Title III Notice of Proposed Interpretations & Implications forCalifornia’s Accountability System

Robert Linquanti Cathy GeorgeProject Director & Sr. Research Associate Consultant

(rlinqua@wested.org) (cgeorge@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

• Four Interpretations, if they become final, would have major impact on California’s 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

10 Interpretations, cont’d.

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 student’s 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 student’s 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 system’s validity, credibility and fairness.