Title III Notice of Proposed Interpretations

1
Title III Notice of Proposed Interpretations
Implications forCalifornias Accountability
System

• Robert Linquanti Cathy George
• Project Director Sr. Research Associate
  Consultant
• (rlinqua_at_wested.org)
  (cgeorge_at_cde.ca.gov)
• WestEd CDE
• California Comprehensive
  Language Policy
• Assistance Center
  Leadership Office
• CDE Bilingual Coordinators Network Meeting
• Long Beach, California June 5, 2008

2
Title III Notice of Interpretations

• Deals with Title III ELP assessments, AMAOs,
  implementing accountability
• Released in Federal Register on May 2 comments
  were due to ED June 2
• ED to release final interpretations by late
  August may provide additional clarification,
  detail or guidance
• Final Interpretations regulatory guidance

3
According to ED, Interpretations address

• Important issues that reflect bright line
  principles of NCLB
• Provisions of Title III that States have been
  implementing inconsistently
• Implementation questions and issues for which
  States have repeatedly asked ED for guidance

4
10 Interpretations

• Six Interpretations appear to be consistent with
  current practice in California
• 1. Annual assessment banking domain scores
• 3. EL students included in AMAOs
• 6. Minimum subgroup size in AMAOs
• 7. AMAO 3 Title I AYP for EL subgroup
• 9. Determining AMAOs for consortia
• 10. Implementing Title III corrective actions

5
10 Interpretations, contd.

• Four Interpretations, if they become final, would
  have major impact on Californias Title III
  accountability system
• 2. Use of annual ELP scores for AMAOs 1 2
• 4. Excluding ELs without 2 data points from AMAO
  1
• 5. Attaining English language proficiency and
  exiting LEP subgroup
• 8. AMAOs the use of cohorts

6
2. Use of Annual ELP Assessment Scores for AMAOs
1 and 2

• A LEP student must score proficient or above in
  each and every language domain in order to be
  considered to have attained English proficiency
  for AMAO 2
• CDE comments that states should be able to
  operationally define English proficient level if
  they can present evidence to justify their
  decision

7
4. Exclusion of LEP Students Without Two Data
Points from AMAO 1

• All LEP students be included in AMAO 1 regardless
  of whether they have participated in two
  administrations of the annual ELP assessment
• Suggests CA would have to include all initial
  CELDT testers in AMAO 1 cohort though they have
  only one CELDT score

8
4. Exclusion of LEP Students Without Two Data
Points from AMAO 1 (cont.)

• Interpretation allows states to propose
  alternative method of calculating AMAO 1
  suggests local assessments may be used.
• CDE comments It is not possible to utilize
  diverse local assessments as a measure that is
  sufficiently valid and reliable for
  accountability decisions.

9
5. Attainment of English Language Proficiency and
Exiting the LEP Subgroup

• Students would not be considered proficient for
  the purposes of AMAO 2 until they are also
  considered proficient for the purposes of exiting
  the LEP subgroup
• Secretary would continue to permit States and
  subgrantees to use criteria in addition to ELP
  assessment results to determine students LEP
  status as long as those criteria are applied
  consistently across all subgrantees in a State

10
5. Attainment of English Language Proficiency and
Exiting the LEP Subgroup (cont.)

• CDE comments
• California law allows districts local flexibility
  in making reclassification decisions and requires
  teacher evaluation and parent input
• Interpretation implies ED wants states to either
  standardize multiple criteria or eliminate them
• Given difficulty of standardizing teacher
  evaluation and parent input, Interpretation
  effectively eliminates parent and teacher input
  from reclassification decisions

11
8. AMAOs and the Use of Cohorts

• States may only set separate AMAO targets for
  separate groups or cohorts of LEP students
  served by Title III based on the amount of time
  (for example, number of years) such students have
  had access to language instruction educational
  programs
• States may not set separate AMAO targets for
  cohorts of LEP students based on a students
  current language proficiency, time in the United
  States, or any criteria other than time in
  language instruction educational program

12
8. AMAOs and the Use of Cohorts (cont.)

• CDE comments
• Interpretation will likely bias AMAO 2 against
  districts with higher proportion of beginners and
  more recently arrived ELs with lower levels of
  English proficiency
• By not allowing characteristics other than time
  in language instruction program, Interpretation
  un-levels playing field among districts, masks
  performance, and undermines accountability
  systems validity, credibility and fairness.