1 / 18

ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY. April 11, 2013. Today’s presenters :. Doug Kosty, Assistant Superintendent Kimberly Harrington, ELD Teacher, Hillsboro School District ELPA Content Panel Member Michelle McCoy, Assessment Specialist, English Language Proficiency

mglisson
Download Presentation

ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY April 11, 2013

  2. Today’s presenters: • Doug Kosty, Assistant Superintendent • Kimberly Harrington, ELD Teacher, Hillsboro School DistrictELPA Content Panel Member • Michelle McCoy, Assessment Specialist, English Language Proficiency • Mary Seburn, Principal Research Scientist, EPIC • Kathleen Vanderwall, Manager, Test Design and Administration

  3. Goals for Today Provide background and results of the ELP Standards Verification, including: • Impetus, Timeline and Stakeholder Engagement • Evaluation and Results of the Workshops • Feedback from Stakeholders • Next Steps

  4. Impetus: Feedback From Stakeholders • Cohort of Superintendents requested examination of the consistency and coherency of the ELPA Performance Standards (2008) • Periodic review • Expanded range of items assessing the language functions

  5. ELP Standards Verification Participants

  6. Standards Verification Evaluation • External Evaluation conducted by The Educational Policy Improvement Center (EPIC) • Observed process • Conducted formal and informal Interviews with participants • Conducted training and workshop evaluations 7

  7. Standards Verification Evaluation Documented implementation of best practices and technical adequacy • Noted evidence of procedural validity as observed • Noted when relevant standards for Educational and Psychological Testing were met • Documented technical evidence similar to what is required by ESEA (NCLB) Peer Review • Documented adherence to best and emerging practice 8

  8. Standards Verification Process • Bookmarking Method • Held in two workshops • November: 76 Oregon stakeholders set bookmarks over 4 days (Phase 1) • February: 20 Oregon stakeholders set bookmarks over 2 days (Phase 2) • Panelists recommended changes to the performance standards for all grade levels • External evaluators monitored process and documented observed evidence of validity 9

  9. Standards Verification Goals • When are students proficient enough in English to participate meaningfully in the general education program? • When exited, what is the evidence that ELL students are performing as well as their non-ELL peers? • When are ELL students participating in essentially all aspects of the district’s curriculum?

  10. Training Evaluation • Overall, feedback on the training was positive, for example: • 92% of participants agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “The training materials were helpful.” • 86% of participants agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “I am confident I understand my role in the standards verification process.” • 83% of participants agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “Overall, I feel well trained and prepared to complete the standards verification task.” 11

  11. Standards Verification Outcomes • In many cases, participants recommended lower cut scores, particularly for the Intermediate Performance Level and for grade 2 • Impact of these recommended cut scores is “smoother” across grades and Performance Levels • The new cut scores will provide more meaningful information to students, educators, parents, policymakers and others regarding individual performance on the acquisition of English

  12. Current Impact Compared to Recommended New Cut Scores (Using 2011-12 ELPA Data)

  13. How do the new cut scores compare with the previous cut scores? The participant-recommended cut scores range from slightly lower, the same, or slightly high than the previous cut scores.

  14. Feedback (Survey) • Respondents concerning the proposed ELP Cut Scores • 67% agree or strongly agree with the proposed cut score changes • 82% believe that the proposed cut scores will be a positive change • Respondents concerning the updated Performance Level Descriptors • 82% agree or are neutral/no opinion concerning the updated PLDs

  15. Next Steps • Continuing gathering input through the survey through 4/19. • Recommend adoption of the updated cut scores by the Oregon Board of Education, which would go into effect for 2013-14. • Recommend that the State Board of Education adopt the new ELPA Performance Level Descriptors, which would also go into effect in 2013-14. • Place on the Consent Agenda, May 16-17, 2013.

  16. Questions?

More Related