1 / 32

Review and Discussion of AMAO 2 Criteria & Targets

Review and Discussion of AMAO 2 Criteria & Targets. NC Department of Public Instruction With WestEd & Wisconsin Center for Education Research Statewide Web Conference August 30, 2010. Purpose.

henrik
Télécharger la présentation

Review and Discussion of AMAO 2 Criteria & Targets

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Review and Discussionof AMAO 2 Criteria & Targets NC Department of Public Instruction With WestEd & Wisconsin Center for Education Research Statewide Web Conference August 30, 2010

  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 NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

  3. 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 NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting 3

  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 NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

  5. Historical Perspective 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. NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

  6. Historical Perspective: AMAO 2 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 NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

  7. Last Year Recap: AMAO 2 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 NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

  8. Last Year Recap: AMAO 2 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 NCDPI AMAO 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 NCDPI AMAO 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 NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

  11. Decision Matrix NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

  12. Decision Matrix Correct = 68% NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

  13. Decision Matrix Correct = 85% NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

  14. Reading to ACCESS: 2009 NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

  15. Mathematics to ACCESS: 2009 NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

  16. Comparing DC Analysis, 2009 to 2010: Reading to ACCESS, Grades 3-5 NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

  17. Comparing DC Analysis, 2009 to 2010: Reading to ACCESS, Grades 6-8 NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

  18. Comparing DC Analysis, 2009 to 2010: Reading to ACCESS, Grades 9-12 NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

  19. Comparing DC Analysis, 2009 to 2010: Math to ACCESS, Grades 3-5 NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

  20. Comparing DC Analysis, 2009 to 2010: Math to ACCESS, Grades 6-8 NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

  21. Comparing DC Analysis, 2009 to 2010: Math to ACCESS, Grades 9-12 NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

  22. AMAO 2 Criterion Confirmed Comprehensive 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. NCDPI AMAO 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 NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

  24. Historical AMAO 2 Target Data *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 NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

  26. 2010-2019 Annual Targets for LEAs & State using 2010 as Base Year AMAO 2 Recommended Targets for Consideration • 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. 75 %ile 25 %ile NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

  27. 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) NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

  28. 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%

  29. 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

  30. GCS-A-012 Revisions • Show Draft Policy • Policy to SBE in September as Action on First Read

  31. 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 NCDPI AMAO 2 Meeting

  32. 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

More Related