Transcript Document

Title III
Language Instruction for
Limited English Proficient and
Immigrant Students
Coordinators’ Technical Assistance Academy
August 2011
State Provision of Services
to Limited English Proficient
Students
The Code of Virginia provides for English as a
Second Language instruction to limited English
proficient students §22.1-212.1 states in part:
“School boards shall endeavor to provide
instruction in the English language which shall be
designed to promote the education of students for
whom English is a second language.”
The Regulations Establishing Standards for
Accrediting Public Schools in Virginia (8 VAC 20131-10 et. seq.) set high achievement expectations
for all students, including limited English proficient
students.
Federal Provision of Services
to Limited English Proficient
Students
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
requires states to increase English
language proficiency and acquisition
of academic content in reading,
mathematics, and science for limited
English proficient students.
[NCLB, Section 1111(b), 3102]
World-Class Instructional Design and
Assessment Consortium Update
• The WIDA® Consortium presently consists of twenty-six partner
states: Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota,
Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, and the District of
Columbia.
• Nationwide, approximately 835,000 English language learners in
kindergarten through grade 12 were assessed during the 2010-2011
school year using the ACCESS for ELLs®.
• In Virginia, approximately 91,000 English Language Learners in
kindergarten through grade 12 were assessed during the 2010-2011
school year using the ACCESS for ELLs®.
Demographics
Definition of a Limited English
Proficient (LEP) Student
An LEP student is one:
Who was not born in the U.S. or whose
native language is a language other than
English; and
Whose difficulties speaking, reading, writing,
or understanding English may deny him/her
the ability to:
• Meet the state’s proficient level of
achievement on state assessments;
• Achieve successfully in classrooms
where the language of instruction is
English; or
• Participate fully in society.
“Immigrant Children and Youth”
as defined in Section 3301 (6)
of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act:
• are aged three through 21;
• were not born in any state; and
• have not been attending one or
more schools in any one or
more states for more than three
full academic years.
Elementary and Secondary
Education Act Definition of
“State”
Under Section 3101(14) of the ESEA, the term
“State” means each of the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico. For this reason, children born
overseas to U.S. military personnel, because
they were not born in a State, can fall within
the ESEA definition of “immigrant child and
youth” if they meet all of the other criteria of
that definition.
U.S Department of Education
Clarification of the
Definition of “immigrant” as it pertains to the
children of military personnel born overseas
Children born overseas to U.S. military
personnel may be counted by an LEA as
“immigrant” and included in the count of
immigrant students utilized for funding
purposes for the Title III immigrant
children and youth program.
[U.S. Department of Education, September 4, 2009]
U.S. Department of Education
Clarification of
“three full academic years”
• The number of months that a student has
been in school in any one or more states
must not add up to more than three full
academic years.
• LEAs must apply the “three full
academic years” requirement on a
cumulative basis.
[U.S Department of Education, January, 2011]
U. S. Department of Education
Clarification of
“three full academic years”
(continued)
• LEAs need to track the amount of time
that a child has attended school in the
same division, other divisions, or
states, if applicable, in prior years in
order to determine if a child’s period of
attendance is within the “three full
academic years” requirement.
