Annual Measurable Achievement Outcomes. District ELL Demographics January 9, 2015 (2 nd Friday count) Total Enrollment (EP 1-5): 1081 = 13% Total Enrollment.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
REGULATIONS AND EXPECTATIONS DR. KATIE NOVAK ELL DIRECTOR Chelmsford ELL Department.
Advertisements

1 The Ewing Public Schools Overview of NCLB Results presented by Dr. Danita Ishibashi Assistant Superintendent.
A LABAMA AMAO S : AMAO C RITERIA AND T ARGETS. Alabama English Learners.
California English Language Development Test (CELDT) and Reclassification Palm Middle School
English Language Learners Washoe County School District Janeen A. Kelly Washoe County Schools Director English Language Learners.
Surveys of Enacted Curriculum – English Language Learner Project Jacqueline Iribarren Abby Potter John Smithson Shelley Lee.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) & CAHSEE Results Update Prepared for the September 21, 2010 Board of Education.
CELDT and Language Census Overview District English Learner Advisory Committee (DELAC) Serna Center, Community Rooms Wednesday, March 20, :00-6:30.
Who are the ELLs in Malden?. YearN=ELLs% of Students % % % % % % %
September, 2010 Accomack County Public Schools. DEFINITION OF AN LEP STUDENT  An LEP student is one: Who was not born in the U.S. or whose native language.
ESL Results and Targets Montgomery County Schools.
ELL Data Slides Note for PD Network Members: This set of slides includes up to date data regarding English language learners in Massachusetts. This set.
Delaware’s Accountability Plan for Schools, Districts and the State Delaware Department of Education 6/23/04.
English Mastery: Nevada English Language Learner (ELL) Program September 6, 2013 For NNELI Program Overview – Background and Demographics – WIDA – World.
Common Questions What tests are students asked to take? What are students learning? How’s my school doing? Who makes decisions about Wyoming Education?
How to Interpret and Use Standards of Learning (SOL) and ACCESS for ELLs® Data to Make Instructional Decisions for English Learners.
Data Interpretation ACCESS for ELLs® The Rhode Island Department of Education Presented by Bob Measel ELL Specialist Office of Instruction, Assessment,
Title III Accountability. Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives How well are English Learners achieving academically? How well are English Learners.
Montana’s statewide longitudinal data system Project Montana’s Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS)
ELL/Title III Network Meeting Developing a Service and Support Plan for English Language Learners CESA 10 Title III Consortium February 23, 2010.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress Fresno Unified School District 2005 Data Review.
Arizona’s Federal Accountability System 2011 David McNeil Director of Assessment, Accountability and Research.
San Leandro Unified School Board Looking Closely About Our Data September 6, 2006 Presented by Department of Curriculum and Instruction Prepared by Daniel.
District Assessment & Accountability Data Board of Education Report September 6, 2011 Marsha A. Brown, Director III – Student Services State Testing and.
SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY DEPARTMENT.
Timmerman Public Hearing September 16, :00-7:00.
Collaborative Equity & Diversity Planning Equity  Commitment  Leadership  Collaboration  Integrity Presented by Lane ESD Equity Advisory Committee.
Maryland School Assessment (MSA) 2010 Results Leslie Wilson, Assistant State Superintendent Division of Accountability and Assessment July 20, 2010 State.
Academic Achievement Highlights San Francisco Unified School District August 2010.
ESL Education Program Report Hudson ISD ESL/Content-Based An English program that serves students identified as students of limited English proficiency.
State and Federal Testing Accountability: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Academic Performance Index (API) SAIT Training September 27, 2007.
1 English language proficiency standards (ELPS) Georgina K. Gonzalez Bilingual/ESL Director Susie Coultress Assistant Director Curriculum Division Texas.
Virginia Department of Education May 8, English Language Proficiency Targets: Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) 2.
Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives. Thompson School District Core Values Integrity –We will consistently demonstrate respect, honesty, transparency,
Title III, Part A: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient (LEP) and Immigrant Students  The purpose of Title III, Part A is to help ensure.
Annual Measurable Achievement Objective s (AMAOs): Update Jacqueline A. Iribarren, DPI September 27, 2007.
School Accountability in Delaware for the School Year August 3, 2005.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) Results Update Prepared by the LUSD Assessment, Research & Evaluation Department.
January Students Evergreen Elementary School 4 Students Hatley Elementary School 59 Students Mountain Bay Elementary School 22 Students Riverside.
Adequate Yearly Progress The federal law requires all states to establish standards for accountability for all schools and districts in their states. The.
ELL AMAO and Grad Rate Data ELL Outcome Improvement Group Oregon Department of Education July 21, 2015.
Title III Updates & AMAOs Jacqueline A. Iribarren, Title III Susan Ketchum, Office of Educational Accountability September 24, 2008.
NCLB / Education YES! What’s New for Students With Disabilities? Michigan Department of Education.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol
Shelton School District Bilingual Instruction Program Presentation to Board of Directors Shelton School District September 8, 2009 Gail Straus, Assistant.
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) /22/2010.
1 Accountability Systems.  Do RFEPs count in the EL subgroup for API?  How many “points” is a proficient score worth?  Does a passing score on the.
Maxson Bilingual/ESL Program Type of Bilingual Program Developmental (Content area taught in Spanish) -Language Arts -Math -Science -Social Studies Type.
Title III Accountability Report & English Language Development Update January 19, :00 P.M. JUHSD Board Room.
Updates on Oklahoma’s Accountability System Jennifer Stegman, Assistant Superintendent Karen Robertson, API Director Office of Accountability and Assessments.
Discussion of W-APT, ACCESS Testing, Adequate Yearly Progress and Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives.
English Language Learners In Our Classrooms. The New Face of ESL ESL TEACHERS: Rebekkah Kemp Joyce Metallo Michelle Wesbrook.
Adequate Yearly Progress [Our School District]
English Learners Multilingual and Multicultural Education Department LCAP- Program & Goal Update DELAC March 9, 2017.
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
Academic Performance Index (API) and AYP
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
Demographics and Achievement of Tennessee’s English Learners
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools
Green Elementary School
Shelton School District Bilingual Instruction Program
WIDA Standards for ELLs
Shelton School District Bilingual Instruction Program
English as a Second Language
Radford City Schools School Board Presentation
History of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
OVERVIEW OF THE 2019 STATE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
Shelton School District Bilingual Instruction Program
Presentation transcript:

