Department of Education

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations language .........................................................................................................G-1

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes.......................................................................G-2

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers ..............................................................................G-3

Summary of Changes .............................................................................................................G-4

Authorizing Legislation............................................................................................................G-5

Appropriations History.............................................................................................................G-6

Activity:

Language acquisition State grants......................................................................................G-7

State table*

*State tables reflecting 2015 allocations and 2016 and 2017 estimates are posted on the Department’s Web page at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Appropriation s langu ag e

[Appropriations language

For carrying out part A of title III of the ESEA, [$737,400,000] $800,400,000, which shall 

become available on July 1, [2016]2017, and shall remain available through September 30, 

[2017]2018,

1 except that 6.5 percent of such amount shall be available on October 1, 

[2015]2016, and shall remain available through September 30, [2017]2018, to carry out 

activities under section 3111(c)(1)(C):2 [Provided, That the Secretary shall use estimates of the 

American Community Survey child counts for the most recent 3-year period available to 

calculate allocations under such part.]

3 Provided, That the Secretary may use $10,000,000 of 

funds available under section 3111(c)(1)(C) to award grants on a competitive basis to local 

educational agencies and local partnerships with other government or non-profit entities to 

develop effective multi-generational approaches to improve academic and career outcomes for 

English learners and their families and for the robust evaluation of such activities carried out 

under such section:

4 Provided further, That recipients of such grants shall secure matching 

contributions of at least 25 percent, in funds or in-kind, from State, local, and/or private 

sources.5 (Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2016)

NOTE

Each language provision that is followed by a footnote reference is explained in the Analysis of Language 

Provisions and Changes document, which follows the appropriation language.

G-1
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1

 ...which shall become available on July 1, 

[2016]2017, and shall remain available 

through September 30, [2017]2018,

This language provides for a portion of the 

funds for English Language Acquisition State 

Grants to be appropriated on a forward-funded 

basis. The forward-funded portion includes 

the amount of funds that are distributed to the 

States under the State grants formula and the 

Native American discretionary grants.

2

...except that 6.5 percent of such amount 

shall be available on October 1, [2015]2016, 

and shall remain available through September 

30, [2017]2018, to carry out activities under 

section 3111(c)(1)(C):

This language provides for 6.5 percent of the 

funds for the English Language Acquisition 

State Grants to be appropriated on a 2-year 

basis. The 6.5 percent represents funds that 

are used for national activities (National 

Professional Development grants and National 

Clearinghouse for English Language 

Acquisition) under section 3111(c)(1)(C).

3

[... the Secretary shall use estimates of the 

American Community Survey child counts for 

the most recent 3-year period available to 

calculate allocations under such part.]

In fiscal year 2017, the Administration would 

use the statutory authority in Title III, Part A to 

use a combination of data sources, including 

child counts from the American Community 

Survey, to calculate the State allocations. 

4

... the Secretary may use $10,000,000 of 

funds available under section 3111(c)(1)(C) to 

award grants on a competitive basis to local 

educational agencies and local partnerships 

with other government or non-profit entities to 

develop effective multi-generational 

approaches to improve academic and career 

outcomes for English learners and their 

families and for the robust evaluation of such 

activities carried out under such section:

This language provides for a portion of the 

funds set aside for national activities to 

support local multi-generational strategies to 

improve outcomes for English learner students 

and their families on a competitive basis. In 

addition, the Department would use a portion 

of these funds to rigorously evaluate the 

effectiveness of funded strategies.

5

... recipients of such grants shall secure 

matching contributions of at least 25 percent, 

in funds or in-kind, from State, local, and/or 

private sources.

This language establishes a program 

requirement that grantees secure matching 

funds of at least 25 percent of the Federal 

award to support grant activities and ensure 

sustainability.

G-2
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2015 2016 2017

Discretionary:

Discretionar y Appropriation........................................................... $737,400 $737,400 $800,400

G-3
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2016.................................................................................................. $737,400

2017................................................................................................. 800,400

Net change ................................................................ +63,000

Increases: 2016 base

Change 

from base

Program:

Increase to provide for a more robust National Professional 

Development competition and to provide additional support to 

States as they help the significant number of English Learners in 

U.S. schools attain English language proficiency. $737,400 +$63,000

Subtotal, increases +63,000

G-4
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity 2016 

Authorized

Footnote 2016 

Estimate

2017 

Authorized

2017

Request

Language acquisition State grants

Career and Technical: State grants (ESEA-III-A) 0

1

$737,400 $756,332 $800,400

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is authorized in fiscal year 2016 through appropriations language.

G-5

G-5
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote Appropriation Footnote

2008 $670,819 $774,614 $670,819 $700,395

2009 730,000 730,0001 730,0001 730,000

2010 730,000 760,000 750,0002 750,000

2011 800,000 750,0003 800,0002 733,3504

2012 750,000 733,5315 733,5305 732,144

2013 732,144 732,1446 732,1446 693,848

2014 732,144 N/A7 730,6802 723,400

2015 732,400 N/A7 723,4008 737,400

2016 773,400 737,4009712,0219737,400

2017 800,400

1 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2009 appropriations bill, 

which proceeded in the 110th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 2 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only. 3 The level for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year Continuing Resolution. 4 The level for the appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations 

Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10). 5 The level for the House allowance reflects an introduced bill; the level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate 

Committee action only. 6 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2013 appropriations bill, 

which proceeded in the 112th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 7 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action. 8 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate SubCommittee action only. 9

 The levels for House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2016 appropriations bill, 

which proceeded in the 114th Congress only through the House Committee and Senate Committee.

