el coordinator meeting 11.5.15

• Help yourself to coffee before we begin at 8:30!

• Check out the agenda for the day in the red

folder

Networking Opportunities: Check out the topics on table tents for networking

discussions at lunch.

Welcome to the

EL Coordinator Meeting!

education.state.mn.us 1

English Learner Education

Program Coordinator Meeting

November 5, 2015 8:30 am to 3:30 pm

Bloomington Double Tree

“Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every

day for every one.”

Welcome!

3 education.state.mn.us

• Logistics

• Announcements

• Agenda

Please, remember to silence your phone.

Agenda

• English Learner Education State & Federal Updates

• Special Education and Accessibility for ELs

• Language Access and Culturally Competent Communication

• Bilingual and Multilingual Seal Legislation and Assessment Options

• Assessment: ACCESS 2.0 Requirements, 2015 Legislation

• Creating Systemic Instructional Access and Equity


English Learner Education State and Federal Updates

education.state.mn.us

English Learner Education

• MDE promotes research-based language instruction education programs that capitalize on ELs’ cultural and linguistic assets to acquire English and achieve academic excellence.

Academic Excellence

• MDE provides technical assistance and resources to ensure effective administration of EL programs which adhere to state and federal requirements.

Administration

• MDE provides data and support to effectively evaluate and continuously improve educational outcomes for ELs.

Accountability


Priorities

70,462 ELs Identified

Source: Minnesota

Automated Student

Reporting System (MARSS)

2014-2015

[CATEGORY NAME] [VALUE]



Hennepin and Ramsey

Metro

Greater Minnesota

School Year 2009-2010 2012-2013 2014-2015

Total Enrollment 822,697 830,482 842,062

EL Identified 62,810 65,083 70,462

% EL Identified 7.63 7.84 8.36

Total and English Learner Enrollment in

Minnesota Public Schools, 2009-2015


Distribution of K-12 Students Identified as

ELs Enrolled in Minnesota Public Schools

by Grade, 2009-2010 and 2014-2015


Source: Minnesota Department of Education 2009-2010 and 2014-2015 Fall LEP Enrollment

Who are English Learners in Minnesota

Schools?

• 315 districts and charter schools served English

Learners

Source: Minnesota

Automated Student

Reporting System (MARSS)

2014-2015

10

Largest 10 Districts – ELs Identified ST. PAUL PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT

MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST.

ANOKA-HENNEPIN PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST.

OSSEO PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT

ROCHESTER PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT

ST. CLOUD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT

BURNSVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT

ROSEMOUNT PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT

RICHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT

BLOOMINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT

More than 70% of Districts and

Charter Schools Serve Fewer Than

100 Students

Source: WIDA Data

Dashboard 2013-2014

11

260 Home Languages Reported

Top 15 Languages of English Learners


November 2015 data

Spanish 28116 39.9% Hmong 12600 17.9% Somali 12412 17.6% Karen 2359 3.3% Vietnamese 1650 2.3% Arabic 1356 1.9% Russian 902 1.3% Afaan Oromo 824 1.2% Cantonese 770 1.1% Cambodian 728 1.0% Amharic 688 1.0% Lao 685 1.0%

English, Creolized (Liberia, Nigeria and others) 676

1.0% Kiswahili 409 0.6% French 368 0.5%

ACCESS Percent Distribution of Students at

Each Proficiency Level, K-12


Source: WIDA Data Dashboard 2013-2014 Minnesota State Overall ACCESS Results

Comparison of English Learners to All Students on Statewide

Achievement Tests in Math, Reading and Science, 2015


Comparison of English Learners’ and All

Students’ 4-Year Graduation


Minnesota Dropout Trends for 4-Year

Graduation Cohort Comparing ELs and

Non-ELs


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

EL 12.23 10.19 11.56 10.15 9.06

Non-EL 4.46 4.35 4.61 4.61 4.55

All Student 5.04 4.77 5.06 5.06 4.95

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Sou

rce:

Min

nes

ota

Dep

artm

ent

of

Minnesota Graduation Rate Trends for 4-

Year Graduation Cohort Comparing ELs and

Non-ELs


2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

EL 48.81 52.51 52.09 59.32 63.72

Non-EL 77.65 79.09 79.68 79.47 80.23

All Student 75.49 77.21 77.87 79.84 81.17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sou

rce:

Min

nes

ota

Dep

artm

ent

of

School

Districts Charters Consortia

Made AMAO 13 3 2

Year 1 - Parent Notification 15 6 1

Year 2 - Needs Improvement 9 8 4

Year 3 - Continuing Needs

Improvement 10 3 1

Year 4 or more - Program

Modification 12 9 2

2015 AMAO Results Summary


• LEAPS Implementation Specialist/ English

Learner specialist hired at MDE.

