Title III Accountability
General Questions
Has the Title III waiver been approved?
CDE continues to negotiate with the USDE regarding this – so nothing is yet final. However, it currently looks like CDE may be granted approval to align AMAO 1 with the CELApro growth indicator being added to the performance frameworks. AMAO 2 will likely remain the same and AMAO 3 is currently under review by the USDE.
Return to Top
What are AMAOs?
AMAOs (Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives) are the performance indicators for Title III accountability. AMAO 1 concerns progress in English language proficiency, AMAO 2 concerns attaining English proficiency, and AMAO 3 concerns content (reading and math) proficiency for English learners.
Return to Top
Did the definition of AMAOs change with Colorado's waiver?
Colorado is working with the USDE to align the AMAO indicators with the state performance framework indicators.
Return to Top
Now that there is no more AYP, how will AMAO 3 be calculated?
This is under review by the US Department of Education.
Return to Top
Will English language proficiency growth data be included only on the district performance framework report, or also in school performance framework report?
English language proficiency growth (based on CELApro data) will be included in both the DPF and SPF report (assuming the minimum N of 20 is met). While AMAOs are only calculated at the grantee level (district or consortium), there is value in using these data for all applicable schools and districts in the state.
Return to Top
How will English language proficiency growth be incorporated in accountability calculations?
English language proficiency growth (based on CELApro data) will be incorporated into the academic growth indicator of the SPF and DPF reports.
The rating will be determined similarly to the CSAP content area sub-indicators under academic growth, but will be only for students with overall CELApro results. The reports will show the school/district’s median student growth percentile (MGP) on CELApro, the school/district’s median adequate student growth percentile (AGP) on CELApro, and whether the school/district made adequate growth on CELApro. The rating is then bifurcated based upon whether or not the CELApro adequate growth was met, according to the graphic below.
If a school/district makes adequate growth because its CELApro MGP is at or above its AGP (left columns), then a CELApro MGP of 30 or above means the school or district is approaching state expectations. A MGP of 45 or above meets expectations and a MGP of 60 or above exceeds expectations. However, if a school/district does not make adequate growth because its MGP is below its median AGP (right columns), then higher growth is required to earn each rating. A MGP of 40 or above means the school or district is approaching state expectations; a MGP of 55 or above meets expectations and an MGP of 70 or above exceeds expectations.
Return to Top
What will be the minimum N count be for reporting English language proficiency growth data in accountability calculations?
In order for English language development (CELA) data to be reported on the school and district performance framework reports, there must be a minimum N count of 20 students. This is the same minimum N count required for CSAP/TCAP growth data to be included in the SPF and DPF reports.
Return to Top
How will adequate growth in English language proficiency growth be determined in accountability calculations?
For CSAP/TCAP, adequate growth is defined as the amount of growth needed to reach or maintain an achievement level of proficient or advanced on the CSAP/TCAP within three years or by 10th grade. Given that English learners (ELs) come in at all grade levels and with varying degrees of English fluency, a more customized definition of and schedule for English acquisition is required. Research has shown that, in general, newcomer ELs with low levels of English proficiency acquire the basic skills of English at a quick pace; however, as the cognitive complexity of the language tasks increases, their progress often becomes slower. In general, students are expected to take between 5 and 7 years to move from newcomer to fullyEnglish proficient. To accommodate the varying entry dates and levels of initial fluency, CDE has developed a “steppingstone” approach to adequate growth on CELApro. Students are expected to move between performance levels within the timeframes laid out in the table below.
| CELApro Overall Performance Level |
Expected Time Frame |
| Level 1 to Level 2 |
1 year |
| Level 2 to Level 3 |
1 year |
| Level 3 to Level 4 |
2 years |
| Level 4 to Level 5 |
2 years |
Because adequate growth is a lagged measure, a student scoring at Level 1 in the previous CELApro administration is expected to score at Level 2 in the current administration. The student has been given one year to go up one CELApro performance level. Having previously scored at Level 1, this student’s adequate growth percentile (AGP) is the amount of growth necessary to score at or above Level 2 in the current year. The transition from Level 2 to Level 3 is also expected to take one year, but the transitions from Level 3 to Level 4 and from Level 4 to Level 5 are expected to take two years. Thus, for a student scoring at Level 3 in the previous year, his/her AGP is the amount of growth necessary to reach Level 4 in the next year. In other words, this student is given two years to attain the next level, so he/she needs two years in a row of adequate growth.
Return to Top
Are the letters to parents around AMAO results still required?
Yes.
Return to Top