English language learners
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 84

English Language Learners PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 88 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

English Language Learners. Judy W. Park, Assessment & Accountability Director Dottie Alo, Development Coordinator Rita Brock, ELL Assessment Specialist Nancy Giraldo, Title III Director Utah State Office of Education March 23, 2006. Assessment Calendar of Meetings.

Download Presentation

English Language Learners

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


English language learners

English Language Learners

Judy W. Park, Assessment & Accountability Director

Dottie Alo, Development Coordinator

Rita Brock, ELL Assessment Specialist

Nancy Giraldo, Title III Director

Utah State Office of Education

March 23, 2006


Assessment calendar of meetings

Assessment Calendar of Meetings

  • April 13, 2006 - Law & Justice Center – 645 South 200 East, SLC

  • May 11, 2006 – only if needed Red Lion– 161 East 600 South, SLC

  • August 9, 2006 New Assessment Directors Orientation – Red Lion – 161 East 600 South, SLC

  • August 10, 2006 Assessment & ALS? – Red Lion – 161 East 600 South, SLC

  • September 13, 2006 - Nebo Learning Center – 570 South Main St, Springville

  • October 10, 2006 – Location TBD

  • November 9, 2006, Law & Justice Center – 645 South 200 East, SLC

  • January 11, 2007 – Location TBD

  • February 15, 2007 – Location TBD

  • March 15, 2007, Assessment & ALS? – Location TBD

  • April - no meeting due to Spring breaks

  • May 10, 2007 – Location TBD


Accountability for english language learners

Accountabilityfor English Language Learners


English language learners accountability

English Language Learners Accountability

  • No Child Left Behind

    • Title I

      • Adequate Yearly Progress - AYP

      • School, District, State

    • Title III

      • Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives – AMAOs

      • District, State

  • U-PASS

    • Achieved State Level of Performance

    • School


No child left behind

No Child Left Behind

Title I


Ayp adequate yearly progress

AYP – Adequate Yearly Progress

  • No Child Left Behind Act

  • Annual Measurement of Student Success

  • Based on Performance of

    • Total School Population

    • Demographic Subgroups

      • African American

      • American Indian

      • Asian

      • Caucasian

      • Hispanic

      • Pacific Islander

      • Other

      • Economically disadvantaged students

      • Limited English Proficient students

      • Students with disabilities


Criteria for calculating ayp

Criteria for Calculating AYP

  • Schools judged on three criteria:

    • 95% Participation rate

    • Core CRTs Proficiency Results

      • Language Arts

      • Math

      • Percent Proficient OR

      • CRT Improvement (safe harbor) OR

      • Confidence Interval

    • Additional Indicator

      • Attendance (elementary and middle school)

      • Graduation (high school)


Utah s safe harbor

Utah’s Safe Harbor

  • The school or subgroup shows improvement from the previous year.

  • Determined by a 10% reduction in the percentage of students not proficient from the previous year.


Utah s confidence interval

Utah’s Confidence Interval

  • A Standard Margin of Error for Assessment Reliability.

  • Determined by a statistical analysis

    • Number of students completing the assessment

    • Final score in relationship to the cut score


Additional indicators

Additional Indicators

  • Grades 3-8

    • Attendance Rate at or above 93% or higher than last year

  • High School

    • Graduation Rate for grades 10-12 cohort at or above 85.7% or higher than last year


Ayp categories

AYP Categories

  • 40 categories to meet AYP criteria

    • 2 measures (participation & assessment scores)

    • 2 assessments (language arts & math)

    • 10 groups (6 ethnicity, economic, ELL,

      Spec. Ed.)

  • One category can cause a school to

    “not meet AYP”


No child left behind percentage of students proficient

No Child Left BehindPercentage of Students Proficient


Who participates in testing

Who Participates in Testing?

For students in the United States for less than one year

  • The rule is based on if the student is enrolled during the testing window

  • The rule is not based on the number of days the student was enrolled during the school year.

    Phone conversation 11/14/05, Kerri Briggs, DOE


Who participates in testing1

Who Participates in Testing?

