Department of Education

H ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations Language ........................................................................................................H-1

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes.......................................................................H-3

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers ..............................................................................H-6

Summary of Changes .............................................................................................................H-7

Authorizing Legislation............................................................................................................H-8

Appropriations History.............................................................................................................H-9

Activity:

Language acquisition State grants....................................................................................H-10

State Tables*

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

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

 Appropriat ions Lan guag e 

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

on July 1, 2015, and shall remain available through September 30, 2016,

1 except that 6.5 

percent of such amount shall be available on October 1, 2014, and shall remain available 

through September 30, 2016, 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 further, That 

the Secretary shall use $14,000,000 of funds available under this paragraph for grants to all 

State educational agencies within States with at least one county where 50 or more 

unaccompanied children have been released to sponsors since January 1, 2014, through the 

Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement:4 Provided further, 

That awards to eligible State educational agencies shall be based on the State’s relative share 

of unaccompanied children that have been released to sponsors since January 1, 2014:5

Provided further, That the data on unaccompanied children used by the Secretary under the two 

preceding provisos shall be the most recently available data from the Department of Health and 

Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, as of the date of enactment of this Act:6

 

Provided further, That each eligible State educational agency that receives a grant shall award 

subgrants to local educational agencies in the State that have experienced a significant 

increase during the 2014-2015 school year, as determined by the State educational agency, 

compared to the average of the 2 preceding school years, in the number or percentage of 

immigrant children and youth enrolled in their schools:7 Provided further, That local educational 

agencies shall use those subgrants for supplemental academic and non-academic services and 

supports to immigrant children and youth:8 Provided further, That the term “immigrant children 

and youth” has the meaning given in section 3301 of the ESEA, and the terms “State 

educational agency” and “local educational agency” have the meanings given to them in section 

H-1
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

9101 of the ESEA:9 Provided further, That each eligible State educational agency shall prepare 

and submit to the Secretary not later than 1 year after the award a report identifying the local 

educational agencies that received subgrants, the State’s definition of “significant increase”

used to award the subgrants; and such other information as the Secretary may require.10] 

(Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2015.)

NOTES

 No appropriations language is included for programs authorized under the expired Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act; when new authorizing legislation for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is enacted, 

appropriations language for these programs will be proposed.

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.

H-2
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

H-8

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1

[...which shall become available on July 1, 

2015, and shall remain available through 

September 30, 2016,]

This language provides for a portion of the 

funds for English Language Acquisition State 

Grants to be appropriated on a forwardfunded 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, 2014, and 

shall remain available through September 30, 

2016, 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, National 

Clearinghouse for English Language 

Acquisition, and evaluation) under section 

3111(c)(1)(C).

3

[Provided, That the Secretary of Education 

shall use estimates of the American 

Community Survey child counts for the most 

recent 3-year period available to calculate 

allocations under such part.]

This language permits the Secretary to use 

the annual 3-year estimates provided by the 

Census Bureau in order to determine the 

State allocations. Under the authorizing 

statute, the Department would use 1-year 

estimates, which are not as reliable and 

produce more volatility in the allocations from 

year to year. Fiscal year 2014 appropriations 

language directs the Secretary to use 

Census Bureau 3-year period counts. 

4

[Provided further, That the Secretary shall 

use $14,000,000 of funds available under 

this paragraph for grants to all State 

educational agencies within States with at 

least one county where 50 or more 

unaccompanied children have been released 

to sponsors since January 1, 2014, through 

the Department of Health and Human 

Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement:]

This language provides supplemental funding 

to States that have experienced a recent 

influx of unaccompanied children, based on 

data from January 1, 2014, provided by the 

Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS), Office of Refugee Resettlement 

(ORR).

H-3
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language Provision Explanation

5

[Provided further, That awards to eligible 

State educational agencies shall be based on 

the State’s relative share of unaccompanied 

children that have been released to sponsors 

since January 1, 2014:]

This language stipulates that the Secretary 

will make proportional awards to States 

based on each State’s share of 

unaccompanied children.

6

[Provided further, That the data on 

unaccompanied children used by the 

Secretary under the two preceding provisos 

shall be the most recently available data from 

the Department of Health and Human 

Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, as 

of the date of enactment of this Act:] 

This language directs the Secretary to use 

data from HHS, ORR to determine State 

counts of unaccompanied children.

