Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores Presenter, Affiliation Date This presentation is designed to orient educators – ESL, content and general education teachers, as well as school and district-level administrators on how to interpret ACCESS for ELLs scores. © 2011 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, on behalf of the WIDA Consortium www.wida.us

DO NOT POST THESE MATERIALS TO PUBLIC WEBSITES OR FORUMS. SECURE & CONFIDENTIAL DO NOT POST THESE MATERIALS TO PUBLIC WEBSITES OR FORUMS. Contains secure and confidential information.

Training Objectives To review the purpose and structure of ACCESS for ELLs To learn how to interpret the ACCESS for ELLs scores To learn how to read and understand the ACCESS for ELLs score reports To understand the programmatic implications of ACCESS for ELLs scores

Review: Purposes of ACCESS for ELLs On an annual basis, monitor the progress of ELLs’ English language proficiency in grade levels K-12 Establish when ELLs have attained English language proficiency (ELP) according to state criteria Inform classroom instruction and assessment Provide a reliable and valid data source for accountability and aid in decision-making 4

Test Alignment with Proficiency Levels The three tiers of the ACCESS for ELLs test are calibrated to best serve ELLs at the boundaries indicated on the figure. It is expected that the majority of students will receive the Tier B form of the test. Tier A is intended for very low proficiency students and Tier C for students close to exiting from ELL status. 5 5

The WIDA ELP Standards Standard 1 – Social & Instructional Language (SIL) English language learners communicate for social and instructional purposes in the school setting. Standard 2 – Language of Language Arts (LoLA) English language learners communicate information, ideas and concepts necessary for academic success in the content area of Language Arts. Standard 3 – Language of Mathematics (LoMA) English language learners communicate information, ideas and concepts necessary for academic success in the content area of Math. Standard 4 – Language of Science (LoSC) English language learners communicate information, ideas and concepts necessary for academic success in the content area of Science. Standard 5 – Language of Social Studies (LoSS) English language learners communicate information, ideas and concepts necessary for academic success in the content area of Social Studies. 6

ACCESS for ELLs Scores 7

Types of Scores ACCESS for ELLs Scores Raw Scale ELP Levels Explain the difference between a raw score, a scale score and an ELP level, and point out that these are interpretations rather than conversions. Another point to make is when it is appropriate to use scale scores (to show growth for example) versus raw (when number of items is very small, like in the number of correct responses related to language control in the domain of writing in the area of science) and ELP levels to compare across domains. 8

ACCESS for ELLs Scores Domain Scores Composite Scores Listening Reading Writing Speaking Composite Scores Oral Language Literacy Comprehension Overall These are types of information you can get from the reports, basically data for each of the language domains and it introduces the concept of composite scores. A discussion on when to use composite scores versus individual domain scores would be appropriate here. Also, you may want to talk about how these are reported using scale scores and ELP levels. And how Comprehension, Speaking and Writing are also reported in raw scores and ELP levels when looking at the student’s performance by standard. 9

Composite Scores Oral Language Score Listening (50%) Speaking (50%) = + Literacy Score Reading (50%) Writing (50%) = + Comprehension Score Listening (30%) Reading (70%) = + This is an explanation of the composite scores each student receives, and how each score is obtained. It is up to you if you want to present it before or after slide 13. Listening (15%) Speaking (15%) Overall Score = + Reading (35%) Writing (35%) 10

Scale Scores WIDA ACCESS for ELLs scale scores are psychometrically derived measures of student proficiency Range from 100 to 600 (above 500 is rare) Vertically-equated scale applies to all grades and all test forms Scale scores do take differences into account (e.g., assessment tasks taken by students in the grade 9-12 cluster are more challenging than the assessment tasks taken by students in the grade 1-2 cluster) Scale scores allow student performances (i.e., raw scores) across grades and tiers to be compared on a vertical scale. The vertical scale allows scale scores across grade levels to be compared to one another within any single domain. Scale scores are useful for monitoring a student’s progress from year to year. There is a separate scale for each language domain: Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing. Because each domain has its own scale, a scale score of 300 in Listening does not mean the same as a scale score of 300 in Speaking. For each domain, scores are reported on a single vertical scale from Kindergarten to Grade 12. The lowest possible scale score is 100. The upper limit is 600, although scores above 500 are rare. WIDA/CAL (c) 2007 WIDA/CAL Grade Level Cut Score Review Study 11

