ACCESS for ELLs® Interpreting the Results Developed by the WIDA Consortium.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
NCLB Accountability Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) as Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) Presented.
Advertisements

Understanding the ACCESS for ELLs®
Alaskas English Language Proficiency Standards 2005 Alaska Department of Education & Early Development February 8, 2006.
Haw Creek ESOL Program Ms. Kim Bolivar.
Alternate ACCESS for ELLs: An English Proficiency Test for Students with Significant Disabilities Understanding the Parent/Guardian Report.
TELPAS Grades K-1 Holistic Rating Training Spring 2010 Hitchcock ISD.
TELPAS Grades 2-12 Holistic Rating Training Spring 2010 Hitchcock ISD.
ELL Program Radnor Township School District. The Koi Fish Story A favorite fish among many hobbyists is the Japanese carp, commonly known as the koi.
ORGANIZATION OF THE STANDARDS The Standards Matrix.
© 2010 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, on behalf of the WIDA Consortium The WIDA ELP Standards and Formative Assessment.
1 The New York State Education Department New York State’s Student Reporting and Accountability System.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT for teachers of English Language Learners.
Introduction to GREAT for ELs Office of Student Assessment Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (608)
© 2007 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, on behalf of the WIDA Consortium Lynore Carnuccio, WIDA Consultant Mariana Castro,
Common Questions What tests are students asked to take? What are students learning? How’s my school doing? Who makes decisions about Wyoming Education?
Analyzing Access For ELL Scores Tracy M. Klingbiel Nash Rocky Mount School District October 11, 2010.
How to Interpret and Use Standards of Learning (SOL) and ACCESS for ELLs® Data to Make Instructional Decisions for English Learners.
ACCESS for ELLs and Alternate ACCESS for ELLs
Data Interpretation ACCESS for ELLs® The Rhode Island Department of Education Presented by Bob Measel ELL Specialist Office of Instruction, Assessment,
Interpretation of ACCESS for ELLs® Score Reports
N PSRC ® WIDA ® LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR ELLs.
Language Proficiency Assessment Commitee (LPAC)
Texas Observation Protocols (TOP) TOP Rater Holistic Rating Training: TOP Overview Summer-Fall 2006 Texas Education Agency Student Assessment Division.
What ACCESS, the New Virginia Test for LEP Students, Means for School Districts LEP Caucus Presentation July 2008.
WIDA MODEL™ Measure of Developing English Language.
ASSESSING THE ENGLISH PROFICIENCY OF ENGLISH LEARNERS WITH DISABILITIES Presentation by: Audrey Lesondak EL – Education Consultant Office of Educational.
ALTERNATE ACCESS FOR ELLS GRADES 1-12 WEBEX TRAINING FEBRUARY 24, 2012 Chris Williams 1.
ALTERNATE ACCESS for ELLs 1 Alternate ACCESS for ELLs ™ Participation Criteria The Alternate ACCESS for ELLs was initially developed by a team led by Craig.
Virginia Title III Statewide Consortium Conference Blacksburg, Virginia January 21-22, 2015 Virginia Department of Education: ACCESS for ELLs ® Teacher.
ACCESS Accessing Comprehension and Communication in English State to State for English Language Learners.
Linden Public School District ESL/Bilingual K-12 Program April 2012 Alphonsina Paternostro, Supervisor.
WIDA ELP Standards Providing Educational Equity to ELLs through Language Development.
