|
 |
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||
| CFDA Numbers: |
84.195N
- ELA National Activities 84.365A - English Language Acquisition Formula Grant Program |
| Program Goal: To help limited English proficient students learn English and reach high academic standards. |
| Objective 1 of 3: English Language Acquisition State Grants. |
| Indicator 1.1 of 7: The percentage of states that have demonstrated the alignment of English language proficiency (ELP) assessments with ELP standards. |
Source: Consolidated State Performance Report; EDEN when available. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: January 2007 Explanation: All 52 states are providing information regarding aligned English language proficiency assessments for the first time under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). States are counted as having demonstrated progress in alignment if they explained how their current English Language Proficiency assessment is being aligned with ELP standards. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
| Indicator 1.2 of 7: The percentage of states that have demonstrated their English language proficiency standards are linked to academic content standards in English language arts or reading. |
Source: Consolidated State Performance Report; EDEN when available. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: January 2007 Explanation: For the first time under NCLB, all 52 states are to provide evidence of linking ELP standards to academic content standards in reading/language arts. States are counted as having demonstrated linking if they described how linking was accomplished. |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Indicator 1.3 of 7: The percentage of states that have met state targets for Title III annual measurable achievement objectives. |
Source: Consolidated State Performance Report; Biennial evaluation report. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: January 2007 Limitations: Average annual percentage increases vary depending on the LEP population in the state and available resources in serving these students and exercising allowable Departmental flexibilities for this subgroup. Explanation: This is a long-term measure. The FY 2006 target is to establish a baseline. The FY 2007 target is baseline plus 10 percent. The FY 2008 target is baseline plus 20 percent. The FY 2009 target is baseline plus 40 percent. The FY 2010 target is baseline plus 70 percent. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Indicator 1.4 of 7: The percentage of states that have met state targets for making progress in English for LEP students who have received Title III services. |
Source: Consolidated State Performance Report; Biennial Evaluation Report; and EDEN, when available. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: January 2007 Explanation: The FY 2006 target is to establish a baseline. The FY 2007 target is the baseline plus 10 percent. The FY 2008 target is the baseline plus 20 percent. The FY 2009 target is the baseline plus 40 percent. The FY 2010 target is the baseline plus 70 percent. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Indicator 1.5 of 7: The number of states that have met state targets for attainment in learning English. |
Source: Consolidated State Performance Report. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: May 2007 Explanation: The FY 2005 data were used to establish the baseline. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Indicator 1.6 of 7: The amount of time it takes states that have participated in a Title III on-site monitoring review to resolve Title III compliance issues identified during the review. |
Source: On-site monitoring reports, state responses to monitor findings. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: May 2007 Limitations: Response time will vary from state to state depending on the compliance issue to be addressed and how well the state manages internal resources and communication. Those compliance issues that require action from the state school board or state legislature, such as English language proficiency standards and assessment approval, will require a longer period of time to resolve due to state schedules. Those compliance issues that are handled at the school district level (e.g. parental notification) may be addressed in a much shorter time frame. Explanation: This was a new efficiency measure for FY 2006. The FY 2005 data will be used to establish a baseline. Targets will demonstrate a decrease in the time required for resolution of on-site monitoring findings for Title III compliance issues. For FY 2006, 50 percent of states will resolve compliance issues within 24 months; for FY 2007, 60 percent of states will resolve compliance issues within 18 months; for FY 2008, 70 percent of states will resolve compliance issues within 16 months; for FY 2009, 80 percent of states will resolve compliance issues within 12 months; for FY 2010, 90 percent of states will resolve compliance issues within 9 months. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Indicator 1.7 of 7: Reported amount of time it takes states to make Title III subgrants to subgrantees. |
Source: On-site monitoring reports; state responses to monitoring reports; desk monitoring results. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: May 2007 Limitations: States distribute funds to subgrantees according to a set schedule (depending on the state application process) or on a reimbursable basis (districts provide states either a monthly, quarterly, or annual report for reimbursement). Information regarding the award pf subgrant is collected through program office desk monitoring and an on-site monitoring process. Explanation: This is a new efficiency measure for FY 2006. The 2005 data will be used to establish a baseline. Targets will demonstrate a decrease in the amount of time required for the states to allocate federal funds to subgrantees. The target for FY 2006 is a 10 percent decrease from the baseline. The target for FY 2007 is a 15 percent decrease from the baseline. The target for FY 2008 is a 20 percent decrease from the baseline. The target for FY 2009 is a 25 percent decrease from the baseline. This indicator addresses the Department's emphasis on risk mitigation, timely and effective use and drawdown of federal funds for their intended purpose. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Objective 2 of 3: Improve the quality of teachers of LEP students. |
| Indicator 2.1 of 2: The percentage of preservice teachers served by the Title III Professional Development Program who are placed in an instructional setting serving LEP students within one year of graduation. |
Source: Grantee Annual Performance Report. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: November 2007 Limitations: Data are self reported by grantees. Explanation: The FY 2005 target was to establish the baseline. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
| Indicator 2.2 of 2: The percentage of National Professional Development program graduates who meet No Child Left Behind Highly Qualified Teacher requirements. |
Source: Grantee Annual Performance Report. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: November 2007 Limitations: Data are self reported by grantees. Explanation: The FY 2005 target was to establish the baseline. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
| Objective 3 of 3: Improve English proficiency and academic achievement of students served by the Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program. |
| Indicator 3.1 of 2: English proficiency: The percentage of limited English proficient (LEP) students in the program who make gains in English. |
Source: Grantee Annual Performance Reports. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: December 2007 Limitations: Data are self-reported by grantees. Operational definitions of Limited English Proficient students vary. Explanation: The FY 2005 target was to establish the baseline. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
| Indicator 3.2 of 2: Core Academic Subjects: The percentage of limited English proficient (LEP) students in the program who make gains in core academic subjects. |
Source: Annual Performance Reports. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: December 2007 Limitations: Data is self-reported by grantees. Operational definitions of LEP students vary. Explanation: The FY 2005 data were used to establish the baseline. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
