# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
California Community Colleges Assessment and Placement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Current regulation

Currently, community colleges are already prohibited from requiring students to take a prerequisite course unless they are highly unlikely to succeed in a higher-level course without it, pursuant to Section 55003 of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations. However, this policy is often not followed in practice.

Colleges are required to use multiple measures in determining course placement, pursuant to Section 55522 of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, but Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations fails to provide sufficient guidance in the use of multiple measures to ensure that students are not excluded from courses in which they can be successful.

The intent of AB 705

AB 705 was written to clarify existing regulation and ensure that students are not placed into remedial courses that may delay or deter their educational progress unless evidence suggests they are highly unlikely to succeed in the college-level course. Assessment instruments and placement policies have serious implications for equity, as students of color are far more likely to be placed into remedial courses; students placed into remediation are much less likely to reach their educational goals.

Evidence suggests that community colleges are placing too many students into remediation and that significantly more students would complete transfer requirements in math and English if enrolled directly in transfer-level English and math courses. Research suggests that when used as the primary criterion for placement, assessment tests tend to under-place students; and a student's high school performance is a much stronger predictor of success in transfer-level courses rather than standardized placement tests.

What does my college need to do?

Every college is required to maximize the probability that a student will enter and complete transfer-level coursework in English and math within a one year timeframe and use, in the placement of students into English and math courses in order to achieve this goal, one or more of the following measures:

All community colleges are required to be in compliance with AB 705 no later than fall of 2019.

Memos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
About AB 705 - California Community Colleges Assessment and Placement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Currently, community colleges are already prohibited from requiring students to take a prerequisite course unless they are highly unlikely to succeed in a higher-level course without it, pursuant to Section 55003 of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations. However, this policy is often not followed in practice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In October 2017, Governor Brown signed AB 705 (Irwin) into law and fundamentally changed how assessment, placement, and basic skills instruction would happen in the California community colleges. At the time of the law's signing, no one really knew how it would be implemented and what the impacts would be on colleges. While many unanswered questions still remain, we now have a much better sense of what colleges are required to do and the different options that they have available as they implement the law locally.
Placement in Mathematics and English
AB 705 requires colleges to use high school performance data-overall GPA, courses taken, or course grades-to be the primary measure when placing students, if transcript data is available. If official transcript data is not available, colleges can use self-reported information that can be collected by CCCApply or as part of a guided self-placement process.

The California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office and the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges published a joint on July 10, 2018 that outlined default placement for transfer-level composition, statistics and liberal arts mathematics, and business and STEM mathematics courses. All of these default placement recommendations require colleges to place transfer-directed students with an 11 th grade high school GPA-no matter what that GPA may be-into transfer-level courses unless the college can demonstrate that placing the students into a pre-transfer level course gives them at least as good of a chance of passing a transfer-level course in one year.

For any student without transcript data, colleges can use guided self-placement to place students into courses. At its meeting on September 7, 2018, the ASCCC Executive Committee approved three documents for distribution related to guided self-placement and steps that colleges might consider including in their local processes. No statewide guidelines have been created for guided self-placement, so each college may develop a process that is designed to meet the needs of its own student population. The Executive Committee believes that several specific steps of guided self-placement would benefit all students. Those steps include career counseling, identifying a major or metamajor, clarifying the student's educational goals, and reviewing the coursework that the student has previously completed.
A Year and the Clock
AB 705 requires colleges to maximize the likelihood that students enter and complete a transfer-level course in mathematics and English in one year. For the purposes of AB 705, one year is defined as two semesters or three quarters. Therefore, colleges cannot place a transfer-directed student more than one level below transfer except in some limited circumstances.

Many questions have arisen about the clock and whether colleges will be penalized if a student does not pass a transfer-level course within one year. Colleges are required to develop placement systems and curricular sequences that align with legal requirements. If a student chooses to enroll in a basic skills course that prevents him or her from completing a transfer-level course in one year or if the student does not pass the transfer-level course within the one year window, the college will not be held responsible. The college cannot guarantee that student will pass, and colleges have limits as to how much they can control student behavior.
Concurrent Support
The default placement rules mention that concurrent support is recommended or strongly recommended for students with a GPA below 2.6 in English, 2.9 in statistics or liberal arts math, or 2.6 in STEM, as well as for STEM students whose high school math course was below the level of calculus. Concurrent support could include redesigning existing courses to increase the number of hours in the classroom and embedding the support, creating either credit or noncredit co-requisite support courses, or increasing access to learning centers, supplemental instruction, directed learning activities, and tutoring. Some of these options already exist at many campuses and will only need to be adjusted or expanded to support the new course placement structure. Other options will require the development of new curriculum, which means having those new and revised courses passed in time for the next college catalog.

