Allocating Federal Funds for State Programs for English Language Learners

Panel to Review Alternative Data Sources for the Limited-English Proficiency Allocation Formula under Title III, Part A, Elementary and Secondary Education Act

Committee on National Statistics

and

Board on Testing and Assessment

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Allocating Federal Funds for State Programs for English Language Learners Panel to Review Alternative Data Sources for the Limited-English Proficiency Allocation Formula under Title III, Part A, Elementary and Secondary Education Act Committee on National Statistics and Board on Testing and Assessment Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by U.S. Department of Education Contract Number ED- 08-CO-0119 to the National Academy of Sciences. Support of the work of the Committee on National Statistics is provided by a consortium of federal agencies through a grant from the National Science Foundation (award number SES-0453930). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-18658-2 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-18658-7 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2011 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Research Council. (2011). Allocating Federal Funds for State Programs for English Language Learners. Panel to Review Alternative Data Sources for the Limited-English Proficiency Allocation Formula under Title III, Part A, Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Committee on National Statistics and Board on Testing and As - sessment. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distin- guished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is au - tonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineer - ing in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
PANEL TO REVIEW ALTERNATIVE DATA SOURCES FOR THE LIMITED-ENGLISH PROFICIENCY ALLOCATION FORMULA UNDER TITLE III, PART A, ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT Alan Zaslavsky (Chair), Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School Jamal Abedi, School of Education, University of California, Davis Frank D. Bean, Center for Research on Immigration, Population and Public Policy, University of California, Irvine David Francis, Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation and Statistics, University of Houston Edward Haertel, School of Education, Stanford University David Hubble, WESTAT, Inc., Rockville, MD Rebecca Kopriva, Wisconsin Center for Education Research and School of Education, University of Wisconsin, Madison Robert Linquanti, WestEd, Oakland, CA Helen Malagon, Office of Superintendent of Public Education, State of Washington Migrant and Bilingual Education Programs Catherine Neff, Office of Federal Programs, South Carolina Department of Education P. David Pearson, Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley Charlene Rivera, Graduate School of Education and Center for Equity and Excellence in Education, George Washington University Judith A. Koenig, Costudy Director Thomas Plewes, Costudy Director Esha Sinha, Research Associate Michael J. Siri, Program Associate v

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL STATISTICS 2010 Lawrence D. Brown (Chair), Department of Statistics, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania John M. Abowd, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University Alicia Carriquiry, Department of Statistics, Iowa State University William DuMouchel, Oracle Health Sciences, Waltham, MA V. Joseph Hotz, Department of Economics, Duke University Michael Hout, Department of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley Karen Kafadar, Department of Statistics, Indiana University Sallie Keller, Science and Technology Policy Institute, Washington, DC Lisa Lynch, Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University Sally Morton, Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh Joseph Newhouse, Division of Health Policy Research and Education, Harvard University Samuel H. Preston, Population Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania Hal Stern, Department of Statistics, University of California, Irvine Roger Tourangeau, Joint Program in Survey Methodology, University of Maryland, and Survey Research Center, University of Michigan Alan Zaslavsky, Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School Constance F. Citro, Director vi

OCR for page R1
BOARD ON TESTING AND ASSESSMENT Edward Haertel (Chair), School of Education, Stanford University Lyle Bachman, Department of Applied Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles Stephen Dunbar, College of Education, University of Iowa David J. Francis, Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics, University of Houston Michael Kane, National Conference of Bar Examiners, Madison, WI Kevin Lang, Department of Economics, Boston University Michael Nettles, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ Diana C. Pullin, Lynch School of Education, Boston College Brian Stecher, RAND, Santa Monica, CA Mark Wilson, Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley Rebecca Zwick, Graduate School of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara Stuart Elliott, Director vii

