TELPAS Holistically Rated Components Writing Collection Assembly

1. TELPAS  Holistically Rated Components &Writing Collection Assembly Presented by: Brenda Booth, Director of Assessment February 4, 2008

3. 4 Proficiency Levels Teachers use proficiency level descriptors (PLDs) as rubrics to holistically determine the proficiency level of their ELLs. Each language domain is assessed separately. Beginning Intermediate Advanced Advanced High The TELPAS PLDs describe the major attributes of each English language proficiency level within each language domain assessed. These rubrics are used to determine each student’s overall stage of learning English. Using the PLDs, raters determine, for listening, speaking, and writing, the proficiency level at which the student performs most consistently. The TELPAS PLDs describe the major attributes of each English language proficiency level within each language domain assessed. These rubrics are used to determine each student’s overall stage of learning English. Using the PLDs, raters determine, for listening, speaking, and writing, the proficiency level at which the student performs most consistently.

4. Assessment Approach for Grades 2–12Listening and Speaking Teachers determine the proficiency levels of their ELLs based on observations that take place during ongoing, authentic classroom instruction. They observe: how their ELLs interact informally with them and with other students, and how their ELLs understand and use English when academic material is presented and during cooperative learning activities.

5. Assessment Approach for Grades 2–12 Writing Raters assemble a collection of each student’s writing and use the collection as the basis for evaluating the student’s English language proficiency in writing.

6. Eligibility Requirements All students in grades K–12 who are identified as limited English proficient, including LEP students with parental denials, are required to be assessed. In rare cases, a LEP student served by special education may be exempted from TELPAS by the ARD and LPAC committees. LEP students receiving special education services should be observed and rated if their IEP includes TEKS instruction on at least a kindergarten level. The decision to administer TELPAS is to be addressed by the LPAC and ARD committee and documented in the IEP. Raters who have questions about the inclusion of LEP students served by special education in TELPAS should consult with their campus testing coordinator. LEP students receiving special education services should be observed and rated if their IEP includes TEKS instruction on at least a kindergarten level. The decision to administer TELPAS is to be addressed by the LPAC and ARD committee and documented in the IEP. Raters who have questions about the inclusion of LEP students served by special education in TELPAS should consult with their campus testing coordinator.

7. Eligibility Requirements Exemptions must be addressed on a domain-by-domain basis. A decision must be made for each of the four domains. A student may need an exemption in one or more domains, but not necessarily ALL of them. LEP students receiving special education services should be observed and rated if their IEP includes TEKS instruction on at least a kindergarten level. The decision to administer TELPAS is to be addressed by the LPAC and ARD committee and documented in the IEP. Raters who have questions about the inclusion of LEP students served by special education in TELPAS should consult with their campus testing coordinator. LEP students receiving special education services should be observed and rated if their IEP includes TEKS instruction on at least a kindergarten level. The decision to administer TELPAS is to be addressed by the LPAC and ARD committee and documented in the IEP. Raters who have questions about the inclusion of LEP students served by special education in TELPAS should consult with their campus testing coordinator.

8. Rater Credentials Each teacher selected to rate an ELL must: have the student in class, be knowledgeable about the student’s ability to use English in instructional and informal settings, and hold valid education credentials such as a teacher certificate or permit be appropriately trained, as required by TEA complete the qualification component of TELPAS rater training (applies to raters of students in grade 2 and above only) TELPAS raters may include: Bilingual education teachers English as a second language (ESL) teachers Elementary general education teachers Middle or high school general education teachers of foundation (core) subjects Special education teachers Gifted and talented teachers Teachers of enrichment subjects Paraprofessionals may not be designated as raters. TELPAS ratings need to reflect the ability of students to understand and use English during content area instruction. Therefore, teachers who have ELLs in content area classes are an integral part of the observation and rating process. TELPAS raters may include: Bilingual education teachers English as a second language (ESL) teachers Elementary general education teachers Middle or high school general education teachers of foundation (core) subjects Special education teachers Gifted and talented teachers Teachers of enrichment subjects Paraprofessionals may not be designated as raters. TELPAS ratings need to reflect the ability of students to understand and use English during content area instruction. Therefore, teachers who have ELLs in content area classes are an integral part of the observation and rating process.