[U.S Department of Education, January, 2011]
Virginia
Limited English Proficient Student Enrollment
1997 to 2010
100,000
87,026
90,000
84,344
90,341
86,751
78,216
80,000
72,380
66,966
70,000
60,990
60,000
49,840
50,000
43,535
36,799
40,000
31,787
30,000 24,536 26,525
20,000
10,000
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Limited English Proficient Student Enrollment
Compared to
All Student Enrollment
All Students
LEP
1,234,857
1,130,560
1,136,881
1,141,347
1,142,381
1,245,937
1,253,038
1,146,714
60,291
66,970
72,420
78,216
84,343
87,026
86,751
90,341
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Comparison of
Limited English Proficient Student Enrollment
by Superintendent’s Region
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
2000
2,126
2,051
722
28,410
2,020
1,077
285
108
2010
6,495
4,728
2,621
68,367
4,563
2,636
621
310
Immigrant and Youth Student Enrollment
2003 to 2010
35,000
30,000
25,000
21,442
23,231
26,036 27,150
28,791
27,261 27,415
24,352
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Comparison of
Limited English Proficient Student Enrollment
to
Immigrant and Youth Enrollment
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
2003
2004
LEP
2005
2006
2007
2008
Immigrant and Youth
2009
2010
School Divisions with the Greatest Number of
Limited English Proficient Students
as of September 2010
40,000
36,416
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
13,617
5,081
4,828
2,624
2,615
2,441
2,268
1,844
1,135
School Divisions with the Greatest Percentage
of Limited English Proficient Students as of
September 2010
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
38%
35%
39%
27%
35% 24%
22% 21%
27% 26%
26%
17% 17%
20%
18%
14%
17%
12%
16%
10%
10%
9%
Most Commonly Spoken Languages
as of September 2010
Title III Funding
Possible Funding Sources for
English as a Second Language
Programs
Local funds
State funds
Federal funds to include:
– Title I, Part A (Improving Basic Programs by Local
Education Agencies)
– Title I, Part C (Education of Migratory Children)
– Title II, Part A (Improving Teacher Quality)
– Title III, Part A (Language Instruction for Limited
English Proficient and Immigrant Students)
– Title IV, Part B (21st Century Competitive Grants)
– Refugee (Newcomer Services, Department of
Social Services)
Summary of No Child Left Behind
Title III Funding
Title III Funds
Immigrant and
Youth (IY) Funds
Total Title III and
IY Funds
2004-2005
5,818,714
1,091,008
6,909,722
2005-2006
8,300,528
461,139
8,761.667
2006-2007
8,840,756
491,153
9,331,909
2007-2008
9,265,228
514,735
9,779,963
2008-2009
11,285,363
593,967
11,879,330
2009-2010
10,875,619
572,401
11,448,020
2010-2011
11,009,301
579,437
11,588,738
2011-2012
11,474,998*
573,749*
12,048,747*
*estimated
amounts
Two Subsets for Title III Funding
 Title III
 Allocations to divisions are determined on a per pupil
basis.
 Limitation: Divisions must receive $10,000 to apply.
School divisions that receive less than $10,000, must
enter into a consortium to receive funds.
 Immigrant and Youth (IY)
 State reserves five percent of Title III funds for IY
allocations to eligible divisions.
 Only those school divisions that have experienced a
significant increase of IY students as compared to the
average of the two preceding fiscal years qualify for
funds.
*Significant increase is defined as five or more students.
 State awards $2,000 to all divisions meeting the IY
criteria and an additional per pupil amount.
 Divisions allocated IY funds may apply for funds via the
Title III application.
Required Uses of Funds for
Title III Subgrants
Funds must be used for:
• Programs that increase English language
proficiency and student achievement in core
content classes.
• Providing high-quality professional
development to classroom teachers,
principals, administrators, and other school
personnel.
[NCLB, Section 3111(b)]
Allowable Uses of Funds for
Title III Subgrants
Title III funds may be used for:
• Upgrading program objectives and
instructional strategies;
• Improving ESL instruction through
updating/upgrading ESL curriculum,
materials, or technology;
• Tutoring;
• Developing/implementing elementary or
secondary language instruction programs
coordinated with other relevant programs;
[NCLB, Section 3111(b)]
Allowable Uses of Funds for
Title III Subgrants
(continued)
• Improving the English proficiency and
academic achievement of LEP children;
• Providing community participation programs;
and
• Improving LEP instruction through the
acquisition of technology.
[NCLB, Section 3111(b)]
Allowable Uses of Funds
for Immigrant and Youth (IY)
Subgrants
IY funds may be used for:
•
•
•
•
Family literacy and parental outreach;
Support for personnel;
Tutoring or mentoring;
Identification/acquisition of curricular,
materials and technology; and
• Classroom supplies or transportation costs
directly related to program.
[NCLB, Section 3115]
Title III Grant Applications
No Child Left Behind
Application
Applications for 2011-2012 federal funds under the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
 Announced in Superintendent’s Memorandum No.
127-11, released April 29, 2011.
