| CFDA Numbers: |
84.195N
- ELA National Activities 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: English Language Acquisition State Grants. |
| Indicator 1.1 of 7: The percentage of states that have demonstrated the alignment of English language proficiency (ELP) standards with ELA assessments. |
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 NCLB. States are counted as having demonstrated progress in alignment if they explain how their current ELP assessment is being aligned with ELP standards. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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 and language arts. States are counted as having demonstrated linking if they described how linking was accomplished. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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, and Biennial Evaluation report. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: January 2007 Limitations: Average annual percentage increases vary depending on the LEP population in the state, available resources for serving these students, and allowable Departmental flexibilities for this subgroup. Explanation: This is a long-term measure. The FY 2006 target is to establish a baseline. The target for FY 2007 is baseline plus 10 percent. The target for FY 2008 is baseline plus 20 percent. The target for FY 2009 is baseline plus 40 percent. The target for FY 2010 is baseline plus 70 percent. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Indicator 1.4 of 7: The percentage of states that have met the state targets for making progress in English for LEP students who have received Title III services. |
Source: Consolidated State Performance Report, Biennial Evaluation Report, and 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 percent. The target for FY 2008 is the baseline plus 20 percent. The target for FY 2009 is the baseline plus 40 percent. The target for FY 2010 is the baseline plus 70 percent. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Indicator 1.5 of 7: The number of states receiving Title III services that have met state targets for attainment in learning English. |
Source: Consolidated State Performance Reports and Biennial Evaluation Reports. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: May 2007 Explanation: The FY 2005 data were used to establish the baseline. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Indicator 1.6 of 7: The amount of time it takes states to resolve compliance issues identified during a Title III compliance review. |
Source: On-site monitoring and state responses to monitoring reports. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: May 2007 Data Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED. Limitations: Response time will vary from state to state depending on what compliance issue must be addressed and how well the state manages internal resources and communications. Those compliance issues that require action from the state school board or state legislature, such as English language proficiency standards and assessments approval, will require a longer period of time due to state schedules. Those compliance issues that are handled at the school district level, such as parental notification, may be addressed in a much shorter time frame. Explanation: This is a new efficiency measure for 2006. The FY 2005 data will be used to establish a baseline. Performance targets represent the number of months it will take states to resolve a percentage of monitoring findings for Title III compliance issues. Specifically: in 2006, 50 percent of states will resolve compliance findings within 24 months. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Indicator 1.7 of 7: Amount of time reported by states to make Title III subgrants to subgrantees. |
Source: On-site Monitoring Reports and desk monitoring results. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: May 2007 Data Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED. Limitations: States distribute funds to subgrantees according to a set schedule depending on the state application process or on a reimbursable basis (districts provide states either a monthly, quarterly or annual report for reimbursement). Information regarding the timing of subgrant allocations is collected through program office desk monitoring and an on-site monitoring process. Explanation: This is a new efficiency measure for 2006. The 2005 data will be used to establish a baseline. Targets will demonstrate a decrease in the amount of time required for states to allocate federal funds to subgrantees. The target for FY 2006 is a 10 percent decrease from baseline. The target for FY 2007 is a 15 percent decrease from baseline. The target for FY 2008 is a 20 percent decrease from baseline. The target for FY 2009 is a 25 percent decrease from baseline. This indicator addresses the Department's emphasis on risk mitigation, timely drawdown of federal funds, and effective use of federal funds for their intended purpose. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Objective 2 of 3: Improve the quality of teachers of LEP students. |
| Indicator 2.1 of 2: The percentage of preservice teachers served by the Title III Professional Development Program who are placed in an instructional setting serving LEP students within one year of graduation. |
Source: Grantee Annual Performance Report. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: November 2006 Explanation: The FY 2005 target was to establish the baseline. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
| Indicator 2.2 of 2: The percentage of National Professional Development program graduates who meet No Child Left Behind Highly Qualified Teacher requirements. |
Source: Grantee Annual Performance Reports. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: November 2006 Data Validated By: No Formal Verification. Explanation: The FY 2005 target was to establish the 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 2: English proficiency: Limited English proficient (LEP) students served by the Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program will make gains in English. |
Source: Grantee Annual Performance Reports. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: December 2006 Limitations: Data are self-reported by grantees. Operational definitions of LEP students vary. Explanation: The FY 2005 target was to establish a baseline. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
| Indicator 3.2 of 2: Core Academic Subjects: Limited English proficient (LEP) students served by the Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program will make gains in core academic subjects. |
Source: Grantee Annual Performance Reports. Frequency: Annually. Next Data Available: December 2006 Data Validated By: No Formal Verification. Limitations: Data are self-reported by grantees. Operational definitions of LEP students vary. Explanation: The FY 2005 data were used to establish the baseline. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
