National Professional Development Program Grant Performance Report Cover Sheet

Transcription

1 Annual Performance (Check one) Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Complete Data Report (Check one) Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Final Performance Report National Professional Development Program Grant Performance Report Cover Sheet General Information 1. PR/Number: T195N NCES ID#: (Block 5 of the Grant Award tification - 11 Characters.) (See Instructions - 6 Characters.) 3. Project Title: Listo! Sharp and Ready: Strategies for ELL Student Success (Enter the same title as on the approved application.) 4. Grantee Name (Block 1 of the Grant Award tification): Texas A&M University-Commerce: Dept of Curr & Inst 5. Grantee Address (See Instructions) 6. Project Director Name: Martha M. Foote Title: Professor and Head Ph #: (903) Ext: ( ) Fax # : (903) Address: Martha_Foote@tamu-commerce.edu Reporting Period Information (See Instructions.) 7. Reporting Period: From: 07/02/2009 To: 07/01/2010 (mm/dd/yyyy) Budget Expenditures (To be completed by your Business Office. See instructions. Also see Section C.) 8. Budget Expenditures Federal Grant Funds a. Previous Budget Period $265,260 b. Current Budget Period $250,876 c. Entire Project Period (For Final Performance Reports only) Indirect Cost Information (To be completed by your Business Office. See instructions.) 9. Indirect Costs a. Are you claiming indirect costs under this grant? Yes b. If yes, do you have an Indirect Cost Rate Agreement approved by the Federal Government? Yes c. If yes, provide the following information: Period Covered by the Indirect Cost Rate Agreement: From: 09/ 01/2009 To: 08/31/2012 (mm/dd/yyyy) Approving Federal agency: ED Other (Please specify): Type of Rate (For Final Performance Reports Only): Provisional Final Other (Please specify) d. For Restricted Rate Programs (check one) -- Are you using a restricted indirect cost rate that: Is included in your approved Indirect Cost Rate Agreement? Complies with 34 CFR (c)(2)? Human Subjects (See Instructions.) 10. Is the annual certification of Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval attached? Yes N/A 11. To the best of my knowledge and belief, all data in this performance report are true and correct and the report fully discloses all known weaknesses concerning the accuracy, reliability, and completeness of the data. Larry Lemanski Name of Authorized Representative: Signature: Title: Provost & Vice President for Academic Affairs Date: / / 1

2 National Professional Development Program Executive Summary Implementation of the Listo! Sharp and Ready: Strategies for ELL Student Success project began July1, During the academic year, the third year of the grant, we continued the work from the last two years and expanded on it. Project participants included Curriculum and Instruction (C&I) faculty from the Texas A&M University-Commerce, preservice and inservice teachers in the university s teacher education program and teachers, instructional specialists, administrators, students and parents from the two partner districts, Greenville ISD and Garland ISD. This Complete Data Report (CDR) presents the annual results (GPRA measures) for the Listo! project. The project serves both pre-service program participants as well as in-service teachers. We typically have between 350 and 450 students who graduate from our undergraduate PK-12 teacher preparation programs through our university s Department of Curriculum and Instruction. These preservice teachers graduate with a Bachelor of Science degree and an elementary, middle level, secondary, or all level education certificate, thereby meeting both state and federal definitions as fully qualified teachers. We reviewed departmental enrollment and completion data in order to set the targets for the various GPRA measures. In , we had 439 students who completed undergraduate degrees through our C&I department so this year we estimated we would have around 400 graduates again, setting this number as our target. When we did our actual count after our May 2010 graduation, we found that we had 359 undergraduate students who completed EC-6, 4-8, 8-12 and all level certification programs. Bilingual and ESL certification in Texas are supplementary certification programs that are built on mainstream elementary or content area certificates. During Year 2 of the project ( ) we had 439 students who completed their undergraduate degrees through our C&I department. 37 students, representing 8% of the total, also obtained bilingual or ESL teaching certificates. We based our targets for this year on last year s figures, estimating that the percentage would rise 1% to 9%. This year, the academic year, we had 359 preservice students graduate from our PK-12 teacher preparation programs at Texas A&M University-Commerce. 35 of these students (10 % of the total) graduated with a certificate in bilingual or ESL education. This was a 2% increase in the percentage of all students, which exceeded our target of 9%. The core courses in our teacher preparation programs were revised and implemented during the first two years of the Listo! project. While graduates from the academic year were able to take a few of these classes, this year s cohort of graduates had the opportunity to take the full complement of revised courses. We consider them our first cohort of completers as defined by the grant. Many of these graduates did not yet have teaching positions at the end of the academic year. We will follow them up and report in May 2011 on whether or not they were placed in instructional settings serving LEP students within 1 year of program completion. As mentioned above, the Listo! project also serves in-service participants. The program of 2