Introduction to GREAT for ELs Office of Student Assessment Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (608)
Smarter Balanced Assessment System March 11, 2013.
© 2007 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, on behalf of the WIDA Consortium WIDA Focus on Growth H Gary Cook, Ph.D. WIDA.
Guide to Test Interpretation Using DC CAS Score Reports to Guide Decisions and Planning District of Columbia Office of the State Superintendent of Education.
Annual Measurable Achievement Objective s (AMAOs): Update Jacqueline A. Iribarren, DPI September 27, 2007.
SHERRI YBARRA, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION SUPPORTING SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS TO ACHIEVE.
1 Using ACCESS for ELLS ® Data to Inform Instruction Presenter: Margot Downs WIDA Certified Consultant ACCESS for ELLs ®, W-APT™, and ELP Standards Trainer.
ELL-MESOL Explaining the difference between BICS and CALP.
© 2007 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, on behalf of the WIDA Consortium Lynore Carnuccio, WIDA Consultant Mariana Castro,
Successfully “Translating” ELPA Results Session #25 Assessment and Accountability Conference 2008.
Title III Updates & AMAOs Jacqueline A. Iribarren, Title III Susan Ketchum, Office of Educational Accountability September 24, 2008.
. Sponge Activity Share what you know about the acronyms below with a partner ACCESS CRCT ITBS EOCT GHSGT GHSWT.
Understanding AMAOs Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives for Title III Districts School Year Results.
ESEA Title III AMAOs Ensuring Academic Success for English Learners Dr. Shereen Tabrizi, Education Consultant Manager and Maria Silva, EL Consultant Special.
Jpschools.org ADMINISTRATION OF ELDA K-2 SPRING 2016 jpschools.org.
1 Hall County School System 2011 ACCESS Tier Placement Guidance October 2010.
ACCESS for ELLs Score Report Interpretation Developed by the Center for Applied Linguistics ESL Program Asheboro City Schools.
© 2011 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, on behalf of the WIDA Consortium Introducing the Protocol for Review of Instructional.
Setting Your Goals For TTESS Memorial HS Training September 11, 2015.
 WIDA MODEL: Grades 1-12 Measure of Developing English Language.
Virginia Department of Education May 12, 2016 Robert Fugate LEP Assessment Specialist Christopher Kelly Education Coordinator and.
Colorado Academic Standards Colorado English Language Proficiency (CELP) Standards There are now five English language development standards: Standard.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING ESOL ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. ESOL Teacher: Anastasiya Ard.
WIDA ACCESS Testing Information Session & Community Literacy Resources Parents as Educational Partners Tuesday, January 13, 2015 Jonathan Hudgens- WIDA.
The Arizona English Language Learner Assessment (AZELLA)
ACCESS for ELLs Score Changes
Summative Assessment – ACCESS for ELLs 2.0 Scores and Reports
Understanding the Alternate ACCESS for ELLs Individual Student Report
Interpreting ACCESS Scores
WIDA Standards for ELLs
EL (English Language) Students and WIDA Standards
Analyzing Access For ELL Scores
Understanding ESOL-English to Speakers of Other Languages
The Arizona English Language Learner Assessment (AZELLA)
Introduction to the WIDA Consortium
ACCESS for ELLs Score Reports
Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores
The WIDA ELP Standards and Formative Assessment
Presentation transcript:

