Company LOGO Amy Weinmann Education Program Specialist 2009 NCLB Technical Assistance Staying the Course Amidst Change April 1 & 2, 2009.

Company

LOGO

Amy WeinmannEducation Program Specialist

2009 NCLB Technical Assistance“Staying the Course Amidst Change”

April 1 & 2, 2009

LEP Students in the USNCELA

Number of LEP Students

Density

LEP Population Growth (1995-2006)

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

CSPR

Type of Language Instruction Educational Programs Reported in New Jersey

dual language two-way immersion Transitional bilingual Developmental bilingual Heritage language

From Legislation to Implementation

Title III Program Effectiveness

DA

TA

Pro

gram

Mo

nito

ring

Fis

cal

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Coordination

Student AchievementP

rog

ram

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n

Coordination

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

Eligibility Criteria for LEP

Students are identified, become eligible for services, and enter the LEP Category based on an English Language Proficiency Assessment.

Different Students, Different Needs. Different Strategies…

Different accountability

systems

Diversity of LEP population

Unequal distribution

of resources

Different levels of

need

Same rigorous curriculum for ALL

students

Different support

capabilities

Different interventions for different

needs

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)

Two Sets of StandardsTwo Sets of Objectives

Annual Measurable

Achievement

ObjectivesAMAOs

AMAOs

Title III’s accountability provisions

Measuring Success

AMAO 1

AMAO 2

AMAO 3

Setting Targets

Specific separate targets for each of the AMAOs AMAO 1 AMAO 2 AMAO 3

All language domains considered Speaking Listening Reading Writing

ELP Assessment

Content Assessment

Calculating AMAO 1

SY 2005

SY 2006

Two data points

Four language domains

States must set targets for AMAO 1 that increase annually

ELP Increase defined in terms of:Scale scoreProficiency level

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

Who’s included in AMAO 2?

State’s Title III Served LEP Population

Important Considerations

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

Exit Criteria from the LEP Subgroup

Exit Monitored StatusNot LEPNo Annual ELP

AssessmentNo Language

Acquisition Education Program

No Additional Services

No Title III Funds

LEPAnnual ELP

AssessmentLanguage Education

ProgramsAdditional ServicesTitle III Funds

As Defined by State Criteria

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

Calculating AMAO 3

SY 2004-5

Parent Notification

SY2005-6

•Parent Notification

•After Two years:

Improvement Plan; TA

SY 2006-7Parent NotificationAfter Two years: Improvement Plan; TA

SY 2007-8

•Parent Notification

•After four years: Modify Curriculum/ Instruction or

•Funding?

•Replacement of Personnel

4 yrs. 2 yrs.

Timeline of Accountability for LEAs

3 yrs.

1 yr

How about specific student categories?

Private School

AMAO requirements DO NOT apply

LEP Students with Disabilities ARE included in the calculations of

AMAOs

Title III Served

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.

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/nonpublic/title3-factsheet.html

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.

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.

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.

http://www.ed.gov/programs/sfgp/legislation.html

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]

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.

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.

Any determination about supplanting is very fact

specific, and it is difficult to provide general guidelines

without examining the details of a situation.

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?

Questions to Ask When Considering WhetherTitle III Funds Can be Used Without Violatingthe Supplement not Supplant Requirement

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

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/index.html

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.

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.

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.

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.

SY 2005

SY 2006

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Questions?? Next Steps??