Review and Discussion of AMAO 2 Criteria & Targets NC Department of Public Instruction With WestEd & Wisconsin Center for Education Research Statewide Web Conference August 30, 2010

NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting 2 Purpose Review and comment on recommendations for changes to NC State Board of Education policy GCS-A-012, Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives for NCLB Title III NCDPI Recommendations in August Policy Revisions to SBE in September

Session Agenda Introduction and Purpose (Ground Rules) Historical Perspective and 1-year Recap AMAO 2 Proficiency Criteria (Comprehensive Objective Composite,COC) Review and Comparison (2009 & 2010) AMAO 2 Targets for Consideration: and Beyond Next Steps & Meeting Wrap Up NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting 3

NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting 4 Introductions New NCDPI Staff Scott Beaudry, Testing Policy & Operations Special Guests Robert Linquanti, WestEd Gary Cook, Wisconsin Center for Education Research Shirley Carraway, Appalachia Regional Comprehensive Center

NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting 5 Historical Perspective In : 1. Determined revisions to AMAOs 1 & 2 needed Criteria were too loose or too stringent Targets set without federal guidance Targets not based on empirical data 2. Determined new standards and assessments needed ACCESS for ELLs would replace IPT 3. Determined that AMAO 1 criteria and targets would be revised after two years of ACCESS for ELLs data was gathered.

NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting 6 Historical Perspective: AMAO 2 In , contd.: Decided to keep the criterion for proficiency the same for target was set at 17% to account for differences in using Form A and Form B of the IPT Targets for and beyond removed as they needed to be based on empirical results from new ELP assessment

NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting 7 Last Year Recap: AMAO 2 In : Per USED Notice of Final Interpretations (2008): Only one data point needed to calculate AMAO 2 for each ELL All ELLs (K-12) must be included in calculation ACCESS results used to define COC and new, one-year target for (14.7%) Decision made to set future targets after examining another year of ACCESS results

8 Last Year Recap: AMAO 2 In , contd.: Stakeholders endorsed state-recommended COC derived from analyses of student performance on ACCESS and states reading and math assessments Overall 4.8, R & W each 4.0 minimum NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting 9 AMAO 2 Proficiency Criteria (COC) Review & Comparison (2009 & 2010) Purpose: Replicate analysis performed in to validate COC criteria chosen Apply same decision consistency method to ACCESS and EOG/EOC reading and math assessments

NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting 10 Decision Consistency Method These analyses identify language proficiency level that optimally classifies students as true-positives or true-negatives on both NC EOG/EOC Reading & Math Assessments and ACCESS

11 Decision Matrix NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

12 Decision Matrix Correct = 68% NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

13 Decision Matrix Correct = 85% NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

14 Reading to ACCESS: 2009 NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

15 Mathematics to ACCESS: 2009 NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

Comparing DC Analysis, 2009 to 2010: Reading to ACCESS, Grades NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

17 Comparing DC Analysis, 2009 to 2010: Reading to ACCESS, Grades 6-8 NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

18 Comparing DC Analysis, 2009 to 2010: Reading to ACCESS, Grades 9-12 NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

19 Comparing DC Analysis, 2009 to 2010: Math to ACCESS, Grades 3-5 NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

20 Comparing DC Analysis, 2009 to 2010: Math to ACCESS, Grades 6-8 NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

21 Comparing DC Analysis, 2009 to 2010: Math to ACCESS, Grades 9-12 NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting 22 AMAO 2 Criterion Confirmed Comprehensive Objective Composite (COC) Current English language proficiency definition on the ACCESS test holds: Composite score of at least 4.8 and at least 4.0 on Reading subtest and 4.0 on Writing subtest. Note: Students who attain the COC as defined above exit LEP identification. Those who do not remain identified LEP.

NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting 23 REMINDER: AMAO 2 Cohort Definition Cohort definition required by federal law: ALL LEP students (K-12) must be included in AMAO 2 calculation Numerator = # of LEP students attaining COC Denominator = #of LEP students required to test

Historical AMAO 2 Target Data YearTargetMetNot MetMissing dataTotal % % % % % % *11.8% *All results are unofficial

25 NC LEA and State AMAO 2 Performance Using Current AMAO 2 Criterion: Shows percentage of LEPs meeting COC performance level for LEAs at that ranking and Statewide AMAO 2 Criterion Overall 4.8 (R&W GE 4.0) % LEP meeting AMAO 2 Criterion by LEA Percentile Rank STATE P10P15P20P25P50P75P80P90% LEP 2010 Analysis9.5% 10.7%11.5%11.8%13.8%16.8%17.4%19.7%14.5% NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

Annual Targets for LEAs & State using 2010 as Base Year Proposed target for is 11.8% of LEP students in an LEA attaining English language proficiency. Proposed end point in is 16.8% of LEP students in an LEA attaining English language proficiency. Recommended Targets for Consideration AMAO 2 25 %ile 75 %ile NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

Target Recommendation: Set the target at 11.8% (25th %ile) Set the target at 16.8% (75th %ile) Structure targets to increase by equal increments each year (0.55 percentage points) NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

AMAO Analysis AMAO 1 Criteria and targets are the same improve at least one proficiency level in at least one of the subtests of reading, writing, speaking, or listening Target = 70%

Analysis (continued) Sanctions for AMAOs Not Met In , Title III status based on whether or not the LEA failed to make progress toward meeting the same AMAO Starting in , Title III status based on failure to meet the AMAOs

GCS-A-012 Revisions Show Draft Policy Policy to SBE in September as Action on First Read

Next Steps (for data) Updated GCS-A-012 sent to USED for Title III Workbook and Title III Plan submission Preliminary AMAO report sent to districts for review in September AMAO report presented to SBE in November 31NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

Next Steps ( and beyond) Analysis of potential changes to AMAO 1 progress definitions and targets to occur during Fall 2010 AMAO 1 analyses and draft recommendations vetted with stakeholders during school year AMAO 1 policy approval in Updated policy sent to USED for submission with Title III Workbook and Title III Plan Federal Title III Audit in Spring 2011