3 study for in-service teachers through our project is not designed to lead participants to state and/or local certification, licensure, or endorsement in LEP instruction. The in-service teachers who are part of the master s cohort, that is teachers taking bilingual, ESL, elementary or secondary education courses paid for by the grant, are already fully certified teachers. All the elementary teachers already have bilingual certification. All the secondary teachers are ESL certified and/or certified in the content areas they teach. They are taking the courses either to add to their knowledge of ELL instruction and/or to obtain masters degrees. Since the first year of the project, teachers in the two project districts, Greenville and Garland, have been invited to take up to five graduate courses at our university for which the grant would pay their tuition and textbooks. Those who have taken the five courses are counted as our in-service teacher completers. As with the pre-service participants, we reviewed our program data to set the reporting targets. Our original target was 20 teachers who would take at least one graduate course by the end of the five years of the project. We hoped that some of them would go on to complete masters degrees specializing in bilingual or ESL education. Because by the second year of the project we had already exceeded that goal both in terms of number of teachers participating and in terms of courses taken, we raised our target to 30 teachers. We have exceeded that target by 50%, as by the end of the third year we had paid for 85 course registrations for 40 teachers. In addition 12 teachers have made the decision to do an M.Ed. degree with us, specializing in bilingual or ESL education. During the third year of the Listo! project, we had the first group of our in-service teachers complete their five courses. Six teachers met this goal. Three of these six teachers are bilingual elementary teachers in Greenville ISD and three teach different content areas at the secondary level in Garland ISD. All of these in-service teachers are members of the Listo! project masters cohort and all currently provide instructional service to LEP students. The project is not currently experiencing any challenges in collecting data on our in-service participants who have completed the program of study. All of our completers are teaching in partner districts thus facilitating ongoing communication and feedback. Although it is not required, we plan to collect achievement data for the ELL students in the classrooms of teachers who have participated in the masters cohort and compare it to the data for ELL students in the classrooms of other teachers in the district who have not participated in the cohort. We have established a project website housed on our department s webpage at We invite you visit it for more information on current and past project activities. 3

4 A. NPD GPRA Data Item A1 data table A1. Pre-service program participants a. Does this project serve pre-service program participants? If, skip to item A2. Pre-service participants served in the NPD program during the reporting year Yes Target Actual b. Number of pre-service participants served in the program during the reporting year. c. Number of pre-service program participants who completed the program of study during the reporting year. d. Number of pre-service program participants who completed the program of study and were state and/or locally certified, licensed, or endorsed in LEP instruction during the reporting year. te: If a zero was entered for item A1c, then enter no completers ( NC ) for item A1d. Pre-service participants who completed the program of study the year prior to the reporting year e. Number of pre-service program participants who completed the program of 0 0 study the year prior to the reporting year. f. Number of pre-service program participants who completed the program of NC NC study the year prior to the reporting year and were followed after program completion to determine placement status within 1 year of program completion. te: If a zero was entered for item A1e, then enter NC for item A1f. g. Number of pre-service program participants who completed the program of NC NC study the year prior to the reporting year, were followed by the grantee, and were placed in instructional settings serving LEP students within 1 year of program completion. te: If a zero was entered for item A1e, then enter NC for item A1g. Pre-service participants who completed the program of study 3 years prior to the reporting year te: Grantees should only report items A1h, A1i, and A1j in the Final Performance Report. Grantees should not provide target values for these items--only actual data. h. Number of pre-service program participants who completed the program of study 3 years prior to the reporting year. i. Number of pre-service program participants who completed the program of study 3 years prior to the reporting year and were followed to determine provision of instructional services to LEP students during the reporting year. te: If a zero was entered for item A1h, then enter NC for item A1i. 4