• EL and School Improvement Specialist to be

hired for Regional Centers of Excellence.

• 10 additional WIDA professional development

opportunities to be offered.

• Working with AIR/Midwest Regional

Comprehensive Center on “EL Achievement

through Cultural Competence Framework”

project which will yield tools for working with

SLIFE.

LEAPS Update


• Enhancements in public display of English

language development growth data on MDE

website for ELs and SLIFE are underway.

• MDE to launch SLIFE data collection site called

Supplemental Data Collection .

LEAPS Update


• who are English Learners

• who have entered the United States after grade 6

and

• who have at least two years less schooling than

the English Learner’s peers and

• who function at least two years below the

expected grade level in reading and

mathematics and

• who may be preliterate in the English learner’s

native language.

Minnesota SLIFE Definition


Present a list of students who may qualify for a

SLIFE designation:

• Are currently enrolled

• Are designated as EL

• Are not proficient on the statewide MCA Math

and Reading assessment

• Are first enrolled in MN in grade 7 or later (a

grade 6 or earlier record is not found)

The Supplemental Data Collection Site will:


• who have entered the United States after grade 6

and

– Presented list will only show if a student has a record

in Minnesota starting in Grade 7.

• who have at least two years less schooling than

the English Learner’s peers and

– There is no state data source.

Districts Criteria Needed for the following:


• who function at least two years below the

expected grade level in reading and

mathematics and

– Presented list will remove students proficient on MCA

reading and math.

• who may be preliterate in the English learner’s

native language.

– No state data source. Optional.

Districts Criteria Needed for the following:


Prototype


• Launch Expected Winter 2016

• MDE will provide a help desk

• MDE will conduct webinars and other training

• Growth data for SLIFE will be reported beginning

with the upcoming testing cycle


Two Types of Reviews

• Desk Review

– Plan of Service Review

Procedures on the website

– Title III Fiscal Review – Spring 2016

• English Learner Onsite Program

Review Critical Elements

– On the website

– Protocol coming soon

http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/SchSup/EngLearnSup/EngLearnEducGuide/index.html

http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/SchSup/EngLearnSup/index.html

• Each district is required to have a

written plan of service that: – Describes the amount, scope and sequence of

services offered to ELs by English proficiency level;

– Is available and accessible to parents; and

– Was developed in consultation with its stakeholders.

Minnesota Statutes, section 124D.61 (2) Education for English Learners Act

PL 107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Section 3116 (c) (2), Section

3301 (8) (B)

English Learner

Plan of Service


• 3 Major Areas

I. Identification Criteria and Procedures

II. Program(s), Amount and Scope of Service

III. Exit Criteria and Reclassification Plan

• Federal requirement for States

• 7 Major Critical Elements

1. Identification, placement, exit and reclassification

2. Programming

3. Staffing and Professional Development

4. Family and Community Engagement

5. Accountability

6. Fiscal

7. Nonpublic

Lessons Learned

• Updated and streamlined tools and processes

• Districts need more support in programming in

these areas:

– Exit and reclassification procedures

– Service for dual-identified students

– Family engagement

– EL program evaluation

– Types of service

Elizabeth Watkins

Minnesota Department of Education

Special Education Updates


Special Education Updates

[email protected], 651-

582-8678

mailto:[email protected]

Topics

• Updates to evaluation guidelines

• Resources for interpreters and cultural liaisons

• Federal guidance documents

– What do we know?

– What don’t we know?

