1
Assessment, Research, & Accountability Update
David AbramsAssistant Commissioner for Standards, Assessment,
and Reporting
2008 Teachers’ Institute
2
Performance of ELL Students on 2008 Grade 3-8 ELA Tests
This analysis summarizes the performance of NYS public and charter school ELLs on the Grades 3-8 English Language Arts tests in 2008. The ELA performance of former ELLs who exited in 2006 and 2007 is also presented.
The analyses are based on 72,698 ELLs who took the State Grades 3-8 ELA tests in January 2008 and the NYSESLAT in May 2008. The analyses of the former ELLs are based on the 30,564 ELLs who exited in 2006 and 2007 and whose 2008 Grades 3-8 ELA scores are available.
The ELL population has significantly improved their performance on the Grades 3-8 ELA tests between 2007 and 2008. The percentage of ELLs scoring at Level 3 and above has increased and the percentage of ELLs showing serious academic deficiencies has decreased.
Former ELLs had comparable chance to score proficient (Level 3 or above) on the Grades 3-8 ELA tests as the English proficient students.
3
Number of ELLs Tested On Grades 3-8 ELA Tests
2007 Total = 72,082 2008 Total = 72,698
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
ELL 2007 Total 17093 14200 11480 9934 9299 10076
ELL 2008 Total 17302 14614 11852 10258 9675 8997
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
4
Performance of ELLs On 2008 Grades 3-8 ELA Tests
18 24
10 11 12
34
18
4944
56
74 71
60
57
33 32 34
15 186
25
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 3-8
ELA Level 1 ELA Level 2 ELA Level 3 & 4
5
The Mean Scale Score increased for ELLs in every grade, though the smallest increase is
seen in Grade 8
638
631636
627 627
609
630
620
605600
621622624
633
580
590
600
610
620
630
640
650
Grade 3ELA
Grade 4ELA
Grade 5ELA
Grade 6ELA
Grade 7ELA
Grade 8ELA
Total
2007 2008
6
There was an Increase in the Percentage of ELLs Scoring At Levels 3 and 4 except for Grade 8
33% 32%34%
15%18%
25%
6%
31%
23%
19%
10%
7%
18%
6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 3-8
2007 2008
7
There was an Increase in Percentage of ELLs Scoring At Level 2 and Above
82%76%
90% 89% 88%
74% 69% 73%
84%
61% 61%
71%66%
82%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 3-8
2007 2008
8
There was a Noticeable Decrease in Percentage of ELLs Scoring at Level 1
26%
31%
16%
39% 39%
29%28%
18%
24%
10% 11% 12%
34%
18%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 3-8
2007 2008
9
There was an Increase in Percentage of Proficient ELLs Scoring at Levels 3 and 4, but no gain in
Grade 8
65%69%
44%
62% 59%
55%
69%
53%
38%36%
24%
52%
69%
24%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 3-8
2007 2008
10
Performance of ELLs on Grades 3-8 ELA Tests by NYSESLAT Proficiency Level: As Student Performance on NYSESLAT increases, there is a
greater chance that students will score at Levels 2 and/or Levels 3 & 4
72
33
5
28
63
67
40
27
59
1
41
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Beginning(n=6639)
Intermediate(n=17451)
Advanced(n=31837)
Proficient(n=13102)
NYSESLAT Proficiency Level
ELA Level 1 ELA Level 2 ELA Level 3 & 4
11
Grade 3 ELL Performance By NYSESLAT Proficiency Level
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
ELA Level 1 88% 42% 5% 1% 18%
ELA Level 2 11% 53% 61% 30% 49%
ELA Level 3+4 1% 6% 35% 69% 33%
Beginning Intermediate Advanced Proficient Total
12
Grade 4 ELL Performance By NYSESLAT Proficiency Level
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
ELA Level 1 92% 58% 12% 2% 24%
ELA Level 2 7% 38% 57% 33% 45%
ELA Level 3+4 1% 4% 31% 65% 31%
Beginning Intermediate Advanced Proficient Total
13
Grade 5 ELL Performance By NYSESLAT Proficiency Level
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
ELA Level 1 55% 22% 2% 0% 10%
ELA Level 2 42% 72% 63% 31% 57%
ELA Level 3+4 3% 7% 35% 69% 34%
Beginning Intermediate Advanced Proficient Total
14
Grade 6 ELL Performance By NYSESLAT Proficiency Level
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
ELA Level 1 63% 18% 1% 0% 11%
ELA Level 2 37% 81% 85% 56% 75%
ELA Level 3+4 0% 1% 13% 44% 15%