9. TELPAS Rater Responsibilities A student’s TELPAS rater is the teacher designated by the campus as the official rater of the student’s English language proficiency. The student’s rater must rate the student in all domains for which the student is eligible. A student is not permitted to have one rater for some domains and another rater for other domains. For example, it is not permitted for one rater to be responsible for rating the writing domain while another rater is responsible for rating the listening and speaking domains. For example, it is not permitted for one rater to be responsible for rating the writing domain while another rater is responsible for rating the listening and speaking domains.

10. Collaboration with Others In determining the proficiency ratings of their assigned students, raters are highly encouraged to collaborate with other teachers and school personnel who have knowledge of the students’ English proficiency. Communication and collaboration among teachers promotes discussions that lead to improved instructional strategies. To maximize student learning, teachers should engage in this type of collaboration at regular intervals during the school year. At the time of the spring TELPAS administration, collaboration among teachers helps ensure rating accuracy. Collaboration is particularly important when a student has different content area teachers and/or is near the border between two proficiency levels. After collaborating with other teachers, the official rater is responsible for assigning the ratings. Communication and collaboration among teachers promotes discussions that lead to improved instructional strategies. To maximize student learning, teachers should engage in this type of collaboration at regular intervals during the school year. At the time of the spring TELPAS administration, collaboration among teachers helps ensure rating accuracy. Collaboration is particularly important when a student has different content area teachers and/or is near the border between two proficiency levels. After collaborating with other teachers, the official rater is responsible for assigning the ratings.

11. TELPAS Proficiency Level Descriptors (PLDs) The TELPAS PLDs are the rubrics that raters use to determine students’ English language proficiency levels. The spring 2008 edition of the PLDs should be used. These PLDs contain some refinements. Earlier editions of the PLDs should not be used. Training participants will need full-size copies of the PLDs to use with these PowerPoint slides. The TELPAS holistically rated assessments were developed by TEA in collaboration with test development contractors, bilingual/ESL consultants, and a focus group of teachers, bilingual/ESL coordinators, test coordinators, and university professors. The design of the assessments derives from the following language acquisition research and research-based standards, models, and assessments: the second language acquisition research of Jim Cummins concerning the development of BICS and CALP the TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) ESL standards the ACTFL (American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages) proficiency guidelines and the ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners used in Texas LOTE (languages other than English) programs similar assessment strategies used in other states Training participants will need full-size copies of the PLDs to use with these PowerPoint slides. The TELPAS holistically rated assessments were developed by TEA in collaboration with test development contractors, bilingual/ESL consultants, and a focus group of teachers, bilingual/ESL coordinators, test coordinators, and university professors. The design of the assessments derives from the following language acquisition research and research-based standards, models, and assessments: the second language acquisition research of Jim Cummins concerning the development of BICS and CALP the TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) ESL standards the ACTFL (American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages) proficiency guidelines and the ACTFL Performance Guidelines for K-12 Learners used in Texas LOTE (languages other than English) programs similar assessment strategies used in other states

12. The TELPAS PLDs Listening Grades K-12 Speaking Grades K-12 Reading Grades K-1 Writing Grades K-1 Grades 2-12 TELPAS evaluates English language development relative to grade-level expectations for understanding and using English to meaningfully engage in content area instruction. There is one K-12 rubric for listening and one K-12 rubric for speaking. Raters consider a student’s listening and speaking proficiency levels in relation to the typical listening and speaking abilities of native English speakers at that grade level. For reading and writing, there are separate rubrics for K-1. The K-1 rubrics are distinct because factors associated with emergent literacy distinguish K-1 learners from students in higher grades. Raters will not use PLDs to rate reading beyond grades K-1 because reading in grades 2-12 is assessed with the multiple-choice TELPAS reading test (formerly RPTE). For LEP students receiving special education services, the term “grade appropriate” in the PLDs no longer refers to the student’s instructional level. Beginning with the 2007-2008 school year, these students should be evaluated relative to how well they are able to understand and use English to access to the general curriculum at their enrolled grade in accordance with their IEP. This shift reflects federal requirements for ensuring that students with disabilities have access to the general curriculum. TELPAS evaluates English language development relative to grade-level expectations for understanding and using English to meaningfully engage in content area instruction. There is one K-12 rubric for listening and one K-12 rubric for speaking. Raters consider a student’s listening and speaking proficiency levels in relation to the typical listening and speaking abilities of native English speakers at that grade level. For reading and writing, there are separate rubrics for K-1. The K-1 rubrics are distinct because factors associated with emergent literacy distinguish K-1 learners from students in higher grades. Raters will not use PLDs to rate reading beyond grades K-1 because reading in grades 2-12 is assessed with the multiple-choice TELPAS reading test (formerly RPTE). For LEP students receiving special education services, the term “grade appropriate” in the PLDs no longer refers to the student’s instructional level. Beginning with the 2007-2008 school year, these students should be evaluated relative to how well they are able to understand and use English to access to the general curriculum at their enrolled grade in accordance with their IEP. This shift reflects federal requirements for ensuring that students with disabilities have access to the general curriculum.

