constituent -- if these were not based a good data... /-rpblgts y >> we were actually able to take cohort by cohort and track the progress of the student. this is an example of the 2009, 10 cohort -- we can see how they do over time. we are now in the second grade level of full biliteracy. but to be

honest, in the past, it really depended on the time of year and as we phased or moved those cohorts up the grade level, we worked with the sites to increase the -- but i think that just going back, this is opportunity to be able to [inaudible] we are allowed that flexibility to be able to do that at this point. >> i'm having a hard time believing what i'm seeing and hearing. this shows this

pathway being more successful than the other pathways we have been expanding in our district in a very rapid passion. so looking in comparison to emersion, i mean, we have been expanding emersion programs left and right and it looks as though the biliteral pathway is serving our students better -- english and spanish. is that what the data is telling me? that's what i'm seeing in the data. >> i think it's important to realize that [inaudible] the one that you're on -- the achieve /-pl change -- these represent basically a three

year time period from second to third and then third to fourth and part of that blue graph that was hard to looking at it overall longer period. it is important just to look at students proficiency overall longer period so they can receive the max mall benefits of having had the pathway instruction. >> but that's if they stay in the pathway. that's if they stay in the pathway, right? so kids test out, they don't have to stay in the pathway evening. -- even. i also think the front loading is really important because the longer we wait for students to be proficient, the harder it is to play catch up later. so i understand and see that one, but still i'm looking at these

other rates, which are higher than even these rates for latino students. i see what the chinese students are at, like, 90 percent but when i look at latino students it's 60 percent and when i'm looking at the pathway we're looking at almost 80 percent for our spainish speakers so maybe this is just a snapshot of it, but it does give me a little pause because it looks as though that in fact we have been -- so i am not seeing that our emersion program are not as /e -- i'm just -- not effective. i'm just saying there is a difference in what the data tells us around student achievement for english learners with these different pathways and there must be some

reason why that we're getting different results and what is it about the biliteracy pathways that we're not doing in our emersion pathway so we get the same sort of stellar results that we are with biliteracy pathways and i think that is something we should really look at before we think about the expansion of more emersion programs. i think we tried to start one at brett heart. is this the correct pathway for these students and if it is, what are we doing to tweak it to make it more effective. this is our strategy for [inaudible] it's really first and foremost position is to serve or english

learners so i have to say i'm a little -- wigged out about it. i am thinking -- and i'm really glad this is the opportunity to look at it and change it, but i think this is shocking to me. and then i don't understand the graph on page nine and so i'm looking at a couple things and i guess i can't read it that well /-pls . >> can i address the other points. if you were a [inaudible] two did you grow to three? if you're at a four or a five, if you maintain that level that's considered to be gross. and commissioner wynn said earlier asked about

targets and the state does set targets for achievement change. it's been a moving target and it's about 56 percent right now, just to give you an idea of how students are doing. if they're surpassing that mid 50 rang that seems to be a good measure. looking at that blue graph, that looks at students who started in kinder in one of the pathways and even if they leave the pathway they're still /r-p sented by this. so the [inaudible] at least in spanish does show a different -- those two things. >> so the chart that i'm looking at is on page eight -- i think that's the one i'm most freaked out about it. so that does chart achievement percent of test takers was [inaudible].

that is the strong indicator about academic achieve /-pl achievement, is it not? >> [inaudible] that would be considered positive and if a student was at a two /-rblgs they they would have to get to a three making gross. so it's just a student who have gone up one level and those students who were at four or five have stayed at that level. >> that's the goal? this academic, trending up -- that's our goal. i mean, that's what we want them to do. so when i'm looking at this i'm seeing what we wan them to do in the right direction is looking like

biliteracy pathway. it is academic. this is the goal, right? so whether we're moving up one. we don't want them to go back, we want them to be advancing all the time. those people at four or five -- that is what we wanna see. these children will have to graduate. so i don't need to take up anymore of the board's time but i think i should probably meet with you to discuss this graph 'cause i don't understand it. it could be i just don't get what it's telling me, but i don't need to waste the board member's time because i understand there's probably board members who understand this fully... >> i think we need the two minute explanation for that. >> i don't real /hre -really

