California English Language Development Test and Title III ...mes.sccoe.org/ali/14th Accountability Leadership Institute Doc... · Filipino (Pilipino/ Tagalog) 1,807 35.1 1,116

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction

14th Annual Accountability

Leadership Institute for English

Learners and Immigrant Students

Monday, December 9, 2013

Accountability Leadership Institute

Burlingame, California

California English Language Development Test and Title III Accountability: Updates for

2013–14

TOM TORLAKSON State Superintendent

of Public Instruction

Part I: California English

Language Development

Test (CELDT) Update

Lily Roberts, Ph.D., Administrator

English Language Proficiency

Assessments Office

2



3

Presentation Overview

• New Laws in 2014

• Transition to English Language

Proficiency Assessments for California

(ELPAC)

• CELDT Results

• CELDT Reporting

• CELDT Resources

• Key Dates for 2014



New Laws in 2014 Senate Bill 201 – Creates the English Language

Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC)

System

• The ELPAC will have separate assessments for initial

identification and annual measurement of English

language proficiency and growth

• The annual assessment window will be a four-month

period after January 1 of each school year

• The State Board of Education (SBE) must approve the

ELPAC test blueprints, performance level descriptors,

and performance level cut scores

• The State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI)

will report to the Legislature when the ELPAC is ready

for administration

4



New Laws in 2014 (cont.)

Assembly Bill 899 – Adds Link to Mathematics

and Science Standards

• The SSPI, on or before January 1, 2015, must

recommend modifications to the English language

development (ELD) standards to correspond to the

SBE-approved academic content standards for

mathematics and science

• The SSPI must convene a group of experts to review

math and science standards for correspondence to the

ELD Standards

• The SSPI must hold a minimum of two public meetings

to gather input on any recommended modifications

• The SBE must adopt or reject the SSPI

recommendations on or before August 1, 2015

5



Transition to a New

Assessment System The 2012 ELD Standards are:

– Aligned with, and support, the California

Common Core Standards for English-language

arts

– Set expectations for students to interact in a

variety of meaningful ways (Part I)

– Focus on the structure and organization of

English and how meaning is made (Part II)

– Organized by grade level except at high school

(i.e., 9–10 and 11–12)

– Provide three proficiency levels instead of five:

Emerging, Expanding, and Bridging

6



Transition to a New

Assessment System (cont.)

Integrating the 2012 ELD Standards into the

California public education system

• ELD standards implementation plan was taken

to the SBE (July 2013)

• ELD Standards professional learning modules

will be posted (December 2013)

• English–language arts/ELD curriculum

framework is projected to be adopted (July

2014)

• Contingent on funding, new ELD assessment

system to be operational (2016–17)

7



Transition to a New

Assessment System (cont.)

Next steps for ELPAC:

• Develop blueprint guidelines

• Develop new K–12 test blueprints

• Administer CELDT without field test

forms in 2014–15 and 2015–16

• Propose to transition from CELDT to

ELPAC in 2016–17

8



2009–13 Initial and Annual

Assessment Summary Results

Performance

Level 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13

Advanced 9.0 8.0 9.0 9.0

Early

Advanced 27.0 26.0 29.0 27.0

Intermediate 35.0 36.0 35.0 34.0

Early

Intermediate 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0

Beginning 14.0 14.0 12.0 13.0

Number

Tested 1,617,006 1,574,403 1,542,786 1,485,161

9

Percentage of Students at Each Overall Performance Level

Rounded to the nearest whole number



2009–13 Initial Assessment

Summary Results

Performance

Level 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13

Advanced 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0

Early

Advanced 12.0 12.0 12.0 11.0

Intermediate 21.0 21.0 22.0 22.0

Early

Intermediate 21.0 21.0 24.0 22.0

Beginning 38.0 40.0 36.0 39.0

Number

Tested 324,875 320,820 306,154 298,206

10





2009–13 Annual Assessment

Summary Results

Performance

Level 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13

Advanced 9.0 8.0 9.0 9.0

Early

Advanced 31.0 29.0 33.0 32.0

Intermediate 38.0 39.0 38.0 38.0

Early

Intermediate 15.0 15.0 14.0 15.0

Beginning 7.0 8.0 6.0 7.0

Number

Tested 1,292,131 1,253,583 1,236,176 1,186,955

11





CELDT Reporting (cont.)

