1. Interpretation of ACCESS for ELLs® Score Reports
This presentation is designed to orient educators – ESL, content and general education teachers, as well as school and district-level administrators on how to integrate (WIDA) English language proficiency standards and content standards.
© 2007 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, on behalf of the WIDA Consortium

2. Language versus Content
Language proficiency involves the language associated with the content areas.
Academic achievement reflects the knowledge and skills associated with the content.
WIDA ELP standards focus on academic language; academic standards focus on academic content.
The WIDA Standards measure English language proficiency (ELP) in the academic content areas – not the academic content knowledge itself; the language of math, for example, what “greater than[>]” and “less than[<]” mean, not the math/computation itself (e.g., 6 [>/<] 5).
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 2

3. Why are English language proficiency (ELP) standards necessary?
To facilitate ELL students’ English proficiency attainment, access to content knowledge, and ultimately, their academic success
To provide a curriculum/assessment resource anchored in academic content standards
To establish a common yardstick to define and measure how ELLs acquire language across the domains of listening, speaking, reading, and writing
To comply with federal law (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) requiring ELP standards and ELP standards-based assessments
The WIDA ELP Standards were developed with the ELL at the center of our work.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 3

4. The WIDA ELP Standards
Standard 1 – Social & Instructional Language (SIL)
English language learners communicate for social and instructional purposes in the school setting.
Standard 2 – Language of Language Arts (LoLA)
English language learners communicate information, ideas and concepts necessary for academic success in the content area of Language Arts.
Standard 3 – Language of Mathematics (LoMA)
English language learners communicate information, ideas and concepts necessary for academic success in the content area of Math.
Standard 4 – Language of Science (LoSC)
English language learners communicate information, ideas and concepts necessary for academic success in the content area of Science.
Standard 5 – Language of Social Studies (LoSS)
English language learners communicate information, ideas and concepts necessary for academic success in the content area of Social Studies.
Within each standard, there are PIs for Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing for each grade-level cluster (K, 1-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-12). These represent the language of the content areas from which test items are drawn. These are four content areas addressed: Social Studies (SS), Language Arts (LA), Math (MA) and Science (SC). Social Instructional language is the language of the classroom, the language that cuts across all the disciplines.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 4

5. Criteria for Performance Definitions1 2 3 4 5 6
REACHING
ENTERING
BEGINNING
DEVELOPING
EXPANDING
BRIDGING
Linguistic Complexity: Extent of functional language (text or discourse)
Vocabulary Usage: Comprehension and use of the technical vocabulary of the content areas
Language Control: Comprehension and use of phonological, syntactic, and semantic structure & rules
The criteria used to determine the performance definitions for each proficiency level are couched in terms of the language used in schools to impart content area information. Issues of linguistic complexity and semantic & pragmatic knowledge are brought to bear in formulating the definitions. At the two lower proficiency levels, it is assumed that ELLs would need extralinguistic support via graphic and visual aids in order to carry out language functions. This requirement also motivates the use of graphics for test items at these levels.
It is upon these three criteria that the rubrics for Writing and Speaking are based.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 5

6. Performance Definitions
Note: This document is available as a PDF on the Training CD (“General Performance Definitions.PDF”). At each level of the WIDA proficiency scale, we have defined the language that English language learners process, understand, produce, or use. Note that these general descriptors apply to all four language domains. The “CAN DO” Descriptors available in The ACCESS For ELLs™ Interpretive Guide for Score Reports 2006 (available at contain domain-specific descriptors for Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing at each proficiency level.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 6

7. Interaction of Performance Level Definitions and Model Performance Indicators
Language Proficiency
(Performance Level Descriptions)
1 Entering
2 Beginning
3 Developing
4 Expanding
5 Bridging
PIs
L 1
L 2
L 3 L4
L 5
Linguistic Complexity
Vocabulary Usage
Language Control
This graphic illustrates how the breadth and depth of academic language (across the criteria of linguistic complexity, vocabulary usage, and language control) that students are expected to comprehend and produce increases as they advance in proficiency level.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech

8. Exit Criteria For Kindergarten - GKIDS
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech

9. Exit Criteria For Grades 1-12
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech

10. Organization of PI’s within Standards Example: Social & Instructional; Grades 6-8
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 10

11. Organization of PI’s within Standards
STRAND
When we have a developmental horizontal row of MPI, across the 5 levels of language proficiency, and within the same domain, it is called a Strand
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 11