 Deadline: July 1, 2011
 Options: Individual or Consolidated Application
No Child Left Behind
Application
Technical Assistance
Pre-recorded modules include the following topics:
• Application Overview and Mechanics of Data Entry
• Common Elements: Conducting the Needs
Assessment, Completing the Program Overview,
Coordination of Services, Measurable Objectives, and
Budget Pages
• Program Specific Modules including Title III
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/federal_programs/esea/applications/index.shtml
Supplement, Not Supplant
Provision
 Federal funds made available under Title III, Part A,
shall be used so as to supplement the level of federal,
state, and local public funds that, in the absence of
such availability, would have been expended for
programs for limited English proficient children and
immigrant children and youth and in no case to
supplant such federal, state, and local public funds.
[NCLB, Section 3115(g)]
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/5/supplement_guidance_pdf.pdf
Consortium Requirement
 For Title III funds only, school divisions
that receive less than $10,000, must
enter into a consortium to receive
funds. Interested school divisions may
contact the state ESL coordinator.
 For the 2010-2011 school year, a total of
64 divisions make up 12 Title III
consortia.
[NCLB, Section 3114 (b)]
Reminder
 Title III funds for the 2009-2010 school
year must be encumbered by
September 30, 2011.
 Reimbursements must be submitted by
November 15, 2011.
Accountability
Requirements
Notice of Final Interpretations
(Title III Compliance)
The intent of the Notice of Final
Interpretations is to ensure that all states
comply with Title III assessment and
accountability requirements.
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/11/NOI_ppt_summary.pdf
Final Notice of Interpretations
Published in the
Federal Register on October 17, 2008
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-24702.htm
Virginia’s Compliance with the
Final Notice of Interpretations (NOI)
• Virginia has updated its Title III
Accountability Plan to comply with
the NOI.
• Once approved by the U.S. Department of
Education, Virginia’s plan will be posted
to the Virginia English as a Second
Language Web site.
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/esl/index.shtml
Identification of
Limited English Proficient
Students
Identification of
Limited English Proficient
Students
 A home/primary language survey must be
completed as part of the initial identification
of LEP students at the time of enrollment.
 School divisions must assess students who
have been identified with a home language
survey for English language proficiency.
 Based on the results of the assessment, the
students may be placed in a program
designed to improve their English language
proficiency.
30-Day Parent Notification
Letter
 School divisions must inform parents annually regarding
their child’s placement in a language instruction education
program within 30 days after the beginning of the school
year, or
 within two weeks of the child’s placement within a
program.
[NCLB, Section 3302(a) and (c)]
 A checklist and sample letter have been posted to the
VDOE/ESL Web site, which include the eight required
elements under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001:
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/esl/standards_resources/resources/par
ental_notification_checklist.pdf
Determining
English Language Proficiency
Levels
Guidelines for Determining K-12
World-Class Instructional and Design (WIDA)
English Language Proficiency (ELP) Levels
(Instructional Levels)
WIDA® ELP Levels
ACCESS for ELLs® Scores
Level 1
Composite Score of 1.0 through 1.9
Level 2
Composite Score of 2.0 through 2.9
Level 3
Composite Score of 3.0 through 3.9
Level 4
Composite Score of 4.0 through 4.9
Level 5
Composite Score of 5.0 through 6.0
and a Literacy Score less than 5.0
Guidelines for Determining K-12
World-Class Instructional and Design (WIDA®) English
Language Proficiency (ELP) Levels
Formerly LEP (Monitored Levels)
WIDA® ELP Levels
Level 6
Year 1
(Formerly LEP)
ACCESS for ELLs® Scores
For kindergarten students:
Accountability Proficiency Score;
Composite Score of 5.0 or above; and
Literacy Score of 5.0 or above.
For students in Grades 1-12:
Tier C;
Composite Score of 5.0 or above; and
Literacy Score 5.0 or above.
Level 6
Year 2
(Formerly LEP)
*Note: Level 6, Year 1, and Level 6, Year 2,
Formerly LEP students do not take the annual ELP
assessment and are only included in the calculation
for AMAO 3 (Adequate Yearly Progress) for
reading/language arts and mathematics.
For kindergarten students:
Accountability Proficiency Score;
Composite Score of 5.0 or above; and
Literacy Score of 5.0 or above.
For students in Grades 1-12:
Tier C;
Composite Score of 5.0 or above; and
Literacy Score 5.0 or above.
Title III
Formerly Limited English Proficient
Student Monitoring Plan
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
requires that students classified as
FLEP (Level 6, Year 1, and Level 6,
Year 2) be monitored for two full
academic years to ensure that they are
able to participate meaningfully in the
regular educational program.
