final 101614council minutes ts - learning community · october 31, 2014 trans description credit...

11/12/2014 1

LEARNING COMMUNITY OF DOUGLAS AND SARPY COUNTIES

LEARNING COMMUNITY COORDINATING COUNCIL

AGENDA

November 20, 2014 – 6:00 p.m.

Learning Community Center of North Omaha, 1612 North 24th Street, Omaha, NE 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Public Notice and Compliance with Open Meetings Act 3. Roll Call 4. Approval of Council Minutes – October 16, 2014 5. Reports

a) Chair – Election and Caucus Results

b) Treasurer

i. Action Item: Accept Treasurer’s Report dated October 31, 2014

c) Chief Executive Officer

d) Legal Counsel 6. Public Comment 7. Subcommittee Reports

a) Diversity Plan Subcommittee

b) Elementary Learning Center Subcommittee

i. Status Report on Superintendents’ Early Childhood Education Plan – Dr. Samuel J. Meisels

ii. Munroe-Meyer Evaluation Report of Elementary Programs funded in 2013/2014 – Dr. Lisa St. Clair and Dr. Jolene Johnson

iii. Allocation of Subcouncils’ Funding for FY 2015/2016

1. Upon recommendation of Elementary Learning Center (ELC) Subcommittee, motion to allocate new funding (does not include carryover) per Subcouncil be available for elementary learning center programs and pilot programs. Dollars shown are an estimate only. All amounts contingent on the approval of the FY 2015/2016 budget and approval of the elementary levy for FY 2015/2016.

Subcouncil #1: ......................................................................... $178,959.39

Subcouncil #2: ......................................................................... $750,000.00

Subcouncil #3: ......................................................................... $329,224.13

Subcouncil #4: ......................................................................... $130,844.47

Subcouncil #5: ......................................................................... $750,000.00

Subcouncil #6: ......................................................................... $110.972.01

11/12/2014 2

iv. Learning Community Center of North Omaha – Renee Franklin

v. Learning Community Center of South Omaha – Renee Franklin

c) Budget, Finance & Audit Subcommittee d) Administration & Personnel Subcommittee

e) Legislation Subcommittee

i. Action Item: Upon recommendation of the Legislative Subcommittee, motion that Kent Rogert of Jensen Rogert Associates be retained as a registered lobbyist of the Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy Counties in 2015 for a fee of $26,500.00 (1.9%).

8. New Business

a) Action Item: To approve the 2015/2016 Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Plans that are required by the following member school districts and certification of said approval to the Nebraska Department of Education in accordance with statute:

i. Bellevue Public School District

ii. Bennington Public School District

iii. Douglas County West Community School District

iv. Elkhorn Public School District

v. Gretna Public School District

vi. Millard Public School District

vii. Omaha Public School District

viii. Papillion-La Vista School District

ix. Ralston Public School District

x. Westside Community School District

b) Action Item: To approve the 2015/2016 Poverty Plans that are required by the following member school districts and certification of said approval to the Nebraska Department of Education in accordance with statute:

i. Bellevue Public School District

ii. Bennington Public School District

iii. Douglas County West Community School District

iv. Elkhorn Public School District

v. Gretna Public School District

vi. Millard Public School District

vii. Omaha Public School District

viii. Papillion-La Vista School District

ix. Ralston Public School District

x. Springfield Platteview Community School District

xi. Westside Community School District 9. Achievement Subcouncil Reports

10. Unfinished Business

11/12/2014 3

a) Superintendents’ Review of the Learning Community – Discussion / Ted Stilwill

11. Next Council Meeting

January 8, 2015, 6:00 p.m., Learning Community Center of North Omaha, 1612 North 24th Street, Omaha, NE

12. Adjournment

UPCOMING LEARNING COMMUNITY EVENTS:

Advisory Committee – To Be Determined LC Coordinating Council – January 8, 2015, 6:00 p.m. Learning Community Center of North Omaha, 1612 North 24th Street, Omaha,

NE

Subcouncil #1 – To Be Determined






HANDOUTS TO ACCOMPANY THIS AGENDA ARE AS FOLLOWS:

LCCC Minutes dated October 16, 2014

Treasurer’s Report dated October 31, 2014

Munroe-Meyer Report on the Evaluation of Learning Community Elementary Programs

Recommendation and Contract for Kent Rogert

Summaries and Recommendations on LEP and Poverty

Superintendents’ Report Analysis

1

LEARNING COMMUNITY OF DOUGLAS AND SARPY COUNTIES

LEARNING COMMUNITY COORDINATING COUNCIL

October 16, 2014

A meeting of the Coordinating Council of the Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy Counties was held on October 16, 2014, at the Thompson Center at UNO, 6705 Dodge Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68182. Notice of the meeting, containing the date, time, place, and agenda, was given in advance thereof by publication in the Daily Record on October 8, 2014. Notice of this meeting was also published in the Bellevue Leader, Omaha Star, Ralston Recorder and Papillion Times between October 8 and October 10, 2014. The proofs of publication have been received and will be made a permanent part of the record of the meeting. Notice of the agenda was given to all members of the Council on October 9, 2014.

1. Call Meeting to Order. The meeting was convened and called to order by Chair Changat 6:00 p.m.

2. Public Notice & Compliance with Open Meetings Act. Chair Chang announced that theNebraska Open Meetings Act was posted at the room entrance and that copies of materials being reviewed by the Council were available to the public.

3. Roll Call.

Voting Members Present: Anderson, Avery, Friedman, Hager, Hartnett, Heidel, Holthaus, Jacobson, Jones, McCulloh, Pate Snow, Wickham, Chang

Voting Members Excused: Slosburg

Voting Members Absent: Carter, Synowiecki, Wolford

Nonvoting Members Present:

Nonvoting Members Excused:

Nonvoting Members Absent:

Staff Present: Stilwill, Parker, Gabrial, Benzel

Also Present: Margaret Hershiser, Koley Jessen P.C., L.L.O;

4. Approval of Minutes. Chair Chang presented the Public Hearing and Council minutesfrom the August 28, 2014 meeting of the Council. Motion by Mr. Hartnett, seconded by Mr. Avery, to approve the minutes of the Public Hearing and Council meeting held on August 28, 2014, as presented. Yeas: Anderson, Avery, Friedman, Hager, Hartnett, Heidel, Holthaus, Jacobson, Jones, McCulloh, Pate, Snow, Wickham, Chang. Nays: None. Motion carried.

It is noted for the record that Ms. Wolford arrived at 6:04 p.m.

5. Reports.

a) Ms. Chang reported on events she had attended.

November 20, 2014 Agenda Item 4

2

a) Treasurer

i. Motion by Mr. Hartnett, seconded by Mr. Hager, to accept Treasurer’s Reportsdated August 31, 2014 and September 30, 2014. Yeas: Anderson, Avery,Friedman, Hager, Hartnett, Heidel, Holthaus, Jacobson, Jones, McCulloh, Pate,Snow, Wickham, Wolford, Chang. Nays: None. Motion carried.

ii. Motion by Mr. Harnett, seconded by Ms. Jacobson, to approve Fourth QuarterBudget to Actual Report. Yeas: Anderson, Avery, Friedman, Hager, Hartnett,Heidel, Holthaus, Jacobson, Jones, McCulloh, Pate, Snow, Wickham, Wolford,Chang. Nays: None. Motion carried.

c) Mr. Stilwill reported on events he had attended and explained an upcoming trip to St.Paul to visit a Child-Parent Center operated by the school district that incorporated astrong parent engagement component. The visit was recommended by staff at theBuffet Early Childhood Institute.

d) Legal Counsel – No Report

6. Public Comment – None.

It is noted for the record that Ms. Carter arrived at 6:08 p.m., and Mr. Synowiecki arrived at 6:14 p.m.

7. Subcommittee Reports

a) Diversity Plan Subcommittee

i. 2015/2016 Diversity PlanMotion by Mr. Avery, seconded by Ms. Anderson, upon recommendation of theDiversity Plan Subcommittee, to approve the Diversity Plan for the 2015/2016School Year as presented in the handout entitled “2015/2016 ProposedDiversity Plan.” Discussion took place. Yeas: Anderson, Avery, Carter, Friedman,Hager, Hartnett, Heidel, Holthaus, Jacobson, McCulloh, Pate, Snow, Synowiecki,Wickham, Wolford, Chang. Nays: Jones. Motion carried.

i. Chair Chang reminded Subcouncils to hold meetings to review LEP/Poverty plansby November 11

ii. Chair Chang reminded Subcouncils to review Diversity Plan and hold forum byDecember 31

iii. Bert Jackson and Brian Gabrial provided a presentation on the Annual EvaluationReport – Open Enrollment Section. Discussion took place.

b) Elementary Learning Center Subcommittee

i. Learning Community Center of North Omaha – Ms. Franklin provided a report.

ii. Learning Community Center of South Omaha – Ms. Franklin provided a report.

b) Budget, Finance & Audit Subcommittee – No Report

c) Administration & Personnel Subcommittee – No Report

e) Legislation Subcommittee – No Report

8. New Business

a) Mr. Stilwill reminded the Council of the School Board Caucus on November 18, 2014

b) Mr. Stilwill explained the Superintendents’ Review of Learning Community. Discussion

3

took place.

9. Unfinished Business - None

10. Achievement Subcouncil Reports - None

11. Next Council Meeting November 20, 2014, 6:00 p.m., Learning Community Center of North Omaha, 1612 North 24th Street, Omaha, NE

12. Adjournment

Handouts provided were as follows, copies of which will be made a permanent part of the record of the meeting:

LCCC Minutes dated August 28, 2014

Treasurer’s Reports dated August 31, 2014 and September 30, 2014

Fourth Quarter Budget to Actual Report

2015/2016 Proposed Diversity Plan

Annual Evaluation Report 2013-2014, Sections II and III

School Board Caucus Letter

Superintendents’ Review Document

___________________________ Nancy Jacobson, Secretary

LEARNING COMM OF DOUGLAS SARPY COUNTY

Treasurer's Report

October 31, 2014

Trans Description Credit Amt Date Reference

Base Flex Account 150.00$ 10/2/14 DC

Landmark Properties, Inc. 1,950.00$ 10/3/14 2887

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEBR 5,221.04$ 10/3/14 2888

Stamps.com 100.00$ 10/3/14 DC

Nonprofit Association of the M 125.00$ 10/6/14 DC

AT&T 30.00$ 10/7/14 DC

North Omaha Community Care Cou 90.00$ 10/7/14 DC

John Synowiecki (66.08)$ 10/8/14 2878V

PAYCHEX 118.49$ 10/10/14 DC

HELP Foundation of Omaha 8,713.56$ 10/14/14 1015

RDG Planning & Design 6,265.38$ 10/14/14 1016

Madison National Life 263.49$ 10/14/14 2889

Colonial Life 534.60$ 10/14/14 2890

Base 31.25$ 10/14/14 2891

Philadelphia Insurance Compani 144.58$ 10/14/14 2892

COX CABLE 716.42$ 10/14/14 2893

All Makes Office Equipment Co. 131.25$ 10/14/14 2894

The Thompson Center at UNO 226.00$ 10/14/14 2895

KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTI 314.46$ 10/14/14 2896

Brandeis Catering 51.20$ 10/14/14 2897

PAY-LESS OFFICE PRODUCTS, INC. 263.63$ 10/14/14 2898

The Omaha Star, Inc. 152.00$ 10/14/14 2899

Envisage Creative Group 24.95$ 10/14/14 2900

Volano Solutions 225.00$ 10/14/14 2901

P&L Technologies 638.00$ 10/14/14 2902

NOLL HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES 462.34$ 10/14/14 2903

Nebraska Association of School 3,825.00$ 10/14/14 2904

Douglas County Treasurer 3,791.40$ 10/14/14 2905

Jensen Rogert Associates, Inc. 2,186.96$ 10/14/14 2906

Carroll Communications 6,918.75$ 10/14/14 2907

AT&T 30.00$ 10/14/14 DC

Paychex deduction for payroll taxes 14,734.90$ 10/14/14 Oct 2014 Payroll

Paychex deduction for direct deposits 27,436.42$ 10/14/14 Oct 2014 Payroll

Completely Kids 28,305.20$ 10/16/14 1473

Salvation Army 5,000.00$ 10/16/14 1474

Catholic Charities 9,990.00$ 10/16/14 1475

One World Community Heatlh Cen 56,342.00$ 10/16/14 1476

Lutheran Family Services 20,449.02$ 10/16/14 1477

One World Community Heatlh Cen 73,489.58$ 10/16/14 1478

UNMC 30,158.67$ 10/16/14 1479

Early Childhood Services 32,518.09$ 10/16/14 1480

Early Childhood Services 80,068.50$ 10/16/14 1481

Microsoft Corporation 23.00$ 10/16/14 2908

Koley Jessen 9,329.50$ 10/16/14 2909

Springhill Suites - Marriott 987.36$ 10/27/14 DC

Stamps.com 15.99$ 10/27/14 DC

Stamps.com 100.00$ 10/27/14 DC

Southwest Airlines 1,900.20$ 10/27/14 DC

Amazon 14.31$ 10/29/14 DC

Amazon 32.22$ 10/29/14 DC

Principal Financial Retirement 1,333.52$ 10/29/14 DC

Richard Schoonover 1,180.00$ 10/31/14 2910

Control Yours 175.00$ 10/31/14 2911

John Synowiecki 66.08$ 10/31/14 2912

Total October Expenditures 437,278.23$

November 20, 2014 Agenda Item 5 (b)

1

SECTION I. EVALUATION REPORT OF ELEMENTARY LEARNING PROGRAMS

External evaluation principal investigator: Lisa St. Clair, Ed.D., Interdisciplinary Center for Program Evaluation, Munroe Meyer Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center. Prepared 11/10/14.

Background

The elementary learning centers funding levy was established to launch innovative programs to

impact the achievement of elementary students who face challenges in the educational

environment due to poverty, limited English skills, or mobility.

Evaluation Approach and Rationale

Generally based upon a Utilization‐Focused evaluation design (Patton, 2012), the evaluation plan

employed multiple methods to describe and measure the quality of implementation, the nature

of programming, and to report outcomes demonstrated by the elementary learning programs

funded by the LC. These programs included the emerging Learning Community Center in North

Omaha with the Kellom and Conestoga Early Childhood Partnership Program, Jump Start to

Kindergarten, Extended Learning (Tutoring, After School, and Summer School programs), Literacy

Coaching, the Learning Community Center of South Omaha Family Literacy Program, and the

Family Liaison program. The overarching evaluation questions were:

1. Implementation: What was the nature and quality of implementation? Who accessed and

participated in the program? Was there variation in implementation and if so, what

factors contributed?

a. What happened?

b. For whom?

c. What was the quality of implementation?

2. Academic focus: What were short and long term outcomes related to academic

achievement?

a. Did other stakeholders report improvement in student learning or engagement

(parents, school day teachers)?

b. Was there improvement in communication skills (literacy)?

c. Was there improvement in quantitative thinking skills (numeracy)?

3. Family support focus: What did the program or school provide to families/parents that

will allow greater student success in school?

a. What processes did the program or school use to support the needs of families?

November 20, 2014 Agenda Item 7 (b) ii

2

b. What processes did the program or school use to develop resources for helping to

meet those needs?

External Evaluation (EE) Process

Funding for the external evaluation (EE) of the Elementary Learning Center programs occurs

through the Learning Community’s ESU core services funds which are restricted to research and

evaluation. These funds were identified in statute to support research and evaluation. UNMC

Munroe Meyer Institute’s Interdisciplinary Center for Program Evaluation has served as the

external evaluation team for the Elementary Learning Center programs since 2010.

The external evaluation process is implemented collaboratively with district and agencies. The

EE team meets about monthly at a committee called “The Evaluation Collaborative” for the

Learning Community. This committee is well attended by district research and evaluation

leadership and/or designee of the superintendent, and/or superintendents; university staff from

University of Nebraska Lincoln, Omaha, and Medical Center; leadership staff from the Learning

Community; and research staff from the Nebraska Department of Education. The purpose of the

Evaluation Collaborative meetings is to jointly share information, planning of evaluation, and

sharing results of evaluation findings on a regular basis.

Another way the EE team works collaboratively with districts and agencies is to meet

individually to plan their program evaluations. In Patton’s Utilization Focused program

evaluation model, the districts and agencies are the Primary Intended User (PIU) of the evaluation

results and, therefore, are the EE team’s primary customer. There are certainly common core

requirements or features within the evaluations of common programs implemented across

districts and agencies (one example being the Classroom Assessment and Scoring System or

CLASS tool, University of Virginia). The purpose of using common measures where possible is to

aid in aggregate reporting. Individual evaluation results are not shared with the Learning

Community leadership or council—unless they may be reported directly to them by the school

district or agency themselves. All reporting at the Learning Community leadership and council

level is in aggregate.

How does ICPE assure validity and quality of the evaluation reporting? The process used by

ICPE is to collect data (such as direct assessment of preschool students, surveys, videos for the

purpose of rating teacher/student interactions) directly in coordination with districts and

agencies, to receive data from districts and agencies (student achievement and demographic

data), and to compile, analyze, and report on data for two purposes. The two purposes are

overall evaluation of the ELC programs of the Learning Community (reported within this report)

and to share with districts and agencies.

3

ELC data are shared back with individual districts and agencies. First, they are shared to assure

accuracy. Did the district or agency find the same result (e.g., effect size)? Second, they are

shared once approved and finalized for the purpose of promoting utilization of results.

Sometimes fostering utilization of results includes grouping multiple districts or agencies with

the same type of programming for joint learning (such as occurred with the Jump Start to

Kindergarten grantees).

The audience for the Evaluation Report prepared by the EE team is the Education Committee

of the Legislature. Once districts or agencies have approved their evaluation results (meaning

agreement was reached on what those results were) and on the descriptions of their programs,

they are no longer permitted to ask for edits to the contents of the final evaluation report (other

than minor proofreading corrections of course). Further, the Learning Community leadership

staff and council members are not permitted to request edits to the report (again, other than

minor proofreading corrections).

Evaluation team members are reliable in collecting and scoring assessment, observation, and

rating tools. There are several processes used to assure the upmost accuracy of all data collected

by ICPE staff members.

Teacher completed tools: An ICPE member scores the protocol and then a second team

member scores. If any differences are found, a master scorer re‐scores the tool.

Child measures (PLS, PPVT, Bracken): An ICPE member administers the assessment

following the protocol of the examiner’s manual. A second ICPE member double scores

the assessment and checks for following of protocol (including re‐calculating

chronological age of child, rescoring, and re‐interpretation of standard scores).

Observational measures (ERS, CLASS, KIPS): Prior or concurrent to first observation or

rating of the year, ICPE staff members re‐anchor themselves with team members. In

addition, CLASS has another reliability component completed online annually with the

publishers of the tool (Teachstone). When the observation phase begins, an ICPE member

observes and rates a classroom or representative teaching staff, or in the case of KIPS, a

videotape of parent‐child interactions. The observation may be in person (ERS) or on

video (KIPS, CLASS). Another team member will re‐score the tool to assure numerical and

protocol accuracy. If questions emerge, they are addressed by the leadership team.

Concurrent reliability is completed throughout the year. For example, CLASS videos

submitted by programs and districts may be scored by one or more evaluation team

members and in some cases, every team member for inter‐rater reliability practice and

assessment. After reliability processes are completed, videos are either returned to the

program or district (if requested) or deleted from UNMC servers. In the next evaluation

year, the Kappa statistic will be used to measure inter‐rater reliability (≥0.60). This is an

4

improvement to the industry accepted practices of ‘within 1’ agreement on 80% or more

of the items. By following the industry standard, “reliable” ratings may appear different.

Therefore, by moving to using the Kappa statistic, ratings across raters should be

essentially the same.

Measuring and Reporting on Program Impacts

To quantify program impacts, we will report all pre and post measures relative to significance

(were the results significant) and if so, what was the magnitude of the change (effect size). To

understand effect size and to place it in context, Cohen (1988) suggests using d=0.20 to be small,

d=0.50 to be medium, and d=0.80 to be a large effect. To describe this another way, John Hattie

in Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta‐Analyses Relating to Achievement, uses a

concept called “zone of desired

effects” that starts at a medium

effect size, 0.40 (Hattie, 2009).

Hattie suggests that a 1.0 effect

size (as shown in Hattie’s graph) is

equal to about 2‐3 years of student

growth and learning. Effect sizes

can be greater than 1.0; however,

they are less common and are

therefore not shown on the

graphic.

Effect sizes tend to be smaller with very young children. With younger students (infant through

kindergarten), effect size is often lower because the range of measurement error is larger with

very young children (Burchinal, 2008). This concern, seconded by the smaller number of early

childhood assessments that measure learning domains, indicates why there might be more

measurement error in the testing of young children. Therefore, for the very young, an effect size

less than 0.40 may still be within the zone of desired effects.

5

Program Descriptions

Early Childhood Focus

Subsection I.1 Early Childhood Partnership Program at LCCNO

The Early Childhood Partnership program is offered through the emerging Learning Community

Center of North Omaha in partnership with Omaha Public Schools and Metropolitan Community

College. It is located within two buildings: Kellom Elementary and Conestoga Elementary. There

are also emerging partnerships with other higher education institutions (University of Nebraska

at Omaha and Creighton University).

Subsection I.2 Jump Start to Kindergarten Programs

Jump Start to Kindergarten programs offer programming to support students in the summer prior

to entry into kindergarten.

Elementary Focus

Subsection I.3 Extended Learning Time Programs

I.3.1 Comprehensive Out of School Time: These programs provide out of school time

programming throughout the school year. Students would be offered after school programming

greater than one hour per day. This design would typically target academic and social/behavioral

supports, and in some cases, family engagement services.

I.3.2 Tutoring: Tutoring ELT programs provide after school tutoring targeted to students at

greatest risk for academic failure during the school year. This is typically offered in one hour

sessions, one or two times per week.

I.3.3 Summer: Summer extended learning programs provide summer programming which

targets academic and social/behavioral supports typically to students who have been identified

as needing additional supports, and in some cases also includes recreation, health/wellness, and

family engagement services.

Subsection I.4 Instructional or Literacy Coaching in Elementary Schools

Instructional or Literacy Coaching: Coaching programs provided literacy or other types of

instructional coaches to teachers in elementary buildings with high levels of students qualifying

for free/reduced lunch. The coaches provided support in multiple areas including individual work

with teachers, professional development for teaching teams, data analysis, assessment

assistance and assistance with gathering resources for use in classrooms.

6

Family Focus

Subsection I.5 Family Literacy Program at LCCSO

The Family Literacy Program is offered through the Learning Community of South Omaha (LCCSO)

in partnership with One World Community Health Centers. This program provides family literacy

and parenting education to families in the broader South Omaha area, with a predominant focus

on serving high poverty parents who are learning English.

Subsection I.6 Family Liaison Program

The Learning Community Family Liaison Program (in partnership with Lutheran Family Services):

The Family Liaison Model was established to reduce barriers to learning by providing services to

students and families that address underlying issues affecting the family and child. The program’s

multi‐pronged approach to service delivery address a variety of factors that impact the student’s

ability to learn.

7

Subsection I.1 Kellom & Conestoga Early Childhood

Partnership Program at LCCNO

Lisa St. Clair, Ed.D., Kari Price, & Terry Stone, Ph.D. About the Kellom & Conestoga Early Childhood Partnership Program The Kellom and Conestoga Early Childhood

Partnership Program (ECPP) was implemented

beginning in August of 2013 as a collaborative

effort of the Omaha Public Schools, the Learning

Community of Douglas & Sarpy Counties, and

Metropolitan Community College.

Purpose of Evaluation

The evaluation of the Kellom and Conestoga Early

Childhood Partnership Program focused on

determining the overall effectiveness of the program in providing early childhood services,

parenting education and family support services, as well as more intensive family liaison services

to families.

The evaluation strives to answer the following questions:

Who does the Early Childhood Partnership Program serve?

Are staff and classrooms of high quality?

Are students benefitting and achieving positive outcomes?

Are families benefiting and achieving positive outcomes?

Are pre‐service students from Metropolitan Community College benefitting from participation?

Are neighborhood child care programs serving children before they enter the ECPP improving

their services to very young children and their families?

These questions continue to be answered by collecting data across multiple sources and utilizing

mixed methods approaches.

ECPP Program Key Findings

Served 128 students in two schools with 119 included in the evaluation

84% of students were eligible for free/reduced lunch

Students significantly improved measured receptive vocabulary (d=0.35) but did not show significant change in expressive language skills

Students significantly improved in measured academic readiness for kindergarten (d=0.51)

8

Implementation: Who does ECPP Serve?

The evaluation team collected evaluation data on students served since August of 2013. Student

demographics are reported in the following table.

Year % Hispanic or Latino

% Black‐African American

% White or

Caucasian

% Multiple or Other

Gender% Male

% Verified

for Special

Education

% FRPL Total Served To

Date

13‐14 16% 61% 13% 26% 52% 30% 84% 128

Omaha Public Schools offered 172 school days in the 2013‐14 year. Students at the ECPP schools

were absent an average of 13 days. One area for continuous improvement would be to work

together to partner with parents to help them understand the great importance of attending

school.

Staff Credentials

Leadership staff: The Early Childhood Specialist responsible for ECPP holds a bachelor’s degree

in child development and a master’s degree in Bilingual and Multicultural Education.

Teaching staff: All (8 of 8) of the Preschool Lead Teachers held a valid Nebraska Teaching

Certificate with an endorsement in Early Childhood Education, Preschool Disabilities, or Early

Childhood Education Unified. In addition to a lead teacher in each classroom, the ECPP also has

a paraprofessional working in each classroom. An early childhood paraprofessional is also

assigned to each classroom and must meet the qualifications for this position within Omaha

Public Schools. They held either Child Development Associate (CDA) certificate, or held or were

pursuing associates’ degrees or bachelors’ degrees in early childhood or related fields.

Coaches: Two coaches were brought on board during the 2013‐14 school year to support the

professional development of the teaching teams. Coaches held masters’ degrees in early

childhood education.

Family support staff: Family support staff work in each of the two buildings to support the

families of students served in ECPP.

9

Are Classrooms of High Quality?

Quality early childhood programs have been linked to immediate, positive developmental

outcomes, as well as long‐term, positive academic performance (Burchinal, Vandergrift, Pianta,

& Mashburn, 2010; Burchinal, Peisner‐Feinberg, Bryant, & Clifford, 2000; Ramey & Ramey, 1998).

Classroom settings themselves are associated with both positive and negative effects on young

students’ motivation (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Although the relationship between classroom

environment and motivation is complex and requires further study, current research suggests

that, “…students in classrooms characterized by minimal pressure to perform, ample child choice

in activities, encouragement of collaboration, and more nurturing teacher‐child interactions

show more engagement when working on achievement tasks (Stipek et al.,

1995; 1998 as cited by Shonkoff & Phillips, pg. 158, 2000).”

The key evaluation question for this section is: Are ECPP classrooms of high

quality, as measured by industry‐standard rating tools?

Environment Rating Scale. The quality of preschool classrooms will be

measured using the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale – Revised

(ECERS‐R). This observational tool is used to assess the quality of preschool

classrooms in various domains including: Space and Furnishings; Personal

Care Routines; Language and Reasoning; Learning Activities; Interaction;

Program Structure; and Parents and Staff, as well as an overall rating of

quality.

ECERS‐R Sub‐scores and Overall Score, 2013‐14

Year &

School

# of

classrooms

Space &

Furnishings

Personal Care

Routines

Language‐

Reasoning

Learning

Activities

Interactions

Program

Structure

Parents &

Staff

Overall

Rating

Overall 8 5.16 3.92 6.69 5.68 6.85 6.18 5.94 5.65

Conestoga 4 6.07 4.46 6.81 6.09 7.00 6.48 5.87 6.04

Kellom 4 4.26 3.38 6.56 5.28 6.70 5.88 6.00 5.26

Preschool classrooms were of good to excellent quality and, on average, exceeded the Nebraska

Department of Education indicators of quality scores of “5” or greater on the ECERS‐R. The area

of Interactions, for example, was very positively rated, which is key because effective teaching

begins with positive interactions. Interactions will be explored in more depth with the next

evaluation tool‐‐CLASS. An area for continuous improvement exploration would be personal care

ECERS‐R

Early Childhood

Environment Rating Scale

– Revised

Authors: Harms, Clifford, &

Cryer, 2005

Scale: 1 to 7

1 = Inadequate

3 = Minimal

5 = Good

7 = Excellent

10

routines, which focuses on health and safety (such as nutrition and hand washing). It is

recommended that the program explore strategies to consistently support the areas of

personal care routines across classrooms.

CLASS Observation Rating. The Pre‐K version of the Classroom Assessment Scoring System

(CLASS) will also be completed in each preschool classroom. The Pre‐K CLASS has three domains:

Dimensions include emotional, organizational, and instructional supports.

Instructional Support tends to be the domain with the most opportunity for

improvement as it challenges teachers to effectively extend language, model

advanced language, and to promote higher‐order thinking skills.

Research on the CLASS supports ratings of 5 or higher within the domains of

Emotional Support and Classroom Organization, and 3.25 or higher within

the domain of Instructional Support, as being necessary to have impacts on

student achievement (Burchinal, Vandergrift, Pianta & Mashburn, 2010).

Pre‐K CLASS Domain Averages 2013‐14

Year & School # of classroomsEmotional Support

Classroom Organization

Instructional Support

Overall 8 6.09 6.03 2.88

Conestoga 4 6.48 5.96 3.38

Kellom 4 5.70 6.10 2.38

Preschool classrooms achieved the goal of 5 or greater in emotional support and classroom

organization, and exceeded or approached the goal of 3.25 in Instructional Support. It is

recommended that professional development focus on the strategies within the CLASS domain

of Instructional Support: Concept Development, Quality of Feedback, and Language Modeling.

Emotional Support

•Positive Climate

•Teacher Sensitivity

•Regard for Student's Perspective


•Behavior Management

•Productivity

•Instructional Learning Formats


•Concept Development

•Quality of Feedback

•Language Modeling

Pre‐K CLASS

Classroom Assessment

Scoring System

Authors: Pianta, LaParo, &

Hamre, 2008

Scale: 1 to 7

1‐2 = Low Range

3‐5 = Middle Range

6‐7 = High Range

11

Average ratings by each subarea of the CLASS were as follows.

Emotional Support The CLASS measures emotional support through the emotional qualities of teacher‐student interactions, the teacher’s responsiveness to student needs, and the degree to which activities and interactions are structured around the interests and motivations of the students. Research supports the theory that these aspects of teacher‐student interactions are relevant to students’ social and academic outcomes. Students with positive and less conflicted relationships with teachers demonstrate greater peer competencies and positive academic development (Bryk, Lee, & Holland, 1993; Crosnoe, Johnson, & Elder, 2004; Ladd et al., 1999; Roeser et al., 2000).

Item Average Rating

Positive Climate 6.44

Positive Climate measures the emotional connection and enjoyment demonstrated between educators and students, as well as among students. This dimension also observes positive affect among educators and/or students and positive communication. Respect (eye contact, warm voice, respectful language, and cooperation/sharing) is another indicator within Positive Climate.

Absence of Negative Climate 5.94

The Absence of Negative Climate measures the absence of expressed negativity such as anger, hostility, or aggression exhibited by educators and/or students in the classroom. This dimension includes punitive control (yelling, threats, harsh punishment), sarcasm or disrespect, and severe negativity (victimization, bullying, physical punishment). A higher rating reflects a lack of or less Negative Climate.

Teacher Sensitivity 5.94

This domain evaluates educators’ awareness of and responsiveness to students’ academic and emotional concerns. The tool focuses on educators’ awareness of students’ needs, responsiveness (acknowledging emotions, providing comfort and assistance, and providing individualized support), how educators’ address problems, and students’ comfort with educators.

Regard for Student Perspectives 5.06

Regard for Student Perspectives measures the degree to which educators’ interactions with students and activities place an emphasis on student centered learning activities (drawing from students’ interests, motivations, and points of view). This dimension is measured by flexibility and student focus, support for autonomy and leadership (allowing students’ choices, giving responsibility to students, and allowing students to lead lessons), student expression, and reasonable student freedom of movement.

Strengths:

Positive Climate: Staff generally demonstrated respect and positive communication with students.

12

Item Average Rating

Teacher Sensitivity: Staff generally were aware of students’ academic and emotional concerns and made efforts to respond.

Areas to Explore:

Regard for Student Perspectives: More prompting of student autonomy and leadership and less teacher direction and talking (such as moving to more of a learning through play, project based learning approach) would rate more positively and may associate with increased student expressive language skills (possible link to Preschool Language Scale expressive scores).

Overall Emotional Support Rating 6.09

Classroom Organization This domain looks at a broad array of processes related to organization and management of students’ behavior, time, and attention within the program. Research on management of students’ behavior indicates that best practices include providing clear, consistent behavioral expectations, redirecting minor misbehavior, and using positive, proactive strategies (Emmer & Strough, 2001). Item Average Rating

Behavior Management 6.47

The dimension of Behavior Management evaluates how educators effectively monitor, prevent, and redirect active misbehavior. Other behavior markers include: clear behavioral expectations, educators’ proactive behaviors (monitoring, anticipating problem behavior, and low reactivity), effective redirection of misbehavior, and student behavior (frequent compliance and little aggression or defiance). Productivity 6.31

This dimension measures how educators maximize learning time, manage routines within the classroom, ensure that transitions are brief (with learning opportunities embedded for longer transitions), and prepare to have materials ready and accessible. Instructional Learning Formats 5.31

The Instructional Learning Formats dimension evaluates how well the educators facilitate activities and provide interesting materials to engage students. This dimension is specifically looking for effective facilitation and expanding students’ involvement through questioning and active participation in lessons and activities. It also measures the use of various modalities and materials, student interest, and clarity of learning objectives through advanced organizers (connecting prior knowledge to new lessons), summaries, and reorientation statements. Strengths:

Behavior Management: Educators worked to anticipate and redirect problem behavior.

13

Productivity: Routines were managed and it was clear educators tried to maximize learning time.

Areas to Explore:

Instructional Learning Formats: It was not consistently clear what the learning targets were or how content might be connected to students’ lives. Educators may want to explore additional strategies for effective facilitation that expands students’ involvement in learning through questioning (again, this may link to expressive language skills.

Overall Classroom Organization Rating 6.03

Instructional Support As measured by the CLASS, the extent to which teachers provide students with opportunities to: understand‐build connections between new and previous knowledge; apply‐use procedures and knowledge to help solve new problems; analyze‐divide information into meaningful parts; evaluate‐make conclusions based on criteria or standards; and create‐put pieces of knowledge together to produce new ideas (Mayer, 2002) are measured.

Item Average Rating

Concept Development 2.56

This dimension measures how the educators use instructional discussions and activities to promote students’ higher‐order thinking skills (in contrast to rote instruction). This measures how educators facilitate analysis and reasoning (why and/or how questions, problem solving, prediction, classification/comparison, evaluation), creating (brainstorming, planning, producing), integration of concepts, and connections of concepts to the real world, such as relating information to students’ actual lives.