Beginning Intermediate Advanced Proficient Total
15
Grade 7 ELL Performance By NYSESLAT Proficiency Level
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
ELA Level 1 47% 9% 1% 0% 12%
ELA Level 2 52% 86% 75% 38% 71%
ELA Level 3+4 1% 4% 24% 62% 17%
Beginning Intermediate Advanced Proficient Total
16
Grade 8 ELL Performance By NYSESLAT Proficiency Level
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
ELA Level 1 89% 45% 8% 2% 34%
ELA Level 2 11% 55% 86% 74% 60%
ELA Level 3+4 0% 0% 6% 24% 6%
Beginning Intermediate Advanced Proficient Total
17
ELL Performance By Number of Years of ESL Services
Duration Total
<1 883
1 2,982
2 10,422
3 10,527
4 16,177
5 12,478
6 8,250
7 5,016
8 3,256
9 1,542
10+ 859
1730 30
21 16 17 11 9 9 14 17
57
47 4954
54 54 6273 76
7778
26 22 21 26 31 29 2718 15 9 5
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
<1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+
Number of Years
ELA Level 1 ELA Level 2 ELA Level 3+4
18
ELL Performance By Need/Resource Category
19 2315 18 14 9
58 55
5455
54
47
23 2231 27 32
45
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
NYC Large City Urban-Suburban
Rural Average Low
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3+4
19
ELL Performance By Major Home Language Group
2611 15 16
919 14
54
54 4859
55
5957
2035 37
2536
2230
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Arabic(n=1530)
Bengali(n=1231)
Chinese(n=1169)
Haitian Creole(n=1077)
Russian(n=933)
Spanish(n=48011)
Urdu(n=1027)
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3+4
20
Performance of ELLs With Disabilities
3947
17 18 18
48
31
4639
6477 74
50
57
15 14 2012
6 8 2
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 3-8
ELA Level 1 ELA Level 2 ELA Level 3 & 4
21
Performance of ELLs Without Disabilities
13 167 8 10
30
14
49 4653
73 70
62
57
38 38 40
19 218
29
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 3-8
ELA Level 1 ELA Level 2 ELA Level 3 & 4
22
Performance of ELLs With Disabilities By Disability Type
46.9
85.7
38.7
29.1
30.6
67.9
50.5
25.5
32.9
30.1
50.0
22.9
46.9
14.3
52.0
55.7
59.0
31.0
41.4
57.4
53.1
56.3
43.8
54.3
6.3
9.3
15.1
10.3
8.1
17.0
14.0
13.5
6.3
22.9
0.0
1.2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Autism
Deafness
Emotional Disturbance
Hearing Impairment
Learning Disability
Mental Retardation
Multiple Disabilities
Orthopedic Impairment
Other Health Impairment
Speech/Lang. Impairment
Traumatic Brain Injury
Visual Impairment
L1 L2 L3+4
23
Percentage of ELLs at Level 3-4 onby Disability Status
6%8%
2%
38% 38%40%
19%21%
8%
29%
14%15%
20%
12%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 3-8
With Disability Without Disability
24
Percentage of ELLs scoring at Level 1 by Disability Status
39%
47%
17% 18% 18%
48%
31%
13%16%
7% 8% 10%
30%
14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 3-8
With Disability Without Disability
25
Comparison of Non-ELL, ELL and Former ELL Students’ Performance on Grade 3-8 ELA Tests
3%
18%
0%
25%
57%
27%
72%
25%
73%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Non-ELL ELL Former ELL
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3+4
26
Comparison of Non-ELL, ELL and Former ELL Students’ Performance:
Percentage of Students at Level 3 & 4
74% 75%
81%
70%73%
59%
33% 32% 34%
15%
83% 83%79%
57%62%
18%
6%
43%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
Non-ELL ELL Former ELL
27
Percentage of ELLs Scoring at Each of the NYSESLAT Proficiency Levels
Passing/Failing the Regents English Exam in Grade 11
88 83
57
34
12 17
43
66
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Beginning(n=408)
Intermediate(n=3504)
Advanced(n=1984)
Proficient(n=832)
Fail Pass
28
Percentage of ELLs Scoring at Each of the NYSESLAT Proficiency Levels
Passing/Failing the Regents English Exam in Grade 12
8777
5944
1423
4157
0%
10%
20%
30%40%
50%
60%
70%
80%90%
100%
Beginning(n=342)
Intermediate(n=2275)
Advanced(n=858)
Proficient(n=352)
Fail Pass
29
NYSESLAT Scores Predict ELA Performance Well
NYSESLAT scores explained 46% to 53% of the variance in ELA performance across grades in 2008.
