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

ESEA: English Language Acquisition - 2005

CFDA Number: 84.365A - English Language Acquisition Formula Grant Program


Program Goal: To help limited English proficient students learn English and reach high academic standards
Objective 8.1 of 3: Improve English proficiency and academic achievement of students served by Title III.
Indicator 8.1.1 of 7: The percentage of states that have demonstrated the alignment of English language proficiency (ELP) assessments with ELP standards.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
The percentage of states that have demonstrated the alignment of English language proficiency (ELP) assessments with ELP standards.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2005
 
10
2007
 
40
2009
 
70
2011
 
100


Explanation: States are providing information regarding aligned English language proficiency assessments with English language proficiency standards for the first time under NCLB. Many states participated in consortia designed to develop aligned standards and assessments; however, the consortia encountered delays in progress due to the technical requirements for such an alignment. It is anticipated that the states will continue at their present rate and meet the time line indicated.  
Additional Source Information: Data Source: Consolidated Annual Performance Report. EDEN (in 2007 to ensure full implementation of the system).

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2004 - 2005
Data Available: January 2005
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

 
Indicator 8.1.2 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.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
The percentage of states that have demonstrated their English language proficiency standards are linked to academic content standards in English language arts or reading.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2005
 
10
2007
 
20
2009
 
30
2011
 
50


Explanation: For the first time, states are to provide evidence of linking English language proficiency standards and academic content standards under NCLB to ensure meaningful experience in the content classroom for limited English proficient (LEP) students and preparing them to understand when taking the same content assessments as all students. Demonstrating linking requires a variety of resources in terms of time, funding and experts to guide the form that these demonstrations will take, over which states have varying degrees of control. This variance could result in delays for states trying to provide evidence. It is anticipated that the time line provided will be sufficient to achieve the targets.  
Additional Source Information: Data Source: Consolidated Annual Performance Report. EDEN (in 2007 to ensure full implementation of the system).

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2004 - 2005
Data Available: January 2005
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

 
Indicator 8.1.3 of 7: The percentage of states have have met state targets for Title III annual measurable achievement objectives.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
The percentage of states that have have met state targets for Title III annual measurable achievement objectives.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2006
 
999
2007
 
999
2008
 
999
2009
 
999
2010
 
999


Explanation: Based on 9/03 submissions by states the average annual measurable achievement objective (AMAO) for attainment and making progress is reflected in the performance target. The third AMAO for LEP students (in the state) served by Title III is to demonstrate those states meeting their AYP targets (submitted in 1/03). Average annual percentage increases vary depending on the LEP population in the state and available resources in serving these students. The FY 2006 target is to establish a baseline. The target for FY 2007 is the baseline plus 10%. The target for FY 2008 is the baseline plus 20%. The target for FY 2009 is the baseline plus 40%. The target for FY 2010 is the baseline plus 70%.  
Additional Source Information: Data Source: Consolidated Annual Performance Report. EDEN (in 2007 to ensure full implementation of the system).

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2005 - 2006
Data Available: January 2006
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

 
Indicator 8.1.4 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.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
The percentage of states that have met state targets for making progress for LEP students who have received Title III services.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2006
 
999
2007
 
999
2008
 
999
2009
 
999
2010
 
999


Explanation: The FY 2006 target is to establish a baseline. The target for FY 2007 is the baseline plus 10%. The target for FY 2008 is the baseline plus 20%. target for FY 2009 is the baseline plus 40%. The target for FY 2010 is the baseline plus 70%.  
Additional Source Information: Data Source: Consolidated Annual Performance Report. EDEN (in 2007 to ensure full implementation of the system).

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2005 - 2006
Data Available: January 2006
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

 
Indicator 8.1.5 of 7: The percentage of states that have met state targets for attainment in learning English who have received Title III services.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
The percentage of states that have met state targets for attainment in learning English who have received Title III services.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2006
 
999
2007
 
999
2008
 
999
2009
 
999
2010
 
999


Explanation: The FY 2006 target is to establish a baseline. The target for FY 2007 is the baseline plus 10%. The target for FY 2008 is the baseline plus 20%. target for FY 2009 is the baseline plus 40%.The target for FY 2010 is the baseline plus 70%.  
Additional Source Information: Data Source: Consolidated Annual Performance Report. EDEN (in 2007 to ensure full implementation of the system).

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2005 - 2006
Data Available: January 2006
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

 
Indicator 8.1.6 of 7: The percentage of states that have met state targets for making AYP for LEP students who have received Title III services.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
The percentage of states that have met state targets for making AYP for LEP students who have received Title III services.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2006
 
999
2007
 
999
2008
 
999
2009
 
999
2010
 
999


Explanation: The FY 2006 target is to establish a baseline. The target for FY 2007 is the baseline plus 10%. The target for FY 2008 is the baseline plus 20%. target for FY 2009 is the baseline plus 40%.The target for FY 2010 is the baseline plus 70%.  
Additional Source Information: Data Source: Annual Performance Report. EDEN (in 2007 to ensure full implementation of the system).

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2005 - 2006
Data Available: January 2006
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

 
Indicator 8.1.7 of 7: The states' LEP graduation rate targets for the Title III served students.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
The percentage of states that have met state targets for LEP graduation rates for Title III-served student.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2007
 
999
2008
 
999
2009
 
999
2010
 
999


Explanation: This measure is an added measure of result and will be reported based on information collected through EDEN (in 2007 to ensure full implementation of the system) thus not imposing a new reportable item through any other means of data collection but providing an effective measure of success through the programs provided in Title III. Projections are based upon state increases from the baseline data year. The FY 2007 target is to establish a baseline. The target for FY 2008 is the baseline plus 10%. target for FY 2009 is the baseline plus 15%.The target for FY 20010 is the baseline plus 20%.  
Additional Source Information: Data Source: Consolidated Annual Performance Report. EDEN (in 2007 to ensure full implementation of the system).

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2006 - 2007
Data Available: January 2007
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

 

Objective 8.2 of 3: Improve the quality of teachers of LEP students.
Indicator 8.2.1 of 2: Of programs serving preservice teachers, the rate of placement of graduates in an instructional setting serving LEP students, within one year of graduation, will be higher than the placement rate of preservice teachers nationally.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Of preservice teachers the rate of placement of graduates in an instructional setting serving LEP students within one year of graduation.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2005
 
999


Explanation: The FY 2005 target is to establish a baseline.  
Additional Source Information: Annual Performance Reports.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2004 - 2005
Data Available: September 2005
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

 
Indicator 8.2.2 of 2: Highly qualified teachers: The percentage of program completers who meet No Child Left Behind Highly Qualified Teacher requirements.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Percentage of program completers who are Highly Qualified Teachers
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2005
 
999


Explanation: The FY 2005 target is to establish a baseline.  
Additional Source Information: Annual Performance Report

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2004 - 2005
Data Available: September 2005
Validated By: No Formal Verification.

 

Objective 8.3 of 3: Improve English proficiency and academic achievement of students served by the Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program.
Indicator 8.3.1 of 1: English Proficiency: Students in the program will annually demonstrate progress on English measures.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
The percentage of projects in which three-quarters of students made gains in English proficiency.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2005
 
999
2006
 
50
2007
 
75


Explanation: This is a new program. The FY 2005 target is to establish a baseline.  
Additional Source Information: Annual Performance Reports.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2004 - 2005
Data Available: September 2005
Operational definitions of LEP students vary. Data are self-reported.

 

Return to table of contents