|
 |
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||
| 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 1 of 3: Improve English proficiency and academic achievement of students served by Title III. |
| 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 2006 Explanation: All 52 entities (50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) are providing information regarding aligned English language proficiency assessments for the first time under No Child Left Behind. The data analysis was conducted by an OELA team using the following criterion: states were counted as having demonstrated progress in alignment if they explained how their current ELP assessment is being aligned with ELP standards. Sixteen states met this criterion. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 2006 Explanation: For the first time 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/language arts. The data analysis was conducted by an OELA team using the following criterion: states were counted as having demonstrated linking if they described how linking was accomplished. Forty-four states met this criterion. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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, EDEN when available; Biennial Evaluation Report. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: January 2007 Explanation: Based on 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. 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%. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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; EDEN when available; Biennial Evaluation Report. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: January 2007 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%. The target for FY 2009 is the baseline plus 40%. The target for FY 2010 is the baseline plus 70%. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Indicator 1.5 of 7: The percentage of states that have met state targets for attainment in learning English who have received Title III services. |
Source: Consolidated State Performance Report; EDEN when available; Biennial Evaluation Report. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: January 2007 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%. The target for FY 2009 is the baseline plus 40%. The target for FY 2010 is the baseline plus 70%. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Indicator 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. |
Source: Consolidated State Performance Report; EDEN when available. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: January 2007 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%. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Indicator 1.7 of 7: The states' LEP graduation rate targets for the Title III-served students. |
Source: Consolidated State Performance Report and Title I data; EDEN when available. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: January 2008 Explanation: This measure 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. The FY 2007 target is to establish a baseline. The target for FY 2008 is the baseline plus 10%. The target for FY 2009 is the baseline plus 15%. The target for FY 20010 is the baseline plus 20%. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Objective 2 of 3: Improve the quality of teachers of LEP students. |
| Indicator 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. |
Source: Grantee Annual Performance Reports. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: November 2005 Data Validated By: No Formal Verification. Explanation: The FY 2005 target is to establish a baseline. |
||||||||||||
| Indicator 2.2 of 2: Highly qualified teachers: The percentage of program completers who meet No Child Left Behind Highly Qualified Teacher requirements. |
Source: Grantee Annual Performance Report. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: November 2005 Data Validated By: No Formal Verification. Explanation: The FY 2005 target is to establish a 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 1: English Proficiency: Students in the program will annually demonstrate progress on English measures. |
Source: Grantee Annual Performance Reports. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: November 2005 Data Validated By: No Formal Verification. Explanation: The FY 2005 target is to establish a baseline. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
