wa seal of biliteracy advisory committee report for september 11
TRANSCRIPT
Washington State Seal of Biliteracy Recommended Criteria Recommendations to Superintendent Randy Dorn from the Seal of Biliteracy Advisory Committee, which met on September 11, 2014. Prepared by Michele Anciaux Aoki, Ph.D., P.M.P., International Education Administrator, Seattle Public Schools
October 2014 http://www.k12.wa.us/WorldLanguages/SealofBiliteracy.aspx
Page ii Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)
What is the Seal of Biliteracy? The Seal of Biliteracy is an award made by the state to recognize a student who has attained proficiency in both English and one or more other world languages by high school graduation. The Seal of Biliteracy may take the form of a gold seal or notation that appears on the transcript and diploma of the graduating senior. It is a statement of accomplishment that helps to signal evidence of a student’s readiness for career and college, and to engage as a global citizen. The Seal of Biliteracy originated in California and was signed into law in October 2011, with the first seals being issued starting in early 2012. New York passed their bill and it was signed into law in July 2012. Illinois passed their law in 2013, and a number of other states are also enacting legislation.
Executive Summary
Efforts in Washington state to enact a State Seal of Biliteracy began shortly after California enacted its Seal in 2011. Stakeholders from major language organizations, including the Washington Association for Bilingual Education (WABE) and the Washington Association for Language Teaching (WAFLT), held discussions and meetings and shared information in their publications. In the 2014 legislative session, bills were introduced by Representative Luis Moscoso in the House of Representatives and Senator Pam Roach in the Senate. Ultimately, the Senate bill passed and was used as the vehicle for the final bill, which passed both houses in March and was signed into law by Governor Jay Inslee on March 27, 2014. The bill included a fiscal note so that the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction could convene a Seal of Biliteracy Advisory Committee to recommend criteria for the Seal to Superintendent Dorn. The meeting was held on September 11, 2014 in Highline Public Schools. During the meeting, the Committee considered draft criteria proposed by the stakeholder organizations based on legislation in California and other states. Brief presentations were made on a variety of topics, including Introduction to the WA State Seal Legislation, Overview of National Efforts, Understanding Proficiency, Competency-Based Credits, Assessment Options, Utah’s Model — 2 Levels of the Seal, and International and Other Test Options. By the end of the day, consensus was reached on criteria to recommend to Superintendent Randy Dorn for implementing the State Seal of Biliteracy in Washington State:
o Demonstrating proficiency in English by meeting state high school graduation requirements in English.
o Demonstrating proficiency in a world language other than English through one of a range of approved language assessment options, including Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), tests used for Competency-Based Credits in Washington, and other international (or national) tests at a level comparable to Intermediate Mid on the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. A list of approved assessments and target levels for the Seal would be available from the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Washington State Seal of Biliteracy Recommended Criteria Page iii
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1
Pre-Meeting Preparations ......................................................................................................................... 2
Draft Criteria: Starting Place .................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction of the WA State Seal Legislation ....................................................................................... 4
Overview of National Efforts ................................................................................................................... 5
Understanding Proficiency ....................................................................................................................... 6
Competency-Based Credits ...................................................................................................................... 8
Draft Criteria: Mid-Day ........................................................................................................................... 10
How Should the Seal Be Represented? ................................................................................................. 11
Consider Assessment Options ............................................................................................................... 13
Utah’s Model — 2 levels of the Seal ...................................................................................................... 14
International and Other Test Options ................................................................................................... 15
Conclusions & Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 17
Appendix A: Initial Supporters (as of September 2013) ..................................................................... 19
Appendix B: Advisory Committee Members ...................................................................................... 20
Appendix C: September 11, 2014 Meeting Agenda............................................................................. 22
Appendix D: Draft Criteria (before meeting) ....................................................................................... 23
Appendix E: Final Criteria (at end of meeting) ................................................................................... 24
Appendix F: Assessment Evaluation Criteria ...................................................................................... 25
Page iv Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)
List of Figures
Figure 1. Resources for the Seal of Biliteracy Advisory Committee Figure 2. ACTFL Inverted Pyramid Figure 3. Examples: California Seal, Medallion (for graduation), Certificate from OSPI (similar to Competency-Based Credits certificate)
List of Tables
Table 1. Seal of Biliteracy Draft Criteria: Starting Place Summary Table 2. Competency-Based Credit Testing in 2012-2013 Table 3. Competency-Based Credit Testing in 2013-2014 7 Road Map Districts Table 4. Seal of Biliteracy Draft Criteria: Mid-Day Summary Table 5. Seal Options, Pluses and Minuses Table 6. AP Exam Results 2012-2013 Table 7. Seal of Biliteracy Draft Criteria: Final Summary
Washington State Seal of Biliteracy Recommended Criteria Page 1
What is the Seal of Biliteracy? The Seal of Biliteracy is an award made by the state to recognize a student who has attained proficiency in both English and one or more other world languages by high school graduation. The Seal of Biliteracy may take the form of a gold seal or notation that appears on the transcript and diploma of the graduating senior. It is a statement of accomplishment that helps to signal evidence of a student’s readiness for career and college, and to engage as a global citizen. The Seal of Biliteracy originated in California and was signed into law in October 2011, with the first seals being issued starting in early 2012. New York passed their bill and it was signed into law in July 2012. Illinois passed their law in 2013, and a number of other states are also enacting legislation.
