Detailed Information on the
English Language Acquisition State Grants Assessment

Complete an additional year of data collection for performance measures of student progress and analyze the performance and progress of LEP students in English language attainment and academic content in preparation for a re-PART in 2009.

Make the information from the results of the three evaluations available through multiple sources.

Develop a technical assistance plan, based on information gained from the three evaluations, to assist States with the implementation of the State Grants program.

Collect baseline data for implementation and efficiency measures and use this information to set ambitious targets for improvements in program management and operational efficiency.

Working through the LEP Partnership, pilot the draft Framework in a limited number of States to support States' efforts to better align standards and assessments for English language learners.

Measure: The percentage of LEAs receiving Title III funding meeting all three AMAOs for limited English proficient students.

Explanation:

Measure: The percentage of limited English proficient students receiving Title III services who are making progress in learning English.

Explanation:

Measure: The percentage of limited English proficient students receiving Title III services who have attained English language proficiency.

Explanation:The 23 reported as actual data for 2005 referred to an earlier version of this measure examining the number of States meeting State targets for Title III-served students achieving English language proficiency. Future targets will be set once baseline data are available for 2006.

Measure: The percentage of limited English proficient students who score proficient or above on State reading assessments.

Explanation:

Measure: The percentage of monitored fomer limited English proficient students (MFLEP) who score proficient or above on State reading assessments.

Explanation:

Measure: The annual cost per limited English proficient student attaining English language proficiency.

Explanation:As soon as baseline data are available, targets will reflect baseline minus 6 percentage points, which represents approximately one additional State resolving compliance issues within 12 months each year.

Measure: The average number of days States receiving Title III funds take to make subgrants to subgrantees.

Explanation:Once baseline data are available, long-term targets will be established. Preliminary targets for 2007 and 2008 reflect an improvement of three days below the baseline.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the Language Acquisition State Grants program is to help ensure that children who are limited English proficient (LEP), including immigrant children and youth, attain English proficiency and meet the same challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards as all children are expected to meet; to support language instruction educational programs for LEP students based on scientifically based research; and to hold State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) accountable for increases in English proficiency and core academic content knowledge of LEP students.

Evidence: ESEA Title III, Section 3102

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: This program addresses the significant gaps in achievement that exist between limited English proficient (LEP) students and their peers. The LEP population in America's schools continues to grow at a brisk pace, leading to a high demand for services to address the language needs of these students. LEP students tend to have a lower graduation rate, have fewer teachers who feel qualified to teach them, and tend to perform at a lower level than non-LEP students on national assessments, such as the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP).

Evidence: Over the past fifteen years, enrollment of limited English proficient (LEP) students has increased at nearly seven times the rate of total school enrollment. According to the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, the size of the LEP student population has increased dramatically, growing from approximately 2 million students in 1990 to more than 4.4 million in 2004-2005. (http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/expert/faq/08leps.html) According to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPR) data from the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 school years, 41.6% of all students, on average, achieved proficiency or higher on measures of math proficiency; by comparison only 15.3% of LEP students attained proficiency or higher. In addition, while 46% of all students were at least proficient in reading/language arts, only 18.7% of LEP students achieved the level of proficient or higher. In addition, LEP students showed lower achievement in both grade 4 and grade 8 reading and math on the NAEP. See NAEP website: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nrc/reading_math_2005/s0015.asp?printver= http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nrc/reading_math_2005/s0030.asp?printver=

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: Title III of NCLB, which authorizes the Language Acquisition State Grant program, is the single Federal program designed to hold State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) accountable for increases in English proficiency and the academic peformance of limited English proficient (LEP) students. Title III sets up a nationwide system for ensuring that language instruction educational programs for (LEP) students relate to the academic standards of a given State. The program requires that all States set standards for English language proficiency (ELP), that the State ELP standards used for LEP students be aligned with the State's content standards, that all LEP students who may be eligible for services are identified and assessed based upon those standards with the aligned ELP assessment, and that LEP students demonstrate annual progress in attaining ELP. The Language Acquisition State Grants program provides funding to SEAs and LEAs to support their efforts to comply with these requirements of Title III. While States and districts may also support programs for LEP students, this program sets up the infrastructure at the Federal and State level to ensure all LEP students are being identified and served. In addition, the authorizing statute contains a supplement not supplant provision so that States may not use Federal funds to replace State funds previously used for this purpose.

