Search

Postsecondary readiness enables students to pursue their dreams, contribute to society, and thrive in the global economy. Since many accountability systems include a postsecondary readiness indicator in formal evaluations of schools and districts, it benefits educators, families, researchers, policymakers, and other education partners to understand how postsecondary readiness is defined, measured, and used. This brief, produced by the Region 15 Comprehensive Center, explains how states define and measure postsecondary readiness, an important step toward improving how such measures function within state accountability systems. Region 15 Comprehensive Center staff identified four main findings about the use of postsecondary readiness indicators, the types of measures included in the indicators, and how much weight indicators are given in accountability systems: (1) More than three of four ESSA plans contained a postsecondary readiness indicator; (2) States included three main types of measures in postsecondary readiness indicators: academic, career, and military; (3) Postsecondary readiness indicators focused most heavily on academic and career measures and less on military measures; and (4) Weighting of the postsecondary readiness indicator varies widely from state to state.

This knowledge brief is part of a continuing series designed to inform California education leaders about key policy issues related to teachers and teaching in the Golden State. The brief outlines the current policy environment surrounding math instruction in California, summarizes California information from a nationwide teacher survey on teachers' experiences with professional learning during the 2019/20 school year, and highlights options for instructional supports for California math teachers.

In the summer and fall months of a "typical" year, many education leaders would receive reports of student performance on annual summative state assessments administered each spring. Using these data, administrators begin a process of sense-making -- identifying areas that need support and integrating new information offered by the data into their base of understanding about the performance of their students, school, district, county, and state. However, because the COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally changed teaching and learning over the past two school years, education leaders will need to bring a different mindset to reviewing assessment data from spring 2021. Understanding the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on student learning is fundamental for being able to develop responsive supports that address the needs of all students, particularly those most affected by the disruptions to learning in the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school years. . Meaningful assessment data are essential for policymakers and stakeholders designating funding and determining eligibility requirements for programs that can impact student learning, such as state-supported professional learning resources and relief funding from sources such as the American Rescue Plan Act (ARP). In response to flexibility offered by the federal Department of Education, many states developed plans for assessment in the 2020-21 school year that decouple summative assessment data from federal accountability requirements and that offer alternatives in situations in which student participation in the state's traditional summative assessment is not viable. For these plans to be effective, educators will need to pay attention to data, including assessment results, beyond just the state's summative test. Furthermore, state and local education agencies will need to decide which data can provide meaningful information about student, school, and system performance. Accordingly, it is particularly important this year for states and districts to understand best practices for using and analyzing data to support student learning. This brief answers some timely questions about how to think about assessment information at this unique moment, and offers several suggestions and considerations about how to use assessment data to inform decisions about teaching and learning.

This knowledge brief is part of a continuing series designed to inform California education leaders about new research findings on key state policy topics. To better understand the reopening planning process and other issues related to education during the pandemic, WestEd conducted telephone interviews with County Office of Education (COE) leaders from five different counties about how school closures due to COVID-19 impacted their work with districts and schools. The five COE leaders who were interviewed for this brief represent different corners of the state: Tehama, Tulare, Orange, Napa, and Placer counties. Across these counties, common themes emerged throughout the interviews around how COVID-19 has impacted COE work with schools and districts. Most notably, the school closures have changed how COEs and local educational agencies (LEAs) collaborate and communicate with each other, with their students and their families, and with service providers. To place these findings from California in a national context, the authors of this brief also analyzed data from RAND's 2020 American Educator Panels, the American School Leader Panel (ASLP) and the American Teacher Panel (ATP) surveys. Although responses from California teachers cannot yet be isolated in these data, the ASLP and ATP results are among the first large-scale survey data releases to include responses to COVID-related questions, providing a glimpse into how school leaders and teachers in the United States are viewing the issues that WestEd researchers discussed with COE leaders.

