Research Questions

1. 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.

2. 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?

3. 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?

4. 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

6. 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.

7. “Student performance data must be made available to teachers and the public in ways that spark creative responses” Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000.

8. 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)

9. 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).

10. 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)

11. Reported Data 1999-2000 MT WA ND NH VT MN ME WI SD OR ID MI WY NY IA MA NE IN OH PA RI IL CT CO UT NV NJ KS MO WV DE KY VA CA MD TN NC OK AR NM AZ SC AL GA DC= no data MS TX LA FL AK Reported both participation and performance of ELLs for at least one test (n=16) HI Reported only performance of ELLs for at least one test (n=3) No ELL participation or performance reported (n=32)

12. Comprehensiveness of Reporting 1999-2000 MT WA ND NH VT MN WI SD OR ID MI WY NY IA NE IN OH ME PA MA IL CO UT NV NJ KS MO WV DE KY VA CA RI MD TN CT NC OK AR NM AZ SC AL GA DC= no data MS TX 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)

13. 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%)

14. Part NUMBER and Performance Part RATE and Performance Performance Only Total States Content Areas Reading 4123 19 Math 4123 19 Writing 1101 12 Science 472 13 Social Studies 452 11

15. Sample Participation Rate Data

16. Example of Gaps in Performance

18. 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

19. Trends In Reporting Across Time 1995-98 Data1999-2000 Data ArizonaCalifornia 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

20. Reporting in States with Large and Small Populations Of the top and bottom 10 states in K-12 ELL enrollment: Top 10Bottom 10 Reported ELL Data on: All Tests44 Some Tests3 No Tests36

21. Unique Reporting Practices (in 1999-2000) Highlighted Descriptions About: WA ND MT NH MN VT ME ME SD WI OR ID MI WY NY IA MA NE PA RI IL IN OH CT NV UT CO NJ KS MO WV DE CA KY VA MD TN OK NC AR AZ NM SC DC MS AL GA TX LA FL AK HI

23. Interactive Reporting Online Example from Delaware:

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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!

27. 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

28. 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

29. For more information http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/