Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) June 2009 State of Maine Title III Accountability.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "1 Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) June 2009 State of Maine Title III Accountability."— Presentation transcript:

1 1 Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) June 2009 State of Maine Title III Accountability

2 2 The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was passed in 2001 and requires the following: Establishment of ELP (English Language Proficiency) standards; Annual assessment of English language proficiency; Definition of Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) and measurement reporting; and Accountability standards for meeting AMAOs. No Child Left Behind and Title III Accountability

3 3 Basic Title III Framework Maine Title III Accountability System StateConsortiaDistricts Title III Performance Indicators AMAO I Making Progress AMAO II Attaining Proficiency AMAO III AYP Determination

4 4 State-defined English language proficiency targets Based on state English language proficiency standards and baseline data Evaluates effectiveness of English language instruction AMAO I Making progress in proficiency AMAO II Attaining proficiency AMAO III Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for ELLs Title III Performance Indicators Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs)

5 5 AMAO I – Making Progress Definition, Conditions, Key Variables, Decision Logic and Example

6 6 AMAO that evaluates annual increases in the number or percentage of children making progress in learning English (P.L. 107-110, Title III, Part A, Subpart 2, §3122(a)(3)(A)(i)). Translation: Are ELLs progressing towards proficiency? AMAO I English Language Proficiency Making Progress Definition

7 7 Weighting system adjusts for how long students have participated in an English as a Second Language (ESL) program in Maine. Improvement rate fixed at 9.17 index points per year (equates to an increase of 7.37 scaled score points). Two years of data are required for calculation. Greater points awarded for greater improvement in fewer years. AMAO I English Language Proficiency Making Progress Conditions

8 8 The Duration is the number of years a student receives ESL services in a Maine school district. Code Used for AMAO I Calculation Length in a Maine ESL Program Category 00 – 2 yearsShort-term 13 – 4 yearsTypical 25 or more yearsLong-term 3Data missing or invalidUnknown AMAO I Key Variable - Duration

9 9 The Comp PL is the performance level achieved on the ACCESS for ELLs® (Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State-to-State for English Language Learners). Code Used for AMAO I CalculationProficiency Status 6Reaching 5Bridging 4Expanding 3Developing 2Beginning 1Entering AMAO I Key Variable – Comp PL

10 10 The CompIndex variable is derived from the Duration and Comp PL variables. The Duration and Comp PL variables are concatenated (linked side by side). This creates the CONCAT variable. The CONCAT variable is then matched and assigned the corresponding CompIndex score from the value table. AMAO I Key Variable – CompIndex

11 11 Value Table 0 - 2 Years in Maine ESL Program DurationComp PLCONCATCompIndex 00.0000 01.00125 01.501.550 02.00275 02.502.5100 03.003125 03.503.5150 04.004175 04.504.5200 05.005225 06.006250 AMAO I Key Variable – CompIndex

12 12 Value Table 3 - 4 Years in Maine ESL Program DurationComp PLCONCATCompIndex 10.0100 11.0110 11.511.525 12.01250 12.512.575 13.013100 13.513.5125 14.014*150 14.514.5175 15.015200 16.016225 *Used in CompIndex example. AMAO I Key Variable – CompIndex

13 13 Value Table 5+ Years in Maine ESL Program DurationComp PLCONCATCompIndex 20.0200 21.0210 21.521.50 22.02225 22.522.550 23.02375 23.523.5100 24.024125 24.524.5150 25.025175 26.026200 AMAO I Key Variable – CompIndex

14 14 Value Table Unknown (Invalid or Missing Data) DurationComp PLCONCATCompIndex 30.0300 31.0310 31.531.50 32.03225 32.532.550 33.03375 33.533.5100 34.034125 34.534.5150 35.035175 36.036200 AMAO I Key Variable – CompIndex

15 15 A student who received ESL services in a Maine school district for three years (Duration=1) obtained a proficiency level of 4 (four) on the ACCESS for ELLs® (Comp PL=4) The student has a CONCAT value of 14 (by joining the Duration and the Comp PL) and is assigned the corresponding CompIndex points from the value table. AMAO I Key Variable – CompIndex - Example 15014 Expanding Calculation 4 3 - 4 years Calculation 1 CompIndex (From Value Table) CONCAT Value Proficiency Status Comp PL Code Used for AMAO I Length in ESL Program Duration Code Used for AMAO I