• Ongoing data analysis

– Identification rates

– ACCESS growth for students with disabilities

EL Companion

• Companion to the guidelines “Reducing Bias in

Special Education Evaluation”

• Contract is being awarded to the National Center

for Educational Outcomes (NCEO) at the U of M

– Vitaly Shyyan, project coordinator

– Work will be ongoing through the next year and

beyond

Interpreters and Cultural Liaisons

• Interpreter workshop series focusing on charter

schools

– Dec. 10, Jan. 20, Feb. 11, March 10

• U of M courses

– Content course now being offered online

– Will be offered again in spring semester

– Skills course will continue to be taught in person,

either next summer or fall

• Self-training materials

Interpreting Resources

• Webinar on holding IEP meetings with an

interpreter

– http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/SchSup/SpecEdCom

p/EngLearnDisabiRes/index.html

• Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice

– Developed in concert with the Program on Translation

and Interpreting at the U of M

– Why a code of ethics?

– How can it be used?

http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/SchSup/SpecEdComp/EngLearnDisabiRes/index.html

http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/SchSup/SpecEdComp/EngLearnDisabiRes/index.html

Components of the COE

Background

• Introduction

• Development process

– based on national

health care COE

• Legal standards

• Definitions

• Providing feedback

8 Ethical Principles

• Confidentiality

• Accuracy

• Impartiality

• Respect

• Professional Boundaries

• Advocacy

• Cultural Awareness

• Professionalism

• Continuing Education

Federal Guidance

• July 28, 2014 FAQ from OELA and OSEP

• Jan. 7, 2015 “Dear Colleague Letter” from Dept.

of Justice and OCR

• July, 2015, OELA/OSEP FAQ Addendum

7/18/14 FAQ

• 13 questions

– Participation in accountability testing

– AMAO

– Role of IEP team

– Accommodations and alternate assessments

– Exiting from EL

7/18/14 FAQ

• IEP teams determine how ELs with disabilities

(ELSWD) will participate in accountability testing

• IEP teams must include persons with expertise

in 2nd language acquisition

• ELSWD may be exited from EL when they no

longer meet the state definition

– IEP teams may not make EL exit decisions based on

the disability

1/7/15 DOJ and OCR

• Schools must ensure that ELs who may have a

disability are identified in a timely manner

– May not have policies that delay special education

evaluation “for a specified period of time based on

their EL status. These policies are impermissible

under the IDEA and Federal civil rights laws…”

DOJ and OCR cont.

• Schools must consider home language and

English proficiency when conducting special ed

evaluations, including for students whose

parents have opted out of EL services

• Schools must provide both EL and disability-

related services

– IEP teams must include “professionals with training,

and preferably expertise, in second language

acquisition and an understanding of how to

differentiate between the student’s limited English

proficiency and the student’s disability.”

July, 2015, FAQ Addendum

• Questions 14-22

– Initial identification for special education and EL

– Role of the IEP team

– Accommodations and alternate assessments

Main points

• As part of special education eligibility

determination, teams must review or gather

information on ELP

– In cases where the disability is identified but EL

eligibility has not been established

– ELP info also needed to address language needs

when developing the IEP (special factor)

– “Can IDEA funds be used to identify a student with a

disability, or a student suspected of having a

disability, as an EL? Yes. It may be possible to use

IDEA funds in connection with the EL screening

process… It may be permissible for States and LEAs

to use a portion of these funds to support the

development and provision of an EL screener

designed specifically for students with disabilities,

and for appropriate accommodations for students with

disabilities on the regular EL screener.”

FAQ Addendum, cont.

• Schools must identify all students with

disabilities who are in need of special education

services (child find)

– May not refuse or delay a special education referral

solely because of the student’s EL status

• Schools may not develop alternate ELP

standards for students with disabilities

– May not use a different cut score for EL eligibility

In Conclusion

What do we know?

• May not have policies to delay referrals

• Must include persons with EL expertise on teams

• May not exclude students from EL services because of their disability

• May not have different EL criteria for students with IEPs

• Language needs of ELs must be addressed in IEPs

What don’t we know (yet)?

• How to best provide EL

services to students

with a range of

disabilities

• How to assess ELP in

students with a range

of disabilities

• How to accurately

identify disabilities in

ELs with a range of

language backgrounds

Data Analysis

• Two research questions

– What do we know about students with disabilities who

are not served in EL?

– What type of growth do students with disabilities

show in the annual ACCESS assessment?