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgments This report is the product of the work by many people, each of whom con- tributed expertise to the enterprise. I first acknowledge with great appreciation the efforts of my fellow panel members, who brought expertise as data users and state data providers and in education policy, demography, statistical estimation methods, census and American Community Survey (ACS) methodology, administrative data systems, and testing and assessment. All of this expertise was critical to the multifac - eted issues that had to be addressed in this evaluation of the admissible data sources for allocation of funds under Title III, Part A, of the Elementary and Secondary Edu- cation Act. The panel members freely contributed their time to accomplishing the myriad of tasks associated with assembling information and preparing this report and cheerfully accepted the duties of facilitating sessions at the five committee meetings. Their contributions during the period in which the report was in final preparation and after the outside review, when sections of the report had to be turned around on a very truncated schedule, are especially appreciated. These efforts manifested the panel members’ deep dedication to the well-being and effective education of English language learners and immigrant children. The panel held public sessions at its first and second meetings. The sessions were organized as formal workshops, with presentations by internal and outside presenters followed by free-flowing discussion. In developing these public sessions, the com - mittee greatly benefitted from the support of the staff of the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Census Bureau. The panel was set on the right path at its first open meeting by Thomas M. Corwin, director, Division of Elementary, Secondary and Vocational Analysis, Bud - get Service, U.S. Department of Education, and Richard Smith, the department’s acting assistant deputy secretary and director, Office of English Language Acquisi - ix

OCR for page R1
x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS tion. They elaborated on the department’s charge to the committee and established the background for the study for the information of the panel. This report was preceded by a significant report by the U.S. Government Ac- countability Office in 2006 that described the allowable data for the allocation of formula-based grants to states to support the education of students with limited English proficiency. It described the effects of using the ACS and the states’ assess - ment data, and it recommended a series of steps for the U.S. Department of Edu - cation to improve the quality and use of the data. The report’s authors, Harriet C. Ganson, assistant director for education, workforce and income security, and Nagla’a El-Hodiri, senior economist, discussed the findings of that report with the panel at its April 2009 workshop. The panel was assisted in developing a full understanding of the ACS at its first meeting by Susan Schecter, chief of the American Community Survey Office of the U.S. Census Bureau. She updated the committee on the current status of the survey and discussed the plans for development of estimates for small areas and populations. At its second meeting, the panel heard from experts on state testing, state prac - tices, and programs for English language learners, as well as the U.S. Department of Education official responsible for the development and maintenance of the depart - mental databases that hold the state data. We thank a group of Title III directors for their contribution at the workshop: Celina Arias-Romero (California), committee member Helen Malagon (Washington), Joanne Marino (North Carolina), Barbara Medina (Colorado), Elizabeth Minjarez (Texas), committee member Catherine Neff (South Carolina), Redro Ruiz (New York), and Maria Santos (New York City). The administrative data are strongly affected by state practices, and the members of this group documented the state practices that reflect the individual policies and needs as perceived by the state agencies that conduct these programs. Ross Santy, director of the Performance Information Management Service in the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, U.S. Department of Education, provided a summary of the types of data that are maintained on state programs, and traced the recent efforts to build a data system that increasingly standardizes and validates data maintained and submitted by state education agen - cies. His unit provided the committee with a number of special tabulations of data submitted by state education agencies to the U.S. Department of Education that greatly assisted our work. Robert Kominski, assistant chief, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, U.S. Census Bureau, discussed the evolution and status of the questions on the ACS that provide the basic information for derivation of estimates of the number of limited English proficient students by state. The committee also extends special thanks to David Raglin and Sandra Clark of the Special Studies staff of the American Community Survey Office of the U.S. Census Bureau for facilitating the provision of extensive special tabulations of ACS data that permitted the panel to assess the adequacy of the ACS for allocation purposes. We also acknowledge the guidance and support provided to this study by the

OCR for page R1
xi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS two contracting officer technical representatives who were assigned to shepherd this project by the U.S. Department of Education. On numerous occasions, Pat Butler and Sandra Furey stepped in to assist in setting up meetings with the appropriate departmental experts, securing data for comparison purposes, and facilitating neces - sary contractual modifications to enable the successful completion of this study. Britt Jung of the department’s budget office provided advice and guidance throughout the study and assisted in the provision of special funding for the purchase of ACS tabula - tions from the Census Bureau that permitted much of the analysis contained in this report. William Sonnenberg of the National Center for Education Statistics provided significant assistance to the panel about data used in the current and past allocation formula for the distribution of Title III funds by the U.S. Department of Education. The committee gratefully acknowledges the dedicated effort provided by the staff of the Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) and the Board on Test- ing and Assessment (BOTA) of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education of the National Research Council (NRC). Tom Plewes and Judy Koenig brought deep experience and broad organizational skill to their service as costudy directors, and their work was a key factor in ensuring the efficient completion of this report. Esha Sinha of the CNSTAT staff supported the analysis by developing the research databases of the data provided in various formats by the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Census Bureau, and she managed, through extraordinary ef- forts, to conduct analyses for the committee. Michael Siri, also of the CNSTAT staff, provided smooth administrative management of the five meetings held in several venues. The task of contacting state directors of English language learner programs to ascertain the latest information on their screening and assessment tests was ably and cheerfully handled by Rose Neugroschel of BOTA. We also want to acknowl - edge the active participation and guidance provided by Constance Citro, director of CNSTAT, and Stuart Elliott, director of BOTA, whose advice and leadership were instrumental in moving this study from the planning to report preparation stages. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the Report Review Committee of the NRC. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that assist the institution in mak - ing its report as sound as possible, and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. The panel thanks the following individuals for their review of this report: Jonathan G. Dings, Planning and Assessment, Boulder Valley School District; Gerunda B. Hughes, Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation, Howard University; Joseph B. (Jay) Kadane, Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon Uni - versity; Neal Kingston, Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation, University of Kansas; Jan Lanier, Division of College and Career Readiness, Tennessee Department of Education; Lilia G. Sánchez, English Learner and Curriculum Support Division,

