Presentation on theme: "The Effects of Misidentifying Students’ English Proficiency Perris Union High School District 2010-11."— Presentation transcript:
The Effects of Misidentifying Students’ English Proficiency Perris Union High School District 2010-11
The Onion Report “Onions are complex vegetables that require peeling back multiple layers to get to the core. Student data in terms of assessment and accountability requires peeling back multiple levels of documentation to ensure accuracy. Both have the potential to bring concerned individuals to tears.” (Unknown Poet, 2010)
Objectives Staff will correctly identify students’ English Proficiency status and accurately input data in Infinite Campus Teachers will increase student achievement by using accurate English Proficiency data to inform instruction and meet student needs The English Learner (EL) subgroup Academic Performance Index (API) will increase due to accurate English Proficiency data The EL subgroup % proficient for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) will increase due to accurate English Proficiency data The Perris Union High School District will receive funding for all eligible EL’s
Challenges Parents not filling out the Home Language Survey (HLS) accurately Misinterpretation of HLS by parents and staff PUHSD HLS= EO but student was EL/RFEP in previous district Delay in receiving CUM after enrollment Lack of process for reviewing CUMs for students listed as EO Student mobility and misidentification in multiple districts ABC’s and incorrect IFEP (see next slide)
Challenges (cont) District A HLS= Non Eng EL or RFEP District B HLS= Non Eng CELDT=IFEP District C HLS= Non Eng Contact District B District A HLS= Non Eng EL or RFEP District B HLS= EO EngProf=EO District C HLS= Non Eng Contact District B District A HLS= EO EO District B HLS= Non Eng CELDT to determine
Why is this important? Compliance with State and Federal law Affects teachers’ ability to address the language needs of their students Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) subgroups and reports Similar School Rankings in the Base API report Academic Performance Index (API) subgroups and reports Title 3 Accountability Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAO’s) Title 3 funding and apportionment from the California English Language Development Test (CELDT)
Compliance with State and Federal Law Districts and schools are required to “determine the primary language of each pupil enrolled in the school district.” (Education Code Section 52164.1[a]) Primary language is the language first learned by the pupil, most frequently used at home, or most frequently spoken by the parents or other adults in the home when speaking with the pupil. (5 CCR 7.5 11510) The Home Language Survey (HLS) is the tool that schools in California use to determine student’s primary language If HLS indicates a language other than English, the student must be given the CELDT within 30 days of initial enrollment in a California school in order to determine the students English proficiency (Education Code Section 52164.1[a]) If the CELDT scores indicate that the student is an English Learner they are assessed with the CELDT annually until being Redesignated Fluent English Proficient (RFEP)
Compliance with State and Federal Law (IFEP) If the student meets the CELDT criterion for English Proficiency on the initial CELDT test, the student is designated Initially Fluent English Proficient (IFEP) and documentation is filed in the CUM CELDT Criterion for English language proficiency is established by the State Board of Education as an overall score of Early Advanced or higher and scores for each domain (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) at Intermediate or higher. The only way a student can be IFEP is if he/she took the CELDT and scored in the IFEP range If the student is designated IFEP, she/he is no longer required to take the CELDT and basically has tested out of EL.
Compliance with State and Federal Law (cont) If the CELDT scores indicate that the student is an English Learner they are assessed with the CELDT annually until being Redesignated Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) (Section 33031, Education Code. Reference: Sections 306(a), 313 and 37200, Education Code.)
RFEP Criteria Education Code 313 *PUHSD Board approved criteria (1) CELDT- Overall Adv, Early Adv, with no subscore below intermediate (2) (Minimum Grade of C in English class and teacher reccomendation) (3) Parents are notified (4) (Minimum CST ELA of Basic or Passing Score on CAHSEE) (e) It is the intent of the Legislature that nothing in this section preclude a school district or county office of education from testing English language learners more than once in a school year if the school district or county office of education chooses to do so.
Checking for Understanding What is the Primary Language? How is it determined? What does it mean to be IFEP? What are the requirements for being IFEP? What are the 4 criteria that a student must meet to be Reclassified?
