Allocating Federal Funds for State Programs for English Language Learners (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 State Procedures for Identifying and Classifying English Language Learners
4 State Procedures for Identifying and Classifying English Language Learners
Pages 77-102
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 77... ...
using either a brief ELP assessment (usually called a "screener" or a "placement test") or a full-scale proficiency assessment, and determines which linguistic minority students are English language learners and therefore in need of Title III services.
|
From page 78... ...
instruction. Administer Administer Does HLS Does student Home English indicate Yes meet English Language language student is a proficient Survey proficiency linguistic Assess English criterion?
|
From page 79... ...
We then discuss states' procedures for reclassifying students as "formerly English language learners" and exiting them from the ELL category and its attendant specialized services. In the final section of the chapter we discuss the reporting mechanisms under which the data on ELL students are gath ered, assembled, forwarded, and maintained and the effects of those mechanisms.
|
From page 80... ...
Nichols discrimination case.2 Although school systems are not required to use an HLS under federal law, Title III does require states to identify students in need of language support services, defining such individuals in terms of coming from "an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on the individual's level of English language proficiency" (Bailey and Kelly, 2010, p.
|
From page 81... ...
In some states, the questions are standardized through a stateside mandated form. In states with local control, each school district determines the questions, often through use of sample question forms provided by the state that local school districts are encouraged to adopt.
|
From page 82... ...
Of these 27, 18 use one of the screener tests developed by the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WID Consortium (the W-APT or the MODEL) , 3 use the LAS Links Placement test, 4 use their own screener, 1 uses the LAB-R, and 1 uses the Woodcock Munoz Language Survey.3 Four states use their ELP test for the initial proficiency assessment (Alaska, Arizona, California, and Florida)
|
From page 83... ...
Combination California CELDT ELP test Colorado CELA Placement test Screener/placement test Connecticut LAS Links Placement Test, LAS, or any Screener/placement test or ELP test ELP test Delaware W-APT or MODEL WIDA Screener/placement test DC W-APT WIDA Screener/placement test Florida CELLA screener, LAS, or other test Combination chosen by the district Georgia W-APT WIDA Screener/placement test Hawaii LAS Links Placement Test Screener/placement test Idaho Idaho English Language Assessment Screener/placement test (IELA) Illinois W-APT, MODEL WIDA Screener/placement test Indiana LAS Links Placement Test Screener/placement test Iowa LAS, IPT (district chosen)
|
From page 84... ...
In addition, 17 states allow districts to select the language proficiency assessment used for initial classifica tion, though they generally provide a list of tests from which the district can select. Examples of Initial Classification Procedures Our discussions with Title III officials of the seven states we studied helped to clarify the steps and decisions involved in the initial classification process.
|
From page 85... ...
The local district is allowed to determine the assess ment used for initial identification, provided it is one of the tests approved by the state education agency.4 For pre-K through 1st grade, districts are to use a test of oral language proficiency. For grades 2 and higher, students are given a norm-referenced achievement test in reading and language arts (such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills)
|
From page 86... ...
ELL stu dents are generally identified through the HLS, but teachers can also make referrals on the basis of their classroom observations. In summary, states use either the ELP test or a screener or placement test as the second step in the ELL classification process to determine which linguistic minority students are English language learners.
|
From page 87... ...
. Figure from Issues in Assessing English Language Learners: English Language Proficiency Measures and Accommodation Uses -- Practice Review.
|
From page 88... ...
To be eligible for reclassification, a student must attain scores of 4.5 or higher on the subtests of the CELA and should score at the partially proficient level on the state's English language arts assessment (the Colorado Student Assess ment Program, CSAP)
|
From page 89... ...
North Carolina Students are judged to have attained English language proficiency and so exit from LEP status if they have an overall composite score of 4.8, with at least a 4.0 on the reading subtest and at least a 4.0 on the writing subtest, on the state's proficiency test, ACCESS. South Carolina To be reclassified, students must score at Level 5 on the English Language Development Assessment (ELDA)
|
From page 90... ...
CONCLUSION 4-2 Because of the wide variety of state policies, practices, and criteria for reclassifying students as former English language learners, and thereby exiting them from Title III services, a given English language learner student may remain in the classification longer in one state than in another state. In local control states, similar variation may exist among districts within the same state.
|
From page 91... ...
And in states that permit local control in making these decisions, they may also vary from district to district. Consequently, counts of ELL students that qualify for Title III funding are based on criteria that can vary across the states, and among districts in some local control states.
|
From page 92... ...
. We refer to this count as "tested, not proficient." As explained in Chapter 3, all states are required to determine a level of per formance on the ELP test that defines when a student is "English proficient." All districts within a state use the same test for this purpose, and the "English proficient" level is consistent throughout that state.
|
From page 93... ...
93 STATE PROCEDURES FOR IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING LEARNERS TABLE 4-2 Numbers and Shares of All ELL Students by State: School Years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 3-Year State Number Share* Number Share*
|
From page 94... ...