Questions have also arisen regarding the use of co-requisites, and colleges will need to determine if such courses make sense for their students and how they will be implemented. Co-requisite support can be offered as credit or noncredit courses and, per the published in August, both versions can be required if the college can demonstrate that the co-requisite increases the likelihood that a student will pass the transfer-level course. Whether colleges require co-requisites, whether they choose to use credit, noncredit, or both, and how many units or hours each co-requisite course contains are all local decisions, and colleges must determine the best ways to serve their specific student populations. The majority of community college students are attending college part-time, and co-requisites could increase a 4-5 unit course to a 6-8 units. If a student takes 12 units and a math or English course makes up more than 50% of those units, the student could lose financial aid eligibility if he or she has to drop that course or does not pass it at the end of the semester. This possibility might lead colleges to consider noncredit co-requisites, and using those types of courses certainly has advantages, such as saving students money and not causing them to accumulate additional units, but a noncredit co-requisite still represents additional hours that a student must spend in the classroom and does not count toward the number of units a student must take to maintain financial aid eligibility. None of these potential challenges means that colleges should not implement the co-requisite model, which has been shown to be effective, but colleges should be aware that the model may not be the best choice for every student. Colleges will want to implement multiple types of concurrent support that will allow all students to be as successful as possible.
Elimination of Basic Skills
When the default placement rules were published, some colleges interpreted them to mandate that all basic skills courses should be removed from college catalogs. Even if a college is not able to place as many students into basic skills courses, some students may prefer to take a basic skills course and some students will need basic skills courses. Students might make this choice for many reasons. They might have been away from school for so long that they do not feel comfortable going straight into a transfer-level course. They might be unable to commit to the number of hours required for the transfer-level course with a required co-requisite, but they may feel comfortable taking the transfer-level course alone. Taking a basic skills course is not the only way to address issues like these, but colleges should consider keeping the option open to students who wish to choose it.

Coupled with the possible deletion of basic skills courses, questions have been asked about whether non-transferable prerequisites should be removed. This question is difficult to answer today, and the answer might change in another year. CSU Executive Order 1100 removed the explicit requirement that any course approved for CSU GE Breadth Area B4 must have a prerequisite that traced back to intermediate algebra, but some majors at the CSU are still looking at whether they want to create an intermediate algebra requirement. The IGETC standards allow for alternative prerequisites for statistics, but other quantitative reasoning courses do not appear to have this flexibility. Additionally, changes to prerequisites are considered a substantial change by many universities and may trigger a re-evaluation of course-to-course articulation agreements. Finally, the prerequisites on existing C-ID descriptors have not been removed, so colleges that delete such prerequisites could lose their C-ID designations, and approval of their Associate Degrees for Transfer could be impacted. As of today, too many unknowns remain for colleges to start deleting prerequisites, but this situation might change in the near future. Colleges are encouraged to wait for more definitive information stating that deleting pre-transfer prerequisites will not carry negative impacts.
Curricular Innovations
The July memo made clear that AB 705 is a call for colleges to develop innovative ways of serving the needs of students. Implementation of different types of concurrent support is one type of innovation, but many colleges have discussed other alternatives. These ideas include creating redesigned basic skills courses, creating stretch courses, integrating supplemental instruction, or embedding tutors in the classroom. Each of these options has advantages and disadvantages, but colleges might consider them as possibilities that would support the needs of some students. Faculty should have discussions about all of the options available and which ones they would like to try. No one knows exactly what will work for each student and each community, so colleges should be open to trying different options and be willing to make additional changes after fall 2019.
Summary
We certainly know more about what AB 705 means for our colleges than we did a year ago, but many questions still need to be answered. We hope that some of those questions will be answered before fall 2019, such as whether colleges will have access to transcript data for all current high school students, but others might take years to answer, such as whether all basic skills instruction should be removed from the community colleges. The Academic Senate will continue to work with the Chancellor's Office to ensure that colleges have the maximum amount of flexibility possible under the law, allowing them to develop new strategies to support the needs of all students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Year Later: Where We Are with AB 705 for Mathematics and English

