ESEA: English Language Acquisition

FY 2008 Program Performance Plan

Strategic Goal 1
Formula
ESEA, Title III, Part A
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
Objective 1 of 3: Improve the English proficiency and academic achievement of students served
Measure 1.1 of 7: The average number of days States receiving Title III funds take to make subgrants to subgrant
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2007 BL-3 (January 2008) Pending
2008 BL-6 (January 2009) Pending
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Explanation. Data for this measure will come from desk and on-site monitoring of subgrant activities.
Actual data from 2006 will serve as a baseline and will be used to determine future performance targets.

Measure 1.2 of 7: The percentage of States being monitored on-site each year that resolve Title III compliance find
direction: increase)
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2007 BL+6PP (January 2009) Pending
2008 BL+12PP (January 2010) Pending
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Explanation. Performance targets represent the percentage of States that resolve all monitoring
compliance findings identified through a monitoring visit within twelve months. Data for this measure
come from on-site monitoring reports. States are monitored at least once every three years, and the
average number of States monitored every year is 17. Actual data from 2006 will serve as a baseline and
will be used to determine future performance targets.

Measure 1.3 of 7: The number of States that have reported the alignment of English language proficiency (ELP) as
increase)
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2004 16 Measure not in p
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 (CSPR), Biennial
Report.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Explanation.

U.S. Department of Education 1 02/05/2007

OELA replaced the word "demonstrated" with "reported". It would be invalid to characterize the measure
as "demonstrated" when it is State reported. At this time, no State's alignment has been validated through
a Department's review process, therefore, data applied to this measure can only be state reported
information. 2004 data is based on partial State information from the Department's Consolidated State
Performance Report for the 2003-2004 school year. 2005 data will be available in early 2007. 2005 and
2006 targets reflect a previous measure.

Measure 1.4 of 7:

The number of States reporting that their English language proficiency standards are aligned with State academic c

(Desired direction: increase)

Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2004 44 Measure not in pl
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 (CSPR), OELA Biennial Report,
and on-site and desk monitoring.

Frequency of Data Collection. Annual

Data Quality.

Explanation.

Data reported in 2004 are from the 2003-2004 Consolidated State Performance Report. Targets for 2005
(10) and 2006 (90) referred to an earlier version of this measure that collected data on percentage, rather
than number of States achieving this goal. In addition, the previous measure examined whether English
language proficiency (ELP) standards were linked with State academic standards. A more rigorous
measure demonstrating alignment, rather than linking, with standards will be reflected in 2005 data and in
performance targets beginning with 2007. This has been state reported only. An evaluated review of Title
III accountability system will be conducted in 2008.

Measure 1.5 of 7:

The percentage of LEAs receiving Title III services making AYP for limited English proficient students.

(Desired direction: increase)

Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2006 Set a Baseline (May 2007) Pending

U.S. Department of Education 2 02/05/2007

 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, EDEN/EDFacts.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Explanation.

This measure represents the percentage of states meeting all three Title III AMAOs. Once baseline data
have been collected for 2006, targets for 2008 and onward may be revised.

Measure 1.6 of 7:

The percentage of limited English proficient students receiving Title III services who have made progress in English

(Desired direction: increase)

Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
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; EDEN/EDFacts.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Explanation.

Current targets are preliminary and are based on partial data from the 2004-2005 Consolidated State
Performance Report. Targets may be revised when more complete baseline data are available in early
2007.

Measure 1.7 of 7: The percentage of limited English proficient students receiving Title III services who have attaine
increase)
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2005 23 Measure not in p
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, EDEN/EDFacts.
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual

U.S. Department of Education 3 02/05/2007

Explanation. Baseline data reflect partial State data from the 2005 Consolidated State Performance
Report. Beginning in 2007, data will be available through EDEN/EDFacts. The "23" in 2005 and the "29"
in 2006, represent the number and not the percentage of states that met the target.

Objective 2 of 3: Improve the quality of teachers of LEP students.

Measure 2.1 of 3: The percentage of pre-service program graduates served under the National Professional Deve
settings serving LEP students within one year of graduation. (Desired direction: increase)
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
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.

Measure 2.2 of 3: The percentage of pre-service program graduates served under the National Professional Deve
teachers requirements. (Desired direction: increase)
Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
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, Annual Performance Report (ED524B).
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Data Quality. Data are self reported by grantees.

Measure 2.3 of 3:

The percentage of in-service teacher completers under the National Professional Development Program who are p
proficient students.

(Desired direction: increase)

Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
2007 Set a Baseline (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
Explanation.

U.S. Department of Education 4 02/05/2007

Data are self reported by grantees.

Objective 3 of 3: Improve English proficiency and academic achievement of students served by

School Program.
Measure 3.1 of 2:

The percentage of projects funded under the Native American/Alaska Native Children in School Program that incre
measured by state academic content assessments.

(Desired direction: increase)

Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
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 Performance
Report (ED524B).
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual
Explanation. “Increase LEP student academic achievement” is defined as meeting the project
established annual performance targets in reading (for all projects) and/or other academic content
subjects (as proposed by individual projects.) The achievement is measured by the State academic
content assessments. Public and BIA schools receiving this grant may use the same achievement data
reported for AYP results.

The measurement used through 2006 (The percentage of limited English proficient (LEP) students in the
Native American and Alaska native program who make gains in core academic subjects) will be replaced
with this revised measure from 2007 onward. The measure has been revised to reflect state annual
performance targets and assessments for content subjects.

Measure 3.2 of 2:

The percentage of projects funded under the Native American/Alaskan Native Children in School Program that incr
participating LEP students as measured by performance on the state English language proficiency (ELP) assessme

(Desired direction: increase)

Actual
Year Target
(or date expected)
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 Performance
Report (ED524B).
Frequency of Data Collection. Annual

U.S. Department of Education 5 02/05/2007

Explanation.

"Increase LEP student English language proficiency" is defined as meeting the project established annual
performance targets for making progress and attaining English proficiency. The achievement is
measured by student performance on the state English language proficiency (ELP) assessment or the
state approved local ELP assessment.

The measurement used through 2005 (The percentage of limited English proficient (LEP) students in the
Native American and Alaskan Native program who make gains in English) will be replaced with this
revised measure from 2006 onward. The measure has been revised to reflect state annual performance
targets and assessments for English language proficiency.

U.S. Department of Education 6 02/05/2007