12. Individual Model Performance Indicators (PIs) as Basis of Test Items
Level 2: Beginning
Match needed resources or supplies with type of activities from pictures and oral statements (e.g., calculators & math books)
Grades 6-8
Standard 1: Social and Instructional Language
Listening
Example topic: Resources & Supplies
When developing a test item, the item writer first looks at the Model Performance Indicator matched to that task. The Model PI represents a specific skill to be assessed. The Model PI will be specific to the grade-level cluster, domain, and standard (content area), but it will address a language skill and not content or background knowledge.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 12

13. Sequence of Model PI’s within a Theme Folder
Model PI’s for a Tier B Theme Folder for 6-8
A theme folder combines three Model PIs in a series of items that increase in difficulty and represent increasingly complex cognitive operations. All three PIs will be related, however, and will be contextualized around some grade-level appropriate text, scenario, graphic or chart. ACCESS for ELLs® does not present students with items sequenced out of context, for example, with isolated math items next to isolated science items, etc.
Grades 6-8
Standard 1: Social and Instructional Language
Listening
Example topic: Resources & Supplies
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 13

14. Test Alignment with Proficiency Levels
ENTERING
BEGINNING
DEVELOPING
EXPANDING
BRIDGING 1 2 3 4 5
Tier A
Tier B
Tier C 6
REACHING
The three tiers of the ACCESS for ELLs test are calibrated to best serve ELLs at the boundaries indicated on the figure. It is expected that the majority of students will receive the Tier B form of the test. Tier A is intended for very low proficiency students and Tier C for students close to exiting from ELL status.
Annual ACCESS for ELLs®
W-APT™
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 14

15. ACCESS for ELLs®:Types of Scores
Here, you can 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.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 15

16. ACCESS for ELLs® Scores
These are types of information you can get from the reports, basically data for each of the language domains and it introduces the concept of composite scores. A discussion on when to use composite scores versus individual domain scores would be appropriate here. Also, you may want to talk about how these are reported using scale scores and ELP levels. And how Comprehension, Speaking and Writing are also reported in raw scores and ELP levels when looking at the student’s performance by standard.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 16

17. Overall Composite Score
Composite Scores
Oral Score
Listening (50%)
Speaking (50%) = +
Literacy Score
Reading (50%)
Writing (50%) = +
Comprehension Score
Listening (30%)
Reading (70%) = +
This is an explanation of the composite scores each student receives, and how each score is obtained. It is up to you if you want to present it before or after slide 13.
Listening (15%)
Speaking (15%)
Overall Composite Score = +
Reading (35%)
Writing (35%)
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 17

18. ACCESS Component Test Weights as Percentage of Overall Composite Score
Note that the administration times do not directly reflect the test component weights used to calculate the composite score. Reading and Writing are weighted more heavily than Listening and Speaking, because literacy skills are proven to be a better predictor of academic achievement than oral language skills.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 18

19. Scores Received: Student Level Summary)
Each student also receives a scale score and a proficiency level for Oral Language, Literacy, Comprehension, and Overall Composite.
Four composite scores, including the Overall score, are provided for each student.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 19

20. Scale Scores
WIDA ACCESS for ELLs® Scale Scores are psychometrically derived measures of student proficiency
Range from 100 to 600 (above 500 is rare)
Single vertical scale applies to all grades and all test forms
Single scale established through vertical equating
However, vertically equated scale scores do take into account differences (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.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech
WIDA/CAL (c) 2007 WIDA/CAL Grade Level Cut Score Review Study 20

21. Proficiency Level Scores
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 two numbers, e.g. 2.5
First number indicates the proficiency level into which the student’s scale score places him or her (e.g. 2 = Beginning)
Second number 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)
The same scale score is interpreted differently (i.e., has different proficiency level scores) based on a student’s grade level
The same proficiency level score corresponds to different scale scores based on a student’s grade
Re. last points – there is elaboration, including an example, in the section of this presentation that addresses grade level cut scores.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 21

22. ACCESS for ELLs® Score Reports
Parent/ Guardian
Teacher
Student Roster
School Frequency
District Frequency
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 22

