DeKalb County School District English
Learners Program Evaluation & Master
Planning
Board Meeting Presentation
March 10, 2025
Location:
1701 MOUNTAIN INDUSTRIAL BLVD.
STONE MOUNTAIN, GEORGIA 30083 1
ESOL PROGRAM EVALUATION
• Why? The program evaluation
of the DCSD English Learners
Department, ESOL program
and related services to align
with LEA's Legal Obligation
• Purpose: Develop a Master
Plan to enhance the ESOL
program and gain critical
information to effectively plan
and implement instructional
practices which best support
our English students’ learning.
2
ESOL PROGRAM EVALUATION AND MASTER PLANNING
The RMC Research Group was selected and approved to conduct the ESOL program
evaluation and master planning for DeKalb County School District.
The program evaluation includes the monitoring and
evaluation of the following
• Organizational structure • Assessment practices
• Entry, identification, and • Reclassification and exiting
screening of potential ELs practices
• GaDOE compliance • Professional development
documentation of ELs needs
• Evidence-based instruction • Interpretation, translation
• Delivery models and and communication
scheduling practices practices
3
DEKALB COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT (DCSD) ENGLISH LEARNER (EL)
PROGRAM EVALUATION AND MASTER PLANNING TIMELINE
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
EL Program Evaluation EL Master Planning Monitoring and Final
October 2024–February 2025 Development Reporting
February–April 2025 May 2025–June 2025
• Data analysis Surveys • Data synthesis & reporting • “Plan-Do-Study-Act” (PDSA)
(Teacher, Student, • Three 2-Day Work sessions with cycles for continuous
Instructional Leaders) DCSD stakeholders improvement
• Classroom observations Meeting 1: Priorities and Goals • Final reporting and
(37 observations conducted) Meeting 2: Professional sustainability
• Focus groups (Parent, Learning and Theory of Action
Teacher, Principal, Meeting 3: EL Master Plan
Instructional Leaders) Components and
Implementation Action Plan
4
WE ARE HERE-PHASE 2
virtual meetings
February 19 & 27 2025 virtual meeting 3
March 10-11, 2025
On-site Meeting 1 (In-Person) On-Site Meeting 3
• Review evaluation findings and • Develop key components of the
recommendations master plan (vision, mission,
• Prioritize needs On-Site Meeting 2
instructional principles, alignment
• Develop goals based on needs • Professional learning on effective with state and federal
approaches for serving ELs in requirements)
Grades K–12, including return on
• Develop an implementation plan
investment and resource allocation
• Develop a theory of action based
on priorities and goals
February 11 & 12 , 2025 April 15-16, 2025
(In-Person) (In-Person)
virtual meeting 2
5
PHASE 1 – THE EVALUATION REPORT
November 2024–January 2025
Thank you, DCSD!
Dr. Sauce Dr. Hall
Ms. Bertrand Mr. Nye
Dr. Braaten Mr. Shaw
Teachers
Principals
Instructional leaders
Parents
Students
6
PHASE 1 - EL PROGRAM EVALUATION
December 2024-
• Student-, school-, and
district-level data request January 2025
processed by DCSD • Complete triangulation of
• Start analysis of student-, quantitative and qualitative
• December 3–5: data
school-, and district-level
data Collect data through • Prepare report summarizing
• November 8–24/Dec. 3–16: ➢Classroom observations findings and describing
Administer ➢Parent and student focus recommendations for master
groups plan (Phase 2)
➢Principal & instructional
leader surveys • December 11–18:
➢Teacher surveys ➢Principal focus groups
• Dec. 17: ➢District leadership focus
group
➢Start analysis of survey
• December 9-January 20:
January–early
data
Complete analysis of February 2025
➢Student-, school-, and
district-level data
Nov.-Dec. 2024 ➢Survey data
➢Focus group data
7
PHASE 1 – THE EVALUATION REPORT
November 2024–January 2025
Qualitative data Quantitative data
collection & collection &
analysis analysis
• District • Student- and
documentation school-level data
• Focus groups • Classroom
• Surveys Synthesized observation data
• Survey data
Results
Findings &
recommendations
8
PHASE 1 – STATE AND DISTRICT DOCUMENTATION REVIEWED
1. Georgia Department of Education
▪ Georgia English Learner Identification and Placement Guidance Document 2024-25
▪ Resource Guide to Support School Districts’ English Learner Language Programs
▪ GA ACCESS for ELLs Online Checklist 2024-25
▪ GA ACCESS for ELLs Paper Checklist 2024-25
▪ ESOL Language Program-LEAs’ Legal Obligations
2. District-level documentation [Ms. Bertrand-Thank you!!!]
▪ DCSD EL Department Handbook 2024-2025
▪ District EL guidance documents
▪ EL Monitoring Policies and Procedures
▪ EL Reclassification Policies and Procedures
▪ Home Language Surveys (15 languages)
▪ Identification and Assessment Policies for ELs
9
PHASE 1 – FOCUS GROUPS AND SURVEYS
Focus
• 2 Parent
Groups
12/24 • 2 School Principal
• 1 District EL Leader
Surveys • Teacher (n=690)
• Instructional Leader (n=161)
12/24
• EL Parent (n=394)
2/25 • EL Student (n=1,836)
10
PHASE 1 – FOCUS GROUPS AND SURVEYS
Commendations
• Value the support provided by the
International Welcome Center.
