connecticut’s performance on title iii annual measurable achievement objectives, 2008-09...

Connecticut’s Performance on Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives,

2008-09

Presentation to Connecticut Administrators of Programs for English Language Learners (CAPELL)

Michael Sabados, Ph.D.October 2, 2009

U.S. Department of Education Final Interpretation of Title III Regulations

(October 2008)

Annual assessment of all ELL students

All tested Title III-served students must be included in AMAO score calculations

English language service time should be taken into account when calculating AMAO scores

Progress (AMAO 1) should incorporate the language domains of reading, writing, listening and speaking

CT State Department of Education

CT Department of Education (CSDE)Updated Title III Accountability Plan

(January 2009)


• Progress (AMAO 1): improvement in overall scale score

• New AMAO 1 and AMAO 2 targets

• Weighting by service time for AMAO 1 and AMAO 2

Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives, 2008-09


AMAO Name Definition GoalAMAO 1 Progress Current overall score (average

of reading, writing, speaking and listening) greater than prior year’s overall scale score

70%

AMAO 2 Proficiency Overall score meets overall grade-level proficiency

22%

AMAO 3 AYP ELL subgroup meets Title I Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) targets

CMT Proficiency: Math (82%) Reading (79%) CAPT Proficiency:Math (80%)Reading (81%)

SAMPLE AMAO 2 (Proficiency) CALCULATIONCATEGORY < 1 YEAR

SERVICES1 – < 2 YEARS SERVICES

2+ YEARS SERVICES

TOTAL

UNWEIGHTED RATE

PROFICIENT 10 10 10 30

NOT PROFICIENT

20 20 30 70

TOTALS 30 30 40 100

WEIGHTED RATE

PROFICIENT 10 10 10 30

NOT PROFICIENT

4 8 30 42

TOTALS 14 18 40 72

UNWEIGHTED PROFICIENCY RATE: 30 PROFICIENT/100 TEST TAKERS= 30%

WEIGHTED PROFICIENCY RATE: 30 PROFICIENT/72 WEIGHTED TEST TAKERS = 42%


Title III Subgrantee AMAO Results, 2008-09


Total Subrantees Made AMAO 1 (Progress)

Made AMAO 2 (Pro-ficiency)

Made AMAO 3 (AYP)0

10

20

30

40

50

60 57 56 57

20

AMAO 3: Test Areas AYP Not Met By Title III Subgrantees, 2008-09


CAPT Math & Reading; 1

CMT: Reading; 10

CMT: Math & Reading; 18

CMT & CAPT: Math & Reading;

8

Title III Subgrantees by Years AMAO Not Met, 2008-09


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

8

42

8

3

12

Six

Five

Four

Three

Two

One

CT Students Who Made Progress and Achieved Proficiency or Better On LAS Links,

2008-09


Progress Proficient0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

81%

44%

19%

56%

Not Achieved

Achieved

Share of Students Proficient or BetterOn LAS Links Components, 2008-09


Writing Reading Listening Speaking0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

28%32%

43%

66%

Unw

eigh

ted

Prof

icie

ncy

Rate

Overall LAS Links Status, 2008-09


Overall LAS Level0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

16%

14%

26%

37%

7%

Above Proficient

Proficient

Intermediate

Early Intermediate

Beginner

Unweighted English Language Proficiency Rate by Years of English Language Services, 2008-09


<1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

25%

47%52% 54%

50%

63%68% 68%

65% 67%

57%

Years of English Language Services

Prof

icie

ncy

Rate

Elementary and Middle School Students Most Likely to Achieve Proficiency or Better,

2008-09


K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Grade

Unwe

ight

ed P

rofic

ienc

y Ra

te

Unweighted Proficiency Rate by District Reference Group and

Years of English Language Service, 2008-09


A B C D E F G H I.0%

10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

< 2 Years2+ Years

District Reference Group

Unw

eigh

ted

Prof

icie

ncy

Rat

e

DRG Share of LAS Test-takers:A: 1% F: 2%B: 7% G: 8%C: 1% H: 26%D: 15% I: 37%E: 1% No DRG: 2%

Students Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch Had Lower Unweighted Proficiency Rates,

2008-09


<2 2-3 4+0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

31%

49%54%

41%

68%

75%

EligibleNot Eligible

Years of English Language Service

Unw

eigh

ted

Prof

icie

ncy

Rate

Students with Disabilities Had Lower Unweighted Proficiency Rates, 2008-09


<2 2-3 4+%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

18%

29%34%35%

57%

64%

SWDOther

Years of English Language Services

Unw

eigh

ted

Prof

icie

ncy

Rate

AMAO DATA RESULTS SUMMARY, 2008 - 2009

Use of weighted data results

Of the 57 Title III Subgrantees:• 56 Met AMAO1 Goal for Progress • 57 Met AMAO 2 Goal for Proficiency• 20 Met AMAO 3 Goal for AYP

81% of All ELL Students Made Progress and 44% Attained Proficiency


For Further Information:

Michael Sabados, Ph.D.

(860) 713-6856

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

connecticut’s performance on title iii annual measurable achievement objectives, 2008-09...

Documents