Transcript SIFE - The Bridges Project

Building Bridges to
Academic Success
Elaine C. Klein
Barbara Schroder
Annie Smith
Professional Development Session on SIFE,
The Center for Professional Learning,
Rochester, N.Y. December 4, 2012
A Project Of
RISLUS and CASE
City University of New York
Funded By The
the NYC Department of Education,
the NYS Education Department, and
the New York Community
Trust
Overview of Today’s Program
 The SIFE Story, Part 1: What we
know about SIFE
 The SIFE Story, Part 2 
The Bridges Project
 Bridges Year One Outcomes
The SIFE Story,
Part 1:
What We Know About SIFE
Dr. Elaine C. Klein
Principal Investigator
Bridges to Academic Success
City University of New York
[email protected]
Some Essential Questions
 Who are the SIFE in our story?
 What make SIFE unique?
- What do the researchers tell us?
 What do we take away from The SIFE
Story, Part 1?
“Students with Interrupted Formal
Education”
Just who ARE SIFE?
How do they differ from other
students who come here from other
countries?
A Sub-group of
“English Language Learners”
Home language is other than English
 Entered the US after grade 3
 2(+) years of educational gaps
 2(+) years below grade level in
reading and math (LAB-R)
 May be “preliterate” in the native
language
(NYSEDSIFEGUIDELINES 2011)

What do you as educators
notice about SIFE vs. other
ELLs?
9
Some widely held beliefs about
SIFE
Signif. gaps in schooling  academic deficits
Schooled in rural areas in their home countries
Low motivation for reading and academic work
Low decoding skills, i.e. can’t read at word level
Memory, language, or cognitive deficits (i.e. belong
in ‘special ed’)
Non-academic goals
What do researchers know about
ELLs and SIFE in our schools?
 ELLs = 11% US school population; close to 49.5 mil
 Wide gap particularly at grade 8 for ELLs vs ‘others’
 ELLs In NYC (NYC DOE Demographic Report 2011):
Graduation Rates: 40.3% ELLs v. 75.3% others
Drop-out Rates:
32.6% ELLs v. 16.9% others
Note: 1/3 of all dropouts occur in 9th grade (AEE 2010)
 SIFE in US (Short and Boyson 2012) and in NYC (Advocates for Children
2010):
 Performance on all measures is sig below other ELLs’
Summary of Past SIFE Research
(Mostly anecdotal or qualitative/ descriptive)
 Inadequate assessment
 Inappropriate placement
 No specialized curricular or instruction
 Limited research on effectiveness of
existing program models
The New York City SIFE Studies
Klein and Martohardjono (2005-2006),
SIFE Study 1 (pilot)
Klein and Martohardjono (2006-2008),
SIFE Study 2
Background:
SIFE in New York City
 Highest % of SIFE enter in 8th – 10th grades
 Over 15,000 SIFE in NYC high schools
 Evenly distributed among 4 boroughs
 65% Spanish, many other home languages
 Anecdotally, very few reach 12th grade
14
Research Questions
 How do we identify SIFE?
 What are the characteristics of the population?
 How do SIFE differ from other ELLs?
 What academic competencies do SIFE bring to
school in the US?
 What are their native or home language (“L1”) literacy skills?
 How extensive is their academic knowledge?
 How do SIFE differ from comparative groups?
 What are the academic needs of SIFE and how can
educators meet those needs?
15
Method, Study 1
one year (2005-2006)
Participants:
 12 new SIFE in 9th grade, L1 Spanish
 2 urban high schools
Design
Quantitative:
 Oral intake questionnaire (Spanish)
 Reading and content area diagnostics (Spanish and
English ALLD)
Qualitative:
 Individual (12) case studies
16
Method, Study 2
18 months (2006-2008)
Participants
 93 new SIFE in 9th grade, L1 Spanish
 5 urban high schools
 4 Comparison groups (see next slide)
Design
Quantitative:
 Intake and exit questionnaires (Spanish)
 Oral assessments of typical language development (Spanish
and English)
 Reading and content area diagnostics (Spanish and English)
Qualitative:
 Classroom observations
17
Native English Speaker Groups:
 9th and 10th Graders
 Community College West Indian English
speakers
English Language Learner Groups:
 9th-11th Grade ELLs, at same schools as SIFE
 Community College Spanish-English speakers
18
Overall Results
Study 1 (pilot) and Study 2 had very
similar findings, to be shown in the
following slides.