Introduction
Efforts in Washington state to enact a State Seal of Biliteracy began shortly after California enacted its Seal in 2011. Stakeholders from major language organizations, including the Washington Association for Bilingual Education (WABE) and the Washington Association for Language Teaching (WAFLT), held discussions and meetings and shared information in their publications. Over time a list was compiled of stakeholders, including representatives from several major universities in the state, who would support the implementation of a Washington State Seal of Biliteracy. In the 2014 legislative session, bills were introduced by Representative Luis Moscoso in the House of Representatives and Senator Pam Roach in the Senate. Ultimately, the Senate bill passed and was used as the vehicle for the final bill, which passed both houses in March and was signed into law by Governor Jay Inslee on March 27, 2014.
Photo signing with Governor Inslee on March 27, 2014.
The bill included a fiscal note so that the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction could convene a Seal of Biliteracy Advisory Committee to recommend criteria for the Seal to Superintendent Dorn. This report is a summary of the deliberation process and the final recommendations from that committee’s meeting, held on September 11, 2014 in Highline Public Schools.
Page 2 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)
Pre-Meeting Preparations
In order to give committee members as much background as possible in advance of the meeting, OSPI prepared three webinars during the month of August and also posted a variety of background materials on the OSPI web page for the Seal of Biliteracy.
Figure 1. Resources for the Seal of Biliteracy Advisory Committee
http://www.k12.wa.us/WorldLanguages/SealofBiliteracy.aspx
Senate Bill 6424 Seal of Biliteracy Overview (PDF)
Competency-Based Credits for World Languages
Competency-Based Credits Overview (PDF) Assessment Options Overview (PDF) Assessment Options by Language (PDF)
Testing Options under Consideration for the Seal
AP Chinese | AP French | AP German | AP Italian | AP Japanese AP Latin | AP Spanish International Baccalaureate (IB) DELE (National Test from Spain) and Common European Framework Self-Assessment Grid TOPIK (National Test from Korea) Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) National Japanese Exam HSK (National Chinese Proficiency Test)
Webinars
Seal of Biliteracy Webinar #1: “State of the States” Monday, August 18, 2014 4:00-4:30 pm View Recording of Webinar #1 | Presentation Handout State of the States Seal of Biliteracy Status and Criteria
Seal of Biliteracy Webinar #2: Competency-Based Credits for World Languages Monday, August 25, 2014 4:00-4:30 pm View Recording of Webinar #2 | Presentation Handout 2012-2013 Statewide Test Results Summary
Seal of Biliteracy Webinar #3: Making Sense of World Language Proficiency Tuesday, August 26, 2014 4:00-5:00 pm View Recording of Webinar #3 | Avant Assessment STAMP STAMP Benchmarks and Reporting
Washington State Seal of Biliteracy Recommended Criteria Page 3
Draft Criteria: Starting Place
In order to help guide the deliberation during the meeting, we began by passing out a page with the draft criteria that had been widely discussed by language stakeholders in Washington and asking each committee member to indicate their level of agreement with each criterion as a starting place for the meeting. Table 1 is a summary of the initial responses from the members. Table 1. Seal of Biliteracy Draft Criteria: Starting Place Summary
Criterion Agree Disagree Not
Sure
(1) Completion of all state and district requirements for high school graduation, including any required state tests.
64% 18% 18%
(2) Proficiency in one or more languages other than English, demonstrated through one of the following methods:
(A) Passing a foreign language Advanced Placement examination with a score of 3 or higher or an International Baccalaureate examination with a score of 4 or higher.
50% 0% 50%
(B) Receiving a rating of Intermediate Mid or higher on a nationally available assessment of proficiency across language skills based on the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (e.g., STAMP 4S or ACTFL OPI and WPT).
77% 0% 23%
(C) For less commonly taught languages (for which STAMP or ACTFL assessments are not available), earning 4 Competency-Based Credits based on demonstrating proficiency in the spoken and written language at Intermediate Mid or higher according to the model state policy and procedure for Competency-Based Credits.
86% 0% 14%
(D) Successfully completing an international exam, such as the DELE (for Spanish), at the level of A2 or higher based on the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). A list of all acceptable international exams is available from OSPI.
32% 0% 68%
(b) For purposes of this article, "foreign language" or “world language” means a language other than English, and includes American Sign Language, Latin, as well as Native American or other indigenous languages or dialects.
73% 0% 27%
Page 4 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)
Introduction of the WA State Seal Legislation
Jessica Vavrus, Assistant Superintendent for Teaching & Learning at OSPI, provided an overview of the highlights of the legislation that would guide the committee’s work. These included: Senate Bill 6424 “[T]he legislature's intent is to promote and recognize linguistic proficiency and cultural literacy in one or more world languages in addition to English through the establishment of a Washington state seal of biliteracy.”
Passed by the Senate March 10, 2014: YEAS 49 NAYS 0
Passed by the House March 6, 2014: YEAS 69 NAYS 27
Signed by the Governor March 27, 2014 Provisions: “Participating school districts shall place a notation on a student's high school diploma and high school transcript indicating that the student has earned the seal.” Criteria: “The office of the superintendent of public instruction shall adopt rules establishing criteria for award of the Washington state seal of biliteracy. The criteria must require a student to demonstrate proficiency in English by meeting state high school graduation requirements in English, including through state assessments and credits, and proficiency in one or more world languages other than English. The criteria must permit a student to demonstrate proficiency in another world language through multiple methods including nationally or internationally recognized language proficiency tests and competency-based world language credits awarded under the model policy adopted by the Washington state school directors' association.” Concerns about Equity: “For the purposes of this section, a world language other than English must include American sign language and Native American languages.” Languages of Students in Transitional Bilingual Programs “By December 1, 2017, the office of the superintendent of public instruction shall submit a report to the education committees of the legislature that compares the number of students awarded the Washington state seal of biliteracy in the previous two school years and the languages spoken by those students, to the number of students enrolled or previously enrolled in the transitional bilingual instruction program and the languages spoken by those students.” Increasing the Methods for Demonstrating Proficiency “The office of the superintendent of public instruction shall also report the methods used by students to demonstrate proficiency for the Washington state seal of biliteracy, and describe how the office of the superintendent of public instruction plans to increase the number of possible methods for students to demonstrate proficiency, particularly in world languages that are not widely spoken.”