• Familiarity with evidence-based practices,
program models, and WIDA.
Improvements
• Limited number of ESOL teachers to
serve the EL population.
• Limited knowledge regarding district
policies and procedures related to the
ESOL Program.
• Limited access to professional
learning on instructional practices.
• Communication with EL parents.
11
November 2024–January 2025
PHASE 1 – THE EVALUATION REPORT
Evaluation
Questions
GA DOE Legal
Qualitative Obligations Quantitative
Data
Analysis
of the ESOL Data Analysis
Language
Program
Findings &
Recommendations
12
T-tests help us compare two groups (ELs and Never EL) to see if the difference between them is real
(statistically significant). Even if a difference looks big, a t-test checks sample size, variation, and chance.
If a difference is not statistically significant, we cannot be sure it is meaningful or due to luck!
T-tests looks at:
• How far apart are the group averages?
• Are the scores close together, or do they vary a lot?
• Are there enough people in the study to trust the result?
Statistically Signicantly Better Not a Statistically Signficant Statistically Signficantly Worse
96 Difference 20
0.9 18
95
0.8 16
0.7 14
94
0.6 12
93 0.5 10
0.4 8
92
0.3 6
0.2 4
91
0.1 2
90 0 0
EL Never EL EL Never EL EL Never EL
Middle School Attendance Middle School Retention High School Retention
The variation (standard errors) is Here the variation is wide, and the Here the standard errors are
similar, and the means don’t means overlap, so the difference is similar, the means don’t overlap in
overlap, so the mean difference is not meaningful. the standard error bars, so the
meaningful. mean difference is meaningful. 13
PHASE 1 – School-level data
Comparing Selected Indicators by EL Status, 2021-22 to 2023-24
Current ELs vs Never ELs
School
Outcome
Year Elementary (n=75) Middle School (n=27) High School (n=22)
2021-22 3.17 > 3.03 3.59 > 3.44 14.44 > 14.38
Retention 2022-23 .53 > .49 .31 < .36 14.14 > 12.06
2023-24 .53 > .31 .52 > .29 16.59 > 10.43
2021-22 94.33 > 92.67 94.44 > 93.10 90.94 > 90.47
Attendance 2022-23 98.83 > 92.28 94.70 > 93.31 90.81 > 89.13
2023-24 94.11 > 92.76 94.54 > 93.47 89.61 > 88.83
2021-22 15.97 < 24.19 16.64 < 21.35 31.84 < 36.59
Chronic
2022-23 19.09 < 26.47 16.11 < 21.17 33.14 < 39.72
Absenteeism
2023-24 15.97 < 22.98 14.05 < 19.24 37.87 < 39.55
2021-22 1.46 < 2.59 7.93 < 14.80 10.45 < 16.27
Suspension
2022-23 1.93 < 3.36 8.58 < 18.92 9.94 < 18.46
Rate
2023-24 .097 < 3.48 7.80 < 16.26 10.51 < 18.71
Indicates Current EL students performed statistically significantly better than Never ELs.
Indicates Current EL students performed statistically significantly worse than Never ELs.
Note. Sample size by grade span could differ from reported n for some categories.
14
PHASE 1 – School-level data
Comparing Selected Indicators by EL Status, 2021-22 to 2023-24
Former ELs vs Never ELs
School
Outcome
Year Elementary (n=9) Middle School (n=25) High School (n=22)
2021-22 0.00 < 3.03 .26 < 3.44 8.71 < 14.38
Retention 2022-23 0.00 < .49 0.00 < .36 6.86 < 12.06
2023-24 = 0.00 < .29 6.60 < 10.43
2021-22 96.12 > 92.67 94.48 > 93.10 91.85 > 90.47
Attendance 2022-23 96.73 > 92.28 95.91 > 93.31 89.41 > 89.13
2023-24 97.76 > 92.76 94.94 > 93.47 90.42 > 88.83
2021-22 0.00 < 24.19 18.07 < 21.35 27.79 < 36.59
Chronic
2022-23 5.56 < 26.47 9.35 < 21.17 41.06 > 39.72
Absenteeism
2023-24 0.00 < 22.98 12.56 < 19.24 32.51 < 39.55
2021-22 0.00 < 2.48 4.58 < 14.80 7.09 < 16.27
Suspension
2022-23 0.00 < 3.36 6.85 < 18.92 10.42 < 18.46
Rate
2023-24 0.00 < . 3.48 9.36 < 16.26 9.29 < 18.71
Indicates Former EL students performed statistically significantly better than Never ELs.
