62
1 Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update David Abrams Assistant Commissioner for Standards, Assessment, and Reporting 2008 Teachers’ Institute

Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

  • Upload
    mae

  • View
    53

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update. David Abrams Assistant Commissioner for Standards, Assessment, and Reporting 2008 Teachers’ Institute. Performance of ELL Students on 2008 Grade 3-8 ELA Tests. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

1

Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

David AbramsAssistant Commissioner for Standards, Assessment,

and Reporting

2008 Teachers’ Institute

Page 2: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

2

Performance of ELL Students on 2008 Grade 3-8 ELA Tests

This analysis summarizes the performance of NYS public and charter school ELLs on the Grades 3-8 English Language Arts tests in 2008. The ELA performance of former ELLs who exited in 2006 and 2007 is also presented.

The analyses are based on 72,698 ELLs who took the State Grades 3-8 ELA tests in January 2008 and the NYSESLAT in May 2008. The analyses of the former ELLs are based on the 30,564 ELLs who exited in 2006 and 2007 and whose 2008 Grades 3-8 ELA scores are available.

The ELL population has significantly improved their performance on the Grades 3-8 ELA tests between 2007 and 2008. The percentage of ELLs scoring at Level 3 and above has increased and the percentage of ELLs showing serious academic deficiencies has decreased.

Former ELLs had comparable chance to score proficient (Level 3 or above) on the Grades 3-8 ELA tests as the English proficient students.

Page 3: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

3

Number of ELLs Tested On Grades 3-8 ELA Tests

2007 Total = 72,082 2008 Total = 72,698

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

ELL 2007 Total 17093 14200 11480 9934 9299 10076

ELL 2008 Total 17302 14614 11852 10258 9675 8997

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

Page 4: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

4

Performance of ELLs On 2008 Grades 3-8 ELA Tests

18 24

10 11 12

34

18

4944

56

74 71

60

57

33 32 34

15 186

25

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 3-8

ELA Level 1 ELA Level 2 ELA Level 3 & 4

Page 5: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

5

The Mean Scale Score increased for ELLs in every grade, though the smallest increase is

seen in Grade 8

638

631636

627 627

609

630

620

605600

621622624

633

580

590

600

610

620

630

640

650

Grade 3ELA

Grade 4ELA

Grade 5ELA

Grade 6ELA

Grade 7ELA

Grade 8ELA

Total

2007 2008

Page 6: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

6

There was an Increase in the Percentage of ELLs Scoring At Levels 3 and 4 except for Grade 8

33% 32%34%

15%18%

25%

6%

31%

23%

19%

10%

7%

18%

6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 3-8

2007 2008

Page 7: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

7

There was an Increase in Percentage of ELLs Scoring At Level 2 and Above

82%76%

90% 89% 88%

74% 69% 73%

84%

61% 61%

71%66%

82%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 3-8

2007 2008

Page 8: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

8

There was a Noticeable Decrease in Percentage of ELLs Scoring at Level 1

26%

31%

16%

39% 39%

29%28%

18%

24%

10% 11% 12%

34%

18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 3-8

2007 2008

Page 9: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

9

There was an Increase in Percentage of Proficient ELLs Scoring at Levels 3 and 4, but no gain in

Grade 8

65%69%

44%

62% 59%

55%

69%

53%

38%36%

24%

52%

69%

24%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 3-8

2007 2008

Page 10: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

10

Performance of ELLs on Grades 3-8 ELA Tests by NYSESLAT Proficiency Level: As Student Performance on NYSESLAT increases, there is a

greater chance that students will score at Levels 2 and/or Levels 3 & 4

72

33

5

28

63

67

40

27

59

1

41

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Beginning(n=6639)

Intermediate(n=17451)

Advanced(n=31837)

Proficient(n=13102)

NYSESLAT Proficiency Level

ELA Level 1 ELA Level 2 ELA Level 3 & 4

Page 11: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

11

Grade 3 ELL Performance By NYSESLAT Proficiency Level

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ELA Level 1 88% 42% 5% 1% 18%

