English Language Learners

1. 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

2. 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

3. Accountabilityfor English Language Learners

4. 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

5. No Child Left Behind Title I

6. 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

7. 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)

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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”

12. No Child Left BehindPercentage of Students Proficient

13. 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

14. 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.

15. 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

16. ELL STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN U-PASS and NCLB ACCOUNTABILITY

17. No Child Left Behind Title III

18. 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

19. 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)

20. 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)

21. Annual Measurable Achievement ObjectivesAMAOs 3. Making AYP for ELL Subgroup Determined by CRT The district must make AYP in the ELL subgroup

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. AMAO Report • District AMAO Report for 2006 • District AMAO Report for 2007

27. Utah Performance Assessment System for Students U-PASS

28. U-PASSAccountability Plan • Student Participation • 95% • Acceptable Status Score • 75% • Progress Score • Low 0 – 184 • Medium 185 - 214 • High 215 - 400

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. Progress Value Table

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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.

37. The 2005 U-PASS Report • Web-based report format • An increased amount of information available on each school • Allows for “drill-down” information

39. Second Level “Drill Down”

40. Third Level “Drill Down”

41. Progress “Drill Down”

42. Second Level “Drill Down”

43. Additional Reports

44. 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

45. 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

46. 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

47. Language Proficiency Classifications

48. 2006 to 2007 This year will inform and improve decisions for next year

49. 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

50. 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.”