1. 2012 WIDA ELD Standards & Draft LIEP

2. Contacts Glenda Harrell Ivanna Mann Thrower Charlotte “Nadja” Trez
ESL/Title III Consultant
NC Department of Public Instruction
Ivanna Mann Thrower
ESL/Title III Consultant
NC Department of Public Instruction
Charlotte “Nadja” Trez
ESL/Title III Consultant
NC Department of Public Instruction
ESL Website

3. 2012 WIDA ELD Standards
Amplification to the English Language Development Standards (Supplemental, not Supplanting)
Informed by the latest development in both ELD and states’ content standards for college and career readiness
From ELP to ELD
Defining Features of Academic Language and Performance Definitions
To articulate the language development process as fluid, flexible, and ongoing
The features of academic language is a new component.
The performance definitions and standards matrices have been restructured.

4. 2012 WIDA ELD Standards
Expanded matrices that may be incorporated within language objectives
New elements added to the strands of model performance indicators.
CAN DO philosophy and Guiding Principles of Language Development
Expanded matrices – at each grade level, on one standards matrix and within one of five standards

5. Defining Features of Academic Language
The Features of Academic Language operate within sociocultural contexts for language use.
Performance Criteria
Features
Discourse
Level
Linguistic Complexity
(Quantity and variety of oral and written text)
Amount of speech/written text
Structure of speech/written text
Organization and cohesion of ideas
Variety of sentence types
Sentence Level
Language Forms and Conventions
(Types, array, and use of language structures)
Types and variety of grammatical structures
Conventions, mechanics and fluency
Match of language forms to purpose/ perspective
Word/Phrase Level
Vocabulary Usage
(Specificity of word or phrase choice)
General, specific and technical language
Multiple meanings of words and phrases
Formulaic and idiomatic expressions
Nuances and shades of meaning
Collocations
WIDA categorizes the performance criteria according to distinct linguistic levels.
1-The discourse level is associated with linguistic complexity. It emphasizes how oral and written language is organized
2-Sentence level is associated with language forms and conventions usage. [‘Language Forms and Conventions’ substitutes ‘Language Control’ from the 2007 edition in order to emphasize the positive aspects of acquiring additional languages. Language Control was focused on errors.]
AND to recognize ‘Forms and Conventions’ correspondence to the ELA CCSS Language Standards.]
3-The word/phrase level is associated with Vocabulary Usage
The second modification is the addition of the socio-cultural context, which impacts all three criteria by defining students’ identities and social roles within a particular task or situation.
Building students’ background experiences motivate them and make their language learning more relevant
Sociocultural contexts for language use involve the interaction between the student and the language environment, through register, genre/text type, topic, task/situation, identities and social roles.

6. Unlike 2007 WIDA ELD Standards, the performance definitions are displayed in two sets of Performance Definitions.
Listening and Reading – Receptive Language and represents how ELLs process language to comprehend information, ideas, concepts in oral and written communication.

7. The other set of performance definitions is for productive language – shows hoe students at each level of language proficiency use language to express information, ideas, concepts in either oral or written communications.

8. Example Context for Language Use
Standards Connection
New Elements in 2012
Grade: 7
ELD Standard 5: The Language of Social Studies
Connection
Common Core Reading Standards for Literacy in History/Social Studies: Integration of Knowledge and Ideas #7: Integrate visual information (e.g., in charts, graphs, photographs, videos, or maps) with other information in print and digital text.
Example Topic
Level 1
Entering
Level 2
Emerging
Level 3
Developing
Level 4
Expanding
Level 5
Bridging
Level 6 - Reaching
READING
Agriculture
Identify agricultural icons using visual or graphic support (e.g., on maps or graphs)
Locate resources or agricultural products using visual or graphic support
Distinguish among resources or agricultural products using visual or graphic support
Find patterns associated with resources or agricultural products using visual or graphic support
Draw conclusions about resources or agricultural products on maps or graphs from grade-level text
Topical Vocabulary: Students at all levels of English language proficiency are exposed to grade-level words and expressions, such as: agricultural product, natural resource
Cognitive Function: Students at all levels of English language proficiency ANALYZE the importance of agricultural resources to regional economies.
Example Context for Language Use: Students read informational texts and related websites about crops or agricultural products to use maps or create charts.
It is important to note that the language shown at each level of the amplified matrices represents an example, and that educators may choose to focus on different aspects of the criteria in working with students at each level of language proficiency.
Level 2 is now called ‘Emerging’ and the strands of MPIs are now at the individual grade level not the grade level cluster. So educators can see the direct connections to the content areas such as common core and essential standards.
The example Context for Language Use highlights the importance of teaching language in a meaningful context. It provides examples for teachers to think about possible instructional tasks, audience, registers, and genres students have to manage when learning academic language.
WIDA tied all the MPIs across the strand to a common cognitive function to show how educators can expect higher cognitive functioning from all students even those with low language proficiency levels.
Examples of grade-level topic related language across the strand send the message to educators that regardless of their language proficiency levels, all students should interact with grade-level words and expressions.
Example context for language use highlights the importance of teaching language and meaningful context. It provides examples to teachers with possible instructional tasks, audiences, registers, genres that students have to manage when they learn academic language.
Topical Vocabulary
Cognitive Function
Example Context for Language Use
WIDA Consortium