Proficiency Level Scores Proficiency Level Scores are socially-derived interpretations of the ACCESS for ELLs Scale Scores in terms of the six proficiency levels defined in the WIDA Standards Comprised of a whole number and a decimal, e.g. 2.5 The whole number indicates the proficiency level into which the student’s scale score places him or her (e.g. 2 = Beginning) The decimal indicates how far, in tenths, the student’s scale score places him or her between the lower and the higher cut score of the proficiency level (e.g. 2.5 = 5/10 or ½ of the way between the cut score for level 2 and level 3) 12

Scale Scores Compared to Proficiency Level Scores Scale scores are interpreted differently (i.e., has different proficiency level scores) based on a student’s grade level Proficiency Level scores correspond to different scale scores based on a student’s grade level

Information in ACCESS for ELLs Score Reports 14

Score Report Jigsaw Divide into 4 groups according to the following score reports: 1. Parent/Guardian Report 2. Teacher Report 3. Student Roster Report 4. School Frequency Report & District Frequency Report Each group will examine their score report and answer the 4 guiding questions on the following slide. Record your notes or create a graphic organizer to represent your answers to the 4 questions. Then we will ‘jigsaw’ into grade-level clusters and share our information. Important note to presenter: The Score Report Jigsaw on the next several slides is an optional activity, depending on how much time you allow for the presentation and how in-depth you want participants to analyze the score reports. It will allow participants greater depth and analysis – and perhaps more widespread use – of the score reports. Review and think through the activity & groupings before conducting it. You will need to print and give copies of the following slide to participants, 1 slide per table or per person. You will also need to provide sample score reports (can be obtained from the ACCESS for ELLs Interpretive Guide for Score Reports). You will likely have more than one group working on each report (i.e., three tables looking at the ‘Teacher Report’), and you may want to be strategic about which reports you assign which groups. For example, if one table is comprised of mostly district administrators, you may want to assign them the ‘District and School Frequency Reports.’ Or, let the groups choose the report most useful for them to analyze in their role(s). Debrief the questions at the end. 15 15

Guiding Questions for Score Reports Score Report Examined: __________________________ What is the purpose of the report? What data are available? What does the data tell you? How can you use the data? 16 16

In-Depth Analysis… Parent/Guardian and Teacher Reports Divide by grade level cluster: 1–2, 3–5, 6–8, and 9–12. Each group will: Share as individuals what you learned about the score report examined in your previous group. Examine together 2 score reports for individual students (Parent/Guardian and/or Teacher Reports). Discuss: What does the data tell you? Note to presenter: This is another optional activity, depending on how in-depth you want the audience to go in to the Parent/Guardian and Teacher Reports. The advantage of this activity is that it allows participants to analyze reports for 2 actual students, rather than simply looking at what data the report format provide. 17 17

ACCESS Score Report Jigsaw Debrief Which scores might best inform instruction? Why? How? Which scores help in (re)designing support services? Why? How? While still in their grade-level clusters, ask participants to share what they learned, using these guiding questions to facilitate the debrief. This activity was adapted courtesy of Margo Gottlieb, PhD, Lead Developer for the WIDA Consortium. 18 18

ACCESS for ELLs Interpretive Guide The ACCESS for ELLs Interpretive Guide for Score Reports contains detailed information on the use of scores from this assessment. Download the document from www.wida.us. The Interpretive Guide for Score Reports offers detailed information on the meaning and the use of scores received for English language learners on ACCESS for ELLs. It gives a detailed description of each score report and suggestions for stakeholders on data applications. It is recommended that presenters and participants download the guide from www.wida.us. As with all assessments, ACCESS for ELLs scores should be considered one of multiple criteria in educational decision making. 19 19

ACCESS for ELLs Score Reports Parent/ Guardian Teacher Student Roster School Frequency District Frequency 20

What does the Parent/Guardian Report tell us? The Parent/Guardian Report contains individual student data. Score Report Audience or Stakeholder Types of Information Parent/Guardian Students Parents/ Guardians Teachers School Teams Individual student’s Overall Score and levels of English language proficiency for language domains (Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing) and Comprehension The parent report contains information about the student’s English language proficiency in relation to the WIDA ELP Standards–NOT information on the student’s academic achievement. Indicates the extent to which a student has acquired listening, speaking, reading and writing –reflective of a test given annually 21