Quality of Feedback 2.72 Quality of Feedback assesses how educators extend student learning through responses to students’ ideas, comments, and work. Included in this dimension are scaffolding, feedback loops (back‐and‐forth exchanges, persistence by educators, follow up questions), prompting students’ thought processes, providing additional information to expand students’ understanding, and encouragement/affirmation.

Language Modeling 3.34 Language Modeling measures the extent to which educators facilitate and encourage students’ language. Ratings include frequent conversations in the classroom, educators’ use of open‐ended questions, repetition and extension (educators repeat and extend students’ responses), self and parallel talk (educators map their actions and students’ actions with language), and the use of advanced language (a variety of words, and connections to familiar words and/or ideas).

Strengths:

Language modeling: Educators did some facilitation and encouragement of students’ language, including use of open‐ended questions, repetition, and extension. If the program can build on this and do more of it, even more consistently, it would benefit students’ language development.

14

Areas to Explore:

Concept development: Taking a concept from a beginning point and fully supporting the development of the concept with students was not regularly observed. Educators may want to reflect on how to connect to students’ every day experiences, their lives, as they introduce and support concept development.

Overall Instructional Support Rating 2.88

Continuous Quality Improvement. Upon completion of the ECERS‐

R or CLASS in each classroom, debrief consultation immediately

followed with a member of the evaluation staff, the teaching team,

and the Coach. Using a continuous quality improvement model,

strengths as well as areas for improvement were discussed with

each group. These data were also reviewed with program

leadership, administrators and staff. Professional development

plans can continue to be refined in accordance with the findings of

the observation data. Data were also provided to the Research

Office of Omaha Public Schools.

Coaching

Research has consistently demonstrated the importance of professional development (PD) for

improving outcomes of early childhood programs. Effective PD is associated with increases in

teacher knowledge, student learning, and program quality (Christ & Wang, 2013; Powell,

Diamond, & Cockburn, 2013). Thus, early childhood initiatives have become increasingly focused

on PD as a mechanism for increasing the effectiveness of early childhood programs and fostering

children’s learning and development (Powell et al., 2013).

Coaching is a form of PD that takes place directly in the classroom and involves helping teachers

acquire, improve, or refine specific evidence‐based intervention practices or teaching behaviors,

as well as offering ongoing support and individualized feedback (Hsieh et al., 2009; Wasik &

Hindman, 2011). Based on the Vygotskian concept of scaffolding, coaches work one‐on‐one with

teachers to enhance their knowledge and understanding through a process of instruction, guided

practice, and reflection (Wasik & Hindman, 2011). Coaching is frequently offered as part of a

multicomponent PD program that includes introductory workshops, an ongoing course, or web

resources that offer information on evidence‐based practices related to the content of the PD

(Powell, Diamond, & Cockburn, 2013). Classroom observations are a central component of

15

coaching, a practice that allows coaches to view a teacher’s implementation of the new teaching

practice in his or her classroom and then provide and discuss feedback. Feedback typically

includes two basic types of information that is aligned with the PD program’s content: an

identification of appropriately implemented practices and recommendations for practice

improvements—feedback that is sometimes referred to as what “glows” and what “grows”,

respectively” (Powell et al., 2013, p. 387).

Emerging research stipulates combining coaching with other forms of PD to effectively support

teachers and improve outcomes for children. For example, Wasik and Hindman (2011)

implemented the Exceptional Coaching for Early Language and Literacy (ExCELL) program in an

effort to improve the vocabulary and pre‐literacy skills of at‐risk preschoolers. ExCELL is a

comprehensive PD model for training teachers to implement evidence‐based practices aimed at

promoting children’s literacy and language development. The PD content is organized into five

modules—interactive book reading, guided conversations across the curriculum, phonological

sensitivity, alphabet knowledge, and writing. In this study, Head Start teachers were randomly

assigned to either an intervention group that received the ExCELL PD or to a comparison group

that received the “business as usual” PD provided by Head Start. Teachers in the ExCELL group

participated in a four‐day summer literacy institute designed to familiarize the teachers with the

goals of the project and to explain the training and coaching procedures. Thereafter, coaches

provided nine months of three‐to‐four week training cycles in which coaches provided intensive

group training for the teachers. In each group training session, coaches provided a conceptual

rationale for the practices and then explained and modeled specific strategies. A few days later,

the coach modeled the target behaviors in each teacher’s classroom while the teacher observed

the coach’s modeling by using an observation checklist that highlighted key teaching behaviors.

Teachers were given approximately one week to practice the targeted instruction before coaches

used the same observation checklist to observe the teachers’ implementation of the new practice

and to provide feedback. Frequent videotaping of a teacher’s implementation of practices was

used to facilitate coaching and discussions. Furthermore, teachers received books, materials, and

lesson plans to support the development of children’s language and literacy. After one academic

year, it was found that teachers in the intervention group had created higher quality classroom

environments, as measured by the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation and

Classroom Assessment Scoring System, and by videotapes of teachers’ classroom book readings.

Specifically, evidence from the CLASS measure indicated that intervention teachers modeled

language more, provided important feedback to children on their language, and were more

effective in fostering concept development in children. Converging evidence from the ELLCO

revealed that teacher training significantly increased the richness of the language and pre‐literacy

environment in the classroom, particularly with respect to the availability and use of writing‐

related materials. This study also showed that children in the intervention group performed

16

significantly better than comparison‐group peers on measures of receptive vocabulary and

phonological sensitivity but that alphabet learning between the two groups was equivalent.

In a similar study, Powell, Steed, and Diamond (2010) examined the implementation of literacy

coaching with Head Start teachers participating in a PD program that included intensive

workshops on evidence‐based practices for promoting early literacy outcomes in four major

content areas—reading, writing, letter‐word knowledge, and phonological awareness. The PD

program examined in the study was part of the U.S. Department of Education’s Early Childhood

Educator Professional Development Program, an initiative aimed at improving school readiness

and reading outcomes for prekindergarten children living in poverty. The PD program consisted

of two parts: (1) five full‐day workshops across a four‐month period during the fall semester, and

(2) expert coaching conducted in participating classrooms approximately every third week.

Analyses revealed significant differences (small to medium effect sizes) in teaching emphasis and

progression across the four literacy content areas. Similar results regarding the positive effects

of combining PD training (usually workshops) with practice‐based coaching have been

demonstrated in a variety of classroom‐based interventions such as the Behavioral, Emotional,

and Social Training Competent Learners Achieving School Success (BEST in CLASS) (Conroy et al.,

2014), HEAD Start REDI (Bierman et al., 2008), the Chicago School Readiness Project (Raver, et

al., 2008), and the Teaching Pyramid Model (Fox et al., 2011).

While a number of studies have illustrated the effectiveness of combining coaching with more

formal training such as coursework or workshops, there is limited research on the effects of

coaching‐based PD programs. In an effort to better understand the independent contribution of

coaching as the sole mechanism for improving teacher practice and child outcomes, Neuman and

Wright (2010) examined the impact of two forms of professional development of

prekindergarten teachers’ early language and literacy practice. Specifically the researchers

compared the benefits of PD through coaching or coursework with a control group who received

no additional PD on quality early childhood literacy practices. Center‐ and family‐based childcare

providers were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) PD coursework at their local

community college in early literacy development; (2) PD coursework plus weekly coaching for 32

weeks (designed to put in place the practices described in the coursework); and (3) a business‐

as‐usual control group. It was found that coursework alone did not lead to improvements in

either teacher knowledge or practice. In fact, scores on both measures were indistinguishable

from those of the control group. However, the childcare workers who had received coaching

made statistically significant improvements in their skills and practices in both centers and home‐

care settings.

In a recent in‐depth qualitative study, Knoche, Kuhn, and Eum (2013) interviewed 21 parents,

preschool teachers, and childcare providers who had engaged in coaching relationships.

17

Participants completed surveys and took part in extensive interviews in which they detailed their

experiences and perspectives as recipients of coaching support. Five main themes emerged as

central to the experiences of the coaches: (1) qualities of the coach, (2) resources provided by

the coach, (3) qualities of the coach‐coachee relationship, (4) coachee transformation, and (5)

challenges to the coaching process. Each participant expressed overwhelming positive responses

regarding the coaching‐coachee relationship, noting that they had experienced both personal

and professional growth through the partnership. They credited these positive experiences to

the expertise and skill of the coaches as well as to the quality of the dyadic relationship with the

coaches, stating that, in isolation, either expertise or quality of interactions would not have been

sufficient for successful outcomes. These findings underscore the importance emphasizing

strategies for promoting interactions across the dimensions of knowledge and relationship skills.

Knoche and colleagues concluded that three implementation features were essential for

successful coaching PD designs—(1) sufficient dedicated time on the part of both coach and

coachee to engage in successful problem‐solving sessions; (2) a reflective component; and (3) a

plan for removing coaching support and helping coaches to remain self‐reliant. Assuming these

three strategies are in place, coaching can not only provide valuable guidance and support for

parents and teachers, but also help promote the development of children and families.

Therefore, as ECPP strives for continuous improvement in programming, it will be critically

important to clearly identify their coaching model. And then it will be also important that the

evaluation team identify effective strategies to best measure the implementation of coaching.

This falls into the area of implementation science. Fixsen and colleagues (2005) suggest it is not

enough to fund innovation, one must evaluate to assure that programs are successfully

implemented with fidelity to an evidence‐based model.

Student Outcomes

School readiness is an essential concern for students entering the

educational system. Preparation to perform in an educational setting is

a significant benefit for students, especially those who are from diverse

backgrounds, with a greater number of risk factors, and have typically

poorer school performance compared to their economically advantaged

counterparts (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000).

The approach used to measure student outcomes was to match fall and

spring data. This means that data represented in pre and post or fall and spring data are exactly

matched by student and if a student did not have a match in the fall or spring, their data were

not included in the outcomes analyses.

PPVT‐IV

Peabody Picture Vocabulary

Test IV

Author: Dunn and Dunn,

2004, 2007

Scale: The average score is

100, with an average range

of 85‐115.

18

Vocabulary Development

The vocabulary of students is an important factor to explore when considering how students may

fare as they progress through school. Students who have limited vocabularies at a very young

age are likely to have more difficulty increasing their vocabulary to a level similar to those whose

vocabulary is greater to start (Hart & Risley, 1995). Preschool students’ receptive vocabulary

development (understanding of language) was assessed using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary

Test IV (PPVT‐IV).

Students significantly improved receptive vocabulary skills. Using the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary Test (IV) pre and post, students significantly improved (p<.001, d=0.35) and gained

an average of 3.68 standard score over the school year (M=3.68, SD=10.56). Effect size change

was below the zone of desired effects (0.40 or greater). School level differences were found, with

Conestoga students increasing from 88.58 to 90.80 (M=2.22, SD=10.41, p>05, not significant) and

Kellom students increasing from 81.21 to 86.30 (M=5.09, SD=10.59, p=.001, d=0.48, within the

zone of desired effects).

100.00

84.83

88.58

81.21

88.5190.80

86.30

70

85

100

115

130

National Norm 13/14 Overall (n=112) 13/14 Conestoga(n=55)

13/14 Kellom (n=57)

PPVT‐IV Standard Scores

Fall Spring

19

Language Development

Preschool students’ English (or in cases of English Language Learners Spanish) language

development skills were assessed using the Preschool Language Scales‐

Fifth Edition (PLS‐V). This tool measures preschool students’ progress with

language by looking at both expressive communication and auditory

language comprehension. It was administered with English language

students to gather ratings on the expressive skills of students and with

English language learners, both expressive communication and auditory

comprehension were measured. Evaluation questions included: (1) Do

students make gains in English? (2) Do they make gains in Spanish?

There were too few Spanish speaking students to report on outcomes.

Spanish language skills were measured at pre and post but so few students

were stronger in Spanish skills than English that these outcomes will not be

reported (n=8).

English language skills were measured for the expressive communication skills.

Students at one of the two schools significantly improved in expressive communication skills

in English. Using the Preschool Language Scale (5th) pre and post, students as a group did not

significantly improve (p>.05). However, school level differences were found, with Conestoga

students showing a slight decline from 88.81 to 88.17 (M=‐0.64, SD=10.31, p>.05, not significant)

100.00

85.8688.81

82.7886.59 88.17

84.94

70

85

100

115

130

National Norm Exp English Overall(n=104)

Exp EnglishConestoga (n=53)

Exp English Kellom(n=51)

Preschool Language Scale Expressive Communication Standard Scores – English

Fall 2013 Spring 2014

NS NS

PLS‐V

Preschool Language

Scales‐ 5th Edition

Authors: Zimmerman,

Steiner & Pond (2011‐

English, 2012‐Spanish)

Score:

The mean is 100 with the

average range of 85‐115

20

and Kellom students increasing from 82.78 to 84.94 (M=2.16, SD=6.91, p=.03, d=0.31,

approaching though not within the zone of desired effects).

Student Academic Readiness for Kindergarten

The importance of concept development, particularly for students from diverse cultural and

linguistic backgrounds, has been demonstrated in numerous research articles (Neuman, 2006;

Panter and Bracken, 2009). Some researchers have found that basic concepts are a better means

of predicting both reading and mathematics than are traditional vocabulary tests such as the

PPVT‐IV (Larrabee, 2007). The norm‐referenced assessment selected to measure Kindergarten

student’s academic school readiness is the Bracken School Readiness Assessment (BSRA). The

BSRA was used to measure the academic readiness skills of young students in the areas of colors,

letters, numbers/counting, sizes, comparisons and shapes. The mean of the BSRA is 100, with 86

to 114 falling within the average range (one standard deviation above and below the mean). It

has been used in numerous studies, including the Joint Center for Poverty Research, NICHD study

of early child care and youth development, Harlem Project, and the

national implementation study of Educare, to name but a few. The

limitation of this assessment is that it does not measure social/emotional

readiness for school, executive functioning, and other important

qualities to consider relative to “readiness for school.”

BSRAs were completed in the fall of 2013 in 8 classrooms with a total of

119 students. BSRA standard scores

are displayed in the following table.

Bracken

The Bracken School

Readiness Assessment ‐3rd

Edition (BSRA)

Author: Bracken, 2007

Scale: The average score is

100, with an average

range of 86‐114

21

Students significantly improved in academic readiness for kindergarten. Using the Bracken

School Readiness Assessment pre and post, students significantly improved (p<.001, d=0.51) and

gained an average of 4.46 standard score over the school year (M=4.46, SD=8.76). Effect size

change was within the zone of desired effects (0.40 or greater). School level differences were

minimal, with Conestoga students increasing from 86.18 to 90.16 (M=3.98, SD=8.17, p=.001,

d=0.49) and Kellom students increasing from 84.96 to 89.89 (M=4.93, SD=9.34, p<.001, d=0.53).

The next table displays the percent of correct items identified by students across the five

subscales of the BSRA (n=112 overall program, Conestoga n=55, Kellom n=57).

Percent of Mastery by Subscale (Percentage of Items Correct)

Subtest Fall Overall

Spring Overall

Fall Conestoga

Spring Conestoga

Fall Kellom

Spring Kellom

Colors 63.30% 80.00% 66.73% 82.73% 60.00% 77.37%

Letters 33.87% 53.51% 34.06% 52.85% 33.68% 54.15%

Numbers and

Counting

27.83% 45.34% 27.17% 45.66% 28.46% 45.03%

Sizes and

Comparisons

28.77% 43.14% 30.99% 45.12% 26.63% 41.23%

Shapes 38.26% 50.67% 40.09% 48.64% 36.49% 52.63%

Overall 35.77% 51.54% 37.07% 51.85% 34.51% 51.25%

100

85.56 86.18 84.96

90.03 90.16 89.89

70

85

100

115

130

National Norm Overall (n=112) Conestoga (n=55) Kellom (n=57)

Bracken School Readiness Assessment (BSRA) Standard Scores

Fall Spring

22

Utilization of Results with Schools and Programs. Teachers and coaches were debriefed on fall

student outcome data in late November and on spring student outcome data in April and May.

Individual student reports were prepared both fall and spring for parents. Classroom level

reports were shared with teachers, coaches, and program leaders. Classroom quality data results

were shared with teachers, coaches, and program leaders in the winter, shortly after quality

ratings were completed.

Supports for Parents

Kellom and Conestoga Parent Focus Group. A focus group was held with interested parents on

June 17, 2014. A very small number elected to participate (n=3). Therefore, this feedback should

then be taken as baseline information that may or may not be representative of other parents

involved with the program.

Benefits of the Program. Parents participating in the focus group were excited about many

aspects of the program. Logistically, the participants liked that the program was full day and

provided all the meals and snacks. Having before and after care provided was needed by the

working parents. One mother stated, “Having the meals provided was very helpful when trying

to make the food last until the end of the month.” Being that the program was full day it helped

ease the financial burden of both daycare and food costs.

Overall, they found the teachers and the staff to be caring and helpful. They reported their

children were safe at school and that they teachers genuinely cared about them. One parent

mentioned being able to trust them and was excited for when her younger child would be able

to attend the program. Parents were adamant in that the program met and went beyond their

expectations. The consistency of the program helped parents establish routines at home and

built social emotional skills with their students including sharing and getting along with others.

Parents discussed how the school routines had influenced their own interactions and routines at

home. Parents reported that they established more routines with their children patterned after

the school routines. One parent said, “It was like school was the first parent” and found it helpful

to have guidance in setting improved eating and nap schedules. Parents reported noticing

behaviors at home they had not previously seen such as their children being imaginative, using

more advanced vocabulary and wanting to read and learn on a more frequent basis.

Finally, the parents stressed the educational component of the program saying that they felt

better about sending their students to this program than a daycare. One parent said she had

been looking for something that would be more educational in nature and was pleased with the

program. Parents reported being excited about the progress their children made over the year.

Parents reported many gains made by their children including those in basic academic skills, (such

23

as knowing colors, shapes and number), life skills (knowing address and phone number) and

behaviorally (engaged in learning and able to follow teacher directions).

Parents recognized all of the hands‐on and play opportunities their children had this year and

would like to see that continue. There was some worry about how students would transition to

a kindergarten classroom if the hands‐on and kinesthetic activities were removed and students

lost engagement. As one parent stated, “Right now, my child enjoys coming to school and I hope

that continues.”

Opportunities for Continuous Improvement. Parents reported feeling uneasy about the home

visiting component of the program. The home visiting program was seen as a “hoop to jump

through” more than as a necessity. As one parent reported, “I didn’t like it but you do what you

gotta do to be in the program.” There was a general fear of that person looking for things “wrong”

in the house, particularly if there had been previous CPS involvement with the family. However,

all parents reported having positive experiences with the family

engagement specialist. One parent noted that she liked the

option of meeting with the family engagement specialist at the

school particularly as she already had other support workers

coming into her home.

Two other continuous improvement suggestions made by the

parents were in the area of parent involvement. The suggestions

were to have parent‐child days and to take more fields trips as a

group with other parents. Finally, parents reported liking the

variety of fruits and vegetables their children were able to try but

wanted healthier food overall.

Focus Group Summary. Parents in this focus group were very positive about the program and

the experiences it was providing for their children. They had very few suggestions to make and

felt that the program was meeting their logistical needs and the educational needs for their

children.

Surveys with Teaching Staff

End of year surveys were conducted with lead teachers from both Kellom and Conestoga. Six of

the eight teachers completed the survey (75%). The purpose of the survey was to evaluate the

educators’ perception of the program, the effects coaching had on their teaching practices, and

their perceptions of the biggest accomplishments and opportunities for improvement.

For those teachers who replied to the survey on their greatest achievements they found the

academic progress and growth in their students’ to be very exciting. Some reported having

24

grown in their behavior management skills, building relationships with parents and learning how

the inclusion model worked with their students topped their greatest achievements for the 2013‐

2014 school year.

Some opportunities for improvement included teachers at both schools stated they had entered

into the school year not knowing specifics about the program or what the benefit of participation

in this program might offer to participating families. They did however report having gained

knowledge throughout the course of the year through meetings, professional development

training and conversations with their coaches. When replying on the effectiveness of the

coaches, the majority of the educators found them to be helpful and positive. The majority found

their availability to assist in the classroom when needed was very helpful. Other teachers stated

there was an uncertainty on exactly what the coaches’ roles were in respect to the teachers

themselves and that their presence in the classroom at times created chaos. It was suggested to

have full‐time paraprofessionals assigned to each classroom instead of having staff floating in

and out of classrooms. They discussed how this would provide a consistent, reliable environment

for the students. Not having an appropriate playground or gym time for gross motor activities

was another major challenge. Some of the teachers stated it was difficult to incorporate

appropriate gross motor activities without having a scheduled gym time and the playground can

only serve one class at a time. Other challenges mentioned were the amount of paperwork

involved for Head Start and the lunch program, not knowing the increased workload of mentoring

practicum students, not getting questions answered for either themselves or their parents in a

timely manner, and at times the lack of communication.

Evaluation questions to be addressed in the next

evaluation cycle (2014‐15):

Are Families Benefitting from Participation? Plan: to use

Child Parent Relationship Scale (Pianta, 1992) and focus

groups.

Are Pre‐Service Students from Metropolitan Community

College Benefitting? Plan: to use Metropolitan Community

College data related to matriculation, follow up surveys with graduates, and follow up surveys

with graduates’ employers, as well as to conduct focus groups.

Are Neighborhood Child Care Programs Improving Services? Plan: to evaluate change in quality of services as measured by CLASS.

25

Early Childhood Partnership Program Conclusions and Implications for Program

Improvement

The Early Childhood Partnership Program started in August of 2013. There was not a tremendous

amount of lead time to plan and implement the program. That being said, the program has begun

with a solid foundation. External measures of program quality indicate that classrooms are being

operated in a high quality manner (ERS ratings great than 5, the indicator of quality established

by the Nebraska Department of Education). CLASS ratings were generally in the high quality

range for two of three subscales (Emotional Support and Classroom Organization). The goal for

improvement of this program is to achieve a rating of 3.25 or greater in ratings of Instructional

Support, with particular focus on coaching teachers on Concept Development (taking a concept

from a beginning point and fully supporting the development of the concept.

26

Sub‐Section I.2: Jump Start to Kindergarten Programs Lisa St. Clair, Ed.D., Abbey Siebler, M.A., Terry Stone, Ph.D., and Kerry Miller, M.S.

Kindergarten students from low income who attend classrooms with high quality teacher‐child

interactions along with effective instructional support demonstrate higher social competence

and academic outcomes (Burchinal,

Vandergrift, Pianta, & Mashburn, 2010).

Summary of Program Model

Jump Start programming is designed to

provide students the opportunity to become

more prepared for Kindergarten and start at

a more equivalent level as their peers that

may have had more extensive early childhood

care and educational experiences.

Programming focuses on pre‐academic skills,

routines and social skill development.

Who was served in these programs?

Jump Start to Kindergarten programs were

funded in five districts and one community

agency. All subcouncils were represented

with programs. The programs ranged from

two weeks to eight weeks, with varying hours

and days per week. All programs utilized certified teachers for part or all of their staffing.

There were a total of 1011 consented Kindergarten students served by the Jump Start to

Kindergarten programs who were present for both pre

and post assessment using the Bracken School

Readiness Assessment.

Jump Start to Kindergarten was implemented in public

schools in Bellevue, Elkhorn, Millard, Omaha, and

Papillion, as well as in Educare of Omaha.

Jump Start to Kindergarten Key Findings

1140 kindergarten students were served in five districts and one community agency

Served an average of 20 days in the summer

69% were eligible for free/reduced lunch

Students were significantly more prepared for kindergarten by the end of the program (d=0.42)

CLASS ratings improved from the previous year

High ratings of parent satisfaction were found (4 or greater on a 5 point scale)

27

What was the quality of implementation for the Jump Start to Kindergarten Programs?

The Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) was used to measure classroom quality in

Kindergarten programs. Developed by Bob Pianta and others at the University of Virginia Center

for the Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning, this external observation tool measures

classroom quality across multiple domains.

CLASS was widely implemented this program year. A total of 83 CLASS

ratings were completed. These classrooms were drawn from all funded

districts and one community agency that received Jump Start to

Kindergarten funding. Classrooms were video‐recorded, submitted, and

then scored at UNMC. A CLASS report was prepared for each participating

classroom and results were sent to each district and agency. Districts and

agencies determined how best to share the information with the teachers.

The CLASS reports included video clips and written feedback along with

dimension and domain scores. CLASS ratings were collected at one point in

time only (summer). The table below summarizes the average CLASS

domain scores for the last four years.

Jump Start to Kindergarten CLASS Domain Averages

Summer # of classrooms

observed

Emotional

Support

Classroom

Organization

Instructional

Support

2014 86 5.82 6.07 2.67

2013 32 5.55 5.82 2.55

2012 15 6.15 6.08 2.78

2011 7 6.41 5.80 3.14

CLASS ratings increased on all three domains compared to the previous year, but not compared

to the earliest years of implementation with pilot classrooms. With broad implementation of the

CLASS it was positive to see the results improve from last year. The goal for continuous

Emotional Support

•Positive climate

•Teacher sensitivity

•Regard for student's perspectives


•Behavior management

•Productivity

•Instructional learning formats


•Concept development

•Quality of feedback

•Language modeling

•Literacy focus

CLASS

Classroom Assessment Scoring System

Author: Pianta, LaParo & Hamre, 2008

Scale:

1‐2 = Low quality

3‐5 = Moderate quality

6‐7 = High quality

28

improvement should be to continue to support staff professional development with Instructional

Support, aiming for a rating of 3.25 or greater in order to impact student achievement (Burchinal

et al, 2010). Programs may benefit from exploring professional development training with a

focus on continuous improvement, particularly in the Instructional Support domain.

Average ratings by each subarea of the CLASS were as follows:

Emotional Support The CLASS measures emotional support through the emotional qualities of teacher‐student interactions, the teacher’s responsiveness to student needs, and the degree to which activities and interactions are structured around the interests and motivations of the students. Research supports the theory that these aspects of teacher‐student interactions are relevant to students’ social and academic outcomes. Students with positive and less conflicted relationships with teachers demonstrate greater peer competencies and positive academic development (Bryk, Lee, & Holland, 1993; Crosnoe, Johnson, & Elder, 2004; Ladd et al., 1999; Roeser et al., 2000; Silver et al., 2005).

Item Average Rating

Positive Climate 6.25

Positive Climate measures the emotional connection and enjoyment demonstrated between educators and students, as well as among students. This dimension also observes positive affect among educators and/or students and positive communication. Respect (eye contact, warm voice, respectful language, and cooperation/sharing) is another indicator within Positive Climate.

Absence of Negative Climate 6.93

The Absence of Negative Climate measures the absence of expressed negativity such as anger, hostility, or aggression exhibited by educators and/or students in the classroom. This dimension includes punitive control (yelling, threats, harsh punishment), sarcasm or disrespect, and severe negativity (victimization, bullying, physical punishment). A higher rating reflects a lack of or less Negative Climate.

Teacher Sensitivity 5.91

This domain evaluates educators’ awareness of and responsiveness to students’ academic and emotional concerns. The tool focuses on educators’ awareness of students’ needs, responsiveness (acknowledging emotions, providing comfort and assistance, and providing individualized support), how educators’ address problems, and students’ comfort with educators.

Regard for Student Perspectives 4.18

Regard for Student Perspectives measures the degree to which educators’ interactions with students and activities place an emphasis on student centered learning activities (drawing from students’ interests, motivations, and points of view). This dimension is measured by flexibility and student focus, support for autonomy and leadership (allowing students’

29

Item Average Rating

choices, giving responsibility to students, and allowing students to lead lessons), student expression, and reasonable student freedom of movement.

Strengths:

Positive Climate and Absence of a Negative Climate: Staff generally demonstrated respect and positive communication with students.

Teacher Sensitivity: Staff demonstrated awareness of students’ academic and emotional concerns and made efforts to respond.

Areas to Explore:

Regard for Student Perspectives: More prompting of student autonomy and leadership and less teacher direction and talking would rate more positively.

Overall Emotional Support Rating 5.82

Classroom Organization This domain looks at a broad array of processes related to organization and management of students’ behavior, time, and attention within the program. Research on management of students’ behavior indicates that best practices include providing clear, consistent behavioral expectations, redirecting minor misbehavior, and using positive, proactive strategies (Emmer & Strough, 2001). Item Average Rating

Behavior Management 6.46

The dimension of Behavior Management evaluates how educators effectively monitor, prevent, and redirect active misbehavior. Other behavior markers include: clear behavioral expectations, educators’ proactive behaviors (monitoring, anticipating problem behavior, and low reactivity), effective redirection of misbehavior, and student behavior (frequent compliance and little aggression or defiance). Productivity 6.45

This dimension measures how educators maximize learning time, manage routines within the classroom, ensure that transitions are brief (with learning opportunities embedded for longer transitions), and prepare to have materials ready and accessible. Instructional Learning Formats 5.32

The Instructional Learning Formats dimension evaluates how well the educators facilitate activities and provide interesting materials to engage students. This dimension is specifically looking for effective facilitation and expanding students’ involvement through questioning and active participation in lessons and activities. It also measures the use of various modalities and materials, student interest, and clarity of learning objectives through

30

advanced organizers (connecting prior knowledge to new lessons), summaries, and reorientation statements. Strengths:

Behavior Management: Educators explained processes in advance, were proactive, as well as anticipated and redirected problem behavior.

Productivity: Routines were managed and educators maximized learning time. Areas to Explore:

Instructional Learning Formats: Learning targets were sometimes unclear. Connection of content to students’ lives and experiences were not made. Educators may want to explore additional strategies for effective facilitation that expands students’ involvement in learning through effective questioning.

Overall Classroom Organization Rating 6.07

Instructional Support As measured by the CLASS, the extent to which teachers provide students with opportunities to: understand‐build connections between new and previous knowledge; apply‐use procedures and knowledge to help solve new problems; analyze‐divide information into meaningful parts; evaluate‐make conclusions based on criteria or standards; and create‐put pieces of knowledge together to produce new ideas (Mayer, 2002) are measured.

Item Average Rating

Concept Development 2.25

This dimension measures how the educators use instructional discussions and activities to promote students’ higher‐order thinking skills (in contrast to rote instruction). This measures how educators facilitate analysis and reasoning (why and/or how questions, problem solving, prediction, classification/comparison, evaluation), creating (brainstorming, planning, producing), integration of concepts, and connections of concepts to the real world, such as relating information to students’ actual lives.

Quality of Feedback 2.65 Quality of Feedback assesses how educators extend student learning through responses to students’ ideas, comments, and work. Included in this dimension are scaffolding, feedback loops (back‐and‐forth exchanges, persistence by educators, follow up questions), prompting students’ thought processes, providing additional information to expand students’ understanding, and encouragement/affirmation.

Language Modeling 3.10 Language Modeling measures the extent to which educators facilitate and encourage students’ language. Ratings include frequent conversations in the classroom, educators’ use of open‐ended questions, repetition and extension (educators repeat and extend students’ responses), self and parallel talk (educators map their actions and students’ actions with language), and the use of advanced language (a variety of words, and connections to familiar words and/or ideas).

31

Strengths:

Language modeling: Educators did some facilitation and encouragement of students’ language, including use of open‐ended questions, repetition, and extension. If the program can build on this and do more of it, even more consistently, it would benefit students’ language development.

Areas to Explore:

Concept development: Taking a concept from a beginning point and fully supporting the development of the concept with students was not regularly observed. Educators may want to reflect on how to connect to students’ every day experiences, their lives, as they introduce and support concept development.

Overall Instructional Support Rating 2.67

Student Academic Achievement

The importance of concept development, particularly for students from diverse cultural and

linguistic backgrounds, has been demonstrated in numerous research articles (Neuman, 2006;

Panter & Bracken, 2009). Some researchers have found that basic concepts are a better means

of predicting both reading and mathematics than are traditional vocabulary tests such as the

PPVT‐IV (Larrabee, 2007). The norm‐referenced assessment selected to measure Kindergarten

student’s school readiness is the Bracken School Readiness Assessment (BSRA). The BSRA was

used to measure the academic readiness skills of young students in the areas of colors, letters,

numbers/counting, sizes, comparisons and shapes. The mean of the BSRA is 100, with 86 to 114

falling within the average range (one standard deviation above and below the mean). It has been

used in numerous studies, including the Joint Center for Poverty Research, NICHD study of early

child care and youth development, Harlem Project, and the national implementation study of

Educare, to name but a few. The limitation of this assessment is that it does not measure

social/emotional readiness for school, executive functioning, and other important qualities to

consider relative to “readiness for school.”

BSRAs were completed pre and post with a total of 1011 consented students. BSRA pre and post

standard scores are displayed in the following chart.

32

Students significantly improved overall in the Jump Start program, as well as within most of the

individual districts and agencies as a whole. Effect size change varied by agency and district.

Significant improvement was not always found at the school or site level, as there were significant

variations in change from pre to post at the individual school or site level as well as variations in

the numbers of students attending each program.

100

89 91

96

84

9396 95

92

9699

87

9699

93

70

85

100

115

130

NationalNorm

Overall(n=1011)

Program 1 Program 2 Program 3 Program 4 Program 5 Program 6

Bracken School Readiness Assessment (BSRA) Standard Scores

B‐SS‐1

B‐SS‐2

0.42

1.19

0.46 0.45 0.44 0.41

0.000.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

Overall(n=1011)

Program 1 Program 2 Program 3 Program 4 Program 5 Program 6

Effect Size

33

Overall, the group of students significantly improved in their readiness for kindergarten (p<.001).

Mean standard scores on the Bracken increased from 89 to 92‐‐ moving them slightly closer to

the desired mean of 100.

Bracken Percent of Mastery by Subtest

Bracken Subtest Percent of

Mastery

Pre

Percent of

Mastery

Post

Percent

Increase

Colors 91% 93% 2%

Letters 61% 67% 6%

Numbers and Counting 61% 66% 5%

Sizes and Comparisons 51% 56% 5%

Shapes 61% 65% 4%

Overall 62% 67% 5%

55

70

85

100

115

130

BSRA SS Change by School, 1‐30

55

70

85

100

115

130

BSRA SS Change by School, 31‐58

34

The Jump Start to Kindergarten outcomes on the Bracken suggest that an area of strength for

these students was color naming (93% mastery). An area for improvement would be

Sizes/Comparisons (56% mastery). Sizes/Comparison may be a higher level skill for students as

this subtest assesses their understanding of location words, comparison concepts and

understanding directional concepts.

Student Achievement Summary (Bracken School Readiness Assessment). Results for the program

have remained generally consistent over the first three years with a slight reduction this past

summer (but yet effect sizes are still within the zone of desired effects).

Bracken School Readiness Overall Standard Scores

Year

# of students Average Pre

Standard

Scores

Average Post

Standard

Scores

Average

Bracken SRA

Standard

Scores Change

Statistical

significance

using T‐Test

analysis

Effect

Size

2014 1011 88.98 91.63 2.66 p <.001* d=0.42

2013 649 86.42 90.50 4.08 p <.001* d=0.59

2012 800 87.97 92.08 4.11 p<.001* d=0.63

2011 156 85.85 90.13 4.28 p<.001* d=0.58*Significant improvement using a paired samples t‐test, one‐tailed

Effect size calculated using paired samples mean differences/mean standard deviation

Utilization of Results with Schools and Programs. Teachers and schools were debriefed on the

Bracken SRA results of each of their students, as well as their group of students, by a member of

the evaluation team following both pre and post Bracken administration. The results were

delivered to the teachers and schools one to two days after pre‐assessment so that the results

could be used by the teaching teams to inform and individualize instruction. Post results were

also delivered to teachers and schools one to two days

after Bracken administration was completed to inform

them of the progress their students made.