For students new to the United States

  • If enrolled prior to April 15, they are not required to take the language arts CRT. They are required to take the math CRT for participation, but their score is not included in the AYP calculation for that year. They are also required to take the LEP Assessment.

  • If enrolled April 15 or after, they are exempt from all testing for that year.

    For students new to the United States, the second year of enrollment

  • If enrolled prior to April 15 of the previous year, they are required to take the language arts CRT and the math CRT. Both scores are used for participation and proficiency. They are also required to take the LEP Assessment.

  • If enrolled April 15 or after, of the previous year, they are not required to take the language arts CRT. They are required to take the math CRT for participation, but their score is not included in the AYP calculation for that year. They are also required to take the LEP Assessment.


Who participates in testing2

Who Participates in Testing?

Examples:

Student comes to US & enrolled in September of 05/06 school year

06 - not required to take ELA CRT. but must take math CRT & LEP Assessment

07 - required to take the ELA CRT, math CRT & LEP Assessment

Student comes to US & enrolled in March of 05/06 school year

06 - not required to take ELA CRT, but must take math CRT & LEP Assessment

07 – required to take the ELA CRT, math CRT & LEP Assessment

Student comes to US & enrolled in May of 05/06 school year

06 – exempt from all spring testing

07 - not required to take ELA CRT, but must take math CRT & LEP Assessment

08 - required to take the ELA CRT, math CRT & LEP Assessment


English language learners

ELL STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN U-PASS and NCLB ACCOUNTABILITY


No child left behind1

No Child Left Behind

Title III


Annual measurable achievement objectives amaos

Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs)

A District must meet targets for all three components

1.Annual increases in the number or percentage of children making progress in learning English

Determined by LEP Assessment

2.Annual increases in the number or percentage of children attaining English proficiency

Determined by LEP Assessment

3.Making AYP for ELL

Determined by CRT


Annual measurable achievement objectives amaos1

Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs)

1.Annual increases in the number or percentage of children making progress in learning English

Determined by LEP Assessment

2003-04 & 2004-05

Advance 75% of ELLs in elementary and secondary in at least one of the domains – oral, reading, writing

2005-06 & 2006-07

Advance 80% of ELLs in elementary and secondary in at least one of the domains – listening, speaking reading, writing

2007-08

Advance 85% of ELLs in elementary and secondary in at least one of the domains – listening, speaking reading, writing

(Targets will be evaluated for revision as we transition from the IPT to the new LEP assessment)


Annual measurable achievement objectives amaos2

Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs)

2.Annual increases in the number or percentage of children attaining English proficiency

Determined by LEP Assessment

2003-04

Elementary - 8.6% of ELL (A,B,C) attain proficiency

Secondary – 12.5% of ELL (A,B,C) attain proficiency

2004-05

Elementary – 12.4% of ELL (A,B,C) attain proficiency

Secondary – 17.1% of ELL (A,B,C) attain proficiency

2005-06

Elementary – 16.2% of ELL (A,B,C) attain proficiency

Secondary – 21.6% of ELL (A,B,C) attain proficiency

2006-07

Elementary – 20.1% of ELL (A,B,C) attain proficiency

Secondary – 26.2% of ELL (A,B,C) attain proficiency

2007-08

Elementary – 24.9% of ELL (A,B,C) attain proficiency

Secondary – 30.7% of ELL (A,B,C) attain proficiency

(Targets will be evaluated for revision as we transition from the IPT to the new LEP Assessment)


Annual measurable achievement objectives amaos3

Annual Measurable Achievement ObjectivesAMAOs

3.Making AYP for ELL Subgroup

Determined by CRT

The district must make AYP in the ELL subgroup


Annual measurable achievement objectives amaos4

Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs)

A District must meet targets for all three components

1.Annual increases in the number or percentage of children making progress in learning English

Determined by LEP Assessment

2.Annual increases in the number or percentage of children attaining English proficiency

Determined by LEP Assessment

3.Making AYP for ELL

Determined by CRT


Consequences district not meeting amaos

ConsequencesDistrict Not Meeting AMAOs

  • One Year - Do not meet AMAOs

    • Inform parents of ELLs

      • Not later than 30 days after AMAOs publicly released

      • Include any revisions and improvements to ELL student services the district will implement in the following year

      • USOE provide sample letter on website

  • Two Consecutive Years – Do not meet AMAOs

    • Develop an improvement plan

      • Submit to USOE

      • Ensure that the AMAOs will be met

      • Specifically address the factors that prevented the district from meeting the AMAOs

      • The plan may apply to targeted schools rather than the district if the factors that prevented the district from meeting the AMAOs warrant it.