Question 1

• Students with IEPs whose home language ≠

English and

– Who are eligible but do not receive EL services

– Who are not currently eligible for EL services

Students with Disabilities

2014-15 Total Asian Black Latino

Home language not English 13,016 3,309 2,205 6,428

Qualify for EL services 8,820 2,365 1,461 4,565

Receive EL services 8,312 2,250 1371 4,297 Qualify but do not receive EL services 508 115 90 268

Not currently eligible for EL 4,196 944 744 1863

Eligible for EL but not Served

Primary Disability Count Specific Learning Disability 235

Speech/Language Impaired 66

Emotional/Behavioral Disorders 36

Other Health Disabilities 35

Developmental Delay 32

DCD - Mild/Moderate 32

Autism Spectrum Disorder 31

DCD - Severe/Profound 11

Severely Multiply Impaired 11

Physically Impaired 9

Deaf/Hard of Hearing 7

Traumatic Brain Injury 2

Visually Impaired 1

Total 508

Not Currently Eligible for EL

2014-15 Disability Counts by Ethnic Group Total Asian Black Hispanic Specific Learning Disability 1357 259 150 850 Autism Spectrum Disorder 601 213 145 166 Speech/Language Impaired 494 157 93 153 Other Health Disability 361 45 61 179 Emotional/Behavioral Disability 296 32 54 163 DCD -- Mild/Moderate 286 64 65 109 Deaf/Hard of Hearing 279 56 43 54 DCD -- Severe/Profound 168 38 40 66 Developmental Delay 108 18 33 43 Severe/Multiply Impaired 107 22 37 32 Physically Impaired 72 26 13 22 Blind/Visually Impaired 30 8 2 15 Deaf-Blind 21 3 4 4 Traumatic Brain Injury 16 3 4 7 Total 4196 944 744 1863

Next Questions & Steps

• Would like to work with a small number of

districts that have the most students to find out

more about them

– Were students ever eligible for EL?

– More details about their disability (from student files)

– If they were exited from EL services, what was the

process?

• Potentially, will learn more about accuracy of EL

and special ed eligibility determinations

Question 2: ACCESS Growth

• Methodology

– Compared growth between 2013-2014 and 2014- 2015

– Students were EL

– Students took the regular ACCESS both years

– Students had an IEP in at least one year

– Used scale scores mapped to WIDA growth

percentiles

Student Counts

Disability 2014 2015

Specific Learning Disability 1587 1808

Speech/Language Impairment 678 620

Autism Spectrum Disorders 184 202

Deaf/Hard of Hearing 100 111

DCD Combined 58 69

*Other 413 414

**Missing 441 237

Total 3461 3461

*Other: Blind/VI; Traumatic

Brain Injury, E/BD, Physically

Impaired, Other Health

Impaired, Developmental Delay,

Severe/Multiply Impaired

**Missing: students not

reported as having an IEP in

other year

2013-14 Listening

Listening SLI DCD -

Combined SLD D/HH ASD

Below average (less than 40th %ile) 45.6% 52.0% 52.0% 51.2% 49.5%

Average (41st to 60th %ile) 5.0% 7.2% 7.2% 8.9% 4.0% Above average (61st %ile and greater) 49.4% 22.7% 40.8% 39.9% 46.5%

Total count 1,223 97 2,499 168 273

2013-14 Reading

Reading SLI DCD -



Average (41st to 60th %ile) 8.1% 8.5% 11.6% 13.3% 10.7%

Above average (61st %ile and greater) 39.1% 24.5% 34.8% 30.9% 34.6%

Total count 1,211 94 2479 181 272

2013-14 Speaking

Speaking SLI DCD -



Average (41st to 60th %ile) 18.9% 15.6% 18.5% 19.3% 17.0%

Above average (61st %ile and greater) 32.2% 16.7% 31.8% 31.3% 29.5%

Total count 1,205 96 2,430 166 271

2013-14 Writing

Writing SLI DCD -



Average (41st to 60th %ile) 7.6% 7.4% 9.4% 8.3% 8.9% Above average (61st %ile and greater) 40.8% 21.3% 29.9% 40.6% 34.9%

Total count 1,217 94 2,491 180 269

What’s Next?

• Identify additional questions that can be

answered through data analysis

– Grade clusters?

– Home language?