Additionally, the Learning Community hosted a meeting

facilitated by the evaluator and one of the Jump Start to

Kindergarten districts, along with three other districts.

Program staff and research/evaluation staff from four

districts participated in a collaborative data study meeting.

Results from each district were presented along with

program elements that were identified as areas of strength

along with challenges or opportunities for improvement. Common themes that emerged from

35

the meeting were: (1) programs reported serving a greater number of students with identified

disabilities, (2) comprehensive family engagement activities appeared to be associated with

stronger effects, (3) programs that had been funded since 2011 will have students in third grade

during the 2014‐15 year and would like to share statement assessment results in a collaborative

way to measure possible longitudinal results of participation in a Jump Start to Kindergarten

program with some districts wanting to compare results to the group of students who were

invited to participate but did not do so.

Evaluation staff coded the themes that emerged from the discussion. The following are the

general themes and notations that emerged from the group.

One theme that occurred throughout the meeting was an interest in family engagement. Three of the

four districts at the meeting were currently implementing a family engagement component, ranging

from weekly family engagement days in which parents received take‐home bags containing learning

materials to summer home visits.

It was also noted that each district used similar criteria for targeting families for its program. Specifically,

each district focused on serving those with the highest need, such as those with the highest percentage

of free‐ or reduced‐lunch and students that had not had previous preschool experience.

Another common theme was that each district followed curriculum guides and standards which also

aligned with kindergarten standards. This was beneficial and ensured children across districts received

similar learning opportunities and experiences.

Each district also expressed an interest in collecting longitudinal data in order to compare the progress

of students who had attended Jumpstart with those who had not attended. In order to collect this data,

each district stated that they would need to agree on consistent measurements.

What did parents report about the Jump Start Kindergarten Programs?

Parents provided feedback on the value or usefulness of the Jump Start to Kindergarten Program.

Using a collaborative process across all districts and agencies, a master parent survey was

developed. Districts or agencies were then able to choose which sections they would use for

their program. Parent survey data was received from each of the participating districts and

agencies; however, rates of participation varied widely (1‐243). Parent survey results are

displayed in the following table (n=469).

36

Parent Satisfaction and Ratings of Impact

How much do you agree or disagree with each statement: Average

a. I was satisfied with the hours of the program. 4.65

b. I was satisfied with the length of the program. 4.55

c. I was satisfied with the program as a whole. 4.64

d. The staff were excellent (caring, reliable, skilled). 4.69

e. My child enjoyed attending the program. 4.72

f. I was able to communicate with my child’s teacher. 4.53

g. I was informed about my child’s progress. 4.37

h. I believe that my child will be more successful in Kindergarten as a result of the program.

4.64

i. I feel more prepared to be the parent of a Kindergartener as a result of the program.

4.50

j. My child believes that school will be a fun place to learn. 4.78

k. If my child begins to struggle in Kindergarten I would feel comfortable approaching his/her teacher or principal.

4.67

Scale ranges from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree

Families reported high overall satisfaction with the structure and environment of the program.

They also reported high levels of impact on such items as believing their child is more ready for

kindergarten as a result of the program and feeling comfortable to talk with their child’s teacher

if a problem emerges. The lowest level of satisfaction was (4.37) for being informed about their

child’s progress.

37

Parents were also surveyed about their perceptions of how the program impacted their child

(see below).

Parent Report of Child Change

Check level of improvement: My child already had these skills

Or ch

oose one of th

e fo

llowing

Did Not Improve

Improved

a. Willingness to separate from parents

67.6% 1.8% 30.6%

b. Likes to listen to stories 65.6% 0.9% 33.5%

c. Recognizes letters of the alphabet

44.1% 4.5% 51.5%

d. Knows different colors and shapes

59.9% 1.5% 38.6%

e. Plays well with other children 59.2% 0.9% 40.0%

f. Willingness to share with other children

54.9% 2.2% 42.9%

g. Interest in sharing what they have learned

42.1% 4.8% 53.1%

h. Attentiveness when read to 46.4% 4.2% 49.2%

i. Attention span for tasks 35.0% 8.0% 57.0%

j. Eagerness to attend school 44.0% 2.6% 53.4% More than half of respondents reported child improvement in recognizing letters of the alphabet,

interest in sharing what they learned, attention span for tasks, and eagerness to attend school.

Some areas where the majority of students already possessed the skills were willingness to

separate from parents, likes to listen to stories, knows different colors and shapes, plays well

with other children, and willingness to share with other children. The lowest rated area for

children already having skills was attention span for tasks (35%), which associated with the

highest percentage of “did not improve” (8%), and 57% showing improvement in this area. It

could be, perhaps, that one of the values of Jump Start to Kindergarten is to begin to teach

children how to attend to tasks in in a school setting.

Jump Start to Kindergarten Program Conclusions and Implications for Program

Improvement

Jump Start to Kindergarten programs were implemented in five districts and one community

agency. A total of 1140 Kindergarten students were served an average 20 days over the summer.

Students significantly improved on the Bracken School Readiness Assessment (Bracken, 2002,

p<.001, d=0.42). Parents reported high levels of satisfaction with and impact by the Jump Start

Kindergarten programs. CLASS ratings improved from the previous year with strengths found in

38

emotional support and classroom organization, with opportunity for improvement in the area of

instructional support. Therefore, it is recommended that programs explore professional

development in the area of instructional support with emphasis on Concept Development. Given

the consistently positive results for the students after attending the Jump Start Kindergarten

summer programs, districts and programs may want to follow students to see if the programming

has lasting effects. For districts funded in the first cohort of Jump Start to Kindergarten, their

first group of students will be completing 3rd grade NeSA for the first time this coming school

year.

39

Subsection I.3: Extended Learning Time Programs

Lead: Jolene Johnson, Ed.D.

Introduction

The Learning Community funded a number of

Extended Learning Time programs that included

comprehensive out‐of‐school time programs

throughout the school year, before‐school and

after‐school tutoring sessions with targeted

academic support, and summer learning

programs to students. Below is a description of

the programs that served students during 2013‐

2014 year.

One limitation to this evaluation is the variability both within programs and with how programs

measure student success. The programs funded for extended learning varied in the students

served, the structures implemented and in program focus. Student outcomes were measured for

each program but the measures are quite different and may be difficult to make comparisons

across programs.

School Year Program Descriptions

Bellevue Extended Learning. This program provided extended learning time in reading, writing

and mathematics over 20 weeks during the school year for target students. Target students

(grades 3rd‐6th) were identified as those who were at‐risk for falling behind or who were already

performing below proficiency levels. Intervention was provided in nine Bellevue elementary

schools with the highest levels of poverty. Students received intervention for four hours each

week through the end of March 2014. Students’ progress was monitored and instruction was

adjusted based on their progress and individual goals.

Completely KIDS. This program focused on academic proficiency, youth development,

food/nutrition, and family engagement. Completely KIDS’s academic programming

(mathematics, reading, writing, and science) was designed by licensed educators to align with

Nebraska State Educational Standards and to supplement classroom learning in the core areas.

Licensed educators will also contracted with to support individual and group learning needs while

at program. Many lessons were molded to the individual learning needs of each student. The

program also provided students with many opportunities to participate in educational

enrichment activities, family engagement, and Coordinators worked closed with Family Liaisons

Extended Learning Key Findings

2096 students were served


An overall effect size was calculated and was within the zone of desired effects (d=0.59).

Overall, parents found the programs to be a positive experience for their students.

40

(one funded by the Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy Counties, one privately funded) to

identify additional supports for families. Students from Pre‐Kindergarten through sixth grade

were targeted for this program at three schools. The program was implemented Monday through

Friday from 3:55‐6:00pm for 28 weeks during the school year.

Girls Inc. This program featured an out‐of‐school setting literacy program to promote phonemic

awareness, word recognition, fluency, vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension. It was

sponsored by a community agency and the program complements the local school district’s

reading curriculum, utilizing the same phonics program and sequence of instruction. Certified

teachers were included in the program staff to enhance the expertise, as well as to design specific

interventions in response to individual needs. The overall focus of the program was to improve

the percentage of students reading at grade level. This program operated Monday through

Friday, for three hours per day, during the school year at two sites.

Omaha Public Schools Extended Learning Time. This school year program featured Extended

Learning Time (ELT) provided to select students with academic needs. It was designed to help

students master content in reading and mathematics before and after school. The program

design created a cohort of students with a common teacher to establish long term relationships

and in‐depth learning opportunities within a small group. The teacher from the ELT program and

the regular classroom teacher worked together to customize instruction for each student and

incorporated planned instruction time for students. An individualized goals agreement was

developed for each student and had a weekly focus. Progress towards goals was reported to

parents every six weeks. The program was implemented for 24 weeks, consisting of two tutoring

sessions per week, for one hour per day, during the school year for students in grades 3‐6. This

ELT program was designed by the school district and was implemented in five schools.

South Sarpy. Springfield Platteview Community Schools. During this 35 week program, students

participated in a mathematics intervention program. Students received 60 minutes per week of

additional instruction in mathematics before and after school. The instruction was provided in

small group and individualized settings and was targeted to meet the needs of each student.

Teachers and the math interventionist collaborated on a frequent basis to design and implement

the best plan for each student. Students were progress monitored and the plans adjusted

according to student data.

Summer Program Descriptions

Bellevue Summer School. This summer program featured intense instruction in the areas of

reading, writing, and mathematics. The program targeted Title I students, ELL students, and

other students at risk of falling behind academically. The program operated for two weeks during

41

the summer for seven hours per day, five days per week. Students entering kindergarten and

1st grade were targeted for this program. Students were served in multiple buildings.

Catholic Charities Summer. This program provided academically focused summer enrichment,

as well as physical and experiential activities to low income students. Goals were structured to

support participants in increasing their communication skills in reading and writing along with

their quantitative thinking skills in mathematics. A certified teacher structured the lessons and

coached the staff to work with staff from local schools to ensure summer offerings

complemented and enhanced the school curriculum. The program also provided students with

the opportunity to participate in fine arts activities such as music class, swimming skills in

partnership with the Red Cross, health and proper nutrition promotion activities, computer

lessons, and field trips. The program was implemented for 10 weeks during the summer, 9.5

hours per day, Monday through Friday, and also allowed for early/late pick up. Students in grades

K‐6 were served in this ten week program. The program was implemented Monday‐Friday from

6:30 am‐ 6:00 pm.

Elkhorn Public Schools. Jump Start to Reading. This program served incoming first through fourth

grade students who met certain criteria based on the AIMSweb winter benchmarking national

norms. Students scoring at or below the 25th percentile received an invitation to attend the

program. The three‐week program was held four days week for three hours each day. The

program focused on individual student reading needs and provided instruction based on one or

more programs (Reading Street’s My Sidewalks, Read Naturally, Guided Reading and/or Guided

Writing). Students received instruction from a certified teacher. The average ratio was one

teacher to six students.

Girls Inc. Summer. This summer literacy program was designed to promote phonemic awareness,

word recognition, fluency, vocabulary acquisition, and reading comprehensive. It was designed

to complement the local school district’s reading curriculum, utilizing the same phonics program

and sequence of instruction. Certified teachers were included in the program staff to design

specific interventions in response to individual needs and to help the program improve the

percentage of students reading at grade level. Girls aged five through nine years were targeted

for participation. The program operated Monday through Friday for nine hours per day

throughout the summer.

Kroc Center/Salvation Army Summer. The Salvation Army Ray and Joan Kroc Community Center

summer day camp took place from May 26, 2014 until August 1, 2014 a total of nine weeks. Participants

of the camp had the ability to register for one week of camp or all nine weeks. The camp took place

Monday through Friday from 9:00 –5:00pm with early drop off at 8:00am and late pick up at 6:00pm.

42

The staff hired for the camp included Kroc Center staff, educational and art instructors, five full

time Program Aides and one part time; who were hired as seasonal employees.

The children were distributed by age levels (6‐7, 8‐9 and 10‐13). There were a few 14 year olds

from the Learning Community Center of South Omaha Children were kept in those groups

Monday through Thursday and came together for lunch. On Fridays the groups participated in

Team Building activities, watched movies, had guest speakers, took field trips and went

swimming together. On Friday evenings parents were invited to participate in the camp activities

with their children and their immediate family members. This year we had a large amount of

families come join their children to engage in family fun activities on Fridays.

Millard Public Schools Extended Learning. This program featured summer school learning

targeted to K‐2 students who have academic deficiencies in reading, writing and

mathematics. Students are invited from eight Millard schools with high percentages of

economically disadvantaged and/or limited English proficiency students. The program was

implemented for three weeks, three hours per day, in two elementary schools in the district. In

addition, the program offered three Family Days that included informational, instructional, and

community services in areas such as successful strategies to support student learning, health and

wellness, personal finance, assessing social services, and child care. Transportation, meals, and

books were provided to students, along with a bilingual liaison and licensed social worker to help

families who could benefit from those services. Students entering kindergarten are also invited

to attend this program as a jump‐start experience for school.

Ralston Public Schools: The Summer School program provided instruction in reading and

mathematics to students in grades K‐6. Students were selected for participation based on recent

classroom data. Summer school and classroom teachers collaborated on the individual goals for

each student. Instruction was provided in small group settings using a variety of strategies and

different forms of technology. Specific programs used for intervention included Mathletics

(Harcourt) and Leveled Literacy Intervention (Fountas and Pinnell, 2009).

Salvation Army/North Corps: The "Summer@ The SAL" was an all‐day long youth summer camp

program targeted for students ages 6‐13 years. This program provided programming, field trips,

education, and recreational type activities from 9am ‐ 5pm (M‐F) for eight weeks through June

and July. Youth who signed‐up for the summer program were given the opportunity to be

included, and they were assessed with pre‐ and post‐tests throughout the summer months. Daily

instruction was implemented though games, reading materials, puzzles, worksheets, and flash

cards. This daily instruction was conducted every morning (M‐F) in small groups in 20‐30 minute

intervals.

43

Students Served

Who did these programs serve? Participation data were collected on the 2096 elementary

students who attended the programs.

Demographic data provided on these students indicated that 73% of the students served were

eligible for free/reduced lunch.

The population served by the extended learning time programs appeared to generally fall within

the target of the population identified to benefit from the resources of the Learning

Community—those most at risk for academic failure due to socio‐economic status. School

districts often targeted students for their tutoring and extended learning programs based upon

school performance and need to remediate specific academic skills whereas the community

based programs most often served students and families based on enrollment in the program

and need for programming.

Therefore, the programming provided by the programs varied considerably and should be taken

into consideration when examining the results. Summer programs provided by agencies provided

many activities to engage the whole child and often the family along with some academics.

District programming tended to be much more focused on academics and remediating skill

deficits. Parent engagement was often a component of both types of programming.

Evaluation Data Collection

Quality. Quality programs have been linked to immediate, positive developmental outcomes, as

well as long‐term positive academic performance (Beckett, Capizzano, Parsley, Ross, Schirm, &

Taylor, 2009; Burchinal, Peisner‐Feinberg, Bryant, & Clifford, 2000). Measurement of the quality

of programs is central to program evaluation. This section reports on the CLASS observations

completed by the UNMC evaluation team with extended learning programs funded through the

Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy Counties (LC).

To examine program instructional quality, the evaluation team recommended use of the

Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS). Developed by Bob Pianta and others at the

University of Virginia Center for the Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning, this external

observation tool measures classroom quality across multiple domains including: emotional

support, organization, and instructional delivery. According to its authors, the CLASS “is an

observational tool that provides a common lens and language focused on what matters—the

classroom interactions that boost student learning.” It has three domains:

44

In addition to these domains, interactions are further considered relative to dimensions. These

dimensions include aspects such as: positive climate (focuses on how teachers interact with

students to develop warm relationships that promote student’s enjoyment of the classroom

community) and concept development (focuses on how teachers interact

with students to promote higher‐order thinking and cognition).

For these reasons, the evaluation team has identified the CLASS

observation tool as a valid way to gather an externally rated measure of

quality, and one with the added benefit of it having the potential to drive

continuous improvement because of the specificity of the feedback from

the observation.

All of the after school and summer school sites participated in this piece

of the evaluation. For the majority of the program, CLASS scores were

calculated for the program rather than per teacher. Multiple teachers were recorded, rated, and

the CLASS rating feedback report

given to the program included an

average of their ratings. However,

some programs wanted feedback for

each teacher. In those cases, a CLASS

rating feedback report was completed

and provided.

Scores at or above 6.00 indicate high

levels of quality, scores at or above

3.00 are in moderate quality range,

with scores below 3.00 indicating low

quality. CLASS scores in national

studies have been found to be in the

low to moderate quality for

Instructional Support (Kane et al,

2013), but effectively support

continuous improvement/professional development to support teacher effectiveness.

Emotional Support

•Positive climate

•Teacher sensitivity

•Regard for student's perspectives


•Behavior management

•Productivity

•Instructional learning formats


•Concept development

•Quality of feedback

•Language modeling

•Literacy focus

CLASS

Classroom Assessment Scoring System

Author: Pianta, LaParo & Hamre, 2008

Scale:

1‐2 = Low quality

3‐5 = Moderate quality

6‐7 = High quality

5.995.65

5.87 6.01

2.982.68

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2012‐13 (N=18) 2013‐14 (N=35)

Two Year CLASS Ratings 2012‐14

Emotional Support Classroom Organization Instructional Support

45

Across programs, average CLASS ratings 5.65 for Emotional Support, 6.01 for Class Organization

and 2.68 for Instructional Support. Overall, the program average rated near the high range for

Emotional Support, in the high range for Classroom Organization, and near the moderate range

for Instructional Support. Recent research on pre‐kindergarten and child care programs

(Burchinal, Vandergrift, Pianta & Mashburn, 2010) indicated that scores of 3.25 or higher are

needed within the domain of instructional support to show measurable impact on student

achievement.

The chart below displays the scores across all programs and teachers.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

CLASS Ratings By Program/Teacher 2013‐14

Emotional Support Classroom Organization Instructional Support

46

Student Achievement

Following are the effect size

changes found in each of the

programs.

While the overall results of the extended learning program indicate that it was effective in improving student achievement, the magnitude of the improvement varied within and between programs. All of the funded programs submitted data. However, not all of the data were conducive to completing statistical analyses. Of the eleven programs, effect sizes could be calculated for seven programs. The effect sizes also varied within subject areas by program. Significant effects ranged from small effect sizes (d=‐0.10) to large effect sizes (d=1.56). An overall effect size for the program was calculated and found to be within the zone of desired effects (d=0.59). One note of caution with interpretation of the effect sizes must be made. The effect sizes were calculated using different types of assessments. Some assessments were standardized norm‐referenced assessments, some were adaptive assessments, some were screening measures, one utilized state assessments (NeSA), while another used a district‐developed, criterion‐referenced assessment. The difference effect sizes found may have been influenced as much by test design and purpose of the assessment as by the program itself. Family support focus. Parent surveys were collected for students enrolled in the extended learning programs. A total of 340 parent surveys were collected across the programs. Some programs and districts had additional questions not included on all surveys. Those questions are not reported here. Parent Survey Results 2013‐14

Survey Question Average

I was satisfied with the hours of the program. 4.5

I was satisfied with the length of the program. 4.5

I was satisfied with the program as a whole. 4.5

The staff were excellent (caring, reliable, skilled). 4.6

My child enjoyed attending the program. 4.6

I am satisfied with the level of communication I had with my child’s teacher. 4.3

I was informed about my child’s progress. 4.0

I believe that my child will be more successful in school next year as a result of the program. 4.3

Scale ranges from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree

1.33

0.90

1.32

0.38 0.33

‐0.10

0.60

1.56

0.25

‐0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Effect Sizes Across Programsd=0.59

47

Overall, parents rated the extended learning programs positively. The most frequent comments

from parents related to their student’s increase in both confidence and academic skills. For

programs that had Family Days and other specific family activities, the comments were quite

positive with families expressing appreciation for the opportunity to interact with their students

in a fun and engaging manner. Improvements to the programs included more communication,

specific information about what academic concepts their student was learning and

improvements to the specific logistics of the program.

Extended Learning Conclusions and Implications for Program Improvement

Extended learning programs served 2,096 students across three major types of programs:

tutoring programs, broader extended learning programs during the school year that served

students greater than one hour daily and all/most days of the week, and summer extended

learning programs. Seventy‐three percent (73%) of students were eligible for free/reduced

lunch.

Students appeared to benefit academically from participation in extended learning programs

(d=0.59). Parents were positive about the experience and the support their student had while

attending the programs.

One recommendation for the improvement would be to determine some type of consistent

measure between the programs or at least to use a common type of assessment. It is difficult to

assess which type of programming is yielding the greatest impact and to provide an

understanding of the components needed to implement a high quality, impactful programming

when measures are mixed (criterion referenced and standardized, norm referenced).

48

Sub‐Section I.4: Literacy Coaching Jolene Johnson, Ed.D. Literacy Coaching was implemented with the

belief that improving teachers’ instruction of

literacy would improve student achievement in

the area of reading. Hattie’s research indicated

that ongoing use of formative evaluation by the

teacher including data analysis and use of

evidence‐based models yielded an effect size in

the high range (d=0.90). Given that literacy

coaching provides teachers with formative

information, it is possible to affect change in

teacher instruction (Hattie, 2009). Other

research into literacy coaching found that

intensive coaching activities such as modeling

and conferencing are significant predictors of student reading achievement (Elish‐Piper & L’Allier,

2011).

Summary of Program Models

Two districts were funded to implement literacy coaching: Omaha and Westside. The coaching

models/frameworks used by the districts varied but there were common elements in the models

including: feedback, modeling, working with teachers collaboratively and having minimal time

spent in direct instruction of students.

Who was served in this program?

Across both districts, a total of 6033 students were served through literacy coaching in the

building in which they were located. Of these students, 84% were eligible for free/reduced lunch.

A total of 570 teachers were impacted by literacy coaching but not all teachers participated in

the CLASS observations or worked with a Learning Community funded literacy coach.

What was the quality of the program?

Quality of the program was evaluated using several different methods. The CLASS observation

tool was used as a pre‐post measure for a large sample of teachers. Focus groups were conducted

Literacy Coaching Key Findings

6,033 students were served in two districts


Average student score gain on NeSA‐Reading was 7.87 points (d=0.23)

Effect sizes change within the zone of desired effects were found from fall to spring across CLASS rating domains (external measures of teacher quality, ds ranging from 0.54 to 0.67)

49

with literacy coaches, teachers and administrators. Finally, an online survey was administered to

teachers to provide their input on the program.

CLASS Ratings

Teaching and learning interactions significantly improved in ratings of emotional support,

classroom organization, instructional support and student engagement, with effect size change

found within the zone of desired effects. New to the evaluation process for the 2013‐14 school

year was the use of the CLASS rating tool. Districts varied in their selection processes with one

selecting all teachers within buildings and the other identifying volunteer teachers.

Classroom teachers were videotaped during the first semester, provided written feedback along

with CLASS ratings and then were videotaped once more toward the end of second semester.

Each district was provided the opportunity to debrief with the evaluation team on the results of

the observations. One district chose to debrief with all teachers in a large group setting while the second district chose to debrief with teachers in small groups at individual buildings.

The following chart shows the fall to spring ratings on the CLASS tool across all the teachers

participating in the evaluation process. To examine overall changes, a One Way ANOVA was used

and was significant across all domains with medium to large effect sizes: Emotional Support

(F=12.341, p<.01, η2=0.09), Classroom Organization (F=13.927, p<.01, η2=0.10), Instructional

Support (F=14.320, p<.01, η2=0.10) and Student Engagement (F=8.229, p<.01, η2=0.144).

5.14

6.14

2.99

4.77

5.65

6.58

3.6

5.57

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Emotional Support ClassroomOrganization

InstructionalSupport

StudentEngagement

CLASS Ratings 2013‐14

Fall Spring

Cohen’s (1988) guidelines for effect size with a One Way ANOVA, η². According to him:

• Small: 0.01 • Medium: 0.059 • Large: 0.138

50

A second set of analyses was used to test for significant differences using a matched sample of

teachers (N=53). A paired t‐test was used. Analyses included whole group, district A, and district

B.

Pre to post change varied in small ways when comparing overall to Districts A and B, as displayed

in the following two graphs.

Overall Pre to Post CLASS Ratings (matched sample)

District A and B Pre to Post CLASS Ratings (matched sample)

5.17

5.726.14

6.55

2.95

3.55

4.77

5.44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Overall Pre Overall Post

Emotional Support Classroom Organization Instructional Support Student Engagement

5.12

5.67

5.24

5.79

6.266.61

5.97

6.47

2.94

3.66

2.96

3.39

4.795.15

4.72

6.08

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

District A Pre District A Post District B Pre District B Post


51

Overall effect size changes are displayed in the following chart.

Overall CLASS Rating Effect Size Changes

Overall effect size changes were within the zone of desired effects. District A showed effects

within the zone except in Student Engagement. District B showed effects across all CLASS

subscales. Some caution must be used

Teacher Survey

A total of 570 teachers completed the online survey developed collaboratively between the

districts and the evaluation team. The survey explored satisfaction with the coach and the

program and the perceived helpfulness of each coaching activity. Each district administered the

survey online to teachers and submitted the data to the external evaluation team. Items in the

chart below were rated from 1 to 5 with 1=Strongly Disagree and 5=Strongly Agree. For one

district, open‐ended items asking about benefits and challenges of literacy coaching were

included in the survey. For the other district, the open‐ended items were completed in focus

groups conducted by members of the evaluation team.

Survey Item District A District B

My literacy coach/facilitator and I have a positive working relationship.

4.70 4.27

My literacy coach/facilitator listens to me. 4.73 4.13 My literacy coach/facilitator is available when I need him/her.

4.17 3.99

0.670.59

0.83

0.65

0.79

0.600.580.64

0.490.54

0.28

1.52

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

Overall District A District B


52

Survey Item District A District B When I have a problem, my literacy coach/facilitator is helpful in developing a plan to address it.

4.57 3.99

My literacy coach/facilitator communicates with me clearly. 4.57 4.19 Building level support was positive as it related to the literacy coaching/facilitator program.

4.53 3.90

Considering everything, I am satisfied with the literacy coaching program.

4.27 3.79

1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree

While the ratings were in the positive direction for every question, there is a difference in the

ratings between the two districts. Teachers from District A tended to rate the items on the survey

more positively than teachers in District B. Teachers were also asked to rate the how useful

certain coaching activities were to them in their teaching practice. Multiple activities were listed

and teachers who had participated in the activity rated how useful it was to them in their literacy

teaching practices. A great deal of variability was again found between the teachers in District A

and those in District B as shown in the chart below. None of the activities received an overall

rating above a 4.0 in District B, but five activities (Other, Professional Development, Small

Group/Differentiated Instruction, Modeling Lessons/Strategies and Coaching/Feedback) all

scored about a 4.0 a high level of usefulness.

4.12

4.46

4.37

3.88

3.75

3.72

4.15

4.11

3.39

3.62

3.48

3.26

3.37

3.58

3.71

3.49

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Coaching/Feedback

Modeling Lessons/Strategies

Small Group/Differentiated Instruction

Lesson Planning

Classroom/Student Observation

Data Analysis

Professional Development

Other (instructional decisions, curriculum integration)

Ratings of Usefulness of Coaching Activities

District B District A 1=Not Useful at All to 5=Very Useful

53

Focus Groups for District A

In the spring of 2014, multiple focus groups were conducted with staff members. Teachers,

literacy coaches and building administrators met with members of the evaluation team to discuss

the literacy coaching program funded by the Learning Community. Overall, teachers, literacy

coaches and administrators viewed the Literacy Coaching program as an asset in their buildings.

Literacy coaches in the buildings were viewed as experts in the field of reading, approachable,

respectful to teachers, and able to follow through with teachers. These literacy coach qualities

helped to engage teachers into dialogue about reading and reading practices.

Benefits of Literacy Coaching

Teachers reported seeing literacy coaches as another professional with whom to share ideas, ask

for help with lesson planning, and gain access to other resources they may not have time to find.

Teachers across all grade levels remarked time and again about needing someone to pull

resources and materials together and the literacy coaches were able to do that for them. The

teachers expressed satisfaction with the modeling and co‐teaching activities provided by the

coaches.

For newer and first year teachers having a literacy coach was critical to them understanding and

implementing all the components of the reading curriculum. “Being a first year teacher in the

district, it helped tremendously. She helped me out so it made me feel like I could be successful”.

And for the more veteran teachers having the literacy coach showing them how to use and

implement a key curriculum piece was reported to be a big help. Administrators echoed the

sentiments stating that the coaches were a significant resource for beginning teachers in being

able to provide almost daily feedback and support while at the same time were able to re‐

energize some veteran staff with new approaches and feedback.

Improvements in both students’ interest in reading and in reading test scores were seen in the

buildings by all parties, but particularly mentioned by the administrators. Test scores have

increased each year since implementing literacy coaching and students continue to exit special

services programs (such as reading tutoring, RtI). It’s not just the numbers that are improving but

as one administrator stated, “Our students are enjoying reading; they’re loving reading.”

Timeliness and specificity of the feedback provided by the coaches were seen as a positive by the

classroom teachers and were two components the literacy coaches worked to continuously

refine and improve.

Coaches reported seeing progress in many teachers they worked with especially on

understanding and implementing best practices in reading instruction. Progress was seen

particularly in the areas of guided reading and in the levels of student questioning. The level of

54

engagement for teachers working with the coaches was high. For the teams that worked with

the coaches, a difference was seen in how teachers were planning reading instruction.

Strategies that Worked

Modeling and Co‐Teaching: Literacy coaches and teachers agreed that modeling and co‐teaching

were the most helpful in providing feedback and pushing the teacher to the next level. Teachers

appreciated being able to observe coaches and ask real‐time questions. Coaches felt that the

opportunity to provide instant feedback and suggestions was beneficial to the coaching process.

Feedback Forms: Having a form allowed staff to get used to receiving feedback and also for the

coaches to be cued into asking reflective questions. The form allowed for more objectivity, gave

coaches the opportunity to provide specific feedback and ask reflective questions about what

was observed in the classroom.

Differentiation for Staff: Teachers expressed satisfaction in being able to work with the literacy

coaches in a variety of ways. Literacy coaches talked about the necessity of having the freedom

to work with teachers in ways that worked for them. One example would be the team lesson

planning versus individualized coaching as that allowed the literacy coach to build relationships

and rapport with a particular group of teachers who were a bit resistant to the idea of one on

one coaching.

Administration Involvement: Literacy coaches reported feeling completely supported by the

administration in their building. Being able to sit down on a weekly basis with the principal and

teacher leader to discuss things happening in the building was beneficial to both coaches and the

administration. Having the principals discuss the importance of the role of the literacy coach

made it a bit easier to define and fill the role of a coach.

Collaboration between the Coaches: The coaches and the administrators both discussed how

key it had been for the literacy coaches to be able to collaborate and work together throughout

the year. The coaches felt like they could call the other one whenever they needed to talk about

an idea or to problem solve. The administrators strongly believed that the collaborative effort

was making the program stronger.

Challenges of Literacy Coaching

Time: Time was a challenge for both teachers and literacy coaches. Teachers discussed that how

once NeSA testing started, the time with coaches decreased. Literacy coaches echoed that

sentiment. Having to administer or help administer assessments reduced time spent meeting

with teachers and thus, the last quarter of school was difficult. Coordinating schedules could be

55

a challenge although teachers did feel like the literacy coaches tried to be as flexible as possible

and the literacy coaches felt like teachers respected them and their time.

Coaches expressed some concern about not being able to equally reach all teachers. “I don’t want

them to feel like I ignored them but not everyone gets equal amounts.” This concern was echoed

in the teacher focus groups, but the teachers understood that not everyone needed the same

amount of coaching or support.

Role(s) of the Literacy Coach: Coaches often had multiple roles. Teachers stated some confusion

about the actual role of the literacy coach. Other teachers questioned the amount of time the

coach spent doing other duties while others wondered what the exact role of the coach was. Was

it administrative? Was it as a co‐professional?

Coaches had a similar challenge related to knowing when to call in administrators. They needed

to have the trust with teachers and an open dialogue. Yet, when teachers were not responsive

or not following curriculum, coaches wanted a clearer idea of when to let the teacher

evaluator/school administrator aware of the issues in the classroom. One question asked was,

“How do you keep from being evaluative and maintaining relationships with teachers?”

CLASS observations: Being a new evaluation component, the CLASS observation tool was met

with skepticism by the teachers. In the focus groups, the teachers talked about feeling judged

and were unsure about the usefulness of both the tool and the feedback. Also, some would have

preferred the taping to occur at different times during the year if it needed to occur at all.

District B

Themes on literacy coaching from District B come from the open‐ended survey items with the

teachers and focus group answers from the coaches.

Benefits of Literacy Coaching

Teachers reported the benefit of being able to see modeling of lessons and new strategies.

Several commented on being able to take away new insights after observing the coach model a

lesson with the same students the teacher worked with daily.

A second benefit repeated over and over was having a professional in the building to collaborate

with on lessons, ideas and strategies. Qualities that helped teachers value the literacy coach were

when the coach was accessible, approachable, positive and flexible. One teacher remarked “It

was nice being to bring a question or idea to the coach and not worry about being evaluated or

judged.”

56

Feedback provided by the coaches was found to be a benefit when it was specific and insightful

to the teacher’s lesson and provided in a supportive, direct manner. Teachers commented on

wanting to improve and feeling frustrated when they only received shallow, “fluffy” feedback.

Several teachers commented on the usefulness of having literacy coaches help them with small

group instruction. They reported understanding Guided Reading and small group instruction

better and being able to implement it more effectively after working with the coach.

Coaches reported that for teachers who are open to changing they have seen benefits to the

coaching model. They felt that writing was improving and there was an increased focus on

Guided Reading within the classrooms.

Consistent with the teachers, coaches felt that peer observations were beneficial to practice and

allowed teachers to reflect on their own teaching practices.

Challenges to Literacy Coaching

Unclear Role: Teachers and coaches alike expressed confusion and frustration about the role of

the coach. Teachers felt like the coaches were pulled in too many directions and often had to

help out administration which left them without coaching time. Coaches themselves expressed

a sense of frustration about not being sure how they could empower teachers and how their role

needed to be different and separate from that of the principal.

Lack of Buy‐In to the Coaching Model: Coaches reported that about 50% of their teachers were

interested in the coaching model and really wanted to improve. Several teachers commented on

wanting to have the literacy coaches work with struggling students instead of teachers. Lack of

working with struggling students was brought up multiple times as a negative about the coaching

model.

Time and Scheduling: Time and schedules was brought up as a challenge. Time for coaching was

perceived to be affected by administering assessments (NeSA) and also by multiple meetings.

Teachers and coaches both reported not having enough time to schedule and work together.

Building Level Leadership: The support provided by building level leadership varied but was

something that coaches struggled with. One coach reported “I feel like I’m alone on an island.

I’m not questioned, but I don’t necessarily get support.” The coaches in the focus group professed

strong belief in needing building and perhaps district level support in helping with the coaching

model.

