Department of Education

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Fiscal Year 2018 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:

Language acquisition State grants......................................................................................G-6

State Tables*

State tables reflecting final 2016 allocations and 2017 and 2018 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 ag e

[Appropriations 

For carrying out part A of title III of the ESEA, $735,998,000, which shall become available 

on July 1, 2018, and shall remain available through September 30, 2019,

1 except that 

6.5 percent of such amount shall be available on October 1, 2017, and shall remain available 

through September 30, 2019, to carry out activities under section 3111(c)(1)(C).

2

NOTES

A full-year 2017 appropriation was not enacted at the time the 2018 budget was prepared; therefore, the budget 

assumes this account is operating under the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 114-254). The 

amounts included for 2017 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 appropriation language.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-2

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1

...which shall become available on July 1, 

2018, and shall remain available through 

September 30, 2019,

This language provides for a portion of the 

funds for English Language Acquisition State 

Grants to be appropriated on a forward-funded 

basis. The forward-funded portion includes 

the amount of funds that are distributed to the 

States under the State grants formula and the 

Native American discretionary grants.

2

...except that 6.5 percent of such amount 

shall be available on October 1, 2017, and 

shall remain available through September 30, 

2019, to carry out activities under section 

3111(c)(1)(C):

This language provides for 6.5 percent of the 

funds for the English Language Acquisition 

State Grants to be appropriated on a 2-year 

basis. The 6.5 percent represents funds that 

are used for national activities (National 

Professional Development grants and National 

Clearinghouse for English Language 

Acquisition) under section 3111(c)(1)(C).
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-3

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Discretionary:

Discretionar y Appropriation ........................................................ $737,400 $735,998 $735,998
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-4

G-4

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2017 

Authorized

2017 

Annualized CR

2018 

Authorized

2018

Request

Language acquisition State grants

Language Acquisi tion:State grants (ESEA-III-A) $756,332 $735,998 $769,568 $735,998
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

G-5

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote Appropriation Footnote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016 773,400 737,4009 712,0219 737,400

2017 800,400 737,40010 737,40010 737,40010

2018 735,998

 

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

appropriations bill, which proceeded in the 110th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the 

Senate Committee. 2 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only. 3 The level for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year Continuing Resolution. 4 The level for the appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing 

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

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

appropriations bill, which proceeded in the 112th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the 

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

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

bill, which proceeded in the 114th Congress only through the House Committee and Senate Committee. 10 The levels for House and Senate allowances reflect Committee action on the regular annual 2017 

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

G-6

Activit y:

Language acquisition State grants

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: $769,568

Budget Authority:

2017

Annualized CR

2017 

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$735,998 $737,400 $735,998 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Language Acquisition State Grants program, which is 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 the National Professional Development 

Project (NPDP) and funding for the National Clearinghouse of 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 2017, the 

Department assigned a weight of 10 percent to State-reported data and 90 percent to ACS data

on EL counts. In fiscal year 2018, the Department would increase the weight of State-reported 

EL counts to 20 percent, per a 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. This recommendation is based on NAS’ determination that 

State-level data collection and reporting procedures continue to improve. Consistent with the 

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

counts of immigrant students for the allocations.

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

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

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

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

consistent with the State’s long-term goals as part of 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, and 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.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

G-7

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 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tutorials, mentoring, and career counseling.

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

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

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

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

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

been revised and moved to Title I, Part A under the ESEA as reauthorized by the Every Student 

Succeeds Act (ESSA). Despite this change, States receiving Title III funds must design plans 

that incorporate accountability provisions described in Title I, Part A. Specifically, States must 

set long-term, ambitious goals and timelines for students to become proficient in English and 

measure student progress toward these goals annually based on interim indicators as part of 

their State accountability system required by Title I, Part A. Under Title III, States must assist 

LEAs in meeting the State’s long-term goals and interim targets, monitor progress, and respond 

appropriately if an LEA’s strategy proves ineffective in helping ELs make progress and achieve 

content and language proficiency.

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

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

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

Department of the Interior/Bureau of Indian Education, and other qualifying entities 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. In fiscal year 2017, the Department 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

G-8

will give priority to NPDP applicants that propose strategies that are evidence-based, and also 

will encourage applicants to rigorously evaluate their activities. NCELA collects, analyzes, 

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

strategies, and programs for ELs.

