Department of Education

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Fiscal Year 2020 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:

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

State Table*

State tables reflecting final 2018 allocations and 2019 and 2020 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] 2020, and shall remain available through September 30, [2020] 2021,

1 except 

that 6.5 percent of such amount shall be available on October 1, [2018] 2019, and shall remain 

available through September 30, [2020] 2021, to carry out activities under section 

3111(c)(1)(C).

2 (Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2019.)

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 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] 2020, and shall remain available 

through September 30, [2020] 2021,

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] 2019, 

and shall remain available through September 

30, [2020] 2021, 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 2018 2019 2020

Discretionary:

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

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

G-4

G-4

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2019

Authorized

2019

Estimate

2020

Authorized

2020

Request

English language acquisition

Language Acquisi tion:State grants (ESEA-III-A).............................................. $784,960 $737,400 $884,960 $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

2011 $800,000 $750,0001 $800,0002 $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 730,6802 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 737,40010

2019 737,400 737,40011 737,40011 737,40011

2020 737,400

 

1 The level for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year continuing resolution. 2 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only. 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 level for the House allowance reflects floor action on the Omnibus appropriations bill; the Senate allowance 

reflects Committee action on the regular annual 2018 appropriations bill; the Appropriation reflects the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141). 11The levels for the House and Senate allowance reflect Committee action on the regular annual 2019 appropriations 

bill; the Appropriation reflects enactment of the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and 

Education Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 115-245).
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-6

Activit y:

English language acquisition 

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: $884,959.6

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

$737,400 $737,400 0

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 

Program (NPD) and provides 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 EL and immigrant students. In fiscal year 2019 and in future 

years, the Department plans to assign a weight of 25 percent to State-reported data and 

75 percent to ACS data on EL counts. This approach is consistent with the recommendation 

from a 2011 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study that the Department 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 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-7

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 

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 

that are 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 

national activities, which consist of the NPD and NCELA. Under the NPD, 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, funds for the Outlying Areas, and NAM grants are forward-funded, with 

funds becoming available on July 1 of the fiscal year in which they are appropriated and 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-8

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.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

2018............................................................................737,400

2019............................................................................737,400

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $737.4 million for English Language Acquisition State grants in 

fiscal year 2020, the same as the fiscal year 2019 appropriation. The request would maintain 

critical 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.

According to the most recent Biennial Report to Congress on the Implementation of the 

Title III State Formula Grant Program, virtually all public school students who are identified as 

ELs receive services in Title III-supported LIEPs.1 However, significant achievement gaps 

remain between ELs and their peers. ELs have consistently attained 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 2017, 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 36 percent of non-ELs. Similarly troubling gaps exist with respect to fourth and 

eighth grade reading. 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 

challenging academic standards. In fourth grade math, for example, the mean score for ELs 

was 217 (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.

 1 https://ncela.ed.gov/files/uploads/3/BiennialReportToCongress.pdf. 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-9

2017 NAEP Results—Fourth Grade Mathematics

Disaggregated EL Subgroup Average Scale Score

(proficient at 250)

Percentage of Subgroup that is 

EL

White 223 1%

Black 208 3

Hispanic 214 33

Asian 233 20

American Indian/Alaska Native 205 10

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 203 17

Two or more races 226 1

Full EL subgroup 217

2017 NAEP Results—Fourth Grade Reading

Disaggregated EL Subgroup Average Scale Score

(proficient at 240)

Percentage of Subgroup that is 

EL

White 198 1%

Black 188 3

Hispanic 186 33

Asian 206 19

American Indian/Alaska Native 166 10

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 184 18

Two or more races 200 1

Full EL subgroup 189

2017 NAEP Results—Eighth Grade Mathematics

Disaggregated EL Subgroup Average Scale Score

(proficient at 300)

Percentage of Subgroup that is 

EL

White 253 1%

Black 236 2

Hispanic 243 19

Asian 270 12

American Indian/Alaska Native 240 8

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 238 10

Two or more races NAEP reporting standards not met 1

Full EL subgroup 246
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-10

2017 NAEP Results—Eighth Grade Reading

Disaggregated EL Subgroup Average Scale Score

(proficient at 280)