EL Process for students enrolling for the first time in a California school
HLS= Non Eng and CELDT is administered CELDT Criterion Met (Overall Adv or Early Adv No subscore below Intermediate IFEP Documentation filed in CUM and EngProf set to IFEP CELDT Criterion not met When all Reclassification requirements are met, RFEP process is completed and documented. English Prof is set to RFEP and RFEP Date is input Student is designated EL and is assessed annually on the CELDT until RFEP criteria is met
Enrollment process for students previously enrolled in a California school
HLS= Non Eng EngProf set to TBD Ed Services contacts Previous District for CELDT scores and EngProf Designation. If EngProf is EL, CELDT scores are entered in EADMS Site Reviews CUM to verify EngProf Status Before CELDT Testing HLS= EngOnly CUM is reviewed for previous district EL/RFEP/HLS Documentation EL/RFEP History Evident in CALPADS Review CALPADS for Prev EL/RFEP History. Student EO in CALPADS
State and Federal Accountability In order to make AYP, schools and districts must meet the % proficient for all numerically significant subgroups including EL’s in both ELA and math API’s are reported for all numerically significant subgroups including EL’s Similar School rankings use the % of EL’s and RFEP’s as one of the demographic elements to determine the School Characteristics Index (SCI)
State and Federal Accountability EL Subgroup English Learners RFEP’s ( who have not yet scored Proficient or Adv 3 times after being reclassified)
Student Performance by English Proficiency Status PUHSD 2009 Base API and 2010 Growth API
Student Performance by English Proficiency status
2010 AYP % Proficient for State Defined EL Subgroup What do you think the breakdown of this group is? (ie % EL vs % RFEP)
Problems? What does this data tell you? What problems can you see occurring if student English Proficiency is inaccurate? How do you think the % EL affects the Similar Schools Rankings?
Similar School Rankings (SSR) Allow schools to look at their academic performance compared to other schools with some of the same opportunities and challenges (CDE, 2010) Percentage of EL and Percentage of RFEP are included in the SSR calculation Statewide RanksSimilar Schools Ranks Calculated separately by school type (elementary, middle, high school) School’s API compared to all other schools in the state of the same type School’s API compared to 100 other schools of the same type with a mix of similar demographic characteristics (CDE, 2010)
Title 3 Accountability Only 5 other districts in county have not made AMAO’s for more than 4 consecutive years Menifee, Perris Elementary, and Romoland are in Year 1. Title 3 funding could be eliminated if districts don’t meet the Title 3 Accountability requirements for more than 4 years
Title 3 funding and CELDT Apportionment $5 per completed CELDT answer document $102.60 per EL student for ESEA Title 3 Funding $318.76 for each EL (or SED) student for EIA funding So, how much does misidentification cost us? If we had 100 students who are really EL but they were incorrectly Identified as EO/IFEP in IC it could cost $10,260 to $42,136
Addressing Inconsistencies with Data Audits “clean” data vs. accurate data Primary LanguageEngProf SpanishEO EnglishRFEP Primary LanguageEngProf SpanishTBD SpanishRFEP Primary LanguageEngProf EnglishEO EnglishEO Contact prev district, pull CUM (if available, research CUM, look up RFEP dates, add CST scores, possibly CELDT Update one of the fields in SIS
Process to address these issues Run data audits and generate lists, sites pull CUMs for all students on list Train staff a. Train again b. Guided Practice Sites review Cums and update spreadsheet Ed Service staff look up prev EngProf history in CALPADS (this has been continuous from step 1) Ed Services staff does CUM audit after comparing site reports, CALPADS data, and data audit criteria Review HLS for students that changed from EO to IFEP, EL, RFEP, TBD Refine Enrollment Process to eliminate continued problems
Criteria ACritera BNotes IFEPMultiple CELDT Scores in System33 EOPrevious CELDT Scores in System74 IFEP or EOEngProf from Prev years = EL or RFEP35 Primary Lang is EngPrimLang from a previous year = Non Eng17 EO/IFEPBirthCountry=Non Eng PrimLang Country EO-41 IFEP-50 EngProf not RFEPRFEP date is not null16 US School Entry Date>RFEP Date14 RFEP Date within 1 to 2 Years of US Entry Date IFEPGrade 6,7,8 or 106-8-156, 10-171 CALPADS EL/RFEP- (121) (230 still being checked) Addressing inconsistencies with data audits