19
A Striking Result
After the same length of stay in school (1
½ years) and similar ESL instruction
(sometimes in the same classrooms) ...
SIFE show considerable delays
in English (“L2”) reading
development when compared to
other ELLs
20
Comparison of English (L2) Reading:
ELLs vs. SIFE
21
Academic Literacy in English
On average, SIFE are:

4 years behind ELLs in vocabulary
 3 years behind ELLs in reading
comprehension
WHY THIS DELAY?
23
SIFE Backgrounds?
SIFE Attitudes?
SIFE Goals?
24
SIFE Backgrounds
 Most are from the Dominican Republic, Mexico
or Honduras.
 No differences between those from urban vs.
rural schools.
 Most live in the U.S. with only one parent and
have family members in their country of origin.
 Most report high school as highest level of
education among family members in U.S.
25
SIFE Attitudes
 Strong motivation for school success (“I will graduate!”)
 Positive attitudes towards education in Spanish and
English. (“It is important to continue to study in Spanish!”
“It is important to learn English!”)
 High levels of self-efficacy (“I can do it!”)
 Strong expectations that their education will contribute to
future success in a job or at college (“My education here
will help me do well in the future!”)
26
Goals and Aspirations
Percentage of Students
61%
33%
6%
Social
Non-Professional
Type of goal
Professional
27
Gaps in Prior Schooling?
28
Gaps in Schooling
Percentage of Students
67%
27%
6%
No gaps
2 years or less
Years of Gaps in Schooling
More Than 2 years
29
Language Delays ?
Memory Deficits?
30
Oral Language and Listening
Comprehension in L1
Oral Language:
Fluent, smooth, intelligible speech; controls
appropriate language structure for speaking about
complex material.
Listening comprehension (understanding of
simple and complex sentences)
Within the range of typically-developing native
speakers
Working memory (WM):
Within normal range
Typical language development
and average working memory
31
Limited Native/Home Language
Literacy?
32
Basic Literacy in Home Language
First Grade
• Phonological & Orthographic Awareness
• Word Reading
• Simple Sentence Comprehension
Mean % Correct = 96, SD = 4.5
High basic literacy in Spanish
33
Academic Literacy in
Home Language
Reading Vocabulary:
Mean Grade Level 5
Reading Comprehension:
Mean Grade Level 3.5
34
Comparison between Reading Skills in
the Home Language
Native English HS Peers vs. SIFE
35
Reading Vocabulary – Reading
Comprehension Relationship
There is a significant positive
correlation between reading
vocabulary and reading
comprehension
r = .578, p < .001
36
The Transfer of Skills
Research strongly indicates a
transfer of skills from the home
language to English:
The higher the literacy skills in the
L1, the higher they are likely to be in
the new language.
37
Comparison of English (L2) Reading:
ELLs vs. SIFE
38
Some other findings among our
SIFE group
Academic performance in subject
areas (tested in Spanish):
 Math:
Majority at/below grade 3
 Science:
Majority at/below grade 4
 Social Science:
Majority at/below grade 4
39
Some other findings among our
SIFE group, con’t
Academic literacy gains in one year:
1.5 grade levels in Spanish reading
vocabulary
1.7 grade levels in Spanish reading
comprehension
1 grade level in Spanish math
SIFE Story, Part 1:
The Take Away
Conclusions
and
Recommendations
41
The NYC SIFE Studies show that:
 Most SIFE have typical language
development and average working
memories
 Most SIFE are motivated and have high
goals
 Many SIFE have no gaps in schooling
 Most SIFE have word-level reading skills
in the native language
The NYC SIFE Studies also show
that:
 Unlike other ELLs, SIFE show serious
delays in higher level reading skills and
academic knowledge in the L1
 After 1 – 1 ½ years in school here,
 SIFE show some gains in L1 math and
literacy skills
 SIFE show fewer gains in L2 literacy,
when compared to other groups
Short and Boyson (2012:4)
“Those with disrupted or weak educational
backgrounds and below-grade-level literacy
in their own native language—are most at
risk of educational failure because they have
to learn English and overcome educational
gaps in their knowledge base before
studying the required content courses for
high school graduation.”