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 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)

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

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

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

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

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

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2018, the Administration requests $736 million for English Language Acquisition 

(ELA) grants, the same as the fiscal year 2017 annualized Continuing Resolution level for this 

program. The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $737.4 million for 

this program. Sustaining a robust investment in ELA 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 school districts that have experienced rapid growth in their EL populations.

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

ELs have consistently had markedly lower scores than non-ELs on the National Assessment of 

Education Progress in reading and math in the fourth and eighth grades. For example, in 2015,

only 14 percent of ELs scored proficient or better in fourth grade math, compared to 43 percent 

of non-ELs. In eighth grade mathematics, 6 percent of ELs scored proficient or better, 

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; State data paint a similar picture.

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

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

students previously. ACS data from 2015 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 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

G-9

show that from 2013 to 2015,

1 the EL population increased by 23 percent in Wyoming, 

17 percent in the District of Columbia, and 10 percent in Tennessee. In contrast, during that 

same timeframe, the EL population in California decreased by 5 percent, decreased by 

3 percent in Florida, decreased by 8 percent in Illinois, remained stable in New York, and 

increased by 1 percent in Texas. Since those States with the greatest growth over that 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 their immigrant population based 

on ACS data from 2015 compared to 2013 counts. North Carolina, Texas, Washington, and 

Wisconsin all experienced more than a 12-percent increase in their immigrant population during 

this timeframe. 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.

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

The $5 million set aside for NAM Grants under the 2018 Request would support 10 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 while achieving the same challenging State academic content and achievement 

standards for all students. The 2016 cohort of these grants will receive their final awards in 

2020. The Department plans to hold a competition for new awards for NAM Grants in 2018.

National Activities

The 2018 Request would support an estimated 90 continuation awards for NPDP grants. The 

Department awarded 49 NPDP grants in 2016 and anticipates awarding 44 NPDP grants in 

2017. Fiscal year 2018 funds would support continuation awards for both cohorts, which will 

receive their final awards in 2020 and 2021, respectively. 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 2018, the Department would use up to 0.5 percent of the request for Title III, Part A funds to 

support ongoing evaluation activities. The Department may also elect to pool these funds with 

funds from other ESEA programs that are set aside for evaluation activities in order to fund 

broader evaluations that are relevant to ESEA programs.

 1 ACS data for 2013 are estimates from a 3-year period (2011, 2012, and 2013) and data for 2015 are estimates 

from a 5-year period (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015).
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

G-10

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Total Appropriation $737,400 $735,998 $735,998

State formula grants

 Language acquisition State grants $684,469 $681,022 $679,742

 Number of States 56 56 56

NAM Grants

 Grant award funds (new) $2,997 0 $1,945

 Grant award funds (continuations) $2,003 $5,000 $3,005

 Peer review of new award applications 0 0 $50

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

 Number of new awards 10 0 8

 Number of continuation awards 12 22 10

National Activities

 NPDP grant funds (new) $22,162 $22,218 0

 NPDP grant funds (continuation) $20,731 $23,733 $45,601

 Peer review of new award applications $300 $80 0

 Clearinghouse $1,785 $1,570 $2,000

 Evaluation (see below) $2,953 0 ____0

National Acti viti es Total $47,931 $47,601 $47,601

 Number of NPDP Grant awards (new) 49 44 0

 Number of NPDP grant awards 

(continuations) 72 49 90

Evaluation (Section 8601) 0 $3,680 $3,680

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 may pool Title III funds in fiscal years 2017 and 2018 and the table above reflects the 

intention to pool 0.5 percent from each program within Title III. Prior to 2017, when the Department 

began to implement the ESSA, the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act, authorized the 

Department to use Title III National Activities funds for evaluation activities.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

G-11

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information and results based on GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets. Achievement of program results is 

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

in FY 2018 and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

State Grant Program

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

grants made in fiscal year 2017 and future years in response to the changes made by 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 Language Acquisition State Grants program.

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

learning English.