Evidence: The number of States with English language proficiency standards that are aligned with State content standards is 48, compared with 2 States in 2001-02 (before the authorization of Title III through NCLB). In addition, 45 States now have an English language proficiency assessment that is aligned with English language proficiency standards, compared to 2 states in 2001-02. All States now have established annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs) for measuring the ELP and academic achievement of LEP students according to the requirements of Title III. Data Source: Annual Consolidated State Performance Report 2003-04, 2004-05 National Assessment of Title I Interim Report to Congress, February 2006. Section 3102 Purposes; Section 3111 Formula Grants to States; Section 3114 Within-State Allocations; Section 3115(g) Supplement, NOT Supplant. http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/title1interimreport/index.htmlAll Students Proficient by 2014: NCLB Accountability 2002-2005- Interim Report of National Longitudinal Study of NCLB (OMB #1875-0227) & Study of State Implementation of NCLB (OMB #1875-0231) Dec. 9, 2005.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The program design effectively promotes the English language acquisition and academic success of LEP students. The program holds States accountable for increasing the English proficiency and academic content knowledge of limited English proficient (LEP) students through the requirement that each State meet the annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs) for LEP students included in Title III programs. Title III also holds State educational agencies (SEAs) and subgrantees accountable for providing scientifically research-based language instruction educational programs for LEP students and makes professional development training for teachers who work with LEP students a part of required grant activities. As the only Federal program that requires a comprehensive approach to ensuring that ELP standards and assessments are aligned with State academic content, Title III establishes a connection between serving the language needs of LEP students and improving their academic performance. No other comprehensive approach with aligned standards and assessments at the State level has been explored in the past, and as a result, Title III is uniquely positioned to successfully improve the skills of this subgroup of students. However, there are changes that should be considered during reauthorization that would help strengthen the program's implementation and accountability. For example, the reauthorization could clarify how States can be held accountability for the Title III annual measurable achievement objectives and could increase consistency in the accountability language in Title I and Title III regarding LEP students and adequate yearly progress (AYP).

Evidence: While Section 6161 states that in determining State adequate yearly progress (AYP), the Secretary will include State's status in meeting the Title III annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs), it does not specify either in Title I or Title III what the accountability provisions are when State fails to meet the Title III AMAOs for LEP students. Section 1111 (b)(2); Section 3122 (b).

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The Language Acquisition State Grants program targets funding to school districts and teachers serving limited English proficient (LEP) students. States are required to use 95% of their allocation to make subgrants based on the number of LEP students in each local educational agency (LEA). LEP students are defined according to the Federal definition of LEP and are identified as LEP through State English language proficiency assessments. States are also required to make subgrants based on the number of immigrant students identified. Further, each subgrant must be of sufficient size and scope to provide meaningful service to immigrant children in schools. Funds are also used to provide professional development specifically designed to improve LEP student performance.

Evidence: Funds from the Language Acquisition State Grants program (Title III) served 94.1% of all LEP students in 2003-04 and 81% in 2004-05. Title III legislation: Section 3114(b)(2) Use of Funds; Section 9101(25) LEP definition; Section 3301(6) Immigrant definition; Section 3114(d)(1) Required reservation; and Section 3115(c) Required Subgrantee activities. CSPR reports from 2003-04 and 2004-05.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The Department has developed two output-based performance measures that reflect the program requirements regarding the development of English language proficiency (ELP) standards; the alignment of ELP assessments with ELP standards; and the aligning of ELP standards with English reading/language arts standards. These measures are designed to track State's progress in implementing Title III of NCLB. The Department has also developed three outcome-based performance measures based on the annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs) included in the accountability requirements of Title III. These performance measures examine (1) the percentage of students receiving Title III services making progress toward English language proficiency, (2) the percentage of students receiving Title III services attaining of English language proficiency, and (3) the number of LEAs receiving Title III services that make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for LEP students. These measures directly relate to the program's stated mission and goal??closing the achievement gap for LEP students by 2014.