9. Common Core & ELD Collaborative Team
Working Group
K-12 ELA Common Core Standards and example language objectives through WIDA MPI Transformations
No stipend
Substitute teachers
Travel Expenses (Mileages, hotel, etc.)
Tentative first meeting date: October 12 9:00 – 4:00
If you are interested or would like to recommend your colleagues, Nadja Trez at by September 21, 2012.

10. Title III Application Process
How/Why
EXACTLY
How/why is an ELL placed in a particular service?
Are appropriate services provided for all ELLs?
appropriate
ALL

11. Direct and Consultative ESL Services

13. The U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs (SASA) office, Title III State Consolidated Grant Group monitored the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) the week of October 24-27, This was a comprehensive review of NCDPI’s administration of Title III, Part A, authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended. As a result of this monitoring visit, NCDPI is collecting each LEA’s Language Instruction Education Programs (LIEP) information.

14. Generally proficiency levels – 1-2 R/W
Year in US Schools <2
May be SIFE, not meeting HS graduation requirements or
struggling academically, non-literate in first language.

15. Draft Categories for Placement
Category 1:
Category 2:
Category 3:
Criteria:
General proficiency levels 1-2
Please see sample page.
Generally proficiency levels 3-4
Generally proficiency level 5
Context:
Services:
Direct Service Level 1
Direct Service Level 2
Direct Service Level 3
Maximum Support
Moderate Support
Collaborative Support
Assign a label to each category that is meaningful to your staff.

16. Draft Criteria for Categories
SAMPLES
ONLY
Category 1:
Category 2:
Category 3:
Criteria:
General proficiency levels 1-2
Please see sample page.
Generally proficiency levels 3-4
Generally proficiency level 5
Context:
Services:
Gr K W-APT L&S score 0-10
Gr K W-APT L& S score 11-18
Gr K W-APT L& S score 19-26
Gr 1 (K)W-APT L&S score 0-18
Reading 0-5 OR Writing 0-7
Gr 1 (K)W-APT L&S score 19-26
Reading 6-12 OR Writing 8-14
Gr 1 (K)W-APT L&S score >26
Reading > 12 OR Writing > 14
Gr 1-5 ACCESS/W-APT scores
Reading <2.6 OR Writing < 2.6 OR Overall Composite < 3
Gr 1-5 ACCESS/W-APT scores
Reading OR Writing OR Overall Composite < 4
Gr 1-5 ACCESS/W-APT scores
Reading 4- 6 OR Writing OR Overall Composite ≥ 4
Gr ACCESS/W-APT scores
Reading ≤ 3 OR Writing ≤ 2 OR Overall Composite < 3.5
Gr ACCESS/W-APT scores
Reading OR Writing ≤ OR Overall Composite < 4
Gr ACCESS/W-APT scores
Reading 4-6 OR Writing 4-6 OR Overall Composite ≥ 4
< 2 Years in US Schools
2- 4 Years in US Schools
> 3 Years in US Schools
Participates in classes using all 4 language domains.

17. Draft Context for Categories
Category 1:
Category 2:
Category 3:
Criteria:
Context:
Please see sample page.
Services:
The school district is geographically large with small numbers of ELLs in all schools. Therefore all ESL teachers are currently itinerant.
ESL and content teachers collaborate to determine appropriate grade level language objectives.
Appropriate modifications and accommodations in place based upon each students LEP Plan.
LEP Plan developed for each ELL by the school-based LEP committee.