OCR for page R1
xii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS California Department of Education; and Robin Scarcella, Academic English/ESL Program, University of California, Irvine. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Allen L. Schirm, Human Services Research, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., and Kenneth W. Wachter, Demography and Statistics, University of California, Berkeley. Appointed by the NRC, they were responsible for making certain that the independent exami- nation of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of the report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the NRC. Alan Zaslavsky, Chair Panel to Review Alternative Data Sources for the Limited-English Proficiency Allocation Formula under Title III, Part A, Elementary and Secondary Education Act

OCR for page R1
Contents ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xix SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 5 The Population and the New Landscape, 5 Allocating Funds for Title III Programs, 8 Review by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, 13 This Study and This Report, 15 2 AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY ESTIMATES 21 The American Community Survey, 21 Assessment of the Data, 29 ACS Estimates, 36 Properties of the Estimates, 37 3 QUALITY AND COMPARABILITY OF STATE TESTS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY 59 NCLB Requirements for English Language Proficiency Tests, 60 State English Language Proficiency Tests, 61 General Similarities and Differences Among the State Tests, 67 xiii

OCR for page R1
xiv CONTENTS 4 STATE PROCEDURES FOR IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 77 Initial Classification of Students, 80 Reclassification of ELL Students, 86 Data on ELL Students Reported to the Federal Government, 90 5 COMPARISON OF AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY ESTIMATES AND STATE COUNTS 103 Conceptual Differences in the Two Sources, 103 Comparison of Shares of ELL Students, 105 Comparison of Rates of ELL Students, 111 Understanding the Differences, 116 6 COMPARABILITY OF ESTIMATES OF IMMIGRANT SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN 133 ACS Data and Estimates, 134 State Procedures for Determining Immigrant Status, 145 Comparison of ACS and State Estimates, 150 7 DECISION CRITERIA AND RECOMMENDATIONS 161 Desired Characteristics of Allocation Formulas, 161 Comparing the Allowable Data Sources, 164 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 171 APPENDIXES A Review of English Language Proficiency Tests 181 B Biographical Sketches of Panel Members and Staff 209

OCR for page R1
Tables, Figures, and Boxes TABLES 1-1 Summary Definitions of Selected Variables Used in This Report, 12 1-2 Operational Definitions of the ELL Population, 19 2-1 ACS Sample Sizes: Initial Addresses and Final Interviews, by Type of Unit, 26 2-2 English Language Learning Children and Youth Aged 5-21, by State, 2005- 2008, 38 2-3 Average Number of ELL Children and Youth Aged 5-21, by State, 40 2-4 Percentage Share of ELL Children and Youth Aged 5-21, by State, 41 2-5 Standard Errors of Percentage Shares of ELL Children and Youth Aged 5-21, by State (in percentage), 42 2-6 Ratio of ELL Students Aged 5-18 in Public Schools to All Students Aged 5-18 in Public Schools (in percentage), 43 2-7 Standard Errors of Ratio of ELL Students Aged 5-18 in Public School to All Students Aged 5-18 in Public School (in percentage), 45 2-8 Coefficients of Variation of Estimates of ELL Students, by State Size, 46 2-9 Absolute Difference in Percentage Share of States Across Years (in percentage), 48 2-10 Difference in Percentage Share of ELL Students of States by Varying Age Groups, Enrollment Status, and Type of School (in percentage), 51 2-11 Difference in Percentage Share of ELL Students of States by Varying ELL Criterion, 52 2-12 Coverage Rates for Housing Units, Group Quarters, and Total Population (in percentage), 55 xv