• Identify key questions to be answered through

research (file reviews, teacher interviews)

– Student’s disability

– Educational history

– Types of IEP services provided

Language Access and Culturally

Competent Communication

Barbara Al Nouri, Minnesota

Department of Education

Monica Passovoy, TransACT

My school

My daughter’s school

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRxqFQoTCL-K37-T8sgCFYl5PgodNVkDSg&url=http://flickrhivemind.net/Tags/schoolmeisjes&bvm=bv.106379543,d.cWw&psig=AFQjCNGoYEsecAFkaSCbDTtrtWuWqyRBxg&ust=1446567829252812

First Parent Teacher meeting

• The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the US

Department of Education

• The Educational Opportunities Section of the

US Justice Department- Civil Rights Division

Presentation based

Joint Summer Mtg.

Meeting July 30, 2015

Introduction

• Ensure a quality education

• Protect ELs’ civil rights

• Promote a culture of inclusion

The Departments’ Joint Enforcement

of the Civil Rights of EL Students

• OCR/ED Mission: to ensure equal access to

education and to promote educational

excellence throughout the nation through

vigorous enforcement of civil rights.

• CRD/DOJ: to ensure equal access to

educational opportunities through vigorous

enforcement of federal civil rights laws.

Missions

Comparing OCR with CRT/DOJ

OCR/ ED Policy guidance

Technical assistance

CRD/DOJ Coordination of enforcement across federal agencies

Out-of-court settlements

Litigation

Complaint investigations

Compliance reviews

Laws Enforced by OCR

• OCR enforces

federal civil rights

laws that prohibit

discrimination on

the basis of: Race,

color, national

origin, sex,

disability, age,

Examples: • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964

• Title IX of the Education

Amendments of 1972

• Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Title

II of the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990

• The Age Discrimination Act of

1975

• Boy Scouts of America Equal

Access Act

DOJ Has Direct Jurisdiction to Enforce:

The Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA)

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act

Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Shared Enforcement Authority with ED:

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Federal Statutes that DOJ enforces

EL GUIDANCE

Jointly Released

by ED and DOJ

on January 7,

2015.

Guidance is

available in multiple

languages.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ellresources.html

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/

OVERVIEW OF EL GUIDANCE PURPOSE OF THE GUIDANCE

The Guidance:

– Eliminates confusion

– Reminds SEAs/LEAS of their legal

obligations

– Suggest ways that SEAs/LEAs meet

obligations

– Ten most frequent civil rights issues

WHAT IS THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THE

GUIDANCE?

Title VI prohibits recipients of Federal financial

assistance from discriminating on the basis of race,

color, or national origin.

42 U.S.C. § 2000d to d-7.

The EEOA requires SEAs and LEAs to take

“appropriate action to overcome language barriers

that impede equal participation by students in [their]

instructional programs.” 20 U.S.C. § 1703(f).

Case law interpreting Title VI and the EEOA

Castañeda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989

(5th Cir. 1981)

CASTAÑEDA’S THREE-PART TEST FOR

EVALUATING COMPLIANCE – Educational theory underlying the program is sound

– The program is being implemented effectively

– The program produces results

Discusses school districts’ Title VI obligations, including:

To take affirmative steps to rectify language deficiencies in order to open its instructional program to national origin minority group students, where inability to speak and understand English excludes the students from effective participation in the district’s educational program.

To adequately notify language-minority parents of school

activities that are called to the attention of other parents.

Such notice in order to be adequate may have to be

provided in a language other than English.

14

OCR 1970

MEMORANDUM

15

LAU V. NICHOLS

414 U.S. 563 (1974)

“. . . there is no equality of

treatment merely by providing [EL]

students with the same facilities,

textbooks, teachers and curriculum;

for students who do not understand

English are effectively foreclosed

from any meaningful education.”

THIS GUIDANCE APPLIES TO

1. SEAs

2. LEAs

3. ANY “school district” that receives

financial assistance from ED or DOJ

including:

Public School Districts

Public Charter Schools

Public Alternative Schools

TEN MAIN CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES

COVERED BY THE EL GUIDANCE

A. Identification

and assessment

B. Language

assistance

program

C. Staffing and supporting

an

EL program

D. Meaningful access

to curricular and

extra curricular

programs

E. Unnecessary segregation

F. Evaluating EL students

for special education &

providing special

education

G. Opting out of EL

programs

H. Monitoring and exiting

EL students

I. Evaluating the

effectiveness of a

program

J. Meaningful

communication with

LEP parents

EL parents are entitled:

1. To communication in an understandable

language

and

2. To information that is sent to non-EL

parents.