44
Recommendations
Identification and Placement:
 Use systematic diagnostics district-wide, in the
home language when possible
 Change focus from “English language learners”
to “emergent bilinguals” (O. Garcia 2009)
 Do not limit SIFE identification criteria to students
with “gaps in schooling”
Students in greatest need are those with
limited literacy in the home language
45
S’more Recommendations
Programs and Instruction:
We propose at least one extra year of schooling, i.e.
a transitional year before 9th grade, with:
 A specialized, rigorous, accelerated curriculum
 Sheltered classes, with high degree of differentiation
 Strong home language support, whenever possible
 Intensive English from the beginning
 Focus on foundational and text-level academic literacy
 Focus on building background world knowledge supported by the
native language
 Specially trained teachers to deliver instruction (strong PD and
curriculum coaching elements to program)
Urgent need for dramatic
interventions to better serve
these students
 Klein & Martohardjono (2006)
 August & Shanahan (2006)
 DeCapua, Smathers & Tang (2007)
 Short & Fitzsimmons (2007)
 Garrison-Fletcher, Barrera-Tobon, Fredericks, Klein,
Martohardjono, O'Neill & Raña (2008)
 Advocates for Children (AFC) Report (2010)
 Short & Boyson (2012)
The SIFE Story,
Part 2: The Bridges Project
(Research and Development Phase)
Annie Smith
[email protected]
Director; Bright Minds Educational Consulting
The Building of Bridges
OBJECTIVES:
 Develop, pilot and document an intervention in
English, Math, SS and Science, using a
research-based theoretical framework.
 Provide students with a transitional year that
prepares them to participate and engage with
9th grade curriculum.
 Evaluate and track the academic growth of
Bridges students
Some Guiding Principles
Strong correlations between:
 Academic Achievement and Academic
Literacy (e.g Cloud et al. 2010)
 Academic Literacy in L1 and L2 (e.g.
Cummins 1981; August & Shanahan 2006)
 Reading Comprehension and Oral
Academic Language (e.g. Freeman &
Freeman 2009; Cloud et al. 2010)
Guiding Principles, cont.
 Centrality of language and literacy in
content teaching (Jantzen 2008)
 Homogenous/sheltered grouping 
accessibility of content and language
(Short 2007; Tomlinson 2003; Short & Fitzsimmons 2007)
 More time needed for ELLs, esp. SIFE,
than others to develop academic literacy (e.g.
Cummins 2006; Short & Fitzsimmons 2007; Goldenberg 2008)
‘Cracks in the Foundation’:
distinguishing features
 Low literacy in home language
 Limited world (background)
knowledge
 Challenged to interpret abstract
information (maps, graphs)
Bridges Curriculum
Considerations:
 Build basic literacy skills so that students are
ready to ‘read to learn’;
 Engage students in rich interdisciplinary units;
 Foster Academic Habits of Mind – with
considered attention to moving from the concrete
to the abstract.
The Bridges Curriculum
 Four units each in Math, English, Social
Studies and Science that integrate
language, literacy and subject area-content
 Project – based units driven by essential
questions that engage and provoke inquiry
 Strong interdisciplinary connections among
the units to promote deep conceptual
knowledge
The Bridges Curriculum Continued
Each Unit in Every Discipline (e.g. social studies, science,
ELA):
 Builds and engages native language as a resource for
learning and deepening literacy in L1 and L2;
 Focuses attention on phonics and fluency as well as
critical thinking;
 Emphasizes classroom routines and strategies that
promote strong academic habits;
 Builds towards a final project with articulated outcomes
and objectives in all four language domains;
 Aligns to common core and language development
standards.
The Bridges Curriculum:
drawing it together
Work in groups of 2 or 3
Sort the words in the envelope into
disciplinary categories.
What do you notice? What
relationships do you notice between
these words?
What did you notice about the process
of making choices?
Interdisciplinary Relevance
Now, consider one concept you
struggled to place. Why?
Choose a concept that was obvious.
Why?
Could it be elsewhere?
Is there a thread? Are there concepts
across lists that seem to be related or
have some connection? Discuss.
Interdisciplinary Focus
In your folder you will see an overview
of the year’s curriculum.