 

G-6
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

Acti vity

Activit y:

Language acquisition State grants

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title III, Part A)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: $756,332

Budget Authority:

2016 2017 Change

$737,400 $800,400 +$63,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Funding for Language Acquisition State Grants, which are authorized by Title III, Part A of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), supports formula grants to States to serve 

English Learners (ELs) as well as competitive awards for a variety of national activities.

The Department uses 92.5 percent of program funds to make formula grants to States based on 

each State’s share of the Nation’s EL and recent immigrant student populations, with 80 percent 

of allocations based on State shares of ELs and 20 percent based on State shares of recent 

immigrant students. The Department may use American Community Survey (ACS) data 

provided by the Census Bureau, State-provided data, or data from a combination of these 

two sources, to determine the counts of both EL and immigrant students. In recent years, the 

Department has been using 3-year estimates of State shares of EL students derived from ACS 

data while seeking authority from Congress (through appropriations language) to implement the 

recommendations of a 2011 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study that it use a 

combination of ACS data and State-reported data to determine each State’s EL count and 

continue using ACS data for the State count of immigrant students. The reauthorization of the 

ESEA by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 provided authority to implement the 

NAS recommendations, and in fiscal year 2017 the Department would assign a weight of 

10 percent to State-reported data and 90 percent to ACS data on EL counts. In fiscal 

year 2018, the Department anticipates increasing the weighting of State-reported EL counts to 

20 percent, depending on its estimation of the quality of those data at that time. Also consistent 

with the NAS recommendations, the Department would continue to use ACS data to determine 

the State counts of immigrant students for the allocations. 

States must use at least 95 percent of their formula funds for subgrants to eligible entities, (local 

educational agencies (LEAs) or consortia of LEAs), based primarily on each subgrantee’s share 

of the State’s ELs and a plan submitted by the subgrantee to the State on how it will assist ELs 

in achieving English language proficiency (ELP) based on the State’s assessment and 

consistent with the State’s long-term goals as part of the State’s accountability system 

(Title I, Part A, Section 1111). States must provide additional funding to subgrantees that have 

experienced a significant increase in the percentage or number of recent immigrant students 

over the preceding 2 years, and may use up to 15 percent of their awards for this purpose. 

G-7
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

States may also use up to 5 percent of their allocations for State-level activities, such as 

professional development, planning, and evaluation, as well as the provision of technical 

assistance. State-level planning and direct administrative costs may not exceed 

50 percent of the State set-aside, or $175,000, whichever is greater.

LEAs receiving subgrants must provide effective language instruction educational programs to

improve the education of ELs and immigrant youth by helping them to learn English and meet 

the same challenging college- and career-ready academic standards as other students. LEAs 

must use funds to: develop and implement new language and academic content programs for 

ELs and immigrant students; carry out innovative and locally designed activities that improve or 

expand existing programs for ELs and immigrant students; or implement school- or LEA-wide 

transformations that would restructure, reform, and upgrade language and academic content 

programs. Further, LEAs must: demonstrate their success in increasing ELP and academic 

achievement for ELs and immigrant students; provide effective professional development to 

educators that is designed to improve instruction and assessment for ELs; provide and 

implement other effective strategies to support language instruction of ELs; engage parents and 

families; and coordinate, where appropriate, with other programs that are aligned with the LEA’s 

efforts to improve the education of ELs and immigrant students. LEAs awarded funds based on 

a substantial increase in the number of immigrant children and youth must use funds for

activities that provide enhanced instructional opportunities, which may include parent training, 

tutorials, mentoring, and career counseling. 

States must develop, in meaningful consultation with geographically-diverse LEAs, statewide 

entrance and exit procedures for EL status, including an assurance that students who may be 

ELs be assessed within 30 days of enrolling in school. States must also ensure that their 

subgrantees annually assess the English proficiency of the ELs they serve. 

Some accountability provisions related to ELP, which were previously located in Title III in past 

law, have been revised and moved to Title I, Part A under ESSA. Despite this change, States 

receiving Title III funds must design plans that incorporate accountability provisions described in 

Title I, Part A. Specifically, States must set long-term, ambitious goals and timelines for 

students to become proficient in English and measure student progress toward these goals 

annually based on interim indicators as part of their State accountability system required by 

Title I, Part A. Under Title III, States must assist LEAs in meeting the State’s long-term goals 

and interim targets, monitor progress, and respond appropriately if an LEA’s strategy proves 

ineffective in helping ELs make progress and achieve content and language proficiency.

The Department must reserve 0.5 percent of the appropriation, or $5.0 million, whichever is 

greater, for schools operated predominately for Native American and Alaska Native children. 

Under this set-aside, the Department makes competitive awards to tribes, schools funded by the 

Department of the Interior/Bureau of Indian Education, and other qualifying entities. The 

Department must also set aside 0.5 percent of the appropriation for the Outlying Areas.

The statute further requires the Department to reserve 6.5 percent of the appropriation for the 

National Professional Development project (NPDP) and the National Clearinghouse for English 

Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs (NCELA). Under the 

G-8
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

NPDP, the Department makes 5-year awards to institutions of higher education or public or 

private entities with relevant experience and capacity (in partnership with State or local 

educational agencies) to provide professional development that will improve instruction for ELs, 

increase the pool of certified or licensed teachers prepared to serve ELs, and enhance the skills 

of teachers already serving them. In fiscal year 2016, the Department will give priority to NPDP 

applicants that propose strategies that are evidence-based, and also will encourage applicants 

to rigorously evaluate their activities. NCELA collects, analyzes, synthesizes, and disseminates 

research-based information about instructional methods, strategies, and programs for ELs. 