Evidence: Consolidated State Performance Report, Biennial Report and Performance Measures tab.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Baselines and targets for the two output-based measures were established in 2004. In 2004, 16 States had developed English language proficiency assessments aligned with their ELP standards and 44 States demonstrated that their English language proficiency standards were aligned with the State academic content standards. The targets for these long-term measures are based on 100% of States implementing these program requirements by 2007. Baselines and targets for the three outcome-based measures drawn from Title III's annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs) will be set in early 2007 once data from the Biennial report and Consolidated State Performance Report are available.

Evidence: Consolidated State Performance Report, Biennial Report and Measures tab.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: This program's five annual performance measures are the same as its long-term measures and are designed to track the implementation of the requirements of Title III and the program's progress towards meeting its long-term goals of increasing the percentage of students who make progress toward and attain ELP and improving the academic achievement of LEP students. These measures directly relate to the program's stated mission and goal of closing the achievement gap for LEP students by 2014.

Evidence: See Measures tab for detailed information regarding performance measures and targets.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Annual performance measures are the same as the program's long-term measures. Annual performance targets are designed to track the program's progress towards meeting its long-term goals and therefore have been set at levels that require continuous improvement. Baselines and targets for the two output-based measures were established in 2004. In 2004, 16 States had developed English language proficiency assessments aligned with their ELP standards and 44 States had developed English language proficiency standards aligned with the State academic content standards. The targets for these annual measures are based on 100% of States implementing the core program elements required by Title III by 2007. Baselines and targets for the three outcome-based measures drawn from Title III's annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs) will be set in early 2007, once Biennial Report data and Consolidated State Performance Report data have been received and analyzed.

Evidence: Consolidated State Performance Report and Biennial Report. Please see Measures tab for additional information about performance measures and targets.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: All partners are committed to working to achieve Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III) program goals. All States submitted applications for Title III funding through the Consolidated State Application (CSA) process and, through assurances in the CSA, committed to working toward annual and long-term program goals. Since 2003-2004, States have annually reported on their progress towards the performance targets through the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR). State subgrantees submit local plans to the State Educational Agency for Title III programs on an annual basis, which contain similar assurances to the State plans of their commitment to achieving the purpose of Title III. In addition, the Language Acquisition State Grants program has specific requirements, annual performance reviews, and monitoring procedures in place to ensure that Title III programs are implemented at the State and local level and that funds to SEAs and to subgrantees are used to meet the purpose and long-term and annual goals of the program.

Evidence: The Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA) works with State Education Agencies (SEAs) to develop policy and program guidelines. OELA provides technical assistance and training to SEAs and, upon request, jointly conducts training for local educational agencies (LEAs). States work with LEAs to develop a unified State plan, and SEAs review and approve local plans annually and monitor their performance. States provide technical assistance and training to LEAs to improve student achievement and hold LEAs accountable in meeting Title III AMAOs. SEAs and LEAs respond to review reports, grant conditions and monitoring findings from the Department and resolve such issues in a timely manner. In submitting local plans, subgrantees must commit to the assurances cited in Section 3115(a). (Title III State Formula Grant Program Monitoring Reports 2004-2006 are available on-line at: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/oela/OELAprograms/1_stateformula.htm). Additional sources: OELA annual Summit and regional meetings with SEAs, OELA offical grant files; SEA subgrantee files.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The Department's Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is coordinating three multi-year studies on the most prevalent instructional approaches for English language learners. The key questions being addressed by these studies include what types of approaches are most effective for K-3 limited English proficient (LEP) students, and what characteristics of teachers and students predict success in an LEP environment. These studies will significantly increase the knowledge base on what works in educating LEP students and will inform States' decisions in adopting curricula. Specifically, the three research-based evaluation studies are investigating language education programs that are commonly used in all 50 States, DC and Puerto Rico. The studies are evaluating the effectiveness of English language immersion, transitional bilingual- maintenance and early exit and dual language immersion programs. The first Biennial Report to Congress in 2005 illustrated that all States use one or a combination of the program approaches being examined by IES. These are independent evaluations and the results from the projects will have a profound impact on effective program and instructional strategies States, districts and schools use to close the achievement gap with English language learners. Study results are expected in FY 2008.

