2007 TITLE III DIRECTORS MEETING

May 8, 2007

Morgantown, WV

Impact Study: Analyses of 2004-2006 WESTELL

Author: Dr. Kristine ChadwickPresenter: Georgia Hughes-Webb

May 8, 2007WV Title III Directors’ Conference

The Impact Study

The purpose is to review WESTELL data from 2004 to 2007 to inform the AMAO development and revision process, as well as to assess progress made on the AMAOs

Current presentation is on data relating to AMAO 1 and AMAO 2 for 2004-2006

Study uses WESTELL data on ELL students with at least 2 years’ worth of test data

AMAO 3 incorporates AYP and will not be addressed today

Purpose of This Presentation

To provide Title III Directors with a statewide look at WESTELL data (“How are students doing in West Virginia?”)

To provide Title III Directors with some data on their county school systems (“How are students doing in my corner of West Virginia?”)

To facilitate local discussions connecting WESTELL findings with policies, procedures, and programming decisions (“What do I do with all this information?”)

Discussion

How many LEP students participated in the WESTELL in 2006 and 2007 in your county?

What type of data analyses were conducted in your county with 05-06 results?

AMAO 1

Definition: Gains in the percentages of students making progress in learning English

Cohort: All LEP students, K-12, who have two years of WESTELL data

Growth Objectives Levels 1-2: Gain 1 proficiency level annually with

no sub-skills below Intermediate Level 3: Gain 1 proficiency level in 2 years with no

sub-skill below Intermediate Levels 4-5: Maintain proficiency with no sub-skills

below Intermediate

AMAO 1 Results

The Percentages of Students who Scored 1 or 2 in 2005 who Gained or Did Not Gain 1 Proficiency Level in 2006

62.1

37.9

57.242.8

59.0

41.0

0

20

40

60

80

Gained Did Not Gain Gained Did Not Gain Gained Did Not Gain

2005 = 1 2005 = 2 2005 = 1 or 2

Composite Scores

Perc

enta

ges

N = 58 for 1, 98 for 2

AMAO 1 Results

The Percentages of Students who Scored a 3 in 2004 Scoring at each Composite Score Level in 2006

2.9

21.7

59.4

15.9

0

1020

3040

5060

70

2 3 4 5

2006 Composite Level

Per

cent

ages

N = 69

AMAO 1 Results

Students with Composite Score of 4 or 5 in 2005: Extent to Which They Met AMAO 1 in 2006

13.2

2.1

84.7

42.3

0

57.7

01020

30405060

708090

Did Not Maintain Level Maintained, but > 0Subskill < 3

Met the AMAO Did Not Maintain Level Maintained, but > 0Subskill < 3

Met the AMAO

2005 = 4 2005 = 5

Perc

enta

ges

N = 190 for 4 and 26 for 5 Sub-skill not at Intermediate was Speaking in all 4 cases

AMAO 1 Overall

72.6% of students achieved the growth target in 2006

AMAO 1 target is 76% Group least likely to achieve growth target is

students scoring 1 or 2 in 2005 (59%) Students scoring 3 in 2004, achieving 1

proficiency level growth in 2006 (75.4%) Students scoring 4 or 5 in 2005, maintaining

level in 2006 (81.5%)

Discussion

Are these findings reflective of your county? In terms of those not achieving the growth or

proficiency targets, do you know who these students are?

How do you translate these findings into actionable steps related to procedures, policies, and program services?

AMAO 2 Definition: Gains in the percentages of students

attaining English proficiency Cohort

Students with two years of WESTELL scores who have been in U.S. schools for > 4 years

Students at Level 3 or above who did not reach English proficiency the prior year

Students below Level 3 the prior year who met the English proficient level

Data on length of time in U.S. schools are incomplete in the state file

62.4% of the 134 students in the statewide cohort achieved AMAO 2 proficiency targets (including only 2005 Level 3 students in the denominator)

AMAO 2 Results

Numbers of Students who were not Proficient in 2005 Scoring Proficient (4 or 5) in 2006

3 0

14

0

14

47 49

7n/a n/an/a n/a

0

10

2030

40

50

60

2 3 4 5

2006 Proficiency Levels

Num

ber

1

2

3

Discussion

Are these findings reflective of your county? In terms of those not achieving the growth or

proficiency targets, do you know who these students are?

How do you translate these findings into actionable steps related to procedures, policies, and program services?