        NCLB Law, Section 3122


Consequences district not meeting amaos1

ConsequencesDistrict Not Meeting AMAOs

  • Four Consecutive Years – Do not meet AMAOs

  • The State shall:

    • Require the district to modify the curriculum, program and method of instruction

      OR

    • Make a determination whether the district shall continue to receive funds related to the districts failure to meet the objectives

      AND

    • Require the district to replace educational personnel relevant to the district’s failure to meet such objectives

      NCLB Law, Section 3122


Current status of amao consequences

Current Status of AMAO Consequences

  • No Federal Response to Title III Audit

  • Districts are not to send parent letters concerning 2004 and 2005 AMAO reports

  • Districts are not required to develop improvement plans based on the 2004 and 2005 AMAO reports

  • Utah will continue to wait for further information from the federal government before taking any action


Amao report

AMAO Report

  • District AMAO Report for 2006

  • District AMAO Report for 2007


Utah performance assessment system for students

Utah Performance Assessment System for Students

U-PASS


U pass accountability plan

U-PASSAccountability Plan

  • Student Participation

    • 95%

  • Acceptable Status Score

    • 75%

  • Progress Score

    • Low 0 – 184

    • Medium 185 - 214

    • High 215 - 400


Schools will be identified as

Schools will be identified as:

  • Achieved State Level of Performance

    • Participation is 95% and

    • Total School Status is acceptable or progress is medium or high AND

    • Subgroup Status is acceptable or progress is medium or high

  • Needs assistance

    • Participation is less than 95% or

    • Total School Status is not acceptable and progress is low OR

    • Subgroup Status is not acceptable and progress is low


Elementary middle status and progress score

Language Arts (35%)

ELA CRT (35%)

Or

ELA CRT (30%)

& DWA 5%

Science (20%)

Science CRT

Math (35%)

Math CRT

Attendance (10%)

Elementary/Middle Status and Progress Score


High school status and progress score

Language Arts (30%)

ELA CRT (60%)

Or CRT 50% & DWA 10%

UBSCT reading (25%)

UBSCT write (15%)

Science (25%)

All Science CRT

Mathematics (25%)

Math CRT & Courses

(50%)

UBSCT math (50%)

Attendance (10%)

Graduation rate (10%)

High School Status and Progress Score


Progress value table

Progress Value Table


U pass accountability plan1

U-PASS Accountability Plan

  • English Language Learners

    • When a new LEP Assessment is in place, it will take the place of the CRT proficiency for A & B students less than 3 years in the country

      • Until then, CRT used for all ELL students

    • All Ell students, after 3 years, regardless of proficiency level are accountable for CRT proficiency on U-PASS assessments

      • ELL students, levels A & B, after 3 years in the US are accountable for CRT proficiency on U-PASS assessments

      • ELL students at a Level C, D, E are accountable for CRT proficiency on U-PASS assessments


U pass accountability plan2

U-PASS Accountability Plan

  • Aggregate Subgroup Accountability

    • Every student who belongs to a subgroup other than white

    • Individual student proficiencies are added together and divided by the number of students to determine the subgroup proficiency level

  • Any individual subgroup not meeting proficiency will appear on the front page of the report


U pass accountability plan3

U-PASS Accountability Plan

Extensive subgroup reporting

  • Total Group

  • ELL proficiency levels

    A,B,C,D,E

  • Gender

  • Migrant

  • Mobility

  • Students without

    Disabilities

  • Economically disadvantaged

  • Students with Disabilities

  • Ethnicity

    • African American

    • American Indian

    • Asian

    • Caucasian

    • Hispanic

    • Pacific Islander

    • Other


U pass accountability plan4

U-PASS Accountability Plan

  • Subgroup Status Accountability

    • Allows greater accountability

      • Students in a subgroup with less than 10 are now included in the aggregate calculation

    • Students are more fairly represented

      • Each student only counts once, regardless of the number of subgroups in which the student qualifies.