Under the Title III program statute that was in effect through fiscal year 2016, the Department 

may use up to 0.5 percent of the appropriation for evaluation activities. Beginning in fiscal

year 2017, the Department has the same authority under section 8601 of the ESEA, as 

amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015.

In 2015, the Consolidated Appropriations Act provided $14 million to States that have 

experienced a recent and significant increase in the numbers of immigrant children served by 

school districts, resulting in part from the arrival of unaccompanied children placed in local 

communities in 2014 by the Department of Health and Human Service’s Office of Refugee 

Resettlement (ORR). Using ORR data on placements beginning January 1, 2014, the 

Department awarded these supplemental funds in early calendar year 2015 to States with at 

least one county where 50 or more unaccompanied children were placed with sponsors while 

their immigration cases are processed. 

State formula grants and Native American grants are forward-funded, with funds becoming 

available on July 1 of the fiscal year in which they are appropriated and remain available for 

15 months through September 30 of the following year. National activities funds are available 

for 24 months, from October 1 of the fiscal year in which they are appropriated through 

September 30 of the following fiscal year.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were as follows:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012..........................................................................$732,144

2013............................................................................693,848

2014............................................................................723,400

2015............................................................................737,400

2016............................................................................737,400

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2017, the Administration requests $800.4 million for English Language 

Acquisition (ELA) grants, $63 million over the fiscal year 2016 appropriation. The Request 

includes appropriations language that would override the authorization level for this program. 

The proposed increase would address the growing demands on States and school districts, 

including those States and school districts that have experienced rapid growth in their EL 

G-9
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

populations, to help the significant number of ELs in U.S. schools attain ELP and meet

challenging State-determined college- and career-ready academic standards. 

Despite patterns of growth, significant achievement gaps remain between ELs and their peers. 

For example, the high school graduation rate in the 2013–14 school year was 62.6 percent for 

ELs, compared to 82 percent for all students. In the 2013–2014 school year, ELs graduated 

high school at lower rates than every other reported subgroup, a pattern that has continued over 

the past several years. ELs have consistently had markedly lower scores than non-ELs on the 

National Assessment of Education Progress in reading and math in the 4th and 8th grades. For 

example, in 2015 14 percent of ELs scored proficient or better in 4th grade math, compared to 

43 percent of non-ELs. In 8th grade mathematics, 6 percent of ELs scored proficient or better, 

compared to 35 percent of non-ELs. In 4th and 8th grade reading, the gap between ELs and 

non-ELs is even larger. In general, scores in math and reading for ELs were unchanged from 

2013 to 2015. State data paint a similar picture. 

Furthermore, the Census Bureau’s ACS data in recent years have highlighted the growing 

numbers of school-aged ELs in States and school districts with little experience in serving such 

students previously. ACS data from 2013 show that California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and 

Texas enroll 60 percent of the Nation’s ELs (excluding Puerto Rico), but the growth rate in the 

EL student population in other States has exceeded that of these five. For example, ACS data 

show that from 2010 to 20131

, the EL population increased by 21 percent in West Virginia, 

13 percent in Hawaii and North Dakota, and 12 percent in Iowa. In contrast, during that same 

timeframe, the EL population in California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas changed 

by -18 percent, -8 percent, -15 percent, -1 percent, and -5 percent respectively. Since those 

States with the greatest growth over that 3-year period are not the traditional immigrant gateway 

States, they often lack the infrastructure and service capacity compared to States with a longer 

history of high EL and immigrant student enrollment. 

In addition, some States have experienced large increases in this population over a very short 

period of time. Alaska, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Dakota, 

Iowa, Maine, and Nebraska all experienced more than a 16-percent increase in their immigrant 

population during the 2010 to 2013 timeframe. These demographic trends—the overall 

increase in ELs over the past three decades (from less than 1 million in 1980 to over 4.2 million 

in 2013), the rapid recent growth of the EL and immigrant populations in States lacking an 

infrastructure for serving them—underscore an ongoing need for Federal support, particularly in 

preparing educators to meet the unique and diverse needs of ELs and to generate information 

on effective instructional practices to ensure that ELs have access to a high quality education.

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School (NAM) Grants

The $5 million set aside for NAM Grants under the 2017 Request would support an estimated 

25 continuation awards for grants to schools operated predominantly for Native American and 

Alaska Native children. The 2011 cohort of these grants received their final awards in 2015, 

1 ACS data are estimates from a 3-year period (2008, 2009, and 2010, and 2011, 2012, and 2013, respectively). 

G-10

 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

and the Department plans to hold a competition for new 5-year awards for NAM Grants in 2016.

The Department is in the process of redesigning the competition for 2016 with a revised set of 

priorities, selection criteria, and performance measures intended to strengthen the 

implementation and outcomes of these projects. In accordance with its recently released tribal 

consultation policy, the Department recently consulted with tribal leaders to discuss ways to 

improve the program. Fiscal year 2017 funds would support continuation awards for the 2013 

and 2016 cohorts.