Annual Measurable Achievement Outcomes

District ELL Demographics January 9, 2015 (2 nd Friday count) Total Enrollment (EP 1-5): 1081 = 13% Total Enrollment (EP 1-6):1,764 = 21% - Total Special Education: 171 = 16% - Economically Disadvantaged: 882 = 82% - Number of Languages: 37

Languages (EP 1-6) All other languages (2% or less each) Afrikaans Albanian Amharic Arabic American Sign Language Azerbaijani, South Cantonese Chinese (other) Dutch German Filipino French Gujarati Haitian Hindu Ibibio Italian Iu Mien Khmer Konkani Korean Laotian Mandarin Panjabi Persian Polish Portuguese Russian Telugu Thai Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese Winnebago Yoruba Hmong 1,401 = 80% Spanish 155 = 9%

English Proficiency Levels EP Level 1: Beginning/Preproduction WIDA Level = Entering: The pupil understands/speaks only a few isolated words or expressions. (Newcomer) EP Level 2: Beginning/Production: (a) The pupil understands and speaks conversational and academic English with hesitancy and difficulty. (b) The pupil understands parts of lessons and simple directions. (c) The pupil is at a pre-emergent/emergent level of reading and writing in English, significantly below grade level. EP Level 3—Intermediate [WIDA level = Developing]: : (a) The pupil understands and speaks conversational and academic English with decreasing hesitancy and difficulty. (b) The pupil is post- emergent, developing reading comprehension and writing skills in English. (c) The pupil’s English literacy skills allow the student to demonstrate academic knowledge in content areas with assistance. EP Level 4—Advanced Intermediate [WIDA level = Expanding]: (a) The pupil understands and speaks conversational English without apparent difficulty, but understands and speaks academic English with some hesitancy. (b) The pupil continues to acquire reading and writing skills in content areas needed to achieve grade level expectations with assistance. EP Level 5—Advanced [WIDA level = Bridging]: (a) The pupil understands and speaks conversational and academic English well. (b) The pupil is near proficient in reading, writing, and content area skills needed to meet grade level expectations. Depending on literacy score and academic performance, a student at this level may be exited from ELL programming, EP Level 6—Formerly Limited-English Proficient/Now Fully-English Proficient: (WIDA level = Reaching): The pupil reads, writes, speaks and comprehends English within academic classroom settings. At this point the student is exited for ELL programming.

Annual Measurable Achievement Outcomes– AMAOs The state and federal education laws hold districts accountable for the outcomes of the Limited English Proficient students. Districts’ achievement outcomes for ELLs are measured in three categories: AMAO 1: Progressing in English Language Acquisition AMAO 2: Reaching English Language Proficiency AMAO 3: ELL-Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO)

AMAO 1: Progressing in English Language Acquisition AMAO 1 focuses on student progress in learning English based on ACCESS for ELLs Target: 41% of ELLs gaining 0.4 or more in composite English language proficiency score (ELP) Current or Two Year Calculation Number of ELLs making Progress Number of ELLs with Two Composite Scores Percent Gaining 0.4 Percent Gaining 0.4 in Upper Confidence Interval TargetMet Target AMAO 1 Determination Current Year %62.4%41.0%YES Two Year %65.2%41.0%YES

AMAO 2: Reaching English Language Proficiency AMAO 2 focuses on the number of students that reach English language proficiency. Students who achieve an ELP composite score of 5 or above are considered proficient Target: 11.0% of ELLs reaching English Language Proficiency Current or Two Year Calculation Number Reaching Proficiency Number Enrolled Percent Reaching Proficiency Percent Reaching – Upper Confidence Interval TargetMet Target AMAO 2 Determination Current Year %39.3%11.0%Yes Two Year %41.6%11.0%Yes

AMAO 3: Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) for ELLs AMAO 3 is made of of three components: 1. ELL proficiency in reading and mathematics as measured by the WKCE and the WAA-SwD 2. ELL test participation on the WKCE and the WAA-SwD 3. ELL high school graduation The WSD made the targets for components 2 and 3, but MISSED the target in component 1. Note: 67 out of 89 districts with qualifying numbers of ELLs missed this target for the first time.

ELL Proficiency in Reading and Mathematics as measured by the WKCE AMAO 3 is calculated at each grade range (elementary, middle and high). If the targets are met in each grade ranges for proficiency and test participation, then the target is met. Targets Subject Reading 9.6%16.3%23.0%29.7%36.4%43.1%49.8% Math 24.0%30.9%37.8%44.7%51.6%58.5%65.4%

WSD Results SubjectGrade Range Current year ELLs profi- cient Current year ELLs tested Current year profi- cient % 2-Yr ELLs profi- cient 2-Yr ELLs tested 2-Yr profi- cient % TargetMet Target ReadingElem % %29.7%No ReadingMS % %29.7%No ReadingHS % %29.7%No MathElem % %44.7%No MathMS % %44.7%No MathHS % %44.7%No

Annual Measurable Achievement Outcomes