Sample Parent Notification
Letter and Monitoring
Documents
Sample documents are provided on the ESL
Web site under Standards, Assessment and
Resources; Administrative Resources to include:
 Sample of requirements of Title III Formerly Limited
English Proficient (FLEP) Student Monitoring Plan
 Sample: Parent Notification of Exiting Limited English
Proficient (LEP) Status and Two Year Monitoring Plan
 Samples: Monitoring Documents for FLEP
Students Grades K through 12
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/esl/standards_resources/index.shtml
Student Record Collection
Receiving Services Codes
1 = Identified as LEP and receives ESL services
(Students at ELP Levels 1-5)
2 = Identified as LEP but has refused ESL services
(Students at ELP Levels 1-5)
3 = Identified as formerly LEP for each of the two
years after exiting ESL services
(Students at Level 6 Year 1 and Level 6 Year 2)
*Students reported as Receiving Services Codes 1 or 2 will be reported in the
federal Title III count, which is used to determine Title III allocations.
Title III
Annual Measurable
Achievement Objectives
Accountability Requirements for
Limited English Proficient (LEP)
Students
Title III requires states to ensure:
 annual increases in the number or percentage of
LEP students making progress in learning English
(Annual Measurable Achievement Objective:
AMAO 1);
 annual increases in the number or percentage of
LEP students achieving full proficiency in English
(AMAO 2); and
 annual increases in the percentage of LEP
students meeting the Annual Yearly Progress
(AYP) targets in reading/language arts and
mathematics (AMAO 3).
Title III
Annual Measurable Achievement Objective
Targets and Results
School Year
AMAO 1:
Progress
Target
AMAO 1:
Results
AMAO 2:
Proficiency
Target
AMAO 2:
Results
2003 - 2004
20%
47%
10%
20%
2004 - 2005
25%
74%
15%
31%
2005 - 2006
30%
85%
20%
38%
2006 - 2007
35%
85%
25%
43%
2007 - 2008
40%
74%
30%
67%
2008 - 2009
45%
NA*
35%
78%
2009 - 2010
64%
75%
15%
19%
2010 - 2011
65%**
-
16%**
-
2011 - 2012
66%**
-
17%**
-
2012 - 2013
67%**
-
18%**
-
2013 - 2014
68%**
-
19%**
-
*USED waived the calculation of AMAO 1 for the 2008-2009 school year.
* *Proposed targets; pending approval from the USED.
Annual Measurable Achievement Objective
Targets and Results
School Year
AMAO 3: AYP
Reading
Target
AMAO 3:
Results
AMAO 3: AYP
Mathematics
Target
AMAO 3:
Results
2003 - 2004
61%
65%
59%
76%
2004 - 2005
65%
70%
63%
77%
2005 - 2006
69%
72%
67%
65%
2006 - 2007
73%
67%
71%
70%
2007 - 2008
77%
80%
75%
75%
2008 - 2009
81%
83%
79%
78%
2009 - 2010
81%
83%
79%
81%
2010 - 2011
86%
-
85%
-
2011 - 2012
91%
-
90%
-
2012 - 2013
96%
-
95%
-
2013 - 2014
100%
-
100%
-
Separate Notification Letter
 School divisions must inform parents of the
division’s failure to make progress on the
Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives
within 30 days after such failure occurs.
[Section 3302 (b)]
 A sample separate notification letter has
been posted to the VDOE/ESL Web site:
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/esl/standards_resources/resou
rces/failure_meet_objectives_letter.pdf
State
Annual Measurable Achievement Objective
(AMAOs) Results
(based on Spring 2010 data)
Target
Percent
Achieved
Met
Target
State LEP Progress
AMAO 1
64%
75%
Yes
State LEP Proficiency
AMAO 2
15%
19%
Yes
State LEP AMAO 3
81%
83%
Yes
79%
82%
Yes
(Adequate Yearly Progress)
Reading/language arts
State LEP AMAO 3
(Adequate Yearly Progress)
Mathematics
State
Additional Indicators
for the Limited English Proficient Subgroup
(based on 2009-2010 data)
Target
Percent
Achieved
Met
Target
Science
70%
77%
Yes
History/Social Science
70%
80%
Yes
Writing
81%
83%
Yes
Graduation
80%
56% (*FGI 4 yr.)