National Activities

The Department believes that increasing the supply of teachers with the training and experience 

to serve ELs effectively is key to improving classroom instruction for ELs, helping them to 

achieve ELP, and enabling them to reach high academic standards. Yet many States have 

reported to the Department consistent shortages in their supply of teachers for ELs (including 

bilingual teachers, English as a Second Language teachers, or teachers of English as a new 

language). In some cases SEAs and LEAs have had such serious shortages that they must

partner with countries other than the U.S. to bring in teachers to serve ELs. For example, the 

State of Delaware has entered into Memoranda of Understanding with Spain and China to 

support its EL instruction programs. Accordingly for fiscal year 2017, the Department would use 

$40 million for NPDP and $2 million for NCELA to help States and school districts meet these 

challenges. In addition, the Department would use $10 million to pilot an initiative that would 

support multi-generational learning as a strategy for improving academic and career outcomes 

for ELs and immigrant students as well as improved parent/family engagement.

Besides growing and improving the supply of teachers of ELs, there is a great need for State 

and district capacity-building for meeting the needs of ELs, especially for the States and districts 

with rapidly emerging communities of ELs and immigrant children and youth. In 2017, the 

Department intends to respond to this demand by evaluating the particular needs of these 

communities, the characteristics of the EL populations therein (such as students with interrupted 

formal education), and the current academic outcomes of ELs. Utilizing these data, the 

Department intends to provide targeted technical assistance and support to these States or 

districts in order to improve services and promote greater academic achievement and long-term 

success for ELs. This effort will include dissemination of evidence-based practices for serving 

ELs and evaluation of the extent to which technical assistance positively impacts EL 

achievement in these particular communities.

Of the $40 million proposed for NPDP grants, the Department would use $22.8 million to make 

an estimated 40 continuation awards to fiscal year 2016 grantees and the remaining 

$17.2 million to either hold a new competition or fund further down the 2016 slate for an 

estimated 32 additional new grants. These new grants will help grow teacher capacity to serve 

ELs and improve their academic outcomes. The Department redesigned the 2016 competition 

to strengthen NPDP projects by, for example, giving competitive preference to teacher 

preparation or professional development projects that will (1) improve academic outcomes for 

ELs using strategies supported by moderate evidence of effectiveness and (2) strengthen 

parent, family, and community engagement in the education of their children. The Department 

also revised the performance measures for the program to collect more meaningful data from 

G-11
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

grantees on the effectiveness of their projects. Finally, the Department encouraged applicants 

to design rigorous evaluations for their projects in order to grow the evidence base about 

effective professional development practices for teachers of ELs.

In addition, the Department would use $10 million to pilot an initiative that would support multigenerational approaches to dramatically improve the educational attainment, language 

proficiency, and economic well-being of children, youth, and adults who are ELs. The 

$10 million requested for this pilot would support 2–3 competitive grants to LEAs and local 

partnerships and a robust evaluation to determine the impact of multi-generational approaches 

on educational and employment outcomes. In 2013, 17.4 million children under age 18 lived 

with at least one immigrant parent—25 percent of the total 69.9 million children in the United 

States. More than two million of those children were themselves immigrants and were born 

outside of the United States to foreign-born parents. While 83 percent of children of immigrants 

are English proficient, nearly half of all children of immigrants have no English proficient parent. 

Data suggest that the educational attainment and employment conditions of immigrant parents 

have tangible implications, as higher proficiency in English among immigrant parents is 

associated with greater academic and economic success of their children. Studies have shown 

that immigrants who are proficient in English earn more than those who are ELs. Depending on 

location, immigrant workers proficient in English earn from 17 percent to 135 percent more than 

workers who are ELs.

1

 Researchers have posited that two-generation approaches can more 

effectively impact low-income children’s lives by simultaneously targeting the child and the 

child’s home environment. When parental stress is reduced through adult services like 

workforce development and continuing education opportunities, roadblocks to child 

development are removed, interventions have a more sustained impact, and resilience is 

promoted.

2

 While existing Federal programs, such as the Department’s adult education 

programs and the Department of Health and Human Services’ Head Start program, address 

some of these challenges and allow grantees to implement strategies that support multiple 

generations, grantees in these programs typically focus on meeting the needs of their primary 

populations. This request would allow the Department to provide funding to support 

communities that implement specifically multi-generational approaches to improve academic 

and life outcomes for ELs of all ages.

1 Ross, Tracey. “The Case for a Two-Generation Approach for Educating English Language Learners”. Center 

for American Progress, May 6 2015. Accessed August 24, 2015. 2 Chase-Lansdale, P. Lindsay and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. “Two‐Generation Programs in the Twenty‐First 

Century”. The Future of Children: Vol. 24 / No. 1, Spring 2014.

G-12
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

As such, the Department would award 2–3 grants competitively to LEAs and local partnerships 

with community/faith-based organizations, institutes of higher education, libraries, business, and 

industry, as appropriate, to develop effective multi-generational approaches to improve 

academic outcomes for ELs and their families and combat poverty. Grantees would be required 

to secure a matching contribution of at least 25 percent in funds or in-kind, from State, local, 

and/or private sources. Grantees would be required to serve at least two generations within a 

family. The Department would also fund a robust evaluation of the pilot to learn the effects of 

multi-generational approaches on educational and employment outcomes.