SOURCE: Data from the U.S. Department of Education, Education Data Exchange Network, except counts noted with an asterisk, which were obtained from the Consolidated State Performance Reports.
|
From page 95... ...
Department of Education, Education Data Exchange Network except counts noted with an asterisk, which were obtained from the Consolidated State Performance Reports.
|
From page 96... ...
The fluctuation in the absolute numbers of ELL students in Nevada also showed up in the data for the state rate, which was 16.6 percent in 2006-2007, 11.0 percent in 2007-2008, and 17.7 percent in 2008-2009. Counts of Tested, Not Proficient Students As noted above, states annually report the number of students who take their ELP test and the number of students who scored at the "English proficient" level.10 Because these counts were not available through the EDEN system, staff at the DoEd provided us with the counts for two school years, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009: 11 see Table 4-4.
|
From page 97... ...
97 STATE PROCEDURES FOR IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING LEARNERS TABLE 4-4 Numbers and Shares of ELL Students Reported Tested, Not Proficient for 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 School Years 2007-2008 2008-2009 2-Year Sharea Sharea State Number Number Average 896,521b California 896,521 29.37% 28.63% 896,521.0 Texas 460,680 15.09% 477,611 15.25% 469,145.5 New York 170,710 5.59% 166,212 5.31% 168,461.0 Florida 165,325 5.42% 161,734 5.16% 163,529.5 Arizona 126,675 4.15% 89,555 2.86% 108,115.0 Illinois 108,836 3.56% 101,507 3.24% 105,171.5 North Carolina 101,645 3.33% 93,150 2.97% 97,397.5 Colorado 53,340 1.75% 84,660 2.70% 69,000.0 Washington 67,425 2.21% 69,631 2.22% 68,528.0 Virginia 52,910 1.73% 83,538 2.67% 68,224.0 Nevada 63,642 2.08% 66,330 2.12% 64,986.0 Georgia 62,576 2.05% 62,999 2.01% 62,787.5 Oregon 55,390 1.81% 55,301 1.77% 55,345.5 Michigan 56,919 1.86% 38,389 1.23% 47,654.0 New Mexico 44,874 1.47% 43,824 1.40% 44,349.0 Minnesota 35,871 1.17% 52,452 1.67% 44,161.5 Indiana 38,334 1.26% 41,569 1.33% 39,951.5 New Jersey 38,953 1.28% 40,571 1.30% 39,762.0 Pennsylvania 36,007 1.18% 31,886 1.02% 33,946.5 Massachusetts 26,212 0.86% 36,354 1.16% 31,283.0 Ohio 29,584 0.97% 31,267 1.00% 30,425.5 Oklahoma 29,484 0.97% 28,477 0.91% 28,980.5 Wisconsin 12,865 0.42% 44,729 1.43% 28,797.0 Kansas 28,455 0.93% 27,003 0.86% 27,729.0 Utah 27,733 0.91% 27,666 0.88% 27,699.5 South Carolina 26,147 0.86% 27,937 0.89% 27,042.0 Maryland 19,718 0.65% 33,518 1.07% 26,618.0 Arkansas 23,612 0.77% 25,104 0.80% 24,358.0 Tennessee 19,376 0.63% 18,588 0.59% 18,982.0 Connecticut 18,535 0.61% 16,881 0.54% 17,708.0 Hawaii 15,085 0.49% 15,649 0.50% 15,367.0 Alabama 16,099 0.53% 12,490 0.40% 14,294.5 Missouri 12,185 0.40% 16,313 0.52% 14,249.0 Iowa 14,203 0.47% 14,197 0.45% 14,200.0 Alaska 14,183 0.46% 13,861 0.44% 14,022.0 Idaho 14,157 0.46% 10,530 0.34% 12,343.5 Nebraska 12,244 0.40% 12,044 0.38% 12,144.0 Kentucky 11,493 0.38% 12,771 0.41% 12,132.0 Louisiana 11,456 0.38% 10,206 0.33% 10,831.0 Rhode Island 5,741 0.19% 6,505 0.21% 6,123.0 District of Columbia 4,656 0.15% 4,664 0.15% 4,660.0 Delaware 3,089 0.10% 4,999 0.16% 4,044.0 continued
|
From page 98... ...
students tested on the state annual ELP assessment. States are listed in order by the 2-year average of their numbers of ELL students determined to be tested, not proficient.
|
From page 99... ...
99 STATE PROCEDURES FOR IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING LEARNERS TABLE 4-5 Rates of Tested, Not Proficient Students by State, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 School Years (in percentage*
|
From page 100... ...
Department of Education. The numbers of tested, not proficient students were computed for each state by subtracting the number of all LEP students proficient or above on the state annual ELP assessment from the number of all LEP students tested on the state annual ELP assessment.
|
From page 101... ...
101 STATE PROCEDURES FOR IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING LEARNERS throughout the system, and are encouraged by new initiatives that continue to focus attention on further improvements. CONCLUSION 4-4 There are concerns about the accuracy of the compila tion and reporting of state data to the Department of Education.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.