Multiple Regression Model Summary
Grade Correlation Coefficient
Grade 3 0.725
Grade 4 0.722
Grade 5 0.677
Grade 6 0.721
Grade 7 0.696
Grade 8 0.721
*Dependent Variable: ELA scale score*Predictors: NYSESLAT Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing scores
30
Summary
In 2008, the percentage of ELLs meeting the ELA standards increased from 18% in 2007 to 25% in 2008; the percentage of ELLs showing serious academic deficiencies in ELA deceased from 29% in 2007 to 18% in 2008.
NYSESLAT scores are good predictors of the ELA
performance, accounting for 43% to 53% of the variance in ELA scale scores across grades. ELLs who scored at the proficient level on the NYSESLAT had a much better chance to meet the ELA standards than those who scored below proficient.
31
Summary
Former ELLs in grades 3 to 5 had comparable chance as English proficient students to meet the ELA standards, the percentage of former ELLs in grades 6 to 8 ranged from 43% to 62%.
ELLs in the elementary grades, with 3-6 years of services, and those from schools outside the Big 5 cities were more likely than their counterparts to score proficient on the Grade 3-8 ELA tests.
ELLs who scored at Level 1 on the 3-8 ELA tests were more likely to be in the middle school grades, with less than 3 years services.
32
SED Academic Language Analysis Research Project
Department is working with Charlene Rivera from the George Washington University: Center for Equity and Excellence in Education (GW-CEEE).
Purpose is to provide a description of academic language associated with the Living Environment Regents Exam and Commencement Level Core Curriculum.
Goal is to pilot an approach for describing the academic language demands.
GW-CEE staff involved in 2 year project with a selected NYS Analysis Team.
33
SED Academic Language Analysis Research Project
Goals of NYS Analysis Team:1. Describe and articulate the vocabulary, grammar, and
academic language functions associated with NYS Living Environment course;
2. Articulate their expectations for the Living Environment Academic Language Framework; &
3. Review and make recommendations to improve the usability of the Content Standards Language Analysis Tool.
34
SED Academic Language Analysis Research Project
Major Outcomes Include:1. Draft list and categorization of academic vocabulary
associated with classroom texts and Living Environment Regents Exam;
2. Draft list, examples, and explanations of grammatical structures that cause difficulty in comprehending Living Environment texts & assessment items;
3. Preliminary identification and descriptions of the most prevalent academic language functions for Core Curriculum;
4. Draft outline for the Living Environment Academic Language Framework; &
5. Design Professional development modules for teachers.
35
SED Academic Language Analysis Research Project
Academic Language: language used in the learning of academic subject matter in formal schooling context; aspects of language strongly associated with literacy and academic achievement, including specific academic terms or technical language, & speech registers related to each field of study (TESOL ESL Standards 4/97).
Academic Vocabulary: includes both specialized academic vocabulary, (e.g. organism, linear equation) and general academic vocabulary (e.g. produce, examine, & specify). Specialized academic vocabulary is associated with concepts of a discipline and general academic vocabulary cuts across academic disciplines.
36
SED Academic Language Analysis Research Project
Grammatical Structures: refers to the structure and arrangement of words in phrases and sentences with in written discourse. The following were selected for this project: compound & complex sentences; nominalization, long noun phrases, passive voice, and long or multiple prepositional phrases.
Academic Language Functions: language performances expected or realized in the doing of an academic tasks either through the production and/or comprehension of written or oral texts (Bailey et al, 2007).
37
SED Academic Language Analysis Research Project
Next Steps:1. Complete analysis, identification, and refinement of the
framework;2. Revise Content Standards Language Analysis Tool to provide
user-friendly tool for the field;3. Develop a draft Living Environment Academic Language
Framework4. Gather input/feedback;5. Finalize Framework; & 6. Develop professional development modules.
38
New York State NCLB Title III Accountability:
Proposed Revisions to Title III AMAOs
David Abrams Office of Standards, Assessment & Reporting
Dr. Pedro J. RuizOffice of Bilingual Education and Foreign Language
Studies
39
NCLB Title III Requirements Standards for English Language Proficiency
Conduct an annual, standards-based assessment of English Language Proficiency: New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test (NYSESLAT)
Define Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) for increasing percentage of LEP/ELLs progressing toward and attaining English Language proficiency and for meeting academic achievement standards
Hold Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) and Consortia accountable for meeting the AMAOs
Source: No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, Title III: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students. Public Law 107-110, January 8, 2002.