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In October 2017, Governor Brown signed AB 705 (Irwin) into law and fundamentally changed how assessment, placement, and basic skills instruction would happen in the California community colleges. At the time of the law's signing, no one really knew how it would be implemented and what the impacts would be on colleges.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
California Community Colleges Assessment and Placement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Current regulation

Currently, community colleges are already prohibited from requiring students to take a prerequisite course unless they are highly unlikely to succeed in a higher-level course without it, pursuant to Section 55003 of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations. However, this policy is often not followed in practice.

Colleges are required to use multiple measures in determining course placement, pursuant to Section 55522 of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, but Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations fails to provide sufficient guidance in the use of multiple measures to ensure that students are not excluded from courses in which they can be successful.

The intent of AB 705

AB 705 was written to clarify existing regulation and ensure that students are not placed into remedial courses that may delay or deter their educational progress unless evidence suggests they are highly unlikely to succeed in the college-level course. Assessment instruments and placement policies have serious implications for equity, as students of color are far more likely to be placed into remedial courses; students placed into remediation are much less likely to reach their educational goals.

Evidence suggests that community colleges are placing too many students into remediation and that significantly more students would complete transfer requirements in math and English if enrolled directly in transfer-level English and math courses. Research suggests that when used as the primary criterion for placement, assessment tests tend to under-place students; and a student's high school performance is a much stronger predictor of success in transfer-level courses rather than standardized placement tests.

What does my college need to do?

Every college is required to maximize the probability that a student will enter and complete transfer-level coursework in English and math within a one year timeframe and use, in the placement of students into English and math courses in order to achieve this goal, one or more of the following measures:

All community colleges are required to be in compliance with AB 705 no later than fall of 2019.

Memos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
About AB 705 - California Community Colleges Assessment and Placement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Currently, community colleges are already prohibited from requiring students to take a prerequisite course unless they are highly unlikely to succeed in a higher-level course without it, pursuant to Section 55003 of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations. However, this policy is often not followed in practice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Grad Rates by disability category report 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
David Conley College and Career Articles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
David Conley College and Career Articles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
David Conley College and Career Articles

# data[].attributes.headline
Email me if you have any questions or need anything--Debra dherbur@wested.org 

# data[].attributes.subject
Email me if you have any questions or need anything--Debra dherbur@wested.org 

# data[].attributes.headline
Support for students with math disabilities 

# data[].attributes.subject
Support for students with math disabilities 

# data[].attributes.headline
Scaffolding strategies for English learners 

# data[].attributes.subject
Scaffolding strategies for English learners 

# data[].attributes.headline
Strategies to engage students in complex text 

# data[].attributes.subject
Strategies to engage students in complex text 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Strategies to engage students with complext text chart 

# data[].attributes.headline
Scaffolding for specific learning challenges 

# data[].attributes.subject
Scaffolding for specific learning challenges 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scaffolding for Specific Learning Challenges

# data[].attributes.headline
PPIC Report college and career readiness--includes link to 6th grade prep matrices 

# data[].attributes.subject
PPIC Report college and career readiness--includes link to 6th grade prep matrices 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
college readiness as a grad requirement PPIC paper

# data[].attributes.headline
Special Ed Indicators Alignment to LCAP and Dashboard 

# data[].attributes.subject
Special Ed Indicators Alignment to LCAP and Dashboard 

# data[].attributes.headline
2018-19 Cycle A and C Compliance Monitoring Tools

# data[].attributes.subject
2018-19 Cycle A and C Compliance Monitoring Tools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Compliance Monitoring Home | General Information | Reviews | Training | Program Instruments | CMT
Correspondence | Contact Information | Additional Federal and State Monitoring

General Information

Federal and state laws require the California Department of Education (CDE) to monitor implementation of categorical programs operated by local educational agencies (LEAs). LEAs are responsible for creating and maintaining programs which meet minimum fiscal and programmatic requirements.