ELA Level 2 11% 53% 61% 30% 49%

ELA Level 3+4 1% 6% 35% 69% 33%

Beginning Intermediate Advanced Proficient Total

Page 12: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

12

Grade 4 ELL Performance By NYSESLAT Proficiency Level

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ELA Level 1 92% 58% 12% 2% 24%

ELA Level 2 7% 38% 57% 33% 45%

ELA Level 3+4 1% 4% 31% 65% 31%

Beginning Intermediate Advanced Proficient Total

Page 13: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

13

Grade 5 ELL Performance By NYSESLAT Proficiency Level

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

ELA Level 1 55% 22% 2% 0% 10%

ELA Level 2 42% 72% 63% 31% 57%

ELA Level 3+4 3% 7% 35% 69% 34%

Beginning Intermediate Advanced Proficient Total

Page 14: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

14

Grade 6 ELL Performance By NYSESLAT Proficiency Level

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

ELA Level 1 63% 18% 1% 0% 11%

ELA Level 2 37% 81% 85% 56% 75%

ELA Level 3+4 0% 1% 13% 44% 15%

Beginning Intermediate Advanced Proficient Total

Page 15: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

15

Grade 7 ELL Performance By NYSESLAT Proficiency Level

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ELA Level 1 47% 9% 1% 0% 12%

ELA Level 2 52% 86% 75% 38% 71%

ELA Level 3+4 1% 4% 24% 62% 17%

Beginning Intermediate Advanced Proficient Total

Page 16: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

16

Grade 8 ELL Performance By NYSESLAT Proficiency Level

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ELA Level 1 89% 45% 8% 2% 34%

ELA Level 2 11% 55% 86% 74% 60%

ELA Level 3+4 0% 0% 6% 24% 6%

Beginning Intermediate Advanced Proficient Total

Page 17: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

17

ELL Performance By Number of Years of ESL Services

Duration Total

<1 883

1 2,982

2 10,422

3 10,527

4 16,177

5 12,478

6 8,250

7 5,016

8 3,256

9 1,542

10+ 859

1730 30

21 16 17 11 9 9 14 17

57

47 4954

54 54 6273 76

7778

26 22 21 26 31 29 2718 15 9 5

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

<1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+

Number of Years

ELA Level 1 ELA Level 2 ELA Level 3+4

Page 18: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

18

ELL Performance By Need/Resource Category

19 2315 18 14 9

58 55

5455

54

47

23 2231 27 32

45

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

NYC Large City Urban-Suburban

Rural Average Low

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3+4

Page 19: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

19

ELL Performance By Major Home Language Group

2611 15 16

919 14

54

54 4859

55

5957

2035 37

2536

2230

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Arabic(n=1530)

Bengali(n=1231)

Chinese(n=1169)

Haitian Creole(n=1077)

Russian(n=933)

Spanish(n=48011)

Urdu(n=1027)