get this graph. >> let 's look at one that says m equals 20 but the top one says fourth grade -- the one with little bit of yellow and then the one below that says second. so read that the opposite way. so if you start in second grade the number of students who are proficient is that light green and the percentage of students that are advanced. so at that time 100 percent of the students were in green which was proficient or advanced. now we do see a dip going into third grade. the scores drop across the board and so we see that reflected here. some of those students who had been at proficient or advanced, a small percentage move back to basic, but then in

the fourth grade a few became advanced. are you with me on that part? >> yeah. >> so in the second grade they were either proficient or advanced so it's the same cohort moving up to fourth grade? >> that's correct, but they have to be present in all four grades to be present on this graph. >> so ten percent of those students that cohort are now basic? >> that's correct. >> okay. got it. >> i still have one question about this. 20 seems like a very small number of students to -- we're looking at -- it's one pathway, i understand that. i'm not saying there's so few students in the school, but i'm saying is i'm not [inaudible] but i don't understand with a small number like 20 how it

appears we're supposed to try to compare this to a number of 225 which is -- i don't -- i need somebody who knows enough to tell me that's a valid comparison when it doesn't seem like it would be with 20 being such a small number. >> we do have to ensure that the students have matched scores so we're looking at the [inaudible] and that's why the number is perhaps smaller because -- okay. >> i'm not being critical of how small the number is, but -- this is a valid comparison with that number and this number. >> so within this job actually, the information that's missing is -- if you look to the right

hand corner there is the percent written so on your chart it got [inaudible] that's what's causing the confusion so the percent is written on the right hand side of the chart but in the slide it got erased so i will give you the percent from the this chart. but what it's saying is the critical piece of information for the school is first of all that as you can see, the [inaudible] biliteracy pathway is very successful as compared to the other pathway within that same school so that's the first piece of information it's giving you because if you look at the cantonese biliteracy pathway you will see the students -- even though they move from 100 percent proficiency, it's still [inaudible]. so you can see the high /raeutd of proficiency

but as soon as i look at the school as a whole with the 77 students you see the proficiency levels fall way low, you know. the other pathways within that same school is a caution because how can one pathway be successful and be in that same school not be successful. so that's the first data point that you would ask for. in comparing the 225 to the 20 -- it is valid comparison only because this is over threes matched acrossed three years the same cohort of students and so it is telling you the success of those students from second to third to fourth as compared to the data pattern for the other students where it is second going down to third, which is the typical factor in the district two and then going back up and fourth. what i

tend to also look at is the percent proficient at fourth grade and compare to the fourth grade percent proficient at the school. >> the second group includes the fest /wub doesn't it? >> yes. >> so that means the second pathway is even worse than here. >> wow, wow. >> and this one and the third group also includes the first group. >> yeah. i'm so glad we have you. okay. thank you. >> what would be so are of helpful then -- correct me if i'm wrong -- we would look at this cohort of 20 students in

this cantonese biliteracy pathway -- we could look at other schools and do this same type of comparison so that was my question that i also -- so this second group -- it's includes cantonese and spanish speaking speakers? they have three pathways? okay. >> you're real -- really just including this as an example. now everyone wants to know what school it is. >> by the way, in the data disk, they don't all three pathways, it was just one snapshot but it actually has [inaudible]. >> so if we wanted to delve

deeper into this you have much more data. this is just a snapshot. so this snapshot is already a little upsetting so i think it's honest. i think it's a step in the right direction. it is really looking at it through data, through measurable results and impact and it's what we should be doing all along and so not just on here saying, not just on feel good, but using real data and looking at where deficiencies are, what is sec -- successful, what is not. and i applaud or district really critically and trying to make it better because this hiding of information only gets us deeper into the hole. i think we discovered that in this district. the hiding of information, the hiding of facts about who's achieving and

who's not -- let's be honest about it. so this is great and as shocking it is to me i applaud you for having this data and for presenting it to us. because we need to vote on a budget, need to vote on direction and so i think this -- getting this kind of data to see what we're dealing with -- i think it gives us the fortitude to do it so i appreciate it and i apologize. thanks. >> mr. mendoza. >> i had a question with regards to how much data we actually have in terms of the longitude data. i know that we know if there's a lot of studies that we measure by 8th grade, 11th grade -- that's