57

Student Achievement

While the theory behind instructional coaching implies that teacher change will happen first,

student outcomes will still be analyzed as a long‐term outcome of the model. Because of the

variable experiences with the coaching and the length of time coaching has been implemented

in each district, results are reported both by district and in aggregate form. Scale scores on the

Nebraska State Assessment‐ Reading (NeSA‐R) were provided to the evaluation team for the

2012‐13 and 2013‐14 school years. The NeSA‐R was chosen as the measure to use given that it is

same assessment across both districts. Both districts also give primary assessments but they are

not included in this assessment. A paired samples t‐test was conducted to compare the scores

between years for each district.

NeSA‐R Mean Scale Score Change (2012‐13 to 2013‐14)

Cohen’s d

District A +37.38 0.84*

District B +2.81 0.12*

Overall +7.87 0.23* *p<.01

Literacy Coaching Implications and Recommendations:

Literacy coaching associates with improvements in teacher practices and in turn, student achievement.

The changes on CLASS ratings would suggest the power and effectiveness of feedback on instructional

practices. Information from teacher surveys and focus groups indicate that teachers want to improve their

instruction and value the relationship with a coach when it is collaborative and professional in nature.

Teachers appreciated immediate feedback on their practices and the opportunity to observe a fellow

professional modeling a lesson. However, when the relationship with the coach was not one of

collaboration and there was a perceived inequity of roles, teachers were less receptive to the feedback

and to working with the coach. The personal characteristics (approachability and professionalism) are as

important as content expertise in building a trusting, coaching relationship.

A recommendation for the program would be to continue meeting with all the districts involved with

instructional coaching to discuss models, common practices and common evaluation measures. Next

year’s evaluation (2014‐15) will include coaching model descriptions in addition to CLASS ratings, student

achievement, and other evaluation data.

58

Section I.5 LCCSO: Family Literacy Program

Lead: Jolene Johnson, Ed.D.

This was a year of expansion and change

for the Learning Community Center of

South Omaha (LCCSO). The program

moved from the previous location to a

newly renovated building which allowed

for them to expand and serve more

families. The program grew from serving

approximately 60 participants at a time

to serving between 160‐180 participants

at one time. As with any program that

sees substantial growth and change,

LCCSO had to address unfamiliar issues and develop new solutions. The expansion of the program

required that more families be provided with transportation, child care and other resources in

order to access the English and parenting classes provided by the center. Additional staff were

added and folded into the existing structure. It also required that current staff members perform

multiple roles within the center in order to meet the needs of the participants.

Summary of Program Model LCCSO was formed in 2012 as a collaborative effort of The

Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy County, OneWorld Community Health Centers, and

Boys Town. LCCSO began providing family literacy services to parents and their children in its

temporary location across the street from the Public Library in South Omaha, and moved into its

permanent center in South Omaha in the fall of 2013. Parents participating in the program met

at the center to attend classes and access services. While parents participated in educational

activities, on‐site child care was provided for their children eight years old and under.

Family Literacy Program Key Findings

243 families and 374 students have been served by the program

94% of the families were eligible for free/reduced lunch

94% were “very satisfied to satisfied”

with program services

Parents significantly improved their

English language skills (d=0.69)

Parents demonstrated significant

improvement in their parent‐child

interactions (d=0.34)

59

To help children from low‐income families succeed in school, LCCSO collaborated with member

school districts and community partners to activate long term strategies to support parents in

their efforts to promote their children’s education by teaching them the skills they need. LCCSO

participants received a wide range of interrelated services, including, but not limited to:

Parenting Education

Navigator Services

Adult Education

Parent and child outcomes were measured using a variety of assessments in order to evaluate

the effectiveness of the various components of the program. The following sections will address

what is being measured and present initial and follow‐up results, beginning with parents/adults

and followed by their children.

Parenting Education

LCCSO collaborates with various organizations to deliver diverse workshops (KidSquad, Visiting

Nurses Association, etc.). A further example of this is the program’s alliance with Boys Town

which integrated Common Sense Parenting® (CSP) into LCCSO group workshops. CSP was a

practical, skill‐based multiple‐week parenting program which involved classroom instruction,

videotape modeling, roleplaying, feedback and review. Professional parent trainers provided

instruction, consultation and support to LCCSO participants, addressing issues of communication,

discipline, decision making, relationships, self‐control and school success. Parents were taught

proactive skills and techniques to help create healthy family relationships that fostered safety

and well‐being. Additionally, family activities were planned and implemented by the LCCSO staff

and included field trips to UNO, graduation celebrations and parent‐child time during school days

the children had off.

Navigator Services

LCCSO employed navigators that served as

personal parent advocates, helping parents

gain better understanding of the public school

system, community resources and adult

education programs. Navigators built strong

relationships with participants to ensure

individualized education and support.

Home Visitations: Navigators visited

participants’ homes to communicate with

parents, conduct informal needs assessments, connect parents with resources, model supportive

60

learning activities, coach parenting skills, and attend to specific needs. Navigators completed

home visitations as necessary, but on average, these were completed approximately once a

month. Each participant worked with their navigator to design a Family Literacy Plan (FLP) and

set personal and familial goals.

Adult Education/Literacy

English as a Second Language (ESL): Adult participants attended English language classes two

days a week during the academic year and throughout the summer. English classes were leveled

based on ‘BEST Plus’ scores and teacher input in order to provide a more consistent learning

experience. Best Plus is the measurement tool used to assess English learning progress

(generally, at the beginning of participation and again after every 60 hours of learning time).

Who did LCCSO Serve?

Of the 243 families served in 2013‐14, 132 were new participants to the program. The program

served approximately 374 children across fourteen schools. In addition, two childcare rooms at

the center provided a safe environment for infants, toddlers and preschool children so their

parents could attend classes. For the families with students in school, 94% qualified for

free/reduced lunch status.

What was the Quality of Services Implemented?

Multiple tools were used to measure growth, assess perceptions of the participants and

demonstrate program quality. The evaluation is both summative and developmental in nature.

The tools selected for the evaluation provided outcome information as well as informed the

implementers about what is working and what needs improvement.

Focus Groups

Multiple focus groups were conducted in August 2014

to allow participants who had been with the program

for six months or longer the opportunity to voice their

experiences and thoughts. Questions were broad in

nature and asked about the participants overall

experience with the program, satisfaction levels with

multiple facets of the program (navigators, parenting

classes, resources, English classes) and ideas for

improvements to the program. Clicker questions and

open‐ended questions were used to get the highest

61

level of participation from all members of the focus groups.

Parent and Student Academic Achievement

Evaluation results encompassed four sections: improved language, improved relationships,

improved sense of confidence and student achievement. Most sections were supported with

both qualitative and quantitative data. Parent and student academic achievement results are

described first, with improved relationships and sense of confidence in using English in the

Parenting Impacts section.

Parents significantly improved their English language skills. The graph below shows the

continued growth made by participants in the program. Participants showed significant gains in

their English language skills for the second year in a row. Not only were the scores statistically

significant using multiple paired samples t‐tests but the improvement over time has major

implications for functional, vocational and social communication. The average mean for

participants entering the program was at a level 2 (M=412) while the mean for participants who

have had roughly two years of class was at a level 8 (M=626). To put the scores in context, a score

of 400 equates to a person having a few phrases with limited functionality while a score over 600

is equivalent to a person being able to participate effectively in social and work conversations.

The ability to communicate beyond simple phrases has allowed the participants to interact to an

increased degree with their student’s teacher and in the workplace. One student commented, “I

think the possibility of getting a job is a little better because we can now express ourselves in two

languages.”

Effect size change on BEST Plus equated to 0.69 overall, well within the zone of desired effects.

412 460 485 510 562 626

100

300

500

700

900

1 (n=225) 2 (n=151) 3 (n=86) 4 (n=45) 5 (n=24) 6 (n=12)

Best Plus ScoresStudents Made Continued Gains d=0.69

62

Parenting Impacts

Parents reported improved parent‐child relationships. This qualitative finding was bolstered by

externally rated parent/child interactions showing significant improvement and effect sizes

approaching the zone of desired effects. Parenting classes were offered one time a week and

provided instruction on several topics including Common Sense Parenting, Cooking Matters,

academic information, personal finance and how to manage difficult child behavior. Parents were

videotaped as they entered the program and again one year later. The Keys to Interactive

Parenting Scale (KIPS, Comfort et al, 2006) was used to assess and measure parent‐child

interactions across three categories: Building Relationships, Promoting Learning and Supporting

Confidence. Parents were video‐recorded once a year to assess parenting skills and behaviors

with their children who were under 6 years of age. Navigators recorded the parent and had it

analyzed by the evaluation team. Once the Navigator received the report back, he or she

provided feedback and coaching to the parent on parenting strategies and techniques.

Pre and post KIPS scores were analyzed using paired samples t‐tests. The KIPS data for 2013‐14

yielded an effect size approaching the zone of desired effect (d=0.34) and was similar to the effect

size for 2012‐13 (d=0.41).

Focus Group Report

Multiple focus groups were conducted to allow participants who had been with the program for

six months or longer the opportunity to voices their experiences and thoughts. There were 69

participants. Questions were broad in nature and asked about the participants overall experience

with the program, satisfaction levels with multiple facets of the program (navigators, parenting

classes, resources, English classes) and ideas for improvements to the program. Digital response

questions and open‐ended questions were used to get the highest level of participation from all

members of the focus groups.

3.353.77

4.13

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

1 2 3

KIPS Scores 2013‐14

n=193 n=30 n=11

d=0.34

63

Responses showed that over 90% of the participants were either very satisfied or satisfied with

all aspects of the program. When asked about academics, parents felt more comfortable reading

with their student than in helping with mathematics. Parents indicated feeling comfortable

approaching school staff and attending school functions with 97% reporting that they attended

parent‐teacher conferences.

Themes. The following themes emerged across groups and participants.

1. Overall satisfaction with the program was high. Parents reported feeling satisfied with the

English classes, parenting classes, childcare and the services of the navigators.

2. Relationships were a key component to program success. Participants often referred to

the relationships they had developed with the teachers, navigators and other staff

members. The level of comfort in the relationships was particularly evident with the Boys

Town instructor.

3. Participants reported a loss of fear and increase in confidence in using English and

interacting with the community. Another area in which parents gained confidence was in

helping students with reading and homework.

4. Parenting classes are a huge benefit. When asked how helpful the parenting classes were,

97% of the respondents reported the classes were somewhat helpful to very helpful. Not

only did the participants find the classes helpful but they asked that the classes be three

hours in length (like the English classes).The classes mentioned specifically as being the

most helpful were the parenting classes conducted by a Boys Town staff member. The

parents appreciated learning about how to interact with their children, deliver

consequences and have better conversations. Classes on cooking and nutrition were

popular with participants requesting additional classes on nutrition. Other areas that

55%

49%

49%

45%

48%

45%

0%

3%

6%

English Classes

EnglishTeachers

Navigators

Levels of Parent Satisfaction

Very Satisfied Satisfied Unsatisfied

64

multiple parents requested more instruction was how to deal with older children and

bullying.

5. More time in the program was a common suggestion for improvement. Two years may

not be enough time in the program for some of the participants. Participants wanted

more time in the program to continue to develop their skills. Some participants expressed

concern about teacher turnover and how they felt that set them back a few months.

Participants also expressed a desire to go further in their studies and learn more about

academics.

Staff Survey and Feedback. A staff survey was administered to all staff members (administration,

navigators, child care staff and teachers) of the center. Eleven surveys were completed. A link to

an online survey was provided and participants were given three weeks to complete the brief

survey. A survey was chosen over a focus group to provide more anonymity and for staff

convenience. An online survey allowed for staff to complete the items when time permitted

rather than having to attend one more meeting. Staff members were asked to respond to

questions about the strengths of the program, challenges, suggestions for improvement and the

biggest successes.

The themes that emerged from the survey were consistent with parent feedback and other data

collected by the evaluation team.

1. The biggest strength that emerged from the responses was the amount of teamwork and

collaboration the staff felt they had in implementing and running the program. As the

program has grown, several staffers commented on how everyone pitched in to complete

the roles necessary in building the program.

2. Staff indicated that providing an all‐program for families was essential to its success.

Families were able to access the program because of the transportation, child care, and

navigation services that are available to the families. The focus on the entire family was

considered to be a strength by multiple staff members.

3. A challenge reported consistently across staff members was the expansion of the center.

While viewed positively, staff members discussed the need for more communication with

leadership, more training, and perhaps more staff as they felt “spread thin” this year as

they handled multiple roles and responsibilities.

4. One improvement suggested by staff members was to increase the amount of plan time

for teachers, navigators and child care staff.

Student Outcomes

Student data were requested and obtained from Omaha Public Schools for the students whose

families had participated in the LCCSO programming. Data obtained included demographic

65

information, attendance and achievement data for students across the fourteen schools. Data

could only be given if the NSSRS ID (state ID) number was provided to the navigators and

evaluation team by the parents. The sample of students for this data was robust at nearly 100

students (N=97).

Attendance

An area of focus for family‐school engagement is attendance. Students need to be in school in

order to fully benefit from the curriculum and instruction. According to a recent Nebraska

Education sub‐committee status report (2013), students who are absent fewer than 10 days in a

school year score roughly ten points higher on the NeSA‐Reading test and twelve points higher

on the NeSA‐Mathematics test. A relationship between academic achievement and school

attendance would indicate that fewer absences should yield higher student achievement.

The majority (90%) of students missed 10 or fewer days of school.

Achievement Data

Many of the students are yet too young to have taken the Nebraska State Assessment (NeSA).

However, information on the K‐2 district developed reading assessment was provided. From fall

to spring, students showed significant gains on the assessment in reading with the effect size

being above the zone of desired effect (d= 1.53). It should be noted that this is a criterion

referenced assessment that is not age anchored or normed and growth is expected. Rather the

effect size is shows raw data improvement. Students will continue to be followed and their

assessment scores collected to show effects, if any, on their statewide assessments and on other

assessments to be collected by the district.

65%

25%

7%3%

5 or fewer days 6‐10 days 11‐15 days More than 15 days

Most Students Missed 5 or Fewer Days of School

66

LCCSO Program Implications and Recommendations

The Learning Community Center of South Omaha continued to impact both the language skills

and parent engagement of the participants attending the program. The overall quality of the

program was considered satisfactory by nearly all of the participants. Parents reported increased

levels of confidence and requested more education‐‐both for themselves and about the children.

Student outcomes were beginning to show some impact of the programming, particularly in

regard to high levels of school attendance and significant growth on the K‐2 district assessment

(although because this was a criterion referenced assessments, results must be considered with

some caution). One recommendation would be to continue following the students as they

continue through school to measure the lasting effects of programming.

Parents continued to seek more information and instruction around academic concepts

(particularly math) and parenting practices. Further, as their children get older, they expressed

interest in learning more about technology issues and bullying. They saw the Learning

Community Center of South Omaha as a trusted resource for providing supports and information.

A second recommendation would be to continue partnering with the school district to provide

additional academic and homework supports for the participants asking for that guidance in

helping their elementary students. Leadership from the program should reflect on how and

where this activity may best fit into the program, with some consideration given to the higher

level language classes.

Additionally, staff leadership could reflect on how they might provide staff with additional plan

time and timely clear communication. Staff focus group results suggested this could help the

continuation of quality programming for the families involved with the program and for staff

retention.

67

Subsection I.6 Learning Community Family Liaison

Program

Jolene Johnson, Ed.D. The Learning Community Family Liaison Program

(in partnership with Lutheran Family Services) was

established to reduce barriers to learning by

providing services to address the underlying issues

affecting the family and child that impact the

child’s ability to learn. This intensive program is

designed to support the needs of students who

have multiple, complex challenges that are

associated with needs outside of the school

environment but are impacting school and

academic success. These stressors affecting both

family and child may be wide ranging and inclusive

of financial, physical, psychological, logistical or

other factors. Service provision occurred primarily

via the Family Liaison (LCFL) was housed in the school and provided targeted services to individual

students and their families.

Summary of Program Model

The program placed Family Liaisons (LCFLs) in 14 elementary schools within the Omaha Public

School District. Schools that had an LCFL were located in achievement subcouncils two (2) and

five (5). The program employed 13 staff including one (1) program director and twelve Learning

Community Family Liaisons.

The Learning Community Family Liaison Program’s (LCFLP) intent was to build on existing school

efforts to provide supports and problem‐solve the needs of students. The LCFL was responsible

for brokering services to meet the student and family’s needs.

The LCFL provided case management, intensive intervention in two ways—targeted student

supports and universal student supports.

The Learning Community Family Liaison Program model has evolved to include four different

strategies for service provision. The LCFL’s primary intent was to support at‐risk students who

struggled academically and experienced significant challenges in the home, often due to stress

Family Liaison Program Key Findings

Served 305 students in 14 schools 96% of students were eligible for

free/reduced lunch Parent stress ratings significantly

decreased from intake to discharge (d=1.16)

K‐2 reading scores improved significantly (d=1.31)

58% of students were absent from school 10 or fewer days

68

within the family. This primary objective has remained consistent since the program’s inception.

The model was changed this year to eliminate the LCFL’s role in school‐wide events to enhance

more targeted service planning to meet individualized goals. In order to support this effort, the

addition of service domains was implemented as a way to better categorize the services being

brokered.

LCFLP Service Domains. The LCFLP services domains are the most common areas of need for

students and families served by the Learning Community Family Liaison. Identifying the service

domains through a series of assessments and organizational intake processes are integral in

identifying the appropriate interventions, supports and S.M.A.R.T. goals essential for developing

an effective individual student and family case plan.

Family. In human context, a family is a group of people commonly classified as: a nuclear family

(husband, wife, and children); single parent (mother or father and children); extended family

(grandparent, aunt or uncle and children) or non‐related family (associated through other

LCFL Program Model

Input

Who/what’s

involved

Activities

What occurs

Output

First effects

Outcome

Second effects

Impact

Over time effects

Persons involved

include:

School staff, Family

Liaisons, family,

professionals,

community

resources, students,

Student Assistance

Teams

Location: At school,

at the family’s home

and in the community

(accessing resources

as needed)

Time: 90 Days

FLs provide intensive

student and family

support for 90 days via:

Targeted service planning to meet individualized goals (Domains include: Family, Living Situation, Social Support, Health, Safety, Legal, Educational‐Vocational.

Family/student assessments to identify academic/family need

Team meetings to monitor progress and revise service plan as needed

Target: Individual

students and families who

provide consent

FL partners with family and other stakeholders to create tailored service plan for youth/family using SMART goals

Family/child are assessed across academic and behavioral/mental health domains

Student’s academic needs are targeted

Parental stress is reduced and/or positively impacted

Student and stakeholders implement service plan which addresses need

90% of goals (per student) will be met at the end of the 90 day period

Parents are empowered, develop knowledge and/or ability to manage stress

Student’s academic success indicators increase and/or are positively impacted

69

arrangements including foster parenting.) In most societies the family is the principal institution

for healthy development and socialization of children.

Living Situation. The living situation encompasses a description of the circumstances in which

the family unit resides. It may include the type of housing, the link between housing and family,

or the lack of housing (homelessness).

Social Support. Social support is the perception and actuality that one is cared for, has assistance

available from other people, and is part of a supportive social network. These supportive

resources can be emotional (e.g., nurturance), tangible (e.g., financial assistance), informational

(e.g., advice), or companionship (e.g., sense of belonging). Support can come from many sources,

such as family, friends, organizations, etc.

Health‐Physical.

Are the student’s physical health needs being addressed?

Has the student accessed the School Based Health Center?

Does the student have access to Medicaid, SCHIP, or private insurance?

Are there unmet physical health needs within the family?

Mental (Behavioral & Emotional).

Does the student have any behavioral or emotional needs that are not being addressed?

Does the student have any unresolved or unmet needs that are impacting student or adult

relationships in the school setting?

Are any problem behaviors blocking a family member’s chances of having a good life?

Do any other family members living in the family unit or living outside of the family unit

have any unmet mental health (behavioral or emotional) needs?

Are there unresolved issues that impede normal interaction within the family or

community?

Safety. Safety is the state of being "safe" the condition of being protected against physical, social,

spiritual, financial, political, emotional, occupational, psychological, educational or other types

or consequences of failure, harm or any other event which could be considered non‐desirable.

Legal. Legal refers to the system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social

institutions to govern behavior of an individual, family, organization or community.

70

Educational/Vocational. Educational/vocational encompasses the educational needs of the

child, children in the family as well as the parents and/or guardians. The vocational needs are

pertinent to older youth, but also to the family unit.

Individual LCFLs described challenges and successes the LCFLP referral process. Team members’

reported experiences vary over time, by school, and school district. Bi‐monthly reflection

sessions were held with the full LCFL team to explore their experiences implementing the

program. Data collected demonstrate that each LCFL experience differs. School community

members including principals, guidance counselors, Student Assistance Team (SAT) team

members and teachers impacted the LCFLs’ ability, or opportunity, to implement the program.

Reflection sessions explored the topic of how referrals were received. LCFLs described a wide

range in this process that varied by school. Referrals came predominantly from school guidance

counselors and principals but LCFLs also reported that they came after or during SAT meetings,

through teachers, other school staff, parents, and through pursuing them on their own.

This year the LCFL program worked with OPS to integrate the LCFLs into SAT meetings. In

reflection sessions, LCFLs reported variation in having access to SAT meetings by school. One of

the barriers that they reported was not always being alerted when a SAT meeting was scheduled,

possibly due to not being on the OPS e‐mail system. Some of the LCFLs reported greater success

with getting SAT meeting notifications as the school year progressed.

The LCFLs reported that being part of SAT meetings was valuable in their work in that it gave

them opportunities to give parents their information and resources. They also identified SAT

teams as an asset in relationship building with school staff and families, and as another way to

get background information on children and families.

Who did the LCFL Program Serve?

The Learning Community Family Liaison program served approximately 305 students and their

families across 14 schools in the Omaha Public Schools. Students served ranged from

kindergarten through sixth grade.

Of students served, 66% were male, 34% were female

The majority of students were identified as Hispanic (39%) or African American (34%)

Most students received free/reduced lunch (96%)

Special education services were provided to 27% of the students

Over one‐third of students (35%) identified a home language other than English

For the families reporting an income level, 68% reported earning less than $20,000

annually

71

Students had the following types of service domain goals assigned throughout their time in the

program: Cultural/Spiritual, Educational/Vocational, Family, Living Situation, Medical, Mental

Health, Safety and Social, and Other.

Goals and Goal Attainment

Goals were developed for each of students enrolled in the LCFL program. Goals set by the families

and the liaisons spanned multiple categories with over half (51%) of the goals being set in the

educational/vocational category. Goals for family made up another 16% of the total and goals for

mental health were third most frequent (12%). Goal status was updated as families left the

program. The table below shows the number of goals in each category and their ending status.

Goal Category No Status Regressing Maintaining Improving Achieved Not Achieved

Educational‐Vocational 33 3 17 46 91 51

Family 14 0 5 13 29 15

Living Situation 2 3 4 20 8

Mental Health 7 6 8 21 16

Social Recreational 7 1 7 18 9

Safety 1 1 1 1 1

Medical 1 1 5 2

Cultural/Spiritual 1 1

Other 1 1 2 1

Total 66 5 33 82 187 102

Students and families were successful with 63% of the goals set for them (either achieved,

maintained or improved) while 23% of the goals were in the not achieved to regressing

categories. The remaining 14% of the goals were classified as having not status which could

happen for a variety of reasons.

72

Success Stories

Kellom Elementary:

A family at Kellom was referred as the student was transitioning from another school. At the time of referral, the student was showing extreme behavioral issues, including defiance and aggression towards her mother. As part of the student’s mental health goal, the FL program referred her to Alegent‐Creighton therapy services. Together with the Alegent‐Creighton therapist, the FL helped the family reconnect with their family doctor to resume medical and mental health prescriptions for both the student and her mother. After getting their medical and mental health needs in order, the mother is now able to focus on employment and her student’s educational needs more. The FL is also continuing to work with the student on appropriate conduct and social skills.

Jackson Elementary:

A 4th grade student at Jackson Elementary School was referred to the Family Liaison Program because he was not following directions in class. According to the student’s teachers, he was constantly running in class and needed additional assistance with his math. A Family Liaison met with family and the father has been helping the student with his math homework every evening. The father also enrolled the student in Tae Kwando Classes. As a result of the student’s behavior improvement, everything at home is much better and the family’s stress level has decreased.

Service Plans

There was variation in the quality of service planning by individual LCFL. Average scores from a

review of 21 randomly selected service plans suggest that the quality of service planning

conducted by LCFLs varied throughout the school year with the highest score being 25.67 and

the lowest 30.63 out of a possible 28 points. In January 2012, a Service Plan Rubric was developed

by the Family Liaison team with support from UNMCs evaluation team as a strategy for improving

the quality of service plans written by LCFLs.1 The rubric addressed three areas: Responsiveness;

SMART goals and Professionalism. The areas were determined by FSL management to ensure

that the service plans aligned with program goals. Responsiveness required that the service plan

responds to all of the unique needs of that student and family present at intake and that later

emerge. SMART goals required that all goal areas be specific, measureable, achievable, realistic,

and timely. Professionalism required that documentation accurately describe the work being

done with the target child and family.

The rubric assigned a point value to each of the fourteen indicators within the three overarching

categories. A score of low quality received a zero, of medium quality received a one, and of high

quality received a two. There were 28 points possible. The LCFL team voted to set a score of 23

1 Service plans are critical to the work of the FL. They include individualized student/family goals, service provision rationale and strategies for monitoring and adjusting their work with the family.

73

as their indicator of quality. In other words, the team agreed that a score of 23 indicated that the

plan had addressed the student/family’s need, was written in such a way that the goals were

appropriate and achievable and accurately described the nature of their work with their clients.

The evaluation team reviewed a randomly selected sample of 21 services plans at three different

points across the year. Before the rubric was established, the average score was 17.8 points, in

2011‐12the average score after the rubric was established was 20.3 points and in 2012‐13 the

average score was 20.47 points. For the 2013‐14 school year, the average score across the 21

randomly selected plans was 23.60 points which is above the score set for quality (23 points).

Progress was seen from last year to this year which was demonstrated across multiple plans.

While there continued to be some variation across FSLs, 67% of the plans reviewed met the

criterion score of 23.

Student Achievement

Teacher ratings of student ability in the areas of mathematics, reading, and writing increased

overall for students from intake to discharge. The differences were only significant in the areas

of mathematics and reading.

Teachers were asked to rate students’ ability in the areas of mathematics, reading and writing at

intake. These ratings ranged from 1 to 3 with a rating of 1 indicating a student’s ability to be

‘below expectations,’ 2 indicating a student’s ability ‘meets expectations’ or 3 indicating a

student’s ability ‘exceeds expectations.’ The pre/post ability ratings by teachers (n=175) are

depicted in the following chart.

Teacher Ratings of Students’ Pre‐Post Academic Achievement For proper

comparison, only

the ratings of

students with

complete pre and

post data were

analyzed (n=175).

From intake to

discharge, more

students were

rated as meeting or

exceeding

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Intake Math DischargeMath

IntakeReading

DischargeReading

IntakeWriting

DischargeWriting

Below Meets Exceeds

74

expectations in the subject of mathematics. The mean score difference was determined to be

statistically significant using a one‐tailed, paired samples t‐test, t(175)=2.979, p=.003). Cohen’s d

was calculated and was in the low range, d=0.23. In the area of reading, significantly more

students were rated as meeting or exceeding expectations at discharge. The difference in

teacher ratings of reading was determined to be statistically significant using a one‐tailed, paired

samples t‐test t(175)=2.565, p=.011). Cohen’s d was calculated yielding an effect size in the low

range, d=0.19. Finally, a one‐tailed, paired samples t‐test on teachers’ rating of writing was found

to not be significant (t(178)=1.6561, p=.10). Therefore, no effect size was calculated.

In addition to teacher ratings, achievement scores were obtained from the school district. The

achievement scores included the K‐2 reading assessment and the NeSA scores from 2012‐13 and

2013‐14. A paired‐samples, t‐test was conducted using the pre to post data on the K‐2 district

developed reading assessment (t(102)=13.269, p=.000) and found to be significant. Cohen’s d

was calculated and was found above the zone of desired effect (d=1.31). Scale scores on the

NeSA‐R and NeSA‐M declined from 2012‐2013 to 2013‐14 although the declines were not

significant. It should be noted that with this program, families and students are not served for a

full year, but rather for a period of 90 days. The scores may reflect more of the family situation

and crisis level rather than the actual impact or success of the program over one year.

Parenting Impacts

Parent stress ratings from intake to discharge significantly decreased. Ratings changed from

6.66 at intake to 3.89 at discharge. At intake, parents rated their perceptions of stress on a scale

of 1 to 10 with 1 indicating a low level of stress and 10 indicating a high level of stress. For proper

comparison, only the ratings of parents with complete pre and post data were analyzed (n=65).

Parents reported an initial mean stress rating of 6.29. The decrease of parent stress ratings from

6.29 to 3.17 was statistically significant using a one‐tailed, paired‐samples t‐test, t=9.09, p<.001)

which indicates that this change was not due to chance. Cohen’s d was calculated and found to

be above the zone of desired effects (d=1.16). The effect size for 2013‐14 follows the pattern of

significant decrease in parent stress found in the two previous years.

75

Overall, parents who completed a post survey “agreed to strongly agreed” that the program had

impacted them. Of the four survey questions on client satisfaction, 100% of the participants were

satisfied with the services provided when applicable to their situation. The four questions

addressed looked at services provided, treatment by the liaison, timeliness of services and

tendency to refer others. Surveys used a 5‐point Likert scale to rate parent responses to “As a

result of the Family Liaison Program…” There were 14 parent responses to this survey.

Parent Rating of Impact of LCFL Program

Item Rating Interpretation

I feel more confident in my ability to support my child academically.

4.00

Parent rating is positive, exactly between agree and strongly agree.

I have a better understanding of my children’s academic needs.

4.00 Parent rating is positive, leaning towards agree.

I believe I have a better understanding of how to deal with stress.

3.92 Parent rating is positive, leaning towards agree.

I have a better understanding of the attendance requirement at my child’s school.

4.00 Parent rating is positive, exactly between agree and strongly agree.

Disagree Strongly=1 ; Disagree =2 ; Neutral =3 ; Agree =4 ; Strongly Agree =5

The evaluation team conducted a parent focus group during the summer of 2014. The focus

group was held in conjunction with a family picnic and celebration at a local park. Families

participating in the focus group mentioned several positives about the program. One aspect that

all families agreed was positive was being connected to needed resources. Resources discussed

included housing assistance and mental health referrals. One parent appreciated being

connected especially after being turned down by other programs.

6.106.66

6.29

3.97 3.893.17

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

2011‐12 2012‐13 2013‐14

Parent Stress Declined Three Year Trend

Intake

Discharge

d=0.50d=1.67

d=1.16

76

Parents expressed appreciation for their individual liaisons. Families felt they could call their

liaisons whenever the need arose and reported that their liaisons were positive people.

One improvement that families suggested was for the program’s duration to go beyond the

ninety day time limit. Families expressed a need to stay connected with a person or at least to

have follow‐up contacts after the ninety days were over.

LCFL Program Conclusions and Implications

The LCFL program was widely viewed as an asset within schools and to families for multiple

reasons. The program continued to expand services with more families, despite an evolving

model. Parental stress significantly decreased in a three year trend and teacher ratings of student

reading and mathematics achievement levels increased. The quality of service plans improved

almost three points from the previous year and the average score was above the criterion score

set for quality. The families and students served by this program viewed it positively with the

most common recommendation being extended time in the program. One thing to consider is

the long‐term effects of this short‐term program. Are families able to sustain the lower levels of

stress without receiving continued supports?

For next year’s evaluation, more information will be gathered on specific family stressors and

areas of functioning in addition to breaking the services down by which Learning Community

Center they are serving.

77

Overall Conclusions The Learning Community funded a variety of programs to serve its mission of overcoming barriers

to student achievement. The evaluation used diverse methods, combining quantitative and

qualitative approaches, to describe and measure the quality of implementation, the nature of

programming, and to report outcomes demonstrated by the elementary learning programs

funded by the Learning Community including early childhood focused, elementary focused, and

family focused programs. The LC served 10,076 students in the past program year. Overall, the

evaluation results of the funded programs were positive and suggested that the Learning

Community’s efforts were accomplishing two overarching tasks: (1) programs appear to be using

evaluation data for improvement and (2) examination of family or student data suggested they

were showing improvement. Effect size improvements for participants in most programs were

within the zone of desired effects.

The following table summarizes findings for the 2013‐14 year by program. It includes the type of

program, the number of student served, percentage of those students eligible for free or reduced

price lunch in school, the type of measurement source used for calculation of effect size, and the

effect size found. Results are most likely attributable to collective impact—the result of multiple

efforts from the schools, parents, community partners, and the program described. A limitation

of this evaluation is that not all measures are created equal. Meaning, effect size changes are

reported for a variety of measures, some of which are standardized, norm referenced

assessments and others were district created, criterion referenced assessments. Effect size

improvements are naturally much larger on criterion referenced pre and post measures where

growth is expected, as opposed to norm referenced, age‐anchored tools where growth is more

likely attributable to interventions.

Summary of Findings for 2013‐141

Program Number of Students Served

% FRPL Measurement Effect Size

Early Childhood Partnership Program

128 84% Bracken School Readiness Assessment

0.51

Jump to Start Kindergarten

1,140 69% Bracken School Readiness Assessment

0.42

Extended Learning 2,096 73% AimsWeb, MAP, DIBELS, NeSA 0.59

Literacy Coaching 6,033 84% NeSA‐Reading CLASS Ratings

0.23 0.54‐0.67

78

Program Number of Students Served

% FRPL Measurement Effect Size

Family Literacy (LCCSO)

374 94% BEST‐Adult English Parent‐Child Interactions

K‐2 Reading

0.69 0.34 1.53

Family Liaison Program

305 96% Parent Stress Declined K‐2 Reading

K‐2 Mathematics

1.16 1.31 NS

Overall 10,076 81% NS to 1.53 1Collective impact

The table that follows compares effect sizes in the primary area of focus for the program found

across programs over multiple years, where such results exist and where such a primary focus

exists. If more than one primary focus, a range of effect sizes may be listed. If NS is noted, the

results were not significant. A dash ( ‐‐ ) indicates no data were available to calculate a group

result. NA indicates program did not exist in that program year. Note: For the 2011‐12 year,

extended learning had a range of effect sizes found but there was such variability in the data

provided and examined, it was deemed most appropriate to report a group effect size beginning

in 2012‐13.

