1. 1 April 11, 2013

2.  Doug Kosty, Assistant Superintendent  Kimberly Harrington, ELD Teacher, Hillsboro School District ELPA Content Panel Member  Michelle McCoy, Assessment Specialist, English Language Proficiency  Mary Seburn, Principal Research Scientist, EPIC  Kathleen Vanderwall, Manager, Test Design and Administration 2

3. Provide background and results of the ELP Standards Verification, including:  Impetus, Timeline and Stakeholder Engagement  Evaluation and Results of the Workshops  Feedback from Stakeholders  Next Steps 3

4. 4

5.  Cohort of Superintendents requested examination of the consistency and coherency of the ELPA Performance Standards (2008)  Periodic review  Expanded range of items assessing the language functions 5

6. 6

7. External Evaluation conducted by The Educational Policy Improvement Center (EPIC) Observed process Conducted formal and informal Interviews with participants Conducted training and workshop evaluations 7 7

8. Documented implementation of best practices and technical adequacy Noted evidence of procedural validity as observed Noted when relevant standards for Educational and Psychological Testing were met Documented technical evidence similar to what is required by ESEA (NCLB) Peer Review Documented adherence to best and emerging practice 8 8

9. Bookmarking Method Held in two workshops November: 76 Oregon stakeholders set bookmarks over 4 days (Phase 1) February: 20 Oregon stakeholders set bookmarks over 2 days (Phase 2) Panelists recommended changes to the performance standards for all grade levels External evaluators monitored process and documented observed evidence of validity 9 9

10.  When are students proficient enough in English to participate meaningfully in the general education program?  When exited, what is the evidence that ELL students are performing as well as their non-ELL peers?  When are ELL students participating in essentially all aspects of the district’s curriculum? 10

11.  Overall, feedback on the training was positive, for example: 92% of participants agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “The training materials were helpful.” 86% of participants agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “I am confident I understand my role in the standards verification process.” 83% of participants agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “Overall, I feel well trained and prepared to complete the standards verification task.” 11

12. 12

13.  In many cases, participants recommended lower cut scores, particularly for the Intermediate Performance Level and for grade 2  Impact of these recommended cut scores is “smoother” across grades and Performance Levels  The new cut scores will provide more meaningful information to students, educators, parents, policymakers and others regarding individual performance on the acquisition of English 13

14. 14

15. Recommended Cut Scores Current Cut Scores Changes to Cut Scores (+/- when compared to current cut scores) Grade Inter- mediate Early Advanced Advanced/ Proficient Early Inter- mediate Inter- mediate Early Advanced Advanced/ Proficient Early Inter- mediate Inter- mediate Early Advanced Advanced/ Proficient Early Inter- mediate K481491497505482492498507 -2 1491503512522492507514523-4-2 2492504514521495508514523-3-40-2 3500511521526501514521529-30 4494504514522497508514521-3-401 54965085155244975085165230 1 6493504516522497506515522-4-210 7495508518524497507517524-2110 8497509520527499508518526-21+21 HS4945005135234945015155280-2-5 15 How do the new cut scores compare with the previous cut scores? The participant-recommended cut scores range from slightly lower, the same, or slightly high than the previous cut scores.

16.  Respondents concerning the proposed ELP Cut Scores ◦ 67% agree or strongly agree with the proposed cut score changes ◦ 82% believe that the proposed cut scores will be a positive change  Respondents concerning the updated Performance Level Descriptors ◦ 82% agree or are neutral/no opinion concerning the updated PLDs 16

17.  Continuing gathering input through the survey through 4/19.  Recommend adoption of the updated cut scores by the Oregon Board of Education, which would go into effect for 2013-14.  Recommend that the State Board of Education adopt the new ELPA Performance Level Descriptors, which would also go into effect in 2013-14.  Place on the Consent Agenda, May 16-17, 2013. 17