ACCESS for ELLs® Interpreting the Results Developed by the WIDA Consortium

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 2 Overview Description of ACCESS for ELL® Scores-2007 Changes to Reporting for the 2007 Administration Use of Grade Level Cut Scores Score Reports: Description and Uses Q&A

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 3 ACCESS for ELLs® Overview Secure, large-scale test Anchored in WIDA’s ELP Standards Assesses academic language Three overlapping tiers for each grade level cluster  Tier A: Proficiency levels 1-3  Tier B: Proficiency levels 2-4  Tier C: Proficiency levels 3-5 One third of test items replaced annually Administered once per year as required by No Child Left Behind Indicator of student’s ability to perform on state content test

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 4 Tier Structure of ACCESS for ELLs® ENTERINGBEGINNINGDEVELOPINGEXPANDINGBRIDGING Tier A Tier B Tier C

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 5 Structure of ACCESS for ELLs® Grade Levels and Tiers K Adaptive (no tiers) A B C 101 (roll-out Winter 2006) 102 (roll-out Winter 2007) 103 (roll-out Winter 2008) Listening —group administered, machine scored Reading —group administered, machine scored Speaking —individual administered, TA scored Writing —group administered, rater scored Domains Series

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 6 ACCESS for ELLs®: Types of Scores ACCESS for ELLs® Scores RawScale ELP Levels

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 7 ACCESS for ELLs® Scores Listening Speaking Reading Writing Composite Scores Oral Literacy Comprehension Overall

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 8 Composite Scores Oral Score Literacy Score Comprehension Score Overall Composite Score Listening (50%) Reading (50%) Listening (30%) Listening (15%) Speaking (50%) Writing (50%) Reading (70%) Reading (35%) Speaking (15%) Writing (35%) = = = =

Important Changes to Reporting for 2007 Administration

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 10 Scoring Caps Kindergarten form of ACCESS for ELLs® maximum overall English language proficiency level that a student taking the can receive is 3.7 Tier A or Tier B scores for the language domains of Listening and Reading (and the Comprehension composite) are capped. Students cannot receive an ELP level above 4.0 for Tier A and above 5.0 for Tier B.

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 11 Teacher Report Format Writing raw scores are presented by standard next to the maximum number of points for the given standard(s) and scoring category reported

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 12 Proficiency Grade Level Cut Scores Scale scores have not changed Cut scores have been adjusted to show progress by grade level rather than by cluster level for each language domain Changes in proficiency level cut scores from year to year now account for both maturational and language proficiency growth of English language learners

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 13 Composite Scores interpreted using Grade Vs Cluster Cut Scores

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 14 Use of Grade Level Cut Scores Provides a more precise measurement of ELLs’ annual progress in English language proficiency Eases the creation of a trajectory of estimated student growth, in any one or combination of language domains, from year to year Facilitates articulation from grade to grade, and teacher to teacher, of the status of ELLs Helps in the calculation of Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs). States with at least three consecutive years of data have trend data.

ACCESS for ELLs® Reports- 2007

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 16 Considerations on the use of ACCESS for ELLs ® Reports 1. Target certain reports to specific stakeholders 2. Offer Professional Development on how to understand and use the information on the reports 3. Consider summarizing or consolidating the suggestions for using the information from each score report according to target audience 4. Look at different configurations of data in the reports for individual and group placement or to develop a plan for organizing services for English Language Learners for the coming school year 5. Archive copies of the interpretive guide along with copies of the score reports so that new personnel for the academic year can become acclimated with data from ACCESS for ELLs®

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 17 Score Reports Available Score ReportAudience or StakeholderTypes of Information 1. Parent/ Guardian  Students  Parents/ Guardians  Teachers  School Teams Proficiency levels for each language domain Overall Score Comprehension Available in multiple languages on the WIDA website 2. Teacher  Teachers  Administrators  School Teams Individual student’s scale scores and language proficiency levels for each language domain, and four composites Raw scores for Comprehension Tasks, Speaking, and Writing Tasks by English language proficiency standard 3. Student Roster  Teachers  Program Coordinators/ Directors  Administrators Scale scores and language proficiency levels for each language domain and four composites by school, grade, student, Tier, and grade level cluster 4. School Frequency  Program Coordinators/ Directors  Administrators Number of students and percent of total tested at each proficiency level for each language domain and four composites within a school 5. District Frequency  Program Coordinators/ Directors  Administrators  Boards of Education Number of students and percent of total tested at each proficiency level for each language domain and four composites by proficiency levels for grades within a district

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 18 Parent Report Student’s parent or guardian gets the report Provided in English and 18 additional languages (visit A letter to accompany the report in parents’ primary language is suggested Other stakeholders – student, teachers, school teams

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 19 Demographic Information About the Student Description of the ELP Levels Student’s ELP Level by Domain Comprehension Score Overall Score

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 20 Teacher Report Teachers and other stakeholders, such as administrators, have access to this report The Overall Score summarizes student’s global language proficiency and allows examination of strengths and weakness by domain Individual report components offer a starting point for informing the areas of curriculum, instruction and assessment of ELL’s. Suggestions for the differentiation across levels of language proficiency can be found in the strands of the model performance indicators Rubrics in Interpretative Guide –Writing and Speaking –scaffold across levels of language proficiency and may be used in classroom instruction and assessment throughout the year

