Framework for High-Quality English Language Proficiency Standards and Assessments

P r e pa r e d b y t h e Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive Center January 2009

1

ACKNOWLEGMENTSThe author also would like to extend appreciation to

the following reviewers for their input and guidance:

Jamal Abedi, Ph.D. Frances Butler, Ph.D.Gary Cook, Ph.D. Richard Duran, Ph.D. Ellen Forte, Ph.D. Carole Gallagher, Ph.D. Margo Gottlieb, Ph.D. Kevin Huang, Ph.D.Dorry Kenyon, Ph.D. Rachel Lagunoff, Ph.D.Robert LinquantiJack Levy, Ph.D.Pamela McCabe Joseph McCrary D.P.A.Theodor Rebarber Ed Roeber, Ph.D.Charlene Rivera, Ph.D. Marla Perez-Selles Ursula Sexton Ann-Marie Wiese, Ph.D.

2

Download entire document from:

http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rs/938

3

Purpose and use

What is the intended purpose of the state’s English language proficiency standards and assessments, and how are they expected to be used?

Population: English learner (EL) students

Who are the EL students in the state — what are their relevant characteristics (e.g., languages, experiences, backgrounds)?

Domain: English language

proficiency (ELP)

How is the domain of ELP defined — what are the relevant characteristics (e.g., knowledge, skills, functions, modalities, register) of the ELP content?

ELP Standards ELP

Assessments

Curriculum and Instruction

4

GETTING STARTEDCommittee Composition What are the state’s recruitment and membership selection criteria and protocols for the committees convened during development and implementation phases of its ELP standards?

5

GETTING STARTEDCommittee Composition What was the range of expertise and perspectives represented on each of the committees?

6

GETTING STARTEDCommittee Composition What documentation does the state have showing membership and the range of perspective and expertise represented on each committee?

7

GETTING STARTEDCommittee Composition What are related next steps for improving our ELP standards? (e.g., additional criteria/protocol/processes, additional committee members, additional documentation)?

8

STEP 1: What is the intended purpose of our ELP standards and assessments, and how do we expect them to be used?

9

STEP 1: What information did the state use to define the purpose and use of its ELP standards and assessments? Who was involved in defining the purpose and use?

10

STEP 1: To whom has the state communicated the purpose and use?

11

STEP 1: How has the state communicated the purpose and use? (Identify relevant documents)

12

STEP 1: What are related next steps for improving our ELP standards and assessments (e.g., develop more details regarding purpose and use, additional communication)?

13

STEP 2Who are the English learner (EL) students in our state and what are their relevant characteristics (e.g., languages, experiences, backgrounds)?

14

STEP 2On what information, including statistical data, was this population definition based?

Who was involved in defining the population?

15

STEP 2To whom has the state communicated information about its EL student population?

16

STEP 2How has the state communicated information about its EL student population? (Identify relevant documents)

17

STEP 2What are related next steps for improving our ELP standards and assessments (e.g., gather more information about the population, create a refined population definition, generate additional communication)?

18

STEP 3How do we define the domain of English language proficiency (ELP) that we are teaching and testing, and what are the relevant characteristics (e.g., knowledge, skills, functions, modalities, register) of the ELP content?

19

STEP 3Definition of the ELP domain, including information related to the breadth, depth, and range of complexity of language skills and knowledge in the four recognized language modalities of listening, speaking, reading, and writing.

20

STEP 3Information about how the modalities interrelate and contribute both to English language proficiency in general and, more specifically, to meeting the language requirements inherent in challenging state academic content:

21

STEP 3On what (a) theory and (b) research was this domain definition based?

Who was involved in defining the domain?

22

STEP 3To whom has the state communicated information about the ELP domain?

23

STEP 3How has the state communicated information about the ELP domain? (Identify relevant documents)

24

STEP 3What are related next steps for improving our ELP standards and assessments (e.g., gather additional information about the domain, develop a refined domain definition, generate additional communication)?

25

STEP 4Standards Development Phase1.1 Organization or structure of the standards

1.The structure of the state’s ELP standards (e.g., format, organization/hierarchy, levels of detail) is appropriate for the standards’ 1. instruction- and assessment-related (including reporting) purposes and uses.

26

STEP 41.2 Number of Standards1.The number of standards is appropriate for the depth and breadth of the ELP domain, as it is defined by the state.1.

27

STEP 42. The number of standards

allows for appropriate coherence and consistency of skills and knowledge across modalities (i.e., 2. listening, speaking, reading, writing), as defined by the state.

28

STEP 41.3 Level of specificity, or “granularity,” of the standards

1.The state’s ELP standards are described with sufficient clarity and definition to guide curriculum development, instructional 1. planning, and assessment development for the EL population. 29

STEP 4Consideration(s)Do the structure, number, and level of specificity of the a. standards support the purpose(s) and use(s) of the standards in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and reporting?

30

STEP 4RelevanceValidityUtility

What has the state done to address this consideration? How is it documented (specify document title and document date)?

31

STEP 4Possible sources of evidenceManuals/GuidesTechnical Reports and Research Studies

Meeting Reports/MinutesTraining and Professional Development Materials

32

STEP 41.4 Alignment1.The state’s ELP standards are articulated horizontally.

2.The state’s ELP standards are articulated vertically.

3.The state’s ELP standards are linked with the state’s academic content standards.

33

STEP 5TRAINING –

The state provides guidance and training to local education agencies — for example, to teachers of English as a Second 1. Language, bilingual teachers, content area teachers, special education teachers, school and district administrators — on the ELP standards, their purpose and use, and implementation strategies. 34

STEP 61.6 MONITORING AND EVALUATING

The state has systems and structures for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of its ELP standards in local education agencies, schools, and classrooms.

35

QUESTIONS?

36