Comparison of Effect Size Impacts Across Years1

Program 2010‐11

Effect Size

2011‐12

Effect Size

2012‐13

Effect Size

2013‐14

Effect Size

Early Childhood Partnership

Prog

NA NA NA 0.51

Jump Start to Kindergarten 0.58 0.63 0.59 0.42

Extended Learning ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.30 0.59

Literacy Coaching ‐‐ NS 0.56 0.54‐0.67

Family Literacy: LCCSO ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.41‐1.06 0.34‐0.69

K2 Rdg 1.53

Family Liaison Program ‐‐ Stress 1.39

Rdg 0.48

Wrtg 0.50

Math 0.47

Stress 1.67

Rdg 0.35

Wrtg 0.22

Math NS

Stress 1.16

K2 Rdg 1.31

Overall ‐‐ NS to 1.39 NS to 1.67 NS to 1.531Collective impact

79

Summary

Overall, the programs evaluated in this report served the students that the Learning Community

targeted and provided quality programming. A total of 10,076 students were served this program

year (81% eligible for free/reduced price meals). When available, outcomes related to academic

achievement were measured and in general, showed that students benefitted from the

additional resources, with strongest effect sizes found in external ratings of teaching/learning

interactions (CLASS, 0.54‐0.67), school readiness (0.42‐0.51), and student achievement (NS to

1.53).

Recommendations that follow pertain opportunities for improvement.

Recommendations

1. The process and concept of ‘knowledge transfer’ or sharing of best practices across

buildings, districts, community agencies, and systems, has begun to be evaluated as part

of the external program evaluation of the Learning Community and should be more

comprehensively implemented over the next two to three years.

2. It is recommended that districts operating Jump Start to Kindergarten and other early

childhood programs such as the Early Childhood Partnership Program at Kellom and

Conestoga explore professional development in the area of instructional support with

emphasis on Concept Development.

3. For extended learning programs, the evaluation team recommends determining some

type of consistent measure or common type of assessment to measure student progress.

4. It is recommended that districts operating literacy or instructional coaching models

continue meeting to discuss models, common practices, and common evaluation

measures.

5. It is recommended that, where possible, longitudinal follow up data be gathered on

students who participated in Learning Community funded programming, to determine

whether long term benefits of participation are found.

6. It is recommended that the Learning Community Center of South Omaha and Omaha

Public Schools continue to partner together to determine the most effective ways to

support parents in helping their children with academic work and homework.

80

References

Amendum, S. J., Vernon‐Feagans, L., & Ginsberg, M. C. (2011). The effectiveness of a technologically facilitated classroom‐based early reading intervention. The Elementary School Journal, 112(1), 107‐131. doi:10.1086/660684

Beckett, M., Borman, G., Capizzano, J., Parsley, D., Ross, S., Schirm, A., & Taylor, J. (2009). Structuring out‐of‐school time to improve academic achievement: A practice guide (NCEE #2009‐012). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides.

Benson, P. L. (2006). All kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caring and responsible children and adolescents . Jossey‐Bass.

Bierman, K. L., Domitrovich, C. E., Nix, R. L., Gest, S. D., Welsh, J. A., Greenberg, M. T., & ... Gill, S. (2008). Promoting academic and social‐emotional school readiness: The Head Start REDI program. Child Development, 79(6), 1802‐1817. doi:10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2008.01227.x

Bracken, B. (2002). Bracken school readiness assessment. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment Inc.

Bryk, A., Lee, V., & Holland, P. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Burchinal, M. R. (2008). How measurement error affects the interpretation and understanding of effect sizes. Child Development Perspectives, 2(3), 178‐180.

Burchinal, M. R., Peisner‐Feinberg, E., Bryant, D. M., & Clifford, R. (2000). Children’s social and cognitive development and child care quality: Testing for differential associations related to poverty, gender, or ethnicity. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 149–165.

Burchinal, M., Vandergrift, N., Pianta, R., & Mashburn, A. (2010). Threshold analysis of association between child care quality and child outcomes for low‐income children in pre‐kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(2), 166–176.

Buysse, V., Castro, D. C., & Peisner‐Feinberg, E. (2010). Effects of a professional development program on classroom practices and outcomes for Latino dual language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(2), 194‐206. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.10.001

Center for Applied Linguistics (2005). BEST Plus Test Administrator Guide. Washington, DC.

Christ, T., & Wang, X. (2013). Exploring a community of practice model for professional development to address challenges to classroom practices in early childhood. Journal Of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 34(4), 350‐373. doi:10.1080/10901027.2013.845630

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Comfort, M., Gordon, P. R., & Unger, D. G. (2006). The Keys to Interactive Parenting Scale: A Window into Many Facets of Parenting. Zero to Three, 26(5), 37‐44.

Crosnoe, R., Johnson, M. K., & Elder, G. H. (2004). Intergenerational bonding in school: The behavioral and contextual correlates of student‐teacher relationships. Sociology of Education, 77(1), 60‐81.

Dunn, L. M. & Dunn, L. M. (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary test, fourth edition. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments.

81

Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Raab, M. (2013). An implementation science framework for conceptualizing and operationalizing fidelity in early childhood intervention studies. Journal Of Early Intervention, 35(2), 85‐101. doi:10.1177/1053815113502235

Elish‐Piper & L’Allier (2011). Examining the relationship between literacy coaching and student reading gains in grades k‐3. The Elementary School Journal, 112 (1), 83‐106.

Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 103‐112.

Fantuzzo, J. W., Gadsden, V. L., & McDermott, P. A. (2011). An integrated curriculum to improve mathematics, language, and literacy for Head Start children. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 763‐793. doi:10.3102/0002831210385446

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., & Friedman, R. M. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature.

Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2009). Fountas & Pinnell Leveled Literacy Intervention: Lesson Guide, Volume 1 Orange System: Lessons 1‐30. Heinemann.

Fox, L., Hemmeter, M., Snyder, P., Binder, D., & Clarke, S. (2011). Coaching early childhood special educators to implement a comprehensive model for promoting young children’s social competence. Topics In Early Childhood Special Education, 31(3), 178‐192. doi:10.1177/0271121411404440

Gersten, R., Dimino, J., Jayanthi, M., Kim, J. S., & Santoro, L. (2010). Teacher Study Group: Impact of the professional development model on reading instruction and student outcomes in first grade classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 694‐739. doi:10.3102/0002831209361208

Hamre, B., Goffin, S. & Kraft‐Sayre, M. (2009). Measuring and improving classroom interactions in early childhood settings. http://www.teachstone.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/06/CLASSImplementationGuide.pdf

Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (2005). Early childhood environment rating scale (Rev. ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American students. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta‐analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.

Hemmeter, M., Snyder, P., Kinder, K., & Artman, K. (2011). Impact of performance feedback delivered via electronic mail on preschool teachers’ use of descriptive praise. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(1), 96‐109. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.05.004

Hsieh, W., Hemmeter, M., McCollum, J. A., & Ostrosky, M. M. (2009). Using coaching to increase preschool teachers’ use of emergent literacy teaching strategies. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(3), 229‐247. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.03.007

Knoche, L. L., Kuhn, M., & Eum, J. (2013). “More time. More showing. More helping. That’s how it sticks”: The perspectives of early childhood coachees. Infants & Young Children, 26(4), 349‐365. doi:10.1097/IYC.0b013e3182a21935

82

Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H. and Buhs, E. S. (1999), Children's Social and Scholastic Lives in Kindergarten: Related Spheres of Influence?. Child Development, 70: 1373–1400. doi: 10.1111/1467‐8624.00101.

Landry, S. H., Swank, P. R., Anthony, J. L., & Assel, M. A. (2011). An experimental study evaluating professional development activities within a state funded pre‐kindergarten program. Reading And Writing, 24(8), 971‐1010. doi:10.1007/s11145‐010‐9243‐1

Larrabee, A. (2007). Predicting academic achievement through kindergarten screening: An evaluation of development and school readiness measures (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from: Dissertation Abstracts International section A: Humanities and social sciences. (AAI3228216).

Mashburn, A. J., Downer, J. T., Hamre, B. K., Justice, L. M., & Pianta, R. C. (2010). Consultation for teachers and children's language and literacy development during pre‐kindergarten. Applied Developmental Science, 14(4), 179‐196. doi:10.1080/10888691.2010.516187

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 43‐52.

Nebraska Department of Education, 2011‐2012 State of the Schools Report: A Report on Nebraska Public Schools. Retrieved from: http://reportcard.education.ne.gov/Main/Home.aspx.

Neuman, S. (2006). N is for nonsensical. Educational Leadership, 64(2), 28‐31.

Neuman, S. B., & Wright, T. S. (2010). Promoting language and literacy development for early childhood educators. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 63‐86. doi:10.1086/653470

Panter, & Bracken, B. (2009). Validity of the Bracken school readiness assessment for predicting first grade readiness. Psychology in the schools, 46(5), 397‐409.

Patton, M. Q. (2012). Essentials of Utilization‐Focused Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pianta, R. (1992). Child Parent Relationship Scale. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia, Center for Advanced Studies on Teaching and Learning.

Pianta, R. C., Mashburn, A. J., Downer, J. T., Hamre, B. K., & Justice, L. (2008). Effects of web‐mediated professional development resources on teacher‐child interactions in pre‐kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(4), 431‐451. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.02.001

Pianta, R., LaParo, K., & Hamre, B. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system (CLASS). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

Powell, D. R., Diamond, K. E., Burchinal, M. R., & Koehler, M. J. (2010). Effects of an early literacy professional development intervention on head start teachers and children. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 299‐312. doi:10.1037/a0017763

Powell, D. R., Steed, E. A., & Diamond, K. E. (2010). Dimensions of literacy coaching with Head Start teachers. Topics In Early Childhood Special Education, 30(3), 148‐161. doi:10.1177/0271121409341197

Powell, D.R., Diamond, K.E., & Cockburn, M.K. (2013). Promising approaches to professional development for early childhood educators. In Saracho, O.N., Spodek, B. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on the Education of Young Children (pp. 385‐392). New York, NY, US: Routledge Publishers.

83

Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. L. (1998). Early intervention and early experience. American Psychologist, 53, 109‐120.

Raver, C., Jones, S. M., Li‐Grining, C. P., Metzger, M., Champion, K. M., & Sardin, L. (2008). Improving preschool classroom processes: Preliminary findings from a randomized trial implemented in Head Start settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(1), 10‐26. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.09.001

Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. J. (2000). School as a context of early adolescents' academic and social‐emotional development: A summary of research findings. The Elementary School Journal, 443‐471.

Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. National Academy Press.

Stipek, D. J. (1998). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. ED 369 773.

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching And Teacher Education, 24(1), 80‐91. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004

Wasik, B. A., & Hindman, A. H. (2011). Improving vocabulary and pre‐literacy skills of at‐risk preschoolers through teacher professional development. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 455‐469. doi:10.1037/a0023067

Zimmerman, I., Steiner, V., & Pond, R. (2011‐English, 2012‐Spanish). Preschool Language Scale, 5th Edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

84

Funding for this external program evaluation was provided through the Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy Counties.

http://learningcommunityds.org

Report prepared by: St. Clair, L.; Johnson, J.; & Stone, T. (2014). Section IV. Evaluation report of programs funded by elementary learning centers 2013‐14. Omaha, NE: Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy Counties, http://learningcommunityds.org.

Director of this Learning Community Evaluation Lisa St. Clair, Ed.D.

Assistant Professor, MMI & Pediatrics Munroe‐Meyer Institute

University of Nebraska Medical Center 985450 Nebraska Medical Center

Omaha, NE 68198‐5450 [email protected]

(402) 559‐3023 (office) and (402) 677‐2684 (cell)

Project Director‐Jolene Johnson, Ed.D. Database Manager‐Amber Rath

Evaluation Team

Sarah Baird Nicole Buchholz Linda Comfort Colleen Gibilisco Becky Harris

Jennifer Harmon Kerry Miller Amanda Mills

Kristina Norwood Kari Price

Karime Rios Holly Reeves Adriana Rey

Regina Robbins Colleen Schmit Megan Shepherd Abbey Siebler Terry Stone

Cynthia Villanueva Becky Zessin

Special thanks to the assistance of research/evaluation staff and administration of district and agency partners, as well as to the staff of the Learning Community. Thanks also to our student data entry team

from University of Nebraska at Omaha, College of Arts and Science, Psychology Department (Jake Cunningham, Samantha St. Clair, and Sean St. Clair).

85

5

Collaborate Evaluate Improve

MEMORANDUM

TO: Members of the Learning Community Coordinating Council

FROM: Ted Stilwill

DATE: November 2014 ____________________________________________________________________________________

JENSEN ♦ ROGERT ASSOCIATES, INC

Requested Action: Contract Renewal

Type of Contract: Fixed Cost

Existing Terms: January 2015‐August 2016; $26,500 per year

Background and Scope:

Performance Background:

Kent Rogert has served the interests of the Learning Community very well. He has maintained strong

relationships with the Education Committee, the Appropriations Committee as well as the Speaker of the House.

He is a well‐respected member of the education lobby and is always accessible to the staff of the Learning

Community.

Kent’s work to help policy makers to better understand the Learning Community and the needs of students in

poverty has been quite strong in every session. His efforts were most critical in the very substantial revision of

LB 585 during the 2013 session. That revision increased the authority on the Elementary Levy and led the way

into a strong presence in early childhood education in areas of high concentrations of poverty.

Scope of Work:

Provides professional representation in the Nebraska Legislature on any legislative bills, resolutions, amendments or studies relating to issues that affect the Learning Community.

Represents the positions on proposed legislation as adopted by the Learning Community Coordinating Council.

Uses his best professional judgment when rendering advice to the Learning Community and when providing professional representation in the Nebraska Legislature on the Learning Community’s behalf.

Responds to reasonable reporting requests by the Learning Community regarding activities

Rationale for Renewal:

Mr. Rogert has established a record of success for his work on behalf of the Learning Community, as noted

above. Key Legislators have provided positive feedback with regard to Mr. Rogert’s effectiveness in his

representation of the Learning Community and his integrity in doing so. Mr. Rogert has the full confidence of

the Learning Community staff.

Recommended Terms:

The recommended term of the contract for is for January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015. The amount of the

contract for next year is $26,500, which is $500 more than the current contract.

November 20, 2014 Agenda Item 7 (e) i

1

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT

THIS CONTRACT is made and entered into this 20th day of November, 2014, by and between JENSEN ♦ ROGERT ASSOCIATES, INC, 625 S 14th St, Lincoln, NE 68508, hereinafter called "CONSULTANT," and LEARNING COMMUNITY OF DOUGLAS AND SARPY COUNTIES, hereinafter called "CLIENT." CONSULTANT and CLIENT may be referred to as "Party" in the singular and as "Parties" in the plural. WHEREAS, CLIENT desires the services of CONSULTANT in the area of legislative and governmental representation; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT desires to perform such services for CLIENT; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. TERM: The primary term of this Contract shall commence as of January 1st, 2015, (the "effective date") and shall continue until December 31st, 2015. . 2. SERVICES: Commencing on the effective date, CONSULTANT agrees to provide professional representation in the Nebraska Legislature on any legislative bills, resolutions, amendments or studies relating to issues that affect CLIENT. CONSULTANT shall use its best professional judgment when rendering advice to CLIENT and when providing professional representation in the Nebraska Legislature on CLIENT'S behalf. CONSULTANT expressly gives no guarantee regarding outcome of the issue or issues for which CONSULTANT'S services are herein contracted. CONSULTANT shall respond to reasonable reporting requests by the CLIENT regarding activities pursuant to this paragraph. 3. COMPENSATION: CLIENT shall pay CONSULTANT for services provided hereunder at the following rate: Twenty-Six Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($26,500.00) payable in twelve equal monthly installments upon presentation of statement from CONSULTANT. If contract is terminated for any reason, the balance of the unpaid annual total due is payable upon such termination. 4. COMPENSATION FOR EXPENSES: CLIENT shall pay CONSULTANT for necessary and actual out-of-pocket expenses incurred by CONSULTANT in the performance of services on behalf of CLIENT. Expenses incurred by the CONSULTANT over $200/month must be approved by the CLIENT before any such reimbursement is made. 5. BILLING AND PAYMENT: CONSULTANT shall submit its statement to CLIENT no later than the fifth (5th) day of each month. The statement shall reflect the total amount due as compensation and any expenses incurred. For all expenses, CONSULTANT shall provide with

November 20, 2014 Agenda Item 7 (e) i

2

the statement for each expenditure, the date, occasion, participants, and amount, and shall include copies of receipts or other documentation as required in the Internal Revenue Code. CLIENT shall pay CONSULTANT within ten (10) days of receipt of statement. Interest on all past due accounts shall accrue at the rate of one percent (1%) per month until the date of payment. 6. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: During the term of this contract, CONSULTANT shall not perform any services on behalf of any enterprise in direct competition with CLIENT without CLIENT'S knowledge and prior consent. The Parties recognize that CONSULTANT is engaged in the profession of lobbying for a number of clients. From time to time, an issue of legislative concern may affect more than one of CONSULTANT'S clients. The Parties further recognize that the interests of CLIENT and other clients may not be compatible. Because of the time constraints inherent in any legislative session, the Parties also recognize that CONSULTANT may from time to time prorate time spent lobbying on behalf of CONSULTANT'S clients. Any conflicts of interest which arise with respect to any legislative issue as described herein shall be resolved in the following manner: (1) When the conflict involves a specific issue or legislative bill, the conflict will be resolved in favor of the client which has retained the lobbying services of CONSULTANT for the longest period of time. (2) When the conflict involves prioritization of time spent on any legislative issue or bill, the conflict will be resolved in favor of the client paying CONSULTANT the higher fee for services. 7. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS: The Parties recognize that CLIENT may make certain privileged or proprietary information available to CONSULTANT to assist in CONSULTANT'S preparation and understanding relative to CLIENT'S issues. CONSULTANT may prepare materials using information provided by CLIENT. All material and information developed by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Contract shall be and remain the exclusive property of CONSULTANT. Any materials, documents, or miscellaneous written information that CLIENT has made available to CONSULTANT in preparation for CONSULTANT'S representation of CLIENT shall be and remain the property of CLIENT. At CLIENT'S request, CONSULTANT shall return or destroy any such materials that are privileged or proprietary in nature. 8. WAIVER: The failure of either Party at any time to require performance of the other Party of any provision of this Contract shall in no way affect the right of the waiving Party thereafter to enforce the same. The waiver by either Party of any breach of a provision of the Contract shall not be held to be a waiver of any succeeding breach of such provision. 9. INDEMNIFICATION: Each Party hereby indemnifies and agrees to save the other Party, its officers, directors and employees harmless from and against all claims, suits, demands, damages, losses, costs and expenses brought by any person, firm or corporation for injuries to or the death of any person, or damage to or loss of property alleged to have arisen out of or in connection with either Party's performance hereunder.

3

10. CLIENT contact person(s): For representation purposes, client decision points, and direction of actions made and represented by the CONSULTANT on behalf of the CLIENT, the CONSULTANT will take direction from a majority position of the following 3 positions of the Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy Counties: Chairperson of the Legislation and Policy Subcommittee, the Chairperson of the Coordinating Council, and Chief Executive Officer. 11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: The Parties hereto agree that the services rendered by CONSULTANT in the fulfillment of the terms and obligations of the Contract shall be as an Independent Contractor and not as an employee, and CONSULTANT is not entitled to the benefits provided by CLIENT to its employees including, but not limited to, group insurance and pension plan. Nor is CONSULTANT an agent, partner, or joint venturer of CLIENT. 12. NEBRASKA ACCOUNTABILITY AND DISCLOSURE ACT: CLIENT and CONSULTANT both shall abide by all applicable Federal and State laws, in particular Sections 49-1480 to 49-1492 of the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Act. 13. NOTICES: All notices required or permitted by the terms of this Contract shall be sent by regular United States mail, postage prepaid to the following addresses: CONSULTANT: Jensen ♦ Rogert Associates

625 S 14th St, Suite A Lincoln, NE 68508

CLIENT: Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy Counties Attn: Chief Executive Officer 1612 North 24th Street

Omaha, NE 68110

14. ENTIRETY: This Contract contains the entire agreement between the Parties and there are no oral promises, agreements, or warranties affecting it. 15. COUNTERPART: This Contract may be executed in two (2) or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same Contract.

4

ACCORDINGLY, the Parties have duly executed this Contract effective as of the date first hereinabove set forth. CONSULTANT: CLIENT: KENT ROGERT, Vice-President LEARNING COMMUNITY OF DOUGLAS AND Jensen Rogert Associates, Inc. SARPY COUNTIES

Ted Stilwill, CEO

By: _______________________________ By: ________________________________ Title: ______________________________ Title: _______________________________

CEO

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

FOR

LEP AND POVERTY PLANS

BELLEVUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

BENNINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS

DOUGLAS COUNTY WEST COMMUNITY SCHOOLS

ELKHORN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

GRETNA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

MILLARD PUBLIC SCHOOLS

OMAHA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

PAPILLION-LA VISTA SCHOOL DISTRICT

RALSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS

SPRINGFIELD PLATTEVIEW COMMUNITY SCHOOLS

WESTSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS

November 20, 2014 Agenda Item 8 (a) and (b)

of 10

Bellevue Public Schools LEP and Poverty Plan Introduction The Bellevue Public Schools submitted the LEP and Poverty Plan through the NDE Portal on October 7, 2014. The following individuals were listed as the contacts for the plans: Frank Harwood, authorized representative; Kim Bodensteiner, project director; and Susan Brooks, financial contact. Questions regarding the plans should be directed to the appropriate individual. The district included an attachment with both the LEP and the Poverty Plan that contained the narratives for the questions in the plans. Summary of Review for LEP PLAN The review provides a summary based on the review of the LEP Plan and a recommendation for consideration. The school district submitted an estimated expenditure of $700,000.00 which yielded an estimated allowance of $595,000.00. Identification of students with Limited English Proficiency:

Questions in this section: 1. Did the district have policies or procedures to identify LEP students?

a. YES 2. Are specific language proficiency assessments identified?

a. YES 3. Are the identification (entrance) criteria specific as to the score or level needed for

students to qualify as LEP? a. YES

Reviewer summary and Recommendations: o The plan indicated the identification of students as having a limited English

proficiency would use the results of a home language survey, performance on an English language proficiency assessment, history of prior education, social experiences, and written recommendations from staff. The home language survey will include the questions required by NDE Rule 15. An interpreter, if available, will be provided to families to assist with the school enrollment process. A language proficiency assessment will be administered if the home language survey indicates the student speaks a language other than English. The district will use the Language Assessment Scales (LAS) to determine the level of English language proficiency. Students entering from a Nebraska school identified as limited English proficient will be enrolled for LEP services. Students entering from a school outside of Nebraska will be temporarily enrolled in services and be administered an English language proficiency assessment within two weeks. Parents will be informed of enrollment status and may refuse services. Students will continue to qualify for services until they have met district exit criteria. Parents will be notified of their child’s enrollment status and may opt out of services for their child.

Instructional Approaches:

Questions in this section:

of 10

4. Has the district described the instructional approaches to be used to assist LEP children in acquiring language for both social and academic purposes?

a. YES 5. Has the district indicated how these instructional approaches are recognized as best

practice by experts in the field? a. YES

Reviewer summary and Recommendations: o The plan indicated the goal of the instructional program was to help students learn

English and meet age appropriate academic achievement standards. The district will utilize ESL endorsed teachers to work in a collaborative model with general education classroom teachers to provide instruction and interact with students. Paraprofessionals will be available to assist with activities within the general education classrooms. Professional development activities designed to provide teachers with the instructional strategies needed to meet the needs of identified students with limited English proficiency will be provided on an annual basis. ELL facilitators will be assigned to schools to support teachers and ELL students. The services provided by the district will be content-based with students spending the majority of the instructional day in the general education environment. Once students exit the program they will be monitored for two years to ensure they are being successful in the general education environment. ELL staff will receive ongoing professional development with using the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) instructional model. The programs that will be utilized by the district are supported by experts in the field and will comply with the requirements within NDE Rule 15. The programs supported by the district will include the following: Newcomer Program, Contend Based English Language Learner/English as a Second Language/Sheltered English Instruction, ELL Pull-Out for Language Development, ESL Resource Center, and Push in Model. The district will include all aspects of social development, acculturation, and language acquisition to assist students in acquiring the skills needed to be an academic success.

Assessment of LEP students’ progress toward mastering the English Language:

Questions in this section: 6. Did the plan have specific criteria established to determine when the LEP student has

mastered English? a. YES

7. Is there an objective language assessment test identified? a. YES

8. Is there at least one objective measure identified that assesses student progress toward

meeting content standards? a. YES

9. Does the plan identify subjective measures that may be used? a. YES

of 10

10. Has the district uploaded additional information for this item, as needed? a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The plan summarizes the specific criteria the district has established to determine

when an LEP student has mastered English. The criterion includes performance on the annual state English language proficiency assessment, recommendations from teachers, and performance on the state reading assessment (NeSA-R). For students with disabilities, the criteria will include a determination by a team that their needs are not affected by the English language deficiencies. ELL and general education teachers will monitor former LEP students for two years to ensure they are being successful within the general education environment. Students who have exited the program may reenter services if the team determines it is needed. The district will implement the state ELPA21 during the 2015/16 school year to measure students’ language development. Progress in meeting content standards will be measured using state content assessments, Bellevue’s essential objectives, Measures of Academic Progress (MAP), teacher observations, students’ effort and motivation, and recommendations from parents and staff. The district attached a document containing the responses to the LEP questions to the plan submitted to NDE.

Evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the LEP Plan elements:

Questions in this section: 11. Does the plan describe the approach that will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of

the program? a. YES

12. Has the district listed the types of data (both formative and summative) that will be collected?

a. YES 13. Has the district described how the data will be used in an ongoing evaluation process?

a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The district will utilize a team that meets the requirements of NDE Rule 15 to

annually review the effectiveness of the LEP program and prepare a written report that summarizes the conclusions and recommendations of the team. This report will be submitted to the superintendent and kept on file for public review, if requested. The annual review will include an analysis of LEP student performances, state language proficiency assessment results, results of content assessments, district assessment results, attendance data, school completion rates, college attendance rates, and the number of LEP students enrolled in special education services. The effectiveness of the LEP program will determined through collaboration among teachers in their professional learning communities. The results of the evaluation will be used in the program development and staff development process.

Other:

of 10

Questions in this section: 14. Has the district identified other information that has not been addressed in other

sections? a. YES

15. Has the district uploaded additional information for this item as needed? a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The plan indicated that student transportation was a critical component of the

program and needed to ensure students could access services. The district will employ a bilingual liaison (Spanish) to increase communication between the school and the family. The district will maintain a list of interpreters that could be used to facilitate communications between the home and school. ELL family literacy activities and adult ELL classes will be supported and provided by the district. The plan included a list of activities, programs, and services the district would like to add during the 2015/16 school year if funds become available. The reader is referred to the narrative for the list of these activities, programs, and services. The district indicated that there has been an increase of newcomers at the secondary level which required additional staffing.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required LEP Plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79-1014. A review of the plans submitted by Bellevue Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

of 10

CHECKLIST FOR POVERTY PLAN REVIEW The review provides a summary based on the review of the Poverty Plan and a recommendation for consideration. The school district submitted an estimated expenditure of $3,000,000.00 which yielded an estimated allowance of $2,550,000.00. Attendance/Mobility:

Questions in this section: 1. Are attendance policies, procedures, or practices used described?

a. YES 2. Are transportation options for student who live more than one mile from the

attendance center described? a. YES

3. Are there policies, procedures, or practices that allow students who move to continue at original attendance area?

a. YES 4. Are any additional services, supports, or resources available for students who miss

instruction due to absence or mobility? a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendation: o The plan summarized the relationship between the district’s attendance policies

and practices and state statutes governing the procedures school districts must follow. The plan included the definition of satisfactory attendance, at risk attendance, chronic absence, and severe chronic absence as contained in state statutes. Each building will have an Attendance Team that will meet to discuss appropriate interventions for students who experience barriers to regular school attendance. The attendance team membership will include at least the principal, guidance counselor, lead teacher, dean, and social worker. Interventions for poor attendance may include parent contact by the students’ teacher(s), building attendance team interventions, and meetings with the family to develop an action plan. A referral to the district’s Family and Student Empowerment team (FASE) will occur when there are concerns with mental health, dislike for school, family support, or supervision issues. A referral may be made to the Learning Community’s GOALS team in cases of extreme truancy prior to a referral to the county attorney. In cases where attendance issues are the result of a lack of transportation, district staff will work with parents to identify transportation options. The district will provide transportation to and from school for students living in the neighborhoods with the highest poverty. Transportation will be provided for students living in low income homes who participate in Learning Community sponsored programs outside the school day. Students who move outside their original attendance center will be permitted to remain enrolled at the original school of attendance. If there is an existing bus route with available capacity, students will be permitted to use transportation services. The district will transport children who are identified as homeless to their original school if the family requests continued enrollment in the school. District staff members

of 10

will support families with access to community and state services. In addition, the district will provide summer programs, Saturday school, and alternative services to support students needing additional academic support. The Success Center will be available to serve students who may be suspended from school for a period of time.

Parent Involvement:

Questions in this section: 5. At the school building level, do parent/family engagement opportunities target

parents in poverty and from diverse backgrounds? a. YES

6. At the district level, do parent/family engagement opportunities target parents in poverty and from diverse backgrounds?

a. YES 7. Does the district use methods to secure input and participation of parents in poverty

and from other diverse backgrounds? a. YES

8. Are any additional services, supports, or resources used to promote parent/family engagement of parents in poverty and from other diverse backgrounds?

a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The plan provided a summary of the planned parent involvement activities at the

school and district levels. Activities at the building level will include: parent/student/teacher conferences, online parent portal for monitoring student performance, school websites and social media sites, daily agendas, and building newsletters. Additional activities for the community and parents include: back to school activities, curriculum nights, PTA meetings, family activity nights, and family fun nights. The district will provide an open invitation to parents and community members to attend board of education meetings, safety committee meetings, and school based public activities and events. Additional parent and community engagement activities are listed in the plan. The district will work closely with Offutt Air Force Base family support groups and personnel to share information about the schools and the district designed to support the involvement of parents who are assigned to the base. The district will support stakeholder groups and encourage these groups to provide input and recommendations to the district. Surveys will be used to encourage all parents and members of the community to provide information concerning the schools and the educational programs. Social workers will serve as a link between the home and the schools and support families with accessing the services they need.

Instructional Services:

Questions in this section: 9. Are there policies, procedures, or practices to reduce or maintain small class sizes in

the elementary grades? a. YES

of 10

10. Are there policies, procedures, or practices to designate uninterrupted teaching time on a weekly basis?

a. YES 11. Are there policies, procedures, or practices to limit school day interruptions?

a. YES 12. (Learning Community ONLY) Is there a description of the services provided by the

achievement subcouncil as part of the elementary learning center and district coordination with the center?

a. YES 13. (Learning Community ONLY) Is there a description of the coordination activities

between the school district, individual attendance centers, and the elementary learning centers?

a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o Class size parameters were adopted for all schools by the Bellevue Board of

Education and they will be studying methods to reduce class sizes in high poverty buildings. Elementary students may be transported to a nearby building with smaller class sizes to balance enrollments. The class size and caseload for special education programs will be based on a rubric that weighs the individual needs of the students. The instructional schedule will include blocks of uninterrupted time for the teaching of reading and math. The district will continue the use of an eight day instructional calendar for the elementary level that provides equity of instructional time for the buildings. The school day schedule will include time for collaboration meetings for teachers to examine data, discuss instructional strategies, and management techniques. Daily schedules will be designed to manage instructional time and limit interruptions to teaching time. The district has increased the number of instructional coaches that support services for high needs schools with the assistance of funding from the Learning Community. District administrators will continue to collaborate with the Learning Community administrators and evaluation teams to develop a comprehensive program evaluation plan to assess the impact of services supported by the Learning Community on student growth and achievement. The district will continue to work with the Learning Community to address the needs of students from low income homes, student who are highly mobile, and students with limited English proficiency skills.

Specialized Services:

Questions in this section: 14. Are early childhood programs described?

a. YES 15. Is there a description of how children in poverty are provided access to early

childhood programs? a. YES

of 10

16. Is there a description of how children in poverty are provided access to social workers?

a. YES 17. Are there summer school programs?

a. YES 18. Are there extended-school-day programs?

a. YES 19. Are there extended-school-year programs?

a. YES 20. Are any additional specialized services, supports, or resources available?

a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The plan described the programs for preschool age children and their families.

The programs provided will include: Early Childhood/Nature Explore Outdoor Classroom, Partners with Parents, home based early childhood special education services and preschool classrooms for students who meet Title 1 or special education criteria. The district will continue to cooperate with the Sarpy County Head Start program. The district will not assess any fees for participation in the early childhood program. The district will continue to employ social workers to support students and their families. Social workers are members of the district Family and Student Empowerment (FASE) Team. The team will support students who experience problems related to alcohol or drug use, personal issues, school attendance concerns, family concerns, financial issues, social concerns, behavioral concerns, or educational concerns. Service coordinators will be available to work with parents whose children participate in the early childhood special education program. Summer school, extended school day, and extended school year services will be provided at no cost to parents. Lead teachers and full time counselors will be assigned to the district’s three highest poverty elementary schools to assist with addressing truancy, student discipline, student engagement, instructional strategies, and parent involvement. Instructional coaches will be assigned to the elementary schools with the highest academic needs. In addition to summer school, the district will continue to provide a parent pay Summer Day Camp Program for elementary students. Scholarships for the camp program are provided by some of the district’s parent/teacher groups. The district will continue to work with community groups and organizations to support dental health, backpack program, and Operation School Bell.

Professional Development:

Questions in this section: 21. Are there district policies, procedures, or practices for mentoring new or newly

reassigned teachers? a. YES

of 10

22. Is there a description of the staff development provided for teachers and administrators to address the educational needs of students in poverty and from diverse backgrounds?

a. YES 23. Are any additional specialized services, supports, or resources for teachers and

administrators to address the educational needs of students in poverty and students from diverse backgrounds?

a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o A three year mentoring program will be available to support teachers new to the

profession or the district. In addition to providing a mentor, the program will provide professional development designed to support the teachers and assist them with curriculum development, classroom management, building procedures, and reflective thinking. The district adopted the Danielson’s Framework for Teaching which will be used to help teachers become more reflective of their current practices. The district will continue to provide in-district professional development activities as well as support for teachers to attend regional, state, and national professional development activities. The reader is referred to the plan for additional information concerning other services and supports the district plans to provide as part of the 2015/16 poverty plan.

Evaluation:

Questions in this section: 24. Does the district describe how it determines the effectiveness of the elements of the

poverty plan? a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The plan described the approach the district will use to evaluate the effectiveness

of the activities support by the poverty plan. Data the district will examine will include: program demographics, participation rates, student performance, student discipline information, and attendance rates. The district will also use information that is collected as part of the AdvancED accreditation process and information for the Learning Community.

Other:

Questions in this section: 25. Does the district provide any additional information?

a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The district will emphasize collaboration within and between district departments

and the greater community to enhance the success of the activities supported by the Poverty Plan. The plan also listed initiatives that would be considered for implementation if additional funding became available. The reader is referred to the plan for these initiatives.

of 10

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required poverty plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79-1013. A review of the plans submitted by Bellevue Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

of 7

Bennington Public Schools - LEP and Poverty Plan Introduction The Bennington Public Schools submitted the LEP and Poverty Plan through the NDE Portal on October 13, 2014. The contact information listed the following individuals as the contacts for the plans: Terry Haack, authorized representative; Sarah Ihrig, project director and financial contact. Questions regarding the plans should be directed to the appropriate individual. Summary of Review for LEP Plan The review provides a summary and recommendation of the review of the LEP Plan and a recommendation for action. The school district submitted an estimated expenditure of $51,053.00 which yielded an estimated allowance of $43,395.00. Identification of students with Limited English Proficiency:





Reviewer summary and Recommendations: o The plan submitted by the district indicated that the district would have a home

language survey completed by incoming kindergarten students and all students new to the district if they had not previously been enrolled in a Nebraska school. The district will use the LAS Links Placement assessment or the LAS Links as the language proficiency assessment used as part of the process to identify students as being limited English proficient. Students will be identified as being LEP if the home language survey indicates a home language other than English and the performance on the language proficiency assessment indicates the student not proficient in English. Parent of students identified will be notified of their children’s performance and that they qualified for services.