    • Increased reliability

      • We are evaluating a larger group

      • More students and more schools are represented

    • Increased validity

      • We do not overweight small populations.

      • This lifts the burden of one subgroup being the sole determinant of unacceptable status of the school.


The 2005 u pass report

The 2005 U-PASS Report

  • Web-based report format

  • An increased amount of information available on each school

  • Allows for “drill-down” information


English language learners

Second Level “Drill Down”


English language learners

Third Level “Drill Down”


English language learners

Progress

“Drill Down”


English language learners

Second Level “Drill Down”


English language learners

Additional Reports


U pass

U-PASS

  • Additional Information:

    • NRT

    • ACT/SAT

    • AP

    • Concurrent Enrollment

    • School Summary Information

    • Student Summary Information

    • Percent of student reading on grade level

      • (reported for grades 1-10)

    • Dropout Rate (disaggregated by ’08)

    • Disciplinary Action

    • Course Taking Patterns and Trends


Reports

Reports

  • Goal - All reports come out at the same time – August 15?

    • AYP

      • School

      • District

      • State

    • AMAO

      • District

      • State

    • U-PASS

      • School

  • 30 Day review period

    • Working for improved data file and template for local comparisons

  • Appeal Process

  • After 30 days, reports released to the public


English language learners

Increase

English

Language

Proficiency

And

Academic

Achievement

Assessment Needs: ELL

U-PASS

Status & Progress

CRT

DWA

UBSCT

LEP Assess.

Title I

Title III

Identification and

Placement Test

LEP Assessment

CRT

CRT


Language proficiency classifications

Language Proficiency Classifications


2006 to 2007

2006 to 2007

This year will inform

and

improve

decisions for next year


Current english language learner student proficiency descriptors

Current English Language LearnerStudent Proficiency Descriptors

State Definition

A - Non-English proficient in speaking, reading and writing

B - Limited English proficient in speaking, reading and writing

C - Fluent in one of the language modalities and limited in one or more

D - Monitored student for 2 years for English proficiency and application

Student is proficient & exits the ELP Services

E - Former LEP student who is fully proficient in English speaking, reading and writing and has been exited for an alternative language services program and fully functioning in the mainstream

O - Identified as LEP but opted out of services by parent


Current english language learner student proficiency descriptors1

Current English Language LearnerStudent Proficiency Descriptors

After student is proficient & exits the ELP Services, student is retained as part of Subgroup calculation for AYP & AMAO for 2 years.

State Definition

E – “ELL students will count in the LEP subgroup for two years past their exit of the ELL program. This is determined by the lep_exit_date in the student_lep table of the warehouse.”


Current english language learner student proficiency descriptors2

Current English Language LearnerStudent Proficiency Descriptors

What is our Exit Criteria?


Exit criteria

Exit Criteria

One Option

  • Fluent/competent achievement levels on oral, reading and writing

  • Achieve at least ?% in Total CRT Language Arts Score

  • ESL teacher recommendation with core teacher input

  • Approval of the ESL coordinator


English language learner test score descriptors

English Language LearnerTestScore Descriptors

IPT Definition

N– non English

L – limited English

F – fluent English

Grades K – 1 Oral

Grades 2 – 12 Oral, Reading, Writing


English language learners

Chart – developed by?

Who is using it?


2006 english language learner student proficiency descriptors

2006English Language LearnerStudent Proficiency Descriptors

What is your District definition?

A

B

C

D

E


English language learners

Wall Chart Exercise


Current english language learner student proficiency descriptors3

Current English Language LearnerStudent Proficiency Descriptors

Consensus Definition

A

B

C

D

Student is proficient & exits the ELP Services

What is the criteria to move a student from D to E (Exit criteria)?