23. Score Reports & Stakeholders
Audience or Stakeholder
Types of Information
1. Parent/ Guardian
Students
Parents/ Guardians
Teachers
School Teams
Proficiency levels for each language domain
Overall Score Comprehension
Available in multiple languages on the WIDA website
2. Teacher
Administrators
Individual student’s scale scores and language proficiency levels for each language domain, and four composites Raw scores for Comprehension Tasks, Speaking, and Writing Tasks by English language proficiency standard
3. Student Roster
Program Coordinators/ Directors
Scale scores and language proficiency levels for each language domain and four composites by school, grade, student, Tier, and grade level cluster
4. School Frequency
Number of students and percent of total tested at each proficiency level for each language domain and four composites within a school
5. District Frequency
Boards of Education
Number of students and percent of total tested at each proficiency level for each language domain and four composites by proficiency levels for grades within a district
I put this one in here because it is a nice summary, but you will be looking at each report in detail in the rest of the PP, so you may not want to take too much time on this specific slide. You can mention, though, that this concise summary comes from the Interpretive Guideline
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 23

24. Parent/Guardian Report
Student’s parent or guardian gets the report
Provided in English and 19 additional languages (visit
A letter to accompany the report in parents’ primary language is suggested
Other stakeholders – student, teachers, school teams
18 additional languages for your information are: Amharic, Bosnian-Croatian, Creole, French, Gujarati, Hmong, Korean, Lao, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Serbian Cyrillic, Somali, Spanish, Swahili, Traditional Chinese, Urdu, and Vietnamese.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 24

25. Parent Report Demographic Information About the Student
Comprehension Score
Student’s ELP Level by Domain
Overall Score
Description of the ELP Levels
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 25

26. Parent/Guardian Report (cont’d.)
The Parent Report is currently available in:
Amharic
Bosnian-Croatian
Creole
English
French
Gujarati
Hmong
Khmer
Korean
Lao
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Serbian (Cyrillic)
Somali
Spanish
Swahili
Chinese (Traditional & Simplified)
Urdu
Vietnamese
Additional translations will be added to the WIDA web site ( as they become available.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 26

27. WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech

28. Parent/Guardian Report (cont’d.)
Parent sample letters to accompany score reports are available in English, Spanish, Chinese and Hmong at
May 2007
Dear Parent or Guardian,
This past winter, ELL students in grades kindergarten through twelfth grade participated in the administration of the ACCESS for ELLs® language proficiency test. ACCESS now provides a standardized measurement of academic language proficiency for English Language learners (ELL) students throughout the state of Wisconsin. With this information, we will also be able to monitor individual ELL student progress on an annual basis.
Enclosed you will find your child’s results on ACCESS. The Parent/Guardian Reports provides information about your child’s English Language Proficiency Level. This information is for you to review and keep.
If you have any questions regarding these tests or the information that is being sent to you about how your child did on these tests, please contact your child’s ELL teacher, building principal, or me.
Sincerely,
__________________________________
(School ELL coordinator, principal, or teacher)
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 28

29. Teacher Report
Teachers and other stakeholders, such as administrators, have access to this report.
The Overall Score summarizes student’s global language proficiency and allows examination of strengths and weakness by domain.
Individual report components offer a starting point for informing the areas of curriculum, instruction and assessment of ELL’s. Suggestions for the differentiation across levels of language proficiency can be found in the strands of the model performance indicators.
Rubrics in the Interpretative Guide –Writing and Speaking – scaffold across levels of language proficiency and may be used in classroom instruction and assessment throughout the year.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 29

30. Teacher Report Demographic Information About the Student
Student’s Scale Score by Domain
Student’s ELP Level by Domain
Student’s Scale Composite Scores
Student’s Composite Scores
Student’s Speaking Performance by Standard
Student’s Comprehension by Standard
Student’s Writing Performance by Standard
Description of the ELP Levels
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 30

31. Teacher Report (top)
NOTE (DMK): SUBSTITUTE p. 53’s Teacher Report from the Spring 2007 Interpretive Guide, as this one looks very odd since all Prof Level Scores end in .0. I don’t think these are genuine scores! 31
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 31

32. In 2008
They also stress the need for multiple measures of student’s performance
Confidence bands:
Show students’ variability in performance on any given day
Standard error of measurement combines reliability of the test and standard deviation of the scores
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech

33. Teacher Report (bottom)
Raw Scores by Standard
Comprehension scores (Reading and Listening) are also broken down by WIDA ELP Standard (the language of SI, LA, MA, SC, and SS).
Performance by WIDA English Language Proficiency Standards: In this section of the report, information is provided based on raw scores on the different parts of the test. Raw scores cannot be compared across grade level clusters or across tiers within a grade level cluster. However, because 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.
Writing tasks are given a proficiency level score, by standard and by area of the WIDA Writing Rubric (Linguistic Control, Vocabulary Usage, and Language Control).
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 33

34. Teacher Report (cont’d.)
Writing Tasks
Writing raw scores are presented by standard next to the maximum number of points for the given standard(s) and scoring category reported
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 34

35. How do we use this information?
Standards-based results help inform curriculum, instruction and assessment of ELLs
The Overall Composite Score summarizes student’s global language proficiency
Domain subscale scores allow for examination of strengths and areas of improvement by domain
Raw scores by standards allow for examination of strengths and areas of improvement by content area language
Individual report components offer a starting point for differentiating instruction and assessment
Writing and Speaking Rubrics in Interpretative Guide - criteria within rubrics scaffold across the levels of language proficiency and may be used in assessing classroom tasks and projects throughout the year
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 35

36. Using ACCESS data along with CAN DO Descriptors
Scores along with the Can Do descriptors help educators plan the instruction of ELLs
Reports show students’ ELP levels across the standards and domains
Can Do descriptors show the performance those ELP levels represent and what the next step should be
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech

37. Can Do Descriptors - Listening
For the given level of English language proficiency level, English language learners can:
The Can Do Descriptors were derived from WIDA’s Performance Definitions. They show what English language learners can do in a particular language domain (L, S, R, or W) for the given level of English language proficiency.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 37

38. Can Do Descriptors - Speaking
For the given level of English language proficiency level, English language learners can:
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 38

39. Can Do Descriptors - Reading
For the given level of English language proficiency level, English language learners can:
The Can Do Descriptors were derived from WIDA’s Performance Definitions (previous slide). They show what English language learners can do in a particular language domain (L, S, R, or W) for the given level of English language proficiency.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 39

40. Can Do Descriptors - Writing
For the given level of English language proficiency level, English language learners can:
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 40

41. Student Roster Report
Audience includes Teachers, Program Coordinators, and Administrators
District administrators may examine scores from each language domain within a Tier and grade level cluster to detect any patterns. To what extent are there differences in student performance between the language domains? Are these differences attributed to second language development or delivery of instructional services?
Development of school and district improvement plans for ELLs; development of school staffing plans and scheduling
A starting point for students for support services according to their Overall Score or by their profiles according to language domains (ex: homogeneous groupings for reading in elementary schools).
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 41

42. Student Roster Report Tier Scale Score and ELP Level by Domain
Scale Score and ELP Level by Composite:
Oral Language, Literacy, Comprehension and Overall
Cluster
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 42

43. School Frequency Report
Indicates number of students and percent of total tested for language domains (including range of scaled scores), Comprehension, Oral Language, and Literacy by proficiency levels for grade levels within a school
Results should not be generalized and need to be contextualized in order to provide meaningful information on curricular, instructional or assessment decisions
School Frequency Reports for two consecutive years provide cross-sectional data
In communicating results of this report, use both the numbers and their corresponding percents. If numbers are low, the percent 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 English language learners
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 43

44. Highest & Lowest Scores
% of Total Students Tested who scored at each ELP level by Domain and Composite
Number of Students Tested who scored at each ELP level by Domain and Composite
Highest & Lowest Scores
Total Tested
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 44

45. District Frequency Report
Audience includes Program Coordinators, Boards of Education, and Administrators
Indicates number of students and percent of total tested for language domains (including the range of scale scores), Comprehension, Oral Language, and Literacy by proficiency levels for grade levels within a district.
Data can be graphically displayed in various forms Information will be useful in planning, designing, or restructuring program services.
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).
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 45

46. Highest & Lowest Scores
% of Total Students Tested who scored at each ELP level by Domain and Composite
Number of Students Tested who scored at each ELP level by Domain and Composite
Highest & Lowest Scores
Total Tested
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 46