Washington State Seal of Biliteracy Recommended Criteria Page 5
Overview of National Efforts
Marta Mikkelsen Burnet, a University of Washington Ph.D. student in the College of Education who has been researching the Seal of Biliteracy nationally, provided an Overview of National Efforts to Establish a Seal of Biliteracy in Different States. (For the complete summary, see:
State of the States Seal of Biliteracy Status and Criteria.) Purpose of the Seal
• To certify attainment of biliteracy for students, employers and universities; • To prepare pupils with 21st century skills; • To recognize and promote world and native language instruction in public schools; and • To strengthen intergroup relationships, affirm the value of diversity, and honor the multiple
cultures and languages of a community. States with Approved Seals
• California, passed 2011 • New York, passed in 2012 • Illinois and Texas, passed in 2013 • Louisiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Washington, passed in 2014 • Utah, North Carolina (NEW) and Oregon to decide this fall
Differences in Criteria Specified
• Seat time + GPA criteria – CA, TX, LA to allow, RI to allow for Dual Language students – NJ, IL and NM do not, others are TBD
• Intermediate Low through Superior ACTFL Proficiency rating – Intermediate Mid: NJ, RI, UT — Gold level – Intermediate High: Texas, IL – Advanced Low: LA, UT — Platinum level – Superior: MN – TBD: NY, WA, OR, NC – Does Not Specify: CA, NM (proficient equivalent to exams)
• Allowing Foreign Exams – LA will allow, others TBD or do not specify
Questions to Consider in Washington
• Should seat time credits be a criterion? • How do we ensure there is equity, such that any language could qualify for the Seal? • How do we ensure that the opportunity to earn the Seal is not a "one time" thing?
Following the brief presentation, Marta facilitated small group and large group discussion and deliberation. There was lengthy discussion about the issue of seat-time credits. While there was 100% agreement that seat-time credits were not an adequate way of demonstrating proficiency (in our state, at least), there was an awareness that this could be a “jolt” to some traditional world language teachers if their students (after four years of language study) decided to take a proficiency test and couldn’t reach the Intermediate Mid level. This could have a positive impact in
Page 6 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)
that students and parents would demand that language classes begin to prioritize teaching for communication and language proficiency, which is considered “best practice” in the world language field, rather than focusing on memorization of grammar rules and vocabulary. The members felt this was a “good problem to have.” Another point of clarification was that college admissions offices do not actually “count” credits (whether seat-time or Competency-Based); they look at the highest level of credit earned (e.g., Spanish 2 (usually means 2 credits have been earned for Spanish 1 and Spanish 2) to determine if the student meets college admissions requirements. The discussion also touched on the issue of cost, especially for smaller districts to offer the proficiency assessments. It was noted that this is an issue for Competency-Based Credits, not just for students who want to earn the Seal. At the moment there is no state funding for world language testing, and districts handle it in different ways. Some districts, like Evergreen and Bellingham, have sponsored all the students (primarily 11th and 12th graders) that they approved for testing. Other districts, such as Seattle and Spokane, have allowed students who were not “sponsored” by the district to pay for the tests themselves. Finally, there was a conversation about equity of access to studying a language at all, especially for multiple years in order to reach the level required for the Seal of Biliteracy. It was pointed out that while not every school has a classroom teacher to teach four or more years of a language, all students in the state do now have access to OSPI’s Digital Learning Department, which offers a number of online world language courses through the AP level. It would be important to publicize this option to students and families early and support smaller or more rural districts to offer this option to students who aspire to earning the Seal but do not have access to a language classroom in their school. The consensus of the committee was that:
Seat time credits should not be a criterion for Washington because our state has not set target proficiency levels for world language classes, nor is there a requirement for K-12 teachers to follow world language standards (with a focus on communication and developing proficiency). The language practitioners felt that California’s criterion of 4 seat time credits would likely not be valid in our state.
Furthermore, equity is of primary concern in Washington state. The vast majority of languages spoken in our state would not be served by seat-time credits. On the other hand, there are multiple testing options (including quite inexpensive ones) for the commonly taught languages in our state, Spanish, French, German, Japanese, and Chinese.
To promote equity for different languages, language proficiency testing should be available to students at no cost and students should not have to rely on their district to offer testing opportunities. Is there a role for the Educational Service Districts (ESDs)?
Understanding Proficiency
Dr. Bridget Yaden, Associate Professor of Spanish at Pacific Lutheran University and Assessment Coordinator for WAFLT, presented key concepts of language proficiency. In the world languages field, proficiency is generally based on the ACTFL proficiency scale. She noted that the ACTFL
Washington State Seal of Biliteracy Recommended Criteria Page 7
Proficiency Guidelines website provides numerous examples in English, and a number of other languages, of what proficiency looks like in Writing and Speaking at the different levels. It is very helpful for students to familiarize themselves with these examples. ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012 http://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012
• “…description of what individuals can do with language in terms of speaking, writing, listening, and reading in real-world situations in a spontaneous and non-rehearsed context.”
