Department of Education

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations Language ........................................................................................................G-1

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

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

Authorizing Legislation............................................................................................................G-4

Appropriations History.............................................................................................................G-5

Activity: ...................................................................................................................................G-6

English language acquisition ..............................................................................................G-6

State Table *

*State tables reflecting final 2017 allocations and 2018 and 2019 estimates are posted on the Department’s webpage 

at: https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-1

Appropriation s Langu age

[Appropriations Language

For carrying out part A of title III of the ESEA, $737,400,000, which shall become available 

on July 1, 2019, and shall remain available through September 30, 2020,

1 except that 

6.5 percent of such amount shall be available on October 1, 2018, and shall remain available 

through September 30, 2020, to carry out activities under section 3111(c)(1)(C).

2

NOTES

A full-year 2018 appropriation was not enacted at the time the 2019 budget was prepared; therefore, the budget 

assumes this account is operating under the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 (Division D of P.L. 115-56).

The amounts included for 2018 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution.

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

Provisions and Changes document, which follows the appropriations language.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-2

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1

...which shall become available on July 1, 

2019, and shall remain available through 

September 30, 2020,

This language provides for a portion of the 

funds for English Language Acquisition to be 

available 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, 2018, and 

shall remain available through September 30, 

2020, to carry out activities under section 

3111(c)(1)(C):

This language provides for 6.5 percent of the 

funds for English Language Acquisition to be 

available for 2 years. The 6.5 percent 

represents funds that are used for national 

activities (National Professional Development 

grants and National Clearinghouse for English 

Language Acquisition).
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-3

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2017

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Discretionary:

Discretionar y Appropriation ........................................................ $737,400 0 $737,400

Discretionar y Annualized CR (P.L. 115-56)................................ 0 $732,392 0

Discretionar y Total, discretionary appropriation.................... 737,400 732,392 737,400
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-4

G-4

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2018

Authorized

2018

Annualized CR

2019

Authorized

2019

Request

English language acquisition

Language Acquisi tion:State grants (ESEA-III-A) $769,568 $732,392 $784,960 $737,400
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-5

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote Appropriation Footnote

2010 $730,000 $760,000 $750,0001 $750,000

2011 800,000 750,0002 800,0001 733,3503

2012 750,000 733,5314 733,5304 732,144

2013 732,144 732,1445 732,1445 693,848

2014 732,144 N/A6 730,6801 723,400

2015 732,400 N/A6 723,4007 737,400

2016 773,400 737,4008 712,0218 737,400

2017 800,400 737,4009 712,0219 737,4009

2018 735,998 737,40010 737,40010 732,39210

2019 737,400

 

1 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only. 2 The level for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year Continuing Resolution. 3 The level for the appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2011 (P.L. 112-10). 4 The level for the House allowance reflects an introduced bill; the level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate 

Committee action only. 5 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2013 appropriations bill, which 

proceeded the 112th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 6 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action. 7 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate Subcommittee action only. 8 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. 9 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect Committee action on the regular annual 2017 

appropriations bill; the Appropriation reflects the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017.

10 The levels for the House reflect floor action on an Omnibus appropriation bill; Senate allowances reflect Committee 

action on the regular annual 2018 appropriations bill; the Appropriation reflects the annualized Continuing 

Resolution level.
Activit y:

English language acquisition

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: $784,960

Budget Authority:

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$732,392 $737,400 +5,008

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The English Language Acquisition program supports formula grants to States to serve English 

learners (ELs) as well as competitive awards for the National Professional Development Project 

(NPDP) and funding for the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA).

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 fiscal year 2018, the 

Department plans to assign a weight of 20 percent to State-reported data and 80 percent to 

ACS data on EL counts. In fiscal year 2019, the Department would increase to 25 percent the 

weight of State-reported EL counts, per the recommendation from a 2011 National Academy of 

Sciences (NAS) study that the Department eventually weight ACS and State-reported EL counts 

at 75 and 25 percent, respectively, based on NAS’s expectation that State-level data collection 

and reporting procedures continue to improve. Consistent with the NAS recommendations, the 

Department would continue to use ACS data only 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) consistent with the State’s long-term goals as 

part of its 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. States may also use up to 5 percent of their allocations for 

State-level activities, such as professional development, planning, evaluation, and 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

(LIEPs) to improve the education of ELs and immigrant youth by helping them to learn English 

and meet the same challenging State academic standards as other students. LEAs must use 

funds to: develop and implement new language and academic content programs for ELs and 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-7

immigrant students; carry out innovative, locally designed activities that improve or expand 

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

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.