7

[Provided further, That each eligible State 

educational agency that receives a grant 

shall award subgrants to local educational 

agencies in the State that have experienced 

a significant increase during the 2014-2015 

school year, as determined by the State 

educational agency, compared to the 

average of the 2 preceding school years, in 

the number or percentage of immigrant 

children and youth enrolled in their schools:]

This language specifies that State 

educational agencies (SEAs) that receive 

grants under this act must then make 

subgrants to their local educational agencies 

(LEAs) that have experienced a “significant 

increase” of immigrant children and youth in 

the 2014-2015 school year as compared to 

the average of the 2 prior school years. 

States will create their own definitions for 

“significant increase” and they may 

determine significant increase by reviewing

either the number or percentage increase of 

immigrant children and youth in schools in 

each LEA.

8

[Provided further, That local educational 

agencies shall use those subgrants for 

supplemental academic and non-academic 

services and supports to immigrant children 

and youth:]

This language informs the use of funds under 

this act. LEAs will use these supplemental 

funds to provide additional support to 

immigrant children and youth. Those 

supports may be academic and nonacademic.

9

[Provided further, That the term “immigrant 

children and youth” has the meaning given in 

section 3301 of the ESEA, and the terms 

“State educational agency” and “local 

educational agency” have the meanings 

given to them in section 9101 of the ESEA:]

This language clarifies the definitions of 

“immigrant children and youth,” “State 

educational agency,” and “local educational 

agency” by stating that they should be 

consistent with the definitions in the ESEA.

H-4
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language Provision Explanation

10[Provided further, That each eligible State 

educational agency shall prepare and submit 

to the Secretary not later than 1 year after 

the award a report identifying the local 

educational agencies that received 

subgrants, the State’s definition of “significant 

increase” used to award the subgrants; and 

such other information as the Secretary may 

require.]

This language directs each SEA to submit a 

report to the Secretary within 1 year of 

receiving a grant award. The report will 

include, at a minimum, the names of the 

LEAs that received funds and how the SEA 

defined “significant increase” for the purpose 

of making the LEA awards. The Secretary 

may also require other information in this 

report.

H-5
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2014 2015 2016

Discretionary:

Discretionar y Appropriation........................................................... $723,400 $737,400 $773,400

H-6
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

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

2016................................................................................................. 773,400

Net change ............................................................... +36,000

Increases: 2015 base

Change 

from base

Program:

Program Increase to provide additional support to States as they 

help the significant number of English Learners in U.S. 

schools attain English language proficiency and become 

college- and career-ready. $737,400 +$36,000

Subtotal, increases +36,000

Net change +36,000

H-7
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

H-8

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2015

Authorized

footnote

2015

Estimate

2016

Authorized

footnote

2016

Request

Language acquisition State grants

(ESEA-III-A) 01 $737,400

To be 

determined2 $773,400

Unfunded authorizations

Program development and enhancement

(ESEA-III-B-1) 01,3 0 03 0

Research, evaluation, and dissemination

(ESEA-III-B-2) 01,3 0 03 0

Professional development (ESEA-III-B-3) 01,3 0 03 0

Immigrant education (ESEA-III-B-4) 01,3 0 03 0

Total definite authorization

Total appropriation 737,400 773,400

Portion of request subject to reauthorization 773,400

1 ESEA section 3001(b)(1) provides that only Part A will be in effect in any year in which the appropriation equals or exceeds $650 million. 2 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2016. 3 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. No appropriations language or reauthorizing legislation is sought for 2016.

H-8
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote AppropriationFoot

-

note

2007 $669,007 N/A1 N/A1 $669,0071

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

2009 730,000 730,0002 730,0002 730,000

2010 730,000 760,000 750,0003 750,000

2011 800,000 750,0004 800,0003 733,5305

2012 750,000 733,5316 733,5306 732,144

2013 732,144 732,1447 732,1447 693,848

2014 732,144 N/A8 730,6803 723,400

2015 723,400 N/A8 723,4009 737,400

2016 773,400

1 This account operated under a full-year continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5). House and Senate allowances are 

shown as N/A (Not Available) because neither body passed a separate appropriations bill. 

2 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.

3 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only.