Evidence: Department Multi-Year Evaluation Plan, 2006-2008. The studies include the following: 1. Optimizing Educational Outcomes for English Language Learners (University of Houston); 2. Project ELLA (English Language/Literacy Acquisition) (the Texas A&M Research Foundation); and 3. Effects of Transitional Bilingual Education, Two-Way Bilingual, and Structured English Immersion Programs and the Literacy and Oracy of Spanish-Dominant Children (Johns Hopkins University). The National Assessment of Title I Interim Report to Congress, February 2006 includes sections that are relevant to Title III, including data tables relating to limited English proficient (LEP) students, professional development, and inclusion of LEP students in State assessment systems.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Funding levels for this program can not yet be linked directly to the accomplishment of program goals. However, the budget materials for the program show the full cost of administering the program.

Evidence: Budget summary; Congressional Justification

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The Department has adopted annual and long-term performance measures for this program. Baselines and targets for all annual and long-term measures for this program will be set by 2007 and will reflect data from the 2006 school year. The program collects data for these performance measures in a systematic manner annually and this information is included in the Secretary's Annual Report to Congress under Title I and in the Secretary's Biennial Report to Congress under Title III. The program strengthens its strategic planning efforts through continuous data collection and analysis and performance monitoring at the national, state and local level. Based on data and information collected, the program office tailors its technical assistance and monitoring efforts. As a result, staff are better addressing the goals of the program, such as building State and local capacity and improving student achievement. The program office also has developed and implemented an internal risk management plan to identify States that are risk-sensitive. It has developed strategies to manage and mitigate risk through monitoring, continuous data collection, and analysis. In addition, the program office collaborates with the ED's Management Improvement Team (MIT) regarding risk management. Based on data analysis and external assessment, the office identified the specific deficiencies that prevent the office from reaching its stated mission and goal??closing the achievement gap for LEP students by 2014.

Evidence: The program's strategic plan includes an alignment of office resources to the program's mission, planning for employment succession, and other areas for developing means of mitigating risks, such as unexpended funds.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Although the Department does not yet have performance data for all measures, it is actively collecting this information and has established ambitious targets for full implementation of Title III. The Department collects data on State grantee performance on a regular basis through multiple means, including the Consolidated State Annual Performance Report (CSPR), State Biennial Reports (BR), and annual State responses to grant award conditions. The Department also conducts semi-annual desk-monitoring on program implementation and quarterly desk top monitoring on fiscal risk management and on-site monitoring (on-going on a 3-year cycle). Information from these resources is used to develop technical assistance and policy guidance, to direct the focus of on-site monitoring, and to inform the program's risk management plan. Based on these monitoring efforts, the Department establishes objectives and goals for grantees with timelines for resolution. The data collected is also used to clearly identify where technical assistance is most needed, to target critical areas of concern, and to improve performance for both program management and partner performance. In addition, information and data collected is used for policy-making on LEP related issues and for issuing annual grant conditions, enforcing accountability measures, planning for on-site monitoring and providing technical assistance to States to solve performance issues. Student achievement data is used for Title III accountability for subgrantees and for States.

Evidence: The Consolidated State Annual Performance Reports contains data on limited English proficient (LEP) students, English language proficiency (ELP) assessment data, academic achievement data, immigrant student data and basic information on State and subgrantee performance. State Biennial Reports (BR) include information on language instruction educational programs for LEP students, achievement data for Title III LEP students on ELP and LEP subgroup data on adequate yearly progress (AYP), information on monitored former LEP students, subgrantee performance and State accountability, programs and activities for immigrant students, teacher information and professional development activities, and State level activities and technical assistance to subgrantees. Summary of Consolidated State Performance Report: Parts I and II Items related to LEP Students SY 2003-04 NCELA (http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/nclbrpts.html) CSPR 2003-04, 2004-05 Biennial Report 2002-04 http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/reports/eiep02/eiepfull.pdf ED staff review reports on all submissions EDEN/EDFacts ED staff monitoring documentation. OELA State Formula Grant Division Monitoring Plan; Attachments - Grant Conditions.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Federal managers are held accountable by the Department through semi-annual reviews of staff performance against their work assignment through the Education Performance Appraisal System (EDPAS), which ties employee appraisal to the accomplishment of agreed-upon annual goals that are clearly tied to strategic Department goals. Specifically, Federal managers are held accountable for timely processing of grant funds, managing the State Formula Grant programs, providing timely technical assistance to assigned States, monitoring State draw-down and conducting planned on-site monitoring, including conducting coordinated site-visits to high risk States identified by OELA and ED Risk Management Team. The Department holds States accountable for meeting the annual performance objectives for limited English proficient (LEP) students, for implementing State-level activities, and for ensuring that subgrantees are conducting their required activities according to their plans approved by the State. Based on performance, States may receive grant conditions that they must address for continued funding. These conditions are identified with a resolution timeline. ED holds State administrative funds if the State is not in compliance with Federal program requirements.

