Framework for High- Quality English Language Proficiency Standards and Assessments P r e pa r e d b y t h e Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Performance Assessment
Advertisements

Understanding the ACCESS for ELLs®
Alaskas English Language Proficiency Standards 2005 Alaska Department of Education & Early Development February 8, 2006.
Getting started – support for reflection and engagement modern languages.
A Guide to Implementation
FRANKLIN PUBLIC SCHOOLS SCHOOL COMMITTEE MAY 27, 2014 Massachusetts Kindergarten Entry Assessment (MKEA)
TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent of Public Instruction 1 Long-term English Learners AB 2193 adds to Education Code 313 Defines long-term EL and at-risk.
Pennsylvania’s Continuous Improvement Process. Understanding AYP How much do you know about AYP?
Objective Develop an understanding of Appendix B: CA ELD Standards Part II: Learning About How English Works.
ORGANIZATION OF THE STANDARDS The Standards Matrix.
Building & Using an Effective Leadership Team Kathi Cooper Aida Molina Bette Harrison Sandy Lam.
ELP Standards Workgroup Southern Oregon Team Elizabeth Prusko, Medford School District 549C Sherry Watson, SOESD Carol Holm, SOESD.
Language Proficiency Assessment Commitee (LPAC)
Language Proficiency Assessment Commitee (LPAC)
What is the purpose of bilingual education ?
Instructional Decision Making
TeacherSchoolStudent Percentile Average 50 The Effects of Teachers and Schools on Student Achievement Over 2 consecutive years Marzano, R. J. (2003).
Title III Notice of Proposed Interpretations & Implications for California’s Accountability System Robert Linquanti Cathy George Project Director & Sr.
MULTILINGUAL & MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
1 Why is the Core important? To set high expectations – for all students – for educators To attend to the learning needs of students To break through the.
Sharon Rodriguez, Coordinator, Elementary Instruction Alicia Bernal, Coordinator, Secondary Instruction Lizza Irizarry, Coordinator, EL Programs September,
AACC 1 Helping States and Regional Centers Meet NCLB Goals: State Accountability Systems Stanley Rabinowitz, Ph.D. WestEd CRESST Conference January 22-23,
Meeting the Needs of English Learners With Reading Difficulties Through a Multitiered Instructional Framework OSEP Project Directors’ Meeting July 2014.
Jacqueline A. Iribarren, Ph.D. Title III, ESL & Bilingual Ed Consultant.
performance INDICATORs performance APPRAISAL RUBRIC
Ensuring Quality and Effective Staff Professional Development to Increase Learning for ALL Students.
English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS) for English Language Learners (ELLs) Pennsylvania Department of Education Bureau of Teaching Learning and.
Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy Program (SRCL) SRCL is a comprehensive literacy development education program to advance literacy skills for students.
Language Proficiency Assessment Commitee (LPAC)
Michael Toole Southwest Plains Regional Service Center.
Strategic Planning Board Update February 27, 2012 Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only.
1. 2 Why is the Core important? To set high expectations –for all students –for educators To attend to the learning needs of students To break through.
Why co-teaching? (Part II?) and What do English Learners Need (Part One Million?)
The Common Core State Standards and the English Language Learners Wen Ma, Ph.D. Le Moyne College.
SIOP Overview Humble ISD Sara Smith-Frings. ELLs in Humble I.S.D. Fall 2001 ELL 1226 Fall 2002 ELL 1438 Fall 2003 ELL 1578 Fall 2004 ELL 1750 Fall 2005.
Effective Differentiated Instruction for All Students
Teacher Keys Effectiveness System Forsyth County Schools Orientation May 2013 L.. Allison.
Hollywood High School Testing Data Results WASC Goals and Instructional Focus October 6, 2009.
Learner Objectives Informal Language (Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills) vs. Formal Language (Standard English in Academic Setting) Review SEL’s.
Including Quality Assurance Within The Theory of Action Presented to: CCSSO 2012 National Conference on Student Assessment June 27, 2012.
Research A Briefing on WIDA Research Activities Tim Boals, Ph.D. H Gary Cook, Ph.D. Mariana Castro.
Common Core and Gifted. “I choose C” Do we need the Common Core?
Committee on the Assessment of K-12 Science Proficiency Board on Testing and Assessment and Board on Science Education National Academy of Sciences.
Title III Notice of Proposed Interpretations Presentation for LEP SCASS/CCSSO May 7, 2008.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Enhanced Assessment Grant: English Language Proficiency Assessment.
1. Housekeeping Items June 8 th and 9 th put on calendar for 2 nd round of Iowa Core ***Shenandoah participants*** Module 6 training on March 24 th will.
The College Board Standards for College Success CCSSO – SEC State Collaborative Alignment Study CCSSO-SEC Meeting and Content Analysis Workshop San Diego,
English Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS) for English Language Learners (ELLs) Pennsylvania Department of Education Bureau of Teaching Learning and.
Washington State Teacher and Principal Evaluation Project Update 11/29/12.
Assessment for learning
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Bilingual Coordinators Network September 17, 2010 Margaret.
COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS (CCSSO) & NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION CENTER FOR BEST PRACTICES (NGA CENTER) JUNE 2010.
1 Oregon Content Standards and Assessment System Evaluation Prepared for the Oregon Department of Education by WestEd Dr. Stanley Rabinowitz Dr. Edynn.
Rowland Unified School District District Local Education Agency (LEA)Plan Update Principals Meeting November 16, 2015.
The Comprehensive Literacy Plan Pennsylvania KeystonestoOpportunity Tom Corbett Governor Ron Tomalis Secretary.
Making the ELPS-TELPAS Connection Grades K–12 Overview Texas Education Agency Student Assessment Division. Joanna.
PGES Professional Growth and Effectiveness System.
The ELL Programming Framework in Action Multilingual Department January 26 & 27, 2012.
D 4 Understanding the Common Core State Standards & Assessment Katie McKnight, Ph.D.
Meeting the needs of English Language Learners
Presenter: Sue Hackett
Pre-Referral to Special Education: Considerations
Partnership for Practice
Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act
Classroom-based assessment to promote equity
Study Questions To what extent do English language learners have opportunity to learn the subject content specified in state academic standards and.
TELPAS Alternate Student Eligibility
English Learner Parent Academy
Hawaii TAC Meeting WIDA Assessments
August 5, 2015 – Proposal Level
Presentation transcript:

Framework for High- Quality English Language Proficiency Standards and Assessments P r e pa r e d b y t h e Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive Center January

ACKNOWLEGMENTS The author also would like to extend appreciation to the following reviewers for their input and guidance: Jamal Abedi, Ph.D. Frances Butler, Ph.D.Gary Cook, Ph.D. Richard Duran, Ph.D. Ellen Forte, Ph.D. Carole Gallagher, Ph.D. Margo Gottlieb, Ph.D. Kevin Huang, Ph.D.Dorry Kenyon, Ph.D. Rachel Lagunoff, Ph.D.Robert LinquantiJack Levy, Ph.D.Pamela McCabe Joseph McCrary D.P.A.Theodor Rebarber Ed Roeber, Ph.D.Charlene Rivera, Ph.D. Marla Perez-Selles Ursula Sexton Ann-Marie Wiese, Ph.D. 2

Download entire document from: ew/rs/938 3

4

GETTING STARTED Committee Composition What are the state’s recruitment and membership selection criteria and protocols for the committees convened during development and implementation phases of its ELP standards? 5

GETTING STARTED Committee Composition What was the range of expertise and perspectives represented on each of the committees? 6

GETTING STARTED Committee Composition What documentation does the state have showing membership and the range of perspective and expertise represented on each committee? 7