E


English language learners

  • All student and test descriptors will be evaluated and defined for the new assessment for 2007.

    • Add category for monitoring?

    • Add category for transition?

    • Add category for exited?

    • Use numbers that equate to the letter of modality proficiency?

  • The standing committee will be working these issues


Amao reports

AMAO Reports


Annual measurable achievement objectives amaos5

Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs)

A District must meet targets for all three components

1.Annual increases in the number or percentage of children making progress in learning English

Determined by LEP Assessment

2.Annual increases in the number or percentage of children attaining English proficiency

Determined by LEP Assessment

3.Making AYP for ELL

Determined by CRT


Annual measurable achievement objectives amaos6

Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs)

1.Annual increases in the number or percentage of children making progress in learning English

2003-04 & 2004-05

Advance 75% of ELLs in elementary and secondary in at least one of the domains – oral, reading, writing

2005-06 & 2006-07

Advance 80% of ELLs in elementary and secondary in at least one of the domains – listening, speaking reading, writing

2007-08

Advance 85% of ELLs in elementary and secondary in at least one of the domains – listening, speaking reading, writing


Annual measurable achievement objectives amaos7

Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives AMAOs

2.Annual increases in the number or percentage of children attaining English proficiency

2003-04

Elementary - 8.6% of ELL (A,B,C) attain proficiency

Secondary – 12.5% of ELL (A,B,C) attain proficiency

2004-05

Elementary – 12.4% of ELL (A,B,C) attain proficiency

Secondary – 17.1% of ELL (A,B,C) attain proficiency

2005-06

Elementary – 16.2% of ELL (A,B,C) attain proficiency

Secondary – 21.6% of ELL (A,B,C) attain proficiency

2006-07

Elementary – 20.1% of ELL (A,B,C) attain proficiency

Secondary – 26.2% of ELL (A,B,C) attain proficiency

2007-08

Elementary – 24.9% of ELL (A,B,C) attain proficiency

Secondary – 30.7% of ELL (A,B,C) attain proficiency


Annual measurable achievement objectives amaos8

Annual Measurable Achievement ObjectivesAMAOs

3.Making AYP for ELL

Determined by CRT

The district must make AYP in the ELL subgroup


Amao elementary students in grades k 6 or enrolled in an elementary school

AMAO Elementary: students in grades K-6 or enrolled in an elementary school


Amao secondary students enrolled in grades 7 12 or in a middle junior or high school

AMAOSecondary: students enrolled in grades 7-12 or in a middle, junior, or high school


1 how is progress calculated for amao

#1 How is progress calculated for AMAO?

Numerator

  • The total count of all students who met the denominator criteria AND who made progress in at least one domain (Oral, Reading, or Writing) in the current year

    Denominator

  • Students from current year who are ABCDE that match a student from prior year who were ABC.

  • Students who were enrolled by September 15 AND in school for 160 days


1 how is progress calculated for amaos

#1. How is progress calculated for AMAOs?

  • Determine who made Progress in at least one domain

  • Progress calculated for every enrolled student who met the denominator criteria (see previous slide)

  • All districts must submit a score for all modalities or progress calculation will not be made

    • L _ N 2005

    • L F N 2006 = no progress score given

  • Any improvement within at least one modality qualify as progress

    • N N N 2005

    • L N N 2006 = progress

  • Any progress in at least one modality even if another modality regressed

    • F L L 2005

    • L F L 2006 = progress


2 how is proficiency calculated for amaos

#2. How is proficiency calculated for AMAOs?

  • % proficient (D and E students divided by total ELL) = # proficient

  • Last year’s business rule to calculate total ELL

    • Total ELLs are limited to:

      • FAY (Full Academic Year – 160 days or more, and enrolled by September 15)

      • Students enrolled in each district

      • AYP cohort range (3-8 and 10-12)

      • Level E students who exited after September 1, 2003


2 how is proficiency calculated for amaos1

#2. How is proficiency calculated for AMAOs?

