Elementary and Secondary Education Act as amended by No Child Left Behind Act, Public Law 107-110; Jan.8, 2002; In pa

1. Elementary and Secondary Education Act as amended by No Child Left Behind Act, Public Law 107-110; Jan.8, 2002; In part, Sections 3111-3116 Title III: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students Updated April 2009

2. Definition • to help ensure that children who are limited English proficient, including immigrant children and youth, • attain English proficiency; • develop high levels of academic attainment in English; and • meet the same challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards, including in core academic subjects, as all children are expected to meet. Updated April 2009

3. Purpose • to build program capacity • to establish, implement, and sustain language instruction educational programs • to create programs of English language development for limited English proficient children Updated April 2009

4. Title III ACSIP Requirements • This information is located in the 2009 ACSIP Approval Rubric. • The information is located on the Arkansas Department of Education’s Website at the following address: http://www.arkansased.org/acsip/pdf/acsip_approval_rubric_080508.pdf Updated April 2009

5. Parent Involvement • to promote parental and community participation in language instruction • to encourage the development of educational programs for the parents and communities of limited English proficient children Updated April 2009

6. Required Objectives and Activities • to increase the English proficiency of limited English proficient children by providing high-quality language instruction educational programs that are based on scientifically based research demonstrating the effectiveness of the programs • to provide high-quality professional development to classroom teachers (including teachers in classroom settings that are not the settings of language instruction educational programs), principals, administrators, and other school or community-based organizational personnel Updated April 2009

7. Required Objectives and Activities • to improve the instruction program for limited English proficient children by identifying, acquiring, and upgrading curricula, instructional materials, and educational software • to provide (A) tutorials and academic or vocational education for limited English proficient children; and (B) intensified instruction Updated April 2009

8. Required Objectives and Activities • (a). providing community participation programs, family literacy services, and parent outreach and training activities to limited English proficient children and their families to improve the English language skills of limited English proficient children and (b). assisting parents in helping their children improve their academic achievement and becoming active participants in the education of their children Updated April 2009

9. Authorized Activities that support Objectives 1.Salaries for ESL – skilled instructional services (not supplanting district financial obligations for providing teachers for ELL students) 2. Funds for teacher training, consultants, workshops, ESL course work 3. Released-time for planning, program selection, ESL program development 4. Selection and purchase of language- appropriate instructional and supplemental (enrichment) materials for ELL students (including computer-assisted technology and library materials) Updated April 2009

10. Authorized Activities that support Objectives 5.Counseling services, community liaison staff with language and cultural skills appropriate to the ELL population 6. Assessment activities which address identification, placement, and review of ELL student academic progress, as well as evaluation activities to determine the effectiveness of the district’s ESL program Updated April 2009

11. Guiding Questions to Develop or Evaluate an ELL/Title III Program Curriculum and Instruction • Has the LEA ensured that all programs using Title III funds have been included in the ACSIP? • Has the LEA ensured that a process for collaboration with stakeholders occurred in the development of the ACSIP for the use of Title III funds? • Has the LEA ensured that a comprehensive language instruction program designed to improve the education of limited English proficient (LEP) students by assisting them in learning English and meeting state content standards is in place? • Has the LEA ensured that the language instruction program is based on scientific research for teaching LEP students? Updated April 2009

12. Guiding Questions to Develop or Evaluate an ELL/Title III Program Curriculum and Instruction • Has the LEA ensured that the language instruction program focuses on development of English language proficiency and academic content proficiency or academic content? • Has the LEA ensured that the language education program includes a description of how the elementary and secondary schools within its jurisdiction will be held accountable for meeting the annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAO)? Updated April 2009

13. Guiding Questions to Develop or Evaluate an ELL/Title III Program Student Assessments and Program Evaluation • Has the LEA ensured that all students complete a home/primary language survey upon entering the respective school? • Has the LEA ensured that all students identified with a home/primary language other than English have been assessed for English language proficiency and placed in a language instruction program designed to improve their English language proficiency and academic content skills, if appropriate? • Has the LEA ensured that all LEP students are annually assessed with a state-approved English language proficiency assessment (ELDA)? Updated April 2009

14. Guiding Questions to Develop or Evaluate an ELL/Title III Program Student Assessments and Program Evaluation • Has the LEA ensured that a process is in place to include all LEP students in the Benchmark, End-Of-Course or Grade 11 Literacy Exams as required by the State? • Has the LEA ensured that a process is in place for tracking the progress of LEP students in the respective schools in regard to 1) the number of students making progress toward attaining English proficiency; 2) the number of students who have attained full English proficiency; 3) the number of LEP students who have been reclassified as non-LEP; and 4) the performance of LEP students on the Benchmark, End-of-Course or Grade 11 Literacy Exams? Updated April 2009

15. Guiding Questions to Develop or Evaluate an ELL/Title III Program Teacher Qualifications and Professional Development • Has the LEA ensured that all teachers teaching in any language instruction program for LEP students are fluent in English and any other language used for instruction including having written and oral communication skills? • Has the LEA ensured that teachers of LEP students that are the sole teachers of core academic subjects meet Arkansas’ definition of a “highly qualified” teacher? Updated April 2009

16. Guiding Questions to Develop or Evaluate an ELL/Title III Program Teacher Qualifications and Professional Development • Has the LEA ensured that funds are used to provide high-quality professional development to classroom teachers (including teachers in classroom settings that are not the settings of language instruction programs), principals, administrators, and other school or community-based organizations? • Has the LEA ensured that the professional development is 1) designed to improve the instruction and assessment of LEP students; 2) designed to enhance the ability of teachers to meet the needs of LEP students; 3) based on scientific research; and 4) of sufficient intensity and duration that it has a positive and lasting impact on the teacher’s performance? Updated April 2009

17. Guiding Questions to Develop or Evaluate an ELL/Title III Program Parent and Community Involvement • Has the LEA an effective means of outreach to parents of LEP students? • Has the LEA ensured that parents are notified annually not later than 30 days after the beginning of the school year or within two weeks after the student enrolls regarding 1) the reasons for the identification as LEP; 2) the student’s level of English language proficiency; 3) the method of instruction that will be used; 4) the exit requirements of the program; 5) how the program meets the needs of an LEP student with a disability; and 6) the right of parents to refuse services? Updated April 2009

18. Guiding Questions to Develop or Evaluate an ELL/Title III Program Parent and Community Involvement • Has the LEA ensured that for any year a school in the district fails to meet the annual measurable achievement objectives, parents will be informed no later than 30 days after such failure occurs? • Has the LEA ensured that parental information is provided in an understandable and uniform format and, to the extent practicable, in a language that the parents can understand? Updated April 2009

19. Limitations • Funds may be carried over but shall remain restricted to priority areas as defined in authorized activities. • A district may use no more than 2% for the administrative costs of carrying out its responsibilities. Updated April 2009

20. References • ADE - 2008-09 Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (ACSIP) Handbook http://arkansased.org/acsip/pdf/acsip_handbook_2008-2009_0308.pdf • ADE - Limited English Proficient: Curriculum and Assessment Information http://www.arkansased.org/lep/lep.html • USDOE - Title III — Language Instruction for Limited English • Proficient and Immigrant Students SEC. 3001 AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS; CONDITION ON EFFECTIVENESS OF PARTS.http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg39.html • NCLB Public Law 107-110-Jan. 8, 2002 http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf Updated April 2009