u s department of education n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

294 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. U.S. Department of Education Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Student Achievement and School Accontability Programs Title III Group 2009 NCLB Technical Assistance “Staying the Course Amidst Change” April 1 & 2, 2009 Amy Weinmann Education Program Specialist

  2. LEP Students in the USNCELA

  3. Number of LEP Students

  4. Density

  5. LEP Population Growth (1995-2006)

  6. 2008 Consolidated State Performance Report Title III: FY 2008 New Jersey received $ 18,602,562 # all LEP students reported in the New Jersey: 54,503

  7. CSPR Type of Language Instruction Educational Programs Reported in New Jersey • dual language • two-way immersion • Transitional bilingual • Developmental bilingual • Heritage language

  8. From Legislation to Implementation

  9. Title III Program Effectiveness Student Achievement Program Implementation Fiscal Monitoring DATA Program Monitoring Coordination Coordination

  10. Definition of LEP • States develop definition of LEP according to Title IX requirements and State concepts of Proficient and Advanced • Eligibility Criteria • Exit Criteria • Once categorized as LEP, States MUST • Serve LEP students in high quality instruction educational programs • Assess LEP students’ English language proficiency annually

  11. Eligibility Criteria for LEP Students are identified, become eligible for services, and enter the LEP Category based on an English Language Proficiency Assessment. Entry = LEP = Services

  12. Different Students, Different Needs. Different Strategies… Same rigorous curriculum for ALL students Different levels of need Different accountability systems Unequal distribution of resources Diversity of LEP population Different interventions for different needs Different support capabilities

  13. Two Sets of StandardsTwo Sets of Objectives • English Language Proficiency Standards, Title III ( for LEP students only) • Academic Content Standards, Title I (for all students including LEP students) • Title III English Language Proficiency Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives AMAOs ( for LEP students only), and • Title I Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Objectives (for all students including LEP students)

  14. AMAOs Title III’s accountability provisions Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives AMAOs

  15. Measuring Success AMAO 1 AMAO 2 AMAO 3

  16. ELP Assessment Content Assessment Setting Targets • Specific separate targets for each of the AMAOs • AMAO 1 • AMAO 2 • AMAO 3 • All language domains considered • Speaking • Listening • Reading • Writing Progress Attainment Title I AYP Comprehension

  17. SY 2006 SY 2005 Calculating AMAO 1 • Two data points • Four language domains • States must set targets for AMAO 1 that increase annually • ELP Increase defined in terms of: • Scale score • Proficiency level Progress

  18. Calculating AMAO 2 • Setting targets for AMAO 2 • Must set a target for number and % of students attaining proficiency • Must set annually increasing targets • Should review research findings and own historical ELP assessment data

  19. State’s Title III Served LEP Population • Consider the amount of time students have been enrolled in a language instruction program • Ensure that LEAs are held accountable for educating ALL LEP students so that they attain language proficiency Who’s included in AMAO 2? Important Considerations

  20. Exit Monitored Status Not LEP No Annual ELP Assessment No Language Acquisition Education Program No Additional Services No Title III Funds LEP Annual ELP Assessment Language Education Programs Additional Services Title III Funds Exit Criteria from the LEP Subgroup As Defined by State Criteria Attainment Attainment

  21. All decisions should be based on a strong rationale, including research and analysis of the State’s historical data.

  22. Calculating AMAO 3 AMAO 3 = AYP

  23. Timeline of Accountability for LEAs • SY 2007-8 • Parent Notification • After four years: Modify Curriculum/ Instruction or • Funding? • Replacement of Personnel 3 yrs. • SY 2006-7 • Parent Notification • After Two years: Improvement Plan; TA SY 2004-5 Parent Notification • SY2005-6 • Parent Notification • After Two years: Improvement Plan; TA 1 yr 2 yrs. 4 yrs.

  24. LEP Students with Disabilities ARE included in the calculations of AMAOs Private School AMAO requirements DO NOT apply How about specific student categories? Title III Served

  25. Office of Non-Public Education (ONPE) After timely and meaningful consultation with appropriate private school officials, local education agencies (LEAs) receiving Title III funds must provide educational services to limited English proficient (LEP) children and educational personnel in private schools that are located in the geographic area served by the LEA.

  26. Timely and Meaningful Consultation • The LEA must consult with appropriate private school officials during the design and development of the Title III program on issues such as: • How the LEP children's needs will be identified. • What services will be offered. • How, where and by whom the services will be provided. • How the services will be assessed and how the results of the assessment will be used to improve those services.

  27. Timely and Meaningful Consultation Cont. • The LEA must consult with appropriate private school officials during the design and development of the Title III program on issues such as: • The size and scope of the services to be provided to the private school children and educational personnel. • The amount of funds available for those services. • How and when the LEA will make decisions about the delivery of services, including a thorough consideration of the views of the private school officials on the provision of contract services through potential third-party providers.

