2013-2014 ESL Results and 2014-2015 Targets Montgomery County Schools.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Bethware Elementary School Free/Reduced, AMOs and Percent Proficient data includes Alternate Assessments and Retest One. All EOG Regular Assessment.
Advertisements

North Shelby School Free/Reduced, AMOs and Percent Proficient data includes Alternate Assessments and Retest One. All EOG Regular Assessment.
Turning Point Grades Free/Reduced, AMOs and Percent Proficient data includes Alternate Assessments and Retest One. All EOG Regular Assessment.
Casar Elementary School Free/Reduced, AMOs and Percent Proficient data includes Alternate Assessments and Retest One. All EOG Regular Assessment.
May 3, 2006WV Department of Education Annual Measurable Objectives for Improving the Achievement of LEP Students Title III AMAOs.
Title III-A All identified English language learners assessed for English language proficiency (ELP) with the ACCESS for ELLs TM, with all 4 domains (Reading,
California English Language Development Test (CELDT) and Reclassification Palm Middle School
Pitt County Schools Testing & Accountability The ABC’s of Public Education.
English Language Learners Washoe County School District Janeen A. Kelly Washoe County Schools Director English Language Learners.
Monthly Conference Call With Superintendents and Charter School Administrators.
Language Proficiency Assessment Commitee (LPAC)
Language Proficiency Assessment Commitee (LPAC)
Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) Results September 2007.
ELL (English Language Learner) Program.  An ELL student is a student who:  Was not born in the United States  Or whose native language is not English.
ON TARGET WITH AMAOS 1, 2, 3 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS September 29, 2009 Welcome.
Jpschools.org ADMINISTRATION OF ELDA K-2 SPRING 2015 Penny McIntosh jpschools.org.
August 23, ELLs at CV are a diverse group National origin Educational background Attitudes about school Experience with technology Speaking ability.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT for teachers of English Language Learners.
How to Interpret and Use Standards of Learning (SOL) and ACCESS for ELLs® Data to Make Instructional Decisions for English Learners.
Data Interpretation ACCESS for ELLs® The Rhode Island Department of Education Presented by Bob Measel ELL Specialist Office of Instruction, Assessment,
Language Proficiency Assessment Commitee (LPAC)
State Initiatives in Bilingual/ESL Education Presenters: Raquel Sinai, Bilingual/ESL Coordinator Lori Ramella, Bilingual/ESL Education Specialist Ericka.
Title III Accountability. Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives How well are English Learners achieving academically? How well are English Learners.
Know the Rules Nancy E. Brito, NBCT, Accountability Specialist Department of Educational Data Warehouse, Accountability, and School Improvement
ESL Education Program Report Hudson ISD ESL/Content-Based An English program that serves students identified as students of limited English proficiency.
Acquiring English Proficiency in the Torrington Public Schools Programs, Process, and Student Progress Cheryl F. Kloczko.
Welcome Families Portland Public Schools English as a Second Language ESL.
Accountability Updates NCAEE Region 1 May 2, 2014 M. E. (Butch) Hudson, Jr. Regional Accountability Coordinator Accountability Region 4.
Linden Public School District ESL/Bilingual K-12 Program April 2012 Alphonsina Paternostro, Supervisor.
WIDA ELP Standards Providing Educational Equity to ELLs through Language Development.
Virginia Department of Education May 8, English Language Proficiency Targets: Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) 2.
Title III Notice of Proposed Interpretations Presentation for LEP SCASS/CCSSO May 7, 2008.
ACCOUNTABILITY UPDATE Accountability Services.
No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Know the Rules Division of Performance Accountability Dr. Marc Baron, Chief Nancy E. Brito, Instructional.
WIDA ACCESS for ELLs Testing
School Accountability in Delaware for the School Year August 3, 2005.
Testing Coordinators: October 4, 2007 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Academic Performance Index (API)
HOME LANGUAGE SURVEY AND DATA PROCESSES North Carolina Department of Public Instruction K-12 Programs Title III/ESL Office.
January Students Evergreen Elementary School 4 Students Hatley Elementary School 59 Students Mountain Bay Elementary School 22 Students Riverside.
Connecticut’s Performance on Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives, Presentation to Connecticut Administrators of Programs for English.
ELL AMAO and Grad Rate Data ELL Outcome Improvement Group Oregon Department of Education July 21, 2015.
Title III Updates & AMAOs Jacqueline A. Iribarren, Title III Susan Ketchum, Office of Educational Accountability September 24, 2008.
Capacity Development and School Reform Accountability The School District Of Palm Beach County Adequate Yearly Progress, Differentiated Accountability.
Mrs. Kelly Kawalek District ESL Supervisor.
English as a Second Language (ESL) Requirements Limited English Proficient (LEP) Ivanna M T Anderson, NCDPI ESL/Title III Consultant
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for Special Populations Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski.
Presenter: David Curd Database Analyst IT Kentucky Department of Education Division of Assessment Design and Implementation 1.
Riverside County AMAO Performance Wes Scott Mitch Aulakh.
Title III: 101 Jacqueline A. Iribarren Ph.D. Title III, ESL & Bilingual Ed. Consultant October 20, 2011.
Discussion of W-APT, ACCESS Testing, Adequate Yearly Progress and Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives.
A GUIDE FOR CANTON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT’S PARENTS AND STAKEHOLDERS The Mississippi Literacy-Based Promotion Act
Thank you for being willing to change the date of this meeting! Annabelle Low 7lbs 13oz.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Title III Accountability Update Bilingual Coordinators Network.
English as a Second Language (ESL) Requirements Limited English Proficient (LEP) Ivanna M T Anderson, NCDPI ESL/Title III Consultant.
Assessing LEP Students for English Language Proficiency
ACCESS for ELLs: North Carolina Policy and Procedure Guidance
Shelton School District Bilingual Instruction Program
WIDA Standards for ELLs
Hickory Public Schools Accountability Update - Math
Shelton School District Bilingual Instruction Program
Overview of Title III Plan, Data, and Review of Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) for K-12 Administrators Session 1 Local District.
Accountability Progress Report September 16, 2010
AMAOs Scott W. Beaudry Testing Policy and Operations
Advancing ELL Progress
Jayhawkville Central High School
6300 Hinkson Road Southwest Little Rock.
RECLASSIFICATION
Shelton School District Bilingual Instruction Program
Adequate Yearly Progress: What’s Old, What’s New, What’s Next?
Impact of EL Students and TELPAS Performance on State Accountability
Presentation transcript:

ESL Results and Targets Montgomery County Schools

Overview  Criteria for Three AMAO Targets  Three AMAO Performance Results  AMAO Performance Targets  AMAO Performance Analysis  AMAO Deployment Plan

3 AMAO Targets AMAO 1 - Progress (based on ACCESS testing) Three Definitions of Progress 1. Increase to the next English language proficiency level; 2.Increase the previous score by 0.5; 3.Reach the Comprehensive Objective Composite (COC)

3 AMAO Targets AMAO 2 – Proficiency (based on ACCESS testing) Must meet the criteria for exiting LEP: 4.0 in Reading, 4.0 in writing and 4.8 composite Reading and writing contribute 70% (35% each) to the composite score. Speaking and listening contribute 30% (15% each) to the composite score.

3 AMAO Targets AMAO 3 – AMOs for the LEP Subgroup based on EOG Reading and Math in grades 3 – 8 *Participation *Proficiency

Targets and Results AMAO 1 – Progress Target: 58.1% of LEP students will show progress (remember 3 definitions)

Targets and Results AMAO 1 – Progress Target: 58.1% of LEP students will show progress (remember 3 definitions) Results for MCS: 228 out of 423 made progress for 53.9% AMAO 1 – NOT MET

Targets and Results AMAO 1 – Progress Target: 58.1% of LEP students will show progress (remember 3 definitions) Results for MCS: 228 out of 423 made progress for 53.9% AMAO 1 – NOT MET Results for NC: 39 subgrantees met 52 subgrantees did not meet 42.8% met AMAO 1

Targets and Results AMAO 2 – Proficiency Target: 14% of LEP students will meet the criteria for exiting the program

Targets and Results AMAO 2 – Proficiency Target: 14% of LEP students will meet the criteria for exiting the program Results for MCS: 77 out of 499 met exit criteria for 15.43% AMAO 2 - MET

Targets and Results AMAO 2 – Proficiency Target: 14% of LEP students will meet the criteria for exiting the program Results for MCS: 77 out of 499 met exit criteria for 15.43% AMAO 2 - MET Results for NC: 65 subgrantees met 26 subgrantees did not meet 71% met AMAO 2

Targets and Results AMAO 3 – AMOs for LEP subgroups Target for Participation: 95% Target for Reading: 18.5% and Target for Math: 25.7%