Evidence: The Department monitors program implementation at the State level and, through the State, at the subgrantee level by planning and conducting monitoring with a very detailed, in-depth monitoring tool. Twenty-three states have been monitored on-site since April 2005. Site visit reports documenting monitoring findings have been issued to the states. States have submitted action plans and timelines for addressing the monitoring findings. Program staff is continuously monitoring the progress of states to resolve findings from monitoring. Additionally, desk monitoring of all states is conducted twice a year in April- May and October-November. The program also monitors the number of States that carry grant conditions due to unresolved issues each year as part of program performance measures. On average, 13 States are monitored onsite each year. In 2004-2005, the Department monitored 15 states. 41 states had grant conditions in 2002-03, 9 states in 2003-04, and 22 states in 2004-05. The number with findings through onsite monitoring per state ranges from 0-8 number of findings for resolution. The number of States for which administrative funds were withheld each year: 3 States for 2003-04; and funds disbursement was delayed to 1 State in 2005-06 due to unresolved grant conditions. [Sources: EDPAS performance agreements for different levels of OELA staff; State grant progress, monitoring and reporting; Grant Award Notification attachments (Attachment T) indicating conditions placed upon the grantee by the program office; Title III State Formula Grant Program Monitoring Reports 2004-2006; revised CSPR format 06-07; revised Biennial Report for 2004-06; and EDEN data. For copies of monitoring reports go to: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/oela/OELAprograms/1_stateformula.htm

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: Several times a year, program staff reviews the financial information in the Grant Administration and Payment System (GAPS). The Department uses GAPS to track the financial activities of a grant from initial obligation of funds by ED, draw down of funds by grantee, and final settlement of grant. In addition, GAPS maintains demographic information on the grantees. There have been no substantive audit findings in this area. In addition, on-site monitoring is used to track the use of funds, and grant conditions are attached to awards where monitoring visits have resulted in findings. All States are monitored at least once every three years.

Evidence: OELA annual fiscal reports, risk notices attached to grant awards, and GAPS records.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The Department has developed two efficiency measures for this program: (1) the number of months it takes States that have participated in a Title III on-site monitoring review to resolve Title III compliance issues identified during the review, and (2) the number of months it takes States to make Title III subgrants to subgrantees. Baseline data for both of these measures are expected later in 2006. Based on the data collcetd for these two new efficiency measures, program staff will target technical assistance activities to those states having difficulty resolving outstanding audit issues and that are not awarding funds to subgrantees in a timely manner. Staff will also identify states that are effectively addressing the measures and share strategies with States that are struggling to meet the established measures. The Department has also undertaken steps to improve the quality of data submissions for this program and to streamline the processes and timeline of multiple submissions by reviewing data collection and reporting for the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) and the Biennial Evaluation Report. Further, the data collection will be fully integrated into the the Department's Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN) and EDFacts initiative. This initiative is a collaborative effort among the Department, SEAs, and industry partners to improve the quality and timeliness of education information. The project will provide timely performance data to education decision-makers and grant managers, streamline the data collection process, and reduce the burden of grant reporting.

Evidence: Consolidated State Performance Report, Biennial Evaluation Report, interagency EDEN data review and revision process and Measures tab.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA) collaborates and coordinates with program offices within the Department, other agencies, and non-profits organizations with related missions and focus on a wide range of issues. For example, OELA's collaborated with the Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE) on the development of the High School Reform Initiative; as part of this initiative, OELA worked with State governance teams at seven National High School Summits to ensure that the statewide plans being developed addressed the needs of limited English proficient (LEP) students at the high school level. OELA staff also worked with staff from the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) on joint policy documents and technical assistance to the field in the area of assessment; this collaboration resulted in the inclusion of LEP students with disabilities in state adequate yearly progress (AYP) data. OELA and Office of Elementary and Secondary Education staff also coordinate to ensure that Title I and Title III funds and staff at the State level are used efficiently and effectively to address the needs of LEP students. Outisde of the Department OELA worked with the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development on a symposium on Bilingualism, Special Education, and LEP issues. Staff worked with participants to identify cognitive challenges to LEP students and to develop appropriate assessments. In addition, OELA worked with the National Institute for Literacy and the Head Start program to identify strategies and methods to develop language and literacy skills in early childhood programs so that States and localities could use these interventions in their programs. Finally, coordination with the Institute of Education Sciences on a national research agenda has refined assessments, accommodations, instructional strategies, and program focus for acquisition of the English language and high academic achievement for LEP students. These refinements have a direct impact on the population served.

