WV ESEA Committee of
Practitioners
Stonewall Jackson Conference Center
March 12, 2014
Roanoke, WV
Agenda
4:00 p.m.
Call to Order
4:10 p.m.
Title III: Review of RESA Consortia
4:20 p.m.
Title III: AMAO Determination and Reporting
4:40 p.m.
Title III: 2014 -2015 Field Testing and Accountability
5:00 p.m.
Adjourn
Review of RESA Consortia
AMAO Determination &
Reporting
AMAO 1
The number of LEP students making progress in English
(Level 1 to Level 2, etc….)
AMAO I Target
Year
Target
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
21
24.5
28
31.5
35
38.5
AMAO 2
The number of LEP students becoming Proficient (Number
of students reaching Level 4 or 5)
AMAO II Target
Year
Target
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
1
3.5
6
8.5
11
13.5
AMAO 3
LEP subgroup making AYP components
1. AMAOs of at least 75% by the year 2020, which can be met by
a. Confidence Intervals of 99 still exist given the decreased n –size of 20 .
b. Averaging is still applicable to determine adequate yearly progress
c. Safe Harbor is still applicable, but has been revised to reflect a 10%
decrease in non-proficiency
2. Graduation Rates showing sufficient annual improvement
a. 4-year adjusted-cohort rate of 85% by 2020
b. 5-year adjusted-cohort rate of 87.5% by 2020
c. Graduation rates can be met by
i. Absolute rate over the required yearly amount
ii. Increase of 10% of the distance to the target from the prior year
iii.Averaging to determine either absolute rate or required increase
3. Yearly Assessment of Participation Rates
a. 95% for all students enrolled in the school at the time of testing
b. 3-year average of participation rate to account for anomalous data
Determining AMAOs Consortia
Stated: West Virginia holds consortia
accountable for meeting AMAOs by combining
data across LEAs in a consortium for the purpose
of calculating the three AMAOs required under
Title III.
Suggested Amendment: Reflect actual practice
Suggested Process
• Conduct field test in spring 2015.
• Collaborate with ELPA 21 consortium to
analyze performance and determine
appropriate cut-scores.
• Collaborate with WV Committee of
Practitioners to amend Title III AMAOs.
• Make application to the USDOE in
winter/spring 2016
Field Testing
• As part of ELPA21’s Comprehensive Plan
submitted in request of additional funds for an
accelerated development timeline, ELPA21
governance identified a series of policy questions
for USDOE’s considerations. Nuanced questions
have resulted relating to the impact of the
accelerated timeline on federal accountability
requirements and what options would be
available to states in terms of accountability
during the field test year (2014-15).
ELPA 21 Comprehensive Plan
Can ELPA21 states have the option of a waiver to
administer the ELPA21 field test in place of their
current operational ELP assessments in 20142015 without jeopardizing the state's AMAO
accountability reporting requirement?
Considerations
• Double testing students (operational ELP assessment
and ELPA21 field test) presents a burden on LEAs and
students and may impact field test participation
• ELPA21 sees this request as analogous to the Title I
accountability waivers granted to many states
administering the Smarter Balanced or PARCC field
tests in spring 2014. For example, several states
became Early Adopters of Smarter during the SY 20132014 field test.
• USDOE has indicated that it does not endorse the use
of field test results for individual student decisions
(e.g., exiting a student from ELL services).
#1 What is WV’s perspective regarding
double testing?
# 2 What scenarios do ELPA21 states suggest that
US DOE consider for Title III accountability waivers
at the individual state level?
• Two-year freeze of AMAO status (e.g., use 201314 ELP data to meet 2014-Title III AMAO
accountability/reporting requirements)
• SEAs and LEAs base student
proficiency/"exiting" decisions on results of ELA
content-area assessments instead of ELP
assessment results
• SEAs and LEAs base student
proficiency/"exiting" decisions on results of
other, local ELP measures (not necessarily
standardized across the state)
#3 If US DOE grants a waiver that involves a freeze of AMAO status
(AMAO 1 and 2), what approaches would ELPA21 want USDOE to
endorse to track student outcomes and make advancement/exiting
decisions during the field test year (2014-15)?
– SEA/LEA base exiting decisions on results of
other, local ELP measures. Would these need to
be standardized within the state? Across ELPA21
member states? How to ensure reliability of
alternative measures?
– Double-test only students identified as near
exiting based on 2013-14 ELP assessment results,
but otherwise grant waiver/freeze option? How
to avoid excluding / under-identifying members of
this protected class?
#4 What are the implications for
ELPA21 states (and possible solutions)
of a waiver (or a freeze in AMAO
accountability) for funding tied to
Title III?