California English Language Development Test Annual... · Project Director and Senior Researcher California Comprehensive Center – WestEd English Learner Evaluation and Accountability

CELDT Results & Title III Accountability Roberts (CDE) & Linquanti (CACC-WestEd)

CDE EL Accountability InstituteSan Diego CA 12/4/2011 1

California English Language Development Test

2010–11 Results and Implications for Title III

Accountability

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONTom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction

EL Accountability Leadership InstituteDecember 5, 2011

Presenters

Lily Roberts Administrator

California Department of Education (CDE)English Language Proficiency Assessments Office

Assessment Development and Administration Division

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONTom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Robert LinquantiProject Director and Senior Researcher

California Comprehensive Center – WestEdEnglish Learner Evaluation and Accountability Support



TOM TORLAKSONState Superintendent of Public Instruction

Presentation Overview• California English Language

Development Test (CELDT) p ( )Updates

• CELDT Results

• Title III Accountability Results and Implications

3

and Implications

• Key Dates for 2011–12


California English Language Development Test (CELDT)

Update• English Learner Proficiency

Assessments (ELPA) Office in Assessment Development and Administration Division (ADAD)

• CELDT Contract 2012–15CELDT Contract 2012 15

• Legislation Updates

4




Legislation Updates• Assembly Bill (AB) 124 (Fuentes) requires the

establishment of an advisory committee to align the English language development (ELD) standards to the Common Core State Standards in English-language arts

• Once ELD standards are revised, the following must occur:– Develop new CELDT Blueprints– Align the CELDT to the new standards– Conduct item writing, pilot testing, and rubric

development– Develop new test forms by grade/grade spans

aligned to the revised ELD standards– Conduct a standard setting for all grades 5


Legislative Updates (Cont.)

As required by Senate Bill (SB) 753 (Padilla) theAs required by Senate Bill (SB) 753 (Padilla), the CDE requested written documentation from the U.S. Department of Education whether two significant changes described in SB 753 are permitted by federal law.

1. Permit measurement of annual progress based p gon an expanded testing window. Response pending.

2. Permit “banking” of domain scores. Response –not allowed.

6




2006–11 Initial Assessment Summary

Results

PerformanceLevel 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

Advanced 7.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 7.0Early

Advanced 12.0 13.0 13.0 12.0 12.0

Intermediate 20.0 20.0 20.0 21.0 21.0Early

Percentage of Students at Each Overall Performance Level

7

EarlyIntermediate 20.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0

Beginning 41.0 39.0 39.0 38.0 40.0Number Tested 398,525 369,967 344,571 324,875 320,820


2006–11 Initial and Annual Assessment Summary Results

Performance Level 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

Percentage of Students at Each Overall Performance Level

Level

Advanced 7.0 7.0 9.0 9.0 8.0

Early Advanced 22.0 25.0 26.0 27.0 26.0

Intermediate 35.0 35.0 34.0 35.0 36.0

Early Intermediate 18 0 18 0 17 0 16 0 16 0

8

Early Intermediate 18.0 18.0 17.0 16.0 16.0

Beginning 18.0 16.0 14.0 14.0 14.0

Number Tested 1,709,637 1,704,753 1,677,688 1,617,006 1,574,403




Percentage of ELs Who Met CELDT Criterion for Possible

Reclassification by Grade SpanGrade Span 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10* 2010–11 Change From

Previous YearChange From

2006–07

K–2 20.0 23.6 26.6 28.0 27.6 -0.4 7.6

3–5 27.3 31.5 35.9 34.9 33.0 -1.9 5.7

6–8 37.4 42.4 44.8 47.0 45.2 -1.8 7.8

9–12 34.3 36.8 40.4 41.0 36.2 -4.8 1.9

9

All Grades** 29.1 32.8 36.2 36.7 34.5 -2.2 5.4

* Prior to 2009–10, the calculation of the CELDT Criterion for kindergarten and grade one (K–1) only includes listening and speaking scale scores.