Indicates Former EL students performed statistically significantly worse than Never ELs.
Note. Sample size by grade span could differ from reported n for some categories.
15
PHASE 1 – School-level data
Comparing GA Milestones by EL Status,
Current ELs vs Never ELs 2021-22 to 2023-24
Current ELs vs Never ELs
Achievement
level: Percent School Year
Elementary (n=57) Middle School (n=17) High School (n=20)
below proficient
2021-22 83 > 70 95 > 78 98 > 78
Math 2022-23 81 > 66 94 > 78 94 > 83
2023-24 81 > 64 93 > 76 91 > 81
2021-22 84 > 66 92 > 69 92 > 63
ELA 2022-23 81 > 66 94 > 78 94> 83
2023-24 85 > 61 90 > 64 97 > 62
2021-22 88 >71 92 > 76 92 > 65
Science 2022-23 88 >70 95 > 79 95 > 63
2023-24 90 > 66 94 > 77 88 > 63
Indicates Current EL students performed statistically significantly worse than never ELs.
Note. Sample size by grade span could differ from reported n for some categories.
16
PHASE 1 – School-level data
Comparing GA Milestones by EL Status,
Former ELs vs Never ELs 2021-22 to 2023-24
Former ELs vs Never ELs
Achievement level:
Percent below School Year
Elementary (n=48) Middle School (n=17) High School (n=19)
proficient
2021-22 35 < 70 67 < 78 63 < 78
Math 2022-23 40 < 66 68 < 78 74 < 83
2023-24 33 < 64 59 < 76 67 < 81
2021-22 21 < 66 49 < 69 64 > 63
ELA 2022-23 40 < 66 68 < 78 74 < 83
2023-24 18 < 61 43 < 64 68 > 62
2021-22 32 < 71 62 < 76 64 < 65
Science 2022-23 38 < 70 68 < 79 50 < 63
2023-24 41 < 66 62 < 77 59 < 63
Indicates Former EL students performed statistically significantly better than never ELs.
Note. Sample size by grade span could differ from reported n for some categories.
17
PHASE 1 – School-level data
Average Graduation Rate by EL Status, 2021-22 through 2023-24
100.0%
80.0%
Former ELs
60.0%
Never ELs
Current ELs
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
21-22 22-23 23-24
18
PHASE 1 – School-level data
Comparing Graduation Rates by EL Status, 2021-22 to 2023-24
School Current ELs vs Never ELs Former ELs vs Never ELs
Outcome Combined Combined
Year
High School grade spans High School grade spans
(n=20) (n=1) (n=22) (n=2)
2021-22 .51 < .61 .75 > .42 .76 > .61 .67 > .42
Graduation
2022-23 .47 <. 59 1.0 > .44 .77 > .59 1. > .44
2023-24 .47 < .59 .55 < .88 . 71 > .59 .54 < .88
Indicates current EL/former EL students performed statistically significantly better than never ELs.
Note. Sample size by grade span could differ from reported n for some categories.
19
PHASE 1 – Student-level data Distribution of English Proficiency Levels by Grade Level, 2024
100% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1%
6% 5% 4%
11% 10%
90% 8% 16% 18% 17% 17% 18% 20%
28% 29%
80% 11% 28%
70% 37% 38%
37% 35% 35%
60% 43%
49% 47%
36% 32%
50% 35%
94%
40%
75% 29% 28% 20% 23%
23%
30%
16%
16% 25%
20% 24% 24%
33%
23% 23% 26% 25%
10% 22% 20%
18%
13%
8% 7%
0%
KK Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4 Gr5 Gr6 Gr7 Gr8 Gr9 Gr10 Gr11 Gr12
Entering Emerging Developing Expanding Bridging 20
PHASE 1 –
Student-level data
Change in ELs’ English Proficiency Levels from 2023 to 2024
60.00%
50.73%
50.00%
40.00%
33.35%
30.00%
20.00%
10.12%
10.00%
4.98%
0.02% 0.60% 0.21%
0.00%
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
21
PHASE 1 – Student-level data
Grade Spans Where Change in English Proficiency Levels was Observed
Elementary Middle school High school
100%
8% 9%
90% 22% 8%
25%
34% 33% 14%
80%
50%
70% 16%
60%
27%
50%
56% 43%
40% 84%
77%
30% 61%
50%
20% 40%
10% 24%
19%
0%
22
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
PHASE 1 – Student-level data
Number of ESOL Segments Provided to Current EL Students, 2024
4 Segments, 2.9% 5 Segments, 1.8%
3 Segments, 2.8%
0 Segments, 11.8%
2 Segments, 19.9%
1 Segment, 60.8%
23
PHASE 1 – School-level data
Representation of ELs in AP, IB, and Meeting CCR
2021-22 and 2022-23
Total enrollment AP IB CCR-Met
100%
88%
88% 90% 90%
90%
81%
80% 77% 76%
81%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% 21%
20% 11%
12% 13%
11% 9% 9%
10% 7% 6%
3% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1%
0%
Current ELs Former ELs Never ELs Current ELs Former ELs Never ELs