Percentage of Subgroup that is 

EL

White 233 1%

Black 217 2

Hispanic 224 19

Asian 238 13

American Indian/Alaska Native 220 8

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 221 12

Two or more races NAEP reporting standards not met 1

Full EL subgroup 226

In addition to the NAEP data, 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 prior 

experience serving EL students. California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas continue to 

enroll roughly 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 

2016 to 2017,

1 the EL population increased by 9 percent in Louisiana and 11 percent in 

Tennessee. In contrast, during that same timeframe, the EL population stayed relatively stable 

or slightly decreased in California, Florida, New York, and Texas, and decreased by 6 percent in 

Illinois. 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, 15 States experienced increases of more than 10 percent in their immigrant 

population from 2016 to 2017. In particular, Mississippi experienced an increase of almost 

18 percent. Overall, the immigrant student population grew by nearly 7 percent across the 

Nation. These trends underscore the need for continuing 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 would support 17 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 their mastery of challenging State academic content and 

achievement standards. The Department made 10 awards in the 2016 competition and seven 

new NAM awards in the 2018 competition.

National Activities

The fiscal year 2020 request would support 92 continuation awards for NPD grants awarded in 

fiscal years 2016 (49 grantees) and 2017 (43 grantees). In addition, the Department would use 

 1 ACS data for 2016 and 2017 are estimates from a 5-year period, meaning that the 2016 data include information 

from 2012-2016 and the 2017 data include information from 2013-2017.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-11

up to $2 million for NCELA to analyze and disseminate information on best practices for 

teachers of ELs. The Department and NCELA work together to provide a wide variety of 

resources to districts, schools, teachers, and families to ensure that EL students receive 

appropriate support in attaining English language proficiency. For example, since the 

reauthorization of the ESEA in late 2015, NCELA has updated its EL toolkit in 10 topic areas 

relevant to EL students: identifying EL students; providing EL students with language 

assistance programs; staffing and supporting EL programs; providing meaningful access to core 

curricular programs; creating inclusive environments for ELs; addressing ELs with disabilities; 

serving ELs who opt out of EL programs; monitoring and exiting ELs; evaluating the 

effectiveness of a district’s EL program; and ensuring meaningful communication with parents 

of ELs. Most recently, in 2018, NCELA produced the Biennial Report to Congress on the 

Implementation of the Title III State Formula Grant Program.

Evaluation

In fiscal year 2020, the Department would use up to $3.7 million of the request for 

Title III, Part A funds to support ongoing evaluation activities. For example, the Department 

intends to use a portion of these funds to support the final year of an ongoing impact study, 

conducted by the Institute of Education Sciences, on how EL students learn and use academic 

language. Research suggests that in order to be college- and career-ready, students must be 

proficient in comprehending complex informational text independently and in a variety of content 

areas. This study is expected to provide useful information on how well select instructional 

strategies are implemented in the classroom; the impact of academic language instruction on 

student learning outcomes on State assessments; and the extent to which the instructional 

strategies are woven into teachers’ general instructional practices across subject areas.

In addition, the Department may conduct a new impact study in fiscal year 2020 that examines 

the effect of Title III-funded LIEPs on ELs, disaggregated by the major race and ethnicity 

categories in the Decennial Census. An implementation study of Title III-funded LIEPs planned 

for 2019 will inform the potential design for a future impact study. 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-12

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

State formula grants

 English language acquisition State grants $681,022 $681,022 $681,022

 Number of States 56 56 56

NAM Grants

 Grant award funds (new) $2,122 0 0

 Grant award funds (continuations) 2,864 $5,000 $5,000

 Peer review of new award applications 14 0 0

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

 Number of new awards 7 0 0

 Number of continuation awards 10 17 17

National Activities

 NPD grant funds (continuation) $45,816 $45,691 $45,691

 Clearinghouse 1,875 2,000 2,000

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

 Number of NPD grant awards 

(continuations) 92 92 92

Evaluation $3,687 $3,687 $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 pool funds

from Title III grants in fiscal year 2018 but may do so in fiscal years 2019 and 2020.

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 2020 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

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 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-13

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 2018, the Department revised 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). The Department will begin to use these performance measures in fiscal year 

2019 and will develop targets for each measure after baseline data are collected.

The new performance measures are:

• The number of States increasing the percentage of ELs making progress in achieving ELP 

in LEAs that receive Title III funds.