What to look for in the CUM… EOIFEPELRFEP Home Language Survey No language other than Eng listed At least 1 of the HLS questions has a language other than English CELDT Scores None present Only 1 score that meets state English Proficiency criterion* Multiple scores included Multiple scores with most recent meeting state English Proficiency criterion* ELD Program Not presentNot Present ELD program information is present ELD program information is present. End date is included. IFEP Documentation Not present Documentation might include: letter to parent/guardian, CELDT scores Not present RFEP Documentation Not present Documentation might include: district RFEP form, letter to parent/guardian, program end date, CELDT scores, CST scores, grades
Insert Excel to sites Sample spreadsheet given to sites Database used by Ed Services Orig EngProf CALPADS EngProf Site CUM search EngProf Ed Service Audit EngProf Data audit Criteria NSLP, Scores etc EOELIFEPRFEP
Results Upon Completion of CUM Audit EngProf Change Number# and % 2010 CST Prof # and Percent Prof 2010 AYP # Prof 2011 AYP EO To EL/RFEP IFEP to EL/RFEP EngPro Change Number$ Amount EO/IFEP to EL (6-8) EO/IFEP to EL (9-12)
Insert graph with # and % of students now in EL subgroup Prof/Adv
Reclassification (EC Section 313(d)). Reclassification takes place when a student meets all state and local criteria for demonstrating English proficiency. Students are reclassified according to the Guidelines for Reclassification of English Learners adopted by the State Board of Education (SBE) (September 2002 and updated in September 2006) and demonstrate English language proficiency comparable to that of average native English speakers. (EC Section 313(d)). School districts are to develop student reclassification policy and procedures based on the four criteria set forth in EC Section 313(d), as well as guidelines approved by the SBE. The four criteria established by EC Section 313(d) are: Assessment of language proficiency using an objective assessment instrument, including, but not limited to, the English language development test pursuant to Section 60810. Teacher evaluation, including, but not limited to, a review of the pupil's curriculum mastery. Parental opinion and consultation. Comparison of the pupil's performance in basic skills against an empirically established range of performance in basic skills based upon the performance of English proficient pupils of the same age, that demonstrates whether the pupil is sufficiently proficient in English to participate effectively in a curriculum designed for pupils of the same age whose native language is English. The SBE approved Guidelines for Reclassification of English Learners may be found at http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/CELDT/Pages%20from%20section5astpkt.pdf. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/CELDT/Pages%20from%20section5astpkt.pdf
Consequences for not making Title 3 AMAO’s What are the consequences if an LEA does not meet the growth targets? If a Title III subgrantee fails to meet the growth targets for two consecutive years, the LEA or consortium lead shall develop an improvement plan that will ensure that the AMAOs are met. The improvement plan shall specifically address the factors that prevented the LEA or consortium from achieving the AMAOs. The plan may apply to targeted schools or districts rather than the entire LEA or consortium if the particular factors that prevented the Title III subgrantee from meeting the AMAOs warrant such an approach. If the LEA or consortium fails to meet the AMAOs for four consecutive years, the state shall require the LEA or consortium to modify its curriculum, program, and method of instruction or determine whether the subgrantee will continue to receive Title III funds (Section 3122 (b)).
Compliance with State and Federal Law All students (Students with Disabilities (SWD), Foreign Exchange, etc) must take the CELDT if HLS indicates Primary Language other than Eng An IEP is required to state how a student is to be tested for English proficiency, not if a student is to be tested for English proficiency. IEP team has two options for assessing English Proficiency, the CELDT or an alternate assessment. IEP teams must follow alternate assessment criteria as established by the SBE but typically students taking alternate assessments would be students who are assessed with the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) Parents cannot “opt out” of the CELDT because English language proficiency assessment is both a federal (NCLB Title I. section 1111[b] and Title III, 2002) and state requirement (EC 313). Parents may request that their children be exempted from a specific instructional setting (CCR, Title 5, section 11301 (b)). The SBE has established guidelines, based on EC 313(d), for school districts to use in reclassifying students from EL to fluent English proficient. Reclassification criteria must include each of the four areas.