18. Draft Categories of LIEP Services
Category 1:
Category 2:
Category 3:
Criteria:
Context:
Services:
Please see sample page.
Gr. K - ESL Pullout Daily 20 Min
Gr. K ESL Pullout 2Xwk 30 Min
Gr. K-5 Targeted Flexible Groups
Gr. 1-5 ESL Pullout Daily 30 Min (Beginner Curriculum)
Gr. 1-5 ESL Pullout Daily Min
Gr Writing Elective
Gr ESL II, III and/or ESL Reading Elective daily
Gr Goal Setting Conference 4X year
Gr ESL I Elective daily
Gr ESL I and II
Gr ESL II and/or III
Gr Targeted Workshops for long-term ELLs
Gr Sheltered English I and/or Algebra I/Math I
Gr Sheltered Biology, US History and/or English II
Gr Intensive Content-Based ESL for SIFE (students w interrupted formal education)
Gr.6-8 Co-Teaching ELA

19. Questions

20. NC ELD SCS (WIDA ELD Standards)
How do we distinguish between the language of the content and the content?

21. CAN DO Descriptors
CAN DO Descriptors help teachers understand the Performance Definitions by highlighting examples of what students can do at each proficiency level. This is the K-12 chart, but there are also grade specific Can Do Descriptors. The descriptors use sensory, graphic or interactive support, through ELP level 4.
This can be very helpful to content teachers as they plan for meaningful activities with ELLs in the regular class.
The descriptors cllarify the Performance Definitions by outlining the quantity and quality of language expected at a particular level of language proficiency.
For example, the CAN DO Descriptors show that students may be able to “identify” at various levels of language proficiency, but the language they use will vary tremendously. At one end of the spectrum, beginning English language learners may identify by pointing or using short words or phrases, whereas at the end of the language development continuum, students will begin to identify complex themes and ideas described in detailed technical language.

22. Organization of MPI’s in Standards
STRAND
MPI
This is an example of how the MPIs are organized within the 2007 Edition of the standards. An MPI is a single cell within the matrices that describes a specific level of ELP for a language domain.
A developmental horizontal row of MPIs, across the 5 levels of language proficiency, within the same domain, is called a Strand.
A strand of MPIs consists of the 5 levels of ELP for a given topic and language domain. Strands of MPIs are
thematically connected through common example topics,
Scaffolded from one language proficiency to the next, based on the criteria of linguistic complexity, vocabulary usage, or language forms and conventions that are developmentally appropriate
Each Model Performance Indicator shows how students are expected to process or produce the language at the particular level of language development for the given language domain and standard. The original elements of MPIs remain the same in the same order in the 2012 amplified version of the standards. 22

23. Model Performance Indicator
Elements of a
Model Performance Indicator
Model Performance Indicator consists of three main elements: language function, topic(content stem), and type of support.
The WIDA standards documents include multitudes of Model performance indicators written in this format.
We will use this format to write language objectives.
Language function provides the information of language expectation. Content stem anchors the language to the content and underlies the language development across all five levels of language development. The instructional support through language proficiency level 4.
So the content teacher reviews the WIDA standards for examples of how ELLS can participate meaningfully in the lesson.
A teacher uses the examples to write specific lesson objectives that include language function.
At the “Reaching Level” a student should be able to discuss an academic topic without supports.

24. Problem Solving Meeting Foundations
Collect
& Use
Data
Hypothesis
Develop
(Define & Clarify)
Problems
Identify
Evaluate &
Action Plan
Revise
Implement
Develop &
Discuss &
Solutions
Select
Nadja
Perhaps the most important quality about how we represent data graphically is that stakeholders outside the school building understand it! Why is this important?
Parents, students, town council, board members, real estate agents…
Do you understand it? If so, what makes it clear and meaningful?
Will parents and students understand it? Individuals who may not understand our curious obsession with numbers, charts, rankings, and the purposes behind it?
Ask individuals to explain a detail on the letter