5 Item A1 data table - continued j. Number of pre-service program participants who completed the program of study 3 years prior to the reporting year, were followed by the grantee, and are providing instructional services to LEP students. te: If a zero was entered for item A1h, then enter NC for item A1j. Explanation of Progress (Use as many pages as necessary). Target Actual A1b In recent years we have had between 350 and 450 students who graduate from our undergraduate PK-12 teacher preparation programs through our university s Department of Curriculum and Instruction. These preservice teachers graduate with a Bachelor of Science degree and an elementary, middle level, secondary, or all level education certificate, thereby meeting both state and federal definitions as fully qualified teachers. To estimate the number of total students we expected to have in our program during this, the third project year, we multiplied the higher figure, 450 students, who would be seniors (and graduate) by two as we calculated we would have an approximately equal or greater number of students who would be juniors. This came to a total of 900 students that we estimated would be taking any of the undergraduate courses revised as a result of the Listo! grant. For the actual number of students we added together the number of students who did their residencies (their last semester) in the fall of 2009 to the number that did their internships (second to last semester) or residencies in the spring of This was our number of seniors working on PK-12 teacher certification at our university. To calculate the number of juniors, we counted the number of students who took ELED 300 or ELED 300, a course required of all our students which they typically take during their junior years. When we added the figures for the juniors to that of the seniors we came up with 1123, which was considerably higher than our original estimate. We think this may be due to the fact that quite a few students do not get through our program in just two years or that there may have been some duplications in our counts, say for students who took both ELED 300 and did an internship or residency in the same year. We will look again at this issue next year, especially for those not yet in their senior year, to ensure we have an accurate count. A1c Last year we had 439 students who completed their undergraduate degrees through our C&I department so this year we estimated we would have around 400 graduates again, setting this number as our target. When we did our actual count after our May 2010 graduation, we found that we had 359 undergraduate students who completed EC-6, 4-8, 8-12 and all level certification programs. A1d Last year we had 439 students who completed their undergraduate degrees through our C&I department. This number included teachers who obtained bilingual or ESL certification as well as those who did not. Bilingual and ESL certification in Texas are supplementary certification programs that are built on mainstream elementary or content area certificates. 5

6 37 students, who represented 8% of the total 439 students, obtained bilingual or ESL teaching certificates. We based our targets for this year on last year s figures, estimating that the percentage would rise by 1% to 9% of the total. Nine percent of 400 would be 36 students. This year, the academic year, we had 359 preservice students graduate from our PK- 12 teacher preparation programs. 35 of these students (10 % of the total) graduated with a certificate in bilingual or ESL education. This was one student less than our target, but represented a 2% increase in the percentage of all students, which exceeded our target of 9%. A1e Last year s cohort of graduates did not get to take all of the courses that were revised as a result of the grant. Some of them had taken a few of the courses, but the majority of the courses are offered during the junior year and had not yet been implemented in when they were juniors. As a result, we did not have anyone in the academic year who graduated who had also had a full complement of the revised courses. Plans for future data collection The first cohort of students that were able to take all of the revised core courses graduated in May We consider them our first cohort of completers as defined by the grant. Many of these graduates did not yet have teaching positions at the end of the academic year. We will follow them up and report in May 2011 on whether or not they were placed in instructional settings serving LEP students within 1 year of program completion. Establishing such a system will provide us with a wealth of data to help inform our program. It will also provide an avenue to collect feedback from our alumni once they are in a professional role. Additional details about the system can be provided as the process is established. Item A2 data table A2. Paraprofessionals a. Does this project serve paraprofessional participants who are training to work as paraprofessionals and not working toward teacher credentials? If, skip to item A3. Paraprofessionals served in the NPD program during the reporting year b. Number of paraprofessional participants served in the NPD program during the reporting year. c. Number of paraprofessional participants who completed the program of study during the reporting year. d. Number of paraprofessional participants who completed the program of study and met state and/or local qualifications for paraprofessionals working with LEP students during the reporting year. te: If a zero was entered for item A2c, then enter NC for item A2d. Explanation of Progress (Use as many pages as necessary). Yes Target Actual 6