4 The level for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year continuing resolution. 5 The level for appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2011 (P.L. 112-10). 6 The level for the House allowance reflects an introduced bill; the level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate 

Committee action only. 7 The level 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. 8 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action.

9 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate Subcommittee action only.

H-9
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants 

 (proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2015 2016 Change

$737,400 $773,400 +$36,000

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2016.

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 uses American Community Survey (ACS) data 

provided by the Census Bureau to determine the counts of both EL and immigrant students. 

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 meet the 

State’s annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs) for ELs. 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, and evaluation, as well as

the provision of technical assistance. State-level planning and administrative costs may not 

exceed 60 percent of the State set-aside, or $175,000, whichever is greater.

States must develop AMAOs that measure the progress and achievement of ELs in English 

language proficiency and whether they meet the State’s academic content and academic 

achievement standards in reading/language arts and mathematics. If a subgrantee fails to 

make progress toward meeting these objectives for 2 consecutive years, it must develop an 

improvement plan. 

H-10
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants 

If the subgrantee fails to meet AMAOs after 4 consecutive years, it must modify the curriculum 

or method of instruction or replace educational personnel. The State may also terminate 

assistance to the subgrantee. 

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

greater, for schools operated predominantly 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 

following national activities: the National Professional Development project (NPDP), the 

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational 

Programs (NCELA), and evaluation activities. Under the NPDP, the Department makes 5-year 

awards to institutions of higher education in partnership with State or local educational agencies

to provide professional development aimed at increasing the pool of certified or licensed 

teachers prepared to serve ELs and to 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. The Department may use up to 0.5 

percent of the appropriation, out of the 6.5 percent, for evaluation activities. 

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). The Department will award these supplemental funds to States with at 

least 1 county where 50 or more unaccompanied children were placed with sponsors while their 

immigration cases are processed using ORR data on placements since January 1, 2014. 

States will make subgrants to LEAs that have experienced a significant increase in the number 

or percentage of immigrant children enrolled in their schools during the 2014-2015 school year 

compared to the average of the 2 preceding school years. Each State will determine its 

definition of “significant increase.” The Department expects to make these awards in early 

2015.

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. 

H-11
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants 

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2011...................................................................................$733,530

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

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

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

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

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2016, the Administration requests $773.4 million for Language Acquisition State 

grants, $36 million over the 2015 level, and nearly $50 million more than the 2015 appropriation 

allows for State formula grants. The request would provide increased support to States as they 

help the significant growing number of ELs in U.S. schools attain English language proficiency 

and become college- and career-ready. 

According to the Census Bureau’s ACS data, the number of school-aged ELs has risen from 

less than 1 million in 1980 to over 4.2 million in 20121 in the 50 States, DC, and Puerto Rico. 

While the number of ELs has grown dramatically since 1980, the key challenge in recent years 

has been a shift in the numbers of such students in non-traditional States. ACS data from 2012

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 2006 to 2012, the EL 

population increased by 45 percent in South Dakota, 42 percent in New Hampshire, 38 percent 

in Hawaii, 34 percent in Vermont, and 22 percent in Rhode Island. In contrast, during that same 

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

by -17 percent, -9 percent, -13 percent, -2 percent, and 1 percent respectively. Since those 

States with the greatest growth over that 6-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, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota all 

experienced more than a 19-percent increase in their immigrant population during the 2010 to 

2012 timeframe. These demographic trends—the overall increase in ELs over the past three 

decades and rapid recent growth of the EL and immigrant populations in States lacking an 

infrastructure for serving them—underscore not only the ongoing need for Federal assistance 

but also the need for effective educators to meet the educational needs of ELs and for 

information on effective instructional practices to ensure that all students, including ELs, have 

access to a high-quality education. 

1 Note that 2012 ACS data are estimates from a 3-year period (2010, 2011, and 2012). 

H-12

 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants 

Formula and Native American Grants

In 2008, the Department initiated a study by the National Research Council of the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS) to determine the most reliable data source and methodology for 

formula allocations to States. The NAS study, which became available in January 2011 

(http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13090), included a recommendation that the 

Department 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. Consistent 

with this study and the Administration’s reauthorization proposal, the Secretary has sought the 

authority to use ACS or State-reported data or a combination of the two (which could be multiyear period estimates) to determine State allocations. The Department continues to 

recommend the inclusion of appropriations language for fiscal year 2016 that permits the 

Department to implement the NAS study recommendations. In determining the count of ELs for 

the purpose of making State formula grants in fiscal year 2016, the Department would assign a 

weight of 10 percent to State-reported data and 90 percent to ACS data. In fiscal year 2017, the 

Department anticipates increasing the weighting of State-reported EL counts to 20 percent, 

depending on our 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. 