25. Problem Solving Meeting Foundations
Collect
& Use
Data
Hypothesis
Develop
(Define & Clarify)
Problems
Identify
Evaluate &
Action Plan
Revise
Implement
Develop &
Discuss &
Solutions
Select
Nadja
Develop (Use) Materials for Action Plan (from TIPS Model_)
What percentage of educators in your building has seen these either recently or last year?
To be used for school or district instructional decisions, evaluating the effectiveness of LIEP services
What do all these numbers mean?
Why is this just a “Part of the picture” for planning and decision making
8th Grade Proficiency scores and Confidence Bands
What are scale scores?
What can I use them for?
What does the confidence band tell me?
How do I use the proficiency level in my instruction?
Scale scores
WIDA ACCESS for ELLs scale scores are psychometrically derived measures of student proficiency
Range from 100 to 600 (above 500 is rare)
Vertically-equated scale applies to all grades and all test forms
Scale scores do take differences into account (e.g., assessment tasks taken by students in the grade 9-12 cluster are more challenging than the assessment tasks taken by students in the grade 1-2 cluster)
Scale scores allow student performances (i.e., raw scores) across grades and tiers to be compared on a vertical scale. The vertical scale allows scale scores across grade levels to be compared to one another within any single domain. Scale scores are useful for monitoring a student’s progress from year to year.
There is a separate scale for each language domain: Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing. Because each domain has its own scale, a scale score of 300 in Listening does not mean the same as a scale score of 300 in Speaking. For each domain, scores are reported on a single vertical scale from Kindergarten to Grade 12. The lowest possible scale score is 100. The upper limit is 600, although scores above 500 are rare.
The scale for score is continuous (across the grade spans) to allow a measure of progress. Scales scores are calculated from raw scores. They take into consideration the difficulty of the items
Confidence Band
The confidence band shows the range in which a student may score given the same test 100 times. The shorter the band the more consistent that the responses were.
The proficiency level is an interpretation of the scale score. It takes into account the grade level of the student. The decimal point is not really a decimal, but an interval- it does not have the same value for different levels. See next slide.
When appropriate, explain the difference between a raw score, a scale score and an ELP level, and point out that these are interpretations rather than conversions. Another point to make is when it is appropriate to use scale scores (to show growth for example) versus raw (when number of items is very small, like in the number of correct responses related to language control in the domain of writing in the area of science) and ELP levels to compare across domains.
Proficiency level
Proficiency Level Scores are socially-derived interpretations of the ACCESS for ELLs Scale Scores in terms of the six proficiency levels defined in the WIDA Standards
Comprised of a whole number and a decimal, e.g. 2.5 The whole number indicates the proficiency level into which the student’s scale score places him or her (e.g. 2 = Beginning) The decimal indicates how far, in tenths, the student’s scale score places him or her between the lower and the higher cut score of the proficiency level (e.g. 2.5 = 5/10 or ½ of the way between the cut score for level 2 and level 3)
Scale scores are interpreted differently (i.e., has different proficiency level scores) based on a student’s grade level Proficiency Level scores correspond to different scale scores based on a student’s grade level

26. ACCESS for ELLs Teacher Report
Problem Solving Meeting Foundations
Collect
& Use
Data
Hypothesis
Develop
(Define & Clarify)
Problems
Identify
Evaluate &
Action Plan
Revise
Implement
Develop &
Discuss &
Solutions
Select
Nadja
Hopefully most of you are using this information to evaluate your programs and to make adjustments.
What are raw scores?
What information can we glean from them?
What assumptions should we NOT make about these scores?
In this section of the teacher report, raw scores are provided for the different parts of the test. Raw scores cannot be compared across grade level clusters or across tiers within a grade level cluster.
They cover the subject area information for Social Studies, Science, Language Arts, Math and Social Instructional, but not every area is covered in each domain and each cluster.  
It is the number right that students get out of the total and that is not a set number.
Writing tasks are given a proficiency level score, by standard and by area of the WIDA Writing Rubric (Linguistic Control, Language Forms and Conventions, and Vocabulary Usage).
The writing scoring rubric was based directly on the six proficiency levels of the WIDA Standards, scores on the writing tasks do reflect a common meaning across tiers and grade levels (though developmental differences across grade level clusters are taken into account).
Speaking Tasks receive a raw score for each part, by standard.