ENSURING MEANINGFUL

COMMUNICATION WITH EL

PARENTS

Develop and implement processes:

1. Determine if parents are limited

English proficient;

2. Identify parents’ language needs; and

3. Meet the needs through qualified

interpreters and translators.

School Districts

Language Assistance for EL families

30

Must provide competent translation or

interpretation

May not use untrained staff to communicate

with parents

Service is FREE to parents.

• Adopt parental involvement policies

• Support bilingual communication

MN LEAPS Legislation

Don’t forget me!

• Monica Passovoy

Vice President

TransACT Communication, Inc

• www.transact.com

TransACT

Bilingual and Multilingual Seals and World

Language Proficiency Assessments:

Recognizing Student Language

Proficiency and Earning College Credit

What, Why, Who, How , What if?

“Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every

day for every one.”

What? Legislation

2015 Legislature amended Sec. 2. Minnesota

Statutes 2014, section 120B.022, subdivision

1a and 1b https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=120B.022

• World language proficiency certificates

• Bilingual and multilingual seals

– High school elective credit

• College credit


90

Bilingual and Multilingual

Seals: Rationale

(Historically) Nearly half of EL students

do not graduate from high school,

representing a major loss of talent and

potential that the state cannot afford if

we wish to maintain our economic

competitiveness and high standard of

living.

Per MDE cited in:

The Learning for English Academic Proficiency

and Success Act: Ensuring Faithful and Timely

Implementation

By Conor P. Williams, Ph.D. and Colleen Gross

Ebinger

Report commissioned by The McKnight

Foundation

2014-2015 numbers show 70,779 K-12 English

learners in Minnesota.

Use as Generic Title Slide

The 2014 graduation rate shows an increase but it is still significantly below the state graduation rate.

Bilingual and Multilingual Seals

2015 Amendments created two levels

• Gold – Intermediate-High (IH)

• Platinum – Advanced-Low (AL)

Based on the American Council on the Teaching of

Foreign Languages (ACTFL) proficiency guidelines

on a valid assessment for reading, writing,

listening and speaking


World Language Proficiency Certificate

Changes • 2015 Amendments created one level of

certificates

Intermediate-Low (IL)

• High Achievement certificate became the gold

seal

– Using ACTFL proficiency guidelines on a valid

assessment for reading, writing, listening and

speaking

• All modalities/skills at Intermediate-Low


Other Legislation

2015 Legislature also amended

Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 2014, section

120B.022, subdivision 1 Elective standards:

A district must use the current world

languages standards developed by the

American Council on the Teaching of

Foreign Languages. Relevant for world

language programs.


Credits Awarded


Upon enrollment and student request to allow the student the greatest

benefit from the seals.

Certificates, Seals Level Credits

World language proficiency certificate

Intermediate-Low

2 semesters

Gold bilingual or multilingual seal

Intermediate-High

3 semesters per language

Platinum bilingual or multilingual seal

Advanced-Low 4 semesters per language

Assessments

4/11/2015

What Do Other States Use/Require?

• Advanced Placement Exam

• International Baccalaureate Exam

• Oral Proficiency Interview, Reading Proficiency Test, or Writing Proficiency Test

• Standards-based Measurement of Proficiency (STAMP4S)

• ACTFL Assessment of Performance toward Proficiency in Languages (AAPPL)

• Tribal language assessments

• Signed Language Proficiency Interview (SLPI) for American Sign Language

• ACTFL Latin Interpretive Reading Exam (ALIRA)

• Other assessments correlated to the required minimum level of language proficiency.

National Guidelines for Seals (http://www.actfl.org/news/press-releases/seal-biliteracy-guidelines-released)

4/11/2015

Who should take the assessments?

Bilingual Seals and Certificate are available for any

students who can demonstrate the certain proficiency

levels.

– Heritage learners

– Learned language in a community based

organizations, such as Saturday school

– Summer camps

– Extended stay overseas

– Learned language in language classes

4/11/2015

• Generally after four possibly three very good years

of language study

– Depends on many factors (time, block vs. semester, focus

of curriculum, etc.)