  • % proficient (D and E students divided by total ELL) = # proficient

  • This year’s business rule to calculate total ELL

    • Total ELLs are limited to:

      • FAY (Full Academic Year – 160 days or more, and enrolled by September 15)

      • Students enrolled in each district

      • AMAO cohort range (K-6 and 7-12)

      • Level E students who exited after September 1, 2003


What are the current reporting issues

What are the current reporting issues?

  • Inaccurate district enrollment submission (e.g.)

    • 2003 enrollment count for K-6 Level A = 427

    • 2004 enrollment count for K-6 Level A = 120

  • Incorrectly submits student proficiency category

    • Level B student is reported as Level A but submits grade score Level B, so progress reported in Level A (cannot show progress in Level A)

  • Inaccurate district test score submission

  • Incomplete district test score submission

    • If a score is not reported and reporting an “N” is inaccurate what do districts want to do?

      • Use previous year score?

      • Rewrite business rule to allow progress calculation to be run, even if only one modality score is submitted?


What are the current reporting issues1

What are the current reporting issues?

  • If a D student has been monitored for two years, and continues as a D student, how are they then reported?

  • If a student is highly mobile and takes the IPT more than once in a year, which school gets the credit for their CRT scores to calculate AYP?

    • Student attended School A for 160 days and took the IPT, then transfers to School B for 20 days and takes the CRT and the IPT. Which school gets the credit?

      • For CRT School B (based on last school enrolled)

      • For AMAO School B

    • Student attended School A for 40 days and took the IPT (showed progress), then transfers to School B for 100 days and took the IPT (showed proficiency), then transfers to School C for 35 days and took the CRT and IPT (showed progress), which school gets the credit

      • For CRT – School C

      • For AMAO School C – (last IPT test by date tied to last school enrolled)


Amaos vs ayp

AMAOs vs AYP

  • AMAOs for Criteria #1 & #2

    • Grades K – 12 for LEP Assessment

  • AMAO Criteria #3 (AYP)

    • Grades 3-8 & 10 for Language Arts

    • Grades 3 – Geometry for math

    • Grades 10-12 were not counted for AYP for LEP students in previous years.

      • Will be included for 06 year


2006 amao report shell

2006 AMAO Report Shell

  • Can combine AYP and AMAO reporting categories

  • Adding Non-participation status will require additional programming

  • Add “Proficient” column for D and E students


District sends to usoe ell for amaos

District sends to USOE ELL for AMAOs

  • All ELL

    • Native Language of student

    • Parent Language (Preferred language to communicate with schools)

    • Limited English Proficiency (A, B, C, D, E)

    • First Enrolled in the US

    • Tribal Affiliation: Goshute, Navajo, Piute, Northwest Band Shoshone, Ute, Other tribe

  • If A, B, C, must provide grades for ALL subtests

    • LEP Oral Grade (N,L,F)

    • LEP Read Grade (N,L,F)

    • LEP Write Grade (N,L,F)

  • If D

    • No IPT score submitted

    • Used for LEP AYP counts

  • If E

    • LEP Exit Date


Ualpa next steps

UALPANext Steps


Outside evaluator

Outside Evaluator

  • Dr. Guilliermo Solano-Flores

    • Associate Professor of Bilingual Education and English as a Second Language at University of Colorado, Boulder

    • Specializes in educational measurement, assessment development, and the linguistic and cultural issues that are relevant to testing

    • And, and, and


Assessment requirements

Assessment Requirements

  • Aligned to Content Standards

    • Language Arts, Math, Science

    • West Ed Linkage

  • Aligned to English Language Standards

    • Standards were evaluated by West Ed

    • West Ed Alignment

  • Bridging study from IPT to new assessment


Review state chart

Review State Chart

Commercial Vendors

Other Consortiums


Next year 2006 07

Next Year 2006-07

  • Placement Test – IPT

  • Academic Language Proficiency Test


Accommodations

Accommodations


Assessment accommodations ell

Assessment AccommodationsELL

  • 2005-06 school year

    • Standard Administration

    • On-level with Accommodations

      • Accommodations are the same as previous year

      • Available on the web

  • 2006-07 school year

    • A committee is reviewing and making adjustments as needed.


  • Login