• The percentage of ELs attaining proficiency on the annual ELP assessment in LEAs that 

receive Title III funds.

• The number of States decreasing the percentage of ELs who have not attained ELP within 

5 years of initial classification as an EL in LEAs that receive Title III funds.

• The number of States increasing the percentage of ELs who, having exited English LIEPs in 

LEAs that receive Title III funds, score proficient or above on State reading/language arts 

assessments in the fourth year after exiting.

The measures below are those established and reported on prior to the reauthorization of the 

ESEA by the 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

2015 65% 47%

2016 65 43

2017 65 36

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. 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-14

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

Year Target Actual

2015 35% 24%

2016 35 25

2017 35 22

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. 

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

Year Target Actual

2015 38% 24%

2016 38 29

2017 38 20

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.

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

reading assessments.

Year Target Actual

2015 66% 49%

2016 66 57

2017 66 58

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. 

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.

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

G-15

subgrants to subgrantees.

Year Target Actual

2015 28 38

2016 28 39

2017 30 39

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

2015 45 50

2016 46 47

2017 47 49

NPD Grant Program

The Department established the following measures for NPD Grants for the fiscal year 

2012 cohort. The last year of the grant period for this cohort was fiscal year 2017, but 

95 percent of the grantees are currently completing their work under no-cost extensions. Due to 

the limited number of grantees that completed their projects in fiscal year 2017, the Department 

is not reporting performance data for the last year of the cohort. 

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

endorsed in English language acquisition instruction.

Year Target Actual

2015 65.5% 60.3%

2016 75.5 77.5

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.

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

settings serving EL students within one year of graduation.

Year Target Actual

2015 52% 37.2%

2016 62 55.3

2017 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 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-16

multiple cohorts of grantees—in fiscal years 2015 and 2016, the 2011 and 2012 cohorts were 

both active. 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

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

2015 100% 14.5%

2016 100 58.4

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 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

2015 75% 72.3%

2016 80 89.4

2017 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 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-17

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

2015 85% 95.6%

2016 95 90.7

2017 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 NPD Cohort

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

grantees. The 2016 grantees reported performance data for their first year of implementation in 

fiscal year 2018, and the Department is currently working with them to establish consistent 

guidelines for reporting. 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.

• 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 NAM program.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-18

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

above on the State reading assessment.

Year Target 2013 Cohort Actual 2016 Cohort Actual

2015 35% 26.4%

2016 40 24.8

2017 40 32.7 9.32%

2018 40

2019 40

2020 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. The difference between the 2013 and 2016 cohorts’ performance on this 

measure in 2017 is due in large part to the different places each cohort is currently at in their 

grant projects.

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 2013 Cohort Actual 2016 Cohort Actual

2015 73% 39.1%

2016 73 58.7

2017 73 40.2 9.8%

2018 73

2019 73

2020 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. The difference between 

the 2013 and 2016 cohorts’ performance on this measure in 2017 is due in large part to the 

different places each cohort is currently at in their grant projects.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-19

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 2013 Cohort Actual 2016 Cohort Actual

2015 20% 16.5%

2016 25 15.7

2017 25 47.3 2.92%

2018 25

2019 25

2020 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. The difference between 

the 2013 and 2016 cohorts’ performance on this measure in 2017 is due in large part to the 

different places each cohort is currently at in their grant projects.

2016 NAM Cohort

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

discussed above. The Department is in the process of establishing targets for future years for 

this cohort.

Measure: The percentage of students served by the program who are enrolled in Native 

American language instruction programs.

Year Target Actual

2017 Baseline 42.5%

2018

2019

2020

Measure: The 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.

Year Target Actual

2017 Baseline 50.3%

2018

2019

2020
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-20

Measure: The 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.

Year Target Actual

2017 Baseline 18.7%

2018

2019

2020

Measure: For programs that received competitive preference points, the number and 

percentage of preschool children ages three and four enrolled in the program.

Year Target Actual

2017 Baseline 84.8%

2018

2019

2020

Measure: 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.

Year Target Actual

2017 Baseline 92.1%

2018

2019

2020

Measure: 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.

Year Target Actual

2017 Baseline 97.0%

2018

2019

2020

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