Year Target Actual

2013 65% 49%

2014 65 50

2015 65 47

2016 65

2017 65

2018 65

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

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

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

without two data points are not included in this measure. Three States did not submit data for 

this measure for the 2014-2015 school year. Eleven States met their targets for the 2014-

2015 school year.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

G-12

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

Year Target Actual

2013 35% 28%

2014 35 25

2015 35 24

2016 35

2017 35

2018 35

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

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

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

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

States did not submit data for this measure for the 2014-2015 school year. One State met its 

targets for the 2014-2015 school year.

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

Year Target Actual

2013 38% 36%

2014 38 37

2015 38 24

2016 38

2017 38

2018 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. Eight States met their targets for the 2014-2015 school year. Proficiency 

measures have changed due to new assessments in many States, resulting in 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

2013 66% 67%

2014 66 64

2015 66 49

2016 66

2017 66

2018 66

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

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

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

Language acquisition State grants

G-13

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

longer meets the State’s definition of limited English proficient or EL. The most recent year for 

which performance data are available is school year 2014-2015, prior to the enactment of 

ESSA, so the Department uses the former definition of “monitored former EL” when discussing 

this metric. Thirteen States met their targets in the 2014-2015 school year. Proficiency 

measures have changed due to new assessments in many States, resulting in 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.

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

2017 30

2018

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

2017 47

2018

NPDP Grant Program

The Department established the following measures for the 2013 cohort of the NPDP Grants.

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

endorsed in English language acquisition instruction.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

G-14

Year Target Actual

2013 72.1% 63.4%

2014 55.5 54.7

2015 65.5 60.3

2016 75.5 77.5

2017 75.5

2018 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

2013 84.1% 71.0%

2014 72.0 55.9

2015 52.0 37.2

2016 62.0 55.3

2017 62.0

2018 62.0

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

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

of these who were placed in instructional settings serving EL students. 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 2015 reported percentage of 37.2 percent 

includes data from the 2011 and 2012 cohorts; while the 2011 cohort reported just 23.9 percent 

of its preservice program graduates getting placed in instructional settings serving ELs within 

one year of graduation, the 2012 cohort reported 56.2 percent. In contrast, the 2016 reported 

percentage only includes data 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

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 
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

G-15

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

2013 100% 63.6%

2014 100 86.8

2015 100 14.5

2016 100 58.4

2017 100

2018 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

2013 56.8% 71.1%

2014 70.0 79.4

2015 75.0 72.3

2016 80.0 89.4

2017 80.0

2018 80.0

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.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

G-16

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

services to EL students.

Year Target Actual

2013 88.0% 81.0%

2014 80.0 89.7

2015 85.0 95.6

2016 90.0 90.7

2017 90.0

2018 90.0

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

in-service 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 6 new measures for the 2016 cohort of NPDP 

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

2018. The new measures are:

• 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 

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

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

to serve EL students.

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

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

ELs or improve their abilities to serve ELs effectively.

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

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

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

engagement.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

G-17

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

2013 56% 32.1%

2014 40 29.2

2015 35 26.4

2016 40

2017 40

2018 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 in this program. Many grantees are located in rural, remote areas with limited access 

to technology. 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 making 

progress in English as measured by the State ELP assessment.

Year Target Actual

2013 73% 82.8%

2014 73 49.3

2015 73 39.1

2016 73

2017 73

2018 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 in this program. Many 

grantees are located in rural, remote areas with limited access to technology. The Department 

continues to provide assistance to improve data collection and reporting methods. Changes in 

grantee reporting rate from year to year may account for fluctuations in the reported actual 

percentage over the past three years. In addition, in order to calculate a student’s growth 

toward English proficiency over time, grantees need to be able to consider at least two data 

points per student. Thus, data reported for this measure only encapsulate the progress of 

students for which two data points are available within the reporting year.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

G-18

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

2013 12% 7.9%

2014 15 22.4

2015 20 16.5

2016 25

2017 25

2018 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 in this program. Many grantees are 

located in rural, remote areas with limited access to technology. The Department continues to 

provide assistance to improve data collection and reporting methods. Changes in grantee 

reporting rate from year to year may account for fluctuations in the reported actual percentage 

over the past three years.

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.

• 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.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Language acquisition State grants

G-19

• 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, for example: 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.
G-20

State table