Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives AMAO for NCLB Title III

1
Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAO)
for NCLB Title III

• Division of Assessment Implementation
• Office of Assessment and Accountability
• Kentucky Department of Education

2
 
Framework for Setting Kentuckys English Language
Proficiency AMAO for

• The annual percentage of LEP students making
  progress as demonstrated by movement from one
  proficiency level to the next .
• The annual percentage of LEP students attaining
  English language proficiency as demonstrated by
  Attained level .
• The state asked Kentucky districts to submit
  2002-2003 baseline data in May-June of 2003 on
  English language proficiency of identified LEP
  students for this school year. Data was reported
  on each students proficiency level in three
  assessment domains, Oral, Reading and Writing, on
  either one of two tests approved by the state,
  the Language Assessment Scales (LAS) or the IDEA
  Proficiency Test (IPT).

 
3
Language Assessment Scales (LAS)
 
 
4
IDEA Proficiency Test (IPT)
 
 
5
Baseline Data
 

• The combined or composite English Language
  Proficiency score on the three domains (Oral,
  Reading and Writing) for each student is the sum
  of the ratings for each of the proficiency levels
  as shown in the tables above.
• Composite English Language Proficiency Score
  Oral Reading Writing
• LAS Oral is a 5-point rating scale, the highest
  possible total score is 11 (533). On the IPT,
  the highest possible total score is 9 (333).
• After soliciting input from the field, reviewing
  normative data on the LAS and IPT, standards
  setting studies done by other states, and the
  distribution of scores of Kentucky students who
  took the LAS versus the IPT, a framework was
  developed for mapping the LAS and IPT Composite
  English Language Proficiency Scores to our
  states English Language Proficiency Performance
  Levels.

 
6
Kentucky Baseline Data on English Language
Proficiency
Language Assessment Scales (LAS)
IDEA Proficiency Test (IPT)
Kentucky English Language Proficiency Level
Beginning Lower Intermediate Upper Intermediate
Advanced Attained TOTAL
 
7
Baseline Data
 

• For example, a student who took the LAS and
  scored a 3 in Oral, a 2 in Reading and a 1 in
  Writing would have a Composite ELP Score of 6 and
  would be considered Lower Intermediate
  according to the table above.
• These composite scores are to be used for
  purposes of aggregating and reporting state
  baseline data and setting targets in a manageable
  and coherent manner.
• Teachers should still consider the actual
  proficiency levels in each domain in designing
  instruction for students.

 
8
Rationale for Developing Annual Measurable
Achievement Objectives (AMAO) for Progress

• Baseline or entry proficiency level, or the
  English language proficiency level of students in
  2002-2003, based on their composite score from
  the LAS or IPT. Generally, the lower the
  students entry level, the more proficiency
  levels he/she has to progress through, and the
  longer (more years of instruction) it takes to
  attain English language proficiency (Attained).
• Formal Schooling versus Limited or No Formal
  Schooling. LEP students who have had limited or
  no formal schooling require more time to
  demonstrate progress and attainment of English
  language proficiency than LEP students who have
  had prior formal schooling experiences.

 
9
Rationale for Developing Annual Measurable
Achievement Objectives (AMAO) for Progress

• Number of years of instruction. This 2002-2003
  year is considered baseline data, and 2003-2004
  data will represent the results of one year of
  instruction, 2004-2005 represents two years of
  instruction, and so on. Kentuckys proposed
  framework sets 100 of this years students with
  prior formal schooling experiences to Attained
  after five years of instruction for students
  with limited or no formal schooling, 100
  Attained is projected after seven years of
  instruction.

10
 
Framework for Setting Kentuckys English Language
Proficiency AMAO for

• The annual percentage of LEP students in the
  cohort groups making progress as demonstrated by
  movement from one proficiency level to the next .
  
• The annual percentage of LEP students in the
  cohort groups attaining English language
  proficiency as demonstrated by Attained level .
• Cohorts are defined by formal schooling (Yes or
  No/limited) and number of years in an English
  Language Program .

 
11
K12 Formal Past Goals

• Years in LEP Program
• Start 1 2 3 4 5
• 10 A A A/E E
• 24 UI UI/A A A/E E
• 26 LI LI/UI UI A A/E E
• 40 B B/LI LI UI A E
• Increase 45 50 83 65 53
• Proficient 0 5 17 25 53

Actual
12
Change in 2005-2006 Progress Goal

• The previous Progress goals were arrived by
  movement of one proficiency level to the next,
  one increment at a time. (See previous slide)
• Students dont always make progress in the same
  one proficiency level at a time arrangement, and
  were not getting credit when they improved more
  than one proficiency level. New Goals were
  established to count for all gains.

13
K-12 Formal Goals for 2005-2006

• The new Progress Goal for every Cohort is 59.
  This was computed by taking all of the past goals
  (4550836553) added together and divided by
  the 5 Cohorts. Thus accounting for all of the
  gains the students can make as they progress.
• Attainment Goals were not changed.
• (Limited or No Formal Schooling goals were not
  changed.)

14
New Progress Calculation

• The Progress achieved by the students will be
  credited for all proficiency levels gained from
  the past years level to this years level. This
  can cause a percentage of progress more than
  100, so the limit has been set to 100. For a
  value of 100, the confidence interval will be
  shown as .

15
Confidence Intervals
 

• Because NCLB requires a states evaluation of AYP
  to be statistically sound, the United States
  Department of Education (USDOE) allows
  construction of a confidence interval (CI) or
  error band around percentages of students.
• Confidence intervals for student cohorts of
  sufficient size (10 or more students in the
  cohort) will be constructed using a single sample
  t-test. The confidence interval or CI provides a
  test for whether or not the observed percent
  increase or percent proficient is statistically,
  significantly different from the AMAO at the 99
  confidence level.
• Note that the t-test is a two-tailed t-test
  alpha (error) level set at .01 which creates a
  statistical test at the 99 confidence interval.
  Only the positive (upper) range of the confidence
  interval is used for AYP determination.

 
16
(No Transcript)
17
Parental Notification

• Title III Sec. 3302 (b) requires all LEAs to
  inform parents if the district/ consortium failed
  to meet ANY one or more of the objectives in
  Title III Sec. 3122 (a) (3)
• Progress in English language development
• Attainment of English language proficiency
• Academic achievement of English language learners

18
Parental Notification

• Notification must be provided to parents not
  later than 30 days after the LEA receives
  information from the state about the failure to
  meet the AMAO
• States must provide that information to LEAs
  starting the fall of 2005

19
Title III Sanctions

• Plan for Fall 2006
• For districts/consortiums that failed to meet
  AMAO for two consecutive years 2004-2005 and
  2005-2006
• Comprehensive District/Consortium Improvement
  Plan(CDIP) must clearly address the factors that
  prevented the district/consortium from meeting
  the AMAO
• State provides technical assistance in the
  development or revision of the CDIP goals,
  strategies and activities

20
Title III Sanctions for funded districts/consortiu
ms

• Accountability effective Fall 2007
• For districts/consortiums that fail to meet AMAO
  for 4 consecutive years 2003-2004, 2004-2005,
  2005-2006, 2006-2007
• District/Consortium must modify curriculum,
  program and method of instruction for English
  language learners, or
• Other sanctions as provided in Sec. 3122 (b) (4)

21
Questions?

• Contact
• Office of Assessment and Accountability
• (502) 564 - 9853