FY2010Program Performance Report(System Print Out)
Strategic Goal1
Formula
ESEA, Title III, Part A
Document Year2010Appropriation: $
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: / To improve the English proficiency and academic achievement of students served by the Language Acquisition State Grants program.
Measure1.1of7: The average number of days States receiving Title III funds take to make subgrants to subgrantees. (Desired direction: decrease) 89a03n
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2006 / Set a Baseline / 55 / Target Met
2007 / 52 / 67 / Did Not Meet Target
2008 / 46 / 62 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2009 / 46 / 60 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2010 / 45 / (May 2011) / Pending
Source.Consolidated StatePerformance Report 2008-09
Frequency of Data Collection:Annual
Data Quality.State reported data. 52 "states" are included in this collection the two additions are the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Of the 52 states requested to report 51 responded. Puerto Rico did not respond.
Explanation.This is a long-term measure.
Measure1.2of7: The annual cost per LEP student attaining English language proficiency. (Desired direction: decrease) 89a03pYear / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2006 / Set a Baseline / 785 / Target Met
2007 / 783 / 772 / Did Better Than Target
2008 / 782 / 771 / Did Better Than Target
2009 / 780 / 832.1 / Did Not Meet Target
2010 / 775 / (May 2011) / Pending
2011 / 770 / (May 2012) / Pending
Source.Consolidated State Performance Report 2008-09 and federal funding distribution by Congress.
Frequency of Data Collection:Annual
Data Quality.State reported data.
Explanation.
This is a long-term measure.
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2008 / Set a Baseline / 54 / Target Met
2009 / 57 / 54.88 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2010 / 59 / (May 2011) / Pending
2011 / 61 / (May 2012) / Pending
2012 / 63 / (May 2013) / Pending
2013 / 65 / (May 2014) / Pending
Source.Consolidated State Performance Report 2008-09
Frequency of Data Collection:Annual
Data Quality.State reported data. Of the 52 states (includes District of Columbia and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) requested to respond 50 states responded. Two states did not respond-Puerto Rico and South Carolina.
Explanation.This is a long-term measure.
Measure1.4of7: The percentage of limited English proficient students receiving Title III services who are making progress in learning English. (Desired direction: increase) 2052Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2006 / Set a Baseline / 45 / Target Met
2007 / 50 / 41 / Did Not Meet Target
2008 / 55 / 43 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2009 / 60 / 71.3 / Target Exceeded
2010 / 65 / (May 2011) / Pending
2011 / 67 / (May 2012) / Pending
2012 / 69 / (May 2013) / Pending
Source.Consolidated State Performance Report 2008-09
Frequency of Data Collection:Annual
Data Quality.State reported data. Of the 52 states (includes District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico)requested to respond five states did not respond for this measure (making progress). States that did not respond were Mississippi, Missouri, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island and South Carolina.
Explanation.Measure is in accordance with stautory reporting requirements.
Measure1.5of7: The percentage of limited English proficient students receiving Title III services who have attained English language proficiency. (Desired direction: increase) 1830Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2006 / 29 / 19 / Did Not Meet Target
2007 / 20 / 21 / Target Exceeded
2008 / 25 / 23 / Made Progress From Prior Year
2009 / 30 / 33.32 / Target Exceeded
2010 / 35 / (May 2011) / Pending
2011 / 40 / (May 2012) / Pending
2012 / 45 / (May 2013) / Pending
Source.Consolidated State Performance Report 2008-09
Frequency of Data Collection:Annual
Data Quality.State reported data. Of the 52 states (including District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) 50 states responded. The two states that did not respond for this measure (attainment) were Puerto Rico and South Carolina.
Explanation.
Measure1.6of7: The percentage of limited English proficient students who score proficient or above on State reading assessments (Desired direction: increase) 89a0wiYear / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2008 / Set a Baseline / 33 / Target Met
2009 / 34 / 35.45 / Target Exceeded
2010 / 35 / (May 2011) / Pending
2011 / 36 / (May 2012) / Pending
2012 / 37 / (May 2013) / Pending
2013 / 38 / (May 2014) / Pending
Source.Consolidated State Performance Report 2008-09
Frequency of Data Collection:Annual
Data Quality.State reported data.Of the52 states (including District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) two states did not respond. The states that did not respond were Puerto Rico and South Carolina.
Explanation.This measure is student outcome based and addresses the goal of the Title III program to help LEP student achieve high standards in academic content.
This measure also addresses the requirement in the OELA strategic plan, established by ED.
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2008 / Set a Baseline / 52 / Target Met
2009 / 62 / 72.93 / Target Exceeded
2010 / 64 / (May 2011) / Pending
2011 / 66 / (May 2012) / Pending
2012 / 68 / (May 2013) / Pending
2013 / 70 / (May 2014) / Pending
Source.Consolidated State Performance Report 2008-09
Frequency of Data Collection:Annual
Data Quality.State reported data. Of the 52 states (including the District of Columbia and the Commwealth of Puerto Rico) two states did not respond, they were Puerto Rico and South Carolina.
Explanation.This measure provides academic achievement results for former Title III students who have met the state criteria for moving into a classroom not designed for LEP studens and who no longer receive Title III services.
Objective2of3: / To improve the quality of teachers of LEP students.Measure2.1of6: The percentage of pre-service program graduates who are certified, licensed, or endorsed in LEP instruction. (Desired direction: increase) 89a0lj
Year / Target / Actual
(or date expected) / Status
2008 / Set a Baseline / 99 / Target Met
2009 / 99 / 72.1 / Did Not Meet Target
Source.U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition program performance reports.