Home

Language Beginning

Early

Intermediate Intermediate

Early

Advanced Advanced

Total Tested

by Language

Spanish 92,261

41.8

51,940

23.5

46,569

21.1

20,865

9.4

9,164

4.2

220,799

74.9%

Vietnamese 3,009

34.9

1,958

22.7

1,969

22.8

966

11.2

731

8.5

8,633

2.9%

Filipino

(Pilipino/

Tagalog)

1,807

35.1

1,116

21.7

1,068

20.8

640

12.4

511

9.9

5,142

1.7%

Korean 1,522

26.9

1,075

19.0

1,256

22.2

872

15.4

930

16.4

5,655

1.9%

Cantonese 1,014

16.1

1,373

21.8

1,810

28.8

1,177

18.7

918

14.6

6,292

2.1%

Hmong 747

37.3

528

26.3

429

21.4

191

9.5

109

5.4

2,004

0.7%

All Other

Non-English

14,576

31.6

7,731

16.7

10,197

22.1

7,728

16.7

5,946

12.9

46,178

15.7%

Total 114,936

39.0%

65,721

22.3%

63,298

21.5%

32,439

11.0%

18,309

6.2%

294,703

100%

12

Number and Percentage of Initial Assessment Test Takers at Each

Overall Performance Level in the Top Six Identified Home Languages

* Of the total 298,206 IA test takers in 2012–13, 3,503 students did not have a home

language designation in the data file, so they are not included in Table 2 above.




Grade Span Beginning Early


Early

Advanced Advanced

Total

Number

Total

Percent

K–2 9.0 20.0 37.7 26.1 8.0 356,980 30.1

3–5 5.7 13.0 42.4 29.9 9.0 387,029 32.6

6–8 5.8 11.0 34.6 36.7 12.0 219,173 18.5

9–12 7.3 12.0 31.7 38.2 11.0 223,773 18.9

All Grades 1,186,955 100

13

Percentage of ELs by Overall CELDT Performance

Level by Grade Span, 2012–13*

* All results shown are AA results for 2012–13.




Years Since First

Enrollment in

U.S. School

Beginning Early


Early

Advanced Advanced

Total

Number

Total

Percent

0 38.2 19.4 23.1 14.5 4.7 12,542 1.1

1 12.2 19.2 35.5 26.0 7.1 188,246 15.9

2 7.6 20.0 38.0 25.9 8.5 185,010 15.6

3 6.4 17.6 43.0 24.9 8.1 164,463 13.9

4 5.5 12.9 44.2 29.3 8.0 132,207 11.2

5 4.1 9.7 37.7 38.2 10.3 108,884 9.2

> 5 4.9 10.1 34.2 39.2 11.6 393,245 33.2

Total 1,184,597** 100

14

Percentage of ELs by Overall CELDT Performance Level by

Years in U.S. School, 2012–13*

* All results shown are AA results for 2012–13.

* * The total number is less than the total number in Tables 1 and 2 because 2,358 records

did not include information on the number of years the student was enrolled in a U.S.

school.




School Year

Percentage of ELs

who met the CELDT

Criterion for Possible

Reclassification*

Percentage of ELs

Reclassified as Fluent

English Proficient

(RFEP) as Reported

Through CALPADS and

the Language Census

(R–30)**

2012–13 38.0 12.2

2011–12 39.1 16.3

2010–11 34.5 11.4

2009–10 36.7 11.6

15

Percentage of ELs Who Met the CELDT Criterion for Possible

Reclassification and Percentage of ELs Reclassified as Fluent

English Proficient



Resources

• Web Application Tutorials

– Packaging and Returning Scorable

Documents

– 2013–14 Edition Data Review Module

(DRM) Application (January 2014)

– Available on the CELDT Web site at

http://celdt.org/training/tutorials

16

http://celdt.org/training




• CELDT Fundamentals – English and

Spanish

– Video 1: CELDT Overview

– Video 2: Who Takes the CELDT?

– Video 3: CELDT Administration Basics

– Video 4: The CELDT Student

Performance Level Score

Report

– Available on the CELDT Web site at

http://celdt.org/training/fundamentals

17

Resources (cont.)





2014–15 Scoring Training of Trainers (STOT)

Workshops

• Reduced to 8 STOT workshops for 2014–15

• Registration and attendance at these STOT

workshops will be limited to only:

– New district CELDT trainers who have not

attended a STOT workshop

– Regional workshop trainers who will

provide training at a regional workshop for

the 2014–15 Edition

• All CELDT examiners are required to be

trained annually and to sign the Test Security

Affidavit

18

Resources (cont.)


of Public Instruction Date Day Location

March 26 Wed. Sacramento

April 3 Thurs. Bakersfield

April 8 Tues. San Jose

April 23 Wed. San Diego

April 30 Wed. Costa Mesa

May 6 Tues. Sacramento

August 20 Wed. Costa Mesa

August 27 Wed. Sacramento

19

Resources (cont.)