• Research from CARLA’s Articulation Project

showed the above.

– http://www.carla.umn.edu/articulation/MNAP.html

What About Students in “Traditional

Language Programs”?


What if there are no

Proficiency Assessments

for the Languages our

Students speak?


For languages for which there are no

proficiency assessments available:

“Where valid and reliable assessments are

unavailable, a school district or charter school may

rely on evaluators trained in assessing under

ACTFL proficiency guidelines to assess a student's

level of foreign, heritage, or indigenous language

proficiency under this section.”

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=120B.022

Provisions for Assessments


Developing Assessments


Available frameworks and models to assess students' language

levels

Model use is dependent on numbers of students who may use

the assessment.

• Modified OPI as a model using ACTFL guidelines as a guide

• ELPAC (MLPA Model) – using ACTFL guidelines as a guide

• Integrated Performance Assessment Framework (ACTFL

developed)

CLEAR Assessment Development http://clear.msu.edu/assessment/current-projects/online-speaking-tests-for-lctls/

Resources for Developing Assessments


Additional Resources:

What am I assessing: CARLA Virtual Assessment

Center

Omaggio Grids (summarize functions and text

types for the proficiency levels)

Proficiency Assessment Models


http://www.carla.umn.edu/assessment/vac/WhatAssessing/p_1.html

http://www.carla.umn.edu/assessment/vac/WhatAssessing/p_1.html

http://www.carla.umn.edu/assessment/vac/WhatAssessing/res_1.html



• Legislation requires evaluators testing students to

be ACTFL-trained

• MDE is working on ways to assist in test

development.

Details will be shared in the EL coordinator newsletter

How Can Districts Develop Assessments?


• Students take assessments

• By end of April school requests seals from MDE

• Form on MDE site

– Signed by principal

• Student diploma can show seal, transcript must

have seal (or notation if there is a space issue)

• Student requests seal when admitted to a MNSCU

institution – within 3 years of receiving the seal

Seal Logistics


1. Check out the topics on the table tents.

2. Sit at a table of your choice/interest/need.

3. Talk to those from other districts who share

your interest.

4. Share your thoughts/questions on post-its.

5. Add the post-its to the posters on the wall.

Lunch: Networking Opportunity


Assessment Update

Cheryl Alcaya

Division of Statewide Testing

“Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every day

for every one.”

Description Start Date End Date

Materials ordering November 30 December 18

Pre-ID files to DRC December 14

Online test setup January 8 March 25

Additional orders January 15 March 25

Test window February 1 March 25

Early results May 23

Student reports August 1

Key Dates for ACCESS 2.0 Administration


Note: MCA test window is March 7–May 6

Online delivery, with provisions for writing:

Grades 1–3:

Students read prompts and write

their responses in a paper test booklet.

Grades 4–5:

Students read prompts online and write responses in a

writing response booklet.

Grades 6–12:

Students inexperienced, unfamiliar or

uncomfortable with keyboarding may

read prompts online and write responses in a writing response

booklet.

2016 Administration


https://WIDA.us

ACCESS for ELLs 2.0 Accessibility and Accommodations Guidelines ACCESS for ELLs 2.0 Accessibility and Accommodations Descriptions ACCESS for ELLs 2.0 Accommodations, Accessibility, and Test Administration FAQs

2016 Administration – Accommodations/Supports


https://www.wida.us/assessment/WIDA_AccessAccGuidelines.pdf

• Manual control of test item audio: Manual play of Listening, Writing, and Speaking test items where there are audio prompts

• Manual repeat of test item audio: Manual repeat of Listening, Writing, and Speaking test items where there are audio prompts

• Extended Speaking Test Response time: Students are provided up to twice the regular testing time to complete the Speaking test

2016 Administration – Accommodations identified in Assessment Management System (AMS)


Full paper administration of ACCESS for ELLs 2.0:

• Accommodation for ELs with disabilities

• Support for New-to-Country ELs with an English proficiency level of 2 or below on the WIDA ELD Standards or the equivalent

Include students in decision-making process

Allow students to experience the online sample test

2016 Administration – Paper Accommodation/Support


ACCESS for ELLs 2.0

Training Requirements for

Test Administrators


• Kindergarten ACCESS: Licensed teachers for all domains

• Grades 1-12 online ACCESS:

– Licensed teachers or administrators who work in the school

– Licensed teachers or administrators who work in the district

– Paraprofessionals who work in the school

– School district personnel employed by the school district

– Licensed substitute teachers who are employed by the district for the purpose of administering the test

• Grades 1-12 paper ACCESS:

– Reading, Writing, Listening– same hierarchy as above

– Speaking—Licensed teacher with training in Second Language Acquisition

• Alternate ACCESS: Licensed teachers for all domains

Who Are ACCESS Test Administrators?


Online


Who: ALL test administrators in 2016*

Domains: R, L, S, W

Quiz: No

Certification: Upon completion

*In future years, new test administrators and returning administrators who would like a refresher must take the training course.

Paper Accommodation


Who: TAs for the paper accommodation*

Domains: R, L, S, W (L&S media delivered)**

Quiz: For Speaking domain only (Grades 1-5 and/or 6-12)

Certification: Upon completion, 80% on quiz

*Annual recertification required to score speaking test. **Human reader script for listening & speaking available for ELs with IEP/504.

Kindergarten


Who: ALL K test administrators, annually

Domains: R, L, S, W

Quiz: Yes

Certification: 80% on quiz

Alternate ACCESS


Who: ALL Alt ACCESS TAs, annually

Domains: R, L, S, W

Quiz: Yes

Certification: 80% on quiz

Optional Test Administrator Face-to-Face Training


Date Location

Monday, December 7 Moorhead

Tuesday, December 8 St. Cloud

Wednesday, December 9 Marshall

Monday, December 14 MDE, Roseville

Tuesday, December 15 MDE, Roseville

Wednesday, December 16 MDE, Roseville

Thursday, December 17 Rochester

Test Administrator Training for ACCESS for ELLs 2.0 Check-in 12:30–1 p.m.; Workshop 1–4:30 p.m.

Optional K ACCESS Face-to-Face Training


Date Location

Friday, January 15, morning session MDE, Roseville

Friday, January 15, afternoon session MDE, Roseville

Kindergarten Test Administrator Training for ACCESS for ELLs

Morning session check-in 8:30 a.m.; Workshop 9 a.m.–noon

Afternoon session check-in 1 p.m.; Workshop 1:30–4:30 p.m.

Optional Alternate ACCESS Face-to-Face Training


Date Location

Wednesday, February 3 MDE, Roseville

Test Administrator Training for Alternate ACCESS for ELLs

Morning session check-in 8:30 a.m.; Workshop 9 a.m.–4 p.m.

ACCESS for ELLs 2.0

Training for Test

Coordinators


• Usually the District Assessment Coordinator (DAC)

• Set up user accounts

• Order materials

• Manage pre-ID process

• Manage WIDA Assessment Management System (AMS) tasks:

– Manage students: Add students, assign accommodations, monitor student progress, enter test codes

– Create test sessions

Who Are Test Coordinators and What Do They Do?


Optional Test Coordinator Face-to-Face Training


Date Location

Monday, December 7 Moorhead

Tuesday, December 8 St. Cloud

Wednesday, December 9 Marshall

Monday, December 14 MDE, Roseville

Tuesday, December 15 MDE, Roseville

Wednesday, December 16 MDE, Roseville

Thursday, December 17 Rochester

Test Coordinator Training for ACCESS for ELLs 2.0 Check-in 8:00 a.m.; Workshop 8:30 a.m.–noon

ACCESS for ELLs 2.0

Training for Technology

Coordinators


DRC technology staff will present hardware and software requirements, set up for online testing and monitoring test sessions from a technology standpoint.

• December 11

• December 18

• January 11

Optional Tech Coordinator Webinars


Kelly Frankenfield, Sarah Sirna, & Sophie Snell

Michael Bowlus

Creating Systemic Instructional Access and

Equity for English Learners


• Parking Lot, Q & A

• Evaluations

• PowerPoint presentation can be found

on the MinneTESOL website

Wrap-Up


WAIT, WHAT?!.....


Thank you for your hard work

and leadership. Have a great

year!

When you turn in your

evaluation be sure to take your

CEUs/Clock hours