U.S. Department of Education: Promoting Educational Excellence for all Americans

A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

OELA Education Instructional Services Program - 2004

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
Percentage of projects in which three-quarters of student groups made gains in English proficiency
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
  Oral Written Oral Written
1998 90 81    
1999 82 74 92 85
2000 75 89 93 88
2001 75 89 94 91
2002     94 91
2003     95 90
2004     95 90


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
Percentage of projects in which three-quarters of student groups made gains in academic achievement in language arts, reading and math.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
  Language Arts Reading Math Language Arts Reading Math
1998 69 66 70      
1999 44 53 58 65 65 66
2000 63 73 67 67 67 68
2001 83 67 60 70 70 70
2002       70 70 70
2003       70 70 70
2004       70 70 70


  		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.

 

Return to table of contents