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3+4

Page 20: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

20

Performance of ELLs With Disabilities

3947

17 18 18

48

31

4639

6477 74

50

57

15 14 2012

6 8 2

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 3-8

ELA Level 1 ELA Level 2 ELA Level 3 & 4

Page 21: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

21

Performance of ELLs Without Disabilities

13 167 8 10

30

14

49 4653

73 70

62

57

38 38 40

19 218

29

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 3-8

ELA Level 1 ELA Level 2 ELA Level 3 & 4

Page 22: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

22

Performance of ELLs With Disabilities By Disability Type

46.9

85.7

38.7

29.1

30.6

67.9

50.5

25.5

32.9

30.1

50.0

22.9

46.9

14.3

52.0

55.7

59.0

31.0

41.4

57.4

53.1

56.3

43.8

54.3

6.3

9.3

15.1

10.3

8.1

17.0

14.0

13.5

6.3

22.9

0.0

1.2

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Autism

Deafness

Emotional Disturbance

Hearing Impairment

Learning Disability

Mental Retardation

Multiple Disabilities

Orthopedic Impairment

Other Health Impairment

Speech/Lang. Impairment

Traumatic Brain Injury

Visual Impairment

L1 L2 L3+4

Page 23: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

23

Percentage of ELLs at Level 3-4 onby Disability Status

6%8%

2%

38% 38%40%

19%21%

8%

29%

14%15%

20%

12%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 3-8

With Disability Without Disability

Page 24: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

24

Percentage of ELLs scoring at Level 1 by Disability Status

39%

47%

17% 18% 18%

48%

31%

13%16%

7% 8% 10%

30%

14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 3-8

With Disability Without Disability

Page 25: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

25

Comparison of Non-ELL, ELL and Former ELL Students’ Performance on Grade 3-8 ELA Tests

3%

18%

0%

25%

57%

27%

72%

25%

73%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Non-ELL ELL Former ELL

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3+4

Page 26: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

26

Comparison of Non-ELL, ELL and Former ELL Students’ Performance:

Percentage of Students at Level 3 & 4

74% 75%

81%

70%73%

59%

33% 32% 34%

15%

83% 83%79%

57%62%

18%

6%

43%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

Non-ELL ELL Former ELL

Page 27: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

27

Percentage of ELLs Scoring at Each of the NYSESLAT Proficiency Levels

Passing/Failing the Regents English Exam in Grade 11

88 83

57

34

12 17

43

66

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Beginning(n=408)

Intermediate(n=3504)

Advanced(n=1984)

Proficient(n=832)

Fail Pass

Page 28: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

28

Percentage of ELLs Scoring at Each of the NYSESLAT Proficiency Levels

Passing/Failing the Regents English Exam in Grade 12

8777

5944

1423

4157

0%

10%

20%

30%40%

50%

60%

70%

80%90%

100%

Beginning(n=342)

Intermediate(n=2275)

Advanced(n=858)

Proficient(n=352)

Fail Pass

Page 29: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

29

NYSESLAT Scores Predict ELA Performance Well

NYSESLAT scores explained 46% to 53% of the variance in ELA performance across grades in 2008.

Multiple Regression Model Summary

Grade Correlation Coefficient

Grade 3 0.725

Grade 4 0.722

Grade 5 0.677

Grade 6 0.721

Grade 7 0.696

Grade 8 0.721

*Dependent Variable: ELA scale score*Predictors: NYSESLAT Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing scores

Page 30: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

30

Summary

In 2008, the percentage of ELLs meeting the ELA standards increased from 18% in 2007 to 25% in 2008; the percentage of ELLs showing serious academic deficiencies in ELA deceased from 29% in 2007 to 18% in 2008.

NYSESLAT scores are good predictors of the ELA

performance, accounting for 43% to 53% of the variance in ELA scale scores across grades. ELLs who scored at the proficient level on the NYSESLAT had a much better chance to meet the ELA standards than those who scored below proficient.

Page 31: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

31

Summary

Former ELLs in grades 3 to 5 had comparable chance as English proficient students to meet the ELA standards, the percentage of former ELLs in grades 6 to 8 ranged from 43% to 62%.

ELLs in the elementary grades, with 3-6 years of services, and those from schools outside the Big 5 cities were more likely than their counterparts to score proficient on the Grade 3-8 ELA tests.

ELLs who scored at Level 1 on the 3-8 ELA tests were more likely to be in the middle school grades, with less than 3 years services.

Page 32: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

32

SED Academic Language Analysis Research Project

Department is working with Charlene Rivera from the George Washington University: Center for Equity and Excellence in Education (GW-CEEE).

Purpose is to provide a description of academic language associated with the Living Environment Regents Exam and Commencement Level Core Curriculum.

Goal is to pilot an approach for describing the academic language demands.

GW-CEE staff involved in 2 year project with a selected NYS Analysis Team.