Targets and Results AMAO 3 – AMOs for LEP subgroups Target for Participation: 95% Target for Reading: 18.5% and Target for Math: 25.7% Results for MCS: Met Met participation in both reading and math not met Reading proficiency – not met (8.4% proficient) met with confidence interval and using the alternative cohort (current plus exited LEP students) Math proficiency – met with confidence interval and using the alternative cohort (current plus exited LEP students) – (15.3% proficient)

Targets and Results AMAO 3 – AMOs for LEP subgroups Target for Participation: 95% Target for Reading: 18.5% and Target for Math: 25.7% Results for MCS : Met Met participation in both reading and math PLUS not met met Reading proficiency – not met PLUS Math proficiency – met EQUALS AMAO 3 – not met

Targets and Results AMAO 3 – AMOs for LEP subgroups Target for Participation: 95% Target for Reading: 18.5% and Target for Math: 25.7% Results for MCS : Met Met participation in both reading and math PLUS not met met Reading proficiency – not met PLUS Math proficiency – met EQUALS AMAO 3 – not met Results for NC: 40 subgrantees – met 51 subgrantees – did not meet 44% met AMAO 3

Targets and Results ALL AMAOs MCS:did NOT meet all AMAOs Missed AMAO 1-Progress and AMAO 3-LEP participation and proficency. State:21 subgrantees (23%) met all AMAOs 70 subgrantees (77%) did not meet all AMAOs

New Year – New Targets As of October 22, 2014 there are 463 current LEP students in MCS AMAO 1 – Progress – 59.1% (target increase of 1%) MCS: need to move from 53.9% to 59.1% (an increase of 5.2%)

New Year – New Targets As of October 22, 2014 there are 463 current LEP students in MCS AMAO 1 – Progress – 59.1% (target increase of 1%) MCS: need to move from 53.9% to 59.1% (an increase of 5.2%) To meet AMAO 1 we need at least 244 students to show progress (kindergarten students are not counted in AMAO-1 because they do not have two data points in ACCESS)

New Year – New Targets As of October 22, 2014 there are 463 current LEP students in MCS AMAO 2 – Proficiency – 14.6% (target increase of 0.6%)

New Year – New Targets As of October 22, 2014 there are 463 current LEP students in MCS AMAO 2 – Proficiency – 14.6% (target increase of 0.6%) MCS: to maintain results of 15.43% we need at least 71 students to demonstrate proficiency To meet AMAO 2 of 14.6% we need at least 68 students to show proficiency (exit LEP program)

New Year – New Targets As of October 22, 2014 there are 463 current LEP students in MCS AMAO 3 – AMOs: Reading % (target increase of 9.1%) Math – 34% (target increase of 8.3%) To meet AMAO 3 must also maintain 95% participation rate

New Year – New Targets As of October 22, 2014 there are 463 current LEP students in MCS ( 203 students in grades 3 – 8) AMAO 3 – AMOs: Reading % (target increase of 9.1%) We need at least 56 students to show proficiency (level 3 or higher) Math – 34% (target increase of 8.3%) We need at least 69 students to show proficiency (level 3 or higher) Participation – at least 95% We need at least 193 students to participate in EOG testing grades 3-8

SUMMARY Currently 463 LEP students in MCS AMAO 1 – 59.1% of 463 means at least 244 students (grades 1 – 12) must make PROGRESS AMAO 2 – 14.6 % of 463 means at least 68 students (grades K – 12) must make PROFICIENCY AMAO 3 – 95% participation = 193 students AND For Reading: 27.6% means at least 56 students must be proficient in reading AND For Math: 34% means at least 69 students must be proficient in math

Real Talk… AMAONumber of Students 1-Progress Proficiency ( ACCESS)68 3- Proficiency ( EOG Reading grades 3 - 8) Proficiency ( EOG Math grades 3 - 8) Participation (EOG Reading and Math grades 3 - 8) 95% All students count!

It take ALL of us Every school contributes to the success of the district in meeting AMAOs. Based on the number of LEP students in your building, how many students will it take to meet each AMAO for ?

Deployment Plan Response to Results  Letterland ELL Intervention training and materials (K-2)  REACH (National Geographic ESL program) training (K-5)  Book Talk with ESL staff (The ESL/ELL Teacher’s Survival Guide: Ready to Use Strategies, Tools, and Activities; grades )  Review of data/results with ESL teachers, administrators, and regular ed teachers  Tier Verification and LEP folder review  SIOP training (February, 2015)

Remember “moving target” Targets increase each year for each AMAO and Your LEP population is constantly changing

Whatever language…..