16 16 Step 1 – Minimum n-count – If there are less than 20 students, AMAO I is MET. Step 2 – If Step 1 is NOT MET, do the following: Calculate the prior year average CompIndex for all ELL students. Subtract it from the current year average CompIndex for all ELL students. If the difference is greater than or equal to 9.17 index points, AMAO I is MET. Process continues AMAO I English Language Proficiency Making Progress Decision Logic

17 17 Step 3 – If Steps 1 and 2 are NOT MET, do the following: Calculate the prior two years CompIndex weighted average for each student (add year one and year two CompIndex points, then divide by the prior two years n-count). Subtract this from the current years CompIndex. If the difference is greater than or equal to 9.17 index points, AMAO I is MET. Process continues AMAO I English Language Proficiency Making Progress Decision Logic

18 18 Step 4 – If Steps 1, 2, and 3 are NOT MET, do the following : Subtract the current year average of the CompIndex upper limit (established by the 95% Confidence Interval) from the prior year average. If the difference is greater than or equal to 9.17 index points, AMAO I is MET. Confidence Intervals adjust for sampling error. A 95% Confidence Interval uses a fixed value of 1.96 to make this adjustment. The equation pertaining to AMAO I is shown below: Current Year Average CompIndex + 1.96 (Current Year Standard Deviation CompIndex/Square Root of the Current Year N-Count) Process continues AMAO I English Language Proficiency Making Progress Decision Logic

19 19 Step 5 – If the SAU/consortia did not receive a MET in any of the steps, AMAO I is NOT MET. AMAO I English Language Proficiency Making Progress Decision Logic

20 20 Calculate Composite Index >9.17 Change Threshold Cell Failed Data Validation Procedures Missing Data Point 95% CI 2-year average > 9.17 Change Threshold Yes Processing Path No Yes AMAO I Decision Logic No Yes Processing Path N-count < 20 Cell Passed Yes

21 21 According to ABC districts data, did it meet AMAO I in 2009? 200920082007 # of ELLs / CompIndex142121104 Sum of CompIndex192251627514125 Average CompIndex135.4134.5135.8 Standard Deviation CompIndex57.362.659.2 AMAO I Determination Example

22 22 Step 1 - Minimum n-count – If there are less than 20 students, AMAO I is MET. ABC districts calculation: ABC district has 142 ELLs. This is not less than 20, so AMAO I is NOT MET for Step 1. Proceed to Step 2. AMAO I Determination Example – Step 1

23 23 Step 2 - If Step 1 is NOT MET, do the following: Calculate the prior year average CompIndex. Subtract it from the current year average CompIndex. If the difference is greater than or equal to 9.17 index points, AMAO I is MET. ABC districts calculation: 135.4 - 134.5 = 0.9 0.9 is not greater than or equal to 9.17, so Step 2 is NOT MET. Proceed to Step 3. AMAO I Determination Example – Step 2

24 24 Step 3 - If Steps 1 and 2 are NOT MET, do the following: Calculate the prior two years CompIndex weighted average (add year one and year two CompIndex points, then divide by the sum of the prior two years n-count). Subtract this from the current year average CompIndex. If the difference is greater than or equal to 9.17 index points, AMAO I is MET. ABC districts calculation: (14125+16275)/(104+121)=135.11 135.4 – 135.11 = 0.29 0.29 is not greater than or equal to 9.17, so Step 3 is NOT MET. Proceed to Step 4. AMAO I Determination Example – Step 3

25 25 Step 4 - If Steps 1, 2, and 3 are NOT MET, do the following: Subtract the current year average of the CompIndex upper limit (established by the 95% Confidence Interval) from the prior year average. If the difference is greater than or equal to 9.17 index points, AMAO I is MET. ABC districts calculation: Apply Confidence Interval: 135.4+1.96(57.3/142) = 144.81 144.81-134.5=10.31 10.31 is greater than or equal to 9.17, so Step 4 is MET. AMAO I has been MET in 2009. AMAO I Determination Example – Step 4