LEAs are assigned to one of four cohorts: A, B, C or D. Each school year, approximately 132 LEAs are selected for review-66 LEAs from one cohort for an onsite review, and 66 LEAs from a different cohort for an online review. The LEAs are selected using established selection criteria including program size, fiscal analysis, compliance history, and continuous improvement. The Cohort Rotation Schedule by School Year demonstrates the rotation of the cohorts over a four year cycle.

FPM Review Team Leaders coordinate teams of select CDE program monitors to conduct onsite or online monitoring of the LEA using the corresponding program instruments.

LEA Cohorts (XLSX; Updated 12-Feb-2020)
This document provides monitoring cohort information for all LEAs including direct funded charters.

Cohort Rotation Schedule by School Year
This page provides information about the schedule of cohort rotation for a four year period.

Monitoring Selection Criteria
A description of the risk factors that are evaluated annually for the selection of LEAs for FPM reviews.

FPM Frequently Asked Questions
This page provides answers to frequently asked questions regarding the FPM process.

Correspondence

2020-21 Notification of LEAs Selected for Cycle A Online Monitoring (Posted 08-May-2020)
March 6, 2020: Letter to Select County and District Superintendents regarding the Cycle A LEA selection for online review in 2020-21 school year of certain state and federal categorical programs operating within the LEA.

2020-21 Notification of LEAs Selected for Cycle C Onsite Monitoring (Posted 08-May-2020)
March 6, 2020: Letter to Select County and District Superintendents regarding the Cycle C LEA selection for onsite review in 2020-21 school year of certain state and federal categorical programs operating within the LEA.

2019-20 Notification of LEAs Selected for Cycle B Onsite Monitoring (Posted 02-May-2019)
April 18, 2019: Letter to Select County and District Superintendents regarding the Cycle B LEA selection for onsite review in 2019-20 school year of certain state and federal categorical programs operating within the LEA.

2019-20 Notification of LEAs Selected for Cycle D Online Monitoring (Posted 02-May-2019)
April 18, 2019: Letter to Select County and District Superintendents regarding the Cycle D LEA selection for online review in 2019-20 school year of certain state and federal categorical programs operating within the LEA.

Reviews

LEAs Selected for Reviews

This is the list of LEAs by county-district-school code selected for an onsite or online review.

2020-21 School Year

2020-21 LEAs Selected for Cycle C Onsite Reviews
2020-21 LEAs Selected for Cycle A Online Reviews

2019-20 School Year

2019-20 LEAs Selected for Cycle B Onsite Reviews
2019-20 LEAs Selected for Cycle D Online Reviews

Resolution of Findings

Within 45 calendar days after the date of the Notification of Findings (NOF), the LEA must resolve each finding by providing resolution documents in the CDE Monitoring Tool (CMT). The LEA may use the resolution process in CMT to request a Resolution Agreement to extend the resolution period beyond the due date on the NOF. CDE Program Reviewers approve or deny Resolution Agreement requests.

The Resolution Agreement period should allow for reasonable time to resolve findings but cannot exceed 225 calendar days from the last day of the review.

Unresolved FPM Findings

Unresolved FPM Findings (Updated 04-Dec-2020)
This document lists by region and local educational agency the unresolved, non-compliant program instrument items over 225 calendar days. The CMT will reflect the most current status of these non-compliant items.

For information related to the non-compliant items, please contact the assigned Review Team Leader or appropriate participating program.

Training

Information related to FPM training.

CDE Monitoring Tool (CMT)

CDE Monitoring Tool (CMT) Webinar Training for Agencies (Video; 45:48)
Recorded presentation of CDE Monitoring Tool (CMT) Agency Hands-On Webinar Training uploaded on December 30, 2019.

CDE Monitoring Tool (CMT) Agency User Manual (DOCX; Posted 10-Jan-2018)
A guide to provide agency CMT users with the knowledge needed to use the tool.

Local Educational Agency Training

The CDE offers training to assist LEAs in understanding the overall FPM process and the requirements of each program instrument on a semi-annual basis. In 2020-21, LEAs who were scheduled for a review during September 2020 through January 2021 were invited to a training in late July 2020, conducted remotely. LEAs scheduled for a review February through June 2021 will be invited to a similar training to take place in December 2020.