Instructional Approaches: Questions in this section:




Reviewer summary and Recommendations: o The instructional approaches and identification process that will be used by the

district were listed in the plan. The district indicated that the program content and goals would follow the structure provided by NDE and the national TESOL standards. The plan indicated that the following program options will be used in the district: collaboration, content based English, ELL pull out, ESL class period, ESL resource center, and bilingual instruction. Instruction will be provided in English and adapted to the students’ instructional level.

Assessment of LEP students’ progress toward mastering the English Language: Questions in this section:

of 7

6. Did the plan have specific criteria established to determine when the LEP student has mastered English?

a. YES 7. Is there an objective language assessment test identified?

a. YES 8. Is there at least one objective measure identified that assesses student progress toward



10. Has the district uploaded additional information for this item, as needed? a. NO

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The criteria that will be used to determine when students have mastered English,

assessments that will be used to measure English language proficiency, and the objective and subjective measures that will be used to measure the students’ progress toward meeting content standards were included in the plan. The criterion for determining if students K through grade 2 are proficient in English will include performance on the annual language proficiency test and a teacher’s recommendation that they are language proficient. For grades 3 and above, the students must demonstrate proficiency on the annual English language proficiency assessment or have a score that meets or exceeds the standards on the Nebraska State Accountability Reading Assessment. The district will utilize several objective language measures to measure reading, writing, speaking, and writing performance. The district will measure progress on content standards by using the state developed NeSA assessments and regional and district developed assessments. Subjective measures included in the plan were observations and comments from both the classroom and ELL teachers.

Evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the LEP plan elements Questions in this section:

11. Does the plan describe the approach that will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the program?

a. YES 12. Has the district listed the types of data (both formative and summative) that will be

collected? a. YES

13. Has the district described how the data will be used in an ongoing evaluation process? a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The district indicated in the plan they would follow the guidelines established by

the Nebraska Department of Education to evaluate the effectiveness of the ELL program. The language proficiency and academic performance of individual students will be assessed and reported to the Department and used by the district in the evaluation of the effectiveness of the plan. The listed data that will be collected as part of the program evaluation included: NeSA test results, Elda reports, student grades, performance on other assessments, and teacher observations. All the data will be part of the district’s ongoing evaluation process designed to identify the program’s strengths and weaknesses and modify the program to better meet the needs of the students. The district is encouraged to review the requirements of NDE Rule 15 to ensure the evaluation of the plan

of 7

meets the expectations of the Rule. The ELDA will be replaced with a new state language proficiency assessment for the 2015/16 school year. The district will need to include the new assessment in their plan.

Other: Questions in this section:

14. Has the district identified other information that has not been addressed in other sections?

a. NO 15. Has the district uploaded additional information for this item as needed?

a. NO Reviewer summary and recommendations:

o The district did not provide any additional information for this optional section. Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required LEP plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79-1014. A review of the plans submitted by Bennington Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

of 7

Summary for Poverty Plan Review The review provides a summary and recommendation of the review of the Poverty Plan and a recommendation for action. The school district submitted an estimated expenditure of $28,238.00 which yielded an estimated allowance of $24,002.00. Attendance/Mobility:







Reviewer summary and recommendation: o The plan indicated the board policies and building level procedures were in place

to ensure students attend school on a regular basis. The attendance procedures will be listed in building handbooks that are provided to parents. The plan did not provide additional details concerning the policies or procedures. According to the plan, district policies indicated the number of days a student can be absent before the record is sent to the Attendance Committee. The district will have the same policy for transportation of all students. There was no information regarding transportation of students who qualify for free or reduced lunches living more than a mile from the attendance center. Students who move within the district or the Learning Community will be allowed to continue attending their original school. Transportation will be provided by the district for students who qualify to attend the original Bennington school. The plan included a statement that the district would make every effort to provide education services to students with legitimate absences or mobility occurrences that interfere with their education. The exact services would be based on the student’s needs.

Parent Involvement: Questions in this section:

5. At the school building level, do parent/family engagement opportunities target parents in poverty and from diverse backgrounds?

a. YES 6. At the district level, do parent/family engagement opportunities target parents in

poverty and from diverse backgrounds? a. YES

7. Does the district use methods to secure input and participation of parents in poverty and from other diverse backgrounds?

a. YES


a. YES

of 7

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o Parent engagement opportunities, methods that will be used to secure parental

input, and additional services provided to promote parent involvement were described in the plan. Opportunities will be available for all families, including families in poverty or from a diverse background. The opportunities will include but not limited to building level committees, parent meetings, parent and teacher organizations, conferences, grandparents day, kindergarten round-up, early childhood service coordination, and activities focused on identifying the needs of individual students. The district will also provide information to parents so they can locate and obtain support from agencies outside the district. The district will assist families by paying for a specified number of counseling visits from a community service agency.

Instructional Services: Questions in this section:

9. Are there policies, procedures, or practices to reduce or maintain small class sizes in the elementary grades?

a. YES 10. Are there policies, procedures, or practices to designate uninterrupted teaching time

on a weekly basis? a. YES

11. Are there policies, procedures, or practices to limit school day interruptions? a. YES

12. (Learning Community ONLY) Is there a description of the services provided by the achievement subcouncil as part of the elementary learning center and district coordination with the center?

a. NO 13. (Learning Community ONLY) Is there a description of the coordination activities


a. NO Reviewer summary and recommendations:

o The district included information regarding class sizes, limiting interruptions to teaching time and school day, and the relationship between the district and the Learning Community. Classroom enrollments will be monitored and the district will attempt to maintain a class size of 20 or less for classrooms with students qualifying for free or reduced priced lunches. Para educators may be provided for some classrooms with high enrollments or high needs students. An emphasis will be placed by administrators on limiting interruptions to the teaching time and the school day. The district will exceed the minimum hours of instruction required by NDE Rule 10. The district will continue using a calendar that has reduced the number of shortened instructional days. The plan indicated that elementary learning centers do not currently exist in the district, but the district will coordinate with the centers when they are located within the district.



a. YES

of 7

15. Is there a description of how children in poverty are provided access to early childhood programs?

a. YES 16. Is there a description of how children in poverty are provided access to social

workers? a. YES

17. Are there summer school programs? a. YES

18. Are there extended-school-day programs? a. YES

19. Are there extended-school-year programs? a. YES

20. Are any additional specialized services, supports, or resources available? a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o Services for preschool children, student access to social workers, summer

services, extended day services, and other specialized services for students were described in the plan. The center based preschool program for children ages 3 and 4 will meet the requirements of NDE Rule 11. The program will be available to identified children at no charge. The guidelines for accessing early childhood programs will be the same for all children, including children from poverty. The district will support the access of children to social workers if it does not interfere with academics. Summer school, extended day, and extended year programs would be available for students who would benefit from these services. Extended year activities will be provided for students with disabilities and students from low income homes who would need the additional support. Extended school day programs will continue to be provided through the Bennington School Foundation with a sliding fee schedule for families with limited income. Several before and after school activities were listed in the plan that will be available to all students at no cost. Examples of these activities are: walking club, academic coach, and chess club. The school district will provide additional supports for families through a local counseling agency and pay for the initial two visits. The counseling service will provide scholarships for those who qualify.

Professional Development: Questions in this section:

21. Are there district policies, procedures, or practices for mentoring new or newly reassigned teachers?

a. YES




a. YES Reviewer summary and recommendations:

o Mentoring and staff development programs will be available for district staff. The goals for the mentoring program will be improving student achievement,

of 7

supporting first year or newly employed staff, and assisting with the mastery of teaching competencies. All new teachers will be assigned a mentor by the building principal and the district will provide time for the new teacher and the mentor to work together. The professional development program will focus on providing skills that will enhance the educational development of all students. The plan acknowledges that the community is growing more diverse and indicates that the district will seek ways to help all students be successful.

Evaluation: Questions in this section:

24. Does the district describe how it determines the effectiveness of the elements of the poverty plan?


o The district described the evaluation plan that will be implemented to determine the effectiveness of the poverty plan. The district will evaluate the poverty plan by analyzing data related to academic achievement, attendance, teaching skills, and instructional strategies. The data to be reviewed will include attendance records, discipline records, test results, surveys, and participation information.


25. Does the district provide any additional information? a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The district provided no additional information for this optional question.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required poverty plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79-1013. A review of the plans submitted by Bennington Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

of 9

Douglas County West Community Schools-LEP and Poverty Plan Introduction The Douglas County West Community Schools submitted the LEP and Poverty Plan through the NDE Portal on October 15, 2014. The contact information listed Melissa Poloncic as the authorized representative for the district. Questions regarding the plans should be directed to Mrs. Poloncic. Summary of Review for LEP PLAN The review provides a summary and recommendation of the review of the LEP Plan and a recommendation for action. The school district submitted an estimated expenditure of $59,821.00 which yielded an estimated allowance of $50,848.00. Identification of students with Limited English Proficiency:





Reviewer summary and Recommendations: o The process for identifying and determining which students qualified as limited

English proficient was described in the plan. The identification process will utilize enrollment/survey forms to identify students whose native language is not English or have a language other than English spoken in the home. A follow-up interview with parents or caregivers will be conducted to determine the language spoken by the student or used in the home. The district will evaluate the students’ reading, writing speaking, and listening skills by administering the IDEA Proficiency Test. Parents will be notified of the evaluation results and the LEP qualification status of their children. The previous school will be contacted for information regarding assessment results and services provided for identified students transferring into the district. Criteria used to determine a student’s English language proficiency will include results from the IDEA Proficiency Test and information from the Home Language Survey.


Questions in this section: 4. Has the district described the instructional approaches to be used to assist LEP

children in acquiring language for both social and academic purposes? a. YES

of 9

5. Has the district indicated how these instructional approaches are recognized as best practice by experts in the field?

a. YES

Reviewer summary and Recommendations: o The instructional approaches utilized for the LEP program and how these

approaches were recognized by experts in the field was summarized in the plan. The curriculum that will guide the instruction will be based upon the English Language Learner Program Goals and Outcomes, a document written by district staff members. Lessons within the LEP classrooms will be centered on the four domains of language: reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Skills will be integrated into lessons in the core curriculum areas. The ELL program will support classrooms teachers by collaboration, communication, and mutual goal setting. A matrix for instructional modifications and accommodations developed by district staff will be used as part of the guidance for the program. Instructional approaches listed in the plan are recognized as best practices in the field. These practices will include: newcomer program, Classroom Instruction that Works for English Language Learners, and Total Physical Response. The reader is referred to questions four and five of the plan for additional information.





8. Is there at least one objective measure identified that assesses student progress toward meeting content standards?

a. YES 9. Does the plan identify subjective measures that may be used?

a. YES 10. Has the district uploaded additional information for this item, as needed?

a. NO

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The students’ mastery of English, development of language skills, knowledge of

academic content, and overall growth were listed as the components of student performance the district would assess. The district will use “The Student Progress Rubric Checklist of Essential Learning” to measure overall student progress. According to the plan, teachers will continue to develop and implement common formative assessments as part of their work within the LEP/ELL Professional Learning Community. Evidence from the rubric/checklist and formative

of 9

assessments will be used to track student progress through the five levels of language proficiency. The plan indicated the district would administer the ELDA. However, the ELDA will be replaced for the 2015/16 school year with a new language proficiency assessment that is being piloted during the 2014/15 school year. The district will need to implement the new language proficiency assessment as required by NDE. The objective measures that will be used include: district content assessments, formative assessments developed by the teachers, writing assessments, and norm referenced assessments. The plan also listed the “Student Progress/Checklist of Essential Learning” as the subjective measure that will be used to monitor student progress.

Evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the LEP plan elements:


the program? a. YES



a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o An annual evaluation will be conducted to determine if LEP students are

progressing toward English proficiency. The evaluation may include an evaluation of staff, resources, and other areas to determine effectiveness of the program. The evaluation plan included the following elements: achievement test results, language proficiency tests, year to year test scores, teacher observations, parental observations and feedback, length of time in the program, grades in core subjects, identification process, and documentation of services. The district developed a checklist for students enrolled in the program that will document all necessary procedures, forms, test results, progress reports, and other records that will help with keeping records consistent, timely, and effective. NDE Rule 15 requires that a report of the annual review of the LEP program be prepared and submitted to the superintendent. The plan did not specifically mention a report but did indicate student data would be used to establish improvement goals as part of the district accreditation process and strategic planning. The district is encouraged to review NDE Rule 15 to ensure the district plan meets the intent of the rule.

of 9

Other:


sections? a. YES

15. Has the district uploaded additional information for this item as needed? a. NO

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The predominate language, other than English, spoken by students in the program

was Spanish. The district will use a Spanish liaison/interpreter to increase communications between the family and the school.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required LEP plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79-1014. A review of the plans submitted by Douglas County West Community Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

of 9

Summary for Poverty Plan Review The review provides a summary and recommendation of the review of the Poverty Plan and a recommendation for action. The school district submitted an estimated expenditure of $273,630.00 which yielded an estimated allowance of $232,586.00. Attendance/Mobility:





a. NOT APPLICABLE 4. Are any additional services, supports, or resources available for students who miss


Reviewer summary and recommendation: o Attendance practices, transportation options available for students, support for

mobile students, and other services available for students within the district were described in the plan. The district will monitor and follow up on attendance as outlined in board policies, the plan developed by school districts within the Learning Community, and agencies serving students in Douglas and Sarpy Counties. The district will ensure that parents are contacted each day their child is not in school. The district will send letters concerning the attendance to parents following five, ten, fifteen, and twenty days of absences. The district may contact the county attorney following twenty days of absences from school. A GOALS Team referral may be submitted as part of the district’s attendance procedures. Transportation services will be provided for students that qualify for free or reduced priced lunches. Rural bus routes will to be provided as well as transportation to school from bus stops within the communities of Waterloo and Valley. The plan indicated that most bus stops were within one half mile of one of the district schools. Shuttle bus services for students will continue to be provided to schools in the district. The district will provide transportation services as outlined in the open enrollment procedures. Secondary students will have options for making up lost credits.

of 9

Parent Involvement:







a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o Activities supported by the district to facilitate and encourage parental

involvement in the district’s educational programs were described in the plan. Events focused on the involvement of all parents, including parents from low income homes and diverse populations, will be implemented by the district and the schools. The plan listed the following parent activities: home visits, curriculum nights, kindergarten roundup, parent teacher conferences, and parent information sessions. School newsletters and web sites will provide additional parent information. The district will provide opportunities for parent involvement through activities associated with the district’s strategic planning, site based planning, and the school improvement processes. The district will select individuals that represent all areas of the district to serve as members of the Strategic Planning Team. The team will review the existing strategic plan, initiate changes to the plan, and rewrite the plan to address the critical issues identified by the team.






a. YES

of 9




a. NO

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o Practices to reduce or maintain smaller class sizes, manage teaching time, and

limit school day interruptions were described in the plan. Class sizes will be monitored with a focus on lowering class sizes in response to the district’s increasing population of students qualifying for free or reduced priced lunches. The district will use funds generated through the poverty plan to maintain two additional classroom teachers to keep class sizes below twenty students. The district will minimize interruptions to instruction and the school day by avoiding school-wide public address announcements and unplanned classroom visitations. The school district will continue to provide summer school with an emphasis on reading and math instruction. There is not an Elementary Learning Center funded by the Learning Community located with the subcouncil that serves the school district. The plan indicated that the district will continue to submit funding requests to the Learning Community to support services for students.









a. NO 20. Are any additional specialized services, supports, or resources available?

a. NO

of 9

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o Early childhood services, access to social workers, summer services, and

extended learning opportunities were described in the plan. The district will continue to provide center-based preschool programming for children ages three and four. The early childhood program and staff will meet the requirements of NDE Rule 11. Student with disabilities and neighborhood children will be served through the program. Children from low income families will be able to attend at a reduced rate or at no cost. The district will access trainings and program supports from Education Service Unit 3. The district does not employ social workers but will work with state and county agencies to obtain assistance in meeting the needs of students and their families. The district will contract with the Visiting Nurses Association to meet the health care needs of the district’s students. The district will partner with the YMCA to provide elementary extended summer programing. The middle school will schedule a guided study hall to provide support for students needing additional instructional support. The high school will schedule an after school study hall for students needing additional assistance. Saturday school will be provided and will be mandatory for students missing homework. The high school will schedule an early dismissal on Fridays but students needing additional assistance will be scheduled to stay at school for additional help.







a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o District mentoring and staff development programs and services will be provided

by the district. In-house mentors will be assigned to teachers new to the profession and support for the mentoring program will be provided by staff from ESU 3. New and newly assigned teachers will participate in workshops provided by ESU 3. Principals and mentors will provide support for new and newly assigned teachers, assist them as they work toward mastery of teaching

of 9

competencies, and help with successful assimilation into the district and building cultures. Staff development activities will address the following topics: review of data, use of technology, thinking/curriculum mapping, instructional strategies for success with LEP students, differentiated instruction, and brain based learning. The district will schedule early dismissal every Friday to provide time for staff development and teacher collaboration.

Evaluation:



Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The evaluation of the poverty plan will be part of the district’s Strategic Plan.

Student achievement data, attendance data, discipline referrals, and test data for student sub-groups will be analyzed to assist with determining the effectiveness of the plan. The district will seek the input of teachers and parents to explore methods to better serve students from poverty and from diverse backgrounds. The purpose of the review will be determining the effectiveness of the plan and to modify initiatives funded with the support provided by the plan.

Other:


a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The school district will continue to seek partnership with groups within the

community to assist with meeting the needs of enrolled students.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required poverty plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79-1013. A review of the plans submitted by Douglas County West Community Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

of 8

Elkhorn Public Schools- LEP and Poverty Plan Introduction The Elkhorn Public Schools submitted the LEP and Poverty Plan through the NDE Portal on October 15, 2014. The contact information listed the following individuals as the contacts for the plans: Steve Baker, authorized representative; Cindy Gray, program director; and Pam Roth, financial contact. Questions regarding the plans should be directed to the appropriate individual. The district did not upload any optional documents to the plans. Summary of Review for LEP PLAN The review provides a summary and recommendation of the review of the LEP Plan and a recommendation for action. The school district submitted an estimated expenditure of $300,000.00 which yielded an estimated allowance of $255,000.00 . Identification of students with Limited English Proficiency:





Reviewer summary and Recommendations: o The LEP identification procedures, language proficiency assessments, and the

criteria for identifying a student as having a limited English proficient were listed in the plan. Students will be referred to the program based upon the following information: information from the home language survey, previous enrollment in a program serving LEP students in another school district, parent referral, classroom teacher referral, counselor referral, or referral from a student assistance team. Students enrolled in an LEP program in their previous school will be enrolled until additional testing can be completed. Students will continue enrollment in the program until they have met the criteria for exiting the program. The district will use the Language Assessment Scales (Pre-LAS and LAS Links) and informal assessments to determine language proficiency levels. The qualification criteria will consider assessment scores in reading, writing, listening, and speaking.





a. YES

Reviewer summary and Recommendations:

of 8

o Instructional approaches used by the district and how these approaches were recognized as best practices by experts in the field were summarized in the submitted plan. Instructional services ranged from enrollment in an intensive ELL center for a majority of the school day to the provision of support within the general education classroom. The plan indicated the instructional services were researched based with standards driven curriculum materials. The goal for the program will be for all students to perform at state and district academic levels. The program content and goals will follow the structure provided by Nebraska’s ELL guidelines and the national TESOL standards.








a. NO

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The criteria to be considered prior to a student exiting the program will include

meeting or exceeding the performance levels for the NeSA reading or writing assessments, attaining a score on the ELDA showing competency in the required domains, or teacher recommendations based upon collected and analyzed performance data. Subjective data to be considered will include: recommendation from staff, parents, or students; student achievement data, rewards, scholarships or other accomplishments; passing grades on report cards; and other information that demonstrates the students were having success in general education classrooms with minimal ELL support. Once exited from the program students will be monitored for a two year period.



the program? a. YES


of 8


a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The evaluation of the program serving students identified as LEP will be part of

the district’s overall comprehensive school improvement plan. The district will collect and analyze student performance data to determine the effectiveness of the plan. The district will use the results of the analysis to determine the goals and objectives within their strategic plan. A reading of the plan did not provide information that would assure the reviewer that the district had implemented an annual review that was in compliance with the requirements within NDE Rule 15.

Other:


sections? a. NO


Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The district did not submit any additional information for this optional section of

the plan. Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required LEP plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79-1014. A review of the plans submitted by Elkhorn Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

of 8

CHECKLIST FOR POVERTY PLAN REVIEW The review provides a summary and recommendation of the review of the Poverty Plan and a recommendation for action. The school district submitted an estimated expenditure of $400,000.00 which yielded an estimated allowance of $340,000.00. Attendance/Mobility:







Reviewer summary and recommendation: o The plan described the attendance procedures, transportation options, services for

mobile students, and options available for students who miss instruction due to absences or mobility. The district will contact parents when students are absent from school. The following services to assist with encouraging regular attendance and addressing the concerns will be provided by the district: problem solving meetings with the student and parent, educational counseling, educational evaluations, investigation of the issues that may be contributing to attendance problems, and referrals to outside agencies for services. The district may contact the county attorney when the school has documented their efforts to address excessive absences and these actions have not solved the problems. Illnesses that make regular attendance impossible or not practicable will not be considered as a basis for a referral to the county attorney. Students living more than four miles from their school will be transported and the district may waive the fee for parent pay transportation under the four mile limit for students qualifying for free or reduced lunch. Students who move during the school year to a different attendance area may request to continue attending their original school. The authority to approve the request to continue attending the original school is granted to the superintendent of schools. Enrollment options for students who move outside district boundaries will be available. The district will provide programs and services that allow additional time and support for students needing additional instructional time and opportunities to complete assignments. Programs and services available to support students may include: After-School Academy, guided study halls, Reading Club, LEP Writing Club, Jump Start Reading Program, Kindergarten 101, mentoring program, and summer school.

Parent Involvement:

of 8







a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o Parent engagement opportunities provided by the district and the methods used to

secure parental input were listed in the Poverty Plan. Monthly newsletters, monthly parent communication meetings, and financial planning nights for parents with students preparing for college will be provided as part of the schools’ parent engagement initiatives. The schools will facilitate parent-teacher organizations and encourage parents to volunteer in the schools. Schools will provide special programs that will place an emphasis on the involvement of fathers and or mothers, for example “donuts for dads” and “muffins for moms”. The district will use an electronic messenger program to provide both school and district level information to parents. This messenger program will allow the message to be delivered in languages other than English. The district will mail a yearly calendar with events for the year to all parents with students enrolled in school. The events calendar will be made available to community members. Parents and community members will be invited to participate in the district’s strategic planning. Climate surveys will be distributed to parents and reviewed to ensure the district addresses concerns regarding the educational environment. The district will provide a family assistance program through an agreement with a local agency.





a. YES


of 8




a. NO

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o Practices designed to maintain small class sizes, monitor teaching time, control

interruptions to the school day, and relationships with the Learning Community were summarized in the plan. The district will continue to monitor class sizes throughout the school year and additional “floater” teachers will be hired in the spring for assignment to classrooms based on fall enrollments. The budget will allow for the hiring of additional teachers during the school year to maintain smaller class sizes. Special emphasis will be placed on class sizes in buildings with relative high numbers of low income students. A strong focus on student learning and limiting interruptions to the instructional time available to teachers will be established and principals will attend to the intensity of instruction. Specific advisory time will be included in the high school schedule to ensure that announcements do not interfere with instructional time. At the middle and high school levels supplemental blocks of reading and math time will be scheduled to support students needing this type of assistance. The district will continue providing summer services that target struggling students with the support of the Learning Community. The plan indicated there was not an elementary learning center located within the district.








a. YES



of 8

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The district will provide early childhood programs, facilitate student access to

student and family assistance services, provide summer and extended summer services, provide extended school day supports for students, and provide other specialized services needed by students. District wide preschool services that comply with NDE Rule 11 will provide services for students with disabilities and students identified as LEP. In addition to serving the children, the early childhood programs will provide support and information for parents. A variety of assistance programs will be available for students and their families through a district contract with a local counseling agency. The agency will provide services to families with sliding scale fees based on the families’ income. A summer school program will be scheduled each June for kindergarten through the eighth grade. A credit recovery program will be available at the high school level. The extended school day program will be available at all levels of the district. Some of these after school services will be provided with the assistance of the Elkhorn Public School’s Foundation. These programs will be approved for Title 19 and Title 20 for families who are low income or have children with special needs. Extended school year services will be provided to some students based on their IEPs. Mentoring programs that match students with community members will be available for enrolled students. Fees will be waived for students from low income homes to allow these students to participate in extra-curricular activities.







a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o Mentoring and professional development programs will be available to district

staff. The mentoring program will support teachers new to the profession for two years and teachers new to the district for one year. The program will provide a three day new teacher orientation each August where teachers receive information concerning the pacing guides, guaranteed curriculum, building procedures, assessments, technology, and other practices within the district. Grade level/department meetings and Professional Learning Communities will be used to provide ongoing support and professional development for all teachers. In addition to district provided staff development opportunities, the district will work with ESU 3 to provide additional opportunities for staff. Professional development opportunities will

of 8

include some of the following topics: classroom management, research based instructional strategies, differentiation, writing instruction, cultural sensitivity, freedom from bias, and dangers of low expectancy. The district’s ongoing school improvement team process will focus on disaggregating achievement data to examine achievement of sub-groups and develop targeted intervention to close achievement gaps.

Evaluation:



Reviewer summary and recommendations: o Included in the plan was a reference to using the AdvancED Accreditation model

to disaggregate student performance data and determine strengths, weaknesses, and areas of needed improvement. This process will be used to determine goals and objectives for the District’s strategic plan and buildings’ school improvement plans.

Other:


a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The plan indicated the district seeks to continue to work to add supplemental

learning opportunities for any student who will struggle in school. Quality education is seen as the key to future success for all students.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required poverty plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79-1013. A review of the plans submitted by Elkhorn Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

of 9

Gretna Public Schools-LEP and Poverty Plan Introduction The Gretna Public Schools submitted the LEP and Poverty Plan through the NDE Portal on October 8, 2014. The contact information listed the superintendent of schools, Dr. Kevin Riley, as the authorized representative for the district. Questions regarding the plans should be directed to Dr. Riley. Summary of Review for LEP PLAN The review provides a summary and recommendation of the review of the LEP Plan and a recommendation for action. The school district submitted an estimated expenditure of $27,279.00 which yielded an estimated allowance of $23,187.00. Identification of students with Limited English Proficiency:





Reviewer summary and Recommendations: o The submitted plan highlighted the process used to identify students with limited

English language proficiency. Incoming students will complete enrollment forms including forms that will assist with identifying students with limited English language skills. When there is an indication of limited English language skills, a follow-up interview will be scheduled with school staff. The district will administer the LAS English Language Proficiency assessment as part of the identification process. Schools, where the students were previously enrolled, will be contacted for information concerning services that might have been provided. The district will contract with the Ralston Public Schools for the assessment of students from another country enrolling in a school in the US for the first time. The district will contract with Ralston for services for newcomers. Criteria used for qualifying a student to receive LEP services will include the student’s use of a language other than English as their primary language and their performance on the LAS or IDEA Proficiency tests.





a. YES

of 9

Reviewer summary and Recommendations: o According to the plan, the district currently has six students enrolled who are

identified as being limited English proficient. Three of the students are enrolled at the elementary level at different schools and the other three students are enrolled at the high school. The district will continue to use the newcomer program provided by the Ralston Public Schools for students needing this level of service. Students attending a Gretna school will receive intensive reading, , writing, speaking, and listening instruction provided by the students’ classroom teachers, reading specialists, and other certificated teachers. Students at the high school level will be enrolled in general education classes chosen to meet their academic needs and one class period for direct ELL instruction. Classroom Instruction that Works for English Language Learners, Pearson Longman KEYSTONE, and KEYSTONE Building Bridges will be used as part of the instructional program to support English language learners.








a. NO

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The district will use the LAS, IDEA Language Profile Rubric, performances on

the state language proficiency assessment, and local formative and summative assessments to determine when a student has mastered the English language. Students’ progress toward mastering content standards will be measured using district criterion reference tests, classroom assessments and tests, statewide reading and writing assessments, norm referenced tests, and statewide assessments in all academic subjects. The subjective measures used by the district to measure student progress will include classroom performance, social interactions, report cards, grades, teacher recommendations, and parents’ perceptions concerning their child’s growth.



the program?

of 9


collected? a. YES


Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The program and its’ component parts will be continuously reviewed as students

move through the program and progress from grade to grade. The district will examine detailed records concerning student progress to determine the effectiveness of the program. Data relating to student performance will become an integral part of the district’s school improvement plan. The plan did not include a description of all components of the annual review listed in Nebraska Department of Education Rule 15.

Other:


sections? a. YES


Reviewer summary and recommendations: o During the period of time between November 2013 and January 2014 three LEP students,

new to the US, enrolled in the district. Two of these students had some basic English skills and one knew only a few English words. The district contracted with Ralston Public Schools to serve two of the students in their newcomer program and the other student was enrolled in kindergarten with additional one on one time. The plan indicated the students had made significant progress during the time they have been enrolled in the district.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required LEP plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79-1014. A review of the plans submitted by Gretna Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date

of 9

________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

of 9








Reviewer summary and recommendation: o The district will place a priority on regular attendance by all students and the

building principals will follow district policy and state law in dealing with attendance problems. Parents of students with attendance problems will receive phone calls and sometimes the school resource officer will be sent to the home to transport the student to school. The district may refer the child to the Learning Community’s GOALS Team for intervention. The district will provide school transportation to all students within the district at no charge. Students who move to a different attendance area during the school year may request to continue attending the original school. These requests will be considered on a case by case basis. Teachers and administrators will work with students who need additional support and ensure that all students who are struggling do not fall behind academically.

Parent Involvement:




a. YES


a. YES

of 9


a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The plan indicated that attendance at parent/teacher conferences was near 100

percent at the elementary and middle school levels. District and building information will be disseminated to parents by phone calls, e-mails, newsletters, the district website, newspapers, and an automatic messenger service. The district will host a parent forum in November of each year that will focus on child, adolescent, and community safety. The district will inform all parents of services and supports that will be provided by the district. Some of these services and supports will include new student/family orientations, jump start programs, tutoring programs, summer school opportunities, PTO meetings, and opportunities to be involved in committee meetings. Buildings will provide additional opportunities for parent involvement. These opportunities will include: family nights, curriculum nights, reading and math activities, art and music activities, and the school district’s Citizens Committee.










a. NO

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The plan indicated that the goal of the board of education is to maintain small

class sizes. The plan indicated that maintaining small class sizes was a challenge because of the rapid growth of the district. The district has constructed additional school buildings and classrooms to provide space for the increased number of students. According to the plan, 16 certificated positons were added to the staff

of 9

for the 2014/15 school year. Instructional time will be monitored on a daily basis and at the elementary level blocks of time for math, reading, and language arts will be reserved in the schedule. Specials will be scheduled in large blocks of time to provide time for teacher collaboration. Extra-curricular activities will be scheduled outside the instructional day whenever possible. The plan indicated the district was a member of the Learning Community, but the district had not applied for any grants because of the district’s low concentration of LEP students and students from low income homes. The district also indicated that their location prevented them from having their students directly involved with the Learning Community’s Elementary Learning Centers.










a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o Early childhood educational programs were described in the plan. The district

will provide early childhood experiences for special education and neighborhood children in programs for three and four year olds. The district will also provide teachers who visit homes to assist preschool age children and their parents. The district will be involved with the early childhood plan developed by the superintendents of the Learning Community. The district will continue to work with the Sarpy County Head Start program. The district does not plan to employ social workers but will refer students needing these services to private and county service providers. The district will refer students with serious physical, personal, psychological, or emotional needs to local professionals and provide support for families who cannot afford these services so they can receive the needed assistance. The district does not plan to provide remedial summer school services but will provide supplemental summer services such as: College for Kids, Camp Invention, Great Program, jump start, and Missoula Theater Group. Children

of 9

whose families cannot afford the cost of these services will be admitted at no cost. The district will provide support for students following the regular school year if this support is needed for the students to be successful. The district will provide resources to support students whose families cannot afford the cost of equipment or camps to participate in extra-curricular activities.







a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The mentoring program that will be provided by the district was described in the

plan. The plan mentioned that the district has had a mentoring program for teachers new to the district for over thirty-one years. The mentoring programs will include the assignment of an experienced mentor to each new teacher and the opportunity for new staff members to become knowledgeable about the district’s procedures, curriculum, teacher strategies, and teaching approaches. Staff development will be provided for teachers and administrators so they will have the knowledge to work with students in poverty and from diverse backgrounds. Training will include how to recognize and intervene with struggling readers in every subject area. The district will continue to work with UNO, ESU 3, and the Bennington schools to train teachers to recognize and intervene with students who struggle in the area of math. The district will survey staff members to determine the effectiveness of staff development programs and to identify needed trainings.

Evaluation:



Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The district will evaluate the effectiveness of the poverty plan and regularly

review assessment data. The district will examine the results of local, state, and national assessments to determine student progress. The evaluation of the Poverty Plan will be part of the district’s school improvement plan.