Parent/Guardian Report Student’s parent or guardian gets the report Provided in English Translations of the report are available in other languages (visit www.wida.us/translations) Generated translated copies of the report are available from MetriTech (contact 800-747-4868, wida@metritech.com to request access) A letter to accompany the report in parents’ primary language is suggested A sample letter is available at www.wida.us Other stakeholders – student, teachers, school teams The score report has been translated into multiple languages. Please visit www.wida.us to view the various translations. MetriTech also provides a free tool granting districts and school administrators the ability to generate translated Parent/Guardian reports. The tool is hosted on MetriTech’s secure web page and will become available to your district and/or school once MetriTech has shipped the score reports. Student’s ELP level is shown by domain using bar graphs (middle table). 22

Demographic Information About the Student Comprehension Score Student’s ELP Level by Domain Overall Score Description of the ELP Levels 23

What does the Teacher Report tell us? The Teacher Report contains individual student data. Score Report Audience or Stakeholder Types of Information Teacher Teachers Administrators Individual student’s scale scores and proficiency levels for each language domain, Oral Language, Literacy, Comprehension, and Overall Score; raw scores for Comprehension Tasks, Speaking, and Writing Tasks by English language proficiency standard 24

Teacher Report Teachers and other stakeholders, such as administrators, have access to this report. Individual report components offer a starting point for informing the areas of curriculum, instruction and assessment of ELL’s. Suggestions for the differentiation across levels of language proficiency can be found in the strands of the model performance indicators. Rubrics in the Interpretive Guide –Writing and Speaking – scaffold across levels of language proficiency and may be used in classroom instruction and assessment throughout the year. 25

Teacher Report Demographic Information About the Student Student’s Scale Score by Domain Student’s ELP Level by Domain Student’s Scale Composite Scores Student’s Composite Proficiency Level Scores Student’s Comprehension by Standard Student’s Speaking Performance by Standard Student’s Writing Performance by Standard Description of the ELP Levels 26

Teacher Report (top) 27

Teacher Report (bottom) Raw Scores by Standard In this section of the report, raw scores are provided for the different parts of the test. Raw scores cannot be compared across grade level clusters or across tiers within a grade level cluster. Writing tasks are given a proficiency level score, by standard and by area of the WIDA Writing Rubric (Linguistic Control, Vocabulary Usage, and Language Control). The writing scoring rubric was based directly on the six proficiency levels of the WIDA Standards, scores on the writing tasks do reflect a common meaning across tiers and grade levels (though developmental differences across grade level clusters are taken into account). Speaking Tasks receive a raw score for each part, by standard. 28

This is a Tier C writing sample from the 3-5 cluster Teacher Report Writing Tasks Writing raw scores are presented by standard next to the maximum number of points for the given standard(s) and scoring category reported Please note that some test forms contain more than one Writing task addressing the same standard while another standard may not be addressed. This is particularly true in the lower grades and tiers. For example, Tier A for grade cluster 3-5 does not contain a task addressing the language of Language Arts & Social Studies. This is a Tier C writing sample from the 3-5 cluster 29

Audience or Stakeholder What does the Student Roster Report tell us? The Student Roster Report lists the scale scores and proficiency levels for a group (or class) of students. Score Report Audience or Stakeholder Types of Information Student Roster Teachers Program Coordinators/ Directors Administrators Scale scores and proficiency levels for each language domain, Oral Language, Literacy, Comprehension, and the Overall Score by school, grade, student, Tier, and grade level cluster 30

Student Roster Report Audience includes Teachers, Program Coordinators, and Administrators District administrators may examine scores from each language domain within a Tier and grade level cluster to detect any patterns. To what extent are there differences in student performance between the language domains? Are these differences attributed to second language development or delivery of instructional services? Development of school and district improvement plans for ELLs; development of school staffing plans and scheduling Provides a starting point for grouping students for support services according to their Overall Score or by their profiles according to language domains (ex: homogeneous groupings for reading in elementary schools). 31

Student Roster Report Tier Scale Score and ELP Level by Domain Cluster Scale Score and ELP Level by Composite: Oral Language, Literacy, Comprehension and Overall Cluster 32

Audience or Stakeholder What does the School Frequency Report tell us? The School Frequency Report lists the numbers of students tested in each domain of ACCESS by grade level within a school. Score Report Audience or Stakeholder Types of Information School Frequency Program Coordinators/ Directors Administrators Number of students and percent of total tested for each language domain, Oral Language, Literacy, Comprehension, and Overall Score by proficiency levels for grade levels within a school 33

