How States Reported Participation
and Performance of English
Language Learners in State
Assessments
Project conducted in collaboration with the Center for Excellence and
Equity in Education, supported by the U.S. Department of Education,
OBEMLA, now referred to as OELA.
Research Questions
• To what extent was the participation
and performance of ELLs in state
assessments being publicly reported?
• To what extent were disaggregated
data on accommodated and native
language assessments offered?
• What trends are evident in public
reporting on ELLs over time?
Research Questions (cont.)
• What trends are evident in reporting
in states with high and low ELL
enrollment?
• What characteristics of public reports
are viewed as best practices for
presenting both usable and
understood data on LEP students?
Importance of the Study
• Reporting all students’ performance is a
required element of NCLB
• NCLB mandates that reported data need
to be available to and usable by teachers
and administrators as well as parents
• Baseline for future studies of states’ efforts
• Parallels NCEO study on students with
disabilities
While it is widely suggested that state and
district assessments, and the reporting of
their results, has an impact on teaching
and learning (Elmore & Rothman, 1999),
reporting data is not enough.
“Student performance data must
be made available to teachers
and the public in ways that spark
creative responses”
Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000.
The purpose of disaggregation is to gauge whether
specific subgroups of students perform at different
levels than other subgroups (i.e., whether there is
an “achievement gap”) so that interventions can be
designed and implemented if needed.
Disaggregation is also useful in informing the public
about how well a school or district is doing in helping
all students to reach state standards. (p.11).
Vincent & Schenck (2001)
A part of the hoped for response to data is
that teachers and administrators can
identify what is working for students so that
appropriate interventions are implemented
for non-English language background
students who may have specific needs
(Liu, Albus, & Thurlow, 2000).
Method
• Gathered all available assessment reports as
of March 2001 – both public print
documents and data on state Web sites
• Examined only data for tests administered
during 1999-2000 (dropped 3 states with
1998-99 data)
• Verification letters sent to all assessment
directors – 15 responded with corrections or
additions; used information from 13 of these
states (others were not public)
Reported Data 1999-2000
MT
WA
OR
ND
SD
ID
MI
IL
KS
CA
AZ
IN
MO
OK
NM
OH
KY
MA
PA
WV
TN
AR
AL
TX
ME
NY
IA
CO
UT
NH
WI
WY
NE
NV
VT
MN
CT
NJ
VA
NC
RI
DE
MD
SC
MS
GA
DC= no data
LA
FL
AK
HI
Reported both participation and
performance of ELLs for at least one test
(n=16)
Reported only performance of ELLs for
at least one test (n=3)
No ELL participation or performance
reported (n=32)
Comprehensiveness of Reporting
1999-2000
MT
WA
OR
ND
SD
ID
MI
IL
KS
CA
AZ
OH
KY
ME
PA
WV
TN
AR
AL
TX
IN
MO
OK
NM
NY
IA
CO
UT
NH
WI
WY
NE
NV
VT
MN
MA
NJ
VA
NC
DE
MD
CT
RI
SC
MS
GA
DC= no data
LA
FL
HI
AK
ELL performance reported for all tests (n=11)
ELL performance reported for some tests (n=8)
No ELL participation or performance reported (n=32)
Content Reporting on ELLs
19 of 46 states that tested E/LA and math
content reported data on ELLs
(41%)
13 of 34 states that tested science (38%)
13 of 39 states that tested writing (33%)
11 of 37 states that tested social studies
(30%)
Total
States
Content Areas
Reading
4
12
3
19
Math
4
12
3
19
Writing
1
10
1
12
Science
4
7
2
13
Social Studies
4
5
2
11
El
State 1
M
State 2
State 3
State 4
M
H
ig
h
dl
e
Hi
gh
M
id
en
ta
ry
at
h
at
h
El
em
M
at
h
Re
ad
in
g
id
dl
e
en
ta
ry
M
em
Re
ad
in
g
Re
ad
in
g
Percentage of ELLs