Other:

of 9


a. NO

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o No information was provided for this optional section.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required poverty plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79-1013. A review of the plans submitted by Gretna Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

of 9

Millard Public Schools LEP and Poverty Plans Introduction The Millard Public Schools submitted the LEP and Poverty Plan through the NDE Portal on September 11, 2014. The following individuals were listed as the contacts for the plans: James Sutfin, authorized representative; Kim Saum-Mills, program director; and Chris Hughes, financial contact. Questions regarding the plans should be directed to the appropriate individual. The district included an attachment with both the LEP and the Poverty Plan. The attachments contained not only the plan but additional information regarding the initiatives already implemented and those planned by the district. Summary of Review for LEP PLAN The LEP Plan included background information that summarized the process for submitting the plan to NDE and to the Learning Community Coordinating Council. The district also included, as an addendum to the evaluation requirement of the LEP Plan, a subsection of the Educational Services Year-End Report that addressed the English Language Learner Program. The school district submitted an estimated expenditure of $1,200,000.00 which yielded an estimated allowance of $1,020,000.00. This review provides a summary of the LEP Plan and a recommendation for consideration. The reader is referred to the actual plan and attachment if additional information is desired. Identification of students with Limited English Proficiency:





Reviewer summary and Recommendations: o The district summarized the process that will be used to identify students with a

limited English proficiency. This process will include the use of the Home Language Survey, administration of a standardized English language assessment, and the input of a bilingual liaison that is assigned to each family new to the district. If a student had a history of being identified as limited English proficient documentation will be obtained from the previous school district. The plan indicated that enrollment of students with a limited English proficiency into appropriate programs will occur throughout the school year. The plan identified the LAS Links (Language Assessment System) for the appropriate age/grade level as the specific language assessment that will be used as part of the identification process. The plan indicated that parents would be informed of their child’s performance and their LEP status. The district will maintain a separate LEP/ELL file for each identified student. The plan described the criteria used by the district to determine if the student qualified as a student with limited English proficiency. The identification criteria will include a home language survey and assessment results demonstrating that the student is not proficient in English. The information provided in the identification section of the plan meets the expectation provided by NDE and agrees with the standards contained within NDE Rule 15.


of 9




Reviewer summary and Recommendations: o According to the plan, the district’s LEP population represented great diversity in

language and culture and therefore, the district’s program will be a content-based English Language Development program in which students will be grouped by language ability levels. Students will spend the majority of their day in general education classes receiving support services from ELL teachers in ELL classes. The program model and instructional approaches are supported by research and experts in the field. The plan listed the following research agencies and publications: McREL, Classroom Instruction that Works for English Language Learners, Improving Education for English Learns: Research Based Approaches, and The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) Model. The plan also mentioned cooperative learning, sheltered instruction strategies, and differentiated instructions as being included within the instructional approach used by the district. There will be an emphasis placed on building background and developing vocabulary that will support the students within the core content and classroom activities. Content area teachers and ELL teachers will work together to cultivate a deeper knowledge of the language needed by students enrolled in the program to be competitive among their native English speaking peers. As part of the program, teachers will receive training in the practices for teaching limited English proficient students. Students enrolled in the program will be monitored throughout the school year to determine if the interventions are assisting them with attaining literacy and math skills. The information provided in the instructional approaches section of the plan meets the expectation provided by NDE and agrees with the standards contained within NDE Rule 15.








Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The plan described the specific criteria that will be used to determine if LEP

students have mastered English. The plan provided the criteria by grade span and for students with disabilities. For students without disabilities the criteria focuses on assessment results and teacher recommendations. For students with disabilities a team composed of assessment and educational personnel will

of 9

determine if their educational needs are affected by the student’s proficiency in the English language and if they should exit the ELL program. The plan included both the objective and subjective measures the district will use to assess listening, speaking, reading, writing, and progress toward meeting content standards. The assessment system will be aligned with the district’s curriculum and strategic plan and comply with state and federal requirements. The reader is referred to pages 6, 7, and 8 of the LEP plan for more specific information. The information provided in the assessment section of the plan meets the expectation provided by NDE and agrees with the standards contained within NDE Rule 15. The last administration of the ELDA will be during the 2014/15 school year. NDE will replace the ELDA with the ELPA21 for the next school year. The district will need to consider the process for the implementation of the ELPA21 during the 2015/16 school year.

Evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the LEP plan elements: Questions in this section:



collected? a. YES


Reviewer summary and recommendations: o A committee composed of teacher representatives from the K-12 ELL program,

principal from an ELL site, and the district ELL coordinator will review the program each year. The committee will review ELL practices, procedures, and documents to ensure compliance with district and state policies and procedures. The committee will identify program strengths and weaknesses and review each component of the program to ensure best practices are utilized within the program. Program goals will be established based on the review and analysis of student and program data. The findings and recommendations will be reported in the “English Language Learner Program Year End Report” and submitted to the superintendent of schools and the board of education. The report will be retained and available for public review. The information provided in the evaluation section of the plan meets the expectation provided by NDE and agrees with the standards contained within NDE Rule 15.

Other:


sections? a. YES


Reviewer summary and recommendations: o According to the plan, the district’s LEP enrollment is expected to continue to

grow and student needs continue to increase. The district will provide programs for family literacy and parent outreach services. The district intends to continue

of 9

the employment of bilingual liaisons to increase the communication between families and the schools. Translators and interpreters will be hired as needed to facilitate communications and provide documents in the parent’s native language. Preschool services and summer school programs will be continued. By the end of the 2015/16 school year, classroom teachers in all buildings will have participated in two professional development sessions focused on instructional strategies to support students who struggle with language and vocabulary. The district will continue to host meetings with principals at ELL Program sites to evaluate and review the practices and promote a shared vision and approach for addressing English language development. A summary of the LEP Program Evaluation, including a review of program demographics, student achievement, Annual Measureable Achievement Objectives, summary of program accomplishments, and a summary of program planning and evaluation, was included as Appendix A of the LEP Plan. The reader is encouraged to read Appendix A, pages 13-31, for additional information.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required LEP plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79-1014. A review of the plans submitted by Millard Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved.

_______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date


of 9

Summary of Review for POVERTY PLAN The Poverty Plan included background information that summarized the process for submitting the plan to NDE and to the Learning Community Coordinating Council. The school district submitted an estimated expenditure of $1,500,000.00 which yielded an estimated allowance of $1,275,000.00. This review provides a summary of the Poverty Plan and a recommendation for consideration. The reader is referred to the actual plan if additional information is desired. Attendance/Mobility:







Reviewer summary and recommendation: o The plan submitted by the district emphasized the importance the district placed

on regular school attendance and the support provided by the district to encourage regular school attendance by all students. The district will contact the parents of each student who is absent to ensure they are safe and there is a valid reason for the absence. Regular communications and services will be provided for the parents and the students. This communication and services will include: letters regarding absences, meeting with the parents or guardians, education counseling, educational evaluation, and additional investigation by the school social worker. If additional services are needed by the parents and/or the student, the social worker will serve as the liaison to the appropriate community agency. The district will support transportation services for students who qualify for free or reduced priced lunches and live more than a mile from the school they attend. The support would include access to district provided transportation vehicles or access at no cost to a private bus company route to and from school. The plan indicated that the district allowed students who move during the school year to continue to attend their original attendance center. Included as part of the plan were the district procedures regarding student transfers and requests to attend their original school or another school within the district. The reader is referred to pages 4-19 for additional information. This section of the plan described all procedures associated with transferring to a school outside the student’s attendance area, including open and option enrollment requests. Included within the narrative addressing open enrollment was the previous address (South 110th Street) of the Learning Community offices. The address should be corrected before the next submission of the poverty plan. The plan provided additional services, supports, or resources for students who miss instruction due to absences or mobility. The initiatives mentioned in the plan included: access to and time to complete missed school work, access to support through the RtI+I services, summer school, and night school.

Parent Involvement:

of 9








o The district will encourage parents to serve on school and district school improvement teams. By serving on the teams, parents will have the opportunity to assist with the development and the evaluation of school improvement plans. Parents will be given the opportunity to provide input on major school decisions including scheduling, activities, and calendars. Title 1 buildings conduct annual parent meetings to update the Title 1 Parent Involvement Policy and Parent-Teacher-Student Compacts. The district will focus on increasing attendance at parent/teacher conferences and school programs. The district has implemented an online conversation forum (www.EngageMillard.com) for parents and community members to share thoughts and ideas. The district will also use a team consisting of administrators, parents, teachers, staff members, and students to write and update the District Strategic Plan on an ongoing basis.










o The plan emphasized that the district makes every attempt to keep K-1 classrooms in higher poverty schools at 20 or fewer students and intermediate classroom (3-5) capped at 28 students. The plan did not indicate a class size for grade two. The plan indicated the district had increased the uninterrupted teaching time to 1161 at

of 9

the elementary, 1215 hours at middle school, and 1170 at the high school level. The calendar for the district was developed considering Board of Education parameters and input from a large committee of parents and staff. According to the plan, Elementary Learning Centers do not currently exist in Subdistrict #4 but the district will coordinate with the centers when they are available within the subdistrict. The district will participate in the Elementary Learning Center Summer Program.

Specialized Services: Questions in this section:

14. Are early childhood programs described? a. YES



workers? a. YES





Reviewer summary and recommendations: o According to the plan the district will continue to provide a variety of early

childhood programs serving students at all preschool age levels. The programs will comply with state requirements and be designed to meet the needs of the enrolled students. In addition to classrooms for preschool age children, the district will provide a resource center for families and a program for parents and providers that is associated with the Parents as Teachers Program. Title 1 eligible students will be screened and enrolled in available programs throughout the district. The district employs social workers to address the needs of students and their families and serve as liaisons for services provided by outside agencies. The district will provide summer school opportunities to support remediation in the areas of reading, writing, and mathematics as well as classes for enrichment and for credit. The Millard Public Schools Foundation will provide grants for some extended school day services at selected schools. The district will support a weekend backpack program, mobile unit for free dental exams and other services, and early childhood partnerships.



a. YES 22. Is there a description of the staff development provided for teachers and

administrators to address the educational needs of students in poverty and from diverse backgrounds?

a. YES

of 9

23. Are any additional specialized services, supports, or resources for teachers and administrators to address the educational needs of students in poverty and students from diverse backgrounds?


o Included as part of the plan was a comprehensive description of the mentoring and professional development program provided by the district. The district provides a three year mentoring and new staff induction program that “incorporates the use of best instructional strategies through non-evaluative support, exploration of the District’s standards of instructional excellence, facilitated professional growth, and professional relationships”. The plan is described in detail in pages 25-31 the poverty plan. The plan indicated the district is in the process of providing culturally responsive teaching training to all their certificated staff. The district has partnered with some UNO professors to provide the training. This initiative is described in detail in pages 31-34 of the plan.




o The plan described the purpose of the evaluation as being “to provide a detailed description of the systems and attributes of the plan and to provide critical data that is intended to be used to determine program effectiveness and to modify, improve or discontinue ineffective practices.” The researcher will examine data that will provide a comparison of the achievement of all students and students of poverty. The plan indicated that a written report of progress will be provided to the superintendent, board of education, and other parties designated by statute.



Reviewer summary and recommendations:

o The plan stated that the district is experiencing a change in student demographics and socioeconomic status. The district included tables displaying the demographic changes that have occurred. The reader is referred to pages 35 and 36 of the plan for this information.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required poverty plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79-1013. A review of the plans submitted by Millard Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________

of 9

Ted Stilwill Date

of 13

Omaha Public Schools – LEP and Poverty Plans Introduction The Omaha Public Schools submitted the LEP and Poverty Plan through the NDE Portal on October 15, 2014 and resubmitted a corrected plan October 23, 2014. The attachment that contained the Poverty Plan in the original plan was replaced with the new document that contained the final version of the plan. The contact information listed Dr. Dennis Pool as the authorized representative for the district. Questions regarding the plans should be directed to Dr. Pool. The district uploaded attachments to the plan that contained the LEP and Poverty Plan narrative in pdf format. Also attached to the Poverty Plan was a district document titled “Academic Action Plan Best Instructional Practices, Moving classroom Instruction from Good to Great”. The information provided by the district was comprehensive. This review will be a summary of the components of the plans. The reader is referred to the plans for more comprehensive information concerning the services and supports the district provides for students identified as being limited English proficient and students from low income homes. Summary of Review for LEP PLAN The review provides a summary and recommendation of the review of the LEP Plan and a recommendation for action. The school district submitted an estimated expenditure of $19,957,561.00 which yielded an estimated allowance of $16,963,927.00. Identification of students with Limited English Proficiency:





Reviewer summary and Recommendations: o The district provided in the attachment a summary of the identification procedures

and the criteria that will be utilized to identify students as having a limited English proficiency. The procedures listed in the plan included the completion of a home language survey as part of the enrollment process for new students when families registered their children for school for the first time. If the survey indicates a language other than English is used in the home, a staff member will administer the Language Assessment Scales (LAS) to determine the level of English language proficiency. The bilingual liaison or ESL teacher will share the assessment results with the student and the parents and provide information about the recommended services. Parents will be notified prior to students being enrolled in the ELL program. The specific criteria to identify students as being limited English proficient is listed on page 2 of the attached plan. The district will use the criteria listed in Nebraska Department of Education (NDE) Rule 15 to determine when a student has progressed to the point where they can exit the program. Kindergarten through second grade students will exit the program with a composite score of 4 or 5 on the ELDA and teacher recommendations. Students second through twelfth grade must have a composite score of 4 or 5 on the ELDA

of 13

and/or score proficient or advanced of the NeSA-R. NDE plans to replace the ELDA with a new English language proficiency test for the 2015/16 school year. The district will need to utilize the new test as part of the exit requirements.





Reviewer summary and Recommendations: o Omaha Public Schools will utilize a range of services to meet the needs of

students identified as having a limited English proficiency. The programs will be designed to provide: specialized instruction to develop the ability to read, write, speak and understand English; prepare students to participate in the curriculum of the schools; and support for the maintenance of the students’ first language and pride in their cultural heritage. The plan described the instructional approaches for elementary and for secondary students and listed the schools where these approaches would be available. ESL inclusion will be available in Comprehensive ESL Centers located in designated buildings with large ELL enrollments. ESL resource approaches will be available in all elementary buildings and the staff levels will vary depending on ELL enrollment numbers. The dual language programs will be available in a few of the elementary buildings. The ESL curriculum will be based on the district grade level language arts standards and the district’s K-12 Guidelines for English Language Proficiency. Elementary students will be served in their neighborhood schools or a school the parents chose for their child. The number of ELL students enrolled in a building will influence the type of services offered and the staffing levels. The plan listed the program approaches and the elementary schools where the services would be available. The reader is referred to the plan on pages 3 and 4 for these details. The plan indicated that the ESL resource program model with full time teachers would be provided in over twenty elementary schools. The ESL resource program model with traveling ESL teachers would be available in over twenty elementary schools. The dual language program model would be available in six elementary schools. Secondary ESL programming will provide support through sheltered English content area courses, mainstreamed support, and tutorial support services. The content area courses will be offered in beginning, intermediate, and advanced levels. At the beginning level students will participate in approximately 5 to 8 courses, at the intermediate level 3 courses, and at the advanced level 2 or fewer courses. ESL courses will include a focus on skills development in reading, writing, grammar, vocabulary, listening, speaking, study skills and cultural competency. Approximately nine secondary buildings will have full time building-based bilingual liaisons. The district will provide tutorial support for current, monitored, and former ELL students. Middle and high school students with limited formal school experiences or who function

of 13

academically below the third grade in their native language will be served in a Teen Literacy Center to be located at Lewis and Clark Middle School for middle school students and at the Career Center for high school students. The dual language program will be available at four secondary schools. The district will provide extended learning opportunities during the school year and the summer months. These opportunities are described on pages 6 and 7 of the plan. The district provided a comprehensive description of the instructional approach and the research supporting the approaches on pages 7 through 9 of the plan. Please refer to the plan for the detailed information about the approaches and associated research.








Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The specific criteria for determining when a student will have mastered English,

the objective language assessments that will be used, measures used to assess progress toward meeting content standards, and subjective measures that will be used to determine student progress were identified in the plan. The district will use ongoing running records, teacher recommendations, report card grades, writing samples, ELDA scores, NeSA Reading, NeSA Writing, district assessments, and writing samples to measure student progress in English and progress toward meeting content standards.

Evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the LEP Plan elements: Questions in this section:



collected? a. YES


Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The effectiveness of the LEP Plan will be evaluated and measured based on data

that demonstrates students’ growth in reading, students’ improvement in AMAO

of 13

1 and 2 of the ELDA, and the results of parent surveys. The plan included tables that displayed formative indicators of success for the ELL Program, page 11, and an evaluation calendar, page 12, that summarized the evaluation plan and the schedule for evaluation events. The reader is referred to these tables for more detailed information regarding this organized approach to evaluating the effectiveness of the LEP Plan. The district will also use information from coaching visits to support the conclusions reached concerning the effectiveness of the plan. Student performance data will be disaggregated as part of the school improvement process. Teachers and administrators will review this data and use the results in the development of an annual action plan that will include professional development plans.



a. YES 15. Has the district uploaded additional information for this item as needed?


o Within the plan the district stated that approximately 32 percent of the district’s students are current or former ELL students. Parents indicated on surveys that lack of transportation limited their children’s participation in after school and summer programming. The district also listed additional ongoing needs within the district. Some of the needs listed were: bilingual staff, early childhood programs, smaller class sizes, parent education, expanded student leadership and mentoring programs, and additional teacher training. The reader is referred to page 14 of the plan for a complete listing of these identified needs. The plan shared that the district enrolled 1600 new ELL students at the start of the 2014/15 school year which increased ELL enrollment by 550 students.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required LEP plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79-1014. A review of the plans submitted by Omaha Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

of 13

Summary for Poverty Plan Review The review provides a summary and recommendations for the Poverty Plan and a recommendation for action. The district attached two documents to the Poverty Plan. The narrative for the Poverty Plan was the primary document attached to the plan. The district also attached the “Academic Action Plan…” to provide additional information concerning instructional frameworks, instructional coaching, and the use of diagnostic and predictive assessments to facilitate the narrowing of achievement gaps. The district aligned the Poverty Plan with the district’s strategic plan and their educational equity plan. This alignment is noted throughout the Poverty Plan. Also included were references to the district’s objectives from the Educational Equity Plan. The school district submitted an estimated expenditure of $54,492,510.00 which yielded an estimated allowance of $46,318,634.00. Attendance/Mobility:







Reviewer summary and recommendation: o Included as part of the plan were district objectives for improving student

attendance rates and decreasing student mobility rates. The objective for attendance was to increase attendance rates to 95 percent at the school and district levels. The objective relating to mobility was to annually decrease mobility rates at the school and district levels. The district plan provided information concerning student attendance practices, options for student transportation, options available for students who move during the school year, and supports available for students who miss instruction due to absences or mobility. The district’s student attendance policies were summarized in the plan. The district will place an emphasis on providing frequent communication with parents concerning the absences of their children. This communication will occur after five, ten, fifteen, and twenty days of absences or the hourly equivalent. The district will provide supports and services designed to identify barriers and provide supports that will improve individual students’ school attendance. The district will make daily contact with parents concerning each absence of their children. These contacts will be initiated by the attendance secretary at each school. Teachers, counselors, school support liaisons, bilingual liaisons, social workers, dean of students, and administrators will communicate and work with students and their parents to address issues that contribute to school absences. The district will meet with students and their parents and attempt to find solutions for excessive absences. Educational counseling and evaluations may be used to

of 13

determine if curricular changes or additional supports/services will assist in solving the attendance concerns. School nurses will be available to provide proactive health education and health management that might assist with preventing absences due to illness. When interventions and supports from the district and the schools do not solve the attendance problems, the district may refer the family to the county attorney or services connected to the Douglas County court system. The district will assist schools in addressing the student attendance challenges by adopting a decentralized team strategy that will consider the “unique disadvantage and obstacles of each school that precludes consistent student attendance”. School Support Liaisons will be assigned to schools to assist with monitoring and improving attendance, coordinating attendance activities, managing the parent notification process, supporting the submission of records to the legal system, working with community agencies, and supporting students moving from traditional to non-traditional educational environments. The district will support attendance through options described in the Student Assignment Plan, Learning Community Diversity Plan, magnet schools, focus schools, and student transportation services. The district generally will provide transportation if the students live more than 1.50 to 2.00 miles from the school they attend. The reader is referred to the plan for additional details regarding the transportation options. Students who move during the school year to another attendance area may request to continue to attend their original school. The district attendance plan allows students to attend their neighborhood school or to attend an option school. The district attendance plan is aligned with the Learning Community’s plan to support and encourage diversity in the schools in Douglas and Sarpy counties. The options for school choice at the elementary, middle, and high school levels and the transportation services associated with these choices are described within the poverty plan on pages five through seven. The district will provide transportation for students who are homeless or reside in a homeless shelter. The students will be transported from where they reside to their original school of attendance. The district will ensure that homeless children and youth have the support needed to continue their educational program. In addition to supporting the homeless, the district will provide assistance to other students who miss instruction due to absences or mobility. The district will provide alternative schools, programs, and supports to assist students with continuing their education. These alternatives will include: The Accelere Program will provide more flexibility for high school

students with credit deficiencies. Adult High School courses will be offered at most high schools and the

Career Center. The Blackburn Alternative Program will offer basic high school courses in

an environment intended to help students with social, behavioral, and employment skills.

Gateway to College will provide an opportunity for a fresh start on a college campus,

The Independent Studies Program is a self-paced and individualized environment.

of 13

The UNO/OPS program is for high ability learners who are not being successful in a traditional high school setting.

Credit Recovery will be offered for high school students who are credit deficient.

Teen Parents Program will be designed to support students with attendance issues related to child care, parenting, finances, education, and career planning.

The Positive Actions Center will be available for elementary students. Transition Rooms will be provided for secondary students needing

behavioral or academic interventions. Student Success Centers will assist secondary students with writing skills,

study skills, social skills, conflict resolution, and academic performance. eLearning Opportunities will provide online learning options.

The district will provide extended learning opportunities after school and during the summer months. The district will provide support for students in local and state institutions for neglected and delinquent youth with the support of Title 1 funding.






a. YES 8. Are any additional services, supports, or resources used to promote parent/family

engagement of parents in poverty and from other diverse backgrounds? a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The district objectives related to parent involvement are respecting diverse

perspectives, values, abilities, and beliefs; developing mutual trusting relationships; and increasing the level of parent engagement to support student learning. The district will provide family-based activities that will enable parents to support their children’s academic success. Support for parent/teacher organizations will be provided by the individual schools. These organizations offer opportunities for parents to become involved in volunteering in the schools, organizational leadership, child advocacy, home/school communications, and collaboration with the community. Activities available in the school may include parenting seminars, fundraising to support school educational activities, family math and literacy nights, anti-bulling activities, and safety programs. The district’s parent involvement policy will be revised on an annual basis and adopted by the board of education following a public hearing. The district will examine and honor the cultures, educational strengths, and needs of all students,

of 13

staff and the community. Education of all staff on the cultures within the district will be a priority. Staff from each building, division, and program will be chosen as facilitators to lead conversations concerning the elements of cultural proficiency. The district will support Title 1 open houses for all families to promote family literacy and an awareness of the federal definition of family involvement. The district will support providing families with the knowledge, tools, and inspiration to help their children succeed in school and in life. This support will be provided by hosting a monthly Family Leadership Institute that provides caregivers with family leadership skills to support the achievement of their children. The program has ten modules that address topics such as self-identity, improving relationships, education, facing challenges, celebrating academic excellence, and other topics that address the needs of families. Each spring the Institute graduates approximately forty individuals. The district and schools will facilitate the involvement of parents from all backgrounds and provide supports to limit barriers to this involvement. The District Citizens Advisory Committee which includes community members from throughout the district will serve as an advisory and information sharing council to the superintendent. This committee will meet on a quarterly basis and provide input on key issues facing the district. The district will facilitate discussion with and solicit input from several district and community groups. The district will work with community groups to highlight the achievements of students and give parents the opportunities to support their children’s academic success. Additional information regarding parental involvement and initiatives the district supports to encourage and facilitate this involvement are summarized in the plan.










o The district indicated that the Poverty Plan aligned with the strategic plan’s initiatives by addressing the provision of a rigorous, guaranteed, differentiated and viable curriculum for all students; implementing all components of the

of 13

Academic Action Plan; and developing and implementing pre-K to college and career framework that ensures student success. The equity plan objectives associated with this section of the plan indicated that small class sizes would be achieved at specified grade levels for elementary schools with Academy Programs. The plan included the district’s policies and regulations that addressed class sizes. The plans of the district include investing in small class sizes in schools with Academy Programs. Elementary schools with Academy Programs are those schools in which the student enrollment has a participation rate in the federal free or reduced priced lunch program of 70 percent or higher. On average, classrooms in Academy Program schools will be 24 percent smaller than classrooms in non-academy schools. The district will establish twenty-three Academy Program schools. The class sizes for primary grades will range from fifteen to seventeen and class sizes for intermediate grades will be approximately twenty to twenty-two students. For a list of elementary Academy Program schools see page 15 of the Poverty Plan. District and school leadership will base teaching schedules on the instructional needs of students. At the elementary level the teaching schedule will include 190 minutes for literacy instruction with reading instruction scheduled for 90 minutes of this block and the remaining 60 minutes for a writers workshop. Elementary math instruction will be scheduled for 60 minutes. Secondary schedules will vary and teachers are encouraged to use instructional strategies that maximize instructional and learning time. The middle school instructional teams will focus on enhancing the use of instructional time; and providing student support, professional development, and interdisciplinary planning within the schedule. Each building will identify building-wide procedures and routines for efficient transitions and limit interruptions in instructional time. There will be an internal administrative team assigned to lead the coordination and implementation of elementary learning center activities within the school district. The district will facilitate responses to the Learning Community RFP’s related to the establishment of elementary learning centers. The district will continue to work with Sub-councils 1, 2, 3, and 5. The sub-councils have supported instructional coaches, jumpstart programs, early childhood education, wrap around supports, extending learning, and professional learning experiences.





workers? a. YES


18. Are there extended-school-day programs?

of 13




o The specialized services section of the plan aligns with the district strategic plan in the following areas: access to high-quality early childhood education, culturally appropriate and targeted interventions and resources, implementation of best instructional practices, aligning a network of agencies and providers that will support students and families, and working with the business community to support the schools and their students. The district listed a number of equity plan objectives that were related to and supported by initiatives within the Poverty Plan. These objectives addressed the following concepts: annually increasing the number of early childhood programs and giving students from low income homes a priority in the placement decisions, increasing the number of full day early childhood services, increasing the number of students and families served through social workers and programs designed to connect families to community resources and services, and increasing the number of students participating in extended learning experiences. The district will provide and support the following early childhood program initiatives: pre-kindergarten, Head Start, Educare, and Early Childhood Special Education programs and services. The district will serve students with following needs: special education, academic, and needs based on financial circumstances of the families. Creative Curriculum will be the foundation upon which the district’s early childhood curriculum and instructional strategies will be based. The adult to student ratios within the early childhood program will comply with the guidelines provided by Head Start and the National Association for Education of Young Children. The district will assign social workers to all high schools and two of the district’s alternative programs. Social workers will address barriers to school attendance, facilitate access to community resources, and assist families with understanding and engaging in educational planning for students. Social workers will support students through counseling and supportive services. Social workers will provide consultative support for elementary and middle schools. A comprehensive district-wide summer school program will be available to provide extended learning experiences. The elementary summer school will support remediation in reading and math and be available at all elementary school sites. The staffing level will be based on the available budget and will influence the number of students who can participate in the program. The district will provide the elementary summer school experience at no cost to parents. Transportation will be available to support regular school attendance. The middle school summer school will be based on remediation, foundations for literacy, and “Transition for Success” focused on math, reading, and orientation to middle school. The high school summer program, “Transition for Success” will be focused on basic literacy skills and transitioning to high school. Title 1 extended school day services will be provided and will focus on reading and math instruction. Middle

of 13

school extended day services will provide opportunities to extend the learning time before and after school. Libraries will be open for students to complete homework, have access to computers, and participate in club activities. High schools will provide access to e-Learning and club activities after the school day. The district will provide additional support for schools to: adequately prepare students for standardized assessments, support a safe learning environment, provide transportation services, provide meals in compliance with nutrition guidance, use data to drive instruction, and implement fair and effective processes. A school and community counseling program will be available within the school district. The plan provided information regarding the services provided or facilitated through the efforts of the district’s School Support Liaisons and the services provided by the School and Family Enrichment collaborative initiative. Services provided by the district and community agencies to support the physical health of students within the district will be available.








o The professional development section of the plan will align with Principle III of the OPS Strategic Plan. The strategic plan emphasizes having a highly effective teacher in every classroom and a highly effective principal in every school, providing instructional and administrative staff with highly effective professional development and feedback, and ensuring non-instructional staff will be highly skilled, engaged, and equipped to support the work of teachers and principals. The objectives of the equity plan that relate to the Poverty Plan indicate at least 85 percent of new teachers will receive support/assistance through mentoring opportunities, and all staff will participate in professional development activities that effectively support district and school academic and student engagement goals. The district will provide two types of mentoring programs for new teachers. The Take Flight mentoring program will be for teachers who are new to the district but have less than one full year of experience. The Onboarding Colleague Program will be for teachers who are new to the system but have at least on full year of previous teaching experience. The mentoring programs will provide new teachers with support and orientation to the assigned buildings and the district. Staff development will be included within the mentoring programs and will assist teachers with improving their teaching skills. Secondary

of 13

supervisors and elementary curriculum consultants will dedicate approximately twenty percent of their time to helping new teachers. Teachers new to the district will participate in a three day institute that will provide professional development in the areas of classroom management, technology, diversity, working with all students, assessment, writing instruction, content standards, and grade or subject specific learning. Teachers new to the district will receive professional development throughout their first year of employment. The district will provide individual, school-based, and district-based professional development activities for all staff. An established committee will develop and manage the professional development activities district-wide. Each teacher will be required to obtain fifteen professional growth points per year that are approved by the district. The activities for growth points may include graduate level coursework, workshops, committee memberships, and professional conferences. Teachers may be provided with release time to work toward improved teaching or engaging in research or field experiences. The district will support some teachers in meeting the requirements of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards as part of the professional development program. The district will support a leadership development program to identify and increase the pool of quality administrators, provide aspiring administrators with skills for the future, and develop an understanding of the district’s culture. School improvement teams will develop building profiles to assist with the management of the school improvement process. The teams will refine achievement goals, identify research based strategies, and design a professional development plan to support the goals. Many additional initiatives and specialized services to support teachers and administrators are described on page twenty-four through twenty-seven of the plan.




o A detailed description of the evaluation plan is provided on pages twenty-seven through thirty-four of the plan. This review will provide some highlights from the description but should not be considered a comprehensive summary of the evaluation plan. The reader is referred to the submitted narrative for specifics about the evaluation plan. The narrative described the purpose of the evaluation as being “to determine the extent of the accomplishment of the Strategic Plan Principles”, “to determine the extent of accomplishment of the stated enabling objectives that are aligned to components of the plan”, and “to determine the impact of the project on the engagement and achievement of students of poverty”. The plan provides a description of formative and summative evaluation methods and results. The formative evaluation will be summarized once during the year from January through September and the summative evaluation will be completed at the end of the school year. The district will collect and analyze state assessment data, district assessment data, graduation rates, dropout rates, results

of 13

from climate surveys and other information collected by the district. The table on pages thirty-one through thirty-four of the plan listed additional data that will be collected and analyzed as part of the evaluation plan. In addition, this table provided the plan components, objectives, key strategies, measures (data), progress indicators, and which departments or offices are responsible for plan components and associated data. Also included on page 30 is a table that displayed the timeline for the evaluation data collecting process.



Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The district attached the “Academic Action Plan Best Instructional Practices,

Moving Classroom Instruction from Good to Great!” to the Poverty Plan. The document was published by the OPS Curriculum Instruction and Assessment office. The document listed teaching strategies, provided a description of the strategies, and provided the effects on student learning and achievement. This document provided additional information concerning topics that were included in the Poverty Plan. The reader is encouraged to review the document for additional information concerning teaching strategies and the potential impact on student learning.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required poverty plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79-1013. A review of the plans submitted by Omaha Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

of 10

Papillion-La Vista Public Schools LEP and Poverty Plans Introduction The Papillion-La Vista Public Schools submitted the LEP and Poverty Plan through the NDE Portal on September 22, 2014. The following individuals were listed as the contacts for the plans: Ron Hansen, authorized representative and Doug Lewis, financial contact. Questions regarding the plans should be directed to the appropriate individual. Summary of Review for LEP PLAN Papillion-La Vista Public Schools The school district submitted an estimated expenditure of $896,914.00 which yielded an estimated allowance of $762,377.00. This review provides a summary of the LEP Plan and a recommendation for consideration. The reader is referred to the actual plan if additional information is desired. Identification of students with Limited English Proficiency:





Reviewer summary and Recommendations: The district summarized the process they will use to identify students as being limited English proficient and the specific criteria used as part of the identification. School enrollment forms, school information, and a home language survey will be provided to incoming students. The plan identified that school registration, health, and emergency forms would be available in seven languages including English. Interpreters will be available to assist parents with the completion of the school enrollment information. If a student had a history of having been enrolled in an LEP program in another school the Director of English Language Services will call the school and request the student’s file and enrollment information. If information was not current or unavailable the district will administer a language proficiency assessment. Parents will be provided with information concerning their child’s performance, school’s recommendations for services, and signed authorization for LEP services will be requested. The plan indicated that the district will use current ELDA scores or the results of the LAS-Links Form A to determine the student’s level of English language proficiency. The overall goal of the program will be to have students reach mastery in all academic areas and perform at a proficient level on language proficiency assessments. The district will provide services to meet a range of student needs; this range will be from newcomer students to those who are successfully transitioned out of services. The district needs to be aware that the last administration of the ELDA will be during the 2014/15 school year. NDE will replace the ELDA with the ELPA21 for the next school year. The district will need to consider the process for the implementation of the ELPA21 during the

of 10

2015/16 school year. The information provided in the assessment section of the plan meets the expectation provided by NDE and agrees with the standards contained within NDE Rule 15.





a. YES

Reviewer summary and Recommendations: o LEP students will be viewed by the district as “full participants in each of the

Papillion-La Vista Schools.” LEP students will attend general education classrooms for grade level content and receive support from ELL teachers and paraprofessionals. ELL teachers and general education teachers will work together to prepare ELL strategies, test accommodations, and tiered vocabulary words for use in lesson plans and instruction. ELL teachers will participate in district trainings and in the professional learning communities. The district will identify supplemental support materials for reading, writing and math at both the elementary and secondary levels. The district will involve parents in activities, trainings, and community based parent education programs. The information provided in the assessment section of the plan meets the expectation provided by NDE and agrees with the standards contained within NDE Rule 15.








a. NO

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The plan indicated the district would follow NDE Rule 15 when determining a

student’s level of English proficiency. The district will also utilize district

of 10

developed formative check points as part of the process of determining language proficiency. Common formative and summative assessments will be used in scaffolding instruction and monitoring progress toward mastery of specific skills. The ELL teachers and director will analyze the data to identify performance trends and gaps. The data will be used to guide program improvement, professional development activities, and the acquisition of supplemental materials. The district indicated that approximately 10 to 11 percent of the LEP students exit the program each year. The plan identified the objective language measures that will be used to assess listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The reader is referred to the plan (question 7) for a listing of these measures. When measuring progress toward meeting content standards the district plans to use the same assessments that will be used for all other students. ELL benchmarks for reading, writing, listening, and speaking will also be used as part of the process to measure progress toward meeting content standards. The subjective performance measures listed by the district were: maintaining passing grade in core subjects, length of time enrolled in the program, involvement in school activities, recommendations from the teachers, and input from the parents. The information provided in the assessment section of the plan meets the expectation provided by NDE and agrees with the standards contained within NDE Rule 15.



the program? a. YES



a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The evaluation plan identified in the submitted plan included a data retreat where

the ELL teachers and the ELL administrator will examine the program’s strengths and areas of opportunity in order to establish program goals. During the year teachers, principals and district administrators will monitor program initiatives. The district will complete a formal program evaluation using the resources identified in NDE Rule 15. Student performance data including ELDA scores, district common assessment information, ELL common assessment results, and NeSA assessment information will be examined as part of the evaluation process. This review of the district’s LEP Plan is not intended to be an analysis of the district’s compliance with NDE Rule 15 program review requirements. However,

of 10

the information within this plan could be supportive of the district’s compliance with the Rule. Therefore, the district is encouraged to review section 008 of NDE Rule 15 for information regarding the annual review of the district’s program for the education of students with limited English language proficiency. The information provided in the assessment section of the plan meets the expectation provided by NDE.