7 Item A3 data table A3. In-service participants a. Does this project serve in-service participants? If, skip to Section B. Yes b. Does this project have a program of study designed to lead in-service participants to state and/or local certification, licensure, or endorsement in LEP instruction? If,, skip to A3f. In-service participants in a program of study that is designed to lead participants to state and/or local certification, licensure, or endorsement in LEP instruction during the reporting year Target Actual c. Number of in-service participants served in the program of study that is designed to lead in-service participants to state and/or local certification, licensure, or endorsement in LEP instruction during the reporting year. d. Number of in-service participants who completed the program of study that is designed to lead pre-service participants to state and/or local certification, licensure, or endorsement in LEP instruction during the reporting year. e. Number of in-service participants who completed the program of study that is designed to lead in-service participants to state and/or local certification, licensure, or endorsement in LEP instruction and obtained state and/or local certification, licensure, or endorsement in LEP instruction as a result of the program during the reporting year. te: If a zero was entered for item A3d, then enter NC for item A3e. f. Does this project have a program of study for in-service participants that is Yes not designed to lead to state and/or local certification, licensure, or endorsement in LEP instruction? If,, skip to A3i. In-service participants in a program of study that is not designed to lead participants to state and/or local certification, licensure, or endorsement in LEP instruction during the reporting year Target Actual Yes 7

8 g. Number of in-service participants served in the program of study that is not designed to lead to state and/or local certification, licensure, or endorsement in LEP instruction during the reporting year. h. Number of in-service participants who completed the program of study 4 6 that is not designed to lead to state and/or local certification, licensure, or endorsement in LEP instruction during the reporting period. For all in-service participants (includes those in a program of study that is designed to lead participants to state and/or local certification, licensure, or endorsement in LEP instruction during the reporting year as well as those that are not) Target Actual i. Number of in-service participants (includes those taking part in programs designed and not designed to lead to state and/or local certification, licensure, or endorsement in LEP instruction) who completed the program of study and are providing instructional services to LEP students during the reporting year. Explanation of Progress (Use as many pages as necessary). 4/4 (100%) 6/6 (100%) A3a Since the first year of the project, teachers in the two project districts, Greenville and Garland, have been invited to take up to five graduate courses at our university for which the grant would pay their tuition and textbooks. Those who have taken the five courses are counted as our inservice teacher completers. A3b and A3f The program of study for inservice teachers through the Listo! project is not designed to lead participants to state and/or local certification, licensure, or endorsement in LEP instruction. The inservice teachers who are part of the master s cohort, that is teachers taking bilingual, ESL, elementary or secondary education courses paid for by the grant, are already fully certified teachers. All the elementary teachers already have bilingual certification. All the secondary teachers are ESL certified and/or certified in the content areas they teach. They are taking the courses either to add to their knowledge of ELL instruction and/or to obtain masters degrees. A3g Our original target was 20 teachers who would take at least one graduate course by the end of the five years of the project. We hoped that some of them would go on to complete masters degrees specializing in bilingual or ESL education. Because by the second year of the project we had already exceeded that goal both in terms of number of teachers participating and in terms of courses taken, we raised our target to 30 teachers. We have exceeded that target by 50%, as by the end of the third year we had paid for 85 course registrations for 40 teachers. In addition 12 teachers have made the decision to do an M.Ed. degree with us, specializing in bilingual or ESL education. A3h Prior to the third project academic year ( ), we had not yet had any of our graduate students in the master s cohort complete the five graduate courses paid for by the grant, which we define as completing their program. We knew that several teachers had taken 2 or 3 courses so set an arbitrary target of four teachers who would complete the five courses. This year, we had six teachers meet this goal. Three of these six teachers are bilingual elementary 8

9 teachers in Greenville ISD and three teach different content areas at the secondary level in Garland ISD. All of these inservice teachersare members of the Listo! project masters cohort and all currently provide instructional service to LEP students. A3i Because teachers who are eligible to participate in the master s cohort must be employed in one of the two participating partner districts and also teach at least one ELL student, by definition 100% provide instructional services to ELLs. Plans for future data collection The project is not currently experiencing any challenges in collecting data on participants who have completed the program of study. All of our completers are teaching in partner districts which facilitates ongoing communication and feedback. Although it is not required, we plan to collect achievement data for the ELL students in the classrooms of teachers who have participated in the masters cohort and compare it to the data for ELL students in the classrooms of other teachers in the district who have not participated in the cohort. 9