40
Accountability Issues Regarding Title III Consortia
A Title III Consortium consists of a group of LEAs that join together as one eligible entity in order to qualify for the $10,000 minimum requirement and jointly apply to the State for a Title III subgrant.
Component districts that form one consortium are held accountable as one entity for meeting all three AMAOs.
AMAO determinations are made for the consortium as a whole by aggregating the data from the component districts to the consortium level (rather than the district level).
41
Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs): Definitions
AMAO 1: Annual increases in the number or percentage of LEP/ELLs making progress in learning English
AMAO 2: Annual increases in the number or percentage of LEP/ELLs attaining English language proficiency
AMAO 3: Adequate yearly progress (AYP) for LEP/ELL subgroup in meeting grade-level academic achievement standards in English Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics
Source: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Title III: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students. Public Law 107-110, January 8, 2002.
42
NYS Title III AMAO 1: Making Progress
Proposed Revised Definition: 1) Advance one overall proficiency level on the
NYSESLAT between two consecutive years;2) Maintain the same proficiency level and make a
total scale score gain of 43 points between two years; or
3) Score at Level 2 (Intermediate Level) or above on the NYSESLAT for ELLs with one data point only.
Unit of Accountability: Title III LEAand Consortia
ELLs Included in AMAO 1 Determination: All identified ELLs in the current school year
43
NYS Title III AMAO 2:Attaining English Proficiency
No proposed change from previous definition
Definition: Scoring at the proficient level (Level 4) on both Listening & Speaking (L/S) and Reading & Writing (R/W) modality combinations of the NYSESLAT
Unit of Accountability: Title III LEAand Consortia
ELLs Included in AMAO 2 Determination: All identified ELLs in the current school year
44
Title III AMAO 3: Making AYP
Definition: LEP/ELL subgroup must make AYP at the district level in meeting grade-level academic achievement standards in ELA and mathematics.
Unit of Accountability: Title III LEA and Consortia
Data source: Title I District AYP determination for the LEP/ELL subgroup; aggregated district data for Consortia.
45
Final Determination of Title III LEA AMAO Status
For Title III accountability purposes, all
Title III LEAs, including Consortia, must meet all three AMAO targets each year to be considered making AMAOs.
46
Accountability Count of Title III LEAs and Consortia in NYS
2004-05, N=184
2005-06, N=191
2006-07, N=208 (including 10 Consortia)
47
Current Title III AMAO Targets
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Per
cen
t o
f L
EP
/EL
Ls
in L
EA
AMAO 1 50 55 60 65 70
AMAO 2 5 8 10 12 14
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
e.g. For 2005-06, 60 percent of LEP/ELLs in each LEA must make AMAO 1 and 10 percent of LEP/ELLs must make AMAO 2.
48
Percent of Title III LEAs Meeting Current AMAOs
76
98
47
65
93
29
69
90
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
AMAO 1 AMAO 2 AMAO 3
Perc
en
t
2004-05 (N=184) 2005-06 (N=191) 2006-07 (N=208)Projected
49
Rationale for Revising Title III AMAOs
The current AMAO targets and increments were established in 2003 on estimated projections; longitudinal empirical data were not then available.
The current AMAO targets and annual increments were set with the assumption that 100 percent of LEP/ELLs must meet the AMAO 1 and AMAO 2 targets by 2013-14 as per Title I accountability requirements.
50
Rationale for Revising Title III AMAOs (Cont.)
Based on technical assistance from USED, that assumption has been revised. Although annual increases in AMAO targets are required, 100 percent attainment by 2013-14 is not.
The revised NYSESLAT (2005) differs from the original NYSESLAT in number of items and total score points available. The original AMAOs require revision due to change in test design.
51
Empirical Method for Setting Proposed Revised AMAO 1 Targets and Annual Growth Increments
1. Determine adequate annual scale score gain as 43 scale score points (40th percentile gain) based on the matching data from 2006 and 2007 NYSESLAT administrations.
2. Determine individual ELL’s AMAO 1 status using the
three criteria: 1) advancing one overall proficiency level; 2) making 43 total score gain; or 3) score at Level 2 and above on the current year NYSESLAT for ELLs with one data point.
3. Calculate the percentage of ELLs who made AMAO 1 in each district by dividing the sum of all students who made AMAO 1 by the total number of identified ELLs in the district for the current school year.
52
Empirical Method for Setting Proposed Revised AMAO 1 Targets and Annual Growth Increments (Cont.)