2021-2022 2022-2023
24
PHASE 1 – EL PROGRAM EVALUATION
Classroom Observations
• Classroom Observation Sample
Percentage of Number of Total completed
EL students schools selected observations
Elementary Schools 1–10% 2 4
(n=11 observations) 11–40% 2 4
41–90% 2 3
Middle Schools 1–10% 2 2
(n=11 observations) 11–40% 2 5
41–90% 2 4
High Schools 1–10% 2 3
(n=11 observations) 11–40% 2 4
40–90% 2 4
TOTAL 18 33
25
PHASE 1 – EL PROGRAM EVALUATION
Teacher Sample
• Observed Teachers by Teacher Type
Middle High
Teacher Elementary School School Total
Observed % of Grade % of Grade % of Grade
Count Band Count Band Count Band Count %
ESOL
teacher
10 83.3 8 57.1 8 57.1 26 65
Course
Teacher
1 16.7 3 42.9 3 42.9 7 35
Total 11 100% 11 100% 11 100% 33 100%
26
PHASE 1 – EL PROGRAM EVALUATION
Classroom Observation Tool
• High-Quality Instruction and Assessment (HQIA) for English Learners
Description of HQIA Ratings
Number
The teacher The teacher The teacher did There were no
HQIA of
Components Indicators took many took some not take opportunities
opportunities opportunities opportunities during the
1. Asset-Based 4 during the during the during the lesson for the
Instruction lesson to lesson to lesson to teacher to
2. Student-Centered 5 implement implement implement implement
Engagement practices that practices that practices that practices that
3. Academic Discourse 3 reflect formative reflect reflect reflect
assessment. formative formative formative
assessment. assessment. assessment.
4. Scaffolding 5 High Some No Not Applicable
5. Formative 4 Implementation Implementation Implementation N/A
Assessment 2 1
3
27
PHASE 1 – EL PROGRAM EVALUATION
Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices
Elementary Middle School High School
100%
90%
80%
72% 70% 71%
68% 68% 67%
70% 66% 67%
63% 62% 63%
59% 60% 60% 58%
60% 55% 55%
53%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
HQIA_1 HQIA_2 HQIA_3 HQIA_4 HQIA_5 HQIA_ALL
Asset-Based Instruction Student-Centered Academic Discourse Scaffolding Formative Assessment
Engagement
28
PHASE 1 PROGRAM EVALUATION
Communication with Parents and Families
• Teachers need more support to provide parents with information about
supporting children at home, as suggested through a parent comment:
“I would like to have a handout that explains to the parents what the content is that they are
learning in the classroom so that we can learn the method that the teachers are using to teach the
content,”
• Although translation services are provided, principal respondents note that:
“obtaining a translator when needed (to contact parent regarding behavior or grades) is not a
timely event.” As a result, teachers continue to “use voice mail through Talking Points or emails with
translated material.”
Preferred School
Language District Teachers N
English 97% 92% 108
Spanish 63% 53% 229
Other 58% 70% 57
All Parents 72% 66% 394
29
PHASE 1 – SCHOOL LEVEL DATA
Commendations – Compared to never ELs
• Graduation rate of former ELs is higher.
• Current ELs have significantly higher attendance
rates and lower chronic absenteeism.
Improvements – Compared to Never
ELs
• Current ELs are underrepresented in
AP and IB programs.
• Former ELs are underrepresented in
AP and IB programs.
30
PHASE 2 MEETING 1 OUTCOMES
Preliminary Goals for Master Planning (Draft)
1. To enhance communication mechanisms and channels for
all stakeholders.
2. To ensure collaborative processes are equitable and
inclusive of all student support areas.
3. To develop a viable and appropriate curriculum that gives
access to all English learners.
4. To provide continuous ESOL-focused training and
professional learning for all staff who serve English
learners.
5. To provide more opportunities for PHLOTE parents and
families.
31
Questions?
32
Research Making Change
With decades of experience in education, arts, humanities, and healthcare
RMC Research engages with clients to measure their effectiveness and meet
their goals to create opportunities for families, schools, and communities.
https://rmcresearchcorporation.com
@RMCResearch
RMC Research Corporation
33