|School Year||State||File Spec||Data Group||Reporting Level||Data Note||State Note|
|2016-2017||COLORADO||118||655||LEA, SEA||Colorado: The state provided the same number for the LEA and SEA counts.|
|2014-2015||COLORADO||175||583||LEA, SEA||Colorado made the following changes to its regular assessments and alternate assessments for grades 3 through 8 between SY2013-14 and SY2014-15: (1) Changed cut scores, (2) Changed proficiency standards, (3) Significantly changed assessment items, (4) Used entirely new assessment, and (5) Realigned assessment to new content standards. Colorado made the following changes to its alternate assessments for high school: (1) Changed cut scores, (2) Changed proficiency standards, (3) Used entirely new assessment, and (4) Realigned assessment to new content standards.|
|2011-2012||COLORADO||175, 175178179, 178, 179||583, 583584585, 584||LEA, SEA||
The major discrepancies between the percentages scoring at or above proficient results from Colorado's accountability system under the NCLB Flexibility Waiver. For the 2011-12 school year, only students who scored Proficient or Advanced counted; in prior years for AYP, Partially Proficient students counted as well.
|2015-2016||COLORADO||121||634||SEA||The number of eligible migratory students increased by 10 percent or more between SY2014-15 and SY2015-16.||
We believe the increase in the number of eligible migrant children ages 3-21 years was due to: 1)SEA continues to provide value added training related to MEP eligibility and ID&R strategies; 2)refocusing its ID&R efforts as priority.
|2014-2015||COLORADO||121||634||SEA||The number of eligible migratory students increased by 10 percent or more between SY2013-14 and SY2014-15.||
Colorado shows an increase in its child counts for Category 1 for SY 2014-15. The number of students identified increased by 16% (618 students). As a result of improved ID & R practices, the SEA experienced an increase in the total number of eligible children ages 3-21 years who were identified compared to the prior year. Increased resources to the area of ID&R, such as training all MEP-funded staff in ID&R practices and hiring of additional recruiters during peak times, resulted in an increase in the number of new migrant families quickly identified.
|2011-2012||COLORADO||121||634||SEA||The number of eligible migratory students decreased by 10 percent or more between SY2010-11 and SY2011-12.||
State noted reasons for the decline:
(1) Economic forces decreased opportunities for new workers, decreased jobs available; less workers moving into the area compared to historical patterns of prior years.
(2) Drought decreased crop production; decreased workers needed for harvesting, less families moving into the state.
(3) Immigration concerns - less migrant families moving to Colorado.
|2010-2011||COLORADO||121||634||SEA||The number of eligible migratory students decreased by 10 percent or more between SY2009-10 and SY2010-11.||
The Colorado MEP decrease is attributed to several factors:
1. Migrant families who have ended their 3 year eligibility and elected to remain permanent residents and discontinue migration.
2. A decline in the number of available temporary agricultural employment opportunities based on the current OME ID&R policy.
LEP students enrolled in Title III districts during the WIDA testing window who did not receive an overall performance level were counted as not tested. The vast majority of these students partially tested but were missing one or more sub-scores that prevented them from earning an overall scale score/proficiency level. Among the others were students who did not test due to language, became frustrated during testing, were excluded from testing due to parent decision, or were absent during the testing window.
|2016-2017||COLORADO||050||151||LEA, SEA||Colorado did not report 'Students making progress' and 'Students not making progress' in SY2016-17.||
Colorado was unable to measure English proficiency growth from 2016 to 2017 due to issues around changes in the WIDA ACCESS assessment. WIDA partially transitioned to a new assessment, ACCESS 2.0, in Spring 2016, with new items and in an online testing format. However, the underlying scoring scale and proficiency level cut-points were still based on the previous ACCESS 1.0 psychometric properties. The complete transition to ACCESS 2.0 was not undertaken until 2017, when the new scoring scale and proficiency level cut-points were finally applied.
|2015-2016||COLORADO||050||151||LEA, SEA||Colorado did not report 'Students making progress' and 'Students not making progress' in SY2015-16.||
Colorado was not required to calculate AMAOs based on 2015-16 data. Colorado did not calculate the numbers or percentages of students making progress; with the WiDA ACCESS change in 2016 to ACCESS 2.0, the assessment was available in either a paper/pencil or online format. Paper results accounted for approximately 31% percent of the state s ACCESS results in grades 1-12 (K was only offered paper format). While WiDA worked to put the two versions on the same scale, results indicated performance differences that appears to be influenced by test form (paper or online).