IQC Final Meeting Minutes for April 21, 2014

FINAL MEETING MINUTES: April 21, 2014

English Language Arts/English Language Development Subject Matter Committee Teleconference Meeting

(Approved on May 15, 2014)

Report of Action

Monday, April 21, 2014
4 to 5:45 p.m.

English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) Subject Matter Committee (SMC) Members Participating:

• Jo Ann Isken, Chair, at UCLA
• Angel Barrett at Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Office
• Kristyn Bennett at Ventura Unified School District Office
• Jose Dorado at Los Angeles Unified School District Office
• Marlene Galvan in Visalia
• Carla Herrera at Los Angeles County Office of Education
• Carlos Ulloa at Loma Vista Immersion Academy, Petaluma

Additional Instructional Quality Commission (IQC) Member Participating:

• Bill Honig, IQC Chair, in Mill Valley

State Board of Education Liaison Participating:

• Ilene Straus in Los Angeles

California Department of Education (CDE) Staff Participating:

• Tom Adams
• Kristen Cruz Allen
• Cynthia Gunderson
• Lisa Leiplein
• Jim Long
• Lillian Perez
• Terri Yan
• Tracie Yee
• Nancy Brownell
• Scott Kerby, State Special Schools and Services Division
• Kristen Wright, Special Education Division
• Karen Cadiero-Kaplan, English Learner Support Division
• Gustavo Gonzalez, English Learner Support Division

ELA/ELD Framework Writers Participating:

• Nancy Brynelson at CDE
• Pam Spycher at CDE
• Hallie Yopp Slowik at CSU Fullerton

Public Members Participating at Various Locations:

• Shirlee Serafin, Parent/Children’s Choice for Hearing and Talking (CCHAT) at CDE
• Esperanza Ross CA Coalition of Options Schools (CCOS) and Center for Early Intervention on Deafness (CEID) at CDE
• Laura Turner, CCHAT and CCOS at CDE
• Leslie Schwarze, Consultant, Scholastic at CDE
• Dr. Sean Virnig, Superintendent, California School for the Deaf, Fremont at CDE
• Jill Ellis, Executive Director, Center for Early Intervention on Deafness (CEID), in Mill Valley
• Ken Levinson, Board Member, Weingarten Peninsula Oral School for the Deaf, in Mill Valley
• Mary McGinnis, John Tracy Clinic, at LAUSD
• Gaston Kent, Student, John Tracy Clinic, at LAUSD
• Jill Muse at LAUSD
• Johnny Buchko, Freshman Student, Santa Monica High School, at UCLA
• Leslie Buchko, Parent, at UCLA
• David Sawolkow (comments e-mailed and read at meeting)

English Language Arts/English Language Development Subject Matter Committee

1. Welcome and Introductions
   SMC Chair Isken called the English Language Arts/English Language Development (ELA/ELD) SMC meeting to order. All participating ELA/ELD SMC members and IQC members introduced themselves, verified the posting of the public meeting notice, and introduced public members. The CDE staff members were also identified.
   
   
2. Discussion and Approval of Additional Revisions to the drat ELA/ELD Framework
   
   
   1. Review of the Scope and Sequence of Snapshots/Vignettes (Information)
      Chair Isken asked Nancy Brynelson, Pam Spycher, and Hallie Yopp Slowik to review the chart of snapshots/vignettes. It was discussed that there were still a few snapshots/vignettes in development, although many had been finished since the chart was distributed to the committee. It was noted that any not finished by Wednesday, when the last of the chapters are due, will go on the resource page. Members were reassured that the grade-level chapters will have a similar number of snapshots/vignettes and that they will include an array of ELA and other content areas, as well as examples for integrated and designated ELD. Nancy agreed to send a revised list of those snapshots/vignettes related to civics education to Chair Honig for his meeting with the Civics Education group scheduled for the next day.
      
      
   2. Review and Approval of Revised High School Grade-Level Chapter 7B (Information/Action)
      Nancy Brynelson, with support from Pam Spycher and Hallie Yopp Slowik, reviewed a handout that provided an overview of the new high school chapter and the revisions still being added to Chapter 7B. The final draft of the chapter will be submitted to the CDE staff on Wednesday. Committee members thanked all the writers for the outstanding writing and work on splitting and completing the two grade-span chapters, especially in light of all the requests for additions, revisions, and changes received over the last four months.
      
