Transcript No Slide Title

Title III Accountability
Update
Bilingual Coordinators Network Meeting
November 20, 2008
Cathy George
Evaluation, Research and Analysis Unit
Policy and Evaluation Division
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Discussion Points
JACK O’CONNELL
State Superintendent
of Public Instruction
• November Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) Update
• Notice of Final
Interpretations released by
ED in October 2008
2
2007-08
Percent of Subgrantees
Meeting AMAOs
JACK O’CONNELL
State Superintendent
of Public Instruction
•
•
•
•
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
3
AMAO Year Status
JACK O’CONNELL
State Superintendent
of Public Instruction
• 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
4
Notice of Final Interpretations
of Title III AMAOs
JACK O’CONNELL
State Superintendent
of Public Instruction
• 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
5
Six Proposed Interpretations
Were Not of Concern
JACK O’CONNELL
State Superintendent
of Public Instruction
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
6
Four Proposed Interpretations
Were of Major Concern
JACK O’CONNELL
State Superintendent
of Public Instruction
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
7
2. Use of Annual ELP
Assessment Scores for AMAOs 1
and 2
JACK O’CONNELL
State Superintendent
of Public Instruction
• 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
8
JACK O’CONNELL
State Superintendent
of Public Instruction
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
9
4. Exclusion of LEP
Students Without Two Data
Points from AMAO 1 (cont.)
JACK O’CONNELL
State Superintendent
of Public Instruction
Final: It is not necessary for the two
ELP assessments to be in
consecutive years to measure growth
in learning English
10
5. Attainment of ELP and Exiting
the EL subgroup
JACK O’CONNELL
State Superintendent
of Public Instruction
• 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.
11
8. AMAOs and the Use of
Cohorts
JACK O’CONNELL
State Superintendent
of Public Instruction
• 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
12
8. AMAOs and the Use of
Cohorts (cont.)
JACK O’CONNELL
State Superintendent
of Public Instruction
• 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
13
JACK O’CONNELL
State Superintendent
of Public Instruction
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.
14
Summary
JACK O’CONNELL
State Superintendent
of Public Instruction
•
•
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
15
Timeline
JACK O’CONNELL
State Superintendent
of Public Instruction
• No change to 08-09 AMAOs
• States are expected to implement
the final interpretations for the
2009-10 AMAOs.
16
For More Information
JACK O’CONNELL
State Superintendent
of Public Instruction
• 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
17
Contact Information
JACK O’CONNELL
State Superintendent
of Public Instruction
• Cathy George, Consultant,
Evaluation, Research, and
Analysis Unit
(916) 319-0875
[email protected]
• Title III Accountability Web page
www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/t3
18