1. Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in New Jersey
ESSA Stakeholder Focus Group Meeting December 14, 2016

2. Agenda December 14, 2016 Minutes Review Federal Updates
Brief Overview: English Language Learners (ELLs) and ESSA
ELLs: Content Test Adjustments
Table Exercises

3. Rationale for Convening
To strengthen the lines of communication between NJDOE and school community members.
To create an in-person forum for the NJDOE to provide updates to school community representatives on its development of the state plan.
To hear recommendations and to gather feedback from community representatives about specific aspects of the state plan; particularly on accountability, state interventions, and the NJDOE’s ongoing stakeholder engagement efforts.

4. Meeting Norms and Expectations
Actively listen and stay engaged: Limit use of technology.
Step up, step back: Make sure everybody’s voice is heard.
Stay on topic.
Feel free to ask questions! Ask about and explain unfamiliar terminology.
Respect each other’s experiences and opinions.
Say “ouch” if you hear something you find offensive.
Ask clarifying questions.

5. Minutes Review
Additions and amendments to meeting notes from November 28

6. ESSA Stakeholder Focus Group Tentative Schedule
 Date
Time
Agenda
Location
No Meeting 12/20
1/6
9-11am
Tentative: Indicators for School Success Subgroups
200 Riverview Drive, Trenton NJ
1/26
TBD
If you want to submit something – pls do it NOW
Technical Assistance

7. Stakeholder Group Survey

8. Federal Updates
Final Regulations on Accountability, State Plan, and Data Reporting
Generally did not change the structure or components required in states’ accountability systems
Changed State Plan submission deadline from March to April or July to September
Gave states an additional year to fully operationalize new accountability system before using all indicators to identify schools for support and improvement
Final Regulations on Assessment
Generally did not change testing requirements for states
Confirms rules for states around how they can apply to scale innovative statewide assessments
A state must already have piloted an innovative assessment to apply for the authority to scale
Only 7 states may be granted this authority over next 3 years

9. English Language Learners and ESSA

10. ESSA and ELL Accountability

11. Indicators of School and Student Success
What are the Required Indicators for Accountability?
Elementary and Middle School Indicators
Academic Achievement (Proficiency)
Academic Progress
All indicators must:
be supported by research that performance and/or progress are likely to increase
allow for meaningful differentiation of schools (i.e. help to determine which may need support)
High School Indicators
Academic Achievement (may also include progress)
4-year Graduation Rate (may include extended-year)
All School Indicators
Progress Toward English Language Proficiency (may also include proficiency rates)
At Least One ADDITIONAL Indicator of School Quality or Student Success
ESEA: 1111(c)(4)(B), Proposed: 34 CFR

12. ELLs in the Accountability Framework
Why should ELL issues be a priority?
New Jersey has the 4th highest number of immigrant students in the U.S. (impact on tested grades)
Only population to be included in each of the four indicators
ELLs are the only subpopulation to be double tested in language under the accountability system
Expansion for ELP accountability to all Title I schools

13. ELL Content Test Adjustments

14. ACCESS for ELLs English Language Proficiency (ELP) Levels
Here is a chart of the proficiency levels scores that students are measured by on the ACCESS for ELLs.
The dotted line shows the point where ELLs reach parity with their English speaking peers and can be exited from ELL status.

15. What ELLs Can Do in English (Grades 3-5)
Entering (Level 1)
Label objects, pictures, or diagrams from word/phrase banks
Identify objects, figures, people from oral statements or questions (e.g., “Which one is a rock?”)
Bridging (Level 5)
Distinguish between literal and figurative language
Answer analytical questions about grade-level text
Apply content-based information to new contexts
Perform tasks at the same language complexity as their English-speaking peers
On the right of each proficiency level is an explanation of the types of English language that students are able to use.
Remember that this does not mean that they don’t know content. It is just difficult to express their knowledge in English.

16. Difference between ELL and Non-ELL Content Proficiency
There are large differences in achievement between ELLs and their mainstream peers. One reason is that as soon as students get to the levels needed to perform at parity with their peers in English, they are exited from ELL status. Thus, there is a revolving door of students coming into this subpopulation at lower proficiencies, and student exiting the program at higher proficiencies. Year-to-year fluctuations may be the result of different student cohorts entering this subpopulation and the variability of proficiency levels between these cohorts. Also notice that the growth in differences at the high school level may be due to the number of older unaccompanied youth entering the county.

17. % Proficient on HSPA by ACCESS Level
97%
86%
52%
Note: In the year this study was completed (2011) the % of total student population passing HSPA was ELLs that were at proficiency levels outperformed the total student population.
Think through the slide that described what students can do at levels 1, 3, and 5.
This chart demonstrates that only 6% of students can demonstrate content proficiency in English at a level 1.
Remember that even though these students may have first-language language arts skills, their English proficiency abilities only allows them to label objects, pictures, or diagrams from word/phrase banks.
16% 6%

18. Language Arts Adjustments from USED Supplemental Report
Starting ELP Level
Years in US School 1 2 3 4
5 or more
0.10
0.20
0.40
0.50
1.00
5, 6
Source: U.S. Department of Education. (2012). National evaluation of Title III implementation supplemental report—exploring approaches to setting English language proficiency performance criteria and monitoring English learner progress. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

19. Mathematics Adjustments from USED Supplemental Report
Starting ELP Level
Years in US School 1 2 3 4
5 or more
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
5, 6
Source: U.S. Department of Education. (2012). National evaluation of Title III implementation supplemental report—exploring approaches to setting English language proficiency performance criteria and monitoring English learner progress. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

20. Scenario
A school has 25 students in the tested grades, including 7 ELLs. 13 students were proficient in ELA.
1 ELL has been in US schools for 4 years and is a ELP 4.
passed ELA
2 ELLs have been in US schools for 2 years and are ELP 3.
1 passed ELA, 1 did not pass ELA
4 ELLs have been in US schools for 1 year and are ELP 1.
None passed ELA

21. Student-Level Adjustments
Starting ELP Level
Years in US School 1 2 3 4
5 or more
0.10
0.20
0.40
0.50
1.00
5, 6

22. ELA Proficiency Rate for School
Without adjustments:
13/25 = 52% proficiency rate
With adjustments:
12.5/20.4 = 61.27% proficiency rate

23. Table Conversations Part I
What do you see as the pros and cons of using adjustments for ELLs on the state content test?

24. Table Conversations Part II
Should we allow a graduation adjustment for certain ELLs who enter US high school for the first time? Why or why not?
Should graduation adjustment considerations be made for other subpopulations?

25. Thank You
Survey:

26. ESSA – Accountability Overview
Accountability Indicators
ESEA: 1111(c)(4)(B), Proposed: 34 CFR #
Elementary and Middle Schools
High Schools 1
Academic Achievement (proficiency)
Academic Achievement 2
Academic Progress (growth or another measure)
Graduation rate 3
Progress Toward English Language Proficiency 4
School Quality or Student Success Indicator
Note: Participation rate on the statewide test must be factored into the state’s accountability system (federal law requires 95% of all students and each subgroup of student to participate in statewide tests)