California public schools enroll some 1.2 million students who are classified as English learners (ELs), representing a little more than 19 percent of the statewide student population. Given the size of this population and given the state's efforts over the last decade to recommend to districts materials lists for high-quality, standards-aligned materials for all students, education leaders need to understand teachers' perceptions of the quality and suitability of materials available for use with their EL students. This information can help inform the provision of differentiated supports that meet the needs of schools, teachers, and learners across the Golden State. This brief, produced by the CA Analysis for Learning & Engagement (CALE) project, summarizes survey data about California teachers' views of and experience instructional materials in relation to their EL students. It draws from a survey that included items about subject-matter materials in general, along with items about the cultural relevance and linguistic appropriateness of the materials, digital materials, and teachers' modification of materials for EL students. To place California's results in a national context, the authors also compared California's subject-specific teacher responses to those of teachers in other states who responded to the same survey.

For several years, WestEd's Measure to Learn and Improve (MLI) project team has kept California state policy leaders informed about the statewide implementation of the California Academic Standards in English language arts and mathematics, by summarizing and disseminating results from the RAND Corporation's annual American Educator Panel (AEP) surveys of teachers and principals. This brief contrasts the perceptions of California educators who serve a relatively high proportion of English learner (EL) students (i.e., over 25 percent of students) with the perceptions of educators who are serving a relatively high proportion of EL students in three comparison states.

This technical brief examines the 2008/09 reading and math proficiency levels among subgroups of Arizona public school students defined by students' race/ethnicity (American Indian, Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White), English language learner status (English language learner students and non-English language learner students), disability status (students with and students without disabilities), and economic status (students receiving and those not receiving free or reduced-price meals). Responding to an Arizona Department of Education request, the brief describes how student subgroup performance differs by school level (elementary, middle, and high) and school type (Title I Schools in Improvement [schools serving economically disadvantaged students and participating in the federal school improvement program intended to improve academic performance in schools not making adequate yearly progress for at least two consecutive years], Title I Schools Not in Improvement, and non-Title I schools). The same analyses were conducted for charter schools. Key findings include: (1) Across all school levels and school types, reading proficiency ranged from 26 percent for English language learner students to 84 percent for Asian students, White students, and students not receiving free or reduced-price meals. Overall and in 10 of 11 student sub-groups, elementary, middle, and high school proficiency rates were within 6 percentage points of one another. However, the margin was wider (13 percentage points) for English language learner students, ranging from 16 percent in high schools and 17 percent in middle schools to 29 percent in elementary schools; (2) Across all levels of charter schools, reading proficiency ranged from 31 percent for English language learner students to 89 percent for Asian students. Reading proficiency rates declined overall and in 7 of 11 student subgroups from elementary to middle to high school; (3) Across all school levels and school types, math proficiency ranged from 34 percent for English language learner students to 86 percent for Asian students. Overall and in 10 of 11 student subgroups, elementary, middle, and high school proficiency rates were within 10 percentage points of one another. However, the margin was wider (16 percentage points) for English language learner students, ranging from 22 percent in high schools and 25 percent in middle schools to 38 percent in elementary schools; (4) Across all levels of charter schools, math proficiency ranged from 35 percent for English language learner students to 86 percent for Asian students. Math proficiency rates declined from elementary to middle to high school overall and in all but one student sub-group (English language learner students); (5) In both reading and math, Asian students (84 percent in reading and 86 percent in math) and White students (84 percent in reading and 82 percent in math) scored proficient at higher rates than did the overall student body (72 percent in reading and 71 percent in math). Among the three racial/ethnic subgroups with proficiency rates below the overall rate, American Indian students scored consistently lower (53 percent in reading and 51 percent in math) than Black students (65 percent in reading and 60 percent in math) and Hispanic students (62 percent in reading and 62 percent in math); and (6) In both reading and math, in all but one subgroup, students in non-Title I schools had higher proficiency rates than did students in both Title I Schools Not in Improvement and Title I Schools in Improvement. However, English language learner students in Title I Schools Not in Improvement had proficiency rates (30 percent in reading and 38 percent in math) 4 percentage points higher than English language learner students in non-Title I schools (26 percent in reading and 34 percent in math). Appended are: (1) Summary of Arizona's accountability system (excerpted from Crane et al. 2008); (2) Data and methodology; and (3) Data for alternative, K-12, and other schools. (Contains 13 tables and 3 notes.)