STOT Dates and Locations for 2014–15

Administration

• Regional workshop information and registration will be

available on the CELDT Web site at

http://www.celdt.org/training/stot/regional/



20 20

Key Dates for 2014

• February 13, 2014: 2013–14 CELDT Data

Review Module (DRM) opens and release of

AMAO 3

• March 14, 2014: DRM closes

• March 26 through May 6, 2014: 2014–15

CELDT Scoring Training of Trainers (STOT)

sessions offered

• May 2014: Release of 2013–14 AA results

• July 1, 2014: 2014–15 CELDT AA and IA

windows open

• August 20 and 27, 2014: Additional STOT

sessions

20



Part II: Title III

Accountability Update

Keric Ashley, Division Director

Matt Taylor, Administrator

Evaluation, Research, and Analysis

Office

21



22 22

Presentation Overview

• Title III Accountability Overview

• 2012–13 Title III Accountability Results

and Trend

• 2013–14 Title III Accountability Targets

• 2014–15 Title III Accountability Targets

• Recent Legislative Activity and Implication

for Title III Accountability

• Key Dates

• Contact Information



23

Title III Accountability Overview

• AMAO 1 – Annual Progress in Learning English (measured by the CELDT)

• AMAO 2 – Attain English Proficiency over time (measured by the CELDT)

• AMAO 3 – Meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for the English Learner (EL) student group

(measured by statewide assessments)



Changes to the 2012–13

Title III Accountability Reports

• Inclusion of Graduation Rate

Data for Secondary School

Students in AMAO 3

– The graduation rate is a required

component of AYP for schools and

local educational agencies (LEAs) or

consortia with high school students

24



25 25

2012–13 Title III Accountability

Targets

• AMAO 1 – 57.5%

• AMAO 2 – 21.4% Less than five years cohort

– 47% Five years or more cohort

• AMAO 3 (Unified School District)

– 95% Participation rate

– 89% English-Language Arts (ELA) percent proficient

– 89.1% Mathematics percent proficient

– 90% Graduation Rate



26 26


Results

Percent of LEAs/Consortia meeting AMAOs

• AMAO 1 – 50%

• AMAO 2 – 47% – 65% met target of less than 5 years

– 58% met target of 5 years or more

• AMAO 3 – 11% – 15% met ELA percent proficient

– 25% met mathematics percent proficient

– 98% met graduation rate

• Met All AMAOs – 6%



27

Title III Accountability Results

Percent LEAs/Consortia meeting AMAOs



28

CELDT CELDT & academic test

Title III Accountability Results

Percent LEAs Meeting Two or More AMAOs



29

29

Previous CELDT

Overall Level

Annual Growth

Target

Beginning Early Intermediate

Early Intermediate Intermediate

Intermediate Early Advanced

Early Advanced or Advanced,

and not English Proficient English Proficient

English

Proficient

Maintain English

Proficient Level

AMAO 1 Criteria



30 30 30

Annual CELDT Scores

2008–2013



31


AMAO 1 Target

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Per

cen

t o

f S

tud

ents

to

Mee

t A

nn

ual

Gro

wth

Tar

get

s

Series1 51 51.5 52 48.7 50.1 51.6 53.1 54.6 56 57.5 59

2003-

04

2004-

05

2005-

06

2006-

07

2007-

08

2008-

09

2009-

10

2010-

11

2011-

12

2012-

13

2013-

14

59



32


AMAO 2 Targets

22.8

49.0




• What will be the AMAOs 1 and 2

targets for 2014–15 and years

after?

– AMAOs 1 and 2 targets increase

about 1.5% each year

– Will the targets remain unchanged or

continue to increase annually until

ELPAC implementation?

33



34




35




Recent Legislative Activity and

Implication for Title III Accountability

• Assembly Bill 484:

– Establishes California’s Measurement

of Academic Performance and

Progress (MAPP)

– Impact on AYP calculations will be

determined

36



Recent Legislative Activity and

Implication for Title III Accountability

• Federal Waiver for California

Office to Reform Education:

– Eight California school districts

received waiver in August 2013

– These districts continue to receive

AYP reports

– Title III-funded school districts are

accountable for meeting AMAOs

37



38 38

Key Dates

• February 2014 — – Embargoed pre-release of 2013–14 Title III

Accountability Reports (AMAOs 1 & 2 results)

– 2013–14 CELDT Data Review Module

• June 2014 — Release of Preliminary 2013–14 Title III Accountability Reports (AMAOs 1 & 2 results)

• September 2014 — Release of the 2013–14 Title III accountability results



Contact Information

English Language Proficiency Assessments

Office

– Phone: 916-319-0784

– CELDT E-mail: [email protected]

– ELPAC E-mail: [email protected]

– CELDT and ELPAC Web page:

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/

Evaluation, Research, and Analysis Unit/

Title III Accountability Team

– Phone: 916-323-3071

– Title III Accountability E-mail: [email protected]

– Title III Accountability Web page:

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/t3/

39

mailto:[email protected]