Review and Discussionof AMAO 2 Criteria & Targets

NC Department of Public InstructionWith

WestEd & Wisconsin Center for Education Research

Statewide Web ConferenceAugust 30, 2010

NCDPIAMAO 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: 2009-10 and Beyond

Next Steps & Meeting Wrap Up

NCDPIAMAO 2 Meeting

3

NCDPIAMAO 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

NCDPIAMAO 2 Meeting

5

Historical Perspective In 2007-2008:In 2007-2008: 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.

NCDPIAMAO 2 Meeting

6

Historical Perspective: AMAO 2

In 2007-2008, cont’d.:In 2007-2008, cont’d.: Decided to keep the criterion for

proficiency the same for 2007-08

2007-08 target was set at 17% to account for differences in using Form A and Form B of the IPT

Targets for 2008-09 and beyond removed as they needed to be based on empirical results from new ELP assessment

NCDPIAMAO 2 Meeting

7

Last Year Recap: AMAO 2

In 2008-09:In 2008-09: 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

2008-09 ACCESS results used to define COC and new, one-year target for 2008-09 (14.7%)

Decision made to set future targets after examining another year of ACCESS results

8

Last Year Recap: AMAO 2

In 2008-09, cont’d.:In 2008-09, cont’d.: Stakeholders endorsed state-recommended

COC derived from analyses of student performance on 2008-09 ACCESS and state’s reading and math assessments Overall 4.8, R & W each 4.0 minimum

NCDPIAMAO 2 Meeting

NCDPIAMAO 2 Meeting

9

AMAO 2 Proficiency Criteria (COC) Review & Comparison (2009 & 2010)

Purpose: Replicate analysis performed in 2008-09 to validate COC criteria chosen Apply same decision consistency method

to 2009-10 ACCESS and EOG/EOC reading and math assessments

NCDPIAMAO 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 MatrixCriterion B

Below Above

BelowTrue

NegativeFalse

Positive

AboveFalse

NegativeTrue

Positive

Criterion A

samplein number Total

Negatives True Positives TrueCorrect

NCDPIAMAO 2 Meeting

12

Decision Matrix

ELP AssessmentBelow Above

Below 43 14

Above 18 25

Content Assessment

Correct = 68%

NCDPIAMAO 2 Meeting

13

Decision Matrix

ELP AssessmentBelow Above

Below 51 5

Above 10 34

Content Assessment

Correct = 85%

NCDPIAMAO 2 Meeting

14

Reading to ACCESS: 2009

NC EOG Reading to ACCESS Decision Consistency across Clusters

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

<2.0 2.0-2.4 2.5-2.9 3.0-3.4 3.5-3.9 4.0-4.4 4.5-4.9 5.0-5.4 5.5-6.0

WIDA Composite Proficiency Band

Per

cen

t C

lass

ifie

d C

orr

ectl

y

Cluster 3-5 Cluster 6-8 Cluster 9-12

NCDPIAMAO 2 Meeting

15

Mathematics to ACCESS: 2009

NC EOG Mathematics to ACCESS Decision Consistency across Clusters

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

<2.0 2.0-2.4 2.5-2.9 3.0-3.4 3.5-3.9 4.0-4.4 4.5-4.9 5.0-5.4 5.5-6.0

WIDA Composite Proficiency Band

Pe

rce

nt

Cla

ss

ifie

d C

orr

ec

tly

Cluster 3-5 Cluster 6-8 Cluster 9-12

NCDPIAMAO 2 Meeting

Comparing DC Analysis, 2009 to 2010: Reading to ACCESS, Grades 3-5

16NCDPIAMAO 2 Meeting

17

Comparing DC Analysis, 2009 to 2010: Reading to ACCESS, Grades 6-8

NCDPIAMAO 2 Meeting

18

Comparing DC Analysis, 2009 to 2010: Reading to ACCESS, Grades 9-12

NCDPIAMAO 2 Meeting

19

Comparing DC Analysis, 2009 to 2010: Math to ACCESS, Grades 3-5

NCDPIAMAO 2 Meeting

20

Comparing DC Analysis, 2009 to 2010: Math to ACCESS, Grades 6-8

NCDPIAMAO 2 Meeting

21

Comparing DC Analysis, 2009 to 2010: Math to ACCESS, Grades 9-12

NCDPIAMAO 2 Meeting

NCDPIAMAO 2 Meeting

22

AMAO 2 Criterion ConfirmedComprehensive 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.

NCDPIAMAO 2 Meeting

23

REMINDER:2009-10 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

Year Target Met Not Met Missing data Total

2003-04 20.0% 86 6 0 922004-05 25.0% 81 1 1 832005-06 30.0% 4 76 3 832006-07 35.0%2007-08 17.0% 38 47 0 852008-09 14.7% 25 63 0 882009-10* 11.8% 68 20 0 88

*All 2009-10 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

  P10 P15 P20 P25 P50 P75 P80 P90 % LEP

2010 Analysis 9.5%  10.7% 11.5% 11.8% 13.8% 16.8% 17.4% 19.7% 14.5%

NCDPIAMAO 2 Meeting

26

2010-2019 Annual Targets for LEAs & State using 2010 as Base Year • Proposed

target for 2009-10 is 11.8% of LEP students in an LEA attaining English language proficiency.

• Proposed end point in 2018-19 is 16.8% of LEP students in an LEA attaining English language proficiency.

Recommended Targets for Consideration

AMAO 2AMAO 2

25 %ile

75 %ile

NCDPIAMAO 2 Meeting

Target Recommendation: 2010-2019

Set the 2009-10 target at 11.8% (25th %ile)

Set the 2018-19 target at 16.8% (75th %ile)

Structure targets to increase by equal increments each year (0.55 percentage points)

NCDPIAMAO 2 Meeting

2009-10 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%

2009-10 Analysis (continued)

Sanctions for AMAOs Not Met In 2008-09, Title III status based on

whether or not the LEA failed to make progress toward meeting the same AMAO

Starting in 2009-10, 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 2009-10 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

31NCDPIAMAO 2 Meeting

Next Steps (2010 -11 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 2010-11 school year

AMAO 1 policy approval in 2010-11 Updated policy sent to USED for

submission with Title III Workbook and Title III Plan

Federal Title III Audit in Spring 2011