Evaluation Set-Aside (Section 8601)

In fiscal year 2017, the Department would use up to 0.5 percent of the total request for 

Title III, Part A funds to support ongoing evaluation activities (described below) and provide 

technical assistance to NPDP grantees that carry out rigorous evaluations of their projects.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Total Appropriation $737,400 $737,400 $800,400

State formula grants

Language acquisition State grants $670,469 $684,469 $739,372

Number of States 56 56 56

Supplemental immigrant State grants 14,000 0 0

Number of States 35 0 0

NAM Grants

Grant award funds(new) 0 $4,182 0

Grant award funds (continuations) $5,000 798 $5,000

Peer review of new award applications 0 20 0

Total 5,000 5,000 5,000

Number of new awards 0 12 0

Number of continuation awards 25 15 25

National Activities

NPDP grant funds (new) $1,401 $22,807 $17,219

NPDP grant funds (continuation) 41,340 19,822 22,807

Peer review of new award applications 0 50 0

Clearinghouse 1,503 1,565 2,000

Multi-generational learners pilot 0 0 10,000

G-13
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Evaluation (see below) 3,687 3,687 ____0

Total $47,931 $47,931 $52,026

Number of NPDP Grant awards (new) 0 40 32

Number of NPDP grant awards 

(continuations) 114 72 40

Evaluation Set-aside (Section 8601) 0 0 $4,002

NOTE: The ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, authorizes the Department to pool funds reserved for evaluation 

under section 8601, including Title III funds, and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. The 

Department may pool Title III funds in fiscal year 2017.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in 

FY 2017 and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program. 

State Grant Program

States report their data for the Language Acquisition State grants program annually through the 

ESEA Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPRs). Over the years the Department has 

worked to respond to States’ questions about the data collection requirements as well as to 

clear up data discrepancies. Note that flexibility within the previous law permitted States to 

define “making progress” and “attaining proficiency” differently, even when they used the same 

assessments. All of these factors affect the targets set for the measures below. In 2013, all 

52 entities, including DC and Puerto Rico, reported data for all performance measures. The 

Department may revise the performance measures that will be used for this program for new 

grants made in fiscal year 2017 and future years in response to the changes made by the 

ESSA.

Goal: To help English Learners learn English and reach high academic standards.

Objective: To improve the English proficiency and academic achievement of students served 

by the Language Acquisition State Grants program. 

G-14
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

Measure: The percentage of ELs receiving Title III services who are making progress in 

learning English.

Year Target Actual

2012 65% 54%

2013 65 49

2014 65 50

2015 65

2016 65

2017 65

Additional information: The percentage is calculated by taking the total number of students 

who are making progress in learning English, according to the State’s ELP assessment, and 

dividing that number by the number of students tested who have two data points. Students 

without two data points are not included in this measure. All 52 entities, including 50 States, 

Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, reported data for the 2013–2014 school year.

Measure: The percentage of ELs receiving Title III services who have attained ELP.

Year Target Actual

2012 35% 27%

2013 35 28

2014 35 25

2015 35

2016 35

2017 35

Additional information: Students who are counted in the denominator for this measure 

include students who are new to this country and have had very little exposure to English. The 

percentage is calculated by dividing the total number of students who attain ELP, according to 

the State’s ELP assessment, and dividing that number by the number of students tested. All 

52 entities, including 50 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, reported data for the 

2013–2014 school year.

Measure: The percentage of ELs who score proficient or above on State reading assessments.

Year Target Actual

2012 36% 38%

2013 38 36

2014 38 37

2015 38

2016 38

2017 38

Additional information: States are required to report data on the performance of the EL 

subgroup on State reading/language arts assessments for both Title I and Title III of the ESEA. 

The percentage is calculated by dividing the number of ELs that scored proficient or above on 

G-15
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

State reading assessments by the number of ELs tested. Fifty-one entities, including 49 States, 

Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, reported data for the 2013–2014 school year. 

One State (Kansas) was not able to report assessment data in the 2013–2014 school year due 

to cybersecurity issues. 

Measure: The percentage of monitored former ELs who score proficient or above on State 

reading assessments.

Year Target Actual

2012 66% 72%

2013 66 67

2014 66 64

2015 66

2016 66

2017 66

Additional information: Under past law, a monitored former EL is a student who was identified 

as limited English proficient or EL in the prior two years but who no longer meets the State’s 

definition of limited English proficient or EL. Note that under ESSA, a monitored former EL is a 

student who was identified as limited English proficient or EL in the prior four years but who no 

longer meets the State’s definition of limited English proficient or EL. Because these 

performance data are calculated based on the definition of the term under past law, the 

Department uses that term when discussing this metric. The success of States on this 

measure may be an indicator of the improved quality of language instruction educational 

programs. Fifty entities, including 48 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, reported 

data for the 2013–2014 school year. One State (Kansas) was not able to report assessment 

data in the 2013–2014 school year due to cybersecurity issues and another (California) was not 

able to report assessment data because of its participation in the Smarter Balanced field test.

ELA Grant Program Efficiency Measures

The Department has developed two efficiency measures for this program. These measures 

address the Department’s emphasis on the timely and effective use of Federal funds. 

G-16
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

Measure: The number of States receiving Title III funds that took 45 days or less to make 

subgrants to subgrantees.

Year Target Actual

2014 28 34

2015 28

2016 28

2017 30

Measure: The number of States that spend 99 percent or more of their Title III subgrant funds 

on services to EL students within 27 months of their grant award.

Year Target Actual

2014 45 47

2015 45

2016 46

2017 47

Additional information: This measure was introduced in 2014 after Departmental review of 

the preceding performance measure (the annual cost per EL attaining ELP). This measure is 

based on the Department’s review and empirical data and was approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget in August 2014.

