Online Mind Mapping and Brainstorming

Create your own awesome maps

Online Mind Mapping and Brainstorming

Even on the go

with our free apps for iPhone, iPad and Android

Get Started

Already have an account? Log In

Assessment of LEPs by Mind Map: Assessment of LEPs
0.0 stars - reviews range from 0 to 5

Assessment of LEPs

Accomodations on tests

Accommodations on tests 1.       During test: ·         Provide extra time and/or breaks ·         Provide a glossary of non-content related terms ·         Read instructions & questions aloud ·         Make sure students comprehend the instructions ·         Provide testing environment with fewer students and potential distractions ·         *States/districts/schools have diff accommodations criteria 2.       Americans with Disabilities Act: Students receive same accommodations during tests as in the classroom. note: Must be thoroughly documented Testing agencies (i.e., ETS) can’t report accommodations given during testing.                

Assessment & Accountability issues

  Assessment & accountability issues 1.       LEP subgroup not well defined ·         States/districts/schools use different LEP classification criteria ·         LEPs differ within subgroup: parent education, cult & lang background, EL proficiency 2.       Sparse LEP population ·         Number of LEPs affects statistical reliability ·         Higher number of LEPs = lower stats error in testing ·         States/districts/schools have diff pop number ·         States/districts/schools with high # LEPs have greater task to satisfy goals of NCLB 3.       Lack of LEP subgroup stability (revolving-door) ·         New LEPs replace those who have moved after being deemed “proficient.” ·         Schools with large LEP number remain in “need of improvement” category. 4.       Measurement quality of LEP assessment ·         Most states use different standardized achievement tests ·         Many states still use norm-referenced tests for AYP reporting ·         Language proficiency gap between LEPs and non-LEPs make them non-comparable 5.       LEP Basline scores ·         Schools enter NCLB race at different starting points ·         Schools w/high # LEPs have lower baseline, makes progress goals more challenging/unrealistic ·         “One size fits all” model – NCLB requirement for subgroup reporting gives impression that all students in subgroup categories enter achievement race at same baseline score 6.       Accountability & AYP cutoff points ·         NCLB applies conjunctive model, not compensatory (high math score can’t make up for low reading score)      

LEPs and AYP

Helping LEPs reach proficiency in AYP model 1.       Improve classification and assessment ·         Establish common definition of ELP ·         ELP assessments must be free of cultural bias, linguistic complexity ·         To help determine if a test is culturally biased or culturally responsive: ü     Are there enough supporting details so that students can comprehend the cultural content being provided? ü     Do the testing materials show bias that relates to ethnicity, sex, culture, religion, class, or processes? ü     Have members of different cultural groups been represented? ü     Are members of different cultural groups positively portrayed? ü     Have the test developers made sure that the cultural content is comprehensible to all the test takers? ü     Is cultural content about the students' home culture and language accurate and up-to-date? ü     Are members of different class groups positively portrayed? ü     Are there traditional and non-traditional depictions of gender? 2.       Improve progress monitoring ·         Use different baselines & progress rates ·         Closely track performance for individuals and groups to track gains or lack of 3.       Improve teacher capacity ·         Teachers of LEPs should be trained in: content delivery, lang sheltering, teaching academic lang ·         Focus on reading ·         4 basic principles to follow when conducting a special-needs assessment of ELLs: ü The assessment team should be multidisciplinary and include individuals familiar with the student's culture and language. ü A comprehensive pre-referral should be conducted to insure that the student's difficulties are not cultural or linguistic in nature. ü The student's dominant language should be ascertained and used in the testing. ü The assessment itself should be tailored to the student, multidimensional, and culturally and linguistically non-biased. ü *ALWAYS check vision and hearing before spec ed referal 4.       LEP “semi-cohort” baseline score ·         Allow progress of “proficient” LEPs to count towards AYP progress ü  Feb ’04 AYP policy allows including “proficient” LEPs up to 2 yrs ü  ELPs 1st yr does not count toward AYP reporting    


English Language Learners 1.       Defined ·         Any school-aged child exposed to a lang or cult, other than Eng, in daily interaction at home that has been identified, through assessment, requiring modified grade-level material in English. 2.       Identifying ELLs ·         Tier I Measures (after home survey, Gottlieb-16) ü    Survey of oral language use (17) ü    Literacy survey (18) ·         Tier II Measures (academic focus) ü    *L1 academic achievement is strongest predictor of L2 academic success ü    informal reading inventories, content-based writing samples and standardized tests 3.       Assessment (11-12) ·         Large scale assessment ü    State standardized tests anchored in state English language proficiency standards ü    State standardized tests of academic achievement in LA, math, science, SS based on academic content standards, with accommodations for ELLs ü    State academic assessments for ELLs for reporting data on language proficiency and academic achievement *Important to determine students’ baseline in both language proficiency & academic achievement in order to document progress *Use multiple measures that target all 4 modalities ·         Classroom assessment  

Types of support for ELLs