GETTING STARTED Committee Composition What are related next steps for improving our ELP standards? (e.g., additional criteria/protocol/processes, additional committee members, additional documentation)? 8

STEP 1: What is the intended purpose of our ELP standards and assessments, and how do we expect them to be used? 9

STEP 1: What information did the state use to define the purpose and use of its ELP standards and assessments? Who was involved in defining the purpose and use? 10

STEP 1: To whom has the state communicated the purpose and use? 11

STEP 1: How has the state communicated the purpose and use? (Identify relevant documents) 12

STEP 1: What are related next steps for improving our ELP standards and assessments (e.g., develop more details regarding purpose and use, additional communication)? 13

STEP 2 Who are the English learner (EL) students in our state and what are their relevant characteristics (e.g., languages, experiences, backgrounds)? 14

STEP 2 On what information, including statistical data, was this population definition based? Who was involved in defining the population? 15

STEP 2 To whom has the state communicated information about its EL student population? 16

STEP 2 How has the state communicated information about its EL student population? (Identify relevant documents) 17

STEP 2 What are related next steps for improving our ELP standards and assessments (e.g., gather more information about the population, create a refined population definition, generate additional communication)? 18

STEP 3 How do we define the domain of English language proficiency (ELP) that we are teaching and testing, and what are the relevant characteristics (e.g., knowledge, skills, functions, modalities, register) of the ELP content? 19

STEP 3 Definition of the ELP domain, including information related to the breadth, depth, and range of complexity of language skills and knowledge in the four recognized language modalities of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. 20

STEP 3 Information about how the modalities interrelate and contribute both to English language proficiency in general and, more specifically, to meeting the language requirements inherent in challenging state academic content: 21

STEP 3 On what (a) theory and (b) research was this domain definition based? Who was involved in defining the domain? 22

STEP 3 To whom has the state communicated information about the ELP domain? 23

STEP 3 How has the state communicated information about the ELP domain? (Identify relevant documents) 24

STEP 3 What are related next steps for improving our ELP standards and assessments (e.g., gather additional information about the domain, develop a refined domain definition, generate additional communication)? 25

STEP 4 Standards Development Phase 1.1 Organization or structure of the standards 1. The structure of the state’s ELP standards (e.g., format, organization/hierarchy, levels of detail) is appropriate for the standards’ 1. instruction- and assessment- related (including reporting) purposes and uses. 26

STEP Number of Standards 1. The number of standards is appropriate for the depth and breadth of the ELP domain, as it is defined by the state.1. 27

STEP 4 2.The number of standards allows for appropriate coherence and consistency of skills and knowledge across modalities (i.e., 2. listening, speaking, reading, writing), as defined by the state. 28

STEP Level of specificity, or “granularity,” of the standards 1. The state’s ELP standards are described with sufficient clarity and definition to guide curriculum development, instructional 1. planning, and assessment development for the EL population. 29

STEP 4 Consideration(s) Do the structure, number, and level of specificity of the a. standards support the purpose(s) and use(s) of the standards in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and reporting? 30

STEP 4 Relevance Validity Utility What has the state done to address this consideration? How is it documented (specify document title and document date)? 31

STEP 4 Possible sources of evidence Manuals/Guides Technical Reports and Research Studies Meeting Reports/Minutes Training and Professional Development Materials 32

STEP Alignment 1. The state’s ELP standards are articulated horizontally. 2. The state’s ELP standards are articulated vertically. 3. The state’s ELP standards are linked with the state’s academic content standards. 33

STEP 5 TRAINING – The state provides guidance and training to local education agencies — for example, to teachers of English as a Second 1. Language, bilingual teachers, content area teachers, special education teachers, school and district administrators — on the ELP standards, their purpose and use, and implementation strategies. 34

STEP MONITORING AND EVALUATING The state has systems and structures for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of its ELP standards in local education agencies, schools, and classrooms. 35

QUESTIONS? 36