States receiving Title III funds must also 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 systems

required by Title I, Part A. 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, under the Native American 

and Alaska Native Children in Schools program (NAM), to tribes, schools funded by the Bureau 

of Indian Education, and other qualifying entities to support the teaching, learning, and studying 

of Native American languages while also increasing the English language proficiency of 

participating students. 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 

NPDP and NCELA. Under the 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 SEAs or LEAs) 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. NCELA collects, analyzes, 

synthesizes, and disseminates research-based information about instructional methods, 

strategies, and programs for ELs.

State formula grants and NAM grants are forward-funded, with funds becoming available on 

July 1 of the fiscal year in which they are appropriated and remaining 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.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-8

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

2017............................................................................737,400

2018............................................................................732,392

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $737.4 million for fiscal year 2019 for English Language 

Acquisition, an increase of $5 million, to restore funding to the fiscal year 2017 level. Sustaining 

a robust investment in English language acquisition grants would maintain Federal support for 

State and local efforts to help the significant number of ELs in U.S. schools attain ELP and meet 

challenging, State-determined college- and career-ready academic standards, while also 

assisting States and LEAs that have experienced rapid growth in their EL populations.

Significant achievement gaps remain between ELs and their peers. ELs have consistently had 

markedly lower scores than non-ELs on the National Assessment of Educational Progress 

(NAEP) in reading and math in the fourth and eighth grades. For example, in 2015, only 

14 percent of ELs scored proficient or better (a score of 250 or above) in fourth grade math, 

compared to 43 percent of non-ELs. In eighth grade mathematics, just 6 percent of ELs scored 

proficient or better (a score of 300 or above), compared to 35 percent of non-ELs. In fourth and 

eighth 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.

A closer look at NAEP scores within the EL subgroup highlights the challenges faced by States, 

LEAs, and schools in helping to ensure that all ELs meet the same academic standards as other 

students. In fourth grade math, for example, the mean score for ELs was 218 (compared to 243 

for non-ELs) but large variations become apparent when disaggregating the EL subgroup by 

race/ethnicity. The gap between Asian and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander EL students, for 

example, is over 30 points. Similar trends run through the disaggregated results for fourth grade 

reading as well as eight grade math and reading results. Further information is included in the 

following tables.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-9

2015 NAEP Results—Fourth Grade Mathematics

Disaggregated EL Subgroup Average Scale Score

(proficient at 250)

Percentage of EL population 

tested

White 228 1%

Black 212 3

Hispanic 216 34

Asian 235 19

American Indian/Alaska Native 210 11

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 203 10

Two or more races 229 2

Full EL subgroup 218

2015 NAEP Results—Fourth Grade Reading

Disaggregated EL Subgroup Average Scale Score

(proficient at 240)

Percentage of EL population 

tested

White 205 1%

Black 187 2

Hispanic 186 33

Asian 208 19

American Indian/Alaska Native 176 11

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 178 13

Two or more races 191 1

Full EL subgroup 189

2015 NAEP Results—Eighth Grade Mathematics

Disaggregated EL Subgroup Average Scale Score

(proficient at 300)

Percentage of EL population 

tested

White 254 1%

Black 234 2

Hispanic 243 19

Asian 269 12

American Indian/Alaska Native 237 7

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 232 7

Two or more races NAEP reporting standards not met 1

Full EL subgroup 246

2015 NAEP Results—Eighth Grade Reading

Disaggregated EL Subgroup Average Scale Score

(proficient at 280)

Percentage of EL population 

tested

White 234 1%

Black 222 2

Hispanic 221 19

Asian 236 11

American Indian/Alaska Native 219 7

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 215 10

Two or more races NAEP reporting standards not met 1

Full EL subgroup 223

To continue to address the nuanced needs of the EL population, it is integral that the 

Department maintain its investment in Title III, Part A grants.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-10

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. California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas continue to 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, from 2015 to 2016,

1 the 

EL population increased by 12 percent in the District of Columbia, 6 percent in Idaho, and 9 

percent in Wyoming. In contrast, during that same timeframe, the EL population decreased by 

3 percent in California, 1 percent in Florida, and 7 percent in Illinois, 1 percent in New York, and 

1 percent in Texas. Since the States with the greatest recent growth in the EL population 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 their immigrant population; for 

example, Connecticut, Maine, Nebraska, North Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin experienced 

an increase of more than 10 percent in their immigrant student population from 2015 to 2016—

Maine in particular experienced an increase of 25 percent. Overall, the immigrant student 

population grew by 5 percent across the Nation. These trends 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.

NAM Grants

The $5 million set aside for NAM Grants would support approximately 18 continuation awards 

for grants to schools operated predominantly for Native American and Alaska Native children. 

These grants support the development of proficiency in English and Native American languages 

for these children while also promoting mastery of the same challenging State academic content 

and achievement standards for all students. The Department made 10 awards in the 2016

competition and expects to make eight new NAM awards in the 2018 competition.