Characterization: a closer look at
disciplinary thinking in the SIFE classroom
With a partner, look at the image.
 What do you notice? Describe what you see?
 What can you say about him/her? What does
s/he FEEL/THINK/WANT? How do you know?
 What kind of person is s/he?
REFLECTION
 What did I do? (Teacher)
 What did you do? (Student)
 Why might this activity (series of tasks) be
valuable for SIFE students? Reflect on your
own experience as you engaged with the task.
61
63
The Professional Development:
putting it all together
 Techniques to support students to draw on home
language literacy to support comprehension;
 Techniques to integrate language and content in the
classroom;
 Strategies to support vocabulary development;
 Routines to cultivate disciplinary habits of mind and
academic literacy;
 Routines to support school literacy;
 Strategies to foster oral language development;
 Routines to promote meta-cognition
Bridges Structure: Non- Negotiables
 Strong administrative buy-in and support
 Interdisciplinary team of teachers with team leader
 Weekly meeting time for team collaboration
 Series of intake interviews and assessments to identify
qualifying students
 Language and literacy – rich sheltered classes: integrated
into the school
 Targeted teacher PD (methods + curriculum) and
curriculum coaching
 Participation in program documentation and evaluation.
Bridges Structure: recommendations
 First period home language literacy or targeted literacy
development
 Home Language support in classroom
 Community Outreach – parent
involvement/alliance/teacher meetings
 Drama/Art/Music and Health and Safety classes
 Extended School Activities (Saturdays, after-school and
vacation)
 Peer to peer support
 Excursions and field trips
AFTER OUR FIRST (PILOT)
YEAR OF DEVELOPING AND
IMPLEMENTING BRIDGES, HERE
ARE SOME OUTCOMES.
The Bridges Project:
Year One Outcomes
Participants
(2011-2012)
Schools:
4 NYC high schools (Bx, Q, M)
Students: N=67
 entering 9th grade
 11 L1s (e.g. Spanish, Bengali, Arabic, Fula)
 recently arrived in US (< 1.5 years)
 L1 reading: (≤ 4th grade)
Staff: 19 teachers (Eng, SS, Sci, Math, NLA), 4-5 on a
Bridges team in each school
Home Language Literacy
Bridges students were limited to those
incoming SIFE with lowest home language
literacy: from completely preliterate (12%)
to 4th grade reading level, with mean grade
level Span. reading comprehension at 3rd
grade (lower than the SIFE in the NYC
SIFE Studies).
Mariama
Mariama is 15 years old, from Mali, preparing
to enter 9th grade. She arrived in October, 2011,
speaking Bambara as her first language, along
with basic conversational French. Upon arrival,
she did not speak or understand any English
and was unable to read or write in any
language, having had no formal school
experience at all. Mariama spent much of
October and November silent, with her bag on
her lap, needing frequent prompting to take out
a pencil or open her notebook. She often
looked sad and lost.
Carlos
Carlos, 15 years old, arrived in the US in Sept
2011 from the Dominican Republic, preparing to
enter 9th grade. He speaks Spanish and knew no
English upon his arrival. When tested, his Spanish
writing was slow and labored, with barely legible
sentences, and his Spanish reading
comprehension was at the 3rd grade level. He
appears to become easily frustrated when faced
with any challenges, especially academic ones.
Student Outcomes
Attendance
 For the year, Bridges students were
present on average 93% of the time.
 This rate is significantly higher than the
overall attendance rate for students in the
four schools in 2011-2012, of 82.3%.*
*School data from 2011-2012 School Progress Reports
Academic Progress
75% of Bridges students who were
enrolled for the whole year passed* all of
their core academic classes (English,
Math, Social Studies, Science, and in
some cases Spanish).
*’Passing’ students were evaluated by teachers as
having made satisfactory academic progress as
indicated by a ‘P’ or a grade of 65 or higher.
English Reading Comprehension
October and May
October
May
70
70
61
60
60
50
50
Percent of 48 students
Percent of 54 students
63
40
30
28
20
7
10
40
33
30
20
7
10
2
0
0
0
0
2
3
Grade Level
4
0
2
3
Grade Level
4
Increase in English Comprehension,
October - May
 71% of students showed at least mild gains
in English comprehension.
 49% improved 1 – 3 grade levels.
