Archived Information
ESEA:English Language AcquisitionFY2006Program Performance Report
Strategic Goal2
Formula
ESEA, Title III, Part A
Document Year2006Appropriation: $669,007
CFDA / 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.
Objective1of3: / Improve the English proficiency and academic achievement of students served by the Language Acquisition State Grants program.
Measure1.1of7: The number of States that have demonstrated the alignment of English language proficiency (ELP) assessment with ELP standards. (Desired direction: increase)
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2004 / 16 / Measure not in place
2005 / 10 / (January 2007) / Pending
2006 / 50 / (January 2008) / Pending
2007 / 52 / (January 2009) / Pending
2008 / 52 / (January 2010) / Pending
Source.U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report; EDEN when available.
Frequency of Data Collection.Annual
Explanation.All 52 entities (50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) are providing information regarding aligned English language proficiency assessments 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.
Measure1.2of7:The number of States reporting that their English language proficiency standards are aligned with State academic content standards.
(Desired direction: increase)
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2004 / 44 / Measure not in place
2005 / 10 / (January 2007) / Pending
2006 / 90 / (January 2007) / Pending
2007 / 25 / (January 2008) / Pending
2008 / 30 / (January 2009) / Pending
Source.U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report; EDEN when available.
Frequency of Data Collection.Annual
Explanation.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.
Measure1.3of7:The percentage of LEAs receiving Title III services making AYP for limited English proficient students.
(Desired direction: increase)
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2006 / Set a Baseline / (May 2007) / Pending
2007 / 29 / (May 2008) / Pending
2008 / 38 / (May 2009) / Pending
2009 / 48 / (May 2010) / Pending
2010 / 58 / (May 2011) / Pending
Source.U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report; Office of English Language Acquisition, Title III Biennial evaluation report.
Frequency of Data Collection.Annual
Data Quality.Average annual percentage increases vary depending on the LEP population in the state and available resources in serving these students and exercising allowable Departmental flexibilities for this subgroup.
Explanation.This is a long-term measure.
Measure1.4of7:The percentage of limited English proficient students receiving Title III services who have made progress in English.
(Desired direction: increase)
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2006 / Set a Baseline / (January 2007) / Pending
2007 / 58 / (January 2008) / Pending
2008 / 67 / (January 2009) / Pending
2009 / 77 / (January 2010) / Pending
2010 / 87 / (January 2011) / Pending
Source.U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report; Office of English Language Acquisition, Title III Biennial Evaluation Report; and EDEN, when available.
Frequency of Data Collection.Annual
Measure1.5of7: The percentage of limited English proficient students receiving Title III services who have achieved English language proficiency. (Desired direction: increase)Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2005 / 23 / Measure not in place
2006 / 29 / (January 2007) / Pending
2007 / 58 / (January 2008) / Pending
2008 / 67 / (January 2009) / Pending
2009 / 87 / (January 2010) / Pending
2010 / 92 / (January 2011) / Pending
Source.U.S. Department of Education, Consolidated State Performance Report and Office of English Language Acquisition Title III Biennial Evaluation Reports.
Frequency of Data Collection.Annual
Measure1.6of7:The percentage of States being monitored on-site each year that resolve Title III compliance findings within twelve months of notification.
(Desired direction: increase)
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2006 / 24 / (January 2007) / Pending
2007 / 50 / (January 2008) / Pending
2008 / 60 / (January 2009) / Pending
2009 / UNDEFINED0 / Undefined / Pending
2010 / UNDEFINED0 / Undefined / Pending
Source.U.S. Department of Education onsite monitoring reports and desk monitoring results. State responses to monitoring reports.
Frequency of Data Collection.Annual
Data Quality.Response time will vary from state to state depending on the compliance issue to be addressed and how well the state manages internal resources and communication. Those compliance issues that require action from the state school board or state legislature, such as English language proficiency standards and assessment approval, will require a longer period of time to resolve due to state schedules. Those compliance issues that are handled at the school district level (e.g. parental notification) may be addressed in a much shorter time frame.
Explanation.This is a new efficiency measure for 2006. 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.
Measure1.7of7:The average number of days for States receiving Title III funds to make subgrants to subgrantees.
(Desired direction: decrease)
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2006 / BL-10 / (May 2007) / Pending
2007 / BL+10% / (May 2008) / Pending
2008 / BL+15% / (May 2009) / Pending
2009 / BL+20% / (May 2010) / Pending
Source.U.S. Department of Education onsite monitoring reports and desk monitoring results. State responses to monitoring reports.
Frequency of Data Collection.Annual
Data Quality.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 award of the subgrant is collected through program office desk monitoring and an on-site monitoring process.
Explanation.This is a new efficiency measure for 2006. 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.
Objective2of3: / Improve the quality of teachers of LEP students.Measure2.1of2:
The percentage of preservice teachers served under the National Professional Development Program who are placed in an instructional setting serving LEPstudents within one year of graduation.
(Desired direction: increase)
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2005 / Set a Baseline / 93 / Target Met
2006 / 94 / (January 2007) / Pending
2007 / 95 / (January 2008) / Pending
2008 / 95 / (January 2009) / Pending
Source.U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition program performance reports.
Frequency of Data Collection.Annual
Data Quality.Data are self reported by grantees.
Explanation.After review, correction is made to the date expected for 2006 and 2007.
Measure2.2of2: The percentage of National Professional Development program graduates who are highly qualified teachers. (Desired direction: increase)Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2005 / Set a Baseline / 95 / Target Met
2006 / 96 / (January 2007) / Pending
2007 / 97 / (January 2008) / Pending
2008 / 97 / (January 2009) / Pending
Source.U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition program performance reports.
Frequency of Data Collection.Annual
Data Quality.Data are self reported by grantees.
Explanation.After review, corrected date expected on report.
Objective3of3: / Improve English proficiency and academic achievement of students served by the Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program.Measure3.1of2:
The percentage of projects funded under the Native American/Alaska Native Children in School Program that increase LEP student academic achievement as measured bystate academic content assessments.
(Desired direction: increase)
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2006 / 16.5 / (January 2007) / Pending
2007 / Set a Baseline / 18 / Target Met
2008 / 19.5 / (January 2009) / Pending
Source.U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition, Annual Grant Performance Report (ED524B).
Frequency of Data Collection.Annual
Explanation.
After review, corrections are made to the date when data is expected for report due to time changes in processing the Annual Grant Performance.
Measure3.2of2:The percentage of projects funded under the Native American/Alaskan Native Childrenin SchoolProgram that increase the level of English language proficiency of participating LEP students as measured by performance on the state English language proficiency (ELP) assessment or the state approved local ELP assessment.
(Desired direction: increase)
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2005 / Set a Baseline / 60 / Target Met
2006 / 66 / (January 2007) / Pending
2007 / 72 / (January 2008) / Pending
2008 / 72 / (January 2009) / Pending
Source.U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition, Annual Grant Performance Report (ED524B).
Frequency of Data Collection.Annual
Explanation.After review, corrections were made to the date when data is expected for report due to time changes in processing the Annual Grant Perfomrnace Report (ED524B).
U.S. Department of Education / 2 / 11/14/2006