      
   3. Proposed Change to Language in Reference to Students Who are Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing in Chapters 1 and 9 (Information/Action)
      Jo Ann Isken noted that the purpose of the discussion was to decide on language for the framework and provide guidance to the field to help address the needs of students who are deaf and hard of hearing. She identified two attachments that members needed to use as part of the discussion: 1) Public Comment Attachment 1 from the California Coalition of Options Schools (CCOS) and the Center for Early Intervention of Deafness (CEID) that proposed suggested changes to language in the framework, and 2) Public Comment Attachment 3 from the California School for the Deaf and the California Deaf Education Resource Center, that responded to the proposed suggestions in Attachment 1. Representatives from CCOS, CEID, and from the California School for the Deaf were present to provide clarification and answer questions.
      
      Public members provided support and rationale for the proposed changes, followed with discussion by commissioners. After each proposed change was discussed, consensus was reached by all members for the following:
      1. Amend the footnote found in Chapter 1 (Introduction) on page 3, and in all other locations where the footnote was used in framework, to read: “As noted throughout this framework, speaking and listening should include deaf and hard of hearing students using American Sign Language (ASL) as their primary language. Students who do not use ASL as their primary language but use amplification, residual hearing, listening and spoken language, Cued Speech and Sign Supported Speech, access general education curriculum with vary modes of communication.”
      2. To reflect current language that puts students first, all reference to deaf and hard of hearing students will be written as, “students who are deaf and hard of hearing.”
         
      3. An additional section will be added to Chapter 9, Access and Equity, to address the needs of students who are deaf and hard of hearing that do not use American Sign Language and who may not identify with the deaf culture. The new section will follow the current section, “Deaf Students Bilingual in ASL and Printed English” on page 16. The new section will read:
         
         “Students Who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing Who Communicate with Spoken English or Simultaneous Communication, Including Sign Supported Speech
         
         “Students who are deaf and hard of hearing who communicate with spoken language or a form of total communication (sign supported speech, cued speech, Signing Exact English, etc.) use individualized supports and services, determined by their Individualized Education Program (IEP), which enable them to access the general education curriculum and achieve the same high standards required of their peers.
         
         Linking the IEP activities to content standards helps ensure these students who are deaf and hard of hearing the opportunities to fully access and reinforce the CCSS addressed in their education settings.
         
         The efforts of the IEP team are to be guided by an understanding of the student’s hearing level and overall developmental and social needs.”
         
      4. With the addition of the new section added in #3 above, delete the footnote located on page 14, Chapter 9, as it is no longer needed. The footnote read, “Some deaf or hard-of-hearing students may be able to learn to understand and/or use some spoken English, depending on the level or type of residual hearing they have and at what age they lost their hearing. Deaf students can most easily learn spoken English after acquiring written English skills.”
         
         Chair Isken thanked all the members of the public who participated in the discussion and shared their insights and suggestions and coming to consensus on language in the framework to meet the needs of students who deaf and hard of hearing.
         
         
   4. Proposed Revised Definitions in the Glossary Section for the Terms Structured English Immersion, English Learners, and Chicana/Chicano English (Information/Action)
      Commissioners were asked to review Attachment 3 that included the current language in the glossary for definitions of Structured English Immersion (SEI) and English learner, and the proposed replacement definitions. Also included was a new proposed definition for Chicana/o English. It was noted that there are a few definitions for SEI and English learner in CDE documents. Commissioners, Pam Spycher, and Karen Cadiero-Kaplan discussed the advantages of using the proposed California Education Code (EC) language. Commissioner Herrera noted that the EC definitions are currently used in the field as part of the identification process. Members agreed with using the proposed definitions, with the addition to the end of the English learner definition: “(See Access and Equity Chapter for further details.)” to help direct the field for additional description. The commissioners agreed to include the proposed Chicana/Chicano English definition and its referral to the Access and Equity chapter for more detail. 
      
      ACTION
      
      Commissioner Barrett moved that the CFIRD staff and the framework writers incorporate the edits agreed upon in the draft Chapter 7B; the identified language the committee reached consensus on regarding students who are deaf and hard of hearing in Chapters 1 and 9; include the revised terms into the glossary for Structured English Immersion and English Learners (with the added sentence in parentheses), and add the definition for Chicana/Chicano English. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion. There was no discussion or public comment. A roll call vote was taken. The motion was approved unanimously by the ELA/ELD SMC members present (8–0).
3. Public Comment
   No additional public comments were presented.