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 21 Demographic Information About the Student Description of the ELP Levels Student’s ELP Level by Domain Student’s Composite Scores Student’s Scale Score by Domain Student’s Scale Composite Scores Student’s Comprehension by Standard Student’s Speaking Performance by Standard Student’s Writing Performance by Standard

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 22 Communication of Data from the Report No single score or language proficiency level should be used as the sole criteria for making decisions regarding a student’s English language proficiency. Sharing student information from score reports is encouraged for all educators who work with English language learners. Data in the reports need to be contextualized to be meaningful; include both historical and demographic information on the students when presenting the results. When disseminating information on the students’ productive language, refer to criteria in the speaking and writing rubrics. CAN DO Descriptors may help further explain student expectations at each level of English language proficiency.

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 23 Each language domain has its own scale; one cannot compare scale scores across Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing. Proficiency Levels (as scale score interpretations) may be used to make comparisons between independent or combinations of language domains. Scale scores for Oral Language, Literacy, Comprehension, and the Overall Score are weighted. Reading and Writing (Literacy) are emphasized over Listening and Speaking (Oral Language) to reflect the stress of these domains stressed in instruction and assessment. Comprehension Tasks, Speaking Tasks, and Writing Tasks is based on a small number of tasks and the results should not be generalized. Model performance indicators associated with the ELP standards of the specific grade level cluster as well as additional student work samples may be helpful in targeting instruction and classroom assessment. A student’s progress or growth in English language proficiency can only be determined when two consecutive years of data are available. Three years of data can help project a trend.

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 24 Student Roster Report Audience includes Teachers, Program Coordinators, and Administrators District administrators may examine scores from each language domain within a Tier and grade level cluster to detect any patterns. To what extent are there differences in student performance between the language domains and are these differences attributed to second language development or delivery of instructional services? Development of school and district improvement plans for ELL’s A starting point for grouping students for support services according to their Overall Score or by their profiles according to language domains (ex: homogeneous groupings for reading in elementary schools).

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 25 Student Roster Report Scale Score and ELP Level by Domain Scale Score and ELP Level by Composite: Oral Language, Literacy, Comprehension and Overall Cluster Tier

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 26 School Frequency Report Indicates number of students and percent of total tested for language domains (including range of scaled scores). Comprehension, Oral Language, and Literacy by proficiency levels for grade levels within a school Results should not be generalized and needs to be contextualized in order to provide meaningful information on curricular, instructional or assessment decisions School Frequency Reports for two consecutive years provide cross-sectional data In communicating results of this report, use both the numbers and their corresponding percents. If numbers are low, the percent may appear distorted if shown in isolation Use the information contained in the report to gain a sense of the school-wide effort in educating English language learners

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 27 Highest & Lowest Scores Total Tested Number of Students Tested who scored at each ELP level by Domain and Composite % of Total Students Tested who scored at each ELP level by Domain and Composite

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 28 District Frequency Report Audience includes Program Coordinators, Boards of Education, and Administrators Indicates number of students and percent of total tested for language domains (including the range of scale scores), Comprehension, Oral Language, and Literacy by proficiency levels for grade levels within a district. Data can be graphically displayed in various forms Information will be useful in planning, designing, or restructuring program services. Based on an individual state’s criteria for “attainment” of English language proficiency and its definition of cohort groups this report may serve as a district’s estimate of the number and/or percent of students who have met that criterion for Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAO’s).

Interpreting ACCESS for ELLs® Scores 29 Highest & Lowest Scores Total Tested Number of Students Tested who scored at each ELP level by Domain and Composite % of Total Students Tested who scored at each ELP level by Domain and Composite

For more information, please contact the WIDA Hotline: or World Class Instructional Design and Assessment, Center for Applied Linguistics, Metritech, Inc., Questions or Comments?