Susan Inman, Educational Improvement and Innovation Kathleen Vanderwall, Assessment and Information Services 1

Context for Oregon’s ELL Program  Profile of Oregon English Learners  Programs Providing ELL Services  Funding Sources  School ELP Accountability  System Building Blocks: Standards  English Language Proficiency Assessment  Collaboration with Other States 2

Of the approximately 62,000 identified ELLs in Oregon (2010/11):  44,750 (72%) have been identified for four or fewer years  17,677 (28%) have been identified for five or more years 3

Oregon ELLs are very diverse:  Native language  Age at which they enter Oregon schools  Parents’ literacy in the native language  Other factors impacting all Oregon students (e.g. poverty, mobility) 4

 Miguel enters large elementary school as a first grader. His parents are highly literate in the native language of Spanish and are semi- fluent in English.  Natalia enters a small middle school as a 7 th grader. Her parents are illiterate in the native language of Ukrainian and have no English.  Mohamed enters high school as a 9 th grader. His parents are university professors fluent in their native language of Arabic and fluent in English. Mohamed is college bound. 5

 Reading Assessment Performance Summary: School Year  All Districts, All Grades 6 % of All Students % of Limited English Proficient Students % of Students Meeting Achievement Standard

 Reading Assessment Performance Trend: , ,  All Districts, All Grades 7 % of Students Meeting Achievement Standard % of All Students % of Limited English Proficient Students

Currently in Oregon there are 152 districts and consortia providing ELL services to approximately 60,000 identified Limited English Proficient students. 8

 ODE receives a formula allocation that is determined by the US DOE on an annual basis (2011/12- $7.4 million)  This annual amount requires a percentage (up to 15%) be set aside for distribution as the Recent Arriver’s (Immigrant) subgrant  ODE is allowed up to 5% of the total funds to be used for state administration of the program. The remainder is distributed to each ELL program based on a per-pupil basis (2011/12 allocation = $ per student). 9

 Pursuant to ORS (7)(a)(B), the resident school districts shall receive an additional.5 times the ADM of all eligible students enrolled in an English as a Second Language program  To be eligible, a student must be in the ADM of the school district in grades K through 12 and be a language minority student attending English as a Second Language (ESL) classes in a program which meets basic US DOE and Office of Civil Rights guidelines 10

 State-defined targets for achievement in English language proficiency as demonstrated on the State English Language Proficiency Assessment (ELPA)  Based on state English Language Proficiency Standards and baseline data derived from ELPA  Used to evaluate the effectiveness of English Language Development (ELD) programs 11

Four key elements comprise the AMAOs. These elements highlight different aspects of attainment of English language proficiency.  AMAO 1: Describes the annual increase in progress in learning English.  AMAO 2: Describes the annual increase in attainment of English language proficiency using two separate calculations ◦ AMAO 2A measures the total number of ELL students in a district obtaining proficiency ◦ AMAO 2B measure applies only to students who have been in the program for five or more years. 12

Four key elements comprise the AMAOs. These elements highlight different aspects of attainment of English language proficiency.  AMAO 3: Is the federal requirement that school districts make Adequate Yearly Progress for their ELL students in reading/language on the Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS) 13

14 System Building BlocksCurrentlyLooking Forward Academic Content Standards ELA 2003CCSS (2010) and Next Gen Science ELP Standards2005Est ELP Performance Standards (Cut Scores) 2008 (Ver. 2012) Est State Assessment (ELPA)Current ( ) Est

15 ELP Standards: Language demand needed by students to acquire and perform the knowledge and skills in the ELA and Math Content Standards ELP Performance Standards: Cut Scores

Measures the proficiency of English Language Learners in listening, speaking, reading, writing based on Oregon’s current English Language Proficiency Standards  Each student responds to 40 to 50 test items  Using head phones for listening items  Using microphones for speaking items  Using keyboard and mouse for reading and writing items. 16

There are five distinct grade-band ELPA assessments that generally become more difficult. Within each grade-band, items range from beginning to advanced language proficiency.  K-1  2-3  4-5  6-8  HS 17

Using a complete sentence, tell what’s happening in this picture.

Science class can be exciting because students can do experiments. If you could choose, what experiment would you try? Describe the experiment. Why would you choose that experiment? Remember to use complete sentences in your response. Response is typed here.

 Required for all students eligible to receive English Language Development (ELD) services  Valid score and a valid submission in the LEP data collection are needed for a student to count for participation on LEP accountability reports  In , 55,126 ELPA assessments were completed and scored  Students who score “proficient” on the ELPA and exit from ELL services are counted as ELLs for two years for “monitoring” purposes 20

 Oregon has joined twenty other states under facilitation of Dr. Kenji Hakuta of Stanford Univ.  Examined current ELP Standards correspondence with CCSS  Drafted Framework for the Creation and Evaluation of ELP Standards Corresponding to the CCSS and Next Generation Science Standards  Technical Working Groups for the ELL-SCASS include: Early Childhood, Formative Assessment, and the ELP Standards groups 21

 Proposal to US DOE: Enhanced Assessment Grant  Diagnostic Screener and Summative Assessment corresponding to Common Core State Standards  CCSSO, Stanford Univ., and 13 states with Oregon as Lead  $6.9 million over four years for an item bank and other resources for operational testing in

 Verify the Coherence and Appropriateness of the ELP Cut Scores established in 2008 ◦ Contrasting Groups Study of 3950 ELL students in 14 school districts 24

 Contrasting Groups Study of 3950 ELL students (Continued)  The judged performance is a little lower than that determined by the ELPA  English language development teachers independently judged their students’ proficiency  Mean Judged Performance Level = 3.2 (SD=1.2)  Mean ELPA Performance Level = 2.9 (SD = 1.2)  Correlation is

 Next Steps: ◦ Disaggregate data from Contrasting Groups Study of 3950 ELL students ◦ Convene stakeholders to engage in verification of the current ELP Performance Standards [English language development teachers, administrators (including ESEA Title III), parents of ELLs, business and community partners]  October 6 – 9, 2012 or  June , 2013 ◦ Implement any updates to the ELP Performance Standards in the school year 26