ADDENDUM TO FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS

English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC)

UPDATE OF INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS

The original proposed text was made available for public comment for at least 45 days from May 27, 2016 through July 11, 2016. Three individuals provided written comments during the 45-day comment period.

A public hearing was held at 9:30 a.m. on July 11, 2016, at the California Department of Education (CDE). One individual attended the public hearing, and no individuals made comments.

ADDENDUM TO SUMMARY AND RESPONSE TO A COMMENT RECEIVED DURING THE INITIAL NOTICE PERIOD OF MAY 27, 2016 THROUGH JULY 11, 2016.

Douglas J. McRae, Educational Measurement Specialist (Retired)

Comment #1: Commenter suggests revisions to section 11518(d). “The draft ELPAC regulations provide an ELPAC summative assessment window that heavily overlaps with the CAASPP summative testing window…Sec 11518 (d) in the Definitions section should read ‘Annual summative assessment window begins on the instructional day at 50 percent of each school’s instructional calendar and ends on the instructional day at 65 percent of that school’s instructional calendar.’ ”

Reject: Education Code (EC) section 313(d)(2), the result of Senate Bill 201, outlines the ELPAC testing window. Specifically, it states that “the summative assessment shall be conducted annually during a four-month period after January 1.” The 50-percent to 65-percent time period referenced in the comment above would reduce the summative assessment period for local educational agencies (LEAs) to six weeks instead of providing the four months required in the EC section above. Additionally, inconsistent school start dates by local educational agencies (LEAs) could open the assessment window for some LEAs prior to January 1.

As to the proposed dates for the annual summative assessment window in ECsection 11518(d), the CDE surveyed multiple stakeholder groups and LEAs to determine the best four-month period after January 1.

After the withdrawal of these proposed regulations by the State Board of Education (SBE) on January 17, 2017, and prior to sending out these regulations with proposed changes for a second 15-day comment period, the following sections were clarified to address concerns by OAL and the CDE:

General changes were made to the regulations to include grammatical edits, and renumbering and/or relettering to reflect deletions or additions. A specific change entailed the renumbering of sections 11518.45 through 11518.85 to read sections 11518.40 through 11518.80 for the purpose of correcting a misnumbering in the previous proposed regulations.

Section 11517.6 will be satisfied when the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI) reports to policy committees of the Legislature pursuant to EC section 60810(h)(2) are ready for administration, the SSPI will then give the required notice which is anticipated to occur in January 2018.

Proposed Sections 11518(a), (e), (z), and (ag) (previous Sections 11518[a], [f], [aa], and [ah]) defines accommodations, designated supports, resources, and universal tools which mirrors the language used in the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) assessment system. This reflective language brings uniformity and consistency to the language and accessibility on California assessments.

Former Section 11518(e) is deleted because section 11518.20(d)(4) has been revised to clarify the description of evidence of a pupil’s performance in the curriculum to be reviewed as provided in sections 11518.20(a) and (c). The revised regulation does not include the term “core curriculum.”

Proposed Section 11518(i) (previous Section 11518[j]) defines the term “excessive materials” which is necessary to know when calculating costs that local educational agencies (LEAs) are responsible to pay pursuant to Section 11518.70. The language is currently in the existing regulations governing the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) [5 CCR 11510(i)], and is used by the California Department of Education (CDE) to calculate charges to LEAs that order excess materials. The definition in these proposed ELPAC regulations is familiar to LEAs for calculating excessive materials.

Section 11518.5(d) describes the timeframe for the administration of the Initial Assessment (IA) and the notice of results. The IA may be administered prior to a pupil’s first day of attendance in a California public school (Section 11518[m]) but not earlier than July 1 in the school year of enrollment. July 1 is the first day of the school year.

In the NOTE section for sections 11518.5 and 11518.20, Public Law No. 114-95, Section 8002 has been deleted because references to Public Law No. 114-75 are replaced by the applicable codified references in the U.S.C.

Sections 11518.20(a) and (c) provide a reasonable amount of time for the LEA to notify parents of the testing and send the results, and a timely manner for the parent and student to receive results. This would not cause a delay or lapse in time for the parent or LEA to pursue the correction process.

Section 11518.20(c) is amended to delete redundant language within the same sentence.

Section 11518.20(d) provides an alignment between the EC criteria used to reclassify a student and the ELPAC criteria for correcting the classification of a pupil in these regulations. This provides a consistent, familiar, and standardized procedure to review student performance and progress for making appropriate placement decisions across all LEAs statewide.

Section 11518.20(d)(4) is amended to provide clearer language regarding the evidence of a pupil’s performance in the LEA’s curriculum, including the courses described in EC sections 51210 (for pupils in grades 1–6) and 51220 (for pupils in grades 7–12) that must be reviewed as part of the correction of classification errors process provided for in sections 11518.20(a) and (c).

Section 11518.35(d)(1–3) is amended to clarify the information that an LEA must submit to the CDE in order for the CDE to uniformly document requests for an unlisted resource(s) and to provide accurate information for the CDE to determine if the unlisted resource provides test accessibility for a pupil or if the resource would alter the construct of the domain(s). Because the ELPAC is a paper-pencil assessment, the regulations are not consistent with CAASPP regulations which govern the computer-based assessments. This section is also amended to delete “written” because requests do not need to be submitted in writing.

Proposed Section 11518.50(c)(1) (previous Section 11518.55[c][1]) is amended to delete previous unclear language. The amended language clarifies that anyone within the LEA who signs the security affidavit is agreeing to specifically limit access only to individuals responsible for the administration of the ELPAC.

Section 11518.50(e)(7) (previous Section 11518.55[e][7]) is amendedto delete “independently or” from the sentence, “I will not review any test questions, passages, or other test items independently or with any pupils . . .” because test examiners will be reviewing the test materials on their own or in groups with other trained examiners to prepare for the test administration.

Proposed Section 11518.55(a) (previous Section 11518.60[a]) is added to inform the LEA of its responsibility for the security of ELPAC test materials from the time the LEA receives said materials from the test contractor until the LEA ships the materials back to the test contractor. Test security is required as part of the necessity for the ELPAC to be valid, fair, and reliable; there can be no public access to the test.

Sections 11518.70(a)and (a)(1) (previous Sections 11518.75[a] and [a][1]) are added to inform each LEA of its responsibility for the cost of excessive materials ordered annually by the LEA, and to inform the LEA that excessive materials costs shall not exceed the amount per test booklet or accompanying material that is paid to the contractor by the CDE. This is necessary to prevent the contractor from absorbing costs that were not approved in the scope of work in the contract with the CDE.

Proposed Section 11518.70(b) (previous Section 11518.75[b]) is included to not hold liable an LEA whose shipment may be lost in transit through a secured delivery service. An LEA who has followed the ELPAC regulations and is using a secured delivery service should not be at fault for materials lost by said service.

Proposed Section 11518.75(b) (previous Section 11518.80[b]) is amended to provide clarity in language for the merging of data that is reported in the test materials and then combined with the CALPADS data files in subdivision (a).

Proposed Section 11518.75(b)(7) (previous Section 11518.80[b][7]) is removed because the data requested was a replication of the same data provided by LEAs in subdivision (a).

Proposed Section 11518.80(b) (previous Section 11518.85[b]) is amended for clarity by eliminating redundant language that is provided in subdivision (a).

ALTERNATIVES DETERMINATION

The SBE has determined that no alternative would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the regulation is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed regulation or would be more cost effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provisions of law. There were no alternatives proposed to the SBE.

LOCAL MANDATE DETERMINATION

The proposed regulations do not impose any mandate on local agencies or school districts.

4-4-17 [California Department of Education]