Other:


sections? a. YES


Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The district included a brief narrative in the plan that summarized some the

initiatives that will be implemented to encourage parent involvement. The reader is also referred to the parent involvement section of the poverty for additional information about parent involvement at the school and district level that is in support of both the LEP and Poverty Plan.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required LEP plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79-1014. A review of the plans submitted by Papillion-La Vista Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

of 10

CHECKLIST FOR POVERTY PLAN REVIEW The review provides a summary and recommendation of the review of the Poverty Plan and a recommendation for action. The school district submitted an estimated expenditure of $1,892,247.00 which yielded an estimated allowance of $1,608,410.00. Attendance/Mobility:







Reviewer summary and recommendation: o The plan indicated that the goal for the district was 100 percent daily student

attendance. Building administrators, staff, counselors, and school social workers will monitor attendance and work with students and parents to achieve this goal. The interventions listed in the plan were: weekly team meetings to monitor student progress, development of student attendance plans, and student intervention plans designed to facilitate student growth. The district will track student attendance electronically and contact parents when a student is absent and the school has not received prior notification from the parent of the absence. The district will provide instructional intervention to assist students who miss school because of absence or mobility to continue their educational progress. School social workers will work with parents and students prior to any referral to the county attorney for truancy. The plan indicated that with neighborhood schools minimal student transportation services would be needed. The plan included information concerning transportation services for students through the open enrollment program and students who may be neglected or delinquent and living in group homes. The plan did not include information regarding transportation of students who qualify for free or reduced priced lunches living more than a mile from the attendance center. The district will allow and encourage students to remain in their original school when the families move to another attendance area within or outside the school district. The district will provide a program of instruction throughout the district that will enable mobile students to receive the same curriculum in any building within the district. The plan described additional

of 10

services and supports for students who miss instruction through absence or mobility in an attachment that was uploaded with the plan. The attachment described additional information about the use of the student data system to identify students who may need intervention or assistance. Additional information included in the attachment was: team meetings focused on student interventions, staff development activities, staff to student ratios, on-line instruction, and the alternative education program. The reader is referred to the attachment for additional information.

Parent Involvement:







a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The plan and the attachment uploaded as part of the plan described the parent

engagement initiatives, parent participation opportunities, and opportunities for parental input at the school and district level. These initiatives and opportunities will include: student-involved conferences and goal setting, electronic communication options, on-line grading system, personal parent contact by teachers and other staff members, parent education and training classes, family resource library, and parent councils in selected buildings. An annual Parent Involvement Hearing before the Board of Education will be scheduled to give parents an opportunity to share their concerns and recommendations regarding student instruction. Questionnaires and surveys will be used to gather parent input regarding the district and the instructional programs. In addition, the district will continue to use web-based services, e-mail, the computerized phone service, and the District App to improve communications with parents. The plan indicated that the electronic calling system will translate the phone messages for families whose primary languages are not English. The district will make paper copies of all information available upon request.

of 10








a. NO 13. (Learning Community ONLY) Is there a description of the coordination activities


a. NO

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The plan summarized the procedures to maintain small class sizes, provisions for

uninterrupted teaching time, limiting school day interruptions, and interacting with initiatives of the Learning Community. Class size for kindergarten through grade three would be maintained at twenty or fewer students and grades four through six would be maintained at twenty-four or fewer students. The priority for class size reductions will be focused on buildings with the highest poverty rates and additional staff and budget authorization will be provided to these buildings. The district will limit interruptions to instruction and the school day. Blocks of time will be set aside in the instructional schedule for teaching of reading and math. Teacher meetings and staff development activities will be held on non-student days. Extra-curricular activities will be scheduled outside the instructional day and buildings will be designed or modified to limit interruptions of instruction. The district will utilize paraprofessionals to provide student supervision and reinforcement of previously taught academic skills. The plan indicated that the district had not previously received any elementary learning center services provided through the Learning Community subcouncil. However, the plan indicated the district had made recommendations to the Learning Community Coordinating Council for the establishment of elementary learning centers within the district and indicated that they will continue to have discussions concerning the centers.

of 10










a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The plan described the early childhood program options provided by the district

and indicated that all early childhood programs met the requirements of NDE Rule 11. The services implemented by the district would serve children from birth until they entered kindergarten. The district will utilize both classroom and home based environments and services to meet the needs of young children. The district will host screening to identify young children in need of early childhood services. Support for community based early childhood services will be supported by providing shared professional development activities. The district will continue to work with and support the cooperative Sarpy County Head Start program. District employed school social workers will provide support for students and families. The social workers will support access to services and coordinate services for the benefit of families and the educational programs. The district will provide summer school and extended school day activities at no cost to families. At the elementary level summer school activities will focus on literacy and at the secondary level the focus will be on credit recovery. A summer transition program for incoming 8th and 9th grade students will be available at the secondary level. The district will continue the summer nutrition program and the services needed to transport students to the service sites if they live outside the attendance center. The plan summarized the jumpstart program funded through the Learning Community Subcouncil 6 summer program. The Poverty Plan

of 10

indicated that all Title 1 buildings provided after school tutoring programs for students needing additional assistance.







a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o All teachers new to the district will be provided with two additional days before

the contract begins to attend district training related to district policies, procedures, and curriculum practices. Building level mentors will be assigned to new teachers. Building level professional learning teams will focus on curriculum, instruction, and assessment. The district will provide professional development focused on curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Teachers will be trained to use instructional assessment data to address the individual needs of students. Administrators will meet weekly for professional learning activities. The district will continue to provide support that will enhance the opportunity for students to be successful at the college level. The program “College Possible” provides an intensive curriculum of coaching and support for students.

Evaluation:



Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The district provided an attachment to the Poverty Plan that described how the

district would determine if the elements of the Poverty Plan were effective. The focus of the plan will be the collection, use, and analysis of school and student performance data as part of the district’s continuous improvement model. Based upon the review of previous collected data, the plan indicated that the subgroup of students who qualified for free or reduced priced lunches have continued to improve their school performance. The data will be reviewed by teams at the

of 10

school and district level and used to improve instruction. The teams will disaggregate and analyze data and look for trends and gaps in the instructional program and student achievement. The teams will develop actions plans to address the trends and gaps.

Other:


a. NO

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The district did not provide any narrative for this optional question.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required Poverty Plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79-1013. A review of the plans submitted by Papillion-La Vista Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

of 8

Ralston Public Schools – LEP and Poverty Plan Introduction The Ralston Public Schools submitted the LEP and Poverty Plan through the NDE Portal on October 15, 2014. The contact information listed the following individuals as the contacts for the plans: Mark Adler, authorized representative; Dianne Young, project director; and Jason Buckingham, financial contact. Questions regarding the plans should be directed to the appropriate individual. Summary of Review for LEP Plan The review provides a summary and recommendation of the review of the LEP Plan and a recommendation for action. The school district submitted an estimated expenditure of $590,000.00 which yielded an estimated allowance of $501,500.00. Identification of students with Limited English Proficiency:





Reviewer summary and Recommendations: o The procedures utilized to identify students as limited English proficient were

summarized by the district in the submitted plan. A Home Language Survey will be completed at the time the families register their children for school along with the registration, health, and emergency forms. Forms used in the registration process will be available in seven languages, including English. Parents needing language support during the registration process may request an interpreter and/or the assistance of the district’s bilingual liaison. The district will use the Language Assessment Scales (LAS) or the LAS Links Form A to determine a student’s language proficiency. The district will provide a continuum of services ranging from maximum help for newcomers to minimum assistance for students fully transitioned into general education classrooms.





Reviewer summary and Recommendations: o Instructional services designed to assist students with learning English and

gaining knowledge of the required academic content will be provided. The district will provide a continuum of services that are designed to meet the individual needs of the students. Specialized instruction for language acquisition, access to grade level content, and independent use of instructional resources will

of 8

be available to support LEP students. Nebraska and Ralston Public Schools ELL standards for reading, writing, speaking, and will be the basis for the program. The plan listed the five ELL proficiency levels and the type of services that might be provided for students at each level. The district based the program, instructional strategies, and process for continuous program improvement on research supported by the U. S. Department of Education. The reader is referred to the plan for a summary of the characteristics of the program for limited English proficient students. The characteristics are organized within the categories of inclusion, enrichment, flexibility, coordination, and internal impetus. Please see the information provided in the response to question 5 for additional information.








Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The district outlined information: criteria for determining English proficiency;

objective language measures used to assess reading, writing, speaking, and listening; objective measures to assess progress toward meeting content standards; and subjective activities used to measure student progress. The district will rely on the guidance provided in NDE Rule 15 to determine when a student should be exited from the program. The plan indicated that the English Language Development Assessment (ELDA) or the LAS will be used as English proficiency tests and as a portion of the information for determining when a student is ready to exit the program. It is noted that the ELDA will be replaced by NDE with a new language proficiency test for the 2015/16 school year. The district will need to update their procedures to reflect the use of the new language proficiency test. Students enrolled in the LEP program will participate in the same assessments as all other students enrolled in the district. The district will use the following subjective activities to measure progress: ability to maintain passing grades, school activity participation, club memberships, sports involvement, and involvement in other events within the school.

Evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the LEP plan elements: Questions in this section:


a. YES

of 8




o The program will be reviewed annually and a program review report completed and presented to the superintendent. The report will provided information concerning the number of LEP students at each grade level, student progress toward proficiency with the English language, number of students eligible to exit the program, and a plan for improving the services provided by the school district. The staff will analyze the objective and subjective data to determine what is working and what the needs are of students, parents, and teachers. School secretaries will receive annual training that provides information concerning the enrollment procedures for potential LEP students. Student enrollment and eligibility information is recorded in the district’s student records and appropriate information submitted to NDE. The district will compile performance data for students and use this data to identify trends and gaps in student achievement and involvement.



a. YES 15. Has the district uploaded additional information for this item as needed?

a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The district will provide additional parent involvement activities that focus on

information about the school district and the community. The district has experienced an increase in the number of newcomers as well as students from countries not previously served by the district.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required LEP plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79-1014. A review of the plans submitted by Ralston Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

of 8

Summary for Poverty Plan Review The review provides a summary and recommendation of the review of the Poverty Plan and a recommendation for action. The school district submitted an estimated expenditure of $2,700,000.00 which yielded an estimated allowance of $2,295,000.00. Attendance/Mobility:







Reviewer summary and recommendation: o The district will utilize multiple approaches to improve student attendance. The

approaches listed in the plan included: daily monitoring and follow-up, a call to parents after the student had been absent for five days, conversations with counselors and social workers, home visits, school refusal assessments, and incentive programs. The school district will make adjustments at the classroom level for missing assignments and provide additional supports for students who are absent for more than five days. Following ten days of absence, a building level team, including the student and parents, will meet to develop and implement an individual plan for the student. The plan may include the following activities or supports: additional time to make up classwork assignments, participation in after-school homework clubs lead by teachers, involvement in mentoring programs, home/school contracts, and referrals to school or community agencies for support. Transportation options may include: services for open enrollment students qualifying for free or reduced lunches living more than a mile from the attendance center; options for students considered neglected, delinquent, or homeless; and assisting parents with locating transportation options for their children. Students who move to another attendance center within the district or outside the district boundaries may continue attending their current school for the remainder of the school year. Students moving outside the district may apply to continue their enrollment the following school year through the provisions of the open enrollment program. Parents will assume transportation responsibilities unless the student qualifies for transportation according to open enrollment procedures or is determined to be homeless.



a. YES

of 8






o Parent involvement activities and parent supports will be provided by the district and the schools. Home visits will start prior to the school year and will be designed to help parents connect to the schools. These visits will also promote parent involvement and knowledge of the resources provided by the district and the community. The district will provide access to the following services/supports for students and their parents: Back Pack Food Bank Program, before and after school instructional services, health screenings, One World Dental Services bus, free eye wear and checkups, and clothing. The schools will utilize back to school events and kindergarten roundup activities to inform parents of topics, resources, and services that will support families. Personalized phone calls and home visits will be used to connect with parents. Interpreters will be available to ensure that communication with the parents and information sent to the home will be translated into the family’s home language. The district will use the communication provided to families, home visits, and family activities to solicit input from parents. A support group for high school students who are pregnant or are parents will be facilitated by staff from the health office. In addition, the Ralston Foundation will continue to provide on-site child care services including services for children whose parents are high school students.







a. N/A 13. (Learning Community ONLY) Is there a description of the coordination activities


a. N/A

of 8

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The plan summarized the district practices designed to maintain smaller class

sizes, ensure teaching time will be protected, and interruptions to the school day will be limited. Each grade level will be assessed to determine the number of students qualifying for free or reduced priced lunches enrolled in each classroom. Whenever possible, classes with students qualifying for free or reduced priced lunches will have 20 or fewer students enrolled. Para-educators will be assigned to classrooms with high numbers of academically or behaviorally challenged students. The instructional schedule will be designed to provide teaching time that will be free from interruptions. Teachers will have time in their schedules to plan for instruction, analyze data, collaborate with other teachers, and develop classroom goals. Uninterrupted time for reading, math, science, and social studies will be included in the instructional schedule. Announcements will be made at specific times so that classroom instruction will not be repeatedly interrupted. The schools will implement a consistent behavior management and discipline plan to prioritize time on task within the classroom. The plan contained no information concerning services provided by the Learning Community Achievement Subcouncil or coordination of activities between the school district and elementary learning centers.





workers? a. YES





Reviewer summary and recommendations: o Specialized services that will be provided include: early childhood services,

summer school, extended school day services, and extended school year programs. The preschool learning program will be for resident children who are three and four years old. The research based program will provide the opportunity for children to participate in developmentally appropriate activities. Nine all day preschool classrooms will be operated by the district. The program will emphasize language development, social skills, motor development, and learning skills. Developmental screenings and child find activities will be held

of 8

throughout the district to identify children for participation in the program and inform parents of the opportunities for their children. Two full time social workers will be employed to serve students, preschool through high school, and their families. Summer school will be provided and the program will be at no cost to families. The summer program will focus on building confidence and preparing students for the next school year. Summer nutritional services, breakfast and lunch, will be included as part of the program. Elementary students will be provided with before and after school tutoring, homework clubs, and intramurals. Middle and high school students will be provided with a range of options to extend their school day and expand their learning opportunities. Summer credit recovery opportunities will be available. Two visits for mental health counseling by a licensed provider will provided by the district at no cost to parents. Social workers will assist parents in locating resources to meet their needs.








o The district’s mentoring program for new staff, staff development opportunities, and other supports and resources available to support staff working with students was described in the plan. The district mentoring program will be modeled after state guidelines for mentoring. The mentoring program will support the development of productive relationships between the mentee and the mentor. The program will also provide information about district and building policies, procedures, and resources. Effective classroom instructional strategies and the development of professional competencies will be included in the mentoring program and the corresponding professional development activities. Professional learning communities will be operational at each building and will meet regularly to analyze data and differentiate support based on the needs and talents of staff and students. Teachers and administrators will have opportunities to expand their knowledge through a variety of workshops. Book studies will also provide learning opportunities for staff.



a. YES

of 8

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The effectiveness of the plan will be evaluated by reviewing district level,

building level, and individual student achievement. The district will review data and how the activities supported by the plan impacted the performance of subgroups. The district will compile and compare data trends.


25. Does the district provide any additional information? a. NO

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o No information was provided for this optional question.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required poverty plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79-1013. A review of the plans submitted by Ralston Public Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

of 5

Springfield Platteview Community Schools-LEP and Poverty Plan Introduction The Springfield Platteview Community Schools submitted the LEP and Poverty Plan through the NDE Portal on October 9, 2014. The contact information in the plans listed Brett Richards as the authorized representative. Questions regarding the plans should be directed to Mr. Richards. Summary of Review for LEP PLAN Springfield Platteview Community Schools did not request an allowance for the LEP plan and therefore is declining to participate in the Limited English Proficiency Allowance for the certification of State Aid. For more specific information concerning this decision please contact Mr. Richards, the authorized representative for the district. The school district submitted an estimated expenditure of $00.00 which yielded an estimated allowance of $00.00. Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires districts to include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes if they elect to participate in the LEP allowance for the certification of state aid. The required LEP plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79-1014. The district elected not to participate in the allowance. Therefore, a review of the narrative within the LEP plan was not required. The plan, declining to participate in the LEP allowance, submitted by Springfield Platteview Community Schools demonstrated the district was in compliance with the statutes and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

of 5








Reviewer summary and recommendation: o A description of the district’s initiatives to support school attendance,

transportation for some students, and supports for students who miss instruction due to absences and mobility was summarized in the Poverty Plan. The district will place an importance on regular attendance and will call parents when students are absent and the school has not been notified in advance. When students experience excessive absences the district will contact the parent, request a meeting with the parent, have the SRO visit the home, refer the student to the GOALS team, and/or refer the case to the county attorney. The district transports students to the middle and high schools and elementary students living more than four miles from their attendance center. The district will transport open enrollment students who qualify for free or reduced priced lunches. The district operates one middle school and one high school, so in district transfer procedures apply only at the elementary level. Elementary students who move to another attendance area can request to continue their enrollment at the original elementary school. The district will support students who miss instruction by providing after school support, in school support by paraprofessionals, a guided study hall for secondary students, and missed homework will be provided.






a. YES

of 5



o Parent involvement at the building and district level was described as being an essential part of the school improvement plans and the continuous improvement process. Each school will have a committee that will address parent involvement and identify ways to enhance communication with and involvement in the schools. The district will increase person to person meetings, home visits, and communication with the use of student planners. The district will continue using Facebook, website surveys, parent meetings, community forums, parent advisory meetings, and board of education meetings to facilitate input from parents and community members. The district will continue to encourage staff to make personal connections with parents and facilitate their access to social services when needed.










The district will continue to limit class size and the administration will work with the board of education to develop a policy limiting class sizes at each grade level. The district will add staff if enrollment goes above the class size goals. The district and school administration will limit interruptions to teaching time and the school day. Master schedules will be developed that limit class time interruptions and establish longer blocks of time for the teaching of reading. Activities will be scheduled close to the end of the school day and long distance travel for athletics and activities will be limited, when possible. The district has a grant with the Learning Community that supports an after school program for grades 2-3 at each elementary school to support math skills. The district will continue to work with the Early Childhood Buffet Institute to implement the superintendents’ early childhood education plans.

of 5





workers? a. YES



19. Are there extended-school-year programs? a. NO


Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The district will continue to provide a three and four year old early childhood

program and coordinate with Sarpy County Head Start services for qualified students. The district will share information regarding early childhood programs and enrollment procedures with the community prior to the start of the school year. The district will refer students and families for services provided by social workers. A limited number of referrals to an outside counselor at district expense will be provided. A four week elementary summer school supporting math and reading was included in the plan. A once a week after-school math program for second and third grade students will be continued. The district will continue to work with Sarpy County Education Program that provides an education for students who have been long term suspended or expelled from school. The district will consider options for providing additional after school programs and seek funding sources. The district will provide personalized educational services for students needing academic support.







a. YES

of 5

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o Mentors will be assigned to new teachers and support will be provided by grade

level teams, the district Director of Learning, professional learning communities, and the principals. The professional development program will provide training in the following areas: professional learning communities, response to intervention, differentiated instruction, technology, and assessment analysis. The district will be working on a new policy to ensure the district is consistent and more focused on student learning in the grading of students.




o The district will continue to disaggregate MAP and NeSA student assessment results to determine the achievement levels of students groups. Based on an analysis of achievement data the district will develop and implement initiatives to address the educational concerns and to ensure that all student groups are achieving at similar levels. The continuous improvement process and interventions will focus on areas that are not meeting district goals.



Reviewer summary and recommendations: o No additional information was provided for this optional question.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required poverty plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79-1013. A review of the plans submitted by Springfield Platteview Community Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

of 10

Westside Community Schools-LEP and Poverty Plan Introduction The Westside Community Schools submitted the LEP and Poverty Plan through the NDE Portal on October 7, 2014. The contact information listed the following individuals as the contacts for the plans: Blane McCann, authorized representative; Ruby Larson, program director; and Bob Zagozda, financial contact. Questions regarding the plans should be directed to the appropriate individual. The district did not attach any additional optional information as part of the plans. Summary of Review for LEP PLAN The review provides a summary and recommendation of the review of the LEP Plan and a recommendation for action. The school district submitted an estimated expenditure of $527,610.00 which yielded an estimated allowance of $448,468.00. Identification of students with Limited English Proficiency:





Reviewer summary and Recommendations: o The LEP Plan summarized the district’s policies and procedures that will be used

to identify students as limited English proficient. The district will continue to use a home language survey for all incoming kindergarten students and students enrolling for the first time in school in the state of Nebraska. If there is an indication on the home language survey that the student speaks a language other than English, a language proficiency assessment will be administered. The district will use either the IDEA Language Proficiency Test (IPT) or Language Assessment Scales (LAS) to determine the level of English language proficiency. Previous school records will also be used to determine the student’s language proficiency level and program needs. When a student performs below the fluent English language level for their grade they will be eligible for ELL services. Parents will receive information concerning the assessment results and program status in their home language when possible. Interpreters will be available to translate for parents. The plan indicated the district would use TransAct, a document translation service provided by the Nebraska Department of Education, to assist with providing information and forms to parents whose home language is not English.

of 10





a. YES

Reviewer summary and Recommendations: o The plan described the instructional approaches that will be used by the district

and the rationale for using these approaches. The district will emphasize neighborhood schools for students including students identified as LEP. The plan stated that the district’s plan was based on an enrollment of approximately 200 LEP students speaking 22 different native languages. Their program will place students in appropriate grade level classrooms and provide all teachers with the training needed to meet the educational needs of students who are not proficient in the English language. The goal for the instructional program will be to assist LEP students in “developing/attaining English proficiency for successful access to classroom content so they can meet state academic standards”. The district will provide all teachers with appropriate staff development to instruct and support LEP students. ELL teachers will support students and work with classroom teachers as needed. The district will provide students with resources to access their native language. These resources will include: laptop computers with online resources and language translation capabilities, student buddy or mentoring programs, bilingual texts, magazines in the native language, bilingual dictionaries and resource materials, and other appropriate options. The reader is referred to the submitted plan for additional information regarding the instructional plan.







a. YES

of 10


Reviewer summary and recommendations: o Information regarding how the district will measure students’ progress toward

mastering the English language is summarized in the plan. Methods that will be used to measure progress will include performance levels on Nebraska’s English language proficiency test, state content assessments, district assessments, teacher recommendations, parental input, student portfolios, classroom performance and grades, and special student recognitions. The state and district academic performance assessments will be used to measure the student’s knowledge of content standards. The district will continue the employment of an English proficient Spanish liaison, a certified teacher and a native speaker in Spanish, to assist school psychologists and other diagnosticians with special education assessments and translation services during special education meetings with the parents.



the program? a. YES



a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The district will annually review the programs serving LEP students and prepare

recommendations based upon this review to improve services for the identified students. The annual review will comply with the requirements in section 008 of NDE Rule 15. The review will be conducted by a team of educators and the written summary of the review will be filed with the superintendent of schools and maintained for public access as required by NDE Rule 15. The district will analyze the performance of LEP students and compare this performance with students who are not limited English proficient. Appropriate program modifications will be developed and implemented based upon the results of the program review and the analysis of student performance data.

of 10

Other:


sections? a. YES


Reviewer summary and recommendations: o All students, including LEP students, will be offered extended learning

opportunities to ensure academic success and enrichment. These extended learning experiences will include after-school labs, Saturday school, intersession opportunities, and summer school. The plan indicated that the LEP student population has remained balanced. The district has experienced an increase in the number of students needing assessments. This increase has and will continue to increase the resources needed for the assessment of English proficiency.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required LEP plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79-1014. A review of the plans submitted by Westside Community Schools’ demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved. _______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date ________________________ ________________________ Ted Stilwill Date

of 10








Reviewer summary and recommendation: o The submitted plan summarized the district’s initiatives for encouraging regular

school attendance and supporting students who are mobile. The district’s attendance officer will be responsible for enforcing the provisions of state attendance laws, district policies, and the Learning Community’s plans relating to school attendance. The district will communicate with parents through phone calls and letters when students are absent from school. School social workers will be alerted when students have attendance issues or are frequently tardy for school or classes. Services provided by the Learning Community’s GOALS program will be used to assist with chronic student absences. Students with excessive absences and their parents will be referred to the county attorney as required by statute. The district will provide free school transportation for students living in a designated area of the district with high levels of poverty. The district will provide bus passes for students from low income families who attend the middle school or the high school. The district will transport students who are considered homeless or students who participate in the open enrollment program and qualify for transportation services. Students who move to another elementary attendance area during the year will be permitted to continue their enrollment at their original school. The district operates one high school and one middle school so students moving within the community will remain in the same secondary attendance area. The district will provide additional services, supports, and resources for students who miss instruction due to absences or mobility. This intervention may include

of 10

transportation to school, assistance over the lunch period, opportunity to work with volunteers, and access to on-line curriculums and assignments.

Parent Involvement:







a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o Individual schools and the district place an emphasis on parent involvement and

support. Each of the buildings and the district will provide parent engagement activities throughout the school year. Several elementary buildings changed the curriculum nights into Parent Collaboration Nights where the staff will model the use of reading and math materials and work with parents to teach strategies for helping their child with the educational concepts. Interpreters will be assigned to assist with communications during meetings with parents whose primary language is not English. The district will maintain a contract with a mental health agency to provide mental health assistance to families without charge. School events will provide opportunities for parents to receive information about the school(s) and the district and provide input for consideration. The district will use paper and electronic surveys to obtain stakeholder input. Social media will also be used to give families information and provide them with an opportunity to share their input with the school district. Additional services, supports and resources will be provided that will assist with meeting student and family needs. The reader is referred to question 8 of the plan for information concerning these services, supports, and resources.




of 10







a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o Class size parameters have been established for the elementary levels and the

parameters vary based on the building’s Title 1 eligibility status. The class size capacity for Title 1 buildings will be; eighteen for grades K-2, twenty for grades 3-4, and twenty-one for grades 5-6. The classroom capacity for non-Title 1 buildings will be: twenty for grades K-2, twenty-one for grades 3-4, and twenty-two for grades 5-6. The plan indicated that most students will attend their neighborhood school. The district will monitor class sizes and place option and open enrolled students in schools that have not exceeded the capacity parameters. Policies will be in place to monitor classroom schedules and ensure that teaching time will be free from unlimited interruptions. A block of instruction time will be set aside for the teaching of reading and math. Building level behavioral plans will be implemented to limit interruptions due to student misbehavior. The middle school will have behavioral interventionists that will work with students who are experiencing behaviors that interrupt their and their classmates’ learning. Announcements and extracurricular activities are scheduled for non-instructional time when possible. Access to school buildings will be controlled and individuals arriving after the start of the school day must contact the office to gain entry to the building. The district will work with the Learning Community and the Achievement Sub-council to close the achievement gap for students in higher risk Title 1 buildings. A grant from the Learning Community will be used to continue the support for literacy coaching in two of the district’s Title 1 buildings. The district will participate in the Learning Community’s Program Showcase to share ideas and learn from others.

of 10










a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The district will continue to provide early childhood services in collaboration with

the Westside Foundation in seven of the elementary buildings. The plan described preschool services for four year old children, toddler programs, and early childhood special education services. In addition to providing services for young children, the district will also provide resources for families through the Family Resource Center. Tuition assistance will be provided for low income families for programs that are tuition based. Some of the early childhood services and programs will be provided at no cost. The reader is referred to the plan for additional information concerning the early childhood programs and services and the children served. The district will continue to employ social workers to work with students and their families. The district employed an additional social worker during the 2014/15 school year. The district will continue to provide summer school, extended school day, and extended school year services. Some services will operate throughout the summer months. The plan described the district’s Family Learning Center that is located at two apartment units within the district. The center will provide extended learning experiences for students and access to technology. The district will also assign teacher leaders to four of the Title 1 buildings to provide additional support for teachers working with high needs students. The reader is referred to the plan for additional information about the Family Learning Center and teacher leaders.

of 10







a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations: o New or newly hired teachers will be supported with a mentor and participate in a

formal three-year induction program that will focus on effective instruction. Teachers will receive support through the grade level and course level professional learning communities that focus on student achievement. District, building, and individual staff development opportunities will be available to support teachers. The staff development opportunities will provide support for teachers as they work with their students and improve their teaching skills. This support will focus on some of the following themes: instruction, behavior management, social/emotional development, data analysis, and educational interventions. The plan provided additional information regarding mentoring, professional development, and services that will support teachers and administrators in working with students from poverty and diverse backgrounds. The reader is referred to the plan for additional information concerning these initiatives.

Evaluation:



Reviewer summary and recommendations: o The district will evaluate each component of the Poverty Plan on a regular basis.

The district plans to use data regarding student attendance and mobility, parent involvement, use of technology and social media, surveys from participants in staff development activities, and evaluation results of individual programs to evaluate the effectiveness of the Poverty Plan. The district will use their internal team, Data Firestarters, to analyze data and assist building staff with the analysis

of 10

of the building level data. The team will assist with the district’s AdvancED visit and help implement changes in designated district initiatives. Additional information regarding the district’s plans for evaluating the effectiveness of the programs is summarized in the submitted plan.

Other:

Questions in this section:25. Does the district provide any additional information?

a. YES

Reviewer summary and recommendations:o In the final section of the plan the district stated that since the 2003/04 school year

the “percent of low income families within the District has increaseddramatically-from 17.61% to 31.31% in December 2013”. The plan alsoindicated that several new initiatives described within the grant would help thedistrict support the educational environment for all students.

Recommendations for consideration: Nebraska State Statute requires that districts include an explanation of how they will address each of the issues identified in the statutes. The required poverty plan issues are listed in Nebraska Statute 79-1013. A review of the plans submitted by Westside community Schools demonstrated that the district explained how they planned to address the issues identified in law and therefore it is recommended that the plan be approved.

_______________________ ________________________ Richard L. Schoonover Date


MEMORANDUM

TO: Members of the Learning Community Coordinating Council

FROM: Ted Stilwill

DATE: November 20, 2014

RE: Superintendents’ Learning Community Review

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Overview

A consensus position on the Common Levy has emerged from the Superintendents' Evaluation of the Learning

Community. Because this agreement is tied to specific conditions, which would require the Legislature to commit to

significant new funding, we cannot project a clear outcome. Legislative bills in response to the Superintendents’ Report,

must be drafted and filed by January 21. We will keep the Council informed on legislative implications and additional

report modifications. The report analysis below reflects on our primary roles and responsibilities, a possible concern,

structural changes and financing.

1. PRIMARY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES SUPPORTED

The superintendents have strongly affirmed the major work of the Coordinating Council and staff for the last three

years. The group supports the Council's tightly focused mission* directed towards the educational needs of children and

families in poverty. *Adopted July 2013

Elementary Learning Centers, Elementary programs and Focus Schools

(Recommendations VI, VII, VII)

a. Community Centers

The superintendents recognize the well‐documented impact of the Family Learning program in the Learning

Community Center of South Omaha. They also understand the need for the family support and intensive early

childhood programs associated with the new Learning Community Center of North Omaha. As the higher

education collaborative and professional development components expand, we anticipate continued support

with shared benefits for school districts.

b. School‐based Elementary Programs

The superintendents value these increasingly successful programs in partnership with nine school districts.

Open Enrollment (Recommendations III, IV, V) Our annual reports, making it clear that Open Enrollment policy is unlikely to directly impact socio‐economic diversity* or contribute to a measurable reduction in the achievement gap, have been acknowledged. While the original intent of the Legislature may not be realized, Open Enrollment has clear value in providing strong parent choice in education. Lower income families currently participate without limitation and the data confirms that the current process provides greater equity. With more than 6,000 students currently enrolled, equitable opportunity is tied to the availability of free transportation for families who do not have the means to provide it. The superintendents reasonably wish their reimbursement for growing transportation costs not come from their instructional resources. We expect Open Enrollment to continue with more realistic insights for the value it delivers to families. * Note: Socio‐economic diversity has increased by more than 10% in the Learning Community since 2007, but there is no evidence that this

is due to the Open Enrollment policy.

November 20, 2014 Agenda Item 10 (a)

2. POSSIBLE CONCERN Core Services Funding (Included in Recommendation I) While the superintendents affirm the value of our major work, their current consensus position includes an alternative

for funding our major resource for program evaluation. If this alternative was not accepted and the funding sources

were not replaced, evaluation resources would have to come from dollars currently allocated for instructional programs

or services. These funds are critical in the following areas:

a. Community center programs are in varying and critical phases of evaluation. This ties directly to the

Legislature's requested visionary resources. For programs to scale up, demonstrate local proof of concept and

guide funding decisions, these funds are crucial.

b. Contribute to the evaluation of the Superintendents' Early Childhood Plan guided by the Buffet Early Childhood

Institute

c. Supports data analysis of the GOALS project developed by Learning Community superintendents.

3. STRUCTURAL CHANGES

(Recommendations IX, X)

The proposed changes reflect a much improved and collaborative relationship reducing the need for mandated

engagement. Under the recommendation to eliminate redundant reporting and repeal the statute establishing the

Superintendents' Advisory Committee, the Learning Community is still able to request information and reports

submitted to the state without formal Council action. We regularly seek input during scheduled meetings of the groups

listed below:

Diversity Subcommittee: voluntary meetings of Open Enrollment coordinators and district staff

Elementary Learning Subcommittee: voluntary attendance with central office officials

Evaluation Collaborative: voluntary participants from central office staff, researchers and evaluators

4. FINANCE

Common Levy (Recommendation I, set of four)

The Superintendents’ consensus position on the Common Levy has been time consuming, and the result is complex.

There are two important points at the current time:

1. It is heartening that all 11 superintendents agree that state funding must increase to meet the educational

needs of students from families in poverty and where English is not spoken in the home. This is very important

because some of the lowest spending school districts statewide, with the fastest growing poverty, are in the

Learning Community. While our districts have pockets of high wealth, we also see increasingly large areas of

concentrated, high poverty. The statistical evidence is clear that the academic performance of students from

those families lags markedly behind other students. This is not good for developing a strong workforce and

certainly not good for the loss of human potential. These districts should not have to compete with each other

for funds to serve a growing number of students in greatest need.

2. While the Common Levy is an innovative part of the Learning Community legislation from 2007, the Council has

no ability to change or restructure the funding mechanism. There are many ideas being deliberated. A more

effective and equitable distribution of property taxes is probably possible under the Common Levy mechanism

if there was agreement on that central purpose. Outside of the Common Levy the Superintendents have also

indicated that “tiered” funding to address higher concentrations of poverty might be in order. But it is not even

clear that the Common Levy was ever really intended to provide more resources for the education of children

from families in poverty. Decisions to change or eliminate the Common Levy belong to the Legislature. Our

eleven school districts are most effected and should speak for themselves. Should clear and enduring

consensus evolve, the Council could then consider support. Without a clearly defined purpose from the

Education Committee and the Legislature, moving forward on this issue is difficult.

final 101614council minutes ts - learning community · october 31, 2014 trans description credit...

Documents