Please see below for additional links to program-specific FPM resources:

FPM Review Timeline Presentation for LEA Coordinators (Video; 22:21)
This session is for FPM Review Coordinators for School Districts. It has been designed specifically to address the needs of LEAs that will be undergoing a review in 2020-2021.

English Learner FPM Training Resources for 2020-21
Presentations and resources provided by the Technical Assistance and Monitoring Office (TAMO).

Evidence-Based Title I Funded Program Evaluation Presentation(PPTX)
This presentation highlights the requirements for the local educational agency (LEA) and schoolsite council (SSC) to evaluate Title I funded programs. (Slides only, no video)

Introduction to Compensatory Education (CE) Monitoring Presentation (Video; 1:38:03)
This session is intended for local educational agencies (LEAs) that have been identified for a Compensatory Education (CE) Federal Program Monitoring (FPM) review for the 2020-2021 school year.

Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk Youth (NorD) Presentation (Video; 51:28)
This session is intended for local educational agencies (LEAs) that have been identified for a Neglected or Delinquent (NorD) Federal Program Monitoring (FPM) review for the 2020-2021 school year.

School Support and Improvement (SSI) Instrument Presentation (Video; 13:37)
This recorded presentation is intended for local educational agencies (LEAs) that have schools identified for school support under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), namely Comprehensive Support and Improvement and Additional Targeted Support and Improvement.

Program Instruments

Each program's instrument contains federal and state legal requirements organized into statutory core items and supporting items arranged under seven general CDE dimensions. FPM team members use program instruments to determine whether an LEA is meeting the requirements of each item.

Program instruments are developed and reviewed by the CDE on an annual basis and may change from year to year to respond to changes in federal or state law, regulations, or controlling judicial decisions.

Prior year program instruments are available by request to the FPM Office at fpmoffice@cde.ca.gov.

Current Year Program Instruments

2020-21 Program Instruments
This page provides links to the 2020-21 Program Instruments for the programs participating in FPM reviews.

2019-20 Program Instruments
This page provides links to the 2019-20 Program Instruments for the programs participating in FPM reviews.

CDE Monitoring Tool (CMT)

The CMT is a web-based tool developed by the CDE to facilitate the monitoring of LEAs.

For additional information regarding the California Department of Education's use of CMT, please visit the CMT web page.

Additional Federal and State Monitoring

The Additional Federal and State Monitoring page provides information related to the monitoring of LEAs and non-LEAs for programs outside the scope of the FPM process.

Contact Information

Review Team Leader Assignments
Contact information for Review Team Leaders and regional assignments.

FPM Participating Programs
Contact information for CDE programs participating in monitoring reviews.

County Office of Education Monitoring Leads
Contact, meeting, and training information for County Office of Education Monitoring Leads (COE Leads).

Last Reviewed: Friday, December 11, 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Compliance Monitoring Home | General Information | Reviews | Training | Program Instruments | CMT Correspondence | Contact Information | Additional Federal and State Monitoring Federal and state laws require the California Department of Education (CDE) to monitor implementation of categorical programs operated by local educational agencies (LEAs).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This web page is intended to help guide the IEP teams in determining whether the CAAs and the Alternate ELPAC are the most appropriate assessments for an individual student with the most significant cognitive disabilities. IEP teams must consider a student's individual characteristics when determining whether a student with a disability should participate in general statewide assessments, with or without accessibility resources, with or without domain exemptions for ELPAC, or participate in the alternate assessments. IEP teams should use the Alternate Assessment Decision Confirmation Worksheet (PDF) to determine whether a student is eligible to participate in the CAAs or the Alternate ELPAC. The participation criteria presented in the Alternate Assessment Decision Confirmation Worksheet are adapted from resources provided by the National Center on Educational Outcomes, an organization that focuses on the inclusion of students with disabilities, English learners, and English learners with disabilities in instruction and assessments. To participate in the CAAs or the Alternate ELPAC, if applicable, students must meet all the criteria in parts A, B, and C outlined in the worksheet. Once a student is determined to be eligible for an alternate assessment, the student will take the alternate assessment for all standardized state assessments, including the CAAs for ELA, mathematics, and science, or the Alternate ELPAC, if applicable.