  28. Supplement not Supplant in Brief – General Principle In general, the Title III supplement not supplant requirement is intended to ensure that services provided with Title III funds are in addition to, and do not replace or supplant, services that students would otherwise receive.

  29. Title III Supplement not Supplant Requirement Title III funds must be used to supplement the level of Federal, State, and local funds that, in the absence of Title III funds, would have been expended for programs for LEP children and immigrant children and youth. [Section 3115(g) of ESEA]

  30. The First Test of Supplanting: Required by law The Department assumes supplanting exists if • A local educational agency (LEA) uses Title III funds to provide services that the LEA is required to make available under State or local laws, or other Federal laws.

  31. The Second Test of Supplanting: Prior Year The Department assumes supplanting exists if An LEA uses Title III funds to provide services that it provided in the prior year with State, local, or other Federal funds. This assumption may be rebutted.

  32. Any determination about supplanting is very fact specific, and it is difficult to provide general guidelines without examining the details of a situation.

  33. Questions to Ask When Considering WhetherTitle III Funds Can be Used Without Violatingthe Supplement not Supplant Requirement 1. What is the instructional program/service provided to all students? 2. What does the LEA do to meet Lau requirements? 3. What services is the LEA required by other Federal, State, and local laws or regulations to provide? 4. Was the program/service previously provided with State, local, and Federal funds? Based on the answers to the above questions, would the proposed funds be used to provide an instructional program/service that is in addition to or supplemental to an instructional program/service that would otherwise be provided to LEP students in the absence of a Title III grant?

  34. Notice of Final Interpretations of Title III Intent: to ensure that all States implement the requirements of Title III and follow the “bright line” principles of NCLB as they apply to Title III. Background: Notice of proposed interpretations, comments, final notice, implementation of Title III annual measurable achievement objective (AMAO) determinations for 09-10 school year

  35. NOI 1. Annual English Language Proficiency (ELP) Assessment of LEP Students • States must annually assess all LEP students for English language proficiency in each of the language domains of speaking, listening, reading, and writing.

  36. NOI 2. Use of Annual ELP Assessment Scores for AMAOs 1 (progress) and 2 (proficiency) • States have some flexibility in how they structure the ELP assessments they use. States may use ELP assessments that provide either: (1) separate scores in each of the language domains, or (2) a single composite score.

  37. NOI 3. Students Included in Title III Accountability • States must include all Title III-served LEP students in Title III accountability. Only exceptions: 1)under AMAO 1 only, the scores of LEP students who have not participated in two administrations of a State’s annual ELP assessment, and 2)under AMAO 3 only, the scores of LEP students excluded from AYP determinations under normal Title I rules.

  38. SY 2006 SY 2005 NOI 4. Exclusion of LEP Students “Without Two Data Points” From AMAO 1 (progress) • Minimum requirement - AMAO 1 must include all Title III-served LEP students with two data points on the State’s ELP assessment.

  39. NOI 5. Attainment of English Language Proficiency and “Exiting” the LEP Subgroup • States have flexibility in defining “proficiency” in English under Title III, but are strongly encouraged to use the same definition they use to exit students from the LEP subgroup under Title I.

  40. NOI 6. Use of Minimum Group Size in Title III Accountability • States may use a minimum group size in Title III accountability (“n-size”), but it must be the same as that approved under Title I. • States may not apply n-size to separate “cohorts” of Title III-served LEP students for which the State has set separate targets for AMAOs. • For LEAs receiving Title III funds in consortia, n-size may be applied to each consortia member only if AMAO determinations can be made.

  41. NOI 7. All LEP Students, AYP, and AMAO3 (AYP) • States have flexibility to use the same AYP determination for the LEP subgroup under Title I for Title III accountability purposes (AMAO 3) and are encouraged to do so.

  42. NOI 8. AMAOs and the Use of Cohorts • States may set separate AMAO targets for Title III subgrantees based on the amount of time LEP students have had access to language instruction educational programs.

  43. NOI 9. States have flexibility in making accountability determinations for consortia. • States must hold consortia accountable for AMAOs, but States have discretion about whether to treat consortia that consist of more than one LEA as a single entity or as separate entities for Title III accountability.

  44. NOI 10. Implementation of Corrective Actions Under Title III • States must annually inform their LEAs when the LEAs do not meet AMAOs. LEAs that fail to meet AMAOs must communicate this information to the parents of LEP students. • States must implement corrective actions as required under Title III for every LEA for every school year. • Title III contains consequences for LEAs that do not meet AMAOs for two or four consecutive years.

  45. What's New? New administration

  46. Questions? Next Steps? Questions?? Next Steps??