NPDP Grant Program

The Department established the following measures for the 2011 and 2013 cohorts of the NPDP 

Grants. The data and targets shown are for the two cohorts combined. Accordingly, for 2012, 

the data and targets pertain only to the 2011 cohort; and for 2016, they pertain only to the 

2013 cohort.

Measure: The percentage of preservice program graduates who are certified, licensed, or 

endorsed in English language acquisition instruction.

Year Target Actual

2012 72.1% 38.1%

2013 72.1 63.4

2014 55.5 54.7

2015 65.5 60.3

2016 75.5

2017 75.5

Additional information: In calculating this measure, the denominator consists of preservice 

graduates who received training during the project year; the numerator is the number of these 

participants who actually became certified, licensed, or endorsed in English language 

acquisition instruction during the project year, as a result of the training provided. Sixty-five 

grantees reported data for the 2013–2014 academic year. Of the 734 preservice graduates who 

are certified, licensed, or endorsed in English language acquisition instruction (out of 1,217 total 

G-17
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

graduates), 250 are from the 2011 cohort of NPDP grantees and 484 are from the 2012 cohort.

Measure: The percentage of preservice program graduates who are placed in instructional 

settings serving EL students within one year of graduation.

Year Target Actual

2012 84.1% 0.0%

2013 84.1 71.0

2014 72.0 55.9

2015 52.0 37.2

2016 62.0

2017 62.0

Additional information: In calculating this measure, the denominator consists of preservice 

graduates who received training during the previous project year; the numerator is the number 

of these who were placed in instructional settings serving EL students. No data were available 

for this metric in 2012 because a new cohort of grantees had just begun their projects the 

preceding fiscal year. Forty-seven grantees reported data for the 2013–2014 academic year. 

Of the 430 graduates who were placed in instructional settings serving EL students (out of 1,157 

total graduates), 211 are from the 2011 cohort of NPDP grantees and 219 are from the 2012 

cohort.

Measure: The percentage of preservice program graduates who are providing instructional 

services to EL students 3 years after graduation.

Year Target Actual

2015 Baseline year 65.1%

2016 70.0

2017 70.0

Additional information: In calculating this measure, the denominator consists of the number 

of preservice program graduates from 3 years prior to the reporting year; the numerator is the 

number of these graduates who are providing instructional services to EL students. 

Twelve grantees reported data for the 2013–2014 project year. Of the 162 graduates who are 

providing instructional services to ELs 3 years after graduation (out of 249 total graduates), 

146 were from the 2011 cohort of NPDP grantees and 16 were from the 2012 cohort.

G-18
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

Measure: The percentage of paraprofessional program completers who meet State 

qualifications for paraprofessionals working with EL students.

Year Target Actual

2012 100% 100.0%

2013 100 63.6

2014 100 86.8

2015 100 14.5

2016 100

2017 100

Additional information: In calculating this measure, the denominator consists of the number 

of paraprofessional program completers at the end of the project year; the numerator is the 

number of those who met State qualifications for paraprofessionals working with LEP students. 

Twelve grantees reported data for the 2013–2014 academic year. Of the 45 completers who 

met State qualifications (out of 311 total completers), 5 were from the 2011 cohort of NPDP 

grantees and 40 were from the 2012 cohort. In 2012, many paraprofessional program 

completers started work in States that do not offer State qualifications for paraprofessionals 

working with EL students, contributing to the low percentage reported in 2015. 

Measure: The percentage of in-service teacher program completers who complete certification, 

licensure or endorsement requirements in EL instruction. 

Year Target Actual

2012 56.8% 19.8%

2013 56.8 71.1

2014 70.0 79.4

2015 75.0 72.3

2016 80.0

2017 80.0

Additional information: In calculating this measure, the denominator is the number of inservice teacher completers during the project year in service programs designed to lead to State 

and/or local certification, endorsement, or licensure. The numerator is the number of those who 

completed certification, licensure, or endorsement requirements. Seventy-two grantees 

reported data for the 2013–2014 academic year. Of the 1,188 completers who are certified, 

licensed, or endorsed in EL instruction (out of 1,643 total completers), 332 are from the 

2011 cohort of NPDP grantees and 856 are from the 2012 cohort.

G-19
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

Measure: The percentage of in-service teacher completers who are providing instructional 

services to EL students.

Year Target Actual

2013 88.0% 81.0%

2014 80.0 89.7

2015 85.0 95.6

2016 90.0

2017 90.0

Additional information: In calculating this measure, the denominator is the number of inservice completers during the project year who served in-service (but not preservice) teachers 

in programs both designed, and not designed, to lead to State and/or local certification, 

licensure, or endorsement in EL instruction. The numerator is the number of these completers 

who actually provided instructional services to EL students during the project year. 

Sixty-two grantees reported data for the 2013–2014 academic year. Of the 

5,641 in-service teacher completers who are providing instruction services to ELs (out of 

5,898 total completers), 2,026 are from the 2011 cohort of NPDP grantees and 3,615 are from 

the 2012 cohort.

In addition, the Department has established 6 new measures for the 2016 cohort of NPDP 

grantees: 

• The number and percentage of program participants who complete the preservice program. 

• The number and percentage of program participants who complete the inservice program. 

• The number and percentage of program completers, as defined by the applicant under the 

measures 1 and 2, who are State certified, licensed, or endorsed in EL instruction.

• The percentage of program completers who rate the program as effective in preparing them 

to serve EL students.

• The percentage of school leaders, other educators, and employers of program completers 

who rate the program as effective in preparing their teachers, or other educators, to serve 

ELs or improve their abilities to serve ELs effectively.