In fiscal year 2016, the Department (with a combination of fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016 

funds) would make 12 continuation awards for grants to schools operated predominantly for 

Native American and Alaska Native children that were made in fiscal year 2013 and would also 

hold a competition for up to an estimated 13 new awards. 

National Activities

As required by statute, for fiscal year 2016, the Department would set aside 6.5 percent, or 

$50.3 million, of the appropriation for national activities, including $44.8 million for NPDP, 

$1.6 million for NCELA, and $3.9 million for evaluation activities. The Department would use 

$24.5 million to make 73 continuation awards to fiscal year 2012 NPDP grantees and hold a 

competition for up to 55 new NPDP grants, totaling an estimated $20.3 million. 

H-13
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Total Appropriation $723,400 $737,400 $773,400

State formula grants:

Language acquisition State grants $671,379 $670,469 $718,129

Formul a grants: Number of States 57 57 57

Supplemental Immigrant State grants 0 $14,000 0

Formul a grants: Number of States 35

Native American discretionary grants $5,000 $5,000 $4,980

Nati ve American: Number of new projects 0 0 13

Nati ve American: Number of continuation projects 25 25 12

Nati ve American: Peer review of new award applications 0 0 $20

National activities:

National professional development $41,451 $42,741 $44,789

Nat’l Acti viti es: Number of new projects 0 0 55

Nat’l Acti viti es: Number of continuation projects 115 115 73

Nati ve American: Peer review of new award applications 0 0 $50

 Acti viti es: Clearinghouse $1,953 $1,503 $1,565

 Acti viti es: Evaluation $3,617 $3,687 $3,867

H-14
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants 

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 2016 and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program. 

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

ESEA Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPRs). Within the Department, the office 

that administers the State Grants program and the office that oversees the administration of the 

CSPR have been working together to respond to States’ questions about the data-collection 

requirements as well as to clear up data discrepancies. Flexibility within the current law permits 

States to define “making progress” and “attaining proficiency” differently, even when they use 

the same assessments. Also, in 2011 the Department reviewed States’ targets and found that 

almost all State targets (reflected below) are far lower than those set by the Department. As a 

result, for some measures, the Department has decided to maintain target levels for several 

years rather than continue to increase them in order to reflect performance levels in the States. 

In 2013, all 52 entities, including DC and Puerto Rico, reported data for all performance 

measures. The Department anticipates making revisions to the measures in the context of 

ESEA Flexibility.

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. 

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

learning English.

Year Target Actual

2011 65% 58%

2012 65 54

2013 65 49

2014 65

2015 65

2016 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 English language 

proficiency 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.

H-15
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants 

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

language proficiency.

Year Target Actual

2011 35% 26%

2012 35 27

2013 35 28

2014 35

2015 35

2016 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 English language 

proficiency, according to the State’s English language proficiency assessment, and dividing that 

number by the number of students tested.

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

Year Target Actual

2011 35% 39%

2012 36 38

2013 38 36

2014 38

2015 38

2016 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. 

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

reading assessments.

Year Target Actual

2011 64% 72%

2012 66 72

2013 66 67

2014 66

2015 66

2016 66

Additional information: A monitored former EL is a student who was identified as limited 

English proficient at some time in the prior two years but who no longer meets the State’s 

H-16
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants 

definition of limited English proficient or EL. The success of States on this measure may be an 

indicator of the improved quality of language instruction educational programs.

Measure: The percentage of subgrantees receiving Title III funding that meet all three annual 

measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs) for ELs.

Year Target Actual

2011 59% 48%

2012 59 47

2013 59 40

2014 59

2015 59

2016 59

Additional information: States set AMAOs based on State English language proficiency 

standards and assessments. The three AMAO objectives for ELs are: (1) making progress in 

learning English; (2) attaining English proficiency; and (3) making adequate yearly progress 

under Title I. 

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. 

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

to subgrantees.