Teacher Reflections
“I heard many of my students' voices for
the first time, … saw their personalities
show where before there was only
silence and shyness…[T]here are other
benefits involving language and
performance, but I truly believe that by
creating this environment in which they
feel they can succeed has been the
greatest benefit to our Bridges students.”
(English teacher)
Teacher Reflections
“Bridges students…previously in regular
classes …are showing increased
engagement, a more positive attitude
towards school, … spending more of
their time in class working on activities
that are accessible to them and
appropriate for their level.”
(Math teacher)
Teacher Reflections
“[LZ] … struggled a lot in her regular class
and showed signs of shutting down because
of her frustration. Teachers said …they
never saw her smile the way she smiles
in the Bridges class. This is because we
presented her with material that she
could work with.”
(Science teacher)
Teacher Reflections
“...[S]tudents in the Bridges class will ... come into
9th grade with the requisite knowledge and skills to
give them a much better opportunity to be proficient
or even high performing in all outcomes. This will
also set them up for much more success in later
grades…In years past it would be very common
for SIFE students to lose interest in school
because they were not able to meet basic
expectations... Having all of these students in
one class makes it a safer space to make
mistakes and learn together...”
(Math teacher)
Teacher Reflections
“At the beginning of the school year, it
was very difficult to get [Bridges
students] to understand what
the classroom setting is, specifically
pertaining to behavior, creating school
habits etc. I feel that they have made
tremendous progress in that aspect.”
(Math teacher)
Teacher Reflections
“In past years the lowest SIFE group has
been really overwhelmed and made little
to no progress unless pulled out into small
groups. Everyone in this [Bridges] class
has made huge gains...”
(Science teacher)
Teacher Reflections
“We ... discussed [at team meeting] the
remarkable improvement in some
students, notably BH who had 52
absences in prior year, but now comes to
school every day.”
(Team Leader)
Mariama
Mariama is 15 years old, from Mali, preparing
to enter 9th grade. She arrived in October, 2011,
speaking Bambara as her first language, along
with basic conversational French. Upon
arrival, she did not speak or understand any
English and was unable to read or write in
any language, having had no formal school
experience at all. Mariama spent much of
October and November silent, with her bag on
her lap, needing frequent prompting to take out
a pencil or open her notebook. She often
looked sad and lost.
Mariama
at the end of the school year
“Mariama smiles a lot now. She is very eager
to learn English, fearless in her efforts in both
speaking and writing. She can also now read
and write much of what she can say in English.
She has recently become the "teacher" in her
reading group, comprised of the four students
in class with no formal school
experience. She helps others track print and
helps explain text meaning. She takes pride in
this role, in her growth, her identity as a
student, and her excellent attendance.”
Carlos
Carlos, 15 years old, arrived in the US in Sept
2011 from the Dominican Republic, preparing to
enter 9th grade. He speaks Spanish and knew no
English upon his arrival. When tested, his
Spanish writing was slow and labored, with
barely legible sentences, and his Spanish
reading comprehension was at the 3rd grade
level. He appears to become easily frustrated
when faced with any challenges, especially
academic ones.
Carlos
at the end of the school year
“Carlos is learning very quickly, his oral English vocabulary
expanding daily. He is able to learn new words easily and
apply them in discussions. Carlos is eager to raise his hand
and take risks in English, while comfortably using Spanish
in class as well. Recently in Social Studies , he read and
understood a short paragraph in English about traditions.
Explaining the paragraph to others in his group, he knew the
meanings of nearly all of the words. While he loves learning
new ideas and skills and demonstrating what he knows,
Carlos still becomes frustrated when something is beyond
his reach. Therefore, his teachers are all in agreement that
he most likely would have “shut down” in a “regular” 9th
grade class, while he is absolutely thriving in Bridges. We
expect that he will be successful academically if he
continues at his present rate.”
•
Thank You!
 Bridges students and teachers!
 Principals and administrators at participating
schools
 New York City Dept. of Education
 New York Community Trust
 The City University of New York
 New York State Dept. of Education
Your Questions?
Working Lunch
1. How are the SIFE in your schools
similar to and different from those in
our Bridges classes?
2. What are your schools doing to meet
the needs of these students?
3. What more is needed?
4. What are your ideas to further
address the needs of these
students?