• For projects that will focus on improving parent, family, and community engagement, the 

percentage of program completers who rated the program as effective, as defined by the 

grantees, in increasing their knowledge and skills related to parent, family, and community 

engagement.

Native American Grants Program

The Department established the following three performance measures for the 2011 and 

2013 cohorts of the Native American Grants. Data are not provided because only about a 

G-20
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

quarter (26 percent) of grantees reported data on these measures. The Department is working 

with grantees to improve the data reporting response rate.

• The percentage of EL students served by the Native American and Alaska Native Children 

in School Program who score proficient or above on the state reading assessment.

• The percentage of EL students served by the Native American and Alaska Native Children 

in School Program who are making progress in English as measured by the State ELP

assessment.

• The percentage of EL students served by the Native American and Alaska Native Children 

in School Program who are attaining proficiency in English as measured by the State ELP

assessment.

Other Performance-Related Information

Previous law provided a set-aside for evaluation activities equal to 0.5 percent of the total 

appropriation for this program. In fiscal year 2017, the Department will continue to support 

evaluation activities for Title III programs using a similar evaluation authority in Section 8601 of 

the ESEA as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015. However, section 8601 

permits the pooling of funds reserved for evaluation from ESEA programs and the use of pooled 

funds to evaluate any ESEA program; the newly authorized applicability of this pooling authority 

to Title III programs may result in reduced support for Title III evaluation and related activities in 

fiscal year 2017 and future years. Current and recently completed Title III evaluation activities 

include the following studies, which are supported by funds from previous fiscal years:

• Updating the EL Practice Guide. The Department used fiscal year 2009 funds to update the 

2007 EL practice guide to reflect advances in the field over the past 5 years. The updated

guide, “Teaching Academic Content and Literacy to English Learners in Elementary and 

Middle School,” was published in April 2014 and may be accessed at 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=19. In fiscal year 2016, NPDP 

applicants are encouraged to review this practice guide when designing their proposed 

projects.

• A Study of School Turnaround. The Department is conducting case studies for an in-depth 

examination of the school turnaround process in a diverse sample of schools receiving Title 

I School Improvement Grants (SIG) over 3 years. The studies will describe the schools’ 

context, the decisions and strategies the schools and their school districts undertake (and 

why), and the challenges they face as they attempt to improve school performance. 

Fiscal year 2009 Title III funds supported the inclusion of data collections focused on 

schools with high EL populations. Descriptive analyses of State SIG applications and SIGeligible and SIG-awarded schools are available for the first and second cohorts of SIG 

grantees (fiscal year 2010 and 2011 competitions) at 

http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NCEE20114019 and 

http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NCEE20124060. Reports on findings for 

the case-study SIG schools, which will include two evaluation briefs focused on SIG schools 

G-21
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

with a high proportion of ELs, are being released in phases. The first brief was released in 

April 2014 and can be accessed at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144014/. The second brief 

was released in November 2014 and can be accessed at 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154004/. Key findings related to ELs are summarized at these 

two sites. In addition, in May 2014, the Department released the first full report on the Study 

of School Turnaround: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144015/. This report showed that the 

schools for which respondents described improvements in the greatest number of areas had 

higher levels of principal strategic leadership (referring to the ability of principals to formulate 

a strategy for school improvement and translate that strategy into concrete priorities and 

specific actions) and were more likely to have experienced a disruption from past practices 

(defined as visible changes on at least four of eight indicators relating to school operation); 

however, for most of the schools, respondents did not perceive their SIG grant as the 

primary impetus for the change strategies that had been adopted. In addition, the report 

found that three improvement actions noted by respondents in the greatest number of 

schools were expanding professional development activities, replacing the principal, and 

increasing learning time.

• An Evaluation of State and Local Implementation of Title III Standards, Assessments, and 

Accountability Systems. This study was intended to provide an in-depth picture of the 

implementation of provisions under previous law relating to the education of ELs. The 

study drew upon data collected during the 2009–10 school year through telephone 

interviews with all State Title III directors, a survey of a nationally representative sample of

1,528 Title III subgrantees, case studies of a purposive sample of 12 districts nested within

five States, and student-level assessment data in a small number of States and districts. 

The study was supported with funding from fiscal years 2008–2011. The study’s main

report on “State and Local Implementation,” as well as two supplemental reports on

“Exploring Approaches to Setting English Language Proficiency Performance Criteria and 

Monitoring EL Progress” and “A Survey of States’ English Language Proficiency

Standards,” was released in 2012. In addition, in 2010 the Department released three 

policy briefs prepared under this study: “Title III Policy: State of the States,” “Title III

Accountability: Behind the Numbers,” and “Title III Accountability and District Improvement

Efforts: A Closer Look.” These reports and policy briefs served as resources for the 

Administration, Congress, and other key stakeholders to inform the development of Title III 

reauthorization proposals. An additional report, “English Learner Student Achievement in

Four Jurisdictions," is in progress and is examining student-level assessment data for

cohorts of ELs, former ELs, and non-ELs that were followed over a period of at least

3 years; this report is expected to be released in early 2016.