• Five major levels of proficiency: – Novice (Low, Mid, High) – Intermediate (Low, Mid High) – Advanced (Low, Mid, High) – Superior – Distinguished
The ACTFL “Inverted Pyramid” shown in Figure 2 illustrates how long it takes to move up the scale from Novice to Intermediate to Advanced levels (or higher). It was noted that based on national assessment data from STAMP (Standards-Based Measurement of Proficiency), less than 50% of students who have completed three years of high school world language study will reach Novice High (or higher) across all language skills tested.. Figure 2. ACTFL Inverted Pyramid
Page 8 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)
Competency-Based Credits
Dr. Michele Anciaux Aoki, formerly World Languages and International Education Program Supervisor at OSPI, provided an overview of Competency-Based Credits for World Languages. The background was work by OSPI and the State Board of Education (SBE) in 2009-2010 to study the possibility of offering Competency-Based Credits for World Languages to students in Washington, resulting in a state model policy and procedure developed by OSPI, SBE, and the Washington State School Directors’ Association. Beginning in spring 2011, several districts began offering assessments to students. The process went well, and both Highline School District and Seattle Public Schools adopted the model policy and procedure and began testing actively in 2011-2012. Testing has expanded with at least 25 districts participating in 2012-2013, and even more in 2013-2014. The number of languages tested has increased from 40 in 2012-2013 to 56 in 2013-2014. Table 2. Competency-Based Credit Testing in 2012-2013
Competency-Based Credits 2012-2013
# students tested 1,615
# students earned credits 1,589
# of credits earned 4,841
% students earned 4 credits 40%
# of districts participating 25
# of languages tested 40
Table 3. Competency-Based Credit Testing in 2013-2014 7 Road Map Districts*
Competency-Based Credits 2013-2014
# students tested 1,475
# students earned credits 1,458 (99%)
% students earned 4 credits 49%
# of districts participating 7 Road Map
# of languages tested 56 *The 7 Road Map districts (Auburn, Federal Way, Highline, Kent, Renton, Seattle, and Tukwila) were funded by a Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation World Language Credit Program grant from 2012-2014 to pay for testing and administrative costs for offering English Language Learner and heritage language students Competency-Based Credits in their languages. (See: http://www.k12.wa.us/WorldLanguages/RoadMap/default.aspx.) Note that a complete of count of state Competency-Based Credit testing in 2013-2014 in WA was not yet compiled at the time of the meeting.
Implications for the State Seal of Biliteracy
• The WA Legislation specifies that Competency-Based Credits must be an option for earning the Seal
• The likely target proficiency level for the Seal would be Intermediate Mid (when students earn 4 credits)
• Experience to date suggests that about 40% or more of students are earning 4 credits, so could qualify for the Seal
Washington State Seal of Biliteracy Recommended Criteria Page 9
Handouts provided further details about the assessment options, costs, and languages:
Assessment Options Overview (PDF) | Assessment Options by Language (PDF) Following the presentation, Michele facilitated small group and large group discussion and deliberation. Additional points considered:
Competency-Based Credits are an effective way to ensure equitable opportunities for students to test in their home language. The testing process that Washington has set up provides a test for virtually any language. The challenge sometimes is in finding a qualified evaluator. For the very “less commonly taught/tested languages” such as Oromo and Chuukese, OSPI works with a national translation agency to identify language professionals who can be guided to provide an evaluation of whether the student’s writing and oral language samples can be used for determining recommended credits, based on this guide:
o “At least Novice Mid” (both writing and oral language) 1 credit
o “At least Novice High” 2 credits
o “At least Intermediate Low” 3 credits
o “At least Intermediate Mid” 4 credits
It has taken as long as six months to find an evaluator for one language (Chuukese), but the evaluation coordinator was finally successful.
For indigenous languages, which may not have a written form that speakers of the language would normally have an opportunity to learn, OSPI expects to work with our partners at the Center for Applied Second Language Studies (CASLS) at the University of Oregon to develop appropriate speaking prompts that entail the type of extended discourse (connected paragraphs, for example) that would be required for storytelling. In other words, the proficiency tests can and should be adapted to be culturally relevant and appropriate. The ACTFL Proficiency rating scale can still be used for rating.
The decision to cap the number of credits that could be earned via Competency-Based Credits in the state model procedure to 4 credits was due to several considerations:
o Colleges generally do not look for more than 4 credits of world language on a high school transcript so there is no particular advantage to trying to offer 5 credits, for example. (And world language credits are elective credits; colleges would probably prefer to see a variety of electives, such as Art or Technology, in addition to world languages on the transcript.)
o Proficiency takes time to develop at higher levels. Not many students would reach Intermediate High even if they studied the language in both middle and high school.
o Because a number of “less commonly taught/tested languages” do not have a ready cadre of qualified evaluators of proficiency, it would be a much higher expectation to try to rate samples at the Intermediate High or Advanced levels. Intermediate Mid is reasonable, based on our state’s experience.
Some members expressed concern that there needs to a long-term plan for supporting the testing for Competency-Based Credits. The partnership of OSPI and WAFLT is not really sustainable as demand increases because WAFLT is supporting this effort as a volunteer organization.
The general consensus of the group was that Competency-Based Credits do meet the requirements for equity in terms of languages served and the target proficiency level of Intermediate Mid (which corresponds to 4 Competency-Based Credits) ensures that the current system of testing would meet the criterion.