26 26 AMAO II Proficiency Status Definition, Conditions, Targets, Key Variables, Decision Logic and Example

27 27 AMAO that evaluates annual increases in the number or percentage of children attaining English proficiency by the end of each school year, as determined by a valid and reliable assessment of English proficiency consistent with Section 1111(b)(7) of NCLB (P.L. 107- 110, Title III, Part A, Subpart 2, §3122(a)(3)(A)(ii)). Translation: Are ELLs attaining proficiency? AMAO II English Language Proficiency Status Definition

28 28 Threshold values established for the baseline year (6.67%) and increased by 2.87% each subsequent year. Starting point was determined by using weighted percent proficient for a three-year period (2005-2007). Districts were rank-ordered by percent proficient, and the district at the 20 th percentile enrollment was used for baseline. Based on projection exceeding 30.0% in 2014. AMAO II English Language Proficiency Status Conditions

29 29 AMAO II English Language Proficiency Status Short-Term Targets

30 30 FEP5_6 is defined as a dichotomously transformed variable reflecting data cells with ACCESS for ELLs® proficiency levels of five or higher. Code Used for AMAO II Calculation (FEP5_6) Code Used for AMAO I Calculation (Comp PL) Proficiency Status 16Reaching 15Bridging 04Expanding 03Developing 02Beginning 01Entering AMAO II Key Variable – FEP5_6

31 31 Step 1 – Minimum n-count – If there are less than 20 students, AMAO II is MET. Step 2 – If Step 1 is NOT MET, do the following: Calculate the sum of FEP5_6 for the current year. Divide by the # of ELLs with FEP5_6 for the current year. If the quotient is greater than or equal to the annual threshold (18.2% in 2009), AMAO II is MET. Process continues AMAO II English Language Proficiency Status Decision Logic

32 32 Step 3 – If Steps 1 and 2 are NOT MET, do the following: Calculate the current and prior year sum of FEP5_6 and divide by the prior two years of the number of FEP5_6s. If the result is greater than or equal to the annual threshold (18.2% in 2009), AMAO II is MET. Process continues AMAO II English Language Proficiency Status Decision Logic

33 33 Step 4 – If Steps 1, 2, and 3 are NOT MET, do the following: Calculate the sum of FEP5_6 for the current year. Divide by the count of all ELLs. If the upper limit (established by the 95% Confidence Interval) is greater than or equal to the threshold (18.2% in 2009), AMAO II is MET. Confidence Intervals adjust for sampling error. A 95% Confidence Interval uses a fixed value of 1.96 to make this adjustment. The equation pertaining to AMAO II is shown below: Current Year FEP5_6% + 1.96(Square Root(Current Year FEP5_6%*(1- Current Year FEP5_6%)/Current Year N-Count)) Process continues AMAO II English Language Proficiency Status Decision Logic

34 34 Step 5 – If the SAU/consortia did not receive a MET in any of the steps, AMAO II is NOT MET. AMAO II English Language Proficiency Status Decision Logic

35 35 Calculate % FEP 5_6 > Annual Threshold Cell Failed Data Validation Procedures Missing Data Point 95% CI 2-year average > Annual Threshold Yes Processing Path No Yes AMAO II Decision Logic No Yes Processing Path N-count < 20 Cell Passed Yes 2005 Annual Target = 6.7% 2006 Annual Target = 9.5% 2007 Annual Target = 12.4% 2008 Annual Target = 15.3% 2009 Annual Target = 18.2%

36 36 According to ABC districts data, did it meet AMAO II in 2009? 20092008 Count of FEP5_69194 Sum of FEP5_6105 AMAO II Determination Example

37 37 Step 1 - Minimum n-count – If there are less than 20 students, AMAO II is MET. ABC districts calculation: ABC district has 91 ELLs. This is not less than 20, so AMAO II is NOT MET for Step 1. Proceed to Step 2. AMAO II Determination Example – Step 1