** Weighted average across the grade spans within the school year.

TOM TORLAKSONState Superintendent of Public Instruction Percentage of ELs who Percentage of ELs

CELDT Criterion and Reclassification Results

School Year

Percentage of ELs who met the CELDT Criterion

for Possible Reclassification*

Reclassified as Fluent English Proficient (RFEP)

as Reported by the Language Census (R–30)**

2010–11 34.5 11.4

2009–10 36.7 11.6

2008 09 36 2 10 9

10

2008–09 36.2 10.9

2007–08 32.8 9.6

2006–07 29.1 9.2* CELDT performance is one of the four criteria for reclassification.** The percentage for ELs reclassified RFEP is calculated by dividing the number of reclassified

students by the prior year’s EL count then multiplying by 100.




Robert Linquanti

California Comprehensive Center at WestEd

11Title III Accountability 101


AMAOsThree AMAOs:

• AMAO 1 – Making annual progress in learning English

• AMAO 2 – Attaining English proficiency

12

proficiency

• AMAO 3 – Meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for EL subgroup



TOM TORLAKSONState Superintendent of Public Instruction Previous CELDT Annual Growth

AMAO 1 Progress CriteriaPrevious CELDT

Overall LevelAnnual Growth

TargetBeginning Early Intermediate

Early Intermediate Intermediate

Intermediate Early Advanced

1.

2.

3.

13

Early Advanced or Advanced,and not English Proficient English Proficient

English Proficient

Maintain English Proficient Level

4.

5.


Targets for AMAO 1

row

th

AMAO 1 Targets

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

f Stu

dent

s to

Mee

t Ann

ual G

rTa

rget

s

0

10

Perc

ent o

f

Target 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

14




AMAO 2Attaining English proficiency• Measured by the CELDT• Early Advanced or Advanced level

overall• Domains of listening, speaking,

reading, and writing are at Intermediate level or above*

15

Intermediate level or above

*For K–1, only listening and speaking need to be at Intermediate level or above


AMAO 2 Cohorts• Include all ELs• Two cohorts with different targets:• Two cohorts with different targets:

– ELs who have been in language instruction educational programs for less than 5 years

– ELs who have been in language instruction educational programs for

16

instruction educational programs for 5 years or more

• LEA must meet targets for both cohorts to meet AMAO 2




AMAO 2 Targets

17


AMAO 3 Meeting AYP for EL subgroup

• Measured by:– California Standards Tests (CSTs)California Standards Tests (CSTs)– California Modified Assessment (CMA)– California Alternate Performance

Assessment (CAPA)– California High School Exit Examination

• EL subgroup for AYP includes reclassified• EL subgroup for AYP includes reclassified fluent English proficient students until they score Proficient or above three times on the CST-English-language arts (ELA) or CMA-ELA.

18




AMAO 3 (Cont.)

• ELAParticipation ratePercent Proficient or above

• MathematicsParticipation ratePercent Proficient or above

19


AMAO 3: AYP Targets in ELA, Math (Unified School Districts)

2020




Annual CELDT Scores 2006–2010

7 8 9 9 8100

18 17 15 15 15

39 39 37 38 39

25 28 30 31 29

20

40

60

80Pe

rcen

t of E

Ls Advanced

Early AdvIntermed.Early IntermBeg

21

10 9 8 7 8

17 15 15 15

02006 2007 2008 2009 2010

AMAOs (2007–08)

AMAOs (2008–09)

AMAOs (2009–10)

AMAOs (2010–11)


Title III Accountability Results: Percent ELs Making AMAO 1 Growth by Prior CELDT Level

90100 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

58 60

37

45

72

64 62

40

51

74

64 63

43

57

76

6663

41

54

76

60

37

50

72

64

304050607080

% E

Ls m

eetin

g

22

01020

Beginning Early Int. Intermediate EA/A not EP Eng. Prof.(1.) (2.) (3.) (4.) (5.)




