1. 2007 TITLE III DIRECTORS MEETING May 8, 2007 Morgantown, WV

2. Impact Study: Analyses of 2004-2006 WESTELL Author: Dr. Kristine Chadwick Presenter: Georgia Hughes-Webb May 8, 2007 WV Title III Directors Conference

3. The Impact Study The purpose is to review WESTELL data from 2004 to 2007 to inform the AMAO development and revision process, as well as to assess progress made on the AMAOs Current presentation is on data relating to AMAO 1 and AMAO 2 for 2004-2006 Study uses WESTELL data on ELL students with at least 2 years worth of test data AMAO 3 incorporates AYP and will not be addressed today

4. Purpose of This Presentation To provide Title III Directors with a statewide look at WESTELL data (How are students doing in West Virginia?) To provide Title III Directors with some data on their county school systems (How are students doing in my corner of West Virginia?) To facilitate local discussions connecting WESTELL findings with policies, procedures, and programming decisions (What do I do with all this information?)

5. Discussion How many LEP students participated in the WESTELL in 2006 and 2007 in your county? What type of data analyses were conducted in your county with 05-06 results?

6. AMAO 1 Definition: Gains in the percentages of students making progress in learning English Cohort: All LEP students, K-12, who have two years of WESTELL data Growth Objectives Levels 1-2: Gain 1 proficiency level annually with no sub-skills below Intermediate Level 3: Gain 1 proficiency level in 2 years with no sub-skill below Intermediate Levels 4-5: Maintain proficiency with no sub-skills below Intermediate

7. AMAO 1 Results N = 58 for 1, 98 for 2

8. AMAO 1 Results N = 69

9. AMAO 1 Results N = 190 for 4 and 26 for 5 Sub-skill not at Intermediate was Speaking in all 4 cases

10. AMAO 1 Overall 72.6% of students achieved the growth target in 2006 AMAO 1 target is 76% Group least likely to achieve growth target is students scoring 1 or 2 in 2005 (59%) Students scoring 3 in 2004, achieving 1 proficiency level growth in 2006 (75.4%) Students scoring 4 or 5 in 2005, maintaining level in 2006 (81.5%)

11. Discussion Are these findings reflective of your county? In terms of those not achieving the growth or proficiency targets, do you know who these students are? How do you translate these findings into actionable steps related to procedures, policies, and program services?

12. AMAO 2 Definition: Gains in the percentages of students attaining English proficiency Cohort Students with two years of WESTELL scores who have been in U.S. schools for > 4 years Students at Level 3 or above who did not reach English proficiency the prior year Students below Level 3 the prior year who met the English proficient level Data on length of time in U.S. schools are incomplete in the state file 62.4% of the 134 students in the statewide cohort achieved AMAO 2 proficiency targets (including only 2005 Level 3 students in the denominator)

13. AMAO 2 Results

14. Discussion Are these findings reflective of your county? In terms of those not achieving the growth or proficiency targets, do you know who these students are? How do you translate these findings into actionable steps related to procedures, policies, and program services?