Introducing the ACE Model: A New Concept in Rural TESOL Education

1. Introducing the ACE Model: A New Concept in Rural TESOL Education OELA Summit: December 3, 2003 Dr. Anjali Pandey, ACE Project Director Robert Hoffman, Administrative Coordinator The ACE Program is fully funded by the United States Department of Education: Office of English Language Acquisition, under Project #T195N020104. The opinions expressed in this presentation do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of any office of the Department of Education.

2. Overview • Introduction: Pre-Program Planning • Program Design • Program Implementation • Program Monitoring • Conclusion: Post-Program Analysis

3. Introduction: Pre-Program Planning • Why the ACE model for the rural Eastern Shore of Maryland? • Models of Dependency vs. Models of Empowerment • Rural vs. Metropolitan Challenges in ESOL Education • Creating a master plan

4. Goal #1To provide highly qualified, competent ESOL professionals for the most rapidly growing LEP rural counties of the Lower Eastern Shore of Maryland

5. Goal #2To provide trained ESOL professionals in the fastest, most accessible possible routes while maintaining the quality of training

6. Goal #3To allow an avenue for the advanced training of traditionally underrepresented professionals within the rural-educational setting of the Eastern Shore

7. Goal #4To provide a pedagogically sound program of study that is specific to the needs of rural LEP populations in the Eastern Shore of Maryland

8. Goal #5To ensure that federally mandated educational outcomes are equitably realized in the five identified rural counties on the Eastern Shore of Maryland

9. A Little About Me

10. OVERVIEW • The Need for ESOL Expertise—Rising Statistics • A Little About the Class of 2003

11. LEP Enrollment, 1995-2002:Caroline County Statistics courtesy of Frank Edgerton, Maryland State Department of Education

12. LEP Enrollment, 1995-2002:Dorchester County Statistics courtesy of Frank Edgerton, Maryland State Department of Education

13. LEP Enrollment, 1995-2002:Somerset County Statistics courtesy of Frank Edgerton, Maryland State Department of Education

14. LEP Enrollment, 1995-2002:Talbot County Statistics courtesy of Frank Edgerton, Maryland State Department of Education

15. LEP Enrollment, 1995-2002:Wicomico County Statistics courtesy of Frank Edgerton, Maryland State Department of Education

16. LEP Enrollment, 1995-2002 (Actual Numbers) Statistics courtesy of Frank Edgerton, Maryland State Department of Education

17. LEP Student Enrollment, 1995-2002 Statistics courtesy of Frank Edgerton, Maryland State Department of Education

18. Percentage Increase of LEP Students, 1995-2002 Statistics courtesy of Frank Edgerton, Maryland State Department of Education

19. LEP Enrollment, 1995-2002: Percentage Increase • Our five counties combined: 62.2% • All other Maryland counties combined: 47.5% • Total increase for Maryland: 47.8% • Our numbers aren’t as high as many counties, but our LEP enrollments are growing at a rate of 14.4% over the state as a whole! Statistics courtesy of Frank Edgerton, Maryland State Department of Education

20. Class of 2003: Years Teaching Experience

21. Grades Represented • Almost every grade is represented from kindergarten through high school. • Content areas include elementary education, language arts, Spanish, special education, English, Latin, math, and literacy.

22. Schools Represented

23. Program Monitoring: Sample #1Teaching

24. Program Monitoring: Sample #2Teaching

25. Program Monitoring: Sample #3Post-Accessibility Survey

26. Lessons Learned: Curricular • Setting pre-program benchmarks • Gauging candidate commitment effectively • Clarifying graduate-level standards • Specifying grading standards • Providing continuous feedback in an accelerated graduate course

27. Lessons Learned: Student Dynamics • Formation of intellectual and social cliques • Raising of affective filters/anxiety levels • Groupthink: grade and standards negotiation • Critiques used to attempt to manipulate program standards

28. Lessons Learned: Administration • Scheduling breaks in the program • Planning for inclement weather • Preventing problems with “red tape” • Removing ambiguity from the contractual statement

29. What Worked: Curricular • Course sequencing and design • Copernican Model for rural training • Diverse faculty • Exposure to a range of practical assessment tools • 100% retention and graduation rate

30. What Worked: Administration • Hiring competent personnel • Organizing administration in advance • Maintaining records throughout the year • Designing a contractual obligation statement • Scheduling appropriate number of Friday classes • Developing long-term alliances with LEAs

31. Innovations • Web site (www.salisbury.edu/schools/fulton/ace) • GPRA tracking (final report guidelines) • Recruiting 2004

32. Targeted Recruiting 2004 Statistics courtesy of Frank Edgerton, Maryland State Department of Education

33. Targeted Recruiting 2004 Statistics courtesy of Frank Edgerton, Maryland State Department of Education

34. Creating Accessible Rural Programs Flexibility Organization Responsiveness Monitoring

35. ACE Program Contacts Dr. Anjali Pandey, Project Director: 410-677-5387 axpandey@salisbury.edu Robert Hoffman, Administrative Coordinator: 410-543-6224 rxhoffman@salisbury.edu Glenn Miller, Project Assistant/Website Administrator: 410-543-6107 gpmiller@salisbury.edu Faculty Office Phone (only during current faculty member’s office hours): 410-543-6101

36. Thanks!