Title III Accountability Results: Percent of LEAs Meeting AMAOs

100

Includes new AMAO 2 cohort definition & targets

73 7469

8277

38

81

37

78

63

22

5145

29

82

2030405060708090

100

Perc

ent o

f LEA

s

23

01020

Met AMAO 1 Met AMAO 2 Met AMAO 32006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Title III Accountability 101


Title III Accountability Results:Percent of LEAs meeting AMAOs

(Cont.)

7790

100

68

54

74

31

77

32

59

15

39

141020304050607080

Perc

ent o

f LEA

s

24

010

Met AMAOs 1 & 2 Met All AMAOs (1, 2, 3)2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

CELDT CELDT & academic tests




Title III Accountability Results 2010–11: AMAO Year Status

AMAO Year # LEAs/Consortia % LEAs/Consortia

N/A (Met All AMAOs) 95 14%

Year 1 97 14%

Year 2 125 19%

Year 3 67 10%

Year 4 109 16%

25

Year 4+ 182 27%

LEAs and consortia N=673Source: September 23, 2011 update


Why a 27 %-point drop in LEAs meeting AMAO 1?

Some contributors:• Target increased

– 53.1% 54.6%– Accounts for 8

%-pts of drop• 09-10 RFEP rate

• % ELs progressing fell 2-4% at each ELD level

• %ELs progressing fell in each grade

increased to 11.6%– Removes high-

performers from 10-11 CELDT testing

g– 4% fewer overall– 7+% fewer in 9-12– 3-5% fewer in K,

3-5 26




Accurate, Meaningful Accountability Requires a Stable EL Subgroup

Students Who Began as ELs (English Proficient Learners)

Met state reclasscriteria Current ELs

1-5 yrs in L t ELShould meet

grade-level proficiency;

Count in subgroup to

hold accountable for equity &

access

ystate

schools

Should meet annual ELP &

academic progress goals

Long-term ELs6 or more yrs. in

state Schools% should decrease

annually

Working Group on ELL Policy, 2011 (www.Ellpolicy.org)


CA ELs and Former ELs (RFEP) by Grade

200000

Ever-EL

K-5 6-12 Total

EL 86% 43% 1,435,734

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

RFEP

EL

RFEP 14% 57% 794,467

Source: CDE DataQuest, 2010-11 CELDT & CST

0

20000

40000

60000

K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th




90%

100%

District ELs, Long-Term ELs and Former ELs (RFEP) by grade

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

RFEPL-T ELEL

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12RFEP 0% 0% 13% 25% 38% 46% 57% 61% 64% 58% 62% 69% 70%L-T EL 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 36% 32% 29% 28% 32% 26% 21% 24%EL 100% 100% 87% 75% 62% 18% 11% 10% 8% 10% 12% 10% 7%

0%

10%

L-T EL:EL Ratio: 2:1 3:1 3:1 3.5:1 3:1 2:1 2:1 3.5:1

Long-term EL: 6 or more years in LEA

45%

18%

37%


The English Learner Subgroup Self-Assessment (ELSSA): Tool for analyzing district-level EL performance patterns

3030




Which ELs are making progress annually?

3131

Questions to consider:• At which CELDT level do most ELs score? • How well did ELs progress from one level to next?• Which groups of ELs merit further review?


How well are English Learners progressing over time?

32

Questions to consider:• How are ELs in US schools for 4 or fewer years performing?• How are ELs in US schools for 5 or more years performing?• Which groups of ELs merit further review?