Sample Participation Rate Data
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Example of Gaps in Performance
Elementary Reading
100
90
80
Percent Proficient and Above
70
60
All Students
50
ELLs
40
30
20
10
0
CO
DE
FL
ID
IN
KY
LA
ME
States
MA
NH
NJ
NC
RI
TX
WI
Reporting on Accommodated and
Other Assessments
 Three states reported data for ELLs
taking tests with accommodations
(Several states indicated only that nonstandard
administrations are not reported)
 Four states reported data on student
performance on native language
assessments
Trends In Reporting Across
Time
1995-98 Data
1999-2000 Data
Arizona
California
Massachusetts
Delaware
Colorado
New Hampshire (perf only)
Georgia
Delaware
New Jersey
Kansas (part only)
Florida
New Mexico (perf only)
New Jersey (part only)
Idaho
North Carolina
North Carolina (part only)
Illinois
Rhode Island (perf only)
Rhode Island
Indiana
Texas
Virginia
Kentucky
Virginia
Louisiana
Wisconsin
Maine
Reporting in States with
Large and Small Populations
Of the top and bottom 10 states in K-12 ELL enrollment:
Top 10
Bottom 10
Reported ELL Data on:
All Tests
4
Some Tests
3
No Tests
3
4
6
Unique Reporting Practices
(in 1999-2000)
Highlighted Descriptions About:
WA
ND
MT
OR
MN
SD
ID
WI
MI
WY
UT
IL
CO
KS
CA
AZ
OK
NM
NY
IA
NE
NV
TX
MO
AR
M
LA S
IN
PA
OH
KY
TN
WV
HI
VA
NC
SC
AL GA
FL
AK
NH
VT
CT
NJ
DE
MD
DC
ME
M
E
MA
RI
Interactive Reporting Online
Example from Delaware:
T ab le 11 -9. C u s to m ized D isag g reg ated D ata R ep o rt F ro m th e W eb
R ead in g
L o catio n /G ro u p
G rade
Y ear
N
S tate of D ela w are /
LE P , L o w Incom e
8
2000
23
0.00%
0.00%
S tate of D ela w are /
LE P , N o t Lo w
Incom e
S tate of D ela w are /
LE P
S tate of D ela w are /
A ll S tud ents
D ela w are D epartm ent
8
2000
16
0.00%
8
2000
39
8
2000
8088
at
5
P erfo rm an ce L ev els
4
3
2
1
13.0 4%
26.0 9%
60.8 7%
12.5 0%
31.2 5%
18.7 5%
37.5 0%
0.00%
5.13%
20.5 1%
23.0 8%
51.2 8%
1.99%
6.95%
58.4 8%
16.3 9%
16.1 8%
of E ducation (2 000). D elaw are S tud ent T estin g P rogram O nline R eports.
http://delsis.doe.state.de.us/D ST PPublic/
Things to Consider about Interactive
Online Reporting…
• Can keep part of the “bigger picture” (e.g.,
all students tested) in a report when
narrowing to smaller subgroups by
specific characteristics
• May allow flexibility in combining student
characteristics to analyze data
• May be limited for small subpopulations
whose numbers are not able to be
reported out of concern for student
privacy
Things to Consider…
• Can not assume most recent data is
available in all online reports – interactive
databases may not be updated at the same
pace. This needs to be clear.
• May vary in ease of use and interpretation
just as other reporting formats
Some Conclusions . . .
• Need clarification of terms used in
reporting, and policy information for
interpreting data
• Need more data on accommodated and
native language assessments, so can
better understand their role in an
assessment system
• Overall, more states need to report –
and this has happened!
Reporting Needs
•
•
•
•
•
Be Clear, Concise, timely, and publicly
accessible
Include participation and performance data at
every grade by content area aggregated and
disaggregated
Provide data so readers will not have to do
calculations
Report accommodated results separately and
in aggregate
Ensure proficiency level (e.g., basic, proficient,
advanced) is reported in the same manner for
ELLs as for mainstream
What can educators do?
Look for your state data online
Give your state feedback about
whether ELL data is comprehensive
and clear
Talk about the ELL data in your
building/district—what does it mean
for you?
Know whether your state reports in
different languages
For more information
http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/
Descargar

How States Reported Participation and Performance of