Page 33: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

33

SED Academic Language Analysis Research Project

Goals of NYS Analysis Team:1. Describe and articulate the vocabulary, grammar, and

academic language functions associated with NYS Living Environment course;

2. Articulate their expectations for the Living Environment Academic Language Framework; &

3. Review and make recommendations to improve the usability of the Content Standards Language Analysis Tool.

Page 34: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

34

SED Academic Language Analysis Research Project

Major Outcomes Include:1. Draft list and categorization of academic vocabulary

associated with classroom texts and Living Environment Regents Exam;

2. Draft list, examples, and explanations of grammatical structures that cause difficulty in comprehending Living Environment texts & assessment items;

3. Preliminary identification and descriptions of the most prevalent academic language functions for Core Curriculum;

4. Draft outline for the Living Environment Academic Language Framework; &

5. Design Professional development modules for teachers.

Page 35: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

35

SED Academic Language Analysis Research Project

Academic Language: language used in the learning of academic subject matter in formal schooling context; aspects of language strongly associated with literacy and academic achievement, including specific academic terms or technical language, & speech registers related to each field of study (TESOL ESL Standards 4/97).

Academic Vocabulary: includes both specialized academic vocabulary, (e.g. organism, linear equation) and general academic vocabulary (e.g. produce, examine, & specify). Specialized academic vocabulary is associated with concepts of a discipline and general academic vocabulary cuts across academic disciplines.

Page 36: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

36

SED Academic Language Analysis Research Project

Grammatical Structures: refers to the structure and arrangement of words in phrases and sentences with in written discourse. The following were selected for this project: compound & complex sentences; nominalization, long noun phrases, passive voice, and long or multiple prepositional phrases.

Academic Language Functions: language performances expected or realized in the doing of an academic tasks either through the production and/or comprehension of written or oral texts (Bailey et al, 2007).

Page 37: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

37

SED Academic Language Analysis Research Project

Next Steps:1. Complete analysis, identification, and refinement of the

framework;2. Revise Content Standards Language Analysis Tool to provide

user-friendly tool for the field;3. Develop a draft Living Environment Academic Language

Framework4. Gather input/feedback;5. Finalize Framework; & 6. Develop professional development modules.

Page 38: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

38

New York State NCLB Title III Accountability:

Proposed Revisions to Title III AMAOs

David Abrams Office of Standards, Assessment & Reporting

Dr. Pedro J. RuizOffice of Bilingual Education and Foreign Language

Studies

Page 39: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

39

NCLB Title III Requirements Standards for English Language Proficiency

Conduct an annual, standards-based assessment of English Language Proficiency: New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test (NYSESLAT)

Define Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) for increasing percentage of LEP/ELLs progressing toward and attaining English Language proficiency and for meeting academic achievement standards

Hold Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) and Consortia accountable for meeting the AMAOs

Source: No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, Title III: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students. Public Law 107-110, January 8, 2002.

Page 40: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

40

Accountability Issues Regarding Title III Consortia

A Title III Consortium consists of a group of LEAs that join together as one eligible entity in order to qualify for the $10,000 minimum requirement and jointly apply to the State for a Title III subgrant.

Component districts that form one consortium are held accountable as one entity for meeting all three AMAOs.

AMAO determinations are made for the consortium as a whole by aggregating the data from the component districts to the consortium level (rather than the district level).

Page 41: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

41

Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs): Definitions

AMAO 1: Annual increases in the number or percentage of LEP/ELLs making progress in learning English

AMAO 2: Annual increases in the number or percentage of LEP/ELLs attaining English language proficiency

AMAO 3: Adequate yearly progress (AYP) for LEP/ELL subgroup in meeting grade-level academic achievement standards in English Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics

Source: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Title III: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students. Public Law 107-110, January 8, 2002.

Page 42: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

42

NYS Title III AMAO 1: Making Progress

Proposed Revised Definition: 1) Advance one overall proficiency level on the

NYSESLAT between two consecutive years;2) Maintain the same proficiency level and make a

total scale score gain of 43 points between two years; or

3) Score at Level 2 (Intermediate Level) or above on the NYSESLAT for ELLs with one data point only.

