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

State and Federal Updates
education.state.mn.us

• 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
education.state.mn.us6
Priorities

70,462 ELs Identified
Source: Minnesota
Automated Student
Reporting System (MARSS)
2014-2015
[CATEGORY
NAME] [VALUE]
[CATEGORY
NAME] [VALUE]
[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
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
Source:MinnesotaDepartmentof

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
Source:MinnesotaDepartmentof

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

• 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
Elizabeth.Watkins@state.mn.us, 651-
582-8678

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?

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

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 -
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 -
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 -
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

• 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 federalagencies
Out-of-courtsettlements
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.

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

• 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

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

• 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

• 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
118education.state.mn.us
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

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

El coordinator meeting 11.5.15

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to El coordinator meeting 11.5.15

Similar to El coordinator meeting 11.5.15 (20)

More from Minnesota English Learner Education Conference

More from Minnesota English Learner Education Conference (11)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

El coordinator meeting 11.5.15