13. Key Features of Each Proficiency Level Beginning Little or no ability Intermediate Limited ability, simple language structures, high-frequency vocabulary, routine contexts Advanced Grade appropriate, with second language acquisition support Advanced High Grade appropriate, with minimal second language acquisition support This slide summarizes the major characteristics of the PLDs in terms of how well ELLs can understand and/or use English in social and academic settings at each of the four levels. These key features are found in the summary statements at the top of the PLDs for each language domain. As an example, refer to the summary statements at the top of the PLDs for listening. Note that “support” refers to second language acquisition support, that is, the language assistance ELLs need as they learn English. “Support” in the PLDs does not refer to the type of assistance that any student (whether an ELL or not) might need when learning academic content. It is specific to the unique language support that ELLs need. The overall language abilities of each proficiency level are as follows: Beginning students have little or no ability to understand/use English. They may know a little English but not enough to function or survive in “real-world” or “authentic” social or academic settings. Intermediate students do have some ability to understand and use English. They can function in real-world social and academic settings as long as tasks require them to understand and use simple language structures and high-frequency vocabulary within routine contexts. Advanced students have the ability to engage in grade-appropriate instruction in English, although ongoing support is needed to help them understand and use grade-appropriate language. These students function beyond the level of simple, routinely used English. Advanced high students have attained the command of English that enables them, with minimal support, to engage in regular, all-English classes at their grade level. Note that high academic achievement is not a prerequisite of the advanced high level of English language proficiency. Advanced high ELLs exhibit a range of academic achievement just as their native English-speaking peers do.This slide summarizes the major characteristics of the PLDs in terms of how well ELLs can understand and/or use English in social and academic settings at each of the four levels. These key features are found in the summary statements at the top of the PLDs for each language domain. As an example, refer to the summary statements at the top of the PLDs for listening. Note that “support” refers to second language acquisition support, that is, the language assistance ELLs need as they learn English. “Support” in the PLDs does not refer to the type of assistance that any student (whether an ELL or not) might need when learning academic content. It is specific to the unique language support that ELLs need. The overall language abilities of each proficiency level are as follows: Beginning students have little or no ability to understand/use English. They may know a little English but not enough to function or survive in “real-world” or “authentic” social or academic settings. Intermediate students do have some ability to understand and use English. They can function in real-world social and academic settings as long as tasks require them to understand and use simple language structures and high-frequency vocabulary within routine contexts. Advanced students have the ability to engage in grade-appropriate instruction in English, although ongoing support is needed to help them understand and use grade-appropriate language. These students function beyond the level of simple, routinely used English. Advanced high students have attained the command of English that enables them, with minimal support, to engage in regular, all-English classes at their grade level. Note that high academic achievement is not a prerequisite of the advanced high level of English language proficiency. Advanced high ELLs exhibit a range of academic achievement just as their native English-speaking peers do.

14. Reflect on how well the student understands the English used during activities such as: Paired reading Sing-alongs and read-alouds, including chants and poems Shared reading with big books, charts, overhead transparencies, other displays Guided reading with leveled readers/text Reading subject-area texts and related materials Independent reading Literature circles Cooperative group work Reading response journals Sustained silent reading Remember, beginning with the 2007-2008 school year, students in grade 2 will be assessed in reading using the multiple-choice TELPAS reading assessment rather than the observation protocols. Note that the reading proficiency level descriptors for grade 2 assume that students have reached the developmental stage of decoding written text. Remember, beginning with the 2007-2008 school year, students in grade 2 will be assessed in reading using the multiple-choice TELPAS reading assessment rather than the observation protocols. Note that the reading proficiency level descriptors for grade 2 assume that students have reached the developmental stage of decoding written text.