Page 10 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)
Draft Criteria: Mid-Day
Following the morning sessions, the members of the committee again completed the survey of their level of agreement with each criterion from the Draft Criteria. Table 4 is a summary of the mid-day responses from the members. Table 4. Seal of Biliteracy Draft Criteria: Mid-Day Summary
Criterion Agree Disagree Not
Sure
(1) Completion of all state and district requirements for high school graduation, including any required state tests.
87% 4% 9%
(2) Proficiency in one or more languages other than English, demonstrated through one of the following methods:
(A) Passing a foreign language Advanced Placement examination with a score of 3 or higher or an International Baccalaureate examination with a score of 4 or higher.
65% 4% 30%
(B) Receiving a rating of Intermediate Mid or higher on a nationally available assessment of proficiency across language skills based on the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (e.g., STAMP 4S or ACTFL OPI and WPT).
83% 9% 9%
(C) For less commonly taught languages (for which STAMP or ACTFL assessments are not available), earning 4 Competency-Based Credits based on demonstrating proficiency in the spoken and written language at Intermediate Mid or higher according to the model state policy and procedure for Competency-Based Credits.
83% 4% 13%
(D) Successfully completing an international exam, such as the DELE (for Spanish), at the level of A2 or higher based on the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). A list of all acceptable international exams is available from OSPI.
39% 4% 57%
(b) For purposes of this article, "foreign language" or “world language” means a language other than English, and includes American Sign Language, Latin, as well as Native American or other indigenous languages or dialects.
87% 0% 13%
Washington State Seal of Biliteracy Recommended Criteria Page 11
How Should the Seal Be Represented?
During the working lunch, the members of the committee were asked to consider various options for representing the Seal of Biliteracy. What is known at this time is that the common transcript will be updated to include a simple indication that the Seal of Biliteracy was earned. The transcript itself will not indicate which language(s) or which criteria were used to satisfy the requirements. (Such a change might be requested in the future, but it would take many months to implement a new data requirement.) Options considered at the meeting included:
Gold Seal (sticker) for the diploma
Districts have the option of offering a Biliteracy medallion
Signed Certificate from OSPI with the criteria (tests) and results that qualified the student for the Seal
o Gold Seal could be attached here
o Superintendent could sign it Figure 3. Examples: California Seal, Medallion (for graduation), Certificate from OSPI (similar to Competency-Based Credits certificate)
Page 12 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)
The committee members considered all of these options and suggested another one, a kind of “Seal of Biliteracy” ID card (like a driver’s license) that a student could carry with him for job interviews. Table 5. Seal Options, Pluses and Minuses
Option Pluses Minuses Gold Seal Not expensive
Visible sign of earning the Seal
OSPI needs to mail them to the districts
Doesn’t show the language or ratings
Medallion Districts choose to do it and cover the cost)
Nice for students (esp. at graduation)
Not equitable (some districts do it, some don’t)
Certificate Provides details on tests
Not difficult for OSPI to administer (mainly mailing costs)
Can be copied and mailed to colleges or employers
Is paper certificate valued by student?
Seal of Biliteracy ID Card Visible sign of earning the Seal
Provides details on tests
Probably not very expensive; easy to mail
Need to have machine for making the ID cards
Several committee members asked about using a cord at graduation instead of the medallion, but those who had used the medallions said they were quite impressive and students loved having them. Final recommendation: Poll the students about what they would like.
Washington State Seal of Biliteracy Recommended Criteria Page 13
Consider Assessment Options
Following lunch, the committee reconvened with a focus on assessment options. In addition to the assessments used for Competency-Based Credits, the members considered the AP and IB tests using handouts provided:
AP Chinese | AP French | AP German | AP Italian | AP Japanese | AP Latin | AP Spanish International Baccalaureate (IB)
Comparison of Assessment Options
Competency-Based Credits
o Based on Language Proficiency Assessments aligned with the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines
o Testing available “any time, any place”
Advanced Placement (AP) Tests
o Connected with high schools that offer AP courses with approved AP Curriculum
International Baccalaureate (IB) Tests
o Connected with high schools that offer IB courses with approved IB Curriculum The members reviewed the counts of students who had scored 3, 4, or 5 on the AP language exams in 2012-2013 to get an idea of the number of students who might be impacted. (Note that the Spanish Literature & Culture would not be used, just Spanish Language.) Table 6. AP Exam Results 2012-2013
AP World Languages # of Exams
Score of 3
Score of 4
Score of 5
Score of 3, 4, or 5
Chinese Language & Culture 180 23 23 129 175
French Language 279 114 64 47 225
German Language 63 12 21 15 48
Italian 3 - - - -
Japanese Language & Culture 118 37 12 38 87
Latin 24 7 11 3 21
Spanish Language 1,393 326 337 221 884
Spanish Literature & Culture 72 35 22 7 64
Totals 2,132 554 490 460 1,504
The general consensus of the group was that:
The target levels on AP (at least 3) and IB (4) are comparable to the Intermediate Mid (4 credits) target for Competency-Based Credits although AP and IB are not general tests of language proficiency.
Since AP (3) and IB (4) are included as criteria in almost all of the other states that have or are working on the Seal, it would be unfair to Washington students to not allow these tests to satisfy the criteria or to set a higher level (such as AP 4).
Page 14 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)
There was some concern about the opportunities that exist for students to take AP or IB tests. Knowledgeable committee members indicated that any students can take an AP exam (if they can find a test location that would allow them to test). IB is more limited; it is only offered through official IB programs.
For AP, it is possible to retest (the following year) if the student does not pass.
