Goal 8: To help limited-English proficient (LEP) students reach high academic standards. |
Objective 8.1 of 1: IMPROVE ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF STUDENTS SERVED BY TITLE VII OF THE BILINGUAL EDUCATION ACT |
Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: English proficiency: Students in the program will annually demonstrate continuous and educationally significant progress on oral or written English proficiency measures. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Targets and Performance Data | Assessment of Progress | Sources and Data Quality | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Explanation: Data analyzed reported percentages of projects, not percentages of students. The program has funded at least five consecutive annual cohorts of student participants, each of which is funded for five years. Cohorts provide comparisons of oral and written performance of approximately the same project groups over time. For example, Cohort 1 is the group of Comprehensive School Programs initially funded in 1995. The cohort's first biennial report was submitted in 1998, covering outcome data of the first two years of operation (1995-1997). Subsequent data for Cohort 1 were reported in 2000 detailing student outcomes during its third and fourth years, and in 2002 covering its final program year. Cohort 2, therefore, is the group initially funded in 1996; Cohort 3 began in 1997, and so on. Program-defined cohorts provide the best comparisons, but have limitations. They are the only source of trend data on program impact. However, student groups are moving targets; the composition of the student groups changes between reports due to mobility and reclassification (mainstreaming). Cohort data are aggregated in the tables to show overall improvement of program performance in a concise form. |
Additional Source Information: Contracted synthesis of local project data. Frequency: Annually. Collection Period: 2002 - 2003 Data Available: January 2004 Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED. Limitations: Operational definitions of LEP students vary; the amount of missing data varies greatly across projects and cohorts of projects. Prior year data has been updated from previous reports to reflect more complete information. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: Other academic achievement: Students in the program will annually demonstrate continuous and educationally significant progress on appropriate academic achievement of language arts, reading, and math. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Targets and Performance Data | Assessment of Progress | Sources and Data Quality | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Additional Source Information: Annual contracted synthesis of biennial reports. Data analyses are fully reported. Planned improvements for addressing the limitations of source data and the limitations in data comparisons include uniform program monitoring and assessment guidance for all Title III projects (see ''Draft Non-Regulatory Guidance on the Title III State Formula Grant Program, Standards, Assessment, and Accountability, Feb., 2003). Frequency: Biennially. Collection Period: 2002 - 2003 Data Available: January 2004 Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED. |