National Activities

The 2019 Request would support 92 continuation awards for NPDP grants. The Department 

awarded 49 new NPDP grants in 2016 and 43 new NPDP grants in 2017. Fiscal year 2019

funds would support continuation awards for both cohorts of awards. In addition, the 

Department would use up to $2 million for NCELA to analyze and disseminate information on 

best practices for teachers of ELs.

Evaluation

In 2019, the Department would use up to 0.5 percent of the request for Title III, Part A funds to 

support ongoing evaluation activities. 

 1 ACS data for 2015 and 2016 are estimates from a 5-year period, meaning that the 2015 data include information 

from 2011-2015 and the 2016 data include information from 2012-2016.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-11

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

State formula grants

 English language acquisition State grants $684,469 $676,363 $681,022

 Number of States 56 56 56

NAM Grants

 Grant award funds (new) 0 $1,945 0

 Grant award funds (continuations) $5,000 3,005 $5,000

 Peer review of new award applications 0 50 0

NAM Gr ants Total $5,000 $5,000 $5,000

 Number of new awards 0 8 0

 Number of continuation awards 22 10 18

National Activities

 NPDP grant funds (new) $22,059 0 0

 NPDP grant funds (continuation) 24,302 $45,367 $45,691

 Clearinghouse 1,570 2,000 2,000

National Acti viti es Total 47,691 47,367 $47,691

 Number of NPDP Grant awards (new) 43 0 0

 Number of NPDP grant awards 

(continuations) 49 92 92

Pooled Evaluation 0 $3,662 $3,687

NOTE: The Department is authorized to reserve up to 0.5 percent of funds appropriated for most ESEA programs,

including Title III, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. The Department did not reserve 

funds for this purpose from Title III grants in fiscal year 2017 but expects to do so in fiscal years 2018 and 2019.

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 fiscal 

year 2019 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-12

State Grant Program

States report their data for the English 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. The 

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

grants in response to the changes made to the ESEA by the Every Student Succeeds 

Act (ESSA).

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

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

by the English Language Acquisition State Grants program.

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

learning English.

Year Target Actual

2014 65% 50%

2015 65 47

2016 65 43

2017 65

2018 65

2019 65

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

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

Year Target Actual

2014 35% 25%

2015 35 24

2016 35 25

2017 35

2018 35

2019 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 receiving Title III services who 

attain ELP, according to the State’s ELP assessment, and dividing that number by the number 

of students tested. 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-13

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

Year Target Actual

2014 38% 37%

2015 38 24

2016 38 29

2017 38

2018 38

2019 38

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

subgroup on State reading/language arts assessments. The percentage is calculated by 

dividing the number of ELs that scored proficient or above on State reading assessments by the 

number of ELs tested. Changes in assessments in many States are the likely reason for the 

drop in performance from 2014 to 2015.

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

reading assessments.

Year Target Actual

2014 66% 64%

2015 66 49

2016 66 57

2017 66

2018 66

2019 66

Additional information: Prior to reauthorization by the ESSA, a monitored former EL was a 

student who was identified as limited English proficient or EL in the prior 2 years but who no 

longer met the State’s definition of limited English proficient or EL. Under the ESSA, a 

monitored former EL is a student who was identified as limited English proficient or EL in the 

prior 4 years but who no longer meets the State’s definition of limited English proficient or EL.

The most recent year for which performance data are available is school year 2015-2016, prior 

to States’ shift to ESSA, so the Department uses the former definition of “monitored former EL” 

when discussing this metric. Changes in assessments in many States are the likely reason for

the drop in performance from 2014 to 2015.

State 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.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-14

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 38

2016 28 39

2017 30

2018 32

2019 32

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 50

2016 46 47

2017 47

2018 47

2019 47

NPDP Grant Program

The Department established the following measures for NPDP Grants.

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

endorsed in English language acquisition instruction.

Year Target Actual

2014 55.5% 54.7%

2015 65.5 60.3

2016 75.5 77.5

2017 75.5

2018 75.5

2019 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.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-15

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

settings serving EL students within one year of graduation.

Year Target Actual

2014 72% 55.9%

2015 52 37.2

2016 62 55.3

2017 62

2018 62

2019 62

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. Fluctuation in 

performance from year to year is due in part to the aggregation of performance data across 

multiple cohorts of grantees. For example, the 37.2 percent reported for 2015 reflects a

2011 cohort that reported just 23.9 percent of its preservice program graduates getting placed in 

instructional settings serving ELs within one year of graduation and a 2012 cohort that reported 

56.2 percent. In contrast, the 2016 reported percentage includes data only from the 2012 

cohort, as the final reports from the 2011 cohort were not yet available.