This technical brief responds to an Arizona Department of Education request to study academic performance in schools receiving funding through the federal Title I compensatory education program, the section of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 governing resources for schools and districts serving disadvantaged populations. The brief describes for 2005/06-2008/09 the numbers and distribution of Arizona public schools and students across school levels (elementary, middle, high) for three school types: Title I Schools in Improvement (participating in the school improvement program, a public program to improve the academic performance of students in schools not meeting adequate yearly progress for at least two consecutive years); Title I Schools Not in Improvement; and non-Title I schools. It reports how Schools in Improvement are distributed across school improvement statuses, compares trends in reading and math proficiency for students attending each school type, and examines patterns of movement in and out of school improvement among Title I schools. Appended are: (1) Study methods; (2) Detailed school- and student-level data; (3) School-level reading and math proficiency trends, 2005/06-2008/09; and (4) Movement in and out of Title I and the school improvement program among all Arizona schools receiving Title I funding any year over 2005/06-2008/09. (Contains 2 boxes, 12 tables, 9 figures, and 5 notes.)

This study examines the relationship between performance on Utah's English proficiency assessment and English language arts and mathematics content assessments by English language learner students and compares the performance of English language learner and non-English language learner students on the content assessments. Two research questions guided the study: (1) What is the distribution of performance of English language learner students in grades 10 and 11 on the Utah Academic Language Proficiency Assessment, compared with their performance on the English language arts and mathematics content assessments of the Utah Performance Assessment System for Students? and (2) How does the performance of English language learner students on the English language arts and mathematics content assessments of the Utah Performance Assessment System for Students compare with that of non-English language learner students, overall and by content standard? The Utah State Office of Education provided student-level datasets of all grade 10 and 11 students who took the language proficiency and content assessments in 2008/09. Findings include: Of grade 10 students who scored below intermediate on the language proficiency assessment, 6 percent scored 3 or 4 (the highest two scores) on the English language arts content assessment; of grade 10 students who scored intermediate on the language proficiency assessment, 14 percent scored 3 or 4 on the English language arts content assessment; and of grade 10 students who scored advanced on the language proficiency assessment, 59 percent scored 3 or 4 on the English language arts content assessment. Of grade 11 students who scored below intermediate on the language proficiency assessment, 1 percent scored 3 or 4 on the English language arts content assessment; of grade 11 students who scored intermediate on the language proficiency assessment, 9 percent scored 3 or 4 on the English language arts content assessment; and of grade 11 students who scored advanced on the language proficiency assessment, 33 percent scored 3 or 4 on the English language arts content assessment. The information from this study is expected to aid the Utah State Office of Education in generating descriptive information about English language learner students' performance on the language proficiency and content assessments, in informing ongoing discussions of rules related to when students should be moved out of English language learner status, and in helping the state agency's curriculum and instruction and assessment programs develop a richer understanding of English language learner students' performance on specific content. (Contains 5 tables, 10 figures, and 3 boxes.) [This report was prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory West administered by WestEd. For the summary, see ED516972.]