63% (FGI 5 yr.)
No
No
*Federal Graduation Indicator
Title III Reports
Division Title III Limited English Proficiency
Reports Available in
Single Sign-On Web Systems (SSWS)
 Limited English Proficient Report – This report displays the
individual school division’s yearly Annual Measurable
Achievement Objective (AMAO) results.
 Title III Achievement Summary Report – This report
displays the individual school division’s historical AMAO
results to include a Yes or No for Title III division
improvement plan status.
 Spring ACCESS for ELLs® Test Results – This report
includes the Spring ACCESS for ELLs® Test Results for
students whose scores were used in AMAO 1 (progress)
and AMAO 2 (proficiency) calculations.
Title III Improvement
Number of Divisions Not Meeting Title III
Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives
AMAO 1
Progress
AMAO 2
Proficiency
AMAO 3
AYP
Reading/
language arts
AMAO 3
AYP
Mathematics
2006-2007
1
19
20
1
2007-2008
0
0
2
10
2008-2009
NA
0
8
7
2009-2010
3
28
24
11
Title III Improvement
Under Section 3122(b)(2) of the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001, an
improvement plan shall be required for
any division that has not met any
Annual Measurable Achievement
Objectives (AMAOs) for two
consecutive years.
Title III Improvement
Under Section 3122(b)(4) of the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001, modification of
the curriculum and method of
instruction shall be required for any
division that has not met its Annual
Measurable Achievement Objectives
(AMAOs) for four consecutive years.
Federal
Program
Monitoring
Federal Program Monitoring
Title I Part A; Title I, Part D;
Title III; and Title X, Part C
• VDOE will be conducting the Federal Program
Monitoring (FPM) visit to 28 divisions for the
2011 - 2012 school year.
• The FPM visit will be conducted through onsite
visits by the Department who will provide
technical assistance before, during, and after
the monitoring.
Federal Program Monitoring
Title I Part A; Title I, Part D;
Title III; and Title X, Part C
• School divisions identified for FPM visits during
the 2011-2012 school year will be notified by
letter.
• The FPM protocol for 2011-2012 monitoring will
be available on the VDOE Web site.
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/federal_programs/esea/federal_monitoring/ind
ex.shtml
Private School Participation
Private School Participation
Title IX, Part E, Uniform Provisions,
Subpart 1—Private Schools
Non-regulatory Guidance, Revised March 2009
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/equitableserguidance.doc
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/federal_programs/esea/title9/index.shtml
Consultation with private school
officials should include:
–
–
–
–
–
how the LEP children’s needs will be identified;
what services will be offered;
how, where, and by whom the services will be offered;
how the services will be assessed;
how the results of the assessment will be used to
improve those areas; and
– the size and scope of services.
(Office of Non-Public Education [ONPE], Private School Participation
in Title III Programs)
Professional
Development
Opportunities
■ Parents as Educational Partners (PEP)
■ What's Different About Teaching Reading
to Students Learning English
■ Virginia-WIDA Institutes
■ TESL 532: Differentiated Instruction for
English Language Learners Across the
Curriculum
■ EDUC 600: Reading and Writing
Strategies for Limited English Proficient
Students
Additional Resources
National Clearinghouse for English
Language Acquisition (NCELA)
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/
World-Class Instructional Design and
Assessment (WIDA®)
www.wida.us
Schools Moving Up
http://www.schoolsmovingup.net/cs/smu/print/htdocs/smu/webinars.htm
U.S. Department of Education
Contacts
• Dr. Rosalinda Barrera - Assistant Deputy
Secretary for the Office of English Language
Acquisition (OELA)
• Supreet Anand - Group Leader for Title III
Consolidated Grants within Student
Achievement and School Accountability
Program (SASA) Office
• Petraine Johnson – Education Program
Specialist assigned to Virginia
Virginia Department of Education
Contacts
Judy Radford
ESL Coordinator
[email protected]
(804) 786-1692
Stacy Freeman (Regions II,IV, VI, and VII)
ESL Specialist
[email protected]
(804) 371-0778
Patience Scott (Regions I, III, V, and VIII)
Education Specialist
[email protected]
(804) 786-9935