While AP (and IB) are not offered widely across the state in traditional world language programs, the OSPI Digital Learning Department does offer AP courses for a number of languages (plus Levels 1-3 preceding the AP level). Therefore, in principle, any motivated student could get access to an opportunity to study a language to the AP level.
Including these tests as criteria for the Seal could incentivize districts to expand their world language programs and offer more AP and IB courses (and the corresponding tests). This is advantageous to students for dual crediting (in high school and college).
There was recognition that AP and IB tests exist for a very limited number of languages, so they do not really help us meet the goal of providing equitable opportunities to ELL and heritage language students in our state.
Note that a few states also accept SAT II language tests. They were not included in Washington’s Draft Criteria for consideration because they do not include writing and speaking components.
Utah’s Model — 2 levels of the Seal
The committee turned next to the very interesting proposal being considered in Utah to offer two levels of the Seal:
Gold, Intermediate Mid
o For students who wait until secondary school to start a world language
o Or heritage students that have average proficiency in their native language
Platinum, Advanced Low
o For students who start in Dual Language Immersion programs
o Or students who have higher proficiency in their native language other than English Once again, the discussion was very rich, and there was genuine interest in the possibility of offering a higher level Seal. This would both recognize the many ELL and heritage language learners who have received Advanced level ratings on the ACTFL tests, for example, as well as provide an incentive to students in the growing number of Dual Language Immersion programs in the state to continue their language study through high school with the goal of reaching Advanced proficiency before college. However, the committee had the following concerns or reservations:
Currently, the highest level used for Competency-Based Credits is Intermediate Mid (to earn 4 Competency-Based Credits). In particular, the OSPI-provided Proctored Writing and Oral Language Tests that are used for very “less commonly taught/tested languages” only evaluate to the “At least Intermediate Mid” level. Without a great deal more national
Washington State Seal of Biliteracy Recommended Criteria Page 15
outreach to find evaluators for these languages, students with these languages would not be able to earn the Platinum level Seal — through no fault of their own.
Washington has provided no state-level support for Dual Language Immersion programs. Therefore, only a few districts have them. While it would be a nice opportunity for students in those districts, it would put other students in the state at a disadvantage — again, through no fault of their own.
The recommendation, then, was to observe how this plan unfolds in Utah and to revisit the possibility in a future year, for example, in 2017 when the report is due to the Legislature.
International and Other Test Options
The final session of the day was devoted to exploring some of the international and other test options put forward by stakeholders from these countries, which are, generally partners to our state (or to specific districts). The members considered these tests using handouts provided:
DELE (National Test from Spain) and Common European Framework Self-Assessment Grid TOPIK (National Test from Korea) Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) National Japanese Exam HSK (National Chinese Proficiency Test)
As can be seen by reviewing the Starting Place and Mid-Day surveys of agreement with the Draft Criteria, the international tests were the area of greatest uncertainty. In the morning, 68% of the members indicated that they were unsure about these tests, and by mid-day, 57% were unsure, but 4% also disagreed with using them. For this reason, we took ample time to converse in small groups and within the large group about the tests themselves, as well as why it was important for them to be considered as options. Some reasons to consider including international tests in the criteria include:
The DELE has been used in a number of schools in Washington for some time. In particular, Bellevue School District uses it to test their high school Immersion continuation students at the B2 level (on the Common European Framework of Reference CEFR). The DELE is offered through the Cervantes Institute and is supported by the University of Washington Spanish and Portuguese Division.
The HSK is a newer test in Washington, but it is offered by the Confucius Institute of the State of Washington at the University of Washington Language Learning Center several times a year (and at some other locations in the state). It is a requirement for students who would like to qualify to receive a scholarship to study in China.
The TOPIK is already being used in at least two districts (Tacoma and Federal Way), and the Consulate of Korea has signed memoranda of understanding with those districts in order to offer the TOPIK to Korean language students.
The JLPT is used for admission to advanced education in Japan and is useful for work or to attain employment or promotion.
Page 16 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)
None of these tests are options for Competency-Based Credits because they are not specifically aligned to the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and they are limited in availability (time and location). But, the Seal aims at a single benchmark (Intermediate Mid or equivalent), so these tests could be considered for the Seal.
As one member noted, Washington does not “need” these tests in order to accomplish the goal of providing opportunities for students to earn the Seal of Biliteracy. However, out of respect for our international partners and the desire to encourage our students to think globally, it is advantageous to include international tests when and where it makes sense. As the committee reviewed each summary page for the international tests, what became clear is that some tests are not set up to measure proficiency, i.e. the student’s ability to use the language to demonstrate speaking and literacy skills, in particular, writing. Other tests do not seem to correlate at all to the ACTFL levels, in particular, Intermediate Mid. (For the tests aligned to the Common European Framework of Reference, it’s generally agreed that A2 corresponds to Intermediate Mid level on the ACTFL scale.) The committee was also aware that other international tests were not represented in the discussion at the meeting but would want to be considered in the future. The consensus was that OSPI should maintain a list of acceptable international tests (and levels) that districts could refer to in qualifying students to earn the Seal of Biliteracy. In order to provide flexibility over time, it would be good if the rules (Washington Administrative Code or WAC) could reference the list of approved tests at OSPI rather than trying to list all of them out specifically in the WAC. The committee further recognized that there might be other assessments (within the U.S.) that could be put forward for consideration. The consensus was to broaden the rules statement regarding international assessments to allow for national or international assessments. There was also a brief discussion about allowing local assessments, such as the SLIP, which is offered in the Portland/Vancouver area, but the members generally felt that to qualify, a test should be able to be offered anywhere in the state.