Evidence: Other examples of collaboration include presentations by Title I at the Title III National Summit and by Title III at Title I National directors meetings and Title I National Summit; OELA participation in 3 symposia on Native American students and academic achievement-culture and language. Title I policy paper on flexibility on LEP students 2003-04. Title III Semi-annual SEA directors' meetings and annual summit agendas. Number of States visited with Risk Management Team. CSPR/BER online coordination of data elements to eliminate duplication in data collection and reporting. EDEN data system development process and timeline, OELA participation, working documents.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Currently, the program has no outstanding financial audit issues. Grant spending is tracked in the Department's grant administration and payment system through the running of monthly disbursement reports. Program Officers follow-up with grantees as necessary. Grantees' fiscal management is also regularly reviewed through quarterly desk monitoring and on-site monitoring. Since October 2004, the program has aligned staff based on expertise to the appropriate job and function and aligned the budget and fiscal resources including the one large contract for the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition to support and achieve OELA's vision and mission. Budget allocations are aligned with criteria established by OELA to address risk factors and management deficiencies.

Evidence: Policy letters to States are available at: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/oela/OELAprograms/1_stateformula.htm Returned funds from States are shown in the OELA annual internal financial report.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: OELA has developed and executed a business plan for the program office. The plan specifically addresses performance agreements for the managers that are aligned with the Department's and OELA's strategic plan. The evaluation process and performance measures for staff are aligned with the function of their division and the work performance of each division director. These agreements and plans are specifically targeted to address the management deficiencies in OELA. They address areas of weakness, reward achievement, and provide additional professional development and technical training where needed. A consultant was hired to facilitate an on-going process with each division director to identify areas of weakness in work processes and management style and to correct the deficiencies by established timelines. On the State and local level, the Department examines how well State and local plans are being implemented through on-site and desk monitoring. The State response time to issues identified during monitoring also has been incorporated into the performance measures as an efficiency measure, which demonstrates that the Department is committed to reducing the time necessary for States to resolve problems identified through monitoring.

Evidence: OELA Business Plan 05-06; Monitoring reports.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: The English Language Acquisition State Grants program has oversight practices to ensure that the program is well implemented and that funds to State educational agencies (SEAs) and to subgrantees are used appropriately. The program collects and analyzes information from a variety of sources to remain updated on multiple aspects of grantee compliance with Title III, the program's authorizing statute, from fiscal management to program implementation. The Office of English Language Acquisition conducts annual reviews of State and local plans for Title III programs and makes amendments to improve identified areas of concerns and performance issues. OELA also monitors program implementation and grant performance on a set schedule and based on risk management indicators. In response to issues identified through monitoring, conditions may be placed on a grant award or the grantee may be placed on the risk management watch list. As necessary, special conditions may also be placed on State grant awards prior to the Department awarding funds. These special conditions are included as Attachment T in the grant award document. Staff monitor grantees for compliance with the special conditions contained within Attachment T. OELA monitors States on a 3-year cycle. States with grant conditions are the priority for on-site monitoring each year. Information gathered from monitoring is shared among OELA staff to ensure similar issues are handled consistently across States. In addition to sharing information on areas of concern, any identified promising practices are shared among staff and with stakeholders. Subgrantees' plans are reviewed and monitored by the SEA for implementation, compliance and performance. Through the review process, all States were found to have plans for monitoring subgrantee activities.

