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

Bilingual Education Instructional Services Program

Goal 8: To help limited-English proficient (LEP) students reach high academic standards.
Objective 1 of 4: IMPROVE ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF STUDENTS SERVED BY TITLE VII OF THE BILINGUAL EDUCATION ACT
Indicator 8.1.1 of 3: 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
91 82
   
1999
84 70
92 85
2000
   
93 88
2001
   
94 91

Comparison within cohorts-Oral Cohort 1
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
ENH1 CS1 SW1
ENH1 CS1 SW1
1998
89 94 65
     

Comparison within cohorts-Written Cohort 1
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
ENH1 CS1 SW1
ENH1 CS1 SW1
1998
100 77 50
     

Comparison within cohorts-Oral Cohort 2
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
PDI CS2
PDI CS2
1999
82 82
   

Comparison within cohorts-Written Cohort 2
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
PDI CS2
PDI CS2
1998
91 82
   

Comparison within cohorts-Oral Cohort 3
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
ENH3 CS1 CS3 SW1 SW2
ENH3 CS1 CS3 SW1 SW2
2000
87 86 83 100 100
         

Comparison within cohorts-Written Cohort 3
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
ENH3 CS1 CS3 SW1 SW2
ENH3 CS1 CS3 SW1 SW2
2000
57 86 75 100 75
         
Status: Unable to judge.

Explanation: Due to a combination of grantee and government delay in getting complete data and evaluations to the contractor (accomplished Feb. 8) OELA requested a no-cost extension to these task orders until September 30, 2002. ENH=Enhancement program, PDI= Program Development and Implementation Program, CS= Comprehensive School Program, SW=Schoolwide Improvement. Percentages for Cohort 3 are based on partial data.  
Additional Source Information: Contracted synthesis of local project data.

Frequency: Annually.
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; grantees use different measures and different scoring mechanisms to test program objectives.

 
Indicator 8.1.2 of 3: 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
62 62 63
     
1999
42 53 59
65 65 66
2000
     
67 67 68
2001
     
70 70 70

Comparison within cohorts-Language Arts Cohort 1
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
ENH1 CS1 SW1
ENH1 CS1 SW1
1998
72 64 50
     

Comparison within cohorts-Reading Cohort 1
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
ENH1 CS1 SW1
ENH1 CS1 SW1
1998
78 59 53
     

Comparison within cohorts-Math Cohort 1
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
ENH1 CS1 SW1
ENH1 CS1 SW1
1998
63 70 43
     

Comparison within cohorts-Language Arts Cohort 2
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
PDI CS2
PDI CS2
1999
47 41
   

Comparison within cohorts-Reading Cohort 2
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
PDI CS2
PDI CS2
1999
50 56
   

Comparison within cohorts-Math Cohort 2
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
PDI CS2
PDI CS2
1999
68 48
   

Comparison within cohorts-Language Arts Cohort 3
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
ENH3 CS1 CS3 SW SW
ENH3 CS1 CS3 SW SW
2000
80 53 72 75 82
         

Comparison within cohorts-Reading Cohort 3
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
ENH3 CS1 CS3 SW1 SW2
ENH3 CS1 CS3 SW1 SW2
2000
80 53 72 75 82
         

Comparison within cohorts-Math Cohort 3
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
ENH3 CS1 CS3 SW1 SW2
ENH3 CS1 CS3 SW1 SW2
2000
76 76 62 63 73
         
Status: Unable to judge.

Explanation: Due to a combination of grantee and government delay in getting complete data and evaluations to the contractor (accomplished Feb. 8) OELA requested a no-cost extension to these task orders until September 30, 2002. ENH=Enhancement program, PDI= Program Development and Implementation Program, CS= Comprehensive School Program, SW=Schoolwide Improvement Percentages for Cohort 3 are based on partial data.  
Additional Source Information: Contracted synthesis of local project data.

Frequency: Annually.
Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.

Limitations: Operational definitions of LEP students vary; the amount of missing data varies greatly across projects; grantees use different measures and different scoring mechanisms to test program objectives.

 
Objective 2 of 4: BUILD CAPACITY OF SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN PROGRAM TO SERVE LEP STUDENTS.
Indicator 8.2.1 of 2: Programs meeting standards: Each year the number of grantees meeting ?criteria for model programs? will increase by 20 percent.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
  Status: Unable to judge. Analysis of data delayed.

Explanation: Due to a combination of grantee and government delay in getting complete data and evaluations to the contractor (accomplished Feb. 8), OELA requested a no-cost extension to these task orders until September 30, 2002.  
Additional Source Information: Performance Report.