• A Study of the Implementation and Impact Evaluation of the Race to the Top (RTT) and

School Improvement Grants (SIG) programs. Fiscal year 2011 Title III funds supported an

increased focus in this study on how the implementation and impacts of the programs by

States, districts, and schools are related to EL students’ needs and outcomes. For instance, 

the evaluation is examining the extent to which States have adopted common academic

standards; the changes in practice that have been instituted statewide and at the local level 

to implement these new standards, including the extent to which supports have been 

provided for ELs; the strategies and practices being used to support schools in transitioning 

G-22
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

to new standards; and the lessons to be learned from the transition. Two reports on

findings, which will include ELs, are expected to be released in phases later in 2016.

• An Exploratory Study on Identifying English Learners with Disabilities. This study paid for 

with fiscal year 2010 funds is examining issues regarding the identification of ELs for special 

education services, based on a review of previous research as well as case studies in 

six school districts. The report will discuss: (1) procedures, practices, and instruments used

to assess and identify ELs with disabilities and how these differ from those used with nonELs; (2) roles and qualifications of school and district personnel involved in the assessment

and identification of ELs with disabilities; and (3) procedures and practices used to exit ELs 

with disabilities from language instruction education programs. The literature review was 

completed in February 2012 and is being used by Department staff for internal purposes. 

The final report is expected in early 2016. 

• Recommendations to the U.S. Department of Education Related to the Peer Review of State 

Implementation of the Title III Assessment and Accountability Provisions of ESEA. Under 

the ESEA prior to enactment of the ESSA, States were required to have in place ELP 

assessments that demonstrate technical quality for their intended use and to use appropriate

measures for determining the progress and attainment of English by Title III-served students. 

Currently, there are no tools available to evaluate the technical quality of State ELP 

assessments. Using fiscal year 2012 funds, the Department awarded a contract in

September 2013, to evaluate State and local implementation of Title III assessment and

accountability systems and to produce a technical guide, checklist, a literature review, and a 

crosswalk document that will assist State educational agencies and other stakeholders to

prepare ELP assessment materials for peer review. The documents are expected in 

early 2016.

• A Study of Teacher Preparation Experiences and Early Teacher Effectiveness. The 

Department awarded a contract in late fiscal year 2011 for a study of teacher preparation 

experiences and their relationship to student achievement outcomes. The study explores 

whether the instructional skills that teacher candidates learn about and have opportunities to 

practice in their teacher preparation programs are associated with teachers’ effectiveness 

during their early years in the classroom. The study will include a focus on English Learners 

and the preparation experiences of their teachers. Fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 

funds support this study, which will issue a report in late 2017.

In fiscal year 2015 the Department launched an impact evaluation of interventions aimed at 

improving student understanding and use of academic language (defined as the language 

used in textbooks, in classrooms, and on tests) in order to improve the effectiveness of local 

programs supported through Titles I and III. This evaluation will be supported jointly with 

Title III evaluation funds from fiscal years 2014, 2015, and 2016 and other ESEA evaluation 

funding. 

Title III evaluation funds will also support several additional studies beginning in late 2015,

including:

G-23
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

• A descriptive study to examine how Native American program grantees (1) address the

instructional needs of students and communities and develop student proficiency in both 

English and (optionally) native languages; (2) plan, implement, and evaluate their respective 

projects; (3) coordinate and prioritize the use of Native American funds in relation to other 

Federal, State and local resources; and (4) use data and evidence to inform program 

implementation and meet Department reporting requirements. Findings will be used to

inform the technical assistance provided to grantees and the next round of grant making for

the program.

• A descriptive study to examine how LEAs are using digital learning resources to support the 

English language acquisition and academic achievement of ELs in K–12 education, with a 

focus on digital learning resources that may be considered “apps” for enhancing instruction 

for EL students, including computer software, online programs, websites, mobile 

applications, and mobile computing devices. The study will culminate in a final report that 

presents findings from the study, as well as two short field-focused toolkits or guides for 

educators and technology developers that present key information from the study in a 

manner that will be accessible and useful for those audiences.

• An Exploratory Study on the Identification of English Learners in Gifted and Talented 

Programs. The Department partnered with the National Center for Research on Gifted 

Education to expand on the study to address identification issues for all underserved 

students including English Learners. Fiscal year 2014 funds support this study and the 

report will be issued in early 2017.

Finally, the Department continues to explore possible additional topics to address the 

needs of ELs and educators of ELs. Such topics under consideration for support in 

fiscal year 2016 include:

• Exiting English Learners with Disabilities (EL/SWDs) from Language Instruction Educational 

Programs (LIEPs). The Department may conduct a survey of existing State policies on how 

and when to exit English Learners with disabilities, and recommendations for developing 

assessment policies and guidelines for participation, accommodations, reporting, and 

accountability that include all students.

• Quality Early Learning Online Toolkit for Parents. This proposed toolkit would be intended 

to serve as a national public one-stop-shop website to find information on high-quality early 

learning programs. It would consist of a resource-rich website and accompanying mobile 

application developed through a collaborative effort between ED and HHS. The Office of 

English Language Acquisition (OELA) is collaborating with Office of Early Learning (OEL) on 

translating portions of the information to make it accessible to parents of English Learners 

who may also be English Learners themselves, and to ensure that the content is relevant to 

the parents and families of ELs. The Department would begin with a Spanish translation 

(considering it is the language primarily spoken by ELs nationally) but may consider other 

languages in the future.

G-24
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

• English Learners in Preschool. Early childhood education can play an essential role in 

preparing young ELs for later success in school, which has been demonstrated by recent 

research. To learn more about how ELs are served in early childhood education programs, 

the Department may conduct a case study of a small number of districts to examine the 

characteristics of preschool programs that address the needs of ELs.

G-25
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

State table

G-26