OCR for page R1
xvi TABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES 2-13 Allocation Rates for Language Questions in ACS, for United States (in percentage), 56 3-1 English Language Proficiency Assessments, by State, 2009-2010 School Year, 65 3-2 Tests Reviewed by the Panel, 66 4-1 Tests Used by the States for Initial Classification of English Language Learners for the 2009-2010 School Year, 83 4-2 Numbers and Shares of All ELL Students by State: School Years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009, 93 4-3 Rates of All ELL Students by State: School Years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009, 95 4-4 Numbers and Shares of ELL Students Reported Tested, Not Proficient for 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 School Years, 97 4-5 Rates of Tested, Not Proficient Students by State, 2007-2008 and 2008- 2009 School Years (in percentage), 99 5-1 Differences Between the ACS Estimates and State-Provided Counts of ELL Students, 104 5-2 Shares of ELL Students Based on ACS and State-Provided Counts (in percentage), 106 5-3 Ratio of State Shares Based on ACS Estimate to Shares Based on State- Provided Counts, 109 5-4 Total Absolute Difference Between Shares Based on ACS Estimates and Shares Based on State-Provided Counts, 111 5-5 Rate of ELL Students by State Based on ACS Estimates and State-Provided Counts (in percentage), 112 5-6 Ratio of Rates Based on ACS Estimates to Rates Based on State-Provided Counts, 114 5-7 Analysis of Using ACS 3-Year Estimate and Other Variables to Predict State- Provided Rate of All ELL Students, 120 5-8 Analysis of Using ACS 3-Year Estimate and Other Variables to Predict State- Provided Rate of Tested, Not Proficient ELL Students, 122 5-9 Descriptive Summaries of LEA-Level Data on Rate of ELL Students, by State, 125 5-10 Results of Within-State Regressions, 127 5-11 Comparison of Volatility in ACS Estimates and State-Provided Counts (in percentage), 130 6-1 Allocation Rates for Nonresponse on Immigrant Items in the ACS, 2005- 2008 (in percentage), 136 6-2 Number of Immigrant Children and Youth Aged 3-21, by State, 137

OCR for page R1
xvii TABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES 6-3 Average Number of Immigrant Children and Youth Aged 3-21, by State, 139 6-4 Share of Immigrant Children and Youth Aged 3-21, by State (in percentage), 141 6-5 Standard Errors of Shares of Immigrant Children and Youth Aged 3-21, by State (in percentage), 142 6-6 Ratio of Immigrant Children Aged 5-18 Enrolled in Public School to All Children Aged 5-18 Enrolled in Public School (in percentage), 143 6-7 Difference in the Percentage Share of Immigrants Aged 3-21 of States by Age Group, Enrollment Status, and Type of School, 144 6-8 Absolute Difference and Absolute Relative Difference in Ratio of Immigrant Children and Youth (in percentage), 146 6-9 Key Features of ACS and State-Collected Data on Immigrant Children and Youth, 150 6-10 Comparison of State Student Immigrant Counts and American Community Survey Estimates of Recent Immigrant Students, 151 6-11 Comparison of Volatility in ACS Estimates of Youth Aged 5-18 and Enrolled in Public School and State Counts of Recent Immigrants (in percentage), 153 6-12 Rates of Immigrant Children by Eligible School District, 155 6-13 Relationship at the School District Level Between ACS Estimates and State-Provided Estimates of the Rate of Immigrant Children Among Public School Enrollees, in Eligible Districts as Described in Text, for States with at Least 10 Eligible Districts, 157 7-1 Comparison of ACS and State-Provided Data on Desired Characteristics for an Allocation Formula, 165 A-1 English Language Proficiency Tests Reviewed and the States That Use Them, 182 FIGURES 4-1 ELL classification and reclassification procedures, 78 4-2 Number of criteria used by states for ELL reclassification, 87 5-1 Comparison of ACS 3-year rate and state-provided rate of all ELL students for the 2008-2009 school year, 117 5-2 Comparison of ACS 3-year rate and state-provided rate of tested, not proficient students for the 2008-2009 school year, 118 6-1 Rules for determining immigrant education program student in Illinois, 2009-2010 school year, 149