4. Rank order districts with 30 or more ELLs from low to high on percentage of students making AMAO 1.
5. Select the 25th percentile LEA performance on AMAO 1 measure as the starting target for 2006-07, and the 65th percentile district performance as the ending point for 2016-17.
6. Set annual growth increments as the equal interval between the starting and ending targets.
53
Comparison of Current and Proposed Revised AMAO 1 Targets and Annual Growth Increments
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Perc
en
t o
f L
EP
/EL
Ls i
n L
EA
Current Revised
Current 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Revised 58.9 60 61 62.1 63.2 64.2 65.3 66.4 67.4 68.5 69.6
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
54
Percentage of Title III LEAs Meeting Proposed Revised AMAO 1 Targets (Percentage of LEAs projected to meet AMAO 1 based on simulations using matching NYSESLAT data from 2006 and 2007)
7571
6865
61
5451
4542
37
33
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Per
cen
t o
f T
itle
III
LE
As
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
55
Implications of the Proposed Revised AMAO 1 Targets
In 2006-07, 75 percent of the Title III LEAs will meet the AMAO 1 target and 25 percent will not.
The proposed starting AMAO 1 target, or 25th percentile, for 2006-07 means that 58.9 percent of all LEP/ELLs in each Title III LEA are expected to make AMAO 1 by one of the three criteria.
The proposed ending AMAO 1 target, or 65th percentile, for 2016-17 means that 69.6 percent of the LEP/ELLs in each Title III LEA must make AMAO 1.
56
Implications of the Proposed Revised AMAO 1 Targets (Cont.)
The ending target, or 65th percentile, for 2016-17 also means that all Title III LEAs must perform at the same level as the top 35 percent of the LEAs performed in 2006-07.
As the AMAO 1 target increases by one percentage point each year, all LEAs are expected to increase the number and percent of ELLs making AMAO 1 each year. Without making the expected annual improvement, only 33 percent of the Title III LEAs would meet the AMAO 1 target by 2016-17.
57
Empirical Method for Setting Proposed Revised
AMAO 2 Targets and Annual Growth Increments
1. The same empirical method used to revise the AMAO 1 targets and annual increments was used to revise the AMAO 2 targets.
2. Designate individual ELLs as meeting AMAO 2 if they scored at the proficient level (Level 4) on both the L/S and RW components of the 2007 NYSESLAT.
3. Calculate the percentage of students making AMAO 2 in each district by dividing the number of ELLs who made AMAO 2 by the total number of identified ELLs in the district in the current school year.
58
Empirical Method for Setting Proposed Revised
AMAO 2 Targets and Annual Growth Increments (Cont.)
4. Rank the order of all districts with 30 or more LEP/ELLs from low to high on percentage of LEP/ELLs making AMAO 2.
5. Select the 25th percentile of LEA’s performance on the AMAO 2 measure as the starting point for 2006-07 school year, and the 65th percentile as the ending target for the 2016-17.
6. Set annual growth increments as equal interval between the starting and ending targets.
59
Comparison of Current and Proposed Revised AMAO 2 Targets and Annual Growth Increments
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Per
cen
t o
f E
LL
s in
LE
A
Current Revised
Current 5 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Revised 9.9 10.5 11.1 11.8 12.4 13.1 13.7 14.3 15 15.6 16.3
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
60
Percentage of Title III LEAs Projected to Meet the Proposed Revised AMAO 2 Targets (Based on simulations using 2007 NYSESLAT Data)
7572
6966
62
5754
49
45
40
35
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Perc
en
t o
f T
itle
III L
EA
s
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
61
Implications of the Proposed Revised AMAO 2 Targets
In 2006-07, 75 percent of the Title III LEAs will meet the AMAO 2 target and 25 percent will not.
The proposed starting AMAO 2 target, or 25th percentile, for 2006-07 means that 9.9 percent of all LEP/ELLs in each Title III LEA are expected to score at the proficient level on the NYSSELAT.
The proposed ending AMAO 2 target, or 65th percentile, for 2016-17 means that 16.3 percent of the LEP/ELLs in each Title III LEA must score at the proficient level.
62
Implications of the Proposed Revised AMAO 2 Targets
The ending target for 2016-17 also means that all Title III LEAs must perform at the same level as the top 35 percent of the LEAs performed in 2006-07.
As the AMAO 2 target increases each year, all LEAs are expected to increase the number and percent of ELLs making AMAO 2. Without making the expected annual improvement, only 35 percent of the Title III LEAs would meet the AMAO 2 target by 2016-17.
Top Related