No.3, January 2011: The PROMISE Model: An English-Learner Focused Approach to School Reform

Findings from a 3-year (2006-2009) evaluation of the PROMISE Model pilot are presented in this policy brief that seeks to address three questions: 1) What is the PROMISE Model ?; 2) What changes occurred in schools as a results of implementing the PROMISE Model ?; and 3) What are the lessons learned from the PROMISE Model pilot that can contribute to an understanding of school reform for English Learners? A qualitative, ethnographic approach allowed for exploration of the research questions. The researcher identified five foundational elements to the PROMISE Model. Implementation of the PROMISE Model increased use of EL specific research-based approaches to student grouping, placement, instruction, school structures, curriculum choices, program design and practices in addition to more knowledgeable and advocacy-oriented leaders and distributive leadership. The brief presents five lessons learned that contribute to a deeper understanding of the impact of a school reform model on English Learners. Two policy recommendations include: 1) broadly disseminate research on effective EL education and provide an infrastructure of support with EL expertise; and 2) adopt the PROMISE Model or components of the model as a viable school improvement strategy.https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ceel_education_policybriefs/1002/thumbnail.jp

Falling Short on The Promise to English Learners: A Report on Year One LCAPs

California’s Local Control Funding Formula was signed into law in California in 2013 and allowed districts the flexibility to meet their student needs in locally appropriate manners. One year after its implementation, a panel of 26 reviewers, including educators, English Learner (EL) advocates, and legal services staff reviewed the Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) to understand how districts employ this flexibility to address the needs of ELs. The report uses the English Learner Research-Aligned LCAP Rubrics with 10 focus areas, and reviews sample LCAPs from 29 districts, including districts with the highest numbers/percentages of English Learners in the state, districts representative of California’s geographic Regions, and districts providing quality EL services. The review centers around four questions of the extent to which first-year LCAPs: (1) specify goals and identify outcomes for ELs, (2) identify action steps and allocate funds for increased or improved services for all types of ELs, (3) reflect research-based practices for achieving language proficiency and academic achievement for English Learners in their actions, programs and services, and (4) are designed and implemented with EL parent input as reflected in stakeholder engagement. The results indicate that overall, the LCAP is inadequate as part of the state’s public accountability system in ensuring equity and access for ELs. Six key findings were: (1) difficulty in discerning funding allocations related to EL services and programs; (2) inability to identify districts’ plans for increased services for ELs; (3) lack of explicitly specified services and programs aligned to EL needs; (4) weak approach or missing English Language Development (ELD) or implementation of ELD standards in most LCAPs; (5) weak/inconsistent representation of EL parent engagement; and (6) lack of EL student outcome measures. The authors also present detailed findings for each focus topic and offer district and state level recommendations.https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ceelreports/1003/thumbnail.jp

A review of year 2 LCAPs: A weak response to English Learners

A panel of 32 reviewers analyzed the Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) of same sample of 29 districts for the second year of implementation of the 2013 California Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). Using the same four questions as the Year 1 report, the Year 2 analysis also addresses the key differences between first and second-year LCAPs. Key findings from the Year 2 LCAPs review include: (1) similarly weak responses to the needs of ELs by LEAs in Year 2; (2) some improvement in clarity about services provided to ELs in some areas, though most evidence was weak; (3) minimal attention to the new English Language Development Standards; (4) minimal investment in teacher capacity building to address EL needs; (5) lack of attention to coherent programs, services and supports for ELs and failure to address issues of program and curriculum access; (6) weak engagement of ELs’ parents in LCAP process and content of LCAP plans; (7) poor employment of EL data to inform LCAP goals and weak use of EL indicators as an LCAP accountability component; (8) lack of specificity in describing district services and site allocations for supplemental and concentration funding; and (9) difficulty identifying the coherence of responses of EL needs in year 2 LCAPs. Overall, the analysis of the 29 LCAPs continue to signal a weak response to EL needs. The authors reassert the urgency of the recommendations in the Year 1 report, offer additional specific recommendations for the state, county offices of education, and districts, and call upon the state to reaffirm the equity commitment in the LCFF design.https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ceelreports/1004/thumbnail.jp

Pursuing Regional Opportunities for Mentoring, Innovation, and Success for English Learners (PROMISE) Initiative: A Three-Year Pilot Study Research Monograph

The Pursuing Regional Opportunities for Mentoring, Innovation, and Success for English Learners (PROMISE) Initiative Research Monograph is comprised of four sub-studies that took place between 2006 and 2009 to examine the effectiveness of the PROMISE Initiative across six implementing counties. Beginning in 2002, the superintendents of the six Southern California County Offices of Education collaborated to examine the pattern of the alarmingly low academic performance of English learners (EL) across Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, San Diego, Riverside, and Ventura. Together, these six counties serve over one million EL students, more than 66% of the total EL population in the state of California, and close to 20% of the EL population in the nation. Data were compiled for the six counties, research on effective programs for ELs was shared, and a common vision for the success of ELs began to emerge. Out of this effort, the PROMISE Initiative was created to uphold a critical vision that ensured that ELs achieved and sustained high levels of proficiency, high levels of academic achievement, sociocultural and multicultural competency, preparation for successful transition to higher education, successful preparation as a 21st century global citizen, and high levels of motivation, confidence, and self-assurance. This report is organized into six chapters: an introductory chapter, four chapters of related studies, and a summary chapter. The four studies were framed around four areas of inquiry: 1) What is the PROMISE model? 2) What does classroom implementation of the PROMISE model look like? 3) What leadership skills do principals at PROMISE schools need to lead transformative education for ELs? 4) What impact did PROMISE have on student learning and participation? Key findings indicate that the PROMISE Initiative: resulted in positive change for ELs at all levels including achievement gains and narrowing of the gap between ELs and non-ELs increased use of research-based classroom practices refined and strengthened plans for ELs at the district-level, and demonstrated potential to enable infrastructure, partnerships, and communities of practice within and across the six school districts involved. The final chapter of the report provides implications for school reform for improving EL outcomes including bolstering EL expertise in school reform efforts, implementing sustained and in-depth professional development, monitoring and supporting long-term reform efforts, and establishing partnerships and networks to develop, research and disseminate efforts.https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ceelreports/1001/thumbnail.jp