47. Scoring Caps
Kindergarten form of ACCESS for ELLs® : maximum overall English language proficiency level that a student taking the test can receive is 3.7
Tier A or Tier B scores for the language domains of Listening and Reading (and the Comprehension composite) are capped. Students cannot receive a Proficiency Level above 4.0 for Tier A and above 5.0 for Tier B in Listening and Reading.
Kindergarten maximum score was previously 3.4.
Note about caps for Tier A and B tests: You may only want to give this explanation if it comes up, but the question has arisen in the past: “If our state’s exit criterion on ACCESS is a 4.0, why not give all students the Tier A test?” Answer: Essentially, the student has less of an opportunity to score a 4.0 on the Tier A test (than on the Tier B or C test if that one of those is the more appropriate test form) because there are many fewer items with a 4.0 difficulty level on the Tier A test. That is, a student would have to get nearly all of the few level 4 items correct in order to score a 4.0 than on the Tier B or Tier C test, where there are many more level 4 items for her to attempt. Her score is more reliable and accurate if she is placed in the appropriate tier. Further, a score of 4.0 on the Tier A test would indicate that she “topped out” of the test, or did not reach a ceiling and therefore was not given the opportunity to show her accurate language proficiency level on the test.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 47

48. Cut Scores…Why?
The ACCESS for ELLs® test uses cut-scores to create benchmarks for denoting progress and movement from one proficiency level to another.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 48

49. 2007 Proficiency Grade Level Cut Scores
Scale scores ( )
Cut scores show progress by grade level rather for each language domain
Changes in proficiency level cut scores account for both maturational and language proficiency growth of English language learners
Emphasize that the actual scale scores have not changed, simply that the cut scores have been readjusted to show progress by grade level rather than cluster level.
Cut-Score setting took place in January 2007 in GA with approximately 75 teachers from WIDA states participating.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 49

50. Are the tests all scored the same?
Q: For example, with the 3-5 tests, are third graders scored the same as 5th graders? A: ACCESS for ELLs® is not a norm-referenced test, and therefore, does not produce student scores referenced to a norm group. It is a criterion-referenced test, which is scored against the language proficiency standards and shows where students are on the language proficiency continuum. There is one set of standards for the grade level cluster 3-5, and one scale score range across all the grade levels. However, the proficiency level score is an interpretation of the meaning of the scale score. The interpretation is now based on the grade level a student is in when ACCESS for ELLs® is taken, rather than on the grade level cluster.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 50

51. Example: Scale score of 350
Grades
Domain
Scores
Scale Score
Proficiency Level 3
Overall
350
5.1 4
4.6 5
4.0
In this example, the students all received the same scale score (350) which indicates that they all have the same level of overall English language proficiency. However, students in third grade who receive this scale score will have an English language proficiency level of 5.1, while students in the fourth grade will receive 4.6 and students in the fifth grade will receive 4.0. Formerly, all students in the cluster would have had the same scale score and the same English language proficiency level score. The grade level cut scores take into account the fact that students at the lower grade of the cluster are facing “harder” material in the assessment then the fifth grader. Third graders may not yet have been exposed to all aspects of the standards, which are written for the entire cluster. Nevertheless, their scale score of 350 indicates that they have been measured at the same level of English language proficiency as the fifth grader, on a test form that was probably more challenging for them than for the fifth grader. The proficiency level score is an interpretation of the meaning of the scale score. In this case, third grade students scoring a 350 in the grade 3-5 cluster would probably be performing at an English language proficiency level of 5.1 had they been in fifth grade. We can also think this way: the third grader may have achieved the same scale score as the fifth grader on a “harder” test through a higher level of English language proficiency than what the fifth grader has. So in this sense, students in third grade and fifth grade are scored the same, but the interpretation of that score is different.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech
WIDA/CAL (c) 2007 WIDA/CAL Grade Level Cut Score Review Study 51

52. Example: Proficiency Level of 5.0
Grades
Domain
Scores
Scale Score
Proficiency Level 3
Overall
347
5.0 4
359 5
369
In this example, we see what scale score it takes for students in the different grades to reach the proficiency level of 5.0. Students in grade 3 need a 347; students in grade 4 need a 359, and students in grade 5 need a 369. Again, the student in third grade is facing a “harder” test than the student with potentially two more years of schooling in fifth grade. With the former grade level cuts, the cut scores for the same proficiency level changes from cluster to cluster; now they change from grade to grade.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech
WIDA/CAL (c) 2007 WIDA/CAL Grade Level Cut Score Review Study 52