This document summarizes a study that examines the relationship between performance on Utah's English proficiency assessment and English language arts and mathematics content assessments by English language learner students and compares the performance of English language learner and non-English language learner students on the content assessments. Two research questions guided the study: (1) What is the distribution of performance of English language learner students in grades 10 and 11 on the Utah Academic Language Proficiency Assessment, compared with their performance on the English language arts and mathematics content assessments of the Utah Performance Assessment System for Students? and (2) How does the performance of English language learner students on the English language arts and mathematics content assessments of the Utah Performance Assessment System for Students compare with that of non-English language learner students, overall and by content standard? The Utah State Office of Education provided student-level datasets of all grade 10 and 11 students who took the language proficiency and content assessments in 2008/09. Findings include: Of grade 10 students who scored below intermediate on the language proficiency assessment, 6 percent scored 3 or 4 (the highest two scores) on the English language arts content assessment; of grade 10 students who scored intermediate on the language proficiency assessment, 14 percent scored 3 or 4 on the English language arts content assessment; and of grade 10 students who scored advanced on the language proficiency assessment, 59 percent scored 3 or 4 on the English language arts content assessment. Of grade 11 students who scored below intermediate on the language proficiency assessment, 1 percent scored 3 or 4 on the English language arts content assessment; of grade 11 students who scored intermediate on the language proficiency assessment, 9 percent scored 3 or 4 on the English language arts content assessment; and of grade 11 students who scored advanced on the language proficiency assessment, 33 percent scored 3 or 4 on the English language arts content assessment. The information from this study is expected to aid the Utah State Office of Education in generating descriptive information about English language learner students' performance on the language proficiency and content assessments, in informing ongoing discussions of rules related to when students should be moved out of English language learner status, and in helping the state agency's curriculum and instruction and assessment programs develop a richer understanding of English language learner students' performance on specific content. [This summary was prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory West administered by WestEd. For the main report, see ED516971.

As someone with a stake in a school district's systems, a person probably does not have all the answers around what is necessary to build an effective interim assessment system. Neither does this workbook. But it is intended to have the right questions. More precisely, this workbook contains the vision, infrastructure, and resource questions critical to a thorough, district-level self-examination of readiness for an interim assessment system. Staff at state departments of education can also use this resource when district-level staff approach the state agency seeking guidance. These questions are intended to guide individuals and other district stakeholders through a structured consideration of building or revisiting one's district's interim assessment system. The questions are intended to be answered collaboratively, not by a district administrator in isolation. The author of this workbook believes that a team of district stakeholders addressing these questions is the approach most likely to yield progress in creating a lasting, successful system. The workbook is organized into the following nine sections: (1) Goals and Vision; (2) Elements and Features; (3) Professional Development; (4) Alignment to Standards and Curriculum; (5) Costs and Capacity; (6) Test Development and Technical Quality; (7) Administration and Scoring; (8) Reporting; and (9) Evaluation. Appended are: (1) Resources; (2) Eight uses of interim assessment, excerpted from Crane (2008); and (3) Expanded listing of technical features in interim assessments, adapted from the 2007-2008 Formative Assessment Adoption List for South Carolina (Siskind and Potter, 2006).

This descriptive analysis updates an earlier study of California's Title I school districts in program improvement (July 2008 "Characteristics of California School Districts in Program Improvement. Issues & Answers"), which was based on performance data for 2005/06, with another year of data. By 2006/07 more school districts were in program improvement, with nearly 100 districts moving into the corrective action phase of district improvement (also called Year 3). California's accountability system continues to identify problems at the district level that are missed at the school level. The new data show that more districts have moved into program improvement status and that few have moved out. Analysis of the new data also confirms the following findings from the previous report: (1) District accountability system monitored the progress of many students overlooked by the school accountability system; (2) Districts in program improvement tended to be larger, with more students and more schools, and more urban than other districts; (3) Districts in program improvement had different demographics from districts not identified for improvement, including higher proportions of Hispanic, Black, English language learner, and socioeconomically disadvantaged students; and (4) Districts in program improvement did not meet proficiency targets in multiple areas. (Contains 6 notes, 1 figure, and 6 tables.) [This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory West administered by WestEd. For the "Issues & Answers" report, see ED502146.]

This Knowledge Brief argues for the value of creating a district accountability system that complements the state?s federally prescribed effort. It also identifies essential decisions that must be made in developing a local system and includes or points to resources that can help inform and guide the process. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requires all states to develop an accountability system that includes statewide academic standards, state assessments aligned to the standards, and student performance levels established, minimally, at basic, proficient, and advanced ? all with the ambitious goal of ensuring that, by school year 2013?14, every student in each state will perform at least at a proficient level.