The learning characteristics of students with significant cognitive disabilities represent a broad range, and assignment to alternate assessments is based on the students' unique cognitive disability, not the category of a student's disability. The IEP team should first determine whether the student has a significant cognitive disability before selecting an alternate assessment that provides student access to state assessments, promotes participation, and elicits the student's best performance. With respect to students identified with a specific learning disability, the IEP team determination that the student has been identified with a specific learning disability rules out the consideration of the student being identified as cognitively impaired.

In addition, as part of the IEP process, parents must be clearly informed that their child's achievement is being measured against alternate achievement standards and of "how participation in such assessments may delay or otherwise affect the student from completing the requirements for a regular high school diploma" ( Code of Federal Regulations, Title 34, [34 CFR] Section 300.160 [d][1]). A student with the most significant cognitive disabilities who takes an alternate assessment is not precluded from attempting to complete the requirements for a regular student diploma (34 CFR Section 300.160 [d][2]). California Education Code Section 51225.31 was amended in 2022 to recognize a new pathway to a high school diploma for students with disabilities who take the alternate assessment and who complete state standards aligned coursework pursuant to their IEP. Details about this pathway to a diploma may be found at: A New Pathway to a High School Diploma.

Description of the CAAs and Alternate ELPAC

CAAs for ELA and mathematics were developed by the California Department of Education (CDE) to ensure that all students are able to participate in assessments that are a measure of what they know and can do in relation to the grade-level California Common Core State Standards (CA CCSS). In addition, the CAAs for ELA and mathematics are aligned with grade-level content and are part of a curriculum and assessment cycle, which is accomplished through a linkage between the CA CCSS and their respective Core Content Connectors. These assessments are delivered via computer, allowing for flexibility in administration (e.g., a student may respond to administrator-presented item stimuli rather than to the item stimuli on the computer). A trained test examiner familiar with the student (e.g., the student's teacher) facilitates the administration in a one-on-one setting, presenting items via computer, paper, or manipulatives, as appropriate for the student. Items are administered to the student over the course of one or more testing sessions, as needed for the student to complete a content-area assessment. The CAAs for ELA and mathematics use a staged approach, meaning that each student receives items that have been determined to be at an appropriate level of challenge. Embedded-routing tests help determine the items a student receives.

CAA for Science was developed by the CDE to ensure that all students are able to participate in assessments that are a measure of what they know and can do in relation to the grade-level California Next Generation Science Standards (CA NGSS). In addition, the CAA for Science is aligned with grade-level content and is part of a curriculum and assessment cycle, which is accomplished through a linkage between the CA NGSS and their associated Core Content Connectors. Test examiners administer the online CAA for Science to students in a one-on-one setting. Eligible students will be administered four embedded performance tasks. Three performance tasks will be operational, and one performance task will be field tested for future use on the assessment. Each performance task will assess two Science Connectors and consists of ten items-five items per Science Connector. Each performance task will assess one of the three science domains (i.e., Earth and Space Sciences, Life Sciences, and Physical Sciences). The performance tasks should be administered soon after the student has received instruction in the content areas. All items on a performance task may be individualized on the basis of the student's IEP. As with other standardized assessments, the CAA for Science should be administered to each student in a consistent manner, according to the directions provided, and with variations only as specified in each student's IEP. However, to maximize engagement for all students, the CAA for Science offers some additional options for individualization in specific orienting activities and test questions. Through individualization, test examiners can use materials that the student is most comfortable using to access the science concept. Individualization does not change the standard being assessed.

Alternate ELPAC were developed by the CDE to ensure that all students are able to participate in assessments that measure the English language proficiency of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. It is aligned with the 2012 California English Language Development (ELD) Standards via the ELD Connectors, which are reduced in depth, breadth, and complexity, for this population. Both the Initial Alternate and Summative Alternate ELPAC are delivered online in a one-on-one setting. The student interacts with a trained test examiner, who is familiar with the student's preferred communication style, collects and records the responses. The Alternate ELPAC is untimed; test items will be administered to the student over the course of one or more testing sessions, as needed, for the student to complete the English language proficiency assessment. The Alternate ELPAC is linear (i.e., not adaptive) and assesses a student's proficiency in English by allowing for a range of receptive (listening and reading) skills and expressive (speaking and writing) skills while using their preferred modes of communication, including assistive devices, gestures, and accessibility resources used in daily instruction. The Alternate ELPAC adopted a multitiered accessibility resources model so that the assessment will measure language proficiency, not technology ability.