Washington State Seal of Biliteracy Recommended Criteria Page 17
Conclusions & Recommendations
The committee was diverse geographically, linguistically, and professionally. They worked exceptionally well together and gave careful consideration to all options. By the end of the day, there was clear consensus on the following criteria: Table 7. Seal of Biliteracy Draft Criteria: Final Summary
Criterion Agree Notes
(1) Demonstrate proficiency in English by meeting state high school graduation requirements in English, including any required state tests.
Yes This criterion was reworded to match the legislation language.
(2) Demonstrate proficiency in one or more world languages other than English. The criteria must permit a student to demonstrate proficiency in another world language through multiple methods including nationally or internationally recognized language proficiency tests and competency-based world language credits awarded under the model policy adopted by the Washington state school directors' association. The approved methods include:
Yes This criterion overview was reworded to match the legislation language.
(A) Passing a foreign language Advanced Placement examination with a score of 3 or higher or an International Baccalaureate examination with a score of 4 or higher.
Yes
The committee felt these levels were appropriate and matched what other states were doing.
(B) Demonstrating proficiency in the spoken and written language at Intermediate Mid level or higher based on the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, using assessments approved by OSPI for Competency-Based Credits.
Yes
This is the testing option that students in non-AP or IB language programs who had seat-time credits (so did not need Competency-Based Credits) could use. The list of “approved” tests would be based on what is used for Competency-Based Credits. This is for tests that are clearly aligned with the ACTFL scale.
(C) Qualifying for 4 Competency-Based Credits by demonstrating proficiency in the spoken and written language at Intermediate Mid level or higher based on the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, according to the state model policy and procedure for Competency-Based Credits for World Languages.
Yes
This makes the connection specific to the legislation’s references to Competency-Based Credits.
Page 18 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)
Criterion Agree Notes
(D) Demonstrating proficiency in the spoken and written language through other approved national or international assessments at a level comparable to Intermediate Mid level or higher based on the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. A list of approved assessments and target levels for the Seal is available from OSPI.
Maybe Yes?
The consensus was to offer the international (and national) option, but aligned with the proficiency skills that are entailed in other assessments (such as those used for Competency-Based Credits). If this approach will work, then OSPI needs to create and maintain the list of approved tests.
(b) For purposes of this article, "foreign language" or “world language” means a language other than English, and includes American Sign Language, Latin, as well as Native American or other indigenous languages or dialects.
Yes
This is pretty standard language and ensures equity for ASL and indigenous languages. (Note that both are also included in Competency-Based Credits.)
Note: Wording on some criteria has been updated from the original Draft Criteria.
Washington State Seal of Biliteracy Recommended Criteria Page 19
Appendix A: Initial Supporters (as of September 2013)
Organizations and Individuals who indicated initial support (as of September, 2013): Washington Association for Language Teaching (WAFLT) Washington Association for Bilingual Education (WABE) Global Washington Cervantes Institute Confucius Institute of the State of Washington Consulate of Mexico, Consulate of Peru, Consulate of El Salvador Honorary Consul of Spain Luis Fernando Esteban Consul General of Japan Kingdom of Spain - Spanish Center (OSPI and UW) Road Map Project (ELL Work Group) One America School Districts:
o Kent o Seattle o Tukwila
Central Washington University Columbia Community College Eastern Washington University Pacific Lutheran University Seattle University University of Puget Sound University of Washington
o Ana-Mari Cauce, PhD, Provost o Bob Stacey, PhD, Dean of Arts & Sciences o Michael Shapiro, PhD, Divisional Dean of Arts & Humanities o Tom Stritikus, PhD, Dean of the College of Education o Resat Kasaba, PhD, Director, Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies. o Tony Geist, PhD, Chair of the Division of Spanish & Portuguese Studies o Paul K. Aoki, PhD, Director of the Language Learning Center
Western Washington University o Paqui Paredes Méndez, PhD, Associate Professor of Spanish/Chair Department
of Modern and Classical Languages o Brent Carbajal, Provost, currently Dean of Humanities o Dean Francisco Rios, Dean, Woodring College of Education o Karen B. McLean Dade, EdD, Associate Dean, Woodring College of Education o Marsha Riddle Buly, PhD, Professor, Woodring College of Education
Page 20 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)
Appendix B: Advisory Committee Members
Name Geography District or Organizations
Angela Davila Kitsap Peninsula Former World Languages Supervisor, DOD Schools
Bernard Koontz SeaTac (I-5) Highline School District, WABE Dual Language SIG, Road Map ELL Work Group
Blythe Young Everett (I-5 North) Everett SD principal; formerly with Puesta del Sol, Bellevue
Bojan Belic Seattle (I-5) UW College of Arts & Sciences, Slavic Dept.