School Frequency Report Indicates number of students and percent of total tested for language domains (including range of scaled scores), Comprehension, Oral Language, and Literacy by proficiency levels for grade levels within a school. Results should not be generalized and need to be contextualized in order to provide meaningful information on curricular, instructional or assessment decisions. School Frequency Reports for two consecutive years provide cross-sectional data. In communicating results of this report, use both the numbers and their corresponding percents. If numbers are low, the percent may appear distorted if shown in isolation. Use the information contained in the report to gain a sense of the school-wide effort in educating English language learners. 34

Highest & Lowest Scores School Frequency Report % of Total Students Tested who scored at each ELP level by Domain and Composite Number of Students Tested who scored at each ELP level by Domain and Composite Highest & Lowest Scores Total Tested 35

Audience or Stakeholder What does the District Frequency Report tell us? The District Frequency Report lists the numbers of students tested in each domain of ACCESS by grade level within a district. Score Report Audience or Stakeholder Types of Information District Frequency Program Coordinators/ Directors Administrators Boards of Education Number of students and percent of total tested for each language domain, Oral Language, Literacy, Comprehension, and Overall Score by proficiency levels for grade levels within a district 36

District Frequency Report Audience includes Program Coordinators, Boards of Education, and Administrators. Indicates number of students and percent of total tested for language domains (including the range of scale scores), Comprehension, Oral Language, and Literacy by proficiency levels for grade levels within a district. Data can be graphically displayed in various forms. Information will be useful in planning, designing, or restructuring program services. Based on an individual state’s criteria for “attainment” of English language proficiency and its definition of cohort groups, this report may serve as a district’s estimate of the number and/or percent of students who have met that criterion for Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs). 37

Highest & Lowest Scores District Frequency Report % of Total Students Tested who scored at each ELP level by Domain and Composite Number of Students Tested who scored at each ELP level by Domain and Composite Highest & Lowest Scores Total Tested 38

ACCESS for ELLs Scoring 39

Scoring Caps Kindergarten form of ACCESS for ELLs: Maximum overall English language proficiency level that a student taking the test can receive is 6.0. Grades 1-12 forms of ACCESS for ELLs: Tier A scores for the language domains of Listening and Reading (and the Comprehension composite) are capped at 4.0. Tier B scores for the language domains of Listening and Reading (and the Comprehension composite) are capped at 5.0. Note about caps for Tier A and B tests: You may only want to give this explanation if it comes up, but the question has arisen in the past: “If our state’s exit criterion on ACCESS is a 4.0, why not give all students the Tier A test?” Answer: Essentially, the student has less of an opportunity to score a 4.0 on the Tier A test (than on the Tier B or C test if that one of those is the more appropriate test form) because there are many fewer items with a 4.0 difficulty level on the Tier A test. That is, a student would have to get nearly all of the few level 4 items correct in order to score a 4.0 than on the Tier B or Tier C test, where there are many more level 4 items for his/her to attempt. His/her score is more reliable and accurate if he/she is placed in the appropriate tier. Further, a score of 4.0 on the Tier A test would indicate that he/she “topped out” of the test, or did not reach a ceiling and therefore was not given the opportunity to show his/her accurate language proficiency level on the test. 40

Facts about ACCESS Cut Scores The ACCESS for ELLs test uses cut scores to create benchmarks for denoting progress and movement from one proficiency level to another. Changes in proficiency level cut scores account for both maturational and language proficiency growth of English language learners. Cut scores show progress by grade level (not by grade level cluster) for each language domain. Regarding last point: see next slide 41

Scoring: Grade Level Cut Scores Q: For example, with the 3–5 test, are 3rd graders scored the same as 5th graders? A: ACCESS for ELLs is not a norm-referenced test, and therefore, does not produce student scores referenced to a norm group. It is a criterion-referenced test, which is scored against the language proficiency standards and shows where students are on the language proficiency continuum. There is one set of standards for the grade level cluster 3–5, and one scale score range across all the grade levels. However, the proficiency level score is an interpretation of the meaning of the scale score. The interpretation is based on the grade level a student is in when ACCESS for ELLs is taken, rather than on the grade level cluster. 42