Questions:

California Assessment of Student Progress and Performance Office | caaspp@cde.ca.gov

English Language Proficiency and Spanish Assessments Office | elpac@cde.ca.gov

Last Reviewed: Wednesday, August 30, 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Guidelines for individualized education program (IEP) teams regarding participation in the California Alternate Assessments and the Alternate English Language Proficiency Assessments for California.

# data[].attributes.headline
Special Ed Indicators LCAP-Dashboard chart 

# data[].attributes.subject
Special Ed Indicators LCAP-Dashboard chart 

# data[].attributes.headline
CDE Glossary of Terms and SSIP-LCAP Alignment 

# data[].attributes.subject
CDE Glossary of Terms and SSIP-LCAP Alignment 

# data[].attributes.headline
College and Career Readiness Indicators--CA 

# data[].attributes.subject
College and Career Readiness Indicators--CA 

# data[].attributes.headline
California Advisory Commission on Special Education Report on Accountability 

# data[].attributes.subject
California Advisory Commission on Special Education Report on Accountability 

# data[].attributes.headline
Putting Youth on the Map Interactive Maps 

# data[].attributes.subject
Putting Youth on the Map Interactive Maps 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about UC Davis Putting Youth on the Map, download data and analyses, access resources for youth data mapping and see users putting data into action.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Collective Teacher Efficacy Beliefs Assessment 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With help from some surprising footage, Derek Sivers explains how movements really get started. (Hint: it takes two.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tom Wujec presents some surprisingly deep research into the "marshmallow problem" -- a simple team-building exercise that involves dry spaghetti, one yard of tape and a marshmallow. Who can build the tallest tower with these ingredients? And why does a surprising group always beat the average?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most people instinctively avoid conflict, but as Margaret Heffernan shows us, good disagreement is central to progress. She illustrates (sometimes counterintuitively) how the best partners aren't echo chambers -- and how great research teams, relationships and businesses allow people to deeply disagree.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Margaret Heffernan: Forget the pecking order at work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Organizations are often run according to "the superchicken model," where the value is placed on star employees who outperform others. And yet, this isn't what drives the most high-achieving teams. Business leader Margaret Heffernan observes that it is social cohesion - built every coffee break, every time one team member asks another for help - that leads over time to great results.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Are you a teacher and surprised by some of the evidence found in the Visible Learning research? Wouldn't it be great to discuss your questions directly with Professor Hattie? In 2016, Corwin, a partner of John Hattie's professional development program Visible Learning Plus, has organized an online Q&A. (Corwin has also published Visible Learning for Literacy, the latest addition to John Hattie's VL series). Here are the questions that teachers and school leaders submitted to Professor John Hattie. We provide an excerpt of each answer as a quick take-away. But you should definitely take the time to listen to the full answers. And read the the books.

1. Why does inquiry-based learning only have an effect size of 0.31 when it is an approach to learning that seems to engage students and teachers so readily in the process of learning?
-Question submitted by a school improvement resource team leader from Canada
Professor John Hattie: "It turns out that if you are learning surface-level information, the content, as contrasted with deep learning which is the relationships between the content, then problem-based learning, inquiry-based learning is pretty useless. But if you don't teach the surface and the content, you've got nothing to inquire about. [...] The reason it comes out very low on the chart is because most teachers introduce it far too early."

2. Why are we striving for an "assessment-capable learner" and not a "self-regulated learner"?
-Question submitted by a Principal from Southern California
Professor John Hattie: "If we teach the students how to evaluate their own learning, that's what the key of formative assessment is. And of course, if you're going to teach the students that, the teachers have to know it to teach the students that. So you get this double virtuous circle without all that language that goes with formative vs. summative."

3. What are the three most important things I can do in my classes to improve learning?
-Question submitted by a Teacher leader from Texas
Professor John Hattie: "Know thy impact!" Having an understanding...

what impact means,

about the magnitude, how big the impact you want,

about the equity question, whether all kids get that impact."