15. Reflect on how well K-1 students write in English during activities such as: Journal writing for personal reflections Shared writing for literacy and content area development Language experience dictation Organization of thoughts and ideas through prewriting strategies Publishing and presenting Making lists for specific purposes Labeling pictures, objects, and items from projects Cooperative group work First drafts Revising and editing skill application

16. Reflect on how well the student understands the English he or she hears during activities such as: Reacting to oral presentations Responding to text read aloud Following directions Cooperative group work Informal, social discourse with peers Large-group and small-group interactions in academic settings One-on-one interviews Individual student conferences

17. Reflect on how well the student speaks English during activities such as: Cooperative group work Oral presentations Informal, social discourse with peers Large-group and small-group interactions in academic settings One-on-one interviews Classroom discussions Articulation of problem-solving strategies Individual student conferences

18. TAKS Writing vs. TELPAS Writing TAKS measures how well students demonstrate grade-appropriate focus and coherence, conventions, organization, voice, and development of ideas in written compositions to meet TEKS writing achievement standards. TELPAS measures how well ELLs are able to use the English language as a medium for expressing their ideas in writing to fulfill grade-appropriate writing assignments in their content area classes. New raters who may be more accustomed to the TAKS written composition rubrics than the TELPAS writing rubrics should review this slide and notes carefully. TELPAS does not measure whether students have attained a particular level of academic writing achievement. TAKS measures this. Raters should not attempt to equate the advanced high level of English language proficiency with a particular TAKS written composition score or with passing the TAKS writing/ELA test. Neither the TAKS writing rubric nor a list of TEKS writing skills should be used in the TELPAS holistic rating process. To avoid an inappropriate focus on writing achievement, only the TELPAS writing rubrics are permitted to be used. Analyses conducted by TEA show, however, that there is a strong relationship between having an advanced high level of English language writing proficiency and succeeding on the TAKS writing test. This stands to reason because ELLs who know enough English to use it as an effective medium for expressing ideas in writing are no longer significantly hindered from acquiring or demonstrating grade-level academic writing skills. In cases where an advanced high ELL is not successful on the TAKS writing test, teachers and parents will know that it is not for reasons associated with an insufficient ability to express ideas or written information in English. Advanced high ELLs who do not pass the TAKS writing test typically lack the same writing skills as native speakers of English who don’t pass – that is, they may have weak English conventions; their writing may not be organized; they may not develop and link their ideas in a clear way, etc. Advanced high ELLs who are weak in these areas do not need carefully targeted support in second language acquisition; they need the same type of carefully targeted writing instruction as struggling native English speakers. New raters who may be more accustomed to the TAKS written composition rubrics than the TELPAS writing rubrics should review this slide and notes carefully. TELPAS does not measure whether students have attained a particular level of academic writing achievement. TAKS measures this. Raters should not attempt to equate the advanced high level of English language proficiency with a particular TAKS written composition score or with passing the TAKS writing/ELA test. Neither the TAKS writing rubric nor a list of TEKS writing skills should be used in the TELPAS holistic rating process. To avoid an inappropriate focus on writing achievement, only the TELPAS writing rubrics are permitted to be used. Analyses conducted by TEA show, however, that there is a strong relationship between having an advanced high level of English language writing proficiency and succeeding on the TAKS writing test. This stands to reason because ELLs who know enough English to use it as an effective medium for expressing ideas in writing are no longer significantly hindered from acquiring or demonstrating grade-level academic writing skills. In cases where an advanced high ELL is not successful on the TAKS writing test, teachers and parents will know that it is not for reasons associated with an insufficient ability to express ideas or written information in English. Advanced high ELLs who do not pass the TAKS writing test typically lack the same writing skills as native speakers of English who don’t pass – that is, they may have weak English conventions; their writing may not be organized; they may not develop and link their ideas in a clear way, etc. Advanced high ELLs who are weak in these areas do not need carefully targeted support in second language acquisition; they need the same type of carefully targeted writing instruction as struggling native English speakers.

19. TELPAS Writing Collection Overview

20. Basis for Writing Ratings Raters of students in grades 2–12 base their ratings on the contents of collections of the students’ writing. Additional classroom observations are not used.

21. Goal in Assembling Writing Collections To make sure the collections portray the students’ overall English language proficiency

22. Writing Activities TELPAS writing samples should be taken from authentic classroom activities.

23. Samples Required At least 5 total samples are required in each collection. In each collection there must be: - at least 1 narrative about a past event - at least 2 writing samples from math, science, or social studies

24. Extended, Connected Writing The writing samples should show the ability of students to connect ideas and express themselves in English in an extended way. Brief writing samples should not be placed in the collections of students who are capable of writing in an extended, connected way in English.*

25. February 1, 2008 Writing assigned on or after February 1, 2008, may be considered. Writing samples may continue to be gathered until the date designated by the district to assign the ratings.

