California Practitioners Advisory Group Meeting

1. California Practitioners Advisory Group Meeting Analysis, Measurement, and Accountability Reporting Division October 2019

2. Agenda • English Learner Progress Indicator (ELPI) Update • Splitting English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC) Performance Levels 2 and 3 • Setting Local Educational Agency (LEA) Status Cut Scores • ELPI on the 2019 California School Dashboard

3. ELPI Update • The California Department of Education (CDE) August Memorandum to the State Board of Education (SBE) focuses on ELPI Status methodology considerations and the use of ELPI Status of “Very Low” for Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) assistance determinations (https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/im/documents/memo-pptb-amard-aug19item02.docx) • At the September 2019 SBE meeting, the CDE presented an update on the ELPI Status methodology, stakeholder outreach efforts, and the use of ELPI Status in LEA and School Eligibility Assistance Determinations. In response to stakeholder feedback, the CDE is creating a one page flier with more information on the ELPI for the general public and developing a user-friendly ELPI on the Dashboard display of ELPI Status data for the 2019 Dashboard. • A handout will be available on the date of the meeting for CPAG members to review and provide feedback to the CDE on the ELPI on the Dashboard display. • At the November 2019 SBE meeting, SBE action on ELPI Status is required for inclusion in the 2019 Dashboard.

4. ELPI Status • The ELPI is distinguished from other measures on the California School Dashboard (Dashboard), because it is the only indicator required to measure progress towards proficiency rather than the end goal of proficiency itself. • ELPI Status measures EL student growth toward English language proficiency (ELP) and requires two years of ELPAC Summative Assessment results. • To determine Status for the ELPI, student level growth results were aggregated to the school and LEA levels to calculate the percent of students who moved up at least one performance level from the prior year or maintained ELPAC level 4.

5. ELPI Change • ELPI Change measures the year-to-year change in the rate schools and LEAs move EL students toward ELP and requires three years of ELPAC Summative Assessment results. • The Change calculation allows schools and LEAs to determine if they are improving upon their ability to keep EL students on-track toward the goal of ELP. • ELPI Status, Change, and overall performance color will be available for the 2020 Dashboard.

6. 2018 and 2019 ELPAC Summative Results The Number of Matched Records equals the total number of student level 2019 ELPAC summative assessment test takers matched with 2018 results, regardless of 2018 performance level results.

7. Exclusion Rules Records were excluded for the following reasons: • Grade 12 on the 2018 ELPAC (except in cases where student repeats grade 12 in 2019) • Kindergarten students on the 2019 ELPAC • First-time ELPAC test takers in 2019 • EL students who reclassified after the 2018 ELPAC but before the 2019 ELPAC • Students who had a lower grade level in 2019 than in 2018

8. Splitting ELPAC Performance Levels 2 and 3 • Rationale: Splitting the four ELPAC performance levels to create six ELPI levels by splitting ELPAC Levels 2 and 3 would reflect the research-based timeline of 5 to 7 years for an EL student to reach English Language Proficiency (ELP); this expectation holds for students who start in Level 1 on the ELPAC. • The proposed methodology for splitting ELPAC performance levels 2 and 3 would hold LEAs and schools accountable for moving their EL students to ELP in 5 years. • Note: For EL students with initial ELPAC Summative Assessment results in low level 3, for example, the expectation is that those EL students reach ELP in less than five years. • This will result in six “ELPI levels” derived from the four ELPAC Summative Assessment levels.

9. Six ELPI Performance Levels Splitting ELPAC performance levels 2 and 3 results in six ELPI levels: • ELPI Level1 (ELPAC Summative Assessment Level 1) • ELPI Level 2L (ELPAC Summative Assessment Low Level 2) • ELPI Level 2H (ELPAC Summative Assessment High Level 2) • ELPI Level 3L (ELPAC Summative Assessment Low Level 3) • ELPI Level 3H (ELPAC Summative Assessment High Level 3) • ELPI Level 4 (ELPAC Summative Assessment Level 4)

10. Data Simulations Splitting ELPAC Performance Levels 2 and 3 • For initial data simulations, the CDE split ELPAC Performance Levels 2 and 3 levels exactly at the middle of the scale scores for each grade level • For example, for grade 2: ELPAC Level 2 Scale Score range is 1,424 to 1,470 and would be split to create: • ELPI Level 2L – Scale Score Range 1,424 to 1,446 • ELPI Level 2H – Scale Score Range 1,447 to 1,470

11. Overall Performance Level Comparison For each grade level in grades K–8 and grade spans 9–10 and 11–12, the CDE examined the number and percent of students: • Increasing one or more performance levels or maintaining level 4 on the ELPAC • Maintaining other performance levels below level 4 on the ELPAC • Declining one or more performance levels *Please see Handout 1 for detailed information.

12. Overall Performance Level Comparison Statewide Results

13. ELs Making Progress – 4 ELPAC Levels *Purple – means a student declined one or more levels between 2018 and 2019. *Gray – means a student maintained levels between 2018 and 2019. *Yellow – means a student increased one or more levels between 2018 and 2019.

14. ELs Making Progress – 6 ELPI Levels *Purple – means a student declined one or more levels between 2018 and 2019. *Gray – means a student maintained levels between 2018 and 2019. *Yellow – means a student increased one or more levels between 2018 and 2019.

15. Splitting ELPAC Levels: Questions/Discussions • Do you have any questions or concerns with the proposed splitting of ELPAC Levels 2 and 3?

16. Setting Status Cut Scores by LEA Type • Analyses of 2018 ELPAC results show that as grade level increases, the percentage of students in Overall Performance Level 1 increases. • This trend is particularly noticeable in grades nine through twelve. • The CDE has conducted simulations producing potential cut scores using different distributions of LEAs, splitting those serving grades one through eight versus those serving grades nine through twelve. • Cut scores are set at the LEA level. For these data simulations, LEAs were categorized as either 1-8 or 9-12. Unified Districts were categorized as 1-8. See Table 2 in Handout 3 for the distribution for 1-8 and 9-12 where Unified Districts are included in the 9-12 category.

17. Cut Score Distribution Comparison by LEA Type (Unified LEAs included in Elementary LEAs) N=1,301 Based on County Office of Education, district, and all charter school data See Handout 3 for more detailed information

18. Cut Score Distribution Comparison by LEA Type (Unified LEAs Included in High School LEAs) N=1,301 Based on County Office of Education, district, and all charter school data See Handout 3 for more detailed information

19. ELPI Status Levels and Cut Scores

20. ELPI Status Distribution of LEAs N=676 Note: Does not include charter schools.

21. ELPI Status Distribution of Schools N=6,604 Note: Includes charter schools.

22. Recommended Cut Scores • After conducting these data simulations, the CDE recommends using the statewide LEA distribution to set cut scores given there is minimal difference between the distributions for elementary and high school LEAs. • The N-size of high school LEAs is low. One concern is that small year to year changes could have a significant impact on these distributions.

23. Setting Status Cut Scores: Discussion/Questions • Do you have any questions or concerns with the proposed cut scores for the ELPI Status levels? • Do you have any questions or concerns with using the statewide LEA distribution to set cut scores?

24. ELPI on the Dashboard • Refer to the ELPI on the Dashboard handout. • Do you have any questions or concerns about the information presented on this handout or the layout itself? • Will this be easily understood by the general public and parents?