Frequency: Biennially.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

Limitations: Various definitions of ?model? project will need to be combined and may identify different projects - need to determine how to combine definitions, use definitions, and evaluate the results.

 
Indicator 8.2.2 of 2: Teacher training: Each year, the numbers of teachers in Title VII Systemwide and Comprehensive School Grants Program who receive quality professional development in the instruction of LEP students will increase by 20 percent.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
  Status: Unable to judge. This information was reported in last year's GPRA report, but was not part of the Departmentally approved research agenda for this fiscal year. We have no data to report on this activity.

Explanation: Program office is developing criteria for quality in service professional development based on contracted synthesis of local project evaluations and other sources; criteria will be available late 2001. Contractors who are synthesizing the biennial evaluation reports will be asked to add this data element to their information. Initial goal is 20% but the target will be revised based on initial results.  
Additional Source Information: Performance Report.

Frequency: Biennially.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

Limitations: Biennial evaluations typically list how many teachers participate in professional development activities only, without considering an evaluation of those activities.

 

Objective 3 of 4: PROVIDE EFFECTIVE GUIDANCE AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND IDENTIFY AND DISSEMINATE RELIABLE INFORMATION ON EFFECTIVE PRACTICES.
Indicator 8.3.1 of 2: Inquiries to the National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education (NCBE): The number of inquiries to NCBE will increase 15 percent per year.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Number of hits on NCBE Web site
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1998
3,100,000
 
1999
4,409,811
3,565,000
2000
7,125,848
4,944,561
2001
10,010,680
8,194,725
Status: Target exceeded.

Explanation: The average number of hits per day (including weekends) is approximately 30,000.  
Source: Other
Other: Other.
Sponsor: NCBE Annual Performance Reports.

Additional Source Information:

Frequency: Annually.
Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.

Limitations: Measure does not address customer satisfaction, although anecdotal comments support satisfaction. Planned Improvements: Disaggregation of data to examine who uses NCBE and what types of materials are downloaded.

 
Indicator 8.3.2 of 2: More specific reporting: All states will increase their capacity to plan for and provide technical assistance by reporting more specifically on LEP programs designed to meet the educational needs of LEP students, their academic test performance, and grade retention rates.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Number of state educational agencies (SEAs) reporting more specific demographic and language information when completing annual SEA Title VII survey.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1999
51
56
2000
51
56
2001
 
56
Status: Unable to judge.

Explanation: HR1 provided for an alternative, uniform procedure for State reporting on the numbers and status of LEP students. The 2001 Survey of the State information are due April 30, 2002.  
Additional Source Information: Performance Report; Redesigned Summary Report of the Survey of the States' LEP Students and Available Educational Programs and Services, 2000.

Frequency: Annually.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

Limitations: Survey relies on self-reports from states; department plans to continue technical assistance on data collection issues.

 

Objective 4 of 4: IMPROVE THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF EDUCATIONAL PERSONNEL SERVING LEP STUDENTS
Indicator 8.4.1 of 2: New teachers: At least 4,000 teachers per year will complete high-quality bilingual education/ESL programs accreditation or degree programs through the Bilingual Education Professional Development programs.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Number of teachers
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Number of teachers
Number of teachers
1997
989
 
1999
 
4,000
2000
 
6,000
2001
 
6,000
Status: Unable to judge. Analysis of data delayed.

Explanation: Due to a combination of grantee and government delay in getting complete data and evaluations to the contractor (accomplished Feb. 8), OELA requested a no-cost extension to these task orders until September 30, 2002.  
Additional Source Information: Contracted Synthesis of Project data.

Frequency: Annually.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

Limitations: Original data based on a sample of reports; program office has to develop criteria for ?high quality?. Planned Improvements: Implementing proposed new evaluation requirements; developing criteria for ?high quality;? verifying data through periodic monitoring; providing guidance and technical assistance to grantees to improve the timeliness and quality of source data.

 
Indicator 8.4.2 of 2: Bilingual fellowship program: Bilingual fellows who have completed their studies will be employed in training classroom teachers or in other positions directly related to serving LEP students.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of Bilingual Fellows
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1997
92
 
1998
92
 
1999
92
93
2000
 
93
2001
 
93
Status: Positive movement toward target.

Explanation: The high rate of employment of bilingual fellows in training classroom teachers and other areas directly related to serving LEP students is yet more evidence of the critical shortage of teachers trained to serve LEP students. It is difficult to evaluate since bilingual fellowship projects fund new students each year. Thus any given year?s students may be from cohorts who began during various different fiscal years.  
Frequency: Other.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

Limitations: Data from fellows who finish is typically late in arriving and with new database may be entered late. Data will be entered as soon as possible.

 

Return to table of contents