Bridget Yaden Tacoma (I-5) WAFLT and PLU
Christine Corbley Federal Way (I-5) Federal Way Road Map ELL
Elizabeth Harrington Vancouver (South) Evergreen SD World Languages
Gosia Stone Seattle (I-5) Seattle ELL Coach
Jessica Vavrus Olympia (I-5) OSPI Teaching & Learning
Larisa Shuvalova Bellingham (I-5 North) Bellingham SD ELL Coach
Linda Boggs Eastern WA (South) Walla Walla SD, coordinating WA WL Assessment Day
Manka Varghese Seattle (I-5) UW College of Education, Road Map ELL Work Group
Marsha Riddle-Buly Bellingham (I-5 North) WWU College of Ed
Marta Burnet Seattle (I-5) UW College of Education
Michele Anciaux Aoki Seattle (I-5) Seattle Public Schools
PhuongChi Nguyen Olympia (I-5) Olympia ELL/non-district
Pollyanna Wang Seattle (I-5) Seattle Denny Intl Middle School, Chief Sealth Intl High School
Rachel Martin Cheney (East) Cheney SD, French teacher Cheney HS; Association Committee for CCSS
Raquel Ferrell Crowley EOGOAC and Commission on Hispanic Affairs
Washington State Seal of Biliteracy Recommended Criteria Page 21
Roxana Narouzi South King County Chair of ELL Workgroup for Road Map Project; One America
Ryan Theodoriches Vancouver (South) Evergreen Social Studies/WL
Steve Warner Shelton (I-5) Shelton SD/Olympic College Board of Trustees
Tom Opstad Aberdeen (West) Aberdeen School District Superintendent
Vince Eberly Spokane Valley (East) Spokane Valley ELL
Yoshitaka Inouye Mukilteo WAFLT president, Japanese teacher Kamiak High School
Page 22 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)
Appendix C: September 11, 2014 Meeting Agenda
Agenda
8:30 Welcome Introduction of participants Introduction of the State Seal of Biliteracy and WA Draft Criteria
9:20 Break 9:30 Overview of national efforts – presented by Marta Burnet Summary
of comparison to WA draft criteria 10:20 Break 10:30 Understanding Proficiency Levels – presented by Bridget Yaden
Competency-Based Credits – presented by Michele Anciaux Aoki What is the target level for WA’s draft criteria for the Seal?
11:30 Working Lunch Consider options for representing the Seal Revisit the WA draft criteria
12:15 Consider Assessment Options, e.g., AP, IB, Competency-Based Credits (via testing)
1:20 Break 1:30 Utah’s Model for the Seal: 2 levels
Gold Seal (Intermediate Mid Proficiency Level) Platinum Seal (Advanced Low Proficiency Level)
2:00 International Test options (DELE, etc.) 2:30 Break 2:45 Deliberation and final recommendations 4:00 Meeting concludes
Washington State Seal of Biliteracy Recommended Criteria Page 23
Appendix D: Draft Criteria (before meeting)
Criterion
(1) Completion of all state and district requirements for high school graduation, including any required state tests.
(2) Proficiency in one or more languages other than English, demonstrated through one of the following methods:
(A) Passing a foreign language Advanced Placement examination with a score of 3 or higher or an International Baccalaureate examination with a score of 4 or higher.
(B) Receiving a rating of Intermediate Mid or higher on a nationally available assessment of proficiency across language skills based on the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (e.g., STAMP 4S or ACTFL OPI and WPT).
(C) For less commonly taught languages (for which STAMP or ACTFL assessments are not available), earning 4 Competency-Based Credits based on demonstrating proficiency in the spoken and written language at Intermediate Mid or higher according to the model state policy and procedure for Competency-Based Credits.
(D) Successfully completing an international exam, such as the DELE (for Spanish), at the level of A2 or higher based on the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). A list of all acceptable international exams is available from OSPI.
(b) For purposes of this article, "foreign language" or “world language” means a language other than English, and includes American Sign Language, Latin, as well as Native American or other indigenous languages or dialects.
Page 24 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)
Appendix E: Final Criteria (at end of meeting)
Criterion
(1) Demonstrate proficiency in English by meeting state high school graduation requirements in English, including any required state tests.
(2) Demonstrate proficiency in one or more world languages other than English. The criteria must permit a student to demonstrate proficiency in another world language through multiple methods including nationally or internationally recognized language proficiency tests and competency-based world language credits awarded under the model policy adopted by the Washington state school directors' association. The approved methods include:
(A) Passing a foreign language Advanced Placement examination with a score of 3 or higher or an International Baccalaureate examination with a score of 4 or higher.
(B) Demonstrating proficiency in the spoken and written language at Intermediate Mid level or higher based on the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, using assessments approved by OSPI for Competency-Based Credits.
(C) Qualifying for 4 Competency-Based Credits by demonstrating proficiency in the spoken and written language at Intermediate Mid level or higher based on the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, according to the state model policy and procedure for Competency-Based Credits for World Languages.
(D) Demonstrating proficiency in the spoken and written language through other approved national or international assessments at a level comparable to Intermediate Mid level or higher based on the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. A list of approved assessments and target levels for the Seal is available from OSPI.
(b) For purposes of this article, "foreign language" or “world language” means a language other than English, and includes American Sign Language, Latin, as well as Native American or other indigenous languages or dialects.
Washington State Seal of Biliteracy Recommended Criteria Page 25
Appendix F: Assessment Evaluation Criteria
Note: As recommended by the committee, following the meeting, OSPI developed the following criteria for evaluating other international (and national) assessments, such as the DELE from Spain, to be included on the list of approved assessment options maintained by OSPI.
Use these criteria as the basis for determining whether a proposed assessment is a good match for meeting the requirements for earning the Seal of Biliteracy.
Assessment:
Required (must all be “Yes”) Yes No Unsure
1. Assessment measures productive language skills by requiring students to produce multiple speech and writing samples.
2. Target proficiency level of the assessment is comparable to Intermediate Mid on the ACTFL Proficiency Scale or A2 on the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) (or higher).
3. Assessment is offered in Washington State.
4. Testing company agrees to share test results with OSPI (for the purpose of validating and tracking results for the Seal of Biliteracy).
Preferred Yes No Unsure
5. Assessment can be taken more than one time per year.
6. Assessment is offered in multiple locations.
7. Assessment offers accommodations for students with special needs (such as no time limit, larger print size, etc.).