1. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Title III Accountability Update Bilingual Coordinators Network Meeting November 20, 2008 Cathy George Evaluation, Research and Analysis Unit Policy and Evaluation Division

2. JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 2 Discussion Points November Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Update Notice of Final Interpretations released by ED in October 2008

3. JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 3 2007-08 Percent of Subgrantees Meeting AMAOs AMAO 1- 82% of LEAs/consortia AMAO 2- 77% of LEAs/consortia AMAO 3- 38% of LEAs/consortia Met all three AMAOs- 31% of LEAs/consortia Source: November 18, 2008 data release

4. JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 4 AMAO Year Status 189 Year 1 LEAs/Consortia 84 Year 2 LEAs/Consortia 11 Year 3 LEAs 58 Year 4 LEAs (newly identified) 92 Year 4 LEAs (continuing) 194 LEAs/Consortia met all 3 AMAOs Source: November 18, 2008 data release

5. JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 5 Notice of Final Interpretations of Title III AMAOs Proposed Interpretations released in May 2, 2008 Comments were due on June 2, 2008 74 responses received Final Interpretations published in the Federal Register on October 17, 2008

6. JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 6 Six Proposed Interpretations Were Not of Concern 1. Annual assessment and banking domain scores 3. EL students included in AMAOs 6. Minimum subgroup size in AMAOs 7. AMAO 3 equals Title I AYP for EL subgroup 9. Determining AMAOs for consortia 10. Implementing Title III corrective actions

7. JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 7 Four Proposed Interpretations Were of Major Concern 2. Use of annual English Language Proficiency (ELP) test scores for AMAOs 1 and 2 4. Excluding ELs without two data points from AMAO 1 5. Attaining ELP and exiting the LEP subgroup 8. AMAOs and the use of cohorts

8. JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 8 2. Use of Annual ELP Assessment Scores for AMAOs 1 and 2 Proposed: LEP students must score proficient in each and every language domain in order to have attained English proficiency for AMAO 2 Final: Allows states flexibility to use composite scores and set criterion for English proficiency as long as it is valid and reliable

9. JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 9 4. Exclusion of LEP Students Without Two Data Points from AMAO 1 Proposed: All LEP students must be included in AMAO 1 even if they had only one score from the annual ELP assessment Final: At a minimum, states must include all LEP students with two measures from the annual ELP assessment in AMAO 1

10. JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 10 4. Exclusion of LEP Students Without Two Data Points from AMAO 1 (cont.) Final: It is not necessary for the two ELP assessments to be in consecutive years to measure growth in learning English

11. JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 11 5. Attainment of ELP and Exiting the EL subgroup Proposed: Proficiency for AMAO 2 is attained when students are reclassified from the LEP subgroup Proposed: Criteria for exiting LEP subgroup must be consistent across state Final: A state may continue to use a definition for proficiency that differs from the definition the State uses to exit students from the LEP subgroup.

12. JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 12 8. AMAOs and the Use of Cohorts Proposed: States may only set separate AMAO cohorts of LEP students based on the amount of time such students have had access to language instruction educational programs Final: Same as proposed interpretation

13. JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 13 8. AMAOs and the Use of Cohorts (cont.) Requires CA to redefine AMAO 2 Does not allow the use of prior proficiency level in the selection of the cohort for AMAO 2 If cohorts are established for AMAO 2 they must be based on time in language instruction education programs

14. JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 14 Interpretations 6 and 9 Minimum Group Size and Accountability at the Consortia Level These two interpretations require that states aggregate data to a group level if the numbers for an LEA or group of LEAs are not sufficient to determine if the LEA has met each of the AMAOs. In nearly all cases this requires that small LEAs be aggregated to the consortia level in order to have a value for AMAO 3.

15. JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 15 Summary Revisions were made to three of the four interpretations that were of greatest concern to California There are still some areas that will need to be revised in California –Interpretation 8- AMAO 2 –Interpretation 4- Minor change in AMAO 1 Consortium level accountability still required under Interpretations 6 and 9

16. JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 16 Timeline No change to 08-09 AMAOs States are expected to implement the final interpretations for the 2009-10 AMAOs.

17. JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 17 For More Information The Notice of Final Interpretations is posted on the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition at: –www.ncela.gwu.edu –Search site for Title III Notice of Final Interpretations –Site also contains Power Points and other information on the Notice of Final Interpretations

18. JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction 18 Contact Information Cathy George, Consultant, Evaluation, Research, and Analysis Unit (916) 319-0875 amao@cde.ca.gov Title III Accountability Web page www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/t3