Skip main navigation.
 U.S. Department of Education: Promoting Educational Excellence for all Americans - Link to ED.gov Home Page
ESEA: English Language Acquisition - FY 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 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.
 
Measure 1.1.1 of 1: The percentage of states that have demonstrated the alignment of English language proficiency (ELP) assessments with ELP standards.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2004
31
 
2005
 
10
2007
 
40
2009
 
70
2011
 
100

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.
 
Measure 1.2.1 of 1: 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
2004
85
 
2005
 
10
2007
 
20
2009
 
30
2011
 
50

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.
 
Measure 1.3.1 of 1: The percentage of states that 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

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.
 
Measure 1.4.1 of 1: 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

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.
 
Measure 1.5.1 of 1: 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

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.
 
Measure 1.6.1 of 1: 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

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.
 
Measure 1.7.1 of 1: 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

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.
 
Measure 2.1.1 of 1: 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

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.
 
Measure 2.2.1 of 1: Percentage of program completers who are Highly Qualified Teachers
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2005
 
999

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.
 
Measure 3.1.1 of 1: 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

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.
 

Return to table of contents