4. What methods have been successfully used to effect a paradigm shift at the campus and district level?
-Question submitted by a Curriculum instructional specialist from Texas
Professor John Hattie: "It's about how we think about what we do. Do we have a mind frame that we actually can collectively make a difference to these kids?"

5. Is there a correlation between calculating effect size and percentile rating? If so, how do you compare scores and effect size?
-Question by Ainsley Rose, Corwin Author and Certified Visible Learning Plus Trainer
Professor John Hattie: "Yes, there is a way to do it. Unfortunately, you have to use something that is not easy and not obvious. But I'd express a lot of caution. Percentiles have some major problems. The whole point of percentiles is to compare students to other students. And yes, there is a place for that, I suppose, but what I'm much more interested in with the effect size notion is the learning for each individual student, and when you look at the averages of the effect size, you've in sense got a comparison."

6. What is the effect size for the cultural competence of the teacher?
-Question submitted by an education consultant from Seattle, WA
Professor John Hattie: "Teachers, they do understand what kids bring to the classroom. Certainly the effect size of that is extremely high. [... ] It's how the kids think: Are these kids prepared to take challenges? Are they prepared to be risk takers? Do they study learning because they want to perform well in front of their peers. Or do they do it because they want to reinvest in learning and really want to master what they do. These are critical dimensions to make connections with these kids, to help them on this learning journey."

7. How can we prioritize which influences to focus on during the school year?
-Question submitted by a Principal from Michigan
Professor John Hattie: "Having a collective understanding of the actual problems we need to work on is critical. But at all times, we need to be very careful not to make changes to things that are really working. So that's where the prioritization starts. Then, what I'd love schools and districts to do is to map that with what are the high-probability effects from the research side of things [...] and from that then we do our interventions."

8. How does communicating the learning target impact student learning?
-Question submitted by an Instructional coach from Arizona
Professor John Hattie: "You need learning intentions and success criteria. It's those two things that go together. It is giving the kids a sense of what is the purpose of what we are learning here today. [...] Like think of kids playing video games. They know what it means to be successful: Get to the next level. And they're prepared to invest an incredible number of hours to get to that next level. And they get very many cues and understandings of what that next level is."

9. Why does ability grouping or tracking have a negative effect size?
-Question submitted by a Supervisor of math and science from New Jersey
Professor John Hattie: "It has a very close to zero effect size. And in many ways that means it doesn't matter whether you track or you don't track. [...] But the biggest problem with tracking - by a million miles - is the equity issue. For instance if you look at this country here. There is a higher probability for African Americans and Hispanics being in the lower track groups. How can you possibly defend that apartheid in that schools?!"

10. What RTI models did you investigate? What critical attributes were included in the models that you looked at?
-Question submitted by an Assessment coordinator from Iowa
Professor John Hattie: "I'm not weighted to one particular way of implementing the RTI model. What I like about the RTI model again it comes back to how we think. The RTI is always looking at the Response - To - Intervention. And then making adaptations and changes in light of that. And that's exactly what the Visible Learning notions are."

11. How does recess, art and music impact student achievement?
-Question submitted by a Principal from Michigan
Professor John Hattie: "Many years ago when I was a real teacher I was a music teacher. And so this question is very passionate to me. The answer is it's very very small but I wished it was zero. Because understanding music is worthwhile in itself. Why do we have to justify a subject just because it relates to a narrow excellence of teaching maths, literacy and numeracy? [...] Recess, art and music are worthwhile things! Kids need to have multiple ways of learning. I think the most important outcome of our schooling is kids who want to reinvest in learning. Not reinvest in a narrow excellence. There are multiple ways to be excellent in schools."

Video source: www.corwin.com/visiblelearning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
11 Questions to Professor John Hattie, asked by teachers (VIDEO)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Are you a teacher and surprised by some of the evidence found in the Visible Learning research? Wouldn't it be great to discuss your questions directly with Professor Hattie? In 2016, Corwin, a partner of John Hattie's professional development program Visible Learning Plus, has organized...Read more ›

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
John Hattie - Collective Teacher Efficacy 2018

# data[].attributes.headline
Link to Padlet Wall English Learners with IEPs resources 

# data[].attributes.subject
Link to Padlet Wall English Learners with IEPs resources 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Questions for Each Teacher to Ask as Part of Co

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
 co-planning framework with teacher questions