Entry Grade PercentK 66.0%

1 9.2%

2 5.3%

5th Grade (2009-10) Cohort Analysis

66.0% of 5th graders havebeen in LEA since Kindergarten

ELs in LAUSD Since Kindergarten, andPercentage that Reclassified by 5th Grade

Sample Total EL Cohort Analysis: In LEA Since Kindergarten

3 5.2%

4 5.3%

5 5.5%

Unk 3.9%

Total 100.0%

Of those 5th graders who began their

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage that Reclassified by 5th Grade

16.4%

31.0%

28.4%

EL

RFEP

EO

IFEP16.4%

31.0%EO

IFEP

Lang Class PercentEO 31.0%

IFEP 16.4%

EL 24.2%

RFEP 28.4%

Total 100.0%

g geducation in LEA: In 2009-10…

52.6% of the 5th graders began in K As EL (EL + RFEP)

2004-05 2009-100%

20% 52.6%

24.2%

Kinder 5th Grade

EL


5th grade students started Kindergarten as ELs

80%

100%

54 0%RFEP

ELs in LEA Since Kinder

ELsBegan in K(2004-05)

0%

20%

40%

60%

46.0%EL

54.0%

5th Grade (2009-10)

46.0% of the students that began as ELs (EL + RFEP) were still ELs by the end of 5th grade

54.0% of the students that began as ELs (EL + RFEP)were RFEPs by 5th grade

By 5th Grade:




Of current EL 5th graders who began as Kindergartners in LEA:

48% scored Early Adv. or Advancedon 2009-10 CELDT Overall

5th Grade ELs in LEA Since Kinder

CELDT 2010 Percent

Advanced 9 0% on 2009 10 CELDT Overall

45% scored Intermediate on 2009-10 CELDT Overall

7.0% scored Beg. or Early Intermediate on 2009-10 CELDT Overall

Of ELs at Intermediate on the CELDT Overall, % below Intermediate vs Intermediate or above on each domain were:

Advanced 9.0%

Early Advanced 38.8%

Intermediate 45.1%

Early Intermed. 6.1%

Beginning .9%

Total

% below Intermediate vs. Intermediate or above on each domain were:

CELDT 2010 Below Intermediate

Intermediate and Above

Listening 13.9% 86.1%

Speaking 1.1% 98.9%

Reading 35.9% 64.1%

Writing 33.1% 66.9%


Of Current EL 5th graders who began as Kindergartners in LEA:

5th Grade ELs in LEA Since Kinder

CST 2010 Cluster Scores(Grade 5)

Percent correct

Word Analysis 48%

CST 2010 (Grade 5)

Percent

Advanced .6%

Proficient 5.6%

Basic 39.7%

Below Basic 34.3%

F B l B i 19 8% Word Analysis 48%

Reading Comprehension 40%

Lit Response & Analysis 42%

Writing Strategies 46%

Writing Conventions 52%

Far Below Basic 19.8%

Total




Some Implications• Monitoring EL progress (AMAO 1)

more important than ever– ELs since Kindergarten– Progress much harder in grades 6–12– Target domains below intermediate

L t EL ill b hi hli ht d i

37

• Long-term ELs will be highlighted in AMAO 2 cohort ≥ 5 years – Reclassification will affect results of

this AMAO 2 cohort (possibly AMAO1)37


Some Implications (cont.)

• Must foster academic language development and academic literacy– Increase oral academic language use

with engaging, grade-level group work, practices and routines

38

, p– ELD and all sheltered content

instruction should foster discipline-specific literacy skills

38




Key Dates• January 2012 — New CELDT Contract starts• February 2012 — Release of AMAO 3 and 2011–12

CELDT Data Review Module (DRM) begins• March 2012 — DRM ends• April 2012 — 2012–13 CELDT STOT workshops

begin • May 2012 — Release of the 2011–12 CELDT AA

results

3939

• June 2012 — Posting of the preliminary 2011–12 Title III Accountability Reports and Information Guide

• July 1, 2012 — 2012–13 CELDT AA and IA windows open


Contact InformationELPA Office

Assessment Development and Administration DivisionPhone: 916–319–0784E-mail: [email protected] page: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/

Title III AccountabilityAnalysis Measurement and AccountabilityAnalysis, Measurement, and Accountability Reporting DivisionPhone: 916-323-3071E-mail: [email protected] page: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/t3/

40



Questions?

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONTom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction 41

California English Language Development Test Annual... · Project Director and Senior Researcher California Comprehensive Center – WestEd English Learner Evaluation and Accountability

Documents