DL Assessment Meeting: DRA/EDL

The DL Assessment team met this week and continued our search for a better literacy assessment tool for our DL Students. The notes are below. The next meeting is January 4th where we will discuss the strengths of each assessment as well as the weaknesses.

ENIL Model will be coming to Waukesha January 7th! Details to Come!

Dual Language Bilingual Education Assessment Evaluation Tool                    

Doc is Linked Here

Dual Language Bilingual Education Assessment Evaluation Tool

Assessment Name____________________DRA/EDL_______________

Evaluator/Team___________________________________________________

+	-	?	Usefulness of the Assessment
+			Aligns to CCSS standards and program goals for biliteracy
		+	Return on investment: time spent on assessment
	+		Linguistic and cultural biases are addressed
+			Inferences can be made on student strengths/needs
+			Measures what is required as an SDW reading in workshop
	+		Testing cycle can be part of instructional time
+			Allows for progress-monitoring
+			Allows for accommodations
Comments/Questions Emphasis on being an informal assessment Three sections: Reading engagement, fluency,running record, comprehension Transadaptation of the books. $3,500 a day for training I did like that after the assessment they had lessons for explicit skills/ work work to be taught to the students to progress them forward. Lower reliability test- especially on videos, and manuals to help us evaluate a reader. 20 minutes for level 14-16 *** WOW pes student to evaluate. 2 assessments Fall and Spring Yes it gives us a level, but the levels are not progressive. Allows identification of specific students needs between levels.
+	-	?	Validity of the Assessment
	-	?	Intended population clearly identified. Linguistically responsive to U.S. Bilingual. The assessment is authentic culturally responsive.
+			It includes a listening to the student read.
	-		It measures both fiction and non-fiction reading-*NF included in some levels in DRA2.  We are not sure about EDL2.
+			Cut scores are documented - it contains objective measures
		?	Evidence gathered demonstrates that the assessment measures the knowledge and skills specified by the content standards (it goes beyond decoding, length of text matches stamina & developmental level)
+			Scores on this assessment allow educators to make inferences about readers needs and strengths.
+		?	It offers comprehensive training & refreshers (including a plan to onboard new staff)- testing and results *DVDs-is this enough training?
Comments/Questions Concerns/Questions: Are the text authentic culturally responsive? Are there NF text at all levels in Spanish? Wondering if there is enough of a connection to content standards. Is the training really comprehensive?
+	-	?	Reliability of the Assessment
			Match our population
			Proctor training is available, regular, and consistent
			Breaking up the test to accommodate students
			Testing is clear-cut and not open to interpretation
			Comprehension allows for code-switching and interlanguage and tracks it
			Errors in measurement are discussed
Comments/Questions
+	-	?	Data and Reporting of the Assessment
			Clear performance levels
			Description of student achievement
			Benchmarks that are aligned/based on CCSS
			Benchmarks with opportunities to tier
			Teacher Reports/Data guides opportunity for instructional planning and delivery CCSS
			Provides an assessment data on biliteracy (Zone of Biliteracy and Biliteracy Comparison)
			Domains and subdomains of reading are scored/reportable
			Student reports available for student agency
			Parent reports are helpful, give clear data to parent on student achievement
			Parent report provides parents with recommendations to support child
Comments/Questions