1. Framework for High- Quality English Language Proficiency Standards and Assessments P r e pa r e d b y t h e Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive Center January 2009 1

2. ACKNOWLEGMENTS The author also would like to extend appreciation to the following reviewers for their input and guidance: Jamal Abedi, Ph.D. Frances Butler, Ph.D.Gary Cook, Ph.D. Richard Duran, Ph.D. Ellen Forte, Ph.D. Carole Gallagher, Ph.D. Margo Gottlieb, Ph.D. Kevin Huang, Ph.D.Dorry Kenyon, Ph.D. Rachel Lagunoff, Ph.D.Robert LinquantiJack Levy, Ph.D.Pamela McCabe Joseph McCrary D.P.A.Theodor Rebarber Ed Roeber, Ph.D.Charlene Rivera, Ph.D. Marla Perez-Selles Ursula Sexton Ann-Marie Wiese, Ph.D. 2

3. Download entire document from: http://www.wested.org/cs/we/vi ew/rs/938 3

4. 4

5. GETTING STARTED Committee Composition What are the state’s recruitment and membership selection criteria and protocols for the committees convened during development and implementation phases of its ELP standards? 5

6. GETTING STARTED Committee Composition What was the range of expertise and perspectives represented on each of the committees? 6

7. GETTING STARTED Committee Composition What documentation does the state have showing membership and the range of perspective and expertise represented on each committee? 7

8. GETTING STARTED Committee Composition What are related next steps for improving our ELP standards? (e.g., additional criteria/protocol/processes, additional committee members, additional documentation)? 8

9. STEP 1: What is the intended purpose of our ELP standards and assessments, and how do we expect them to be used? 9

10. STEP 1: What information did the state use to define the purpose and use of its ELP standards and assessments? Who was involved in defining the purpose and use? 10

11. STEP 1: To whom has the state communicated the purpose and use? 11

12. STEP 1: How has the state communicated the purpose and use? (Identify relevant documents) 12

13. STEP 1: What are related next steps for improving our ELP standards and assessments (e.g., develop more details regarding purpose and use, additional communication)? 13

14. STEP 2 Who are the English learner (EL) students in our state and what are their relevant characteristics (e.g., languages, experiences, backgrounds)? 14

15. STEP 2 On what information, including statistical data, was this population definition based? Who was involved in defining the population? 15

16. STEP 2 To whom has the state communicated information about its EL student population? 16

17. STEP 2 How has the state communicated information about its EL student population? (Identify relevant documents) 17

18. STEP 2 What are related next steps for improving our ELP standards and assessments (e.g., gather more information about the population, create a refined population definition, generate additional communication)? 18

19. STEP 3 How do we define the domain of English language proficiency (ELP) that we are teaching and testing, and what are the relevant characteristics (e.g., knowledge, skills, functions, modalities, register) of the ELP content? 19

20. STEP 3 Definition of the ELP domain, including information related to the breadth, depth, and range of complexity of language skills and knowledge in the four recognized language modalities of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. 20

21. STEP 3 Information about how the modalities interrelate and contribute both to English language proficiency in general and, more specifically, to meeting the language requirements inherent in challenging state academic content: 21

22. STEP 3 On what (a) theory and (b) research was this domain definition based? Who was involved in defining the domain? 22

23. STEP 3 To whom has the state communicated information about the ELP domain? 23

24. STEP 3 How has the state communicated information about the ELP domain? (Identify relevant documents) 24

25. STEP 3 What are related next steps for improving our ELP standards and assessments (e.g., gather additional information about the domain, develop a refined domain definition, generate additional communication)? 25

26. STEP 4 Standards Development Phase 1.1 Organization or structure of the standards 1. The structure of the state’s ELP standards (e.g., format, organization/hierarchy, levels of detail) is appropriate for the standards’ 1. instruction- and assessment- related (including reporting) purposes and uses. 26

27. STEP 4 1.2 Number of Standards 1. The number of standards is appropriate for the depth and breadth of the ELP domain, as it is defined by the state.1. 27

28. STEP 4 2.The number of standards allows for appropriate coherence and consistency of skills and knowledge across modalities (i.e., 2. listening, speaking, reading, writing), as defined by the state. 28

29. STEP 4 1.3 Level of specificity, or “granularity,” of the standards 1. The state’s ELP standards are described with sufficient clarity and definition to guide curriculum development, instructional 1. planning, and assessment development for the EL population. 29

30. STEP 4 Consideration(s) Do the structure, number, and level of specificity of the a. standards support the purpose(s) and use(s) of the standards in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and reporting? 30

31. STEP 4 Relevance Validity Utility What has the state done to address this consideration? How is it documented (specify document title and document date)? 31

32. STEP 4 Possible sources of evidence Manuals/Guides Technical Reports and Research Studies Meeting Reports/Minutes Training and Professional Development Materials 32

33. STEP 4 1.4 Alignment 1. The state’s ELP standards are articulated horizontally. 2. The state’s ELP standards are articulated vertically. 3. The state’s ELP standards are linked with the state’s academic content standards. 33

34. STEP 5 TRAINING – The state provides guidance and training to local education agencies — for example, to teachers of English as a Second 1. Language, bilingual teachers, content area teachers, special education teachers, school and district administrators — on the ELP standards, their purpose and use, and implementation strategies. 34

35. STEP 6 1.6 MONITORING AND EVALUATING The state has systems and structures for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of its ELP standards in local education agencies, schools, and classrooms. 35

36. QUESTIONS? 36