Unit of Accountability: Title III LEAand Consortia

ELLs Included in AMAO 1 Determination: All identified ELLs in the current school year

Page 43: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

43

NYS Title III AMAO 2:Attaining English Proficiency

No proposed change from previous definition

Definition: Scoring at the proficient level (Level 4) on both Listening & Speaking (L/S) and Reading & Writing (R/W) modality combinations of the NYSESLAT

Unit of Accountability: Title III LEAand Consortia

ELLs Included in AMAO 2 Determination: All identified ELLs in the current school year

Page 44: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

44

Title III AMAO 3: Making AYP

Definition: LEP/ELL subgroup must make AYP at the district level in meeting grade-level academic achievement standards in ELA and mathematics.

Unit of Accountability: Title III LEA and Consortia

Data source: Title I District AYP determination for the LEP/ELL subgroup; aggregated district data for Consortia.

Page 45: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

45

Final Determination of Title III LEA AMAO Status

For Title III accountability purposes, all

Title III LEAs, including Consortia, must meet all three AMAO targets each year to be considered making AMAOs.

Page 46: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

46

Accountability Count of Title III LEAs and Consortia in NYS

2004-05, N=184

2005-06, N=191

2006-07, N=208 (including 10 Consortia)

Page 47: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

47

Current Title III AMAO Targets

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Per

cen

t o

f L

EP

/EL

Ls

in L

EA

AMAO 1 50 55 60 65 70

AMAO 2 5 8 10 12 14

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

e.g. For 2005-06, 60 percent of LEP/ELLs in each LEA must make AMAO 1 and 10 percent of LEP/ELLs must make AMAO 2.

Page 48: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

48

Percent of Title III LEAs Meeting Current AMAOs

76

98

47

65

93

29

69

90

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

AMAO 1 AMAO 2 AMAO 3

Perc

en

t

2004-05 (N=184) 2005-06 (N=191) 2006-07 (N=208)Projected

Page 49: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

49

Rationale for Revising Title III AMAOs

The current AMAO targets and increments were established in 2003 on estimated projections; longitudinal empirical data were not then available.

The current AMAO targets and annual increments were set with the assumption that 100 percent of LEP/ELLs must meet the AMAO 1 and AMAO 2 targets by 2013-14 as per Title I accountability requirements.

Page 50: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

50

Rationale for Revising Title III AMAOs (Cont.)

Based on technical assistance from USED, that assumption has been revised. Although annual increases in AMAO targets are required, 100 percent attainment by 2013-14 is not.

The revised NYSESLAT (2005) differs from the original NYSESLAT in number of items and total score points available. The original AMAOs require revision due to change in test design.

Page 51: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

51

Empirical Method for Setting Proposed Revised AMAO 1 Targets and Annual Growth Increments

1. Determine adequate annual scale score gain as 43 scale score points (40th percentile gain) based on the matching data from 2006 and 2007 NYSESLAT administrations.

2. Determine individual ELL’s AMAO 1 status using the

three criteria: 1) advancing one overall proficiency level; 2) making 43 total score gain; or 3) score at Level 2 and above on the current year NYSESLAT for ELLs with one data point.

3. Calculate the percentage of ELLs who made AMAO 1 in each district by dividing the sum of all students who made AMAO 1 by the total number of identified ELLs in the district for the current school year.

Page 52: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

52

Empirical Method for Setting Proposed Revised AMAO 1 Targets and Annual Growth Increments (Cont.)

4. Rank order districts with 30 or more ELLs from low to high on percentage of students making AMAO 1.

5. Select the 25th percentile LEA performance on AMAO 1 measure as the starting target for 2006-07, and the 65th percentile district performance as the ending point for 2016-17.