Source: APR –Each grantee is required to submit data on the overall number of program graduates who: (a) are expected to become fully certified, licensed, or endorsed within the corresponding time frame as a result of participating in training offered through the program; (b) actually become certified, licensed, or endorsed in LEP instruction as a result of participating in training offered through the program in its APR (OMB 1894-0003; http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html ) The program office reviews the reports and resolves any data quality issues with the grantees, and then the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA) aggregates the data from the APRs and supplies the aggregated data and calculated percentage for this measure to the program office.
Data Quality: Of the 139 grantees first funded in 2007 that received a grant award and funding in the 2009 reporting year, 43 of them are serving pre-service teachers. This measure does not apply to the remaining 96 grantees. Reports were received from all 139 grantees; however only 34 of the 43 grantees were able to report on the measure because only 34 grantees had program graduates in the 2008-2009 academic year, consistent with their program plan. Program officers review grantee data using the process developed through the DQI, which requires program officers to review data for completeness, consistency, accuracy, and reasonability.
Target Context: The performance measures were revised in 2008. This is the first cohort of grantees expected to provide data for this measure. Data from 2008 represent the original baseline data. Since the 2009 data were determined to be of better quality than the 2008 data, as described in the explanation below, the Department will use data from 2009 to establish the target for future years for this measure.
Explanation: The project period is 5 years for this program. Grantees are institutions of higher education that receive funding for 5 years. Grantees with available data first reported data on this measure in FY2008 for the cohort of participants that graduated in 2008. To calculate the percentage required for this measure, NCELA counted the number of pre-service graduates that the 34 grantees reported during the 09-10 project year as a result of the training provided by the grantee. That number, 473, is the denominator. The numerator is the number of participants that actually became certified, licensed, or endorsed in LEP instruction during the 08-09 project year, as result of the training provided by the grantees. That number, 341, is the numerator. Therefore, the number represented for this measure is 72.1%. The original target for this measure was 99%, based on the results of actual data (99%) for the 2008 program year. The reason for the disparity between the results of the 2008 data and the 2009 data may be that the 2008 data was based on the small number of grantees (7) that had produced graduates and completers in 2008 and were able to report on the GPRA measure. Therefore, the results for the 2008 year may not be representative of the program. In addition, since grantees first reported on this measure the Department has provided guidance to grantees on improving data collection procedures , resulting ,we believe, in better quality data.
Every graduate is not expected to obtain certification, licensure or endorsement in LEP instruction. Some grantees do not follow graduates to determine if they obtained certification, licensure or endorsement in LEP instruction. Some grantees are located in States in which certification, licensure or endorsement in LEP instruction is not offered. Some grantees have designed their program to provide specialized coursework in LEP instruction that does not result in certification, licensure or endorsement .
Frequency of Data Collection:Annual
Data Quality.Data are self-reported by grantees.
Of the 139 grantees first funded in 2007 that received a grant award and funding in the 2009 reporting year, 43 of them are serving pre-service teachers. This measure does not apply to the remaining 96 grantees. Reports were received from all 139 grantees; however only 34 of the 43 grantees were able to report on the measure because only 34 grantees had program graduates in the 2008-2009 academic year, consistent with their program plan. Program officers review grantee data using the process developed through the DQI, which requires program officers to review data for completeness, consistency, accuracy, and reasonability.
Target Context.
The performance measures were revised in 2008. This is the first cohort of grantees expected to provide data for this measure. Data from 2008 represent the original baseline data. Since the 2009 data were determined to be of better quality than the 2008 data, as described in the explanation below, the Department will use data from 2009 to establish the target for future years for this measure.
Explanation.This is a new measure. Grantees are institutions of higher education that receive funding for 5 years. Grantees with available data will first report data on this measure in FY 2008 for the cohort of participants that graduate in 2008.
Explanation: The project period is 5 years for this program. Grantees are institutions of higher education that receive funding for 5 years. Grantees with available data first reported data on this measure in FY2008 for the cohort of participants that graduated in 2008. To calculate the percentage required for this measure, NCELA counted the number of pre-service graduates that the 34 grantees reported during the 09-10 project year as a result of the training provided by the grantee. That number, 473, is the denominator. The numerator is the number of participants that actually became certified, licensed, or endorsed in LEP instruction during the 08-09 project year, as result of the training provided by the grantees. That number, 341, is the numerator. Therefore, the number represented for this measure is 72.1%. The original target for this measure was 99%, based on the results of actual data (99%) for the 2008 program year. The reason for the disparity between the results of the 2008 data and the 2009 data may be that the 2008 data was based on the small number of grantees (7) that had produced graduates and completers in 2008 and were able to report on the GPRA measure. Therefore, the results for the 2008 year may not be representative of the program. In addition, since grantees first reported on this measure the Department has provided guidance to grantees on improving data collection procedures , resulting ,we believe, in better quality data.
Every graduate is not expected to obtain certification, licensure or endorsement in LEP instruction. Some grantees do not follow graduates to determine if they obtained certification, licensure or endorsement in LEP instruction. Some grantees are located in States in which certification, licensure or endorsement in LEP instruction is not offered. Some grantees have designed their program to provide specialized coursework in LEP instruction that does not result in certification, licensure or endorsement .