where we really start to see improvements that are happening. what happens to kids that have been in bilingual programs and where do they go and what support do they get and how well do they do coming out of an early or late exit. when they move on, what happens to them? >> well, in response to the early exit and what happens to them we actually look at students who are reclassified by pathway so we're able to monitor individually how students are doing over two years and there is a process with the teachers to ensure that if a student is conning moving forward that that's tracked, that if they're also dipping down we're also able to

track that as well and provide the appropriate services. it wouldn't be el services, but in terms of intervention that are needed at that point, those are taken into consideration. >> and then in terms of how much data do we have? >> we have lots of data right now at this point so i think we can -- we're able to -- because of the [inaudible] project we are able to actually -- we have a clean data set. we're able to look by [inaudible] in terms of how newcomers are doing, how long terms are doing, we also track by the different pathways as well. we can do it for the next 2010 cohort and so on and so on. and >> that's just great because for years and years we could

never even pull apart who was in what program and even though we have strands at schools, we couldn't say this strand is doing that. everybody was lumped together and we never knew what was good and what wasn't and how our kids are moving along. and for somebody who's a big believer in language emersion programs, but when you look at it from a data perspective it makes you think about ways we're gonna improve this. to commissioner fewer's point should we be /kpapbding -- expanding them, what are the best programs. and the whole idea we can actually identify them based on what programming is even more exciting so thank you for bringing this to our

attention and i look forward to seeing more of a comprehensive approach in the way to which we wanna do programming. >> i wanna say one other thing is i'm wondering if we have any data about students themselves. what is our revenue for that? and so do we see them as different so there's some students that come in with non interruption in there and they come right into our school district and we know that some come in with an interrupted instruction /h*eugs ed -- history and how do we help those students. do we have any data on that. but i think i need a schedule a meeting with just you privately. >> we are beginning to start

that project. folks at san francisco international school is actually starting that. they have a program called [inaudible] and they're beginning to gather that data so we're fortunate that they're able to start that project with us. >> you wanted to make a comment. >> sure, thank you president norton. i wanna thank our team for your presentation and the commissioners for asking such thoughtful questions. there's a couple nuggets i would ask for people to take away this evening. we are using data. the board has been very clear about we really need to look at data, embrace the data and it's very difficult to not get emotional about the data -- what does it tell us, what do

we do. i wanna thank the team for bringing it forward. there was another thing i wanna make sure we're highlighting -- you're gonna hear another presentation on sase. in the past the para dime has been that there is a program, that they get eld, that they get services. what i don't wanna lose track of is that this team is working so closely with our humanities department and the common core state standards that eld, all of the data that we're mining now the informing how we go about providing that kind of instruction for our

students in a very comprehensive manner so we're asking much more of our teachers and administrators, but we're doing this based on the data we're mining so we can make some really good decisions about where do we invest or limited resources and what do we prioritytize first. but where do we need to go. the last thing i will say is that we just got back from the council and we had a conversation with the council of great city of schools about english language learners and part of the para dime that [inaudible] and some of our colleagues in other school districts across the country -- we're not changing the conversation /tw with the department of justice and department of education so that

perhaps some soft guidance and oversite that we've had in the past which has been very compliance is now shifting to what's better for english learners and that is coming from the work that the practitioners are doing. what is good practice. we have data now that we can show what we need to do increase the academic of our el's. this is gonna really give us some good information about how to move forward. so i wanna thank the team again for bringing the information forward. >> thank you very much. i neglected to call for public comment on this but there's nobody to signed up. so we are

going to move on to our second presentation on item m. >> thank you president norton. again a very timely and important topic and i'd like to ask doctor blanco and her team to come forward and take us through this presentation.

move to extend the meeting. >> second motion we hear a

motion here today to provide you with an update. this is the district's plan that will be implemented pending approval on addressing the disproportionate [inaudible] particularly in the category of emotional disturbance. so august 2012 just a brief quick history we received former notification from cde that we were disproportionate in the number of african american students [inaudible] we