You are on page 1of 6

ESEA: English Language Acquisition

FY 2006 Program Performance Report


Strategic Goal 2
Formula
ESEA, Title III, Part A
Document Year 2006 Appropriation: $669,007
CFDA 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: Improve the English proficiency and academic achievement of students
served by the Language Acquisition State Grants program.
Measure 1.1 of 7: The number of States that have demonstrated the alignment of English
language proficiency (ELP) assessment with ELP standards. (Desired direction: increase)
Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2004 16 Measure not in place
2005 10 (January 2007) Pending
2006 50 (January 2008) Pending
2007 52 (January 2009) Pending
2008 52 (January 2010) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report; EDEN when available.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Explanation. All 52 entities (50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) are providing
information regarding aligned English language proficiency assessments under NCLB. States are counted
as having demonstrated progress in alignment if they explain how their current ELP assessment is being
aligned with ELP standards.

Measure 1.2 of 7:

The number of States reporting that their English language proficiency standards are aligned
with State academic content standards.

(Desired direction: increase)


Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2004 44 Measure not in place
2005 10 (January 2007) Pending
2006 90 (January 2007) Pending
2007 25 (January 2008) Pending
2008 30 (January 2009) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report; EDEN when available.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual

U.S. Department of Education 1 11/14/2006


Explanation. Under NCLB, all 52 entities (50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico) are to
provide evidence of linking ELP standards to academic content standards in reading and language arts.
States are counted as having demonstrated linking if they described how linking was accomplished.

Measure 1.3 of 7:

The percentage of LEAs receiving Title III services making AYP for limited English proficient
students.

(Desired direction: increase)


Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2006 Set a Baseline (May 2007) Pending
2007 29 (May 2008) Pending
2008 38 (May 2009) Pending
2009 48 (May 2010) Pending
2010 58 (May 2011) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report; Office of English
Language Acquisition, Title III Biennial evaluation report.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Data Quality. 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.

Measure 1.4 of 7:

The percentage of limited English proficient students receiving Title III services who have made
progress in English.

(Desired direction: increase)


Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2006 Set a Baseline (January 2007) Pending
2007 58 (January 2008) Pending
2008 67 (January 2009) Pending
2009 77 (January 2010) Pending
2010 87 (January 2011) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report; Office of English
Language Acquisition, Title III Biennial Evaluation Report; and EDEN, when available.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual

Measure 1.5 of 7: The percentage of limited English proficient students receiving Title III
services who have achieved English language proficiency. (Desired direction: increase)

U.S. Department of Education 2 11/14/2006


Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2005 23 Measure not in place
2006 29 (January 2007) Pending
2007 58 (January 2008) Pending
2008 67 (January 2009) Pending
2009 87 (January 2010) Pending
2010 92 (January 2011) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report and Office of English
Language Acquisition Title III Biennial Evaluation Reports.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual

Measure 1.6 of 7:

The percentage of States being monitored on-site each year that resolve Title III compliance
findings within twelve months of notification.

(Desired direction: increase)


Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2006 24 (January 2007) Pending
2007 50 (January 2008) Pending
2008 60 (January 2009) Pending
2009 UNDEFINED0 Undefined Pending
2010 UNDEFINED0 Undefined Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education onsite monitoring reports and desk monitoring results. State
responses to monitoring reports.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Data Quality. 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 is a new efficiency measure for 2006. Performance targets represent the number of
months it will take states to resolve a percentage of monitoring findings for Title III compliance issues.
Specifically: in 2006, 50 percent of states will resolve compliance findings within 24 months.

Measure 1.7 of 7:

The average number of days for States receiving Title III funds to make subgrants to
subgrantees.

(Desired direction: decrease)

U.S. Department of Education 3 11/14/2006


Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2006 BL-10 (May 2007) Pending
2007 BL+10% (May 2008) Pending
2008 BL+15% (May 2009) Pending
2009 BL+20% (May 2010) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education onsite monitoring reports and desk monitoring results. State
responses to monitoring reports.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Data Quality. 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 of the subgrant is collected through
program office desk monitoring and an on-site monitoring process.
Explanation. This is a new efficiency measure for 2006. This indicator addresses the Department's
emphasis on risk mitigation, timely drawdown of federal funds, and effective use of federal funds for their
intended purpose.

Objective 2 of 3: Improve the quality of teachers of LEP students.


Measure 2.1 of 2:

The percentage of preservice teachers served under the National Professional Development
Program who are placed in an instructional setting serving LEP students within one year of
graduation.

(Desired direction: increase)


Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2005 Set a Baseline 93 Target Met
2006 94 (January 2007) Pending
2007 95 (January 2008) Pending
2008 95 (January 2009) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition program performance
reports.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Data Quality. Data are self reported by grantees.
Explanation. After review, correction is made to the date expected for 2006 and 2007.

Measure 2.2 of 2: The percentage of National Professional Development program graduates


who are highly qualified teachers. (Desired direction: increase)
Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2005 Set a Baseline 95 Target Met
2006 96 (January 2007) Pending
2007 97 (January 2008) Pending
2008 97 (January 2009) Pending

U.S. Department of Education 4 11/14/2006


Source. U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition program performance
reports.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Data Quality. Data are self reported by grantees.
Explanation. After review, corrected date expected on report.

Objective 3 of 3: Improve English proficiency and academic achievement of students served


by the Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program.
Measure 3.1 of 2:

The percentage of projects funded under the Native American/Alaska Native Children in School
Program that increase LEP student academic achievement as measured by state academic
content assessments.

(Desired direction: increase)


Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2006 16.5 (January 2007) Pending
2007 Set a Baseline 18 Target Met
2008 19.5 (January 2009) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition, Annual Grant
Performance Report (ED524B).
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Explanation.

After review, corrections are made to the date when data is expected for report due to time changes in
processing the Annual Grant Performance.

Measure 3.2 of 2:

The percentage of projects funded under the Native American/Alaskan Native Children in
School Program that increase the level of English language proficiency of participating LEP
students as measured by performance on the state English language proficiency (ELP)
assessment or the state approved local ELP assessment.

(Desired direction: increase)


Actual
Year Target Status
(or date expected)
2005 Set a Baseline 60 Target Met
2006 66 (January 2007) Pending
2007 72 (January 2008) Pending
2008 72 (January 2009) Pending
Source. U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition, Annual Grant
Performance Report (ED524B).

U.S. Department of Education 5 11/14/2006


Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Explanation. After review, corrections were made to the date when data is expected for report due to
time changes in processing the Annual Grant Perfomrnace Report (ED524B).

U.S. Department of Education 6 11/14/2006

You might also like