OCR for page R1
xviii TABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES 6-2 Immigrant ratio from state counts (2007-2008 academic year) and ACS 3-year estimates (2006-2008), 152 BOXES 1-1 Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Student: Definition, 6 1-2 State Allotments, 9 1-3 Legislative Mandate for Estimating the Number of LEP Students, 10 2-1 Question on Language Use from the ACS, 30 2-2 History of the Census Language Questions, 31 2-3 Item Nonresponse Rate Comparisons: 2000 Census, 2000 C2SS, and 2005 ACS (in percentage), 34 6-1 ACS Questions on Birth, Citizenship, and Year of Entry into the United States, 135

OCR for page R1
Acronyms and Abbreviations ACCESS Assessing Comprehension and Communication in English State to State ACS American Community Survey AERA American Educational Research Association AIR American Institutes for Research AMAO annual measurable achievement objective APA American Psychological Association AYP adequate yearly progress AZELLA Arizona English Language Learner Assessment BOTA Board on Testing and Assessment C2SS Census 2000 Supplementary Survey CAPI computer-assisted personal interviewing CATI computer-assisted telephone interviewing CCD Common Core of Data CCSSO Council of Chief State School Officers CDE California Department of Education CELA Colorado English Language Assessment CELDT California English Language Development Test CELLA Comprehensive English Language Learning Assessment CMA for ELA California Modified Assessment for English-Language Arts CNSTAT Committee on National Statistics CRESST National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing xix

OCR for page R1
xx ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS CSAP Colorado Student Assessment Program C-SAVE Center for the Study of Assessment Validity and Evaluation CSPR Consolidated State Performance Report CST for ELA California Standards Test for English-Language Arts CV coefficients of variation DoEd U.S. Department of Education EDEN Education Data Exchange Network ELDA English Language Development Assessment ELL English language learner ELP English language proficiency ELPAS English Language Proficiency Assessment Standards ELPS English Language Proficiency Survey EPAS English Proficiency for All Students ESEA Elementary and Secondary School Act ESL English as a second language ESOL English for speakers of other languages ESS EDEN Submission System ETS Educational Testing Service GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office HLS home language survey IELA Idaho English Language Assessment IEP Immigrant Education Program IPT IDEA Proficiency Test KELPA Kansas English Language Proficiency Assessment LAB-R Language Assessment Battery-Revised LAS Language Assessment Scales LAS Links Language Assessment Scales Links LEA local education agency LEP limited English proficiency LEP-SCASS Limited English Proficient State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards LIEP Language Instruction Educational Program LPTS Language Proficiency Test Series MAC II Maculaitis Assessment of Competencies Test of Language Proficiency MAD mean absolute difference

OCR for page R1
xxi ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS MAF master address file MARD mean absolute relative difference MELA-O Massachusetts English Language Assessment-Oral MEPA-R/W Massachusetts English Proficiency Assessment-Reading and Writing MI-ELPA Michigan English Language Proficiency Assessment MN-SOLOM Minnesota Modified Student Oral Language Observation Matrix MontCAS Montana Comprehensive Assessment System MWAC Mountain West Assessment Consortium NCELA National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition NCES National Center for Education Statistics NCLB No Child Left Behind Act NCME National Council on Measurement in Education NGA Center National Governors Association’s Center for Best Practices NRC National Research Council NV-ELPA Nevada State English Language Proficiency Assessment NYSED New York State Education Department NYSESLAT New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test OCR Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education OELA Office of English Language Acquisition, U.S. Department of Education OR-ELPA Oregon English Language Proficiency Assessment OTELA Ohio Test of English Language Acquisition PEP Population Estimates Program PUMA public-use microdata area PUMS public-use microdata samples RFEP reclassified as fluent English proficient RMSE root mean square residual error RPTE Reading Proficiency Tests in English SAIPE Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates Program SEA state education agency SELP Stanford English Language Proficiency Test TEA Texas Education Agency TEAE Test of Emerging Academic English TELPA Tennessee English Language Placement Assessment TELPAS Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment Systems TESOL Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages

OCR for page R1
xxii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS UALPA Utah Academic Language Proficiency Assessment WESTELL West Virginia Test for English Language Learners WIDA World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment WLPT-II Washington Language Proficiency Test II