27. Problem Solving Meeting Foundations
Collect
& Use
Data
Hypothesis
Develop
(Define & Clarify)
Problems
Identify
Evaluate &
Action Plan
Revise
Implement
Develop &
Discuss &
Solutions
Select
Nadja
When do you use this report?
Use of Information in the School Frequency Report Explanation about English Language Proficiency
This report shows the distribution of ELLs according to their language proficiency levels for each language domain and combination of domains in a stated grade of a specified school. In low incidence schools, these numbers might be quite small; in urban areas, the numbers of students might be substantially larger. The results should not be generalized unless there are relatively large numbers of students.
Information provided in this report may have to be further contextualized to be meaningful; numbers alone cannot explain why the distribution of students assigned to language proficiency levels falls as it does. For example, there may be a rather large proportion of ELLs at the lower end of the continuum in all language domains. The reasons for these results may not be evident unless student demographics and educational history are considered. Perhaps the school recently received new students with limited formal education who have spent time in refugee camps. Perhaps the students in this grade have high degrees of mobility and have not had continuous, uninterrupted schooling. Teacher characteristics may also help explain the results. Perhaps teachers working with ELLs have not been afforded ample opportunities for professional development or have not had time for joint planning with the English as a Second Language, bilingual, or content teachers. Perhaps the service delivery model is such that coverage of ELP standards needs to involve all teachers who work with ELLs and become a grade level or school-wide responsibility.
Communication about Data Contained within the School Frequency Report
For states which have administered ACCESS for ELLs at least twice, School Frequency Reports for two consecutive years provide cross-sectional data (unless the set of students from one year to the next is identical, which is highly unlikely). Keep this fact in mind when inspecting how the first graders, for example, performed at a specified school in year 1 in comparison to second graders in year 2. A group of first graders one year compared with a group of first graders the next year also represents cross-sectional data.
In communicating the results of this report, use both the numbers of students at each language proficiency level and the corresponding percents of total tested. If numbers are low, the percents may appear distorted if shown in isolation.
Use the information contained in the report to gain a sense of the school-wide effort in educating ELLs. Compare results of ELLs with those of proficient English students, in particular, former ELLs who are being monitored as well as other linguistically and culturally diverse students. Use multiple data sources, including performance on their state academic achievement tests, to see if there is any crossover.

28. Problem Solving Meeting Foundations
Collect
& Use
Data
Hypothesis
Develop
(Define & Clarify)
Problems
Identify
Evaluate &
Action Plan
Revise
Implement
Develop &
Discuss &
Solutions
Select
Nadja
When do you use this report?
Use of Information in the District Frequency Report Explanation about English Language Proficiency
As with the School Frequency Report, this report may be used in conjunction with the Student Roster Report to better explain student performance. The distribution of students along the six ELP levels, to some extent, is a function of the tier that was administered. For example, as students in Tier A are considered ‘Beginners’, they should not be expected to, nor will they be able to score at the highest levels of English language proficiency. In contrast, those students in Tier C received the most challenging items representative of the higher levels of English language proficiency. Just as in the School Frequency Report, information provided in this report may have to be further contextualized to be meaningful. A description of the students in terms of their language, cultural, and experiential backgrounds would provide a fuller portrait of a district’s ELLs.
This report provides a glimpse of the performance of all ELLs across language domains and combination of domains in a district at the time of testing.
Communication about Data Contained within the District Frequency Report
Based on an individual state’s criteria for “attainment” of English language proficiency and its definition of cohort groups, this report may serve as a district’s estimate of the number and/or percent of students who have met that criterion for Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) under Title III. Likewise, the School Frequency Report offers the same breakdown by grade within a school.
For purposes of communicating information to various stakeholders, such as local Boards of Education or community groups, the data may be graphically displayed in the form of a histogram. The numbers of students or percent of total tested could serve as the vertical axis and the language domains and combination of domains could form the horizontal axis. Each language level could then be color-coded and positioned under the corresponding language domains.
In the same vein, differences in performance of students by grade from year to year on ACCESS for ELLs may be graphically displayed. To interpret the results more accurately, it is important to note the percent of matched pairs of students; that is, how many ELLs in one year remained in the program and district the next year.
Information in this report may be useful in planning, developing, or restructuring language services for ELLs at a district level. Variation in students’ language proficiency across individual and combined language domains may help shape their type and amount of support. In some states, native language is also a component of support that is to be taken into account in program design.