nclb accountability title iii of the elementary and secondary education act of 1965 (esea) as...
TRANSCRIPT
NCLB Accountability
Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) as
Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)
Presented at the FY10 Bilingual Education Program Directors’ Meeting, Crowne Plaza, Springfield
September 30, 2009
Key goals of Title III of the ESEA
To ensure that LEP students: Attain English language proficiency Attain high levels of academic
achievement in English, and Meet the same challenging state academic
content and student academic achievement standards that all children are expected to meet.
To achieve these goals
USDE releases Title III grants that provide states and their sub-grantees funds to implement language instruction educational programs. Such Title III funds will be used to support
High quality professional development designed to improve services to LEP students, and
High quality language instruction educational programs that are designed to increase the English proficiency and academic achievement of LEP students.
Title III Accountability Requirement:English Language Proficiency (ELP) Standards
First, each state’s Title III ELP standards must be based on four language domains— speaking, listening, reading, and writing and aligned with the achievement of challenging academic content and student achievement standards (Section 3113(b)(2)).
Title III Accountability Requirement: English Language Proficiency (ELP) Assessments
Second, each state’s English Language Proficiency (ELP) assessment must be
administered annually to Title III-served LEP students (Section 3113(b)(3)(D))
valid and reliable (Section 3122(a)(3)(A)(ii)), and provide for the evaluation of LEP students’ levels of speaking,
reading, writing, listening, and comprehension in English (Section 3121(d)(1)).
Title III requires states to ensure that all sub-grantees comply with the requirement to annually assess the English proficiency of all Title III-served LEP students, consistent with the ELP assessment requirements in Section 1111(b)(7) of the ESEA.
Title III Accountability Requirement: Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAO)
Third, states and their sub-grantees are accountable for meeting Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) that relate to Title III-served LEP students’ development and attainment of English proficiency and academic achievement.
Each state must: Set AMAO targets Make determinations on whether sub-grantees are
meeting those targets, and Report annually on sub-grantees’ performance in
meeting those targets.
Title III Accountability Requirements
ELP Standards (aligned with content standards)(1)
Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAO) (3)
ELP and Academic/Content Assessments (2)
Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAO)
The Three AMAO CRITERIA: AMAO 1 - Focuses on the extent to which Title III served LEP
students in a state and its sub-grantees are making progress in learning English.
AMAO 2 - Focuses on the extent to which Title III-served LEP students in a state and its sub-grantees are attaining proficiency in English.
AMAO 3 – Is based on whether the state and its sub-grantees meet the state’s adequate yearly progress (AYP) targets for the LEP subgroup in reading/language arts and mathematics, as defined by the state under Section 1111(b)(2)(B) in Title I of the ESEA.
Operational Translations of AMAO Criteria in Illinois
AMAO 1 (Making progress in the English language) A limited English proficient (LEP) student makes
progress if he/she makes at least a half (0.5) proficient level gain in any of the four domains from one administration to the next or obtains the maximum level of proficiency (6.0) in the second of the two comparative years in any of the four domains.
A district or consortium meets AMAO 1 criterion if 85% of its Title III-served students make progress.
Operational Translations of AMAO Criteria in Illinois
AMAO 2 (Attaining proficiency in the English language)
An LEP student attains proficiency he/she received at least a 4.0 overall proficiency level in the current testing year.
A district or consortium meets AMAO 2 criterion if 10% of its Title III-served students receive at least a 4.0 overall proficiency level in the current testing year.
Operational Translations of AMAO Criteria in Illinois
AMAO 3 (AYP for LEP Subgroup) An LEA or consortium meets the AMAO 3
criterion if it meets the AYP for the LEP Subgroup. In 2009, AYP student performance targets are 70% in both reading and mathematics.
Illinois AMAO Measures or Assessments
AMAO Criterion FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09
English Language Proficiency AMAOs
AMAO 1: Percent Making Annual Progress in Learning English
LAS, IPT, LPTS and MACII
LAS, IPT, LPTS and MACII
LAS, IPT, LPTS, MACII , and ACCESS
ACCESS ACCESS ACCESS
AMAO 2: Percent Attaining English Proficiency
LAS, IPT, LPTS and MACII
LAS, IPT, LPTS and MACII
ACCESS ACCESS ACCESS ACCESS
Academic Achievement AMAO
AMAO 3: Meeting AYP Requirements for the LEP Subgroup at the LEA Level
IMAGE, ISAT, PSAE and/or IAA
IMAGE, ISAT, PSAE and/or IAA
IMAGE, ISAT, PSAE and/or IAA
IMAGE, ISAT, PSAE and/or IAA
ISAT, PSAE and/or IAA
ISAT, PSAE and/or IAA
AMAO Measures or Types of Assessments Used for Calculating AMAO
Illinois AMAO Criterion Targets
To meet AMAO, districts and consortia must meet the targets of ALL three AMAO criteria!!!
FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09English Language Proficiency AMAOs
AMAO 1: Percent Making Progress in Learning
EnglishDistrict: 85% District: 85% District: 85% District: 85% District: 85%
District & Consortium: 85%
AMAO 2: Percent Attaining English Proficiency
District: LAS=25% IPT=23%
LPTS=27% MACII=14%
District: LAS=25% IPT=23%
LPTS=27% MACII=14%
District: 10% District: 10% District: 10%District & Consortium:
10%
Academic Achievement AMAO
AMAO 3: Meeting AYP for the LEP Subgroup
Performance Targets
District: 37.0% in Reading & Mathematics
Performance Targets
District: 47.5% in Reading &
Mathematics
Performance Targets
District: 47.5% in Reading & Mathematics
Performance Targets
District: 55.0% in Reading & Mathematics
Performance Targets
District: 62.5% in Reading & Mathematics
Performance Targets
District & Consortium: 70.0% in Reading &
Mathematics
AMAO CriterionAMAO Performance Targets for Districts and Consortia
Calculations of AMAO for Consortia in FY09 (A change from previous years)
USDE requires that States make AMAO determinations for all subgrantees, including all districts that are members of a consortium. States must be able to demonstrate that the decision rules maximize accountability for consortia in the State.
In Illinois, starting in FY09, AMAOs were calculated for consortia and districts, unlike in the past five years, where AMAOs were calculated at the district level only.
Implications of Calculating AMAOs for Consortia
All districts have AMAO status. All ELP assessment data and other
applicable data from each of the members in a consortium are aggregated and based on aggregated data, the state determines whether the consortium has met the AMAOs.
AMAO status of the consortium apply to all district members.
AMAO in Illinois – Going Back Six Years
Years of Receiving Title III Funds
Number of Districts Percent
Six Years 133 54.5 Five Years 36 14.8 Four Years 18 7.4 Three Years 18 7.4 Two Years 15 6.1 One Year 24 9.8
Total 244 100.0
Table 1. Number of Districts by Years of Receiving Title III
Funds: 2004-2009
AMAO in Illinois – Going Back Six Years
Table 2. AMAO Status of Districts by Year, 2004-2009
No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct.2004 4 2.3 80 46.5 88 51.2 1722005 4 2.0 64 32.7 128 65.3 1962006 23 11.3 45 22.2 135 66.5 2032007 14 7.1 15 7.7 167 85.2 1962008 15 7.6 81 41.1 101 51.3 1972009 0 0.0 92 47.2 103 52.8 195
AMAO Year
AMAO Status
TotalNo Status Not Meet Met
AMAO in Illinois – Going Back Six Years
Chart 1. Percent of Districts Met AMAO, 2004-2009
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
School Year
Pe
rce
nt
of
Dis
tric
ts M
et
AM
AO
When ACCESS started(Grade-cluster cut scores)
- Last Year of IMAGE- Grade-specific cut scores in the ACCESS
AYP is based on ISAT, PSAE, and/or IAA only
AMAOs were calculated for consortia
AMAO in Illinois – Going Back Six Years
50.0
50.0
26.7
33.3
40.0
27.8
16.7
22.2
33.3
27.8
5.6
22.2
16.7
27.8
5.6
8.3
8.3
22.2
16.7
38.9
0.8
10.5
12.8
17.3
21.1
22.6
15.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Pe
rce
nt
of
Dis
tric
ts M
et
AM
AO
One Year Two Years Three Years Four Years Five Years Six yearsNumber of Years Funded with Title III
Chart 2. Percent of Districts by Number of Years Funded and Number of Years Met AMAO: 2004-2009
0 1 2 3 4 5 6Number of Times Met AMAO:
AMAO in Illinois – Going Back Six Years
Consecutive Years Not Meeting AMAO
Number Pct. of Total Title III Recipients (2004 through 2009) n=244
Four consecutive years 5 2.05
Five consecutive years 1 0.41
Six consecutive years 1 0.41
Table 4. Number and Percent of Districts That Did Not Meet AMAO For At Least Four Consecutive Years (2004 Through 2009)
YearNo. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct.42 21.3 29 14.3 7 3.6 9 4.6 46 23.6
Table 3. Number and Percent of Districts That Did Not Meet AMAO For Two Consecutive Years by Year, 2005-2009
No./ Percent of Total
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Consequences of Not Meeting the AMAO
School districts that did not meet AMAO for two (2) consecutive years are required by SEA to develop an improvement plan. The improvement plan must specifically address the factors that prevented the district from meeting the AMAOs.
Consequences of Not Meeting the AMAO
School districts that did not meet AMAO for four (4) consecutive years are required by SEA to modify the district’s bilingual program model, curriculum, and methods of instruction to meet the needs of English language learners. The SEA also determines whether the district should continue to receive Title III funds and whether to replace educational personnel relevant to the district’s failure to meet the objectives.
Consequences of Not Meeting the AMAO
Furthermore, Section 3302 of Title III requires that parents of LEP students served by a district that received Title III funds shall be notified each year that a district does not meet AMAO.