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% 39.6

2017 70.0

2018 70.0

2019

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. Grantees 

reported difficulty collecting data on former students who participated in their grant-funded 

teacher preparation activities 3 years after they have completed the preparation program.

Measure: The percentage of paraprofessional program completers who meet State 

qualifications for paraprofessionals working with EL students.

Year Target Actual

2014 100% 86.8%

2015 100 14.5

2016 100 58.4

2017 100

2018 100

2019 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 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-16

number of those who met State qualifications for paraprofessionals working with EL students. 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. Despite improved performance in 2016, the program still fell far below its 

target due to the number of program completers who work in States that do not offer 

State qualifications.

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

licensure or endorsement requirements in EL instruction.

Year Target Actual

2014 70% 79.4%

2015 75 72.3

2016 80 89.4

2017 80

2018 80

2019 80

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

in-service 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.

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

services to EL students.

Year Target Actual

2014 80% 89.7%

2015 85 95.6

2016 90 90.7

2017 90

2018 90

2019 90

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

completers during the project year who participated in in-service (but not preservice) 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.

2016 NPDP Cohort

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

grantees. The Department expects to have performance data from the 2016 cohort in spring 

2018. The measures are included below.

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

• The number and percentage of program participants who complete the in-service program.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-17

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

first two measures above, 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.

NAM Program

The Department established the following three performance measures for the 2013 cohort of 

the NAM program.

Measure: The percentage of EL students served by the NAM program who score proficient or 

above on the State reading assessment.

Year Target Actual

2014 40% 29.2%

2015 35 26.4

2016 40

2017 40

2018 40

2019 40

Additional information: Each grantee must report to the Department its target and actual 

numbers of students who score proficient or above on the State’s reading assessment. The 

Department then works with NCELA to aggregate and report these data. While NCELA works 

with grantees to resolve data quality issues, data collection continues to be an issue for 

grantees due in part to limited access to technology in the rural, remote areas served by the 

program. The Department continues to provide assistance to improve data collection and 

reporting methods.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-18

Measure: The percentage of EL students served by the NAM program who are making 

progress in English as measured by the State ELP assessment.

Year Target Actual

2014 73% 49.3%

2015 73 39.1

2016 73

2017 73

2018 73

2019 73

Additional information: Each grantee must report to the Department its target and actual 

numbers of students who are making progress in English. The Department then works with 

NCELA to aggregate and report these data. While NCELA works with grantees to resolve data 

quality issues, data collection continues to be an issue for grantees due in part to limited access 

to technology in the rural, remote areas served by the program. The Department continues to 

provide assistance to improve data collection and reporting methods.

Measure: The percentage of EL students served by the NAM program who are attaining 

proficiency in English as measured by the State ELP assessment.

Year Target Actual

2014 15% 22.4%

2015 20 16.5

2016 25

2017 25

2018 25

2019 25

Additional information: Each grantee must report to the Department its target and actual 

percentage of students who attain English proficiency. Grantees calculate the percentage by 

dividing the number of students who attain English proficiency by the number of students who 

were assessed at least once for English proficiency. The Department then works with NCELA to 

aggregate and report these data. While NCELA works with grantees to resolve data quality 

issues, data collection continues to be an issue for grantees due in part to limited access to 

technology in the rural, remote areas served by the program. The Department continues to 

provide assistance to improve data collection and reporting methods. 

2016 NAM Cohort

In addition, in 2016 the Department added six performance measures to the three measures 

discussed above. The 2016 cohort will report data on the three pre-existing measures and the 

following new measures:

• The number and percentage of students served by the program who are enrolled in Native 

American language instruction programs.

• The number and percentage of students making progress in learning a Native American 

language, as determined by each grantee, including through measures such as 

performance tasks, portfolios, and pre- and post-tests.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-19

• The number and percentage of students who are attaining proficiency in a Native American 

language, as determined by each grantee, including through measures such as 

performance tasks, portfolios, and pre- and post-tests.

• For programs that received competitive preference points, the number and percentage of 

preschool children ages three and four enrolled in the program.

• For programs that received competitive preference points, the number and percentage of 

preschool children ages three and four who are screened for developmental or 

cognitive delays.

• For programs that received competitive preference points, the number and percentage of 

coordination contacts between elementary schools and early learning programs to improve 

coordination and transition of children from preschool to kindergarten.

Other Performance-Related Information

Over the past several years, Title III funds have contributed to research and evaluation efforts 

focused on such issues as EL and dual language learner instructional practices, parenting 

practices for young ELs, identification of ELs with disabilities, exiting ELs with disabilities from 

LIEPs, and EL students’ understanding and command of academic language. Completed work 

on a range of topics related to supporting EL students is available on the Office of English 

Language Acquisition’s website at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/resources.html.