuta, H., and

Skarin, R. Preparing English Learners for College and Career: Lessons from Successful High Schools.

New York: Teachers College Press. 2018. Print.

Short, D. J., & Boyson, B. A. Helping Newcomer Students Succeed In Secondary Schools and

Beyond. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. 2012.Print.

Short, D. & Fitzsimmons, S. Double the Work: Challenges and Solutions to Acquiring Language and

Academic Literacy for Adolescent English Language Learners – A Report to Carnegie Corporation

of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. 2007. Print.

Shumer, R.D., O’Conner, P.J., & Withington, C. “Public Education, Career and Technical Education,

and Dropout Prevention.” National Dropout Prevention Center/Network. Clemson, SC. 2017.

Web. n.d.

Stegelin, D. A. “Strategies for Supporting Immigrant Students and Families: Guides for School

Personnel.” National Dropout Prevention Center/Network. Clemson, SC. 2017. Web. n.d.

Therriault, S., Anastos, A., Dorsey, A., Aguilar, J., & Maldonado, M. (2016, October3). Early Warning

and Risk Prevention for English Learners [Webinar]. In Institute of Education Series.

Understanding Language. Six Key Principles for ELL Instruction. Stanford University. 2013. Web.

n.d.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition. “English Learner Tool Kit.”

Washington, DC. USDE. 2015. Web. n.d.

43 | P a g e

U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition. “Newcomer Tool Kit.”

Washington, DC. USDE. 2016. Web. n.d.

United States. Dept. of Education. What Works Clearing House/Find What Works. n.d. Web. n.d.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, and U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights

Division “Dear Colleague Letter.” USDE. 2015. Web. n.d.

van Lier, L. & Walqui, A. “Language and the Common Core State Standards.” Understanding

Language Initiative. Stanford University. 2012. Web. n.d.

Voight, A., Austin, G., & Hanson, T. A Climate For Academic Success: How School Climate

Distinguishes Schools that Are Beating the Achievement Odds (Full Report). San Francisco:

WestEd. 2013. Print.

Walqui, A. Access and Engagement: Program Design and Instructional Approaches for Immigrant

Students in Secondary School. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. 2000. Print.

Walqui, A. Scaffolding Instruction for English Language Learners: A Conceptual Framework. The

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. San Francisco: WestEd. 2002. Print.

Walqui, A. & Heritage, M. “Instruction for Diverse Groups of English Language Learners.”

Understanding Language Initiative. Stanford University. 2012. Web. n.d.

Walqui, A., & van Lier, L. Scaffolding the Academic Success of Adolescent English Language

Learners: A Pedagogy of Promise. San Francisco: WestEd. 2010. Print.

Weiss, H., Caspe, M., & Lopez M. E. “Family Involvement Makes a Difference: Evidence That

Family Involvement

Promotes School Success for Every Child of Every Age.” n.d. Web. n.d.

Additional questions?

Please send questions or comments to the

Office of Bilingual Education and World Languages at

[email protected]v

Or call:

518-474-8775 (Albany, NY)

718-722-2445 (Brooklyn, NY)