Use of Proficiency Levels Based on Grade Level Cut Scores Provides a more precise measurement of ELLs’ annual progress in English language proficiency. Helps create a trajectory of estimated student growth, in any one or combination of language domains, from year to year. Facilitates articulation from grade to grade, and teacher to teacher, of the status of ELLs. Helps in the calculation of Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs). States with at least three consecutive years of data can establish trends. 43

Example: Scale Score of 350 Grades Domain Scores   Scale Score Proficiency Level 3 Overall 350 5.1 4 4.6 5 4.0 In this example, the students all received the same scale score (350) which indicates that they all have the same level of overall English language proficiency. However, students in third grade who receive this scale score will have an English language proficiency level of 5.1, while students in the fourth grade will receive 4.6 and students in the fifth grade will receive 4.0. The grade level cut scores take into account the fact that students at the lower grade of the cluster are facing “harder” material in the assessment then the fifth grader. Third graders may not yet have been exposed to all aspects of the standards, which are written for the entire cluster. Nevertheless, their scale score of 350 indicates that they have been measured at the same level of English language proficiency as the fifth grader, on a test form that was probably more challenging for them than for the fifth grader. The proficiency level score is an interpretation of the meaning of the scale score. In this case, third grade students scoring a 350 in the grade 3-5 cluster would probably be performing at an English language proficiency level of 5.1 had they been in fifth grade. We can also think this way: the third grader may have achieved the same scale score as the fifth grader on a “harder” test through a higher level of English language proficiency than what the fifth grader has. So in this sense, students in third grade and fifth grade are scored the same, but the interpretation of that score is different. WIDA/CAL (c) 2007 WIDA/CAL Grade Level Cut Score Review Study 44

Example: Proficiency Level of 5.0 Grades Domain Scores   Scale Score Proficiency Level 3 Overall 347 5.0 4 359 5 369 In this example, we see what scale score it takes for students in the different grades to reach the proficiency level of 5.0. Students in grade 3 need a 347; students in grade 4 need a 359, and students in grade 5 need a 369. Again, the student in third grade is facing a “harder” test than the student with potentially two more years of schooling in fifth grade. WIDA/CAL (c) 2007 WIDA/CAL Grade Level Cut Score Review Study 45

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs Scores for Instructional Purposes 46

How do we use ACCESS Scores? Standards-based results help inform curriculum, instruction and assessment of ELLs The Overall Composite Score summarizes student’s global language proficiency Domain subscale scores allow for examination of strengths and weakness by domain Raw scores by standards allow for examination of strengths and weaknesses by content area language Individual report components offer a starting point for differentiating instruction and assessment The Writing and Speaking Rubrics in the Interpretive Guide provide criteria within rubrics to scaffold across the levels of language proficiency and may be used in assessing classroom tasks and projects throughout the year 47

Communication of Data from the Reports No single score or language proficiency level should be used as the sole criteria for making decisions regarding a student’s English language proficiency. Sharing student information from score reports is encouraged for all educators who work with English language learners. Data in the reports need to be contextualized to be meaningful; include both historical and demographic information on the students when presenting the results. When disseminating information on the students’ language, refer to criteria in the speaking and writing rubrics. Performance Definitions and CAN DO Descriptors (on upcoming slides) may help further explain student expectations at each level of English language proficiency. 48

Communication of Data from the Reports Each language domain has its own scale and cannot be compared across Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing domains. Proficiency Levels (as scale score interpretations) may be used to make comparisons between language domains. Scale scores for Oral Language, Literacy, Comprehension, and the Overall Score are weighted. Research shows that literacy skills are better predictors of academic success than oral language skills alone. A student’s progress or growth in English language proficiency can only be determined when two or more consecutive years of data are available. MPIs associated with the ELP standards of the specific grade level cluster as well as additional student work samples may be helpful in targeting instruction and classroom assessment. 49

Score Interpretation Resources Professional Development Offerings (from WIDA or your State/District): ACCESS Score Interpretations & Programmatic Implications Instructional Strategies Scaffolding and Differentiation Interpretive Guide Archive copies of the Interpretive guide along with copies of the score reports so that new personnel for the academic year can become acclimated with data from ACCESS for ELLs 50

Performance Definitions Performance Definitions help to interpret the WIDA English language proficiency levels. They are descriptive of the levels of English Language Proficiency for WIDA’s ELP Standards and show, at each level, the language that English language learners process, understand, produce or use. However, they are not domain-specific (to L, S, R, or W). Note: At each level of the WIDA proficiency scale, we have defined the language that English language learners process, understand, produce, or use. These general descriptors apply to all four language domains and are also available by grade level clusters. The general “CAN DO” Descriptors are available in the WIDA English Language Proficiency Standards and Resource Guide (available at www.wida.us). Grade level cluster specific CAN DO Descriptors are available at www.wida.us.