53. Use of Proficiency Levels based on Grade Level Cut Scores
Provides a more precise measurement of ELLs’ annual progress in English language proficiency
Eases the creation of a trajectory of estimated student growth, in any one or combination of language domains, from year to year
Facilitates articulation from grade to grade, and teacher to teacher, of the status of ELLs
Helps in the calculation of Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs). States with at least three consecutive years of data have trend data.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 53

54. Communication of Data from the Reports
No single score or language proficiency level should be used as the sole criteria for making decisions regarding a student’s English language proficiency.
Sharing student information from score reports is encouraged for all educators who work with English language learners.
Data in the reports need to be contextualized to be meaningful; include both historical and demographic information on the students when presenting the results.
When disseminating information on the students’ productive language, refer to criteria in the speaking and writing rubrics.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 54

55. Communication of Data (cont’d.)
Performance Definitions and CAN DO Descriptors may help further explain student expectations at each level of English language proficiency.
Each language domain has its own scale; one cannot compare scale scores across Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing.
Scale scores for Oral Language, Literacy, Comprehension, and the Overall Score are weighted. Reading and Writing (Literacy) are emphasized over Listening and Speaking (Oral Language) to reflect the stress of these domains stressed in instruction and assessment.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 55

56. Communication of Data (cont’d.)
Comprehension Tasks, Speaking Tasks, and Writing Tasks are based on a small number of tasks and the results should not be generalized.
Model performance indicators associated with the ELP standards of the specific grade level cluster as well as additional student work samples may be helpful in targeting instruction and classroom assessment.
A student’s progress or growth in English language proficiency can only be determined when two consecutive years of data are available. Three years of data can help project a trend.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 56

57. Further considerations on the use of ACCESS for ELLs® Score Reports
Target certain reports to specific stakeholders
Offer Professional Development on how to understand and use the information on the reports
Consider summarizing or consolidating the suggestions for using the information from each score report according to target audience
Look at different configurations of data in the reports for individual and group placement or to develop a plan for organizing services for English Language Learners for the coming school year
Archive copies of the interpretive guide along with copies of the score reports so that new personnel for the academic year can become acclimated with data from ACCESS for ELLs®
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 57

58. Programmatic Implications : High Scores
High scores (Levels 5-6) may indicate a need for Monitoring or Targeted Support. School teams should consider:
If it’s appropriate to exit the student from ELL services? Does this student have the language skills necessary to access the content in the mainstream classroom without additional language support services? What additional evidence is needed to make a determination?
If the student’s English proficiency is weak in a particular language domain (e.g., Writing)?
If the student’s English proficiency is weak in a particular standard area (e.g., the language of Social Studies)?
If so, consider additional content language support.
Even though WIDA would contend that the ACCESS for ELLs® is more valid and reliable than previous generation of ELP assessments, high stakes decisions should never be based solely on the results of a single instrument. Therefore, WIDA recommends that program exit decisions include evidence of ELLs being able to handle difficult academic language within classroom contexts. Certain students may be ready for exit prior to level 6 but may perhaps require only minimal targeted assistance in an academic class or with a domain like writing.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 58

59. Programmatic Implications: Mid-Level Scores
Mid-level scores (Levels 3-4) may indicate a need for 1-3 more years of ELL support services. School teams should consider:
A balanced, long-term approach that focuses on grade-level academic standards and English proficiency standards, and utilizes strategies that increase comprehension and communication in English (e.g., sheltered instruction)
Enhancement of both oral language and literacy development
Providing L1 instruction (bilingual education) and/or support where feasible
Individual students have differing profiles and need support strategies that match those profiles. A student with good reading and writing skills (some times seen in late arrivals who studied English in school settings) need more work with listening and speaking, whereas most ELL students will likely have weaker reading and writing skills. In both cases, it is still helpful to match the support to the language needs of the classroom. Balanced, long term approaches that focus on grade level standards but delivered using strategies that increase student comprehension and involvement work best.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 59

60. Programmatic Implications: Beginner Level Scores
Beginner level scores (Levels 1-2) may need 5 or 6 more years of ELL support services. School teams should consider:
Providing targeted communicative / social & instructional English briefly
Enrolling student in “newcomer” program if available and appropriate
Using content-based strategies (e.g., sheltered instruction) and L1 instruction, if possible
Scaffolding within programs and school
Graphic support
Peer support
Supplemental and modified materials
While development of basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS) should be targeted in instruction, content-area language and learning should not be delayed until BICS are fully developed.
WIDA Consortium / CAL / Metritech 60