Evidence: States annually report on their progress towards the performance targets through the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR). Subgrantees submit local plans to the SEA on an annual basis. OELA maintains information on grantee activities through other submissions such as plan amendments, the Title III State Biennial Evaluation Report, desk monitoring and on-site monitoring, ongoing communication by program specialists with assigned States, and technical assistance activities. OELA also collects data on State activities through semi-annual SEA Title III directors' meetings and surveys on an as-needed basis. As a result of staff monitoring, 31 States will have an Attachment T as part of their FY 2006 grant award document; including high-risk grantees such as the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the District of Columbia. [Sources: CSPR data, Biennial Evaluation Report, Monitoring plan and monitoring reports, SEA Directors meeting notes, Listserv survey questions, and OELA/SEA web-based discussion groups, and video/teleconferences with SEAs.]

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: The Secretary's Annual Report to Congress on Title III programs is available on the ED, NCELA and OELA websites. The report provides data on student achievement and State performance by State. The Secretary's Biennial Report to Congress is posted on the ED, NCELA and OELA websites. Each report provides a summary of State biennial evaluation reports on the effectiveness of Title III programs and information on the implementation of Title III programs. Each State also publishes such information on their websites. EDEN / EDFacts will allow for extensive online information access for all interested parties, States, local schools, researchers and general public. Also, upon completion of Office of the General Counsel review, on-site monitoring reports are available to on-line.

Evidence: The Biennial Evaluation Report to Congress on the Implementation of the State Formula Grant Program, 2002-2004 (USDE, March 15, 2005) can be viewed at: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/oela/OELAprograms/1_stateformula.htm Program Performance Plans, PPMD data and targets are available at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/index.html?src=pn Monitoring reports are available at the following site: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/oela/OELAprograms/1_stateformula.htm Summary Report for 2003-04 CSPR Section 1.6 is being finalized and will be posted on OELA and NCELA website.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: For the three outcome-based performance measures which look at student achievement and thus directly reflect the goals of the program, the Department either will establish a baseline using data from the 2006 school year. Once baselines are set, the Department will set targets for these long-term measures. For the two output-based performance measures, the long-term performance targets are (1) 100% of States will demonstrate the alignment of English language proficiency assessments with English language proficiency standards and (2) 100% of States will demonstrate their English language proficiency standards are aligned to academic content standards in reading/English language arts by 2007.

Evidence: 2004-2005 CSPR; See also data in Performance Measures section.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Annual performance measures are directly related to the program's long-term measures. For the three outcome-based performance measures which look at student achievement and thus directly reflect the goals of the program, the Department will establish a baseline using data from the 2006 school year. Once baselines are set, the Department will set future targets for these annual measures.

Evidence: Consolidated State Performance Reports, Biennial Evaluation Reports.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: OELA also now handles a larger "portfolio of assets" with a smaller staff. Under the antecedent statute, Title VII 1,502 programs served a limited number of students in 2001-2002. Under the Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A) program, States served 3.6 million limited English proficient (LEP) students (94% of the total LEP student population) through 4,071 subgrantees in 2003-04 in 46 States, and served more than 3.3 million LEP students (82% of the LEP population) through 5,345 subgrants in 2004-05 in 48 States that reported LEP data by the deadline of the CSPR report. The Department will establish baselines for the two efficiency measures in 2007 using data from the 2006 school year.

Evidence: Biennial Evaluation Report to Congress on the Implementation of the State Formula Grant Program, 2002-2004, Consolidated State Performance Reports.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: Prior to the 2001 reauthorization of NCLB, Federal funding for LEP students was provided through a competitive grant program, Title VII, as well as through sporadic programs at the State and local level that arose out of regional need. However, there is no comprehensive performance data or evidence from evaluations that would enable a comparison between the current formula-based Language Acquisition State Grants program to the the antecedent competitive Title VII grant program or to any State and local programs.

Evidence: Evidence demonstrates that all 52 States have fulfilled the requirements of Section 3113(b)(2) to develop integrated systems of English language proficiency standards, aligned assessments, and accountability. States' progress in establishing State English language proficiency standards under NCLB is remarkable when compared with States' efforts to establish State academic content standards under the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA). 50 States have established English language proficiency standards in 2 years. State Biennial Evaluation Reports, and the Consolidated State Annual Performance Report.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: No independent evaluations of the program have been completed to date. However, the Department's Institute for Education Sciences expects to complete three separate evaluations examining various aspects of the program by 2008.

Evidence: