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 - 2003

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: Year 2002 and 2003 data are being analyzed and will be submitted December 5, 2003. Year 2004 data will be submitted in December, 2004. The tabular data report the percentages of projects, not the percentages of students. The program has funded at least six consecutive annual cohorts of student participants, each of which was funded or five years. Cohort data are aggregated across grantees to measure overall program performance. Cohorts provide comparisons of oral and written performance of approximately the same project groups of studetns over time. For example, Cohort 1 is the group of Comprehensive School projects initially funded in 1995. Cohort 1's first set of biennial reports was submitted in 1998, covering student outcome data of the first two years of operation (1995-1997). Subsequent data for Cohort 1 were reported in 2000 detailing student outcomes during the program's third and fourth years, and in 2002 covering its final program year. Cohort 2, therefore, is the group initially funded in 1996, submiting reports in 1999 , 2001 and 2003. Cohort 6 is the last group of grantees; they were funded in 2000 and report data through 2007.  
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: Cohorts defined by program-year provide the best measure of Title VII, IASA, program impact, but have limitations. 1) ELL student groups are moving targets. The comparison of student groups changes between reports due to high mobility and reclassification (mainstreaming). 2) Operational definitions of ELL and requirements for time-in-program very by project. 3) Measures of progress vary by project. 4) The basis of reclassification is not always performance-based but determined by limited resources and the decision to incorporate new students by displacing others. 5) The quality and completeness of data varies among projects and cohorts of projects.

 
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


Explanation: Year 2002 and 2003 data are being analyzed and will be submitted December 5, 2003. Year 2004 data will be submitted in December, 2004. The tabular data report the percentages of projects, not the percentages of students. The program has funded at least six consecutive annual cohorts of student participants, each of which was funded or five years. Cohort data are aggregated across grantees to measure overall program performance. Cohorts provide comparisons of oral and written performance of approximately the same project groups of studetns over time. For example, Cohort 1 is the group of Comprehensive School projects initially funded in 1995. Cohort 1's first set of biennial reports was submitted in 1998, covering student outcome data of the first two years of operation (1995-1997). Subsequent data for Cohort 1 were reported in 2000 detailing student outcomes during the program's third and fourth years, and in 2002 covering its final program year. Cohort 2, therefore, is the group initially funded in 1996, submiting reports in 1999 , 2001 and 2003. C  
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