| CFDA Number: | 84.365A - English Language Acquisition Formula Grant Program |
| Program Goal: To help limited English proficient students learn English and reach high academic standards |
| Objective 8.1 of 3: Improve English proficiency and academic achievement of students served by Title III. |
| Indicator 8.1.1 of 2: The percentage of states that have aligned English language proficiency standards and assessments in place. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Targets and Performance Data | Assessment of Progress | Sources and Data Quality | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Status: Target met
Progress: The status of States' development of English language proficiency (ELP) standards was 1 of 6 elements evaluated in States' 9/1/03 submissions to Consolidated State Application (CSA). Under the September submission, 42 States submitted sufficient info. for mtg. requirement to establish ELP stds. This no. represents 80% of 52 States/eligible entities under the Title III State Formula Grant Prog.. The 10 States which did not meet requirements to establish ELP stds. rec'd Title III Attachment T conditions & were req'd to provide evidence of mtg. this requirement by 4/30/04. 6/04 OELA staff completed reviews of States' April submissions & determined all States met requirement to develop State ELP stds. Of 7 States that rec'd Attachment T conditions based on 4/30/04 submissions, 0 rec'd conditions related to development of State ELP stds. Under Titles I & III of NCLB, each State is req'd to annually administer ELP assessments to all LEP students in the State. English language proficiency (ELP) baseline data was one of 6 elements evaluated in States' 9/1/03 submissions to the Consolidated State Application (CSA). See Explanation below to continue. Explanation: Progress cont'd: Under the September submission, all 52 States reported which ELP assessment(s) were administered in 02-03, and which assessment(s) would be administered in subsequent years. All 52 States reported that they had selected & administered ELP assessments. OELA staff is still working with States to ensure that States' policies for administration of ELP assessments meet all NCLB requirements, e.g., that all students k-12 are annually assessed in 4 domains of reading, writing, listening, & speaking & that all States are able to report on domain of comprehension for students served under Title III. 1. OELA must determine how States' demonstration of alignment is measured. 2. OELA must also determine how data on alignment will be collected in a consistent manner. 3. The majority of States 80% + are members of consortia funded by the Dept. to develop ELP assessments. These consortia have their own timelines, approved by Title I, for the development, field testing, pilot testing, and administration of assessments & for alignment of new assessments to ELP standards, and linking of stds. to State content stds. |
Additional Source Information: NCLB Consolidated State Report Frequency: Annually. Collection Period: 2003 - 2004 Data Available: September 2004 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Indicator 8.1.2 of 2: The percentage of students who attain English language proficiency. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Targets and Performance Data | Assessment of Progress | Sources and Data Quality | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Progress: 1. The data on this indicator will be most reliable if extracted from the 12/06 biennial evaluation reports. The target date should then be changed to 2007, in order to allow sufficient time for analysis. 2. States develop their own definitions of “proficient” in English and “making progress in English.”. These definitions vary greatly across States & are linked to State ELP standards & assessments. 3. States' progress on this indicator is highly dependent on both student background characteristics and State Title III accountability systems. Some of the LEP student background characteristics which may impact States' attainment of these targets include: the number & percentage of LEP students at each level of ELP in the State; the educational background of these students; the type of language instruction educational program in which these students are enrolled. Some of the components of State Title III accountability systems which may impact States' Explanation: (Progress above cont'd): attainment of these targets include: State definitions attainment of these targets include: State definitions of cohort and full academic year; States' policies and practices for exiting students from language instruction educational programs; & the integration of States' ELP standards, assessments, and curriculum. |
Additional Source Information: NCLB Consolidated State Report Collection Period: - 2006 Data Available: January 2007 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Objective 8.2 of 3: Improve the quality of teachers of LEP students. |
| Indicator 8.2.1 of 3: Percentage of grantees that report program improvement related to K-12 state standards, scientifically-based research practices, or development of subject area competence. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Targets and Performance Data | Assessment of Progress | Sources and Data Quality | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Additional Source Information: NCLB Consolidated State Report Collection Period: 2003 - 2004 Data Available: September 2004 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Indicator 8.2.2 of 3: Percentage of grantees that report effectiveness of graduates/completers in the instructional setting. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Targets and Performance Data | Assessment of Progress | Sources and Data Quality | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Explanation: A baseline will be set in 2005. |
Additional Source Information: NCLB Consolidated State Report Collection Period: 2005 - 2006 Data Available: September 2006 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Indicator 8.2.3 of 3: Of preservice teachers the rate of placement of graduates in an instructional setting serving LEP students, within one year of graduation. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Targets and Performance Data | Assessment of Progress | Sources and Data Quality | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Explanation: A baseline will be set in 2006. |
Additional Source Information: NCLB Consolidated State Report Collection Period: 2006 - 2007 Data Available: September 2007 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Objective 8.3 of 3: Improve English proficiency and academic achievement of students served by Title VII of the Bilingual Education Act |
| Indicator 8.3.1 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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
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 8.3.2 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. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