Year Target Actual

2011 45 51

2012 45 53

2013 45 45

2014 45

2015 45

2016 45

Additional information: The Department has worked with States to help them make subgrants 

in a timely manner and States have made considerable progress on this measure over the past 

6 years, meeting the target for the first time in 2013. The Department has identified monitoring 

findings during onsite reviews for States that have difficulty making timely awards and continues 

to provide assistance to such States.

H-17
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants 

Measure: The annual cost per English Learner attaining English language proficiency.

Year Target Actual

2011 $770 $669

2012 668 620

2013 668 622

2014 668

2015 668

2016 668

Additional information: This measure examines the national annual cost per EL attaining 

English language proficiency (a figure derived by dividing the total amount of funding allocated 

to States in a given year by the number of students reported as attaining proficiency). The 

targets are not intended to motivate States to eliminate important services to students but, 

rather, to encourage efficiencies in order to serve as many students as possible without 

sacrificing the quality of the services. 

Other Performance Information

The statute provides a set-aside for evaluation activities equal to 0.5 percent of the total 

appropriation for this program. Current and recently completed 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. 

• Descriptive Study of NPDP Grantees – This small study examined how a purposively 

selected sample of NPDP grantees are implementing their grants, with a specific focus 

on: (1) the content and structure of the education they provide to current and 

prospective teachers of ELs; (2) the nature of changes grantees attempt to make to the 

teacher education programs at their institutions; (3) the efforts grantees make to 

institutionalize their projects for sustainability; and (4) grantees’ efforts to track former 

program participants. A literature review was completed in 2012 and a final report was 

completed in May 2014. Both products will be for internal use by Department 

staff. Fiscal year 2010 funds support this study.

• Study of School Turnaround – The Department is conducting case studies for an indepth 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 

H-18
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants 

SIG applications and SIG-eligible and SIG-awarded schools are available for the first

and second cohorts of SIG grantees (fiscal year 2010 and 2011 competitions)

2

. Reports 

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

focused on SIG schools with a high proportion of ELs, are being released in phases. 

The first brief was released in April 2014: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144014/. The 

second brief was released in November 2014: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154004/. 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/. 

• Language Instruction Education Programs (LIEPs): Lessons from the Research and 

Profiles of Promising Programs – This project, begun in fiscal year 2011 with fiscal year 

2009 funds, produced a literature review on LIEPs that was released in May 2012 and 

can be found at http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title-iii/language-instruction-edprograms-report.pdf. The project will also produce vignettes of LIEPs, including features 

that support those LIEPs in a purposively selected sample of districts. These vignettes 

will be for internal use by ED staff on selected LIEP practices and will be completed by 

February 2015. 

• 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 ESEA provisions 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,” were 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 three years; this report is expected to be released in early 2015.

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

Improvement Grants (SIG) programs – As part of the Department’s study of these two 

programs, fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 Title III funds support an increased 

focus on how the implementation and impacts of the programs by States, districts, and 

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

http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NCEE20124060

H-19

 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants 

schools are related to EL students’ needs and outcomes. For instance, the evaluation 

will examine 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 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 

beginning in spring 2015.

• Exploratory Study on Identifying English Learners with Disabilities – This study 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 non-ELs; (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 spring 2015. Fiscal year 2010 funds support 

this study.

• A Guide to English Language Proficiency Assessments – States must have in place ELP 

assessments that demonstrate technical quality for their intended use and they must use 

appropriate measures for determining the progress and attainment of English by Title IIIserved 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 that will assist 

State educational agencies and other stakeholders to prepare ELP assessment 

materials for peer review. The guide is expected in late 2015.

• 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. 

Beginning in fiscal year 2015, the Department will fund 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 jointly supported 

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

funding pooled under section 9601 of the ESEA. Using Title III evaluation funds, the 

H-20
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants 

Department will support several additional studies beginning in 2015, including: (1) a descriptive 

study to examine how Native American program grantees address the instructional needs of 

students where findings will be used to inform the next round of grant making for the program; 

(2) a descriptive study to examine how LEAs are using digital learning resources to support ELs; 

and, (3) an exploratory study to examine whether the processes for identifying ELs for 

placement in gifted and talented programs could be the cause of the low numbers of ELs in 

such programs.

The Department continues to explore additional topics to address the needs of ELs and 

educators of ELs in fiscal year 2016. 

H-21