26. Review of Collection Requirements Raters of students in enrolled grades 2-12 (regardless of instructional level) must assemble a writing collection for each student who will be assessed in writing.

27. Review of Collection Requirements Writing collections MUST contain: At least five samples At least one narrative writing sample about a past event At least 2 academic samples from math, science, or social studies Writing that is assigned between February 1st and the day the student is rated in writing Writing that accurately reflects a student’s current proficiency level The student’s name and date on every sample

28. Review of Collection Requirements Each writing collection must NOT contain: Samples containing copied language Papers where the student relies heavily on resources (dictionary, thesaurus, etc.) Papers showing teacher comments and corrections Worksheets, question-answer assignments, TAKS written compositions Papers that have been polished with help from peers or teachers Papers written primarily in the student’s native language Papers that are brief, incomplete, or rushed

29. Eligible Types of Writing* Examples of 6 types of writing are provided in the TELPAS Rater Manual: Basic descriptive writing on a personal/familiar topic Writing about a familiar process Narrative writing about a past event Reflective writing Extended writing on a topic from language arts Academic writing from science, mathematics, or social studies *Neither the types nor the examples provided of each type are exhaustive.

30. Has at least 5 total writing samples Includes 1 narrative about a past event and 2 academic writing samples from math, science, or social studies Contains no papers with teacher comment’s or corrections Includes no worksheets, question-answer assignments, or TAKS written compositions Has the student’s name and date on each sample Contains samples written primarily in English Includes no samples written before February 1, 2008 The verifier will ensure that each collection . . .

31. If the collection meets these requirements, the verifier will sign the writing collection verification checklist. If the collection does not meet these requirements, the verifier will return the collection according to campus procedures. It will need to be reverified once the collection is complete. The verifier should not sign the checklist until the collection meets the criteria. Verifying the Writing Collection Components

32. Assembling Collections Choose writing samples that reflect the student’s proficiency level. Avoid samples that interfere with the ability to rate the student effectively. Try to gather more than 5 writing samples for each student, then choose 5 samples that meet the criteria and are most reflective of the student’s current proficiency level.

33. Asssembling Collections Avoid overloading a collection with math, science, and social studies samples. Remember that it’s also important to include samples that show students writing about topics that are familiar and within their “comfort zone.” Too much familiar “comfort zone” writing is also not helpful. Students need to show the extent of their abilities, so assign tasks that will push them beyond their comfort level.

34. Writing Collection Deadlines Writing collections must be complete by MARCH 14, 2008 (local deadline) Raters may continue to rate collections until APRIL 4, 2008 (local deadline)

35. Scoring Collections If a student is near the border between two proficiency levels, it is a good idea to gather samples from as late in the window as possible to give the student a chance to demonstrate the full extent of the proficiency level attained.

36. Assigning Writing Students will be more likely to take their time and do a good job if the writing they’re doing is seen as a part of normal classroom writing. TELPAS writing should not be a separate activity or an assignment given only to ELLs. It is intended to be authentic classroom writing.

37. Assigning Writing Writing with titles like “Quick Writing,” “5 Minute Writing,” and “Writing Warm-Up” should be avoided in a TELPAS writing collection. Such assignments tend to generate writing that it rushed, brief, or incomplete.

38. Beginning-Level Writers Students who are at the early stages of the beginning level should be assigned writing tasks in English. Their writing will likely be very formulaic, memorized, and use vocabulary they have just learned.

39. Beginning-Level Writers It is expected that even beginning-level students will have writing collections containing samples in English. It is not acceptable to include samples written primarily in the native language, regardless of proficiency level.

40. Topic Selection A topic that works well for students at one proficiency level may not work well for students at another.

41. Topic Selection To ensure that raters get enough writing for students at all proficiency levels, they may: Gather enough writing on topics of varying difficulty for every student to be able to select those samples that are appropriate Modify the tasks assigned for students at lower proficiency levels Assign different tasks to students depending on their proficiency level

42. “Brief” Writing The length of writing samples within a collection will depend partly on the student’s proficiency level.

43. “Brief” Writing Raters will have to consider students’ abilities in determining whether papers are too brief to be included.

44. “Brief” Writing What is acceptable at one proficiency level may not be acceptable at another. Students who are capable of writing in a detailed extended way should not have papers in their collections that don’t reflect that.