WV ESEA Committee of Practitioners Stonewall Jackson Conference Center March 12, 2014 Roanoke, WV

4:00 p.m.Call to Order 4:10 p.m.Title III: Review of RESA Consortia 4:20 p.m.Title III: AMAO Determination and Reporting 4:40 p.m.Title III: Field Testing and Accountability 5:00 p.m.Adjourn Agenda

Review of RESA Consortia

AMAO Determination & Reporting

AMAO 1 AMAO I Target Year Target The number of LEP students making progress in English (Level 1 to Level 2, etc….)

AMAO 2 AMAO II Target Year Target The number of LEP students becoming Proficient (Number of students reaching Level 4 or 5)

AMAO 3 LEP subgroup making AYP components 1.AMAOs of at least 75% by the year 2020, which can be met by a.Confidence Intervals of 99 still exist given the decreased n –size of 20. b.Averaging is still applicable to determine adequate yearly progress c.Safe Harbor is still applicable, but has been revised to reflect a 10% decrease in non-proficiency 2.Graduation Rates showing sufficient annual improvement a.4-year adjusted-cohort rate of 85% by 2020 b.5-year adjusted-cohort rate of 87.5% by 2020 c.Graduation rates can be met by i.Absolute rate over the required yearly amount ii.Increase of 10% of the distance to the target from the prior year iii.Averaging to determine either absolute rate or required increase 3.Yearly Assessment of Participation Rates a.95% for all students enrolled in the school at the time of testing b.3-year average of participation rate to account for anomalous data

Determining AMAOs Consortia Stated: West Virginia holds consortia accountable for meeting AMAOs by combining data across LEAs in a consortium for the purpose of calculating the three AMAOs required under Title III. Suggested Amendment: Reflect actual practice

Suggested Process Conduct field test in spring Collaborate with ELPA 21 consortium to analyze performance and determine appropriate cut-scores. Collaborate with WV Committee of Practitioners to amend Title III AMAOs. Make application to the USDOE in winter/spring 2016

Field Testing As part of ELPA21’s Comprehensive Plan submitted in request of additional funds for an accelerated development timeline, ELPA21 governance identified a series of policy questions for USDOE’s considerations. Nuanced questions have resulted relating to the impact of the accelerated timeline on federal accountability requirements and what options would be available to states in terms of accountability during the field test year ( ).

ELPA 21 Comprehensive Plan Can ELPA21 states have the option of a waiver to administer the ELPA21 field test in place of their current operational ELP assessments in without jeopardizing the state's AMAO accountability reporting requirement?

Considerations Double testing students (operational ELP assessment and ELPA21 field test) presents a burden on LEAs and students and may impact field test participation ELPA21 sees this request as analogous to the Title I accountability waivers granted to many states administering the Smarter Balanced or PARCC field tests in spring For example, several states became Early Adopters of Smarter during the SY field test. USDOE has indicated that it does not endorse the use of field test results for individual student decisions (e.g., exiting a student from ELL services).

#1 What is WV’s perspective regarding double testing?

# 2 What scenarios do ELPA21 states suggest that US DOE consider for Title III accountability waivers at the individual state level? Two-year freeze of AMAO status (e.g., use ELP data to meet 2014-Title III AMAO accountability/reporting requirements) SEAs and LEAs base student proficiency/"exiting" decisions on results of ELA content-area assessments instead of ELP assessment results SEAs and LEAs base student proficiency/"exiting" decisions on results of other, local ELP measures (not necessarily standardized across the state)

#3 If US DOE grants a waiver that involves a freeze of AMAO status (AMAO 1 and 2), what approaches would ELPA21 want USDOE to endorse to track student outcomes and make advancement/exiting decisions during the field test year ( )? – SEA/LEA base exiting decisions on results of other, local ELP measures. Would these need to be standardized within the state? Across ELPA21 member states? How to ensure reliability of alternative measures? – Double-test only students identified as near exiting based on ELP assessment results, but otherwise grant waiver/freeze option? How to avoid excluding / under-identifying members of this protected class?

#4 What are the implications for ELPA21 states (and possible solutions) of a waiver (or a freeze in AMAO accountability) for funding tied to Title III?