6. Set annual growth increments as the equal interval between the starting and ending targets.

Page 53: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

53

Comparison of Current and Proposed Revised AMAO 1 Targets and Annual Growth Increments

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

en

t o

f L

EP

/EL

Ls i

n L

EA

Current Revised

Current 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

Revised 58.9 60 61 62.1 63.2 64.2 65.3 66.4 67.4 68.5 69.6

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Page 54: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

54

Percentage of Title III LEAs Meeting Proposed Revised AMAO 1 Targets (Percentage of LEAs projected to meet AMAO 1 based on simulations using matching NYSESLAT data from 2006 and 2007)

7571

6865

61

5451

4542

37

33

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Per

cen

t o

f T

itle

III

LE

As

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Page 55: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

55

Implications of the Proposed Revised AMAO 1 Targets

In 2006-07, 75 percent of the Title III LEAs will meet the AMAO 1 target and 25 percent will not.

The proposed starting AMAO 1 target, or 25th percentile, for 2006-07 means that 58.9 percent of all LEP/ELLs in each Title III LEA are expected to make AMAO 1 by one of the three criteria.

The proposed ending AMAO 1 target, or 65th percentile, for 2016-17 means that 69.6 percent of the LEP/ELLs in each Title III LEA must make AMAO 1.

Page 56: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

56

Implications of the Proposed Revised AMAO 1 Targets (Cont.)

The ending target, or 65th percentile, for 2016-17 also means that all Title III LEAs must perform at the same level as the top 35 percent of the LEAs performed in 2006-07.

As the AMAO 1 target increases by one percentage point each year, all LEAs are expected to increase the number and percent of ELLs making AMAO 1 each year. Without making the expected annual improvement, only 33 percent of the Title III LEAs would meet the AMAO 1 target by 2016-17.

Page 57: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

57

Empirical Method for Setting Proposed Revised

AMAO 2 Targets and Annual Growth Increments

1. The same empirical method used to revise the AMAO 1 targets and annual increments was used to revise the AMAO 2 targets.

2. Designate individual ELLs as meeting AMAO 2 if they scored at the proficient level (Level 4) on both the L/S and RW components of the 2007 NYSESLAT.

3. Calculate the percentage of students making AMAO 2 in each district by dividing the number of ELLs who made AMAO 2 by the total number of identified ELLs in the district in the current school year.

Page 58: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

58

Empirical Method for Setting Proposed Revised

AMAO 2 Targets and Annual Growth Increments (Cont.)

4. Rank the order of all districts with 30 or more LEP/ELLs from low to high on percentage of LEP/ELLs making AMAO 2.

5. Select the 25th percentile of LEA’s performance on the AMAO 2 measure as the starting point for 2006-07 school year, and the 65th percentile as the ending target for the 2016-17.

6. Set annual growth increments as equal interval between the starting and ending targets.

Page 59: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

59

Comparison of Current and Proposed Revised AMAO 2 Targets and Annual Growth Increments

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Per

cen

t o

f E

LL

s in

LE

A

Current Revised

Current 5 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Revised 9.9 10.5 11.1 11.8 12.4 13.1 13.7 14.3 15 15.6 16.3

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Page 60: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

60

Percentage of Title III LEAs Projected to Meet the Proposed Revised AMAO 2 Targets (Based on simulations using 2007 NYSESLAT Data)

7572

6966

62

5754

49

45

40

35

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Perc

en

t o

f T

itle

III L

EA

s

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Page 61: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

61

Implications of the Proposed Revised AMAO 2 Targets

In 2006-07, 75 percent of the Title III LEAs will meet the AMAO 2 target and 25 percent will not.

The proposed starting AMAO 2 target, or 25th percentile, for 2006-07 means that 9.9 percent of all LEP/ELLs in each Title III LEA are expected to score at the proficient level on the NYSSELAT.

The proposed ending AMAO 2 target, or 65th percentile, for 2016-17 means that 16.3 percent of the LEP/ELLs in each Title III LEA must score at the proficient level.

Page 62: Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update

62

Implications of the Proposed Revised AMAO 2 Targets

The ending target for 2016-17 also means that all Title III LEAs must perform at the same level as the top 35 percent of the LEAs performed in 2006-07.

As the AMAO 2 target increases each year, all LEAs are expected to increase the number and percent of ELLs making AMAO 2. Without making the expected annual improvement, only 35 percent of the Title III LEAs would meet the AMAO 2 target by 2016-17.