38 38 Step 2 - If Step 1 is NOT MET, do the following: Divide the sum of FEP5_6 for the current year by the count of all students. If the quotient is greater than or equal to the annual threshold (18.2% in 2009), AMAO II is MET. ABC districts calculation: 10/91= 11% 11% is not greater than or equal to 18.2%, so Step 2 is NOT MET. Proceed to Step 3. AMAO II Determination Example – Step 2

39 39 Step 3 - If Steps 1 and 2 are NOT MET, do the following: Add the current and prior year sum of FEP5_6 and divide by the total of the current and prior year count of FEP5_6s. If the result is greater than or equal to the annual threshold (18.2% in 2009), AMAO II is MET. ABC districts calculation: (10+5)/(91+94)= 8% 8% is not greater than or equal to 18.2%, so Step 3 is NOT MET. Proceed to Step 4. AMAO II Determination Example – Step 3

40 40 Step 4 - If Steps 1, 2, and 3 are NOT MET, do the following: Divide the current year sum of FEP5_6 by the count of all ELLs. If the upper limit (established by the 95% Confidence Interval) is greater than or equal to the threshold (18.2% in 2009), AMAO II is MET. ABC districts calculation: 10/91=11% Apply Confidence Interval: 11%+1.96(Square Root (11%*(1- 11%)/91))= 17.4% 17.4% is not greater than or equal to 18.2%, so Step 4 is NOT MET. AMAO II has NOT been MET in 2009. AMAO II Determination Example – Step 4

41 41 AMAO III - AYP Definitions, Conditions, Targets and Decision Logic FINAL ACCOUNTABILITY DETERMINATIONS Decision Logic

42 42 AMAO that measures adequate yearly progress for limited English proficient children (LEP/ELL) as described in Section 1111(b)(2)(B) of NCLB (P.L. 107-110, Title III, Part A, Subpart 2, §3122(a)(3)(A)(iii)). Translation: Are ELLs making AYP? AMAO III AYP Status for ELLs Definitions

43 43 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) – The accountability status of a school, district/SAU, and the state as a whole based on federally mandated performance measures. AMAO III AYP Definitions

44 44 Participation Rate – Proportion of students who provide at least one valid answer on a test booklet divided by the number of students who were enrolled at the particular grade level, less those receiving special consideration status. Proficiency Rate – The number of students who scored a 3 achievement level or higher on the appropriate state academic assessment divided by those who were eligible to be tested. AMAO III AYP Definitions

45 45 Schools attain AYP if the participation, performance, and OAI targets are met for the given year. They do not attain if any indicator is not met for any subgroup that has satisfied the minimum n- count requirements. Districts/SAUs attain AYP if the participation, performance, and OAI targets are met for at least one of the three grade clusters (elementary, middle, or high school). They do not attain if any one indicator is not met at the elementary, middle, or high school level. AMAO III AYP Attainment Conditions

46 46 AYP data for reading and mathematics used to determine if district made AYP exclusively because of ELL subgroup. Consortia receive the AYP status of member district/SAUs. If any member does not make AYP for given year, consortium deemed as missing AMAO III. AMAO III AYP Status for ELLs Conditions

47 47 YearGrades 3-8 % Proficient High School % Proficient Grades 3-8 % Proficient High School % Proficient ReadingMathematics 2006 50% 40%20% 2007 50% 40%20% 2008 50%57%40%31% 2009 58%64%43% 2010 66%71%55%54% 2011 75%78%66% 2012 83%86%77% 2013 92%93%89% 2014 100% AMAO III AYP Attainment Short-Term Targets

48 48

49 49 Final Title III Accountability Determinations Decision Logic

50 50 Met AMAO I Met Not Met NoYes No Final Title III Determinations No AMAO IIAMAO III Met AMAO II Met AMAO III

51 51 Nancy Mullins Director ESL/Bilingual Program Maine Department of Education 23 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333 Phone: (207) 624-6788 Fax: (207) 624-6789 nancy.mullins@maine.gov


Download ppt "1 Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) June 2009 State of Maine Title III Accountability."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google