Follow enumerated best-practice guidelines when establishing AMAO criteria: multiple methods, qualified trained panelists, defined sequential process, documentation, and validity studies¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 1 study (1 associational), q2 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

The report derives a set of guidelines from performance-standard-setting best practices for establishing ELP performance criteria and AMAO accountability policies. States should "employ a variety of analytic methods and procedures when establishing AMAO criteria," use both empirical analyses and expert judges, select and train qualified panelists, follow a rational coherent sequential process, document the process clearly, and design validity studies of newly established AMAO criteria to examine consequences relative to intent.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Panelists should understand that different analytic methods will likely yield different results and use that information with expert judgment

Constraints¶

• The report states it is beyond its scope to fully illustrate the guidelines; the worked examples only partially demonstrate them

Target Learners¶

• English Learners in Title III–funded local education agencies

Target Learning Goals¶

• Setting progress (AMAO 1), attainment (AMAO 2), and academic proficiency (AMAO 3) criteria and targets

Claims¶

• Logistic regression can identify the ELP score at which students have a probability of 0.5 of being proficient on the academic content assessment, as a candidate English-proficient standard [+W]

Related Strategies¶

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Cook, G., Linquanti, R., Chinen, M., & Jung, H. (2012). National Evaluation of Title III Implementation Supplemental Report—Exploring Approaches to Setting English Language Proficiency Performance Criteria and Monitoring English Learner Progress. American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC. http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/index.html