Performance Level Definitions & Model Performance Indicators Language Proficiency (Performance Level Descriptions) 1 Entering 2 Beginning 3 Developing 4 Expanding 5 Bridging PLs L 1 L 2 L 3 L4 L 5 Linguistic Complexity Vocabulary Usage Language Control This graphic illustrates how the breadth and depth of academic language (across the criteria of linguistic complexity, vocabulary usage, and language control) that students are expected to comprehend and produce increases as they advance in proficiency level.

CAN DO Descriptors (RG-58) The Can Do Descriptors were derived from WIDA’s Performance Definitions (previous slide). They show what English language learners can do in a particular language domain (L, S, R, or W) for the given level of English language proficiency. 53

CAN DO Descriptors - Listening For the given ELP level, English language learners can: 54

CAN DO Descriptors - Speaking For the given ELP level, English language learners can: 55

CAN DO Descriptors - Reading For the given ELP level, English language learners can: 56

CAN DO Descriptors - Writing For the given ELP level, English language learners can: 57

Programmatic Implications of ACCESS for ELLs Scores 58

Programmatic Implications High Scores High scores (Levels 5–6) may indicate a need for Monitoring or Targeted Support. School teams should consider: Is it appropriate to exit the student from ELL services? Does this student have the language skills necessary to access the content in the mainstream classroom without additional language support services? What additional evidence is needed to make a determination? Is the student’s English proficiency weak in a particular language domain (e.g., Writing)? Is the student’s English proficiency weak in a particular standard area (e.g., the language of Social Studies)? If so, consider additional content language support. Even though WIDA would contend that the ACCESS for ELLs is more valid and reliable than previous generation of ELP assessments, high stakes decisions should never be based solely on the results of a single instrument. Therefore, WIDA recommends that program exit decisions include evidence of ELLs being able to handle difficult academic language within classroom contexts. Certain students may be ready for exit prior to level 6 but may perhaps require only minimal targeted assistance in an academic class or with a domain like writing. 59

Programmatic Implications Mid-Level Scores Mid-level scores (Levels 3–4) may indicate a need for 1-3 more years of ELL support services. School teams should consider: A balanced, long-term approach that focuses on grade-level academic standards and English proficiency standards, and utilizes strategies that increase comprehension and communication in English (e.g., sheltered instruction) Enhancement of both oral language and literacy development Providing L1 instruction (first language/bilingual education) and/or support where feasible Individual students have differing profiles and need support strategies that match those profiles. A student with good reading and writing skills (some times seen in late arrivals who studied English in school settings) need more work with listening and speaking, whereas most ELL students will likely have weaker reading and writing skills. In both cases, it is still helpful to match the support to the language needs of the classroom. Balanced, long term approaches that focus on grade level standards but delivered using strategies that increase student comprehension and involvement work best. 60

Programmatic Implications Beginner-Level Scores Beginner level scores (Levels 1–2) may need 5 or 6 more years of ELL support services. School teams should consider: Providing targeted communicative/social & instructional English Enrolling student in “newcomer” program if available and appropriate Using content-based strategies (e.g., sheltered instruction) and L1 instruction, if possible Scaffolding within programs and school Graphic support Peer support Supplemental and modified materials While development of basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) should be targeted in instruction, content-area language and learning should not be delayed until BICS are fully developed. 61

A Final Note About “Triangulating” Data Although the ACCESS for ELLs test is more valid and reliable than previous ELP assessments, standardized tests are just one measure – in this case, of English language proficiency. Multiple data points that include formative assessment should always be used in making high-stakes decisions about students. 62

Questions or Comments? For more information, please contact the WIDA Help Desk: 1-866-276-7735 or help@wida.us World Class Instructional Design and Assessment, www.wida.us Center for Applied Linguistics, www.cal.org MetriTech, Inc., www.metritech.com © 2011 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, on behalf of the WIDA Consortium www.wida.us