Virginia Department of Education May 8, 2015. English Language Proficiency Targets: Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) 2.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
NCLB Accountability Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) as Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) Presented.
Advertisements

Company LOGO Amy Weinmann Education Program Specialist 2009 NCLB Technical Assistance Staying the Course Amidst Change April 1 & 2, 2009.
May 3, 2006WV Department of Education Annual Measurable Objectives for Improving the Achievement of LEP Students Title III AMAOs.
2007 TITLE III DIRECTORS MEETING May 8, 2007 Morgantown, WV.
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,
‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
English Language Learners Directors’ Meeting Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Title III Accountability Update Cathy George Academic Accountability.
English Language Learners in the Arizona Accountability SYSTEM
Kim Miller Oregon Department of Education AMAO Calculations for /10/2015Oregon Department of Education1.
Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) Results September 2007.
September, 2010 Accomack County Public Schools. DEFINITION OF AN LEP STUDENT  An LEP student is one: Who was not born in the U.S. or whose native language.
ESL Results and Targets Montgomery County Schools.
WV ESEA Committee of Practitioners Stonewall Jackson Conference Center March 12, 2014 Roanoke, WV.
Title III: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students Serving English Language Learners – It’s the Law VAFEPA: October.
Seattle Public School ELL Data Veronica Maria Gallardo, Director of ELL 1.
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,
MEGA 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY. MEGA Conference 2015 ACCOUNTABILITY MODEL INFORMATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE The Metamorphosis of Accountability in Alabama.
WIDA MODEL™ Measure of Developing English Language.
Title III Accountability. Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives How well are English Learners achieving academically? How well are English Learners.
San Leandro Unified School Board Looking Closely About Our Data September 6, 2006 Presented by Department of Curriculum and Instruction Prepared by Daniel.
Virginia Title III Statewide Consortium Conference Blacksburg, Virginia January 21-22, 2015 Virginia Department of Education: ACCESS for ELLs ® Teacher.
ACCESS for ELLs® Interpreting the Results Developed by the WIDA Consortium.
Acquiring English Proficiency in the Torrington Public Schools Programs, Process, and Student Progress Cheryl F. Kloczko.
Rating Teacher Performance on Standard 7 Using Student Achievement Goal Setting Greater than or equal to 50 percent of students exceeded the goal. Greater.
Program Improvement/ Title I Parent Involvement Meeting October 9, :00 p.m. Redwood City School District.
Title III Notice of Proposed Interpretations Presentation for LEP SCASS/CCSSO May 7, 2008.
ACCOUNTABILITY UPDATE Accountability Services.
Annual Measurable Achievement Objective s (AMAOs): Update Jacqueline A. Iribarren, DPI September 27, 2007.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) Results Update Prepared by the LUSD Assessment, Research & Evaluation Department.
Petraine Johnson, Moderator, Presenters: Millie Bentley-Memon, Fengju Zhang, Elizabeth Judd Office of English Language Acquisition Language Enhancement.
Creating a Good Title III Plan Title III & Migrant Directors’ Meeting Lansing, Michigan April 26, 2011 Shereen Tabrizi, Ph.D. Manager, Special Populations.
Connecticut’s Performance on Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives, Presentation to Connecticut Administrators of Programs for English.
Successfully “Translating” ELPA Results Session #25 Assessment and Accountability Conference 2008.
Meeting Private School Student Participation Requirements Under Title III West Virginia Department of Education.
VDOE Updates VESA Meeting October 1, 2015 Stacy Freeman, Title III Specialist Office of Program Administration and Accountability Virginia Department of.
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.
Assigns one of three ratings:  Met Standard – indicates campus/district met the targets in all required indexes. All campuses must meet Index 1 or 2.
Understanding AMAOs Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives for Title III Districts School Year Results.
English as a Second Language (ESL) Requirements Limited English Proficient (LEP) Ivanna M T Anderson, NCDPI ESL/Title III Consultant
Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs): LEA Reports and Responsibilities Presented by the Pennsylvania Department of Education Bureau.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for Special Populations Michigan Department of Education Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Paul Bielawski.
Kim Miller Oregon Department of Education AMAO Calculations for /9/2016Oregon Department of Education1.
Provincial Assessment Results Anglophone West School District November 26, 2015.
1 Hall County School System 2011 ACCESS Tier Placement Guidance October 2010.
VESA 2.0 Conference January 28, VA  1.2 million limited English proficient (LEP) students from the 38 WIDA member states are loaded into the.
EMERY PARK SCHOOL English Learner Advisory Committee (ELAC) School Advisory Committee (SAC) 1.
Title III, Part A, Foundations Stacy Freeman, Title III Specialist Shyla Vesitis, Title I/III Specialist Title III University October 8, 2015.
Virginia Department of Education November 5, 2015.
ELL – ACCESS for ELLs PIMS Data Collection School Year.
Virginia Department of Education May 12, 2016 Robert Fugate LEP Assessment Specialist Christopher Kelly Education Coordinator and.
Regional Assessment Network (RAN) Update Chun-Wu Li, Ph.D. Assessment and Accountability Services Division of Educational Services November 21, 2014.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Title III Accountability Update Bilingual Coordinators Network.
Breakout Discussion: Every Student Succeeds Act - Scott Norton Council of Chief State School Officers.
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
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) State Plan: Update
WIDA Standards for ELLs
Accountability in Virginia: Revisions to the Standards of Accreditation and Virginia’s Federal Programs Application under ESSA Virginia Department of Education.
Common Core Update May 15, 2013.
January 14, 2016 Stacy Freeman, Title III Specialist
Kim Miller Oregon Department of Education
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
English Learners in NC schools (ESSA, Title III)
ELPA21 Student Report Webinar for Title III Directors
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
Madison Elementary / Middle School and the New Accountability System
Impact of EL Students and TELPAS Performance on State Accountability
Presentation transcript:

Virginia Department of Education May 8, 2015

English Language Proficiency Targets: Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) 2

 States are required to establish annual targets that measure the percentage of ELLs who have: Made progress toward attaining proficiency in the English language AMAO 1 Attained proficiency in the English language AMAO 2

AMAO 1 Progress AMAO 2 Proficiency * Level 6 students are considered to have “exited” ELL status. ACCESS for ELLs Measured based on ACCESS for ELLs results for students at English proficiency levels 1-5*

Accountability Year (Assessment Year) AMAO 1 Progress Target AMAO 1 Results (Statewide) AMAO 2 Proficiency Target AMAO 2 Results (Statewide) ( )64%75%15%19% ( )65%90%16%15% ( )66%95%17% ( )67%81%18%19% ( )68%80%19% Region IV represents >40% of the total state ELL population and impacts statewide results significantly.

Spring 2014 Results Missed AMAO 1 Progress Missed AMAO 2 Proficiency Number (Percentage) of Divisions Receiving Title III Funds 16 (14%) 63* (56%) * Twenty (20) out of the 48 divisions with less that 30 ELL students missed, or 42%, did not meet the AMAO 2 Proficiency target. Title III does not allow a minimum group size to be applied to AMAO 1 Progress or AMAO 2 Proficiency calculations.

The Department contracted with English language proficiency data experts at WIDA to analyze ACCESS for ELLs test results and provide recommendations for establishing future AMAO 1 Progress and AMAO 2 Proficiency targets.

WIDA emphasizes that: same vertical scale ◦ All ACCESS for ELLs test tiers are on the same vertical scale; equivalent ◦ Achieving Proficiency Level 5 on the Tier B test or the Tier C test is equivalent; and equally prepared ◦ Students who meet the proposed English proficiency criteria on either the Tier B or Tier C test are equally prepared for academic success. 8

 Five years of ACCESS for ELLs results data are available to demonstrate performance trends on both AMAOs  Most divisions met or exceed the AMAO 1 Progress target (86%)  Many divisions did NOT meet the AMAO 2 Proficiency target (56%) Considerations for establishing future AMAO 1 Progress and AMAO 2 Proficiency targets: Considerations for establishing future AMAO 1 Progress and AMAO 2 Proficiency targets:

excludes  Current criteria to meet AMAO 2 Proficiency only includes students tested on Tier C – excludes approximately 20,000 students tested on Tier B in 2014 Considerations for establishing future AMAO 1 Progress and AMAO 2 Proficiency targets: Considerations for establishing future AMAO 1 Progress and AMAO 2 Proficiency targets:

 A new online ACCESS for ELLs test will be administered in Spring 2016 statewide  Past experience shows dips in performance after new test are administered Considerations for establishing future AMAO 1 Progress and AMAO 2 Proficiency targets: Considerations for establishing future AMAO 1 Progress and AMAO 2 Proficiency targets:

Decision Points: Establish incremental increases in AMAO 1 Progress targets. Most divisions are meeting current AMAO 1 Progress targets. A dip in performance may result from the administration of the new online test. Establish incremental increases in AMAO 1 Progress targets. Most divisions are meeting current AMAO 1 Progress targets. A dip in performance may result from the administration of the new online test.

Current Exit Criteria: Tier C; Composite Score of 5.0 or higher; and Literacy Score of 5.0 or higher 13 Proposed Exit Criteria: Tiers B and C; Composite Score of 5.0 or higher; and Literacy Score of 5.0 or higher

Decision Points: Advantages of expanding English proficiency criteria to include Tier B: New targets reflect performance trends based on five years of ACCESS for ELLs data. Increases possibility of divisions with low numbers of ELLs to meet English proficiency. Expands pool of students eligible to meet proficiency by approximately 20,000, based on 2014 data. Advantages of expanding English proficiency criteria to include Tier B: New targets reflect performance trends based on five years of ACCESS for ELLs data. Increases possibility of divisions with low numbers of ELLs to meet English proficiency. Expands pool of students eligible to meet proficiency by approximately 20,000, based on 2014 data.

Originally proposed Targets for AMAO 1Progress and AMAO 2 Proficiency through : Accountability Year (Assessment Year) AMAO 1 Progress Target AMAO 2 Proficiency Target ( ) ( ) ( )

Revised Proposed Targets for AMAO 1Progress and AMAO 2 Proficiency through : Accountability Year (Assessment Year) AMAO 1 Progress Target AMAO 2 Proficiency Target ( ) ( ) TBD ( ) TBD 17.8